Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Innovindil]

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

So there's a discrepancy in equality of opportunity here then, in your view?

 

That actually highlights another problem with borders and the legislation that goes with them, come to think of it: how the value of money differs from one place to another and adds to inequality in some circumstances.

 

But hey...solving inequality is impossible anyway, right?

Exactly. If there was a place I could go, where I would be welcomed and given (mostly) the same rights as the locals but earn x amount more than I could back home, I'd be all over it like a fat man over a chocolate cake. Unfortunately there isn't, so I've got to work on maximising my worth here. 

 

Wouldn't say impossible, if we all work hard enough at it, maybe I'll be able to get my polish 5 bed mansion in Leicester. 

[Innovindil]

5 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

If you aren't prepared to make the sacrifices you can't expect to get the benefits.

 

Which one of us us supposed to be a Tory again

 

Would never sacrifice family tbh. There are lines in the pursuit of profit you know. 

[Guest Kopfkino]

8 hours ago, toddybad said:

Interesting from willetts. Certainly something is needed. Unlike with health, where the years it will take will simply kick the can down the road when action is needed now, a royal commission is probably needed to look at this issue. It seems obvious to me that the baby boomers need to be hit given that they've allowed the creation of an economy to suit only themselves through their votes.

 

It's a shame it won't get the column inches dedicated to it that it deserves. It's the shame the country has gone full Groundhog Day on Brexit because the contract between the generations and funding the future is genuinely the most important issue we face. I think we're going to have to be far more radical than the Resolution Foundation has suggested today, it's got to stop being a patchwork job and a big redesign. It certainly requires more sensible rhetoric than your last statement. 

 

@leicsmac you might have some interest in this and the links contained. It discusses how to construct a market economy that serves the interests of society, nature and the environement, and future generations.

http://evonomics.com/new-invisible-hand-conversation-peter-barnes-david-sloan-wilson/

[Guest]

[Guest Foxin_mad]

Lets further populate an already over populated area. Sounds like a terrible plan.

 

A better option would be to invest in sustainable jobs in the North, invest in infrastructure and redevelop derelict brownfield sites in Northern cities. Companies relocating out of London should be offered massive tax breaks.

 

This London centric nonsense has to stop.

[lifted*fox]

yep - dreadful idea which will cause nothing but problems.

 

that part of the country is already absolutely ****ing rammed and nigh on impossible to navigate during most hours of the day. traffic is a real issue. 

 

unless they're going to MASSIVELY overhaul transport (and even then I doubt it'll help) then it's a ****ing stupid idea.

 

they need to invest in making other parts of the country more viable for becoming business hubs with better transport links. 

 

the whole of the UK does not need to revolve around London. 

Edited 5 March 2018 by lifted*fox

[breadandcheese]

It's really not a dreadful idea.  More homes are needed in the South East.  If a new motorway is added connecting Oxford and Cambridge then that would link two major research hubs all commutable into London.

 

Yes, it's annoying that the country is London centric, but that's the reality and houses need to be built to reduce the ridiculous situation in London prices relative to wages.

 

Granted, it shouldn't be either or, as investment should be in other areas of the country, but right now, if the biggest pressures are on the South East, it makes sense to concentrate resources there.

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Lets further populate an already over populated area. Sounds like a terrible plan.

 

A better option would be to invest in sustainable jobs in the North, invest in infrastructure and redevelop derelict brownfield sites in Northern cities. Companies relocating out of London should be offered massive tax breaks.

 

This London centric nonsense has to stop.

Actually don't disagree with you on domestic policy for a change fox!

[Guest]

US offering us a worse deal for air traffic than we currently have within the EU

 

https://amp.ft.com/content/9461157c-1f97-11e8-9efc-0cd3483b8b80?__twitter_impression=true

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

US offering us a worse deal for air traffic than we currently have within the EU

 

https://amp.ft.com/content/9461157c-1f97-11e8-9efc-0cd3483b8b80?__twitter_impression=true

 

If you can't get passed the paywall

 

The US is offering Britain a worse “Open Skies” deal after Brexit than it had as an EU member, in a negotiating stance that would badly hit the transatlantic operating rights of British Airways and Virgin Atlantic.

British and American negotiators secretly met in January for the first formal talks on a new air services deal, aiming to fill the gap created when Britain falls out of the EU-US open skies treaty after Brexit, according to people familiar with talks.

In a sign of the battle Britain faces to replicate its existing rights, the talks were cut short after US negotiators offered standard bilateral conditions that would reduce access and in effect exclude all main UK-based carriers because they would not meet the criteria for ownership and control.

