If we vote for Brexit what happens

BobQ

gfplux wrote: »

As an employer you might have some additional power over your employees as if they were to loose their job they would have to leave the Country. This might be an uncomfortable unintended consequence of drawing up those type of rules.
However the momentum at the moment appears to be moving that way. With no effective opposition to the present Conservative Government I imagine that Industry might like it and the Conservatives will give it to them.
However the other side of the coin might be that recruitment of EU talent would be more difficult.
You see the difficulty of control is there is never a perfect/good solution.

Interesting point. Some would say that increasing home ownership and now higher rents had that effect with fear of debt being the modern day tied cottage.

BobQ

davomcdave wrote: »

Not true.

Income inequality rose a little after the 1987 election and rose more steeply under the Blair and Brown-led governments and then began to fall under the coalition government and fell more sharply under the Conservative government once they were no longer constrained by well meaning socialists.

It rose sharply from 1979 to 1990 before flattening off.

Official statistics on UK household incomes are based largely on survey data. These suggest income inequality grew sharply during the 1980s but then remained roughly stable from the early 1990s until the start of the financial crisis.
Since 2008, income inequality has declined because higher income households were hit harder by falling earnings and asset returns during the recession. At the same time, the value of benefits received by lower-income families was largely protected

davomcdave wrote: »

Real incomes haven't consistently fallen for the last decade.
Real incomes for the rich in particular fell in the aftermath of the GFC and for a short while real incomes for those at the bottom fell as the minimum wage was held static. It took some time for real wages to recover lost ground after their initial falls but they have been rising in Britain for some time now.

During the second half of the 20th century, household incomes grew steadily, with each generation enjoying a better standard of living than the one before. Average net household incomes grew by an average of 2.4 per cent a year between 1961 and 2000. Between the turn of the century and the start of the financial crisis, growth was somewhat slower, at 1.9 per cent a year on average.

But since 2008, household incomes have grown on average by just 0.1 per cent a year. Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, recently described it as a “lost decade” — the first time since the 1860s, when Karl Marx was writing, that real wages have fallen over a 10-year period.

Your dislike for well meaning socialists has perhaps detracted from the historical and statistical facts. The italicised statements are from the FT, and independent research institutes.

https://www.ft.com/content/24e88c30-bc5f-11e6-8b45-b8b81dd5d080

CKhalvashi

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Not practical to assess "with a net worth of £x". That rule needs to apply on entry to a country. You arrive with hard cash.

Those that don't qualify presumably get kicked out? Likewise UK expats face a similar test. As it'll be a tit for tat arrangement.

Pre-clearance, yes it would, especially if planning to invest but not expecting to be actively involved in any management.

It would be as a result of agreements negotiated with national governments in this case, so presumably yes, subject to same provisos.

I'm in no way suggesting this across the board.

davomcdave

BobQ wrote: »

It rose sharply from 1979 to 1990 before flattening off.







Your dislike for well meaning socialists has perhaps detracted from the historical and statistical facts. The italicised statements are from the FT, and independent research institutes.

https://www.ft.com/content/24e88c30-bc5f-11e6-8b45-b8b81dd5d080

The ONS data:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/theeffectsoftaxesandbenefitsonhouseholdincome/financialyearending2015

Inequality rose under Major and Blair and has fallen more recently under the current Tory government.

setmefree2

Schäuble softening on Brexit?
Schäuble also addressed the impending exit of the U.K. from the European Union (EU), seemingly softening the rhetoric repeated by many EU leaders in recent months that the U.K. could not expect to get a better deal outside of the trading bloc than within it.
His assertion that the EU should recognize the benefits that the City of London provides to it by pursuing a "reasonable" deal with the U.K. also demonstrated an about-face from his tougher line on the obligations the U.K. could expect to be saddled with in a post-Brexit world, as seen in comments made as recently as November.
"We don't want to punish the British for their decision," Mr Schäuble told Tagesspiegel. "We want to keep Britain close to us."

"London offers a quality of financial services that are not to be found on the continent. That would change a bit after a separation, but we have to find reasonable rules here with Britain," he added.
Schäuble's comments were consistent with the impression Adam Marshall, director general of the British Chamber of Commerce (BCC), says he got from the finance minister during a conversation in 2016.
"I'm delighted that you see an important figure like Wolfgang Schauble saying this. At our conference last year I asked him the question, 'what will you do if the U.K. leaves the European Union?' What he said to me is 'We will cry' – perhaps, actually, he was telling the truth at that time," the director general told CNBC on Monday.
"I think German firms that we speak to want to see continued flows of trade between the U.K. and the rest of the EU. I think on the financial services side there is a need of course to maintain the U.K.'s role in helping the rest of the euro zone to finance its businesses as well. I think there is a mutual interest in striking a good deal here," Marshall concluded.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/06/german-finance-minister-agrees-euro-too-low-for-germany.html

setmefree2

PM is unlikely to concede to any demand to change the terms of parliament’s vote on the final Brexit deal despite facing a possible Conservative revolt over the issue. A government source told the Guardian that calls for British MPs to be given a vote on the deal before it goes to the European parliament, and to be handed a say if no agreement is hammered out, were not practical.
The prime minister was keen to accommodate Tory demands but suggested that this move would “hamstring” the government in negotiations with the EU27, the source said.

They also argued it could plunge the government into “perpetual Brexit purgatory” if deals were repeatedly rejected.
The comments came in response to the suggestion that up to a dozen Conservative MPs are considering lining up with opposition parties, including Labour, on the issue this week.

Potential Conservative rebels, including Anna Soubry, Nicky Morgan and Ken Clarke, want to avoid a “cliff edge” scenario in which the UK crashes out of the EU on to World Trade Organisation rules.

