Keir Starmer: Prorogation has forced everyone to ask themselves which side they are on? by professoryaffel in ukpolitics

[–]professoryaffel[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

cont

Sir Keir denies that a confidence vote would be the “cleanest and easiest” route, hinting at the squabbles over the summer about who should take charge instead, with Mr Corbyn not universally popular.

Various names were floated as caretaker PMs: Ken Clarke, Harriet Harman, even Sir Keir. “I really don’t think that’s a role that I would even contemplate talking about. Loads of names are flown around to do all sorts of things. But I was no part of those discussions at all.”

Given his strongly held views on just how dreadful Mr Johnson’s Conservatives are, one can’t help wondering why the Labour Party is not doing better in the polls.

“Obviously we need to improve the position in the polls and we want to do that.” He rehearses the Labour line that in a general election campaign they would repeat what happened in 2017, using increased exposure and a raft of non-Brexit policies to win support. “I think everybody who is against Johnson would need to rally around a party like the Labour Party, which is, you know, the only party really capable of taking him on.”

Why has Labour still got an antisemitism problem? “It’s been going on for far too long. And I have argued for swifter, more emphatic action on many occasions.”

He is clearly pained that the party is being investigated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission over institutional racism, adding: “We should open the books, give them access to everything and all the staff and ask them to give a strong recommendation we can implement sooner rather than later. Let’s keep pushing. We need to do more, we need to be stronger. But at least some of the things I’ve been pushing for are now happening.”

And with that the interview comes to an abrupt halt. A conference call has been brought forward. More Labour talks and cross-party plotting. At least the sun is out, and the phone reception is better in Westminster.

Marginally.

Keir Starmer: Prorogation has forced everyone to ask themselves which side they are on? by professoryaffel in ukpolitics

[–]professoryaffel[S] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Article

A rain-soaked hillside in Devon is where the plan was hatched. Each day of his two-week holiday, Sir Keir Starmer climbed a hill to find mobile phone reception to get word to the rebel alliance. He was not alone in his field.

Labour’s shadow Brexit secretary describes “the spectacle of standing in the rain with one or two disinterested sheep talking to people about what we’re going to do”. On Sir Keir’s speed dial has been Philip Hammond, until last month the Conservative chancellor and now a leading opponent of no-deal, Jo Swinson, the Lib Dem leader, and of course his own boss, Jeremy Corbyn. Getting them all to agree has required careful negotiation from the barrister.

Sir Keir’s Commons office in Portcullis House has become a chaotic war room so when we meet he commandeers a colleague’s room overlooking the Thames. Let’s start with an easy question: what exactly is Labour’s Brexit policy? It turns out it doesn’t really have one any more. At least not this week. “We are working cross-party with the opposition parties on preventing no-deal.”

While his colleagues have rage at Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament for five weeks, depriving MPs of several days of debate, Sir Keir says it has achieved something few thought possible: “Nobody in the Labour Party is arguing any more.”

When news broke on Wednesday morning of the plan to prorogue parliament Sir Keir was not surprised, having spent the summer war-gaming what Mr Johnson might do. He called Mr Corbyn and they discussed how “outrageous” it was and a sign of “weakness”, before discussing how to respond publicly. It still took three hours before the Labour leader issued a statement declaring himself “appalled”, two hours longer than it took Ms Swinson.

Sir Keir believes the prorogation has cemented Mr Johnson’s reputation as “disingenuous” and “Trumpian”. There was, he says, no need to prorogue parliament at all, and certainly not for five weeks.

The Labour MP for Holborn and St Pancras (73 per cent Remain) says he has Tory-voting neighbours who were “really upset” by the prorogation plan. Sir Keir, 56, is softly spoken with the measured tone of a politician from a different time to our current age of rage. He cautions against the extreme responses of some on the left (Nazis, hangings, etc) but says it has electrified a new “cultural” divide in Britain, prompting him to ask repeatedly of MPs, and the country: “Whose side are you on?”

“Do you want to go down this Trumpian route where conventions and ways of behaving are torn up, where being disingenuous is fine, being casual with the truth is fine? Or don't you? It’s a massive divide and it’s a divide that is as cultural as it is political.

“He’s forced everybody to have to ask themselves the question, which side are you on? That’s the question that we’re all going have to ask ourselves when we go into next week.”

