Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 6. Pick up sticks...

[Amazer]

But I am not convinced that allowing the UK to remain in the European single market, completely free of charge, after it has left the EU, would produce a large number of losers. On the contrary, this would probably be an enormous relief, on both sides of the Channel. So I am coming back to my idea that the EU may have some bad extortion habits, and that many British remainers are actually against their country. I don't know if I should use the word "traitor" (this is not a war), but such a word is perhaps not completely out of place.

Today, I have tried to fill some of the many gaps in my knowledge, by studying CETA, the free-trade agreement between Canada and the European Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreement ), after reading a post by Belgian thought:

I was asking myself the question: does the EU also force Canada to pay for market access? The answer is apparently "no". This requirement seems to apply to the UK, but not to Canada. And this, once again, leads me back to my idea that the UK may need to better defend itself.

Then you should really look for the differences between EFTA arrangement and CETA... that should give you an idea why one party pays and the other doesn't.

Sent from my SM-J700F using Tapatalk

 

[fagin]

Archie Gemmill Goal, you seem to have a purely financial vision of immigration, and its advantages and disadvantages. How reasonable is this?

Do you really think that, when people are asked to vote for or against leaving the European Union, they see only the financial aspect, and not the consequences of the massive immigration on their everyday lives?

Poles speaking to each other in Polish in your office, and not bothering much about the only native Englishmen.
People losing their jobs (because their company found a less expensive East European).
Wages going down.
Transportation systems saturated.
And so on, and so on.

In order:

Personally, having a number of Polish clients, I have found them to be extremely well mannered, and very friendly. Not to mention hard working. Anecdotal only obviously.

You seriously think everyone on the dole has been replaced by a person from Eastern Europe? Decent employment law (thank you EU?) means you can't just make someone redundant and replace them with someone cheaper.

If they are, I think it might be a little bit more complicated than that.

If x number of people have to get to work, etc, the stress on transportation won't reduce. You can blame under investment for current problems. Infrastructure should be improved to meet demand.

And so on....

Not wanting to harp too much on my personal situation, but I spend a day every few weeks being pumped full of drugs. Not only does it come in nice and fresh from the EU, the current rota of nurses looking after me include one from each of Poland, Portugal, Spain, Kenya, Indonesia and Malaysia. The food lady is from South Africa. The only UK born person is the head nurse, but she doesn't actually do the needle sticking etc.

Thank god for foreigners. For now.

 

[Michel H]

Britain wants to pick from the EU as though it were a buffet.

This is a grave accusation, that I see from time to time, but I am not convinced it is justified.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

This is what you say, but I have not seen any solid evidence supporting this argument.

Have you looked?

http://theconversation.com/hard-evi...low-immigration-voted-mainly-for-brexit-62138

This kind of thing kind of makes a lie of your claims that you have researched these issues carefully - unless by research you mean read anti-EU propaganda.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... I am coming back to my idea that the EU may have some bad extortion habits, and that many British remainers are actually against their country. I don't know if I should use the word "traitor" (this is not a war), but such a word is perhaps not completely out of place...

Nobody on either side is against their country. Each side may think the other is totally wrong about what's in the nation's best interests, but that's a different matter.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

This is a grave accusation, that I see from time to time, but I am not convinced it is justified.

Well again you will be aware of the several different models with which the EU engage with nations. All the way from full members through to no formal arrangement at all. And the steps in between including EEA and FTA.

Which of these options do the UK leavers want to operate on?

Answer - none of them. They want a special custom deal (hence why everything we hear is X++ or Y-). They want to cherry pick which elements they accept and which they dont. And worse still they don't even seem to be very good at that.

 

[Garrison]

Archie Gemmill Goal, you seem to have a purely financial vision of immigration, and its advantages and disadvantages. How reasonable is this?

Do you really think that, when people are asked to vote for or against leaving the European Union, they see only the financial aspect, and not the consequences of the massive immigration on their everyday lives?

Poles speaking to each other in Polish in your office, and not bothering much about the only native Englishmen.
People losing their jobs (because their company found a less expensive East European).
Wages going down.
Transportation systems saturated.
And so on, and so on.

You really are just getting all your 'facts' about immigration from Daily Mail headlines aren't you?

