The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Could you give me an example?

It's off topic, and I'm sure with just a moments thought you could think of your own.

But here's one of thousands.

The money in my building society account is attracting a paltry rate of interest. There's another building society account with the same access levels and conditions which pays a better rate, would it be right or wrong to move my savings to the higher interest rate account?

or if you want to go bigger than personal economic circumstances and keep @tonyh29 interested "Should the UK sell its Gold reserves?"

 

[snowychap]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

The money in my building society account is attracting a paltry rate of interest. There's another building society account with the same access levels and conditions which pays a better rate, would it be right or wrong to move my savings to the higher interest rate account?

Are there ethical differences in the investment policies of the different organizations?

Does building society 1 pay the minimum wage and building society 2 the living wage?

Does the building society with the better interest rate need to attract more money because it needs to address fund-raising problems or because it's former CEO was out of his face on coke most of the time?

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

I'm sure with just a moments thought you could think of your own

With just a moment's thought, I was able to consider that there might be more to the decision than merely the rates of interest on offer.

It was your proposal - don't get the arse if I ask you to provide an example of what you've put forward.

Edited August 24, 2018 by snowychap

[blandy]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

Are there ethical differences in the investment policies of the different organizations?

Does building society 1 pay the minimum wage and building society 2 the living wage?

Does the building society with the better interest rate need to attract more money because it needs to address fund-raising problems or because it's former CEO was out of his face on coke most of the time?

OK the two accounts are with the same society, with one being a zombie account whose introductory interest rate has gone and another a new account with a higher rate...

C'mon...

Anyway, off topic

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

OK the two accounts are with the same society, with one being a zombie account whose introductory interest rate has gone and another a new account with a higher rate...

C'mon...

Anyway, off topic

In order to find one example amongst 'thousands', you've had to narrow it down to a very specific thing in which you've eliminated everything that isn't the one simple difference between one interest rate and another.

All other things being equal, the only difference between two things with different interest rates is the interest rates. That's hardly enlightening or relevant.

Perhaps you ought to have spent more than 'a moment's thought'?

 

[blandy]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

.... That's hardly enlightening or relevant...

I can only apologise for the poor relevance an enlightenment content of my Building Society account related answer to your quest for an solely "economic harm or benefit" example. 

As neither B Soc. interest rates or Gold reserves are much to do with Brexit, perhaps we should move on (and I'm going for m'dinner - enjoy yours, Snowy)

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

or if you want to go bigger than personal economic circumstances and keep @tonyh29 interested "Should the UK sell its Gold reserves?"

This wasn't in your original post (perhaps there's some issue with mod editing not showing up?).

Edit: The question posed wasn't going to be helpful so I'll rethink what I intend to say so as to move the conversation on.

Edit 2: Gold reserves - a good example of something which shouldn't be measured only in terms of economic harm or benefit (though any such measure in and of itself is highly debateable).

 

Edited August 24, 2018 by snowychap
So it isn't thought that I ignored the 'gold reserves' example even though addressed in the post below.

[blandy]

37 minutes ago, snowychap said:

This wasn't in your original post (perhaps there's some issue with mod editing not showing up?).

it was there. The post hasn't been edited by anyone. If it had been edited the screen grab below would show "edited by..."

[snowychap]

@blandy

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

it was there.

See PM.

[Xann]

Wow - There's all sorts of wrong going down in this thread from Camp Brexit

Back when I'm sober. Will probably keep it light until then?

Maybe Wednesday?

9 minutes ago, blandy said:

If it had been edited the screen grab below would show "edited by..."

I'm not saying in this case if anyone did or didn't? -  but It didn't when you last edited one of mine.

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, Xann said:

Wow - There's all sorts of wrong going down in this thread from Camp Brexit

Back when I'm sober. Will probably keep it light until then?

Maybe Wednesday?

I'm not saying in this case if anyone did or didn't? -  but It didn't when you last edited one of mine.

Not to you it didn't but it does to us

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

perhaps we should move on

What I think we ought to determine from what we've both posted is that neither of us appears to believe that economic harm or benefit should be the sole or main measure of any public or political policy as it always has a wider impact than that (how you choose where you hide your millions doesn't concern us for the purposes of this chat) and that when people do rely solely on that, they're often mistaken in doing so (especially see 'gold reserves').

