Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Inquitus

Enzokk wrote: »

Full speech: Sir Ivan Rogers on Brexit

RTÉ - Brexit Republic

Well worth anyone who visits this forum reading this, it's perhaps an honest a casting of where we are as one could find. It's a very long read mind. Thanks for posting it Enzokk

Water John

Amber Rudd on Peston, very sensible. 'no Deal preparation necessary as we have triggered Art 50'. That is really a swipe at TM.
She also opens up the option for Parliament to decide, if TM's Deal is rejected. Also opens the possibility of a 2nd Ref.

Christy42

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

No-Deal Brexit plans just published by the Government.

https://merrionstreet.ie/MerrionStreet/en/News-Room/Releases/No_Deal_Brexit_Contingency_Plan.pdf

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/government-publishes-contingency-plan-for-no-deal-brexit-1.3737517

Nate

This and the EU plans really shows up the UK recent statement of only looking at it in a centralised way this week into a bad light. These have been done with months of planning and are released with a few months to spare (looks like they were timed to be after the vote but May scuppored that by kicking the can another bit).

The UK seem to only really be starting. Some decentralised work may have been done but that is not a unified response nor does it mean there are not big gaps.

flatty

Water John wrote: »

Amber Rudd on Peston, very sensible. 'no Deal preparation necessary as we have triggered Art 50'. That is really a swipe at TM.
She also opens up the option for Parliament to decide, if TM's Deal is rejected. Also opens the possibility of a 2nd Ref.

Amber Rudd is one of the few leaders in UK politics. One of the few with genuine integrity, and with the resilience needed. I think she's the only hope. May stabbed her in the back, but she took the fall, kept her counsel, and looks and sounds more impressive by the day.

Water John

Think she would be a great PM but wouldn't be able to keep brexiteers onside.

prinzeugen

Peregrinus wrote: »

JLR have not been silent about the threat posed by Brexit:

https://www.ft.com/content/d077afaa-7f8a-11e8-bc55-50daf11b720d

https://news.sky.com/story/no-deal-brexit-could-cost-60m-a-day-jaguar-boss-warns-11495300

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-11/jlr-chief-tells-may-hard-brexit-will-cost-jobs-wipe-out-profit

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jaguar-land-rover-boss-ralf-speth-ready-to-follow-bmw-with-brexit-factory-shutdown-bqq6gs7jj

You can't really filter out all the JLR statements that mention Brexit, and then argue that the fact that the remaining statements don't mention Brexit proves that JLR is unaffected by Brexit. People will point at you in the street and laugh, and you don't really want that, do you?

As for the claim that "the official statement from JLR" did not mention Brexit, JLR has not yet issued an official statement about next month's expected production cutbacks. What they have issued, and what you link to, is comments on the outturn for 2018. True, it doesn't mention Brexit but, then, Brexit didn't happen in 2018. What it does say is that, while sales in China are falling, sales in Europe are rising. Despite this, it's reported that they are expecting to reduce production in the UK. The link with Brexit is obvious and, even if it weren't obvious, as noted above JLR have been pointing it out explicitly for many months now.

Still, brexitry does require a high degree of wilful turning away of the eyes and mind to sustain it, so I'm not completely surprised that you haven't noticed any of this.

The boss of JLR is a well known for his anti Brexit views. You said it yourself. JLR has not issued an official statement. So it confirms my view that its bollox. Diesel car sales are falling in Europe. And what does JLR make in the UK? Diesels.

Sales of diesel cars are nothing to do with Brexit so I don't know how anyone can link the two.

But sure, I am another Brexiter that has no idea according to you. You anti Brexit folks always have to add a personal insult don't you.

Anthracite

downcow wrote: »

I am surprised you take the chief con as gospel. Of course he needs his budget increased. We have had relative peace for 20 years (at least less killings than Dublin).

Major urban centres do tend to have higher levels of drug gang crime.

SharpshooterTom

This the reason why the Tories and May blew their 20 point lead in the last election.

Corbyn, for all his faults, was out stumping about healthcare, income inequality, abolition of tuition fees etc.

Tories out campaigning "ZOMG do you know he talked to the IRA once about 35 years ago!?!?!".

Then it was Antisemitism, now its misogyny. Its interesting the right wing always accuse the left of playing "identity politics", bbc obsessed with minorities and womens football, guardian hates white british people etc, not to mention that disgraceful performance by Claire Perry on QT a few weeks ago yelling endlessly about Corbyn being an antisemite and even accusing host David Dimbleby of being sexist.

