Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[AndrewJB]

Keeping Corbyn out of Downing Street will go some way to attract inward investments,and clearly making progress on brexit so that the business community know the conditions they're operating under,business can adapt as long as they know the lay of the land,it's not brexit per se that's deterring investment it's the uncertainty,which Corbyn and McDonnellwould just exacerbate.

Both McDonnell and Corbyn have given well received speeches to business groups recently - especially as the Tories have been messing business around with their chaotic Brexit plans. But the main thing that won’t fall is investment, because under the Thatcher revolution, investment by business never matched the gains they made (through not sharing the increases in profits accrued through things like productivity with the workers), as per this article: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... tal-labour" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tiger76]

Is this a wise intervention by Tusk?https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ing-brexit

[Paul Waine]

Both McDonnell and Corbyn have given well received speeches to business groups recently - especially as the Tories have been messing business around with their chaotic Brexit plans. But the main thing that won’t fall is investment, because under the Thatcher revolution, investment by business never matched the gains they made (through not sharing the increases in profits accrued through things like productivity with the workers), as per this article: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... tal-labour" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hi Andrew, interesting post.

I haven't read all the Guardian's article.

Re this quote: "Back in 1980, labour’s share of the pie in developed countries stood at more than 61%, but it has been pretty much downhill all the way ever since. Income from employment as a share of gross domestic product is now below 55%."

Do you this has got anything to do with the growing use of computers and the consequent change in the type of jobs in developed countries?

PS: Does the Guardian quote any UK stats alongside the "developed countries" one above?

[HieronymousBoschHobs]

Hi Andrew, interesting post.

I haven't read all the Guardian's article.

Re this quote: "Back in 1980, labour’s share of the pie in developed countries stood at more than 61%, but it has been pretty much downhill all the way ever since. Income from employment as a share of gross domestic product is now below 55%."

Do you this has got anything to do with the growing use of computers and the consequent change in the type of jobs in developed countries?

PS: Does the Guardian quote any UK stats alongside the "developed countries" one above?

So this economic thinking, I think, is entirely in line with what Thomas Piketty found in Capital in the Twenty-First Century although he goes much further in drawing out the implications of what it means. The Guardian article quoted states:

'At its simplest, the annual economic output of a country can be divided into two parts: the slice that goes to workers in the form of wages and salaries, and the bit that goes to the owners of capital in the shape of profits and dividends.'

Piketty basically argues that, as things stand, wealth will increasingly be accumulated by capital rather than labour. The implication is that since those who control the capital tend to be richer, they will become better off at a faster rate than those who rely on labour for wealth. In other words, the gap between the rich and the poor will continue to grow. I did read a bit of the book when it came out, but I'm not an academic economist so a lot of the technical side was over my head - or at least very dull. However, from Wikipedia:

[Piketty] argues that when the rate of growth is low, then wealth tends to accumulate more quickly from r than from labor and tends to accumulate more among the top 10% and 1%, increasing inequality...

The book argues that there was a trend towards higher inequality which was reversed between 1930 and 1975 due to unique circumstances: the two world wars, the Great Depression and a debt-fueled recession destroyed much wealth, particularly that owned by the elite. These events prompted governments to undertake steps towards redistributing income, especially in the post-World War II period. The fast, worldwide economic growth of that time began to reduce the importance of inherited wealth in the global economy.

The book argues that the world today is returning towards "patrimonial capitalism", in which much of the economy is dominated by inherited wealth: the power of this economic class is increasing, threatening to create an oligarchy.

His solution ('a global system of progressive wealth taxes') is no doubt debatable, and - as with all academics - he's received some criticism, but the impression I get is that it's broadly accepted as a strong argument - and that's within a discipline (economics) that is not generally regarded as a bastion of left-wingers.

[aggi]

So I'll ask you 5 simple questions

1 Should the deal go through, who will own the scunthorpe steel plant?

The tory government, or the Chinese company Jingye?

2 Will the deal have breached eu laws? The same laws that the government's own legal team and Dr Ruth Bender, Associate Professor of Corporate Financial Strategy, said prevented the tory government from doing the same.

Yes or No?

3, Are you giving credit to the tories for saving thousands of jobs in the north?

Yes or No?

4, Are you more knowledgeable on the subject that Professor Ruth Bender Associate Professor of Corporate Financial Strategy,

Yes or No?

5, Are you contradicting, directly what the Labour Party supporting website is saying, when it confirmed the Labour government was not prevented by eu rules from bailing out the banks , but the tory government was prevented from doing the same for the steel works by eu rules?

Yes or no?




This is fun!!!

It is fun isn't it.

1. Jingye
2. No
3. Yes
4. I don't know her body of work but I'd guess no.
5. No

And 5 equally relevant questions for you:

1. Who has been funding the operating expenses, salaries, etc of British Steel since it went into administration?
2. What is the air speed of an African swallow?
3. Why did RBS, Lloyds, HBOS and various other have to divest themselves of various business groups, spin off into separate companies and set up a fund for their smaller competitors in the 2010s?
4. Who would win a fight between a baboon and a badger?
5. What is the difference between nationalisation and state subsidies?

