Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,846
- Likes
- 4,027
dow
The beauty of the UK is that it is a bridge between US and EU and plays for both sides and benefits equally from both sides. Best of both worlds.
It's not what or anyone else says, Thatcher's dip is clear to see. UK's recession was deeper and more severe than our European counterparts. It was the only time UK BoP visible exports exceeded imports and this is a fact, recovery was export led. Nothing that Thatcher did. Her legacy of stopping subsidies and regional grants has effectively led to disenfranchised Northern England. Sending migrants to up to poorly towns to prop up rundown regions has had quite the opposite effect of putting Englanders noses out of place. Self regulation of banks led to banking crises as at first the globe thought UK banks would be safe when US ones went under. Pound went up to 2.10 against dollar only to collapse when everybody realised we were no better. It's also the time in order to hide Politicians pay 40% when trade unions were bashed, she introduced expenses and multiple homes all expenses paid by Parliament that we've ended up with career politicians wanting to earn big bucks. She sold national treasures and took PSBR to the highest ever. Early 80s were bad ol times. As I say Raegonomics and global revival and Falklands saved her bacon. Once again dip in UK far greater than other equivalent competitor nations. Her policies exacerbated the recession. She also sold off council flats and now we have no social housing for public servants such as teachers, nurses or policeman who earn nominal salaries compared to private sector. She got votes for selling council homes too.
Anyhow.... 70s was marked by a period of stagnation, high unemployment and inflation due to the oil price rise shock which impacted the whole global economy.
As they say all boats rise and sink with the tide.
UK has done well out of her membership of the EU. It was 7th before joining and recently was 5th in the GDP league table. It was in relative decline between 1950-1970. This is unanimously accepted along with data.
Why did Britain join the European project?
Why did Britain join? For various reasons. Because De Gaulle left, the Commonwealth could not compete, Heath defeated Wilson, the free trade area integration model sunk. But above all, Britain joined because joining the European project was perceived to be a way to stop its relative economic decline. In 1950, UK’s per capita GDP was almost a third larger than the EU6 average; in 1973, it was about 10% below; it has been comparatively stable ever since. On this basis, joining the EU worked – it helped to halt Britain’s relative economic decline vis-à-vis the EU6.
You dispute anything put forward to you but can you try and answer why did UK choose to join the EU if it was doing so well outside? Why would it choose to join a losing club?
You make a big song and dance about leaving and how UK can do well outside of the EU and that all UK's non-EU migration, asylum laws, and regional imbalances are all to do with the EU and somehow EU is holding us back but put no evidence forward about how UK was doing so well before joining or can do post EU assuming Brexit takes place.
You have an equal opportunity to produce charts showing UK outperforming EU, do you not. Talk is cheap. Rubbishing and talking down much hard work and 50 years of people coming together, travelling and working all over the place, along with globalisation has all been positive.
Due to skewed distribution of income and in this respect UK does lean towards US, UK lack of investment in industry and social services, favouring instead investing in military and war expeditions in other smaller countries, stirring up refugees destroying people's lives and otherwise stable countries infrastructure hasn't made her great has it?
Anyway, we are simply churning the same old blurb and I doubt we'll ever meet anywhere remotely in the middle. We'll have to simply see how events unfold.
And so has the US? What about other non-EU economies over the same time period? How can we say it is because of the EU when there is no real context other than timeline which tells us little about the argument presented.
This graph actually shows the UK and US economies more closely aligned than it does with France and Germany, care to pick another random chart and stick any old narrative onto it?
Attila even has a dig at Thatcher and states that it was the US that dug us out of it, when it is clear for all to see that the chart of all the countries presented dipped and rose along the same timeline.
Nope, sorry chaps, if economics are the only arguments you have in favour of the EU, then you are going to have to do better to convince Brexiteers, just like the Globalist establishment tried to convince us otherwise, that worked out well for them
The beauty of the UK is that it is a bridge between US and EU and plays for both sides and benefits equally from both sides. Best of both worlds.
It's not what or anyone else says, Thatcher's dip is clear to see. UK's recession was deeper and more severe than our European counterparts. It was the only time UK BoP visible exports exceeded imports and this is a fact, recovery was export led. Nothing that Thatcher did. Her legacy of stopping subsidies and regional grants has effectively led to disenfranchised Northern England. Sending migrants to up to poorly towns to prop up rundown regions has had quite the opposite effect of putting Englanders noses out of place. Self regulation of banks led to banking crises as at first the globe thought UK banks would be safe when US ones went under. Pound went up to 2.10 against dollar only to collapse when everybody realised we were no better. It's also the time in order to hide Politicians pay 40% when trade unions were bashed, she introduced expenses and multiple homes all expenses paid by Parliament that we've ended up with career politicians wanting to earn big bucks. She sold national treasures and took PSBR to the highest ever. Early 80s were bad ol times. As I say Raegonomics and global revival and Falklands saved her bacon. Once again dip in UK far greater than other equivalent competitor nations. Her policies exacerbated the recession. She also sold off council flats and now we have no social housing for public servants such as teachers, nurses or policeman who earn nominal salaries compared to private sector. She got votes for selling council homes too.
Anyhow.... 70s was marked by a period of stagnation, high unemployment and inflation due to the oil price rise shock which impacted the whole global economy.
As they say all boats rise and sink with the tide.
UK has done well out of her membership of the EU. It was 7th before joining and recently was 5th in the GDP league table. It was in relative decline between 1950-1970. This is unanimously accepted along with data.
Why did Britain join the European project?
Why did Britain join? For various reasons. Because De Gaulle left, the Commonwealth could not compete, Heath defeated Wilson, the free trade area integration model sunk. But above all, Britain joined because joining the European project was perceived to be a way to stop its relative economic decline. In 1950, UK’s per capita GDP was almost a third larger than the EU6 average; in 1973, it was about 10% below; it has been comparatively stable ever since. On this basis, joining the EU worked – it helped to halt Britain’s relative economic decline vis-à-vis the EU6.
You dispute anything put forward to you but can you try and answer why did UK choose to join the EU if it was doing so well outside? Why would it choose to join a losing club?
You make a big song and dance about leaving and how UK can do well outside of the EU and that all UK's non-EU migration, asylum laws, and regional imbalances are all to do with the EU and somehow EU is holding us back but put no evidence forward about how UK was doing so well before joining or can do post EU assuming Brexit takes place.
You have an equal opportunity to produce charts showing UK outperforming EU, do you not. Talk is cheap. Rubbishing and talking down much hard work and 50 years of people coming together, travelling and working all over the place, along with globalisation has all been positive.
Due to skewed distribution of income and in this respect UK does lean towards US, UK lack of investment in industry and social services, favouring instead investing in military and war expeditions in other smaller countries, stirring up refugees destroying people's lives and otherwise stable countries infrastructure hasn't made her great has it?
Anyway, we are simply churning the same old blurb and I doubt we'll ever meet anywhere remotely in the middle. We'll have to simply see how events unfold.
Last edited:
