Quote from CEO Nagel-Group

[carryfast]

Rjan:
As I alluded to, the overall tax burden must be within the means of the economy, and those bearing taxes must have the market power to increase prices (or reduce profits, or invest capital to improve productivity, etc.). I can’t possibly discuss the whole subject briefly, but the basic assertion that tax is a deadweight on the economy is a falsehood.

Tax is really just a collectivised form of paying for purchases or funding investments, where instead of individuals choosing or being compelled to deal with a shopkeeper or a banker, citizens deal with the state, and the state (like the shopkeeper or banker) engages workers to produce goods and services or make investments, and renders the results back to the consumers.

Unlike the shopkeeper or banker, in a democratic society citizens have influence over how that activity is organised, and the respective contribution of each citizen. And the state is able to absorb titanic risks, it can reorganise the entire economy as fully as necessary (including changing laws if necessary), and so on.

Again, I don’t want to deal with snipes about “communism” or consider the pros and cons of a fully state-organised economy. I’m simply saying a state which takes in funds, organises investment and production, and distributes the fruits in the form of wages, goods, and services is a balanced system and it functions indefinitely in its own economic terms, the same as the sun rises and sets, trees grow and die, and so on - it doesn’t run out of money or economic steam, simply by virtue of its reliance on taxation. The British economy during the inter-war, war, and post-war years was extensively organised in this fashion.

Firstly that doesn’t answer the question as to the inconsistency in you ( rightly ) saying that you think ‘sales’ taxes are regressive.Then saying the exact opposite by wanting to put a massive tax burden onto ‘fuel sales’ taxes.

Nor did you answer the question as to whether even your ideas of hitting fuel sales with,obviously unsustainable in this case,said fuel ‘sales’ taxes,applies to every transport sector and not just as historically the case road transport.

As for the Socialist angle.Be honest your agenda is all about the same old stereotypical,in some cases justified,view that the road transport industry is made up of scab labour and needs to be hit as such.While rail is viewed as a favoured loyal Socialist industrial sector and gets treated as such.Also to a lesser extent the air transport sector.Which explains why you won’t answer the question as to whether your ‘million pound gallon’ should apply to all transport sectors as opposed to just road.Or for that matter the double standard in knowing full well that such regressive and industry specific taxation obviously hits the job opportunities,job security and wage levels of those working in the unfortunate victimised industry.Which in this case just happens to be road transport as opposed to rail and air.I really think that you seem to forget that I was once a committed part of your agenda.Until I saw the light in realising what a damaging and vindictive malignant and stupid rabble it really is.On that note as I said it seems strange as to why you think it’s ok for Duke to pay the same tax at the filling station as dustman etc.Oh wait you think the working class should all be using public transport while hoping that duke will be forced onto same when even he can’t afford your imposed price.The politics of envy being alive and well in that case.

[carryfast]

Rjan:
It doesn’t provide that, though. It says a person must have a minimum of 9 hours rest unconditionally. It does not say a person must work 15 hours, or must not have more than 9 hours rest, that workers must have no employment rights, or that their wages (either in individual occupations or the national minimum wage) must be low (or that double time shouldn’t be applicable to 15 hour days).

And I’m not defending every aspect of the EU as it is. As you say, left-wingers have a different set of objections. I’m just pointing out that the Tories have an anti-worker agenda, and that ultimately closer co-operation and harmonisation with Europe is necessary not more international competition. There is no necessary reason why the EU project must involve wage undercutting, other than because of the rightwing business interests in play there too.

Firstly we need to define left.

In that in terms of economic policy it can mean anything from the highly industrialised,borderline protectionist and unionised economics of 1960’s US,to Stalin’s exploitative Soviet and Mao’s Chinese regimes.

While in terms of politically the ideal of a Confederal Europe,based on maintaining the sovereignty of its Nation States for example.Bearing in mind that we can’t have ‘internationalism’ without continuing with the idea of freely consenting and locally democratically governed ‘nation’ sates agreeing to disagree if needed.While a union that’s not based on that local democratic accountability and consent and agreement of all it’s parts isn’t a union worthy of the name.

