Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
rcoobc said:
I disagree with your disagreement.

Aren't the top 50 companies in Ireland by turnover either British or American?

Why are they choosing Ireland? Because it's a high tech, low tax, English speaking country, with access to the EU and UK markets.

In a hard brexit, with the UK trying to become a tax haven, the UK could compete with Ireland for American companies looking for an English during tax haven. In a hard brexit, Ireland could lose access to UK markets meeting it less valuable there.

The one big benefit is as the only majority English speaking country in the EU, and that's a big benefit. but I think the UK competing and losing access to the UK will outweigh the benefits
Click to expand...
I'm not saying you're wrong but I don't get how they would lose access. How much would tariffs be? What sort of percentage would costs increase by because of customs and so on? I can see it would be more difficult, just asking how much more difficult.
 
Green_Red said:
Yes, but before ownership and production could stay in the UK and those companies would be able to trade unhindered within the European borders. Now, companies that want to trade in the EU and avoid tariffs will have to ensure that a large part of their business is 1. owned by European entities / citizens, and 2. a certain percentage of production HAS to be completed inside the borders of the EU.

Years ago, Dell moved it's computer assembly business from Ireland to Poland because the jobs were unskilled and the pay requirement was only minimum wage, and it just so happened Poland's unskilled labour was far cheaper than Irelands. That kind of move is fine, but when its high skilled labor jobs that are moving its another story. Take Rolls Royce jet engines as an example. The biggest earner for Rolls Royce on jet engines is the aftermarket servicing of the engines, not the sales of the engine. What happens when a services job like that is moved from its base in the UK? Or, Nissan in the northeast, something like 5000 employees, what happens if that shuts up shop? That's a pretty big domino to lose.

What I see potentially happening in the aftermath of what looks like now will be a no deal is that income taxes will go up so that the government can subsidise businesses to stay in the UK and try to offset any incurred expenses with business subsidies, like reduced corporation tax or jobs creation incentives.

At the end of the day, it will be the British tax payer that will foot the bill, which we've already seen by the commitments made by the British government to continue to pay the equivalent EU grants after membership ends.

IMO, yes there is going to be a couple of years where things are a little uncertain, but Britain will come out the other side. A lot of the uncertainty right now is because no one really knows what the playing field will be after Brexit, now we have a fair idea business and government can now start to get on with the task of building on the foundations of what will be on 29th March.

Just to add, Brexit has polarised everyone, which is completely understandable, but one thing everyone should be able to agree is that you should either be in, or out... one foot in and one foot out is not in the interest of Britain long term, the damage that could cause to Britain is a much bigger risk than completely out. It would be like having someone who doesn't know how to watersky tied to a speedboat, not a pretty sight.
Click to expand...
I agree with a lot of that but I don't agree on moving low skilled jobs eastwards for lower wages is fine. I wouldn't say my job was low skilled but it was still moved elsewhere. What I am hearing now especially from eastern Europeans is that while there are more jobs created there, prices have gone up so much while wages have stagnated, therefore they still seek work in countries like NL. Its economic migration, I have hundreds of real examples. The final destination for a lot has always been the UK but salaries are way behind those in western Europe. Those that will soon lose the 30% tax rule here are now looking to Dubai, its all about money.

As no deal seems most likely outcome now, I would say that those companies that are still in the UK by april, will remain in the UK. That's my personal opinion not a factual one.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
Can you really deny that Brexit won't cause even more job flight?
Click to expand...
I don't deny that there may be job flight but I have no historical data to back that up. As I mentioned in my previous post, companies are still there despite it becoming more likely that there wont be a deal, whats keeping them there? Is it likely that on 1st April they will move on mass? I'm not sure. If any of these companies move to western Europe they will find their salary bill going up by 3 fold, is that attractive?
 
Stanley Road said:
I agree with a lot of that but I don't agree on moving low skilled jobs eastwards for lower wages is fine. I wouldn't say my job was low skilled but it was still moved elsewhere. What I am hearing now especially from eastern Europeans is that while there are more jobs created there, prices have gone up so much while wages have stagnated, therefore they still seek work in countries like NL. Its economic migration, I have hundreds of real examples. The final destination for a lot has always been the UK but salaries are way behind those in western Europe. Those that will soon lose the 30% tax rule here are now looking to Dubai, its all about money.

