In message <llq73itnt6aev99rg2q6e37nce0q6ed2m7@4ax.com>, at 12:04:20 on
Mon, 10 Apr 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>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-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?shareToken=b32ffae17496f10563b46d3185e4c0ea>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What people forget when moaning about huge profits for
>>>>>>>>>>>>companies like Shell (most made outside the UK) is that may
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>> years gone by my pension provider was a big investor.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> However, I believe that, of late, UK pension funds are now
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.

It's accelerated it.

>These turgid Brexit debates are pointless: there's nothing left to
>say, and no opinions left to change.

There is still history to be written. And some people *are* changing
their mind (about whether voting Leave was as good an idea as it
seemed).

>>>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 is apparently something the UK excels in, at least in
terms of getting the work done. I haven't looked to see if those
companies are listed, or where.
--
Roland Perry

In message <u11ajq$27m8e$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:39:38 on Mon, 10 Apr
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>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.

But you are very much in the minority, when it comes to that.

>I feel no connection to any country beyond the channel.

More fool you.

>>>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.

The referendum was especially egregious, and more to the point we didn't
get to have a second vote 4 or 5yrs later.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <llq73itnt6aev99rg2q6e37nce0q6ed2m7@4ax.com>, at 12:04:20 on
> Mon, 10 Apr 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> 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-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?shareToken=b32ffae17496f10563b46d3185e4c0ea>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What people forget when moaning about huge profits for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> companies like Shell (most made outside the UK) is that may
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> years gone by my pension provider was a big investor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I believe that, of late, UK pension funds are now
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> It's accelerated it.

Did it? Do you have post-Brexit examples?

>
>> These turgid Brexit debates are pointless: there's nothing left to
>> say, and no opinions left to change.
>
> There is still history to be written. And some people *are* changing
> their mind (about whether voting Leave was as good an idea as it
> seemed).
>
>>>> 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 is apparently something the UK excels in, at least in
> terms of getting the work done. I haven't looked to see if those
> companies are listed, or where.

In message <u11dvo$286fa$5@dont-email.me>, at 16:37:12 on Mon, 10 Apr
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>> 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 is apparently something the UK excels in, at least in
>> terms of getting the work done. I haven't looked to see if those
>> companies are listed, or where.
>
>I suggest you check.

Usenet etiquette is that if you have a point to make, you produce the
data.
--
Roland Perry

On 10/04/2023 10:45, Mike Humphrey 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.
>
> 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.

That is about workers with jobs; the UK took things further, and faster,
than most other countries.

And realistically, remain was only going offer more "silence, racist
proletarians!" rather than "maybe we do need more houses - and perhaps
to think about whether there are long term consequences to importing
labour rather than training people"
--
Arthur Figgis

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:43:07 -0000 (UTC), 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.
>
Imported stuff conforms to the requirements of the markets for which
it is made. If a raddled old ex-imperial offshore state wants a
different spec then it generally costs more or has a reduced spec
(which can still cost more - see Boris buses). As for making it
yourself, Thatcher and Co. destroyed significant parts of the domestic
manufacturing capability years ago.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:03:47 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>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?
>
Chicken which has been washed in disinfectant because of the poorer
animal hygiene standards in the USA causing more risk of bacterial
contamination.
https://www.soilassociation.org/causes-campaigns/top-10-risks-from-a-uk-us-trade-deal/what-is-chlorinated-chicken/?gclid=CjwKCAjw586hBhBrEiwAQYEnHf-9C87Mt2QckO_5GC3BCLq27iyFTuX_ZADQK_zeoRcqd2EDjJSIchoCIt4QAvD_BwE
[https://tinyurl.com/9ccjratf]

That isn't going to be an efficient measure for contamination within
the flesh rather than on the surface.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 14:33:25 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>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?
>
Non-conforming food not the now legally conforming stuff from the
rebel colonies.

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. 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
>
There isn't as much shared as you might like to think. There are long
historical ties to Ireland and the coastal countries of the European
mainland. There are increasing numbers of people in England who would
be happy for Scotland to leave the UK while failing to consider why
Westminster is desperate to hang on to an alleged loss-maker.

>nations and genetically we're more or less the same people on this island
>whatever the rabid nationalists think.
>
There are rabid nationalists on both sides of the border. Unlike in
England (e.g. demos outside Westminster), you can't usually gather
enough at the same time to fill a bus in Scotland.