All the Tories and the British right wing have ever done is play identity politics against Corbyn. They have no policies, just the usual FEAR FEAR FEAR and hope something, anything sticks.

As I say you can see why despite Corbyn being a fairly weak leader, he managed to close the the 25 point gap to just 2 points. People see through all this crap eventually, they look desperate.

mickoneill31

prinzeugen wrote: »

The boss of JLR is a well known for his anti Brexit views. You said it yourself. JLR has not issued an official statement. So it confirms my view that its bollox. Diesel car sales are falling in Europe. And what does JLR make in the UK? Diesels.
.

If a company doesn't make a statement then it's bollox?
I'm starting a new job in the new year. The company is huge and the job is senior enough. The hiring manager told me that I was replacing a guy that finished up in London and that he was told he couldn't recruit in the UK and had to hire from one of their EU offices. This company hasn't made a public statement either. I know a guy working in the company and up until a couple of years ago they were focusing their recruitment in the UK. I wonder what changed and I wonder how many other companies are doing this quietly.
But it's obviously bollix if they don't announce it to the world.

Most companies arent going to get involved. They're just working around Brexit.

prinzeugen

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

This the reason why the Tories and May blew their 20 point lead in the last election.

Corbyn, for all his faults, was out stumping about healthcare, income inequality, abolition of tuition fees etc.

Tories out campaigning "ZOMG do you know he talked to the IRA once about 35 years ago!?!?!".

Then it was Antisemitism, now its misogyny. Its interesting the right wing always accuse the left of playing "identity politics", bbc obsessed with minorities and womens football, guardian hates white british people etc, not to mention that disgraceful performance by Claire Perry on QT a few weeks ago yelling endlessly about Corbyn being an antisemite and even accusing host David Dimbleby of being sexist.

All the Tories and the British right wing have ever done is play identity politics against Corbyn. They have no policies, just the usual FEAR FEAR FEAR and hope something, anything sticks.

As I say you can see why despite Corbyn being a fairly weak leader, he managed to close the the 25 point gap to just 2 points. People see through all this crap eventually, they look desperate.

Corbyn is a Neil Kinnock Mk2. So bad nobody will vote for them other than ex miners and indoctrinated students.

The left.. Free speech. Just as long as its socialist/communist party approved!

Typical left wing. Do as I say, not as I do. The speaker in the HOC should be replaced as his bias for Labour is so obvious.

Peregrinus

prinzeugen wrote: »

The boss of JLR is a well known for his anti Brexit views.

Pretty well everbody in the UK motor industry holds anti-brexit views. You should probably be asking yourself why that might be.

prinzeugen wrote: »

You said it yourself. JLR has not issued an official statement.

Yes. I said it. You said the opposite. You now concede that you were wrong. But, despite the facts being other than you claimed, you still hold the view which you previously justified by reference to the now-debunked "facts". QED, I think.

prinzeugen wrote: »

So it confirms my view that its bollox.

How am I not suprised that JLR having failed to say what you thought they said somehow "confirms" what you claimed when you thought they said it? By your own account, the beliefs you hold are of the kind that is "confirmed" by a compete absence of evidence.

Seriously, if you know of an analysis from any reputable source that suggests that Brexit doesn't pose a grave threat to the UK auto manufacturing/assembly industry, now would be a good time to link to it. And if you can't do that, this is probably a dead horse that you should stop flogging. You are confirming all the prejudicial stereotypes that people hold about Brexiters.

prinzeugen

mickoneill31 wrote: »

If a company doesn't make a statement then it's bollox?
I'm starting a new job in the new year. The company is huge and the job is senior enough. The hiring manager told me that I was replacing a guy that finished up in London and that he was told he couldn't recruit in the UK and had to hire from one of their EU offices. This company hasn't made a public statement either. I know a guy working in the company and up until a couple of years ago they were focusing their recruitment in the UK. I wonder what changed and I wonder how many other companies are doing this quietly.
But it's obviously bollix if they don't announce it to the world.

Most companies arent going to get involved. They're just working around Brexit.

The HR guy must be an idiot then. The way some of the media is reporting a hard Britex makes it look like a new Berlin wall is about to go up!

And the situation you posted would be illegal in the UK/Ireland anyway under equal opportunities/equal status acts in the UK and Ireland.

The reason they are keeping it on the qt, is they know they could be hauled through the courts.

Peregrinus

Podge_irl wrote: »

It is even noted in the document that "This is subject to the UK conferring equivalent rights to EU air carriers, as well as the UK ensuring conditions of fair competition." Nothing has been arranged or agreed with the UK.

