Prorogation of Parliament.

[jim_l]

In some cases, you exactly echo my points, raise taxes on the wealthy, they move, raise taxes on Corporations, they move, put wages up, they make it somewhere else. My point is - the four freedoms have made it much easier for them to do that, on our doorstep, and corporations and the rich have taken it to the extreme.

 

Corbyn himself at the conference raised the point that the percentage of GDP that people take home in wages has dropped (from 64% to 54% I think were the numbers he used) The timing of that coincided with membership of the EU, and it has happened at the same time in Germany , France, Italy et al.   The real issue - there are 10 countries on our doorstep with a minimum wage of less than €500 a month, no borders no tariffs, if we raise wages they move (a la JLR in Slovakia, minimum wage of €500 a month)

 

So – low wages mean they can make more profit, which is good, as you say, if they invest in improving processes, or they contribute to the economy, but,

 

The tax havens are now on our doorstep, with freedom to move the money, no borders.  So, a company making  money on the scale Apple makes, takes ALL of its EU revenue to Dublin in a sweet tax deal (which is still legal in the EU, the EU are only disputing how much tax was paid, not where it was paid), Similar with Amazon in Luxembourg.

 

In fact, since you mentioned Nissan, let’s look. They were subsidised to the tune of £100 million by the government to come here, but they don't sell a single car in the EU, ownership of every car, and therefore the profit they make, is 'transferred on paper' to Switzerland, which gives them access to the single market, and extremely preferential corporation tax. Note that Toyota and Honda are heading back to Japan now the EU and Japan have struck a trade deal too!

 

So - It still goes on but it's nowhere near as bad, you think?

 

Has the profit been applied to improved productivity? No, it is well known to have gone backwards, because the investment in automation isn't needed when you have a huge supply of cheap labour on your doorstep.

 

Don’t you see? the whole scheme is one of legalised national extortion, where the wages they pay create huge profits but leave the government subsidising the workforce. They then take the profits elsewhere and pay little or no tax on them (Apple’s effective tax rate in Dublin was 0.005%, though the EU are challenging that) All perfectly legal under EU law)

 

The real truth, Profit has gone directly into pockets, as is evidenced by the rapidly accelerating rich/poor divide.  Most of us remember the time when a single wage earner could keep a family, now, in a family with 2 kids and both partners working full time they often need approaching £1000 a month in universal credit. 

 

The net effect is a bankrupt country, £2trillion in debt, with a huge and rising trade deficit with the EU (£65bn? pa) that can’t afford to do the basics for those in need.

 

When we had borders, we could use tariffs and quotas to balance our trade and provide some protection for our workforce.  Note that since 2012 there has been a fivefold increase in our trade surplus with the rest of the world, from £8bn to £39bn.

 

So finally, the Chinese, hmmm, they are a dictatorship, have become the manufacturing hub of the world, (much at the expense of our workforce) by breaking every WTO rule, ignoring intellectual property rights, AND they are known to have concentration camps, strange kind of 'improvement' if you ask me. 

 

So I am firmly a free market man, but governments have to have the power and the tools to stop greed getting out of hand. The EU has created the framework for the most rampant unethical capitalism we have seen, as I said, a rule free form of national extortion,

 

Nothing got better in the last 40 years Blatters, we are heading back to Victorian times.

 

I firmly believe there is massive scope to a) increase wages (which itself costs less in benefits and raises more tax) b) Tax corporations more (or at least something!) and c) leave plenty of profit motive.  What that requires is borders, a set of rules that works, tariffs if necessary, and quotas.

 

In fact, if the EU would make an effective wage and tax policy that prevented the madness that bankrupts countries while individuals accumulate more wealth than countries,  I’d be happy to stay in.

 

Jim

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DonPeffers]

15 hours ago, Blatman said:

 

Lets ask this question. Since the Chinese opened up to western trade has their human rights record improved, stayed the same or got worse? I would argue that it has improved. 

Ask the Uighurs in China.   MARCH 13, 2019  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-xinjiang-rights/1.5-million-muslims-could-be-detained-in-chinas-xinjiang-academic-idUSKCN1QU2MQ

 

Is there a great 'trickle down' financial benefit to nearly a million UK workers on insecure income through zero hours contracts?  .."principles don't put food on the table"  ...the food bank does that!

