Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <a2d53il02caeguqqiuhkfvnhmckanmcgm0@4ax.com>, at 13:52:10 on
> Sun, 9 Apr 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 04:58:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <u0pb28$rqq5$5@dont-email.me>, at 14:58:16 on Fri, 7 Apr
>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <1u403i5ssip7shp8gsnhci3e681u9390ci@4ax.com>, at 14:00:13 on
>>>>> Fri, 7 Apr 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 13:07:22 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <u0oqkm$pge4$6@dont-email.me>, at 10:17:59 on Fri, 7 Apr
>>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <u0ne42$gl53$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:38:10 on Thu, 6 Apr
>>>>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5f17b5a2-d3cd-11ed-b5c3-54651fc826e9
>>>>>>>>>> ?shareToken=b32ffae17496f10563b46d3185e4c0ea>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What people forget when moaning about huge profits for companies like
>>>>>>>>> Shell (most made outside the UK) is that may of the shareholders are
>>>>>>>>> themselves (via pension funds). Similarly other big bad companies which
>>>>>>>>> are accused of exploiting the public in different ways.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I complain a lot about Vodafone's business practices, but in years gone
>>>>>>>>> by my pension provider was a big investor.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, I believe that, of late, UK pension funds are now more
>>>>>>>> likely to
>>>>>>>> invest outside the UK, as the returns are generally better. It's
>>>>>>>> one of the
>>>>>>>> reasons for the declining importance of the LSE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If they invest in Shell, they are in effect investing "outside the UK",
>>>>>>> if we believe their protestation that most of their profits come from
>>>>>>> outside the UK (rather than from fleecing long-suffering UK motorists).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vodafone has substantial overseas interests too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True, but I think they also invest directly in foreign companies on
>>>>>> foreign stock markets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, of course they will. Maybe even more in future thanks to Nigel
>>>>> Farage.
>>>>
>>>> Sadly, there's long been a steady loss of high tech industries from the UK.
>>>> It long predates Brexit.
>>>
>>> That's true, but Brexit has put several more nails in the coffin,
>>> despite the promises to 'make UK great again', to channel Trump.
>>
>> I'm a Remainer like you, but if I weren't, I would point out that
>> nearly all this decline occurred while we were full EU
>> members, before the 2016 referendum. It's probably continued
>> post-Brexit, but there wasn't much left to lose by then.
>>
>> So, while it's nice to blame everything on Brexit, in this case, the
>> problems are at home.
>
> The latest economic analysis says we are permanently 4% worse off due to
> Brexit (having factored out all the other reasons we are worse off this
> week).
>
> That's in marked contrast to the Brexiteers who said it would make us
> *better* off.
>
> 4% might not sound much to some, but it's 4x the amount we used to pay
> to the EU (and once upon a time, written on the side of bus, as if that
> 1% would save the NHS, if it hadn't already been earmarked to replace
> lost grants from the EU).

Yes, Brexit has been bad for the UK economy so far, and probably will
continue to be in the future, but you can't blame Brexit for everything
that's gone wrong in the UK economy for the previous 50 years of EU
membership. And, no, I'm not saying we'd have been better off outside the
EU.

The UK has been living beyond its means for many decades. It has gradually
sold off the family silver to pay for it. So, if a UK investment fund
wants to invest in large listed companies in most modern industries, they
probably won't be British ones.

In message <u0unsl$1pbf8$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:07:49 on Sun, 9 Apr
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 15:19:56 -0000 (UTC)
>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 14:11:54 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <a2d53il02caeguqqiuhkfvnhmckanmcgm0@4ax.com>, at 13:52:10 on
>>>> Sun, 9 Apr 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 04:58:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> So, while it's nice to blame everything on Brexit, in this case, the
>>>>> problems are at home.
>>>>
>>>> The latest economic analysis says we are permanently 4% worse off due to
>>>> Brexit (having factored out all the other reasons we are worse off this
>>>> week).
>>>>
>>>> That's in marked contrast to the Brexiteers who said it would make us
>>>> *better* off.
>>>>
>>>> 4% might not sound much to some, but it's 4x the amount we used to pay
>>>> to the EU (and once upon a time, written on the side of bus, as if that
>>>> 1% would save the NHS, if it hadn't already been earmarked to replace
>>>> lost grants from the EU).
>>>
>>> Those grants were simply some of our money coming back to us.
>>>
>>> Shame the EUi/EEC couldn't have remained a trading block with the federalist
>>> nonsense confined to an obscure bunch of obsessives in brussels.
>>
>>But our government won’t even countenance the trading block idea, thus we
>>remain outside of the EEA.
>
>The EEA is essentially paying to be in the EU but without a vote on any of the
>rules. Its the worst of both worlds.

Nevertheless, voters were told by Leave campaigners that it was a
last-ditch worst-case safety net to remain trading freely. When what
actually happened was far far worse.
--
Roland Perry

In message <u0ujs0$1opb8$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:59:12 on Sun, 9 Apr
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 14:11:54 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <a2d53il02caeguqqiuhkfvnhmckanmcgm0@4ax.com>, at 13:52:10 on
>>Sun, 9 Apr 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 04:58:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>So, while it's nice to blame everything on Brexit, in this case, the
>>>problems are at home.
>>
>>The latest economic analysis says we are permanently 4% worse off due to
>>Brexit (having factored out all the other reasons we are worse off this
>>week).
>>
>>That's in marked contrast to the Brexiteers who said it would make us
>>*better* off.
>>
>>4% might not sound much to some, but it's 4x the amount we used to pay
>>to the EU (and once upon a time, written on the side of bus, as if that
>>1% would save the NHS, if it hadn't already been earmarked to replace
>>lost grants from the EU).
>
>Those grants were simply some of our money coming back to us.

