Breakthrough deal

[LostKiwi]

At the risk of being told off for posting fact the above statement is wildly incorrect and any student will tell you so,

*"Between 1870 and 1900, economic output per head of population in Britain and Ireland rose by 500 percent"

*" In 1950, British output per head was still 30 per cent ahead of the six founder members of the EEC, but within 50 years it had been overtaken by many European and several Asian countries"

The EU has suffocated so many of its members and yet has convinced so many of the opposite.

Yes a wiki post buts its near enough
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_Kingdom

The first 'fact' is meaningless. It is an increase viewed out of context with the rest of the world and with no start and finish values. An increase from 0.1 to 50 is 500% but it's probably fair to presume that in order for a 500% improvement to take place the original start point was pretty low.

The second 'fact' conveniently ignores the simple fact that in1950 most of continental Europe was in ruins after WW2, not just literally but economically as well.

If you are going to quote facts please put them in context and verify them. We have already seen the accuracy of some statements with regard to fishing and the 12/200 mile territorial/economic limits.

 

[davemercedes]

i

At the risk of being told off for posting fact the above statement is wildly incorrect and any student will tell you so,

*"Between 1870 and 1900, economic output per head of population in Britain and Ireland rose by 500 percent"

*" In 1950, British output per head was still 30 per cent ahead of the six founder members of the EEC, but within 50 years it had been overtaken by many European and several Asian countries"

The EU has suffocated so many of its members and yet has convinced so many of the opposite.

Yes a wiki post buts its near enough
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_Kingdom

I've no wish to enter into a slanging match over points taken out of context etc. But I would remind you that we were desperate to join the then EEC with De Gaulle and his famous "Non" etc. We were desperate because by then we had already screwed all our trade with the the Commonwealth etc.

The saddest thing of all is that we should be leading EU - slap bang in the middle, making and dictating policies etc (as I've said many times, all down to the gravy-supping politicians who did next to nothing to represent us.

No point in arguing - you will find out how "wonderful" it's going to be over the next few years. I hope everyone is ready for the pain that's on its way!

 

[AMGeed]

^ The glass is still half empty then Dave?

 

[LostKiwi]

^ The glass is still half empty then Dave?

Half empty, half full, either way it still needs refilling!

 

[Frontstep]

The first 'fact' is meaningless. It is an increase viewed out of context with the rest of the world and with no start and finish values. An increase from 0.1 to 50 is 500% but it's probably fair to presume that in order for a 500% improvement to take place the original start point was pretty low.

The second 'fact' conveniently ignores the simple fact that in1950 most of continental Europe was in ruins after WW2, not just literally but economically as well.

If you are going to quote facts please put them in context and verify them. We have already seen the accuracy of some statements with regard to fishing and the 12/200 mile territorial/economic limits.

Yes anything that disproves the vexatious drivel put out by the remoaners is automatically complained about even though its accurate (including fishing and our territorial limits) and in this case to disprove the entirely wrong statement put out by your fellow remoaner which I repeat below;

Hooray!!!
We'll be free from the EU within which we have enjoyed the most profitable 40 years in our commercial history!

It was simply incorrect, it was not the most profitable 40 years but somehow the MB forum trio from the losing side in a national referendum seek to justify each others increasingly desperate attempts to run down our country.

This time saying that we should put an incorrect black and white statement in some sort of historical context, which of course does not change its accuracy one jot it either was or it wasn't.

Its not coloured pink in the dark springs to mind.

 

[LostKiwi]

Yes anything that disproves the vexatious drivel put out by the remoaners is automatically complained about even though its accurate (including fishing and our territorial limits) and in this case to disprove the entirely wrong statement put out by your fellow remoaner which I repeat below;

Hooray!!!
We'll be free from the EU within which we have enjoyed the most profitable 40 years in our commercial history!

It was simply incorrect, it was not the most profitable 40 years but somehow the MB forum trio from the losing side in a national referendum seek to justify each others increasingly desperate attempts to run down our country.

This time saying that we should put an incorrect black and white statement in some sort of historical context, which of course does not change its accuracy one jot it either was or it wasn't.

Its not coloured pink in the dark springs to mind.

