Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
When you have a system where 50% of the population have just 8% of the wealth, the economic arguments that 'more of the same' is the best course, is never going to work
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
When you have a system where 50% of the population have just 8% of the wealth, the economic arguments that 'more of the same' is the best course, is never going to work
The EU (quite rightly) realised that in the hands of Remainers, a no deal brexit was never going to happen. Then May gave away £39B, the rights of EU citizens and our help on security for nothing, leaving us nothing to negotiate with.
From start to finish, May has given way on every single point and acquiesced to the EU's demands without so much as a reacharound in return.
That is not how the discussions would have gone in the hands of a competent person.
Why can there not be bias in the FT (also a privately owned publication) and the BBC - renowned for it's left-leaning bias?
I've eaten a lot of food in the US in my lifetime and never noticed a difference. Couldn't give less of a fudge about those differences, they're no more than headline fodder.
You're in luck - my wife went to Waitrose yesterday, so we can put your theory to the test.
Avocados - they came from Brazil and are lovely and fresh.
We have some wonderful satsumas in our fruit bowl - they came from South Africa.
Our bananas are from Peru, and our melons are from Costa Rica, Honduras and Spain.
We have two lots of grapes, one from SA and the other from Egypt.
The pineapple is from Costa Rica.
Our milk is from the UK, as is the fillet steak I will be eating tonight.
Cheese is from the UK, France and Italy, and the wine from France and Italy. Theses are premium products though, and I'm not in any hurry to get them either.
That looks like a truly eclectic mix of sources to me. Unlikely to be affected by Brexit, but with the possibility of 0 tariff trade.
Paris doesn't have the infrastructure that London has - only New York and Hong Kong do, and they're in the wrong time zones.
Those who are or would be charged with making those changes are not planning to do so - that's enough for me.
I don't think we should put tariffs on anyone, but if the EU wants to get into a tariff war, we will come out of it just fine. We will be able to discount exports with anything gained on imports and undercut European competition.
Trade deals will make us more competitive. I can tell you from first hand experience that tariffs and regulation make UK companies more expensive than competitors outside of the EU. Without those tariffs and regulations we would be doing a lot more international trade.
Let's not forget that the 86% of our GDP that is not trade with the EU still has to apply costly EU regulations. You don't have to be a genius to realise that by reducing that regulation you will increase that internal trade and boost industry in that way.
If the EU doesn't agree a free trade deal with the UK then we are free to put tariffs on EU products. What do you think will happen to the UK car industry if we put a 20% tariff on German cars? Do you think that Mercedes will accept people buying their cars from elsewhere or do you think they'll manufacture for the UK market in the UK? I don't want to put up trade barriers, but if the EU does, then we have a large enough market to cover it.
I don't know if it will be better for most people or not - that's down to whether they take their opportunities or not. What trading with the rest of the world will do is create opportunity for business (and therefore people) to thrive - they can take that opportunity or not, that's up to them.
The ECB with the EU didn't take a (majority only required) decision that could have moved all clearing into the Eurozone because it didn't want to tinkle off the UK?
I don't believe that for a second. The EU has been after our financial services for a very long time and if it though it could take some of it then it would have done by now.
How many people from Germany will work for £2 per hour? I'll bet there's a fudgepile in Africa who will.
It may be tough to remove minimum wage on UK residents, and we can't on EU residents but I bet if you canvassed (especially in poverty-stricken brickholes up north) you'd find plenty of support for removing the minimum wage for immigrant workers.
I suppose it's entirely possible that only people with a positive view of Brexit holiday where I holiday, attend the seminars and events I attend and are invited to the clubs I'm invited to, but I consider that unlikely.
What I consider more likely is the fact that none of these companies want any kind of undue risk, they don't want the structural, logistical and legal headaches (or arseaches - literal quote), of brassplating into the EU. So they all make really loud public noises (at no cost to them) about how bad an idea it is because it's a no-cost option.
Last edited:
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
BBC
European Union leaders have said the Brexit withdrawal agreement is "not open for renegotiation", after appeals from Theresa May.
