As, once again, the comedia del arte that are the so called brexit negotiations ended early, the path for the end of that agony seems clear.

The EU commission published an interesting document

I guess everyone will be enough informed before 01/01/21 (international format)



Previous part can be found here:https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1439917

Olddog wrote:

The government in London is focused on what will be the real economic war between the City and the EU.

It is understandable because it is most of ht UK GDP.....

And given that some of the strongest Brexit-backers, came from the City. In general, Brexit will be a bad deal for the City.

The Brexit negotiations are dead, long live the Brexit negotiations.

Does anyone seriously believe that the upcoming hard Brexit is the end-stage? Or perhaps some believe that the hard Brexit will be ended by a new EU membership.....

Dutchy wrote:

The Brexit negotiations are dead, long live the Brexit negotiations.

Does anyone seriously believe that the upcoming hard Brexit is the end-stage? Or perhaps some believe that the hard Brexit will be ended by a new EU membership.....

It won't happen until the current generation of politicians are weeded out of the British parliament. I say one or two decades, and there will be serious talk about reentering the Union. To way worse requirements and less influence than previously of course, meaning they have to accept the Euro and Schengen.

VSMUT wrote:

To way worse requirements and less influence than previously of course, meaning they have to accept the Euro and Schengen.

Well, it all depends on how the EU is fairing too. If the EU stands to gain more from the UK, then the UK will be in a good position to reclaim most of her opt outs. But if the UK will be coming back to the EU like a dog with its tail between the legs, then I will agree that the EU will force the UK to adopt Euro and Schengen (though the UK could pull a Sweden and deliberately not meet the criteria for joining the Euro).

No.

If the UK tries to join the EU again, it will be with zero opt-out. I bet the lesson is well learned.

Olddog wrote:

As, once again, the comedia del arte that are the so called brexit negotiations ended early, the path for the end of that agony seems clear.

The EU commission published an interesting document

I guess everyone will be enough informed before 01/01/21 (international format)



Previous part can be found here:https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1439917

I read the whole thing. No real surprises. But here are a few things that stood out or raised questions.

The Withdrawal Agreement was pretty well done. It provides for an orderly disassociation.

Some things need to be negotiated between the UK and with the EU, but a surprising number with EU 'member states'

Ireland, both ROI and NI, shall be a bit of a dog's breakfast, not necessarily unpleasant. The wiles of evil men (and women) will devise ways of taking advantage, but the WA means both the UK and the EU well need to be alert to squashing such attempts.

One's libertarian sympathies for government to get off our backs bodes ill for any number of EU or UK institutions. Oxford and Cambridge becoming world class research science centers was certainly aided by England being a member of the EU. I worry about the consequences. These and other research centers must now cope with satisfying EU, UK, and numerous others for financing and immigration.

The hundreds of trade agreements the EU has made with the rest of the world no longer include the UK, the bureaucratic chores for the UK to cope with this is an immense undertaking.

einsteinboricua wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

To way worse requirements and less influence than previously of course, meaning they have to accept the Euro and Schengen.

Well, it all depends on how the EU is fairing too. If the EU stands to gain more from the UK, then the UK will be in a good position to reclaim most of her opt outs. But if the UK will be coming back to the EU like a dog with its tail between the legs, then I will agree that the EU will force the UK to adopt Euro and Schengen (though the UK could pull a Sweden and deliberately not meet the criteria for joining the Euro).

The UK is not regaining any opt-outs, regardless of the circumstances. The EU already took the stance that there won't be any more opt-outs. Only existing ones will remain, and former members don't count.

VSMUT wrote:

and former members don't count.

Indeed, as Brexiteers say: Brexit means Brexit.

So once the UK leaves no one believes that the reforms of the EU whispered about will finally get a look see?
Recall that none of the shortcomings that some may have admitted, could be addressed or openly discussed while Brexit was ongoing.
The inner core and outer core were openly discussed, I guess in some ways the cores would address some of the items, I would expect the reforms to eliminate the need for any current or future member to want, need or desire opt outs. I don't think we need a debate on why opt outs came about in the first place.

par13del wrote:

I don't think we need a debate on why opt outs came about in the first place.

Paranoid nationalists/brexiteer types.

It is clear that the EU is moving towards further integration, not less. Those are the reforms you will see.

VSMUT wrote:

par13del wrote:

I don't think we need a debate on why opt outs came about in the first place.

Paranoid nationalists/brexiteer types.

