Airbus and Brexit

[deanothedino]

How hard can it be really

[aggi]

BMW could also just be scare-mongering here



Although I think anyone with a grasp of business logistics and the trend towards JIT and integrated supply chains would see why this conclusion is difficult to avoid.

[Lancasterclaret]

I think that is your problem right there. People have got used to stuff just being there without realising just how much needs to be done by JIT and the supply chain to get it there.

[aggi]

Harley Davidson have nicely illustrated that these political statements may have unintended consequences https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44604280" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Trump's attempts at boosting American jobs through tariffs have caused Harley Davidson to move some jobs away from the US ...

[SmudgetheClaret]

Odd isn't it that it's always "might ,could ,possibly" I'll start to take a bit of notice when they say they are actually gonna do it !
fake news doesn't change into reality the more times you say it,those days are over this is just more project fear and political gestures and smells like bull s**t to me ...

[Lancasterclaret]

Not being funny Smudge but what is it exactly you do for a living, and your knowledge of JIT, the supply chain, SM and the CU?

[aggi]

Odd isn't it that it's always "might ,could ,possibly" I'll start to take a bit of notice when they say they are actually gonna do it !
fake news doesn't change into reality the more times you say it,those days are over this is just more project fear and political gestures and smells like bull s**t to me ...

There weren't many "might, could, possibly" in BMW's statement, it was pretty unequivocal "If at the end of the day the supply chain will have a stop at the border, then we cannot produce our products in the UK"

As I said further upthread, businesses are getting sick of the lack of definite plans from the government and are starting to put their own into action. We're nearly at the crunch time, ideally everything but the small print should be agreed at the EU summit this week, and it's becoming increasingly apparent that still no-one knows what's going on.

[Lancasterclaret]

You hope like mad that around about now, TM and her cabinet are telling the ERG to wake up and smell the coffee.

Unfortunately, it looks like Jeremy Hunt has swung to the "No deal" side as well, which means we could be totally, utterly ******.

[Imploding Turtle]

I know you don't know much about Burnley living in Lancaster, but Business parks are expanding like crazy.

The low pound has sent manufacturing through the roof.

Any evidence of that at all?

[Quickenthetempo]

Any evidence of that at all?

Evidence of what?

[Imploding Turtle]

Evidence of what?

Manufacturing being "through the roof".

[Quickenthetempo]

Manufacturing being "through the roof".

Just speaking to people how busy at work they are. How many companies recruiting and expanding etc..

Get yourself off Reddit and see things for your own eyes.

[Imploding Turtle]

Just speaking to people how busy at work they are. How many companies recruiting and expanding etc..

Get yourself off Reddit and see things for your own eyes.

So you have no evidence.

[Quickenthetempo]

I have enough evidence for me to see and believe it wit my own eyes, which I trust more than some Internet quote.

[Tall Paul]

Anecdotal evidence is still evidence.

Meaningless and useless, but still evidence.

[Imploding Turtle]

Anecdotal evidence is still evidence.

Meaningless and useless, but still evidence.

No. It's hearsay. I have absolutely no reason to believe he hasn't just made it up. Otherwise i could claim that i saw Theresa May undress from her human suit and is actually a lizard, and claim that to be "evidence".

[Tall Paul]

No. It's hearsay. I have absolutely no reason to believe he hasn't just made it up. Otherwise i could claim that i saw Theresa May undress from her human suit and is actually a lizard, and claim that to be "evidence".

Hearsay is also evidence.

Again, crap evidence but evidence nonetheless.

[Imploding Turtle]

Bullshit. You have too low a requirement for something qualifying as evidence.

[Tall Paul]

Bullshit. You have too low a requirement for something qualifying as evidence.

Evidence that Hearsay is a type of evidence

[taio]

Employment has risen steadily in Burnley and there is general business investment and growth in the town, for example:

https://www.burnleyexpress.net/news/bus ... -1-9016254

https://www.insidermedia.com/insider/no ... sion-plans

https://www.lancashirebusinessview.co.u ... ns-103945/

[Lancasterclaret]

That new business park by the junction before the Burnley one looks to be doing well.

Notice who helped fund it anyone?

[martin_p]

That new business park by the junction before the Burnley one looks to be doing well.

Notice who helped fund it anyone?

Was it Nigel Farage and Aaron Banks?

[Lancasterclaret]

Amazingly, those two well known philanthropists had nothing to do with it. Too busy making a killing out of us leaving the EU at a guess.

[nil_desperandum]

Was it Nigel Farage and Aaron Banks?

