| The Comments |
ads
Would you define "generous" as including provision for those nationals who have been directly disadvantaged by the EU freedom of movement system which has compromised the supply and demand chain, such realities as increasing rents, decreasing opportunities for low skilled work, lowering of earning capacity, increase in part-time work that has led to major increase in zero hours contracts which have compromised worker's rights etc?
Who specifically has been disadvantaged?
Lazy people who will not go and find work, demand huge salaries (take a look a football how many "locals" get from the lower leagues into top flight? the same prinicpal). I guess some would call it market demand, capitalism etc etc etc free markets will always do this and Brexit will NOT help solve teh problem
Provide provison yes but not to the point where they ar ebetter off on benefits and have caps on price and time - too many multi generations and long term claiants to continue
Do not forget that many who voted to leave came from this disadvantaged background and your solution would further disadvantage them. Surely not right in this day and age, and ironically works in contradiction to EU principles.
Yes they did on only a couple of hyped up issues that they simply did not undertsand or have clear view of the bigger picture
No, the freedom of movement system needs review and far greater flexibility if it is to remain a fair and workable system across member states.
I would agree to a point but it has been said before EU centralistion to give EU citizens the same across the EU shoudl be agoal for teh EU.
Remember freedom of movement works within the 4 state union of the UK. DO you think post Brexit we will have equality across the UK
_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”
2
Like
|
So sorry Jarvi,
we will not be getting on with it any time soon, Love Mrs May.
This message was last edited by perrypower1 on 20/11/2016.
2
Like
|
Generalisations do no service to the debate.
To imply those disadvantaged are all "lazy people who will not go and find work" is to remain in denial that the EU system has proved of no value to them and has only accentuated the problems.
The bureaucrats intransigence to recognise the need to reassess and find better mechanisms and greater flexibility to solve these transient problems, to fail to comprehend the impact from SWIFT movements, wide wage differentials, " pull factors" and different earning capacities across member states, lack of growth strategies and forward planning to better deal with mass unemployment, etc that have the potential to harm a country's cohesion and tolerant psyche is negligent and highly risky.
Any system that fails to adequately deal with citizen disillusionment on this scale, that refuses to look for fair workable solutions, that acts with arrogance and disdain to their concerns, that leaves the potential for citizens to feel sadly embittered against non nationals, which is not the British way of dealing with these problems, is a system that many have felt little option but to turn their backs on. And all in the name of ideological aspirations and with intent to make life difficult for any member state that does not comply with their dictats, without review of ongoing impacts, is not what many envisaged from being part of the European Union.
For bureaucrats to demonstrate through their ongoing aggressive rhetoric and apparent intent to do anything to prevent contagion without willingness to find mutual solutions to genuine citizen's concerns hardly inspires confidence, and sadly only reinforces the perception that this system is not working in citizen's best interests.
1
Like
|
Ads
With all due respect you are also generalising with your views
Whatever you say in regards to the delinquency of the eu can be saud about the uk or any other country
The attitude of many leavers is guesswork and under some illusion that the uk is great and or better than others. If the uk is so great why not help sort problems instead of thinking they can do better on their own despite having very similar problems on managing it's own affairs
The divide across the uk is no different in most aspects of that in the eu or across the globe
I am still struggling to see how people are disadvantaged because of eu or free movement they can move but many won't the same opportunities exist for all and well done for those who are prepared to get on their bike and find work create a better life for themselves and their families supporting themselves instead of scrounging off the state
EU bureaucracy is no better or worse than uk bureaucracy
_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”
2
Like
|
What we want is a fair, reasonable and sensible Brexit, but that won't happen because the EUSSR are scared that other people may want freedom, and as far as they are concerned dictatorship rules
As I have noted before on here, it will be the national leaders rather than the EU functionaries that make the agreement in the end, so I am more optomistic than you. When all is said and done Mrs Merkel and Co do not want to shaft their own taxpayer or industries.
The starting point is no tarriffs and free trade. States that want to move away from this will have to asses the damage of reciprocal action. Realistically both sides are better off with the status quo but some may see some advantages for some of their competing industries. For all the blather in the press I have yet to see a convincing assessment of the position of the EU member countries. There is also our contribution. It will be worth a lot to the paying nations for us to reduce this on a sliding scale rather than play hardball and loose it in one chunk. They also have taxpayers to think about.
