Merged Now What?

[Aepervius]

I thought you just agreed it was very likely god's honest truth?

No. The 350 million figure was implied to be taken from something else, the EU budget.

Inflation happen no matter what and would happen in addition to the implied sum. In fact , with an overall budget of 116.4 billion,assuming 2% inflation (http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-r...ic-inflation/cpi-inflation-great-britain.aspx which is roughly around 1.5 to 2 that for decades except 2015) we are already 2+ billion more per year and that is 38 million per week. Heck assuming 2% how long does it takes to get 350 million inflation not even counting brexit or whatever ? Well : 350 million per week is 18 billion roughly. So that means we go from 116 to 134 billion. So we have 116*(1.02)^x=134 solving for x we find about 7 years and 6 month. Even assuming a lower inflation of 1.5% you solve it for x and find 10 years.

But again, the 350 million per week was never said to come from inflation and pretending it did is a lie.

 

[Aepervius]

I don't see how ego comes into it. We weren't happy with the terms offered and so now we're leaving. The EU obviously considered that this might happen one day or Article 50 wouldn't exist.

Would you say that a person quitting a job they're not happy with needs an ego check?

The problem is, at every steps the UK got a special treatment. guess what ? You are still using pounds and not euro. And then there were the rebate. And you kept asking for more.
At some point people start asking themselves why they should give so many special treatment to the UK again, when they kept accusing us of the worst sin and treating us like crap, AND want to keep themselves separate as much as possible.

well you got your wish. and now you are shuffling your feet to quickly use that art 50. Pretending you need to think and prepare.

Sure. Look in a mirror.

 

[Aepervius]

If you aren't happy in a club then leave sure but don't claim that you were treated with contempt when in fact you were treated better than everyone else in the same club.

QFT.

There was only ONE way the contempt went : from the island toward the continent.

 

[catsmate]

QFT.

There was only ONE way the contempt went : from the island toward the continent.

Exactly. And now the UK faces the consequences.

 

[The Don]

Exactly. And now the UK faces the consequences.

The Leavers have it covered both ways. If the UK emerges from this mess of our own devising with a decent set of trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world then it'll be down to our steely-eyed determination and superb diplomatic and negotiating skills. If the UK ends up being shafted every way to Thursday then it's down to the EU being big meanies and stitching us up with a bad deal with the EU and forcing us to go it alone with the rest of the world.

 

[Aepervius]

The Leavers have it covered both ways. If the UK emerges from this mess of our own devising with a decent set of trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world then it'll be down to our steely-eyed determination and superb diplomatic and negotiating skills. If the UK ends up being shafted every way to Thursday then it's down to the EU being big meanies and stitching us up with a bad deal with the EU and forcing us to go it alone with the rest of the world.

Very old sentence : pile tu perd, face je gagne (head you lose, face i win).

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Very old sentence : pile tu perd, face je gagne (head you lose, face i win).

C'est comme ça: Heads you lose, tails I win.

 

[GlennB]

C'est comme ça: Heads you lose, tails I win.

Je think que vous etes in erreur:

pile=tail, face=head, surement?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Je think que vous etes in erreur:

pile=tail, face=head, surement?

My dear colleague, one translates the idea to the existing native expression, and voilá.*

Otherwise, you are on le nez, shall we say.



*ETA: Which actually might be Heads I win, tails you lose. It's been a while.

Super ETA: Pardon the small detour in the thread. May the gods have mercy on sticklers and oddballs.

 

[jimbob]

Hard to disagree with posts #2660 through #2669

I have heard the claims that the UK would be in a good negotiating position (which I doubt) but still haven't seen any reason to think that it would be as good as what we are trying to throw away.

 

[McHrozni]

The Leavers have it covered both ways. If the UK emerges from this mess of our own devising with a decent set of trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world then it'll be down to our steely-eyed determination and superb diplomatic and negotiating skills. If the UK ends up being shafted every way to Thursday then it's down to the EU being big meanies and stitching us up with a bad deal with the EU and forcing us to go it alone with the rest of the world.