With it being obvious that the EU is all about the total opposite of that in being another version of the USSR and it’s that angle what attracts so many misguided Stalinist thinking Socialists to it.

As for worker’s rights the EU obviously doesn’t need to say you must work 15 hours in a day when 9 hours off between shifts is quite clear enough in that regard.The same applies to wages in which it’s had decades to impose a decent EU wide minimum wage but has avoided and continues to avoid doing so.In addition to the fact that free movement of labour is all about minimising wages not maximising them.

As for free movement of goods that’s also obviously about maximising the opportunities for race to the bottom economics within the union.Except in the case of when it benefits Germany and German workers’.

So feel free to tell us what’s wrong with Brexit in that situation.Just as Shore,Heffer and Benn wanted.Except now based on the realisation that Socialism is a malignant undemocratic ideology which has failed the working class and it’s now all about looking after our own in a protectionist economic environment that recognises the difference between proper decent Capitalism.As opposed to the corruption of it that we’re presently under.Stalinist solutions not being the answer to that and never were.IE this is about the battle for the soul of the Labour Party and its future direction with the Tories now being a waste of space and an irrelevance.

[stanley_knife]

I see the resident Marxist is in full flow today.

[bubsy06]

Ken and Nigel will allways pay peanuts

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[tiredandemotional]

bubsy06:
Ken and Nigel will allways pay peanuts

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

You’re thinking of Kuehne and Nagel as are others on this thread. Different company from the OPs’ position.

This is the one the OP means,

nagel-group.com/en/uk___ire … gdons.html

This isn’t!

uk.kuehne-nagel.com/en_gb/

[big_truck]

TiredAndEmotional:

bubsy06:
Ken and Nigel will allways pay peanuts

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

You’re thinking of Kuehne and Nagel as are others on this thread. Different company from the OPs’ position.

This is the one the OP means,

nagel-group.com/en/uk___ire … gdons.html

This isn’t!

uk.kuehne-nagel.com/en_gb/

100% correct!!![emoji6]

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Rjan:
[…]

Firstly that doesn’t answer the question as to the inconsistency in you ( rightly ) saying that you think ‘sales’ taxes are regressive.Then saying the exact opposite by wanting to put a massive tax burden onto ‘fuel sales’ taxes.

Did I say I wanted more tax on fuel? I thought I was only rebutting the nonsense that taxes make the economy suffer.

Nor did you answer the question as to whether even your ideas of hitting fuel sales with,obviously unsustainable in this case,said fuel ‘sales’ taxes,applies to every transport sector and not just as historically the case road transport.

As for the Socialist angle.Be honest your agenda is all about the same old stereotypical,in some cases justified,view that the road transport industry is made up of scab labour and needs to be hit as such.While rail is viewed as a favoured loyal Socialist industrial sector and gets treated as such.Also to a lesser extent the air transport sector.Which explains why you won’t answer the question as to whether your ‘million pound gallon’ should apply to all transport sectors as opposed to just road.Or for that matter the double standard in knowing full well that such regressive and industry specific taxation obviously hits the job opportunities,job security and wage levels of those working in the unfortunate victimised industry.Which in this case just happens to be road transport as opposed to rail and air.I really think that you seem to forget that I was once a committed part of your agenda.Until I saw the light in realising what a damaging and vindictive malignant and stupid rabble it really is.On that note as I said it seems strange as to why you think it’s ok for Duke to pay the same tax at the filling station as dustman etc.Oh wait you think the working class should all be using public transport while hoping that duke will be forced onto same when even he can’t afford your imposed price.The politics of envy being alive and well in that case.

I’m really not sure you’ve understood my position at all.

I actually did acknowledge that uneven taxation could cause so-called modal shift in a previous post (I think before you weighed in).

