UK Politics

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Whirlwind**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Still a golden opportunity to reforge a new relationship with the EU, but alas, with Bojo the clown leading the charge, it's not likely to happen.

Wouldn't that be better done from the inside?

There's no point hanging any hope on the US whilst Trump is there. He was quite clear any 'deal' or 'agreement' will put America first. That means by default the only thing that UK will get is something second best to what they want.

The only thing Trump will be interesting in doing is allowing the US into a more free market with the UK, buy out the things that he feels are valuable and then shift it to the US (so lets say the pharmaceutical companies). It is almost certainly what other larger countries will see as well like China. It will be like a UK garden sale with a rush to buy out and relocate the valuable businesses and employment (and the EU will certainly look at this too so not to be left behind). All the while the UK government will be championing how well they are doing in getting free trade deals. Free trade deals are worth nothing if it is not reciprocal and the countries you have with them are wallowing in self protectionism.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Whirlwind wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Still a golden opportunity to reforge a new relationship with the EU, but alas, with Bojo the clown leading the charge, it's not likely to happen.

Wouldn't that be better done from the inside?

There's no point hanging any hope on the US whilst Trump is there. He was quite clear any 'deal' or 'agreement' will put America first. That means by default the only thing that UK will get is something second best to what they want.

The only thing Trump will be interesting in doing is allowing the US into a more free market with the UK, buy out the things that he feels are valuable and then shift it to the US (so lets say the pharmaceutical companies). It is almost certainly what other larger countries will see as well like China. It will be like a UK garden sale with a rush to buy out and relocate the valuable businesses and employment (and the EU will certainly look at this too so not to be left behind). All the while the UK government will be championing how well they are doing in getting free trade deals. Free trade deals are worth nothing if it is not reciprocal and the countries you have with them are wallowing in self protectionism.

I agree with this, and like I said earlier, we should be cautious before rushing into any new trade deal with the USA, but as others have pointed out, the Tories might be so desperate for a trade deal post- Brexit, they'll take anything.

I still maintain that we will never have a better chance to forge a new relationship with Europe. They can do what they want, free of Britain constantly sniping from the sidelines, and we can do what we want, without the spectre of a United States of Europe clouding our thinking.

A more mature, respectful, close relationship can emerge from this.

Better a good neighbour than a surly lodger.

**reds8n**

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/20/nissan-review-sunderland-plant-competitiveness-post-brexit?CMP=twt_gu

Nissan will conduct a review of its Sunderland plant’s competitiveness once the UK’s future relationship with the EU is settled, the head of the Japanese carmaker has said.

Carlos Ghosn’s remarks on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos may raise concerns about the commitment of company to the UK, following its pledge in October to turn the factory into one of the biggest car plants in the world.

The government has faced questions about the “support and assurances” given to Nissan before the company’s October’s announcement that new versions of its Qashqai and X-Trail would be made in the north-east of England, turning Sunderland into a “super plant” producing more than 600,000 cars a year.

Ghosn was reported as saying that Nissan trusted Theresa May’s assurances, but that the company would need to review the situation. “Obviously when the package comes, you are going to have to re-evaluate the situation, and say, ‘OK, is the competitiveness of your plant preserved or not?’

“We are going to have to make decisions on investment within the next two to three years, so obviously the faster the Brexit results come, the better it is,” Reuters quoted Ghosn as saying.

The government has refused to publish the letter to Nissan in which assurances were given by Greg Clark, the business secretary.

May, who set out her vision for a post-Brexit Britain in a speech on Tuesday, was in Davos to meet bankers and business leaders. In a keynote address she urged delegates to address the effects of globalisation.

A senior Toyota executive at the Swiss ski resort told the Financial Times that the carmaker’s UK plants also needed to be competitive after Brexit. Takeshi Uchiyamada, Toyota’s chair, said: “We have seen the direction of the prime minister of the UK, [so] we are now going to consider, together with the suppliers, how our company can survive.”

still.. blue passports.. woo hoo !

**Silent Puffin?**

reds8n wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/20/nissan-review-sunderland-plant-competitiveness-post-brexit?CMP=twt_gu

Nissan will conduct a review of its Sunderland plant’s competitiveness once the UK’s future relationship with the EU is settled, the head of the Japanese carmaker has said.

Carlos Ghosn’s remarks on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos may raise concerns about the commitment of company to the UK, following its pledge in October to turn the factory into one of the biggest car plants in the world.

The government has faced questions about the “support and assurances” given to Nissan before the company’s October’s announcement that new versions of its Qashqai and X-Trail would be made in the north-east of England, turning Sunderland into a “super plant” producing more than 600,000 cars a year.