She wants legal assurances on the Irish backstop to help her deal get through Parliament, after she delayed a Commons vote in anticipation of defeat.
The PM said the deal was "at risk" if MPs' concerns could not be addressed.
European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker said there could be clarifications but no renegotiation.
He urged the UK to set out more clearly what it wants, adding that the commission will publish information on 19 December on its preparations for a no-deal Brexit.
"Our UK friends need to say what they want, instead of asking us to say what we want, and so we would like within a few weeks our UK friends to set out their expectations for us, because this debate is sometimes nebulous and imprecise and I would like clarifications," he said.
Mrs May travelled to Brussels to make a special plea to EU leaders at Thursday's summit, but BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg said it appeared that the meeting went badly and EU leaders doubted her political ability to get the deal through the Commons.
Shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer said Mrs May had failed to get meaningful changes and she should reinstate the vote on her deal next week.
But Cabinet minister David Lidington described the meeting as a "welcome first step" in showing that the EU was committed "to negotiate a trade deal with the UK speedily".
The PM's visit came at the end of a week that has seen her first delay the vote on the withdrawal agreement in Parliament, then win a vote of no confidence brought by MPs unhappy with it.
She vowed to listen to the concerns of the 37% of Tory MPs who voted against her, and was hoping to "assuage" their concerns about the controversial "backstop" plan in the agreement.
Critics say the backstop - aimed at preventing a hard border in Northern Ireland - would keep the UK tied to EU rules indefinitely and curb its ability to strike trade deals.
Conservative MPs demanded changes to the backstop to make it clear that it could not last forever, and the UK could terminate the arrangement on its own.
In comments released by Downing Street on Thursday, Mrs May urged EU leaders to help her "get this deal over the line" and said she firmly believed it could get through the Commons, saying: "There is a majority in my Parliament who want to leave with a deal so with the right assurances this deal can be passed. Indeed, it is the only deal capable of getting through my Parliament," she said.
Mrs May urged EU leaders to work with her to "change the perception" of the controversial backstop plan.
European Council president Donald Tusk said the withdrawal agreement was "not open for renegotiation".
But speaking after the Brussels summit, Mr Tusk called the backstop "an insurance policy," saying it was the EU's "firm determination" to work "speedily" on alternative arrangements.
Mr Tusk said the backstop would "apply temporarily unless and until it is superseded by a subsequent agreement that ensures that the hard border is avoided".
BBC Brussels reporter Adam Fleming said the fact that the EU said it would use its "best endeavours" to get a future trade deal that would get rid of the need for a backstop - even if the backstop came into force - was seen as important by British officials who said it meant the UK could go to an independent arbitration panel if they felt the EU is dragging its feet.
But he said Ireland had requested that the European Council conclusions be toughened up and a paragraph which suggested further work would be done to reassure the UK was removed because "there was no support" for it and EU leaders rejected the idea of an end-date for the backstop.
Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency, suggested there could be a special Brexit summit in January to agree "additional assurances".
'Crisis mode'
Downing Street has confirmed MPs will not now vote on Mrs May's deal before Christmas, and said the vote would happen "as soon as possible in January".
The Labour former PM Tony Blair told the BBC he believed a majority of MPs in the Commons would back another referendum on Brexit, if Parliament could not agree on another way forward:
"I think that will happen if it is clear that there is no majority for any one form of Brexit," he told Radio 4's Today.
"We have had 30 months of negotiation and let's be clear - we are in crisis mode on this."
If this meeting in Brussels was meant to provide Theresa May with the beginnings of an escape route from her Brexit conundrum, the signs are not good.
At one of her most vulnerable political moments, Number 10 was hopeful at least of an indication of a potential solution to the most intense of a long list of Brexit problems - the controversial so-called backstop designed to guarantee against a hard Irish border.
But right now, that's simply not on offer.
EU leaders made plain their warnings that their divorce deal with Britain was not up for negotiation were real.
