web analytics

BORDERS AND BULLIES….

By David Vance On February 12th, 2018

57 Responses to “BORDERS AND BULLIES….”

  1. I’m amazed you actually got the opportunity to speak without anyone yelling or ranting over top of you.

  2. That’s because RT are happy to have dissenting guests like David critiquing Western governments and European leaders. You won’t find many Russian equivalents on RT being allowed to voice their views though.

  3. Bit late to complain about borders and bullying isn’t it David? About ninety seven years to late to be precise.

    It’s a shame that the interviewer didn’t pump you on how in the wake of a hard border the Irish economy is ‘going to crumble’ while the state of NI will be the land of ambrosia, rainbows and unicorns, I’d have loved to have heard your explanation of that one.

    I suspect that it’s you who’s being fraudulent here David. You know perfectly well that there are Republicans in Ireland who are, like you, opposed to the Belfast Agreement and its subsequent peace process.

  4. In fairness while I don’t necessarily agree with David I think he came across well here, though I continue to caution that the venue is not one that I’d approve.

  5. Indeed Colm. I can’t imagine a Border and Bullies discussion on Russian border behavior being broadcast on RT.

  6. DV and for those with an interest I think we may have a solution.

    What is good for them (rEU27) can be applied to the UK.

    As a part of France, French Guiana is part of the European Union and the Eurozone; its currency is the euro.

    A chronic issue affecting French Guiana is the influx of illegal immigrants and clandestine gold prospectors from Brazil and Suriname. The border between the department and Suriname, the Maroni River, flows through rain forest and is difficult for the Gendarmerie and the French Foreign Legion to patrol. There have been several phases launched by the French government to combat illegal gold mining in French Guiana

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Guiana

    Administratively, Büsingen is part of Germany, forming part of the district of Konstanz, in the Bundesland of Baden-Württemberg, but economically, it forms part of the Swiss customs area . . .

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BCsingen_am_Hochrhein

    The truth is, the EU already accepts having borders with non-EU countries and does not try to impose draconian rules upon them. So there is no need for this.

    For the EU this is about control of the UK post BREXIT. They really are crapping themselves over the fact that the UK might actually do better and show the rest what a waste it is.

    The Irish PM is making political capital and playing the nationalist card as Sinn Fein are doing well in the South.

    A Soft-border is achievable. Northern Ireland does most of its business with the UK not the Republic.

    The EU wanted the; “NOTHING is agreed until EVERYTHING is agreed” inserted BEFORE negotiations began. They (EU) cannot now be allowed to cherry pick what they want 😉

  7. //The truth is, the EU already accepts having borders with non-EU countries and does not try to impose draconian rules upon them//

    The truth is that the non-EU neighbouring countries in Europe are so happy to participate in the EU single market that they pay their fair share. Switzerland and Norway in fact pay more into the EU than many EU member states.

    Unlike Brexiters, they are mature enough to know that, when it comes to business, you don’t get anything for nothing.

    Turkey also borders the EU and is part of the customs union. This meant that it has to align its customs duties and trade policy with the EU’s. Is Turkey whinging like Brexiteers? Of course not, it knows that its customs union with the EU has brought it huge economic benefits and has in fact been a necessary part of transforming its economy from an agricultural to an industrial one.

    So if you want the UK to enjoy the same positions as these bordering non-EU countries, then vas-y!

  8. The truth is that the non-EU neighbouring countries in Europe are so happy to participate in the EU single market that they pay their fair share. Switzerland and Norway in fact pay more into the EU than many EU member states.

    Serious question ( and not meant as an attack on the EU. )

    Why should Switzerland or Norway pay anything for the privilege of trading with the EU? The EU has access to those nations’ markets, those nations have access to the EU.

    Just as the smaller Canada has very good access to the gigantic US market, and vice versa, but Canada doesn’t pay a penny for the privilege, nor should it.

