Brexit

by **navyblueshorts** Wed 18 Oct 2017, 8:51 pm

First topic message reminder :

Galted wrote:It will stop foreigners praying in our mosques.

by Muscular-mouse Thu 09 Nov 2017, 10:21 pm

Duty281 wrote:Brits don’t refuse to do menial jobs.

Lazy prejudice, sadly made popular by the Lib Dems and Nick Clegg.

To be honest I think they do and that's not me saying that because I'm a remainer. There has been plenty of documentaries on the matter and the farmers and land owners all say the same thing that British people don't apply for the jobs or if they get the job they leave after a couple of days whilst foreign migrants work the full season.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 10 Nov 2017, 8:16 am

Clearly a small sample, but not that long ago I spoke to two senior(ish) HR people at two different companies in the Peterborough area. Both said their companies specifically went out into their local communities to encourage local British people to consider working for them. Both said that many of the Brits either didn't want to get out of bed for a typical starting salary (even if wasn't zero hours and was on a rung with real career prospects over time) and/or if recruited, couldn't be bothered to turn up on time for work or turn up at all in many cases.

They both said they almost never had these issues with EU migrant workers. Guess what? They employed the EU migrants.

by Scottrf Fri 10 Nov 2017, 9:31 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:ONS

EU migrants contribute £1.34 to the UK economy for every £1 they receive..

Should have put that on the Bus instead..

So what? I'd happily remove money from the economy to have the whole country be less crowded. That calculation doesn't take into account lost productivity from people sitting in traffic for example.

by Scottrf Fri 10 Nov 2017, 9:33 am

navyblueshorts wrote:Clearly a small sample, but not that long ago I spoke to two senior(ish) HR people at two different companies in the Peterborough area. Both said their companies specifically went out into their local communities to encourage local British people to consider working for them. Both said that many of the Brits either didn't want to get out of bed for a typical starting salary (even if wasn't zero hours and was on a rung with real career prospects over time) and/or if recruited, couldn't be bothered to turn up on time for work or turn up at all in many cases.

They both said they almost never had these issues with EU migrant workers. Guess what? They employed the EU migrants.

Great! More low wage jobs contributing almost no taxes and people driving down the wage UK workers can get for these jobs!

by **superflyweight** Fri 10 Nov 2017, 9:44 am

Scottrf wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:ONS

EU migrants contribute £1.34 to the UK economy for every £1 they receive..

Should have put that on the Bus instead..

So what? I'd happily remove money from the economy to have the whole country be less crowded. That calculation doesn't take into account lost productivity from people sitting in traffic for example.

Might be worth promoting benefits of emigration then.

by Scottrf Fri 10 Nov 2017, 9:48 am

superflyweight wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:ONS

EU migrants contribute £1.34 to the UK economy for every £1 they receive..

Should have put that on the Bus instead..

So what? I'd happily remove money from the economy to have the whole country be less crowded. That calculation doesn't take into account lost productivity from people sitting in traffic for example.

Might be worth promoting benefits of emigration then.

Unfortunately it's only the good people who leave Sad

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri 10 Nov 2017, 9:49 am

Scottrf wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:Clearly a small sample, but not that long ago I spoke to two senior(ish) HR people at two different companies in the Peterborough area. Both said their companies specifically went out into their local communities to encourage local British people to consider working for them. Both said that many of the Brits either didn't want to get out of bed for a typical starting salary (even if wasn't zero hours and was on a rung with real career prospects over time) and/or if recruited, couldn't be bothered to turn up on time for work or turn up at all in many cases.

They both said they almost never had these issues with EU migrant workers. Guess what? They employed the EU migrants.

Great! More low wage jobs contributing almost no taxes and people driving down the wage UK workers can get for these jobs!

