Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: L.A. on August 29, 2016, 07:12:04 AM
-
I visited some old friends over the weekend. Many years ago my friend was a co-founder of a hi-tech medical equipment company and is still a director; and he is in despair over Brexit. The problems they face are these:
The equipment need approval.
The Eu is a major part of their market and a single approval gave then access all member countries.
It seems virtually certain that companies based in Britain will not be able to do this in future.
Without a single EU approval the process would be much slower and costly
I suggested that they might move the company to another EU state, Ireland for example, but many staff would not want to make the move and the team would break-up, in fact many key staff have already signalled that they are thinking of leaving - Canada seems to be a favourite destination. And my friend sees this kind of thing happening in a great many companies unless we have full access to the single market.
The bottom line is that unless Theresa May can produce some near miraculous solutions PDQ Britain is going to lose a lot of hi tech companies (with all the jobs and wealth that they create)
-
Is your friend prepared to go public with his concerns?
A start might be to write to the MP of the constituency where the firm is situated pointing out the potential damage to the well-being of the constituency. If the MP's response is less than adequate then publish the correspondence in the local paper.
-
L.A., I think that HH's post sums the whole thing up well. However, somehow we need to get the underlying issue that this exemplifies over to the public in a way that doesn't create fear but encourages them to think. I always felt that the true 'Project Fear' were the Brexiteers.
-
Is your friend prepared to go public with his concerns?
A start might be to write to the MP of the constituency where the firm is situated pointing out the potential damage to the well-being of the constituency. If the MP's response is less than adequate then publish the correspondence in the local paper.
I honestly don't know HH, I might suggest it, but I have heard similar things from industrialists on Radio 4, so it's no secret - if we lose the single market a lot of UK companies will shut up shop.
-
L.A., I think that HH's post sums the whole thing up well. However, somehow we need to get the underlying issue that this exemplifies over to the public in a way that doesn't create fear but encourages them to think. I always felt that the true 'Project Fear' were the Brexiteers.
I think it's probably a major short-coming in our educational system that the basic principles of commerce aren't part of the National Curriculum, with a result that the majority of our population just don't have a clue how business works.
-
I don't think that the prime minister's reaction to the situation we find ourselves in is particularly well thought out. She says "Brexit is Brexit" (whatever that means) and appears to think that she now has a mandate to leave the EU and so must seek the best outcome. I believe she has already met some opposition to this approach from her cabinet.
Does she really want to go down in history as the PM who reduced the UK (or what may be left of it) to the status of a south American failed state?
My judgement is that the more MPs learn about the consequences of leaving the EU to their constituencies, the more likely a considered rethink may take place.
Were we to leave the EU, the most likely game in town would be a special version of TTIP. By special version I mean firstly more advantageous to US corporations and secondly offered on a "take it or leave it" basis. That would see the destruction of the NHS. A wonderful epitaph to put on anyone's tombstone.
-
Yes, the "Brexit is Brexit" comment is a totally meaningless soundbyte, but to be fair, it's an impossible task she faces - you can't limit EU migration without damaging the economy.
-
You can't limit EU migration without damaging the economy.
Well don't do it then. We need to either have a Norway type deal or find some way of invalidating the referendum vote.
-
Well don't do it then. We need to either have a Norway type deal or find some way of invalidating the referendum vote.
That is the obvious way out, but it would infuriate the Brexteers and we wouldn't actually be any better off than we were pre-Brexit.
-
That is the obvious way out, but it would infuriate the Brexteers and we wouldn't actually be any better off than we were pre-Brexit.
Not just brexiteers
It would undermine the whole concept of democracy.
Theresa May knows this, so treads carefully.
"Brexit means Brexit" as meaningless as it is, shows acknowledgement of this.
She is saying that for a reason.
-
Not just brexiteers
It would undermine the whole concept of democracy.
Theresa May knows this, so treads carefully.
"Brexit means Brexit" as meaningless as it is, shows acknowledgement of this.
She is saying that for a reason.
Before they took the trouble to find out what they were talking about, many Brexiteers proudly quoted Norway as a shining example of what Brexit might achieve for us.
Norway, of course has free movement of labour with the EU and pays a fee, but such a deal would probably be our least-bad option given our present position - and as we would not be members of the EU it would certainly qualify as Brexit.
