Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:44 pm

Rowls never has the right idea!

I am liking though just how many of you appear to be adopting the "its going to be fine"

It won't be if we don't plan for all eventualities, and there is precious little evidence out there that we are doing enough.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:47 pm

Rowls wrote:https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/02/w ... o-achieve/

Think there’s a little crush developing here. Rolls is tracking her every appearance!

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:59 pm

martin_p wrote:Think there’s a little crush developing here. Rolls is tracking her every appearance!

yes quite

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:10 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Not going to come back on the rest of your post as it's been covered so often, but I wouldn't put much weight on the "£39 billion" argument that Davis and members of the ERG have claimed, (but not the govt.).
There's a strong legal argument that says that we owe it so we pay it - whether we have a deal or not, and it would almost certainly go to the International Court for arbitration (not the ECJ) if we reneged on our financial obligations. Most likely we would lose.
Even if we decided to fight this and won, there is a strong political argument for paying our dues. After all we are going to be looking for new trading partners. Would you go into a partnership with a company who had just defaulted on their previous partner and left them owing a lot of money?
I don't think so.
This isn't just my view. Mrs May and other senior figures have said that we will fulfil our financial obligation, (without reference to whether we leave with a deal or not.)
This article sums it up pretty well, but you can reaad about it in more detail if you do a bit of research.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... vorce-bill" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

20bn is for the 2 year transition.

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:17 pm

Ford the latest manufacturer making preparations to relocate jobs in the event of a no-deal,https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47225787

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:18 pm

AndyClaret wrote:20bn is for the 2 year transition.

Not as I understand it. (I would need to read a lot more).
But let's assume you are correct, and the International Court agreed with you.
That means that under "no deal" we would pay £19 billion? Are you accepting that?

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:23 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Not as I understand it. (I would need to read a lot more).
But let's assume you are correct, and the International Court agreed with you.
That means that under "no deal" we would pay £19 billion? Are you accepting that?

The range is 34-39bn, but remainers always choose the higher figure, i would want it independently verified.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:27 pm

AndyClaret wrote:The range is 34-39bn, but remainers always choose the higher figure, i would want it independently verified.

Who would you trust to verify it?

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:28 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:Their hit isn't divided by 27 countries , as 20+ of them are on their knees. It will be up to about 5, to find the missing £39billion. Economies , even in Germany are going backwards, they can't afford it, or not without hitting their own people, many of whom are already upset by the EU.
We have a trade deficit with Europe, therefore tarrifs will cost more for businesses to export, but our government will make more than businesses lose on the tarrifs we collect. We could supplement businesses until the mess is sorted, and still be in pocket. We are also free to make deals elsewhere in order to keep businesses moving.
Germany and France having a trade surplus, will lose a lot more than they gain, another hit. They can't go looking elsewhere for new deals to keep businesses going, because they are already tied to the EU trade contracts.
Cars parked on the M20 is another of those scaremongering stories. There will probably be an initial slow down, but I doubt it will last long at all. Calais has already said it foresees no problems.

The bottom line is Westminster doesn't give a **** about the people, and Brussels doesn't give a **** about the people, nor Germany and France, but businesses care about business, and it will be businesses, both sides of the channel which will be screaming loudest if it's hitting them. Businesses dictate to governments in the end, because that's where governments get their funding.

“Businesses dictate to governments in the end” that’s what I’ve been trying to explain to greenmile, regarding the lack of appetite our government has in raising the minimum wage, businesses will always want the cheapest option & any business (most) your biggest overhead is labour.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:32 pm

And that will improve under Brexit how?

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:34 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:And that will improve under Brexit how?

Raising the drawbridge in a manner of speaking, it’s well overdue.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:36 pm

Right

You've just argued that "Business dictate to government in the end"

So business will tell the government that they need more labour.

So more workers will come in.

Again, how is that an improvement under Brexit?

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:42 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Right

You've just argued that "Business dictate to government in the end"

So business will tell the government that they need more labour.

So more workers will come in.

Again, how is that an improvement under Brexit?

