Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Webbo]

19 minutes ago, Barky said:

They're paying the same rate of tax as everyone else. It's hard to measure but generally immigrants are thought to contribute more than they take. 

https://fullfact.org/immigration/do-eu-immigrants-contribute-134-every-1-they-receive/

 

How much potential tax revenue isn't being realised because we're failing to invest enough in improving people's skills and the country's infrastructure? We've got one of the worst productivity levels in the developed world, the worst traffic problems in the developed world, the highest public transport costs in developed Europe and our ranking in education is dropping like a stone. Doesn't that set off some alarm bells?

I don't doubt they're paying the same as everybody else but how much tax would somebody on minimum wage pay and if we're going to have spend all the tax they pay on infrastructure to accommodate them what's in it for us?

 

As for equipping people with skills you've said yourself we spend more than most countries on education.

[Barky]

30 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I don't doubt they're paying the same as everybody else but how much tax would somebody on minimum wage pay and if we're going to have spend all the tax they pay on infrastructure to accommodate them what's in it for us?

 

As for equipping people with skills you've said yourself we spend more than most countries on education.

It wouldn't just be to accommodate immigrants. It would be to improve life and prospects for everybody. The immigration side of this argument, as I said earlier, is just a smokescreen, they're being used as a scapegoat when the actual problem lies with the government not doing enough. Even if we'd have had no immigration at all, our infrastructure would still be outdated and services would still be suffering due to chronic underinvestment and bad management. The fact is that we're lagging behind our competitors on some very crucial measures. Immigration isn't to blame for any of them, reducing immigration won't do anything to help. The government are to blame, they're the people who's responsibility it was and is to run the country properly and they're failing us. Labour and Tory both. They're both as bad as each other.

[Webbo]

9 hours ago, Barky said:

It wouldn't just be to accommodate immigrants. It would be to improve life and prospects for everybody. The immigration side of this argument, as I said earlier, is just a smokescreen, they're being used as a scapegoat when the actual problem lies with the government not doing enough. Even if we'd have had no immigration at all, our infrastructure would still be outdated and services would still be suffering due to chronic underinvestment and bad management. The fact is that we're lagging behind our competitors on some very crucial measures. Immigration isn't to blame for any of them, reducing immigration won't do anything to help. The government are to blame, they're the people who's responsibility it was and is to run the country properly and they're failing us. Labour and Tory both. They're both as bad as each other.

Extra housing for immigrants are of benefit to nobody except the people who live in them. The road in the cities of this country are already over crowded and there are building either side of them, so just making them wider isn't an option.People don't want greenfield sites built upon and there isn't enough brown field sites in the areas that need extra housing to accommodate an extra 1 million people every 3 years. The govt is already running a massive deficit, where's the money coming from?

[Barky]

15 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Extra housing for immigrants are of benefit to nobody except the people who live in them. The road in the cities of this country are already over crowded and there are building either side of them, so just making them wider isn't an option.People don't want greenfield sites built upon and there isn't enough brown field sites in the areas that need extra housing to accommodate an extra 1 million people every 3 years. The govt is already running a massive deficit, where's the money coming from?

It'll come from the extra tax revenue they get from not having the lowest level of productivity in the developed world, and the extra they'll get from having well educated kids working in good jobs instead of sat on the dole. The economy has been growing steadily if slowly for nearly a decade. If we don't start trying to catch up with our competitors soon when will we ever? If you're happy with the uk drifting further and further back, becoming poorer and a worse place to live in comparison to our neighbours then fair enough. Personally I'm not. I don't want to live in a crap country. 

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Barky said:

It'll come from the extra tax revenue they get from not having the lowest level of productivity in the developed world, and the extra they'll get from having well educated kids working in good jobs instead of sat on the dole. The economy has been growing steadily if slowly for nearly a decade. If we don't start trying to catch up with our competitors soon when will we ever? If you're happy with the uk drifting further and further back, becoming poorer and a worse place to live in comparison to our neighbours then fair enough. Personally I'm not. I don't want to live in a crap country. 

If you want to raise productivity then stopping business from employing cheap labour is a good start. As for education it's not like every govt for the last 40 years hasn't been trying to improve things.

[davieG]

Just listened to Sturgeon on the Andrew Marr programme and I appreciate she's there to do the best for Scotland but I don't understand her logic as to why the UK should opt for a soft Brexit (Single Makt & Customs Union) to appease those Scottish voters who voted to stay.

 

She's say we should go for the soft option or she'll push for Independence but then she goes on to say after the deal is done and we've got a soft Brexit agreement  she'll  still go for independence whilst the rest of the UK is stuck with an agreement we may not have wanted.