 

Amazon and Jeff Bezos doing pretty well from low wages and a defective taxation system.  

Mar 7 2018 https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/07/forbes-there-are-a-record-2208-billionaires-in-the-world.html  "There are more billionaires than ever and they are richer than ever too....according to Forbes’ annual ranking of the world’s billionaire.

There are a record 2,208 billionaires in the world, up from 2,043 in 2017, according to Forbes."

 

..." Profit is a good thing despite what the left would have you believe. It allows businesses to re-invest in the latest equipment or processes to improve efficiency or reduce emissions "     seems that VW forgot or possibly put profit or bonuses first.   https://www.dw.com/en/volkswagen-manager-faces-new-probe-over-illegal-bonuses/a-48426251

 

It could be we are nearing the end of rampant capitalism because of huge problems regarding resources, including fresh water, and the environmental degradation of our planet and of course a bugeoning population  https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

[Blatman]

16 hours ago, jim_l said:

In fact, since you mentioned Nissan, let’s look. They were subsidised to the tune of £100 million by the government to come here, but they don't sell a single car in the EU

But the regeneration of the area around the factories, the staff and those who work in the supply chain have all benefited  and pay tax here in the UK and I'll bet that benefit to the economy at large is more than the 100 million in incentives. We often hear that the loss of a couple of thousand jobs at a closing factory leads to far more jobs lost in the supply chain and supporting industries.

 

16 hours ago, jim_l said:

So – low wages mean they can make more profit, which is good, as you say,

No, I said wage control was necessary. Low wages where the employees are taken advantage of or still need to draw benefits are something I question. I am generally i favour of low taxation because it simply put more money in the economy and makes work more attractive for all of us, except the government who have bills to pay just like us so it is a balancing act. I am also in favour of companies being responsible with their profits and balancing re-investment with the requirement to pay taxes in the country in which the income was earned. Either way. whilst Jeff Bezos has earned your ire he is but one of about 3.5 billion people who, given the choice would not volunteer to pay more tax than they can get away with and I'm betting a decent proportion of those 3.5 billion would prefer not to pay tax at all, so it's hardly a unique stance.

 

16 hours ago, jim_l said:

Nothing got better in the last 40 years Blatters, we are heading back to Victorian times.

Nothing has got better? Really?

Victorian times? Really?

I don't mind a bit of hyperbole but for me they're just plain daft. We aren't about to regress 150 years because of Brexit or because the rich exist...

 

Don, the world is not perfect. Those with the capability will do what they can to exploit the system and in some countries their citizens. 1.5 million people, irrespective of their race, colour or creed is abhorrent. But before China opened up the entire population was held captive. I'm not trying to suggest the Chinese are suddenly a shining light but are you really trying to say that since they have embraced capitalism, there has been ZERO benefit for vast swathes of their population? What about the money the Chinese invested in infrastructure in Africa? It got a mention by Clarkson on Top Gear fer gawds sake. I'm not saying this is altruism either but I bet that doesn't matter to the populations who now have roads and running water.

Plus the story says "could be". This is a journalist doing what they are supposed to do, bringing news of an attrocity in the hope of preventing it. Lets see what actually happens.

"Could be" has become my least favourite phrase in the whole brexit debate. Journo's on both sides constantly release stories with "Brexit could cause the loss of millions of pounds for [insert this weeks horror here] or "Brexit could release miliions for [insert this weeks pet cause here]". What happened to reporting facts? I'm afraid that has gone the way of Victorian Britain, along with Rickets, Polio and gas fired street lamps. Journos don't know any facts because no-one KNOWS. It's a giant experiment which is ironic because that  was what we said about getting into the EEC back in the 70's.

 

As for the population, it's not the number of people, it's how they are distributed. Plenty of good maths out there to help with that particular discussion.

 

[jim_l]

21 hours ago, Blatman said:

Name one example where this has worked in any country in the world.

