BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

And in other EU news, Poland may be forced to leave the EU if they press ahead with their judicial reforms:
https://bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50828516

Any more of these and it might start getting fashionable.

I think the bigger worry is Poland's shift towards a far right dictatorship but I'm glad you've got your priorities right.

I definitely don't agree with the direction Poland is taking but I'm looking at it in terms of possible end effect that is relevant to this thread.

The leverage the EU has is that Poland is the largest net recipient of EU funds in the bloc - however if the Polish regime takes the view that their political priorities take precedence over the financial impact then it may not be a deterrent.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Can we get back to the question of why Cummings is setting himself up to fail and weakening his own negotiating position?

My view is that the move is to do a few things as the govt sees it:
1. Show the electorate that they mean to 'get Brexit done' as promised.
2. Put some pressure on the EU to get a move on when the negotiations start as they dont want a no deal situation.

Given the healthy commons majority they can always revoke the law that makes the extension illegal. Playing the game as I see it.

How does the pressure work when even you and I know it's a bluff?

1) is the only reason

It may well be but we can't be sure. It certainly sets a time frame for the negotiations.

Someone wise once said "Given the healthy commons majority they can always revoke the law that makes the extension illegal."

The timeframe for the negotiations is not set by this, it is set in the withdrawal agreement:
"ARTICLE 126
Transition period
There shall be a transition or implementation period, which shall start on the date of entry into force of this Agreement and end on 31 December 2020."
"ARTICLE 132
Extension of the transition period
1. Notwithstanding Article 126, the Joint Committee may, before 1 July 2020, adopt a single decision extending the transition period for up to 1 or 2 years."

Good spot KG, you've been doing your homework. IIRC the 1 July deadline reflects the WA which states that any extension to the transition period must be agreed by then (and can be extended by 1 or 2 years). So the law above is simply reflecting the WA which will likely be ratified by parliament in the near future.

rjsterry

In other words it's just for domestic consumption.

rjsterry

Says a lot that he feels the need to convince people that he really means it. Almost as though he has a reputation for letting people down.

tailwindhome

Worth noting, a transition which would end December 31st 2020 was agreed in May's withdrawal agreement.

9 months of dicking around have come out of the transition period.

kingstongraham

No bother, the free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history.

rjsterry

https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/1207352465978470400?s=20

rjsterry

https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/1207353336619503617?s=20

rick_chasey

So Britain First are encouraging their supporters to join the Tories

rjsterry

Lots of examples on Twitter of anyone a bit foreign or brown getting flat-out racist/you don't belong here abuse. Who could have predicted that the Prime minister making disgusting comments about foreigners treating the country as their own could have had such an effect?

darkhairedlord

kingstongraham said:

No bother, the free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history.

With ids and Davis on the case it will be a doddle,

tailwindhome

https://twitter.com/seanwhelanRTE/status/1207601355399016450

john80

For all the people who seem to view having a immigration policy as some sort of cart blanche for racist rhetoric and deeds should not that not having an immigration policy over the last couple of decades has not eased the problem of right wing views. It has in fact increased it as they have no legitimate ability to democratically oppose the system. The answer for putting racists back in their box is to have a nation that is in full control of its immigration policy and then you can have a debate at each election. People can then turn up with their we want open door to anyone and on the other end we don't want anyone of a certain ethnicity. The UK public will then do what they have done time and time again and elect a government somewhere in the middle that makes a credible case for a skills based immigration policy as both of the above extreme positions are flawed in different ways.

surrey_commuter

tailwindhome said:

https://twitter.com/seanwhelanRTE/status/1207601355399016450

In fairness to DD this seems to be the standard party line that he has been given to parrot out. Whilst I would not expect the general public to see the stupidity of this argument it should be well within the mental capacity of a journalist.

rick_chasey

john80 said:

For all the people who seem to view having a immigration policy as some sort of cart blanche for racist rhetoric and deeds should not that not having an immigration policy over the last couple of decades has not eased the problem of right wing views. It has in fact increased it as they have no legitimate ability to democratically oppose the system. The answer for putting racists back in their box is to have a nation that is in full control of its immigration policy and then you can have a debate at each election. People can then turn up with their we want open door to anyone and on the other end we don't want anyone of a certain ethnicity. The UK public will then do what they have done time and time again and elect a government somewhere in the middle that makes a credible case for a skills based immigration policy as both of the above extreme positions are flawed in different ways.

I suspect the cause & effect was racists using immigration as a more respectable vehicle for their racist views.

surrey_commuter

Interesting piece in today's Times by Simon Nixon. Is behind the paywall so I have tried to capture the salient points about what BoJo is up to.

Why set a deadline that almost every trade expert says is almost impossible to meet and which effectively hands negotiating leverage to the other side?

Of course no one knows for sure what Mr Johnson has in mind, perhaps not even Mr Johnson himself. As recently as September he and his allies were still babbling about “alternative arrangements” as the solution to the Irish border, long past the point when anyone with any understanding of the realities of trade had recognised this as nonsense. EU officials who have been deeply involved in the last two negotiations with Britain note that both David Cameron and Theresa May’s teams had to clamber up very steep learning curves given their initial lack of understanding of the complexities of the issues. Those officials say that the same is true of Mr Johnson’s team.

Nonetheless, some senior EU officials believe that Mr Johnson’s gambit might pay off. They speculate that Europe’s weakness could work in the UK’s favour, allowing Mr Johnson to reach a deal that allows a high level of market access while allowing Britain to diverge in key areas of regulation. After all Brexit is already having an economic impact in some member states, including contributing to Germany’s slowdown. At a time of global trade tensions, many sectors in the EU will be lobbying to maintain access to the British market. Everyone accepts that EU unity will be much harder to maintain in the next phase of talks. Perhaps Mr Johnson’s German carmakers and Italian Prosecco sellers will come to his aid.

That said, those with direct experience of past negotiations think this unlikely. They believe that European unity will hold, not least because disunity makes a deal less likely. They believe that Mr Johnson will instead have to capitulate again as the deadline approaches. In that case, the EU hopes to offer him a bare-bones deal by the end of the year that will include its own lengthy transition period to allow a more detailed long-term relationship to be agreed. Liberal quantities of fudge would be required to obscure the fact that such a deal would come at a financial cost and require continued alignment with EU rules for the duration. Still, it could kick the issue into touch for up to five years.

rjsterry

Prepare for another lean year in 2021.

kingstongraham

Doesn't a purely skills based immigration policy leave the unskilled jobs for the non-immigrant population? Is that definitely the best option?

pblakeney

kingstongraham said:

Doesn't a purely skills based immigration policy leave the unskilled jobs for the non-immigrant population? Is that definitely the best option?

Only if the non-immigrant population want to do the unskilled jobs.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Doesn't a purely skills based immigration policy leave the unskilled jobs for the non-immigrant population? Is that definitely the best option?

Seem to recall reading that unskilled Labour would be allowed in (with certain conditions such as max duration of stay) where there is a clear sectoral need? If not then I guess supply and demand will make the unskilled jobs more attractive to the non-immigrant population as the going rate increases.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Doesn't a purely skills based immigration policy leave the unskilled jobs for the non-immigrant population? Is that definitely the best option?

Seem to recall reading that unskilled Labour would be allowed in (with certain conditions such as max duration of stay) where there is a clear sectoral need? If not then I guess supply and demand will make the unskilled jobs more attractive to the non-immigrant population as the going rate increases.

At the expense of customers.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Doesn't a purely skills based immigration policy leave the unskilled jobs for the non-immigrant population? Is that definitely the best option?

Seem to recall reading that unskilled Labour would be allowed in (with certain conditions such as max duration of stay) where there is a clear sectoral need? If not then I guess supply and demand will make the unskilled jobs more attractive to the non-immigrant population as the going rate increases.

At the expense of customers.

The obvious trade off but if unskilled workers are allowed in to address shortages then that will mitigate the impact. Let's see what happens.

rick_chasey

Cutting the supply of labour is a net cost.

You of all people with your anti trade-union ways should see this.


The bigger question should be what is it exactly that locals don't like about high levels of immigration and perhaps focusing on those issues rather than just saying "no foreigners".

That's what's so annoying about the "legitimate concerns about immigration" brigade, because they usually don't want to listen to any other solution that isn't "stop immigration into the UK". The concerns are just "there are too many of *them*" rather than, y'know, what the actual problems are.

Some of the problems that are mentioned, like strain on public services, are wide of the mark for obvious reasons.

If anything, the cultural questions (in my mind anyway) are more legitimate and I think there are definitely ways to handle those better and worse and that isn't nearly given enough attention.

rick_chasey

Bloody free marketeers, only free market when it suits them.

Stevo continues his anti-competitive traits at every opportunity. This week; competition for labour from mobile workers from around the globe.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Bloody free marketeers, only free market when it suits them.

Stevo continues his anti-competitive traits at every opportunity. This week; competition for labour from mobile workers from around the globe.

I'm just commenting on the likely implications.

Try playing the ball not the man, I've told you about this before...

john80

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Doesn't a purely skills based immigration policy leave the unskilled jobs for the non-immigrant population? Is that definitely the best option?

Seem to recall reading that unskilled Labour would be allowed in (with certain conditions such as max duration of stay) where there is a clear sectoral need? If not then I guess supply and demand will make the unskilled jobs more attractive to the non-immigrant population as the going rate increases.

At the expense of customers.

The customer that wants to pay a rate for a product or service that ensures the worker receive so little money that they either choose not to work or are not able to support themselves and their family are probably the same customer that knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Longshot

john80 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Doesn't a purely skills based immigration policy leave the unskilled jobs for the non-immigrant population? Is that definitely the best option?

Seem to recall reading that unskilled Labour would be allowed in (with certain conditions such as max duration of stay) where there is a clear sectoral need? If not then I guess supply and demand will make the unskilled jobs more attractive to the non-immigrant population as the going rate increases.

At the expense of customers.

The customer that wants to pay a rate for a product or service that ensures the worker receive so little money that they either choose not to work or are not able to support themselves and their family are probably the same customer that knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

You honestly think that most people make those kind of value judgements on a day to day basis? You honestly think that a lot of people can afford to make those kind of value judgements on a day to day basis?

kingstongraham

john80 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Doesn't a purely skills based immigration policy leave the unskilled jobs for the non-immigrant population? Is that definitely the best option?

Seem to recall reading that unskilled Labour would be allowed in (with certain conditions such as max duration of stay) where there is a clear sectoral need? If not then I guess supply and demand will make the unskilled jobs more attractive to the non-immigrant population as the going rate increases.

At the expense of customers.

The customer that wants to pay a rate for a product or service that ensures the worker receive so little money that they either choose not to work or are not able to support themselves and their family are probably the same customer that knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

I assume you don't have a mobile phone.

surrey_commuter

people who dislike immigration usually have a long list of exceptions which invariably coincide with their own self-interests. This means of course that everybody has a very different idea of what sort of immigration should be controlled.

rick_chasey

🤨