Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brexit discussion thread II

1…171172174176177…305

Comments

  • #5192
    Nody
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,522 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    Firblog wrote: »
    Where did you pick all that up from my post?

    Where did you come across such a dismal portrayal of the future of UK? From the same people who forecast the almighty recession that hit the UK after they voted to leave?
    Oh let's see. First of all we have the 10 billion pounds in taxes expected to leave London and London seen as less competitive as a financial center in general; that of course don't include the knock on effect on restaurants, housing etc. Then there's the car manufacturers who've all flagged that they will not invest further if a hard brexit happens along with a drop of 145 billion pounds in investments in general in one year while still in EU. That's the factory workers job slashed and gone then. Then we have the farmers; well not only can't they recruit people while still in EU but that's ok as they will be wiped out by sub standard imports but hey at least someone gets cheap sugar imports. Oh but UK buyers would never go for the cheap stuff right? Well talk with Walmart about that.

    Now; moving on to services let's start with the NHS which is what you stated people were concerned about; well to bad because they can't recruit as many staff any more because EU candidates are not showing up and the once in UK are looking to leave. Then of course there are the scientists leaving due to unclarity and they are not the only once. All prime age workers doing high value work and contributing more than they take out.

    Then we can move on to the so called "WTO rule trading". Beyond the fact that the tariffs are a non issue the simple fact is every single product in the UK will as of 31st March be recertified in a EU country again if it contains any UK certifications. And of course for any food products there's a 6 month period before EU can even accept UK certification by UK vets who are currently overwhelmingly EU citizens likely to leave. Seen lots of new vet positions trained up to replace them recently? I mean a vet only takes about 4 years to train so should not be any issues there by 31st March 2019, right?

    I could go on to talk about the border issues (fun fact, UK will not be able to accept Irish fresh goods which make up a great deal of the food markets in the UK under WTO terms which will lead to lots of empty spaces in the stores as there simply are no replacements available) at a nice 22% average price increase on food, the fact UK is crashing out of the world's biggest trade organization with the largest number of FTAs and bilateral agreements (that's how USA, China etc. prefer to use instead of FTA since people love to point out how EU don't have FTA with them) for their trade. Or how about the fact that the UK trucks will have no were to stand once they arrive to EU after Brexit for inspection? Yes, you read that right the ferries will be able to offload once, maybe twice a day if lucky before all trucks will be refused entry and have to take the ferry back. That backlog will only clear slowly meaning all those goods sitting in UK waiting. Don't think that's what will happen? Well the ferry owners do.
    we have the chief executive of the UK Chamber of Shipping. He warns that the collapse of talks could overnight bring to a halt the ferry service that carries 12,000 trucks a day from Dover across the Channel.
    Same thing comes from the airlines who're adding clauses about not flying for tickets from 31st March 2019 forward and the UK pilots state:
    head of the British Airline Pilots Association who warns that "UK airlines could find that they have to stop flying". The effect on "the entire UK aviation sector", which employs more than a million people, would be "devastating".
    And of course British soldiers actively patrolling borders because UK and May is so inept on preparing for a hard brexit.

    Now that is why I claim it will go hell for the middle class down in the UK on a hard Brexit; but hey all those experts have to be wrong and I'm sure the Tories will fund NHS to the tune of 350 million GBP a month as they put on their bus. However seeing how every single Brexit campaign promise is already broken (350 million to NHS, easiest negotiation ever, will remain in the single market, EU needs us more than we need them, German car manufacturers will pressure Merkel etc.) and the claims of the experts and Bremain keeps popping up as true one after the other I know where I put my money.


  • #5193
    Enzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,997 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    Firblog wrote: »
    You have encapsulated a few of the points I've made previously, you're calling people who had concerns about immigration and the effects on their communities, services, country, racist and xenophobic for having those concerns. Straight away you have dismissed their worries, you don't live where they live, don't experience what they experience, and the only measurement you seem take into account for the effects of immigration is the economic one; as long as there is a plus in the balance sheet it must be a good thing, nothing else matters.

    I believe you have portrayed the attitude that lost the brexit vote for the remain side.


    Once it is shown that the concerns about immigration is mainly not as much as people think, what should happen to people that still cite immigration as a problem? There are many articles and studies that show that EU immigration does not suppress wages, yet it is one of the main reasons people want out of the EU. So what should I make of people that have an irrational fear of "others"? Either they are stupid, or racist, or most likely their just stupid racists.

