Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit

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

  • Originally posted by walle View Post

    Those numbers may appear impressive at first glance but as we all know they do not revel the complete picture, and GDP is a poor overall measure.
    It doesn't take a genius to work out from those figures that Russia was significantly behind German in GDP per capita.

    I've previously touched upon Russia always being backwards and behind the times, this improved somewhat after the war with access to German intellectual property, including German scientists, which for instance helped them become the first nation to put a man into lower orbit, but not before they put a dog up there.

    It’s been said we received most of the bureaucrats and the Russians most of the engineers.

    This is not to, in anyway, take away Russian accomplishments in accordance to their own abilities suggesting they are morons, they’re not.
    I suppose you think Sergei Korolev was a German?

    Regardless.
    They were always trailing behind and their economic system under communism was never sustainable long term thus doomed to fail, furthermore, for you to prosper as a nation you need to have a production based economy and sell goods that other nations both require and also wants to buy.

    That was Germany back then, that is Germany economically today. It was hardly ever Russia. Mass production of tanks MAY put you on top in terms of military capability for a while, but that still leaves the other three areas wanting.
    Selling goods or commodities can make you wealthy. Russia getting on top in military terms is what frightened the Germans into beginning the war(s).

    However Gooner, if you inferred to self sustainability alone, as in not being dependent on other nations for any resources at all, bringing up access to oil as your argument for shift in power? Well then the dynamics changes a bit, certainly.
    It was the abundance of coal that propelled Germany into becoming an industrial power in the first place.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Surrey View Post
      and we save our money.....
      Not really. That £39B is one of those international commitments - not strictly enforceable by any one but one which guarantee to leave a black mark if ignored. This in other words means that while the UK can technically ignore that payment it can not do so and expect its credit rating and similar things to hold steady. Same applies to trade negotiations - if UK essentially defaults on paying its commitments why would other party trust that the UK would hold up to its part of the bargain on other matters either.
      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 Vaeltaja View Post
        Not really. That £39B is one of those international commitments - not strictly enforceable by any one but one which guarantee to leave a black mark if ignored. This in other words means that while the UK can technically ignore that payment it can not do so and expect its credit rating and similar things to hold steady. Same applies to trade negotiations - if UK essentially defaults on paying its commitments why would other party trust that the UK would hold up to its part of the bargain on other matters either.
        Had this. If it isn't enforceable it is meaningless.

        You will have to pay more tax to pay for Drunker's drinks.
        "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Surrey View Post

          No deal, as I have said isn't so bad. Despite media stories that the Earth would stop spinning or the UK would disappear under the sea I think we would do just fine.
          Eventually, in the long run...

          But as Keynes observed: "In the long run we're all dead."

          In the short-to-mid-term-run the UK has already dropped to the bottom of the low-growth league in Europe. And its perennial problem of low productivity per wage-hour still has to be adressed. The reliance on services as the productive part of the economy isn't catered to even in May's non-starter plan, and even less so in a no-deal-scenario. The UK has spent decades packaging access to the EU Common Market through it's EU membership for sale internationally. Otherwise you guys famously mostly make confectionery and alcoholic beverages for international export. (UK subs these days built with French steel, and carriers with Swedish. Etc.)

          As an already relatively de-industrialized society you look more like Russia than is actually healthy, without the huge oil and gas deposits. Some kind of nasty middle-income-trap might well beckon on the other side if Brexit (too expensive to compete with the really cheap competitors, not rich or productive enough to keep up with the actually advanced ones).

          The UK has done very well as part of the EU. Denying that doesn't actually change anything about the situation. And radical free trade even with dirt-cheap imports isn't actually going to solve anything fundamental for the UK (still too expensive a place to compete with the really cheap alternatives).

          Russia is also OK, mostly, of course, if that can be a consolation.

          Another alternative post-Brexit is of course the Corbyn gets into the driver's seat, and possibly nationalises and socialises large tracts of the British economy in the name of national solidarity (Putin's already done this btw). The combination of egalitarian policies and socialised production on behalf of the national population is a very powerful mix, well designed to compete with right-wing populism, as left-wing populism can be.

