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

ambro25

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

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.

Merkel's non-EU immigrants from 2015 do not enjoy FoM rights, until and unless they should be naturalised as German.

For the rest of it, pensions rights in the EU accrue and follow the workers.

E.g. after 25 years of rolling my (private, non-EU/non-diplomatic) career stone across the EU, I have a combination of French, Irish, British and Luxembourgish pension rights accrued: wherever I'd end up retiring (say, Italy or Spain), that won't change, and I'll draw the entitlement either directly (UK system AFAIK) or via the proxy of my host state (IT or ES) which is refunded by the state (FR, IE, LU) liable for the entitlement, subject to what the statutory set up is (or changes to eventually).

Boredstiff666

ambro25 wrote: »

Merkel's non-EU immigrants from 2015 do not enjoy FoM rights, until and unless they should be naturalised as German.

.

Is that true they get over 500 euro per week in Germany?

volchitsa

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

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.

There's so much that you have zero knowledge of, it's stunning really.
The reason Ireland's population stayed fairly "stable" for decades was due to emigration. IIRC 1986 was the year when for the first time in the history of the state more people came or returned to the country than left it.

But the problem of pension funds is still not Merkel's fault, and leaving the EU won't solve it.

As for your earlier nonsense about healthcare, where you said this:

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.

- is there any chance you would reply to my question rather than try to divert onto yet another rant? How exactly is the EU responsible for problems in funding the NHS? Is it more expensive because of EU citizens coming over? Do you have any figures for that, because it's a two way agreement, so you'll need to take off the numbers of British citizens getting treated in France or retired ex pats in Spain needing care as they age?

Or is it just more fact free ranting?

volchitsa

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Is that true they get over 500 euro per week in Germany?

I don't know how much they get, but I do know that one of the problems is that some of them don't want to apply for aid at all because that requires them to agree to leave if they then fail to get asylum seeker status.

I'm not too sure what the situation is exactly for those people or how many there are, but a friend's son who's studying in Germany has an Iraqi (or Iranian perhaps) neighbour who is in that position. He is housed for free by a generous couple who, like him I suspect, never expected things to still be at the same point five years on. I think if the lad were to have his time over he'd never have come in the first place, but as it is I gather he doesn't feel he can go back with nothing to show for those five years either. It's an awful situation. I think he gets nothing from the state, and doesn't have all the legal documents to work either even though he has a trade.

ambro25

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Is that true they get over 500 euro per week in Germany?

I don't know, and I don't care: that's Germany's business, under their national immigration/asylum legislation as it applies to 3rd party nationals/refugees.

Given the present context of a thread about Brexit and the EU, not sure why you should care either, tbh.

Irishmale0399

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Is that true they get over 500 euro per week in Germany?

I will answer that one for you......they get less than €70 per week as a single. They get basic health insurance and live in holding camps. Families are allowed to, with approval of the local government, rent flats or houses which are subsidized by the German state. Over 80% live in very basic camps, toilets, showers etc. shared.


And may I add as someone who has regular contact to these people....it is not Syrians or Afgans who are problematic...moreso those who come from Tunisia, Egypt or Morrocco claiming to be Syrian. Naturally they all lost their passports before arriving in Germany...but managed to keep their iphones.

Boredstiff666

volchitsa wrote: »

There's so much that you have zero knowledge of, it's stunning really.
The reason Ireland's population stayed fairly "stable" for decades was due to emigration. IIRC 1986 was the year when for the first time in the history of the state more people came or returned to the country than left it.

But the problem of pension funds is still not Merkel's fault, and leaving the EU won't solve it.

As for your earlier nonsense about healthcare, where you said this: - is there any chance you would reply to my question rather than try to divert onto yet another rant? How exactly is the EU responsible for problems in funding the NHS? Is it more expensive because of EU citizens coming over? Do you have any figures for that, because it's a two way agreement, so you'll need to take off the numbers of British citizens getting treated in France or retired ex pats in Spain needing care as they age?

Or is it just more fact free ranting?

No its your inability to understand what is being said to you. Possibly it is your age? I do not know.

