Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Whitey Grandad]

One of the points made on here about exiting the single market relates to the extra paperwork and regulation involved in trading with the EU. This is true, but only for the companies that will export to the EU. Under the current "status quo", all regulations relate to all businesses. So whilst some businesses may have extra paperwork if we exit, most businesses could have less paperwork. The changes in regulations will never stand still. This presents a risk at the end of the day as we don't know where it will end up

 

Do you really believe that there is less paperwork in selling to the rest of the world than selling to the EU? The other argument is that if the EU does change any regulations then we shall have no part in that process.

[Whitey Grandad]

So, those that voted to join the Common Market in 1975 got 41 years of 'status quo'?

 

Once again you have misinterpreted the meaning. 'Let the government deal with it' is a fair representation.

[Wes Tender]

So, those that voted to join the Common Market in 1975 got 41 years of 'status quo'?

 

Your point is exactly right. Our successive Governments might have agreed to the morphing of what was once only the Common Market into what subsequently became the EU, but the electorate were denied any say at all in the successive Treaties which brought about that change.

 

Finally because of the pressure exerted by UKIP and the increasing Euro-scepticism within the Conservative Party, we were afforded a referendum. It was against the background that the whole European project had changed so substantially over the years of our membership of it, that led most to conclude that there would be no status quo. Anybody with any sense, realised that a vote to remain in would be taken by the Eurocrats as a green light to continue their relentless march towards a United States of Europe. For all those who in their naivety believe that we should have remained inside and attempted to bring about reform from within, that either suggests that we as a nation were content with the way that the project was going, or it illustrates how ineffective we were at reigning it back. The larger the organisation became, the more our influence to change it declined.

 

I would suggest that the greatest impetus towards change and reform of the EU has actually been produced by our leaving of it. We have set a precedent and they will worry that unless the issues that prompted us to leave are addressed, then others might follow us out.

[Johnny Bognor]

Do you really believe that there is less paperwork in selling to the rest of the world than selling to the EU? The other argument is that if the EU does change any regulations then we shall have no part in that process.

 

Most businesses do not export. In fact, 89% of businesses do not export at all but are subject to all EU regulation and red tape. Leaving the EU would mean that 89% of businesses could have reduced red tape. Don't you agree that this offsets some of the additional red tape incurred by those exporting to the EU???

[Wade Garrett]

Your point is exactly right. Our successive Governments might have agreed to the morphing of what was once only the Common Market into what subsequently became the EU, but the electorate were denied any say at all in the successive Treaties which brought about that change.

 

Finally because of the pressure exerted by UKIP and the increasing Euro-scepticism within the Conservative Party, we were afforded a referendum. It was against the background that the whole European project had changed so substantially over the years of our membership of it, that led most to conclude that there would be no status quo. Anybody with any sense, realised that a vote to remain in would be taken by the Eurocrats as a green light to continue their relentless march towards a United States of Europe. For all those who in their naivety believe that we should have remained inside and attempted to bring about reform from within, that either suggests that we as a nation were content with the way that the project was going, or it illustrates how ineffective we were at reigning it back. The larger the organisation became, the more our influence to change it declined.

 

I would suggest that the greatest impetus towards change and reform of the EU has actually been produced by our leaving of it. We have set a precedent and they will worry that unless the issues that prompted us to leave are addressed, then others might follow us out.

 

Agreed, but Labour figures such as Tony Benn and Kate Hoey were also part of the long-standing anti-EU campaign.

[Wade Garrett]

What does it have to do with him? He is not elected and has no more democratic mandate to speak for anybody than I do. That doesn't stop the BBC dragging him in at every opportunity.

 

Breakfast means Breakfast

 

Farage? Sorry, I thought you were talking about Juncker ?.

[Wes Tender]

Farage? Sorry, I thought you were talking about Juncker ?.

 

Touche

[buctootim]

Most businesses do not export. In fact, 89% of businesses do not export at all but are subject to all EU regulation and red tape. Leaving the EU would mean that 89% of businesses could have reduced red tape. Don't you agree that this offsets some of the additional red tape incurred by those exporting to the EU???

 

Thats just another Brexit myth. Most of the regulations have nothing to do with exporting. Its 'fitness for market things' like electrical safety, guarantee periods, disposal of hazardous waste etc. I defy you to go through the regs and find pointless bureacracy. Its just another right wing Chimera. Yes a lot of the regulations are EU - because we have tasked them with producing a large part of our regulations for 45 years. If we leave the burden wouldnt fall it would either increase or remain the same. Why? because we'd either have to invent our own regs - in which case exporters would have to produce to two different standards, or we'd keep the same EU regs in which case its just another example of nothing changing and 'freedom' being nothing more than an illusion.

