Getting brexit done!

[Jon the Hat]

9 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

I think you worry unduly about the UK undercutting EU employment rights.  EU rights include 14 weeks' paid maternity leave plus 4 months unpaid, minimum 20 days holiday per year, and no minimum wage.  Obviously we can't undercut them on minimum wage, but I don't think there is much chance of any government proposing to reduce employment rights below the EU bare minimum.  It's wouldn't be politically viable.  Not a vote winner.

 

As for undercutting corporation tax rates - Luxembourg?  See article about their corporation tax, and why they have as much inward investment as the USA.  Ask yourself why loads of Amazon stuff comes from a Luxembourg registered company.  Perhaps it might be worth considering why Luxembourg is allowed to get away with effective corporation tax rates of 1%, and wonder perhaps why recently retired EU President Jean-Claude Juncker, who certainly knew all about this as he was the Prime Minister and/or Finance Minister of Luxembourg from 1989 to 2009, didn't try and stop it.  The naswer is because the EU does not care about undercutting corporation tax rates.  Not as a general principle, anyway.

 

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100115/why-luxembourg-considered-tax-haven.asp

We are also in a global competition for skills and talent.  There will be no race to the bottom!

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

We are also in a global competition for skills and talent.  There will be no race to the bottom!

That, I think, depends very much on the area of focus. Skills and "intangible" products? Yeah, probably. Manufacturing and processing beyond the bespoke? Nah.

[Alf Bentley]

31 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

I genuinely wonder just how much regulatory red tape we'd have to slice through to be able to viably compete with countries who's people get paid in a month what we get paid in a week. 

 

When you take into consideration the polish bloke that used to work for us is now being paid £300/month for doing the same type of work back home it seems ludicrous to suggest we're somehow going to be blowing European companies out of the water tbh. 

 

I take your point that in some sectors and lines of work, even deregulation would not make us competitive with parts of Eastern Europe.

 

But we clearly are already able to compete in many other sectors, as we make large volumes of exports to the EU (albeit that we import even more).

Presumably these are goods and services that are not only based on cheaper labour, but partly on established expertise, specialist products requiring particular inputs (e.g. Scotch whisky), established trading relationships etc.

 

Thus, it's perfectly rational for the EU to fear that, if the level playing field were tipped to their disadvantage, we might become even more competitive in those areas - and be better able to compete in sectors where we're currently uncompetitive if having fewer regulations allows the UK to cut production costs. It's not just trade competitiveness either, from their perspective we could grab a much higher proportion of inward investment if we continued to have tariff/quota-free trade but imposed fewer regulations on employers and maybe paid investment subsidies to some of them.

[Jon the Hat]

9 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

I take your point that in some sectors and lines of work, even deregulation would not make us competitive with parts of Eastern Europe.

 

But we clearly are already able to compete in many other sectors, as we make large volumes of exports to the EU (albeit that we import even more).

Presumably these are goods and services that are not only based on cheaper labour, but partly on established expertise, specialist products requiring particular inputs (e.g. Scotch whisky), established trading relationships etc.

 

Thus, it's perfectly rational for the EU to fear that, if the level playing field were tipped to their disadvantage, we might become even more competitive in those areas - and be better able to compete in sectors where we're currently uncompetitive if having fewer regulations allows the UK to cut production costs. It's not just trade competitiveness either, from their perspective we could grab a much higher proportion of inward investment if we continued to have tariff/quota-free trade but imposed fewer regulations on employers and maybe paid investment subsidies to some of them.

 

I just don't see it. Automation is what drives down production costs.  Unless you are illegally breaking laws like these garment factories in Leicester, but that is a compliance issue.

[Alf Bentley]

47 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

I think you worry unduly about the UK undercutting EU employment rights.  EU rights include 14 weeks' paid maternity leave plus 4 months unpaid, minimum 20 days holiday per year, and no minimum wage.  Obviously we can't undercut them on minimum wage, but I don't think there is much chance of any government proposing to reduce employment rights below the EU bare minimum.  It's wouldn't be politically viable.  Not a vote winner.

