Brexit - merged threads

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, Rewulf said:

I truly believe Brussels would see European business suffer before risking the collapse of the project.

I'm 100% sure they would - business having difficulties puts them more under the thumb of the politicians.  The EU uses subsidies like a 'drug' to hook and control business.

[Retsdon]

P&O to sail under the Cypriot flag from now on. Does that leave any commercial lines at all sailing under the Red Duster nowadays?

[Rewulf]

6 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

P&O to sail under the Cypriot flag from now on. Does that leave any commercial lines at all sailing under the Red Duster nowadays?

Does it matter? 

They're all foreign owned anyway. 

[pinfireman]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Does it matter? 

They're all foreign owned anyway. 

and mostly foreign manned!

 In the Commons today...

Nicky Morgan intervened on Theresa May’s opening speech to confirm the “surprising” news that Tory Remainers and Leavers had formed an unlikely alliance around the ‘Malthouse Compromise’.

One MP who obviously didn’t have much to offer the constructive cross-partisan discussions was Anna Soubry, who was caught grumbling loudly “would have been nice to have been told that” as Morgan spoke. Given that she’s doing everything she can to derail Brexit altogether, Guido isn’t really sure why she’s surprised to be left out. How times have changed…

She has to go! Broxtowe deserves better than this harridan!

ALSO.....

“What I’m talking about is not a further exchange of letters, but a significant and legally binding change to the withdrawal agreement. Negotiating this change will not be easy. It will involve reopening the Withdrawal Agreement.”

Strong stuff from May. Vindication for the ERG…

Edited January 29, 2019 by pinfireman
spelling

[pinfireman]

 In the Commons today...

Nicky Morgan intervened on Theresa May’s opening speech to confirm the “surprising” news that Tory Remainers and Leavers had formed an unlikely alliance around the ‘Malthouse Compromise’.

One MP who obviously didn’t have much to offer the constructive cross-partisan discussions was Anna Soubry, who was caught grumbling loudly “would have been nice to have been told that” as Morgan spoke. Given that she’s doing everything she can to derail Brexit altogether, Guido isn’t really sure why she’s surprised to be left out. How times have changed…

She has to go! Broxtowe deserves better than this harridan!

The BBC’s Laura K has confirmed that Labour will be officially backing the Yvette Cooper amendment which would tear up the rules of Parliament and allow backbench MPs to bring in a Bill to block Brexit from happening in March. Hardline Remainers trying to reverse Brexit will be delighted. How will Labour’s Brexit-supporting voters feel about it?

[Scully]

10 minutes ago, pinfireman said:

 

The BBC’s Laura K has confirmed that Labour will be officially backing the Yvette Cooper amendment which would tear up the rules of Parliament and allow backbench MPs to bring in a Bill to block Brexit from happening in March. Hardline Remainers trying to reverse Brexit will be delighted. How will Labour’s Brexit-supporting voters feel about it?

I thought the 'Cooper Bill' was all about preventing us leaving without a deal, and not specifically to prevent us leaving altogether? 

[panoma1]

What If the EU won't agree to reopening negotiations? And Mrs Balls ammendment and other amendments calling for no " no deal " Brexit are successful, will it not prevent the UK ever leaving the EU? Thereby overturning Brexit?

[Scully]

I'm resigned to the fact we aint gonna leave. 

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, Scully said:

I'm resigned to the fact we aint gonna leave. 

If they think that by political skullduggery, removing no deal, and blocking any and all deals, that they can by default , reverse Brexit, then they are VERY mistaken.
Such an undemocratic , brazen tactic would bring this government down, and usher in a party that would feed on the anger of the disaffected.
You want to see national socialist style politics ?
Thats one sure fire way to get them.

[das]

31 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

If they think that by political skullduggery, removing no deal, and blocking any and all deals, that they can by default , reverse Brexit, then they are VERY mistaken.
Such an undemocratic , brazen tactic would bring this government down, and usher in a party that would feed on the anger of the disaffected.
You want to see national socialist style politics ?
Thats one sure fire way to get them.

Agree!  If we are done out of Brexit by sharp practice, as it seems to be, I feel there might be, as Trump stated,  Fire and Fury like none has seen before'.

