]
So you are saying without Brexit then Honda would have stayed yes?
I think you've got the argument slightly backwards, in all honesty. The EU/Japan trade deal has been on the cards since 2013, albeit with some delays on its journey. At the very least, this trade deal was at an advanced stage by the time the referendum was held. The benefits were visible to all. On top of that, car production, pardon the pun, had been stalling for almost a decade at the same time. Market intelligence was fairly agreeable so people knew the challenges the industry was facing.
As a result, the arguments that the proponents of Brexit should have been making during the campaign, and definitely should be able to explain with clarity 5 weeks before we are due to withdraw from the EU, is why Brexit help better protect these struggling industries? Maybe not provide all the answers but enough to give assurances to businesses, both domestic and international why Brexit will help.
It utterly fails to do so. Businesses that were struggling before Brexit still appear to be struggling today, if not already finished.
Honda may very well have left the UK regardless of Brexit but if Brexit can't save these industries, or at least halt their decline what really is the point of the whole exercise? There is no evidence anywhere that even gives the smallest hint that Brexit will see struggling industries through to a more favourable position.
So on that basis, why remove ourselves from what is now the biggest trade agreement in history (EU/Japan)? It commits both sides to virtually zero tariffs over time, as a key benefit. Where is the added benefit to either the UK or Japan from. Brexit, if not already secured via this agreement? And if Japan are already committed to the plan to move manufacturing back to Japan and export goods back into the EU, why is there absolutely no debate on how we can stop that through Brexit? It's illogical.
+5
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited February 2019
well bad-beat luckily you can find our dear friend patrick minford, who the no dealers all adore, explaining to a commons committee that special interests (such as the uk car industry) will complain a great deal about it and go out of business but thats quite alright
the title of the video is particularly hysterical, as the person who posted it thinks minford comes off well in this
12:00 for the moment where he explains about the upset vested interests like "the car industry", and then says they will be clamouring for trade agreements because they are "losing"
later on he explains that nobody will tariff our goods because it would be "economic self-harm", without apparently understanding how wto mfn rules work
hes such an idiot
"well be facing world prices, itll be so great, that 2% saving will make us RICH RICH RICH BABYYYYYY global player"
So, it's because of a trade partnership with EU and Japan.
Britain won't be part of the partnership because of Brexit.
But it's got nothing to do with Brexit.
You are right it has nothing to do with Brexit and more like falling car sales and diesel.
In a tweet, Mr Tomlinson said: "Honda are clear this is based on global trends and not Brexit, as all European market production will consolidate in Japan in 2021."
honda have been saying for years that both tariffs and ntbs would cause problems; if you think they didnt price in considerations they literally outlined to MPs in formal submissions to eg BEIS committee in their decisionmaking process....
these decisions are never "one factor". was brexit and the current uncertainty obviously a factor? yes.
So you are saying without Brexit then Honda would have stayed yes?
Also shit if what people said before the referendum is legally binding for Chukka I'd like several statements by Brexiters to be taken into consideration as well.
Politicians lie, get with the program and are you arguing that lies by your side are OK if someone on the other side lies? Or maybe you are no better than Farage and co. Maybe Blair's lies about Iraq were OK just because Cameron told a few porkies eh?
If you expect politicians to lie, why do you keep quoting Tomlinson's rationalization of the Honda plant closure as if it's indisputable fact?
Wait, the UK has a rule against using Parliament footage on comedy shows?
I mean, given how thin-skinned Corbyn seems to be, and combine that with the staggering arrogance of the blustering fools on the right like David Cameron or Boris Johnson, is it any surprise they'd have a rule against it?
It is astonishing to me that brexiteers keep wheeling out Minford and Singham as proponents of the economic case for brexit given that both of them state as first order effects that large scale manufacturing and export focused agriculture become non-viable in the UK under the scenarios they promote.
Japanese business leaving is nothing to do with Brexit. What would the ambassador of Japan know?
What does it take for people to self-reflect in light of continued economic disaster and say, "hmm maybe I got this one wrong". I have a horrible feeling that maybe Swindon and Sunderland would merrily vote for Brexit again...
It is astonishing to me that brexiteers keep wheeling out Minford and Singham as proponents of the economic case for brexit given that both of them state as first order effects that large scale manufacturing and export focused agriculture become non-viable in the UK under the scenarios they promote.
Well, they also appear to be the only economists that can be found who say that it's a good thing.
As far as a complete revocation being possible from May's side, that sounds nice but I'm unsure of its veracity. Not doubting you, I've just never heard that.
If you're referring to the UK being able to decide to 'cancel' Brexit without any formal approval from the EU, then yes that is 100% the case after the CJEU ruled as much at the end of last year. It just needs a substantive vote and majority in the House of Commons.
If you mean: is it palatable politically for May to pull such a stunt? Then no. It's hard to judge voter apathy but such a move is thought to be catastrophic for the Conservatives if they tried it.
