Why should we pay? Two possibilities. Firstly, that we have already promised to do so. Secondly, that we are getting something in return.
In respect of the first the EU budget that we agreed runs until 2019. If we were to leave before that there may be an argument that we should honour those commitments. After that not so much. There are longer term liabilities of the EU, such as the pensions of their well paid staff. I can see the UK taking on the responsibility to pay those of UK citizens although I can also see an argument that we have a right to roughly 20% of the value of EU Institutions that have been built up with our money. A trade off looks likely.
Going forward, there remains the possibility that we will remain in some sort of relationship with some EU institutions. So we might remain a part of the EU patents system, for example. If we do then we will inevitably have to contribute to the cost of those institutions in the same way as we do now.
Paying for access to the Single Market, for example, I would be a lot less happy about. Canada is not paying, why should we? The Single Market's access to the UK is worth rather more than our reciprocal rights.at the moment and indeed for the last 20 years. On this we should dig our heels in.
Does this mean we are playing Bridge at a poker table in Alastair's colourful metaphor? I don't think so. I just think the UK position is more in accordance with the realities of the situation.
Canada is not home to big employers whose investment and business strategies are predicated on membership of the single market. Paying to get access on better terms than Canada has makes complete sense. Obviously, it makes no sense to pay for what Canada gets for free.
Our big employers have strategies predicated on tariff free access to the Single Market. That is our objective in the negotiations. It should not involve payment.
The US is ending the fast-tracking of visa applications for engineers, scientists, programmers etc from the start of April. This will be a huge setback for Silicon Valley and other tech hubs there. It's also a huge opportunity for us: if the Americans don't want top talent, we should be making clear we do.
I don't think anyone is objecting to paying a fair share of our liabilities when we leave. The opening gambit of 60bn is clearly not a fair share.
It's an opening gambit. No-one expects it to be the final sum. We may also end up paying out for continued access, in addition to whatever we pay to meet our liabilities.
Disagree - to anyone who really understands the basis of the European claim the vast majority really is utter garbage (I think @RichardNabavi split it Eur10bn existing liabilities, + 1 year contribution for the existing budget so say Eur 20bn is arguable, but the rest is "future costs of current programmes that we wouldn't have undertaken in their current form if the UK hadn't agreed to pay for them").
What they will do (at least in the UK) is use the big liability number to justify what, in reality, are payments for access. "Britain is honest, we pay our bills. These are real liabilities, but haven't we done well, we've agreed to pay them off over 10 years"
£20bn is the cost of a couple of fvcked up NHS IT systems. Bargain.
Ouch!
Although seriously, I know little of IT systems and am sure the technical wizardry must be damn complicated, but why do they capita so many billions sometimes?
To put it simply - because those purchasing know bugger all about IT systems either, suffer from constant political interference regarding the scope of their project and deadlines for implementation, and get royally ripped off by large vendors with tough negotiation teams.
To be fair, they've been getting better at it in recent years, but the NHS IT project was only one example of a very long list. Military procurement suffers from similar problems.
I don't think anyone is objecting to paying a fair share of our liabilities when we leave. The opening gambit of 60bn is clearly not a fair share.
It's an opening gambit. No-one expects it to be the final sum. We may also end up paying out for continued access, in addition to whatever we pay to meet our liabilities.
Disagree - to anyone who really understands the basis of the European claim the vast majority really is utter garbage (I think @RichardNabavi split it Eur10bn existing liabilities, + 1 year contribution for the existing budget so say Eur 20bn is arguable, but the rest is "future costs of current programmes that we wouldn't have undertaken in their current form if the UK hadn't agreed to pay for them").
What they will do (at least in the UK) is use the big liability number to justify what, in reality, are payments for access. "Britain is honest, we pay our bills. These are real liabilities, but haven't we done well, we've agreed to pay them off over 10 years"
€20bn sounds about right. And there'll be access payments on top. As I said, the €60bn is an opening gambit.
How much do other countries pay to "access" the single market? Some idea of the range would be helpful...USA? China? India?
None of those countries have ever been members of the single market and customs union, so none have companies pursuing business and investment strategies predicated on it. If we want to ensure access on a basis that causes the least disruption we will have to pay.
And the EU pay us for reciprocal rights?
Why would it? The EU takes 44% of our exports.
Under 40% now. And falling. The EU is becoming as irrelevant to us as it is to every other non-EU country in the world. Eventually our trade will reflect global GDP share much more closely and the EU accounts for just 12% including the UK.
But I won't let the facts get in the way of your constant delusional rantings about how we need the EU oh so very much.
The EU is our biggest export market and will be for years to come. I am sorry that you do not like that fact, but a fact it is nevertheless.
Why should we pay? Two possibilities. Firstly, that we have already promised to do so. Secondly, that we are getting something in return.
In respect of the first the EU budget that we agreed runs until 2019. If we were to leave before that there may be an argument that we should honour those commitments. After that not so much. There are longer term liabilities of the EU, such as the pensions of their well paid staff. I can see the UK taking on the responsibility to pay those of UK citizens although I can also see an argument that we have a right to roughly 20% of the value of EU Institutions that have been built up with our money. A trade off looks likely.
Going forward, there remains the possibility that we will remain in some sort of relationship with some EU institutions. So we might remain a part of the EU patents system, for example. If we do then we will inevitably have to contribute to the cost of those institutions in the same way as we do now.
Paying for access to the Single Market, for example, I would be a lot less happy about. Canada is not paying, why should we? The Single Market's access to the UK is worth rather more than our reciprocal rights.at the moment and indeed for the last 20 years. On this we should dig our heels in.
Does this mean we are playing Bridge at a poker table in Alastair's colourful metaphor? I don't think so. I just think the UK position is more in accordance with the realities of the situation.
Canada is not home to big employers whose investment and business strategies are predicated on membership of the single market. Paying to get access on better terms than Canada has makes complete sense. Obviously, it makes no sense to pay for what Canada gets for free.
Business needs to adjust their strategy. These things are not set in stone.
Best to avoid scenarios in which such adjustments involve wage and hiring freezes, big lay-offs and/or closures. Ongoing payments for enhanced access will do that and so will be well worth the price.
It seems correct that both the eu figure of 60bn and our counter of 0bn, that we are obliged to pay at least, are negotiating gambits only. It's one reason the idea floated we would gravely offend the eu by saying it is preposterous, since it seems a pretty brazen counter to a pretty brazen opening gambit.
With that being the case and it seems acknowledged in your piece, I am surprised you see the response To be as bad as you say, since it is presumably only a negotiating position. Now, maybe it's a poor one, but this piece isn't as convincing as the a50 one.
The big error to my mind is that by playing for such a big figure to start with when it is inevitably either negotiated down to about £10 billion or simply not paid they will look weak and ineffectual, and have implanted the idea that it is possible to leave the EU without financial penalty. That could prove rather a dangerous impression going forward.
Perhaps, although ensuring our leaving does not look an attractive prospect seems like a higher priority than a deal which is genuinely mutually beneficial, so while 60bn as stated by Alistair seems, in essence, nonsense, I'd imagine they will push hard for something like half if that. How well we play our hand elsewhere will presumably dictate how much we can negotiate it down, and how credibly the government can claim it as a victory.
But what happens when they push for it and don't get it? Unless something dramatic happens in the next two years, a hard Brexit risks a second banking panic, this time in Italy and Germany, and the collapse of the Euro. So they will have to compromise and will have implanted the idea they can't even get cash out of departing members. Will this hinder them going forward? I would argue so, especially as that drunken lunatic Verhofstadt has argued Brexit underscores how beloved the EU is and is now pushing for more or less immediate federation.
They'll compromise a bit, but I suspect not too much. They simply cannot have us leave without seeming like we got a terrible deal, otherwise others might start to wonder if leaving would be so bad, when currently even the sceptical are falling back into line. It seems to me more likely we would bend on the principle of some contrubution before they concede it, not least because our crisis might come first. Doesn't mean we cannot get a good deal, but they have reasons beyond economics to be stubborn than us, even if it problematic longer term.
On the euro, if it survived Greece can anything kill it?
Why should we pay? Two possibilities. Firstly, that we have already promised to do so. Secondly, that we are getting something in return.
In respect of the first the EU budget that we agreed runs until 2019. If we were to leave before that there may be an argument that we should honour those commitments. After that not so much. There are longer term liabilities of the EU, such as the pensions of their well paid staff. I can see the UK taking on the responsibility to pay those of UK citizens although I can also see an argument that we have a right to roughly 20% of the value of EU Institutions that have been built up with our money. A trade off looks likely.
Going forward, there remains the possibility that we will remain in some sort of relationship with some EU institutions. So we might remain a part of the EU patents system, for example. If we do then we will inevitably have to contribute to the cost of those institutions in the same way as we do now.
Paying for access to the Single Market, for example, I would be a lot less happy about. Canada is not paying, why should we? The Single Market's access to the UK is worth rather more than our reciprocal rights.at the moment and indeed for the last 20 years. On this we should dig our heels in.
Does this mean we are playing Bridge at a poker table in Alastair's colourful metaphor? I don't think so. I just think the UK position is more in accordance with the realities of the situation.
Canada is not home to big employers whose investment and business strategies are predicated on membership of the single market. Paying to get access on better terms than Canada has makes complete sense. Obviously, it makes no sense to pay for what Canada gets for free.
Business needs to adjust their strategy. These things are not set in stone.
Indeed. Continuity Remainers would do well to note that government for the benefit of big business (especially with regard to large scale immigration replacing the hallowed social contract between employers and the citizenry employed) was a significant factor in the referendum. You know, the one they lost despite having overwhelming advantage....
I don't think anyone is objecting to paying a fair share of our liabilities when we leave. The opening gambit of 60bn is clearly not a fair share.
It's an opening gambit. No-one expects it to be the final sum. We may also end up paying out for continued access, in addition to whatever we pay to meet our liabilities.
Disagree - to anyone who really understands the basis of the European claim the vast majority really is utter garbage (I think @RichardNabavi split it Eur10bn existing liabilities, + 1 year contribution for the existing budget so say Eur 20bn is arguable, but the rest is "future costs of current programmes that we wouldn't have undertaken in their current form if the UK hadn't agreed to pay for them").
What they will do (at least in the UK) is use the big liability number to justify what, in reality, are payments for access. "Britain is honest, we pay our bills. These are real liabilities, but haven't we done well, we've agreed to pay them off over 10 years"
€20bn sounds about right. And there'll be access payments on top. As I said, the €60bn is an opening gambit.
How much do other countries pay to "access" the single market? Some idea of the range would be helpful...USA? China? India?
None of those countries have ever been members of the single market and customs union, so none have companies pursuing business and investment strategies predicated on it. If we want to ensure access on a basis that causes the least disruption we will have to pay.
And the EU pay us for reciprocal rights?
Why would it? The EU takes 44% of our exports.
39% last year. And on a downward trend. Plus the quantity of exports to the UK is substantially larger and has been consistently over a long period.
It's by far our biggest export market and will continue to be so for years to come. Paying for enhanced access makes complete sense.
The US is ending the fast-tracking of visa applications for engineers, scientists, programmers etc from the start of April. This will be a huge setback for Silicon Valley and other tech hubs there. It's also a huge opportunity for us: if the Americans don't want top talent, we should be making clear we do.
