SpurMeUp
Les Howe
How do they stop us creating jobs now? What will change to allow these jobs to flourish?
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
How do they stop us creating jobs now? What will change to allow these jobs to flourish?
ShipOfTheseus
Clint Dempsey
That's a reasonable summary of the prioritisation. Bear in mind, though, that the EU position on NI isn't posturing. They won't accept anything that counters the Good Friday Agreement. They won't let the UK screw the RoI. That is a matter of defending a member state against a third country: that's what the EU is for.
There's no NI problem with the first or second choice. There's no problem with the 3rd choice as long as NI is treated as a special case, which means a sea border. A DUP-friendly version of the 3rd choice is completely and utterly unacceptable. It's not so much, perhaps, that it "scares them", as that they won't countenance it. Hence, there are some versions of the 4th choice which are preferable to the 3rd choice if they have Varadkar's full, impassioned support.
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
So you appreciate what Thatcher did for the UK economy, but don't trust her belief in free trade with the EU...most contradictory...Thatcher was a big exponent of the huge free market the EU provided. So Thatcher says "fudge you too you ignoramus" hamper our free trade at your peril. Undermine the work of the likes of Thatcher - where she was actually effective - to what effect?
There are some excellent points. If only it was as easy as you make it sound. The truth is, it isn't. The fundamental truth is all nations trade most with their neighbours. Within the EU we can still trade with other non-EU nations. Germany and Italy do so much better than us. There is nothing stopping us now from doing so.
We are not part of the Euro so I don't see how single currency is relevant? If there is fall out from it, and this is a big 'if', then we'd feel it regardless. Leaving the EU won't insulate the UK from such things. If anything it could make us more vulnerable as we don't have the backing of the other 27, or the central bank.
MIgrant worker benefits suck and should be addressed, either using existing EU law that we are not brave enough to interpret to our own ends, or as part of a pan European update to FoM, now that there is discontent with elements of FoM in many EU nations.
We can set UK taxes as we wish now. The EU doesn't stop that.
In your post previously you said you wanted FoM to stay, in this diatribe you pan it. Can't have it both ways. FoM is an economic lever, one that oversees itself without a bureaucracy, it attracts well educated people mainly from Europe it also provides for the jobs Brits don't want to do, with migrants free to simply return home when the work stops (fruit picking for example). How would that work with RoW migrants? The benefit costs to the UK from FoM abusers is very low, but should be tightened up.
So for all that, I would prefer a UK that prospers working and trading with its neighbouring countries, where jobs are not lost to the EU and tax revenues reduced. Where the UK is attractive for foreign investment as an access point to the massive EU market. As Thatcher would know, we don't want the UK to go back to the uncompetitive mess it was in. Trade with the EU is vital.
Last edited:
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Im not sure Hard Brexit scares them, I just think its a "cut your nose off..." situation for them.
Surely, all things being sensible, it is in both ours and the EUs interests to trade with each other? Its not a one sided thing, where we are the only benficiaries, is it?
I do wonder though, whether or not they should fear Hard Brexit. Were we to actually make a good go of it, what message does that send to the other member states?
Remainers have repeatedly said the EU want to make a cautionary tale of us*, what if that backfires?
*Which still, fundamentally, grinds my gears. Its a petty and childish response, and IMHO really puts a lot of shade on the EU - especially when people keep holding them up as a bastian of all that is good and righteous...
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
1. Why would protectionism end outside the EU? WTO terms are often much much higher than EU FTA terms. In short your assertion that businesses are paying more for imports now than they would post Brexit is highly questionable and probably wrong.
2. Why did CityBank just move a bunch of jobs to Paris if there is nothing to worry about? Why has every investment bank stated they need access to the EU market or they will move into the EU? Why would the EU let a non-EU nation conduct all their banking, raising capital etc. when it could be conducted in Paris? Like Zurich, some banking would remain, but much would move into the EU, as it once did from Zurich to London. From the periphery into the large market. It's logical.
3. If new jobs come from profit, what is the effect of reduced growth, and less profit? We are seeing that already as companies do not invest in the UK. We may also reduce our trade with the EU, won't export cars etc. to them. If that is the case, could the UK see less, not more jobs post Brexit?
Unfortunately, you're painting a picture you wish to see, rather than the most likely economic evaluation. Every economic model of Brexit, from US economics experts to the CBI, the UK government itself with all of its extensive data, all model a worse off UK economy whichever form of Brexit. Are we to believe that these extensive economic calculations are incorrect and your missives are actually true!?