Nothing is going to be arranged or agreed with the UK. It's important to understand that the EU's no-deal planning is going to consist of a series of unilateral measures - there will be no "mini-deals" with the UK.

The unilateral measures will be chosen by the EU because they confer benfits on (or, rather, minimise harm to) the EU and its members. Their impact on the UK, positive or negative, is not a consideration.

In some cases the unilateral measures will be conditional on reciprocation by the UK. This is not a covert way of reaching agreement with the UK; more a recognition that the nature of some measures is such that they won't confer any benefit on/minimise any harm to the EU unless they are matched by the UK. Therefore, we will only take these measure if they are going to be matched.

prinzeugen

Peregrinus wrote: »

Pretty well everbody in the UK motor industry holds anti-brexit views. You should probably be asking yourself why that might be.


Yes. I said it. You said the opposite. You now concede that you were wrong. But, despite the facts being other than you claimed, you still hold the view which you previously justified by reference to the now-debunked "facts". QED, I think.


How am I not suprised that JLR having failed to say what you thought they said somehow "confirms" what you claimed when you thought they said it? By your own account, the beliefs you hold are of the kind that is "confirmed" by a compete absence of evidence.

Seriously, if you know of an analysis from any reputable source that suggests that Brexit doesn't pose a grave threat to the UK auto manufacturing/assembly industry, now would be a good time to link to it. And if you can't do that, this is probably a dead horse that you should stop flogging. You are confirming all the prejudicial stereotypes that people hold about Brexiters.

JLR has NEVER said jobs are going to go in the UK as a result of Britex. Lots of "mights" but no "This will happen" . Its bollox!

If Britex was such a threat to the auto industry, the production would have been moved or in the process of being moved by now.

And I love the wee personal insult again! No doubt you will get many thanks for your post. Maybe remainers should read up a little. Am I concerned? No.

No deal and in 2 years people will be asking what all the fuss was about.

Peregrinus

prinzeugen wrote: »

JLR has NEVER said jobs are going to go in the UK as a result of Britex. Lots of "mights" but no "This will happen" . Its bollox!

If Britex was such a threat to the auto industry, the production would have been moved or in the process of being moved by now.

Production of the Land Rover Discovery is being moved from Solihull to Slovakia. Separately, a thousand jobs have been cut at Solihull and Castle Bromwich. Investment in the UK auto industry has halved. These are not "mights", and they are not unrelated to the fact that, in a no deal Brexit, UK-made cars (most of which are exported to other EU countries) will face a 10% tariff, effective next March.

If more has not happened yet, it's because the drop in the pound has provided a temporary boost to the industry, enablting them to wait and see what the terms of Brexit wil be. But if there is a no-deal Brexit (or indeed any Brexit which doesn't involve an FTA with a zero tariff on cars and car parts) divestment will follow very quickly. How could it be otherwise?

prinzeugen wrote: »

No deal and in 2 years people will be asking what all the fuss was about.

This glib assurance might carry some weight if you could offer even the barest justification for it. As it is, it flies in the face of well-known facts - like the 10% tariff, and the role of JIT supply chains in the UK auto industry - and the simplest common sense. Every time you make this obviously dubious claim without offering a credible justification for it, you confirm everybody's worst preconceptions. Do you really think that's a wise strategy?

BonnieSituation

prinzeugen wrote: »

Corbyn is a Neil Kinnock Mk2. So bad nobody will vote for them other than ex miners and indoctrinated students.

The left.. Free speech. Just as long as its socialist/communist party approved!

Typical left wing. Do as I say, not as I do. The speaker in the HOC should be replaced as his bias for Labour is so obvious.

And there's me thinking Mr Bercow was a Conservative fellow, of Jewish stock no less.

Seems a strange bedfellow for Jezza's lefty Anti-semite ruffians...

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

I think you`re a deluded as theresa may:rolleyes:-it`s negotiation which is in the interests of both parties-purely business-what are you trying to suggest?

It's not a negotiation. It's a unilateral measure introduced by the EU to minimise damage to the EU. Its effect on the UK is incidental; the EU is unconcerned with this.

And look at the detail of the announcement. In a no-deal situation, the EU will continue (for a limited period) to accept derivative contracts written in London pre-Brexit Day, but it won't accept new contracts. Which means that, from Brexit day, the City of London will be writing precisely zero new derivative contracts for EI-regulated customers. Existing contracts, as they mature and are closed out, will not be replaced by new contracts written in London; they'll be replaced by new contracts written by EU-regulated institutions.