It is clear that the EU is moving towards further integration, not less. Those are the reforms you will see.

Why do you assume that the issues some have identified can only be resolved by loose integration, a number of complaints are about fairness, if closer integration resolves the issues then fine, we are talking about the EU, not the folks leaving.

Thatcher I guess was the original Brexiter?

An interesting document emerged from the EU, it is only 34 pages, but it is a very interesting read and puts it in black and white yet again what actually will happen en the consequences of choices made by the UK and how the EU is planning to contain the worst of the consequences.

"Communication on readiness at the end of the transition period between the European Union and the United Kingdom"

So here you have it in black and white what will happen on January 1st 2021, with the desired hard Brexit of many Brexitremists.

The consequences of becoming a truly 3rd country, on:
- trade of goods
- trade in services
- energy
- travelling and tourism (UK nationals will be allowed to travel to the EU without a visa, even though their 3rd country status, a nice gesture from the EU to the British citizens)
- mobility and social security coordination
- company law and civil law
- other aspects: Data, digital and intellectual property rights
- international agreements of the European Union

Since this is an aviation forum, this is what will happen with a desired hard Brexit:

In any case, as of 1 January 2021, air carriers holding operating licences granted by the UK licensing authority for the commercial carrying by air of passengers, mail and/or cargo, will no longer be able to provide air transport services within the European Union.
EU air carriers and holders of aviation safety certificates will need to ensure, and uphold compliance with Union requirements, including airlines’ requirements on principal place of business and EU majority ownership and control, as well as the Union aviation safety acquis.

Dutchy wrote:

An interesting document emerged from the EU, it is only 34 pages, but it is a very interesting read and puts it in black and white yet again what actually will happen en the consequences of choices made by the UK and how the EU is planning to contain the worst of the consequences. ]

Didn't you link to the same article a few post ago? Anyway, there is not much new in it which isn't known by those in the industry. For those who don't know it by now, maybe the EU can be even more simplistic because if you don't know what's in the 34 pages, you certainly aren't going to read these 34 pages. The only solution is to provide pictures or a power point presentation. Then again, this document is good to let people know that they should start shifting their attention to the upcoming Brexit instead of entirely to COVID-19 and take the hard Brexit plan off the shelves. Only gamblers and those who have no option will decide to do nothing and hope for the best.

But if the EU publish so many things it is because the british nationalists tendency to rewrite history and pretend they did not know and that the EU hid its objectives.

If you read Dr North blog, you can read how the nationalists want to rewrite history.....

PS: I linked the EU communication in the first post in that thread.

sorry, missed it, well. done Olddog

No problem, I also tend to miss links.

And the cost of Brexit keeps rising........ One begins to wonder when it will hit the GBP350mn mark (I cannot imagine that an emergency purchase is cheap, neither is hiring contractors who have to start ASAP). Anyway, the owner of the land must be very pleased to have such a customer.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/10/vast-brexit-customs-clearance-centre-to-be-built-in-kent

About time to get real on how to deal with the flow of lorry's in Dover.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... lt-in-kent

Gotta love the "Get ready for Brexit" campaign. Wasn't Brexit done months ago and even the word "Brexit" supposedly banned to be used in Downing Street ??

So they drive off the boats at Dover, drive 20 miles to Ashford and then do the customs checks.

A novel idea.

With the fast decreasing trade UK EU perhaps the problem will solve itself?

Grizzly410 wrote:

Gotta love the "Get ready for Brexit" campaign. Wasn't Brexit done months ago and even the word "Brexit" supposedly banned to be used in Downing Street ??

You've to agree that it will save a lot of money as they don't have to rewrite every leaflet, internet page, power point presentation or anything else where they've put "Get raedy for Brexit". Even Cummings will see the benefit of that.

