Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
aggi
Posts: 8763
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by aggi » Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:20 am

CrosspoolClarets wrote:About 30% to 40% at the most. Whereas 1 in 6 of workers now pay the higher rate, it was 1 in 20 a couple of decades ago.

For those people in that tax bracket there is an argument that they are having up to 70% of their money take off them in income tax, national insurance, VAT, stamp duty, fuel levies, alcohol levies and all the other direct and indirect taxes. With what is left they have to fund their pension, food, and pay for their rent / mortgage and other housing costs.

They then see this money spent on HS2 and other white elephants without seeing significant reinvestment in facilities close to their home.

Not saying they are more or less worthy than anyone else, but it is a fact that more and more people are being sucked into the higher rate and some of us would view that as unfair.
Where does the 70% come from, it seems incredibly high. Even at £150k, the top end of that bracket, you're only paying an effective rate of 40% (inc NI). Drop that down to £100k and you're at an effective rate of 33%.

Even assuming you're spending all of your disposable income (i.e. no mortgage) then VAT is at 20% so you must be buying a lot of fuel/alcohol to ht 70%. Something like 50% seems a lot more realistic.

I've got to say I don't feel a great deal of sympathy for how those earning over £100k are being "squeezed".

I would agree with this line They then see this money spent on HS2 and other white elephants without seeing significant reinvestment in facilities close to their home. but realistically a lot of this infrastructure spending goes on wealthy areas rather than poorer areas (part of the reason that they're poor is the lack of infrastructure). That is certainly something that needs sorting out.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:23 am

Big drive by all the northern newspapers over the weekend highlighting the difference between spending in London and the SE and the north.

nil_desperandum
Posts: 7301
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1823 times
Has Liked: 3952 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by nil_desperandum » Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:43 am

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:So it's the wages at the lower end that's the issue isn't it?
If someone is earning X amount and is using food banks then taxing someone earning over the threshold more money isn't going to magically get rid of food banks or improve how someone else lives drastically.

Corporation taxes being collected properly etc would help far more.
Reasonable points, but they fail the basic economic tests.
How do you find money for those at the bottom and those in the middle and those at the top?
Johnson 's proposal appears to have NI increases paid by the poorest to find a tax cut for the richer.
It's estimated that his proposal will cost 9.6 billion a year.
How does he fill this hole at a time when most experts predict there will have to be lot of belt tightening.
You're correct about businesses etc paying their share though.

If it be your will
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
Been Liked: 500 times
Has Liked: 509 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by If it be your will » Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:09 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:The trouble is with those on the economic left (from my perspective, they are entitled to their view) is that they tend to view anyone with more wealth than them as unworthy of any government assistance.

That’s the problem with socialism - it isn’t so much raising the poorer people, it tends to be more about hammering the wealthier people until things level out (though human nature ensures it never does). A socialist state can thus never be a happy one.

I am at heart a communitarian family man who believe in a social market economy - that is the heart of conservatism, but not the type of conservatism claimed by the Tory party today. That’s why I support the SDP.

Taxes should be fair, but they have to incentivise the economic growth that will allow the free social market to thrive. A market with a crucial role for the state but with a new type of economy (e.g. carbon neutral, alternative energy) triggered by enterprise.

So......entrepreneurs have to spring from hope. I never said the people aspiring to be £50k+ were the most devoid of hope. But they are pivotal to the future of those who are the most devoid. Otherwise we’ll spend our lives weeping at people and not having any ability to do anything about it.
I might surprise you here, as a member of the Corbyn cult: I'm not actually that opposed to raising the higher rate threshold to £80,000. Just not for the reasons you say. I don't think it's credible that people fail to motivate themselves due to paying moderately more tax - I see no evidence of this at all.

But I am of the view that someone earning £60,000, say, still has 'normal' financial concerns, like paying the mortgage or saving up for holidays etc. I'd quite like society to start psychologically demarcating the difference between 'normal' people with 'normal' concerns on 'normal' incomes, from those with 'Alpha-male playground' earnings with 'Alpha-male playground' concerns, like buying Lamborghinis or spending £2,000 on a bottle of wine. It's always difficult to find an arbitrary point, but I'd say Boris's £80,000 threshold is probably about where the former concerns start being replaced by the latter, and purchases take on an increasing obnoxious, alpha-male flavour.

Had Boris said he would raise the threshold to £80,000 and make up the tax shortfall by increasing the higher rate to 55%, I'd be positively in favour. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Corbyn went into the next election keeping such a threshold, and sending the message: If you have a normal income, you'll pay normal taxes. It's absolutely fine earning 'Alpha-male playground' earnings, too. Just expect to pay 'Alpha-male playground' taxes to go with it.

Would even you vote Corbyn in these circumstances? Or would you still be saying "55% taxes kill the aspirations of those earning over £80,000"
These 3 users liked this post: Lancasterclaret Putneyclaret DCWat

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:11 pm

As someone who is so much not on the Corbyn bus that he'd blow it up, I think thats a very sensible and well articulated post.

Which is probably why it will never happen!

JohnMcGreal
Posts: 2207
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:37 am
Been Liked: 1344 times
Has Liked: 438 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by JohnMcGreal » Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:27 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Either way, you're seeking to take more money from people who've earned it and live their lives according to what they earn.

As someone else has already stated, if you're going to lose more then what's the point in earning more and all the stress that goes with it?
What's the point in people who are earning £12,500 pa tax free striving to get a better paid job where they'll have to pay more in tax?

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14566
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:14 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:What's the point in people who are earning £12,500 pa tax free striving to get a better paid job where they'll have to pay more in tax?
There are a number of people who aren't going to break the threshold for a higher tax rate.

There aren't enough jobs for starters that pay over the next tax threshold and there are those who aren't capable.
That isn't meant as a put down either, just some people have a limited skill set and they end up in jobs that suit them best and are generally quite safe jobs.