You are not following, people wish to work but need a honest days pay & not the minimum wage, less immigration will assist that, businesses need to realise that but while foreign labour is plentiful, wages will be stifled. It’s a extremely simple concept & to a certain degree the inability to understand this, I should imagine quite a considerable amount of people voted out for this reason.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:45 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:You are not following, people wish to work but need a honest days pay & not the minimum wage, less immigration will assist that, businesses need to realise that but while foreign labour is plentiful, wages will be stifled. It’s a extremely simple concept & to a certain degree the inability to understand this, I should imagine quite a considerable amount of people voted out for this reason.

Who will decide our immigration levels post-Brexit?

Edit - I’ll give you a clue. It’s the same people who set our minimum wage laws now.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:47 pm

I think Jakub has this right. With all of the businesses starting to announce their possible plans of moving out of the UK if Brexit goes badly then there won't be any big businesses left to dictate to the government. Problem solved.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:49 pm

Greenmile wrote:Who will decide our immigration levels post-Brexit?

I should imagine the present government, there shouldn’t be any free movement or quotas to accept, we can hand pick who we want based on a selective skilled criteria which will vary sector to sector.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:50 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:I should imagine the present government, there shouldn’t be any free movement or quotas to accept, we can hand pick who we want based on a selective skilled criteria which will vary sector to sector.

But big business dictate to the govt, don’t they? Surely they will want to keep their steady stream of cheap labour.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:51 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:I should imagine the present government, there shouldn’t be any free movement or quotas to accept, we can hand pick who we want based on a selective skilled criteria which will vary sector to sector.

So businesses dictate the minimum wage policy to the government but won't be able to dictate the immigration policy because...?

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:52 pm

aggi wrote:I think Jakub has this right. With all of the businesses starting to announce their possible plans of moving out of the UK if Brexit goes badly then there won't be any big businesses left to dictate to the government. Problem solved.

It’d be a shame, if they are unwilling to reward somebody properly & put greed first.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:56 pm

Greenmile wrote:But big business dictate to the govt, don’t they? Surely they will want to keep their steady stream of cheap labour.

Yes of course it will still happen I’m not that naive, the alarm bells have sounded this is a issue has been for sometime, if brexit wasn’t a indicator I’m not sure what is, people had plenty of other reasons besides immigration I should imagine, as already stated throughout the forum on the brexit orientated threads.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:05 pm

Greenmile wrote:Who would you trust to verify it?

An independent court.

Murger · Post by **Murger** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:09 pm

Slightly OT but Terry Cristian is a massive bellend

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:12 pm

Anybody with any sense wouldn’t spout they political allegiances at work or they referendum choice. It’s the 1 thing you definitely keep to yourself.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:34 pm

Murger wrote:Slightly OT but Terry Cristian is a massive bellend

You’re right, employers shouldn’t be doing this. However, Leave voters should be putting themselves forward for the chop if a company is making redundancies due to Brexit. After all, they’re the ones who think ‘it’ll be a short term hit’ and ‘everything will get better’, so they shouldn’t have an issue doing it.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:39 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:Yes of course it will still happen I’m not that naive,

Wait. What will still happen? A steady stream of cheap labour depressing low-skilled wages? Why are we bothering then?

Jakubclaret wrote: the alarm bells have sounded this is a issue has been for sometime, if brexit wasn’t a indicator I’m not sure what is, people had plenty of other reasons besides immigration I should imagine, as already stated throughout the forum on the brexit orientated threads.

I totally agree that immigration is a major issue for a lot of people in this country. I just don't think that's entirely due to the effect it has on the labour market.