Ghosn was reported as saying that Nissan trusted Theresa May’s assurances, but that the company would need to review the situation. “Obviously when the package comes, you are going to have to re-evaluate the situation, and say, ‘OK, is the competitiveness of your plant preserved or not?’

“We are going to have to make decisions on investment within the next two to three years, so obviously the faster the Brexit results come, the better it is,” Reuters quoted Ghosn as saying.

The government has refused to publish the letter to Nissan in which assurances were given by Greg Clark, the business secretary.

May, who set out her vision for a post-Brexit Britain in a speech on Tuesday, was in Davos to meet bankers and business leaders. In a keynote address she urged delegates to address the effects of globalisation.

A senior Toyota executive at the Swiss ski resort told the Financial Times that the carmaker’s UK plants also needed to be competitive after Brexit. Takeshi Uchiyamada, Toyota’s chair, said: “We have seen the direction of the prime minister of the UK, [so] we are now going to consider, together with the suppliers, how our company can survive.”

still.. blue passports.. woo hoo !

Its all a cunning plan to keep those filthy foreigners out. Crash the economy so hard that no one wants to come here!

**r_squared**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
r_squared wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
OK, so Trump becomes President today, so what does that mean for Britain?

Well, we'll hear the usual waffle from both sides about the special relationship.

But with us having to forge a new path for ourselves, I'd like to see this nation stop hanging onto American coat tails and instead putting British interests first.

Trust and respect America, because they'll always be good friends, but never rely on them...

Ironically, and this is just my opinion, I think Brexit could be the reset button to form a proper relationship with Europe.

The EU won't have the awkward member i.e Britain, sulking in the corner, and for us, we'll no longer have to worry or bang on about Juncker and Merkel's 'supposed' plot for a Daily Mail style 4th Reich or whatever nonsense the Express will come up with.

With Trump and Putting not gibing two hoots for the EU or Europe, I feel there is a great chance for Britain to forge a closer partnership with Europe, and there is none of this EU baggage to spoil it...

It could be done. Should be done in my book.

I think you're going to be unpleasantly disappointed. Trump, as has been seen, only respects strength. He is a bully as a negotiator, and has just stated, I paraphrase, "America First in everything", and issued a "warning" to the halls of power for all foreign governments.
Any deal that is beneficial to us is likely to be a lucky byproduct of his antipathy towards the EU, and Germany.

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21715025-haggis-aside-benefits-would-be-limited-britain-shouldnt-get-too-excited-prospect

Britain, whose economy is one-sixth the size of America’s, would have little bargaining power.

American negotiators could, for instance, target Britain’s insurance market, extracting an agreement to lower non-tariff barriers and in so doing cutting that prized trade surplus. Britain’s public-procurement market might also be of interest, in which case expect headlines about American health-care firms snapping up National Health Service contracts.

I think any quick deal is likely to be leapt upon by the Tory govt like a pack of starving hyenas but will be a two edged sword. Poltically a win for the Tories, determined to show the UK and the World that we can make quick deals, but likely to end up with us selling out some of our institutions. American business are positively salivating about a chance to get their teeth into the NHS, and the Tories won't mind selling it out to them.

Still a golden opportunity to reforge a new relationship with the EU, but alas, with Bojo the clown leading the charge, it's not likely to happen.

So far we seem to be squandering the golden opportunity by issuing thinly veiled threats which get lapped up by the tabloids, and their readers, but in reality mean we are not just shooting ourselves in the foot, but leaping, two footed, onto a landmine.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Whirlwind wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Still a golden opportunity to reforge a new relationship with the EU, but alas, with Bojo the clown leading the charge, it's not likely to happen.

Wouldn't that be better done from the inside?

There's no point hanging any hope on the US whilst Trump is there. He was quite clear any 'deal' or 'agreement' will put America first. That means by default the only thing that UK will get is something second best to what they want.

The only thing Trump will be interesting in doing is allowing the US into a more free market with the UK, buy out the things that he feels are valuable and then shift it to the US (so lets say the pharmaceutical companies). It is almost certainly what other larger countries will see as well like China. It will be like a UK garden sale with a rush to buy out and relocate the valuable businesses and employment (and the EU will certainly look at this too so not to be left behind). All the while the UK government will be championing how well they are doing in getting free trade deals. Free trade deals are worth nothing if it is not reciprocal and the countries you have with them are wallowing in self protectionism.

I agree with this, and like I said earlier, we should be cautious before rushing into any new trade deal with the USA, but as others have pointed out, the Tories might be so desperate for a trade deal post- Brexit, they'll take anything.