And some of other people's money too. The lie on the bus was that *none*
of our contribution was coming back.

>Shame the EUi/EEC couldn't have remained a trading block with the federalist
>nonsense confined to an obscure bunch of obsessives in brussels.

Ah yes, the "anti-federalist" Brxit vote. But sadly for democracy it's
an important factor for a tiny proportion of those who opted to "Leave".
So the vast majority regarded it as OK.

That's why it needed whipping up popularist xenophobia (plus the wonky
maths) to get the result [only just] across the finishing line.
--
Roland Perry

In message <u0vb5p$1s6jn$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:36:57 on Sun, 9 Apr
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <a2d53il02caeguqqiuhkfvnhmckanmcgm0@4ax.com>, at 13:52:10 on
>> Sun, 9 Apr 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 04:58:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <u0pb28$rqq5$5@dont-email.me>, at 14:58:16 on Fri, 7 Apr
>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <1u403i5ssip7shp8gsnhci3e681u9390ci@4ax.com>, at 14:00:13 on
>>>>>> Fri, 7 Apr 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 13:07:22 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <u0oqkm$pge4$6@dont-email.me>, at 10:17:59 on Fri, 7 Apr
>>>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <u0ne42$gl53$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:38:10 on Thu, 6 Apr
>>>>>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>><https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5f17b5a2-d3cd-11ed-b5c3-54651fc826e9
>>>>>>>>>>> ?shareToken=b32ffae17496f10563b46d3185e4c0ea>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What people forget when moaning about huge profits for companies like
>>>>>>>>>> Shell (most made outside the UK) is that may of the shareholders are
>>>>>>>>>> themselves (via pension funds). Similarly other big bad
>>>>>>>>>>companies which
>>>>>>>>>> are accused of exploiting the public in different ways.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I complain a lot about Vodafone's business practices, but in
>>>>>>>>>>years gone
>>>>>>>>>> by my pension provider was a big investor.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However, I believe that, of late, UK pension funds are now more
>>>>>>>>> likely to
>>>>>>>>> invest outside the UK, as the returns are generally better. It's
>>>>>>>>> one of the
>>>>>>>>> reasons for the declining importance of the LSE.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If they invest in Shell, they are in effect investing "outside the UK",
>>>>>>>> if we believe their protestation that most of their profits come from
>>>>>>>> outside the UK (rather than from fleecing long-suffering UK motorists).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Vodafone has substantial overseas interests too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True, but I think they also invest directly in foreign companies on
>>>>>>> foreign stock markets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, of course they will. Maybe even more in future thanks to Nigel
>>>>>> Farage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sadly, there's long been a steady loss of high tech industries
>>>>>from the UK.
>>>>> It long predates Brexit.
>>>>
>>>> That's true, but Brexit has put several more nails in the coffin,
>>>> despite the promises to 'make UK great again', to channel Trump.
>>>
>>> I'm a Remainer like you, but if I weren't, I would point out that
>>> nearly all this decline occurred while we were full EU
>>> members, before the 2016 referendum. It's probably continued
>>> post-Brexit, but there wasn't much left to lose by then.
>>>
>>> So, while it's nice to blame everything on Brexit, in this case, the
>>> problems are at home.
>>
>> The latest economic analysis says we are permanently 4% worse off due to
>> Brexit (having factored out all the other reasons we are worse off this
>> week).
>>
>> That's in marked contrast to the Brexiteers who said it would make us
>> *better* off.
>>
>> 4% might not sound much to some, but it's 4x the amount we used to pay
>> to the EU (and once upon a time, written on the side of bus, as if that
>> 1% would save the NHS, if it hadn't already been earmarked to replace
>> lost grants from the EU).
>
>Yes, Brexit has been bad for the UK economy so far, and probably will
>continue to be in the future, but you can't blame Brexit for everything
>that's gone wrong in the UK economy for the previous 50 years of EU
>membership.

I don't think I had.

>And, no, I'm not saying we'd have been better off outside the EU.

It's not just the economy, in the sense of the UK having its own
deteriorating balance of payments with r27. Freedom of movement was a
great enabler, and not just for holidaymakers queuing at Dover.

>The UK has been living beyond its means for many decades. It has gradually
>sold off the family silver to pay for it. So, if a UK investment fund
>wants to invest in large listed companies in most modern industries, they
>probably won't be British ones.

Clearly many big tech companies are based in the USA, and Japanese ones
are still doing reasonably well.

I'm not sure if Eire is beginning to hurt a bit, with tech consumers in
the UK being transferred back to the USA mother ship. No doubt that's a
Data Protection and VAT issue, as much as (walking back) offshoring of
corporation tax.
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 16:31:51 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> But our government won’t even countenance the trading block idea, thus we
>>> remain outside of the EEA.
>>
>> The EEA is essentially paying to be in the EU but without a vote on any of
>the
>> rules. Its the worst of both worlds.
>>
>>
>>
>
>But the brexiteers wanted out of the rule making process….

No, we wanted out of the rules and out of any political control by brussels.
And if a few million east europeans could bugger off too so much the better.

