Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If you can’t join them, beat them: Denmark, football, Maastric

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited June 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If you can’t join them, beat them: Denmark, football, Maastricht and Brexit’s genesis

They shouldn’t even have been there, and had it not been for the disintegration of Yugoslavia, they wouldn’t have been. However, they didn’t let their second chance go to waste and as the leaders of the twelve EC members met in Lisbon, the plucky Danes overturned the natural order of things and defeated Germany’s assumed unstoppable progress.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    This is a bit of a strange one, it seems a top Netflix bod for been fired for using the n word in a meeting about the use of the n word (and other sensitive words / phrases).

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/jonathan-friedland-exits-netflix-1122675
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    There is a school of thought that says that had Britain refused to ratify, either the other countries would have signed their own agreement or they would have waited for a change of mind in the UK. I don’t think either assertion is right. To have tried to have pushed ahead with the Euro outside the structures of the EU would have been practically difficult: those who tried to would have had to have created a parallel organisation. That would have had a political spillover, to the extent that France, which only just ratified Maastricht (by 51-49) might not have done so without the guarantees that the Euro being overseen within the EC/EU institutions brought.
    Who knows, but a parallel organization worked for Schengen, don't see why it wouldn't have worked for the Euro. A 51-49 referendum is basically a coin flip so I guess it's possible that some particular interaction of institutional butterfly wings would have made it flip the other way, but I don't think the French voters were particularly motivated by "guarantees from being overseen within EC/EU institutions". I think it's just as plausible to say that Eurozone integration would have moved faster if they'd shaken off the British earlier.

    As for the EEC not being "political" then somehow becoming political at Maastricht, this is a bit mad. It was always political, but if really have to pick a decisive point on that journey then it would be the Single European Act not Maastricht. British Conservatives like to pin everything on Maastricht to avoid messing up their Thatcher mythology.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766

    There is a school of thought that says that had Britain refused to ratify, either the other countries would have signed their own agreement or they would have waited for a change of mind in the UK. I don’t think either assertion is right. To have tried to have pushed ahead with the Euro outside the structures of the EU would have been practically difficult: those who tried to would have had to have created a parallel organisation. That would have had a political spillover, to the extent that France, which only just ratified Maastricht (by 51-49) might not have done so without the guarantees that the Euro being overseen within the EC/EU institutions brought.
    Who knows, but a parallel organization worked for Schengen, don't see why it wouldn't have worked for the Euro. A 51-49 referendum is basically a coin flip so I guess it's possible that some particular interaction of institutional butterfly wings would have made it flip the other way, but I don't think the French voters were particularly motivated by "guarantees from being overseen within EC/EU institutions". I think it's just as plausible to say that Eurozone integration would have moved faster if they'd shaken off the British earlier.

    As for the EEC not being "political" then somehow becoming political at Maastricht, this is a bit mad. It was always political, but if really have to pick a decisive point on that journey then it would be the Single European Act not Maastricht. British Conservatives like to pin everything on Maastricht to avoid messing up their Thatcher mythology.

    Peter Bone agrees with you re the Single European Act. He described Maastricht - IIRC - as a pimple on the arse that was the SEA.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164
    Interesting piece David, thank you.

    Not that we should be too critical of the politicians of 1991-3. For one thing, we don’t know that their prime motive wasn’t right – after all, Germany’s strength was enough of a problem within the Euro; what greater problems might it have caused had it been freer to determine its own tax, spending and interest rate policies?

    I find this really odd. Surely the Euro has made Germany more powerful not less. And what problems did Kohl envisage? He must really have had a low opinion of his countrymen/women to think that the horrors of the past could be repeated.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    This is a bit of a strange one, it seems a top Netflix bod for been fired for using the n word in a meeting about the use of the n word (and other sensitive words / phrases).

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/jonathan-friedland-exits-netflix-1122675

    Doesn't seem all that strange to me. That's not a word you can use at work everyone knows that.

    Why use the actual n-word and not the phrase n-word like you did?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    edited June 2018
    Good morning, everyone.

    Good article, Mr. Herdson. I especially agree with the line about us wanting neither to be within nor without the EU. The UK likes the economics but not the politics, yet the EU's deranged federalist fantasies and cramming together, inextricably, those two aspects put us in an invidious position.

    Of course, had the promised Lisbon referendum been held, that would've acted as a strong signal we didn't like the direction the organisation was going in. But Brown preferred to renege on a manifesto pledge.

    Edited extra bit: final practice starts at midday. Qualifying and race times are (around) 3pm.
  • Less than 2 weeks ago, you could have backed England at 20/1 to win the World Cup.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Putney, I believe Croatia's odds have fallen even more. Belgium's have gone down a spot too.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I’m trying to work out the optimal point for laying England. After Panama but before Belgium?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    edited June 2018
    F1: apparently the driver suggestion for improving the French GP is to move it back to Magny-Cours.

    Bit of a risk of three dull races in a row.

    Edited extra bit: Mr. Meeks, assuming you think Belgium will win, seems like a good moment.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    On topic, the past is another country of which we know little. The Europe of the early 1990s was still reeling from the collapse of Communism and Western European moderate democratic values were dominant but not entrenched. Leaders were looking to see how they could best entrench them.

    They succeeded for a generation. I’m far from convinced that the current failures can be blamed on decisions taken then.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Meeks, it'd be interesting to know how the likes of Golden Dawn are doing in Greece nowadays.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052

    I’m trying to work out the optimal point for laying England. After Panama but before Belgium?

    I would say there was value already. Quite a few bigger teams have faltered already, but it was very nearly a draw against Tunisia.

    Spain or Portugal for me. Portugal has the better odds.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766

    Mr. Meeks, it'd be interesting to know how the likes of Golden Dawn are doing in Greece nowadays.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Greek_legislative_election

    7-9% for Golden Dawn.

    ND are on about 35%, and SYRIZA are in the low 20s.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. 1000, cheers.

    It's interesting that the UK has taken drastic action in voting to leave the EU but the two main parties remain strong in polling terms. Of course, one of those has been taken over by the far left...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766

    Mr. 1000, cheers.

    It's interesting that the UK has taken drastic action in voting to leave the EU but the two main parties remain strong in polling terms. Of course, one of those has been taken over by the far left...

    I know, and Labour's even worse.

    (As an aside, while PASOK in Greece bears most - internal - responsibility for the financial crisis there, the ND government of Konstantinos Karamanlis was guilty of running budget deficits during the Greek boom prior to the GFC. ND has got off very lightly for some very poor decisions.)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Morning all. A good history lesson from Mr Herdson, thanks as always.

    Today is the second anniversary of the momentous EU referendum, those who don’t want to watch F1 or football might be interested in BBC Parliament Channel’s replay of the mad night we all stayed up with @AndyJS’s spreadsheet - starting just before 10am today.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Foxy said:

    I’m trying to work out the optimal point for laying England. After Panama but before Belgium?

    I would say there was value already. Quite a few bigger teams have faltered already, but it was very nearly a draw against Tunisia.

    Spain or Portugal for me. Portugal has the better odds.
    It is still early -- many teams, including England, have not even played their second game -- but I am inclined to agree. The draw might be opening up for England and the layers have taken their eye off the ball. Although still outsiders, England, Portugal and Croatia may represent a smidge of value. I'd say England is on a par with Belgium yet we are 11/1 generally and they are 8/1.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,563
    The infamous Copyright Directive rolls on. This is a decent article on the state of play:
    https://gizmodo.com/[object Object]
    Explaining what’s wrong with these two points of the legislation in detail is difficult because the articles themselves are so vague. That’s the primary issue for critics. Both articles make unprecedented demands on anyone operating a popular website to monitor copyrighted material and to pay fees to news organizations when linking out to their articles. Defenders of the plan say that critics are exaggerating because of assumptions they’re making about how the legislation will be implemented....
    That last bir reminds me of something we might have heard of before relating to Europea legislation....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. B, and will it be retroactive, as sites remain up? So if a PB article linked to a newspaper article in 2008, would PB have to pay tax on that?

    The EU's off its head.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Sandpit said:

    Morning all. A good history lesson from Mr Herdson, thanks as always.

    Today is the second anniversary of the momentous EU referendum, those who don’t want to watch F1 or football might be interested in BBC Parliament Channel’s replay of the mad night we all stayed up with @AndyJS’s spreadsheet - starting just before 10am today.

    Spoiler alert:

    https://youtu.be/1TmUP1StPf0?t=6h40m6s
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,008
    I couldn't agree more.

    The UK should never have signed the Maastricht Treaty.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    The photograph shows a massive tit very attractive to suckers.

    And a Love Island contestant...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Nigelb said:

    The infamous Copyright Directive rolls on. This is a decent article on the state of play:
    https://gizmodo.com/[object Object]
    Explaining what’s wrong with these two points of the legislation in detail is difficult because the articles themselves are so vague. That’s the primary issue for critics. Both articles make unprecedented demands on anyone operating a popular website to monitor copyrighted material and to pay fees to news organizations when linking out to their articles. Defenders of the plan say that critics are exaggerating because of assumptions they’re making about how the legislation will be implemented....
    That last bir reminds me of something we might have heard of before relating to Europea legislation....

    Yet another great example of politicians not understanding technology, the EU basically want a walled garden Internet of newspapers and shopping channels, with no links or discussions allowed. No wonder we voted to leave.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    On topic, with regard to Kohl although I'm no expert isn't it the case rather that because of the Second World War he had effectively rejected his German identity - which comes with, shall we say, awkward baggage - and thought of himself as European? That is to say, in constructing the EU he was fulfilling his fantasy of ceasing to be German, rather than trying to restrain his fellow countrymen?

    He once tried to impress on Thatcher by his outlook, habits, language etc. that he was European, not German. How far he succeeded may be judged by her first comment on getting to the plane: 'God, that man's so German!'
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Sandpit said:

    Morning all. A good history lesson from Mr Herdson, thanks as always.

