Comments by "Curious Crow" (@CuriousCrow-mp4cx) on "A Different Bias"
channel.
-
45
-
14
-
Er... Not really. WTO rules are the base rules for trade in Services and goods. The WTO rules were designed when the focus was more on goods trade than services trade, so the rules for services are less onerous. This why the repatriation of Euro-deniminated derivatives transaction clearing from London is only a problem as a loss of revenue. The biggest issue has been the need for UK banks to create subsidiary businesses in order to continue selling their financial products within the EU. That is as WTO rules for services require, which as the largest sector to donate both to the Conservative Party and the Leave Campaign is only fair. They got what they wanted, but not in the form they wanted. They sought to defy economic gravity and lost. And the British economy took that bullet for their benefit unknowingly. Britain's second empire - it's tax haven and offshore financial centres business won't make up for that loss unfortunately, as those sums aren't taxed inside the UK. I don't feel sorry for them. I feel sorry for the rest of my countrymen who have not yet of the folly they were led into by a particular section of their elites. They put their wealth before the needs of the country. And there still trying to pretend they did nothing wrong. So a particular segment of our PR industry is still producing their own form of disinformation in order to wrest control from those with calmer and cooler heads. Such circumstances are nothing new to our continental brothers, whose own history is punctuated by periods like these. I'm sure the British people thought such a thing couldn't happen here in this time. But, we know why it did. And it's a symptom of where we need to do more work to be fit for a 21st century that isn't going to be a dystopia nightmare. Everyone has problems, because whether we all admit it or not, there is more work to be done to provide a fairer and more secure economic settlement for the vast majority who aren't wealthy. And, we have to start an honest debate about what will look like, and how it may be achieved. Part of that is having good relations with those we share common interests with, based on the choices open to us. For myself, that means effective negotiation and cooperation is the way forward with our neighbours, as much within ourselves. Only time will tell what shape our relationships will take in the future. Butt all we can do in the present is to make the best foundation we can for our relations to be positive and mutually beneficial. That means keeping the lines of communication open, and taking it from there. So Au Bientot, Mon ami.
8
-
7
-
7
-
According to Google'S AI:
The UK did apply to join the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1961, but France's President Charles de Gaulle vetoed the application twice. De Gaulle accused the UK of being hostile to European construction and more interested in the US. The UK eventually joined the EEC in 1973 after de Gaulle left office. And Britain under Clement Attlee considered the EEC's precursor, the European Coal and Steel Community "undemocratic," and refused to apply for membership.
The Problem is that the UK was interested in the US, but even de Gaulle may not have known that the Americans wanted the UK to join the EEC, and that the CIA had funded Jean Monnet's movement. But by the time 1961 rolled around, the UK realised that the Commonwealth would not become a trade bloc in its own right, and it needed more economic growth. So, it had to turn to Europe, because the US was too busy setting up it's own economic empire to bother with Britain. Yes, a lot of American multinationals bought inward investment in electronics and car manufacture, but little else was offered. Britain needed both to keep the US happy and to find new markets, so the EEC ended up being the only way to turn. It was so important that de Gaulle noted in his memoirs that Macmillan looked like he was about to cry after yet another rebuff during a shooting party, that de Gaulle said to Macmillan "There's no need to cry, milord." Ouch! So Britain had no choice, and arguably it was not comfortable with having to look to Europe. After all, the Americans were richer, and had all of Europe's gold. Perhaps if Ireland had been an imperial power and had lost it after neatly 500 years of lording it over the planet, then you might understand how they might find it difficult. Yet, that does not explain the persistence of wishful thinking.in the present day. I just found a quote NY Nietzsche which said, "There are two types of people. Those who want to think, and those who want to believe." I think a lot of the Brexiteers were by nature belonging to the second group. They wanted to believe in a British Renaissance of some fashion, where they would be the heroes somehow. Little did they know that they were tilting at windmills. Why? Because Brexit was already DOA. 2008 was the wrecking ball, and the failure to rewrite the "software'" of the global financial system "hardware", together with climate change, would not send the UK economy to the moon, but rather see the engine of economic growth run like it needed a rebuild. Neoliberalism is endangering our very survival, and it cannot deliver on its promises to the masses. So, a new age is coming, and it's birth will be painful and slow, as the elites try to keep their gravy train running at least, why trying to convince is to blame and hate anyone but them.