Requests for change to ease Westminster politics were not fulfilled, with key phrases from a more accommodating draft gone by midnight.
But the rejection gives succour perhaps to those in government who want their critics to accept that the prime minister's deal may be genuinely, as good as it gets.
European Union leaders have said the Brexit withdrawal agreement is "not open for renegotiation", after appeals from Theresa May.
She wants legal assurances on the Irish backstop to help her deal get through Parliament, after she delayed a Commons vote in anticipation of defeat.
The PM said the deal was "at risk" if MPs' concerns could not be addressed.
European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker said there could be clarifications but no renegotiation.
He urged the UK to set out more clearly what it wants, adding that the commission will publish information on 19 December on its preparations for a no-deal Brexit.
"Our UK friends need to say what they want, instead of asking us to say what we want, and so we would like within a few weeks our UK friends to set out their expectations for us, because this debate is sometimes nebulous and imprecise and I would like clarifications," he said.
Mrs May travelled to Brussels to make a special plea to EU leaders at Thursday's summit, but BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg said it appeared that the meeting went badly and EU leaders doubted her political ability to get the deal through the Commons.
Shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer said Mrs May had failed to get meaningful changes and she should reinstate the vote on her deal next week.
But Cabinet minister David Lidington described the meeting as a "welcome first step" in showing that the EU was committed "to negotiate a trade deal with the UK speedily".
The PM's visit came at the end of a week that has seen her first delay the vote on the withdrawal agreement in Parliament, then win a vote of no confidence brought by MPs unhappy with it.
She vowed to listen to the concerns of the 37% of Tory MPs who voted against her, and was hoping to "assuage" their concerns about the controversial "backstop" plan in the agreement.
Critics say the backstop - aimed at preventing a hard border in Northern Ireland - would keep the UK tied to EU rules indefinitely and curb its ability to strike trade deals.
Conservative MPs demanded changes to the backstop to make it clear that it could not last forever, and the UK could terminate the arrangement on its own.
In comments released by Downing Street on Thursday, Mrs May urged EU leaders to help her "get this deal over the line" and said she firmly believed it could get through the Commons, saying: "There is a majority in my Parliament who want to leave with a deal so with the right assurances this deal can be passed. Indeed, it is the only deal capable of getting through my Parliament," she said.
Mrs May urged EU leaders to work with her to "change the perception" of the controversial backstop plan.
European Council president Donald Tusk said the withdrawal agreement was "not open for renegotiation".
But speaking after the Brussels summit, Mr Tusk called the backstop "an insurance policy," saying it was the EU's "firm determination" to work "speedily" on alternative arrangements.
Mr Tusk said the backstop would "apply temporarily unless and until it is superseded by a subsequent agreement that ensures that the hard border is avoided".
BBC Brussels reporter Adam Fleming said the fact that the EU said it would use its "best endeavours" to get a future trade deal that would get rid of the need for a backstop - even if the backstop came into force - was seen as important by British officials who said it meant the UK could go to an independent arbitration panel if they felt the EU is dragging its feet.
But he said Ireland had requested that the European Council conclusions be toughened up and a paragraph which suggested further work would be done to reassure the UK was removed because "there was no support" for it and EU leaders rejected the idea of an end-date for the backstop.
Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency, suggested there could be a special Brexit summit in January to agree "additional assurances".
'Crisis mode'
Downing Street has confirmed MPs will not now vote on Mrs May's deal before Christmas, and said the vote would happen "as soon as possible in January".
The Labour former PM Tony Blair told the BBC he believed a majority of MPs in the Commons would back another referendum on Brexit, if Parliament could not agree on another way forward:
"I think that will happen if it is clear that there is no majority for any one form of Brexit," he told Radio 4's Today.
"We have had 30 months of negotiation and let's be clear - we are in crisis mode on this."
If this meeting in Brussels was meant to provide Theresa May with the beginnings of an escape route from her Brexit conundrum, the signs are not good.
