EU-BREXIT - Page 199 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
User avatar
By Kaiserschmarrn
#15012410
Atlantis wrote:John is right, companies have deliberately kept a low profile in the Brexit campaign so as not to provoke a knee-jerk reaction against the "big bad capitalists". Some are even now being accused of not having given sufficient warning before the vote about the damage Brexit would cause. As to the reasons given for the closures, most CEOs who want to continue doing business in the UK know better than to get on the wrong side of the government. Whatever other reasons there may be, Brexit quite clearly is a principle reason for the drastic reduction in car manufacturing.

John is right that the EU Japan trade deal is probably the main cause for Japanese auto makers. I've heard too many warnings and complaints by UK companies to give the rest of the argument much credit, especially since the government has had incentive to encourage this behaviour.

Atlantis wrote:The UK needs to attract the inflow of capital to offset the double deficit (budget and trade). As the BoE chairman said "the UK lives by the kindness of strangers." In other words, the government is forced to continue deregulating until it has sold the last of its table silver so as to keep the house of cards from collapsing. Moreover, much of that money is probably linked to the empire of British tax havens that is managed by the City of London. That money channeled via the tax havens is probably several times the size of the real UK economy.

I might have missed it, but I haven't seen anything significant in terms of deregulation since the referendum. Considering that there are countries such as Germany which get paid to borrow money, it shouldn't really surprise anybody that the UK still gets a decent amount of inward investment. The idea that its attractiveness is almost entirely dependent on its EU membership always seemed odd and somewhat removed from reality. It's probably true for Ireland but not so much for the UK.

Atlantis wrote:Following Brexit, that flow has been reduced and more money goes to the continent. But I understand why the Brexitters you cite need to give it a different spin.

It's reduced across Europe:

Year 2005–2007 (avg) 2015 2016 2017 2018

UK 169,046 39,186 196,132 101,238 64,487

France 40,685 45,347 23,061 29,802 37,294

Germany 61,106 41,444 23,500 36,931 25,706

EU 613,484 635,840 556,119 340,570 277,640

Europe 650,919 715,017 611,694 384,023 171,877
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15012425
Atlantis wrote:John is right, companies have deliberately kept a low profile in the Brexit campaign so as not to provoke a knee-jerk reaction against the "big bad capitalists". Some are even now being accused of not having given sufficient warning before the vote about the damage Brexit would cause. As to the reasons given for the closures, most CEOs who want to continue doing business in the UK know better than to get on the wrong side of the government. Whatever other reasons there may be, Brexit quite clearly is a principle reason for the drastic reduction in car manufacturing.



The UK needs to attract the inflow of capital to offset the double deficit (budget and trade). As the BoE chairman said "the UK lives by the kindness of strangers." In other words, the government is forced to continue deregulating until it has sold the last of its table silver so as to keep the house of cards from collapsing. Moreover, much of that money is probably linked to the empire of British tax havens that is managed by the City of London. That money channeled via the tax havens is probably several times the size of the real UK economy.

Following Brexit, that flow has been reduced and more money goes to the continent. But I understand why the Brexitters you cite need to give it a different spin.


Nonsense-

The 'kindness' you refer to, is that of foreign investors in the Bond market, Insurance companies, they are all speculators, hoping for a return on capital, either from equity dividends, or from Gilts, which is a longer term investment dependent on how domestic inflation is managed through monetary policy, in order to garner a real return net of tax.
As for taking the silver off the table, in traditional Treasury parlance, when the expenditure is squeezed in one way, it expands in another.

This is the case with this government's budgeting policies, it has squeezed down on short term(current) spending, but as a result of that, the long term borrowing(national debt)has increased.

It had to, otherwise, as Liam BYRNE said when Labour were kicked out, " Sorry, there's no money left" , which would mean, either the government department's would shut down, or, as was\is the case, spending has continued, with the result that the national debt has increased from £500 BILLION when Labour left office, to £2 TRILLION under the Tories after 9 years of austerity.

Car companies retreating back to the E.U is only partially a result of Brexit, it's mainly a change in consumer sentiment with respect to the concerns with the planet & wanting to become 'greener'.

