Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""We are entering a dangerous phase" if Airbus cannot seamlessly move people and products around the European Union, a senior executive has warned. Chief operating officer Tom Williams told MPs that Washington would be "delighted" if that happened. Giving evidence to the Commons Treasury Select Committee, he added that the US would make decisions based on the benefits to US rival Boeing. Airbus employs 6,000 people at its wings plant in Broughton, Flintshire. Mr Williams, also president of commercial aircraft at Airbus, told the committee's inquiry into Britain leaving the EU, that he was "sceptical" that the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was effective at resolving disputes. He added that relying on WTO rules if an EU deal could not be reached was not a "sensible fallback position". Airbus and its main rival, US aircraft giant Boeing, have been in dispute over subsidies for production and development. Airbus had 731 net aircraft orders last year, compared to 668 for Boeing. The prime minister said last week that no deal was better than a bad deal as the UK leaves the EU and negotiates its future relationship. That would mean WTO rules would apply. Treasury committee member, Conservative MP Steve Baker, who is also a chartered aerospace engineer, said it would be possible to develop a full aircraft industry in the UK. Mr Williams suggested that would not be a successful model. Outside north Wales, Airbus employs a further 9,000 workers across the UK. Mr Williams said any EU deal must allow the company to move its products and workers around Europe, including at short notice and without restrictions. The UK government has indicated it may try to make special arrangements for key sectors such as aerospace. If free movement of labour could not be agreed, Mr Williams said the company's concern would be "does the UK not really care about Airbus in the future?" So, just the 15,000 workers possibly affected. " Did anyone ask how many of the 15,000 workers are used across the EU, how often that use is, and how extensive that use is? And the same about workers from the EU? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I live near Filton near Bristol. Pretty much everyone in my neighbourhood works for Airbus, Rolls Royce, or one of their suppliers. Or the MOD. The ones I know go back and forth to Toulouse quite a lot. Although the core cities voted to stay, our district voted to leave, and our MP was crowing about how great the result was at the time. I wonder what the sentiment is now. -Matt" Do they go there for any length of time to work, or is it a case of going for a day or two now and then, for meetings, etc? I've done quite a lot if 'work' abroad, both EU and further afield... Incl USA, Australia, Scandinavia, Africa. Work consisted mainly of meetings, site visits, inspections, negotiations, tests, pre-commissioning.... For between 2 day and 2 weeks. Went to Australia for 2 days once (took me longer traveling!) Never once had any problems with things like visas. Where I have had to get a visa, the forms have taken me minutes. My father used to work extensively in France way before we joined the Common Market... Was always travelling backwards and forwards. No problems. I've got one of his old passports, and see all the customs stamps. Every four or five weeks he was travelling. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
But being hard over on no single market for the EU will cause big issues.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In aerospace/tech industries, people regularly join teams overseas for 6 months to 2 years; How well it will work depends on things like tax status, residency rights, access to healthcare etc. All those things are automatic at present within the EU; In the contrary, exchanging staff with the US in particular, and to a lesser extent with Australua, Canada etc was an administrative pain in the ass. In terms of movement of items; Tech industry imports components; reexports sub assemblies or finished items; Within the EU it's simple; With the US it's a major nightmare; not only on the import/ export tax fronts, but with insane US protectionist laws about technology transfer.( which are clearly about to get worse, given Trump's protectionist policies.) That's even in government to government issues, when there are supposed to be " fast track" exemptions. No doubt mrs May will negotiate a stunning deal with the US
But being hard over on no single market for the EU will cause big issues.