I don't think anyone is objecting to paying a fair share of our liabilities when we leave. The opening gambit of 60bn is clearly not a fair share.
It's an opening gambit. No-one expects it to be the final sum. We may also end up paying out for continued access, in addition to whatever we pay to meet our liabilities.
Disagree - to anyone who really understands the basis of the European claim the vast majority really is utter garbage (I think @RichardNabavi split it Eur10bn existing liabilities, + 1 year contribution for the existing budget so say Eur 20bn is arguable, but the rest is "future costs of current programmes that we wouldn't have undertaken in their current form if the UK hadn't agreed to pay for them").
What they will do (at least in the UK) is use the big liability number to justify what, in reality, are payments for access. "Britain is honest, we pay our bills. These are real liabilities, but haven't we done well, we've agreed to pay them off over 10 years"
£20bn is the cost of a couple of fvcked up NHS IT systems. Bargain.
Ouch!
Although seriously, I know little of IT systems and am sure the technical wizardry must be damn complicated, but why do they capita so many billions sometimes?
To put it simply - because those purchasing know bugger all about IT systems either, suffer from constant political interference regarding the scope of their project and deadlines for implementation, and get royally ripped off by large vendors with tough negotiation teams.
To be fair, they've been getting better at it in recent years, but the NHS IT project was only one example of a very long list. Military procurement suffers from similar problems.
Should any IT system cost a mere 1 billion though? Are they at least in a reasonable ballpark.
Why should we pay? Two possibilities. Firstly, that we have already promised to do so. Secondly, that we are getting something in return.
In respect of the first the EU budget that we agreed runs until 2019. If we were to leave before that there may be an argument that we should honour those commitments. After that not so much. There are longer term liabilities of the EU, such as the pensions of their well paid staff. I can see the UK taking on the responsibility to pay those of UK citizens although I can also see an argument that we have a right to roughly 20% of the value of EU Institutions that have been built up with our money. A trade off looks likely.
Going forward, there remains the possibility that we will remain in some sort of relationship with some EU institutions. So we might remain a part of the EU patents system, for example. If we do then we will inevitably have to contribute to the cost of those institutions in the same way as we do now.
Paying for access to the Single Market, for example, I would be a lot less happy about. Canada is not paying, why should we? The Single Market's access to the UK is worth rather more than our reciprocal rights.at the moment and indeed for the last 20 years. On this we should dig our heels in.
Does this mean we are playing Bridge at a poker table in Alastair's colourful metaphor? I don't think so. I just think the UK position is more in accordance with the realities of the situation.
Canada is not home to big employers whose investment and business strategies are predicated on membership of the single market. Paying to get access on better terms than Canada has makes complete sense. Obviously, it makes no sense to pay for what Canada gets for free.
Business needs to adjust their strategy. These things are not set in stone.
Indeed. Continuity Remainers would do well to note that government for the benefit of big business (especially with regard to large scale immigration replacing the hallowed social contract between employers and the citizenry employed) was a significant factor in the referendum. You know, the one they lost despite having overwhelming advantage....
So, to clarify: you are opposed to the UK government making any ongoing payments for enhanced access to the single market that may safeguard jobs and investment in the UK. If May agreed to such payments you believe that would be wrong?
They'll compromise a bit, but I suspect not too much. They simply cannot have us leave without seeming like we got a terrible deal, otherwise others might start to wonder if leaving would be so bad, when currently even the sceptical are falling back into line. It seems to me more likely we would bend on the principle of some contrubution before they concede it, not least because our crisis might come first. Doesn't mean we cannot get a good deal, but they have reasons beyond economics to be stubborn than us, even if it problematic longer term.
On the euro, if it survived Greece can anything kill it?
Yes, a similar crisis in Spain or Italy. Spain looks to be slowly dragging its way out of the mire, Italy is falling deeper in.
The Euro barely survived Greece, which is small. Italy going the same way would leave it without palatable options - federation or destruction.
I don't think anyone is objecting to paying a fair share of our liabilities when we leave. The opening gambit of 60bn is clearly not a fair share.
It's an opening gambit. No-one expects it to be the final sum. We may also end up paying out for continued access, in addition to whatever we pay to meet our liabilities.
Disagree - to anyone who really understands the basis of the European claim the vast majority really is utter garbage (I think @RichardNabavi split it Eur10bn existing liabilities, + 1 year contribution for the existing budget so say Eur 20bn is arguable, but the rest is "future costs of current programmes that we wouldn't have undertaken in their current form if the UK hadn't agreed to pay for them").
What they will do (at least in the UK) is use the big liability number to justify what, in reality, are payments for access. "Britain is honest, we pay our bills. These are real liabilities, but haven't we done well, we've agreed to pay them off over 10 years"
€20bn sounds about right. And there'll be access payments on top. As I said, the €60bn is an opening gambit.
How much do other countries pay to "access" the single market? Some idea of the range would be helpful...USA? China? India?
None of those countries have ever been members of the single market and customs union, so none have companies pursuing business and investment strategies predicated on it. If we want to ensure access on a basis that causes the least disruption we will have to pay.
And the EU pay us for reciprocal rights?
Why would it? The EU takes 44% of our exports.
Under 40% now. And falling. The EU is becoming as irrelevant to us as it is to every other non-EU country in the world. Eventually our trade will reflect global GDP share much more closely and the EU accounts for just 12% including the UK.
But I won't let the facts get in the way of your constant delusional rantings about how we need the EU oh so very much.
The EU is our biggest export market and will be for years to come. I am sorry that you do not like that fact, but a fact it is nevertheless.
And the UK is theirs.
No, we're not. We are Ireland's biggest export market, but that is an exception in the EU.
An interesting thread but far too complicated. The EU playing hardball makes sense in one way - it discourages others from wanting to leave.
Or does it? What does the opposition in other EU countries think? Did we join an economic community or an open prison? And what's the response in the UK ... if they want to play silly buggers, just tell them to f*ck off.
The Hotel California quote may have been done to death, but ordering us around or demanding ludicrous sums to leave only hardens opposition to the whole project. Perhaps we should never have joined?
This is the sort of thing that galvanises reluctant voters.
Why should we pay? Two possibilities. Firstly, that we have already promised to do so. Secondly, that we are getting something in return.
...
Going forward, there remains the possibility that we will remain in some sort of relationship with some EU institutions. So we might remain a part of the EU patents system, for example. If we do then we will inevitably have to contribute to the cost of those institutions in the same way as we do now.
Paying for access to the Single Market, for example, I would be a lot less happy about. Canada is not paying, why should we? The Single Market's access to the UK is worth rather more than our reciprocal rights.at the moment and indeed for the last 20 years. On this we should dig our heels in.
Does this mean we are playing Bridge at a poker table in Alastair's colourful metaphor? I don't think so. I just think the UK position is more in accordance with the realities of the situation.
Canada is not home to big employers whose investment and business strategies are predicated on membership of the single market. Paying to get access on better terms than Canada has makes complete sense. Obviously, it makes no sense to pay for what Canada gets for free.
Business needs to adjust their strategy. These things are not set in stone.
Indeed. Continuity Remainers would do well to note that government for the benefit of big business (especially with regard to large scale immigration replacing the hallowed social contract between employers and the citizenry employed) was a significant factor in the referendum. You know, the one they lost despite having overwhelming advantage....
So, to clarify: you are opposed to the UK government making any ongoing payments for enhanced access to the single market that may safeguard jobs and investment in the UK. If May agreed to such payments you believe that would be wrong?
There you go again...
Not at all.
Options should be open. Continually banging on the line 'but businesses have strategies that depend on us getting a great deal re: single market' is not helpful and risks repeating the mistakes of the referendum.
Change is coming. Good businesses will cope and thrive, others will not, replacement enterprise will appear. Same as it ever was. This is capitalism, baby.
An interesting thread but far too complicated. The EU playing hardball makes sense in one way - it discourages others from wanting to leave.
Or does it? What does the opposition in other EU countries think? Did we join an economic community or an open prison? And what's the response in the UK ... if they want to play silly buggers, just tell them to f*ck off.
The Hotel California quote may have been done to death, but ordering us around or demanding ludicrous sums to leave only hardens opposition to the whole project. Perhaps we should never have joined?
This is the sort of thing that galvanises reluctant voters.
As it happens I agree that the EU negotiating position isn't half as clever as they seem to think it is. But the article was already way too long.
Why should we pay? Two possibilities. Firstly, that we have already promised to do so. Secondly, that we are getting something in return.
...
Going forward, there remains the possibility that we will remain in some sort of relationship with some EU institutions. So we might remain a part of the EU patents system, for example. If we do then we will inevitably have to contribute to the cost of those institutions in the same way as we do now.
Paying for access to the Single Market, for example, I would be a lot less happy about. Canada is not paying, why should we? The Single Market's access to the UK is worth rather more than our reciprocal rights.at the moment and indeed for the last 20 years. On this we should dig our heels in.
Does this mean we are playing Bridge at a poker table in Alastair's colourful metaphor? I don't think so. I just think the UK position is more in accordance with the realities of the situation.
Canada is not home to big employers whose investment and business strategies are predicated on membership of the single market. Paying to get access on better terms than Canada has makes complete sense. Obviously, it makes no sense to pay for what Canada gets for free.
Business needs to adjust their strategy. These things are not set in stone.
Indeed. Continuity Remainers would do well to note that government for the benefit of big business (especially with regard to large scale immigration replacing the hallowed social contract between employers and the citizenry employed) was a significant factor in the referendum. You know, the one they lost despite having overwhelming advantage....
So, to clarify: you are opposed to the UK government making any ongoing payments for enhanced access to the single market that may safeguard jobs and investment in the UK. If May agreed to such payments you believe that would be wrong?
There you go again...
Not at all.
Options should be open. Continually banging on the line 'but businesses have strategies that depend on us getting a great deal re: single market' is not helpful and risks repeating the mistakes of the referendum.
Change is coming. Good businesses will cope and thrive, others will not, replacement enterprise will appear. Same as it ever was. This is capitalism, baby.
Why is stating facts unhelpful? If course Nissan will survive. What it may do if there is no adequate Brexit deal done is significantly downgrade its UK business. That is, indeed, capitalism. Not sure it helps people living in Sunderland much, though.
The Government has made it clear it wants an early agreement to protect the rights of EU nationals in the UK and of UK nationals living in other member states. We commend their commitment to this outcome. This has not yet proved possible. This is regrettable and the impact it is having on several million EU citizens should be a matter of serious concern to all governments in the EU.
And
There appear to be differences between the prime negotiators, the UK Government and the EU Commission as to the sequencing of negotiations. It would be unconscionable for EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU not to have clarity about their status for another two years.
And
We commend efforts by the UK nationals living in other EU countries to put pressure on the respective governments where they live to resolve questions around their status as soon as possible. We do not believe the electorates of Europe will thank politicians in any country if the situation is allowed to continue for another two years. It is imperative that all parties to the negotiations put the resolution of the rights of all EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU as their first priority.
Disagree - to anyone who really understands the basis of the European claim the vast majority really is utter garbage (I think @RichardNabavi split it Eur10bn existing liabilities, + 1 year contribution for the existing budget so say Eur 20bn is arguable, but the rest is "future costs of current programmes that we wouldn't have undertaken in their current form if the UK hadn't agreed to pay for them").
