Certainty of "No Deal" preferred to uncertainty of negotations

[Incubus]

"The certainty of a No Deal Brexit this year would be preferable to the
current uncertainty of negotiations with no clear outcome dragging on."

I wonder who would express such a sentiment. Obviously a frothing
"Brextremist" who has no clue about trade in the real world. Someone who
ignores economic experts in favour of a rose-tinted view of how our economy
will perform on WTO tariffs.

Oh, it was Aston Martin CEO Andy Palmer who expressed that.

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/technology/aston-martin-boss-brexit-strategy-laughable-ev-policy-non-sensical-idea-full

"'It's not great, but we have modelled No Deal and run the scenarios. What we
find harder to work with is goalposts that keep moving every six months. We
need an outcome, and the truth is that we have debated our negotiating tactics
in public, while the EU27 have worked with consensus and executed their
negotiations brilliantly. Our Brexit strategy has been laughable.'"

Indeed, he seems quite realistic. Unlike Richard Branson, he seems committed
to Britain. Not only has he not sued the NHS but Aston Martin recently opened
a new manufacturing plant in Wales. The threat of a "No Deal Brexit" certainly
hasn't been a deterrant even if it's not his preferred outcome.

I wonder why the BBC don't give special airtime to Andy Palmer. Could it be
perhaps because he's just a bit too realistic and non-partisan?

[Joe]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 22:03:19 +0100
Pamela <pamel...@gmail.com> wrote:


>
> Brexit is taking us back to the old days of government subsidy,
> uncompetitive industries and overpaid workers. Bloomin' marvellous.

Probably not much change. The EU is (rightly) opposed to new government
subsidy and nationalisation, but it's more than willing to designate
some companies/countries as 'dumping' goods into the EU and thereby
raising large tariffs against them. A large business in a favoured
country can therefore eliminate external competition that way. Did you
realise the scale of EU lobbying?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_lobbying

Here's a bit more detail, from five years ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-european-parliament-brussels-corporate

It's a bit of a shame that the nascent 'United States of Europe' felt
the need to copy USA-style political corruption.

--
Joe

[Incubus]

On 2019-07-11, Pamela <pamel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 15:08 11 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "The certainty of a No Deal Brexit this year would be preferable to
>> the
>> current uncertainty of negotiations with no clear outcome dragging on."
>>
>> I wonder who would express such a sentiment. Obviously a frothing
>> "Brextremist" who has no clue about trade in the real world. Someone
>> who ignores economic experts in favour of a rose-tinted view of how our
>> economy will perform on WTO tariffs.
>>
>> Oh, it was Aston Martin CEO Andy Palmer who expressed that.
>

> Is that the same Andy Palmer who secretly arranged for taxpayer's money to
> bail out his company last year -- while propping up his £3m salary? The EU
> probably won't allow more of that caper, so he's all for Brexit where he can
> lean on a weak government with a weak leader.
>
> "Aston Martin's £19m from Welsh Government"
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45737311

Only £3.5m had been drawn at the time of writing. There are conditions
attached for further sums. What makes you think that this is a result of
"Brexit"? Similar things occurred before the referendum. If we're playing tit
for tat then just be grateful that Aston Martin wasn't moved to Poland with the
help of an EU grant.

> Brexit is taking us back to the old days of government subsidy, uncompetitive
> industries and overpaid workers. Bloomin' marvellous.

We have all of those within the EU barring overpaid workers. Thanks to the EU,
salaries are depressed.

[Pamela]

I agree there's plenty of pork barrelling and concessions to special
interests at the EU. Despite all that is wrong there, the EU is prosperous
and any market-distorting protectionism has not caused countries to go into
decline.

In stark contrast, decades ago the UK was the sick man of Europe and in
serious economic trouble but we kept on paying any demands the union or
company bosses demanded. It took Thatcher to deal with the unions but it
took the EU to stop us favouring our own industries to the eventual economic
cost of all concerned.

[Pamela]

On 09:58 12 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2019-07-11, Pamela <pamel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 15:08 11 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "The certainty of a No Deal Brexit this year would be preferable to
>>> the
>>> current uncertainty of negotiations with no clear outcome dragging
>>> on."
>>>
>>> I wonder who would express such a sentiment. Obviously a frothing
>>> "Brextremist" who has no clue about trade in the real world. Someone
>>> who ignores economic experts in favour of a rose-tinted view of how
>>> our economy will perform on WTO tariffs.
>>>
>>> Oh, it was Aston Martin CEO Andy Palmer who expressed that.
>>
>> Is that the same Andy Palmer who secretly arranged for taxpayer's money

>> to bail out his company last year -- while propping up his £3m salary?

>> The EU probably won't allow more of that caper, so he's all for Brexit
>> where he can lean on a weak government with a weak leader.
>>
>> "Aston Martin's £19m from Welsh Government"
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45737311
>
> Only £3.5m had been drawn at the time of writing. There are conditions
> attached for further sums. What makes you think that this is a result
> of "Brexit"?

Whatever Aston Martin has received so far, it has scammed £19m out of us
taxpayers.

Where did I say it's a result of Brexit?. I said a company which enjoys
generous govt subsidy can expect to be more successful in getting even
more money if the EU are off the scene.

> Similar things occurred before the referendum. If we're
> playing tit for tat then just be grateful that Aston Martin wasn't moved
> to Poland with the help of an EU grant.

What would be so wrong with that? If the quality was maintained then the
company would continue to make fine cars and if they were still designed
in the UK than it's like Dyson who manufactures overseas. The company
would have to decide if it was worth the cars losing their British cachet.
I can't see why the UK should have to prop up a commerical concern.

If we wish to subsidise British workers, such as Aston martin car workers,
then let's do it openly through the income tax or tax credits system,
rather than favour the most influential groups at the cost of those
workers who can't lobby so effectively.

