nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit Discussion Thread VI

johnnyskeleton

Hi folks, as Theresa May has won the vote of no confidence and we are heading into Brexit day early next year, I thought for the new thread people might give their summary of their views on Brexit to date before we get into the more day to day discussions.

So what do you think about what has happened so far? Who has come off well, who has come off badly?

Where do you think Brexit is going? What is going to be the likely impact on Ireland, Northern Ireland, the rest of the U.K. and the E.U. respectively?

Both this thread and the Mark V thread will remain open simultaneously for the next day or so and Mark V will be closed as it gets closer to the server busting 10,000 mark. Hopefully we can set down a solid foundation now for a top quality thread to come!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

bilston

judeboy101 wrote: »

I'm sorry but the no deal has been painted like so apocalypse with blood in the street and cat and dogs living together etc. It was meant to be getting kicked out of the house by your housemates with no clothes on. Now your housemates are letting you pack allowing you to visit, letting you use their wifi .

You seem almost disappointed.

Maybe I'm missing something but customs delays will remain a major problem and that could lead to empty supermarket shelves and rising petrol costs, which in turns leads to a steep increase in inflation.

Peregrinus

judeboy101 wrote: »

It's the equivalent of being evicted for not paying rent and put into a homeless hub hub. Not ideal but doesn't teach you a lesson about not paying your rent

(You've plainly not spent much time living in a homeless hub.)

Back to the point: The EU's primary objective in a no-deal situation is not to maximise pain for the UK; it's to minimise pain for the EU. Some of the things they do for that purpose may, incidentally, also tend to alleviate the plight of the UK, but that's incidental. The UK cannot depend on the EU acting to alleviate its plight and, where the EU does act in that way, the UK cannot depend on it continuing to do so.

The UK is still looking at disruption and dislocation of a kind, and on a scale, that it hasn't seen since 1945.

Nody

prinzeugen wrote: »

The HR guy must be an idiot then. The way some of the media is reporting a hard Britex makes it look like a new Berlin wall is about to go up!

It is in terms of possibility to move people around, data etc.

And the situation you posted would be illegal in the UK/Ireland anyway under equal opportunities/equal status acts in the UK and Ireland.

The reason they are keeping it on the qt, is they know they could be hauled through the courts.

A company has the right to move a job where ever they see fit; they are not discriminating against a UK person being hired but simply not hiring in their UK entity. That's a significant difference that you appear to have glossed over.

NIMAN

judeboy101 wrote: »

It's the equivalent of being evicted for not paying rent and put into a homeless hub hub. Not ideal but doesn't teach you a lesson about not paying your rent

Unless you live in Strokestown.

judeboy101

Peregrinus wrote: »

That won't solve your homelessness problem!

Three points:

First, look at the areas where the EU has not made any no-deal arrangements - medicines, data flows, veterinary checks, fisheries, any services other than financial services. And tariffs, of course. Virtually nothing here is going to address the massive congestion/delay/capacity issues at ports.

Secondly, look at the limitations on what has been announced. Yes, UK truckers will be able to deliver goods from the UK to points in the EU. But they won't be able to do a follow-on trip, picking up goods from that point and bringing them to another point in the EU, and so on, until they get to a point from which goods need to be brough back to the UK. Without this freedom, UK truckers operations in Europe become much less efficient and so more expensive. And they'll be at a competitive disadvantage by comparison with EU-based trucker who can do this, and for whom the corresponding freedom to make deliveries between points in the UK is much less signifcant. Likewise UK airlines can't make intra-EU flights, which is a much bigger problem for them than the loss by EU airlines of the right to make intra-UK flights.

In the same vein, the continued recognition of existing financial services contracts is convenient for EU-based customers, but it means relatively little to the UK-based banks, who won't be able to write any new contracts for EU customers after Brexit day. These contracts are paid for up front; the revenue stream is cut off immediately.

