In lobbying for businesses he speaks to the owners/directors of hundreds, if not thousands of them. When he speaks for UK business, he does so as someone who is better placed than any to speak on our behalf.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
ShipOfTheseus
Clint Dempsey
Oh. good. Prepared to trust the CBI on Brexit, then? After all, they do that all the time.
I've never had dealings with them and would therefore be unable to speak to their ability to faithfully represent the concerns raised by those they claim to represent.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
I'm amazed anyone is still up for Brexit, when its clear economically we are feeling the effects, and would a lot more if it goes through fully.
A circa 2% loss to our economy now is significant. If it wasn't for that we'd be over Austerity. The UK has also lost some crown jewel companies to foreign owners post vote because of the exchange rate and valuation of our currency in a Brexit world. The housing market has 'paused', Brexit would probably push a number of people into negative equity, and things are more expensive in the shops now because of the vote.
And yet, 3 years in, no one can outline real tangible positives to Brexit. What do we the people see for it? We get to negotiate our own trade deals, whoopie! If it wasn't so serious it would be comic.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
3 years in, no one can outline real tangible positives to EU membership, other than 'the alternative is scary'. When that's the case, downtrodden people are always going to choose change
StephenH
David Ginola
If you are a hedge fund manager with a 10 figure trust fund behind you and frightfully patriotic, then Brexit is a bit of a laugh like campaigning to keeping fox hunting.
Imagine the jolly japes when a group of your like-minded pals and your good self, actually manage to pull it off by appealing to largely infirmed and or xenophobic northern masses and win the "vote".
Good crack or what?
Imagine the jolly japes when a group of your like-minded pals and your good self, actually manage to pull it off by appealing to largely infirmed and or xenophobic northern masses and win the "vote".
Good crack or what?
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Leftwing Brexiters want out from the 'transnational juggernaut'
Politics was once a simple affair. On one side were the lefties, unhappy with the status quo and agitating for something different. On the other side were the conservatives, suspicious of change. When it comes to Brexit, though, the natural order of things has been reversed. The right has come up with all sorts of visions – most of them dystopian – of Britain’s future outside the European Union. The left, for the most part, has spent its time praying for the vote in June 2016 to be reversed.
It’s a bit more complicated than that. There are those on the left who understand that there was a reason people who had never voted before came out in their millions to vote for leave, and who say that something must be done for communities hollowed out by the failed policies of the past four decades. They even have a soundbite: tough on Brexit, tough on the causes of Brexit.
Similarly, there are left-of-centre remainers who recognise that something has gone seriously wrong with the European Union. They too have a slogan: a different Europe is possible.
In reality, though, almost all the energy on the remain side has been spent on keeping the UK inside the EU come what may. There has been nothing from remainers that would suggest that they have a serious plan for tackling the symptoms of Brexit. The same applies to reform of the EU.
A small number of people in the Labour party and in the trade union movement take a different view. For them, Brexit is to be welcomed because the EU’s bias in favour of multinational capital, its hardwired monetarism and its obsession with balanced budgets means it is more Thatcherite than social democratic. For those remainers who say this is a caricature and that the EU is really about protecting labour rights and defending the interests of workers in a harsh, globalised world, left leavers have a one-word riposte: Greece.
Since the referendum, this group has found it hard to get a hearing as the much larger group of left remainers has dominated the conversation with warnings about how the sky will fall in after Brexit. There is nothing new in this: many of the cheerleaders for remain were making exactly the same noises years ago when the UK was deciding whether or not to join the euro.
Yet, in recent weeks there have been two publications that have challenged the mainstream view. The Left Case Against the EU by Costas Lapavitsas, a Soas economics professor, takes issue with the idea that the EU is all about cooperation and togetherness, a borderless paradise of interrailing and Erasmus schemes.
The EU, Lapavitsas argues, is not a nation state that the left could battle to capture and then shape the way it is run. Rather, it is a transnational juggernaut geared to neoliberalism.
The European left’s “attachment to the EU as an inherently progressive development prevents it from being radical, and indeed integrates it into the neoliberal structures of European capitalism”, Lapavitsas says. “The left has become increasingly cut off from its historic constituency, the workers and the poor of Europe, who have naturally sought a voice elsewhere.”