[Scully]

9 minutes ago, das said:

Agree!  If we are done out of Brexit by sharp practice, as it seems to be, I feel there might be, as Trump stated,  Fire and Fury like none has seen before'.

Nah....we’re British. We’ll make a few noises and there’ll be a few rumblings, then we’ll plan and organise the biggest protest ( peaceful 😀) the country has ever seen, then it’ll rain and no one will show up. 👍

[oowee]

5 hours ago, pinfireman said:

But it,s a POSITIVE!  As for firms leaving the country, I did ask a couple of days ago for you to perhaps list the major companies who have relocated  their factories to the Eastern European members of the EU.....................with grants to do so from........you,ve guessed it, the EU ! So we pay our Billions in, the EU  "launders it, then gives it out in grants  (bribes?) to companies to leave  the UK, and set up new factories in the EU! Then, to compound it, they sell the goods back to us! 

The economics of the madhouse!  It creates MORE unemployment here. We then have to pay those made jobless benefits! Crazy!

P.S. Still awaiting the list................

The list is easy zero. The EU does not pay to relocate businesses.

It will pay to offset infrastructure (physical and human) costs which in turn will encourage investors to consider moving to priority areas. Governments are allowed to contribute directly to business under the equivalent of the Regional Selective assistance program which is strictly controlled by the the EU.  Service companies are largely exempt from these forms of assistance (there may be exceptions now). 

I managed to secure funds for many companies to move to the MIdlands from the EU when that was a priority area. 

The EU cannot pay to move a company from here to there. So your suggestion of employment changes is bogus. I would have thought you would applaud the EU encouraging jobs in Poland ect. It would encourage workers to stay in the home country whilst building the EU market place. 

Common sense economics to get the most out of the workforce and build the largest possible market place for yourself all working to the same standards. What a shame we are giving it all up. 

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

If they think that by political skullduggery, removing no deal, and blocking any and all deals, that they can by default , reverse Brexit, then they are VERY mistaken.
Such an undemocratic , brazen tactic would bring this government down, and usher in a party that would feed on the anger of the disaffected.
You want to see national socialist style politics ?
Thats one sure fire way to get them.

Is that Corbyn?

[Mice!]

1 hour ago, oowee said:

The list is easy zero. The EU does not pay to relocate businesses.

It will pay to offset infrastructure (physical and human) costs which in turn will encourage investors to consider moving to priority areas. Governments are allowed to contribute directly to business under the equivalent of the Regional Selective assistance program which is strictly controlled by the the EU.  Service companies are largely exempt from these forms of assistance (there may be exceptions now). 

I managed to secure funds for many companies to move to the MIdlands from the EU when that was a priority area. 

The EU cannot pay to move a company from here to there. So your suggestion of employment changes is bogus. I would have thought you would applaud the EU encouraging jobs in Poland ect. It would encourage workers to stay in the home country whilst building the EU market place. 

Common sense economics to get the most out of the workforce and build the largest possible market place for yourself all working to the same standards. What a shame we are giving it all up. 

Is that Corbyn?

Well its not recent but Ingersol Rand moved manufacturing from Wigan to somewhere in what was the Czech area, the company were offered something like no tax for ten-fifteen years costs covered for training and relocation, so long as local folk were trained, this was early 2002-03 which meant that probably 200 ish folk out of work nit big numbers but how many more times has this happened?

Companies are happily setting up in Poland with some folk probably going back having been working over here, but when companies are taking complete product lines as they are, then its not good for future prospects, and you can be sure these countries will be getting plenty of help.

[oowee]

Just now, Mice! said:

Well its not recent but Ingersol Rand moved manufacturing from Wigan to somewhere in what was the Czech area, the company were offered something like no tax for ten-fifteen years costs covered for training and relocation, so long as local folk were trained, this was early 2002-03 which meant that probably 200 ish folk out of work nit big numbers but how many more times has this happened?

Companies are happily setting up in Poland with some folk probably going back having been working over here, but when companies are taking complete product lines as they are, then its not good for future prospects, and you can be sure these countries will be getting plenty of help.

