Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

An Ciarraioch

A UK polling company has conducted a survey on how Britain would vote in a European election - both Labour and the Tories would gain significantly, with UKIP reduced to 10% - Lib Dems almost unchanged, however, suggesting that Labour's increase would come from Remainers:

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-delay-how-britain-would-vote-in-the-european-election/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

J Mysterio

This is bloody bizarre. May is trying to elevate double speak to some sort of art form I guess.

"A big leap in immigration from outside the EU is evidence of the strength of the UK economy, Theresa May says."

The prime minister appeared relaxed about the increase – to its highest level for 15 years – while insisting she remained committed to slashing numbers to “the tens of thousands”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-eu-net-migration-target-brexit-economy-a8801336.html

ancapailldorcha

J Mysterio wrote: »

This is bloody bizarre. May is trying to elevate double speak to some sort of art form I guess.

"A big leap in immigration from outside the EU is evidence of the strength of the UK economy, Theresa May says."

The prime minister appeared relaxed about the increase – to its highest level for 15 years – while insisting she remained committed to slashing numbers to “the tens of thousands”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-eu-net-migration-target-brexit-economy-a8801336.html

This is the woman who couldn't say she wanted to remain in the EU during the referendum campaign without mentioning this "tens of thousands" nonsense and then got sidelined.

This was always within the government's control and they did nothing.

Ridiculous.

Zubeneschamali

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Unless and until the DUP and ERG change their minds about putting a border down the Irish sea, its hard to see the backstop being accepted as is.

A month or two of No Deal chaos should sort that out.

KindOfIrish

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Immigration was always going to play a big part in the referendum, more so than the promise of 350 million extra supposedly going to the NHS each week.
Remainers failed to prove the case for membership. They might have a better chance if there is a new referendum and if they keep the likes of Blair off the platform.

It was obvious from the beginning that Brexit will increase non-EU immigration and stats published today has shown it.

UK's Remainers as well as Brexiters have never had a clue about EU. How on earth they could prove the case?

reslfj

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Why can't Scotland as a nation of 5.4m people be an economic success but say, a State like us of 4.8m with next to no resources bar grass and water can be?

What about NZ ...

Denmark? Sweden? Norway? Croatia? Slovenia? Iceland? What is it they have that Scotland would be incapable of replicating?

....

I'm not saying Scotland could not be a sustainable independent country post Brexit. I have in fact all sympathy with the Scots after Brexit.
But I'm saying you need to dig very much deeper than just listing some other more or less successful countries with about the same population.
Just saying "I can't see problems 'ergo' there are none" is nothing but 'Brexiter' type gossip.

You need to search for and check all less successful cases and analyse what Scotland has to offer that is better - not just in the eyes of the Scots, but for people in the rest of the world where you market is.
The problems are there, so until you have searched and found and fixed - again and again - it's a no go (indy)

NZ has 3.7 times more area per capita and has a much more farming friendly climate than Scotland has. Without checking, I think, NZ can use a larger part of its area for farming. Farming is important for NZ, as it is a large part of its export is farm related.

Denmark had huge problems with foreign currency balance and to little to export both before and after WWII - resulting in almost chronic balance of payment problems and a very real need for austerity and even government import control.
The finance minister in the 1950s got the nick name "Tighten you belt, Thorkil", as he could not see enough sources of foreign currency income.

New export industries, oil in the North Sea, huge luck with shipping from the 1960s onwards and very much 'good financial governance' by all Danish governments since the early 1980s has totally changed the Danish outlook.

Norway did not have enough food after WWII, and economically it survived from a large merchant fleet until the oil/gas was found. The oil has made Norway a very rich country - that is until the day some overspending politician uses the money or the oil is no more. Without the oil, Norway would have had a much smaller and much troubled economy.

Sweden is a 10mill country and has natural resources and a large world leading industry.

Slovenia has large problems economically. Both Slovenia and Croatia are small economies. The nominal GDP/capita is respectively 60% and 33% of the UK GDP/capita, which means a lot of the economy is not fully 'money based'. You wouldn't like that.

Iceland is an island with 300,000 citizens and a 200nm rich fishing zone around. It has plenty of inexpensive energy available - geothermal from volcanic activity and hydroelectric power.

Lars

reslfj

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

A month or two of No Deal chaos should sort that out.

Some people can hear, some read, some prefer to write about a subject they need to learn and understand.
Some can easily understand abstract information, but many depends much on concrete examples.

There are a large proportion of people that needs a direct - 'here and now' - 'look and feel' - to understand and accept new information.

I'm very afraid that it may end up with a 'no deal' and chaos.

This will surely "fix" the mind of many 'look and feel' types - but it will come with a terrible cost for the UK.

The Germans needed a lost WWI, a hyper inflation in 1923, the great depression, a lost WWII and a huge country rebuild after WWII before they as a nation have become very restrictive and sensible with money matters.

Lars

ToBeFrank123

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

A month or two of No Deal chaos should sort that out.

As long as the DUP preserve the union with the UK I don't think they care to be honest. They also have an ambivalent relationship with the GFA lets not forget. They hate power sharing.

*I don't agree with them, but that's their viewpoint, stuck in the past, etc.

eire4

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

As long as the DUP preserve the union with the UK I don't think they care to be honest. They also have an ambivalent relationship with the GFA lets not forget. They hate power sharing.

*I don't agree with them, but that's their viewpoint, stuck in the past, etc.

I would say ambivalent is being generous. I would say they hate the GFA and having to share power with those who should in their minds obey there betters.

MrMusician18

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

A month or two of No Deal chaos should sort that out.

Those banking on the sky falling in may well be disappointed come B-day +1

mafc

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Those banking on the sky falling in may well be disappointed come B-day +1

Maybe but wait till B-day +100/200 etc etc etc.....

First Up

MrMusician18 wrote:

Those banking on the sky falling in may well be disappointed come B-day +1

I don't think many are banking on the sky falling in but very few are banking on it not.

Quin_Dub

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Those banking on the sky falling in may well be disappointed come B-day +1

You are right , but just like a lot of the supposed "Project Fear" stuff , it will eventually happen.

They got most of the predictions correct , they just got the timelines wrong.

Very little will change on the morning of the 30th of March , but slowly and steadily people will begin to notice that things are getting a little bit more expensive over time , there will be less and less job openings , interest rates will start to climb. Things like Insurance will increase.

And in 6 maybe 12 months time they'll suddenly click that they are in deep trouble across the board.

CrabRevolution

jm08 wrote: »

Ireland was still playing cat and mouse with Britain up to the 1950s to gain its full independence. Unlike other European countries, Ireland didn't get a huge amount of Marshall Aid to help develop itself, so basically it had to try and fund everything itself while Britain put the squeeze on as it didn't suit them for Ireland to become prosperous as it wanted to retain it as an easy and cheap source of food and labour.

In fairness to Dev, he did a lot (including keeping Ireland clear of fascism and out of WWII) and securing Ireland becoming a republic in 1949 which was required groundwork for Ireland before Whittaker came along.

Was John A. Costello not Taoiseach when Ireland passed the Republic of Ireland Act?

Capt'n Midnight

J Mysterio wrote: »

What about May's (ridiculous) 10,000 limit?

It's 100,000 , see the dotted line at the bottom of the third graph.

The other graphs stand out too.

EU migration lowest for 10 years, Non-EU migration highest for 15 years.



Do you blame the Home Secretary or the PM ?
Her record on immigration speaks for itself.

Nearly 1% of the people in the UK moved there in the year to September.
more than 625,000 people moved to the UK

May has been using immigration to gain votes and support so it's fair to use her own baton to beat her with.

More citizens from Central and Eastern European countries known as the EU8 - which includes Poland, Slovakia and Lithuania - are leaving the UK than arriving.

An Ciarraioch

This, apparently, is news:

http://twitter.com/EmmaVardyTV/status/1101155060292173824

Spanish Eyes

So it appears (correct me if wrong) that nothing will happen now until 12 March for the first vote.

Oh dear god.

VinLieger

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Those banking on the sky falling in may well be disappointed come B-day +1

Im fairly certain disaster capitalists like Mogg et al, who have actually bet on the sky falling, will be immensely happy on B-Day +1 in the case of no deal

reslfj

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

This, apparently, is news:

http://twitter.com/EmmaVardyTV/status/1101155060292173824

"Not going to happen" /EU27

Lars

bob mcbob

reslfj wrote: »

I'm not saying Scotland could not be a sustainable independent country post Brexit. I have in fact all sympathy with the Scots after Brexit.
But I'm saying you need to dig very much deeper than just listing some other more or less successful countries with about the same population.
Just saying "I can't see problems 'ergo' there are none" is nothing but 'Brexiter' type gossip.

You need to search for and check all less successful cases and analyse what Scotland has to offer that is better - not just in the eyes of the Scots, but for people in the rest of the world where you market is.
The problems are there, so until you have searched and found and fixed - again and again - it's a no go (indy)

NZ has 3.7 times more area per capita and has a much more farming friendly climate than Scotland has. Without checking, I think, NZ can use a larger part of its area for farming. Farming is important for NZ, as it is a large part of its export is farm related.

Denmark had huge problems with foreign currency balance and to little to export both before and after WWII - resulting in almost chronic balance of payment problems and a very real need for austerity and even government import control.
The finance minister in the 1950s got the nick name "Tighten you belt, Thorkil", as he could not see enough sources of foreign currency income.

New export industries, oil in the North Sea, huge luck with shipping from the 1960s onwards and very much 'good financial governance' by all Danish governments since the early 1980s has totally changed the Danish outlook.

Norway did not have enough food after WWII, and economically it survived from a large merchant fleet until the oil/gas was found. The oil has made Norway a very rich country - that is until the day some overspending politician uses the money or the oil is no more. Without the oil, Norway would have had a much smaller and much troubled economy.

Sweden is a 10mill country and has natural resources and a large world leading industry.

Slovenia has large problems economically. Both Slovenia and Croatia are small economies. The nominal GDP/capita is respectively 60% and 33% of the UK GDP/capita, which means a lot of the economy is not fully 'money based'. You wouldn't like that.

Iceland is an island with 300,000 citizens and a 200nm rich fishing zone around. It has plenty of inexpensive energy available - geothermal from volcanic activity and hydroelectric power.

Lars

Ok

Scotland has the largest oil reserves in the EU (second after Norway in Europe). However it does not need it as it's renewable energy base is considered extraordinary by international (not european) standards. This is hydro, wind (onshore & offshore), tidal and wave power. The target is 100% electricity from renewables by 2020 then 50% of all energy by 2030 and 100% (total de-carbonisation) by 2050.

UKs biggest export is Scotch whisky. Most UK fish swim in Scottish waters.

It has 2 universities ranked in top 100 in world and 5 in top 200

Enzokk

J Mysterio wrote: »

This is bloody bizarre. May is trying to elevate double speak to some sort of art form I guess.

"A big leap in immigration from outside the EU is evidence of the strength of the UK economy, Theresa May says."

The prime minister appeared relaxed about the increase – to its highest level for 15 years – while insisting she remained committed to slashing numbers to “the tens of thousands”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-eu-net-migration-target-brexit-economy-a8801336.html

So according to May the fact that there are lots of immigration is a testament to the strength of the UK economy and is something to be proud of and yet she wants that same immigration to be reduced to less than 100 000 per year. Can we then suggest that she wants to see the UK economy lose some of its strength as it will mean less people will want to go to the UK?

Either she believes the rubbish she spouts and really wants immigration to be less than 100 000 per year, whatever that will mean for the economy or she is just using that as a way to win votes for her party. However you look at it that behaviour is despicable.

Capt'n Midnight

Not directly Brexit relates as it's to do with the Voisinage agreement, but it's warning of what may happen if there's No Deal.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0228/1033493-fishing-boats-dundalk-bay/

Two Northern Ireland-registered fishing vessels were detained in Dundalk Bay on Tuesday evening of this week.

lawred2

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

This, apparently, is news:

http://twitter.com/EmmaVardyTV/status/1101155060292173824

yeah we've already been here

Seth Brundle

According to the IT, the DUP are angry about the detention of the two trawlers.
Well done to the Irish Navy!

