Boris was wrong about the £350m

Post by harry
It's MORE
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/official-data-proves-boris-was-wrong-about-350m-a-week-to-brussels-its-actually-363m/

One claim was about £350 million was being sent to Brussels. That claim has been
fact checked and found wanting. Even some leave supporters are prepared to admit
it was a lie.

The £350 figure was once upped to £370 million by IDS on Daily Politics, and Jo
Coburn promptly slapped him down. She said the UK's own statistics authority
said it was wrong and she added "and I am saying it too". IDS went quiet. The
latest wheeze says its £363m? Whoopie dee. Whatever it is, it includes money
returned which goes to domestic regional spending such as NE England, Wales, N
Ireland and funding to subsidise Universities, agriculture and so on.

In order to to move all of the alleged £350/£363/£370 million to the NHS, that
money has to be taken off the regions, universities, agriculture and so on. And
there must be no exit payments and no spending on customs officers and other
busybodies that will be given jobs aplenty if no deal.

In short, the claim on the side of that lying battlebus was as true as the idea
that Father Christmas comes down every chimney on the planet - and all in one
Christmas night.

JNugent

2017-11-01 12:41:27 UTC

Post by harry
It's MORE
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/official-data-proves-boris-was-wrong-about-350m-a-week-to-brussels-its-actually-363m/

One claim was about £350 million was being sent to Brussels. That claim
has been fact checked and found wanting. Even some leave supporters are
prepared to admit it was a lie.
The £350 figure was once upped to £370 million by IDS on Daily Politics,
and Jo Coburn promptly slapped him down. She said the UK's own
statistics authority said it was wrong and she added "and I am saying it
too". IDS went quiet. The latest wheeze says its £363m? Whoopie dee.
Whatever it is, it includes money returned which goes to domestic
regional spending such as NE England, Wales, N Ireland and funding to
subsidise Universities, agriculture and so on.
In order to to move all of the alleged £350/£363/£370 million to the
NHS, that money has to be taken off the regions, universities,
agriculture and so on. And there must be no exit payments and no
spending on customs officers and other busybodies that will be given
jobs aplenty if no deal.
In short, the claim on the side of that lying battlebus was as true as
the idea that Father Christmas comes down every chimney on the planet -
and all in one Christmas night.

"...there must be no ... spending on customs officers...".

Customs officers collect money for the Treasury and/or enforce the law
on its collection (assessing duty and collecting it and fighting
smuggling of dutiable goods). They also fight the smuggling of
contraband such as "illegal substances".

That's their job

James Harris

2017-11-01 13:44:15 UTC

Post by harry
It's MORE
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/official-data-proves-boris-was-wrong-about-350m-a-week-to-brussels-its-actually-363m/

One claim was about £350 million was being sent to Brussels. That claim has been
fact checked and found wanting. Even some leave supporters are prepared to admit
it was a lie.

I keep avoiding defending the £350m figure because I never agreed with
it in the first place. But this might be fun. In what way, specifically,
was it a lie?

Post by Altroy1
The £350 figure was once upped to £370 million by IDS on Daily Politics, and Jo
Coburn promptly slapped him down. She said the UK's own statistics authority
said it was wrong and she added "and I am saying it too". IDS went quiet. The
latest wheeze says its £363m? Whoopie dee. Whatever it is, it includes money
returned which goes to domestic regional spending such as NE England, Wales, N
Ireland and funding to subsidise Universities, agriculture and so on.
In order to to move all of the alleged £350/£363/£370 million to the NHS, that
money has to be taken off the regions, universities, agriculture and so on. And
there must be no exit payments and no spending on customs officers and other
busybodies that will be given jobs aplenty if no deal.
In short, the claim on the side of that lying battlebus was as true as the idea
that Father Christmas comes down every chimney on the planet - and all in one
Christmas night.

--
James Harris

Altroy1

2017-11-01 22:55:43 UTC

Post by harry
It's MORE
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/official-data-proves-boris-was-wrong-about-350m-a-week-to-brussels-its-actually-363m/

One claim was about £350 million was being sent to Brussels. That claim has been
fact checked and found wanting. Even some leave supporters are prepared to admit
it was a lie.

I keep avoiding defending the £350m figure because I never agreed with
it in the first place. But this might be fun. In what way, specifically,
was it a lie?

OK, OK you have got me at least in part.

James O'Brien on LBC did a phone in concerning "talking Britain down" and one of
the callers said he voted for Brexit. His vote he said wasn't motivated by the
£350 million to the NHS. The caller opined he did think that was a lie but added
for him sovereignty and other matters was the issue not £350 million more each
week to the NHS.

When the polls closed Nigel Farage said on TV that the £350 million to the NHS
was "a claim that should never have been made".

So yes it isnt the bare figure of £350 million that was the lie. My bad. It is
what was put on the side of that accursed battlebus that was the lie.

The Daily Express (perhaps inadvertently) revealed the issues today. Let's peer
into some of the chauvinism revealed by certain utterances of the Brextremists:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/873720/britain-gives-EU-billions-every-year-Brexit

Senior Tory Peter Bone, MP for Wellingborough, said: "If we stopped
paying into EU coffers, we could save ourselves nearly £14 billion,
that would be money we could use for social care, the NHS, reducing
the deficit and we could still have some left for tax cuts.

"The message to the Government is get on and get us out of the EU and
don't pay any more money to Brussels".

Not quite. Firstly the 8 or 9 billion is part of the UK's annual budget circa
850 Billion. 8 Billion would hardly pay to invade Iraq (Oops - yeah that may be
cheap jibe). OK but cutting the 8.8 Billion SUB to the club will hardly result
in a huge swell of money to every household in the land. The UK pays its
subvention and gets a place on the board of management. Norway pays its sub too,
per capita a similar amount and does NOT get a place on the board of management.
But the Norwegians are not fools. They will pay for something if helps their
economy.

The equation is not between paying and not paying. The equation is the
difference between the cost of staying and the cost of leaving. The cost of a no
deal leave will require the payment of expenditure to manage hard borders and
changes to revenue arising from lost trade with 27 other nearby countries. This
simple economic reality is something that could be grasped by any schoolchild
but not apparently by certain of the Get us out Now!™ crowd.

Anyway, the above from the Express quoting Bone gives the game away. NB Bone,
IDS and Boris don't even like the NHS. Hannan was on Fox News warning the
Americans of the dangers of adopting the notion of single payer wicked
socialised medicine. Spot the duplicity. Its easy. Those types have voted for
very welfare cut ever proposed. Do you really think that lot care half a fig
about social care or the NHS? You might if you were born yesterday.

"This money should be spent where it is needed in this country and not
in Bulgaria, Romania or other parts of the EU."

More nonsense. We are a human family. These Brextremists are also demanding cuts
to the 0.7% GDP aid budget. These demands have been resisted even by the
mainstream Conservative Party. Properly done, aid to the 3rd world is an
investment. A rising tide lifts all boats. The people demanding such cuts tend
to have links to hedge funds, big tobacco etcetera. They wouldn't know what
poverty was if they fell over it in a sunny uplands no-regulation paradise and
it reared up an bit them in their sorry arses. Monbiot wrote about them
eloquently. They don't give a fiddlers fk about any dirt poor "piccaninnies with
watermelon smiles". They can't envision that the countries helped today will be
trading with us in 10 or 20 years time. Just as long as the hedge funds and
hundreds of luxury jets to rich cronies via the Isle of Man are comming along
swimmingly. That's all that matters. Anyone objecting can go suck a cyanide
laced lemon.

Officials also calculated that a further £4.4 billion out of the gross
contribution was spent on agricultural subsidies and grants to
public-sector bodies in the UK.

Around £2.4 billion was spent through the EU's Agricultural Guarantee
Fund and a further £359 million came through the European Regional
Development Fund.

Ah! Now even the Heily Express is starting to get it. To take back control of
£350 weekly million (or whatever it is) and put all of it to the NHS means
taking money from someone else. A nice economic model that basically boils down
to robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Strangely all this money that would need to be taken from Education,
Agriculture and the Regions didn't get a mention on the side of that lying
battlebus.

James Harris

2017-11-02 09:25:51 UTC

Post by harry
It's MORE
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/official-data-proves-boris-was-wrong-about-350m-a-week-to-brussels-its-actually-363m/

One claim was about £350 million was being sent to Brussels. That claim has been
fact checked and found wanting. Even some leave supporters are prepared to admit
it was a lie.

I keep avoiding defending the £350m figure because I never agreed with
it in the first place. But this might be fun. In what way, specifically,
was it a lie?

OK, OK you have got me at least in part.

Oh, that's not so much fun! :-(

Post by Altroy1
James O'Brien on LBC did a phone in concerning "talking Britain down" and one of
the callers said he voted for Brexit. His vote he said wasn't motivated by the
£350 million to the NHS. The caller opined he did think that was a lie but added
for him sovereignty and other matters was the issue not £350 million more each
week to the NHS.
When the polls closed Nigel Farage said on TV that the £350 million to the NHS
was "a claim that should never have been made".
So yes it isnt the bare figure of £350 million that was the lie. My bad. It is
what was put on the side of that accursed battlebus that was the lie.
The Daily Express (perhaps inadvertently) revealed the issues today. Let's peer
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/873720/britain-gives-EU-billions-every-year-Brexit
Senior Tory Peter Bone, MP for Wellingborough, said: "If we stopped
paying into EU coffers, we could save ourselves nearly £14 billion,
that would be money we could use for social care, the NHS, reducing
the deficit and we could still have some left for tax cuts.
"The message to the Government is get on and get us out of the EU and
don't pay any more money to Brussels".
Not quite. Firstly the 8 or 9 billion is part of the UK's annual budget circa
850 Billion. 8 Billion would hardly pay to invade Iraq (Oops - yeah that may be
cheap jibe). OK but cutting the 8.8 Billion SUB to the club will hardly result
in a huge swell of money to every household in the land. The UK pays its
subvention and gets a place on the board of management. Norway pays its sub too,
per capita a similar amount and does NOT get a place on the board of management.
But the Norwegians are not fools. They will pay for something if helps their
economy.
The equation is not between paying and not paying. The equation is the
difference between the cost of staying and the cost of leaving. The cost of a no
deal leave will require the payment of expenditure to manage hard borders and
changes to revenue arising from lost trade with 27 other nearby countries. This
simple economic reality is something that could be grasped by any schoolchild
but not apparently by certain of the Get us out Now!™ crowd.
Anyway, the above from the Express quoting Bone gives the game away. NB Bone,
IDS and Boris don't even like the NHS. Hannan was on Fox News warning the
Americans of the dangers of adopting the notion of single payer wicked
socialised medicine. Spot the duplicity. Its easy. Those types have voted for
very welfare cut ever proposed. Do you really think that lot care half a fig
about social care or the NHS? You might if you were born yesterday.
"This money should be spent where it is needed in this country and not
in Bulgaria, Romania or other parts of the EU."
More nonsense. We are a human family. These Brextremists are also demanding cuts
to the 0.7% GDP aid budget. These demands have been resisted even by the
mainstream Conservative Party. Properly done, aid to the 3rd world is an
investment. A rising tide lifts all boats. The people demanding such cuts tend
to have links to hedge funds, big tobacco etcetera. They wouldn't know what
poverty was if they fell over it in a sunny uplands no-regulation paradise and
it reared up an bit them in their sorry arses. Monbiot wrote about them
eloquently. They don't give a fiddlers fk about any dirt poor "piccaninnies with
watermelon smiles". They can't envision that the countries helped today will be
trading with us in 10 or 20 years time. Just as long as the hedge funds and
hundreds of luxury jets to rich cronies via the Isle of Man are comming along
swimmingly. That's all that matters. Anyone objecting can go suck a cyanide
laced lemon.
Officials also calculated that a further £4.4 billion out of the gross
contribution was spent on agricultural subsidies and grants to
public-sector bodies in the UK.
Around £2.4 billion was spent through the EU's Agricultural Guarantee
Fund and a further £359 million came through the European Regional
Development Fund.
Ah! Now even the Heily Express is starting to get it. To take back control of
£350 weekly million (or whatever it is) and put all of it to the NHS means
taking money from someone else. A nice economic model that basically boils down
to robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Strangely all this money that would need to be taken from Education,
Agriculture and the Regions didn't get a mention on the side of that lying
battlebus.

Interesting article!

You might be surprised at how much I am in agreement, although less
surprised at parts I disagree with.

First, to put the EU sub in perspective:
http://pensites.com/politics/article-1146/The-UK's-EU-membership-fee-compared.

Now, more importantly, the effect Brexit would have on our economy -
including on money for the NHS. Certainly, /if/ the EU chooses a
restrictive trade deal - which I consider very likely despite the
optimism of some in government - then the UK and the EU will suffer a
reduction in trade compared with what it would have been if we had
stayed in. The eurozone is showing signs of growth again and if it
continues for the next four or five years and if the EU puts trade
restrictions in place then we will lose out on some of that for our sales.

On the other hand, certain parts of the rest of the world are growing
much faster than the EU and while we are in the EU we cannot make trade
deals with them. Of course, even once we have left it will take us time
to negotiate those deals.

So whichever way you look at it, we are likely to be worse off for a few
years than we would have been if we stayed in. But that doesn't
necessarily mean that we will be worse off than we are now - except in
specific cases.

Yet almost everyone will need to undertake change of some sort. Some
will be better off. Some will be worse off.

What, though, about the longer term? About 50 countries have deals with
the EU and about 160 do not. Some of the latter are big economies,
others of them are growth areas. In fact, over the next decade or so
most future growth (85% or more) is expected to occur in non-EU
countries. Thus there are very large opportunities which are now opening
up which we basically would not have had in the EU. And as is often the
case, it is better to think long term. Lower growth in the short term
should be more than repaid in the future.

The £8bn or so is a considerable sum but the bigger economic issue, for
me, is regaining control of our trade policy and of all those things
which help to make a trade policy effective.

--
James Harris

Altroy1

2017-11-02 13:59:53 UTC

[...]

Post by Altroy1
Officials also calculated that a further £4.4 billion out of the gross
contribution was spent on agricultural subsidies and grants to
public-sector bodies in the UK.
Around £2.4 billion was spent through the EU's Agricultural Guarantee
Fund and a further £359 million came through the European Regional
Development Fund.
Ah! Now even the Heily Express is starting to get it. To take back control of
£350 weekly million (or whatever it is) and put all of it to the NHS means
taking money from someone else. A nice economic model that basically boils down
to robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Strangely all this money that would need to be taken from Education,
Agriculture and the Regions didn't get a mention on the side of that lying
battlebus.

Interesting article!
You might be surprised at how much I am in agreement, although less
surprised at parts I disagree with.
http://pensites.com/politics/article-1146/The-UK's-EU-membership-fee-compared.
Now, more importantly, the effect Brexit would have on our economy -
including on money for the NHS. Certainly, /if/ the EU chooses a
restrictive trade deal - which I consider very likely despite the
optimism of some in government - then the UK and the EU will suffer a

Just been listening to Daniel J Hannan on my MP3 player and his dreams for
a Swiss style free trade agreement. Problem is that Switzerland
did not negotiate their deal as a departing state.

To grant a departing state such a deal would be to stoke separatism and
undermine the internal political cohesion of the EU. The EU will be
more mindful of this than any economic damage to the German automobile
industry. This bit about "they need us more than we need them" is
nationalist chauvinism, self serving hogwash, and utter tripe. Its like
walking into Tescos and demanding "You sell to me more than I to you.
I want out of your current price structure now!!".

Post by James Harris
reduction in trade compared with what it would have been if we had
stayed in. The eurozone is showing signs of growth again and if it
continues for the next four or five years and if the EU puts trade
restrictions in place then we will lose out on some of that for our sales.
On the other hand, certain parts of the rest of the world are growing
much faster than the EU and while we are in the EU we cannot make trade
deals with them. Of course, even once we have left it will take us time
to negotiate those deals.

That, with respect, is the sort of half-truth the Brexit side are in love
with. The trope about the underperforming EU and the dynamic paradise
that awaits as per the slogan of Barbara Castle back in 1975 :

"Out and into the world"

And the worlds fastest growing economies? Er, um they are (wheeze, cough).....

Butan, Ethiopia, Ghana, Cote D'Ivoire, India, Uzbekistan,
Myanmar,Tanzania, Laos, and Djibouti.

Oh dear. The Get us out now!!™ crowd would have us believe in the fast growing
world awaiting, but somehow the world's fastest growing economies will not be
running to a no deal with the hated EU rescue anytime soon. One possible major
economy, India, has been a right royal PITA with Australia and other countries
trying to negotiate with it. To replace the hated EU, Brexiteers will need a
free trade deal with the like of Make America Great Again.

Post by James Harris
So whichever way you look at it, we are likely to be worse off for a few
years than we would have been if we stayed in. But that doesn't
necessarily mean that we will be worse off than we are now - except in
specific cases.

So much for for the Boris mantra "...and next Thursday will be our independence
day...." leaping forward to a shackle free (and regulation and employment rights
free) paradise from day one.

Post by James Harris
Yet almost everyone will need to undertake change of some sort. Some
will be better off. Some will be worse off.

