Brexit discussion thread II

Enzokk

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The UK still haven't provided any clarity on what they intend to pay if there's a transition period.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1019/913509-brexit-blog/
Europe’s overriding concern is not the survival of the Tory Party but the protection of the European project itself.

...
The suspicion in Brussels is that London is deliberately holding out because they want to use money as leverage once they get into negotiations on the future trade agreement.

It seems to me, having seen John Redwood on the Daily Politics where he kept talking about how the EU wants the UK to pay money for a trade deal. Now I may be mistaken but there has been no talks yet about a trade deal so how can they be talking about paying for one? Surely the talks should be about what the UK will pay on what they committed, which they have not done yet. He did say that the UK will pay what they legally committed to.

So if I have it right there seems to be a perception that the EU is talking to the UK about paying for access to the single market. But surely the only costs would be towards contributions for EU institutions that the UK will use, like the EMA or EURATOM. Or are we missing something here?

Firblog wrote: »

Hey I was just outlining the arguments that were put forward for Brexit at the time, I'm not really looking to argue their merits or lack thereof.

But another one I'm fairly sure contributed, was commentators calling people who had concerns about immigration, racist and xenophobic - as Gordon Brown did - this also spurred alot of people to vote brexit; the only people who seemed to be sympathetic to their concerns were those who were advocating Brexit, so why not vote for them?

There are many on here who less than polite to people who support Brexit, while it isn't going to change people's views and opinions it really doesn't cost anything to be civil when discussing these matters.

For those that was against immigration there could have been an element of racism involved, whether they liked it or not. Now we have seen many figures that proves that people from the EU doesn't put undue pressure on the social welfare system in the UK as they pay more for what they take out. But people would still have been complaining about the "Polish that has 6 kids to claim benefits". Ignorance of the truth is no excuse when it comes to racism or xenophobia and this seems to be where most people fell short, even if they don't like to hear it.

In any case those that are convinced that immigration is ruining the UK will not have their minds changed as they are thinking emotionally and not rationally. I am sure smarter people will be able to point out why the areas with the least amount of immigration are the areas that voted in the highest percentage for Brexit, or how the AFD in Germany got their support in the East of Germany where there is the lowest immigration yet that is what AFD main talking points were.

Nody

Enzokk wrote: »

It seems to me, having seen John Redwood on the Daily Politics where he kept talking about how the EU wants the UK to pay money for a trade deal. Now I may be mistaken but there has been no talks yet about a trade deal so how can they be talking about paying for one? Surely the talks should be about what the UK will pay on what they committed, which they have not done yet. He did say that the UK will pay what they legally committed to.

So if I have it right there seems to be a perception that the EU is talking to the UK about paying for access to the single market. But surely the only costs would be towards contributions for EU institutions that the UK will use, like the EMA or EURATOM. Or are we missing something here?

UK politics; plenty of Tories have all stood up and loudly declared that they will not pay for access to the EU market and how strongly they will oppose it. Of course the fact EU has never mentioned that in the first place but it makes great headlines for the Sun and Telegraph to show how strong the Tories are against EU and fighting the good fight. Hence fighting shadow windmills is a popular sport in the UK at the moment while the rags cheer them on for their great "victories".

murphthesmurf

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/how-much-do-we-spend-on-the-eu-and-what-else-could-it-pay-for/

I think the EU's 50 billion divorce bill is extreme. Britain pays in around 8.4 billion a year after rebates etc, so 50 billion would be 6 years worth of payments. Thats excessive in my opinion, and struggle to see how EU can justify it.

The Rape of Lucretia

murphthesmurf wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/how-much-do-we-spend-on-the-eu-and-what-else-could-it-pay-for/

I think the EU's 50 billion divorce bill is extreme. Britain pays in around 8.4 billion a year after rebates etc, so 50 billion would be 6 years worth of payments. Thats excessive in my opinion, and struggle to see how EU can justify it.

How long do you expect British EU retirees to be paid their pensions ? 6 Years ?

Enzokk

murphthesmurf wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/how-much-do-we-spend-on-the-eu-and-what-else-could-it-pay-for/

I think the EU's 50 billion divorce bill is extreme. Britain pays in around 8.4 billion a year after rebates etc, so 50 billion would be 6 years worth of payments. Thats excessive in my opinion, and struggle to see how EU can justify it.

