Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

No, but it is a single community, in the same way that EU concessions are (usually) extended to all EEA member states.

This looks to me like Britain shooting itself in yet another body part: now that the word is out, as soon as they start looking for some modification to the TCA, they'll find themselves being told asked to grant equal treatment to the citizens of all EU member states.

The biggest losers from this will be the companies that import cheap labour each year.

Leroy42

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The biggest losers from this will be the companies that import cheap labour each year.

The biggest losers of this will be the citizens of the UK

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

The biggest losers from this will be the companies that import cheap labour each year.

Which companies? Be specific please.

murphaph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nothing at all, just another bit of Brit bashing, a hobby round here for some.

In all fairness most of us had no bother with Brits or Britain before they dragged us into their Brexit mire. I certainly didn't.

If we had no land border and no NI "stuff" we'd be much more impartial observers akin to the Dutch or Belgians.

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes there is a whole section of the US department of state dealing with it, it also extends to penalties for foreigners who commit crimes while in the US.
For example is a US diplomat is issued with parking tickets in another country, the US would ensure that the diplomats of those countries would get the same tickets when they transgress. The US can make life very difficult for foreigners if their country is hostile to US citizens.



https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/Visa-Reciprocity-and-Civil-Documents-by-Country.html/

Thank you for expanding on my post with extra details.

yagan

Deleted User wrote: »

The biggest losers from this will be the companies that import cheap labour each year.

I've always suspected the Hong Kong visa deal was to shore up a labour shortfall. They're being touted as being highly educated and rich, but the reality wealthy and rich Hong Kongers were never short of golden passport options.

London knows that the ones most likely to avail of the offer are just average working people or criminals looking for an exit, and the Chinese won't stop them leaving.

Britain created the British National Overseas status for Hong Kongers in the 1980s to restrict them from moving freely to Britain when is was still a remnant of empire and that status couldn't be passed onto the next generation.

After the Sea Border betrayal unionists would want to aware that they too could end up with BNO status too one day.

RobMc59

yagan wrote: »

I've always suspected the Hong Kong visa deal was to shore up a labour shortfall. They're being touted as being highly educated and rich, but the reality wealthy and rich Hong Kongers were never short of golden passport options.

London knows that the ones most likely to avail of the offer are just average working people or criminals looking for an exit, and the Chinese won't stop them leaving.

Britain created the British National Overseas status for Hong Kongers in the 1980s to restrict them from moving freely to Britain when is was still a remnant of empire and that status couldn't be passed onto the next generation.

After the Sea Border betrayal unionists would want to aware that they too could end up with BNO status too one day.

The chinese government are already trying to stop them leaving by refusing to recognise the British National overseas passport and your comment about people being average or criminals is uncalled for.

fash

RobMc59 wrote: »

The chinese government are already trying to stop them leaving by refusing to recognise the British National overseas passport and your comment about people being average or criminals is uncalled for.

Well I never- a brexiter who cares about racism - you'll be denouncing the British history of murder rape and genocide next.

ujjjjjjjjj

CelticRambler wrote: »

As someone professionally involved in disease control and vaccination, and thirty years' experience in dealing with coronaviruses, I've held off reacting to this tangent, until now. But ...



"faster and cheaper" is very rarely consistent with good regulation, regardless of the product or service being regulated - except, of course, that the EMA was established to make pan-European medicines authorisation more efficient (and, as a consequence, cheaper [and also more respectful of animal welfare]).

But if you're going down that road, your whole argument is completely undermined by the Pandemrix narcolepsy story: a vaccine produced by a British company, authorised by the EMA - based at the time in London, not least because of the experience of the MHRA - in September 2009 and almost a year later began to be implicated in life-changing narocoleptic effects on some vaccinated individuals, those initial reports coming from Scandinavia. Everything you suggest might be good about the current British approvals process was very definitely bad in respect of Pandemrix, when the EMA was based in Britain. The lesson learnt from that? Don't rush vaccine approvals.

There is nothing about the vaccine approval process or the procurement or the roll-out of the vaccination programmes in the UK or the EU that has anything to do with Brexit; nothing; not a thing. And there are huge deficiencies on both sides of the Channel/Irish Sea in respect of just about every aspect of the handling of this pandemic, which have nothing to do with Brexit either.

And yet here we are, on this particular forum, with pages and pages and pages and pages of posts trying to twist skimpy research on initial antibody responses to a still poorly understood virus (that sometimes triggers a potentially serious disease) into arguments around a notional Brexit dividend. Strawmen all over the place. :mad:

Can we please get back to talking about rotting fish and empty shelves in M&S and other stuff that is, in fact, part of the Brave New Brexit World.

We can get back to talking about rotting fish soon !!

I wasn't specifically referring to faster and cheaper etc in relation to the narrow field of vaccine approvals , but even in this field yes they are normally uncomfortable bed fellows but when you have a situation like Covid speed most certainly is relevant.

