Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

VinLieger

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Apart from the rapidly depleting resource of North Sea oil, Scotland is heavily dependent on staying in the UK.

You mean like how the UK is heavily dependent on staying in the EU?

A Dub in Glasgo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I doubt you will accept my opinion. So maybe a professor will do?

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/25/snp-currency-proposals-disastrous-independent-scotlands-economy/amp

That's not to mention the SNP want to join the EU in the event of brexit which would raise the prospect of a hard border with England if a deal can't be done between them.

Apart from the rapidly depleting resource of North Sea oil, Scotland is heavily dependent on staying in the UK.

So you cannot answer a fairly simple question


McCrone report published in a newspaper today

Yes, Scotland's oil is gone... ha!

2ygb4cmqetsjhx

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well since Ireland kept the pound until 1978, i'd say it was very possible.

Is that true? I wasn't aware of that. Could I buy a pint with Sterling in a pub in Cork before 1978?

prawnsambo

Averi Delicious Mechanic wrote: »

Is that true? I wasn't aware of that. Could I buy a pint with Sterling in a pub in Cork before 1978?

Pretty much. The Irish pound was pegged to sterling until we joined the EMS in 1978. No problem using sterling in Ireland, but it wasn't reciprocated in the UK. But they don't even like NI or Scottish notes either.

ToBeFrank123

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

So you cannot answer a fairly simple question


McCrone report published in a newspaper today

Yes, Scotland's oil is gone... ha!

Yeh sure.

https://www.businessinsider.com/indyref2-why-second-scottish-independence-referendum-is-a-bad-idea-2017-3?r=US&IR=T

That's not to mention the lie from the SNP about staying in the EU.

Anyways not Brexit related but shows that lies are common in referenda.

Sam Russell

prawnsambo wrote: »

Pretty much. The Irish pound was pegged to sterling until we joined the EMS in 1978. No problem using sterling in Ireland, but it wasn't reciprocated in the UK. But they don't even like NI or Scottish notes either.

Not quite. Any UK bank would swap an Irish pound note for a Bank of England note without charge. In 1978 we broke from parity. currently, the Irish pound wuld be worth GB£1.10 so we are 10% over parity.

(That is converting the Euro into Punts).

NI and Scottish notes are not legal tender in England. I do not know why,

A Dub in Glasgo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Yeh sure.

https://www.businessinsider.com/indyref2-why-second-scottish-independence-referendum-is-a-bad-idea-2017-3?r=US&IR=T

That's not to mention the lie from the SNP about staying in the EU.

Anyways not Brexit related but shows that lies are common in referenda.

Cannot see your link as it will not load, fancy puttin in your own words

McMurphy

Sam Russell wrote: »

Not quite. Any UK bank would swap an Irish pound note for a Bank of England note without charge. In 1978 we broke from parity. currently, the Irish pound wuld be worth GB£1.10 so we are 10% over parity.

(That is converting the Euro into Punts).

NI and Scottish notes are not legal tender in England. I do not know why,

Having spent both notes from various northern banks (first trust, Northern, Ulster etc) and Scotland banks in London in the early 00s pretty much problem free I wouldn't have believed this either until I was educated about it on boards a good few years back (long before Brexit was a thing)

Bizarre tbh.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sam Russell wrote: »

Not quite. Any UK bank would swap an Irish pound note for a Bank of England note without charge. In 1978 we broke from parity. currently, the Irish pound wuld be worth GB£1.10 so we are 10% over parity.

(That is converting the Euro into Punts).

NI and Scottish notes are not legal tender in England. I do not know why,

The 'union' kept the Bank of England as the central bank and only notes issued by the central bank are valid across the UK. The notes issued by Scottish and Irish banks are not legal tender across England... just demonstrates who wears the trousers in the 'union'

Sam Russell

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Having spent both notes from various northern banks (first trust, Northern, Ulster etc) and Scotland banks in London in the early 00s pretty much problem free I wouldn't have believed this either until I was educated about it on boards a good few years back (long before Brexit was a thing)

Bizarre tbh.

