The fact that mining, steel and shipbuilding all died out in the UK and yet was still employing thousands in EU countries was nothing to do with them.
You seem to be rewriting history.
Deals done in the corridors of Brussels not Westminster or Whitehall saw millions of (tonnes stupid word) tons of profitably mineable coal consigned to stay forever underground.
Many people would disagree with you, and put the blame for this at Margaret Thatchers door.
Similar deals also accounted for our steel industry whilst those in Germany and Poland thrived, strange that if you think about it.
Nothing to do with China, and a glut on the international market?
Ok, I will concede that shipbuilding was in decline by the time we entered in 73 but it was certainly hastened at the benefit of Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Malta, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Spain (Source EU shipbuilding countries)
Alternatively. British shipbuilding enjoyed undisputed international supremacy between 1890 and 1914, but sustained an absolute decline in output between 1948 and 1970.
When I worked I saw no discernible benefit from our membership although a raft of totally needless H&S legislation cost business and industry a small fortune to comply to standards that were inferior to the then current British Standards that they superceeded.
Everyone knows that the EU have introduced legislation on workers rights, that the Tories arent keen on. I am not thinking purely about myself. As far as our country is concerned, a smaller economy will result in cuts in public services, or more taxes, or both. Leaving the EU has resulted in a smaller economy. You might have noticed in the press, that we have the highest tax burden for 70 years?
Since I stopped working to care for my wife, I have noticed absolutely no difference between my standard of living pre and post Brexit. So I can only deduce that for millions of people like me EU membership had no benefit whatsoever.
Being members clearly has benefits for our country. The lies told by the leave side of the argument are coming home to roost. Many businesses have suffered since we left. For the first time in nearly 50 years, we are able to experience the difference between being members, and not. Hence the growing majority in favour of re-joining. I suppose someone in your position may be the least affected, although everyone is affected by the increases in food prices.
The coal industry in England has declined massively since 1913. The decline was due to a number of factors, including the rise of natural gas and nuclear energy as alternative sources of electricity, the working-out of the most easily mined seams, the miners’ strikes of 1972, 1974 and 1984/85, the pit closure program under Margaret Thatcher, and the privatisation of the National Coal Board2. By 2018, the UK’s output of coal had fallen to just three million metric tons.
China dominates the intentional steel industry Total UK steel production in each of the last 47 years combined was less than what China produced last year.
The UK steel industry has faced problems due to a combination of factors: High UK energy prices Extra cost of climate change policies Competition from China Too much steel being produced Other countries selling steel for cheaper Fall in international demand for steel Continuing growth in production Glut of steel on the international market
The fall of the British shipbuilding industry from world leader in 1914 to the edge of extinction in 1990 has been a favourite subject of those scholars working on the economic decline of Britain during the twentieth century. It has been related to both internal and external factors. During the 1920s and 1930s the governing reality was the collapse of world demand for new ships and there was little that British shipbuilders could do about this. However, after 1945 world demand for ships boomed and for ten years after the end of the Second World War British shipbuilding enjoyed a seeming return to the golden days before 1914. Unfortunately working practices in British shipyards had changed little since before 1914. In the mid-1950s Japan replaced Britain as the world's leading shipbuilding nation because it produced more cheaply and efficiently the types of ship the world market desired. British shipbuilders were in serious decline by the 1960s and government stepped in to help in their reorganisation. This had little impact, so the industry was subject to nationalisation in 1977. Even this could not stop the rot, so during the 1980s the remaining shipyards were privatised, but most firms did not long survive this liberation.
Various of the declining industries in the UK failed for a whole host of reasons. True to say part of it was shrinking markets. Equally true to say part of the blame lies with UK Governments. And failure to utilise the benefits of the EEC.
But it is equally true that the EEC/EU had a part to play, too.
The EU has proved very effective at protecting the economic interests of its members. But the UK? Not so much.
Fishing. The "Cod Wars" between the UK and Iceland. Partly predates us joining the EU. But, after we joined, no support as the EU allowed a non-Member to undercut a Member and buy the non-Members products.
Coal. Poland was not a Member at that time. We were. Poland were allowed to use a state subsidy to undercut UK coal prices. Something that the EEC/EU had successfully protected various of its Members in various industries. And did nothing to help us.
I'm not saying for a second that that was all (or even mostly) the EU's fault. What I am saying is that there would have been far more support if we had been Germany or France.
Various of the declining industries in the UK failed for a whole host of reasons. True to say part of it was shrinking markets. Equally true to say part of the blame lies with UK Governments. And failure to utilise the benefits of the EEC.