James O'Brien has dealt with this many times on LBC. He even half sung/hummed
George Michael to sum up the Brexit case "Gotta have faith, the faith, the
faith...." (After quoting from Brexiteers repeated and unqualified assurances
of how wonderful life after leave would be)

Post by James Harris
What, though, about the longer term? About 50 countries have deals with
the EU and about 160 do not. Some of the latter are big economies,
others of them are growth areas. In fact, over the next decade or so
most future growth (85% or more) is expected to occur in non-EU
countries. Thus there are very large opportunities which are now opening
up which we basically would not have had in the EU. And as is often the
case, it is better to think long term. Lower growth in the short term
should be more than repaid in the future.
The £8bn or so is a considerable sum but the bigger economic issue, for
me, is regaining control of our trade policy and of all those things
which help to make a trade policy effective.

No. If you negotiate a trade deal with Make America Great Again and then don't
do as you are told, the unelected and unaccountable USITC will do to you what
they did to Bombardier.

James Harris

2017-11-02 14:48:43 UTC

Post by Altroy1
[...]

Just been listening to Daniel J Hannan on my MP3 player and his dreams for
a Swiss style free trade agreement. Problem is that Switzerland
did not negotiate their deal as a departing state.
To grant a departing state such a deal would be to stoke separatism and
undermine the internal political cohesion of the EU. The EU will be
more mindful of this than any economic damage to the German automobile
industry. This bit about "they need us more than we need them" is
nationalist chauvinism, self serving hogwash, and utter tripe.

I agree with all that, though when combined with what you said next I
think you may be overstating it a bit. I don't subscribe to the
oft-heard Brexiteer optimism about the EU and its big industries such as
German cars and French cheese. I know they are large but I think that
their size will allow them to absorb a small negative - as long as it is
small. They have already done so with the drop in sterling.

I do, however, think the EU and the UK will come under pressure from
smaller specific sources which stand to be affected more than the
average. For the EU the sources will be such as firms who need access to
London and small countries who do a lot of trade with the UK; if the EU
does not do what they want it will risk the very fragmentation it is
seeking to avoid. For the UK the pressures will be from those we know of
such as farmers, carmakers, etc.

At the moment, there is time in hand so there may be some upcoming
brinkmanship and we might not see progress for a while yet. But as the
deadline gets nearer the pressures on both sides will increase.

Post by Altroy1
Its like
walking into Tescos and demanding "You sell to me more than I to you.
I want out of your current price structure now!!".

That, with respect, is the sort of half-truth the Brexit side are in love
with. The trope about the underperforming EU and the dynamic paradise
"Out and into the world"
And the worlds fastest growing economies? Er, um they are (wheeze, cough).....
Butan, Ethiopia, Ghana, Cote D'Ivoire, India, Uzbekistan,
Myanmar,Tanzania, Laos, and Djibouti.
Oh dear. The Get us out now!!™ crowd would have us believe in the fast growing
world awaiting, but somehow the world's fastest growing economies will not be
running to a no deal with the hated EU rescue anytime soon. One possible major
economy, India, has been a right royal PITA with Australia and other countries
trying to negotiate with it. To replace the hated EU, Brexiteers will need a
free trade deal with the like of Make America Great Again.

Try these as an example - over 3.6 billion people, or about 41% of the
world's population in growing nations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS

Although, _very_ unfortunately, we have already missed out on loads of
that /because of/ being in the EU. Think about it!

So much for for the Boris mantra "...and next Thursday will be our independence
day...." leaping forward to a shackle free (and regulation and employment rights
free) paradise from day one.

Post by James Harris
Yet almost everyone will need to undertake change of some sort. Some
will be better off. Some will be worse off.

AIUI he tends to make fun of people who are not as smart as he is. But
frankly, his callers do not define what a sensible Brexit will be like.
Don't judge Brexit by them.

No. If you negotiate a trade deal with Make America Great Again and then don't
do as you are told, the unelected and unaccountable USITC will do to you what
they did to Bombardier.

There will be trade disputes whatever happens. That's life on the open
road for ya.

--
James Harris

Altroy1

2017-11-03 00:03:12 UTC

[...]

Post by Altroy1
To grant a departing state such a deal would be to stoke separatism and
undermine the internal political cohesion of the EU. The EU will be
more mindful of this than any economic damage to the German automobile
industry. This bit about "they need us more than we need them" is
nationalist chauvinism, self serving hogwash, and utter tripe.

The overestimation was in assuming that the EU would only negotiate on the basis
of economics. The EU will or ought to have in mind the Eurosceptics in
Netherlands, Denmark, France, Northern Italy and so on and that a good deal
might encourage others to head to the exit door.

Post by James Harris
I do, however, think the EU and the UK will come under pressure from
smaller specific sources which stand to be affected more than the
average. For the EU the sources will be such as firms who need access to
London and small countries who do a lot of trade with the UK; if the EU
does not do what they want it will risk the very fragmentation it is
seeking to avoid. For the UK the pressures will be from those we know of
such as farmers, carmakers, etc.

One poweful argument you could have cited is the Irish border. The EU can't just
swat away the UK and leave a big problem for one of its member states to cope
with. Not least is the potential of allowing untaxed BRICS or other goods to
sneak in via a 300 mile wide backdoor. That is why the EU wisely opted to bar
trade negotiations until "sufficient progress" had been made. They're hoping to
dodge a potential bullet that could otherwise be fired during substantive trade
talks.

[...]

Post by Altroy1
And the worlds fastest growing economies? Er, um they are (wheeze, cough).....
Butan, Ethiopia, Ghana, Cote D'Ivoire, India, Uzbekistan,
Myanmar,Tanzania, Laos, and Djibouti.
Oh dear. The Get us out now!!™ crowd would have us believe in the fast growing
world awaiting, but somehow the world's fastest growing economies will not be
running to a no deal with the hated EU rescue anytime soon. One possible major
economy, India, has been a right royal PITA with Australia and other countries
trying to negotiate with it. To replace the hated EU, Brexiteers will need a
free trade deal with the like of Make America Great Again.

Try these as an example - over 3.6 billion people, or about 41% of the
world's population in growing nations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS

The "I" in BRICS is India that PITA country that seems to demand allowing its
workers to work in any country wanting a free trade deal whilst having many
small farmers that need to be rigorously protected from industrial scale
agriculture competition.

Brazil (the B in BRICS) has has a dodgy meat inspection regime. Operation Lava
Jato(Operation car wash) is't the only problem on Michel Temer's mind. He is
reportedly at loggerheads with Make America Great Again's restrictions on beef
imports.

tim...

2017-11-03 08:00:09 UTC

Post by Altroy1
One poweful argument you could have cited is the Irish border. The EU
can't just swat away the UK and leave a big problem for one of its member
states to cope with. Not least is the potential of allowing untaxed BRICS
or other goods to sneak in via a 300 mile wide backdoor. That is why the
EU wisely opted to bar trade negotiations until "sufficient progress" had
been made.

Except that the solution to that problem IS trade talks

so it isn't wise at all, it is bloody stupid

tim

James Harris

2017-11-03 10:54:31 UTC

Post by Altroy1
[...]

AISI they face a bigger danger: Britain will thrive with or without the
EU. All they can do by being awkward is make it take longer before we
start to do so.

If they want to survive they have only one option: they have to change.
And they have to do so in the right way. Unfortunately, however, the
only changes they seem to be considering will make the situation worse.

I am surprised you make that claim. The reality is that if the UK and
the EU agree free trade then the problem with the Irish border largely
goes away. And /that/ is probably why they they want it sorted out
first; they don't want to arrange a free-trade deal yet. Hence, they
insist on the Irish border being dealt with first. It is not a pragmatic
decision but, as ever with the EU, a political one.

Post by Altroy1
[...]

Try these as an example - over 3.6 billion people, or about 41% of the
world's population in growing nations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS

Well, now that India's growth has set in it has become more confident.
The EU should have been in there in the 1990s or before, as the growth
was picking up. We should have been there at that time. But we were not
allowed to do so while in the EU.

Post by Altroy1
Brazil (the B in BRICS) has has a dodgy meat inspection regime. Operation Lava
Jato(Operation car wash) is't the only problem on Michel Temer's mind. He is
reportedly at loggerheads with Make America Great Again's restrictions on beef
imports.

They sound like normal trade issues.

--
James Harris

Altroy1

2017-11-03 23:14:59 UTC

[...]

Post by Altroy1
One poweful argument you could have cited is the Irish border. The EU can't just
swat away the UK and leave a big problem for one of its member states to cope
with. Not least is the potential of allowing untaxed BRICS or other goods to
sneak in via a 300 mile wide backdoor. That is why the EU wisely opted to bar
trade negotiations until "sufficient progress" had been made. They're hoping to
dodge a potential bullet that could otherwise be fired during substantive trade
talks.

I am surprised you make that claim.

Lose your surprise. If the UK holds good to the Lancaster House stated desire to
exit the Customs Union/Single Market and starts free trading with, say, Brazil
under a different tax regime then the need for some kind of border controls
comes into play. Unless, that is, the EU is happy for Brazil's dodgy beef and
America's chlorine chickens to sneak into its Single Market through a back door
unnoticed and untaxed by anyone.

The EU is taking the Lancaster House speech at face value and would rather the
UK be made explain early-on how such an alleged frictionless border would
operate when the UK wants to be able to trade with BRICS or other countries
under separate FTAs. They're not asking for tax rates or dots and commas just
how it would work in overall principle.

Post by James Harris
The reality is that if the UK and
the EU agree free trade then the problem with the Irish border largely
goes away. And /that/ is probably why they they want it sorted out
first; they don't want to arrange a free-trade deal yet. Hence, they
insist on the Irish border being dealt with first. It is not a pragmatic
decision but, as ever with the EU, a political one.

[...]

James Harris

2017-11-04 09:03:00 UTC

Post by Altroy1
[...]

Post by Altroy1
One poweful argument you could have cited is the Irish border. The EU can't just
swat away the UK and leave a big problem for one of its member states to cope
with. Not least is the potential of allowing untaxed BRICS or other goods to
sneak in via a 300 mile wide backdoor. That is why the EU wisely opted to bar
trade negotiations until "sufficient progress" had been made. They're hoping to
dodge a potential bullet that could otherwise be fired during substantive trade
talks.

I am surprised you make that claim.

Lose your surprise. If the UK holds good to the Lancaster House stated desire to
exit the Customs Union/Single Market and starts free trading with, say, Brazil
under a different tax regime then the need for some kind of border controls
comes into play. Unless, that is, the EU is happy for Brazil's dodgy beef and
America's chlorine chickens to sneak into its Single Market through a back door
unnoticed and untaxed by anyone.
The EU is taking the Lancaster House speech at face value and would rather the
UK be made explain early-on how such an alleged frictionless border would
operate when the UK wants to be able to trade with BRICS or other countries
under separate FTAs. They're not asking for tax rates or dots and commas just
how it would work in overall principle.

Didn't the Lancaster House speech suggest free trade and a customs union
with the EU? If they are in place then they will surely deal with many
of the potential problems at the Irish border won't they?

I think the EU has been pretty clear, recently: sort out (aka agree to
pay us) the money then we can talk trade.

There has been "sufficient progress" on the other issues. What they
want, and the only real stumbling block, is money. The rest is just a
smoke screen.

[...]

--
James Harris

Altroy1

2017-11-04 21:53:38 UTC

James Harris wrote:

[...]

Post by Altroy1
The EU is taking the Lancaster House speech at face value and would rather the
UK be made explain early-on how such an alleged frictionless border would
operate when the UK wants to be able to trade with BRICS or other countries
under separate FTAs. They're not asking for tax rates or dots and commas just
how it would work in overall principle.

The Lancaster speech was partly about a desire to quell the noise from such as
Daniel J Hannan and co that think that techology means that the UK can exit the
SM and CU, and have FTAs willy nilly with the both EU & rest of the world whilst
mantaining a frictionless border. The USA has a FTA or rather (NA)FTA with
Mexico - and the border with Mexico is so nice and frictionless that Trump is,
er, planning to help that frictionless by building a nice "bigly" big wall.

Apparently the UK hasn't yet explained (or not in public) how it is all going to
work out. The progress so far may mean in private the fantasy about a dodgy
Brazil beef-deal FTA whilst mantaining a frictionless boder may have been
quietly ditched.

There is another solution. Think about what the like of Liam Fox told the
parliamentary select committee recently. If the UK consumer wants to eat the
chlorine chickens why should there be any regulatory problem as long as its
safe? Soaked thoroughly in chlorine and the chickens should be rid of all those
nasty germs. Extend the low regulaton paradise to the whole of EU. Then is
little need for borders, -- and the EU consumer,too, can enjoy the taste of
chlorine chickens and Brazil's low hygiene not always thoroughly inspected beef.

Post by James Harris
I think the EU has been pretty clear, recently: sort out (aka agree to
pay us) the money then we can talk trade.

Its not all about money. The EU will see the wind coming out of the sails of the
Lombard league in Italy, the Front National in France, Partij Voor de Vrijheid
in the Netherlands etc and will be happy to string out the negotations and get
political kudos along the way that money can't alone simply can't buy.

Post by James Harris
There has been "sufficient progress" on the other issues. What they
want, and the only real stumbling block, is money. The rest is just a
smoke screen.

James Harris

2017-11-04 23:21:42 UTC

Post by Altroy1
[...]

The Lancaster speech was partly about a desire to quell the noise from such as
Daniel J Hannan and co that think that techology means that the UK can exit the
SM and CU, and have FTAs willy nilly with the both EU & rest of the world whilst
mantaining a frictionless border. The USA has a FTA or rather (NA)FTA with
Mexico - and the border with Mexico is so nice and frictionless that Trump is,
er, planning to help that frictionless by building a nice "bigly" big wall.
Apparently the UK hasn't yet explained (or not in public) how it is all going to
work out. The progress so far may mean in private the fantasy about a dodgy
Brazil beef-deal FTA whilst mantaining a frictionless boder may have been
quietly ditched.
There is another solution. Think about what the like of Liam Fox told the
parliamentary select committee recently. If the UK consumer wants to eat the
chlorine chickens why should there be any regulatory problem as long as its
safe? Soaked thoroughly in chlorine and the chickens should be rid of all those
nasty germs. Extend the low regulaton paradise to the whole of EU. Then is
little need for borders, -- and the EU consumer,too, can enjoy the taste of
chlorine chickens and Brazil's low hygiene not always thoroughly inspected beef.

Post by James Harris
I think the EU has been pretty clear, recently: sort out (aka agree to
pay us) the money then we can talk trade.

I was going by what some of them have said, e.g. Tajani in his Newsnight
interview said something like "pay us our money then we can talk trade".
Ergo the reason they are blocking talks is for money.

--
James Harris

Altroy1

2017-11-05 19:46:00 UTC

[...]

Post by Altroy1
Its not all about money. The EU will see the wind coming out of the sails of the
Lombard league in Italy, the Front National in France, Partij Voor de Vrijheid
in the Netherlands etc and will be happy to string out the negotations and get
political kudos along the way that money can't alone simply can't buy.

I was going by what some of them have said, e.g. Tajani in his Newsnight
interview said something like "pay us our money then we can talk trade".
Ergo the reason they are blocking talks is for money.

As per Pamela's reply, the EU was taunted by Farage that the UK wasn't the only
country that would be leaving. The EU will be aware that this could be true.
Particularly if a cosy EU free trade deal is given to the UK. Such a cosy deal
could allow the like of Fox, Patel, Patterson, Gove et all to simultaneously
trawl North and South America for chlorine chicken, dodgy beef and GM corn wilst
trading unfettered in the EU Single Market.

Such a FTA, as Farage alluded, could prompt other countries to stampede to the
exit door: Oustria, Departugal, Italeave, ROAMania, Czechout, Grexit, Frexit...

Try listening to James O'B on LBC. He does appear to have wound back a little
the admittedly at times sneering attitude to some callers. The issues of the
change of tune by leading Brexit spokespeople he went into at some depth.
https://twitter.com/mrjamesob

At one time it was "they need us more that we need them™ ". So, negotiating a
UK/EU FTA would be allegedly so easy:

http://www.businessinsider.com/liam-fox-brexit-free-trade-deal-easiest-in-human-history-to-negotiate-2017-7

Now it is "Get us out now!™ " as the Brexit believers change tune and claim WTO
trading will not be so bad:

http://inews24.site/2017/10/19/brexit-talks-wto-deal-is-inevitable-says-former-minister-owen-patterson/

https://musealoudblog.wordpress.com/2017/04/03/brexit-they-need-us-more-than-we-need-them/

https://www.owenpaterson.org/campaigns/why-brexit-great-uk-and-usa

Are EU negotiators Juncker, Barnier, Verhofstadt etc worried? Not as much as
they might once have been:

http://cyprus-mail.com/2017/09/13/juncker-urges-eu-catch-wind-sails/

https://www.politico.eu/article/euroskeptics-in-free-fall-at-european-parliament/

https://www.politico.eu/article/italys-northern-league-goes-soft-on-the-euro/

pamela

2017-11-07 11:01:11 UTC

Post by Altroy1
[...]

Post by Altroy1
Its not all about money. The EU will see the wind coming out
of the sails of the Lombard league in Italy, the Front
National in France, Partij Voor de Vrijheid in the Netherlands
etc and will be happy to string out the negotations and get
political kudos along the way that money can't alone simply
can't buy.

I was going by what some of them have said, e.g. Tajani in his
Newsnight interview said something like "pay us our money then
we can talk trade". Ergo the reason they are blocking talks is
for money.