[Devils_Advocate]

I knew Ringo and his endless questions reminded me of someone

[martin_p]

It is fun isn't it.

1. Jingye
2. No
3. Yes
4. I don't know her body of work but I'd guess no.
5. No

And 5 equally relevant questions for you:

1. Who has been funding the operating expenses, salaries, etc of British Steel since it went into administration?
2. What is the air speed of an African swallow?
3. Why did RBS, Lloyds, HBOS and various other have to divest themselves of various business groups, spin off into separate companies and set up a fund for their smaller competitors in the 2010s?
4. Who would win a fight between a baboon and a badger?
5. What is the difference between nationalisation and state subsidies?

2. Laden or unladen?

[AndrewJB]

Hi Andrew, interesting post.

I haven't read all the Guardian's article.

Re this quote: "Back in 1980, labour’s share of the pie in developed countries stood at more than 61%, but it has been pretty much downhill all the way ever since. Income from employment as a share of gross domestic product is now below 55%."

Do you this has got anything to do with the growing use of computers and the consequent change in the type of jobs in developed countries?

PS: Does the Guardian quote any UK stats alongside the "developed countries" one above?

To answer your question, I think it has a lot to do with the way the gains in productivity have gone to the owners of the means of production, rather than being shared with with workers. Back in the fifties and sixties the future was often imagined as being one in which working hours were greatly reduced, and people had a lot of time for recreation and family life. That hasn't happened.

[Greenmile]

Hi Andrew, interesting post.

I haven't read all the Guardian's article.

Re this quote: "Back in 1980, labour’s share of the pie in developed countries stood at more than 61%, but it has been pretty much downhill all the way ever since. Income from employment as a share of gross domestic product is now below 55%."

Do you this has got anything to do with the growing use of computers and the consequent change in the type of jobs in developed countries?

PS: Does the Guardian quote any UK stats alongside the "developed countries" one above?

Maybe it’s down to the fall of communism.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -communism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Paul Waine]

His solution ('a global system of progressive wealth taxes') is no doubt debatable, and - as with all academics - he's received some criticism, but the impression I get is that it's broadly accepted as a strong argument - and that's within a discipline (economics) that is not generally regarded as a bastion of left-wingers.

Hi HPB, whenever an economist gets into pronouncements about income re-distribution, then that's politics - and not economics.

I'd argue that Piketty's analysis is flawed.

[Paul Waine]

To answer your question, I think it has a lot to do with the way the gains in productivity have gone to the owners of the means of production, rather than being shared with with workers. Back in the fifties and sixties the future was often imagined as being one in which working hours were greatly reduced, and people had a lot of time for recreation and family life. That hasn't happened.

Hi Andrew, in the 1950s and 60s, the standard working week was more than 40 hours. Working 5 1/2 days - and Saturday afternoon for the football match - was the standard. My first job, 1971 - summer hols while I was still at school - included Saturday morning. Standard hours have fallen a long way from those times. For many the standard hours are now 37.5 or 35 hours.

Productivity has grown enormously. One reason is education. We don't see anyone leaving school at 14 this days - again that was the norm in the 60s. A second reason is computers - and all the other technical gains through computerised machinery. Yes, Bill Gates and his similar have made themselves fortunes beyond everyone's dreams (and nightmares, perhaps). This is because we all need and want computers, the internet and all the other stuff that comes with it. Maybe the balance of rewards has shifted a little towards the creators of these new tools, but we are all sharing in their successes.

[Paul Waine]

Maybe it’s down to the fall of communism.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -communism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hi Greenmile, ok, we can expect arguments like that from the Guardian. It's not true, of course.

How did communism work out for the people in the Soviet Union? or Eastern Europe? China? Venezuela? Can we add Cambodia under Pol Pot to the list?

[Greenmile]

Hi Greenmile, ok, we can expect arguments like that from the Guardian. It's not true, of course.

How did communism work out for the people in the Soviet Union? or Eastern Europe? China? Venezuela? Can we add Cambodia under Pol Pot to the list?

You haven’t read the article, have you? Or you’ve misunderstood it horribly, if your second paragraph is anything to go by.

[Paul Waine]

You haven’t read the article, have you? Or you’ve misunderstood it horribly, if your second paragraph is anything to go by.

I read all I wanted to read. Thanks.

[Greenmile]

I read all I wanted to read. Thanks.

Not much point commenting on it if you’ve only read the headline, Paul.

Edit - it’s also a bit rich to dismiss something as “not true” without reading it.

[Greenmile]

Hi Andrew, in the 1950s and 60s, the standard working week was more than 40 hours. Working 5 1/2 days - and Saturday afternoon for the football match - was the standard. My first job, 1971 - summer hols while I was still at school - included Saturday morning. Standard hours have fallen a long way from those times. For many the standard hours are now 37.5 or 35 hours.