But it is equally true that the EEC/EU had a part to play, too.
The EU has proved very effective at protecting the economic interests of its members. But the UK? Not so much.
Fishing. The "Cod Wars" between the UK and Iceland. Partly predates us joining the EU. But, after we joined, no support as the EU allowed a non-Member to undercut a Member and buy the non-Members products.
Coal. Poland was not a Member at that time. We were. Poland were allowed to use a state subsidy to undercut UK coal prices. Something that the EEC/EU had successfully protected various of its Members in various industries. And did nothing to help us.
I'm not saying for a second that that was all (or even mostly) the EU's fault. What I am saying is that there would have been far more support if we had been Germany or France.
I am not going to argue. Some people seem to have suspicions about the "unelected bureaucrats", and "the corridors of power in Brussels" which are rarely backed up by facts. I think that it is rarely easy to point to the reasons why decisions were made by UK governments, or the EU. In this case it may have been as simple as,
As Margaret Thatcher took office as Britain’s first female prime minister in May 1979, she confronted a nation mired in economic recession.
Businesses were failing, and inflation and unemployment were rising. Thatcher immediately set out to turn the economic situation around, according to her firm belief in the independence of the individual from the state and limited government interference in the economy. Her goal when she took office, she later said, was to turn Britain from a “dependent to a self-reliant society, from a give-it-to-me to a do-it-yourself nation.”To do this, Thatcher focused on privatizing state-owned industries—such as steel and coal—that relied heavily on government subsidies, as well as curbing the power of Britain’s trade unions.
"Rishi, you can have a cushy job with a massive salary, incredible perks and no responsibility just as soon as you sign over £billions, fix the return vote and come back."
"No problem. Even as we speak my Ministers are taking away from the poorest in the UK to fund the payment whilst others are working to ensure the right result "
"But surely you could just tax energy and oil to get the money and allow the electorate to vote according to their conscience"
Ursula, the sea witch is the very reason I want fk all to do with the EU. Smug, self serving and pompous, she doesn't give a toss about Britain, only how the EU can benefit from allowing us back.
The fact that mining, steel and shipbuilding all died out in the UK and yet was still employing thousands in EU countries was nothing to do with them.
Deals done in the corridors of Brussels not Westminster or Whitehall saw millions of (tonnes stupid word) tons of profitably mineable coal consigned to stay forever underground.
Similar deals also accounted for our steel industry whilst those in Germany and Poland thrived, strange that if you think about it.
Ok, I will concede that shipbuilding was in decline by the time we entered in 73 but it was certainly hastened at the benefit of Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Malta, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Spain (Source EU shipbuilding countries)
When I worked I saw no discernible benefit from our membership although a raft of totally needless H&S legislation cost business and industry a small fortune to comply to standards that were inferior to the then current British Standards that they superceeded.
Since I stopped working to care for my wife, I have noticed absolutely no difference between my standard of living pre and post Brexit. So I can only deduce that for millions of people like me EU membership had no benefit whatsoever.
Part-time and shift workers to lose up to £248m holiday pay in UK rule change
Ministers are cutting holiday allocations and pay for irregular and part-time workers, at a cost to staff of up to £248m a year.
The government is changing how holiday days and pay are calculated for people who do not work full-time throughout the year, such as shift-workers, school employees and those on zero-hours contracts.
This will mean that instead of receiving full holiday rights at the beginning of the year in the same way as full-time workers, 5 million British workers on temporary or irregular contracts will have to gradually gain them during the year.
Experts say the change is one of the most significant erosions of employment protections since the UK left the EU working time directive.
Officials say they were able to issue the new rules, in part because Britain has left the EU and with it the strict labour laws covered by the working time directive.
Richard Arthur, head of trade union law at Thompsons Solicitors, said: “This move takes advantage of what the government is allowed to do post-Brexit. The government is taking that opportunity and bringing in new rules to the advantage of employers.”
1. An employee has been off sick for 11 months in a holiday year. Once finally fit for work, they are entitled to take the remaining month as their holiday entitlement. Because the 11 months sick does not reduce the holiday entitlement at all 2. When somebody seeks to return after maternity leave, they are often unable to do so, as they have to take the accrued holiday leave within the first holiday year whenever possible, regardless of wishes of employer or employee
Now let's use Teachers as an example. A Permanent Teacher does not receive Pay like you or I-their Holidays are predetermined, and their pay is pro-rated to take account of the lower number of weeks worked.
If (and only if) a Temp teacher is employed on the same pay/holidays as the Permanent Teacher, then they should be paid for the Summer Holidays. If not, cake and eat it spring to mind.