>> Brexit is taking us back to the old days of government subsidy,
>> uncompetitive industries and overpaid workers. Bloomin' marvellous.
>
> We have all of those within the EU barring overpaid workers. Thanks to
> the EU, salaries are depressed.

Workers become overpaid when they are paid above the market rate for their
labour. A subsidised indistry (or one with an aggressive union) is by
definition not able to operate on a purely commerical basis.

[Incubus]

On 2019-07-12, Pamela <pamela....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 09:58 12 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2019-07-11, Pamela <pamel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 15:08 11 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "The certainty of a No Deal Brexit this year would be preferable to
>>>> the
>>>> current uncertainty of negotiations with no clear outcome dragging
>>>> on."
>>>>
>>>> I wonder who would express such a sentiment. Obviously a frothing
>>>> "Brextremist" who has no clue about trade in the real world. Someone
>>>> who ignores economic experts in favour of a rose-tinted view of how
>>>> our economy will perform on WTO tariffs.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, it was Aston Martin CEO Andy Palmer who expressed that.
>>>
>>> Is that the same Andy Palmer who secretly arranged for taxpayer's money

>>> to bail out his company last year -- while propping up his £3m salary?

>>> The EU probably won't allow more of that caper, so he's all for Brexit
>>> where he can lean on a weak government with a weak leader.
>>>
>>> "Aston Martin's £19m from Welsh Government"
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45737311
>>
>> Only £3.5m had been drawn at the time of writing. There are conditions
>> attached for further sums. What makes you think that this is a result
>> of "Brexit"?
>
> Whatever Aston Martin has received so far, it has scammed £19m out of us
> taxpayers.

It hasn't received £19m so certainly has not "scammed" that amount.

> Where did I say it's a result of Brexit?. I said a company which enjoys
> generous govt subsidy can expect to be more successful in getting even
> more money if the EU are off the scene.

What do you base that on? It seems to me that the EU is all about subsidising
industry.

>> Similar things occurred before the referendum. If we're
>> playing tit for tat then just be grateful that Aston Martin wasn't moved
>> to Poland with the help of an EU grant.
>
> What would be so wrong with that?

You know, the loss of British jobs, tax revenue and all that. Nothing
important to you, perhaps, but quite important to a successful economy and a
functioning society.

> If the quality was maintained then the
> company would continue to make fine cars and if they were still designed
> in the UK than it's like Dyson who manufactures overseas. The company
> would have to decide if it was worth the cars losing their British cachet.
> I can't see why the UK should have to prop up a commerical concern.

Paying a certain amount in subsidies might mean avoiding paying out a lot more
in JSA and other benefits on balance. Given future tax revenue, it might be
seen as a form of investment.

> If we wish to subsidise British workers, such as Aston martin car workers,
> then let's do it openly through the income tax or tax credits system,
> rather than favour the most influential groups at the cost of those
> workers who can't lobby so effectively.

I imagine it's the kind of thing that has to occur on a case by case basis,
costed and accounted for. The EU have an open system of subsidies and it is a
cause of friction.

>>> Brexit is taking us back to the old days of government subsidy,
>>> uncompetitive industries and overpaid workers. Bloomin' marvellous.
>>
>> We have all of those within the EU barring overpaid workers. Thanks to
>> the EU, salaries are depressed.
>
> Workers become overpaid when they are paid above the market rate for their
> labour. A subsidised indistry (or one with an aggressive union) is by
> definition not able to operate on a purely commerical basis.

I see what you're saying but I don't think it's as simple as that for reasons I
have stated above. Again, if you are so against subsidies propping up
industries, why aren't you in favour of getting rid of farming subsidies etc?
When people claim that our farming industry will collapse if we leave the EU,
you should be cheering that on.

[Basil Jet]

On 11/07/2019 22:03, Pamela wrote:
> On 15:08 11 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> "The certainty of a No Deal Brexit this year would be preferable to
>> the
>> current uncertainty of negotiations with no clear outcome dragging on."
>>
>> I wonder who would express such a sentiment. Obviously a frothing
>> "Brextremist" who has no clue about trade in the real world. Someone
>> who ignores economic experts in favour of a rose-tinted view of how our
>> economy will perform on WTO tariffs.
>>
>> Oh, it was Aston Martin CEO Andy Palmer who expressed that.
>

> Is that the same Andy Palmer who secretly arranged for taxpayer's money to
> bail out his company last year -- while propping up his £3m salary? The EU
> probably won't allow more of that caper, so he's all for Brexit where he can
> lean on a weak government with a weak leader.
>
> "Aston Martin's £19m from Welsh Government"
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45737311
>

> Brexit is taking us back to the old days of government subsidy, uncompetitive
> industries and overpaid workers. Bloomin' marvellous.
>

I'm a Ukip member, but I have to applaud the skill of your reply.

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
David Gray - 2014 - Mutineers

[Fredxx]

On 12/07/2019 10:46, Pamela wrote:
> On 22:45 11 Jul 2019, Joe <j...@jretrading.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 22:03:19 +0100
>> Pamela <pamel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Brexit is taking us back to the old days of government subsidy,
>>> uncompetitive industries and overpaid workers. Bloomin' marvellous.
>>
>> Probably not much change. The EU is (rightly) opposed to new government
>> subsidy and nationalisation, but it's more than willing to designate
>> some companies/countries as 'dumping' goods into the EU and thereby
>> raising large tariffs against them. A large business in a favoured
>> country can therefore eliminate external competition that way. Did you
>> realise the scale of EU lobbying?
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_lobbying
>>
>> Here's a bit more detail, from five years ago:
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-european-
>> parliament-brussels-corporate
>>
>> It's a bit of a shame that the nascent 'United States of Europe' felt
>> the need to copy USA-style political corruption.
>
> I agree there's plenty of pork barrelling and concessions to special
> interests at the EU. Despite all that is wrong there, the EU is prosperous
> and any market-distorting protectionism has not caused countries to go into
> decline.