"I work for a small US-based technology startup and we've had to align some of our strategy around the fact that our European-but-relocated-to-the-US CTO's US visa will expire later this year. It is just another headache that you don't want to have to deal with when running a company. I hope we don't end up with the same issues with the EU. But, yes as you said, May is heading over there this week to talk to Trump about increasing US immigration to the UK. I don't quite see why EU immigration is supposedly bad, but US immigration is supposedly OK. Also Trump is going all 'America First' and pulling out of the TPP supposedly to protect US manufacturing. Yet we are supposedly going to be going after trade deals with Asia because supposedly that is better than trade deals with our neighbours. Go figure. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In aerospace/tech industries, people regularly join teams overseas for 6 months to 2 years; How well it will work depends on things like tax status, residency rights, access to healthcare etc. All those things are automatic at present within the EU; In the contrary, exchanging staff with the US in particular, and to a lesser extent with Australua, Canada etc was an administrative pain in the ass. In terms of movement of items; Tech industry imports components; reexports sub assemblies or finished items; Within the EU it's simple; With the US it's a major nightmare; not only on the import/ export tax fronts, but with insane US protectionist laws about technology transfer.( which are clearly about to get worse, given Trump's protectionist policies.) That's even in government to government issues, when there are supposed to be " fast track" exemptions. No doubt mrs May will negotiate a stunning deal with the US
But being hard over on no single market for the EU will cause big issues.
I work for a small US-based technology startup and we've had to align some of our strategy around the fact that our European-but-relocated-to-the-US CTO's US visa will expire later this year. It is just another headache that you don't want to have to deal with when running a company. I hope we don't end up with the same issues with the EU.
But, yes as you said, May is heading over there this week to talk to Trump about increasing US immigration to the UK. I don't quite see why EU immigration is supposedly bad, but US immigration is supposedly OK.
Also Trump is going all 'America First' and pulling out of the TPP supposedly to protect US manufacturing. Yet we are supposedly going to be going after trade deals with Asia because supposedly that is better than trade deals with our neighbours.
Go figure.
-Matt"do you support Trumps protectionism? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In aerospace/tech industries, people regularly join teams overseas for 6 months to 2 years; How well it will work depends on things like tax status, residency rights, access to healthcare etc. All those things are automatic at present within the EU; In the contrary, exchanging staff with the US in particular, and to a lesser extent with Australua, Canada etc was an administrative pain in the ass. In terms of movement of items; Tech industry imports components; reexports sub assemblies or finished items; Within the EU it's simple; With the US it's a major nightmare; not only on the import/ export tax fronts, but with insane US protectionist laws about technology transfer.( which are clearly about to get worse, given Trump's protectionist policies.) That's even in government to government issues, when there are supposed to be " fast track" exemptions. No doubt mrs May will negotiate a stunning deal with the US
But being hard over on no single market for the EU will cause big issues.
I work for a small US-based technology startup and we've had to align some of our strategy around the fact that our European-but-relocated-to-the-US CTO's US visa will expire later this year. It is just another headache that you don't want to have to deal with when running a company. I hope we don't end up with the same issues with the EU.
But, yes as you said, May is heading over there this week to talk to Trump about increasing US immigration to the UK. I don't quite see why EU immigration is supposedly bad, but US immigration is supposedly OK.
Also Trump is going all 'America First' and pulling out of the TPP supposedly to protect US manufacturing. Yet we are supposedly going to be going after trade deals with Asia because supposedly that is better than trade deals with our neighbours.
Go figure.
-Matt
do you support Trumps protectionism?"No. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In aerospace/tech industries, people regularly join teams overseas for 6 months to 2 years; How well it will work depends on things like tax status, residency rights, access to healthcare etc. All those things are automatic at present within the EU; In the contrary, exchanging staff with the US in particular, and to a lesser extent with Australua, Canada etc was an administrative pain in the ass. In terms of movement of items; Tech industry imports components; reexports sub assemblies or finished items; Within the EU it's simple; With the US it's a major nightmare; not only on the import/ export tax fronts, but with insane US protectionist laws about technology transfer.( which are clearly about to get worse, given Trump's protectionist policies.) That's even in government to government issues, when there are supposed to be " fast track" exemptions. No doubt mrs May will negotiate a stunning deal with the US
But being hard over on no single market for the EU will cause big issues.