On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 19:36:17 +0100
Alan Jones <ajnews@exospan.com> wrote:
>On 09/04/2023 15:59, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> Those grants were simply some of our money coming back to us.
>>
>> Shame the EUi/EEC couldn't have remained a trading block with the federalist
>> nonsense confined to an obscure bunch of obsessives in brussels.
>
>I like the thought experiment where we imagine what California or Texas
>would have been like if they had not been part of the USA.
>
>Powerful independent nations?

California would be something like the 10th richest nation in the world right
now if it went independent.

>Seriously though - why does the USA resist the idea of evolution to a
>set of independent sovereign states?
>
>The US government seemed quite keen for the UK to leave the EU, even

Not sure where you got that from. Obama was dead against it and Trump didn't
appear to care one way or the other. Biden probably gets confused when anyone
mentions it.

>control of their laws, their borders, and their currencies. They could
>be powerful independent sovereign global trading states, with favourable
>tax regimes, independent government debt, local regulations etc, able to
>make their own bilateral agreements with China, USA, even India or
>Russia. The advantages are clear, and London has made all the arguments
>for such independence during the leave campaign. Why is it not
>supporting such policies? What has London got to lose? Seriously, how
>could it possibly hurt London if the UK evolved to a set of sovereign
>states?

You're deliberatly or otherwise conflating culture and economics. England
shares far more culturally with scotland and wales than it does with the EU
nations and genetically we're more or less the same people on this island
whatever the rabid nationalists think. The same applied to the USA back in
the day when the vast majority of the people (natives and slaves aside) were
all the same mix of europeans and had little culturally or ancestrally to
distinguish a new yorker from a texan from a californian so a continent wide
culture developed.

The EU is nothing more than a knee jerk response to WW2 and they don't even
deny it. They truly believe (against all evidence from Yugoslavia and the
USSR) that hammering disperate states ever closer together will prevent any
kind of repeat conflict. Poland and Hungary are starting to prove the lie to
this ideology.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 05:50:01 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <u0ujs0$1opb8$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:59:12 on Sun, 9 Apr
>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>Those grants were simply some of our money coming back to us.
>
>And some of other people's money too. The lie on the bus was that *none*
>of our contribution was coming back.

Perhaps, but the truth was that a huge part of it went to prop up greece,
italy and various east european basket cases. And driving through spain is
a joy thanks to EU funded motorways that carry sod all traffic compared to
the knackered roads in this country.

>
>>Shame the EUi/EEC couldn't have remained a trading block with the federalist
>>nonsense confined to an obscure bunch of obsessives in brussels.
>
>Ah yes, the "anti-federalist" Brxit vote. But sadly for democracy it's
>an important factor for a tiny proportion of those who opted to "Leave".
>So the vast majority regarded it as OK.

You missed the point. The EEC never required free movement, it was nothing
more that free trade of goods, not people.

>That's why it needed whipping up popularist xenophobia (plus the wonky
>maths) to get the result [only just] across the finishing line.

Only just is all thats needed in a 2 way vote.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 16:31:51 -0000 (UTC)
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> But our government won’t even countenance the trading block idea, thus we
>>>> remain outside of the EEA.
>>>
>>> The EEA is essentially paying to be in the EU but without a vote on any of
>> the
>>> rules. Its the worst of both worlds.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But the brexiteers wanted out of the rule making process….
>
> No, we wanted out of the rules and out of any political control by brussels.
> And if a few million east europeans could bugger off too so much the better.

Weirdly the sense of much of the rhetoric about being rule makers rather
than rule takers (did anyone ever use that rather lame term before the
Brexiteers invented it?) seemed to be that the UK wouldn’t be subject to
the EU’s rules **even when dealing with the EU**. What kind of
exceptionalist British Empire universe did those people think we live in?

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 08:13:01 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 16:31:51 -0000 (UTC)
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> But our government won’t even countenance the trading block idea, thus
>we
>>>>> remain outside of the EEA.
>>>>
>>>> The EEA is essentially paying to be in the EU but without a vote on any of
>>> the
>>>> rules. Its the worst of both worlds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> But the brexiteers wanted out of the rule making process….
>>
>> No, we wanted out of the rules and out of any political control by brussels.
>> And if a few million east europeans could bugger off too so much the better.
>
>Weirdly the sense of much of the rhetoric about being rule makers rather
>than rule takers (did anyone ever use that rather lame term before the
>Brexiteers invented it?) seemed to be that the UK wouldn’t be subject to
>the EU’s rules **even when dealing with the EU**. What kind of
>exceptionalist British Empire universe did those people think we live in?

We trade with the USA, are we bound by their rules?

On 10/04/2023 08:24, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 16:31:51 -0000 (UTC)
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> But our government won’t even countenance the trading block idea, thus we
>>>> remain outside of the EEA.
>>>
>>> The EEA is essentially paying to be in the EU but without a vote on any of
>> the
>>> rules. Its the worst of both worlds.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But the brexiteers wanted out of the rule making process….
>
> No, we wanted out of the rules and out of any political control by brussels.
> And if a few million east europeans could bugger off too so much the better.
>