    Today is the second anniversary of the momentous EU referendum, those who don’t want to watch F1 or football might be interested in BBC Parliament Channel’s replay of the mad night we all stayed up with @AndyJS’s spreadsheet - starting just before 10am today.

    Today is also the last day of Royal Ascot.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,563
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    The infamous Copyright Directive rolls on. This is a decent article on the state of play:
    https://gizmodo.com/[object Object]
    Explaining what’s wrong with these two points of the legislation in detail is difficult because the articles themselves are so vague. That’s the primary issue for critics. Both articles make unprecedented demands on anyone operating a popular website to monitor copyrighted material and to pay fees to news organizations when linking out to their articles. Defenders of the plan say that critics are exaggerating because of assumptions they’re making about how the legislation will be implemented....
    That last bir reminds me of something we might have heard of before relating to Europea legislation....

    Yet another great example of politicians not understanding technology, the EU basically want a walled garden Internet of newspapers and shopping channels, with no links or discussions allowed. No wonder we voted to leave.
    Leaving won’t help much in escaping the effects of this.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. B, indeed, but it does highlight the complete ****ing ineptitude/malevolence of the EU's bureaucracy.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761
    edited June 2018
    Was there not an article linked (we should enjoy this while we can) to last week which indicated that Kohl thought that Germany could only be persuaded to give up the mighty Deutschmark during the period of relative weakness as they absorbed and rebuilt East Germany?

    I think that there were concerns that the addition of another 17m people would make Germany over dominant. It was why Thatcher instinctively opposed German unification but that proved unstoppable. The Euro was thought to be a way of constraining German power. Not sure that has worked.

    I am also not sure I agree that the SEA was more important than Maastricht either. the SEA was designed to make the common market a reality by tackling the NTBs that the CJE had not managed to strike down and, importantly for the UK even then, to move on the concept of the common market to the field of services. The latter did require an extension of competence of the EEC institutions but it was really more of the same.

    Maastricht was much, much bolder in its concepts. It was really Delors' baby and his answer to the left wing charge that the EU was a right wing trading club designed to do down the workers (which was of course behind the hostility in the Labour party). He sought to balance this by making it a social institution and the source of workers rights, fundamental freedoms and social justice. He was spectacularly successful and most thinking lefties (this excluding Corbyn of course) have been instinctively supportive of the EU ever since.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,543
    edited June 2018
    ydoethur said:

    On topic, with regard to Kohl although I'm no expert isn't it the case rather that because of the Second World War he had effectively rejected his German identity - which comes with, shall we say, awkward baggage - and thought of himself as European? That is to say, in constructing the EU he was fulfilling his fantasy of ceasing to be German, rather than trying to restrain his fellow countrymen?

    He once tried to impress on Thatcher by his outlook, habits, language etc. that he was European, not German. How far he succeeded may be judged by her first comment on getting to the plane: 'God, that man's so German!'

    This interesting article by a German journalist reckons Kohl was more than averagely nationalistic for a German politician of the time. This was his link to the conservative hinterland. He had a genuine conservatism that went alongside a strongly held but pragmatic internationalism. He also thought the Nazi excesses were crimes done to Germany rather than by Germans. A complicated character.

    https://twitter.com/thomasklau/status/1007959569354690561
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841

    Foxy said:

    I’m trying to work out the optimal point for laying England. After Panama but before Belgium?

    I would say there was value already. Quite a few bigger teams have faltered already, but it was very nearly a draw against Tunisia.

    Spain or Portugal for me. Portugal has the better odds.
    It is still early -- many teams, including England, have not even played their second game -- but I am inclined to agree. The draw might be opening up for England and the layers have taken their eye off the ball. Although still outsiders, England, Portugal and Croatia may represent a smidge of value. I'd say England is on a par with Belgium yet we are 11/1 generally and they are 8/1.
    How in the world does your and Foxy's statements agree ?!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,563
    ydoethur said:

    On topic, with regard to Kohl although I'm no expert isn't it the case rather that because of the Second World War he had effectively rejected his German identity - which comes with, shall we say, awkward baggage - and thought of himself as European? That is to say, in constructing the EU he was fulfilling his fantasy of ceasing to be German, rather than trying to restrain his fellow countrymen?

    He once tried to impress on Thatcher by his outlook, habits, language etc. that he was European, not German. How far he succeeded may be judged by her first comment on getting to the plane: 'God, that man's so German!'

    Well he did end up an ‘Honorary Citizen of Europe’...
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    DavidL said:

    Was there not an article linked (we should enjoy this while we can) to last week which indicated that Kohl thought that Germany could only be persuaded to give up the mighty Deutschmark during the period of relative weakness as they absorbed and rebuilt East Germany?

    I think that there were concerns that the addition of another 17m people would make Germany over dominant. It was why Thatcher instinctively opposed German unification but that proved unstoppable. The Euro was thought to be a way of constraining German power. Not sure that has worked.

    I am also not sure I agree that the SEA was more important than Maastricht either. the SEA was designed to make the common market a reality by tackling the NTBs that the CJE had not managed to strike down and, importantly for the UK even then, to move on the concept of the common market to the field of services. The latter did require an extension of competence of the EEC institutions but it was really more of the same.

    Maastricht was much, much bolder in its concepts. It was really Delors' baby and his answer to the left wing charge that the EU was a right wing trading club designed to do down the workers (which was of course behind the hostility in the Labour party). He sought to balance this by making it a social institution and the source of workers rights, fundamental freedoms and social justice. He was spectacularly successful and most thinking lefties (this excluding Corbyn of course) have been instinctively supportive of the EU ever since.

    Delors was spectacularly successful, but at a price, he turned enough of the U.K. electorate (mostly on the right) from mildly positive to so negative they were set on the exit path.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    There is a school of thought that says that had Britain refused to ratify, either the other countries would have signed their own agreement or they would have waited for a change of mind in the UK. I don’t think either assertion is right. To have tried to have pushed ahead with the Euro outside the structures of the EU would have been practically difficult: those who tried to would have had to have created a parallel organisation. That would have had a political spillover, to the extent that France, which only just ratified Maastricht (by 51-49) might not have done so without the guarantees that the Euro being overseen within the EC/EU institutions brought.
    Who knows, but a parallel organization worked for Schengen, don't see why it wouldn't have worked for the Euro. A 51-49 referendum is basically a coin flip so I guess it's possible that some particular interaction of institutional butterfly wings would have made it flip the other way, but I don't think the French voters were particularly motivated by "guarantees from being overseen within EC/EU institutions". I think it's just as plausible to say that Eurozone integration would have moved faster if they'd shaken off the British earlier.

    As for the EEC not being "political" then somehow becoming political at Maastricht, this is a bit mad. It was always political, but if really have to pick a decisive point on that journey then it would be the Single European Act not Maastricht. British Conservatives like to pin everything on Maastricht to avoid messing up their Thatcher mythology.

    I don't think I'm particularly a Thatcherite so have no reason to defend her record for its own sake.

    Certainly the SEA introduced structural reforms, including the extension of QMV, in order to assist the integration of the Single Market. But the question isn't just about the voting mechanism but what it's used for. The SM was the culmination of the economic project; the final stage of the EEC, if you like. Maastricht quite consciously went a lot further, building a role for the EU with Home and Foreign Affairs, and with a Social agenda, as well as the even more significant creation of the Euro (which was not necessary for the purpose of the SM, though it did aid it a little further).

    In any case, the national veto on day-to-day affairs was becoming increasingly unsustainable even in 1986, when the SEA was signed. What was designed for six was becoming inappropriate for the expanded EC of twelve, and would have been ridiculous in today's EU of 28.

    The SEA certainly rebooted the European integrationist project but it was Maastricht which firmly embedded it as a primarily political project. Until then, while there had always been that political edge, it was possible to ignore that as not particularly significant for practical purposes; after Maastricht, it wasn't.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761
    On England I agree with Alastair. Lay after they have defeated the mighty Panama but before they meet Belgium (and reality).
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited June 2018
    That's a very interesting read. It's difficult to escape the conclusion that without the UK the EU will go from strength to strength and will likely become the powerhouse the US was (and still is to an extent though it's moral authority has been irreparably damaged)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761
    welshowl said:

    DavidL said:

    Was there not an article linked (we should enjoy this while we can) to last week which indicated that Kohl thought that Germany could only be persuaded to give up the mighty Deutschmark during the period of relative weakness as they absorbed and rebuilt East Germany?

    I think that there were concerns that the addition of another 17m people would make Germany over dominant. It was why Thatcher instinctively opposed German unification but that proved unstoppable. The Euro was thought to be a way of constraining German power. Not sure that has worked.

    I am also not sure I agree that the SEA was more important than Maastricht either. the SEA was designed to make the common market a reality by tackling the NTBs that the CJE had not managed to strike down and, importantly for the UK even then, to move on the concept of the common market to the field of services. The latter did require an extension of competence of the EEC institutions but it was really more of the same.

    Maastricht was much, much bolder in its concepts. It was really Delors' baby and his answer to the left wing charge that the EU was a right wing trading club designed to do down the workers (which was of course behind the hostility in the Labour party). He sought to balance this by making it a social institution and the source of workers rights, fundamental freedoms and social justice. He was spectacularly successful and most thinking lefties (this excluding Corbyn of course) have been instinctively supportive of the EU ever since.

    Delors was spectacularly successful, but at a price, he turned enough of the U.K. electorate (mostly on the right) from mildly positive to so negative they were set on the exit path.
    That is true. But the likes of Chuka Umunna oppose Brexit to this day because of the way Delors changed the institution.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,543
    ydoethur said:

    On topic, with regard to Kohl although I'm no expert isn't it the case rather that because of the Second World War he had effectively rejected his German identity - which comes with, shall we say, awkward baggage - and thought of himself as European? That is to say, in constructing the EU he was fulfilling his fantasy of ceasing to be German, rather than trying to restrain his fellow countrymen?

    He once tried to impress on Thatcher by his outlook, habits, language etc. that he was European, not German. How far he succeeded may be judged by her first comment on getting to the plane: 'God, that man's so German!'