There is a cost to those companies, because, when we do leave, if there is no deal on customs, tariffs will become mutual & those companies will have to pay this coun try to import their produce.

To that end, consumers should lean towards British products in future, though, at the moment, investment is not being directed towards that opportunity which leaving has promised to offer & that is typically a very British phenomena.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15012480
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:UK companies have frequently cried Brexit before and I wouldn't be surprised if the UK government had actually encouraged this at times in order to get its extremely unpopular deal across the line or to prevent Brexit altogether. At any rate, I'm under no illusion that we are getting a complete, honest and accurate picture, and this is of course also the case for industries on the continent that are exposed to the UK leaving the EU.


The above seems to imply that the UK had somehow blocked or delayed the trade deal between the EU and Japan before the Brexit referendum. If that's what you are trying to say, could you show me evidence for this? I think you overestimate the UK's desire to protect industries relative to much of continental Europe. The UK often doesn't even try, e.g. see the controversy about Royal Navy support vessels.

---------------------------------------

Here is another turn around by Airbus.

FDI since the referendum:


I forgot to answer to this. Here is a link from 2016: https://www.politico.eu/article/japan-e ... -industry/

You know how it ended up. Basically Japan was forced to do the deal because the UK fucked them hard. (Short summary)
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15012539
Labour's Deputy Leader, Tom WATSON, is doing the rounds on behalf of the BLAIR-BROWN vs CORBYN fault lines in that party.

I sometimes wonder if WATSON is brain dead, it's as if he is arguing in the face of the reality of the 17.4 million that voted to leave the E.U, by completely ignoring the referendum result.

I think he has lost touch with reality, does he think that Labour will win the next election by competing with the Lib Dems for 'remain' votes, if so, he is also delusional.

In fact, I don't think he does, because, that's not what he is fighting for, he is actually fighting an internal campaign against CORBYN on the side of the BLAIRITE traitors that left the party & he cannot stomach CORBYN winning.

What he needs to be reminded of though, is the fact that Labour will not be elected again on the BLAIRITE ticket, because that 'Labour' government was kicked out of office by the voters in 2010.
User avatar
By Kaiserschmarrn
#15012540
JohnRawls wrote:I forgot to answer to this. Here is a link from 2016: https://www.politico.eu/article/japan-e ... -industry/

You know how it ended up. Basically Japan was forced to do the deal because the UK fucked them hard. (Short summary)

Thanks. It sounds like Japan had previously prioritised the TPP, but then had doubts about the US's commitment (which was correct as it turned out). The article also confirms that the UK hadn't blocked the phasing out of tariffs on cars before the referendum.
The EU is also revamping a tariff offer that has long been on the table. According to people briefed on the talks, Brussels will phase out tariffs on cars imported from Japan — now at 10 percent — if Tokyo eases access to its agricultural market, especially on dairy products, pasta, pork and wine.

So while it is likely true that Brexit has accelerated the deal in that it is partly responsible for redirecting Japan's focus on the EU, I still don't see how the article supports this part of your argument, as the UK's absence in EU institutions doesn't seem to have significantly influenced the EU's tariff offer:
Little did they consider that Japanese-EU trade deal passed almost straight away after UK was excluded with UKs consent. This trade deal is good for everyone besides the UK. Since Japanese manufacturers outsource a lot of production to circumvent EU-Japanese tarifs then they do not need to do it anymore. The tarifs are disappearing as we speak and will fully disappear by 2027. So basically there is no need for those plants in the UK. They can technically be anywhere in Europe or Japan depending on market conditions. And it works both ways for EU and Japan. So basically the UK fucked itself when it agreed to lower its presence within the EU institutions.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15012543
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Thanks. It sounds like Japan had previously prioritised the TPP, but then had doubts about the US's commitment (which was correct as it turned out). The article also confirms that the UK hadn't blocked the phasing out of tariffs on cars before the referendum.

