My comparison was with the French/German border today. Are you saying that along that border the shops have to deal with two different currencies? Boths sides of the French/German border are in the Eurozone.
Upvote
0
Brexit negotiations
- Thread starter Scott-Copywriter
- Start date
My comparison was with the French/German border today. Are you saying that along that border the shops have to deal with two different currencies? Boths sides of the French/German border are in the Eurozone.
For all practical purposes, including the desires of the local populace and the needs of the GFA, it absolutely is an open and frictionless border.
Upvote
0
At the minute if the local populace wants to travel across the border and spend money they have to go to the bank and exchange currency except for if they want to only shop in areas only a few miles on the other side of the border, in which case they run the risk of getting a terrible exchange rate so most will get currency exchanged before crossing the border.
At the minute if the local populace has a business and they want to sell anything that attracts VAT, they have to follow normal export rules regarding VAT which are quite complex and involves additional admin. cost.
At the minute if the local populace lives on one side of the border but works on the other side of the border, they have to follow international rules as to which country they pay their tax to which means that they could be living in one country while paying income tax to another one.
At the minute if the local populace (Cobby I just love your patronising terms) gets burgled and the car containing the burglars is chased by the police, the chase has to end at the border as the police cannot cross the border. If the police force on the other side of the border does eventually get the suspected burglars, then it can take months or years for the suspects to be extradited back across the border to face justice.
At the minute if the local populace owns a business and wants to make a bank transfer across the border, they will have to pay currency exchange charges and they will usually have to pay a bank fee of about £7 for each transactions.
These are just a few of the practicalities faced at the minute. There are more.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
T
The Byre
No, sorry - still wrong on nearly all counts!
As of March this year, the Garda and the PSNI can and do cross the boarder on chases and other operative occasions and the two forces are now linked by radio.
Taxes and money exchange - well I work in Germany and in the UK and I pay taxes in both counties without any complications and also we (as a company) move money constantly between Euros, Pounds and Dollars and we do so with no exchange transfer costs whatsoever and so we only have the 'courtage' costs of buying and selling currencies.
Every company I have ever had to deal with that trades internationally, has accounts in different countries and merely stocks up one and depletes the other - one has to do things that way, as UK banks are deliberately obstructive, as this earns them additional revenue. They pretend that this is a result of money-laundering rules, but the reality is that they like to stick onto the money for a couple of weeks!
As all banking is now done on-line, moving money as described above is not only free from financial penalty (other than the difference between buying and selling price) but absolutely instant.
As for VAT, if a punter goes across the boarder and buys something, they pay VAT - the same as if they bought that item at home. If they are a business, they don't pay VAT. At home they get it back, across the boarder, they don't pay it in the first place.
As of March this year, the Garda and the PSNI can and do cross the boarder on chases and other operative occasions and the two forces are now linked by radio.
Taxes and money exchange - well I work in Germany and in the UK and I pay taxes in both counties without any complications and also we (as a company) move money constantly between Euros, Pounds and Dollars and we do so with no exchange transfer costs whatsoever and so we only have the 'courtage' costs of buying and selling currencies.
Every company I have ever had to deal with that trades internationally, has accounts in different countries and merely stocks up one and depletes the other - one has to do things that way, as UK banks are deliberately obstructive, as this earns them additional revenue. They pretend that this is a result of money-laundering rules, but the reality is that they like to stick onto the money for a couple of weeks!
As all banking is now done on-line, moving money as described above is not only free from financial penalty (other than the difference between buying and selling price) but absolutely instant.
As for VAT, if a punter goes across the boarder and buys something, they pay VAT - the same as if they bought that item at home. If they are a business, they don't pay VAT. At home they get it back, across the boarder, they don't pay it in the first place.
Upvote
0
You say I am wrong but then you do not go on ot say how I am wrong except in a couple of instances (which for now we will have to agree to disagree upon) but point out that the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic in several respects is like any other international border such as between Germany and the UK (which is a sea border but never the less).
That is my point in a nutshell.
Upvote
0
T
The Byre
You are wrong because you (I assume - I don't know!) imagine that living and working across an international EU boarder represents some kind of difficulty or creates difficult friction points. You seem (again, I am assuming!) to live in the UK and do not understand or have experienced what it is like to live and work across an EU boarder.