-
Not just brexiteers
It would undermine the whole concept of democracy.
Not necessarily.
As a hypothetical, consider a general election in which one party stands on the platform of canceling any attempt at Brexit and that party winning.
Or consider a second referendum that reverses the vote.
-
What do folk think about the suggestion by some MPs that any Brexit agreement should be put before the electorate in yet another referendum (or single-issue General Election)?
-
What do folk think about the suggestion by some MPs that any Brexit agreement should be put before the electorate in yet another referendum (or single-issue General Election)?
Much though I would like that to be the case, I think it is becoming increasingly unlikely as the extent of Ms May's lukewarm commitment to 'remain' becomes more and more clear - this allied to her determination to push through without any constitutional ratification of any sort on this subject means we are out.
According to latest reports we are heading for a hard Brexit with a commitment to a reduction in immigration, and therefore with the negative consequences for the economy.
I know some will be cheering, but me, I think it is the gravest mistake the UK has made in my lifetime.
-
What do folk think about the suggestion by some MPs that any Brexit agreement should be put before the electorate in yet another referendum (or single-issue General Election)?
It sounds like a good idea but I can't see it happening. The present government have declared that there will be no second referendum and are certainly not risk losing an early election, and Labour are too disorganised to do anything.
The only way that it could happen would be if Labour (miraculously) became the Sensible Party and formed some kind of loose alliance with the LibDems and some of the Remain Conservatives such that they could have a majority. Even without an actual vote, that would put a lot of pressure on May.
-
Two factors in play, the political cycle is proving very resilient.
We are after all at the point in the cycle where the opposition will 'never be returned to Government' (Half way through).
It will be exacerbated by southern Brexit voters and underclass brexit voters bowled over by the power they seem to have wielded and the power to fuck lives up. Economic chaos as artistic self expression......................Gerroverit!!!!
-
Much though I would like that to be the case, I think it is becoming increasingly unlikely as the extent of Ms May's lukewarm commitment to 'remain' becomes more and more clear - this allied to her determination to push through without any constitutional ratification of any sort on this subject means we are out.
According to latest reports we are heading for a hard Brexit with a commitment to a reduction in immigration, and therefore with the negative consequences for the economy.
I know some will be cheering, but me, I think it is the gravest mistake the UK has made in my lifetime.
I think that it might well turn into negative net migration as Britains with any marketable skills or talents emigrate for a better life overseas.
If I was 40 years younger I would be examining my options very carefully right now.
-
I think that it might well turn into negative net migration as Britains with any marketable skills or talents emigrate for a better life overseas.
If I was 40 years younger I would be examining my options very carefully right now.
I'd have thought we might see neutral net migration, with all the current ex-pat Brits living in mainland Europe feeelin that they can't continue living there.
-
Much though I would like that to be the case, I think it is becoming increasingly unlikely as the extent of Ms May's lukewarm commitment to 'remain' becomes more and more clear - this allied to her determination to push through without any constitutional ratification of any sort on this subject means we are out.
From what I understand, she is very keen on 'constitutional ratification', Trent. Its called the Houses of Parliament. Not only do they have to pass a law triggering Article 50, but if I understand TM's statements correctly, there will be additional HoP debates and legislation before we can be deemed to have left the EU.
According to latest reports we are heading for a hard Brexit with a commitment to a reduction in immigration, and therefore with the negative consequences for the economy.
I know some will be cheering, but me, I think it is the gravest mistake the UK has made in my lifetime.
I would agree, but I have always regarded the Vote Leave campaign as the real 'Project Fear'. Contrary to the recent findings of the Electoral Reform Society, my experience is that the Remain camp gave solid reasons to stay, albeit untested by any real previous experience, while the Leave camp seemed more interested in creating fear based on unevidences and often spurious arguments. Labour's lukewarm attempts to get their core supporters to vote remain didn't help matters.
-
I'd have thought we might see neutral net migration, with all the current ex-pat Brits living in mainland Europe feeelin that they can't continue living there.
Many of the ones that I know in France are busy logging on to Ancestry to see if they can qualify for Irish citizenship. I know of one person applying for French nationality who is overwhelmed (and overawed) at the quantity of the bureaucracy.
I know of no-one actively preparing to move back.