    Firblog wrote: »
    I think you may have that the wrong way, regardless of what the UK does, they could unilaterally decide that the North can trade freely without tariffs with the south, and that they will not block free movement of people into the north from here; but if the EU doesn't want goods coming into the EU without tariffs from NI, they will insist on customs and border controls on our side.

    Who will be the bad guy then?


    The border with the North may just be more complicated than the EU divorce bill, yet there has been very little discussion on this. Will the DUP accept a sea border? If not then you look at a hard border. If there isn't a customs union then goods will need to be checked as we cannot have substandard food (chlorinated chicken as an example) in the EU. Seeing that Ireland will not have a border between it and the EU then the border will have to be on the island.

    If the UK decides to leave the customs union, how could you possibly try and blame the EU? Is the EU proposing the UK leave? Is the EU drawing red lines about the single market and the customs union?

    Good evening solo,


    Any thoughts yet on what arguments for leaving the EU still mainly holds against the lies from the campaign? You were the one that made this claim?


  • #5194
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,997 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    murphthesmurf wrote: »
    Whats odd about it? I was replying to a comment from someone who said regarding the supposed 50 billion divorce bill. The OP commented on the cost of the pensions for the retirees in Spain. I was pointing out that the UK will have costs for EU immigrants too over the years, so it balances out.
    That person was talking about the pensions of EU civil servants who have worked on the UK's behalf for 44 years.


  • #5195
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,398 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good evening!

    This is how it is seen from the EU side. In the UK this is seen as a trade off for trade access. You're not going to change that. Davis is quite clear that the UK were willing to go further from this position but it depends on trade.

    I can't see it going much further than 3 years contributions net (after EIB assets are taken into account).

    It takes two to compromise. The UK have already been pretty generous on all three issues considering nothing of substance has been offered in return.

    I'm hopeful for a good deal but I'm happy for the prime minister to walk from a bad one.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria

    The EU are looking for the UK to cover those elements that they have signed up for, not for access to anything, just pay what you owe. The negotiations are trying to agree the basis of those commitments. It does not depend on anything subsequent like trade agreements or anything else.

    An example is the liability the EU has for pensions for retired EU employees. Their pensions are paid out of current funds - there is no pension pot for them. The UK is liable for their share - not UK citizens who have retired, but all EU direct employees who have retired over the last 43 years. This is a continuing liability but a figure can be calculated to cover future costs.

    Another liability is the cost of moving the EMA and the EBA. It is the UK who have forced these to move so it would be a liability for them.

    There are other projects that span many years after the UK has left that require continued funding. These need to be covered.

    We then have the cost of Brexit - the administration of Brexit for the UK will probably exceed a billion euro and probably more for the EU. Those lunches are not cheap. The divorce bill will be calculated when all of this is agreed, and it will be without reference to the future relationship (if any).

    All of this is before the Ireland border is discussed, and the status of EU citizens in the UK.

    And when sufficient progress has been made, they can move onto trade. If the UK are unwilling to pay their bill, how can there be trade?


  • #5196
    Firblog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,276 ✭✭✭Firblog


    Beechwoodspark wrote: »
    Good evening!!

    Won't happen mate.

    Much thanks (?!?)

    Beechwoodspark

    Have you told the negotiators? I mean if it is illegal to implement a border then what are they even talking about, it's shocking, I mean I'd expect that David Davis to be a dumbass, given he's a Brexit supporter, but how did the wonderful Michel Barnier let that slip by? :rolleyes:

    What a bloody palaver over something that can't legally happen, I'll the Irish government will be relieved to find out :D


  • Advertisement
  • #5197
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,271 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    murphaph wrote: »
    That's a falsehood. France and the Benelux countries were also net contributors all along. I'd be surprised if the Nordic countries weren't also.
    Norway pays roughly the same as the UK per capita

    They aren't in the EU , they don't get passporting rights to services, they have to accept the freedoms.

    But for that they get to keep the fish and the oil and the food.

    Groves has already said the UK will allow the foreign fleets in to take UK fish and UK oil exports are the same as imports and the UK is a major food importer.