>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.
>
You don't seem to know much about the different cultures in the USA
either. Another lot who probably look all the same to you.

>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.
>
The EU was and remains a voluntary union unlike the previous
Yugoslavia and USSR or the UK.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 16:54:09 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 10/04/2023 16:41, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> 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.

It didn't succeed because no such thing ever happened. Sounds like
something you dreamt up down the pub. The only thing causing internal tensions
in NATO right now is turkey.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:56:11 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> 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

An EU army has always been a joke and nothing has changed in that respect.

>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.

Quite. NATO is in rude health.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 17:26:30 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <u11agj$27lqc$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:37:55 on Mon, 10 Apr
>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>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.

Anyone dumb enough to still go by ferry to Calais in this day and age deserves
all the queuing they get.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 17:30:00 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <u11ajq$27m8e$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:39:38 on Mon, 10 Apr
>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>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.
>
>But you are very much in the minority, when it comes to that.

Not in the UK I'm not.

>>I feel no connection to any country beyond the channel.
>
>More fool you.

Not really. I like europe, I'm here now. But I'm not going to pretend I
have much in common with the workshy entitled french, the hysterical
medittereaneans or any of eastern europe. Perhaps there's more of a link
with the low countries or germany but its tenuous at best.

>>So just like every UK election then.
>
>The referendum was especially egregious, and more to the point we didn't
>get to have a second vote 4 or 5yrs later.

Why should we have? Just because people like you didn't like the result?
I bet you wouldn't be whinging about no 2nd vote if remain had won.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 20:12:21 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 07:34:50 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>wrote:
>>You're deliberatly or otherwise conflating culture and economics. England
>>shares far more culturally with scotland and wales than it does with the EU
>>
>There isn't as much shared as you might like to think. There are long

There's a lot.

>>distinguish a new yorker from a texan from a californian so a continent wide
>>culture developed.
>>
>You don't seem to know much about the different cultures in the USA
>either. Another lot who probably look all the same to you.

The "cultures" are all just various shades of the same colour. The yanks love
to be [something] american whether it be irish, italian, german, whatever even
when most of them are 3 or more generations removed and have never even been to
their ancestral homelands. The only truly seperate european culture in north
america is the Quebecois.

>>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.
>>
>The EU was and remains a voluntary union unlike the previous
>Yugoslavia and USSR or the UK.

Its all a bit Hotel California though isn't it.

On 10/04/2023 08:34, 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.

Yes, the economic power was one reason I chose California and Texas for
my though experiment, plus their history of independence at times, like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas.

Texas had/has huge mineral resources as well as an efficient
agricultural sector, which would have perhaps made it even more of a
present-day ecomonic power if it had been independent. But would the
overall outcome have been better or worse, and for whom?
Would it have encouraged wealth concentration, wars, dictatorships? Or
would it be like Norway, able to keep the oil wealth spread across a
relatively small populaton, and investing widely for the future across
the world.

California is an amazing economy, built on many pillars. Is it just
coincidence that it had the largest population and so the largest "home
market" and economies of scale?

My point is that they could indeed have been powerful independent
nations, and there are always some who campaign for it, but they choose
not to go down that path. Are they wrong? Did they fare better as part
of the USA, or worse?

>
>> 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.

Yes, I was looking economically at the advantages or disadvantages. I
take your point that integration between diverse cultures might be an
impediment to further EU integration, but for Scotland and N Ireland,
the cultural similarities don't matter, so long as they can take back
control from London and determine their own future.

The USA is not a homogeneous culture - coast vs. internal, north vs.
south, english vs hispanic roots (CA is a highly culturally diverse
state). And yet they have become a coherent entity. But your "mix of
europeans" is still evident, with Texas and California both having
around 40% Hispanic populations, which did not prevent the Union. It is
some of these contrasts between states and cities that make the USA such
a wonderful place, as well as sometimes shocking (e.g. colour
segregation in some of the southern states, or even within Washington
DC). But again, it didn't prevent the Union, and there does not seem to
be an appetite to break states away from it. The independence movements
in Scotland and N.Ireland seem more popular than in any US State, so why
is London holding them back? Are you saying that their cultural
similarity to London rules out independence?