It is also in the interests of all that the negociations reach a conclusion quickly. My guess is as good as anyone elses. Assuming no new developments from the EU (and there could be) no muddied waters or further legal challenges stopping the negociations from actually starting then I would guess negotiations would be over in less than a year with some outstanding points and an agreement for our contributions to drop on a sliding scale. We may also be asked to take responsibility for some of the pensions of EU employees and ex E MPs.
Anyone got any differing ideas? It would be interesting to compare in say 2020 if others are prepared to stick their neck out!
2
Like
|
I expect our Divorce Bill to be between 15 and 50 Billion pounds. Plus onging contributions until 2030. Without seeing the Governments plan it is impossilbe to put a time frame on how long negotiations will last. I believe it will take two years for the Divorce and 3 to 5 years to finalise a new relationship. We will have to accept International Law and cannot play hard ball and just walk away from our debts and obligations to the EU.
I fully expect to see a call for a General Election before Brexit happens.
1
Like
|
No Tadd,
I strongly disagree.
This is not a case of disadvantaged citizens having to leave the country and " get on their bikes" as you put it.
It is citizens living in their own country and seeing their living standards, earning capacities, workers rights, housing, schooling, health system significantly compromised, their infrastructure and social structures in their own specific regions stretched to the limits.
Many leavers do NOT consider the UK "is great and better than others".. just the opposite... Many are aware of existing problems in the UK since the Banking crisis but many perceive the bureaucrats though their public statements as being arrogant and dismissive of their concerns, I. e. determined to pursue a system with little or no regard to the impact, that accentuates the problems and fails to listen to their concerns.
The EU's free movement policies are placing undue and ADDITIONAL stress on the UK, as the Govt are only part way through dealing with high debt and transitional measures to reform the benefit system. Swift uncontrolled and unplanned migration has without doubt impacted in ways all too frequently identified on this thread.
If you choose not to see or believe this, that is your right of course.
4
Like
|
Doom, Doom, thrice times doom.
However there are some figures and timescales in there.
~ £35B +/- 30% bill for something...................................................................??
contributions for at least another 12 years..........................................~5 years decreasing
5-7 years to be done and dusted............................................................2/3 years from start.
General election...................................................................................No election before 2020
1
Like
|
Ads
We will have to agree to strongly disagree
No need to leave the country but you may have to move to a new location to work but it is an option that many do
If you think locals are being disadvantages please explain how if locals are disadvantaged then does that imply non locals are advantaged maybe that is because they are flexible more willing to work and more experienced what other advantage do they have that is disadvantaging poor locals
If the locals can't get a job in ability capability availability experience knowledge etc then they need to take a long hard look at themselves
You may say low wages but the uk has a minimum wage and a competitive labour market which if I recall helps productivity etc
Living standards reduced really those taking the jobs are living so unless the locals living standards are better on benefits how can working reduce standards
Are you suggesting locals should be given an advantage and what would that be -preferential treatment fines or levies on businesses etc
The main comment citizens living in their own country is so wrong what next are you going to use the same logic in towns across the uk -this is my town / country and I own it and I should get advantages and you are not welcome - is what this stinks of
Have we learnt nothing from history about this sort of attitude
Should northerners not go south for work should the southetrners cry not in my town if they do
The pressure on uk due to free movement is caused by the uk and the free handouts as discussed previously
What about people from Scotland working in England and vice versa
What about brits who do work abroad or in towns other than their place of birth even here in spain are they disadvantaging the locals
_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”
1
Like
|
Tadd,
We are talking of SYSTEM failures here that have a wide impact (failures beyond the control of citizens) that is being accentuated by failure to forward plan, failure to review the impact of swift unplanned large scale movements, an open door policy that requires greater flexibility and controls, and to keep placing the responsibility on citizens is to miss the wider perspective of the need to REFORM THE SYSTEM. It appears that this is now being discussed ( behind closed doors) so we will have to watch this space.
This was an interesting program that covers various aspects of Brexit.....
http://www.itv.com/hub/peston-on-sunday/2a4458a0020
This message was last edited by ads on 21/11/2016.
This message was last edited by ads on 21/11/2016.
This message was last edited by ads on 21/11/2016.