Legal Tender is a funny thing. It means that if you tender it, it must be accepted as payment. Now offering copper coins is not legal tender above a particular amount. This is to prevent someone from paying a large fine in pennies.

If someone is prepared to accept payment in Book Tokens, it does not make them legal tender. Just because a shop accepts Scottish notes, does not mean they must accept them, or any other shop must. However an English Bank will exchange them for BoE notes. Tha is how Sterling works.

It was the same during the transition for the Euro before the actual notes appeared. It was possible to preload a cedit card with Irish Pounds and draw out Spannish Pesatas in a Spannish bank without any charge or commission.

jm08

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Yeh sure.

https://www.businessinsider.com/indyref2-why-second-scottish-independence-referendum-is-a-bad-idea-2017-3?r=US&IR=T

That's not to mention the lie from the SNP about staying in the EU.

Anyways not Brexit related but shows that lies are common in referenda.

They discovered a new field not long ago, estimated to be 250 million barrels of oil. The Greens are going mad about it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/north-sea-gas-sea-oil-fossil-fuels-drilling-climate-change-global-warming-a8754156.html

Capt'n Midnight

fash wrote: »

The Costa amendment is actually a pretty decent chess move by the UK- putting pressure on the EU to reciprocate as regards not holding Brits abroad "hostage" to a no deal and splitting the WA. Imagine how things would have been different if the UK had actual competent "chess players" from the start.

Maybe, but it's nearly two years too late. It was point 18 on the original response to Article 50.


Here's the Guardian from Mar 29 2017 with exclusive on the "Leaked" response from EU
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/29/first-eu-response-to-article-50-takes-tough-line-on-transitional-deal

Not sure when this was published on the EU site but it says 29.3.2017 so YMMV on the leaked part
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-8-2017-0237_EN.html?redirect

18. Requires the fair treatment of EU-27 citizens living or having lived in the United Kingdom and of United Kingdom citizens living or having lived in the EU-27 and is of the opinion that their respective interests must be given full priority in the negotiations; demands, therefore, that the status and rights of EU-27 citizens residing in the United Kingdom and of United Kingdom citizens residing in the EU-27 be subject to the principles of reciprocity, equity, symmetry and non-discrimination, and demands moreover the protection of the integrity of Union law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and its enforcement framework; stresses that any degradation of the rights linked to freedom of movement, including discrimination between EU citizens in their access to residency rights, before the date of withdrawal from the European Union by the United Kingdom would be contrary to Union law;

Also this bit about retracting Article 50 in good faith.

L. whereas a revocation of notification needs to be subject to conditions set by all EU-27, so that it cannot be used as a procedural device or abused in an attempt to improve on the current terms of the United Kingdom’s membership;

youcantakethat

Sam Russell wrote: »

Sterling is stronger today than it has been since 21st May 2017.

Today :£0.85464 = €1 @ 27/02/19:15:36
21st May :£0.8594=€1 @ 21/05/17 :00:00

Sterling is also stronger than it was 10 years ago. There is currenty (and has been for some time) full employment you can say in the UK too, unlike the Eurozone average. Interesting times. The markets are not as pessimistic about the UK's chances as the majority of boards.ie posters!

It reminds me of how things are always changing. Prior to the UK joining the EEC in 1973, New Zealand exported 30% of its exports to the UK. That was cut back dramatically after the UK joined the EEC and the EEC put up tariffs on goods coming in to the EEC. New Zealand had to adapt, but adapt it did, and seek new markets, new industries etc.

Inquitus

youcantakethat wrote: »

Sterling is also stronger than it was 10 years ago. There is currenty (and has been for some time) full employment you can say in the UK too, unlike the Eurozone average. Interesting times. The markets are not as pessimistic about the UK's chances as the majority of boards.ie posters!

It reminds me of how things are always changing. Prior to the UK joining the EEC in 1973, New Zealand exported 30% of its exports to the UK. That was cut back dramatically after the UK joined the EEC and the EEC put up tariffs on goods coming in to the EEC. New Zealand had to adapt, but adapt it did, and seek new markets, new industries etc.