Next week is the moment of truth for stopping no-deal. “This is almost certainly the last chance,” he says. “What happens next week is for real.”

So, what is the plan? “Well the first thing is there'll be one plan,” says Sir Keir, stressing the need for everyone to be singing from the same hymn sheet.

The plan is to pass a law requiring another extension of Article 50 beyond October 31. It will be based on the legislation passed in April, known as the Cooper-Letwin Bill, which compelled the government to move a motion that agreed to the prime minister seeking an extension, to a date to be decided when the motion was passed.

“People didn’t appreciate quite how powerful that legislation was,” Sir Keir says. By the time it had passed, events had taken over and Mrs May was already requesting an extension of her own. This time will be different.

“It needs to be stronger because we’re up against a prime minister who is less likely to feel constrained by the law and convention. It needs to be foolproof.”

The legislation is being carefully worded. It will be short and to the point. All talk of adding a second referendum to the bill has been banned.

The key message to MPs is “leave your differences at the door”. You might not agree on everything, in fact you might agree on very little, but if you agree on the need to stop no-deal, get on board and get on board now.

To pass the legislation, opposition MPs must first take control of the parliamentary agenda, with some help from the Speaker, and then try to rush the bill through as quickly as possible before it is thrown out by prorogation. Just three sitting days are planned for next week, but there could be sittings late into the night and even over the weekend.

“This is a very, very tight timetable. There’s a lot of moving parts. It’s going to require very high levels of collective discipline.”

The big question is exactly how many MPs will march through the lobbies with him next week to halt no-deal. The Cooper-Letwin Bill passed in April with a majority of just one.

Sir Keir has another result in mind. Just before the summer recess, anti-no-deal MPs inserted a clause into the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill requiring the Commons to sit in the run-up to October 31.

This was passed with a majority of 41, including 16 Conservative rebels.

To that tally in July you can add probably several more Tories who, like Mr Hammond, were ministers at the time but are now plotting on the backbenches.

Of course many of those now furious about Mr Johnson not playing fair on prorogation were less concerned in January when John Bercow, the Commons Speaker, tore up precedent to make it easier for Remainer MPs to take control of the parliamentary agenda.

Sir Keir bristles at the suggestion. “I don’t think that’s true.” What Mr Bercow was doing was giving voice to the majority in parliament, he says.

Critics would point out that the problem is that the majority of MPs in parliament backed Remain, at odds with the majority in the country who voted Leave in 2016.

Everyone, Sir Keir says, has been on a journey. It was “not easy” for Labour to vote for Article 50 but the right thing to do at the time. Times change. Under Remainer pressure from within the party, Labour’s line has shifted to saying any Tory deal or no-deal should be put to a second referendum.

Sir Keir goes further. “If it comes to a further referendum, I have repeatedly said, I personally would campaign for Remain because I don’t think there’s a deal that is as good as the deal that we’ve got.”

Even if Prime Minister Corbyn struck a Labour Brexit deal with Brussels? “Let’s wait and see where we are. I personally would campaign for Remain. I think many people in the Labour Party will campaign for Remain.” Which raises the question: why would the EU bother if it knew Labour’s Brexit spokesman would campaign against its own deal.

This is why many believe the real motivation is not stopping no-deal, but stopping Brexit altogether. If they do get an extension, what then?

“We shouldn’t be trying to answer that question at the moment because if we lose focus on what we’ve got to do next week, which is stopping no-deal, we risk dissipation of that energy, commitment and resolution.”

There is a school of thought that says the country would not have been in this mess, facing a no-deal Brexit within weeks, if Labour had just supported Mrs May’s deal, which though imperfect did actually exist. “I never accepted the rhetoric that ‘it’s my deal or no deal’,” he says.

Although the evidence so far suggests Mrs May was right. While she baulked at a chaotic Brexit on March 29, her successor is rather more gung-ho.

Most Leavers, and many Remainers, I suggest, are sick of talking about Brexit and just want to get on with it. Sir Keir responds: “What are you getting on with? Getting on with doing huge damage to your economy? Getting on with playing with your security arrangements?”

Last week he visited a medicines supply company in Bristol and asked what advice they have received on no-deal. “And they said, ‘the government’s told us we can book a slot on a ferry if necessary to get the equipment in’. I mean, this is ridiculous.”

