Trinnydad

Now this thread is drying up, it is interesting to look back at all the sneering, put-downs, aggression, bigotry, intolerance and ignorance. If nothing else, it is indicative of which is really is the "Nasty Party". The self-same undemocratic mob that pitched up outside No. 10 yesterday.

fishbiscuits Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the Scottish already realise they'd need > to apply to join the EU. They wouldn't suddenly > leave the UK overnight, there would be time to get > these things sorted out. Please, please, they are "Scots" ( noun) not "Scottish" (adjective).

Looking for an experienced web developer with PHP,HTML, CSS to optimise a web site eg improve page loading times. Please PM if interested.

Big shout-out for David at Dyson Repairs. He fixed our beloved old Dyson with a new motor at a very reasonable price.

Consider making or buying a secure drop box. 5 years ago, I made one from wood which is firmly attached to the wheelie bin storage wall. It has a door at the front and this is secured with a padlock that the Postie finds inside. When he has put the parcel(s) inside, he locks the door with the padlock. Padlock is bright yellow so I can see it as soon as I get home. Capacity is almost wheelie bin size. OK it handles only one delivery at a time but it's been a most useful bit of kit. Might make another one to take multiple deliveries like this.. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/12-METZ-Large-Red-Letter-Box-Post-Box-Mail-Letterbox-Drop-tall-PARCEL-Box/392047285365?hash=item5b47d6d475:rk:15:pf:0&checksum=39204728536589d008e5a2374a2689ac89a86796491c&enc=AQADAAAC8BkojIFHYtWT%2BANpG6F7t2Hwmg4dZREnOw9L%2FDgkltEs%2F9yRiQSkK6kFOYPpVi3YO11kLiAfJSvtxfwYaaogojDI4bjoENYLlaNGcd3qOW0g38%2FNXulp9L9Y0Ch0eoHnIs44SGdlOIsN37fu%2Ft5zVn%2BMlNc8du9MP0P92xoem0y%2Bu4cjf4pV3Xgyqcx5GuVnO9Tq1Uey60t39vtHvc8fNFdG50KayytvqrRGE0y7gTyTK5I1SRwMl%2FUXFZFv4dahyih0%2FmNZRjDZht9j50eWuYlLsfqCH%2FAm8MCz8vSrDp37RxsY52be5a%2F6CgRAeDFu%2Bm7y2x4GDKzijut4Hy8AnnD1Nd%2FG49YI3fdmgwV9oH%2BrE0kMxraP82u2cJpKu4emao7bmZhOcb%2BaU7HigkWfG%2FkRRIKBg5Zv2VFTIO%2B3A09oSnK1qo2RMhaSKFNeb3%2BWek68Qur%2F%2Fh06JezdCaJSqNBnvsq780Dfs2C7T9BFkklNXosTOmFtzAjJTerDmum6yx%2F4YxA%2BgcH8E%2B74MJ5PtlLlj8zvfTv%2FYHpiZp7A1jeJfIgatRP7YdDfnRL0vigyHXIv0SevUcbl2GWyncI38h2ctOEppss37cU2wUaa3WkvVGRqPgTby7c9qhEwXiOm1o5yHvA1OI3yOzK8%2BEcmAYNtx%2BBJAjxsHHle9jLFKI6rX5dqYBq%2B5Wfdpv46YlOoTzyBLx%2FNpu3P67svsjyxHcYiyCj2PLBm0G0wvISeC%2Fxa7dW4QHtge0JY6L1G7ccXH47sJ%2B55E4b95Hb%2FWMpWKlVmjnEUwC7vgKnWsWDpEtaaAJ%2Fl8HKFLoi0TZmXRI7pCgt8mz%2BxhWwc3MH64QppKSaIIR5FLEm7qaCrxsfPNGp%2BIprrkgEzzbURC9jDv%2Bvq66GliAuEO9pkgM7iNRyIOJr1BfK%2F2IhA8rDjzQmnRdSdyNrz1odhp6sRRwNEZbhXgFdNNmu5uD0Qs5FCZmw9qRx5FVdOo%2FAZ%2B0w2oJo2HTPy

