Politics, politics, politics

[r-u-s-x]

I personally am not confident that we will be able to negotiate a soft BREXIT - it may be beneficial for EU / UK to do this economically but there are political considerations, if you give the UK a good deal then others may wish to leave and have the same deal.

In addition France are already trying to attract UK businesses and all member countries will see it as an opportunity to grow on the back of companies leaving the UK.

https://www.ft.com/content/26f385c6-9e8b-11e6-891e-abe238dee8e2

France will this week step up efforts to attract business from London in the wake of the Brexit vote by appointing a team of corporate leaders and politicians to drive the campaign

An important focus will be attracting financial companies likely to be among the worst affected by the decision to leave the EU if they lose their “passporting” rights to operate across the bloc. Some banks, such as HSBC, have signalled that they could move jobs to Paris.

The team will also target companies in the industrial, mining, energy and broader service sectors as they look at any businesses that chose to be based in the UK because of its EU membership, people close to the discussions said.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Can anyone actually see Brexit happening? Just seems less and less able to be implemented without serious damage to the UK. In one glib way the anarchic side of me would like to see London regress a little. All the bankers leave, the city become less crowded and less attractive. Its totally irrational from a governmental perspective, the amount of tax revenue generate from banks would be impossible to replace.

I think May will have to find a way to present Brexit as something else (re-negotiated Remain as Cameron intended) or put it to a vote. Whether that is in Parliament or another referendum once the terms of exit are clear, I don't know. But for any politician to lead a country into an economic situation as fundamental as Brexit in a democracy, the people have to be represented - not represented on an intention, but voting on a known reality (the Brexit deal).

All very well voting for a dream scenario - what was presented to people - quite another voting to make yourself poorer with less government spending on all of us. Which wasn't what people voted for.

The Tories would be wiped out electorally if they did that. We'd possibly even end up with a UKIP majority at the next general election. It's better to let the centre-right map the brave new world than the far right.

I think you do the 52% disservice to suggest anyone bought the dream scenario. Instead they voted for freedom to decide over blissful ignorance. Liberalism over utilitarianism. The red pill over the blue pill

 

[Gutter Boy]

I wonder how much the "favour" to Nissan was also an effort to show you have to special deals, hoping it was would look like a favour to big business that couldn't be blamed on the EU.

The Nissan deal is probably illegal under EU legislation. The ban on being able to out-competing other countries through tax breaks/state aid of private enterprises is exactly what makes the EU stagnate. Remember they are in the process of suing Ireland for coming to similar arrangements

 

[monkeybarry]

The Tories would be wiped out electorally if they did that. We'd possibly even end up with a UKIP majority at the next general election. It's better to let the centre-right map the brave new world than the far right.

I think you do the 52% disservice to suggest anyone bought the dream scenario. Instead they voted for freedom to decide over blissful ignorance. Liberalism over utilitarianism. The red pill over the blue pill

Except with the current Tories we have the right,not the centre.
And certainly not liberalism.


Sent from my Nexus 5X using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[Gutter Boy]

Except with the current Tories we have the right,not the centre.
And certainly not liberalism.


Sent from my Nexus 5X using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

The Tories are certainly less liberal now than under Cameron/Osborne/Clegg, but they are far more liberal than Labour and the Lib Dems.

Liberalism of course meaning the primacy of individual freedom and minimal government

 

[r-u-s-x]

The Nissan deal is probably illegal under EU legislation. The ban on being able to out-competing other countries through tax breaks/state aid of private enterprises is exactly what makes the EU stagnate. Remember they are in the process of suing Ireland for coming to similar arrangements

The Nissan deal would probably be illegal under EU legislation, but also unnecessary as yet we have only promised that they will get the same deal as if we stayed in the EU. I don't agree with your conclusions, tax break competition in the long run is good for companies not the states, race to the bottom, why would it increase innovation.

The Irish deal is a perfect example they offered a company perks that they did not offer any other enterprise (the intervention gives the recipient an advantage on a selective basis), if they offered the same for all then it would have been legal. So you are giving one company an advantage over their competitors. The booking of fees and profits in Ireland due to tax benefits over the country it was earned in is a loophole and one we have not closed as yet.

(http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/overview/index_en.html)
To be State aid, a measure needs to have these features:

• there has been an intervention by the State or through State resources which can take a variety of forms (e.g. grants, interest and tax reliefs, guarantees, government holdings of all or part of a company, or providing goods and services on preferential terms, etc.);
• the intervention gives the recipient an advantage on a selective basis, for example to specific companies or industry sectors, or to companies located in specific regions
• competition has been or may be distorted;
• the intervention is likely to affect trade between Member States

 

[scaramanga]

I personally am not confident that we will be able to negotiate a soft BREXIT - it may be beneficial for EU / UK to do this economically but there are political considerations, if you give the UK a good deal then others may wish to leave and have the same deal.

