Jump to content

The Consequences of Brexit [part 4]

Recommended Posts

Yes with a living wage.

 

Any gains from wages would be wiped out by inflation, and the sacred cow of high house prices would need to be slaughtered too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any gains from wages would be wiped out by inflation, and the sacred cow of high house prices would need to be slaughtered too.

 

So it seems you and chalga are quite happy to keep immigrant workers on low wages and deny UK workers a living wage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to pick up on what loob said earlier, yes many companies have advanced plans to relocate portions of their businesses. For some it's moving a big section of the business and others it's just creation of small companies in the EU to carry on business.

 

Make no mistake though, the damage is immense. All the clients were dealing with are despairing at the governments performance. Confidence is melting away every day. We're maybe one or two months away from some truly panicky and apocalyptic messages coming out from business leaders. The damage is close to irreversible.

 

The only way that things can be stabilised is a rapid agreement to a transition period, and that transition period needs to be open ended. This is logical and should be possible to agree: it's why Fox has been squealing over the weekend about time tlimited transition periods. He knows that Hammond is right and he knows that a rational negotiator would conclude the same and push for it.

 

I think the Brexit leaders have got three months max and then they'll need to be removed.

Edited by I1L2T3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<...> All the clients were dealing with are despairing at the governments performance. Confidence is melting away every day. <...>
Here is a real-life practical example insofar as our business is concerned:

Here's one illustration of how thin this red line can be. Since the referendum, the government has confirmed that it still intends to join a new Unified Patent Court that is being set up by EU member states, even though the new court will regard ECJ decisions as legally binding and refer its own legal questions to the ECJ.
source (BBC article about CJEU today)

 

Now, I mentioned this very issue before on here (in fact, over a year ago before the referendum - plus maybe a couple times since), so it's interesting to see the BBC mentioning it independently as an example.

 

It's exactly this sort of self-contradicting double-speak by the government which has been burning, and continues to burn (ever deeper and faster) business confidence at both ends: it is legally impossible for the UK to be a member of the UPCA, if it Brexits from the EU cleanly from ECJ. Simple as.

 

So why is the government still making official statements, 12 months past the referendum and all the Brexit means Brexit hoo-raah, to the effect that it wants in?

 

It makes no sense whatsoever, unless (i) the government has (long had-) no intention to Brexit clean from the ECJ anyway (I still wonder what May told Ghosn way back when...), or (ii) the government is so disjointed and dysfunctional that the right hand has no earthly f clue what the left is doing, and reciprocally.

 

Whenever you hear Brit airlines moaning about Open Skies, Brit big pharma moaning about the EMA, Brit doctors moaning about isotopes and EURATOM, JIT-based assembling manufacturers moaning about customs procedures...it's all exactly the same issue: all are facing respective real-life problems and constraints arising out of the legal and technical consequences of Brexiting, all have a same need to plan and implement replacements/alternatives early enough to avoid a cliff-edge disruption (in an ideal world, to achieve a seamless transition) but, from the government whose responsibility and job it is to deliver a stable enough new context ('relationship') for the said planning...nothing but rethoric and, whenever the rethoric tank gets empty, static.

 

It's no f way to run a railroad, people. So, irrespective, we're now setting up shop in the EU: that way we'll definitely get a look in for UPC procedures and services. Could have been UK (Sheffield) jobs instead, but we haven't heard jack s from the government in terms of strategy and practicals whereby, with 18 months to go, we simply can't wait any longer.

 

The UPCA is an international agreement, by the way. Negotiated by the UK with the other participants, in substantially the same way that the UK proposes to negotiate further international agreements (FTAs and the like) post-Brexit.

 

:rolleyes:

Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Especially with "unemployment at a record low"...

 

But once companies start leaving or closing then there will be plenty of people to work in the fields.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But once companies start leaving or closing then there will be plenty of people to work in the fields.

 

Most likely for me will be moving to follow the clients abroad, if I stay in this company. We're looking at 2022-23 for all the moves to fully play out. Only the essentials will be done by 2019.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So it seems you and chalga are quite happy to keep immigrant workers on low wages and deny UK workers a living wage.

 

I think the BCC are quite happy to do that,seeing as they are the ones saying it,I just quote what they say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So it seems you and chalga are quite happy to keep immigrant workers on low wages and deny UK workers a living wage.

 

Wrong on both counts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any gains from wages would be wiped out by inflation, and the sacred cow of high house prices would need to be slaughtered too.

Totally agree, would you believe some people are arguing on another thread for an increase for public sector employees.

As someone who voted Labour til Gordon Brown became PM I think that George Osborne had got it right by raising tax thresholds for people on lower incomes.

But I don't think he went far enough, I would personally like to see thresholds raised to a point where people working 40 hours on minimum wage didn't pay any income tax, and partly pay for it by cutting benefits for the skivers who have no intention of working.

That's one of the reasons I still can't vote labour, even as someone who would be a natural labour voter as their referendum would have immediately led to higher inflation again leading to higher interest rates penalising anyone with a mortgage, and no we haven't got one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Totally agree, would you believe some people are arguing on another thread for an increase for public sector employees.

 

public sector employees have to pay the rent/mortgage, buy food and all the thing private sector employees do. if they can't afford to do this then they will leave which means the public sector collapses which means no hospitals, no schools, no bin collections, no police, no fire service. Moving these into the private sector wont change things because unless they offered a decent wage they couldn't recruit and that means they wont make much profit. Charities wont help either, since they would still need to pay people to do the work and while there are some very good examples of charities working in the public sector there are some very bad ones too.

 

if your claim to be a natural labour voter is true then you would understand this and there are some core services which should be owned and operated by the state with proper staffing and decently paid staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.