As no deal seems most likely outcome now, I would say that those companies that are still in the UK by april, will remain in the UK. That's my personal opinion not a factual one.
Click to expand...

Good luck to them, Dubai now offers nowhere near the opportunities that it did in the early 2000s.
 
711 said:
I'm not saying you're wrong but I don't get how they would lose access. How much would tariffs be? What sort of percentage would costs increase by because of customs and so on? I can see it would be more difficult, just asking how much more difficult.
Click to expand...
It depends what we're talking about.

Insurance companies and banks could lost access entirely. Agriculture companies could face fees of ~10% whilst tariffs from the commonwealth are cut (although the stated aim of JRM and his ilk is a no tariff UK).

Legal services could lose access. High tech firms could face red tape moving their workers from the UK.

It's no one thing, just a bunch of small stabs
 
Adisa said:
The mother of all austerity. Hammond would wank hinself to death. He's already said we would require another decade of austerity.
Click to expand...
He needs to do the polar opposite of austerity, has no one learnt yet? You cant pluck a bald chicken.
 
Giant Midget said:
Good luck to them, Dubai now offers nowhere near the opportunities that it did in the early 2000s.
Click to expand...
Depends on the field, these are smart cookies that have done their homework and have worked all over the world. They swarm where the money is like flies do with shit.
 
rcoobc said:
It depends what we're talking about.

Insurance companies and banks could lost access entirely. Agriculture companies could face fees of ~10% whilst tariffs from the commonwealth are cut (although the stated aim of JRM and his ilk is a no tariff UK).

Legal services could lose access. High tech firms could face red tape moving their workers from the UK.

It's no one thing, just a bunch of small stabs
Click to expand...
I get the financial side, not as in understanding it but as in believing it's a problem. They would have to have subsidiaries based in the UK I presume. They'd still have the EU though, and have less competition there with the UK out of it maybe. I'm out of my depth on banking however, I must admit.
 
Seen this on Facebook. What a dumbass thing, considering multiple countries in Europe worked together for it.

37349379_10155714643006623_4962931321522356224_n.jpg
 
VeevaVee said:
Seen this on Facebook. What a dumbass thing, considering multiple countries in Europe worked together for it.

37349379_10155714643006623_4962931321522356224_n.jpg
Click to expand...

So being hammered at home or at the colonies up until the US/Russia bailed us out is freeing Europe? Never thought of that. My grandparents lived in the most bombarded part of the British empire and they never felt like saviours. It was more like survivors.
 
devilish said:
So being hammered at home or at the colonies up until the US/Russia bailed us out is freeing Europe? Never thought of that. My grandparents lived in the most bombarded part of the British empire and they never felt like saviours. It was more like survivors.
Click to expand...

Not sure bailed out is the right phrase but yeah, it was a coming together of nations that ultimately won it, which makes it such a dumbass thing to post!
 
VeevaVee said:
Not sure bailed out is the right phrase but yeah, it was a coming together of nations that ultimately won it, which makes it such a dumbass thing to post!
Click to expand...

It was a bailing out. Before Dunkirk Hitler could have wiped the entire British army away. Then things got more complicated but Nazi Germany could have invaded the UK or at least isolate it and pick up the pieces (Malta, North Africa etc) if it wanted. Luckily for us, the madman was also a huge idiot. Rather then consolidate his power, he decided to invade Russia which was basically suicide. Then his Japanese mate did the same with the US and it was basically over. Even good old Bismarck knew that Germany can never win a war where its forced to fight on two fronts and he wasn't thinking of two superpowers (Russia and US) + the British empire.

Returning to the subject, the EU is the result of the war, an attempt to keep nationalism at bay through prosperity and common rules. That's why the likes of Orban, Farage, Salvini, Le Pen and the Tory Party hates it.
 
