Brexit, the economy and house prices (Part 3)

System

Tromking wrote: »

It is according to the news the other day.
It looks like they're going home to Poland etc. or perhaps choosing to live and work somewhere else in the EU.
Just as an aside, UK passport applications from EU citizens are up 80% on a year ago.

..and the new dawn where poorly qualified and poorly skilled Brits pick up their vacated jobs isn't going to happen. They're going home and, in a lot of cases, they're taking their jobs with them.

I'm not surprised passport applications are up. EU citizens who have made the UK their permanent home must have found the last year or so quite unsettling.

System

Thrugelmir wrote: »

That's why it's worth understanding and following the far bigger picture. For the past 50 years the Chinese have been playing the long game.

You're deliberately missing the point. Understanding the policy of the Chinese is neither here nor there in the context of the UK leaving the EU.

If, as you say, the Chinese have been playing a 50 year long game then can you see it started before we entered the UK and will continue long afterwards.

It has no relevance in the context of brexit.

System

cogito wrote: »

Do you really think that the strength of the € is great news for the eurozone when it is already hurting Germany?

It's pushing inflation down making it harder for the ECB to hit its target which makes it harder to stop QE and impossible to raise interest rates. The ECB is in a fix.

No it's, tongue in cheek, good news for us because it'll dissuade us from buying foreign stuff or going abroad. There will be a resurgence in seasonal British food and British holiday resorts.

How do you measure 'hurt' anyway because I note the Germany pain seems to be delivering GDP growth twice that of the UK.

vivatifosi

Macron and Polish PM arguing over EU worker transfers. This is an interesting story and a situation I wasn't aware of. When I read it I thought about bugslet and what she said about truck drivers and wondered whether that could be affected.

Essentially there's an old directive from pre the EU expansion that allowed a company from one country but operating in another country to temporarily employ workers from the home country in the second country, but under the same social conditions and norms as in the home country. This can now be used to undercut local companies and workers, who cannot offer the lower terms and conditions.

The numbers are huge though, meaning that the stakes are high. This involves 500,000 workers from Poland alone.

This story is being covered by a number of sources, but this is one of the most in-depth:

http://m.france24.com/en/20170825-poland-Szydlo-hits-back-macron-EU-labour-reform-comments-bulgaria

Thrugelmir

ilovehouses wrote: »

When did we become too lazy to raise and kill a chicken?

That's a daft response.

Thrugelmir

vivatifosi wrote: »

The numbers are huge though, meaning that the stakes are high. This involves 500,000 workers from Poland alone.

Hardly surprising that the majority of articulated lorries from the Continent on the UK's rods are Eastern European. Big business is only interested in profit.

Rinoa

David Davis will provoke a huge row with Brussels next week by calling a halt to negotiations on the Brexit divorce bill unless the EU provides a legal basis for its hefty demands.
The European Commission's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has warned that Britain must be ready to set out what it is willing to pay when the next round of talks begin on Monday in Brussels.
But Brexit Secretary Mr Davis will snub his request and refuse further discussions on the demand, thought to be for around £74billion, until the EU shows the legal justification for it.

Sounds reasonable to me. If you present a bill you surely have to show legitimacy for it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4824726/Davis-refuse-talks-Brexit-bill-EU-justifies-it.html

Thrugelmir

ilovehouses wrote: »

You're deliberately missing the point. Understanding the policy of the Chinese is neither here nor there in the context of the UK leaving the EU.

If, as you say, the Chinese have been playing a 50 year long game then can you see it started before we entered the UK and will continue long afterwards.

It has no relevance in the context of brexit.

Brexit is little more than a game of political football currently. Outside the inner goldfish bowl. People everyday get up and make decisions that will shape the future. Planning now for the future is what will ultimately result in prosperity.

Rusty_Shackleton

Rinoa wrote: »

Sounds reasonable to me. If you present a bill you surely have to show legitimacy for it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4824726/Davis-refuse-talks-Brexit-bill-EU-justifies-it.html

I do wish politicians would learn some basic negotiation skills. The bluster around the likes of Davis wasting time with irrelevant demands and Boris 'go whistle' Johnson is doing the UK no favours here. The UK, in voting leave, has instigated this process which is costing the EU money and distracting them from things they'd rather be doing... Whether youre remain or leave, you've got to agree the EU are well entitled to feel like the agrieved party. A good tactic would be for the UK to show some deference, acknowledge that its the UK that is wasting everyones time with this. Stop playing games, be prepared and set out the UKs starting positions on issues like the financial settlement.

The legal justification for the financial settlement is irrelevant. If the UK wants a trade deal with the EU and doesnt want to burn bridges left, right and centre, it will pay, and be seen to pay, for its liabilities. The UK has freely committed to numerous areas of EU expenditure, these liabilities don't stop once we leave, and so neither does our commitment. Even if the EU doesnt have a sound legal basis, other countries we want to sign trade deals with will not look kindly on reneging on our word. Since this means we will inevitably pay a settlement, the only real question is how much it will be.

Rather than wasting more time pretending we don't HAVE to pay the bill, when both sides know we do, why doesn't the UK present figures for what it thinks its liabilities are? We know what the pension liabilities are, we know how much our budget contribution is, and we should have a rough idea of running costs of projects in the UK which the EU has liability for runnning costs of. No doubt there are areas that are far harder to quantify an actual cost for at this point in time, but the above would be a starting point for the negotiation. The important thing is to actually start negotiating.

A simple opening position would be to postpone our leaving date until 2020, to coincide with the next EU budget. We keep all the rights and responsibilities of membership, other than keeping out of future decision making (as we've done by forfeiting our presidency). The EU gets a bit of financial security, the UK gets time it desperately needs, and its a quick solution to part of the financial settlement negotiation.

cogito

The EU's position regarding the so called Brexit bill can be summed up as follows:

Barmier - we want your money
Davis - how much?
Barmier - You tell us.

Your post makes absolutely no sense at all. Of course, if the EU would be so kind as to present a detailed summary of what they think we should pay instead of a number written on a fag packet then we should seriously consider it. As it happens, they haven't and until they do, there is no point in engaging them in this charade.

The bill should be considered in isolation and not linked to any other aspect of the negotiations.