 

As for undercutting corporation tax rates - Luxembourg?  See article about their corporation tax, and why they have as much inward investment as the USA.  Ask yourself why loads of Amazon stuff comes from a Luxembourg registered company.  Perhaps it might be worth considering why Luxembourg is allowed to get away with effective corporation tax rates of 1%, and wonder perhaps why recently retired EU President Jean-Claude Juncker, who certainly knew all about this as he was the Prime Minister and/or Finance Minister of Luxembourg from 1989 to 2009, didn't try and stop it.  The naswer is because the EU does not care about undercutting corporation tax rates.  Not as a general principle, anyway.

 

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100115/why-luxembourg-considered-tax-haven.asp

 

I'm aware of Luxembourg's status as a corporate tax haven. Similarly, lots of companies are registered in the Channel Islands for the same reason (not to mention Caribbean islands).

I don't claim expertise in this field, but presume that part of the reason this is accepted is that it involves the diversion of very little employment - just tax savings through registering companies in these places etc.

 

I don't know exactly how Luxembourg or the Channel Islands fund their public spending, but they have small populations and less need for heavy spending on infrastructure - and presumably get enough corporate/personal tax take to cover that, despite low corporation tax rates. Such a model might be harder for a bigger country with a bigger population to implement, given employment & public spending needs.....though maybe it would be viable alongside other activities?

 

Ireland is a better example of the sort of thing that the EU might fear. It has long had much lower corporation tax rates than most other EU countries (apart from Luxembourg & Channel Islands) - currently 12.5% (just checked!).

Ireland has attracted a lot of inward investment, especially in the I.T. sector, partly due to its low corporation tax rates (as well as the English language, EU membership, well-esteemed education system).

 

Again, I presume that is tolerable to the EU as Ireland has a population of less than 5m and is a fair distance from the continent, so the threat of it collaring too much inward investment and employment is not too great

The UK, on the other hand, is right next to the continent and has a population of 65m+. Thus, the UK has the potential to handle an awful lot of inward investment and employment that might otherwise have gone to France or Germany if it has favourable access to the Single Market but cuts costs for corporations. I'm not just talking about Corporation Tax - and I'm aware that the EU doesn't intervene much in that currently (might do in future if it started skewing competition), but there are multiple ways in which a country can make it more attractive for firms to invest if they have the financial leeway.

 

As for reduced employment rights not being a vote winner, that might seem true now, but might not remain so. A future Govt might be able to persuade that some such changes were necessary to attract jobs - and we do have a history of carping about limits on working hours, too much health & safety red tape etc. Sudden, major reductions in conditions seem unlikely, I agree (except maybe in a crisis) but more gradual reductions over time might be accepted.

 

[Facecloth]

5 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

It is, but its not about Boris either (He is just the majority party elected leader, could be Starmer, could be Corbyn, etc), its about the public's disenfranchisement with politics on the whole. Brexit on the whole is pertinent, your guy/gal in the street is not detail orientated (Yes, it is a sweeping statement, but one I stand by) when it comes to politics. it is commonplace to not spot the difference between reality and assumption. 

So we either re-engage on a large scale or we find a better way for the information to be delivered.

I think people feel they have more power than they've had in a long time in terms of voting, so I'm not sure i agree with the disenfranchised statement. The problem is, whilst there's a desire to use that power, there is large proportion who have no interested in actually looking into what voting for a certain way actually means. Theres no interest for some in scratching under the surface of what Boris says, because on the face of it he's saying what they want to hear. In fact I'd say one of the biggest problems is people spend more time trying find fault in the person they don't intend to vote for that they do actually trying to fully understand the person they are intending to vote for.

 

We're not in a time of political disinterest, we're in a time of political laziness. People care, just not enough to actually put any effort in. And whilst they all do it, Boris, with the help of people like Cummings, is one of the best at playing on that laziness in order to get results. Remember at the last election when the tories got their knuckles wrapped for the twitter fact check account, and the badly edited interview making Starmer look bad. Their defence was that they weren't lying, all the correct information was there if people looked for it, but they know people won't look for it, so they were being deliberately misleading.