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree there is something going on between the > original members of the EEC and I think anyone who > is not suspicious is very naive. > Just before the Referendum the EU gave Turkey a > LOAN to open a Ford Transit Factory in Turkey > which is NOT even in the EU. The Ford Transit > factory in Southampton closed down with the loss > of 600 jobs...that was just BEFORE the Referendum > and if WE contribute financially to the downfall > of our own manufacturing there will never be an > equal place for the UK in the EU club. > I believe the UK has been systematically asset > stripped by the EU since 1973. The first > indication I had of this was when 2 successful > dairy farmers in Wiltshire who are family members > went out of business in the 1970s... > I believe the actions of Blair and Brown and their > government - many members of which as we allo > know, were Tony's Cronies, and they were > complicit in the undermining of the UK by the EU. Please let's not mention the name Blair here. He's the one who conceded ?7bn of our rebate to the EU and got nothing in return. Same one cost us money and credibility in Iraq too. Now he's telling us how to sort Brexit.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is not > a story of the UK having legislation foisted on it > that it a) had no say in and b) never agreed with. > And if you think differently, then prove it with > the same detail and insight I have offered. > > Vague statements insinuating conspiratorial pacts > won't cut it ;) What you say was true BEFORE they conspired to bring in QMV which is based ( largely) on the size of populations. All it takes is Germany, France and say Italy or Poland to agree on an issue and yts done and dusted. The others are marginalised. The days of the unanimous decisions went out the window years ago.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And you Trinnydad have no idea how the EU actually > works. Directives only pass if the European > Parliament vote for them. Germany has no > overriding power in that. How truly na?ve! The Berlin-Paris axis pulls all the strings in the EU. They are more equal than any of the others. The others countries.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well...rather than suggesting im 'not of right > mind' you could perhaps just ask politely why I > did? > > Becuase, a recession is a temporary hardship, and > this was a vote which I viewed through a 50+ year > lens. > > I could equally ask who in their right mind would > yolk together completely disparate economies under > one central bank for ever and ever amen..and think > that situation won't result in recession and > hardship for various countries at various points > in the future. And then assume that even with a > different currency, that the UK would be immune to > being affected by that. > > You may argue that this situation is more > tolerable for you than the short term recession > which I reluctantly accept might be a risk....well > that's personal preferences, personal risk > tolerance, and perhaps agree to disagree. But if > you haven't considered some of the drawbacks of > the EU project as well as the benefits, then > perhaps you share some of that 'confusion' you so > willingly ascribe to leave voters.... @ TheCat I subscribe to your views. You come across as a knowledgeable and intelligent person who has reached a considered long term view on Brexit. Too many others have failed to remember how the EU started out as a free trade area only that has developed into a centrally controlled dictatorship that is largely under the control of Germany. Nothing happens without Merkel's approval. The Euro has been hugely beneficial for Germany but it has marginalised much of southern and eastern Europe. It devastated Greece and will do the same, in time, to Italy, Portugal and Spain. When these last three disintegrate financially, the EU project will be finished. Oblivious to the realities, Brussels is intent on further centralisation. That is when people will look back on the merits of national sovereignty.

@ StraferJack You seem to have swallowed all the doses of Project Fear, but, setting that aside, can you tell us how the ?49bn was calculated - apart from the on-going joint aid projects the UK committed to. Not forgetting of course the massive pension funds for the EU staff? If you can provide a list of the top 10 or so items, that would help a great deal in putting this ripoff into perspective.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: -> > May's deal puts Britain in a worse position and of > course, this is preferable to the EU. Agreed. But thankfully it is still not too late to just walk away. Reject the Agreement, which is what parliament actually voted for last week. And leave it at that. Walk away. Stop the humiliation, keep our ?49bn, get our dignity back, grasp the opportunities that arise and do trade deals elsewhere. It is what the country voted for in the referendum. But no, the Westminster elite want to duck and dive and arrive at fudge. Walk away now because the EU will slowly fall apart in time anyway. The future for Euro is already looking very shakey with Italy and France's fiscal delinquency.