Productivity has grown enormously. One reason is education. We don't see anyone leaving school at 14 this days - again that was the norm in the 60s. A second reason is computers - and all the other technical gains through computerised machinery. Yes, Bill Gates and his similar have made themselves fortunes beyond everyone's dreams (and nightmares, perhaps). This is because we all need and want computers, the internet and all the other stuff that comes with it. Maybe the balance of rewards has shifted a little towards the creators of these new tools, but we are all sharing in their successes.

Ok, we can expect arguments like this from Paul Waine. It’s not true, of course.

[Paul Waine]

Not much point commenting on it if you’ve only read the headline, Paul.

Edit - it’s also a bit rich to dismiss something as “not true” without reading it.

Hi Greenmile, but I did read more than the headline - and I did it before I posted my response. The writer's argument is that the fear of communism made the "bosses" (my term, he speaks of "capitalists") share more of their wealth with the "workers." The writer also brings in events including the Prague Spring.

So, my views? Do we really think that "fear of communism" resulted in all the bosses, across the western (developed) world sharing their gains with their workers? Or do we think that there were a number of other factors (and, not in addition to "communism) that results in the returns to "labour" and the returns to "capital?" How about supply and demand? How about productivity? How about the organisation and structure of the firm? And, as I've mentioned earlier, the education and training of the workers.

And, why did I mention how did communism work out for the workers in USSR, etc, etc? Do you think the rest of the world was unaware of the conditions of the workers living under communism? Do you think that there was a strong view that "the bosses must give more to their workers.... otherwise we will also have communism here?"

Think about it. The argument many make against Brexit is that we will be worse off. Without getting into the argument whether that is the case or isn't the case, don't you feel that the fact the "economics" argument is made is support for the proposition that the "workers" don't want to live under communism?

[Greenmile]

Hi Greenmile, but I did read more than the headline - and I did it before I posted my response. The writer's argument is that the fear of communism made the "bosses" (my term, he speaks of "capitalists") share more of their wealth with the "workers." The writer also brings in events including the Prague Spring.

So, my views? Do we really think that "fear of communism" resulted in all the bosses, across the western (developed) world sharing their gains with their workers? Or do we think that there were a number of other factors (and, not in addition to "communism) that results in the returns to "labour" and the returns to "capital?" How about supply and demand? How about productivity? How about the organisation and structure of the firm? And, as I've mentioned earlier, the education and training of the workers.

And, why did I mention how did communism work out for the workers in USSR, etc, etc? Do you think the rest of the world was unaware of the conditions of the workers living under communism? Do you think that there was a strong view that "the bosses must give more to their workers.... otherwise we will also have communism here?"

Think about it. The argument many make against Brexit is that we will be worse off. Without getting into the argument whether that is the case or isn't the case, don't you feel that the fact the "economics" argument is made is support for the proposition that the "workers" don't want to live under communism?

If that were the case, the would have been no communists (or supporters of communism) in the western world. We both know that wasn’t the case.

[Paul Waine]

[quote="Greenmile"]If that were the case, the would have been no communists (or supporters of communism) in the western world. We both know that wasn’t the case.[/quote

Hi Gm, there's always been a range of political views in the western world. It's the nature of democracy that people can support any views they want to do. The thing with communism, as I'm sure you know, is that other views are, at the very least, are "discouraged."

[Billy Balfour]

Apparently, Ann Widdecombe was offered a leading role in the government’s post-Brexit negotiating team if she stood down. And some of you think Corbyn's crazy, eh.

[Paul Waine]

Apparently, Ann Widdecombe was offered a leading role in the government’s post-Brexit negotiating team if she stood down. And some of you think Corbyn's crazy, eh.

Ann is great at negotiating a dance floor.

[tiger76]

PM: July deadline guaranteed 'if we get a working majority'
Boris Johnson's withdrawal agreement says the UK and the EU would have to decide by 1 July 2020 whether to extend the post-Brexit transition period beyond 31 December 2020.

So if the UK were to leave on 31 January, there would be exactly five months to negotiate a trade deal.

Asked whether he will guarantee he will not change or extend this 1 July 2020 deadline, the PM says: "If we get a working majority, and all we need is nine more seats, then we can absolutely guarantee it."

This doesn't leave much time to hammer out a FTA,unless of course Johnson is going to perform a u-turn and have close regulatory alignment with the EU after all.

[Lancasterclaret]

PM: July deadline guaranteed 'if we get a working majority'
Boris Johnson's withdrawal agreement says the UK and the EU would have to decide by 1 July 2020 whether to extend the post-Brexit transition period beyond 31 December 2020.

So if the UK were to leave on 31 January, there would be exactly five months to negotiate a trade deal.

Asked whether he will guarantee he will not change or extend this 1 July 2020 deadline, the PM says: "If we get a working majority, and all we need is nine more seats, then we can absolutely guarantee it."

This doesn't leave much time to hammer out a FTA,unless of course Johnson is going to perform a u-turn and have close regulatory alignment with the EU after all.

