Carryfast:
Rjan:
[…]
I need to try and get the length of my posts under control! 
I’ve told you who could ‘help’ the miners that was their elected MPs.You know the people that we specifically employ and elect to do the job of making such decisions.Not the job of bleedin union members nor Scargill who’d done his bit by bringing the plans to the Unions’ attention.To which your reply is that it was so much better to allow Thatcher’s locally unelected rabble to wipe out their industry than to give people like Skinner the trump hand.
How is it not the job of the miners’ trade union, with their elected representatives and democratic ballots, to protect the jobs of the miners?
You can’t have local MPs having vetoes on the national government, because all that would mean would be that when the National Coal Board struck a deal with the miners for higher pay (as it did repeatedly in the 50s, 60s, and 70s), the MP for Grantham would veto it! And when the Coal Board promised to invest money in mines, the MP for Grantham would veto it. And if the national government decided on tariffs to protect the coal and steel industries, or if the national government decided to build power stations and steel foundries in Yorkshire, the MP for Grantham would veto them. Even the nationalisation of coal in the first place, could be vetoed by any single right-wing MPs in the country, even if 99% of people supported it.
It can’t work like that, with local MPs vetoing the national democracy. No matter how desirable it would have been in that specific case for Skinner to have had such a veto, it doesn’t work as a system or as a political principle.
As for the rest it’s just yet more lying remainer bollox in which you’re obviously working more for the interests of your Kraut cronies than Brit workers.On that note we are obviously discussing Ford UK v Ford Germany.Which you also know were totally autonomous and seperate parts of the Ford empire with Ford UK having virtually free reign over the far more lucrative domestic market leaving Ford Germany to look after the pathetic by comparison European market.As for no one wanted/wants a big bad V8.Is that why BMW went from making up to 1.8 litre 4 cylinder saloons in the form of the Neu Classe to the 2.5 then 3.0/3.3 Litre 6 cylinder E3.Followed by firstly the up to 3.5 litre 5 and 7 series followed by numerous larger V8 and even V12 versions.Let alone Mercedes’ additions to your supposed eco nightmare.
What are we arguing about here? Yes, carmakers still fit large engines as an option, but they’re not the majority of the car market. The so-called full size saloons that the American car makers were known for up to the 1970s have disappeared as far as I know.
As for being a “Kraut crony”, how so?
So there we have it Green eco warrior when it suits you who saw the coal industry as a big bad global warming generator and who doesn’t like the idea of proper cars.
I haven’t said anything of the sort. I’ve driven big-engined cars - although the fuel bill became tiresome - and even now I have a 2 litre.
But who is also quite happy to apply double standards in that regard to keep your German mates happy.In addition to letting them rule over us in the form of the EU.
Rubbish. There is no “ruling over”.
While using the naive Labour vote,who you really despise in the form of people like Scargill and Hoey and Skinner among others,to do it.
I don’t despise Skinner at all - he’s an MP I like to hear from, a man who has actually done some work in his life. Hoey, I’ve nothing against her - I can’t say I support her because I don’t know that much about her views. And Scargill, what have I said in this context other than to curse the bloody members who didn’t support him?
To the point of also pretending to be for Brexit if you think that will get you a few more votes.Then you’ve got the nerve to say that you’re not a Blairite or a Globalist.
I’m not pretending anything. Just because I don’t support your agenda, doesn’t mean I don’t now support Brexit for my own agenda (about which I’ve been quite clear and involves nothing underhand).
On that note you also know that Japan also exports numerous products directly to the EU with no need to sacrifice domestic sovereignty at all.On that note try black mailing them with the idea of handing over control over immigration with trade and see what happens.While yes Leave ‘should’ mean the right to chuck out any EU citizen who arrived here after the date of the referendum.No surprise you’re showing your true remainer colours again in that regard.
But I support the abolition of free movement! And if it came down to it, I’d support capital controls, I’d support tariffs, and all sorts of other measures. But not, apparently, for the reasons that you do. And no, I don’t support “chucking out” any citizens who have settled here permanently - that doesn’t mean I don’t support curtailment of further entrants, and temporary workers who leave should have no automatic right of return, but I’m not having guys who have already settled and set up lives here thrown out of the country.
Same with trade, I’m not against the British government having the final say - I just think you fail to appreciate that doing trade with any other country involves them also having a say - but on the other hand I don’t support deregulation and I especially don’t support a reorientation toward the US, because it will just force its capitalist suckers into our public services and shaft our workers like it shafts its own. As Trump said the other day, he intends to wage war on our “socialised” NHS, because (he says) as a large buyer it negotiates too good a deal for British patients and British taxpayers, whereas he’d prefer Brits to be acting as atomised individuals in the free market, so that large pharmaceutical companies can more easily rip us off. Which is actually great for the Tories, because they want to force us into private healthcare markets where the rich can rip us off.