INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2741 Postby Alan H » November 22nd, 2017, 5:06 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

h/t @tetenterre

2017-11-22_17h05_36.png
2017-11-22_17h05_36.png (473.09 KiB) Viewed 1032 times
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2742 Postby Alan H » November 22nd, 2017, 5:49 pm

Brexiters behave as if Britain was being forced to leave the EU
But I am beginning to think that there is more to this than Brexiters’ failure to accept (or perhaps even to understand) the consequences of their decision. Brexiters bemoan the failure of remainers to ‘get behind’ Brexit but they themselves seem singularly lacking in any big, coherent, optimistic, strategic or even enjoyable vision of Brexit. Given that (as they constantly say) they won the vote and are now enacting their dream policy you might expect such a vision, and if it existed many of the current problems would fall away. They would happily be saying ‘sure, we will meet our pre-existing financial commitments, these are of little importance given the exciting new opportunities Brexit brings’. Or, on citizens’ rights, they would be saying ‘fine, it is a little unusual to have another court overseeing these rights, but we recognize this is an unusual situation and if you want this, it is not a big problem’. As for Barnier’s speech, the response would be no more than a raised eyebrow, as if to say ‘of course we are leaving the single market, we told you that, remember’.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2743 Postby Alan H » November 23rd, 2017, 12:14 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Britain crashes out of world's top 5 economies
Britain has officially abandoned its claim to be the world's fifth largest economy.

Treasury chief Philip Hammond acknowledged the slide on Wednesday, noting the new ranking in a series of statements meant to highlight the economy's strength.

"Britain is the world's sixth largest economy," Hammond said in his closely-watched budget speech.

While there are several ways to measure the size of an economy, the U.K. Treasury pointed to GDP forecasts published by the International Monetary Fund in October to back up his statement.

The numbers show that France will narrowly squeak ahead of Britain in the group's 2017 ranking of global economies, with its advantage predicted to widen considerably in 2018.

This year will be the first time since 2013 that France has topped the U.K. in the ranking, according to the IMF.

The slide reflects a sharp deceleration in Britain's economic growth since it voted to leave the European Union in June 2016. The pound has weakened dramatically, consumer spending has slowed and prices have spiked.

On Wednesday, the Office of Budget Responsibility slashed its U.K. growth forecasts for 2017 from 2% to 1.5%. It expects a 1.4% expansion next year, followed by 1.3% in 2019 and 2020.

The loss of its top five spot to an EU rival is more bad news for politicians who argue that Britain will be stronger outside the bloc.

David Davis, Britain's lead negotiator in Brexit talks, mentioned as recently as September that his country's economy was the fifth largest in the world.

The U.K. is expected to slide further. India is forecast to power past both Britain and France in 2019.

Here are the world's top seven economies, according to the 2017 IMF forecast:

U.S. - $19.4 trillion
China - $11.9 trillion
Japan - $4.9 trillion
Germany - $3.7 trillion
France - $2.575 trillion
U.K. - $2.565 trillion
India - $2.4 trillion
So, India looks like it could overtake us. That'll make trade negotiations more interesting...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2744 Postby Alan H » November 23rd, 2017, 6:34 pm

The Conservatives’ baffling tweet on the economy
That’s what the Conservatives’ official Twitter account posted on Monday.

We’ve got thoughts.

Where does the 15.8 per cent figure come from?

There was no source provided in the tweet.

We’ve repeatedly asked the Conservatives where they’ve got this figure from, but they haven’t provided an answer. We’ll update this article if they do.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2745 Postby Alan H » November 24th, 2017, 11:31 am

Liam Fox accuses British firms of not wanting to do business abroad
In an outspoken attack, the International Trade Secretary said the reluctance of some firms to do business with foreign companies was hampering his efforts to boost the economy.

Dr Fox's broadside, in an interview with the House magazine, echoes his claim last year that Britain has "become too lazy and too fat", and that bosses prefer playing golf on Friday afternoons to working.

He said: "From Britain’s point of view, our main advantage doesn’t lie in getting more trade deals, it lies in getting more trade. So, we need to do an awful lot better with the markets that we already have access to globally, our trading performance still needs to improve, notwithstanding a more than 13% increase in trade in the last year.

"We’re still way behind where our economy needs to be. So, we need to think about how we can make our economy export ready, and more investment ready as well, and how we get more of our companies to think about exporting overseas.

"I can agree as many trade agreements as I like, but if British business doesn’t want to export, then that doesn’t do us any good."