I also agree that people had other reasons besides immigration for voting for Brexit, but you don't seem to be one of them.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:39 pm

Opposite of that, overtime will be plenty, double bubble kerching, happy days, in reply to Martin p.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:48 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Not going to come back on the rest of your post as it's been covered so often, but I wouldn't put much weight on the "£39 billion" argument that Davis and members of the ERG have claimed, (but not the govt.).
There's a strong legal argument that says that we owe it so we pay it - whether we have a deal or not, and it would almost certainly go to the International Court for arbitration (not the ECJ) if we reneged on our financial obligations. Most likely we would lose.
Even if we decided to fight this and won, there is a strong political argument for paying our dues. After all we are going to be looking for new trading partners. Would you go into a partnership with a company who had just defaulted on their previous partner and left them owing a lot of money?
I don't think so.
This isn't just my view. Mrs May and other senior figures have said that we will fulfil our financial obligation, (without reference to whether we leave with a deal or not.)
This article sums it up pretty well, but you can reaad about it in more detail if you do a bit of research.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... vorce-bill" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I haven't read the article Nil, not that I don't appreciate it, but as I explained to Lancs, there are experts on both sides, why choose one over another.
There are probably things that we have pledged money into, and I'm more than happy to continue contributing to them, so long as we are getting the same out of it as promised when we signed up. But there is no obligation for us to pay into anything, IF we get nothing out of it. We paid £39 billion to be members of a club, to benefit from being a member of that club. We've given 2 years notice that we want to leave the club, I don't think, and I don't believe anyone else would feel, that you should be made to pay your dues to a club you've left, even more so when you are denied those benefits.
Now it could have been negotiated away for a smooth transition, member to Brexit, it should have been used as a bargaining chip from day one, and I'm not out to punish Europe in anyway. They are still our neighbours, and we still have an awful lot in common, as well as a close, large history of trade, which we all hope continues post Brexit. The problem is that the EU want their cake and to eat it. I want a deal thats beneficial to both sides, as I'm sure the rest of Europe does, but as I've said before, That isn't what Brussels wants.
Its an argument we can't let the EU win, we are better off with all the issues of a No Deal, than all the issues of their bad deal. It really would be worse than being a member, tied to a customs union we have no say over..........be rational, thats suicidal for Britain Plc.

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:32 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:There are probably things that we have pledged money into, and I'm more than happy to continue contributing to them, so long as we are getting the same out of it as promised when we signed up. But there is no obligation for us to pay into anything, IF we get nothing out of it. We paid £39 billion to be members of a club, to benefit from being a member of that club. We've given 2 years notice that we want to leave the club, I don't think, and I don't believe anyone else would feel, that you should be made to pay your dues to a club you've left, even more so when you are denied those benefits.

We signed up to the EU's financial budget in 2014, and this runs up to 2020. We have committed ourselves to pay that money. They are our financial obligations. We owe that money whether we get a favourable withdrawal agreement or not.

Think of it as a 12 month gym membership that you've signed up for, but wish to leave after 8 months. In most cases you will still have to stump up the money for the remaining 4 months, even though you'll no longer be benefiting from membership. You've chosen to walk away before the end of contract. You still owe the money.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:47 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:We signed up to the EU's financial budget in 2014, and this runs up to 2020. We have committed ourselves to pay that money. They are our financial obligations. We owe that money whether we get a favourable withdrawal agreement or not.

Think of it as a 12 month gym membership that you've signed up for, but wish to leave after 8 months. In most cases you will still have to stump up the money for the remaining 4 months, even though you'll no longer be benefiting from membership. You've chosen to walk away before the end of contract. You still owe the money.

Yes, but Colburn can find someone who says that none of that is true, so why should he believe one person over the other (given his aversion to doing any actual research)? Might as well rely on common sense and thinking for himself and stuff, instead of all listening to all this “verifiable facts” nonsense.

I mean, stands to reason, dunnit. School of hard knocks, university of life and so on.

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:23 pm

Evidence of our being led by underhand, lying, cheating Tory scumbags, intent on just winding down the clock, whilst reporting all is well, to the gullible.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... k-eu-talks

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:26 pm

aggi wrote:I think Jakub has this right. With all of the businesses starting to announce their possible plans of moving out of the UK if Brexit goes badly then there won't be any big businesses left to dictate to the government. Problem solved.