Millions of people across the EU live in boarder regions and manage to do so without any difficulties. The police on both sides of the Irish boarder can and do continue in hot pursuit at the boarder, handing over by radio to their counterparts when it is convenient to do so. There is no 'stopping at the boarder'!
Money transfers are frictionless. VAT is charged as normal or is VAT-free for businesses and all NI businesses that trade in the South have bank accounts in the South.
Police, VAT, exchange rates - these are difficulties that you have either imagined (but never experienced) or that you have invented.
Millions of people across the EU live in boarder regions and manage to do so without any difficulties. The police on both sides of the Irish boarder can and do continue in hot pursuit at the boarder, handing over by radio to their counterparts when it is convenient to do so. There is no 'stopping at the boarder'!
Money transfers are frictionless. VAT is charged as normal or is VAT-free for businesses and all NI businesses that trade in the South have bank accounts in the South.
Police, VAT, exchange rates - these are difficulties that you have either imagined (but never experienced) or that you have invented.
Upvote
0
But what exactly is your point? Outside of a nutshell if needs be.
That it's a complicated situation and therefore Brexit creating a hard border there doesn't mean much?
Upvote
0
You are speaking from the point of view of someone who does international business transactions all the time. I do it sometimes. As it happens mostly, with the Republic of Ireland but sometimes with the USA and Australia as well. I have been on this forum for about a decade and the average poster I have come across on this site does not do any international transactions except when they go on holiday. However the ones who do international transactions generally do find that they can be complex and if not complex certaily different to what they are used to when trading wholly within their own country.
You will have currency transaction charges when dealing cross-border between NI and RoI, There are some shops who will accept cash of both currencies on either side of the border, but those get fewer the further you get away from the border. Some shops will give a rather good exchange rate to encourage trade from the other side of the border but many will give a rubbish exchange rate.
If you live on one side of the border and work on the other sometimes it is straight forward to get your income tax sorted out but others it is very complex and you end up having to pay income tax in the country in the other side of the border.
As regards the PSNI and Garda chases across the border. I have found no mention of any changes in March of this year so if you could cite your source for that I would appreciate it.
As for the banking fees, Danske Bank in Northern Ireland will charge £7 for getting money transferred from a non-sister bank based in the Republic of Ireland in addition to currency exchange charges. ( PS. the fee part might depend on whether the recipient does online banking or not)
You will have currency transaction charges when dealing cross-border between NI and RoI, There are some shops who will accept cash of both currencies on either side of the border, but those get fewer the further you get away from the border. Some shops will give a rather good exchange rate to encourage trade from the other side of the border but many will give a rubbish exchange rate.
If you live on one side of the border and work on the other sometimes it is straight forward to get your income tax sorted out but others it is very complex and you end up having to pay income tax in the country in the other side of the border.
As regards the PSNI and Garda chases across the border. I have found no mention of any changes in March of this year so if you could cite your source for that I would appreciate it.
As for the banking fees, Danske Bank in Northern Ireland will charge £7 for getting money transferred from a non-sister bank based in the Republic of Ireland in addition to currency exchange charges. ( PS. the fee part might depend on whether the recipient does online banking or not)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Retail stores have been closing regular on an annual basis, I can't say I am surprised by H of F or Poundland or even Mothercare yet there is also talk of companies now using CVA as a means to get rent discounts. So this is more complicated.
If we don't get Brexit soon there will be more political upheavals the genie is out of the bottle so to speak and we might even see the break up of the United Kingdom as it is obvious there are strong differences in regional voting patterns.
Upvote
0
I meant more changes in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland have skewed voting patterns. In England about 70K to win a seat in Scotland & Northern Ireland it is much less as low as 22k.
Upvote
0
Well, every day is another day of chaos in Brexit-land.
Theresa May tells MPs not to undermine UK's Brexit negotiations
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44434998
The government and Brexiteers continue to cling to the sail-mast of their sinking ideology; the last part of their arguments still above water: "Will of the People", and "Negotiating Leverage".
The "Will of the People" is obviously just empty posturing at this point so let's put that aside and deal with the other part. The Negotiating 'Leverage' argument is pretty flimsy at best and seems to be relying on the idea that leaving our executive the option to do the most damage to the UK is somehow going to make the EU27 consider our requests more favourably.