That's clearly not the outcome of "a negotiation which is in the interests of both parties"; it's the unilateral imposition by the EU of a program for the orderly but fairly rapid running-down of the City of London's business of selling derivative contracts to EU-regulated entities.

RobMc59 wrote: »

I think it`s a negotiation between two parties . . .

It really isn't. The EU position here is clear; their no-deal measures will be decided unilaterally, for EU advantage; not negotiated, for mutual advantage. Both self-respect and self-interest dictate this stance on the part of the EU.

They will remain willing to negotiate with the UK, but their first negotiating priorities will be what they are now - settlement of the UK's financial obligations to the Union; citizens' rights; the Irish border.

CelticRambler

prinzeugen wrote: »

The HR guy must be an idiot then. The way some of the media is reporting a hard Britex makes it look like a new Berlin wall is about to go up!

And the situation you posted would be illegal in the UK/Ireland anyway under equal opportunities/equal status acts in the UK and Ireland.

There must be quite a few idiots in British HR then, as I've heard the same from colleagues working in England, particularly in my own sector which relies quite heavily on foreign workers to fill the gaps left by 30-something white females deciding that workplace equality isn't all it's cracked up to be.

BTW why do you keep referring to the fabric retailer, Britex - what have they got to do with Brexit?

prinzeugen

prinzeugen wrote: »

The HR guy must be an idiot then. The way some of the media is reporting a hard Britex makes it look like a new Berlin wall is about to go up!

And the situation you posted would be illegal in the UK/Ireland anyway under equal opportunities/equal status acts in the UK and Ireland.

The reason they are keeping it on the qt, is they know they could be hauled through the courts.

I don't think you're in any position to talk about HR after your posts in the Can't get a job thread.

And some evidence that a company cannot hire staff in any country it sees fit to would be good as well. I'd find it hard to believe jobs must be advertised across Europe and the winning candidate work in their home country's office, by law.

Peregrinus

prinzeugen wrote: »

The HR guy must be an idiot then. The way some of the media is reporting a hard Britex makes it look like a new Berlin wall is about to go up!

And the situation you posted would be illegal in the UK/Ireland anyway under equal opportunities/equal status acts in the UK and Ireland.

The reason they are keeping it on the qt, is they know they could be hauled through the courts.

I think you've misunderstood mickoneill. It's not the case that he's applying for a job in London that is only open to nationals of the EU-27. On the retirement/resignation of the current occupant the opportunity is being taken to relocate the role from London to an EU-27 location, presumably because the the nature of the role makes it desirable that it be discharged with the Single Market.

Presumably a British citizen is free to apply for the job and will be considered on the same basis as any other applicant. But, if appointed, he'll leave the UK to take up the job.

There's nothing illegal about this and the company faces no prospect of being hauled through th courts. They haven't made a public announcement about this because, well, why would they?

prinzeugen

prinzeugen wrote: »

The HR guy must be an idiot then. The way some of the media is reporting a hard Britex makes it look like a new Berlin wall is about to go up!

And the situation you posted would be illegal in the UK/Ireland anyway under equal opportunities/equal status acts in the UK and Ireland.

The reason they are keeping it on the qt, is they know they could be hauled through the courts.

It doesn't sound like it falls under any of the nine grounds you can't discriminate against here:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/law_and_rights/irish_human_rights_commission.html

Picking an office a job can be done from isn't discrimination on nationality.

Moving car assembly lines is a bit more complicated than sending a new employees laptop to Dublin rather than London.

judeboy101

These decisions by the EU take a major sting out of a no deal. ERG will be delighted.

Peregrinus

judeboy101 wrote: »

These decisions by the EU take a major sting out of a no deal. ERG will be delighted.

Not really. They fall well short of what the UK would get in a transition period under the Withdrawal Agreement, and there will still be major disruption.

judeboy101

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not really. They fall well short of what the UK would get in a transition period under the Withdrawal Agreement, and there will still be major disruption.

I'm sorry but the no deal has been painted like so apocalypse with blood in the street and cat and dogs living together etc. It was meant to be getting kicked out of the house by your housemates with no clothes on. Now your housemates are letting you pack allowing you to visit, letting you use their wifi .

Peregrinus

judeboy101 wrote: »

I'm sorry but the no deal has been painted like so apocalypse with blood in the street and cat and dogs living together etc. It was meant to be getting kicked out of the house by your housemates with no clothes on. Now your housemates are letting you pack allowing you to visit, letting you use their wifi .

That won't solve your homelessness problem!

