• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

SpurMeUp said:
I am not interested in proving you wrong. Why would I be, where is the value in it? I am only interested in looking at the evidence and realities in front of us.

Re. The Swiss Referendum, you referenced a 2014 one where 50.3% backed quotas on migration. The result in Switzerland from a month ago is far more conclusive 62% said they wanted to keep free movement, while 38% were against. These things are facts, not opinions. I think you might need to make a distinction.

If you wish to have a trading block, how do ensure everyone is competing on an equal footing without state aid laws to make things fair? Even within these laws there is national wiggle room. You'll find France uses a great deal of state aid, with the state owning a plethora of large companies.

Any examples of EU laws overriding UK laws that you don't like?

Completely agree we couldn't negotiate bespoke trade deals. On the flip side we benefited from EU trade deals and the weight of 500m people which opens doors. We lose some agility but gain weight and control over global affairs via the EU.

We can of course propose an EU law. One of the reasons it is so hard for anyone to identify an EU law they don't like, is they have to be in the interests of all the member countries. So most of the laws are 'likable'. Things like stopping pollution, helping free trade, free phone roaming, etc. Of course there will be compromises along the way, you can't have a free market across a whole continent comprising so many distinct nations without some compromise. But to me - in my opinion, and that of most economists - the benefits outweigh the compromises. If you think the reverse is true then evidence it.
Click to expand...

Then why do you incessantly try to ram your EU opinion on anyone who doesn't agree with you? I've already given you 4 examples of things I don't like which you just casually dismiss as unimportant because they don't reflect your viewpoint.

On Switzerland you need to make a distinction, I said they had a referendum previously and were unable to implement it because of EU agreements - try doing your research. If most of the laws are likeable then ask yourself the question of why so many people would prefer to leave the EU, if there was an EU wide referendum I'd expect 35-40% would vote out so clearly it's not as rosy as some people make out.
 
P.D. said:
Then why do you incessantly try to ram your EU opinion on anyone who doesn't agree with you? I've already given you 4 examples of things I don't like which you just casually dismiss as unimportant because they don't reflect your viewpoint.

On Switzerland you need to make a distinction, I said they had a referendum previously and were unable to implement it because of EU agreements - try doing your research. If most of the laws are likeable then ask yourself the question of why so many people would prefer to leave the EU, if there was an EU wide referendum I'd expect 35-40% would vote out so clearly it's not as rosy as some people make out.
Click to expand...

I don't like bendy fruit or St least my wife doesn't
 
P.D. said:
Then why do you incessantly try to ram your EU opinion on anyone who doesn't agree with you? I've already given you 4 examples of things I don't like which you just casually dismiss as unimportant because they don't reflect your viewpoint.

On Switzerland you need to make a distinction, I said they had a referendum previously and were unable to implement it because of EU agreements - try doing your research. If most of the laws are likeable then ask yourself the question of why so many people would prefer to leave the EU, if there was an EU wide referendum I'd expect 35-40% would vote out so clearly it's not as rosy as some people make out.
Click to expand...

Hold on a moment! Did I quote your post or...did you quote mine? Yes you quoted me and took me to task, not vice versa. You gave 4 examples, which I challenged. For example you said you liked the EU free market but didn't like state aid. I pointed out you need fairness in a free market so need some state aid laws to facilitate a fair market. Then you seem to have lost your cool in defending your logic and resorted to whining.

Your question is fascinating: if EU laws are so inoffensive why did so many people vote to leave? That is of real genuine interest. I have zero, absolutely nothing against you, so please don't get your knickers in a twist. It is interesting to explore your point of view - when you engaged me - and question your logic. No one expects people to know about detailed laws, we rely on others to present info to us.

So why is it people can't name specific EU laws they don't like, but they fervently seem to dislike the EU? The answer is complex. The UK press. Freedom of movement and immigration. Rupert Murdoch. Russian money via Aaron Banks the UKs largest ever political donor, despite him not being a particularly rich man; national pride, a desire for change...are all ingredients imo.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Hold on a moment! Did I quote your post or...did you quote mine? Yes you quoted me and took me to task, not vice versa. You gave 4 examples, which I challenged. For example you said you liked the EU free market but didn't like state aid. I pointed out you need fairness in a free market so need some state aid laws to facilitate a fair market. Then you seem to have lost your cool in defending your logic and resorted to whining.

Your question is fascinating: if EU laws are so inoffensive why did so many people vote to leave? That is of real genuine interest. I have zero, absolutely nothing against you, so please don't get your knickers in a twist. It is interesting to explore your point of view - when you engaged me - and question your logic. No one expects people to know about detailed laws, we rely on others to present info to us.

So why is it people can't name specific EU laws they don't like, but they fervently seem to dislike the EU? The answer is complex. The UK press. Freedom of movement and immigration. Rupert Murdoch. Russian money via Aaron Banks the UKs largest ever political donor, despite him not being a particularly rich man; national pride, a desire for change...are all ingredients imo.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I liked the EU free market, I said I preferred it when it was a simpler trading block as in the way other countries manage to trade with the rest of the world yet still happen to have state aid when needed.