I work for a small US-based technology startup and we've had to align some of our strategy around the fact that our European-but-relocated-to-the-US CTO's US visa will expire later this year. It is just another headache that you don't want to have to deal with when running a company. I hope we don't end up with the same issues with the EU.
But, yes as you said, May is heading over there this week to talk to Trump about increasing US immigration to the UK. I don't quite see why EU immigration is supposedly bad, but US immigration is supposedly OK.
Also Trump is going all 'America First' and pulling out of the TPP supposedly to protect US manufacturing. Yet we are supposedly going to be going after trade deals with Asia because supposedly that is better than trade deals with our neighbours.
Go figure.
-Matt
do you support Trumps protectionism?
No.
-Matt"but I assume you support the EU's protectionism? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In aerospace/tech industries, people regularly join teams overseas for 6 months to 2 years; How well it will work depends on things like tax status, residency rights, access to healthcare etc. All those things are automatic at present within the EU; In the contrary, exchanging staff with the US in particular, and to a lesser extent with Australua, Canada etc was an administrative pain in the ass. In terms of movement of items; Tech industry imports components; reexports sub assemblies or finished items; Within the EU it's simple; With the US it's a major nightmare; not only on the import/ export tax fronts, but with insane US protectionist laws about technology transfer.( which are clearly about to get worse, given Trump's protectionist policies.) That's even in government to government issues, when there are supposed to be " fast track" exemptions. No doubt mrs May will negotiate a stunning deal with the US
But being hard over on no single market for the EU will cause big issues.
I work for a small US-based technology startup and we've had to align some of our strategy around the fact that our European-but-relocated-to-the-US CTO's US visa will expire later this year. It is just another headache that you don't want to have to deal with when running a company. I hope we don't end up with the same issues with the EU.
But, yes as you said, May is heading over there this week to talk to Trump about increasing US immigration to the UK. I don't quite see why EU immigration is supposedly bad, but US immigration is supposedly OK.
Also Trump is going all 'America First' and pulling out of the TPP supposedly to protect US manufacturing. Yet we are supposedly going to be going after trade deals with Asia because supposedly that is better than trade deals with our neighbours.
Go figure.
-Matt
do you support Trumps protectionism?
No.
-Matt
but I assume you support the EU's protectionism?"No. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In aerospace/tech industries, people regularly join teams overseas for 6 months to 2 years; How well it will work depends on things like tax status, residency rights, access to healthcare etc. All those things are automatic at present within the EU; In the contrary, exchanging staff with the US in particular, and to a lesser extent with Australua, Canada etc was an administrative pain in the ass. In terms of movement of items; Tech industry imports components; reexports sub assemblies or finished items; Within the EU it's simple; With the US it's a major nightmare; not only on the import/ export tax fronts, but with insane US protectionist laws about technology transfer.( which are clearly about to get worse, given Trump's protectionist policies.) That's even in government to government issues, when there are supposed to be " fast track" exemptions. No doubt mrs May will negotiate a stunning deal with the US
But being hard over on no single market for the EU will cause big issues.
I work for a small US-based technology startup and we've had to align some of our strategy around the fact that our European-but-relocated-to-the-US CTO's US visa will expire later this year. It is just another headache that you don't want to have to deal with when running a company. I hope we don't end up with the same issues with the EU.
But, yes as you said, May is heading over there this week to talk to Trump about increasing US immigration to the UK. I don't quite see why EU immigration is supposedly bad, but US immigration is supposedly OK.
Also Trump is going all 'America First' and pulling out of the TPP supposedly to protect US manufacturing. Yet we are supposedly going to be going after trade deals with Asia because supposedly that is better than trade deals with our neighbours.
Go figure.
-Matt
do you support Trumps protectionism?
No.
-Matt
but I assume you support the EU's protectionism?
No.
