We make 1.6m+ vehicles a year in the UK. Presumably that's enough volume to warrant heat treating here or building the capability to do so
So you want to develop specialist industries in this country for all specialities in all industries so that you can do everything in-house?
Have you any idea how many extra people that would take? It would take decades of investment in education, training, industry.
The US can do this because it's so big - the EU can also do it because it's so big. Alone, we are too small to do everything ourselves. That's one benefit to the EU as I said before - it gives us some of the advantages of being in a very big country.
julians - Member
No it doesn't. There is no evidence that FoM has a signifanct impact on wages. It doesn't matter how many times this lie is repeated, it won't become true
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37577620Bbc news article states that freedom.of movement does negatively affect wages.
POSTED 2 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST SHARE
May I suggest that you reread both my post and your link
[quote=colournoise ] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-could-block-brexit-deal-no-10-admits-a7368561.html
Anyone got a feel for how that vote would go? I know every SNP MP will vote against leaving. got to reckon there's enough pro EU support to put an end to this nonsense.
Huge majority in the house to stay in the EU if given a vote of conscience ie unwhipped.
This is why May has been trying to avoid a vote in the commons because she knows it will be very hard to get thru
[quote=tjagain ]Huge majority in the house to stay in the EU if given a vote of conscience ie unwhipped.
This is why May has been trying to avoid a vote in the commons because she knows it will be very hard to get thru
or she just pretends she's taking a hard line knowing full well it would end up blocked in the commons and she can them blame that rather than taking the fall herself.
Also means the EU can play hardball safe in the knowledge that if the deal offered is sufficiently terrible, MPs will chuck it out.
No wonder Cameron didn't want to hang around to see this one play out - a true no-win situation for May. What can she do? She has no bargaining position whatsoever. Let's face it, she hardly has one even with the backing of MPs.
Commons vote could unleash political and social turmoil.
[quote=molgrips ]Commons vote could unleash political and social turmoil.
Any worse than the current fiasco?
or she just pretends she's taking a hard line knowing full well it would end up blocked in the commons and she can them blame that rather than taking the fall herself.
I think this has always been the plan
look tough , fail but blame the "deal makers" - those three cannot have been picked for their skillset in this area- and MPs rather than look like she or the party ignored the electorate
I think the tories will whip the Mps safe in the knowledge enough will ignore it
Yes, worse.
May could've been being devious all along. Hence appointing the three stooges to run it. Would explain a few things.
Her job will go along with the Three Amigos if it gets screwed up to that extent.
She blew it the minute she said she'll invoke A50 so soon.
Gives her no time to negotiate such complex trade and legal agreements,. Especially as France and Germany won't commit to anything until after their elections when we are so inexperienced at doing these international deals, it's whatever the EU offers or WTO and everyone except the truly economically illiterate know that would be disastrous for the country.
or she just pretends she's taking a hard line knowing full well it would end up blocked in the commons and she can them blame that rather than taking the fall herself.
they are not being offered in/out vote aren't they are being offered deal or no deal post a50 vote , brexit means brexit ! 🙄 which means Mays only chance to get it through parliament is the Norway option or some indeterminate Limbo. Hobson's choice!
KIimbers - the date of invoking article 50 makes no odds - the EU will not negotiate at all before article 50 is invoked - they have made that clear
I think your giving May too much credit, she failed at the Home Office to get migration down, she now has the chance to do that. That she it seems blocked the EU trade deal with India because of immigration. I am not sure if she can won't screw the economy just to tick a box.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37705852 ]seems like they are making up as they go along [/url]
Perhaps they are hoping the Supreme Court will say the decision to invoke A50 must be passed by the commons first.
seems like they are making up as they go along
you mean free movement of labour.
Anyone got a feel for how that vote would go? I know every SNP MP will vote against leaving. got to reckon there's enough pro EU support to put an end to this nonsense.