  9. Canada has very good access to the gigantic US market, and vice versa, but Canada doesn’t pay a penny for the privilege, nor should it.

    Precisely, Canada, or the US for that matter, also doesn’t have six presidents, and six vice presidents, all earning what can only be described as medium sized lottery wins.

  10. when it comes to business, you don’t get anything for nothing.

    Oh the irony.

    Unless you work in Brussels, then everything is free.

  11. The truth is that the non-EU neighbouring countries in Europe are so happy to participate in the EU single market that they pay their fair share. Switzerland and Norway in fact pay more into the EU than many EU member states.

    “pay their fair share” of what? What is this money for and who receives it?

  12. I don’t get why any nation should pay for access to trade with any other.

    Forty years ago, the Chinese economy was nothing. Should the US have charged China for the privilege of trading with an advanced economy?

    Should we make Canada pay for access to the US markets?

    I realize that the EU is more than just a trade organization. But lets stick to trade. Why any talk of paying for trade access? Aside from the EU, who does that?

  13. but Comrade it’s for the common good…..

  14. The Norwegians and Swiss are so rich, that they probably didn’t even care about paying for trade access.

    But that doesn’t mean that there is any logic or fairness in such a process.

    Seriously, I’d be interested in hearing why this is an appropriate thing at all.

  15. Noel, on February 13th, 2018 at 11:24 AM Said:

    A lot of things that I am just about to debunk – Cheers mate 🙂

    1) Switzerland is NOT in the Single Market and the Customs Union.

    https://www.eda.admin.ch/dea/en/home/bilaterale-abkommen.html

    2) Switzerland does not pay for access as it has a FTA. Norway is part of the EEA but is not part of the Customs Union.

    http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement

    3) Please provide evidence that Norway pay more than a EU-Member country. If you are referring to countries like Poland who are heavily dependent on EU Subsidies (ie UK, German, Dutch money)then I can see your point. Trouble is, the second biggest contributor is leaving, hopefully, in just over a years time.

    4)Turkey. Turkey is in the Customs Union but not as we know it – its a bit of an oddity that will take too long to explain. But all is not good at the moment and if you care to read the link below you can see why the CU is not a good idea.

    During the negotiation of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), Turkey raised the prospect of leaving the customs union over the economic contraction it would suffer as American goods would enter Turkey tariff-free and Turkish goods would continue to face American tariffs.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Turkey_Customs_Union

    5)I agree with you on the point regarding not getting anything for nothing. Not sure the German car makers would like it if, quite rightly, we started to apply the same principle to access to OUR (UK) market. Or did you think this SHIT only flows one way ? Serious question !

    6) It is not about trade, immigration or money to people like me. It is about governance. The ability to run one’s own affairs for one’s own interests. I can understand the likes of Spain and Ireland being so in love with the EU, all that free lovely money, but it comes with strings, and quite frankly, I so not want ly country a puppet / vassal state dangling from the end of it.

    7) You never attempted to debunk any of my arguments. Why ?

  16. I’ll tell you why it’s appropriate from the man on the ground’s perspective Phantom.

    Because economies in different states differ. The US in general tends to be cheaper than Europe and I’ll give one small personal example. Recently I bought a jacket on the internet from the US which was chepaer than those listed in Europe. Upon arrival I had to pay a customs surcharge on the jacket which presumably was put in place to make up the difference in price.

    Europe is not North America.

    Now, if you’re arguing for free trade across borders does that free trade also extend to the commodity of labour and if not why not?

  17. Switzerland is NOT in the Single Market and the Customs Union.

    Mark,

    Switzerland is neither an EU nor EEA member but is part of the single market

    https://www.gov.uk/eu-eea

  18. People moving into your town impacts you a hundred times more than a jacket ever does.

    And yes, everything in Europe seems to cost more than it does in the US. Food, clothing, electronics, just about every item in every store. There’s a reason why Europeans come to NY with an extra empty suitcase and do a lot of shopping. Even European made clothing is cheaper in Manhattan than it is in London.