Tax thresholds are set by the Government, wages are set by employers. But let's blame the immigrants!

by Scottrf Fri 10 Nov 2017, 9:52 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:Clearly a small sample, but not that long ago I spoke to two senior(ish) HR people at two different companies in the Peterborough area. Both said their companies specifically went out into their local communities to encourage local British people to consider working for them. Both said that many of the Brits either didn't want to get out of bed for a typical starting salary (even if wasn't zero hours and was on a rung with real career prospects over time) and/or if recruited, couldn't be bothered to turn up on time for work or turn up at all in many cases.

They both said they almost never had these issues with EU migrant workers. Guess what? They employed the EU migrants.

Great! More low wage jobs contributing almost no taxes and people driving down the wage UK workers can get for these jobs!

Tax thresholds are set by the Government, wages are set by employers. But let's blame the immigrants!

You've missed the point a bit. Wages are set by the employers, yes. If people are saying that the jobs wont be filled offering peanuts, perhaps they should pay more than these terrible wages? And if we didn't have people coming in to work at that wage it would be a bad thing?

You've not actually saying we should set our tax rates based on wages that people can't afford to live on being normal?

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri 10 Nov 2017, 9:57 am

Yes, they should pay more than the terrible wages. But the root of the problem is the greed of the employers (and shareholders) not the people willing to work for low wages.

by **superflyweight** Fri 10 Nov 2017, 9:59 am

I guess the issue would be not to blame people who are prepared to work and who are net contributors.

by Scottrf Fri 10 Nov 2017, 10:00 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:Yes, they should pay more than the terrible wages. But the root of the problem is the greed of the employers (and shareholders) not the people willing to work for low wages.

Umm, no. It's not greed. It's doing their job. Anything less is acting unethically towards shareholders. And it's not blaming anyone.

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri 10 Nov 2017, 10:08 am

As a society, we've made greed ethical.

by Scottrf Fri 10 Nov 2017, 10:09 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:As a society, we've made greed ethical.

Maybe. There's far too much income inequality. I'm not sure the answer is lowering wages for people at the bottom though.

by lostinwales Fri 10 Nov 2017, 12:28 pm

Scottrf wrote:
superflyweight wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:ONS

EU migrants contribute £1.34 to the UK economy for every £1 they receive..

Should have put that on the Bus instead..

So what? I'd happily remove money from the economy to have the whole country be less crowded. That calculation doesn't take into account lost productivity from people sitting in traffic for example.

Might be worth promoting benefits of emigration then.

Unfortunately it's only the good people who leave

That's how immigration works. Mostly its only the good ones who come in. The vast majority of the lazy sheets stay at home just like the UK ones.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 10 Nov 2017, 2:27 pm

Scottrf wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:Clearly a small sample, but not that long ago I spoke to two senior(ish) HR people at two different companies in the Peterborough area. Both said their companies specifically went out into their local communities to encourage local British people to consider working for them. Both said that many of the Brits either didn't want to get out of bed for a typical starting salary (even if wasn't zero hours and was on a rung with real career prospects over time) and/or if recruited, couldn't be bothered to turn up on time for work or turn up at all in many cases.

They both said they almost never had these issues with EU migrant workers. Guess what? They employed the EU migrants.

Great! More low wage jobs contributing almost no taxes and people driving down the wage UK workers can get for these jobs!

You imply an important point, which is whether many jobs are paying enough. That's fine and the discussion should be had, but the implication is we all end up paying more for goods and services; not something that the Brexit propaganda has gone anywhere near and would affect those on lowest income the worst.

by **Pr4wn** Fri 10 Nov 2017, 2:39 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:Clearly a small sample, but not that long ago I spoke to two senior(ish) HR people at two different companies in the Peterborough area. Both said their companies specifically went out into their local communities to encourage local British people to consider working for them. Both said that many of the Brits either didn't want to get out of bed for a typical starting salary (even if wasn't zero hours and was on a rung with real career prospects over time) and/or if recruited, couldn't be bothered to turn up on time for work or turn up at all in many cases.

They both said they almost never had these issues with EU migrant workers. Guess what? They employed the EU migrants.