Would Tory MPs in marginal southern consituencies that voted remain risk voting out and loosing their job?
seems like they are making up as they go along
And next they will exempt fruit picking, cockle picking, etc. etc.
What happens if the EUs final offer is threefold - stay, go and don't let the door hit you on the way out, or something that is technically go but very vey close to stay?
Brexit could mean Brexit without changing a thing.
Depends I suppose whether the EU a) realise they are negotiating with the monkey not the organ grinder and b) care.
There is no organ grinder, they are all monkeys throwing faeces around.
That's a little unfair to parliament - I've met a number of backbenchers I respect, fewer ministers - but I understand where you're coming from.
I hope no one I suggesting that Westminsetr is better placed to make decisions that the wider UK population or that parliamentary parties have a greater say than members and the wider voters?
Lock me in the tower THM
And if we are removed from the clutches of the ECJ we will be free of pesky interfering outside tribunals telling us what to do.....
The best international agreement is not worth very much if its obligations cannot be enforced when one of the signatories fails to comply with such obligations. An effective mechanism to settle disputes thus increases the practical value of the commitments the signatories undertake in an international agreement.
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/disp_settlement_cbt_e/c1s1p1_e.htm
you know that saying about koolaid
awhiles I think you can forgive me for trying to counterbalance the huge amount of negativity of those on the Remain side bring to the thread. Phillip Hammond spoke today at Commons Select Committee and distanced himself and the Government from the doom and gloom predictions touted by Osbourne who basically came up with worst case scenarios for just about everything, e.g. immediate A50, no BoE/Government policy response, no trade deals signed with anyone etc
TJ I will try and google the piece I read but it was many months ago, cumulative net contributions over 10 years. BTW the contributions do change quite a lot each year and are based on factors like relative economic performance so ours have been heading steadily upwards as we outperform the bulk of the EU
Nipper international agreements tend to (always ?) specify the legal jurisdiction so that both parties know where to take any dispute. Could be London, New York or of course the ECJ
Jam we are being negative for a reason...
THM, all i will say is that politicians are paid to understand and make decisions about the best interests of the country, that is their job.
My job is databases, there is no expectation that i understand the ins and outs of the Maastricht treaty, treaty of Rome etc etc. Why anyone thinks that the average voter remotely understands the question and the full implication of the outcome is beyond me.
Osbourne who basically came up with worst case scenarios for just about everything, e.g. immediate A50, no BoE/Government policy response, no trade deals signed with anyone etc
Sounds the brexit campaign. In fact it sounds like you talking about the EU.
awhiles I think you can forgive me for trying to counterbalance the huge amount of negativity of those on the Remain side bring to the thread.
Negativity or an objective observation of reality as it unfolds? Although I guess you and reality don't have much to do with each other these days. I know people have accused you of lacking empathy in the past but that comment really does take the biscuit.
The very least you could do Jam is acknowledge the huge risks being made with *our* economy, our jobs and livelihoods, and the removal of rights we cherish?
Surely?
Phillip Hammond spoke today at Commons Select Committee and distanced himself and the Government from the doom and gloom predictions touted by Osbourne
Well yes, but it was a half-hearted distancing wasn't it? And he also distanced himself from the Rudd/May immigration controls.
molgrips - Member
The very least you could do Jam is acknowledge the huge risks being made with *our* economy, our jobs and livelihoods, and the removal of rights we cherish?Surely?
Shirley the risks are equal both ways, in or out there is great risk.
History teaches that much.
Personally I think the fact we are being forced to be aware of risk and encouraged to greater endeavour is in itself a positive factor, we could have stayed in the EU and sleepwalked along with them into what is inevitably going to be an horrendous disaster.
tjagain - Member
KIimbers - the date of invoking article 50 makes no odds - the EU will not negotiate at all before article 50 is invoked - they have made that clear
Indeed but the sooner we invoke it. The less time we have to create the department's that will do the negotiations, recruit staff, research the existing rules, examine our options and investigate the implications of the possible choices before us as we embark on the most complicated negotiations the country has ever had to undertake.