No - but I believe they've promised Burnley a Unicorn nursery and farm as a part of the Brexit dividend

[Walton]

Just speaking to people how busy at work they are. How many companies recruiting and expanding etc..

Get yourself off Reddit and see things for your own eyes.

Have a read of this

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... an-quickly

[deanothedino]

Just speaking to people how busy at work they are. How many companies recruiting and expanding etc..

Get yourself off Reddit and see things for your own eyes.

BAE Systems shedding 2,000 jobs. Rolls Royce shedding 4,500 jobs. Manufacturing is really through the roof.

[RingoMcCartney]

Employment has risen steadily in Burnley and there is general business investment and growth in the town, for example:

https://www.burnleyexpress.net/news/bus ... -1-9016254

https://www.insidermedia.com/insider/no ... sion-plans

https://www.lancashirebusinessview.co.u ... ns-103945/

It's brilliant isn't it! You post genuine job creation and the usual gaggle of ceaseless Remoaners gather round in an exercise of communal meditation!

The mantra -

"Please let their be the redundancies and job losses. Please please please. Let all those companies that threatened they'd leave the UK, before the referendum, but actually didn't. Really really do it this time!!

The spectacle of, supposedly, intelligent people turning into economic masochists, so they may just be able to say, "told you so, the sky will fall in cos you voted to Leave!"

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

[Quickenthetempo]

Sorry should of said locally.

The only companies struggling are the heavily subsidised
by government ones.

[Lancasterclaret]

Ringo, full credit to you for showing that Burnley is doing well, but say 100 jobs are created in Burnley and 6,500 are lost nationwide

Its effectively what you are being told here, and you are calling it pathetic.

I think the reason that no one really gets where you are coming from is that you look at this from Burnley point of view exclusively, while the rest of us are more UK wide focused.

[RingoMcCartney]

Ringo, full credit to you for showing that Burnley is doing well, but say 100 jobs are created in Burnley and 6,500 are lost nationwide

Its effectively what you are being told here, and you are calling it pathetic.

I think the reason that no one really gets where you are coming from is that you look at this from Burnley point of view exclusively, while the rest of us are more UK wide focused.

I didn't show Burnley manufacturing base is going from strength to strength. Another poster did. Your wrong.

When I celebrate the fact that UK purchasing managers order books are at their highest for 4 years. Am I seeing things from a parochial Burnley perspective? No I'm not. I'm seeing them at a broader national one.

So despite your boast that, " I just happen to be right most of the time " It looks like it's one of your rare fallible moments. !

Any way, I'll let you get what your best at -

BRING OUT YER DEAD.....BRING OUT YER DEAD.....

[deanothedino]

When I celebrate the fact that UK purchasing managers order books are at their highest for 4 years. Am I seeing things from a parochial Burnley perspective? No I'm not. I'm seeing them at a broader national one.

Well sorry some of us won't celebrate that our industries are making massive layoffs.

[aggi]

Ringo has previously said that he want's out of the EU on ideological grounds (some of them admittedly due to a poor grasp of how the EU works) and if the economy takes a hit it takes a hit; fair play to him being honest about that, he's voted for what he believes in and I can understand and accept that.

The ones I find more confusing are those who are adamant that this will be good for the economy in the face of overwhelming evidence pointing the other way. When pressed they just tend to babble on about unexploited markets as if we only sell to 27 countries at the moment.That I struggle to accept, the irrationality of it.

[RingoMcCartney]

(some of them admittedly due to a poor grasp of how the EU works

" if the economy takes a hit"

IF IF IF IF IF IF


I'll not take lectures from some one who has demonstrated time and time again that they have a poor grasp of how democracy works

You claimed that the liberal democrats manifesto had been put into law and legislation , (which would be a clear breach of parliamentary convention procedure). When it was clearly political opportunism on the part of the Tories.

You failed to demonstrate that you understood the difference between a losing party enacting part of their manifesto, which hasn't happened in hundreds of years of parliamentary history. And political opportunism.

Labour promised in its 2017 election manifesto to scrap tuition fees. They lost the election The Tories are considering making political gains with a younger voter profile by doing the same.

Would this be the losing party enacting part of its manifesto into law and legislation. Or political opportunism on the part of the Tories?

[martin_p]

" if the economy takes a hit"

IF IF IF IF IF IF


I'll not take lectures from some one who has demonstrated time and time again that they have a poor grasp of how democracy works

You claimed that the liberal democrats manifesto had been put into law and legislation , (which would be a clear breach of parliamentary convention procedure). When it was clearly political opportunism on the part of the Tories.

