Only 28% of voters want no deal

OUT OF HOURS BULLY'S TRUCKSTOP BAR (INTERACTIVE)
81

Franglais:
Headline News.
‘Johnson tells porkies about fish.’
His fans won’t care, no more than Trump’s fans care about the truth.
.
Unfortunately truth and logic have long been abandoned by too many.
Reasoned argument is still out there, from both sides, but too many are ignoring it.
Positions are too entrenched to be changed.
Johnson just keeps his fans closer as they support him against any criticisms, justified or not.

Feel free to explain which part of the Common Fisheries Policy that the Leave side has got wrong.

As for Johnson a Tory Federalist shill telling deliberate lies to make the leave side look bad.Who would have thought it.

82

Yes, yes, Brexiter’s favourite rag has a story about it as well, and the comments are priceless

dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … l#comments
…on the other hand the talibanised The Telegraph has mention a word about it the whole day, unless I missed it, somehow.

83

James O’Brien speaks to former vote leave staffer Oliver Norgrove

m.youtube.com/watch?v=MGwz-u5otzk

There are some reasonable brexiters still left, after all

84

Look, in the last three years, have you ever once- even once- heard anyone from the eu say “We don’t want to lose the UK as a partner and we appreciate that there is something very wrong going on for your people to have voted as they did: we are ready to listen to them, to take their concerns seriously and make adjustments and compromises to keep the UK onboard”?

Of course you haven’t. That is not the style of a dictatorship.

85

Harry Monk:
Look, in the last three years, have you ever once- even once- heard anyone from the eu say “We don’t want to lose the UK as a partner and we appreciate that there is something very wrong going on for your people to have voted as they did: we are ready to listen to them, to take their concerns seriously and make adjustments and compromises to keep the UK onboard”?

Of course you haven’t. That is not the style of a dictatorship.

The only ‘adjustments’ that the EU could have made would have been to provide the right of national opt out over every decision and remove the Commissioner tier of government.The EU was never intended to go along those lines.The bombshell here being that HM knew it when she signed us up to it.

86

Harry Monk:
Look, in the last three years, have you ever once- even once- heard anyone from the eu say “We don’t want to lose the UK as a partner and we appreciate that there is something very wrong going on for your people to have voted as they did: we are ready to listen to them, to take their concerns seriously and make adjustments and compromises to keep the UK onboard”?

Of course you haven’t. That is not the style of a dictatorship.

Have you heard 26 people say “look, we’ll all change because number 27 is unhappy”?
No, that’s not the way of a democracy.
.
Not everyone in the EU likes everything about it.
The way to change it is from the inside, not stomp off saying “you’ll miss me when I run away from home”.

87

If we leave “without a deal” - what happens?

We cease making any payments to Brussels for “dues”, and just settle any accounts private business-private business, which has nothing to do with the government, if no tariffs are put on.

Once the payments cease, the EU has a choice of either halting all trade between the UK and the EU (they won’t and can’t) or sticking punitive tariffs on everything, which will be painful for businesses actually on the continent trying to keep in touch with home, rather than those based here in the uk, who can shift to further afield customer bases. They’ve had three years to get ready, after all…

The EU isn’t going to actively put any “Embargo” in place, as this would be an act of war, and even in a limited trade war - the UK has the means to “hurt EU trade” a lot more than the EU can hurt UK trade.

The EU also is NOT going to be building any “Wall” or other “Hard Border” between Northern Ireland and Eire - meaning we just carry on as before, until the EU has the stomach to tell the Irish “WE are going to stop YOU from trading with the UK” - once again, “sounds remarkably like an embargo”…

In short, the “downside stuff” isn’t going to be implemented by the EU, as they just won’t have the stomach and political will (let alone “access”) whilst the UK won’t NEED to put anything in place. We’ll just carry on trading as before. The wall is NOT going to be built.