Brexit isn't covered with anything lie the voracity of our own media, obviously, as it is not such a huge deal for everyone else, but where it is covered it is typically covered like this:
"Barnier has had enough of British whining."
https://bit.ly/2MlCRpc
There's still no clear reason as to why they are somehow magically stronger with a less democratic approach, but I suppose there doesn't need to be a clear reason. As long as they posture enough for the domestic media, they consider their job done.
At every single stage of the negotiations our government, despite preceding each with media performances to the contrary, has had to accede to the demands of the EU27. I'm not entirely sure which way this latest round will go, but it's a fair bet it'll end with David Davis coming back and shouting to the media about how unreasonable the EU27 are for turning down the ideas they already rejected back in August.
Meanwhile I think the current tally of Brexit-related UK job losses is up to about 40,000.
Theresa May tells MPs not to undermine UK's Brexit negotiations
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44434998
The government and Brexiteers continue to cling to the sail-mast of their sinking ideology; the last part of their arguments still above water: "Will of the People", and "Negotiating Leverage".
The "Will of the People" is obviously just empty posturing at this point so let's put that aside and deal with the other part. The Negotiating 'Leverage' argument is pretty flimsy at best and seems to be relying on the idea that leaving our executive the option to do the most damage to the UK is somehow going to make the EU27 consider our requests more favourably.
Brexit isn't covered with anything lie the voracity of our own media, obviously, as it is not such a huge deal for everyone else, but where it is covered it is typically covered like this:
"Barnier has had enough of British whining."
https://bit.ly/2MlCRpc
There's still no clear reason as to why they are somehow magically stronger with a less democratic approach, but I suppose there doesn't need to be a clear reason. As long as they posture enough for the domestic media, they consider their job done.
At every single stage of the negotiations our government, despite preceding each with media performances to the contrary, has had to accede to the demands of the EU27. I'm not entirely sure which way this latest round will go, but it's a fair bet it'll end with David Davis coming back and shouting to the media about how unreasonable the EU27 are for turning down the ideas they already rejected back in August.
Meanwhile I think the current tally of Brexit-related UK job losses is up to about 40,000.
Upvote
0
Lets not forget Italy via Target II owes the ECB €433bn, Spain >€300bn, it is why so many come here for jobs. The one we know more about is Greece yet Italy is the 3rd biggest country in the EU and its banks have become known as 'zombie banks.' One of Macron's current ministers said 25 years ago that tie-ing Southern European countries to a central northern currency would destroy their economies. So in practice we see that happening yet all the while German car exporters and other manufacturers are doing rather nicely.
Upvote
0
I'm not sure what your point is here, but even the right wing groups in Italy and Spain have recently been polled as not wanting to leave the EU.
A wide array of eurosceptics have, in the past 25 years, concocted every conceivable negative consequence they could dream up. The anecdote of a particular minister tying a single action to a single effect doesn't really cut it as a prediction, sorry.
Upvote
0
That's is not correct I can remember an economist getting upset in the Evening Standard just over 25 years ago when he heard Greece was joining stating clearly they must have fiddled their books, it was always about creating an EU superstate and that was why we were not allowed a referendum when the treaties were being signed in the Blair years. We all remember WMDs, David Kelly, Jill Dando yet when Brexit is mentioned.............
Upvote
0
No, it was their view of the EU, which since the Brexit vote has seen an uptick (with the exception of Italy, but even they're still 60/40 in favour).
Although it's interesting you raise that point of "everyone will want it" which is what the right-wing/Leave camps like to frame as "The EU punishing the UK" for not giving us a better arrangement than actual membership.
Upvote
0
I didn't mention any of that, so a little puzzled. Are you posting other theories dear to your heart?
Upvote
0
Oh my mistake, I thought we were just posting random ridiculous conspiracy theories for the sake of it
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #2,862
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44518702
There's something mighty unusual about the House of Lords, the unelected house, trying to give the Commons, the elected house, a say over Brexit. They are battling against the government trying to subvert parliamentary sovereignty which Brexiteers fought so hard for during the referendum.
I honestly don't understand why the government, and so many leave supporters, are adamantly against the primary law making body of the UK being able to do what it was elected for. The people cheering for the House of Commons being free to make decisions for the UK after the referendum are now mortified that they may be able to do exactly that.
This is a vote on whether, in the event of no deal, the Commons decides what to do next - not the government. Why is that so horrendous? People should be extremely grateful that we don't have a system where 22 cabinet members can do whatever they please.
