Brexit

Tracer Tong · **#1481** by **Tracer Tong** » Dec 19, 2017 2:27 am

mrjonno wrote:
The government doesn't set wages in the private sector where most people work

Sadly it does for many if not most people, the minimum wage should be politically unimportant as so few people should be on it, but in reality its the most many of our low skilled will ever work or at best we be paid a small increment above but based on it

If you don't go university and /or remain in many small towns/rural areas the minimum wage is likely to be all you will ever earn

Where did you go to university?

ronmcd · **#1482** by **ronmcd** » Dec 19, 2017 9:32 am

mrjonno is the exception to every rule, every single one. In particular his own.

mrjonno · **#1483** by **mrjonno** » Dec 19, 2017 10:07 am

Not exactly sure what the graph is meant to show but it looks like a bit pointy bit at the minimum wage and a lot of people near it which is exactly the point I was making

It shoudn't matter if the minimum wage is £1 per hour or £8 per hour because quite simply very few people should actually be on it. It should be for low skilled jobs or students, there shouldn't be many low skilled jobs and students shouldn't be doing this work for very long.

Minimum wage = maximum wage = the state setting wages which is a total mess

Scot Dutchy · **#1484** by **Scot Dutchy** » Dec 19, 2017 10:27 am

Here we go again. What in the fuck. They just dont learn.

Brexit: Chief EU negotiator says the City of London will have 'no place' in trade deal

The EU’s chief negotiator has warned there will be “no place” for the City of London’s financial services in any Brexit trade deal struck between the UK and the EU.

Michel Barnier argued there is not a trade deal anywhere it the world including financial services, adding, “it doesn’t exist”.

His warning came on the eve of the first full Cabinet discussion of the eventual future relationship with the EU, or “end state”, the UK wants to achieve following Brexit.

Bloody arrogance. If they go on like this there will be no deal at all. The Brexshitters dont seem to understand. Phase 2 is not about trade but future relationships. Trade can only be discussed once the UK is a third country.
Phase 1 has to be completed as well. They know they are up shit creek without a paddle.

Thommo · **#1485** by **Thommo** » Dec 19, 2017 10:52 am

mrjonno wrote:Not exactly sure what the graph is meant to show but it looks like a bit pointy bit at the minimum wage and a lot of people near it which is exactly the point I was making

It shows the actual distribution of wages. And quite clearly your concept that most people who didn't go to university will never earn more than the minimum wage is, frankly, bollocks.

Since this completely untrue claim was the centre point of your reply to whether lower paid workers might have had their wage suppressed by immigration it thus shows exactly how incorrect that is.

I deeply despair of any university course that doesn't teach the nuance to understand the difference between "X is the modal value" and "X is more or less the only value". This is not a point of great subtlety.

So, yes, there is a cluster of people being paid at the minimum wage. No that does not mean "If you don't go university and /or remain in many small towns/rural areas the minimum wage is likely to be all you will ever earn". And neither of those shows that private sector wages are controlled by government to such an extent there cannot have been downward pressure on wages for lower skilled workers from immigration.

mrjonno wrote:Minimum wage = maximum wage = the state setting wages which is a total mess

Gibberish.

Thommo · **#1486** by **Thommo** » Dec 19, 2017 11:04 am

Scot Dutchy wrote:Bloody arrogance. If they go on like this there will be no deal at all. The Brexshitters dont seem to understand. Phase 2 is not about trade but future relationships. Trade can only be discussed once the UK is a third country.

If being wrong about this shows arrogance, then it's a real pity that they're right and you're wrong.

You can find statements and articles explaining that the future relationship discussions specifically includes trade all over the place. Perhaps the clearest are the ones that include the leaked draft guideline notes from the EU itself, e.g.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03 ... otiations/

IV. PRELIMINARY AND PREPARATORY DISCUSSIONS ON A FRAMEWORK FOR THE UNION - UNITED KINGDOM FUTURE RELATIONSHIP

17. The European Council welcomes and shares the United Kingdom's desire to establish a close partnership between the Union and the United Kingdom after its departure. While a relationship between the Union and a non Member State cannot offer the same benefits as Union membership, strong and constructive ties will remain in both sides' interest and should encompass more than just trade.
18. The British government has indicated that it will not seek to remain in the single market, but would like to pursue an ambitious free trade agreement with the European Union. Based on the Union's interests, the European Council stands ready to initiate work towards such an agreement, to be finalised and concluded once the United Kingdom is no longer a Member State.
19. Any free trade agreement should be balanced, ambitious and wide-ranging. It cannot, however, amount to participation in the Single Market or parts thereof, as this would undermine its integrity and proper functioning. It must ensure a level playing field in terms of competition and state aid, and must encompass safeguards against unfair competitive advantages through, inter alia, fiscal, social and environmental dumping.
20. Beyond trade, the EU stands ready to consider establishing a partnership in other areas, in particular the fight against terrorism and international crime as well as security and defence.
21. The future partnership must include appropriate enforcement and dispute settlement mechanisms that do not affect the Union's autonomy, in particular its decision-making procedures.
22. After the United Kingdom leaves the Union, no agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom may apply to the territory of Gibraltar without the agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom.

