No deal Brexit or Corbyn government?

phillw

lvader wrote: »

It's was mostly symbolic, the important things was for the EU to give a little to fend off Brexit. Normally the EU are good at that sort of thing but for whatever reason they decided against diplomacy.

They gave some pretty hefty concessions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_United_Kingdom_renegotiation_of_European_Union_membership

The problem was that the far right weren't happy with that and started the brainwashing. Now we know how they operated, it was a forgone conclusion that leave would win. You can easily win if you sink to that level. Unfortunately liberals are against doing that, so you always end up with Trump and Farage winning.

Malthusian wrote: »

They have indeed - McDonnell has proposed confiscating company shares from shareholders and using the dividends to fund public spending.

Did he? Even one of the biased papers aren't claiming that https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1172994/jeremy-corbyn-news-labour-party-policy-tax-savings-pensions-right-to-buy-general-election They even went with the 1%, rather than the 10% lie that has been spread around (including in the commons).

I kinda think taking 1% from large companies and spreading the wealth among the employees isn't a stupid idea. You could easily dress that up in a scheme where you gave a tax advantage for companies that did it "voluntarily". It actually reminds me of auto enrollment.

Bur of course if you're caught in the headlights of Brexit = good, Corbyn = bad then you're unable to think straight anyway. I'd say that if we do leave the EU then we can never ever have a conservative government ever again, because we wouldn't survive them without the EU protecting us.

Wenlock wrote: »

I didn’t want any negotiations to take place with the EU in the first place, other than individual details such as minimising issues at the border.

Minimizing issues at the border is done by being part of the single market. It seems like you're angry at the foreigners and you think they should try to make you happy.

Thrugelmir

phillw wrote: »

I kinda think taking 1% from large companies and spreading the wealth among the employees isn't a stupid idea. You could easily dress that up in a scheme where you gave a tax advantage for companies that did it "voluntarily". It actually reminds me of auto enrollment.

Share schemes to reward employees are already in place.

The 1% will be taken from shareholders not the company's themselves. Effectively a raid in peoples pensions,

Private companies are going to be difficult to monitor. Of which there are many. Those with overseas owners are going to be a challenge too.

phillw

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The 1% will be taken from shareholders not the company's themselves. Effectively a raid in peoples pensions,

It should be irrelevant if you take the money from the shareholders or the company.

If they take the money from the company then it's worth less money, which is reflected in the share price.

If they get the companies to create more shares then the share price goes down because the supply has increased.

It would seem you hate the idea, not because of the idea, but because the way someone framed the idea. It's an idea of his, he is entitled to it. I'm sure when Labour get into government next time then they'll polish it before implementing it.

The conservatives have already destroyed 20% of your wealth because of sterling dropping since the referendum, if Boris gets his way then sterling will drop further. It rallied a bit today on Boris triple failure.

The only winners in brexit are those already shorting the pound. Fair play if you're doing that and also posting here, but otherwise you might not want to cheer Boris on so much.

Thrugelmir

phillw wrote: »

The conservatives have already destroyed 20% of your wealth because of sterling dropping since the referendum,

Sounds as if you are talking about an area where you have no knowledge.

Is the latest tweet from Momentum HQ...........

DannyGold

lvader wrote: »

It's was mostly symbolic, the important things was for the EU to give a little to fend off Brexit. Normally the EU are good at that sort of thing but for whatever reason they decided against diplomacy.

What reason do you think?

Could it possibly be that the corruption goes deep and their masters in Brussels are pulling the strings?

westernpromise

Kohoutek wrote: »

I'm glad you're not in charge then, because your idea of severing ties with our closest economic partners (not to mention diplomatic allies and well, geographical neighbours) is obviously completely stupid. It only makes sense if all you believe in is 'clean Brexit' intellectual masturbation and are prepared to ignore everything else. Anyone that can understand percentages will also understand that a marginal result in a referendum where there were two opposite choices is not a mandate for the most extreme position possible - it's a mandate for a middle ground position.