They could back a frontbench Labour amendment, or one laid down by the Labour MP Chris Leslie, which insists parliamentarians should not simply get a vote on an agreed deal but on any future “relationship” with the EU. That would mean politicians would still have a say even if no agreement was reached.
Leslie’s amendment also says MPs and peers should vote on the proposed terms of any deal before they are agreed with the European commission or put to MEPs in the European parliament.

The Conservative MP Neil Carmichael, who wants the government to negotiate a close relationship with the EU, said: “It is very important that parliament is properly consulted in a meaningful way up to and including any deals or relationships with the European Union.”

His colleague, Ben Howlett, added that MPs in all parties had expressed a range of concerns relating to the final deal. “In the unlikely circumstance there is no deal at the end of the two years once article 50 is triggered, parliament should have the final say on any ‘new relationship’ with the European Union,” he said.

Another Tory MP said the government was able to stop the rebellion by making a concession, pointing out that Conservatives did not want to vote against their party.

The same position will be pushed by the shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, who is also hoping to use this week to secure an agreement under which May has to provide regular reports on the negotiations.

The government source stressed that May was willing to compromise and had already agreed to publish a white paper, as the rebels demanded. The Guardian understands she could also offer a concession on the issue of quarterly reporting to parliament.

But the source said it was much more difficult to take action with regards to the final vote, particularly given May’s determination that politicians in Britain cannot block the Brexit process.
“I struggle to see how it works in practice. What does that actually look like and what is the purpose of the vote?” they said.
“What if parliament rejects the deal, what then? The chances of the leaders of the 27 member states conceding because MPs vote against is pretty slim. We would end up in a perpetual Brexit purgatory.”

They argued that if the rest of the EU knew that MPs and peers were able to hamper the process it would hamstring British negotiators during the two-year period.

Government whips will hold meetings in the coming days to try to persuade MPs not to vote against the government during three days of debate on the article 50 legislation, which will then pass to the House of Lords.

They are determined to maintain the straightforward nature of the two-clause bill, which is narrowly focused on giving the government permission to begin the Brexit process. May’s government only produced it after being forced by the supreme court to give parliament a vote on triggering article 50.

Conservatives want to avoid a rebellion, not least because of their slim majority, but even if a dozen MPs vote against their party, the support for Brexit from some Labour politicians and the Democratic Unionist party means officials are still confident of winning a vote.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/05/theresa-may-unlikely-change-terms-parliament-vote-final-brexit-deal

General Election must still be a possibility quite soon.

Conrad

I'd like a Remainer to explain how nations that trade high volumes with the UK will cope with the lost revenues and taxes that could result from a hampering of trade?


Belgium and Spain for example.

setmefree2

Baker said there were as many 27 rebels in waiting. A source familiar with the cross-party talks said that number was higher than their own estimates. So far only Carmichael and one other MP, Anna Soubry, have publicly suggested they might vote against the government.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-article-idUKKBN15K0L7

Is this not career suicide?

I'd quite welcome a GE, I think?? Opinions?? I know it would mess up May's timetable but in the longer run the whole leaving the EU thing would probably be over quicker if the government goes a gets a great big majority?? However, Corbyn might get replaced with someone capable???

setmefree2

PM will refuse to offer a compromise to rebel MPs

Theresa May will refuse to offer a compromise to Conservative MPs who plan to "wreck" the Article 50 bill this week by voting for a series of amendments, the Telegraph understands.
Following the publication of a white paper and efforts by the Tory whips to find common ground with Conservative rebels the Prime Minister will hold her ground this week despite a rumoured rebellion within her party.

Number 10 expects to win the crunch vote to trigger the formal exit of the EU, despite suggestions that as many as a dozen Tories could rebel and join with Labour, Liberal Democrat and SNP MPs to vote for "wrecking" amendments which could block its passage.
The changes MPs are demanding include protection for EU citizens, a vote on the final Brexit deal before it has been agreed and a series of other additions which pro-Leave MPs warn would tie the Prime Minister's hands in the negotiations.

The Telegraph understands that the Government will not back any of the amendments and the whips will not seek to persuade MPs against voting with the opposition because ministers believe the changes do not have enough support to pass.
Mrs May won the first vote on Article 50 last week with a majority of over 380 MPs, making the chances of her losing a second vote slim.
But if the amendments are passed it could result in wrecking the bill by making it impossible for the Prime Minister to carry out her negotiations in the way she has set out.

Good Morning,
Ministers are expecting the Commons to consider a raft of amendments on process today where Labour will demand the Government provide "regular reports" on the status of the negotiations.
Tomorrow the issue of EU nationals and their right to remain in the UK after Brexit, alongside the corresponding rights of British nationals abroad, is likely to be debated and voted on.
The final vote on the passage of the bill will take place after the three-day committee stage on Wednesday.
MPs will debate for seven hours after the debate kicks off at around 3:30pm this afternoon.
Around that time we will learn what amendments have been selected for debate over the next three days.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/06/brexit-debate-article-50-bill-live/

Sapphire

setmefree2 wrote: »

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-article-idUKKBN15K0L7

Is this not career suicide?

I'd quite welcome a GE, I think?? Opinions?? I know it would mess up May's timetable but in the longer run the whole leaving the EU thing would probably be over quicker if the government goes a gets a great big majority?? However, Corbyn might get replaced with someone capable???

Could the House of Lords vote against triggering Brexit, and would they be successful in stopping the whole thing?

They have been keeping quiet recently, but there are people like Kinnock (who has a vested in having an EU pension and shouldn't even be allowed to vote) and a slew of liberal democrats in that body who will presumably attempt to overturn our democratic vote.

I so desperately want us to leave the corrupt and undemocratic EU as soon as possible, especially given all the threats by EU bureaucrats and the EU's intention to subvert democracy in European nations that has been brought to light by all this…