We are still subject to political control by Brussels without any say in
the making of the rules. The east Europeans buggering of home has left
us with a collapsing health and care service, farms unable to harvest
crops and a knackered hospitality industry. Everything in the garden is
obviously rosy.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 10/04/2023 09:26, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 08:13:01 -0000 (UTC)
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 16:31:51 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> But our government won’t even countenance the trading block idea, thus
>> we
>>>>>> remain outside of the EEA.
>>>>>
>>>>> The EEA is essentially paying to be in the EU but without a vote on any of
>>>> the
>>>>> rules. Its the worst of both worlds.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But the brexiteers wanted out of the rule making process….
>>>
>>> No, we wanted out of the rules and out of any political control by brussels.
>>> And if a few million east europeans could bugger off too so much the better.
>>
>> Weirdly the sense of much of the rhetoric about being rule makers rather
>> than rule takers (did anyone ever use that rather lame term before the
>> Brexiteers invented it?) seemed to be that the UK wouldn’t be subject to
>> the EU’s rules **even when dealing with the EU**. What kind of
>> exceptionalist British Empire universe did those people think we live in?
>
> We trade with the USA, are we bound by their rules?
>

Yes. If our goods and services don't conform to their requirements, they
don't get in.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 08:13:01 -0000 (UTC)
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 16:31:51 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> But our government won’t even countenance the trading block idea, thus
>> we
>>>>>> remain outside of the EEA.
>>>>>
>>>>> The EEA is essentially paying to be in the EU but without a vote on any of
>>>> the
>>>>> rules. Its the worst of both worlds.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But the brexiteers wanted out of the rule making process….
>>>
>>> No, we wanted out of the rules and out of any political control by brussels.
>>> And if a few million east europeans could bugger off too so much the better.
>>
>> Weirdly the sense of much of the rhetoric about being rule makers rather
>> than rule takers (did anyone ever use that rather lame term before the
>> Brexiteers invented it?) seemed to be that the UK wouldn’t be subject to
>> the EU’s rules **even when dealing with the EU**. What kind of
>> exceptionalist British Empire universe did those people think we live in?
>
> We trade with the USA, are we bound by their rules?

We don't trade much fresh food with the US, for obvious reasons, and that's
where there are the strictest requirements for UK exporters to comply with
EU rules. Even though they largely still do anyway, that's no longer taken
on trust. That damages exports of short-life products like meat and fish.

Even in total, our US trade is much less than our EU trade (though the
latter is falling):

In 2021 the EU accounted for 43% of the UK's total trade - 42% of UK
exports and 45% imports.
Looking at individual countries, the the USA is the UK largest trading
partner, accounting for just over a fifth of UK exports and 12% of imports
in 2021.

<https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7851/CBP-7851.pdf>

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 07:38:03 +0000, Muttley wrote:
> You missed the point. The EEC never required free movement, it was
> nothing more that free trade of goods, not people.

Treaty of Rome, 1957

TITLE III — The Free Movement of Persons, Services and Capital
Chapter 1 — Workers

Article 48

1. The free movement of workers shall be ensured within the Community not
later than at the date of the expiry of the transitional period.

2. This shall involve the abolition of any discrimination based on
nationality between workers of the Member States, as regards employment,
remuneration and other working conditions.

3. It shall include the right, subject to limitations justified by
reasons of public order, public safety and public health:

(a) to accept offers of employment actually made;

(b) to move about freely for this purpose within the territory of Member
States;

(c) to stay in any Member State in order to carry on an employment in
conformity with the legislative and administrative provisions governing
the employment of the workers of that State; and

(d) to live, on conditions which shall be the subject of implementing
regulations to be laid down by the Commission, in the territory of a
Member State after having been employed there.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/
Treaty_establishing_the_European_Economic_Community

In message <u10ged$242nr$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:13:01 on Mon, 10 Apr
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 16:31:51 -0000 (UTC)
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> But our government won’t even countenance the trading block
>>>>>idea, thus we remain outside of the EEA.
>>>>
>>>> The EEA is essentially paying to be in the EU but without a vote on
>>>>any of the rules. Its the worst of both worlds.
>>>
>>> But the brexiteers wanted out of the rule making process….
>>
>> No, we wanted out of the rules and out of any political control by brussels.
>> And if a few million east europeans could bugger off too so much the better.
>
>Weirdly the sense of much of the rhetoric about being rule makers rather
>than rule takers (did anyone ever use that rather lame term before the
>Brexiteers invented it?) seemed to be that the UK wouldn’t be subject to
>the EU’s rules **even when dealing with the EU**. What kind of
>exceptionalist British Empire universe did those people think we live in?

It's quite a widespread view. Encapsulated by the anger at the French
for having the temerity to enforce 21st century immigration rules,
rather than letting Brits though just by waving the cover of their
passport "just like we did 40yrs ago".
--
Roland Perry

In message <u10dii$23lpd$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:24:02 on Mon, 10 Apr
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 16:31:51 -0000 (UTC)
>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> But our government won’t even countenance the trading block idea, thus we
>>>> remain outside of the EEA.
>>>
>>> The EEA is essentially paying to be in the EU but without a vote on
>>>any of the rules. Its the worst of both worlds.
>>
>>But the brexiteers wanted out of the rule making process….
>
>No, we wanted out of the rules and out of any political control by brussels.
>And if a few million east europeans could bugger off too so much the better.

You might have had that view, but it was very much a minority one.
--
Roland Perry

On 10/04/2023 09:26, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 08:13:01 -0000 (UTC)
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 16:31:51 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> But our government won’t even countenance the trading block idea, thus
>> we
>>>>>> remain outside of the EEA.
>>>>>
>>>>> The EEA is essentially paying to be in the EU but without a vote on any of
>>>> the
>>>>> rules. Its the worst of both worlds.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But the brexiteers wanted out of the rule making process….
>>>
>>> No, we wanted out of the rules and out of any political control by brussels.
>>> And if a few million east europeans could bugger off too so much the better.
>>
>> Weirdly the sense of much of the rhetoric about being rule makers rather
>> than rule takers (did anyone ever use that rather lame term before the
>> Brexiteers invented it?) seemed to be that the UK wouldn’t be subject to
>> the EU’s rules **even when dealing with the EU**. What kind of
>> exceptionalist British Empire universe did those people think we live in?
>
> We trade with the USA, are we bound by their rules?
>
Yes. We are accepting their sub -standard food.