Added to that , even once we've initiated A50 -both France and Germany won't be able to commit to any offers until after their elections, which means the 2 years will be almost wasted before we know exactly what their positions will be .
It also means that we can't even informally deal with nation's outside the EU, as the USA pointed out yesterday, it will be impossible for them to do so without knowing our relationship with the EU
Yes history does show that the break up of unions is the same risk as them staying togetherShirley the risks are equal both ways, in or out there is great risk.History teaches that much.
If Yugoslavia has taught us one thing then it is that
There is no equivalence here unless you also think like this
we could have stayed in the EU and sleepwalked along with them into what is inevitably going to be an horrendous disaster.
Of course the future is unknown but NO the risks are not "great" nor equal.
Uncertainty is a risk - no one has clue what we will get or how we will trade this is not an issue with remain as nothing changes.
How can anyone think no change is the same risk as change with an uncertain /unknowable outcome?
Let me just throw this analogy in here: both lorries and bicycles introduce risk to the roads...
Added to that , even once we've initiated A50 -both France and Germany won't be able to commit to any offers until after their elections, which means the 2 years will be almost wasted before we know exactly what their positions will be .
Alternatively it becomes an election issue for them, and their own electorate start asking awkward questions of the current paradigm
posted on FB, fom a pub in 'middle england'
[img] 
[/img]
You think their electorate are going to look at the nosediving pound, stunted growth and growing inflation and say "Wow! We want some of that!" 😆
Shirley the risks are equal both ways, in or out there is great risk
Surely why? Who says? On what evidence have you objectively evaluated the risks of in vs out? Show me your working.
The risk to me clearly seems far greater simply pulling the plug, and causing massive disruption and disadvantage to thousands of businesses. We've spent 40 years allowing businesses to grow together, and now we want to pull it all apart in a mad rush for political reasons?
If we wanted out, we should've debated it, planned it, stated it as a long term aim and worked towards it.
I'm standing on a cliff.
If I jump off, there is obviously a risk I'll die.
Or I might be lucky and just be horrendously broken.
On the other hand, if I don't jump, there are still loads of risks ahead of me.
And death is still a certainty.
Might as well face up to it and jump.
What difference does it make?
Both options have "risk".
Let's get this over with.
Uncertainty is a risk - no one has clue what we will get or how we will trade this is not an issue with remain as nothing changes.
How can anyone think no change is the same risk as change with an uncertain /unknowable outcome?
OK with that incredibly naive couple of sentences, I shall bite even though I know I'm being trolled here.
Let's just analyse what you have just written. In essence the suggestion that being part of a superstate that has rolled it's borders right over and up to Russia and in doing so has disturbed the Bear to paraphrase a mistake made once before, is going to mean nothing is going to change?
One thing is certain, change is inevitable, in or out there are risks, they are just different risks.
Who would have thought just five years ago, we as a nation with a history of providing help and refuge from war, would have voted for a closed door policy? That vote is purely as a result of having a megalomaniacal neighbour, hell bent on expansion without a single consideration for the consequences.
The very actions of the EU have forced this backlash upon us.
To remain a part of that would be very stupid indeed.
Molgrips, you are allowing yourself to be manipulated by the corporate capitalist world, this isn't just about business, **** them, they can look after themselves, businesses do not exist for the benefit of ordinary working folk, they use them abuse them screw their pensions, pay them the absolute minimum they can get away with whilst milking them at every opportunity for every last penny they own.
The Trade argument will easily be resolved it always has been and always will be and you'll still get made redundant just as soon as a machine can be devised to do your job better than you can.
In a way this is like devolution, and I still can't follow the logic of the Indy mob that want Independence for themselves yet whine like buggery when we as a nation want it for ourselves.
So, without the EU expanding past the Berlin Wall, Europe would be safer from an ever threatening Russia?
You really think that?
