Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

sam1986uk

sam1986uk wrote: »

Only the Irish in Ireland hate the English.

The Irish that have found work and been given an opportunity to build a life in England conveniently find the English and England quite alright

Vast majority of Irish do not hate the English just as vast majority of English don't hate the Irish.

BTW have you read the comment section on the daily mail when Ireland is mentioned these days. Real eye opener.

Strazdas

Dr Cockhound wrote: »

Surely laws draughted by a government that doesn't have to take into account, the effect of those laws on the populations of 26 other nations, are more likely to be specifically tailored to the requirements of that single population?

You could certainly argue that but I fail to see how the ordinary citizen benefits from a law drafted in Westminster rather than Brussels. Plus, how do we know the British law is superior to the EU law? Many people would trust the EU any day over the current (11 year) Conservative government.

Dr Cockhound

Deleted User wrote: »

Vast majority of Irish do not hate the English just as vast majority of English don't hate the Irish.

BTW have you read the comment section on the daily mail when Ireland is mentioned these days. Real eye opener.

I think it would be a grave mistake to judge the calibre of any nation, by the quality if their tabloid newspapers

sam1986uk

Strazdas wrote: »

How does that benefit the ordinary British man or woman in the street?? Isn't this the "imaginary freedom" that Fintan O'Toole speaks of?

I'm a Brexiter and conceded there won't be any tangible benefits to the average person for at least a year at a guess.

In fact, there may be some disruption at the ports while the customs procedures get streamlined and people learn their jobs... I'd probably lean against that though. I bet I'll still be buying Tangerines n Tomatoes in Tesco next month

In the next few years, I think our people will be able to get jobs in warehouses and factories without Magda at agency Human Resources completely bypassing them in favour of another Pole.

Homelessness should decrease as homeless shelter places will be less swamped with Europeans down on their luck plus there will be less demand for social housing.

Social cohesion and a sense of community should improve in towns as people integrate better.

Obviously, there will be more money for Boris to "level up the country" as he puts it.

Dr Cockhound

This is one of the elephants in the room of course.
There's an AI and automation revolution literally around the corner.
Those warehouse and produce picking jobs will literally cease to exist.
New jobs and industries are going to have to be invented and a lot of this innovation is already gathering pace in the Far East.
With disruption comes opportunity.

fash

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Agreed, the relationship between the EU and U.K. will now be worse, this is a guarantee.

What I’m saying is depending on what the U.K. manage to do moving forwards will dictate whether their economy flourishes or diminishes. This is what is yet to be seen.

They could end up negotiating worse deals than the rollovers they’ve currently got, or they could get better ones.

They could end up joining RCEP and absolutely fly it. That’s been touted as their best ambition.

None of these things are known or guaranteed, that’s why I said it’s funny seeing all the different posts saying they’re gonna be begging the world for handouts etc.

It will be very interesting what happens next, we all know Boris is a complete chancer, but that Rishi has a bit about himself....

Covid has the world running huge deficits at the moment so this could likely shield them from what outwardly would look like a big drop in productivity etc.

This is incorrect: the EU is the UK's biggest trading partner and its neighbour. Trade gravity (i.e. double distance, half the trade) means the EU will remain the UK's most important trading partner. They UK's new relationship with the EU will reduce its GDP by 5-6% compared to what it otherwise would have been. Other trade agreements are in relation to trade flows that are too small to change the overall loss.
Aside from service providers leaking to the EU, due to rules of origin issues in no longer being in the EU, what the UK will particularly lose is its manufacturing eco system. It itself is too small to sustain e.g. a number of "car headlamp manufacturers", there is an incentive for EU companies to buy European (to keep their % content for rules of origin purposes high)- so the UK will start to bleed these type companies - eventually making car manufacturing etc impossible.

fash

Deshawn wrote: »

50,000 long term stable tax paying jobs created you mean?

The UK may now make trade deals with individual countries that were not possible when in the EU

Hey you know how they could make things even better - employ 100,000 to run around burning down people's houses. That will create not only 100,000 long term stable tax paying jobs - but also wonderful opportunities for the construction industry. I think you are on to a wonderful idea there - how come no one in the past ever thought of this genius idea?

fash

Deshawn wrote: »

They have a trade deal with the EU. They are also working on rolling over the deal with 70 countries who the EU also have a deal with. Mexico is the latest to be agreed. They have also a signed free trade deal with Japan and are currently under negotiation with the United States (worlds biggest economy) Australia and New Zealand. The EU don't have a free trade deal with those 3 and are actually engaged in a trade war with the Us.

