Brexit Discussion Thread VI

prinzeugen · 18-12-2018 02:48AM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/16/jaguar-land-rover-to-axe-up-to-5000-jobs

5000 jobs! Wow I mean just wow. And yet the reality deniers continue to pretend it's not happening

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1074438319914786818

The official statement from JLR did not mention Britex once. The job losses might not even happen.

https://media.jaguarlandrover.com/news/2018/12/strong-sales-growth-north-america-offset-ongoing-challenges-china

Another case of a journalist pushing an agenda.

Even TATA, the owners, did not mention Britex. China and falling sales of diesel cars.

The 5000 jobs is pure speculation. In other words, bollox!

Kermit.de.frog · 18-12-2018 02:50AM

The author is of "peasant stock" apparently like the rest of us.

https://twitter.com/NaomiOhReally/status/1059077072184860672

Peregrinus · 18-12-2018 03:49AM

prinzeugen wrote: »

The official statement from JLR did not mention Britex once. The job losses might not even happen.

https://media.jaguarlandrover.com/news/2018/12/strong-sales-growth-north-america-offset-ongoing-challenges-china

Another case of a journalist pushing an agenda.

Even TATA, the owners, did not mention Britex. China and falling sales of diesel cars.

The 5000 jobs is pure speculation. In other words, bollox!

JLR have not been silent about the threat posed by Brexit:

https://www.ft.com/content/d077afaa-7f8a-11e8-bc55-50daf11b720d

https://news.sky.com/story/no-deal-brexit-could-cost-60m-a-day-jaguar-boss-warns-11495300

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-11/jlr-chief-tells-may-hard-brexit-will-cost-jobs-wipe-out-profit

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jaguar-land-rover-boss-ralf-speth-ready-to-follow-bmw-with-brexit-factory-shutdown-bqq6gs7jj

You can't really filter out all the JLR statements that mention Brexit, and then argue that the fact that the remaining statements don't mention Brexit proves that JLR is unaffected by Brexit. People will point at you in the street and laugh, and you don't really want that, do you?

As for the claim that "the official statement from JLR" did not mention Brexit, JLR has not yet issued an official statement about next month's expected production cutbacks. What they have issued, and what you link to, is comments on the outturn for 2018. True, it doesn't mention Brexit but, then, Brexit didn't happen in 2018. What it does say is that, while sales in China are falling, sales in Europe are rising. Despite this, it's reported that they are expecting to reduce production in the UK. The link with Brexit is obvious and, even if it weren't obvious, as noted above JLR have been pointing it out explicitly for many months now.

Still, brexitry does require a high degree of wilful turning away of the eyes and mind to sustain it, so I'm not completely surprised that you haven't noticed any of this.

Laois_Man · 18-12-2018 03:52AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The author is of "peasant stock" apparently like the rest of us.

https://twitter.com/NaomiOhReally/status/1059077072184860672

I really wish they'd find someone better than Andrew Maxwell for representing the Irish angle.

Admittedly, they don't do it too often. It seemed to have been a brief fad, now passed!

fash · 18-12-2018 05:00AM

briany wrote: »

Are we saying that Mogg, Farage and co. have absolutely no regard for the welfare of their country & countrymen and would happily see it devolve into the poorest country in western Europe just so they could add more onto what already is a considerable personal fortune for both of them? It doesn't just seem risky and reckless, but positively nihilistic.

Well that is what I am saying: Mogg is his father's man. Have a read of Lord Rees-Mogg's
"Blood in the streets: investment profits in a world gone mad" and
"The Sovereign Individual: How to Survive and Thrive during the Collapse of the Welfare State"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/books/2018/nov/09/mystic-mogg-jacob-rees-mogg-willam-predicts-brexit-plans

MarkHenderson · 18-12-2018 08:47AM

devnull wrote: »

Just seen this from the Political Ed of Sky News saying that both he and Kay Burley were the victim of xenophobia earlier today following the incident
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1074688060418334722
Pretty disgusting isn't it, I knew the level of debate was getting quite serious and starting to get even more over the edge than it was before, but you'd have to worry that if there was to be a second referendum, it could turn very nasty.

As it should. The electorate is constantly told that the ballot box is the real place to protest and make a change and the majority in the UK could possibly have that taken from them by the establishment. Sometimes violence is inevitable. Think the miners strikes times 100.