If anything, it just shows the depths to which people fit their own narratives in politics. If the current government happened to be soft on Brexit and wanted EEA membership, the exact same people would be protesting for the decision to be put in the hands of MPs.
There's something mighty unusual about the House of Lords, the unelected house, trying to give the Commons, the elected house, a say over Brexit. They are battling against the government trying to subvert parliamentary sovereignty which Brexiteers fought so hard for during the referendum.
I honestly don't understand why the government, and so many leave supporters, are adamantly against the primary law making body of the UK being able to do what it was elected for. The people cheering for the House of Commons being free to make decisions for the UK after the referendum are now mortified that they may be able to do exactly that.
This is a vote on whether, in the event of no deal, the Commons decides what to do next - not the government. Why is that so horrendous? People should be extremely grateful that we don't have a system where 22 cabinet members can do whatever they please.
If anything, it just shows the depths to which people fit their own narratives in politics. If the current government happened to be soft on Brexit and wanted EEA membership, the exact same people would be protesting for the decision to be put in the hands of MPs.
Upvote
0
The reason Brexiteers are so in favour of not giving Parliament a say is because they truly believe, bless them, that Brexit is like some great business deal or poker game where come the final negotiations it is all about long hours of negotiating a "deal" right up to the last minute without "showing your hand" before that. Getting parliament involved means that the business deal/poker game model does not work. It never was going to work and never will in my view.
Upvote
0
So this Brexit process continues to be both fascinating and horrifying at the same time.
The "Brexit Dividend"
The government continue to toe this line of "We'll be better off out of the EU" and have once again started using last year's sound-bite about the "Brexit Dividend". Even Corbyn is on board with this nonsense about "savings made" once we leave the EU. What's more, when challenged about the existence of the Dividend, ministers give this vague response about economic growth covering the shortfall.
The problem is, absolutely none of this is backed up with good evidence.
The Real Cost?
The "Brexit Dividend" - i.e. The Economic 'Profit' from Leaving the EU - currently stands at somewhere between -£27billion* and -£22billion per year. Given that the "cost" of membership is somewhere between £8billion and £14billion per year, that's a pretty huge gap.
So when Theresa May says the NHS is going to receive £20bn/year, funded with the "...Brexit Dividend with us as a country contributing a bit more" it can really only break down like this:
NHS Funding: £20billion
Brexit Dividend: -£27billion
Borrowing
+ Tax Increase
+ Other Cuts: >= £47billion
We have to ask, "how accurate is this"? Well, there's a lot of very large, figures rounded up (or down) and they all have quite large margins of error, although not large enough to dismiss them.
Pro-Brexit?
What about the pro-Brexit economists and the Brexiteers? Well they continue to try getting mileage out of the "Project Fear" catchphrase, although that's mostly them beating a dead horse at this point (a horse that turned out to be pretty real after all!). Their economists call these forecasts "alarmist", which could be true as those figures certainly are alarming. Problem is, none of them have offered up any good evidence that refutes any of it. They just keep trotting out bland rhetoric about "more freedom" and "opportunity for domestic growth", none of which is supported by any good evidence.
What's worse is that the Executive must, by law, plan policy using the data provided by the OBR (for those who don't remember, the OBR cut the current growth forecast for the UK by 40% since the 2015 budget) so what does the government mean when they say "extra economic growth" will cover the shortfall? They can talk about it to the media but they are legally prohibited from including that in their policy planning.
So where does that leave us?
There's still no feasible solution to the Irish Border Problem but the government have found a way to bury it in the media cycle for a bit with this "Brexit Dividend" business.
We're left in this odd limbo where nothing the government claims has any merit and they're making plans and 'negotiating' with the EU27 on clearly false pretences. Of course all of this is extremely visible and easily understood by those involved - especially the EU27. They can see that we're lying to ourselves, not making contingency plans for the worst possible outcome, and continuing to publicly display that our political promises are almost completely worthless.
It would be very nice at this point if the Brexiteers and the Leave voters still blindly following them, could stop making out like the biggest obstacle to Brexit is Remain voters "undermining" the government; if you're paying attention, the government are as low as they can get, we couldn't get under them if we tried. O__o
(* According to a report due this week by Oliver Wyman)
The "Brexit Dividend"
The government continue to toe this line of "We'll be better off out of the EU" and have once again started using last year's sound-bite about the "Brexit Dividend". Even Corbyn is on board with this nonsense about "savings made" once we leave the EU. What's more, when challenged about the existence of the Dividend, ministers give this vague response about economic growth covering the shortfall.
