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

theological

Peregrinus wrote: »

There is no mention of the Elgin Marbles in any EU document related to Brexit, draft or otherwise. While there is mention of Gibraltar, there is no claim for the cession of the territory back to Spain, or for the renunciation of UK sovereignty over the territory.

This isn't true.

The Independent has an article on the Elgin marbles here.

The Guardian on Spain insisting on references to Gibraltar ownership in documents here.

Unless you're saying the left wing media are no longer reliable and I should read the Torygraph and the Express

Boredstiff666

theological wrote: »

Unless you're saying the left wing media are no longer reliable and I should read the Torygraph and the Express

Bring back the UK Sunday Sport. Nobody argued about politics in those days.:eek::D:D

Peregrinus

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Oh I see. I see your point now. But it was reported on those 2 items in the internet papers so I just thought that was the proposed deals.

That's what happens if you read Brexity papers. You must be aware that the UK press is accused of having lied systematically about the EU for decades now, and that you should not take UK press reports on EU matters at face value. If the matter is one interests you, you have to look behind UK press stories at primary sources - which, through the wonderful magic that is the internet today, is relatively easy to do.

The actual facts behing the Elgin Marbles guff are these:

1. The EU is currently preparing the negotiating mandate that will tell Commission officials what they should seek to negotiate with the UK as regards a possible Trade Deal. Thsi mandate will be set by the European Council, and it will bind the Commission as to what outcomes they should target, what parameters they must negotiate within, etc, etc.

2. As part of the process Member States make suggestions about things that should be addressed in any Trade Deal.

3. Italy, Greece and Cyprus have have made a joint submission to the effec that the Trade Deal should “address issues relating to the return or restitution of unlawfully removed cultural objects to their countries of origin.”

4. As far as the Brexit Press are concerned, there's only one unlawfully removed cultural object ever in the entire history of the universe, and it's the Elgin Marbles, so that is what this must be about. Greece is going to demand that the return of the Marbles be a term of the Trade Deal!

5. Here in the real world, the unlawful removal of cultural objects is a continuing phenomenon that occurs on a large scale, and is a particular problemfor countries like Greece, Italy and Cyprus, all of whom have signficant artistic and archaeological heritage from the Classical era and beyond. This stuff is still being unlawfully removed on a regular basis.

6. Also here in the real world, there's already EU law in place about this - a Directive was adopted in 2014 (with UK support) and it has been in force in the UK (and elsewhere) ever since. It does not provide for the return of the Elgin Marbles, and so far as I know, Greece has never attempted to use it to secure the return of the Elgin Marbles.

7. People think that the UK is especially important in the efforts to tackle the illegal art and artefacts trade, because the London art market is (a) unusually large, and (b) unusually transparent. The people who steal this stuff do so for money; they want to sell it. A good deal of illegally removed stuff, sooner or later, finds its way into the hands of a London auction house or a London dealer. That's one of the points where it may be identified as illegally obtained, and if that happens the Directive's procedures can be invoked to try and have it returned.

8. Greece, Italy and Cyprus think it would be a pity if Brexit were to undercut efforts to take the stolen artefacts trade. So they'd like the 2014 Directive, already in force in the UK, to be included in any body of EU legislation which the UK agrees, in a trade deal, will continue to be applied by the UK government.

That's it. That's all. But you'd never know that from reading the UK press.

Leroy42

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Lots of bickering here. Has the die hard EU lovers admitted they are getting pummeled by Boris and co yet or are we still in the EU is bigger and badder stage.

When will the next stage begin?

It’s a process lads, a process.

Is that genuinely how you see it. that the only people to raise serious questions about Brexit must somehow be EU lovers.

How about you put forward the clear and obvious advantages that Brexit is going to bring, as it appears that many on here don't seem to be able to grasp it.

All they continue to do is point out the many, and serious downsides. From lost of economic activity, to loss of investment, to loss of FoM for UK citizens, to the divide of the UK in terms of trade territory, to the massive amount of spending that has so far and will continue to be wasted on having to prepare for the additional burdens, to increased demand for Scottish independence, to increased possibility of NI border poll. And of course the wasted almost 4 years where politics has ground to a halt due to brexit itself.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

This isn't true.

The Independent has an article on the Elgin marbles here.