Read my post re offset. 🙂 

Many companies move. At the time they are mobile with a new investment proposal they look at the places they could go to. If there are costs associated with moving to a priority area then these costs can be offset by the Country's Government but this is strictly audited by the EU and subject to legal challenge if it breaches limits set dependent on areas. 

The EU can offset infrastructure costs. I worked on spending millions in the Black country to reclaim derelict land. 

Surely it's right at an EU level that the weakest economies get help to make them stronger? This happens in the UK with subsidy to most places North of Watford. This helps promote and spread wealth and make the market bigger. Good news all round in my book. The beauty of the EU in the process is proper oversight. I have told before the EU audit of the Greek reservoir that turned out to have diving boards and lane markers. The money was paid back. 

[krugerandsmith]

2 hours ago, Scully said:

I'm resigned to the fact we aint gonna leave. 

Scully you are absolutely right .... This shower about to delay for another nine months. They have no intention of us leaving.

 

[grrclark]

Just now, oowee said:

Read my post re offset. 🙂 

Many companies move. At the time they are mobile with a new investment proposal they look at the places they could go to. If there are costs associated with moving to a priority area then these costs can be offset by the Country's Government but this is strictly audited by the EU and subject to legal challenge if it breaches limits set dependent on areas. 

The EU can offset infrastructure costs. I worked on spending millions in the Black country to reclaim derelict land. 

Surely it's right at an EU level that the weakest economies get help to make them stronger? This happens in the UK with subsidy to most places North of Watford. This helps promote and spread wealth and make the market bigger. Good news all round in my book. The beauty of the EU in the process is proper oversight. I have told before the EU audit of the Greek reservoir that turned out to have diving boards and lane markers. The money was paid back. 

One of the problems is rather than bringing the weakest economies up to the level of the higher performing economies is that it pulls the higher economies down to a lower common denominator.

[das]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

Nah....we’re British. We’ll make a few noises and there’ll be a few rumblings, then we’ll plan and organise the biggest protest ( peaceful 😀) the country has ever seen, then it’ll rain and no one will show up. 👍

Your'e right unfortunately Scully, the will, resistance to threat and the ability to hold our corner died years ago I'm afraid.
Once the Bulldog Breed, now more like the Lapdog Breed😪

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, oowee said:

Surely it's right at an EU level that the weakest economies get help to make them stronger?

Not by taking away work, and jobs from the stronger; that just weakens the stronger economies.

 

3 minutes ago, oowee said:

This helps promote and spread wealth and make the market bigger

What it really does is take 'power' from the free market and move it into the hands of the politicians/EU bureaucrats - i.e. the EU 'state'

 

5 minutes ago, oowee said:

Good news all round in my book.

Control from business and the market transferred to the 'state.  BAD news.

 

5 minutes ago, oowee said:

The beauty of the EU in the process is proper oversight.

This from the organisation whose auditors couldn't sign off their accounts?

When it was a 'common market', it made sense.  Now it dabbles in moving work around at officials whims, it makes no sense.

[Scully]

1 minute ago, das said:

Your'e right unfortunately Scully, the will, resistance to threat and the ability to hold our corner died years ago I'm afraid.
Once the Bulldog Breed, now more like the Lapdog Breed😪

😀👍

[oowee]

9 minutes ago, grrclark said:

One of the problems is rather than bringing the weakest economies up to the level of the higher performing economies is that it pulls the higher economies down to a lower common denominator.

How? 

 

8 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Not by taking away work, and jobs from the stronger; that just weakens the stronger economies.

? It does not do that. 

What it really does is take 'power' from the free market and move it into the hands of the politicians/EU bureaucrats - i.e. the EU 'state'

EU are not involved except oversight.

Control from business and the market transferred to the 'state.  BAD news.

That has happened since we built the first slave ships if not before

This from the organisation whose auditors couldn't sign off their accounts?'

Have you asked yourself why they are not audited? 

When it was a 'common market', it made sense.  Now it dabbles in moving work around at officials whims, it makes no sense.

This does not happen

I take it from your comments that you would like to see the government remove it's support for the North of the UK? The rich help the poor that is what happens in a developed and civilised world. Sorry you do not like it.