So to summarize the UK keep the EU trade deal which involves 70 countries and are adding more. The United States could be a huge one.

Whether these deals come to fruition is a different story but wouldn't have been possible while an EU member.

The US deal (the "huge one" as you call it) if it happens would result in a 0.07% increase in UK GDP after 15 years - and tie the UK into eye watering terms favouring the US.

That is the problem with trade deals - you need to understand the underlying trade flows. It is not possible for the UK to come close to replacing what it has lost - that is a question of mathematics.

sam1986uk

A trade deal with the largest economy on the planet and a fellow anglophone country results in a "0.07% increase in UK GDP after 15 years"

I'm no expert but even i think that's a bit off

fash

sam1986uk wrote: »

There's a great irony here.. If the EU (and Poland) had been reasonable back in 2016 regarding the benefits for EU nationals I reckon we'd have voted Remain and none of this 4-year drama would ever have happened ��

The EU was more than reasonable - Cameron failed because he asked for nonsense.

We have a system where anyone can waltz up in our country. Do a bit of work for a few months and instantly open up the welfare system where they can drain thousands over the course of their lifetime.

And yet even with all of these apocryphal "scroungers" the UK economy and tax take from healthy hard working and educated Eastern European migrants was massive.

sam1986uk

fash wrote: »

The EU was more than reasonable - Cameron failed because he asked for nonsense.

And yet even with all of these apocryphal "scroungers" the UK economy and tax take from healthy hard working and educated Eastern European migrants was massive.

They took that "tax take" back in the form of tax credits and housing benefits and much much more.

Migrants from Western Europe probably make a net contribution or break even.

fash

sam1986uk wrote: »

A trade deal with the largest economy on the planet and a fellow anglophone country results in a "0.07% increase in UK GDP after 15 years"

I'm no expert but even i think that's a bit off

Research it - once you have and understand why it is so low, you'll understand why brexit is a silly idea.

The DIT said that such a deal could boost trade between 0.07% and 0.16%
https://www.ft.com/content/3aef20b0-5c8f-11ea-8033-fa40a0d65a98

(Note the 0.16% upper range is hopelessly optimistic to try to show some benefit to their Brexity overlords).

Lumen

sam1986uk wrote: »

We have a system where anyone can waltz up in our country. Do a bit of work for a few months and instantly open up the welfare system where they can drain thousands over the course of their lifetime.

They can, but they don't, for exactly the same reasons that British born people can, but don't. People, in the main, want to work.

The views you're espousing come straight out of the Daily Express and have no basis in reality. Have you read any research about the fiscal effects of migration, or do you hold these beliefs because "it's obvious"? You could start here:

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/

Yes, it is true that there are differences in aggregate between the fiscal contributions of people from EU10, EU15 and non-EEA countries, but much of the differences can be explained by the timing of when they have children and how those children are accounted for.

More concerning is the gap between the skills of workers in some of those groups and the jobs they get. It is quite possible that the reason they're not reaching their full potential is negative discrimination or simply that their professional qualifications are not recognised.

Does that last bit ring a bell? It should do. Automatic recognition of professional qualifications is one of the many things that British citizens are losing by leaving the EU. You're inflicting the same disadvantages on yourselves as have held back migrants in your country from making an even more positive contribution.

In any case, even if it was clear that some types of migrant are more valuable than others when you reduce people down to pure cash terms, there is simply no basis in reality for the idea that migrants are a net drain on the country's resources, as the content of that link reveals.

Moreover, even if you take the view (by cherry picking evidence) that non-EEA migrants are less valuable, and decided that the UK should pick and choose its migrants to maximise fiscal contribution, it could have done so already by reducing non-EEA migration which it was entitled to do as a member of the EU. Leaving the EU has only succeeded in putting off the high value migrants, both by creating a perception that they're not welcome, and by threatening the high value jobs that they are qualified to work in (like financial services).



Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/august2020

So what Brexit has done is achieved exactly the opposite of your stated objective, ill informed though it was.

I welcome a counterargument based on evidence rather than handwaving.

schmoo2k

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

I’ve been a long time lurker on here and it’s been funny to read both sides, you’ve got the real Brit haters who keep saying it’s a disaster for the U.K. and they’re stuck and lost and all that, then the ones that don’t hate the Brits saying that they’re won X and got Y.....

