On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 12:18:56 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>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.

On 10/04/2023 12:25, Recliner wrote:
> 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.

The deals we have signed with two members are distinctly to our
disadvantage.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 10/04/2023 12:26, Recliner wrote:
> 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.

Brexit served both right-wing American interests: the break-up of a
rival trading block, and Russian interests: the weakening of NATO.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 12:47:06 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 10/04/2023 12:25, Recliner wrote:
>> 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.
>
>The deals we have signed with two members are distinctly to our
>disadvantage.

Exactly, and why would they favour us? We're the ones desperate for new trade deals, not them.

On 10/04/2023 12:29, Recliner wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 12:18:56 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Indeed so. But can you name UK listed companies that provide exposure to those areas? If not, those UK funds will be
> investing in foreign companies, which may own UK subsidiaries in those fields.

On 10/04/2023 12:52, Recliner wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 12:47:06 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 10/04/2023 12:25, Recliner wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> The deals we have signed with two members are distinctly to our
>> disadvantage.
>
> Exactly, and why would they favour us? We're the ones desperate for new trade deals, not them.

Yes, Truss going in wringing her hands saying gives us a deal, any deal,
is not a good negotiating stance.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 12:55:21 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 10/04/2023 12:29, Recliner wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 12:18:56 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Indeed so. But can you name UK listed companies that provide exposure to those areas? If not, those UK funds will be
>> investing in foreign companies, which may own UK subsidiaries in those fields.
>
>ARM is a UK company, Surrey Satellite Technology is owned by Airbus, an
>Anglo-French company (for the time being).

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> ARM is a UK company, Surrey Satellite Technology is owned by Airbus, an
> Anglo-French company (for the time being).

Arm is owned by Japanese private equity. The owner (who is in need of cash
since losing money on other terrible investments) tried to flog it to NVIDIA
(listed in the US) but regulators didn't allow that. The current likely
outcome is an IPO and listing in the US - the UK government is trying to
persuade them to dual-list in the UK but it seems unlikely as there isn't
much benefit for investors to do that.

It hasn't been listed (anywhere) since 2016.

Theo

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <u10m2a$24qdb$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:48:58 on Mon, 10 Apr
>
>>> 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).

At one time I would have wholeheartedly agreed with about the beer, but now
if you ignore the big mass market producers like Budweiser there are
hundreds of small producers who take pride in what they produce.
Ironically many took their inspiration from the UK “real ale” movement and
the small microbreweries that has spawned, but not hidebound by the opinion
that anything not from a tradition cask with settled sediment must be the
spawn of the devil have established styles of their own that are quite
palatable to the extent that some UK microbreweries are copying those
styles.
Last Spring I tried a dark mild which was excellent and was equal to those
once available from the likes of Banks or Julia Hansons.
But far from being in a Canal side pub in the black country I was sat in
the taproom of one such brewery on an industrial estate in a town on the
outskirts of Chicago and the beer had been brewed and sold as an “ English
Mild”. I see it is still on the Beer list .
Some of the others were equally quaffable.

<https://temperance.beer>

GH

On 10 Apr 2023 12:10:16 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:

>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <u10m2a$24qdb$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:48:58 on Mon, 10 Apr
>>
>>>> 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).
>
>At one time I would have wholeheartedly agreed with about the beer, but now
>if you ignore the big mass market producers like Budweiser there are
>hundreds of small producers who take pride in what they produce.
>Ironically many took their inspiration from the UK “real ale” movement and
>the small microbreweries that has spawned, but not hidebound by the opinion
>that anything not from a tradition cask with settled sediment must be the
>spawn of the devil have established styles of their own that are quite
>palatable to the extent that some UK microbreweries are copying those
>styles.
>Last Spring I tried a dark mild which was excellent and was equal to those
>once available from the likes of Banks or Julia Hansons.
>But far from being in a Canal side pub in the black country I was sat in
>the taproom of one such brewery on an industrial estate in a town on the
>outskirts of Chicago and the beer had been brewed and sold as an “ English
>Mild”. I see it is still on the Beer list .
>Some of the others were equally quaffable.
>
><https://temperance.beer>

My favourite ale in the recent Wetherspoons ale festival was an American IPA:
https://www.cambridgebrewingcompany.com/beer/archive/flower-child-ipa/

https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/14/62529/

It's from Cambridge, MA, but was brewed in Oxfordshire for the festival.