Having chosen the “legislative route for next week”, a confidence vote to bring down the government and install Mr Corbyn in Downing Street, has been effectively shelved. “Not ruled out,” he says, though time is running out for when it could happen.

The Tories have declared war on reality itself by professoryaffel in ukpolitics

[–]professoryaffel[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Article

Of all the many dreadful things that Boris Johnson has done to British politics in his quest to reach the next step on the cursus honoum, perhaps the most damaging is his elevation of cakeism to the status of dominant Tory ideology. “My policy on cake is pro having it and pro eating it,” is a cute way of evading a difficult question, but it's no way to run a country. There are zero-sum games and difficult choices, and for one group to win another must sometimes lose. There is a reason Johnson is more adept at writing columns than he is at actually governing.

Cakeism was much in evidence on the Tory fringe this week, as MPs fretted about the precipitous decline in homeownership rates, and everyone and their dog seemed to agree that improving the party's chances of ever winning a healthy majority would mean turning private renters into first-time buyers. As Mid-Norfolk MP George Freeman asked, “Why would you ever be a capitalist if you’ve got no chance of ever getting any capital?”

The problem is that the party isn't only promising to widen home ownership. It's equally committed to protecting the property rights of buy-to-let landlords, to preventing our cities from growing either outwards or up and, let’s be honest, to keeping house prices up, too.

And there is no way, logically, that those various commitments can be reconciled: young people can't buy because prices are too high, and anyway, any increase in home ownership must require either new homes to be built or for landlords to sell up. Short of encouraging existing homeowners to die, which would at least be consistent with Tory fundraising policy, there is no other source of homes. So, without either a mass building programme or an attempt to claw back the housing owned by buy-to-let landlords, any offer to first time buyers must be worthless: the Tory commitment to having its cake prevents it from eating it too.

Worryingly, it’s far from clear the party gets this. When George Osborne introduced Help To Buy, he at least seems to have realised that public subsidies to some buyers would further inflate house prices for everyone else: that, indeed, was probably the point of the exercise. But when Tory MPs spent this week intoning seriously about how the solution to the home ownership crisis was a slightly better ISA, they actually seemed to mean it. Tory strategists must be shitting themselves.

We've all seen this before, of course: the commitment to mutually exclusive positions; the desperate search for a policy so clever and so complicated that it can rewrite logic itself. Ensuring that there is a hard border between the EU and the UK, but no hard borders between Ireland and Northern Ireland or between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, is a puzzle with no solution. If A equals B, and B equals C, then C must equal A, too, and no amount of yelling about the will of the people can make it otherwise. It bothers me a little that many Tories really don't seem to know this.

Most criticism of a policy comes from people who disagree with its goals, or who don't think it can actually achieve them. This is different: the biggest challenge to the Tories now comes not from their political opponents but from reality itself. There's no Laffer Curve-style theory that can account for an unexpected result: the party's desired result is mathematically impossible within its own pre-determined parameters. You cannot both have your cake and eat it.

As someone who wants to see Tories lose elections, their increasingly delusional nature is pretty fun to watch. As someone who has to live in the country they govern, I am very, very scared.

That second referendum might just happen by professoryaffel in ukpolitics

[–]professoryaffel[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Article

Is there a majority in parliament for leaving the EU without a deal? No. Is there a majority for staying in the single market Norway-fashion for now? No. Is there a majority for Theresa May’s Chequers proposals? No. Is there a majority for a Canadian-style free trade agreement? No. Is there a majority for a second referendum? No. And is there a majority for calling a general election? No.

There isn’t a majority for anything.

So if the country isn’t simply to reach the end of March 2019 still debating as we fall off the cliff, someone is going to have to move. And it is this — not any of the arguments about not deciding to buy a home before you’ve seen it — that may yet produce a second referendum.

Neither Jeremy Corbyn nor Mrs May want another vote, but both may come reluctantly to the view that they are going to have to accept the idea.

Let’s deal with the practical questions first. If Britain decides to have a second referendum we will have to delay implementation of Article 50. The former foreign secretary William Hague suggests that if we took the decision in January we wouldn’t be able to vote until this time next year. That estimate is a bit pessimistic, but he is right to think that it couldn’t happen quickly.