Then there's this:
Elsewhere in the interview, Dr Fox also accused the media of making stories up to undermine Brexit.
:hilarity: :pointlaugh: :laughter: You couldn't make this shit up.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2746 Postby Alan H » November 24th, 2017, 12:07 pm

These unicorns and rainbows are going to have to be awfully good to make this worth it: £72 BILLION: The cost of Brexit is already turning Britain into a second-rung nation
Chancellor Philip Hammond's annual budget, presented yesterday, has finally given Britain the first concrete numbers on the cost of Brexit.

The government's Office for Budget Responsibility published revised GDP growth numbers based on data following the June 2016 referendum. Those new estimates suggest that Brexit will cost Britain £72 billion in lost annual economic activity by 2021, according to an analysis by the Resolution Foundation.

Previously, the best estimate of the economic damage leaving Europe will inflict on the UK came from a private estimate by one of Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union David Davis's advisors, of about £22 billion per year, mostly from extra trade tariffs and barriers.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2747 Postby Alan H » November 24th, 2017, 12:23 pm

Ian Dunt's Friday newsletter:
Liam Fox made a very interesting admission this morning. In an interview with the House magazine, the international trade secretary seemed to put the blame for our sluggish exports on British companies rather than the suffocating restrictions of the EU.

"From Britain's point of view, our main advantage doesn't lie in getting more trade deals, it lies in getting more trade," he said. "So, we need to do an awful lot better with the markets that we already have access to globally."

He's right of course. The EU has never been a barrier to 'global Britain' or its ability to export all over the world. In 2013, Britain's exports to China were worth £7.6bn, whereas France's were worth £14.3bn and Germany's £55bn. But Fox's admission that trade deals aren't what's required to boost British exports is rather surprising, given this is the whole reason we're leaving the customs union.

Perhaps he saw yesterday's comments from YK Sinha, India's high commissioner to the UK, which made it clear that free movement of people would be a central requirement of any UK-Indian trade deal. This has long been the country's position, just as China's position is that it should have a greater foothold in the UK's energy infrastructure.

Wilbur Ross, the US commerce secretary, made America's requirements for a trade deal clear earlier this month: Britain would need to dismantle EU regulations and agree to (typically much lower) US ones, on things like pharmaceuticals, data protection, chemical safety standards and, yes, meat treatment.

In each case, these requirements seem to make any trade politically impossible. Will those who voted Leave really tolerate free movement from India replacing that from Europe? Given the social media horror story of reports about MPs voting against animal sentience this week, does the government really think it can get a deal on chlorine-soaked chicken and hormone-injected beef past the British electorate? The answer is no.

The sole advantage of leaving the customs union - signing your own trade deals - seems undeliverable regardless of our membership of it. But all the disadvantages are very real and highly deliverable. The tariffs which will be imposed will damage few sectors, but those they do hit, like manufacturing and agriculture, will be hit very significantly. Country of origin checks will apply punishing bureaucratic requirements to an on-the-dot competitive trading system.

And then there's Ireland. Leo Varadkar, Ireland's prime minister, has finally given up on trying to talk sense to Westminster behind the scenes and started throwing his weight around in public with the threat of a veto on the first stage of Brexit talks. The Sun told the prime minister to "shut his gob". DUP leader Arlene Foster told him ominously that he "shouldn't play about with Northern Ireland". Daniel Hannan, a fairly moderate Brexiter, even called Ireland "the other side", as if they were a strategic enemy. It's a sign of how quickly the decision to leave the customs union is toxifying relations between Britain and Ireland.

That has significant immediate consequences. Dublin was expected to be our great friend in Brexit talks. It is shackled to us economically and needs a decent deal, so we thought it would fight our corner. But first it needs to know the border issue is sorted and despite all the British promises of "creative" or "hi-tech" solutions, the truth is that customs unions have customs borders. Checking for country of origin and tariff payments creates the infrastructure of a hard border. Our insistence of leaving the customs union turns a country that should be our main ally against us.

But it also does something much more dangerous and long-lasting. It threatens the peace in Northern Ireland. This is still considered scare-mongering by Brexiters in London, but that is not how it is discussed in Nothern Ireland, where a return to violence is a common topic of conversation. As one 78-year-old who works by the border told the Guardian: "We definitely don't want a hard border here as we had one before, but if we do get one, there's going to be hassle and I'd say trouble as well."

So the question emerges: Why are we doing this again? Not Brexit, not even the single market - the customs union. Leaving seems to involve an awful lot of pain and absolutely no gain.

We are sabotaging our own negotiating alliance, alienating our closest ally, threatening the peace in Northern Ireland and risking British manufacturing and agriculture in order to sign trade deals which the secretary of state anyway admits we don't need and would be politically impossible to secure even if we did.

If anyone can work out why we are behaving in this extraordinary way, please let us know. Because it seems quite a bit like madness.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2748 Postby Alan H » November 24th, 2017, 12:32 pm

No plan. No consistency. No stability. No certainty. No contingency. No sense. No idea. No clue. Downing Street Denies Brexit U-Turn After Initially Claiming Northern Ireland Could Stay In Customs Union
Downing Street has rowed back from a major Brexit u-turn after claiming this morning Northern Ireland could stay in the customs union.

The Government has always insisted the UK – including Northern Ireland – will leave the customs union after Brexit, but there will be no hard border with Ireland.

In a briefing with journalists, a Downing Street spokesman was asked to respond to comments from DUP leader Arlene Foster about the region’s future trading relationship with Ireland after Brexit.

There seemed to have been a significant change in Government policy when the spokesman replied: “I think that’s a matter for negotiation. Our position on Northern Ireland has been set out in the papers and we need to continue to negotiate to find an innovative way forward.

When asked if it was possible Northern Ireland could stay in the customs union, the spokesman said: “That would be a matter for negotiation.”

After this story was published, a Downing Street source said there is no change to the Government position, and the comments were about the Northern Ireland issue in general. Below is the transcript:

Reporter: “Does the Prime Minister agree with Arlene Foster that Northern Ireland must stay in the Customs Union post-Brexit?”

Downing Street: “Again, I think that’s a matter for negotiation. Our position on Northern Ireland has been set out in the papers and we need to continue to negotiate to find an innovative way forward.”

Reporter: “So it’s possible it could stay?”

Downing Street: “Again, that would be a matter for negotiation.”


The future of the Northern Ireland/Ireland border is one of the sticking points in the first phase of Brexit negotiations between the UK and the EU.

The UK vowed not to introduce any new physical infrastructure to the border - even if a different customs arrangement is in operation - in a position paper published in the summer.

But politicians from the Republic want further assurances there will be no hard border after Brexit, with Irish foreign minister Simon Coveney insisting EU leaders would not give the green light for the phase two negotiations to begin at their summit in December unless there was progress on the issue.

Coveney said: “We have move to phase two on the basis of a credible road map or the parameters around which we can design a credible road map to ensure that it doesn’t happen.

“The truth is that if we see regulatory divergence between the two jurisdictions on the island of Ireland it is very hard to see in that scenario how you avoid hard border checks. So we need progress on this issue in the context of the regulatory divergence issues.

“I hope and expect that we can get that by December so that we can all move on.

“If we can’t, then I think there is going to be a difficulty coming up.”
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6437
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2749 Postby animist » November 24th, 2017, 1:31 pm

Alan H wrote:No plan. No consistency. No stability. No certainty. No contingency. No sense. No idea. No clue. Downing Street Denies Brexit U-Turn After Initially Claiming Northern Ireland Could Stay In Customs Union
so what did Arlene Foster actually say? Given the problems that Brexit poses for Eire (an article linked to this one suggests that Ireland could be forced out of the EU) will surely impel the Irish to veto Brexit whenever they can

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2750 Postby Alan H » November 24th, 2017, 1:38 pm

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:No plan. No consistency. No stability. No certainty. No contingency. No sense. No idea. No clue. Downing Street Denies Brexit U-Turn After Initially Claiming Northern Ireland Could Stay In Customs Union
so what did Arlene Foster actually say? Given the problems that Brexit poses for Eire (an article linked to this one suggests that Ireland could be forced out of the EU) will surely impel the Irish to veto Brexit whenever they can
Goodness knows. But the Irish have even more problems at the moment: Ireland faces possible snap election over police scandal. A GE there will also affect Brexit.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2751 Postby Alan H » November 24th, 2017, 6:05 pm

'Nobody has any respect for him' — Liam Fox suffers business backlash over export comments
One of Britain's best-known entrepreneurs has told Business Insider that Liam Fox is "utterly unfit" to be in office, after the International Trade Secretary accused British business of not putting in enough effort into exporting their products overseas.

Lord Bilimoria, best known as the co-founder of Cobra beer, was responding to Fox's claim that British businesses are making his job harder because they don't want to export their goods.

"I can agree as many trade agreements as I like, but if British business doesn’t want to export, then that doesn't do us any good," Fox told House Magazine this week.

Fox has previously claimed that many business people are "too fat and too lazy" and spend too much time playing golf, rather than doing their jobs.

Bilimoria told BI on Friday that Fox's comments amounted to an "insult" to British business people across the board and show he is "completely unsuited" for the office.