So the fact the european nations caught us in 50 years is a measure of UK prosperity in what way?
If they had a more profitable 50 years that has no relevance to whether in the same period the UK had its most profitable years or not. All it demonstrates is that if the UK did well other nations did better but is not a comment on the UK performance per se in any way whatsoever.

Clear demonsration of being hard of thinking again.
Would you like to comment on the fishing and try to justify why you were right there or perhaps you were just incorrect.

As for your last comment you'd be an expert given where your head is.

 

[Frontstep]

So the fact the european nations caught us in 50 years is a measure of UK prosperity in what way?
If they had a more profitable 50 years that has no relevance to whether in the same period the UK had its most profitable years or not. All it demonstrates is that if the UK did well other nations did better but is not a comment on the UK performance per se in any way whatsoever.

Clear demonsration of being hard of thinking again.
Would you like to comment on the fishing and try to justify why you were right there or perhaps you were just incorrect.

As for your last comment you'd be an expert given where your head is.

So the statement was a very clear;

"Hooray!!!
We'll be free from the EU within which we have enjoyed the most profitable 40 years in our commercial history!"

You now seek to swerve it to why other countries caught us up because the statement you defend was wrong, you can't quite accept that it seems.
I have no wish to engage in your obfuscation it was wrong you are wrong.

On fisheries For nearly 50 years, the Common Fisheries Policy has dictated where UK fishing boats can operate and how much they can catch that is fact, yet you conflate that with the 1964 London Fisheries convention which was mainly about access for the then signatories and largely replaced by the common fisheries policy.


You simply don't understand the issues yet profess some sort of expertise, the truth is you look for any way to run our country down at any cost because you were on the losing side of an argument.
As in life I have been on the winning side more often than not because my attitude is a can do one, you like to revel in defeat.
You will carry on looking to run our country and its people down I refuse point blank to join in.

 

[LostKiwi]

So the statement was a very clear;

"Hooray!!!
We'll be free from the EU within which we have enjoyed the most profitable 40 years in our commercial history!"

You now seek to swerve it to why other countries caught us up because the statement you defend was wrong, you can't quite accept that it seems.
I have no wish to engage in your obfuscation it was wrong you are wrong.

On fisheries For nearly 50 years, the Common Fisheries Policy has dictated where UK fishing boats can operate and how much they can catch that is fact, yet you conflate that with the 1964 London Fisheries convention which was mainly about access for the then signatories and largely replaced by the common fisheries policy.


You simply don't understand the issues yet profess some sort of expertise, the truth is you look for any way to run our country down at any cost because you were on the losing side of an argument.
As in life I have been on the winning side more often than not because my attitude is a can do one, you like to revel in defeat.
You will carry on looking to run our country and its people down I refuse point blank to join in.

Again you demonstrate ignorance of logic.
The statement (right or wrong and frankly I don't care either way) was that We'll be free from the EU within which we have enjoyed the most profitable 40 years in our commercial history!".
Your 'fact' was that *" In 1950, British output per head was still 30 per cent ahead of the six founder members of the EEC, but within 50 years it had been overtaken by many European and several Asian countries". Nowhere does that mention UK profitability other than to bemoan that other countries were more profitable than the UK - something that's irrelevant to the original statement which makes no comparison to other nations at all. What I object to is the clear lack of reasoned logic in your response. Now if you'd provided figures comparing two 40 year periods then fair enough but you didn't. You instead tried to draw a conclusion to support your belief using a statement that bore little relevance to the original statement.

Your original statement on fishing made no mention at all of the common fisheries policy - you actually complained about the nasty EU allowing other fishing boats into UK waters (which actually was a result of the 1964 agreement before the UK joined the EEC) and that what's more the nasty EU reduced territorial waters to 12 miles when the EEC actually increased them from 12 miles to 200. Now in order to try and justify your position you bring in the CFP to try and hide your ignorance of the facts as they really were and that your original statements were totally incorrect but as Naraic has pointed out you always have to be right (even when it is clear and proven your statement was incorrect).

If you're going to try and argue against someone else's statement at least do your research and back up your assertions with clear and relevant fact.

