[Politics] Brexit

[Bold Seagull]

No different then from Dyson? This not about leave or remain this is about capitalism and manoeuvring to extract maximum profit for shareholders. It was not that long ago that Airbus lost a dispute at WTO because it was in receipt of £22bn (approx) of subsidies from 4 Govs including the UK.

So, if they go, (like others have before while in the EU) they can pay back the loan in full.

Trouble is capitalists like their political handmaidens are liars.....

https://www.bloombergquint.com/poli...y-in-post-brexit-u-k-for-a-very-long-time.amp

There is no truth, merely words on a balance sheet.

Out of interest, where do you stand politically after Brexit is over? Is there any UK politics that would get your vote or your support? Or if none of the above,hypothetically what manifesto ticket would be behind? It is a genuine question.

 

[A1X]

No different then from Dyson? This not about leave or remain this is about capitalism and manoeuvring to extract maximum profit for shareholders. It was not that long ago that Airbus lost a dispute at WTO because it was in receipt of £22bn (approx) of subsidies from 4 Govs including the UK.

So, if they go, (like others have before while in the EU) they can pay back the loan in full.

Trouble is capitalists like their political handmaidens are liars.....

https://www.bloombergquint.com/poli...y-in-post-brexit-u-k-for-a-very-long-time.amp

There is no truth, merely words on a balance sheet.

You may think differently, but I have not seen any Remainers claiming that they understand how Dyson works better than James Dyson. What I have seen is people pointing out the hypocrisy that someone who has campaigned to see Britain remove it's trading deal with Europe seeks to take advantage of that negotiated by another country while still maintaining the original country should sever it's own ties. It's the same as Jacob Rees-Mogg and his hedge fund, "do as I say but not as I do" is not a good look to rally behind.

This is quite, quite different to the companies like Airbus, Sony, P&O, Honda and all the others who said at various points "this will negatively impact our UK investment" then saying "we're leaving the UK" or similar, mostly because what they said was exactly what they did. And then we have seen Brexit supporters saying, entirely seriously, that they understand the industry of said companies better than those companies do. Which begs two questions;

A. Why haven't they gone and made a killing in that industry if they so understand it?
B. Why when they have such a good knowledge of other industries do they routinely fail so badly at their chosen one?

 

[CHAPPERS]

110,000 supply chain jobs at risk if Airbus leave is it?

Cool man.

 

[Pretty Plnk Fairy]

110,000 supply chain jobs at risk if Airbus leave is it?

Cool man.

its grate beccause their are 100000 vacantsies in the NHS so can work there in stead and eveyone is a winner and we can then build are OWN planes likes we did with the Spitfire and were once again WINNERS in WW One

Regards
DR

 

[Driver8]

110,000 supply chain jobs at risk if Airbus leave is it?

Cool man.

Yep. They are the biggest employer near me (at Broughton) so that will be great for the area. Well done leavers.

 

[A1X]

How did Broughton vote in 2016?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

From 'let's give £350M to our NHS instead', to this. America has been itching to get its hands on our health service. Out of the EU and we are vulnerable.

[tweet]1088397402942390273[/tweet]

 

[A1X]

[TWEET]1088404613726961665[/TWEET]

 

[Driver8]

How did Broughton vote in 2016?

Flintshire voted leave. Like turkeys voting for Christmas.

 

[nicko31]

110,000 supply chain jobs at risk if Airbus leave is it?

Cool man.

If Airbus goes, expect Honda, BMW, Toyota, JLR, Nissan and more to follow. This isn't project fear, they mean it, but Tory brexiteers think they understand the aerospace sector better than the industry does

Such closures would decimate vast areas of country, many of which are heavily reliance on such industries.

Parliament needs to stand up for Britain, the government are no longer capable

 

[nicko31]

Flintshire voted leave. Like turkeys voting for Christmas.

They were groomed, but doesn't mean they deserve the pain of losing their jobs. Dacre is upstairs with his feet up, he doesn't care now, job done

 

[cunning fergus]

What The Clamp has written is true, your denigration of the resistance movements across Europe does you no favours. Their help in extricating spies and escaped POWs was immense, and they also helped lay the ground for tactical missions such as Operation Deadstick.

An interesting side discussion, which for balance should consider all the consequences of occupation both resistance and collaboration. In the 60s a French documentary was produced that dealt with this in an area of France that endured German occupation.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2001/08/sff3-a16.html

I think it was subject to censorship by De Gaulle as it exposed the deep social, political and military problems in France pre WW2 and during its eventual occupation.

I think its balanced and a must see for those with a view on WW2 and resistance. My own take out was how it was overwhelmingly the ruling classes of France (dare I say social classes AB) that collaborated with the Germans because broadly they wanted to safeguard their accumulated money and established influence. Another example of capitalism trumping patriotism.

A point that resonates on this thread “plus ca change” as they say in France!

 

[Two Professors]

Partially true, however there was also a level of hubris about Britain's approach. "Germany would never attack us, don't they know who we are?" Perfidious Albion is not a new concept in international diplomacy.

