Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

gfplux

tracey3596 wrote: »

I would love to know why you think it "will create a dreadful situation for Britain" given that over three quarters of the world is NOT in the EU - including the global top 3 economies by country - and that the EU share of the world's economy is shrinking. Before the UK has even left, which will push the EU's share significantly lower.
The rest of the world manages quite nicely.
Better in fact over the past thirty years than the EU has done and forecasts suggest this trend will accelerate.

Tracey, Britain is in the EU unlike as you say three quarters of the world including the global top 3 economies by country.
That is the point.
After 40plus years Britain is LEAVING. Not joining, not staying the same but leaving.
You are advocating leaving by walking away from the negotiations i.e. a no deal.
I am saying that doing that without having agreed the issues I detailed Britain will damage itself, its Industry and its Citizens.

So why would you want that to happen.
Do you think by not agreeing simple things like how to get isotopes for cancer treatment will benefit Britain or the British car manufacturing industry to have impossible import and export problems throwing thousands of British workers on short time or no time will benefit Britain?

Thrugelmir

ilovehouses wrote: »

It was a referendum about immigration - let's not try and overly rewrite history.

Another issue that's far from resolved.

Thrugelmir

ilovehouses wrote: »

It should be fairly obvious by now immigration has more to do with government policy and less to do with EU membership. Ironic really given immigration was the main building block of the leave campaign.

If anyone thinks immigration is too high or the immigrants are the wrong sort that's because the government like it like that or just don't care.

The UK Government is currently limited in it's powers. There's also the broader issues facing the EU as a whole.

gfplux

tracey3596 wrote: »

Is this from Politico a sign of what is to come if a deal is reached?
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-will-not-pay-lump-sum-brexit-bill-according-to-draft-eu-uk-brexit-agreement/

Strange isn't it how none of the remain back-slapping posse posted about this?
Too busy back-slapping and trying to insult others maybe.

Tracey, I voted remain. Just so you know.

Now if you thought that the financial settlement was going to be paid in one lump sum you have been missing a great deal. It has always been understood that the financial settlement was to cover commitments made by the Britush Government that would be paid as and when those "bills" became due. Some of the commitments are actually guarantees to part underwrite loans so in fact if the loan was repaid Britains responsibility would lapse. That's one of the reasons the total "estimated" figure goes up and down like a lift at Harrods.

Your second quote from politico is about the link that Britain wants between the payment and a trade deal. Wether there is a link is for domestic political consumption on both sides and we can only wait and see. However as I have said before it is not only trade at stake but all the hundreds of other issues that have to be discussed and agreed. They could also be linked or not linked but those issues have hardly made it to the media yet. (I have heard mention of three, Planes not flying, pets passports and isotopes)

After over 40 years of EU membership Britain and the EU are entwined like a gorse bush and it will take a lot of work and time to untangle them.

gfplux

I forgot to address the issue of transition.
From my reading Britain wants a long transition although some members of Government want it shorter.
Two years have been mentioned by Britain.
Barnier has mentioned until end 2020 about 21 months. I don't recall why but perhaps other posters will recall.

Transition means from the EU side Britain agreeing to continue to be part of the EU and therefore meaning Britain would not be free to negotiate trade deals with other country's. So transition is not a done deal.

This timescale to complete trade talks and all the other things was already looking near impossible. However if phase one talks are not completed this month things are looking worse.
The trade talks etc apparently have to be concluded by October 2018 so the EU can meet and agree the deal before Britain "leaves" at end March 2019
However where there is a will there will be a way.

mrginge

ilovehouses wrote: »

If they were so minded they could've reduced, for example non-EU immigration to zero ...

If you’re going to make a suggestion, try to make it at least vaguely credible.

Thrugelmir

ilovehouses wrote: »

If you judge the government on what they've done (rather than what they've said) over the last couple of decades it would appear they've had few issues with the levels of immigration.

Immigration has only become an issue with the rapid expansion of the EU. 13 have joined in the past 13 years. Offer people a better life and they'll upsticks. No different to US migration or £1 poms.

LHW99

Do you think by not agreeing simple things like how to get isotopes for cancer treatment will benefit Britain

I think the IAEA is the organisation that deals (among other things) with medical isotopes, such as Mo and Tc which are produced in Australia, South Africa and (up to recently) Canada as well as Europe.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/supplies-of-key-medical-isotopes-stable-but-vulnerabilities-remain
Euratom, which some sources quote in this connection deals with nuclear energy infrastructure and supply.
http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/euratom
Leaving Euratom could have consequences for sourcing / transporting reactor fuels, but we are a founder member of the IAEA so no reason for us to leave that under Brexit.

buglawton

ilovehouses wrote: »

Worries about the direction of travel of the EU and the frenetic attempts to find 'EU bad' snippets look like post-decision justification.

It was a referendum about immigration - let's not try and overly rewrite history.

It was about a lot more. But yes, the obvious inability of the UK to control immigration due to its EU membership is what caused the majority Brexit vote.

phillw

LHW99 wrote: »

but we are a founder member of the IAEA so no reason for us to leave that under Brexit.

The EU was essentially our idea too.

buglawton wrote: »

It was about a lot more. But yes, the obvious inability of the UK to control immigration due to its EU membership is what caused the majority Brexit vote.

More immigrants came from outside the EU, we purposefully didn't do anything about that. We can't just push "illegal" immigrants back into the sea due to our UN membership. I know some people want to go full North Korea, but I'm not sure that will happen. What is more likely is that rich people like Farage used xenophobia to take control of plebs like us.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Immigration has only become an issue with the rapid expansion of the EU. 13 have joined in the past 13 years. Offer people a better life and they'll upsticks. No different to US migration or £1 poms.

Unless you're British, then you won't up sticks because you get enough on benefits.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The UK Government is currently limited in it's powers. There's also the broader issues facing the EU as a whole.

The UK Government didn't have the money to do anything about immigrants. They will have less money after brexit. Immigration is mostly an imagined problem.