Finally, there’s no need to cough up £39billion as the EU can “ask” like I can ask you for £1million for my house, or £50k for my car… If you have to buy - you’ll PAY it. If the UK government feels we HAVE to pay £39billion - then the idiots might just pay it, because they’ve actually been bribed to, a long time since.

I suggest Phillip Hammond is frogmarched out of number 11 the moment Boris Johnson becomes PM - IF he becomes PM of course. The Tories don’t WANT “A British Trump” running the show, taking the party back to the Right, and getting re-elected in a coalition with Brexit Party. They’d rather crash out of government, and be in opposition for a while, condeming the rest of us to tax hikes for everyone earning above minimum wages - which means US trucker folk for starters!

88

The next general election will see Labour Leave voters moving to Brexit Party, especially now that Labour has come out for Remain, and Corbyn’s days as leader - look numbered.

Keir Starmer as leader - will mop up some Libdem voters, but will lose the Northern Heartlands, where the working people just will NOT wear tax hikes for Labour’s brand of “Rich” - which means anyone earning over minimum wages, and not on benefits… Remainer or Leaver, Labour just don’t serve the middle-earning working class no-nonsense northerner any more.

I can see Parliament closing ranks to prevent a general election from happening, if the next PM decides to try and call one… THEY will likely succeed in “kicking Brexit down the road” yet again, but this time they decide to NOT kick THEMSELVES out of office - at least until June 2022. Can you imagine the kind of Brexit we’ll end up getting if it takes more than SIX years to get?

I’m thinking 1776-1783 here…

89

Franglais:
Have you heard 26 people say “look, we’ll all change because number 27 is unhappy”?
No, that’s not the way of a democracy.

Opening a sovereign country’s democratic process to a foreign vote and a foreign power isn’t the ‘way of any democracy’ and usually ends the same way when the people have had enough of being taken for fools and mugs.It’s clear that your idea of democracy is laughable gerrymandering and a Soviet style centralised,top down,elite politburo running the show,just so long as it imposes what you want.

While I don’t differentiate US Federalism trashing state rights in that.In which case it’s even more laughable to hear those like you pretending to moan about Trump doing what Federalists do just because you supposedly don’t agree.Especially when Texans are still asking him when he is going to build that wall and give them a vote on secession.Predictably all met by excuses.

90

Winseer:
The next general election will see Labour Leave voters moving to Brexit Party, especially now that Labour has come out for Remain, and Corbyn’s days as leader - look numbered.

Keir Starmer as leader - will mop up some Libdem voters, but will lose the Northern Heartlands, where the working people just will NOT wear tax hikes for Labour’s brand of “Rich” - which means anyone earning over minimum wages, and not on benefits… Remainer or Leaver, Labour just don’t serve the middle-earning working class no-nonsense northerner any more.

I can see Parliament closing ranks to prevent a general election from happening, if the next PM decides to try and call one… THEY will likely succeed in “kicking Brexit down the road” yet again, but this time they decide to NOT kick THEMSELVES out of office - at least until June 2022. Can you imagine the kind of Brexit we’ll end up getting if it takes more than SIX years to get?

I’m thinking 1776-1783 here…

The next election is all about fixing the mistake made in not rigging the 2016 referendum well enough and meant to seal us into the Lisbon Treaty end game.All the main Parties are allied in that and couldn’t care less about getting an individual majority.

Make no mistake we’re in this position because HM is onside with it and put us in it from day 1 in 1972 and the establishment isn’t going to change that.Including controlled opposition TBP.

91

Franglais:
Factories are generally built to serve big markets NOT single countries.
…
Putting up tariffs and non tax barriers up will make a bad situation worse! Brexit may change things, but I can’t honestly see what it will change for the better, for us workers.

I agree obviously with your sentiments that a Tory Brexit is not being done to help workers.

But it is not true to say that all production must inherently be international. It used to be that exports in finished goods were a cash cow, at the expense of the importers whose economies were incapable of supporting such production.