I don’t think the duke should pay the same tax as the dustman (has anyone ever used that rhetorical device of duke and dustman to argue that they should be treated equally in respect to tax? )

I’m not particularly enamoured of public transport.

As for this “the same old stereotypical,in some cases justified,view that the road transport industry is made up of scab labour and needs to be hit as such”. It’s laughable that you slate me for holding a stereotype but acknowledge it’s justifiability. I wouldn’t go as far as to say it’s made up of scab labour nowadays, but it’s poorly unionised and drivers are reluctant to stand together, which is why they are feeling the pain.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:

Rjan:
[…]

Firstly that doesn’t answer the question as to the inconsistency in you ( rightly ) saying that you think ‘sales’ taxes are regressive.Then saying the exact opposite by wanting to put a massive tax burden onto ‘fuel sales’ taxes.

Did I say I wanted more tax on fuel? I thought I was only rebutting the nonsense that taxes make the economy suffer.

Nor did you answer the question as to whether even your ideas of hitting fuel sales with,obviously unsustainable in this case,said fuel ‘sales’ taxes,applies to every transport sector and not just as historically the case road transport.

As for the Socialist angle.Be honest your agenda is all about the same old stereotypical,in some cases justified,view that the road transport industry is made up of scab labour and needs to be hit as such.While rail is viewed as a favoured loyal Socialist industrial sector and gets treated as such.Also to a lesser extent the air transport sector.Which explains why you won’t answer the question as to whether your ‘million pound gallon’ should apply to all transport sectors as opposed to just road.Or for that matter the double standard in knowing full well that such regressive and industry specific taxation obviously hits the job opportunities,job security and wage levels of those working in the unfortunate victimised industry.Which in this case just happens to be road transport as opposed to rail and air.I really think that you seem to forget that I was once a committed part of your agenda.Until I saw the light in realising what a damaging and vindictive malignant and stupid rabble it really is.On that note as I said it seems strange as to why you think it’s ok for Duke to pay the same tax at the filling station as dustman etc.Oh wait you think the working class should all be using public transport while hoping that duke will be forced onto same when even he can’t afford your imposed price.The politics of envy being alive and well in that case.

I’m really not sure you’ve understood my position at all.

I actually did acknowledge that uneven taxation could cause so-called modal shift in a previous post (I think before you weighed in).

I don’t think the duke should pay the same tax as the dustman (has anyone ever used that rhetorical device of duke and dustman to argue that they should be treated equally in respect to tax? )

I’m not particularly enamoured of public transport.

As for this “the same old stereotypical,in some cases justified,view that the road transport industry is made up of scab labour and needs to be hit as such”. It’s laughable that you slate me for holding a stereotype but acknowledge it’s justifiability. I wouldn’t go as far as to say it’s made up of scab labour nowadays, but it’s poorly unionised and drivers are reluctant to stand together, which is why they are feeling the pain.

You’re right I can’t understand your position because it has so many contradictions in it.Firstly you seem to agree that the Brexit side of ‘the left’ has a valid point but then you support the CBI and Tory and Blairite position of staying with it.

Then you ( rightly ) state that discriminatory industry specific taxes and sales taxes are harmful and/or regressive.But at the same time seem happy to go along with the situation of ‘Duke’ paying the same to fill his car as ‘Dustman’ and/or for the road transport industry to get unfairly hit in the form of the present fuel taxation situation.

Not only that but also suggesting that you’d have no objection to a ‘million pound’ gallon in that regard.

Which leaves the question do you really think that such a level and type of tax is sustainable or fair and wouldn’t have very similar if not worse effects on the viability and with it wage levels and job security of those who work in the air transport and rail industries,‘if’ it was also applied to those industries ?.

As for the issue of an often scab road transport industry I just mean’t that the stereotype is historically sometimes justified.What isn’t justified is hitting a whole industry on that basis.When the idea should be to recognise that rail and road both have equal solidarity ‘potential’ given a level playing field regarding productivety potential and fuel costs and a bit of education along the lines that strong unions generally mean better conditions and wages.With the win win of road having the potential to employ more people.