[JohnfromUK]

8 minutes ago, oowee said:

I take it from your comments that you would like to see the government remove it's support for the North of the UK?

That is done within the UK under one tax/fiscal system, under the control of the elected UK Parliament (OK, I accept that now Parliament doesn't follow the electorates wishes closely, but it did once).  That is NOT the same as things moved to other countries around by the EU commission.  The so called 'single market' is not the same as a single country in the the whole fiscal and taxation systems are different.

3 minutes ago, oowee said:

Sorry you do not like it.

Overall I do not like state interference.  I accept it is sometimes necessary and can do good in places, but it should be used with a very gentle touch and as little as possible  - and ideally by people who very clearly understand the local issues.  Widespread state interference and control is nearly always a route to inefficiency and long term dependency on state assistance/market tampering.

8 minutes ago, oowee said:

The rich help the poor that is what happens in a developed and civilised world.

'Moving' jobs from the so called 'rich' areas to the 'poor' areas harms the sections that generates the wealth - and provides (often simply short term) jobs in poor areas that overall often generate less wealth.  The only people who benefit are those who collect the subsidies.

I worked for a company (30 odd years ago) that specialised on buying companies in 'wealthy areas' and moving them to a subsidised area, collecting large sums from the EU to do so.  The directors grew rich, the employees either had to move or loose their jobs, and the 'moved companies' usually 'folded' in a few years - reason - usually because the subsidies to move dried up and the key people moved back to their original areas.  It was a crooked game, encouraged by the EU and certain crooked individuals.  I left.

[grrclark]

24 minutes ago, oowee said:

How? 

 

I take it from your comments that you would like to see the government remove it's support for the North of the UK? The rich help the poor that is what happens in a developed and civilised world. Sorry you do not like it.

I’ll reply in a wee bit when on a laptop.

[oowee]

7 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

That is done within the UK under one tax/fiscal system, under the control of the elected UK Parliament (OK, I accept that now Parliament doesn't follow the electorates wishes closely, but it did once).  That is NOT the same as things moved to other countries around by the EU commission.  The so called 'single market' is not the same as a single country in the the whole fiscal and taxation systems are different.

Overall I do not like state interference.  I accept it is sometimes necessary and can do good in places, but it should be used with a very gentle touch and as little as possible  - and ideally by people who very clearly understand the local issues.  Widespread state interference and control is nearly always a route to inefficiency and long term dependency on state assistance/market tampering.

'Moving' jobs from the so called 'rich' areas to the 'poor' areas harms the sections that generates the wealth - and provides (often simply short term) jobs in poor areas that overall often generate less wealth.  The only people who benefit are those who collect the subsidies.

I worked for a company (30 odd years ago) that specialised on buying companies in 'wealthy areas' and moving them to a subsidised area, collecting large sums from the EU to do so.  The directors grew rich, the employees either had to move or loose their jobs, and the 'moved companies' usually 'folded' in a few years - reason - usually because the subsidies to move dried up and the key people moved back to their original areas.  It was a crooked game, encouraged by the EU and certain crooked individuals.  I left.

So are you saying you support helping the poor or not? You can't have it both ways. 

Either way it's not a role for the EU it's a role for Governments. 

4 minutes ago, grrclark said:

I’ll reply in a wee bit when on a laptop.

🙂 no rush my typing so great. 

[panoma1]

Mrs Balls ammendment was lost!

[JohnfromUK]

8 minutes ago, oowee said:

So are you saying you support helping the poor or not? You can't have it both ways.

I only support it where;

• it is a genuine NEW job, not simply someone else's moved job.
• it is a proper long term realistic job, not an artificial 'game' to farm the subsidies handed out
• it is cost effective to move and repays the move costs in a reasonable time frame.

Far too many 'moves' have been done simply to collect handouts/meet political aims and have no rational economic justification.  I am reminded of Jim Hacker always asking when consulted "if it was in a marginal seat"?

Taking money/jobs from the rich to give to the poor makes everyone poor in the long run (possibly except a few crooked politicians).  Giving the poor the knowledge, leadership tools and materials to do a job may make them rich.

Edited January 29, 2019 by JohnfromUK