Where do you get the £50 billion from? As far as I know the EU wants the UK to commit to what they have already committed. They have not talked about an amount precisely because you would get headlines about how the UK will not pay X amount instead of saying we will not pay to what we committed.

Nody

murphthesmurf wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/how-much-do-we-spend-on-the-eu-and-what-else-could-it-pay-for/

I think the EU's 50 billion divorce bill is extreme. Britain pays in around 8.4 billion a year after rebates etc, so 50 billion would be 6 years worth of payments. Thats excessive in my opinion, and struggle to see how EU can justify it.

Except EU has not mentioned a number; every single number mentioned has been pulled out of a random ass by a rag in the UK for outrage purposes basically. EU has asked for (and not received) UK to state what they are going to actually pay for.

Secondly you forget that UK also has 44 years of pensions that are due from the civil workers in EU for the time they were there. Those pension obligations don't stop out of the blue simply because UK leaves the union. And third and final UK made multiple commitments to funds that were not used up at the time of UK leaving they were however pledged by UK to various programs (to the tune of 30 billion or so currently) that are not tied to the yearly membership fees.

murphthesmurf

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

How long do you expect British EU retirees to be paid their pensions ? 6 Years ?

How long do you think young EU migrants living in UK will be here? A lot work and pay in more than they take as has been stated, but not all. Some will potentially drawing on money from the state for decades to come. The retirees in Spain will be dead in a few years. It works both ways. Plus any living in UK have full access to the NHS, which is a cost Spain does not have.

murphthesmurf

Nody wrote: »

Except EU has not mentioned a number; every single number mentioned has been pulled out of a random ass by a rag in the UK for outrage purposes basically. EU has asked for (and not received) UK to state what they are going to actually pay for.

Secondly you forget that UK also has 44 years of pensions that are due from the civil workers in EU for the time they were there. Those pension obligations don't stop out of the blue simply because UK leaves the union. And third and final UK made multiple commitments to funds that were not used up at the time of UK leaving they were however pledged by UK to various programs (to the tune of 30 billion or so currently) that are not tied to the yearly membership fees.

I got the 50 billion from Google. So from what you are saying it sounds like it will be a lot more than 50 billion.

Nody

murphthesmurf wrote: »

How long do you think young EU migrants living in UK will be here? A lot work and pay in more than they take as has been stated, but not all. Some will potentially drawing on money from the state for decades to come. The retirees in Spain will be dead in a few years. It works both ways. Plus any living in UK have full access to the NHS, which is a cost Spain does not have.

You mean beyond the fact that it's already linked studues that EU citizens add 1.04 GBP in taxes for every 1.00 GBP they use (and that is for ALL EU citizens inc. those who stay until they die of old age)? You know minor things such as actual facts rather than made up conjunctions such as your claim.

murphthesmurf wrote: »

I got the 50 billion from Google. So from what you are saying it sounds like it will be a lot more than 50 billion.

Depending on who you ask the number is anything between 10/20 billion to 80+ billions. In the end it all comes down to one single question which UK has not answered which is:"Which of your commitments are you going to pay for and how much of said commitment are you going to pay?"

Now UK can say well we made those commitment when we were a EU member but we'll not pay them now; or we should only pay 50% etc. as part of the negotiations with EU but we (and EU) don't know because UK's negotiation team are simply to clueless and directionless to know and commit to anything. They simply have not been given the authority and direction to actually state what they will pay because May's government is in utter and constant chaos and infighting without an agreed vision on how to execute the Brexit which also makes any number quoted now meaningless. Chances are the final number will come mid 2020s after a long drawn out court hearing of some sort or another and not sooner.

Enzokk

Nody wrote: »

Except EU has not mentioned a number; every single number mentioned has been pulled out of a random ass by a rag in the UK for outrage purposes basically. EU has asked for (and not received) UK to state what they are going to actually pay for.

Secondly you forget that UK also has 44 years of pensions that are due from the civil workers in EU for the time they were there. Those pension obligations don't stop out of the blue simply because UK leaves the union. And third and final UK made multiple commitments to funds that were not used up at the time of UK leaving they were however pledged by UK to various programs (to the tune of 30 billion or so currently) that are not tied to the yearly membership fees.