 

So why should we bother to take any notice of her and her party if their only real aim is independence

[Strokes]

15 minutes ago, davieG said:

Just listened to Sturgeon on the Andrew Marr programme and I appreciate she's there to do the best for Scotland but I don't understand her logic as to why the UK should opt for a soft Brexit (Single Makt & Customs Union) to appease those Scottish voters who voted to stay.

 

She's say we should go for the soft option or she'll push for Independence but then she goes on to say after the deal is done and we've got a soft Brexit agreement  she'll  still go for independence whilst the rest of the UK is stuck with an agreement we may not have wanted.

 

So why should we bother to take any notice of her and her party if their only real aim is independence

We shouldn't, if anything it should push us the other way. Soft brexit, is the same negatives, with no influence. We would be better off having full membership. 

[GazzinderFox]

Encouraging to hear May talking about not hanging on to bits of the EU. Looks like it's full steam ahead for a hard brexit as far as the government are concerned.

 

We've come this far, we may as well at least attempt to have our cake and eat it. If the EU want to get their pistols out and fire a few warning shots into the darkening night sky for the benefit of other wavering members then they need to be very careful that they're pointing them in the right direction.

[Great Boos Up]

Just a thought but why can't we start another member group within Europe. Lets call it the Union of Europe, y'know; like the peoples front of Judea.

[bovril]

34 minutes ago, Great Boos Up said:

Just a thought but why can't we start another member group within Europe. Lets call it the Union of Europe, y'know; like the peoples front of Judea.

Romanians Go Home! 

[Innovindil]

57 minutes ago, Great Boos Up said:

Just a thought but why can't we start another member group within Europe. Lets call it the Union of Europe, y'know; like the peoples front of Judea.

We'll start our own club. 

 

With blackjack and hookers! 

[The Guvnor]

21 hours ago, davieG said:

Just listened to Sturgeon on the Andrew Marr programme and I appreciate she's there to do the best for Scotland but I don't understand her logic as to why the UK should opt for a soft Brexit (Single Makt & Customs Union) to appease those Scottish voters who voted to stay.

 

She's say we should go for the soft option or she'll push for Independence but then she goes on to say after the deal is done and we've got a soft Brexit agreement  she'll  still go for independence whilst the rest of the UK is stuck with an agreement we may not have wanted.

 

So why should we bother to take any notice of her and her party if their only real aim is independence

As Andrew pointed out Davie it wasn't just the single market and the customs union it was more devolution for Scotland she is after which was virtually the same as an independent Scotland.

[davieG]

Just now, The Guvnor said:

As Andrew pointed out Davie it wasn't just the single market and the customs union it was more devolution for Scotland she is after which was virtually the same as an independent Scotland.

Aye but she also said she would still eventually push for independence, either way the UK should not be bowing to the demands of a Scotland that doesn't want to be part of the UK. 

[The Guvnor]

1 minute ago, davieG said:

Aye but she also said she would still eventually push for independence, either way the UK should not be bowing to the demands of a Scotland that doesn't want to be part of the UK. 

I suspect she is keeping that one burning away in the background to try and force Theresa's hand, personally I cannot see Theresa conceding to anything as she will believe that another Scottish independence vote would have the same outcome, and I suspect Nicola realises that to.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

Aye but she also said she would still eventually push for independence, either way the UK should not be bowing to the demands of a Scotland that doesn't want to be part of the UK. 

Probably the way Europe view the UK right now. 

[davieG]

13 minutes ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

Probably the way Europe view the UK right now. 

Quite so it's a dog eat dog world (or as it's sometimes written on twitter a doggy dog world ) and despite what many think we're just a bit part player.

[Guest MattP]

20 hours ago, GazzinderFox said:

Encouraging to hear May talking about not hanging on to bits of the EU. Looks like it's full steam ahead for a hard brexit as far as the government are concerned.

 

We've come this far, we may as well at least attempt to have our cake and eat it. If the EU want to get their pistols out and fire a few warning shots into the darkening night sky for the benefit of other wavering members then they need to be very careful that they're pointing them in the right direction.

Full Brexit, which is what it is, certainly appears that way, despite the media claiming she said little I thought she said quite a bit, if we are to continue to be told we have to let people into our country who we don't want to, we'll be out of the single market.

 

As for Sturgeon, she's got nothing. If Andrew Marr can tell she's bluffing the government will be able to see it, it was weird to see her still clinging onto this myth that leading figures didn't say a vote to leave meant a vote to leave the single market, even when Marr again made it pretty clear they told him in person.

