Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

Boredstiff666 · 19-02-2020 01:59PM

CelticRambler wrote: »

Ummm. You might find this difficult to understand, but it's actually quite normal (in fact it's encouraged) for posts on a moderated discussion board to be limited to the topic of discussion.

With reference to your post #1301 (most of which makes no sense to me whatsoever ... ) I think you might want to review your position on this point:

Your Prime Minister, and the leader of the Labour Party, and the leader of the LibDems (they're all British, right?) made it 100% clear during the election, and PM Johnson after the election (he's still British, isn't he?) reiterated the position that there would be a united something, specifically the United Kingdom, and they weren't just demanding it, but prohibiting any attempt at disunity. The Scots will not be allowed hold a second referendum, and NI will not be disassociated by reason of an administrative border.

On the other hand, all recent surveys have shown that the British as a whole, and Brexiters/Leavers in particular consistently say that losing NI and/or Scotland would be a price worth paying for a purer, cleaner, harder Brexit.

So there we have the paradoxical situation where the ruling party, that you say has a clear mandate as a result of the most recent election, is speaking and acting contrary to the expressed wishes of the public as a whole, and to the democratic mandate delivered by the electorate of two of the UK's constituent countries. Hardly a model of good government, is it?

Oh dear your at it again. I answer another boards fellas questions and you try and turn my answers into meaning something entirely different.

Listen mate....your boring!!

I aint gotta prove anything to anybody, explain anything to anybody, or try and justify that my answers than other to the person involved (Peregrinus) to mean anything but that.

He clearly understood them and it wasnt a battle of who is right or who is wrong like you try and turn it into. I dont care what you thought my answers mean because I wasnt replying to you.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

19-02-2020 02:18PM

I don't understand how this commentary is specific to Penegrinus. Seems to be a clear cut statement on a public forum open to questioning.

Nobody in England would turn around and say 'they have to stay'. You would never find people over there demanding a united anything. The attitude would be 'its up to them'.

RobMc59 · 19-02-2020 03:42PM

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Oh dear your at it again. I answer another boards fellas questions and you try and turn my answers into meaning something entirely different.

Listen mate....your boring!!

I aint gotta prove anything to anybody, explain anything to anybody, or try and justify that my answers than other to the person involved (Peregrinus) to mean anything but that.

He clearly understood them and it wasnt a battle of who is right or who is wrong like you try and turn it into. I dont care what you thought my answers mean because I wasnt replying to you.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

You are so rude,there's no need for it!.

Boredstiff666 · 19-02-2020 04:45PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't understand how this commentary is specific to Penegrinus. Seems to be a clear cut statement on a public forum open to questioning.

Nobody in England would turn around and say 'they have to stay'. You would never find people over there demanding a united anything. The attitude would be 'its up to them'.

Yeah I was trying to explain to one man how people in Britain do not think like he imagines a Brexiteer does. I explained it twice I think similar that Irish people do not think like SF. It couldnt have been meant in any other way unless someone decides it must mean other.

Its boring going over the same things explaining things which are totally not relevant and then things which do not even apply to my posts.........but I am rude?

volchitsa · 19-02-2020 06:21PM

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Yeah I was tr ying to explain to one man how people in Britain do not think like he imagines a Brexiteer does. I explained it twice I think similar that Irish people do not think like SF. It couldnt have been meant in any other way unless someone decides it must mean other.

Its boring going over the same things explaining things which are totally not relevant and then things which do not even apply to my posts.........but I am rude?

Hope you don't mind me asking: what's your native language?

Boredstiff666 · 19-02-2020 06:44PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Hope you don't mind me asking: what's your native language?

Why?

volchitsa · 19-02-2020 07:04PM

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Why?

Because I seem to remember you presented yourself as English, or native English-speaker at any rate, but you're clearly not.

Makes something of a difference given your opinions expressed here.

theological · 19-02-2020 07:13PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Because I seem to remember you presented yourself as English, or native English-speaker at any rate, but you're clearly not.

Makes something of a difference given your opinions expressed here.

Why does it make a difference? Why is it important?

I'd much rather discuss the issues rather than the person.

BanditLuke · 19-02-2020 07:19PM

I wonder what would happen if the UK make a success of Brexit? Its that sort of scenario that is a nightmare for the European project.