“If brexit goes badly” so all these economic projections aren’t certain well how can they be when something has yet to happen, sensible business planning will have contingencies & the scope to adapt. It’s common opinion amongst brexit circles that after we leave, the EU will regret the way they have gone about things, effectively they are alienating other member states who are experiencing problems with the internal setup & sinister doubts are emerging, I predict with educated knowledge we will be the start of the exodus, everybody seems to be looking for a way out but divisions on the best approach, prudently they are observing our deal domestically.

Darthlaw · Post by **Darthlaw** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:58 pm

IanMcL wrote:Evidence of our being led by underhand, lying, cheating Tory scumbags, intent on just winding down the clock, whilst reporting all is well, to the gullible.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... k-eu-talks

Where’s the evidence, exactly?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:17 pm

More good news.

Colburn - this is what is known as "evidence" and is "worth a read if you are as open minded as you say"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 77766.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:56 pm

And more

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/ ... 6150368256" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:21 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:I explained in clear and logical terms why the EU would be less concerned than we should be, (basically because their hit is divided by 27 and they will continue to trade as a "bloc" on one landmass, whilst we are cut off by the English channel, initially have no agreements in place and take the full hit ourselves).

Hi nil_d, apologies for coming on here most evenings and asking a question or two...

You say that the EU27 "will continue to trade as a bloc on one landmass, while we (I assume UK) are cut off by tghe English channel. What's happened to the Republic of Ireland while I've not been looking? I thought the whole issue was the border between Republic and Northern Ireland and both of these are separate by the Irish Sea from Great Britain which in turn has the English Channel and North Sea separating GB from the greater part of "landmass" Europe.

I've no problem with the point you are making - but isn't geography one of the "backstop" issues that's in the way of a deal?

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:39 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:More good news.

Colburn - this is what is known as "evidence" and is "worth a read if you are as open minded as you say"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 77766.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hi Lancs, looking at the video with the article it appears that the HoC select committee room has already run out of heat - several people appeared to be wearing scarves indoors.

I know I'm "losing the plot." Do we need the extra shipping capacity to bring in goods to the UK (food and medicines have been mentioned before) or is it to export stuff from the UK to Europe - that, without a deal, will be held up (and M20/Kent turned into a carpark) by all the new customs declarations and all the other "border control" stuff that the EU/Port of Calais will require? Asking for a friend...

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:50 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi nil_d, apologies for coming on here most evenings and asking a question or two...

You say that the EU27 "will continue to trade as a bloc on one landmass, while we (I assume UK) are cut off by tghe English channel. What's happened to the Republic of Ireland while I've not been looking? I thought the whole issue was the border between Republic and Northern Ireland and both of these are separate by the Irish Sea from Great Britain which in turn has the English Channel and North Sea separating GB from the greater part of "landmass" Europe.

I've no problem with the point you are making - but isn't geography one of the "backstop" issues that's in the way of a deal?

I honestly have no idea.
Technically no deal = hard border, but some compromise would have to be made since obviously a hard physical border can't go up overnight. Ireland has always been for me the big issue. I was one of those who flagged it up quite a bit in the run up to the referendum, and it remains the single biggest reason why I don't believe MPs will allow a "No deal" exit which would be in direct contravention of the Belfast Treaty, (recognised internationally and by the UN), and jeopardise 20 years of peace in the UK.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 12:35 am

Malta, Ireland and Cyprus are in the EU27.

What’s this about one landmass?

Not only that, but some landmasses have different rules (e.g. half of Cyprus being outside EU law and the Customs Union despite it being one sovereign country).

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 12:55 am

Greenmile wrote:Who will decide our immigration levels post-Brexit?

Edit - I’ll give you a clue. It’s the same people who set our minimum wage laws now.

By Jove he's got it!

After Brexit it will be British politicians voted for by the British electorate who will control British immigration policy!

Bravo Greenmile. One gold star for you, young lad!

LeuvenClaret · Post by **LeuvenClaret** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:49 am

Rowls wrote:By Jove he's got it!

After Brexit it will be British politicians voted for by the British electorate who will control British immigration policy!