Great! More low wage jobs contributing almost no taxes and people driving down the wage UK workers can get for these jobs!
You imply an important point, which is whether many jobs are paying enough. That's fine and the discussion should be had, but the implication is we all end up paying more for goods and services; not something that the Brexit propaganda has gone anywhere near and would affect those on lowest income the worst.

I think this effect is massively exaggerated. Remember when the minimum wage was introduced? We had the same doom and gloom warnings about the costs of goods and services and it turned out to be massively overblown.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 10 Nov 2017, 5:00 pm

Pr4wn wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:Clearly a small sample, but not that long ago I spoke to two senior(ish) HR people at two different companies in the Peterborough area. Both said their companies specifically went out into their local communities to encourage local British people to consider working for them. Both said that many of the Brits either didn't want to get out of bed for a typical starting salary (even if wasn't zero hours and was on a rung with real career prospects over time) and/or if recruited, couldn't be bothered to turn up on time for work or turn up at all in many cases.

They both said they almost never had these issues with EU migrant workers. Guess what? They employed the EU migrants.

Great! More low wage jobs contributing almost no taxes and people driving down the wage UK workers can get for these jobs!
You imply an important point, which is whether many jobs are paying enough. That's fine and the discussion should be had, but the implication is we all end up paying more for goods and services; not something that the Brexit propaganda has gone anywhere near and would affect those on lowest income the worst.

I think this effect is massively exaggerated. Remember when the minimum wage was introduced? We had the same doom and gloom warnings about the costs of goods and services and it turned out to be massively overblown.

You think? If pay has to double in order to roust UK strawberry pickers out of bed, who do you think is picking up the tab? Not the farmers/supermarkets, that's for sure.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 10 Nov 2017, 5:42 pm

Tax avoidance and evasion costs the UK over £100 billion a year......

5% pay rise for the public sector would cost £9 billion...................

Rather than burden the normal faithful etc paying higher wages for picking strawberries......You could take more people out of tax...The OFF shore crowd can take the burden....and add some funding for things like the NHS.

Top earners hiding money is the big problem.......

by Muscular-mouse Fri 10 Nov 2017, 6:12 pm

Scottrf wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:ONS

EU migrants contribute £1.34 to the UK economy for every £1 they receive..

Should have put that on the Bus instead..

So what? I'd happily remove money from the economy to have the whole country be less crowded. That calculation doesn't take into account lost productivity from people sitting in traffic for example.

Did you know the country only has 0.1% of its land built on?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41901297

the figure rises to about 5% when you include areas where some of it is built on but even 5% is incredibly low.

by Muscular-mouse Fri 10 Nov 2017, 6:15 pm

Pr4wn wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:Clearly a small sample, but not that long ago I spoke to two senior(ish) HR people at two different companies in the Peterborough area. Both said their companies specifically went out into their local communities to encourage local British people to consider working for them. Both said that many of the Brits either didn't want to get out of bed for a typical starting salary (even if wasn't zero hours and was on a rung with real career prospects over time) and/or if recruited, couldn't be bothered to turn up on time for work or turn up at all in many cases.

They both said they almost never had these issues with EU migrant workers. Guess what? They employed the EU migrants.

Great! More low wage jobs contributing almost no taxes and people driving down the wage UK workers can get for these jobs!
You imply an important point, which is whether many jobs are paying enough. That's fine and the discussion should be had, but the implication is we all end up paying more for goods and services; not something that the Brexit propaganda has gone anywhere near and would affect those on lowest income the worst.

I think this effect is massively exaggerated. Remember when the minimum wage was introduced? We had the same doom and gloom warnings about the costs of goods and services and it turned out to be massively overblown.

The Tories opposed the minimum wage in the early 2000s and guess what they oppose increasing the minimum wage in 2017 to £10 an hour, no surprise there that they oppose it but what is surprising is that working class people have fallen for the Tories spin and oppose it too.

by Scottrf Fri 10 Nov 2017, 6:43 pm

Muscular-mouse wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:ONS

EU migrants contribute £1.34 to the UK economy for every £1 they receive..

Should have put that on the Bus instead..