-
According to latest reports we are heading for a hard Brexit with a commitment to a reduction in immigration, and therefore with the negative consequences for the economy.
My guess is that we being presented by a number of statements by Mre May designed to present her as set on the Brexit course while inside her brain she is clueless. I suspect that she will find more and obstacles blocking the way to Brexit and that the time will come when she realises that exit is an unattainable objective without real damage. I doubt she wants to see school history texts in 30 years time treating her in the way she knows Teflon Dave will be treated.
As Harold Macmillan replied when asked what were the most difficult things he had to deal with: "Events, dear boy, events."
-
Many of the ones that I know in France are busy logging on to Ancestry to see if they can qualify for Irish citizenship. I know of one person applying for French nationality who is overwhelmed (and overawed) at the quantity of the bureaucracy.
I know of no-one actively preparing to move back.
My wife had an Irish mother and we are currently exploring what benefits that might give us. Unfortunately my own Irish connection is a great-grandmother, a generation too far. :(
-
My guess is that we being presented by a number of statements by Mre May designed to present her as set on the Brexit course while inside her brain she is clueless. I suspect that she will find more and obstacles blocking the way to Brexit and that the time will come when she realises that exit is an unattainable objective without real damage. I doubt she wants to see school history texts in 30 years time treating her in the way she knows Teflon Dave will be treated.
As Harold Macmillan replied when asked what were the most difficult things he had to deal with: "Events, dear boy, events."
I don't see Theresa May as a 'bad' person, but she is in a totally impossible position - nothing she does can be right. I just hope that manages the 'damage limitation' reasonably competently.
-
One things for sure no Brexiteer has the bottle to administer our exit.
Neither will any of them have the bottle to not hang on to their one phyrric victory for years to come.
I can here the cogs working now '' No one will forget June the 23rd''
No it's just everyday since they won't want to think about.
It will be like 1966 all over again.
Gerroverit!!!
-
I suspect that she will find more and obstacles blocking the way to Brexit and that the time will come when she realises that exit is an unattainable objective without real damage.
I think she's probably already well aware that exit is an unattainable objective without real damage. Her hands are tied though. We had the vote and it would be political suicide to ignore it without an extraordinarily good reason.
-
Good news :)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37274279
There is also some more cheery news about the construction industry in another article ( see bottom)
-
What ever the arguments, there can be no question of a second referendum. It was a democratic vote, and to try and overturn it would be totally un-democratic. Once the hysteria dies down, and we get on with our new independence, I have no doubt that this talented and vigorous country will be the better.
-
It was a democratic vote, and to try and overturn it would be totally un-democratic.
Why?
We regularly overturn democratic votes with General and local elections. Why is this different and why would it be undemocratic?
-
It was a democratic vote, and to try and overturn it would be totally un-democratic.
Do you realise that this particular democratic vote overturned a previous democratic vote?
Circumstances change, democratic votes are not set in stone.
-
Do you realise that this particular democratic vote overturned a previous democratic vote?
Circumstances change, democratic votes are not set in stone.
Exactly. It would be interesting to see if another democratic vote would overturn the BREXIT one.
-
Do you realise that this particular democratic vote overturned a previous democratic vote?
Circumstances change, democratic votes are not set in stone.
The previous democratic vote was decades ago, and the EU is a vastly different beast now, and not the organisation that we voted for originally.
General and local elections are set-pieces and are the very essence of democracy. To call for a second Referendum, only days after the first, is just sore losers saying, "I don't like it, let's do it again."
-
The previous democratic vote was decades ago, and the EU is a vastly different beast now, and not the organisation that we voted for originally.
As I said: circumstances change.
General and local elections are set-pieces and are the very essence of democracy. To call for a second Referendum, only days after the first, is just sore losers saying, "I don't like it, let's do it again."
But very few people are doing that. If there was significant evidence that the vote would go differently if run again (that evidence does not exist yet), why shouldn't we have another vote.
Or if the government negotiates a deal for Brexit shouldn't we have the choice to accept it or stay in?
-
Let's be honest, if the vote had gone the other way, the Brexiters would not have thrown up their hands and said "that's it, we lose", they would redouble their efforts and try to get a rerun.
The hypocrisy of the Brexiters is amazing.