It's not childish it's pragmatic. It protects the union of 27. And if we leave we will be just like any other country outside the block.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Boris Johnson's letter to the prime minister:
Dear Theresa
It is more than two years since the British people voted to leave the European Union on an unambiguous and categorical promise that if they did so they would be taking back control of their democracy.
They were told that they would be able to manage their own immigration policy, repatriate the sums of UK cash currently spent by the EU, and, above all, that they would be able to pass laws independently and in the interests of the people of this country.
Brexit should be about opportunity and hope. It should be a chance to do things differently, to be more nimble and dynamic, and to maximise the particular advantages of the UK as an open, outward-looking global economy.
That dream is dying, suffocated by needless self-doubt.
We have postponed crucial decisions - including the preparations for no deal, as I argued in my letter to you of last November - with the result that we appear to be heading for a semi-Brexit, with large parts of the economy still locked in the EU system, but with no UK control over that system.
It now seems that the opening bid of our negotiations involves accepting that we are not actually going to be able to make our own laws. Indeed we seem to have gone backwards since the last Chequers meeting in February, when I described my frustrations, as Mayor of London, in trying to protect cyclists from juggernauts. We had wanted to lower the cabin windows to improve visibility; and even though such designs were already on the market, and even though there had been a horrific spate of deaths, mainly of female cyclists, we were told that we had to wait for the EU to legislate on the matter.
So at the previous Chequers session we thrashed out an elaborate procedure for divergence from EU rules. But even that now seems to have been taken off the table, and there is in fact no easy UK right of initiative. Yet if Brexit is to mean anything, it must surely give ministers and Parliament the chance to do things differently to protect the public. If a country cannot pass a law to save the lives of female cyclists - when that proposal is supported at every level of UK government - then I don't see how that country can truly be called independent.
Conversely, the British government has spent decades arguing against this or that EU directive, on the grounds that it was too burdensome or ill-thought out. We are now in the ludicrous position of asserting that we must accept huge amounts of precisely such EU law, without changing an iota, because it is essential for our economic health - and when we no longer have any ability to influence these laws as they are made.
In that respect we are truly headed for the status of colony - and many will struggle to see the economic or political advantages of that particular arrangement.
It is also clear that by surrendering control over our rulebook for goods and agrifoods (and much else besides) we will make it much more difficult to do free trade deals. And then there is the further impediment of having to argue for an impractical and undeliverable customs arrangement unlike any other in existence.
What is even more disturbing is that this is our opening bid. This is already how we see the end state for the UK - before the other side has made its counter-offer. It is as though we are sending our vanguard into battle with the white flags fluttering above them. Indeed, I was concerned, looking at Friday's document, that there might be further concessions on immigration, or that we might end up effectively paying for access to the single market.
On Friday I acknowledged that my side of the argument were too few to prevail, and congratulated you on at least reaching a cabinet decision on the way forward. As I said then, the government now has a song to sing. The trouble is that I have practised the words over the weekend and find that they stick in the throat. We must have collective responsibility. Since I cannot in all conscience champion these proposals, I have sadly concluded that I must go.
I am proud to have served as Foreign Secretary in your government. As I step down, I would like first to thank the patient officers of the Metropolitan Police who have looked after me and my family, at times in demanding circumstances. I am proud too of the extraordinary men and women of our diplomatic service. Over the last few months they have shown how many friends this country has around the world, as 28 governments expelled Russian spies in an unprecedented protest at the attempted assassination of the Skripals. They have organised a highly successful Commonwealth summit and secured record international support for this government's campaign for 12 years of quality education for every girl, and much more besides. As I leave office, the FCO now has the largest and by far the most effective diplomatic network of any country in Europe — a continent which we will never leave.
The Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP
Theresa May's reply:
Dear Boris,
Thank you for your letter relinquishing the office of Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
I am sorry - and a little surprised - to receive it after the productive discussions we had at Chequers on Friday, and the comprehensive and detailed proposal which we agreed as a Cabinet. It is a proposal which will honour the result of the referendum and the commitments we made in our general election manifesto to leave the single market and the customs union. It will mean that we take back control of our borders, our laws, and our money - ending the freedom of movement, ending the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the United Kingdom, and ending the days of sending vast sums of taxpayers' money to the European Union. We will be able to spend that money on our priorities instead - such as the £20 billion increase we have announced for the NHS budget, which means that we will soon be spending an extra £394 million a week on our National Health Service.
As I outlined at Chequers, the agreement we reached requires the full, collective support of Her Majesty's Government. During the EU referendum campaign, collective responsibility on EU policy was temporarily suspended. As we developed our policy on Brexit, I have allowed Cabinet colleagues considerable latitude to express their individual views. But the agreement we reached on Friday marks the point where that is no longer the case, and if you are not able to provide the support we need to secure this deal in the interests of the United Kingdom, it is right that you should step down.