What they will do (at least in the UK) is use the big liability number to justify what, in reality, are payments for access. "Britain is honest, we pay our bills. These are real liabilities, but haven't we done well, we've agreed to pay them off over 10 years"
£20bn is the cost of a couple of fvcked up NHS IT systems. Bargain.
Ouch!
Although seriously, I know little of IT systems and am sure the technical wizardry must be damn complicated, but why do they capita so many billions sometimes?
To put it simply - because those purchasing know bugger all about IT systems either, suffer from constant political interference regarding the scope of their project and deadlines for implementation, and get royally ripped off by large vendors with tough negotiation teams.
To be fair, they've been getting better at it in recent years, but the NHS IT project was only one example of a very long list. Military procurement suffers from similar problems.
Should any IT system cost a mere 1 billion though? Are they at least in a reasonable ballpark.
The project cost will include hundreds of staff for several years, (developers, testers, project managers, trainers, help desk) as well as the hardware to run the software in a big data centre (or two - always have a backup!).
It will also include overtime/ replacement paid to employees removed from the business to be involved in the project - so if you have to pay a locum doctor £750 a day to cover for a week while the regular doctor goes for training on the new system, that gets included too. There will also be regular staff taking a secondment to work with the project itself - for example working out the business process changes required as the system changes.
I think the famous £10bn project included replacing all the computers in all the hospitals, as well as upgraded and redundant internet links to all sites. A similar project now would probably include an iPad or similar for every doctor and nurse.
It soon mounts up when you think of a complex organisation with over a million employees, £10bn is only £10k per employee after all.
Though in my field, the uncertainty is already having influence. Tbere is a 90% reduction in applications for professional registration by EU nurses for example:
I haven't seen published figures on EU doctors, but think it broadly similar. PB Leavers do seem particularly keen on free movement for people like themselves, just not for others.
Why should we pay? Two possibilities. Firstly, that we have already promised to do so. Secondly, that we are getting something in return.
... ...
Paying for access to the Single Market, for example, I would be a lot less happy about. Canada is not paying, why should we? The Single Market's access to the UK is worth rather more than our reciprocal rights.at the moment and indeed for the last 20 years. On this we should dig our heels in.
Does this mean we are playing Bridge at a poker table in Alastair's colourful metaphor? I don't think so. I just think the UK position is more in accordance with the realities of the situation.
Canada is not home to big employers whose investment and business strategies are predicated on membership of the single market. Paying to get access on better terms than Canada has makes complete sense. Obviously, it makes no sense to pay for what Canada gets for free.
Business needs to adjust their strategy. These things are not set in stone.
Indeed. Continuity Remainers would do well to note that government for the benefit of big business (especially with regard to large scale immigration replacing the hallowed social contract between employers and the citizenry employed) was a significant factor in the referendum. You know, the one they lost despite having overwhelming advantage....
So, to clarify: you are opposed to the UK government making any ongoing payments for enhanced access to the single market that may safeguard jobs and investment in the UK. If May agreed to such payments you believe that would be wrong?
There you go again...
Not at all.
Options should be open. Continually banging on the line 'but businesses have strategies that depend on us getting a great deal re: single market' is not helpful and risks repeating the mistakes of the referendum.
Change is coming. Good businesses will cope and thrive, others will not, replacement enterprise will appear. Same as it ever was. This is capitalism, baby.
Why is stating facts unhelpful? If course Nissan will survive. What it may do if there is no adequate Brexit deal done is significantly downgrade its UK business. That is, indeed, capitalism. Not sure it helps people living in Sunderland much, though.
Honest question: do you see that ending cheap, easy and heavily subsidised mass immigration from the EU will encourage business to ramp up invest in training British nationals?
Everyone's supportive of medical and nursing staff coming, as they're in the 'nice and cuddly' bracket. But it does make nonsense of the cut to the bursaries for nurses. I suspect that may be reversed in the Budget.
It's an opening gambit. No-one expects it to be the final sum. We may also end up paying out for continued access, in addition to whatever we pay to meet our liabilities.
Disagree - to anyone who really understands the basis of
£20bn is the cost of a couple of fvcked up NHS IT systems. Bargain.
Ouch!
Although seriously, I know little of IT systems and am sure the technical wizardry must be damn complicated, but why do they capita so many billions sometimes?
To put it simply - because those purchasing know bugger all about IT systems either, suffer from constant political interference regarding the scope of their project and deadlines for implementation, and get royally ripped off by large vendors with tough negotiation teams.
To be fair, they've been getting better at it in recent years, but the NHS IT project was only one example of a very long list. Military procurement suffers from similar problems.
Should any IT system cost a mere 1 billion though? Are they at least in a reasonable ballpark.
The project cost will include hundreds of staff for several years, (developers, testers, project managers, trainers, help desk) as well as the hardware to run the software in a big data centre (or two - always have a backup!).
It will also include overtime/ replacement paid to employees removed from the business to be involved in the project - so if you have to pay a locum doctor £750 a day to cover for a week while the regular doctor goes for training on the new system, that gets included too. I think the famous £10bn project included replacing all the computers in all the hospitals, as well as upgraded and redundant internet links to all sites. A similar project now would probably include an iPad or similar for every doctor and nurse.
It soon mounts up when you think of a complex organisation with over a million employees, £10bn is only £10k per employee after all.
My hospital still runs Windows XP, and a recent upgraded dictation software system fell on its face because the PC's in clinic are often 12 years old.
Do enjoy the withering sarcasm aimed at 'Mr Daniel Hannan', who certainly has not covered himself in glory in the last eighteen months.
Misplaced sarcasm. That piece is riddled with errors and assumptions stated as fact. Hardly surprising when it was written as part of a campaign to prevent Brexit. Hannan is a far more believable source than the NIESR which, for all its important sounding name, is simply a left wing pressure group.
On topic: 1. Many if not most of the liabilities are contingent - such as loan guarantees. Fine. If we guaranteed something we should continue to do so - but that means no cash upfront. We only pay if the said risk materialises - and thereby all the other guaranteeing countries have to fork out too. So highly unlikely to be realised. 2. It also means we get to keep on benefiting from things we do keep paying for. 3. A much larger number than our share of liabilities is our share of assets - since we've been the EU's no 2 net payer for ages. All the buildings and toll roads and stuff we paid for we should get our share back.
I think they owe us to leave!
In practice I think it means we will exit progressively for financial matters on a taper rather than an overnight 'sayonara baby'.
An interesting thread but far too complicated. The EU playing hardball makes sense in one way - it discourages others from wanting to leave.
Or does it? What does the opposition in other EU countries think? Did we join an economic community or an open prison? And what's the response in the UK ... if they want to play silly buggers, just tell them to f*ck off.
The Hotel California quote may have been done to death, but ordering us around or demanding ludicrous sums to leave only hardens opposition to the whole project. Perhaps we should never have joined?
This is the sort of thing that galvanises reluctant voters.
As it happens I agree that the EU negotiating position isn't half as clever as they seem to think it is. But the article was already way too long.
Former French Minister for Agriculture Michel Barnier and a drunk who greets his fellow right-wing leaders with the Nazi salute (Jean-Claude Juncker) doing something less than brilliantly clever? Say it ain't so!
I would actually have been interested to see the rest of it. As I've said in the past, long interesting thread headers are often better than short uninformative ones.
What, in your view, are the main weaknesses in the EU position?
Why should we pay? Two possibilities. Firstly, that we have already promised to do so. Secondly, that we are getting something in return.
... ...
Paying for access to the Single Market, for example, I would be a lot less happy about. Canada is not paying, why should we? The Single Market's access to the UK is worth rather more than our reciprocal rights.at the moment and indeed for the last 20 years. On this we should dig our heels in.
Does this mean we are playing Bridge at a poker table in Alastair's colourful metaphor? I don't think so. I just think the UK position is more in accordance with the realities of the situation.
Canada is not home to big employers whose investment and business strategies are predicated on membership of the single market. Paying to get access on better terms than Canada has makes complete sense. Obviously, it makes no sense to pay for what Canada gets for free.
Business needs to adjust their strategy. These things are not set in stone.
Indeed. Continuityr in the referendum. You know, the one they lost despite having overwhelming advantage....
So, to clarify: you are opposed to the UK government making any ongoing payments for enhanced access to the single market that may safeguard jobs and investment in the UK. If May agreed to such payments you believe that would be wrong?
There you go again...
Not at all.
Options should be open. Continually banging on the line 'but businesses have strategies that depend on us getting a great deal re: single market' is not helpful and risks repeating the mistakes of the referendum.
Change is coming. Good businesses will cope and thrive, others will not, replacement enterprise will appear. Same as it ever was. This is capitalism, baby.
Why is stating facts unhelpful? If course Nissan will survive. What it may do if there is no adequate Brexit deal done is significantly downgrade its UK business. That is, indeed, capitalism. Not sure it helps people living in Sunderland much, though.
Honest question: do you see that ending cheap, easy and heavily subsidised mass immigration from the EU will encourage business to ramp up invest in training British nationals?
It's not likely. British businesses as a whole have never been great investors in people. But that has absolutely nothing to do with my argument, which is that it makes sense to continue to pay to have enhanced access to the single market once we have left the EU.
Do enjoy the withering sarcasm aimed at 'Mr Daniel Hannan', who certainly has not covered himself in glory in the last eighteen months.
Misplaced sarcasm. That piece is riddled with errors and assumptions stated as fact. Hardly surprising when it was written as part of a campaign to prevent Brexit. Hannan is a far more believable source than the NIESR which, for all its important sounding name, is simply a left wing pressure group.
Er, no. Hannan is not believable. He is the man who repeatedly claimed in the event of Brexit we would stay in the single market, which was a patent untruth and has left many hostages to fortune (most of all, a stick to beat Leavers with and feed into the 'we wuz robbed' narrative).
What errors have you identified in the post that in your view makes it untrustworthy?
Though in my field, the uncertainty is already having influence. Tbere is a 90% reduction in applications for professional registration by EU nurses for example:
I haven't seen published figures on EU doctors, but think it broadly similar. PB Leavers do seem particularly keen on free movement for people like themselves, just not for others.
Do you think for even three seconds that a doctor or nurse applying for a visa after Brexit will be rejected?
An interesting thread but far too complicated. The EU playing hardball makes sense in one way - it discourages others from wanting to leave.
Or does it? What does the opposition in other EU countries think? Did we join an economic community or an open prison? And what's the response in the UK ... if they want to play silly buggers, just tell them to f*ck off.
The Hotel California quote may have been done to death, but ordering us around or demanding ludicrous sums to leave only hardens opposition to the whole project. Perhaps we should never have joined?
This is the sort of thing that galvanises reluctant voters.
As it happens I agree that the EU negotiating position isn't half as clever as they seem to think it is. But the article was already way too long.
Former French Minister for Agriculture Michel Barnier and a drunk who greets his fellow right-wing leaders with the Nazi salute (Jean-Claude Juncker) doing something less than brilliantly clever? Say it ain't so!
I would actually have been interested to see the rest of it. As I've said in the past, long interesting thread headers are often better than short uninformative ones.
What, in your view, are the m in the EU position?
On the narrow point, my near namesake @Alasdair (and previously @another_richard) correctly note that if we're discussing profit and loss accounts we should also be discussing balance sheets. The government could be putting the words "acquis communitaire" to new use. That would be an awkward discussion for the EU and one that they have now opened the door to.