 

[Michel H]

Have you looked?

http://theconversation.com/hard-evi...low-immigration-voted-mainly-for-brexit-62138

This kind of thing kind of makes a lie of your claims that you have researched these issues carefully - unless by research you mean read anti-EU propaganda.

I have read your link, Archie (by the way, I am by no means claiming that I know everything).

Anyway, don't you think that respecting democracy is important, respecting the opinions and concerns of people, expressed in a referendum? Even if those who disagree with you are perhaps not the smartest of the cleverest, the sharpest knives in the drawer, don't you think that the concerns of these people should be taken into account? And isn't there something unhealthy about having most of the work now done by immigrants? What about the long-term stability of society? What will happen when this immigrants will themselves get old? What about society cohesion, and being adapted to local climate?

 

[Olmstead]

But I am not convinced that allowing the UK to remain in the European single market, completely free of charge, after it has left the EU, would produce a large number of losers. On the contrary, this would probably be an enormous relief, on both sides of the Channel. So I am coming back to my idea that the EU may have some bad extortion habits, and that many British remainers are actually against their country. I don't know if I should use the word "traitor" (this is not a war), but such a word is perhaps not completely out of place.

Today, I have tried to fill some of the many gaps in my knowledge, by studying CETA, the free-trade agreement between Canada and the European Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreement ), after reading a post by Belgian thought:

I was asking myself the question: does the EU also force Canada to pay for market access? The answer is apparently "no". This requirement seems to apply to the UK, but not to Canada. And this, once again, leads me back to my idea that the UK may need to better defend itself.

For the last time, the UK doesn't HAVE to pay anything. It can crash out of the EU with no deal and fall back on WTO rules. But if it wants any deal that concerns other parties, it will have to negotiate for it. If it wants to have a super special version of Norway' deal, it better come up with a good reason why its deal should be super special. But it can't, which is why it ended up with the deal it got.

 

[Craig B]

Poles speaking to each other in Polish in your office, and not bothering much about the only native Englishmen.

That must indeed be the issue, I mean the adverse effect on "native Englishmen" of having to hear Polish people speaking Polish; because Scottish voters, men or not and native or not, voted two to one in favour of Remain, immigration notwithstanding. So your use of the expression native Englishmen to designate voters in a UK referendum, is unwittingly appropriate.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I have read your link, Archie (by the way, I am by no means claiming that I know everything).

And... what is your thought on it?

Anyway, don't you think that respecting democracy is important, respecting the opinions and concerns of people, expressed in a referendum?

Only to the extent to which those concerns are reasonable and well-founded. I don't for example think that the NHS should fund homeopathy no matter how popular it may be.

Even if those who disagree with you are perhaps not the smartest of the cleverest, the sharpest knives in the drawer, don't you think that the concerns of these people should be taken into account?

Not if the concerns are based on nonsense or lies, no.

And isn't there something unhealthy about having most of the work now done by immigrants?

I don't know. We are nowhere near that point. Not even close. Not even close to being close to being close. What an odd thing to say. Do you really think the MAJORITY of working people in the UK are immigrants???

What about the long-term stability of society?

What about it?

What will happen when this immigrants will themselves get old?

A lot of them will return home many won't. And they will in turn benefit from immigrants coming to care for them.

What about society cohesion, and being adapted to local climate?

I have no idea what you are even talking about. If immigrants come here they will have to accept the weather or leave. No real choice.

 

[Belgian thought]

I was asking myself the question: does the EU also force Canada to pay for market access? The answer is apparently "no". This requirement seems to apply to the UK, but not to Canada. And this, once again, leads me back to my idea that the UK may need to better defend itself.

The reason being is that between Canada, it is a trade deal.

It does not involve free movement, reciprocal health coverage, investment and grants for projects, Erasmus being an example, plus funds for research, humans right based on th ECJ and so on.

In a no-deal scenario, the UK (as a third country) will indeed have to negotiate market access but under terms that can cannot benefit them more than the recent EU Canada/Japan trade terms.

As for WTO trading which Brexiteers say is very simple, it isn't. The initial proposed UK terms delivered at Geneva were recently rejected - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...t-trade-setback-over-copy-and-paste-wto-terms.

Plus, there is the possibility of non EU companies suing the UK government for breach of terms that were part of their investment package deals when setting up in the UK i.e. granted free access to the EU market which will no longer be possible.