CrosspoolClarets
Posts: 5231
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
Been Liked: 1623 times
Has Liked: 397 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by CrosspoolClarets » Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:42 pm

aggi wrote:Where does the 70% come from, it seems incredibly high. Even at £150k, the top end of that bracket, you're only paying an effective rate of 40% (inc NI). Drop that down to £100k and you're at an effective rate of 33%.

Even assuming you're spending all of your disposable income (i.e. no mortgage) then VAT is at 20% so you must be buying a lot of fuel/alcohol to ht 70%. Something like 50% seems a lot more realistic.

I've got to say I don't feel a great deal of sympathy for how those earning over £100k are being "squeezed".

I would agree with this line They then see this money spent on HS2 and other white elephants without seeing significant reinvestment in facilities close to their home. but realistically a lot of this infrastructure spending goes on wealthy areas rather than poorer areas (part of the reason that they're poor is the lack of infrastructure). That is certainly something that needs sorting out.
I think I worded that wrong. I think it would better have been worded as many of the chunk just about in the higher rate (not those earning £100k who I don’t particularly worry about) have an income of which 70% goes on taxes and absolute essentials - I think that I implied food and mortgage sits outside the 70% but actually it would have been in it (I was trying to recall a graph I saw some time back but the general point remains the same).

Taxes include things like custom duties so is always a lot higher than we think but it’s important to note that I fully agree with lefties who would say that indirect taxes in particular are regressive taxes and should be applied differently. I also think that Boris should have spelt out a wider range of tax policy that also addresses the lower end and the regressive stuff, and I am hoping he will get onto that. But for me that second and third quintile of the wage earners is pivotal to job creation, enterprise and growth (e.g. a plumber whose self employed tax burden is eased may take on an apprentice and try to grow his business).

CrosspoolClarets
Posts: 5231
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
Been Liked: 1623 times
Has Liked: 397 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by CrosspoolClarets » Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:58 pm

If it be your will wrote:I might surprise you here, as a member of the Corbyn cult: I'm not actually that opposed to raising the higher rate threshold to £80,000. Just not for the reasons you say. I don't think it's credible that people fail to motivate themselves due to paying moderately more tax - I see no evidence of this at all.

But I am of the view that someone earning £60,000, say, still has 'normal' financial concerns, like paying the mortgage or saving up for holidays etc. I'd quite like society to start psychologically demarcating the difference between 'normal' people with 'normal' concerns on 'normal' incomes, from those with 'Alpha-male playground' earnings with 'Alpha-male playground' concerns, like buying Lamborghinis or spending £2,000 on a bottle of wine. It's always difficult to find an arbitrary point, but I'd say Boris's £80,000 threshold is probably about where the former concerns start being replaced by the latter, and purchases take on an increasing obnoxious, alpha-male flavour.

Had Boris said he would raise the threshold to £80,000 and make up the tax shortfall by increasing the higher rate to 55%, I'd be positively in favour. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Corbyn went into the next election keeping such a threshold, and sending the message: If you have a normal income, you'll pay normal taxes. It's absolutely fine earning 'Alpha-male playground' earnings, too. Just expect to pay 'Alpha-male playground' taxes to go with it.

Would even you vote Corbyn in these circumstances? Or would you still be saying "55% taxes kill the aspirations of those earning over £80,000"
You don’t surprise me. That’s why I spend time engaging with you. I learn things from another perspective which is why I post on these threads.

The answer on the 55% is that I think it is fair (as is inheritance tax) but the key is the judgement as to when raising it leads to less money not more. I’m not qualified to answer that but I know it is argued about.

I can give you some firm, irrefutable evidence of the higher tax threshold leading to reduced motivation - me.

I work mainly from home but also have to work away a lot, including overseas. When I became a father I took a judgement and moved to part time. My decision was partly due to how much income I could keep, I target a set number of days per year. My work life balance, crucial to me, would still be tinkered with a bit if I kept more income at the higher rate. It would be too tempting. But as it stands, it isn’t.

The loser in this is the U.K. economy - it misses out on my extra taxes, and the public sector misses out on my expertise (though I wouldn't dream of suggesting how much of a miss that is ;) ).

I’m not a fan of totally free markets, but I am a fan of low tax for what you rightly call normal people. It’s our money. Not theirs. We should keep much of it.

timshorts
Posts: 2534
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:52 pm
Been Liked: 410 times
Has Liked: 307 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by timshorts » Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:07 pm

If it be your will wrote:
Had Boris said he would raise the threshold to £80,000 and make up the tax shortfall by increasing the higher rate to 55%, I'd be positively in favour.
I agree with that entirely.

But I'd be rather more in favour of spending the (whatever it is billion) raising the lower threshold and making up the tax shortfall by increasing the higher rate to 55%.

I'd be better off with the first one (and better off with the Boris proposal, incidentally), but his proposal is just morally wrong.

If it be your will
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
Been Liked: 500 times
Has Liked: 509 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by If it be your will » Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:40 pm

timshorts wrote:I agree with that entirely.

But I'd be rather more in favour of spending the (whatever it is billion) raising the lower threshold and making up the tax shortfall by increasing the higher rate to 55%.

I'd be better off with the first one (and better off with the Boris proposal, incidentally), but his proposal is just morally wrong.
It being Boris, I'd predict you'll get neither. I'd predict he'd cut taxes up to 80,000, and simply cut services to make up the shortfall.

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by tiger76 » Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:21 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Big drive by all the northern newspapers over the weekend highlighting the difference between spending in London and the SE and the north.
Yes saw that headline what happened to the Northern Powerhouse,i also noticed many of these proposed tax breaks will disproportionately benefit people in London and the home counties,who just happen to make up the bulk of the Conservative Party membership,what a coincidence surely.

JohnMcGreal
Posts: 2207
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:37 am
Been Liked: 1344 times
Has Liked: 438 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by JohnMcGreal » Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:41 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:There are a number of people who aren't going to break the threshold for a higher tax rate.