-Matt"so coming out of a protectionist bloc makes sound economic sense then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Protectionism is both good and bad... It just depends on which side of the wall your on... We are about to be on the wrong side of every wall! "how can that be? So who is it good for and who is it bad for? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Protectionism is both good and bad... It just depends on which side of the wall your on... We are about to be on the wrong side of every wall!
how can that be? So who is it good for and who is it bad for?"it's common sense really it's good for the people being protected and bad for the ones who is not protected | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" how can that be? So who is it good for and who is it bad for?" Have you worn the ink off your question mark key yet? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"how can that be? So who is it good for and who is it bad for?" Really? Well lets see, China is hugely protectionist, its markets are all but closed to imports. It economy seems to be doing just fine... The USA seemed to do very well while it had high import duties but was able to use its economic muscle to force other countries to buy its goods. As it reduced import tariffs its economic fortunes seem to have waned. The EU has done quite nicely out of protectionism too, but again as it reduced import tariffs its fortunes also started to slide. A similar thing can be said with regards to the old Soviet block and USSR. It really did not do well when its trade barriers fell with the dissolution of the USSR. On the other the other side of the coin there are all the third world countries that in reality are the free-trade model that big business wants. I could not name a single one of them that has benefited free trade. So as I said protectionism is both good and bad, the bigger the barriers the better or worse things are (right up to the point where protectionism results in economic or violent war). It just depends which side of the barrier you happen to be on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"how can that be? So who is it good for and who is it bad for? Really? Well lets see, China is hugely protectionist, its markets are all but closed to imports. It economy seems to be doing just fine... The USA seemed to do very well while it had high import duties but was able to use its economic muscle to force other countries to buy its goods. As it reduced import tariffs its economic fortunes seem to have waned. The EU has done quite nicely out of protectionism too, but again as it reduced import tariffs its fortunes also started to slide. A similar thing can be said with regards to the old Soviet block and USSR. It really did not do well when its trade barriers fell with the dissolution of the USSR. On the other the other side of the coin there are all the third world countries that in reality are the free-trade model that big business wants. I could not name a single one of them that has benefited free trade. So as I said protectionism is both good and bad, the bigger the barriers the better or worse things are (right up to the point where protectionism results in economic or violent war). It just depends which side of the barrier you happen to be on. " but basically from this post you are saying that protectionism is more good that bad. So you would support Trumps plans on this? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"how can that be? So who is it good for and who is it bad for? Really? Well lets see, China is hugely protectionist, its markets are all but closed to imports. It economy seems to be doing just fine... The USA seemed to do very well while it had high import duties but was able to use its economic muscle to force other countries to buy its goods. As it reduced import tariffs its economic fortunes seem to have waned. The EU has done quite nicely out of protectionism too, but again as it reduced import tariffs its fortunes also started to slide. A similar thing can be said with regards to the old Soviet block and USSR. It really did not do well when its trade barriers fell with the dissolution of the USSR. On the other the other side of the coin there are all the third world countries that in reality are the free-trade model that big business wants. I could not name a single one of them that has benefited free trade. So as I said protectionism is both good and bad, the bigger the barriers the better or worse things are (right up to the point where protectionism results in economic or violent war). It just depends which side of the barrier you happen to be on. but basically from this post you are saying that protectionism is more good that bad. So you would support Trumps plans on this?" Just like the Labour party on Brexit, willwill seems to be a tad confused on protectionism.