The website http://customseu.com has links to many interesitng developing facts.

 

[Michel H]

For the last time, the UK doesn't HAVE to pay anything. It can crash out of the EU with no deal and fall back on WTO rules.

Yes of course but then it will have to pay tariffs (with all the related complications), and this is very much feared. If the British want to remain in the single market, they have to pay because of European demands, this is explained in this blog post: http://capreform.eu/the-uk-must-pay-for-access-to-the-single-market/ , entitled: The UK must pay for access to the single market (difficult to be clearer than that). This blog post is a little complicated, but very interesting.

 

[Belgian thought]

Yes of course but then it will have to pay tariffs (with all the related complications), and this is very much feared. If the British want to remain in the single market, they have to pay because of EU conditions, this is explained in this blog post: http://capreform.eu/the-uk-must-pay-for-access-to-the-single-market/ , entitled: The UK must pay for access to the single market (difficult to be clearer than that). This blog post is a little complicated, but very interesting.

 

[Michel H]

And... what is your thought on it?



Only to the extent to which those concerns are reasonable and well-founded. I don't for example think that the NHS should fund homeopathy no matter how popular it may be.



Not if the concerns are based on nonsense or lies, no.



I don't know. We are nowhere near that point. Not even close. Not even close to being close to being close. What an odd thing to say. Do you really think the MAJORITY of working people in the UK are immigrants???



What about it?



A lot of them will return home many won't. And they will in turn benefit from immigrants coming to care for them.



I have no idea what you are even talking about. If immigrants come here they will have to accept the weather or leave. No real choice.

So, let's assume you are the Prime Minister of the UK. You have a great responsibility. You do know that there has been massive immigration to the UK in recent years (millions of people), and that there is widespread concern about this:

Findings from the British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey published on Wednesday show Brexit was the result of widespread concern over the numbers of people coming to the UK – millions of whom have done so under the EU’s freedom of movement rules in recent years.

(https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...in-reason-european-union-survey-a7811651.html )

You know that a democratic referendum has taken place, and that a (small) majority has chosen "leave", immigration being an important factor.

Nevertheless, you would just choose to completely ignore these concerns, and just go ahead like before, because you think these complaints are not rational, and are "just like homeopathy"? Is that right?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

So, let's assume you are the Prime Minister of the UK. You have a great responsibility. You do know that there has been massive immigration to the UK in recent years (millions of people), and that there is widespread concern about this:

(https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...in-reason-european-union-survey-a7811651.html )

You know that a democratic referendum has taken place, and that a (small) majority has chosen "leave", immigration being an important factor.

Nevertheless, you would just choose to completely ignore these concerns, and just go ahead like before, because you think these complaints are not rational, and are "just like homeopathy"? Is that right?

Is there any reason to simply ignore what I asked you or point out to you and simply fire back more questions?

If I was PM I wouldn't have held the referendum in the first place but given the conditions now I would be putting the negotiated deal back to the population and being honest that it is worse than staying and that leaving without a deal would be a disaster. If they STILL vote to go ahead then hell mend them. I would then be leaving the country. Which is exactly what I am planning to do anyway.

 

[The Moog]

...
As for WTO trading which Brexiteers say is very simple, it isn't. The initial proposed UK terms delivered at Geneva were recently rejected - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...t-trade-setback-over-copy-and-paste-wto-terms.
...

There seems to be a complete lack of awareness of this.
It will cripple UK manufacturing for years, and years more to recover (if ever). And make a lot of people unemployed.
It really is baffling, but at least it will be a 'managed' collapse of the countries manufacturing industry.

 

[Mojo]

Poles speaking to each other in Polish in your office, and not bothering much about the only native Englishmen.

Oh noes! First they steal our Spitfires, now they want to speak their own language!

After all, it’s well known that Englishmen always use the appropriate language* when abroad.



*English spoken very slowly and loudly.

 

[Vixen]

Again you are wrong. During WW2 LAC wasn't a rank it was a trade classification.

Secondly opting to attempt promotion can be down to reasons other than patriotism.

Yeah, but your rank in the RAF was dependent on what you scored.

 

[Vixen]

It wasn't "52% of British voters"
It was 52% of those that voted.

17% of the total electorate, actually. And excluding Brits overseas.