Bye bye Theresa

[Rich B]

I can't understand why some MPs believe another referendum is undemocratic. It's no different in my mind to having a GE. You voted for something, stuff happened, you get another vote and can change it if it's not working or not what you expected. If the will of the people is still to leave, leave will win the next vote.

Exactly that. Even the twatstand that is Rees-Mogg said at the outset three years ago there should be a second vote when we finally know what the deal looks like.

will we ever know what the deal looks like though? Especially if it turns into campaign lies again.

[duncs500]

The vote has to be on a set deal (no doubt a variation on the current one on the table). Or no deal or no leave.

We can't have any ifs, buts and maybes in this vote.

[Orange Cola]

I can't understand why some MPs believe another referendum is undemocratic. It's no different in my mind to having a GE. You voted for something, stuff happened, you get another vote and can change it if it's not working or not what you expected. If the will of the people is still to leave, leave will win the next vote.

Exactly that. Even the twatstand that is Rees-Mogg said at the outset three years ago there should be a second vote when we finally know what the deal looks like.

will we ever know what the deal looks like though? Especially if it turns into campaign lies again.

I get your point, even though it’s been published it will still get twisted by the politicians.

[Orange Cola]

The vote has to be on a set deal (no doubt a variation on the current one on the table). Or no deal or no leave.

We can't have any ifs, buts and maybes in this vote.

Yep. Just need them to hurry up with it.

[Rich B]

The vote has to be on a set deal (no doubt a variation on the current one on the table). Or no deal or no leave.

We can't have any ifs, buts and maybes in this vote.

so how do we get to that point with an opposition who will vote against every single option presented because they openly want to use this as an excuse to get a general election.

[nuttinnew]

[NotoriousREV]

Looks like she’ll be revealing Plan A.2 tomorrow

[Simon]

Is that 'submit the same WA to the house'?

[Jobbo]

Looks like she’ll be revealing Plan A.2 tomorrow

If she manages to come up with a plan. I can't see her promising anything else to the house than her deal with amendments which won't be approved by the EU.

[Mito Man]

Can’t understand why they keep using the words ‘we’ and ‘us’ throughout this shitshow. It’s almost like they want the public involved despite them not being consulted about anything really since the referendum. You could have turned the tv off on 24th June 2016 and lived in a cave until now and still have about as much knowledge about it all as someone who has been following it.

Despite this the news continue with their poor reporting. I was surprised to see the headline that most people don’t want a second referendum pop up on my phone. Then I read the small print.

“Sky Data interviewed a nationally representative sample of 1,021 UK adults online on 18 January”

Yep because 1,000 people is very representative of the entire country.

[Beany]

“Sky Data interviewed a nationally representative sample of 1,021 UK adults online on 18 January”

Yep because 1,000 people is very representative of the entire country.

That's the point of a representative sample though - it's how all polling works to be extrapolated to a population level, because polling the entire population isn't possible (outside of, say, an election or a referendum....)

[Nefarious]

I think it's a fair point that people see globalisation as a bad thing, but disengaging with it won't stop it, or curb its damage. Work will always move to where labour is the cheapest, and in doing so money flows into poorer economies until they're no longer the cheapest and the cycle begins again. It's like air pressure equalising.

Just to add some depth and colour - this might be true for bottom-of-the-pile unskilled but that's only one aspect of what is a far more complicated beast.

Ultimately it comes down to comparative advantage, which is a combination of human capital (skills, knowledge etc), IP (protectable info on *how* things are done), and physical capital (investments companies and governments are willing to make in the tools of production).

The UK is very strong in human capital and IP, especially around particular sectors, and as such has a strong comparative advantage in tertiary and quaternary industries (services and R&D). Economic theory says an economic system (whether at local, national or global level) works at its best when the various players concentrate on the activities they have a comparative advantage for, and then everyone trades to get the best possible stuff at the lowest possible economic cost. (E.g. a heart surgeon needs a car to get to work, but it's inefficient for him to spend his time fixing the car - something he's comparatively less good at - better for him to fix more people's hearts and trade with a mechanic for car maintenance services).

