Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[Attila The Hun]

Originally Posted by gordian_knot

I don't think many people would recognise the picture you've just painted. I agree many Turks are fairly secular and (in terms of culture) Western-orientated.

OK, we agree on this.

But their government is not. Erdogan's AK party has carried on a relentless Islamification of Turkish society and institutions to the point where the country as a whole cannot any longer be described as secular, even if some of the people are. Erdogan has been in power for over 20 years (the hallmark of any dictator), has a vice-like grip on Turkish society and is behind the war in Syria for purely religious reasons.

I am not sure if it cannot be described as secular. Erdogan is, in reality, a socially conservative Muslim but the country still isn't and neither is his conservative party. It is a secular state with a socially conservative Muslim as president. Germany has a Christian party in government but it is still a secular country.

The government might support terrorists in Syria for religious reasons but the main reason is, like most issues in the world, one of money and big business. The simply and sad fact is that ISIS and their ilk have been good for business. Syria is a country with nationalization and is likely to increase nationalization. Eliminating the government of Syria and replacing them with groups that will not nationalize is in the best interests of the US, the UK, Israel and, of course, Turkey. It just so happens that the group of people most likely not to nationalize industry in Syria are also religious extremists. It is the same old story as with Afghanistan and Libya.

So no, Erdogan is not supporting terrorists in Syria because they are Muslim extremists; no more than Israel is supporting them for being so.

Neoliberalism has absolutely nothing to do with what's happening in Turkey, rather it's a combination of religious hatred (of Assad and Shiites in general), the maintenance of power and the long-term goal of a more fundamentalist religious state.

But it does. Turkey has become increasingly neo-liberal since atleast the 1980s which has led them to support the same goals and causes as the US and the UK in most instances Most of the actual core problems in Turkey itself are caused by the same neo-liberal factors that have caused mass unemployment here.

Erdogan has support neo-liberal policies as much as religious ones. Infact Erdogan's Justice and Development party's main platform is big business. It is not an Islamic party though it has favoured religious themes that go against the Turkish constitutions and have been criticized within Turkey for doing so. Like most conservative neo-liberals, Erdogan does use religion as a tool to achieve capital, but it is unlikely that he will manage to make Turkey a religious state and, going back to the point I was actually addressing, it is unlikely that the EU will incorporate Islamic principles that are controversial within Turkey itself.

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I was 12 when we had a referendum in 1975 and old enough to have opinions, even if too young to know my arse from my elbow.

I'm curious !? Why did the 12 yr old Scoundrel oppose joining the EEC - what were his reasons?

Being 24 back then [but certainly no more sophisticated than you I am sure] I wasn't sure how to vote but the EEC was presented to us as a glorified trade agreement and, given the parlous state of the UK at that time, it seemed as if it couldn't make anything worse than it already was. SO I voted to stay in..

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

I'm curious !? Why did the 12 yr old Scoundrel oppose joining the EEC - what were his reasons?

Being 24 back then [but certainly no more sophisticated than you I am sure] I wasn't sure how to vote but the EEC was presented to us as a glorified trade agreement and, given the parlous state of the UK at that time, it seemed as if it couldn't make anything worse than it already was. SO I voted to stay in..

At the time, I saw the EEC/EU as a conspiracy against ordinary people. I didn't know much about Tony Benn then, it was one of the earliest times I engaged with a political question (decimalisation and then the 1973 miners strike came first) and his questions about democracy resonated with me.

What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?

This remains the key criticism of the EU for me: decisions are being made about Britain by foreigners who do not represent us and who do not exercise power in our interests and who we can't get rid of. Tony Benn was not my favourite person but on these questions he was correct.

I had noted at the age of seven how decimalisation, which at this distance in time I can see was a stealthy preamble for us to get ready for the European Project, had led to an instant hike in prices: my pocket money no longer bought 4oz of jelly babies. I was young and thick but I wasn't too thick to pick up on that. A shilling became 5 new pence but 9d became 4p instead of 3.5p; this told me quite a lot about life very quickly. So when we joined the EEC without a referendum in 1973, I wasn't taken in by the weights and measures malarkey and the people who thought it was great that butter weighed 250g for the same price as butter at 227g (8oz). I used to watch BBC regional news after the main 6 O Clock news with Richard Baker (remember him) and I remember the German Christmas shoppers who used to roll up in Hull because the clothes and goods prices were much cheaper because we were not in the EEC. I knew from that that the EEC would lead to higher indirect taxation, exactly as it has.

