Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by m kenny View Post

    Indeed. Once Rover was rescued from the clutches of the Communist Unions it was taken over by Capitalists who made it into a very successful and profitable firm..........ooopps I mean they looted the company for their personal benefit and let it go bust and make 6,000 directly unemployed with a further 25,000 in the supply chain. All this whilst they made themselves multi-millionaires with the money they stole from the workers..
    Cant beat The Market can you?
    The underlying problem was BL made crap cars and had irresponsible union leaders (more interested in their own aggrandisement) and incompetent managers. Later they made slightly less crap cars and had incompetent union leaders and corrupt management.
    Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
    Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Surrey View Post

      After the war the European countries were starting from a very low base. As they recovered their year on year growth rates were always going to be high.
      The problems with the UK pre joining were caused by the UK itself, ever heard of British Leyland?
      Quite, but not only did they recover, not only did their growth overtook the UK's in relative terms, in the end they ended up richer than the UK in absolute figure ("les trente glorieuse" as the French know them). And the UK even started out as 50 to 100% wealthier per capita than almost all continental nations. This shift meant that by the 1970's the UK was the poorest member of the EEC upon joining.

      We can agree to have Leyland stand as a metonyme for the UK's problems in this area at the time. Joining the EEC was part of the way for the UK to get out of its post-WWII rut of relative decline.

      Again, the EU, and its predecessor, has been very good for the UK. And now it's leaving.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MarkV View Post

        The underlying problem was BL made crap cars and had irresponsible union leaders (more interested in their own aggrandisement) and incompetent managers. Later they made slightly less crap cars and had incompetent union leaders and corrupt management.
        The Honda copies made by the privatised Rover in the 80s and early 90s were OK. I remember having a 216 Gti in my 20s.
        "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

        Comment


        • I had a Rover 214. It shared the chassi with the Honda Civic and I really liked its handling. Cornered fantastically at speed. (Though that tended to wear out the suspension.) Iy wasn't hugely powerful, but with a 1,4 litre engine it still produced an OK 104 bhp, while having for the time fantastic fuel economy.

          The bane of that car otoh was the electronics... It had a fantastically complex engine lock system (security) which tended to near-terminally lock down the car on its own as it met the Swedish winters. Extremely annoying...

          It also had a weird problem of leads working lose in the engine, making the whole car just shut down while running. My then brilliant garage eventually managed to sort it out, after concluding that the Rover builders had bunched all the cables extremely tightly. That was fine when the car was new, and the leds as well. Ten years on the ten year old rubber coating on the leads had hardened to the point that there wasn't enough play, and eventually they were starting to work lose, making the car shut down when least convenient. In the end they took it in for a week and just went through he lot, tightening nuts and bolts everywhere in the engine. That gave it a lease of life, until something went wrong in the central computer controlling the fuel system. They did try to just switch the central computer out for one from a sibling. But then the wonderfully complex central security system recognized the car had been tampered with, and put it in full lock-down. So then we just scrapped it.

          At the time my conclusion was that based on this experience I would be as inclined to let Britishers handle my electronics as Italians.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
            I had a Rover 214. It shared the chassi with the Honda Civic and I really liked its handling. Cornered fantastically at speed. (Though that tended to wear out the suspension.) Iy wasn't hugely powerful, but with a 1,4 litre engine it still produced an OK 104 bhp, while having for the time fantastic fuel economy.

            The bane of that car otoh was the electronics... It had a fantastically complex engine lock system (security) which tended to near-terminally lock down the car on its own as it met the Swedish winters. Extremely annoying...

            It also had a weird problem of leads working lose in the engine, making the whole car just shut down while running. My then brilliant garage eventually managed to sort it out, after concluding that the Rover builders had bunched all the cables extremely tightly. That was fine when the car was new, and the leds as well. Ten years on the ten year old rubber coating on the leads had hardened to the point that there wasn't enough play, and eventually they were starting to work lose, making the car shut down when least convenient. In the end they took it in for a week and just went through he lot, tightening nuts and bolts everywhere in the engine. That gave it a lease of life, until something went wrong in the central computer controlling the fuel system. They did try to just switch the central computer out for one from a sibling. But then the wonderfully complex central security system recognized the car had been tampered with, and put it in full lock-down. So then we just scrapped it.