And, thirdly, these are unilateral and temporary measures which can be revoked by the EU at any time, without notice or agreement. They're explicitly stated to be temporary, and people and businesses are encouraged to act on the basis that they won't be round for ever. So, e.g. companies making long-term logistics arrnagements will not be contracting with UK truckers or UK airlines, since UK truckers/airlines cannot guarantee that they can provide services for a period into the future. Whether and when they will be revoked will depend entirely oni the interests of the EU and its member states, and not at all on the interests of the UK.

It's the equivalent of being evicted for not paying rent and put into a homeless hub hub. Not ideal but doesn't teach you a lesson about not paying your rent

Peregrinus

judeboy101 wrote: »

I'm sorry but the no deal has been painted like so apocalypse with blood in the street and cat and dogs living together etc. It was meant to be getting kicked out of the house by your housemates with no clothes on. Now your housemates are letting you pack allowing you to visit, letting you use their wifi .

That won't solve your homelessness problem!

Three points:

First, look at the areas where the EU has not made any no-deal arrangements - medicines, data flows, veterinary checks, fisheries, any services other than financial services. And tariffs, of course. Virtually nothing here is going to address the massive congestion/delay/capacity issues at ports.

Secondly, look at the limitations on what has been announced. Yes, UK truckers will be able to deliver goods from the UK to points in the EU. But they won't be able to do a follow-on trip, picking up goods from that point and bringing them to another point in the EU, and so on, until they get to a point from which goods need to be brough back to the UK. Without this freedom, UK truckers operations in Europe become much less efficient and so more expensive. And they'll be at a competitive disadvantage by comparison with EU-based trucker who can do this, and for whom the corresponding freedom to make deliveries between points in the UK is much less signifcant. Likewise UK airlines can't make intra-EU flights, which is a much bigger problem for them than the loss by EU airlines of the right to make intra-UK flights.

In the same vein, the continued recognition of existing financial services contracts is convenient for EU-based customers, but it means relatively little to the UK-based banks, who won't be able to write any new contracts for EU customers after Brexit day. These contracts are paid for up front; the revenue stream is cut off immediately.

And, thirdly, these are unilateral and temporary measures which can be revoked by the EU at any time, without notice or agreement. They're explicitly stated to be temporary, and people and businesses are encouraged to act on the basis that they won't be round for ever. So, e.g. companies making long-term logistics arrnagements will not be contracting with UK truckers or UK airlines, since UK truckers/airlines cannot guarantee that they can provide services for a period into the future. Whether and when they will be revoked will depend entirely oni the interests of the EU and its member states, and not at all on the interests of the UK.

judeboy101

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not really. They fall well short of what the UK would get in a transition period under the Withdrawal Agreement, and there will still be major disruption.

I'm sorry but the no deal has been painted like so apocalypse with blood in the street and cat and dogs living together etc. It was meant to be getting kicked out of the house by your housemates with no clothes on. Now your housemates are letting you pack allowing you to visit, letting you use their wifi .

Peregrinus

judeboy101 wrote: »

These decisions by the EU take a major sting out of a no deal. ERG will be delighted.

Not really. They fall well short of what the UK would get in a transition period under the Withdrawal Agreement, and there will still be major disruption.

judeboy101

These decisions by the EU take a major sting out of a no deal. ERG will be delighted.

[Deleted User]

prinzeugen wrote: »

The HR guy must be an idiot then. The way some of the media is reporting a hard Britex makes it look like a new Berlin wall is about to go up!

And the situation you posted would be illegal in the UK/Ireland anyway under equal opportunities/equal status acts in the UK and Ireland.

The reason they are keeping it on the qt, is they know they could be hauled through the courts.

It doesn't sound like it falls under any of the nine grounds you can't discriminate against here:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/law_and_rights/irish_human_rights_commission.html

Picking an office a job can be done from isn't discrimination on nationality.

Moving car assembly lines is a bit more complicated than sending a new employees laptop to Dublin rather than London.

Peregrinus

prinzeugen wrote: »

The HR guy must be an idiot then. The way some of the media is reporting a hard Britex makes it look like a new Berlin wall is about to go up!

And the situation you posted would be illegal in the UK/Ireland anyway under equal opportunities/equal status acts in the UK and Ireland.

