|
Post by bracknellboy on Jan 15, 2019 19:36:50 GMT
...I'm happy to accept that the details in the post above are accurate .... you shouldn't be. Its nearly entirely - if not entirely - complete rot, at least from the perspective of the point being made which these are funded by / direct effects of the EU. Statements of actual events with "funded by EU Grant" tacked on the end. Or an implication that e.g. a decision made by a company or UK Govt had anything whatsoever to do with EU.
It comes from a similar school of "reporting" as apparently proposed EU laws on ensuring bent cucumbers and straight bananas. Preferably coloured yellow and green respectively.
Its rather sad when debate on such a serious and existentially important issue is reduced to the equivalent of Trumpian fake news - whichever side of the argument it might appear on.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,532
Likes: 6,327
|
Post by registerme on Jan 15, 2019 19:55:13 GMT
@ bracknellboy that's useful to know, thank you. Anyway, my point was that "even were it true it would be one sided and unrepresentative"....
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Jan 15, 2019 20:48:54 GMT
For those that read posts written on here at face value, I urge you all to do your own research. bracknellboy declaring that a set of statements is untrue by merely linking to a site named "I Love The EU" is hardly impartial. I'm not going to debate each of the statements made as life is too short but I have been following the JLR story closely. The European Commission's own press release states quite clearly that the grant from Slovakia for €125m was allowed under EU rules and did indeed happen (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-6023_en.htm). And as Slovakia is a net recipient of EU funds by approximately one billion Euros (https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries/member-countries/slovakia_en#slovakia-in-the-eu) then it does indeed seem that statement is at least true. As I said, I don't have time to look at each one but I would expect a better refutation before you all start clapping one another's backs.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,532
Likes: 6,327
|
Post by registerme on Jan 15, 2019 21:20:25 GMT
So. Wither now?
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jan 15, 2019 22:12:37 GMT
Well as I clearly and deliberately said, I make no statement as to the veracity of anything on there. I am also acutely aware of the connotations of the linked site, but nonetheless it is somewhere which correctly identifies that this is cut and paste of a standard template set of "stuff", puts in some counter commentary, with some links, and which people if they which can review.
EDIT: Actually, the point at which I put the link I made the staetment "don't cut and paste, provide the evidence".
As should be a well regarded phrase in this place: DYOR. But don't just cut and paste a complete template of stuff and put it out there as if it is "fact".
As you say, no point in going into one by one.
Still, as we are on it, why not another one.
Dyson. statement: "Dyson went to Malaysia, with an EU loan." It is possible - entirely possible - that Dyson have at some point in time taken an EU loan- or several - during their existence. I don't know, and I would be somewhat surprised if they had not. But the clear intended implication is that the EU is knowingly and deliberately helping Dyson to export jobs outside of the UK and indeed outside the EU. Whatever the facts, the implication fails a sense check.
Yes James Dyson did move the bulk of his manufacturing to Malaysia 1. Dyson were refused planning permission in 2000 to extend the manufacturing site in Malmesbury 2. it gave a lower cost base. One might say a tad shortsighted on the part of UK NIMBYs at that time to let those jobs go by refusing to allow site expansion. Others might argue that James D was using the former (planning permission refusal) as a fig leaf to cover the latter; regardless it was a blocker. And it did not have anything to do with "them in brussels".
Of course, come forward a decade and a half, and Dyson announced its intention and investment into becoming an OEM of electric vehicles. The next Tesla (maybe). The headline number investment being to the tune of around £2bn. Of course there is a very substantial slug of that which is in effect UK Govt (taxpayer) investment/subsidy by way of investment tax relief, rather than direct investment out of Dyson coffers. Dyson's actual investment will be significantly less than that. Not of itself a bad thing.