You can see why the EU doesn't want to talk numbers, because the headlines is what they want to avoid. Its seems to be working as well as a lot of people are committing to numbers and stating their own red lines on the amount they are willing to support. Even on here posters are commenting on what they feel is supposed to be paid and what is supposed to be whistled at. This is without knowing the complexities that is involved with this, just a random £20 billion is enough number.

Sam Russell

murphthesmurf wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/how-much-do-we-spend-on-the-eu-and-what-else-could-it-pay-for/

I think the EU's 50 billion divorce bill is extreme. Britain pays in around 8.4 billion a year after rebates etc, so 50 billion would be 6 years worth of payments. Thats excessive in my opinion, and struggle to see how EU can justify it.

The divorce bill contains various elements.

1. The contributions to the current budget cycle - I think it goes to 2021.

2. The funding of EU pensions (future amounts for ALL EU pensioners - not just UK citizens). This fund is paid from current funds so is not easy to calculate, bur actuaries are good at this.

3. The cost of moving the banking and medicine boards to their new home.

4. The cost of the Brexit circus. I would guess this alone would run to a billion euro.

5. Possibly, included could be the extra cost of customs, and other extra administration, such as the ECJ costs.

I think that should be easy to calculate, but first to agree the basis.

The idea that the Irish border depends on the trade agreement puts the question the round the wrong way. There will be no border on the Island of Ireland so agree how that can be achieved.

The citizen rights again should be straight forward, and should be reciprocated.

Not rocket science. If you want an agreement, just find agreement through compromise.

The Rape of Lucretia

murphthesmurf wrote: »

How long do you think young EU migrants living in UK will be here? A lot work and pay in more than they take as has been stated, but not all. Some will potentially drawing on money from the state for decades to come. The retirees in Spain will be dead in a few years. It works both ways. Plus any living in UK have full access to the NHS, which is a cost Spain does not have.

I meant former UK employees of the various EU institutions over the decades.

Enzokk

murphthesmurf wrote: »

I got the 50 billion from Google. So from what you are saying it sounds like it will be a lot more than 50 billion.

Its best to wait until you get the numbers from the EU themselves. Seems a bit random as well, I get a lot of things from google, usually contact numbers or whether I should be concerned about that rash. Usually it gives you what you ask for and isn't a news service.

murphthesmurf

Jim2007 wrote: »

Britain never made an effort to be part of the community!

What exactly should they have done? The UK along with Germany were, for a long time, the only 2 net contributors. If you don't fit in to a club after 44yrs, you never will and its time to find a new club.

The Rape of Lucretia

Sam Russell wrote: »

The idea that the Irish border depends on the trade agreement puts the question the round the wrong way. There will be no border on the Island of Ireland so agree how that can be achieved.

Surely there could be, and this is one of the UK's strongest levers over the EU. No deal - erect a border. The UK can do this.
Politically highly undesireable for both sides, but a price the UK can threaten it is willing to pay.

murphaph

murphthesmurf wrote: »

How long do you think young EU migrants living in UK will be here? A lot work and pay in more than they take as has been stated, but not all. Some will potentially drawing on money from the state for decades to come. The retirees in Spain will be dead in a few years. It works both ways. Plus any living in UK have full access to the NHS, which is a cost Spain does not have.

Very odd argument. Anyway most migrants to the UK will head home to warmer weather to retire. The young EU migrants in the UK will contribute taxes like anyone else and then draw their UK pensions like anyone else.

Firblog

Enzokk wrote: »

For those that was against immigration there could have been an element of racism involved, whether they liked it or not.... Ignorance of the truth is no excuse when it comes to racism or xenophobia and this seems to be where most people fell short, even if they don't like to hear it.

In any case those that are convinced that immigration is ruining the UK will not have their minds changed as they are thinking emotionally and not rationally. I am sure smarter people will be able to point out why the areas with the least amount of immigration are the areas that voted in the highest percentage for Brexit, or how the AFD in Germany got their support in the East of Germany where there is the lowest immigration yet that is what AFD main talking points were.

You have encapsulated a few of the points I've made previously, you're calling people who had concerns about immigration and the effects on their communities, services, country, racist and xenophobic for having those concerns. Straight away you have dismissed their worries, you don't live where they live, don't experience what they experience, and the only measurement you seem take into account for the effects of immigration is the economic one; as long as there is a plus in the balance sheet it must be a good thing, nothing else matters.

I believe you have portrayed the attitude that lost the brexit vote for the remain side.