The reason they are keeping it on the qt, is they know they could be hauled through the courts.

I think you've misunderstood mickoneill. It's not the case that he's applying for a job in London that is only open to nationals of the EU-27. On the retirement/resignation of the current occupant the opportunity is being taken to relocate the role from London to an EU-27 location, presumably because the the nature of the role makes it desirable that it be discharged with the Single Market.

Presumably a British citizen is free to apply for the job and will be considered on the same basis as any other applicant. But, if appointed, he'll leave the UK to take up the job.

There's nothing illegal about this and the company faces no prospect of being hauled through th courts. They haven't made a public announcement about this because, well, why would they?

[Deleted User]

prinzeugen wrote: »

The HR guy must be an idiot then. The way some of the media is reporting a hard Britex makes it look like a new Berlin wall is about to go up!

And the situation you posted would be illegal in the UK/Ireland anyway under equal opportunities/equal status acts in the UK and Ireland.

The reason they are keeping it on the qt, is they know they could be hauled through the courts.

I don't think you're in any position to talk about HR after your posts in the Can't get a job thread.

And some evidence that a company cannot hire staff in any country it sees fit to would be good as well. I'd find it hard to believe jobs must be advertised across Europe and the winning candidate work in their home country's office, by law.

CelticRambler

prinzeugen wrote: »

The HR guy must be an idiot then. The way some of the media is reporting a hard Britex makes it look like a new Berlin wall is about to go up!

And the situation you posted would be illegal in the UK/Ireland anyway under equal opportunities/equal status acts in the UK and Ireland.

There must be quite a few idiots in British HR then, as I've heard the same from colleagues working in England, particularly in my own sector which relies quite heavily on foreign workers to fill the gaps left by 30-something white females deciding that workplace equality isn't all it's cracked up to be.

BTW why do you keep referring to the fabric retailer, Britex - what have they got to do with Brexit?

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

I think you`re a deluded as theresa may:rolleyes:-it`s negotiation which is in the interests of both parties-purely business-what are you trying to suggest?

It's not a negotiation. It's a unilateral measure introduced by the EU to minimise damage to the EU. Its effect on the UK is incidental; the EU is unconcerned with this.

And look at the detail of the announcement. In a no-deal situation, the EU will continue (for a limited period) to accept derivative contracts written in London pre-Brexit Day, but it won't accept new contracts. Which means that, from Brexit day, the City of London will be writing precisely zero new derivative contracts for EI-regulated customers. Existing contracts, as they mature and are closed out, will not be replaced by new contracts written in London; they'll be replaced by new contracts written by EU-regulated institutions.

That's clearly not the outcome of "a negotiation which is in the interests of both parties"; it's the unilateral imposition by the EU of a program for the orderly but fairly rapid running-down of the City of London's business of selling derivative contracts to EU-regulated entities.

RobMc59 wrote: »

I think it`s a negotiation between two parties . . .

It really isn't. The EU position here is clear; their no-deal measures will be decided unilaterally, for EU advantage; not negotiated, for mutual advantage. Both self-respect and self-interest dictate this stance on the part of the EU.

They will remain willing to negotiate with the UK, but their first negotiating priorities will be what they are now - settlement of the UK's financial obligations to the Union; citizens' rights; the Irish border.

BonnieSituation

prinzeugen wrote: »

Corbyn is a Neil Kinnock Mk2. So bad nobody will vote for them other than ex miners and indoctrinated students.

The left.. Free speech. Just as long as its socialist/communist party approved!

Typical left wing. Do as I say, not as I do. The speaker in the HOC should be replaced as his bias for Labour is so obvious.

And there's me thinking Mr Bercow was a Conservative fellow, of Jewish stock no less.

Seems a strange bedfellow for Jezza's lefty Anti-semite ruffians...

Peregrinus

prinzeugen wrote: »

JLR has NEVER said jobs are going to go in the UK as a result of Britex. Lots of "mights" but no "This will happen" . Its bollox!

If Britex was such a threat to the auto industry, the production would have been moved or in the process of being moved by now.