At one of her most vulnerable political moments, Number 10 was hopeful at least of an indication of a potential solution to the most intense of a long list of Brexit problems - the controversial so-called backstop designed to guarantee against a hard Irish border.
But right now, that's simply not on offer.
EU leaders made plain their warnings that their divorce deal with Britain was not up for negotiation were real.
Requests for change to ease Westminster politics were not fulfilled, with key phrases from a more accommodating draft gone by midnight.
But the rejection gives succour perhaps to those in government who want their critics to accept that the prime minister's deal may be genuinely, as good as it gets.
So there's nothing that will get through parliament then.BBC
European Union leaders have said the Brexit withdrawal agreement is "not open for renegotiation", after appeals from Theresa May.
She wants legal assurances on the Irish backstop to help her deal get through Parliament, after she delayed a Commons vote in anticipation of defeat.
The PM said the deal was "at risk" if MPs' concerns could not be addressed.
European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker said there could be clarifications but no renegotiation.
He urged the UK to set out more clearly what it wants, adding that the commission will publish information on 19 December on its preparations for a no-deal Brexit.
"Our UK friends need to say what they want, instead of asking us to say what we want, and so we would like within a few weeks our UK friends to set out their expectations for us, because this debate is sometimes nebulous and imprecise and I would like clarifications," he said.
Mrs May travelled to Brussels to make a special plea to EU leaders at Thursday's summit, but BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg said it appeared that the meeting went badly and EU leaders doubted her political ability to get the deal through the Commons.
Shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer said Mrs May had failed to get meaningful changes and she should reinstate the vote on her deal next week.
But Cabinet minister David Lidington described the meeting as a "welcome first step" in showing that the EU was committed "to negotiate a trade deal with the UK speedily".
The PM's visit came at the end of a week that has seen her first delay the vote on the withdrawal agreement in Parliament, then win a vote of no confidence bought by MPs unhappy with it.
She vowed to listen to the concerns of the 37% of Tory MPs who voted against her, and was hoping to "assuage" their concerns about the controversial "backstop" plan in the agreement.
Critics say the backstop - aimed at preventing a hard border in Northern Ireland - would keep the UK tied to EU rules indefinitely and curb its ability to strike trade deals.
Conservative MPs demanded changes to the backstop to make it clear that it could not last forever, and the UK could terminate the arrangement on its own.
In comments released by Downing Street on Thursday, Mrs May urged EU leaders to help her "get this deal over the line" and said she firmly believed it could get through the Commons, saying: "There is a majority in my Parliament who want to leave with a deal so with the right assurances this deal can be passed. Indeed, it is the only deal capable of getting through my Parliament," she said.
Mrs May urged EU leaders to work with her to "change the perception" of the controversial backstop plan.
European Council president Donald Tusk said the withdrawal agreement was "not open for renegotiation".
But speaking after the Brussels summit, Mr Tusk called the backstop "an insurance policy," saying it was the EU's "firm determination" to work "speedily" on alternative arrangements.
Mr Tusk said the backstop would "apply temporarily unless and until it is superseded by a subsequent agreement that ensures that the hard border is avoided".
BBC Brussels reporter Adam Fleming said the fact that the EU said it would use its "best endeavours" to get a future trade deal that would get rid of the need for a backstop - even if the backstop came into force - was seen as important by British officials who said it meant the UK could go to an independent arbitration panel if they felt the EU is dragging its feet.
But he said Ireland had requested that the European Council conclusions be toughened up and a paragraph which suggested further work would be done to reassure the UK was removed because "there was no support" for it and EU leaders rejected the idea of an end-date for the backstop.
Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency, suggested there could be a special Brexit summit in January to agree "additional assurances".
'Crisis mode'
Downing Street has confirmed MPs will not now vote on Mrs May's deal before Christmas, and said the vote would happen "as soon as possible in January".
The Labour former PM Tony Blair told the BBC he believed a majority of MPs in the Commons would back another referendum on Brexit, if Parliament could not agree on another way forward:
"I think that will happen if it is clear that there is no majority for any one form of Brexit," he told Radio 4's Today.