Nody

Firblog wrote: »

You have encapsulated a few of the points I've made previously, you're calling people who had concerns about immigration and the effects on their communities, services, country, racist and xenophobic for having those concerns. Straight away you have dismissed their worries, you don't live where they live, don't experience what they experience, and the only measurement you seem take into account for the effects of immigration is the economic one; as long as there is a plus in the balance sheet it must be a good thing, nothing else matters.

I believe you have portrayed the attitude that lost the brexit vote for the remain side.

And you have shown exactly why those same people will be in for a world of pain for the next two decades with worse service, worse experiences, less money with worse quality on food and working conditions. But that is what they voted for and they will reap what they sowed due to their ignorance and they will blame EU and foreigners the whole time doing so because it's not the well educated who can move to EU for a new job, or the once who're making hundreds of thousands who'll pay for Brexit but rather the middle class and down of society.

murphaph

murphthesmurf wrote: »

What exactly should they have done? The UK along with Germany were, for a long time, the only 2 net contributors. If you don't fit in to a club after 44yrs, you never will and its time to find a new club.

That's a falsehood. France and the Benelux countries were also net contributors all along. I'd be surprised if the Nordic countries weren't also.

solodeogloria

Sam Russell wrote: »

The divorce bill contains various elements.

1. The contributions to the current budget cycle - I think it goes to 2021.

2. The funding of EU pensions (future amounts for ALL EU pensioners - not just UK citizens). This fund is paid from current funds so is not easy to calculate, bur actuaries are good at this.

3. The cost of moving the banking and medicine boards to their new home.

4. The cost of the Brexit circus. I would guess this alone would run to a billion euro.

5. Possibly, included could be the extra cost of customs, and other extra administration, such as the ECJ costs.

I think that should be easy to calculate, but first to agree the basis.

The idea that the Irish border depends on the trade agreement puts the question the round the wrong way. There will be no border on the Island of Ireland so agree how that can be achieved.

The citizen rights again should be straight forward, and should be reciprocated.

Not rocket science. If you want an agreement, just find agreement through compromise.

Good evening!

This is how it is seen from the EU side. In the UK this is seen as a trade off for trade access. You're not going to change that. Davis is quite clear that the UK were willing to go further from this position but it depends on trade.

I can't see it going much further than 3 years contributions net (after EIB assets are taken into account).

It takes two to compromise. The UK have already been pretty generous on all three issues considering nothing of substance has been offered in return.

I'm hopeful for a good deal but I'm happy for the prime minister to walk from a bad one.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphthesmurf

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Surely there could be, and this is one of the UK's strongest levers over the EU. No deal - erect a border. The UK can do this.
Politically highly undesireable for both sides, but a price the UK can threaten it is willing to pay.

They may threaten this, but as a Brit I can tell you from my experience this is something that the British public would certainly not want. Public favour for this would be none existent. Mainland Britain was to some extent segregated from what went on in the north. It was only really spoken of with regards to terrorist attacks in the past. But in more recent years people have gotten to know a lot more. People travel to the north and south on holiday and have gotten to see what it is like now and what it would have been like back then.
I may be wrong but I can't see them ever erecting a boarder again. No amount of spin would make it sound like a good idea. The cost of policing it would be astronomical too. I would imagine even the US would put pressure on UK not to go down that route, given the high number of Irish/Americans.

The Rape of Lucretia

solodeogloria wrote: »

I can't see it going much further than 3 years contributions net (after EIB assets are taken into account).

It takes two to compromise.

Thats not a compromise at all - that would be just not paying the outstanding bill.

Compromise only comes into the future relationship of finding agreement on tariffs, movement of people, the border with Eire, etc. On this aspect, the EU will negotiate. And compromise.

Paying for your family's dinner in a restaurant, do you call over the patron, and say that you know you were presented with a bill for €100, but surely he must compromise, how about you pay €20, and he lets your kids come in for more icecream for the next three days.
I thought only Davis was taking that bonkers line.

murphthesmurf

murphaph wrote: »

That's a falsehood. France and the Benelux countries were also net contributors all along. I'd be surprised if the Nordic countries weren't also.

My mistake, article said UK and Germany were only 'significant' net contributors.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/how-much-do-we-spend-on-the-eu-and-what-else-could-it-pay-for/
There are apparently now 12 countries who are net contributors.

murphthesmurf

murphaph wrote: »

Very odd argument. Anyway most migrants to the UK will head home to warmer weather to retire. The young EU migrants in the UK will contribute taxes like anyone else and then draw their UK pensions like anyone else.