Also Sky news has been ridiculously anti Brexit/democracy since the day of the peoples vote. Good enough for them.

fash · 18-12-2018 08:51AM

MarkHenderson wrote: »

As it should. The electorate is constantly told that the ballot box is the real place to protest and make a change and the majority in the UK could possibly have that taken from them by the establishment.

It's not a majority when it is not a majority though.

Fr Tod Umptious · 18-12-2018 08:54AM

Thargor wrote: »

But thats all after the fact or else meaningless nonsense (refused to share platform with Cameron ffs?), how is he responsible for Brexit? Brexit is 100% a Tory/Right wing creation, you sound like the but-but-but Hilarys emails clowns in the Donald Trump thread.

Had Labour had a more unambiguous on Brexit back in April 2017 May would have not dared called a GE and the DUP would not be in the poistion they are in.

The WA would have been done months ago.

A weak Labour gave May the opportunity to try and increase her majority.

Water John · 18-12-2018 08:59AM

The Tories own Brexit, blaming anyone else is just deflection.

Leroy42 · 18-12-2018 09:01AM

Sky have been anti democracy? Really.
Have you examples? What alternative are they pushing?

Zubeneschamali · 18-12-2018 09:01AM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Had Labour had a more unambiguous on Brexit back in April 2017 May would have not dared called a GE

If Labour were actively for Remain and overturning the Referendum result, the Tories would have done better in that GE, not worse.

Fr Tod Umptious · 18-12-2018 09:09AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If Labour were actively for Remain and overturning the Referendum result, the Tories would have done better in that GE, not worse.

Well that's exactly my point

A better GE result would have meant no DUP propping up the government and thus the border and backstop would not have become the drama they became.
The WA would have been agreed months ago.

Remember May and the EU had this sorted in early Dec 2017 before the DUP got wind of it.

downcow · 18-12-2018 09:16AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

What do you mean by "a backstop in the Irish sea"?

Quite simply the same guarantees of no border in Irish Sea as eu are wanting on the Irish border. It’s not much to ask that we don’t have greater checks at a regional border inside a nation that at a international border. I am baffled why this is being seen as an unreasonable request. Same conditions ie prob won’t happen, most likely temp and both eu and UK must agree to its removal. Simple.

Peregrinus · 18-12-2018 09:16AM

MarkHenderson wrote: »

As it should. The electorate is constantly told that the ballot box is the real place to protest and make a change and the majority in the UK could possibly have that taken from them by the establishment.

No. But they are in danger of having it stolen from them by the leadership of the Brexit movement.

It was a deliberate policy on the part of leading Leavers, during the 2016 referendum, not to articulate a practical, workable vision of Brexit. They were concerned that once they got specific and particular they would start to lose support from people who disliked the EU, but also disliked this or that feature of the model of Brexit proposed. So they campaigned on the basis of an "all things to all men" Brexit. The UK would keep all the advantages of EU membership, without the obligations of being a member. The UK would massively disrupt its trading relationships, with no impact on trade. The UK would control immigration, with no effect on the correponding rights of British citizens. And so forth.

The tactic worked, in so far as the Leavers won the referendum. And, given the thin margin of victory, it was probably a necessary tactic.

But it left the job half-done. They had secured a mandate for leaving in principle, but no mandate for any policy to leave. Or, if you prefer, a similar mandate for a large variety of different and inconsistent policies for leaving. If the referendum confers a mandate for a no-deal Brexit, it also confers an equally strong mandate for an EEA Brexit, and a Norway plus Brexit, and a Canada Brexit, and every other kind of Brexit, realistic or unrealistic.

So the second half of the challenge was actually to come up with a practical, workable, viable, non-disastrous model for Brexiting, and to consolidate public support for it. Having won the referendum, there was very much a following wind for this project. Leavers were flushed with victory, and disposed to be enthusiastic in their consideration of actual proposals to effect Brexit. Remainers, for the most part, accepted that they had lost the referendum and that Brexit would ensue; they might hope to influence the shape of that Brexit but not, for the most part, to avert it.