In message <u10ecr$23pf1$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:38:03 on Mon, 10 Apr
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 05:50:01 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <u0ujs0$1opb8$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:59:12 on Sun, 9 Apr
>>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>Those grants were simply some of our money coming back to us.
>>
>>And some of other people's money too. The lie on the bus was that *none*
>>of our contribution was coming back.
>
>Perhaps, but the truth was that a huge part of it went to prop up greece,
>italy and various east european basket cases. And driving through spain is
>a joy thanks to EU funded motorways that carry sod all traffic compared to
>the knackered roads in this country.

The other lie is that our contribution was "huge". Just 1% of GDP, which
has fallen 4% now *just* as a result of leaving.

>>>Shame the EUi/EEC couldn't have remained a trading block with the federalist
>>>nonsense confined to an obscure bunch of obsessives in brussels.
>>
>>Ah yes, the "anti-federalist" Brxit vote. But sadly for democracy it's
>>an important factor for a tiny proportion of those who opted to "Leave".
>>So the vast majority regarded it as OK.
>
>You missed the point. The EEC never required free movement, it was nothing
>more that free trade of goods, not people.

That's missing the point too, which is that few Brits had their nose out
of joint as a result of EU federalism.

>>That's why it needed whipping up popularist xenophobia (plus the wonky
>>maths) to get the result [only just] across the finishing line.
>
>Only just is all thats needed in a 2 way vote.

The issue here is the way that was achieved by a tissue of lies.
--
Roland Perry

Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 10/04/2023 09:26, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 08:13:01 -0000 (UTC)
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 16:31:51 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> But our government won’t even countenance the trading block idea, thus
>>> we
>>>>>>> remain outside of the EEA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The EEA is essentially paying to be in the EU but without a vote on any of
>>>>> the
>>>>>> rules. Its the worst of both worlds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But the brexiteers wanted out of the rule making process….
>>>>
>>>> No, we wanted out of the rules and out of any political control by brussels.
>>>> And if a few million east europeans could bugger off too so much the better.
>>>
>>> Weirdly the sense of much of the rhetoric about being rule makers rather
>>> than rule takers (did anyone ever use that rather lame term before the
>>> Brexiteers invented it?) seemed to be that the UK wouldn’t be subject to
>>> the EU’s rules **even when dealing with the EU**. What kind of
>>> exceptionalist British Empire universe did those people think we live in?
>>
>> We trade with the USA, are we bound by their rules?
>>
> Yes. We are accepting their sub -standard food.
>

Such as?

In message <u10m2a$24qdb$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:48:58 on Mon, 10 Apr
2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>On 10/04/2023 09:26, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 08:13:01 -0000 (UTC)
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 16:31:51 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> But our government won’t even countenance the trading block
>>>>>>>idea, thus we remain outside of the EEA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The EEA is essentially paying to be in the EU but without a vote
>>>>>>on any of the rules. Its the worst of both worlds.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the brexiteers wanted out of the rule making process….
>>>>
>>>> No, we wanted out of the rules and out of any political control by
>>>>brussels.

>>>> And if a few million east europeans could bugger off too so much
>>>>the better.
>>>
>>> Weirdly the sense of much of the rhetoric about being rule makers rather
>>> than rule takers (did anyone ever use that rather lame term before the
>>> Brexiteers invented it?) seemed to be that the UK wouldn’t be subject to
>>> the EU’s rules **even when dealing with the EU**. What kind of
>>> exceptionalist British Empire universe did those people think we live in?

>> We trade with the USA, are we bound by their rules?
>>
>Yes. We are accepting their sub -standard food.

Although there's no special rule preventing us buying their
high-standard food (but a lot people choose not to, unless it's wine,
which seems popular; US beer on the other hand is generally awful).
--
Roland Perry

In message <u10lsc$24gch$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:45:48 on Mon, 10 Apr
2023, Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> remarked:
>On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 07:38:03 +0000, Muttley wrote:
>> You missed the point. The EEC never required free movement, it was
>> nothing more that free trade of goods, not people.
>Treaty of Rome, 1957
>
>TITLE III — The Free Movement of Persons, Services and Capital
>Chapter 1 — Workers
>
>Article 48
>
>1. The free movement of workers shall be ensured within the Community not
>later than at the date of the expiry of the transitional period.
>
>2. This shall involve the abolition of any discrimination based on
>nationality between workers of the Member States, as regards employment,
>remuneration and other working conditions.
>
>3. It shall include the right, subject to limitations justified by
>reasons of public order, public safety and public health:
>
>(a) to accept offers of employment actually made;
>
>(b) to move about freely for this purpose within the territory of Member
>States;
>
>(c) to stay in any Member State in order to carry on an employment in
>conformity with the legislative and administrative provisions governing
>the employment of the workers of that State; and
>
>(d) to live, on conditions which shall be the subject of implementing
>regulations to be laid down by the Commission, in the territory of a
>Member State after having been employed there.