You seem to have hit the nail on the head. There is a perception of
prosperity where politicians and the well-heeled have done well.

Remind us, at what average age do first time buyers buy their houses.

https://www.mortgagesolutions.co.uk/news/2019/02/19/average-age-of-first-time-buyers-rose-by-eights-years-since-2007/

[Fredxx]

It makes a change from UK tax payers to fund the EU so the EU can fund a
new factory in Poland and close one in Bristol.

<snip>

>> We have all of those within the EU barring overpaid workers. Thanks to
>> the EU, salaries are depressed.
>
> Workers become overpaid when they are paid above the market rate for their
> labour. A subsidised indistry (or one with an aggressive union) is by
> definition not able to operate on a purely commerical basis.

Agreed, one reason for the support of Brexit is to level the playing
field, to ensure there is a greater demand for workers, to encourage the
workshy with any laudable excuse to get off their arse.

You don't work, do you? What would it take for you to get off your arse
and take up employment?

[Fredxx]

In which case I thought you might have considered the subsidies to
Eastern European countries.

[Pamela]

Isn't UKIP was effectively dead after losing 21 of its 24 MEPs? Haven't
almost all Kippers defected to the Brexit Party?

[Basil Jet]

On 12/07/2019 11:47, Pamela wrote:
>
> Isn't UKIP was effectively dead after losing 21 of its 24 MEPs? Haven't
> almost all Kippers defected to the Brexit Party?

The members haven't. We don't think the Brexit Party has a future after
Brexit. Its MEPs range from communists to Ann Widdecombe, and there is
nothing to hold them together once Brexit happens.

[Pamela]

Why has Britain created an expectation, not found in comparable countries,
that owning a home is an entitlement?

Sadly stay at home millenials prefer to rack up bills on their generous
student loans to fund comfy living, gap years and partying rather than save a
deposit for a house.

Worse still, too many of these youngsters are lazy after graduating and
refuse to take jobs unless they suits their "values" in which they bring
their leisure time so that it almost blurs into the workplace.

A very common moan from this generation is that previous generations are too
well-off and depriving them of an (easy) living. Poor lambs.

Are you one of them?

[Fredxx]

Most of us have worked to buy our homes. It is not an entitlement and
never has been.

Did you work to buy your house or perhaps something you inherit or live
with parents?

> Sadly stay at home millenials prefer to rack up bills on their generous
> student loans to fund comfy living, gap years and partying rather than save a
> deposit for a house.

When there is no prospect of a mortgage within 10 years of graduating I
wouldn't blame them. It's no different to your generation.

Did you actually go to university? Were you teetotal?

> Worse still, too many of these youngsters are lazy after graduating and
> refuse to take jobs unless they suits their "values" in which they bring
> their leisure time so that it almost blurs into the workplace.

Sour grapes indeed. People will work for the going rate, there is near
full employment. If jobs aren't taken then they don't pay enough.

You're far too lazy to work yourself to call anyone else lazy. I'm sure
those you call lazy would have an equally valid reason as you for why
they don't.

> A very common moan from this generation is that previous generations are too
> well-off and depriving them of an (easy) living. Poor lambs.

When it comes to housing, many would agree with them.

> Are you one of them?

As above.

[Fredxx]

On 12/07/2019 11:56, Basil Jet wrote:
> On 12/07/2019 11:47, Pamela wrote:
>>
>> Isn't UKIP was effectively dead after losing 21 of its 24 MEPs?  Haven't
>> almost all Kippers defected to the Brexit Party?
>
> The members haven't. We don't think the Brexit Party has a future after
> Brexit. Its MEPs range from communists to Ann Widdecombe, and there is
> nothing to hold them together once Brexit happens.

When UKIP members vote for Gerard Batten it has a lesser future than the
Brexit Party. It says more about the members than you can imagine.

[Pamela]

Of course the UK gets more from being a member than we pay in membership
fees, so the nett effect is we are better off.

>>> We have all of those within the EU barring overpaid workers. Thanks
>>> to the EU, salaries are depressed.
>>
>> Workers become overpaid when they are paid above the market rate for

>> their labour. A subsidised industry (or one with an aggressive union)
>> is by definition not able to operate on a purely commercial basis.

>
> Agreed, one reason for the support of Brexit is to level the playing
> field, to ensure there is a greater demand for workers, to encourage the
> workshy with any laudable excuse to get off their arse.

Creating a greater demand for workers isn't going to go far if the jobs
they do are subsidised and can't be justified in the free market. Pulling
up the drawbridge like that might benefit Britain for a few years but
after that the rot sets it.

> You don't work, do you? What would it take for you to get off your arse
> and take up employment?

I thoroughly enjoyed the jobs I have done as they have given me
satisfaction as well as income. Meanwhile all I hear from you are moans
about how bad working is.

Why don't you improve your market worth by studying hard or leaving the
public sector and working in the real world where there is almost no limit
to what a good workers can achieve? All it takes is a little bit of
initiative and some hard work. Try it.