My family and friends all across Europe share my sense of humour (bit
dry), music (including many wonderful works in French, German, Italian),
wines, pastries, flowers, fruits, herbs, ... and their countries also
share modern culture like football, movies, beer, sausages and
skepticism about their politicians! This includes friends and co-workers
from Poland, Hungary, Croatia and Serbia. What cultural differences are
you alluding to, and why do we need borders and independent
bureaucracies to keep the peoples separated? I don't have any problem
with their different ancestry, in fact, I adore the differences that one
can detect.

And anyway, what does it matter? In the USA, we eat grits in the South
and home fries in the North. It doesn't mean that the USA should break up.

> 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.

You are right that, even now, the prevention of wars within the EU is
part of the reason for it seeking tighter economic integration and
cultural appreciation. As a UK resident, I was surprised that it still a
motivating factor for many in the EU, but I guess that will fade within
Europe over the next generation as the memory recedes.

But the EU is now also about other factors including: economies of scale
in the boring stuff (like setting consumer standards); protection from
other huge world ecomomic blocs (like tariffs against subsidised
exports); freedom of movement (so industry can assemble teams from the
best EU talent without government interference, and individuals can move
to where they feel most comfortable); removal of bureaucracy (e.g.
internal border checks, tax witholding, currency transactions).

I quite like those EU aspirations, so I wish them well and I am doing
what I can to help them to achieve them. They may fail, but good on them
for trying! I am happy about Brexit, as further EU integration was being
held back by the UK, which used to have power and respect across Europe
that was way beyond what its size would have merited. But then I do have
the freedom of EU citizenship for myself and all my descendants, that I
value, and I want to make the EU as open, free and powerful as possible
for them. Would you not want to see an EU that is open (e.g. to
expansion), free (e.g. the four freedoms), powerful (e.g. at least in
the top four of world economies), even if you believe that achieving it
will be difficult?

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 19:41:51 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:43:07 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>wrote:
>>Well don't stop there, fill us in exactly how.
>>
>Imported stuff conforms to the requirements of the markets for which
>it is made. If a raddled old ex-imperial offshore state wants a
>different spec then it generally costs more or has a reduced spec
>(which can still cost more - see Boris buses). As for making it
>yourself, Thatcher and Co. destroyed significant parts of the domestic
>manufacturing capability years ago.

Right, and the unions had nothing to do with that? They screwed Leyland
before Thatcher came to power and they screwed the coalmines and shipyards too.
Mining might be a bloody hard tough job for shit money (though nothing
prevented them going to work elsewhere other than not bothering to work at
school and get an education), but you don't hold a whole country to ransom and
cause blackouts without getting your arses well and truly kicked.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 20:58:12 +0100
Alan Jones <ajnews@exospan.com> wrote:
>My point is that they could indeed have been powerful independent
>nations, and there are always some who campaign fxor it, but they choose
>not to go down that path. Are they wrong? Did they fare better as part
>of the USA, or worse?

They "choose" not to because the US navy parked gunboats in the pacific
and made its point quite well. Washington wanted the riches and the
nascent california was in no state to resist.

>impediment to further EU integration, but for Scotland and N Ireland,
>the cultural similarities don't matter, so long as they can take back
>control from London and determine their own future.

Except neither would be able to join the EU for a very long time unless
the EU changed its acceptance conditions.

>be an appetite to break states away from it. The independence movements
>in Scotland and N.Ireland seem more popular than in any US State, so why
>is London holding them back? Are you saying that their cultural

So you don't believe in democracy then or have you conveniently forgotten
about the scottish referendum result?

>You are right that, even now, the prevention of wars within the EU is
>part of the reason for it seeking tighter economic integration and
>cultural appreciation. As a UK resident, I was surprised that it still a
>motivating factor for many in the EU, but I guess that will fade within
>Europe over the next generation as the memory recedes.

The EU didn't exist until 1992 you plank. Who and what do you think kept the
peace in europe from WW2 until then?

tl;dr

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 19:59:03 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 19:41:51 +0100
>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:43:07 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>wrote:
>>>Well don't stop there, fill us in exactly how.
>>>
>>Imported stuff conforms to the requirements of the markets for which
>>it is made. If a raddled old ex-imperial offshore state wants a
>>different spec then it generally costs more or has a reduced spec
>>(which can still cost more - see Boris buses). As for making it
>>yourself, Thatcher and Co. destroyed significant parts of the domestic
>>manufacturing capability years ago.
>
>Right, and the unions had nothing to do with that? They screwed Leyland
>before Thatcher came to power and they screwed the coalmines and shipyards too.
>Mining might be a bloody hard tough job for shit money (though nothing
>prevented them going to work elsewhere other than not bothering to work at
>school and get an education),
>
or no other jobs being available.