The Guardian on Spain insisting on references to Gibraltar ownership in documents here.

Unless you're saying the left wing media are no longer reliable and I should read the Torygraph and the Express

Honours students will note that the Independent report does not suggest the language proposed for inclusion in the mandate mentions the Elgin Marbles, so this doesn't contradict what I said. The only claim is that this language is "believed to be" a reference to the Elgin Marbles. Clever use of the passive voice there. Who believes this? We're not told. But the honours students will also note that the only sources quoted at all in relation to this part of the story are "[British] government sources" and "a [British] government spokeswoman". There's nothing in the story to suggest that the Independent spoke to anyone on the EU side at all, and that makes it wildly unlikely that the unnamed people who "believe" that the text refers to the Elgin Marbles include anyone on the EU side. This is a beat-up.

Similarly, if you read the Guardian story with the same critical eye, you will see that there is nothing in it that contradicts what I said - namely, "that there is no claim [in the EU documents] for the cession of the territory back to Spain, or for the renunciation of UK sovereignty over the territory". But Brexiters would very much like you to think that there is.

theological

You claimed in a previous post that Spain wasn't pushing for the inclusion of Gibraltar in the negotiation documents for territorial reasons but only for economic. The Guardian report says:

The EU will back Spain over its territorial claims to Gibraltar in the next phase of Brexit negotiations by giving Madrid the power to exclude the British overseas territory from any trade deal struck with Brussels.

The Observer has learned that the Spanish government has insisted on reference to the Rock in the EU’s opening negotiating position, which will be published in draft form on Monday.

Edit: And more trying to tie trade terms to territorial claims.

“They have in principle asked that the new relationship not apply to Gibraltar without the explicit consent of Spain, which will only be given if the bilateral talks with Spain and the UK over the rock are resolved,” a senior EU diplomat said.

On the second point although they are not mentioned by name they are included in the remit of cultural artifacts to be returned.

So please let's be honest and concede these points.

Dytalus

theological wrote: »

You claimed in a previous post that Spain wasn't pushing for the inclusion of Gibraltar in the negotiation documents for territorial reasons but only for economic. The Guardian report says:

The very text you quoted indicates the limit of EU support for Spain over Gibraltar: that it can be excluded from any trade deal struck with Brussels at Madrid's urging. As Peregrinus pointed out, the EU will not demand the UK hand the territory over to Spain.

Peregrinus wrote:

While there is mention of Gibraltar, there is no claim for the cession of the territory back to Spain, or for the renunciation of UK sovereignty over the territory.

You're misrepresenting what they said to argue against a point that nobody has made, to support an argument that has only been made in UK papers and not in the EU draft documents.

theological wrote: »

On the second point although they are not mentioned by name they are included in the remit of cultural artifacts to be returned.

Are they? Where is that mentioned in EU documentation? Are they illegally acquired? If you're willing to admit that they were, do you think the UK is morally right to keep them if they do fall under the category of 'unlawfully removed'?

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

You claimed in a previous post that Spain wasn't pushing for the inclusion of Gibraltar in the negotiation documents for territorial reasons but only for economic. The Guardian report says:

Edit: And more trying to tie trade terms to territorial claims.

My statements about this have been:

"Spain isn't going to hold out against a trade deal unless the UK surrenders Gibraltar."

"Spain has not asked for the return of Gibraltar in the context of Brexit"

"While there is mention of Gibraltar, there is no claim for the cession of the territory back to Spain, or for the renunciation of UK sovereignty over the territory."

Nothing in the Guardian article contradicts any of them.

theological wrote: »

On the second point although they are not mentioned by name they are included in the remit of cultural artifacts to be returned.

I don't think they are. The 2014 Directive doesn't cover the Elgin Marbles - it only applies to artefacts that have been unlawfully removed within the past 30 years, and whose location has become known with the past 3 years. The Elgin Marbles are out on both counts.

theological wrote: »

So please let's be honest and concede these points.

I don't think you have any justification for impugning my honesty, Theo.

theological

Pedantry aside - these points still remain.
1) The EU are insisting trade terms don't cover Gibraltar until its status is settled with Spain.
2) Cultural artifacts being returned are mentioned in the draft document.

Both will probably be junked in weeks of negotiating starting.