There aren't enough jobs for starters that pay over the next tax threshold and there are those who aren't capable.
That isn't meant as a put down either, just some people have a limited skill set and they end up in jobs that suit them best and are generally quite safe jobs.
Right. But that's not the same thing as people being 'deterred' from applying for higher paid jobs because of a higher rate of tax.

How come people who are earning £45k are deterred from applying for £55k jobs, but people who are earning £12.5k aren't deterred from applying for £16k jobs?

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:02 pm

Parliament preparing the ground work for blocking a "No Deal"

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status ... 4937884677" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
These 2 users liked this post: JohnMcGreal longsidepies

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by dsr » Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:57 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Parliament preparing the ground work for blocking a "No Deal"

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status ... 4937884677" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I can't imagine proroguing parliament could ever have worked anyway. It's one of few things I agree with Bercow on.

Parliament's worry ought to be that if they vote down the government's policy, it may be treated as a vote of no confidence and cause the government to resign. That'd blow a hole in the timetable, to lose 2 months to a general election - could they get it in before 31st October?

I assume parliament has cancelled the summer holiday? If they haven't, then they're just playing at it. If they're serious, they won't rise.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:27 pm

Stopping the undemocratic and unmandated "no deal" Brexit would be a good start for bridging the gap between remain and leave to be honest.
This user liked this post: Claret-On-A-T-Rex

nil_desperandum
Posts: 7301
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1823 times
Has Liked: 3952 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by nil_desperandum » Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:58 pm

dsr wrote:I can't imagine proroguing parliament could ever have worked anyway. It's one of few things I agree with Bercow on.

Parliament's worry ought to be that if they vote down the government's policy, it may be treated as a vote of no confidence and cause the government to resign. That'd blow a hole in the timetable, ....e.
But as has been pointed out before, there probably wouldn't be a majority for a GE in the Commons so it's far more !likely that Parliament would take control find a PM who could form a coalition majority government and get on with it.
Irrespective of anyone's personal brexi t position, I think it's pretty likely that there would (at this stage) be a reasonable majority in the Commons for some form of CU "soft" brexit backed up by a confirmatory vote.I
Of course that would be deeply unpopular with ERG types, but that seems to me to be how the MP numbers stack up based on the indicative votes.

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14566
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:02 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:Right. But that's not the same thing as people being 'deterred' from applying for higher paid jobs because of a higher rate of tax.

How come people who are earning £45k are deterred from applying for £55k jobs, but people who are earning £12.5k aren't deterred from applying for £16k jobs?
Couldn't tell you why someone stacking a shelf for £12.5k wouldn't do it for 16k, but at a guess it's the increase in hours that doesn't suit their personal commitments.

Same could be applied for £45-55k, you'll have to ask some

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14566
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:09 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Stopping the undemocratic and unmandated "no deal" Brexit would be a good start for bridging the gap between remain and leave to be honest.
Remain could also stop trying to stop brexit, that would help, but they won't...

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Paul Waine » Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:40 pm

If it be your will wrote:Hi, Paul Waine,

By the way, regarding Boris's tax cuts, why is absolutely everyone, in every paper, indeed everywhere, saying it will 'Cost approximately 9.6 billion'. I thought you said tax cuts increased the total amount taken in tax?

Has absolutely everyone else got this wrong? Would this tax cut not make extra money for the government instead, like you've always said it would?

( ;) )
Hi If it be your will, great question.

I guess it's fairly easy to calculate the change, ceteris paribus ("all other things remaining equal/the same"), between the tax collected on incomes between £50,000 and £80,000 with a difference in rate of 20% (40% less 20%, of course) and the numbers of incomes that are above £50,000 and up to and including those above £80,000. I expect the Treasury has a model of income distributions and can make this "tax change cost" calculation.

If reports on BJ's statement yesterday are accurate (I'm not following the Tory leadership campaign...), I assume a lot of the reporters will be adjusting their figure downwards for the extra NI contributions all these taxpayers will be making, paying 12% against the existing 2%. So, maybe the tax not collected (NIC is also a tax, in case anyone isn't certain) is only half the first figure?

Then I doubt there's been an indication of the timing; is it immediate - I think we can discount this, or before the next GE - let's assume 2022, or would it be somewhere in the next parliament, after BJ wins his GE? Maybe BJ would plan to "aspire to" £80,000 in a number of steps, maybe he would target aspiring to £80,000 over 5 years, increasing each year in steps of £6,000? (We've all got to hope he doesn't put it on the side of a bus).

All BJ is doing, is taking a page out of JC's "election playbook." In JC's case it was "Money for everyone - except the, was it, top 5%? The thing is, how many people who are currently in the 95% who some day will want to be in that top 5%? i guess, there will be many who would fear that JC would stop everyone rising up the income scale?

BJ's approach, to me, appears to be the reverse - lower taxes for the "middle earners."

There's a difference between raising the level at which the higher rate of tax starts and cutting the top rate(s) of tax which has in the past resulted in an increae in the total tax collected. This was the outcome when Margaret Thatcher (and, was it Lawson) cut the top rate from 60% to 40%. I've not checked the stats, but it may well have been the outcome when the rate was cut from 50% to 45% earlier this decade (if you know differently, I'm happy to be better informed). Of course, that last "small" tax cut, was reversing an increase that had only been there for a short time, and because it was "signalled" by Gordon Brown and his Chancellor, the higher rate tax payers were able to make adjustments in timing of "discretionary" income that mitigated the increase....

But, get back to the first part, the media reported £9.6 bn because that is a big, attention grabbing figure. It's very likely not the true cost, and that, even if you and I are unsure about the tax receipts outcomes of adjusting the basic rate.

And, BJ cannot complain about the figure - I doubt he would even intend to complain - because it's the same thing as putting a figure on the side of a bus, it doesn't need to be "true and fair" (to borrow a financial disclosure term) - it just needs to grab attention. I'm sure BJ is happy to let get the attention, nothing more and nothing less. No different than JC, in this respect....