For instance I will pick up on your first 'rant' and I will leave the rest because I simply cant be arsed.

I never said why or any reason as to why Irelands population was always around 3.5 million. That isnt the point. The point is it is climbing and fast.

but of course you cant understand this or the other stuff regards healthcare NHS or pensions. Which I can only assume is an age thing and not understanding the history etc.

So continue to rant away. That little room you inhabit must be a noisy one.

Boredstiff666

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

I will answer that one for you......they get less than €70 per week as a single. They get basic health insurance and live in holding camps. Families are allowed to, with approval of the local government, rent flats or houses which are subsidized by the German state. Over 80% live in very basic camps, toilets, showers etc. shared.


And may I add as someone who has regular contact to these people....it is not Syrians or Afgans who are problematic...moreso those who come from Tunisia, Egypt or Morrocco claiming to be Syrian. Naturally they all lost their passports before arriving in Germany...but managed to keep their iphones.

:D:D:D I was talking about German pensions. :D:D

timetogo1

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

:D:D:D I was talking about German pensions. :D:D

Probably should have mentioned that in your question then. The word pension wasnt mentioned in that post at all.

Boredstiff666

timetogo1 wrote: »

Probably should have mentioned that in your question then. The word pension wasnt mentioned in that post at all.

Well this is the problem here. 2 people have a conversation on a topic and others come in. Then read the last posts and assume the post is about what they interpret and not what the conversation replies were actually about.

So for a brief minute you had me down as a anti immigrant blame all on them stinking foreigners person when actually I was blaming the mismanagement of the system by politicians and how it will simply implode very soon.:) Same as another fella who thinks I 'rant'.:)

Irishmale0399

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

:D:D:D I was talking about German pensions. :D:D

Then again I will inform you that no one gets a fixed €500 per month. Pensions are calculated by a percentage of what you pay into the system over the lifetime of your career. Of course people come out with €500 but you also have people who come out with €1800 per month. Anyone under €800 odd euros goes into what they call Harz4 which is Germanys basic social system. That would mean a single person gets approx. €600 per month, free health insurance, rent and in some cases electric and telephone paid. All in all very similar to Ireland if you consider the rental prices in some German cities.

CelticRambler

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

So for a brief minute you had me down as a anti immigrant blame all on them stinking foreigners person when actually I was blaming the mismanagement of the system by politicians and how it will simply implode very soon.:)

Well you're the one who introduced the concept of "immigrants messing up the pensions system" and veered off into talking about Merkel/Germany ... and despite re-reading it, I can't interpret your "500€" question in any way other than asking how much the immigrants are getting.

But anyway:

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

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

...

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.

I happen to agree with you: the burden on working folk is obscene, especially when there's a huge amount of profit being made at corporate level. The problem is that just about everyone has bought into (excuse the pun) this idea that they can enjoy retirement on the back of a few years' work. That's completely unreasonable, and the current system wasn't designed in that way. The "deal" was that you'd get a decent monthly payment for a couple of years - just enough time to sort out your affairs - and then have the good grace to die and take yourself out of the equation.

Now (here in France, at least) we've got the ridiculous situation of people living in retirement longer than they've ever been in work, and complaining vociferously because the guy they elected to change things is changing things, and one of things he wants to change is this whole unsustainable pension situation. None of that is anything to do with Brexit, nothing to do with migrants, and nothing much to do with the EU either, seeing as the people most affected were born before the relevant states of Europe had really got into the swing of this unity thing.

But here's the thing: even if you could magic up the money needed to cover the cost of the pension payments these folk are expecting, a great number of of will not be able to cruise through their post-work years without a considerable amount of help - mostly variations on the theme of "medical" but also variation on the theme of "service industry". Whatever they might have done in their own youth, older people tend to get someone in to fix broken pipes, to change the tyres or the oil in their car, to fix their computer so they can book their holidays on-line, to drive them to the airport ...

Seeing as there are only two countries in Europe that are making enough babies to replace the current population, in a relatively short space of time, there will simply not be enough able-bodied workers around to fulfil all these roles - unless they come in from somewhere else.

