Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[scoundrel]

As a rule of thumb, countries which export a lot have strong currencies and countries which import a lot in excess of what they export have weak currencies. If I were a British company needing to source something in Russia (except the sort of things which are traded in USD, such as oil or grain) I would expect to pay in roubles and to have to convert GBP into roubles. I sell GBP and the demand for GBP has fallen. I buy roubles and the demand for roubles has gone up.

In 1953 Britain still exported a lot of manufactured goods and at that time the rate was nearly DM12 = GBP £1. But since then Germany has become a leading world manufacturer and Britain has lost a lot of market share, though believe it or not Britain remains a leading world manufacturer as well. In 1953 Britain would have ranked second after the USA (or maybe third after the USSR, whose figures and statistics were either unavailable or unreliable). Today, we rank seventh [but Italy ranks sixth and frankly I suspect them of adding in the unofficial economy; no way Italy makes more shit than Britain] and Germany ranks fourth. The point being, though, that Britain has experienced weakening currency and sterling crisis after sterling crisis because she has run a trade deficit a lot of the time.

But this wouldn't make British goods cheap, unless they were made using exclusively British materials and labour inputs. What would happen is that Britain would be paying more GBP to buy the same quantity of imported materials and this would have to be passed on to the end customer who would pay a higher price. Demand would fall at the higher price, but the manufacturer can only cut his margin so far and will refuse to supply if the price is not viable.

There was a change between 1970-72, when I remember BBC Look North banging on about the German shoppers, and after 1973, when Britain was an EU member state. Even though our currency continued to fall against the DM, the Germman shoppers weren't coming so much as they did before. Sales tax had replaced purchase tax and the duelling banjoes from Deliverance were starting to play.

[Wendigo]

Looks like the penny/cent is dropping for some EU boffins

EU should 'interfere' less - Commission boss Juncker
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36087022

Wake up and smell the coffee, many of us have been saying this for years, it has grown into an amorphous bloated beast.

[haroldeye]

Google 'Junker Quotes' and you will see what a complete nightmare this arrogant tosser is. Until the European Commission and is destroyed there is little hope for the peoples of Europe.

[sydney1]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

Google 'Junker Quotes' and you will see what a complete nightmare this arrogant tosser is. Until the European Commission and is destroyed there is little hope for the peoples of Europe.

I think I'll go against most of the opinions in this particular thread and vote to stay in .If we leave, our research, such as bio-science and particularly the aerospace/Satellite/Electronics/future technologies industries will be hit hard. These are the industries which already employ hundreds of thousands in the UK, and we have the potential to employ millions in the future in these industries. For example.

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/space_skylon_tech.html

This was recently given a clean bill of health by the European Space Agency, and we could possibly have a Earth to Space Vehicle in 10 years, if not sooner. This one invention has unlimited potential for Britain, let's not miss this opportunity like we have done so many times in the past.

On the other hand, I do think that Jean_claude Junker is a prize Berkeley Hunt.
For our American cousins, that's rhyming slang...

[haroldeye]

Sydney, I would rather stay in but until we get rid of people like Junkers it's a no brainer for me. Oh by the way it is virtually impossible to get rid of Junkers, the Commissioners wrote the rules and apart from not paying taxes they also made sure that they are fixed like stone.

[Jag7777]

I just love the way that Politicians are so incompetent that they can't make a decision on this issue.

"Nope, have not a clue what to do so we will leave it in the hands of you, the people."


Isn't that how we got into Europe in the first place?


Sometimes, you just have to laugh.

Jag. (We know better than you, just wait and see .... )

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by Jag7777

I just love the way that Politicians are so incompetent that they can't make a decision on this issue.

"Nope, have not a clue what to do so we will leave it in the hands of you, the people."


Isn't that how we got into Europe in the first place?


Sometimes, you just have to laugh.

Jag. (We know better than you, just wait and see .... )

Actually Ted Heath took Britain into Europe without asking the people, which was grossly in excess of his legitimate powers as a PM. In 1975 Harold Wilson held a referendum to either legitimise or reverse decision Heath made on our behalf. Wilson at least accepted that such a change in our constitutional settlement should have been preceded by a referendum. The trouble is that reversing a decision is much harder than never doing it in the first place and even in 1975 the negative impact would have been big:

1. Order
2. Counter-order
3. Disorder

That swine Heath knew what he was doing when he took Britain without a referendum. We joined without there ever having been a consensus to join.

But that's old news now.

