Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Russman

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is the flagship that should focus all minds, but maybe the UK is truly too far gone.

I think this is likely the case. Once emotions and "feelings" come into it (and in truth, the Brexiteers main argument was always an emotional thing) no amount of stats, facts and figures will turn them. Stiff upper lip and all that.

The very fact that someone like JRM wants to suspend parliament in case it makes a decision he disagrees with, speaks volumes of just how mad things have become over there.

You'd wonder who the people would blame if it came to pass that Airbus pulled out and 14,000 jobs were lost, would it be the nasty EU, the nasty French company or the UK's own politicians ?

spacecoyote

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

Airbus threatening to move future investments out of the UK in case of a no deal Brexit.

Airbus Calls Brexit Process a Disgrace, Threatens to Leave U.K.

Sony also moving their HQ away from the UK to ensure that they are company based in the EU

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46968720

cantwbr1

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

If there is a no-deal Brexit, we at Airbus will have to make potentially very harmful decisions for the U.K.

Airbus threatening to move future investments out of the UK in case of a no deal Brexit.

Airbus Calls Brexit Process a Disgrace, Threatens to Leave U.K.

The language used by the Airbus chief was striking in that he made no attempt to fudge or be anyway diplomatic in his comments.
Will probably be waved away as more project fear

Seth Brundle

cantwbr1 wrote: »

The language used by the Airbus chief was striking in that he made no attempt to fudge or be anyway diplomatic in his comments.
Will probably be waved away as more project fear

It needs more leading CEOs to follow up with similar comments.

robinph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

Airbus threatening to move future investments out of the UK in case of a no deal Brexit.

Airbus Calls Brexit Process a Disgrace, Threatens to Leave U.K.

That is the flagship that should focus all minds, but maybe the UK is truly too far gone.

One of the main UK Airbus, and the associated Rolls Royce engines, sites being right in the middle of one of constituencies for a full on Brexit supporting MP, who recently had an affair with another MP and they call the resulting sprog "Brexit" as it was born around the time of the referendum.

The major employer in his constituency that will not operate out side of the EU, and he's still convinced that Brexit is a good thing.

marieholmfan

Airbus should not leave England without repaying all launch aid received for the past 30 years.
The UK should make clear that declarations of economic war against a NUCLEAR power are very very unwise.

Banned.

Leroy42

marieholmfan wrote: »

Airbus should not leave England without repaying all launch aid received for the past 30 years.
The UK should make clear that declarations of economic war against a NUCLEAR power are very very unwise.

So kind of like the UK having to pay the £39bn, automatically allow all EU citizens permanent and complete freedom to remain and live up to the GFA?

megatron989

marieholmfan wrote: »

Airbus should not leave England without repaying all launch aid received for the past 30 years.
The UK should make clear that declarations of economic war against a NUCLEAR power are very very unwise.

Em, what? The UK should go to war with airbus now? I think you've reached Brexit level 2, congrats.

lawred2

marieholmfan wrote: »

Airbus should not leave England without repaying all launch aid received for the past 30 years.
The UK should make clear that declarations of economic war against a NUCLEAR power are very very unwise.

What is this nonsense?

Firstly - Brexit is a UK abomination. No one else's.

Secondly - Airbus is a multi national. It is not a sovereign nation. You think the UK government should issue threats of nuclear retaliation against a board of directors?

Who exactly do you see should be the target of these threats? Maybe threats of carpet bombing Broughton is what you're thinking of?

Since when did threats of nuclear anything achieve anything but the designation as an international pariah...

This is loony bin talk. Serves no purpose and has no value as a contribution whatsoever.

FrancieBrady

That escalated quickly!

But it does underline the threat that the fracturing of the political system in the UK and the breakup of the Union itself could lead to very nasty violent cul de sacs.

Leroy42

And now we have Tory MP's calling for nationalisation of factories, which thought they were totally against and what they hate so much about Corbyn.

https://twitter.com/DCBMEP/status/1088348314930679809?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1088348314930679809&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2Flive%2F2019%2Fjan%2F24%2Fbrexit-latest-news-developments-may-union-leaders-airbus-says-it-could-close-factories-in-the-uk-in-the-event-of-no-deal-politics-live

Yesterday we had JRM calling for the closing of parliament if a vote didn't go they way he liked, so sovereignty up to a point I suppose.

The the collective idea seems to be that democracy in the form of voting is actually undemocratic!

CrabRevolution

Seems similar to another (now banned) poster who reckoned that the USA and UK were "well within their rights" to invade the countries of the EU because of brexit.

Tell me how

Sir Ivan Rogers (until 2017 the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the European Union) has given another noteworthy speech.

Both the text (31 pages) and the video (1 Hr 10 min) are available at the link below.

Sir Ivan Rogers Speech to UCL European Institute

Contained within

We are now being flogged the proposition that in order to move from a deep preferential agreement - the supranational political, juridical and enforcement aspects of high you deplore, but which gives you much the best trading terms with the bloc, above all in the sectors in which you are highly competitive - to a less deep, but normal EU preferential agreement which gives you substantially better access than WTO terms, the best route is to go all the way out to WTO terms first.