          Never mind how everything will be blamed on the EU, post-Brexit the UK will still have to work out what kind of society it wants to be and how to live together.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Surrey View Post
            Had this. If it isn't enforceable it is meaningless.
            Then in similar manner all international agreements are meaningless. Since none of them are enforceable. That doesn't mean that there would not be any consequences. After all the real problem for that argument of yours is that they are not meaningless to others. And international agreements (like trade deals) kind of require countries to uphold their commitments so the UK renegading its agreements would have negative impact on all future international agreements the UK is aiming to make - as a real, but non-enforceable, consequence.
            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
              Eventually, in the long run...

              But as Keynes observed: "In the long run we're all dead."

              In the short-to-mid-term-run the UK has already dropped to the bottom of the low-growth league in Europe. And its perennial problem of low productivity per wage-hour still has to be adressed. The reliance on services as the productive part of the economy isn't catered to even in May's non-starter plan, and even less so in a no-deal-scenario. The UK has spent decades packaging access to the EU Common Market through it's EU membership for sale internationally. Otherwise you guys famously mostly make confectionery and alcoholic beverages for international export. (UK subs these days built with French steel, and carriers with Swedish. Etc.)

              As an already relatively de-industrialized society you look more like Russia than is actually healthy, without the huge oil and gas deposits. Some kind of nasty middle-income-trap might well beckon on the other side if Brexit (too expensive to compete with the really cheap competitors, not rich or productive enough to keep up with the actually advanced ones).

              The UK has done very well as part of the EU. Denying that doesn't actually change anything about the situation. And radical free trade even with dirt-cheap imports isn't actually going to solve anything fundamental for the UK (still too expensive a place to compete with the really cheap alternatives).

              Russia is also OK, mostly, of course, if that can be a consolation.

              Another alternative post-Brexit is of course the Corbyn gets into the driver's seat, and possibly nationalises and socialises large tracts of the British economy in the name of national solidarity (Putin's already done this btw). The combination of egalitarian policies and socialised production on behalf of the national population is a very powerful mix, well designed to compete with right-wing populism, as left-wing populism can be.

              Never mind how everything will be blamed on the EU, post-Brexit the UK will still have to work out what kind of society it wants to be and how to live together.
              You are right in that Corbyn would free to turn the UK into Venezuela, rather than Russia, after Brexit if he ever got into power.
              While there were some advantages to the EU the continuous movement to 'ever closer union' is what caused the trouble. When we joined in practice it was little more than a trading organisation. The Maastricht Treaty should never have been agreed. Perhaps if there had been referendums in the UK as there were in other countries we would have never of reached this point. But as it is there was little choice but to leave.
              "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
                The UK has spent decades packaging access to the EU Common Market through it's EU membership for sale internationally. Otherwise you guys famously mostly make confectionery and alcoholic beverages for international export. (UK subs these days built with French steel, and carriers with Swedish. Etc.)
                Early stage in the submarine construction, and the Carriers were 94% British steel.

                I'm a bit puzzle why it will become harder for the British to export to the EU and not vice versa.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                  Early stage in the submarine construction, and the Carriers were 94% British steel.

                  I'm a bit puzzle why it will become harder for the British to export to the EU and not vice versa.
                  It will. Thing is while the EU markets are massive for the UK the same does not (quantitatively, probably; relatively, not even close) apply vice versa. I'm not saying that the UK markets would not be important but just that relatively speaking their importance is not quite as high as what the importance of the EU markets for the UK happens to be.
                  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 BELGRAVE
                    A similar point of view was expressed by Professor Fritz Fischer in his Griff nach der Weltmacht " (Grasp for World Power") .Fischer sees a consistancy between Germany's war aims in both First and Second World Wars.
                    There’s lots of people drawing parallels between them making connections and seeing consistencies, it should come as no surprise.

                    Originally posted by BELGRAVE
                    The Treaty of Best Litovsk of 1918 imposed upon Russia ,for example,provides a perfect case study for German war aims in practise.
                    The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk appears more to be Germany seeking to create a buffer zone to protect herself with.

                    Originally posted by BELGRAVE
                    a desire to achieve "World Power"' not only through economic domination but by military conquest
                    I am not aware of any teretorial plans of conquest, in the west, or globaly for that matter. Germany was content after the unification.

                    If she had any global aspirations she would have had to have acted on those much earlier because most of any value had been claimed by either England or France.

                    Added
                    It could very well be that when Germany realized they were beating the Russians so badly as they did, that they decided to secure and take full advantage of their position, to make sure Russia would be out. More opportunistic, not that it was pre planned before the outbreak of the war.