 

One person attending the London meetings to “put Humpty Dumpty back together” said: “You can’t just scratch out ‘EU’ and put in ‘UK’.” A British official said it showed “the squeeze” London will face as it tries to reconstruct its international agreements after Brexit, even with close allies such as Washington.

Negotiators are confident of an eventual agreement to keep open the busy UK-US routes, which account for more than a third of current transatlantic flight traffic. But there are legal and political obstacles that could impede the two sides from reaching a deal in time to give legal certainty to airlines booking flights a year in advance.

“We have every confidence that the US and UK will sign a deal that is in everyone’s interests and that IAG will comply with the EU and UK ownership and control regulations post Brexit,” said International Airlines Group, which owns British Airways. Virgin Atlantic said it remained “assured that a new liberal agreement will be reached, allowing us to keep flying to all of our destinations in North America”.

Chris Grayling, UK transport secretary, declared in October that he was making “rapid progress” in reaching ambitious new airline agreements with the US and other international partners. According to FT estimates, the UK must renegotiate and replace about 65 international transport agreements after Brexit.

In its opening stance the US side rolled back valuable elements of the US-EU agreement, the most liberal open skies deal ever agreed by Washington. Its post-Brexit offer to the UK did not include membership of a joint committee on regulatory co-operation or special access to the Fly America programme, which allocates tickets for US government employees. Washington also asked for improved flying rights for US courier services such as FedEx.

 

The Americans will play it hard. The mood has changed [against liberalisation], it’s the worst time to be negotiating

Senior EU official

The UK has also yet to formally offer the US access to overseas territories such as the British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands, which were not included as part of the original US-EU deal, according to people familiar with the talks.

There are also potential issues over the continuation of antitrust exemptions, permitted by the US-EU open skies agreement, which allow airline alliances to set fares and share revenue, according to people familiar with talks.

The biggest sticking-point is a standard ownership clause in Washington’s bilateral aviation agreements that would exclude airlines from the deal if “substantial ownership and effective control” does not rest with US or UK nationals respectively. In effect it requires majority ownership by one of the two sides if an airline is to benefit.

London asked the US to adjust its long-held policy since it would exclude the three main British-based transatlantic carriers, which all fall short of the eligibility criteria. These are IAG, the owner of British Airways and Iberia; Virgin Atlantic; and Norwegian UK.

Sir Richard Branson owns 51 per cent of Virgin, making it majority UK-owned. But he is in the process of selling 31 per cent to Air France-KLM, which could complicate Virgin’s access rights to the US. US airline Delta owns the remaining stake.

The challenge is most acute for Willie Walsh, IAG chief executive, whose group must also clear the EU’s 50 per cent ownership threshold to avoid losing his European operating rights after Brexit, when UK nationals are no longer counted.

One senior EU official said the airline operator was heading for “a crunch”. “From the US point of view, there is not a single big airline that is UK-owned and controlled,” he said. “The Americans will play it hard. The mood has changed [against liberalisation], it’s the worst time to be negotiating.”

Recommended

• British airlines warned over post-Brexit flight restrictions
• After Brexit: the UK will need to renegotiate at least 759 treaties
• IAG calls for EU to relax ownership laws as Brexit concerns mount

Andrew Charlton, an aviation consultant, said the negotiations with the US were likely to be “fraught with difficulties”.

“The EU has been arguing for a change to the ownership and control rule for decades but the US has never said yes. It’s been a sticking point forever. If the US has never bent before then why would they do it just for the UK?” he said, adding that such a change could set a big precedent.

British negotiators are hopeful the ownership issues can be addressed through a side agreement or memorandum of understanding giving airlines solid legal rights. But so far the US side has not gone beyond offering temporary “waivers”, on a case-by-case basis to airlines.

The UK’s EU membership also prevents the country from signing trade or aviation services agreements before the end of March 2019 when Britain is due to leave the bloc. The EU’s Brexit negotiators are insisting it seek permission for deals during any transition period.

British negotiators are hoping to convince partners such as the US to treat them as EU members during the transition period, so they do not automatically fall out of agreements during that period.

A senior UK government source said it was “nonsense to suggest that planes won’t fly between UK and US post-Brexit. Both sides have a strong interest in reaching an agreement and are very close to one.”

The US also played down fears of a looming crisis.

