Brexit.

Started by T Fearon, November 01, 2015, 06:04:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

screenexile

So we now have a Tory majority of 4 . . . if only there were a spare 7 votes out there somewhere that could work to topple them??!!!


seafoid

You would really have to go back to 2016 to the birth of Brexit in the UK cabinet to understand what is happening now

This was in 2016

https://www.ft.com/content/1f91316c-8099-11e6-bc52-0c7211ef3198"When asked this week who was
in charge of Brexit,

Philip Hammond, the chancellor, demurred, according to a businessman, saying
that it is "all very difficult at the moment".

"There are two significant strands of thinking
in government," said one person who had attended the Whitehall meetings. "One
strand is gung-ho and wants to drive on without fully understanding the
consequences, the other is more measured"

Brexit has always been a civil war between the ERG and the rest of the party
It's why the negotiation was so atrocious, why the deal is dreadful, why the backstop is an issue, why there is zero trust.
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

heganboy

Quote from: LCohen on February 19, 2019, 08:17:51 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 19, 2019, 05:18:23 PM



Brexit is going really well

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/17/ridiculous-say-no-one-ever-voted-poorer

It is ridiculous to say no one ever voted to be poorer
•   
Daniel Hannan
17 February 2019 • 4:00pm
•   
•   
•   
•   
Save


People have every right to vote to be poorer. That, though, is hardly an argument for cancelling elections CREDIT: ANTHONY UPTON
"No one voted to be poorer". It has become a Europhile mantra, a slogan rattled off almost unthinkingly by Remainer MPs, especially Labour moderates. If we're talking specifically about Brexit, it may or may not be true. Personally speaking, I expect Brexit to make me poorer (I am an MEP) but, over time, to make Britain richer. How much richer depends, obviously, on the choices we make as a country.
As a general proposition, though, the idea that no one ever votes to be poorer is utter tosh. We vote to be poorer all the time, knowingly or unknowingly. We vote to be poorer whenever we vote for stricter rules on where houses can be built. We vote to be poorer when we turn away able-bodied economic migrants.
We vote to be poorer when we back schemes to preserve the habitats of rare species. We vote to be poorer when we subsidise orchestras or art galleries. We vote to be poorer when we privilege particular industries with tariffs or grants.
My point is not that these choices are right or wrong, simply that GDP is not our sole concern as voters, any more than money is not our sole concern as individuals.
To take an extreme example the decision to go to war with Hitler plainly could not be justified on economic grounds, yet it was backed by an overwhelming majority in the country.
Likewise the decision to retake the Falkland Islands.
It is bizarre to hear such blockheaded materialism from middle-class Labour MPs who are normally the first to boast about their readiness to "pay a little more tax to help the less privileged" (though they rarely actually do so, despite HMRC offering a provision for individuals to volunteer additional contributions).
If wealth were our chief measure, we would scrap almost all lifestyle taxes, most environmental regulations and a fair number of welfare payments.
Returning to Brexit, the act of leaving the EU will not, on its own, add a farthing to our national wealth. What it will do is to remove constraints, allowing us to make different choices. Freedom, by definition, includes the freedom to fail. As a fully sovereign country, we might become a free-trading Singapore or a Corbynite Venezuela. It will be our decision.
My guess is that Brexit will involve transitional costs and long-term gains – what Boris Johnson, during the referendum campaign, called the "Nike swoosh". Most of us understand deferred gratification. We practise it in our own lives all the time. A computer programmer might, for example, experience a loss of income while learning a new and more profitable form of coding.
We could make a hash of Brexit, of course. If we end up remaining in the EU's customs union, and giving Brussels permanent control over our trade with third countries, we will lose the benefits of staying without gaining the benefits of leaving. But I'd rather live in a democracy, and sometimes be on the losing side, than have my choices delineated by unelected officials.
People have every right to vote to be poorer. Indeed, a vote for Labour is in general a vote to be poorer: every Labour government, without exception, has put up unemployment. That, though, is hardly an argument for cancelling elections. MPs, of all people, should understand as much.

There are points of principle in that that can be admired but as soon as any Tory uses the term "a Corbynite Venezuela" you know he is disingenuous


This is a fallacy. While the wealth of the country was negatively impact by the decision to go to eat with Hitler, the preservation of the capital of the Uber wealthy could only at that time be protected under English law. If hay had taken the UK (or rather britain) the new over Lords were not guaranteeing those assets.

Similarly the Falklands territory gives the UK( the actual UK) access to significant oil and mineral assets protected under international law, and with agreement by (a now broken) treaty with Argentina.
Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity

dec

The SDP was founded in 1981 with mostly Labour defectors and a small number of Tories.

The Tories remained in power until 1997.

seafoid

Quote from: dec on February 20, 2019, 01:46:10 PM
The SDP was founded in 1981 with mostly Labour defectors and a small number of Tories.