The UK's great employment stats are not far from the US stats, in so far as one job cannot pay a living wage, not sure this is a valid metric. A zero hours contract counts as employment after all.....

youcantakethat

Inquitus wrote: »

The UK's great employment stats are not far from the US stats, in so far as one job cannot pay a living wage, .

You are scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Wages in the UK are not that bad, ask any of the hundreds of thousands of Irish people who choose to live there.

reslfj

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Maybe, but it's nearly two years too late. It was point 18 on the original response to Article 50.


Here's the Guardian from Mar 29 2017 with exclusive on the "Leaked" response from EU
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/29/first-eu-response-to-article-50-takes-tough-line-on-transitional-deal

Not sure when this was published on the EU site but it says 29.3.2017 so YMMV on the leaked part
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-8-2017-0237_EN.html?redirect

This is the EU negotiation directive from 22 May 2017.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/negotiating-directives-article-50-negotiations_en

Lars

prawnsambo

youcantakethat wrote: »

Sterling is also stronger than it was 10 years ago. There is currenty (and has been for some time) full employment you can say in the UK too, unlike the Eurozone average. Interesting times. The markets are not as pessimistic about the UK's chances as the majority of boards.ie posters!

It reminds me of how things are always changing. Prior to the UK joining the EEC in 1973, New Zealand exported 30% of its exports to the UK. That was cut back dramatically after the UK joined the EEC and the EEC put up tariffs on goods coming in to the EEC. New Zealand had to adapt, but adapt it did, and seek new markets, new industries etc.

Ironically New Zealand is one of the countries objecting to the UK tariff and quota schedule lodged at the WTO. They kind of resent the fact that the UK ditched them back in 1973 and would prefer their quota to remain in the EU and not be split with the UK. Made me chuckle a bit tbh. Not as much of a chuckle as Argentina objecting, but still rather karmic I thought.

youcantakethat

EEC tariffs hit New Zealands exports hard all right. EEC Protectionism hit New Zealand hard and greatly reduced New Zealands exports to the UK once the UK joined the EEC. New Zealand did not want the UK to be joined with Europe, it is easy to understand why.

All that happened a long time ago, however. In current times the UK is the third largest investor in New Zealand after the United States and Australia, so the relationship is still very significant. There is an opportunity to bring it up to date and place it more in the 21st Century. The countries have a lot in common. Even the WSTA has put forward its case for a free trade agreement with New Zealand and Australia, urging the UK government to remove all existing tariffs for both countries after the UK leaves the EU.

Peregrinus

youcantakethat wrote: »

You are scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Wages in the UK are not that bad, ask any of the hundreds of thousands of Irish people who choose to live there.

Actually, no. You yourself have pointed out that the UK has very low unemployment. Yet it plainly has signficant problems with (and dissatisfaction resulting from) poverty, austerity and inequality. Indeed, many attribute the disenchantment with politics and the support for things like Brexit to precisely this dissatisfaction.

How can these two facts be reconciled? The short answer is that while the UK has lots of employment, much of it is badly paid. The UK average wage (at purchasing power parity) is about 10% lower than in Ireland. That's for equivalent full-time employees. Add to that the practice already referred to of counting workers on zero-hours contracts and low-hours contracts as employed, and the worryingly persistent low productivity of UK labour (by comparison with other developed economies) and you come up with a picture of a country that has high nominal employment, sustained by a relatively high proportion of low-grade, low-paying employment, and a corresponding high inequality in earnings. Which is pretty much the UK right now.

Jim2007

youcantakethat wrote: »

You are scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Wages in the UK are not that bad, ask any of the hundreds of thousands of Irish people who choose to live there.

You fail to appreciate the fact the many many jobs in the UK (and the US for that matter) are low value added jobs. This looks fine on paper and in the short term people do OK. But in the long term the failure of the country to accurately wealth will have a negative impact on the population.

fash

youcantakethat wrote: »

Sterling is also stronger than it was 10 years ago. There is currenty (and has been for some time) full employment you can say in the UK too, unlike the Eurozone average. Interesting times. The markets are not as pessimistic about the UK's chances as the majority of boards.ie posters!