As you do so, I would like to place on record my appreciation of the service you have given to our country, and to the Conservative Party, as Mayor of London and as Foreign Secretary - not least for the passion that you have demonstrated in promoting a Global Britain to the world as we leave the European Union.
Yours ever,
Theresa May
Dear Theresa
It is more than two years since the British people voted to leave the European Union on an unambiguous and categorical promise that if they did so they would be taking back control of their democracy.
They were told that they would be able to manage their own immigration policy, repatriate the sums of UK cash currently spent by the EU, and, above all, that they would be able to pass laws independently and in the interests of the people of this country.
Brexit should be about opportunity and hope. It should be a chance to do things differently, to be more nimble and dynamic, and to maximise the particular advantages of the UK as an open, outward-looking global economy.
That dream is dying, suffocated by needless self-doubt.
We have postponed crucial decisions - including the preparations for no deal, as I argued in my letter to you of last November - with the result that we appear to be heading for a semi-Brexit, with large parts of the economy still locked in the EU system, but with no UK control over that system.
It now seems that the opening bid of our negotiations involves accepting that we are not actually going to be able to make our own laws. Indeed we seem to have gone backwards since the last Chequers meeting in February, when I described my frustrations, as Mayor of London, in trying to protect cyclists from juggernauts. We had wanted to lower the cabin windows to improve visibility; and even though such designs were already on the market, and even though there had been a horrific spate of deaths, mainly of female cyclists, we were told that we had to wait for the EU to legislate on the matter.
So at the previous Chequers session we thrashed out an elaborate procedure for divergence from EU rules. But even that now seems to have been taken off the table, and there is in fact no easy UK right of initiative. Yet if Brexit is to mean anything, it must surely give ministers and Parliament the chance to do things differently to protect the public. If a country cannot pass a law to save the lives of female cyclists - when that proposal is supported at every level of UK government - then I don't see how that country can truly be called independent.
Conversely, the British government has spent decades arguing against this or that EU directive, on the grounds that it was too burdensome or ill-thought out. We are now in the ludicrous position of asserting that we must accept huge amounts of precisely such EU law, without changing an iota, because it is essential for our economic health - and when we no longer have any ability to influence these laws as they are made.
In that respect we are truly headed for the status of colony - and many will struggle to see the economic or political advantages of that particular arrangement.
It is also clear that by surrendering control over our rulebook for goods and agrifoods (and much else besides) we will make it much more difficult to do free trade deals. And then there is the further impediment of having to argue for an impractical and undeliverable customs arrangement unlike any other in existence.
What is even more disturbing is that this is our opening bid. This is already how we see the end state for the UK - before the other side has made its counter-offer. It is as though we are sending our vanguard into battle with the white flags fluttering above them. Indeed, I was concerned, looking at Friday's document, that there might be further concessions on immigration, or that we might end up effectively paying for access to the single market.
On Friday I acknowledged that my side of the argument were too few to prevail, and congratulated you on at least reaching a cabinet decision on the way forward. As I said then, the government now has a song to sing. The trouble is that I have practised the words over the weekend and find that they stick in the throat. We must have collective responsibility. Since I cannot in all conscience champion these proposals, I have sadly concluded that I must go.
I am proud to have served as Foreign Secretary in your government. As I step down, I would like first to thank the patient officers of the Metropolitan Police who have looked after me and my family, at times in demanding circumstances. I am proud too of the extraordinary men and women of our diplomatic service. Over the last few months they have shown how many friends this country has around the world, as 28 governments expelled Russian spies in an unprecedented protest at the attempted assassination of the Skripals. They have organised a highly successful Commonwealth summit and secured record international support for this government's campaign for 12 years of quality education for every girl, and much more besides. As I leave office, the FCO now has the largest and by far the most effective diplomatic network of any country in Europe — a continent which we will never leave.
The Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP
Theresa May's reply:
Dear Boris,
Thank you for your letter relinquishing the office of Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
I am sorry - and a little surprised - to receive it after the productive discussions we had at Chequers on Friday, and the comprehensive and detailed proposal which we agreed as a Cabinet. It is a proposal which will honour the result of the referendum and the commitments we made in our general election manifesto to leave the single market and the customs union. It will mean that we take back control of our borders, our laws, and our money - ending the freedom of movement, ending the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the United Kingdom, and ending the days of sending vast sums of taxpayers' money to the European Union. We will be able to spend that money on our priorities instead - such as the £20 billion increase we have announced for the NHS budget, which means that we will soon be spending an extra £394 million a week on our National Health Service.