And this was where the leave movement dropped the ball. Various leaders either withdrew from the field entirely, or leant their names and reputations to frankly ludicrous proposals (not looking at anyone in particular, Boris) or tried to press for an ultra-hard Brexit which, a moment's thought would have shown, was unlikely to obtain and retain enduring public support. None of them seemed to recognise the challenge that they had set themselves, and certainly none of them stepped to that challenge and tried to meet it.

I think their mistake was to treat the referendum as the final victory, rather than what it was - a golden opportunity. The result was that, having created that golden opportunity for themselves, they then squandered it. If they had seriously set about devising a Brexit which could command the broad assent of the British people, they were well set to succeed in that. But they never tried, and now the moment has passed. They have done more to alienate potential support than can be remedied at this stage.

The wise Brexiter would have welcomed a second referendum - would, indeed, have seen it as part of an overall strategy to obtain, first, democratic agreement in principle to brexit and, secondly, democratic endorsement of a specific brexit proposal, akin to the endorsement of the terms of EC membership secured by the 1975 referendum, which famously settled matters for a generation. That would be an enduring victory for Brexit. But it's a victory Brexiters have chosen not to seek.

Brexit supporters may be angry at the way events are unfolding but, if their anger is directed at the establishment, it is misdirected; their problems are the result of choices made by their own leadership. And if their anger is directed at the prospect of a second referendum, well, that confirms that they know they have lost the support of the people for Brexiting. If they thought the people would reaffirm their support, they would welcome a second vote.

Akrasia · 18-12-2018 09:18AM

MarkHenderson wrote: »

As it should. The electorate is constantly told that the ballot box is the real place to protest and make a change and the majority in the UK could possibly have that taken from them by the establishment. Sometimes violence is inevitable. Think the miners strikes times 100.

Also Sky news has been ridiculously anti Brexit/democracy since the day of the peoples vote. Good enough for them.

This is a shocking statement!

Democracy does mean change is best brought about by the ballot box, but what you've just supported is the concept that the public should only get asked one question once, and then after that, they have to accept whatever the political establishment interpret that vote to mean no questions asked.

That's nonsense. The 'people's vote' campaigners are pro democracy. They want the chance to ratify the 'deal' negotiated by their government

Those who oppose a referendum on the deal and threaten violence are not democratic, they're trying to initimidate and frighten and bully their way into having things their way.

Democracy isn't a 'fire and forget' single use weapon. It's a process. The people made a decision in 2016 to leave the EU (in the context of some illegal, misleading and manipulative campaigning on the leave side) but since then it has become patently obvious that that single question wasn't high resolution enough to capture what it was that people actually preferred.

If you're working and want a change to your employment conditions, your union will ballot its members for industrial action. If the members agree, they go on strike until the leadership brings proposals, a deal, back to the membership to vote on. If the members don't like the deal, they can vote to reject it. If you want something to be democratic, the final decision should be with the electorate, not the first vague 'mandate'.

When you have thugs and totalitarians threatening violence because they know that their side would lose in an upcoming vote, that's not democracy.

prawnsambo · 18-12-2018 09:18AM

MarkHenderson wrote: »

As it should. The electorate is constantly told that the ballot box is the real place to protest and make a change and the majority in the UK could possibly have that taken from them by the establishment. Sometimes violence is inevitable. Think the miners strikes times 100.

You mean by themselves. Nobody asking for a second referendum is proposing taking the vote from the people who voted to leave the last time around. This snapshot democracy is a strange thing. Especially from the standpoint of a country that has probably the least democratic electoral system in Europe: One third safe seats in parliament, an unelected house of lords and a FPTP system that disenfranchises people depending on where they live.

Oh, and no actual written constitution.

Peregrinus · 18-12-2018 09:23AM

downcow wrote: »

Quite simply the same guarantees of no border in Irish Sea as eu are wanting on the Irish border. It’s not much to ask that we don’t have greater checks at a regional border inside a nation that at a international border. I am baffled why this is being seen as an unreasonable request. Same conditions ie prob won’t happen, most likely temp and both eu and UK must agree to its removal. Simple.

This is certainly possible; it's the situation that prevails right now, and it's a situation that the EU would be perfectly happy to see continue indefinitely.

But having an open border isn't like having open curtains; a decision that can be made independently of other considerations like laws, customs, taxes, etc. A border is simply the point at which one set of laws and taxes gives way to another. Having an open border requires alignment of the laws and taxes on each side. Currently they are aligned, which is why the borders are open right now. It's the UK that wants to dismantle this alignment; it's therefore the UK whose position precludes the request you are making.

