Brexit: The fallout

7,250 posts in this topic

8 minutes ago, murphaph said:

Or they could just cancel Brexit and keep the 100k+ jobs that depend on Airbus,

 

And who knows how many thousands of jobs that will be lost due to all of the other big companies that are leaving. Mind boggling, it is.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, murphaph said:

Or they could just cancel Brexit and keep the 100k+ jobs that depend on Airbus, many well paid and well taxed. All these hoops the Brexiteers expect the country to jump through, just to get back to where you started. They must all be on the Kremlin's payroll, knowingly or unknowingly.

 

When you watch Question Time and listen to radio phone-ins, there seem to be a large section of people in the North of England and in Wales, who don't care about the economics, and see this whole thing of "being ruled by Mr. Juncker in Brussels" as a national surrender that is worth any cost to "take back control".

 

Nigel Farage often uses his own unique re-telling of Irish Treaty of Lisbon referendum story as a way of whipping up fury in the people that hold the above beliefs. 

 

As to the point about cancelling Brexit, how do you do that in a way that doesn't lead to further disenfranchising (for example) the people of Boston? Or do you just take the view that these people don't really matter as they don't usually vote anyway?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, fraufruit said:

 

And who knows how many thousands of jobs that will be lost due to all of the other big companies that are leaving. Mind boggling, it is.

 

That's how I came to be relocated to Germany 18 months ago...

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

As to the point about cancelling Brexit, how do you do that in a way that doesn't lead to further disenfranchising (for example) the people of Boston? Or do you just take the view that these people don't really matter as they don't usually vote anyway?

 

That "oh dear, best let them have their way, lest they get a bit upset" is not normally applied to deliberately destructive vandals.   Rather the opposite.   There is logically some sort of motivation for them to be so indulged by forces that otherwise normally make a point of emphasising the importance of economic prosperity.

 

The whole point of leadership is to manage the difficult stuff.  Not always go "52-48, OK, 48% suck it up, job done...smile please people as the businesses you worked decades to build go down the drain".   Here, you would untangle the two bits.   End Brexit.  Then deal with the causes of the dissatisfaction.   Assuming of course those benefiting from the current situation are happy for substantial wealth redistribution and loss of political power (perhaps devolced from London to English regions etc)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, fraufruit said:

I can't imagine any new businesses will go rushing into the UK after Brexit. At least not for a long time.

 

 

Neither do I, but if the UK crashes out of the EU it could attract businesses by means of significant deregulation and lower corporate tax. The UK could offer an edge by lowering environmental standards, removing workplace regulations and workers' rights, cutting back consumer rights, etc. All of this would make it cheaper for businesses to operate in the UK. This would come at a cost of course: more pollution, lower tax revenues, and more poverty and social inequality, which in turn could lead to more crime.

 

The sensible thing to do would be to swallow their pride and call of Article 50 completely, but that's never going to happen as long as the government is in the hands of xenophobic British supremacists.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Smaug said:

but that's never going to happen as long as the government is in the hands of xenophobic British supremacists.

 

Thats quite unfair, the government quite clearly wants to stay in europe.  Its the electorate who voted out.  Parliament voted resoundingly against at every oportunity including the most recent time which was I believe the largest government defeat *ever*.  And remember by government we really mean May who herself doesnt even want to leave.

 

8 minutes ago, Smaug said:

The sensible thing to do would be to swallow their pride and call of Article 50 completely,

 

thats being reported as the most likely outcome.  My bet, as I have posted endlessly here already is that first there will be an extention, then some excuse (second referendum, general election, whatever) that will be used to call the whole thing off.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, zwiebelfisch said:

y bet, as I have posted endlessly here already is that first there will be an extention, then some excuse (second referendum, general election, whatever) that will be used to call the whole thing off

That's my hope too, but I'm not at all optimistic about it happening. If you have some spare time (I did yesterday), this article by the UK's former ambassador is worth reading. Ignore the title though - he doesn't deal (in my opinion in any adequate way) with the causes of Brexit or go any where near suggesting a solution. However, it paints a clear picture of the political mess that has left us two month away from leaving the EU without a deal (caused by both sides), and what the implications are of the proposed deal. 