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"but basically from this post you are saying that protectionism is more good that bad. So you would support Trumps plans on this?" Again, my answer is yes and no. Protectionism has a roll to play in regulating economic markets as does free trade, in the same way as both public and private ownership have their places in an economy that works in all conditions. the problem come when a single system is used to the exclusion of its counterpart. That is why I always champion a mixed market economy and limited reciprocal protectionism. "Has anyone ever been to broughton?" Yes, it is a bit of an ugly sprawl at the bottom of Sealand Road. The Airbus factory is right next door to the old RAF Sealand and uses what was RAF Sealand's runway.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"but basically from this post you are saying that protectionism is more good that bad. So you would support Trumps plans on this? Again, my answer is yes and no. Protectionism has a roll to play in regulating economic markets as does free trade, in the same way as both public and private ownership have their places in an economy that works in all conditions. the problem come when a single system is used to the exclusion of its counterpart. That is why I always champion a mixed market economy and limited reciprocal protectionism. Has anyone ever been to broughton? Yes, it is a bit of an ugly sprawl at the bottom of Sealand Road. The Airbus factory is right next door to the old RAF Sealand and uses what was RAF Sealand's runway. "fair point, but in a block of 28 diverse and differing economies does a one size fits all form of protectionism give the same advantages to all or do some benefit more than others thereby creating an ever widening wealth gap between those states? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"fair point, but in a block of 28 diverse and differing economies does a one size fits all form of protectionism give the same advantages to all or do some benefit more than others thereby creating an ever widening wealth gap between those states?" Thanks. As with all things there will always be problems with standardisation. But there is no difference (except size of population and distance) between the relative wealth of a home owner in SW1 and someone living in a rented bedsit in a Glasgow tenement, and someone living and working in the UK and a Romanian peasant farmer. The simple fact is like it or not we have all been told half truths and leis by both sides of an economic argument to further their own agenda. The simple truth is those with power very seldomly voluntarily relinquish power permanently and when they do others with power seek to increase theirs. I believe the EU is flawed, but it is better than what went before and we will quickly come to regret leaving it. I think that there are many parallels between where we find ourselves now and the situation in the USA prior to the civil way. The issues are different but the underlying reason for the divorce are the same. It has nothing to do with the economy (that is a red herring), it is about the transfer of power to a larger organisation and therefore loss of power by those who wield it now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In aerospace/tech industries, people regularly join teams overseas for 6 months to 2 years; How well it will work depends on things like tax status, residency rights, access to healthcare etc. All those things are automatic at present within the EU; In the contrary, exchanging staff with the US in particular, and to a lesser extent with Australua, Canada etc was an administrative pain in the ass. In terms of movement of items; Tech industry imports components; reexports sub assemblies or finished items; Within the EU it's simple; With the US it's a major nightmare; not only on the import/ export tax fronts, but with insane US protectionist laws about technology transfer.( which are clearly about to get worse, given Trump's protectionist policies.) That's even in government to government issues, when there are supposed to be " fast track" exemptions. No doubt mrs May will negotiate a stunning deal with the US
But being hard over on no single market for the EU will cause big issues.
I work for a small US-based technology startup and we've had to align some of our strategy around the fact that our European-but-relocated-to-the-US CTO's US visa will expire later this year. It is just another headache that you don't want to have to deal with when running a company. I hope we don't end up with the same issues with the EU.
But, yes as you said, May is heading over there this week to talk to Trump about increasing US immigration to the UK. I don't quite see why EU immigration is supposedly bad, but US immigration is supposedly OK.
Also Trump is going all 'America First' and pulling out of the TPP supposedly to protect US manufacturing. Yet we are supposedly going to be going after trade deals with Asia because supposedly that is better than trade deals with our neighbours.
Go figure.
-Matt
do you support Trumps protectionism?
No.
-Matt
but I assume you support the EU's protectionism?
No.
-Matt
so coming out of a protectionist bloc makes sound economic sense then?