Given I'm such a negative person and clearly always on the 'losing side' I seem to be doing all right out of it so really I don't care about 'winning sides' or 'losing sides'. The tone of your post is very typical of the attitude we've come to expect. Frankly it's getting a bit tedious.

 

[davemercedes]

^ The glass is still half empty then Dave?

You only need to look at the headlines in Reuters to see if it's half empty...

• UK households turn downbeat about finances as Brexit weighs - BoE survey
  
• RICS house prices lowest since 2013
• UK Employment falls for second time
• UK inflation highest for seven years
• UK Grocery inflation highest since 2013
• UK workers face renewed hit to spending power in 2018 (HR firm: Korn Ferry)
• But BOE says "disorderly Brexit risk reduced by EU talks progress". Yeah, right.
  • All these things were forecast and all were dismissed as "Project Fear".

Sadly, these are facts, not my viewpoint.
- I wish it was all the opposite!

 

[Frontstep]

Again you demonstrate ignorance of logic.
The statement (right or wrong and frankly I don't care either way) was that We'll be free from the EU within which we have enjoyed the most profitable 40 years in our commercial history!".
Your 'fact' was that *" In 1950, British output per head was still 30 per cent ahead of the six founder members of the EEC, but within 50 years it had been overtaken by many European and several Asian countries". Nowhere does that mention UK profitability other than to bemoan that other countries were more profitable than the UK - something that's irrelevant to the original statement which makes no comparison to other nations at all. What I object to is the clear lack of reasoned logic in your response. Now if you'd provided figures comparing two 40 year periods then fair enough but you didn't. You instead tried to draw a conclusion to support your belief using a statement that bore little relevance to the original statement.

Your original statement on fishing made no mention at all of the common fisheries policy - you actually complained about the nasty EU allowing other fishing boats into UK waters (which actually was a result of the 1964 agreement before the UK joined the EEC) and that what's more the nasty EU reduced territorial waters to 12 miles when the EEC actually increased them from 12 miles to 200. Now in order to try and justify your position you bring in the CFP to try and hide your ignorance of the facts as they really were and that your original statements were totally incorrect but as Naraic has pointed out you always have to be right (even when it is clear and proven your statement was incorrect).

If you're going to try and argue against someone else's statement at least do your research and back up your assertions with clear and relevant fact.

Given I'm such a negative person and clearly always on the 'losing side' I seem to be doing all right out of it so really I don't care about 'winning sides' or 'losing sides'. The tone of your post is very typical of the attitude we've come to expect. Frankly it's getting a bit tedious.

The tri-moaner in chief gets it wrong again and again simply chomping at the bit to run the UK down, somehow you think that Britain falling down the worlds comparative income lists is a sign of our most "profitable 40 years"



Again you have the facts concerning Britains fisheries mixed up and to support your assertions you quote another of our resident tri-moaners.

Your ignorance of the history is obvious so I cut and paste what the "nasty" EU has done, will you accept the facts I doubt it but still ;




The first rules were created in 1970. The original six Common Market members realised that four countries applying to join the Common Market at that time (Britain, Ireland, Denmark including Greenland, and Norway) would control the richest fishing grounds in the world. The original six therefore drew up Council Regulation 2141/70 giving all Members equal access to all fishing waters, even though the Treaty of Rome did not explicitly include fisheries in its agriculture chapter. This was adopted on the morning of 30 June 1970, a few hours before the applications to join were officially received. This ensured that the regulations became part of the acquis communautaire before the new members joined, obliging them to accept the regulation. In its accession negotiations, the UK at first refused to accept the rules but by the end of 1971 the UK gave way and signed the Accession Treaty on 22 January 1972, thereby bringing into the CFP joint management an estimated four fifths of all the fish off Western Europe.[citation needed] Norway decided not to join. Greenland left the EC in 1985, after having gained partial independence from Denmark in 1979.

When the fisheries policy was originally set up the intention was to create a free trade area in fish and fish products with common rules. It was agreed that fishermen from any state should have access to all waters, except irish fishermen that were refused access to fish any waters east of 4 deg west , those closing the north sea to them. An exception was made for the coastal strip, which was reserved for local fishermen who had traditionally fished those areas. A policy was created to assist modernisation of fishing vessels and on-shore installations.

