Off Topic The Politics Thread

Nick Robinson‏Verified account@bbcnickrobinson 24m24 minutes ago
So, Brexit now means - paying what we pay now, abiding by same EU rules & allowing in as many EU migrants for 2 years after we Leave in '19?

 

May is too weak and needs to go now.

 

I didn't listen to May's speech, but just heard Farage and he's got the right hump. That's got to be positive.

Poll in the Independent today has 52% saying we should stay in.

 

I don't care about polls because we had the vote and need to get on with it. 15 months and she delivers that speech? seriously what a waste of space she is. We need a strong leader and sadly she is not up to it.

 

Great news
It’s too difficult to do on the current time frame Anyone who thought it would get done is away with the fairies
Boris speech leaked before hand to soften the blow Think about it the same old story peddled out during the ref just to make the leavers feel good for 5 minutes

The U.K. has to pay for the crazy dream it’s that simple

Hopefully I can time it now and get out for good as I want the leavers to pay the bill ... I am not

 

It won’t make any difference who is PM they just need more time to work out how to change the UKs thinking

They are only puppets anyway

Businesses are leaving she needs to do something just to buy time

 

They are leaving, I just heard something about Uber moving back to Germany

 

Good timing to make speech when markets are closing. We’ll see what the reaction is on Monday. No changes in £ on US trading, but the $ has problems of its own.

I see Johnson says the speech ‘rules out’ the Norway option, but isn’t paying to stay in the Single Market and customs union, to abide by the EU rules, not signing trade agreements with other countries, presumably accepting free movement of people (as part of the single market) while not having a voice in EU decisions or any MEPs etc EXACTLY the same as the Norway option? Perhaps Boris has already started to have the mini strokes that his body shape implies are awaiting him.

As far as I can see we still need to settle our current invoice, agree the rules on citizenship and sort the Irish border out. Doubt the EU will spend any time on ‘transitional’ arrangements until these are sorted, if they ever are. Another delaying tactic which will keep this going for the life of this government. I know we are sick of elections, and the choices are horrible, but 5 more years of this witless, self serving, fractious, lying bunch and Brexit will be the least of out problems.

 

London's Uber Ban Is a Big Brexit Mistake
Why would tech companies want to invest in the U.K. and subject themselves to such a slap in the face?
by
Tyler Cowen
3
September 22, 2017, 11:44 AM EDT

please log in to view this image

How much to Heathrow?

Photographer: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
Prime Minister Theresa May made a big speech Friday on Brexit negotiations, but the bigger news coming out of London may have been that the transit authority, Transport for London, decided not to renew the license of Uber Technologies Inc. to operate inside city limits. The decision is a clear statement that the future of both London and the U.K. are less bright than we might have thought even a few days ago.

Banning Uber shows that a post-Brexit nation won’t be the libertarian paradise that many Brexit advocates have been predicting or at least clamoring for. The notion was that European Union regulation was horribly restrictive, and British business would blossom under a reign of newfound freedom, if only it could be left to its own devices. Although that was never very plausible to begin with, it was a common argument from Brexit supporters such as MP Daniel Hannan. It’s now hard to raise that point with any credibility.

The new Britain appears to be a nationalistic, job-protecting, quasi-mercantilist entity, as evidenced by the desire to preserve the work and pay of London’s traditional cabbies. That’s hardly the right signal to send to a world considering new trade deals or possibly foreign investment in the U.K. Uber, of course, is an American company, and it did sink capital into setting up in London -- and its reputational capital is on the line in what is still Europe’s most economically important city. This kind of slap in the face won’t exactly encourage other market entrants, including in the dynamic tech sector that London so desperately seeking.

A striking feature of this decision is the use of an outright ban rather than a gentler negotiation. Whether or not you agree with them, there are plausible criticisms of Uber. You might think the drivers need stronger security checks, the company needs to be removed from congested areas, it should pay more for local infrastructure, its drivers face subpar labor standards, and so on. Those worries, to the extent they are true, would suggest some mix of higher regulations and taxes for Uber. Yet the announcement of a pending ban is sending a broader signal to London and indeed British business that due regulatory process might be weak moving forward. It’s enough to make one long for the arduous, multistage regulatory decision processes of the EU.