Nothing is guaranteed with vaccine or any medicine approvals as even with large scale clinical trials issues can slip through which only raise their head in much wider scale use in diverse populations. Pandemrix as I understand it slipped through the net and had some rare narcolepsy issues but it was approved by the EMA although I am not sure what relevance it has to mention it was based I the UK at the time. It was a European body so it's mistake was a shared EU mistake so to speak. Through history many drugs have slipped through the net which either get authorisation removed at a later date or amended use or restricted use.

So far with the AZ vaccine we have the MHRA and the EMA approving it. It is a fact that the MHRA approved the vaccine ahead of the EU and the UK vaccine roleout is factually well ahead of the EU and it is largely to do with an earlier approval. It's a good news story which heaven forbid is British.

As I have said it isn't necessarily a Brexit win as the MHRA may well have done exactly what it did anyway with the UK opting to approve the vaccine ahead of the EU even if Brexit have never raised its head. But there is a logical counter argument to suggest the UK if it had stayed in the EU would have waited for EMA approval whereas post Brexit it could act differently. If you honestly believe that absolutely nothing good can come from a country operating outside of the EU that is fine but there may be some benefit to Britain from Brexit. Will this benefit outweigh the obvious benefits of EU membership, really I don't know and there is plenty of evidence to suggest not but it is early days. I suspect we will have to look back in 10 or 15 years to make an honest assessment.

I don't belive the EU is perfect and perhaps it is no harm to consider that if Britain heaven forbid does have some positives from Brexit that European countries could benefit from pushing some reform in the EU.

Then again in 10 years we may be looking back at Brexit going that was disaster but let's not just turn it into a simple game of British = bad and EU = good.

Personally I really don't care either way whether Brexit was responsible for speeding up vaccine approval in the UK , just delighted that the MHRA moved quickly as we can see the benefit in the UK of quick vaccination and it can only benefit NI and Ireland. It also possibly opens the door to Ireland sourcing some AZ vaccines through the UK if there more supply issues through the EU. Not likely but jeepers hardly an issue having it there if needed and the UK will want Ireland vaccinated ASAP due to the CTA and open border. Honestly all I am interested in is getting quick vaccine roleouts.

Some posts on here are suggesting that the MHRA took a gamble which I think is entirely over the top as it discredits a well respected agency with no basis in fact. We stand now in a place where the MHRA and EMA agree on the AZ vaccine which is great. Hopefully it all goes well from here.

Just as a parting point, have a think about the situation and how it would have played out if the UK vaccine roleout and approvals was behind that of the EU, we would all be rolling around the place going on and on and on about Brexit and how they made their bed etc etc.

Now we can get back to rotting fish, empty shelves, amazon parcels and laughing at Farage.......

yagan

RobMc59 wrote: »

The chinese government are already trying to stop them leaving by refusing to recognise the British National overseas passport and your comment about people being average or criminals is uncalled for.

When I lived in Australia people were proud of their crim heritage.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Which companies? Be specific please.

Mainly the fruit & veg plantations in the east of the country mainly around Lincolnshire.
We all remember the Keelings fiasco last year when the workers were imported in the face of opposition due to the COVID crisis, those farmers in England will have to pay extra import charges this year.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Mainly the fruit & veg plantations in the east of the country mainly around Lincolnshire.
We all remember the Keelings fiasco last year when the workers were imported in the face of opposition due to the COVID crisis, those farmers in England will have to pay extra import charges this year.

That's farmers. It's a little bit misleading to say companies. The UK has a minimum wage so the immigrants in fruit picking aren't going to be any cheaper than British workers.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: No spellchecking please.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's farmers. It's a little bit misleading to say companies. The UK has a minimum wage so the immigrants in fruit picking aren't going to be any cheaper than British workers.

Not really, the farmers subcontract the work out to subcontractor companies who have been known to claim to pay the legal minimum wage while in fact paying the minimum wage of the home county of the migrant workers.

ArmaniJeanss

Deleted User wrote: »

Not really, the farmers subcontract the work out to subcontractor companies who have been known to claim to pay the legal minimum wage while in fact paying the minimum wage of the home county of the migrant workers.

The Hong Kong people won't really be a direct replacement though as their circumstances are different.
As I understand it the Eastern European fruit-picker workers are flown in for a 2 month stay, then head off to Spain or France to do something similar. And to an extent they exist in a grey zone where as you say their contracts can be phrased in such a way as to underpay them.

But these HK people are going to be permanent residents of the UK, presumably with all the employment rights that entails. They may not be au fait with those rights straight away, but I expect that will change quickly.
And a key point is they'll obviously have no right to work in Spain or Portugal etc, so they can't be shipped off for another few months of low-pay/cash-in-hand work by the contractors.