Last edited:
devilish said:
It was a bailing out. Before Dunkirk Hitler could have wiped the entire British army away. Then things got more complicated but Nazi Germany could have invaded the UK or at least isolate it and pick up the pieces (Malta, North Africa etc) if it wanted. Luckily for us, the madman was also a huge idiot. Rather then consolidate his power, he decided to invade Russia which was basically suicide. Then his Japanese mate did the same with the US and it was basically over. Even good old Bismarck knew that Germany can never win a war where its forced to fight on two fronts and he wasn't thinking of two superpowers (Russia and US) + the British empire.

Returning to the subject, the EU is the result of the war, an attempt to keep nationalism at bay through prosperity and common rules. That's why the likes of Orban, Farage, Salvini, Le Pen and the Tory Party hates it.
Click to expand...
What you say is correct in isolation, but VeevaVee's 'coming together of nations' still describes events better than your 'bailed out'. If Britain had capitulated in 1940 Hitler would have had a freer run at Russia, having been able to withdraw forces from the west and the med to join in. Russia may still have won of course, we'll never know, but they were certainly backs to the wall in 1941/2. I'm not trying to take anything away from the Russian war effort for a minute, just saying that Britain played it's part.
 
Last edited:
devilish said:
It was a bailing out. Before Dunkirk Hitler could have wiped the entire British army away. Then things got more complicated but Nazi Germany could have invaded the UK or at least isolate it and pick up the pieces (Malta, North Africa etc) if it wanted. Luckily for us, the madman was also a huge idiot. Rather then consolidate his power, he decided to invade Russia which was basically suicide. Then his Japanese mate did the same with the US and it was basically over. Even good old Bismarck knew that Germany can never win a war where its forced to fight on two fronts and he wasn't thinking of two superpowers (Russia and US) + the British empire.

Returning to the subject, the EU is the result of the war, an attempt to keep nationalism at bay through prosperity and common rules. That's why the likes of Orban, Farage, Salvini, Le Pen and the Tory Party hates it.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know the story. I don't see it as bailing out as such, but I think we agree on enough not to need to get into the ins and outs of that here!
 
711 said:
What you say is correct in isolation, but VeevaVee's 'coming together of nations' still describes events better than your 'bailed out'. If Britain had capitulated in 1940 Hitler would have had a freer run at Russia, having been able to withdraw forces from the west and the med to join in. Russia may still have won of course, we'll never know, but they were certainly backs to the wall in 1941/2. I'm not trying to take anything away from the Russian war effort for a minute, just saying that Britain played it's part.
Click to expand...

Look its not easy for anyone coming from the former empire to accept this especially someone whose both grandparents fought the war in what was the most bombarded country in the world. However, while everyone should admire the Brits commitment to stand alone against Hitler when the easier option was to just accept peace, we also need to be realistic. Similarly to the French, the British army was caught with its pants down and it was thanks to Hitler's stupidity that the British army was able to flee in a relatively one piece. For most of the early part of the war, the Brits were on the defensive as we were all being hammered by the Nazis. That changed the moment Hitler committed suicide by savaging Russia, turning that enormous country with its endless resources, its unforgiving weather and its people to throw everything against the Nazis. By the time the US joined the war, the Nazis were already on the retreat.

Don't take me wrong the radar, the British channel and its people would have kept the UK safe. Crete's invasion costed the Nazis dear and the invasion of the UK would have crippled Germany for good. However there are other ways to win a war. One of which is to hole the Brits on their little island, consolidate power in Europe and North Africa and then set sight to the rest of the empire through a carrot and stick approach. Those who wish to free themselves from the empire would be helped. Those who refuse to get rid of the empire would be crushed. How long do you think the empire would have endured without any support from home base especially if the alternative would have been fighting against the Nazis basically alone? For example Malta was days away from surrendering up until SS Ohio managed to enter port and feed the islands. Everyone prefers to focus on the heroism of the people and those who defended the islands but the reality is that while everyone was against the Nazis we were running out of food, fuel and ammunition.You can't live without that.