“Our shared aim with the United Kingdom is to ensure the smoothest possible transition in the transatlantic market,” said the state department. “Commercial aviation is key to the dynamic economic relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. Discussions are going well and, while specific dates are not set, we plan to meet again soon.”

[Rogstanley]

51 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

It's really not a dreadful idea.  More homes are needed in the South East.  If a new motorway is added connecting Oxford and Cambridge then that would link two major research hubs all commutable into London.

 

Yes, it's annoying that the country is London centric, but that's the reality and houses need to be built to reduce the ridiculous situation in London prices relative to wages.

 

Granted, it shouldn't be either or, as investment should be in other areas of the country, but right now, if the biggest pressures are on the South East, it makes sense to concentrate resources there.

Gave this a thumbs up for the statement that it shouldn't be either or with respect to London or elsewhere. Transport and housing are failing right across the country and significant investment is needed everywhere, the majority of it investment that will easily cover its own cost in increased productivity.

[Guest]

More 'good news' courtesy of Brexit

 

Airbus may leave UK unless there is urgent clarity on Brexit trade

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/mar/05/airbus-may-leave-uk-unless-there-is-urgent-clarity-on-brexit-trade?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Exactly. If there was a place I could go, where I would be welcomed and given (mostly) the same rights as the locals but earn x amount more than I could back home, I'd be all over it like a fat man over a chocolate cake. Unfortunately there isn't, so I've got to work on maximising my worth here. 

Don't know what you do but Australia and even New Zealand now pay higher wages than here. Ditto Canada and of course the middle East where you can get about 5x more take home.

[Guest Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

Lets further populate an already over populated area. Sounds like a terrible plan.

 

A better option would be to invest in sustainable jobs in the North, invest in infrastructure and redevelop derelict brownfield sites in Northern cities. Companies relocating out of London should be offered massive tax breaks.

 

This London centric nonsense has to stop.

 

It's a chicken and egg situation. Fact is, London is by far the most productive area of the country, London and the South-East produce a huge percentage of output, and it's where the housing crisis is the worse. The new garden towns are in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor (there's plans to improve rail and road links between the two) which are again hugely productive cities, and between the three are comfortably the most recognisable places for the international community. There's a big damage done to our economy as a result of the difficulty to get reasonably-priced housing in these areas. So any investment in this area is going to produce bigger returns than investing elsewhere. Yes it would be great to actually deliver on the northern powerhouse and create something like Silicon Valley up there, it just won't produce the same returns very quickly, people and firms will still want to be in and around London. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

It's a chicken and egg situation. Fact is, London is by far the most productive area of the country, London and the South-East produce a huge percentage of output, and it's where the housing crisis is the worse. The new garden towns are in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor (there's plans to improve rail and road links between the two) which are again hugely productive cities, and between the three are comfortably the most recognisable places for the international community. There's a big damage done to our economy as a result of the difficulty to get reasonably-priced housing in these areas. So any investment in this area is going to produce bigger returns than investing elsewhere. Yes it would be great to actually deliver on the northern powerhouse and create something like Silicon Valley up there, it just won't produce the same returns very quickly, people and firms will still want to be in and around London. 

This is obviously true but we surely have to try?

London is the most productive as it sees the most investment.Both private and public. We need to share the wealth. We need pubic investment elsewhere if we are to hope to attract the private.

Personally think government should relocate to the regions. There's no reason why ministries need to hold land and buildings that could be sold for hundreds of millions and move to somewhere cheap. Build the greatest offices and access in the world and still make tens of millions.

 

[Sharpe's Fox]

only way to rebalance the economy towards the producers is to wreck the capitalist class; bankers, buy to letters ect. Brexit is a great excuse to do it too. Go straight to WTO and let ****ing rip.

[NorthfieldsFox]

1 minute ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

only way to rebalance the economy towards the producers is to wreck the capitalist class; bankers, buy to letters ect. Brexit is a great excuse to do it too. Go straight to WTO and let ****ing rip.

Can’t do that with a Tory government 

 

but I agree with you 

[Webbo]

HOW THE ECONOMICS PROFESSION GOT IT WRONG ON BREXIT

Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge
Working Paper No. 493

 

 

Our conclusion is that most estimates of the impact of Brexit in the UK, both
short-term and long-term, have exaggerated the degree of potential damage to
the UK economy. We stress at this point that this is not a politically-driven
exercise. Most of the four-person team behind the research for this and our other
papers voted ‘Remain’ in the 2016 referendum and would do so again if given
the chance. Our purpose is rather to establish a sound basis for the ongoing
debate on the likely potential economic impact of Brexit, and more generally to
question the quality of economic analysis in dealing with major, macroeconomic
policy issue like Brexit.