            At the time my conclusion was that based on this experience I would be as inclined to let Britishers handle my electronics as Italians.
            While it is a long time I don’t actually recall anything much going wrong with my 216. I bought it after I wrote off my Fiesta XR2. It was three years old when I got it and I kept it for five years. The XR2 that I had before had issues with the fuel injection failing when I was in the fast lane on the motorway forcing me to freewheel across three lanes of traffic
            "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
              At the time my conclusion was that based on this experience I would be as inclined to let Britishers handle my electronics as Italians.
              Well... If I passed the same judgement based on my former Volvo 480ES i would never ever let any Swede anywhere near anything even remotely resembling an electric switch let alone electronics.
              It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Surrey View Post

                The Honda copies made by the privatised Rover in the 80s and early 90s were OK. I remember having a 216 Gti in my 20s.
                In partnership with Honda, Rover Group really turned it around by the late eighties. So much so that BMW bought the group for £800 million in the early nineties.
                That was the real disaster - for both of them - although BMW have made a cracking job with the Mini brand.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post

                  Quite, but not only did they recover, not only did their growth overtook the UK's in relative terms, in the end they ended up richer than the UK in absolute figure ("les trente glorieuse" as the French know them). And the UK even started out as 50 to 100% wealthier per capita than almost all continental nations. This shift meant that by the 1970's the UK was the poorest member of the EEC upon joining.
                  So why did the Britain rapidly become a major contributor if it was amongst poorest EEC nations again?

                  Sorry but the EEC was not a cause of the UK's (relative) turnaround, nor was it really a reason why so many European countries did so much better economically (relatively) than the UK until the 1980s. Many of those nations outperforming the UK weren't even in the EEC/EU - Sweden and Finland only joined in 1995. The richest nations in Europe now, Switzerland and Norway, aren't even in the EU.

                  Joining the EEC as a solution to the UKs malaise may have appealed to politicians in the 1970s - it was certainly an easier idea than government taking on the massively powerful unions.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gooner View Post

                    So why did the Britain rapidly become a major contributor if it was amongst poorest EEC nations again?

                    Sorry but the EEC was not a cause of the UK's (relative) turnaround, nor was it really a reason why so many European countries did so much better economically (relatively) than the UK until the 1980s. Many of those nations outperforming the UK weren't even in the EEC/EU - Sweden and Finland only joined in 1995. The richest nations in Europe now, Switzerland and Norway, aren't even in the EU.

                    Joining the EEC as a solution to the UKs malaise may have appealed to politicians in the 1970s - it was certainly an easier idea than government taking on the massively powerful unions.
                    Yes, well, if you simply will not accept that membership in a huge trading block has been beneficial for the UK, making up for a lack of volume in its domestic market (a large domestic market is one of THE major factors when calculating national competitiveness in all international comparisons), then there certainly won't be anything I can say to sway you.

                    By the look of things the UK will be putting this to the test however in the not too-distant future.

                    I guess 40 years of integration in the Common Market was just a grand illusion from the UK's point of view, and all evidence to the contrary is just vile libel?

                    It might explain the apparent UK inability to understand what it is the EU 27 are safe-guarding in the negotiations. It's existence is actually being denied. Except the UK has it internal wiring crossed over the issue, since it ALSO really, really wants to be in on said market regardless; the relevance of which it will deny, while not wanting to give up...

                    The UK has developed schizophrenia.

                    Comment


                    • https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45351288

                      First of many?
                      Wisdom is personal

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post

                        Yes, well, if you simply will not accept that membership in a huge trading block has been beneficial for the UK, making up for a lack of volume in its domestic market (a large domestic market is one of THE major factors when calculating national competitiveness in all international comparisons), then there certainly won't be anything I can say to sway you.
                        I accept facts not assumptions.

                        https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...G?locations=EU

                        A perusal of the above site might indicate that far from promoting economic growth, the expansion of the EEC/EU has actually withheld growth.
                        The greater the integration the less growth there has been, the Eurozone has lagged the non-Euro EU countries, the non-EU countries have done even better, perhaps.