For the record, trade talks have been penciled in for March 2018 at this point, apparently.

ETA: And I know it's always dangerous to speculate about where people have gone wrong, but it might be this:

4. While an agreement on a future relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom as such can only be concluded once the United Kingdom has become a third country, Article 50 TEU requires to take account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union in the arrangements for withdrawal. To this end, an overall understanding on the framework for the future relationship could be identified during a second phase of the negotiations under Article 50. The Union and its Member States stand ready to engage in preliminary and preparatory discussions to this end in the context of negotiations under Article 50 TEU, as soon as sufficient progress has been made in the first phase towards reaching a satisfactory agreement on the arrangements for an orderly withdrawal.

Which states the EU believes that a future relationship deal can only be concluded once Britain is a third country - a very distinct concept from there being no trade discussions before Britain is a third country/future relationship and phase II discussions excluding trade.

Scot Dutchy · **#1487** by **Scot Dutchy** » Dec 19, 2017 11:25 am

Another load of bollocks of course especially from the torygraph. A quote from a quote? Where is the link to the original EU document?
BTW Those are just common rules for any free trade agreement with a third country so what are you dribbling about. Another load of vagueness; pencilled in ? Where in the UK agenda?

You have to brush up on your Brusselspeak. You are showing the Brexshitters complete lack of knowledge of it. "Concluded only when the UK is no longer a member". That is not the signing but the final talks which take far more time than preliminaries.
When was the leaving date extended? The extension is not a transition.

Thommo · **#1488** by **Thommo** » Dec 19, 2017 11:54 am

Scot Dutchy wrote:Another load of bollocks of course especially from the torygraph. A quote from a quote? Where is the link to the original EU document?

It was a leak.

And ok, fine, let's entertain the thought that that is bollocks. What's your source then? Why does literally almost every single media outlet describe it in the same terms that contradict you?

E.g.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... referendum

A “political declaration” about the broad outlines of a future trade deal could then be agreed before Brexit day in March 2019 – but the details would have to be hammered out during the transition period.

Some EU member states are more open to preliminary talks before March, when the leaders agree new guidelines on the future trade relationship, but do not expect formal negotiations.

“It all depends on what you mean by ‘trade talks beginning’,” said one diplomat. “The European council is going to need until March to have its guidelines in place for Michel Barnier [the EU’s chief negotiator] to negotiate phase two, and member states will be extremely reluctant to negotiate before those guidelines are in place. Whether that means before [March] there cannot be any kind of conversations, or comparing notes, that is a view that is yet to be defined.”

https://euobserver.com/uk-referendum/140248

Brexit: EU trade talks to start in April
...
Detailed negotiations about the the future and trade relations could start in mid-April, the EU source added.

Other changes to the European Council president Donald Tusk's original draft guidelines from last week include highlighting the role of the EU's top court during the transition period and future relations, and stating that the UK should also comply with EU trade policy during the transition.

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-no-t ... ate-march/

Phase 2 of the Brexit talks will not begin until February with detailed negotiations on a framework for future EU-U.K. trade delayed until late March at the earliest, according to the latest draft of guidelines for the EU27’s approach to the Brexit talks being prepared for approval by EU leaders later this week.

Scot Dutchy wrote:You have to brush up on your Brusselspeak. You are showing the Brexshitters complete lack of knowledge of it. "Concluded only when the UK is no longer a member". That is not the signing but the final talks which take far more time than preliminaries.

The slight snag with this petty jibe is of course that you're misrepresenting both what I said - I made no comment about whether "concluded" meant signing or something more and what you said - which was that "Phase 2 is not about trade but future relationships. Trade can only be discussed once the UK is a third country.". Regardless of the interpretation one puts on "concluded" it is a world apart from future relationship discussions completely excluding trade and no trade discussions taking place - and given your mistakes above, I would be leery about trusting your interpretation anyway.

Scot Dutchy · **#1489** by **Scot Dutchy** » Dec 19, 2017 12:34 pm

What you are posting just confirms everything I have said including your lack of understanding Brusselspeak.

A “political declaration” about the broad outlines of a future trade deal could then be agreed before Brexit day in March 2019 – but the details would have to be hammered outduring the transition period.

What in the hell are you griping about? Trade can as was said in all your quotes only after leaving date when ever that is.