Production of the Land Rover Discovery is being moved from Solihull to Slovakia. Separately, a thousand jobs have been cut at Solihull and Castle Bromwich. Investment in the UK auto industry has halved. These are not "mights", and they are not unrelated to the fact that, in a no deal Brexit, UK-made cars (most of which are exported to other EU countries) will face a 10% tariff, effective next March.

If more has not happened yet, it's because the drop in the pound has provided a temporary boost to the industry, enablting them to wait and see what the terms of Brexit wil be. But if there is a no-deal Brexit (or indeed any Brexit which doesn't involve an FTA with a zero tariff on cars and car parts) divestment will follow very quickly. How could it be otherwise?

prinzeugen wrote: »

No deal and in 2 years people will be asking what all the fuss was about.

This glib assurance might carry some weight if you could offer even the barest justification for it. As it is, it flies in the face of well-known facts - like the 10% tariff, and the role of JIT supply chains in the UK auto industry - and the simplest common sense. Every time you make this obviously dubious claim without offering a credible justification for it, you confirm everybody's worst preconceptions. Do you really think that's a wise strategy?

prinzeugen

Peregrinus wrote: »

Pretty well everbody in the UK motor industry holds anti-brexit views. You should probably be asking yourself why that might be.

Yes. I said it. You said the opposite. You now concede that you were wrong. But, despite the facts being other than you claimed, you still hold the view which you previously justified by reference to the now-debunked "facts". QED, I think.

How am I not suprised that JLR having failed to say what you thought they said somehow "confirms" what you claimed when you thought they said it? By your own account, the beliefs you hold are of the kind that is "confirmed" by a compete absence of evidence.

Seriously, if you know of an analysis from any reputable source that suggests that Brexit doesn't pose a grave threat to the UK auto manufacturing/assembly industry, now would be a good time to link to it. And if you can't do that, this is probably a dead horse that you should stop flogging. You are confirming all the prejudicial stereotypes that people hold about Brexiters.

JLR has NEVER said jobs are going to go in the UK as a result of Britex. Lots of "mights" but no "This will happen" . Its bollox!

If Britex was such a threat to the auto industry, the production would have been moved or in the process of being moved by now.

And I love the wee personal insult again! No doubt you will get many thanks for your post. Maybe remainers should read up a little. Am I concerned? No.

No deal and in 2 years people will be asking what all the fuss was about.

Peregrinus

Podge_irl wrote: »

It is even noted in the document that "This is subject to the UK conferring equivalent rights to EU air carriers, as well as the UK ensuring conditions of fair competition." Nothing has been arranged or agreed with the UK.

Nothing is going to be arranged or agreed with the UK. It's important to understand that the EU's no-deal planning is going to consist of a series of unilateral measures - there will be no "mini-deals" with the UK.

The unilateral measures will be chosen by the EU because they confer benfits on (or, rather, minimise harm to) the EU and its members. Their impact on the UK, positive or negative, is not a consideration.

In some cases the unilateral measures will be conditional on reciprocation by the UK. This is not a covert way of reaching agreement with the UK; more a recognition that the nature of some measures is such that they won't confer any benefit on/minimise any harm to the EU unless they are matched by the UK. Therefore, we will only take these measure if they are going to be matched.

prinzeugen

mickoneill31 wrote: »

If a company doesn't make a statement then it's bollox?
I'm starting a new job in the new year. The company is huge and the job is senior enough. The hiring manager told me that I was replacing a guy that finished up in London and that he was told he couldn't recruit in the UK and had to hire from one of their EU offices. This company hasn't made a public statement either. I know a guy working in the company and up until a couple of years ago they were focusing their recruitment in the UK. I wonder what changed and I wonder how many other companies are doing this quietly.
But it's obviously bollix if they don't announce it to the world.

Most companies arent going to get involved. They're just working around Brexit.

The HR guy must be an idiot then. The way some of the media is reporting a hard Britex makes it look like a new Berlin wall is about to go up!

