• 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)

galeforce said:
Proceed...
Click to expand...

Other than rushing to form a trading block with the country that's invaded them twice in 25 years and actively excluding their allies that fought with them and helped liberate them the second time?

France and de gaule in particular did everything they could to keep Britain out of the EU/common market. For a man who sought and received aid and sanctuary in this country that is an act of infamy that should be a hideous scar on his legacy. Especially when as is widely thought Hitler was willing to offer Britain favourable terms after Dunkirk.
The French don't like the English, never have, probably never will. Historically they are natural enemies, competing all over the world for land, power and trade. A struggle the French more often than not lost.

The British and germans are more natural allies, with links going back to before the formation of Germany as we know it.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Russia and America might have something to say about that.
Click to expand...
There is no doubt that the entrance to the war by the US brought a quicker end to the war, but as soon as Hitler invaded USSR it was only a matter of time.
If Britain had been willing to accept terms as Hitler hoped we would it may have been different but ultimately fighting on two fronts against USSR and the British Empire was a mistake. He could not hope to keep both tied up enough to not be a threat.
Without the raw materials that Germany lack they needed a quick blitzkrieg victory through Russia, who was supplying German oil and wheat, to make victory viable.
This in the end would have caught up with Germany, taking on the vast manpower and natural resources of the USSR and the resources that in time Britain would be able to call on from the empire.
 
glasgowspur said:
Other than rushing to form a trading block with the country that's invaded them twice in 25 years and actively excluding their allies that fought with them and helped liberate them the second time?

France and de gaule in particular did everything they could to keep Britain out of the EU/common market. For a man who sought and received aid and sanctuary in this country that is an act of infamy that should be a hideous scar on his legacy. Especially when as is widely thought Hitler was willing to offer Britain favourable terms after Dunkirk.
The French don't like the English, never have, probably never will. Historically they are natural enemies, competing all over the world for land, power and trade. A struggle the French more often than not lost.

The British and germans are more natural allies, with links going back to before the formation of Germany as we know it.
Click to expand...

De Gaulle took issue with our US ties, particularly our nuclear arms programs.

Also, it wasn’t that long after WWII.

It’s been three times as long now, surely we should all be over it?

To say “The French don’t like the English” is a crazy sweeping statement, I’ve been to France many times and have never experienced that attitude, the same goes for Germany, Italy, Spain.
 
galeforce said:
De Gaulle took issue with our US ties, particularly our nuclear arms programs.

Also, it wasn’t that long after WWII.

It’s been three times as long now, surely we should all be over it?

To say “The French don’t like the English” is a crazy sweeping statement, I’ve been to France many times and have never experienced that attitude, the same goes for Germany, Italy, Spain.
Click to expand...

De Gaule took issue with everything, from our US ties to the 'infiltration' of the USSR of Labour. Any excuse was good enough for him.

When I say the French I mean the political class, should we all be over, of course we should, unfortunately the world is full of idiots and I don't think for one minute that it's only Britain that has charlatans like boris, farage and Lord snooty.

I have to say that I've travelled in France a fair bit and I've noticed a fair difference in attitude to visitors, especially in Paris.
I always do two things, try and speak a little French and make it known I'm Scots not English. Rightly or wrongly they are very protective of their culture and some have a preconception that the English and American tourists are ignorant oafs.
Every other country I've visited in Europe has not had these issues.
 
SpurMeUp said:
I’d settle for understand [emoji28]

Personally I don’t ‘embrace’ the EU. Who’s ever voted in an EU election? Not I. The EU tends to get on with its work in the background. We need not notice it. We can focus on the clams in our government if we wish to! We can consider ourselves British and not European - and that’s okay. No need to embrace the EU, just understand that it compliments our own government bureaucracy providing a load of boring stuff to facilitate trade, higher standards and legal international cooperation. I don’t need to embrace it to appreciate it working for me/us.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...

So outsourcing democracy and letting people rule with no consent or accointability?
 