So what? I'd happily remove money from the economy to have the whole country be less crowded. That calculation doesn't take into account lost productivity from people sitting in traffic for example.

Did you know the country only has 0.1% of its land built on?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41901297

the figure rises to about 5% when you include areas where some of it is built on but even 5% is incredibly low.

Why is land built on an important figure? Travel anywhere takes twice as long as it should, every public service and sporting event is oversubscribed, house prices are unaffordable to a lot of people. But the land built on figure is low? Great.

by **Pr4wn** Fri 10 Nov 2017, 8:03 pm

Scottrf wrote:
Muscular-mouse wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:ONS

EU migrants contribute £1.34 to the UK economy for every £1 they receive..

Should have put that on the Bus instead..

So what? I'd happily remove money from the economy to have the whole country be less crowded. That calculation doesn't take into account lost productivity from people sitting in traffic for example.

Did you know the country only has 0.1% of its land built on?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41901297

the figure rises to about 5% when you include areas where some of it is built on but even 5% is incredibly low.
Why is land built on an important figure? Travel anywhere takes twice as long as it should, every public service and sporting event is oversubscribed, house prices are unaffordable to a lot of people. But the land built on figure is low? Great.

Your gripes have just as much to do with public spending as they do with population. But if wanting to get rid of foreigners makes you feel better, then go for it.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 10 Nov 2017, 8:56 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Tax avoidance and evasion costs the UK over £100 billion a year......

5% pay rise for the public sector would cost £9 billion...................

Rather than burden the normal faithful etc paying higher wages for picking strawberries......You could take more people out of tax...The OFF shore crowd can take the burden....and add some funding for things like the NHS.

Top earners hiding money is the big problem.......

No disagreement from me about that.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 10 Nov 2017, 8:57 pm

Muscular-mouse wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:ONS

EU migrants contribute £1.34 to the UK economy for every £1 they receive..

Should have put that on the Bus instead..

So what? I'd happily remove money from the economy to have the whole country be less crowded. That calculation doesn't take into account lost productivity from people sitting in traffic for example.

Did you know the country only has 0.1% of its land built on?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41901297

the figure rises to about 5% when you include areas where some of it is built on but even 5% is incredibly low.

Come on! Stop it! None of these actual facts please!

by Scottrf Fri 10 Nov 2017, 9:42 pm

Pr4wn wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
Muscular-mouse wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:ONS

EU migrants contribute £1.34 to the UK economy for every £1 they receive..

Should have put that on the Bus instead..

So what? I'd happily remove money from the economy to have the whole country be less crowded. That calculation doesn't take into account lost productivity from people sitting in traffic for example.

Did you know the country only has 0.1% of its land built on?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41901297

the figure rises to about 5% when you include areas where some of it is built on but even 5% is incredibly low.
Why is land built on an important figure? Travel anywhere takes twice as long as it should, every public service and sporting event is oversubscribed, house prices are unaffordable to a lot of people. But the land built on figure is low? Great.

Your gripes have just as much to do with public spending as they do with population. But if wanting to get rid of foreigners makes you feel better, then go for it.

Pathetic.

I was merely commenting that a positive net contribution to the treasury doesn't necessarily mean that immigration is a good thing.

by Ent Fri 10 Nov 2017, 10:10 pm

If the best you can come up with is the roads are busy then it's a pretty shoddy response.

We use immigration to fill skill gaps, not all of which are low skilled jobs.

Boe suggest immigration might have made the bottom section of earners 1% worse off whilst making a huge contribution to the treasures.

by Scottrf Sat 11 Nov 2017, 5:06 am

That wasn't the best I could come up with. Don't know if you're deliberately misrepresenting my point or stupid. House prices, public service demand etc.

I have never said I'm completely against immigration so not sure why you're making the other points. It's more complex than a sum if money paid to the treasury was the point.

by Duty281 Sat 11 Nov 2017, 6:01 am

Ent wrote:We use immigration to fill skill gaps, not all of which are low skilled jobs.

That's the idea.