So while it is likely true that Brexit has accelerated the deal in that it is partly responsible for redirecting Japan's focus on the EU, I still don't see how the article supports this part of your argument, as the UK's absence in EU institutions doesn't seem to have significantly influenced the EU's tariff offer:


I probably won't be able to find clear statements from UK that they are against the EU-Japan trade deal. In my opinion it is pretty obvious what conclusions you make from this although with a degree of guessing:

1) UK was against the deal because it hurts it the most. It will loose profits from tariffs because it is a gateway to Europe and also the factories that can go anywhere now which makes it loose jobs. (The tariffs are supposed to go to 0 for agriculture and cars by 2027)

2) UK reinvigorated the deal with Brexit. Is this related to Japan being fucked or UK not having a voice? I mean probably both. But that is irrelevant because Brexit did make the deal possible one way or the other.

I think that these assumptions are not very wild or out of line here.
User avatar
By Beren
#15012548
Nonsense wrote:does he think that Labour will win the next election by competing with the Lib Dems for 'remain' votes, if so, he is also delusional.

He's delusional indeed then, because Labour will have to run in an electoral coalition with the Lib Dems that should include the Greens too, if they want to beat the Conservatives led by BoJo, who are going to siphon off about half of the Brexit Party voters.
User avatar
By Kaiserschmarrn
#15012564
JohnRawls wrote:
I probably won't be able to find clear statements from UK that they are against the EU-Japan trade deal. In my opinion it is pretty obvious what conclusions you make from this although with a degree of guessing:

1) UK was against the deal because it hurts it the most. It will loose profits from tariffs because it is a gateway to Europe and also the factories that can go anywhere now which makes it loose jobs. (The tariffs are supposed to go to 0 for agriculture and cars by 2027)

2) UK reinvigorated the deal with Brexit. Is this related to Japan being fucked or UK not having a voice? I mean probably both. But that is irrelevant because Brexit did make the deal possible one way or the other.

I think that these assumptions are not very wild or out of line here.

I can't find anything about the UK opposing the deal either, including on government websites. However, I did find lots of support for it and statements about its benefits to the UK economy. As I said before, I think you overestimate the UK's protectionist instincts especially when it comes to manufacturing industries.

I also found this account of the negotiations which doesn't mention the UK or its car industry at all but describes the impasse and resolution as follows:
Politico wrote:
[...]

A sudden change in the wind

The 11th hour mission to Tokyo by Malmström and Hogan was the last big heave in negotiations that often seemed close to failure over recent years, primarily because Japan's politicians were unable to make concessions on agriculture. In part, Tokyo feared that EU farm exports would wipe out fragile rural communities inhabited predominantly by elderly farmers. But EU negotiators also complained Japan was intransigent over products such as tomatoes, chocolate and pasta, where it has no real defensive interests.

Talks had become so bogged down and embittered by the end of 2015 that Mauro Petriccione, the EU's chief negotiator, warned that Brussels could face a terminal credibility crisis if negotiations dragged on much longer without a breakthrough.

Negotiations limped on through 2016 until U.S. President Donald Trump's election in November suddenly forged an entirely new political dynamic. In January, the protectionist president pulled the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership with Japan and 10 other Pacific Rim countries. In an instant, the game had changed.

Trump's rejection of the TPP was a devastating blow to Tokyo, which had long seen the U.S. as the cornerstone of its foreign policy and the guarantor of its security in the face of Chinese naval expansion and North Korean missile launches. For weeks, Japanese officials were in denial and still held out hope that the TPP might survive.

In February, Japanese Prime Minister Abe made a last-ditch attempt to cozy up to Trump by going off to play golf with him at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. Shortly afterward, the Japanese realized it was time to switch horses and make a big push for a European deal. Free trade is a key pillar of the prime minister's policy of "Abenomics" to jolt the economy out of decades of cryogenic stasis, and it became clear that the EU was now the most obvious partner.

“Sometimes I felt that we could never conclude this one, but sometimes the wind comes from another way and suddenly accelerates [talks],” said Japan's foreign ministry spokesman, Norio Maruyama, after the deal was agreed at a political level on Thursday.

In March, Abe visited European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker to try to breathe new life into the EU talks. Diplomats say the process was dramatically catalyzed by the intervention of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who made it clear she wanted a deal before the G20 meeting in Hamburg in July, where she could parade the Brussels-Tokyo pact as a direct rebuke to Trump's protectionism.

[...]


How would you interpret the statement that "The EU is also revamping a tariff offer that has long been on the table"?
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15012635
Beren wrote:He's delusional indeed then, because Labour will have to run in an electoral coalition with the Lib Dems that should include the Greens too, if they want to beat the Conservatives led by BoJo, who are going to siphon off about half of the Brexit Party voters.


Nonsense-

He is either delusional, or completely & utterly wrong in my opinion.

I have held the view for a good while, that the majority of people who are 'British', in the sense that their families have origins dating back many hundreds,if not thousands of years(although you can argue about that), have simply had enough of the E.U with it's borders open to migrants from across the globe(Third Country) without any control on numbers or even necessity to even need them here in europe.

I think that the people decided, 'enough, is enough' & that they saw the opportunity which CAMERON gave them, to 'kill two birds with one stone', that is to 'get out of europe', secondly, to, 'get rid of the Tories', together, which I called the, 'Nuclear Option'.

The Tories, even if they now deliver, are finished politically,simply on the basis of how they have handled it in parliament,as well as in the wider area of their policies on austerity & division.

Labour's 'BLAIRITE' wing, residue, apart from a remaining few,like WATSON, who are fighting a rearguard action against CORBYN, would not be having any impact, if it were not for CORBYN 'sitting on the fence', as opposed to coming off that fence & standing full square with the 17.4 million who voted leave.

Those MP's that left Labour after their failed mission in the Commons, are all BLAIRITE & are now out in the political wilderness from where they will disappear from view as rebels without a cause.
Now, I understand that a remain constituent part of Labour, headed by a BLAIRITE clique, with some in CORBYN's Shadow Cabinet are using the opposite view of leave, to sabotage CORBYN & Labour's election chances.
Those people don't care about that, they are, at root, Tories in Labour clothes, they have always been present in the Labour Party, that's why Labour have never delivered the radical changes that the majority of people have voted them in to do since the party was formed.

The Tories always deliver for their own kind, in contrast to the treachery of the LABOUR Party in power.
By snapdragon
#15012667
Nonsense wrote:Nonsense-

He is either delusional, or completely & utterly wrong in my opinion.

I have held the view for a good while, that the majority of people who are 'British', in the sense that their families have origins dating back many hundreds,if not thousands of years(although you can argue about that), have simply had enough of the E.U with it's borders open to migrants from across the globe(Third Country) without any control on numbers or even necessity to even need them here in europe.


I complelely dispute your claim it's the majority of people who think that, but immigration is the main reason people voted to leave, especially the elderly.

My friend's father-in-law voted leave to get rid of Muslim immigrants. He's fairly typical.

I think that the people decided, 'enough, is enough' & that they saw the opportunity which CAMERON gave them, to 'kill two birds with one stone', that is to 'get out of europe', secondly, to, 'get rid of the Tories', together, which I called the, 'Nuclear Option'.


Some people did. Mostly the elderly and poorly educated.


The Tories, even if they now deliver, are finished politically,simply on the basis of how they have handled it in parliament,as well as in the wider area of their policies on austerity & division.



They can't deliver and had no business promising they could.

Labour's 'BLAIRITE' wing, residue, apart from a remaining few,like WATSON, who are fighting a rearguard action against CORBYN, would not be having any impact, if it were not for CORBYN 'sitting on the fence', as opposed to coming off that fence & standing full square with the 17.4 million who voted leave.



Labour voters would leave in droves if he were to do that and he knows it.

Those MP's that left Labour after their failed mission in the Commons, are all BLAIRITE & are now out in the political wilderness from where they will disappear from view as rebels without a cause.
Now, I understand that a remain constituent part of Labour, headed by a BLAIRITE clique, with some in CORBYN's Shadow Cabinet are using the opposite view of leave, to sabotage CORBYN & Labour's election chances.


Seriously? The majority of Labour supporters want to remain.


Those people don't care about that, they are, at root, Tories in Labour clothes, they have always been present in the Labour Party, that's why Labour have never delivered the radical changes that the majority of people have voted them in to do since the party was formed.

The Tories always deliver for their own kind, in contrast to the treachery of the LABOUR Party in power.



You have no idea what you are talking about. Where does all that come from?
User avatar
By Kaiserschmarrn
#15013013
The poorly educated and the elderly are the new antagonists of the left. It's a brave new world indeed. :lol:
User avatar
By Kaiserschmarrn
#15013017
I think in the short term going full remain would probably benefit Labour, whereas in the long term it's a questionable strategy to alienate its most loyal group of voters to please the fickle who are more likely to defect.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15013025
skinster wrote:Corbyn repeats same statement on Brexit position and fails to impress remainers who don't know how to read/listen


Well, it is his job as a politician to convince. If he is not capable of that then this just means he is bad at what is required of him. That is why he is a political looser as i stated before.
By snapdragon
#15013102
JohnRawls wrote:Well, it is his job as a politician to convince. If he is not capable of that then this just means he is bad at what is required of him. That is why he is a political looser as i stated before.


His heart isn't in remaining and never has been. He wants Britain to become a socialist country and he can't do that while we're in the EU.

It's not really as simple as that, either. Unfortunately, he's listening to his mates too much.

John McDonnel, Seumas Milne and Andrew Drummond -Murray.

I believe Corbyn is a nice man, but he would make a very bad PM.
By Rich
#15013110
The key to understanding the current situation is to realise that as well as the well grounded concerns about immigration generally, a substantial part of the electorate want to reduce Muslim and African immigration in particular, but do not want to admit it even to themselves. This why the slogan "taking back control" is so popular, its the classic dog whistle promise. I don't think the dog whistle in politics is generally understood. The dog whistle is normally portrayed as a way to signal to "extremists" while not upsetting moderates. This is not the really the case. Extremists are not likely to be trusting of mainstream politicians and usually make up a small portion of the electorate. No the point of the dog whistle is to signal to the moderate, so as the moderate can deny his real political aspirations, to others and quite possibly even to him / herself.

Its time to recognise that the British electorate (like every other human population that has ever existed) is deeply hypocritical. We saw this most clearly with the Windrush scandal. To control immigration to a prosperous western country you need an extremely harsh environment. When Teresa May was at the home office she made a few small steps towards such an environment. She was dutifully fulfilling the mandate of the people, but then as soon as there's a minor bit of blow back like the Windrush scandal the hypocritical electorate turns on its politicians.

Politicians like Boris and Farage are so successful because they know how to tac to the capricious mood swings of the British public. they humour the electorate, always holding it blameless like courtiers grovelling before the capricious incompetence of a Medieval monarch. However these dishonest tactics are not confined to the right and centre.
By layman
#15013112
Major split in labour front bench. Getting intense and can’t be blamed on old Blairists anymore given the names.

People are overstating the Farcical nature of this I think. No political system in the world can solve an issue so fundamental and so split down the middle with such little middle ground.

It’s obvious now that such changes need a bigger majority to initiate. Other than that, there simply is no good solution. Maybe second lesson is to realise that...

@snapdragon mcdonnel is now pushing for full on remain though likely a tactical vote winning move. He realises there is no winning hard brexit types who will never trust labour. Milne is the big problem and needs to go.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15013126
layman wrote:labour

This is a Tory shitshow.

Labour has no way of stopping it. Even if there is a general election, with Boris going WTO or bust, Labour will lose it. Tory gerrymandering and the bastard Yellow Tories will see to that.

So, "Suck it up, you won."*


:lol:

* By 230 votes, when you threw out May's deal.
By snapdragon
#15013129
layman wrote: @snapdragon mcdonnel is now pushing for full on remain though likely a tactical vote winning move. He realises there is no winning hard brexit types who will never trust labour. Milne is the big problem and needs to go.


Blimey- I didn't know that. Thanks.

I agree about McDonnell.

He may be just a running with the foxes and hunting with the hounds type, until he tears off his beard and whiskers when he's finally in a place of real power. A few mixed metaphors there, but you get my drift.

I also agree Milne needs to go - and so does the arsehole Drummond-Murray and his entire family.

They're a menace and have too much influence.
  • 1
  • 197
  • 198
  • 199
  • 200
  • 201
  • 207

Ricky Rossello is the son of the previous nepotist[…]

Syrian war thread

They're mainly mercenaries. This was established[…]

Election 2020

quite frankly I was not aware of her. She was los[…]

Nice or Gentle Dictatorships

Oh, I love free thinking. I also happen to hate […]