Brexit Discussion Thread VI

eggman100

Thomas_IV wrote: »

The austeriy policy in the UK since 2010 surely have had a certain impact on the votes in the BrexitRef 2016 as not less deluded Brexiteers of the 'working class' thought that once out of the EU, austerity will be the past and the better days on the horizon. But the opposite will rather be the case, more so as the PM is as usual playing for time and the clock is running down with the time left until 29. March 2019 running out.

Another misconception, a misunderstanding of 'working class' people or the poorer communities. They did not vote leave because of Austerity. I talked to people immigrants from the 70s/80s who were from the poorer areas. Hard working people. Theynvoted to leave for democracy and the problems caused by uncontrolled unmanaged immigration. Whereas most people voted leave purely on soveriegnity and democratic reasons

LuckyLloyd

Jmccoy1 wrote: »

So in effect they are proposing that the republic have a hard border with the rest of the EU. That would be disastrous for FDI and jobs within the republic. To hell with the north if that is the option being proposed.

You're right, but there's no need to put any emotion into a proposal from the DUP. They're fully irrelevant in this process, what they say or want doesn't matter.

eggman100

Lemming wrote: »

You mean the party for whom a prominent (now-former) senior minister is quoted as saying "fvck business" when challenged about business concerns?

Another misconception. The business concerns are not valid. If anything will happen to business it will increase after Brexit and the UK will thrive.

However even if the doomsayers are right (they have been consistently wrong so far), the long term benefits are clear and a price worth paying for getting our country back from EU rule and control. This issue is more important than any other political issue since if you have no control and are governed by the EU there is little the UK government can do. Westminster will be little more than a county council of Strasbourg and Brussels government.

Leroy42

323 wrote: »

Betting this has nothing to do with brexit.

Large british multinational I used to work with and three others I know of moved their corporate headquarters and payroll to Singapore over the last 10 years.

Primary reason in each case was to avoid employers National Insurance contributions.

Whatever the reasons behind it, and they have been very quite about it and Sir Dyson has not been interviewed, the real point is that Dyson was one of the leading Business people, and a very serious and influencial one at that, who was happy to tell everyone that Brexit was the way to go for the future of the country.

But it turns out, at least in his business case, that Brexit has nothing to do with it, as he was leaving anyway (based on your point).

So why tell all the rest that Brexit is great then run off before being able to feel the benefits? The only explanation is that Brexit will have no positive effect, certainly not enough to offset the benefits of Singapore, and if they can't even get the proponents of Brexit to hang around what chance of others.

And its not just Dyson.
JRM has moved assets funds to Ireland
Lamont has taken up French residence
Farage children had German passports

The key point is that all these people are insulated from any negative effects, so where happy to take a punt on Brexit as, for them, there is no downside. That is not the case for the vast majority of the public, especially since they will soon lose the right to freedom of movement within the EU

LuckyLloyd

Akrasia wrote: »

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.

Deliciously spun by the Telegraph opinion machine:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/23/dysons-move-shows-thatcherite-dream-free-market-brexit-dying/

What was Sir James Dyson thinking? The decision by Britain’s most successful pro-Brexit entrepreneur to choose such an inopportune moment to relocate the HQ of his eponymous empire to Singapore is a gift to the Remainer establishment.

Symbolism is what matters in politics: the fact that only two employees are moving, and that Dyson is continuing to invest vast amounts in the UK, will go unnoticed. His critics will only remember that he is engineering his very own Dysexit, and the Leavers now have one fewer entrepreneur at their disposal to make the bullish case for post-Brexit Britain.

Yet while the “optics” are bad – and Sir James maintains in our business pages that the move has nothing to do with Brexit – he is being ruthlessly consistent. The vision of Leave-supporting entrepreneurs like him came in two parts: a radical break with the EU, including single market regulations, and for the UK to rebuild its economy by encouraging wealth-creation.

Two-and-a-half years after the referendum, the chances of getting either are receding: under Theresa May’s deal, even shorn of the backstop, we would remain subject to all kinds of heavy-handed rules. With the chances of a retro-socialist Jeremy Corbyn government also rising, Dyson must have felt compelled to take matters into his own hands.