You failed to demonstrate that you understood the difference between a losing party enacting part of their manifesto, which hasn't happened in hundreds of years of parliamentary history. And political opportunism.

Labour promised in its 2017 election manifesto to scrap tuition fees. They lost the election The Tories are considering making political gains with a younger voter profile by doing the same.

Would this be the losing party enacting part of its manifesto into law and legislation. Or political opportunism on the part of the Tories?

And you continue to misquote aggi (or lack basic comprehension skills). He never said the losing party enacted anything (cue Ringo deflection with lots of emojis).

[aggi]

Ah, the discussion where you misunderstood your own point and then misquoted me and made some stuff up. Are you still banging on about that? You still won't be able to find me saying a losing party enacted their manifesto without using selective quoting.

Sod it, I'll spell it out for you one last time:

You said:
The point being, that after the referendum on a binary single issue, attempting to include the losing sides view (Remain in the EU) should not be part of the process of Leaving it. Unless you're clinging on to the notion that you can be partly pregnant.

You illustration for this was that Following a General election, only the winning parties manifesto is enacted into law and legislation. The losing parties manifestos are binned

I pointed out that a few lib dem manifesto policies were implemented by the winning side (at no point did I say the Lib Dems enacted them even though you repeatedly pretended I did).

You contend that this is political opportunism, not the manifesto being enacted. I say it makes no difference.

The point is, that the losing parties views are being taken into account because it's accpeted that they're good ideas (or at least vote-winners).

This contradicts your original statement with the general election analogy that The point being, that after the referendum on a binary single issue, attempting to include the losing sides view (Remain in the EU) should not be part of the process of Leaving it. as you've conceded that sometimes the losing sides view is taken into account.

Now it's all laid out nicely for you there's a slim chance you may understand your own point.

Alternatively, you can just continue to talk ******** about how I don't understand the parliamentary convention procedure (by the way, don't look at early day motions, they'll blow your mind) and make quotes up. It doesn't really matter to me either way.

[Tall Paul]

And you continue to misquote aggi (or lack basic comprehension skills). He never said the losing party enacted anything (cue Ringo deflection with lots of emojis).

Yeah Martin, but something about evidence and people trafficking and leaving the EU.

Ringo 1346436 Martin 0

[martin_p]

Yeah Martin, but something about evidence and people trafficking and leaving the EU.

Ringo 1346436 Martin 0

You forgot the emojis

[RingoMcCartney]

Ah, the discussion where you misunderstood your own point and then misquoted me and made some stuff up. Are you still banging on about that? You still won't be able to find me saying a losing party enacted their manifesto without using selective quoting.

Sod it, I'll spell it out for you one last time:

You said:
The point being, that after the referendum on a binary single issue, attempting to include the losing sides view (Remain in the EU) should not be part of the process of Leaving it. Unless you're clinging on to the notion that you can be partly pregnant.

You illustration for this was that Following a General election, only the winning parties manifesto is enacted into law and legislation. The losing parties manifestos are binned

I pointed out that a few lib dem manifesto policies were implemented by the winning side (at no point did I say the Lib Dems enacted them even though you repeatedly pretended I did).

You contend that this is political opportunism, not the manifesto being enacted. I say it makes no difference.

The point is, that the losing parties views are being taken into account because it's accpeted that they're good ideas (or at least vote-winners).

This contradicts your original statement with the general election analogy that The point being, that after the referendum on a binary single issue, attempting to include the losing sides view (Remain in the EU) should not be part of the process of Leaving it. as you've conceded that sometimes the losing sides view is taken into account.

Now it's all laid out nicely for you there's a slim chance you may understand your own point.

Alternatively, you can just continue to talk ******** about how I don't understand the parliamentary convention procedure (by the way, don't look at early day motions, they'll blow your mind) and make quotes up. It doesn't really matter to me either way.

Wriggle wriggle wriggle

In a binary referendum of in or out. You cannot REPEAT cannot cannot incorporate staying in the EU while leaving it.

And this idea that I'm misquoting you. Why then did you actually list part of the LibDems manifesto if you weren't saying theyd been enacted into law.!?

You say, "that the losing parties views are being taken into account because it's accpeted that they're good ideas"

And this is the the massive point you fail to grasp. - You say " You contend that this is political opportunism, not the manifesto being enacted. I say it makes NO difference "

But that was the point I was making and you were clearly not getting!. It DOES make a difference. In the context of a single issue, referendum. What is the potential for political opportunism for the winning side, Leave, of trying to steal any of the losing sides, Remain, argumemt!!!!!!!? Absolutely none. They lost!

