Brexit, the economy and house prices (Part 3)

Thrugelmir

ilovehouses wrote: »

i.e. it doesn't matter whether the EU workers leaving are lettuce washers, fruit pickers or whatever. The jobs they were doing won't be handed to Brits because (a) they don't want to do them (b) they're too expensive and (c) unemployment is so low that if you're unemployed you're just not interested in working.

Who says that they don't want to do them?

Why are Brits too expensive to employ?

Unemployment is still unemployment. Perhaps the squeeze on benefits will encourage people to contribute more. Rather than simply take.

All these business operations existed before the influx of cheap Eastern labour. What's changed?

Why isn't it possible for UK companies to employ seasonable labour from abroad?

Thrugelmir

ilovehouses wrote: »

The EU can decide how they manage without the UK's contributions at leisure.

There's huge resistance to change. The EU has the problem. Not the UK. Without the UK paying hard cash. The current EU budget is unaffordable and unsustainable. The EU's hand isn't strong.

cogito

always_sunny wrote: »

You keep getting caught in this 'money' matter with the EU when it is not a problem, Germany has been posting surplus YoY for few years, the EZ is growing faster than the UK economy and let's not forget that there is a lot of cash in the EU.

The UK is not in a great state financially so it's not in a position to offer much advice.
Things will keep moving forward and in 5 years time folks won't even remember whether the UK was part of the EU or not.

I know you believe this is a leverage, cause you keep posting about it, but I don't think you have (or want to) notice that in the EU there is no much panic about Brexit and It's Business As Usual to ensure by 2019 A50 is executed and the UK is out.

If money isn't a problem for the EU, why are they banging on so much about the divorce bill and insist on this being resolved before other matters are addressed?

always_sunny

cogito wrote: »

If money isn't a problem for the EU, why are they banging on so much about the divorce bill and insist on this being resolved before other matters are addressed?

Because there is no divorce bill but a bill for what the UK agreed to contribute prior to Brexit.
You seem to believe that Brexit happens and ta-da, the UK is no longer accountable but that cannot be further from the truth.

If trade with other non-EU is so much better why is the UK insisting to have trade talk with the EU before schedule?

cogito

always_sunny wrote: »

Because there is no divorce bill but a bill for what the UK agreed to contribute prior to Brexit.
You seem to believe that Brexit happens and ta-da, the UK is no longer accountable but that cannot be further from the truth.

If trade with other non-EU is so much better why is the UK insisting to have trade talk with the EU before schedule?

The UK is responsible for its commitments. The disagreement is about what those commitments actually are as Article 50 is silent on the issue.

The UK is not insisting on trade talks before schedule. It has merely pointed out that trade is interlinked with other issues and cannot be put in its own box.

always_sunny

cogito wrote: »

The UK is responsible for its commitments. The disagreement is about what those commitments actually are as Article 50 is silent on the issue.

The UK is not insisting on trade talks before schedule. It has merely pointed out that trade is interlinked with other issues and cannot be put in its own box.

There is no disagreement, perhaps Express readers may disagree but otherwise it's agreed that the UK will need to pay for agreed commitments which you acknowledge it is not a divorce bill.

The UK believes that the items are interlinked, the EU does not.
The EU is looking to resolve issues (i.e. Ireland border, EU nationals, etc) prior to entering trade talks as stated before in the negotiation plans.
We agree that the UK doesn't like this dance but that is the dance the EU wants to do.

cogito

always_sunny wrote: »

There is no disagreement, perhaps Express readers may disagree but otherwise it's agreed that the UK will need to pay for agreed commitments which you acknowledge it is not a divorce bill.

The UK believes that the items are interlinked, the EU does not.
The EU is looking to resolve issues (i.e. Ireland border, EU nationals, etc) prior to entering trade talks as stated before in the negotiation plans.
We agree that the UK doesn't like this dance but that is the dance the EU wants to do.

If the EU is looking to resolve issues, why does it reject every UK suggestion as unrealistic or fantasy? The answer is that Barmier has no brief to depart from the EU's position papers. Why else would they insist that the ECJ continus to have jurisdiction over the UK. The EU is behaving with obduracy whereas the UK is showing flexibility.

You really need to take off your rose tinted specs.

Rinoa

Before the referendum when 'Project Fear' was in full swing the Govt and others, including assorted EU officaldom, put forward every conceivable argument for voting remain.

Did anybody mention a divorce bill? Did Cameron/Osborne say we would be asked for £76Bn on leaving?

No. Because nobody believed we had such commitments. If they did they would certainly have rolled it out at the time.

Basically the 'divorce bill' is an EU scam. Every coulntry was asked what we should pay for and they all chipped in with ludicrous suggestions, knowing their budget would suffer when we left.

David Davis has played a masterstroke asking for legitimacy. He knows the EU can't supply it.

System

Rinoa wrote: »

Before the referendum when 'Project Fear' was in full swing the Govt and others, including assorted EU officaldom, put forward every conceivable argument for voting remain.

Did anybody mention a divorce bill? Did Cameron/Osborne say we would be asked for £76Bn on leaving?

No. Because nobody believed we had such commitments. If they did they would certainly have rolled it out at the time.

By the time we get to the end of this process there will be a whole list of things that will be part of brexit that many of us didn't conceive. We voted to leave the EU and that's what we'll do - the government will decide the other stuff - let's hope we like it.

Specifically regarding the brexit bill I don't recall it ever being mentioned. Then it was, then Boris said the EU could go whilstle, then he said we'd pay it. It's a big game of Chinese Whispers - what you get at the end will be very different from what you expected at the start.

System

Thrugelmir wrote: »

There's huge resistance to change. The EU has the problem. Not the UK. Without the UK paying hard cash. The current EU budget is unaffordable and unsustainable. The EU's hand isn't strong.

A cheque for €30bn - €80bn from the UK should help keep the wolf from the door for a little while.