That seems par for the course for an average 'euroskeptic'.

The main problem with the EU is not that it's big and not very maneuverable, or that it has a big bureaucracy. No, these are issues, but they pale in comparison to the biggest problem it has: the political hyenas determined to gain as much as possible by damaging it as much as possible, while keeping it intact.
Brexit is the first instance where this tactic backfired.

McHrozni

 

[Planigale]

I would have probably voted Leave anyway, but what really decided it for me were the pathetic 'reforms' that were offered to Cameron to try and make us remain.

Cameron spent months travelling all over Europe and warned other EU leaders that we might leave if they didn't offer us some meaningful concessions on the free movement of people. But the best they could offer after the predictable deadline overruns and final all-night discussions were laughable.

The sight of Cameron standing at his lectern and announcing that, on the back of the "concessions" he'd negotiated, he was now recommending us to remain "in a reformed EU" were truly cringe-worthy. It showed how contemptuous the EU was of the opinions of the people living in one of its member countries.

Although i voted remain, I agree with these sentiments. At the time I thought the EU did not really understand that this was not just a 'negotiating position', but that Cameron needed some genuine flexibility on the migration issue. Something that the EU I felt was to arrogant and too distant to attend to. The EU could have kept the UK in if they had been more responsive to the British people. My guess is that the parts of the UK that voted for remain would map to parts with lower rates of inward migration?

 

[Planigale]

In my opinion, because valid strategic geopolitical considerations forced what in other terms was a excessively rapid introduction of the euro, and a mistaken attachment to a single velocity EU was maintained when adding so many new nation-states.

The euro was rushed into implementation at the insistence of EU leaders, especially Mitterand, to compensate for accepting a newly reunified Germany, which with the Deutschmark was thought to be poised to dominate all other states. However, in so doing, the euro was not restricted to only those economies most in sync: Benelux, Germany, France and, maybe, Italy (also some smaller ones, such as Austria, and of course had they wanted, the UK and Denmark). Other countries should have had to wait until growth and infrastructure, especially human and intellectual capital, brought their economies more in line, using a continuation of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. Certainly the full free movement of labor should have been restricted to this initial, smaller and more compatible, euro zone.

This is what I would advocate for the EU today if it were not for the fact that leaving the euro is so messy as to be impracticable for all but the smallest states, and with massive currency backing from other states. Sovereign debt markets would go nuts, I reckon.

Good to take in Eastern Europe to consolidate freedom there, and in light of Russia today, a very wise move that certainly prevented a new takeover by hook or by crook. Good to include in the EU, as it had already been, Southern Europe. But an EU of 28 nation states, some just emerging from behind the Iron Curtain, simply is too disparate in nature at this juncture to have introduced so many open door policies, or to share a single currency among so many. A step-by-step approach was working better, but events overwhelmed when the Warsaw Pact dissolved.

The EU, therefore, throughout these last decades, can be seen to evolve very much in response to its threatening neighbor to the East; the EU is a strategic concept, not just an economic one. This is why Brexit, even if it nominally does not affect NATO, is psychologically such a bad, bad move, and may encourage copy cats and have a domino effect. If Trump wins, Putin will soon have all his ducks in a row, and more horror show fare will be in store.

Any first year engineering student would have told you a rigid structure subject to stress is liable to fracture, you need to have some flexibility. This is what happened here, the rigid adherence to principles has caused a fracture. The EU needs to be more flexible, there is nothing wrong in the destination of a political ever closer Europe the EU just needs to accept there is no hurry and there may need to be a little meandering one the way.

 

[The Don]

Although i voted remain, I agree with these sentiments. At the time I thought the EU did not really understand that this was not just a 'negotiating position', but that Cameron needed some genuine flexibility on the migration issue. Something that the EU I felt was to arrogant and too distant to attend to. The EU could have kept the UK in if they had been more responsive to the British people.

But only at the cost of one of the most fundamental principles of the EU - the free movement of people.

That's like trying to keep Fred in the No-shorts-to-be-worn-at-any-time-club by allowing him to wear shorts.

My guess is that the parts of the UK that voted for remain would map to parts with lower rates of inward migration?

Your guess would be wrong. It didn't correlate well with levels of inward migration. Cities with high levels of migration like London and Bristol voted strongly to Remain. Areas in the North East and the valleys of Wales where inward migration has been low voted to Leave.

According to various studies and analyses, the areas where Leave support was highest:

• Support the death penalty the most
• Have higher proportions of elderly people
• Have higher proportions of poor people
• Have higher proportions of poorly educated people

Whether some or all are merely correlation rather than causation is debatable (and some are inter-dependent).

 

[The Don]

Any first year engineering student would have told you a rigid structure subject to stress is liable to fracture, you need to have some flexibility. This is what happened here, the rigid adherence to principles has caused a fracture. The EU needs to be more flexible, there is nothing wrong in the destination of a political ever closer Europe the EU just needs to accept there is no hurry and there may need to be a little meandering one the way.

The EU has been incredibly flexible with respects to the UK. The UK has a large financial rebate, the ability to opt out of all kinds of EU legislation that applies to other EU countries and the UK has been influential in killing off legislation that had the support of most, if not all, other EU countries.

What the EU has not been flexible on are the core principles of EU membership.

Going back to Fred and the No-shorts-to-be-worn-at-any-time-club. We've waived 25% of his membership dues because he said that he didn't want to pay them (we know he can afford it, he's one of the richest members of the club), we've allowed him not to bother to turn up to the AGM, we've given him exemption from the no-right-hand-drinking rule on club nights but we're not prepared to allow him to wear shorts.

 

[Planigale]

But only at the cost of one of the most fundamental principles of the EU - the free movement of people.

That's like trying to keep Fred in the No-shorts-to-be-worn-at-any-time-club by allowing him to wear shorts.

But this is not an absolute principle. There are restrictions on movement, significant restrictions were put on new members of the EU. So the principle is flexible. It is not an absolute unbending right. Probably a five year temporary restriction would have been enough.

Your guess would be wrong. It didn't correlate well with levels of inward migration. Cities with high levels of migration like London and Bristol voted strongly to Remain. Areas in the North East and the valleys of Wales where inward migration has been low voted to Leave.

According to various studies and analyses, the areas where Leave support was highest:

• Support the death penalty the most
• Have higher proportions of elderly people
• Have higher proportions of poor people
• Have higher proportions of poorly educated people

Whether some or all are merely correlation rather than causation is debatable (and some are inter-dependent).

Thank you. This is why checking the facts is important not going with wild guesses.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

But this is not an absolute principle.

Actually it is. It's one of the very founding principles of the EU as it stands. You might as well say that had the UK asked to be allowed to put tariffs on goods from other EU countries they should have been allowed to.

 

[The Don]

But this is not an absolute principle. There are restrictions on movement, significant restrictions were put on new members of the EU. So the principle is flexible. It is not an absolute unbending right. Probably a five year temporary restriction would have been enough.

As Archie Gemmill Goal pointed out, it is. In any case I think your assertion is wide of the mark if post-referendum polls and vox-pops are anything to go by.

A five year temporary restriction would have done nothing to address the concerns of people who believed the claims that the UK was losing sovereignty to the EU, it wouldn't have swayed people like Ambrosia who had specific issues with EU legislation, it wouldn't have helped for those people who voted Leave so that they could have their potatoes sold by the pound rather than the kilo, it wouldn't have influenced people like James Dyson who wanted to import vacuum cleaners more cheaply from Malaysia.

The only people it may have swayed are those who are concerned about immigration levels but who are not so concerned that they want permanent restrictions. In any case the workers are apparently needed so any such deal would have been devalued in the eyes of the immigration-led Leave voters when it became apparent that the levels of net migration were not changing.

 

[Klimax]

Although i voted remain, I agree with these sentiments. At the time I thought the EU did not really understand that this was not just a 'negotiating position', but that Cameron needed some genuine flexibility on the migration issue. Something that the EU I felt was to arrogant and too distant to attend to. The EU could have kept the UK in if they had been more responsive to the British people. My guess is that the parts of the UK that voted for remain would map to parts with lower rates of inward migration?

What??? Your idiotic country got idiotic trillion of exceptions and special treatments and yet it is not enough. You did not even bothered to exercise limit when it was on table during entry of C and E Europe into EU. (Unlike some other countries) Last negotiations you got YET ANOTHER truck load of exceptions. Still bloody hell not enough???

They were right. The best thing to happen to EU is to get rid of ungrateful idiocy called GB.

ETA: And hopefully no good deals for you.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It would probably need some kind of extra incentive, like losing benefits if you don't go and so some work if it's available. Maybe even gaining extra benefits if you get off your lazy arse and go do some work.

As well the GBP:EUR exchange rate could well have an impact.

If a Polish worker comes here and earns GBP and then also gets a favourable exchange rate to send money home, then that's win win for them.

If the rate gets low enough whereby the Polish worker could do similar work at home for a similar income, then they'd be more inclined to work in Poland.

Removing some disincentives would help, are the unemployed deterred from taking seasonal work by the fear that they won't be able to reclaim their benefits (or won't be able to do so immediately leading to a break in income that the additional wages don't cover)? And will the wages of fruit picking actually cover their expenses while they are working?

I've known and lived alongside people who were the quintessential 'no job, lots of kids' Daily Mail Headline 'dole-scum' and yes it was annoying and you did wonder why you bothered going to work but in all honesty they were rare and their lives really weren't the fiftytwo week a year holiday they sometimes get portrayed as. I've also been unemployed when I was a lot younger and trying to live on benefits was really hard, skip meals, account for every penny, walk three hours because you can't afford the bus hard (that was over twenty years ago and I doubt things have got easier) but at least once you were in the system you had a roof over your head, taking a job that didn't work out then left me homeless and it was only because I had friends that let me crash on their living room floor that I got back on my feet.

The other issue is that no government since the nineteen seventies has claimed zero unemployment as a target (we can argue over whether by necessity or design perhaps) so what are we going do with these people? There's also a big difference between person (a) who comes here from a less wealthy country, takes a low paying job with no advancement prospects, lives in cheap, shared accommodation and works every hour of overtime they can in order to build up a relatively small amount of savings that they can take home and will be significantly more valuable at home providing them with a decent nest egg to start their 'real life' and person (b) who lives here and who needs to try and start a life here on those same low paying jobs with our cost of living.

On a slightly different point, someone mentioned above that students used to do a lot of the fruit picking during university holidays, I don't know, but how much of the shift away from that is due to the pressure to do work experience (even unpaid internships)? Certainly when I went to university (again a long time ago) industry experience was mandatory on my course, if you couldn't get it, addition studies were set for the breaks.

This isn't to excuse anyone the need to give something back to society, I completely understand how galling it is to think of people who live off others work and don't contribute but realistically benefit fraud runs at half the rate of accidental overpayments and accounts for about 0.7% of claimants, the increase in National Debt relating to the bank bailout would have been sufficient to pay all Jobseeker's Allowances at the current rate for 200 years (or education for 20, or the NHS for 8). We have a real problem with a lack of good jobs, so much manufacturing, which provided good, stable entry level jobs with decent prospects, wages and self respect have gone overseas, many office jobs are following them as call centers, IT, finance etc functions get outsourced, the unqualified poor are rapidly being joined by the semi skilled and the qualified in the dole queues as their departments close and zero hour contracts are making up a significant proportion of the replacement work leaving people unable to plan for the future. We have a major problem with jobs, but I'm not sure that the jobless themselves are really the cause of the problem.

(sorry if this is a bit rambling, I'm typing on a tablet and it's difficult to go back and restructure)