    Norway deal isn't worth considering for the UK , the only benefit is that a few politicians might save face for a while.


  • #5198
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    murphthesmurf wrote:
    I lived in the West Midlands in the UK most of my life, 36 yrs. Over that time I witnessed the effects of immigration. Not EU immigration I must add, but immigration from prodominantly Muslim countries. It is not the rosie scene many of you imagine.

    So leaving the EU solves this how exactly?


  • #5199
    murphthesmurf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 737 ✭✭✭murphthesmurf


    First Up wrote: »
    So leaving the EU solves this how exactly?

    I didn't say it would, please read full posts and the posts that are being replied to before commenting. Posters on here constantly pick out single lines from posts without looking at any of the context to which the post is addressing.


  • #5200
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    The boss of Goldman Sachs tweeted "I'll be spending a lot more time here" while in Frankurt. It was reported on BBC news as a "taunt" to the city of London.

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/goldman-sachs-boss-in-brexit-taunt-ill-be-spending-a-lot-more-time-in-frankfurt-a3663126.html?amp


  • #5201
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    murphthesmurf wrote:
    I didn't say it would, please read full posts and the posts that are being replied to before commenting. Posters on here constantly pick out single lines from posts without looking at any of the context to which the post is addressing.

    I read all of it and wondered why you offered your experience of Muslim immigtration in Birmingham as an argument in favour of - or apology for - the Brexit vote.


  • Advertisement
  • #5202
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    murphthesmurf wrote: »
    Well said. I always find it amusing how the people cheering for more immigration and how great it is are usually from nice private neighbourhoods where none of these immigrants will live. All the presenters on Newstalk talking about the poor people drowning in boats and how Ireland should take more of them in. Yet none of them will be going to live in their leafy suburbs. They are put into lower working class neighbourhoods and schools.

    Later in your post is the inevitable "I suppose I'll be called a racist for this" inoculation, but how else is that to be read?

    There is literally no possible way to read the quoted paragraph as meaning anything other than it's bad to have immigrants in your neighbourhood.

    That's the dictionary definition of xenophobia. So, with the greatest of respect, if you have a problem with being called a xenophobe, don't post xenophobia.


  • #5203
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,162 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Firblog wrote: »
    I think you may have that the wrong way, regardless of what the UK does, they could unilaterally decide that the North can trade freely without tariffs with the south, and that they will not block free movement of people into the north from here; but if the EU doesn't want goods coming into the EU without tariffs from NI, they will insist on customs and border controls on our side.

    Who will be the bad guy then?

    The UK government will be "the bad guy" when UK manufacturing, farming, and fishing are decimated because by the "favoured nation" clause in WTO trade terms as a result of the implications owing from the above part of your quote in bold.


  • #5204
    Nody
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,522 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    Ok May has managed to fall to a new low in my eyes and that was a bloody hard thing to do.
    as she beseeched European leaders to give her a deal she can sell to the British people.
    Be a ****ing leader for once and do your job; you know what's the blockers for "a deal she can sell" so grow some bloody spine and stand up to Boris and his ilk and bloody deliver what's required.


  • #5205
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    Nody wrote: »
    Ok May has managed to fall to a new low in my eyes and that was a bloody hard thing to do.
    Be a ****ing leader for once and do your job; you know what's the blockers for "a deal she can sell" so grow some bloody spine and stand up to Boris and his ilk and bloody deliver what's required.

    A referendum rerun, or just a retraction of Art 50 and call off the Brexit (followed by election swiftishly one guesses) ?


  • #5206
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Nody wrote: »
    Ok May has managed to fall to a new low in my eyes and that was a bloody hard thing to do.
    Be a ****ing leader for once and do your job; you know what's the blockers for "a deal she can sell" so grow some bloody spine and stand up to Boris and his ilk and bloody deliver what's required.

    If she can tell a whole room of EU leaders she can tell the same thing to her delusional negotiation team. They're the ones stalling progress not the EU.

    This is a joke.


  • #5207
    Enzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,997 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    Nody wrote: »
    Ok May has managed to fall to a new low in my eyes and that was a bloody hard thing to do.
    Be a ****ing leader for once and do your job; you know what's the blockers for "a deal she can sell" so grow some bloody spine and stand up to Boris and his ilk and bloody deliver what's required.