alex_b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Trinnydad Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > > And they certainly wouldn?t have signed a > > withdrawal agreement until the so-called future > > trading relationship was agreed. It goes > against > > the basic principle of ?it's not agreed until > it's > > ALL agreed?. > > This approach is prescribed in Article 50, how do > you propose the government should have got around > that? Certainly triggering Article 50 and then > complaining you're bound by the obligations of > this seems pretty silly. > What was silly was settling a withdrawal agreement whereby our "negotiators" gave up on the redlines and conceded ?45bn plus subordination to the ECJ and backstop etc, etc, etc. They should have said at the beginning we are going WTO and nothing's agreed until its all agreed. Also, knowing that France and Germany would be out to start sh@fting the UK from day one (which they did), our lot should have been setting up preliminary trade negotiations in advance with other countries. OK, in principle it's against the so called rules for an EU member to do this, but it's what should have been done to show we were serious. The UK HAD a strong bargaining position - given that the EU (Germany, France & Spain in particular) have a huge trade surplus with us. Another bargaining chip that was given away for nothing is the fact that there are almost half a million Poles here who could have been made to apply for work permits. Add to that the thousands of Irish, Portuguese, Spaniards etc etc who are working here. Their aggregate numbers must exceed by a factor of 7 or 8 the number of Brits working in the EU.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Trinnydad Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Two years ago there was talk of engaging highly > > experienced trade negotiators from Canada who > had > > spent the previous 5 years negotiating with the > EU > > on a trade agreement. Instead we sent in a > bunch > > of raw recruits who were totally out manoeuvred > by > > Barnier. We already have a Canadian BoE chief, > so > > why not a trade negotiator. > > > I'm not convinced having expert negotiators > would've helped as there was no plan from the > Brexiters. > I don't think the EU outmanoeuvred the UK either, > the EU have been transparent and consistent about > their standpoint from day 1. It's what tends to > happen when you negotiate with a rules based > organisation, everything is there to see. The EU > were never going to compromise their 4 freedoms. > The problem has been May's red lines compromised > those freedoms and subsequently boxed her in > during the negotiations... They boxed themselves in because they were not experienced negotiators. It wasn't May who did that. Where she erred was to send boys off to do a man's job. A few senior Canadians who had battled with Barnier for 5 years would have got a better outcome. They certainly wouldn't have agreed to the negotiating items to the sequence stipulated by the EU at the outset. This resulted in ?49bn was conceded before anything else was agreed. And they certainly wouldn?t have signed a withdrawal agreement until the so-called future trading relationship was agreed. It goes against the basic principle of ?it's not agreed until it's ALL agreed?. The first side to make even a small concession is on a slippery slope which then leads to other concessions. That is why politician are useless at negotiating as they always try and get a win-win which in other parlance is a fudge. Sadly there is more fudge to come and it will all be produced in Westminster.

Brexit looks as though it will go down in history as the most horrific example of ineptitude in political negotiations and the betrayal of ordinary people by the political elite in Westminster. Two years ago there was talk of engaging highly experienced trade negotiators from Canada who had spent the previous 5 years negotiating with the EU on a trade agreement. Instead we sent in a bunch of raw recruits who were totally out manoeuvred by Barnier. We already have a Canadian BoE chief, so why not a trade negotiator. To have signed away ?39bn and conceded subservience to the EU in perpetuity without even getting started on the future trade relationship is beyond comprehension. As one who has conducted large and complicated commercial contracts over several decades, I have looked on in horror at how matters have been handled. It truly beggars belief.

