|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 9, 2018 14:09:11 GMT 1
In recent times we have had James Dyson, the boss of Weathersppons and Mr Forte the Hotelier all coming out in favour of leaving. Now whatever your thoughts about those people they employ thousands of people directly, and tens of thousands indirectly. One problem with all these negotiations is they are being carried out by politicians. They should have some solid business brains in that team, because although my business is very small i have to negotiate every single day with large companies. 'We pay on 90 days'. Well you might, but it is the seller who sets the terms and if you don't believe me walk into Tesco, get a load of shopping and tell them you will pay them tomorrow. I might be a little more polite than that, but you get my drift. I thought long and hard before i voted leave, and find it very insulting when people accuse me of being racist, a member of UKIP and all else besides. I do not think we should even consider 'negotiating' with the metaphoric gun to our heads. We put the ball firmly back in their court. We are laving, so please tell us how you would like to continue trading with us, then we will consider if it is worth trading with you. And all the bloody nonsense about us requiring visas to go on holiday? I wonder how Spain would react to losing all the millions of Brits and their money if Europe made it difficult for us to travel. Agreed. The departure of Davies is leading to interesting times. It's puzzling why Boris, Leadsom, etc. didn't go at the same time. Gove I can understand - yet another miscalculation as to what's in his ambition's interests. She would have struggled on in her paradoxically steely way, and would have survived for a little while longer; but then the Brexiteers would be in a much better position when the whole thing finally collapses in ignominy (when Barnier says: what's this new pile of crap? You think we are short of ze toilet paper in Europe?) Maybe that's Boris's gamble - he leaves his flounce until then, and he looks principled, after being so loyal and collegiate and compromising. They say Brussels is very concerned May doesn't get pushed so far she tumbles out the window, however - Boris or Corbyn being less preferable to them. And as far as I can so far understand it, from what's been released so far, this new "deal" seems to be a complete capitulation anyway - what else further can they demand? More money, I guess. It's like dealing with Al Capone. You'll sell my whiskey if ya wanna keep yer legs, and pay me for my protection. As an Englishman (are you still allowed to say that these days?), I feel at the moment somewhat humiliated, ashamed, and increasingly angry. I suspect most Leave voters will be feeling roughly the same cocktail. If she does get pushed into an election, and she's obdurate enough to try her luck as leader again, this might just be the Labour Party's last real hope of actually getting power again.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 9, 2018 14:13:03 GMT 1
In recent times we have had James Dyson, the boss of Weathersppons and Mr Forte the Hotelier all coming out in favour of leaving. Now whatever your thoughts about those people they employ thousands of people directly, and tens of thousands indirectly. One problem with all these negotiations is they are being carried out by politicians. They should have some solid business brains in that team, because although my business is very small i have to negotiate every single day with large companies. 'We pay on 90 days'. Well you might, but it is the seller who sets the terms and if you don't believe me walk into Tesco, get a load of shopping and tell them you will pay them tomorrow. I might be a little more polite than that, but you get my drift. I thought long and hard before i voted leave, and find it very insulting when people accuse me of being racist, a member of UKIP and all else besides. I do not think we should even consider 'negotiating' with the metaphoric gun to our heads. We put the ball firmly back in their court. We are laving, so please tell us how you would like to continue trading with us, then we will consider if it is worth trading with you. And all the bloody nonsense about us requiring visas to go on holiday? I wonder how Spain would react to losing all the millions of Brits and their money if Europe made it difficult for us to travel. You must order the odd part from abroad, jj - I know you make highly sophisticated heavy engineering equipment. Do you have to pay tariffs on them?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 9, 2018 15:12:38 GMT 1
Ha! Hoorah. Honour somewhat restored.