ArmaniJeanss

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The Hong Kong people won't really be a direct replacement though as their circumstances are different.
As I understand it the Eastern European fruit-picker workers are flown in for a 2 month stay, then head off to Spain or France to do something similar. And to an extent they exist in a grey zone where as you say their contracts can be phrased in such a way as to underpay them.

But these HK people are going to be permanent residents of the UK, presumably with all the employment rights that entails. They may not be au fait with those rights straight away, but I expect that will change quickly.
And a key point is they'll obviously have no right to work in Spain or Portugal etc, so they can't be shipped off for another few months of low-pay/cash-in-hand work by the contractors.

I never mentioned Hong Kong, not once did I mention Hong Kong, not at all, at all.

ArmaniJeanss

Deleted User wrote: »

I never mentioned Hong Kong.

You didn't. Fair point, my mistake.
I thought you were replying to the person who'd mentioned HK, and I totally misinterpreted your point. Mea culpa.

ArmaniJeanss

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

You didn't. Fair point, my mistake.
I thought you were replying to the person who'd mentioned HK, and I totally misinterpreted your point. Mea culpa.

No worries, but just to continue with my point about the farmers,


I've just seen this!

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55948431

'I harvest 70 million daffodils a year but £1 a bunch can't last'



Matthew says he is glad to pay his field workers good wages. "There aren't many daffodil growers left. Field workers are skilled, they require good wages and they are in demand.


"We have fewer migrants workers coming in and when there's a shortage of labour that means the people who are good will end up working for the best employers with the best money.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Not really, the farmers subcontract the work out to subcontractor companies who have been known to claim to pay the legal minimum wage while in fact paying the minimum wage of the home county of the migrant workers.

Have you a source for this? That's almost certainly illegal.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Have you a source for this? That's almost certainly illegal.

I don't have a source to hand, but there have certainly been court cases where contractors have underpaid foreign workers.


The only incident I know of for certain is immigrant non-EU workers being underpaid and winning compensation for the lost wages. I managed to find it.



https://www.hinduismtoday.com/blogs-news/hindu-press-international/indian-workers-win-us-160-000-pay-out/129.html

ALPERTON, ENGLAND: Indian stonemasons who were paid a mere US$0.96 an hour have won $160,000 in compensation from their employers. The 10 men, all from the same region in India, were working on the construction of a $11.2 million Sanatan Hindu temple in Alperton, North London. Their employers, Shirco Ltd, based in North London, have been ordered to pay the money to the workers following an investigation by the Inland Revenue. The pay, retroactive to their hire date, will bring their salaries up to the minimum wage of $5.92, which is only a fraction of the wage many qualified stonemasons earn. Enticed to work in Britain by promises of high wages the men had their passports taken from them on arrival. They were told that if they disobeyed they would be sacked and have to find their own way back to India. They lived in a shack on the temple site. One stonemason earned just $200 a month while working eight hours a day, six days a week. The case has disturbed many in Britain's one million strong Hindu community.

dwayneshintzy

yagan wrote: »

I've always suspected the Hong Kong visa deal was to shore up a labour shortfall. They're being touted as being highly educated and rich, but the reality wealthy and rich Hong Kongers were never short of golden passport options.

London knows that the ones most likely to avail of the offer are just average working people or criminals looking for an exit, and the Chinese won't stop them leaving.

Britain created the British National Overseas status for Hong Kongers in the 1980s to restrict them from moving freely to Britain when is was still a remnant of empire and that status couldn't be passed onto the next generation.

After the Sea Border betrayal unionists would want to aware that they too could end up with BNO status too one day.

The "wealthy and rich" Hong Kongers you're talking about here are more likely to be pro-Beijing than anything, so you're right. They're unlikely to leave due BNO changes that the UK are introducing.


It's fantasy to suggest that all of the Hong Kong immigrants to the UK will be highly educated, wealthy, etc as the UK government has implied. Equally, it's not right to say that they will only be "criminals" or the working poor. I'd definitely say that the majority of people who are interested in going over will be relatively middle-class and university educated with decent English language skills.

Leroy42

Yer another industry that is going to be negatively effected by brexit, the availability of Au Pairs.

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1357960033372426240?s=19

Now, I'm not for a second suggesting that this is a major topic, but it highlights yet again the consequences of the Brexit decision that seemingly the majority of people, including government, never even considered.

I know to many here its been apparent from the start, but it is clear now that the majority of people who voted for Brexit didn't understand the implications of that vote.

Every way you look at it, at best Brexit will result in higher costs. From government right the way down to food in shops.

beggars_bush

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yer another industry that is going to be negatively effected by brexit, the availability of Au Pairs.

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1357960033372426240?s=19

Now, I'm not for a second suggesting that this is a major topic, but it highlights yet again the consequences of the Brexit decision that seemingly the majority of people, including government, never even considered.

