Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

roosterman71 wrote: »

Has the UK got full employment or are the locals too high and mighty to go pick fruit?

Its just reality i think, fruit picking like a lot of manual labour jobs, is both hard work and relatively poorly paid, so it might be a stretch to think locals, even in tougher times, would give up benefits to take it up. Tends to be of a seasonal nature too, i guess, so why it would suit migrants. They come here, work the few months is going and then go home again. Not all, but a lot of them.

IDS was proposing people work until they are 75. That solves the fruit picking problem. Put the grannys at it.

Mos it isn't a smart comment. Just black humour to illustrate a point.

Bambi wrote: »

imagine an unscrupulous government flooding a country with cheap labour from outside the EU, it could never happen here

Hold on a minute...

What cheap labour. Where ? There's no 'cheap' labour in this country unless your looking to spread ridiculously stupid xenophobic bile. Which some posters here wouldn't have form in would they.... In countless other threads.

You know the type of people who haven't a blues notion what they are talking about and never spoke to someone that wasn't born in their estate. Those people.

Not to derail, but the min wage is great for that. Where it fails is where, with foreign work visas, a lot of that wage is clawed back, for services incl housing. Meat processing is a prime example.

it was always the case that TM was blinded by the issue of immigration. It was largely in her own control and was not from EU countries.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I dont see what the big issue is the whole time with raising the retirement age.

65 was chosen a long time ago when people werent expecting to live as long as they are going to in the future and when 65 was considered elderly.

if people start living to 100+ in large numbers, you'll have a lot of people spending almost as long receiving a pension as they did paying tax. Thats not sustainable.

Fair point. At same time, if you are not creating new employment then you're making it tougher and tougher for young people to get on the job ladder given positions are opening up later and later. Its a bit of a conundrum really.

WomanSkirtFan8 wrote: »

Varadkar's right about a UI. It will have to be done extremely slowly and carefully as there is so much detail to be worked out with everyone up there.

Unionists won't discuss a UI for fear of being seen as a collaborator. The negotiations would have to come after a pro-UI vote.

Also, I think the implications of rejecting a UI in the south need to be discussed because if people think everything would go back to how it was they're fooling themselves.

This is an interesting thread of the week ahead and what the UK Government is facing,

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1185989844281020418?s=20

Seems that the second vote on the deal will not be allowed to happen because the government screwed up on Saturday by not bringing it forward for a division and so it was just nodded through. That means it cannot be brought back for a second vote as it is the same deal as before. It is an interesting thread and it seems we could be in for more fun and maneuvers from both sides.

We will have to see how it pans out but it seems like a crucial amendment, if it is brought forward, is one calling for an all UK customs union. Labour and the opposition would support this and the DUP as well. If it is passed then Johnson would have to oppose his own deal or at the very least he will have to face down the ERG who you would think not support that. Also, Johnson would need an extension to ask the EU for the all-UK customs union and I don't see him doing that.

We still have the Queens Speech to get through as well and Johnson could lose that vote. That was supposed to happen tomorrow and Tuesday but who knows what will happen with that.

Enzokk wrote: »

This is an interesting thread of the week ahead and what the UK Government is facing,

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1185989844281020418?s=20

Seems that the second vote on the deal will not be allowed to happen because the government screwed up on Saturday by not bringing it forward for a division and so it was just nodded through. That means it cannot be brought back for a second vote as it is the same deal as before. It is an interesting thread and it seems we could be in for more fun and maneuvers from both sides.

We will have to see how it pans out but it seems like a crucial amendment, if it is brought forward, is one calling for an all UK customs union. Labour and the opposition would support this and the DUP as well. If it is passed then Johnson would have to oppose his own deal or at the very least he will have to face down the ERG who you would think not support that. Also, Johnson would need an extension to ask the EU for the all-UK customs union and I don't see him doing that.

We still have the Queens Speech to get through as well and Johnson could lose that vote. That was supposed to happen tomorrow and Tuesday but who knows what will happen with that.

Good thread that. But it is hurting my head! Stuff about the CU just sounds mad but seems it could work as a total bill wrecker, maybe even lead to gov voting against their own bill. More madness awaits for sure...

Would ROI really welcome a UI?

I doubt it given the polarity of things up North. Does ROI really need to take that on with no realistic benefit?

Well if there is a benefit, tell me now.

Deleted User wrote: »

Nor is working as a bricklayer at 70, using this logic most people will die of physical working. Just because someone is physically able to work, shouldn't mean they must.

Really need to evaluate what life is about as it seems being part of the machine is all that matters to many.

Bricklayers arent really working till 65 anyway so its hardly the best comparison.

Whats your actual solution to people receiving everything back in pension that they paid in tax? What do we use to run the country?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nor is working as a bricklayer at 70, using this logic most people will die of physical working. Just because someone is physically able to work, shouldn't mean they must.

Really need to evaluate what life is about as it seems being part of the machine is all that matters to many.

People will increasingly have multiple different careers throughout their lives. The original retirement age was brought in because the average lifespan was 2 years older.

If the average lifespan increases to 95 and we retain 65 as the mandatory retirement age that places a huge burden on people to save enough in 45 years of employment to live another 30 years.

If we live to 95 why not work to 85 or 90? What's the point of spending 20 or 30 years sitting around (bar the odd trip here and there) waiting to die. That's my definition of a nightmare.

Why do you think Warren Buffett works every day in his late 80's and his Chairman Charlie Munger does the same aged 92? Because they need the money?

I've no objection to someone wanting to retire at 65 of they want to sit around watching daytime TV for a few decades and they have put away enough cash to fund that but personally I want to stay in the game as long as I can and if that means I end up moving away from my current career into roles more suited to my ability at that age then I'm 100% up for that so long as I'm interacting with people and being productive.

No one expects a 70 year old to work as a bricklayer just as no one expects a 45 year old to work as a professional footballer but if you choose a career which is dependent on physical strength you probably need to accept it's not going to be a lifelong career and you will need to plan what your 2nd career will be eg training bricklayers, working as a sales advisor or delivery driver for a builders providers, retraining for something completely new eg taxi driver or driving instructor etc

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

This from last year explains why the Eastern European's weren't coming then.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44230865

You probably didn't intend it, but that quote seemed to imply that the Bulgarians and Romanians were the scrapings of the barrel. It actually meant that there were so few applying that they were getting poorly experienced applicants and very few even of them. And as we all knew, brexit (falling sterling and uncertainty about visas etc.) is the cause.