Boredstiff666

CelticRambler wrote: »

Well you're the one who introduced the concept of "immigrants messing up the pensions system" and veered off into talking about Merkel/Germany ... and despite re-reading it, I can't interpret your "500€" question in any way other than asking how much the immigrants are getting.

I honestly do not mind what you call me as I would never go running to a mod......unlike some here.

But I was talking about pensions with that fella and trying to find some facts on the internet and this is what I came across........... https://fullfact.org/europe/pensioners-eu-uk/

So please do not accuse me of things I havent or didnt do.

J Mysterio

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

So please do not accuse me of things I havent or didnt do.

Like engaging in honest debate, answering questions sincerely or taking the time to learn something from others or educate yourself on the topic? No one would dare accuse you of anything like that.

Your contributions here - and those of Crypto and a couple of other posters - are beyond pathetic. Makes for nauseating reading, but at least it's a genuine representation of the delinquency of the Brexiteer, and in that context, it's 'helpful'.

Peregrinus

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

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.

But your example involves just one immigrant. Obviously, with just one immigrant, we could manage the social welfare costs easily.

Here in the real world, we don't have just one immigrant; we have many. But here's the thing; in the real world, they are not all 50-year olds with no savings who will be starving on the streets in 15 years time. The great bulk of them are much younger; the great bulk of them work; the net impact of immigration is a contribution to the tax base/social insurance system, not a drain upon it.

Real-world policies on migration have to address the real-world phenomenon of migration, not artificial hypotheticals dreamed up to support a predetermined conclusion.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

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.

Item 1 will not be junked because it's not there in the first place.

The EU are not insisting that trade terms don't cover Gibraltar "until its status is settled with Spain"; you keep saying this but that doesn't make it any truer than it was the first time I pointed out that it was false.

What the EU says (in its draft Council decision authorising negotiations for a UK/EU trade deal) is that it won't make a trade agreement with the UK in respect of Gibraltar, except with the agreement of Spain, the EU country obviously most affected by a Gibraltar trade deal.

Neither the EU nor the Spanish government has said that Spain's agreement will be withheld until the status of Gibraltar is settled to Spain's satisfaction; that is a pure invention. Spain could, in theory, refuse to assent to any Gibraltar trade deal unless the UK cedes its claim to Gibraltar but, equally, the UK could refuse to assent to any Gibraltar trade deal unless Spain cedes its claim to Gibraltar; nothing either country has said or done anything suggests that either of them will take such a position.

Item 2 is proposed to be in the document and, if it makes it in, I think is unlikely to be junked; it's much more likely to be accepted by the UK. The UK was a supporter of the 2014 Directive and has no particular reason to object to its terms being maintained in UK law post-Brexit. Trying to make it easier to fence stolen goods in the London art market is not one of the objectives of even the most libertarian of Brexiters, and the reputational harm that might come from adopting it as an objective is not something the London art world would particularly welcome. I think it makes much more sense for the UK to demonstrate flexibility and pragmatism by saying, in effect, we are not going to junk EU rules just for the sake of it; these particular rules are good rules and we intend to maintain them.

so I predict that, if this makes it into the final version of the Council decision, and if a UK/EU trade deal is successfully concluded, it will contain a clause dealing with the return of unlawfully removed cultural artefacts. (Or altenatively there will be a side agreement about that.)

J Mysterio

Nice thread on proposed UK Immigration policy

https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1230384852018630656

https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1230384862059794432

theological

J Mysterio wrote: »

Like engaging in honest debate, answering questions sincerely or taking the time to learn something from others or educate yourself on the topic? No one would dare accuse you of anything like that.

Your contributions here - and those of Crypto and a couple of other posters - are beyond pathetic. Makes for nauseating reading, but at least it's a genuine representation of the delinquency of the Brexiteer, and in that context, it's 'helpful'.

Is it all Brexit supporters that you find "pathetic"?

Look we should stop personalising the debate and focus on the substance. I'm also happy to learn from a Europhiles perspective even if I strongly disagree with them as a Eurosceptic.