1976[edit]
In 1976 the EU extended its fishing waters from 12 nautical miles to 200 nautical miles (22.2 km to 370.4 km) from the coast, in line with other international changes. This required additional controls and the CFP as such was created in 1983. This now had four areas of activity: conservation of stocks, vessels and installations, market controls, and external agreements with other nations.

 

[LostKiwi]

The tri-moaner in chief gets it wrong again and again simply chomping at the bit to run the UK down, somehow you think that Britain falling down the worlds comparative income lists is a sign of our most "profitable 40 years"



Again you have the facts concerning Britains fisheries mixed up and to support your assertions you quote another of our resident tri-moaners.

Your ignorance of the history is obvious so I cut and paste what the "nasty" EU has done, will you accept the facts I doubt it but still ;




The first rules were created in 1970. The original six Common Market members realised that four countries applying to join the Common Market at that time (Britain, Ireland, Denmark including Greenland, and Norway) would control the richest fishing grounds in the world. The original six therefore drew up Council Regulation 2141/70 giving all Members equal access to all fishing waters, even though the Treaty of Rome did not explicitly include fisheries in its agriculture chapter. This was adopted on the morning of 30 June 1970, a few hours before the applications to join were officially received. This ensured that the regulations became part of the acquis communautaire before the new members joined, obliging them to accept the regulation. In its accession negotiations, the UK at first refused to accept the rules but by the end of 1971 the UK gave way and signed the Accession Treaty on 22 January 1972, thereby bringing into the CFP joint management an estimated four fifths of all the fish off Western Europe.[citation needed] Norway decided not to join. Greenland left the EC in 1985, after having gained partial independence from Denmark in 1979.

When the fisheries policy was originally set up the intention was to create a free trade area in fish and fish products with common rules. It was agreed that fishermen from any state should have access to all waters, except irish fishermen that were refused access to fish any waters east of 4 deg west , those closing the north sea to them. An exception was made for the coastal strip, which was reserved for local fishermen who had traditionally fished those areas. A policy was created to assist modernisation of fishing vessels and on-shore installations.

1976[edit]
In 1976 the EU extended its fishing waters from 12 nautical miles to 200 nautical miles (22.2 km to 370.4 km) from the coast, in line with other international changes. This required additional controls and the CFP as such was created in 1983. This now had four areas of activity: conservation of stocks, vessels and installations, market controls, and external agreements with other nations.

Tri-moaner in chief? New levels of tedium. Well done.

Ah... Good old Wikipedia.
The EU didn't exist in 1976 so how could it extend the territorial limits? The EU as an entity came into being with the treaty of Maastricht in the early 90s. However... Since you've used it we can stick with it.
1. You conveniently omitted the 1964 agreement giving access to what was to become EEC nations fishing fleets to UK waters. Pre EEC membership.
2. From your own reference above the first rules on CFP were brought in by an amendment to the Treaty of Rome on 30th June, 1970. Unless I'm mistaken prior to the UK joining the EEC.
The UK furthermore signed up to the Accession Treaty in 1972 which again was prior to the UK joing the EEC.
And just to top it all off wasn't there a referendum in 1975 to decide if the UK should join the EEC? Just remind me... What was the outcome of that? Wasn't it 67% in favour (including Scotland).

So again... How is any of that the fault of the EU?

Thank you for proving my point regarding checking of facts.

 

[Frontstep]

You only need to look at the headlines in Reuters to see if it's half empty...

• UK households turn downbeat about finances as Brexit weighs - BoE survey
  
• RICS house prices lowest since 2013
• UK Employment falls for second time
• UK inflation highest for seven years
• UK Grocery inflation highest since 2013
• UK workers face renewed hit to spending power in 2018 (HR firm: Korn Ferry)
• But BOE says "disorderly Brexit risk reduced by EU talks progress". Yeah, right.
  • All these things were forecast and all were dismissed as "Project Fear".

Sadly, these are facts, not my viewpoint.
- I wish it was all the opposite!

Another of our tri-moaners has a go at running the UK down with specious cherry picking figures.