"It's the world's largest integrated free market. One that has clout when dealing with the USA and China. Trump wants protectionism because he's stuck in the past. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"fair point, but in a block of 28 diverse and differing economies does a one size fits all form of protectionism give the same advantages to all or do some benefit more than others thereby creating an ever widening wealth gap between those states? Thanks. As with all things there will always be problems with standardisation. But there is no difference (except size of population and distance) between the relative wealth of a home owner in SW1 and someone living in a rented bedsit in a Glasgow tenement, and someone living and working in the UK and a Romanian peasant farmer. The simple fact is like it or not we have all been told half truths and leis by both sides of an economic argument to further their own agenda. The simple truth is those with power very seldomly voluntarily relinquish power permanently and when they do others with power seek to increase theirs. I believe the EU is flawed, but it is better than what went before and we will quickly come to regret leaving it. I think that there are many parallels between where we find ourselves now and the situation in the USA prior to the civil way. The issues are different but the underlying reason for the divorce are the same. It has nothing to do with the economy (that is a red herring), it is about the transfer of power to a larger organisation and therefore loss of power by those who wield it now." I agree that the economy is a bit of a red herring but why would we want to transfer power to a larger organisation? Some power has already been given away by those who wield it now, what is wrong with taking it back and making those who do wield it more accountable to the people? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree that the economy is a bit of a red herring but why would we want to transfer power to a larger organisation? Some power has already been given away by those who wield it now, what is wrong with taking it back and making those who do wield it more accountable to the people?" Great! We have common ground, we have a meeting of minds, that is so good! And now you ask the really important question: Why would we give up power? The answer is: Because it will benefit us. Now I am going to be presumptuous and ask the subsidiary question of how? At this point you have to examine geo-political and economic history as well as the growth of multinational corporations and conglomerates, and extrapolate. Fact is throughout history progress has been achieved by growth. So far families have combined to form tribes, tribes combined to form nations. Now is the time when nations need to combine to form People. So far it has happened successfully twice, the Chinese people and the American people. It is in both their interests that just like the Russian people of the USSR failed that the European people of the EU fail while they and their multinational business equivalents continue to dominate the world. Until we accept that the cost of being truly independent is to cede our small power to become a part of a larger power we will continue to decline. I will be interested to hear your thoughts on the subject, maybe you can see an alternative path. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree that the economy is a bit of a red herring but why would we want to transfer power to a larger organisation? Some power has already been given away by those who wield it now, what is wrong with taking it back and making those who do wield it more accountable to the people? Great! We have common ground, we have a meeting of minds, that is so good! And now you ask the really important question: Why would we give up power? The answer is: Because it will benefit us. Now I am going to be presumptuous and ask the subsidiary question of how? At this point you have to examine geo-political and economic history as well as the growth of multinational corporations and conglomerates, and extrapolate. Fact is throughout history progress has been achieved by growth. So far families have combined to form tribes, tribes combined to form nations. Now is the time when nations need to combine to form People. So far it has happened successfully twice, the Chinese people and the American people. It is in both their interests that just like the Russian people of the USSR failed that the European people of the EU fail while they and their multinational business equivalents continue to dominate the world. Until we accept that the cost of being truly independent is to cede our small power to become a part of a larger power we will continue to decline. I will be interested to hear your thoughts on the subject, maybe you can see an alternative path." so what you are suggesting is that the EU needs to become a low wage area in order to compete with the likes of China? And why did the USSR fail and are the people of Russia and the other former Soviet states better off now or when they were together? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree that the economy is a bit of a red herring but why would we want to transfer power to a larger organisation? Some power has already been given away by those who wield it now, what is wrong with taking it back and making those who do wield it more accountable to the people? Great! We have common ground, we have a meeting of minds, that is so good! And now you ask the really important question: Why would we give up power? The answer is: Because it will benefit us. Now I am going to be presumptuous and ask the subsidiary question of how? At this point you have to examine geo-political and economic history as well as the growth of multinational corporations and conglomerates, and extrapolate. Fact is throughout history progress has been achieved by growth. So far families have combined to form tribes, tribes combined to form nations. Now is the time when nations need to combine to form People. So far it has happened successfully twice, the Chinese people and the American people. It is in both their interests that just like the Russian people of the USSR failed that the European people of the EU fail while they and their multinational business equivalents continue to dominate the world. Until we accept that the cost of being truly independent is to cede our small power to become a part of a larger power we will continue to decline. I will be interested to hear your thoughts on the subject, maybe you can see an alternative path. so what you are suggesting is that the EU needs to become a low wage area in order to compete with the likes of China? And why did the USSR fail and are the people of Russia and the other former Soviet states better off now or when they were together?" The USSR failed in part because of its expansionism. It got too big and went beyond its limits in much that same way as the EU seems to be doing now. The USSR's expansionism was by force when they tried to take over Afghanistan, it was a war they could never win and they overstretched their limits. The EU is also an expansionist organisation although it adds more countries by other means but it has now become too big and gone beyond its limits. The EU is a failure just like the USSR was and it will go the same way as the USSR and be consigned to the dust bin of history where it belongs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree that the economy is a bit of a red herring but why would we want to transfer power to a larger organisation? Some power has already been given away by those who wield it now, what is wrong with taking it back and making those who do wield it more accountable to the people? Great! We have common ground, we have a meeting of minds, that is so good! And now you ask the really important question: Why would we give up power? The answer is: Because it will benefit us. Now I am going to be presumptuous and ask the subsidiary question of how? At this point you have to examine geo-political and economic history as well as the growth of multinational corporations and conglomerates, and extrapolate. Fact is throughout history progress has been achieved by growth. So far families have combined to form tribes, tribes combined to form nations. Now is the time when nations need to combine to form People. So far it has happened successfully twice, the Chinese people and the American people. It is in both their interests that just like the Russian people of the USSR failed that the European people of the EU fail while they and their multinational business equivalents continue to dominate the world. Until we accept that the cost of being truly independent is to cede our small power to become a part of a larger power we will continue to decline. I will be interested to hear your thoughts on the subject, maybe you can see an alternative path." History teaches us that all Empires come to an end. The Persian Empire ended, the Roman Empire ended, Napolean's attempt at a French empire ended, the British empire ended, the nazi Germany attempt at an empire ended, the USSR empire ended, and I believe we are seeing the beginning of the end of the EU now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" History teaches us that all Empires come to an end. The Persian Empire ended, the Roman Empire ended, Napolean's attempt at a French empire ended, the British empire ended, the nazi Germany attempt at an empire ended, the USSR empire ended, and I believe we are seeing the beginning of the end of the EU now. " Frankly I'm a bit surprised you have realised the British empire ended. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" History teaches us that all Empires come to an end. The Persian Empire ended, the Roman Empire ended, Napolean's attempt at a French empire ended, the British empire ended, the nazi Germany attempt at an empire ended, the USSR empire ended, and I believe we are seeing the beginning of the end of the EU now. Frankly I'm a bit surprised you have realised the British empire ended. "And the US Empire might collapse soon! 