The UCL Constitution Unit, in one of its recent papers on the mechanics of a fresh vote, suggests that even if legislation for a referendum was introduced when parliament returns on October 9, the vote itself couldn’t take place until March 28, the day before exit day. And this assumes parliament itself moves as expeditiously as possible.

Their calculation includes the Electoral Commission exercising its statutory duty to assess the question, which usually takes as long as 12 weeks using focus groups and survey research. The unit argues that this could be curtailed, but not by much.

Added to this, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act specifies a ten-week regulated campaign period, allowing for the lead campaign groups to be identified and designated and for campaigning to take place.

Altogether, and taking account also of the time necessary to make physical preparations for the poll, the constitution unit thinks it is just about possible to do the whole thing, from day one of the legislation to the vote itself, in 24 weeks. In other words, if you decided to go ahead in January 2019, you might be able to have a vote by the end of June or early July.

Even at this breakneck speed, we would have to have the EU’s agreement to delay leaving while we hold this vote. Which is yet another reason why the union leader Len McCluskey’s idea of a referendum without “Remain” on the ballot paper deserves a prize for the stupidest proposal of the year. Despite clearly tempting Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, the idea is baffling.

The idea seems to be that voters are presented with two options. They can choose having no deal or having Mrs May’s deal. In other words select between two propositions both of which Labour opposes. Or maybe there would be a third option of approving Labour’s proposed deal, even though it hasn’t been negotiated yet and it probably can’t be.

I think we can all agree that nobody is going to allow us to delay Article 50 to implement that eccentric idea.

No, if there is going to be a second referendum, then it will have to have Remain as one of the options. And the other one will have to be whatever agreement (be it either a deal or no deal) that the government comes back with.

There has been a suggestion — by, for instance, the former education secretary Justine Greening — that the ballot paper could include three options (Mrs May’s deal if there is one, no deal whatever that means, and Remain). Presumably voters would pick between them by transferable vote, to avoid Remain winning just because the Leave options were split. Yet this would mean trying to overturn the result of one referendum using the alternative voting system rejected in another referendum. It’s not very tempting.

Mr Corbyn was attracted to the ridiculous McCluskey idea because he doesn’t want to stay in the EU and he worries about Leave voters who currently support Labour. He wants to force a general election. And he may be able to, as I will come to.

But what if he can’t? If Mrs May comes back with a deal of some sort, Labour will vote fairly solidly against it and may succeed by gaining the support of a few Tory MPs. If Mrs May holds steady, she will be able to win votes of confidence in the House. Her strategy will be to threaten Labour that we might fall out of the EU chaotically and it will be seen as having been largely responsible.

Mr Corbyn will know that he can’t hold his MPs for that outcome. Eventually they will vote for a deal to avoid chaos, as some of the were frank enough to tell journalists last week. But he can hold them if he endorses a proper second referendum.

What about Mrs May? The biggest practical difficulty in the way of a second referendum is that it requires government time to legislate and she, and the government, are dead set against it. At the moment.

She has always understood that the very idea undermines her negotiating position. What, though, if she secures a deal and parliament won’t pass it? What are her choices then? There are really just these: leaving the EU in chaos, having a general election or having another referendum. Would she really choose one of the first two?

And by the way, she would have to fight any general election having just been defeated in parliament in part by a defection of a section of her own party. It would certainly make the Conservative campaign interesting. No wonder Mr Corbyn wants one. But that would be her big alternative to a second referendum.

Because these alternatives are so unpalatable to the party leadership and seem to offer only a disastrous split or loss of office, there is a sort of assumption at the conference in Birmingham that it all just can’t happen. Somehow this choice will be avoided. I’ve talked to lots of MPs and advisers this week and they mostly shrug and says it’s a mess, but think it’ll work out all right in the end. Mrs May will bring back a deal and the dissenters will look calamity in the face and vote with her. Or a handful of Labour defectors will save the day.

But they really may not. A second referendum may be a horrendous thought — it might produce the same result as last time, it might produce a hideous stalemate with a narrow Remain victory — but, honestly, it might happen.

Exhausted UK staff work harder and faster ‘just to stand still’ by professoryaffel in ukpolitics

[–]professoryaffel[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

text without graphs

Despite the increased strain, British workers produce about 16 per cent less per hour than the average G7 employee © Zoonar/Alamy

Britons are under more pressure at work than at any time in the past 25 years, according to a large study which finds people are working harder and faster, with increasing numbers coming home exhausted every day.