Steve, Sorry to put the mockers on your DFID2 paper but Brexit will have a negative effect on the UK economy and this could be mitigated by cutting back on foreign aid and spending the money here. Our foreign aid expenditure is running at around ?14bn per annum. That is over one billion a month! It was Gordon Brown that committed the UK to spend 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid, in perpetuity, at a time when the government was was running a massive fiscal deficit. It's simply madness for the UK to borrow money from overesas creditors just to give it away on foreign aid. The UK national debt is in excess of ?1 trillion and it's increasing every day. Much of this aid is spent without us having any control over it because we give it to multilateral agencies. On a unilateral basis we give millions in aid to India whilst India spends millions on a spece research programme. DFID have have been given so much money to hand out that they have run out of decent projects to fund and have resorted to handing out currency (cash handouts) in countries like Zambia. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/sep/19/zambia-aid-payments-suspended-over-corruption-allegations A sad and inescapable fact is that a high percentage of foreign aid is wasted and/or diverted through corruption. The intended recipients ultimately receive very little benefit in many cases. When it comes to Brexit, there will be a pressing need to spend the aid here to off-set the downside(s).

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just seen a large rat in my living room. It run > off but just disappeared. > > Found dropping right next to my armchair where I > sit watching TV. > Dropping is over an inch long and 3/8ths of an > inch wide, so looks like a big bugger. Count your blessings things could be worse - if it had a stomach upset!

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If they actually got in (which they won't), they'd > never, ever be allowed to even think about that. > Just not going to happen, and nor should it. Heaven forbid! But leopards cannot and do not change their spots. An unholy troika would be JC, Jon McDonnell and Andrew Murray as their adviser. And of course Daine in support to give it some anti-white retoric plus a massive dose of hypocracy.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Come on, May saying she'll 'rip up the human > rights act' is just ridiculous politicking and has > no bearing on what's happened. Naturally, she's wanting to hoover up the Kipper votes.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Diane Abbott is out for an indefinite period. > > Sounds pretty permanent to me. > > Dulwichfox I am willing to bet you are wrong. She will be back provided JC survives to the end of June. These two go back a long way - you could even say "joined at the hip". Care for a tenner on it?

How many square metres are we talking about?

DKH, The National Interest restriction is designed to limit foreign take-overs. Which, if anyy, of the french utilities are foreign owned? Here's an interesting study.. https://www.ft.com/content/ff76b7de-8e22-11e6-8df8-d3778b55a923

Yes, they are very much the apex predator that rips the life blood out of infrastructure entities and siphons it off to a tax haven. Correct, you cannot blame MacQ as they exist only because the system in the UK allows them to do it. They are not alone but they are the ones who do it with such clinical aggression that their reputation resides in the halls of infamy. And yes there are several UK private equity oerations that do exactly the same. The environment in the UK has allowed them to thrive because sucessive UK governments have allowed it to happen. They have failed to create a "national interest" restriction. Most other countries have done this and have prevented their prized businesses and infrastructure entities being asset stripped and hollowed out. Coincidentally I met today a non-exec from MacQ today at the AGM of a large UK company and when I teased this person about MacQ's past reputation, the response was "Oh, don't worry, MacQ won't be doing any more take-overs here now - there's no decent infrastructure businesses left". Just to repeat I dont bemoan the fact that they are foreign. I do regret the fact that we have had a series spineless/ignorant business ministers in recent decades. No doubt there was a degree of sef-interest involved also.