>but you don't hold a whole country to ransom and
>cause blackouts without getting your arses well and truly kicked.
>
Part of the reason Thatcher got kicked out eventually.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 19:55:38 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 20:12:21 +0100
>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 07:34:50 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>wrote:
>>>You're deliberatly or otherwise conflating culture and economics. England
>>>shares far more culturally with scotland and wales than it does with the EU
>>>
>>There isn't as much shared as you might like to think. There are long
>
>There's a lot.
>
But still not as much as you imply. Even Geordies are self-evidently
culturally much removed from Sarf Lundunners.

>>>distinguish a new yorker from a texan from a californian so a continent wide
>>>culture developed.
>>>
>>You don't seem to know much about the different cultures in the USA
>>either. Another lot who probably look all the same to you.
>
>The "cultures" are all just various shades of the same colour. The yanks love
>to be [something] american whether it be irish, italian, german,
>
Ukrainian, Russian, Mexican etc.

>whatever even
>when most of them are 3 or more generations removed and have never even been to
>their ancestral homelands. The only truly seperate european culture in north
>america is the Quebecois.
>
See above. There are significant groups of "recent imports" into
Canada and the USA.

>>>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.
>>>
>>The EU was and remains a voluntary union unlike the previous
>>Yugoslavia and USSR or the UK.
>
>Its all a bit Hotel California though isn't it.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 20:06:40 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 20:58:12 +0100
>Alan Jones <ajnews@exospan.com> wrote:
>>My point is that they could indeed have been powerful independent
>>nations, and there are always some who campaign fxor it, but they choose
>>not to go down that path. Are they wrong? Did they fare better as part
>>of the USA, or worse?
>
>They "choose" not to because the US navy parked gunboats in the pacific
>and made its point quite well. Washington wanted the riches and the
>nascent california was in no state to resist.
>
>>impediment to further EU integration, but for Scotland and N Ireland,
>>the cultural similarities don't matter, so long as they can take back
>>control from London and determine their own future.
>
>Except neither would be able to join the EU for a very long time unless
>the EU changed its acceptance conditions.
>
That has been contradicted several times by various national leaders
of EU states.

>>be an appetite to break states away from it. The independence movements
>>in Scotland and N.Ireland seem more popular than in any US State, so why
>>is London holding them back? Are you saying that their cultural
>
>So you don't believe in democracy then or have you conveniently forgotten
>about the scottish referendum result?
>
Democracy is a process not the potential colonial master's wished-for
one off event.

>>You are right that, even now, the prevention of wars within the EU is
>>part of the reason for it seeking tighter economic integration and
>>cultural appreciation. As a UK resident, I was surprised that it still a
>>motivating factor for many in the EU, but I guess that will fade within
>>Europe over the next generation as the memory recedes.
>
>The EU didn't exist until 1992 you plank. Who and what do you think kept the
>peace in europe from WW2 until then?
>
Greatly the same body operating under a previous name and constitution
along with the Council of Europe, the United Nations, the Western
European Union and NATO.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 21:09:54 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 19:59:03 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 19:41:51 +0100
>>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:43:07 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>wrote:
>>>>Well don't stop there, fill us in exactly how.
>>>>
>>>Imported stuff conforms to the requirements of the markets for which
>>>it is made. If a raddled old ex-imperial offshore state wants a
>>>different spec then it generally costs more or has a reduced spec
>>>(which can still cost more - see Boris buses). As for making it
>>>yourself, Thatcher and Co. destroyed significant parts of the domestic
>>>manufacturing capability years ago.
>>
>>Right, and the unions had nothing to do with that? They screwed Leyland
>>before Thatcher came to power and they screwed the coalmines and shipyards
>too.
>>Mining might be a bloody hard tough job for shit money (though nothing
>>prevented them going to work elsewhere other than not bothering to work at
>>school and get an education),
>>
>or no other jobs being available.

In the whole of the UK?

>>but you don't hold a whole country to ransom and
>>cause blackouts without getting your arses well and truly kicked.
>>
>Part of the reason Thatcher got kicked out eventually.

Thatcher getting kicked out had nothing to do with duffing up the miners.
People were grateful for that (except the miners obviously).