Peregrinus: I don't know how else to read this quotation other than that Spain are asking the EU to ensure that trade terms do not apply to Gibraltar unless its status is resolved. Unless you're saying the Guardian are lying.

Boris Johnson will be presented with the choice of reaching agreement with the Spaniards about Gibraltar’s future or exposing its citizens to economic peril by pushing it outside any EU-UK trade deal.
“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.

That's pretty clear. So the claims are not unjustified.

Now am I actually worried? No because if the choice is between no agreement with the UK or this spat over Gibraltar reason will prevail in the end.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

. . . Peregrinus: I don't know how else to read this quotation other than that Spain are asking the EU to ensure that trade terms do not apply to Gibraltar unless its status is resolved. Unless you're saying the Guardian are lying.

That's pretty clear. So the claims are not unjustified.

Now am I actually worried? No because if the choice is between no agreement with the UK or this spat over Gibraltar reason will prevail in the end.

The extra bit that you're adding in, that's not in the Guardian report or in the EU documents, is that the bilateral talks will be about resolving the status of Gibraltar. They won't; they'll be about the terms of the EU/UK trade deal relating to Gibraltar (which will be a separate document from the EU/UK trade deal relating to the UK). Spain gets a veto over the EU/UK trade deal relating to Gibraltar for the fairly obvious reason that it's the EU member state far and away most affected by that deal.

The Withdrawal Agreement has a Gibraltar Protocol which deals with the Gibraltar/EU relationship during the transition period, and which was also subject to a Spanish veto for the fairly obvious reason just mentioned. That Protocol contains a clause to say that it operates "without prejudice to the respective legal positions of the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom with regard to sovereignty and jurisdiction". I have no doubt that any EU/UK trade deal with respect to Gibraltar will say the same. Spain did not use its veto over the Gibraltar Protocol to try and have the status of Gibraltar resolved; what make you assume that it will use its veto over the trade deal for that purpose?

I agree with you that there will be a trade deal re Gibraltar (assuming, of course, that there is a trade deal re UK itself). Spain and the EU will not "climb down" over the matter of resolving the status of Gibraltar in the context of, or as a precondition to, the trade deal, because neither Spain nor the EU have said or done anything to suggest that they are going to seek this in the first place. You cannot climb down from a position that you have never taken. All of this is just feverish Brexiter speculation, reading their self-regarding paranoia into texts where, in truth, they do not appear.

Leroy42

It's not the Brexit supporters that are pathetic, it's the complete inability for any of them to but together a coherent argument as to the benefits without tieing themselves in knots and contradictions.

An actual plan of what the outcome of all this should actually look like, rather than the vague "things will be better".

An acceptance that, thus far, it's been a complete shambles. Its cost bns, taking over all the political space, massively reduced the UKs standing in the world most notably the EU. That none of what was promised has been delivered.

theological

I didn't say that they are about resolving the status of Gibraltar. I said that the new relationship won't cover Gibraltar unless the territorial claims are resolved. That's in the article.

Therefore the Brexiteers are not imagining this. We need to be transparent and honest when we're claiming things.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

I didn't say that they are about resolving the status of Gibraltar. I said that the new relationship won't cover Gibraltar unless the territorial claims are resolved. That's in the article.

Therefore the Brexiteers are not imagining this. We need to be transparent and honest when we're claiming things.

The Guardian says, in their report, that the talks will be about territorial claims. But the "senior EU diplomat" they quote doesn't say that. He just refers to "bilateral talks with Spain and the UK over the rock", and that's clearly a reference to talks between Spain and the UK about the EU/UK trade deal for Gibraltar. Nothing in the Guardian article seems to justify their claim (or sloppy assumption?) that Spain will seek to resolve the sovereignty issue in connection with the trade deal, and everything that Spain has said and done in relation to the Brexit process so far (together with, as you have pointed out yourself, simple common sense) suggests that it will not.