I like the way you select your time horizons from UK calamity to UK calamity.
In the 2000's, Sterling was around €1.70, then mid 2000's it dropped to €1.50, then it collapsed 10 years ago in the GFC (your strangely convenient cut date for comparison) - before rising again to to €1.44 slightly before brexit to collapse again when brexit was voted through. It's only rising now because the markets think that brexit is less likely to happen.
It spends most of its history collapsing (look at what it was worth 100 years ago) - like the Italian lira but slightly slower.

As regards your consistent abuse of statistics regarding employment, it's of note that 9 of the 10 poorest regions in Northern Europe are in the UK. "Full employment" - yet still the poorest places in Northern Europe - and that is before the Brexit job losses are felt.

Calina

blanch152 wrote: »

Recent recruitment drive for 72 to add to the number already there, so more than 72 but 200, I don't know.

Whether it is 72 or 200, it is at least 72 less Irish graduates teaching in our secondary schools who desperately need Irish teachers.

Look this is off topic but in the current competition for which candidates are awaiting results, 17 made the final round for Irish translation. There will not be 72 this time round. This information is on the EU website: https://epso.europa.eu/job-opportunities/competition/3264/description_en This is inline with previous competitions: the number of vacancies is not filled.

I also have to tell you that no law dictates that an Irish graduate has to become a teacher in the Irish school system. They have the option to do whatever they like and many do. But the EU is not the only recruiter of Irish translators - the Irish state is currently recruiting too. Presumably that is teacher pipeline wastage too.

The location of EU jobs actually does not appeal to everyone and in fact Ireland is struggling to get people through EU recruitment competitions in general because our pool of candidates is small for one reason: the lack of language skills.

Calina

youcantakethat wrote: »

You are scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Wages in the UK are not that bad, ask any of the hundreds of thousands of Irish people who choose to live there.

I assume they are not working zero hours contracts for the most part. When I was living there I certainly wasn't.

Calina

Leroy42 wrote: »

except isn't it down to each country how they will treat 3rd country residents after Brexit rather than an EU decision?

Technically correct. The problem for UK citizens outside the EU is that while their continued residency would be facilitated per most countries , their campaigners are particularly irate about the loss of Freedom of Movement which would tie them to wherever they happened to be resident at the time. Hence they have been naturalising themselves as EU citizens in huge numbers.

I suppose if you never bothered to leave Durham, you probably don't value the freedom that allows you to go from Paris to Berlin to a small town in Italy to Amsterdam. It is an extraordinary freedom fod those who chooss to use it.

Calina

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Major drop in the number of UK students studying European languages in schools, which suggests universities there have dropped them as a course requirement:

https://www.bbc.com/news/education-47334374

Not quite that simple. Education reform made modern languages not mandatory for GCSE level in state schools in 2004. The idea was that this would mean languages were studied by "motivated" students. Serious fall off resulted at A Level and university language faculties are closing and limiting course options hand over fist. In absolute numbers more Irish students took French at HL than UK students took French A Level the last time I looked. Spanish is the number one choice in the UK and there is an incredibly sharp gender split too.

The UK has a desperate need of language skills but their state education system is a political football and teachers are not valued. The decision to no longer require languages to GCSE level was a Labour policy. It was strategically a stupid decision.

murphaph

Calina wrote: »

Technically correct. The problem for UK citizens outside the EU is that while their continued residency would be facilitated per most countries , their campaigners are particularly irate about the loss of Freedom of Movement which would tie them to wherever they happened to be resident at the time. Hence they have been naturalising themselves as EU citizens in huge numbers.

I suppose if you never bothered to leave Durham, you probably don't value the freedom that allows you to go from Paris to Berlin to a small town in Italy to Amsterdam. It is an extraordinary freedom fod those who chooss to use it.

I can anecdotally attest to that. I live in Havelland, Germany. I'm currently going through the naturalisation process here to get my dual nationality and my case worker has asked me to postpone my next appointment until after Brexit so she can prioritise the Brits ahead of a potential crash out. I didn't even know we had so many Brits living here.

kalych

ambro25 wrote: »

That course of action would not meet the legal test of good faith required to get the withdrawal of Article 50 approved by the EU27, so it's a non-starter.

