Surely we said we'd pay what we owe, whatever that actually was. So much posturing... If we could then move on to all these great deals, then surely just get on with it.
Chill folks. We are told not to have the brexit debate again, and that those who voted for brexit knew what they were voting for, all they have to do now is implement it. It is their call. Where will they start? How about what to do about the end of air travel as we know it today? Hey, you brexiters who knew what you were voting for, what happens with air travel? Can you tell us?
Yes off to Nuremburg Monday... Fly to Cologne then just up the road according to fiish/chizz.
There are about five airports closer to Nurnberg than Cologne-Bonn. Including one which is helpfully called Nurnberg Airport.
Never mind. You can get to Nurnberg by train on the excellent ICEs. And it won't send your travel expenses into orbit. A good way to see how Europe really works.
You should stick by me when venturing into the heart of Europe. I can save you or your company money, leaving you even more to spend on beer, while discussing the EU with your colleagues, and then writing up your findings for us afterwards.
Anything else I can help you with?
I am flying to Nuremburg on the 16.25 BA flight from Gatwick. It was tongue in cheek as double poster thought i believed it was just outside Cologne. Thanks for the advice, speak the language fluently and been all over the country so know my way around. We will be discussing business certainly wont be having anything to do with the EU...
She is quite right to point out that the EU is using Ireland to sabotage democracy in this country. This is a very dangerous game and could backfire into violence if the brinkmanship continues.
Nay, nay, and thrice nay.
It's just not true.
Here's the thing, the EU have accepted the outcome of the EU referendum, no matter how much they may regret it.
But, even democracy does not happen in a vacuum. The democratic will of the UK (even if it was crystal clear what that us) extends to the limits of it's jurisdiction and no further, and those seeking to implement it have to take into account the legally binding agreements that the UK has made.
Just because people vote to, for example, "Make America Great Again", that vote does not make the desire reality.
So, also, the UK Government's desire to both have cake and eat it does not miraculously make everything it wants happen.
The UK position is that it wants out of the EU, Single Market and Customs Union, and it can leave - but it cannot expect to retain everything as it is now if it does so.
The UK have proposed, at best, vague and aspirational soundbites (unlikely to meet WTO requirements) about the future of the border between the UK and EU in Ireland.
The EU negotiators are representing the interests of the EU27, because that's what they are supposed to do. And the EU has very firm notions about its external customs border, which is fair enough, as it controls access to its Single Market.
The outlook and interests of the EU27 are not those of the UK Government, but they have suggested a way of maintaining a status quo regarding the Irish border.
The only way to have the frictionless border that the Conservatives and DUP say they want is to have a formal system of enshrining ongoing regulatory equivalence (not the same as Liam Fox's idea that, just because on day one, the regulations are the same that an FTA can be arranged at the drop of the hat).
The UK says no to that for the UK as a whole, and also for Northern Ireland. It's not the EU's (including Ireland) job to design a workable Brexit that respects the circumstances in Northern Irish politics (some might say the DUP should be keen, but apparently not), but they are trying. In the end, however, no matter how much they want to avoid a customs border in Ireland, if that is what has to happen it will.
The only reason that there may be brinkmanship is because the UK has wasted time by failing to engage with the Article 50 process, including the sequencing, which is mot only about money. The timetable was set out in advance, it's not like there's any real surprise that there is limited time.
As for the potential for matters to backfire into violence, at least in Northern Ireland, this was precisely the argument of Remainers that was widely dismissed as fearmongering. Those that seek violence need very little encouragement, but Brexit seems to be providing it in spades. I can only speak for those I know, but political divisions are hardening here - the willingness of nationalists to see themselves as Northern Irish is diminishing and, if the language of the DUP is anything to go by, things aren't much better within Unionism.
It was a mistake to agree on the sequencing-which they are regretting now. Once a trade deal is done a way will be found to minimise border controls. But that cannot be agreed in advance of a deal being agreed without agreeing in advance to a possible part of the deal. I am not surprised that attitudes are hardening because of this unnecessary posturing. It seems that in the Tory Party as well there are Remain MPs who resent the way this is being done by the EU.