And the situation you posted would be illegal in the UK/Ireland anyway under equal opportunities/equal status acts in the UK and Ireland.

The reason they are keeping it on the qt, is they know they could be hauled through the courts.

Peregrinus

prinzeugen wrote: »

The boss of JLR is a well known for his anti Brexit views.

Pretty well everbody in the UK motor industry holds anti-brexit views. You should probably be asking yourself why that might be.

prinzeugen wrote: »

You said it yourself. JLR has not issued an official statement.

Yes. I said it. You said the opposite. You now concede that you were wrong. But, despite the facts being other than you claimed, you still hold the view which you previously justified by reference to the now-debunked "facts". QED, I think.

prinzeugen wrote: »

So it confirms my view that its bollox.

How am I not suprised that JLR having failed to say what you thought they said somehow "confirms" what you claimed when you thought they said it? By your own account, the beliefs you hold are of the kind that is "confirmed" by a compete absence of evidence.

Seriously, if you know of an analysis from any reputable source that suggests that Brexit doesn't pose a grave threat to the UK auto manufacturing/assembly industry, now would be a good time to link to it. And if you can't do that, this is probably a dead horse that you should stop flogging. You are confirming all the prejudicial stereotypes that people hold about Brexiters.

prinzeugen

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

This the reason why the Tories and May blew their 20 point lead in the last election.

Corbyn, for all his faults, was out stumping about healthcare, income inequality, abolition of tuition fees etc.

Tories out campaigning "ZOMG do you know he talked to the IRA once about 35 years ago!?!?!".

Then it was Antisemitism, now its misogyny. Its interesting the right wing always accuse the left of playing "identity politics", bbc obsessed with minorities and womens football, guardian hates white british people etc, not to mention that disgraceful performance by Claire Perry on QT a few weeks ago yelling endlessly about Corbyn being an antisemite and even accusing host David Dimbleby of being sexist.

All the Tories and the British right wing have ever done is play identity politics against Corbyn. They have no policies, just the usual FEAR FEAR FEAR and hope something, anything sticks.

As I say you can see why despite Corbyn being a fairly weak leader, he managed to close the the 25 point gap to just 2 points. People see through all this crap eventually, they look desperate.

Corbyn is a Neil Kinnock Mk2. So bad nobody will vote for them other than ex miners and indoctrinated students.

The left.. Free speech. Just as long as its socialist/communist party approved!

Typical left wing. Do as I say, not as I do. The speaker in the HOC should be replaced as his bias for Labour is so obvious.

mickoneill31

prinzeugen wrote: »

The boss of JLR is a well known for his anti Brexit views. You said it yourself. JLR has not issued an official statement. So it confirms my view that its bollox. Diesel car sales are falling in Europe. And what does JLR make in the UK? Diesels.
.

If a company doesn't make a statement then it's bollox?
I'm starting a new job in the new year. The company is huge and the job is senior enough. The hiring manager told me that I was replacing a guy that finished up in London and that he was told he couldn't recruit in the UK and had to hire from one of their EU offices. This company hasn't made a public statement either. I know a guy working in the company and up until a couple of years ago they were focusing their recruitment in the UK. I wonder what changed and I wonder how many other companies are doing this quietly.
But it's obviously bollix if they don't announce it to the world.

Most companies arent going to get involved. They're just working around Brexit.

SharpshooterTom

This the reason why the Tories and May blew their 20 point lead in the last election.

Corbyn, for all his faults, was out stumping about healthcare, income inequality, abolition of tuition fees etc.

Tories out campaigning "ZOMG do you know he talked to the IRA once about 35 years ago!?!?!".

Then it was Antisemitism, now its misogyny. Its interesting the right wing always accuse the left of playing "identity politics", bbc obsessed with minorities and womens football, guardian hates white british people etc, not to mention that disgraceful performance by Claire Perry on QT a few weeks ago yelling endlessly about Corbyn being an antisemite and even accusing host David Dimbleby of being sexist.

All the Tories and the British right wing have ever done is play identity politics against Corbyn. They have no policies, just the usual FEAR FEAR FEAR and hope something, anything sticks.

