Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

gfplux

kabayiri wrote: »

The only methods which save lives on an ongoing basis is dissuading people from getting on to boats in the first place.

Cruel to be kind, as Nick Lowe once sang.

Trafficking isn't only about people flow. There's a serious question about the revenues derived and how those revenues get collected and then redeployed.

People who are shipped know *their families* are on the hook for any incomes due. This isn't some regulated business with consumer rights at heart. This is a variation on economic slavery, which is as old as civilisation itself.

People smuggling is just as lucrative as drug smuggling but if you get caught the penalties are lighter.

gfplux

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Here's Junckers, the epitome of EU dignity:

http://metro.co.uk/2016/10/22/european-commission-president-lets-off-massive-mouth-fart-when-asked-about-theresa-may-6208662/

Yup, dignified.
:rotfl:

That was in October 2016. Perhaps he saw the future!

gfplux

cogito wrote: »

How dignified is it to demand large sums of money that you are not owed, greater rights for EU citizens than those of the host nation and submission to a foreign court?

Very dignified when you present a bill the other side has signed up to.

Very dignified when the EU want to protect their citizens and at the same time that protection will be for 1.2million Brits.

Very dignified when they want that protection properly protected in the future against Britain changing the rules.

Herzlos

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Irrelevant - it demonstrates very admirably the lack of dignity shown by Junckers, "dignity" being what was discussed.
Would you perhaps prefer the more-recent example of his "dignity" during the recent Strasbourg debacle?

I don't see a problem with it, he's just clearly not wanting to make a public announcement of his talks with May. Haven't you been slating him for doing the opposite?

On the production side, I don't know what standards we'll drop, but if we're going to built for multiple standards, we'll need multiple toolings and processes.

We sell to many markets now, using a common set of standards (I assume, because I've not seen any mention of different lines). We have different specs and there's the LHD/RHD thing which all add some cost.

So in the future we can either keep building to the EU standards we already do, for no cost (or saving because we can't drop any of the EU red tape). Or we can produce additional tooling to produce cheaper stuff for markets with lower standards.

One approach means we don't benefit from reducing red tape, the other means we increase overheads somewhere. This is all restating the obvious though, so I'm not sure what you're not getting.

Do you think that if we decide to adopt another set of standards, that we'll magically save money and not have to do anything?

For the record, I'm pretty sure we'll keep 95%+ of EU regulations, and still build anything for export to EU standards. So on the whole the EU red tape cutting exercise will just cost us money whilst saving almost nothing.

gfplux

cogito wrote: »

No one can reasonably argue that the UK should not honour its commitments. Of course it should. But there seems to be a huge gap between the two sides and the EU have not yet explained why they think we owe them more than we have committed to or answered David Davis's question about the legal basis for their demands.

The question of citizens' rights is pretty simple. Would the EU demand that citizens of the EU resident in the USA have greater rights than US citizens and that the ECJ should have jurisdiction over them? Of course it wouldn't. There is no reason why the UK should accept this demand.

I assume you have lost the link.
Here it is
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/essential-principles-financial_settlement_en_0.pdf

The 11 pages listing the possible items that would make up the Divorce bill.
David Davis and Uncle Tom Cobly have had this paper for a month.
At present there IS NO GAP between the two sides as only one side (the EU) have presented a list of things.

At least with Citizens rights both side have published papers. First the EU followed by Britain two weeks later. The EU have verbally criticised the British paper but at present nothing has been heard officially in response from Britain.
Your point about the USA has no relevance as Brexit is about keeping as much the same as before.

This is the link to the EU paper on Citizens Rights
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/essential-principles-citizens-rights_en_0.pdf

cogito

gfplux wrote: »

Very dignified when you present a bill the other side has signed up to.

Very dignified when the EU want to protect their citizens and at the same time that protection will be for 1.2million Brits.

Very dignified when they want that protection properly protected in the future against Britain changing the rules.

As I said above, we should honour our commitments and I don't doubt that the UK government does not dispute that. Fact is that the EU demand has all the appearance of being made up on the back of a fag packet. It has been claimed on here more than once that the EU are being open and honest in their dealings. Let them be open and honest by publishing their calculations in the same way as they publish their endless position papers. Then we can all see just how open and honest they really are.

gfplux

Herzlos wrote: »

There is certainly a huge gap, the EU have given us an estimated bill, pending negotiations. David Davis has insisted we won't be paying a penny. I can't help but feel the EU is being more reasonable, even if they did give us a high-ball figure.

Actually as yet there is no figure high-ball or otherwise, just a list of items.

gfplux

cogito wrote: »

As I said above, we should honour our commitments and I don't doubt that the UK government does not dispute that. Fact is that the EU demand has all the appearance of being made up on the back of a fag packet. It has been claimed on here more than once that the EU are being open and honest in their dealings. Let them be open and honest by publishing their calculations in the same way as they publish their endless position papers. Then we can all see just how open and honest they really are.

As I have pointed out that fag packet is 11 pages long.
I am sure some of the numbers are being filled in as we post in a Brussels meeting room with both side present. That's how this thing will work.
Non of us should be distracted by spin story's. I suspect non of the bluster will effect the number in euros at the end. We will know that BOTH Britain and the EU played hard ball and beat the opposition into submission.

By the way don't you wish Britain would publish endless position papers?

A_Medium_Size_Jock

gfplux wrote: »

Actually as yet there is no figure high-ball or otherwise, just a list of items.

And to maintain the openness of which you speak so often regarding the EU, where is this purported list for us to scrutinise?
*Note*
The link you keep providing gives no great detail and is certainly not a comprehensive "list of items".

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

There is certainly a huge gap, the EU have given us an estimated bill, pending negotiations. David Davis has insisted we won't be paying a penny. I can't help but feel the EU is being more reasonable, even if they did give us a high-ball figure.

Quoting a figure in public is frankly just noise, hyperbole indeed.

The only way to agree any figure is surely :
- agree what is/is not in scope
- break down to the detail (numbers of staff, timelines of pensions due etc)
- cost at the detail level, and then roll it up to the aggregate

I could quote you 10 billion Euro to build an extension, and you'd probably want to know where my costs came from right?

The EU rule books themselves are deficient in that they don't define upfront what the leaving costs would or should be. Maybe they should fix their books.

I'd not join any club which decided it would make up a leaving bill for me at some point in the future.

There's a side benefit to this. Once we all know how the cost is calculated in detail, we can then ensure it gets applied fairly to any other country which chooses to leave the EU in the future. Why? Well, we can't have bias and favouritism right.