Absolutely no one here knows what has benefited either side to the extent that in 5 or 10 years time where either side will be.

The U.K. have negotiated roll over deals with various countries at the same levels as they had with the EU, this seems like a win for now to me seeing as these deals are sold as the best any EU27 can get as it’s based on the whole. The Japan deal I believe also included some financial services.

There have been promising signals from 4 of the members of RCEP which is now the largest trading bloc in the world.

The EU have maintained the fishing rights bar a small percentage loss for the next 5 years and ensured the sanctity of the single market.

The U.K. have small extensions on most of the financial services parts but the EU have full control on whether they offer equivalence, albeit I read that this loss would only account for around 20% of U.K. financial services?

Appreciate this is only a few areas of a couple thousand pages of legal jargon but I don’t see a cut and dry winner myself but we can only wait and see.

Will be interesting to see who ends up right.

Not sure "winning" is the correct term? With Brexit both the EU and the UK lose, the deal helps mitigate some of that loss with a trade deal primarily focused on goods - time will tell which side has lost more, but I don't see any winners.

IMO the only "win" is that now (finally) both sides can move on without this distraction.

Zubeneschamali

schmoo2k wrote: »

IMO the only "win" is that now (finally) both sides can move on without this distraction.

The agreement sets up a dozen or so eu-uk committees to continue negotiating everything forever. It will literally never end.

schmoo2k

Dr Cockhound wrote: »

It's very easy to become fixated on this one moment in time, whereas what plays out in the future, is where the bigger picture lies.
Some would argue that the future doesn't lie with the EU or US.


There were detractors within the UK who made little of the fiscal value of the trade deal, rolled over between Japan and the UK.
The ultimate higher stakes are within Japan's willing sponsorship of the UK application to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership.


This is quite an interesting opinion on the subject.

Yup - in the next 10->100 years China and Co. will be the new USA (from an educated migrant work point of view) - they are already ahead in many cutting edge technologies and the real shift in recent years has been from "copying" the western worlds inventions, to education and now R&D (with Chinese as the primary language). Just look at their advances in Space, AI and Quantum computing.

Ironically Ireland may be very well positioned to accommodate these new multinationals powerhouses as they look to get footholds in the EU and USA (although they will probably have a tighter alliance with Canada in N. America).

Enzokk

I see we are fighting the Brexit referendum again with the same lies on here. It is not a surprise, when you got what you wanted and it will turn out not to be all you hoped for you go back to what you were fighting at the beginning, as sam1986uk is showing.

sam1986uk wrote: »

The budget contributions are nothing compared to the savings made on not paying a never-ending stream of EU citizens Tax Credits, Housing Benefits.

Then there are the savings made by NOT paying British citizens the same benefits because they can get some work now.

Then there are a million treasury benefits that are too numerous to list.

But EU migrants pay more to the treasury than the average adult? With the benefits they take, which they are entitled to, they are still a net benefit.

THE FISCAL IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION ON THE UK

European migrants living in the UK contribute £2,300 more to public purse each year than the average adult, suggesting a net contribution of £78,000 to the exchequer over their lifespan in the UK.

In preparation for Brexit, the government asked its Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to report on the economic and social impacts of EU migrants in the UK. The MAC commissioned Oxford Economics to analyse the fiscal implications of immigration using the most up-to-date data and sophisticated modelling techniques.

The resulting study, The Fiscal Impact of Immigration on the UK, represents the most comprehensive assessment to date of the net contribution that all migrants make to the UK’s public finances.

The study finds that

The average UK-based migrant from Europe contributed approximately £2,300 more to UK public finances in 2016/17 than the average UK adult. In comparison, each UK born adult contributed £70 less than the average, and each non-European migrant contributed over £800 less than the average.

The average European migrant arriving in the UK in 2016 will contribute £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits over their time spent in the UK (assuming a balanced national budget), and the average non-European migrant will make a positive net contribution of £28,000 while living here. By comparison, the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution in this scenario is zero.

Taken together, this means that the migrants who arrived in 2016 will make a total net positive contribution of £26.9 billion to the UK’s public finances over the entirety of their stay. The value of this to the UK’s public finances is equivalent to putting approximately 5p on income tax rates (across all marginal rate bands) in that year.