Edited 6 September, 2016 by buctootim

[hutch]

So, those that voted to join the Common Market in 1975 got 41 years of 'status quo'?

It seems like it some times.

 

And I like it, I like it, I like it, I like it ....

[Wes Tender]

Thats just another Brexit myth. Most of the regulations have nothing to do with exporting. Its 'fitness for market things' like electrical safety, guarantee periods, disposal of hazardous waste etc. I defy you to go through the regs and find pointless bureacracy. Its just another right wing Chimera. Yes a lot of the regulations are EU - because we have tasked them with producing a large part of our regulations for 45 years. If we leave the burden wouldnt fall it would either increase or remain the same. Why? because we'd either have to invent our own regs - in which case exporters would have to produce to two different standards, or we'd keep the same EU regs in which case its just another example of nothing changing and 'freedom' being nothing more than an illusion.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-welcomes-business-led-plan-to-cut-eu-red-tape

 

Lots of things on the list featured here seem pretty pointless, at least for certain businesses below a certain size. I wonder how many of these proposals had been acted on since 2013 to reform EU bureaucracy hampering SME businesses? It would not surprise me if nothing had been implemented. Once we are out, we would be free to implement those cuts in bureaucracy ourselves.

[buctootim]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-welcomes-business-led-plan-to-cut-eu-red-tape

 

Lots of things on the list featured here seem pretty pointless, at least for certain businesses below a certain size. I wonder how many of these proposals had been acted on since 2013 to reform EU bureaucracy hampering SME businesses? It would not surprise me if nothing had been implemented. Once we are out, we would be free to implement those cuts in bureaucracy ourselves.

 

Read through the list properly. Many of the 30 recommendations are to make EU harmonisation of regs work better (ie less national difference not more) and to advertise existing schemes better. Others are simply reducing food and environmental protection standards and the rights of temporary workers.

 

I have no doubt many on the Tory right / UKIP would welcome sweeping away many of the benefits of the single market and the rights and protections we currently enjoy in order to return to the low cost, low quality, low standards UK industry we used to have pre EU. Thats what got us into the hideous 1960s/70s mess in the first place and ended up with us being bailed out by the IMF.

[Whitey Grandad]

Most businesses do not export. In fact, 89% of businesses do not export at all but are subject to all EU regulation and red tape. Leaving the EU would mean that 89% of businesses could have reduced red tape. Don't you agree that this offsets some of the additional red tape incurred by those exporting to the EU???

 

What ****ing red tape? And exporting to the EU is a doddle at the moment but that will all have a great pile of red tape dumped upon it. It will not be possible to have different standards for exporting to non-EU and EU countries. Those outside the EU want to see standards for their purchases and those inside will insist in them. Businesses cannot have two different sets of products and stock systems.

 

What EU red tape applies to those businesses that don't export? Please be warned that I have asked this question many times and am still waiting for a reply.

[Whitey Grandad]

Farage? Sorry, I thought you were talking about Juncker .

 

Juncker has no power and does not appear on our TVs every minute.

[Whitey Grandad]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-welcomes-business-led-plan-to-cut-eu-red-tape

 

Lots of things on the list featured here seem pretty pointless, at least for certain businesses below a certain size. I wonder how many of these proposals had been acted on since 2013 to reform EU bureaucracy hampering SME businesses? It would not surprise me if nothing had been implemented. Once we are out, we would be free to implement those cuts in bureaucracy ourselves.

 

Nothing in that list actually impinges upon our small businesses or, to put it another way, nothing there is particularly onerous or relevant.

 

I like this bit: "improving standards for cross-border parcel delivery". What border would that be, hampshire/Dorset?

 

Or this: "rapid agreement of faster approval processes for the pharmaceuticals industry through the new clinical trials regulation" . How does that sit with this?: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-to-cost-jobs-if-britain-loses-medicines-watchdog-gpg7znmpr

 

In fact, if you read through the proposals you will see that they relate to improvements within the EU When we are outside things will get a lot more complicated. When you look at the details you cannot help but conclude that they are appropriate in a modern, non-exploitative economy.

[Wes Tender]

Read through the list properly. Many of the 30 recommendations are to make EU harmonisation of regs work better (ie less national difference not more) and to advertise existing schemes better. Others are simply reducing food and environmental protection standards and the rights of temporary workers.

 

I have no doubt many on the Tory right / UKIP would welcome sweeping away many of the benefits of the single market and the rights and protections we currently enjoy in order to return to the low cost, low quality, low standards UK industry we used to have pre EU. Thats what got us into the hideous 1960s/70s mess in the first place and ended up with us being bailed out by the IMF.