 

It worked in the 80's and 90's in this country, when you could work and keep your family without the need for benefits, and afford to buy a house. Are your children or their children going to get that opportunity?  Not Hyperbole but fact, the next generation are worse off than we were - It got worse!  (the 'Victorian times' quote, when only the rich owned property, every working man or woman was in hock to them for life, that is the direction unless something brings property within the reach of the working class again) 

 

Thatcher did right with Corporation tax, not arguing, she reduced it, they came, it went well.  Some may disagree but she got close with a balance of 'what to take in tax and how to spend it'    The EU, allowing Ireland Luxembourg and Switzerland to attract companies with near zero tax deals - have effectively abolished corporation tax,, leaving the country £2 trillion in debt, Not Hyperbole but fact, It got worse!

 

I like you favour a low tax approach, Employers have done the best job of reducing the tax employees pay, by paying them so little that, instead of being liable for tax they are eligible for benefit - not good. 

 

There are individuals on the planet that have their own space programs, while the people that create the wealth of those very same individuals, work full time but require benefits and food banks to get by - How can that be better ?  

 

You know you are not talking to some kind of lefty here, I'd take Thatcher over anyone on offer now, she put the brakes on the decline of this country and it (I mean we) prospered. That will make me no friends where I live, and in some areas would get my head kicked in.  Corbyn's plans are a nightmare and unrealisable, but in any case where would the money come from, we can barely do what we do now with the funds available to the government? More debt for our kids to pay off?  

 

I think though, you and I agree broadly about how this machine should run, I just happen to think it is 20 years or more out of calibration. The wages cogs are running too slowly, The corporation tax cog has stopped, it is just clicking. The untaxed profits and yields to investors and directors cogs are spinning so fast they are generating heat, glowing. 

 

I believe the Brexit vote was, as much as anything a 'something is wrong, we are not prospering, we are getting poorer, here is an opportunity to change something, let us change it'   I think if the working men and women , in particular in the North East and Midlands, felt that prosperity within the EU was being shared, the outcome would have been very different. 

 

Jim. 

 

BTW I have no issues with Bezos, we need people like him, he has just done what the law allowed him to do, minimise his tax.  I have problems with the 'out of calibration' wages and tax system that allowed that. 

 

Don't be under the illusion that we are talking about a handful of companies doing this, we are talking about every multi-national, and many more,   The next time you hear a company say 'we are moving our headquarters' what they really mean is 'we are setting up an office with 5 people, where ALL of our EU revenue will be assigned for tax purposes' 

[DonPeffers]

18 hours ago, Blatman said:

 Those with the capability will do what they can to exploit the system and in some countries their citizens. 1.5 million people, irrespective of their race, colour or creed is abhorrent. 

Plus the story says "could be". This is a journalist doing what they are supposed to do, bringing news of an attrocity in the hope of preventing it. Lets see what actually happens.

 

The story of Uighur Muslims in China comes from Reuters and NOT a rag newspaper. If you are not satisfied with the impartiality of Reuters then how about   

2 July 2019  https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/china-uighur-muslim-detention-camp-unhrc-xi-jinping-a8983971.html   Headline--"Why is the UN ignoring China’s concentration camps and the fate of 2m people?" and other newspapers have reports as well. The internment has been going on for about 2 years and the journalist isn't reporting in the hope of preventing it,  because it is a fact today.

 

I never have bought from Amazon as not happy with the way workers are run ragged, having seen an undercover program on an order pickers day at work, as well as the tax situation which of course is a Government and HMRC fault.

 

With billions of people to feed, land and water resources being degraded there is already talk of insects becoming a staple food...enjoy.

[Blatman]

16 hours ago, jim_l said:

It worked in the 80's and 90's in this country, when you could work and keep your family without the need for benefits, and afford to buy a house. Are your children or their children going to get that opportunity? 

Ah yes, the 80's when I did what I was supposed to do which was leave school (1979, with 9 O levels) get and get a job as a stock broker(!). That lasted 3 years when I went self employed (not as a stock broker...), bought a pension, opted out of the state pension (now opted back in because of the robbery of the pension system) and generally try and be a good citizen. But then we had two recessions, the early 80's and the early 90's. Suffice to say that despite my best efforts it still took two incomes to buy a house and I had to move 40 miles out of London to be able to afford it. Yes things seem to be a bit worse now but I'm hardly one of the privileged few and from my perspective it's almost the same. Maybe that's why lots of people my age shrug their shoulders. I can't be the only one with this type of experience.

I don't have any family at all apart from parents (one in care, one not, both in their 90's) and a younger brother. 