Is it really so terrible that a Temp employed on a Monthly contract accrues holiday on a monthly, rather than annual basis?
1. An employee has been off sick for 11 months in a holiday year. Once finally fit for work, they are entitled to take the remaining month as their holiday entitlement. Because the 11 months sick does not reduce the holiday entitlement at all 2. When somebody seeks to return after maternity leave, they are often unable to do so, as they have to take the accrued holiday leave within the first holiday year whenever possible, regardless of wishes of employer or employee
Now let's use Teachers as an example. A Permanent Teacher does not receive Pay like you or I-their Holidays are predetermined, and their pay is pro-rated to take account of the lower number of weeks worked.
If (and only if) a Temp teacher is employed on the same pay/holidays as the Permanent Teacher, then they should be paid for the Summer Holidays. If not, cake and eat it spring to mind.
Is it really so terrible that a Temp employed on a Monthly contract accrues holiday on a monthly, rather than annual basis?
I am not going to argue with any of that, but would you say that the EU are far more interested in protecting workers rights than the Tories?
1. An employee has been off sick for 11 months in a holiday year. Once finally fit for work, they are entitled to take the remaining month as their holiday entitlement. Because the 11 months sick does not reduce the holiday entitlement at all 2. When somebody seeks to return after maternity leave, they are often unable to do so, as they have to take the accrued holiday leave within the first holiday year whenever possible, regardless of wishes of employer or employee
Now let's use Teachers as an example. A Permanent Teacher does not receive Pay like you or I-their Holidays are predetermined, and their pay is pro-rated to take account of the lower number of weeks worked.
If (and only if) a Temp teacher is employed on the same pay/holidays as the Permanent Teacher, then they should be paid for the Summer Holidays. If not, cake and eat it spring to mind.
Is it really so terrible that a Temp employed on a Monthly contract accrues holiday on a monthly, rather than annual basis?
I am not going to argue with any of that, but would you say that the EU are far more interested in protecting workers rights than the Tories?
Short answer. Yes.
Most of EU Law is really good. They have genuinely managed to cherry pick the best Laws from around Europe, rather than the worst. As an example, a lot of Sale of Goods Law is English/Scottish.
But to suggest all EU Laws are suitable for an Island Nation is nearly as bonkers as suggesting it is all rubbish and needs burning.
1. An employee has been off sick for 11 months in a holiday year. Once finally fit for work, they are entitled to take the remaining month as their holiday entitlement. Because the 11 months sick does not reduce the holiday entitlement at all 2. When somebody seeks to return after maternity leave, they are often unable to do so, as they have to take the accrued holiday leave within the first holiday year whenever possible, regardless of wishes of employer or employee
Now let's use Teachers as an example. A Permanent Teacher does not receive Pay like you or I-their Holidays are predetermined, and their pay is pro-rated to take account of the lower number of weeks worked.
If (and only if) a Temp teacher is employed on the same pay/holidays as the Permanent Teacher, then they should be paid for the Summer Holidays. If not, cake and eat it spring to mind.
Is it really so terrible that a Temp employed on a Monthly contract accrues holiday on a monthly, rather than annual basis?
I am not going to argue with any of that, but would you say that the EU are far more interested in protecting workers rights than the Tories?
Unions threaten to ‘name and shame’ UK employers who enforce new labour laws TUC to debate ways to oppose legislation designed to prevent repeat of disruption to public services at special congress
See now this is typical biased reporting and shows how the figures are manipulated.
London, Peterborough and Stockport.
Ok so in the Referendum both London and Stockport voted remain with only Peterborough voting to leave. Hardly surprising then that focussing on those 3 areas would produce support to rejoin.
Also the pollsters claim that this is a Nationally representative survey. Well I've yet to meet anybody who has been asked about this by any survey group whether online or in person.
I'm going to assume that they didn't stand outside the benefit offices and ask although they may well have interviewed on Uni campus, which will further skew the findings so pardon me if I find those claims slightly spurious.
I feel that this is akin to asking the prison population for its opinions on law and order and then rolling out a headline saying that 80% of the country want the police and courts to have less powers.
It may be Nationally representative but it isn't an honest or fair reflection is it.
See now this is typical biased reporting and shows how the figures are manipulated.
London, Peterborough and Stockport.
Ok so in the Referendum both London and Stockport voted remain with only Peterborough voting to leave. Hardly surprising then that focussing on those 3 areas would produce support to rejoin.
Also the pollsters claim that this is a Nationally representative survey. Well I've yet to meet anybody who has been asked about this by any survey group whether online or in person.