"We have had 30 months of negotiation and let's be clear - we are in crisis mode on this."
If this meeting in Brussels was meant to provide Theresa May with the beginnings of an escape route from her Brexit conundrum, the signs are not good.
At one of her most vulnerable political moments, Number 10 was hopeful at least of an indication of a potential solution to the most intense of a long list of Brexit problems - the controversial so-called backstop designed to guarantee against a hard Irish border.
But right now, that's simply not on offer.
EU leaders made plain their warnings that their divorce deal with Britain was not up for negotiation were real.
Requests for change to ease Westminster politics were not fulfilled, with key phrases from a more accommodating draft gone by midnight.
But the rejection gives succour perhaps to those in government who want their critics to accept that the prime minister's deal may be genuinely, as good as it gets.
I wonder if May will go when she fails to get her deal past parliament. Can't see what else she can do really.
The ECB didn't take a (majority only required) decision that could have moved all clearing into the Eurozone because it didn't want to tinkle off the UK?
I don't believe that for a second. The EU has been after our financial services for a very long time and if it though it could take some of it then it would have done by now.
The info is out there, the ECJ decision for clearing was not that it couldn't be mandated that it had to be Eurozone only.
How many people from Germany will work for £2 per hour? I'll bet there's a fudgepile in Africa who will.
It may be tough to remove minimum wage on UK residents, and we can't on EU residents but I bet if you canvassed (especially in poverty-stricken brickholes up north) you'd find plenty of support for removing the minimum wage for immigrant workers.
Even if all 100K were high skilled workers and they went to low paid workers it would have no significant impact on labour costs, the only way to do that would be increase the number of low cost immigration - which you agreed was not palatable at the moment.
I suppose it's entirely possible that only people with a positive view of Brexit holiday where I holiday, attend the seminars and events I attend and are invited to the clubs I'm invited to, but I consider that unlikely.
What I consider more likely is the fact that none of these companies want any kind of undue risk, they don't want the structural, logistical and legal headaches (or arseaches - literal quote), of brassplating into the EU. So they all make really loud public noises (at no cost to them) about how bad an idea it is because it's a no-cost option.
I think you are missing the point, do you think the few you have spoken to in private represent the majority view, if so why?- I know our CEO is concerned but putting a brave face on it.
I don't believe that for a second. The EU has been after our financial services for a very long time and if it though it could take some of it then it would have done by now.
The info is out there, the ECJ decision for clearing was not that it couldn't be mandated that it had to be Eurozone only.
How many people from Germany will work for £2 per hour? I'll bet there's a fudgepile in Africa who will.
It may be tough to remove minimum wage on UK residents, and we can't on EU residents but I bet if you canvassed (especially in poverty-stricken brickholes up north) you'd find plenty of support for removing the minimum wage for immigrant workers.
Even if all 100K were high skilled workers and they went to low paid workers it would have no significant impact on labour costs, the only way to do that would be increase the number of low cost immigration - which you agreed was not palatable at the moment.
I suppose it's entirely possible that only people with a positive view of Brexit holiday where I holiday, attend the seminars and events I attend and are invited to the clubs I'm invited to, but I consider that unlikely.
What I consider more likely is the fact that none of these companies want any kind of undue risk, they don't want the structural, logistical and legal headaches (or arseaches - literal quote), of brassplating into the EU. So they all make really loud public noises (at no cost to them) about how bad an idea it is because it's a no-cost option.
I think you are missing the point, do you think the few you have spoken to in private represent the majority view, if so why?- I know our CEO is concerned but putting a brave face on it.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Im quite sure even after she is forcibly removed from the position, she still wont go anywhere! If theres one thing she has impressive ability for, its digging her heels in and not moving!
Yet the EU and ECB simply decided they didn't want all that lovely clearing money?
As you said yourself, the ECJ simply applies the EU/ECB rules in this case. If the EU/ECB could, or wanted to, change those rules they would have done.
