Scrutable

Posted: **Sat Jan 18, 2020 7:51 pm**

veravista wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 4:18 pm
Airbus don't need to do anything apart from pull the wing facility out of the UK - they simply will not be able to manufacture stuff for their planes here, full stop. Moot point as they're almost ready to transfer production of the much smaller A320 wings to Spain and China, leaving the only big problem the supply of engines. RR have been busy shifting component certification (and a lot of manufacture) to Germany and France for the last 3 years so they will soon be in a position to begin assembly and leave just the service staff in the UK.

What remains to be seen is what will the fuckwits in charge do to Airbus UK's defence arm, which is basically tied to the UK.

Vertavista, I mean this as a genuine question that I'd like to know the answer

, if manufacturing could be shifted to China why can't it stay in the UK after Brexit?

Posted: **Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:03 pm**

sheldrake wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 1:35 pm We wont be subservient to the EU. We will be striking a balance between US, EU and Transpacific needs, and have some more freedom to bend the way that suits the UK best.

Sorry. Tried to hold it in but can't.

Phuq off with that bull about being subservient to the EU. We never were. Ever.

I never get why Quitlings think that being a willing participant in an international body where we had higher than average influence ever constituted subservience or oppression.

CF

Posted: **Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:23 pm**

RandomElement wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 7:51 pm Vertavista, I mean this as a genuine question that I'd like to know the answer , if manufacturing could be shifted to China why can't it stay in the UK after Brexit?

wouldn't that likely be because the EU and China have a trade agreement but (at the mo) the EU and the UK don't ?

Posted: **Sat Jan 18, 2020 9:43 pm**

RandomElement wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 7:51 pm
veravista wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 4:18 pm
Airbus don't need to do anything apart from pull the wing facility out of the UK - they simply will not be able to manufacture stuff for their planes here, full stop. Moot point as they're almost ready to transfer production of the much smaller A320 wings to Spain and China, leaving the only big problem the supply of engines. RR have been busy shifting component certification (and a lot of manufacture) to Germany and France for the last 3 years so they will soon be in a position to begin assembly and leave just the service staff in the UK.

What remains to be seen is what will the fuckwits in charge do to Airbus UK's defence arm, which is basically tied to the UK.
Vertavista, I mean this as a genuine question that I'd like to know the answer , if manufacturing could be shifted to China why can't it stay in the UK after Brexit?

Airbus has a final assembly plant in China which produces finished aircraft for the Chinese market. See: https://www.airbus.com/company/worldwid ... china.html

Production in the UK is as part of a supply chain for final assembly elsewhere in Europe. So new customs and regulatory barriers would be a problem after Brexit.

The UK market isn’t large enough for its own final assembly plant.

Posted: **Sat Jan 18, 2020 11:48 pm**

Yes, Airbus allow the Chinese to produce parts under license, so they are fully aligned with the production methods in other plants, and they are kept under strict control. This is expensive but for the Chinese it's worth it to get the technical knowledge. The same thing applies to most other cross border collaborations, JAEC made parts for RR engines in the 80's until they developed the capability to do it themselves, the same with India.

The UK is withdrawing from that and it simply isn't worth Airbus's time and effort to have a company in such close proximity that is more expensive and needs constant supervision, especially when the Governments stated policy is to disalign from regulation. It's not just about production methods and standards, it's about the total company standards.

Posted: **Sat Jan 18, 2020 11:56 pm**

plodder wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:10 pm
GeenDienst wrote: Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:01 am All the regional superpowers influence their trading areas in these ways, because this is the price of FTAs with them for countries without that level of economic power. Plucky little Blighty just gets to choose which one it is subservient to as it Takes Back Control.
Not according to the chancellor. He's crazy like a fox!

https://mobile.twitter.com/BethRigby/st ... 3806825472

Crazy like a fox, or crazy like a Fox News Contributor?

Posted: **Sat Jan 18, 2020 11:58 pm**

And probably, not to put to too fine a point on it they'll just say f.ck you. Your government don't want to play so we won't.

Posted: **Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:04 am**

Cardinal Fang wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:03 pm
sheldrake wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 1:35 pm We wont be subservient to the EU. We will be striking a balance between US, EU and Transpacific needs, and have some more freedom to bend the way that suits the UK best.
Sorry. Tried to hold it in but can't.

Phuq off with that bull about being subservient to the EU. We never were. Ever.

I never get why Quitlings think that being a willing participant in an international body where we had higher than average influence ever constituted subservience or oppression.