I'm going to assume that they didn't stand outside the benefit offices and ask although they may well have interviewed on Uni campus, which will further skew the findings so pardon me if I find those claims slightly spurious.
I feel that this is akin to asking the prison population for its opinions on law and order and then rolling out a headline saying that 80% of the country want the police and courts to have less powers.
It may be Nationally representative but it isn't an honest or fair reflection is it.
Britons support rejoining the single market, even if it means free movement
Fintan Smith Political Research Executive Politics & current affairs November 29, 2023, 11:09 AM GMT+0
Seven in ten Britons support a closer relationship with the EU than we have now
By 46% to 36%, Britons say there should be another EU referendum in the next ten years Beth Mann Beth Mann Research Executive Politics & current affairs August 14, 2023, 10:18 AM GMT+1
Only three in ten Britons say Brexit is now ‘done’
Comments
China dominates the intentional steel industry
Total UK steel production in each of the last 47 years combined was less than what China produced last year.
The UK steel industry has faced problems due to a combination of factors:
High UK energy prices
Extra cost of climate change policies
Competition from China
Too much steel being produced
Other countries selling steel for cheaper
Fall in international demand for steel
Continuing growth in production
Glut of steel on the international market
The fall of the British shipbuilding industry from world leader in 1914 to the edge of extinction in 1990 has been a favourite subject of those scholars working on the economic decline of Britain during the twentieth century. It has been related to both internal and external factors. During the 1920s and 1930s the governing reality was the collapse of world demand for new ships and there was little that British shipbuilders could do about this. However, after 1945 world demand for ships boomed and for ten years after the end of the Second World War British shipbuilding enjoyed a seeming return to the golden days before 1914. Unfortunately working practices in British shipyards had changed little since before 1914. In the mid-1950s Japan replaced Britain as the world's leading shipbuilding nation because it produced more cheaply and efficiently the types of ship the world market desired. British shipbuilders were in serious decline by the 1960s and government stepped in to help in their reorganisation. This had little impact, so the industry was subject to nationalisation in 1977. Even this could not stop the rot, so during the 1980s the remaining shipyards were privatised, but most firms did not long survive this liberation.
https://academic.oup.com/liverpool-scholarship-online/book/43379/chapter-abstract/363184246?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Various of the declining industries in the UK failed for a whole host of reasons. True to say part of it was shrinking markets. Equally true to say part of the blame lies with UK Governments. And failure to utilise the benefits of the EEC.
But it is equally true that the EEC/EU had a part to play, too.
The EU has proved very effective at protecting the economic interests of its members. But the UK? Not so much.
Fishing. The "Cod Wars" between the UK and Iceland. Partly predates us joining the EU. But, after we joined, no support as the EU allowed a non-Member to undercut a Member and buy the non-Members products.
Coal. Poland was not a Member at that time. We were. Poland were allowed to use a state subsidy to undercut UK coal prices. Something that the EEC/EU had successfully protected various of its Members in various industries. And did nothing to help us.
I'm not saying for a second that that was all (or even mostly) the EU's fault. What I am saying is that there would have been far more support if we had been Germany or France.
Some people seem to have suspicions about the "unelected bureaucrats", and "the corridors of power in Brussels" which are rarely backed up by facts.
I think that it is rarely easy to point to the reasons why decisions were made by UK governments, or the EU.
In this case it may have been as simple as,
As Margaret Thatcher took office as Britain’s first female prime minister in May 1979, she confronted a nation mired in economic recession.
Businesses were failing, and inflation and unemployment were rising. Thatcher immediately set out to turn the economic situation around, according to her firm belief in the independence of the individual from the state and limited government interference in the economy. Her goal when she took office, she later said, was to turn Britain from a “dependent to a self-reliant society, from a give-it-to-me to a do-it-yourself nation.”To do this, Thatcher focused on privatizing state-owned industries—such as steel and coal—that relied heavily on government subsidies, as well as curbing the power of Britain’s trade unions.