As per Pamela's reply, the EU was taunted by Farage that the UK
wasn't the only country that would be leaving. The EU will be
aware that this could be true. Particularly if a cosy EU free
trade deal is given to the UK. Such a cosy deal could allow the
like of Fox, Patel, Patterson, Gove et all to simultaneously
trawl North and South America for chlorine chicken, dodgy beef
and GM corn wilst trading unfettered in the EU Single Market.
Such a FTA, as Farage alluded, could prompt other countries to
stampede to the exit door: Oustria, Departugal, Italeave,
ROAMania, Czechout, Grexit, Frexit...
Try listening to James O'B on LBC. He does appear to have wound
back a little the admittedly at times sneering attitude to some
callers. The issues of the change of tune by leading Brexit
spokespeople he went into at some depth.
https://twitter.com/mrjamesob
At one time it was "they need us more that we need themÂâ¢ ".
http://www.businessinsider.com/liam-fox-brexit-free-trade-
deal-easiest-in-human-history-to-negotiate-2017-7
Now it is "Get us out now!â¢ " as the Brexit believers change
http://inews24.site/2017/10/19/brexit-talks-wto-deal-is-
inevitable-says-former-minister-owen-patterson/
https://musealoudblog.wordpress.com/2017/04/03/brexit-
they-need-us-more-than-we-need-them/
https://www.owenpaterson.org/campaigns/why-brexit-great-
k-and-usa
Are EU negotiators Juncker, Barnier, Verhofstadt etc worried?
http://cyprus-mail.com/2017/09/13/juncker-urges-eu-catch-
wind-sails/
https://www.politico.eu/article/euroskeptics-in-free-
fall-at-european-parliament/
https://www.politico.eu/article/italys-northern-league-
goes-soft-on-the-euro/

Brexiteers were so buoyed up by their referendum success which was
driven by sheer hope (in spite of the facts) that they're now
applying the same "closed-eyes and hope" approach to the
negotiations.

As we can see, EU negotiators brought over-hopeful Brexiteers down
with a bump.

I predict that when new trade negotiations with other countries
takes place, it was be many times more BRUTAL than what we're
experiencing with the EU.

pamela

2017-11-05 16:33:24 UTC

Post by Altroy1
[...]

Post by Altroy1
The EU is taking the Lancaster House speech at face value and would rather the
UK be made explain early-on how such an alleged frictionless
border would operate when the UK wants to be able to trade
with BRICS or other countries
under separate FTAs. They're not asking for tax rates or dots and commas just
how it would work in overall principle.

The Lancaster speech was partly about a desire to quell the
noise from such as Daniel J Hannan and co that think that
techology means that the UK can exit the SM and CU, and have
FTAs willy nilly with the both EU & rest of the world whilst
mantaining a frictionless border. The USA has a FTA or rather
(NA)FTA with Mexico - and the border with Mexico is so nice and
frictionless that Trump is, er, planning to help that
frictionless by building a nice "bigly" big wall.
Apparently the UK hasn't yet explained (or not in public) how it
is all going to work out. The progress so far may mean in
private the fantasy about a dodgy Brazil beef-deal FTA whilst
mantaining a frictionless boder may have been quietly ditched.
There is another solution. Think about what the like of Liam Fox
told the parliamentary select committee recently. If the UK
consumer wants to eat the chlorine chickens why should there be
any regulatory problem as long as its safe? Soaked thoroughly in
chlorine and the chickens should be rid of all those nasty
germs. Extend the low regulaton paradise to the whole of EU.
Then is little need for borders, -- and the EU consumer,too, can
enjoy the taste of chlorine chickens and Brazil's low hygiene
not always thoroughly inspected beef.

Post by James Harris
I think the EU has been pretty clear, recently: sort out (aka
agree to pay us) the money then we can talk trade.

Its not all about money. The EU will see the wind coming out of
the sails of the Lombard league in Italy, the Front National in
France, Partij Voor de Vrijheid in the Netherlands etc and will
be happy to string out the negotations and get political kudos
along the way that money can't alone simply can't buy.

It's a wonder anyone is surprised by the harsh stance taken by the
EU.

We have long known Brexit could lead to further EU "contagion" and
in fact Nigel Farage taunted the EU Parliament about it.

The EU is now going to make us jump through hoops as we try to
agree Brexit. If the pound crashes and our trade deals come to
nothing then the EU will give us a knowing look and a Gallic
shoulder shrug.

James Harris

2017-11-05 16:52:27 UTC

On 05/11/2017 16:33, pamela wrote:

...

Post by pamela
It's a wonder anyone is surprised by the harsh stance taken by the
EU.
We have long known Brexit could lead to further EU "contagion" and

Men in black suits run the Hotel California.

--
James Harris

Ian Jackson

2017-11-06 10:47:12 UTC

Post by pamela
It's a wonder anyone is surprised by the harsh stance taken by the
EU.
We have long known Brexit could lead to further EU "contagion" and

Men in black suits run the Hotel California.

We CAN leave at any time - but we can't still expect to have access to
room service and the drinks cabinet.

--
Ian

James Harris

2017-11-06 13:42:53 UTC

Post by pamela
It's a wonder anyone is surprised by the harsh stance taken by the
EU.
We have long known Brexit could lead to further EU "contagion" and

Men in black suits run the Hotel California.

We CAN leave at any time - but we can't still expect to have access to
room service and the drinks cabinet.

No problem. We'll make our own beds; and drinks are cheaper on the open
market. ;-)

--
James Harris

Altroy1

2017-11-07 00:01:18 UTC

Post by pamela
It's a wonder anyone is surprised by the harsh stance taken by the
EU.
We have long known Brexit could lead to further EU "contagion" and

Men in black suits run the Hotel California.

We CAN leave at any time - but we can't still expect to have access to
room service and the drinks cabinet.

"Hotel California" must be the Brexiter's dream song. Just rename it "Hotel EU"
and it would be just perfect:

They want to check out of the Hotel EU anytime they like and they don't really
want to leave. Yes, they want to leave the Hotel's rules and they don't want to
pay the Hotel any money but when they check out, they want to be able to come
back anytime they like to use the Hotel's gym, restaurant, bar, laundry,
telephone and other services - and not have to pay a penny. And they want
unhindered access to the hotel's residents so they can market all that snake oil
they bought from rival hotels.

Yellow

2017-11-06 23:24:10 UTC

Post by pamela
It's a wonder anyone is surprised by the harsh stance taken by the
EU.
We have long known Brexit could lead to further EU "contagion" and

Men in black suits run the Hotel California.

We CAN leave at any time - but we can't still expect to have access to
room service and the drinks cabinet.

"Hotel California" must be the Brexiter's dream song. Just rename it "Hotel EU"

Don't you mean the Remoaner dream song???

Post by Altroy1
They want to check out of the Hotel EU anytime they like and they don't really
want to leave.

This is the "we respect the result of the referendum" remoaner line.

Post by Altroy1
Yes, they want to leave the Hotel's rules and they don't want to
pay the Hotel any money but when they check out,

Seems fair, whatever side of the line you are on as hotels are generally
paid for upfront.

Post by Altroy1
they want to be able to come
back anytime they like to use the Hotel's gym, restaurant, bar, laundry,
telephone and other services - and not have to pay a penny.

Again, it is the remoaners who wish to stay in the Single Market, not
leavers or many remainers.

Post by Altroy1
And they want
unhindered access to the hotel's residents so they can market all that snake oil
they bought from rival hotels.

Snake oil? Yes please!

Ian Jackson

2017-11-07 08:33:40 UTC

Post by Altroy1
"Hotel California" must be the Brexiter's dream song. Just rename it "Hotel EU"

Don't you mean the Remoaner dream song???

I was unaware that the Remoaners want to leave. Have I missed something?

--
Ian

James Harris

2017-11-07 08:41:15 UTC

Post by Altroy1
"Hotel California" must be the Brexiter's dream song. Just rename it "Hotel EU"

Don't you mean the Remoaner dream song???

I was unaware that the Remoaners want to leave. Have I missed something?

Even though we've checked out they don't want to leave...?

--
James Harris

Altroy1

2017-11-07 12:04:34 UTC

Post by pamela
It's a wonder anyone is surprised by the harsh stance taken by the
EU.
We have long known Brexit could lead to further EU "contagion" and

Men in black suits run the Hotel California.

We CAN leave at any time - but we can't still expect to have access to
room service and the drinks cabinet.

"Hotel California" must be the Brexiter's dream song. Just rename it "Hotel EU"

Don't you mean the Remoaner dream song???

No, no. The Brexit dream song's about being able to checkout of the Hotel EU
anytime they like to stay at rival hotels but with a free pass that let's them
sneak back in to the Hotel EU anytime they like to use the Hotel's facilities
and to market dodgy beef, chlorine chickens and GM corn to the Hotel EU's guests.

Post by Altroy1
They want to check out of the Hotel EU anytime they like and they don't really
want to leave.

This is the "we respect the result of the referendum" remoaner line.

The referendum voted yes to checking out of the Hotel EU anytime but as promised
by the Brexit campaign there would be negotiated a nice free pass, under the
mantra of "they need us more than we need them™ " , that would allow re-entry to
the Hotel EU "anytime you like" to use the Hotel EU's facilities and flog off
dodgy goods bought at rival hotels.

Post by Altroy1
Yes, they want to leave the Hotel's rules and they don't want to
pay the Hotel any money but when they check out,

Seems fair, whatever side of the line you are on as hotels are generally
paid for upfront.

Seems unfair to be able to checkout of a hotel, then demand the right for
continued use of its facilities without paying and hawk chlorine chickens
obtained from rival hotels to its guests:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/us-brexit-eu-uk-trade-deal-wilbur-ross-commerce-secretary-imports-exports-european-union-a8040571.html

Britain must scrap EU rules and allow chlorine-washed chicken if it wants
post-Brexit trade deal with US, Trump adviser says

Speaking at a conference hosted by the Confederation of British Industry,
Mr Ross said that he hoped the US could become the UK’s number one trading
partner after Brexit

Post by Altroy1
they want to be able to come
back anytime they like to use the Hotel's gym, restaurant, bar, laundry,
telephone and other services - and not have to pay a penny.

Again, it is the remoaners who wish to stay in the Single Market, not
leavers or many remainers.

And its the leavers that want to checkout of the Hotel EU anytime they like,
then come back in by negotiating a bespoke deal which they will call a "free
trade deal" in reality being part of the SM but using other language:

http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2016-06-24/brexit/EU-is-like-Hotel-California-You-can-check-out-anytime-but-you-never-really-leave-6736159924

"You can't jump out of the airplane and then clamber back into the cockpit,"
is how British Prime Minister David Cameron put it in a recent radio
interview.

"'Leave' could mean a million different things," Oliver said, giving
Britain's political establishment considerable scope to loiter in
Europe's lobby as euroskeptics argue over where the exits are.
Some believe Britain is likely to end up more-or-less where it started.

Britain, like other nations roiled by euroskeptic revolts, will simply
"negotiate a new agreement, nearly identical to the old one, disguise
it in opaque language and ratify it," Princeton University politics
professor Andrew Moravcsik predicted ahead of the referendum.

"The public, essentially ignorant about Europe, always goes along."

Post by Altroy1
And they want
unhindered access to the hotel's residents so they can market all that snake oil
they bought from rival hotels.

Snake oil? Yes please!

James Harris

2017-11-07 08:18:12 UTC

Post by pamela
It's a wonder anyone is surprised by the harsh stance taken by the
EU.
We have long known Brexit could lead to further EU "contagion" and

Men in black suits run the Hotel California.

We CAN leave at any time - but we can't still expect to have access to
room service and the drinks cabinet.

"Hotel California" must be the Brexiter's dream song. Just rename it "Hotel EU"
They want to check out of the Hotel EU anytime they like and they don't really
want to leave. Yes, they want to leave the Hotel's rules and they don't want to
pay the Hotel any money but when they check out, they want to be able to come
back anytime they like to use the Hotel's gym, restaurant, bar, laundry,
telephone and other services - and not have to pay a penny. And they want
unhindered access to the hotel's residents so they can market all that snake oil
they bought from rival hotels.

You can keep the gym. Hotel EU has got its residents believing they
should pay for the air they breathe. And as if that's not enough, some
people have been in so long they have become institutionalised:
Remoaners even think the EU is doing them a favour!

--
James Harris

Altroy1

2017-11-07 12:31:27 UTC

James Harris wrote:

[...]

Post by Altroy1
back anytime they like to use the Hotel's gym, restaurant, bar, laundry,
telephone and other services - and not have to pay a penny. And they want
unhindered access to the hotel's residents so they can market all that snake oil
they bought from rival hotels.

You can keep the gym.

OK the leavers will give up the gym. The rest they want free. Most important,
after checking out anytime they like, is continued access to the Hotel EU's
residents to flog off the cheap junk bought from rival hotels.

Post by James Harris
Hotel EU has got its residents believing they
should pay for the air they breathe.

Clever Hotel EU! The dastardly Hotel EU's even got Ukraine and Serbia offering
money begging to be admitted to the guest list despite them being able to take
up residence at Hotel Russia and/or Hotel China anytime they like.

Post by James Harris
And as if that's not enough, some
Remoaners even think the EU is doing them a favour!

Leavers want to checkout "anytime you like" and pretend to leave whilst staying
in the Hotel EU hiding the fact they are staying by calling their new residency
status a "free hotel agreement". Moreover they expect the Hotel EU to put up
with them staying at rival hotels such as Hotel America, Hotel Brazil, Hotel
China then bringing back sub-standard goods from those hotels to flog them off
at cut-down prices to the Hotel EU's residents.

pamela

2017-11-07 13:14:51 UTC

Post by Altroy1
[...]

Post by Altroy1
back anytime they like to use the Hotel's gym, restaurant,
bar, laundry, telephone and other services - and not have to
pay a penny. And they want unhindered access to the hotel's
residents so they can market all that snake oil
they bought from rival hotels.

You can keep the gym.

OK the leavers will give up the gym. The rest they want free.
Most important, after checking out anytime they like, is
continued access to the Hotel EU's residents to flog off the
cheap junk bought from rival hotels.

Post by James Harris
Hotel EU has got its residents believing they
should pay for the air they breathe.

Clever Hotel EU! The dastardly Hotel EU's even got Ukraine and
Serbia offering money begging to be admitted to the guest list
despite them being able to take up residence at Hotel Russia
and/or Hotel China anytime they like.

Post by James Harris
And as if that's not enough, some
Remoaners even think the EU is doing them a favour!

Leavers want to checkout "anytime you like" and pretend to leave
whilst staying in the Hotel EU hiding the fact they are staying
by calling their new residency status a "free hotel agreement".
Moreover they expect the Hotel EU to put up with them staying at
rival hotels such as Hotel America, Hotel Brazil, Hotel China
then bringing back sub-standard goods from those hotels to flog
them off at cut-down prices to the Hotel EU's residents.

There is no rationale behind the wish of Leavers to leave the EU
except that their hatred of EU outweights all benefits.

James Harris

2017-11-07 14:11:47 UTC

Post by Altroy1
[...]

Post by Altroy1
back anytime they like to use the Hotel's gym, restaurant,
bar, laundry, telephone and other services - and not have to
pay a penny. And they want unhindered access to the hotel's
residents so they can market all that snake oil
they bought from rival hotels.

You can keep the gym.

OK the leavers will give up the gym. The rest they want free.
Most important, after checking out anytime they like, is
continued access to the Hotel EU's residents to flog off the
cheap junk bought from rival hotels.

Post by James Harris
Hotel EU has got its residents believing they
should pay for the air they breathe.

Clever Hotel EU! The dastardly Hotel EU's even got Ukraine and
Serbia offering money begging to be admitted to the guest list
despite them being able to take up residence at Hotel Russia
and/or Hotel China anytime they like.

Post by James Harris
And as if that's not enough, some
Remoaners even think the EU is doing them a favour!

Leavers want to checkout "anytime you like" and pretend to leave
whilst staying in the Hotel EU hiding the fact they are staying
by calling their new residency status a "free hotel agreement".
Moreover they expect the Hotel EU to put up with them staying at
rival hotels such as Hotel America, Hotel Brazil, Hotel China
then bringing back sub-standard goods from those hotels to flog
them off at cut-down prices to the Hotel EU's residents.

There is no rationale behind the wish of Leavers to leave the EU
except that their hatred of EU outweights all benefits.

No doubt Pamela would say there's correspondingly no rationale behind
the wish of New Zealand to be independent of Australia. Dreadful
Australo-sceptics, aren't them, Pam? You no doubt think it's their
hatred of Australia which keeps them as a normal, healthy,
self-governing nation?

Perhaps Canada should be part of America. Perhaps Guatemala should be
part of Mexico. Perhaps Uganda should be part of Kenya. Horrible for
Remainers, isn't it, when these countries want to be independent of one
another. So untidy!

--
James Harris

Altroy1

2017-11-08 22:04:26 UTC

Post by Altroy1
[...]

Post by Altroy1
back anytime they like to use the Hotel's gym, restaurant,
bar, laundry, telephone and other services - and not have to
pay a penny. And they want unhindered access to the hotel's
residents so they can market all that snake oil
they bought from rival hotels.

You can keep the gym.

OK the leavers will give up the gym. The rest they want free.
Most important, after checking out anytime they like, is
continued access to the Hotel EU's residents to flog off the
cheap junk bought from rival hotels.

Post by James Harris
Hotel EU has got its residents believing they
should pay for the air they breathe.

Clever Hotel EU! The dastardly Hotel EU's even got Ukraine and
Serbia offering money begging to be admitted to the guest list
despite them being able to take up residence at Hotel Russia
and/or Hotel China anytime they like.

Post by James Harris
And as if that's not enough, some
Remoaners even think the EU is doing them a favour!