He isn’t leaving because he’s changed his mind on the desirability of a real Brexit. He isn’t leaving because his firm would be damaged: the impact of no deal would be trivial given the location of his markets and production facilities.

He isn’t relocating to the EU, or Norway: he isn’t seeking to remain part of the single market, let alone the customs union. He is moving his HQ to Singapore, that low-tax, ultra competitive, pro-business city-state, the one place Remainers desperately say they don’t want the UK to become.

Yes, Singapore recently signed a trade deal with the EU, and Dyson was already planning to build his electric car there. But it's ridiculously Eurocentric to obsess about one deal with the EU. Dyson will be selling cars all over the world from Singapore, and in some cases will face barriers. Yet the attractiveness of the country swamps everything else.

If they had any sense, the Tories would respond to Dyson’s decision by concluding that we are not Brexiting in a radical enough way and that the chances of a Corbyn government are now too high to ignore. It is an indictment not of Brexit itself but of how it is being ruined by those entrusted with implementing it.


I don’t know of a single pro-Brexit business leader who is anything but despondent: they are aghast at Mrs May’s dithering, at the amateurishness of her dealings with the EU, at her almost deliberate talking down of the economy.

They can barely believe how the Treasury and other powerful Remain forces have failed to lay the grounds for no deal, how they have done nothing to cut taxes or to bolster competitiveness, how they still maintain that all of our regulations are perfect, and how a once in 50-year opportunity to engineer an economic renaissance is being squandered.

All are increasingly worried that we could be about to face a Corbyn government determined to confiscate swathes of corporate Britain, aided and abetted by rebel Tory MPs, the Government’s betrayal of Brexit voters and its pathetic inability to make the case for capitalism. Yet none of these entrepreneurs has suddenly embraced Remain.

They are bearish on the UK because their dream of a rejuvenated, free-trading Britain is dying, sabotaged by an establishment in denial about the need for Britain to adopt an economic model fit for a globalised world.

It is not just Brexiteers who believe the UK is becoming uncompetitive. Gopichand Hinduja, a Remainer whose family controls a £20.6 billion fortune, thinks taxes are driving people away.

“There used to be a lot of ease of doing business,” he says. “Now, with changes in tax-doms, non-doms – they have made so many complications that people don’t even know what returns they have to file,” he told The Telegraph.

“I have found many of my rich friends – billionaires – have left London and become residents either in Dubai or Singapore or Lebanon.”

The tragic reality is that the free-market, low-tax Brexit backed by Thatcherites and libertarians no longer appears to be a likely outcome of the machinations of the next few weeks. If we do technically leave the EU, it will probably be through an adulterated variant of Mrs May’s dour, pessimistic, useless deal, one that means we end up saddled with much of the EU’s acquis communautaire. It will be a case of more managed decline, Eurozone-style.

In her Bruges speech, Lady Thatcher grounded her opposition to political integration in her support for individual freedom, bottom-up decision-making and free-markets.

“Just when those countries such as the Soviet Union, which have tried to run everything from the centre, are learning that success depends on dispersing power and decisions [...], there are some in the Community who seem to want to move in the opposite direction. We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level.”

These words launched a thousand Eurosceptic vessels: from that day on, most British free-marketeers became increasingly anti-EU; without that movement, the referendum would never have been called.

If you want to know what could have been, had the right people taken power after June 2016, rewatch Martin Durkin’s brilliant Brexit: The Movie. The documentary was shared like a modern-day Samizdat prior to the referendum; it didn’t mention immigration once yet made an extraordinarily powerful case for the kind of capitalist Brexit that Thatcherites always dreamt of.

Is it all over? Or could we still end up with a radically liberalising Brexit, one that repositions Britain as an entrepot economy specialising in trade, technology, finance and science, a high-skilled hub that attracts wealth and talent to the UK, a link between East and West that encourages the next generation of Dysons to relocate to our shores, rather than flee them? Yes, of course – but then again I do believe in miracles.

(Emphasis mine)

So there you have it. Dyson isn't leaving Britain because of Brexit, it's because Brexit is unlikely to be Brexity enough. Singapore on Thames dashed, etc.