P.D. said:
Well having a free market doesn't have to but generally leads to inequality and the EU with the 4 freedoms is fairly neo liberal. Inequality helps foster populism because people become frustrated with the current way of how things operate and start to demand change hence criticism of the EU, governments and corporations.
Click to expand...

Yes. Good points sir. Free markets just facilitate trade. I’d suggest that things like tax havens, national tax systems, and underinvestment in education and community at national level are more linked to inequality.

The EU has significant grants for poor area. The UK has some of the most deprived places in Europe and the EU spends money on supporting these areas. I visited a factory in Cornwall that had been built using EU funds. So is it fair to lay inequality on the door of the EU?

Do you have any suggestions as to what you’d prefer to see and how it would address popularist concerns?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
Last edited:
galeforce said:
Worth a read,

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/03/humbling-britain

Apologies if already posted.
Click to expand...
Excellent article mate. So true. One of the things that resonates with me is that 16 million of us voted to remain; unfortunately we are not counted when politicians and leavers describe "the people." It's like we don't count. We are "enemies of the people," the rhetoric is appalling. That for me characterises the arch brexiteers language. There is no magnanimity.
 
Robspur12 said:
Excellent article mate. So true. One of the things that resonates with me is that 16 million of us voted to remain; unfortunately we are not counted when politicians and leavers describe "the people." It's like we don't count. We are "enemies of the people," the rhetoric is appalling. That for me characterises the arch brexiteers language. There is no magnanimity.
Click to expand...

It feels, even more so over the last couple of weeks, that many don’t care what they won, it’s just important that others lost.
 
Robspur12 said:
Excellent article mate. So true. One of the things that resonates with me is that 16 million of us voted to remain; unfortunately we are not counted when politicians and leavers describe "the people." It's like we don't count. We are "enemies of the people," the rhetoric is appalling. That for me characterises the arch brexiteers language. There is no magnanimity.
Click to expand...

And there are 66m Brits. So only a minority actually voted to leave. Should politicians not look out for those people who didn’t have an opinion or understand the issues?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
SpurMeUp said:
If people wish to work more than 48 hours per week they have to simply put it in writing. There is no hassel, its the quickest thing to do. An email, or a 2 line piece of text and signature box. Working 9.6 hours a day 5 days a week is probably more than Scara's staff work now.

Are you suggesting you would like to live in a nation that gives people no say in whether they have to work more hours than this? How would that work? In France their national law stipualates a 35 hour week.

Are you genuinely suggesting this is a reason to vote Brexit? What would you suggest we have instead of the 48 hour week with an opt out should people agree to work longer hours?

I actually think it IS difficult to imagine how this law could lead to inefficiciencies, unless you are suggesting the UK has prison of war like work camps.
Click to expand...
You're unable to imagine the real world consequences because you haven't had to deal with them in the real world - your view on them is entirely theoretical.

Let me point you to a very real example. Most of the time, my business needs the full time equivalent of around 100 skilled staff. Every now and then, we get a job in from a major customer with a timescale that means we need the fte of around 150 trained staff. Now let's say that 50 of the skilled employees are happy to work double shifts when this work comes in - everyone's happy and the work gets done. Company keeps customers happy, staff get bumper paychecks for a while.

Now over time, due to age, changes in home circumstances, etc. 20 of those 50 no longer want to do overtime - then give us notice and rescind their wavers. Those staff are no longer of any use to us - we need a flexible (skilled) workforce to deal with flexible demand. We can't replace them with staff who are willing to work - that's against the WTD. We can't only train up those who are willing to work - that's against the WTD.

Now the customers send their work to loss-making alternatives propped up by their socialist governments instead - they can afford to have 150 staff for 100 people's work.

That's not to mention the time taken by admin staff, having to calculate hours on a cycle that is of no use to us other than conforming to socialist ideals.

Numbers are invented for ease of use, case is very real.
 