    I may again be confused again, but she is the leader of one of the parties that went to the negotiations. She chose who would be the negotiator for the UK, but now she is close to begging for a deal from the EU. So why didn't she tell her minions to do this from the start? This is, as you put so well, time for her to show some leadership. Maybe withdraw some of your red lines before you go begging for a trade deal.


  • #5208
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Well the begging has been rejected by EU leaders as not enough progress has been made according to the Wall Street Journal.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-k-pushes-citizens-rights-to-advance-brexit-talks-1508412485


  • #5209
    murphthesmurf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 737 ✭✭✭murphthesmurf


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Later in your post is the inevitable "I suppose I'll be called a racist for this" inoculation, but how else is that to be read?

    There is literally no possible way to read the quoted paragraph as meaning anything other than it's bad to have immigrants in your neighbourhood.

    That's the dictionary definition of xenophobia. So, with the greatest of respect, if you have a problem with being called a xenophobe, don't post xenophobia.

    You can call me whatever you like, I wont lose any sleep. It doesn't make things any less true. What is your opinion on immigration? Should it have any limit? Or should we just let anyone in who wants to come, just not your neighbourhood though I suspect. Put them in with the working and lower classes.
    Like I said, I have black and Sikh friends who would say the same. Surely they're not all racist xenophobes.
    This kind of reaction to any discussion about immigration always reminds me of the film 'The Body Snatchers'. The way the aliens sqwark at anyone who hasn't become one of them. If anything negative is said about immigration people start pointing and sqwarking racist, populist, xenophobe like the aliens.


  • #5210
    Firblog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,276 ✭✭✭Firblog


    Nody wrote: »
    Oh let's see. First of all we have the 10 billion pounds in taxes expected to leave London and London seen as less competitive as a financial center in general; that of course don't include the knock on effect on restaurants, housing etc. Then there's the car manufacturers who've all flagged that they will not invest further if a hard brexit happens along with a drop of 145 billion pounds in investments in general in one year while still in EU. That's the factory workers job slashed and gone then. Then we have the farmers; well not only can't they recruit people while still in EU but that's ok as they will be wiped out by sub standard imports but hey at least someone gets cheap sugar imports. Oh but UK buyers would never go for the cheap stuff right? Well talk with Walmart about that.

    Now; moving on to services let's start with the NHS which is what you stated people were concerned about; well to bad because they can't recruit as many staff any more because EU candidates are not showing up and the once in UK are looking to leave. Then of course there are the scientists leaving due to unclarity and they are not the only once. All prime age workers doing high value work and contributing more than they take out.

    Then we can move on to the so called "WTO rule trading". Beyond the fact that the tariffs are a non issue the simple fact is every single product in the UK will as of 31st March be recertified in a EU country again if it contains any UK certifications. And of course for any food products there's a 6 month period before EU can even accept UK certification by UK vets who are currently overwhelmingly EU citizens likely to leave. Seen lots of new vet positions trained up to replace them recently? I mean a vet only takes about 4 years to train so should not be any issues there by 31st March 2019, right?

    I could go on to talk about the border issues (fun fact, UK will not be able to accept Irish fresh goods which make up a great deal of the food markets in the UK under WTO terms which will lead to lots of empty spaces in the stores as there simply are no replacements available) at a nice 22% average price increase on food, the fact UK is crashing out of the world's biggest trade organization with the largest number of FTAs and bilateral agreements (that's how USA, China etc. prefer to use instead of FTA since people love to point out how EU don't have FTA with them) for their trade. Or how about the fact that the UK trucks will have no were to stand once they arrive to EU after Brexit for inspection? Yes, you read that right the ferries will be able to offload once, maybe twice a day if lucky before all trucks will be refused entry and have to take the ferry back. That backlog will only clear slowly meaning all those goods sitting in UK waiting. Don't think that's what will happen? Well the ferry owners do.
    Same thing comes from the airlines who're adding clauses about not flying for tickets from 31st March 2019 forward and the UK pilots state:
    And of course British soldiers actively patrolling borders because UK and May is so inept on preparing for a hard brexit.