The problem is, absolutely none of this is backed up with good evidence.
The Real Cost?
The "Brexit Dividend" - i.e. The Economic 'Profit' from Leaving the EU - currently stands at somewhere between -£27billion* and -£22billion per year. Given that the "cost" of membership is somewhere between £8billion and £14billion per year, that's a pretty huge gap.
So when Theresa May says the NHS is going to receive £20bn/year, funded with the "...Brexit Dividend with us as a country contributing a bit more" it can really only break down like this:
NHS Funding: £20billion
Brexit Dividend: -£27billion
Borrowing
+ Tax Increase
+ Other Cuts: >= £47billion
We have to ask, "how accurate is this"? Well, there's a lot of very large, figures rounded up (or down) and they all have quite large margins of error, although not large enough to dismiss them.
Pro-Brexit?
What about the pro-Brexit economists and the Brexiteers? Well they continue to try getting mileage out of the "Project Fear" catchphrase, although that's mostly them beating a dead horse at this point (a horse that turned out to be pretty real after all!). Their economists call these forecasts "alarmist", which could be true as those figures certainly are alarming. Problem is, none of them have offered up any good evidence that refutes any of it. They just keep trotting out bland rhetoric about "more freedom" and "opportunity for domestic growth", none of which is supported by any good evidence.
What's worse is that the Executive must, by law, plan policy using the data provided by the OBR (for those who don't remember, the OBR cut the current growth forecast for the UK by 40% since the 2015 budget) so what does the government mean when they say "extra economic growth" will cover the shortfall? They can talk about it to the media but they are legally prohibited from including that in their policy planning.
So where does that leave us?
There's still no feasible solution to the Irish Border Problem but the government have found a way to bury it in the media cycle for a bit with this "Brexit Dividend" business.
We're left in this odd limbo where nothing the government claims has any merit and they're making plans and 'negotiating' with the EU27 on clearly false pretences. Of course all of this is extremely visible and easily understood by those involved - especially the EU27. They can see that we're lying to ourselves, not making contingency plans for the worst possible outcome, and continuing to publicly display that our political promises are almost completely worthless.
It would be very nice at this point if the Brexiteers and the Leave voters still blindly following them, could stop making out like the biggest obstacle to Brexit is Remain voters "undermining" the government; if you're paying attention, the government are as low as they can get, we couldn't get under them if we tried. O__o
(* According to a report due this week by Oliver Wyman)
Upvote
0
Break the NHS increase down by year and look at increases in NHS budget in previous years.
What you are seeing is an illusion.
The government announce extra money as a large amount over multiple years.
Year-by-year funding increases
Reality is of course that the money will most likely be wasted. And quite possibly more NHS work farmed out to the private sector.
What you are seeing is an illusion.
The government announce extra money as a large amount over multiple years.
Year-by-year funding increases
- 2019-20 - 3.6%
- 2020 - 21 - 3.6%
- 2021-22 - 3.1%
- 2022-23 - 3.1%
- 2023-24 - 3.4%
Reality is of course that the money will most likely be wasted. And quite possibly more NHS work farmed out to the private sector.
Upvote
0
Not the ones I know, we all expect we might end up poorer as a Nation yet at least we are not controlled by a foreign government and can then stop criminals being able to cross. I have friends in the police. The other thing is more immigration annually than our deficit in housing which is ludricous.
Upvote
0
When I mentioned Brexiteers' regarding the Brexit process as a business deal or poker game, I was referring to the present negotiating philosophy. In fact many Remainers regard it as the way the Brexit should be done. However there seems to be a hardcore of Brexiteer of people inside and outside of the Cabinet who regard this business deal/ poker game model of the Brexit process so verdantly that they are think thay we can use it right up until we leave the EU.