He's going to struggle to do it in a year, he's got no chance in six months.

And he's absolutely, categorically promised to leave on a certain date before as well.

So he's not being honest with the voting public about what is possible, and he's putting himself in yet another position where it will come back to bite him.

He's just not very good at this is he?

[tiger76]

He's going to struggle to do it in a year, he's got no chance in six months.

And he's absolutely, categorically promised to leave on a certain date before as well.

So he's not being honest with the voting public about what is possible, and he's putting himself in yet another position where it will come back to bite him.

He's just not very good at this is he?

It's possible for the UK to complete a FTA relatively quickly,IF we don't diverge too much from the current regulations,but Johnson is adamant that's not the path he wants to take.

If he's determined to pursue this policy no-deal rears it's ugly head once more,which helps no-one in the UK or the EU.

I can see a hung parliament after this election,the more the Conservatives tack to the right,the more they push away their moderate middle ground voters.

In the event of a hung parliament either the HOC comprises around some type of soft brexit,or we have the joy of a 2nd referendum.

On balance i'd prefer the former option,this nonsense has dragged on too long,and other important subjects are being sidelined,also another referendum will just cause more division and distrust in politics.

[Mala591]

He's going to struggle to do it in a year, he's got no chance in six months.

And he's absolutely, categorically promised to leave on a certain date before as well.

So he's not being honest with the voting public about what is possible, and he's putting himself in yet another position where it will come back to bite him.

He's just not very good at this is he?

I think the public are beginning to take these black and white deadline dates with a pinch of salt. Whether the free trade negotiations take one or two years isn't that important to most people imo. Obviously we must have the option of leaving without a deal if the EU don't negotiate with reasonable commitment and urgency.

[Lancasterclaret]

It's possible for the UK to complete a FTA relatively quickly,IF we don't diverge too much from the current regulations,but Johnson is adamant that's not the path he wants to take.

If he's determined to pursue this policy no-deal rears it's ugly head once more,which helps no-one in the UK or the EU.

I can see a hung parliament after this election,the more the Conservatives tack to the right,the more they push away their moderate middle ground voters.

In the event of a hung parliament either the HOC comprises around some type of soft brexit,or we have the joy of a 2nd referendum.

On balance i'd prefer the former option,this nonsense has dragged on too long,and other important subjects are being sidelined,also another referendum will just cause more division and distrust in politics.

I'm torn to be honest.

I don't want a thumping Conservative win but one of the advantages if there is one is that is marginalises groups like the ERG and brings the possibility that a more rational Brexit.

Then there is the certainty that another hung parliament will result in a 2nd ref, which gives us all the possiblity to vote on Johnston deal and decide if it what we want to do.

I don't think there are any other realistic options

[Lancasterclaret]

I think the public are beginning to take these black and white deadline dates with a pinch of salt. Whether the free trade negotiations take one or two years isn't that important to most people imo. Obviously we must have the option of leaving without a deal if the EU don't negotiate with reasonable commitment and urgency.

Leaving without a deal is just as mental in 2020 as it was at all the other deadlines.

Whichever party takes us out without a deal gets crushed in the next election, so you can safely assume that we'll be in for another extension.

[Greenmile]

I'm torn to be honest.

I don't want a thumping Conservative win but one of the advantages if there is one is that is marginalises groups like the ERG and brings the possibility that a more rational Brexit.

Then there is the certainty that another hung parliament will result in a 2nd ref, which gives us all the possiblity to vote on Johnston deal and decide if it what we want to do.

I don't think there are any other realistic options

Lancs - write this out 100 times (no copy and pasting now) :-

“Our current Prime Minister’s surname is Johnson”

It looks like the only way you might learn.

[Lancasterclaret]

Lancs - write this out 100 times (no copy and pasting now) :-

“Our current Prime Minister’s surname is Johnson”

It looks like the only way you might learn.

Jesus, have I done it again?

I think I'm getting better though!

[Greenmile]

Jesus, have I done it again?

I think I'm getting better though!

You do it all the time. It’s weird because Johnson is easier to type and a more common name than Johnston, and you’re obviously interested in politics generally - it just seems to be some blind spot you have.

Similarly, I always spell weird wrong, but autocorrect comes to my rescue.

Edit - at least you don’t call him “Boris” though.

[Lancasterclaret]

You do it all the time. It’s weird because Johnson is easier to type and a more common name than Johnston, and you’re obviously interested in politics generally - it just seems to be some blind spot you have.

Similarly, I always spell weird wrong, but autocorrect comes to my rescue.

Edit - at least you don’t call him “Boris” though.

I think its my absolute refusal to call him Boris is meaning I just spell his name wrong.

I'd be absolutely screwed without auto correct though

[martin_p]

PM: July deadline guaranteed 'if we get a working majority'
Boris Johnson's withdrawal agreement says the UK and the EU would have to decide by 1 July 2020 whether to extend the post-Brexit transition period beyond 31 December 2020.

