Trucker's Future post-Brexit

[franglais]

muckles:
That isn’t really what happened in the case of a single currency, it benefited Germany to trade with a currency that would have been far lower than if they’d kept the Deutschmark, but held back countries who could have benefited by having a lower valued currency. The other thing that would happen, as happens now with the EU contribution, some countries would say they are putting more into the pot and other countries are reaping greater benefits from it.

Won’t this change over the years ? As time goes on, the field will level ?

If/when the EU integrates more there will be tensions between EU, National, and local interests, it’s true. Itll need careful handling. But although it's a bigger scale, is it so different than a UK Government juggling national with local pressures ? If times are good, tensions and rivalries subside. Hardships exacerbate all tensions. Lets hope for a prosperous New Year !

[muckles]

Franglais:

muckles:
That isn’t really what happened in the case of a single currency, it benefited Germany to trade with a currency that would have been far lower than if they’d kept the Deutschmark, but held back countries who could have benefited by having a lower valued currency. The other thing that would happen, as happens now with the EU contribution, some countries would say they are putting more into the pot and other countries are reaping greater benefits from it.

Won’t this change over the years ? As time goes on, the field will level ?

If/when the EU integrates more there will be tensions between EU, National, and local interests, it’s true. Itll need careful handling. But although it's a bigger scale, is it so different than a UK Government juggling national with local pressures ? If times are good, tensions and rivalries subside. Hardships exacerbate all tensions. Lets hope for a prosperous New Year !

I’m not sure if it will, we’ve had the Eurozone since 2002, thought it was earlier and the economies don’t seem any closer, and it seems the same countries are net benefactors of the EU budget despite some of them being members for over 30 years.

Very little seems to change despite fine words from politicians, those with the power are also those with the money and they’re not willing to let some of it go without a fight, this isn’t just on an EU level, but at a global level, global polices seemed geared to benefiting the richest countries and multi-national corporations over the poorest countries and therefore the poorest people, the same economic polices that has seen average workers wages in the richest countries stagnate have seen the poorest countries get poorer and therefore the poorest people get poorer.

When nearly half the Worlds population (about 3bn) live on less than $2.50 a day, is it any wonder so many are easily tempted by the promise of great riches if they are willing to take risks to get to Europe or the USA.

[franglais]

muckles:

Franglais:

muckles:
That isn’t really what happened in the case of a single currency, it benefited Germany to trade with a currency that would have been far lower than if they’d kept the Deutschmark, but held back countries who could have benefited by having a lower valued currency. The other thing that would happen, as happens now with the EU contribution, some countries would say they are putting more into the pot and other countries are reaping greater benefits from it.

Won’t this change over the years ? As time goes on, the field will level ?

If/when the EU integrates more there will be tensions between EU, National, and local interests, it’s true. Itll need careful handling. But although it's a bigger scale, is it so different than a UK Government juggling national with local pressures ? If times are good, tensions and rivalries subside. Hardships exacerbate all tensions. Lets hope for a prosperous New Year !

I’m not sure if it will, we’ve had the Eurozone since 2002, thought it was earlier and the economies don’t seem any closer, and it seems the same countries are net benefactors of the EU budget despite some of them being members for over 30 years.

Very little seems to change despite fine words from politicians, those with the power are also those with the money and they’re not willing to let some of it go without a fight, this isn’t just on an EU level, but at a global level, global polices seemed geared to benefiting the richest countries and multi-national corporations over the poorest countries and therefore the poorest people, the same economic polices that has seen average workers wages in the richest countries stagnate have seen the poorest countries get poorer and therefore the poorest people get poorer.

When nearly half the Worlds population (about 3bn) live on less than $2.50 a day, is it any wonder so many are easily tempted by the promise of great riches if they are willing to take risks to get to Europe or the USA.

But any Gov that willing gave a meaningful part of it’s country’s wealth away would be unelectable a second time. If a quick (less than a few generations?) change came about, that country would have the population demand leaving the EU.
Maybe I’m arguing against my previous stance here, but the real world won’t allow the objectives to come through?

I’m confused.
[emoji5]

Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk

[juddian]

^^^ Cameron virtue signalling by having us borrow some £13+ billion annually to give away as foreign bribes, sorry, aid, didn’t stop our electorate putting him and the fake conservative party back in again.

The people of the country won’t realise what figures like the national debt knocking on the door of £2 Trillions actually mean, until the kick it down the road option finally reaches the end of the road, and it needs to be halted in growth (don’t even think about paying it back), when worldwide interest rates climb to more realistic levels and in order to just pay the interest on that debt national interest rates start to climb steadily back up, peaking at those 15% mortgage rates we had under the previous regimes.
Then the virtue signallers among the nation might stop telling us how rich we are as a country and should be bailing the rest of the world out again, until reality hits them in the pocket this lalaland financed on borrowed money is where we will live.