One other thing I remember is the system for funding the EEC; which eventually led to Mrs Thatcher's clash with Mitterand and Kohl and the British rebate, which leaves us a major contributor. I was quite clear that we were getting fourpence for ninepence and I thought it was not right.

[haroldeye]

The 18yr old Harold had a vote and used it to go in.

The politicians (who in those days one still thought honest) said it was a trade agreement in the best interests of the UK. Besides I am a European, British - yes but my heritage is also German - Polish and I revel in the variety of cultures in Europe. Germany wunderbar, France mervielle, etc.

They LIED. They lied through their useless teeth.

I can put up with the petty rules and regulations, hypocracy and snout in the trough politicians but the basic premise of Monet and followed by so many since that the project is more important than the people, that the people running the project had to lie because the people would not accept the truth (f*cking true that one) and that the people running the project knew more and were better than the hoi polloi. Well thank you very much but NO! NO, NO, NO.

When the British PM has to go and beg some unelected (and dodgy) Civil Servant permission to reduce the tax on Tampons then the time has come to sack it.

Google Junkers Quotes and you will see the reason to leave.

But if you want the worse thing. Cameron had the chance to really do something useful. Get together and agree with the other pissed off leaders of the EU states and deal with the EU Commission. Get the whole bunch of them and sack them. Once sacked investigate what the have done and jail as appropriate. What did he do - get some vague and dubious promise to limit immigration.

As someone who wants to be a member of a democratic and functioning Europe I am embarrassed by the way the idea has been taken over by a bunch of crooks.

[knobby109]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

At the time, I saw the EEC/EU as a conspiracy against ordinary people. I didn't know much about Tony Benn then, it was one of the earliest times I engaged with a political question (decimalisation and then the 1973 miners strike came first) and his questions about democracy resonated with me.
This remains the key criticism of the EU for me: decisions are being made about Britain by foreigners who do not represent us and who do not exercise power in our interests and who we can't get rid of. Tony Benn was not my favourite person but on these questions he was correct.

I had noted at the age of seven how decimalisation, which at this distance in time I can see was a stealthy preamble for us to get ready for the European Project, had led to an instant hike in prices: my pocket money no longer bought 4oz of jelly babies. I was young and thick but I wasn't too thick to pick up on that. A shilling became 5 new pence but 9d became 4p instead of 3.5p; this told me quite a lot about life very quickly. So when we joined the EEC without a referendum in 1973, I wasn't taken in by the weights and measures malarkey and the people who thought it was great that butter weighed 250g for the same price as butter at 227g (8oz). I used to watch BBC regional news after the main 6 O Clock news with Richard Baker (remember him) and I remember the German Christmas shoppers who used to roll up in Hull because the clothes and goods prices were much cheaper because we were not in the EEC. I knew from that that the EEC would lead to higher indirect taxation, exactly as it has.

One other thing I remember is the system for funding the EEC; which eventually led to Mrs Thatcher's clash with Mitterand and Kohl and the British rebate, which leaves us a major contributor. I was quite clear that we were getting fourpence for ninepence and I thought it was not right.

Decimalisation of the currency had been mooted for a very long time.With inflation, the scrap value of a copper coin was getting greater than the face value, smaller coins were needed. From Wikipedia (yes, I know but it fits with what I already thought)
"n 1847 a motion was introduced in Parliament calling for the introduction of a decimal currency and the striking of coins of one-tenth and one-hundredth of a pound.[1] The motion was subsequently withdrawn on the understanding that a one-tenth pound coin would be produced to test public opinion. There was considerable discussion about what the coin should be called, with centum, decade, and dime being among the suggestions, before florin was eventually settled upon, partly because of its connection with old English coinage, and partly because other European countries also had coins of approximately the same size and weight called florins"

[palo5]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I remember the German Christmas shoppers who used to roll up in Hull because the clothes and goods prices were much cheaper because we were not in the EEC

I don't know who told you that, but it isn't true -- Germans shopped in England because your currency was so weak, and getting cheaper all the time. Less than two decades later it would be only worth half as much again, and even more Germans would go to England to get cheap goodies

I can see the motives for blaming as much as possible on Europe at this time. But it actually had to do with your homegrown economy, and if you believe anything else, you're being suckered. Seriously

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by palo5

I don't know who told you that, but it isn't true -- Germans shopped in England because your currency was so weak, and getting cheaper all the time. Less than two decades later it would be only worth half as much again, and even more Germans would go to England to get cheap goodies

I can see the motives for blaming as much as possible on Europe at this time. But it actually had to do with your homegrown economy, and if you believe anything else, you're being suckered. Seriously

Since you know so much about us and our economy and we're all so thick I sure you will be happy to tell us by whom we are being "suckered" ?