Leroy42

What I don't get is why Brexiteers are surprised or even annoyed.

They opened a pandoras box, they walked away from a agreement they had and opened themselves up to these possibilities. It appears that they simply assumed that the EU would focus only the issues they (UK) wanted to talk about and not use unique situation to try to gain as much as possible.

How is looking for whatever any different than Thatcher looking for special rebates and exclusion for Euro etc?

Kt seems naive in the extreme that the UK seemed surprised by any of this. I have no idea if the EU will actually force these issues, but I can totally see why certain countries would look to gain from the UK disadvantage. Isn't that what the UK have done throughout history?

Boredstiff666

Leroy42 wrote: »

What I don't get is why Brexiteers are surprised or even annoyed.

They opened a pandoras box, they walked away from a agreement they had and opened themselves up to these possibilities. It appears that they simply assumed that the EU would focus only the issues they (UK) wanted to talk about and not use unique situation to try to gain as much as possible.

How is looking for whatever any different than Thatcher looking for special rebates and exclusion for Euro etc?

Kt seems naive in the extreme that the UK seemed surprised by any of this. I have no idea if the EU will actually force these issues, but I can totally see why certain countries would look to gain from the UK disadvantage. Isn't that what the UK have done throughout history?

Regardless of who is surprised. The UK will prosper and not disappear down a hole as you wish.

The EU will collapse not as a Brexiteer wishes but by its own doing mainly by not being able to change.

Any leader of any country paying in vast amounts of money and getting a bum deal is entitled to ask for something back in return.

Ireland has had billions and paid in a piddly amount so cannot judge others who have kept them in luxury for many years. When you have paid that money back then you can critisise others for wanting something back.

Its a bit rich of a beggar with its hand out criticizing the very people who give to its charity which feeds them dont you think?

Leroy42

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Regardless of who is surprised. The UK will prosper and not disappear down a hole as you wish.

The EU will collapse not as a Brexiteer wishes but by its own doing mainly by not being able to change.

Any leader of any country paying in vast amounts of money and getting a bum deal is entitled to ask for something back in return.

Ireland has had billions and paid in a piddly amount so cannot judge others who have kept them in luxury for many years. When you have paid that money back then you can critisise others for wanting something back.

Its a bit rich of a beggar with its hand out criticizing the very people who give to its charity which feeds it dont you think?

Yet another rant with nothing to actually back it up.

What we have seen so far it that the UK has had to spend bns in preparations, have given bns more in divorce and agreed to partition part of itself.

It has suffered a massive drop in investment, its GDP growth has reduced from +2% to 0%, companies have indicated they may pull out and people have lost their ability to work within the EU.

I ask this every so often, because I never get a reply. What benefits are there and on what basis are you claiming these benefits. The governments own reports, they ones they have had leaked as they won't publish anything, indicate there are no advantages.

And even if the EU is going to collapse, what is the benefit of getting out now?

I also note that you completely fail to deal with my point that the UK should have thought this through a bit more and its a bit late crying that the EU are being a bit mean now. As for charity, you think the UK in the EU was charity? Do you really not see any advantage to being in the EU? Increased markets, lower prices due to lower costs, stronger trade deals?

Boredstiff666

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yet another rant with nothing to actually back it up.

What we have seen so far it that the UK has had to spend bns in preparations, have given bns more in divorce and agreed to partition part of itself.

It has suffered a massive drop in investment, its GDP growth has reduced from +2% to 0%, companies have indicated they may pull out and people have lost their ability to work within the EU.

I ask this every so often, because I never get a reply. What benefits are there and on what basis are you claiming these benefits. The governments own reports, they ones they have had leaked as they won't publish anything, indicate there are no advantages.

And even if the EU is going to collapse, what is the benefit of getting out now?

I also note that you completely fail to deal with my point that the UK should have thought this through a bit more and its a bit late crying that the EU are being a bit mean now. As for charity, you think the UK in the EU was charity? Do you really not see any advantage to being in the EU? Increased markets, lower prices due to lower costs, stronger trade deals?

Leroy I dont have to deal with your points. They maybe correct and they may be not but they are just your points of view.

But to explain something to you. A banana republic economy like Ireland with an economy equal to a 3rd rate city in Europe. if it had growth of 5% for example you would cheer from the roof tops......and well done sir.