Strazdas

eggman100 wrote: »

Another misconception, a misunderstanding of 'working class' people or the poorer communities. They did not vote leave because of Austerity. I talked to people immigrants from the 70s/80s who were from the poorer areas. Hard working people. Theynvoted to leave for democracy and the problems caused by uncontrolled unmanaged immigration. Whereas most people voted leave purely on soveriegnity and democratic reasons

What does that even mean? It's a great soundbite but a meaningless one. The countries that have "controlled, managed immigration" like the US, Canada and Australia have much higher net immigration than the UK.

A Dub in Glasgo

eggman100 wrote: »

I do agree though that the UK trains could be improved, but taking them into state ownership again? No not the answer

Well the infrastructure and the operation of that infrastructure is already in state ownership in Britain

Captain Obvious

eggman100 wrote: »

Living in the UK indeed I do for many years. I have seen for myself how inefficient services are under state/public ownership, and how they are loss making. Government services always are, especially under socialist governments. I've seen the benefits of privatisation and how its saves the taxpayer so much money that can be spent on other things or to keep taxes low.
The public transport of Ireland and the UK cannot be compared. In many parts of Ireland there is no service beyond Athlone. Or like 1 bus a day - a train? Forget it what train. I do agree though that the UK trains could be improved, but taking them into state ownership again? No not the answer

Can you give a few examples of where privatisation of public services has made things better for people in the UK?

eggman100 wrote: »

Another misconception, a misunderstanding of 'working class' people or the poorer communities. They did not vote leave because of Austerity. I talked to people immigrants from the 70s/80s who were from the poorer areas. Hard working people. Theynvoted to leave for democracy and the problems caused by uncontrolled unmanaged immigration. Whereas most people voted leave purely on soveriegnity and democratic reasons

Can you elaborate on those reasons? What democracy are they gaining? Why is Mogg looking to suspend parliament? Doesn't seem democratic? How have the working class been so negatively affected by EU workers coming in?

eggman100

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

You're right, but there's no need to put any emotion into a proposal from the DUP. They're fully irrelevant in this process, what they say or want doesn't matter.

The DUP are very relevant and they have put in a lot of work for brexit and made very good cases. They will be rewarded I think

Hurrache

323 wrote: »

Betting this has nothing to do with brexit.

Large british multinational I used to work with and three others I know of moved their corporate headquarters and payroll to Singapore over the last 10 years.

Primary reason in each case was to avoid employers National Insurance contributions.

Difference was I bet they weren't cheer leaders for Brexit waffling about how great it's going to be for the economy and the people.

If it was going to be as good as he claims for business, it's a tad hypocritical to bail before it actually happens isn't it?

Strazdas

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Deliciously spun by the Telegraph opinion machine:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/23/dysons-move-shows-thatcherite-dream-free-market-brexit-dying/



(Emphasis mine)

So there you have it. Dyson isn't leaving Britain because of Brexit, it's because Brexit is unlikely to be Brexity enough. Singapore on Thames dashed, etc.

All bluff and bluster. Tom Newton-Dunn of the Sun said on the Sky papers review the other evening that most Brexiteers were secretly livid with Dyson for announcing this eight weeks before Brexit.

Hurrache

eggman100 wrote: »

the problems caused by uncontrolled unmanaged immigration.

Do you know who had control of immigration into the UK and weren't implementing rules they could have? I'll give you a hint, the UK government.

eggman100

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Cameron and Osborne loved to sing from the EU-are-evil sheet. It was convenient as they could point towards the poor Greeks and blame the EU for UK's austerity and Osborne's nasty grab the cash and run policies (which May continue when she took over). That pair have a lot to answer for in turning folks against the EU and for creating the environment that led to Farage's whipped up dramas.

And now, no one seems to be talking straight or have the courage to admit to the UK public that any deal they manage to get will never match or be as good as the deal they have now.

Either you weren't there or you have short memories. Nobody did as much for the remain campaign as Cameron and Osborne. They both campaigned their asses off telling us what terrible things would happen if we voted to leave

FrancieBrady

eggman100 wrote: »

The DUP are very relevant and they have put in a lot of work for brexit and made very good cases. They will be rewarded I think

So relevant are they that May has attempted to shaft them and looks odds on to succeed if you believe that there is no way in hell parliament will allow a crash out.

murphaph

eggman100 wrote: »

I have studied the EU since the late 90s and seen it go from bad to worse. I completely understand it and have been wanting the UK to leave since then, so this is nothing new and its a long time coming. It would have happened earlier and with a bigger vote majority had they given us the referendum years before instead of when it suited Cameron thinking his remain position would win. Your reply shows you have no idea about the EU, or why the UK voted to leave. Until you educate yourself, you will always be frustrated about it

Illogical position. The EU got worse in your opinion but you say the majority for remain grew in that time. How does that work?