So if the UK were to leave on 31 January, there would be exactly five months to negotiate a trade deal.

Asked whether he will guarantee he will not change or extend this 1 July 2020 deadline, the PM says: "If we get a working majority, and all we need is nine more seats, then we can absolutely guarantee it."

This doesn't leave much time to hammer out a FTA,unless of course Johnson is going to perform a u-turn and have close regulatory alignment with the EU after all.

It’s not even five months. Both the EU and U.K. agree it would take two or three months to get the negotiating teams together and when we were due to leave on 31st October estimates were that trade negotiations would start in March. So realistically it’s two to three months tops.

[Devils_Advocate]

It's possible for the UK to complete a FTA relatively quickly,IF we don't diverge too much from the current regulations,but Johnson is adamant that's not the path he wants to take.

If he's determined to pursue this policy no-deal rears it's ugly head once more,which helps no-one in the UK or the EU.

I can see a hung parliament after this election,the more the Conservatives tack to the right,the more they push away their moderate middle ground voters.

In the event of a hung parliament either the HOC comprises around some type of soft brexit,or we have the joy of a 2nd referendum.

On balance i'd prefer the former option,this nonsense has dragged on too long,and other important subjects are being sidelined,also another referendum will just cause more division and distrust in politics.

Unless they self destruct (not impossible) I think the Tory's will win a majority at this election however if Johnson follows a path that leads towards a No Deal then I think he might lose enough support of his current MPs to put us back into a stalemate over Brexit with no working majority to back No Deal

What i'm not sure about is whether the House will be able to get enough control of Parliament business this time round to legislate against crashing out like it has done over the last few months

[RingoMcCartney]

It is fun isn't it.

1. Jingye
2. No
3. Yes
4. I don't know her body of work but I'd guess no.
5. No

And 5 equally relevant questions for you:

1. Who has been funding the operating expenses, salaries, etc of British Steel since it went into administration?
2. What is the air speed of an African swallow?
3. Why did RBS, Lloyds, HBOS and various other have to divest themselves of various business groups, spin off into separate companies and set up a fund for their smaller competitors in the 2010s?
4. Who would win a fight between a baboon and a badger?
5. What is the difference between nationalisation and state subsidies?

Weyhey!!

So by your answers you finally finally admit exactly what I originally said!

1, / 2 Jingye bought the steel works. Why because it did not breach eu law, where as the tory government was prevented from owning it.

3 As a labour voter, it must really grind your gears to have to give credit to the tories for helping with the securing of 1000s of steel workers jobs in the North, While your party burdened the tax payer when it balied out the banks and came running to the aid of southern bankers.

GORDON BROWN BAILED OUT THE BANKS-

THE REDISTRIBUTION DEBT!

4 I'd have been very pleasantly surprised if youd have been more knowledgeable than Professor Ruth Bender Associate Professor of Corporate Financial Strategy. Especially given what she confirmed about the contrasting scenarios between the EU allowing labours bank bail out, while simultaneously not allowing the tory government to take over the scunthorpe steel works! She clearly knows her stuff! You dont, and months after being proven wrong are still here , and despite agreeing with what I've said,with the answers you've given above , apparently are too mutton headed to see how silly you're sounding !

5, So you agree! You agree with the Labour Party supporting website is saying, when it confirmed the Labour government was not prevented by eu rules from bailing out the banks , but the tory government was prevented from doing the same for the steel works by eu rules?




I'll answer your questions

1, The tory government has been funding the operating expenses, salaries, etc of British Steel since it went into administration. That is nothing like when labour government becoming share holders in private banks.

2.nationalisation is when an industry or utility goes from private to state / government owned. A subsidy is a government / tax payer funded incentive or support to an economic sector or specific business.

However, given you're answers above, which ever way you look at it. Despite you clearly losing sleep since May about the thought that youd jumped in with both feet and without thinking, you claimed I was posting "outright lies". Your answers reinforce my original statement that caused your knickers to get into a twist!

"2008- Labour bail out the banks and saves London based bankers jobs. Costing the nation billions.

The EU says , " that's fine."

2019- The tories want to save thousands of steel workers jobs in the industrial north. Costing the nation millions.

The EU says, "No can do , UK"

It was a true and accurate statement in May, and by your newly enlightened admittance in your above answers, it's true and accurate in November!!

You wanted to " finally put this to bed"

Looks like more sleepless nights for you Aggi!

[Bordeauxclaret]

Yey he’s back.

[Lancasterclaret]

Can't wait till an FTA is explained Ringo style.

I hope he does a youtube video while he does it.

[TheFamilyCat]

Have I understood this right?

The tory government has been funding the operating expenses, salaries, etc of British Steel since it went into administration but they didn't save the jobs of the workers?

But we should be giving credit to the tories for helping with securing of 1000s of steel workers jobs in the North? Even though apparently they didn't?

I hope Ringo's back soon to clarify this, he's made it very confusing.

[AndyClaret]

Labours candidate in Hartlepool denies that their policy could lead to a second referendum.