Bravo Greenmile. One gold star for you, young lad!

Because British politicians have done a fantastic job of controlling non EU immigration into the UK which it never lost control of right?

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:50 am

Rowls wrote:By Jove he's got it!

After Brexit it will be British politicians voted for by the British electorate who will control British immigration policy!

Bravo Greenmile. One gold star for you, young lad!

Maybe you should read the posts around the one you’re replying to for context before coming at me with your usual patronising bullsh1t schtick. I can tell you’re a fan of mine, but you really shouldn’t read my posts in isolation or you won’t be able to enjoy their full effect.

I’ll spell it out for you because you obviously need it and I’m nice like that. Jakub claims that businesses dictate policy to the govt so, by his logic, Brexit will change nothing in respect of immigration, because businesses won’t want to give up all the cheap immigrant labour they enjoy now - apparently, all immigrants live 20 to a room and work for peanuts (perhaps you could verify this, as a low-skilled immigrant yourself).

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:05 am

Greenmile wrote:Maybe you should read the posts around the one you’re replying to for context before coming at me with your usual patronising bullsh1t schtick. I can tell you’re a fan of mine, but you really shouldn’t read my posts in isolation or you won’t be able to enjoy their full effect.

I’ll spell it out for you because you obviously need it and I’m nice like that. Jakub claims that businesses dictate policy to the govt so, by his logic, Brexit will change nothing in respect of immigration, because businesses won’t want to give up all the cheap immigrant labour they enjoy now - apparently, all immigrants live 20 to a room and work for peanuts (perhaps you could verify this, as a low-skilled immigrant yourself).

"All immigrants live 20 to a room" I cannot recaĺl stating that, maybe I've also started developing memory issues, Brexit will have to lower immigration breaking away from 1 of the EU 4 freedoms, we don't have a problem with labour shortages, we have a problem with rewarding people properly for a hard day/nights graft, people wish to work but the maths need to add up, FFS penny still hasn't dropped.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:17 am

Jakubclaret wrote:"All immigrants live 20 to a room" I cannot recaĺl stating that, maybe I've also started developing memory issues, Brexit will have to lower immigration breaking away from 1 of the EU 4 freedoms, we don't have a problem with labour shortages, we have a problem with rewarding people properly for a hard day/nights graft, people wish to work but the maths need to add up, FFS penny still hasn't dropped.

20 to a room was hyperbole. As for the penny dropping, you need to re-read my post 1225.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:41 am

Greenmile wrote:20 to a room was hyperbole. As for the penny dropping, you need to re-read my post 1225.

Yes true, have I ever pretended any different.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:42 am

Jakubclaret wrote:"All immigrants live 20 to a room" I cannot recaĺl stating that, maybe I've also started developing memory issues, Brexit will have to lower immigration breaking away from 1 of the EU 4 freedoms, we don't have a problem with labour shortages, we have a problem with rewarding people properly for a hard day/nights graft, people wish to work but the maths need to add up, FFS penny still hasn't dropped.

I'm confused. You said the reason the government don't increase the minimum wage is because businesses dictate policy to them and businesses want cheap labour. Why won't businesses dictate immigration policy to the government in order to maintain their supply of cheap labour after Brexit?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:08 am

Rowls is fine with mass immigration, as long as it is controlled by the UK Government.

I'm guessing that Jakub and Ringo for starters are not.

What that about all Brexiteers wanting the same thing again?

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:11 am

Brexit : the naked truth is we voted to leave anything else is unacceptable...

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:12 am

Smudge, you shouldn't be putting David Davis entire Brexit plan on here. Anyone might see it!

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:00 am

David Davis plus 17.4 million voters (majority)

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:10 am

And we are.

But we need some plans mate. We haven't got any. We don't appear to be making any plans in case we don't have a plan (or at least taking it seriously enough). The only plan we have is hated by everybody, but rather than having a plan a majority can get behind, we are going to have to watch a incompetent and dithering PM take us to a "No DEal" (which has been proved on this thread that no one considered before the referendum)