 

Only you could make the giant leap from discussing bureaucratic measures that hamper SME businesses today and equate it to the sort of dire scenario epitomising the industrial malaise that blighted us in the 1960s and 70s. It obviously had nothing to do with the post war debt which hampered government investment, inefficient bloated nationalised industries, the decline in heavy manufacturing industry due to lower labour costs in the developing World, restrictive trade union practices and wildcat strikes, etc. Had we had all that red tape back then, imagine how much further ahead we would have been now.

 

A bit ironic though that it is actually several current member states of the EU's Eurozone who are in that sort of mess now, isn't it?

[Johnny Bognor]

What ****ing red tape? And exporting to the EU is a doddle at the moment but that will all have a great pile of red tape dumped upon it. It will not be possible to have different standards for exporting to non-EU and EU countries. Those outside the EU want to see standards for their purchases and those inside will insist in them. Businesses cannot have two different sets of products and stock systems.

 

What EU red tape applies to those businesses that don't export? Please be warned that I have asked this question many times and am still waiting for a reply.

 

Jeez, where do I start with this?

 

I guess I can start with my area of expertise...

The European Data Protection Regulations and the European Communications Privacy Directive. All UK businesses HAVE to comply, whether or not they export, because it is the law. Laws imposed on the UK, who had little say in them. If they were just applied to the 11% who export, then fair enough. But the 89% who don't export, have to comply.

 

I could go on, but just with these two pieces of legislation, there is a fair bit of red tape.

 

Do you want any more?????

[Johnny Bognor]

I have no doubt many on the Tory right / UKIP would welcome sweeping away many of the benefits of the single market and the rights and protections we currently enjoy in order to return to the low cost, low quality, low standards UK industry we used to have pre EU. Thats what got us into the hideous 1960s/70s mess in the first place and ended up with us being bailed out by the IMF.

 

Errr.... that was the unions, who continued to hamper the UK economy years AFTER we joined the EEC. I expected better of you to be honest.

[Whitey Grandad]

Jeez, where do I start with this?

 

I guess I can start with my area of expertise...

The European Data Protection Regulations and the European Communications Privacy Directive. All UK businesses HAVE to comply, whether or not they export, because it is the law. Laws imposed on the UK, who had little say in them. If they were just applied to the 11% who export, then fair enough. But the 89% who don't export, have to comply.

 

I could go on, but just with these two pieces of legislation, there is a fair bit of red tape.

 

Do you want any more?????

 

More, yes please Neither of these two examples have any cost implications for my business, nor any others with which I am acquainted. Further to the point, do you think we would be able to continue to trade with the EU if we did not comply with any of their (our) regulations?

[buctootim]

Errr.... that was the unions, who continued to hamper the UK economy years AFTER we joined the EEC. I expected better of you to be honest.

 

Partly rightly mostly wrong. Poor management, lack of investment and low quality product were the major problems. One example Ive got two friends who worked as managers in British car plants in the late 1970s and 1980s - Fords and BL. When the companies found production exceeded sales because they couldnt sell their poorly designed, poor quality product and were losing sales to German and Japanese imports (VW Golf, Honda Concerto or Austin Allegro? hmm) they would provoke a strike - by sacking a union official for example. After three weeks when the backlog was cleared they'd reinstate the official and production resumed. Much cheaper than sending people home on pay. Odd that Honda (1979) and Nissan (1984) never had any problems don't you think?

Edited 6 September, 2016 by buctootim

[Verbal]

David Davis's front-bench statement on the single market is - I quote - "not government policy".

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/06/david-davis-single-market-stance-not-government-policy

 

Davis, to remind you, is the Secretary of State for Brexit.

 

Jesus wept.

[buctootim]

Jeez, where do I start with this?

 

I guess I can start with my area of expertise...

The European Data Protection Regulations and the European Communications Privacy Directive. All UK businesses HAVE to comply, whether or not they export, because it is the law. Laws imposed on the UK, who had little say in them. If they were just applied to the 11% who export, then fair enough. But the 89% who don't export, have to comply.

 

I could go on, but just with these two pieces of legislation, there is a fair bit of red tape.

 

Do you want any more?????

 

So you think Data Protection and communications privacy should only apply to exporters? You can tout around peoples personal details no problem as long as its in country?

[Johnny Bognor]

As for being able to influence policy making, did you hear the joke about the yellow card system??

 

Take the yellow card, shown to the EU over the plans to create a European Public Prosecutor Office (EPPO)

 

The national parliaments from 11 EU member states (the UK, Czech Republic, Cyprus, France, Hungary, Ireland, Malta, Netherlands, Sweden, Romania and Slovenia) have complained that plans for an EPPO breach the subsidiarity principle.