                    They couldn't afford a drawn out two front war and was still fighting in the west.

                    It should also be pointed out that Russia wanted to expand on her Empire westward. Germany was in her way.

                    Originally posted by BELGRAVE
                    the invasion of Belgium for military convenience. for example. How can that be explained away
                    I’m not interested in explaining anything away I’m more interested in understanding decisions made, the initial plan called for a defensive approach in the west with no invasion of Belgium.

                    Germany knew it would be extremely costly, and maybe impossible to knock out an entire nation in a quick campaign, a long drawn out war would be costly and unsustainable as well.

                    They gambled on a quick decisive victory moving through Belgium with no intent of getting bogged down there, she couldn’t move thru the Ardenne forest so moving through Belgium was the only option.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by walle View Post
                      There’s lots of people drawing parallels between them making connections and seeing consistencies, it should come as no surprise.


                      The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk appears more to be Germany seeking to create a buffer zone to protect herself with.


                      I am not aware of any teretorial plans of conquest, in the west, or globaly for that matter. Germany was content after the unification.

                      If she had any global aspirations she would have had to have acted on those much earlier because most of any value had been claimed by either England or France.

                      Added
                      It could very well be that when Germany realized they were beating the Russians so badly as they did, that they decided to secure and take full advantage of their position, to make sure Russia would be out. More opportunistic, not that it was pre planned before the outbreak of the war.

                      They couldn't afford a drawn out two front war and was still fighting in the west.

                      It should also be pointed out that Russia wanted to expand on her Empire westward. Germany was in her way.


                      I’m not interested in explaining anything away I’m more interested in understanding decisions made, the initial plan called for a defensive approach in the west with no invasion of Belgium.

                      Germany knew it would be extremely costly, and maybe impossible to knock out an entire nation in a quick campaign, a long drawn out war would be costly and unsustainable as well.

                      They gambled on a quick decisive victory moving through Belgium with no intent of getting bogged down there, she couldn’t move thru the Ardenne forest so moving through Belgium was the only option.
                      Actually Fischer, in 1961, was the first historian to maintain that German war-aims in both World Wars were quite consistant. (And didn't that cause a storm in intellectual circles in Germany).

                      The German Army certainly had no intention of becoming bogged-down in Belgium, but surely it must be admitted that the attack on a nation ,the integrity of which had been guaranteed by Prussia in 1839, is morally untenable: Bethmann Hollweg admitted as much.
                      "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                      Samuel Johnson.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by walle View Post

                        I am not aware of any teretorial plans of conquest, in the west, or globaly for that matter. Germany was content after the unification.

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemberprogramm

                        The extensive territorial conquests proposed in the Septemberprogramm required making vassal states of Belgium and France and seizing much of the Russian Empire.

                        Comment


                        • From The Sun yesterday. Essex boy Tony Parson has captured the mood of the nation perfectly.



                          Remember now you dastardly Hun Britian is a nation of peace and there is no room for political violence in our long and democratic history.
                          But.............................




                          If 'he' don't get his way then he predicts violence!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by m kenny View Post
                            From The Sun yesterday. Essex boy Tony Parson has captured the mood of the nation perfectly.



                            Remember now you dastardly Hun Britian is a nation of peace and there is no room for political violence in our long and democratic history.
                            But.............................




                            If 'he' don't get his way then he predicts violence!
                            Yeah... England had always done violence quite well. It's the memory bit that's kind of lacking. Never mind how all other European nations took the cue about knocking the block off their kings from the English, AND how they "swooned" for a dictator...

                            And much more recently of course, Jo Cox...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post

                              Yeah... England had always done violence quite well.
                              Quite well? I'd say they've been outstanding at it!

                              It's the memory bit that's kind of lacking. Never mind how all other European nations took the cue about knocking the block off their kings from the English, AND how they "swooned" for a dictator...
                              Knocking the block off Kings is the easy bit. It's what you do after that that's tricky. England/Britain just got there first is all.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post

                                Yeah... England had always done violence quite well. It's the memory bit that's kind of lacking. Never mind how all other European nations took the cue about knocking the block off their kings from the English, AND how they "swooned" for a dictator...

                                And much more recently of course, Jo Cox...
                                We got rid of his French stooge of a son too and ended Louis xiv’s attempt to create a united Europe.
                                "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X