My understanding was that the 'good faith' test was dropped from the final ECJ ruling. Open to correction on this.

Enzokk

youcantakethat wrote: »

Sterling is also stronger than it was 10 years ago. There is currenty (and has been for some time) full employment you can say in the UK too, unlike the Eurozone average. Interesting times. The markets are not as pessimistic about the UK's chances as the majority of boards.ie posters!

It reminds me of how things are always changing. Prior to the UK joining the EEC in 1973, New Zealand exported 30% of its exports to the UK. That was cut back dramatically after the UK joined the EEC and the EEC put up tariffs on goods coming in to the EEC. New Zealand had to adapt, but adapt it did, and seek new markets, new industries etc.

Seeing that you still posting the same things, here is something that you haven't commented on,

Enzokk wrote: »

IF things are going so great, why is the use of food banks going up in the UK? Or is that also an indicator of how well a country is doing?

Food bank use in UK reaches highest rate on record as benefits fail to cover basic costs

Please stop using statistics to prove your point, especially if it is going to only look at one point in history. I have replied to your post before regarding the exchange rates.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109510656&postcount=5694

If you take anything in just a snapshot you could read anything into it. I mean 10 years ago Amazon shares was less than 100 USD, today it is more than 1500 USD per share. Its price has more than doubled in the past 2 years, what does that tell you? I have no clue, but I am sure you brother in law would be able to tell you and the effects it would have on the US economy.

As for the FTSE 100, that is for the 100 companies listed with the highest market capitalisation on the LSE. They are the biggest companies in the UK by market value and are mainly internationally focused. So a fall in say the value of the GBP will mostly have an positive effect on them, but that is not an indicator of how the UK economy is doing.

The same with the exchange rate between two currencies, taking only a snapshot in time will not mean much. I mean I could say that it has gone from 1.74 EUR to a GBP in 2000 to 1.14 now. What does that tell me, absolutely nothing other than it changes over time. What you do see is that it was around 1.45 EUR to a GBP just before the GFC in 2007/2008. Then it went down to levels very similar to now but it picked up in value again to around 1.40 EUR to a GBP just before the Brexit result came out. Since then it has been around 1.14 EUR to a GBP again.

What does that tell me? That Brexit has had the same impact as the world financial markets almost imploding if you look at the currency exchange between the GBP and EUR. But you would be better off asking your brother in law in finance as he would have a better idea, or at least he should. Then again what do people in finance know, they were all in Enron stock when they should have known better.

Peregrinus

kalych wrote: »

My understanding was that the 'good faith' test was dropped from the final ECJ ruling. Open to correction on this.

It was, um, softened a bit.

The Advocate General's opinion argued that "the principles of good faith and sincere cooperation" (which are a fundamental principle of the Lisbon Treaty) operate as a " limit on the exercise of the right of unilateral revocation".

The judgment of the Court, when given, didn't echo this exact language. Instead, it said that a revocation must be . . .

. . . unequivocal and unconditional, that is to say [...] the purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and [...] revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end.

So they didn't actually use the words "good faith", but they did say that a member state giving notice of revocation has to do so with a certain "purpose".

Which may be a distinction without a difference. If the evidence, circustances, context, etc point to the UK giving a revocation notice not for the purpose of unequivocally ending the whole Brexit project, but rather for the purpose of securing the opportunity to have a second, better-thought-out, better-prepared swing at it, it's at least arguable that the Council can reject the notice on the grounds that it hasn't been given for a valid purpose. If that were to happen, a dispute would follow between the UK and the Council which would almost certainly end up in the Court of Justice.

kalych

Peregrinus wrote: »

... a dispute would follow between the UK and the Council which would almost certainly end up in the Court of Justice.

I would fear the opposite actually. UK government withdrawing Article 50 for any reason including the new referendum, the Council agreeing to this and Farage or Mogg going to the ECJ trying to overturn the revocation. That would really turn this whole situation into a comedy.