As I outlined at Chequers, the agreement we reached requires the full, collective support of Her Majesty's Government. During the EU referendum campaign, collective responsibility on EU policy was temporarily suspended. As we developed our policy on Brexit, I have allowed Cabinet colleagues considerable latitude to express their individual views. But the agreement we reached on Friday marks the point where that is no longer the case, and if you are not able to provide the support we need to secure this deal in the interests of the United Kingdom, it is right that you should step down.
As you do so, I would like to place on record my appreciation of the service you have given to our country, and to the Conservative Party, as Mayor of London and as Foreign Secretary - not least for the passion that you have demonstrated in promoting a Global Britain to the world as we leave the European Union.
Yours ever,
Theresa May
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
It is childish. Its "Well take that then!" and being spiteful, in order to scare the 27 into staying in line and punishing us for not wanting to be part of the club.
Thats not protection, and thats not pragmatism, its bullying.
We are heading to be "just another country" but we are unique. We arent some stranger coming along trying to build ties. We are an old family member trying to redefine them.
We have pre-existing trade relationships, routes and business in place for decades, alignment of standards and geographic proximity.
If there were grown ups at the table, an agreement would be reached which would entail compromise on both sides* to facilitate an ongoing and fruitful relationship. There is no reason why this shouldnt be the case.
And yet, from the word go, the EU has tried to bully us into a weaker position than we hold now, where we would be stuffed and they wouldnt even have to listen to us on matters directly effecting us. By your own admission - they want us weakened.
*rather annoyingly, as Switzerland, Canada and Ukraine show - the EU is open to compromising its 4 freedoms. It is, in this case, simply choosing not too. The whole "set in stone" thing is gonad*s, they can flex, they just wont - because they are being petty and punitive.
I don't know if I can put it qny more clearly than this:
The EU are concerned about getting the best Deal for the EU as they 100% should be.
If we are not in the EU any more (or are not going to be) then giving us a good deal is of secondary concern to them for very obvious reasons. It is like this, it was always going to be like this... I stated how negotiations would go pre the referendum in this very thread...
Negotiators try to negotiate the very best deal for those they represent not the other side... If they don't they are stupid and should be sacked.
You want to play chicken with a lorry while driving a ford fiesta... There is only going to be one outcome.
Also: they offered us the Canada deal based on our Red lines... So not sure what your point is.
You know as well as I do that she didn't sign up for what the EU is or anything like it.
If the EU were what Thatcher signed up for, I'd be all for it - free trade and little else. That's precisely what the EU should be.
We can trade with other countries on the EU's terms, not ours. That involves import tariffs and restrictions that do not suit us.
If we stay in the EU then the majority of our international trade will be with the EU - the protectionism ensures that. If we trade with the world and reduce our reliance on the EU then we would be less affected.
If the UK were a business and I were investing or loaning it money, the very first covenant I would insist upon would be to reduce customer (EU) reliance to 25% or less.
We don't have the ability to properly implement a sensible migrant benefit system. Anything that would come even close would require removal of freedoms for UK citizens that are unpalatable.
We can't use taxes to compete against other EU nations - they've been very clear about that. There are already moves afoot to remove Luxembourg's ability to tax as it wishes and tax harmonisation as a whole has been on the agenda for a long time now. If the Lisbon Treaty has shown us anything, it's that the EU gets its way, and fudge democracy.
I believe in freedom of movement for people. Anyone outside of grey areas in terms of criminal records, etc should be able to move between any countries they choose whenever they want. We, as a country should not be expected to provide for them at all. It's not FoM I have an issue with, it's providing housing, healthcare, tax credits, child maintenance, etc.
Trade with the EU will continue. There will be some tariffs here and there, but EU trade will continue as it always has. Trade with the rest of the world will grow, and if our government has any sense then it will grow as free trade.
We don't have to apply any tariffs to imports, why would we make our imports more expensive than they need to be?
Brass plating is all that is. Speak to anyone high up at any of the large banks and they'll tell you they're going nowhere. Those jobs that have gone to the EU are what allows those banks to claim to be trading from within the EU whilst doing everything in London.
Companies aren't investing because of uncertainty. That's the only thing that stops investment. Remember - more than 85% of our GDP is unrelated to EU trade. Reduce import costs on that and you already increase profits without having to do anything overseas.
All of the people who don't want disruption or are against the idea of Brexit to start with you mean?
