Brexit

1…78101213…37

Comments

  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    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.
  • YeoldhammerYeoldhammer
    Haha cheif Brexit Businessman himself Dyson moving his HQ abroad. xD
  • imagelostimagelost
    He wants to out of Europe
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    edited January 2019
    ...and Singapore is about as out of Europe as you can get.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    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


  • BubblesNeverDiesBubblesNeverDies
    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
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    Depends what they mean by investment, UK government spending on railways was around £15bn in 2016/17.
  • BubblesNeverDiesBubblesNeverDies
    Aslef, now I'm confused. ;puzzled
  • TheMadcapLaughsTheMadcapLaughs
    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.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    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?
  • OldCastleSwiftOldCastleSwift
    edited January 2019
    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
  • BubblesNeverDiesBubblesNeverDies
    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
  • YeoldhammerYeoldhammer
    She will be back in Parliament in 2 weeks trying to get the same deal that was voted down through.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    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.
  • TheMadcapLaughsTheMadcapLaughs
    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.
  • BubblesNeverDiesBubblesNeverDies
    Madcap, it would definitely stop the process/continuation of peace.
  • TheMadcapLaughsTheMadcapLaughs
    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.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    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.
  • TheMadcapLaughsTheMadcapLaughs
    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
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    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



  • BubblesNeverDiesBubblesNeverDies
    Who'd'a thunk it? ;biggrin
  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    edited January 2019
    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.
  • puddleglumhammerspuddleglumhammers
    edited January 2019
    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/
  • BubblesNeverDiesBubblesNeverDies
    She's suffering from selective amnesia.
  • imagelostimagelost
    edited January 2019
    I thought the vote was to leave Europe t


    I mean our vote
  • BubblesNeverDiesBubblesNeverDies
    You mean 37% of the electorate? Not mine.
  • imagelostimagelost
    BubblesNeverDies said:

    You mean 37% of the electorate? Not mine.

    Where that come from?
  • BubblesNeverDiesBubblesNeverDies
    edited January 2019
    Image, you say "our" vote.
    It was only 37% of those eligible to vote (in June 2016) who voted to leave, so not exactly "our" vote, and definitely not my vote.
    You got it right in your first sentence.
  • TheMadcapLaughsTheMadcapLaughs
    The Irish border question has been thus far represented as an almost insoluble problem that looks likely to de-rail Brexit. I have read a reasonable amount in regards to "the border problem" and (imo) the fears seem a little overblown. As I`ve said earlier, there is no guarantee that there will ever be a need for any type of border controls, if the politicians on both sides (the UK and EU) get their acts together (hahaha) then with reasonable trade agreements and, failing that, the use of super clever technology the threat of a hard border is simply that, a threat. In a worse case scenario, where border checks for goods are introduced, then to use this as an excuse, or as an incitement to violence, is (imo), mind boggling. Yes, a hard border is a backward step, I don`t disagree with anyone on that, but I can`t see it returning us to the bad old days where we are "at war". The following article puts this far better than I can, I know most will not agree with it, but it is an alternate and (imo) a valid view:

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/the-irish-border-is-the-eus-problem-not-ours/
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited January 2019
    TheMadcapLaughs said:

    As I`ve said earlier, there is no guarantee that there will ever be a need for any type of border controls,

    But there is also no guarantee that there won't. That's the sticking point at the moment.

    So we can hope for the best, but the Agreement ('Deal') has to plan for the worst.

    And there isn't enough support for the 'just in case' provisions.

    Of course, if the DUP or the hard-line anti-EU MPs were of your mind, they'd just go 'meh, I'm sure it will all work out OK in the end' and give it the ;ok
Sign In or Register to comment.