    I’ve always said that the Europeans do a lot of things right when compared with the US. But economically, you’ve got to be doing some significant things wrong if nearly every item in every store costs more there, despite the efficiencies of a single market that is larger than that of the US!

    The tariffs and paying for access mindset is IMO part of the problem.

    You’re a very rich huge market. No one should pay for EU trade access, any more than anyone should pay to play for USA trade access. Especially big countries like the UK that buy tons of everything from the EU.

  19. a hard-border is the least favoured option amongst the stake-holders ; probably less than .0001% favour that , if you take the EU as whole . which you have to i’m afraid as they get to ratify the terms of the deal.
    still with .0001 % support DV you can’t be accused of chasing the popular vote 😉

  20. Of course there is no need for a hard border. This from the EU’s own website.

    Goods move from a customs office of departure in one country to a customs office of destination in another country under cover of an internationally accepted customs transit document, the TIR carnet, which also provides a financial guarantee for the payment of the suspended duties and taxes

    https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/customs-procedures/what-is-customs-transit/tir-transports-internationaux-routiers-international-road-transport_en

  21. That’s the reason why one size doesn’t fit all Phantom and arguing for trade deregulation of the commodities that only appeal to your sense of deregulation ‘doesn’t mean that there is any logic or fairness in such a process’

    No one should pay for EU trade access, any more than anyone should pay to play for USA trade access

    The EU will decide who pays trade tariffs to sell in the biggest economy in the western world. Just as the US decides tariffs on who sells in theirs.

  22. Of course that is so, but what is the logic behind it?

    If the EU can decide to charge for access to it’s economic zone, then the UK would be well within its rights to charge for access to it’s very large economy I am sure you will agree.

  23. The point I am making further up, is that things are not as black and white as those who seek to make the UK leaving the EU harder make out. Arrangements and accomodations can be made and there is no need for the UK to join the Single Market or Customs Union.

  24. The logic behind it is the difference that I have demonstrated above. And yes, the UK should and will be free to decide which tariffs it applies.

  25. Arrangements and accomodations can be made

    That why the UK and EU are in negotiations.

  26. So it appears that ATW’s Remainers and Brexiteers agree that the UK and EU should have a like-for-like deal on trade and tariffs? That what it looks like to me, and it’s sensible – so why aren’t the negotiations based on that simple principle. The EU is intent on imposing a damaging settlement on the UK as a deterent to others.

  27. UK

    It’s all in how you frame the negotiation.

    The EU will eat your lunch if you let it.

    You’d better have good negotiators, who realize that you have leverage, just as the EU does, that you have something valuable to offer,just as the EU does.

    Neither side should be any sort of supplicant in this situation.

  28. The UK and EU should have a like-for-like deal on trade and tariffs?

    Yes, in the context that the UK has a population and wants trade access to the largest economy in the western world.

    – so why aren’t the negotiations based on that simple principle.

    I’d imagine that’s exactly what they’re going to be based on.

    Perhaps the UK should have put you in as their chief negotiator?

    Neither side should be any sort of supplicant in this situation.

    Absolutely Phantom – commensurate with my first point

  29. Whoops:

    * Yes, in the context that the UK has a population of sixty five million

  30. The EU is intent on imposing a damaging settlement on the UK as a deterent to others.

    The language of victimhood , text book example allan

  31. Phantom asks “Why should Switzerland or Norway pay anything for the privilege of trading with the EU?..Canada doesn’t pay a penny for the privilege, nor should it.”

    Allan asks “pay their fair share” of what? What is this money for and who receives it?”

    I see the gentlemen are thirsting for information.

    It isn’t just for trading with the EU. Switzerland and Norway are part of dozens of EU projects that they consider to be in their interests. e.g. developing the single market and the legal framework, developing eastern European economies, (trying to) solve the immigration problem with projects in the N African and ME states, membership of Schengen, which greatly benefits CH, scientific research and environment programmes, which can sensibly be undertaken only on a regional basis.

    These contributions are all very significant. CH has, for instance, contributed over a billion EUR for Eastern European economies alone. Non-member Norway for its part contributes an amount equivalent to around 60 pc of what full-member UK pays per capita, which means its a much bigger payer than most EU states in E. Europe (Mark take note).

    Poland is by far the biggest net recipient; Germany by far the biggest net payer. Poland in fact receives almost exactly the same amount as Germany contributes each year.

    You can’t compare Canada-US to the situation in Europe, Phantom. For instance, over 80 pc of Norways exports go to the EU, all the countries in Europe share a common context in terms of economic development, infrastructure, political problems and 100 other ways.

    Another example is that the FTA with Canada does not entail any payments, simply because Canada is not in the European boat the way NOR and CH are and the UK will be.

    Mark, you are putting up too many straw men.

    //A lot of things that I am just about to debunk – Cheers mate
    1) Switzerland is NOT in the Single Market and the Customs Union.//

    I never said it’s in both. I said Switzerland participates in the Single Market and that’s correct. CH has the same access as any other EU country in terms of trade (i.e. apart from its banking sector and a few other services).

    //2) Switzerland does not pay for access//

    Access is part and parcel of its relationship with the EU, which includes the free trade agreement. And it certainly does pay for that.

    //Norway is part of the EEA but is not part of the Customs Union//

    I never said it was.

    //Turkey is in the Customs Union but not as we know it – its ..if you care to read the link below you can see why the CU is not a good idea.//

    Tell that to the Turks! They know that the customs union has been a boon to the Turkish economy. Maybe there are some Turks who think their country would be better reverting to a purely agricultural economy, but few of them will be among the intelligent Turks.

    //) It is not about trade, immigration or money to people like me. It is about governance//

    That answers Phantom’s question as to why CH should pay.

    The UK will also continue to pay unless it crashes out completely, and, boy, it will pay for that in a very different way 🙂

    //You never attempted to debunk any of my arguments. Why ?//

    Because they were based on a false premise and loaded language.

    You seemed to assume that there are no conditions binding on non-EU countries bordering the EU. But there naturally are. You can’t have a free flow of goods without uniform regulations regarding industrial standards and the environment etc etc. These “draconian rules” as you call them, are binding on CH and NOR and will be binding on the UK if it wishes for similar status, i.e. if it is too chicken to go it alone, which we all know it – very wisely – is.
    Poor UK thinks it can have the benefits of membership without having to obey the rules. Well, forget it.

    The difference to now will be that the UK will no longer be part of the bodies formulating these rules. It will just have to take what’s dished up to it.

    Or really leave.

  32. //all the countries in Europe share a common context in terms of economic development, infrastructure, political problems and 100 other ways.//

    I should say in this regard (considering the way you write about the EU as if it were a greedy monster, Phantom) that – despite undeniable wastage in Brussels – EU government still costs a tiny fraction of what Federal Goverment in the US costs Americans.

    Try figuring out what – which one was it? – Rhode Island contributes to the Federal budget.

    I also didn’t mention the huge financial payments places like CH and NOR also receive from Brussels. But that’s all too complicated for me.

  33. Noel

    You are confusing entering various programs to trade. Of course the UK will, and indeed should, pay for the various European and EU programs. It just has to pick and choose which one’s rather than just pay irrespective.

    My arguments were based on countries, whether they be on the continent of Europe or not, that are in the EU and border non-EU countries. The EU is not demanding that they (Brazil and Suriname) too be part of the Single Market and / or Customs Union.

    . . . there are no conditions binding on non-EU countries bordering the EU.

    Upon leaving the EU, as per Art.50, the treaties shall cease to apply. I fail to see what binding conditions there will be once the treaties expire ? But all countries have international obligations to one another. And I can live with that.

    UK if it wishes for similar status

    I do not believe that the UK should seek, ‘similar status’ as you describe. Just seek to settle its affairs and become an independent sovereign country. Simple.

    The difference to now will be that the UK will no longer be part of the bodies formulating these rules.

    The rules as created for, and applied to EU members and those selling into the Single Market – Which is correct. But what about international rules and regulations ? It does not make them for the entire world now does it ?

    Outside the EU the UK will be able to sit a the top tables and help make them alongside the EU, while the likes of Germany have to sit outside.

    Shorterm the EU holds most of the cards. But in the medium to long term the future is bright outside the EU.

  34. Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union Bolloxes the Transition period and guarantees an immediate hard brexit? Oh I do hope so. I shall personally send Barnier a fulsome Thank you note if it does.

  35. Dogisgreat

    There is no such thing as a, ‘Hard BREXIT’ What you have is three things.

    1) Exit

    2) Remain

    3) Vassal State

    Take ya pick ?

  36. speaking of Bullies the Russians are taking potshots at the Americans in Syria. It cost them a tank, but will that be warning enough and will Turkey also heed the warning?

    http://www.businessinsider.com/a-us-jet-destroyed-a-russian-t-72-battle-tank-in-self-defense-in-syria-2018-2?r=UK&IR=T

  37. ” Russian mercenary forces “

    What the hell is that

  38. don’t know but they had a tank

  39. Patrick – what is the legal status of the US military on Syrian soil?

  40. //I fail to see what binding conditions there will be once the treaties expire ?//

    Mark, the question is simply whether the UK wants to have a kind of Norway or Swiss status. That prospect was certainly put before the electorate before the referendum.
    If it does, then there will of course be conditions and obligations – for both sides, the same as CH and NOR currently have.

    If you want a hard Brexit then fair enough. Go for it. But you should recognise a few things:
    – you can’t have a hard Brexit while enjoying the priviledges that CH and NOR currently have.
    – a hard Brexit is extremely risky. It is definitely going to cause economic and financial upheaval in the short term, and will possibly trigger a long period of decline for the UK
    – a large majority of your compatriots don’t want it. If the British people were given a choice between a soft and a hard Brexit tomorrow, the soft option would win by a large margin.

    //Outside the EU the UK will be able to sit a the top tables and help make them alongside the EU, while the likes of Germany have to sit outside.//

    I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about here. What “top tables” do you mean exactly? And why would Germany have to sit outside anything? ???

    I thought one of the Brexit declarations of faith was that Germany dominates the EU. Or is that only on days when it suits some other argument?

    BTW Although my prime loyalty is to Ireland and I want to see the partition of our country become so meaningless that it can be discarded or at least ignored, there’s still also a bit of a Brexiteer in me. I can certainly understand impatience with Brussels. DeGaulle was right when he blocked the UK from joining: Britain has always been different to a greater extent than each of the other countries is different, and I’d hate to see such a great place being absorbed in a homogenous Europe. But I prefer the British people, every people, to the state and to mere principle. I get the feeling that a lot of you guys don’t really care if your people suffer because of the mess that the Brexit campaign with all its lies and stupidity got them into.
    The people needed clear heads, more information and less rhetoric in 2016, and the Brexit campaign made sure they didn’t get them.

  41. Allan@Aberdeen, on February 13th, 2018 at 7:21 PM Said:
    Patrick – what is the legal status of the US military on Syrian soil?

    Hmm the legal status is it’s the American Military they need no authority except themselves.

  42. What is the legal status of Russian forces in Ukraine and Georgia?

  43. Noel you speak as does the EU like they are in the position of power here, but they are not.

    GB holds the power and you’re damn lucky that they have elected idiots.

    GB represents a third of the EU operating budget. With a hard break the EU dies a nice slow economic death. If GB was led by people willing to exert their power there is nothing the EU can do.

    All the threats and all the twisting of arms that the EU is doing is out of desperation because they know without Britain’s funds the Union has no future.

  44. Noel

    I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about here. What “top tables” do you mean exactly? And why would Germany have to sit outside anything? ???

    EG

    https://www.iso.org/home.html

    https://www.wto.org/

    And so on. These organisations, and many more, set the standards for international regulations that all signatories, including the EU, have to follow. The EU does not always make its own rules. Many are taken from these organisations and rebadged.

    I do not believe in the myth if a ‘Hard BREXIT’ This is mostly peddled by people who wish the UK to be under the yoke of the EU. We voted to LEAVE. I believe there has to be a transition as we have had the EEC/EC/EU doing all the work for us. But I concede the UK government is making a pigs ear of it, and others muddying the waters is not helping.

    But the eventual destination for the UK is as an independent sovereign nation like all the rest outside the EU.

    As for the lies. I think everybody has told lies but, I also think we have to admit that the first and biggest lie of all was told by Ted Heath when he said it was all about trade and no significant sovereignty will be lost. He knew it was a lie. Had the he not told that lie then we, and Ireland, would never have joined the EU.

  45. Poor UK thinks it can have the benefits of membership without having to obey the rules. Well, forget it.

    And that’s the nub of it Noel, the UK thinks it should have preferential treatment. Be it couched in the language of ‘the big bad EU is trying to punish plucky little Britain’ faux victimhood or the sham egalitarianism of ‘they have as much to lose as we do’ the bottom line is that they want access to the biggest market in the western world without paying for it.

  46. Hmm the legal status is it’s the American Military they need no authority except themselves.

    What an absurd response. The fact is that the US forces in Syria are outlaws: they have no legal status there.

    https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/11/russia-in-the-crosshairs/

    Eric Zuesse notes that only Syria and Russia complain about Washington’s illegal occupation of Syrian territory, an occupation that has no UN authorization and is a complete and total violation of international law, and Israel’s continual attacks on Syria. Washington’s continuing support for war against the legitimate government of Syria and support for Israeli and terrorist attacks on Syrian and Russian forces are undermining Russia’s efforts to bring peace to the region. Zuesse also notes that Washington and its UK puppet block all UN action against Washington’s illegality.

    Zuesse is correct. But is the continuation of Washington’s campaign against Syria and Russia largely the fault of Russia? Stephen Lendman makes a case that it is Russia’s fault.

    Why? It appears to be the case that the Russian government is so anxious for Western approval that it ends its successful military campaigns before the job is finished. It was Putin himself who declared “victory” in Syria and withdrew some of the Russian military before clearing all of Syria of foreign and jihadist occupation, thus leaving in place US beachheads for renewing the conflict.

    It couldn’t have taken more than two more weeks for Russia and Syria to liberate all of Syria from the US backed jihadists, but apparently Russia was afraid to annoy Washington that much and to risk contact with US personnel, even though Russia is in Syria legally under international law and the US is present illegally.

    Again trusting to international law, the UN, and “our Western partners,” Russia quit prematurely. As Lendman says, the complaints by Zakharova, Lavrov, Russian Defense Ministry spokesmen, and Putin himself are based in absolute fact. But the question is, when will Russia learn, if ever, that facts and law make no difference whatsoever to Washington? Washington’s interest is in its hegemony over the world and in Israel’s hegemony in the Middle East.

  47. The UK’s trade deficit with the EU is so bad that trade should cease until the deficit is closed through dealings with the rest of the world. If the EU wants to keep its trade surplus, it will have to pay for it

  48. GB represents a third of the EU operating budget. With a hard break the EU dies a nice slow economic death. If GB was led by people willing to exert their power there is nothing the EU can do.

    Pat, I don’t know where you’re getting this from but it’s clear that you’re either being fed bullshit or you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

  49. //The UK’s trade deficit with the EU is so bad that trade should cease until the deficit is closed t//

    This is typical of the never-never land that is Brexit economics.

    60 percent of the UK’s food imports come from the EU, and our economist wants all that to stop at once.
    Have you no idea of the disaster that would befall Britain if it stopped all imports from the EU? There would be huge rises in prices when all those imports have to be transferred through or sourced from other countries. Business would go bust. Unemployment would rocket, and with rising prices and no work poverty would go right up.
    Then of course the EU would retaliate by stopping imports from the UK, which would cause even more bankruptcies, unemployment and poverty in Britain.

  50. 60 percent of the UK’s food imports come from the EU

    I’m sure that there are other places that have food exports.

    Cars would be made, steelworks would be built, coal would be mined, shipyards would re-open etc. After all, that’s what we had before we joined the EU and even though the national IQ has dropped because of 3rd-world imports, there are still enough whites to re-industrialise.

    The case is that if the UK has to pay the EU for trade then the EU should pay the UK for its trade surplus. Why not?

  51. Cars would be made, steelworks would be built, coal would be mined, shipyards would re-open etc

    Just like that, nothing to do with the car industry in Britain being largely European, the Thatcher Government decimating the Brit mining industry or industrial production costs being a fraction in the orient of what they are in the west.

    No, a magic wand will be waved in Brexitlandia and everything will be ambrosia, rainbows and frolicking unicorns.

  52. Thatcher Government decimating the Brit mining industry

    Not true !

    http://www.healeyhero.co.uk/rescue/individual/Bob_Bradley/PM-Closures.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_Coal_Mining_Jobs.png

    http://peoplescharter.org/pit-closures-were-a-labour-policy-wilson-shut-twice-as-many-as-thatcher/

    King Coal was always going to suffer as things such as the Clean Air Act, Nuclear, oil and gas and coal from cheaper sources became available. STOP blaming one person for something ALL governments did.

  53. I believe that the bitter miner’s strike was during the Thatcher administration?

    Pit closures are somewhat misleading as jobs were transferred to other pits etc and your Wiki graph shows that Conservative administrations really hammered the final nail into mining jobs.

    Anyhow, it’s largely superfluous to the main point. Please explain to your fellow Brextremist Allan that there will be little if any coal mining jobs in sunny Brexitlandia.

  54. I believe that the bitter miner’s strike was during the Thatcher administration?

    I also believe that no ballot for a strike was ever made. I also believe that Arthur Scargill, Leader of the NUM and committed Communist, wanted to bring down the elected government as they did under Edward Heath.

    You ignore the central issue. More pits were closed by Harold Wilson and the Labour government and the fact that economic conditions where the main driver of closures, not some political ideology.

  55. I also believe that no ballot for a strike was ever made. I also believe that Arthur Scargill, Leader of the NUM and committed Communist, wanted to bring down the elected government as they did under Edward Heath.

    You can believe what you wish. The strike took place under the Thatcher administration which is an undeniable fact.

    You ignore the central issue. More pits were closed by Harold Wilson and the Labour government and the fact that economic conditions where the main driver of closures, not some political ideology

    Except I don’t ignore the central issue:

    Pit closures are somewhat misleading as jobs were transferred to other pits etc

    The central issue is of course jobs and your graph above shows the

  56. I also believe that no ballot for a strike was ever made. I also believe that Arthur Scargill, Leader of the NUM and committed Communist, wanted to bring down the elected government as they did under Edward Heath.

    You can believe what you wish. The strike took place under the Thatcher administration which is an undeniable fact.

    You ignore the central issue. More pits were closed by Harold Wilson and the Labour government and the fact that economic conditions where the main driver of closures, not some political ideology

    Except I don’t ignore the central issue:

    Pit closures are somewhat misleading as jobs were transferred to other pits etc

    The central issue is of course jobs and your graph above shows the

  57. Apologies, typing in haste and hit wrong button:

    The central issue is of course jobs and your graph above shows the Thatcher / Major administrations were really the nail in the coffin of British coal industry jobs.

    Do you accept, unlike you fellow Brextremist Allan, that there will be little or now coal mining jobs in Brexitlandia paradise?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.