But larger economies, if they had growth of .5% it would be good news.

So a drop or rise in investment of 2% - 5% is the norm of variations in larger economies.

A better indicator would be employment. The Uk is possibly at full employment and probably still has .5 to 1 million claiming some kind of dole. This is the norm now and the economy is ok.

3 - 5 million on dole then you may have a bit of a problem but nothing that would indicate the doors have fell of and the roof is falling in. Possibly a descent recession.

So basically your banging on about nowt. I know you dont like this and it possibly upsets you.

It's Friday tomorrow and you can get pissed.;):D

ambro25

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Regardless of who is surprised. The UK will prosper and not disappear down a hole as you wish.

(...)

Nobody, but nobody, is 'surprised' outside of the navel-gazing UK.

At this time still, there is no indication either, that the UK will prosper. At best, it will stagnate, as it gradually loses economic relevance and political influence (like it has in the last 3 years, and dropped correspondingly in the G10 and trading partners rankings).

It won't "disappear down a hole", and I don't think anyone here has wished that: most of us keep the 48+%, and the "3 millions", close to heart. Though living conditions outside of London might feel like 'living in a hole' before long, after Johnson's government is done enacting policies to try and inflate their way out of the UK's mongo public debt.

ancapailldorcha

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Leroy I dont have to deal with your points. They maybe correct and they may be not but they are just your points of view.

But to explain something to you. A banana republic economy like Ireland with an economy equal to a 3rd rate city in Europe. if it had growth of 5% for example you would cheer from the roof tops......and well done sir.

But larger economies, if they had growth of .5% it would be good news.

So a drop or rise in investment of 2% - 5% is the norm of variations in larger economies.

A better indicator would be employment. The Uk is possibly at full employment and probably still has .5 to 1 million claiming some kind of dole. This is the norm now and the economy is ok.

3 - 5 million on dole then you may have a bit of a problem but nothing that would indicate the doors have fell of and the roof is falling in. Possibly a descent recession.

So basically your banging on about nowt. I know you dont like this and it possibly upsets you.

It's Friday tomorrow and you can get pissed.;):D

I don't know what the point of this is. You seem to be unwilling to engage for some reason.

I don't think there is a single member state which wants to leave. Even the likes of Salvini are talking about reform now. Brexit is the single greatest piece of pro-EU propaganda ever created.

Boredstiff666

Leroy42 wrote: »

I also note that you completely fail to deal with my point that the UK should have thought this through a bit more and its a bit late crying that the EU are being a bit mean now. As for charity, you think the UK in the EU was charity? Do you really not see any advantage to being in the EU? Increased markets, lower prices due to lower costs, stronger trade deals?

I will answer a point for you and this is my opinion with some experience.

Do I not see the advantages of the EU?

A trading block is a great idea. Protectionism in that block I do not see as a good idea. But you can impose high regulation on goods traded which keeps out or ups the anti on people wanting to trade into that block.

When the prices in that block are artificially kept high so the businesses and public are paying over the odds. Then your trading block has serious issues and is at risk of collapse.

Political...........When in the UK the deal used to be when I was young........You pay your tax then the state will look after your health.

If a political agreement outside the UK makes it ok for anybody who hasnt paid tax to avail of the services I need then I have been robbed/ripped off/screwed. because I paid for those services and now the system cant or is slow to treat me when I need it.

So your point.........A trading block yes to a point..........political never because it cannot work and I gave you one example.

jimmycrackcorm

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

I will answer a point for you and this is my opinion with some experience.

Do I not see the advantages of the EU?

A trading block is a great idea. Protectionism in that block I do not see as a good idea. But you can impose high regulation on goods traded which keeps out or ups the anti on people wanting to trade into that block.

When the prices in that block are artificially kept high so the businesses and public are paying over the odds. Then your trading block has serious issues and is at risk of collapse.

Political...........When in the UK the deal used to be when I was young........You pay your tax then the state will look after your health.

If a political agreement outside the UK makes it ok for anybody who hasnt paid tax to avail of the services I need then I have been robbed/ripped off/screwed. because I paid for those services and now the system cant or is slow to treat me when I need it.

So your point.........A trading block yes to a point..........political never because it cannot work and I gave you one example.