    On Thatcher diplomacy. Her policy of "Keeping the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down" has been shot to pieces by Brexit, Putin and Trump.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited June 2018
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    The infamous Copyright Directive rolls on. This is a decent article on the state of play:
    https://gizmodo.com/[object Object]
    Explaining what’s wrong with these two points of the legislation in detail is difficult because the articles themselves are so vague. That’s the primary issue for critics. Both articles make unprecedented demands on anyone operating a popular website to monitor copyrighted material and to pay fees to news organizations when linking out to their articles. Defenders of the plan say that critics are exaggerating because of assumptions they’re making about how the legislation will be implemented....
    That last bir reminds me of something we might have heard of before relating to Europea legislation....

    Yet another great example of politicians not understanding technology, the EU basically want a walled garden Internet of newspapers and shopping channels, with no links or discussions allowed. No wonder we voted to leave.
    Leaving won’t help much in escaping the effects of this.
    The biggest effect of this is that EU-based websites relocate to non-EU countries such as the UK or USA.

    A number of mainly US-based websites have blocked European visitors as a result of res no reason to think the same actions won’t happen with this legislation. Good news for those selling VPN and proxy services outside the EU.

    Edit: another thought that crossed my mind yesterday, what if we can persuade Donald Trump, when he visits the UK next month, to announce that he’s exempting British cars from his new 20% tariff on EU cars? We all know he can’t do that while we are in the EU, but his US audience wouldn’t understand that and it would focus minds here and in Brussels that there are advantages for us of being outside.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,435
    welshowl said:

    DavidL said:

    Was there not an article linked (we should enjoy this while we can) to last week which indicated that Kohl thought that Germany could only be persuaded to give up the mighty Deutschmark during the period of relative weakness as they absorbed and rebuilt East Germany?

    I think that there were concerns that the addition of another 17m people would make Germany over dominant. It was why Thatcher instinctively opposed German unification but that proved unstoppable. The Euro was thought to be a way of constraining German power. Not sure that has worked.

    I am also not sure I agree that the SEA was more important than Maastricht either. the SEA was designed to make the common market a reality by tackling the NTBs that the CJE had not managed to strike down and, importantly for the UK even then, to move on the concept of the common market to the field of services. The latter did require an extension of competence of the EEC institutions but it was really more of the same.

    Maastricht was much, much bolder in its concepts. It was really Delors' baby and his answer to the left wing charge that the EU was a right wing trading club designed to do down the workers (which was of course behind the hostility in the Labour party). He sought to balance this by making it a social institution and the source of workers rights, fundamental freedoms and social justice. He was spectacularly successful and most thinking lefties (this excluding Corbyn of course) have been instinctively supportive of the EU ever since.

    Delors was spectacularly successful, but at a price, he turned enough of the U.K. electorate (mostly on the right) from mildly positive to so negative they were set on the exit path.
    A great read......I would arguethat the populist UK right, aided by the Daily Mail, Express and a misguided sense of nostalgia of a B&W 1950s Britain were what turned folk against the EU -we suffer from a very powerful nostalgia and to this day I see it as one of the national malaise
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,876

    welshowl said:

    DavidL said:

    Was there not an article linked (we should enjoy this while we can) to last week which indicated that Kohl thought that Germany could only be persuaded to give up the mighty Deutschmark during the period of relative weakness as they absorbed and rebuilt East Germany?

    I think that there were concerns that the addition of another 17m people would make Germany over dominant. It was why Thatcher instinctively opposed German unification but that proved unstoppable. The Euro was thought to be a way of constraining German power. Not sure that has worked.

    I am also not sure I agree that the SEA was more important than Maastricht either. the SEA was designed to make the common market a reality by tackling the NTBs that the CJE had not managed to strike down and, importantly for the UK even then, to move on the concept of the common market to the field of services. The latter did require an extension of competence of the EEC institutions but it was really more of the same.

    Maastricht was much, much bolder in its concepts. It was really Delors' baby and his answer to the left wing charge that the EU was a right wing trading club designed to do down the workers (which was of course behind the hostility in the Labour party). He sought to balance this by making it a social institution and the source of workers rights, fundamental freedoms and social justice. He was spectacularly successful and most thinking lefties (this excluding Corbyn of course) have been instinctively supportive of the EU ever since.

    Delors was spectacularly successful, but at a price, he turned enough of the U.K. electorate (mostly on the right) from mildly positive to so negative they were set on the exit path.
    A great read......I would arguethat the populist UK right, aided by the Daily Mail, Express and a misguided sense of nostalgia of a B&W 1950s Britain were what turned folk against the EU -we suffer from a very powerful nostalgia and to this day I see it as one of the national malaise

    Nostalgia is the dominant force on the left and the right. The UK gives every sign of being a country that believes its best days are in the past.

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    tlg86 said:

    Interesting piece David, thank you.

    Not that we should be too critical of the politicians of 1991-3. For one thing, we don’t know that their prime motive wasn’t right – after all, Germany’s strength was enough of a problem within the Euro; what greater problems might it have caused had it been freer to determine its own tax, spending and interest rate policies?

    I find this really odd. Surely the Euro has made Germany more powerful not less. And what problems did Kohl envisage? He must really have had a low opinion of his countrymen/women to think that the horrors of the past could be repeated.

    Kohl believed, rightly, I think, that a unified and economically successful Germany would be a destabilising force in its own right. That its economy would be so dominant that the Bundesbank would either have to become a de facto ECB, but without the input of other countries, or it would have to act in its own interests and so create ripple effects that they simply had to manage. The was the likelihood that it would be thrust into a leadership position that it was unsuited for (and as the migrant issue has proven, does not work well), or that it would generate a counter-momentum and create an anti-German alliance of other countries, presumably led by France, which would destroy the EEC's central working relationship, between Paris and Bonn.

    He didn't necessarily think particularly badly of his contemporary countrymen; it was more the natural dynamics of international relations he was worried about - though his Nazi-era experiences inevitably left a deep mark.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    welshowl said:

    DavidL said:

    Was there not an article linked (we should enjoy this while we can) to last week which indicated that Kohl thought that Germany could only be persuaded to give up the mighty Deutschmark during the period of relative weakness as they absorbed and rebuilt East Germany?

    I think that there were concerns that the addition of another 17m people would make Germany over dominant. It was why Thatcher instinctively opposed German unification but that proved unstoppable. The Euro was thought to be a way of constraining German power. Not sure that has worked.

    I am also not sure I agree that the SEA was more important than Maastricht either. the SEA was designed to make the common market a reality by tackling the NTBs that the CJE had not managed to strike down and, importantly for the UK even then, to move on the concept of the common market to the field of services. The latter did require an extension of competence of the EEC institutions but it was really more of the same.

    Maastricht was much, much bolder in its concepts. It was really Delors' baby and his answer to the left wing charge that the EU was a right wing trading club designed to do down the workers (which was of course behind the hostility in the Labour party). He sought to balance this by making it a social institution and the source of workers rights, fundamental freedoms and social justice. He was spectacularly successful and most thinking lefties (this excluding Corbyn of course) have been instinctively supportive of the EU ever since.

    Delors was spectacularly successful, but at a price, he turned enough of the U.K. electorate (mostly on the right) from mildly positive to so negative they were set on the exit path.
    A great read......I would arguethat the populist UK right, aided by the Daily Mail, Express and a misguided sense of nostalgia of a B&W 1950s Britain were what turned folk against the EU -we suffer from a very powerful nostalgia and to this day I see it as one of the national malaise

    Nostalgia is the dominant force on the left and the right. The UK gives every sign of being a country that believes its best days are in the past.

    Aren't we constantly told they were?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    On topic, the past is another country of which we know little. The Europe of the early 1990s was still reeling from the collapse of Communism and Western European moderate democratic values were dominant but not entrenched. Leaders were looking to see how they could best entrench them.

    They succeeded for a generation. I’m far from convinced that the current failures can be blamed on decisions taken then.

    They can be blamed, to an extent, on those decisions, which had a natural momentum to them. It would, of course, be foolish to *only* blame those decisions.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761
    Kohl has undoubtedly proved right on the cohesive power of the Euro. Both the Greek experience and the current Italian situation has demonstrated that there is no acceptable way out of the Euro; the cost is prohibitive. That means when crises hit the inevitable consequence is more power to the centre, greater budgetary control and, well, ever closer union.

    Thank the sky fairy that we never joined.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Unless he has a parallel universe in which the UK did not leave the EU, I'm not sure how seriously to take him. It's costing the treasury £440mn a week, yet borrowing figures at at their best in 13 years?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,876
    edited June 2018

    Foxy said:

    I’m trying to work out the optimal point for laying England. After Panama but before Belgium?

    I would say there was value already. Quite a few bigger teams have faltered already, but it was very nearly a draw against Tunisia.

    Spain or Portugal for me. Portugal has the better odds.
    It is still early -- many teams, including England, have not even played their second game -- but I am inclined to agree. The draw might be opening up for England and the layers have taken their eye off the ball. Although still outsiders, England, Portugal and Croatia may represent a smidge of value. I'd say England is on a par with Belgium yet we are 11/1 generally and they are 8/1.

    England can't defend. Whoever wins the World Cup will be able to. We should just enjoy the ride. I think this England team will come home with an enhanced reputation. And the good news is that we are now beginning to produce high quality players from U16 up. The only challenge will be in finding them teams to play for.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    RobD said:

    Unless he has a parallel universe in which the UK did not leave the EU, I'm not sure how seriously to take him. It's costing the treasury £440mn a week, yet borrowing figures at at their best in 13 years?
    That'll be why he is using the world 'estimate'. Like cosmology no counter example experiment in economics can ever precisely take place. But I'm sure he does his best.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761
    RobD said:

    Unless he has a parallel universe in which the UK did not leave the EU, I'm not sure how seriously to take him. It's costing the treasury £440mn a week, yet borrowing figures at at their best in 13 years?
    Yep. £440m is £23bn. So, according to him, our current deficit would be £17bn? He's having a laugh.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,543

    welshowl said:

    DavidL said:

    Was there not an article linked (we should enjoy this while we can) to last week which indicated that Kohl thought that Germany could only be persuaded to give up the mighty Deutschmark during the period of relative weakness as they absorbed and rebuilt East Germany?