In reality, the UK turns away skilled, non-EU workers in order to accommodate the free movement of people in the EU.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/11/britain-reaches-its-limit-on-skilled-migrant-workers
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/adam-hamdy/uk-government-turned-away-2700-nurses_b_10275224.html
http://workpermit.com/news/thousands-foreign-nurses-denied-tier-2-visas-say-uk-hospitals-20160129

Thankfully, this will change after Brexit.

by Ent Sat 11 Nov 2017, 6:59 am

That isn't the case regardless of spin, we will simply start turning away skilled eu workers when they default to the visa system.

Scott - then you should have said that rather than making a bad point. Public service demand is also a bad point as if you are making a bet contribution to the treasurery you are prioviding the money to fund public services.

by Muscular-mouse Sat 11 Nov 2017, 7:45 am

Pr4wn wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
Muscular-mouse wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:ONS

EU migrants contribute £1.34 to the UK economy for every £1 they receive..

Should have put that on the Bus instead..

So what? I'd happily remove money from the economy to have the whole country be less crowded. That calculation doesn't take into account lost productivity from people sitting in traffic for example.

Did you know the country only has 0.1% of its land built on?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41901297

the figure rises to about 5% when you include areas where some of it is built on but even 5% is incredibly low.
Why is land built on an important figure? Travel anywhere takes twice as long as it should, every public service and sporting event is oversubscribed, house prices are unaffordable to a lot of people. But the land built on figure is low? Great.

Your gripes have just as much to do with public spending as they do with population. But if wanting to get rid of foreigners makes you feel better, then go for it.

I agree, the issue here is public spending but some people choose to blame immigrants. Public service funding has been stripped to the bone under this tory government and the money they have saved has been spent giving tax cuts to millionaires and big businesses. If you are worried that public services are buckling under the strain then direct your anger towards budget cuts rather than immigration.

by Scottrf Sat 11 Nov 2017, 9:35 am

Looking at pros and cons isn't blaming immigrants.

Jesus, can't have a sensible discussion here.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat 11 Nov 2017, 10:08 am

Duty281 wrote:
Ent wrote:We use immigration to fill skill gaps, not all of which are low skilled jobs.

That's the idea.

In reality, the UK turns away skilled, non-EU workers in order to accommodate the free movement of people in the EU.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/11/britain-reaches-its-limit-on-skilled-migrant-workers
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/adam-hamdy/uk-government-turned-away-2700-nurses_b_10275224.html
http://workpermit.com/news/thousands-foreign-nurses-denied-tier-2-visas-say-uk-hospitals-20160129

Thankfully, this will change after Brexit.

The non-EU cap had nothing to do with the EU - it was imposed by the government. Why? Because people were complaining about too much immigration. In other words, we turned them away because of people who were anti-immigration, not because of the EU. We could have accommodated both non-EU immigration and free movement of people in the EU, if people hadn't been moaning about immigration. Leave voters perhaps?

by Ent Sat 11 Nov 2017, 11:38 am

Scottrf wrote:Looking at pros and cons isn't blaming immigrants.

Jesus, can't have a sensible discussion here.

You aren't putting forward any sensible points to discuss.

by **Pr4wn** Thu 16 Nov 2017, 2:22 pm

Nigel Farage has been forced into a pretty humiliating legal climbdown after being sued by Hope Not Hate after accusing Brendan Cox, the widower of murdered Labour MP Jo Cox, of engaging in "violent and undemocratic means".

A victory against fake news, no doubt.

by Samo Thu 16 Nov 2017, 4:29 pm

https://www.channel4.com/news/leave-voting-grimsby-accused-of-double-standards

You reap what you sow.

by Duty281 Thu 16 Nov 2017, 9:39 pm

Pr4wn wrote:Nigel Farage has been forced into a pretty humiliating legal climbdown after being sued by Hope Not Hate after accusing Brendan Cox, the widower of murdered Labour MP Jo Cox, of engaging in "violent and undemocratic means".

A victory against fake news, no doubt.