The good news is that the announcement did seem to leave open the possibility of revision through the appeals process. The London transit authority cited Uber’s approach to crime reporting and medical certification, as well as a lack of transparency to regulators as reasons for the ban. That suggests a revamped Uber might stand a chance. In the meantime, the service is up and running.

But is the best way to deal with business regulation to take dramatic moves that grab headlines and fill my Twitter feed? Or does this tend to politicize and polarize opinion on what should be more narrowly technocratic issues?

The Uber ban might seem like a kind of populist measure, but from the consumer side it is likely to harm wealthy Londoners the least, or perhaps even benefit them. I’ve taken many cab rides and Uber rides in London, and in general I find the cabs to be pretty expensive. But they offer better service. You can find one right away, the drivers have a remarkable and indeed fabled knowledge of London roads, they are on the whole good drivers, and the vehicles are large and comfortable. I prefer to take London cabs over London Uber, even when Uber might be cheaper.

Over time, let’s say Uber would continue to encroach upon the cab business. It then becomes harder to hail cabs, as arguably is already the case. Uber fares might be lower, but the average quality of the ride would be lower too. That’s a better deal for poorer people, and an inferior deal for the well-off. Wealthy people are just fine with paying more and getting the better service. So in essence the Uber ban is locking in a system that harms poorer Londoners the most. Keep in mind the London Tube is not 24/7, and cabs are often more reluctant to pick up customers from dicier neighborhoods.

Of course, London cabbies are better off from the ban, and there are anecdotal reports of them celebrating in the streets. That’s sooner a sign of bad public policy than a beneficial act for London users and riders, numbering about 2.5 million for Uber. Although cabbies are likely to see higher incomes, an estimated 40,000 people are driving for Uber in London. They will have a harder time making ends meet.

Unfortunately, the U.K. is in a position where it can’t afford too many more mistakes. It just made one.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:
Tyler Cowen at [email protected]

 

A bit silly comparing uber drivers to some tech companies. Funnily though do you remember the slogan "London is open for business"

 

As soon as she opened her mouth the pound was falling.

 

52-48. To stay in? I don't accept that result. Can't the Independent run it again and again until they get it right? The Great British people can't be denied what they voted for 15 months ago in such a clear and decisive vote. It was 52-48 after all.

 

Well she did always say 'Brexit means Brexit................................probably'

 

That is hilarious!!
Firstly, why should we be punished? Pathetic.
Also, the only crazy dream is the EU "one size fits all" project.

 

Let's just keep voting till some of you and the EU get the result you want. The Eu has form for this after all.

 

So Treez doesn’t want an EEA Norway type deal (even though that is what she has asked for in the transition period) or a Canada type free trade agreement with the EU. But she is unable or unwilling to describe what a ‘bespoke ‘ UK deal would look like. Christ almighty.

Against what currencies? £ stronger against the $ and € than it was a couple of weeks ago (due to interest rate rise speculation I think).

What did you think of Mays speech Col?

 

Don't be such a twat. Or point out when I have ever called for a second vote because I can tell you now. I never have.

 

I can understand why there should be a period of adjustment to help business and the fact that the EU's reluctance to get on with things has made the timetable very short.
At the same time, I agree with Farage that it feels like a huge two fingers to almost 17.5 million people who voted to leave. I can't help but suspect that we may never leave and the politicians will somehow manage to back-track on the vote to leave. The public will get so heartilly sick of the whole thing that we will simply stay in eventually and no one will put up much of a fuss.
I'd have accepted it if we'd just walked away, as you know. I now wonder if my vote will ever count for much at all.

As for May...................she has disappointed me so much since becoming PM and she is a completely busted flush. All she does is back-track.

It would take a lot for me to vote Tory next time, but I don't see a viable alternative (for me) either! It's all rather depressing.

 

Don't call me a twat, you ****er. **** off!!

 

well that all deteriorated rather quickly