Seems like just a free trade deal isn't going to cut it for the employer of all those Brexitanians in Sunderland :D
Printable View
Seems like just a free trade deal isn't going to cut it for the employer of all those Brexitanians in Sunderland :D
Source? Nothing on BBC.
Sunderland Echo also doesn't have any article matching this claim. In fact quite the opposite it quotes Ghosn of Nissan saying that the decision to quit the Single Market and go for a trade deal is "no surprise" and "doesn't change" investment plans. Unless he's done a 180 since then that's the opposite of what you just claimed without a source.
Http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/b...lant-1-8344104
Meanwhile, your retirees in Spain will be positively thrilled to have to return to Britain again. Will be fun for your NHS.
Again spinning unsubstantiated bullshit, forced repatriations are about as believable as your ludicrous claim of visas for tourists.
When you want to be a grown up we could have mature conversations.
This is a completely natural result from leaving the EU -*you have*about a hundred thousand retirees living in Spain who are*only there because they can get the same kind of health care as in the UK for free. I mean, you have a shitty health care system coupled with probably the world's worst weather.*I myself want to flee from it and I'm not even*living on your backwater island!
When you leave the EU, this kind of deal will vanish and they'd have to pay quite a bit more to get health care. Most of them won't be able to afford that and thus will be forced to return to the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ain-healthcare
I wonder how many of those retirees were allowed to vote...
Just like if I visit Canada or go elsewhere in the world I pay for my own healthcare. Yawn, like I give a shit if that's made even globally.
There's nothing special with Spain's healthcare. My aunt and uncle retired to Spain but my uncle has serious heart problems which he blames on his factory work history so they kept their home in the UK too which they come back to whenever he needs treatments. He last year had bypass surgery, which thankfully went well he did not want to have it in Spain and had it here. They travel to Spain for the weather and the UK for healthcare.
You are obviously completely incapable of understanding the problem these people face: They don't have a lot of money.*
A point the article did kind of make.
Plus, travelling back and forth for stuff like checkups or urgent conditions, that certainly a working proposition...
... but I see you're still desperately auditioning for the role of Comical Ali aka Baghdad Bob.
The article is fearmongering and grasping at straws. They have enough money to retire in a foreign nation. They can either continue that if agreed, fund it themselves, or return home, their choice. Why should I pay for their choices?
Their generation voted overwhelmingly for Brexit so they can adapt.
I can assure you, those pensioners most certainly did NOT vote for the Brexit. Because they either voted Remain or weren't allowed to vote because they weren't in your country at the time of the referendum due to the shitty stunt your government pulled in that regard.
Secondly,
But, sure, it's sooooo expensive to live in Spain or France...Quote:
Wilson, who also called for a unilateral move, said it was needed “urgently” for retired people in Spain who were already suffering a reduced pension because of the decline in the value of the pound following the referendum.
[...]
Many moved to Spain in the first place because it was cheaper to live there, because it was cheaper to buy a property,” Wilson told the committee.
Please provide actual evidence they voted for Remain.
Secondly there was no stunt. People living abroad and registered to vote were able to vote so long as they've been abroad for less than 15 years as has been the case in every other election and is standard election law. If someone's been abroad over 15 years they're welcome to apply for citizenship in the nation they've adopted and vote in their elections.
http://www.wort.lu/en/politics/uk-s-...ea9dff8fa76d84
As to other evidence: You might want to ask your government to provide that statistic. And, strangely enough, they said that they wanted to repeal the arbitrary 15 year limit. Just not in time for the referendum.
The stunt:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7103066.html
Not evidence. Opinion polls were flawed enough but surveys are utterly meaningless. A survey of one business's users is not a poll let alone tally of overseas votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
It's not arbitary it's longstanding law. Your claims of some weird conspiracy by the government to generate a Leave vote collide with the reality that the government was pro-Remain. https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...for-the-uk.pdfQuote:
As to other evidence: You might want to ask your government to provide that statistic. And, strangely enough, they said that they wanted to repeal the arbitrary 15 year limit. Just not in time for the referendum.
Not a stunt.Quote:
1: The government backed Remain not Leave.
2: The government is not responsible for issuing ballots (Councils are)
3: Neither the government nor the Councils deliver them (the Royal Mail and overseas Mail companies do).
4: 100 alleged people not getting votes, some of whom according to your own source would vote Leave, would not overturn a 1.3 million victory.