LJ wrote:

And the cost of Brexit keeps rising........ One begins to wonder when it will hit the GBP350mn mark (I cannot imagine that an emergency purchase is cheap, neither is hiring contractors who have to start ASAP). Anyway, the owner of the land must be very pleased to have such a customer.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/10/vast-brexit-customs-clearance-centre-to-be-built-in-kent

But but but, the red bus said:



Source

Dutchy wrote:

LJ wrote:

And the cost of Brexit keeps rising........ One begins to wonder when it will hit the GBP350mn mark (I cannot imagine that an emergency purchase is cheap, neither is hiring contractors who have to start ASAP). Anyway, the owner of the land must be very pleased to have such a customer.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/10/vast-brexit-customs-clearance-centre-to-be-built-in-kent

But but but, the red bus said:



Source

It’s not exactly untrue and actully could meet the definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy from what has been said of late on this board and from the mandarin‘s within the EU Parliament:

Remember this, EU integration: MEPs want to end permanent opt-outs from EU law
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/ ... rom-eu-law

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

LJ wrote:

And the cost of Brexit keeps rising........ One begins to wonder when it will hit the GBP350mn mark (I cannot imagine that an emergency purchase is cheap, neither is hiring contractors who have to start ASAP). Anyway, the owner of the land must be very pleased to have such a customer.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/10/vast-brexit-customs-clearance-centre-to-be-built-in-kent

But but but, the red bus said:



Source

It’s not exactly untrue and actully could meet the definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy from what has been said of late on this board and from the mandarin‘s within the EU Parliament:

Remember this, EU integration: MEPs want to end permanent opt-outs from EU law
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/ ... rom-eu-law

What is not exactly untrue? That the UK will save 350million Pounds a week by Brexit and could one on one put it into the NHS without any drawbacks?
Given that the UK never paid that amount
Given that lots of EU money pouring back into the UK
Given that lots of savings being made with EU membership
Given that the UK had a lot of economic gains with the EU membership

I would rate the 350million a week to the NHS are utter nonsense to very misleading at best.

LJ wrote:

And the cost of Brexit keeps rising........ One begins to wonder when it will hit the GBP350mn mark (I cannot imagine that an emergency purchase is cheap, neither is hiring contractors who have to start ASAP). Anyway, the owner of the land must be very pleased to have such a customer.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/10/vast-brexit-customs-clearance-centre-to-be-built-in-kent

CPO’s are based on market value anyhow, as for construction tell me what Government in the West dosnt pay over the odds when project comes out to tender, one could also look at it as part of a stimulus package as part of cover-19 response building local infrastructure

I’ve seen tremendous waste of money not just here in the UK but throughout EU and the world the UK is not alone in that regard, I’m sure everyone has a pet peeve on waste by the own government or the many projects by the EU itself

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

But but but, the red bus said:



Source

It’s not exactly untrue and actully could meet the definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy from what has been said of late on this board and from the mandarin‘s within the EU Parliament:

Remember this, EU integration: MEPs want to end permanent opt-outs from EU law
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/ ... rom-eu-law

What is not exactly untrue? That the UK will save 350million Pounds a week by Brexit and could one on one put it into the NHS without any drawbacks?
Given that the UK never paid that amount
Given that lots of EU money pouring back into the UK
Given that lots of savings being made with EU membership
Given that the UK had a lot of economic gains with the EU membership

I would rate the 350million a week to the NHS are utter nonsense to very misleading at best.

You are welcome to your views, do you agree with the EU Parliament and it’s quest to eliminate permanent opt-outs, one Mr Barnier keeps bang on about the LPF and the future. Were does the future lie in regards to ever closer union and the opt outs and rebates

Guenther Oettinger ex budget chief openly has said Britain would lose EU rebate even if it decided to ditch Brexit, as I said it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Even with the rebate the UK was a net contributor so even with lots of money coming in from the EU budget lots and lots of more money flows into the EU from the UK than the other way around.

A101

So did we send £350M a week to the EU.

If not, how was leaving the EU going to allow us to divert £350M a week to the NHS.

bennett123 wrote:

A101

So did we send £350M a week to the EU.

If not, how was leaving the EU going to allow us to divert £350M a week to the NHS.

Well first up I agree the slogan is poorly worded someone had a brain fart with that one, but in no way does it constitute a pledge towards the NHS per se. what it does fundamentally show are our liabilities under the membership fees irrespective of any rebates, in fact the rebate is not an inalienable right of the UK its not written in any treaty whatsoever.

And secondly off course we didn't send £350M it was about £240M and we don't send it weekly its an average based on 52wks in regards to rebate it has to be negotiated before every budget forecast with the MFF. So in theory could be scrapped at any time in the future.