It's been demonstrated that EU immigrants contribute more to the UK economy then is provided in benefits.
As for not paying tax and availing of services, have you not seen the make-up of the benefits Street TV show?

Boredstiff666

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know what the point of this is. You seem to be unwilling to engage for some reason.

I don't think there is a single member state which wants to leave. Even the likes of Salvini are talking about reform now. Brexit is the single greatest piece of pro-EU propaganda ever created.

I think its pointless because of what goes on here.

There are those who hate Britain and refer to the past events concerning Ireland.

There are those who do not want the good times that Ireland has enjoyed and see the writing on the wall.

There are those who do not want the UK to succeed because it may encourage others.

There are those like yourself who twist and turn stuff around like anti Brexit propaganda as I highlighted in your post a few days back.

Irish people talking about Brexit. If it were UK people do you think they would be talking about Ireland leaving? so there is an issue and the issue is with you lot.

You all have your own reasons that you want the UK to fail with leaving the EU.

I dont. I respect the peoples choice. If they decided to stay, I would respect their choice. I believe in democracy. I may not agree with their choice but I would still respect that vote.

Here you have tried to find every single thing wrong with the people, the country, their history, their future, their voting preferences, their desires, their everything.

In fact very few of you have ever said anything good about the UK or its people.

All I have said is that they will succeed and I expect things to go bad because of 'others' interferrence and the probs within the EU itself.

ancapailldorcha

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

I think its pointless because of what goes on here.

There are those who hate Britain and refer to the past events concerning Ireland.

There are those who do not want the good times that Ireland has enjoyed and see the writing on the wall.

There are those who do not want the UK to succeed because it may encourage others.

There are those like yourself who twist and turn stuff around like anti Brexit propaganda as I highlighted in your post a few days back.

Irish people talking about Brexit. If it were UK people do you think they would be talking about Ireland leaving? so there is an issue and the issue is with you lot.

You all have your own reasons that you want the UK to fail with leaving the EU.

I dont. I respect the peoples choice. If they decided to stay, I would respect their choice. I believe in democracy. I may not agree with their choice but I would still respect that vote.

Here you have tried to find every single thing wrong with the people, the country, their history, their future, their voting preferences, their desires, their everything.

In fact very few of you have ever said anything good about the UK or its people.

All I have said is that they will succeed and I expect things to go bad because of 'others' interferrence and the probs within the EU itself.

This is just a falsehood-ridden and frankly bizarre rant where you've trying and failing to justify not posting in any sort of meaningful or constructive way.

Boredstiff666

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It's been demonstrated that EU immigrants contribute more to the UK economy then is provided in benefits.
As for not paying tax and availing of services, have you not seen the make-up of the benefits Street TV show?

That is not the point I am making and the full cost of open door immigration hasnt been realised yet and Ireland has the same problem coming up.

one example..........An immigrant say for example 50. How are they going to get a pension in 15 years. If they dont does the future mean that there are millions of over 65 year olds starving and rotting in the streets in a few years time?

So the money has to be found.

Have you any real idea of how much just this one issue is going to cost all the countries involved? It is off the scale. And thats just one issue.

I am not against immigration but the ones who started this one certainly didnt think about the future.

volchitsa

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Political...........When in the UK the deal used to be when I was young........You pay your tax then the state will look after your health.

If a political agreement outside the UK makes it ok for anybody who hasnt paid tax to avail of the services I need then I have been robbed/ripped off/screwed. because I paid for those services and now the system cant or is slow to treat me when I need it.

Are you really claiming that the EU is the explanation for any financial problems in the NHS? This is completely wrong - the Tories under Thatcher who wanted to privatise everything possible, couldn't do it so directly with the NHS (several reasons, which we can discuss separately if you like) so they underfunded it instead, a process continued by Cameron's government with the more or less open intention of encouraging private insurance, thus opening the way to privatising the more profitable sections of UK healthcare. (Naturally they would leave the more complex/less profitable sections in the NHS, while complaining about the exssive cost of these sections compared to the flourishing private sector.)

This is why American healthcare providers are in contact with the current British adminstration in the hopes of including drugs and possibly private hospital ownership in any US-UK trade deal.