As for the EU issue and economic policy as I’ve said Shore was the best Prime Minister we never had. While,just as then,this is now a battle for the soul of the Labour Party.Forget about the Tories being an ever increasing irrelevance.With Labour having an open goal in front of it if only Corbyn and his followers go where they belong to the SLP and then give Hoey a clear run and hopefully as part of that Labour stopping its old historic animosities against the UK road transport industry and instead welcome it and help it to grow.

Removing discriminatory,unfair and regressive fuel sales taxation being an essential part of that.

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Rjan:
[…]

You’re right I can’t understand your position because it has so many contradictions in it.Firstly you seem to agree that the Brexit side of ‘the left’ has a valid point but then you support the CBI and Tory and Blairite position of staying with it.

Because all sensible thinkers know that crashing out of the EU will impose an incredible economic penalty as the price of additional freedom to be politically unilateral.

For the Tory loons who want to bid British workers down to the bottom of the world markets, the freedom to unilaterally undercut the EU and wage economic war against it, is precisely the point.

For most bosses however, at the helm of settled business models that depend on EU trade, exiting the EU has no direct benefits, will impose costs of reorganisation, and has titanic risks.

Bosses are more sage about the likelihood that the rest of Europe will cooperate with its own beggaring by British competition (for example, by continuing to permit tariff-free access to the single market, without Britain having to comply with minimum standards on workers rights, taxation, safety and quality regulations, etc.), as well as other political and economic risks (in particular the risk of a domestic political backlash like followed the poll tax, when wages start falling to out-compete workers in the EU or even in China and India).

For leftwingers, the main objection about the EU is that it’s common minimums on workers rights are not sufficient, and that there are some EU rules that bake in market competition and limit the power of the state to intervene in and support industry. Partly that is to stop EU members beggaring each other by providing state subsidies to their national industries and then dumping cheap goods and services onto the market in order to out-do other members. But it’s also because the EU has been under the influence of neoliberal thought that markets are good and state intervention bad.

As a last resort for left-wingers, we could exit the EU and then put the economy onto a war footing and implement extensive renationalisation and central control in order to try and out-do the EU economy via high-road competition and recover high-quality domestic industries, but we’re back into the same realm of immediate penalties and titanic risks that the bosses themselves fear.

The most sensible course of action, while it remains a prospect, is to pressure the EU to reform in a way that is better for citizens and workers. There is plenty of will for this from other EU states too.

Then you ( rightly ) state that discriminatory industry specific taxes and sales taxes are harmful and/or regressive.

I’m not having the road-rail argument a second time here - there is plenty else to talk about just on Brexit and the principles of taxation.

But at the same time seem happy to go along with the situation of ‘Duke’ paying the same to fill his car as ‘Dustman’ and/or for the road transport industry to get unfairly hit in the form of the present fuel taxation situation.

Not only that but also suggesting that you’d have no objection to a ‘million pound’ gallon in that regard.

That’s blatantly not what I said. I used a “million pound gallon” as an illustration that almost any level of tax can be accommodated.

Increased costs of business do not have to be followed by bankruptcy or an inflationary spiral, but by additional capital investment in productivity, industrial consolidation, reduced profits, wage reductions or price increases.

Where the cost in question is public taxation, then even wage reductions are not necessarily harmful - for example, if an inefficient private sector healthcare system is replaced with public provision, then workers benefit more from healthcare (and the elimination of healthcare costs) than it costs them in wages.

Price increases too are not necessarily harmful for workers, against the inducement of increased economic demand, better wages and more jobs, or the provision of public services.

The best taxes to levy, of course, are earned and unearned income taxes, because these are most targeted at ability to pay and remediate gross distortions in personal income caused by markets.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:

Rjan:
[…]

You’re right I can’t understand your position because it has so many contradictions in it.Firstly you seem to agree that the Brexit side of ‘the left’ has a valid point but then you support the CBI and Tory and Blairite position of staying with it.