CF

I was replying to GreenDienst's use of the phrase 'subservient'.

It was seen as oppression because of insufficient democratic control which our own political elites colluded in behind closed doors. The housecleaning has begun. Happy Nee Year.

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:02 pm**

veravista wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 11:48 pm , especially when the Governments stated policy is to disalign from regulation. It's not just about production methods and standards, it's about the total company standards.

For a similar reason, I cant see much future in major Pharma manufacture in the UK, either

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:43 pm**

Gentleman Jim wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:02 pm
veravista wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 11:48 pm , especially when the Governments stated policy is to disalign from regulation. It's not just about production methods and standards, it's about the total company standards.

For a similar reason, I cant see much future in major Pharma manufacture in the UK, either

And that means we'll get cheapo stuff not made to EU standards, sometimes contaminated with nasties, as noted recently elsewhere.

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:03 pm**

NI assembly’s just rejected the Brexit bill. No idea if this means anything in practice.

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:17 pm**

plodder wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:03 pm NI assembly’s just rejected the Brexit bill. No idea if this means anything in practice.

A bigger bribe, probably.

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:28 pm**

GeenDienst wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:43 pm
Gentleman Jim wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:02 pm
veravista wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 11:48 pm , especially when the Governments stated policy is to disalign from regulation. It's not just about production methods and standards, it's about the total company standards.

For a similar reason, I cant see much future in major Pharma manufacture in the UK, either
And that means we'll get cheapo stuff not made to EU standards, sometimes contaminated with nasties, as noted recently elsewhere.

My first thought was the Findus 'horsemeat' lasagne scandal, but checking shows that came from a French/Luxembourg manufacturer.

There were horsemeat burgers from UK and Ireland, but I'd forgotten about them.

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:53 pm**

sheldrake wrote: Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:04 am It was seen as oppression because of insufficient democratic control which our own political elites colluded in behind closed doors. The housecleaning has begun. Happy Nee Year.

As opposed to...

Having an unelected 2nd house, a head of state who is hereditary, and an electoral system which effectively disenfranchises millions.

Yup much more democratic that the EU where every decision making body is made up either of directly elected representatives, or made up of representatives from the elected governments of the countries of the EU

CF

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 7:37 pm**

Cardinal Fang wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:53 pm
sheldrake wrote: Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:04 am It was seen as oppression because of insufficient democratic control which our own political elites colluded in behind closed doors. The housecleaning has begun. Happy Nee Year.
As opposed to...

Having an unelected 2nd house, a head of state who is hereditary, and an electoral system which effectively disenfranchises millions.

Yup much more democratic that the EU where every decision making body is made up either of directly elected representatives, or made up of representatives from the elected governments of the countries of the EU

CF

Don't forget the priests sitting in the House of Lords for being priests.

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 7:53 pm**

Cardinal Fang wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:53 pm
sheldrake wrote: Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:04 am It was seen as oppression because of insufficient democratic control which our own political elites colluded in behind closed doors. The housecleaning has begun. Happy Nee Year.
As opposed to...

Having an unelected 2nd house, a head of state who is hereditary, and an electoral system which effectively disenfranchises millions.

Yup much more democratic that the EU where every decision making body is made up either of directly elected representatives, or made up of representatives from the elected governments of the countries of the EU

CF

Every decision is not made by elected representatives or national governments in the EU. The commission is made up of appointees that are very very hard to get rid of. It makes important decisions.

I think we should get rid of that unelected second house too. One problem down, a few more to go.

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:56 pm**

sheldrake wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 7:53 pm
I think we should get rid of that unelected second house too. One problem down, a few more to go.

Out of interest, and assuming I have parsed your sentence correctly, what electoral system would you advocate for the second house?

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:35 pm**

Pucksoppet wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:56 pm
sheldrake wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 7:53 pm
I think we should get rid of that unelected second house too. One problem down, a few more to go.
Out of interest, and assuming I have parsed your sentence correctly, what electoral system would you advocate for the second house?

If we had one with PR, there would be constant football over which house was more legitimate and it could lock up legislation unhealthily. If we have one that's still based on religion, appointments etc.. it doesn't solve anything.

We could perhaps have appointees that weren't nominated by political parties, and who were strictly drawn from the ranks of the science, charity, business & arts knights and dame, and limit the powers to those of revision the house has today.

I'm not sure if we really need a second house.