They won't be able to stay in the EU anyway as they'd have to buy private insurance which is horrendously expensive if you try to enter at an advanced age.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The visas for tourist is still totally possible. So far there is no regulation for your status at the border on Brexit-day. And that means that as a Brexitanian you're just another foreigner who needs a visa. Now pray that your government manages to get you a better deal. By being a lot nicer than it is today to start with. I think sacking Bozo the Clown would be a good start.
What's absolutely delicious is that if you get a visa waiver deal, it will be subject to the rule that it can be revoked if we decide there's reason to do so. For example if too many of your sort comes here, trying to steal our jobs. Which puts the Great White Brit on the level of Ukrainians and Turks, if the latter manage to ever get that visa deal.
Any emergency would rip the heart out of their budgets. Try having a sprained ankle without coverage :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
But none of that is really important, because the great White Brit doesn't travel to Europe so it's no sweat of his back. Just like in the good old times.
Boris is doing a fantastic job standing up for Britain. The fact he passes you off is just a nice bonus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
When is it going to sink in to you that we have no need to be "nice".
We'll see about that come april.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Enjoy the last 2 years of visa-free travel, and try not to piss of Juncker, as he's got to suggest its continuation to the Council.
The fact you hold any esteem to that drunk while calling Boris a clown shows your one-sided blindness.
I am just telling you that 'that drunk' is the one who calls the shot.He, not Bozo the clown will decide on your visa status. A concept you don't seem to get because you still haven't snapped out of your Great White British dream.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
A person for whom the matter of freedom of movement of persons is more important than all the other aspects of Brexit is very likely to be a racist, but this misses the point of that exchange. The point is that pretty much all versions of Brexit that retain the freedom of movement are nevertheless likely to result in an outcome that does a great deal "about the reasons they voted to leave in the first place" so your characterization was inaccurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
What kind of "compromise"--that isn't inimical to the core values, guiding principles and survival of the EU--would you like to see? Can you give some specific examples?Quote:
the "no compromise" attitudes demonstrated by the Europhiles on here goes far beyond just that area
Perhaps you should ask Hazir about this again and see if he can't give you a more nuanced account of his views.Quote:
Hazir has more than demonstrated that it's exactly what he wants, except with, you know, absolutely no decision-making participation allowed by the Brits. Restricted economic participation, full EU regulatory authority, free movement of persons, full dues (and without that rebate) etc.
Although I'm very dismayed to find that you apparently have no idea what a trumpet sounds like, I'm glad you offered that example because it illustrates quite well why I did not dismiss the visa matter out of hand in spite of it seeming so improbable as to be completely unworthy of discussion even under the standards established by RB.Quote:
Not being an EU member doesn't mean a visa is required for tourism (I don't need a visa to take a vacation in Europe) but you and even Aimless were trumpeting about that as a possibility.
While you don't need a visa to vacation in Europe, many Europeans--by a rough estimate approximately 70 million EU citizens--do need visas to vacation in the US. This is relevant not only because of the way the principle of reciprocity is currently viewed in the context of the Common Visa Policy but also because all these nations non grata have demonstrated that they will leverage their veto rights to gain the right to visa-free travel for their citizens. A priori, it is entirely possible that the UK will at least consider imposing visa requirements on the unwashed thieving vermin citizens of those EU member states, esp. considering the public and political discourse we saw leading up to the referendum, and it is therefore within the realm of possibility that UK citizens will require visas to enter EU countries under some Brexit scenarios. If we'd had this discussion a year ago I would've said that I believe they'd fast-track a provisional agreement specifically waiving visa requirements for UK citizens but the political opposition to such special treatment seems to be much stronger today.
Sorry, but I have to call this out right here. It's garbage to say that changing/limiting immigration as a primary goal is inherently racist. It's as garbage as saying fighting to keep the Kroner is inherently racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Policy is policy, and it's absurd to suggest that people who wish to control their borders are racist. The core founding values of the EU were peace and stability through economic union. Not the right of trust-fund hipsters to cruise from city to city on a whim.
ThisZionismimmigration limits = racisme mindset is a poison to politics on all sides of the Atlantic.
Garbage. Negotiations will determine it, a concept you don't seem to get because you still haven't snapped out of your Great White European dream.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
No RandBlade, for a visafree regime you need a recommendation from the commission. So go ahead and piss them off. I must say that I am surprised you are trying to use the white privilege thing after showing your sense of entitlement and disdain for the 'less savoury'
Be realistic. Aimless is more on track, we will get a recommendation so long as we agree to reciprocity, not based upon whether we say nice things about Juncker.