I know to many here its been apparent from the start, but it is clear now that the majority of people who voted for Brexit didn't understand the implications of that vote.

Every way you look at it, at best Brexit will result in higher costs. From government right the way down to food in shops.

And that affects the better off in Britain
Tough luck to them

ancapailldorcha

Frankly, it's a bit cute of Foster to use the term "working families". He's not technically wrong but au pairs are people who are employed by the upper and upper middle classes. A close friend of mine here is an au pair and she's been doing it for decades and she seems to only ever have worked for very high earners who send their children to private schools (called public schools here for some reason).

I think a lot of people who voted for Brexit were middle class people who knew they'd be insulated from its effects or at least they thought they would. People with steady jobs that aren't going anywhere in the short term like the trades. Any change in public mood is going to be measured by these people more than the working classes.

listermint

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Frankly, it's a bit cute of Foster to use the term "working families". He's not technically wrong but au pairs are people who are employed by the upper and upper middle classes. A close friend of mine here is an au pair and she's been doing it for decades and she seems to only ever have worked for very high earners who send their children to private schools (called public schools here for some reason).

I think a lot of people who voted for Brexit were middle class people who knew they'd be insulated from its effects or at least they thought they would. People with steady jobs that aren't going anywhere in the short term like the trades. Any change in public mood is going to be measured by these people more than the working classes.

I think that's the irrationality of it. The trades are the ones that survive. You wont have middle class people fixing their own heating boilers. So whilst your IT job can be shipped of to the czech republic with the flick of a HR switch. Your plumber and sparks are constantly needed to install service and repair your house and every other building in the country.

yagan

listermint wrote: »

I think that's the irrationality of it. The trades are the ones that survive. You wont have middle class people fixing their own heating boilers. So whilst your IT job can be shipped of to the czech republic with the flick of a HR switch. Your plumber and sparks are constantly needed to install service and repair your house and every other building in the country.

When you look at it from the White Van man perspective it's easy to see the allure of Brexit if it increases their bargaining power domestically.

The UK may decline overall but the guilds that keeps things ticking over are pretty well positioned. It was after all the guilds of London that formed the backbone of Cromwells army, so it's easy to see how the whole England first narrative is deep welded.

looksee

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Bbc have an in depth article of form filing creating jobs, finally a positive for brexit

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55887043

I realise this is not something created just to annoy brexiters, but really that is ridiculous - even the amount of time that a European country has to take to check the forms should be enough to get it streamlined.

schmoo2k

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Frankly, it's a bit cute of Foster to use the term "working families". He's not technically wrong but au pairs are people who are employed by the upper and upper middle classes. A close friend of mine here is an au pair and she's been doing it for decades and she seems to only ever have worked for very high earners who send their children to private schools (called public schools here for some reason).

I think a lot of people who voted for Brexit were middle class people who knew they'd be insulated from its effects or at least they thought they would. People with steady jobs that aren't going anywhere in the short term like the trades. Any change in public mood is going to be measured by these people more than the working classes.

I was under the impression that the pro-brexit folks were a combination of the older generation and poorer less educated areas (traditional industrial areas outside London)? All the folks I know in the middle / upper class bracket were pro remain - happy to stand corrected, but I was of the opinion it was mostly the disenchanted who were happy to be lied to as any change had to be better than the current situation?

yagan

looksee wrote: »

I realise this is not something created just to annoy brexiters, but really that is ridiculous - even the amount of time that a European country has to take to check the forms should be enough to get it streamlined.

Again that's a view based upon the EU revolving around the UK.

Streamlining requires legal agreements, the very opposite of what buccaneering Brexit Britain wanted and for the EU the UK is the supplicant so it must bare the costs of choosing sub membership trading conditions.

tubercolossus

yagan wrote: »

When you look at it from the White Van man perspective it's easy to see the allure of Brexit if it increases their bargaining power domestically.

The UK may decline overall but the guilds that keeps things ticking over are pretty well positioned. It was after all the guilds of London that formed the backbone of Cromwells army, so it's easy to see how the whole England first narrative is deep welded.

We had au pairs back in the day, and we are far from being even the Irish equivalent of upper or even upper-middle class. We had three young children and we were both working in demanding jobs, so child care was both expensive and time-consuming. An au pair made sense from both thosestandpoints. My point is, those tradespeople depend on ordinary people with enough spare cash to be able to afford home improvements, and servicing/repairs are not going to cut it. If IT jobs are outsourced to somewhere cheaper there's no money for those domestic jobs. Back in 2008 was anyone paying people to decorate or put extensions on? In our hoop. If you could do it yourself you did. If you couldn't it was put on the back burner. Long-term that's what those white van men are gonna find out. There'll be less money going around to keep them in business. They'll all end up driving vans for a living, or in the gig economy.