Because all sensible thinkers know that crashing out of the EU will impose an incredible economic penalty as the price of additional freedom to be politically unilateral.

For the Tory loons who want to bid British workers down to the bottom of the world markets, the freedom to unilaterally undercut the EU and wage economic war against it, is precisely the point.

For most bosses however, at the helm of settled business models that depend on EU trade, exiting the EU has no direct benefits, will impose costs of reorganisation, and has titanic risks.

Bosses are more sage about the likelihood that the rest of Europe will cooperate with its own beggaring by British competition (for example, by continuing to permit tariff-free access to the single market, without Britain having to comply with minimum standards on workers rights, taxation, safety and quality regulations, etc.), as well as other political and economic risks (in particular the risk of a domestic political backlash like followed the poll tax, when wages start falling to out-compete workers in the EU or even in China and India).

For leftwingers, the main objection about the EU is that it’s common minimums on workers rights are not sufficient, and that there are some EU rules that bake in market competition and limit the power of the state to intervene in and support industry. Partly that is to stop EU members beggaring each other by providing state subsidies to their national industries and then dumping cheap goods and services onto the market in order to out-do other members. But it’s also because the EU has been under the influence of neoliberal thought that markets are good and state intervention bad.

As a last resort for left-wingers, we could exit the EU and then put the economy onto a war footing and implement extensive renationalisation and central control in order to try and out-do the EU economy via high-road competition and recover high-quality domestic industries, but we’re back into the same realm of immediate penalties and titanic risks that the bosses themselves fear.

The most sensible course of action, while it remains a prospect, is to pressure the EU to reform in a way that is better for citizens and workers. There is plenty of will for this from other EU states too.

Then you ( rightly ) state that discriminatory industry specific taxes and sales taxes are harmful and/or regressive.

I’m not having the road-rail argument a second time here - there is plenty else to talk about just on Brexit and the principles of taxation.

But at the same time seem happy to go along with the situation of ‘Duke’ paying the same to fill his car as ‘Dustman’ and/or for the road transport industry to get unfairly hit in the form of the present fuel taxation situation.

Not only that but also suggesting that you’d have no objection to a ‘million pound’ gallon in that regard.

That’s blatantly not what I said. I used a “million pound gallon” as an illustration that almost any level of tax can be accommodated.

Increased costs of business do not have to be followed by bankruptcy or an inflationary spiral, but by additional capital investment in productivity, industrial consolidation, reduced profits, wage reductions or price increases.

Where the cost in question is public taxation, then even wage reductions are not necessarily harmful - for example, if an inefficient private sector healthcare system is replaced with public provision, then workers benefit more from healthcare (and the elimination of healthcare costs) than it costs them in wages.

Price increases too are not necessarily harmful for workers, against the inducement of increased economic demand, better wages and more jobs, or the provision of public services.

The best taxes to levy, of course, are earned and unearned income taxes, because these are most targeted at ability to pay and remediate gross distortions in personal income caused by markets.

Firstly how can any supposed ‘sensible thinker’ possibly think,that a situation in which we are a net contributor for the privilege of being a net importer,be a good deal for us.

While you’ve already made it clear that the undemocratic EU Federal government system is what you actually want and you certainly don’t want to reform it along Confederal government lines.Which isn’t surprising from an ideological position that abhors the idea of the nation state and local democracy.That’s the truth of what explains the unholy alliance between the Blairites,Tories,and Socialist ( Stalinist ) Labour.

As for your ongoing fuel taxation arguments that’s about as coherent as the idea that the EU is supposedly a good economic deal for us.The conclusion being as I said that discriminatory fuel taxation inevitably means less viability and lower wages in the victimised industry in question.While you then contradict yourself by saying ( rightly ) that the best solution would be to put it all on income tax.