    Now that is why I claim it will go hell for the middle class down in the UK on a hard Brexit; but hey all those experts have to be wrong and I'm sure the Tories will fund NHS to the tune of 350 million GBP a month as they put on their bus. However seeing how every single Brexit campaign promise is already broken (350 million to NHS, easiest negotiation ever, will remain in the single market, EU needs us more than we need them, German car manufacturers will pressure Merkel etc.) and the claims of the experts and Bremain keeps popping up as true one after the other I know where I put my money.

    So the answer to my question was yes?


  • #5211
    Firblog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,276 ✭✭✭Firblog


    Enzokk wrote: »
    Once it is shown that the concerns about immigration is mainly not as much as people think
    , What concerns are you talking about? Your concerns or the people who have concerns?
    Who has shown that their concerns 'is mainly not as much as people think'?
    Enzokk wrote: »
    what should happen to people that still cite immigration as a problem?
    Dunno, would a good tar a feathering suffice?
    Enzokk wrote: »
    There are many articles and studies that show that EU immigration does not suppress wages, yet it is one of the main reasons people want out of the EU. So what should I make of people that have an irrational fear of "others"? Either they are stupid, or racist, or most likely their just stupid racists.

    Yes their really is no excuse for there stupidity is they're?
    Enzokk wrote: »
    If the UK decides to leave the customs union, how could you possibly try and blame the EU? Is the EU proposing the UK leave? Is the EU drawing red lines about the single market and the customs union?

    I'm not blaming anyone for the UK leaving the EU; it seems it is mostly those who are pro remain that seem to be apportioning 'blame', sometimes relationships just break down. People divorce after decades of marriage, who's to blame? The majority of voters in the UK had their reasons for voting leave, however much you disagree with them.
    Enzokk wrote: »
    Any thoughts yet on what arguments for leaving the EU still mainly holds against the lies from the campaign?

    Sorry I don't really understand what you're asking here.
    Enzokk wrote: »
    You were the one that made this claim?

    Don't think I 'claimed' anything, someone asked what were the reasons people voted leave in the referendum, and I replied with the 5? reasons, that I believed, were behind people voting to leave; I didn't 'claim' the reasons were good or bad,or if they were valid or not.

    [/QUOTE]


  • Advertisement
  • #5212
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,116 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    There's an incredibly sobering thread on twitter for what are described 'wing-growers' i.e. those who say 'let's just jump off the cliff, we're Great Britain, be grand'.

    Headline tweet:

    Jo Maugham QC
    So a wee bird has dropped into my inbox what a major newspaper has described as a report from HM Treasury.

    It deals with the consequences of us leaving the EU without a deal - exactly what the "wing-growers" are pushing on us now. /1

    Link to twitter thread.

    If we take the thread at face value, the north would be economically nuked if the British believe a divine wind will save them from a no-deal exit.


  • #5213
    Enzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,997 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    Firblog wrote: »
    , What concerns are you talking about? Your concerns or the people who have concerns?
    Who has shown that their concerns 'is mainly not as much as people think'?


    You were saying I was minimizing the concerns of Brexit voters because I don't live where they live. Can you explain how some areas that voted to leave the EU had some of the lowest migration figures?

    Fear of immigration drove the leave victory – not immigration itself

    I am also commenting on the fact that a lot of people would be under the impression that you cannot ask EU citizens to leave the country. But we know this is not true now. You can be asked to leave if there isn't any sign that you will be able to find work after 6 months.

    Jobseekers - residence rights

    So we see that tighter enforcement of the rules by the UK government could have eased the fears of immigration from the EU. This is in contradiction to the official campaign to leave the EU.

    https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/722303889404469248

    Then we have the impact of immigration on wages. Does EU immigration really bring down wages? I have linked this before but here it is again, the answer isn't clear cut across the board but overall there is a small impact on wages from EU immigration. The biggest impact is from non-EU immigration which the UK government controls, so it is a little baffling that leaving the EU will push up wages when it seems that the immigration that the government has a say in actually lowers wages.

    How immigrants affect jobs and wages
    UK research suggests that immigration has a small impact on average wages of existing workers but more significant effects for certain groups: low-wage workers lose while medium and high-paid workers gain.

    Research does not find a significant impact of overall immigration on unemployment in the UK, but the evidence suggests that immigration from outside the EU could have a negative impact on the employment of UK-born workers, especially during an economic downturn.

    That is why my sympathy for those that use immigration as a reason to leave the EU is in short supply. I have no doubt that there are people that have been negatively affected by immigration, at the same time you cannot focus only on the negative cases and have to look at the overall effect to see if it really is something to get angry about.