'Once a trade deal is done a way will be found to minimise border controls'..go on, I'm all ears. Just to be helpful there are 400km of land border in Ireland, and at least 300 crossing points, so, do tell us about this way that will be found. Explain how the border would work if you are travelling from Gannons Cross to Clones on the N54/A3?
Not my job,mate. Unlike you I am not a trade negotiator nor a customs or border export. But I do know that when it comes to trading and making money, a way will be found.
Great response, i have a millionaire mate, ex army and formed his own technology company, he told me this week any businessman voting to stay in was in his words an effing idiot. His answer to why was that businessmen worth their salt are greedy, and they will find a way.. I know non millionaire businessmen here though will know better.
Does he have a PhD though ?
When muttley made an outrageous claim and was asked for proof, some acted like it was the end of the world, yet it seems fine to continually dig out chippy about his PhD.
Thanks..took 7 years out of my life....the colour green comes to mind.
A few bits and pieces for those that are interested (was distressed to read the Brendan Simms piece linked by @stonemuse yesterday, but purely out of bitterness and spite, I used to meet him occasionally when we were both undergraduates, and he was back in Dublin).
Just spoke to a pal of mine (a big remainer) and asked for his solution ideas for the NI/ROI question.
He said, "Ireland is an Island, it's time we stopped trying to cling on to the past and let it go" I asked, "what about NI's previous contribution to UK taxes/infrastructure/military etc?" He said " Nth. Ire. costs the UK a chunk, and it's time to let it go"
I didn't really have a response to that. Any thoughts?
"It's an island". "Time we stopped clinging on to the past". "Let it go". "It costs the UK a chunk, and it's time to let it go".
Pretty compelling set of reasons there. But, if you ask me, I think we'll miss the Falklands.
No surprise that he used the Falklands as a comparison in the same discussion - i.e "why are we holding on to them, they cost a fortune too"
I thought he was just highlighting that you seemed prepared to throw NI and Gib under the bus in your pursuit of brexit
Voted remain because a close family member works for deloitte and really insisted. Must say I then got caught up in the leave hype and agreed with the vote after it, but becoming clear to someone completely ignorant like me what a disaster it is!
If the 'divorce bill' is as reported in the press today, surely the case for a second referendum has become overwhelming? Literally nobody voted for this
I've sat in meetings in Brussels and Strasbourg, ironing out the understanding of policies, negotiating deals and finalising plans for new, EU-built technical solutions for one, specific, narrow area under the influence of the EU. (When I say it's an EU-built solution, I mean that it used - in part - EU funds, was designed here in the UK and in France and was coded and tested in Spain).
These meetings over a number of years demonstrated to me the depth to which the EU is committed to go to, in order to protect the rights and opportunities of EU citizens, wherever they are in the world. And often, these policies will be un-noticed by EU citizens; and, even more often, will seem to be an expensive irritant to businesses.
One, minuscule example of this is where an EU citizen wants to look up the timetables for various methods of travel. In simple terms, if you are an EU citizen, any system that shows transport times and fares must (MUST) show you all the options you ask for. Big deal, you might think. But the upshot of this is that whenever you log on to a system to see when the best train is, or you want to get a flight somewhere, you will be presented with all the options, not just the ones that the system-provider wants to show you.
What would happen if that rule were not in place? You might go to a website to get a flight and only be shown the flights that provider wants to - or gets paid to - show you. You're inadvertently being forced to pay a commission which you don't benefit from, can't control and don't get told about. With the rule in place, you know you're getting exactly what you are asking for. It's fair. And because it's fair, it's trusted. And, because it's trusted, it's widely used. And because it's widely used, the system providers that create it know they're going to make money from it. So the "pain" to which they have to go (in order to ensure the system is compliant) is worth it.