As for the NHS bs you do know that the money first has to be earn’t before it can be taxed and spent.While industry can’t ‘earn’ the money in question without a decent level of consumer spending and we won’t get consumer spending in an environment of regressive sales taxation.Nor will we get sufficient tax revenues in an environment of people minimising their exposure to such taxes by cutting their consumer spending.Nor is it any good even if we get the consumer spending if what they do spend goes on imported EU products thereby making Germans even better off or adding to the East Euro foreign aid scam.

So let’s get this right.Are you supportive of EU reform along more democratic Confederal lines which recognise the role of the Nation State and National borders and democratic accountability.Also re alignment of our trading relationship with the EU along protectionist lines.While last but not least for the topic removal of road fuel taxes and VAT to be put onto income tax.Bearing in mind that EU membership as it stands won’t allow any of that to happen.

But then it’s my guess that you actually support the status quo anyway as I said for ideological reasons.In which you don’t want to see a thriving road transport industry v rail and you abhor the idea of the Nation State and sovereign National government and democracy.To the point where you’d rather continue with the situation of making Germany richer at our expense and contributing to the EU foreign aid scam.

In addition to ripping off those who work in the road transport industry,among others in the form of what you yourself on one hand admit is regressive sales taxation.But then on the other support on the basis that higher prices and/or lower wages are good for us.

Ironically you sound closer to the Blairites in your ridiculous position than Shore,Benn and Heffer.Although unfortunately I’d guess that at least even the latter two of those were lumbered with the same stereotypical anti road pro rail dogma.

[franglais]

As Above. Picking up on this section:

“Bosses are more sage about the likelihood that the rest of Europe will cooperate with its own beggaring by British competition (for example, by continuing to permit tariff-free access to the single market, without Britain having to comply with minimum standards on workers rights, taxation, safety and quality regulations, etc.), as well as other political and economic risks (in particular the risk of a domestic political backlash like followed the poll tax, when wages start falling to out-compete workers in the EU or even in China and India).” Rjan.

This was and is a major stumbling block in the current exit talks. I can see no way the UK will get access to the Eu free market unless it accepts and abides by all labour standards, safety regs, and free movement of workers.
This is where Norway is, isnt it? Obeying all the rules to gain market access, but having no say in the making of those rules? Yet the current gov seems to be holding a "red line" on workers movements. How can we successfully negotiate anything. Weve said were leaving. Weve a date for leaving. What can we threaten to do? Stay in?!
If there is not another referendum, then well likely have a vote of No Confidence as the Cons revolt, and a General Election soon, Id guess. Keeping my pencil stub sharpened!
I hope I`m wrong in my pessimism.

[manalishi]

Theres genius here,talk about clash of the titans.Autodidactory at its finest.

[carryfast]

Franglais:
I can see no way the UK will get access to the Eu free market unless it accepts and abides by all labour standards, safety regs, and free movement of workers.
This is where Norway is, isnt it? Obeying all the rules to gain market access, but having no say in the making of those rules? Yet the current gov seems to be holding a "red line" on workers movements. How can we successfully negotiate anything. Weve said were leaving. Weve a date for leaving. What can we threaten to do? Stay in?!
If there is not another referendum, then well likely have a vote of No Confidence as the Cons revolt, and a General Election soon, Id guess. Keeping my pencil stub sharpened!
I hope I`m wrong in my pessimism.

If the supposed Leave Cons revolt ( doubtful more like bunch of closet complicit Europhile May and Hammond supporters ) it will then hopefully go along the lines of what the country needs in the form a straight fight between UKIP and Corbyn’s Bolshevik Labour rabble.Bearing in mind that Labour’s so called Leave faction has also made its support clear of Corbyn’s obvious EEA member state ( remain ) scam.

As for the single market why do we need to ‘abide’ by anything let alone pay ‘contributions’ for the privilege of being a net importer of EU goods and services ?.Or for that matter how is the resulting situation,of British jobs for EU workers, under the present trading relationship,supposedly good for us ?.In the case of the topic creating the issue of over supply in the UK transport Labour market and thereby downward pressure on wages.Not to mention nicking Brit jobs in the form of cabotage and third country international haulage operations.Especially when cabotage restrictions are lifted completely as part of the single transport market.