Read Barnier's lips will you not the pathetic rumblings of the Brexshitters stomachs.

There is as yet no such thing as a transition period in the EU documents only extension. Barnier always refers to an extension as mentioned in art 50 and only May talks about transition. A typical trick used by Brexshitters.

Thommo · **#1490** by **Thommo** » Dec 19, 2017 12:51 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:What you are posting just confirms everything I have said including your lack of understanding Brusselspeak.

That's just patently untrue. And I note you have utterly declined to provide a source that agrees with what you said, despite your rejection of the Telegraph article I linked as unsatisfactory.

I know it can be hard to climb down, Scot, but what you said was clear and clearly wrong.

"Phase 2 is not about trade but future relationships. Trade can only be discussed once the UK is a third country." - not true. Trade will be discussed as part of phase 2. "Future relationship" is a term that includes trade. Trade can be discussed (but not concluded) before the UK is a third country. Simples.

You may recall that you have been equally emphatic that Brexit wasn't going to happen, that there will be no negotiation whatsoever, that Britain will pay a divorce bill and "Foxtrot Oscar" and a number of other things, where your enthusiasm seems to have run away with you, yet you've turned out to be completely wrong in your interpretation.

I am starting to suspect you have no expertise or authority with which to lecture about "understanding Brusselspeak", and would invite you to consider the possibility of your own fallibility on these matters.

Scot Dutchy wrote:There is as yet no such thing as a transition period in the EU documents only extension. Barnier always refers to an extension as mentioned in art 50 and only May talks about transition. A typical trick used by Brexshitters.

You're almost exactly wrong here again. This is the text of the phase 1 progress agreement:-
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/b ... report.pdf

It contains several references to a transition period and zero references to an extension. So again, I think your criticism of a "typical trick" has backfired somewhat.

Edit: corrected "satisfactory" to "unsatisfactory" and added the quote and reply about the terms "transition" and "extension" in a cross post before the subsequent reply appeared.

Scot Dutchy · **#1491** by **Scot Dutchy** » Dec 19, 2017 1:01 pm

It will not as clearly stated in your own quotes.

Completely wrong? You have said fuck all about anything. We still dont have an agreement and plenty of Brexshitters want a hard Brexit so where am I wrong. The intelligent ones in the tory party are trying to change the direction of the Brexit cart before going over the cliff and whether they succeed we will have to wait and see.

My initial reaction to Brexit was totally undermined by the complete ignorance and arrogance of the Brexshitters. I cant do anything about the patients taking over the luny bin.

Thommo · **#1492** by **Thommo** » Dec 19, 2017 1:11 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:It will not as clearly stated in your own quotes.

That's wrong, but I don't think we gain much by continuing to gainsay one another, and the three explanations and exact quotes provided should be sufficient. So let's drop this as having had enough iterations.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Completely wrong? You have said fuck all about anything.

I've told you exactly what the situation is, exactly what was said and provided sources. I agree it's taken a lot more words than it should because at each stage you've simply denied reality, and thus I've had to repeat myself in ever increasing amounts of detail, which is a shame.

Scot Dutchy wrote:We still dont have an agreement and plenty of Brexshitters want a hard Brexit so where am I wrong.

As examples, here:

Scot Dutchy wrote:The Brexshitters dont seem to understand. Phase 2 is not about trade but future relationships. Trade can only be discussed once the UK is a third country.

and here:

Scot Dutchy wrote:There is as yet no such thing as a transition period in the EU documents only extension.

Scot Dutchy wrote:My initial reaction to Brexit was totally undermined by the complete ignorance and arrogance of the Brexshitters. I cant do anything about the patients taking over the luny bin.

That's a very oblique way of admitting error. And nobody is asking you to do something about the British government (or whatever the referent there really is, it's put poorly), the subject was your own proclamations. There are all sorts of things you could do about those, from toning down the invective to fact checking to admitting fallibility to accurately separating your own hopes, fears and opinions from matters of fact.

For example instead of saying "Phase 2 is not about trade but future relationships." you could have said "Phase 2 talks will include trade, but only in broad outline." or instead of saying "Trade can only be discussed once the UK is a third country." you could have said "Trade is going to be discussed before the UK is a third country, but the EU has been clear that those discussions can only be concluded afterwards". Those would have the virtue of being true statements and thus informing rather than misleading.

Scot Dutchy · **#1493** by **Scot Dutchy** » Dec 19, 2017 1:44 pm

Where does it say phase 2 is trade talks? Not on the EU side. When the EU says framework it means just that not any interpretation the Brexshitters put on it.