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status ... 33760?s=19" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lancasterclaret]

Labours candidate in Hartlepool denies that their policy could lead to a second referendum.

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status ... 33760?s=19" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Should be on the election thread that one.

Labour not having a great 24 hours it has to be said

[aggi]

Excellent, a bit of Ringo will brighten up a gloomy, jet-lagged Friday.

Weyhey!!

So by your answers you finally finally admit exactly what I originally said!

So by 2019- The tories want to save thousands of steel workers jobs in the industrial north. Costing the nation millions.

The EU says, "No can do , UK" you actually meant that the Tories could save thousands of steel workers jobs, by continuing to fund the operating expenses, salaries, etc until it was taken over, and the EU would allow this? I can see where the confusion arose.

3 As a labour voter, it must really grind your gears to have to give credit to the tories for helping with the securing of 1000s of steel workers jobs in the North, While your party burdened the tax payer when it balied out the banks and came running to the aid of southern bankers.

I'm not sure whether I've ever voted for labour in a general election, certainly not in the past fifteen years. You've never explained why you make so much stuff up. Do you really think that just plucking fantasies from your mind supports your argument as no-one will notice (although your reputation as a habitual liar doesn't seem to suggest this is working) or are you so delusional that you believe that the things you make up are true?

5, So you agree! You agree with the Labour Party supporting website is saying, when it confirmed the Labour government was not prevented by eu rules from bailing out the banks , but the tory government was prevented from doing the same for the steel works by eu rules?

You seem to have a weird view that the only way a company can be bailed out is through nationalising and subsidising it. Not a single other option is valid. If you lost your job and a friend paid your mortgage and loaned you money for food and living expenses would you say they'd bailed you out or would you just complain that they hadn't bought the house for you to live in rent-free whilst cooking all your meals?

[Spijed]

The only thing anyone can be certain about Brexit is that it won't be sorted within the next 12 months, despite what Boris may have you believe.

That is 100% guaranteed.

[tiger76]

The only thing anyone can be certain about Brexit is that it won't be sorted within the next 12 months, despite what Boris may have you believe.

That is 100% guaranteed.

This is 100% correct and Boris should be honest with the public,when he spouts the "get brexit done" mantra he's referring to the WA only.

I genuinely don't think many voters are aware of this,and imagine it'll all be done and dusted next year,assuming the Conservatives form the next government,they're in for a rude awakening once the trade talks commence.

[Lancasterclaret]

See the Tories have been using the IFS as example of how bad the Labour manifesto is.

This is the same IFS which reckons Brexit is a really bad idea.

[Bin Ont Turf]

Independent Flatulence Society?

[IanMcL]

Sturgeon and Corbyn bin the rest!

[aggi]

Now that we're back to believing experts some interesting comments from Ivan Rogers on how badly Johnson is handling Brexit negotiations.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... van-rogers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As an aside I bumped into the Brexiteers' favourite speaker the other day. I was tempted to ask for a signed photo for Ringo but as I was at a client's I thought I'd better not.

[RingoMcCartney]

Excellent, a bit of Ringo will brighten up a gloomy, jet-lagged Friday.



So by 2019- The tories want to save thousands of steel workers jobs in the industrial north. Costing the nation millions.

The EU says, "No can do , UK" you actually meant that the Tories could save thousands of steel workers jobs, by continuing to fund the operating expenses, salaries, etc until it was taken over, and the EU would allow this? I can see where the confusion arose.



I'm not sure whether I've ever voted for labour in a general election, certainly not in the past fifteen years. You've never explained why you make so much stuff up. Do you really think that just plucking fantasies from your mind supports your argument as no-one will notice (although your reputation as a habitual liar doesn't seem to suggest this is working) or are you so delusional that you believe that the things you make up are true?



You seem to have a weird view that the only way a company can be bailed out is through nationalising and subsidising it. Not a single other option is valid. If you lost your job and a friend paid your mortgage and loaned you money for food and living expenses would you say they'd bailed you out or would you just complain that they hadn't bought the house for you to live in rent-free whilst cooking all your meals?

I asked you 5 simple questions.

1 Should the deal go through, who will own the scunthorpe steel plant?

The tory government, or the Chinese company Jingye?

You previously answered

Jingye

Now you're claiming !!!

The EU says, "No can do , UK" you actually meant that the Tories could save thousands of steel workers jobs, by continuing to fund the operating expenses, salaries, etc until it was taken over, and the EU would allow this? I can see where the confusion arose.

MAKE YOUR MIND UP!!!



2 Will the deal have breached eu laws? The same laws that the government's own legal team and Dr Ruth Bender, Associate Professor of Corporate Financial Strategy, said prevented the tory government from doing the same.


You conceded that the tory government were prevented from bailing out the steel works as labour had done with the banks cos of EU laws, but Jingyes buy out did not!

No

You confirmed!!

3, Are you giving credit to the tories for saving thousands of jobs in the north?

yes

You said!! Despite previously confirming that it was actually Jingye that now owns the steel works, therefore saving 1000s of jobs!!



