Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
So Now Even May Has Joined Project Fear
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Jackdaw33. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Slightly cheeky remark there Danny if I may say so. I pay plenty of Tax in the UK and maintain a house here and businesses, so should I not have a an opinion on what happens in the country of my birth because I've had the sheer blind flaming temerity to fall in love with an American and do some work over there as well ( which I'll also be taxed on)?
“Did you know we'll be the first country after March 29, should no transitional trade agreement with the EU be in existence, to rely entirely on WTO trade rules.”
Not quite true as Mauretania alone currently holds that distinction. However it’s hardly surprising. The UK has been prevented for the last 40 years from negotiating its own trade deals so it would be impossible for us to have any trade deals in our own right. WTO terms are very much “terms of last resort” which prevent members from imposing prohibitive tariffs in many areas. Those terms suit many countries when dealing with trade outside areas where they have formal agreements and a huge amount of the UK’s trade is currently conducted on WTO terms where the EU has not managed to conclude a trade deal. You should also bear in mind that Mrs May’s “agreement” has nothing to do with trade. It simply sets out how business will be conducted post-Brexit. A formal trade deal with the EU will follow on later. And if the EU’s record on concluding trade dals is anything to go by, it will be very much later.
“I very much doubt if it can be said that the countries of the world outside the EU all control their own borders and trade.”
I don’t know of any who are compelled, as a condition of a trade deal, to accept unrestricted freedom of movement nor of any who are prevented from concluding other trade deals as they see fit.
But this has all been done to death - and beyond.
Not quite true as Mauretania alone currently holds that distinction. However it’s hardly surprising. The UK has been prevented for the last 40 years from negotiating its own trade deals so it would be impossible for us to have any trade deals in our own right. WTO terms are very much “terms of last resort” which prevent members from imposing prohibitive tariffs in many areas. Those terms suit many countries when dealing with trade outside areas where they have formal agreements and a huge amount of the UK’s trade is currently conducted on WTO terms where the EU has not managed to conclude a trade deal. You should also bear in mind that Mrs May’s “agreement” has nothing to do with trade. It simply sets out how business will be conducted post-Brexit. A formal trade deal with the EU will follow on later. And if the EU’s record on concluding trade dals is anything to go by, it will be very much later.
“I very much doubt if it can be said that the countries of the world outside the EU all control their own borders and trade.”
I don’t know of any who are compelled, as a condition of a trade deal, to accept unrestricted freedom of movement nor of any who are prevented from concluding other trade deals as they see fit.
But this has all been done to death - and beyond.
it's a bit simplistic to suggest that in the 1950s, germany fared better than the uk because it was part of a trading club - the wirtschaftswunder overseen by Konrad Adenauer predated the formulation of the EEC in 1957, and decisions taken by uk governments immediately after the war (such as retaining steam traction on the railways because coal and labour were both cheap, rather than modernising and electrifying as much of Europe did) had the uncommanded side effect of stifling growth.
"(such as retaining steam traction on the railways because coal and labour were both cheap, rather than modernising and electrifying as much of Europe did)"
Somewhat off-topic but interesting nonetheless (to me, as a steam nut, anyway). It is true that coal and labour were cheap when the move to modern forms of traction was delayed in the UK. But the same was true of most continental countries. The principle reason why the UK took longer to modernise its railway motive power than other European countries was that the manufacture of steam locomotives was also under State control (the manufacturing plants were owned and run by British Railways). In most other major European countries (and the USA) this was not the case and the railways simply cancelled their contracts with the steam loco manufacturers and signed up with the diesel and electric loco builders.
Somewhat off-topic but interesting nonetheless (to me, as a steam nut, anyway). It is true that coal and labour were cheap when the move to modern forms of traction was delayed in the UK. But the same was true of most continental countries. The principle reason why the UK took longer to modernise its railway motive power than other European countries was that the manufacture of steam locomotives was also under State control (the manufacturing plants were owned and run by British Railways). In most other major European countries (and the USA) this was not the case and the railways simply cancelled their contracts with the steam loco manufacturers and signed up with the diesel and electric loco builders.
"I love the fact "no brexit at all" is considered a danger."
No Brexit at all certainly is a danger, spathi. Leaving aside the political turbulence such a move will see, it consigns the UK to membership of a declining, protectionist corrupt bloc whose overarching aim is a single Federal State called Europe. If you see no danger in that then the EU is the place for you and you're welcome to it (so long as the UK is no longer a member).
No Brexit at all certainly is a danger, spathi. Leaving aside the political turbulence such a move will see, it consigns the UK to membership of a declining, protectionist corrupt bloc whose overarching aim is a single Federal State called Europe. If you see no danger in that then the EU is the place for you and you're welcome to it (so long as the UK is no longer a member).
I do indeed, Khandro. Though it wasn't as disastrous as the ridiculous political decisions made to cut the project's funding, however. It was ground-breaking technology which needed refining but the government of the day was simply not prepared to provide the funds. If it had they may have seen the success that the "Pendolino" trains currently in use on the WCML enjoy. Fiat bought the patents for the tilting mechanism developed by BR, ironed out the problems and developed their successful version. The rail industry in the UK when State controlled was always notoriously conservative and institutionally averse to new developments.
However, I fear we are hijacking jackdaw's thread !!!
However, I fear we are hijacking jackdaw's thread !!!
NJ, (with apologies to Jack[and B.Rail] ) I didn't know it was through lack of government funding that it failed. My father, who was responsible for the electrification of the London to Manchester line, seemed to think at the time it was B.R's design fault.
I sometimes travel down from Stuttgart to Zürich on an "ICE" train which follows for some of the journey along the course of the winding River Neckar (by which I live, btw) and it tilts on all the bends, I've never worked out whether it is the carriage which tilts or the track is banked, either way, my coffee never spills.
I sometimes travel down from Stuttgart to Zürich on an "ICE" train which follows for some of the journey along the course of the winding River Neckar (by which I live, btw) and it tilts on all the bends, I've never worked out whether it is the carriage which tilts or the track is banked, either way, my coffee never spills.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.