By the 1980's, there were no formalities at all in the way of a German
colleagues of mine relocating to the UK, whereas USA-ians had mountains
of paperwork to do. (Ditto for their household effects).
--
Roland Perry

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 10/04/2023 09:26, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 08:13:01 -0000 (UTC)
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 16:31:51 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> But our government won’t even countenance the trading block idea, thus
>>> we
>>>>>>> remain outside of the EEA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The EEA is essentially paying to be in the EU but without a vote on any of
>>>>> the
>>>>>> rules. Its the worst of both worlds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But the brexiteers wanted out of the rule making process….
>>>>
>>>> No, we wanted out of the rules and out of any political control by brussels.
>>>> And if a few million east europeans could bugger off too so much the better.
>>>
>>> Weirdly the sense of much of the rhetoric about being rule makers rather
>>> than rule takers (did anyone ever use that rather lame term before the
>>> Brexiteers invented it?) seemed to be that the UK wouldn’t be subject to
>>> the EU’s rules **even when dealing with the EU**. What kind of
>>> exceptionalist British Empire universe did those people think we live in?
>>
>> We trade with the USA, are we bound by their rules?
>>
>
> Yes. If our goods and services don't conform to their requirements, they
> don't get in.

It goes beyond that, since the USA has over the past Century replaced Great
Britain as the Worlds Policeman and major economic power they can dictate
to a large extent on who deals and what we supply to other countries.
Nominally we are independent but so many of our companies are so
intertwined with or are US subsidiaries that the US can impose charges on
those they deem to have broken their laws.
And forget the special relationship, that was a chummy image from the WW2
era ingrained into our grandparents when the US came to Britains aid. As
soon as VE day was over the US started to further its own interests and the
relationship became more like master and dog.
The US decides what gets put in the bowl. To an extent membership of the
EU was a counter to that
but many Brexiteers harked back to the old WW2 special relationship when
“We jointly beat the Hun and rescued the ungrateful French “.
The sad thing is that many of those spouting that view while alive in the
WW2 would have been toddlers and school kids and while they would have
experienced the deprivations of the home front
claiming they fought was stealing the merit of their older relations who
actually did.
I have US relatives and find individually most US citizens are quite
amicable, but many UK citizens especially older ones think just because
they speak English they are still like us.
They are not and are a foreign state who put their own interests first ,
most of the time those interests
align with ours or are the lesser evil so there is no problem being the
puppet on the string.
But when push comes to shove if the UK is an obstacle to US policy then it
will get shoved.
Suez should have confirmed that decades ago.

GH

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 06:00:46 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <u0vb5p$1s6jn$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:36:57 on Sun, 9 Apr
>2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <a2d53il02caeguqqiuhkfvnhmckanmcgm0@4ax.com>, at 13:52:10 on
>>> Sun, 9 Apr 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 04:58:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <u0pb28$rqq5$5@dont-email.me>, at 14:58:16 on Fri, 7 Apr
>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <1u403i5ssip7shp8gsnhci3e681u9390ci@4ax.com>, at 14:00:13 on
>>>>>>> Fri, 7 Apr 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 13:07:22 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In message <u0oqkm$pge4$6@dont-email.me>, at 10:17:59 on Fri, 7 Apr
>>>>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <u0ne42$gl53$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:38:10 on Thu, 6 Apr
>>>>>>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>><https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5f17b5a2-d3cd-11ed-b5c3-54651fc826e9
>>>>>>>>>>>> ?shareToken=b32ffae17496f10563b46d3185e4c0ea>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What people forget when moaning about huge profits for companies like
>>>>>>>>>>> Shell (most made outside the UK) is that may of the shareholders are
>>>>>>>>>>> themselves (via pension funds). Similarly other big bad
>>>>>>>>>>>companies which
>>>>>>>>>>> are accused of exploiting the public in different ways.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I complain a lot about Vodafone's business practices, but in
>>>>>>>>>>>years gone
>>>>>>>>>>> by my pension provider was a big investor.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> However, I believe that, of late, UK pension funds are now more
>>>>>>>>>> likely to
>>>>>>>>>> invest outside the UK, as the returns are generally better. It's
>>>>>>>>>> one of the
>>>>>>>>>> reasons for the declining importance of the LSE.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If they invest in Shell, they are in effect investing "outside the UK",
>>>>>>>>> if we believe their protestation that most of their profits come from
>>>>>>>>> outside the UK (rather than from fleecing long-suffering UK motorists).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Vodafone has substantial overseas interests too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True, but I think they also invest directly in foreign companies on
>>>>>>>> foreign stock markets.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, of course they will. Maybe even more in future thanks to Nigel
>>>>>>> Farage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sadly, there's long been a steady loss of high tech industries
>>>>>>from the UK.
>>>>>> It long predates Brexit.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's true, but Brexit has put several more nails in the coffin,
>>>>> despite the promises to 'make UK great again', to channel Trump.
>>>>
>>>> I'm a Remainer like you, but if I weren't, I would point out that
>>>> nearly all this decline occurred while we were full EU
>>>> members, before the 2016 referendum. It's probably continued
>>>> post-Brexit, but there wasn't much left to lose by then.
>>>>
>>>> So, while it's nice to blame everything on Brexit, in this case, the
>>>> problems are at home.
>>>
>>> The latest economic analysis says we are permanently 4% worse off due to
>>> Brexit (having factored out all the other reasons we are worse off this
>>> week).
>>>
>>> That's in marked contrast to the Brexiteers who said it would make us
>>> *better* off.
>>>
>>> 4% might not sound much to some, but it's 4x the amount we used to pay
>>> to the EU (and once upon a time, written on the side of bus, as if that
>>> 1% would save the NHS, if it hadn't already been earmarked to replace
>>> lost grants from the EU).
>>
>>Yes, Brexit has been bad for the UK economy so far, and probably will
>>continue to be in the future, but you can't blame Brexit for everything
>>that's gone wrong in the UK economy for the previous 50 years of EU
>>membership.
>
>I don't think I had.