This seems a pretty accurate assessment. The European left sees the EU as promoting democracy, egalitarianism and social liberalism, but the reality is somewhat different. The four pillars of the single market – free movement of goods, services, people and money – are actually the axioms of market fundamentalism, which is why Mrs Thatcher supported its creation. Meanwhile, the European court of justice has gradually turned itself into a body that enforces a free-market view of the world, placing more and more restrictions on the freedom of member states to make their own economic decisions.
This point is taken up by Philip Whyman of the University of Central Lancashire in his book, The Left Case for Brexit, which says the real choice for Britain is whether we would prefer as few changes as possible, because we are happy with the status quo, or whether we would like to do things differently and therefore need the “greater policy independence that is necessary to make these changes”.
Whyman concedes that up until now the UK has failed to take advantage of the leeway that is currently permitted under EU law but says that economic renewal requires freedom from competition, state aid and procurement rules. The pamphlet argues for a free trade agreement with the EU to ensure maximum flexibility.
“Brexit can be a positive event for the left. Withdrawal from the EU offers the potential for an active government to transform our economy for our mutual benefit. Long standing weaknesses in the UK economy need to be dealt with. These include issues relating to low levels of capital formation, poor productivity growth, a large and unsustainable trade deficit, problems with the efficient operation of the labour market and the need to rebuild manufacturing industry to rebalance the UK economy.”
Some of the themes explored in these two books were bubbling beneath the surface of last week’s Labour conference. The reluctance of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell to put the option to remain in the EU on the ballot paper in a second referendum was obvious. They fear those who voted to leave in heartland Labour seats will feel betrayed if told to have another go because they came up with the wrong answer last time. What’s more, it is not so long ago that the Labour leader and the shadow chancellor were publicly expressing similar views to those of Lapavitsas. There is no obvious reason why they should have changed their minds because the events of the past few years have made one thing abundantly clear: this Europe is not for turning.
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...rs-want-out-from-the-transnational-juggernaut
Politics was once a simple affair. On one side were the lefties, unhappy with the status quo and agitating for something different. On the other side were the conservatives, suspicious of change. When it comes to Brexit, though, the natural order of things has been reversed. The right has come up with all sorts of visions – most of them dystopian – of Britain’s future outside the European Union. The left, for the most part, has spent its time praying for the vote in June 2016 to be reversed.
It’s a bit more complicated than that. There are those on the left who understand that there was a reason people who had never voted before came out in their millions to vote for leave, and who say that something must be done for communities hollowed out by the failed policies of the past four decades. They even have a soundbite: tough on Brexit, tough on the causes of Brexit.
Similarly, there are left-of-centre remainers who recognise that something has gone seriously wrong with the European Union. They too have a slogan: a different Europe is possible.
In reality, though, almost all the energy on the remain side has been spent on keeping the UK inside the EU come what may. There has been nothing from remainers that would suggest that they have a serious plan for tackling the symptoms of Brexit. The same applies to reform of the EU.
A small number of people in the Labour party and in the trade union movement take a different view. For them, Brexit is to be welcomed because the EU’s bias in favour of multinational capital, its hardwired monetarism and its obsession with balanced budgets means it is more Thatcherite than social democratic. For those remainers who say this is a caricature and that the EU is really about protecting labour rights and defending the interests of workers in a harsh, globalised world, left leavers have a one-word riposte: Greece.
Since the referendum, this group has found it hard to get a hearing as the much larger group of left remainers has dominated the conversation with warnings about how the sky will fall in after Brexit. There is nothing new in this: many of the cheerleaders for remain were making exactly the same noises years ago when the UK was deciding whether or not to join the euro.
Yet, in recent weeks there have been two publications that have challenged the mainstream view. The Left Case Against the EU by Costas Lapavitsas, a Soas economics professor, takes issue with the idea that the EU is all about cooperation and togetherness, a borderless paradise of interrailing and Erasmus schemes.
The EU, Lapavitsas argues, is not a nation state that the left could battle to capture and then shape the way it is run. Rather, it is a transnational juggernaut geared to neoliberalism.
The European left’s “attachment to the EU as an inherently progressive development prevents it from being radical, and indeed integrates it into the neoliberal structures of European capitalism”, Lapavitsas says. “The left has become increasingly cut off from its historic constituency, the workers and the poor of Europe, who have naturally sought a voice elsewhere.”
This seems a pretty accurate assessment. The European left sees the EU as promoting democracy, egalitarianism and social liberalism, but the reality is somewhat different. The four pillars of the single market – free movement of goods, services, people and money – are actually the axioms of market fundamentalism, which is why Mrs Thatcher supported its creation. Meanwhile, the European court of justice has gradually turned itself into a body that enforces a free-market view of the world, placing more and more restrictions on the freedom of member states to make their own economic decisions.