On 10/04/2023 12:25, Recliner wrote:

> Equally, Brexiteers who think the 'Commonwealth' (by which they mean the three white Commonwealth countries,

TBF, India is mentioned a lot. And that's ignoring the people who backed
brexit because of their own links to Pakistan, Nigeria etc.

--
Arthur Figgis

On 10/04/2023 09:13, Sam Wilson wrote:

> 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?

A pensioner who thinks we could go back to producing everything here
probably doesn't see a reason to care about rules elsewhere. IMHO people
massively under-estimate how international stuff is.

--
Arthur Figgis

On 10/04/2023 10:48, Coffee wrote:
> Yes. We are accepting their sub -standard food.

All "sub standard food" issues that I can remember have been EU food?

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:37:39 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>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

Only in a few areas relating to trade.

>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

The NHS has apparently been collapsing since its inception. Every year its the
same refrain from the vested interests working in it.

>crops and a knackered hospitality industry. Everything in the garden is

I've stayed at a number of UK hotels in the last 12 months, no problems
whatsoever with staffing. Don't know about farming but energy/fuel costs seem
to be more of an issue from what I've read.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:40:19 +0100
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.

Thats not the same as the UK internally having to follow their rules.

On 10/04/2023 16:33, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:40:19 +0100
> 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.
>
> Thats not the same as the UK internally having to follow their rules.
>

It is actually.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:45:48 -0000 (UTC)
Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:
>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.

Presumably we had an opt out then when we joined because proper free
movement didn't start until after maastricht.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:41:56 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>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:
>>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".

Straw man. Who really thinks that? Anyway, when I went through eurotunnel
recently french customs took about 30 seconds. Stamp-stamp-stamp done.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:47:15 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>That's missing the point too, which is that few Brits had their nose out
>of joint as a result of EU federalism.

You might want to be part of a federal europe, I don't. I feel no
connection to any country beyond the channel.

>>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.

So just like every UK election then.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 12:49:31 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 10/04/2023 12:26, Recliner wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Brexit served both right-wing American interests: the break-up of a
>rival trading block, and Russian interests: the weakening of NATO.

How does leaving the EU weaken NATO? Do take your time.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 16:34:03 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 10/04/2023 16:33, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> Yes. If our goods and services don't conform to their requirements, they
>>> don't get in.
>>
>> Thats not the same as the UK internally having to follow their rules.
>>
>
>It is actually.

Well don't stop there, fill us in exactly how.

On 10/04/2023 16:41, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 12:49:31 +0100
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 10/04/2023 12:26, Recliner wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Brexit served both right-wing American interests: the break-up of a
>> rival trading block, and Russian interests: the weakening of NATO.
>
> How does leaving the EU weaken NATO? Do take your time.
>

By creating tensions between different members. That's not to say it
actually succeeded to any great extent.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 10/04/2023 16:43, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 16:34:03 +0100
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 10/04/2023 16:33, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> Yes. If our goods and services don't conform to their requirements, they
>>>> don't get in.
>>>
>>> Thats not the same as the UK internally having to follow their rules.
>>>
>>
>> It is actually.
>
> Well don't stop there, fill us in exactly how.
>
I leave that as an exercise for the reader.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 12:49:31 +0100
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 10/04/2023 12:26, Recliner wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Brexit served both right-wing American interests: the break-up of a
>> rival trading block, and Russian interests: the weakening of NATO.
>
> How does leaving the EU weaken NATO? Do take your time.

It's pretty obvious: the EU is more likely to form a defensive alliance in
the absence of the UK (which always opposed such moves). Such an alliance
would compete with, and weaken, NATO. It would also reduce the US
commitment to defending Europe.

Of course, Putin's calculation went awry when he gave NATO the best reason
to both expand and unite that it had had in decades.

In message <u11agj$27lqc$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:37:55 on Mon, 10 Apr
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:41:56 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>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:

>>>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".
>
>Straw man. Who really thinks that?

I've spoken to people in person who have thrown exactly that tantrum.

>Anyway, when I went through eurotunnel
>recently french customs took about 30 seconds. Stamp-stamp-stamp done.

Apparently you should have tried this BH weekend, at Dover.
--
Roland Perry