Tell you what Colin why dont you leave your current job and take up one of these zero hour contract jobs and tell us how you are getting on. Sound good?
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Tell you what Colin why dont you leave your current job and take up one of these zero hour contract jobs and tell us how you are getting on. Sound good?
Aren't they also counting people who have 2 jobs to stay afloat as part of their employment rate success?
Ignore him, I can't take the words seriously from a man who spends his weekends sniffing women's shoes that he finds abandoned down at the nearest derelict train station whilst wearing his aunt's G-string. Probably
No way are you being serious here?
Many do, I know plenty of students who have for example - it's still exploitative for those who need work though.
People blame the conservatives because there are multiple ways to counter rising debt, they just seem to use the only one that lines up with their economic ideology.
Economic deficit isn’t to be treated like an unpaid credit card bill, most macroeconomists disagreed with their strategy because they understand the impact would stagnate the British economy for years - and that’s exactly what happened.
Despite the Tories being seen as the party for economic stability & growth, the last 10 years has been anything but - which has led to such strong condemnation.
Also I only brought up the zero contract hours because you seemed to imply that the low unemployment numbers correlate with Tory policy, and they don’t. They simply mask a deeper problem of people working for longer, on less pay because austerity has led to cuts in benefits, housing, wages, but increases to inflation, transport and living expenses among others.
Problem is, zero hour contracts are more often than not shit for that purpose too.
Probably. Not to mention they probably encompass a lot of people who do part-time work as well - again can be ideal for those who want flexibility, but for many it's not really enough to survive comfortably.
I thought that the prosecco/German car industry BS will come out at one point.
This argument has 1 major flaw. For the UK to make Brexit work then it must sign multiple trade deals. There's no point leaving the EU only to keep its same standards and rules. Now that will require the UK to cut corners on standards else there's no way in hell a small market like the UK can ever sign better trade deals then the EU. So lets say that the UK buys 30% of its beef from Ireland. That beef is of the highest standard which means its very expensive compared to the hormone induced/maggot ridden 'food' bought from the US, which will flood the UK following a trade deal with the US. Thus the Irish farmers market share in the UK is set to shrink to the ridiculous irrespective whether the UK signs an FTA with the UK or not. As Brexiteer no 1 (and only?) economist Patrick Minford said the only way for Brexit to work would be to lower tariffs on everything which would concurrently end the manufacturing/farming industry in the UK. Using such logic then I can't see the Irish farmer succeeding in a market were even the locals will be failing using such same high standards.
Then there's the other two other main categories of things that the EU sells to the UK
a- perishable goods. Due to its geographical location the UK will have no choice but to buy them from the EU irrespective on whether they sign an FTA or not. That's not a problem for the EU which can ignore British produce and buy from somewhere else
b- high end products. Which strictly speaking isn't a real issue either. Those who can afford a Ferrari will still buy a Ferrari irrespective whether the UK decide to slap a 30% tariff on it or not
Thus such leverage is pretty much gone.
Lets go in the detail of what activating article 50 means. Article 50 focuses on the country's withdrawal from the EU. In simpler terms it gives the UK the opportunity to settle its bills and to give an indication of what sort of future relationship it wants with the EU. Due to the GFA such withdrawal not only goes into EU territory but also into international treaties as well. Both parts is a bone of contention with Brexiteers.
A- They weren't happy to settle the bills as that strips the UK from its main leverage
B- Because of the GFA they can't push for a no deal Brexit as that would require the UK to crush out on WTO rules which in turn would mean hard borders in Ireland.
Basically a no deal Brexit was off the table from the start simply. If the UK is stupid enough to agree to pay for its bills without getting anything in exchange (not even the time needed to negotiate other FTAs) ie satisfying Option A, it would still fail to fulfill B. The result to that would be that the UK would portray itself as an unreliable business partner who can change its mind on everything even on delicate international deals such as the GFA
The Brexiters tried to turn this huge disadvantage into an advantage by tying the withdrawal agreement to a half botched trade deal. That goes beyond the scope of Article 50 + it would risk breaching the EU's HUGE red line ie the integrity of the single market. Which leads to me asking you two questions. Have you ever wondered why the EU takes ages to sign an FTA and why it had turned bigger markets (ex the US) down? The answer to that is basically the same. The integrity of the single market represent the EU's biggest asset, something worth protecting far more then anything else. It means a huge and protectionist market were members (and a very short list of trusted and reliable friends) can sell their products freely while concurrently keeping other competitors at arm's length. Through the single market the EU controls who and how countries trade, it can ensure a level playing field between member countries while monitoring the standards of what comes into such market. A loophole in such system would risk upsetting the balance into the single market to the detriment of its members. For example imagine if the UK is allowed to repackage cheap hormone induced/maggot ridden/chlorinated 'food' and then sell it into the single market as beef. That has the potential to be far more damaging then losing the UK's market which is set to shrink for the reasons mentioned above + recession
There will be no trade wars because a market of 65m can never compete with that of an entire continent, especially since the former is set to become poorer + it depends on selling its goods/services to that continent far more then the EU depends on selling its good/services to that country. If the UK doesn't pay its 39b then that would give the EU the casus belli it needs to go tough on the UK. Meanwhile the UK inability to keep the terms of the GFA will give the message that the UK is an unreliable partner to deal with and a horrible neighbour
I think the Irish already believe this from history, don't you?