4, Are you more knowledgeable on the subject that Professor Ruth Bender Associate Professor of Corporate Financial Strategy?

I don't know her body of work but I'd guess no.

You admitted. Therefore you bow to her knowledge when she confirmed that any attempt by the Tory government to bail out the steelworks would breach EU law!

5, Are you contradicting, directly what the Labour Party supporting website is saying, when it confirmed the Labour government was not prevented by eu rules from bailing out the banks , but the tory government was prevented from doing the same for the steel works by eu rules?

No

Once again confirming what I'd originally said-

"2008- Labour bail out the banks and saves London based bankers jobs. Costing the nation billions.

The EU says , " that's fine."

2019- The tories want to save thousands of steel workers jobs in the industrial north. Costing the nation millions.

The EU says, "No can do , UK"

Youre clearly somebody who is desperate to cling onto the wealth that, as a dweller of the metropolitan London borough of Ivory Towers, the capital city and the south east of England has enjoyed during the 40 odd years of EU membership. You like many of your fellow entitled remoaner travellers are still bewildered by the result of the 2016 peoples vote arent you!



There is real palpable anger in your posts as
the walls of the metropolitan London bubble in which you dwell , seem to be shrinking and closing in on you as your recent posts see your meeting yourself coming back as you trip yourself up and contradict yourself again and again and again!

You refuse to accept ZERO criticism of your precious EU. Your devotion has no bounds to Le Grande Project has it aggi? Its been good for remoaners like your metropolitan bubble dwelling good self hasn't it aggi!

You've done well out of the European union. However.

Whether it's the lack of democracy in the EU.

Whether it's the revealing, sinister plaque in the multi million euro EU visitors centre, that , darkly , proclaims-

“National sovereignty is the root cause of the most crying evils of our times….The only final remedy for this evil is the federal union of the peoples.”

Whether it's the grinding poverty brought to millions thanks to the EU imposed austerity.

Remember when the Joseph Rowntree Foundstion produced its annual poverty index !!?


I pointed out that, on a constituency basis, it was noticable that a very large number of the poorest constituencies also voted Leave.

You were having none of it were you aggi!!




All rational and coherent thinking is thrown out of the window isn't aggi , as a cursory glance at any EU related subject on here will prove.

Criticism will not be tolerated! Irrespective of how silly or mutton headed you sound will it aggi!

But then you're a disciple. An unquestioning disciple of the church. The EU Church that believes in "The Final Remedy"

These recent posts , that were a failed attempt to "put this one to bed" are , sadly , just further evidence of your evangelical europhile zealot and unbridled EU nationalist
fundamentalism coming out from under the covers and once again getting the better of you.

[aggi]

Snipped for brevity

Now RIngo, let's not spoil the grown-up threads with this.

Palpable anger! I'm finding this amusing. Watching you trying to navigate your way around your logical inconsistencies is like watching a pigeon play chess.

There's only one really relevant question here. If the government hadn't funded British Steel through paying salaries, working capital, etc would the company still be going and the people still in work? The rest of it is an irrelevance given your original statement.

Youre clearly somebody who is desperate to cling onto the wealth that, as a dweller of the metropolitan London borough of Ivory Towers, the capital city and the south east of England has enjoyed during the 40 odd years of EU membership.

I'm always amused by this kind of stuff. In a week and a bit when we play Spurs there'll be people on here saying what a shithole it is round there.

I pointed out that, on a constituency basis, it was noticable that a very large number of the poorest constituencies also voted Leave.

You were having none of it were you aggi!!

Again, why do you lie about so many things? I can guarantee that you won't be able to find anything to back that lie up. Your compulsive lying makes debating with you entirely pointless.


I'm quite happy to criticise the EU. Its expenses policy and the extent it has gone to to protect it is terrible for instance. I'm happy we're out of Schengen and the Euro and would resist any attempts to get the UK to join them.

You on the other hand are a Brexit zealot. You lie and construct fantasies to blame the EU for any problem that the UK has. No amount of evidence will convince you that any of your opinions are wrong, it's like a cult to you.

[RingoMcCartney]

Now RIngo, let's not spoil the grown-up threads with this.

Palpable anger! I'm finding this amusing. Watching you trying to navigate your way around your logical inconsistencies is like watching a pigeon play chess.

There's only one really relevant question here. If the government hadn't funded British Steel through paying salaries, working capital, etc would the company still be going and the people still in work? The rest of it is an irrelevance given your original statement.



I'm always amused by this kind of stuff. In a week and a bit when we play Spurs there'll be people on here saying what a shithole it is round there.



Again, why do you lie about so many things? I can guarantee that you won't be able to find anything to back that lie up. Your compulsive lying makes debating with you entirely pointless.


I'm quite happy to criticise the EU. Its expenses policy and the extent it has gone to to protect it is terrible for instance. I'm happy we're out of Schengen and the Euro and would resist any attempts to get the UK to join them.