[Pamela]

On 11:17 12 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2019-07-12, Pamela <pamela....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 09:58 12 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2019-07-11, Pamela <pamel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 15:08 11 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "The certainty of a No Deal Brexit this year would be preferable
>>>>> to the
>>>>> current uncertainty of negotiations with no clear outcome dragging
>>>>> on."
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder who would express such a sentiment. Obviously a frothing
>>>>> "Brextremist" who has no clue about trade in the real world.
>>>>> Someone who ignores economic experts in favour of a rose-tinted view
>>>>> of how our economy will perform on WTO tariffs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, it was Aston Martin CEO Andy Palmer who expressed that.
>>>>
>>>> Is that the same Andy Palmer who secretly arranged for taxpayer's

>>>> money to bail out his company last year -- while propping up his £3m

>>>> salary?
>>>> The EU probably won't allow more of that caper, so he's all for
>>>> Brexit
>>>> where he can lean on a weak government with a weak leader.
>>>>
>>>> "Aston Martin's £19m from Welsh Government"
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45737311
>>>
>>> Only £3.5m had been drawn at the time of writing. There are
>>> conditions attached for further sums. What makes you think that this
>>> is a result of "Brexit"?
>>
>> Whatever Aston Martin has received so far, it has scammed £19m out of
>> us taxpayers.
>
> It hasn't received £19m so certainly has not "scammed" that amount.

Aston Martin has scammed a promise that gives it £19 million which, on
account of its public unacceptability, was kept secret. For shame.

>> Where did I say it's a result of Brexit?.

You didn't say that but you claimed I said it. I didn't.

What makes you think that this is a result of "Brexit"?

>> I said a company which
>> enjoys generous govt subsidy can expect to be more successful in
>> getting even more money if the EU are off the scene.
>
> What do you base that on? It seems to me that the EU is all about
> subsidising industry.

The EU is about a great deal more than subsiding industry.

>>> Similar things occurred before the referendum. If we're
>>> playing tit for tat then just be grateful that Aston Martin wasn't
>>> moved to Poland with the help of an EU grant.
>>
>> What would be so wrong with that?
>
> You know, the loss of British jobs, tax revenue and all that. Nothing
> important to you, perhaps, but quite important to a successful economy
> and a functioning society.

If we can't compete on international markets without taxpayer subsidiy
then how do you think this will end? Subsidies create unsustainable
industries at public expense.

>> If the quality was maintained then the
>> company would continue to make fine cars and if they were still
>> designed in the UK than it's like Dyson who manufactures overseas. The
>> company would have to decide if it was worth the cars losing their
>> British cachet. I can't see why the UK should have to prop up a
>> commerical concern.
>
> Paying a certain amount in subsidies might mean avoiding paying out a
> lot more in JSA and other benefits on balance. Given future tax
> revenue, it might be seen as a form of investment.

Why refer to JSA when I referred to tax subsidies for workers?

>> If we wish to subsidise British workers, such as Aston martin car
>> workers, then let's do it openly through the income tax or tax credits
>> system, rather than favour the most influential groups at the cost of
>> those workers who can't lobby so effectively.
>
> I imagine it's the kind of thing that has to occur on a case by case
> basis, costed and accounted for. The EU have an open system of
> subsidies and it is a cause of friction.

The UK had an appalling track record of caving in to too company demands.
(Also union demands too.) The EU gave us some backbone and, in turn,
forced out industries to become more competitive which is an excellent
outcome for us.

>>>> Brexit is taking us back to the old days of government subsidy,
>>>> uncompetitive industries and overpaid workers. Bloomin' marvellous.
>>>
>>> We have all of those within the EU barring overpaid workers. Thanks
>>> to the EU, salaries are depressed.
>>
>> Workers become overpaid when they are paid above the market rate for
>> their labour. A subsidised indistry (or one with an aggressive union)
>> is by definition not able to operate on a purely commerical basis.
>
> I see what you're saying but I don't think it's as simple as that for
> reasons I have stated above. Again, if you are so against subsidies
> propping up industries, why aren't you in favour of getting rid of
> farming subsidies etc? When people claim that our farming industry will
> collapse if we leave the EU, you should be cheering that on.

I'm ambivalent about farming subsidies. Logic dictates they should go but
what would be cost of managing thouands of acres of derelict farms?

[Fredxx]

Only in your dreams, do you read the crap you write?

>>>> We have all of those within the EU barring overpaid workers. Thanks
>>>> to the EU, salaries are depressed.
>>>
>>> Workers become overpaid when they are paid above the market rate for
>>> their labour. A subsidised industry (or one with an aggressive union)
>>> is by definition not able to operate on a purely commercial basis.
>>
>> Agreed, one reason for the support of Brexit is to level the playing
>> field, to ensure there is a greater demand for workers, to encourage the
>> workshy with any laudable excuse to get off their arse.
>
> Creating a greater demand for workers isn't going to go far if the jobs
> they do are subsidised and can't be justified in the free market. Pulling
> up the drawbridge like that might benefit Britain for a few years but
> after that the rot sets it.

If we have full employment why would there be a need to subsidise jobs,
apart from areas with specific issues?

>> You don't work, do you? What would it take for you to get off your arse
>> and take up employment?
>
> I thoroughly enjoyed the jobs I have done as they have given me
> satisfaction as well as income. Meanwhile all I hear from you are moans
> about how bad working is.

You don't work and I have not recently moaned of my working environment.
If you read through my posts you will discover quite the opposite. My
concerns are more about my children's welfare and their ability to get
on the housing ladder.

If I do moan, it's about the parasites living off workers' back who
whinge about workers being lazy when they are the themselves pinnacle of
laziness.

> Why don't you improve your market worth by studying hard or leaving the
> public sector and working in the real world where there is almost no limit
> to what a good workers can achieve? All it takes is a little bit of
> initiative and some hard work. Try it.

Quite, and why I left 15 years or so ago. I have not looked back.

[Pamela]

I worked to save the money to get a deposit to buy my house and then made
mortage payments for many years.

>> Sadly stay at home millenials prefer to rack up bills on their generous
>> student loans to fund comfy living, gap years and partying rather than
>> save a deposit for a house.
>
> When there is no prospect of a mortgage within 10 years of graduating I
> wouldn't blame them. It's no different to your generation.
>
> Did you actually go to university? Were you teetotal?