Because that will give you the whip hand in negotiations with a bloc for which the absence of any preferential deal covers a vastly lower proportion of its trade than it does of yours.

And the bloc would therefore come begging for a new preferential deal, drop completely its demand for the backstop, accept that technological and administrative solutions to the border suffice, when they have repeatedly previously made clear they cannot, and settle for much less than the money that the U.K. Prime Minister had already agreed to pay if she got an acceptable Withdrawal Agreement – which she now publicly agrees she has.

This stuff would make snake oil salesmen blush.

We are left with the bizarre spectacle of Brexiteers, many of whom used to argue that exiting to Norwegian or Swiss style destinations would be a vast improvement on remaining in the EU, because these were vibrant Parliamentary democracies whose peoples had bravely spurned European political integration in favour of free trading relationships from outside, arguing that if the U.K. now “escaped” only to such a destination, it would be a terrible betrayal.

It would be “Brexit in Name Only”, as bad as or worse than, the Prime Minister’s lousy deal, and a triumph for the “deep state” that has been wanting to sabotage Brexit from the outset.

He draws 4 main conclusions.

First, Article 50 can, for all its oddities, probably can work as an exit route.
Second, we have to understand how the EU works and negotiates, because
we shall, like it or not, not ever be floating free of ties and responsibilities in
the mid-Atlantic.
Third, baselines – where you start from - matter in negotiations.
Fourth and finally, one cannot rule out an extension of Article 50.

One of Theresa May's biggest mistakes was appointing people like David Davis, Boris Johnson to key roles in her government at the outset of negotiations while people like Rogers, with extensive experience of the EU were pushed to the sidelines and alienated because what they were saying was unpalatable.

J Mysterio

marieholmfan wrote: »

Airbus should not leave England without repaying all launch aid received for the past 30 years.
The UK should make clear that declarations of economic war against a NUCLEAR power are very very unwise.

lol, what a joke. Do you think they should nuke Airbus HQ or send the special forces in?

Grow up, this is a direct result of British idiocy as represented by Brexit.

Russman

Leroy42 wrote: »

And now we have Tory MP's calling for nationalisation of factories, which thought they were totally against and what they hate so much about Corbyn.

Yesterday we had JRM calling for the closing of parliament if a vote didn't go they way he liked, so sovereignty up to a point I suppose.

The the collective idea seems to be that democracy in the form of voting is actually undemocratic!

Once the craziness takes hold and mob mentality kicks in, there's no limit to what they'll come out with now. Unless of course some people stand to loose a lot of money (or maybe to not make a huge amount of money) if Brexit is postponed/cancelled - that'd make me pretty angry if it was me.

"Super project fear" ?? WTF is that then ? Will the thousands of trucks stuck at the border crossings be all a figment of someone's imagination ?

The UK desperately needs a leader to somehow shout "stop the madness", but I can't see it happening.

prawnsambo

marieholmfan wrote: »

Airbus should not leave England without repaying all launch aid received for the past 30 years.
The UK should make clear that declarations of economic war against a NUCLEAR power are very very unwise.

So if they pay back all the money they got, will you let them go without nuking them?

On a serious note, there's talk of companies who located in the UK because of their EU membership, suing the government for losses incurred that are directly associated with brexit because it's a clear breach of undertakings made to attract them there in the first place.

Zubeneschamali

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Seems similar to another (now banned) poster who reckoned that the USA and UK were "well within their rights" to invade the countries of the EU because of brexit.

I seem to recall a politician warning Spain that the British still have a navy if things get heated at Gibraltar?


Googling, yes, it was Michael Howerd, pointing out that another woman PM sent the navy to sort out the Argies for the Falklands, so Spain shouldn't get too grabby with Gibraltar.

CelticRambler

Lovely ambush of Martin Howe, QC, on Sky a few minutes ago:
MH : "No need to have physical infrastructure on the border ... [controls] can be done at the premises sending and receiving goods.

Some people use the words "hard border" to mean any sort of controls at all, whether they're conducted at the border or not.

There's no requirement under WTO law to have physical controls at the border."

Sky: Where can you cite where this doesn't take place?
MH: "There are very open borders, for example, between Switzerland and the EU, and between Norway and Sweden, both of which are ..."
Sky: I've been to both places and both of them have physical infrastructure.
MH: "But you don't need it!"
Sky: Why is it there if you don't need it?
MH: [squirms] Lets look at the position in Ireland and the Irish border. There are something like 300 road crossings ...

Sky: Where there are two different trading blocs - you've cited Switzerland, you've cited Scandinavia - in both cases there are actual physical infrastructure.
MH: "You don't need it! Let me explain this: there's no requirement under WTO rules to enforce customs controls by having a man wearing a peaked cap putting a pole across the road on the border!"

So there you have it. The Swiss are being primitive and inefficient, with their silly customs posts and lorry parks. :cool:

Akrasia

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It needs more leading CEOs to follow up with similar comments.

More Project fear you mean.


If Dyson moving his company to Singapore isn't enough to make brexiteers question the motives of their champions, then nothing will.

ancapailldorcha

Posts deleted and bans issued. No more one-liners please.