Three points:

First, look at the areas where the EU has not made any no-deal arrangements - medicines, data flows, veterinary checks, fisheries, any services other than financial services. And tariffs, of course. Virtually nothing here is going to address the massive congestion/delay/capacity issues at ports.

Secondly, look at the limitations on what has been announced. Yes, UK truckers will be able to deliver goods from the UK to points in the EU. But they won't be able to do a follow-on trip, picking up goods from that point and bringing them to another point in the EU, and so on, until they get to a point from which goods need to be brough back to the UK. Without this freedom, UK truckers operations in Europe become much less efficient and so more expensive. And they'll be at a competitive disadvantage by comparison with EU-based trucker who can do this, and for whom the corresponding freedom to make deliveries between points in the UK is much less signifcant. Likewise UK airlines can't make intra-EU flights, which is a much bigger problem for them than the loss by EU airlines of the right to make intra-UK flights.

In the same vein, the continued recognition of existing financial services contracts is convenient for EU-based customers, but it means relatively little to the UK-based banks, who won't be able to write any new contracts for EU customers after Brexit day. These contracts are paid for up front; the revenue stream is cut off immediately.

And, thirdly, these are unilateral and temporary measures which can be revoked by the EU at any time, without notice or agreement. They're explicitly stated to be temporary, and people and businesses are encouraged to act on the basis that they won't be round for ever. So, e.g. companies making long-term logistics arrnagements will not be contracting with UK truckers or UK airlines, since UK truckers/airlines cannot guarantee that they can provide services for a period into the future. Whether and when they will be revoked will depend entirely oni the interests of the EU and its member states, and not at all on the interests of the UK.

judeboy101

Peregrinus wrote: »

That won't solve your homelessness problem!

Three points:

First, look at the areas where the EU has not made any no-deal arrangements - medicines, data flows, veterinary checks, fisheries, any services other than financial services. And tariffs, of course. Virtually nothing here is going to address the massive congestion/delay/capacity issues at ports.

Secondly, look at the limitations on what has been announced. Yes, UK truckers will be able to deliver goods from the UK to points in the EU. But they won't be able to do a follow-on trip, picking up goods from that point and bringing them to another point in the EU, and so on, until they get to a point from which goods need to be brough back to the UK. Without this freedom, UK truckers operations in Europe become much less efficient and so more expensive. And they'll be at a competitive disadvantage by comparison with EU-based trucker who can do this, and for whom the corresponding freedom to make deliveries between points in the UK is much less signifcant. Likewise UK airlines can't make intra-EU flights, which is a much bigger problem for them than the loss by EU airlines of the right to make intra-UK flights.

In the same vein, the continued recognition of existing financial services contracts is convenient for EU-based customers, but it means relatively little to the UK-based banks, who won't be able to write any new contracts for EU customers after Brexit day. These contracts are paid for up front; the revenue stream is cut off immediately.

And, thirdly, these are unilateral and temporary measures which can be revoked by the EU at any time, without notice or agreement. They're explicitly stated to be temporary, and people and businesses are encouraged to act on the basis that they won't be round for ever. So, e.g. companies making long-term logistics arrnagements will not be contracting with UK truckers or UK airlines, since UK truckers/airlines cannot guarantee that they can provide services for a period into the future. Whether and when they will be revoked will depend entirely oni the interests of the EU and its member states, and not at all on the interests of the UK.

It's the equivalent of being evicted for not paying rent and put into a homeless hub hub. Not ideal but doesn't teach you a lesson about not paying your rent

NIMAN

judeboy101 wrote: »

It's the equivalent of being evicted for not paying rent and put into a homeless hub hub. Not ideal but doesn't teach you a lesson about not paying your rent

Unless you live in Strokestown.

Nody

prinzeugen wrote: »

The HR guy must be an idiot then. The way some of the media is reporting a hard Britex makes it look like a new Berlin wall is about to go up!

It is in terms of possibility to move people around, data etc.

And the situation you posted would be illegal in the UK/Ireland anyway under equal opportunities/equal status acts in the UK and Ireland.

The reason they are keeping it on the qt, is they know they could be hauled through the courts.

A company has the right to move a job where ever they see fit; they are not discriminating against a UK person being hired but simply not hiring in their UK entity. That's a significant difference that you appear to have glossed over.

Peregrinus

judeboy101 wrote: »

It's the equivalent of being evicted for not paying rent and put into a homeless hub hub. Not ideal but doesn't teach you a lesson about not paying your rent

(You've plainly not spent much time living in a homeless hub.)