Where Aimless has it wrong is suggesting we will be the ones demanding visas for tourists. We don't do that, we have an established precedent of granting free movement for tourists much easier than free movement to live, work and most importantly claim benefits. It will be uncontroversial for us to agree free, reciprocal tourism while requiring visas for work and welfare.
Comical Ali strikes again. Also, Ulbricht: "No one plans to build a wall!"
No much how much "easier" it may be to tourist in the UK than to settle and work, you also have an established precedent for requiring visas for tourists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_p...isa_exemptionsQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
So perhaps you should qualify your sweeping and factually inaccurate claims about what the UK does or does not do.
I am being totally realistic. The reality being that your country is a third country after Brexit and that everything is connected to everything and that this has unexpected effects.
One of which could be tourist visas. For reasons that bear no relation to tourism.
Brexit is Brexit.
And now the Australians want more relaxed travel arrangements too in exchange for a trade deal.
Typo I meant to write we won't do that. Autocorrect made it don't and I didn't spot that. Your graphic proves my point, we don't demand tourist visas from any developed nations so why would we from the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Fantastic! Just what I wanted when I voted for Brexit. Be fairer to the nation I grew up in. I said I wanted to make it better for the Aussies and now my hopes are coming through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Bullshit is Bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
11% of Spanish GDP is tourism and by far the biggest source of tourism to Spain is ... the United Kingdom. Nearly 13mn Brits visit Spain annually compared to barely 9mn Germans and barely 8mn Germans and barely 3mn Italians. How much would a loss of British tourism devastate Spain already fragile economic position?
Oh, we're doing the percentage deals again? The ones where nearly half of your trades is with the EU and you dismissed*that out of hand as no big deal?
If ~47% is no big deal, why should 11% be?
Spain alone will not decide on the visa regime you will face. You lot are now reaping what you have sown; by insisting on having trade without free movement you made clear that anybody can exact a price for you not being willing to give free movent. Bozo claiming the two were not linked in the EU forged an unbreakable link all over the world. Congratulations with your clown for a foreign minister.
The two are not linked. Nobody is demanding free movement, what is being requested (which is quite standard) is easier visa processing especially for businessmen and students. Nothing wrong with that for anyone reasonable. If you're going to make it easier for a business to invest and develop overseas then you want it to be easier to bring skilled employees and senior executives over etc
As opposed to unskilled, unemployed migrants being able to get on a coach and arrive with equal rights to get universal welfare etc
Boris was right and you're the clown for not wrapping your head around the difference.
Meanwhile as potentially millions of impotent snowflakes across the globe seem to want to march to virtue signal their displeasure at a democratic transfer of power ... following the pathetic display of hysteria of most EU foreign leaders having an "emergency" meeting (both the French and British declined to attend that farce) the British PM is confirmed as symbolically front of the queue to meet the new Leader of the Free World to discuss a post-Brexit trade deal: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38707524
Impotent 'President' "we'll educate him on Europe" Juncker funnily enough doesn't seem to have a meeting arranged yet to begin re-educating the POTUS. It seems the answer to the "who to call when you want to speak to Europe" quote commonly misattributed to Kissinger is still not him.
I am finding your transformation into Lewk's racist uncle to be fascinating viewing. Have you guys upvoted each other on reddit yet?
I never dismissed it as no big deal. 44% and falling of trade is not going to disappear overnight, especially since we want to make a free trade agreement and a customs union with the bloc that provides that 44% and falling of trade. We just want to be able to also form trade agreements with the 56% and rising rest of the world. Oh and were our trade agreements not distorted against them then the rest of the world would make up more than 56%. We've already started preliminary talks with Australia, India and others and as said elsewhere are now going to have discussions with the world's largest single market - the USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
OTOH imposing visas would inflict actual damage to that 11% and with zero freedom to gain from elsewhere that could only be achieved by imposing the visas.
Name one racist thing I said before you sling hollow slurs. I'm finding the crocodile tears of snowflakes coming to naught while things I voted for coming to pass highly entertaining. None of that is racist. Unless you think insulting a drunk white man from Luxembourg is racism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
It's especially exhilarating to be repeatedly vindicated at having made the right decision in difficult circumstances to much derision by those with the backing of so-called "experts".