0
Like
|
Ads
The system failures you describe and have continued to blame the EU for is in fact the failure of successive British government to adapt to the new challenges free movement and open market economics presented.
The UK obtained an opt out when Bulgaria and Romanian entered the EU. They had ample time to improve infrastructure to cope with increased labour from Poland moving to the UK. Adapt welfare payments to working people. They should have anticipated local and national welfare services would be put under greater strain. Government could have foreseen the resentment that would cause. What they did was ignore it all.
David Cameron was warned he might lose the referendum but he again ignored the warnings. The government was out of touch with grass root sentiment in the country.
The British people who wanted to remain in the EU should blame the people and institutions who created the situation. The European Union is blameless in the sense the treaties which created free movement were all unanimously agreed by heads of government including the UK and ratified in parliamentary votes.
If you change the fundamental structure of trading nations it is the responsibility of national government to also change the structure of society in equal measure to cope with the effects of change. That was never done. In fact the opposite occurred; savage cuts were made to public services. The outcome was entirely predictable if you then handed the gift of a vote to the public.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
1
Like
|
Ads
All you have stated is NO fault of the EU and the faults are100% at the feet of the UK govt
these issues will not go away post Brexit in fact I think it wil get far far worse
who is placing the responsibility on the citizens?
If teh govt are reforming the system then they should look at the mess on their own doorstep first in relation to the over generous benefits system to anyone and everyone - no they will take easy options that win votes
Freedom of movement is not as big a problem as many make it out to be and those who come for benefits, health care and a free ride can easily be deterred with a few simple changes in UK policies and yes it will hurt some of these wonderful UK citizens who really need a benefits system to maintian their lifestyles on the dole
_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”
1
Like
|
Mrs May's solution is to give big business the lowest tax rates of any G20 country. A bribe to not leave the UK when we Brexit, and who will pay for this? The citizens of the UK because their tax bill will go up and their standard of living will go down.
NHS forget getting any extra money. 20% of it is going to be pledged to Science and Research. This is not a bad thing but it is not going to go where Leave pledged it was going to go. The EU is going to be a better place without the UK. Anybody who thought big business and Banks was running circles around the EU at the expense of its citizens will see now that the UK is by far the worst offender. That is not the leadership and better place that I was expecting and told I would get from Brexit and it will only get worse.
1
Like
|
Tadd,
No one is suggesting that citizens come to the UK for a free ride, so please dont suggest that.
And please refrain from suggesting the generalisation (inference) that UK citizens are looking to "maintain their life on the dole". Such generalisations only alienate and divide when the sincere intent is to seek out solutions to this problem.
The UK Govt are in the process of reforming the benefit system, but again this takes time and the transition is being managed in a way, wherever possible, not to cause more poverty and disadvantage, hence the in-work benefit incentives, etc. The reasons for disadvantage are many and complex and not so black and white as suggested. In fact there are many who are unhappy with the speed of the UK reform! We could continue indefinitely on this topic and much comes down to perception, tolerance, compassion, realisation, willingness to look to a wider perspective, to retain an open mind to look for solutions to problems from wherever they may arise and wherever possible.
To infer that these problems are not of a sufficient magnitude is to remian in denial of uncomfortable truths and sadly this has partly been born out by a Brexit vote.
This should not divide citizens and that is my point, in so much as it appears to be doing so.
1
Like
|
Mickeyfinn,
You mentioned " If you change the fundamental structure of trading nations it is the responsibility of national government to also change the structure of society in equal measure to cope with the effects of change. "
The inference being that this fundamental structure includes free movement of people for all trading nations, but other nations (such as Canada who have recently agreed a trading structure with the EU) are not being exposed to free movements without controls, so this doesn't necessarily go hand in hand.
As for impact and preparation are you suggesting that it was always known that there would be such large scale movements when nations such as Poland, Hungary, etc who were not subjected to high unemployment levels as the southern states did not fit into the remit of seeking work? Perhaps this is where one of the problems lies in so much as the wage differentials etc will always impact recipient nations without controls in place to contain larger scale migration. I thought this was what Angela Merkel recently made reference to.
This message was last edited by ads on 21/11/2016.
This message was last edited by ads on 21/11/2016.