Borderhopper

eggman100 wrote: »

Either you weren't there or you have short memories. Nobody did as much for the remain campaign as Cameron and Osborne. They both campaigned their asses off telling us what terrible things would happen if we voted to leave

But the U.K. hasn't left yet.

LuckyLloyd

eggman100 wrote: »

The DUP are very relevant and they have put in a lot of work for brexit and made very good cases. They will be rewarded I think

They were briefly relevant until they failed to offer any compromise and showed their hand as akin to that of the ERG. So May went and concluded a deal that ignores their concerns and her strategy - such as one exists - is to try and bring Brexit down to her deal / No Brexit as the ultimate options on the table. The DUP are off to the side, but it's now known where they are and as such they have lost any relevance they might have had.

In terms of being rewarded, if they achieve the No Deal outcome they effectively are aiding from here then they will be on the hook for the consequences suffered in NI. They may ultimately be creating the very situation that accelerates the one thing they absolutely loathe: a UI.

I cannot see how they could objectively be praised for their Brexit approach in any way.

LuckyLloyd

Strazdas wrote: »

All bluff and bluster. Tom Newton-Dunn of the Sun said on the Sky papers review the other evening that most Brexiteers were secretly livid with Dyson for announcing this eight weeks before Brexit.

Of course they were / are. Every business contingency plan that starts to kick in and is made visible weakens their argument. But that won't stop the true believers from spinning their little hearts out!

Thomas_IV

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0124/1025281-plans-for-brexit/

Government to publish plans for no-deal Brexit today

It is understood the 'heads of legislation' on a no-deal Brexit runs to more than 100 pages, and follows nine ministers bringing 17 different memos to Cabinet last Tuesday.

The heads of bill covers a variety of areas and attempts to both retain cooperation which all ready exists between Ireland and the UK, as well as provide additional protections Irish citizens.

In Justice, the legislation will examine who to deal with both extradition cases and the exchange of related documents. Immigration would be key area of focus.

In Social Protection, provisions are to be made on how to ensure workers in Ireland get their wages in the event of a UK company based here going insolvent post-Brexit.

Other areas covered by the legislation include finance, energy, transport, health and education.

Preparing for what becomes more looking as the inevitable.

Others beyond the Irish Sea are already making a fortune out of this:

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0122/1024795-brexit-survival-kit/

Brexit survival kit on sale for £295

With just nine weeks to go until Britain is due to leave the European Union, a company is selling worried Britons a survival kit to help them prepare for the worst.

The "Brexit Box", retailing at £295, provides food rations to last 30 days, according to its producer, businessman James Blake who says he has already sold hundreds of them.

With still no deal on how Britain will trade with the EU once it leaves, retailers and manufacturers have warned a no-deal Brexit could cause food and medicine shortages due to expected chaos at ports that could paralyse supply lines.

The Brexit Box includes 60 portions of freeze-dried UK favourites - chicken tikka, chilli con carne, macaroni cheese and chicken fajitas, 48 portions of dried mince and chicken, firelighter liquid and an emergency water filter.

...

The Brexit Box's long shelf life - the canned food will last up to 25 years - is appealing for consumers.

This box costs estimated €339!

If the UK is leaving with a deal and that means a Transition period is to take place, some of the customers who paid that much money might either feel a bit cheated of they can us that box for the next 25 years. But the fact that as the seller said hundreds of them boxes are already sold shows that people are now taking it very serious and likely that a hard Brexit will come to pass.

I'd think that for £295 in a month one gets more groceries for that amount of money. But well, this is another thing Brexit 'creates'.

murphaph

eggman100 wrote: »

Living in the UK indeed I do for many years. I have seen for myself how inefficient services are under state/public ownership, and how they are loss making. Government services always are, especially under socialist governments. I've seen the benefits of privatisation and how its saves the taxpayer so much money that can be spent on other things or to keep taxes low.
The public transport of Ireland and the UK cannot be compared. In many parts of Ireland there is no service beyond Athlone. Or like 1 bus a day - a train? Forget it what train. I do agree though that the UK trains could be improved, but taking them into state ownership again? No not the answer

But the EU has encouraged the privatisation of things like railways, forcing state operators to open up the infrastructure to competitors. We have several operators in this part of Germany. What's your point again?