Had we listened to Mr Obama's "back of the queue" threats we'd now have absolutely no chance of getting a trade deal with America. Instead by following in the footsteps of the film Love Actually and repudiating such unwanted attempted bullying by the then American President and doing what we thought was best it now turns out that America is still interested in us after we've done what we decided after all.
What patriot could not be pleased by that? How is that racist?
Rand, while I think (maybe wishful thinking) that most western countries value actual benefits of negotiations more than personal feelings, do keep in mind that this is not the case all over the world, personal relations are important in diplomacy, which doesn't seem to be Boris Johnson's strong point.
I'd also not have high hopes for good trade deals with the US considering this administration's protectionist stance.
I think Brexit was not a smart choice, but now that's a fact I do hope a deal will be reached that is mutually beneficial. I just fear that the unrealistic expectations from the more hardline Brexit camp will result in no, or a crap deal: the campaign seemed to assume the UK will hey anything they want while not giving in to anything that the EU wants - it's negotiations so compromise will be needed, but I fear the British government will have a hard time selling compromises to the public.
And I do find it odd (and a little ironic) that you have a government negotiating pretty much the most important deals in your recent history while not being elected on any platform related to this. The irony being that Brexit was sold as taking back democratic control, of course. It just seems more logical/fair to me to hold elections worth parties campaigning on their stance on the big issues for these negotiations rather than having a government that was not elected campaigning on any of these issues. Over here when a government resigns the government that takes over is generally restricted from taking action on any controversial issues until new elections are held. Let's face it, the conservative party was elected into government on David Cameron's platform- I think
we can all agree that that's not the government's platform anymore.
Flixy, even though I agree that the objective should be the most beneficial agreement for both parties, where both parties will separately have to decide what is the most beneficial for them, I think you are forgetting one very important thing. By chosing for a hard Brexit (for political reasons) the government of the UK has effectively chosen for a new relationship with the rest of Europe. This new relationship, which indeed will make them more sovereign, has the important side effect that the cake that is to be divied up in the negotiations is smaller than it would have been under a remain or a soft Brexit. That means that the negotiations are not just going to be about the dvision of the spoils, but also about the division of the losses.
And that means it's going to be exremely difficult to come to any kind of agreement at all.
As for the crowing over a free trade deal with the US; the earliest date for that to start in earnest is in 2019. Basically when Americans are starting to get fired up about the midterm elections. And from the looks of it, no free trade deal will be popular in the USA any time soon. Reports about 'passporting' between the US and the UK for businesses is kinda rich too. As I think it's highly implausible that the USA is going to allow banks that moved operations from the USA to London because regulation is lighter there to operate of those London rules back home. If Trump didn't mean just banks, but businesses, then the Brits who were afraid of losing the NHS under TTIP can be certain they'll loose it under the USA-UK compact.
In diplomacy different people have different roles Flixy. May has quite clearly adopted the role of the cool, calm and collected matron that is in charge. Boris is the shooting from the hip kite flyer. Hammond is the quiet but serious money man. This allows Boris to "say the unsayable" and then judging upon the reactions if it goes down well then May can say it herself, if it goes down badly then May can say that's just "Boris being Boris". All sensible administrations have someone like that.
I hold moderate (not high) hope for the US given its protectionist stance. If we take Trump at his word then he wants a deal with the UK and it makes sense given his language to make deals with equivalent English speaking modern developed nations as opposed to third world nations that can undercut the US. I've heard increasing numbers of people suggest a potential "Five Eyes" deal which given the historical and security relations between our nations would make a lot of sense.
I think negotiations will happen and compromise is inevitable but a fair compromise is eminently agreeable. Any compromise will have the numbers to get through Parliament (when the alternative is the hardest of Article 50 exits).
As for your final point that's perhaps the difference between electing parties under PR and individual MPs under First Past The Post. All the MPs in Parliament have their own personal mandate and Parliament is in control of this, we don't have a Presidential system as much as the modern media likes to make it so and David Cameron was not elected President. Half of all Prime Ministers in recent times have taken over in the same manner as Theresa May did and none of them went for an early election. Plus thanks to the Lib Dems we now have the Fixed Term Parliament Act which makes no provision for the PM changing. This makes opposition calls for an early election ring even hollower. At the next election all our MPs will have to be judged accordingly to how they've acted this Parliament by the electorate.
Besides even when there's no change of PM there's no guarantee that governments will honour their platform. In 1997 Tony Blair became PM with a manifesto commitment to no tuition fees. In 1997 Tony Blair abolished free tuition at universities and became the first PM to introduce tuition fees for universities.