Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 6. Pick up sticks...

[P.J. Denyer]

'Companies' are rarely globalist. Two-thirds of UK businesses are SME's. I have one myself.

MNC's not only control the world's predominant economies, they also influence the markets.

If you want to know how and why, read the FT. It has a very different perspective than the SUN or the DAILY MAIL.

If you want the ruling class view, that is the opinion you need to look at.

I disagree, a lot of SMEs in the UK are very globalist, those that make up the hospitality industry (9% of British jobs) and farming for examples.

 

[Vixen]

I disagree, a lot of SMEs in the UK are very globalist, those that make up the hospitality industry (9% of British jobs) and farming for examples.

How is farming globalist? As for hospitality, hotel chains, restaurants, fast food chains are more usually MNCs rahter than local businesses.

Many a time I have frequented a charming looking local eatery establishment, only to be told later that actually, 'it's part of a chain'.

 

[Darat]

Why is the view so entrenched in the UK that the EU would even want this backstop to go on indefenitely? Why is there soo little trust that the EU would be a willing and cooperative partner in finding a solution that works?

40 years of the EU being a scapegoat for anything the media or government or any other political group had a bee in their bonnet about.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

How is farming globalist? As for hospitality, hotel chains, restaurants, fast food chains are more usually MNCs rahter than local businesses.

Many a time I have frequented a charming looking local eatery establishment, only to be told later that actually, 'it's part of a chain'.

Farming is globalist because it relies in a large part on seasonal labour, much of which comes from abroad, 40% of British food is imported, the farmers producing food abroad to sell here are also globalist.

The hospitality industry is made up of companies of all different sizes, plenty of them aren't part of chains (I spend half the year travelling for work and about three quarters of the places we stay aren't) and anyway many of the chain pubs and pub/restaurants are tied to a brewery or chain but run by leaseholders who operate as self employed small business owners.

 

[Vixen]

Farming is globalist because it relies in a large part on seasonal labour, much of which comes from abroad, 40% of British food is imported, the farmers producing food abroad to sell here are also globalist.

The hospitality industry is made up of companies of all different sizes, plenty of them aren't part of chains (I spend half the year travelling for work and about three quarters of the places we stay aren't) and anyway many of the chain pubs and pub/restaurants are tied to a brewery or chain but run by leaseholders who operate as self employed small business owners.

Supplying goods or service abroad (or importing and exporting) doesn't make a firm 'globalist'. A farmer would only be globalist if it established farms in more than two countries and owns them.

What happens with companies like Amazon, Ebay or Google is that whilst you might imagine the UK version is UK-based, you'll find actually they prefer to charge you from Ireland or somewhere on the continent. They use transfer pricing to ensure they (a) earn maximum tax-free profit and (b) they get away with avoiding Corporation Tax in the UK by showing their chosen 'head office' is elsewhere and has come under the radar of a large portion of tax by using artificially low transfer pricing.

The awfully nice farmer in Sussex is not doing that.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Supplying goods or service abroad (or importing and exporting) doesn't make a firm 'globalist'. A farmer would only be globalist if it established farms in more than two countries and owns them.

What happens with companies like Amazon, Ebay or Google is that whilst you might imagine the UK version is UK-based, you'll find actually they prefer to charge you from Ireland or somewhere on the continent. They use transfer pricing to ensure they (a) earn maximum tax-free profit and (b) they get away with avoiding Corporation Tax in the UK by showing their chosen 'head office' is elsewhere and has come under the radar of a large portion of tax by using artificially low transfer pricing.

The awfully nice farmer in Sussex is not doing that.

Nope, the free movement of goods, services and labour is a key element of globalism, it's not just multinationals.

Eta:and yes, I know how Amazon works.

Eta2: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization

In 2000, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) identified four basic aspects of globalization: trade and transactions, capital and investment movements, migration and movement of people, and the dissemination of knowledge.

 

[jimbob]

Supplying goods or service abroad (or importing and exporting) doesn't make a firm 'globalist'. A farmer would only be globalist if it established farms in more than two countries and owns them.

What happens with companies like Amazon, Ebay or Google is that whilst you might imagine the UK version is UK-based, you'll find actually they prefer to charge you from Ireland or somewhere on the continent. They use transfer pricing to ensure they (a) earn maximum tax-free profit and (b) they get away with avoiding Corporation Tax in the UK by showing their chosen 'head office' is elsewhere and has come under the radar of a large portion of tax by using artificially low transfer pricing.

The awfully nice farmer in Sussex is not doing that.

Most people in this thread are less ignorant than you assume.

Obviously importing and exporting of goods might not be "globalist" (Renaissance Venetian traders weren't by any reasonable definition) but if you treat the rest of Europe as indistinguishable as far as supply chain, labour supply and market, then that reflects the reality of modern British agriculture.

Now, maybe that's not "globalist" as opposed to "regionalist" but when you are relying on seasonal workers coming from the EU or even New Zealand/Australia for sheep-shearing, then it's pretty globalist by most

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Most people in this thread are less ignorant than you assume.

Obviously importing and exporting of goods might not be "globalist" (Renaissance Venetian traders weren't by any reasonable definition) but if you treat the rest of Europe as indistinguishable as far as supply chain, labour supply and market, then that reflects the reality of modern British agriculture.