The ex budget chief Guenther Oettinger pointed towards this in the next MFF even if the UK decided to revoke A50 as this has been tried in the past a number of times with a well known stouch between Chirac and Blair in relation to the rebate back in the early 2000's the only reason it continues is the possible veto of the future budget would leave the EU in turmoil as we have seen with the recent MFF

And as to the NHS it was announced by PM May that the NHS will be better of by £20B per year by 2023 which equates to £400 million a week, if that remains on track then yes the Brexit dividend will have happened as the slogan on the bus suggests . But that's not all down to Brexit the budget would have naturally increased over time with inflation and moral justification out of necessity irrespective if we remained or not

Just a brain fart, nothing important?.

A101 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

A101

So did we send £350M a week to the EU.

If not, how was leaving the EU going to allow us to divert £350M a week to the NHS.

Well first up I agree the slogan is poorly worded someone had a brain fart with that one, but in no way does it constitute a pledge towards the NHS per se. what it does fundamentally show are our liabilities under the membership fees irrespective of any rebates, in fact the rebate is not an inalienable right of the UK its not written in any treaty whatsoever.

And secondly off course we didn't send £350M it was about £240M and we don't send it weekly its an average based on 52wks in regards to rebate it has to be negotiated before every budget forecast with the MFF. So in theory could be scrapped at any time in the future.

The ex budget chief Guenther Oettinger pointed towards this in the next MFF even if the UK decided to revoke A50 as this has been tried in the past a number of times with a well known stouch between Chirac and Blair in relation to the rebate back in the early 2000's the only reason it continues is the possible veto of the future budget would leave the EU in turmoil as we have seen with the recent MFF

And as to the NHS it was announced by PM May that the NHS will be better of by £20B per year by 2023 which equates to £400 million a week, if that remains on track then yes the Brexit dividend will have happened as the slogan on the bus suggests . But that's not all down to Brexit the budget would have naturally increased over time with inflation and moral justification out of necessity irrespective if we remained or not

Check, so you are basically staying it was highly misleading at best.

The UK will spend GBP 705mn to boost its borders. One can argue that it's a little bit late (IT projects usually take a few years to deliver and infrastructure isn't built overnight)

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-53375713

Meanwhile the UK seems to revert on decreasing the number of immigrants as it is expected to announce a change to the points system which will ensure that low skilled labour will have more chance. Odly they're opening the doors not only for EU immigrants but also for immigrants from other third countries. One has to wonder how this will be viewed by the British public. Needless to say it will be framed as "we now have control over our immigration policy". However, acknowledging that nothing will change regarding immigration (as this would seriously hurt the UK economy) will mean that the only tangible result is the phrase that "we have taken control". Wonder how this is viewed by those who thought that Brexit would reduce immigration and ensure that their jobs were save.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12099217/prit-patel-brexit-plan-for-borders-boost-economy-nhs/

What's always forgotten by Brexiteers is that EU membership not only has a COST, it also has a VALUE.

By leaving, you've cut the cost, but also lost the value.

The value of EU membership for the UK is known to top the cost, no matter whether it's the gross or the rebated membership costs, so there's no cash dividend from Brexit whatsoever thus not a cent left to spend extra; It's just more public money allocated to the NHS, raised either through more domestic taxes, more borrowing, spending shifts or a combination of all those...
All of which should have been done a decade ago, rather than the permanent squeeze ike the Torries did under Osborne.
Still, even after all this the NHS will be seriously underfunded and spending a lot less than what neighbouring EU countries spend on their social security provisions, the difference maybe being the 'real' brexit dividend.

sabenapilot wrote:

What's always forgotten by Brexiteers is that EU membership not only has a COST, it also has a VALUE.

That ship has sailed a long time ago. Sure, Farage and the like did promise huge financial gains if the public voted for Brexit. We all knew that was a gross lie. So they shifted grounds and now. the benefit is "taking back control", whatever that means, because Britain never lost it in the first place.
So I have stopped wondering how the mind of the Brexiteers actually works.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

A101

So did we send £350M a week to the EU.

If not, how was leaving the EU going to allow us to divert £350M a week to the NHS.

Well first up I agree the slogan is poorly worded someone had a brain fart with that one, but in no way does it constitute a pledge towards the NHS per se. what it does fundamentally show are our liabilities under the membership fees irrespective of any rebates, in fact the rebate is not an inalienable right of the UK its not written in any treaty whatsoever.

And secondly off course we didn't send £350M it was about £240M and we don't send it weekly its an average based on 52wks in regards to rebate it has to be negotiated before every budget forecast with the MFF. So in theory could be scrapped at any time in the future.