I still maintain that we will never have a better chance to forge a new relationship with Europe. They can do what they want, free of Britain constantly sniping from the sidelines, and we can do what we want, without the spectre of a United States of Europe clouding our thinking.

A more mature, respectful, close relationship can emerge from this.

Better a good neighbour than a surly lodger.

... and this is where the SNP come into this. It is likely that if the UK starts going down "like the Titanic", or the Tories do a deal that eviscerates the NHS, the support for independence in Scotland will surge hugely. Nicola Sturgeon positioned herself quite clearly wrt the single market, indyref2 is on the way. I doubt you'll be unhappy about that.

That said, May's government may have an ace up their sleeve that they haven't played yet, I feverently hope that's the case.

**Whirlwind**

Silent Puffin? wrote:

Its all a cunning plan to keep those filthy foreigners out. Crash the economy so hard that no one wants to come here!

You can see the headlines now. Emigration soars to record levels as UK citizens (and especially those with any useful skills) abandon ship. EU in crisis as to how to deal with refugees from the UK as all the EU countries want their share of these skilled workers. Farage demands that a wall is built around the UK and anyone trying to leave is shot for not being patriotic...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

r_squared wrote:

... and this is where the SNP come into this. It is likely that if the UK starts going down "like the Titanic", or the Tories do a deal that eviscerates the NHS, the support for independence in Scotland will surge hugely. Nicola Sturgeon positioned herself quite clearly wrt the single market, indyref2 is on the way. I doubt you'll be unhappy about that.

That said, May's government may have an ace up their sleeve that they haven't played yet, I feverently hope that's the case.

To be honest I'd probably go an live there to give them a 'helping hand' to leave the UK and rejoin the EU.

**Ketara**

Australia eyes relaxed UK immigration under trade deal

The UK has been told it will have to relax its immigration rules for Australians if it wants a free trade deal with Canberra.

Alexander Downer, Australia's high commissioner to the UK, said the country would want better access for business people working in the UK before reaching a post-Brexit deal.

He said it might be possible to strike a deal within eight months of Brexit.

Preliminary moves over a possible agreement had been made, he added.

UK Prime Minister Theresa May has already said she will begin talks to strike a trade deal with New Zealand in the coming months.

Mr Downer told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that Australia's access for businesses had often been a part of its free trade negotiations.

"It might just make it a bit simpler actually," he said.

"For example, an Australian company that invests in the UK might want to bring some of its executives to the UK.

"That can be done with what are called tier 2 visas, but maybe that could be made a little bit easier.

"I suspect they would be the only sort of changes you'd be looking at."

Mr Downer suggested the negotiations over visa arrangements should be discussed at the same time as striking a deal on the free movement of goods.

An Australia-UK agreement could be reached very quickly after Brexit, he said, referring to the deal Canberra struck with Washington in eight months during George W Bush's presidency.

Mr Downer said the two nations had already been in talks over what a free trade agreement could look like.

"Obviously once the UK leaves the EU it can negotiate free trade agreements but not before then.

"But we can scope it out and we've provided a scoping paper to the British government to explain what we think the scope of a free trade agreement should look like."

Under current immigration rules, Australians coming to the UK for work must obtain a tier two visa, which allows them to stay in Britain for a maximum of five years and 14 days.

People are eligible to get one only if they have a skilled job in the UK, a certificate of sponsorship from their employer and a minimum of £945 in savings.

Australians also need to prove they will be earning an appropriate salary, which is usually at least £25,000, or the appropriate rate for the job offered, although there are exemptions to the rules.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38704325

I don't think the government would have a problem with putting in a simplified Tier 2 visa, especially if it nets them a trade deal more or less out of the door at Brexit to trumpet.

**reds8n**

Well we won't run out of bar staff in London then.

clearly it's well in our interests to have a trade deal with a country on the other side of the planet as opposed to next door.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Agreed. Seeing as half of Australia and New Zealand already live in London, a few more won't make a difference.

On a positive note:

World Population: 7 billion

Population of Australia: 25 million. Population of New Zealand: 4.7 million.

So, we'll have new trade deals with at least 30 million people post Brexit.

only 6.9 billion to go.

You can't stop the signal

Automatically Appended Next Post:
@whirlwind and r_squared.

You can join us in Scotland, you'd be more than welcome, but qualification includes an in depth knowledge of Taggart and the ability to recognise and identify at least 300 different tartans

**Antario**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I still maintain that we will never have a better chance to forge a new relationship with Europe. They can do what they want, free of Britain constantly sniping from the sidelines, and we can do what we want, without the spectre of a United States of Europe clouding our thinking.