You on the other hand are a Brexit zealot. (how Unoriginal and unthinking aggi! ) You lie and construct fantasies to blame the EU for any problem that the UK has. No amount of evidence will convince you that any of your opinions are wrong, it's like a cult to you.

You seen to be more than happy setting your Little Europeaner alarm clock so you can humiliate yourself over and over again

Lets look, again , at your self contradiction on stilts posts.

I asked -

Should the deal go through, who will own the scunthorpe steel plant?

The tory government, or the Chinese company Jingye?

You answered " Jingye "

I asked - does the following text prove the Tory government was prevented from bailing out the steel works like labour had bailed out the banks

I'm now quoting directly from the actual letter sent to the government from its legal advisors.

"We cannot demonstrate the necessary commerciality required by State Aid Law to provide such support"

In other words , perhaps "simplistic", The EU says, "No can do , UK"

"There is no evidence that any earlier funding options involving government would have been lawful either"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"

"It would be unlawful to provide a guarantee or loan"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"

"We do not believe there is currently any level of investment government could make ( above the State Aid de minis of €200000 that could be deemed commercial and so legal"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"

It was not possible to fund a traditional loan financing that would be deemed to be successfully commercial to meet the State Aid commerciality threshold"

In other words , The EU says, "No can do , UK"

You agreed.

I also asked whether you agreed with what Dr Ruth Bender, Associate Professor of Corporate Financial Strategy, said when she was interviewed on Radio 5 Live Breakfast show on 31st March.

"Do EU rules prevent state aid to save British Steel?

Would it be against EU regulations to provide funding to British Steel in a time of need?

"Unfortunately, yes. The fact that all the economic factors go against the UK steel industry is not relevant, nor is the potentially devastating impact on the wider local economy were it to close. The EU has already ruled on this: in January 2016 the competition commissioner ruled that the Belgian government had illegally provided €211m to steel companies in one of its depressed regions, and ordered that the money be repaid. She also announced an investigation into €2bn of similar aid given by the Italian government to support its steel industry."

Which was taken from the labour supporting website labour heartlands!

And you conceded that she was more knowledgeable than your self and therefore , agreed with what she was saying. Which as can be seen in plain and simple English on the above quote. When asked if EU " EU rules prevent state aid to save British Steel?

She replied "Unfortunately, yes"

So,

1 You acknowledge that a private Chinese company has bought the steel works. NOT the tory government.

2. You concede that the legal advice given to the government by it's own legal team confirm that the government would not be able to bail out the steel works as labour had bailed out the banks.

3, You agree with the expert that "unfortunately yes", eu rules prevent the government from acting as the previous labour had done when it bailed out the banks.

And yet! And yet! This is where you're devotion to the EU. Your unshakable belief in "the final remedy" . Your evangelical Brussels Brotherhood zeal seems to short circuit your ability to process and absord the words that you've previously agreed with.

Because when I make the simple statement

2008 - Labour bail out the banks and saves London based bankers jobs. Costing the nation billions.

The EU says , " that's fine."

2019 - The tories want to save thousands of steel workers jobs in the industrial north. Costing the nation millions.

The EU says, "No can do , UK"


Which was as accurate in May as it is today. The EU nationalist in you, allows the red mist to decend on your rationale and seems to force you to operate, purely on reflexes and uncontrollable urges that want to stifle any perceived criticism of your beloved EU.

You do , genuinely, come across has having a truly schizophrenic approach to the issue.

On the one hand, you sound quite at ease conceding the tories were unable to bail out the steel works as labour had done the banks. Then it's as if your brain is like an electric circuit board that constantly shorts out under certain stresses and increased load demands.

Is it life in the metropolitan London borough of Ivory Towers that's getting to you?

Is it the lack of interaction with actual non bubble dwellers that's causing excessive strains on the old grey matter aggi!?

I really do hope you do finally put this "to bed."

For your sake!

Remember when I'd claimed that money had been set aside by john Bercows office for EU parliamentary elections way back in February or march last year. Yes that's right! I said despite us not being due to be in the eu by then as we were leaving on the 29th march why had millions been set aside for elections that we wont be taking part in.

And you jumped in to nit pick that it "wasn't millions, its £925,000 and it's simply contingency planning Ringo"

And then then when we did actually take part in them I reminded folk of my prediction and your denial. And low and behold you denied all knowledge of our conversation!


Just like your newly selective memory of you going all Remainiac on me when I pointed that the Joseph Rowntree poverty index closely mirrored the way constituencies had voted leave! Well, well , well! the London smog appears to have conveniently erased that from your , evangelical europhile, back catalogue as well!




As for me being a "zealot' (as you plunder my phraseology!) who no amount of evidence will convince me I'm wrong.

Well just read back at what your previous post show!

You actually agree with my evidence then Mr Jekyll appears and you convince Mr Hyde you disagree!




Oh the fun we can still have with this!


All three of us!

[AndrewJB]

If we could turn Ringo's rage into electricity, we could get rid of our coal fired power stations.