As I say you can see why despite Corbyn being a fairly weak leader, he managed to close the the 25 point gap to just 2 points. People see through all this crap eventually, they look desperate.

Anthracite

downcow wrote: »

I am surprised you take the chief con as gospel. Of course he needs his budget increased. We have had relative peace for 20 years (at least less killings than Dublin).

Major urban centres do tend to have higher levels of drug gang crime.

prinzeugen

Peregrinus wrote: »

JLR have not been silent about the threat posed by Brexit:

https://www.ft.com/content/d077afaa-7f8a-11e8-bc55-50daf11b720d

https://news.sky.com/story/no-deal-brexit-could-cost-60m-a-day-jaguar-boss-warns-11495300

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-11/jlr-chief-tells-may-hard-brexit-will-cost-jobs-wipe-out-profit

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jaguar-land-rover-boss-ralf-speth-ready-to-follow-bmw-with-brexit-factory-shutdown-bqq6gs7jj

You can't really filter out all the JLR statements that mention Brexit, and then argue that the fact that the remaining statements don't mention Brexit proves that JLR is unaffected by Brexit. People will point at you in the street and laugh, and you don't really want that, do you?

As for the claim that "the official statement from JLR" did not mention Brexit, JLR has not yet issued an official statement about next month's expected production cutbacks. What they have issued, and what you link to, is comments on the outturn for 2018. True, it doesn't mention Brexit but, then, Brexit didn't happen in 2018. What it does say is that, while sales in China are falling, sales in Europe are rising. Despite this, it's reported that they are expecting to reduce production in the UK. The link with Brexit is obvious and, even if it weren't obvious, as noted above JLR have been pointing it out explicitly for many months now.

Still, brexitry does require a high degree of wilful turning away of the eyes and mind to sustain it, so I'm not completely surprised that you haven't noticed any of this.

The boss of JLR is a well known for his anti Brexit views. You said it yourself. JLR has not issued an official statement. So it confirms my view that its bollox. Diesel car sales are falling in Europe. And what does JLR make in the UK? Diesels.

Sales of diesel cars are nothing to do with Brexit so I don't know how anyone can link the two.

But sure, I am another Brexiter that has no idea according to you. You anti Brexit folks always have to add a personal insult don't you.

Water John

Think she would be a great PM but wouldn't be able to keep brexiteers onside.

flatty

Water John wrote: »

Amber Rudd on Peston, very sensible. 'no Deal preparation necessary as we have triggered Art 50'. That is really a swipe at TM.
She also opens up the option for Parliament to decide, if TM's Deal is rejected. Also opens the possibility of a 2nd Ref.

Amber Rudd is one of the few leaders in UK politics. One of the few with genuine integrity, and with the resilience needed. I think she's the only hope. May stabbed her in the back, but she took the fall, kept her counsel, and looks and sounds more impressive by the day.

Christy42

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

No-Deal Brexit plans just published by the Government.

https://merrionstreet.ie/MerrionStreet/en/News-Room/Releases/No_Deal_Brexit_Contingency_Plan.pdf

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/government-publishes-contingency-plan-for-no-deal-brexit-1.3737517

Nate

This and the EU plans really shows up the UK recent statement of only looking at it in a centralised way this week into a bad light. These have been done with months of planning and are released with a few months to spare (looks like they were timed to be after the vote but May scuppored that by kicking the can another bit).

The UK seem to only really be starting. Some decentralised work may have been done but that is not a unified response nor does it mean there are not big gaps.

Water John

Amber Rudd on Peston, very sensible. 'no Deal preparation necessary as we have triggered Art 50'. That is really a swipe at TM.
She also opens up the option for Parliament to decide, if TM's Deal is rejected. Also opens the possibility of a 2nd Ref.

Inquitus

Enzokk wrote: »

Full speech: Sir Ivan Rogers on Brexit

RTÉ - Brexit Republic

Well worth anyone who visits this forum reading this, it's perhaps an honest a casting of where we are as one could find. It's a very long read mind. Thanks for posting it Enzokk