Seems you want them foreigners from the EU to pay into the treasury but not claim what they are entitled to.

sam1986uk wrote: »

There's a great irony here.. If the EU (and Poland) had been reasonable back in 2016 regarding the benefits for EU nationals I reckon we'd have voted Remain and none of this 4-year drama would ever have happened ��

We have a system where anyone can waltz up in our country. Do a bit of work for a few months and instantly open up the welfare system where they can drain thousands over the course of their lifetime.

No, whatever Cameron came back with was not going to be enough. Because the ERG and Farage finally got what they wanted, a chance at a referendum. Do you think they were going to give that up for a few concessions on benefits that Cameron was looking for?

EU reform deal: What Cameron wanted and what he got

If you read that you will see Cameron got a lot of concessions, but those wanting to leave the EU didn't care.

Nody

Dr Cockhound wrote: »

This is one of the elephants in the room of course.
There's an AI and automation revolution literally around the corner.
Those warehouse and produce picking jobs will literally cease to exist.

sam1986uk wrote: »

I'm a Brexiter and conceded there won't be any tangible benefits to the average person for at least a year at a guess.

In the next few years, I think our people will be able to get jobs in warehouses and factories without Magda at agency Human Resources completely bypassing them in favour of another Pole.

Seems even the Brexiteers can't agree the future of the country. However Sam as a side note as the fact EU immigration was a net positive has already been posted, Boris leveling up money will be very thin on the ground. Don't believe me? Have a look at how the promised replacement of EU funds have gone so far; it's roughly 10% of what EU paid out. Don't you think Boris would have paid out the full amount and then some from all that money they are going to make from the EU savings?

RobAMerc

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Has the NHS received 350 million a week?

That was a promised outcome of brexit literally painted on side of bus and driven up and down the country

It was also the very first promise they had to retract - literally the day after they won the vote.

Chips Lovell

I've deleted a few posts. If you've an issue with someone's posts, report them and leave it to the mods. Calling it out on thread just contributes to the problem.

Also, let's not make this personal. No more Irish bashing, English bashing, or allegations of either.

Thanks

CelticRambler

sam1986uk wrote: »

There's a great irony here.. If the EU (and Poland) had been reasonable back in 2016 regarding the benefits for EU nationals I reckon we'd have voted Remain and none of this 4-year drama would ever have happened ��

We have a system where anyone can waltz up in our country. Do a bit of work for a few months and instantly open up the welfare system where they can drain thousands over the course of their lifetime.

Well, that's the law your British Government chose to write when other EU states enacted much tighter rules, keeping a lid on benefit tourism. This was a British Government voted into power by the British electorate, and voted back into power by the same electorate several times since. What makes you think the same British Government is suddenly doing to start drafting the kind of laws you want now when they could have done it at any time in the last twenty years and didn't?

Deshawn wrote: »

The EU laws are voted on by member states. Countries pooling their opinion and then following those laws win or lose.

The laws are now drafted in the UK by UK politicians and the people. The Germans, French, Greeks etc have no vote on the law the UK will be following anymore.

That's sovereignty

You're forgetting one small point: the Germans, French, Greeks, etc will vote on laws that they think suit the EU, then show them to the UK and say: "see this - you need to match it or we close the gates [see Switzerland]" Until Brexit, the UK had a say on EU-wide law making; now Parliament will simply "be informed" of the new rules (yes, that's in the agreement).

That's sovereignty too.

CelticRambler

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

What I’m saying is depending on what the U.K. manage to do moving forwards will dictate whether their economy flourishes or diminishes. This is what is yet to be seen.

And here we're back to the promise of sunny uplands and organic unicorns that's characterised the whole Brexit saga. To make such a huge change to the country's overwhelmingly beneficial status quo in favour of something that even the most ardent supporter of Brexit cannot define in concrete terms is far more likely to create serious socio-economic damage than achieve anything approaching the status quo, never mind getting into "flourishes" territory.

"What the U.K. manage to do" is a meaningless phrase unless you can point to specific examples of what the UK could not do as an EU member and that were having a negative impact on the UK economy. Falling back on the mantra "freedom to sign new trade deals" is not a win or a benefit unless you can identify particular products or services and particular trading partners that will make a signfiicant difference, and to date, no Brexiter contributing to this thread has been able to find even one. Meanwhile, Ireland (tiny EU member, quite happy with the arrangement) is outpacing the UK in trade with several third countries, most notably China.

