What's in the news?

[Toddybad]

10 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

 

Just in case you missed it toddy. 

Didn't realise we'd left the EU without a deal 

[gw_leics772]

20 minutes ago, Toddybad said:

Tbh it should be irrelevant if people want a no deal or not, it can't be allowed to happen by any responsible government. 

 

People were given the option of leaving, or staying in, the EU, not whether or not to destroy our economy. 

 

Most politicians don't understand the impact of no deal, let alone normal people. 

 

For example, a fact that won't be publicised is that the working assumption of the NHS is that drug costs will rise by 35-40% in the event of no deal. That's a huge number.

 

This isn't some pro-EU politician that's come up with that, it's the genuine internal expectation. That wasn't ever put on the side of a bus was it? 

 

Just today Sony have confirmed they are moving their European HQ from London to Amsterdam, Bentley have described no deal Brexit as a killer for their business, and Dyson is moving its HQ to Singapore - though the say that isn't Brexit related but just bairns to coincide with the thing their owner argued for. 

Im with toddy, we're all too stupid to know what we are voting for.

 

Hold an iq test for voters and weight it towards the most intelligent (iq is too lateral, base it on maybe whether you agree with the post above, if not, your vote shouldn't count.)

 

And nobody ever thought of the possibility of "damaging the economy" so on that basis, the leave votes should be declared null and void.

 

Anybody who said they did is lieing or stupid, or a stupid liar. And if they said they see economical damage as an acceptable risk then they are double stupid.

 

And alongside the medicine arguments, apparently a freddo bar will need a remortgage (or a lay on from their dealer for the stupid ignorant criminals) to fund the £300,000 DEFINITIVE cost of a freddo starting from the day we leave. And thats not statistics, thats from barry who works in packing and he should know.

 

As for big companies moving to countries where labour is cheaper, that is ****ing radical. They kept that quiet. Im worried that this could be the death knell for uk manufacturing (best keep our eye on taiwan)

 

Should i warn my mum? Shes had a cushy number working the twilight shift in an all womens sweatshop in hinckley. We'll be pushed into the service industry at this rate. I think we should possibly concentrate on that new fandangled financial services sector. (But theres something about that i cant quite bring myself to trust. It'll all end in tears(

 

Good work toddy, im converted. Keep banging that drum son.

 

 

[Innovindil]

17 minutes ago, Toddybad said:

Didn't realise we'd left the EU without a deal 

How come the businesses that have declared they are moving are because of brexit then? 

[Toddybad]

18 minutes ago, gw_leics772 said:

Im with toddy, we're all too stupid to know what we are voting for.

 

Hold an iq test for voters and weight it towards the most intelligent (iq is too lateral, base it on maybe whether you agree with the post above, if not, your vote shouldn't count.)

 

And nobody ever thought of the possibility of "damaging the economy" so on that basis, the leave votes should be declared null and void.

 

Anybody who said they did is lieing or stupid, or a stupid liar. And if they said they see economical damage as an acceptable risk then they are double stupid.

 

And alongside the medicine arguments, apparently a freddo bar will need a remortgage (or a lay on from their dealer for the stupid ignorant criminals) to fund the £300,000 DEFINITIVE cost of a freddo starting from the day we leave. And thats not statistics, thats from barry who works in packing and he should know.

 

As for big companies moving to countries where labour is cheaper, that is ****ing radical. They kept that quiet. Im worried that this could be the death knell for uk manufacturing (best keep our eye on taiwan)

 

Should i warn my mum? Shes had a cushy number working the twilight shift in an all womens sweatshop in hinckley. We'll be pushed into the service industry at this rate. I think we should possibly concentrate on that new fandangled financial services sector. (But theres something about that i cant quite bring myself to trust. It'll all end in tears(

 

Good work toddy, im converted. Keep banging that drum son.

 

 

You seem to be having an entirely different argument to me. 

 

I didn't mention stupidity. 

 

I said that the choice was leave or remain. That's it. I don't understand why the half of the population that won the vote then went on to believe that they had a say in how we left.