[GazzinderFox]

19 minutes ago, MattP said:

Full Brexit, which is what it is, certainly appears that way, despite the media claiming she said little I thought she said quite a bit, if we are to continue to be told we have to let people into our country who we don't want to, we'll be out of the single market.

I think some of the comments coming from within the EU about being rigid on freedom of movement have made it quite easy for May to take this path. If the chatter had been more nuanced with talk of compromise for both sides then it surely would have increased the pressure on May to go for semi-brexit. It would, I would have thought, be very difficult politically for the tories to negotiate a Brexit that made effectively no changes at all to FOM.  

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said:

I think some of the comments coming from within the EU about being rigid on freedom of movement have made it quite easy for May to take this path. If the chatter had been more nuanced with talk of compromise for both sides then it surely would have increased the pressure on May to go for semi-brexit. It would, I would have thought, be very difficult politically for the tories to negotiate a Brexit that made effectively no changes at all to FOM.  

When Donald Tusk said it was no Brexit or hard Brexit he made the decision for us, not for the first time a European politician didn't really think through what he was saying.

 

Weirdly, now they are starting to talk about Shenghen, I think deep down they know it's coming to an end with the challenges they face, but they are so ideologically driven they just don't want to confront it.

[Barky]

Pound in freefall yet again on hard brexit suggestion. Nearly a quarter of its value has already now been wiped off. It's a bloodbath. I can hardly bare thinking about how poor this is making me in global terms.

[Guest MattP]

17 minutes ago, Barky said:

Pound in freefall yet again on hard brexit suggestion. Nearly a quarter of its value has already now been wiped off. It's a bloodbath. I can hardly bare thinking about how poor this is making me in global terms.

Freefall? It's dropped a cent.

[Barky]

20 minutes ago, MattP said:

Freefall? It's dropped a cent.

It's down over 1% and falling

[Innovindil]

1 hour ago, Barky said:

It's down over 1% and falling

1%.

 

Last year, that wouldn't even be news, let alone "sky is falling" news. 

 

Everything getting so blown out of proportion it's untrue. The pound falling was expected, the strength of our economy (as of right now) wasn't. Why is one getting you riled yet the other isn't giving you hope?  

[davieG]

Jeremy Corbyn is to say Labour is not "wedded" to freedom of movement for EU citizens in the UK as a "matter of principle", as he sets out his views on Brexit negotiations.

In a speech, the party leader will argue the UK "can be better off" after leaving the EU, but add that he will not allow Theresa May a "free pass".

Mr Corbyn will pledge to push for "fair and reasonably managed migration".

 

In a speech in Peterborough on Tuesday, Mr Corbyn will say: "We have had no answers from government about their plans.

"Not since the Second World War has Britain's ruling elite so recklessly put the country in such an exposed position without a plan."

The Labour leader will add: "There can be no question of giving Theresa May's Tories a free pass in the Brexit negotiations.

"Unlike the Tories, Labour will insist on a Brexit that works not just for City interests, but in the interests of us all."

Mr Corbyn is set to promise to "push to maintain full access to the European single market to protect living standards and jobs".

But he will emphasise that Labour will "press to repatriate powers from Brussels for the British government to develop a genuine industrial strategy essential for the economy of the future".

'Action on undercutting'

On immigration and free movement of EU citizens - regarded as a key electoral issue in many Labour constituencies - Mr Corbyn will say: "Labour is not wedded to freedom of movement for EU citizens as a point of principle.

"But nor can we afford to lose full access to the European markets on which so many British businesses and jobs depend.

"Changes to the way migration rules operate from the EU will be part of the negotiations."

Labour will demand "fair rules and reasonably managed migration" and "take action against undercutting of pay and conditions by closing down cheap labour loopholes, banning exclusive advertising of jobs abroad and strengthening workplace protections", Mr Corbyn will say.

On Sunday, the prime minister told Sky News it would not be possible to hold on to "bits" of EU membership after Brexit, leading to widespread reporting that she was moving towards leaving the European single market, with restricting immigration a priority.

But Mrs May said on Monday that it was "wrong" to infer that she preferred a so-called "hard Brexit", adding: "What we're doing is going to get an ambitious, good and best possible deal for the United Kingdom in terms of... trading with and operating within the single European market."

Ahead of Mr Corbyn's speech, Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said his Labour counterpart was "still no clearer" on immigration.

He added: "He failed to pull a shift to keep us in the EU before the referendum and now he is helping Theresa May, [International Trade Secretary] Liam Fox and [Foreign Secretary] Boris Johnson yank us out of the single market."

[Innovindil]

>Not wedded to free movement. 

 

>Wants full access to single market. 

 

And he says May is unclear on what she wants.