Now, maybe that's not "globalist" as opposed to "regionalist" but when you are relying on seasonal workers coming from the EU or even New Zealand/Australia for sheep-shearing, then it's pretty globalist by most

Exactly, but also the (for example) New Zealand farmer exporting his lamb to the UK will be against import tariffs that protect UK farmers and disadvantage him which is a globalist opinion to hold.

 

[BillC]

I'm still not convinced the leavers wanted to win.

Boris did not seem like a happy man when he received the news.

They didn't expect to win. During the campaign, Gove and Johnson would meet in the restaurant of a London hotel and talk loudly about what they expected to gain from their narrow defeat. The waitstaff would overhear them.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

They didn't expect to win. During the campaign, Gove and Johnson would meet in the restaurant of a London hotel and talk loudly about what they expected to gain from their narrow defeat. The waitstaff would overhear them.

Not to mention the look of dumbstruck horror on Johnson's face after the result. They gambled the economy and future of everyone in the country for personal gain, and when that didn't work they doubled down.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Parliament gets a vote on the final deal and it won't allow a no deal to happen.

But they have to actually pass something to prevent it, as it is automatic after article 50. That is why I think no deal is the most likely outcome. What would the pass to prevent it?

 

[Henri McPhee]

I happened to see this programme as it aired, hoping for a decent debate. It was complete and utter rubbish. The vicar was unbearable. Other 'members of the public' were hardly able to articulate a point. It all descended into pandemonium, with the presenter unable to keep order.

TV is becoming ever more fake. Worst of all are the 'sports editors' with their totally phony 'excitement'. There are young bimbos fresh out of Southbank uni pretending to be ecstatic about Bolton Wanderers, Wigan rugby or Formula One racing. There is one Irish bimbo who has a fixed chummy smile all the way through her manic sports presentation. Whilst I am on a rant, why do they all feel obliged to talk as rapidly as possible, presumably to emulate a fake sense of uncontrollable excitement like a tv advert telling you to get down to your nearest M&S Bank Holiday furniture warehouse sale, ends this weekend!!!

I agree about all these talking heads on TV and their endless frenetic Brexit empty waffle. It's either that or ten minute weather forecasts and adverts. Is there nothing else going on in the world? Where are the funny comedians now? The thick-headed sports journalists on TV then do a "they fought for ninety minutes and no one fought harder than".... rant to wake you up followed by an interview with an ashen faced foreign football manager, and then on to a few boring rugby clips.

 

[wobs]

But they have to actually pass something to prevent it, as it is automatic after article 50. That is why I think no deal is the most likely outcome. What would the pass to prevent it?

Surely Parliament could vote down the deal, and then as some point vote to either cancel Article 50 (so remain), or to continue to no deal.

Obviously there is no guarantee the sane minds would win out in the end.

 

[The Moog]

...
Obviously there is no guarantee the sane minds would win out in the end.

Have they won out at any point so far?

 

[Vixen]

Most people in this thread are less ignorant than you assume.

Obviously importing and exporting of goods might not be "globalist" (Renaissance Venetian traders weren't by any reasonable definition) but if you treat the rest of Europe as indistinguishable as far as supply chain, labour supply and market, then that reflects the reality of modern British agriculture.

Now, maybe that's not "globalist" as opposed to "regionalist" but when you are relying on seasonal workers coming from the EU or even New Zealand/Australia for sheep-shearing, then it's pretty globalist by most

I don't think hiring a few migrants makes a company 'globalist'.

The key thing is capital. Having the means to generate vast sums by - for example - taking advantage of low cost labour, call centres and manufacturing in other countries, selling the goods/services in affluent western economies and avoiding company tax by means of transfer pricing. That is, sell something in England for £100 ceteris paribus invoiced from your firm in Ireland, charged to your firm in England at £20 to comply with Company Law, who then pays Corporation tax of £4 at the year end instead of £20 that a genuinely UK-based company would have to pay (assuming no expenses deducted). Exporting lamb from NZ to the UK is not globalism, unless it is an MNC financing it, say via a venture capitalist.

 

[Vixen]

Exactly, but also the (for example) New Zealand farmer exporting his lamb to the UK will be against import tariffs that protect UK farmers and disadvantage him which is a globalist opinion to hold.

Ah, but if you can work it by having the lamb arrive via a non-tariff country - which you could only do if you had a registered company based there - then you can get around the tariff: this is how the globalists operate, outside any of the rules a locally based company has to operate from.

 

[Vixen]

Delete

 

[Vixen]

But they have to actually pass something to prevent it, as it is automatic after article 50. That is why I think no deal is the most likely outcome. What would the pass to prevent it?

Someone has put in a Supreme Court action to make Article 50 potentially reversible.

 

[Wildy]

Not to mention the look of dumbstruck horror on Johnson's face after the result. They gambled the economy and future of everyone in the country for personal gain, and when that didn't work they doubled down.

In the case of Johnson I think it might be because he had to. He basically created a power base by pushing the leave narrative. By suddenly going "oh I didn't mean it" would basically destroy the support he has.

Since the referendum I'd say that every move he's made is still motivated by personal gain. The clearest is dropping out of the vote for PM. Even he knew that this was a career ending position to be in which is why he didn't take it.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Loathe to post from such a website, but this MP lays out why he thinks a border between NI and the UK can be avoided. Are his arguments unsound?

https://brexitcentral.com/avoid-hard-irish-border-remain-outside-customs-union-single-market/