Boredstiff666

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is just a falsehood-ridden and frankly bizarre rant where you've trying and failing to justify not posting in any sort of meaningful or constructive way.

Oh really o wise one. I will tell you what. The day you answer your anti-Brexit propaganda rants that you post here and the questions that people raise on the points you make........then i will listen to anything you have to say.

Until then its just hot air.....from you and blowing out of the wrong hole.

Boredstiff666

volchitsa wrote: »

Are you really claiming that the EU is the explanation for any financial problems in the NHS? This is completely wrong - the Tories under Thatcher who wanted to privatise everything possible, couldn't do it so directly with the NHS (several reasons, which we can discuss separately if you like) so they underfunded it instead, a process continued by Cameron's government with the more or less open intention of encouraging private insurance, thus opening the way to privatising the more profitable sections of UK healthcare. (Naturally they would leave the more complex/less profitable sections in the NHS, while complaining about the exssive cost of these sections compared to the flourishing private sector.)

This is why American healthcare providers are in contact with the current British adminstration in the hopes of including drugs and possibly private hospital ownership in any US-UK trade deal.

Claiming nowt....I gave you a clear example of one problem. Dont try and change my words to mean other.

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

Are you really claiming that the EU is the explanation for any financial problems in the NHS? This is completely wrong - the Tories under Thatcher who wanted to privatise everything possible, couldn't do it so directly with the NHS (several reasons, which we can discuss separately if you like) so they underfunded it instead, a process continued by Cameron's government with the more or less open intention of encouraging private insurance, thus opening the way to privatising the more profitable sections of UK healthcare. (Naturally they would leave the more complex/less profitable sections in the NHS, while complaining about the exssive cost of these sections compared to the flourishing private sector.)

This is why American healthcare providers are in contact with the current British adminstration in the hopes of including drugs and possibly private hospital ownership in any US-UK trade deal.

The post you quoted, seems very similar to the statement Crypto made that they were not allowed access the public health service because they had availed of private health insurance, but hasn't provided any evidence to support this statement.


They then went on to say well I can go to A&E but have to pay for it despite having private health insurance.



We've also heard from different posters that they believe that they don't want to live in a socialist society that the EU were forcing on them, yet the NHS was provided as socialist method of health care in that it was designed to allow the population to gain access to health care regardless of economic standing before they joined the EEC/EU.



Now the argument is that because they joined the EU they are being forced to use private health insurance by the EU, not because of the actions of the various conservative governments that they elected on their own, that are designed to reduce the value of the NHS and open it up to private health insurance companies.



This sums up the logic of most of the English lads on here regarding brexit, their arguments don't hold much water and when questioned and asked to provide evidence, they disappear for a while, ignore or just deflect.

volchitsa

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Claiming nowt....I gave you a clear example of one problem. Dont try and change my words to mean other.

Just asking for clarification. I don't want to change your words, just understand them.

So can you explain precisely what role you think the EU has played in the problem you referred to in that post - the bit I quoted?

Thanks.

Boredstiff666

volchitsa wrote: »

Just asking for clarification. I don't want to change your words, just understand them.

So can you explain precisely what role you think the EU has played in the problem you referred to in that post - the bit I quoted?

Thanks.

I have highlighted 2 issues with my earlier posts. you may want to read them and then tell me how 'you' think the problem is going to be solved.

Business needs workers......No country can have a system where some people spend their lives on the dole while politicians import workers to do the jobs the idle should be doing.

Business needs workers....they may be and is a need for immigrants. This can be set by each individual country to suit its needs. Open borders and uncontrolled immigration just means that some countries which those immigrants prefer swamp the system of schools, health, housing, old age care etc.

It isnt the immigrants fault they just see an opportunity and get it. You cant blame them.

Someone raised the point on immigrants pay tax etc. Great but paying tax for 10 or 15 years in older immigrants case isnt going to pay for 20 - 30 years of old age care and pensions is it?

You should ask Merkal what that answer is.

CelticRambler

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Someone raised the point on immigrants pay tax etc. Great but paying tax for 10 or 15 years in older immigrants case isnt going to pay for 20 - 30 years of old age care and pensions is it?

There isn't a single taxpayer in Britain making contributions to their state-funded old age care. Not one. You might believe that those deductions from your wages over forty years of hard labour would count for something, but they don't. They earn you nothing more than a politician's promise. That money is already spent twice or three times over.