It’s always been easy to spend someone else’s money, what Cameron and too many others (‘‘Teresa here Frau Merkel, here have £39 billions i found tucked under the pillow )’’ forgot is that the govt has no money of its own, it is our (taxpayers) money, or rather money borrowed for us to pay back eventually, that they can’t ■■■■ up the wall quickly enough.

[carryfast]

Juddian:
The people of the country won’t realise what figures like the national debt knocking on the door of £2 Trillions actually mean, until the kick it down the road option finally reaches the end of the road, and it needs to be halted in growth (don’t even think about paying it back), when worldwide interest rates climb to more realistic levels and in order to just pay the interest on that debt national interest rates start to climb steadily back up, peaking at those 15% mortgage rates we had under the previous regimes.
Then the virtue signallers among the nation might stop telling us how rich we are as a country and should be bailing the rest of the world out again, until reality hits them in the pocket this lalaland financed on borrowed money is where we will live.

The ultimate example being a country going begging to the IMF for a bail out and the austerity inflicted on us to pay for it.While the EEC/EU still regarded even that situation as being sufficient criteria for us to be a net contributor to its budget requirement.When ironically Germany went to war,over less of a stitch up than our EU membership has been for us,in the form of the Versailles Treaty.

[muckles]

Franglais:

muckles:
I’m not sure if it will, we’ve had the Eurozone since 2002, thought it was earlier and the economies don’t seem any closer, and it seems the same countries are net benefactors of the EU budget despite some of them being members for over 30 years.

Very little seems to change despite fine words from politicians, those with the power are also those with the money and they’re not willing to let some of it go without a fight, this isn’t just on an EU level, but at a global level, global polices seemed geared to benefiting the richest countries and multi-national corporations over the poorest countries and therefore the poorest people, the same economic polices that has seen average workers wages in the richest countries stagnate have seen the poorest countries get poorer and therefore the poorest people get poorer.

When nearly half the Worlds population (about 3bn) live on less than $2.50 a day, is it any wonder so many are easily tempted by the promise of great riches if they are willing to take risks to get to Europe or the USA.

But any Gov that willing gave a meaningful part of it’s country’s wealth away would be unelectable a second time. If a quick (less than a few generations?) change came about, that country would have the population demand leaving the EU.
Maybe I’m arguing against my previous stance here, but the real world won’t allow the objectives to come through?

I’m confused.
[emoji5]

Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk

Juddian:
^^^ Cameron virtue signalling by having us borrow some £13+ billion annually to give away as foreign bribes, sorry, aid, didn’t stop our electorate putting him and the fake conservative party back in again.

It’s not about giving poorer countries more aid, could even be about giving them less aid, but changing how we allow multi-national companies to trade, which would probably benefit us ordinary people as well.

Basically for every £1 of aid sent, they take around £2 from those countries by not paying full local taxes, using the same tricks they use here, by having organisations like the IMF and World Bank force privatisation of services, which these large multi-national companies then run, again taking much of the profit out of the country, where if it was done by a national company or remained in public hands, much more would stay in the country and in bribing officials to get cheap deals.

The money they take doesn’t necessarily come to us either, at least not us ordinary people, apparently even taking inflation into account wages we were better off in the 70’s, not that I want to go back, as there were other issues, but workers had clout, not just in the UK, but in many industrialised countries.

Then countries elected governments that adopted economic polices that, in the name of global trade, basically gave multi-nationals power to buy and sell and move industries to cheaper countries, and we as workers were competing with workers from around the world, if we didn’t accept the terms they’d close the factory, move production somewhere else and just import it back.

Yes it’s a very simplistic explanation and it’s pie in the sky thinking and I doubt any government wouldn’t be allowed to do it and it will be because those powerful people with vested interests in remaining the status quo, but they’ll use all their power to make sure the ordinary people believe it for their best interests, as they have for decades. I suppose they got caught out by universal suffrage being adopted in so many industrialised countries at the beginning of the 20th century, and it took them a few decades to gain back control and get us ordinary people out of the decision making process.

[carryfast]

muckles:
Then countries elected governments that adopted economic polices that, in the name of global trade, basically gave multi-nationals power to buy and sell and move industries to cheaper countries, and we as workers were competing with workers from around the world, if we didn’t accept the terms they’d close the factory, move production somewhere else and just import it back.

Yes it’s a very simplistic explanation and it’s pie in the sky thinking and I doubt any government wouldn’t be allowed to do it and it will be because those powerful people with vested interests in remaining the status quo, but they’ll use all their power to make sure the ordinary people believe it for their best interests, as they have for decades. I suppose they got caught out by universal suffrage being adopted in so many industrialised countries at the beginning of the 20th century, and it took them a few decades to gain back control and get us ordinary people out of the decision making process.

It’s clear that the EU is just another offshoot of the idea of putting a lot of power in the hands of as few democratically unaccountable elite megalomaniacs as possible and providing the ability to move capital and labour around to weaken the position of the working class.Just as Benn,Heffer,Shore etc always knew.

Having said that as we’re seeing now,like automation,the flaw in their plan is that unemployed or under employed workers don’t buy stuff.The result being a continuous revolving door of broke retailers flogging unsaleable imports.With the lose lose of an economy staggering under the weight of the resulting trade deficit and falling tax revenues.

[mazzer2]

Franglais:

Mazzer2:

Franglais:
Assuming youre correct for the moment "Only the UK and France have the stomach for deploying troops and taking causalities", do we in the UK have a large enough force to do that on the world stage anymore? As part of NATO we have some clout still, and as part of a Euro army wouldnt that continue? What scope do we have at the moment for truly independent action, and how would that change?
And to argue with the statement about the Dutch werent they part of a UN force? Maybe a UK commander on the ground would have interpreted the rules differently? Quite possibly. But does one incident, however awful, make for good judgment on an entire army? Political control of armed forces? Hasnt it always been so?
Would any Eu partners have OKed us being a Blairite poodle of the US? Might have been a good thing surely?

The Danes in Afganistan? I know nowt, but if you recommend “No Way Out”, I`ll look on Amazon.

My use of the two examples was to show the huge gap in operational capability and will within different European countries
both of those countries are also near the top of professionalism for European armies yet not even close to the USA, UK or France.
At present Germany the wealthiest country in Europe does not pay the 2% of GDP into NATO that it agreed to at least 10 years ago, yet is prepared to pay for a European army that will set up a parallel organisation that will have nowhere near the capabilities that NATO currently has. A European army is just one more step towards a united states of Europe and is there to satisfy a political need and not a strategic or military one

You’re right to point out the German lack of funding.
And I wouldn’t know how to assess professionalism or commitment in armies.
Aren’t all armed forces there for a political gain? That isn’t meant as a flip comment. How can we separate politics from strategy?
Is there any reason an EU army couldn’t support NATO? Get some value from the German taxpayers !

The problem with running NATO and a European army side by side is the duplication of command structures causing unnecessary expense and one upmanship which could lead to the wrong decisions being taken. The UN is a classic case of making political appointments to command military missions to satisfy smaller countries and there is no reason as to why this won’t happen with an EU army, an example being the Balkans where a Japanese politician with no experience of modern warfare was put in charge it was on his orders that the Dutch did not intervene as he didn’t want to upset Milosovic.

As to how to asses the professional capabilities of other armies soldiers on the ground know who is capable and who isn’t, however politics ensures that that cannot be publicly announced certain European armies still only do the bare minimum after dark and certainly wouldn’t carry out aggressive operations in the dark

[albion]

Carryfast:

Juddian:
The people of the country won’t realise what figures like the national debt knocking on the door of £2 Trillions actually mean, until the kick it down the road option finally reaches the end of the road, and it needs to be halted in growth (don’t even think about paying it back), when worldwide interest rates climb to more realistic levels and in order to just pay the interest on that debt national interest rates start to climb steadily back up, peaking at those 15% mortgage rates we had under the previous regimes.
Then the virtue signallers among the nation might stop telling us how rich we are as a country and should be bailing the rest of the world out again, until reality hits them in the pocket this lalaland financed on borrowed money is where we will live.

The ultimate example being a country going begging to the IMF for a bail out and the austerity inflicted on us to pay for it.While the EEC/EU still regarded even that situation as being sufficient criteria for us to be a net contributor to its budget requirement.When ironically Germany went to war,over less of a stitch up than our EU membership has been for us,in the form of the Versailles Treaty.

If you fancy a reading challenge for the new year, can I suggest Adults in the Room by Yannis Varoufakis, the Greek ex finance minister. If you can get over how much he loves himself, it’s a fascinating I.sight into how the EU promotes itself and will do anything it can to get it’s own way. It’s certainly not a liberal organization.

[franglais]

albion:
If you fancy a reading challenge for the new year, can I suggest Adults in the Room by Yannis Varoufakis, the Greek ex finance minister. If you can get over how much he loves himself, it’s a fascinating I.sight into how the EU promotes itself and will do anything it can to get it’s own way. It’s certainly not a liberal organization.