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/european-institute/sites/european-institute/files/sir_ivan_rogers_lecture_ucl_22012019.pdf

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mackle said:

Or maybe they just expect BAe Systems to turn back the clock and build passenger jets again?

The last site that assembled airliners (BAe 146 / Avro RJ "Avroliner") was Woodford (near Manchester - close to where I once lived).  This is so long ago that not many such aircraft are still operating i.e. there is no real customer base to expand upon.

 

The site was closed in 2011 and is being turned into a large housing estate.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mackle said:

 

I think he's saying that if Airbus move out of the UK, then a new business or some kind of consortium could then use the existing production UK facilities and keep the people employed.

 

Of course, there is much more to building planes than just the wings, and things take time to design. But if Tory's are serious about having a "British plane" then maybe something similar to Bombardier C series or Embraers could be built in the UK using the current Airbus facilities and UK-suppliers if Airbus leave and abandon those facilities?

 

Don't forget that Bombardier already manufacture in Northern Ireland.  And the 'C' Series of aircraft is actually jointly owned with Airbus.

 

Embraer are too small a company, and already have a couple of overseas plants.  And there are rumours that they might be purchased by Boeing.

 

Boeing do now do a lot of manufacturing in other locations, and via 3rd parties.  But Wings are too large to fly across the Atlantic for assembly, as it would cost too much.  And shipping would take too long.

 

And even if the UK did start up a new aircraft producing company, look how long it is taking the Chinese COMAC to produce something meaningful.  It took 7 years to make their first delivery and have so far only delivered 10 aircraft.

And who would bankroll keep 10,000 UK workers until a new company could get up to speed?

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Smaug said:

 

Neither do I, but if the UK crashes out of the EU it could attract businesses by means of significant deregulation and lower corporate tax. The UK could offer an edge by lowering environmental standards, removing workplace regulations and workers' rights, cutting back consumer rights, etc. All of this would make it cheaper for businesses to operate in the UK. This would come at a cost of course: more pollution, lower tax revenues, and more poverty and social inequality, which in turn could lead to more crime.

 

The sensible thing to do would be to swallow their pride and call of Article 50 completely, but that's never going to happen as long as the government is in the hands of xenophobic British supremacists.

And if the UK went down that road the EU would never sign any trade deal with them at all. That would be fatal for the UK. It's a long way to the next first world economy. You trade with your neighbours because it's cost effective. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Smaug said:

Neither do I, but if the UK crashes out of the EU it could attract businesses by means of significant deregulation and lower corporate tax. The UK could offer an edge by lowering environmental standards, removing workplace regulations and workers' rights, cutting back consumer rights, etc. All of this would make it cheaper for businesses to operate in the UK. This would come at a cost of course: more pollution, lower tax revenues, and more poverty and social inequality, which in turn could lead to more crime.

 

But what if Trump isn't available to come over there and make it happen?

B)

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Costco in the U.S. was/is selling 27 pound buckets of mac and cheese with a shelf life of 20 years. Preppers have been buying crap like this for many years.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Smaug said:

 

Neither do I, but if the UK crashes out of the EU it could attract businesses by means of significant deregulation and lower corporate tax. The UK could offer an edge by lowering environmental standards, removing workplace regulations and workers' rights, cutting back consumer rights, etc. All of this would make it cheaper for businesses to operate in the UK. This would come at a cost of course: more pollution, lower tax revenues, and more poverty and social inequality, which in turn could lead to more crime.

 

The rather strange thing with the UK is that when the likes of Nigel Farage and Jacob Rees-Mogg publically complain about things like the working time directive (which as the UK has an opt-out that a lot of employers "persuade" staff in to signing, it's a complete mute point for them to claim it's negatively impacting British businesses and in the case of Farage, when he says things like "Do you, the British worker, want Mr. Juncker and Mr. Tusk telling you when you can and can't work?" it seems to make the very workers that the law was designed to help, get very angry instead) and health/safety regulations killing off UK businesses, it makes some of the workers in less affluent areas get outraged with the EU.