Your request can only be met by the UK either abandoning Brexit, or committing to a UK-wide very soft Brexit. Which is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask, but make no mistake; you have to ask it of the UK, since only the UK can grant it.

Enzokk · 18-12-2018 09:27AM

Water John wrote: »

The Tories own Brexit, blaming anyone else is just deflection.

And yet if the polls are to be believed if Labour gives the Tories an easy ride they will lose votes to the LibDems and will not pick up any Leave voters. So while they are not responsible if they allow a hard Brexit to go through they will be held responsible by their own voters.

lawred2 · 18-12-2018 09:31AM

Water John wrote: »

The Tories own Brexit, blaming anyone else is just deflection.

A failure to offer a credible alternative or counter narrative on Brexit for the last two years is entirely labour's own doing.

Akrasia · 18-12-2018 09:31AM

Here's another analogy
You're working at a big company who have just announced that they're making changes to work conditions
They're cutting pensions for everyone
They're cutting wages for everyone
They're cutting health insurance for everyone

The staff go for a ballot on industrial action which is carried

After a strike, they come back with a deal, which is:
The company will honour existing pensions and only cut them from now on (meaning young people get shafted while older people are fine)
They're not cutting wages for everyone, they're freezing them for 5 years and cutting them for new hires (meaning senior employees keep their high wages while junior employees will fall below the poverty line
They're not cutting health insurance for employees, but no longer providing subsidised health cover for the spouses and children of employees (again, affecting younger employees more than older staff)

In the 'only one vote counts' version of democracy, if the union leadership (made of mostly older and more experienced workers) decide to accept the deal than that's fine for everyone despite the majority of the membership being screwed to protect the interests of the leadership

In the version of democracy where the members get a vote on the final deal, the leaders would be told to take a long walk off a short plank and to negotiate a deal that benefits everyone and not just a small subsection of the membership.

Hurrache · 18-12-2018 09:45AM

prinzeugen wrote: »

The official statement from JLR did not mention Britex once.

Why would it as it's not a thing, no matter how often you type it. Unless you do mean a fabric company or are mistyping the child car seat company?

Zubeneschamali · 18-12-2018 09:50AM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Well that's exactly my point

So you think Labour should have deliberately done badly in the election so that the Tories could win outright and do exactly as they wanted?

I can see why Corbyn might not agree.

downcow · 18-12-2018 09:53AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is certainly possible; it's the situation that prevails right now, and it's a situation that the EU would be perfectly happy to see continue indefinitely.

But having an open border isn't like having open curtains; a decision that can be made independently of other considerations like laws, customs, taxes, etc. A border is simply the point at which one set of laws and taxes gives way to another. Having an open border requires alignment of the laws and taxes on each side. Currently they are aligned, which is why the borders are open right now. It's the UK that wants to dismantle this alignment; it's therefore the UK whose position precludes the request you are making.

Your request can only be met by the UK either abandoning Brexit, or committing to a UK-wide very soft Brexit. Which is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask, but make no mistake; you have to ask it of the UK, since only the UK can grant it.

That’s a fairly one sided view. The UK have no intention of creating any border or checks at Irish border. It is eu that is threatening them (which is ironic as the eu paints itself as the open all embracing one). If Eu are concerned about have checks then why not propose for them to be within their jurisdiction ie English Channel between France and ireland rather than demanding they are within the UK jurisdiction??

Zubeneschamali · 18-12-2018 09:54AM

downcow wrote: »

Quite simply the same guarantees of no border in Irish Sea as eu are wanting on the Irish border.

That is entirely in Westminster's power, they don't have to ask the EU for it. The EU is simply interested in conditions in NI so that no border is needed on the island of Ireland. The only reason an Irish Sea border would be needed is if Britain diverges from those conditions.

Of course, we all know the Brexiteers are dying to diverge so that they can do trade deals with Atlantis and Elfland, but that is not the EUs doing.

downcow · 18-12-2018 09:57AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That is entirely in Westminster's power, they don't have to ask the EU for it. The EU is simply interested in conditions in NI so that no border is needed on the island of Ireland. The only reason an Irish Sea border would be needed is if Britain diverges from those conditions.