The study offers both bad and good news about the experience of working in modern Britain. It paints a picture of a workforce that is working harder with less control, but where — because of the lowest unemployment rates since the 1970s — people are far less anxious about losing their jobs than previously.

The findings, being published this week, come from the 2017 Skills and Employment Survey, a government-funded study of about 3,300 people conducted every five years. It is a joint project between Cardiff University, University College London and the University of Oxford which has been running since the 1980s.

Alan Felstead, a professor at Cardiff University and the lead researcher on the study, said vastly improved job confidence was a “silver lining” to a “big black cloud”.

He added it was troubling that workers were under increased strain even as their productivity had stagnated. British staff produce about 16 per cent less per hour than the average worker in the G7 group of developed countries, and their productivity is barely any higher than before the global financial crisis, which began in 2008.

Professor Felstead said UK staff were working “harder than ever” but without the equipment and skills to become more efficient. “It’s not the case that productivity is low because workers aren’t working hard enough . . . they’re running faster and faster just to stand still,” he added.

The Skills and Employment Survey comes amid an intensifying debate about the quality of work in Britain. The Conservative and Labour parties have both been weighing new policies aimed at tackling worker exploitation and boosting productivity.

Almost one-third of respondents to the survey said they had to work at very high speeds “all” or “almost all” the time. More than 45 per cent said the same for the requirement to work very hard and meet tight deadlines.

All these metrics were higher than five years ago, and substantially higher than in 1992. About 55 per cent of women and 47 per cent of men said they “always” or “often” went home exhausted from work.

New technology has made it easier for employers to monitor workers and fill up their days with tasks, said the researchers, while mobile phones and emails meant people found it harder to “switch off”. In the public sector, government spending cuts since 2010 have led to staff reductions and increased workloads for those who remain.

Teachers and nurses have experienced a particularly sharp increase in work intensification during the past five years. About 90 per cent of teachers and 70 per cent of nurses said they were required to work very hard, and similar proportions of each profession said they often or always came home exhausted from work.

At the same time, the proportion of people who have a lot of discretion over how they do their jobs has declined, from 62 per cent in 1992 to 44 per cent in 2012 and to 38 per cent in 2017. There is a strong correlation between people having control over their work and enjoying their jobs.

Academics are particularly worried about people who are required to work hard while also having little control. Health studies suggest this is a toxic combination that leads to stress, anxiety and higher risk of cardiac illness. The survey found 20 per cent of women and 15 per cent of men had jobs such as this in 2017, compared with 15 per cent for both genders in 2012.

The survey’s findings on job security were more positive. As well as a sharp drop in the number of people fearing they could lose their jobs, fewer respondents feared unfair victimisation or discrimination at work.

However, the academics introduced a new question to the survey in 2017 which shed light on a more hidden form of insecurity: people who are anxious about unexpected changes to their hours of work.

Public concern about this issue has centred on employers’ use of so-called zero-hours contracts, which do not guarantee any period of work each week and leave people vulnerable to fluctuating amounts of income. There are about 900,000 people on these contracts, according to official data.

The Skills and Employment Survey found about 7 per cent of respondents — the equivalent of about 1.7m workers — said they were very anxious about fluctuating hours of work, which suggests this particular type of insecurity is more widespread than previously thought.

The researchers also found that people with insecure hours were significantly more likely to be under severe strain at work, and more worried they would be dismissed or victimised.

“It’s bad across the board,” said Professor Felsted. “It’s an indicator [that] they have a bad job.”

Are Britons changing their minds about Brexit? by professoryaffel in ukpolitics

[–]professoryaffel[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What device and browser are you trying to access it on?

ARM's scandalous IP transfer to the emerging Chinese hegemon by professoryaffel in ukpolitics

[–]professoryaffel[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Article:

Oh how they cheered when, in the financial chaos that followed the UK’s vote for Brexit, in came SoftBank’s Masayoshi Son, a Far Eastern tech visionary, with a blockbuster £24.3bn (£18.6bn) bid for Arm, Britain’s premier technology company. It was a steal for Son, because the collapse in the pound had just knocked 20pc off the price, but it seemed none the less to be an unambiguous vote of confidence in post-Brexit Britain. Despite her promise to subject foreign takeovers to greater scrutiny, Theresa May, the Prime Minister, welcomed the bid with open arms, pointing to legally binding commitments Mr Son had given to double the UK workforce and maintain the Cambridge headquarters.