Leavers want to checkout "anytime you like" and pretend to leave
whilst staying in the Hotel EU hiding the fact they are staying
by calling their new residency status a "free hotel agreement".
Moreover they expect the Hotel EU to put up with them staying at
rival hotels such as Hotel America, Hotel Brazil, Hotel China
then bringing back sub-standard goods from those hotels to flog
them off at cut-down prices to the Hotel EU's residents.

There is no rationale behind the wish of Leavers to leave the EU
except that their hatred of EU outweights all benefits.

No doubt Pamela would say there's correspondingly no rationale behind
the wish of New Zealand to be independent of Australia. Dreadful
Australo-sceptics, aren't them, Pam? You no doubt think it's their
hatred of Australia which keeps them as a normal, healthy,
self-governing nation?
Perhaps Canada should be part of America. Perhaps Guatemala should be
part of Mexico. Perhaps Uganda should be part of Kenya. Horrible for
Remainers, isn't it, when these countries want to be independent of one
another. So untidy!

That's not an intelligent argument. The next thing you know and the words
Scotland, Catalonia and Lombardy might come to mind.

James Harris

2017-11-09 06:56:33 UTC

...

Post by Altroy1
Leavers want to checkout "anytime you like" and pretend to leave
whilst staying in the Hotel EU hiding the fact they are staying
by calling their new residency status a "free hotel agreement".
Moreover they expect the Hotel EU to put up with them staying at
rival hotels such as Hotel America, Hotel Brazil, Hotel China
then bringing back sub-standard goods from those hotels to flog
them off at cut-down prices to the Hotel EU's residents.

There is no rationale behind the wish of Leavers to leave the EU
except that their hatred of EU outweights all benefits.

No doubt Pamela would say there's correspondingly no rationale behind
the wish of New Zealand to be independent of Australia. Dreadful
Australo-sceptics, aren't them, Pam? You no doubt think it's their
hatred of Australia which keeps them as a normal, healthy,
self-governing nation?
Perhaps Canada should be part of America. Perhaps Guatemala should be
part of Mexico. Perhaps Uganda should be part of Kenya. Horrible for
Remainers, isn't it, when these countries want to be independent of one
another. So untidy!

That's not an intelligent argument. The next thing you know and the words
Scotland, Catalonia and Lombardy might come to mind.

I don't see the connection. Pam said that Leavers have "no rationale"
except hatred - which is obviously untrue. If Scotland prefers to remain
part of the UK and Catalonia prefers to become independent of Spain I
don't see how that contradicts my argument or supports Pam's in any way.

--
James Harris

Altroy1

2017-11-09 21:51:49 UTC

There is no rationale behind the wish of Leavers to leave the EU
except that their hatred of EU outweights all benefits.

No doubt Pamela would say there's correspondingly no rationale behind
the wish of New Zealand to be independent of Australia. Dreadful
Australo-sceptics, aren't them, Pam? You no doubt think it's their
hatred of Australia which keeps them as a normal, healthy,
self-governing nation?
Perhaps Canada should be part of America. Perhaps Guatemala should be
part of Mexico. Perhaps Uganda should be part of Kenya. Horrible for
Remainers, isn't it, when these countries want to be independent of one
another. So untidy!

That's not an intelligent argument. The next thing you know and the words
Scotland, Catalonia and Lombardy might come to mind.

I don't see the connection. Pam said that Leavers have "no rationale"
except hatred - which is obviously untrue.

If that is Pam's view I wouldn't go along with it. I've written with approval a
lot about https://twitter.com/mrjamesob yet one of his arguments is that the the
idea the UK didn't have control of its borders is bogus. James cited the case of
Belgium and said that it is very difficult to go there to live unless you had a
job and that under EU law Belgium was deporting failed jobseekers after 3 months.

If James had argued that the UK would have had more control had it adopted the
Belgium approach he would have a point. However he suggested fairly clearly that
leaving the EU wouldn't enhance border controls. I dont think this view holds
water. It can be argued that taking back control by exiting the EU will not lead
to the promised land as suggested by Brexit politicians and that would be my
view but James is wrong it appearing to suggest there would be no difference.

But that aside, my reply was directed at this comment:

"Perhaps Canada should be part of America. Perhaps Guatemala should be
part of Mexico. Perhaps Uganda should be part of Kenya. Horrible for
Remainers, isn't it, when these countries want to be independent of one
another. So untidy!"

The problem with such an argument was that Scotland is a nation yet it was told
by the Better off Together campaign that it would be better off not going it
alone. And the Brexit wing of the Conservative Party was full square and lock
stock and barrel behind such a view.

Moreover in mentioning New Zealand's status as an independent nation might not
be as good idea as it might jog the memories of people like me of older years
who are able to cast their minds back to the early 1980s. It happens to be that
NZ resented Australia when it imposed passport controls on the Kiwis. The Kiwis
were also full square behind free movement of its workers to Australia. The kind
of notion that the Brexit mindset would not wholly welcome being transposed into
a European context.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/good-reads/94085435/flashback-australia-calls-an-end-to-passportfree-travel-for-kiwis

Post by James Harris
If Scotland prefers to remain
part of the UK and Catalonia prefers to become independent of Spain I
don't see how that contradicts my argument or supports Pam's in any way.

Ian Jackson

2017-11-09 21:38:01 UTC

There is no rationale behind the wish of Leavers to leave the EU
except that their hatred of EU outweights all benefits.

No doubt Pamela would say there's correspondingly no rationale behind
the wish of New Zealand to be independent of Australia. Dreadful
Australo-sceptics, aren't them, Pam? You no doubt think it's their
hatred of Australia which keeps them as a normal, healthy,
self-governing nation?
Perhaps Canada should be part of America. Perhaps Guatemala should be
part of Mexico. Perhaps Uganda should be part of Kenya. Horrible for
Remainers, isn't it, when these countries want to be independent of one
another. So untidy!

That's not an intelligent argument. The next thing you know and the words
Scotland, Catalonia and Lombardy might come to mind.

I don't see the connection. Pam said that Leavers have "no
rationale" except hatred - which is obviously untrue.

He certainly has been saying that (since 2009, I think) we could have
been doing the same as Belgium - but we simply haven't bothered.

Post by Altroy1
I dont think this view holds water. It can be argued that taking back
control by exiting the EU will not lead to the promised land as
suggested by Brexit politicians and that would be my view but James is
wrong it appearing to suggest there would be no difference.

I think his point is more that we would still have almost as much
immigration - except that those coming from the EU would be on the same
basis as the rest of the world.

Post by Altroy1
"Perhaps Canada should be part of America. Perhaps Guatemala should be
part of Mexico. Perhaps Uganda should be part of Kenya. Horrible for
Remainers, isn't it, when these countries want to be independent of one
another. So untidy!"
The problem with such an argument was that Scotland is a nation yet it
was told by the Better off Together campaign that it would be better
off not going it alone. And the Brexit wing of the Conservative Party
was full square and lock stock and barrel behind such a view.
Moreover in mentioning New Zealand's status as an independent nation
might not be as good idea as it might jog the memories of people like
me of older years who are able to cast their minds back to the early
1980s. It happens to be that NZ resented Australia when it imposed
passport controls on the Kiwis. The Kiwis were also full square behind
free movement of its workers to Australia. The kind of notion that the
Brexit mindset would not wholly welcome being transposed into a
European context.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/good-reads/94085435/flashback-australia-calls-an
-end-to-passportfree-travel-for-kiwis

Post by James Harris
If Scotland prefers to remain part of the UK and Catalonia prefers
to become independent of Spain I don't see how that contradicts my
argument or supports Pam's in any way.

--
Ian

James Harris

2017-11-10 20:37:31 UTC

There is no rationale behind the wish of Leavers to leave the EU
except that their hatred of EU outweights all benefits.

No doubt Pamela would say there's correspondingly no rationale behind
the wish of New Zealand to be independent of Australia. Dreadful
Australo-sceptics, aren't them, Pam? You no doubt think it's their
hatred of Australia which keeps them as a normal, healthy,
self-governing nation?
Perhaps Canada should be part of America. Perhaps Guatemala should be
part of Mexico. Perhaps Uganda should be part of Kenya. Horrible for
Remainers, isn't it, when these countries want to be independent of one
another. So untidy!

That's not an intelligent argument. The next thing you know and the words
Scotland, Catalonia and Lombardy might come to mind.

I don't see the connection. Pam said that Leavers have "no rationale"
except hatred - which is obviously untrue.

Sure. But again O'Brien is attacking a straw man. What brings most
Europeans here is not to sit around but to work. The reality is that
millions of people can compete with Brits for jobs, preventing some
Brits from getting work, allowing companies to fail to train Brits, and
keeping down both UK productivity and wages; and immigrants can get
certain over-generous benefits which they would not get at home,
including, I gather, being able to send money home for children which
don't even live in the UK!

As I say, I think O'Brien loves to get the discussion onto points on
which he is comfortable but his callers are not.

Post by Altroy1
If James had argued that the UK would have had more control had it adopted the
Belgium approach he would have a point. However he suggested fairly clearly that
leaving the EU wouldn't enhance border controls. I dont think this view holds
water. It can be argued that taking back control by exiting the EU will not lead
to the promised land as suggested by Brexit politicians and that would be my
view but James is wrong it appearing to suggest there would be no difference.
"Perhaps Canada should be part of America. Perhaps Guatemala should be
part of Mexico. Perhaps Uganda should be part of Kenya. Horrible for
Remainers, isn't it, when these countries want to be independent of one
another. So untidy!"
The problem with such an argument was that Scotland is a nation yet it was told
by the Better off Together campaign that it would be better off not going it
alone. And the Brexit wing of the Conservative Party was full square and lock
stock and barrel behind such a view.

I accept the Tories said that but I don't see how what they said has a
bearing one way or the other on questions involving other nations.

Post by Altroy1
Moreover in mentioning New Zealand's status as an independent nation might not
be as good idea as it might jog the memories of people like me of older years
who are able to cast their minds back to the early 1980s. It happens to be that
NZ resented Australia when it imposed passport controls on the Kiwis. The Kiwis
were also full square behind free movement of its workers to Australia. The kind
of notion that the Brexit mindset would not wholly welcome being transposed into
a European context.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/good-reads/94085435/flashback-australia-calls-an-end-to-passportfree-travel-for-kiwis

Post by James Harris
If Scotland prefers to remain
part of the UK and Catalonia prefers to become independent of Spain I
don't see how that contradicts my argument or supports Pam's in any way.

--
James Harris

Altroy1

2017-11-11 00:58:12 UTC

There is no rationale behind the wish of Leavers to leave the EU
except that their hatred of EU outweights all benefits.

No doubt Pamela would say there's correspondingly no rationale behind
the wish of New Zealand to be independent of Australia. Dreadful
Australo-sceptics, aren't them, Pam? You no doubt think it's their
hatred of Australia which keeps them as a normal, healthy,
self-governing nation?
Perhaps Canada should be part of America. Perhaps Guatemala should be
part of Mexico. Perhaps Uganda should be part of Kenya. Horrible for
Remainers, isn't it, when these countries want to be independent of one
another. So untidy!

That's not an intelligent argument. The next thing you know and the words
Scotland, Catalonia and Lombardy might come to mind.

I don't see the connection. Pam said that Leavers have "no rationale"
except hatred - which is obviously untrue.

Sure. But again O'Brien is attacking a straw man. What brings most
Europeans here is not to sit around but to work. The reality is that

I was unable to find if James' discussion with "Michael from Streatham" is on
the WWW in writing. I have the audio on my MP3 player of which this is part.

James O'Brien:

"We now know that under the terms of the European regulations
that are employed in countries like Germany and Belgium we can
control immigration if anyone can make a compelling case for why
we need to"

I would have argued to the contrary that immigration is very hard if not
impossible to control 100% Brexit or no Brexit. For example America is having a
lot of trouble controlling the borders with its southern neighbours which is why
there is this talk of building a big wall. The UK has trouble with non EU
immigration because while people are fine and dandy as an abstract concept about
controlling immigration, if their brother can't get his fiancee in or the their
Australian born neighbour after 30 years residency is now threatened with
deportation - then the MPs surgeries get filled with angry constituents.

It is self evident that if EU rules allow people to free movement search for
work for three months then it is harder to control the numbers than if they
weren't allowed to come in in the first place without a workers permit.

James was on a stronger point when he argued against a race to the bottom or
drinking the Kool-Aid of divide and conquer. Most people angry at immigration
ought to be angry instead at employers bringing in people from say 1,500 miles
away when people two miles down the road are willing to do the job. The quarrel,
if any, should be with the employers. Foreign workers do not "take our jobs"
rather employers choose to give them jobs.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-o-brien-immigrant-workers-jobs-labour/

"The only way you protect a workforce is to protect every single member
of it.

"Without realising it, you've swallowed the divide and rule
Kool-Aid...if it's all the fault of immigrants, you can't protect the
workforce."

Yellow

2017-11-11 01:08:36 UTC

Post by Altroy1
James was on a stronger point when he argued against a race to the bottom or
drinking the Kool-Aid of divide and conquer. Most people angry at immigration
ought to be angry instead at employers bringing in people from say 1,500 miles
away when people two miles down the road are willing to do the job. The quarrel,
if any, should be with the employers. Foreign workers do not "take our jobs"
rather employers choose to give them jobs.

So you are arguing, whether or not we have free movement of people, the
answer is for employers not to employ someone from abroad if there is
someone in the UK who can do the job?

pamela

2017-11-11 15:39:46 UTC

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 00:58:12 +0000, Altroy1

Post by Altroy1
James was on a stronger point when he argued against a race to
the bottom or drinking the Kool-Aid of divide and conquer. Most
people angry at immigration ought to be angry instead at
employers bringing in people from say 1,500 miles away when
people two miles down the road are willing to do the job. The
quarrel, if any, should be with the employers. Foreign workers
do not "take our jobs" rather employers choose to give them
jobs.

So you are arguing, whether or not we have free movement of
people, the answer is for employers not to employ someone from
abroad if there is someone in the UK who can do the job?

If we can't compete with Europeans then we need to up our game and
acquire the skills we need to be at the forefront of the jobs
mmarket. The market tells us which of our skills are no longer
competitive and which ones are most desirable.

Britain is poor at life time training but it's common in Europe where
the idea of a job for life is not so prevalent.

tim...

2017-11-11 18:10:32 UTC

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 00:58:12 +0000, Altroy1

Post by Altroy1
James was on a stronger point when he argued against a race to
the bottom or drinking the Kool-Aid of divide and conquer. Most
people angry at immigration ought to be angry instead at
employers bringing in people from say 1,500 miles away when
people two miles down the road are willing to do the job. The
quarrel, if any, should be with the employers. Foreign workers
do not "take our jobs" rather employers choose to give them
jobs.

So you are arguing, whether or not we have free movement of
people, the answer is for employers not to employ someone from
abroad if there is someone in the UK who can do the job?

The problem that we have is that Europeans can come here, take a minimum
wage job for 16 hours a week and have their salary topped up by benefits to
the "living wage" to support your family (assuming that you have a family)

No other country does that

Elsewhere if you want to support a family you have to find a job that pays
you enough to support a family and if you can't do that, you stay at home.

This means that people will come her to do jobs way below that which they
are qualified for and leads to employers having an almost endless supply of
applicants and thus have no need to offer "career" opportunities

Post by pamela
Britain is poor at life time training but it's common in Europe where
the idea of a job for life is not so prevalent.

Because employers have gotten use to this endless supply of willing workers
they have dismantled their training schemes

they will have to reinstate them, for the benefit of everybody

tim

pensive hamster

2017-11-11 18:25:01 UTC

Post by Altroy1
James was on a stronger point when he argued against a race to
the bottom or drinking the Kool-Aid of divide and conquer. Most
people angry at immigration ought to be angry instead at
employers bringing in people from say 1,500 miles away when
people two miles down the road are willing to do the job. The
quarrel, if any, should be with the employers. Foreign workers
do not "take our jobs" rather employers choose to give them
jobs.

So you are arguing, whether or not we have free movement of
people, the answer is for employers not to employ someone from
abroad if there is someone in the UK who can do the job?

Does the EU force us to do that? If so, why does it force
us to do that, but not other countries in the EU?

Post by tim...
Elsewhere if you want to support a family you have to find a job that pays
you enough to support a family and if you can't do that, you stay at home.
This means that people will come her to do jobs way below that which they
are qualified for and leads to employers having an almost endless supply of
applicants and thus have no need to offer "career" opportunities

Post by pamela
Britain is poor at life time training but it's common in Europe where
the idea of a job for life is not so prevalent.

Because employers have gotten use to this endless supply of willing workers
they have dismantled their training schemes
they will have to reinstate them, for the benefit of everybody
tim

tim...

2017-11-11 18:35:44 UTC

Post by Altroy1
James was on a stronger point when he argued against a race to
the bottom or drinking the Kool-Aid of divide and conquer. Most
people angry at immigration ought to be angry instead at
employers bringing in people from say 1,500 miles away when
people two miles down the road are willing to do the job. The
quarrel, if any, should be with the employers. Foreign workers
do not "take our jobs" rather employers choose to give them
jobs.

So you are arguing, whether or not we have free movement of
people, the answer is for employers not to employ someone from
abroad if there is someone in the UK who can do the job?

Does the EU force us to do that?

nope

we do it for our own citizens so we have to offer it to all EU citizens

we could try to undo it but just look at the resultant furore when the
Tories tried the first step - cutting WTCs

Politically, we are stuck with it.

Post by pensive hamster
If so, why does it force
us to do that, but not other countries in the EU?

other countries have contributory benefits which we do not.

If you've never contributed you have few rights to benefits - your family
has to look after you (or you beg in the streets)

we broke that family responsibly link 40 years ago.

tim

pamela

2017-11-11 18:47:53 UTC

Post by Altroy1
James was on a stronger point when he argued against a
race to the bottom or drinking the Kool-Aid of divide and
conquer. Most people angry at immigration ought to be
angry instead at employers bringing in people from say
1,500 miles away when people two miles down the road are
willing to do the job. The quarrel, if any, should be with
the employers. Foreign workers do not "take our jobs"
rather employers choose to give them jobs.

So you are arguing, whether or not we have free movement of
people, the answer is for employers not to employ someone
from abroad if there is someone in the UK who can do the
job?

Does the EU force us to do that?

nope
we do it for our own citizens so we have to offer it to all EU
citizens
we could try to undo it but just look at the resultant furore
when the Tories tried the first step - cutting WTCs
Politically, we are stuck with it.

Many countries have residency qualifications for benefits. If I
recall correctly, Blair positively welcomed workers from newly
accessioned countries such a Poland knowing they could qualify
receive benefits.

Although this isn't the real problem because the vast majority of
EU foreigners here pay taxes and do not receive benefits.

In fact, the largest group of benefits recipients in this country
are British pensioners.

Post by pensive hamster
If so, why does it force
us to do that, but not other countries in the EU?

other countries have contributory benefits which we do not.
If you've never contributed you have few rights to benefits -
your family has to look after you (or you beg in the streets)
we broke that family responsibly link 40 years ago.
tim

tim...

2017-11-11 20:48:29 UTC

Post by Altroy1
James was on a stronger point when he argued against a
race to the bottom or drinking the Kool-Aid of divide and
conquer. Most people angry at immigration ought to be
angry instead at employers bringing in people from say
1,500 miles away when people two miles down the road are
willing to do the job. The quarrel, if any, should be with
the employers. Foreign workers do not "take our jobs"
rather employers choose to give them jobs.

So you are arguing, whether or not we have free movement of
people, the answer is for employers not to employ someone
from abroad if there is someone in the UK who can do the
job?

Does the EU force us to do that?

nope
we do it for our own citizens so we have to offer it to all EU citizens
we could try to undo it but just look at the resultant furore
when the Tories tried the first step - cutting WTCs
Politically, we are stuck with it.

Many countries have residency qualifications for benefits. If I
recall correctly,

but once they come here they are residents, so they qualify

Post by pamela
Blair positively welcomed workers from newly
accessioned countries such a Poland knowing they could qualify
receive benefits.
Although this isn't the real problem because the vast majority of
EU foreigners here pay taxes and do not receive benefits.

Nonsense

Post by pamela
In fact, the largest group of benefits recipients in this country
are British pensioners.

That's true, but irrelevant (because they don't push down terms and
condition for workers)

tim

pamela

2017-11-11 21:19:03 UTC

Post by Altroy1
James was on a stronger point when he argued against a
race to the bottom or drinking the Kool-Aid of divide
and conquer. Most people angry at immigration ought to
be angry instead at employers bringing in people from
say 1,500 miles away when people two miles down the road
are willing to do the job. The quarrel, if any, should
be with the employers. Foreign workers do not "take our
jobs" rather employers choose to give them jobs.

So you are arguing, whether or not we have free movement
of people, the answer is for employers not to employ
someone from abroad if there is someone in the UK who can
do the job?

Does the EU force us to do that?

nope
we do it for our own citizens so we have to offer it to all EU citizens
we could try to undo it but just look at the resultant furore
when the Tories tried the first step - cutting WTCs
Politically, we are stuck with it.

Many countries have residency qualifications for benefits. If I
recall correctly,

but once they come here they are residents, so they qualify

Whoosh! Well that went over your head.

A bit like the meaning of "Syndrome X" I guess.

Post by pamela
Blair positively welcomed workers from newly
accessioned countries such a Poland knowing they could qualify
receive benefits.
Although this isn't the real problem because the vast majority
of EU foreigners here pay taxes and do not receive benefits.

Nonsense

Please cite your figures, if you have any, to show that's untrue.

Post by pamela
In fact, the largest group of benefits recipients in this
country are British pensioners.

That's true, but irrelevant (because they don't push down terms
and condition for workers)

Nor do unemployed EU nationals in the UK which is what we were
talking about and what I was comparing. Are you able to follow
this discussion?

tim...

2017-11-12 10:10:58 UTC

Post by Altroy1
James was on a stronger point when he argued against a
race to the bottom or drinking the Kool-Aid of divide
and conquer. Most people angry at immigration ought to
be angry instead at employers bringing in people from
say 1,500 miles away when people two miles down the road
are willing to do the job. The quarrel, if any, should
be with the employers. Foreign workers do not "take our
jobs" rather employers choose to give them jobs.

So you are arguing, whether or not we have free movement
of people, the answer is for employers not to employ
someone from abroad if there is someone in the UK who can
do the job?

Does the EU force us to do that?

nope
we do it for our own citizens so we have to offer it to all EU citizens
we could try to undo it but just look at the resultant furore
when the Tories tried the first step - cutting WTCs
Politically, we are stuck with it.

Many countries have residency qualifications for benefits. If I
recall correctly,

but once they come here they are residents, so they qualify

Whoosh! Well that went over your head.

They why did you bring it up if you were joking

Post by pamela
A bit like the meaning of "Syndrome X" I guess.

Post by pamela
Blair positively welcomed workers from newly
accessioned countries such a Poland knowing they could qualify
receive benefits.
Although this isn't the real problem because the vast majority
of EU foreigners here pay taxes and do not receive benefits.

Nonsense

Please cite your figures, if you have any, to show that's untrue.

it's easy

they come with children

they get child benefit at the very least

there are also many in minimum wage jobs topped up with WTC (as anyone with
a family in a minimum wage job would be).

the idea that there are none of these people is nonsense.

Post by pamela
In fact, the largest group of benefits recipients in this
country are British pensioners.

That's true, but irrelevant (because they don't push down terms
and condition for workers)

Nor do unemployed EU nationals in the UK

when they take jobs at minimum wage on the usurious terms and condition set
by rogue employers, yes they do

And as these rogue employers spread, their competition has to move down to
there lower standards to compete

It causes a race to the bottom for employment terms.

Post by pamela
which is what we were
talking about and what I was comparing. Are you able to follow
this discussion?

my points are entirely relevant to the discussion

it is you who is being the numpty in not understanding

tim

pamela

2017-11-13 10:57:16 UTC

Post by Altroy1
message
news:4621e727-1f1d-4e85-9e9a-

Post by Altroy1
James was on a stronger point when he argued against a
race to the bottom or drinking the Kool-Aid of divide
and conquer. Most people angry at immigration ought to
be angry instead at employers bringing in people from
say 1,500 miles away when people two miles down the
road are willing to do the job. The quarrel, if any,
should be with the employers. Foreign workers do not
"take our jobs" rather employers choose to give them
jobs.

So you are arguing, whether or not we have free
movement of people, the answer is for employers not to
employ someone from abroad if there is someone in the
UK who can do the job?

Does the EU force us to do that?

nope
we do it for our own citizens so we have to offer it to all EU citizens
we could try to undo it but just look at the resultant
furore when the Tories tried the first step - cutting WTCs
Politically, we are stuck with it.

Many countries have residency qualifications for benefits. If
I recall correctly,

but once they come here they are residents, so they qualify

Whoosh! Well that went over your head.

They why did you bring it up if you were joking

Post by pamela
A bit like the meaning of "Syndrome X" I guess.

Post by pamela
Blair positively welcomed workers from newly accessioned
countries such a Poland knowing they could qualify receive
benefits.
Although this isn't the real problem because the vast
majority of EU foreigners here pay taxes and do not receive
benefits.

Nonsense

Please cite your figures, if you have any, to show that's
untrue.

it's easy
they come with children
they get child benefit at the very least
there are also many in minimum wage jobs topped up with WTC (as
anyone with a family in a minimum wage job would be).
the idea that there are none of these people is nonsense.

I wrote: "the vast majority of EU foreigners here pay taxes and
do not receive benefits". Did you miss where I wrote "vast
majority"? I didn't write "everyone".

What I said specifically allows for dependents, which is why I
wrote it.

Post by pamela
In fact, the largest group of benefits recipients in this
country are British pensioners.

That's true, but irrelevant (because they don't push down
terms and condition for workers)

Nor do unemployed EU nationals in the UK

when they take jobs at minimum wage on the usurious terms and
condition set by rogue employers, yes they do

If employers are breaking the law then they should be prosecuted.
Why blame those being exploited for the exploitation? Most
probably the employers are native Brits but, intriguingly, you
don't say they're the main cause of the problem.

Post by tim...
And as these rogue employers spread, their competition has to
move down to there lower standards to compete
It causes a race to the bottom for employment terms.

Mentioning rogue employers clouds the issue, which is what you
have called a "race for the bottom". We already have a minimum
wage to prevent gross exploitation of those at the bottom.

The fact is.... low skills gets low pay. Skills that are in
oversupply are not wanted. The answer is to adapt by retraining
just as happens in less rigid countries. Gone are the days of
leaving school and getting a job for life.

Post by pamela
which is what we were talking about and what I was comparing.
Are you able to follow this discussion?

my points are entirely relevant to the discussion

You missed "majority" above.

You also incorrectly believed the presence of any dependents made
my statement untrue.

tim...

2017-11-13 11:42:28 UTC

Post by Altroy1
message
news:4621e727-1f1d-4e85-9e9a-

Post by Altroy1
James was on a stronger point when he argued against a
race to the bottom or drinking the Kool-Aid of divide
and conquer. Most people angry at immigration ought to
be angry instead at employers bringing in people from
say 1,500 miles away when people two miles down the
road are willing to do the job. The quarrel, if any,
should be with the employers. Foreign workers do not
"take our jobs" rather employers choose to give them
jobs.

So you are arguing, whether or not we have free
movement of people, the answer is for employers not to
employ someone from abroad if there is someone in the
UK who can do the job?

Does the EU force us to do that?

nope
we do it for our own citizens so we have to offer it to all EU citizens
we could try to undo it but just look at the resultant
furore when the Tories tried the first step - cutting WTCs
Politically, we are stuck with it.

Many countries have residency qualifications for benefits. If
I recall correctly,

but once they come here they are residents, so they qualify

Whoosh! Well that went over your head.

They why did you bring it up if you were joking

Post by pamela
A bit like the meaning of "Syndrome X" I guess.

Post by pamela
Blair positively welcomed workers from newly accessioned
countries such a Poland knowing they could qualify receive
benefits.
Although this isn't the real problem because the vast
majority of EU foreigners here pay taxes and do not receive
benefits.

Nonsense

Please cite your figures, if you have any, to show that's
untrue.

it's easy
they come with children
they get child benefit at the very least
there are also many in minimum wage jobs topped up with WTC (as
anyone with a family in a minimum wage job would be).
the idea that there are none of these people is nonsense.

I wrote: "the vast majority of EU foreigners here pay taxes and
do not receive benefits". Did you miss where I wrote "vast
majority"? I didn't write "everyone".

I know

but I still think that you are wrong

the majority DO receive benefits

Post by pamela
What I said specifically allows for dependents, which is why I
wrote it.

Post by pamela
In fact, the largest group of benefits recipients in this
country are British pensioners.

That's true, but irrelevant (because they don't push down
terms and condition for workers)

Nor do unemployed EU nationals in the UK

when they take jobs at minimum wage on the usurious terms and
condition set by rogue employers, yes they do

If employers are breaking the law then they should be prosecuted.

They aren't breaking the law

Post by pamela
Why blame those being exploited for the exploitation? Most
probably the employers are native Brits but, intriguingly, you
don't say they're the main cause of the problem.

Post by tim...
And as these rogue employers spread, their competition has to
move down to there lower standards to compete
It causes a race to the bottom for employment terms.

Mentioning rogue employers clouds the issue, which is what you
have called a "race for the bottom". We already have a minimum
wage to prevent gross exploitation of those at the bottom.

but not on terms and conditions.

and even on the minimum wage there are many companies that try to pay less
than that by counting some necessary attendance time as not working time.

Post by pamela
The fact is.... low skills gets low pay.

Oh I agree

but that doesn't mean slavery terms and conditions

Post by pamela
Skills that are in
oversupply are not wanted. The answer is to adapt by retraining
just as happens in less rigid countries. Gone are the days of
leaving school and getting a job for life.

How does an individual on minimum wage with no saving re-train themselves

Traditionally retraining has been done by employers

we need to move back to that norm

Post by pamela
which is what we were talking about and what I was comparing.
Are you able to follow this discussion?

my points are entirely relevant to the discussion

You missed "majority" above.

No I didn't

I disagree with it

Post by pamela
You also incorrectly believed the presence of any dependents made
my statement untrue.

If that dependent is entitled to child allowance, it must, mustn't it

tim

pensive hamster

2017-11-11 19:33:42 UTC

[...]

Post by tim...
The problem that we have is that Europeans can come here, take a minimum
wage job for 16 hours a week and have their salary topped up by benefits to
the "living wage" to support your family (assuming that you have a family)
No other country does that

Does the EU force us to do that?

nope
we do it for our own citizens so we have to offer it to all EU citizens
we could try to undo it but just look at the resultant furore when the
Tories tried the first step - cutting WTCs
Politically, we are stuck with it.

It seems a bit silly and irrational. Partly because it encourages
immigration from EU countries, and if high immigration from EU
countries was a factor in people voting for Brexit, then Brexit may
be partly the result of the UK benefits system, which seems crazy.

Plus it appears to subsidise employers paying minimum wage
jobs, if the taxpayer tops up the salary, that the employer would
otherwise have to pay in order to attract employees. That really
distorts the employer-worker, or the demand-supply relationship.

Post by pensive hamster
If so, why does it force
us to do that, but not other countries in the EU?

other countries have contributory benefits which we do not.
If you've never contributed you have few rights to benefits - your family
has to look after you (or you beg in the streets)
we broke that family responsibly link 40 years ago.
tim

Yellow

2017-11-11 20:02:57 UTC

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 11:33:42 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster

Post by pensive hamster
[...]

Does the EU force us to do that?

nope
we do it for our own citizens so we have to offer it to all EU citizens
we could try to undo it but just look at the resultant furore when the
Tories tried the first step - cutting WTCs
Politically, we are stuck with it.

It seems a bit silly and irrational. Partly because it encourages
immigration from EU countries, and if high immigration from EU
countries was a factor in people voting for Brexit, then Brexit may
be partly the result of the UK benefits system, which seems crazy.
Plus it appears to subsidise employers paying minimum wage
jobs, if the taxpayer tops up the salary, that the employer would
otherwise have to pay in order to attract employees. That really
distorts the employer-worker, or the demand-supply relationship.

Gordon Brown came up with this wheeze and as we see with pensioner
benefits too, it is politically very difficult to take something away
once it is given.

tim...

2017-11-11 20:52:27 UTC

Post by pensive hamster
[...]

Post by tim...
The problem that we have is that Europeans can come here, take a minimum
wage job for 16 hours a week and have their salary topped up by
benefits
to
the "living wage" to support your family (assuming that you have a family)
No other country does that

Does the EU force us to do that?

nope
we do it for our own citizens so we have to offer it to all EU citizens
we could try to undo it but just look at the resultant furore when the
Tories tried the first step - cutting WTCs
Politically, we are stuck with it.

It seems a bit silly and irrational. Partly because it encourages
immigration from EU countries, and if high immigration from EU
countries was a factor in people voting for Brexit, then Brexit may
be partly the result of the UK benefits system, which seems crazy.
Plus it appears to subsidise employers paying minimum wage
jobs, if the taxpayer tops up the salary, that the employer would
otherwise have to pay in order to attract employees. That really
distorts the employer-worker, or the demand-supply relationship.

Yep that's exactly right

and what is worse is employers who take even more advantage of the system by
offering part time work on shift patterns that make it very difficult for
the worker to take a second part time job to make up the salary (presumably
on the grounds that that don't want the worker to have any impediment to
working extra shifts if necessary)

tim

pamela

2017-11-11 21:20:52 UTC

Post by pensive hamster
[...]

Post by tim...
The problem that we have is that Europeans can come here,
take a minimum
wage job for 16 hours a week and have their salary topped
up by benefits
to
the "living wage" to support your family (assuming that you have a family)
No other country does that

Does the EU force us to do that?

nope
we do it for our own citizens so we have to offer it to all EU citizens
we could try to undo it but just look at the resultant furore
when the Tories tried the first step - cutting WTCs
Politically, we are stuck with it.

It seems a bit silly and irrational. Partly because it
encourages immigration from EU countries, and if high
immigration from EU countries was a factor in people voting for
Brexit, then Brexit may be partly the result of the UK benefits
system, which seems crazy.
Plus it appears to subsidise employers paying minimum wage
jobs, if the taxpayer tops up the salary, that the employer
would otherwise have to pay in order to attract employees.
That really distorts the employer-worker, or the demand-supply
relationship.

Yep that's exactly right
and what is worse is employers who take even more advantage of
the system by offering part time work on shift patterns that
make it very difficult for the worker to take a second part time
job to make up the salary (presumably on the grounds that that
don't want the worker to have any impediment to working extra
shifts if necessary)

That sounds like paranoia. Those shift patterns are almost always
set by the requirements of the job, not a wish to thwart other
work.

tim...