Too many of today's millenial students are profligate: taxis, frequent
restaurant meals, comfortable accomodation, delivered hot food, high end
hitech devices, and so on. One of my relatives at sixth form college was
maoning that foreign students in his class were working too hard and he
couldn't hope to keep up with them.

>> Worse still, too many of these youngsters are lazy after graduating and
>> refuse to take jobs unless they suits their "values" in which they
>> bring their leisure time so that it almost blurs into the workplace.
>
> Sour grapes indeed. People will work for the going rate, there is near
> full employment. If jobs aren't taken then they don't pay enough.

That's right except some will fall back on a generous benfits system which
is cushier than real work for too many idlers.

> You're far too lazy to work yourself to call anyone else lazy. I'm sure
> those you call lazy would have an equally valid reason as you for why
> they don't.

Hard workers don't see their work rate as particularly uusual. It's the
shirkers who moan about making the slighest effort. Ask a shirker to do
something they don't usually do and they will wail about it. You seem to
be moaning about work and payment all the time -- why don't you just get
on with it or move jobs.

[Incubus]

On 2019-07-12, Pamela <pamela....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11:17 12 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2019-07-12, Pamela <pamela....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 09:58 12 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2019-07-11, Pamela <pamel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 15:08 11 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "The certainty of a No Deal Brexit this year would be preferable
>>>>>> to the
>>>>>> current uncertainty of negotiations with no clear outcome dragging
>>>>>> on."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder who would express such a sentiment. Obviously a frothing
>>>>>> "Brextremist" who has no clue about trade in the real world.
>>>>>> Someone who ignores economic experts in favour of a rose-tinted view
>>>>>> of how our economy will perform on WTO tariffs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, it was Aston Martin CEO Andy Palmer who expressed that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that the same Andy Palmer who secretly arranged for taxpayer's

>>>>> money to bail out his company last year -- while propping up his £3m

>>>>> salary?
>>>>> The EU probably won't allow more of that caper, so he's all for
>>>>> Brexit
>>>>> where he can lean on a weak government with a weak leader.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Aston Martin's £19m from Welsh Government"
>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45737311
>>>>
>>>> Only £3.5m had been drawn at the time of writing. There are
>>>> conditions attached for further sums. What makes you think that this
>>>> is a result of "Brexit"?
>>>
>>> Whatever Aston Martin has received so far, it has scammed £19m out of
>>> us taxpayers.
>>
>> It hasn't received £19m so certainly has not "scammed" that amount.
>
> Aston Martin has scammed a promise that gives it £19 million which, on
> account of its public unacceptability, was kept secret. For shame.

Where is the "scam" in all this? If you believe some dishonesty has taken
place then state it.

>>> I said a company which
>>> enjoys generous govt subsidy can expect to be more successful in
>>> getting even more money if the EU are off the scene.
>>
>> What do you base that on? It seems to me that the EU is all about
>> subsidising industry.
>
> The EU is about a great deal more than subsiding industry.

That just happens to be one of the less malign aspects.

>>>> Similar things occurred before the referendum. If we're
>>>> playing tit for tat then just be grateful that Aston Martin wasn't
>>>> moved to Poland with the help of an EU grant.
>>>
>>> What would be so wrong with that?
>>
>> You know, the loss of British jobs, tax revenue and all that. Nothing
>> important to you, perhaps, but quite important to a successful economy
>> and a functioning society.
>
> If we can't compete on international markets without taxpayer subsidiy
> then how do you think this will end? Subsidies create unsustainable
> industries at public expense.

Lots of industries are subsidised in one way or another. Sometimes the loss of
those industries will pose a far greater cost than the subsidies themselves.

>>> If the quality was maintained then the
>>> company would continue to make fine cars and if they were still
>>> designed in the UK than it's like Dyson who manufactures overseas. The
>>> company would have to decide if it was worth the cars losing their
>>> British cachet. I can't see why the UK should have to prop up a
>>> commerical concern.
>>
>> Paying a certain amount in subsidies might mean avoiding paying out a
>> lot more in JSA and other benefits on balance. Given future tax
>> revenue, it might be seen as a form of investment.
>
> Why refer to JSA when I referred to tax subsidies for workers?

Because you said you can't see why the UK should have to prop up a commercial
concern. A sensible government will make an assessment of whether propping up
that concern will prevent a worse drain of the public purse.

>>> If we wish to subsidise British workers, such as Aston martin car
>>> workers, then let's do it openly through the income tax or tax credits
>>> system, rather than favour the most influential groups at the cost of
>>> those workers who can't lobby so effectively.
>>
>> I imagine it's the kind of thing that has to occur on a case by case
>> basis, costed and accounted for. The EU have an open system of
>> subsidies and it is a cause of friction.
>
> The UK had an appalling track record of caving in to too company demands.
> (Also union demands too.) The EU gave us some backbone and, in turn,
> forced out industries to become more competitive which is an excellent
> outcome for us.

You can thank Thatcher for that. The EU's insistence that local authority
contracts should be opened up to the entire EU has resulted in the closure of
British businesses. They aren't competing at all now.

>>>>> Brexit is taking us back to the old days of government subsidy,
>>>>> uncompetitive industries and overpaid workers. Bloomin' marvellous.
>>>>
>>>> We have all of those within the EU barring overpaid workers. Thanks
>>>> to the EU, salaries are depressed.
>>>
>>> Workers become overpaid when they are paid above the market rate for
>>> their labour. A subsidised indistry (or one with an aggressive union)
>>> is by definition not able to operate on a purely commerical basis.
>>
>> I see what you're saying but I don't think it's as simple as that for
>> reasons I have stated above. Again, if you are so against subsidies
>> propping up industries, why aren't you in favour of getting rid of
>> farming subsidies etc? When people claim that our farming industry will
>> collapse if we leave the EU, you should be cheering that on.
>
> I'm ambivalent about farming subsidies. Logic dictates they should go but
> what would be cost of managing thouands of acres of derelict farms?