Posted: **Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:31 am**

sheldrake wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:35 pm
Pucksoppet wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:56 pm
sheldrake wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 7:53 pm
I think we should get rid of that unelected second house too. One problem down, a few more to go.
Out of interest, and assuming I have parsed your sentence correctly, what electoral system would you advocate for the second house?
If we had one with PR, there would be constant football over which house was more legitimate and it could lock up legislation unhealthily. If we have one that's still based on religion, appointments etc.. it doesn't solve anything.

We could perhaps have appointees that weren't nominated by political parties, and who were strictly drawn from the ranks of the science, charity, business & arts knights and dame, and limit the powers to those of revision the house has today.

I'm not sure if we really need a second house.

But who works out which people from the ranks of science, charity, business & arts gets appointed to the second house? And if it's not the politicians, but some 'independent' body, who selects the independent body?

As to whether we need a second house, there has to be someone to provide checks and balances on the lower house - even in the US where the two houses are (usually) controlled by the same party, they understand this, and the Senate (usually) provides a more considered opinion on the House legislation. (Although some Senators are complete whack-jobs!)

Posted: **Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:24 am**

Martin_B wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:31 am in the US where the two houses are (usually) controlled by the same party

The word "usually" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. The House and Senate have been controlled by different parties in 4 of the past 10 (two-year) Congresses. On matters that require more than 50% of the Senate (which seems to be most things these days) it's hard to imagine true one-party control returning any time soon.

Posted: **Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:56 am**

bolo wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:24 am
Martin_B wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:31 am in the US where the two houses are (usually) controlled by the same party
The word "usually" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. The House and Senate have been controlled by different parties in 4 of the past 10 (two-year) Congresses. On matters that require more than 50% of the Senate (which seems to be most things these days) it's hard to imagine true one-party control returning any time soon.

OK, often, then. Although if they are controlled by different parties it provides even more checks and balances which was suggested being done away with.

Posted: **Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:43 am**

Martin_B wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:31 am But who works out which people from the ranks of science, charity, business & arts gets appointed to the second house? And if it's not the politicians, but some 'independent' body, who selects the independent body?

I see no clear solution.

As to whether we need a second house, there has to be someone to provide checks and balances on the lower house - even in the US where the two houses are (usually) controlled by the same party, they understand this, and the Senate (usually) provides a more considered opinion on the House legislation. (Although some Senators are complete whack-jobs!)

I'm not sure what good it has done us in practice in the UK.

Posted: **Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:09 am**

A Brexit Party MEP has prompted derision after complaining that Britain will have no representation at EU level after it leaves.

June Mummery, one of the party's 29 representatives elected to the European Parliament last year, suggested the loss of MEPs would make it hard to hold Brussels to account.

"The big question now is, who will be here to hold these people to account while they still control Britain’s waters, but the UK has no representation?" she tweeted.[/quote
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... edium=Feed

]

Posted: **Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:43 am**

^ Looking forward to the OED extending it's definition of a moron.

Still - apparently we've crossed the Brexit finish line now

Posted: **Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:56 am**

Gentleman Jim wrote: Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:09 am
A Brexit Party MEP has prompted derision after complaining that Britain will have no representation at EU level after it leaves.

June Mummery, one of the party's 29 representatives elected to the European Parliament last year, suggested the loss of MEPs would make it hard to hold Brussels to account.

"The big question now is, who will be here to hold these people to account while they still control Britain’s waters, but the UK has no representation?" she tweeted.[/quote
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... edium=Feed

]
Don't be cruel

A Brexit Party spokesperson said: "In this tweet, Mrs Mummery is rather obviously commenting on the deficiencies of the so-called 'transition period' not of Brexit itself."

They added: "Those who misrepresent the tweet are either ignorant of the withdrawal agreement or are willfully misunderstanding

Scrutable

Getting Brexit done

Re: Getting Brexit done

Re: Getting Brexit done

Re: Getting Brexit done

Re: Getting Brexit done

Re: Getting Brexit done

Re: Getting Brexit done

Re: Getting Brexit done

Re: Getting Brexit done

Re: Getting Brexit done

Re: Getting Brexit done

Re: Getting Brexit done

Re: Getting Brexit done

Re: Getting Brexit done

Re: Getting Brexit done

Re: Getting Brexit done

Re: Getting Brexit done

Re: Getting Brexit done

Re: Getting Brexit done

Re: Getting Brexit done

Re: Getting Brexit done

Re: Getting Brexit done

Re: Getting Brexit done

Re: Getting Brexit done

Re: Getting Brexit done

Re: Getting Brexit done