The Tories remained in power until 1997.
Labour called in the IMf in the late 70s and paid for it
The IMF will get involved before the Munster Final the way things are going now.
Brexit will be a shock to the economy and the current account deficit is already very large 
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

seafoid

https://www.ft.com/content/8c32704c-344c-11e9-bd3a-8b2a211d90d5

   Brexit betrays Margaret Thatcher's carmaking legacy

Honda's closure of its UK plant is part of a slow-motion tragedy for the industry
      
         John Gapper

               John Gapper

Leave means leave. It has taken a long time for Japanese carmakers in the UK to grab the attention of Theresa May's government. Honda's decision to close its vehicle and engine-making plant in Swindon and take production back to Japan has done so — although, sadly, too late.Justin Tomlinson, the Brexit-backing local MP, kept his fingers firmly in his ears this week, insisting that Honda's decision was based on "global trends and is not related to Brexit". Margaret Thatcher, the former Conservative prime minister who lured Japanese companies to the UK in the 1980s by promising easy access to the EU single market, would have been less blasé. Honda faced various difficulties in Europe, including a sales downturn exacerbated by the diesel crisis (although less than a tenth of its cars made in Swindon run on diesel). The plant operates below capacity and tariff cuts in the EU-Japan trade deal made it easier to bring production home.But only a fool or a propagandist would deny the impact of Brexit and the threat to the pan-European integrated supply chains on which manufacturers such as Honda, Nissan and Toyota have relied. "We strongly request that the UK will consider this fact seriously," the Japanese government wrote in September 2016, which is about as close to shouting a warning as it gets.Honda is also closing a plant in Turkey and Takahiro Hachigo, chief executive, insisted tactfully on Tuesday that the Swindon decision was not related to Brexit, but the first cars rolled off the Swindon line just before the launch of the single market in 1993. Saying "sayonara" less than six weeks before the UK is due to leave the EU speaks volumes.The unravelling of the UK's achievement in reviving its car industry by welcoming foreign companies is a tragedy in slow motion. Nissan has reversed its 2016 promise to build the next X-Trail SUV in Sunderland and Toyota's patience is being tested, despite having announced last year that it will build its new Auris hatchback in Derby.Carmaking is highly competitive — Renault's automobile operating margin last year was 4.3 per cent, for example — and even tiny disruptions and cost increases can render a viable plant unviable. This is what made Brexit dangerous for the UK industry, which not only exports 80 per cent of cars it produces, but relies on frictionless imports of parts to run just-in-time assembly lines.

The departure of Honda has a broader significance than simply the loss of 3,500 jobs around a former Spitfire plant in Swindon, both for UK carmaking and manufacturing in general. Japanese companies showed the UK not only how to produce high-quality cars, but how to run factories well and to inculcate harmonious relations between workers and managers.It is easy to forget how dysfunctional the UK carmaking industry used to be — particularly after the 1975 nationalisation that brought brands including Rover and Jaguar under British Leyland. Cars were shoddily made and industrial relations with unions were terrible, leading to constant disputes. The UK industry's output peaked at 2m cars in 1972, falling to 1m by 2009.That was why Thatcher put so much effort both into forming the single market and courting the companies her party now attacks. Part one of her strategy for remaking the UK economy was eliminating the regulations and union obstructionism that had burdened many companies. Having (often brutally) cleared them away, part two was to implant an alternative.

The Japanese carmakers did her a huge favour by having faith that the UK would be a stable European base. They led the way for others, helping to reinvigorate an industry that was in deep trouble to remarkable effect. Before Brexit started to hurt, the industry had bounced back to making 1.7m cars and 2.7m engines in 2017, employing 850,000 people directly or indirectly.Swindon was among the biggest beneficiaries of her strategy for economic restoration. A town of 100,000 that relied heavily for jobs on Isambard Kingdom Brunel's former Great Western Railway works (which employed 17,000 at its peak but had fallen to 2,000 by the time it shut in 1986) transformed into a cluster for high-value manufacturing and professional services.What Honda's Swindon factory closure means for UK carmaking "A home for Euro-strivers," the FT wrote of Swindon in 1988, when this was taking hold and US companies were picking it as a location for UK and European headquarters.

Its population is now 220,000, including many graduates in skilled jobs at its 8,600 companies.But something in Swindon rejected the European implant, just as in Derby and Sunderland. Despite having thrived on the arterial route between Remain-voting London and Bristol, its citizens voted Leave in the 2016 referendum by 54.7 per cent to 45.3 per cent. Perhaps they believed the area's economic transformation was so ingrained that Honda would never depart.Now they know better. One Honda employee interviewed by Channel 4 News described the UK government's Brexit prevarication as "idiocy of epic proportions". The cruellest aspect is that Swindon's citizens, and many others in the UK auto industry, were persuaded to risk themselves.
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

Denn Forever

Have the Splitters formed a party?  Ideal in a first passed the post electoral system.
I have more respect for a man
that says what he means and
means what he says...

trailer

It's a really risky strategy for these MPs and most will probably pay with their jobs at the next election. It OK being a Tory candidate going up against Lab, Lib Dems etc but it's another being an Independent going up against them all. That's why we see a broad spectrum of people in all parties. How many times have we heard such and such party is a broad church. Mogg and his cohort of Brexiteers should really be in with someone like a UKIP. Corbyn and the leftists with the Workers Party or a Communist party.