1
Like
|
Ads:
The large scale movement of people from poorer eastern European nations was entirely predictable. The Maastricht Treaty allowed for stage implementation to counter balance that very effect.
The British press was full of scare stories warning of the consequences of mass migration from these countries. In reality it’s thought about 3 million people have migrated to the UK since free movement was established. Many have already returned home when work contracts expired. A life on benefits is not attractive to some most people prefer working.
I don’t believe migration is the issue many make it out to be. However it was a useful dishonest weapon for the anti EU parties to use in the referendum. People who were struggling found an easy target to blame.
Now there is some evidence of buyer’s remorse setting in.
Support for the EU has risen across Europe including in the UK, since the British people voted to leave. Pro-EU sentiment has grown in five of the six largest member states, according to a new survey by the Bertelsmann Foundation.
The Bertelsmann survey, completed in August against a backdrop of government confusion on the UK’s handling of Brexit showed that 56% of British citizens wanted to stay in the EU, compared to 49% when a similar survey was conducted in March.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
1
Like
|
Ads
My generalistaions are no more a genaralisatiom than the quotes in relation to those coming to the Uk for whatever reason
No one is suggesting that citizens come to the UK for a free ride, so please dont suggest that
Many people are suggesting just that as well as other things - you may wish to look back at soem of the posts or the headlines in the media or the noises the exiters made. Did yoi reda the news rpeorts on the verbnal attacks on EU citizens outoisde schools etc.
And please refrain from suggesting the generalisation (inference) that UK citizens are looking to "maintain their life on the dole". Such generalisations only alienate and divide when the sincere intent is to seek out solutions to this problem.
The truth can often hurt and there are many of these people around who do just that
Please don't tell me what to say / suggest or not to say / suggest 
The bottom line is you said EU migrants are causing a disadvantage to locals they are not, yes they are creating comeptition but they have no advantage (which is the effectively what you are suggesting by saying locals have a disadvantage).
_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”
1
Like
|
Tadd,
You observed
"The bottom line is you said EU migrants are causing a disadvantage to locals"... no not at all, I'm afraid.
I implied the system was accentuating the problems for those who were already disadvantaged (for all manner of complex reasons) in the UK.
As for your other response, I admit I am not comfortable with the tone of generalised response that appeared to alienate and divide which you put down to "the truth hurting". There is a complete difference of perception here and we are each entitled to our own perception and beliefs and clarification of details with sincere educational intent, but to imply that you are the only one correct, and to do so in such a way as to alienate in that way, I considered unnecessary and not helpful to the debate.
With regard to the break down of cohesion and tolerance, that is exactly my point, that lack of transient control(s) and unwillingness to review the ongoing need for controls when the impact results in a growing intolerance, to fail to allow adequate realistic timeframes to adjust alongside insufficient measures to incentivise growth and better deal with unemployment and wide wage differentials and not become over-reliant or cause problems within other member states, etc, not to effectively strategically plan ahead in that way and set in place adequate transient controls to counter the impacts, has sadly accentuated such aspects of intolerance that we both appear to abhor.
Mickeyfinn,
So you are suggesting that the EU bureaucrats had full knowledge of the fact that this would lead to large scale migration from Eastern member states? I thought that this was being denied at the time? Also I thought the UK Govt was dealing with debt within the confines of stability constraints (which I observe has been recently waived for other member states) alongside reform of the benefit system, review of housing supply, etc, so to expect the UK to cope with swift additional large scale migration without the ability to control and within such short timeframes appears unrealistic (weren't the UK asking for 13 years which was denied them?).
This message was last edited by ads on 21/11/2016.
This message was last edited by ads on 21/11/2016.
0
Like
|
ads
but to imply that you are the only one correct, and to do so in such a way as to alienate in that way, I considered unnecessary and not helpful to the debate.
Of course you have your views as I have mine and I take real execption (and offence) to your comments about me and my views, please back off and keep your personal views about my posts to yourself as these certainly do not help the debate - stick to your points of view without "attacking"
I could just as eaily accuse you of the same (imply that you are the only one correct,) but I realy don't want to stoop to that level of playground antics
One thing for sure IMO I have full liberty to express my views as I see fit them as you do - if you dont like mine and can't respond without "attacking" then grow up and get over it and simply move on
_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”
2
Like
|
|