What strikes me now is that we are not being offered a structured case by either side in this question. George Osborne tells us that leaving will cost us £4,300 per household per year by 2030 as if he can possibly know such a thing about a future which is 14 years away. He didn't forecast a banking collapse and a world economic crisis in 1995, did he now? But that is the miserably shallow and thin debate we are being offered. The "Leave" side aren't any better as far as I can tell: so far Boris Johnson is more full of shit than Blackpool Beach.

One thing is for sure. Anyone who will be decided either way on purely economic grounds is not thinking properly about the question. David Cameron made a huge display of demanding reforms before calling the vote, but without a formal treaty there has in fact been no reform. Forget his "deal"; this vote is about the actiual EU we already know.

• The mission of the EU is supposed to be to promote the friendship of nations and peoples in Europe or something like that. It offers some other important advantages, not the least being that member nations are not alone when they experience problems with much bigger powers such as the USA, Russia and China. For example it is thanks to EU solidarity that the Helms-Burton Act has been ineffective in trying to prevent trade between Europe and Cuba. Europe has prepared mechanisms to punish American citizens and corporations who invoke the Helms Burton Act. If American companies like selling in Europe and don't want their assets in Europe to be seized to pay for the harm done to European companies as a result of their activities in US law courts, they will avoid using the Helms Burton Act against any company based in the EU. Collectively, the EU can on such a question tell the United States government where to go and how to travel. A bit like a trade union, membership empowers member states in some respects.
• In fact the EU has provided a forum for member states to talk out differences peacefully. This has to be a good thing.
• Membership forces member countries to act responsibly on pollution and environmental matters. There is no reason why Britain couldn't clean up Blackpool Beach and stop pumping raw sewage into the sea without being in the EU; but in fact she didn't do it and resisted being made to do it by the EU, which says to me that we weren't going to do it.
• Europe wide agreements have helped to control the pollutants which cuase acid rain. One country acting alone wouldn't have been enough.
• Travel is easier for British citizens due to EU membership, even though Britain is not in the Schengen Agreement.
• Being inside the Single Market is beneficial.
• One hears a lot about EU labour migration as a Bad Thing, but at least 1.6m British citizens live and work in other EU countries.
• Being in the EU makes Britain more open to Europe and less inward looking. I have seen this country become far more aware of the world since I was 12.

I don't hate the EU. I question whether we have done well out of joining but I also question whather we would do well out of leaving.

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Actually Ted Heath took Britain into Europe without asking the people, which was grossly in excess of his legitimate powers as a PM.

I'm not sure I agree - the PM , having the support of the party which has a majority in the House of Commons, can do what he likes within reason as long as he continues to enjoy that support.

Major constitutional issues such as the Reform Acts, the Parliament Acts and the various Representation of the People Acts, had never previously been decided by plebiscite until Wilson held the 1975 referendum and thus bypassed his own divided party.

I don't like referenda [dums] - it's bad enough the ignorant masses having a vote in General Elections without letting them loose on single issues.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

I'm not sure I agree - the PM , having the support of the party which has a majority in the House of Commons, can do what he likes within reason as long as he continues to enjoy that support.

Major constitutional issues such as the Reform Acts, the Parliament Acts and the various Representation of the People Acts, had never previously been decided by plebiscite until Wilson held the 1975 referendum and thus bypassed his own divided party.

I don't like referenda [dums] - it's bad enough the ignorant masses having a vote in General Elections without letting them loose on single issues.

The difference IMHO is that the various voter reform Acts did not affect our national sovereignty. Being in the EU does that. It means that other countries are able to block changes we want for our country because those changes would (if agreed) apply in their country too. It can be a recipe for paralysis. We rejected the obvious solution (Qualified Majority Vote) because it was a pooling of sovereignty too far. But the EU is now a tier of government which regulates our lives and which we influence, but do not control. The Reform and Parliament Act increased our representation. Joining the EU decreased and diluted our representation.

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

The difference IMHO is that the various voter reform Acts did not affect our national sovereignty. Being in the EU does that. It means that other countries are able to block changes we want for our country because those changes would (if agreed) apply in their country too. It can be a recipe for paralysis. We rejected the obvious solution (Qualified Majority Vote) because it was a pooling of sovereignty too far. But the EU is now a tier of government which regulates our lives and which we influence, but do not control. The Reform and Parliament Act increased our representation. Joining the EU decreased and diluted our representation.

But there is no constitutional precedent whatsoever - nowhere in the various bodies of law,writings and decisions which are collectively considered to be the British Constitution is the concept of the plebiscite on constitutional matters even mentioned .

Thus the Act of Union, although it affected and diluted the sovereignty of both England and Scotland, did not lead to a referendum [ not that there were many eligible to vote in either country].