And, as you've said, neither of us are members of anyone's campaign team. ;)

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Paul Waine » Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:46 pm

The Times, today:

Global chief executives back Brexit Britain
But European bosses less likely to invest after UK quits EU

Business leaders from some of Britain’s most important trading partners expect to be more eager to invest in the UK after Brexit, according to a survey.

A poll of 1,300 chief executives in 11 of the world’s largest economies found bosses from the US, China and Japan — the UK’s top investor and the world’s second and third biggest economies — expect to be more likely to invest in Britain after it leaves the European Union.

KPMG, which conducted the poll, said it showed many international chief executives “still view the UK as an attractive investment destination”.

However, chief executives in the EU were significantly less inclined to invest in the UK after Brexit.

(Copied opening paras of article).

Views, anyone?

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14566
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:55 pm

Remainers will tell you it's just spin, brexiteers will take a positive view.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:01 pm

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-06-11/wil ... n-cumbria/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:05 pm

https://www.politico.eu/article/japanes ... on-brexit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... da-hitachi" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 06916.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://japantoday.com/category/politic ... ter-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000185466.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Course, i could just spout off about something I know nothing about with any links, but that would be silly.

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by dsr » Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:32 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:But as has been pointed out before, there probably wouldn't be a majority for a GE in the Commons so it's far more !likely that Parliament would take control find a PM who could form a coalition majority government and get on with it.
Irrespective of anyone's personal brexi t position, I think it's pretty likely that there would (at this stage) be a reasonable majority in the Commons for some form of CU "soft" brexit backed up by a confirmatory vote.I
Of course that would be deeply unpopular with ERG types, but that seems to me to be how the MP numbers stack up based on the indicative votes.
The alternative coalition government would really struggle as well. If [insert name of new PM] resigned and asked the Queen to dissolve Parliament, but an alternative coalition PM came forward instead [who - Corbyn? Cable?] they would have to demonstrate that they could form their coalition of, presumably, Labour, LibDem, Scots Nationalist, Plaid Cymru, Greens, Change UK, the 16 varied independents, and Kenneth Clarke. That gives them 320 seats to the Tories' (minus Clarke) 312, with the DUP 10 seats as a wild card, and the Sinn Fein 7 still refusing to play. The Speaker remains (nominally?) neutral. How long could that coalition last? If the Tory government falls, and the mishmash coalition falls too, then a general election is all that's left. Of course the coalition could last long enough to pass some sort of Euro fudge and then fall, but that leaves the format of the "confirmatory vote" right up in the air.

nil_desperandum
Posts: 7301
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1823 times
Has Liked: 3952 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by nil_desperandum » Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:39 pm

dsr wrote:The alternative coalition government would really struggle as well. If [insert name of new PM] resigned and asked the Queen to dissolve Parliament, but an alternative coalition PM came forward instead [who - Corbyn? Cable?] they would have to demonstrate that they could form their coalition of, presumably, Labour, LibDem, Scots Nationalist, Plaid Cymru, Greens, Change UK, the 16 varied independents, and Kenneth Clarke. That gives them 320 seats to the Tories' (minus Clarke) 312, with the DUP 10 seats as a wild card, and the Sinn Fein 7 still refusing to play. The Speaker remains (nominally?) neutral. How long could that coalition last? If the Tory government falls, and the mishmash coalition falls too, then a general election is all that's left. Of course the coalition could last long enough to pass some sort of Euro fudge and then fall, but that leaves the format of the "confirmatory vote" right up in the air.
A couple of brief points
Firstly the coalition wouldn't need to last all that long. It's prme function would be to deliver brexit.
Secondly, if Johnson or someone with similar views is forced on the Parliamentary party by the party members then it won't just be a dozen or so Tories who become independent, and don't forget that a significant number of Tory MPs voted on each occasion for Mays deal.They want to deliver brexi t but were prevented by the ERG, DUP etc.
Edit: the new PM would almost certainly be a dissident Tory, maybe Hunt or Stewart assuming they fail in their leadership bid. They would most likely continue their campaign as soon as Johnson won.
Last edited by nil_desperandum on Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Paul Waine » Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:41 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:https://www.politico.eu/article/japanes ... on-brexit/

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... da-hitachi" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 06916.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://japantoday.com/category/politic ... ter-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000185466.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Course, i could just spout off about something I know nothing about with any links, but that would be silly.
Hi Lancs, do you find it surprising that the views you report on Japan-UK differ from the recent survey of CEOs of major international businesses?

Or, do I misunderstand your post and it is not a response to the report in The Times?

I'm passing over your comment "Course, I could just spout off about something I know nothing about with any links, but that would be silly." I'm not sure if there's a typo in this comment - but I can't identify the missing word/missed typed word. Or, is there a reality someone is missing, maybe the CEOs who are reported to say they will invest more in the UK post-Brexit?

martin_p
Posts: 10368
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by martin_p » Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:53 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Lancs, do you find it surprising that the views you report on Japan-UK differ from the recent survey of CEOs of major international businesses?

Or, do I misunderstand your post and it is not a response to the report in The Times?

I'm passing over your comment "Course, I could just spout off about something I know nothing about with any links, but that would be silly." I'm not sure if there's a typo in this comment - but I can't identify the missing word/missed typed word. Or, is there a reality someone is missing, maybe the CEOs who are reported to say they will invest more in the UK post-Brexit?
Do you have a link to this survey?

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by dsr » Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:58 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:A couple of brief points
Firstly the coalition wouldn't need to last all that long. It's prme function would be to deliver brexit.
Secondly, if Johnson or someone with similar views is forced on the Parliamentary party by the party members then it won't just be a dozen or so Tories who become independent, and don't forget that a significant number of Tory MPs voted on each occasion for Mays deal.They want to deliver brexi t but were prevented by the ERG, DUP etc.
Edit: the new PM would almost certainly be a dissident Tory, maybe Hunt or Stewart assuming they fail in their leadership bid. They would most likely continue their campaign as soon as Johnson won.
I realise the coalition wouldn't need to last long, but even so, it's a vast and complex coalition.