Luckily for us, Hitler believed in a world were both the British empire and the greater Germanic reich could coexist and that the enemies weren't the 'Aryan brothers' off the channel but the communists and the Jews. Which is a clear testament of good old Winston's statesmanship who insisted on war against pure evil even though it hurt the UK's immediate interests. The alternative would have been a relationship similar to the one Hitler had with Mussolini which started off as that of an admirer towards his tutor only to end up that between the master and his puppet. The same statesman fully supported a united states of Europe.
 
devilish said:
Nazi Germany could have invaded the UK or at least isolate it and pick up the pieces (Malta, North Africa etc) if it wanted. Luckily for us, the madman was also a huge idiot. Rather then consolidate his power, he decided to invade Russia which was basically suicide.
Click to expand...

The British Isles were never under any real threat of invasion by Nazi Germany. They didn't have the air power to do it, and they definitley didn't have the sea power to do it. They didn't even have any way of ferrying troops across the channel, let alone support and supply them. It's plausible that they could be able to pick off Malta, but North Africa as a whole was very unlikely to ever fall to the Axis. Supply was always the biggest issue.

As for invading the Soviet Union, it was definitely a mistake in that it ensured eventual German defeat. But there wasn't really any possibility of consolidating power, since the German economy was directly fueld by conquest, and any period without large-scale conquests would lead to economic collapse and a demise of the Nazis as inevitable as the Battle of Berlin, just slower and less bloody. There's also the fact that WW2 was much more about an eventual war with the Soviets than war with Britain and France, or even Poland. It was about lebensraum and the complete destruction of international communism (which for the Nazis was synonymous with Jews). So the Nazis were never going to be happy with "just" their current conquests.

This is all horribly off topic, obviously, so maybe just delete my post if a mod feels like it.
 
niMic said:
The British Isles were never under any real threat of invasion by Nazi Germany. They didn't have the air power to do it, and they definitley didn't have the sea power to do it. They didn't even have any way of ferrying troops across the channel, let alone support and supply them.
Click to expand...

I agree and that's exactly what I said.

It's plausible that they could be able to pick off Malta, but North Africa as a whole was very unlikely to ever fall to the Axis. Supply was always the biggest issue
Click to expand...

I disagree. Once the Nazis had consolidated power in Europe then its plausible to think that they would have ample resources to successfully invade North Africa, especially if Hitler was wise enough to wait, consolidate power in mainland Europe, build upon the relationship he had with Stalin and plan accordingly with the Russians and the Arabs.

As for invading the Soviet Union, it was definitely a mistake in that it ensured eventual German defeat. But there wasn't really any possibility of consolidating power, since the German economy was directly fueld by conquest, and any period without large-scale conquests would lead to economic collapse and a demise of the Nazis as inevitable as the Battle of Berlin, just slower and less bloody. There's also the fact that WW2 was much more about an eventual war with the Soviets than war with Britain and France, or even Poland. It was about lebensraum and the complete destruction of international communism (which for the Nazis was synonymous with Jews). So the Nazis were never going to be happy with "just" their current conquests.
Click to expand...


You're kind of right in saying that for Hitler to win the war was for him to be less of himself. He had a small window of opportunity to get all he wanted (ie ending communism) by siding as Russia's defender against Stalin but he blew it off by being erm Hitler. Having said that, my argument still stand. The Nazis were beaten on Russia's soil by Russian people. The numbers on both ends don't lie.

This is all horribly off topic, obviously, so maybe just delete my post if a mod feels like it.
Click to expand...

Same thing[/quote]
 
Last edited:
devilish said:
Look its not easy for anyone coming from the former empire to accept this especially someone whose both grandparents fought the war in what was the most bombarded country in the world. However, while everyone should admire the Brits commitment to stand alone against Hitler when the easier option was to just accept peace, we also need to be realistic. Similarly to the French, the British army was caught with its pants down and it was thanks to Hitler's stupidity that the British army was able to flee in a relatively one piece. For most of the early part of the war, the Brits were on the defensive as we were all being hammered by the Nazis. That changed the moment Hitler committed suicide by savaging Russia, turning that enormous country with its endless resources, its unforgiving weather and its people to throw everything against the Nazis. By the time the US joined the war, the Nazis were already on the retreat.