Whats odd about it? I was replying to a comment from someone who said regarding the supposed 50 billion divorce bill. The OP commented on the cost of the pensions for the retirees in Spain. I was pointing out that the UK will have costs for EU immigrants too over the years, so it balances out.

Firblog

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Surely there could be, and this is one of the UK's strongest levers over the EU. No deal - erect a border. The UK can do this.
Politically highly undesireable for both sides, but a price the UK can threaten it is willing to pay.

I think you may have that the wrong way, regardless of what the UK does, they could unilaterally decide that the North can trade freely without tariffs with the south, and that they will not block free movement of people into the north from here; but if the EU doesn't want goods coming into the EU without tariffs from NI, they will insist on customs and border controls on our side.

Who will be the bad guy then?

Jim2007

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Surely there could be, and this is one of the UK's strongest levers over the EU. No deal - erect a border. The UK can do this. Politically highly undesireable for both sides, but a price the UK can threaten it is willing to pay.

And what do they do then? They have a population who are experiencing significant increases in cost of living through FX and tariffs, can't leaving the country for holidays in the sun, 48% of their exports are facing tariffs and inspections in the EU, WTO deals are blocked due to the objections of the US, Canada etc plus now the EU on trade schedules etc....

Time is the one thing the UK does not have. All the players know that any threats the UK makes are groundless because they don't have sufficient time to carry them out.

Jim2007

murphthesmurf wrote: »

Whats odd about it? I was replying to a comment from someone who said regarding the supposed 50 billion divorce bill. The OP commented on the cost of the pensions for the retirees in Spain. I was pointing out that the UK will have costs for EU immigrants too over the years, so it balances out.

Odd would be that the UK has to carry the costs of the retirees regardless. The rule is that the country paying the biggest part of the pension is also responsible for all healthcare costs etc.... one of our neighbours here are a retired English couple, every year they get a new insurance card from one of the private insurance companies here paid for by the NHS, costs about CHF 11k!

Firblog

Nody wrote: »

And you have shown exactly why those same people will be in for a world of pain for the next two decades with worse service, worse experiences, less money with worse quality on food and working conditions. But that is what they voted for and they will reap what they sowed due to their ignorance and they will blame EU and foreigners the whole time doing so because it's not the well educated who can move to EU for a new job, or the once who're making hundreds of thousands who'll pay for Brexit but rather the middle class and down of society.

Where did you pick all that up from my post?

Where did you come across such a dismal portrayal of the future of UK? From the same people who forecast the almighty recession that hit the UK after they voted to leave?

Beechwoodspark

If the chairman of Goldman Sachs is more or less abandoning London, (see his tweets) I'd be worried for the British.

Jim2007

Firblog wrote: »

I think you may have that the wrong way, regardless of what the UK does, they could unilaterally decide that the North can trade freely without tariffs with the south

If they go to WTO terms as the walk away advocates recommend, the tariffs will have to be applied as set out in those agreements - food being one of then. I though the same, but that is wrong.

I can't find the original article I was referred to, but this is a flavour of what is to come:

These tariffs rise as high as 46 percent for Italian mozzarella cheese, and around 40 percent for supermarket staples such as Irish beef and cheddar cheese. Dutch tomatoes would face a 21 percent levy - though Britons could turn to drink instead, and pay just 4 percent extra for French wine.

Source

Apparently the only alternative is a free for all, where the UK allows everyone to export to them on zero tariffs - which of course would wipe out UK farmers etc...

murphthesmurf

Firblog wrote: »

You have encapsulated a few of the points I've made previously, you're calling people who had concerns about immigration and the effects on their communities, services, country, racist and xenophobic for having those concerns. Straight away you have dismissed their worries, you don't live where they live, don't experience what they experience, and the only measurement you seem take into account for the effects of immigration is the economic one; as long as there is a plus in the balance sheet it must be a good thing, nothing else matters.

I believe you have portrayed the attitude that lost the brexit vote for the remain side.