But I don't think there will be many Tory MPs now who would vote for May's deal. (K.Clarke excepted.) They know that if they vote to bring down the government, there will be a general election, and even if they are allowed to stand as Conservatives, they will probably lose their seats. They have seen what will happen to Change UK MPs. How many will have principles as strong as that?

I don't think there is much danger of anyone other than a Brexiter being offered to the members. Even the blindest of MPs knows what the election result would be if they appoint a Remainer or a Maybot.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:09 am

martin_p wrote:Do you have a link to this survey?
As mentioned above, it is reported in The Times - a report from "Times CEO Summit" - event in London today (and maybe tomorrow...)

I've not been able to find it directly on KPMG website. Maybe it was embargoed until reported at the Summit?

paywall - hope this link works:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/glob ... 1eb21cdc15" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

John McDonnell and Nick Clegg both spoke at the Summit today.

aggi
Posts: 8763
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by aggi » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:10 am

martin_p wrote:Do you have a link to this survey?
I assume it's this https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/uk ... pdf#page=9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

martin_p
Posts: 10368
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by martin_p » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:29 am

aggi wrote:I assume it's this https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/uk ... pdf#page=9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That’s the only one I could find but it seems to be a survey of U.K. CEOs not international ones mentioned in the quote from the Times.

AndrewJB
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 1159 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by AndrewJB » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:35 am

Paul Waine wrote:Hi If it be your will, great question.

I guess it's fairly easy to calculate the change, ceteris paribus ("all other things remaining equal/the same"), between the tax collected on incomes between £50,000 and £80,000 with a difference in rate of 20% (40% less 20%, of course) and the numbers of incomes that are above £50,000 and up to and including those above £80,000. I expect the Treasury has a model of income distributions and can make this "tax change cost" calculation.

If reports on BJ's statement yesterday are accurate (I'm not following the Tory leadership campaign...), I assume a lot of the reporters will be adjusting their figure downwards for the extra NI contributions all these taxpayers will be making, paying 12% against the existing 2%. So, maybe the tax not collected (NIC is also a tax, in case anyone isn't certain) is only half the first figure?

Then I doubt there's been an indication of the timing; is it immediate - I think we can discount this, or before the next GE - let's assume 2022, or would it be somewhere in the next parliament, after BJ wins his GE? Maybe BJ would plan to "aspire to" £80,000 in a number of steps, maybe he would target aspiring to £80,000 over 5 years, increasing each year in steps of £6,000? (We've all got to hope he doesn't put it on the side of a bus).

All BJ is doing, is taking a page out of JC's "election playbook." In JC's case it was "Money for everyone - except the, was it, top 5%? The thing is, how many people who are currently in the 95% who some day will want to be in that top 5%? i guess, there will be many who would fear that JC would stop everyone rising up the income scale?

BJ's approach, to me, appears to be the reverse - lower taxes for the "middle earners."

There's a difference between raising the level at which the higher rate of tax starts and cutting the top rate(s) of tax which has in the past resulted in an increae in the total tax collected. This was the outcome when Margaret Thatcher (and, was it Lawson) cut the top rate from 60% to 40%. I've not checked the stats, but it may well have been the outcome when the rate was cut from 50% to 45% earlier this decade (if you know differently, I'm happy to be better informed). Of course, that last "small" tax cut, was reversing an increase that had only been there for a short time, and because it was "signalled" by Gordon Brown and his Chancellor, the higher rate tax payers were able to make adjustments in timing of "discretionary" income that mitigated the increase....

But, get back to the first part, the media reported £9.6 bn because that is a big, attention grabbing figure. It's very likely not the true cost, and that, even if you and I are unsure about the tax receipts outcomes of adjusting the basic rate.

And, BJ cannot complain about the figure - I doubt he would even intend to complain - because it's the same thing as putting a figure on the side of a bus, it doesn't need to be "true and fair" (to borrow a financial disclosure term) - it just needs to grab attention. I'm sure BJ is happy to let get the attention, nothing more and nothing less. No different than JC, in this respect....

And, as you've said, neither of us are members of anyone's campaign team. ;)
I think you're way too clever than to believe in the "Laffer Curve". https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Laffer_curve" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I also know you entirely disagree with the idea of having wealth caps, so how about looking at the general tax system from the standpoint of fairness? You had some kind words about my thoughts on funding higher education, and thank you for that, so I'll try to pitch this in the same way:

A pound is a pound. But the way those pounds can be earned vary greatly. Should the pound earned through manual labour on a farm or in a factory be taxed at the same rate as the same pound earned through the profits of that same farm or factory? Should someone who is wealthy pay just the same, or more tax on the money they earn through their investments than the people who work in the companies that are earning them the money in the first place?

Should income be taxed the same wherever it comes from, or should income from actual work be taxed less?

aggi
Posts: 8763
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by aggi » Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:16 am

martin_p wrote:That’s the only one I could find but it seems to be a survey of U.K. CEOs not international ones mentioned in the quote from the Times.
International

For our fifth global CEO Outlook report, we surveyed 1,300 CEOs
in 11 countries over January and February this year to understand
their views on today’s big business issues.
One hundred and fifty of those CEOs were in the UK. This report
examines their particular views, attitudes and actions and shows
how UK CEOs stack up against their global counterparts

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Wed Jun 12, 2019 7:19 am

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Lancs, do you find it surprising that the views you report on Japan-UK differ from the recent survey of CEOs of major international businesses?

Or, do I misunderstand your post and it is not a response to the report in The Times?

I'm passing over your comment "Course, I could just spout off about something I know nothing about with any links, but that would be silly." I'm not sure if there's a typo in this comment - but I can't identify the missing word/missed typed word. Or, is there a reality someone is missing, maybe the CEOs who are reported to say they will invest more in the UK post-Brexit?
Just balancing what you've said.

Every interview I've seen with a Japanese politician or CEO warns explicitly against a "No Deal" Brexit, and is very negative to Brexit overall.