Last edited:
galeforce said:
It feels, even more so over the last couple of weeks, that many don’t care what they won, it’s just important that others lost.
Click to expand...
I think there's an element of that, but that's going to be the case when a noisy minority attempts to subvert democracy.
 
SpurMeUp said:
The EU doesn't run nations. Nations run nations.
Click to expand...
Absolutely untrue.

Seeing as we've been discussing it, what would happen if tomorrow, the govt saw how much the public dislikes the WTD and wants to repeal it - how does it do that?

What if the government, in an attempt to boost the financial sector, wanted to introduce a 5% CT level for the finance industry?

What if the govt wants to sell a set of services to the US and wants to set up a specific trade deal for it?

What if the govt decides that external tariffs are damaging to importers and wants to scrap them?
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
You're unable to imagine the real world consequences because you haven't had to deal with them in the real world - your view on them is entirely theoretical.

Let me point you to a very real example. Most of the time, my business needs the full time equivalent of around 100 skilled staff. Every now and then, we get a job in from a major customer with a timescale that means we need the fte of around 150 trained staff. Now let's say that 50 of the skilled employees are happy to work double shifts when this work comes in - everyone's happy and the work gets done. Company keeps customers happy, staff get bumper paychecks for a while.

Now over time, due to age, changes in home circumstances, etc. 20 of those 50 no longer want to do overtime - then give us notice and rescind their wavers. Those staff are no longer of any use to us - we need a flexible (skilled) workforce to deal with flexible demand. We can't replace them with staff who are willing to work - that's against the WTD. We can't only train up those who are willing to work - that's against the WTD.

Now the customers send their work to loss-making alternatives propped up by their socialist governments instead - they can afford to have 150 staff for 100 people's work.

That's not to mention the time taken by admin staff, having to calculate hours on a cycle that is of no use to us other than conforming to socialist ideals.

Numbers are invented for ease of use, case is very real.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like lazy management! I have a business that I built from scratch. Turns over 4m pa, and staffing is an issue but you invest in HR and recruitment. What is stopping you from recruiting people on zero hours? Or hiring apprentices? Or using labour from the EU even.

How is being out the Eu going to help you?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
SpurMeUp said:
Sounds to me like lazy management! I have a business that I built from scratch. Turns over 4m pa, and staffing is an issue but you invest in HR and recruitment. What is stopping you from recruiting people on zero hours? Or hiring apprentices? Or using labour from the EU even.

How is being out the Eu going to help you?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...
None of those are skilled in what we do. The staff needed have to be permanent.
 
SpurMeUp said:
I have a business that I built from scratch. Turns over 4m pa,
Click to expand...
Considering your apparent level of economic understanding, that's quite impressive.
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
Absolutely untrue.

Seeing as we've been discussing it, what would happen if tomorrow, the govt saw how much the public dislikes the WTD and wants to repeal it - how does it do that?

What if the government, in an attempt to boost the financial sector, wanted to introduce a 5% CT level for the finance industry?

What if the govt wants to sell a set of services to the US and wants to set up a specific trade deal for it?

What if the govt decides that external tariffs are damaging to importers and wants to scrap them?
Click to expand...

How many of these things are we likely to want to do? Easy to write a list of the things that the EU covers, but the vast majority of laws are determined in the UK. The laws the Eu covers tend to be on areas that are for the greater good and that, if you inspect them, we would not change anyway. Like the working time directive. Do your staff work the full 48 hours a week as is, as standard? If not then there is wiggle room for you and who is suggesting forcing people to work more than 48 hours against their will!? It’s is not a law we’d pass!?

If the gov granted 5% off one sector, other sectors would want it too. And we can reduce taxation across the board, so why not do that? So again it’s not something we would do, cut tax in one industry, and it is therefore no loss.

What services are you thinking off? As things stand we have all sorts of US companies invested in the UK with offices that serve as a European HQ. Many now have plans to move out, as Sony have.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back