"He is completely unsuited and shown himself to be quite frankly utterly unfit for this office. It's an insult to business," the life peer said.

"When he made the remarks he did last year I along with several other leaders were furious. Who on Earth was he to call us lazy? He doesn't have a clue how hard it is to start a business from scratch, to grow it, to raise finance and to export. It is not easy.

"For him to say that was utterly shocking."
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2752 Postby Alan H » November 24th, 2017, 6:09 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6437
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2753 Postby animist » November 25th, 2017, 10:13 am

Alan H wrote:'Nobody has any respect for him' — Liam Fox suffers business backlash over export comments
"I can agree as many trade agreements as I like, but if British business doesn’t want to export, then that doesn't do us any good," Fox told House Magazine this week.

Fox has previously claimed that many business people are "too fat and too lazy" and spend too much time playing golf, rather than doing their jobs.
so just how many trade deals has he agreed? Does he have a job?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2754 Postby Alan H » November 25th, 2017, 8:16 pm

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:'Nobody has any respect for him' — Liam Fox suffers business backlash over export comments
"I can agree as many trade agreements as I like, but if British business doesn’t want to export, then that doesn't do us any good," Fox told House Magazine this week.

Fox has previously claimed that many business people are "too fat and too lazy" and spend too much time playing golf, rather than doing their jobs.
so just how many trade deals has he agreed? Does he have a job?
Zero. Sadly, yes.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2755 Postby Alan H » November 25th, 2017, 8:17 pm

UK facing longest fall in living standards for over 60 years, finds think tank
The UK is on course for the longest period of falling living standards since records began, according to a leading think tank.

The Resolution Foundation said data released in the Budget showed British are families suffering the biggest squeeze in their finances since the 1950s.

It explained in a report published this morning that the UK economy will be £42bn smaller in 2022 than we thought it would be in March after official data indicated dismal growth forecasts in coming years.

The data was released by the Office for Budget Responsibility alongside Chancellor Philip Hammond’s Budget statement in the Commons, which saw him announce £25bn in extra spending to prop up the economy.


Why the fuck are the Tories doing this to us?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2756 Postby Alan H » November 25th, 2017, 8:20 pm

‘I thought I’d put in a protest vote’: the people who regret voting leave
On the morning of 23 June 2016, Rosamund Shaw still wasn’t sure if she wanted Britain to leave the European Union. During the preceding weeks, she had been in turmoil. She absorbed a stream of negative stories about the EU in the Daily Mail, but wasn’t sure they were reliable. She trusted Boris Johnson, but loathed Michael Gove. Her family was divided. One daughter, who worked abroad, was a staunch remainer; the other an adamant leaver. Upending the usual age dynamic, her younger relatives complained of eastern European migrants costing them work, while her mother, who had lived through the second world war, felt that the EU had guaranteed peace in Europe. In the voting booth, Shaw finally made her choice: she voted leave. “To be quite frank, I did not believe it would happen,” she says. “I thought I’d put in a protest vote. The impact of my stupidity!”
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6437
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2757 Postby animist » November 26th, 2017, 11:40 am

what would be interesting to see is interviews with Remain voters who regret their vote; apparently 7% of them do. The may share the tendency of Leave voters to blame the EU for the problems which Brexit is causing, who knows?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2758 Postby Alan H » November 26th, 2017, 6:44 pm

A thread from Twitter:
Went to a Brexit round table discussion this week - with senior representatives from about 20 UK PLCs across different sectors. It was Chatham House rules - so I can share some of the comments but I can't attribute them /1

The biggest issue by far for the majority of businesses in the room was the uncertainty about the future of their EEA national workforce /2

From the EEA employees side, the uncertainty is causing great stress. They ate looking to their employers for help, advice and assistance. Some businesses providing access to immigration law advice, some helping with residency applications /3

But some EEA nationals have had enough. One employer said it lost half of its EEA catering staff already /4

From the employer's side, the uncertainty makes workforce planning difficult. However, some are preparing for the worst. One major employer has already modelled the time and cost of replacing all of their EEA national workforce. /5

Another large employer in the pharmaceuticals sector had also started the process of working out how it would cope with the loss of their EEA workforce. They are looking at how jobs can be moved to the EU, ideally with the employee. /6

Another risk is that competing EU businesses are gearing up to poach staff – one employer reported two highly skilled staff had been poached by EU businesses recently. /7

In terms of future investment and creation of jobs in the UK, the picture was fairly bleak. /8

One employer said it was in the process of relocating jobs from London to Frankfurt and Brussels. Future investment will be diverted from the UK to the EU. /9

