I'm not so sure, "M", I personally don't think it will be as bad as you prophesise. We've been in and through many financial crisis periods and events while in the EU for the last 43 years, and it's never really been an advantage where the EU helped us get out of it. Each time we have faced a global crash we have had to dig ourselves out of it as a Nation rather than as a member of the EU. In fact, we have, on most occasions, got our selves out and then moved forward ahead of the other Nations. Yes, it historic move and the consequences are unknown..........but then Life is unpredictable
You're obviously a masochistic "optimist" who likes pain, clueless, if you thought you were going to get anything else from FB!!
Dunno you know. I got 8 likes the other day for my story about successfully making the journey home from work without having turned my undies brown when my current bout of gastroenteritis started.
Yeah, but those "likes" are probably from 8 people suffering from a similar condition who didn't make it home with clean undies.
Errrrrrr................wasn't the UK basically bust when we joined the EU? We weren't referred to as the "poor man of Europe" for nothing.
As I remember it, we were referred to as "the poor man of Europe", mainly by the French, because we were always on strike. Or some of us were anyway.
And because we ended up being one of the first nations to be bailed out by the IMF! I was replying to Armandii's post which, in all fairness, quoted 43 years.
I have no experience with international politics. But on the much smaller scale, I have lots of experience in seeing some good sized corporate projects to completion. I wonder if my experience can be extrapolated to much bigger things. In my experience, throughout a project, some will discuss costs and budgets, resources, accessibility of external resources etc etc. All of that is necessary of course. But the single biggest threat to a project is none of that. The single biggest threat to the success of a project is, in my experience, attitude. I have worked with people who when confronted with a challenge, have drawn parallels with projects that ran over budget before failing completely. Those people never contributed anything to the project they were currently on. On the other hand, I've worked with people who are determined to overcome all challenges, and they do. They produce outstanding results. Surely in the same way, the biggest threat to the UK now is not anything the French or Germans can say. The biggest threat will be anything our side says, and that depends on their attitude, and how much we as ordinary folk obstruct them at every turn.
I recall we were pretty well off before Ted Heath got us into the EEC in 1973, it was at a too big a cost. We had previously tried to join in the 60s but the French blocked us, so he was desperate to join at any cost, we gave away all our fishing rights and paid in a disproportionate amount (until Maggie re-negotiated our rebate a decade later). At that time we had North Sea Oil and for a while it seemed we were going to be self sufficient in energy. It all changed in the late 70s with the oil crisis the endless strikes as pete mentioned, it was the 3 day week with blackouts when we justly got labelled the sick man of europe. Happy times
We've always been viewed in derisory terms by the European countries, longk. When we joined the EU we were in a trough of economic decline but the EU was also in economic trouble. In 1961 Macmillan saw the EU as a possible solution to our problem by being in a economic club. Don't forget, there was great opposition to our application by Europe through the '60's to 1973. Being in the EU through the '80'S was no help as we went into recession with interest rates soaring to over 15.5%, In 1992 the Pound had to drop out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism partially because of the state of financial crisis amongst the European countries. There was more hostile political separation by the EU in 2002 when the UK declined to adopt the Euro as it's currency. Then in 2007 the global crisis happened and the EU suffered more from it in the sense that all members using the Euro couldn't use an independent currency to drag themselves out of the mire because of the Euro being affected by other members Poor man status. During that financial crisis the EU members, in reality, abandoned, any pretence at being in the Club and turned Nationalistic to protect themselves, with the two Major players using the Euro and countries debts to strengthen their positions in the EU. So, yes, we were called the "Poor Man of Europe" because we were outside of the European countries with whom, politically, we've never been submissive to and, therefore, when in the EU, viewed as the rebel and never been really regarded as a fully committed member by those who had ideas of a Federal Europe controlled by unelected bureaucats living in a different world to the real one.
Just to clear up a few misunderstandings (but not the main gist of the discussion) we were never called the 'poor man of Europe'. We were called 'the sick man of Europe' and that term was supposed to have originated from the Ottoman Empire being called it. When we were first called it, they weren't referring to our monetary situation but to our industrial situation when the country was in political turmoil in the early 70's. (Turned out to have a similar effect.) The attempt to pull us out of it was a failure and it caused hyper inflation. The IMF granted us a loan to try and help us sort it out but it failed miserably because of the stupid political and economic theories (some blame Keynes and Beveridge). You can tell I like politicians . Because of that we ran into the 'Winter of Discontent' which made matters worse but we eventually pulled out of it. The main problem was that they didn't have me as Chancellor . In my opinion, having to repay the loan caused us even more grief. In more recent years it has been used as a term exclusively for monetary problems. The current 'sick man of Europe' (there have been many in between) is France.
I read somewhere online this morning, that due to her handling of Brexit, Theresa May is the worst UK Prime Minister since David Cameron.
She will get a lot of stick. A lot of people who voted remain are bitter that us remainers are on the losing side (I'm not, I'm glad to be on the losing side now they've shown their true colours). May was opposed to brexit, so I guess some of those that refused to accept the result may have initially looked to her hopefully thinking she would overturn democracy and discard the referendum result, ignoring the wishes of the majority. Instead she pressed ahead, full steam ahead. I can imagine this would skew people's opinions if polled. She is also a sensible person when it comes to political correctness. When she was home secretary she fought very hard to throw out several convicted terrorists. Forcing someone who has been convicted by one country to attend a fair trial in another country that also accuses him, is not compatible with the extreme left attitude in Britain. Far better to house such people and celebrate their freedom of expression as they preach hatred against their hosts. Mrs May thinks otherwise. So this too will make her unpopular with many. Mrs May is also drinking from the poisoned chalice that is the legacy of Cameron and before him, that joke that is the labour party. Decades of mismanagement have pretty much crippled the NHS, transport, infrastructure in general. Now it's all knackered, and Mrs May is at the top. Therefore it's all her fault, even though it was already broken when she took it on.