-
Let's be honest, if the vote had gone the other way, the Brexiters would not have thrown up their hands and said "that's it, we lose", they would redouble their efforts and try to get a rerun.
The hypocrisy of the Brexiters is amazing.
On what evidence do you say that Brexiters would not have accepted a democratic result? It is merely your, unverifiable, opinion. To label 17,000,000 voters as hypocrites simply because you disagreed with the result is a non-starter
-
Let's be honest, if the vote had gone the other way, the Brexiters would not have thrown up their hands and said "that's it, we lose", they would redouble their efforts and try to get a rerun.
The hypocrisy of the Brexiters is amazing.
Agreed.
-
On what evidence do you say that Brexiters would not have accepted a democratic result? It is merely your, unverifiable, opinion. To label 17,000,000 voters as hypocrites simply because you disagreed with the result is a non-starter
Well I wouldn't label all of them as that but Mr Farage did say that if it had been 52-48 the other way round that it would have been unfinished business.
I still do not see how you can hold to the position that it would be undemocratic. It would be a tedious moment in our history to go through all that again - but not in any sense undemocratic - particularly if circumstances were to deteriorate and given the lies told by the Brexit side.
£350 million to the NHS anyone? Points based immigration system?
-
Agreed.
Why?
I didn't agree with the result of the last General Election: won by the Tories with 33% of the vote, and only25% of those eligible to vote. I will wait until the next Election, in 2020, and decide then how to vote. I am not calling for an Election now, merely because I didn't agree with the outcome. This country is the home of democracy and we stick by the rules of democracy. It is as simple as that, and the former Remain campaigners should get real and accept that.
-
Well I wouldn't label all of them as that but Mr Farage did say that if it had been 52-48 the other way round that it would have been unfinished business.
I still do not see how you can hold to the position that it would be undemocratic. It would be a tedious moment in our history to go through all that again - but not in any sense undemocratic - particularly if circumstances were to deteriorate and given the lies told by the Brexit side.
£350 million to the NHS anyone? Points based immigration system?
Trent, did you then agree with all the scare-mongering of the Remain Campaign, led by the unctuous pair, Cameron and Osborne?
-
Hopefully the PM will be able to make the best of a bad job and cobble something together which doesn't damage the UK too much.
If that insane guy Trump wins the US presidential election, Europe, including the UK, would need to be united against the evil his presidency is likely to create.
-
On what evidence do you say that Brexiters would not have accepted a democratic result?
Nigel Farage explicitly said so back in May. There was also a petition going round that said the vote should be rerun if it was less definite than 60/40 or something like that - it was started by a Brexiter.
To label 17,000,000 voters as hypocrites simply because you disagreed with the result is a non-starter
By Brexiter I mean the people leading the campaign, not the poor gullible saps who swallowed their lies.
-
Why?
I didn't agree with the result of the last General Election: won by the Tories with 33% of the vote, and only25% of those eligible to vote. I will wait until the next Election, in 2020, and decide then how to vote. I am not calling for an Election now, merely because I didn't agree with the outcome. This country is the home of democracy and we stick by the rules of democracy. It is as simple as that, and the former Remain campaigners should get real and accept that.
OK so can we have another referendum in 5 years?
Or more seriously we have a government based on democratic representation - why was this abandoned in the case of the EU? It was abandoned because Hameron was more concerned with his own future as PM rather than with the things that would be in the best interest of the country.
Referenda are not part of our usual democratic process and they are, I'm afraid, inimical to it.
-
Nigel Farage explicitly said so back in May. There was also a petition going round that said the vote should be rerun if it was less definite than 60/40 or something like that - it was started by a Brexiter.
By Brexiter I mean the people leading the campaign, not the poor gullible saps who swallowed their lies.
First of all, jeremy, Farage could only have been voicing a personal opinion, since he was not the Brexit Campaign leader. I think it uncharitable to label 17,000,000 people as "gullible saps." The Brexit voters encompassed all kinds, including a very great many people of high intellect and perspicacity.
-
Trent, did you then agree with all the scare-mongering of the Remain Campaign, led by the unctuous pair, Cameron and Osborne?
No I didn't. I posted on here at the time that they were over exaggerating the risks. There are still risks as we will find out - but I do not think they were correct in their doom laded prophecies. But it is still going to be very painful for many of us. We could have avoided that.