    Firblog wrote: »
    Dunno, would a good tar a feathering suffice?


    Maybe some effort to get the full facts across instead of spreading lies as shown above?

    Firblog wrote: »
    I'm not blaming anyone for the UK leaving the EU; it seems it is mostly those who are pro remain that seem to be apportioning 'blame', sometimes relationships just break down. People divorce after decades of marriage, who's to blame? The majority of voters in the UK had their reasons for voting leave, however much you disagree with them.

    That's great, but it is nothing to do with your post about the border and who would be the bad guy if a border is enforced in Ireland. You are talking about the border and then you are talking about voters. Maybe try and not confuse two different issues in what is supposed to be one topic.


    Firblog wrote: »
    Sorry I don't really understand what you're asking here.



    Don't think I 'claimed' anything, someone asked what were the reasons people voted leave in the referendum, and I replied with the 5? reasons, that I believed, were behind people voting to leave; I didn't 'claim' the reasons were good or bad,or if they were valid or not.


    This was not directed to you but to solodeogloria, who previously posted that both campaigns lied in the run up to the vote but he thinks the reasons to vote leave still seems solid in his opinion.

    I have been trying to get an answer on what he thinks weren't lies by those that campaigned to leave the EU and why he would vote to leave the EU if another referendum were to be held in the future.


  • #5214
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    Good morning!
    Sam Russell wrote: »
    The EU are looking for the UK to cover those elements that they have signed up for, not for access to anything, just pay what you owe. The negotiations are trying to agree the basis of those commitments. It does not depend on anything subsequent like trade agreements or anything else.

    An example is the liability the EU has for pensions for retired EU employees. Their pensions are paid out of current funds - there is no pension pot for them. The UK is liable for their share - not UK citizens who have retired, but all EU direct employees who have retired over the last 43 years. This is a continuing liability but a figure can be calculated to cover future costs.

    Another liability is the cost of moving the EMA and the EBA. It is the UK who have forced these to move so it would be a liability for them.

    There are other projects that span many years after the UK has left that require continued funding. These need to be covered.

    We then have the cost of Brexit - the administration of Brexit for the UK will probably exceed a billion euro and probably more for the EU. Those lunches are not cheap. The divorce bill will be calculated when all of this is agreed, and it will be without reference to the future relationship (if any).

    All of this is before the Ireland border is discussed, and the status of EU citizens in the UK.

    And when sufficient progress has been made, they can move onto trade. If the UK are unwilling to pay their bill, how can there be trade?

    Paying a "bill" between €60bn - €100bn as some in Germany seem to expect is unreasonable. It is especially unreasonable without any trade terms at all. I don't support paying anything without trade terms being agreed. In this scenario the money would be better spent in Britain making contingency plans for no deal.

    I put bill in inverted commas because this isn't a bill. It is a commitment that the UK has made to contribute to European projects. I think they should honour that commitment.

    The UK have been clear that they will continue paying into the EU budget so that all commitments are met in 2 years. Depending on what the EU are willing to offer the UK I can see this offer being improved upon, but again, I don't support any further movement from the UK carte blanche without any concessions from the EU.
    Enzokk wrote: »
    I am also commenting on the fact that a lot of people would be under the impression that you cannot ask EU citizens to leave the country. But we know this is not true now. You can be asked to leave if there isn't any sign that you will be able to find work after 6 months.

    This isn't enough. I've replied to this point before on this thread. This doesn't allow the UK to impose quotas on low wage work to restrict the numbers coming in in highly contested sectors to protect British workers from undercutting. The UK needs to be able to issue visas to do this effectively. As a member of the EU the UK cannot do this. Simply having a 6 month limit wouldn't solve the concerns people had in the referendum in respect to low wage work.
    Enzokk wrote: »
    Then we have the impact of immigration on wages. Does EU immigration really bring down wages? I have linked this before but here it is again, the answer isn't clear cut across the board but overall there is a small impact on wages from EU immigration. The biggest impact is from non-EU immigration which the UK government controls, so it is a little baffling that leaving the EU will push up wages when it seems that the immigration that the government has a say in actually lowers wages.