Edited 11 December 2020 by Facecloth

[Dahnsouff]

26 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I think people feel they have more power than they've had in a long time in terms of voting, so I'm not sure i agree with the disenfranchised statement. The problem is, whilst there's a desire to use that power, there is large proportion who have no interested in actually looking into what voting for a certain way actually means. Theres no interest for some in scratching under the surface of what Boris says, because on the face of it he's saying what they want to hear. In fact I'd say one of the biggest problems is people spend more time trying find fault in the person they don't intend to vote for that they do actually trying to fully understand the person they are intending to vote for.

 

We're not in a time of political disinterest, we're in a time of political laziness. People care, just not enough to actually put any effort in. And whilst they all do it, Boris, with the help of people like Cummings, is one of the best at playing on that laziness in order to get results. Remember at the last election when the tories got their knuckles wrapped for the twitter fact check account, and the badly edited interview making Starmer look bad. Their defence was that they weren't lying, all the correct information was there if people looked for it, but they know people won't look for it, so they were being deliberately misleading.

Thanks, I enjoyed reading that,

 

I find the bit in a bold a little hard to swallow, purely for the fact that it is an illusion imo. Soapboxes presented online or on other mediums do not represents an exposure of available power, they represent an opportunity to invoke that belief in people utilising them. I actually think that this is evident well outside of the political arena, and just that politics offers a more ever present and divisive forum for promoting exactly this type of self illusion..

 

The point about political laziness is well made and a lot of this (in my opinion) is that it relates to they way we are asked or perhaps forced to consume our information. There is no point of perceived trust in any particular news outlet, such that finding a truth that seem equitable to our own thinking becomes primary in the information we consume. This gives rise to a general distrust and disinterest in news outside of preferred reading, and it is this personalised take on news that is giving the impression of secular and non critical thinking.

 

Perhaps that is more in line with what I was attempting to convey by disenfranchisement

[Voll Blau]

Just looking at a few choice predictions for where we'd be right now on the first page of this thread...

 

Again, Arf.

[bovril]

Just now, Voll Blau said:

Just looking at a few choice predictions for where we'd be right now on the first page of this thread...

 

Again, Arf.

Wonder what MattP is up to. Growing turnips and installing barbed wire perhaps.

 

Come to think of it Brexit is like an international version of a MattP foxestalk flounce. 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, bovril said:

Wonder what MattP is up to. Growing turnips and installing barbed wire perhaps.

 

Come to think of it Brexit is like an international version of a MattP foxestalk flounce. 

TBH I wouldn't mind seeing Matt back around here, mostly because I'd like his take on how the "guy he'd never vote for" has been handed his P45.

[bovril]

Mods can we unban MattP just for a pile on? 

[Alf Bentley]

14 minutes ago, bovril said:

Mods can we unban MattP just for a pile on? 

 

I appreciate this was said with humorous intent, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't banned (not for a long period, anyway).

 

I think he got annoyed at having a post removed and asked to have his account closed, though I might be wrong.

 

I'm sure he lurks here occasionally and will return if he feels we'll benefit from his wisdom - or if he just fancies a good verbal ruck! 

[LiberalFox]

If you want to know MattP's political views just read Guido Fawkes. 

[Jon the Hat]

On 14/12/2019 at 21:33, Jon the Hat said:

Prediction: Boris will sign a deal with the EU which is a lot closer in trading terms for goods than anyone expects.  Not free movement but a lot of alignment.

Will everything be done in a year? No.  Will everyone like it? No again.  He’ll do it anyway because it’ll be the right thing.

Well I must say Boris has been more hardline than I expected.  He is so far standing firm on the remaining issues.  We will still have a deal at some point next year, however I now expect it to be looser.

[Dahnsouff]

If we don`t sign a trade deal by January 1st 2021, is there anything that stops us signing a trade deal January 2nd 2021?

[Bellend Sebastian]

6 hours ago, Nalis said:

Its silly logic isnt it and not the first time I've heard something similar, there isnt a single EU country that is mostly brown or mostly Muslim so what was the point in voting for Brexit on that basis? If anything it means more non-white European immigrants coming into the UK so more fool those who voted Brexit on purely on racist grounds*.

