Thoroughly enjoyed Amol Rajan absolutely skewering Nick Clegg on his new employers Facebook on the BBC. Cleggy squirmed and sweated, and tried to make the interview about himself and why he joined the worlds largest personal data collection scam. But admitted that he wouldn’t let his kids see the self harm/suicide pictures all over Instagram (How the **** do you stop them short of keeping them off the Internet, dipstick?) and that his boss should be paying more tax outside the US. I don’t think he’ll be there long, despite his big mortgage on the $7.5m house he’s bought in California. You should be renting you idiot.
If that's what ends up happening, yes. If any European can do the same to come to the UK, what exactly have we gained?
Agree with your second paragraph. Not sure it will be so positive when it comes to companies choosing where to base themselves.
if you let in the people you want to and vise versa then wheres the problem you might even keep out some undesirables
i dont normally post long articles but its a good read Airbus is in little danger of taking off Brexit will by no means weaken UK’s position with aerospace giant – especially if we trade under WTO rules like global rivals Lewis Page please log in to view this image The RAF Atlas A400M aircraft City of Bristol, a next-generation military transporter whose wings were designed and manufactured at the Airbus plant in Filton, one of two in the UK alongside Broughton in North Wales producing all the company’s wings Credit: Cpl Paul Oldfield, RAF ‘Don’t listen to the Brexiteers’ madness, which asserts that because we have huge plants here we will not move and we will always be here. They are wrong,” said Airbus chief executive Tom Enders. The latest Brexit warning from the aerospace giant was its punchiest yet, but perhaps not all it seemed. The “huge plants” at issue here are those in Filton near Bristol and Broughton in Wales, where 9,000 UK employees produce the wings for all Airbus commercial jets. There are “plenty of countries out there who would love to build the wings for Airbus aircraft”, according to Mr Enders. Note: he didn’t specify that these countries are in the EU. Facts 9,000 The number of UK employees producing wings for Airbus’s commercial jets at its plants in Filton near Bristol and Broughton in North Wales 150 The number of Airbus jets owned by British Airways; easyJet has 318 with 123 on order, while the RAF, police and MoD are also big customers 70pc The percentage of Airbus’s sales outside the EU, with nations including the US, China, Mexico and South Korea pushing to produce wings So, let’s assume many people’s worst Brexit: no deal, with the UK-EU relationship defaulting to WTO terms. Does that mean that Airbus has some reason not to manufacture here? Of course not. Airbus has a design shop in Kansas and assembly lines in Canada, Alabama and Tianjin. It has made massive sales in North America and China, and would like to make more. In both cases Airbus has found that it’s good business to place manufacturing locally. It has also made many sales in the UK, and would no doubt like to make more. British Airways has 150 Airbus jets; easyJet has another 318, and 123 on order. Then there’s the Royal Air Force, also taking deliveries. Every police helicopter in the UK was bought from Airbus, and half of the commercial ones. A hundred of the Ministry of Defence’s helicopters are from Airbus. The British military also buys Airbus satellites and weapons. Like it or not, Airbus will be doing a lot of business in the UK after Brexit. Just as in Canada, the USA and China, it will continue to make perfect sense for Airbus to manufacture here, even if that has to be on WTO terms. But most of those airliner wings from the UK need to be shipped to Toulouse and Hamburg and Seville to be put on planes. What if Brexit means that can’t happen? That would be bad news for Broughton and Filton, surely. At the moment it would be bad news not so much for Broughton and Filton as for Toulouse and Hamburg and Seville. Airbus desperately needs those wings and right now the UK is the only place that can make them. If Continental governments interfere with those shipments, they would be imposing an almost instant halt on production at their own factories, hitting their own exports and giving Airbus even more problems in catching up with its huge order backlog. The only Airbus assembly lines operating would be in Canada, the US and China, with unimpeded access to wings from the UK. Indeed if Airbus were thinking clearly it might shift emphasis to those locations from its European bases in that scenario. please log in to view this image In fact, Airbus has been thinking that way anyway, and it’s nothing to do with Brexit. The reality of the world aerospace market is one of buttering up governments. In general, if you want to sell a lot of airliners somewhere (and even nicer, even higher-value-added things like fighters and missiles and spacecraft) you need to spread some manufacturing share in that nation or region. Even where governments don’t directly control airline purchases, they can have a lot of influence. In this context it’s worth noting that a no-deal UK could make its own policy on landing slots at Heathrow, ensuring that its wishes would be considered respectfully by most major airlines worldwide. Even before the Brexit vote, almost 70pc of Airbus sales were outside the EU, and those nations have long been pressing for a greater share of the duopolistic giant’s manufacturing. Last year it was widely reported that the US, China, Mexico and South Korea had all approached Airbus with the idea of moving British wing manufacturing to them. Ironically, that would be hugely easier for Airbus to do with Britain still in the EU or closely tied to it. The Government would not be able do anything about such a move under anything resembling the single market. please log in to view this image It could neither bribe nor blacklist an EU manufacturer without approval from Brussels, and since BAE Systems sold off its stake in 2006 the British Government hasn’t had even second-hand access to the upper levels of Airbus. Many observers, indeed, expected Filton and Broughton to shut down back then. One reason that didn’t happen is probably that you don’t just clap your hands and make a wing factory appear. The wings are one of the difficult bits of an airliner. Nonetheless Britain’s wing-makers, without any functioning political top cover, would probably have found their jobs moved sooner or later. Airbus being serious about global growth, as we’ve seen, those jobs would probably have moved to important customer nations outside the EU. Now it seems that Britain’s wing-makers may find themselves in an important customer nation outside the EU without moving, which changes things. A no-deal UK would be relatively free to hand out subsidies, slash orders or even refuse to deal with Airbus as much as it liked, just as China or Canada might. Airbus might still decide that some other non-EU customer was more important, but at least the UK would be able to act. ‘It’s always possible that France and Germany will want to hurt the UK at the cost of seriously damaging Airbus sales, but it doesn’t seem very likely’ After all, the UK is the fifth-biggest economy in the world and home to two major Airbus airlines. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies it also has the biggest defence budget in Europe and the second-biggest in Nato. At the moment the UK is required by EU law to let Airbus compete, on something describable to Brussels as a level playing field, for every single contract offered here. The prospect of losing such guaranteed access in a no-deal Brexit is indeed “a disaster” for Airbus. It’s a double disaster in that future deals in the UK are likely to require continued manufacturing payola, as they do in other important non-EU nations, and a triple disaster in that this reduces the payola available for placating China, North America and the rest. All that said, it still might be that Airbus will shut UK factories post-Brexit, though it will not be done quickly. It has almost 7,400 airliner orders on its books and needs to make planes as fast as it can. But there might well be a Brexit deal which doesn’t permit the Government to meddle unilaterally in business. Many such deals have been proposed, and if one happens the workers of Filton and Broughton probably are in trouble. Even in the event of no deal Airbus might choose to walk away from Britain’s lucrative markets. Ultimately Airbus isn’t just a business enterprise. It’s an extension of French and German (and latterly, Spanish) political will. please log in to view this image The cockpit of a Royal Air Force A400M Atlas Credit: Sgt Ralph Merry ABIPP RAF The French and German governments each own slightly more than 10pc, and Spain another 4pc. All are very important customers, and bankers as well as shareholders. They cannot always dictate day-to-day decision-making, but they must approve the choice of the CEO and other top executives. Enders’ successor from April, Guillaume Faury, will make sure to do what Paris and Berlin want. It’s always possible that France and Germany will want to hurt the UK at the cost of seriously damaging Airbus sales, but it doesn’t seem very likely. The only reason would be to make leaving the EU seem like a bad idea. Such a goal would probably mean shifting the wing plants back into the EU, which isn’t what Airbus wants, and in any case it would take too long to provide an obvious object lesson. Putting aside the wider effects of Brexit for good and ill, in the short term wing-making jobs in Filton and Broughton are pretty much safe. In the longer run they’re in some danger no matter what: but, counter-intuitively perhaps, the harder the Brexit, the safer they’ll be.
This morning on Radio 4: Farmers are worried that prices will fall on no deal and they won’t be able to compete. This evening on Radio 4: supermarkets are worried that no deal will push up prices. What’s a chap to do? Stockpile or run down stocks?
What should I buy and send over in a container Cheese Lamb Wine Bar people Got tonnes of all of it More than happy to send it all to dts shop for a Leeds profit
Loads of possible amendments to May’s deal could be discussed today, if Bercow allows it. None are binding on the government even if passed, except the Cooper Boles one, because it is a bill. This would delay Brexit until 31 December (if the EU agrees), and rule out leaving the EU without a deal. Having spent a long time reviewing all the proposed amendments (more than 30 seconds, but less than one minute), they are all a waste of space. Whatever happens May doesn’t have to come back to the Commons until 13 February, then loads more time before a debate on what she has to say then. She is running down the clock to try and get her current deal through, through fear and panic. I agree with Barnier’s deputy, Sabine Weyand, who reckons no deal exit is increasingly likely as it is the only outcome which requires no agreements and no actions, it will just happen. And if politicians have one skill set, it’s doing **** all and avoiding accountability.
May wants Tory MPs to vote for the Graham Brady amendment which is basically 'please make the Irish border go away', and resolves nothing. It has been her tactic all along to run the clock down, but Ben Gummer in yesterday's Standard suggests that it's already inevitable that we will have to extend the Article 50 process and that the 29th March No Deal threat is therefore a hollow one. The real danger is that May sees the well-being of the Tory party as being more important than that of the country as a whole. https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/...in-the-sky-so-extend-article-50-a4050536.html
The 'Malthouse Compromise' as it has been dubbed will be one to watch too. In short, it asks for: Plan A (May's deal) with a different backstop Plan B (No deal) but with the transition deal and UK contribution to EU budget Neither situation really addresses the N Ireland question, which this will all come back to (again).
The Malthouse proposal is not an amendment, so won't be voted on today. However, there are suggestions that it could be adopted on the back of the Brady amendment, which is suitably vague. If May, who has opted to open the debate rather than close it, gives support to Malthouse, the Brady amendment may be passed, and it would make Cooper's amendment less likely to win.
I am now completely confused over who is trying to achieve what in the House of Commons this afternoon. May says she wants everyone to support the very vague Brady amendment, which she will then use to re open negotiations with the EU on the Withdrawal Agreement. The EU has, apparently, already prepared a statement saying it won’t reopen discussions on this basis. All the other amendments seem to be about pushing everything back so the pointless bickering can continue endlessly. What a ****ing shambles.
In her opening speech, May stressed how important it was for Parliament to express what it wants, rather than what it doesn't want. The Grieve amendment would provide the opportunity for Parliament to do just that, but she will vote against it.