 

I think it's quite a uniquely British thing, for the people who are protected by EU regulations to instead side with the people who those regulations are protecting them from being exploited by.

 

The best way I can describe this mentality is that if Mary Antoinette had been English, the peasants would have made her some cake instead of calling for the guillotine! 

 

 

5 hours ago, murphaph said:

And if the UK went down that road the EU would never sign any trade deal with them at all. That would be fatal for the UK. It's a long way to the next first world economy. You trade with your neighbours because it's cost effective. 

 

Remember, the EU already said they would be prepared to do a Canada-style free trade deal with the UK (I think Tusk tweeted twice saying this - and I still don't understand to this day why Tusk would publicly say that this was an option when an FTA wouldn't resolve the Irish border question). If "Canada+++" was signed, what would  stop the UK changing it's tax laws once the ink was dry?

 

 

Also, isn't Singapore seen as being more tax efficient than the EU, and has a FTA despite this? And doesn't Switzerland have special tax status as well, and is of course right on the doorstep? So there is already a precedent set of having FTAs and having agreements within the continent too.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Mackle said:

 

Remember, the EU already said they would be prepared to do a Canada-style free trade deal with the UK (I think Tusk tweeted twice saying this - and I still don't understand to this day why Tusk would publicly say that this was an option when an FTA wouldn't resolve the Irish border question). If "Canada+++" was signed, what would  stop the UK changing it's tax laws once the ink was dry?

 

 

Also, isn't Singapore seen as being more tax efficient than the EU, and has a FTA despite this? And doesn't Switzerland have special tax status as well, and is of course right on the doorstep? So there is already a precedent set of having FTAs and having agreements within the continent too.

I think the Canada-style deal was mentioned within the context of a deal having been reached, and the trade negotiation would be undertaking during the transition period as outlined in the agreement

 

Countries within the EU are already free to set their own tax rates (compare the Republic of Ireland's corporate tax rate with Germany's - to choose one example), so there is no need to leave the EU to change tax policy. 

 

The thing with FTA is that they reduce trade barriers, but seldom remove all of them. You'll note in the Singapore FTA there are lots of clauses about agreed environmental and labour market standards and protections. The EU will be the senior partner in a trade negotiation which tends to mean that they write the rules. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Mackle said:

Remember, the EU already said they would be prepared to do a Canada-style free trade deal with the UK

No they didn't. If you look at page 26 of the link I sent through earlier, the comment was that the EU was ready to enter into a Canada-style trade deal.with Great Britain. Plus (as @Auswanderer has already pointed out, it would be dependent upon signing the withdrawal agreement with the NI Backstop.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

relevant text copied below for convenience:

"It is even more disingenuous - indeed simply dishonest - to say, as again the hard Brexiteers do, that, after resolving the Irish border issue via administrative measures and technology, the whole U.K. would be able to enter into a Canada style free trade agreement “of the type suggested by Donald Tusk”. The reality is that Tusk made no such proposal. He said that a Canada style Agreement could be offered to Great Britain only. But that, to obviate the need for a hard border the Prime Minister had committed to avoid, Northern Ireland would, if the U.K. chose to go for a Canadian type option, need to remain in a much closer economic relationship – entailing a customs border in the Irish Sea. (Which the U.K. Government rejects as a threat to the integrity of the Union.) And that any deal, Canadian or closer, was necessarily dependent on the UK signing the Withdrawal Agreement with the backstop in it. This is, in other words, almost the exact opposite of what former Brexit Secretaries and the former Foreign Secretary allege “has already been offered to the UK”. The dishonesty is breath-taking."

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dstanners said:

No they didn't. If you look at page 26 of the link I sent through earlier, the comment was that the EU was ready to enter into a Canada-style trade deal.with Great Britain. Plus (as @Auswanderer has already pointed out, it would be dependent upon signing the withdrawal agreement with the NI Backstop.

 

Tusk's comments of "from the very beginning" sound pre-withdrawal and pre-backstop though? 

 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now