EU Shipping

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ivan Cloherty

Remember reading a long time ago that the rot started with the Nairobi or was it the Kenya Agreement where-in the leaders of the developed countries agreed that to aid the developing countries, these countries needed their own merchant navies. It was agreed that if Developed Countries shipowners decided to buy new tonnage then the working tonnage being replaced should be sold to a developing country at scrap prices, that selling company or Country would agree to supply experienced personnel along with the vessels to train up the developing country's own personell, some of the countries benefiting from this largess were Sudan, Nigeria, Ethiopia, India the latter now having the 3rd/4th largest MN in the world. These new shipping lines once established introduced their own restrictive practices declaring that all exports from their countries had to be carried in their own flag vessels, this was later extended to all imports intended for their country had to given priority for a national flag vessel if one was in position and all coastal trade had to be carried in their flagged vessels. The USA still practises that today under the Jones Act. We lost the right to do that with our own coastal traffic once we'd joined the EU.

We lost a lot of our trade and shipbuilding because we (our Govts of all hues) would not bend the rules as practised in other EU countries to supply subsidies, given under any other name. Our shipowners and Unions were slow to see the writing on the wall, and of course a lot of ship owners went into the booming construction industry which gave greater returns, and the Govt (of all hues) didn't exercise its muscle to retain a viable MN forgetting for political expediency that we are an island and that a MN is just as vital to our defence and survival as much as any naval vessel.

---

hi ivan cloherty
correct you are but leaving the eu should solve the subsidies problem,? well you would think so but this and fishing are the two sticking points stopping a free trade agreement, the eu want to stop this country from investing in our industries, fisheries, manufacturing, etc just to allow us to trade with them, and if we do not walk away with a no deal then we shall become a vassal state at the beck and call of the so called super state.
so nothing would have changed.
tom

Hi Ivan
It was the Lima agreement, of 1967

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cappy

.... slater new if he got the union in his hand he could hold this country to ransom.....he could stop the trade of this country ....easier and quicker by a long chalk than the uboats ......another reason why shipowners got out ...along with other union lefties ...this country could have been brought to its knees ...dead unburied ....morgues full... no electricity factories stopped hospitals without heat and light ...and a three day working week ..no coal ...the typical marxist plot .....can never understand why they dont just clear of to russia and the arms of president putin....they tell me russian vessels are good feeders.....cappy

---

hi cappy
believe me i think that we have all that to come, i believe that the unions will back corbyn against the labour party and the fight will be on the streets, for as always it is the working classes whom are thrown in front of the cannon in any union fight as we are despensable where the union hierarchy is concerned, just to be used for their ideological dreams and aspirations.
tom

#12, 195 Lima agreement Brian.
According to Hansard, the decline in UK merchant ships started mid seventies and by 1991 we had less than 1% of the global fleets.
Commonwealth countries were clamouring for their own merchant fleets and once they had established them, they established rules on carriage of goods. Only ships of their own fleet could carry goods to their host country.
Containerisation, was another cause of the rapid decline in merchant ships.
The bulk carrier also aided the decline of the traditional tramp.
Vic

Should be 1975 Lima agreement.
Vic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vic mcclymont

Should be 1975 Lima agreement.
Vic

---

Thanks Vic, I, like Brian, had erroneously thought that the Lima Agreement was much earlier than that and that Harold Wilson was involved in the preliminary discussions. Sorry for my poor navigation in my previous post, I would rather be in Lima than Nairobi !!

I think, someone posted about Wilson a few weeks ago.
Apparently after 1966 strike, he said something like that's them finished now, or something similar.
Vic

HI Vic.
Harold Wilson was PM at the time. But i think that everyone should read the book written by the US President Roosevelt, in it he said that after the war he wanted the United States to have the British Empire, he wanted them stripped of their gold holdings, which he did, and I think he had such a hold on the what was then the UN he instigated the demise of the British MN with the Lima Agreement. wheels within wheels.
Des

The concept of the unions was fine, a system where by the workers could act as one body against the employer if things got out of hand.

But sadly the actual members were shafted by the union leaders.
To ensure they stayed at the top they would go to any length to remain in power.

Strikes and stop works, any thing they thought would keep them in favor with the members.
It was never the unions that were bad, but there have been some very bad union leaders.

We had one back here in the 80's with the builders laborers, caused so much havoc and sent many companies to the wall as a result of his actions.
But he was sorted, spent a number of years in prison for some of his actions.

Union membership in Oz way back in 1960 was about 98% of the work force, it is now at about 12%.

Hi Captain, heard of the EU? they ruined the Red Rag fleet by putting duties on all commonwealth products, thereby making the UK fleet redundant and virtually worthless as price of scrap dropped like a stone. Also wrecked British shipbuilding.