We need to be transparent and honest when we're claiming things - but also a little bit thoughtful. The Guardian says that Spain will advance its territorial claims, but they offer no reason for thinking that, and there are lots of good reasons for thinking the opposite. So we should perhaps consider that even the mighty Guardian can sometimes get things wrong.

cryptocurrency

Internationally he developed a high profile because of his staunch support of Brussels and some of his anti-Brexit rhetoric.


“He choose to throw his lot in with Juncker and Barnier and make life very difficult for Theresa May.

“In the end, he did a huge U-turn and entered into direct negotiations with the new PM Boris Johnson, agreed to reopen the Withdrawal Agreement and dropped the infamous Backstop, despite giving multiple assurances that he would never do so.”




Great summary of Varadkar. U turn

Boredstiff666

Peregrinus wrote: »

But your example involves just one immigrant. Obviously, with just one immigrant, we could manage the social welfare costs easily.

Here in the real world, we don't have just one immigrant; we have many. But here's the thing; in the real world, they are not all 50-year olds with no savings who will be starving on the streets in 15 years time. The great bulk of them are much younger; the great bulk of them work; the net impact of immigration is a contribution to the tax base/social insurance system, not a drain upon it.

Real-world policies on migration have to address the real-world phenomenon of migration, not artificial hypotheticals dreamed up to support a predetermined conclusion.

No one man was an example. There are actually millions of EU nationals and migrants all stuffed and it is going to cost a lot of dosh. Will the ponzi scheme survive for all countries?

Boredstiff666

https://www.rte.ie/news/europe/2020/0221/1116657-brussels-budget/

The truth is landing now. But I see Macron got there first and secured billions for France.

Wasn't someone slagging off Thatcher a few days ago for securing money back?

Do as your told Leo/Mary! Just the beginning.

Boredstiff666

Leroy42 wrote: »

It's not the Brexit supporters that are pathetic,

Do you do anything but attack and throw insults? If that were me ancapailldorcha's pm box would be full and he would be the happiest man around.

Leroy42

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Do you do anything but attack and throw insults? If that were me ancapailldorcha's pm box would be full and he would be the happiest man around.

How is that an attack? An attack on who? It actually says that they are not pathetic.

Did you read it?

But as usual you ignore the points raised to go off on some tangent.

Do you have any plan of what Brexit will deliver and how to deal with the short term economic impact?

PeadarCo

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Internationally he developed a high profile because of his staunch support of Brussels and some of his anti-Brexit rhetoric.


“He choose to throw his lot in with Juncker and Barnier and make life very difficult for Theresa May.

“In the end, he did a huge U-turn and entered into direct negotiations with the new PM Boris Johnson, agreed to reopen the Withdrawal Agreement and dropped the infamous Backstop, despite giving multiple assurances that he would never do so.”




Great summary of Varadkar. U turn

I do find it amazing that you still don't understand/ignore the purpose of the backstop. The backstop was always last resort the hint is in the name. The minute the UK came up with something better it was always going to reopened. Which is exactly what happened.

May for all her faults actually valued the integrity of the UK while all Johnson cares about is England which is only one part of the UK. Johnson caved in on the EUs demand which means part of the UK will remain in the EU for customs purposes.

Boredstiff666

Leroy42 wrote: »

How is that an attack? An attack on who? It actually says that they are not pathetic.

Did you read it?

But as usual you ignore the points raised to go off on some tangent.

Do you have any plan of what Brexit will deliver and how to deal with the short term economic impact?

I will put that down to in this case maybe a possible accidental mistype?

It's not the Brexit supporters that are pathetic, Is what you actually wrote so I took it to mean that they or some are pathetic

Boredstiff666

The EU are demanding EU countries cough up another .08% of GDP on top of what they pay to finance their climate plan.

No wonder Macron got in their first to secure his farmers cash. Well being as you lot say..... 'we EU nations all sit around the smiley table and agree everything in fluffy happiness'......then I imagine old Phil Hogan agreed to Macrons bank raid? How much did Ireland secure when this was going on?

Anyway I am not good at maths but at a wild guess .08% of GDP for Ireland is an extra 300 million euro??? that we may have to cough up for Germanys pollution and greenhouse gases?