    Did you read your quote?
    UK research suggests that immigration has a small impact on average wages of existing workers but more significant effects for certain groups: low-wage workers lose while medium and high-paid workers gain.

    Research does not find a significant impact of overall immigration on unemployment in the UK, but the evidence suggests that immigration from outside the EU could have a negative impact on the employment of UK-born workers, especially during an economic downturn.

    Saying that this isn't an issue simply because middle class people don't lose out is silly.
    I'm alright jack doesn't really cut it. The concerns of working class people need to be taken on board. The reason why Brexit was won was precisely because the ruling class had ignored working class concerns like this one.

    Brexit is an opportunity to address this balance in a light touch way for low wage labour.

    I distinguished between EU and non-EU immigration here. They are not the same for a number of reasons. Non-EU immigration is a lot more controlled.
    Enzokk wrote: »
    This was not directed to you but to solodeogloria, who previously posted that both campaigns lied in the run up to the vote but he thinks the reasons to vote leave still seems solid in his opinion.

    I have been trying to get an answer on what he thinks weren't lies by those that campaigned to leave the EU and why he would vote to leave the EU if another referendum were to be held in the future.

    You can read through this thread to see why I believe Britain should leave the EU. I've been very clear. I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself, particularly when you don't seem to have listened the first time.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria


  • #5215
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Paying a "bill" between €60bn - €100bn as some in Germany seem to expect is unreasonable. It is especially unreasonable without any trade terms at all.

    Saying that €100bn is unreasonable without seeing the actual itemized bill is what is unreasonable - is this how you handle a bill in a restaurant? Pick a number, and tell the waiter that it better not be bigger than that?

    Or do you look at the items on the bill, check that you got them all, ask for incorrect items to be removed, and then pay the balance?


  • #5216
    listermint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,436 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Saying that €100bn is unreasonable without seeing the actual itemized bill is what is unreasonable - is this how you handle a bill in a restaurant? Pick a number, and tell the waiter that it better not be bigger than that?

    Or do you look at the items on the bill, check that you got them all, ask for incorrect items to be removed, and then pay the balance?

    What he failed to realize is.

    1,he won't be able to book a table at the restaurant again.

    2,All the other good restaurants will hear about it and refuse table bookings too

    3, he might get some cheap fast food but you can't eat it forever as it's bad for you


  • #5217
    flatty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,227 ✭✭✭flatty


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    murphthesmurf wrote: »
    Well said. I always find it amusing how the people cheering for more immigration and how great it is are usually from nice private neighbourhoods where none of these immigrants will live. All the presenters on Newstalk talking about the poor people drowning in boats and how Ireland should take more of them in. Yet none of them will be going to live in their leafy suburbs. They are put into lower working class neighbourhoods and schools.

    Later in your post is the inevitable "I suppose I'll be called a racist for this" inoculation, but how else is that to be read?

    There is literally no possible way to read the quoted paragraph as meaning anything other than it's bad to have immigrants in your neighbourhood.

    That's the dictionary definition of xenophobia. So, with the greatest of respect, if you have a problem with being called a xenophobe, don't post xenophobia.
    This is unfair. I think he is more reflecting upon the fact that the upper middle classes are sheltered from the complete cultural change to their home area that the poorer are more exposed to. I have a business in Rochdale. There has been a huge cultural change there in a generation. I don't live there, so it doesn't bother me, but it does some of those who do, and not wrongly. I'm not saying it's better or worse, just different. The thing is, and I'll get shouted at here, but it's true, it is non Europeans who tend to ghettoise and refuse to integrate. I think k half the vote was against that. Go figure.


  • #5218
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    flatty wrote:
    The thing is, and I'll get shouted at here, but it's true, it is non Europeans who tend to ghettoise and refuse to integrate. I think k half the vote was against that. Go figure.

    So the well-informed denizens of Rochdale voted to leave the EU because they dislike Pakistanis, West Indians and Africans?

    Go figure indeed


  • #5219
    Enzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,997 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Paying a "bill" between €60bn - €100bn as some in Germany seem to expect is unreasonable. It is especially unreasonable without any trade terms at all. I don't support paying anything without trade terms being agreed. In this scenario the money would be better spent in Britain making contingency plans for no deal.

    I put bill in inverted commas because this isn't a bill. It is a commitment that the UK has made to contribute to European projects. I think they should honour that commitment.