Well, no, it's not. That's a middle ground person's conceit to try to fiddle elections so that everyone always agrees to a compromise that adopts their own views. Any such poll is a mandate for one or other extreme position, unless you've got 51% spoiled ballot papers (which express a view, in a way that just not voting doesn't).

There were plenty of European countries in the 1920s and 1930s, and IIRC a number of south american ones in the 1960s and 1970s, that had elections contested between fascists and communists. The result wasn't a compromise middlish government. If the party of the left are terrorist-supporting anti-Semitic Marxists, the party of the right has nothing to lose electorally by migrating to the hard right. Everyone who's anti-left will vote for the anti-left candidate regardless.

Something I've noticed about Remainers is that they generally do not understand that Leavers see Remain as an extreme opinion. Remainers generally see themselves as rational, enlightened, intelligent, and moderate, think theirs is the only view that is all these, and that Leavers are the only loonies in the room. By analogy it's a bit like conquistadors and Aztecs. The former arrive in south America, are horrified at the human sacrificing and the religious infanticide and the bloodshed of the state religion - so they bring enlightenment by slaughtering, torturing, enslaving and burning at the stake as infidels all those locals who won't convert to Christianity.

Conquistadors and Aztecs alike saw each other as murderous savages. Today I suggest we see them as roughly equally ignorant and wicked.

The Aztec analogy does not work in one important aspect, which is that the existence of the Spanish didn't cause the Aztecs. The perceived extremism of Remain played a very big part in creating the extremism of Leave. If Remain appears to be a deranged and fanatical position, you're absolutely going to get another one opposing it.

Herzlos

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The 1% will be taken from shareholders not the company's themselves. Effectively a raid in peoples pensions

Not taken, it's not being confiscated. They'd be getting encouraged to buy back 1% of the shares (over some period of time) and distribute it to the employees. Lots of companies already gift shares to employees so it's not actually the big marxist plot you're being told.

Sailtheworld

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Sounds as if you are talking about an area where you have no knowledge.

Is the latest tweet from Momentum HQ...........

Never thought I'd see you defending Wilson's pound in your pocket idea. Another couple of decades and you might have stopped blaming Gordon Brown for everything.

JoeyG

westernpromise wrote: »

Something I've noticed about Remainers is that they generally do not understand that Leavers see Remain as an extreme opinion.

But it isn't really if you consider being full member of Schengen and adopting the Euro as being one end of the spectrum. Whilst cutting all ties without a deal is as far the other end as you can get,

Herzlos

Malthusian wrote: »

They have indeed - McDonnell has proposed confiscating company shares from shareholders and using the dividends to fund public spending.

I haven't found the horses mouth quote yet, but it doesn't sound like a confiscation, just a redistribution:


https://www.ft.com/content/dc17d7ee-ccab-11e9-b018-ca4456540ea6:

The £300bn share seizure would be the consequence of Mr McDonnell’s plans for “inclusive ownership funds”, where every company with more than 250 staff would have to gradually transfer 10 per cent of their shares to workers.

If you ignore the word seizure (because it's fearmongering), it's talking about a gradual transfer of shares to workers. That means the company can gradually buy shares back, or reserve some if it produces more, or use some of it's own stash of shares, and give them to employees. No-one loses any value here, as generally giving staff a stake in the company yields benefits to the company in terms of moral and involvement.

As I said, most big companies already give employees shares and do quite well from it, this is not any different. But it came from Labour so is therefor automatically Marxist.


I don't agree that they should be taking anything over £500 in dividends back to the state, it's unlikely to actually happen (assuming a mega generous 5% stock yield, means an individual employee would have to have £10k in stock to hit £500/year) and a complete nightmare to manage. But I'm fine with transferring 1% of share ownership over to employees (some sources say 1%, some say 10%).