Boredstiff666

CelticRambler wrote: »

There isn't a single taxpayer in Britain making contributions to their state-funded old age care. Not one. You might believe that those deductions from your wages over forty years of hard labour would count for something, but they don't. They earn you nothing more than a politician's promise. That money is already spent twice or three times over.

Thats true but the deal was your pension was in your National Insurance contributions. The money has long gone.

No private pension company is going to come close to whats needed and importing more workers doesnt work because unless very young they cant pay enough in to the system.

Pension payments rise. people are living 20 years longer than when the NHS was invented. Thats 1000 more payments than before.

Then you have extra health costs.

So thats the UK.

Now look at Europe and try and see where that money is going to come from.

So my point is in the EU....Who is going to pay? This on top of all else.

The costs are beyond belief and the burden on working folk is just obscene.

ambro25

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Thats true but the deal was your pension was in your National Insurance contributions. The money has long gone.

No private pension company is going to come close to whats needed and importing more workers doesnt work because unless very young they cant pay enough in to the system.

Pension payments rise. people are living 20 years longer than when the NHS was invented. Thats 1000 more payments than before.

Then you have extra health costs.

So thats the UK.

Now look at Europe and try and see where that money is going to come from.

So my point is in the EU....Who is going to pay? This on top of all else.

The costs are beyond belief and the burden on working folk is just obscene.

That particular Ponzi scheme is sustained throughout Europe (-the countries that need it through historical developments, which is mostly postWW2 cold war-era Western europe) by the current generations in work. That explains Celtic's point in his post, and accessorily why Merkel/Germany snorted a line or ten of young illegal immigrants some years ago (shot in the arm for future-proofing value creation, since productivity is maxed out).

The 'problem' should become more manageable when most of the baby boomer generation has gone, and normalisation of the age pyramid/distribution occurs [EDIT-hand in hand with pension reforms in member states increasing retirement ages, devaluing future commitments and slowly decoupling current-day taxes from them].

"Who is going to pay in the EU" (-discrete member states thereof) is whoever will be creating value and generating tax income "in the EU" (-discrete member states thereof) at the material time. In that context, and one of ageing populations (notwithstanding the baby boomer blip-and-eventual-adjustment), whichever member state breeds and/or imports the mostest and bestest workforce (in a cost/benefit sense) 'wins' for its pensioned OAPs.

Between its ultra-low state pension rates and its ultra-profitable imported well-educated labour, that was the UK. According to current UK immigration stats, and any reasonable socio-economic forecast for the Brexited UK, not anymore.

All choices have consequences, and some choices have more unforeseen consequences than others.

Boredstiff666

ambro25 wrote: »

That particular Ponzi scheme is sustained throughout Europe (-the countries that need it through historical developments, which is mostly postWW2 cold war-era Western europe) by the current generations in work. That explains Celtic's point in his post, and accessorily why Merkel/Germany snorted a line or ten of young illegal immigrants some tears ago (shot in the arm for value creation, since productivity is maxed out).

The 'problem' should become more manageable when most of the baby boomer generation has gone, and normalisation of the age pyramid/distribution occurs.

"Who is going to pay in the EU" (-discrete member states thereof) is whoever will be creating value and generating tax income "in the EU" (-discrete member states thereof) at the material time. In that context, and one of ageing populations (notwithstanding the baby boomer blip-and-eventual-adjustment), whichever member state breeds and/or imports the mostest and bestest workforce (in a cost/benefit sense) 'wins' for its pensioned OAPs.

Between its ultra-low state pension rates and its ultra-profitable imported well-educated labour, that was the UK. According to current UK immigration stats, and any reasonable socio-economic forecast for the Brexited UK, not anymore.

Normally I would agree until you actually work out the figures.

Tis true in normal cases the BabyBoomers of 1945-1964 would have peaked and gone and all would have settled down. But Merkals open door policy and freedom of movement has just made things worse.

For example this country had a fairly stable population of 3.5 millionish. It will very soon be approaching 5.5 millionish in a few years time. All within 25 years.

With pension payments equal to a working wage in some EU countries you do not need much of an imagination to see what is going to happen.

You cant promise and then say you cant have.