But more broadly, this type of chest-beating is only useful if the negotiators have a clear idea what type of long term arrangement they seek at the end of the process. This looks like purposeless machismo.
The Government has made it clear it wants an early agreement to protect the rights of EU nationals in the UK and of UK nationals living in other member states. We commend their commitment to this outcome. This has not yet proved possible. This is regrettable and the impact it is having on several million EU citizens should be a matter of serious concern to all governments in the EU.
And
There appear to be differences between the prime negotiators, the UK Government and the EU Commission as to the sequencing of negotiations. It would be unconscionable for EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU not to have clarity about their status for another two years.
And
We commend efforts by the UK nationals living in other EU countries to put pressure on the respective governments where they live to resolve questions around their status as soon as possible. We do not believe the electorates of Europe will thank politicians in any country if the situation is allowed to continue for another two years. It is imperative that all parties to the negotiations put the resolution of the rights of all EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU as their first priority.
Which is pretty clearly criticism of the EU.
And well deserved it is too. But the recommendation that Gove & co have signed up to is that the rights of EU nationals living in the UK now should be guaranteed.
Everyone's supportive of medical and nursing staff coming, as they're in the 'nice and cuddly' bracket. But it does make nonsense of the cut to the bursaries for nurses. I suspect that may be reversed in the Budget.
Pay and conditions are unchanged by June 24th, but the atmosphere for EU nurses has certainly done so. More are going home (to be fair many intended to come just for a couple of years, but like many migrants including my own grandparents life happens and they wake up finding that they have been here for decades with British children), and fewer are coming.
Why should we pay? Two possibilities. Firstly, that we have already promised to do so. Secondly, that we are getting something in return.
... ...
Paying for access to the Single Market, for example, I would be a lot less happy about. Canada is not paying, why should we? The Single Market's access to the UK is worth rather more than our reciprocal rights.at the moment and indeed for the last 20 years. On this we should dig our heels in.
Does this mean we are playing Bridge at a poker table in Alastair's colourful metaphor? I don't think so. I just think the UK position is more in accordance with the realities of the situation.
Canada is not home to big employers whose investment and business strategies are predicated on membership of the single market. Paying to get access on better terms than Canada has makes complete sense. Obviously, it makes no sense to pay for what Canada gets for free.
Business needs to adjust their strategy. These things are not set in stone.
Indeed. Continuityr in the referendum. You know, the one they lost despite having overwhelming advantage....
So, to clarify: you are opposed to the UK government making any ongoing payments for enhanced access to the single market that may safeguard jobs and investment in the UK. If May agreed to such payments you believe that would be wrong?
There you go again...
Not at all.
Options should be open. Continually banging on the line 'but businesses have strategies that depend on us getting a great deal re: single market' is not helpful and risks repeating the mistakes of the referendum.
Change is coming. Good businesses will cope and thrive, others will not, replacement enterprise will appear. Same as it ever was. This is capitalism, baby.
Why is stating facts unhelpful? If course Nissan will survive. What it may do if there is no adequate Brexit deal done is significantly downgrade its UK business. That is, indeed, capitalism. Not sure it helps people living in Sunderland much, though.
Honest question: do you see that ending cheap, easy and heavily subsidised mass immigration from the EU will encourage business to ramp up invest in training British nationals?
Though in my field, the uncertainty is already having influence. Tbere is a 90% reduction in applications for professional registration by EU nurses for example:
I haven't seen published figures on EU doctors, but think it broadly similar. PB Leavers do seem particularly keen on free movement for people like themselves, just not for others.
Do you think for even three seconds that a doctor or nurse applying for a visa after Brexit will be rejected?
The more important question is how many will want to come?
Forget Brexit, surely for betting purposes the bit that matters from Carswell is: For the first time since I've been in parliament I no longer feel entirely in opposition.
An interesting thread but far too complicated. The EU playing hardball makes sense in one way - it discourages others from wanting to leave.
Or does it? What does the opposition in other EU countries think? Did we join an economic community or an open prison? And what's the response in the UK ... if they want to play silly buggers, just tell them to f*ck off.
The Hotel California quote may have been done to death, but ordering us around or demanding ludicrous sums to leave only hardens opposition to the whole project. Perhaps we should never have joined?
This is the sort of thing that galvanises reluctant voters.
As it happens I agree that the EU negotiating position isn't half as clever as they seem to think it is. But the article was already way too long.
Former French Minister for Agriculture Michel Barnier and a drunk who greets his fellow right-wing leaders with the Nazi salute (Jean-Claude Juncker) doing something less than brilliantly clever? Say it ain't so!
I would actually have been interested to see the rest of it. As I've said in the past, long interesting thread headers are often better than short uninformative ones.
What, in your view, are the m in the EU position?
On the narrow point, my near namesake @Alasdair (and previously @another_richard) correctly note that if we're discussing profit and loss accounts we should also be discussing balance sheets. The government could be putting the words "acquis communitaire" to new use. That would be an awkward discussion for the EU and one that they have now opened the door to.
But more broadly, this type of chest-beating is only useful if the negotiators have a clear idea what type of long term arrangement they seek at the end of the process. This looks like purposeless machismo.
Thank you.
While I still consider Cameron's failure to plan for a no vote to be his single greatest error in politics (among several pretty bad ones) it looks as though the EU still haven't planned for it even though they now know it will be happening.
A fairly shocking indictment of their complacency and incompetence and one that goes some way to explaining why Brexit and the EU more generally are getting so messy.
Tbh, he's got a point. UK business thrives under foreign ownership and management, but under British management the same companies were in poor shape. JLR is the most recent example.
British management classes seem far too interested in the quarter end figures so they can get their bonus than the long term health of the company, at least that was my impression. I'm not saying we should take a Japanese view and decide that companies never need to make money, but there is a middle ground and British companies and management are far too often found to be left wanting in terms of investment in both people and capital.
Everyone's supportive of medical and nursing staff coming, as they're in the 'nice and cuddly' bracket. But it does make nonsense of the cut to the bursaries for nurses. I suspect that may be reversed in the Budget.
Although AIUI training places are still well oversubscribed. It would be a better use of resources to expand the number of places than make the existing ones cheaper
Though in my field, the uncertainty is already having influence. Tbere is a 90% reduction in applications for professional registration by EU nurses for example:
I haven't seen published figures on EU doctors, but think it broadly similar. PB Leavers do seem particularly keen on free movement for people like themselves, just not for others.
Do you think for even three seconds that a doctor or nurse applying for a visa after Brexit will be rejected?
The figures speak for themselves. It is not that they do not think that they cannot legally work, it is that they do not want to work here.
Of course there is a sliver lining, by stopping the influx of cheap foreign workers, wages and conditions will be forced up for people like me. Isn't that the purpose of Brexit?
It's an opening gambit. No-one expects it to be the final sum. We may also end up paying out for continued access, in addition to whatever we pay to meet our liabilities.
Disagree - to anyone who really understands the basis of
£20bn is the cost of a couple of fvcked up NHS IT systems. Bargain.
Ouch!
Although seriously, I know little of IT systems and am sure the technical wizardry must be damn complicated, but why do they capita so many billions sometimes?
To put it simply - because those purchasing know bugger all about IT systems either, suffer from constant political interference regarding the scope of their project and deadlines for implementation, and get royally ripped off by large vendors with tough negotiation teams.
To be fair, they've been getting better at it in recent years, but the NHS IT project was only one example of a very long list. Military procurement suffers from similar problems.
Should any IT system cost a mere 1 billion though? Are they at least in a reasonable ballpark.
The project cost will include hundreds of staff for several years, (developers, testers, project managers, trainers, help desk) as well as the hardware to run the software in a big data centre (or two - always have a backup!).
It will also include overtime/ replacement paid to employees removed from the business to be involved in the project - so if you have to pay a locum doctor £750 a day to cover for a week while the regular doctor goes for training on the new system, that gets included too. I think the famous £10bn project included replacing all the computers in all the hospitals, as well as upgraded and redundant internet links to all sites. A similar project now would probably include an iPad or similar for every doctor and nurse.
It soon mounts up when you think of a complex organisation with over a million employees, £10bn is only £10k per employee after all.
My hospital still runs Windows XP, and a recent upgraded dictation software system fell on its face because the PC's in clinic are often 12 years old.
Heaven forbid that Consultants should reach into their deep pockets to help out. That isn't how it works.
Though in my field, the uncertainty is already having influence. Tbere is a 90% reduction in applications for professional registration by EU nurses for example:
I haven't seen published figures on EU doctors, but think it broadly similar. PB Leavers do seem particularly keen on free movement for people like themselves, just not for others.
Do you think for even three seconds that a doctor or nurse applying for a visa after Brexit will be rejected?
The figures speak for themselves. It is not that they do not think that they cannot legally work, it is that they do not want to work here.
Of course there is a sliver lining, by stopping the influx of cheap foreign workers, wages and conditions will be forced up for people like me. Isn't that the purpose of Brexit?
And when those wages rise, they will want to work here again. Supply and demand based economics, who'd have thunk it.
@Ishmael_Z Yeah, I don't think that history started with the Beatles. Comissioning a report isn't exactly the same thing as actively supporting something and advocating it for a start.
Do enjoy the withering sarcasm aimed at 'Mr Daniel Hannan', who certainly has not covered himself in glory in the last eighteen months.
Misplaced sarcasm. That piece is riddled with errors and assumptions stated as fact. Hardly surprising when it was written as part of a campaign to prevent Brexit. Hannan is a far more believable source than the NIESR which, for all its important sounding name, is simply a left wing pressure group.
Er, no. Hannan is not believable. He is the man who repeatedly claimed in the event of Brexit we would stay in the single market, which was a patent untruth and has left many hostages to fortune (most of all, a stick to beat Leavers with and feed into the 'we wuz robbed' narrative).
What errors have you identified in the post that in your view makes it untrustworthy?
Absolutely wrong. It was in no way untrue to state that we could and should stay in the Single Market. It is a position that I pursued as well and has always been the best option post Brexit. The fact that the current Government has decided against it because they are more interested in controlling immigration does not make his statements untrue at all. It simply shows that unfortunately he is not in power and that the people who are in power are not pursuing a Brexit in the way that is most beneficial for this country.
Can anyone confirm if Gove is expert in this matter?
Gove always sounds like an expert on the theory. When it comes to putting his ideas into practice, you realise that the only thing he's world class at is being a self-centred prat.
On topic: 1. Many if not most of the liabilities are contingent - such as loan guarantees. Fine. If we guaranteed something we should continue to do so - but that means no cash upfront. We only pay if the said risk materialises - and thereby all the other guaranteeing countries have to fork out too. So highly unlikely to be realised. 2. It also means we get to keep on benefiting from things we do keep paying for. 3. A much larger number than our share of liabilities is our share of assets - since we've been the EU's no 2 net payer for ages. All the buildings and toll roads and stuff we paid for we should get our share back.
I think they owe us to leave!
In practice I think it means we will exit progressively for financial matters on a taper rather than an overnight 'sayonara baby'.
Agreed: part of the bill will be us taking over pensions for British Eurocrats and MEPs (upfront cash, nil); part will be us paying something during a transition period (upfront cash nil); and part will be settled with our share of assets (upfront cash nil).
The EU will claim victory and that we have paid €60bn. The UK will claim victory and day we have handed over nothing.
