Brexit Thread VIII: Taking a penalty kick-ing
- Thread starter tjs282
- Start date
- Status
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Well on the bright side UK is getting back its fishing industry from the EU.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,068
Don't know about you but like fishermen better than bankers. Were I british I'd be saying "good riddance".
There'll always be an abundance of cheese.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,068
Do remember who destroyed the real economy there, and for the sake of promoting which interests.
The same party that is now taking us out of the EU Don't think that whose interests they are serving has changed either.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,068
Agreed. The thing is, in the midst of they general incompetence they make mistakes on that service to interests.: the EU was a powerful shield, now they're taking the risk of dropping it. It's a risk that can lead to the unraveling of Thatcher's achievements. Seemingly remote now that Labour is balirite again (her greatest achievement...) but things can change.
And I say taking the risk because the UK and the EU can still come up with a treaty - there's much posturing but both parties have things they want very much, chiefly involving mutual political cover for their desired agendas. It would be better if no treaty is done...
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
I thought that was because the Germans built better cars, the Americans Better planes and the Japanese better ships ?
Now that the UK is leaving the EU for free trade agreements Iam sure that will fix everything.
As for the Fiancial crisis, well the US didnt learn from urinating on the electrical fence for the second time and it looks like it will need another reminder.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,068
Most industrial goods in the 70s were crappy. Even if the british companies were particularly so in some, it could be improved on. The UK was not behind on science, technology or capital. Japan improved its quality massively over 15 or 20 years, just copy what they did, which itself was a copy of american ideas. And do you remember the "sick man of Europe" talk about Germany at the turn of the century? The german government didn't shut down their countries industry. Though they did took the opportunity to needlessly mistreat their working class.
And yes, entering the european common market was part of the problem, part of what enabled Thatcher to successfully impose her neoliberal destruction in the country. Far from "rescuing" the UK, it allowed its government to claim that closing down its "un-competitive" industry was necessary.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,204
I think you need to support the assertion that joining the Common Market is a necessary and required step for Thatcher's war on industry/the unions.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,068
I sould have said consumer goods, really. Stuff such as cars and bikes,the british were infamous. Capital goods, they were ok. But just look at a car from the 1970s... cars were much improved during the 1980s and 90s, whatever deficiencies they had could have been fixed. Other industries in the UK went nearly bankrupt at the same time, like Rolls-Royce. The government supported them and they continued to be one of the major manufacturers of jet engines. The french car-makers were nearly bankrupt also, the french governments avoided it and Peugeot and especially Renault managed to recover quite well and become internationally competitive and important.
But what you contest was the need of the common market for Thatcher to destroy british industry. It provided political cover to not intervene in support of those industries. That was what the EEC and the EU now was about first and foremost: political cover, serve as a justification to one's own voters. The UK had to "reorient" towards Europe, hence the old should go. Would Thatcher have done it even without this cover? Perhaps. As you say she had her own political reasons to do it, but I think she'd have met stronger opposition. The role of the EMU, then in planning, must be taken into consideration when looking at how the City developed and took over political influence from industry in the UK. It was the EMU that, in 1990, ended capital controls and empowered the City even further. Would the Uk government risk shifting its country into a bet on financial services if there was no EMU? Remember, at the time capital controls and restrictions on foreign banks were still the norm. Imo it was the anticipation of those rules being rewritten that allowed Thatcher to get away with destroying industry and claiming that the future was services, to sell such a plan to enough tory grandees.
These changes in rules, these treaties, can have big consequences in internal politics. The EMU was the driver of the biggest change in international rules since WW2, and I can argue the political cause and origin of the worst problems in the "western" world today. It wasn't Washington in the driver's seat of the Washington Consensus, it was the europeans...
But what you contest was the need of the common market for Thatcher to destroy british industry. It provided political cover to not intervene in support of those industries. That was what the EEC and the EU now was about first and foremost: political cover, serve as a justification to one's own voters. The UK had to "reorient" towards Europe, hence the old should go. Would Thatcher have done it even without this cover? Perhaps. As you say she had her own political reasons to do it, but I think she'd have met stronger opposition. The role of the EMU, then in planning, must be taken into consideration when looking at how the City developed and took over political influence from industry in the UK. It was the EMU that, in 1990, ended capital controls and empowered the City even further. Would the Uk government risk shifting its country into a bet on financial services if there was no EMU? Remember, at the time capital controls and restrictions on foreign banks were still the norm. Imo it was the anticipation of those rules being rewritten that allowed Thatcher to get away with destroying industry and claiming that the future was services, to sell such a plan to enough tory grandees.
These changes in rules, these treaties, can have big consequences in internal politics. The EMU was the driver of the biggest change in international rules since WW2, and I can argue the political cause and origin of the worst problems in the "western" world today. It wasn't Washington in the driver's seat of the Washington Consensus, it was the europeans...
Last edited:
Thatcher got rid of capital controls in October 1979, way before the EMU.
The decisions Thatcher took were ideological and were not forced on her by the EEC/EU.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,068
She did, and the EEC didn't force her decisions. But the others hadn't gotten rid of controls yet. That makes all the difference. The city's wishes could not be met by the UK's government alone, others had "open their markets" to them. The UK was pushing for it, Thatcher's plans depended on it and everyone knew so, hence that episode of the BoE desperately "defending the pound" to keep it within the exchange mechanism, afraid that letting it slide would compromise the whole project, risk losing that access. Turned out it didn't: the other european governments had embraced it so much that there as no turning back by then. Just as now "access" or "no access" for the city doesn't make much difference, as other countries have also eviscerated regulations.
No EMU and Thatcher's government would have had a hard time explaining even within her own party how the city would replace british industry as an economic base! There's a reason why the tories settled with having the UK inside the EEC then...
Incidentally, there's also a reason why they don't worry about leaving now: international finance everywhere has dumped any meaningful enforcement of regulations and they expect it to continue that way. No longer necessary to be part of the EU, they can keep doing their business after leaving.
The EU is the weak party on the irish border issue (because geography and internal irish politics) and the weak party on financial services (because the corrupt european governments don't want to really regulate finance).
Last edited:
EnglishEdward
Deity
The entry of the UK into the EEC in 1973 resulted in an import surge from the EEC of French and Italian
goods that were, because of a high pound cheaper, and to German goods which were usually of better quality.
Rather than admit EEC entry was a mistake, the UK government blamed UK manufacturing for failing to plan,
and following the US lead the Japanese for the import surge. The import surges damaged UK manufacturing
and switched the balance of power within UK capitalism very firmly away from manufacturing towards the
financial services of the City of London. And yes, there was then a sudden convenient inability to protect UK
industry because quotas and tariffs were prohibited by EEC rules that the UK government was reluctant to bend.
These two things meant that it was much easier for Thatcher to abandon manufacturing in favour of financial services.
There were several games going on, one was about attracting OPEC petrodollars apart the middle east, another
about maximising revenue from North Sea oil, another about privatisation, another about money in Europe.
All this happened after the devastation of British industry in the 80s. To blame the EU for the bad decisions of the UK government and British industries failure to invest and modernise is somewhat odd.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Good thing the Boris government isnt blaming UK business for failing to plan /s
UK is leaving the EU for FTAs and here you are complaining about how the Japanese built better ships, US better planes and the Germans Better cars. The UK built garbage and got destroyed by the free market.
Last edited:
EnglishEdward
Deity
I am not complaining about any of those things.
Merely making an observation that German goods were generally of better quality, is NOT a complaint.
- Status