On the one hand we have views expressed, for example from within the European Commission, that withdrawal negotiations must wait until the UK has officially notified its intention to leave the EU under Article 50, that any negotiations for Britain’s future relationship with the EU must wait until the withdrawal agreement has been finalised, and that negotiations with non-EU trading partners must wait until Britain’s withdrawal actually takes effect. On the other hand, we hear David Davis, the new Minister for Exiting the European Union, state that he aims to have a whole raft of new trade agreements all-but-signed within the next two years, well before any feasible withdrawal date.
...
To understand the nature of the obligations on a Member State contemplating departure from the EU we should distinguish between (i) the period before the formal Article 50 notification, (ii) the period after notification but before the withdrawal agreement takes effect, and (iii) after withdrawal. The post-withdrawal position we can deal with quickly here: the former Member State is no longer bound by EU law as such, but will of course be bound by whatever transitional arrangements have been put in place in the withdrawal treaty, which may well also include trade policy. Before the Article 50 notification has been given, in contrast, the UK is clearly still under full Member State obligations; there is no certainty that the notification will ever be given and existing obligations cannot be weakened simply by political statements on the possibility of a future exit. During this period (in which we are today) the UK is clearly not empowered to negotiate on trade matters, and would be in breach of its obligations of sincere cooperation by engaging in informal talks about possible future negotiations, especially where this takes place in the context of ongoing EU negotiations with that trade partner.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/negotiating-trade-deals-brexit

Sendraks · **#1494** by **Sendraks** » Dec 19, 2017 1:56 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:Where does it say phase 2 is trade talks?

Why are you asking Thommo? Given that wasn't a claim he made.

Thommo · **#1495** by **Thommo** » Dec 19, 2017 2:01 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:Where does it say phase 2 is trade talks? Not on the EU side.

That relevant text is quoted in #1486 and #1488. In particular the leaked EU negotiating strategy states that phase 2 will include (but will go beyond) trade talks - although it makes clear that trade talks cannot be "concluded" before Britain becomes a third state (which is perhaps ambiguous, but presumably means after the March 2019 exit date, rather than after the 2021 end of the proposed transition period).

I'm not sure why you think referring to an obsolete document from before article 50 was triggered and negotiations began is helpful - especially given it doesn't say what you said anyway.

That quote does discuss how before article 50 was triggered Britain could not negotiate its own trade deals because it was still a full member of the single market and customs union, but that isn't even related to when Britain and the EU can discuss their future trading relationship (the EU having no role in hypothetical Britain - rest of the world trade talks after Brexit). It does, incidentally, appear to mention "transition" and not "extension" though.

I am growing increasingly puzzled as to why you think you're in a position to hold forth about "arrogance" and "ignorance".

Scot Dutchy · **#1496** by **Scot Dutchy** » Dec 19, 2017 2:15 pm

Of course it was not quoted by you. Now that is arrogance.

It is clear that only the Brexshitters presume that there will be trade talks before the leaving date.
Where is the original document of the leak before the torygraph got their hands on it?
The EU law has not changed. The UK cant discuss any trade talks until it leaves is that so hard to understand? Only the Brexshitters keep on calling phase 2 trade talks.

Thommo · **#1497** by **Thommo** » Dec 19, 2017 2:18 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:Of course it was not quoted by you. Now that is arrogance.

Eh? I think you're losing the plot here.

The answer is quoted a few posts up in post #1486.

Scot Dutchy wrote:The EU law has not changed. The UK cant discuss any trade talks until it leaves is that so hard to understand?

I do, you don't. The EU law applies to individual members acting outside of the customs union to negotiate with non-EU countries. That is an entirely different thing to the currently fellow EU member states of Britain and the EU27 discussing their future trade relationship.

You're confusing two entirely different things.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Only the Brexshitters keep on calling phase 2 trade talks.

I don't think anyone is doing that, but everyone (and I gave you several examples in #1488) and their granny is clear that phase 2 will include trade talks. Was three examples not enough? I can provide plenty more if you'd like.

ronmcd · **#1498** by **ronmcd** » Dec 19, 2017 2:20 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:
It is clear that only the Brexshitters presume that there will be trade talks before the leaving date.

*raises hand nervously*
I'm not a "Brexshitter". As far as I know. :shifty:

Scot Dutchy · **#1499** by **Scot Dutchy** » Dec 19, 2017 2:21 pm

Nothing to found:

Negotiating documents on Article 50 negotiations with the United Kingdom

Nothing mentioning trade.

Scot Dutchy · **#1500** by **Scot Dutchy** » Dec 19, 2017 2:25 pm

Thommo wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:Of course it was not quoted by you. Now that is arrogance.

Eh? I think you're losing the plot here.

The answer is quoted a few posts up in post #1486.

You never found it. Reading the torygraph is not good for one's brain.

You have answered nothing. Only quoted from an unknown document that was a leak to a tory rag.

Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Re: Brexit

Who is online