So there might be the case to be made for subsiding them, just as there might
be a good case to be made for subsiding Aston Martin.

[Pamela]

We have nearly full employment and the unemployment rate is at a 45 year
low. By this measure, wages are about right at the moment.

Which makes me wonder why Aston Martin needs £19 million from the
taxpayer, especially whilst the CEO isn't taking a cut in his £3 million
salary.

>>> You don't work, do you? What would it take for you to get off your
>>> arse and take up employment?
>>
>> I thoroughly enjoyed the jobs I have done as they have given me
>> satisfaction as well as income. Meanwhile all I hear from you are
>> moans about how bad working is.
>
> You don't work and I have not recently moaned of my working environment.
> If you read through my posts you will discover quite the opposite. My
> concerns are more about my children's welfare and their ability to get
> on the housing ladder.
>
> If I do moan, it's about the parasites living off workers' back who
> whinge about workers being lazy when they are the themselves pinnacle of
> laziness.

I don't know who you mean considering that most retired people have worked
all their lives and now live off savings (perhaps in the form of private
pensions) they made during their working lives.

Which other people do you mean by "parasites"?

[tim...]

"Basil Jet" <ba...@spamspamspam.com> wrote in message
news:qg9p0h$5ip$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 12/07/2019 11:47, Pamela wrote:
>>
>> Isn't UKIP was effectively dead after losing 21 of its 24 MEPs? Haven't
>> almost all Kippers defected to the Brexit Party?
>
> The members haven't. We don't think the Brexit Party has a future after
> Brexit.

which is as it should be

UKIP's problem is/was that it wants to implement its extreme agenda
alongside Brexit, which is something that 90% of Leavers don't want.

> Its MEPs range from communists to Ann Widdecombe, and there is nothing to
> hold them together once Brexit happens.

Good

tim

[tim...]

"Pamela" <pamela....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsAA8A79A...@81.171.118.178...

In never thought that I'd ever agree with Pamela

It is a bogus posting?

tim

[Keema's Nan]

On 12 Jul 2019, tim... wrote
(in article <qgaese$7hs$1...@dont-email.me>):

Because upper middle class Tories love house price inflation. It ticks all
their boxes.

They increase their wealth by doing absolutely nothing.

[Pamela]

On 14:12 12 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2019-07-12, Pamela <pamela....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11:17 12 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2019-07-12, Pamela <pamela....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 09:58 12 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2019-07-11, Pamela <pamel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 15:08 11 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Only Ł3.5m had been drawn at the time of writing. There are

>>>>> conditions attached for further sums. What makes you think that
>>>>> this is a result of "Brexit"?
>>>>

>>>> Whatever Aston Martin has received so far, it has scammed Ł19m out of
>>>> us taxpayers.
>>>
>>> It hasn't received Ł19m so certainly has not "scammed" that amount.
>>
>> Aston Martin has scammed a promise that gives it Ł19 million which, on

>> account of its public unacceptability, was kept secret. For shame.
>
> Where is the "scam" in all this? If you believe some dishonesty has
> taken place then state it.

Giving Aston Martin a subsidy of Ł25,000 per worker was so embarassing
that it had to be hidden from public record -- until the BBC made its
Freedom Of Information request.

>>>> I said a company which
>>>> enjoys generous govt subsidy can expect to be more successful in
>>>> getting even more money if the EU are off the scene.
>>>
>>> What do you base that on? It seems to me that the EU is all about
>>> subsidising industry.
>>
>> The EU is about a great deal more than subsiding industry.
>
> That just happens to be one of the less malign aspects.
>
>>>>> Similar things occurred before the referendum. If we're
>>>>> playing tit for tat then just be grateful that Aston Martin wasn't
>>>>> moved to Poland with the help of an EU grant.
>>>>
>>>> What would be so wrong with that?
>>>
>>> You know, the loss of British jobs, tax revenue and all that. Nothing
>>> important to you, perhaps, but quite important to a successful economy
>>> and a functioning society.
>>
>> If we can't compete on international markets without taxpayer subsidiy
>> then how do you think this will end? Subsidies create unsustainable
>> industries at public expense.
>
> Lots of industries are subsidised in one way or another. Sometimes the
> loss of those industries will pose a far greater cost than the subsidies
> themselves.

More often, that loss is overstated. Cameron rushed to subsidise Tata
Steel, also in South Wales, but he did so for political purposes to make
hiselfm look good and not be seen "abandoning" British workers. Yet the
taxpayer would have had to fork out for it.

>
> ...

>
>>>> If we wish to subsidise British workers, such as Aston martin car
>>>> workers, then let's do it openly through the income tax or tax
>>>> credits system, rather than favour the most influential groups at the
>>>> cost of those workers who can't lobby so effectively.
>>>
>>> I imagine it's the kind of thing that has to occur on a case by case
>>> basis, costed and accounted for. The EU have an open system of
>>> subsidies and it is a cause of friction.
>>
>> The UK had an appalling track record of caving in to too company
>> demands. (Also union demands too.) The EU gave us some backbone and,
>> in turn, forced out industries to become more competitive which is an
>> excellent outcome for us.
>
> You can thank Thatcher for that. The EU's insistence that local
> authority contracts should be opened up to the entire EU has resulted in
> the closure of British businesses. They aren't competing at all now.