The EU-Japan trade deal took about a decade to negotiate, and Japan overwhelming invests in the UK as a gateway to the EU, so to suggest that leaving in anyway is what Japan thinks is ace is utter ********.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Jun 12, 2019 8:43 am

AndrewJB wrote:I think you're way too clever than to believe in the "Laffer Curve". https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Laffer_curve" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I also know you entirely disagree with the idea of having wealth caps, so how about looking at the general tax system from the standpoint of fairness? You had some kind words about my thoughts on funding higher education, and thank you for that, so I'll try to pitch this in the same way:

A pound is a pound. But the way those pounds can be earned vary greatly. Should the pound earned through manual labour on a farm or in a factory be taxed at the same rate as the same pound earned through the profits of that same farm or factory? Should someone who is wealthy pay just the same, or more tax on the money they earn through their investments than the people who work in the companies that are earning them the money in the first place?

Should income be taxed the same wherever it comes from, or should income from actual work be taxed less?
Hi Andrew, I know Iibyw's question was raising the question of the tax collection curve described by Professor Laffer. My response aimed to show that BJ's raising the threshold at which the higher rate commences wasn't the same as cutting the top rates of tax.

Re tax fairness, I'm of the view that the tax system should include a basic rate of tax and a higher rate of tax. 20% and 40% are the right proportions while we also have National Insurance as a separate tax. I wouldn't be against merging NI with income tax and maybe rates of 25% and 45% would work on this basis (just plucking figures from the air, rather than any maths to support them). I would prefer to keep the higher rate below 50% - is it fair to tax more than half of anyone's earnings, or does that take us to the point where people say, I need you to give me more to offset these extra high rates of tax. A tax system could also have a rate lower than the basic rate, as an introduction to taxation - so, long as it can be collected efficiently. There's no point spending more money on collecting the tax than the amount of tax collected.

I'd find it difficult to make a distinction in the way income is earned, whether it is manual labour on a farm, stacking shelves in Tescos (other supermarkets are available), working on a factory production line, in an office, as a photographer, fashion model, banker, footballer, tv pundit or journalist - where would be place the earnings of a social media "influencer", for example - and then there are carers, nurses and doctors, and the technicians that support many of the clever machines that x-ray and scan and more these days. My first (summer) job was painting the walls and ceilings inside a textile mill, my second was on the pastry line at Hollands Pies.

Through the 60s and 70s (I'm not checked on exact dates), the UK operated a 15% "unearned income" surcharge. I'm sure it was right to get rid of this extra tax. Why, at the "universal" level should interest on someone's savings be taxed at a higher rate than when they earned the income that they are now saving? And, it's one step from saving money in a bank/building society account, to investing those savings in shares - or buying buy-to-let property (personally, I'm not a big fan of btl, but it's not my position to stop others doing it).

There can be an argument for looking at the favourable tax treatment of land. And, I'm not a fan of the trusts that in the past - and maybe still today - assist some extremely wealthy operate in a separarte tax system than the rest of us. Similarly, if you hold a UK passport you should not be able to claim "non-dom" status for UK tax. (And, remember, when I have my day-in-power I'm abolishing all Lords and Ladies, Sirs and Dames etc).

I think this is enough for now - I've got to get out to work. I'm lucky they still want me, despite my age.

And, I appreciate your kind words. I feel this is how social media can be social and enjoyable.

Have a great day, Andrew.

PS: Just discovered that the water is off - I can't go to work until I've showered, so maybe a little more time to post...
Last edited by Paul Waine on Wed Jun 12, 2019 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Jun 12, 2019 8:58 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Just balancing what you've said.

Every interview I've seen with a Japanese politician or CEO warns explicitly against a "No Deal" Brexit, and is very negative to Brexit overall.

The EU-Japan trade deal took about a decade to negotiate, and Japan overwhelming invests in the UK as a gateway to the EU, so to suggest that leaving in anyway is what Japan thinks is ace is utter ********.
OK Lancs, I guess you read that my post was quoting what I'd read in The Times. I assume you didn't think it was my opinion?

Like others, above, I'd gone on KPMG's website to find their survey, but was unsuccessful. Maybe it was a smaller part of a larger report.

With regards to "every interview...." I always keep myself open to new information - but, agree, that's no reason why I should think others may also be open to receiving some new information.

In the early 2000s I spent 4 years working for a Japanese company in London. The business was a UK business only - in the wholesale power sector. The Japanese invested and then became sole owner because they wanted to learn about the UK power sector and then, possibly, take that knowledge back to Japan, where there was the possibility of the Japanese power sector adopting a system similar to the UK.

Anyway, have a great day.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:13 am

Paul Waine wrote:OK Lancs, I guess you read that my post was quoting what I'd read in The Times. I assume you didn't think it was my opinion?

Like others, above, I'd gone on KPMG's website to find their survey, but was unsuccessful. Maybe it was a smaller part of a larger report.

With regards to "every interview...." I always keep myself open to new information - but, agree, that's no reason why I should think others may also be open to receiving some new information.

In the early 2000s I spent 4 years working for a Japanese company in London. The business was a UK business only - in the wholesale power sector. The Japanese invested and then became sole owner because they wanted to learn about the UK power sector and then, possibly, take that knowledge back to Japan, where there was the possibility of the Japanese power sector adopting a system similar to the UK.

Anyway, have a great day.
Great, everyone is open to new information, and I read as much as I've got time to trying to find stuff that means Brexit will be good for the UK.

But there isn't a lot of that about, and what is about is very light on actually facts and has far too much emphasis on stuff like "no reason we can't thrive" and "belief will take us a long way".

For something as big as this for the country, I'd want a lot more than what I'm reading (and thats before we talk about the chaotic political mess we are in as well)

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14566
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:51 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Just balancing what you've said.

Every interview I've seen with a Japanese politician or CEO warns explicitly against a "No Deal" Brexit, and is very negative to Brexit overall.

The EU-Japan trade deal took about a decade to negotiate, and Japan overwhelming invests in the UK as a gateway to the EU, so to suggest that leaving in anyway is what Japan thinks is ace is utter ********.
Would that be the same deal that's seeing Honda leave Swindon and produce their cars back in Japan because it's no longer beneficial to build in Europe?