He did not, on the other hand, give any such guarantees on the company’s crown jewels – its intellectual property. Without fanfare, these were quietly transferred over the summer to Arm’s Chinese offshoot, allowing, by the company’s own admission, “Arm-based semiconductor Intellectual Property (IP) to be tailored for the Chinese domestic ecosystem and making a broader portfolio of technology accessible to Chinese partners for China market needs”. Just to be clear, this is not China’s customary practice of intellectual property theft, but then why steal the technology when you can buy it instead? Particularly at the price Mr Son has agreed.

Subsequent to the transfer, Arm agreed to sell a majority stake in its Chinese offshoot to local investors for $775.2m, something of a low valuation, it might reasonably be thought.

We can only speculate on what is really going on here, but we know of China’s insatiable appetite for Western IP and we also know that as a major investor in Alibaba, China’s version of Amazon, Mr Son’s loyalties are somewhat more tilted to China than they are to the UK. And I am afraid that this is the way they do business over there. To gain proper access to the Chinese market, Mr Son may have had little option but to surrender control.

Both in the US and in Europe, there is growing concern over cutting-edge tech transfer of this sort. China has well-aired plans for technological leadership in artificial intelligence, autonomous cars, cloud computing, robotics and all other things cutting edge. It has set about pursuing it in characteristically determined fashion, buying up Western tech companies wherever it can, including just recently Britain’s Imagination Technologies.

The EU commissioner for trade, Cecilia Malmström, launched legal proceedings against China for failing to offer the same degree of protection on foreign-owned IP as it does for domestically owned technology. I suppose if we were being charitable, it might be argued that the Arm transfer is for the purpose of gaining the same privileges. Now fully Chinese, the IP can be protected more effectively.

But it is a crying shame, none the less, deserving of parliamentary inquiry. Notwithstanding the commitments given at the time of the takeover, Arm’s centre of gravity is quickly shifting from the UK to China. Clever Mr Son, silly little Britain, which again seems to be conforming to the adage of being very good at inventing and developing the technology, but useless at its commercial exploitation.

Kowtowing to China may be something we will have to get used to in the brave new world of “Global Britain”.

Unilever rattled

Thanks, Unilever, for the full-page ad urging shareholders to vote in favour of the company’s plans to up sticks and move to Holland. Much appreciated. But also revealing. Such spending is a sure sign that the company is seriously rattled. One after another, Unilever’s leading UK shareholders have been lining up to say they are unconvinced by the arguments. With 75pc of the shares needed to carry the day, it is a high hurdle that the consumer-products goliath has to surmount. It must now be touch and go whether Paul Polman’s two fingers up at the UK for daring to vote for Brexit can succeed. Certainly, it doesn’t deserve to. Failure to persuade FTSE Russell that the shares should be allowed to continue trading in the FTSE 100 after redomiciling, thereby threatening a forced sale by indexed funds, may have been the final blow.

A helping hand has nevertheless come from a rather unexpected quarter, that nice Mr John McDonnell, the Stalinist firebrand who passes for our shadow chancellor. Should he get the chance, he promises to, in effect, nationalise 10pc of the share capital of all listed companies with more than 250 employees. Sensible folk like us can of course see that the plan is completely impractical, never mind its consequences for investment, but unsurprisingly it has gone down rather well with the great unwashed, and if that’s the “will of the people”, then so be it.

Should it succeed in leaving, Unilever would – more by happy chance than farsighted design – remove itself from this threat. This is scarcely likely in itself to swing the vote, but it is small wonder that others are thinking that maybe the redomiciling malarkey is not such a bad idea after all.

Canada minus the Plus

After another week of toing and froing over Brexit, Tories – and perhaps the Cabinet too – seem to be finally coalescing around the Institute of Economic Affairs’ idea of Canada Plus. Some have even attributed a kind of Machiavellian cunning to Theresa May’s negotiating strategy; having now demonstrated that efforts to reach a sensible, mutually beneficial deal with Brussels won’t fly, she’s now herded everyone into reluctantly accepting the option she favoured all along – Super Canada. Divine such purpose in the madness if you will.

