Brexit4

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/04/22/part-nationalising-tata-steel-will-not-cost-the-tax-payer-money/

Even though it was against EU regulations?

The government could have intervened. It just chose not to.

I thought that, under EU regulations, the government could not intervene and help the steel industry.

Well, I just think that whatever they do will be wrong in the eys of some, unless they ignore the referendum result.

Oh - I forgot - the majority who voted to leave will be unhappy and saying everything they do is wrong then.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

#PragmaticRemainer

Don't think he knows anything about that end of it all - it is dreadful people losing their jobs and those mainly men I would imagine are the really hard working type - it must be an awful but necessary job. Let's hope that something can be done there too.
I also hope that the other jobs under threat such as Airbus etc etc get the help they need to stay open.

No mention of the 2,000+ jobs lost at Redcar, welshwife?

^ Industry/Manufacturing and subsequent jobs retainment then that's all I care about.^

Fine, POGS. But I'd rather not revert to 19th century conditions of employment and living standards to achieve it.

As regards the railways, we are subsidising them up to the hilt. Our subsidies go to pay the profits of shareholders, most of whom are foreign governments, as well as Richard Branson.
So to actually renationalise the railways would not cost any more than it does now.
I'm sure you know this really, POGS.

"TBH, if the govt really had the interests of the country at heart they would ignore the result of the referendum..."

The problem with making such a statement is some people would have thought the same after the referendum result in 1975 wouldn't they!

As I posted on the Blair thread.

The problem is those who voted 'No' in 1975 accepted the referendum vote and never tried to beat those who voted 'yes' over the head to run another referendum and another and another until they minority get their way did they?

Now no doubt the posts will follow to challenge that point but if you believe in a democratic vote then you would accept that irrespective of numbers the decision is made on the basis of where the most votes were cast irrespective of percentages, Bla, bla,bla.

I am sticking with the point in question Nissan and the allegations of as you called it 'bribes'.

Partisan politics is a waste of time and something is either right for the UK or not and I expect a government of any colour to govern and that will require doing deals , using sweeteners probably on occassions but as long as the government of the day is being tactically progressive in it's thinking and making sound decisions for the UK Industry/Manufacturing and subsequent jobs retainment then that's all I care about.

TBH, if the govt really had the interests of the country at heart they would ignore the result of the referendum...

It has a social cost, too, POGS The good of the people being governed has to be considered, too.

Going on the conservative's record so far it'll be at the expense of public services and welfare. More 'austerity'. Is this what people really wanted?

There has to be a limit to QE, which is what is keeping the country afloat at the moment, it seems.

The sheer bloody pointlessness of it is so annoying.

Maizie

It's called governance Maizie and whether it be the Financial Crash in 2008, Brexit related issues now it again matters not one jot.

I simply want a government and our politicians on both sides to use the tools to cope with the continuance of industry/manufacturing/jobs , the same as any other country worth it's weight in salt would do, indeed does do .

If suppose the Italian Banks crash (they are in a terrible mess ) , Greece goes belly up, the Euro nose dived and the World Financial System crashed that would not be caused by Brexit would it!

If that happened then it us incumbent on the government of the day to protect the interests of the UK as best as it can, using the tools to do so.

That is called 'Governance'.

As to Tata Steel - DGS is a research engineer with the company. Tata sold the uneconomic part of the business - the part which makes steel for girders etc which is it seems the cheaper end of the market and which competes with the Chines steel. They have closed one section at Llanwern steelworks (Newport) and that did make 700 people redundant but they are building another plant at Port Talbot to increase the production of the high end quality steel used in car manufacture. This steel does not compete with Chinese steel as they are only in the market of cheap end steel.
They have also now finished the building of their own power station (22million) which was almost complete when the problems surfaced - they no longer use National grid power - this in turn means they do not need to slow production every evening between 4 and 7 when the residents of Port Talbot use more power. These measures have transformed a million a day loss to a half million a day profit.

Without brexit the government wouldn't have had to have discussions with Nissan. I'm furious that all these things are happening as a result of something I didn't want and now have absolutely no control over. I feel that those of us that voted remain are bailing out all the brexiters. My frustration/anger grows by the day [unlike my meagre savings ].

The essential difference in the situation POGS is that Tata was pre-Brexit, Nissan is post Brexit.

Tata was just one apparently ailing company; the government was perfectly happy to let it go to the wall under their 'free trade', 'let the fittest survive' ethos. The loss of a few thousand jobs on Teeside, in an already depressed area, didn't really concern them. But now, with so many international companies owning UK businesses (did you read the article) they've woken up to the fact that it won't be a few thousand jobs that are lost but potentially millions if many of our major employers and exporters relocate to the EU.

What worries a great many of the '48%' is just how much will be conceded in 'deals' to persuade those companies to stay in the UK. State aid on a massive scale and the UK perpetually indebted to the companies they've made deals with to stay here. the cost to the economy could be huge.

What a mess; all to 'take back control'... More like 'lose the plot' I think...

www.gov.uk/government/news/government-outlines-details-of-financial-support-for-tata-steel-uk-buyers

economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/indl-goods/svs/steel/uk-government-may-buy-25-equity-stake-in-tata-steel-to-support-sale-reports/articleshow/51927980.cm

I have no clue as to whether or not a 'bribe' , a 'sweetener' or a 'blank cheque' has been offered to Nissan. I don't believe the 'truth' is known so speculation at the moment.

What I find a tad disingenuous is the 'same voices' who seem to find any government action taken over Nissan is 'wrong', under any circumstances it would appear, but those are the 'same voices' that were shouting for the government to intervene over jobs in the steel industry.

Those 'same voices' are happy to state they want the ultimate government intervention / State Control in the form of Public Ownership of the Railways etc. No amount of public money being spent will concern them then will it.

It all comes down to partisan politics at times which is always the bigger picture for some than doing the 'right' thing. Whether it be Steel Workers , Car Manufacturing Workers it matters not one jot, what we should all be concerned with is making the UK Industry/Manufacturing Sector work well and jobs are maintained. If anybody thinks 'bribes', 'sweeteners' is the domain of only this Tory government you are deluded .

Very good video, dj Thanks.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/10/28/margaret-hodge-owen-jones-and-tax-avoidance/

This is about those companies you mention, Maizie. 12 minutes long, but worth watching.

Brexit hits Apple Mac customers hard as prices rise by up to £500

New laptops significantly more expensive and already-existing machines have prices raised by hundreds of pounds as Apple adjusts for new US dollar-pound sterling rate

www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/28/brexit-apple-mac-customers-prices-rise-us-dollar-pound-sterling?CMP=share_btn_tw

So, no, Jalima. I can't see that it is in any way better economically.

Furthermore, if T May is depending on us remaining in the single market we would still have to pay vast sums to the EU for the privilege. So don't count on Brexit to release public money for the NHS etc. It won't on those terms.

Retaining jobs is certainly a good thing but doing it by reducing the tax take from the business that employs them? When tax income pays for our public services, notably the NHS?

There might be a few thousand extra jobs created but I cannot see that the tax take from income tax would be sufficient to compensate from the loss of corporation tax from a successful business. Though I wonder just how many of the big international businesses that own UK enterprises (see the New York Review of Books article I linked to yesterday) divert their profits to lower tax jurisdictions in order to minimise their UK tax obligations?

Much better to keep people in work, but keeping them in work through secret deals from a government that wanted to be open? That can't be right. It just breeds uncertainty and suspicion among other workers.

Whatever deals are made it will surely be better to keep people in work, in good jobs, paying tax and NI, than out of work on benefits.

Or do some people think that is preferable and better economically?

I am not an economist, only a pragmatist