There will not be any return to a hard border between North and South on the island of Ireland. The Irish (North and South) don't want it, the UK doesn't want it and the EU says it doesn't want it... so who is going to implement it?
No there are not, especially north.
And so many come here because many places, such as warehouses advertise in their country, such as the place I work.
0 hour contracts are exploitative and insulting.
Do you have any personal experience working on a zero hours contract out of interest?
Im interested in anyone that has tbh.
I see that both Liddington and Gove have distanced themselves from the PM job. Why anyone would want that job at the moment without a GE is beyond me.
I know people who have, they got used and abused in and out of work for weeks at a time.
I know people who do and hate it.
Thanks, I now understand a crucial element which makes the Brexit possible
https://thebrexitsyndicate.com/2018/07/04/the-rupert-murdoch-empire/
In France, those who own the media are generally French with diverse activities in France, which explain why they are very pro-European.
Those who want more protectionism, nationalizations and sovereignty are severely demonized.
The 2 cases can't be compared because France has the Euro, which makes a Frexit just impossible.
I don't think distancing themselves means they don't want it... It's just what you are supposed to say
Gove particularly I think has been looking for this... A brexiteer who showed party loyalty in backing may.
What the hell were thinking with that?Quite right.
There were essentially two primary options to overcome the global financial crisis.
Grow your way out by stimulating the economy taking advantage of the very low interest rates. This would entail increased public spending in the short term.
Austerity. The government chose the latter but as we saw this has been a dismal failure.
Firstly it didn't work because it has had to abandon it's fiscal targets.
And secondly it had to resort to quantitative easing by printing money.
The problem with austerity is that it leaves significant collateral damage to public services which take years and lots of money to repair.
The government was warned by economic experts to persue a mix of actions but being Conservatives they seemed to enjoy austerity.
IMO there cannot be 'a good deal' in terms purely of economics, because of the reasons I have already outlined previously. Hypothetically a 'good deal' would have to incorporate variations to the Four freedoms to suit the UK's requirements and this would effectively be a breach of (primarily) the Treaty of Rome for the EU and which it cannot allow for any member; hence we have to leave before we can negotiate freely.
Well if you take the old adage about "If I were you I wouldn't start from here..." but here, is were we are, then it does make sense. One of the reasons we are in this position is because the former trading block (i.e. common market, entry to which was subject to a referendum) has now become something more, its now a political as well as trading entity the EU, and this was all done over the last forty years without any reference to whether the UK public wanted it or not. Now we are effectively comparing different entities, leavers were predominantly voting on the 'political union', aspect whilst remain voters mainly about economics and trade.
I have. You can be registered as employed even though you may have had no real work in weeks/months. You also have no protection from getting booted out the door on a whim, no sick pay, etc.... Feck all that.
I did. No work for a week and then suddenly a text message at 6 in the morning "shift in Aberdeen 12 hours starts at midday. Respond ok to accept". Aberdeen 3 1/2 hours drive from where I am. Basically it was a shit fest because if you said "no" to a single shift then you were blacklisted. It was like that for about 8 months.
Left that shithole of a job to get a cushy public sector number, and that company went bust a couple of years ago.
I had one for about 5 years, all the way through college and uni. Was great, worked extra in the holidays, turned down shifts at exam time.
My company offers zero hours too. We have a bank of staff we call on when our perm staff are ill or on annual leave. Most of them have full time jobs elsewhere (it’s a specialist field) so they just get extra shifts for money when needed. If we can’t use those staff because they’re busy or whatever, we have to use an agency, which costs more (we’re a charity).
Zero hours contacts aren’t a problem when used sensibly. The problem is places like sports direct who use it to shave their rota down to the minimum amount of hours. Trouble is those places are already shifting to 8 hr contracts or shorter, which is barely better and a ban on zero hrs contracts wouldn’t stop that practice.
Likely from NI so it’s a valid fear
Not wanting a hard border isn't enough if you put yourself in a position where countries are legally obliged to have one and/or not having one leaves them open to potential litigation. You have to actually come up with ways to avoid placing yourself in that position, which the UK have so far been unable to do. Just saying "we won't implement it" doesn't solve the problem.
The EU really is an appalling organisation. It has at its heart a project which envisages a union with full economic and political integration - basically the demise of nation states in favour of something which seems to me to be vaguely Orwellian - but it understands that this is still unpopular with the majority of its citizens. It has therefore created this monster in which free trade is somehow linked with various aspects of political union, and perpetuated the myth that you can't have one without the other (even though every other free trade agreement in the world manages it quite nicely). This basically forces people to decide between having both free trade (popular) and increasing levels of integration (unpopular), or having neither of them.
The best outcome for most people in the EU would be for the organisation to revert to being a trading bloc, and to abandon its ambitions for political and economic integration. However, the introduction of the Euro was a major step in the direction of integration, and it would now be very difficult to unwind. The UK was a significant voice inside the EU for putting the brakes on integration, but the argument was already lost. In the longer term, our relationship with the EU was always going to have to change: either we would commit to the integration agenda, or we would walk away. I still very much hope we do the latter as soon as possible.
Well we'll just disagree on that one i think mate.
Also the intentions of the EU project have been pretty clear from the start as far as i know, to form closer bonds between the European powers and try to create an environment where frequent wars between countries in Europe were a thing of the past. Trade was only a part of that endeavour.
But i would be interested in your answer to the question at the end of my last post?
To condense that further basically i would like to know how you think the UK could have made No Deal the plan from the start when it's pretty much incompatible with the GFA?
Yet Australia did just or rather managed to.avoud recession with big public spending.
Ever heard of the New Deal?
I had a part-time job when I was a student without the need for zero hour contracts.
If you're lucky that's still the case. However, lots of places only offer zero hours contracts nowadays.
I know quite a few people on them that would rather work 35 hours per week every week, which when the business deems it necessary they do, however it's an easy punishment for any slight disagreement to reduce your hours whilst giving more to others.
High drama at RAWK!:
I ask this because you seem to have given the subject a lot of thought... From which rules are you most looking forward to us being free?
Also, what would be the downside of any demise of nation states?
I had three zero hour contract jobs at once a few years ago to make ends meet. Two of them with the same company in different areas of the business (which was valued as the world's most profitable in its field at that time).
I can tell you from that experience that Colin is talking out of his arse. I know people in their 40s, 50s and 60s still doing those jobs without a chance that they will ever be taken on permanently, because that company knows it's not in their interests. No sick pay, no bonuses, no pensions to worry about, and if it's a quiet day, they can send staff home or phone them up beforehand at the drop of a hat and cancel their shifts. The only people that really benefit from their existence are the big companies that exploit the workers who have no other choice.
The myth that the 1975 referendum was purely about joining /staying in an economic market is long dead. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now.
Having a FTA with the EU is not going to solve the problems the UK will experience being outside the Customs Union or the Single Market.
Being sent to Aberdeen alone is enough exploitation!
History has nothing to do with that post. We're talking about present time here. WTO rules lead to hard borders. So either the UK choose to have a hard border with Ireland else it has to remove all borders with everyone else. Sure strictly speaking things can go smoothly in that way unless someone (ie 169 WTO members) complains. However we all know that is next to impossible. Someone WILL complain. That's why Hammond and Karen Bradley had said that in an event of a no deal brexit hard borders will be necessary
PS The EU will expect Ireland to protect the single market from the 'food' and non EU complaint products the British will have to accept following any trade deals set after Brexit. As said the integrity of the single market is key here.
Last edited:
Northern Ireland stays in the Single Market and the Custom's Union one way or another.
I'll take your last question first. The concept of the nation state isn't perfect, but I think it has served us fairly well for several centuries. It also supports a reasonable level of accountability of the government to the governed (in democracies at least). The notion of replacing nation states with larger agglomerations seems to me to be an experiment in which there are no obvious upsides. There is evidence already of tensions between the interests of the EU as a bloc, and the interests of the populations of individual states. It is going to be interesting to see how these play out as I don't see them going away any time soon.
To your first question, I accept that, as non-participants in the Euro or Schengen, we already avoid some of the 'rules' (though I doubt the long term viability of our form of EU membership). I would nevertheless like us to be able to set aside the free movement of people within the EU, and to craft policies which can be adapted to suit our specific needs (see below). I would also like to take us out of the jurisdiction of any EU legislature - as a mature democracy, we're perfectly capable of crafting and maintaining our own laws. In addition, I'd like us to be the masters of our own marine environment.
I understand that the first reaction of many people to suggestions about taking away 'free movement' is that this is based on some kind of xenophobia, or ignorance about the contribution made by immigrants to our economy and culture. To be clear, I'm not an opponent of immigration, but I do believe a country has a responsibility to manage it. By 'manage', I don't mean the setting of crude numerical targets - it seems to me that these fail to account for the fact that immigration generally benefits our economy and helps to compensate for our worsening demographic. Management of immigration would entail favouring people with particular skills, ensuring the impacts of immigration are spread, having policies to minimise 'ghettoisation', and procedures in place to quickly integrate new arrivals into our culture and way of life. Free movement as defined by the EU makes such management virtually impossible.