How do we think EU negotiations will go?

[sidicks]

covmutley said:

What, so no EU person has ever taken a job that a UK person could have had? EU migrants dont live in houses? They never get ill?

I dont agree he is right on balance, but the argument cannot be totally wrong. My point was that your personal view depends on your circumstance.

He is arguing the opposite, suggest you re-read his post!

Also, please can you edit your post above - the quote you have ascribed to me was not mine!

[Sway]

cookie118 said:

Sway said:

There is a bigger problem with the ECJ in this context. It simply does too much - it is the proverbial hammer used where every problem appears to be a nail.

In any other scenario regarding two parties creating a bipartite agreement, the normal recourse for an oversight body is to create one, made up of equal proportions of the constituent signatories. This is the approach applied to pretty much every single global agreement.

Having a partisan organisation overseeing bipartite agreements is daft. Insisting on it is even drafter.

Do you think though that the problems with the ECJ justify the governments severing of ties with everything that it presides over in such short order?

I think there is an issue with the way government is approaching the negotiations with the withdrawal of everything ECJ with no exceptions regardless of effects. It gives us a mountain to climb in terms of the amount of negotiation to be done, puts us at greater risk, lowers our bargaining power and, as far as I can tell for little benefit at the moment.

Personally, it appears that the EU want the ECJ to rule over any and every aspect of the future relationship between the EU and UK. I think this is massively flawed, and as per many things relating to the EU as an institution - pretty much unprecedented yet presented as the norm.

I recognise this causes a challenge, and I think we may well end up having to accept their oversight in certain areas. That for me isn't perhaps the 'right' answer, but it is a pragmatic one.

[problemchild1976]

Troubleatmill said:

So why limit immigration to just people of the EU?
Wouldn't it be nice to allow all 7 billion of our planet to come over here freely?

Are you in favour?

to get a job? yes. why not? Its a global market place. They come, they get a job, they pay taxes, they make our culture diverse and strong.

I have worked with people who have come from all over the world and i worked in the USA for a while.

are people linking immigrants to benefits?

TBH i'd rather people who don't work and that the tax payer paid for to get back into work first but jobs are available.... yet not being filled by the unemployed.

I've been on the JSA (as was) and I was off it within a week as i applied for a job in a factory packing boxes and got it. When that job went to shift work i quit, went to the job centre, rang up one of the companies advertising and started the next day.

JJ

[problemchild1976]

covmutley said:

sidicks said:

His arguments aren't 'simplistic', they are just wrong.

What, so no EU person has ever taken a job that a UK person could have had? EU migrants dont live in houses? They never get ill?

I dont agree he is right on balance, but the argument cannot be totally wrong. My point was that your personal view depends on your circumstance.

An EU migrant does a job, pays rent, pays council tax, pays income tax and NI, pays VAT on the things bought.

And if they do all that, they can get health care.

My mum never worked a day in her life. She was a housewife. Yet she was entitled to free health care, got a free student loan when she studied as a mature student and when died had utilised a huge amount of the health system (inc the NHS supporting her being at home for her final months)

its totally hypocritical to state that someone legally working in the UK and paying tax shouldn't be receiving health care.

I'm educated and i knew i didn't have the knowledge to make an informed decision and i'm afraid the UK public in general also don't have the knowledge.

Maybe people live surrounded by the uber intelligent but the real world isn't like that unfortunately

JJ

[Funkycoldribena]

problemchild1976 said:

An

I'm educated and i knew i didn't have the knowledge to make an informed decision and i'm afraid the UK public in general also don't have the knowledge.



JJ

So did they in the seventies when taking us in?

[Troubleatmill]

problemchild1976 said:

covmutley said:

sidicks said:

His arguments aren't 'simplistic', they are just wrong.

What, so no EU person has ever taken a job that a UK person could have had? EU migrants dont live in houses? They never get ill?

I dont agree he is right on balance, but the argument cannot be totally wrong. My point was that your personal view depends on your circumstance.

An EU migrant does a job, pays rent, pays council tax, pays income tax and NI, pays VAT on the things bought.

And if they do all that, they can get health care.

My mum never worked a day in her life. She was a housewife. Yet she was entitled to free health care, got a free student loan when she studied as a mature student and when died had utilised a huge amount of the health system (inc the NHS supporting her being at home for her final months)

its totally hypocritical to state that someone legally working in the UK and paying tax shouldn't be receiving health care.

I'm educated and i knew i didn't have the knowledge to make an informed decision and i'm afraid the UK public in general also don't have the knowledge.

Maybe people live surrounded by the uber intelligent but the real world isn't like that unfortunately

JJ

And yet - to be a net contributor to this country - e.g... put more in than you get out... you need a salary of over £32K.

Now - I accept this is a blended number.
Not everyone has the same demands on public services etc etc

But flooding the country with low wage workers - isn't really the answer.
And assuming that person has a partner and kids - then they are very much net beneficiaries.


Those in Govt, and aspiring to be in Govt really need to have a very serious think about this.
Ditto for industry, employers etc.

We are living way way beyond our means.


Anyway - back on topic..... Negotiations are going exactly as I would predict.

Jack st will happen until the last few weeks.

[problemchild1976]

Troubleatmill said:

And yet - to be a net contributor to this country - e.g... put more in than you get out... you need a salary of over £32K.

Troubleatmill said:

But flooding the country with low wage workers - isn't really the answer.
And assuming that person has a partner and kids - then they are very much net beneficiaries.

but the job is the job..... its not low paid to only EU people, its low paid to everyone.

working in the public sector, there are jobs in my place that start sub £15k and our eng graduates start on sub £25k

my missus works in banking and cashiers are also on sub £15k

No one would consider limiting their ability to claim health care. Which brings it back to "they are foreigners" rather than "they are UK tax payers"

JJ

[Ridgemont]

problemchild1976 said:

Troubleatmill said:

And yet - to be a net contributor to this country - e.g... put more in than you get out... you need a salary of over £32K.

Troubleatmill said:

But flooding the country with low wage workers - isn't really the answer.
And assuming that person has a partner and kids - then they are very much net beneficiaries.

but the job is the job..... its not low paid to only EU people, its low paid to everyone.

working in the public sector, there are jobs in my place that start sub £15k and our eng graduates start on sub £25k

my missus works in banking and cashiers are also on sub £15k

I fear you are missing the point. Having 100 people of which 52% only are net contributors means that 48 people are a net drain. Add an additional 15 people all of whom are net negative means that either

1) the 52% pay more tax
2) entitlements for everyone including the 48% are reduced
3) we rack up more debt

The point he was making wasn't that it should be fair that you and yours should pay more. He was observing that adding another 15 workers has a net negative impact on the rest of us.

[anonymous-user]

problemchild1976 said:

jsf said:

The old, the people are too thick for their own good anti democracy speech.

Your comment re GP teams, what do you think they do at the moment? It's a world championship, they are currently in the USA as we speak.

You think GP teams currently only employ people from the EU?

Just think about how ridiculous your comments are.

haha - interesting you fail to comment on my friend though

i was considering things and the GP was on... go figure haha

yes they are in the USA and they will have to have got US working visas.

I didn't comment about your friend because I didn't want to be unkind. She is clearly thick as mince, just like her friend.

You commented that UK GP teams couldn't employ people from the EU post Brexit, that is thick as mince.

Big deal they need Visa's to work at the GP events, this is nothing new, they always have had to do that where the country visited for the GP requires visa's. It's hardly rocket science.

The FIA releases instructions to the teams when this is the case and they do the whole team as one application normally, because being the well organised world championship that they are, they have a bit of experience of doing this kind of thing. Most established countries have special visa schemes for major sporting event support staff, such as is required to run a GP.

This is the Russia GP advice for visa procedures https://www.fia.com/file/53684/download?token=a-cX...

When we were going to Baku for the first time, the year before the GP first ran, as a trial for the event, we had to get our passports to the London Embassy and have those visa issued at the Embassy, each country has their own requirements. Russia currently requires you to submit biometric data to get the visa so you have to go to the embassy for that in person, even though the teams sends all the paperwork. That was introduced in 2014 as a result of sanctions placed on Russia.

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 25th October 02:05

[JagLover]

cookie118 said:

Do you think though that the problems with the ECJ justify the governments severing of ties with everything that it presides over in such short order?

I think there is an issue with the way government is approaching the negotiations with the withdrawal of everything ECJ with no exceptions regardless of effects. It gives us a mountain to climb in terms of the amount of negotiation to be done, puts us at greater risk, lowers our bargaining power and, as far as I can tell for little benefit at the moment.

policyexchange said:

In interpreting EU law the ECJ does not therefore accord the same primacy to the ordinary meaning of words as many other supranational courts including the International Court of Justice or the WTO Appellate Body. Instead the ECJ adopts a flexible approach which allows it to depart from the wording of the EU Treaties or legislation in favour of a teleological, i.e. purposive, interpretation even where the wording of the relevant provision is neither obscure nor ambiguous

policyexchange said:

What can be said, however, and said categorically, is that any EU-UK trade or wider collaboration agreement which, directly or indirectly, assigns the settlement of any disputes to the ECJ will not be worth having, because that agreement would invariably and consistently be construed in the EU’s favour and against the UK. Such an agreement would not be worth the paper it is written on because the ECJ will never be as an impartial arbiter in the settlement of disputes involving the EU. It sees itself and has always acted as the judicial agent of ‘ever closer union.’

https://policyexchange.org.uk/gunnar-beck-the-european-court-of-justice-is-not-an-impartial-court-and-has-no-role-to-play-in-post-brexit-eu-uk-relations/

Jurisdiction of the ECJ is a red line for many of those who backed Brexit.

[anonymous-user]

I see that the Policy Exchange paper cites just one decision of the ECJ to support its arguments. That decision was one in which the Court ruled against the EU Council and EU Parliament and annulled some EU legislation.

I am not a fan of the Court because of its cumbersome size, slowness, and fudged and insufficiently clear decisions, but being partisan isn't one of its failings.

[anonymous-user]

JagLover said:

https://policyexchange.org.uk/gunnar-beck-the-euro...

Jurisdiction of the ECJ is a red line for many of those who backed Brexit.

I think you're perhaps missing the point I’m making (although sway gets it). I get that leavers want to withdraw from ECJ oversight, however the way the government is doing so, by suddenly severing all ties with anything under their control at the moment we ‘leave‘ regardless of any benefit we might gain from those organisations/arrangements seems a bit bonkers to me.

Just to touch on your last point. It might be a red line for many leavers. But that doesn’t necessarily make it a necessity for a majority of the population/electorate. Should we place a lot more at risk in these negotiations to please a minority of the population?

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 25th October 07:00

[powerstroke]

problemchild1976 said:

Troubleatmill said:

And yet - to be a net contributor to this country - e.g... put more in than you get out... you need a salary of over £32K.

Troubleatmill said:

But flooding the country with low wage workers - isn't really the answer.
And assuming that person has a partner and kids - then they are very much net beneficiaries.

but the job is the job..... its not low paid to only EU people, its low paid to everyone.

working in the public sector, there are jobs in my place that start sub £15k and our eng graduates start on sub £25k

my missus works in banking and cashiers are also on sub £15k

No one would consider limiting their ability to claim health care. Which brings it back to "they are foreigners" rather than "they are UK tax payers"

JJ

Why do you suppose there has been such an increase in the pay gap ?? do you think people at the top should have limitless labour so they can pay themselves more and more while the tax system subsidises the working poor !!
Are you Mike Ashley ????? supply and demand , nothing to do with not liking foreigners let them build their own economys ..
let's have a points based system so everyone in the country can benefit from immigration ...........

[PRTVR]

cookie118 said:

JagLover said:

https://policyexchange.org.uk/gunnar-beck-the-euro...

Jurisdiction of the ECJ is a red line for many of those who backed Brexit.

I think you're perhaps missing the point I’m making (although sway gets it). I get that leavers want to withdraw from ECJ oversight, however the way the government is doing so, by suddenly severing all ties with anything under their control at the moment we ‘leave‘ regardless of any benefit we might gain from those organisations/arrangements seems a bit bonkers to me.

Just to touch on your last point. It might be a red line for many leavers. But that doesn’t necessarily make it a necessity for a majority of the population/electorate. Should we place a lot more at risk in these negotiations to please a minority of the population?

Edited by cookie118 on Wednesday 25th October 07:00

I personally don't see the need for another layer of jurisdiction, we have enough as it is, plus it keeps us under control by the EU, why would we want that ? Why would the EU want it.

[mx5nut]

Funkycoldribena said:

So did they in the seventies when taking us in?

Brexiteers and Corbyn's mob:

Both absolutely convinced that the solution to all their problems is travelling back to the 70s and hoping the world hasn't changed in the meantime.

Both absolutely convinced that the rest of us should pay for it.

Both cultlike in their devotion to the cause.

Edited by mx5nut on Wednesday 25th October 08:43

[sidicks]

mx5nut said:

Brexiteers and Corbyn's mob:

Both absolutely convinced that the solution to all their problems is travelling back to the 70s and hoping the world hasn't changed in the meantime.

Both absolutely convinced that the rest of us should pay for it.

Both cultlike in their devotion to the cause.

Mx5nut - absolutely devoted to posting generalised nonsense about Brexiters.

Unable to tell the difference between a return to the 1970 and a new approach that provides new opportunities to unencumbered trade with countries outside of the EU, rather than paying billions of pounds for restricted trade governed by the protectionist EU.

Certainly ****like in his devotion to the cause.

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 25th October 08:57

[///ajd]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/24/m...

A few more quotes from bloomberg.

This raises the issue of whether the UK is becoming less welcoming. There are several anecdotes like this from bloomberg suggesting it is.

This is an inevitable consequence of the volume of feeling over foreigners “taking jobs, using NHS, being net takers” etc. It seems like from some defensive posts above this has become the acceptable face of effectively being unwelcoming, as that is how it is perceived whether intended or not.

There does need to be serious work on the net benefits of immigration. When is Amber’s Ruddy study out?

[sidicks]

///ajd said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/24/m...

A few more quotes from bloomberg.

This raises the issue of whether the UK is becoming less welcoming. There are several anecdotes like this from bloomberg suggesting it is.

This is an inevitable consequence of the volume of feeling over foreigners “taking jobs, using NHS, being net takers” etc. It seems like from some defensive posts above this has become the acceptable face of effectively being unwelcoming, as that is how it is perceived whether intended or not.

There does need to be serious work on the net benefits of immigration. When is Amber’s Ruddy study out?

You mean the net benefits of certain types of immigration. Which is why we need to be able to control immigration to help ensure that it is indeed a net benefit and can adapt to our changing requirements. HTH

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 25th October 09:06

[Robertj21a]

mx5nut said:

Brexiteers and Corbyn's mob:

Both absolutely convinced that the solution to all their problems is travelling back to the 70s and hoping the world hasn't changed in the meantime.

Both absolutely convinced that the rest of us should pay for it.

Both cultlike in their devotion to the cause.

Edited by mx5nut on Wednesday 25th October 08:43

Highly amusing, thank you.

Presumably, your view is that we should abandon the very idea of leaving the EU, apologise to the other 27 states for all the trouble we've caused, offer them billions of pounds to make up for our silliness, and promise not to be so silly again.

Excellent, I'm sure that will go down very well (hint - you're really not doing very well at understanding the views of many of the electorate).

[Garvin]

Bloomberg said:

". . . . . If they don't pay a penalty, everyone else would drop out."

Why? Everyone else? I do not understand such statements. If the EU is such a spiffing club then a) why is a penalty necessary; and b) why would everyone else drop out? These are question asked many times before but nobody, as yet, has been able to craft a credible answer. Can anyone here satisfy my curiosity on these questions?