 

 

https://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/centre-for-business-research/downloads/working-papers/wp493.pdf

[Sharpe's Fox]

1 minute ago, NorthfieldsFox said:

Can’t do that with a Tory government 

 

but I agree with you 

We have a weak goverment. Vote down any Brexit deal they bring back and force hardest possible exit. Use the political capital to win the ensuing general election. Stay the course you’ve been handed and wreck the bourgeoisie to protect the workers.

[NorthfieldsFox]

10 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

We have a weak goverment. Vote down any Brexit deal they bring back and force hardest possible exit. Use the political capital to win the ensuing general election. Stay the course you’ve been handed and wreck the bourgeoisie to protect the workers.

Comrade that sounds a great plan 

 

give Owen Jones a call  

[Guest Kopfkino]

14 minutes ago, toddybad said:

This is obviously true but we surely have to try?

London is the most productive as it sees the most investment.Both private and public. We need to share the wealth. We need pubic investment elsewhere if we are to hope to attract the private.

Personally think government should relocate to the regions. There's no reason why ministries need to hold land and buildings that could be sold for hundreds of millions and move to somewhere cheap. Build the greatest offices and access in the world and still make tens of millions.

 

 

The Conservatives pledged to move public sector workers in their manifesto. The Centre for Cities then looked at the economic effect the ONS's and the BBC's moves have had (being they both moved a large amount of highly-skilled jobs). I'm pretty sure in the case of the ONS it appears there's been little impact beyond the jobs themselves while there has possibly been a fall in the quality of output. In the case of the BBC, they said there has been little benefit beyond MediaCity itself (and that benefit came largely through displacement).

 

Of course it can largely depend on the activity being relocated and what the place can offer (maybe the ONS to Newport is the wrong thing to the wrong place). But wherever it is, what really is the point when the high-skilled staff will inevitably end up having to be in London 3 times a week for meetings etc. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

The Conservatives pledged to move public sector workers in their manifesto. The Centre for Cities then looked at the economic effect the ONS's and the BBC's moves have had (being they both moved a large amount of highly-skilled jobs). I'm pretty sure in the case of the ONS it appears there's been little impact beyond the jobs themselves while there has possibly been a fall in the quality of output. In the case of the BBC, they said there has been little benefit beyond MediaCity itself (and that benefit came largely through displacement).

 

Of course it can largely depend on the activity being relocated and what the place can offer (maybe the ONS to Newport is the wrong thing to the wrong place). But wherever it is, what really is the point when the high-skilled staff will inevitably end up having to be in London 3 times a week for meetings etc. 

This is a slightly tonight in cheek response though I completely mean it in more general terms but face to face meetings should be outlawed. Use technology. Save petrol, the environment, money, time etc. Increase productivity.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

It's a shame it won't get the column inches dedicated to it that it deserves. It's the shame the country has gone full Groundhog Day on Brexit because the contract between the generations and funding the future is genuinely the most important issue we face. I think we're going to have to be far more radical than the Resolution Foundation has suggested today, it's got to stop being a patchwork job and a big redesign. It certainly requires more sensible rhetoric than your last statement. 

 

@leicsmac you might have some interest in this and the links contained. It discusses how to construct a market economy that serves the interests of society, nature and the environement, and future generations.

http://evonomics.com/new-invisible-hand-conversation-peter-barnes-david-sloan-wilson/

Very, very interesting.

 

Glad someone in the economics field is putting this forward, and I agree pretty much entirely with them.

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

HOW THE ECONOMICS PROFESSION GOT IT WRONG ON BREXIT

Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge
Working Paper No. 493

 

 

Our conclusion is that most estimates of the impact of Brexit in the UK, both
short-term and long-term, have exaggerated the degree of potential damage to
the UK economy. We stress at this point that this is not a politically-driven
exercise. Most of the four-person team behind the research for this and our other
papers voted ‘Remain’ in the 2016 referendum and would do so again if given
the chance. Our purpose is rather to establish a sound basis for the ongoing
debate on the likely potential economic impact of Brexit, and more generally to
question the quality of economic analysis in dealing with major, macroeconomic
policy issue like Brexit.

 

 

https://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/centre-for-business-research/downloads/working-papers/wp493.pdf

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html

[Webbo]

13 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-favoured-economic-study-shot-down-by-other-trade-economists-a7519596.html

But they're experts?