 

You have to trust in the experts and officials that have information to hand that the rest of us don't - my example of drug cost increases being one of a million things nobody would have thought of. That's the point of a government. 

 

Its quite straightforward. 

 

It's the same as choosing a government but not getting to choose a government's policies. 

 

My point on, for example, Jaguar last week and Bentley this week making clear that no deal brexit would alter their rights over the future in the UK, and Sony taking action already, are that the idea that officials are making up warnings - as many brexiteers seem to think - is nonsense. 

[gw_leics772]

1 hour ago, Toddybad said:

You seem to be having an entirely different argument to me. 

 

I didn't mention stupidity. 

 

I said that the choice was leave or remain. That's it. I don't understand why the half of the population that won the vote then went on to believe that they had a say in how we left.

 

You have to trust in the experts and officials that have information to hand that the rest of us don't - my example of drug cost increases being one of a million things nobody would have thought of. That's the point of a government. 

 

Its quite straightforward. 

 

It's the same as choosing a government but not getting to choose a government's policies. 

 

My point on, for example, Jaguar last week and Bentley this week making clear that no deal brexit would alter their rights over the future in the UK, and Sony taking action already, are that the idea that officials are making up warnings - as many brexiteers seem to think - is nonsense. 

My argument was somewhat facetious obviously.

 

The facts you quote make sense re ketting the government donwhat they are elected and paid to do, but they have now earned my complete disdain at their inability to represent the masses.

 

A deal that nobody wants is quite impressive. I get that they are far more pro remain than joe public, but my take is that is far more self serving than trying to protect us from what we think we want, and the fact that the remainers dont want it as well just shows how clueless they are.

 

You are obviously passionate about your stance but faith/trust in politicians is a bridge too far for me.

 

I admire your passion and if my circumstances were different, id probably be saying much the same thing, but they're not and people are inherently selfish beings. If i felt the negatives would affect me more.... or even had children with complex medical needs, but alas they aren't and we are where we are.

 

You put up a good fight old chum.

 

Godspeed

[WigstonWanderer]

Having migrated to Australia 16 years ago, I didn’t take much interest in the Brexit vote at the time, and basically assumed it would never happen. Only really sat up after the vote when the pound plummeted and devalued my remaining assets in the UK. So genuine questions:

 

Was the Irish situation regarding the effect of the Good Friday agreement, the necesssity to keep the Irish border open, and the consequent effect on any Brexit deal, widely discussed in any detail before the vote?

 

In the event of a No Deal Brexit, won’t the EU insist that the Irish Border must close, in other words, they will insist on customs checks, etc?

Edited 22 January 2019 by WigstonWanderer

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, The Doctor said:

Scottish parliament has received a motion to congratulate a YouTuber for a charity stream done with Osacio-Cortez with the intent of pissing off father Ted writer Graham Linehan: http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/28877.aspx?SearchType=Advance&ReferenceNumbers=S5M-15504

 

 

Politics in 2019 is the strangest timeline

Very much so.

 

Posted a vid in the Trump thread on this topic.

[Toddybad]

6 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Having migrated to Australia 16 years ago, I didn’t take much interest in the Brexit vote at the time, and basically assumed it would never happen. Only really sat up after the vote when the pound plummeted and devalued my remaining assets in the UK. So genuine questions:

 

Was the Irish situation regarding the effect of the Good Friday agreement, the necesssity to keep the Irish border open, and the consequent effect on any Brexit deal, widely discussed in any detail before the vote?

 

In the event of a No Deal Brexit, won’t the EU insist that the Irish Border must close, in other words, they will insist on customs checks, etc?

 

The EU confirmed yesterday that no deal would see a hard border erected. 

 

I don't recall it being talked about much in the campaigns though it could have been raised by the remain campaign. 

Edited 23 January 2019 by Toddybad

[WigstonWanderer]

Yes in noticed that. It seems that there was so much that people either didn’t know,  didn’t realise or were outright lied to about, that the the vote was actually a complete farce.

 

Cameron should never have asked the question in the way it was framed, should never have made a simple majority sufficient to decide such a momentous change, and should have made provision for the final options that can actually be negotiated to be put back to a public vote, together with the option to remain.

[Innovindil]

56 minutes ago, Toddybad said:

 

The EU confirmed yesterday that no deal would see a hard border erected. 

 

I don't recall it being talked about much in the campaigns though it could have been raised by the remain campaign. 

Either finish off the whole report or don't bother at all imo. 

 

After the eu commissioner said there would pretty obviously be a hard border. It then goes on to say:

 

"However, the Irish government has repeated its stance that it will "not accept a hard border on this island"."

 

So that's the Republic of Ireland that won't accept a hard border and Northern Ireland that won't accept a hard border. Someone needs to let me know how they are going to put a hard border up, because I just don't see it. 

 

And the Irish border was brought up a few times before the referendum I think. Remember Blair harping about it and ironically I think May talked about it a few days before the vote. 

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Either finish off the whole report or don't bother at all imo. 

 

After the eu commissioner said there would pretty obviously be a hard border. It then goes on to say:

 

"However, the Irish government has repeated its stance that it will "not accept a hard border on this island"."

 

So that's the Republic of Ireland that won't accept a hard border and Northern Ireland that won't accept a hard border. Someone needs to let me know how they are going to put a hard border up, because I just don't see it. 

 

And the Irish border was brought up a few times before the referendum I think. Remember Blair harping about it and ironically I think May talked about it a few days before the vote. 

You may not "see it" and you're obviously right that it's a huge stumbling block but you've not proved that there won't be a hard border, you've just highlighted the problem that we were already aware of: The EU needs a hard border because of the single market but neither Ireland has any appetite for one.  Just as it seems unconscionable to implement a border from our point of view, from theirs it seems equally so to leave a 500km stretch of unregulated border between the single market and the rest of the world.

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Either finish off the whole report or don't bother at all imo. 

 

After the eu commissioner said there would pretty obviously be a hard border. It then goes on to say:

 

"However, the Irish government has repeated its stance that it will "not accept a hard border on this island"."

 

So that's the Republic of Ireland that won't accept a hard border and Northern Ireland that won't accept a hard border. Someone needs to let me know how they are going to put a hard border up, because I just don't see it. 

 

And the Irish border was brought up a few times before the referendum I think. Remember Blair harping about it and ironically I think May talked about it a few days before the vote. 

 

 

The Irish Govt now seems to be adopting a fall-back position that if the UK ends up leaving with No Deal, Ireland will consider a bilateral UK-Irish treaty to equalise Customs arrangements between the two.....but that would have the same political difficulties as the backstop - and little chance of acceptance by Brexiteers. In which case, if all parties stick to their positions, presumably the EU/WTO would force Ireland to have a hard border to avoid problems with the WTO and the UK could potentially be expelled from the WTO if it didn't erect a hard border.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/22/irish-pm-tells-uk-only-bilateral-deal-would-prevent-post-brexit-hard-border

"The Irish prime minister, Leo Varadkar, has said the UK and Ireland would have to negotiate a bilateral agreement on “full alignment” of customs to avoid a hard border with Northern Ireland in a no-deal scenario. It is the first time the taoiseach has mentioned the possibility of a separate deal with the UK to mitigate against a hard border. He was speaking after the European commission spokesman said it was “pretty obvious” border infrastructure would be necessary if the UK were to leave without an agreement. Ireland has avoided talking about what it would do in the event of the UK crashing out of the EU, but experts say controls would be mandatory under European and WTO rules on both sides of the Northern Ireland border if the UK left the bloc".

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/17/checks-on-both-sides-of-irish-border-mandatory-under-no-deal-brexit

"European Union and World Trade Organization checks would be mandatory on both sides of the Irish border in the event of no-deal Brexit, one of the world’s leading experts on customs has said. Michael Lux, a former head of customs legislation and procedures at the European commission, said the UK would have to impose customs checks and tariffs on the northern side of the border, despite claims to the contrary by Brexiters".

 

If this is true, I suppose the UK could still avoid a hard border by opting out of the WTO and adopting the trading status of Mauritania.....

[Innovindil]

8 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

You may not "see it" and you're obviously right that it's a huge stumbling block but you've not proved that there won't be a hard border, you've just highlighted the problem that we were already aware of: The EU needs a hard border because of the single market but neither Ireland has any appetite for one.  Just as it seems unconscionable to implement a border from our point of view, from theirs it seems equally so to leave a 500km stretch of unregulated border between the single market and the rest of the world.

When somebody, anybody, can tell me who the magic people are who are going to walk in between Northern Ireland and the Republic and psyically erect a hard border, then I'll believe there's a possibility of one. 

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Innovindil said:

When somebody, anybody, can tell me who the magic people are who are going to walk in between Northern Ireland and the Republic and psyically erect a hard border, then I'll believe there's a possibility of one. 

Argument from incredulity is not proof.

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

When somebody, anybody, can tell me who the magic people are who are going to walk in between Northern Ireland and the Republic and psyically erect a hard border, then I'll believe there's a possibility of one. 

Well, tbh that attitude towards international law hasn't done the US any harm (or China or Russia, come to that) so maybe it could work out for the Irish too.

[Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

If this is true, I suppose the UK could still avoid a hard border by opting out of the WTO and adopting the trading status of Mauritania.....

 

Mauritania is part of WTO and has signed the EU-ACP EPA now so even they've managed to get away from trading solely on WTO. 

[WigstonWanderer]

5 hours ago, Innovindil said:

When somebody, anybody, can tell me who the magic people are who are going to walk in between Northern Ireland and the Republic and psyically erect a hard border, then I'll believe there's a possibility of one. 

Should have thought the EU would have a range of sanctions against member countries who don’t obey the rules, up to and including expulsion.

[RoboFox]

17 hours ago, Toddybad said:

Just today Sony have confirmed they are moving their European HQ from London to Amsterdam, Bentley have described no deal Brexit as a killer for their business, and Dyson is moving its HQ to Singapore - though the say that isn't Brexit related but just bairns to coincide with the thing their owner argued for. 

 

This tweet is a classic.

 

What an embarrassment. F**king morons.

 

 

Edited 23 January 2019 by RoboFox

[davieG]

17 hours ago, Toddybad said:

Tbh it should be irrelevant if people want a no deal or not, it can't be allowed to happen by any responsible government. 

 

People were given the option of leaving, or staying in, the EU, not whether or not to destroy our economy. 

 

Most politicians don't understand the impact of no deal, let alone normal people. 

 

For example, a fact that won't be publicised is that the working assumption of the NHS is that drug costs will rise by 35-40% in the event of no deal. That's a huge number.

 

This isn't some pro-EU politician that's come up with that, it's the genuine internal expectation. That wasn't ever put on the side of a bus was it? 

 

Just today Sony have confirmed they are moving their European HQ from London to Amsterdam, Bentley have described no deal Brexit as a killer for their business, and Dyson is moving its HQ to Singapore - though the say that isn't Brexit related but just bairns to coincide with the thing their owner argued for. 

It's not always as simple as it might seem although I too thought that's a bit rich coming from a very vocal leaver.

 

 

Dyson's move to Singapore could help the UK
Karishma Vaswani
Asia business correspondent
@BBCKarishma on Twitter

Dyson makes a range of household appliances
Sir James Dyson's decision to move to Singapore may have been greeted with scorn by some but there could be advantages for the UK if more companies followed his Asian growth strategy.

The better Dyson's business does in Asia - the more likely more tax will be paid in the UK by Sir James and his shareholders on the dividends they receive from the profits the company makes in this fast growing region.

Post-Brexit no matter what happens, focusing on a growing part of the world makes financial sense and should ultimately be a win for the UK.

Here are three reasons why:

 

1. The future is Asian
Dyson saw profits jump by a third in 2018, posting just over a billion pounds last year. By some estimates as much as 70% was powered by Asian growth.

The focus on Asia makes sense, analysts say, given that the firm's future customers - who will buy its bagless vacuum cleaners and powerful hair dryers - are in Indonesia, India and China, rather than in the UK.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
According to the OECD, half of the world's middle and upper class will be Asian by 2019. By 2030, two thirds of all middle class spending power will be concentrated in Asia.

