judeboy101 wrote: » These decisions by the EU take a major sting out of a no deal. ERG will be delighted.
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.
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 .
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.
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
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.
Water John wrote: » Think she would be a great PM but wouldn't be able to keep brexiteers onside.
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.
Peregrinus wrote: » 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?
Peregrinus wrote: » (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.
EdgeCase wrote: » What's worrying be a bit is talking to some continental colleagues of mine this morning. Four of them are talking about handing in notice and moving back to France and Spain because of what they're reading about disruption and particularly food and medicine shortages in the papers this morning. I don't know how serious those plans are but it's the first time that I've seen people very worried.
Peregrinus wrote: » Pretty well everbody in the UK motor industry holds anti-brexit views. You should probably be asking yourself why that might be.
EdgeCase wrote: » The British motor industry management may hold very anti Brexit views but based in vox pops in Sunderland and looking at the very strong votes in favour of it, the average British autoworker seems to have no idea they work as part of a pan European integrated supply chain.
prinzeugen wrote: » No deal and in 2 years people will be asking what all the fuss was about.
lawred2 wrote: » What's to say that the majority of auto workers in Sunderland didn't vote remain?
EdgeCase wrote: » There was quite a bit of coverage of Sunderland in the run-up to the referendum, as it was seen as 'ground zero' for Brexit and there were a few reporters who surveyed the Nissan carpark and it would seem that the majority of those answering were planning to vote to leave, despite all the implications which were being talked about at the time. I haven't seen any formal polling of autoworkers but it would seem like from informal surveying many of them did vote to leave.
lawred2 wrote: » yeah but I wonder was that a case of selective reporting... a case of "look at these lads whose livelihoods are dependent on EU membership still wanting to leave" - British lionheart types you know.. pride of Britain and all that or else a case of pointing out the prize turkeys voting for their own Christmas might have left out all those chaps who had the sense not to vote for the chopping block as there was no story in that
EdgeCase wrote: » All you can get for Sunderland is the overall figures: 38.7% Remain - 51,930 vs 61.3% Leave 82,394
Peregrinus wrote: » Pretty well everbody in the UK motor industry holds anti-brexit views. You should probably be asking yourself why that might be. .
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.
judeboy101 wrote: » Plenty on here were predicting exodus from city of London, financial crash, no planes flying etc. None of which will happen now. EU are staring to turn soft. It's like stopping paying your mortgage knowing full well the bank can't evict you for years.
Rain Ascending wrote: » My recollection is that there was some general demographic analysis done of one or more constituencies in the region that showed that:Those in work were much likely to vote "remain" than the average for the constituency Those out or work or retired were more likely to vote "leave" than the average Apologies -- I don't have a link to provide the numbers, but the associated news report was something that made me sit up and pay attention at the time, as it partially answered the conundrum of why places like Sunderland voted leave: the key swing votes were not those employed at manufacturing plants. Remember other (UK-wide) polling suggested that leavers saw Brexit as a good thing even if a relative became unemployed as a result.
10000maniacs wrote: » No you would be wrong on that. Channel 4 interviewed Nissan workers in Sunderland a few months back and a lot of the assembly workers were clearly on the side of Brexit. That's the scary thing about Brexit, it's a self harm cult and for a lot of people it trumps putting bread on the table.