CelticRambler · 19-02-2020 07:27PM

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Listen mate....your boring!!

I'm glad you pointed that out. I don't think I'd have ever figured it out myself. :pac:

Boredstiff666 · 19-02-2020 08:02PM

CelticRambler wrote: »

I'm glad you pointed that out. I don't think I'd have ever figured it out myself. :pac:

Well at least you have a sense of humour. Thats more than some of em.

volchitsa · 19-02-2020 08:08PM

theological wrote: »

Why does it make a difference? Why is it important?

I'd much rather discuss the issues rather than the person.

Well isn't it lucky there's no obligation on you to join in then? You can always just scroll on by.

theological · 19-02-2020 08:26PM

OK let's bring in some Brexit related developments in order to keep things moving.

The British government have announced what changes to the immigration system are likely. Those who move to the UK will need to show English proficiency and have a qualification.

Thoughts on this could be interesting perhaps?

ancapailldorcha · 19-02-2020 08:52PM

theological wrote: »

OK let's bring in some Brexit related developments in order to keep things moving.

The British government have announced what changes to the immigration system are likely. Those who move to the UK will need to show English proficiency and have a qualification.

Thoughts on this could be interesting perhaps?

It's just a sop to xenophobic Brexiters who are obsessed to an unhealthy degree with immigration.

Take care workers for example. They're paid next to nothing. Now, as Priti Patel states firms can train British workers but that'll be more expensive and the British taxpayer will be footing the bill.

The UK has very close to full employment. According to Pret a Manger's HR boss, just 2% of applicants to Pret are British (Source).

Eric Cartman · 19-02-2020 08:54PM

theological wrote: »

OK let's bring in some Brexit related developments in order to keep things moving.

The British government have announced what changes to the immigration system are likely. Those who move to the UK will need to show English proficiency and have a qualification.

Thoughts on this could be interesting perhaps?

brilliant. Exactly whats needed.

theological · 19-02-2020 09:06PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's just a sop to xenophobic Brexiters who are obsessed to an unhealthy degree with immigration.

Argumentum ad hominem.

It is not xenophobic to want sensible immigration controls. I'm happy to discuss whether or not having no visa for unskilled migration is a good thing. Name calling isn't a substitute for an argument however.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Take care workers for example. They're paid next to nothing. Now, as Priti Patel states firms can train British workers but that'll be more expensive and the British taxpayer will be footing the bill.

The funding model for care going forward is the can that is kicked down the road. Again and again and again. I agree it needs to be dealt with irrespective of its unpopularity.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The UK has very close to full employment. According to Pret a Manger's HR boss, just 2% of applicants to Pret are British (Source).

If the government's plans go through firms like it are going to have to become better at training British workers. In the original article Patel claims that there are 8 million economically inactive people between 16 and 64. I'd be interested to know the source of that, but if true there's definitely workers to be used.

I agree broadly speaking that post-Brexit it should not be easier to hire someone outside of Britain than someone in the country. Companies wishing to participate in the British economy should be willing to hire and train British workers.

The UK government's apprenticeship programme is brilliant from what I have seen of it. If your salary bill is over £3mn you need to either spend 0.5% of your salary bill on an apprenticeship programme. It means that the big companies are also playing a part and providing a different pathway into work.

There's much more that can be done here.

Nate--IRL-- · 19-02-2020 09:12PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

brilliant. Exactly whats needed.

Why? Genuine question.

Nate

Leroy42 · 19-02-2020 09:14PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

brilliant. Exactly whats needed.

Because?

Immigrants bring youth, pay taxes, receive little if any state benefits.

What benefit do you envision this will give to the UK?

Eric Cartman · 19-02-2020 09:16PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Because?

Immigrants bring youth, pay taxes, receive little if any state benefits.

What benefit do you envision this will give to the UK?

since when.... unskilled migrants are net detractors from economies.

Eric Cartman · 19-02-2020 09:17PM

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Why? Genuine question.

Nate

getting inactive people off welfare and back in to the workforce, closing the overbloated benefit state to economic migrants, Its a massive cost cutting excercise and ensures that only the right kind of immigration occurs.

Leroy42 · 19-02-2020 09:17PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

since when.... unskilled migrants are net detractors from economies.

Proof of that? What can be detract if they are earning money and receive no state benefits?

theological · 19-02-2020 09:18PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Because?