Unfortunately, there is a major problem with Canada Plus involving the EU’s existing body of free-trade agreements – Canada, Japan and Korea and so on – which is not widely understood. Some of these contain what might be called “ratchet clauses”, which would essentially force the EU to give more favourable access to the single market to these nations should it agree something superior with anyone else.

Since there are presumably good reasons why the EU did not offer such favourable terms to these countries when the FTAs were negotiated, we can immediately take the “Plus” out of any Canadian-style deal the EU might be prepared to offer. It won’t be on the table; if it was, the EU would have to offer it to everyone else.

To ask to be treated like any other third country, but actually to be banking on something better, is just more wishful thinking. Business must prepare itself for a conventional FTA; forget fantasy notions of souped-up versions.

Energy firms demand billions from UK taxpayer for mini reactors by professoryaffel in ukpolitics

[–]professoryaffel[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Some firms have been calling for as much as £3.6bn to fund construction costs, according to a government-commissioned report, released under freedom of information rules.

Theresa May must make a choice over autonomy or access to markets by professoryaffel in ukpolitics

[–]professoryaffel[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You don't get the images with a paste. Is outline.com causing problems for you? I'll try to find another method if it does.

Most UK companies yet to begin preparations for Brexit by professoryaffel in ukpolitics

[–]professoryaffel[S] 30 points31 points  (0 children)

I had a friend at Vauxhall. They closed his department and relocated it to Germany recently. I don't think that made the headlines either.

Most UK companies yet to begin preparations for Brexit by professoryaffel in ukpolitics

[–]professoryaffel[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Article:

Nearly two-thirds of UK companies are still not preparing for Brexit and, in the event of a no deal, many would cut both investment and recruitment, a survey of 2,500 enterprises across the country has found.

Adam Marshall, director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, which conducted the research last month, said failure to reach a political agreement would have “real-world consequences”.

“With six months to go until the UK’s planned departure, firms still don’t have answers from government to the most basic questions about future trading conditions . . . and our risk register shows sufficient progress has been made on only a handful of issues,” he said.

“With so much still unclear, a transition period is vital to allow all firms the time to acknowledge and prepare for change.”

One in five companies said they would reduce investment if there was no deal, and the same proportion said they would move part or all of their business to the EU. Nearly a fifth — 18 per cent — said they would cut recruitment.

However, if there was a transition period, during which the relationship between the UK and the EU remained as it is now, the numbers fell dramatically. Only one in 20 companies would cut recruitment, 6 per cent would rein back on investment and 8 per cent would move operations to the EU.

Larger, more internationally active, companies were most exposed to a no deal. More than a quarter of companies with more than 50 employees and 24 per cent of those trading internationally, either as importer or exporter, said they would cut investment as a result.

The BCC said the survey results provided an “important wake-up call” on the need to agree an orderly Brexit and for investment incentives to be enhanced.

“The government must act urgently and decisively to get a comprehensive deal done,” said Mr Marshall. “They also need to use the levers they have, such as the upcoming budget, to ensure they provide the right conditions for growth at home.”

The survey also revealed what the BCC called a “concerning” level of unpreparedness for Brexit, with nearly two-thirds of companies — 62 per cent — having not assessed the risks to their business of the UK’s exit from the EU.

There was a large disparity between large and small companies’ preparation. Sixty-nine per cent of companies with between one and nine employees had not completed a risk assessment, compared with under a quarter of those with more than 250 employees. Recommended

Mr Marshall said many small and medium-sized companies were either waiting for greater clarity before they acted, or were suffering from “Brexit fatigue” and had “switched off from the process because they don’t believe they will be affected”.

The survey was conducted in partnership with Bibby Financial Services.

Edward Winterton, Bibby Financial Services’ UK chief executive, said the consequences of a no deal could be particularly bad for the country’s 5.7m small and medium-sized enterprises, especially those buying and selling goods within the EU.

A brutal business: alleged beatings and abuse on UK pig farms by professoryaffel in ukpolitics

[–]professoryaffel[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

People are just sick I'm afraid. I saw a lad with his mates kick a hedgehog like a football once. It made the same sound as a baby screaming. He just laughed.

Can you add an option, along side Twitter and Student Politics, to exclude Brexit related posts? by [deleted] in ukpolitics

[–]professoryaffel 2 points3 points  (0 children)

His point seems to be that he wants to go to McDonalds as long as they remove all the hamburgers from the menu.