 

The ‘yellow card’ provision was introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, stating that if one third or more national parliaments object to an EU proposal on subsidiarity grounds (within an eight week window), then the Commission has to reconsider the proposal.

 

The Commission can choose to ignore parliaments’ “yellow card” and has, in this case, decided to do so.

 

That the Commission has rejected the views of such a large number of Europe’s national legislatures and continues to push on regardless with this latest plan for an EPPO only serves to reinforce the view, held by many, that the subsidiarity clause, much trumpeted at the time of its introduction, holds no real power.

[Johnny Bognor]

So you think Data Protection and communications privacy should only apply to exporters? You can tout around peoples personal details no problem as long as its in country?

 

Oh yes, I must have been imagining the Data Protection Act. Silly me.

[buctootim]

Oh yes, I must have been imagining the Data Protection Act. Silly me.

 

So it is necessary then. Goodo

[buctootim]

And so it begins. Ford cut planned investment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37286883

[Johnny Bognor]

David Davis's front-bench statement on the single market is - I quote - "not government policy".

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/06/david-davis-single-market-stance-not-government-policy

 

Davis, to remind you, is the Secretary of State for Brexit.

 

Jesus wept.

 

It's a good job we have a decent opposition to hold them to account then, isn't it?

 

Oh, wait a minute...

 

...perhaps if the lefties can get their house in order (yeah, right), then some pressure could be applied to the government???

 

It's like a penalty shoot out, with a keeper on crutches whilst everyone is standing around arguing who should be taking the penalty.

Edited 6 September, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[Johnny Bognor]

And so it begins. Ford cut planned investment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37286883

 

The article states that this is due to a fall in anticipated global demand, not Brexit. So what is beginning exactly???

[Wes Tender]

And so it begins. Ford cut planned investment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37286883

 

Quel surprise! We never saw that coming, did we? No siree, no precedent at all of Ford planning to move production elsewhere having received cheap money loans from the EIB or to take advantage of a much cheaper labour force in the poorer countries of the World. Let's blame Brexit, shall we?

[Johnny Bognor]

Quel surprise! We never saw that coming, did we? No siree, no precedent at all of Ford planning to move production elsewhere having received cheap money loans from the EIB or to take advantage of a much cheaper labour force in the poorer countries of the World. Let's blame Brexit, shall we?

 

 

I think he is confusing the beginning of Ford's decline (which started a few years ago with the likes of Southampton and Genk closing) with the beginning of brexit fall out. To be honest, it's a difficult mistake to make, so we should give him credit for it

Edited 6 September, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[buctootim]

The article states that this is due to a fall in anticipated global demand, not Brexit. So what is beginning exactly???

 

Actually it states it is due to its customers choosing other engines in its portfolio - and the choice is because of the price Ford markets one model model compared to another.

[buctootim]

I think he is confusing the beginning of Ford's decline (which started a few years ago with the likes of Southampton and Genk closing) with the beginning of brexit fall out. To be honest, it's a difficult mistake to make, so we should give him credit for it

 

In many areas you are as ignorant as Wes. No mean feat. Ford, in common with all other multinational manufacturers will go where access to markets are best, costs are lowest and the incentives greatest. Having manufacturing plants in a country with an uncertain access to the single market and a fluctuating currency different to that used in its principal market are major disincentives.

 

As for its decline, odd then that its number of employees is rising, its the leading brand in the UK and its sales are up. http://www.statista.com/statistics/297324/number-of-ford-employees/ http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/industry-news/ford/uk-2015-car-sales-analysis-winners-and-losers/

Edited 6 September, 2016 by buctootim

[Wes Tender]

In many areas you are as ignorant as Wes. No mean feat.

 

Ah! You never disappoint. Get shown up and then resort to insults to deflect the attention away from yourself. Call somebody ignorant to imply that you are intelligent, a favourite tactic of the Remainians. Who is the ignorant one, making a bonkers assertion like this:-

 

I have no doubt many on the Tory right / UKIP would welcome sweeping away many of the benefits of the single market and the rights and protections we currently enjoy in order to return to the low cost, low quality, low standards UK industry we used to have pre EU. Thats what got us into the hideous 1960s/70s mess in the first place and ended up with us being bailed out by the IMF.

[buctootim]

Ah! You never disappoint. Get shown up and then resort to insults to deflect the attention away from yourself. Call somebody ignorant to imply that you are intelligent, a favourite tactic of the Remainians. Who is the ignorant one, making a bonkers assertion like this:-

 

 

You are ignorant Wes, spectacularly so. You couldn't make the claims you do otherwise. Please enlighten us as to why Britain was the world's 4th largest economy in 1960 - 18% ahead of France - but by 1975 France's GDP was 50% more than ours?