Well said. I always find it amusing how the people cheering for more immigration and how great it is are usually from nice private neighbourhoods where none of these immigrants will live. All the presenters on Newstalk talking about the poor people drowning in boats and how Ireland should take more of them in. Yet none of them will be going to live in their leafy suburbs. They are put into lower working class neighbourhoods and schools. It is these people who are impacted by immigration thrust upon them by the people in the afluent neighbourhoods. When these lower working class people questions what is going on they are frowned upon and scorned for being racist scum.
The new buzz word is 'populist'. If you question mass immigration, your views are dismissed as 'populist'.
I lived in the West Midlands in the UK most of my life, 36 yrs. Over that time I witnessed the effects of immigration. Not EU immigration I must add, but immigration from prodominantly Muslim countries. It is not the rosie scene many of you imagine. Moving here was a huge step up for me and my family. A friend of mine was working at an old people's home once in Smethwick, an area of Birmingham. Smethwick is really not a pleasant place. While working in the garden he found a machete which had been thrown over the wall. The police were walking by later and he showed them what he had found. The Police advised him to keep hold of it as he may need it.
I've gone slightly off subject I know, and I'll probably be branded a 'populist' racist or whatever else. It just bugs me how quickly and eagerly people are shouted down as racist in these discussions for daring to question the merits of immigration.
Many of my friends growing up were Sikh and some black, they would agree with everything I say. Are we all racist? Or maybe, just maybe there is some truth to it.

Beechwoodspark

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Surely there could be, and this is one of the UK's strongest levers over the EU. No deal - erect a border. The UK can do this.
Politically highly undesireable for both sides, but a price the UK can threaten it is willing to pay.

Good evening!!!

More than highly undesirable -it would be in breach of the GFA.

http://pure.qub.ac.uk/portal/files/123024606/Brexit_and_the_UK_Ireland_Border_Discussion_Paper.pdf

The UK would be in hot water if they tried to erect this border you suggest they could threaten.


Much thanks (?!?)

Beechwoodspark

The Rape of Lucretia

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

More than highly undesirable -it would be in breach of the GFA.

And what stop would that put on it ?

Beechwoodspark

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

This is how it is seen from the EU side. In the UK this is seen as a trade off for trade access. You're not going to change that. Davis is quite clear that the UK were willing to go further from this position but it depends on trade.

I can't see it going much further than 3 years contributions net (after EIB assets are taken into account).

It takes two to compromise. The UK have already been pretty generous on all three issues considering nothing of substance has been offered in return.

I'm hopeful for a good deal but I'm happy for the prime minister to walk from a bad one.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Good evening !

Indeed it does take two to compromise. The UK would do well to take note of your attitude!

Much thanks (?!?)

Beechwoodspark

Beechwoodspark

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

And what stop would that put on it ?

Oh, well, you tell me?? What do you think?

The Rape of Lucretia

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Oh, well, you tell me?? What do you think?

I was asking because I dont know, not because you didnt know.
I see no reason myself.

Beechwoodspark

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I was asking because I dont know, not because you didnt know.
I see no reason myself.

Good evening!

Go on Wikipedia and have a read about the GFA. It's quite a comprehensive article and you will come away feeling more knowledgable about it all.

Much thanks(?!?)

Beechwoodspark

The Rape of Lucretia

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Good evening!

Go on Wikipedia and have a read about the GFA. It's quite a comprehensive article and you will come away feeling more knowledgable about it all.

Much thanks(?!?)

Beechwoodspark

I'll pass thanks.
And just put up the border.

Beechwoodspark

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I'll pass thanks.
And just put up the border.

Good evening!!

Won't happen mate.

Much thanks (?!?)

Beechwoodspark

The Rape of Lucretia

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Good evening!!

Won't happen mate.

Much thanks (?!?)

Beechwoodspark

Most unlikely I agree.
Could happen though. Thats the point.

Nody

Firblog wrote: »

Where did you pick all that up from my post?

Where did you come across such a dismal portrayal of the future of UK? From the same people who forecast the almighty recession that hit the UK after they voted to leave?

Oh let's see. First of all we have the 10 billion pounds in taxes expected to leave London and London seen as less competitive as a financial center in general; that of course don't include the knock on effect on restaurants, housing etc. Then there's the car manufacturers who've all flagged that they will not invest further if a hard brexit happens along with a drop of 145 billion pounds in investments in general in one year while still in EU. That's the factory workers job slashed and gone then. Then we have the farmers; well not only can't they recruit people while still in EU but that's ok as they will be wiped out by sub standard imports but hey at least someone gets cheap sugar imports. Oh but UK buyers would never go for the cheap stuff right? Well talk with Walmart about that.