    The UK have been clear that they will continue paying into the EU budget so that all commitments are met in 2 years. Depending on what the EU are willing to offer the UK I can see this offer being improved upon, but again, I don't support any further movement from the UK carte blanche without any concessions from the EU.

    The EU wants the UK to agree what costs it will pay. This is NOT for access to the single market or a trade deal but costs that the UK previously agreed to. The UK keeps asking and now begging for talks to start on a trade deal yet somehow they have already started talking of the cost of what a trade deal would be. I think the UK needs to pick which one it is, ask for talks to start or commit to the talking point that the EU wants to get paid for a trade deal.

    Also, the UK agreeing to paying into the EU budget for institutions that they will continue to use is not a compromise, its good freaking manners. I don't go to a restaurant/repair shop/makes use of a tradesman and expect to get their services for free, which it seems what you are suggesting.


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    This isn't enough. I've replied to this point before on this thread. This doesn't allow the UK to impose quotas on low wage work to restrict the numbers coming in in highly contested sectors to protect British workers from undercutting. The UK needs to be able to issue visas to do this effectively. As a member of the EU the UK cannot do this. Simply having a 6 month limit wouldn't solve the concerns people had in the referendum in respect to low wage work.

    And yet this is a lie that has been spread. There is something the UK can do about EU workers in the UK. They cannot do nothing as Priti Patel is saying. She was the employment minister and she didn't know the laws or she was lying. Either way its doesn't look good for her or the Vote Leave camp. But project fear, right?

    And nice try in moving the goal posts. The UK could have dealt with EU citizens that don't have the prospect for work, but they didn't. This is what people were upset by, not by increasing the visa services to add more work for more visas.

    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Did you read your quote?



    Saying that this isn't an issue simply because middle class people don't lose out is silly.
    I'm alright jack doesn't really cut it. The concerns of working class people need to be taken on board. The reason why Brexit was won was precisely because the ruling class had ignored working class concerns like this one.

    Brexit is an opportunity to address this balance in a light touch way for low wage labour.

    I distinguished between EU and non-EU immigration here. They are not the same for a number of reasons. Non-EU immigration is a lot more controlled.

    I see you didn't read my link though. Low skill workers pay is influenced by about 0.2% for every 1% increase in immigration into semi-skilled or unskilled service sector. The influence is also mainly on other EU migrants and not the local UK population.

    For non-EU immigrants the influence is greater on the local population. Yes, the immigration the UK government allows has a greater impact on the local population. They purposefully allow immigration that undercut their own countrymen and countrywoman in the workforce. But leaving the EU will solve all this.

    I also see you posted about non-EU immigrants only allowed to stay for 2 years. You obviously either haven't heard or are just ignoring a new visa for said worker that allows them to stay longer and then probably settle in the UK and cost the state more as they start laying down their lives with a family. But get those Polish and Romanians out!

    solodeogloria wrote: »
    You can read through this thread to see why I believe Britain should leave the EU. I've been very clear. I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself, particularly when you don't seem to have listened the first time.


    No, you don't get to do that. You stated the reasons for voting leave still remains solid. Even with all the lies, one which I have now pointed out on here, you still think the reasons for leaving the EU is solid. If you think it you should be able to show what you think are solid reasons for leaving the EU that has not turned out to be a lie, like project fear.

    As a solid leave voter you should be able to list the reasons why leaving the EU is still better for the UK.


  • #5220
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,602 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    First Up wrote: »
    So the well-informed denizens of Rochdale voted to leave the EU because they dislike Pakistanis, West Indians and Africans?

    Go figure indeed
    Not many West Indians and Africans in Rochdale, First Up; only 0.3% of the population identifies as Black, which is a fraction of the English average of 2.3%.

    19.9% of the population identifies as Asian (as opposed to 4.6% for England as a whole). 1.9% of the population were born in EU countries other than the UK and Ireland.

    So, yes, Rochdale's migrant population is predominantly Asian, and they are not there as a result of exercising EU free movement rights.


  • Advertisement
  • #5221
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Peregrinus wrote:
    So, yes, Rochdale's migrant population is predominantly Asian, and they are not there as a result of exercising EU free movement rights.

    And you can bet the Asian population of Rochdale happily voted to keep out the Polish and Romanian competition.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement