Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

ancapailldorcha

RobMc59 wrote: »

How are they parasites?

They contribute nothing and care for nothing but themselves. Or they would if they showed even the basest level of intelligence. Instead, they voted based on prejudice to eliminate the framework by which they enjoy the right to live in the EU.

RobMc59

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They contribute nothing and care for nothing but themselves. Or they would if they showed even the basest level of intelligence. Instead, they voted based on prejudice to eliminate the framework by which they enjoy the right to live in the EU.

That is`nt parasitic.I would imagine they contribute to the local economy which will probably be missed.

ancapailldorcha

RobMc59 wrote: »

That is`nt parasitic.I would imagine they contribute to the local economy which will probably be missed.

Voting to enrich yourself at the benefit of others is almost the textbook definition of parasitism.

I imagine they clog up Spain's queues for public services, refuse to integrate and cause disruption. No loss for anyone but themselves but they knew what they were voting for.

Tyrone212

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Bizarre lack of self awareness amongst this cohort of British ex-pats. Very hard to feel any sympathy for them.

Immigrants*

FrancieBrady

It's all the EU and Dublin's fault?? Thankfully the judge intervened here.

https://twitter.com/SJAMcBride/status/1385243585625432065

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

How are they parasites?

RobMc59 wrote: »

That is`nt parasitic.I would imagine they contribute to the local economy which will probably be missed.

UK citizens who were residing in Spain when Brexit took effect were invited to register as long-term residents. Most registered, and they can stay in Spain indefinitely.

The ones who are leaving are those who either declined to register, or applied but were refused.

In order to register, you would have to demonstrate that you have a certain income level. That could satisfied with employment earnings (whether earned in Spain or abroad) or a pension (ditto).

Many people who declined to register either didn't have the earnings (in which case, obviously, they are or are at risk of becoming a burden on the Spanish taxpayer) or they did have the earnings but didn't want to declare them, since this would bring them to the notice of the Spanish tax authorities and make them liable to Spanish tax (and, in many cases, to arrears of tax and penalties for previous years).

In order to register, you also had to demonstrate that you had a minimum level of health insurance. People who didn't wish to take out health insurance either didn't register, or were refused.

All in all, then, this is not a group who were conspicuously "contributing to the local economy". They either had no or next-to-no income, or they were tax cheats, or they were at risk of becoming a burden on the Spanish health services.

RobMc59

Peregrinus wrote: »

UK citizens who were residing in Spain when Brexit took effect were invited to register as long-term residents. Most registered, and they can stay in Spain indefinitely.

The ones who are leaving are those who either declined to register, or applied but were refused.

In order to register, you would have to demonstrate that you have a certain income level. That could satisfied with employment earnings (whether earned in Spain or abroad) or a pension (ditto).

Many people who declined to register either didn't have the earnings (in which case, obviously, they are or are at risk of becoming a burden on the Spanish taxpayer) or they did have the earnings but didn't want to declare them, since this would bring them to the notice of the Spanish tax authorities and make them liable to Spanish tax (and, in many cases, to arrears of tax and penalties for previous years).

In order to register, you also had to demonstrate that you had a minimum level of health insurance. People who didn't wish to take out health insurance either didn't register, or were refused.

All in all, then, this is not a group who were conspicuously "contributing to the local economy". They either had no or next-to-no income, or they were tax cheats, or they were at risk of becoming a burden on the Spanish health services.

Good points,although the Spanish government appears to have set the bar considerably higher for foreigners as the required income is higher than the standard pension available to a Spanish male.In addiction,the commonly held notion that UK citizens were a drain on the Spanish health system was a myth.The NHS paid for their health care in Spain.

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

Good points,although the Spanish government appears to have set the bar considerably higher for foreigners as the required income is higher than the standard pension available to a Spanish male.

But not by so much as the UK income requirement for permanent residency exceeds the standard pension available to a UK person!

(In both cases, citizens of one country residing in the other could sort out permanent residence for themselves without satisfying any income requirement, but they needed to do so ahead of Brexit taking effect. The UK citizens who are having to leave Spain now obviously didn't take advantage of this, either because they assumed, or credulously accepted propaganda, that their position would be unaffected and never found out that they needed to register or were too complacent to bother, or because they had reasons for not wishing to register.)

RobMc59 wrote: »

In addiction,the commonly held notion that UK citizens were a drain on the Spanish health system was a myth.The NHS paid for their health care in Spain.

But it will no longer do so, is the salient point here. That's why the insurance requirement is imposed.

RobMc59

It will be interesting how this potential trade agreement will impact on UK trade with European countries.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56867752.amp

RobMc59

RobMc59 wrote: »

It will be interesting how this potential trade agreement will impact on UK trade with European countries.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56867752.amp

Not much, Australia is completely the opposite side of the world not easy to trade with!

Nate--IRL--

What way would you envisage UK trade with European countries being impacted?

Nate

RobMc59

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

What way would you envisage UK trade with European countries being impacted?

Nate

As major meat and alcohol producers Australia would probably want access to that UK market.

Professor Moriarty

RobMc59 wrote: »

As major meat and alcohol producers Australia would probably want access to that UK market.

Transport costs will be a factor.

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

It will be interesting how this potential trade agreement will impact on UK trade with European countries.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56867752.amp

What do you think it will do?

"It is estimated a deal could add £500m ($694m) to UK GDP over the long-term"

It this is one of the key deals they are banking on.

RobMc59

Leroy42 wrote: »

What do you think it will do?

"It is estimated a deal could add £500m ($694m) to UK GDP over the long-term"

It this is one of the key deals they are banking on.

It could possibly be to help smooth the UK joining the CPTPP.
Personally,I hope it doesn't mean a reduction in UK trade with EU countries.

Timberrrrrrrr

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Voting to enrich yourself at the benefit of others is almost the textbook definition of parasitism.

I imagine they clog up Spain's queues for public services, refuse to integrate and cause disruption. No loss for anyone but themselves but they knew what they were voting for.

Isn't this how everyone votes?

ancapailldorcha

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Isn't this how everyone votes?

Well yes but most people understand what their own self-interest actually is. These parasites voted to remove the framework by which they live in the EU and then were surprised when they had to leave.

RobMc59

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Transport costs will be a factor.

Quality issues too possibly,due to transport times

Timberrrrrrrr

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well yes but most people understand what their own self-interest actually is. These parasites voted to remove the framework by which they live in the EU and then were surprised when they had to leave.

Calling them parasites while admitting that yourself and other voters are also parasites (due to your own voting preferences) seems a tad hypocritical to me.

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

It could possibly be to help smooth the UK joining the CPTPP.
Personally,I hope it doesn't mean a reduction in UK trade with EU countries.

They signed a trade deal with the EU, will that smooth them joining the EU?

They will be allowed join the CPTPP if it is a benefit to the members for them to join.

It is no real advantage to the UK this apparent deal, which is still a few months away from being signed and from the EU deal we know that simply signing a deal doesn't solve the problems.

Given the UK myriad of problems after signing the EU deal, shell fish being only one of them, what confidence that anyone have that the UK will have a done a proper deal rather than a deal for the sake of saying they have a deal?

What are the proposed benefits to the UK of this deal?
How many new jobs?
What industries will it help?
What industries will it impact negatively?

Or is this another one like Brexit itself where it is a great thing but nobody knows why or when?

Donald Trump

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Isn't this how everyone votes?

Probably most people. Some would vote on principles though. Not everything you vote on would enrich yourself personally either.



For example, in the marriage equality referendum, you probably didn't vote (if you voted) based on what decision would make you more money

ancapailldorcha

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Calling them parasites while admitting that yourself and other voters are also parasites (due to your own voting preferences) seems a tad hypocritical to me.

I disagree. The best option for everyone was to remain in the EU. The fact that not a single benefit has manifested in nearly 5 years demonstrates this nicely.

I wouldn't feel right voting for someone if it would benefit me but at the expense of, say pensioners. I certainly consider myself but it's by no means the only thing I consider when voting. Then again, it's a two-horse race degenerating into a one-horse one here anyway.

RobMc59

Leroy42 wrote: »

They signed a trade deal with the EU, will that smooth them joining the EU?

They will be allowed join the CPTPP if it is a benefit to the members for them to join.

It is no real advantage to the UK this apparent deal, which is still a few months away from being signed and from the EU deal we know that simply signing a deal doesn't solve the problems.

Given the UK myriad of problems after signing the EU deal, shell fish being only one of them, what confidence that anyone have that the UK will have a done a proper deal rather than a deal for the sake of saying they have a deal?

What are the proposed benefits to the UK of this deal?
How many new jobs?
What industries will it help?
What industries will it impact negatively?

Or is this another one like Brexit itself where it is a great thing but nobody knows why or when?

I don`t see any advantage particularly to the UK,although a deal with Australia(who do seem keen for closer ties with the UK in many things apart from trade)could be a precursor to the UK joining the CPTPP which in turn could possibly give them better access to financial markets in that region.
Regarding fish,the deal with the EU has given the UK control of it`s fishing grounds,the free for all has ended. I have never thought brexit was a good idea but it`s done now and as the thread subject suggests the UK needs to move on.

Leroy42

My point wasn't whether Brexit is good or bad, but why would anybody think that this government has any basis for claiming anything is good when they so clearly have no real idea of what they are doing, most noticeably shown by the complete lack of understanding of the shellfish issue.

They sold Brexit as being a positive, which is now accepted to be a complete fallacy. They sold the Japan deal as a positive, when in fact they face up more than had they stayed in the EU. Now they are selling a possible deal with Australia as a positive, when they have provided nothing to back up that claim. You have made up this possible benefit, on nothing more than something you think might be a positive some time in the future.