 

16 hours ago, jim_l said:

There are individuals on the planet that have their own space programs, while the people that create the wealth of those very same individuals, work full time but require benefits and food banks to get by - How can that be better ?

No argument here but the devil is in the detail. Are those on low wages and getting benefits and using food banks skilled workers or are they those who maybe left school early with little preparation for living, and making a living in the real world. I do appreciate these are exactly the people we are trying to lift out of poverty with tax on those of us in work and by levying tax in general. BUT (here's the nuance that I look to in everything) on balance it seems to me there are fewer slums than the late 60's/early 70's, Regeneration takes time and money and when it is government money in the form of grants or full payment, it takes time. I went to London docklands a few weeks ago. Haven't been there since the mid 90's when Canary Wharf was complete and the commercial properties were being populated. I was STAGGERED at just how much it has progressed in the last 20 years. It was amazing because 40 years ago it was mostly poverty and dereliction. But it's taken 40 years. In these days of instant gratification (and I am as guilty of slipping into that as anyone and I'm well over 50...) I think many people think these things should happen more quickly than they do. We all want them yesterday. Sadly we can't have them until the day after tomorrow. We all want them to be fair and equal but that just isn't possible either. The cost of democracy and freedom is that things can't always be fair to everyone all the time. But I still believe things are generally improving.

 

16 hours ago, jim_l said:

I think though, you and I agree broadly about how this machine should run, I just happen to think it is 20 years or more out of calibration.

There's no doubt we broadly agree. I'm a big thatcher fan and have said many times before that in 50 years time historians will view her as one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century.

I think the country, if not the world has always been 20 years out of calibration. Progress on a scale of a country is slow.

 

16 hours ago, jim_l said:

Don't be under the illusion that we are talking about a handful of companies doing this, we are talking about every multi-national, and many more,

I know one instance where a >50 employee company has an off-shore head office. It's not illegal as mentioned but I look at it like this. Saving that cash allows them to employ more staff and spend more money on "things" in the country in which they actually operate. The money is not lost and it is not going to directors dividends or bonuses. It's in the economy. It is just being distributed differently as VAT or income tax or business rates etc, rather than corporation tax This is not a bad thing despite the tabloids frothing at the mouth looking for todays headline by which they may sell more papers in order to mis-educate the masses.

[Blatman]

12 minutes ago, DonPeffers said:

The story of Uighur Muslims in China comes from Reuters and NOT a rag newspaper.

Never said it was a rag reporting this. That's you re-interpreting.

 

I saw a Tomorrows World piece about insects as food back in the 70's. It's a big so what. And having eaten my share of insects on my travels it doesn't bother me. They are easy to breed, are already in HUGE supply, not in danger of incurring the wrath of those who campaign for animal rights (weird to me though. Surely insects have rights too. It's the vegan backlash I worry about...) and have been proved to be a good source or protein. Insects or Quorn (Quorn is vegan friendly) could well be the answer to feeding the world and reducing greenhouse gasses that are accelerating climate change. Bring it on. 

 

And as I said, the action is abhorrent but the Chinese have come a long way since the days of Mao who staved MILLIONS of his own population to death. That doesn't happen now. 2 million (up from 1.5 million since yesterday I note...) is still 2 million too many but it is an improvement over TENS of millions just 20 or 30 years ago.

It's not like I agree with this treatment of people. My point was that the general feeling is that things are not improving. They are, but we have a long, long way to go. 

[DonPeffers]

13 minutes ago, Blatman said:

Never said it was a rag reporting this. That's you re-interpreting.

 

18 hours ago, Blatman said:

 

Plus the story says "could be". This is a journalist doing what they are supposed to do, bringing news of an attrocity in the hope of preventing it. Lets see what actually happens.

 

 

Reuters article dated 13 March 2019 and The Independent article is dated 02 July 2019 (not a day apart).

[jim_l]

The differences are just 'degrees' really, 

 

I get your very valid points about the other ways that these big companies  benefit local economies and generate other forms of revenue.  My biggest disappointment is to be leaving the next generation(s) £2 trillion in debt (£40 billion a year just in interest payments) and no real idea of where that money is going to come from. Government needs to generate more revenue.

