Brexit settlement? |
Track this topic - Email this topic - Print this topic - Download this topic - Subscribe to this forum |
Jun 2 2017, 08:23 AM
Post
#41
|
|
Cœur poids plume
Group: Members
Posts: 18,124 Member No.: 4,718 Joined: 3-November 07
No Gallery Pics
|
None of this has been costed by Mrs Maybe, who is doing her fullest to avoid being asked difficult questions she cant answer - she's basically just admitted they wont achive their immigrant target by 2022 using the same excuse theyve used since 2009 ("it's complicated" - which it is. Very.) So 13 years in power and Brexit and still no immigrant reductions of consequence. Ever felt fooled...? Oh there are means to reduce immigration, but it's simply not economically desirable to scale back on the sort of immigration that the UK has known in the last 15 years. This post has been edited by Harve: Jun 2 2017, 08:23 AM |
|
|
Jun 2 2017, 08:25 AM
Post
#42
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Group: Veteran
Posts: 36,580 Member No.: 3,272 Joined: 13-April 07
No Gallery Pics
|
A thought occurred - if Labour were to win the election, wouldn't having to pay a large Brexit settlement to the EU, rather f*** up their spending plans? OTOH, if they've made contingency plans for this, how large a settlement do those plans allow for? Whatever the settlement, it won't all be paid in one lump sum in March or April 2019. It will be paid over a period of years. Perhaps you could explain how the Tories would avoid paying a similar sum without the UK losing the trust of all potential trading partners. |
|
|
Jun 2 2017, 08:37 AM
Post
#43
|
|
Paul Hyett
Group: Banned
Posts: 25,346 Member No.: 364 Joined: 4-April 06
No Gallery Pics
|
Whatever the settlement, it won't all be paid in one lump sum in March or April 2019. It will be paid over a period of years. Perhaps you could explain how the Tories would avoid paying a similar sum without the UK losing the trust of all potential trading partners. If they could demonstrate the EU demand was flawed, then quite easily... |
|
|
Jun 2 2017, 08:39 AM
Post
#44
|
|
Paul Hyett
Group: Banned
Posts: 25,346 Member No.: 364 Joined: 4-April 06
No Gallery Pics
|
|
|
|
Jun 2 2017, 08:40 AM
Post
#45
|
|
Buffy/Charmed
Group: Members
Posts: 43,885 Member No.: 18,639 Joined: 18-April 13
No Gallery Pics
|
Lol except it um isn't. The country haa to pay what it promised. It is as simple as that, no matter what the S*n tells you about the figure.
|
|
|
Jun 2 2017, 09:20 AM
Post
#46
|
|
Queen of Soon
Group: Moderator
Posts: 74,015 Member No.: 3,474 Joined: 24-May 07
|
One would imagine that a sensible potential government would be costing proposals based on paying membership fees for EU until such time as any deal is completed, allowing for extensions and transitional arrangements and thus the divorce settlement will come from money set aside for EU membership.
It is most likely to be in the form of an annual payment anyway rather than a one-off. In the grand scheme of things we aren't talking about much money. EU membership fees sound big and scary at £180m per week but the NHS spends £1bn every three days according to a 4th July 2015 telegraph article. So when taken in the context of our overall budget this is a very small percentage of spend. Even if it has not been costed in by Labour, that's still about 95-97% of their manifesto that is fully costed and transparent. The Tories manifesto scores 0%. I know who I'd trust |
|
|
Jun 2 2017, 09:51 AM
Post
#47
|
|
Paul Hyett
Group: Banned
Posts: 25,346 Member No.: 364 Joined: 4-April 06
No Gallery Pics
|
Even if it has not been costed in by Labour, that's still about 95-97% of their manifesto that is fully costed and transparent. The Tories manifesto scores 0%. I know who I'd trust Surely how much *extra* it would cost is crucial, not just how *much* it would cost. After all, even if you know in advance your mortgage payments were going to increase, that knowledge would do you no good if you didn't have the money to pay for it... |
|
|
Jun 2 2017, 09:59 AM
Post
#48
|
|
Queen of Soon
Group: Moderator
Posts: 74,015 Member No.: 3,474 Joined: 24-May 07
|
Surely how much *extra* it would cost is crucial, not just how *much* it would cost. After all, even if you know in advance your mortgage payments were going to increase, that knowledge would do you no good if you didn't have the money to pay for it... Nobody will know how much it'll cost until we start negotiating so it's all ifs and buts and fairly godmothers until then. The bill won't be a surprise and it won't come liable until part way through parliament giving them more than sufficient time to make adjustments to spending plans or borrowings within the constraints of the manifesto. Once more: a household budget and the budget of the country are incomparable. You're comparing an apple with the Empire State Building. |
|
|
Jun 2 2017, 10:35 AM
Post
#49
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Group: Veteran
Posts: 36,580 Member No.: 3,272 Joined: 13-April 07
No Gallery Pics
|
If they could demonstrate the EU demand was flawed, then quite easily... I suspect the credit rating agencies will be harder to convince than the readership of the Daily Mail. We've already lost our AAA rating with those agencies. A further reduction - and a consequent rise in the interest we have to pay - would be an inevitable result of a refusal to meet our obligations towards the EU. |
|
|
Jun 2 2017, 10:55 AM
Post
#50
|
|
Paul Hyett
Group: Banned
Posts: 25,346 Member No.: 364 Joined: 4-April 06
No Gallery Pics
|
Nobody will know how much it'll cost until we start negotiating so it's all ifs and buts and fairly godmothers until then. The bill won't be a surprise The *fact* of the bill won't be a surprise, it's the amount of it that's important. Each side will work out what they think it should be, and negotiate on that basis. I suspect the Tories (with their many Eurosceptics) would be more prepared to play hardball than Labour would, though. I suspect the credit rating agencies will be harder to convince than the readership of the Daily Mail. We've already lost our AAA rating with those agencies. A further reduction - and a consequent rise in the interest we have to pay - would be an inevitable result of a refusal to meet our obligations towards the EU. What does the DM have to do with anything? No-one is suggesting we should fail to meet our obligations - the only question is : what exactly are they? |
|
|
Jun 2 2017, 11:26 AM
Post
#51
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Group: Veteran
Posts: 36,580 Member No.: 3,272 Joined: 13-April 07
No Gallery Pics
|
The *fact* of the bill won't be a surprise, it's the amount of it that's important. Each side will work out what they think it should be, and negotiate on that basis. I suspect the Tories (with their many Eurosceptics) would be more prepared to play hardball than Labour would, though. What does the DM have to do with anything? No-one is suggesting we should fail to meet our obligations - the only question is : what exactly are they? The Daily Mail readership will take little convincing that everything is the EU's fault. That seems to be May's preoccupation at the moment. She and her mob are encouraging people to believe that the EU are seeking to punish the UK when the reality is that the EU will be doing what it is meant to do - looking after the interests of its members. Oh, and Paul Nutall is just one of many who has advocated walking out without paying a penny. Or are you just admitting that he is a nobody? |
|
|
Jun 2 2017, 12:02 PM
Post
#52
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Group: Moderator
Posts: 22,697 Member No.: 17,376 Joined: 18-July 12
No Gallery Pics
|
If they could demonstrate the EU demand was flawed, then quite easily... The USA is flawed, right now. Saudi Arabia is flawed. Turkey is flawed. We still do business with them and we all have to pay our bills. Refsuing to pay up has happened before (hello Argentina!) and we all saw what happened there. The EU is a democratic and our costs are signed in black and white as agreed by previous governments. 27 vs 1. Work out the maths... |
|
|
Jun 2 2017, 12:08 PM
Post
#53
|
|
I'm so lonely, I paid a hobo to spoon with me
Group: Members
Posts: 12,908 Member No.: 10,596 Joined: 6-February 10
|
|
|
|
Jun 2 2017, 12:10 PM
Post
#54
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Group: Moderator
Posts: 22,697 Member No.: 17,376 Joined: 18-July 12
No Gallery Pics
|
For 'economically desirable' read 'politically correct'... No. Economically essential. There is no-one to do the work that is required to function without immigrants - why else do you think the vast majority of immigrants are employed, and unemployment levels are pretty reasonable by recent historical standards. Work it out. Try using maths again. You need a brain surgeon, you pay for a brain surgeon, not someone who left school with one GCSE. Try to run a business with chimps and pay peanuts you will soon fold unless the chimps are capable of doing the complex jobs required, be that IT, medical knowledge or anything in between. If May thinks it's just politics (and she was in control of immigration for 6 years so should ought to know) all she has to say is "I guarantee to reduce immigration to 99000 by 2020 or I will resign as PM. She won't because she knows it's a lie. Labour are just more realistic about the subject, that's all, the levels will be the same whoever is in power because they can't control private companies and business requirements. |
|
|
Jun 2 2017, 02:08 PM
Post
#55
|
|
Paul Hyett
Group: Banned
Posts: 25,346 Member No.: 364 Joined: 4-April 06
No Gallery Pics
|
What were you even attempting to say with that? That it would be considered 'racist' to take measures that could actually help resolve the problem, although my smiley indicated I was making light of the issue. No. Economically essential. There is no-one to do the work that is required to function without immigrants - why else do you think the vast majority of immigrants are employed, and unemployment levels are pretty reasonable by recent historical standards. Work it out. Try using maths again. You need a brain surgeon, you pay for a brain surgeon, not someone who left school with one GCSE. Then why is Labour discussing scrapping the part of the points system (known as Tier 3 visa) which would then allow more unskilled immigrants in? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29594642 Skilled immigrants are useful, but unskilled workers are not in short supply! |
|
|
Jun 2 2017, 04:14 PM
Post
#56
|
|
Cœur poids plume
Group: Members
Posts: 18,124 Member No.: 4,718 Joined: 3-November 07
No Gallery Pics
|
|
|
|
Jun 3 2017, 09:08 AM
Post
#57
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Group: Moderator
Posts: 22,697 Member No.: 17,376 Joined: 18-July 12
No Gallery Pics
|
Then why is Labour discussing scrapping the part of the points system (known as Tier 3 visa) which would then allow more unskilled immigrants in? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29594642 Skilled immigrants are useful, but unskilled workers are not in short supply! Not aware of that policy but I would have thought it was blatantly obvious why - British workers will NOT 100% NOT agree to work picking crops in fields, caring for advanced dementia cases and all the practical unpleasantness that goes along with bathing and cleaning toilet-related problems, among many other examples, so as people leave a declining UK economy for elsewhere they will have no choice but to bring in people who WILL agree to fill a necessity. The thing that really annoys me about the man in the street is his complete lack of forward planning, it's just knee-jerk reaction and sod the consequences because they arent affected (they think). Fairly obviously there will be a care crisis, especially if all the Spanish-living retirees return, food prices will go up, farmers will go out of business. So you have to pay someone to do that work. Even if the wages doubled (which means either the state or poor people or both end up paying twice as much) you would still struggle to get people to take those jobs. The Tories will do this too because they will have to. May is a liar. Nothing she says can be believed anymore than the lying Leavers. She changes her mind at the drop of a hat. Those rich people just want to get richer and look after their rich and powerful friends, including rich foreigners, and will say anything to get their way. |
|
|
Jun 3 2017, 09:41 AM
Post
#58
|
|
Paul Hyett
Group: Banned
Posts: 25,346 Member No.: 364 Joined: 4-April 06
No Gallery Pics
|
Not aware of that policy but I would have thought it was blatantly obvious why - British workers will NOT 100% NOT agree to work picking crops in fields, caring for advanced dementia cases and all the practical unpleasantness that goes along with bathing and cleaning toilet-related problems, among many other examples, so as people leave a declining UK economy for elsewhere they will have no choice but to bring in people who WILL agree to fill a necessity. The thing that really annoys me about the man in the street is his complete lack of forward planning, it's just knee-jerk reaction and sod the consequences because they arent affected (they think). Fairly obviously there will be a care crisis, especially if all the Spanish-living retirees return, food prices will go up, farmers will go out of business. So you have to pay someone to do that work. Even if the wages doubled (which means either the state or poor people or both end up paying twice as much) you would still struggle to get people to take those jobs. The Tories will do this too because they will have to. May is a liar. Nothing she says can be believed anymore than the lying Leavers. She changes her mind at the drop of a hat. Those rich people just want to get richer and look after their rich and powerful friends, including rich foreigners, and will say anything to get their way. That concludes today's broadcast from The Socialist Workers Party. Seriously though, as for unskilled jobs, the means already exist to make British workers take them.. |
|
|
Jun 12 2017, 09:35 AM
Post
#59
|
|
Paul Hyett
Group: Banned
Posts: 25,346 Member No.: 364 Joined: 4-April 06
No Gallery Pics
|
The USA is flawed, right now. Saudi Arabia is flawed. Turkey is flawed. We still do business with them and we all have to pay our bills. Refsuing to pay up has happened before (hello Argentina!) and we all saw what happened there. The EU is a democratic and our costs are signed in black and white as agreed by previous governments. 27 vs 1. Work out the maths... That's the whole problem - no-one *can* work out the maths! What we pay in is easy enough, but what our contribution is spent on is more important. Any part of our contribution that goes into assets that will still be used after we've left - buildings & suchlike, we should get a partial refund for. WE should certainly not be contributing towards the pensions of MEP's & officials once we've left, for example. |
|
|
Jun 12 2017, 09:49 AM
Post
#60
|
|
Queen of Soon
Group: Moderator
Posts: 74,015 Member No.: 3,474 Joined: 24-May 07
|
Our MEPs like Farage will get a pension after we leave EU, we should contribute to that. Most pension schemes across the world are in deficit and are glorified Ponzi schemes so we will be expected to cough up to cover our part of that deficit now rather than deal with it in a more gradual manner.
We're also liable to scores of redundancy payments to British civil servants who are losing their jobs because of this. Why should the EU fund that? They're our staff being made redundant as a consequence of our illinformed and illogical choice. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 07:28 AM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2023 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service