But nowadays there is a great deal more competition, and I doubt that manufacturing exports deliver much of anything for workers.

Rather, the purpose of having an open market free of tariffs and with everyone competing to export, is so that workers in any one place who try to demand better wages can be quickly clobbered back down by the bosses in other countries.

The UK has dozens of car factories producing many similar models, but many of which are for export whilst many cars are imported from elsewhere. It’s false to say that if tariffs are thrown up, the UK could not support a car industry. On the contrary, the market volumes would probably be exactly the same as before, albeit with some variations in car makes and models swept away (and replaced with more guaranteed market scale for the remaining models).

92

Rjan:

Franglais:
Factories are generally built to serve big markets NOT single countries.
…
Putting up tariffs and non tax barriers up will make a bad situation worse! Brexit may change things, but I can’t honestly see what it will change for the better, for us workers.

I agree obviously with your sentiments that a Tory Brexit is not being done to help workers.

But it is not true to say that all production must inherently be international. It used to be that exports in finished goods were a cash cow, at the expense of the importers whose economies were incapable of supporting such production.

But nowadays there is a great deal more competition, and I doubt that manufacturing exports deliver much of anything for workers.

Rather, the purpose of having an open market free of tariffs and with everyone competing to export, is so that workers in any one place who try to demand better wages can be quickly clobbered back down by the bosses in other countries.

The UK has dozens of car factories producing many similar models, but many of which are for export whilst many cars are imported from elsewhere. It’s false to say that if tariffs are thrown up, the UK could not support a car industry. On the contrary, the market volumes would probably be exactly the same as before, albeit with some variations in car makes and models swept away (and replaced with more guaranteed market scale for the remaining models).

“Dozens of car factories producing similar models”?
Surely production, of cars particularly, relys on economies of scale in the plants. Having any one model produced in only one factory, is better (for the company, and it is them who determine where factories are built) and another model built in another place. It’s cheaper to build all Leafs in Sunderland and all Navaras in Barcelona and move the finished cars rather than have each plant produce a range of models.
Car plants are big investments and a single country (isolated by tariffs) isn’t not enough to provide such a large market.

93

Franglais:
“Dozens of car factories producing similar models”?
Surely production, of cars particularly, relys on economies of scale in the plants. Having any one model produced in only one factory, is better (for the company, and it is them who determine where factories are built) and another model built in another place. It’s cheaper to build all Leafs in Sunderland and all Navaras in Barcelona and move the finished cars rather than have each plant produce a range of models.
Car plants are big investments and a single country (isolated by tariffs) isn’t not enough to provide such a large market.

But the fact of there being so many models, and thus so many factories producing them, shows that there is room in any one place to simply reduce the variety of models available in each national market, and that will support exactly the same number of national car factories as before.

Put another way, if we are receiving as many car imports from the EU as exports, then the EU market is not providing additional scale for the industry as a whole.

There are now car plants (and supply chains) in virtually every EU state - they can’t all be gaining at the others’ expense from net car exports.

It is true it is providing more choice of models, but who wants a greater choice of cars at the expense of forfeiting wages (which will make it harder to buy any)?

Other than the zero-sum game of net exports, there is the argument about the positive-sum game of specialisation.

For example, if the Germans put a trillion into engineering and the British put a trillion into (say) textiles, that will produce better products and efficiencies than if we each put in half the amount to each domestic industry.

But car manufacture is not a specialised game in the EU (or in the world) - every man and his dog are involved in it. Moreover, allowing another nation to become exclusive specialists leaves you beholden to a place that is governed by a separate democracy and a separate culture.

In practice separate nations will rarely allow themselves to become dependent on foreign specialists if they don’t have to, because it’s a recipe for exploitation. When Britain was the workshop of the world and had its colonies to provide raw materials and the scale for the finished goods, it was the manufacturing specialist in the arrangement firstly because it enforced exclusive trade at the barrel of a gun (to prevent colonies forcing Britain into competition with other suppliers), and secondly because the colonies themselves couldn’t immediately emulate the British economy (because of their different history and level of economic development).