On the other hand, the Russian empire is resurgent
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A very simple analogy... You relinquish power to your boss who controls your time Monday to Friday in exchange for economic prosperity Or you can go it alone with a chance of riches but a higher likelihood of failure and much greater uncertainty An OK gamble for an individual with good ideas... But for a nation? " Or you relinquish control to a boss who pays you minimum wage and creams off the profits to squander on his pet projects or go it alone and gain the rewards for your own hard work and industry | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am sure May and her gang are well aware of the needs of business as they are Tories,far better they get on with it and not the idiots in the labour,lib dems and snp interfere" 'Theresa May privately warned that companies would leave the UK if the country voted for Brexit during a secret audience with investment bankers a month before the EU referendum. A recording of her remarks to Goldman Sachs, leaked to the Guardian, reveals she had numerous concerns about Britain leaving the EU. It contrasts with her nuanced public speeches, which dismayed remain campaigners before the vote in June. Speaking at the bank in London on 26 May, the then home secretary appeared to go further than her public remarks to explain more clearly the economic benefits of staying in the EU. She told staff it was time the UK took a lead in Europe, and that she hoped voters would look to the future rather than the past. In an hour-long session before the City bankers, she also worried about the effect of Brexit on the British economy. “I think the economic arguments are clear,” she said. “I think being part of a 500-million trading bloc is significant for us. I think, as I was saying to you a little earlier, that one of the issues is that a lot of people will invest here in the UK because it is the UK in Europe. “If we were not in Europe, I think there would be firms and companies who would be looking to say, do they need to develop a mainland Europe presence rather than a UK presence? So I think there are definite benefits for us in economic terms.” Her warning about the importance of the UK’s membership of the EU comes in marked contrast to her positioning in recent weeks. May said at the Conservative party conference that she wanted to prioritise reducing immigration over being part of the single market. In her speech, she said British companies needed the “maximum freedom to trade and operate in the single market” but not at the expense of “giving up control of immigration again” or accepting the jurisdiction of judges in Luxembourg. The Goldman Sachs tape shows May is not leading on Brexit, but following Anne Perkins Anne Perkins Read more At Goldman Sachs, May also said she was convinced Britain’s security was best served by remaining in Europe because of tools such as the European arrest warrant and the information-sharing between the police and intelligence agencies. “There are definitely things we can do as members of the European Union that I think keep us more safe,” she said. The disclosures could prove embarrassing for the prime minister, who faced criticism for lying low during the referendum campaign and offering only luke-warm support for the remain side. In April, May gave a speech in which she set out some of the reasons for staying in the EU, warning that it could have an impact on the development of the single market for the rest of the EU if the UK left. But her comments at the Goldman Sachs event a month later go further in warning about the dangers to the British economy from businesses relocating to continental Europe.' She knows the importance of the EU to our economy but is prepared to fuck us over purely because of immigration, which is not in fact a problem but a positive. Also, it was in the Tory Party Manifesto to stay in the Single Market. I wouldn't overblow their economic competence though. They wanted to deregulate the banks which stuffed us eventually in 2008 and Osbornes austerity has now been shelved to adopt the original Labour strategy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I live near Filton near Bristol. Pretty much everyone in my neighbourhood works for Airbus, Rolls Royce, or one of their suppliers. Or the MOD. The ones I know go back and forth to Toulouse quite a lot. Although the core cities voted to stay, our district voted to leave, and our MP was crowing about how great the result was at the time. I wonder what the sentiment is now. -Matt" Rolls-Royce Is that the same Rolls-Royce that had to pay £671m to settle bribery and corruption claims due to its bribes for land international deals and involved in fraud. 
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Has anyone ever been to broughton? Yes, it is a bit of an ugly sprawl at the bottom of Sealand Road. The Airbus factory is right next door to the old RAF Sealand and uses what was RAF Sealand's runway. "Close, but no cigar  . Its based at the old RAF Hawarden, mainly famous for building Wellington bombers. Raf Sealand is not far away at Queensferry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDF0Ph0tNLs | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Close, but no cigar . Its based at the old RAF Hawarden, mainly famous for building Wellington bombers. Raf Sealand is not far away at Queensferry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDF0Ph0tNLs"My mistake, your right about Hawarden. And yes it is famous for building Wellingtons, but they also built Lancs. In the same way as the Avro factories in Middleton and Woodford were famous for building Lancs but also built Wellie. Funny thing is RR Crewe is not famous for building the Merlin engine and virtually no one knows is that over 100 coastal minesweepers were built in Northwich and chemical weapons assembled in a wood outside Wellington (Shropshire) were stored on the hill behind Beeston cattle market. Or that the largest civilian nuclear bomb shelter was in Winsford salt mines and Maggie sold it to Securicor to use as a records depository. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think there was a wartime film made at Broughton; something about building a Wellington bomber in a day. " Yep!
Watched more than once, used to know a woman who lived in Winsford who worked there in WW2. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