Now; moving on to services let's start with the NHS which is what you stated people were concerned about; well to bad because they can't recruit as many staff any more because EU candidates are not showing up and the once in UK are looking to leave. Then of course there are the scientists leaving due to unclarity and they are not the only once. All prime age workers doing high value work and contributing more than they take out.

Then we can move on to the so called "WTO rule trading". Beyond the fact that the tariffs are a non issue the simple fact is every single product in the UK will as of 31st March be recertified in a EU country again if it contains any UK certifications. And of course for any food products there's a 6 month period before EU can even accept UK certification by UK vets who are currently overwhelmingly EU citizens likely to leave. Seen lots of new vet positions trained up to replace them recently? I mean a vet only takes about 4 years to train so should not be any issues there by 31st March 2019, right?

I could go on to talk about the border issues (fun fact, UK will not be able to accept Irish fresh goods which make up a great deal of the food markets in the UK under WTO terms which will lead to lots of empty spaces in the stores as there simply are no replacements available) at a nice 22% average price increase on food, the fact UK is crashing out of the world's biggest trade organization with the largest number of FTAs and bilateral agreements (that's how USA, China etc. prefer to use instead of FTA since people love to point out how EU don't have FTA with them) for their trade. Or how about the fact that the UK trucks will have no were to stand once they arrive to EU after Brexit for inspection? Yes, you read that right the ferries will be able to offload once, maybe twice a day if lucky before all trucks will be refused entry and have to take the ferry back. That backlog will only clear slowly meaning all those goods sitting in UK waiting. Don't think that's what will happen? Well the ferry owners do.

we have the chief executive of the UK Chamber of Shipping. He warns that the collapse of talks could overnight bring to a halt the ferry service that carries 12,000 trucks a day from Dover across the Channel.

Same thing comes from the airlines who're adding clauses about not flying for tickets from 31st March 2019 forward and the UK pilots state:

head of the British Airline Pilots Association who warns that "UK airlines could find that they have to stop flying". The effect on "the entire UK aviation sector", which employs more than a million people, would be "devastating".

And of course British soldiers actively patrolling borders because UK and May is so inept on preparing for a hard brexit.

Now that is why I claim it will go hell for the middle class down in the UK on a hard Brexit; but hey all those experts have to be wrong and I'm sure the Tories will fund NHS to the tune of 350 million GBP a month as they put on their bus. However seeing how every single Brexit campaign promise is already broken (350 million to NHS, easiest negotiation ever, will remain in the single market, EU needs us more than we need them, German car manufacturers will pressure Merkel etc.) and the claims of the experts and Bremain keeps popping up as true one after the other I know where I put my money.

Enzokk

Firblog wrote: »

You have encapsulated a few of the points I've made previously, you're calling people who had concerns about immigration and the effects on their communities, services, country, racist and xenophobic for having those concerns. Straight away you have dismissed their worries, you don't live where they live, don't experience what they experience, and the only measurement you seem take into account for the effects of immigration is the economic one; as long as there is a plus in the balance sheet it must be a good thing, nothing else matters.

I believe you have portrayed the attitude that lost the brexit vote for the remain side.

Once it is shown that the concerns about immigration is mainly not as much as people think, what should happen to people that still cite immigration as a problem? There are many articles and studies that show that EU immigration does not suppress wages, yet it is one of the main reasons people want out of the EU. So what should I make of people that have an irrational fear of "others"? Either they are stupid, or racist, or most likely their just stupid racists.

Firblog wrote: »

I think you may have that the wrong way, regardless of what the UK does, they could unilaterally decide that the North can trade freely without tariffs with the south, and that they will not block free movement of people into the north from here; but if the EU doesn't want goods coming into the EU without tariffs from NI, they will insist on customs and border controls on our side.

Who will be the bad guy then?

The border with the North may just be more complicated than the EU divorce bill, yet there has been very little discussion on this. Will the DUP accept a sea border? If not then you look at a hard border. If there isn't a customs union then goods will need to be checked as we cannot have substandard food (chlorinated chicken as an example) in the EU. Seeing that Ireland will not have a border between it and the EU then the border will have to be on the island.

If the UK decides to leave the customs union, how could you possibly try and blame the EU? Is the EU proposing the UK leave? Is the EU drawing red lines about the single market and the customs union?