Maybe people are of the same opinion as me that they prefer to vote in politicians who can be fully answerable to the electorate, you keep bringing up this press lark and insinuating everyone has been duped by some great conspiracy theory but maybe just maybe they have similar reasons to me.

You should ask other people about individual laws, my objections are to the fundamental structure of the EU.
 
P.D. said:
I didn't say I liked the EU free market, I said I preferred it when it was a simpler trading block as in the way other countries manage to trade with the rest of the world yet still happen to have state aid when needed.

Maybe people are of the same opinion as me that they prefer to vote in politicians who can be fully answerable to the electorate, you keep bringing up this press lark and insinuating everyone has been duped by some great conspiracy theory but maybe just maybe they have similar reasons to me.

You should ask other people about individual laws, my objections are to the fundamental structure of the EU.
Click to expand...

What you wrote is this:

I think you'll find if it had remained as a trading block as originally envisaged then remaining would have won with 90%+ and I would have voted remain in that instance

Not sure what your point is re. other nations trading with RoW and state aid. The EU stops neither. France has some very socialist ideals, and many companies are state-owned. Have you received a parcel from DPD? If so you've used an arm of what was France's national postal service - which is owned by the French people/state. Italy and Germany trade with RoW much more successfully than the UK, they do so with EU state aid laws.

I don't think duped is the right word. Brexit appealed for a lot of very good reasons. Were there forces at work trying to manipulate UK politics? Of course on both sides. Businesses favoured remain. Rupert Murdoch has disliked the EU for decades because they don't pay him lip service as UK politicians do. Russia almost certainly bankrolled Aaron Banks via offshore companies. Did the money help? It can't have hurt and it also contradicts the sovereign thing, when you have a foreign power trying to influence a tight referendum. Interestingly, Domenic Cummings lived in Russia and set up an airline there. It failed.

The core values of Brexit make perfect sense to me - vote in politicians we control, control our own borders, let's be a strong independent nation. The issue is, if you take just a little bit of time to pull these appealing notions apart, you quickly see the EU doesn't impinge on us and there is only negative value in brexit. And that's why its uncomfortable to discuss. Because the logic and rationale for it is not there.
 
P.D. said:
Then why do you incessantly try to ram your EU opinion on anyone who doesn't agree with you? I've already given you 4 examples of things I don't like which you just casually dismiss as unimportant because they don't reflect your viewpoint.

On Switzerland you need to make a distinction, I said they had a referendum previously and were unable to implement it because of EU agreements - try doing your research. If most of the laws are likeable then ask yourself the question of why so many people would prefer to leave the EU, if there was an EU wide referendum I'd expect 35-40% would vote out so clearly it's not as rosy as some people make out.
Click to expand...
Why bother?

Scroll back 7,8,9 months and it's just a cut and paste conversation.
 
SpurMeUp said:
What you wrote is this:

I think you'll find if it had remained as a trading block as originally envisaged then remaining would have won with 90%+ and I would have voted remain in that instance

Not sure what your point is re. other nations trading with RoW and state aid. The EU stops neither. France has some very socialist ideals, and many companies are state-owned. Have you received a parcel from DPD? If so you've used an arm of what was France's national postal service - which is owned by the French people/state. Italy and Germany trade with RoW much more successfully than the UK, they do so with EU state aid laws.

I don't think duped is the right word. Brexit appealed for a lot of very good reasons. Were there forces at work trying to manipulate UK politics? Of course on both sides. Businesses favoured remain. Rupert Murdoch has disliked the EU for decades because they don't pay him lip service as UK politicians do. Russia almost certainly bankrolled Aaron Banks via offshore companies. Did the money help? It can't have hurt and it also contradicts the sovereign thing, when you have a foreign power trying to influence a tight referendum. Interestingly, Domenic Cummings lived in Russia and set up an airline there. It failed.

The core values of Brexit make perfect sense to me - vote in politicians we control, control our own borders, let's be a strong independent nation. The issue is, if you take just a little bit of time to pull these appealing notions apart, you quickly see the EU doesn't impinge on us and there is only negative value in brexit. And that's why its uncomfortable to discuss. Because the logic and rationale for it is not there.
Click to expand...

The EU does stop trading with ROW and state aid because they have strict rules about state aid and don't allow you to sign your own trade agreements with other countries. You can't have state aid that applies to only trading with non EU countries can you. I never said it stops the government owning a company but it does stop them propping up specific industries or investing in them for future growth which I'd like to see more off.
 
P.D. said:
The EU does stop trading with ROW and state aid because they have strict rules about state aid and don't allow you to sign your own trade agreements with other countries.
Click to expand...

France and Germany use far more state aid than the UK. How the hell do they do it from within the EU? The answer is, while the EU tries to facilitate a level playing field for all industries and nations so everyone can compete fairly without state aid, it does actually allow a lot of state aid. Hence France and Germany regularly bailing out companies. The UK could too. We could also protect our national companies from foreign takeovers as France does. We simply choose not to. The government looked at helping Flybee for example, but more often than not, UK government decides state aid is not a good use of taxpayers money. In short the UK decides not to help.