94

Cars are more than utilitarian.
Alike iPhones new and differing models create demand.
Reducing model range would reduce demand, production, and employment.

95

Double post.

96

Franglais:
Reducing model range would reduce demand, production, and employment.

Exactly what every Triumph enthusiast and factory worker said would happen when Leyland axed Triumph and replaced the 2.5 and Rover P6 with the SD1.

Remind us of our EU member status when both the Triumph and Rover 2000 and then the 2.5 and 3500 were introduced.

As opposed to the SD1 and who gained from the resulting debacle when Rover predictably then collapsed taking what remained of Leyland cars with it ?.

97

Franglais:
Cars are more than utilitarian.
Alike iPhones new and differing models create demand.
Reducing model range would reduce demand, production, and employment.

And if it wasn’t for the local rascals who go around breaking windows, employment in glassmaking would also be reduced. And we can’t have that!

Moreover, if the conditions under which many variations are supplied, require us (at least in the absence of a unified EU democratic state) all to work long hours for low wages and on insecure terms and give the bosses free reign (and subsidise what is predominantly their excess consumption on cars, not that of workers), then I think most people would say that is not a suitable trade off. Or at least, to reject the arrangement is within the range of reasonable opinions that a worker could hold.

The vast majority of make-work schemes lead to poor wages anyway, because they are by their definition worthless activity or very nearly so, meeting as they do whimsical or spurious desires rather than fundamental needs, and so they involve no bargaining power.

Even the variations in mobile phones are predominantly an extravagance subsidised by the low wages of workers in the developing nations that predominantly manufacture them.

98

Rjan:
Moreover, if the conditions under which many variations are supplied, require us (at least in the absence of a unified EU democratic state) all to work long hours for low wages and on insecure terms and give the bosses free reign (and subsidise what is predominantly their excess consumption on cars, not that of workers), then I think most people would say that is not a suitable trade off. Or at least, to reject the arrangement is within the range of reasonable opinions that a worker could hold.

One could argue that’s been the status quo as members of the EU, since the expansion into the east 15 years ago anyway. We were quite insulted, and ran a high wage economy up to that point. The expansion of the EU has lead us into this low wage race to the bottom economics. Look at the economies above us in the world. All are high wage, low cost of living protectionist economies. That’s why big business are scared that leaving the EU will scupper their endless supply of cheap labour, leaving us a low wage hogh cost of living economy

99

OVLOV JAY:

Rjan:
Moreover, if the conditions under which many variations are supplied, require us (at least in the absence of a unified EU democratic state) all to work long hours for low wages and on insecure terms and give the bosses free reign (and subsidise what is predominantly their excess consumption on cars, not that of workers), then I think most people would say that is not a suitable trade off. Or at least, to reject the arrangement is within the range of reasonable opinions that a worker could hold.

One could argue that’s been the status quo as members of the EU, since the expansion into the east 15 years ago anyway. We were quite insulted, and ran a high wage economy up to that point. The expansion of the EU has lead us into this low wage race to the bottom economics. Look at the economies above us in the world. All are high wage, low cost of living protectionist economies. That’s why big business are scared that leaving the EU will scupper their endless supply of cheap labour, leaving us a low wage hogh cost of living economy

I agree with you, although I wouldn’t overstate the case about us being a “high-wage economy” up to 2003.

Employment agencies, with their tax fiddles and casual contracts, started becoming common certainly in the 90s. Housing prices started to inflate from the mid 90s too. It’s not all the EU’s fault.

Britain was last a high-wage economy in the 1970s, and since then had simply been cannibalising more and more sectors, and selling off more and more public wealth or being careful only to attack the next generation to disguise the systemic consequences and avoid uproar.

100

Which “high wage, low cost of living, protecionist” economies are are Volvo Jay and Rjan discussing here, please?