The Government has made it clear it wants an early agreement to protect the rights of EU nationals in the UK and of UK nationals living in other member states. We commend their commitment to this outcome. This has not yet proved possible. This is regrettable and the impact it is having on several million EU citizens should be a matter of serious concern to all governments in the EU.
And
There appear to be differences between the prime negotiators, the UK Government and the EU Commission as to the sequencing of negotiations. It would be unconscionable for EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU not to have clarity about their status for another two years.
And
We commend efforts by the UK nationals living in other EU countries to put pressure on the respective governments where they live to resolve questions around their status as soon as possible. We do not believe the electorates of Europe will thank politicians in any country if the situation is allowed to continue for another two years. It is imperative that all parties to the negotiations put the resolution of the rights of all EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU as their first priority.
Which is pretty clearly criticism of the EU.
And well deserved it is too. But the recommendation that Gove & co have signed up to is that the rights of EU nationals living in the UK now should be guaranteed.
Sadly it didn't provide a robust rationale for prioritising the rights of residents over that of citizens other than "it probably won't go wrong"...
Though in my field, the uncertainty is already having influence. Tbere is a 90% reduction in applications for professional registration by EU nurses for example:
I haven't seen published figures on EU doctors, but think it broadly similar. PB Leavers do seem particularly keen on free movement for people like themselves, just not for others.
Do you think for even three seconds that a doctor or nurse applying for a visa after Brexit will be rejected?
The figures speak for themselves. It is not that they do not think that they cannot legally work, it is that they do not want to work here.
Of course there is a sliver lining, by stopping the influx of cheap foreign workers, wages and conditions will be forced up for people like me. Isn't that the purpose of Brexit?
Not for "people like you" although you will benefit. But, yes, restricting the pool of cheap unskilled/semi-skilled labour should have an impact on wages and conditions. And that will be a good thing. People who work hard deserve to be fairly remunerated for their efforts.
Disagree - to anyone who really understands the basis of
£20bn is the cost of a couple of fvcked up NHS IT systems. Bargain.
Ouch!
Although seriously, I know little of IT systems and am sure the technical wizardry must be damn complicated, but why do they capita so many billions sometimes?
Should any IT system cost a mere 1 billion though? Are they at least in a reasonable ballpark.
The project cost will include hundreds of staff for several years, (developers, testers, project managers, trainers, help desk) as well as the hardware to run the software in a big data centre (or two - always have a backup!).
It will also include overtime/ replacement paid to employees removed from the business to be involved in the project - so if you have to pay a locum doctor £750 a day to cover for a week while the regular doctor goes for training on the new system, that gets included too. I think the famous £10bn project included replacing all the computers in all the hospitals, as well as upgraded and redundant internet links to all sites. A similar project now would probably include an iPad or similar for every doctor and nurse.
It soon mounts up when you think of a complex organisation with over a million employees, £10bn is only £10k per employee after all.
My hospital still runs Windows XP, and a recent upgraded dictation software system fell on its face because the PC's in clinic are often 12 years old.
So the Great Big £10bn Mess was cancelled, but replaced with nothing at all so the existing systems just carry on - until they fall over. There are probably so many old pieces of software - and hardware, including clinical hardware - running together, that it becomes too much of a risk to upgrade something in case it breaks something else.
This is the worst sort of inefficiency, where the old and slow systems start to get in the way of doing the job, and eventually doing nothing isn't an option any more. So the NHS gets to be screwed by the next big IT company, who goes into negotiations knowing that the customer is absolutely desperate to have something done yesterday.
And so the cycle repeats itself, with today's managers and politicians learning the same lessons as their predecessors, all over again!
If it's any consolation, the IT guys on the ground will be at least as frustrated with the situation as you are.
Do enjoy the withering sarcasm aimed at 'Mr Daniel Hannan', who certainly has not covered himself in glory in the last eighteen months.
Misplaced sarcasm. That piece is riddled with errors and assumptions stated as fact. Hardly surprising when it was written as part of a campaign to prevent Brexit. Hannan is a far more believable source than the NIESR which, for all its important sounding name, is simply a left wing pressure group.
Er, no. Hannan is not believable. He is the man who repeatedly claimed in the event of Brexit we would stay in the single market, which was a patent untruth and has left many hostages to fortune (most of all, a stick to beat Leavers with and feed into the 'we wuz robbed' narrative).
What errors have you identified in the post that in your view makes it untrustworthy?
Absolutely wrong. It was in no way untrue to state that we could and should stay in the Single Market. It is a position that I pursued as well and has always been the best option post Brexit. The fact that the current Government has decided against it because they are more interested in controlling immigration does not make his statements untrue at all. It simply shows that unfortunately he is not in power and that the people who are in power are not pursuing a Brexit in the way that is most beneficial for this country.
We were repeatedly told that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market. Hannan stated, and I quote, 'Nobody is suggesting that leaving the EU means leaving the single market.' Leaving aside the fact that this statement was simply wrong - many people were suggesting it - as part of leaving the EU we are leaving the single market. So his statement was inaccurate on every possible level. The mere fact that he (and you) may have believed it was true at the time does not make it so.
I ask again, what errors have you identified in the post?
As one Greater Manchester MP said bluntly: “It is going to be horrible.”
While all local Labour parties have their factions – and occasionally rows that spill out of internal meetings – Gorton’s disagreements have been more frequent and more toxic than most.
When the party was suspended last year following an almighty row within its Levenshulme branch, I asked one seasoned Labour figure how unusual such a suspension actually was.
Under normal circumstances it would be unusual, he said, drily. But Gorton had been suspended so many times since the 1980s due to its factions misbehaving that really, in this case, not so much.
The most recent generation of in-fighting has ultimately been about one thing and one thing alone, however: who would succeed Sir Gerald.
The assets the UK has, through the EU/EEC, paid for over the years, and will continue to pay for apparently, should also be taken into account.
All the infrastructure with those big signs that say 'paid for by the EU'. Got to be worth something.
I doubt the EU owns them. Somewhere like Knock International Airport is presumably owned by the Irish government in some form.
Even if the funds come via the EU investment bank? There is surely some level of ownership in return for investment.
EIB sometimes takes equity stakes. But we are a shareholder in EIB directly I believe so it is an asset we own that has value, not part of the negotiation
Edit: just checked : we have Eur39bn invested in EIB. That allows EIB to make EU 100bn of loans under its statutes.
Though in my field, the uncertainty is already having influence. Tbere is a 90% reduction in applications for professional registration by EU nurses for example:
I haven't seen published figures on EU doctors, but think it broadly similar. PB Leavers do seem particularly keen on free movement for people like themselves, just not for others.
Do you think for even three seconds that a doctor or nurse applying for a visa after Brexit will be rejected?
The figures speak for themselves. It is not that they do not think that they cannot legally work, it is that they do not want to work here.
Of course there is a sliver lining, by stopping the influx of cheap foreign workers, wages and conditions will be forced up for people like me. Isn't that the purpose of Brexit?
Not for "people like you" although you will benefit. But, yes, restricting the pool of cheap unskilled/semi-skilled labour should have an impact on wages and conditions. And that will be a good thing. People who work hard deserve to be fairly remunerated for their efforts.
In which industries should we expect this to happen?
The Government has made it clear it wants an early agreement to protect the rights of EU nationals in the UK and of UK nationals living in other member states. We commend their commitment to this outcome. This has not yet proved possible. This is regrettable and the impact it is having on several million EU citizens should be a matter of serious concern to all governments in the EU.
And
There appear to be differences between the prime negotiators, the UK Government and the EU Commission as to the sequencing of negotiations. It would be unconscionable for EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU not to have clarity about their status for another two years.
And
We commend efforts by the UK nationals living in other EU countries to put pressure on the respective governments where they live to resolve questions around their status as soon as possible. We do not believe the electorates of Europe will thank politicians in any country if the situation is allowed to continue for another two years. It is imperative that all parties to the negotiations put the resolution of the rights of all EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU as their first priority.
Which is pretty clearly criticism of the EU.
And well deserved it is too. But the recommendation that Gove & co have signed up to is that the rights of EU nationals living in the UK now should be guaranteed.
Sadly it didn't provide a robust rationale for prioritising the rights of residents over that of citizens other than "it probably won't go wrong"...
If the Tories capitulate on this issue I'll probably cancel my membership and monthly direct debit. It is a matter of fairness. I have no issue with being told to apply for a visa in Switzerland at some point, in fact when I had my induction we discussed the possibility of having to get a visa at some point in the future, but it should be reciprocal. If I'm forced to go through the hassle of paperwork then so should the 3m EU citizens in the UK. The reason the EU is being so stubborn is because they know if it comes down to it all of those Romanian big issue sellers and beggars will end up being deported. While the productive will get visas.
Though in my field, the uncertainty is already having influence. Tbere is a 90% reduction in applications for professional registration by EU nurses for example:
I haven't seen published figures on EU doctors, but think it broadly similar. PB Leavers do seem particularly keen on free movement for people like themselves, just not for others.
Do you think for even three seconds that a doctor or nurse applying for a visa after Brexit will be rejected?
The figures speak for themselves. It is not that they do not think that they cannot legally work, it is that they do not want to work here.
Of course there is a sliver lining, by stopping the influx of cheap foreign workers, wages and conditions will be forced up for people like me. Isn't that the purpose of Brexit?
Not for "people like you" although you will benefit. But, yes, restricting the pool of cheap unskilled/semi-skilled labour should have an impact on wages and conditions. And that will be a good thing. People who work hard deserve to be fairly remunerated for their efforts.
In which industries should we expect this to happen?
Though in my field, the uncertainty is already having influence. Tbere is a 90% reduction in applications for professional registration by EU nurses for example:
I haven't seen published figures on EU doctors, but think it broadly similar. PB Leavers do seem particularly keen on free movement for people like themselves, just not for others.
Do you think for even three seconds that a doctor or nurse applying for a visa after Brexit will be rejected?
The figures speak for themselves. It is not that they do not think that they cannot legally work, it is that they do not want to work here.
Of course there is a sliver lining, by stopping the influx of cheap foreign workers, wages and conditions will be forced up for people like me. Isn't that the purpose of Brexit?
And when those wages rise, they will want to work here again. Supply and demand based economics, who'd have thunk it.
And they might also come from different places in future - maybe from India and Philippines, rather than Portugal and Romania.
The assets the UK has, through the EU/EEC, paid for over the years, and will continue to pay for apparently, should also be taken into account.
All the infrastructure with those big signs that say 'paid for by the EU'. Got to be worth something.
I doubt the EU owns them. Somewhere like Knock International Airport is presumably owned by the Irish government in some form.
Even if the funds come via the EU investment bank? There is surely some level of ownership in return for investment.
EIB sometimes takes equity stakes. But we are a shareholder in EIB directly I believe so it is an asset we own that has value, not part of the negotiation
Edit: just checked : we have Eur39bn invested in EIB. That allows EIB to make EU 100bn of loans under its statutes.
Will the EU not need to cough up the cash to buy us out or is the EIB not related to the EU specifically?
Though in my field, the uncertainty is already having influence. Tbere is a 90% reduction in applications for professional registration by EU nurses for example:
I haven't seen published figures on EU doctors, but think it broadly similar. PB Leavers do seem particularly keen on free movement for people like themselves, just not for others.
Do you think for even three seconds that a doctor or nurse applying for a visa after Brexit will be rejected?
The figures speak for themselves. It is not that they do not think that they cannot legally work, it is that they do not want to work here.