-
First of all, jeremy, Farage could only have been voicing a personal opinion, since he was not the Brexit Campaign leader.
He was one of the leading Brexiteers.
I think it uncharitable to label 17,000,000 people as "gullible saps." The Brexit voters encompassed all kinds, including a very great many people of high intellect and perspicacity.
They were all taken in by the Brexit lies and we will all be paying for it unless we can find a way to ignore the result.
-
No I didn't. I posted on here at the time that they were over exaggerating the risks. There are still risks as we will find out - but I do not think they were correct in their doom laded prophecies. But it is still going to be very painful for many of us. We could have avoided that.
I agree.
I think a lot of people are saying it is not as bad as we thought, and it looks fine.
They have not taken into consideration that we are still IN the EU.
-
He was one of the leading Brexiteers.
They were all taken in by the Brexit lies and we will all be paying for it unless we can find a way to ignore the result.
Farage was not a Campaign leader, and as such was voicing one man's opinion, no more. There is no evidence to suggest that we will "pay" for the result. Such a comment is merely an extension of the appalling scare-mongering of the Remainers.
-
I agree.
I think a lot of people are saying it is not as bad as we thought, and it looks fine.
They have not taken into consideration that we are still IN the EU.
Yes, I think the "doom and gloom" predictions of the Remain campaign are going to come true but there is no point in claiming everything is all right now because we haven't even started the negotiating never mind actually left.
-
Farage was not a Campaign leader, and as such was voicing one man's opinion, no more. There is no evidence to suggest that we will "pay" for the result. Such a comment is merely an extension of the appalling scare-mongering of the Remainers.
We do not yet have a deal to trade with the EU.
I suspect it will cost us.
-
Farage was not a Campaign leader
I don't give a fuck about your hair splitting. He was a leading Brexiteer.
There is no evidence to suggest that we will "pay" for the result.
One poster here has already had to terminate the contracts ofd several coworkers due to Brexit.
We will be paying for it. Don't kid yourself it's all going to be fine.
-
We do not yet have a deal to trade with the EU.
I suspect it will cost us.
It may, it may not. there is also a very large market available to us in the rest of the world. The whole point od Brexit was to rid us of the constraints of the failing EU.
The Polish Finance Minister was interviewed on BBC News 24 today, and blindly stated that Poland would not accept anymore migrants, and if forced to do so would consider leaving the EU. Greece, though out of the headlines currently, continues to be in a terrifying position. Germany is moving notably to the Right, mainly due to Merkel's migrant stance. Italy and Portugal are in a parlous financial condition, etc. Who, in all conscience would want to be tied to such a failing project?
-
It may, it may not. there is also a very large market available to us in the rest of the world. The whole point od Brexit was to rid us of the constraints of the failing EU.
But most of our current trade is with Europe.
We need to trade favourably there.
If our deal is bad it will not be good for us.
I think something along the lines of the Norway deal.
-
But most of our current trade is with Europe.
We need to trade favourably there.
If our deal is bad it will not be good for us.
I think something along the lines of the Norway deal.
It needs to be appreciated that the our trade in the EU is heavily biased in favour of the EU countries, and that includes Germany. Countries such as Australia and New Zealand have already stated their desire to trade with us; and make no mistake, despite Obama's silly intervention in the Referendum campaign, the US will be keen to do deals with us, because it is to their advantage, not just ours.l
-
It needs to be appreciated that the our trade in the EU is heavily biased in favour of the EU countries, and that includes Germany. Countries such as Australia and New Zealand have already stated their desire to trade with us; and make no mistake, despite Obama's silly intervention in the Referendum campaign, the US will be keen to do deals with us, because it is to their advantage, not just ours.l
You hope!
We do not have a deal so we cannot say how our trading with Europe will go.
The Norway deal seems like the best we could hope for, and that still means paying, and some free movement.
We could end up just losing our vote whilst paying just as much as before.
-
It needs to be appreciated that the our trade in the EU is heavily biased in favour of the EU countries, and that includes Germany. Countries such as Australia and New Zealand have already stated their desire to trade with us; and make no mistake, despite Obama's silly intervention in the Referendum campaign, the US will be keen to do deals with us, because it is to their advantage, not just ours.l
It's not about trade, it is about trade deals. We already trade with the USA but each side places tariffs on the goods and services of the other that acts to stifle the full potential. After Brexit, we will continue to trade with Europe, but unless we do a deal, each side will place tariffs on the other's goods. This will reduce the amount of trade we have with the EU and also provide an incentive for manufacturers in the UK to move to the EU, taking their jobs and supplier contracts with them.
On average, it takes about seven years to negotiate a bilateral trade deal. We don't have seven years. People will start losing their jobs as soon as we leave the EU.
-
It's not about trade, it is about trade deals. We already trade with the USA but each side places tariffs on the goods and services of the other that acts to stifle the full potential. After Brexit, we will continue to trade with Europe, but unless we do a deal, each side will place tariffs on the other's goods. This will reduce the amount of trade we have with the EU and also provide an incentive for manufacturers in the UK to move to the EU, taking their jobs and supplier contracts with them.
On average, it takes about seven years to negotiate a bilateral trade deal. We don't have seven years. People will start losing their jobs as soon as we leave the EU.
Whatever deals are done are just as vital to our competitors, in most cases more so, as to us. It is to everyone's advantage to make deals as quickly and as satisfactorily as possible.
-
I don't see how anyone can predict how future trade deals will pan out. If we are still in the single market, then we still have tariff-free trade with the EU. If we are not, then it is WTO trade, with various tariffs. Does anyone actually know how that might work? I doubt it. Nobody had a clue before the referendum, and nobody has a clue now, or if they have, they are keeping it very quiet.
-
I don't see how anyone can predict how future trade deals will pan out. If we are still in the single market, then we still have tariff-free trade with the EU. If we are not, then it is WTO trade, with various tariffs. Does anyone actually know how that might work? I doubt it. Nobody had a clue before the referendum, and nobody has a clue now, or if they have, they are keeping it very quiet.
We don't know how things will work out, which is why the Remainers' scare-mongering was so pernicious. All their claims were no more than wild supposition. Such a pity so many people still believe Osborn's deceitful ramblings.
-
We don't know how things will work out, which is why the Remainers' scare-mongering was so pernicious. All their claims were no more than wild supposition. Such a pity so many people still believe Osborn's deceitful ramblings.
And, believe it or not, some people believed the Brexit porkies. For example, money to the NHS, ruled out by Mrs May, a point-based immigration scheme, ruled out by Mrs May, Turkey to join the EU, very unlikely.
I would think that the govt is desperate to stay in the single market, but they can't accept free movement. Possibly, they are aiming for a bespoke deal, but whether other countries will accept that, who knows.
-
The leading BREXIT spokespeople lied through their teeth about how well off the UK would be if it left the EU. The racist UKIP and their nasty leader Farage preyed on those prejudiced against migrants, giving the impression leaving would cut off their entry, which is of course garbage. With our exit the French are more likely to turn a blind eye where those migrants wising to come to our shores are concerned.
-
Whatever deals are done are just as vital to our competitors, in most cases more so, as to us.
The trade deal we do with the EU is vastly more important to us than it is to them. The single market is five times the size of our economy. In the event that we fail todo a deal, BMW (for example) has unrestrained access to the whole of the EU, Jaguar does not.
It is to everyone's advantage to make deals as quickly and as satisfactorily as possible.
Yes it is, but even with that, it still takes an average of seven years to conclude a bilateral trade deal.
-
Does anyone actually know how that might work? I doubt it. Nobody had a clue before the referendum, and nobody has a clue now, or if they have, they are keeping it very quiet.
Yes they do. That's why most economists were advising against leaving the EU.
-
I heard on the Today Programme this morning Australia's priority are trade deals with the EU not the UK.
-
Somebody made me laugh by comparing the Brexit ballot to a Schrödinger-type wave function, which exists in various virtual states. In other words, it meant all things to all men - keep the foreigners out, sovereignty, take our country back, money for the NHS, and so on.
However, Mrs May is gradually collapsing the wave function - money for the NHS? No. Points based immigration scheme - forget it. Paying money to the EU - well, we might.
Apologies for the hopeless miscomprehension of wave functions.
The obvious solution, if the Japanese leave (what have they ever done for us?), is to rent a large empty factory, and start building the Austin Allegro again! Glorious!