If we leave the EU, our Government could decide - with the encouragement of system providers - to relax the rules. And who amongst us will put up an objection? After all, hardly anyone knows the rule is there in the first place. We can end up paying more for flights, trains and buses than we need to, and end up with transport options that are less useful.
It's a tiny example. It affects all of us who ever look online or via a travel agent for any travel booking. And, if (or when) we lose this protection, very little fuss will be made. But we will all lose out.
I suspect there are hundreds of thousands of examples like this, which we will lose either rapidly or gradually, and for which we will never receive a compensatory benefit.
Good post Chizz. As someone once sang, "You don't know what you've got 'till it's gone..." and we are in for a shock in all sorts of small ways after Brexit.
I've been making the point since before the referendum that, logic dictates, we are going to be worse off as consumers. Our (EU derived) laws around consumer protection, food standards, food hygiene, product safety, environmental standards and information and more have improved our lot as consumers greatly over the last 30 years. Yet how many serious discussions around, what are after all the core activities and outcomes from our membership, took or take place? Very, very few and overwhelmingly the tone is these laws are being imposed on us rather than developed with our active input, which is the truth.
There's little point in raking over old ground but it's concerning, to say the least, that in little more than a few months the likes of Liz Truss is going to be holding meetings with the likes of Monsanto and making executive decisions on our behalf as a result.
The bottom line is our larger producers are going to still have to comply with the EU legislation anyway, while the rest of the world, more specifically North America, is going to be all out to drive down our domestic standards so they can export into the UK the sort of crappy food and goods that they currently can't.
a) the cabinet appears to have bought in to the EU payments b) there aren't really any howls of anguish so far from the leavers outside the cabinet. A bit of rhetoric but not much else.
A take form this that May's position has strengthened quite significantly and that the odds on a soft brexit have as well.
Each to their own, but as a staunch remainer, I am happy that would be the least worst option available to us now and feel that it is seriously counter-productive and a bit childish to keep needling the leavers about it.
If someone offers me EEA membership now, and we pay through the nose for financial rights and to keep the hard of thinking happy on immigration, I'll take that, but that still a wildly optimistic hope
I wonder how many jobs that would cost. Honda said similar recently as well.
Never mind though, at least we'll have blue passports in a couple of years.
Yes, all those orange robot arms will be looking for another job.
The automotive industry is a vital part of the UK economy accounting for more than £77.5 billion turnover and £18.9 billion value added.
With some 169,000 people employed directly in manufacturing and in excess of 814,000 across the wider automotive industry, it accounts for 12.0% of total UK export of goods and invests £4 billion each year in automotive R&D.
More than 30 manufacturers build in excess of 70 models of vehicle in the UK supported by 2,500 component providers and some of the world’s most skilled engineers.
I wonder how many jobs that would cost. Honda said similar recently as well.
Never mind though, at least we'll have blue passports in a couple of years.
Yes, all those orange robot arms will be looking for another job.
I watched the Channel 4 report, the pictures showed real people (the colour of their arms I cannot, hand on heart, assert, but, with a plant in Dagenham, it is possible that some will be orange) building engines.
I, for one, would hate to see any of these people lose their jobs.
My knowledge of the use of robotics in car manufacture is probably limited to things like 1980s Fiat advertising campaigns, but I would imagine that the vast majority of robot activity would be things like parts selection, movement within the plant, and welding, rather than engine building.
I wonder how many jobs that would cost. Honda said similar recently as well.
Never mind though, at least we'll have blue passports in a couple of years.
Yes, all those orange robot arms will be looking for another job.
I watched the Channel 4 report, the pictures showed real people (the colour of their arms I cannot, hand on heart, assert, but, with a plant in Dagenham, it is possible that some will be orange) building engines.
I, for one, would hate to see any of these people lose their jobs.
My knowledge of the use of robotics in car manufacture is probably limited to things like 1980s Fiat advertising campaigns, but I would imagine that the vast majority of robot activity would be things like parts selection, movement within the plant, and welding, rather than engine building.