While the referendum vote was clearly based on a question of Leave or Remain with a Leave manifesto also of Hard ( proper ) Brexit not EEA member state.

On that note if the Germans want a trade war,by them wanting to impose tariffs on UK exports bring it on.The sad fact then being that our quisling government hasn’t got the bottle to meet that with the threat of quotas against German imports.Which ‘would’ answer your question given a government that actually stands up for this country’s interests.

It would be interesting to find out exactly where the ‘CEO of Nagel Group’ stands on all that.Bearing in mind the supposed big issue being made about wages.IE the question is how can we get the decent wages in an over supplied domestic labour market and race to the bottom unfair competition in the transport market that’s being ‘caused’ by the single market.

[rjan]

Franglais:
This was and is a major stumbling block in the current exit talks. I can see no way the UK will get access to the Eu free market unless it accepts and abides by all labour standards, safety regs, and free movement of workers.

Free movement is a separate issue, but we all implicitly recognise that to have standards in the market on things like employment conditions or safety or product quality, your neighbours must have those standards too, otherwise they will undercut you.

There’s simply no way the other EU members are going to tolerate Britain undercutting them. The whole point of tariffs at the frontier of a marketplace is to protect the marketplace from undercutting.

This is where Norway is, isn`t it? Obeying all the rules to gain market access, but having no say in the making of those rules?
Yet the current gov seems to be holding a “red line” on workers movements.

It’s a deception tactic. A section of the Brexiteer public want an end to falling wages, but the Tories or their business backers certainly don’t want an end to free movement or increased wages, nor do rightwing Brexiteers. Nor do they want to give the NHS another £350m a week, if instead they can cut inheritance tax or corporation tax.

Does anyone think Brexiteer farmers want agricultural wages to rocket? That the food processing industry wants industrial wages to rocket? That the Tories, who can already control non-EU immigration, and already control the minimum wage, want anyone’s wages to rocket?

How can we successfully negotiate anything. Weve said were leaving. Weve a date for leaving. What can we threaten to do? Stay in?! If there is not another referendum, then well likely have a vote of No Confidence as the Cons revolt, and a General Election soon, Id guess. Keeping my pencil stub sharpened! I hope Im wrong in my pessimism.

I think ultimately the Brexit process, which was really a neoliberal putsch, has already faltered.

Indeed the spell of lies, which allowed the referendum to be narrowly won, has been broken - and those lies, the longer they were allowed to settle into fixed expectations, might well have unleashed forces beyond the Tories control and railroaded them away from their goals of keeping wages low.

All that remains to be seen is whether we remain in the EU fully and with political influence, or de facto and without political influence.

At the next general election, the choice will be between the status quo under the Tories who will blame Europe for tying their hands on immigration, and Labour who will actually start to ramp up wages and address undercutting.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Franglais:
This was and is a major stumbling block in the current exit talks. I can see no way the UK will get access to the Eu free market unless it accepts and abides by all labour standards, safety regs, and free movement of workers.

Free movement is a separate issue, but we all implicitly recognise that to have standards in the market on things like employment conditions or safety or product quality, your neighbours must have those standards too, otherwise they will undercut you.

Strange how all the remainers seem happy to apply double standards regarding East Euro undercutting of western Euro wage rates with the import of EE labour and export of jobs in the form of transfer of industry.While transfer of UK industry to Germany and resulting trade deficit suggests that it’s not just a question of race to the bottom under cutting but also the EU being about doing what’s good for Germany.

Make no mistake the remainers arguments have nothing to do with fears of the UK supposedly under cutting anyone else and everything to do with a liking for us being ruled over by Socialist Soviet stooges like Merkel and selling out the interests of this country on a national self loathing agenda.