People who are regularly fed a diet of doom and gloom don't feel optimistic well "f**k me Sherlock that's a surprise !
I imagine there's quite a few on here who don't engage in this debate because of your unending negativity about our outlook.

Project fear is still up and running and I don't argue for one minute sentiment is affected but the problem for you is we are still in the EU
All the rules and regulations are still the same.

Just on unemployment ;

"There were 32.08 million people in work, 56,000 fewer than for May to July 2017 but 325,000 more than for a year earlier"

Source ONS

There will be many ups and downs in economic data but of course you do miss out the FT index hovering around a high.
Would I rely on it or any other short term surveys to justify my position on Brexit ...not in a million years, surveys and most short term data is for chimps to consume.

 

[Frontstep]

Tri-moaner in chief? New levels of tedium. Well done.

Ah... Good old Wikipedia.
The EU didn't exist in 1976 so how could it extend the territorial limits? The EU as an entity came into being with the treaty of Maastricht in the early 90s. However... Since you've used it we can stick with it.
1. You conveniently omitted the 1964 agreement giving access to what was to become EEC nations fishing fleets to UK waters. Pre EEC membership.
2. From your own reference above the first rules on CFP were brought in by an amendment to the Treaty of Rome on 30th June, 1970. Unless I'm mistaken prior to the UK joining the EEC.
The UK furthermore signed up to the Accession Treaty in 1972 which again was prior to the UK joing the EEC.
And just to top it all off wasn't there a referendum in 1975 to decide if the UK should join the EEC? Just remind me... What was the outcome of that? Wasn't it 67% in favour (including Scotland).

So again... How is any of that the fault of the EU?

Thank you for proving my point regarding checking of facts.

Tri-moaner in chief? New levels of tedium. Well done.




So again... How is any of that the fault of the EU?

Its in the text and the main reason why Norway didn't join

 

[LostKiwi]

So it's the UKs fault for joining then. Face facts.. if Norway could say no so could the UK but they didn't.
And remember also that nearly 5 years later the UK public voted with a 34% majority to join the EEC.

So again... How is that the fault of the EEC/EU?

 

[AMGeed]

It's getting a bit personal now isn't it?
Come on, less of the insults guys before the mods decide that's enough.

 

[davemercedes]

Another of our tri-moaners has a go at running the UK down with specious cherry picking figures.

People who are regularly fed a diet of doom and gloom don't feel optimistic well "f**k me Sherlock that's a surprise !
I imagine there's quite a few on here who don't engage in this debate because of your unending negativity about our outlook.

Project fear is still up and running and I don't argue for one minute sentiment is affected but the problem for you is we are still in the EU
All the rules and regulations are still the same.

Just on unemployment ;

"There were 32.08 million people in work, 56,000 fewer than for May to July 2017 but 325,000 more than for a year earlier"

Source ONS

There will be many ups and downs in economic data but of course you do miss out the FT index hovering around a high.
Would I rely on it or any other short term surveys to justify my position on Brexit ...not in a million years, surveys and most short term data is for chimps to consume.

Nonsense!

I did not cherry pick anything - I copied and pasted ALL the headlines from Reuters (I even included the rather vaguely "good" BOE statement). You are obviously immune to all those reported statistics. - Do you get a discount in the supermarket?

 

[Frosty149]

Historical data and your disagreement over the details makes no difference to the negotiations today, equally our current economic well-being or lack of it, won’t change the stance of either side of the table!
It's the deal that is done that will influence our future international trade with Europe.
Bickering about remainers or Brexiteers changes nothing, the focus must now be on obtaining the best possible deal to move forward, irrespective of previous convictions.

 

[malcolm E53 AMG]

I sense some real fun to come about a third of the EU fishing catch comes from our territorial waters, that’s a lot of fish, remember the cod wars

 

[Yugguy]

Perhaps we could have a thread to simply post news as it comes, and not opinions, as otherwise it just descends into the same merry-go-round?

 

[Frontstep]

Perhaps we could have a thread to simply post news as it comes, and not opinions, as otherwise it just descends into the same merry-go-round?

The problem for that is so much of the popular medias "news" is opinion.