It would have a massive effect on labour costs for business. If we could hire labourers at £2/hr instead of £8 we could probably halve our labour costs (assuming there was no downward trend in skilled labour costs).
That would take our labour costs from 24% of turnover to 12% - that's a massive difference.
I do think it's the majority opinion - it's quite unlikely that all those people just happen to share that viewpoint but also be in the minority.
Doesn't seem like it. What happens to Ireland though, surely if there's no deal then a hard border works on both sides. You'd think they would try a little more to avoid that situation.
That's very true. I'm off to start a Penny Mordaunt for PM campaign - mostly so I can say I know the PM, but also because having a direct line to someone with that much influence is useful.
Plus she'd make a much better PM than May (low bar, I know).
Yet the EU and ECB simply decided they didn't want all that lovely clearing money?
As you said yourself, the ECJ simply applies the EU/ECB rules in this case. If the EU/ECB could, or wanted to, change those rules they would have done.
You don't have to guess the decision is out there just google it.
It would have a massive effect on labour costs for business. If we could hire labourers at £2/hr instead of £8 we could probably halve our labour costs (assuming there was no downward trend in skilled labour costs).
That would take our labour costs from 24% of turnover to 12% - that's a massive difference.
Working population of UK is 34.3m even if all of those 100K EU immigrants were high paid that is 0.3% of the working population now on £2 - it will have no significant difference.
I do think it's the majority opinion - it's quite unlikely that all those people just happen to share that viewpoint but also be in the minority.
I don't know if its a majority opinion, its quite unlikely that the people I have spoken to that are concerned are in the minority.
As you said yourself, the ECJ simply applies the EU/ECB rules in this case. If the EU/ECB could, or wanted to, change those rules they would have done.
You don't have to guess the decision is out there just google it.
It would have a massive effect on labour costs for business. If we could hire labourers at £2/hr instead of £8 we could probably halve our labour costs (assuming there was no downward trend in skilled labour costs).
That would take our labour costs from 24% of turnover to 12% - that's a massive difference.
Working population of UK is 34.3m even if all of those 100K EU immigrants were high paid that is 0.3% of the working population now on £2 - it will have no significant difference.
I do think it's the majority opinion - it's quite unlikely that all those people just happen to share that viewpoint but also be in the minority.
I don't know if its a majority opinion, its quite unlikely that the people I have spoken to that are concerned are in the minority.
I've read the decision. My point is that is the EU/ECB could change their rules to get around that, they would have done by now.
It would make a massive difference to my business and that of just about every other business that uses labour.
Quite possibly, although I imagine the situations in which they've spoken to me allow them to speak a fair bit more freely.
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
I completely accept that. In this thread I've previously outlined how a progressive UK leader might put together something fresh which delivers some of the themes of Brexit (from within the EU). UK training for UK workers, controlling immigrantion from rest of the world (250k people vs 70k from EU), working with Euro-sceptical EU leaders to control FOM more and any other issues the UK would like to see addressed, Creating a programme for increasing rest of the world exports as other EU nations do. And some fresh things like mandatory national service for out of work people, putting them to good use, nationalise the railways. National drives, things with national collective identity and resonance, sports programmes etc. You don't need Brexit to do any of these things!!!
The EU is not the variable that actually impacts the important things imo. What the EU does is does well. It allows us to trade freely in the worlds largest free trade area with no customs, allows access to free trade agreements with other external non-EU nations, we partake in pollution and safty standards and a number of other good things from satellite programmes to mobile phone roaming. And teh EU government is just the size of Birgingham council.
In a way Brexit misses the point. People want freshness and change, exiting the EU doesn't offer it. It takes us back to the 1970s. Where are the fresh Brexit manifestos of what will come? Why havn't UKIP or ERG published anything about the future possibilities!? Brexit maybe benifits @scaramanga because his company can sell medical supplies globally without EU safty standards (but Scara voted against Brexit so maybe its not as cut and dry as he argues. If the EU change standards Scara won't be able to lobby the EU to change this to protect his company, the EU will decide without our input, and chances are he'll still wish to sell into the EU, so will probably still confirm to said standards). @scaramanga why can't you make non-EU products for export? Do the EU stop this now?