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by palo5

I don't know who told you that, but it isn't true -- Germans shopped in England because your currency was so weak, and getting cheaper all the time. Less than two decades later it would be only worth half as much again, and even more Germans would go to England to get cheap goodies

I can see the motives for blaming as much as possible on Europe at this time. But it actually had to do with your homegrown economy, and if you believe anything else, you're being suckered. Seriously

I went to Hull University in the 1980s and I didn't notice the German shoppers in town at that time; but maybe they were there. As for the currency weakening the GBP was artificially strong in the 1980s due first to monetarism and high interest rates and then to due to Nigel Lawson wanting monetary union with Europe and the future Euro and "shadowing the deutsche mark" as a dry run for our eventual membership of the EMU. Sterling only really started to be a true floating currency in the aftermath of "Black Friday" in September 1991, when the British governemnt accepted that it could not sustain membership of the EMU in the teeth of currency speculators such as George Soros. [NB George Soros did the UK a really big favour by forcing the Government to abandon a really harmful and damaging economic policy they stuck with perversely. 10% bank base rates at the height of the 1990-1993 recession made no sense.] During the 1980s the GBP ran at between DM 2.60 and DM 4.00 for most of the time and was frankly overvalued. It fell to DM 2.20 or so in the 1990s and this was more realistic.

But what happens in this situation is the the country with the weak currency experiences high cost-push inflation as the price of imported finished goods and raw materials rises when expressed in the home currency. The goods more or less hold their price in relation to the strong currency and sky rocket in price for people buying in the weak currency. I am old enough to remember 1970s hyper-inflation, which peaked at well over 25% in the UK, and meanwhile Germany was having 5-7% annual inflation and thought this was way too high. Russian citizens will have seen this effect as well as the rouble rises and falls. Goods dont really get cheaper for foreigners except as a very short term adjustment/arbitrage difference. Sometimes they get to be unobtainable because exporting manufacturers wont export without knowing what price they can sell at without losing money.

The Germans used to come to Britain regularly to go shopping, for years before Britain joined the EU; then after that not so much. This should tell us something.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

The Germans used to come to Britain regularly to go shopping, for years before Britain joined the EU; then after that not so much. This should tell us something.

It should tell you the currency was weak against the DM. I can remember when it was about DM6 for £1 and that was around 1970. By around 1990 it was down to DM 2.12 for £1. There was no upward trend at any time I can remember. That is why Germans liked shopping in Britain

The £ probably did have upward movement against the US$ from time to time. That must be the "period of strength" you remember, although actually it was weakness of the $. It the 80s in particular it went up and down like a yo-yo. We knew that US servicemen were paid in $$, and morale was lower when the $ was weak

At any rate, it was about the currency, not Europe. There was a time when the £ had to stay within an exchange rate band against the DM, and that told speculators what the English would do if the £ fell against the DM. So they bet against it and won. But let's not fool ourselves -- you can't bet like that against a strong economy with a strong currency. If you do, you'll lose. It only works against weakness

[haroldeye]

I was a frequent visitor to Germany from 1974 to date, and my interest in the exchange rate was heightened by the fact that we were paid at the forces fixed rate (FFR) whilst there. FFR was not tourist rate and was usually better than the banks would give.

August 74 the rate was 6.2 and by the time of my next trip in 76 in was down to 4. It remained in the region of 4+ for several years and briefly went up over 5 in 81 (An excellent day in Hanover with much food and drink and errrmm!) After that there was a long slow decline until in the middle 90's I once got only 2.2 Dm for my pound. There was then something of a ralley and heading up to 2000 the rate went back to 3.3. I can remember driving home from one exercise with 6 cases of Veuve Cliquot in the car, at the equivalent of £10 a bottle when the UK supermarket price was £25.

Our membership of the EU and particularily the ERM did have an effect on the currency. Once in the ERM we had to maintain the value of the £ and the currencies in the ERM had to be prepared to support us against speculator raids. When Soros mounted his raid HMG spent an awful lot of dosh maintaining the pounds value and asked the ERM states (mainly Germany and France) for help. The French and Germans didn't think ERM rules applied to them and the rest was history. When Soros mounted a raid against the Franc the Germans supported the French and the problem was greatly lessened, even though it cost a lot. Sensible Brits saw this happening and made the decision not to put anymore trust in the ERM, which is why we are not in the Euro.