Even more bizarre is 'Hope Not Hate' claiming victory, when they didn't successfully sue for £100K, and they ended up paying Nigel's legal fees.

Having faced the vile intimidation from HNH members first-hand, I am disappointed in Nigel not following this through (although he still acknowledges, quite rightfully, that "a number of individuals claiming to support them have in the past behaved violently and sought to intimidate and disrupt lawful political meetings").

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 16 Nov 2017, 9:46 pm

Duty281 wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:Nigel Farage has been forced into a pretty humiliating legal climbdown after being sued by Hope Not Hate after accusing Brendan Cox, the widower of murdered Labour MP Jo Cox, of engaging in "violent and undemocratic means".

A victory against fake news, no doubt.

Even more bizarre is 'Hope Not Hate' claiming victory, when they didn't successfully sue for £100K, and they ended up paying Nigel's legal fees.

Having faced the vile intimidation from HNH members first-hand, I am disappointed in Nigel not following this through (although he still acknowledges, quite rightfully, that "a number of individuals claiming to support them have in the past behaved violently and sought to intimidate and disrupt lawful political meetings").

"Hope not Hate said Farage had fully covered his own legal costs, apart from a half-day administrative hearing where the two parties split the costs between them. The group said Farage was left with costs of around £100,000."

Of course, they could be lying. Or you could be twisting the facts.

by **Pr4wn** Thu 16 Nov 2017, 9:47 pm

His grovelling climb-down when he realised the case was lost was obviously payment enough for the charity.

Basically, that second statement is entirely different from the first. His first statement was defamatory, clearly.

by Duty281 Thu 16 Nov 2017, 9:53 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:Nigel Farage has been forced into a pretty humiliating legal climbdown after being sued by Hope Not Hate after accusing Brendan Cox, the widower of murdered Labour MP Jo Cox, of engaging in "violent and undemocratic means".

A victory against fake news, no doubt.

Even more bizarre is 'Hope Not Hate' claiming victory, when they didn't successfully sue for £100K, and they ended up paying Nigel's legal fees.

Having faced the vile intimidation from HNH members first-hand, I am disappointed in Nigel not following this through (although he still acknowledges, quite rightfully, that "a number of individuals claiming to support them have in the past behaved violently and sought to intimidate and disrupt lawful political meetings").

"Hope not Hate said Farage had fully covered his own legal costs, apart from a half-day administrative hearing where the two parties split the costs between them. The group said Farage was left with costs of around £100,000."

Of course, they could be lying. Or you could be twisting the facts.

My mistake! They've ended up paying Nigel's costs, not his legal fees.

Apologies.

by Duty281 Thu 16 Nov 2017, 9:57 pm

Pr4wn wrote:His grovelling climb-down when he realised the case was lost was obviously payment enough for the charity.

Basically, that second statement is entirely different from the first. His first statement was defamatory, clearly.

If the case were lost, Nigel would have ended up shelling out £100k.

Both sides have come to an agreement that they deem satisfactory.

Now waiting for HNH to sue Raheem Kassam, who said the exact same thing!

by LionsV2 Thu 16 Nov 2017, 10:48 pm

Pr4wn wrote:His grovelling climb-down when he realised the case was lost was obviously payment enough for the charity.

Basically, that second statement is entirely different from the first. His first statement was defamatory, clearly.

Oh dear.

by **Pr4wn** Fri 17 Nov 2017, 2:07 pm

LionsV2 wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:His grovelling climb-down when he realised the case was lost was obviously payment enough for the charity.

Basically, that second statement is entirely different from the first. His first statement was defamatory, clearly.

Oh dear.

Welcome back. Now are you going to behave?

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 28 Nov 2017, 3:03 pm

Wonder why the Government are reluctant to publish all the Brexit impact papers ??..The mind boggles..

Might as well publish them they will get leaked anyway.

by Mad for Chelsea Tue 28 Nov 2017, 3:11 pm

Ah, Schrodinger's impact papers, which both exist "in excruciating detail" and also don't exist at all. They're obviously not particularly complimentary as otherwise they would almost certainly have been published and various cabinet members would be banging on about them repeatedly.