It would make a massive difference to my business and that of just about every other business that uses labour.
but its only 100K people across the whole country its insignificant number to make an impact on overall wage levels, the only way to bring the wage levels down is more low cost immigration which isn't an option. You're in manufacturing? Even if all the 100K workers were low cost and they all went for manufacturing jobs that's 3% of the total manufacturing labour market. if you could pay 3% of your labour force £2 an hour would it make a significant difference to your costs?
but its only 100K people across the whole country its insignificant number to make an impact on overall wage levels, the only way to bring the wage levels down is more low cost immigration which isn't an option. You're in manufacturing? Even if all the 100K workers were low cost and they all went for manufacturing jobs that's 3% of the total manufacturing labour market. if you could pay 3% of your labour force £2 an hour would it make a significant difference to your costs?
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
I reckon a green shoot of a solution might have appeared last night. A legal clause along the line of: the UK-EU FTA will come into force on 1 Jan 2022. If this is not in place at that time, the UK will remain in the EEA until the FTA is in place. While in the EEA the UK will pay half fees (based on the usual GDP per head of population calculations), but continue to accept FoM.
So basically make the backstop impossible, but the replacement unpalatable to both sides.
I don't think that will be accepted, that's 2 years after the withdrawl agreement is due to finish and some 5 and a half years after the original vote.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
That's what the plans are already - the 20 month transition period to the new arrangement. It's just giving the ambition of an FTA by then penalty clauses for both sides if it's not achieved.
Isn't that worse for Brexitiers than we already have? Still an unlimited backstop but now with no control over immigration. I don't see why it would pass vs the current deal.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Because it would be de facto EU membership at about 1/4 of the price (EEA is already 1/2 of EU), so the EU could never let it come about.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Brexit: No visa but Britons will pay €7 to travel to EU countries
The European Commission has confirmed that while UK travellers will not need a visa, they will need to apply for and buy another document from 2021.
It is called an ETIAS (European Travel Information and Authorization System) and although not launched yet, is expected to come into force in 2021.
The travel requirement is not just for the UK but for many non-EU countries.
What is the ETIAS?
Citizens of EU countries - which currently includes British people - are able to travel anywhere in the EU.
But anyone from a non-EU country has to apply for a visa - unless they are from a special list of 61 countries, which also includes the US, Japan and Australia.
Nationals from these 61 countries can travel within the EU's Schengen zone - the area where people can travel without border checks - for up to 90 days without a visa.
However, because of the migrant crisis and security concerns over terrorism, the EU has decided to bring in more controls over the countries on this special list.
So it is introducing the ETIAS - an electronic application form - which is Europe's version of the United States' $14 ESTA, although as the EU Commission points out, it is "way cheaper".
It is not a visa but a travel requirement for anyone on that list of 61 non-EU countries who are coming to the EU for business, tourism, medical or transit-related reasons for up to 90 days.
The EU says the ETIAS system will "undergo a detailed security check of each applicant".
What will UK travellers to the EU have to do?
Under the Brexit deal, EU citizens and UK nationals will continue to be able to travel freely with a passport or identity card until the end of the transition period in 2020.
After this period ends, the European Commission has offered visa-free travel for UK nationals coming to the EU for a short stay, as long as the UK offers the same in return.
But although they do not need a visa, UK nationals will need an ETIAS - deal or no deal.
The form will take no more than 10 minutes to fill out, the EU says, and anyone between the ages of 18 and 70 must pay the fee.
The details needed for the application form will include passport information, education and work experience, as well as background questions about criminal records or medical conditions.
Applicants must also give details of the first EU country they intend to visit.
Most applicants will find out if their application has been successful within minutes, the EU says, after the system checks whether all your information is correct, if you are eligible and how risky you are. Applications can also be denied or take up to two weeks to process.
If successful, the ETIAS will last for three years. You can enter the EU Schengen zone as many times as you like on the ETIAS permit - as long as you do not stay more than 90 days in a 180 day period.
It is not known what rules will apply to EU tourists coming to the UK, but according to the EU and UK's political declaration, both sides will aim to provide "visa-free travel for short-term visits".
The European Commission previously said the EU's offer of visa-free travel to the UK was "entirely conditional upon the UK also granting reciprocal and non-discriminatory visa-free travel for all EU member states".
The proposal - which will come into force on 29 March 2019 when the UK leaves the EU in the event of a no-deal Brexit - must be adopted by the EU Parliament and European Council before it can come into force.
The UK already grants visa-free travel to nationals from 56 countries - ranging from the United States to the Maldives - allowing people to stay for a maximum of six months. But they are not allowed to work, study or settle.
So, a simple, cheap and easy answer to all those who said travel would be much harder if not impossible.
Just as stated years ago. Another Brexit myth debunked.
- 12 minutes ago
The European Commission has confirmed that while UK travellers will not need a visa, they will need to apply for and buy another document from 2021.
It is called an ETIAS (European Travel Information and Authorization System) and although not launched yet, is expected to come into force in 2021.
The travel requirement is not just for the UK but for many non-EU countries.
What is the ETIAS?
Citizens of EU countries - which currently includes British people - are able to travel anywhere in the EU.
But anyone from a non-EU country has to apply for a visa - unless they are from a special list of 61 countries, which also includes the US, Japan and Australia.
Nationals from these 61 countries can travel within the EU's Schengen zone - the area where people can travel without border checks - for up to 90 days without a visa.
However, because of the migrant crisis and security concerns over terrorism, the EU has decided to bring in more controls over the countries on this special list.
So it is introducing the ETIAS - an electronic application form - which is Europe's version of the United States' $14 ESTA, although as the EU Commission points out, it is "way cheaper".
It is not a visa but a travel requirement for anyone on that list of 61 non-EU countries who are coming to the EU for business, tourism, medical or transit-related reasons for up to 90 days.
The EU says the ETIAS system will "undergo a detailed security check of each applicant".
What will UK travellers to the EU have to do?
Under the Brexit deal, EU citizens and UK nationals will continue to be able to travel freely with a passport or identity card until the end of the transition period in 2020.
After this period ends, the European Commission has offered visa-free travel for UK nationals coming to the EU for a short stay, as long as the UK offers the same in return.
But although they do not need a visa, UK nationals will need an ETIAS - deal or no deal.
The form will take no more than 10 minutes to fill out, the EU says, and anyone between the ages of 18 and 70 must pay the fee.
The details needed for the application form will include passport information, education and work experience, as well as background questions about criminal records or medical conditions.
Applicants must also give details of the first EU country they intend to visit.
Most applicants will find out if their application has been successful within minutes, the EU says, after the system checks whether all your information is correct, if you are eligible and how risky you are. Applications can also be denied or take up to two weeks to process.
If successful, the ETIAS will last for three years. You can enter the EU Schengen zone as many times as you like on the ETIAS permit - as long as you do not stay more than 90 days in a 180 day period.
It is not known what rules will apply to EU tourists coming to the UK, but according to the EU and UK's political declaration, both sides will aim to provide "visa-free travel for short-term visits".
The European Commission previously said the EU's offer of visa-free travel to the UK was "entirely conditional upon the UK also granting reciprocal and non-discriminatory visa-free travel for all EU member states".
The proposal - which will come into force on 29 March 2019 when the UK leaves the EU in the event of a no-deal Brexit - must be adopted by the EU Parliament and European Council before it can come into force.
The UK already grants visa-free travel to nationals from 56 countries - ranging from the United States to the Maldives - allowing people to stay for a maximum of six months. But they are not allowed to work, study or settle.
So, a simple, cheap and easy answer to all those who said travel would be much harder if not impossible.
Just as stated years ago. Another Brexit myth debunked.