Just by you saying it doesn't matter who enacts an idea "doesn't matter," doesn't mean it doesn't.!! It does! In an in or out referendum, you saying that because of political opportunism following a general election. The winning argument can adopt the best bits of the losing side.!!!!

You cannot be half pregnant.


Ringo 1 aggi 0

[RingoMcCartney]

You forgot the emojis

You've forgot you lost 3.0.....

[Lancasterclaret]

If this board had VAR, I'm not sure a lot of your goals would stand!

[RingoMcCartney]

If this board had VAR, I'm not sure a lot of your goals would stand!

You keep your self busy "being proven to be right most of the time" eh?

[Lancasterclaret]

Difference is Ringo is that I want to be wrong.

[Quickenthetempo]

100 years ago everyone owned a horse and only the rich had cars.

Today everyone has cars and only the rich own horses.

Life changes and moves on, just accept with a smile and change accordingly. Like smart people do.

[Lancasterclaret]

Not sure that "smart" can be used for anyone who votes for Brexit*

*unless you are a hedge fund manager, own a factory or have lots of cash

[aggi]

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. You've changed your point from a losing party enacting part of their manifesto to Why then did you actually list part of the LibDems manifesto if you weren't saying theyd been enacted into law You can't even be consistent from one post to the next. Probably because you still can't find me saying a losing party enacted their manifesto without using selective quoting.

You'll then complain about being pedantic, forensically analysing your words, blah, blah, blah without realising your inability to write what you mean undermines what you're trying to argue as it changes each post.

I'm sure someone on here keeps banging on about not arguing with idiots as they'll drag you down to their level, I can see what they mean.

[mikeS]

The public were lied to on Brexit from both sides. We’ve ended up two years on with a weak prime minister and a cabinet full of backstabbers. The extremist right want us out of everything, customs union, single market, when all the vote was about at the time was leaving the EU. Nothing was mentioned then about hard borders, or the damage a vote like Brexit might do to the economy or jobs. There was no solid research presented showing what would happen if we left and there still hasn’t been. All we got were slogans and daft figures plucked out of the air Pasted in the side of buses. The vote was carried out Fuelled by the spectre of overwhelming immigration and voters manipulated by false messages, online, in the papers and the rest of the media. Now, it appears we’re not much further forward than we were two years ago. We’ve 9 months to go with little clue how we will all end up.

[RingoMcCartney]

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. You've changed your point from a losing party enacting part of their manifesto to Why then did you actually list part of the LibDems manifesto if you weren't saying theyd been enacted into law You can't even be consistent from one post to the next. Probably because you still can't find me saying a losing party enacted their manifesto without using selective quoting.

You'll then complain about being pedantic, forensically analysing your words, blah, blah, blah without realising your inability to write what you mean undermines what you're trying to argue as it changes each post.

I'm sure someone on here keeps banging on about not arguing with idiots as they'll drag you down to their level, I can see what they mean.

Try me. What was the purpose of listing parts of the LibDems manifesto!? Go on what was the actual point!?

Jesus wept. You continue to miss the point on a bewilderingly epic scale aggi!!!

In a binary referendum there is no scope for political opportunism. There is following a general election.

[ngsobob]

100 years ago, my forbears lived cheek by jowl in Colne Road, Brierfield. Lord knows where they kept the horse.

I admire Lancaster's stamina in arguing with those who will not listen. When we win the right to a People's Vote, the task will be to ensure that people have the chance to see the truth.

Wonderful atmosphere and speeches in London on Saturday, wife and I felt uplifted.

[Lancasterclaret]

It genuinely doesn't bother me ngsbob

I have never been able to sit there and do nowt when people are talking ********.

You won't believe how many rows I've got into in away ends when people say utter guff!

[RingoMcCartney]

Probably because you still can't find me saying a losing party enacted their manifesto without using selective quoting. .

aggi wrote:I'm glad the OP waited until Ringo was back to start this thread, makes it much more entertaining.

On the actual question, point 3 here in the Lib Dem manifesto http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2017-39946809 End the 1% public sector pay cap seems to be what the Government announced here http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41241295

Oh, it also appears that point 13 Levy up to 200% council tax on second homes is also something that the Government has announced https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consu ... pty-homes/

Your starting to look silly again aggi


I'd have settled for 1. 0. But if you prefer I'll settle for a 2.0!!!!!