As for this last few pages, why did 'cost' (@StefanAVFC) become financial self-interest (@WhatAboutTheFinish) and then economic harm or benefit in your post?

Given the preceding couple of posts that Stefan made (a criticism of the electoral process in domestic elections and issues with Northern Ireland), I think it's not just being generous to infer he was talking about more than simply £/€.

[blandy]

30 minutes ago, Xann said:

but It didn't when you last edited one of mine.

When a mod edits a post, it always shows up to mods, but only to posters if the mod ticks a particular box. That's why I posted the screenshot - because it's a mod view of my post, it hasn't been edited. If it's edited you see the detail as below in the screenshot

Now could we get back on topic please

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, snowychap said:

we've both posted is that neither of us appears to believe that economic harm or benefit should be the sole or main measure of any public or political policy as it always has a wider impact than that

Exactly.  The weight given to "economic" factors is often far too high. A car crash creates economic value, it employs firemen, ambulance workers, NHS staff, Police, car repairers, car parts manufacturers, AA drivers....

But more car crashes to boost the economy would be an "unorthodox" approach

[peterms]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

But more car crashes to boost the economy would be an "unorthodox" approach

I don't know.  Seems like quite a good analogy for decades of energy policy, foreign policy, policy on banking, and house prices, for example.  The chaotic approach to Brexit fits right in.

[chrisp65]

So hang on, ‘staff’ can write invisible messages on our posts?
That’s exactly the sort of deep state black ops we’ll be rid of once the yoke of Belgian oppression is off our shoulders.

Seriously though, if peeps can secret edit my stuff, they could make me look stupid.
 

[hippo]

I think the EU has won the phoney war 

The initial 'give us what we want or we will walk away with no deal'  looks to be on thin ice. Always likely, as though the EU will miss our financial input - they aren't prepared to radically alter what they do to get the UK onside.

In fact looking back on the whole thing, I don't see we have gained much from the negotiations - the EU seemed to have stuck to their guns and have had to shift.

None of the above is a dig at TM or the Tories - I don't really believe there was a good deal to be had - the odds were always in the EU'S favour.

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, peterms said:

Some interesting clippings there.  My recollection is of discussions that were very much about economic benefits and costs, including things like whether our trade relations with Commonwealth countries would be damaged.

It's clear that Heath and others had an aim of further and deeper integration, though what that might mean in practice is not something I recall being spelled out and discussed - unsurprisingly, as I imagine there would be very many interpretations of what closer integration might mean.

This from someone who was part of the negotiations suggests the lack of clarity about the future:

I take the tone of "Steve Analyst"'s tweets in that clip to be "We knew what we were signing up for, and it was always political and economic integration", which I would see as an overstatement.  There was certainly discussion about whether we wanted to be closer to Europe in ways going beyond trading, and again that included whether that meant turning our backs on old trading partners (I think "kith and kin" was a phrase used at the time, referring to places like Oz and NZ).  There wasn't, as I recall, a clear vision of a distant destination that would be reached.  There was certainly a feeling of entering a new relationship, the "community" Heath refers to, but discussions and in my view votes, were based on more transactional and less visionary concerns.

It's the content of his tweets that were important not whether or not you accepted the tone of the messenger.

Thus I was talking about things like that clip from Heath's speech, the newspaper clippings, excerpt from Hansard (I think), &c.

Quote

This from someone who was part of the negotiations suggests the lack of clarity about the future:

Surely the first line that you quoted 'From the beginning we knew we were joining more than just a free trade area' is the pertinent bit when responding to 'We went in on the basis of it being a trading bloc that would confer economic advantages'?

There is, surely, a lot of daylight between it's not like it was in 1972 and it was never spelt out that it would be like it is in 2018?

 

Edited August 24, 2018 by snowychap

[peterms]

49 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It's the content of his tweets that were important not whether or not you accepted the tone of the messenger.

Thus I was talking about things like that clip from Heath's speech, the newspaper clippings, excerpt from Hansard (I think), &c.

His message, I assume, is that we always knew it would be about political union, and the clippings he has chosen are intended to support his case.

What I'm saying is that Heath and others had a vision involving ever closer union, but that's not what I recall being the nature of the public discussion.  There was no clear view put forward about where we were going to end up in this sense of political and economic integration, though there was an understanding that we were entering a different type of relationship.  The 1972 Reith Lectures were titled "Europe: Journey to an unknown destination", which I think is a fair reflection.

50 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Surely the first line that you quoted 'From the beginning we knew we were joining more than just a free trade area' is the pertinent bit when responding to 'We went in on the basis of it being a trading bloc that would confer economic advantages'?

The main public debate took place in preparation for the 1975 referendum on continued membership, rather than at the time of entry.  The leading arguments were economic, though other things appeared as well.  A review of campaign literature here says

Quote

...So what were the main points covered in the campaign literature?

On the economic and business side, emphasis was put on the importance of being part of single European home market with access to over 250 million people for British business, industry, jobs, and future prosperity; greater bargaining strength in matters related to issues such as energy and trade negotiations; and the ability to take advantage of the Common Agricultural Policy with the price stability and guaranteed food supplies that it brought with it.

In addition to advantages of economic influence, being part of the Community allowed Britain to exert greater political influence so that influence could be brought to bear on matters such as USA-Japanese relations, foreign aid, as well as being afforded peace and national security though a common defence capability.

Mention was also made of the social benefits of membership including important protection for UK workers’ rights and access to financial assistance from the European Social Fund and Regional Development Fund.

On the matter of sovereignty, the fact that Britain had already “pooled her nuclear capacity under the auspices of NATO and undertaken to share her oil supplies by the terms of the International Energy Programme” was mentioned. Also, it was made clear that

 At present, every member state effectively has a veto on all matters of vital national interest raised in the Council of Ministers. The powers of the Commission are confined largely to administrative matters.

[Contact Brief, 68, Conservative Contact Programme March/April 1975, CCO 508/4/2]

In sum, the campaign argued that “Britain cannot go it alone in the modern world. We need the extra strength and security” that the Economic Community affords [model speech ‘kit’ on Britain the EC, CCO 508/4/3]. Moreover, on 2 June, just days before the Referendum vote Margaret Thatcher, Party Leader, urged a yes to Europe vote concluding that, “ Let us remember that Britain does not break Treaties”...

The pamphlet issued by the government at the time, here, reflected the primacy of economic issues in the debate:

Quote

...On March 18 the Prime Minister was able to make this announcement:

'I believe that our renegotiation objectives have been substantially though not completely achieved.'

What were the main objectives to which Mr. Wilson referred? The most important were FOOD and MONEY and JOBS.

Food

Britain had to ensure that shoppers could get secure supplies of food at fair prices.

As a result of these negotiations the Common Agricultural policy (known as CAP) now works more flexibly to the benefit of both housewives and farmers in Britain. The special arrangements made for sugar and beef are a good example.

At the same time many food prices in the rest of the world have shot up, and our food prices are now no higher because Britain is in the Market than if we were outside.

The Government also won a better deal on food imports from countries outside the Common Market, particularly for Commonwealth sugar and for New Zealand dairy products. These will continue to be on sale in our shops.

This is not the end of improvements in the Market's food policy. There will be further reviews. Britain, as a member, will be able to seek further changes to our advantage. And we shall be more sure of our supplies when food is scarce in the world.

Money and Jobs

Under the previous terms, Britain's contribution to the Common Market budget imposed too heavy a burden on us. The new terms ensure that Britain will pay a fairer share. We now stand, under the Dublin agreement, to get back from Market funds up to £125 million a year.

There was a threat to employment in Britain from the movement in the Common Market towards an Economic & Monetary Union. This could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound, restricting industrial growth and putting jobs at risk. This threat has been removed.

Britain will not have to put VAT on necessities like food.

We have also maintained our freedom to pursue our own policies on taxation and on industry, and to develop Scotland and Wales and the Regions where unemployment is high...

 

[bickster]

It's alright we'll just trade on WTO rules...

OH?

[Xann]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Now could we get back on topic please?

No.

Now take us through how you lost the Tory thread?