Brexit Wars 3



The recession will come after the final deal is in place. However, it is very clear that the economy has slowed down and despite the good news about wage rises, average real wages are still lower than they were a decade ago, not so much as a result of The Brexit process but rather the dampenening effects of austerity.



The number of cars built in the UK dropped by 4% in October compared with a year ago underlining the “extremely worrying times” facing the industry, according to a trade body.

Car production has now fallen in 16 out of the last 17 months as demand at home and abroad declines, said the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT).

Output only rose in August because Brexit contingency measures increased production that month.

Some 134,752 cars rolled off production lines in October, 5,622 fewer than the same month last year, SMMT figures showed.

There was nearly an 11% slump in domestic demand, while overseas orders were down by 2.6%, which accounts for around 80% of output.

Car production was down by more than 14% in the year to date, to 1.1 million vehicles.

The gloomy figures come after the SMMT warned car production could be slashed by more than a third if the UK leaves the EU without an “ambitious” trade deal.

This follows the SMMT saying last month:
“The sector issues a final plea for a no-deal Brexit to be avoided at all costs, saying the prospect is already hitting jobs.”


Why leaving the EU is bad for animal welfare:

Following the public backlash about animal sentience law not being included in the Withdrawal Bill in November 2017, the UK Government made firm commitments ‘to make sure Brexit delivers not just for the British people, but for animals too’. These included promises to be ‘a world leader in the care and protection of animals’ and that the Government would ‘strengthen our animal welfare rules.’ [5]

Yet, under current UK Government legislation plans, animals would receive less legal protection post-Brexit than they do while we’re part of the EU. This is because Government Departments would not have the same legal requirement to take account of animal sentience and welfare in all new laws, policy and their delivery. The UK Government says animals are protected by existing laws – particularly the Animal Welfare Act 2006 – but this doesn’t cover all animals, such as free living wildlife and other overriding ‘protection’ legislation on farm animals permits poor practices, such as keeping laying hens caged, and farming ducks without full body access to water for bathing.

This is particularly worrying given the huge range of Government policy decisions to be made post-Brexit which could harm animals without strong legal protections, for example:

  • New trade deals could permit imports of lower welfare animal products – such as chicken carcasses washed in chlorine and meat and dairy produced from hormone-treated animals – leading to a race to the bottom in UK farming standards to compete on price;

  • Building of terrestrial and marine developments, and major infrastructure projects, e.g. housing, motorways and offshore renewable developments, may not have to consider the animal welfare impact to the same extent as under EU rules, risking avoidable suffering of wildlife;

  • Government Departments and Agencies responsible for UK International aid, could invest in overseas intensive farming systems banned in the UK due to poor animal welfare standards;

  • Wildlife management practices could more easily use inhumane methods, resulting in cruel and painful animal deaths

  • Disturbance of marine animals could be even harder to determine as a wildlife crime - leading, for example, to more dolphins being disturbed by thoughtless boat users;




A final point on this & why I stand by my critical views of the passionate Tory, pro-Israeli Rabbi Mirvis, including that he’s not representative of the majority of Jewish citizens, many of whom are secular, no matter how many sites have been doctored to imply so. Many ordinary Jewish people support Corbyn. Today a letter from the Pan-European Jewish organisation also adding their support. - GLA.


FIAT- hi

No - as Eadwig has said if women are ‘compensated’ so men should be also.
The wider point I tried to make questions whether the government should continually increase public spending (say above a percentage of GDP). This seems to be generally accepted by the left and, these days, by some of the right as well.
To put it more simply, if more public money (actually our money) ,is spent on X or Y , perhaps less should be spent on A or B to keep within the limit.


I still think you missed the irony in the comment. Eadwig has clarified that he doesn’t believe that Waspis or men should be compensated for the raising of the retirement age.

Frog in a tree


And where’s the equivalent air-time on that?
Almost 2 days of solid coverage earlier in the week… but on this… zip.


Hi Jack,

Thanks for posting the alternative Jewish voice on the Labour anti-semitism issue. The reality is that we do not know the balance of jewish opinion is. I am unaware of any specific research looking into the opinions held in that community. The few people that I know who are from jewish families are secular (atheist) people and they are steadfast in their support of Labour and of EU membership. Inevitably they have family histories which have been devasted by Nazi attrocities and they recognise that the EU is a bulwark against a resurgence of fascism. For this and other reasons many jewish people tend to the internationalist left.

On the issue of anti-semitism in the Labour party, they have stood down their candidate in Falkirk for her history of anti-semitic social media comments. This means that the party will not be a choice in that constituency. There is a rather stupid myth that the Labour Party is an “anti-semitic party” and nothing could be further from the truth. Labour does not have anti-semitism at the core of its policy agenda but it does have a number of random individual members who have demonstrated anti-semitic behaviours, most likely less than 1% of the membership.

What is certainly true is that Labour and Tory parties have struggled to deal with this issue, most likely for fear of making the reputational damage worse. It was a mistake as was Corbyn’s failure to apologise for the failures in dealing with the issue firmly and promptly.

Frog in a tree


FIAT - hi

Possibly that low? - but sure as hell pissed off more than that of ‘traditional’ Labour voters and many other voters as well.


Hi Fiat,

Thanks. Agree with much of what you say, not least about many European Jewish family histories & how it’s shaped their world view to this day. Many prefer unity & co-operation. I strongly relate to some of that as my Dad lost all his family, bar one older brother, due to Nazi anti-Jewish operations in Belarus. He only rarely mentioned it when heavily drunk, but his story was always consistent.

They & other Jewish families from his village were rounded up, locked in a warehouse & torched. He, his older brother & other teenage lads escaped before the death squads arrived purely by good luck. If we can call it “luck” to survive that?

I felt strongly about this Rabbi’s recent meddling as the clearly biased Tory Rabbi Mirvis, also a very close friend of Johnson, was claimed as speaking on behalf of the majority of Jewish people. That was verifiable nonsense. This letter also strongly refutes that. Quote from Rabbi Weinberger’s letter:


Also, as mentioned earlier & which JW notes, after almost 2 days of saturation coverage condemning Corbyn & The Labour Party for being anti-Semitic, even from the supposedly neutral BBC (we can assume that garbage like Daily Mail would do it regardless of any lack of proof), where’s the similar coverage refuting & exposing Mirvis’s political stunt?

Naturally, I have huge respect for Rabbi Mayer Weinberger as a man of integrity & principle. Though I’m entirely secular, this is the kind of Rabbi I’d be glad to hear in person if opportunity granted it.

I also agree with you that if I’d have been Corbyn, I’d have apologised at least for the distress & hurt caused to any Jewish citizens by any shortcomings in dealing with any anti-Semitic elements allied to or within the Labour Party, as opposed to those who voice strong condemnations of some Israeli policy, however much these haters may be in a minority. - Regards.


He believes he’s ahead in the polls enough to get a majority and the very worst thing he could do to endanger that position is start talking where he might be asked questions.

That is the Tory strategy right now.


You mean follow the EU rules?


It just so happened it was a rabbi’s turn on the Today programme’s ‘thought for the day’ slot today, and guess what he was talking about. A 20 minute anti-semitic rant, accompanied by threats of violence to anyone who tried to break it up, by some nondescript against a jewish family on the London tube.

20 minutes is a long tube journey and its a helluva a long time for a bigoted rant as well. The bigot was eventually stopped by the intervention of a women wearing a burka, apparently.

Anyway, what a coincidence(?) anti-semitism was kept in the news today by the BBC in the news programme that sets the news cycle for the day.


Eadwig - hi

Say what the EU rules for the UK are … before I agree or not.


The Stability & Growth Pact applies to all 28 member states…from wiki; “The fiscal discipline is ensured by the SGP by requiring each Member State, to implement a fiscal policy aiming for the country to stay within the limits on government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP)”

So I had pointed out to me recently elsewhere. No, I wasn’t aware either.


And yet, we do know the ‘balance’ of Media coverage of this issue and the blatant attacks and smears (including from you) on the Labour Party that have been indulged in over the last few days.

So now… where is the equivalent Media coverage rolling back what the Tory Chief Rabbi has said?
Is he being interviewed over his views on Israel, Palestine and why he really asked people not to vote Labour?
Any condemnation for misrepresenting the views of Jews by pretending he spoke for them all?

Nah… zip.


Eadwig - thanks

I accept the principle.
When we leave the EU we can set (and enforce), our own limits


Indeed. I now understand why Corbyn has been against EU membership.

As a fiscally prudent Tory you must have some doubts about removing that international treaty limit from any future Left-wing government?

Enforcement will be down to the government of the day, of course, so in practice they’ll do whatever they like. In fact, I doubt they’ll bother setting any limits in the first place.


Eadwig - hi

As a fiscally prudent democrat, any government can be subsequently voted out by the UK electorate.
I can live with that
typo edited


Sounds sensible to me m8