 

My target for that would be some of the hundreds of billions of corporation tax that is being (legally) avoided. I would change the rules, at least get something from them. 

 

Your thinking is that doing so would risk those companies leaving, and us losing the collateral benefit of them being here. 

 

I guess neither of us has access to the figures that would be required to answer that question. 

 

Jim

 

 

 

[MrPid]

On 28/09/2019 at 19:03, jim_l said:

I think if the working men and women , in particular in the North East and Midlands, felt that prosperity within the EU was being shared, the outcome would have been very different. 

 

Digressing slightly - I think for me, this is the saddest and most resounding rehtoric from Brexit.

 

I am utterly sick of hearing of the "working man", even now when I read it, I hear a northern accent. Its a pure example of how Brexit has been hijacked  from a polictical/economics decision to being played out as a rich v poor, north v south, public school vs state school, etc etc. You name it, its been manipulated into something else turning the whole debacle into a class war, splitting the country, literally in half.

 

At the end of the day unless you can afford to live, without working and without benefits, you're a working man. Some get paid more than others, but the majority of us, go out every day to work, and get paid at the end of the month.

 

I dont think Britain has ever been as divided as it is now, we have always maintained some sort of Island mentality but to see this day in day out is awful. 

 

There has always been a north/south divide but we seemed to have stepped back in mentalities more than anything, which makes it appear bigger than ever.

 

Brexit has been coming for ages, look how marketing firms use demographics to advertise and validate their products. You see most trades products are advertised by northerners, even plus net have jumped on the band wagon with their plucky lad because northeners are known to want value for money (notice I didn't accuse them of being tight! 😉 ). Advertisers use posh folks to validate things being the correct decisions. One even went to the length of having a northern husband and a posh wife, he made a decision based on value, and she came along (surprised) and validated it. My point being is that Brexit has painted a pictures of remainers being lefty snowflakes who are aloof and only care about money to leavers being knuckle dragging brutes who just want to start the crusades again and "take back control".

 

Its just awful in my opinion, either way you look at it. None of us will ever have/had the full facts in order to make an informed decision so why put it to the vote in the first place. I always said the government had made their decision long ago but wanted a scapegoat ie - the British Public, because they didnt have the courage to just do it themselves.

 

Whichever the outcome there is around 66m people in the UK and less than a third of that voted, one way or the other.

 

But we are ALL talking about it!

[Steve (sdh2903)]

Very well put @MrPid.

 

I've argued all along it was a vote based on spin and political willy waving of which our now PM was chief protagonist. It was a vote with no answers or clear choices (or their consequences).

 

It's best summarised that when I ask my dad (who's a stout brexiteer) 

 

Why did you vote to leave?

 

"I voted to leave as it's time for change."

 

Ok fair enough. What's going to change and how?

 

"Well I dont know!"

[jim_l]

Just because I mentioned working men and women I didn't mean to suggest that I think it is a class war. Truth is families are split, there are many from everywhere on the economic spectrum disagreeing about this, more significant than class is probably the age divide, 

 

None of us will have the full facts in order to make an informed decision at the next election either, we will have some works of fiction called manifestos, and a whole bunch of the media putting every possible twist on the facts to persuade us to vote the way they want. We are indeed in the post-truth world. 

 

There are many good reasons for coming out of the EU, there are many good reasons for staying in the EU, which way you voted depends on a) what is important to you, b) how happy you are about these things, and c) does it look as though these things will be better or worse in a future in or out of the EU. 

 

The same 3 criteria will apply to the next election, except c) will be  "does it look as though these things will be better or worse with a different government".  People don't vote to change something when they are happy, I think  the strength of the leave vote in the Midlands and North East is registration of unhappiness.  Perhaps my reference to 'working men and women' was flawed, as you say, people all over the country work. 

 

It is a shame politicians (ours and theirs) didn't get together three years ago and say 'this is a close vote, how close can we stay close, whilst addressing people's chief concerns'.  I blame the EU to some extent for their 'no cherry picking, you are in or you are out' stance.  It is obvious that there are many EU institutions that have HUGE benefit to both sides from us contributing and participating. 

 

We are polarised because we are being presented with 'Completely Out' or 'Completely In'  and three years on, some more constructive work might have presented us with something very feasible in between. 