Enzokk

marieholmfan wrote: »

Airbus should not leave England without repaying all launch aid received for the past 30 years.
The UK should make clear that declarations of economic war against a NUCLEAR power are very very unwise.

I think you will find that Airbus has paid back all the RLI already. In fact the aid they have received for models like the A320 is still being paid a long time after the original amount has been settled because that is the way they were structured, that as long as deliveries still continue that there will be levy on each one. Seeing that the A320 alone has a backlog of about 6000 aircraft it is clear that there are two winners here.

The clue is in the official name, Repayable Launch Aid.

OPINION: A320 has repaid faith of Airbus - and governments

But that bold approach has more than paid off. The A320 went on to establish Airbus on the global stage, and force its rivals to up their game. And with 30 years and over 8,000 deliveries behind it, the little twinjet has more than repaid the early faith of the supporting governments many times over, thanks to that clause requiring a levy on each sale.

2 The Aerospace Industry

REPAYABLE LAUNCH INVESTMENT

17. Repayable Launch Investment is a government initiative to provide financial risk-sharing investment in the design and development of civil aerospace projects in the United Kingdom. It is designed to address the unwillingness of capital markets to fund projects with high product development costs, high technological and market risks and long pay back periods on investment. Government investment is repayable at a commercial rate of return, usually through levies on sales of the product. Launch Investment is only available to the civil aerospace sector.

Tell me how wrote: »

One of Theresa May's biggest mistakes was appointing people like David Davis, Boris Johnson to key roles in her government at the outset of negotiations while people like Rogers, with extensive experience of the EU were pushed to the sidelines and alienated because what they were saying was unpalatable.

Quite clearly it was a mistake, but if you had "Remainers" in charge of the negotiations then the Brexiters would only blame them for not delivering the promised land of the referendum campaign. By putting those who brought about Brexit in charge you lay the blame at their door as well.

Mr.Wemmick

prawnsambo wrote: »

So if they pay back all the money they got, will you let them go without nuking them?

On a serious note, there's talk of companies who located in the UK because of their EU membership, suing the government for losses incurred that are directly associated with brexit because it's a clear breach of undertakings made to attract them there in the first place.

Just waiting for a group of EU nationals who have relocated to the UK to work in the NHS, care services or education to sue the Government for f*cking up their lives and leaving them in limbo.

This farce is beyond words now.

Akrasia

marieholmfan wrote: »

Airbus should not leave England without repaying all launch aid received for the past 30 years.
The UK should make clear that declarations of economic war against a NUCLEAR power are very very unwise.

Airbus should sue the British government for unilaterally changing the terms under which they traded. Airbus invested billions in production facilities that would become useless the moment Britain crash out of the EU.

If Britain leaves the EU Customs Union and Single Market, their courts will be clogged up for years with corporations suing them for the financial losses associated with their decision change the fundamental trading platform of the UK

Brexit is a direct result of the popularity of social media which keeps you in a bubble and feeds you only what you want to hear whether it be true or not.

josip

Akrasia wrote: »

Airbus should sue the British government for unilaterally changing the terms under which they traded. Airbus invested billions in production facilities that would become useless the moment Britain crash out of the EU.

If Britain leaves the EU Customs Union and Single Market, their courts will be clogged up for years with corporations suing them for the financial losses associated with their decision change the fundamental trading platform of the UK

I would assume that in that case, although the referendum was only advisory, it would still be used as the UK's defending argument?

Akrasia

josip wrote: »

I would assume that in that case, although the referendum was only advisory, it would still be used as the UK's defending argument?

The referendum never compelled the UK to leave either the Single Market, or the Customs Union.

Mr.Wemmick

Deleted User wrote: »

Brexit is a direct result of the popularity of social media which keeps you in a bubble and feeds you only what you want to hear whether it be true or not.

Don't forget the interfering Russians working tirelessly in the background to f*ck things up..

FreudianSlippers

eggman100 wrote: »

That's because you don't understand that staying in under the current 'deal' is not leaving at all, you seem to not understand the reasons why we voted to leave the corrupt EU. We also never voted for any kind of deal, we voted to leave the entire EU and this was all explained in Camerons pamphlet of doom about all the terrible things that would happen if we left the ECJ,customs union etc.
It was all BS of course as has been proven because none of these terrible things have happened that we were told would do, just for voting to leave. The

EU economy is going down the toilet, the UK doing well and record low unemployment - we were were told millions would loose jobs, complete BS again of course.

Ireland should follow us out if you don't want to pay for Greece bailout MK2 plus Italy and Spain. How about also governing yourselves instead of Ireland being like a county council of your masters in EU government?

You know you haven't left yet right?

Tell me how

Another rejection for Theresa May.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1088375801500831744

Also, another interesting Tweet from Tony.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1088383430797262848

I'd say that was intentionally to show that the rest of the world is moving on and is not interested in eternally dealing with the UK and their issues.

FreudianSlippers

Enzokk wrote: »

The DUP is not the UK Government nor should 10 votes decide policy for the whole country.

As I said before, the Tories need those 10 votes to remain in Government. So, it's not as irrelevant as everyone seems to be pretending.