The fact Davis couldn't even bring himself to answer the UQ to Parliament today tells you all you need to know. Are Brexiteers happy with Parliament's sovereignty so far? Wink

by Mad for Chelsea Wed 29 Nov 2017, 12:20 pm

Also, can we please stop using the term "Brexit bill"? It seems to have become a weird idea that this so-called bill is something we pay the EU to (hopefully) get a decent trade deal out of them (see Farage's rant this morning). In fact, it is simply the UK settling their accounts, i.e. agreeing to pay that which we had already committed to.

Equally, I've seen some Remainers suggest that we could avoid paying this by simply not leaving, which is also rubbish, as this is money we'd be paying into the EU in that case.

Anyway, good that the government has finally recognised our obligations, not that they had much choice. Hopefully EU nationals can be settled equally quickly (should really have been settled on the day Article 50 was triggered). F#cked if I know what we do about Northern Ireland though, still a major sticking point before talks can move on to trade. Though I do wonder if the EU will consider the settling of the accounts and an agreement on nationals to be "sufficient progress", provided they can come to a general agreement on NI with details to be hammered out later.

by Mad for Chelsea Wed 29 Nov 2017, 4:08 pm

European Parliament's response:

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/935891729802199040?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Here's what I previously wrote on the golf "Anything goes..." thread:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:In order to move on to trade talks, three areas have first to be agreed: the "bill", the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU, and the Northern Irish border question.

The latest offer will probably settle the first question, and I expect the UK to quite soon settle the second by giving in over ECJ jurisdiction (seems to be the only serious sticking point, possibly along with not charging fees for permanent residence). F#cked if I know what to do about Northern Ireland though*, and with the government needing the DUP votes it's a rather messy situation.

*Well, a Norway/Switzerland type agreement would take care of it easily enough, but that would entail freedom of movement and being bound by EU regulations, so would probably be unacceptable to the hardliners.

Seems to be about right. Seems to be about right. EU needs more from the UK on citizens rights, but - beyond some stubbornness from May on the ECJ - I'm not sure there are any huge sticking points there. NI seems very much an issue though.

by Duty281 Wed 29 Nov 2017, 9:03 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Also, can we please stop using the term "Brexit bill"? It seems to have become a weird idea that this so-called bill is something we pay the EU to (hopefully) get a decent trade deal out of them (see Farage's rant this morning). In fact, it is simply the UK settling their accounts, i.e. agreeing to pay that which we had already committed to.

It's not as black and white as that, though.

Nobody appears to know exactly what the UK's contribution to the EU should be in that time and, indeed, how long the UK should be paying for (up until 2019? Or 2020?). Also, will it be a lump sum or settled over a number of years? And a House of Lords report has argued that, from a legal standpoint, the UK is not required to pay anything once it has left (although this may harm the UK from a moral standpoint).

The weird idea has come about because the EU appear to be firm in not discussing future trade until the severance payment is agreed upon.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 29 Nov 2017, 9:20 pm

Plenty of not black and white by you on the Trump thread though..

You seem to know exactly what Tump was thinking at all times..

Not that I'm suggesting any subjectivity.

Heaven forbid.

by Duty281 Wed 29 Nov 2017, 10:43 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Plenty of not black and white by you on the Trump thread though..

You seem to know exactly what Tump was thinking at all times..

Not that I'm suggesting any subjectivity.

Heaven forbid.

I've never claimed to know exactly what Trump is thinking, but a pattern of behaviour can clearly be seen over three decades.

This is unlike people who speculate that he never wanted to be POTUS, but wanted to run for the sake of 'attention', or to use it as a platform for launching a new TV channel, often with little to zero supporting evidence.

by **Pr4wn** Wed 06 Dec 2017, 2:29 pm

Anyone see David squirming in front of Parliament yesterday? What an embarrassment.

Just goes to show that this entire charade has been built on lies from the very beginning. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.

by Sponsored content