Borky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh noes. Oh noes. The much lauded discipline of > the marketplace has failed. > Market oversight in the form of "National Interest" legislation, as practiced by virtually all other countries, is the way it should be handled. France is one of the most active in this area. It's also not too late as action could be taken along the following lines of a tax on revenue (rather than profit) for companies that are not incorporated in the UK. Where the business sector is regulated then the regulator could be given additional powers to control pricing. I was thinking of such sectors as Water, Electricity, Gas, Rail and Bus fares.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > If no tax was paid in the last 6 years then no > dividends were either. Those can be paid when a > company is making a profit. What is the myth of > inward investment? Why would the figures be any > different if the company was UK owned? It really all comes down to debt loading and tax havens plus the fact that debt interest is an operating expense and so can be offset against tax in the UK. Enough debt and you can wipe out any tax liability. Macquarie group control 49 entities registered in the Cayman Islands, 18 in Bermuda, nine in Mauritius, six in the Isle of Jersey and four in the British Virgin Islands. The significant link is that all these locations are tax havens. The Cayman Islands is one of the most well-known tax havens in the world. Unlike most countries, the Cayman Islands does not have a corporate tax, making it an ideal place for multinational corporations to base subsidiary entities to shield some or all of their incomes from taxation. Let?s say there?s a company called Macquarie Utilities Cayman (MUC) and it is registered in the Caymans, as is a separate company called Macquarie Utilities Finance (MUF). They are separate but have the same shareholders. MUC looks at a company called say English Water Distribution (EWD) which is profitable and is owned by several thousand UK shareholders. It is a good solid utility company with guaranteed cash flows. For years EWD has been paying corporation tax to HMRC as do the shareholders on their annual dividends. HMRC is happy and as it collecting a nice wedge of cash on a regular basis. Let?s say EDW?s stock market valuation is ?2Bn of which ?500,000 is spare cash on the balance sheet. It has no debt. MUC makes a takeover bid of ?2.5Bn via the stock market. The bid goes through, so MUC now owns EWD. We need now to look at how MUC will pay for it. MUC starts out with only ?0.5Bn in cash but it arranges to borrow ?2Bn from MUF and so MUC pays out the ?2.5Bn to the shareholders. MUC then borrows another ?1.5Bn from MUF and passes this debt on to EWD. MUF takes a dividend out of EWD to the tune of ?1.5Bn. So MUC now has a dividend of ?1.5Bn (transferred to Cayman) to show for an initial capital investment of ?0.5Bn. That?s a 300% return on investment. Meanwhile, EWD which originally had ?0.5Bn free cash is now laded with debt which it must service by paying interest regularly to MUF via MUC at a rate set by MUF. Because this debt is huge, the interest charges eradicate the operating profits and so EWD pays no tax to HMRC and neither do the shareholders as they are in the Cayman tax haven. It is a simple matter thereafter for MUC and MUF to sort out their inter-company finances in the tax haven so no tax is paid. On an on-going basis, EWD will balance the operating profits ( i.e. gross profit before finance costs) each year by taking on more debt as appropriate so that net UK profit is zero. It can also do this by adjusting the rate of interest at which the debt is serviced. It doesn?t have to be just debt as money can be extracted by royalties or management fees. Macquarie is one of the most aggressive operators of this type tax avoidance and has been dubbed the ?vampire kangaroo? for its ruthless focus on profits and tax minimisation. It specialises in infrastructure, utilities, airports, toll roads, car parks, ferries, etc ? in fact anything that is low risk, low tech and guaranteed cash flow. Further reading? Read more: Why is the Cayman Islands considered a tax haven? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100215/why-cayman-islands-considered-tax-haven.asp#ixzz4gPlJ6cEq http://utilitytalk.co.uk/thames-water-loses-250mil-pensions-pot-owners-squirrel-away-2bn-overseas/ http://www.right2water.eu/sites/water/files/Leaking%20away%20-%20the%20financial%20costs%20of%20water%20privatisation.pdf http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-4103092/ALEX-BRUMMER-Don-t-let-Aussie-vampire-kangaroo-suck-2-7bn-Green-Investment-Bank.html http://www.afr.com/street-talk/why-the-british-are-calling-macquarie-the-vampire-kangaroo-20160913-grfobp?&utm_source=social&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn:twi-14omn0055-optim-nnn:nonpaid-27/06/2014-social_traffic-all-organicpost-nnn-afr-o&campaign_code=nocode&promote_channel=social_twitter http://resource.co/article/government-sells-gib-vampire-kangaroo-macquarie-11802

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Trinnydad Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > I am no xenophobe. > > ... and yet you seem to have it in for certain > investors on the basis that they are not from this > country. > > > In deference to your comments I have amended my > text to "Inward Investment". Is that OK? > > Not really. That's just a synonym. It would be a > bit like UKIP changing all their literature from > 'immigrants' to 'people who travel from other > places to live here'. It's kind of missing the > point. > > I'm still at a loss as to why you seemed > determined to pin all the blame on foreigners... > sorry, 'inward investors'. I'm at a loss to understand why you keep jumping down my throat. It's not something I expected or deserve. Take over the thread and do with it what you want as I'm outa here.