I was talking about a long-term trend that's been going on for decades, and you immediately turned it into yet another
attack on Brexit, which had nothing to do with it. These turgid Brexit debates are pointless: there's nothing left to
say, and no opinions left to change.

>
>>And, no, I'm not saying we'd have been better off outside the EU.
>
>It's not just the economy, in the sense of the UK having its own
>deteriorating balance of payments with r27. Freedom of movement was a
>great enabler, and not just for holidaymakers queuing at Dover.
>
>>The UK has been living beyond its means for many decades. It has gradually
>>sold off the family silver to pay for it. So, if a UK investment fund
>>wants to invest in large listed companies in most modern industries, they
>>probably won't be British ones.
>
>Clearly many big tech companies are based in the USA, and Japanese ones
>are still doing reasonably well.

Of course they are — they're not the countries living beyond their means.

Let's suppose a UK pension/investment fund is constrained to invest only in listed companies, and wants to have a
proportion of its long-term investments in new industries. It defines these as:

AI Software
Autonomous vehicle technology
Batteries for electric vehicles
Biotechnology
Computer hardware
Electric vehicle manufacture
Games software
Light rail vehicle manufacture
Microchip design
Microchip manufacture
Mobile phones and smart watches
Robotics
Satellite launching
Satellite manufacturing
Smart hardware for home use
Social media
Virtual reality
Wind turbine manufacturers

Which listed UK companies do you suggest they invest in to get this exposure? I don't think there are many.

[I'm not asking for your view on whether these are good sectors to invest in.]

On 10/04/2023 12:04, Recliner wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 06:00:46 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <u0vb5p$1s6jn$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:36:57 on Sun, 9 Apr
>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <a2d53il02caeguqqiuhkfvnhmckanmcgm0@4ax.com>, at 13:52:10 on
>>>> Sun, 9 Apr 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 04:58:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <u0pb28$rqq5$5@dont-email.me>, at 14:58:16 on Fri, 7 Apr
>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <1u403i5ssip7shp8gsnhci3e681u9390ci@4ax.com>, at 14:00:13 on
>>>>>>>> Fri, 7 Apr 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 13:07:22 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In message <u0oqkm$pge4$6@dont-email.me>, at 10:17:59 on Fri, 7 Apr
>>>>>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <u0ne42$gl53$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:38:10 on Thu, 6 Apr
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5f17b5a2-d3cd-11ed-b5c3-54651fc826e9
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?shareToken=b32ffae17496f10563b46d3185e4c0ea>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What people forget when moaning about huge profits for companies like
>>>>>>>>>>>> Shell (most made outside the UK) is that may of the shareholders are
>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves (via pension funds). Similarly other big bad
>>>>>>>>>>>> companies which
>>>>>>>>>>>> are accused of exploiting the public in different ways.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I complain a lot about Vodafone's business practices, but in
>>>>>>>>>>>> years gone
>>>>>>>>>>>> by my pension provider was a big investor.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> However, I believe that, of late, UK pension funds are now more
>>>>>>>>>>> likely to
>>>>>>>>>>> invest outside the UK, as the returns are generally better. It's
>>>>>>>>>>> one of the
>>>>>>>>>>> reasons for the declining importance of the LSE.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If they invest in Shell, they are in effect investing "outside the UK",
>>>>>>>>>> if we believe their protestation that most of their profits come from
>>>>>>>>>> outside the UK (rather than from fleecing long-suffering UK motorists).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Vodafone has substantial overseas interests too.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> True, but I think they also invest directly in foreign companies on
>>>>>>>>> foreign stock markets.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, of course they will. Maybe even more in future thanks to Nigel
>>>>>>>> Farage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sadly, there's long been a steady loss of high tech industries
>>>>>> >from the UK.
>>>>>>> It long predates Brexit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's true, but Brexit has put several more nails in the coffin,
>>>>>> despite the promises to 'make UK great again', to channel Trump.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm a Remainer like you, but if I weren't, I would point out that
>>>>> nearly all this decline occurred while we were full EU
>>>>> members, before the 2016 referendum. It's probably continued
>>>>> post-Brexit, but there wasn't much left to lose by then.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, while it's nice to blame everything on Brexit, in this case, the
>>>>> problems are at home.
>>>>
>>>> The latest economic analysis says we are permanently 4% worse off due to
>>>> Brexit (having factored out all the other reasons we are worse off this
>>>> week).
>>>>
>>>> That's in marked contrast to the Brexiteers who said it would make us
>>>> *better* off.
>>>>
>>>> 4% might not sound much to some, but it's 4x the amount we used to pay
>>>> to the EU (and once upon a time, written on the side of bus, as if that
>>>> 1% would save the NHS, if it hadn't already been earmarked to replace
>>>> lost grants from the EU).
>>>
>>> Yes, Brexit has been bad for the UK economy so far, and probably will
>>> continue to be in the future, but you can't blame Brexit for everything
>>> that's gone wrong in the UK economy for the previous 50 years of EU
>>> membership.
>>
>> I don't think I had.
>
> I was talking about a long-term trend that's been going on for decades, and you immediately turned it into yet another
> attack on Brexit, which had nothing to do with it. These turgid Brexit debates are pointless: there's nothing left to
> say, and no opinions left to change.
>
>>
>>> And, no, I'm not saying we'd have been better off outside the EU.
>>
>> It's not just the economy, in the sense of the UK having its own
>> deteriorating balance of payments with r27. Freedom of movement was a
>> great enabler, and not just for holidaymakers queuing at Dover.
>>
>>> The UK has been living beyond its means for many decades. It has gradually
>>> sold off the family silver to pay for it. So, if a UK investment fund
>>> wants to invest in large listed companies in most modern industries, they
>>> probably won't be British ones.
>>
>> Clearly many big tech companies are based in the USA, and Japanese ones
>> are still doing reasonably well.
>
> Of course they are — they're not the countries living beyond their means.
>
> Let's suppose a UK pension/investment fund is constrained to invest only in listed companies, and wants to have a
> proportion of its long-term investments in new industries. It defines these as:
>
> AI Software
> Autonomous vehicle technology
> Batteries for electric vehicles
> Biotechnology
> Computer hardware
> Electric vehicle manufacture
> Games software
> Light rail vehicle manufacture
> Microchip design
> Microchip manufacture
> Mobile phones and smart watches
> Robotics
> Satellite launching
> Satellite manufacturing
> Smart hardware for home use
> Social media
> Virtual reality
> Wind turbine manufacturers
>
> Which listed UK companies do you suggest they invest in to get this exposure? I don't think there are many.
>
> [I'm not asking for your view on whether these are good sectors to invest in.]
>