 

Did the financial crisis of 1975 not really happen? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4553464.stm

Edited 6 September, 2016 by buctootim

[Wes Tender]

Timmy, I lived through those times and indeed the decade before, so I don't need to be patronised by you about the history of the period or entertained by your little anecdote about your mates in car production. I owned British cars during that time, so I did know how bad they were and how poor management and Red Robbo and his ilk played their parts in ruining our car industry.

 

Regarding the Healey era, I don't need BBC links to remind me of it. When I was asked by business clients what the price increase was since their order a year ago and I told them 25%, they just shrugged their shoulders and reordered. Thanks to Healey and Labour, it was a good time to have a large mortgage, but not to be a pensioner living on their savings.

 

But it was really desperately idiotic of you to try and imply that by leaving the EU we risk going back to those times, so I can understand why you still attempt to deflect attention from it by your insults.

[Johnny Bognor]

Actually it states it is due to its customers choosing other engines in its portfolio - and the choice is because of the price Ford markets one model model compared to another.

 

In many areas you are as ignorant as Wes. No mean feat. Ford, in common with all other multinational manufacturers will go where access to markets are best, costs are lowest and the incentives greatest. Having manufacturing plants in a country with an uncertain access to the single market and a fluctuating currency different to that used in its principal market are major disincentives.

 

As for its decline, odd then that its number of employees is rising, its the leading brand in the UK and its sales are up. http://www.statista.com/statistics/297324/number-of-ford-employees/ http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/industry-news/ford/uk-2015-car-sales-analysis-winners-and-losers/

 

Not sure why I am quoting the Ford spokesperson from the article you posted but here goes...

 

"Due to the success of our other advanced-technology engines - including the 1.0-litre EcoBoost petrol engine - and anticipated changes in demand in Europe and other markets, we now expect the global volume of the new engines not to be as high as originally planned," said a spokesman.

 

So don't expect global volumes to be as high and there are anticipated changes in demand. Seems sensible to cut back costs if you ask me. No mention of brexit though. keep taking the pills

[Guided Missile]

The UK is to begin preliminary talks with Australia about the outline of a future free trade deal between them.

The UK is to begin preliminary talks with Australia about the outline of a future free trade deal between them.

Officials will meet twice a year to discuss the parameters of what both sides said they hoped would be an "ambitious and comprehensive" deal.

Australia has been earmarked by the UK as its first post-Brexit trade partner.

International Trade Secretary Liam Fox and his counterpart Steven Ciobo said they shared a "strong political commitment" to trade liberalisation.

[Window Cleaner]

You are ignorant Wes, spectacularly so. You couldn't make the claims you do otherwise. Please enlighten us as to why Britain was the world's 4th largest economy in 1960 - 18% ahead of France - but by 1975 France's GDP was 50% more than ours?

 

Did the financial crisis of 1975 not really happen? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4553464.stm

 

Well at a guess I'd suggest that a succession of farkwit labour governments had a fair bit to do with our decline in the late 60s.

Didn't we have to go begging to the IMF for a bail-out in that period?

Edited 7 September, 2016 by Window Cleaner

[Whitey Grandad]

The UK is to begin preliminary talks with Australia about the outline of a future free trade deal between them.

The UK is to begin preliminary talks with Australia about the outline of a future free trade deal between them.

Officials will meet twice a year to discuss the parameters of what both sides said they hoped would be an "ambitious and comprehensive" deal.

Australia has been earmarked by the UK as its first post-Brexit trade partner.

International Trade Secretary Liam Fox and his counterpart Steven Ciobo said they shared a "strong political commitment" to trade liberalisation.

In other news a trade deal with Australia will take several years.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/australia-says-there-will-not-be-a-brexit-trade-deal-with-uk-for-years-a7229366.html

[Whitey Grandad]

Well at a guess I'd suggest that a succession of farkwit labour governments had a fair bit to do with our decline in the late 60s.

Didn't we have to go begging to the IMF for a bail-out in that period?

 

Yes we did, but a few years later in 1976.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_IMF_Crisis

 

Britain really was a basket case in those dismal days. The only bright spot was the birth of our second child in the same year.

[Johnny Bognor]

In other news a trade deal with Australia will take several years.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/australia-says-there-will-not-be-a-brexit-trade-deal-with-uk-for-years-a7229366.html

 

Love it how they state that Britain is back of the queue and a deal would come after an EU pact.

 

Then in the detail it leans more towards the fact that talks have already started with the EU and that meaningful talks couldn't start with the UK until Brexit was complete.