The ex budget chief Guenther Oettinger pointed towards this in the next MFF even if the UK decided to revoke A50 as this has been tried in the past a number of times with a well known stouch between Chirac and Blair in relation to the rebate back in the early 2000's the only reason it continues is the possible veto of the future budget would leave the EU in turmoil as we have seen with the recent MFF

And as to the NHS it was announced by PM May that the NHS will be better of by £20B per year by 2023 which equates to £400 million a week, if that remains on track then yes the Brexit dividend will have happened as the slogan on the bus suggests . But that's not all down to Brexit the budget would have naturally increased over time with inflation and moral justification out of necessity irrespective if we remained or not

Check, so you are basically staying it was highly misleading at best.

The premises of the slogan is correct. .....the only thing wrong was the actual amount averaged out under the formula for the rebate is wrong. the numbers for the total liability under the membership fee is correct

bennett123 wrote:

Just a brain fart, nothing important?.

People make mistakes but the premises is correct

sabenapilot wrote:

What's always forgotten by Brexiteers is that EU membership not only has a COST, it also has a VALUE.

By leaving, you've cut the cost, but also lost the value.

The value of EU membership for the UK is known to top the cost, no matter whether it's the gross or the rebated membership costs, so there's no cash dividend from Brexit whatsoever thus not a cent left to spend extra; It's just more public money allocated to the NHS, raised either through more domestic taxes, more borrowing, spending shifts or a combination of all those...
All of which should have been done a decade ago, rather than the permanent squeeze ike the Torries did under Osborne.
Still, even after all this the NHS will be seriously underfunded and spending a lot less than what neighbouring EU countries spend on their social security provisions, the difference maybe being the 'real' brexit dividend.

Not everything about Brexit comes down to financial cost. I would be still be happy to leave the EU if the cost was triple what we have spent so far

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Check, so you are basically staying it was highly misleading at best.

The premises of the slogan is correct. .....the only thing wrong was the actual amount averaged out under the formula for the rebate is wrong. the numbers for the total liability under the membership fee is correct

The amount is way off, not to mention the money invested by the EU in the UK is absent, which is in itself highly misleading. Mentioning the NHS is populistic, connecting the two which have nothing to do with each other is just there for the effect.

As for the liability, sure, but mentioning that in the way you present it here, is also highly misleading, because each member who have rebates, the Dutch have for example, has a veto over the same budget with the rebates. So the rebate, or any opt-outs, in itself can only be removed if the country in question agrees to it.

So by dissecting the slogan we can only reach the conclusion that the premises of the slogan is complete and utter bull.

LJ wrote:

Meanwhile the UK seems to revert on decreasing the number of immigrants as it is expected to announce a change to the points system which will ensure that low skilled labour will have more chance. Odly they're opening the doors not only for EU immigrants but also for immigrants from other third countries. One has to wonder how this will be viewed by the British public. Needless to say it will be framed as "we now have control over our immigration policy". However, acknowledging that nothing will change regarding immigration (as this would seriously hurt the UK economy) will mean that the only tangible result is the phrase that "we have taken control". Wonder how this is viewed by those who thought that Brexit would reduce immigration and ensure that their jobs were save.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12099217/prit-patel-brexit-plan-for-borders-boost-economy-nhs/

And have 100% control who enters legally, I am perplexed why you continue to bleat about immigration it was never about stopping everyone from immigrating to the UK it about controlling who enters under what circumstances something which we were not 100% in control of because of FOM under the EU

A101 wrote:

Not everything about Brexit comes down to financial cost.

Ok, that is a point of view to take. You are right, Brexit couldn't be for financial reasons, because it is economical a disaster and if you give up almost all trade agreements, it was the only outcome.

A101 wrote:

I would be still be happy to leave the EU if the cost was triple what we have spent so far

Brexit set to cost the UK more than £200 billion by the end of the year

The conflict between economic realism and political delusion continues to be unresolved- despite mounting evidence.

source

So £600 billion, roughly 20% of the British economy and you would still be happy with that. Because of Corona the British economy will take a hit of roughly 6% - 9%, and you are happy with 20%............. 20% is highly economical disturbing and socially disrupting. But ok, if you think it is all worth it, that is your personal opinion.

In other news, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the wealthiest person in Britain, has become the latest vocal brexit supporter abandon Britain both personally and professionally after Brexit. He went to Monaco, and his new venture might be built in France instead of Wales.
Quite typical of hard Brexiteers to leave Britain in order to save their personal wealth, so they will not be hit by the inevitable economic downturn. Are there any wealthy Brexiteers-backers left in the UK and gamble their personal wealth on it? Rees-Mogg is another prime example, he moved his business to Ireland.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Not everything about Brexit comes down to financial cost.

Ok, that is a point of view to take. You are right, Brexit couldn't be for financial reasons, because it is economical a disaster and if you give up almost all trade agreements, it was the only outcome.

A101 wrote:

I would be still be happy to leave the EU if the cost was triple what we have spent so far

Brexit set to cost the UK more than £200 billion by the end of the year

The conflict between economic realism and political delusion continues to be unresolved- despite mounting evidence.

source

So £600 billion, roughly 20% of the British economy and you would still be happy with that. Because of Corona the British economy will take a hit of roughly 6% - 9%, and you are happy with 20%............. 20% is highly economical disturbing and socially disrupting. But ok, if you think it is all worth it, that is your personal opinion.

yep more than happy if it removes us from the clutches of the EU

Dutchy wrote:

In other news, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the wealthiest person in Britain, has become the latest vocal brexit supporter abandon Britain both personally and professionally after Brexit. He went to Monaco, and his new venture might be built in France instead of Wales.
Quite typical of hard Brexiteers to leave Britain in order to save their personal wealth, so they will not be hit by the inevitable economic downturn. Are there any wealthy Brexiteers-backers left in the UK and gamble their personal wealth on it? Rees-Mogg is another prime example, he moved his business to Ireland.

Did you actually read why?
If he does its a commercial decision to meet production start due to disruptions of Covid-19 as Daimler it is selling the site that was used for production of smart vehicles with next generation of smart electric cars is to be produced in China.

Buying an already built plant would allow Ineos to make up for time lost during the Covid-19 pandemic, and meet its target to start production by the end of 2021 and sales in 2022

WARNING

Either discuss the topic in a civil manner or the topic will be locked. This includes keeping the following out of the discussion

1) Personal attacks - All users have the right to express their own opinions providing it is within the forum rules of which these opinions must be respected, in other words debate the topic and not the user
2) Flamebait - Do not provoke other users or incite trouble. If you are provoked in anyway report the post, do not respond back
3) Inappropriate language - keep the swearing and any other inappropriate language out of the discussion

If you have any concerns please contact us at [email protected]

A101 wrote:

yep more than happy if it removes us from the clutches of the EU

It is fine if you think 600billion Pounds / 10.000pounds per citizen, is a price to pay, but you never were in the "clutches" of the EU, whatever that even mean. And more importantly, it was never disclosed beforehand, before the 2016 vote, that it would be that expensive to do. Quite important information to have to reach a decision, don't you think?

A101 wrote:

Did you actually read why?
If he does its a commercial decision to meet production start due to disruptions of Covid-19

Sure, I have read the stated reason and the additional benefit of producing in the EU instead of the UK: you can sell it in the EU, not just in the UK.

A101 wrote:

And have 100% control who enters legally, I am perplexed why you continue to bleat about immigration it was never about stopping everyone from immigrating to the UK it about controlling who enters under what circumstances something which we were not 100% in control of because of FOM under the EU

Could you please provide a reliable link to a source from before the Brexit-vote that states it is not about the amount of immigration, but it was about controlling it?

A101 wrote:

And have 100% control who enters legally, I am perplexed why you continue to bleat about immigration it was never about stopping everyone from immigrating to the UK it about controlling who enters under what circumstances something which we were not 100% in control of because of FOM under the EU

And once again, rules existed under the current EU framework that allowed for the U.K. to deport EU citizens who didn’t find a job or other means of supporting themselves after a three month period. Austria has this for example. So you had the option to control who stays all the time. FOM only applies if you can support yourself within the host country. Had the UK implemented these, the you’d have had control. Why didn’t the government is the real question?

Number6 wrote:

A101 wrote:

And have 100% control who enters legally, I am perplexed why you continue to bleat about immigration it was never about stopping everyone from immigrating to the UK it about controlling who enters under what circumstances something which we were not 100% in control of because of FOM under the EU

And once again, rules existed under the current EU framework that allowed for the U.K. to deport EU citizens who didn’t find a job or other means of supporting themselves after a three month period. Austria has this for example. So you had the option to control who stays all the time. FOM only applies if you can support yourself within the host country. Had the UK implemented these, the you’d have had control. Why didn’t the government is the real question?