In addition France are already trying to attract UK businesses and all member countries will see it as an opportunity to grow on the back of companies leaving the UK.

https://www.ft.com/content/26f385c6-9e8b-11e6-891e-abe238dee8e2

France will this week step up efforts to attract business from London in the wake of the Brexit vote by appointing a team of corporate leaders and politicians to drive the campaign

An important focus will be attracting financial companies likely to be among the worst affected by the decision to leave the EU if they lose their “passporting” rights to operate across the bloc. Some banks, such as HSBC, have signalled that they could move jobs to Paris.

The team will also target companies in the industrial, mining, energy and broader service sectors as they look at any businesses that chose to be based in the UK because of its EU membership, people close to the discussions said.

I guess it depends on what people think a soft Brexit means.

So far, the major EU leaders have been offering a free movement = free trade deal (if you read between the lines in what they're saying). What we have to do is ignore the swivel-eyes and take that deal - it's the best for all involved.

In terms of passporting, that needs to be our red line in negotiations - the point at which they accept what we want or we blow the whole lot. We can't afford to lose passporting, the EU can't afford for 3M people to turn up at Calais at once looking for jobs/benefits. We need to ensure the two are made equivalent at the very beginning of negotiations.

The EU have repeatedly told us there's no free trade without free movement, that's acceptable to me. They have to understand that there's no movement of people without free trade.

 

[r-u-s-x]

I guess it depends on what people think a soft Brexit means.

So far, the major EU leaders have been offering a free movement = free trade deal (if you read between the lines in what they're saying). What we have to do is ignore the swivel-eyes and take that deal - it's the best for all involved.

In terms of passporting, that needs to be our red line in negotiations - the point at which they accept what we want or we blow the whole lot. We can't afford to lose passporting, the EU can't afford for 3M people to turn up at Calais at once looking for jobs/benefits. We need to ensure the two are made equivalent at the very beginning of negotiations.

The EU have repeatedly told us there's no free trade without free movement, that's acceptable to me. They have to understand that there's no movement of people without free trade.

That is acceptable to me as well, although I would have preferred to have stayed in the EU.

Is it acceptable to the right of the Tory party / UKIP and those who voted leave? These were who the party were pandering to when they called the referendum. If not how is it different to no BREXIT at all from a political stand point in Gutter Boys scenario the Tory party would be unelectable if there was no BREXIT I would suggest there would be a similar response if there were no restriction on free movement.

It is my view that the majority of leavers were due to immigration and nothing since has changed that view. This obviously is not uniform but it did appear to be the overriding factor.

 

[scaramanga]

That is acceptable to me as well, although I would have preferred to have stayed in the EU.

Is it acceptable to the right of the Tory party / UKIP and those who voted leave? These were who the party were pandering to when they called the referendum. If not how is it different to no BREXIT at all from a political stand point in Gutter Boys scenario the Tory party would be unelectable if there was no BREXIT I would suggest there would be a similar response if there were no restriction on free movement.

It is my view that the majority of leavers were due to immigration and nothing since has changed that view. This obviously is not uniform but it did appear to be the overriding factor.

I think that a lot of people were voting to stop immigration - probably (hopefully) not a majority, but a significant number all the same.

What the government needs to now do is make the very clear case that there are next to no immigrants directly claiming benefits instead of working, that immigration with the intent to work is a good thing, and that the current level of immigration would have to continue in order to keep the wheels turning. Cultures within the EU are reasonable similar - swapping EU immigrants for those from the rest of the world would surely be "worse" in the eyes of those who voted leave for immigration reasons.

The government also has to do its part to ensure that the rate is something reasonable. The best way to do that is to reduce incentives - make the minimum wage and the level of in-work benefits closer to that of the rest of the EU and immigration will reduce accordingly.

 

[r-u-s-x]

What the government needs to now do is make the very clear case that there are next to no immigrants directly claiming benefits instead of working, that immigration with the intent to work is a good thing, and that the current level of immigration would have to continue in order to keep the wheels turning. Cultures within the EU are reasonable similar - swapping EU immigrants for those from the rest of the world would surely be "worse" in the eyes of those who voted leave for immigration reasons.

I really don't think those that voted on immigration care about this, they have been sold a lie that immigration is bad and are the cause of all problems - house prices, NHS waiting lists, classroom size etc. are all the cause of immigration. Remain couldn't convince them that this was not the case and I doubt very much the government will be able to either.

I was of the opinion that the government were doing everything they could to kick this down the road and not invoke article 50 as they are aware it will be a disaster. Since then May has an announced a schedule I don't think she can get out of it. I now look on awaiting the outcome.

I think politics will play a bigger part than economics in these discussions, you have a lot more confidence than I do that governments will make decisions based upon the health of their economy.

 

[scaramanga]

I really don't think those that voted on immigration care about this, they have been sold a lie that immigration is bad and are the cause of all problems - house prices, NHS waiting lists, classroom size etc. are all the cause of immigration. Remain couldn't convince them that this was not the case and I doubt very much the government will be able to either.

I was of the opinion that the government were doing everything they could to kick this down the road and not invoke article 50 as they are aware it will be a disaster. Since then May has an announced a schedule I don't think she can get out of it. I now look on awaiting the outcome.