 

*Obv there are other reasons people voted Brexit before I get pelters.

I think it was loosely, and I mean very loosely, to do with the boats trying to cross the Med from Africa at the time, although how leaving the EU would address this issue he was predictably unable to explain

[Spudulike]

14 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

I think it was loosely, and I mean very loosely, to do with the boats trying to cross the Med from Africa at the time, although how leaving the EU would address this issue he was predictably unable to explain

I think it was more to do with Angela flinging open the German doors to a million plus migrants and where they might end up after getting citizenship. 

 

Also the threat of Turkey joining the EU. 

[Bellend Sebastian]

6 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

I think it was more to do with Angela flinging open the German doors to a million plus migrants and where they might end up after getting citizenship. 

 

Also the threat of Turkey joining the EU. 

I'd really like to credit him with that level of understanding, but that would be unfair.

 

This is a man who, on our holiday the previous year, told me very solemnly that smoking (which he had just given up) does not cause lung cancer, which can be attributed to "other things"

[Lionator]

Deploying 4 new boats to the English channel to protect our fishing waters is going to cost more than how much the British fishing industry makes to the economy, isn't it?

 

Also who the hell are we going to be selling our fish to if we don't get a trade deal with the EU?

Edited 12 December 2020 by Lionator

[Kingleicester]

13 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Deploying 4 new boats to the English channel to protect our fishing waters is going to cost more than how much the British fishing industry makes to the economy, isn't it?

 

Also who the hell are we going to be selling our fish to if we don't get a trade deal with the EU?

Do you suggest we just bend over and take an absolutely shite deal??  (If that’s what’s on the table) I’m getting the hint by most on here, we should just accept  a deal what suits the EU and not us, the obsession with borris on here is very weird, surly surly he is trying to get the best deal for the U.K., I think we need someone in charge with a bit of passion to deal with EU, who just wanna bend us over and **** us in the ass! 

[Spudulike]

23 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Deploying 4 new boats to the English channel to protect our fishing waters is going to cost more than how much the British fishing industry makes to the economy, isn't it?

 

Also who the hell are we going to be selling our fish to if we don't get a trade deal with the EU?

I think these boats are already on patrol protecting waters from illegal fishing by non EU boats. Seems their remit has changed. 

 

Perhaps more fish will be sold into the UK market instead of importing fish from the EU of those caught in UK territorial waters. The seafood that other Europeans like to consume (that we don't) we be left in the sea if it can't be exported. Good chance for marine recovery which I'm sure the Greens must approve of. 

[I am Rod Hull]

18 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Deploying 4 new boats to the English channel to protect our fishing waters is going to cost more than how much the British fishing industry makes to the economy, isn't it?

 

Also who the hell are we going to be selling our fish to if we don't get a trade deal with the EU?

The Royal Navy (River Class vessels) patrol our fishing waters all year round, It`s a none story. 

 

 

[Nalis]

Genuine not wumming question - why are the French insisting on still using British fishing waters as part of the negotiations? Bit like us insisting on part of Brittany as part of a trade deal.

[leicsmac]

41 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

I think these boats are already on patrol protecting waters from illegal fishing by non EU boats. Seems their remit has changed. 

 

Perhaps more fish will be sold into the UK market instead of importing fish from the EU of those caught in UK territorial waters. The seafood that other Europeans like to consume (that we don't) we be left in the sea if it can't be exported. Good chance for marine recovery which I'm sure the Greens must approve of. 

I'm sorry, would you mind terribly elaborating on this seeming conservationist argument for trade protectionism?

 

I've gotta say that the arguments I've heard so far tend to be "they're our resources to exploit" rather than ones in favour of not exploiting them at all.

[Alf Bentley]

47 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Genuine not wumming question - why are the French insisting on still using British fishing waters as part of the negotiations? Bit like us insisting on part of Brittany as part of a trade deal.

 

Quite an informative article here (dates from October): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54526145