Of course there is a sliver lining, by stopping the influx of cheap foreign workers, wages and conditions will be forced up for people like me. Isn't that the purpose of Brexit?
And when those wages rise, they will want to work here again. Supply and demand based economics, who'd have thunk it.
The same workersbut paid more, isn't Brexit simply wonderful :-)
@Ishmael_Z Yeah, I don't think that history started with the Beatles. Comissioning a report isn't exactly the same thing as actively supporting something and advocating it for a start.
If history was already under way in the 1950s you could actually read a bit about the report rather than speculating about it. And if it wasn't that report which led to the 1967 Act being passed (through the efforts of the tory Lord Arran and the socialist Leo Abse, perhaps you could point to the specific group of Tolpuddle Martyrish demonstrators which you say was responsible.
Though in my field, the uncertainty is already having influence. Tbere is a 90% reduction in applications for professional registration by EU nurses for example:
I haven't seen published figures on EU doctors, but think it broadly similar. PB Leavers do seem particularly keen on free movement for people like themselves, just not for others.
Do you think for even three seconds that a doctor or nurse applying for a visa after Brexit will be rejected?
The figures speak for themselves. It is not that they do not think that they cannot legally work, it is that they do not want to work here.
Of course there is a sliver lining, by stopping the influx of cheap foreign workers, wages and conditions will be forced up for people like me. Isn't that the purpose of Brexit?
Not for "people like you" although you will benefit. But, yes, restricting the pool of cheap unskilled/semi-skilled labour should have an impact on wages and conditions. And that will be a good thing. People who work hard deserve to be fairly remunerated for their efforts.
In which industries should we expect this to happen?
Low end services, casual labour and trade work.
So we should expect to be paying more for which goods and services?
As one Greater Manchester MP said bluntly: “It is going to be horrible.”
While all local Labour parties have their factions – and occasionally rows that spill out of internal meetings – Gorton’s disagreements have been more frequent and more toxic than most.
When the party was suspended last year following an almighty row within its Levenshulme branch, I asked one seasoned Labour figure how unusual such a suspension actually was.
Under normal circumstances it would be unusual, he said, drily. But Gorton had been suspended so many times since the 1980s due to its factions misbehaving that really, in this case, not so much.
The most recent generation of in-fighting has ultimately been about one thing and one thing alone, however: who would succeed Sir Gerald.
As one Greater Manchester MP said bluntly: “It is going to be horrible.”
While all local Labour parties have their factions – and occasionally rows that spill out of internal meetings – Gorton’s disagreements have been more frequent and more toxic than most.
When the party was suspended last year following an almighty row within its Levenshulme branch, I asked one seasoned Labour figure how unusual such a suspension actually was.
Under normal circumstances it would be unusual, he said, drily. But Gorton had been suspended so many times since the 1980s due to its factions misbehaving that really, in this case, not so much.
The most recent generation of in-fighting has ultimately been about one thing and one thing alone, however: who would succeed Sir Gerald.
Fun times. Does anywhere get more toxic than a place which is utterly utterly safe? The natural need for opposition from somewhere emerges and because it is internal its even more bitter.
Though in my field, the uncertainty is already having influence. Tbere is a 90% reduction in applications for professional registration by EU nurses for example:
I haven't seen published figures on EU doctors, but think it broadly similar. PB Leavers do seem particularly keen on free movement for people like themselves, just not for others.
Do you think for even three seconds that a doctor or nurse applying for a visa after Brexit will be rejected?
The figures speak for themselves. It is not that they do not think that they cannot legally work, it is that they do not want to work here.
Of course there is a sliver lining, by stopping the influx of cheap foreign workers, wages and conditions will be forced up for people like me. Isn't that the purpose of Brexit?
Not for "people like you" although you will benefit. But, yes, restricting the pool of cheap unskilled/semi-skilled labour should have an impact on wages and conditions. And that will be a good thing. People who work hard deserve to be fairly remunerated for their efforts.
In which industries should we expect this to happen?
Low end services, casual labour and trade work.
So we should expect to be paying more for which goods and services?
Yes, coffees, McDonald's, hotel rooms (though Airbnb and others provides a ceiling), trade work. It's all going to go up in price. People like us lose and people not like us will win. Isn't that what Labour are supposed to stand for?
Though in my field, the uncertainty is already having influence. Tbere is a 90% reduction in applications for professional registration by EU nurses for example:
I haven't seen published figures on EU doctors, but think it broadly similar. PB Leavers do seem particularly keen on free movement for people like themselves, just not for others.
Do you think for even three seconds that a doctor or nurse applying for a visa after Brexit will be rejected?
The figures speak for themselves. It is not that they do not think that they cannot legally work, it is that they do not want to work here.
Of course there is a sliver lining, by stopping the influx of cheap foreign workers, wages and conditions will be forced up for people like me. Isn't that the purpose of Brexit?
And when those wages rise, they will want to work here again. Supply and demand based economics, who'd have thunk it.
The same workersbut paid more, isn't Brexit simply wonderful :-)
Though in my field, the uncertainty is already having influence. Tbere is a 90% reduction in applications for professional registration by EU nurses for example:
I haven't seen published figures on EU doctors, but think it broadly similar. PB Leavers do seem particularly keen on free movement for people like themselves, just not for others.
Do you think for even three seconds that a doctor or nurse applying for a visa after Brexit will be rejected?
The figures speak for themselves. It is not that they do not think that they cannot legally work, it is that they do not want to work here.
Of course there is a sliver lining, by stopping the influx of cheap foreign workers, wages and conditions will be forced up for people like me. Isn't that the purpose of Brexit?
And when those wages rise, they will want to work here again. Supply and demand based economics, who'd have thunk it.
And they might also come from different places in future - maybe from India and Philippines, rather than Portugal and Romania.
I thought we wanted to discourage skilled workers from developing countries from abandoning their homelands.
Though in my field, the uncertainty is already having influence. Tbere is a 90% reduction in applications for professional registration by EU nurses for example:
I haven't seen published figures on EU doctors, but think it broadly similar. PB Leavers do seem particularly keen on free movement for people like themselves, just not for others.
Do you think for even three seconds that a doctor or nurse applying for a visa after Brexit will be rejected?
The figures speak for themselves. It is not that they do not think that they cannot legally work, it is that they do not want to work here.
Of course there is a sliver lining, by stopping the influx of cheap foreign workers, wages and conditions will be forced up for people like me. Isn't that the purpose of Brexit?
Not for "people like you" although you will benefit. But, yes, restricting the pool of cheap unskilled/semi-skilled labour should have an impact on wages and conditions. And that will be a good thing. People who work hard deserve to be fairly remunerated for their efforts.
In which industries should we expect this to happen?
The primary problem is the cowardice the government has developed in the face of the Mail et al. The security measures to prevent leaks have also isolated the PM and the negotiating team from voices even on their own side that they need to hear. There is frustration and growing concern on the part of even the most friendly EU governments that the positions coming from London are either irrelevant or actively harmful to the UK position. Attempts to reach out have equally been met with suspicion or incomprehension by London. There is no interest in a total breakdown and a chaotic brutal Brexit on either side, but the UK is playing a weak hand exceptionally badly.
Because you are fully informed of the intra-government discussions and you have generously decided to share those perspectives with us.
Yes
What evidence can you provide that you are as informed and unbiased as you represent?
Mike Smithson knows that as an Investment Banker with several large International Houses, I have served as an economic advisor at PM and ministerial level to several CEE states. I continue that role. I posted because a) it's true and b) there are several people who read this site who will be quite clear about what is being signalled. The U.K. Is making a mess of things and they need to review their strategy and position.
so basically youre one of the guys who helped create the financial crisis.
Though in my field, the uncertainty is already having influence. Tbere is a 90% reduction in applications for professional registration by EU nurses for example:
I haven't seen published figures on EU doctors, but think it broadly similar. PB Leavers do seem particularly keen on free movement for people like themselves, just not for others.
Do you think for even three seconds that a doctor or nurse applying for a visa after Brexit will be rejected?
The figures speak for themselves. It is not that they do not think that they cannot legally work, it is that they do not want to work here.
Of course there is a sliver lining, by stopping the influx of cheap foreign workers, wages and conditions will be forced up for people like me. Isn't that the purpose of Brexit?
And when those wages rise, they will want to work here again. Supply and demand based economics, who'd have thunk it.
The same workersbut paid more, isn't Brexit simply wonderful :-)
A year if denying that wages will go up after Brexit and now two remainers at once on board. Is this real life?
£20bn is the cost of a couple of fvcked up NHS IT systems. Bargain.
This exemplifies the wider public response to Big Numbers - people have real trouble deciding whether X billion is a lot or a little. The common newspaper device is to divide by the population, so £20 bn would be about £30,000/head, which sounds quite a lot although it'll be borrowed by Government and repaid (perhaps) over many years.
I'm not a legal or financial expert: my specialty is more understanding Continental politics. Alastair is right to imply (paraphrasing) that if Britain doesn't have a credible final package in view (with exact numbers to be negotiated) and relies on breast-beating, then the response will also be breast-beating. The general public on the Continent isn't really paying attention to Brexit - it's seen as mildly regrettable but ultimately a matter for the Brits. But the political class is human, and currently balanced between people who want a reasonable deal (Merkel, for instance) and people who want to make a horrible example of us (Verhofstadt, for instance). If the impression given is that the British government thinks it has a powerful hand and plans to play it aggressively, the "huh, we'll show them" tendency will get the upper hand (the £60bn figure is an early example) and it won't end well.
While the British public will like a bit of mood music like this to reassure them that May isn't a patsy, ultimately most people want May it get on with it and reach some sort of deal that works for Britain. More quiet, sensible discussion and less posturing would be wise at this point, even if that means downgrading Boris, who really doesn't do sensible discussion. There will come a crisis at some stage where the negotiations seem about to collapse, and some strident rhetoric may be needed then - but not at the moment.
Can anyone confirm if Gove is an expert in this matter?
Gove was so adept at extracting the maximum advantage for himself from a tricky situation last year that I think we can take that as read.
The Guardian story is actually about the position of the brexit select committee, a seat on which was about the only trifle Gove managed to save from the wreckage of his career. It's a great mistake to assume that a guardian headline accurately reflects what it purports to be the headline of.
Though in my field, the uncertainty is already having influence. Tbere is a 90% reduction in applications for professional registration by EU nurses for example:
I haven't seen published figures on EU doctors, but think it broadly similar. PB Leavers do seem particularly keen on free movement for people like themselves, just not for others.
Do you think for even three seconds that a doctor or nurse applying for a visa after Brexit will be rejected?
The figures speak for themselves. It is not that they do not think that they cannot legally work, it is that they do not want to work here.
Of course there is a sliver lining, by stopping the influx of cheap foreign workers, wages and conditions will be forced up for people like me. Isn't that the purpose of Brexit?
Not for "people like you" although you will benefit. But, yes, restricting the pool of cheap unskilled/semi-skilled labour should have an impact on wages and conditions. And that will be a good thing. People who work hard deserve to be fairly remunerated for their efforts.
In which industries should we expect this to happen?
Any and all
The American banker working in the City isn't competing with the Romanian waitress at Honest Burger. The more highly skilled the industry the less prone it will be to labour shortages since they will already have a global recruitment process and be used to the visa process for non-EU workers.