Panrich

Holidaymakers will be bumped off ferries to allow delivery of essential supplies in the event of a crashout. When you start to think about shipping medicines and vital supplies via passenger ferries, it's time to look at your plan again.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-46946499

Captain Obvious

Free movement applies to citizens of the EU.

Edit: This was a reply to eggman who seemed to be under the impression that refugees were using free movement to get into the UK.

ancapailldorcha

Off topic post deleted. Eggman100, please read the charter before posting here again and do not drag the thread off topic.

eggman100

Panrich wrote: »

Holidaymakers will be bumped off ferries to allow delivery of essential supplies in the event of a crashout. When you start to think about shipping medicines and vital supplies via passenger ferries, it's time to look at your plan again.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-46946499

Medicines are made in the UK, and the UK would not hold up imports from the EU anyway. The only people suggesting a problem are the EU on UK exports. But that is their lookout if they want to cut off their noses to spite their faces. Project fear strikes again.

ancapailldorcha

eggman100 wrote: »

Project fear strikes again.

No more inflammatory soundbytes please.

Leroy42

eggman100 wrote: »

Medicines are made in the UK, and the UK would not hold up imports from the EU anyway. The only people suggesting a problem are the EU on UK exports. But that is their lookout if they want to cut off their noses to spite their faces

What regulations are they going to base the import on? Will they have a new medicines application board up and running and checking or will they simply use the existing EU system? And will they let them in without any checks, as the same would then have to be done for any other country and how will the UK ensure the medicines then?

Or if they place the WTO tariffs, as teh likes of JRM suggest they wil do, who will pay that extra cost?

jm08

eggman100 wrote: »

That is a difficult one to call. They may have priced in what they think is going to happen already. Don't forget that currency trading is speculative and it can be oversold or undersold.
In the case of no deal I predict the £ could fall initially then as the UK reaps the benefits and adjusts to the new status quo of being no longer a member of the EU, the £ will rise back up to old levels. The Eurozone will be weaker without its top 3 contributor and the EU will have to find the money from France or Germany but they aren't doing too well either. EU contributions will rise from remaining member states. Taxes will rise

Looks like the UK will still be contributing to the fund:

Most of the revenue from tariffs on all non-EU goods goes straight to Brussels. These revenues, which are known in EU jargon as "own resources", are used to pay for the Common Agricultural Policy's farm payments, regional funds and other things.

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/dan-obrien-if-theres-no-deal-over-brexit-our-choice-is-stark-build-a-hard-border-or-pay-an-enormous-price-37743957.html

Captain Obvious

eggman100 wrote: »

Medicines are made in the UK, and the UK would not hold up imports from the EU anyway. The only people suggesting a problem are the EU on UK exports. But that is their lookout if they want to cut off their noses to spite their faces. Project fear strikes again.

Who will be delivering these medicines? Will the delivery drivers have to have dual EU/UK nationality? You're not even thinking of practical issues.

eggman100

Thomas_IV wrote: »

This box costs estimated €339!


I'd think that for £295 in a month one gets more groceries for that amount of money. But well, this is another thing Brexit 'creates'.

A business making a lot of money out of very gullible people. Anyone stupid enough not to see how they could put together their own similar box at supermarkets or elsewhere for a fraction of the cost deserve to be fleeced.

Panic room boxes are nothing new by the way they appeared during the financial crash. We survived a two world wars and rations. I think we can survive Brexit lol, even if the hysteria and BS is true, which of course it isn't.

EdgeCase

eggman100 wrote: »

Medicines are made in the UK, and the UK would not hold up imports from the EU anyway. The only people suggesting a problem are the EU on UK exports. But that is their lookout if they want to cut off their noses to spite their faces. Project fear strikes again.

Some medicines are made in the UK. Quite a lot more are made in the EU, including here and many are made in complex supply chains that need ingredients and components from elsewhere.