Hound

Quote from: trailer on February 20, 2019, 03:05:04 PM
It's a really risky strategy for these MPs and most will probably pay with their jobs at the next election. It OK being a Tory candidate going up against Lab, Lib Dems etc but it's another being an Independent going up against them all. That's why we see a broad spectrum of people in all parties. How many times have we heard such and such party is a broad church. Mogg and his cohort of Brexiteers should really be in with someone like a UKIP. Corbyn and the leftists with the Workers Party or a Communist party.
Both parties should clearly split. But with the FPTP system, they can only do it if both agree at same time. Otherwise if one splits, the other is pretty much guaranteed a decent majority government, even if they lose some vote %

Of course, they could change the voting system, but I don't think the Brits could handle that. Even though we've had it for donkeys, there's still a huge amount of voters who stop at 1.

trailer

Quote from: Hound on February 20, 2019, 03:11:05 PM
Quote from: trailer on February 20, 2019, 03:05:04 PM
It's a really risky strategy for these MPs and most will probably pay with their jobs at the next election. It OK being a Tory candidate going up against Lab, Lib Dems etc but it's another being an Independent going up against them all. That's why we see a broad spectrum of people in all parties. How many times have we heard such and such party is a broad church. Mogg and his cohort of Brexiteers should really be in with someone like a UKIP. Corbyn and the leftists with the Workers Party or a Communist party.
Both parties should clearly split. But with the FPTP system, they can only do it if both agree at same time. Otherwise if one splits, the other is pretty much guaranteed a decent majority government, even if they lose some vote %

Of course, they could change the voting system, but I don't think the Brits could handle that. Even though we've had it for donkeys, there's still a huge amount of voters who stop at 1.

They held a referendum on the voting system. Lib Dems (who it would benefit the most) pushed for it as part of the coalition. It was rejected.

RadioGAAGAA

Quote from: trailer on February 20, 2019, 03:14:02 PM
They held a referendum on the voting system. Lib Dems (who it would benefit the most) pushed for it as part of the coalition. It was rejected.

Well - the end result is that Britannia can happily rule their own bathtub.
i usse an speelchekor

LeoMc

Quote from: dec on February 20, 2019, 01:46:10 PM
The SDP was founded in 1981 with mostly Labour defectors and a small number of Tories.

The Tories remained in power until 1997.
I have seen the argument that having the SDP actually reduced the Tory majority as it gave those disaffected with Labour swing to the hard left (Militant Tendency were the Momentum of their day)  a way to vote against the Tories.

seafoid

Brexit is truly insane in the week that 10,000 jobs linked to Honda in Swindon were lost


https://www.ft.com/content/b2aa3eb8-3437-11e9-9be1-7dc6e2dfa65e

   As things stand, the outline trade deal will prioritise "comprehensive arrangements" for goods but neglect services where, sadly, the British government is aiming for little better than bog-standard third country market access.For financial services, in which the UK has a large surplus, this is bleak, with the Centre for European Reform, a think-tank, reckoning that a free trade agreement would shrink exports to the EU by almost 60 per cent. This means job losses among the 2.2m people employed in the financial and professional services ecosystem, of whom a number live in my constituency of Orpington, and an annual £10bn hit to tax revenues, according to consultants Oliver Wyman.
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

RadioGAAGAA

Quote from: seafoid on February 20, 2019, 05:36:54 PM
As things stand, the outline trade deal will prioritise "comprehensive arrangements" for goods but neglect services where

Who is that outline trade deal with? (can't see the article)
i usse an speelchekor

red hander

Quote from: Hound on February 20, 2019, 03:11:05 PM
Quote from: trailer on February 20, 2019, 03:05:04 PM
It's a really risky strategy for these MPs and most will probably pay with their jobs at the next election. It OK being a Tory candidate going up against Lab, Lib Dems etc but it's another being an Independent going up against them all. That's why we see a broad spectrum of people in all parties. How many times have we heard such and such party is a broad church. Mogg and his cohort of Brexiteers should really be in with someone like a UKIP. Corbyn and the leftists with the Workers Party or a Communist party.
Both parties should clearly split. But with the FPTP system, they can only do it if both agree at same time. Otherwise if one splits, the other is pretty much guaranteed a decent majority government, even if they lose some vote %

Of course, they could change the voting system, but I don't think the Brits could handle that. Even though we've had it for donkeys, there's still a huge amount of voters who stop at 1.

When is that old bastard hag Hoey going to quit Labour?