As to the French being more powerful, this is a dubious claim. If you think of it purely in terms of the Western front possibly, bearing in mind much of the German war machine was already in the East subjugating Poland et al. But the French were more militarily naive than politically so, they put too much faith in the Maginot Line, which the Germans promptly walked around through the low countries.

Why do you think we entered the war you utter dingbat?Because the Germans had invaded Poland,and their mates the commies had invaded from the other side.To say the French forces were far more powerful than the Germans is no exaggeration-just read any competent historical military comparison.

 

[Baker lite]

Crikey...looks like the Peoples/losers/another/Tammy Huff vote could now be a busted flush, who’d of thunk it?



On our way.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Two Professors]

Bloke who doesn't know modern day China is not a democratic country accuses fellow poster of not knowing what he's talking about.


Reminds me Farage whinging ignorantly about the highly educated and experienced Bank of England governor being a remainer - from his position of losing his last election to a man dressed as a dolphin.

The People's Republic of China was established in 1949 as a 'People's Democratic Dictatorship',Chairman Mao's own words.Look in your copy of Marxism,the future.

 

[nicko31]

Take it anyway you like chum, i have offered no opinion either way.
Dyson however has said in the article moving is still a positive for his investment in the UK. If you dont agree with him you are entitled to say why he is wrong.

I'd feel let down if I was in your position, JD promised you sunny uplands after Brexit and heavily campaigned for it, yet as soon as S'pore signed a free trade deal with the EU he announced his was building his car there, and now the Brexit unicorns haven't arrived he's ditched the UK to put his HQ over as well.

At least you still have the JCB bloke on board and has now employed failed DD for £3k / hour, all is not lost

 

[dingodan]

The possibility of a common defence policy is enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty's Article 42. I have already posted what the hurdles that possibility has to overcome are, to become reality, and that we cannot be forced into anything we don't want to sign up to.
Bar the first link, all of your links re iterate this and some suggest ways to achieve greater co operation in Foreign policy without there being a loss of individual member control.
Please understand that in the same way as there is no NATO army, there will not be an EU Army, all that there is, is commitment to work more closely together and for the EU to bear some of the cost of joint operations that are for the benefit of the wider EU. It really is not the case that an EU citizen will ever be able to join an EU army, they can join their national army, and may be sent on EU operations by that nations command, just as they do for NATO or UN operations.

"In September 2017, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker proposed qualified majority voting for foreign policy decisions.24 This would certainly remove a big obstacle to the EU’s effectiveness and could be done even under the existing treaty. However, it is very unlikely to happen. By accepting majority voting, member states would effectively subordinate their own national foreign policy to that of the EU, and only very few of them seem ready to do that."

I think you are being a little naive.

What we know is that it is currently the desire of the EU to have nation states subordinate their foriegn policy to the EU. We also know that there is not currently the political will to achieve this. We also know that when you say "No" to the EU, they just come back and ask again until you give the right answer.

We joined a common market, not a political union, remember?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

"In September 2017, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker proposed qualified majority voting for foreign policy decisions.24 This would certainly remove a big obstacle to the EU’s effectiveness and could be done even under the existing treaty. However, it is very unlikely to happen. By accepting majority voting, member states would effectively subordinate their own national foreign policy to that of the EU, and only very few of them seem ready to do that."

I think you are being a little naive.

What we know is that it is currently the desire of the EU to have nation states subordinate their foriegn policy to the EU. We also know that there is not currently the political will to achieve this. We also know that when you say "No" to the EU, they just come back and ask again until you give the right answer.

We joined a common market, not a political union, remember?

Read your first paragraph to yourself.

Juncker retires this summer.

 

[dingodan]

Read your first paragraph to yourself.

Juncker retires this summer.

& will no doubt be replaced by someone who has a vision completely different to his, right? No.

Presidents are nominated by the Council, if they nominated Juncker then he must have fit the bill. The new guy will fit the bill too.

The vision isn't Junckers anyway, it's an institutional vision. If Juncker felt any differently he wouldn't have been nominated and then "elected" President in the first place.

 

[Baldseagull]

"In September 2017, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker proposed qualified majority voting for foreign policy decisions.24 This would certainly remove a big obstacle to the EU’s effectiveness and could be done even under the existing treaty. However, it is very unlikely to happen. By accepting majority voting, member states would effectively subordinate their own national foreign policy to that of the EU, and only very few of them seem ready to do that."

I think you are being a little naive.

What we know is that it is currently the desire of the EU to have nation states subordinate their foriegn policy to the EU. We also know that there is not currently the political will to achieve this. We also know that when you say "No" to the EU, they just come back and ask again until you give the right answer.

We joined a common market, not a political union, remember?

"In September 2017, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker proposed qualified majority voting for foreign policy decisions.24 This would certainly remove a big obstacle to the EU’s effectiveness and could be done even under the existing treaty. However, it is very unlikely to happen. By accepting majority voting, member states would effectively subordinate their own national foreign policy to that of the EU, and only very few of them seem ready to do that."

I think you are being a little paranoid.

If there ever comes to be a UK Government that wants to do it, and the other member states do to, it still will not happen unless a UK referendum approves it, and likewise in many other member states. It is not a realistic possibility.