There's no commercial gain by propping up uncompetitive national
industries. Multinationals used to enjoy going around from country to
country looking for the maximum subsidiy as they tried to outbid one
other. The EU has clamped down on this nonsense by making the investment
decision more commercially based rather than political.

[Basil Jet]

On 12/07/2019 18:05, tim... wrote:
>
>
> "Basil Jet" <ba...@spamspamspam.com> wrote in message
> news:qg9p0h$5ip$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 12/07/2019 11:47, Pamela wrote:
>>>
>>> Isn't UKIP was effectively dead after losing 21 of its 24 MEPs?  Haven't
>>> almost all Kippers defected to the Brexit Party?
>>
>> The members haven't. We don't think the Brexit Party has a future
>> after Brexit.
>
> which is as it should be
>
> UKIP's problem is/was that it wants to implement its extreme agenda
> alongside Brexit, which is something that 90% of Leavers don't want.

What extreme agenda - making different religions obey the same laws?

[Fredxx]

In a time when you could, no longer possible for those in their 20s.

>>> Sadly stay at home millenials prefer to rack up bills on their generous
>>> student loans to fund comfy living, gap years and partying rather than
>>> save a deposit for a house.
>>
>> When there is no prospect of a mortgage within 10 years of graduating I
>> wouldn't blame them. It's no different to your generation.
>>
>> Did you actually go to university? Were you teetotal?
>
> Too many of today's millenial students are profligate: taxis, frequent
> restaurant meals, comfortable accomodation, delivered hot food, high end
> hitech devices, and so on. One of my relatives at sixth form college was
> maoning that foreign students in his class were working too hard and he
> couldn't hope to keep up with them.

That's a 'no' then. How many of those who don't go to university could
afford their own house?

>>> Worse still, too many of these youngsters are lazy after graduating and
>>> refuse to take jobs unless they suits their "values" in which they
>>> bring their leisure time so that it almost blurs into the workplace.
>>
>> Sour grapes indeed. People will work for the going rate, there is near
>> full employment. If jobs aren't taken then they don't pay enough.
>
> That's right except some will fall back on a generous benfits system which
> is cushier than real work for too many idlers.

If we have a benefit system that discourages work, then so be it. The
pension is perhaps the best example. Means testing is the next worst
method of discouraging work.

Only an idiot would clean toilets for peanuts if they could stay at home
for the same money. Only an idiot who can't see further than the length
of their arm would suggest otherwise.

>> You're far too lazy to work yourself to call anyone else lazy. I'm sure
>> those you call lazy would have an equally valid reason as you for why
>> they don't.
>
> Hard workers don't see their work rate as particularly uusual. It's the
> shirkers who moan about making the slighest effort. Ask a shirker to do
> something they don't usually do and they will wail about it. You seem to
> be moaning about work and payment all the time -- why don't you just get
> on with it or move jobs.

That passage make you out to be as lazy as those you chastise. You're
doing an awful lot of wailing here.

It's a common theme for those who shirk work to whinge of others making
the same choices.

[Pamela]

We have to try not to make it a habit. :)

[JNugent]

On 14/07/2019 00:10, Fredxx wrote:

[ ... ]

> If we have a benefit system that discourages work, then so be it. The
> pension is perhaps the best example. Means testing is the next worst
> method of discouraging work.
>
> Only an idiot would clean toilets for peanuts if they could stay at home
> for the same money. Only an idiot who can't see further than the length
> of their arm would suggest otherwise.

For anyone whose best bet for earning money is cleaning toilets,
out-of-work benefits have to be set at a rate LOWER then the wages for
cleaning toilets.

Now come on... that's not difficult.

[Pamela]

I wonder why Fredxx thinks the only manual labour is cleaning toilets.
There's fruit picking, road sweeping and plenty of others which pay more than
state benefits for those who put in a full week.

Foreigners who come tyo the UK often actually do these jobs and don't go on
the dole. That's where lazy Brits can be found -- their usual excuse is some
sort of disability of a kind which can't be checked.

Your observation that a lower benefits rate than for cleaning toilets makes
sense.

[abelard]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 00:10:31 +0100, Fredxx <fre...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
>That passage make you out to be as lazy as those you chastise. You're
>doing an awful lot of wailing here.
>
>It's a common theme for those who shirk work to whinge of others making
>the same choices.

it is perfectly natural and rational...
if others stop working there will be no-one to pay their dole

--
www.abelard.org

[Incubus]

On 2019-07-13, Pamela <pamela....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14:12 12 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2019-07-12, Pamela <pamela....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11:17 12 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2019-07-12, Pamela <pamela....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 09:58 12 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2019-07-11, Pamela <pamel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 15:08 11 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Only £3.5m had been drawn at the time of writing. There are

>>>>>> conditions attached for further sums. What makes you think that
>>>>>> this is a result of "Brexit"?
>>>>>

>>>>> Whatever Aston Martin has received so far, it has scammed £19m out of
>>>>> us taxpayers.
>>>>
>>>> It hasn't received £19m so certainly has not "scammed" that amount.
>>>
>>> Aston Martin has scammed a promise that gives it £19 million which, on

>>> account of its public unacceptability, was kept secret. For shame.
>>
>> Where is the "scam" in all this? If you believe some dishonesty has
>> taken place then state it.
>

> Giving Aston Martin a subsidy of £25,000 per worker was so embarassing

> that it had to be hidden from public record -- until the BBC made its
> Freedom Of Information request.

That's a decision the government made and doesn't indicate that any "scam" has
taken place.

Is that £25,000 taken from the £3.5m they have received or from the £19m the
total of which they are yet to receive?