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 21:15:12 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 19:55:38 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>wrote:
>>There's a lot.
>>
>But still not as much as you imply. Even Geordies are self-evidently
>culturally much removed from Sarf Lundunners.

Are they? Take away the accent and what differentiates them, a greggs
loyalty card?

>>The "cultures" are all just various shades of the same colour. The yanks love
>>to be [something] american whether it be irish, italian, german,
>>
>Ukrainian, Russian, Mexican etc.

All speaking english in an american accent.

>>whatever even
>>when most of them are 3 or more generations removed and have never even been
>to
>>their ancestral homelands. The only truly seperate european culture in north
>>america is the Quebecois.
>>
>See above. There are significant groups of "recent imports" into
>Canada and the USA.

There has been constant immigration into the US but it started off mainly
northern european.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 20:22:30 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 21:09:54 +0100
>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 19:59:03 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 19:41:51 +0100
>>>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:43:07 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>Well don't stop there, fill us in exactly how.
>>>>>
>>>>Imported stuff conforms to the requirements of the markets for which
>>>>it is made. If a raddled old ex-imperial offshore state wants a
>>>>different spec then it generally costs more or has a reduced spec
>>>>(which can still cost more - see Boris buses). As for making it
>>>>yourself, Thatcher and Co. destroyed significant parts of the domestic
>>>>manufacturing capability years ago.
>>>
>>>Right, and the unions had nothing to do with that? They screwed Leyland
>>>before Thatcher came to power and they screwed the coalmines and shipyards
>>too.
>>>Mining might be a bloody hard tough job for shit money (though nothing
>>>prevented them going to work elsewhere other than not bothering to work at
>>>school and get an education),
>>>
>>or no other jobs being available.
>
>In the whole of the UK?
>
"They come here, they take our jobs." Rinse and repeat.

>>>but you don't hold a whole country to ransom and
>>>cause blackouts without getting your arses well and truly kicked.
>>>
>>Part of the reason Thatcher got kicked out eventually.
>
>Thatcher getting kicked out had nothing to do with duffing up the miners.
>People were grateful for that (except the miners obviously).
>
People weren't grateful for a politician manufacturing the
circumstances for trouble as was done by encouraging miners to build
up larger than usual reserves.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 20:25:12 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 21:15:12 +0100
>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 19:55:38 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>wrote:
>>>There's a lot.
>>>
>>But still not as much as you imply. Even Geordies are self-evidently
>>culturally much removed from Sarf Lundunners.
>
>Are they? Take away the accent and what differentiates them, a greggs
>loyalty card?
>
Never seen one of them.

>>>The "cultures" are all just various shades of the same colour. The yanks love
>>>to be [something] american whether it be irish, italian, german,
>>>
>>Ukrainian, Russian, Mexican etc.
>
>All speaking english in an american accent.
>
Which "American accent" ?

>>>whatever even
>>>when most of them are 3 or more generations removed and have never even been
>>to
>>>their ancestral homelands. The only truly seperate european culture in north
>>>america is the Quebecois.
>>>
>>See above. There are significant groups of "recent imports" into
>>Canada and the USA.
>
>There has been constant immigration into the US but it started off mainly
>northern european.
>
Nothing to do with the French and the Spanish?

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 21:22:02 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 20:06:40 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>wrote:
>>Except neither would be able to join the EU for a very long time unless
>>the EU changed its acceptance conditions.
>>
>That has been contradicted several times by various national leaders
>of EU states.

And contradicted back by Brussels. National leaders don't make the rules.

>>So you don't believe in democracy then or have you conveniently forgotten
>>about the scottish referendum result?
>>
>Democracy is a process not the potential colonial master's wished-for
>one off event.

I really wouldn't go down the poor oppressed scotland route if I were you
given the number of scots who owned plantations in the carribean and were
more than happy to use slave labour. Proportionately the scots did far more
for the empire than the english or welsh.

>>The EU didn't exist until 1992 you plank. Who and what do you think kept the
>>peace in europe from WW2 until then?
>>
>Greatly the same body operating under a previous name and constitution
>along with the Council of Europe, the United Nations, the Western
>European Union and NATO.

The UN?? LOL! :) That talking shop achieves the square root of fuck all.
What has kept the peace in western europe has been UK and US nuclear weapons.
If we hadn't had them the USSR would have pushed west before 1950.