Though in my field, the uncertainty is already having influence. Tbere is a 90% reduction in applications for professional registration by EU nurses for example:
I haven't seen published figures on EU doctors, but think it broadly similar. PB Leavers do seem particularly keen on free movement for people like themselves, just not for others.
Do you think for even three seconds that a doctor or nurse applying for a visa after Brexit will be rejected?
The figures speak for themselves. It is not that they do not think that they cannot legally work, it is that they do not want to work here.
Of course there is a sliver lining, by stopping the influx of cheap foreign workers, wages and conditions will be forced up for people like me. Isn't that the purpose of Brexit?
And when those wages rise, they will want to work here again. Supply and demand based economics, who'd have thunk it.
And they might also come from different places in future - maybe from India and Philippines, rather than Portugal and Romania.
I thought we wanted to discourage skilled workers from developing countries from abandoning their homelands.
Indeed, which is why we should take a few skilled people from each of a number of countries, rather than a large number of certain skilled trades from a smaller number of countries - as is happening currently under EU migration patterns.
Though in my field, the uncertainty is already having influence. Tbere is a 90% reduction in applications for professional registration by EU nurses for example:
I haven't seen published figures on EU doctors, but think it broadly similar. PB Leavers do seem particularly keen on free movement for people like themselves, just not for others.
Do you think for even three seconds that a doctor or nurse applying for a visa after Brexit will be rejected?
Some will, immigration is always a crapshoot. But that's not the end of the disincentive. If you move somewhere, you want to know that your life won't get messed up if you lose your job, or change your job, or get sick, or get pregnant. If British employers can't tell applicants that, they will still be able to hire, but they'll have to pay a premium to cover the "UKBA may fuck up your life at any moment, probably the worst moment" tax.
Though in my field, the uncertainty is already having influence. Tbere is a 90% reduction in applications for professional registration by EU nurses for example:
I haven't seen published figures on EU doctors, but think it broadly similar. PB Leavers do seem particularly keen on free movement for people like themselves, just not for others.
maybe the NHS should just try training more local ones in the first place.
The assets the UK has, through the EU/EEC, paid for over the years, and will continue to pay for apparently, should also be taken into account.
All the infrastructure with those big signs that say 'paid for by the EU'. Got to be worth something.
I doubt the EU owns them. Somewhere like Knock International Airport is presumably owned by the Irish government in some form.
Even if the funds come via the EU investment bank? There is surely some level of ownership in return for investment.
EIB sometimes takes equity stakes. But we are a shareholder in EIB directly I believe so it is an asset we own that has value, not part of the negotiation
Edit: just checked : we have Eur39bn invested in EIB. That allows EIB to make EU 100bn of loans under its statutes.
Will the EU not need to cough up the cash to buy us out or is the EIB not related to the EU specifically?
There's a complete overlap between members and the EU so I assume there's a relationship. So the EU will need to (a) buy us out or (b) allow us to remain as a non-EU member or (c) allow us to withdraw our capital over time (as otherwise they would lose a lot of lending capacity if done immediately). I'd settle for book value than going to the headache of trying to assess actual value.
@Ishmael_Z Yeah, I don't think that history started with the Beatles. Comissioning a report isn't exactly the same thing as actively supporting something and advocating it for a start.
If history was already under way in the 1950s you could actually read a bit about the report rather than speculating about it. And if it wasn't that report which led to the 1967 Act being passed (through the efforts of the tory Lord Arran and the socialist Leo Abse, perhaps you could point to the specific group of Tolpuddle Martyrish demonstrators which you say was responsible.
The discussion yesterday was about turning around and convincing public opinion. I'd have thought that you'd have followed the discussion.
I think you know that in regard to protesting it's usually not a specific set of protestors at a given place on a given day which swings things but rather campaigning over a period of time which was the whole point.
Your argument accredits the report as being the main thing which led to the decriminalisation of homosexuality but there was a ten year gap between that report and the decriminalisation.
Though in my field, the uncertainty is already having influence. Tbere is a 90% reduction in applications for professional registration by EU nurses for example:
I haven't seen published figures on EU doctors, but think it broadly similar. PB Leavers do seem particularly keen on free movement for people like themselves, just not for others.
Do you think for even three seconds that a doctor or nurse applying for a visa after Brexit will be rejected?
The figures speak for themselves. It is not that they do not think that they cannot legally work, it is that they do not want to work here.
Of course there is a sliver lining, by stopping the influx of cheap foreign workers, wages and conditions will be forced up for people like me. Isn't that the purpose of Brexit?
Not for "people like you" although you will benefit. But, yes, restricting the pool of cheap unskilled/semi-skilled labour should have an impact on wages and conditions. And that will be a good thing. People who work hard deserve to be fairly remunerated for their efforts.
In which industries should we expect this to happen?
Low end services, casual labour and trade work.
So we should expect to be paying more for which goods and services?
Yes, coffees, McDonald's, hotel rooms (though Airbnb and others provides a ceiling), trade work. It's all going to go up in price. People like us lose and people not like us will win. Isn't that what Labour are supposed to stand for?
I can't remember the last time I had a McDonald's. I think you'll find the demographics of fast food consumption are concentrated at the poorer end of the scale. And it's not just well off members of the middle class that go to Starbucks. An alternative to paying higher wages across the board, of course, is to employ fewer people and to close outlets. With high employment rates, we are almost certain to see that happen, with smaller businesses most affected. I am all for people getting higher wages, just as I am for higher taxes for the better off. I can afford both. I am lucky.
Though in my field, the uncertainty is already having influence. Tbere is a 90% reduction in applications for professional registration by EU nurses for example:
I haven't seen published figures on EU doctors, but think it broadly similar. PB Leavers do seem particularly keen on free movement for people like themselves, just not for others.
Do you think for even three seconds that a doctor or nurse applying for a visa after Brexit will be rejected?
Some will, immigration is always a crapshoot. But that's not the end of the disincentive. If you move somewhere, you want to know that your life won't get messed up if you lose your job, or change your job, or get sick, or get pregnant. If British employers can't tell applicants that, they will still be able to hire, but they'll have to pay a premium to cover the "UKBA may fuck up your life at any moment, probably the worst moment" tax.
This is why stories about deporting grannies with £12 in their pockets matter. Sanctimoniously taking the approach of the magistrate in Albert And The Lion that no one was really to blame only reinforces the problem.
Though in my field, the uncertainty is already having influence. Tbere is a 90% reduction in applications for professional registration by EU nurses for example:
I haven't seen published figures on EU doctors, but think it broadly similar. PB Leavers do seem particularly keen on free movement for people like themselves, just not for others.
Do you think for even three seconds that a doctor or nurse applying for a visa after Brexit will be rejected?
The figures speak for themselves. It is not that they do not think that they cannot legally work, it is that they do not want to work here.
Of course there is a sliver lining, by stopping the influx of cheap foreign workers, wages and conditions will be forced up for people like me. Isn't that the purpose of Brexit?
Not for "people like you" although you will benefit. But, yes, restricting the pool of cheap unskilled/semi-skilled labour should have an impact on wages and conditions. And that will be a good thing. People who work hard deserve to be fairly remunerated for their efforts.
In which industries should we expect this to happen?
Low end services, casual labour and trade work.
So we should expect to be paying more for which goods and services?
Your morning coffee will probably be more expensive.
French election: Juppe's drifted to 5.2 on Betfair. I'm looking more to lay than back, but that seems a shade long compared to recent days. If Fillon does sod off, one would imagine it'll go down quite quickly.
Though in my field, the uncertainty is already having influence. Tbere is a 90% reduction in applications for professional registration by EU nurses for example:
I haven't seen published figures on EU doctors, but think it broadly similar. PB Leavers do seem particularly keen on free movement for people like themselves, just not for others.
Do you think for even three seconds that a doctor or nurse applying for a visa after Brexit will be rejected?
The figures speak for themselves. It is not that they do not think that they cannot legally work, it is that they do not want to work here.
Of course there is a sliver lining, by stopping the influx of cheap foreign workers, wages and conditions will be forced up for people like me. Isn't that the purpose of Brexit?
Not for "people like you" although you will benefit. But, yes, restricting the pool of cheap unskilled/semi-skilled labour should have an impact on wages and conditions. And that will be a good thing. People who work hard deserve to be fairly remunerated for their efforts.
In which industries should we expect this to happen?
Low end services, casual labour and trade work.
So we should expect to be paying more for which goods and services?
Your morning coffee will probably be more expensive.
My heart bleeds for you
I wouldn't worry about me. Like you, Brexit will make no real difference to my lifestyle. But whisper it quietly Charles, there are people who like to buy a morning coffee who do have to watch the pennies. Yes, they exist, honestly. If they decide they can no longer afford such a treat, what happens then?
£20bn is the cost of a couple of fvcked up NHS IT systems. Bargain.
This exemplifies the wider public response to Big Numbers - people have real trouble deciding whether X billion is a lot or a little. The common newspaper device is to divide by the population, so £20 bn would be about £30,000/head, which sounds quite a lot although it'll be borrowed by Government and repaid (perhaps) over many years.
I'm not a legal or financial expert: my specialty is more understanding Continental politics. Alastair is right to imply (paraphrasing) that if Britain doesn't have a credible final package in view (with exact numbers to be negotiated) and relies on breast-beating, then the response will also be breast-beating. The general public on the Continent isn't really paying attention to Brexit - it's seen as mildly regrettable but ultimately a matter for the Brits. But the political class is human, and currently balanced between people who want a reasonable deal (Merkel, for instance) and people who want to make a horrible example of us (Verhofstadt, for instance). If the impression given is that the British government thinks it has a powerful hand and plans to play it aggressively, the "huh, we'll show them" tendency will get the upper hand (the £60bn figure is an early example) and it won't end well.
While the British public will like a bit of mood music like this to reassure them that May isn't a patsy, ultimately most people want May it get on with it and reach some sort of deal that works for Britain. More quiet, sensible discussion and less posturing would be wise at this point, even if that means downgrading Boris, who really doesn't do sensible discussion. There will come a crisis at some stage where the negotiations seem about to collapse, and some strident rhetoric may be needed then - but not at the moment.
I'm not sure a House of Lords Parliamentary report is really "posturing". The UK seems to have been signalling they want a sensible deal: e.g. patent opt in, offer on guaranteeing rights if reciprocal, saying that the EU benefits from access to the City, highlighting the value we can add in security, hinting we might make payments under a transitional deal.
Some will, immigration is always a crapshoot. But that's not the end of the disincentive. If you move somewhere, you want to know that your life won't get messed up if you lose your job, or change your job, or get sick, or get pregnant. If British employers can't tell applicants that, they will still be able to hire, but they'll have to pay a premium to cover the "UKBA may fuck up your life at any moment, probably the worst moment" tax.
Anecdotally, I know two unrelated highly-skilled IT people who had a number of applications for UK jobs pending which they've now withdrawn. They say essentially that they can't work out all the details but being a foreigner working in Britain seems potentially risky at the moent, so they prefer to look elsewhere. Like delayed investment decisions, it's a price of uncertainty.
@Ishmael_Z Yeah, I don't think that history started with the Beatles. Comissioning a report isn't exactly the same thing as actively supporting something and advocating it for a start.
