Good eye Sir, good eye http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-predict-brecession-and-then-bremorse-7zx3hfkw8
Matthew might have also mentioned Bre-evaluation by new 'Brexit means Brexit' PM Theresa May, or how about Brecount? Must've been a hanging chad or two, shurely?
Because people make an effort on behalf of the truth. We don't need a perfect method of separating fact from fiction. We just need to understand the method we have and then try our best not to cheat. But like you say, facts don't depend on what an individual thinks. They depend upon evidence and sound methods for weighing evidence. Nobody gives a fig what I think about the Brexit campaign. So I don't see why my assessment of the facts matters. People living in the UK and following the discussions there will be better sources than me. I simply repeat what I hear those sources saying.
It's simple: Britisch steel goes bust. = Full blown recession and a few EU economies going down the toilet. British Steel survives= Low growth for everybody. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...best-brexit-theresa-may-could-get-for-britain
And there are the first cracks while everybody is celebrating the "strong"economy after the Brexit. A stock exchange chart says nothing about jobs in manufacturing:
And here is the whole trainwreck happening in slomotion: http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/tatasteel
The question should be whether a no-vote would have made things different. The world has a surplus of steel producers, that's about the long and short of it. It's horrible for people in the Western world to loose a low-skill job like this, but I don't think it's fair to blame it in Brexit.
The closure of Tata Steel in the UK has been going long before the EU referendum. The issues are that China has been flooding the EU with their heavily state subsidised steel and with our high energy prices. We are not able to compete. This has not been helped by the conservatives voting against action by the EU.
The Netherlands "Hoogovens" would not have been in the picture for a 200 million Euro investment on the part of TATA steel before Brexit. It has been a question for 40 years wich country could maintain a steel Indusrty. The UK or the Netherlands. Who was it that boasted about British Steel and Britains "strong" manufacturing base???
Oopsy ! There goes your comfy retirement folks, Brensioners ? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...it-eu-referendum-bhs-tata-steel-a7156491.html Some financial mumbo jumb: AND THE GRANDE FINALE:
"While the business will remain highly capital generative, it is possible that this capital generation may be somewhat lower in future years than previously guided" Clearly we are all doomed.
Wales seems to be heading that way: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/tata-must-not-walk-away-11678280
Take a deep breath, KKS. It's gonna take some time for all this to shake out. Until then, it's all just speculation. We won't know the full effects for years.
"The European founders of the EU are mythical creatures. Washington used politicians that Washington controlled to create the EU." --Paul Craig Roberts (There is a mangled link in the article which is a jumble of 2 links. The link in the article fetches an error message. Here are the 2 correct URLs: link1 link2 The second is largely a re-presentation of the first. I recommend the first.)
Actually The Netherlands control the rest of the world by means of the Bilderberg group wich is headed by the Evil Lord Xenu. DOX: Lord Xenu A.K.A Prince Bernhard the FOUNDER of the Bilderberg group watching the germans capitulate in the Netherlands and Lord Xenu smoking
LESSON The founders of the European Union are 6 COUNTRIES: The Netherlands Belgium Luxemburg France Germany Italy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Community England came in in 1973 and was basicly America's bitch doing it's bidding within the EU.
Wikipedia is fine for looking up the size of a bird or a map of a country. What do you think about delving into covert ops and hidden agendas? Is Wikipedia a reliable resource for that? Why or why not? What I like about the material I linked to is that it's based on documents which became available at (or just prior to) the time of AEP's Telegraph article. That's how journalism should (at least IMO) work: dox become available, and journos tell us about them. In this case, the dox reveal major covert influence of "American"* entities in the early formation of what eventually became the EU. What does Wikipedia say about why this information is absent from its entry about the formation of the EU? * I put the scare quotes there because much of what has been done in the name of America has nothing at all to do with America as we Americans know it, and many -- or even most -- Americans are not even aware that it has happened.
And much MOAR: https://www.britannica.com/topic/European-Union I think I have been considerably impartial quoting from Great Britains enceclopedy britannica
Well, Johnny, I guess you've been told...that KKS doesn't quite understand your point. But by god he'll make up for it with volume, lots and lots of copypasta (haven't used that term for a while) It's like speaking louder to a foreigner who doesn't speak the language, figuring that will make up for the lack of a common tongue.
Of course the FUCKING Americans wanted PEACE and PROSPERITY in Europe so they didn't have to go over here and rescue us a THIRD TIME The European project aimed for PEACE and PROSPERITY Maybe these concepts are foreign to you.
Simple talk First is was to create an economic bond between Germany and France so they would become so entangled with eachother economicly that going at war with eachouther would not be in either countries intrest. That was the "Evil" American intent behind it Just after World War II.
This is where we differ. You seem to think that because a politician says "We want peace and prosperity" they actually want peace and prosperity. I find attitude that to be hopelessly helplessly naive. Politicians want power over other people. That is the very nature of the game. They want power. Everything else is subordinate to that craving. People who believe in government are falling for one of the two best long cons ever invented. And oddly, it just came to me that one of the long cons (religion) is actually a good buffer against the other long con (politics). The world is a weird and wonderful place.
(Note: I was crafting this, and then posted it, while Mann Ace was posting his entry, above, so I didn't see his. I'll let mine stand "as is" despite now being a bit redundant.) (The words in bold seem garbled, but I think I understand their intended meaning.) I never said "evil". I said "covert". Whether the real -- or even the professed -- intent was evil is more subjective, and correspondingly more debatable. I do note that all of what you posted here seems like it could have come straight from the EU itself. If you consider that to be a reliable guide to understanding the EU, it's no wonder you're so (apparently) tone-deaf to the objections of the opposition. Frankly, my own sentiments about covert activities by "American" entities are somewhat complex; I am generally skeptical, but don't have enough broad familiarity to state that all of them are evil, or even "bad" on balance. Re: involvement in the formation of the EU, specifically, I'm (surprise!) skeptical, but I haven't taken a position on whether it was a good or bad thing (though I'm leaning bad at this point). For the record, philosophically, I am 100% in agreement that getting countries to trade and travel smoothly between one another is a great way to help lower the chances of war between them; nobody wants their friends, relatives, or business partners attacked. As such, increasing these kinds of peaceable interactions is, in itself, a good thing (for those who want to avoid war, as I do). However, there are wrong ways to do the right thing, and there are endless examples of cynical manipulators using attractive political "stalking horses" to accomplish ulterior agendas. Then there's good old hubris, always plentiful in the spawning grounds of gigantic political efforts. Somewhere amongst those factors, enough "issues" arose over time to prompt the UK to -- just barely -- vote for Brexit in 2016. It's not the end of the world, just the end of one arrangement, for crying out loud. There were countless prior ones and there will presumably be lots more in the future. I suggest that those of you who are unhappy stop whining and start thinking up a better arrangement to propose. Maybe try to learn from both (a) the benefits -- real and/or perceived -- of EU membership and (b) the problems -- again, real and/or perceived -- to which people have objected, and fashion a new potential arrangement accordingly. (I've seen some suggestions about this sort of thing already, and it seems inevitable that that is what will happen.) Anyway, still no explanation from Wikipedia (or the EB) on why they don't mention the covert "American" influence at all? Your opinion (which does have a logic to it, although I still might challenge its accuracy) is noted, but that's not from Wikipedia.
I'm not sure what you mean by "buffer". Are you suggesting it's in the nature of a "balance" (as in "checks and balances")? Or something else? Please elaborate.
