Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

gfplux

It is no secret that PSA have factory's running below capacity and the chopper sadly is falling at Ellesmere Port.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-psa-opel-vauxhall/psa-says-to-cut-about-400-jobs-at-vauxhalls-ellesmere-port-idUKKBN1CI325

The spokesman said the 400 job cuts - which amount to about a quarter of the facility’s staff - would be carried out via a voluntary redundancy plan.

This and a move towards a single-shift operation will be discussed with employees representatives over a 45-day period.

PSA is committed to the Opel Astra plant at Ellesmere Port, the spokesman added, while pointing that current manufacturing costs there were “significantly higher” than those of the benchmark plants of the PSA Group in France.

PSA’s Chief Executive Carlos Tavares had said last month that it was hard to decide upon the group’s strategy for Vauxhall given lack of clarity over Britain’s plans to leave the European Union.

The spokesman on Friday said PSA would be in a position to consider future investments once it has visibility on Britain’s future trading relationship with the EU and once the plant’s competitiveness has been addressed.

cogito

gfplux wrote: »

Just for you Tricky. I like your idea of ignoring what will happen if we have a no leaving deal. Tin foil hat hyperbole is just brilliant.
You are actually denying that the following would not happen. Interesting!

A No deal has implications for trade, jobs and supermarket shelves but what about all the other things.

If Britain leaves the EU without a deal in March 2019 (530 days and counting) then

1) no protection for EU citizens working for the NHS, strawberry pickers etc
2) court action from the EU to recover its money (which will last a lifetime)
3) A hard border between Ireland and N Ireland
4) Chaos at the ports
5) No flights between Britain and EU
6) No Medical Isotope to treat cancer patients. (due to Euroatom)
7) further erosion in the value of the pound. Hurrah or Boo?
8)
9)
Etc, etc

In answer to your points.

1) Rubbish
2) good luck to them
3) only if the EU force it
4) not necessarily
5) rubbish
6) rubbish
7) not necessarily

gfplux

cogito wrote: »

In answer to your points.

1) Rubbish
2) good luck to them
3) only if the EU force it
4) not necessarily
5) rubbish
6) rubbish
7) not necessarily

Brexiters have to stop saying they can jump off a cliff without being hurt.

cogito

gfplux wrote: »

Brexiters have to stop saying they can jump off a cliff without being hurt.

I actually believe that you and other remain supporters on here are secretly hoping that the UK will leave the EU without any kind of deal and that the economy will crash as a result.

My personal opinion is that there will be no deal but that if both sides prepare well for this scenario, the outcome will not be the catastrophe that some would like to see.

I have said several times on here that the EU are not serious about negotiating. I actually respect them for sticking to their principles but we should all recognise that there are red lines that neither side is willing to cross such as ECJ jurisdiction and better rights for EU citizens living in the UK than those enjoyed by UK citizens. On both these matters, the EU position is simply absurd. A journalist asked Barnier on Thursday which other countries outside the EU currently accepted these demands and he was lost for words.

It should be clear to the UK side by now that negotiations are going nowhere and that we must fully prepare for that scenario. I believe that such contingency plans have been taking place since the DExEU was established despite what remainers might say.

None of this means that flights will stop, that there will be chaos at the ports or cancer victims will go untreated. It doesn't mean that workers in the EU will lose any rights.

It might mean that the EU will not receive all of the money that it thinks it is entitled to. It might mean that the exchange rate between the GBP and the Euro will fluctuate just as it has done for the last 17 years. It doesn't mean that there must be a hard border between the two halves of Ireland.

There is so much negative thinking on the part of the remain camp who suck up EU propaganda as if it were the Holy Writ. They simply cannot see the wood for the trees.

phillw

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

That means at some point they have to, otherwise it will be the EU in breach of their own treaty.

The treaty doesn't guarantee anything of the sort. It's not the EU's fault if the UK are intent on sabotaging the negotiations.

Of course you could try your luck in the EU courts, the ones that we've essentially told to f off because we don't like their decisions. What could go wrong?

Brexit was a mistake, we're in the wrong and still trying to front it out. It's pathetic, I don't know why leavers hate the UK so much.

cogito wrote: »

None of this means that flights will stop,

Any UK airline without negotiated air rights over the EU will not be allowed to fly. BA still has historical rights, but most of the others have relied on EU membership. Crashing out with zero deal whatsoever would mean that some flights would have to stop or they would be operating illegally. It's a lie to suggest otherwise. That is something which leavers seem comfortable with though.

cogito wrote: »

It doesn't mean that there must be a hard border between the two halves of Ireland.

So you want to stop people coming into the UK directly, but you have no problem with them first flying into Southern Ireland and then coming into the UK? How would you stop trade avoiding the WTO tariffs by moving through Southern Ireland?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

A powerful cross-party group of MPs is drawing up plans that would make it impossible for Theresa May to allow Britain to crash out of the EU without a deal in 2019. The move comes amid new warnings that a “cliff-edge” Brexit would be catastrophic for the economy.

One critical aim of the group is to give parliament the ability to veto, or prevent by other legal means, a “bad deal” or “no deal” outcome.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/14/cross-party-group-no-deal-theresa-may-brexit-eu

This would appear to be a sensible compromise - what both the EU and Britain need more than anything else is to agree a deal which involves the least amount of economic harm as quickly as possible.

This amendment would prevent the extreme Brexit fundamentalists that want to damage Britain's economy from being able to do so - and force cool heads and compromise.

Interestingly there are now over 300 amendments tabled to the Brexit bill and it has been withdrawn from proceedings and postponed to a later date as the govt doesn't have the majority to defeat all the amendments.

TrickyTree83

phillw wrote: »

The treaty doesn't guarantee anything of the sort. It's not the EU's fault if the UK are intent on sabotaging the negotiations.

Of course you could try your luck in the EU courts, the ones that we've essentially told to f off because we don't like their decisions. What could go wrong?

Righto Phil, righto. The treaty doesn't say what it says and the law won't be upheld because we said we don't like the decisions they make. What's the name of this fantasy world you live in?

phillw

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The treaty doesn't say what it says

Point me at the words where the treaty guarantees that negotiations will happen the way you say it will in a way that is enforceable in court.

What I read doesn't even come close to your assertions.

"A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3)[5] of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council [of the European Union], acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."

The European Council guidelines are here:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/04/29-euco-brexit-guidelines/

If we keep sabotaging the negotiations to try to force their hand, then they will just say the future relationship is WTO. Good bye, no negotiation, sorry we're out of time.

Thrugelmir

gfplux wrote: »

It is no secret that PSA have factory's running below capacity and the chopper sadly is falling at Ellesmere Port.

Why is everything negative in the world of business treated as Brexit related?

Surprised you didn't comment on the demise of Air Berlin.

Thrugelmir

gfplux wrote: »

Brexiters have to stop saying they can jump off a cliff without being hurt.

Those politicians in Brussels are going to require very thick skins as well. Despite winning the election Merkel has been very quiet since. She knows that she's walking on egg shells. Today's vote in Lower Saxony ( home of VW). May not give much comfort either given the nature of the likely coalition that lies ahead.