This point is taken up by Philip Whyman of the University of Central Lancashire in his book, The Left Case for Brexit, which says the real choice for Britain is whether we would prefer as few changes as possible, because we are happy with the status quo, or whether we would like to do things differently and therefore need the “greater policy independence that is necessary to make these changes”.
Whyman concedes that up until now the UK has failed to take advantage of the leeway that is currently permitted under EU law but says that economic renewal requires freedom from competition, state aid and procurement rules. The pamphlet argues for a free trade agreement with the EU to ensure maximum flexibility.
“Brexit can be a positive event for the left. Withdrawal from the EU offers the potential for an active government to transform our economy for our mutual benefit. Long standing weaknesses in the UK economy need to be dealt with. These include issues relating to low levels of capital formation, poor productivity growth, a large and unsustainable trade deficit, problems with the efficient operation of the labour market and the need to rebuild manufacturing industry to rebalance the UK economy.”
Some of the themes explored in these two books were bubbling beneath the surface of last week’s Labour conference. The reluctance of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell to put the option to remain in the EU on the ballot paper in a second referendum was obvious. They fear those who voted to leave in heartland Labour seats will feel betrayed if told to have another go because they came up with the wrong answer last time. What’s more, it is not so long ago that the Labour leader and the shadow chancellor were publicly expressing similar views to those of Lapavitsas. There is no obvious reason why they should have changed their minds because the events of the past few years have made one thing abundantly clear: this Europe is not for turning.
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...rs-want-out-from-the-transnational-juggernaut
ShipOfTheseus
Clint Dempsey
There's a darker side to Lexitry: economic collapse is the Marxist's friend, because it politicises the proletariat and brings forward the revolution. And hardship is what keeps the hard left's salesmen in business. If you're Len McCluskey, if you're Chris Williamson, if you're Owen Jones, then austerity pays your wages. Privately, in the dark recesses of their souls, they look at the consequences of a Tory Brexit, and they lick their lips.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Off the top of my head:
- Retain jobs base on:
- Free access to the worlds largest customs union
- Place at the top table, shaping the world politically/economically
- Allowing transnational laws such as those dealing with air or sea pollution to clean up our beaches and air.
- Free phone roaming, and car insurance
- Jobs from Airbus, and building a new Satellite for non-US GPS and global intelligence. The UK would have had a lot of these hi-tech jobs. France is rubbing its hands together.
- A higher value pound
- Investment into the UK because it is seen as a gateway into the EU. Almost £4bn a year invested in car making per year as an example.
- Trade Agreements with significant trading nations
- Small government needed for UK Trade and Customs. No need to spend on it.
- Medical regulation for the EU set in London.
- Financial Regulator for the EU also in London, so we have a large say in how things work
- The EU gov only the size of Birgingham council.
- Peace and prosperity among the nations of Europe, the most culturally advanced and prosperous in the world.
Last edited:
glorygloryeze
Ian Walker
ShipOfTheseus
Clint Dempsey
So Owen Jones is a Brexiter now?
I included him because he isn't. But he's a Corbyn outrider who needs to sell articles to the Guardian, and austerity keeps him in business. It's not just about cynicism and self-interest; people like that need to have their convictions reinforced from time to time. Food banks and zero hours contracts do that. As do mad Tories who want to turn Britain into a low-tax, low-regulation entrepot.
glorygloryeze
Ian Walker
Well at least you're being fair to both extreme left and extreme right
ShipOfTheseus
Clint Dempsey
Yes. That's why I had to join a football board to chat about politics. There are surprisingly few places for angry centrists.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Or Reaganomics, Reaganomics, Reaganomics, and nothing we can do about it
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
So there isn't anythng positive you can outline to Brexit, just what you don't like now? Free trade and liberalism was not invented by Regan.
Do the UK do Reaganomics more than the majority of EU members, are we the most Reaganite? I would suggest if we are (and we probably are) there is something we could do about it within the EU if we chose.
ShipOfTheseus
Clint Dempsey
You haven't crystallised right wing thought on Brexit if you don't include lashings of jingoistic triumphalism. Did he do that?
Agreed, the EEA doesn't stop Norway being nicer to it's people than our government is to us, nor the EU stop Denmark.
Probably, I think my mind wandered.