Revoking article 50 probably doesnt require a vote. The authorizing legislation granted authority to invoke to the prime minister and so the prime minister can revoke. Realistically it does require a vote but if there were a snap election a different PM could probably revoke without a new authorizing vote because the original authorizing vote was a grant of authority and not a specific instruction.
Technically the Queen could unilaterally revoke even.
It is astonishing to me that brexiteers keep wheeling out Minford and Singham as proponents of the economic case for brexit given that both of them state as first order effects that large scale manufacturing and export focused agriculture become non-viable in the UK under the scenarios they promote.
Well, they also appear to be the only economists that can be found who say that it's a good thing.
I mean, that is the issue
They are the only economists that think brexit is a good thing overall
However their definition of "good thing" is unlikely to square with that of much of the leave voting public
Politicians lie, get with the program and are you arguing that lies by your side are OK if someone on the other side lies? Or maybe you are no better than Farage and co. Maybe Blair's lies about Iraq were OK just because Cameron told a few porkies eh?
I genuinely have no idea what point you're trying to make here. You bought up Chukka's change of heart over a second referendum, one which I said in the post you quoted (but excised from the quote) was reasonable considering the way Brexit has been handled in the intervening three years. I gave examples of people on the other side who had similarly changed their tune (though with less reason, other than the fact that they won and weren't expecting to).
And then you start talking about Blair and Iraq and really I have no idea what you think your point is.
Posts
I think you've got the argument slightly backwards, in all honesty. The EU/Japan trade deal has been on the cards since 2013, albeit with some delays on its journey. At the very least, this trade deal was at an advanced stage by the time the referendum was held. The benefits were visible to all. On top of that, car production, pardon the pun, had been stalling for almost a decade at the same time. Market intelligence was fairly agreeable so people knew the challenges the industry was facing.
As a result, the arguments that the proponents of Brexit should have been making during the campaign, and definitely should be able to explain with clarity 5 weeks before we are due to withdraw from the EU, is why Brexit help better protect these struggling industries? Maybe not provide all the answers but enough to give assurances to businesses, both domestic and international why Brexit will help.
It utterly fails to do so. Businesses that were struggling before Brexit still appear to be struggling today, if not already finished.
Honda may very well have left the UK regardless of Brexit but if Brexit can't save these industries, or at least halt their decline what really is the point of the whole exercise? There is no evidence anywhere that even gives the smallest hint that Brexit will see struggling industries through to a more favourable position.
So on that basis, why remove ourselves from what is now the biggest trade agreement in history (EU/Japan)? It commits both sides to virtually zero tariffs over time, as a key benefit. Where is the added benefit to either the UK or Japan from. Brexit, if not already secured via this agreement? And if Japan are already committed to the plan to move manufacturing back to Japan and export goods back into the EU, why is there absolutely no debate on how we can stop that through Brexit? It's illogical.
the title of the video is particularly hysterical, as the person who posted it thinks minford comes off well in this
12:00 for the moment where he explains about the upset vested interests like "the car industry", and then says they will be clamouring for trade agreements because they are "losing"
later on he explains that nobody will tariff our goods because it would be "economic self-harm", without apparently understanding how wto mfn rules work
hes such an idiot
"well be facing world prices, itll be so great, that 2% saving will make us RICH RICH RICH BABYYYYYY global player"
If you expect politicians to lie, why do you keep quoting Tomlinson's rationalization of the Honda plant closure as if it's indisputable fact?
Pickard is a political correspondent bforbthe financial times.
Wait, the UK has a rule against using Parliament footage on comedy shows?
I mean, given how thin-skinned Corbyn seems to be, and combine that with the staggering arrogance of the blustering fools on the right like David Cameron or Boris Johnson, is it any surprise they'd have a rule against it?
Japanese business leaving is nothing to do with Brexit. What would the ambassador of Japan know?
What does it take for people to self-reflect in light of continued economic disaster and say, "hmm maybe I got this one wrong". I have a horrible feeling that maybe Swindon and Sunderland would merrily vote for Brexit again...
Well, they also appear to be the only economists that can be found who say that it's a good thing.
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog
Revoking article 50 probably doesnt require a vote. The authorizing legislation granted authority to invoke to the prime minister and so the prime minister can revoke. Realistically it does require a vote but if there were a snap election a different PM could probably revoke without a new authorizing vote because the original authorizing vote was a grant of authority and not a specific instruction.
Technically the Queen could unilaterally revoke even.
Realistically though yea, gonana require a vote.
I mean, that is the issue
They are the only economists that think brexit is a good thing overall
However their definition of "good thing" is unlikely to square with that of much of the leave voting public
I genuinely have no idea what point you're trying to make here. You bought up Chukka's change of heart over a second referendum, one which I said in the post you quoted (but excised from the quote) was reasonable considering the way Brexit has been handled in the intervening three years. I gave examples of people on the other side who had similarly changed their tune (though with less reason, other than the fact that they won and weren't expecting to).
And then you start talking about Blair and Iraq and really I have no idea what you think your point is.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Geth, close the thread.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3