What was sad was seeing the UKs one tech leader sold to foreign owners. Arm was our one crown jewel in the tech sector. If it was a French company, the French government would not have let it be sold abroad. It was bought by the Japanese, who flipped it and sold it to Nvidia (was it?) a year later. A similar thing occurred with the UK car industry. Sold off to foreign owners and much of it closed down. Whereas the French and Germans protected their industry - oh and they did while in the EU too.

P.D. said:
You can't have state aid that applies to only trading with non EU countries can you. I never said it stops the government owning a company but it does stop them propping up specific industries or investing in them for future growth which I'd like to see more off.
Click to expand...

If you want to help prop up a company, governments can find ways to do it legally within the EU. Just the UK doesn't wish to.

China effectively subsidised steel production. Then dumps it on world markets. This undermined our national steel industry and much of Europe's steel industry too. This is unfair competition, so the EU can and did impose anti-dumping duties on Chinese steel to help save our industry. Now what is left of our steel industry will probably be bought by a Chinese company (from an Indian one!). What does this tell us? France and Germany are far better at protecting national companies and jobs, and they do it from within the EU. The EU can help with global trade and most of the decisions to not support British companies is on us - the UK government. The people you vote for.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
SpurMeUp said:
France and Germany use far more state aid than the UK. How the hell do they do it from within the EU? The answer is, while the EU tries to facilitate a level playing field for all industries and nations so everyone can compete fairly without state aid, it does actually allow a lot of state aid. Hence France and Germany regularly bailing out companies. The UK could too. We could also protect our national companies from foreign takeovers as France does. We simply choose not to. The government looked at helping Flybee for example, but more often than not, UK government decides state aid is not a good use of taxpayers money. In short the UK decides not to help.

What was sad was seeing the UKs one tech leader sold to foreign owners. Arm was our one crown jewel in the tech sector. If it was a French company, the French government would not have let it be sold abroad. It was bought by the Japanese, who flipped it and sold it to Nvidia (was it?) a year later. A similar thing occurred with the UK car industry. Sold off to foreign owners and much of it closed down. Whereas the French and Germans protected their industry - oh and they did while in the EU too.



If you want to help prop up a company, governments can find ways to do it legally within the EU. Just the UK doesn't wish to.

China effectively subsidised steel production. Then dumps it on world markets. This undermined our national steel industry and much of Europe's steel industry too. This is unfair competition, so the EU can and did impose anti-dumping duties on Chinese steel to help save our industry. Now what is left of our steel industry will probably be bought by a Chinese company (from an Indian one!). What does this tell us? France and Germany are far better at protecting national companies and jobs, and they do it from within the EU. The EU can help with global trade and most of the decisions to not support British companies is on us - the UK government. The people you vote for.
Click to expand...

Again you still fail to understand the point, there are EU state aid rules which prevent countries from doing certain things and I'm not in favour of them. It's not about some clever work around, I prefer not to be bound by them.
 
P.D. said:
Again you still fail to understand the point, there are EU state aid rules which prevent countries from doing certain things and I'm not in favour of them. It's not about some clever work around, I prefer not to be bound by them.
Click to expand...

I am not sure it is me that is failing to understand. What are the state aid laws you don't like and the "certain things" that you are not in favour of? How have these laws affected you?

My point was state aid EU rules don't really hold the UK back from supporting industry, as shown by France and Germany who support national industry far more than we do. The UK government has historically chosen not to support UK industry believing in the free market.
 
SpurMeUp said:
I am not sure it is me that is failing to understand. What are the state aid laws you don't like and the "certain things" that you are not in favour of? How have these laws affected you?

My point was state aid EU rules don't really hold the UK back from supporting industry, as shown by France and Germany who support national industry far more than we do. The UK government has historically chosen not to support UK industry believing in the free market.
Click to expand...

This is pointless, you don't have to be affected by something yourself to care or have an opinion about it. I object to the rule that says you need EU permission first and the one preventing the receipient gaining advantage on a selective basis and the one that doesn't allow for competition being distorted which are closely linked. Ultimaley I believe if a government wants to provide industries or companies with specific support to bolster them, protect UK jobs, invest in an industry of future importance to gain a headstart then they should be able too.
 
P.D. said:
This is pointless, you don't have to be affected by something yourself to care or have an opinion about it. I object to the rule that says you need EU permission first and the one preventing the receipient gaining advantage on a selective basis and the one that doesn't allow for competition being distorted which are closely linked. Ultimaley I believe if a government wants to provide industries or companies with specific support to bolster them, protect UK jobs, invest in an industry of future importance to gain a headstart then they should be able too.
Click to expand...

Rather than going to the headmaster to ask for permission?

In seriousness though I was thinking about this when people were mentioning red tape and being out increasing it but that's just in the initial stage surely? Surely being a member of the EU and abiding by set regulations that's additional red tape in itself?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back