Good evening solo,


Any thoughts yet on what arguments for leaving the EU still mainly holds against the lies from the campaign? You were the one that made this claim?

murphaph

murphthesmurf wrote: »

Whats odd about it? I was replying to a comment from someone who said regarding the supposed 50 billion divorce bill. The OP commented on the cost of the pensions for the retirees in Spain. I was pointing out that the UK will have costs for EU immigrants too over the years, so it balances out.

That person was talking about the pensions of EU civil servants who have worked on the UK's behalf for 44 years.

Sam Russell

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

This is how it is seen from the EU side. In the UK this is seen as a trade off for trade access. You're not going to change that. Davis is quite clear that the UK were willing to go further from this position but it depends on trade.

I can't see it going much further than 3 years contributions net (after EIB assets are taken into account).

It takes two to compromise. The UK have already been pretty generous on all three issues considering nothing of substance has been offered in return.

I'm hopeful for a good deal but I'm happy for the prime minister to walk from a bad one.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The EU are looking for the UK to cover those elements that they have signed up for, not for access to anything, just pay what you owe. The negotiations are trying to agree the basis of those commitments. It does not depend on anything subsequent like trade agreements or anything else.

An example is the liability the EU has for pensions for retired EU employees. Their pensions are paid out of current funds - there is no pension pot for them. The UK is liable for their share - not UK citizens who have retired, but all EU direct employees who have retired over the last 43 years. This is a continuing liability but a figure can be calculated to cover future costs.

Another liability is the cost of moving the EMA and the EBA. It is the UK who have forced these to move so it would be a liability for them.

There are other projects that span many years after the UK has left that require continued funding. These need to be covered.

We then have the cost of Brexit - the administration of Brexit for the UK will probably exceed a billion euro and probably more for the EU. Those lunches are not cheap. The divorce bill will be calculated when all of this is agreed, and it will be without reference to the future relationship (if any).

All of this is before the Ireland border is discussed, and the status of EU citizens in the UK.

And when sufficient progress has been made, they can move onto trade. If the UK are unwilling to pay their bill, how can there be trade?

Firblog

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Good evening!!

Won't happen mate.

Much thanks (?!?)

Beechwoodspark

Have you told the negotiators? I mean if it is illegal to implement a border then what are they even talking about, it's shocking, I mean I'd expect that David Davis to be a dumbass, given he's a Brexit supporter, but how did the wonderful Michel Barnier let that slip by? :rolleyes:

What a bloody palaver over something that can't legally happen, I'll the Irish government will be relieved to find out

Capt'n Midnight

murphaph wrote: »

That's a falsehood. France and the Benelux countries were also net contributors all along. I'd be surprised if the Nordic countries weren't also.

Norway pays roughly the same as the UK per capita

They aren't in the EU , they don't get passporting rights to services, they have to accept the freedoms.

But for that they get to keep the fish and the oil and the food.

Groves has already said the UK will allow the foreign fleets in to take UK fish and UK oil exports are the same as imports and the UK is a major food importer.

Norway deal isn't worth considering for the UK , the only benefit is that a few politicians might save face for a while.

First Up

murphthesmurf wrote:

I lived in the West Midlands in the UK most of my life, 36 yrs. Over that time I witnessed the effects of immigration. Not EU immigration I must add, but immigration from prodominantly Muslim countries. It is not the rosie scene many of you imagine.

So leaving the EU solves this how exactly?

murphthesmurf

First Up wrote: »

So leaving the EU solves this how exactly?

I didn't say it would, please read full posts and the posts that are being replied to before commenting. Posters on here constantly pick out single lines from posts without looking at any of the context to which the post is addressing.

steddyeddy

The boss of Goldman Sachs tweeted "I'll be spending a lot more time here" while in Frankurt. It was reported on BBC news as a "taunt" to the city of London.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/goldman-sachs-boss-in-brexit-taunt-ill-be-spending-a-lot-more-time-in-frankfurt-a3663126.html?amp

First Up

murphthesmurf wrote:

I didn't say it would, please read full posts and the posts that are being replied to before commenting. Posters on here constantly pick out single lines from posts without looking at any of the context to which the post is addressing.

I read all of it and wondered why you offered your experience of Muslim immigtration in Birmingham as an argument in favour of - or apology for - the Brexit vote.