Our enobled Sir James Dyson, who is and was a prominent cheer leader for Brexit, has of course recently announced that vehicle manufacture/production is to be in Singapore.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,637
Likes: 5,035
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 15, 2019 22:59:29 GMT
Ford Transit moved to Turkey 2013 with EU grant. The Ford Southampton plant was a standing joke in the industry. It was tiny (44 acres), and it had the M27 motorway running literally through the middle... It peaked at 75k vehicles/year, Ford Otosan in Turkey puts out nearly 400k. Nitra was originally intended as an additional factory due to higher demand and constrained supply from the UK plants. It's pure coincidence that demand has since fallen. Ryton was another very small (140 acre) and utterly outdated plant that had been in its death throes since Chrysler rescued Rootes from bankruptcy in the late 60s. The Trnava plant is 500 acres. Ryton was only ever final assembly, Trnava is complete production. Ryton never ever built more than 200k vehicles/year, Trnava can do nearly twice that. That'll be the same James Dyson who's an arch brexiteer...? The majority of Mini production is Oxford. A Dutch contract-assembler, Nedcar, took over some production of a couple of models (and also the BMW X1) mostly from another contract-assembler in Austria, Magna Steyr, several years ago - simply because Oxford is up to capacity. Why would BMW pay other people to build cars for them, if they had the capacity themselves? TM didn't even try to achieve any consensus, which a good leader would have done on such a close result. She instead tried to appease her right wing, set up unnecessary "red lines", set course for a hard and divisive Brexit and was extremely denigratory to her opponents and to Parliament. She is reaping what she sowed through her incompetence and partisan approach. Have a read of this... www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-vote-deal-theresa-may-withdrawal-agreement-eu-negotiations-a8728771.html"Commentators on both sides of the Brexit divide claim that the UK triggered Article 50 without having a plan. This is simple untrue: May’s Lancaster House speech of January 2017 set out the government’s negotiating position clearly. The problem was not that there was no plan. The problem was that it was a bad plan, based on ignorance of economic reality – especially surrounding the complex supply chains that criss-cross the channel – with a heavy dose of arrogance and jingoism." "Looking back, it is not hard to imagine a very different path. A more skilled prime minister would have accepted the referendum decision but recognised that the result was close. Brexit could have been defined as a political departure that need not be an economic rupture. Rather than amplifying division, she could have sought to have healed a divided nation. Our relationship with the EU would be on a different basis, she would have said, but we would remain friends and allies. If the objective had been set as alignment and partnership, negotiating capital could have been focused on securing Britain’s voice in European decision-making, while recognising that it would not be able to carry the same weight as full members of the EU."
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 15, 2019 23:09:45 GMT
TM didn't even try to achieve any consensus, which a good leader would have done on such a close result. She instead tried to appease her right wing, set up unnecessary "red lines", set course for a hard and divisive Brexit and was extremely denigratory to her opponents and to Parliament. She is reaping what she sowed through her incompetence and partisan approach. Have a read of this... www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-vote-deal-theresa-may-withdrawal-agreement-eu-negotiations-a8728771.html"Commentators on both sides of the Brexit divide claim that the UK triggered Article 50 without having a plan. This is simple untrue: May’s Lancaster House speech of January 2017 set out the government’s negotiating position clearly. The problem was not that there was no plan. The problem was that it was a bad plan, based on ignorance of economic reality – especially surrounding the complex supply chains that criss-cross the channel – with a heavy dose of arrogance and jingoism." "Looking back, it is not hard to imagine a very different path. A more skilled prime minister would have accepted the referendum decision but recognised that the result was close. Brexit could have been defined as a political departure that need not be an economic rupture. Rather than amplifying division, she could have sought to have healed a divided nation. Our relationship with the EU would be on a different basis, she would have said, but we would remain friends and allies. If the objective had been set as alignment and partnership, negotiating capital could have been focused on securing Britain’s voice in European decision-making, while recognising that it would not be able to carry the same weight as full members of the EU." The article pretty comprehensively summarises TM's abject failure. Having alienated most of the UK and Europe, hard to see how she can be the person to reach out across the divisions now. I'd wager heavily on us not leaving on 29 March except I appear to have just lost a chunk on ABLrate.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,532
Likes: 6,327
|
Post by registerme on Jan 15, 2019 23:28:28 GMT
UK contribution to the EU budget - researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7886#fullreportUK GDP - www.statista.com/statistics/281744/gdp-of-the-united-kingdom-uk-since-2000/The long and short of which is that in 2017 the UK's net contribution to the EU was £8.9b, which equates to £134.80 / head, or 0.45% of GDP. Those are the "hard sterling numbers", and take no account of any "soft" benefits like ease of travel, the benefits of expanding the EU eastwards before Russia could gobble them back up (which the UK was a major advocate of), to ERASMUS, to membership of "big science" projects that we could not do on our own like the LHC etc. And complaining about them is no different to me saying that I pay too much tax, or that London pays too much tax, or that England pays too much tax, or that the Barnet formula is unfair to anybody not in Scotland. Ahh, I hear you cry, it's not about the money, it's about sovereignty etc. To which I would point out that we remain members of many international bodies and / or agreements that impinge on our sovereignty (UN, WTO, NATO, ECHR, ICC, UNHCR etc), so to complain about the EU in that context without complaining about the others is.... strange (though funnily enough not so very different to Trump's modus operandi). And I'd argue that Brexit has done more damage to our national democracy from a lying press (looking at you Daily Mail) through a disingenuous government (that has done more constitutionally dubious things than any other in living memory) and supine two faced lying opposition to family, friends and neighbours who once lived in harmony and are now at each others' throats. I feel badly for the >>people<< in those sectors of the economy, and those areas of the country, that have lost out as a result of de-industrialisation, globalisation and, yes, membership of the EU. But I don't blame the EU for that. Steel? Blame massive over-capacity and state subsidies in China. And a corresponding lack of support for those people, communities and companies devastated by being in low value add industries as the China juggernaut achieved critical mass. Fishing? It's part of our national heritage, you might even say it's tied up in our national mythology, from doubty boats ferrying Shakespearean kings and their armies across to France, to spotting the Armada, to Dunkirk, to the cod wars to postcards from picturesque coastal villages the island over. It's deeply ingrained in our national psyche as an island, and all that this has meant in terms of our history. In 2017 it employed 24,000 people or 0.04% of the population (for the record that's the entire population, right now I cba to work out working age population or male working age population etc), and contributed £1.4b to the economy, or 0.07% of GDP. Annoyingly I can't link directly to the source for this because it goes immediately to a pdf download, but in an attempt to introduce some levity to the discussion click on this and scroll down to the PDF file "The UK Fishing Industry - Parliament UK". There's been a couple of fishing related loans of AC and ablerate, and I declined to invest because a) their product is extremely perishable and b) the majority of their sales were to the EU..... Right now you could offer me the entire UK fishing fleet for free and I wouldn't take it. Governments of all stripes, and industry, and education, for decades, should have done a better job preparing our people, our industries and our economy for the challenges ahead. Without exception they have failed. Lamentably. It's true what they say, you get the government you deserve. And before somebody points it out, no, I'm not feeling hugely optimistic right now .
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 16, 2019 9:24:45 GMT
registerme re "And before somebody points it out, no, I'm not feeling hugely optimistic right now" - news organizations were reporting last night that everybody protesting outside parliament seemed happy with the result of the vote. Remainers presumably believe they're closer to a second referendum/no Brexit, Leavers presumably believe they're closer to a no-deal exit. So, reasons to be cheerful all round.
I'd almost welcome a general election, just to see the mess the Labour party would get themselves into trying to decide a Brexit position.
No point going back to the EU then.
Only way May could get her/any deal through is to soften it further (i.e. stay closer to the EU) in order to bring Labour onside, but that'll destroy the Tory party at the next election.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Jan 16, 2019 10:12:27 GMT
SO ... what we need to do now is go back to the EU, tell them we are "surgically removing" the backstop plus some other "bad stuff" - but keeping all the good stuff. All in time to leave on 29/03. Please pass the baton to BJ and let him get on with that
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,532
Likes: 6,327
|
Post by registerme on Jan 16, 2019 10:48:59 GMT
I keep hearing a Steve Baker (?) from the ERG pop up saying "we should do the deal that Tusk offered us in 2016, and that gave us everything we wanted" (or words to that effect). Does anybody know what that's about?
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Jan 16, 2019 11:01:00 GMT
I keep hearing a Steve Baker (?) from the ERG pop up saying "we should do the deal that Tusk offered us in 2016, and that gave us everything we wanted" (or words to that effect). Does anybody know what that's about? I think it was Canada +++ (if that clears anything up ) but includes a similar NI issue/backstop so not quite "everything" apparently
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 16, 2019 11:25:12 GMT
I refer to my earlier post: "two-nil, and you f***ed it up"
|
|
dApps
Posts: 91
Likes: 80
|
Post by dApps on Jan 16, 2019 11:30:10 GMT
I keep hearing a Steve Baker (?) from the ERG pop up saying "we should do the deal that Tusk offered us in 2016, and that gave us everything we wanted" (or words to that effect). Does anybody know what that's about? Best guess: Tusk's pre-ref draft deal from early 2016. Bullet points (courtesy of DT here) MIGRATION AND BENEFITS # A watered-down emergency brake will limit migrants' access to benefits for four years immediately after the referendum. Rather than a total ban, access to in-work benefits will be "graduated from an initial complete exclusion but gradually increasing" # Migrants will still be able to send benefits to their children abroad, just in lower amounts than they currently do # Mr Cameron will be given new powers to stop suspected terrorists and criminals coming to the UK, not only if a threat is "imminent" # New rules will stop people coming to the UK via "sham marriages". They will prevent non-EU citizens marrying an EU citizen to then live and work in Britain SOVEREIGNTY # The letter recognises that the UK "is not committed to further political integration into the European Union" # A "red card" system will allow the House of Commons to band together with like-minded EU parliaments and block unwanted Brussels legislation ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE # The deal protects the pound by recognising in law - for the first time - that the EU has more than one currency # British taxpayers' money can never be liable to support the eurozone # Any issues which affect all member states must be discussed by all member states - not just countries in the eurozone COMPETITIVENESS # The EU will increase efforts to cut bureaucracy, especially on small and medium enterprises, which the Government has said damages UK businesses
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Jan 16, 2019 11:30:29 GMT
I refer to my earlier post: "two-nil, and you f***ed it up" Yeah Remain really did f*** it up - from the unassailable position of there not even being a match
|
|