A more mature, respectful, close relationship can emerge from this.

Better a good neighbour than a surly lodger.

That would be a win-win scenario. That will depend partly on whether the tabloids and news corp are going to stop, or are even able to stop, spreading their poison on the EU.

**r_squared**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...@whirlwind and r_squared.

You can join us in Scotland, you'd be more than welcome, but qualification includes an in depth knowledge of Taggart and the ability to recognise and identify at least 300 different tartans

Right, OK, Bruce, Campbell, Blair, McDonald, McDoogal, Krankie, Nesbitt, err... Glasgae?

I'm quite fond of battered food and buckie, does that help?

Guess I'll have to rely on my Irish passport to get me out of trouble then.

**Compel**

Part of the idea of brexit, leaving the EU and stopping the whole free movement, for some people was for more managed immigration. Managed being different from 'stopping' (this is why they are not the same words), to allow Commonwealth countries, such as Australia an easier time immigrating because planning services is easier with known quantities of movement.

**Optio**

My question on Scotland is: What happens when the Highlands or the Lowlands or the Shetland Islands e.t.c decide they want independence?

**Whirlwind**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

@whirlwind and r_squared.

You can join us in Scotland, you'd be more than welcome, but qualification includes an in depth knowledge of Taggart and the ability to recognise and identify at least 300 different tartans

Is that pre or post Mark McManus or both?

**Ketara**

The number of people protesting Trump in London right now disgusts me. Why? Because they're not marching against people like the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia, or Robert Mugabe, or Teodoro Mbasogo. I mean, there's enough genuinely murderous oppressive regime leaders in the world they could be rallying against, and who do they pick? Some blonde nob in what is ultimately one of freest countries in the world, and which will likely still be in four years when he leaves with very little in the way of genocide, starvation, or oppression occurring.

What a fething joke these people are.

**Kilkrazy**

Maybe you should make a protest against protesters who disgust you.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

You're assuming the only protest the one thing though?

**Kilkrazy**

Maybe you should make a protest against protesters who disgust you.

**Optio**

While he likely will have little impact in domestic affairs, from a Foreign Policy standpoint there is a lot to be concerned about Trump. Especially when you consider he spent his speech harking on about patriotism and blood and promising to 'eradicate ISIS of the face of the earth'. It might be his advisor never managed to get a copy of the speech and warn him about making such comments in an inauguration speech or it might be this is his actual plan approved by his advisors. If it's the former then ignoring one's advisors at this point is a massive concern, If its the latter then he has some crazy advisors.
Let us not forget the remit and precedent Obama has set in using executive powers for Foreign Policy issues.

Given that, I do not blame people for protesting against Trump. I do agree however its a waste of time and there might be better things to protest against,

**Ketara**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe you should make a protest against protesters who disgust you.

I might as well, it would achieve as much as protesting the result of a democratic election in a Western country that isn't even your country.

**Compel**

He could do plenty with American domestic affairs, especially if he just wants to do the classic Republican stuff, rather than anything more than that.

There was one of the photos I saw earlier. It was a picture of a red coathanger with the words, "never again." That's kinda worth turning up protesting...

Even if Trump gets bored and wanders off, you're left with Mike Pence in charge. Ok, sure, even saying putting LGBTQ rights backwards 20-25 years, is still rather rubbish. Sure, it's not enforced gay conversion therapy, but it's still rather rubbish.

Especially as there's a saying about where America leads, the world follows...

**Ketara**

Compel wrote:
He could do plenty with American domestic affairs, especially if he just wants to do the classic Republican stuff, rather than anything more than that.

There was one of the photos I saw earlier. It was a picture of a red coathanger with the words, "never again." That's kinda worth turning up protesting...

Even if Trump gets bored and wanders off, you're left with Mike Pence in charge. Ok, sure, even saying putting LGBTQ rights backwards 20-25 years, is still rather rubbish. Sure, it's not enforced gay conversion therapy, but it's still rather rubbish.

Sure. Go protest. When he's done something. Right now, it's a bunch of people who would likely never bother showing up to a less trendy march against Robert Mugabe (somebody who has literally killed thousands of people), protesting about the result of a democratic election in another country. Because right now? That's all that's occurred.

**Compel**

One could argue, by the time something is done, it's too late...

**Ketara**

Compel wrote:
One could argue, by the time something is done, it's too late...

And holding protests about things that haven't happened is more effective?