Capt'n Midnight

Enzokk wrote: »

So according to May the fact that there are lots of immigration is a testament to the strength of the UK economy and is something to be proud of and yet she wants that same immigration to be reduced to less than 100 000 per year. Can we then suggest that she wants to see the UK economy lose some of its strength as it will mean less people will want to go to the UK?

Immigration from the EU8 is now negative due to many factors , most likely being UK economy falling behind theirs, the drop in Sterling and increased xenophobia.

BTW Poles coming over to the UK and taking jobs has being going on for a long time. During the Battle of Britain they took out an eight of the German planes.

Either she believes the rubbish she spouts and really wants immigration to be less than 100 000 per year, whatever that will mean for the economy or she is just using that as a way to win votes for her party. However you look at it that behaviour is despicable.

IMHO the main focus is on deporting those who no longer pay tax , while the floodgates are open for those who work. And we all know that India wants visas, visas and more visas for any trade deal. And with Tata Steel and owning Jaguar they have leverage. Ditto for China who they want to fund new nuclear plants meant to keep the lights on.

Ignore the £30K wage thing, you can pay a new-entrant £20,800, and I'm lead to believe that you can abuse that loophole by little more than redefining the job description.


This is May promising to fix the potholes while handing out digging permits to any utility that asks.

Capt'n Midnight

Seth Brundle wrote: »

According to the IT, the DUP are angry about the detention of the two trawlers.
Well done to the Irish Navy!

55% of the NI fishing quota is owned by the Voyager.

The 86m-long Voyager is too big to land its catch at Kilkeel Harbour. It has a crew of just 13. Modern fishing is so mechanised that very few people are needed to hover up fish. Unless politicians do something to change that there won't be jobs in fishing in future.

Sam Russell

Seth Brundle wrote: »

According to the IT, the DUP are angry about the detention of the two trawlers.
Well done to the Irish Navy!

Not as angry as the Russians wre in 1963 when the Irish Navy arrsted a Russian trawler for fishing within the three mile limit. They refused to be arrested and so the Navy opened fire, knocking the rust off the railings of the trawler. They were escorted to Waterford. They had mackeral on board.

Quite a coup for the Irish Navy.

BluePlanet

Don't know if anybody posted this yet, but i see there's a storm brewing for the UK and Gibraltar.

Evidently the "No-Deal" Legislation states that the land the Gibraltar airport sits on, is Spanish.

The EU’s no-deal legislation notes that the regulation is “without prejudice” to the “position of the Kingdom of Spain with regard to the sovereignty over the territory in which the airport of Gibraltar is situated”

The Treaty of Utrecht whereby Spain ceded Gibraltar to the UK, does not refer to British sovereignty beyond the fortified perimeter of the town as it was in 1713.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/28/eu-angers-uk-with-its-support-for-spains-gibraltar-airport-claims

PeadarCo

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Not directly Brexit relates as it's to do with the Voisinage agreement, but it's warning of what may happen if there's No Deal.

The reason for the break down of the Voisinage agreement does highlight the issues domestically of not enforcing a hard border in the event of a no deal Brexit/ brexit where NI does not stay in the customs Union or Common market. Based on the link the agreement broke down due to legal action by Irish fisherman. It wouldn't be hard to see something similar happen if the Irish government didn't enforce the border. Also the UK could have similar issues if their laws don't align with the practice on the ground.

For Forks Sake

Sam Russell wrote: »

Not as angry as the Russians wre in 1963 when the Irish Navy arrsted a Russian trawler for fishing within the three mile limit. They refused to be arrested and so the Navy opened fire, knocking the rust off the railings of the trawler. They were escorted to Waterford. They had mackeral on board.

Quite a coup for the Irish Navy.

https://www.britishpathe.com/video/red-trawler-arrested