Unfortunately what you're talking about is an echo chamber. Stop reading the BBC, stop reading the Grauniad. Do some simple economic calculations yourself and see if you can come to anything like the doom and gloom they have. Then talk to people who are actually in business and trade overseas and see what they honestly think. Many would be delighted to hear about reduced costs. Anyone trading with the EU will tell you that a % or two of tariffs won't stop them, many will tell you that non-EU sales will only have to increase marginally in order to recover that.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
My point is, as Canada and other deals show, they will compromise. Not that I want a Canada deal per se - only that the EUs set in stone 4 freedoms are actually rather maleable if the EU so chooses.
I do agree the EU are setting about getting a good deal for them. If they can box us into a Norway type deal theyll be tinkling themselves laughing.
My point is simply that there really is no reason to try and crush us, agreement can be found to suit all parties rather than one crushing the other and "winning".
This whole attitude they display is distasteful to say the least, and somewhat contrary to how its supporters like to depict it.
And to follow your analogy though - even though the Fiesta would be destroyed the Lorry would come out far from unscathed - surely a better option would be for both to swerve a little and carry on their way unharmed.
I really don't understand this Brexit position. How can you lambast the EU for having red lines when we too have red lines. That makes no logical sense.
Secondly this whole thing about the EU not compromising at all is another Brexit Line/lie.
What they are not willing to do is remove their red lines unless we remove ours. That seems reasonable to me.
Let's get back to the analogy.
The lorry and the fiesta are traveling toward each other within the red lines that that they both drew. The fiesta's Red line is thinner by the nature of it being smaller/weaker than the lorry. If they are both to move equally the fiesta will have to cross all or almost all of its red line. Where as the lorry will not have to cross as much of its much thicker line.
What's more:
The closer the two vehicles come to each other the more the fiesta will have to move to avoid contact. If the two vehicles come too close the lorry will view crashing head on in to the Fiesta as less of a risk then any sudden manoeuvres that would risk losing control and potentially rolling over.
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
Under WTO we would have to apply most favored nation rules, or have no negotiating position with any nation we want to trade with on our terms. There are logical reasons that not one developed nation has 0 import tariffs. If we did have 0 tariffs for everyone - and we won't its pie in the sky - we would cease to produce our own food. We'd import all food and be wholly reliant on others to feed ourselves.
So your assertion sounds good, but in reality, businesses would not save on imports. It's just made up nonsense that doesn't deal with reality.
More or less every CEO of these banks has outlined how they will move into the EU. Is CEO high enough up for you?
Why would the EU let the UK make all the money, and not have the trade conducted in house?
Switzerland was the banking capital before the EU, why did all the banks move to London previously with EU regulations and our taxes? Access to the EU market. It is simple and you are in denial.
Companies who are not investing because the access to the EU market is under threat. If that was not a concern to these companies, they would invest now, why wait? If we are not free to trade with this market, they will invest in other nations. Land Rover have done n Slovakia already. That's jobs, and Exchequer revenue lost to the EU from the UK. It's already happened.
Shouldn't you have posted this under Gutterboy? It's conspiratorial nonsense. Why would US based economics think tanks have an agenda against Brexit, what is in for them? Or the IMF for the that matter? You don't respect things like astrology or nonsense proclamations by spoofs, so why would you side with Trump, Farage, Boris over the CBI, and every economist worth their salt who has taken care to scientifically model Brexit scenarios?
It points to following a ideology over being rational, of being dogmatic rather than balanced.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Im not playing "lets stetch the analogy beyond recognition", it serves no purpose from here - the point is made.
Their red lines, red lines they have compromised on before - but refuse to now, are set up on direct contradiction to ours, knowing full well the consequence. That is the point.
They have budged not one inch, on anything, adding increasing pressure on us.
Immigration was the defining argument around Brexit, so they say "Freedom of movement is non-negotiable (even though we have done deals elsewhere where its not a problem)"
Yes, I know, tactics and that - the point is though its straight up bullying when not even necessary.
Their objective from the off has been to fudge us. Genuinely, I dont see why - as I said we can all do well out of this. Why is it so wrong to want a trading relationship and not political integration?
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Vaporise him, because how dare he be in the way
At point of being close enough to see that the lorry would not have time to move out of the way without more risk and then a head on crash would ensue.
The analogy is sound I'm setting the parameters based on realities. The fact that you can't respond to it, is indicative of the position that we find ourselves in re Brexit.
Ie... Saying you don't want to play anymore doesn't make the lorry turn.
As a side note to my excellent analogy
What was the compromise made by the eu in relation to freedom of movement with the Canada deal? And more importantly if they have offered us the same deal, why is that not good enough for you?