>>>>> I said a company which
>>>>> enjoys generous govt subsidy can expect to be more successful in
>>>>> getting even more money if the EU are off the scene.
>>>>
>>>> What do you base that on? It seems to me that the EU is all about
>>>> subsidising industry.
>>>
>>> The EU is about a great deal more than subsiding industry.
>>
>> That just happens to be one of the less malign aspects.
>>
>>>>>> Similar things occurred before the referendum. If we're
>>>>>> playing tit for tat then just be grateful that Aston Martin wasn't
>>>>>> moved to Poland with the help of an EU grant.
>>>>>
>>>>> What would be so wrong with that?
>>>>
>>>> You know, the loss of British jobs, tax revenue and all that. Nothing
>>>> important to you, perhaps, but quite important to a successful economy
>>>> and a functioning society.
>>>
>>> If we can't compete on international markets without taxpayer subsidiy
>>> then how do you think this will end? Subsidies create unsustainable
>>> industries at public expense.
>>
>> Lots of industries are subsidised in one way or another. Sometimes the
>> loss of those industries will pose a far greater cost than the subsidies
>> themselves.
>
> More often, that loss is overstated. Cameron rushed to subsidise Tata
> Steel, also in South Wales, but he did so for political purposes to make
> hiselfm look good and not be seen "abandoning" British workers. Yet the
> taxpayer would have had to fork out for it.

I'm a bit skeptical when it comes to bailing out foreign owned companies.

>>
>> ...
>>
>>>>> If we wish to subsidise British workers, such as Aston martin car
>>>>> workers, then let's do it openly through the income tax or tax
>>>>> credits system, rather than favour the most influential groups at the
>>>>> cost of those workers who can't lobby so effectively.
>>>>
>>>> I imagine it's the kind of thing that has to occur on a case by case
>>>> basis, costed and accounted for. The EU have an open system of
>>>> subsidies and it is a cause of friction.
>>>
>>> The UK had an appalling track record of caving in to too company
>>> demands. (Also union demands too.) The EU gave us some backbone and,
>>> in turn, forced out industries to become more competitive which is an
>>> excellent outcome for us.
>>
>> You can thank Thatcher for that. The EU's insistence that local
>> authority contracts should be opened up to the entire EU has resulted in
>> the closure of British businesses. They aren't competing at all now.
>
> There's no commercial gain by propping up uncompetitive national
> industries.

The British businesses I refer to were competitive before foreign competition
from the Eurozone decimated them.

[Pamela]

It's £19 million given to that plant divided by the number of employees
working there which is 750.

Waste of taxpayers' money. Done mostly in secret.

[Incubus]

But they have only received £3.5m to date so your figure is false.

> Waste of taxpayers' money. Done mostly in secret.

Blame the Government for that. It's hardly evidence of a "scam".

[Incubus]

On 2019-07-15, Pamela <pamel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The agreement is for the British taxpayer to shells out a stonking £25,000
> per worker at Aston Martin.

If certain requirements are met. Nothing close to that figure has been paid
out.

> Meanwhile the chief exec sees no cutback in
> his £3 million salary. Snouts in the trough.

That may be so. Still, 'tis a much smaller trough than the EU trough, since
we're suddenly complaining about troughs.

> Aston Martin don't even have as many as 750 workers there yet, so the cost
> per job is even more than £25,000.

Perhaps you should just quote the correct figures to begin with.

>>> Waste of taxpayers' money. Done mostly in secret.
>>
>> Blame the Government for that. It's hardly evidence of a "scam".
>

> It was done covertly and not fully announced even after the dirty deed.

Blame the Government. Still no evidence of a "scam".

[Pamela]

On 09:46 16 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2019-07-15, Pamela <pamel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 14:05 15 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2019-07-15, Pamela <pamela....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10:10 15 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2019-07-13, Pamela <pamela....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 14:12 12 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2019-07-12, Pamela <pamela....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11:17 12 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2019-07-12, Pamela <pamela....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 09:58 12 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2019-07-11, Pamela <pamel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15:08 11 Jul 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Only £3.5m had been drawn at the time of writing. There are

>>>>>>>>>>> conditions attached for further sums. What makes you think
>>>>>>>>>>> that this is a result of "Brexit"?
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Whatever Aston Martin has received so far, it has scammed £19m

>>>>>>>>>> out of us taxpayers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It hasn't received £19m so certainly has not "scammed" that
>>>>>>>>> amount.
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Aston Martin has scammed a promise that gives it £19 million

>>>>>>>> which, on account of its public unacceptability, was kept secret.
>>>>>>>> For shame.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where is the "scam" in all this? If you believe some dishonesty
>>>>>>> has taken place then state it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Giving Aston Martin a subsidy of £25,000 per worker was so
>>>>>> embarassing that it had to be hidden from public record -- until
>>>>>> the BBC made its Freedom Of Information request.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a decision the government made and doesn't indicate that any
>>>>> "scam" has taken place.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that £25,000 taken from the £3.5m they have received or from the
>>>>> £19m the total of which they are yet to receive?
>>>>
>>>> It's £19 million given to that plant divided by the number of
>>>> employees working there which is 750.
>>>
>>> But they have only received £3.5m to date so your figure is false.
>>
>> The agreement is for the British taxpayer to shells out a stonking
>> £25,000 per worker at Aston Martin.
>
> If certain requirements are met. Nothing close to that figure has been
> paid out.

Do you not expect the full amount to be paid, for some reason?

>> Meanwhile the chief exec sees no cutback in
>> his £3 million salary. Snouts in the trough.
>
> That may be so. Still, 'tis a much smaller trough than the EU trough,
> since we're suddenly complaining about troughs.
>
>> Aston Martin don't even have as many as 750 workers there yet, so the
>> cost per job is even more than £25,000.
>
> Perhaps you should just quote the correct figures to begin with.

The subsidy figure which has been agreed is £18.8 million. Call it £19
million. Or do yuo expect this will not be paid?