Timberrrrrrrr

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I disagree. The best option for everyone was to remain in the EU. The fact that not a single benefit has manifested in nearly 5 years demonstrates this nicely.

On this we will agree but such is the joys of the democratic vote where the majority wins out, even if they voted that way based on a bunch of lies.

I wouldn't feel right voting for someone if it would benefit me but at the expense of, say pensioners. I certainly consider myself but it's by no means the only thing I consider when voting. Then again, it's a two-horse race degenerating into a one-horse one here anyway.

As is in many countries, but many of us will vote for the guy who promises to lower taxes and not for his opposition who has said he will raise taxes.

RobMc59

Leroy42 wrote: »

My point wasn't whether Brexit is good or bad, but why would anybody think that this government has any basis for claiming anything is good when they so clearly have no real idea of what they are doing, most noticeably shown by the complete lack of understanding of the shellfish issue.

They sold Brexit as being a positive, which is now accepted to be a complete fallacy. They sold the Japan deal as a positive, when in fact they face up more than had they stayed in the EU. Now they are selling a possible deal with Australia as a positive, when they have provided nothing to back up that claim. You have made up this possible benefit, on nothing more than something you think might be a positive some time in the future.

You were probably one of the posters expecting an opinion on whether brexit is a success or failure after a couple of weeks...
I`ve already said I see no advantage to the UK with this deal although if it leads to opportunities in the Pacific region that could be a plus.
Regarding shellfish,this was obviously poorly thought out by the UK and British suppliers have suffered as a result.
As I pointed out though,the UK now has control of its fishing grounds which will now have chance to recover from the previous free for all,so not all bad.

Seth Brundle

RobMc59 wrote: »

You were probably one of the posters expecting an opinion on whether brexit is a success or failure after a couple of weeks...

So when do you expect to have an opinion on whether it has been a success or a failure?

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

You were probably one of the posters expecting an opinion on whether brexit is a success or failure after a couple of weeks...
I`ve already said I see no advantage to the UK with this deal although if it leads to opportunities in the Pacific region that could be a plus.
Regarding shellfish,this was obviously poorly thought out by the UK and British suppliers have suffered as a result.
As I pointed out though,the UK now has control of its fishing grounds which will now have chance to recover from the previous free for all,so not all bad.

No, I'm not looking for an opinion. Based on any reading of the situation Brexit has been a complete and utter disaster so far. All that wasted time, wasted money, the division it has created, the threat of violence in NI, the threat to the union itself.

It may well turn out to be beneficial in the long term, although there is nothing to suggest that that is likely to be the case.

The shellfish, I agree was very poor. And that makes one wonder just how on the ball they really are when they still seem to be fixed any the PR of signing a deal rather than the actual details of the deal. I see nothing that suggests they have started to take a more considered approach which leads me to reason that whatever deal they sign will have consequences they have not considered and as such it is not possible to say if it will be a benefit or not.

I do find it odd that you think that getting more pacific financial services is a plus. I doubt very much that lack of financial services was on the minds of people when they voted for Brexit.

As we see from the shellfish issue, having full control means nothing when you have nowhere to sell it to.

Really I just wonder why you continue to have any faith in a government that have been shown to be completely out of their depth throughout this whole debacle?

RobMc59

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So when do you expect to have an opinion on whether it has been a success or a failure?

I guess it would take a number of years to give a more realistic indication. In the early weeks following the transition period ending the hysteria on some threads was extraordinary. Anyone who suggested it was far too soon to call was riddiculed for example.

RobMc59

Leroy42 wrote: »

No, I'm not looking for an opinion. Based on any reading of the situation Brexit has been a complete and utter disaster so far. All that wasted time, wasted money, the division it has created, the threat of violence in NI, the threat to the union itself.

It may well turn out to be beneficial in the long term, although there is nothing to suggest that that is likely to be the case.

The shellfish, I agree was very poor. And that makes one wonder just how on the ball they really are when they still seem to be fixed any the PR of signing a deal rather than the actual details of the deal. I see nothing that suggests they have started to take a more considered approach which leads me to reason that whatever deal they sign will have consequences they have not considered and as such it is not possible to say if it will be a benefit or not.

I do find it odd that you think that getting more pacific financial services is a plus. I doubt very much that lack of financial services was on the minds of people when they voted for Brexit.

As we see from the shellfish issue, having full control means nothing when you have nowhere to sell it to.

Really I just wonder why you continue to have any faith in a government that have been shown to be completely out of their depth throughout this whole debacle?

I wouldn't know what was on the minds of those who voted for brexit as apart from disliking the increasingly overbearing interference from brussels I think remaining in the EU was the best option.
Johnson is untrustworthy and I would be happy to see him gone.As the details of the potential deal with Australia aren't yet known, whether its good or bad isn't apparent.
You claim to not want an opinion on brexit yet your "readings"of the situation so far amounts to just that,an opinion.