Brexit

Hammerex

Think we should stick to football, much safer ;hmm

TheMadcapLaughs

Hammerex said:

Think we should stick to football, much safer ;hmm

This is probably the most sensible thing in regards to Brexit I`ve read across all forums, including The BBC daily HYS. At the end of the day, for the vast majority of us, either staying in or leaving (crashing out) makes diddly squat difference to our daily lives. West Ham will still frustrate, disappoint and occasionally delight us. Most of us will still have to endure the daily grind to pay off our mortgage. And politicians old and new will continue to tell us fibs. So next time life is getting you down, West Ham have been knocked out of the cup by lower league opposition, your major appliance (just out of warranty) decides it`s had enough, and your dog decides to roll around in something unspeakable, remember:

"we are all in this together.............."

claretandbluesky

I think one of the reasons Brexit has galvanised such emotional debate is that people perceive, rightly or wrongly that this could actually have a massive effect upon peoples daily lives. Should it go very wrong jobs could be lost, houses could be repossessed and already underfunded public services could become skeletal.

My view has always been that we will either not leave or leave in name only. At this point I suspect we will leave and relinquish our voice and standing in Europe but retain trade ties sufficiently by leaving in name only.

ASLEFshrugged

Dyson is moving its HQ to Singapore but the move will not effect the 3,500 jobs in Malmesbury.


Not yet...

thornburyiron

All Dyson products are manufactured in Asia. Malmesbury houses his design teams and his university. Has been for some time.
My friends son works there and is currently working on the electric car but he told us a while back that they don’t make anything in the UK as it is far cheaper to make products in Asia. I did ask him why their products are so expensive then and he said it’s partly to recover research and design costs.

Yeoldhammer

Haha cheif Brexit Businessman himself Dyson moving his HQ abroad. xD

imagelost

He wants to out of Europe

ASLEFshrugged

...and Singapore is about as out of Europe as you can get.

MrsGrey

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/23/britain-could-triple-state-aid-for-industry-under-eu-rules

Governments have been hiding behind this for years, falsely blaming 'nasty EU rules' for something that is their own choice. And imo the current Labour leadership is no different.

The kicker is in the last line: under any post-Brexit trade deal with the EU, the UK will have to continue to match (in practice) the EU rules on state aid anyway. Because they are designed to prevent unfair competition and trade.


;angry

BubblesNeverDies

From that article:
Subsidies to the rail sector are treated separately and show the UK could substantially increase the cash it spends each year.
Britain only invests £825m a year in its rail system, according to EU, compared with Germany’s £10.3bn and France’s £10.7bn.

That's more than 12 times what the UK spends.
;nonono

ASLEFshrugged

Depends what they mean by investment, UK government spending on railways was around £15bn in 2016/17.

BubblesNeverDies

Aslef, now I'm confused. ;puzzled

TheMadcapLaughs

Mrs G. The murky World of business. Nationalise the Postal Service or the steel industry and the neoliberal globalisers will accuse you of unfair competition and meddling in the "free" market. Give a huge multinational tax breaks, re-location expenses and "grants" for buildings/infrastructure and that appears to be OK. We are also happy to buy limitless quantities of stuff from China, which in theory, is 100% state funded. If there is money to be made, "rules", will be broken (or open to interpretation as the politicians will say). Not a particular fan of huge state run monopolies, but for certain "essentials", they must trump huge privately owned monopolies.

MrsGrey

So May told us it was her deal or no deal.

Apparently, that wasn't right - it's the 'new deal' she's going to get for us.

The one the EU says she can't have.

The one that will replace the backstop with various unspecified 'technological solutions' that (a) no-one can describe and (b) don't exist.

Expelliarmus?

OldCastleSwift

It's almost as if she has no idea what she's doing ;hmm

Unless she knows exactly what she's doing, i.e. deliberately running down the clock with the promise of impossible negotiations with a view to forcing a No Deal Brexit

Or

This has all been a brilliant Remainer-at-heart performance with the end game of revoking Article 50 as her deal will not pass through a Parliament which has already voted against No Deal

BubblesNeverDies

OCS, from what I've read, I think she was always a sitter-on-the-fence type, a little like the way JC is behaving.
I do, however, agree with your first sentence. ;biggrin

Yeoldhammer

She will be back in Parliament in 2 weeks trying to get the same deal that was voted down through.

MrsGrey

My recollection of her as home secretary was that she was always very anti-eu, and anti-human rights. She was forever spending loads on lost causes at the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.

And lying.

TheMadcapLaughs

There is an article on the BBC that basically says that a hard border, I.E. customs checks etc. are not specifically in breach (in law) of the GFA. A hard border (quite rightly) is seen as a huge step backwards but, in theory, the spectre of a hard border should not stop (in law) the process of Brexit.

BubblesNeverDies

Madcap, it would definitely stop the process/continuation of peace.

TheMadcapLaughs

I don`t think it would help, but but surely it would be an inconvenience rather than an incitement to violence. As I understand it, until they can get the technology up to speed, (computers, scanners, clever software???) plus whatever arrangements the EU and the UK come up with in regards to trade arrangements, it would only be a temporary measure anyway.

MrsGrey

It would be more than an inconvenienece. It would breach the Good Friday Agreement.

Interestingly, that Agreement was based on the referendums carried out in both parts of Ireland.

(Worth mentioning, since we are apparently so honour-bound to implement the will o the people ;whistle )

Also interestingly, the DUP was the only political party opposed to it. Looks like they are having another go at getting rid of it.

TheMadcapLaughs

Mrs G. Not necessarily, in spirit yes, but reading this, It doesn`t appear to be so clear cut in law. I agree that a hard border should be avoided if at all possible. But surely with the use of technology, and the right trade agreements, a hard border should only be a temporary measure if it`s needed at all.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-46988529

MrsGrey

I followed the link in that article to the 'Reality Check'. Not unsurprisingly, it turns out that 'it's a bit more complicated than that'. ;biggrin

BubblesNeverDies

Who'd'a thunk it? ;biggrin

grey_til_I_dye

Madcap

With the amount of goodwill, compromise and effort shown by all parties to get to the GFA, I don't think suggesting to them that 'well, OK, it's not what you meant, but we are going to do it anyway' would prove much of a comfort.

puddleglumhammers

Here's a clip of May which I totally agreed with then and still do now. I only wish she did too.

facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/theresa-may-in-2016-i-think-we-should-stay-inside-the-eu/2200306190222181/

BubblesNeverDies

She's suffering from selective amnesia.

imagelost

I thought the vote was to leave Europe t


I mean our vote

BubblesNeverDies

You mean 37% of the electorate? Not mine.