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:05 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Great, everyone is open to new information, and I read as much as I've got time to trying to find stuff that means Brexit will be good for the UK.

But there isn't a lot of that about, and what is about is very light on actually facts and has far too much emphasis on stuff like "no reason we can't thrive" and "belief will take us a long way".

For something as big as this for the country, I'd want a lot more than what I'm reading (and thats before we talk about the chaotic political mess we are in as well)
Still no water for my shower....

The issue about "brexit will be good...." is because it's all in the future. We can only look at facts and make deductions from those facts. There's been posts before that New Zealand progressed when the UK joining the EEC - and particularly the CAP - disrupted NZ's previous agricultural trade with UK. But, there aren't many other examples of a trade relatioship ending and how the countries fare on the other side. And, the UK is not NZ; much larger population, much more diverse industrial and commercial sectors - and the EU27 is geographical adjacent, rather than on the other side of the world.

Then, everything we read, in the first place comes from the media - and the media always wants to draw attention to their reports with "attention grabbing" headlines - and, with many media sources, there's always an editorial point of view. As brexit has been the "story de jour" - and well over a 1,000 "jours" by now - brexit has to be brought into everything. We've seen a lot of this with the Japanese car manufacturers; Sunderland not getting the new suv "because of brexit," Swidon closing "becuase of brexit" - given what was happening in car manufacturing, too much capacity, diesel pollution, climate change, these decisions would probably still happen even if the UK was alwasy going to stay in the EU.

And, maybe it's the same with the Times CEO Summit report I've quoted. Maybe it suited The Times purpose to highlight this survey. Maybe it's a small section of KPMG's survey. Maybe the way the question was asked the CEOs would always have answered "yes, I'll still invest in the UK after brexit...." - because an experienced CEO will always keep their options open. The truth will only be shown when money is, or isn't, invested in future years.

More than 2 hours after the water went off.... is this an omen for brexit?

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:08 am

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Would that be the same deal that's seeing Honda leave Swindon and produce their cars back in Japan because it's no longer beneficial to build in Europe?
Finally you are veering into something you should know more about!

There is a lot more to the UK-Japan relationship than cars.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:09 am

Paul Waine wrote:Still no water for my shower....

The issue about "brexit will be good...." is because it's all in the future. We can only look at facts and make deductions from those facts. There's been posts before that New Zealand progressed when the UK joining the EEC - and particularly the CAP - disrupted NZ's previous agricultural trade with UK. But, there aren't many other examples of a trade relatioship ending and how the countries fare on the other side. And, the UK is not NZ; much larger population, much more diverse industrial and commercial sectors - and the EU27 is geographical adjacent, rather than on the other side of the world.

Then, everything we read, in the first place comes from the media - and the media always wants to draw attention to their reports with "attention grabbing" headlines - and, with many media sources, there's always an editorial point of view. As brexit has been the "story de jour" - and well over a 1,000 "jours" by now - brexit has to be brought into everything. We've seen a lot of this with the Japanese car manufacturers; Sunderland not getting the new suv "because of brexit," Swidon closing "becuase of brexit" - given what was happening in car manufacturing, too much capacity, diesel pollution, climate change, these decisions would probably still happen even if the UK was alwasy going to stay in the EU.

And, maybe it's the same with the Times CEO Summit report I've quoted. Maybe it suited The Times purpose to highlight this survey. Maybe it's a small section of KPMG's survey. Maybe the way the question was asked the CEOs would always have answered "yes, I'll still invest in the UK after brexit...." - because an experienced CEO will always keep their options open. The truth will only be shown when money is, or isn't, invested in future years.

More than 2 hours after the water went off.... is this an omen for brexit?
Is New Zealand separated by a 20 mile stretch of water from its largest trading partner?

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:15 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Is New Zealand separated by a 20 mile stretch of water from its largest trading partner?
Hi Lancs, can I suggest you read a little slower... if that's what is making you miss what I posted:

"And, the UK is not NZ; much larger population, much more diverse industrial and commercial sectors - and the EU27 is geographical adjacent, rather than on the other side of the world."

Yes, as we know, NZ is "on the other side of the world" from the UK. UK has a common border with Ireland and is "cut off from" continental Europe by a small sea crossing. And, it's not just Dover-Calais, the UK (and allies) have also proved that it's posible to get to Europe from Portsmouth to Normandy.

nil_desperandum
Posts: 7301
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1823 times
Has Liked: 3952 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by nil_desperandum » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:18 am

dsr wrote:I realise the coalition wouldn't need to last long, but even so, it's a vast and complex coalition.

But I don't think there will be many Tory MPs now who would vote for May's deal. (K.Clarke excepted.) They know that if they vote to bring down the government, there will be a general election, and even if they are allowed to stand as Conservatives, they will probably lose their seats. They have seen what will happen to Change UK MPs. How many will have principles as strong as that?

I don't think there is much danger of anyone other than a Brexiter being offered to the members. Even the blindest of MPs knows what the election result would be if they appoint a Remainer or a Maybot.
Morning dsr.
On this topic it's all about opinions, but I'm not sure there 's much evidence to support your points.
All the evidence suggests that there are a significant majority of Tory MPs who want a deal and the majority of them would try to block crashing out of with no deal on Oct 31st.
Nothing so far has happened to "Tigs"/Change UK MPs other than that due to the Liberal resurgence it's clear that they would be defeating their own cause if they stand as an independent party against the Liberal Dems.(This is why half of them have concluded that they should revert to being independent.) Most of them however would retain their seats if an election were called since they are popular in their constituencies and in many cases have good majorities in seats where other parties have no chance of winning. (Ie - even if their own previous vote is split, it will go in different directions, and they will pick up remain voters from the parties who historically have no chance of winning in those seats.)
And again, I repeat, there doesn't have to be a vote of confidence or a GE for a PM to lose his / her majority.
As few as half a dozen Tory MPs resign the party whip and cross the floor and the PM
has no working majority. With no appetite for a GE Parliament would have to take control. It's happened before, so it's not entirely implausible.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:21 am

And, latest news on my water supply - it is expected to be back on by midday!