Back to the point: The EU's primary objective in a no-deal situation is not to maximise pain for the UK; it's to minimise pain for the EU. Some of the things they do for that purpose may, incidentally, also tend to alleviate the plight of the UK, but that's incidental. The UK cannot depend on the EU acting to alleviate its plight and, where the EU does act in that way, the UK cannot depend on it continuing to do so.

The UK is still looking at disruption and dislocation of a kind, and on a scale, that it hasn't seen since 1945.

bilston

judeboy101 wrote: »

I'm sorry but the no deal has been painted like so apocalypse with blood in the street and cat and dogs living together etc. It was meant to be getting kicked out of the house by your housemates with no clothes on. Now your housemates are letting you pack allowing you to visit, letting you use their wifi .

You seem almost disappointed.

Maybe I'm missing something but customs delays will remain a major problem and that could lead to empty supermarket shelves and rising petrol costs, which in turns leads to a steep increase in inflation.

murphaph

Water John wrote: »

Think she would be a great PM but wouldn't be able to keep brexiteers onside.

She wouldn't have to if things keep going the way they are. The Tory party will split as centrists have indicated they will resign the whip. Labour may split too. A new centrist party formed of the sensible heads in the HoC is a real possibility, especially now that Corbyn has put his foot in his mouth again.

I think Rudd, Grieve, Soubry, etc. would have a lot more in common with Starmer, Umunna, Smith. etc. than with Mogg and Johnson.

mickoneill31

prinzeugen wrote: »

The HR guy must be an idiot then. The way some of the media is reporting a hard Britex makes it look like a new Berlin wall is about to go up!

And the situation you posted would be illegal in the UK/Ireland anyway under equal opportunities/equal status acts in the UK and Ireland.

The reason they are keeping it on the qt, is they know they could be hauled through the courts.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you've misunderstood mickoneill. It's not the case that he's applying for a job in London that is only open to nationals of the EU-27. On the retirement/resignation of the current occupant the opportunity is being taken to relocate the role from London to an EU-27 location, presumably because the the nature of the role makes it desirable that it be discharged with the Single Market.

Presumably a British citizen is free to apply for the job and will be considered on the same basis as any other applicant. But, if appointed, he'll leave the UK to take up the job.

There's nothing illegal about this and the company faces no prospect of being hauled through th courts. They haven't made a public announcement about this because, well, why would they?

Bang on. The company has multiple offices. The replacement role was just advertised in the European offices. The guy in the UK just left by himself and the role wasn't readvertised over there. They've been doing this for a while.

I was about to reply to prinzeugen when I saw your reply. I'm not really sure it warrants a reply though when he / she sees fit to dictate what is illegal when they don't even know the difference between a HR person and a hiring manager. I'm guessing we're not discussing with an expert.

Like you say companies don't make public announcements. That's not their businesses. Their business is to provide their product and make money. Politics is not most companies business. The actual reason for my new company not hiring in the UK at the moment is something I hadn't considered before but makes total sense and must affect 1000's of employees. I'm not going to go into more detail on a public forum.

After the sterling drop after the 2016 referendum the current company I am with let 5% of their staff go in Dublin. You didn't see this in the papers either. One of our products which was barely profitable became unprofitable and not worth continuing very quickly so it was axed and the staff that supported it were either moved or part of the 5% to be let go. This is just business as usual to companies. Nothing illegal or underhand but they're not shouting it from the rooftops either.

On the positive side for UK jobs a role in the UK is probably cheaper for an American company now with the drop in sterling. I know companies are juggling those numbers constantly too when deciding where to place staff.

EdgeCase

What's worrying be a bit is talking to some continental colleagues of mine this morning. Four of them are talking about handing in notice and moving back to France and Spain because of what they're reading about disruption and particularly food and medicine shortages in the papers this morning.

I don't know how serious those plans are but it's the first time that I've seen people very worried.

murphaph

Peregrinus wrote: »

(You've plainly not spent much time living in a homeless hub.)

Back to the point: The EU's primary objective in a no-deal situation is not to maximise pain for the UK; it's to minimise pain for the EU. Some of the things they do for that purpose may, incidentally, also tend to alleviate the plight of the UK, but that's incidental. The UK cannot depend on the EU acting to alleviate its plight and, where the EU does act in that way, the UK cannot depend on it continuing to do so.

The UK is still looking at disruption and dislocation of a kind, and on a scale, that it hasn't seen since 1945.

