No deal Brexit or Corbyn government?

JoeyG

westernpromise wrote: »

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.

OK thanks, and I don't disagree with you, I was only asking.

But on this basis, and assuming the most extreme version of remain is the euro army and becoming a council chamber in Europe - remaining on the same terms as we are now (which is what most remainers voted for in 2016) cannot in any way be viewed as the 'extreme' option.

MaxiRobriguez

westernpromise wrote: »

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.

You're hardly neutral I'm afraid. There's plenty of differing opinions on here, all of which have some merit, on both sides of the coin. Your bluster though is on the fringes, somewhat insulting and very irrational. Luckily your view is still a minority view too.:beer:

Herzlos

Malthusian wrote: »

Which is the shareholders' money.

Only if the money would otherwise go to the shareholders. I don't believe cash reserves count as shareholder money. I don't disagree that this buyback money would be money that could be spent elsewhere though, which is why it's a gradual process. Most companies will barely notice, pension funds won't either as they buy and sell constantly.

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

2+2 will always equal 4, I don't get the twist you're putting on this.
The share price may drop if the shareholders feel that the money going to the staff is a waste, but conversely compulsory buybacks usually drive the share price up (because if they need to buy it, why accept less?). Share price might even go up further if they feel the staff having a stake in the company will benefit the company (better staff retention, for instance).

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.

The state doesn't own the shares, the staff do. The state wants to claim some chunk of the dividend over an improbably high threshold (I don't think this is worth the hassle to administer).


Presumably, the staff also have the option to just sell the shares again on the open market, which makes me wonder if they'd still count as the 1% given to staff.

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.

That sounds kind of like PAYE. The state still doesn't own or manage the shares.



I'm not convinced the proposal is actually workable, but I don't buy for a second that it's marxist or theft, and more than making companies pay into a pension pot or to pay a minimum wage is. Like I said, companies often benefit from these things and a lot of companies already give stock to their staff. You even the far extreme with places like John Lewis which is entirely staff owned.

Herzlos

JoeyG wrote: »

OK thanks, and I don't disagree with you, I was only asking.

But on this basis, and assuming the most extreme version of remain is the euro army and becoming a council chamber in Europe - remaining on the same terms as we are now (which is what most remainers voted for in 2016) cannot in any way be viewed as the 'extreme' option.

Indeed, if the ever-closer-union tinfoil stuff was real and had a following, that'd put Remain-as-we-are firmly in the middle ground. Therefor to satify the split vote, Remaining as is seems to be the most sensible option :beer:

westernpromise

JoeyG wrote: »

OK thanks, and I don't disagree with you, I was only asking.

But on this basis, and assuming the most extreme version of remain is the euro army and becoming a council chamber in Europe - remaining on the same terms as we are now (which is what most remainers voted for in 2016) cannot in any way be viewed as the 'extreme' option.

Agreed, but remaining on the same terms was not an available option, either. The options were Remain in whatever the EU becomes, or Leave. But the key question Remain failed to answer was "Remain in what?" We went from being in the EEC, to the EC, to the EU, with the next stage being the USE. At no point was there the option to vote to remain in the EEC. Had there been, I think we'd still be the EEC while everyone else got on and did whatever they wanted.

Any Remainers who thought they were voting to maintain the status quo misunderstood they were voting for. The EU is a project to integrate Europe into a single state with no option not to be included. The nearest thing to a vote for the status quo was a vote to Leave, ironically.

I can see both sides of it, and when you look at it impartially, you recognise that pretty well everything one side accused the other of applied exactly to themselves. Leave voters didn't know they were voting for No Deal = Remain voters didn't know they were voting for the USE. Leave saying we'd save £250 million a week for the NHS = Remain having no idea what we'll be paying the EU in the future. Leave saying it would all be great = Remain saying there'd be an instant recession. The lies were mirror lies.

westernpromise

Herzlos wrote: »

I don't believe cash reserves count as shareholder money.

The accounting industry would disagree with you.

Whose money are they then? Yours?

westernpromise

Herzlos wrote: »

Indeed, if the ever-closer-union tinfoil stuff was real and had a following, that'd put Remain-as-we-are firmly in the middle ground. Therefor to satify the split vote, Remaining as is seems to be the most sensible option :beer:

You see, this is why you lost. The "ever-closer-union tinfoil stuff" is in fact the EU's entire raison d'etre. To say otherwise marks you as either too ignorant or too dishonest for your opinions to be worth hearing.

JoeyG

westernpromise wrote: »

You see, this is why you lost. The "ever-closer-union tinfoil stuff" is in fact the EU's entire raison d'etre. To say otherwise marks you as either too ignorant or too dishonest for your opinions to be worth hearing.

Sorry but he is right, all the 'ever closer union' stuff is covered here: https://fullfact.org/europe/viral-list-about-lisbon-treaty-wrong/

And yes, by definition we wouldn't be leaving, so remaining on exactly the same terms.

westernpromise

JoeyG wrote: »

Sorry but he is right, all the 'ever closer union' stuff is covered here: https://fullfact.org/europe/viral-list-about-lisbon-treaty-wrong/

And yes, by definition we wouldn't be leaving, so remaining on exactly the same terms.

Sorry but you're both either ignorant or mendacious.

The Heads of State or Government, on the basis of an awareness of a common destiny and the wish to affirm the European identity, confirm their commitment to progress towards an ever closer union among the peoples and Member States of the European Community.
- Solemn Declaration on European Union, Sunday 19 June 1983

westernpromise

Herzlos wrote: »

I'm not convinced the proposal is actually workable, but I don't buy for a second that it's marxist or theft

So in essence you believe there's a way for a thing to be given to someone that doesn't involve its previous owner having to give it up and thereby lose, is that correct?

If so, I'd like a Maserati Bora, please. There are only 20 in the country and they don't come up for sale very often, but when they do, they're £90,000, which is more than my car budget. Could it please be arranged that I be given one, at no cost to whoever's handing theirs over? Thanks.