Don't take me wrong the radar, the British channel and its people would have kept the UK safe. Crete's invasion costed the Nazis dear and the invasion of the UK would have crippled Germany for good. However there are other ways to win a war. One of which is to hole the Brits on their little island, consolidate power in Europe and North Africa and then set sight to the rest of the empire through a carrot and stick approach. Those who wish to free themselves from the empire would be helped. Those who refuse to get rid of the empire would be crushed. How long do you think the empire would have endured without any support from home base especially if the alternative would have been fighting against the Nazis basically alone? For example Malta was days away from surrendering up until SS Ohio managed to enter port and feed the islands. Everyone prefers to focus on the heroism of the people and those who defended the islands but the reality is that while everyone was against the Nazis we were running out of food, fuel and ammunition.You can't live without that.

Luckily for us, Hitler believed in a world were both the British empire and the greater Germanic reich could coexist and that the enemies weren't the 'Aryan brothers' off the channel but the communists and the Jews. Which is a clear testament of good old Winston's statesmanship who insisted on war against pure evil even though it hurt the UK's immediate interests. The alternative would have been a relationship similar to the one Hitler had with Mussolini which started off as that of an admirer towards his tutor only to end up that between the master and his puppet. The same statesman fully supported a united states of Europe.
Click to expand...
The only person going on about heroism is you and become over-emotional. You've completely missed the point that it was a joint effort. VeevaVee was right in that.
 
Grinner said:


I found this down a YT rabbit hole. We don't seem to talk about the CAP and butter/grain mountains and wine lakes anymore. Kenneth Williams as a pro-euro voice is funny, and an excellent little Man Utd gem from the conservative MP.
Click to expand...

Managed to watch until the reference to the non sticking frying pans that no one needs... The way brexiteers work I wouldn't be surprised if that woman still cooked with a iron frying pan today :lol:
 
Oscie said:
Click to expand...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....nder-pressure-from-labour-members-over-brexit

Corbyn in full backtrack mode then

. Minutes after trouncing Owen Smith and winning his second Labour leadership contest in September 2016, Jeremy Corbyn promised to reward the mass membership that had backed him by giving them more power inside the party. “The participation is even higher, and my majority is bigger, and the mandate is very strong. So let’s use it to reach out,” he said. “With this huge membership, that has to be reflected much more in decision-making in the party.”
Click to expand...

Probably too late anyway... Should have been debated properly last year and at least have had time to push the arguments...
 
A 2nd vote has always made sense; once the people know what's on the table give them the final say to accept or reject it. The problem is there's been zero political clout behind keeping the status quo on the table and that's the price we're paying for having absolute clowns in charge of both main political parties. Even a general election isn't going to solve things as one party says "We can drive us off a cliff and land safely" whilst the other are saying "No, it is us who can drive off a cliff and land safely".

Cast-iron fecking lunacy.
 
horsechoker said:
Maybe so, but maybe he knows it's too late for a 2nd referendum so he's just saying it for the sake of popularity.
Click to expand...
Yes... Presumably the vote on the final deal won't be till mid / late November...
If may looses she then has 14 days to form a new coalition... If she can't then there is a general election... I assume campaigning will be largely suspended over Xmas meaning a new election probably late jan / early Feb... So yeah not enough time to have a second referendum I don't think
 
Oscie said:
A 2nd vote has always made sense; once the people know what's on the table give them the final say to accept or reject it. The problem is there's been zero political clout behind keeping the status quo on the table and that's the price we're paying for having absolute clowns in charge of both main political parties. Even a general election isn't going to solve things as one party says "We can drive us off a cliff and land safely" whilst the other are saying "No, it is us who can drive off a cliff and land safely".

Cast-iron fecking lunacy.
Click to expand...
We know whats on the feckin table, chequers or feck all. What more do you need to know? Keeping the status quo was voted against, remember?
 
sun_tzu said:
Yes... Presumably the vote on the final deal won't be till mid / late November...
If may looses she then has 14 days to form a new coalition... If she can't then there is a general election... I assume campaigning will be largely suspended over Xmas meaning a new election probably late jan / early Feb... So yeah not enough time to have a second referendum I don't think
Click to expand...

Never say never, it seems the polling is starting to swing quite hard.
 
There doesn't need to be any campaigning if a second ref goes ahead does there? Everyone knows the issues and outcomes by now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.