Immigrants bring youth, pay taxes, receive little if any state benefits.

What benefit do you envision this will give to the UK?

I'm broadly speaking pro-immigration, but I am supportive of controlled immigration managed on a sector by sector basis with quotas with consideration of the impact on public services. Hospitals, schools, etc.

I am not supportive of uncontrolled free movement on both sides actually. Firstly I think services need to be managed within the receiving country. Secondly I think we need to consider the sending country more. I'm not sure it is OK to cause brain drain in the sending countries also.

Leroy42 · 19-02-2020 09:21PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

getting inactive people off welfare and back in to the workforce, closing the overbloated benefit state to economic migrants, Its a massive cost cutting excercise and ensures that only the right kind of immigration occurs.

So no apprentaships? Only qualified staff need apply. So essentaily, the UK now what the rest of the world to train their staff for them?

What percentage of the UK 'workforce' is inactive rather than unable? Do you have that number? Are the government going to pay for those to be reskilled? To be rehoused in areas with the jobs that fit them?

Leroy42 · 19-02-2020 09:22PM

theological wrote: »

I'm broadly speaking pro-immigration, but I am supportive of controlled immigration managed on a sector by sector basis with quotas with consideration of the impact on public services. Hospitals, schools, etc.

I am not supportive of uncontrolled free movement on both sides actually. Firstly I think services need to be managed within the receiving country. Secondly I think we need to consider the sending country more. I'm not sure it is OK to cause brain drain in the sending countries also.

So you must therefore be totally against this latest policy. It has nothing to do with sector by sector. It is a broad sweep, based on earning power rather than value.

And the UK has totally controlled immigration if it so wanted it. They could have fully stopped non EU immigration whenever they wanted and had the power to massively curtail EU immigration but all but those working.

theological · 19-02-2020 09:23PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you must therefore be totally against this latest policy. It has nothing to do with sector by sector. It is a broad sweep, based on earning power rather than value.

I think it is probably too restrictive yes, but then I think your position is too liberal.

Eric Cartman · 19-02-2020 09:23PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

So no apprentaships? Only qualified staff need apply. So essentaily, the UK now what the rest of the world to train their staff for them?

What percentage of the UK 'workforce' is inactive rather than unable? Do you have that number? Are the government going to pay for those to be reskilled? To be rehoused in areas with the jobs that fit them?

20% are inactive, 8 million people - pritti patel , the program includes training natives. Large employers and the government are going to pay for the retraining and britain already has a massive social housing portfolio.

First Up · 19-02-2020 09:24PM

BanditLuke wrote:

I wonder what would happen if the UK make a success of Brexit? Its that sort of scenario that is a nightmare for the European project.

We'll find out soon but not many in the EU 27 are losing any sleep over it.

EU economies are highly integrated and are doing well from it. EU members do 40 - 60 per cent of their business with each other. It is the easiest and most profitable business they do anywhere. Nobody is campaigning to make it harder for themselves

The UK was doing well out of it too so it will be interesting to see if they do better outside.

They have a job on their hands. If they lose 20% of their exports to the EU (a conservative estimate), they would need to increase exports to the US by close to 50% to compensate.

Over to you Boris; we'll see how you get on.

Leroy42 · 19-02-2020 09:24PM

theological wrote: »

I think it is probably too restrictive yes, but then I think your position is too liberal.

What is my position? Apart from being against this policy and seeing it for what it is.

Leroy42 · 19-02-2020 09:26PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

20% are inactive, 8 million people - pritti patel , the program includes training natives. Large employers and the government are going to pay for the retraining and britain already has a massive social housing portfolio.

Seriously? You know that that 8m is made up of students, disabled, sick, carers etc.

So more costs on employers and the government are going to pitch in? IS that going to come from the promised NHS budget?

theological · 19-02-2020 09:26PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

So no apprentaships? Only qualified staff need apply. So essentaily, the UK now what the rest of the world to train their staff for them?

What percentage of the UK 'workforce' is inactive rather than unable? Do you have that number? Are the government going to pay for those to be reskilled? To be rehoused in areas with the jobs that fit them?

As discussed, apprenticeships in the UK are more developed than in many other countries, including Ireland actually. Largely thanks to the apprenticeship levy.

Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

Comments