    I think that there were concerns that the addition of another 17m people would make Germany over dominant. It was why Thatcher instinctively opposed German unification but that proved unstoppable. The Euro was thought to be a way of constraining German power. Not sure that has worked.

    I am also not sure I agree that the SEA was more important than Maastricht either. the SEA was designed to make the common market a reality by tackling the NTBs that the CJE had not managed to strike down and, importantly for the UK even then, to move on the concept of the common market to the field of services. The latter did require an extension of competence of the EEC institutions but it was really more of the same.

    Maastricht was much, much bolder in its concepts. It was really Delors' baby and his answer to the left wing charge that the EU was a right wing trading club designed to do down the workers (which was of course behind the hostility in the Labour party). He sought to balance this by making it a social institution and the source of workers rights, fundamental freedoms and social justice. He was spectacularly successful and most thinking lefties (this excluding Corbyn of course) have been instinctively supportive of the EU ever since.

    Delors was spectacularly successful, but at a price, he turned enough of the U.K. electorate (mostly on the right) from mildly positive to so negative they were set on the exit path.
    A great read......I would arguethat the populist UK right, aided by the Daily Mail, Express and a misguided sense of nostalgia of a B&W 1950s Britain were what turned folk against the EU -we suffer from a very powerful nostalgia and to this day I see it as one of the national malaise

    Nostalgia is the dominant force on the left and the right. The UK gives every sign of being a country that believes its best days are in the past.

    Astute point. "Global Britain" is a image of bygone age that people prefer to a disconcerting present and future.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited June 2018

    welshowl said:

    DavidL said:

    Was there not an article linked (we should enjoy this while we can) to last week which indicated that Kohl thought that Germany could only be persuaded to give up the mighty Deutschmark during the period of relative weakness as they absorbed and rebuilt East Germany?

    I think that there were concerns that the addition of another 17m people would make Germany over dominant. It was why Thatcher instinctively opposed German unification but that proved unstoppable. The Euro was thought to be a way of constraining German power. Not sure that has worked.

    I am also not sure I agree that the SEA was more important than Maastricht either. the SEA was designed to make the common market a reality by tackling the NTBs that the CJE had not managed to strike down and, importantly for the UK even then, to move on the concept of the common market to the field of services. The latter did require an extension of competence of the EEC institutions but it was really more of the same.

    Maastricht was much, much bolder in its concepts. It was really Delors' baby and his answer to the left wing charge that the EU was a right wing trading club designed to do down the workers (which was of course behind the hostility in the Labour party). He sought to balance this by making it a social institution and the source of workers rights, fundamental freedoms and social justice. He was spectacularly successful and most thinking lefties (this excluding Corbyn of course) have been instinctively supportive of the EU ever since.

    Delors was spectacularly successful, but at a price, he turned enough of the U.K. electorate (mostly on the right) from mildly positive to so negative they were set on the exit path.
    A great read......I would arguethat the populist UK right, aided by the Daily Mail, Express and a misguided sense of nostalgia of a B&W 1950s Britain were what turned folk against the EU -we suffer from a very powerful nostalgia and to this day I see it as one of the national malaise

    Nostalgia is the dominant force on the left and the right. The UK gives every sign of being a country that believes its best days are in the past.

    Compared to a century ago when the British Empire, which still then included India, Canada, Australia and South Africa, was the leading global superpower and economic powerhouse and we had just won WW1 of course the UK's best days are behind us Brexit or no Brexit.

    However obviously we have no interest in restarting the Empire again, we just want to be a free self governing nation able to control its own borders and govern its own affairs and have good relations with most of the world
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Unless he has a parallel universe in which the UK did not leave the EU, I'm not sure how seriously to take him. It's costing the treasury £440mn a week, yet borrowing figures at at their best in 13 years?
    That'll be why he is using the world 'estimate'. Like cosmology no counter example experiment in economics can ever precisely take place. But I'm sure he does his best.
    I think I'll file this with all the other economic forecasts...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052
    edited June 2018
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    The infamous Copyright Directive rolls on. This is a decent article on the state of play:
    https://gizmodo.com/[object Object]
    Explaining what’s wrong with these two points of the legislation in detail is difficult because the articles themselves are so vague. That’s the primary issue for critics. Both articles make unprecedented demands on anyone operating a popular website to monitor copyrighted material and to pay fees to news organizations when linking out to their articles. Defenders of the plan say that critics are exaggerating because of assumptions they’re making about how the legislation will be implemented....
    That last bir reminds me of something we might have heard of before relating to Europea legislation....

    Yet another great example of politicians not understanding technology, the EU basically want a walled garden Internet of newspapers and shopping channels, with no links or discussions allowed. No wonder we voted to leave.
    Leaving won’t help much in escaping the effects of this.
    Edit: another thought that crossed my mind yesterday, what if we can persuade Donald Trump, when he visits the UK next month, to announce that he’s exempting British cars from his new 20% tariff on EU cars? We all know he can’t do that while we are in the EU, but his US audience wouldn’t understand that and it would focus minds here and in Brussels that there are advantages for us of being outside.
    Considering how Trump has imposed tarriffs on Canada, America's most loyal ally, I cannot see that, or it being popular in Trump heartlands.

    Trump is a New York real estate magnate. He sees every deal as a way to screw people, and that includes his own staff and suppliers. I see no reason why we in the UK would be exempt. He has no friends because he is a narcissist sociopath.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    Foxy said:

    I’m trying to work out the optimal point for laying England. After Panama but before Belgium?

    I would say there was value already. Quite a few bigger teams have faltered already, but it was very nearly a draw against Tunisia.

    Spain or Portugal for me. Portugal has the better odds.
    It is still early -- many teams, including England, have not even played their second game -- but I am inclined to agree. The draw might be opening up for England and the layers have taken their eye off the ball. Although still outsiders, England, Portugal and Croatia may represent a smidge of value. I'd say England is on a par with Belgium yet we are 11/1 generally and they are 8/1.

    England can't defend. Whoever wins the World Cup will be able to. We should just enjoy the ride. I think this England team will come home with an enhanced reputation. And the good news is that we are now beginning to produce high quality players from U16 up. The only challenge will be in finding them teams to play for.

    I doubt England will win the World Cup or even reach the final but looking at the draw now I think England could reach a World Cup semi-final for the first time since 1990 under Bobby Robson
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,543
    RobD said:

    Unless he has a parallel universe in which the UK did not leave the EU, I'm not sure how seriously to take him. It's costing the treasury £440mn a week, yet borrowing figures at at their best in 13 years?
    He distinguishes between structural deficit and cyclical deficit. We' have come out of a major worldwide depression so finances.should be positive at this point. According.to Springford they are not as positive as they should be at this point in the cycle and will make the subsequent downturn worse. Ie the cost of Brexit is structural. Treasuries deal in cycles.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005
    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    Unless he has a parallel universe in which the UK did not leave the EU, I'm not sure how seriously to take him. It's costing the treasury £440mn a week, yet borrowing figures at at their best in 13 years?
    Yep. £440m is £23bn. So, according to him, our current deficit would be £17bn? He's having a laugh.
    2% hit to GDP seems quite feasible. Many similar economies have had a good couple of years.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    edited June 2018
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    The infamous Copyright Directive rolls on. This is a decent article on the state of play:
    https://gizmodo.com/[object Object]
    Explaining what’s wrong with these two points of the legislation in detail is difficult because the articles themselves are so vague. That’s the primary issue for critics. Both articles make unprecedented demands on anyone operating a popular website to monitor copyrighted material and to pay fees to news organizations when linking out to their articles. Defenders of the plan say that critics are exaggerating because of assumptions they’re making about how the legislation will be implemented....
    That last bir reminds me of something we might have heard of before relating to Europea legislation....

    Yet another great example of politicians not understanding technology, the EU basically want a walled garden Internet of newspapers and shopping channels, with no links or discussions allowed. No wonder we voted to leave.
    Leaving won’t help much in escaping the effects of this.
    Edit: another thought that crossed my mind yesterday, what if we can persuade Donald Trump, when he visits the UK next month, to announce that he’s exempting British cars from his new 20% tariff on EU cars? We all know he can’t do that while we are in the EU, but his US audience wouldn’t understand that and it would focus minds here and in Brussels that there are advantages for us of being outside.
    Considering how Trump has imposed tarriffs on Canada, America's most loyal ally, I cannot see that, or it being popular in Trump heartlands.

    Trump is a New York real estate magnate. He sees every deal as a way to screw people, and that includes his own staff and suppliers. I see no reason why we in the UK would be exempt. He has no friends because he is a narcissist sociopath.
    I think Trump sees other countries as America's trophy wives, if they aren't putting out he withdraws the chequebook.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,876
    RobD said:

    welshowl said:

    DavidL said:

    Was there not an article linked (we should enjoy this while we can) to last week which indicated that Kohl thought that Germany could only be persuaded to give up the mighty Deutschmark during the period of relative weakness as they absorbed and rebuilt East Germany?

    I think that there were concerns that the addition of another 17m people would make Germany over dominant. It was why Thatcher instinctively opposed German unification but that proved unstoppable. The Euro was thought to be a way of constraining German power. Not sure that has worked.

    I am also not sure I agree that the SEA was more important than Maastricht either. the SEA was designed to make the common market a reality by tackling the NTBs that the CJE had not managed to strike down and, importantly for the UK even then, to move on the concept of the common market to the field of services. The latter did require an extension of competence of the EEC institutions but it was really more of the same.

    Maastricht was much, much bolder in its concepts. It was really Delors' baby and his answer to the left wing charge that the EU was a right wing trading club designed to do down the workers (which was of course behind the hostility in the Labour party). He sought to balance this by making it a social institution and the source of workers rights, fundamental freedoms and social justice. He was spectacularly successful and most thinking lefties (this excluding Corbyn of course) have been instinctively supportive of the EU ever since.

    Delors was spectacularly successful, but at a price, he turned enough of the U.K. electorate (mostly on the right) from mildly positive to so negative they were set on the exit path.
    A great read......I would arguethat the populist UK right, aided by the Daily Mail, Express and a misguided sense of nostalgia of a B&W 1950s Britain were what turned folk against the EU -we suffer from a very powerful nostalgia and to this day I see it as one of the national malaise

    Nostalgia is the dominant force on the left and the right. The UK gives every sign of being a country that believes its best days are in the past.

    Aren't we constantly told they were?

    Yep. We are fed nostalgia and we lap it up. We are frightened of the future and don’t want it to happen.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    FF43 said:

    welshowl said:

    DavidL said:

    Was there not an article linked (we should enjoy this while we can) to last week which indicated that Kohl thought that Germany could only be persuaded to give up the mighty Deutschmark during the period of relative weakness as they absorbed and rebuilt East Germany?

    I think that there were concerns that the addition of another 17m people would make Germany over dominant. It was why Thatcher instinctively opposed German unification but that proved unstoppable. The Euro was thought to be a way of constraining German power. Not sure that has worked.

    I am also not sure I agree that the SEA was more important than Maastricht either. the SEA was designed to make the common market a reality by tackling the NTBs that the CJE had not managed to strike down and, importantly for the UK even then, to move on the concept of the common market to the field of services. The latter did require an extension of competence of the EEC institutions but it was really more of the same.

    Maastricht was much, much bolder in its concepts. It was really Delors' baby and his answer to the left wing charge that the EU was a right wing trading club designed to do down the workers (which was of course behind the hostility in the Labour party). He sought to balance this by making it a social institution and the source of workers rights, fundamental freedoms and social justice. He was spectacularly successful and most thinking lefties (this excluding Corbyn of course) have been instinctively supportive of the EU ever since.

    Delors was spectacularly successful, but at a price, he turned enough of the U.K. electorate (mostly on the right) from mildly positive to so negative they were set on the exit path.
    A great read......I would arguethat the populist UK right, aided by the Daily Mail, Express and a misguided sense of nostalgia of a B&W 1950s Britain were what turned folk against the EU -we suffer from a very powerful nostalgia and to this day I see it as one of the national malaise

    Nostalgia is the dominant force on the left and the right. The UK gives every sign of being a country that believes its best days are in the past.

    Astute point. "Global Britain" is a image of bygone age that people prefer to a disconcerting present and future.
    Believe me that that’s not how the rest of the world see a G7 country, member of the Security Council, soon to be the 4th biggest voice on the World Trade Organisation and one of the easiest countries in the world to do business or set up a business.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    The infamous Copyright Directive rolls on. This is a decent article on the state of play:
    https://gizmodo.com/[object Object]
    Explaining what’s wrong with these two points of the legislation in detail is difficult because the articles themselves are so vague. That’s the primary issue for critics. Both articles make unprecedented demands on anyone operating a popular website to monitor copyrighted material and to pay fees to news organizations when linking out to their articles. Defenders of the plan say that critics are exaggerating because of assumptions they’re making about how the legislation will be implemented....
    That last bir reminds me of something we might have heard of before relating to Europea legislation....

    Yet another great example of politicians not understanding technology, the EU basically want a walled garden Internet of newspapers and shopping channels, with no links or discussions allowed. No wonder we voted to leave.
    Leaving won’t help much in escaping the effects of this.
    Edit: another thought that crossed my mind yesterday, what if we can persuade Donald Trump, when he visits the UK next month, to announce that he’s exempting British cars from his new 20% tariff on EU cars? We all know he can’t do that while we are in the EU, but his US audience wouldn’t understand that and it would focus minds here and in Brussels that there are advantages for us of being outside.
    Considering how Trump has imposed tarriffs on Canada, America's most loyal ally, I cannot see that, or it being popular in Trump heartlands.

    Trump is a New York real estate magnate. He sees every deal as a way to screw people, and that includes his own staff and suppliers. I see no reason why we in the UK would be exempt. He has no friends because he is a narcissist sociopath.
    Given the UK barely has any car makers now anyway beyond Aston Martins and Minis compared to BMW, Mercedes, Fiat or Renault or Toyota and those we do produce tend to be Japanese Trump could easily exempt British owned carmakers from the new tariffs and see no real impact in the rustbelt especially as most Trump voters backed Brexit anyway I doubt they would be bothered
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Unless he has a parallel universe in which the UK did not leave the EU, I'm not sure how seriously to take him. It's costing the treasury £440mn a week, yet borrowing figures at at their best in 13 years?
    That'll be why he is using the world 'estimate'. Like cosmology no counter example experiment in economics can ever precisely take place. But I'm sure he does his best.
    I think I'll file this with all the other economic forecasts...
    The useful part is he describes his methodology. One to revisit in a decade perhaps, I'd file it under too early to test as yet.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052

    Foxy said:

    I’m trying to work out the optimal point for laying England. After Panama but before Belgium?

    I would say there was value already. Quite a few bigger teams have faltered already, but it was very nearly a draw against Tunisia.

    Spain or Portugal for me. Portugal has the better odds.
    It is still early -- many teams, including England, have not even played their second game -- but I am inclined to agree. The draw might be opening up for England and the layers have taken their eye off the ball. Although still outsiders, England, Portugal and Croatia may represent a smidge of value. I'd say England is on a par with Belgium yet we are 11/1 generally and they are 8/1.

    England can't defend. Whoever wins the World Cup will be able to. We should just enjoy the ride. I think this England team will come home with an enhanced reputation. And the good news is that we are now beginning to produce high quality players from U16 up. The only challenge will be in finding them teams to play for.

    I think that we have defended fairly well in recent matches, but have struggled to score, particularly if Kane is nullified.

    We should get out of the group, but I cannot see us getting past the QF. If we come out with 9 points then I may start to believe.

    2 weeks today I am off to the Semi-Final for a week. Should be fun.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    DavidL said:

    Kohl has undoubtedly proved right on the cohesive power of the Euro. Both the Greek experience and the current Italian situation has demonstrated that there is no acceptable way out of the Euro; the cost is prohibitive. That means when crises hit the inevitable consequence is more power to the centre, greater budgetary control and, well, ever closer union.

    Thank the sky fairy that we never joined.

    The Euro is like the gold standard. So long as you have a flexible economy that allows internal devaluations, you'll do fine. (Which, ironically, means the UK would probably have been OK.) Countries that changed their labour markets to deal with the new reality - Spain, Belgium, Ireland, and to a lesser extent Portugal - have done OK. But you can't have an economic model like Greece or Italy, and be a happy Euro member. Change or quit. Staying in, and sticking with your old model will just lead to unhappiness, slow growth and high levels of unemployment.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,563
    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic, with regard to Kohl although I'm no expert isn't it the case rather that because of the Second World War he had effectively rejected his German identity - which comes with, shall we say, awkward baggage - and thought of himself as European? That is to say, in constructing the EU he was fulfilling his fantasy of ceasing to be German, rather than trying to restrain his fellow countrymen?

    He once tried to impress on Thatcher by his outlook, habits, language etc. that he was European, not German. How far he succeeded may be judged by her first comment on getting to the plane: 'God, that man's so German!'

    This interesting article by a German journalist reckons Kohl was more than averagely nationalistic for a German politician of the time. This was his link to the conservative hinterland. He had a genuine conservatism that went alongside a strongly held but pragmatic internationalism. He also thought the Nazi excesses were crimes done to Germany rather than by Germans. A complicated character.

    https://twitter.com/thomasklau/status/1007959569354690561
    He was also a bit of a crook.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    There is a school of thought that says that had Britain refused to ratify, either the other countries would have signed their own agreement or they would have waited for a change of mind in the UK. I don’t think either assertion is right. To have tried to have pushed ahead with the Euro outside the structures of the EU would have been practically difficult: those who tried to would have had to have created a parallel organisation. That would have had a political spillover, to the extent that France, which only just ratified Maastricht (by 51-49) might not have done so without the guarantees that the Euro being overseen within the EC/EU institutions brought.
    Who knows, but a parallel organization worked for Schengen, don't see why it wouldn't have worked for the Euro. A 51-49 referendum is basically a coin flip so I guess it's possible that some particular interaction of institutional butterfly wings would have made it flip the other way, but I don't think the French voters were particularly motivated by "guarantees from being overseen within EC/EU institutions". I think it's just as plausible to say that Eurozone integration would have moved faster if they'd shaken off the British earlier.

    As for the EEC not being "political" then somehow becoming political at Maastricht, this is a bit mad. It was always political, but if really have to pick a decisive point on that journey then it would be the Single European Act not Maastricht. British Conservatives like to pin everything on Maastricht to avoid messing up their Thatcher mythology.

    The Single European Act was an economic act which created the Single Market and free movement of goods, services and people, it was only when the latter included the post Cold War free movement of people from lower wage Eastern Europe it created a problem for the higher waged Western Europe (especially as Blair did not introduce transition controls).

    It was not a primarily political act like the Maastricht, Nice or Lisbon Treaties pushing towards a Federal EU or indeed the creation of the Euro
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,563

    Foxy said:

    I’m trying to work out the optimal point for laying England. After Panama but before Belgium?

    I would say there was value already. Quite a few bigger teams have faltered already, but it was very nearly a draw against Tunisia.

    Spain or Portugal for me. Portugal has the better odds.
    It is still early -- many teams, including England, have not even played their second game -- but I am inclined to agree. The draw might be opening up for England and the layers have taken their eye off the ball. Although still outsiders, England, Portugal and Croatia may represent a smidge of value. I'd say England is on a par with Belgium yet we are 11/1 generally and they are 8/1.

    England can't defend. Whoever wins the World Cup will be able to. We should just enjoy the ride. I think this England team will come home with an enhanced reputation. And the good news is that we are now beginning to produce high quality players from U16 up. The only challenge will be in finding them teams to play for.

    Perhaps we should draft in a couple of our rugby players.... ?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44581546
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766

    Mr. B, indeed, but it does highlight the complete ****ing ineptitude/malevolence of the EU's bureaucracy.

    Simply: the EU does not have a proper feedback mechanism between voters or other interested parties and the rule setting bodies. I do not believe they are actively malevolent (unlike hunchman). I do believe that without proper feedback mechanisms, they will struggle to make good decisions.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited June 2018
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    I’m trying to work out the optimal point for laying England. After Panama but before Belgium?

    I would say there was value already. Quite a few bigger teams have faltered already, but it was very nearly a draw against Tunisia.

    Spain or Portugal for me. Portugal has the better odds.
    It is still early -- many teams, including England, have not even played their second game -- but I am inclined to agree. The draw might be opening up for England and the layers have taken their eye off the ball. Although still outsiders, England, Portugal and Croatia may represent a smidge of value. I'd say England is on a par with Belgium yet we are 11/1 generally and they are 8/1.

    England can't defend. Whoever wins the World Cup will be able to. We should just enjoy the ride. I think this England team will come home with an enhanced reputation. And the good news is that we are now beginning to produce high quality players from U16 up. The only challenge will be in finding them teams to play for.

    I think that we have defended fairly well in recent matches, but have struggled to score, particularly if Kane is nullified.

    We should get out of the group, but I cannot see us getting past the QF. If we come out with 9 points then I may start to believe.

    2 weeks today I am off to the Semi-Final for a week. Should be fun.
    As things stand we need to beat Mexico most likely in the quarter final unless we beat Belgium when we would face Germany or Brazil to go to the semi final, perhaps to face Portugal
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    Counterfactuals are great. They require absolutely no proof whatsoever.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    I’m trying to work out the optimal point for laying England. After Panama but before Belgium?

    I would say there was value already. Quite a few bigger teams have faltered already, but it was very nearly a draw against Tunisia.

    Spain or Portugal for me. Portugal has the better odds.
    It is still early -- many teams, including England, have not even played their second game -- but I am inclined to agree. The draw might be opening up for England and the layers have taken their eye off the ball. Although still outsiders, England, Portugal and Croatia may represent a smidge of value. I'd say England is on a par with Belgium yet we are 11/1 generally and they are 8/1.

    England can't defend. Whoever wins the World Cup will be able to. We should just enjoy the ride. I think this England team will come home with an enhanced reputation. And the good news is that we are now beginning to produce high quality players from U16 up. The only challenge will be in finding them teams to play for.

    I think that we have defended fairly well in recent matches, but have struggled to score, particularly if Kane is nullified.

    We should get out of the group, but I cannot see us getting past the QF. If we come out with 9 points then I may start to believe.

    2 weeks today I am off to the Semi-Final for a week. Should be fun.
    I hope you get to see Harry Kane bang in a hat trick and take us into the final!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,876
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    The infamous Copyright Directive rolls on. This is a decent article on the state of play:
    https://gizmodo.com/[object Object]
    Explaining what’s wrong with these two points of the legislation in detail is difficult because the articles themselves are so vague. That’s the primary issue for critics. Both articles make unprecedented demands on anyone operating a popular website to monitor copyrighted material and to pay fees to news organizations when linking out to their articles. Defenders of the plan say that critics are exaggerating because of assumptions they’re making about how the legislation will be implemented....
    That last bir reminds me of something we might have heard of before relating to Europea legislation....

    Yet another great example of politicians not understanding technology, the EU basically want a walled garden Internet of newspapers and shopping channels, with no links or discussions allowed. No wonder we voted to leave.
    Leaving won’t help much in escaping the effects of this.
    Edit: another thought that crossed my mind yesterday, what if we can persuade Donald Trump, when he visits the UK next month, to announce that he’s exempting British cars from his new 20% tariff on EU cars? We all know he can’t do that while we are in the EU, but his US audience wouldn’t understand that and it would focus minds here and in Brussels that there are advantages for us of being outside.
    Considering how Trump has imposed tarriffs on Canada, America's most loyal ally, I cannot see that, or it being popular in Trump heartlands.

    Trump is a New York real estate magnate. He sees every deal as a way to screw people, and that includes his own staff and suppliers. I see no reason why we in the UK would be exempt. He has no friends because he is a narcissist sociopath.
    Given the UK barely has any car makers now anyway beyond Aston Martins and Minis compared to BMW, Mercedes, Fiat or Renault or Toyota and those we do produce tend to be Japanese Trump could easily exempt British owned carmakers from the new tariffs and see no real impact in the rustbelt especially as most Trump voters backed Brexit anyway I doubt they would be bothered

    Most Trump voters have absolutely no idea what Brexit is.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    The infamous Copyright Directive rolls on. This is a decent article on the state of play:
    https://gizmodo.com/[object Object]
    Explaining what’s wrong with these two points of the legislation in detail is difficult because the articles themselves are so vague. That’s the primary issue for critics. Both articles make unprecedented demands on anyone operating a popular website to monitor copyrighted material and to pay fees to news organizations when linking out to their articles. Defenders of the plan say that critics are exaggerating because of assumptions they’re making about how the legislation will be implemented....
    That last bir reminds me of something we might have heard of before relating to Europea legislation....

    Yet another great example of politicians not understanding technology, the EU basically want a walled garden Internet of newspapers and shopping channels, with no links or discussions allowed. No wonder we voted to leave.
    Leaving won’t help much in escaping the effects of this.
    Edit: another thought that crossed my mind yesterday, what if we can persuade Donald Trump, when he visits the UK next month, to announce that he’s exempting British cars from his new 20% tariff on EU cars? We all know he can’t do that while we are in the EU, but his US audience wouldn’t understand that and it would focus minds here and in Brussels that there are advantages for us of being outside.
    Considering how Trump has imposed tarriffs on Canada, America's most loyal ally, I cannot see that, or it being popular in Trump heartlands.

    Trump is a New York real estate magnate. He sees every deal as a way to screw people, and that includes his own staff and suppliers. I see no reason why we in the UK would be exempt. He has no friends because he is a narcissist sociopath.
    Given the UK barely has any car makers now anyway beyond Aston Martins and Minis compared to BMW, Mercedes, Fiat or Renault or Toyota and those we do produce tend to be Japanese Trump could easily exempt British owned carmakers from the new tariffs and see no real impact in the rustbelt especially as most Trump voters backed Brexit anyway I doubt they would be bothered
    Yes, most of the cars we export to the US are high-end models. The only mass-market car is I think the Honda Jazz from Swindon, that’s also made in US factories.

    A reciprocal deal for tarrif-free trade in manufactured good and components should be relatively straightforward for the UK and US to agree.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,543
    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Unless he has a parallel universe in which the UK did not leave the EU, I'm not sure how seriously to take him. It's costing the treasury £440mn a week, yet borrowing figures at at their best in 13 years?
    That'll be why he is using the world 'estimate'. Like cosmology no counter example experiment in economics can ever precisely take place. But I'm sure he does his best.
    I think I'll file this with all the other economic forecasts...
    The useful part is he describes his methodology. One to revisit in a decade perhaps, I'd file it under too early to test as yet.
    Agree that the methodology is key. It's far better to set out out assumptions and hypotheses so they can be tested than to say, I don't like this conclusion so I'm going to dismiss it out of hand. However I don't think you have to wait ten years to test them, when it has stopped being relevant. The counterfactuals are there. They can be challenged.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    I’m trying to work out the optimal point for laying England. After Panama but before Belgium?

    I would say there was value already. Quite a few bigger teams have faltered already, but it was very nearly a draw against Tunisia.

    Spain or Portugal for me. Portugal has the better odds.
    It is still early -- many teams, including England, have not even played their second game -- but I am inclined to agree. The draw might be opening up for England and the layers have taken their eye off the ball. Although still outsiders, England, Portugal and Croatia may represent a smidge of value. I'd say England is on a par with Belgium yet we are 11/1 generally and they are 8/1.

    England can't defend. Whoever wins the World Cup will be able to. We should just enjoy the ride. I think this England team will come home with an enhanced reputation. And the good news is that we are now beginning to produce high quality players from U16 up. The only challenge will be in finding them teams to play for.

    I think that we have defended fairly well in recent matches, but have struggled to score, particularly if Kane is nullified.

    We should get out of the group, but I cannot see us getting past the QF. If we come out with 9 points then I may start to believe.

    2 weeks today I am off to the Semi-Final for a week. Should be fun.
    As things stand if we beat Mexico most likely in the quarter final we go to the semi final, perhaps to face Portugal
    Isn't "If we beat Mexico" a bit like saying "If Taylor Swift calls me and asks me out on a date"?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,876
    Sandpit said:

    FF43 said:

    welshowl said:

    DavidL said:

    Was there not an article linked (we should enjoy this while we can) to last week which indicated that Kohl thought that Germany could only be persuaded to give up the mighty Deutschmark during the period of relative weakness as they absorbed and rebuilt East Germany?

    I think that there were concerns that the addition of another 17m people would make Germany over dominant. It was why Thatcher instinctively opposed German unification but that proved unstoppable. The Euro was thought to be a way of constraining German power. Not sure that has worked.

    I am also not sure I agree that the SEA was more important than Maastricht either. the SEA was designed to make the common market a reality by tackling the NTBs that the CJE had not managed to strike down and, importantly for the UK even then, to move on the concept of the common market to the field of services. The latter did require an extension of competence of the EEC institutions but it was really more of the same.

    Maastricht was much, much bolder in its concepts. It was really Delors' baby and his answer to the left wing charge that the EU was a right wing trading club designed to do down the workers (which was of course behind the hostility in the Labour party). He sought to balance this by making it a social institution and the source of workers rights, fundamental freedoms and social justice. He was spectacularly successful and most thinking lefties (this excluding Corbyn of course) have been instinctively supportive of the EU ever since.

    Delors was spectacularly successful, but at a price, he turned enough of the U.K. electorate (mostly on the right) from mildly positive to so negative they were set on the exit path.
    A great read......I would arguethat the populist UK right, aided by the Daily Mail, Express and a misguided sense of nostalgia of a B&W 1950s Britain were what turned folk against the EU -we suffer from a very powerful nostalgia and to this day I see it as one of the national malaise

    Nostalgia is the dominant force on the left and the right. The UK gives every sign of being a country that believes its best days are in the past.

    Astute point. "Global Britain" is a image of bygone age that people prefer to a disconcerting present and future.
    Believe me that that’s not how the rest of the world see a G7 country, member of the Security Council, soon to be the 4th biggest voice on the World Trade Organisation and one of the easiest countries in the world to do business or set up a business.

    The rest of the world sees a country inflicting harm on itself for no discernable gain.

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    RobD said:

    Unless he has a parallel universe in which the UK did not leave the EU, I'm not sure how seriously to take him. It's costing the treasury £440mn a week, yet borrowing figures at at their best in 13 years?
    There are loons out there who predict Armageddon all the time.. There was a loon economist who predicted 5 million unemployed.. I forget his name as he has likewise been forgotten.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,563
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    I’m trying to work out the optimal point for laying England. After Panama but before Belgium?

    I would say there was value already. Quite a few bigger teams have faltered already, but it was very nearly a draw against Tunisia.

    Spain or Portugal for me. Portugal has the better odds.
    It is still early -- many teams, including England, have not even played their second game -- but I am inclined to agree. The draw might be opening up for England and the layers have taken their eye off the ball. Although still outsiders, England, Portugal and Croatia may represent a smidge of value. I'd say England is on a par with Belgium yet we are 11/1 generally and they are 8/1.

    England can't defend. Whoever wins the World Cup will be able to. We should just enjoy the ride. I think this England team will come home with an enhanced reputation. And the good news is that we are now beginning to produce high quality players from U16 up. The only challenge will be in finding them teams to play for.

    I think that we have defended fairly well in recent matches, but have struggled to score, particularly if Kane is nullified.

    We should get out of the group, but I cannot see us getting past the QF. If we come out with 9 points then I may start to believe.

    2 weeks today I am off to the Semi-Final for a week. Should be fun.
    As things stand if we beat Mexico most likely in the quarter final we go to the semi final, perhaps to face Portugal
    Isn't "If we beat Mexico" a bit like saying "If Taylor Swift calls me and asks me out on a date"?
    Not really.
    Unlikely results are surprisingly common in football.

    Though I suppose she might stumble across your recent videos....
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    RobD said:

    Unless he has a parallel universe in which the UK did not leave the EU, I'm not sure how seriously to take him. It's costing the treasury £440mn a week, yet borrowing figures at at their best in 13 years?
    There are loons out there who predict Armageddon all the time.. There was a loon economist who predicted 5 million unemployed.. I forget his name as he has likewise been forgotten.
    Aaah Here it is

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/6224723/Tory-public-spending-cuts-could-push-unemployment-to-5-million.html
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    rcs1000 said:

    Mr. B, indeed, but it does highlight the complete ****ing ineptitude/malevolence of the EU's bureaucracy.

    Simply: the EU does not have a proper feedback mechanism between voters or other interested parties and the rule setting bodies. I do not believe they are actively malevolent (unlike hunchman). I do believe that without proper feedback mechanisms, they will struggle to make good decisions.
    Yes, the only people seemingly able to talk to the EU are large businesses with lobbying presence in Brussels. So Brussels keeps churning out regulations that favour these large businesses, but hurt everyone else and impose high barriers to entry in many industries.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,563
    rcs1000 said:

    Mr. B, indeed, but it does highlight the complete ****ing ineptitude/malevolence of the EU's bureaucracy.

    Simply: the EU does not have a proper feedback mechanism between voters or other interested parties and the rule setting bodies. I do not believe they are actively malevolent (unlike hunchman). I do believe that without proper feedback mechanisms, they will struggle to make good decisions.
    Agreed. The ability to chuck the bastards out on a regular basis is the acid test of a functioning democracy.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    rcs1000 said:

    Counterfactuals are great. They require absolutely no proof whatsoever.
    The difficult part is finding a basis of comparison for 2016 and 2017. For me the only poor data we have sent was from Q1 this year, everything else has been within the bounds of expectations. However, given how much the rest of the world slowed down in Q1, it's not easy to apportion all of the slowdown to Brexit. I have no doubt that the leave vote is now delaying investment decisions which is knocking 0.3% off our annualised growth rate IMO. What the government should be doing is announcing matched investment for extending supply chains to deal with the consequences of leaving the customs union. That would encourage companies to invest and take away much of the uncertainty surrounding products with deep supply chains.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    FF43 said:

    welshowl said:

    DavidL said:

    . .

    Delors was spectacularly successful, but at a price, he turned enough of the U.K. electorate (mostly on the right) from mildly positive to so negative they were set on the exit path.
    A great read......I would arguethat the populist UK right, aided by the Daily Mail, Express and a misguided sense of nostalgia of a B&W 1950s Britain were what turned folk against the EU -we suffer from a very powerful nostalgia and to this day I see it as one of the national malaise

    Nostalgia is the dominant force on the left and the right. The UK gives every sign of being a country that believes its best days are in the past.

    Astute point. "Global Britain" is a image of bygone age that people prefer to a disconcerting present and future.
    Believe me that that’s not how the rest of the world see a G7 country, member of the Security Council, soon to be the 4th biggest voice on the World Trade Organisation and one of the easiest countries in the world to do business or set up a business.

    The rest of the world sees a country inflicting harm on itself for no discernable gain.

    Disagree. 90% of world growth in the coming years will be outside the EU. As that organisation becomes increasingly protectionist, insular and overbearing with regulation, the biggest opportunities lie elsewhere. Like every change it will take some adjustment, but those companies willing to seize the opportunities will do very well in the future. A decade from now, I believe that most people will only be complaining that we didn’t leave the EU earlier.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    The infamous Copyright Directive rolls on. This is a decent article on the state of play:
    https://gizmodo.com/[object Object]
    Explaining what’s wrong with these two points of the legislation in detail is difficult because the articles themselves are so vague. That’s the primary issue for critics. Both articles make unprecedented demands on anyone operating a popular website to monitor copyrighted material and to pay fees to news organizations when linking out to their articles. Defenders of the plan say that critics are exaggerating because of assumptions they’re making about how the legislation will be implemented....
    That last bir reminds me of something we might have heard of before relating to Europea legislation....

    Yet another great example of politicians not understanding technology, the EU basically want a walled garden Internet of newspapers and shopping channels, with no links or discussions allowed. No wonder we voted to leave.
    Leaving won’t help much in escaping the effects of this.
    Edit: another thought that crossed my mind yesterday, what if we can persuade Donald Trump, when he visits the UK next month, to announce that he’s exempting British cars from his new 20% tariff on EU cars? We all know he can’t do that while we are in the EU, but his US audience wouldn’t understand that and it would focus minds here and in Brussels that there are advantages for us of being outside.
    Considering how Trump has imposed tarriffs on Canada, America's most loyal ally, I cannot see that, or it being popular in Trump heartlands.

    Trump is a New York real estate magnate. He sees every deal as a way to screw people, and that includes his own staff and suppliers. I see no reason why we in the UK would be exempt. He has no friends because he is a narcissist sociopath.
    Given the UK barely has any car makers now anyway beyond Aston Martins and Minis compared to BMW, Mercedes, Fiat or Renault or Toyota and those we do produce tend to be Japanese Trump could easily exempt British owned carmakers from the new tariffs and see no real impact in the rustbelt especially as most Trump voters backed Brexit anyway I doubt they would be bothered
    Yes, most of the cars we export to the US are high-end models. The only mass-market car is I think the Honda Jazz from Swindon, that’s also made in US factories.

    A reciprocal deal for tarrif-free trade in manufactured good and components should be relatively straightforward for the UK and US to agree.
    I don't believe the US would do a deal that didn't include agriculture. (See Canada.)
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    rcs1000 said:

    Counterfactuals are great. They require absolutely no proof whatsoever.
    I wonder if he made any predictions as to what happened to the economy after a Leave vote.

    That would make an interesting comparison to the actual out-turn.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Sandpit said:


    Yes, most of the cars we export to the US are high-end models. The only mass-market car is I think the Honda Jazz from Swindon, that’s also made in US factories.

    A reciprocal deal for tarrif-free trade in manufactured good and components should be relatively straightforward for the UK and US to agree.

    No it wouldn't the US agriculture lobby would insist that the UK open up its market to their poor quality subsidised crap produce, the UK would decline on safety and quality standards and the talks would break down.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    I’m trying to work out the optimal point for laying England. After Panama but before Belgium?

    I would say there was value already. Quite a few bigger teams have faltered already, but it was very nearly a draw against Tunisia.

    Spain or Portugal for me. Portugal has the better odds.
    It is still early -- many teams, including England, have not even played their second game -- but I am inclined to agree. The draw might be opening up for England and the layers have taken their eye off the ball. Although still outsiders, England, Portugal and Croatia may represent a smidge of value. I'd say England is on a par with Belgium yet we are 11/1 generally and they are 8/1.

    England can't defend. Whoever wins the World Cup will be able to. We should just enjoy the ride. I think this England team will come home with an enhanced reputation. And the good news is that we are now beginning to produce high quality players from U16 up. The only challenge will be in finding them teams to play for.

    I think that we have defended fairly well in recent matches, but have struggled to score, particularly if Kane is nullified.

    We should get out of the group, but I cannot see us getting past the QF. If we come out with 9 points then I may start to believe.

    2 weeks today I am off to the Semi-Final for a week. Should be fun.
    As things stand if we beat Mexico most likely in the quarter final we go to the semi final, perhaps to face Portugal
    Isn't "If we beat Mexico" a bit like saying "If Taylor Swift calls me and asks me out on a date"?
    For the record, we're just going for a drink. It is not a date.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,392
    DavidL said:

    On England I agree with Alastair. Lay after they have defeated the mighty Panama but before they meet Belgium (and reality).

    Three goals for Harry Kane on Sunday?

    A Panama Hat Trick.

    (I'll get my coat, and hat)
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    ydoethur said:

    On topic, with regard to Kohl although I'm no expert isn't it the case rather that because of the Second World War he had effectively rejected his German identity - which comes with, shall we say, awkward baggage - and thought of himself as European? That is to say, in constructing the EU he was fulfilling his fantasy of ceasing to be German, rather than trying to restrain his fellow countrymen?

    He once tried to impress on Thatcher by his outlook, habits, language etc. that he was European, not German. How far he succeeded may be judged by her first comment on getting to the plane: 'God, that man's so German!'

    I think it was after the visit quoted in here:

    https://www.eui.eu/DepartmentsAndCentres/RobertSchumanCentre/Publications/WorkingPapers/9833t

    (search for crypt or Bach)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    I’m trying to work out the optimal point for laying England. After Panama but before Belgium?

    I would say there was value already. Quite a few bigger teams have faltered already, but it was very nearly a draw against Tunisia.

    Spain or Portugal for me. Portugal has the better odds.
    It is still early -- many teams, including England, have not even played their second game -- but I am inclined to agree. The draw might be opening up for England and the layers have taken their eye off the ball. Although still outsiders, England, Portugal and Croatia may represent a smidge of value. I'd say England is on a par with Belgium yet we are 11/1 generally and they are 8/1.

    England can't defend. Whoever wins the World Cup will be able to. We should just enjoy the ride. I think this England team will come home with an enhanced reputation. And the good news is that we are now beginning to produce high quality players from U16 up. The only challenge will be in finding them teams to play for.

    I think that we have defended fairly well in recent matches, but have struggled to score, particularly if Kane is nullified.

    We should get out of the group, but I cannot see us getting past the QF. If we come out with 9 points then I may start to believe.

    2 weeks today I am off to the Semi-Final for a week. Should be fun.
    As things stand we need to beat Mexico most likely in the quarter final unless we beat Belgium when we would face Germany or Brazil to go to the semi final, perhaps to face Portugal
    We have toget out of thre group first, and past the round of 16!

    Panama defended well against Belgium, they will be tough to break down. I suspect that they would be happy with a point, then try to beat Tunisia and go through on goal difference.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    I am sure whoever this is has done his sums and what he says is right enough. But I think this kind of damage is small change compared to all the opportunities we are losing by not playing our part in Europe. The harm Brexit has done to the UK's brand image won't be capable of being measured.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. 1000, the flaws in their internet idiocy are so blatant that they're either malevolent or intensely stupid.

    This isn't unique to EU bureaucrats, we've seen, from all sides, UK MPs who think magic filters and alchemical algorithms can use the mystic power of numbers to make the internet safe/child-friendly for everyone. (And I've not forgotten the demented proposal to destroy encryption). But the EU's propositions are so obviously vile those backing them are damned fools, or just plain villains.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:


    Yes, most of the cars we export to the US are high-end models. The only mass-market car is I think the Honda Jazz from Swindon, that’s also made in US factories.

    A reciprocal deal for tarrif-free trade in manufactured good and components should be relatively straightforward for the UK and US to agree.

    No it wouldn't the US agriculture lobby would insist that the UK open up its market to their poor quality subsidised crap produce, the UK would decline on safety and quality standards and the talks would break down.
    I have a friend who is a lobbyist for a large US agribusiness. His budget to wine and dine Congressmen and Senators and take them on "fact finding trips" is well into six figures, and may be approaching seven.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    FF43 said:

    welshowl said:

    DavidL said:

    . .

    Delors was spectacularly successful, but at a price, he turned enough of the U.K. electorate (mostly on the right) from mildly positive to so negative they were set on the exit path.
    A great read......I would arguethat the populist UK right, aided by the Daily Mail, Express and a misguided sense of nostalgia of a B&W 1950s Britain were what turned folk against the EU -we suffer from a very powerful nostalgia and to this day I see it as one of the national malaise

    Nostalgia is the dominant force on the left and the right. The UK gives every sign of being a country that believes its best days are in the past.

    Astute point. "Global Britain" is a image of bygone age that people prefer to a disconcerting present and future.
    Believe me that that’s not how the rest of the world see a G7 country, member of the Security Council, soon to be the 4th biggest voice on the World Trade Organisation and one of the easiest countries in the world to do business or set up a business.

    The rest of the world sees a country inflicting harm on itself for no discernable gain.

    Disagree. 90% of world growth in the coming years will be outside the EU. As that organisation becomes increasingly protectionist, insular and overbearing with regulation, the biggest opportunities lie elsewhere. Like every change it will take some adjustment, but those companies willing to seize the opportunities will do very well in the future. A decade from now, I believe that most people will only be complaining that we didn’t leave the EU earlier.
    Nope. 10 years to Leave, 10 years of regret, 10 to rejoin.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    I am sure whoever this is has done his sums and what he says is right enough. But I think this kind of damage is small change compared to all the opportunities we are losing by not playing our part in Europe. The harm Brexit has done to the UK's brand image won't be capable of being measured.
    Just like you did your sums yesterday when you claimed the UK government would lose £1.7bn in corporation tax if Airbus UK closed?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited June 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    ....

    Yet another great example of politicians not understanding technology, the EU basically want a walled garden Internet of newspapers and shopping channels, with no links or discussions allowed. No wonder we voted to leave.
    Leaving won’t help much in escaping the effects of this.
    Edit: another thought that crossed my mind yesterday, what if we can persuade Donald Trump, when he visits the UK next month, to announce that he’s exempting British cars from his new 20% tariff on EU cars? We all know he can’t do that while we are in the EU, but his US audience wouldn’t understand that and it would focus minds here and in Brussels that there are advantages for us of being outside.
    Considering how Trump has imposed tarriffs on Canada, America's most loyal ally, I cannot see that, or it being popular in Trump heartlands.

    Trump is a New York real estate magnate. He sees every deal as a way to screw people, and that includes his own staff and suppliers. I see no reason why we in the UK would be exempt. He has no friends because he is a narcissist sociopath.
    Given the UK barely has any car makers now anyway beyond Aston Martins and Minis compared to BMW, Mercedes, Fiat or Renault or Toyota and those we do produce tend to be Japanese Trump could easily exempt British owned carmakers from the new tariffs and see no real impact in the rustbelt especially as most Trump voters backed Brexit anyway I doubt they would be bothered
    Yes, most of the cars we export to the US are high-end models. The only mass-market car is I think the Honda Jazz from Swindon, that’s also made in US factories.

    A reciprocal deal for tarrif-free trade in manufactured good and components should be relatively straightforward for the UK and US to agree.
    I don't believe the US would do a deal that didn't include agriculture. (See Canada.)
    I think a US-UK trade deal would need to be done in stages, otherwise it would be a neverending negotiation as the scope is so big. It makes sense to get agreement on the easy bits first where standards are similar, before moving later to the trickier areas.

    Stage 1 could be for manufactured good and machines, stage 2 for professional services, stages 3 and 4 for the difficult stuff like agri and pharma. If we allowed say 18 months to negotiate and agree each stage, it could lead to the more difficult industries understanding the mutual benefits of agreeing a deal.

    Right now, Trump doesn’t think that Britain is screwing Amercia, this gives us an opportunity.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:


    Yes, most of the cars we export to the US are high-end models. The only mass-market car is I think the Honda Jazz from Swindon, that’s also made in US factories.

    A reciprocal deal for tarrif-free trade in manufactured good and components should be relatively straightforward for the UK and US to agree.

    No it wouldn't the US agriculture lobby would insist that the UK open up its market to their poor quality subsidised crap produce, the UK would decline on safety and quality standards and the talks would break down.
    I have a friend who is a lobbyist for a large US agribusiness. His budget to wine and dine Congressmen and Senators and take them on "fact finding trips" is well into six figures, and may be approaching seven.
    Yes, that's what I meant by, err, insist. That's still one thing Trump should do, drain the swamp. If anything he's made it worse.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005

    RobD said:

    welshowl said:

    DavidL said:

    Was there not an article linked (we should enjoy this while we can) to last week which indicated that Kohl thought that Germany could only be persuaded to give up the mighty Deutschmark during the period of relative weakness as they absorbed and rebuilt East Germany?

    I am also not sure I agree that the SEA was more important than Maastricht either. the SEA was designed to make the common market a reality by tackling the NTBs that the CJE had not managed to strike down and, importantly for the UK even then, to move on the concept of the common market to the field of services. The latter did require an extension of competence of the EEC institutions but it was really more of the same.

    Maastricht was much, much bolder in its concepts. It was really Delors' baby and his answer to the left wing charge that the EU was a right wing trading club designed to do down the workers (which was of course behind the hostility in the Labour party). He sought to balance this by making it a social institution and the source of workers rights, fundamental freedoms and social justice. He was spectacularly successful and most thinking lefties (this excluding Corbyn of course) have been instinctively supportive of the EU ever since.

    Delors was spectacularly successful, but at a price, he turned enough of the U.K. electorate (mostly on the right) from mildly positive to so negative they were set on the exit path.
    A great read......I would arguethat the populist UK right, aided by the Daily Mail, Express and a misguided sense of nostalgia of a B&W 1950s Britain were what turned folk against the EU -we suffer from a very powerful nostalgia and to this day I see it as one of the national malaise

    Nostalgia is the dominant force on the left and the right. The UK gives every sign of being a country that believes its best days are in the past.

    Aren't we constantly told they were?

    Yep. We are fed nostalgia and we lap it up. We are frightened of the future and don’t want it to happen.

    The likes of Thatcher* and Blair have tried to instil a newfound confidence in the country but ended up down a cul de sac. I'm a progressive and believe many things have changed for the better but I'm not really optimistic about the future.

    *In her case it was more about re-creating a previous golden age but it was forward looking and optimistic about itself.
This discussion has been closed.