Of course, we all know the Brexiteers are dying to diverge so that they can do trade deals with Atlantis and Elfland, but that is not the EUs doing.

Exactly. The Eu is trying to dictate what happens in a country outside the Eu ie NI They should focus on solving their problem within their jurisdiction

cml387 · 18-12-2018 10:02AM

downcow wrote: »

Exactly. The Eu is trying to dictate what happens in a country outside the Eu ie NI They should focus on solving their problem within their jurisdiction

The EU are asking Britain to keep to a redline that Britain itself imposed upon itself, i.e. no hard border between N.I and ROI.

Christy42 · 18-12-2018 10:03AM

downcow wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That is entirely in Westminster's power, they don't have to ask the EU for it. The EU is simply interested in conditions in NI so that no border is needed on the island of Ireland. The only reason an Irish Sea border would be needed is if Britain diverges from those conditions.

Of course, we all know the Brexiteers are dying to diverge so that they can do trade deals with Atlantis and Elfland, but that is not the EUs doing.

Exactly. The Eu is trying to dictate what happens in a country outside the Eu ie NI They should focus on solving their problem within their jurisdiction

They are trying to protect an agreement a member state (Ireland) entered into.

The UK has not declared they want out of that agreement (nor will they given the unrest it would cause) and until it does the EU will try and protect it.

downcow · 18-12-2018 10:07AM

cml387 wrote: »

The EU are asking Britain to keep to a redline that Britain itself imposed upon itself, i.e. no hard border between N.I and ROI.

What do you mean by ‘hard’ border? And you are having a laugh if you want me to believe that the Eu interest is in ensuring UK keeps a promise with itself. Let’s be honest with each other at least. And give me that definition of ‘hard’ border please

Zubeneschamali · 18-12-2018 10:08AM

downcow wrote: »

T If Eu are concerned about have checks then why not propose for them to be within their jurisdiction ie English Channel between France and ireland rather than demanding they are within the UK jurisdiction??

Ah, so now as well as Brexiting, you would like the Republic to join a solo Customs Union with the UK and have a customs border with the rest of the EU?

No - you are Brexiting, not us. You are the ones changing the current peaceful status quo, not us.

I'd sooner see your lot try and enforce a hard border in Ireland. How many troops failed to do it last time, 27000 I think. About a third of your current army.

Peregrinus · 18-12-2018 10:14AM

downcow wrote: »

That’s a fairly one sided view. The UK have no intention of creating any border or checks at Irish border.

No, no. You can't take this seriously. The default condition for international borders is that they are controlled. The border in Ireland is open because of bilaterally agreed arrangements that keep it open. The UK is proposing to withdraw from those arrangements; that alone makes it impossible to say (with a straight face) that they "have no intention of creating any border or checks". It's like me removing the chair from under you, while saying that I have no intention of causing you to fall.

And where the stated reason for the UK withdrawing from those arrangements is "to take back control of our borders", it's doubly hard to take seriously the pretence that they have no intention of controlling their only land border.

downcow wrote: »

It is eu that is threatening them (which is ironic as the eu paints itself as the open all embracing one). If Eu are concerned about have checks then why not propose for them to be within their jurisdiction ie English Channel between France and ireland rather than demanding they are within the UK jurisdiction??

Because why should Ireland be cut off from its markets to facilitate the UK's Brexit policy? Brexit is a UK desire, and the UK can hardly demand that Ireland should bear the downsides of Brexit so the UK doesn't have to. Bad enough that they should impose the downside on Northern Ireland, which doesn't want to Brexit but at least gets to participate in whatever benefits are supposed to flow from Brexit, but it would be outragous to suggest that they could impose the downside on another state in order to implement a UK policy without inconvenience to the UK.

The open border in Ireland, we must remember, is not something imposed on the UK by the EU; it's a stated objective of the UK. Indeed, of all their objectives in relation to Brexit, it's the one that is stated in the strongest terms; it's a "guarantee". If the British are serious in their stated objectives, and if they wish to be taken in good faith, then people will expect that guarantee to mean that the UK is willing to agree and enter into effective arrangements to ensure that there is no hard border in Ireland; if the guarantee doesn't mean at least that, then the guarantees of the UK are empty and worthless. And that's not something, I think, that patriotic British citizens would ever wish to have said about their country.

Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Comments