So far so good, but in reality, two problems arise -
1) any nation's society is heterogeneous in terms or skills and resources, so there will always be some individual members for whom the best society-level compromise is sub-optimal
2) the system is dynamic and evolving over time, and transition phases cause short-term disutility. (e.g. a mine closes and 1,000 people are out of work, and although the giant call-centre that come along to replace it pays better and gives everyone a better standard of life, it takes time and effort for all those workers to retrain, and some of them may have to shift about geographically)

Protectionism is basically taking the view that the negatives caused by the above two problems outweigh the wider benefits of specialisation and trade. There may be specific situations where this is true (e.g. China deliberately selling steel exports below market rate to run down investment and physical capital in competitor countries in order to gain long term market power, and ultimately raise prices above market rates). Mostly, however, it's governments pandering to the perception of welfare by the electorate. People fundamentally like certainty and the status quo, and don't like being forced into retraining or moving away from their home towns, and value those things over theoretical promises of greater welfare for society as a whole.

In an absolutely ideal world, the UK would farm out heavy manufacturing, agriculture, and other low-skilled activities to those with a comparative advantage in those industries, and we'd have a highly skilled workforce focusing (in international terms at least) on the stuff we're great at (e.g. financial services, high-tech design, R&D etc etc). However, in order to make it work you also need a really strong welfare state and wealth redistribution to make sure that you bring all of society with you, really strong investment in human capital (education and training) and brilliant infrastructure (to reduce the importance of geographic constraints). And that costs money, and the other end of the electorate don't like the taxation necessary for that.

Sometimes its just easier to slap a few tariffs about the place and play up to the self-sufficiency rhetoric than convince the majority of people to look beyond the end of their own noses...

[Simon]

Is that 'submit the same WA to the house'?

Called it.

[NotoriousREV]

It's all still going very, very well, I see.

[JLv3.0]

Good. If we all close our eyes and believe, we can achieve this, erm, well it's this thing where no-one's really that sure, no hang on, wait, what's that, oh yeah something about fishermen, blue passports, sovereignty and, y'know, getting rid of "them".

That's about it, isn't it.

YES WE CAN

[V8Granite]

Good. If we all close our eyes and believe, we can achieve this, erm, well it's this thing where no-one's really that sure, no hang on, wait, what's that, oh yeah something about fishermen, blue passports, sovereignty and, y'know, getting rid of "them".

That's about it, isn't it.

YES WE CAN

This technique worked for me to get laid when I was 17

Dave!

[NotoriousREV]

So Dyson are moving their HQ to Singapore, which is nothing to do with Brexit, and Wetherspoons profits are down, which is also nothing to do with Brexit.

[GG.]

I know it does superficially look very hypocritical of Dyson, though given they are only moving two members of senior management not "head office" as has been reported, it does seem that his explanation holds water. Moving his holding company structure to Singapore presumably saves him 2% in corporation tax (17% versus 19%) but that is tax related not Brexit (though again he denies the move is tax related as presumably he doesn't book a large amount of revenue through the UK anyway).

If you take Dyson as being a anti-globalist Brexiteer then of course it would be wildly hypocritical but his justification has always been based on a globalist and internationalist (rather than EU and protectionist) approach so I'm not clear he is being two faced on this, save in regard to the fact that doing this in and of itself does nothing to help support Britain (though clearly he does still base his R&D facilities here: "Mr Rowan said it would be spending £200m in new buildings and testing facilities in Hullavington, and £44m in refreshing office space and adding new laboratories in Malmesbury as well as investing £31m for the young undergraduates at its university on the same site.").

Andrew Neil mentioned on twitter that it was because Sing is signing a free trade deal with the EU, however, I think that's likely to be wide of the mark also as all his products are manufactured in Asia so he's importing Asia>EU not UK>EU anyway, meaning is wouldn't affect his position on tariffs.

'Spoons I haven't read into but it was noted to be down to additional staffing costs - but there seemed to be no granular detail on why so difficult to comment further. Obviously if it was related to an exodus of EU nationals moving back home in response to Brexit that would be cause and effect, though clearly that information hasn't been released.

[Gavin]

I think calling him a greedy self serving cunt would have sufficed there tbh.

[GG.]

That would be a bit harsh on Rev to be fair Gavin - simmer down now.