If history was already under way in the 1950s you could actually read a bit about the report rather than speculating about it. And if it wasn't that report which led to the 1967 Act being passed (through the efforts of the tory Lord Arran and the socialist Leo Abse, perhaps you could point to the specific group of Tolpuddle Martyrish demonstrators which you say was responsible.
The discussion yesterday was about turning around and convincing public opinion. I'd have thought that you'd have followed the discussion.
I think you know that in regard to protesting it's usually not a specific set of protestors at a given place on a given day which swings things but rather campaigning over a period of time which was the whole point.
Your argument accredits the report as being the main thing which led to the decriminalisation of homosexuality but there was a ten year gap between that report and the decriminalisation.
I retract my previous advice. If you think there can be no causal relationship between two events because they are a decade apart, I don't think you will benefit much from studying the history of anything.
£20bn is the cost of a couple of fvcked up NHS IT systems. Bargain.
This exemplifies the wider public response to Big Numbers - people have real trouble deciding whether X billion is a lot or a little. The common newspaper device is to divide by the population, so £20 bn would be about £30,000/head, which sounds quite a lot although it'll be borrowed by Government and repaid (perhaps) over many years.
I'm not a legal or financial expert: my specialty is more understanding Continental politics. Alastair is right to imply (paraphrasing) that if Britain doesn't have a credible final package in view (with exact numbers to be negotiated) and relies on breast-beating, then the response will also be breast-beating. The general public on the Continent isn't really paying attention to Brexit - it's seen as mildly regrettable but ultimately a matter for the Brits. But the political class is human, and currently balanced between people who want a reasonable deal (Merkel, for instance) and people who want to make a horrible example of us (Verhofstadt, for instance). If the impression given is that the British government thinks it has a powerful hand and plans to play it aggressively, the "huh, we'll show them" tendency will get the upper hand (the £60bn figure is an early example) and it won't end well.
While the British public will like a bit of mood music like this to reassure them that May isn't a patsy, ultimately most people want May it get on with it and reach some sort of deal that works for Britain. More quiet, sensible discussion and less posturing would be wise at this point, even if that means downgrading Boris, who really doesn't do sensible discussion. There will come a crisis at some stage where the negotiations seem about to collapse, and some strident rhetoric may be needed then - but not at the moment.
£60bn figure is helpful in a sense that whatever is agreed will be miles and miles away from that. So May can at least argue she has reduced it by 70% or whatever....
Some will, immigration is always a crapshoot. But that's not the end of the disincentive. If you move somewhere, you want to know that your life won't get messed up if you lose your job, or change your job, or get sick, or get pregnant. If British employers can't tell applicants that, they will still be able to hire, but they'll have to pay a premium to cover the "UKBA may fuck up your life at any moment, probably the worst moment" tax.
Anecdotally, I know two unrelated highly-skilled IT people who had a number of applications for UK jobs pending which they've now withdrawn. They say essentially that they can't work out all the details but being a foreigner working in Britain seems potentially risky at the moent, so they prefer to look elsewhere. Like delayed investment decisions, it's a price of uncertainty.
Comments
To be fair, they've been getting better at it in recent years, but the NHS IT project was only one example of a very long list. Military procurement suffers from similar problems.
On the euro, if it survived Greece can anything kill it?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/04/brexit-campaigners-theresa-may-guarantee-eu-citizens-rights
http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/after-brexit-how-important-would-uk-trade-be-eu#.WLvH84HfWEc
Do enjoy the withering sarcasm aimed at 'Mr Daniel Hannan', who certainly has not covered himself in glory in the last eighteen months.
Thank you for easing my mind Alistair!
The Euro barely survived Greece, which is small. Italy going the same way would leave it without palatable options - federation or destruction.
Or does it? What does the opposition in other EU countries think? Did we join an economic community or an open prison? And what's the response in the UK ... if they want to play silly buggers, just tell them to f*ck off.
The Hotel California quote may have been done to death, but ordering us around or demanding ludicrous sums to leave only hardens opposition to the whole project. Perhaps we should never have joined?
This is the sort of thing that galvanises reluctant voters.
The UK and US account for close to €700bn (approx 35%) on the latest data from the EU's site.
It's easy to see why they perceive Trump plus Brexit in cahoots to be a threat.
Not at all.
Options should be open. Continually banging on the line 'but businesses have strategies that depend on us getting a great deal re: single market' is not helpful and risks repeating the mistakes of the referendum.
Change is coming. Good businesses will cope and thrive, others will not, replacement enterprise will appear. Same as it ever was. This is capitalism, baby.
The Government has made it clear it wants an early agreement to protect the rights of EU nationals in the UK and of UK nationals living in other member states. We commend their commitment to this outcome. This has not yet proved possible. This is regrettable and the impact it is having on several million EU citizens should be a matter of serious concern to all governments in the EU.
And
There appear to be differences between the prime negotiators, the UK Government and the EU Commission as to the sequencing of negotiations. It would be unconscionable for EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU not to have clarity about their status for another two years.
And
We commend efforts by the UK nationals living in other EU countries to put pressure on the respective governments where they live to resolve questions around their status as soon as possible. We do not believe the electorates of Europe will thank politicians in any country if the situation is allowed to continue for another two years. It is imperative that all parties to the negotiations put the resolution of the rights of all EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU as their first priority.
Which is pretty clearly criticism of the EU.
It will also include overtime/ replacement paid to employees removed from the business to be involved in the project - so if you have to pay a locum doctor £750 a day to cover for a week while the regular doctor goes for training on the new system, that gets included too. There will also be regular staff taking a secondment to work with the project itself - for example working out the business process changes required as the system changes.
I think the famous £10bn project included replacing all the computers in all the hospitals, as well as upgraded and redundant internet links to all sites. A similar project now would probably include an iPad or similar for every doctor and nurse.
It soon mounts up when you think of a complex organisation with over a million employees, £10bn is only £10k per employee after all.
"But the article was already way too long."
I wasn't criticising the article, merely my incomprehension of the legal points.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/25/number-eu-nurses-coming-uk-falls-90-per-cent-since-brexit-vote/
I haven't seen published figures on EU doctors, but think it broadly similar. PB Leavers do seem particularly keen on free movement for people like themselves, just not for others.
Everyone's supportive of medical and nursing staff coming, as they're in the 'nice and cuddly' bracket. But it does make nonsense of the cut to the bursaries for nurses. I suspect that may be reversed in the Budget.
All the infrastructure with those big signs that say 'paid for by the EU'. Got to be worth something.
1. Many if not most of the liabilities are contingent - such as loan guarantees. Fine. If we guaranteed something we should continue to do so - but that means no cash upfront. We only pay if the said risk materialises - and thereby all the other guaranteeing countries have to fork out too. So highly unlikely to be realised.
2. It also means we get to keep on benefiting from things we do keep paying for.
3. A much larger number than our share of liabilities is our share of assets - since we've been the EU's no 2 net payer for ages. All the buildings and toll roads and stuff we paid for we should get our share back.
I think they owe us to leave!
In practice I think it means we will exit progressively for financial matters on a taper rather than an overnight 'sayonara baby'.
I would actually have been interested to see the rest of it. As I've said in the past, long interesting thread headers are often better than short uninformative ones.
What, in your view, are the main weaknesses in the EU position?
"Then it is a fault of the article. My apologies."
Thank you for apologising for my stupidity. I will, of course, accept it.
What errors have you identified in the post that in your view makes it untrustworthy?
But more broadly, this type of chest-beating is only useful if the negotiators have a clear idea what type of long term arrangement they seek at the end of the process. This looks like purposeless machismo.
While I still consider Cameron's failure to plan for a no vote to be his single greatest error in politics (among several pretty bad ones) it looks as though the EU still haven't planned for it even though they now know it will be happening.
A fairly shocking indictment of their complacency and incompetence and one that goes some way to explaining why Brexit and the EU more generally are getting so messy.
British management classes seem far too interested in the quarter end figures so they can get their bonus than the long term health of the company, at least that was my impression. I'm not saying we should take a Japanese view and decide that companies never need to make money, but there is a middle ground and British companies and management are far too often found to be left wanting in terms of investment in both people and capital.
Of course there is a sliver lining, by stopping the influx of cheap foreign workers, wages and conditions will be forced up for people like me. Isn't that the purpose of Brexit?
The EU will claim victory and that we have paid €60bn.
The UK will claim victory and day we have handed over nothing.
And both will be vaguely right.
http://www.irelandwestairport.com/utility/corporate_structure.aspx
This is the worst sort of inefficiency, where the old and slow systems start to get in the way of doing the job, and eventually doing nothing isn't an option any more. So the NHS gets to be screwed by the next big IT company, who goes into negotiations knowing that the customer is absolutely desperate to have something done yesterday.
And so the cycle repeats itself, with today's managers and politicians learning the same lessons as their predecessors, all over again!
If it's any consolation, the IT guys on the ground will be at least as frustrated with the situation as you are.
I ask again, what errors have you identified in the post?
As one Greater Manchester MP said bluntly: “It is going to be horrible.”
While all local Labour parties have their factions – and occasionally rows that spill out of internal meetings – Gorton’s disagreements have been more frequent and more toxic than most.
When the party was suspended last year following an almighty row within its Levenshulme branch, I asked one seasoned Labour figure how unusual such a suspension actually was.
Under normal circumstances it would be unusual, he said, drily. But Gorton had been suspended so many times since the 1980s due to its factions misbehaving that really, in this case, not so much.
The most recent generation of in-fighting has ultimately been about one thing and one thing alone, however: who would succeed Sir Gerald.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/the-labour-battle-for-gorton-12677245
Edit: just checked : we have Eur39bn invested in EIB. That allows EIB to make EU 100bn of loans under its statutes.
I'm not a legal or financial expert: my specialty is more understanding Continental politics. Alastair is right to imply (paraphrasing) that if Britain doesn't have a credible final package in view (with exact numbers to be negotiated) and relies on breast-beating, then the response will also be breast-beating. The general public on the Continent isn't really paying attention to Brexit - it's seen as mildly regrettable but ultimately a matter for the Brits. But the political class is human, and currently balanced between people who want a reasonable deal (Merkel, for instance) and people who want to make a horrible example of us (Verhofstadt, for instance). If the impression given is that the British government thinks it has a powerful hand and plans to play it aggressively, the "huh, we'll show them" tendency will get the upper hand (the £60bn figure is an early example) and it won't end well.
While the British public will like a bit of mood music like this to reassure them that May isn't a patsy, ultimately most people want May it get on with it and reach some sort of deal that works for Britain. More quiet, sensible discussion and less posturing would be wise at this point, even if that means downgrading Boris, who really doesn't do sensible discussion. There will come a crisis at some stage where the negotiations seem about to collapse, and some strident rhetoric may be needed then - but not at the moment.
The Guardian story is actually about the position of the brexit select committee, a seat on which was about the only trifle Gove managed to save from the wreckage of his career. It's a great mistake to assume that a guardian headline accurately reflects what it purports to be the headline of.
The discussion yesterday was about turning around and convincing public opinion. I'd have thought that you'd have followed the discussion.
I think you know that in regard to protesting it's usually not a specific set of protestors at a given place on a given day which swings things but rather campaigning over a period of time which was the whole point.
Your argument accredits the report as being the main thing which led to the decriminalisation of homosexuality but there was a ten year gap between that report and the decriminalisation.
My heart bleeds for you
That doesn't look to me like breast-beating.
So May can at least argue she has reduced it by 70% or whatever....