Varoufakis was interviewed by Steven Sackur on HardTalk. Id say its worth a listen.
Many other good interviews there too.

Edit to add link
bbc.co.uk/programmes/n3ct4f7w

[winseer]

Juddian:
In some ways it will be more interesting if the fear propaganda wins out and we stay in.

Can’t wait to see the Tory party and it’s traitors wiped out at the next election.
If they stand by their (and Labour’s) election promises and provide a Brexit, then they will probably survive.

Not sure which would be the most satisfying outcome, if genuine Brexit is betrayed then what will replace the wiped out Tories over the next three terms of parliament could be very interesting, not too sure those who would see democracy utterly defiled will like what will result.
Bring it on.

I suppose if I were to put on my neutral hat here, I could make the following speculation regarding Brexit being turned over…

The Tory Government falls,
Labour win a majority on the belief that somehow they will complete a prompt “deal done” Brexit, which of course they won’t - because the whole issue is toxic now.

Labour creep on for the full five year electoral mandate as a zombie government, the public deciding that “they made a huge mistake”, but once voted for - you watch them stand firm for the full five years like John Major did after the 1992 Black Wednesday debacle.

During the ensuing five years, Corbyn’s Labour renders this country so weak economically, that we finally get to take OUT of the EU like the EU’s poorest member states get to currently.

Everyone on the take from the EU - gets their cake and eats it.
Some newcomers who were not benefiting out of the EU before, and probably voted Leave - now realize that there is a silver lining to this “race to the bottom” country we’ve now become.
Plenty of jobs will be created in “Health and Safety” or “Compliance” or “PAYE agencies”, with only those businesses smaller than £1bn in size going under. Every town in the country will effectively become a “company town” in that if you don’t toe the line - you won’t be getting work at the rather polarized local employment bases there. Not good for those outside of a Union, but plenty to cheer about if you voted Remain originally because you believed that “Leave” was nothing but a Right-Wing wish list.

Some constituencies around the country will be dissolved, and Parliament will be made smaller, but a lot more powerful in the infliction of EU mandates upon our population.

Most of the seats liquidated will be Non-Labour held seats of course, but a way will be found to make sure that certain seats like Vauxhall or Leyton Wanstead or Luton - are the token Labour seats to be liquidated at this time.

EU mandate number one will be adopting the Euro, and transferring all the bullion currently in the vaults at the Bank of England to Germany, to prop up the ailing Deutsche Bank there, who’ve printed rather more of their fiat currency than their actual intrinsic assets should normally permit… No one will be permitted to have a job - unless they are paid in Euros, which in time can be deleted from people’s bank accounts by way of “punishment” for non-compliance for any NWO policies that ordinary working people might attempt to circumvent via the use of “cash”, in particular old UK coins that strangely seem to hold some value, long after the issued sterling banknotes of Britain get de-commissioned as legal tender…

EU mandate number two - will be rendering any action against migrants as being a “crime against humanity” for which you will be arrested, transferred to the Hague, and then bumped off in a holding cell awaiting trial like previous people thus charged… This will probably be the fate of persons such as Tommy Robinson, Nigel Farage, and anyone else Right of Karl Marx who continues to campaign as an activist against the EU, now considered to be outlaws and committing Treason…

EU mandate number three - will be to invade East Ukraine, only to find that America refuses to join in to help, but refuses to help Britain out either, as we’ve already crossed the floor by this point, and will no longer be worth saving as far as the Western Hemisphere is concerned. WWIII is averted, but without nukes - nothing gets to stop a massive Red Army invasion that only came about because the EU invaded Russian-held territory. No one gets to win WWIII perhaps, but if WWIII is averted in favour of an “honest and conventional” war instead - then the army with the most ground troops wins - as it always does.

EU legacy number four - will be to be totally forgotten by history, once the threads of civilization break down to the extent that we can no longer record any history of our own.

For all we know, this has happened at least once in the past, around 8000BC… Climate change likely played a part in that as well, if the geological and archaelogical record is anything to go by.
None of this will help us of course, because those who didn’t learn from history - are doomed to repeat it.

Or… We can stop this in it’s tracks, by our political leaders doing what it said on the tin - and just getting on with our lives with what we, the public - have already decided.

There should be a heavy price to pay by any incumbent politician, civil servant, or public speaker - for attempting to change our minds on something we’ve already made up our minds upon.

I would only agree to a second referendum if and ONLY if - all parliament resign their seats, and make way for a house full of shiny new MPs from a clean, former non-political background.

The incumbents of course - won’t agree to this, any more than the majority of the public will agree to a second referendum, which only those who support the EU - seem to be interested in holding… Odd that!