And The EU itself has to question it's economic model too, and how other arrangements are needed to reduce the risk of further disruption. Other than full membership, there will be probationary or associate memberships in the EU in future. That where the UK may be happy to rest. Full membership and the Euro is for the UK unlikely. But that's my analysis, but who knows? We shall see.
5
-
5
-
4
-
The solution is to not took for quick or easy solutions. To explore options thoroughly and objectively, rather than being led by either fear or greed. To acknowledge that anyone's wealth cannot be sustained or created by them alone, as it relies on the joint efforts of you and those around you to have wealth. And if you don't do what is just or moral to others, you cannot be expected to be treated justly or morally. And we need to start by being honest about ourselves, what is happening in our country, and how we might have contributed to both what is good or bad about it. We been subjected to a series of social and economic experimentation, driven more by ideology than sound, proven ideas. We can't ignore feelings - we should be informed by them, but not led by them. Reason should be lead us. And misplaced idealism, or cynicism is unhelpful. We can't put aside altruism or justice, or we can no longer function sustainably as communities or nations. We have to accept that we do need to strengthen our democracy and democratic norms and make our governance more responsive than technocratic. We have to start understanding, before we try to be understood. We have to start listening to each other, and thinking before we speak. We have to stop valuing wealth more than people, and valuing character before social status. And we have to accept that there will be always be those that don't see the dignity or humanity of others who aren't their kith or kin, and we should strengthen our systems and norms that limit their influence.
4
-
The overseas hedge fund was incorporated in the UK by the owners, Greg Skinner and Suneil Setiya, both British nationals. Like the hedge fund they are, they retry tured the company as a conglomerate, whose holding company is now in the Cayman Islands. Nothing strange about that, as the Cayman Islands is a British overseas territory, like the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. So the Cayman Islands is a British tax haven. It's not foreign money,from foreign people. It's money from British billionaires, based in a British overseas territory. Is that ideal? Nope. But as we don't live in an ideal world nor the land of Oz, but the real one that is globalised, it is what it is.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
Actually, Iain Anderson, owner of one of the biggest lobbying firms in the UK, wrote a book entitled "F**K Business: the business of Brexit" in which he wrote:
"I come to the conclusion that so much has been ‘lost in translation’ between the political class and our wealth creators that many on both sides don’t really understand each other any more – and perhaps don’t want to. However, a new chapter has opened in British politics with a new Prime Minister. I have a genuine hope that things can only get better. Perhaps the relationship with business and politics can be rebooted – or, even better, remade." p. xiii
The book was published in 2019. But in February 2024, Anderson wrote an article for The Times entitled:
"I’ve supported the Tories for 40 years, but enough is enough".
The tagline was:
"The party has treated business and investors with contempt and shredded its reputation for fiscal competence. Now Labour are showing how it should be done."
That was before Sunak had even called the election. So it would not be unreasonable to infer that the current iteration of the Tories were run by zealous ideologues, who knew nothing about business, and couldn't care less. After all, they had got all their donations already, hadn't they?