Come on now, Fox - what are you really made of?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jul 9, 2018 17:02:43 GMT 1
Ha! Hoorah. Honour somewhat restored. Come on now, Fox - what are you really made of? She and her 'Brexit' plan are now dead in the water
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jul 10, 2018 6:30:59 GMT 1
I'm a bit puzzled about the regulation spaghetti about parts and what-not - there seems to be a lot of contradictory expertise out there. Some say the key factor about whether tariffs apply to parts is the source of origin - more than 40% of the final product, and it's deemed subject to duty. Otherwise, the where the parts are made is irrelevant in any case. Is that right? Or is the BBC talking bullshit yet again? So - the wings of airbus: they can't add up to more than 40% of an airbus or one of those elephant things, can they? The original Airbus deal, IIRC, was close to 50/50 between the UK and France. The bigger the ship, the more "significant" the wings become, and of course Rolls Royce aero engines are not owned by BMW, so it's quite likely that 50% of any future Airbus will indeed be subject to all sorts of political shenanigans. The saving grace (and I don't often get to say this) of EASA is that it isn't part of the EU (it covers the whole geography of Europe from Iceland to Israel), and the UK will remain in EASA for all its faults and incompetence. A fight between EASA and the EU would be like elephants wrestling in treacle.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 10, 2018 14:42:48 GMT 1
I'm a bit puzzled about the regulation spaghetti about parts and what-not - there seems to be a lot of contradictory expertise out there. Some say the key factor about whether tariffs apply to parts is the source of origin - more than 40% of the final product, and it's deemed subject to duty. Otherwise, the where the parts are made is irrelevant in any case. Is that right? Or is the BBC talking bullshit yet again? So - the wings of airbus: they can't add up to more than 40% of an airbus or one of those elephant things, can they? The original Airbus deal, IIRC, was close to 50/50 between the UK and France. The bigger the ship, the more "significant" the wings become, and of course Rolls Royce aero engines are not owned by BMW, so it's quite likely that 50% of any future Airbus will indeed be subject to all sorts of political shenanigans. So we'll charge France 48% tariff, and France will charge us 52%? It makes you wonder how Concorde ever got built. Or we could just say to each other - let's forget this tariff lark, shall we, and get on with some work? Then the respective governments don't get their rentier revenues, I suppose. But then they miss out on other sorts of extortion when Airbus goes out of business because it can't compete on price...This should be on the "Leftwing Economics" thread. This "Galileo" threat is astonishing, isn't it? We should take all our electronics back and build our own, and everything else for that matter - we might even become a leading manufacturing technologically innovative exporting nation again, like we were in the 50s and 60s. I was talking with a director of Kier over the weekend at a family "footy-barby", about the loss of a big chunk of cash over the Glasgow Mackintosh building but mainly about his building of a large stretch of HS2 and the amazing engineering lengths they go to in the building of the new Hinkley Point station. Perhaps needless to say he's vehemently against Brexit, mainly on the grounds of "loss of foreign investment" - but China are funding Hinkley, aren't they, and the govt. HS2, and the new housing sector? Hmmm, yes, but our main problem is in the loss of workers - most of them are Polish and East Europeans, and they're all going home. But we've got nearly a million young unemployed, I said. Yes, but they're not qualified, or they don't want to work. This is the real fundamental reason big business is so against Brexit, and why the EU is so adamant about the free movement "principle". Cheap labour, undermining the power and cost of the home workers in the richer countries by the importing millions of migrants from the accession nations. And then the TUC and Labour has the short-sighted nerve to say the EU is responsible for "workers' rights".
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Jul 10, 2018 15:18:24 GMT 1
I totally agree. I heard that the UK had invested the best part of a billion pounds on this one. Some of the electronics will from time to time need a remote upgrade. Our position should be 'oh dear isn't it working too well? Never mind, you can have two options. We will have a contract to upgrade from time to time. Normal price is three million, but since we can't use what we are fixing that price is now just a wee bit more and we will get back to you as our calculator has run out of numbers. Or of course you can use the brand new all singing UKSAT, at a price'
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 10, 2018 16:02:39 GMT 1
And Australia and New Zealand are building their own, aren't they? There was a time when we used to get on with those forriners quite well, before Europe made us slap high tariffs on their sheep, butter, and beer. Sadly we still got their TV shows, pop singers, and comedians free of charge. (Luckily, the French and Germans don't make them.)
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jul 10, 2018 23:13:24 GMT 1
The "Galileo threat" is, one hopes, bullshit. ICAO, which predates the EU by many years and includes all UN Member States, requires that all civil instrument navigation and landing systems be interoperable to a single common standard. Airborne satnav systems therefore can receive and process signals from any and all civil navigation satellites, so you can take off from A and land safely at the B without meeting your opposite number coming the other way, wherever A and B happpen to be on the planet. Pretty much the same applies to ocean navigation.
The trick is that each nation operates its own satellites to provide whatever cover seems appropriate for its territory. Operating costs are recovered to some extent from airways and landing fees, but primarily from the huge savings compared with ground-based navaids. There is no direct payment for service, nor any practical means of levying a charge for a particular satellite transmission: every receiver works with GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, or whatever else is in view at the time, to position you within 10 m of the runway.