https://www.history.com/news/margaret-thatcher-miners-strike-iron-lady
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tories-want-northern-ireland-out-of-uk-says-lord-kilclooney/ar-AA1l1bG8?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=f1de9443dcc441748fe7ee76d5b1238a&ei=55
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/jeremy-hunt-blames-brexit-for-years-of-turmoil/ar-AA1kYkwO?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=f1de9443dcc441748fe7ee76d5b1238a&ei=71
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/poll-do-you-support-uk-giving-brussels-2bn-to-join-eu-scheme/ar-AA1l1GB8?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=e423cdb6182444ce9d41903bed09b469&ei=43
"No problem. Even as we speak my Ministers are taking away from the poorest in the UK to fund the payment whilst others are working to ensure the right result "
"But surely you could just tax energy and oil to get the money and allow the electorate to vote according to their conscience"
"Oh look it's your Uber, do have a safe journey"
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/pmqs-rishi-sunak-may-be-laughing-about-brexit-but-the-british-people-aren-t/ar-AA1l6fQd?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=b2f201724d3849a3a9cc3c11782d496c&ei=8
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/every-measure-brexit-harming-britain-162528345.html
Ministers are cutting holiday allocations and pay for irregular and part-time workers, at a cost to staff of up to £248m a year.
The government is changing how holiday days and pay are calculated for people who do not work full-time throughout the year, such as shift-workers, school employees and those on zero-hours contracts.
This will mean that instead of receiving full holiday rights at the beginning of the year in the same way as full-time workers, 5 million British workers on temporary or irregular contracts will have to gradually gain them during the year.
Experts say the change is one of the most significant erosions of employment protections since the UK left the EU working time directive.
Officials say they were able to issue the new rules, in part because Britain has left the EU and with it the strict labour laws covered by the working time directive.
Richard Arthur, head of trade union law at Thompsons Solicitors, said: “This move takes advantage of what the government is allowed to do post-Brexit. The government is taking that opportunity and bringing in new rules to the advantage of employers.”
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/part-time-shift-workers-lose-130051160.html
Let me give 2 examples.
1. An employee has been off sick for 11 months in a holiday year. Once finally fit for work, they are entitled to take the remaining month as their holiday entitlement. Because the 11 months sick does not reduce the holiday entitlement at all
2. When somebody seeks to return after maternity leave, they are often unable to do so, as they have to take the accrued holiday leave within the first holiday year whenever possible, regardless of wishes of employer or employee
Now let's use Teachers as an example. A Permanent Teacher does not receive Pay like you or I-their Holidays are predetermined, and their pay is pro-rated to take account of the lower number of weeks worked.
If (and only if) a Temp teacher is employed on the same pay/holidays as the Permanent Teacher, then they should be paid for the Summer Holidays. If not, cake and eat it spring to mind.
Is it really so terrible that a Temp employed on a Monthly contract accrues holiday on a monthly, rather than annual basis?
Most of EU Law is really good. They have genuinely managed to cherry pick the best Laws from around Europe, rather than the worst. As an example, a lot of Sale of Goods Law is English/Scottish.
But to suggest all EU Laws are suitable for an Island Nation is nearly as bonkers as suggesting it is all rubbish and needs burning.
Unions threaten to ‘name and shame’ UK employers who enforce new labour laws
TUC to debate ways to oppose legislation designed to prevent repeat of disruption to public services at special congress
https://www.ft.com/content/34555abd-3706-4359-a437-2b0af4706938
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/unions-plan-all-out-war-with-the-government-over-strike-law-and-threaten-more-misery-for-the-public/ar-AA1lguRf
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/british-public-backs-closer-relationship-with-eu-after-brexit-new-poll-shows/ar-AA1lh2S0?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0f2bddcadfa341bebb9d6f8f9ea69347&ei=29
London, Peterborough and Stockport.
Ok so in the Referendum both London and Stockport voted remain with only Peterborough voting to leave. Hardly surprising then that focussing on those 3 areas would produce support to rejoin.
Also the pollsters claim that this is a Nationally representative survey. Well I've yet to meet anybody who has been asked about this by any survey group whether online or in person.
I'm going to assume that they didn't stand outside the benefit offices and ask although they may well have interviewed on Uni campus, which will further skew the findings so pardon me if I find those claims slightly spurious.
I feel that this is akin to asking the prison population for its opinions on law and order and then rolling out a headline saying that 80% of the country want the police and courts to have less powers.
It may be Nationally representative but it isn't an honest or fair reflection is it.
Fintan Smith
Political Research Executive
Politics & current affairs
November 29, 2023, 11:09 AM GMT+0
Seven in ten Britons support a closer relationship with the EU than we have now
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/47997-britons-support-rejoining-the-single-market-even-if-it-means-free-movement
Beth Mann
Beth Mann
Research Executive
Politics & current affairs
August 14, 2023, 10:18 AM GMT+1
Only three in ten Britons say Brexit is now ‘done’
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/45986-46-36-britons-say-there-should-be-another-eu-refer?redirect_from=/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/08/14/46-36-britons-say-there-should-be-another-eu-refer