 

Jim

 

[jeff oakley]

Jim, you make some good points but the real problem is that the EU chiefs refuse to see they are doing anything wrong. It is not just the UK that is unhappy, Italy and Greece have basically had their options dictated by Brussels and had no option whilst tied to the Euro and the EU to do anything different.

 

The EU had a choice when Cameron went and asked for concessions they gave none and the vote was the response. The difficulty in this is there are many more divides in the country which drove the result. In London people love the variety that immigration has brought but travel to Sheffield and that was a well integrated city but now there has been a huge influx of Romanian people who have caused no end of issues as they are not integrating and are a problem to many. And this is all races that see allowing unskilled people in to take homes and resource from an area already not the most affluent. They view unchecked immigration differently to London.

 

We can all have a view on the rights and wrongs but the single worst thing that has happened because of the EU refusing to engage with peoples fears has led to the rise of far right parties all over the EU. And they get a lot of support, in France Macron was elected because there was an anybody but Le Pen movement, but she made huge gains. Hungary has a far right leader who has refused to accept migrants, Austria and Germany all seen grous progressing and also in Holland a laid back country which has seen many embrace right wing policies.

 

The EU needed tweaking to stop this but they refused and are afraid if the UK leaves easily and is successful afterwards that others will leave. 

 

The best single thing about the EU is that it has contributed to a long period of peace but some of their policies to poke Russia look dangerous to me.

[DonPeffers]

There seems to be fat chance of voters getting many facts from our journalists who are more interested in an alleged 'leg' story which the lady involved has typed in her own The Times article 29 Sep 2019 12.01am  WANDERING HANDS   "Can I take you back in time to a moment in the late 1990s/early 2000s?". 

Some reports have now firmed up the date as in 1999.  

 

Not ignoring the assault allegation but provable facts needed and surely this should have been presented during the Tory leadership election.

 

I have deliberately not included names. 

 

Yesterday afternoon on Sky news when discussing a possible early General Election the presenter said.... of course there doesn't have to be an election until 2021 (referring to the fixed 5 year term Parliament act BUT miscalculating the 5 years from June 2017, last election, making June 2022 the 5 year limit). The alarming bit was the two political journalists present didn't correct the presenter. If leading political journalists on respected newspapers don't even know when the next election must happen how can we have confidence in anything else they spout?

 

The facts on 2016 EU referendum voting are below:-

National totals.

Total electorate: 46,500,001

 Leave    17,410,742

Remain  16,141,241 

Turnout: 72.2%

Rejected ballots: 25,359.

[jim_l]

5 hours ago, jeff oakley said:

the real problem is that the EU chiefs refuse to see they are doing anything wrong.

 

Absolutely, the nail on the head, and in any democratic organisation the people we elect to represent us there would be able to change the direction, but the power in the EU is with those very chiefs, not MEPs.   I am not sure they refuse to see, I think they see, and refuse to change!

 

Many of the EUs issues relate to over ambition - too big, too close, too soon. You cannot make 28 countries into one (which is effectively what the four freedoms do) unless they are aligned in many respects, and they are not. The reason the Romanians are here is certainly not our weather, it is that the minimum wage there is about €450 a month, ours is about 4 times that, if they can get a job here they can live well here and send money to improve the lot of their families at home. 

 

If at home in Romania there is little respect for the law and disputes are settled without involving the police but between families or gangs, that tradition comes with them.   Our law has no means to deter or punish someone who comes here from a lawless place or place where the quality of life is poor, because the worst we can do to deter or punish is give them a roof over their head, three high quality meals a day, a TV and a gym, and they go wow! is that it?  We should, at the very least, on conviction for a crime, have an option to deport them. 

 

I am broadly in favour of immigration, all the historical evidence is that wherever it happens prospers, even in some places where integration is patchy.  To  people that want to turn genuine asylum seekers away, people whose lives are so desperate they throw themselves at the mercy of the Med or the channel in a dinghy,  I say to them 'Where is your humanity?' 

 

Immigrants are people just like us, doing just what we would do in their circumstances, trying to improve our lot or the lot of our families, remember when good jobs were in short supply 'up north' and we flocked to London? Look at it now!  

 

The man with over £100 billion in the bank and his own space program, he loves 'the poor looking at the poor' as the cause of their problems. 

 

Jim