All valid I’m sure but it’s the production of cars in the U.K. with the money that feeds into the economy that is risked being lost. Always a tragedy for anyone to lose their job and if the report has any truth many will but the bigger picture is the most significant. You can be sure that if Ford think Brexit will cost them money then every other car manufacturer will too.
No worry. We can bribe them to stay. That £350 million a week looks like it’s going to be very thinly spread.
a) the cabinet appears to have bought in to the EU payments b) there aren't really any howls of anguish so far from the leavers outside the cabinet. A bit of rhetoric but not much else.
A take form this that May's position has strengthened quite significantly and that the odds on a soft brexit have as well.
Each to their own, but as a staunch remainer, I am happy that would be the least worst option available to us now and feel that it is seriously counter-productive and a bit childish to keep needling the leavers about it.
I think that a soft Brexit is much less likely due to this news. A soft Brexit would come with a much smaller price tag, hard Brexit is going to cost us and this number points in that direction.
Have we got to the point where, as a country, we have people that are in work but others don't/wont accept that as those people consume more than they earn?
Hasn't that been the case since the dawn of time?
Humans are a wasteful species and if you believe you're a net contributor to the grand earth scheme then you're very much mistaken.
Therefore we actually have a planet where nobody works, because work is now being determined by offsetting your net contribution against your overall consumption.
This thread is getting barmier by the day.
I've just been listening to a nasty man on the radio claiming that an immigrant earning less than £25,000 in not making a "net contribution" to this country. And, off course, a corollary of this is that anyone earning less than £25,000 is not making a contribution to the country.
I would just like to point out that I do not believe this! In fact, I tend to think the opposite is generally true!
Low earners often contribute a lot to society but don't take much out of it. While high earners often sit around in offices doing not very much and consume a disproportionate amount of the countries wealth.
I made a point earlier intended to suggest that the government is taking credit for creating poorly paid jobs but should be concentrating on creating "better" jobs. I finally understand now why this comment might have been misconstrued!
The simplest, and probably only solution, to the Irish border issue is for a tariff free trade agreement. Reading some quotes from Grayling today It is becoming clear that the government has made no serious effort to consider the border issue because they are absolutely confident of getting a tariff free trade deal. Given the repeated statements by the EU that access to the free trade market comes only with the four freedoms why is the government still so confident about achieving access? What are the EU negotiators saying behind closed doors that allows the UK government to persist with this delusion?
Have we got to the point where, as a country, we have people that are in work but others don't/wont accept that as those people consume more than they earn?
Hasn't that been the case since the dawn of time?
Humans are a wasteful species and if you believe you're a net contributor to the grand earth scheme then you're very much mistaken.
Therefore we actually have a planet where nobody works, because work is now being determined by offsetting your net contribution against your overall consumption.
This thread is getting barmier by the day.
I've just been listening to a nasty man on the radio claiming that an immigrant earning less than £25,000 in not making a "net contribution" to this country. And, off course, a corollary of this is that anyone earning less than £25,000 is not making a contribution to the country.
I would just like to point out that I do not believe this! In fact, I tend to think the opposite is generally true!
Low earners often contribute a lot to society but don't take much out of it. While high earners often sit around in offices doing not very much and consume a disproportionate amount of the countries wealth.
I made a point earlier intended to suggest that the government is taking credit for creating poorly paid jobs but should be concentrating on creating "better" jobs. I finally understand now why this comment might have been misconstrued!
In my experience very often people getting paid £25,000 a year are doing £30,000 worth of work.
Will a tariff free arrangement deal with the free movement of people across the land border?
No. I think the tariff free access would have to include continued free movement of people across the border. Passport controls would need to be introduced at all ports and airports in the rest of the UK for travellers from the Republic and NI. The DUP will vote against it but if it becomes a choice between this and a hard Brexit the DUP vote might not matter.
Have we got to the point where, as a country, we have people that are in work but others don't/wont accept that as those people consume more than they earn?
Hasn't that been the case since the dawn of time?
Humans are a wasteful species and if you believe you're a net contributor to the grand earth scheme then you're very much mistaken.
Therefore we actually have a planet where nobody works, because work is now being determined by offsetting your net contribution against your overall consumption.
This thread is getting barmier by the day.
I've just been listening to a nasty man on the radio claiming that an immigrant earning less than £25,000 in not making a "net contribution" to this country. And, off course, a corollary of this is that anyone earning less than £25,000 is not making a contribution to the country.
I would just like to point out that I do not believe this! In fact, I tend to think the opposite is generally true!
Low earners often contribute a lot to society but don't take much out of it. While high earners often sit around in offices doing not very much and consume a disproportionate amount of the countries wealth.
I made a point earlier intended to suggest that the government is taking credit for creating poorly paid jobs but should be concentrating on creating "better" jobs. I finally understand now why this comment might have been misconstrued!
While I agree that low earners might well make a massive contribution to society, in monetary terms, broadly 50% of households are net beneficiaries of our tax/benefits system. In other words the top fifty percent of earners are paying for everyone else's lifestyle. If I'm reading the chart correctly, for 2014/5 the tipping point seems to be a household income of around £34.5K. So the nasty man on the radio was not far off telling the truth. (Again, in strictly financial terms rather than whatever other pros and cons there are to being a citizen.)
Now, you could argue I suppose, that merely by ensuring that each household had an income of no more and no less than £34.5k we would need no benefits paid out or anything at all by way of state pension. The Governmental savings would be huge: there would be no need for intervention, state schools or anything. But of course that way madness lies: for a vast number of reasons.
As an an old desk jockey though, I do take exception to your ridiculous implication that whole armies of people are sitting in offices doing bugger all and creaming off the wealth.
£50bn to pursue a policy that will damage the UK economy and worsen livelihoods just because the mainstream were scared of losing votes to a far-right party. What a farcical waste of money.
Just off out today for a number of external appointments so only had a skim read of that.
But I would be interested to know when I ever stated that the EU did cause any of that?
I didn't say that you stated such a thing. I was following up on your New Statesman article from the Labour Leave bloke. He certainly seems to believe that the EU is the driving force behind pretty much all of that list.
I on the other hand believe (and can demonstrate) that within the EU the Brits have been pursuing that agenda with the other members, who have adopted some of them with misgivings, modifications and now downright regrets. Having foisted all this shit on them we are now offski. We really are like the garrulous and overbearing Golf Club member.
Just off out today for a number of external appointments so only had a skim read of that.
But I would be interested to know when I ever stated that the EU did cause any of that?
I didn't say that you stated such a thing. I was following up on your New Statesman article from the Labour Leave bloke. He certainly seems to believe that the EU is the driving force behind pretty much all of that list.
I on the other hand believe (and can demonstrate) that within the EU the Brits have been pursuing that agenda with the other members, who have adopted some of them with misgivings, modifications and now downright regrets. Having foisted all this shit on them we are now offski. We really are like the garrulous and overbearing Golf Club member.
At the risk of repeating myself yet again, I have no interest in staying in a club that no longer works as it should ... as admitted by the EU, Merkel, Macron etc etc.
Macron’s most recent announcement is that a “profound transformation” of the EU with deeper political integration is required. And he is right ... but that is not what I wish to be part of.
In early December, the commission will publish proposals for a eurozone finance minister and other reforms. That just means more integration not a ‘multi-speed’ Europe.
I don’t want to bore you saying the same stuff again and again, but I believe the EU can only work as it should with full fiscal union. But that will never be accepted by most Europeans. So the EU cannot be the effective entity to which it wishes to transform.
Just off out today for a number of external appointments so only had a skim read of that.
But I would be interested to know when I ever stated that the EU did cause any of that?
I didn't say that you stated such a thing. I was following up on your New Statesman article from the Labour Leave bloke. He certainly seems to believe that the EU is the driving force behind pretty much all of that list.
I on the other hand believe (and can demonstrate) that within the EU the Brits have been pursuing that agenda with the other members, who have adopted some of them with misgivings, modifications and now downright regrets. Having foisted all this shit on them we are now offski. We really are like the garrulous and overbearing Golf Club member.
At the risk of repeating myself yet again, I have no interest in staying in a club that no longer works as it should ... as admitted by the EU, Merkel, Macron etc etc.
Macron’s most recent announcement is that a “profound transformation” of the EU with deeper political integration is required. And he is right ... but that is not what I wish to be part of.
In early December, the commission will publish proposals for a eurozone finance minister and other reforms. That just means more integration not a ‘multi-speed’ Europe.
I don’t want to bore you saying the same stuff again and again, but I believe the EU can only work as it should with full fiscal union. But that will never be accepted by most Europeans. So the EU cannot be the effective entity to which it wishes to transform.
You have no interest in staying in the club that you think no longer works but you expect a special deal to allow you to continue to use its facilities?
Just off out today for a number of external appointments so only had a skim read of that.
But I would be interested to know when I ever stated that the EU did cause any of that?
I didn't say that you stated such a thing. I was following up on your New Statesman article from the Labour Leave bloke. He certainly seems to believe that the EU is the driving force behind pretty much all of that list.
I on the other hand believe (and can demonstrate) that within the EU the Brits have been pursuing that agenda with the other members, who have adopted some of them with misgivings, modifications and now downright regrets. Having foisted all this shit on them we are now offski. We really are like the garrulous and overbearing Golf Club member.
At the risk of repeating myself yet again, I have no interest in staying in a club that no longer works as it should ... as admitted by the EU, Merkel, Macron etc etc.
Macron’s most recent announcement is that a “profound transformation” of the EU with deeper political integration is required. And he is right ... but that is not what I wish to be part of.
In early December, the commission will publish proposals for a eurozone finance minister and other reforms. That just means more integration not a ‘multi-speed’ Europe.
I don’t want to bore you saying the same stuff again and again, but I believe the EU can only work as it should with full fiscal union. But that will never be accepted by most Europeans. So the EU cannot be the effective entity to which it wishes to transform.
You have no interest in staying in the club that you think no longer works but you expect a special deal to allow you to continue to use its facilities?
Don’t twist my words mate, you are better than that.
You know exactly what I have posted in the past because you always comment on it.
I am one of the very few who have outlined exactly how I believe this could work and have never said I expect a special deal allowing us to use existing EU facilities.
A lucid response @NornIrishAddick but you paint a picture that results from painting by numbers. If you have the will you can choose your own colours and change the picture.
"The simple reason being that a) it would be unacceptable to the other party (Ireland and the EU) and b) everyone else in the WTO will be entitled to the same access."It's so unacceptable it's worth risking civil unrest in Ireland.
"...anyone who believes that such an agreement will be signed, ratified and implemented by 2021 is being entirely too optimistic." What, too optimistic that the EU will prioritise a mutually beneficial arrangement?
"...also all the irritating paperwork that UK businesses currently don't have to fill out, all the regulatory hoops that they dont have to jump through and, more importantly, all the associated delays"Think what you could have argued if we were also in the Eurozone - (massive disruption managing two currencies for a single transaction, exchange rates moving the cost of raw materials by 10% overnight).
"I know of no-one who has suggested that being outside the Single Market would mean that the UK could no longer trade with the EU,"They are probably not your acquaintances, they just appear on screen in random street interviews with the public, you should pay more attention.
"The UK will not achieve the same benefits in terms of non-tariff barriers, regulatory equivalence or influence as membership of the EU, Single Market, or Customs Union, if it it relies on a Free Trade Agreement" No and neither is it paying £9bn for the privilege.
P.S - Ken Clark believes that by leaving the EU we lose the "macro economic benefits" of being in the EU. I tried to find an EU statement that clarifies these "macro economic benefits", this is from the Social Market Foundation referring to the growth in UK GDP since 1974? - These positive effects stem from the EU’s success in increasing trade and the impact of stronger competition on UK productivity. So it couldn't say it helped our productivity, only helped with "competition" on our productivity. Our trade increased more with non EU countries, so what are the real "macro economic benefits" benefits of being in the Single Market that is worth £9bn a year, must be more than "competition on our productivity", which is clearly not having much impact.
"I'm actually quite disappointed @Dippenhall with your response to the article about Peter Grant's views" Im disappointed when I read anti British rhetoric that would be condemned as Anglophobia if there was parity of standards in defining racial/ethnic discrimination. The anti UK sentiment can't disguise the fact that Ireland cannot make decisions in its own interests while it is a colony of the EU.
Supporting the EU stance, and refusing to first develop a trade relationship that obviated a border problem in Ireland is a strange way of acting independently in the interests of Ireland. Supporting the notion that the UK could come up with a border solution to a problem unable to be articulated until it was known if there was a FTA, WTO rules trade or a micro single market is hardly acting independently in the interests of Ireland.
Comments
Well? @stonemuse, @Dippenhall @Southbank ?
Interested in your comments...
But I would be interested to know when I ever stated that the EU did cause any of that?
I've been making the point since before the referendum that, logic dictates, we are going to be worse off as consumers. Our (EU derived) laws around consumer protection, food standards, food hygiene, product safety, environmental standards and information and more have improved our lot as consumers greatly over the last 30 years. Yet how many serious discussions around, what are after all the core activities and outcomes from our membership, took or take place? Very, very few and overwhelmingly the tone is these laws are being imposed on us rather than developed with our active input, which is the truth.
There's little point in raking over old ground but it's concerning, to say the least, that in little more than a few months the likes of Liz Truss is going to be holding meetings with the likes of Monsanto and making executive decisions on our behalf as a result.
The bottom line is our larger producers are going to still have to comply with the EU legislation anyway, while the rest of the world, more specifically North America, is going to be all out to drive down our domestic standards so they can export into the UK the sort of crappy food and goods that they currently can't.
Is that really what we voted for?
a) the cabinet appears to have bought in to the EU payments
b) there aren't really any howls of anguish so far from the leavers outside the cabinet. A bit of rhetoric but not much else.
A take form this that May's position has strengthened quite significantly and that the odds on a soft brexit have as well.
Each to their own, but as a staunch remainer, I am happy that would be the least worst option available to us now and feel that it is seriously counter-productive and a bit childish to keep needling the leavers about it.
With some 169,000 people employed directly in manufacturing and in excess of 814,000 across the wider automotive industry, it accounts for 12.0% of total UK export of goods and invests £4 billion each year in automotive R&D.
More than 30 manufacturers build in excess of 70 models of vehicle in the UK supported by 2,500 component providers and some of the world’s most skilled engineers.
I, for one, would hate to see any of these people lose their jobs.
My knowledge of the use of robotics in car manufacture is probably limited to things like 1980s Fiat advertising campaigns, but I would imagine that the vast majority of robot activity would be things like parts selection, movement within the plant, and welding, rather than engine building.
No worry. We can bribe them to stay. That £350 million a week looks like it’s going to be very thinly spread.
I would just like to point out that I do not believe this! In fact, I tend to think the opposite is generally true!
Low earners often contribute a lot to society but don't take much out of it. While high earners often sit around in offices doing not very much and consume a disproportionate amount of the countries wealth.
I made a point earlier intended to suggest that the government is taking credit for creating poorly paid jobs but should be concentrating on creating "better" jobs. I finally understand now why this comment might have been misconstrued!
It appears that the pesky metropolitan elite, or at least the ex-Chief Constable in Northern Ireland (so, pretty much the same thing), are still putting their oar in on this question: independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-irish-border-terrorists-ira-republican-loyalists-northern-ireland-government-hugh-orde-a8081576.html.
Here's the ONS chart which sets out the figures:
Read more here: https://ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/theeffectsoftaxesandbenefitsonhouseholdincome/financialyearending2015
Now, you could argue I suppose, that merely by ensuring that each household had an income of no more and no less than £34.5k we would need no benefits paid out or anything at all by way of state pension. The Governmental savings would be huge: there would be no need for intervention, state schools or anything. But of course that way madness lies: for a vast number of reasons.
As an an old desk jockey though, I do take exception to your ridiculous implication that whole armies of people are sitting in offices doing bugger all and creaming off the wealth.
And it is still better than a no-deal scenario.
I on the other hand believe (and can demonstrate) that within the EU the Brits have been pursuing that agenda with the other members, who have adopted some of them with misgivings, modifications and now downright regrets. Having foisted all this shit on them we are now offski. We really are like the garrulous and overbearing Golf Club member.
Macron’s most recent announcement is that a “profound transformation” of the EU with deeper political integration is required. And he is right ... but that is not what I wish to be part of.
In early December, the commission will publish proposals for a eurozone finance minister and other reforms. That just means more integration not a ‘multi-speed’ Europe.
I don’t want to bore you saying the same stuff again and again, but I believe the EU can only work as it should with full fiscal union. But that will never be accepted by most Europeans. So the EU cannot be the effective entity to which it wishes to transform.
You know exactly what I have posted in the past because you always comment on it.
I am one of the very few who have outlined exactly how I believe this could work and have never said I expect a special deal allowing us to use existing EU facilities.
It’s all about negotiation and compromise.
"The simple reason being that a) it would be unacceptable to the other party (Ireland and the EU) and b) everyone else in the WTO will be entitled to the same access." It's so unacceptable it's worth risking civil unrest in Ireland.
"...anyone who believes that such an agreement will be signed, ratified and implemented by 2021 is being entirely too optimistic." What, too optimistic that the EU will prioritise a mutually beneficial arrangement?
"...also all the irritating paperwork that UK businesses currently don't have to fill out, all the regulatory hoops that they dont have to jump through and, more importantly, all the associated delays" Think what you could have argued if we were also in the Eurozone - (massive disruption managing two currencies for a single transaction, exchange rates moving the cost of raw materials by 10% overnight).
"I know of no-one who has suggested that being outside the Single Market would mean that the UK could no longer trade with the EU," They are probably not your acquaintances, they just appear on screen in random street interviews with the public, you should pay more attention.
"The UK will not achieve the same benefits in terms of non-tariff barriers, regulatory equivalence or influence as membership of the EU, Single Market, or Customs Union, if it it relies on a Free Trade Agreement" No and neither is it paying £9bn for the privilege.
P.S - Ken Clark believes that by leaving the EU we lose the "macro economic benefits" of being in the EU. I tried to find an EU statement that clarifies these "macro economic benefits", this is from the Social Market Foundation referring to the growth in UK GDP since 1974? -
These positive effects stem from the EU’s success in increasing trade and the impact of stronger competition on UK productivity. So it couldn't say it helped our productivity, only helped with "competition" on our productivity. Our trade increased more with non EU countries, so what are the real "macro economic benefits" benefits of being in the Single Market that is worth £9bn a year, must be more than "competition on our productivity", which is clearly not having much impact.
"I'm actually quite disappointed @Dippenhall with your response to the article about Peter Grant's views" Im disappointed when I read anti British rhetoric that would be condemned as Anglophobia if there was parity of standards in defining racial/ethnic discrimination. The anti UK sentiment can't disguise the fact that Ireland cannot make decisions in its own interests while it is a colony of the EU.
Supporting the EU stance, and refusing to first develop a trade relationship that obviated a border problem in Ireland is a strange way of acting independently in the interests of Ireland. Supporting the notion that the UK could come up with a border solution to a problem unable to be articulated until it was known if there was a FTA, WTO rules trade or a micro single market is hardly acting independently in the interests of Ireland.