 

So it is not so much that we are back of the queue, more a case of the EU are in a position to talk right now and we're not

[CB Saint]

Yes we did, but a few years later in 1976.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_IMF_Crisis

 

Britain really was a basket case in those dismal days. The only bright spot was the birth of our second child in the same year.

 

Can you imagine the fall out if algorithmic traders and the proliferation of hedge funds that we have to day were present in 1976

[Window Cleaner]

Can you imagine the fall out if algorithmic traders and the proliferation of hedge funds that we have to day were present in 1976

 

Well I was far too busy being a hedonistic postgraduate student to remember a whole lot about that era but I doubt that thin air trading and what might happen in darkest africa in 20 years time were factors that affected the stock exchange at that time. If I recall at all correctly shares concerned entities that actually produced something and everybody else bought government bonds for the 4% or so annual interest. Do they still sell premium bonds nowadays ?

[Whitey Grandad]

Well I was far too busy being a hedonistic postgraduate student to remember a whole lot about that era but I doubt that thin air trading and what might happen in darkest africa in 20 years time were factors that affected the stock exchange at that time. If I recall at all correctly shares concerned entities that actually produced something and everybody else bought government bonds for the 4% or so annual interest. Do they still sell premium bonds nowadays ?

 

Yes they do although the payouts have been reduced in line with othere savings returns. Minimum purchase is £100. Back in the 70s my mum gave me £2 for my birthday and not needing the money at that moment I bought two one pound bonds. Since then I have twice won £50 and I still have the original bonds

[buctootim]

Well at a guess I'd suggest that a succession of farkwit labour governments had a fair bit to do with our decline in the late 60s.

Didn't we have to go begging to the IMF for a bail-out in that period?

 

Fundamentally it came down to manufacturing industry losing market share to foreign competitors and services not taking up the slack. Im sure Government, management, the City and workforce all share some of the blame. Lack of investment in R&D and manufacturing machinery, poor management, workplace militancy are all part of it. France and Germany's membership of the EEC and Britain being outside was also a contributory factor. Who gets how much blame depends on where you are standing. Its got its roots in the post war period. Post war Britain was desperate for foreign exchange - 'export or die' - and focussed on selling the same old products to the same old markets using the same old plant. Germany and Japan had to rebuild from scratch - new products, new factories and a willingness to work hard for next to nothing because they felt defeated and had to rebuild. Britons by comparison felt they were owed something from winning the war.

Edited 7 September, 2016 by buctootim

[buctootim]

Not sure why I am quoting the Ford spokesperson from the article you posted but here goes...

 

"Due to the success of our other advanced-technology engines - including the 1.0-litre EcoBoost petrol engine - and anticipated changes in demand in Europe and other markets, we now expect the global volume of the new engines not to be as high as originally planned," said a spokesman.

 

So don't expect global volumes to be as high and there are anticipated changes in demand. Seems sensible to cut back costs if you ask me. No mention of brexit though. keep taking the pills

 

Must be part of the decline in Ford's you were talking about. You know - the one where they have growing sales, increasing workforce, are market leaders and have record profits.

 

Spin it how you like but post Brexit Ford are reducing investment in the UK - reversing a decision taken only a year ago - despite expanding in the rest of the world. They are planning to make 1.5 million of the new 'Dragon' engines pa worldwide from plants in Europe, Russia, Brazil and China, a reduction of c7% on previous plans. They could have scaled back at any of those, but they didn't, they chose Bridgend and halved volume. Japan are warning they will do the same if 'full' Brexit goes ahead. Sorry if that doesn't fit the narrative.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37272163

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37270372

https://www.ft.com/content/1bef35ac-3c44-11e6-8716-a4a71e8140b0

Edited 7 September, 2016 by buctootim

[Whitey Grandad]

The online parliamentary petition calling for another referendum was debated in committee. I surprisingly found it an interesting read and have selected a few statements here:

 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-09-05/debates/1609058000001/EUReferendumRules

 

 

My hon. Friend is right. That is the case, which is why it was breathtaking to hear that Britain will not be discussing Europe for much longer. If we exit the European Union, this House is about to be consumed with legislation that will probably be with us for more than a decade. One Whitehall Department alone, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has 1,200 pieces of legislation that would need to be repealed. The task ahead for the nation is gargantuan. We are perhaps talking about the sort of effort involved in reconstruction after the war, or something comparable to the birth or the loss of empire.

 

It is important to note that it has been said that the referendum “does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented”. Those are not the words of a bitter remain campaigner, but of the House of Commons Library briefing on the European Union Referendum Bill. It is important to think hard about the fact that when we voted on the referendum it was described to the House as advisory and non-binding. It was advice—to hear what the people had to say; but it was not binding. It was not two thirds. ​It was not a quadruple lock—all nations agreeing, so that we can move forward in a straightforward constitution. It was a non-binding advisory referendum. As such we need further mechanisms to hear that advice and really think about the detail of how we now move forward. What are hon. Members scared of? Why are they so scared of Parliament looking at it? Is it because the Government of the day are divided on the issue? Is that why they are scared about having such debate? I suspect it is.

 

We must also remember that 63% of the electorate did not vote for Brexit at all; that more than 2 million British expats were denied a vote, and 13 million more decided not even to cast their vote. So what are the circumstances in which I would entertain our having a second vote? A very clear set of promises were made. There would be £350 million going to the NHS every week. We would maintain full access to the single market, while not having the free movement that goes with it. EU citizens already here would be given the right to stay. As far as I am concerned, a set of clear pledges were given by all the different vote leave campaigners. I believe that if the deal that is reached at the end of this process is substantially and materially different from that that many of the leave voters believed they were promised, we could legitimately ask for a second referendum, but the fact is that we have not got to that point yet. If we go straight to one now, we will simply further divide our country.

 

The Government’s paper on alternatives to EU membership gave four options. The BBC lists five. The Centre for European Reform sets out seven. Which of those was voted for by those voting leave? None of them. How many will we end up with? Well, one of them. What parliamentary or, indeed, public scrutiny have we had of an actual plan to leave the EU? Absolutely none because there was not one and there is not one. That is why I strongly support not just maximum parliamentary scrutiny but calls for a further referendum on the terms of Brexit once they are clear, and on our future relationship with the EU, so that we can all assess what that looks like in the real world. During the campaign, when pressed on the alternative to EU membership, leave campaigners would squeal that they could not possibly be expected to answer those questions because they were not a Government in waiting, but rather they wanted the British people to be in control. What would fulfil that promise more thoroughly than ensuring that the public get the opportunity to cast a positive vote for what a potential Brexit looks like, in addition to their vote against remaining part of the EU?​

 

 

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. One reason why the petition had so many signatories is that there was some confusion about what Brexit might mean, and what “Brexit means Brexit” might mean. However, a consensus has now been clearly established in Westminster Hall that Brexit means breakfast. When I said that before the summer, the BBC thought it was a slip of the tongue, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) has confirmed that it is in fact the case. Whether it is a dog’s breakfast or a full Scottish breakfast has yet to be determined, but the Prime Minister has appointed some cereal[/color] Brexiteers to lead the negotiations. Perhaps it is no surprise that some of them are getting a frostier reception in European capitals, and that some of our neighbours just want to say cheerio to the UK as soon as possible.

 

 

Article 50 is a fuse; once it is lit it cannot be extinguished. If it is prepared for well, it may lead to an extraordinary firework display, as Britain illuminates the world stage with a renewed sense of commercial purpose, but if it is prepared for hastily and badly, the fuse will result in an explosion whose economic consequences will set back our country for a generation.

[OldNick]

The online parliamentary petition calling for another referendum was debated in committee. I surprisingly found it an interesting read and have selected a few statements here:

 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-09-05/debates/1609058000001/EUReferendumRules

 

 

My hon. Friend is right. That is the case, which is why it was breathtaking to hear that Britain will not be discussing Europe for much longer. If we exit the European Union, this House is about to be consumed with legislation that will probably be with us for more than a decade. One Whitehall Department alone, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has 1,200 pieces of legislation that would need to be repealed. The task ahead for the nation is gargantuan. We are perhaps talking about the sort of effort involved in reconstruction after the war, or something comparable to the birth or the loss of empire.

 

It is important to note that it has been said that the referendum “does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented”. Those are not the words of a bitter remain campaigner, but of the House of Commons Library briefing on the European Union Referendum Bill. It is important to think hard about the fact that when we voted on the referendum it was described to the House as advisory and non-binding. It was advice—to hear what the people had to say; but it was not binding. It was not two thirds. ​It was not a quadruple lock—all nations agreeing, so that we can move forward in a straightforward constitution. It was a non-binding advisory referendum. As such we need further mechanisms to hear that advice and really think about the detail of how we now move forward. What are hon. Members scared of? Why are they so scared of Parliament looking at it? Is it because the Government of the day are divided on the issue? Is that why they are scared about having such debate? I suspect it is.