"The decision to expand Dyson's footprint in Asia is sensible, given Dyson's customer strength and growth opportunities in Asia", said Gordon Lawson, Partner and Head of UK desk, KPMG Singapore.

"It's a recognition that any UK business's future strategy has to place significant emphasis on Asia."

Shifting its corporate headquarters here also means some of Dyson's top executives will move to Singapore - a sensible strategic decision according to Mr Lawson who says being based in the same time zone as the bulk of their customers will help Dyson to remain competitive in an extremely tough market.

 

2. More profit and opportunities
Still Sir James has been criticised for moving the firm's corporate headquarters to Singapore, which some see as a way to minimise his UK tax bill.

Mr Lawson says that's not strictly correct.

"UK shareholders of Dyson will continue to pay tax in the UK on dividends and gains they derive from the success of the global business,"

"The business makes profit, but the UK shareholders are taxed on that profit."

Dyson is owned by Sir James and his family.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
Dyson says moving its headquarters to Singapore will make it "future-proof"
Dyson has also said the tax reasons were not behind the move, given the difference in the countries corporate tax rates are negligible.

The UK cut its corporation tax to 19% in April 2017, and is set to reduce it to 17% in 2020.

Singapore has a current corporate tax rate of 17%, but the government does dole out numerous tax benefits, including tax deductions for companies investing in research and development.

Analysts say that with Dyson's increased investment in Asia, there will be a corresponding requirement for more jobs here - as the firm will need British expertise in research and development.

 

3. UK business should look East
Dyson's move to Singapore should encourage other British companies to do the same instead of always betting only on the EU and US for growth, says Dario Acconci, managing director of Hawksford South East Asia.

Dyson picks Singapore for electric car plant
Dyson wins vacuum cleaner tests ruling
The firm helps UK businesses set up in overseas markets, and in recent months has seen a flurry of enquiries for companies looking to expand in Asia and mitigate the political instability in the UK caused by uncertainty surrounding Brexit.

"British businesses, particularly in the luxury and retail sector, aren't capitalising enough on Asia's middle class growth enough", Mr Acconci adds. "Thanks to Brexit they realise they need to look beyond the typical markets they've always focused on."

The move by Sir James may be seen by some as a Brexiteer jumping ship, but for UK companies to thrive in the future focusing on growth in Asia is the right plan, whatever the reason.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46968726

[yorkie1999]

17 hours ago, Innovindil said:

How come the businesses that have declared they are moving are because of brexit then? 

Because those businesses are using Brexit as an excuse to relocate to better markets and also to shed staff. Many companies have done the same thing in the past to take advantage of cheaper labour and government incentives whilst always blaming the market. Jaguar have been struggling for a few years and had pinned a lot of hope on the velar, which they're struggling to sell because they look crap and don't fill any gap in their current line up as well as being screwed over by the government u-turn on diesel policy 

   Don't hear JCB or Triumph shouting about jumping ship because of Brexit. Why? Because they sell their products to a Made In Britain motto. 

[boots60]

If Dyson left the UK it would be disastrous.

It would leave a huge vacuum

[boots60]

But he will clean up in Singapore

The whole thing sucks

[RoboFox]

Edit: beaten to a punchline. 

Edited 23 January 2019 by RoboFox

[yorkie1999]

He's moving to Singapore because that's where he see's electric cars viably becoming the mainstream form of transport, unlike this country for probably the next 50 years .

[Milo]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

Because those businesses are using Brexit as an excuse to relocate to better markets and also to shed staff. Many companies have done the same thing in the past to take advantage of cheaper labour and government incentives whilst always blaming the market. Jaguar have been struggling for a few years and had pinned a lot of hope on the velar, which they're struggling to sell because they look crap and don't fill any gap in their current line up as well as being screwed over by the government u-turn on diesel policy 

   Don't hear JCB or Triumph shouting about jumping ship because of Brexit. Why? Because they sell their products to a Made In Britain motto. 

?