Games software, microchip design and atellite manufacturing are still
areas we have a standing in areas we have. I can almost see a satellite
design and manufacturing plant from my bedroom window.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 10 Apr 2023 10:17:49 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:

>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 10/04/2023 09:26, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 08:13:01 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 16:31:51 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> But our government won’t even countenance the trading block idea, thus
>>>> we
>>>>>>>> remain outside of the EEA.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The EEA is essentially paying to be in the EU but without a vote on any of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> rules. Its the worst of both worlds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the brexiteers wanted out of the rule making process….
>>>>>
>>>>> No, we wanted out of the rules and out of any political control by brussels.
>>>>> And if a few million east europeans could bugger off too so much the better.
>>>>
>>>> Weirdly the sense of much of the rhetoric about being rule makers rather
>>>> than rule takers (did anyone ever use that rather lame term before the
>>>> Brexiteers invented it?) seemed to be that the UK wouldn’t be subject to
>>>> the EU’s rules **even when dealing with the EU**. What kind of
>>>> exceptionalist British Empire universe did those people think we live in?
>>>
>>> We trade with the USA, are we bound by their rules?
>>>
>>
>> Yes. If our goods and services don't conform to their requirements, they
>> don't get in.
>
>It goes beyond that, since the USA has over the past Century replaced Great
>Britain as the Worlds Policeman and major economic power they can dictate
>to a large extent on who deals and what we supply to other countries.
>Nominally we are independent but so many of our companies are so
>intertwined with or are US subsidiaries that the US can impose charges on
>those they deem to have broken their laws.
>And forget the special relationship, that was a chummy image from the WW2
>era ingrained into our grandparents when the US came to Britains aid. As
>soon as VE day was over the US started to further its own interests and the
>relationship became more like master and dog.
>The US decides what gets put in the bowl. To an extent membership of the
>EU was a counter to that
>but many Brexiteers harked back to the old WW2 special relationship when
>“We jointly beat the Hun and rescued the ungrateful French “.
>The sad thing is that many of those spouting that view while alive in the
>WW2 would have been toddlers and school kids and while they would have
>experienced the deprivations of the home front
>claiming they fought was stealing the merit of their older relations who
>actually did.
>I have US relatives and find individually most US citizens are quite
>amicable, but many UK citizens especially older ones think just because
>they speak English they are still like us.
>They are not and are a foreign state who put their own interests first ,
>most of the time those interests
>align with ours or are the lesser evil so there is no problem being the
>puppet on the string.
>But when push comes to shove if the UK is an obstacle to US policy then it
>will get shoved.
>Suez should have confirmed that decades ago.

Yes, well said.

Equally, Brexiteers who think the 'Commonwealth' (by which they mean the three white Commonwealth countries, and not the
far larger non-white Commonwealth populations) will be keen to reinstate the old trade deals we ditched decades ago. In
fact, of course, they want new trade deals that benefit themselves, and aren't necessarily to our advantage.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 07:34:50 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

>On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 19:36:17 +0100
>Alan Jones <ajnews@exospan.com> wrote:
>>On 09/04/2023 15:59, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> Those grants were simply some of our money coming back to us.
>>>
>>> Shame the EUi/EEC couldn't have remained a trading block with the federalist
>>> nonsense confined to an obscure bunch of obsessives in brussels.
>>
>>I like the thought experiment where we imagine what California or Texas
>>would have been like if they had not been part of the USA.
>>
>>Powerful independent nations?
>
>California would be something like the 10th richest nation in the world right
>now if it went independent.
>
>>Seriously though - why does the USA resist the idea of evolution to a
>>set of independent sovereign states?
>>
>>The US government seemed quite keen for the UK to leave the EU, even
>
>Not sure where you got that from. Obama was dead against it and Trump didn't
>appear to care one way or the other.

No, Trump was strongly pro-Brexit. He's probably the only US president who felt that way.