Here's a Zimbabwe protest in London about two months ago. Note how it's just a few dozen Zimbabweans. Not quite so popular, neh?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/zimbabwes-diaspora-protests-london-calls-president-mugabe-go-1589954

That's why I'm disgusted. This entire march isn't about human rights or feminism. It's about a bunch of people getting together to slap each other on the back, and tell each other what amazing people they are. Because if they really cared? That Zimbabwe protest would have been a hundred times the size. Because Mugabe has actually killed tens of thousands of people and starved millions more. Whatever Trump might do is likely small potatoes in comparison. Research Gurkurahundi, watch the video of the protestestors talking about what they're demonstrating against on that link, and tell me that Trump having just been elected is the real issue that desperately needs protesting right now.

**Optio**

Ketara wrote:

That's why I'm disgusted. This entire march isn't about human rights or feminism. It's about a bunch of people getting together to slap each other on the back, and tell each other what amazing people they are. Because if they really cared? That Zimbabwe protest would have been a hundred times the size. Because Mugabe has actually killed tens of thousands of people and starved millions more. Whatever Trump might do is likely small potatoes in comparison. Research Gurkurahundi, watch the video of the protestestors talking about what they're demonstrating against on that link, and tell me that Trump having just been elected is the real issue that desperately needs protesting right now.

Can it also not be considered these marches are in response to what is now considered acceptable in a Liberal state, particularly in arguably the most powerful liberal state in the world which has long sought to portray itself as the ideal role model in the International Space.
You are doing these people a miss-service. We know one of the real reasons no one has turned out in protest Mugabe is simply there has been no press coverage, no debate in recent years, mostly because of the lovely man known as Trump that has been voted as head of the 'Free World'.

**Compel**

Isn't that just another version of the whataboutism fallacy? (I think that's the one anyhow).

I imagine you weren't at that Zimbabwe protest either.

People care about some things more than other things. Sure, maybe in a just world, the Zimbabwe protest would also have millions of people across the world in attendance. But in a just world, they wouldn't be needing to protest.

**Ketara**

Optio wrote:
Ketara wrote:

That's why I'm disgusted. This entire march isn't about human rights or feminism. It's about a bunch of people getting together to slap each other on the back, and tell each other what amazing people they are. Because if they really cared? That Zimbabwe protest would have been a hundred times the size. Because Mugabe has actually killed tens of thousands of people and starved millions more. Whatever Trump might do is likely small potatoes in comparison. Research Gurkurahundi, watch the video of the protestestors talking about what they're demonstrating against on that link, and tell me that Trump having just been elected is the real issue that desperately needs protesting right now.

Can it also not be considered these marches are in response to what is now considered acceptable in a Liberal state, particularly in arguably the most powerful liberal state in the world which has long sought to portray itself as the ideal role model in the International Space.

No. On account of the grounds that he hasn't done anything yet. Christ knows there's enough revolting politicians about the world who have. George Galloway didn't get protest marches against him, and he was actually from this country! If you're going to pick an icon to protest against on the grounds of feminism, racism, etc, it might serve you better if you picked someone as a target for it who has actually done more than just spout off a few nasty speeches!

You want a modern example? With plenty of press coverage? How about the protests against Erdogan, also back in November? It attracted a quarter as many people as this one, all of whom practically were Turkish. But then again, I guess protesting someone who isn't white isn't quite as sexy.

**Compel**

I'm pretty sure George Galloway did...

**Ketara**

Compel wrote:
Isn't that just another version of the whataboutism fallacy? (I think that's the one anyhow).

Not really, because I'm not attacking the validity of marching on the grounds of human rights. What I'm stating is that I'm disgusted by people who attend a march to protest a man who hasn't actually done anything yet, but clearly never bother to show up to protest actual abuses. I'm not saying you have to feel the same way.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Compel wrote:
I'm pretty sure George Galloway did...

He got mobbed by students a few times with glitter and eggs. Not quite the same thing. I didn't see ten thousand people turning out in Trafalgar to protest his legitimate election as an MP in light of his bribes by Saddam and racist sexist statements.

**Silent Puffin?**

Optio wrote:
My question on Scotland is: What happens when the Highlands or the Lowlands or the Shetland Islands e.t.c decide they want independence?

Why would they? There aren't any political nor cultural reasons to do so.

The Highlands, Lowlands and the Shetlands have never been sovereign nations in all of recorded history and there isn't much in the way of regional differences today, even for former kingdoms like Fife or Strathclyde. Scotland was a fully fledged nation for nearly a millennium before the treaty of union and Scots generally feel like Scots.

There is some sabre rattling from the northern isles about separating from Scotland but it is very low level and to be honest I doubt it would come to much. If it did then I would imagine that there would be further independent referenda.

What happens when London wants independence?