Another employer has a manufacturing base in the UK but they export 80% of their product to the EU. They may have to establish an EU hub and jobs will move. Their overseas parent company said if the Brexit vote had been a year earlier it wouldn’t have invested in the UK. /10

An employer in the life sciences sector said it has already pushed the button on its contingency plans - at significant expense to the business. Money is getting spent on dealing with the fall out from Brexit which could have been used for something more productive. /11

An employer in the medical sector said it was more likely that future investment will go to the EU. An employer in the legal sector said they have opened a hub in Dublin as a result of the Brexit vote. /12

Others concerns were skills shortages and upward pressure on wages. /13

Domestic workers can't be trained up immediately to plug the gaps left by EEA workers. Major skills shortages in the UK - will take time and investment to fix. /14

There are some "unskilled" roles commonly performed by EEA nationals which require training e.g. hospital cleaning. They couldn't be replaced at short notice. /15

As far as wage pressure was concerned, businesses reported seeing an upward pressure on pay in highly skilled roles. If a highly skilled EEA migrant has a choice between the EU and the UK – they will only come to the UK if the remuneration package makes it worthwhile. /16

And managing wage pressure at the lower skilled end is a challenge. Managing the National Living Wage rises was enough for some sectors e.g. care / hospitality / leisure. One employer said it was investigating increased automation to offset upward wage pressure. /17

A critical issue for some was the mutual recognition of professional qualifications – important where you have British nationals making decisions for the EU part of the business. If it doesn't continue then the work will have to be moved to the EU. /18

There was more, but I think you get the gist.

So, yeah, not a lot of love in the room for Brexit from British business. In fact, there was none. /End
Why the fuck are the Tories doing this to us again? Who voted for this?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2759 Postby Alan H » November 26th, 2017, 8:49 pm

The hard-won kinship between Britain and Ireland is threatened by Brexit idiocy
As things stand, the December summit seems likely to say that enough progress has been made on two of the key preliminary questions, the divorce bill and the mutual recognition of the rights of expat citizens.

But Ireland will be the spoke in the wheel. The verbal missiles that have already been tested will then be launched across the Irish Sea. A whole country will join the ranks of saboteurs and renegades, without whom the Brexit project would be proceeding triumphantly.

To grasp the full stupidity of this situation, remember that Ireland is actually Britain’s best friend on the other side of the negotiating table. This is partly because, before the Brexit referendum, Anglo-Irish relations were warmer than at any time in the long and often bitter history of mutual entanglement. The two governments worked hand in glove on the Northern Ireland peace process and developed a genuine trust. They also co-operated very closely within the European Union. But even leaving friendship aside, Ireland has an overwhelming interest in making Brexit as painless as it possibly can be. A bad Brexit will destabilise Northern Ireland and damage the Republic’s economy, in which most small and medium-size companies depend heavily on the British market.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2760 Postby Alan H » November 26th, 2017, 9:00 pm

Britain's economy is in trouble not because of Brexit but because of the denial and hypocrisy of leading Brexiteers
What Liam Fox is saying now is essentially a more sanitised version of when he was caught on tape accusing British exporters of letting the country down by being too ‘fat and lazy’
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2761 Postby Alan H » November 27th, 2017, 12:21 am

Ignorance of Irish history means Brexit talks will not end well
An awareness of Irish history – even a nodding acquaintance – would help British politicians appreciate what happened to Collins, the first and last Irish politician to sign up to a hard border. The idea that Leo Varadkar, or anybody else in this State, would under any circumstances sign up to another hard border displays so much ignorance, so much arrogance, so much stupidity that I am left wondering about all those stereotypes of my fellow Brits – stereotypes that I have wearily tried to reject and counter over the past 30 years.

Brexit has poisoned British political life and it now threatens something similar for relations between the UK and Ireland. Being a Brit in Ireland has mostly been a smooth experience for this immigrant. The cultural differences between the two islands run deeper than many of us care to admit, but Ireland does a terrific job of assimilation. It may be coincidence but I was, for the first time ever, the other day told to “F*** off back to where you come from” (I never lost the accent). Was this a small Brexit effect?
We have heard so much in recent days about how the British have been taken by surprise by the supposed hard line taken by the Irish. Similar expressions of astonishment and disbelief are heard whenever the EU reiterates it’s negotiating principles. Somebody should explain to UK politicians about EU law and Irish history. There is no other option open to Varadkar other than the line he is taking. Explain to Davis and May what happened after Collins signed up to a hard border. This isn’t going to end well.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests