Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[JPRouve]

This is total nonsense, along with the rest of your argument.

I did some digging on this. Eurotunnel is a french company. It will make the french govt pee its pants if UK threatened to close the tunnel due to illegal immigration.

In the worst case scenario the 6k illegals living in the calais jungle will come over to the UK. Big deal... we have 1.5m illegals in the UK right now. 6k will be a drop in the ocean. UK has practically nothing to lose from a french withdrawal from that treaty. While france has all to lose.

You are both spouting nonsense.

The french government will never scrap the Touquet treaty and the righ wing has no power in France because they have 1 MP out of 577. Also the UK won't close the tunnel because it's good for business.

Edit: And 6k only represents the ones without papers, the others are sent home.

 

[devilish]

This is total nonsense, along with the rest of your argument.

I did some digging on this. Eurotunnel is a french company. It will make the french govt pee its pants if UK threatened to close the tunnel due to illegal immigration.

In the worst case scenario the 6k illegals living in the calais jungle will come over to the UK. Big deal... we have 1.5m illegals in the UK right now. 6k will be a drop in the ocean. UK has practically nothing to lose from a french withdrawal from that treaty. While france has all to lose.

A trickle will become a storm

 

[devilish]

1, Its not being misunderstood, you are trying to ignore the most important statistic given out in the whole debate by making spurious points about percentages of trade with various EU members states. The UK pays 8 billion a year to lose 68 billion a year in trade. The size of the market you could sell into isn't of any value in and of itself if you are clearly not selling into it. Now if the UK were not already inside the EU then you might be able to sell possible future growth in sales but the UK has been in the thing for over forty years.

2, So my view is the EU would because they sell more to the UK than the UK does to the EU and sales are price sensitive. The biggest problem in the negotiations will land straight in the EU negotiators lap once article 50 is triggered. Since the UK is quite happy with the status quo trade wise and can propose that and from an economic point of view in generating wealth right across Europe its the best way to go for both sides and all the people who live in the EU. Thats a strong argument and one the EU, if your thinking about it is correct, is on the wrong side of.

The EU unless I missed it doesn't have a position on what level of tariffs it wants to bring in yet. Once it suggests a rate and the sectors it plans to impose them on, then those sectors, businesses and industries will lobby their govt's to stop the bullshit and make a deal. In that sense the current stand off suits both sides but it won't hold.

3, Also, I think your view on world history corrupts your thinking on this matter as does your obsession with cherries and things some politicians say while campaigning.

a- can you kindly explain better?

b-c- I believe that the EU's main priority is its very existence which will be threatened if the UK becomes more/equally prosperous out of the EU. If it allows the UK to keep full access to single market while pulling the plug on freedom of movement then there will be many EU/EAA countries who would want the same. The EU will tolerate a bump along the way especially since it already has a culprit (ie Brexit) and a potential reward (ie substantial slice of the UK financial services + a clear example of what happens if a country leaves the EU). Companies had been bitching about TTIP, CETA etc. They didn't manage to force the EU's hand on that part and they wont manage on this either

I am not talking about world history. All I am saying is that in a globalised world if a country in the other part of world suffers than the consequences of it will be reached by everybody. The UK cant expect to arm dictators and bomb countries (as it has done in Libya and Iraq) and not end up flooded with immigrants. What's sure is that the Southern European countries will not allow to nanny immigrants on everyone's behalf as it clearly shown in the past years

 

[devilish]

I don't understand what the counter proposal is compared to the current operation most of which the UK pays for?

It is a bilateral agreement not an EU one and it benefits both sides. The problem is they don't want to live in France but they have no claim to live in the UK and the French are falling down in dealing with it.

And what exactly do you expect France to do? Should it send the immigrants back to Italy because they are the first safe country? And what do you expect Italy to do then? Should it finance hordes upon hordes of immigrants on Europe's behalf even though it lacks the facilities to integrate them successful? Or should it allow them to die at sea?

 

[devilish]

You are both spouting nonsense.

The french government will never scrap the Touquet treaty and the righ wing has no power in France because they have 1 MP out of 577. Also the UK won't close the tunnel because it's good for business.

Edit: And 6k only represents the ones without papers, the others are sent home.

Both Juppe and Sarkozy has questioned the Touquet treaty

 

[JPRouve]

Both Juppe and Sarkozy has questioned the validity of the Touquet treaty

Sarkozy is a tosser and Juppé wants to renegotiate not scrap it. The problem is that the migrants with documents aren't a problem since we can expel them but the ones without documents can't be expelled and are solely dealt by France.

 

[devilish]

Sarkozy is a tosser and Juppé wants to renegotiate not scrap it. The problem is that the migrants with documents aren't a problem since we can expel them but the ones without documents can't be expelled and are solely dealt by France.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...esidential-election-alain-juppe-a7118511.html

 

[JPRouve]

@devilish

I just read a little bit more about it and the agreement is illegal in the first place, to make it legal the border needs to be in shared with England so basically in Dover or in the middle of the channel. Because it goes against the right of asylum.

 

[Stanley Road]

And what exactly do you expect France to do? Should it send the immigrants back to Italy because they are the first safe country? And what do you expect Italy to do then? Should it finance hordes upon hordes of immigrants on Europe's behalf even though it lacks the facilities to integrate them successful? Or should it allow them to die at sea?

I would expect the eu as a whole to handle it better but they are totally incompetent as they show time and time again

 

[devilish]

I would expect the eu as a whole to handle it better but they are totally incompetent as they show time and time again

You haven't answered my question. The west had created this mess by arming isis/al qeada and by supporting regimes only to turn their backs at them when they didn't agreed with their agenda. Not everyone can hide behind the other side of the channel and expect others to sort the problem for them.

 

[Wibble]

1, Its not being misunderstood, you are trying to ignore the most important statistic given out in the whole debate by making spurious points about percentages of trade with various EU members states. The UK pays 8 billion a year to lose 68 billion a year in trade. The size of the market you could sell into isn't of any value in and of itself if you are clearly not selling into it. Now if the UK were not already inside the EU then you might be able to sell possible future growth in sales but the UK has been in the thing for over forty years.

How does it lose the UK 68 billion in trade exactly?

The important thing is that Britain will export less to the EU which is a huge market for UK good. We will still need to import good as our wages are too high to make most things. So we will import about the same and export less.

2, So my view is the EU would because they sell more to the UK than the UK does to the EU and sales are price sensitive. The biggest problem in the negotiations will land straight in the EU negotiators lap once article 50 is triggered. Since the UK is quite happy with the status quo trade wise and can propose that and from an economic point of view in generating wealth right across Europe its the best way to go for both sides and all the people who live in the EU. Thats a strong argument and one the EU, if your thinking about it is correct, is on the wrong side of.

The UK will import what it needs. This will generally be frome the cheapest source. If EU goods become more expensive then some of this may come from elsewhere. UK goods will be more expensive and face tarrifs and quotas so we will export less to Europe. Europe may suffer from our exit but we will suffer from our exit.

The EU unless I missed it doesn't have a position on what level of tariffs it wants to bring in yet. Once it suggests a rate and the sectors it plans to impose them on, then those sectors, businesses and industries will lobby their govt's to stop the bullshit and make a deal. In that sense the current stand off suits both sides but it won't hold.

Unless the EU are really stupid they are going to make the UK pay for exit and pay badly. It would be idiotic to do otherwise as it would be showing members that you can exit and only cherry pick the bits you want.

 

[AshfordLad]

You are both spouting nonsense.

The french government will never scrap the Touquet treaty and the righ wing has no power in France because they have 1 MP out of 577. Also the UK won't close the tunnel because it's good for business.

Edit: And 6k only represents the ones without papers, the others are sent home.

Ah. You again to the aid of your mate @devilish.

Care to explain how anything I have said is nonsense? Or just here to muck about like last time.

 

[devilish]

Ah. You again to the aid of your mate @devilish.

Care to explain how anything I have said is nonsense? Or just here to muck about like last time.

Jeez can you discuss things like an adult?

 

[JPRouve]

Ah. You again to the aid of your mate @devilish.

Care to explain how anything I have said is nonsense? Or just here to muck about like last time.

The suggestion of shutting the tunnel is nonsense, you realize that it's for the benefit of both sides and not just the benefit of a french company, the british operators will feel it too. Also if the tunnel is shut, the migrants will just concentrate on ferries.
And in general, this fantasy that antagonistic behaviors are going to solve any problems particularly in a domain where everyone knows that we need to work together. At the end of the day UK and France/EU are partners, pretty big partners.

 

[devilish]

The suggestion of shutting the tunnel is nonsense, you realize that it's for the benefit of both sides and not just the benefit of a french company, the british operators will feel it too. Also if the tunnel is shut, the migrants will just concentrate on ferries.
And in general, this fantasy that antagonistic behaviors are going to solve any problems particularly in a domain where everyone knows that we need to work together. At the end of the day UK and France/EU are partners, pretty big partners.

You only talk when I need to be 'defended'.

When are we meeting for that romantic date on the tour eiffel you've promised me?

joking

 

[Stanley Road]

Unless the EU are really stupid they are going to make the UK pay for exit and pay badly. It would be idiotic to do otherwise as it would be showing members that you can exit and only cherry pick the bits you want.

Now that would be really stupid, it would however confirm what I have always thought, that it is run by idiots

 

[JPRouve]

You only talk when I need to be 'defended'.

When are we meeting for that romantic date on the tour eiffel you've promised me?

joking

 

[Wibble]

Now that would be really stupid, it would however confirm what I have always thought, that it is run by idiots

Not at all. It would be a terrible idea for the EU to give the UK a great deal on exit. Why would they? They should revert to being like any other non-member who has to pay for whatever access they do want.

 

[fcbforever]

Now that would be really stupid, it would however confirm what I have always thought, that it is run by idiots

Wow. You really have no idea how the world works do you?

 

[JPRouve]

Now that would be really stupid, it would however confirm what I have always thought, that it is run by idiots

I might be wrong but I have the feeling that you consider that it's a sanction. When it's just how it works when you are not a member, the EU can't give access to the premium area for nothing.

 

[fcbforever]

I might be wrong but I have the feeling that you consider that it's a sanction. When it's just how it works when you are not a member, the EU can't give access to the premium area for nothing.

He does. It's not a punishment, it's about following the rules. For a lot of EU countries, having free movement is very important. Giving up on it doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter for Germany in regards to the UK, because we have better employment rates and earn more money over here, but for other countries it's not that easy. Even we need it but the other way round, to get workforce into the country.

 

[Stanley Road]

Not at all. It would be a terrible idea for the EU to give the UK a great deal on exit. Why would they? They should revert to being like any other non-member who has to pay for whatever access they do want.

I never mentioned great deal, you're previous post sounded like UK should get an exceptionally bad deal to be taught a lesson, that's how it came across.

 

[AshfordLad]

The suggestion of shutting the tunnel is nonsense, you realize that it's for the benefit of both sides and not just the benefit of a french company, the british operators will feel it too. Also if the tunnel is shut, the migrants will just concentrate on ferries.
And in general, this fantasy that antagonistic behaviors are going to solve any problems particularly in a domain where everyone knows that we need to work together. At the end of the day UK and France/EU are partners, pretty big partners.

So you are just repeating what I posted. Worst case is the illegals will make it to the UK. Exactly what I mentioned.

Read my post again. The one which you quoted. "If" does not mean "when". The only way to make @deivilsh realise the stupidty of his view on brexit is by painting a picture of the consequences. However ridiculous his starting picture maybe.

I voted to remain in myself but his constant belittling of the UK is just plain bullshit. Which needs to be called out.

 

[AshfordLad]

Not at all. It would be a terrible idea for the EU to give the UK a great deal on exit. Why would they? They should revert to being like any other non-member who has to pay for whatever access they do want.

Only thing is that the current deal was worse than paying for access. You simply can not make the worst possible deal any worse.

 

[JPRouve]

So you are just repeating what I posted. Worst case is the illegals will make it to the UK. Exactly what I mentioned.

Read my post again. The one which you quoted. "If" does not mean "when". The only way to make @deivilsh realise the stupidty of his view on brexit is by painting a picture of the consequences. However ridiculous his starting picture maybe.

I voted to remain in myself but his constant belittling of the UK is just plain bullshit. Which needs to be called out.

I specifically mentioned that the nonsense concerned the tunnel being closed and the idea that France will unilaterally scrap the existing agreement. That's why I said "both".

Only thing is that the current deal was worse than paying for access. You simply can not make the worst possible deal any worse.

Why do you think it's the worst possible deal?

 

[AshfordLad]

I specifically mentioned that the nonsense concerned the tunnel being closed and the idea that France will unilaterally scrap the existing agreement. That's why I said "both".

Thats why I said "If" that were to happen.
When the starting premise is non-sense then anything added on to it would be as much. Thats the whole point of my post.

Why do you think it's the worst possible deal?

We pay money in already, have no control on the benefits to eu nationals and have 1/28th of say in the bloc (where we contribute 1/10th of the budget) and all our businesses subjected to EU regulation.

What could possibly get worse from there. Sure, that 1/28th say in EU matters would go to zero. I would be happy to concede that as long as those businesses not dealing with the EU are freed of the regulation. Not to mention the ability of govt to differentiate b/w UK and EU nationals when it comes to welfare.

 

[devilish]

Thats why I said "If" that were to happen.
When the starting premise is non-sense then anything added on to it would be as much. Thats the whole point of my post.


We pay money in already, have no control on the benefits to eu nationals and have 1/28th of say in the bloc (where we contribute 1/10th of the budget) and all our businesses subjected to EU regulation.

What could possibly get worse from there. Sure, that 1/28th say in EU matters would go to zero. I would be happy to concede that as long as those businesses not dealing with the EU are freed of the regulation. Not to mention the ability of govt to differentiate b/w UK and EU nationals when it comes to welfare.

you do know that that will work both ways don't you? There's plenty of elderly British people in the EU. I wonder how the NHS will fare having them back while the EU immigrants (most of whom are already pay taxes in the UK), leave or are sent back home

 

[AshfordLad]

you do know that that will work both ways don't you? There's plenty of elderly British people in the EU. I wonder how the NHS will fare having them back while the EU immigrants (most of whom are already pay taxes in the UK), leave or are sent back home

Oh... the wealthy pensioners hogging the sun in southern spain will have to return home for treatment. Such a big price to pay, how will we ever manage that.

 

[JPRouve]

We pay money in already, have no control on the benefits to eu nationals and have 1/28th of say in the bloc (where we contribute 1/10th of the budget) and all our businesses subjected to EU regulation.

What could possibly get worse from there. Maybe that 1/28th say in EU matters. I would be happy to concede that as long as those businesses not dealing with the EU are freed of the regulation. Not to mention tha ability of govt to differentiate b/w UK and EU nationals when it comes to welfare.

If you want to access the free market you will be subjected to EU regulations, you will probably have to accept freedom of movement and you will pay a lot more money without seeing it back.

 

[sun_tzu]

What could possibly get worse from there. Sure, that 1/28th say in EU matters would go to zero. I would be happy to concede that as long as those businesses not dealing with the EU are freed of the regulation. Not to mention the ability of govt to differentiate b/w UK and EU nationals when it comes to welfare.

so lets say we have to pay more, accept free movement but dont get any say or vetos over decisions and for that we only get access to the single market for goods and not services - would that be worse?

honestly it could be a lot worse - and trying to conduct any deal of this complexity in a 2 year timeframe with multiple stakeholders and a highly politically charged atmosphere I honestly dont think we are likely to come out of there and have the world standing back and saying - check out the UK - they negotiated one hell of a deal there - it is of course all speculation at this point but wasnt the government putting adverts out for foreigners to come over and help us negotiate the trade deal because we just dont have anything like enough skilled and experienced negotiators whilst the EU literally has thousands of them doing nothing other than negotiating trade deals (that are as favourable as possible to the EU).

It may not get worse - but it certainly can - and if I had to bet on us getting a better or worse deal than we have now Im certainly not backing boris and his chums

 

[devilish]

Oh... the wealthy pensioners hogging the sun in southern spain will have to return home for treatment. Such a big price to pay, how will we ever manage that.

The NHS is free irrespective if those pensioners are rich or poor. Elderly people do not work, they are entitled to alot of benefits and they need the NHS more then anybody else. (and its costly). Also I got British mates who moved to my country a few years back. They are not rich. Some actually moved away from the UK because they couldn't afford living there anymore

 

[AshfordLad]

The NHS is free irrespective if those pensioners are rich or poor. Elderly people do not work, they are entitled to alot of benefits and they need the NHS more then anybody else. (and its costly). Also I got British mates who moved to my country a few years back. They are not rich. Some actually moved away from the UK because they couldn't afford living there anymore

You do realise that the UK has to pay other countries for the treatment received by UK nationals. Costs totallig more than £500bn.

Anyway, the rest of 60m should not be made to suffer if some 2m brits choose to live in southern europe.

 

[devilish]

You do realise that the UK has to pay other countries for the treatment received by UK nationals. Costs totallig more than £500bn.

Anyway, the rest of 60m should not be made to suffer if some 2m brits choose to live in southern europe.

In theory yes, but in practice its not the case. Those deals are a bureaucratic mess and those who take care of people's health are not business men. I have relatives in the health sector and I assure you that most of the time these sort of things are swept under the carpet

The rest of 60m will be made to suffer if most of those 2m Brits return home. The NHS cant afford them.

You also got a misconception about many EU immigrants

a- a big chunk of them work and therefore they pay taxes.
b- they come for a fixed period of time mostly to gain experience elsewhere or to study or to make a fixed amount of money to open a business back home. They most probably wont benefit from the benefits they are paying for
c- they tend to be healthy and if something wrong happens to them they prefer to sort it out in their own country then by using the NHS (which is a bureaucratic mess which few immigrants can understand)

 

[AshfordLad]

If you want to access the free market you will be subjected to EU regulations, you will probably have to accept freedom of movement and you will pay a lot more money without seeing it back.

But only those businesses that supply into the EU. The ones that dont have anything to do with the EU (like the place where I work) will (hopefully) be freed of the regulation that comes due to being inside the EU.

 

[sun_tzu]

Oh... the wealthy pensioners hogging the sun in southern spain will have to return home for treatment. Such a big price to pay, how will we ever manage that.

we already fund quite a lot of it in truth as the way it works is the spanish NHS reclaims the cost from our own NHS... but it could quite conceivably have an impact on demand for certain services - and potentially if a lot of pople are looking to return to the UK in a short time there could be knock on effects in housing for example

5.5 million British born people and live abroad I think 13 million british citizens - of course I doubt all would come back and spain its self is not that huge an amount of people

In 2014, the officially registered British-born population of Spain numbered 300,286, but in 2012 this figure was 397,892,[4] and 107,326 in 2001.[5]

even if 50% of people came back its not that much more than came back between 2012 and 2014 anyway

I suspect the people most impacted would probably be these types (from wiki)

.As a result of the 2008 global financial crisis, some British people in Spain who want to return to the UK have been unable to do so because of the difficulty of selling property in a depressed local housing market.[13] Figures published in January 2015 showed that 2,973 British nationals were in receipt of unemployment benefits in Spain.[14]

 

[JPRouve]

But only those businesses that supply into the EU. The ones that dont have anything to do with the EU (like the place where I work) will (hopefully) be freed of the regulation that comes due to being inside the EU.

But the main actors deal with the EU, the benefit is negligible. But most importantly what are the main grievances that you have against the EU rules?

 

[Bury Red]

Thats why I said "If" that were to happen.
When the starting premise is non-sense then anything added on to it would be as much. Thats the whole point of my post.


We pay money in already, have no control on the benefits to eu nationals and have 1/28th of say in the bloc (where we contribute 1/10th of the budget) and all our businesses subjected to EU regulation.

What could possibly get worse from there. Sure, that 1/28th say in EU matters would go to zero. I would be happy to concede that as long as those businesses not dealing with the EU are freed of the regulation. Not to mention the ability of govt to differentiate b/w UK and EU nationals when it comes to welfare.

A few factual discrepancies in there:

We hold 73 seats in the European Parliament out of 751 total, that's 9.7% far higher than the 1/28th you say we have, the only time we are 1/28 is in our right to veto.

Similarly our net contributions after our negotiated rebate were 11,341M€ from a total budget of 142,496M€ so only 7.9%.

As for the EU regulations, we currently write most of them with the chairs of over half the CEN working groups being representatives of UK industry. If we leave we will lose that voice but will still need to abide by the regulations if we wish to trade with the EU, at present there is nothing bar common sense stopping any company from offering goods or services to CE standards within the EU and offering a different specification elsewhere.

If we exit any deal we cut will be very unlikely to involve the rebate but is likely to see us paying in the same as we do now so we'd be closer to your 10% figure. We'd have no seats, no vote, no hand in setting the regulations and no veto any more whilst the chances are that we would have to maintain freedom of movement with all 28 EU member states to even cut a deal.

I fail to see how you think we will be better off.

 

[711]

Trying to boil things down a bit, Britain seems to have three possible outcomes:

A) give up access to the free market and fall back on world trade rules,
B) retain access to the free market, accept free movement, and pay a contribution to the EU budget,
C) retain access to the free market, reject free movement, and pay a much larger contribution for the privilege, as in much larger than we pay now.

Likely to be A or C in my opinion. May obviously won't want to tell the country we are having to pay more for C, but if the treasury paints A as a major disaster she might still consider it the least worst option.

None of this being close to what Brexit campaigners promised of course, although I suppose if anyone still believes Britain can get whatever it wants from the whole EU because Germany want to sell us BMWs, then they can add a further choice or two, but I've tried to keep to realistic options myself.

 

[Wibble]

I never mentioned great deal, you're previous post sounded like UK should get an exceptionally bad deal to be taught a lesson, that's how it came across.

That is an exceptionally bad deal given the rebates we currently have. The Bretix mob seem to think they should get a preferential deal because .... erm .... reason .... erm .... Rule Brittania or something.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...ound-retreats-from-133-ahead-of-crucial-us-j/

Sterling consolidates gains against both the dollar and the euro with new four-week high.
FTSE boosted by better-than-expected construction data.