Due Dilligence is a necessity and arguably, the port owners discounted the rumblings of discontent, the analysis of buyer's remorse growing in the country, and ignored the protestations of the Chair of the British Chambers of Commerce, who was not a happy bunny. You see, Brexit wasn't dreamed up by businessmen or corporations. It was dreamt up by a caste of public school educated entrepreneurs, who ran their own boutique service businesses for people within their circle, and knew nothing about global trade. There were no Sir John Harvey-Joneses - I remember him in the Troubleshooter series - in their ranks, who could have put them straight. So their ideas about Britain were based on myths that reffered to a long gone Imperial and colonial past, where there was no WTO, and Britain was the world's largest trading nation. But we're no longer in that world, and so we're getting a through kicking from Reality who was ignored in the present. And it calls to mind one of the issues responsible for British productivity being low relative to its peers, which was the quality of British Management. They didn't have the knowledge or the commonsense to identify the political and economic risks to doing business with a government who hadn't solidified the type of Brexit they were getting done before trying to do so. That should have been a red flag, but complacency, fatigue, and zealotry bypassed a lot of frontal lobes.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
If Japanese soldiers stranded on a remote island in the Pacific can believe WWII hadn't ended, it is sometimes at the cost of their sanity at best, or their lives at worst. The reaction to the Nazis from many ordinary people involved turning a blind eye or giving themselves over utterly to the cult. When looking at the extremes of reactions to the pandemic, sanity is less at issue. Rather, it is whether individuals can conquer their emotions of fear, anger, or greed and not be indifferent to the suffering of their fellow men. Some will willingly turn their backs on real suffering. Those who seek power for their ends have few scruples in trying to encourage the masses to ignore who or what to be ignored. Arguably, the far right wants us not to interfere with or object to their cruelties. Thus, they are spending money hand over fist to train us to at least ignore it, if not indulge in it ourselves. But also, they are aided by an economic system that has failed. And that's the wedge issue. Immigration is an excuse for those unable to handle their angst and alienation. They are perfect camouflage for the goals of the far right, whose goal is to wreck the Labour government, who aren't as wedded to total economic and political domination and corruption as the far right is.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The answer to your question is, no. First, the resources in Ukraine won't be commercially available until, 1. Russia leaves Ukrainian soil permanently, and 2. The mining of which rare earths are the by-product of, will take about 25 years or more to be up and running. 3. Ukraine's resources in critical minerals are dwarfed by those already available in Canada, South America, and Africa, which are on the open market already.
What is smells badly is that the above information was already known before the meeting on Friday. What this "deal" was supposed to do was to give Trump positive optics and keep Putin guessing. It would have been Trump's Chamberlain moment for the media. After all, the deal wasn't a treaty enforceable by law, but only a Memorandum of Understanding, which isn't enforceable under International Law. If there was anything valuable to the US, they would not settle billions of investment on a Memo. They would have gone in under a full bilateral treaty, with terms detailing consequences fir failing to keep the deal.
What can we reduce from this? Considering how many times Ukraine have signed Memos of Understanding, and been screwed over by them, they would have been aware that their "deal" was not to be relied on. And so would the Americans. So I think Zekenskyy decided to play along, because it suited his ends which was to keep Trump interested in the fate of Ukraine, discombobulate Paranoid Putin, and have some space to push for the needed security guarantees. But the rules of the game were switched, to provide Trump a get out of jail card, so he could concentrate on his problems at home. That's why Zelenskyy was made the patsy. Now, he's depending on the Europeans who haven't got all their ducks in a row, especially as they seemed to have forgotten that Russia broke 25 agreed ceasefires, so much to have recommended yet another one... Doh!
Trump is distracted and bored with Ukraine. So, in every really sense it is up to Europe. It's Put Up or Shut Up time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Not really. It's not untenable. It's the result of our economic ststem. That's untenable. That's the cause of the problem. And it's impacting everything from the food you can get, to asylum seekers knocking up on your doorstep. Until you acknowledge that, you are whistling into the wind. That is the result of not having the difficult discussions about economic colonialism as a sustainable form of capitalism. And the chickens are coming home to roost. And the sad thing is, that from Farage to Starmer nobody is willing to grasp that nettle. They pretend that the economic colonialism is sustainable, as long as you let them manage it. It's not. It's extracted too much from other people and places not to have an effect. And who has benefitted?
Follow the money.
The problem is who is going to fix these issues? The UN has been tasked to do projects to repair some of the damage from fossil fuel induced climate change, like projects in The Sahel, but the regions impacted are widespread and huge, and if not addressed, the economic and social impacts in the West and elsewhere, will only be opening number to the damage. It's creating political and geopolitical instability everywhere. So, closing down the asylum system will do nothing to fix the root causes. People will still move to find better conditions, unless their conditions where they are improve. That how humans are. That's how we came to dominate the planet. And changing the rules of asylum is a paper tiger. It will add fuel to the fire, which you actually need to put out. What needs to be done?
Plutocrats and Multinational Corporations need to pay the costs for fixing the problems they create and facillitate.
- They need to pay fair wages
- They need to pay fair prices for the commodities they extract
- They should ensure that the communities in which they operate are not harmed by their actions.
If those 3 things were being done, you would not have the problems you have now.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1