The business deal/ poker game model or philosophy depends on being able to walk away from the table and end up with possibility of the famous "No Deal". The no deal option will require lorry parks at the ports, extra custom post buildings and hundreds if not thousands of extra customs officers. Maybe land is being bought for the lorry parks with the land owners who have sold the land being sworn to secrecy, maybe there are plans to recruit and train the vast numbers of extra customs officers needed for a "no deal" outcome and maybe there plans for the extra buildings required at ports. If all this and more is not presently being done or in the late planning stages then the threat to the EU negotiators of walking away must surely fall on deaf ears. Hence the business deal/ poker game model does not work.
Upvote
0
It's weird that at this stage people are still trying to push these dishonest, nebulous threats that the EU supposedly represents.
We have not, are not and will never be 'controlled' by a Foreign Government while a member of the European Union.
Our membership of the EU allows us access to the criminal records of other EU nationals should we require them and of course you are aware that not only do we have a passport enforced border in the UK but there are additional controls we can choose to enact should we so choose to tighten that border further.
Finally, you appear to be confusing Freedom of Movement with immigration.
It's a complex topic but muddying the water with vague complaints to support an anti EU position isn't helpful to the discussion. It's interesting that the government continue to engage in this behaviour despite being in negotiations but would go a long way to explaining why they aren't taken seriously by the EU27.
Upvote
0
How do we stop criminals trying to cross beyond what we already do at the moment?
We don't appear to have the political will to stop non-EU immigration and we don't have the ability to prevent asylum seekers coming here (its not an EU thing).
How is more immigration annually than our deficit in housing a bad thing? Do we have enough people trained up to just recruit and use local talent? Say doctors, nurses, specialists in nuclear reactor construction etc?
Do we change the birthrate? Its 1.81 per woman last I looked, down slightly from previous. So we have an ageing population, some people dying before reaching adulthood and without immigration we have an overall shrinking population.
How low should we go?
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #2,870
We can and do stop criminals from entering, even with EEA free movement rights. Over 6000 have been denied entry since 2010. There is nothing to stop any EEA member state from doing that.
The issue is more to do with the sharing of information. This has been patchy in the past, but has recently started to improve with cross-border databases.
Ironically though, leaving the EU is likely to make us even less secure. Remember that EU free movement only provides the right to reside and work. Even without that, citizens of countries with visa-free travel agreements (of which there are many) can come in just as easily as any EU national. The UK will almost certainly strike a visa-free travel arrangement with the EU as well.
The reason we'll probably end up less secure is because we'll be restricted from the EU's internal security and policing cooperation. As a result, there's a good chance we'll know even less about who's coming in from the EU than we do now, despite them being able to enter just as freely as they currently do.
This is actually a big cloud hanging over the Brexit negotiations at the moment. One I think a lot of people aren't taking seriously enough: https://www.parliament.uk/business/...ty-cooperation-brexit-report-published-17-19/
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #2,873
Firstly, there is no guarantee there will be entry/exit stamps. No one knows yet.
Secondly, I'm not sure how on earth stamping a page in a passport will make any difference to security. Electronic systems already track entries and exits. That's why e-passports are scanned and why the border officer will check identity cards on their computer.
Thirdly, I think you watch too many James Bond films. A huge part of effective cross-border security is the sharing of data and collaboration on it between countries. That will not remain as good as it currently is, and therefore more vulnerabilities are likely to arise. That's why the Home Affairs Committee is so worried about it.
The fact remains that while exiting the EU may remove the right to freely reside and work, it will make no difference to how people enter and exit the country given how likely it is for a visa-free arrangement to be created. Yes, people may be stopped if they have criminal convictions, but that already happens anyway.
PS: Here is the current list of 56 non-EEA countries where visa-free entry to the UK is allowed for a period of up to 6 months: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Visa_exemptions
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #2,876
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44570931
I'm sure many of us have seen the news this morning about Airbus.
The sad thing is that one of Airbus' main factories is in Flintshire - where it employs 6000 local people - and Flintshire voted to leave:
http://www.itv.com/news/wales/update/2016-06-24/eu-ref-leave-gets-56-of-vote-in-flintshire/
I really wonder how many people working for these Europe-integrated manufacturers voted leave in the knowledge that they could be risking their own jobs.
Ultimately, it may be a symptom of the Brexit referendum campaign, where every possible negative outcome was dismissed as "project fear". Combine it with the idea that anyone who was concerned about Brexit was an unpatriotic doubter of the UK's strength, and it was probably a pretty appealing cocktail.