Indeed I would go so far as to suggest that many of the EU measures are explicitly about helping Ireland "manage" a no deal Brexit. That awful German dominated EU at it again.

seamus

EdgeCase wrote: »

What's worrying be a bit is talking to some continental colleagues of mine this morning. Four of them are talking about handing in notice and moving back to France and Spain because of what they're reading about disruption and particularly food and medicine shortages in the papers this morning.

I don't know how serious those plans are but it's the first time that I've seen people very worried.

Well it'll work out to some extent because if people leave voluntarily, they don't have to be laid off. But this is one of the big problems, for London especially.

Migrant workers are highly mobile, they can up and leave at the drop of a hat. If it sounds like Britain is going to be a 3rd world country (even for a few months), then migrants will go home where they won't have to ration food and medicine.

Companies will also start capitalising on it and offering relocation packages to their EU staff to go live in Belgium or Dublin. For those in the UK for whom migration is their problem, they'll be delighted. For the UK economy though, it's a mess. Every job left vacant by an EU migrant is not one that'll be filled by a UK citizen. It'll be made redundant or moved to another country.

Mezcita

EdgeCase wrote: »

What's worrying be a bit is talking to some continental colleagues of mine this morning. Four of them are talking about handing in notice and moving back to France and Spain because of what they're reading about disruption and particularly food and medicine shortages in the papers this morning.

I don't know how serious those plans are but it's the first time that I've seen people very worried.

You wouldn't even know it was happening based on the general feeling within my office in London. Best to ignore the massive trumpeting elephant in the room.

Fun times.

EdgeCase

These were a group of largely french people in Ireland not the UK. They suddenly were wondering if there was also going to be a problem here and starting to read about it for the first time. You have to realise that there are a lot of people here who don't necessarily interact with Irish news content at all. These guys would be techies and they don't really pay much attention to news here and what they do read is from international news sites.

They picked up a story from CNN this morning about food shortages in the Republic and started contemplating handing in notice.

I'm *still* getting questions too from french people in France about whether Ireland is also doing 'the brexit'.

The government would want to be very, very clear about communicating. There's a big risk of causing confusion, particularly as the dust starts to be stirred up in England about implications for "southern Ireland" by those with an agenda.

For example providing briefings to companies' HR departments and internal communication people would be very, very useful especially in large companies with multinational staff.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Pretty well everbody in the UK motor industry holds anti-brexit views. You should probably be asking yourself why that might be.

After a model cycle or so, say 10 years, the "UK motor industry" will be like that favourite Brexit entrepeneur Dyson: union jack on the box but made in Czechia, Poland, Malaysia.

EdgeCase

The British motor industry management may hold very anti Brexit views but based in vox pops in Sunderland and looking at the very strong votes in favour of it, the average British autoworker seems to have no idea they work as part of a pan European integrated supply chain.

lawred2

EdgeCase wrote: »

The British motor industry management may hold very anti Brexit views but based in vox pops in Sunderland and looking at the very strong votes in favour of it, the average British autoworker seems to have no idea they work as part of a pan European integrated supply chain.

What's to say that the majority of auto workers in Sunderland didn't vote remain?

Zubeneschamali

prinzeugen wrote: »

No deal and in 2 years people will be asking what all the fuss was about.

Sadly, this is probably true.


The press will scream over anyone blaming anything on Brexit and shout that everyone needs to get over it. Ordinary Brits will sigh and carry on.


A decade of grey depression, for sale signs on boarded up property, dole lines.


But hey, we might get new "Boys from the Blackstuff", "Auf Wiedersehen, Pet", "Brassed Off" or "Full Monty" shows on Netflix!

EdgeCase

lawred2 wrote: »

What's to say that the majority of auto workers in Sunderland didn't vote remain?

There was quite a bit of coverage of Sunderland in the run-up to the referendum, as it was seen as 'ground zero' for Brexit and there were a few reporters who surveyed the Nissan carpark and it would seem that the majority of those answering were planning to vote to leave, despite all the implications which were being talked about at the time.

I haven't seen any formal polling of autoworkers but it would seem like from informal surveying many of them did vote to leave.

lawred2

EdgeCase wrote: »

There was quite a bit of coverage of Sunderland in the run-up to the referendum, as it was seen as 'ground zero' for Brexit and there were a few reporters who surveyed the Nissan carpark and it would seem that the majority of those answering were planning to vote to leave, despite all the implications which were being talked about at the time.

I haven't seen any formal polling of autoworkers but it would seem like from informal surveying many of them did vote to leave.

yeah but I wonder was that a case of selective reporting... a case of "look at these lads whose livelihoods are dependent on EU membership still wanting to leave" - British lionheart types you know.. pride of Britain and all that

or else a case of pointing out the prize turkeys voting for their own Christmas

might have left out all those chaps who had the sense not to vote for the chopping block as there was no story in that

EdgeCase

lawred2 wrote: »

yeah but I wonder was that a case of selective reporting... a case of "look at these lads whose livelihoods are dependent on EU membership still wanting to leave" - British lionheart types you know.. pride of Britain and all that

or else a case of pointing out the prize turkeys voting for their own Christmas

might have left out all those chaps who had the sense not to vote for the chopping block as there was no story in that

All you can get for Sunderland is the overall figures:

38.7% Remain - 51,930 vs 61.3% Leave 82,394

Leroy42

EdgeCase wrote: »

All you can get for Sunderland is the overall figures:

38.7% Remain - 51,930 vs 61.3% Leave 82,394

I think it realistic to assume that many of them did vote for Brexit. After all, they were sold the promise that nothing would change, except for the better. They would be staying in the SM, the EU would give them whatever deal they wanted and there was a whole world waiting for them.

If you accepted what was being fed to you, then why would they not vote.

Project fear was a very real a powerful slogan which managed, very effectively, to dismiss any and all calls for reflection consideration of issues.

Rain Ascending

EdgeCase wrote: »

There was quite a bit of coverage of Sunderland in the run-up to the referendum, as it was seen as 'ground zero' for Brexit and there were a few reporters who surveyed the Nissan carpark and it would seem that the majority of those answering were planning to vote to leave, despite all the implications which were being talked about at the time.

I haven't seen any formal polling of autoworkers but it would seem like from informal surveying many of them did vote to leave.

My recollection is that there was some general demographic analysis done of one or more constituencies in the region that showed that:

• Those in work were much likely to vote "remain" than the average for the constituency
• Those out or work or retired were more likely to vote "leave" than the average

Apologies -- I don't have a link to provide the numbers, but the associated news report was something that made me sit up and pay attention at the time, as it partially answered the conundrum of why places like Sunderland voted leave: the key swing votes were not those employed at manufacturing plants. Remember other (UK-wide) polling suggested that leavers saw Brexit as a good thing even if a relative became unemployed as a result.

10000maniacs

Peregrinus wrote: »

Pretty well everbody in the UK motor industry holds anti-brexit views. You should probably be asking yourself why that might be.


.

No you would be wrong on that. Channel 4 interviewed Nissan workers in Sunderland a few months back and a lot of the assembly workers were clearly on the side of Brexit.
That's the scary thing about Brexit, it's a self harm cult and for a lot of people it trumps putting bread on the table.

LuckyLloyd

I really try not to reply to this guy's posts. It's an almost nightly bombing of cliche completely absent of fact, to which there is little or no genuine engagement with the responses.

prinzeugen wrote: »

Corbyn is a Neil Kinnock Mk2. So bad nobody will vote for them other than ex miners and indoctrinated students.

The left.. Free speech. Just as long as its socialist/communist party approved!

Typical left wing. Do as I say, not as I do. The speaker in the HOC should be replaced as his bias for Labour is so obvious.

Didn't realise the UK electorate was 40% composed of miners and "indoctrinated" students in 2017!!

judeboy101

Peregrinus wrote: »

(You've plainly not spent much time living in a homeless hub.)

Back to the point: The EU's primary objective in a no-deal situation is not to maximise pain for the UK; it's to minimise pain for the EU. Some of the things they do for that purpose may, incidentally, also tend to alleviate the plight of the UK, but that's incidental. The UK cannot depend on the EU acting to alleviate its plight and, where the EU does act in that way, the UK cannot depend on it continuing to do so.

The UK is still looking at disruption and dislocation of a kind, and on a scale, that it hasn't seen since 1945.

Plenty on here were predicting exodus from city of London, financial crash, no planes flying etc. None of which will happen now. EU are staring to turn soft. It's like stopping paying your mortgage knowing full well the bank can't evict you for years.

mickoneill31

judeboy101 wrote: »

Plenty on here were predicting exodus from city of London, financial crash, no planes flying etc. None of which will happen now. EU are staring to turn soft. It's like stopping paying your mortgage knowing full well the bank can't evict you for years.

The second part is probably a good analogy. If you stop paying your mortgage and go for a new loan, what happens?

If you stop paying your mortgage is the final outcome ever good?

I won't bother with the first part. Posted by somebody who hasn't read any of this thread (or doesn't understand it).