No deal Brexit or Corbyn government?

Malthusian

Herzlos wrote: »

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

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.

And where do you think they are going to be transferred from?

It makes absolutely zero difference whether new shares are created and transferred to the state (diluting the existing ones) or companies have to use shareholders' money to buy their own shares and then transfer them to the state, instead of using the shareholders' money to invest in the business or pay dividends.

Corbynists think it does make a difference because they think 2 + 2 = 5 if Corbyn says so and that a mural showing Jews playing Monopoly on the backs of the poor isn't anti-Semitic.

You are falling for it hook line and sinker.

If you want company shares to be confiscated by the state then own it, instead of parroting Labour's disingenuous economically illiterate wibble.

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.

Shares are not to be transferred to the employees. The fact that the dividends will be paid to the state means they are being transferred to the state. The pittance paid to the employees before the rest goes to the State is irrelevant window-dressing.

If you can't see the difference between companies willingly paying their employees in shares for their labour and having their shares confiscated by the state then you are a perfect Momentumite.

Herzlos

Malthusian wrote: »

And where do you think they are going to be transferred from?

The company will have to put money aside to buy the shares - the existing owner of the shares (the pension funds) will not have them forcibly removed, there will just be a series of purchase bids placed t consume any that are being sold. The state is stealing £0.
The share price may dip because of this, or rise, who knows.

Shares are not to be transferred to the employees. The fact that the dividends will be paid to the state means they are being transferred to the state. The pittance paid to the employees before the rest goes to the State is irrelevant window-dressing.

It says the shares are owned by the employees and the dividend goes to them, so I've no idea how the state will cream money off the top unless it's via PAYE somehow.

If you can't see the difference between companies willingly paying their employees in shares for their labour and having their shares confiscated by the state then you are a perfect Momentumite.

I can see the difference, which is why I'm pointing out there's no confiscation involved. This is essentially no different to the compulsory pension contributions.

Malthusian

JoeyG wrote: »

But it isn't really if you consider being full member of Schengen and adopting the Euro as being one end of the spectrum.

Schengen and the Euro isn't the end of the spectrum. It's merely the next step. It's centre-Remain. "Ever closer union".

MaxiRobriguez

westernpromise wrote: »

. 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.

A post littered with ridiculous hyperbole masquerading as rationality.

I'm a leaver, but it's quite obvious that Corbyn's shadow cabinet aren't terrorist anti-Semite Marxists and it's quite obvious too that the more extreme option in the Brexit debate is to leave, especially on WTO terms.

It's folk like you who make the rest of us who wanted to leave in an orderly fashion look like idiots.

Malthusian

Herzlos wrote: »

The company will have to put money aside to buy the shares

Which is the shareholders' money.

The share price may dip because of this, or rise, who knows.

Who knows indeed comrade. 2 + 2 may indeed equal 5. Only arrogant capitalists say it will always equal 4.

The fact is that using shareholders' money to buy the company's own shares and transfer them to the state means that money can't be used to reinvest in the business or pay dividends. You cannot give the state a cake and eat it yourself, no matter how much economic illiteracy you throw over to pretend it can.

It says the shares are owned by the employees and the dividend goes to them, so I've no idea how the state will cream money off the top unless it's via PAYE somehow.

If the state is entitled to the dividends minus an irrelevant pittance paid to workers, the state owns them. That's what ownership of shares means. Calling it employee ownership changes nothing.

phillw

Malthusian wrote: »

If the state is entitled to the dividends minus an irrelevant pittance paid to workers, the state owns them. That's what ownership of shares means. Calling it employee ownership changes nothing.

The state is entitled to your wages minus what you get to take home. Does that mean they own you?

You seem to be making up arguments because you don't like the idea of tax.

JoeyG

Malthusian wrote: »

Schengen and the Euro isn't the end of the spectrum. It's merely the next step. It's centre-Remain. "Ever closer union".

If Schengen and Euro isn't at the end of the spectrum then what is? and what next step?

Thrugelmir

Sailtheworld wrote: »

Another couple of decades and you might have stopped blaming Gordon Brown for everything.

His legacy is written in stone. No more boom or bust.....

westernpromise

JoeyG wrote: »

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,

No, that doesn't follow. First off, Schengen and adopting the Euro are nowhere near the end of the spectrum. Those are both mainstream positions of 20 years ago. The current far end of the Remainer position is the European army (and constructive dissolution of NATO), the United States of Europe, and the Kenneth Clarke "I look forward to the day when the Westminster Parliament is just a council chamber in Europe" position. That's the extreme, and part of the Remain problem - that IMHO gave rise to such a virulent Leave movement - was the persistent denial that such thing could happen or was planned.

I don't think the other part of your claim works either. "Cutting all ties without a deal" is not an extreme Leave position - it's a consequence of the Article 50 language which says that withdrawal takes effect after 2 years. It is thus written into the EU's rules that if you haven't organised your withdrawal within 2 years you leave without any arrangements. It's better understood as a Remainer provision in Article 50 that aims at making withdrawal appear possible while in fact ensuring it's as dissuasively disruptive as possible. Gyms and Sky do much the same if you try to leave them.

The extreme position that's as far to the Leave side as Kenneth Clarke is to the Remain side would have to be something like a demand that you issue and implement Article 50 the same day, ignoring the EU language, on the grounds that it was unconstitutional in the first place, can't be binding, and therefore you do not even seek a deal because why do you need a deal to exit an illegal arrangement such as our EU membership. That, I would think, would be the equivalent extreme Leave position.

I've not actually heard anyone advocate such a stance, I'm just hypothesising what might be as out-there to a Remainer as Kenneth Clarke's views are to Leavers. In the same way that the Clarke position is completely irreconcilable with any element of Leave generally, that view of Article 50 would be irreconcilable with any engagement with the EU.

westernpromise

MaxiRobriguez wrote: »

A post littered with ridiculous hyperbole masquerading as rationality.

I'm a leaver, but it's quite obvious that Corbyn's shadow cabinet aren't terrorist anti-Semite Marxists and it's quite obvious too that the more extreme option in the Brexit debate is to leave, especially on WTO terms.

It's folk like you who make the rest of us who wanted to leave in an orderly fashion look like idiots.

I'm a neutral - I didn't vote because both sides were liars - but if you thought there was any possibility of leaving the EU in an orderly fashion you have not in any way understood the EU. Why would an organisation bent on integration have rules that allow orderly disintegration?

But then again you don't realise that Labour's a terrorist-supporting anti-Semitic Marxist rabble so are one of those folk to whom plain as a pikestaff isn't plain enough.