I think politics will play a bigger part than economics in these discussions, you have a lot more confidence than I do that governments will make decisions based upon the health of their economy.

I think that May is fairly safe to do whatever she wants as long as Corbyn is around. If Labour elect someone who can do grown up politics she may have to start pandering to the UKIP lot.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I think that a lot of people were voting to stop immigration - probably (hopefully) not a majority, but a significant number all the same.

What the government needs to now do is make the very clear case that there are next to no immigrants directly claiming benefits instead of working, that immigration with the intent to work is a good thing, and that the current level of immigration would have to continue in order to keep the wheels turning. Cultures within the EU are reasonable similar - swapping EU immigrants for those from the rest of the world would surely be "worse" in the eyes of those who voted leave for immigration reasons.

The government also has to do its part to ensure that the rate is something reasonable. The best way to do that is to reduce incentives - make the minimum wage and the level of in-work benefits closer to that of the rest of the EU and immigration will reduce accordingly.

Why not let the population start to gradually shrink again, like it naturally does in countries where women are fully emancipated? That was happening at the start of this century (c.2000-2004). Things start becoming sustainable with a stable or slightly shrinking population. Addressing problems by expanding population is just a massive Ponzi scheme.

A socially cohesive society is a much better goal than a relentless drive for maximum consumption and profit.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Why not let the population start to gradually shrink again, like it naturally does in countries where women are fully emancipated? That was happening at the start of this century (c.2000-2004). Things start becoming sustainable with a stable or slightly shrinking population. Addressing problems by expanding population is just a massive Ponzi scheme.

A socially cohesive society is a much better goal than a relentless drive for maximum consumption and profit.

The whole system is set up for growth - no growth and the system breaks. Most of our growth has come from increased levels of personal debt and expanding the workforce. We stop immigration the system will start to fall apart, there is no appetite to increase productivity (we are one of the lowest of our peers) as it involves more training less low cost jobs.

Politically who is going to be the first to address a Ponzi scheme? You're on a hiding to nothing, its been a Ponzi for decades you are just hoping the music does not stop on your watch.

 

[Gutter Boy]

The whole system is set up for growth - no growth and the system breaks. Most of our growth has come from increased levels of personal debt and expanding the workforce. We stop immigration the system will start to fall apart, there is no appetite to increase productivity (we are one of the lowest of our peers) as it involves more training less low cost jobs.

Politically who is going to be the first to address a Ponzi scheme? You're on a hiding to nothing, its been a Ponzi for decades you are just hoping the music does not stop on your watch.

But the system benefits too few. That's why a majority said 'no more; let it fall apart'.

Now is the time to let the credit card economy crash, and to actively pursue a sustainable, balanced economy based on a highly-skilled domestic workforce. Like places like Canada and Finland have been doing for decades. Screw the financial services and their moving money in circles, creaming off a bit each time. Lets build a more noble economy based on R&D and advanced manufacturing

 

[Baleforce]

But the system benefits too few. That's why a majority said 'no more; let it fall apart'.

Now is the time to let the credit card economy crash, and to actively pursue a sustainable, balanced economy based on a highly-skilled domestic workforce. Like places like Canada and Finland have been doing for decades. Screw the financial services and their moving money in circles, creaming off a bit each time. Lets build a more noble economy based on R&D and advanced manufacturing

there is a major flaw in that plan

 

[Gutter Boy]

there is a major flaw in that plan

That why you start by massively reforming the schools asap, so they start coming into the workplace next decade. It's what the Finns did in the 70s and early 80s.

 

[r-u-s-x01]

That why you start by massively reforming the schools asap, so they start coming into the workplace next decade. It's what the Finns did in the 70s and early 80s.

I like it, so what next? The reality is the powers that be are ok with the status quo. Only a left leaning government could put this into action and if anything the country is moving right

 

[parklane1]

Another cover up by the powers that be.


http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-33091675

 

[scaramanga]

That why you start by massively reforming the schools asap, so they start coming into the workplace next decade. It's what the Finns did in the 70s and early 80s.

I like it, so what next? The reality is the powers that be are ok with the status quo. Only a left leaning government could put this into action and if anything the country is moving right

Isn't the grammar school program supposed to do just that - put the right kids into skilled training and academics into academia?

 

[milo]

I think that a lot of people were voting to stop immigration - probably (hopefully) not a majority, but a significant number all the same.

What the government needs to now do is make the very clear case that there are next to no immigrants directly claiming benefits instead of working, that immigration with the intent to work is a good thing, and that the current level of immigration would have to continue in order to keep the wheels turning. Cultures within the EU are reasonable similar - swapping EU immigrants for those from the rest of the world would surely be "worse" in the eyes of those who voted leave for immigration reasons.

The government also has to do its part to ensure that the rate is something reasonable. The best way to do that is to reduce incentives - make the minimum wage and the level of in-work benefits closer to that of the rest of the EU and immigration will reduce accordingly.

This article is interesting on this point

https://twitter.com/x/status/793029016932478976