2017-11-12 10:05:10 UTC

Post by pamela
That sounds like paranoia. Those shift patterns are almost always
set by the requirements of the job, not a wish to thwart other
work.

I take it you've not seen some of the shift patterns these companies
construct

tim

pamela

2017-11-12 10:27:19 UTC

Post by pamela
That sounds like paranoia. Those shift patterns are almost
always set by the requirements of the job, not a wish to thwart
other work.

I take it you've not seen some of the shift patterns these
companies construct
tim

I am not clear what you are specifically referring to. Can you give
a real-life example.

tim...

2017-11-12 14:02:42 UTC

Post by pamela
That sounds like paranoia. Those shift patterns are almost
always set by the requirements of the job, not a wish to thwart
other work.

I take it you've not seen some of the shift patterns these
companies construct
tim

I am not clear what you are specifically referring to. Can you give
a real-life example.

real life example

my local supermarket increased its square footage and as such needed extra
staff

it created 100+ positions

every single one of the entry level positions that did not require "previous
retail management experienced" were

part time, 16 hours per week, 3 shifts per week, randomly spread through the
week as one morning, one afternoon and one evening shift.

Why oh why would such a complicated shift pattern be beneficial to the
supermarket?

Do they really think that there are people out there for which such a shift
pattern is exactly what they want, instead of a traditional 3/4 morning
shifts or 3/4 afternoon shifts (or even 2 full day shifts?) - I doubt it.

does it make managing each persons attendance easier - nope.

Does it make having more people on shift on one day of the week/part of the
day easier - nope.

does it make the shifts accessible to people who have caring
responsibilities - nope

does it make the shifts accessible to people who want evening work only
(like students) nope.

It seems to have no advantages at all, except one

It makes it next to impossible for the people who take the job to find
another part time job to fit around the stupid set of shifts that you have
allocated them here.

and why no full time entry level jobs?

tim

pamela

2017-11-12 20:30:53 UTC

Post by pamela
That sounds like paranoia. Those shift patterns are almost
always set by the requirements of the job, not a wish to
thwart other work.

I take it you've not seen some of the shift patterns these
companies construct
tim

I am not clear what you are specifically referring to. Can you
give a real-life example.

real life example
my local supermarket increased its square footage and as such
needed extra staff
it created 100+ positions
every single one of the entry level positions that did not
require "previous retail management experienced" were
part time, 16 hours per week, 3 shifts per week, randomly spread
through the week as one morning, one afternoon and one evening
shift.
Why oh why would such a complicated shift pattern be beneficial
to the supermarket?
Do they really think that there are people out there for which
such a shift pattern is exactly what they want, instead of a
traditional 3/4 morning shifts or 3/4 afternoon shifts (or even
2 full day shifts?) - I doubt it.
does it make managing each persons attendance easier - nope.
Does it make having more people on shift on one day of the
week/part of the day easier - nope.
does it make the shifts accessible to people who have caring
responsibilities - nope
does it make the shifts accessible to people who want evening
work only (like students) nope.
It seems to have no advantages at all, except one
It makes it next to impossible for the people who take the job
to find another part time job to fit around the stupid set of
shifts that you have allocated them here.
and why no full time entry level jobs?
tim

What prrof do you have that the supermarket has arranged those
shifts deliberately in order to prevent the staff taking on other
work?

tim...

2017-11-13 11:36:00 UTC

Post by pamela
What prrof do you have that the supermarket has arranged those
shifts deliberately in order to prevent the staff taking on other
work?

I don't

but it's the only conclusion that makes any sense

got another one, because I haven't

Christie

2017-11-12 00:20:36 UTC

... Brexit may be partly the result of the UK benefits system, which
seems crazy.

Wasn't it initially crazy, though, to relinquish our sovereignty to the
EU to such an extent that the EU now dictate, in the way that they have,
how and who benefits from our own UK benefits system?

Ophelia

2017-11-12 10:12:43 UTC

... Brexit may be partly the result of the UK benefits system, which
seems crazy.

Wasn't it initially crazy, though, to relinquish our sovereignty to the
EU to such an extent that the EU now dictate, in the way that they have,
how and who benefits from our own UK benefits system?

==

AMEN!

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Yellow

2017-11-11 18:37:49 UTC

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 10:25:01 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster

Post by Altroy1
James was on a stronger point when he argued against a race to
the bottom or drinking the Kool-Aid of divide and conquer. Most
people angry at immigration ought to be angry instead at
employers bringing in people from say 1,500 miles away when
people two miles down the road are willing to do the job. The
quarrel, if any, should be with the employers. Foreign workers
do not "take our jobs" rather employers choose to give them
jobs.

So you are arguing, whether or not we have free movement of
people, the answer is for employers not to employ someone from
abroad if there is someone in the UK who can do the job?

Does the EU force us to do that?

The EU forces the UK to offer the same benefits to every EU citizen.

Post by pensive hamster
If so, why does it force
us to do that, but not other countries in the EU?

The UK gives this benefit to its own citizens therefore it has to give
to all EU citizens. We cannot pick and choose.

pamela

2017-11-11 18:52:50 UTC

Post by Yellow
On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 10:25:01 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster

Post by Altroy1
James was on a stronger point when he argued against a
race to the bottom or drinking the Kool-Aid of divide and
conquer. Most people angry at immigration ought to be
angry instead at employers bringing in people from say
1,500 miles away when people two miles down the road are
willing to do the job. The quarrel, if any, should be
with the employers. Foreign workers do not "take our
jobs" rather employers choose to give them jobs.

So you are arguing, whether or not we have free movement
of people, the answer is for employers not to employ
someone from abroad if there is someone in the UK who can
do the job?

Does the EU force us to do that?

The EU forces the UK to offer the same benefits to every EU
citizen.

Post by pensive hamster
If so, why does it force
us to do that, but not other countries in the EU?

The UK gives this benefit to its own citizens therefore it has
to give to all EU citizens. We cannot pick and choose.

The UK is more generous than the typcial EU country in who it
allows to qualify for benefits. We should have introduced these
sorts of restrictions much earlier....

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN
07145

pamela

2017-11-11 18:43:58 UTC

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 00:58:12 +0000, Altroy1

Post by Altroy1
James was on a stronger point when he argued against a race
to the bottom or drinking the Kool-Aid of divide and conquer.
Most people angry at immigration ought to be angry instead at
employers bringing in people from say 1,500 miles away when
people two miles down the road are willing to do the job. The
quarrel, if any, should be with the employers. Foreign
workers do not "take our jobs" rather employers choose to
give them jobs.

So you are arguing, whether or not we have free movement of
people, the answer is for employers not to employ someone from
abroad if there is someone in the UK who can do the job?

That rarely happens. Most EU workers here are full time. And
they work a sight harder than the average slack Brit worker.

Post by tim...
No other country does that
Elsewhere if you want to support a family you have to find a job
that pays you enough to support a family and if you can't do
that, you stay at home.
This means that people will come her to do jobs way below that
which they are qualified for and leads to employers having an
almost endless supply of applicants and thus have no need to
offer "career" opportunities

The UK allowed any EU citizen to access its generous welfare
benefits system. It didn't have to. Few other countries do.
It's a system of our own creation.

Post by pamela
Britain is poor at life time training but it's common in Europe
where the idea of a job for life is not so prevalent.

Because employers have gotten use to this endless supply of
willing workers they have dismantled their training schemes
they will have to reinstate them, for the benefit of everybody

Britian's dismissive attitude towards training predates us joining
the EU. For a very long time Britain didn't value education and
offered its workers few in-work qualifications. I joined an
American multinational from a UK multinational and was amazed at
the amount of training we were given.... weeks and weeks of
residential courses.

Many British politicians and civil servants are avowed amateurs
whose only qualification is a degree in classics or some such
irrelevant rubbish. At the other end of the labour market, Germans
apprenticeships were for a long time something to be marvelled at
but not implemented.

The European middle classes rose and became so successful because
their social and work systems rewarded education much more highly
than our own.

tim...

2017-11-11 20:44:47 UTC

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 00:58:12 +0000, Altroy1

Post by Altroy1
James was on a stronger point when he argued against a race
to the bottom or drinking the Kool-Aid of divide and conquer.
Most people angry at immigration ought to be angry instead at
employers bringing in people from say 1,500 miles away when
people two miles down the road are willing to do the job. The
quarrel, if any, should be with the employers. Foreign
workers do not "take our jobs" rather employers choose to
give them jobs.

So you are arguing, whether or not we have free movement of
people, the answer is for employers not to employ someone from
abroad if there is someone in the UK who can do the job?

That rarely happens. Most EU workers here are full time.

I bet you they are not

Post by pamela
And
they work a sight harder than the average slack Brit worker.

That's as maybe

It's irrelevant if all that is on offer is part timework

The UK allowed any EU citizen to access its generous welfare
benefits system. It didn't have to.

It does if it wants to have that generous system

it cannot have that system and deny it to the foreigners

Post by pamela
Few other countries do.
It's a system of our own creation.

Unfortunately it is

If you think I am arguing for a continuation of our ludicrously generous
benefits system you've got the wrong man

I think we should cut it back to a contributory system.

unfortunately that a task that politically 100 time harder than getting a
good Brexiot deal is going to be

tim

Altroy1

2017-11-11 21:59:20 UTC

So you are arguing, whether or not we have free movement of people, the
answer is for employers not to employ someone from abroad if there is
someone in the UK who can do the job?

I would not argue for banning foreign workers, all deserve a level playing field
of which I will expand a little later. As to a your reply in another thread
about the EU forcing the same welfare benefit rights for EU workers, I prefer
James O'Briens point about not getting very far if you try to go to Belgium to
live if you don't find a job fairly quickly. The EU's rules don't appear to
force Belgium to give other EU citizens the same welfare rights from the moment
their shoes touch a Belgian Airport's tarmac.

If that were the case then EU workers wouldnt be so vulnerable NB if you have no
welfare to fall back on you would fear much more the sack and would do your
level best to work your butt off to keep your line managers happy.

I get it that certain agricultural work far from urban centres there is
objective justification for EU flexible migrant workers but that does not
explain the attractiveness of EU workers in some of these large urban based
warehouses that have been in the news, not just for the zero hours hire and fire
culture but for employing EU workers that would suffer more from being sacked
not least that they may be further from their homes or families.

I would certainly like to see stopped, if it does happen, an end to employment
agencies hawking for workers abroad unless they are prepared to make similar
efforts to find workers living down the road. James O'B is right though that to
treat your fellow worker as an interloper is to drink a false Kool-Aid divide
and rule delusion.

Yellow

2017-11-11 21:51:37 UTC

So you are arguing, whether or not we have free movement of people, the
answer is for employers not to employ someone from abroad if there is
someone in the UK who can do the job?

I would not argue for banning foreign workers, all deserve a level playing field
of which I will expand a little later.

No one is suggesting the banning of foreign workers, so answer the
question.

Post by Altroy1
As to a your reply in another thread
about the EU forcing the same welfare benefit rights for EU workers, I prefer
James O'Briens point about not getting very far if you try to go to Belgium to
live if you don't find a job fairly quickly. The EU's rules don't appear to
force Belgium to give other EU citizens the same welfare rights from the moment
their shoes touch a Belgian Airport's tarmac.

If a benefit is available to a particular country's citizens then it has
to be available to everyone from the EU who lives there, and that rule
applies here as it does in Belgium.

And you would also hear the likes of O'Brien screaming blue murder
should any attempt be made by the UK government to reduce the level of
benefits here.

pamela

2017-11-12 10:28:45 UTC

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 21:59:20 +0000, Altroy1

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 00:58:12 +0000, Altroy1

Post by Altroy1
James was on a stronger point when he argued against a race
to the bottom or drinking the Kool-Aid of divide and
conquer. Most people angry at immigration ought to be angry
instead at employers bringing in people from say 1,500 miles
away when people two miles down the road are willing to do
the job. The quarrel, if any, should be with the employers.
Foreign workers do not "take our jobs" rather employers
choose to give them jobs.

So you are arguing, whether or not we have free movement of
people, the answer is for employers not to employ someone
from abroad if there is someone in the UK who can do the job?

I would not argue for banning foreign workers, all deserve a
level playing field of which I will expand a little later.

No one is suggesting the banning of foreign workers, so answer
the question.

Post by Altroy1
As to a your reply in another thread
about the EU forcing the same welfare benefit rights for EU
workers, I prefer James O'Briens point about not getting very
far if you try to go to Belgium to live if you don't find a job
fairly quickly. The EU's rules don't appear to force Belgium to
give other EU citizens the same welfare rights from the moment
their shoes touch a Belgian Airport's tarmac.

If a benefit is available to a particular country's citizens
then it has to be available to everyone from the EU who lives
there, and that rule applies here as it does in Belgium.

Whoosh!!!
<===== your head

Why not go back and read what has been said about how Belgium
manages residency. It was explained to you clearly enough but you
don't seem to understand it.

And you would also hear the likes of O'Brien screaming blue
murder should any attempt be made by the UK government to reduce
the level of benefits here.

tim...

2017-11-12 14:05:00 UTC

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 21:59:20 +0000, Altroy1

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 00:58:12 +0000, Altroy1

Post by Altroy1
James was on a stronger point when he argued against a race
to the bottom or drinking the Kool-Aid of divide and
conquer. Most people angry at immigration ought to be angry
instead at employers bringing in people from say 1,500 miles
away when people two miles down the road are willing to do
the job. The quarrel, if any, should be with the employers.
Foreign workers do not "take our jobs" rather employers
choose to give them jobs.

So you are arguing, whether or not we have free movement of
people, the answer is for employers not to employ someone
from abroad if there is someone in the UK who can do the job?

I would not argue for banning foreign workers, all deserve a
level playing field of which I will expand a little later.

No one is suggesting the banning of foreign workers, so answer
the question.

Post by Altroy1
As to a your reply in another thread
about the EU forcing the same welfare benefit rights for EU
workers, I prefer James O'Briens point about not getting very
far if you try to go to Belgium to live if you don't find a job
fairly quickly. The EU's rules don't appear to force Belgium to
give other EU citizens the same welfare rights from the moment
their shoes touch a Belgian Airport's tarmac.

If a benefit is available to a particular country's citizens
then it has to be available to everyone from the EU who lives
there, and that rule applies here as it does in Belgium.

Whoosh!!!
<===== your head
Why not go back and read what has been said about how Belgium
manages residency. It was explained to you clearly enough but you
don't seem to understand it.

How does Belgium manage residency?

ISTM that it is obliged to follow EU rules on this

if you live there you are a resident if you don't you are not

what other way could they contrive it to mean

tim...

2017-11-12 10:50:29 UTC

So you are arguing, whether or not we have free movement of people, the
answer is for employers not to employ someone from abroad if there is
someone in the UK who can do the job?

I would not argue for banning foreign workers, all deserve a level playing field
of which I will expand a little later.

No one is suggesting the banning of foreign workers, so answer the
question.

If a benefit is available to a particular country's citizens then it has
to be available to everyone from the EU who lives there, and that rule
applies here as it does in Belgium.

you missed out a crucial part of the rule which is that they must be
"economically active"

we can, as can the Belgians, throw out the habitually unemployed (three
months is the limit you can stay "looking for work")

tim

Altroy1

2017-11-12 21:49:55 UTC

So you are arguing, whether or not we have free movement of people, the
answer is for employers not to employ someone from abroad if there is
someone in the UK who can do the job?

I would not argue for banning foreign workers, all deserve a level playing field
of which I will expand a little later.

No one is suggesting the banning of foreign workers, so answer the
question.

Some (e.g Britain first) might be.

But in relation to your question I cast my mind back to Gordon Brown's British
jobs for British workers soundbite which didn't go well for him.

Its a question with a complex answer which needs more thought. At present I'm
not sure that job applicants ought to be required to produce passports or
residency papers. I presume the law at present requires employers to be
impartial as regards workers at home and EU workers from abroad, but can choose
a locally based employee all things being equal.

Perhaps something might be done about certain employers that have a hire and
fire target culture because with the inevitable high turnover, free movement can
become a resource a little too convenient at times.

If a benefit is available to a particular country's citizens then it has
to be available to everyone from the EU who lives there, and that rule
applies here as it does in Belgium.

I'm not sure that's right. I'm not sure that a Belgian jobseeker can make a
Jobseekers or UC claim ten minutes after leaping out of a plane at Heathrow. The
legacy of free movement is about free movement of labour or workers NB
jobseekers are not workers.

Post by Yellow
And you would also hear the likes of O'Brien screaming blue murder
should any attempt be made by the UK government to reduce the level of
benefits here.

James has made a few salient points for example about Universal Credit ruining
peoples lives whilst the glitterati can import their fancy jets through the Isle
of Man tax free and shuffle their taxless gains about without a care in the
world between Jersey, Isle of Man, Cayman Islands and Mauritius.

After the discovery of a skeleton in a Leicstershire car-park, it was examined
by ATOS who pronounced Richard the Third fit for work.

Anyway to to link benefits to free movement is to drink the Kool-Aid of divide
and rule. If free movement is being abused, then one idea is to stop treating
employees as Adrian Beecroft Report economic units of a target culture to be
hired and fired at will.

Yellow

2017-11-12 21:16:41 UTC

So you are arguing, whether or not we have free movement of people, the
answer is for employers not to employ someone from abroad if there is
someone in the UK who can do the job?

I would not argue for banning foreign workers, all deserve a level
playing field of which I will expand a little later.

No one is suggesting the banning of foreign workers, so answer the
question.

Some (e.g Britain first) might be.

OK, I'll restate - no one outside of the extreme right wing, which is
unrepresentative of the UK population, is suggesting the banning of
foreign workers.

Post by Altroy1
But in relation to your question I cast my mind back to Gordon Brown's British
jobs for British workers soundbite which didn't go well for him.
Its a question with a complex answer which needs more thought. At present I'm
not sure that job applicants ought to be required to produce passports or
residency papers.

I believe they do.

Post by Altroy1
I presume the law at present requires employers to be
impartial as regards workers at home and EU workers from abroad, but can choose
a locally based employee all things being equal.

Why on earth would you think that? Because you are wrong.

Post by Altroy1
Perhaps something might be done about certain employers that have a hire and
fire target culture because with the inevitable high turnover, free movement can
become a resource a little too convenient at times.

It has been discussed at great length, the benefits to employers of the
free movememnt of people.

But you still have not answered the question.

pamela

2017-11-12 21:43:56 UTC

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 21:49:55 +0000, Altroy1

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 21:59:20 +0000, Altroy1

...........
I would not argue for banning foreign workers, all deserve a
level playing field of which I will expand a little later.

No one is suggesting the banning of foreign workers, so
answer the question.

Some (e.g Britain first) might be.

OK, I'll restate - no one outside of the extreme right wing,
which is unrepresentative of the UK population, is suggesting
the banning of foreign workers.

I suspect members of the extreme right voted Brexit and now want
Brexit to deliver their agenda.

Altroy1

2017-11-13 09:55:36 UTC

[...]

I believe they do.

I think as a general rule jobseekers are not required to produce residency
papers or passport at each job application, but of course an employer may
require these before offering a job - but that's a separate issue.

Why on earth would you think that? Because you are wrong.

I would think that if two candidates are equally qualified and have the same
shortlisting criteria then a tribunal or court would have a problem
demonstrating discrimination if an employer chose one over the other.

That is what I meant when I wrote "all things being equal".

It has been discussed at great length, the benefits to employers of the
free movememnt of people.
But you still have not answered the question.

Discussed at great length is right. Therefore the question is quite complicated
and I will avoid here giving a quick answer or come up with some kind of soundbite.

For example it does not seem amiss for a warehouse opening in an urban setting
packing parcels for online shoppers (and getting some sort of taxpayer funding)
to be asked to advertise in the local papers before advertising in Eastern Europe.

But if it is a call centre that sells to Eastern Europe and requires its call
handlers to be fluent in Eastern European languages then that is a different
kettle of fish. Or consider if it is an Internet startup business with very
particular skills in some obscure programming language or network hardware. Then
its recruitment procedures and/or ability to apply objective criteria with
respect to local geographical or national origin may be somewhat different to
that of a furniture packing company or a supermarket.

https://realbusiness.co.uk/law/2013/08/19/immigration-the-government-is-passing-the-buck/

http://www.hrmguide.co.uk/jobmarket/migrants-or-britons.htm

pamela

2017-11-13 10:54:46 UTC

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 21:49:55 +0000, Altroy1

[...]

Post by Altroy1
I presume the law at present requires employers to be
impartial as regards workers at home and EU workers from
abroad, but can choose a locally based employee all things
being equal.

Why on earth would you think that? Because you are wrong.

I would think that if two candidates are equally qualified and
have the same shortlisting criteria then a tribunal or court
would have a problem demonstrating discrimination if an employer
chose one over the other.
That is what I meant when I wrote "all things being equal".

I think Yellow misread your point an interpeted your example as
favouring the national. In fact, it doesn't say that. She gets things
like this mixed up sometimes.

Yellow

2017-11-13 11:28:57 UTC

Post by Altroy1
[...]

I believe they do.

You are wrong and employers have to ensure you have a right to work in
the UK.

Why on earth would you think that? Because you are wrong.

Again you are wrong and an employer can choose to employ anyone they
want for any reason they want, as long as they are not discriminating on
the basis of colour, age or sex etc or because a women is pregnant.

Post by Altroy1
That is what I meant when I wrote "all things being equal".

It is perfectly reasonable (and legal) to employ someone simply because
you like them or because you think they will fit in or for whatever
other reason makes you believe a particular person is more suitable than
someone else.

It has been discussed at great length, the benefits to employers of the
free movememnt of people.
But you still have not answered the question.

Discussed at great length is right. Therefore the question is quite complicated
and I will avoid here giving a quick answer or come up with some kind of soundbite.
For example it does not seem amiss for a warehouse opening in an urban setting
packing parcels for online shoppers (and getting some sort of taxpayer funding)
to be asked to advertise in the local papers before advertising in Eastern Europe.
But if it is a call centre that sells to Eastern Europe and requires its call
handlers to be fluent in Eastern European languages then that is a different
kettle of fish.
Or consider if it is an Internet startup business with very
particular skills in some obscure programming language or network hardware. Then
its recruitment procedures and/or ability to apply objective criteria with
respect to local geographical or national origin may be somewhat different to
that of a furniture packing company or a supermarket.
https://realbusiness.co.uk/law/2013/08/19/immigration-the-government-is-passing-the-buck/
http://www.hrmguide.co.uk/jobmarket/migrants-or-britons.htm

I will remind you of the question as you still skirting round it - do
you think a UK employer should only be allowed to employ someone from
abroad if there is no one in the UK who can fill the role?

Yes or no.

tim...

2017-11-13 12:01:31 UTC

Post by Altroy1
[...]

Post by Altroy1
But in relation to your question I cast my mind back to Gordon Brown's
British jobs for British workers soundbite which didn't go well for him.
Its a question with a complex answer which needs more thought. At
present I'm not sure that job applicants ought to be required to produce
passports or residency papers.

I believe they do.

ITYF that they are now required by law to ask for this

Obviously asking for it at application time is overkill

tim

Yellow

2017-11-12 21:27:42 UTC

Post by Yellow
If a benefit is available to a particular country's citizens then it has
to be available to everyone from the EU who lives there, and that rule
applies here as it does in Belgium.

I'm not sure that's right.

It is right. The rules are exactly the same for all citizens of the EU,
which includes UK citizens.

Post by Altroy1
I'm not sure that a Belgian jobseeker can make a
Jobseekers or UC claim ten minutes after leaping out of a plane at Heathrow. The
legacy of free movement is about free movement of labour or workers NB
jobseekers are not workers.

To repeat, the rules are exactly the same for all EU citizens. So in
this example the rules for an EU citizen arriving in the UK is the same
as for a returning UK citizen.

Ian Jackson

2017-11-12 22:01:31 UTC

Post by Yellow
If a benefit is available to a particular country's citizens then it has
to be available to everyone from the EU who lives there, and that rule
applies here as it does in Belgium.

I'm not sure that's right.

It is right. The rules are exactly the same for all citizens of the EU,
which includes UK citizens.

To repeat, the rules are exactly the same for all EU citizens. So in
this example the rules for an EU citizen arriving in the UK is the same
as for a returning UK citizen.

So are you saying that if a returning UK citizen can't find work, they
can be sent back to where the came from? Somehow, I think not!

--
Ian

Yellow

2017-11-12 22:57:39 UTC

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 22:01:31 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Yellow
If a benefit is available to a particular country's citizens then it has
to be available to everyone from the EU who lives there, and that rule
applies here as it does in Belgium.

I'm not sure that's right.

It is right. The rules are exactly the same for all citizens of the EU,
which includes UK citizens.

To repeat, the rules are exactly the same for all EU citizens. So in
this example the rules for an EU citizen arriving in the UK is the same
as for a returning UK citizen.

So are you saying that if a returning UK citizen can't find work, they
can be sent back to where the came from? Somehow, I think not!

Are you saying that non-UK EU citizens will? Somehow, I think not.

tim...

2017-11-12 10:47:37 UTC

Post by Altroy1
James was on a stronger point when he argued against a race to the
bottom or drinking the Kool-Aid of divide and conquer. Most people angry
at immigration ought to be angry instead at employers bringing in people
from say 1,500 miles away when people two miles down the road are
willing to do the job. The quarrel, if any, should be with the
employers. Foreign workers do not "take our jobs" rather employers
choose to give them jobs.

So you are arguing, whether or not we have free movement of people, the
answer is for employers not to employ someone from abroad if there is
someone in the UK who can do the job?

The problem isn't with the unemployed who come here (looking for work)

we only have to give that group minimum help.

It is the over generous in work benefits that we have that are the problem

All you need to do to turn on 15 grands worth of benefits is to work 16
hours in a minimum wage job. And it doesn't even need to be a real job, you
can just say that you are working self employed "car washing" - no one
checks that you really are working 16 hours, nor that it pays the minimum
wage if you do. All that happens is that you are assumed to have earned NMW
for those hours.

The rise of opportunities via Uber, Deliveroo etc only exacerbate that.
It's easy just to do 16 hour of work for Deliveroo, earning you a pittance,
as it opens up a world of benefits for you (though I accept that not all
Deliveroo workers are in this set - many do seem to be student doing evening
shifts)

Other countries do not have this system. They either don't have in work
benefits at all or restrict them to people who have a long record of past
contributions. I.e. you cannot get benefits to support you in your first
job - you stay at home with mummy and daddy supporting you until you have
established yourself in a job that will entirety support your life style
(partner, kids etc). None of this moving out as soon as you are 18, job or
no job, lark. Benefits are for the unfortunate (people who lose their job
through no fault), not a way of life for the "never worked" (or in this
case, the just arrived).

Post by Altroy1
If that were the case then EU workers wouldnt be so vulnerable NB if you
have no welfare to fall back on you would fear much more the sack and
would do your level best to work your butt off to keep your line managers
happy.

It's very hard to sack people in most of Europe, even with cause. Employers
have to show genuine attempts to resolve the problem first and most
companies will have a "workers" committees which will ensure that employers
don't "demand" employees do work outside of the contracted agreement.

And if you do lose your job due to redundancy, benefits are often much
better than here - but only for a limited time (decreasing over 1-2 years)
whilst you get yourself back into work.

Post by Altroy1
I get it that certain agricultural work far from urban centres there is
objective justification for EU flexible migrant workers but that does not
explain the attractiveness of EU workers in some of these large urban
based warehouses that have been in the news,

I don't think that it's attractive to them either (various TV docos have
shown that)

It's just that they need a job, any job, to turn on the lifetime of in-work
benefits (in order to be able to afford to stay here) whereas a Brit gets
out of work benefits by birth.

So they take the job on its appalling terms, where the Brit can just say
"you've got to be kidding"!

FTAOD, I'm not suggesting that the workers come her specifically to take
such jobs and rape the UK benefits system.

I am sure that most of them come here in a genuine expectation that they can
make a good career here for themselves. It is the need to find a job ASAP
that causes them to end up living this way.

It is the employers who are the ones taking advantage of this and raping the
benefits system, the EU workers are just the means that makes them able to
do it.

Post by Altroy1
not just for the zero hours hire and fire culture but for employing EU
workers that would suffer more from being sacked not least that they may be
further from their homes or families.

once they have found their entry into the benefits system, they can bring
their families here and turn on more benefits for no extra hours work

Though you are right, they do have to make the extra effort to avoid being
sacked.

Post by Altroy1
I would certainly like to see stopped,

Me to

Not easy though. One person's egregious practice is another person's
necessary working condition (and I don't mean as a means to make the company
viable).

tim

James Harris

2017-11-07 14:02:51 UTC

Post by Altroy1
[...]

You can keep the gym.

Bizarre.

Post by James Harris
Hotel EU has got its residents believing they
should pay for the air they breathe.

If you have links showing that Ukraine and Serbia are willing to be net
payers for EU membership, please post them.

Post by James Harris
And as if that's not enough, some
Remoaners even think the EU is doing them a favour!

More bizarre! It's OK to have a bit of fun but IME Remainers seem to
think the world happens in strange analogies. The approach is very much
akin to when they make assertions about the post-Brexit apocalyptic
future. They feel no backup is needed. The assertion is all. It reminds
me of the young who think that if they believe something enough - and
maybe close their eyes real tight - it will come true!

The reality is that the UK and the EU each want things from the other.

--
James Harris

Altroy1

2017-11-09 08:23:08 UTC

[...]

Post by Altroy1
Leavers want to checkout "anytime you like" and pretend to leave whilst staying
in the Hotel EU hiding the fact they are staying by calling their new residency
status a "free hotel agreement". Moreover they expect the Hotel EU to put up
with them staying at rival hotels such as Hotel America, Hotel Brazil, Hotel
China then bringing back sub-standard goods from those hotels to flog them off
at cut-down prices to the Hotel EU's residents.

You are turning https://twitter.com/mrjamesob 's argument on its head. He says
it is the Brexit case that is built on unproven assertions and faith and half
humming George Michael he went on "Gotta have faith, the faith the faith..."

Post by James Harris
The reality is that the UK and the EU each want things from the other.

Why not think about this the next time you hum along to the Eagles? :-

Apart from a few rowdy members, the great majority of the Hotel EU's residents
are willing to go along with the rules of the hotel and to pay their subs. Even
chief resident Germany, who pays by far the largest sub, has no plans to head
to the exit door.

One hotel resident, convinced that the Hotel EU needs him more than he needs it,
votes to head to the exit door. This guest is so cocksure that the Hotel EU
needs him, that he is gambling with his own and his family's (who are staying at
the Hotel EU with him) future by insisting that he and his family can stay in
other hotels that may have bedbugs or other creepie crawlies yet be able to come
back to the Hotel EU "anytime you like".

Yes, this resident thinks that the Hotel EU needs him so badly that it will
agree to a "free hotel agreement". This resident sees such an agreement as
basically the Hotel EU knuckling-under and letting him use its facilties whilst
acting as an offshore middleman selling hotel Brazil and Hotel USA's dodgy goods
to Hotel EU residents free of charge. Not only that but without having to obey
most of the Hotel EU's rules. This silly resident thinks a free hotel agreement
could be negotiated fairly easily on the basis that he has been resident for
more than forty years and both parties know each other well.

There is just one problem. The Hotel EU has a couple of other malcontented
residents. And has residents with problem children. For example resident Spain
is happy with the current Hotel EU arrangement, but he has a troubled child,
Catalonia, that is starting to get her own ideas. Resident Italy has a problem
child, Lombardy, that's been muttering against the Hotel EU's currency and
making noises about going it alone.

The Hotel EU realises that to give one awkward resident a special free hotel
agreement could spark demands for same by at least two or three other residents.
So Hotel EU is going to stall for time and in the end refuse to agree to any
deal that could give other malcontented residents bright ideas.

pamela

2017-11-09 10:42:32 UTC

Post by Altroy1
[...]

Post by Altroy1
Leavers want to checkout "anytime you like" and pretend to
leave whilst staying in the Hotel EU hiding the fact they are
staying by calling their new residency status a "free hotel
agreement". Moreover they expect the Hotel EU to put up with
them staying at rival hotels such as Hotel America, Hotel
Brazil, Hotel China then bringing back sub-standard goods from
those hotels to flog them off at cut-down prices to the Hotel
EU's residents.

More bizarre! It's OK to have a bit of fun but IME Remainers
seem to think the world happens in strange analogies. The
approach is very much akin to when they make assertions about
the post-Brexit apocalyptic future. They feel no backup is
needed. The assertion is all. It reminds me of the young who
think that if they believe something enough - and maybe close
their eyes real tight - it will come true!

You are turning https://twitter.com/mrjamesob 's argument on its
head. He says it is the Brexit case that is built on unproven
assertions and faith and half humming George Michael he went on
"Gotta have faith, the faith the faith..."

Post by James Harris
The reality is that the UK and the EU each want things from the other.

It ain't gonna happen! :)

Cocky Britain overestimated the strength of its position in the
world and instantly got a lesson when it was outclassed in the
Art.50 negotiations. So Brexiteers dream up a wacky escape
strategy which involves leaving with no deal at all.

In past decades there a referee may have appeared at this stage,
in the form of the USA, when the EU sparred so unevenly with the
UK that the UK looked like getting bloodied. However, Donald
Trump's America couldn't care less what happens to Britain. In
fact Trump is like a vulture would be happy to pick the meat off
Brtain's skeleton.

Suddnely the world outside the EU looks less attractive. There's
only so much the British economy can do with New Zealand butter.

Give this state of affairs another 6 to 12 months and the public
will be behind Remain. By then Theresa May will have lost a vote
of confidence and we will have a general election fought on the
terms of Brexit.

Post by Altroy1
This silly resident thinks a free hotel agreement could be
negotiated fairly easily on the basis that he has been resident
for more than forty years and both parties know each other well.
There is just one problem. The Hotel EU has a couple of other
malcontented residents. And has residents with problem children.
For example resident Spain is happy with the current Hotel EU
arrangement, but he has a troubled child, Catalonia, that is
starting to get her own ideas. Resident Italy has a problem
child, Lombardy, that's been muttering against the Hotel EU's
currency and making noises about going it alone.
The Hotel EU realises that to give one awkward resident a
special free hotel agreement could spark demands for same by at
least two or three other residents. So Hotel EU is going to
stall for time and in the end refuse to agree to any deal that
could give other malcontented residents bright ideas.

Like any good parent, the EU is going to discipline one of its
children for trying to hurt the family.

Christie

2017-11-09 11:02:41 UTC

pamela wrote:

<snip>

Post by pamela
Like any good parent, the EU is going to discipline one of its
children for trying to hurt the family.