So what "is yet to be seen" isn't exactly as much of an unknown as you imply. In the post-war era, up to the 70s, Britain struggled to create a vibrant economy. After joining the EEC->EU, Britain made great progress. Until the 2000s, when Britain again started struggling to keep its place in the world despite the concurrent leaps in other EU members' status (but also concurrent with the Brexiter rot infecting domestic politics). History, economic data and face-slapping common sense all point towards Britain declining (or being overtaken) at a faster rate than in the last twenty years - with nothing, absolutely nothing, to indicate otherwise.

Donald Trump

sam1986uk wrote: »

In the next few years, I think our people will be able to get jobs in warehouses and factories without Magda at agency Human Resources completely bypassing them in favour of another Pole.

It always comes to a hatred of the Poles for some reason.



"Your" people can't be forever looking for scapegoats as to why they personally can't get a job in a warehouse.




I only use "your" because you said "our". I don't know what that "our" encompasses. So I used "your" to refer to whoever you were referring to

CelticRambler

The Director General of the CBI was interviewed there on Sky a few minutes ago, and repeated one small factual error several times over, which I think perfectly encapsulates the British Government's failure to handle the Brexit process in a professional manner: Mr. Danker kept referring to measures that need to be taken by UK exporters by Friday night; the EU's new controls come into effect on Thursday night - at 23h00 GMT 31st Dec.

ancapailldorcha

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I've deleted a few posts. If you've an issue with someone's posts, report them and leave it to the mods. Calling it out on thread just contributes to the problem.

Also, let's not make this personal. No more Irish bashing, English bashing, or allegations of either.

Thanks

Two posts have been deleted and sanctions issued for ignoring this.

HalfAndHalf

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I strongly disagree with this narative.

What has yet to be seen is if, after much needless short term pain, the UK emerges marginally worse off, or significantly worse off. There is no reality in which the UK flourishes and becomes better off as a result of Brexit.

You are more than entitled to your opinion, but from what you're saying, you think the U.K. will be worse off forever more based on them having a worse relationship with the EU......and that’s it.

Why would this be? So you think that’s it now forever, the U.K. will not make any other deals for the rest of eternity? That’s insane!

HalfAndHalf

Imreoir2 wrote: »

What not hire millions of them then?

Good luck to the UK, a market of 60 million, trying to get a better trade deal with anyone than the EU, a market of 450 million. The UK are not going to fare well.

And the basis for this is what exactly? What is a ‘better trade deal’? A deal is something that both sides agree to based on getting the majority of what they want while giving away as little as possible of what they don’t.....if a deal was that bad they wouldn’t sign up to it.

HalfAndHalf

SNIP. Leave this tangent alone please. There has been a mod warning about this.

PeadarCo

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Details of fishing aspects answering some of questions from earlier in thread

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-55458989



I think as more time passes this will be a repeat of May with parliament voting down the deal with result being a North Korean style brexit

What's interesting about this is how the fundamentals of the EU position haven't changed. The more access to the EU market the UK wants, the more EU rules it must accept. This was something that was not acknowledged in the Brexit debate before the referendum or called project fear. It hasn't really being acknowledged since either, May's contradictory redlines being one example. Unless this accepted by politicians and the UK public as a whole this thread or at least a version of it has years to run.

What will be interesting is the reaction of politicians and the public in the UK next week and over the next few months as the agreement goes into effect. For the last 4 years or so to a certain degree everything as been a bit abstract.

I hope you are wrong about the agreement blowing up once the implications become clear on the UK side but word is hope.

Sam Russell

Donald Trump wrote: »

It always comes to a hatred of the Poles for some reason.

The Poles fought gallantly in WW II, particularly in the RAF, and it was greatly appreciated by the general British population. Not a bad word was ever said against them - unlike the attitude to the Irish. (No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish) This appreciation lasted until Poland joined the EU and Polish plumbers* arrived and 'started taking local jobs'.

*I]Well, they were not all plumbers or even very many were actual plumbers, but alliteration always wins.[/I

The immigrant always works harder than the locals, lives more frugally, is younger and fitter - it just is that way, and always was - throughout the world. No point in a 60 year old migrating to a new country to start over in life, unless it is to escape persecution and warfare.

However, a twenty something, fit and well educated, ambition filled, emigrant wants to make the best of their talents, and you do not do that on welfare. No, they work hard and put up with whatever hardship is thrown at them. They will survive - and prosper. They will become more local than the locals.

The NHS is full of well qualified migrants - nurses and doctors, and it would not function without them. In fact, it is struggling as many EU migrants have up sticks and gone home, or elsewhere, since the Brexit vote.