 

We must also remember that 63% of the electorate did not vote for Brexit at all; that more than 2 million British expats were denied a vote, and 13 million more decided not even to cast their vote. So what are the circumstances in which I would entertain our having a second vote? A very clear set of promises were made. There would be £350 million going to the NHS every week. We would maintain full access to the single market, while not having the free movement that goes with it. EU citizens already here would be given the right to stay. As far as I am concerned, a set of clear pledges were given by all the different vote leave campaigners. I believe that if the deal that is reached at the end of this process is substantially and materially different from that that many of the leave voters believed they were promised, we could legitimately ask for a second referendum, but the fact is that we have not got to that point yet. If we go straight to one now, we will simply further divide our country.

 

The Government’s paper on alternatives to EU membership gave four options. The BBC lists five. The Centre for European Reform sets out seven. Which of those was voted for by those voting leave? None of them. How many will we end up with? Well, one of them. What parliamentary or, indeed, public scrutiny have we had of an actual plan to leave the EU? Absolutely none because there was not one and there is not one. That is why I strongly support not just maximum parliamentary scrutiny but calls for a further referendum on the terms of Brexit once they are clear, and on our future relationship with the EU, so that we can all assess what that looks like in the real world. During the campaign, when pressed on the alternative to EU membership, leave campaigners would squeal that they could not possibly be expected to answer those questions because they were not a Government in waiting, but rather they wanted the British people to be in control. What would fulfil that promise more thoroughly than ensuring that the public get the opportunity to cast a positive vote for what a potential Brexit looks like, in addition to their vote against remaining part of the EU?​

 

 

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. One reason why the petition had so many signatories is that there was some confusion about what Brexit might mean, and what “Brexit means Brexit” might mean. However, a consensus has now been clearly established in Westminster Hall that Brexit means breakfast. When I said that before the summer, the BBC thought it was a slip of the tongue, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) has confirmed that it is in fact the case. Whether it is a dog’s breakfast or a full Scottish breakfast has yet to be determined, but the Prime Minister has appointed some cereal[/color] Brexiteers to lead the negotiations. Perhaps it is no surprise that some of them are getting a frostier reception in European capitals, and that some of our neighbours just want to say cheerio to the UK as soon as possible.

 

 

Article 50 is a fuse; once it is lit it cannot be extinguished. If it is prepared for well, it may lead to an extraordinary firework display, as Britain illuminates the world stage with a renewed sense of commercial purpose, but if it is prepared for hastily and badly, the fuse will result in an explosion whose economic consequences will set back our country for a generation.

I voted remain, but this is getting ridiculous. We cant go back on the decision and what a national disgrace if we try and wriggle out. I have always followed that an Englishmans word is his bond and that is how is should stay.

As for all the laws, basically it will be best we keep to how it is and in time repeal anything that does not fit, not go through every piece. The civil servants and lawyers will love the overtime

[Whitey Grandad]

I voted remain, but this is getting ridiculous. We cant go back on the decision and what a national disgrace if we try and wriggle out. I have always followed that an Englishmans word is his bond and that is how is should stay.

As for all the laws, basically it will be best we keep to how it is and in time repeal anything that does not fit, not go through every piece. The civil servants and lawyers will love the overtime

 

I don't think anybody expects there is a chance of a second referendum on the original question. This debate had to be held because of the petition but nevertheless there are some interesting points in there. The real debate is now over what sort of situation we shall find ourselves in. If we don't repeal any laws then we shall not have left the EU, except in name only. The battleground now is over how much say Parliament and the devolved Assemblies will have in the ultimate deal.

Edited 7 September, 2016 by Whitey Grandad
spelling

[solentstars]

brexit is becoming a laugh a minute,led by the 3 stooges fantasists and a government with no plan.. making it up as they go along terrified of becoming isloted from the usa,japan,china,Australia who see the eu as more important. i,m just waiting for reality to start sinking into the dreamers. the guy from ryan air summed up perfectly they need some leadership rather than running around like headless chickens. no wonder the world is laughing at the most senseless own goal since nevile chamberlain waved his white paper of peace in our time deal with hitler.waiting for the next installment of this comedy and hopefully we might have a plan in time.

[Verbal]

There will be a second referendum on Brexit. It's called the 2020 general election. The UK won't have left by then, for technical reasons that Brexit's great architects have, of course, failed to take into account.

 

The largest of those is exiting from the EU budget, which presently runs to 2020. As the specialist lawyer David Allen Green has spelt out in the FT, trying to negotiate an early exit from the budget - say, 2018 or 2019 - will slow up the whole process of exit negotiations. To get that early exit, there would have to be unanimous agreement with the 27 members states and EU institutions, which will add vastly to the burden of exiting from the EU itself. Accepting a natural end, in 2020, would be far quicker than aiming for earlier.

 

In the meantime, and in the words of Harold Macmillan, "events, dear boy..."