Oh, my goodness, that's a classic!

Many of us just see the EU as part of the problem, and welcome the
fact that it's a part we can opt out of. Please keep up the good work,
though, Pam. You do more for the moral of the 'leave' side than you
could imagine.

pamela

2017-11-09 11:09:02 UTC

Post by Christie
<snip>

Post by pamela
Like any good parent, the EU is going to discipline one of its
children for trying to hurt the family.

Oh, my goodness, that's a classic!
Many of us just see the EU as part of the problem, and welcome
the fact that it's a part we can opt out of. Please keep up the
good work, though, Pam. You do more for the moral of the 'leave'
side than you could imagine.

I was telling you why the EU is so driven to give us a bad deal and
why no amount of handwringing about "fair play" is going to divert
them.

We are set to get a bad deal from Brexit because the EU values unity
above commerce.

Sadly the UK just merrily walked into this entirely predictable mess.
Now it's squirming.

Altroy1

2017-11-10 11:01:20 UTC

Post by Christie
<snip>

Post by pamela
Like any good parent, the EU is going to discipline one of its
children for trying to hurt the family.

Oh, my goodness, that's a classic!
Many of us just see the EU as part of the problem, and welcome
the fact that it's a part we can opt out of. Please keep up the
good work, though, Pam. You do more for the moral of the 'leave'
side than you could imagine.

I was telling you why the EU is so driven to give us a bad deal and
why no amount of handwringing about "fair play" is going to divert
them.

Spain has gotten quite tough on Catalonia because it has other regions with
fairly distinct identities that might get ideas. Not just the Basques but to a
lesser extent Galicia and the Canary islands. So it is even prepared to take an
economic hit for example loss of tourism or problems caused by banks removing
headquarters from its most prosperous region. If the EU didn't have politicians
such as Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen and regions such as Lombardy stirring on
the sidelines, it probably would feel more at ease and would be more flexible.

I suspect that if the UK had never been a EU member, but was now applying for a
Switzerland deal it would have rather less problem getting such a deal. But as a
departing state, the EU will be likely more mindful of any signal sent to other
potential departing states.

Post by pamela
We are set to get a bad deal from Brexit because the EU values unity
above commerce.
Sadly the UK just merrily walked into this entirely predictable mess.
Now it's squirming.

pamela

2017-11-10 10:48:03 UTC

Post by Christie
<snip>

Post by pamela
Like any good parent, the EU is going to discipline one of
its children for trying to hurt the family.

Oh, my goodness, that's a classic!
Many of us just see the EU as part of the problem, and welcome
the fact that it's a part we can opt out of. Please keep up
the good work, though, Pam. You do more for the moral of the
'leave' side than you could imagine.

I was telling you why the EU is so driven to give us a bad deal
and why no amount of handwringing about "fair play" is going
to divert them.

Looking closer to home for another example.... the UK is prepared to
accept an economic loss in order to keep Scotland part of the union.

Post by Altroy1
I suspect that if the UK had never been a EU member, but was now
applying for a Switzerland deal it would have rather less
problem getting such a deal. But as a departing state, the EU
will be likely more mindful of any signal sent to other
potential departing states.

tim...

2017-11-10 12:09:55 UTC

Post by Christie
<snip>

Like any good parent, the EU is going to discipline one of its children
for trying to hurt the family.

Oh, my goodness, that's a classic!
Many of us just see the EU as part of the problem, and welcome
the fact that it's a part we can opt out of. Please keep up the
good work, though, Pam. You do more for the moral of the 'leave'
side than you could imagine.

I was telling you why the EU is so driven to give us a bad deal and why
no amount of handwringing about "fair play" is going to divert them.

Spain has gotten quite tough on Catalonia because it has other regions
with fairly distinct identities that might get ideas. Not just the Basques
but to a lesser extent Galicia and the Canary islands. So it is even
prepared to take an economic hit for example loss of tourism or problems
caused by banks removing headquarters from its most prosperous region. If
the EU didn't have politicians such as Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen and
regions such as Lombardy stirring on the sidelines, it probably would feel
more at ease and would be more flexible.
I suspect that if the UK had never been a EU member, but was now applying
for a Switzerland deal it would have rather less problem getting such a
deal. But as a departing state, the EU will be likely more mindful of any
signal sent to other potential departing states.

But there aren't any other potential departing states

all other states are ideologically signed up to The United States Of Europe

or are huge net recipients

the first group don't want to leave, the second can't afford to

tim

Altroy1

2017-11-11 00:27:57 UTC

<snip>

Post by Altroy1
I suspect that if the UK had never been a EU member, but was now
applying for a Switzerland deal it would have rather less problem
getting such a deal. But as a departing state, the EU will be likely
more mindful of any signal sent to other potential departing states.

But there aren't any other potential departing states

Think about it. Daniel J Hannan argues for a Switzerland type deal with the EU.

That means the UK being able to make its own deals with the like of Make America
Great Again and Brazil whilst trading happily in the SM.

Politician Marine Le Pen ran into a spot of bother during the presidential
campaign because Macron could portray her Eurosceptic babble as a leap in the dark.

If Marine Le Pen had been able to point to departed EU state UK now trading
happy as Larry in the European markets whilst enjoying FTAs with all and sundry,
then that leap in the dark would have looked more like a leap in the light. In
such a scenario it might not be just the UK knocking on the Exit door.

The EU will very likely be mindful of this which is why they are stalling for
time, e.,g. making the UK come up with lists of items that may be affected by a
divorce bill. They will hope to kick both the UK negotiations and the
aspirations of Geert Wilders, Le Pen, the Italian Northern League & so on into
the long grass.

To ask the EU to agree to a Switzerland-type deal, as suggested by such as
Daniel J Hannan, is in effect asking the EU to subsidise Brexit. Aint gonna happen.

The last thing the EU wants is

Oustria, DeOUTschland, Departugal, Italeave, ROAMania, Frexit, Grexit
QUITalonia, Lombard-bye...

Post by tim...
all other states are ideologically signed up to The United States Of Europe
or are huge net recipients
the first group don't want to leave, the second can't afford to
tim

Ophelia

2017-11-09 12:03:48 UTC

"Christie" wrote in message news:***@news.albasani.net...

pamela wrote:

<snip>

Post by pamela
Like any good parent, the EU is going to discipline one of its
children for trying to hurt the family.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Christie

2017-11-09 19:22:09 UTC

Post by Christie
<snip>

Post by pamela
Like any good parent, the EU is going to discipline one of its
children for trying to hurt the family.

Oh, my goodness, that's a classic!
Many of us just see the EU as part of the problem, and welcome the
fact that it's a part we can opt out of. Please keep up the good work,
though, Pam. You do more for the moral of the 'leave' side than you
could imagine.
==
lol she does a lot of that but she is too thick to realise it:)))))

Ophelia

2017-11-10 12:01:47 UTC

Post by Christie
<snip>

Post by pamela
Like any good parent, the EU is going to discipline one of its
children for trying to hurt the family.

Oh, my goodness, that's a classic!
Many of us just see the EU as part of the problem, and welcome the
fact that it's a part we can opt out of. Please keep up the good work,
though, Pam. You do more for the moral of the 'leave' side than you
could imagine.
==
lol she does a lot of that but she is too thick to realise it:)))))

The EU have shown us - in no uncertain terms - that they are
protectionist bullies. I can not understand why anyone would wish
their form of oligarchical, undemocratic governance on the UK - I
really can't.

==

Not any of us with more than half a brain. Are they all communists? Why
would any sane person want to be ruled by people who have no care for us.
who are only interested in the money it can wring out of us? People who
can do what they like and we have no say? We can't ever vote them out,
regardless of what they do to us? Idiots

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Christie

2017-11-10 19:18:12 UTC

Post by Christie

Post by Christie
<snip>

Post by pamela
Like any good parent, the EU is going to discipline one of its
children for trying to hurt the family.

Oh, my goodness, that's a classic!
Many of us just see the EU as part of the problem, and welcome the
fact that it's a part we can opt out of. Please keep up the good work,
though, Pam. You do more for the moral of the 'leave' side than you
could imagine.
==
lol she does a lot of that but she is too thick to realise it:)))))

The EU have shown us - in no uncertain terms - that they are
protectionist bullies. I can not understand why anyone would wish
their form of oligarchical, undemocratic governance on the UK - I
really can't.
==
Not any of us with more than half a brain. Are they all communists? Why
would any sane person want to be ruled by people who have no care for us.
who are only interested in the money it can wring out of us? People who
can do what they like and we have no say? We can't ever vote them out,
regardless of what they do to us? Idiots

I like it. :) That's precisely how I feel, too.

James Harris

2017-11-09 13:14:22 UTC

Post by Altroy1
[...]

Post by Altroy1
Leavers want to checkout "anytime you like" and pretend to leave whilst staying
in the Hotel EU hiding the fact they are staying by calling their new residency
status a "free hotel agreement". Moreover they expect the Hotel EU to put up
with them staying at rival hotels such as Hotel America, Hotel Brazil, Hotel
China then bringing back sub-standard goods from those hotels to flog them off
at cut-down prices to the Hotel EU's residents.

Ah, but he was only making fun of Brexit because he was auditioning for
a job with the BBC....

Post by James Harris
The reality is that the UK and the EU each want things from the other.

Why not think about this the next time you hum along to the Eagles? :-
Apart from a few rowdy members, the great majority of the Hotel EU's residents
are willing to go along with the rules of the hotel and to pay their subs. Even
chief resident Germany, who pays by far the largest sub, has no plans to head
to the exit door.
One hotel resident, convinced that the Hotel EU needs him more than he needs it,
votes to head to the exit door. This guest is so cocksure that the Hotel EU
needs him, that he is gambling with his own and his family's (who are staying at
the Hotel EU with him) future by insisting that he and his family can stay in
other hotels that may have bedbugs or other creepie crawlies yet be able to come
back to the Hotel EU "anytime you like".
Yes, this resident thinks that the Hotel EU needs him so badly that it will
agree to a "free hotel agreement". This resident sees such an agreement as
basically the Hotel EU knuckling-under and letting him use its facilties whilst
acting as an offshore middleman selling hotel Brazil and Hotel USA's dodgy goods
to Hotel EU residents free of charge. Not only that but without having to obey
most of the Hotel EU's rules. This silly resident thinks a free hotel agreement
could be negotiated fairly easily on the basis that he has been resident for
more than forty years and both parties know each other well.
There is just one problem. The Hotel EU has a couple of other malcontented
residents. And has residents with problem children. For example resident Spain
is happy with the current Hotel EU arrangement, but he has a troubled child,
Catalonia, that is starting to get her own ideas. Resident Italy has a problem
child, Lombardy, that's been muttering against the Hotel EU's currency and
making noises about going it alone.
The Hotel EU realises that to give one awkward resident a special free hotel
agreement could spark demands for same by at least two or three other residents.
So Hotel EU is going to stall for time and in the end refuse to agree to any
deal that could give other malcontented residents bright ideas.

:-)

I think you are James O'Brien are doing the same thing: picking specific
arguments made by some on the Brexit side which don't represent Brexit
and which are so unsound you know they are easy to deny; it is a sort of
straw-man argument and just as invalid. IME Remainers know it's far
easier to attack individuals than it is to attack the fundamental
principles of the EU or of Brexit. So they shy away from real points and
focus on arguments that have foregone conclusions.

Since you mention you analogy again, though, let me point out a couple
of areas in which it is unsound.

1. The UK's relationship with the EU is not like a guest in a hotel. We
are more like joint owners. (And, no, that doesn't mean we own the
joint...!) We are offering to pay money for specific services, accept
that some things will change and offer to maintain trade to keep
everyone happy. But the management don't like that. If others see they
don't have to put up with the negatives then they might also want a
better deal.

2. The hotel business we bought in to in 1975 no longer exists. Despite
our attempts to prevent change we have repeatedly been overruled and so
many changes have been made that we decided it was no longer for us. It
would be more accurate to say the hotel management have left us rather
than us leaving them.

--
James Harris

pamela

2017-11-07 10:31:38 UTC

Post by pamela
It's a wonder anyone is surprised by the harsh stance taken by
the EU.
We have long known Brexit could lead to further EU
"contagion" and

Men in black suits run the Hotel California.

We CAN leave at any time - but we can't still expect to have
access to room service and the drinks cabinet.

Leavers live in a world of dreams but don't seem to realise it.

Rarely have I seen so many stupid people as the Leavers, all claiming
to be smart.

James Harris

2017-11-07 11:27:08 UTC

Post by pamela
It's a wonder anyone is surprised by the harsh stance taken by
the EU.
We have long known Brexit could lead to further EU
"contagion" and

Men in black suits run the Hotel California.

We CAN leave at any time - but we can't still expect to have
access to room service and the drinks cabinet.

Leavers live in a world of dreams but don't seem to realise it.
Rarely have I seen so many stupid people as the Leavers, all claiming
to be smart.

--
James Harris

Ophelia

2017-11-07 19:35:54 UTC

Post by pamela
It's a wonder anyone is surprised by the harsh stance taken by
the EU.
We have long known Brexit could lead to further EU
"contagion" and

Men in black suits run the Hotel California.

We CAN leave at any time - but we can't still expect to have
access to room service and the drinks cabinet.

Leavers live in a world of dreams but don't seem to realise it.
Rarely have I seen so many stupid people as the Leavers, all claiming
to be smart.

So convincing! Such reasoning! How can we foolish Leavers not be
persuaded...?

Of course, the /clever/ people told us we would experience a recession
and plagues of frogs by now. And they must be right because they tell us
things which need no proof; assertion is more than sufficient for the
plebs!

James Harris
===

LOL you got that right. We all know who the stupid people are ... and it
definitely ain't the Leavers:))

Still what else do the remoaners have? No matter what they moan about
...March 2019 we are OUT !!!! :))

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

James Harris

2017-11-07 20:06:04 UTC

On 07/11/2017 19:35, Ophelia wrote:

...

Post by Ophelia
Still what else do the remoaners have? No matter what they moan about
...March 2019 we are OUT !!!! :))

As you may know, I have my doubts as to whether Brexit will be
delivered. But I was somewhat heartened to see this report of comments
by Guy Verhofstadt:

"Negotiations are always the same. In the beginning, it seems impossible
and at the end, we find an opening and we find an agreement. I have done
dozens of negotiations and every time, in the beginning, I was thinking
this is going nowhere but at the end, it’s possible because the interest
of both the UK and the EU is in finding a compromise."

Good to see that from the other side!

:-)

--
James Harris

Ophelia

2017-11-07 21:33:50 UTC

"James Harris" wrote in message news:ott3nf$lvj$***@dont-email.me...

On 07/11/2017 19:35, Ophelia wrote:

...

Post by Ophelia
Still what else do the remoaners have? No matter what they moan about
...March 2019 we are OUT !!!! :))

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Altroy1

2017-11-05 18:56:14 UTC

[...]

Post by James Harris
I think the EU has been pretty clear, recently: sort out (aka
agree to pay us) the money then we can talk trade.

Its not all about money. The EU will see the wind coming out of
the sails of the Lombard league in Italy, the Front National in
France, Partij Voor de Vrijheid in the Netherlands etc and will
be happy to string out the negotations and get political kudos
along the way that money can't alone simply can't buy.

It's a wonder anyone is surprised by the harsh stance taken by the
EU.
We have long known Brexit could lead to further EU "contagion" and
in fact Nigel Farage taunted the EU Parliament about it.

Good point. I had forgotten about this. Didn't Nigel F taunt Juncker and others
in the EU parliament that they never had proper jobs? , then went on to claim: -

"When I came here 17 years ago and said I wanted to lead a campaign to
get Britain to leave the European Union, you all laughed at me," Farage
said in a speech that was carried live by TV channels in Britain and
across Europe.

"Well, you're not laughing now, are you?" Farage said. He continued to
predict that the U.K. would not be the last nation to leave the European
Union.

Post by pamela
The EU is now going to make us jump through hoops as we try to
agree Brexit. If the pound crashes and our trade deals come to
nothing then the EU will give us a knowing look and a Gallic
shoulder shrug.

pamela

2017-11-05 19:25:49 UTC

Post by Altroy1
[...]

Post by James Harris
I think the EU has been pretty clear, recently: sort out (aka
agree to pay us) the money then we can talk trade.

Its not all about money. The EU will see the wind coming out
of the sails of the Lombard league in Italy, the Front
National in France, Partij Voor de Vrijheid in the Netherlands
etc and will be happy to string out the negotations and get
political kudos along the way that money can't alone simply
can't buy.

It's a wonder anyone is surprised by the harsh stance taken by
the EU.
We have long known Brexit could lead to further EU "contagion"
and in fact Nigel Farage taunted the EU Parliament about it.

Good point. I had forgotten about this. Didn't Nigel F taunt
Juncker and others in the EU parliament that they never had
proper jobs? , then went on to claim: -
"When I came here 17 years ago and said I wanted to lead a
campaign to get Britain to leave the European Union, you all
laughed at me," Farage said in a speech that was carried live
by TV channels in Britain and across Europe.
"Well, you're not laughing now, are you?" Farage said. He
continued to predict that the U.K. would not be the last
nation to leave the European Union.

That address of Nigel's to the EP may have seemed funny at the
time and it may have given Nigel satisfaction but senior members
of the EU Parliament were visibly annoyed. Similarly with some of
Nigel's previous taunts and insults to the EP.

pullgees

2017-11-02 14:10:39 UTC