Yes, there may have been people who voted leave in the knowledge that they could be putting their jobs and careers on the line, where they were prepared to make that sacrifice if necessary, but I find that somewhat hard to believe if these people have bills to pay and families to feed.
I'm sure many of us have seen the news this morning about Airbus.
The sad thing is that one of Airbus' main factories is in Flintshire - where it employs 6000 local people - and Flintshire voted to leave:
http://www.itv.com/news/wales/update/2016-06-24/eu-ref-leave-gets-56-of-vote-in-flintshire/
I really wonder how many people working for these Europe-integrated manufacturers voted leave in the knowledge that they could be risking their own jobs.
Ultimately, it may be a symptom of the Brexit referendum campaign, where every possible negative outcome was dismissed as "project fear". Combine it with the idea that anyone who was concerned about Brexit was an unpatriotic doubter of the UK's strength, and it was probably a pretty appealing cocktail.
Yes, there may have been people who voted leave in the knowledge that they could be putting their jobs and careers on the line, where they were prepared to make that sacrifice if necessary, but I find that somewhat hard to believe if these people have bills to pay and families to feed.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #2,879
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44575929
You know people are probably bluffing when they have to repeatedly keep telling others that they aren't bluffing.
This strategy just isn't working any more, and most likely never did. There are far too many businesses, including major employers, that have made clear how important it is to avoid a no deal scenario.
That leaves the government trying to look like an unpredictable beast in negotiations while simultaneously assuring businesses that it's going to get the best possible deal. There are increasingly loud calls for clarity, only 9 months away from Brexit, while the government wants to push negotiations to the very last minute in an attempt to force the EU's hand.
Do any of us here genuinely believe that the government will walk away and let the deadline pass with no deal at all, particularly after recent comments from the likes of Airbus? If we don't believe it, the the EU almost certainly doesn't either.
The reality is that all companies and investors can choose between either:
A). Free trade with a $2.9tn economy and more difficult access to a $16.7tn economy
B). Free trade with a $16.7tn economy and more difficult access to a $2.9tn economy
No amount of posturing will change that.
You know people are probably bluffing when they have to repeatedly keep telling others that they aren't bluffing.
This strategy just isn't working any more, and most likely never did. There are far too many businesses, including major employers, that have made clear how important it is to avoid a no deal scenario.
That leaves the government trying to look like an unpredictable beast in negotiations while simultaneously assuring businesses that it's going to get the best possible deal. There are increasingly loud calls for clarity, only 9 months away from Brexit, while the government wants to push negotiations to the very last minute in an attempt to force the EU's hand.
Do any of us here genuinely believe that the government will walk away and let the deadline pass with no deal at all, particularly after recent comments from the likes of Airbus? If we don't believe it, the the EU almost certainly doesn't either.
The reality is that all companies and investors can choose between either:
A). Free trade with a $2.9tn economy and more difficult access to a $16.7tn economy
B). Free trade with a $16.7tn economy and more difficult access to a $2.9tn economy
No amount of posturing will change that.
Upvote
0
Our own parliament, our own people if they get a referendum on the deal, can quite easily scupper any deal.
A deal is negotiated, then rejected by one party - at best more negotiations take place which uses up more time. To avoid a no deal crash out then an extension would have to be agreed. By all governments concerned.
Without extension the pressure would be on our negotiators to get a deal, any deal.
And again voted on by the various states - if one thinks its not right then again rejected and so on.
Each time leaving less time to get a deal.
How quickly can businesses learn to fly. I can quite imagine early next year some businesses starting the process to issue redundancies. 90 days or so as I recall, happy new year.
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
Whose Job Was It? What Two Threads Say About Accountants and FeesShould Your Bookkeeper Tell You Your Accountant Is Too Expensive? There's a polite argument...- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
Guilty until proven authorised: fighting a false counterfeit reportA UKBF member posted something that will make the stomach drop for anyone who sells on a...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 12 min read
-
Growth Britain: what's actually in it for the smallest businesses?John Healey gave his first big speech as chancellor this morning, standing in front of a row of...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
AI can do the typing. It can't sign the accounts.Back in January, a UKBF member called @Byzantium put up a complaint that'll sound familiar to a...- Lord Moore
- Updated:
- 6 min read
-
90,000 jobs are heading your way. Your rates bill might get there firstIf you run a business in Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds or Bristol, you were probably told some...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 8 min read