So what changes is that taking non EU migration means that they need identification in order to use NHS and other services.

What is the difference to EU migration? Eu migrant coming to Germany, Sweden, Spain etc needs to show a ID and EHIC "blue card" in order to use services and health care. I still not heard a explination why this was not implemented in UK as well.

I find it interesting that the UK seemed to actively steer away from actively knowing Immigration numbers and using existing rules to deal with issues. Another example from my home in Austria. Every person living in Austria has to tell their local district office where they live. It’s little more than a form that gives them your address and ID details like passport or ID card. If you move to a new home, you simply register the new address with the district.

Combine this with immigration controls here in Austria, which includes border controls on both entry and exit of the country to a non Schengen country, and the government know broadly where I am and if I’ve left the country, and when I arrive back.

The U.K. has zero exit controls, so it has no idea if people leave. Overstayers have no address details, so are harder to track, and if Iirc, a few years back a report came out telling us the home office has no idea of the true number of overstayers in the UK. Exit controls would help but for some reason, not in place. You’d be forgiven for thinking this is some mass conspiracy to ensure the public were kept angry about immigration, blaming the EU for its woes, and deflecting blame from the government who could easily put a system in place to gather accurate data. Personally, I think there’s a certain amount of that going on, but a whole lot of incompetence.

Either way, why the U.K. does what it does will be a subject for historians for many years to come.

Roughly speaking, most EU countries collect a fair amount of data on their citizens, but have strong privacy rules and regulations. And enforce those rules on companies whose business involves collecting data. The US allegedly doesn't collect data (hint hint, note the allegedly), but it has loose rules as to privacy, including what companies can do with data they may collect. I don't know exactly how the UK handles this, but it obviously has tons of cameras collecting movement.

Number6 wrote:

A101 wrote:

And have 100% control who enters legally, I am perplexed why you continue to bleat about immigration it was never about stopping everyone from immigrating to the UK it about controlling who enters under what circumstances something which we were not 100% in control of because of FOM under the EU

And once again, rules existed under the current EU framework that allowed for the U.K. to deport EU citizens who didn’t find a job or other means of supporting themselves after a three month period. Austria has this for example. So you had the option to control who stays all the time. FOM only applies if you can support yourself within the host country. Had the UK implemented these, the you’d have had control. Why didn’t the government is the real question?

Shutting the gate after the horse has bolted.

EU FOM only requires a EU passport to enter the UK for the purpose of entry, if they are looking for work they do not require a work visa before entry.

From what is being proposed there will be a record of visa before entry, most nations across the world provide free entry visa for short stays(tourists visa). Entry to the UK can be stopped on grounds of public security or public health. But according to EU rules EU citizens cannot be stopped on economic grounds.

An Australian type of entry depending on the visa applied for you can be stopped from entering on economic grounds this is what is meant by having 100% control of who enters the UK. There is a similar type arrangement between AU/NZ like the CTA between the UK/ROI. It’s by no means an exact science to whom will break their visa conditions unless picked up on entry. But it will have a data base for immigration on who has overstayed or breached the visa requirements.

In other words it’s will be generally a requirement that for a work visa you will have to have that job lined up before entry unless you are a tourist on a temporary working visa like backpackers

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

yep more than happy if it removes us from the clutches of the EU

It is fine if you think 600billion Pounds / 10.000pounds per citizen, is a price to pay, but you never were in the "clutches" of the EU, whatever that even mean. And more importantly, it was never disclosed beforehand, before the 2016 vote, that it would be that expensive to do. Quite important information to have to reach a decision, don't you think?
.

The problem with your numbers 90% is theoretical it is assuming the economy would have moved in a certain way you can’t miss what you never had.

But one estimate that the government has actully spent on Brexit is 4.4 billion pounds by Andrew MacAskill from Reuters March 5th via the NAO so you can conclude by the end of the year another couple of billion, worth every penny if you ask me.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Did you actually read why?
If he does its a commercial decision to meet production start due to disruptions of Covid-19

Sure, I have read the stated reason and the additional benefit of producing in the EU instead of the UK: you can sell it in the EU, not just in the UK.

So are you saying anything made in the UK after January 1st 2001 cannot be sold in the EU.... that’s an interesting way to put it


You do reliase that Ineos Automotive was formed after the referenda, I imagine he was also intending to sell to the EU market when he decide to build manufacturing plants in both the UK and Portugal Portugal (chassis and body) and UK (final assembly)