Been off since before 8 a.m.

Not sure what my plan B is now.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:22 am

Paul, I've been driving home the point that the UK isn't cut off from the rest of the world and has the reality of 40 years of trade networks set up through and involving the EU at every turn for about three years.

I've been trying to explain that in trade, bigger markets have more clout than smaller one, always

I've told numerous people numerous times that we won't get better trade deals than we have now through the EU, because of that

That argument was comprehensively won on here last year.

Its not stopping people from continuing to pretend its not reality. It doesn't help when its being constantly recycled by Brexiteers, Conservative MPs and media outlets that know exactly what the reality is, but know if they acknowledged it, then their Brexit dream would die.

So I skim through stuff that is posted on here that is too long!

And I apologise for that!

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:25 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Paul, I've been driving home the point that the UK isn't cut off from the rest of the world and has the reality of 40 years of trade networks set up through and involving the EU at every turn for about three years.

I've been trying to explain that in trade, bigger markets have more clout than smaller one, always

I've told numerous people numerous times that we won't get better trade deals than we have now through the EU, because of that

That argument was comprehensively won on here last year.

Its not stopping people from continuing to pretend its not reality. It doesn't help when its being constantly recycled by Brexiteers, Conservative MPs and media outlets that know exactly what the reality is, but know if they acknowledged it, then their Brexit dream would die.

So I skim through stuff that is posted on here that is too long!

And I apologise for that!
Well, Lancs, unexpectedly, this morning I've got a little time. Hope you don't mind sharing a thread with one of the "great unwashed!"

Yes, I know what you've been "driving at...." No one could have missed it.

Factually, I'd moderate the "40 years......" Yes, the UK joined the EEC in 1973 - I'd got the vote a couple of years earlier. The "trade networks" and all ther other close relationship stuff, for the most part date from Implementation of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 - and, the euro was introduced later - and, of course, the UK didn't join. I moved to Netherlands in 1992. There was no freedom of movement back then. My furniture and the other stuff I took over there was subject to customs inspection - and arrived a couple of days after I got there. I moved back to London the following year - and the removal van arrived home at the same day. And, the "trade networks" have been building from 1993 - they weren't all "switched on at midnight on New Year's eve" far from.

My point is, it's not "40 years" that we will be moving away from, assuming brexit proceeds (you might remember, I've suggested a better way out would be to rescind Art 50, but let's keep that for another discussion).

And, the issue with trade deals is that, if the EU negotiates the deals, they have to suit the EU - as well, obviously, as the other party to the deal. If the UK negotiates the deal then the deals can be much more aligned with the UK's and the other party's needs.

I'm sure we can all agree, that the UK, Germany and France are not identical countries and that their economies have differences. So, whatever the EU negotiates implies a compromise amongst the EU member states. I've no problems with that - membership of a club always requires some compromises - unless the "big guy" dominates to everyone else's exclusion.

So, up to you. You may take a "deep breath" and read all of what I've posted and think about it. Or, you can "skim read" and maybe miss the points I'm making.

Well done on "comprehensively winning the argument" last year.

And, well done anyone who wins anything on here. When does next season start? ;)

aggi
Posts: 8763
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by aggi » Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:26 am

In the least surprising news ever UK not ready for a no-deal Brexit on October 31st, confidential cabinet note warns

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/u ... -1.3923139" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

martin_p
Posts: 10368
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by martin_p » Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:29 am

aggi wrote:In the least surprising news ever UK not ready for a no-deal Brexit on October 31st, confidential cabinet note warns

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/u ... -1.3923139" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
All no deal preparations were stopped when we got the extension until the end of October, so we’re not even getting any closer to being ready.
These 2 users liked this post: Imploding Turtle Lancasterclaret

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:32 am

Paul Waine wrote:Well, Lancs, unexpectedly, this morning I've got a little time. Hope you don't mind sharing a thread with one of the "great unwashed!"

Yes, I know what you've been "driving at...." No one could have missed it.

Factually, I'd moderate the "40 years......" Yes, the UK joined the EEC in 1973 - I'd got the vote a couple of years earlier. The "trade networks" and all ther other close relationship stuff, for the most part date from Implementation of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 - and, the euro was introduced later - and, of course, the UK didn't join. I moved to Netherlands in 1992. There was no freedom of movement back then. My furniture and the other stuff I took over there was subject to customs inspection - and arrived a couple of days after I got there. I moved back to London the following year - and the removal van arrived home at the same day. And, the "trade networks" have been building from 1993 - they weren't all "switched on at midnight on New Year's eve" far from.

My point is, it's not "40 years" that we will be moving away from, assuming brexit proceeds (you might remember, I've suggested a better way out would be to rescind Art 50, but let's keep that for another discussion).

And, the issue with trade deals is that, if the EU negotiates the deals, they have to suit the EU - as well, obviously, as the other party to the deal. If the UK negotiates the deal then the deals can be much more aligned with the UK's and the other party's needs.

I'm sure we can all agree, that the UK, Germany and France are not identical countries and that their economies have differences. So, whatever the EU negotiates implies a compromise amongst the EU member states. I've no problems with that - membership of a club always requires some compromises - unless the "big guy" dominates to everyone else's exclusion.

So, up to you. You may take a "deep breath" and read all of what I've posted and think about it. Or, you can "skim read" and maybe miss the points I'm making.

Well done on "comprehensively winning the argument" last year.

And, well done anyone who wins anything on here. When does next season start? ;)
I've read it.

And I don't do long posts in reply but the conclusion I've drawn from your post is that you think the EU is discriminating against the UK in its trade deals and that we can get better ones because we don't have to worry about other countries?

I take your point of view and just say that we'll have the same issues with the UK (assuming it still exists) within the UK.

Locked