The shambolic progress of the Galileo program reeks of EU political interference and incompetence. Several non-EU states have a stake in the project: any restriction of UK participation in its development will only harm or delay Galileo, and if the EU refuses to sell advanced software licenses to UK commercial "high precision" (+/- 1 cm) customers, you can just buy US/Chinese/Israeli/Norwegian hardware and updates.
I think it was Kropotkin who pointed out that there is no international post office: you buy stamps in the currency of the sender and common sense says the number of packages travelling in or out of the country will be pretty much the same, so the understanding is that everyone will deliver everyone else's letters free of charge. Common sense rules.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 10, 2018 23:56:43 GMT 1
I think the threat is not that we can't use it, but that we won't be allowed to profit from it - either in its future development, all the software spinoffs and the hardware infrastructure, or by sharing in the profits from the sale of its services. These are said to be worth hundreds of billions down the line - probably mainly from robotised road traffic: I imagine that's the dream.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jul 11, 2018 23:23:53 GMT 1
AT the last count, Israel was not a member of the EU, but has made a substantial contribution to Galileo and will presumably reap some reward, so there's a precedent. If the UK is refused any benefit, presumably we will cease to contribute, which will not please the other members who rely on UK cash and technical input to make it work. There are umpteen such collaborative projects which will not benefit from spiteful political interference.
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Jul 13, 2018 13:03:58 GMT 1
AT the last count, Israel was not a member of the EU, but has made a substantial contribution to Galileo and will presumably reap some reward, so there's a precedent. If the UK is refused any benefit, presumably we will cease to contribute, which will not please the other members who rely on UK cash and technical input to make it work. There are umpteen such collaborative projects which will not benefit from spiteful political interference. And there you have the nub of it Alan. Business is quite happy to buy and sell wherever people want to supply or purchase anywhere in the world, with a few exceptions. Scientists and engineers are more than happy to collaborate, but it is the bloody politicians who decide to make things difficult. When tariff barriers get hiked, and customs rules and restrictions that are imposed make life awkward then trade moves to those areas which are easier. Millions of people use Amazon on a daily basis. Why, because they are not necessarily cheaper. They do so because Amazon makes dealing with them a doddle. As for Mr rump, he seems to think that by imposing tariffs he will somehow make America great again. No he won't, he will make America poor again.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 13, 2018 22:14:12 GMT 1
Business is quite happy to buy and sell wherever people want to supply or purchase anywhere in the world, with a few exceptions. Scientists and engineers are more than happy to collaborate, but it is the bloody politicians who decide to make things difficult. When tariff barriers get hiked, and customs rules and restrictions that are imposed make life awkward then trade moves to those areas which are easier. Millions of people use Amazon on a daily basis. Why, because they are not necessarily cheaper. They do so because Amazon makes dealing with them a doddle. As for Mr rump, he seems to think that by imposing tariffs he will somehow make America great again. No he won't, he will make America poor again. JJ - Trump isn't "imposing tariffs". He's mirroring those imposed on the US. It won;t make America poor, it'll restore their competitive edge, and give working people some hope again that they'll be able to find a job.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jul 14, 2018 10:45:59 GMT 1
Trump isn't "imposing tariffs". He's mirroring those imposed on the US. It won;t make America poor, it'll restore their competitive edge, and give working people some hope again that they'll be able to find a job. Like Harley Davidson, who have moved their production out of the USA, perhaps? Good news for the last remaining unemployed Aussie, or perhaps those dreadful Mexicans will go home and make bikes instead of growing America's food.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 14, 2018 17:38:36 GMT 1
Trump isn't "imposing tariffs". He's mirroring those imposed on the US. It won;t make America poor, it'll restore their competitive edge, and give working people some hope again that they'll be able to find a job. Like Harley Davidson, who have moved their production out of the USA, perhaps? Because of EU tariffs directly targetting them. But hold your horses - let's see if it happens. And if it does, let's see how long that lasts after Trump hits them with his outsourcing tax. For every Harley Davidson worker, there'll be dozens of new American workers finding their jobs restored in the newly reopened steel and aluminium mills. And news flash: Mexican agricultural workers are not illegal immigrants, they've been doing that job for decades. The "dreadful Mexicans" he wants to go home are the ones clogging up American prisons - well over half of male illegal immigrants end up convicted felons - and so clogging up the court system that just that cost alone has technically bankrupt three States. We're talking drugs, rapes, murders, child sex trafficking.
|
|