                        The UK has developed schizophrenia.
                        Dunno about the UK but you don't seem far from it.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Surrey View Post

                          After the war the European countries were starting from a very low base. As they recovered their year on year growth rates were always going to be high.
                          The problems with the UK pre joining were caused by the UK itself, ever heard of British Leyland?
                          I think we might find that fighting two world wars put Britain in the hole far more than British Leyland.
                          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gooner View Post

                            I accept facts not assumptions.

                            https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...G?locations=EU

                            A perusal of the above site might indicate that far from promoting economic growth, the expansion of the EEC/EU has actually withheld growth.
                            The greater the integration the less growth there has been, the Eurozone has lagged the non-Euro EU countries, the non-EU countries have done even better, perhaps.



                            Dunno about the UK but you don't seem far from it.
                            You don't deal in facts. You deal in highly biased interpretation. It doesn't mean what you think it means. Essentially all your opinions about Brexit and the EU are faith-based. Which makes communication kind of pointless.

                            Edit:
                            To specify: You have provided a graph of EU aggregate GDP growth over time, which shows a decline in annual percentage growth from about the 1970's onwards. Which is well known and not contested.

                            What you then do is jump to the conclusion that because the EU GDP growth slowed, that somehow proves the EU/EEC caused the decline in GDP growth.

                            IF I felt inclined to apply a similar kind of "logic" to the same graph I could just as well argue that since the relative decline in GDP growth for the EU as whole roughly coincided with the UK joining the EU/EEC, it stands to reason that the UK has been a disruptive agent, siphoning off GDP growth from the EU as a whole. It has in fact robbing the other member states of a GDP growth rightfully theirs but stolen by the UK, no less.

                            To bolster that argument I would further marshall "proof" in the form of the relatively more robust UK GDP growth relative the rest of the EU over the last couple of decades. Clearly this is a zero-sum game (it is what you're suggesting after all) and if the UK has done relatively better, then it must be at the expense of the continentals. Stands to reason, really.

                            As a consequence the continentals should not just rejoice over Brexit, it should have expelled the UK ages ago.

                            The difference is that I see these arguments as the utter bunkum they are. But you presented yours with a straight face.
                            Last edited by Johan Banér; 31 Aug 18, 04:06.

                            Comment


                            • Another round of discussions and... Not any surprises really. The border between ROI and NI is still problematic. Calling it a 'backstop' is rather hyperoptimistic since given the UK demands there will be borders somewhere - free trade agreement would not make them go away.
                              It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post

                                You don't deal in facts. You deal in highly biased interpretation. It doesn't mean what you think it means. Essentially all your opinions about Brexit and the EU are faith-based. Which makes communication kind of pointless.

                                Edit:
                                To specify: You have provided a graph of EU aggregate GDP growth over time, which shows a decline in annual percentage growth from about the 1970's onwards. Which is well known and not contested.

                                What you then do is jump to the conclusion that because the EU GDP growth slowed, that somehow proves the EU/EEC caused the decline in GDP growth.

                                IF I felt inclined to apply a similar kind of "logic" to the same graph I could just as well argue that since the relative decline in GDP growth for the EU as whole roughly coincided with the UK joining the EU/EEC, it stands to reason that the UK has been a disruptive agent, siphoning off GDP growth from the EU as a whole. It has in fact robbing the other member states of a GDP growth rightfully theirs but stolen by the UK, no less.

                                To bolster that argument I would further marshall "proof" in the form of the relatively more robust UK GDP growth relative the rest of the EU over the last couple of decades. Clearly this is a zero-sum game (it is what you're suggesting after all) and if the UK has done relatively better, then it must be at the expense of the continentals. Stands to reason, really.

                                As a consequence the continentals should not just rejoice over Brexit, it should have expelled the UK ages ago.

                                The difference is that I see these arguments as the utter bunkum they are. But you presented yours with a straight face.

                                Calm down princess. You made the bold claim "The EU has been VERY good for the UK." and have, so far, failed to present any facts on why that should be the case.

                                I don't think membership of the EU has been that good for the UK, indeed probably negative on the whole bearing in mind our net membership 'fee' of £200 billion quid & counting.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X