Brexit.

[Innula Zenovka]

A short message from the CEO of Airbus about what might happen in the case of a no deal Brexit - namely Airbus moving their plants out of the UK:


Some just might call it fearmongering, others something to be concerned about...

And a government minister agrees with him:

Richard Harrington, the business minister, said this morning he was “delighted” when he read the boss of Airbus branding the UK government’s handling of Brexit a “disgrace”. Speaking to an audience of German industrialists, he said that no deal must be stopped and he was prepared to be sacked for saying so.

This is a disaster for business and business needs to know where it is, and that doesn’t mean, ‘Oh great, two weeks before we are leaving, now we can rule out crashing out.’
I really don’t believe in this idea. I am very happy to be public about it and very happy if the prime minister decides I am not the right person to do the business industry job.
[A no-deal Brexit] would be a total disaster for the economy, I was delighted to read Airbus’s comments this morning because it is telling it like it is.

Harrington, who has previously said that a no-deal Brexit would be “an absolute disaster” and that he would resign if the government opted for one, was speaking at a gathering of German Industry UK at the German industry in London.

 

[Chin Rey]

A short message from the CEO of Airbus about what might happen in the case of a no deal Brexit - namely Airbus moving their plants out of the UK:

...

Some just might call it fearmongering, others something to be concerned about...

It's certainly not fearmongering, It's very real indeed. The company is a special case though.

For those not familiar with its organisation, Airbus is a consolidation of all the old major European aircraft manufacturers. It's thoroughly decentralized all over Europe and is sending parts between its factories all the time. There's no way they can afford to have them separated by customs barriers.

 

[Kara Spengler]

As I said, they would be able to buy them - although for a higher price than that of a locally produced car, because of the import tariff.

No, because under my "scheme" this stuff would still be exported: Simply because producing something in one country only doesn't rule out exporting these products to all other countries. And patents on medicine? Under my "scheme", all patents on medicine and other health-related goods would become CC 'd immediately, so that each and every pharmacy company could produce their "generic" counterparts without judicial hassle.


Anyway, I just heard on the radio that PSA plans to cut the staff in the Opel factory Rüsselsheim down to half its current number.
Under my "scheme" of a heavily controlled market economy, this would be impossible: Either the owner keeps all employees, except those they have a valid reason to get rid off (and it's not up to them to decide which reason is valid, but up to unions and state) -- or the factory will become 100% state-controlled, and the employees can return to their working places anyway...

Why do you hate the world economy?

For example, yesterday I bought yet another ethernet switch. All specifications being equal it really does not matter to me if it comes from the US, Canada, or China. I was looking at specs and relative quality. Yes, cost is a factor but if I saw the perfect one for a few pennies more I would go for it no matter where it came from, I fail to see how tariffs do more than annoy end users.

Another example, in a few months I am adding something to my network that is only produced by one company (I need their software so buying from someone else is not an option) and of course they do not have plants in every country on the planet. It is not a matter of my choice where the product is made.

 

[Kara Spengler]

One last thought about nationalised car companies and other such things. When we in the UK argue against it, it's because we've seen it.
In fact it's a national joke. British Leyland.

BL was the parent company of just about every british car you've ever (or never) heard of. Jaguar, Triumph, Austin, Morris, Mini, MG, Landrover. A great sprawling mess of a company, our government even implemented import quotas to try to make us buy more Leyland cars. It collapsed and was nationalised and slowly died of its own utter uselessness.

Top Gear did a bit on them awhile back. Not as much fun as they had with those 3-wheel cars though.

 

[Kara Spengler]

Thanks, I did not have the clip on the tip of my tongue. Is that the one from Top Gear?

 

[eighthdwarf Checchinato]

Back to the "good old" days of the GDR?

Why not? This was the better - because much more social, and non-capitalistic - German state after all.

 

[Sid]

I can understand you're nostalgia up to a certain level, but c'mon, the country that found it nessecary to build a wall and shoot at their own people to keep them in against their will, did a lot fundamentally wrong, economically and socially IMHO.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Why not? This was the better - because much more social, and non-capitalistic - German state after all.

So much better, in fact, that they had to build a wall to keep out all the unfortunate citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany, who were so desperate to escape the misery of life in the West and move to the "much more social, and non-capitalistic" East, rather as Individual 1 wants to build his wall to keep out migrants from south of the Rio Grande.

 

[eighthdwarf Checchinato]

Why do you hate the world economy?

I hate this current unleashed, "free" market economy with a passion because it is based on exploitation and on this absolutely insane "competition at all costs" concept that poisons the thinking all over the world like a cancer that needs to be extermined.
Unfortunately, markets can only be heavily regulated (as it should be) on a national level, simply because the EU doesn't want to regulate the European market itself. Not the banks, and especially not the companies and the trade between them -- the EU is a product of lobbyism anyways -- so I see absolutely no valid reason to even stay in this abomination, and congratulate every country that has the balls to leave it.

 

[Kara Spengler]

I hate this current unleashed, "free" market economy with a passion because it is based on exploitation and on this absolutely insane "competition at all costs" concept that poisons the thinking all over the world like a cancer that needs to be extermined.
Unfortunately, markets can only be heavily regulated (as it should be) on a national level, simply because the EU doesn't want to regulate the European market itself. Not the banks, and especially not the companies and the trade between them -- the EU is a product of lobbyism anyways -- so I see absolutely no valid reason to even stay in this abomination, and congratulate every country that has the balls to leave it.

While no system is perfect you specifically seem to not like trade between countries. Why? Say a country is unable to produce some widget for whatever reason. According to your ideal they can never have it? What do you have against the people in that country?

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I hate this current unleashed, "free" market economy with a passion because it is based on exploitation and on this absolutely insane "competition at all costs" concept that poisons the thinking all over the world like a cancer that needs to be extermined.

Balls, quite simply!

I certainly don't believe in "competition at all costs." We've learned the hard way in the UK that that's a bad idea, and competition between rail operators or health care and social care providers or private prisons and a multitude of other things is a bad idea.

However, that doesn't alter the fact that competition is pretty good at delivering food and consumer goods and services. I remember when telecoms were a state monopoly over here, for example, and I have no wish to go back to those days. Tigger, earlier in the thread, mentioned British Leyland, and I agree. A state-owned monopoly wasn't a good way of supplying cars.

Frankly, I don't really care who owns things so long as they work reliably, at a reasonable prices and give people what they want. The fact that competition between private rail operators in the UK, including Richard Branson's Virgin Express, is pretty much a disaster in some regions, has confirmed my original opinion that rail privatisation was a bad idea, but that doesn't mean I think BA and Virgin Atlantic or BT and Virgin Media would necessarily be better run by the government.

Furthermore, at a deeper structural level, like it or not global capitalism is a fact of life --- it's part of the environment in which all off us in the industrial, post-industrial and developing world live. Certainly we can seek to ameliorate some of its ill-effects (something which is far better done at the international rather than the national level) but nation states can't simply withdraw from it, any more than they can simply say "we don't like global warming and climate change so we'll have nothing to do with it".

 

[Chin Rey]

Thanks, I did not have the clip on the tip of my tongue. Is that the one from Top Gear?

No, it's from a series Clarkson did while he was away from Top Gear.

 

[Chin Rey]

I hate this current unleashed, "free" market economy with a passion because it is based on exploitation and on this absolutely insane "competition at all costs" concept that poisons the thinking all over the world like a cancer that needs to be extermined.

I've tried to stay away from this particular subtopic but here are my two cents worth of opinion:

Socialism means people work together to achieve a common goal. It may be formally organized by local or national bodies of government or it may be via less formal organisations and cooperatives. (By this definition government control is only socialistic if the government genuinely represents the population they govern. If the leaders only use their power for their own good, it's not really socialism no matter what they claim.)

Capitalism, as it's usually understood today (which is very different from how Hume and Smith defined it), means everybody are free to do whatever they like.

As far as I know, there has never ever been a society that has fully adopted either extreme definition. Some tasks are always done collectively - no nation is so capitalistic people have to bring their own highway to drive their car. But there is also always at least a little bit of room for private initiativ. There were privately owned businesses even in the strictly controlled economies of the former east block countries.

The question is not whether "socialism" or "capitalism" is the right thing, it's what's the best balance between them. The answer is different for different societies and is also something that should always be discussed and reevaluated.

 

[Tigger]

I hate this current unleashed, "free" market economy with a passion because it is based on exploitation and on this absolutely insane "competition at all costs" concept that poisons the thinking all over the world like a cancer that needs to be extermined.
Unfortunately, markets can only be heavily regulated (as it should be) on a national level, simply because the EU doesn't want to regulate the European market itself. Not the banks, and especially not the companies and the trade between them -- the EU is a product of lobbyism anyways -- so I see absolutely no valid reason to even stay in this abomination, and congratulate every country that has the balls to leave it.

One of the key things the EU does is regulate. It's the keystone in the single market. Everyone working to common regulations. Many of its regulations revolve around protecting consumers, requiring products be safe, that businesses be honest about their products, that staff can not be exploited or abused, that trade must do what it can to avoid dealing with modern slavery. The EU grants its citizens a massive opportunity through freedom of movement to live and work and love in any country that it covers. It provides all those small countries with a voice that the big superpowers can't ignore. It's allowed previously hostile nations to work together for their mutual benefit instead of going to war after war after war with each other.

Your claim that the EU is a product of lobbyism is hyperbole at best. Are there lobbyists? Of course there are. There were lobbyists when nations were run by kings, there were lobbyists of various forms in every form of government there has ever been. There are lobbyists in sports bodies and local village bowls clubs. Anyplace where decisions are made there will be lobbyists and the only way to get rid of them is to cut people out of government entirely.

 

[Luisa Land]

interestingly I came across several very critical artical by indian authors concerning Brexit. ..well the good old British Empire, you know


here is one from the NYT ( maybe behind a paywall?)

Opinion | The Malign Incompetence of the British Ruling Class

headline:
"The Malign Incompetence of the British Ruling Class ..With Brexit, the chumocrats who drew borders from India to Ireland are getting a taste of their own medicine. "
the author sees reemblances between Brexit (and espec. the handling of the Ireland issue ) and the kind of Britain's withdrawal from INdia in 1947

"
Britain’s rupture with the European Union is proving to be another act of moral dereliction by the country’s rulers. The Brexiteers, pursuing a fantasy of imperial-era strength and self-sufficiency, have repeatedly revealed their hubris, mulishness and ineptitude over the past two years. Though originally a “Remainer,” Prime Minister Theresa May has matched their arrogant obduracy, imposing a patently unworkable timetable of two years on Brexit and laying down red lines that undermined negotiations with Brussels and doomed her deal to resoundingly bipartisan rejection this week in Parliament.

Such a pattern of egotistic and destructive behavior by the British elite flabbergasts many people today. But it was already manifest seven decades ago during Britain’s rash exit from India..."
................
..

"
The re-imposition of a customs and immigration regime along Britain’s only land border with the European Union was always likely to be resisted with violence. But Brexiteers, awakening late to this ominous possibility, have tried to deny it. A leaked recording revealed Mr. Johnson scorning concerns about the border as “pure millennium bug stuff.”


Forster* blamed Britain’s political fiascos on its privately educated men, callow beneficiaries of the country’s elitist public school system. These eternal schoolboys whose “weight is out of all proportion” to their numbers are certainly overrepresented among Tories. They have today plunged Britain into its worst crisis, exposing its incestuous and self-serving ruling class like never before."
(E.M.Forster, Notes on the English Character)

 

[eighthdwarf Checchinato]

One of the key things the EU does is regulate.

It doesn't regulate enough of the right things, and too much of the wrong things.
For example: There's no sense in regulating what shape or size some fruit has to have to be allowed to be sold on the "Single Market" - but there would be much sense in regulating what a worker shall earn at least - and any manager at most. Let's say the EU would pass a regulation that all workers, no matter where in the EU, have to be paid by the same tariffs currently valid in Germany, that their retirement money is the same everywhere in the EU - and on a level they can live with.Or that they'd regulate that the allowed maximum working time be 8h/day or 40h/week - including loading times (eg. truck drivers), standby times (eg. medical or care personnel), and of course paid(!) breaks. Or that they'd regulate that all tax-exempts and loopholes shall be closed for any and all kinds of income above let's say 5,000€. And all kinds of income and deposits above 500,000€ shall be taxed by at least 55%
Or that they'd regulate that all healthcare insurances, all hospitals, hospices, and care facilities, all schools, all residential real estate, all privatized mail, any and all public transport systems, all telephone and Internet providers shall be nationalized without any refund to their current owners.
Such kinds of decisions would bring all EU countries on a level playing field, and would show that this wannabe "parliament" in Brussels does something for the people.
But as long as there are low-wage countries among the EU member countries, and as long as the EU allows companies that have their HQ within the EU but have their goods be produced for slave wages somewhere in East Asia, the EU in and of itself has no legitimacy at all, from my point of view.

Anyplace where decisions are made there will be lobbyists and the only way to get rid of them is to cut people out of government entirely.

No. But to criminalize any and all attempts by companies and banks to influence representatives of the people. To cut representatives of companies and banks out of government entirely.
If bribery and blackmailing are illegal for normal people, they should be illegal for companies and banks as well. And I do know that several regulations and laws have been made in favor of companies and banks after their lobbyists came into play.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

For example: There's no sense in regulating what shape or size some fruit has to have to be allowed to be sold on the "Single Market"

Oh dear. It's Boris Johnson and his bendy bananas again.

Bendy Bananas - the Myth to end all Myths
26/05/2016
.
The EU trying to ban straight & bendy bananas is perhaps the most well-established Euromyth of them all. Is Brussels really meddling in what our beloved bananas should look like?

Yes & No.

Bananas are classified by quality and size so they can be traded internationally. Quality standards are also needed so that people know what they are buying and that the produce meets their expectations.

Straight & bendy are not banned by the EU. Commission Regulation 2257/94 identifies certain restrictions for fruits that producers have to conform to in order to sell their produce within the EU. The regulation states that bananas must be "free from malformation or abnormal curvature."

Class 1 bananas can have "slight defects of shape" and Class 2 bananas full-on "defects of shape".

In 2011 this regulation and other relevant rules were brought together for the sake of clarity under a single implementing regulation (1333/2011), and in 2013 a further change simplified reporting requirements (implementing regulation 565/2013).

Bendy Bananas - the Myth to end all Myths

 

[Tigger]

It doesn't regulate enough of the right things, and too much of the wrong things.
For example: There's no sense in regulating what shape or size some fruit has to have to be allowed to be sold on the "Single Market"

and snip... you don't actually have a clue about anything do you?

Tell me you aren't buying the "EU bans bendy bananas" bullshit?

They do have regulations that prevent people sending staff from poor countries to rich countries and paying them poor country rates.

They are about to implement anti -tax haven regulations

You might also want to look at the working time directive that put a stop to employers forcing long hours onto their staff.

The EU is not an over-arching government, how the member countries choose to run their health care systems is each countries own local concern.

You can't mandate that companies in the poorer countries of the EU pay their staff the same as one of the richest, every single fucking company would go out of business in under 12 months.

Your basic position can be summed up as the EU must become the USSR or it's 100% evil and must be destroyed.

 

[Casey Pelous]

Your basic position can be summed up as the EU must become the USSR or it's 100% evil and must be destroyed.

Seems to me it's more like, "...a fantasy version of an even more resource-strapped USSR that's magically sustainable and actually works. Must include unicorns with festive party hats."

I guess it might be a more compelling vision if the experiments hadn't been tried over and over, with universal failure.

 

[detrius]

Y'know, ever since this particular sideshow started, all I've been thinking is "oh, this must be now Nazis trick otherwise left-leaning folks into voting for them".

Bendy bananas, FFS!