Brexit dividend - 160000 vacancies in social care, Here come the filipinos

[alexa]

Well that is the facts if you look at the votes in Scotland, Scotland don't want to be in the UK because of policies that are detrimental to Scotland and the Scottish people the EU policies are better with more rights than what we have now the UK government want to change the human rights Act, and they currently want to change the trade unions acts via Liz Truss who is the new prime minster, and she's as useful as a chocolate teapot

Did you hear the new ideas Truss has come up with? Before there is any Independence vote Scotland will need to show that for more than a year 60% of the population want that vote.....followed by If 50% of the electorate of Scotland do not vote for Independence, there will be no Independence.

Truss should not 'gerrymander' any future independence referendum, Sturgeon says

Nicola Sturgeon has said any attempts by Liz Truss to "gerrymander" the rules of a future independence referendum would be a "sign of fundamental weakness" in the case for the Union.

uk.news.yahoo.com

 

[Papageorgio]

They could join California and Texas, the both want to leave the US.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

They could join California and Texas, the both want to leave the US.

I think Scotland will beat them to it.

 

[Papageorgio]

I think Scotland will beat them to it.

Maybe they all three could form a new country Califtexland.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Maybe they all three could form a new country Califtexland.

I think that the cultures are not compatible

 

[Papageorgio]

I think that the cultures are not compatible

Why not? All three are unhappy and cry about their situation

 

[Captain Caveman]

The only embarrassment to the UK are the clowns that voted to leave the EU because the wealthy didn't want to declare their world wide assets and pay their fair share of taxes. The Brexit brigade were duped and now have to live with the consequences. Oh, btw, we're about to drop out of the top 6 economies, to be replaced by India, hey ho... Oh look I thought I saw a unicorn on those sunny uplands...

The way democracy works is, you go by the vote. Although the referendum was not legally binding, the government implemented the will of the people. But the thing is, the people like yourself are not interested in the majority, be it by a large or small margin. So you've been anti-democratic throughout the process, and since. What kind of political philosophy is that when you're anti-democratic?

So, I went to vote per my criteria. My criteria was based on the UK being sovereign. It wasn't to do with train destinations, holidays, scientific funding, free movement, and all that shit. It was the UK being the UK. I woke up the next day and I got a text off the girlfriend, she said, "Have you seen the result?". I hadn't a clue what she meant so I asked her. She said, "The Brexit referendum result". It never crossed my mind. So I Googled the result and it was Leave. If it was remain, then so be it.

But the Left, the Remoaners, you are the fucking cancer of the UK. Anti-democractic prostate cancer of the UK. There should be a law to shoot them, fucking scum.

 

[Vagabond63]

My criteria was based on the UK being sovereign.

Define "sovereign" Here's a good analysis of what we threw away in exchange for your version of "sovereignty", which, ironically reflects that of North Korea.

Sovereignty misunderstood?

It was the greatest weakness of the Remain campaign that they failed to challenge Leave’s definition of sovereignty and explain that the reality of Brexit meant throwing control away, not taking it back.

Trading across borders means regulating across borders, and the more you want to trade, the more regulation you need.

This goes for services and data as much as for goods: ‘sovereignty’ in this context means having influence not only of regulation in your domestic market but in the markets you sell to and buy from.

In the 1960s, Britain vividly experienced the drawback of having no control over the European market and too small a domestic market to provide a secure base for its manufacturers.

EFTA did not provide what was needed, so only membership of the EEC would enable Britain to defend its national economic interests effectively.

It was less a case of giving sovereignty away than, by sharing it, extending our sovereignty to mainland Europe.

It is a thinner sovereignty, less absolute than the North Korean variety, but more effective in protecting British interests because it provided far greater influence over the shape of regulation in our main market, as well as on the position of Europe in international affairs – issues that matter more and more in an increasingly unstable world. It provided a de facto veto on both.

That is, you won’t always get your own way, but you can prevent your neighbours going the wrong way.

Ultimately, real sovereignty means having a seat at the table, a voice in the debate and a vote on the outcome.

Brexit threw all that away: we are left with a paper sovereignty that sounds good but has no effect.

We become a rule taker from countries and Unions bigger than us, rather than a rule maker. As Sir John Major recently underlined, in global terms, Britain is not really that big.

Brexiteers argue that their definition of sovereignty, physically controlling borders, laws and money, nevertheless reflects the ‘national interest’.

But this exposes that their understanding of British national interest is in reality confined to their party political interest.

First, the British economy needs immigration if it is to grow: if people don’t come from Europe, they will come from elsewhere.

Second, European laws will still affect all our exports to Europe, but we no longer have any influence over them. Third, the money we save is far less than the additional costs of separation.

And fourth, the fact that Scotland and Northern Ireland both needed membership of the EU to make the United Kingdom work for them was excluded from this interpretation of national interest.

The Brexiteers’ definition of sovereignty will come back to bite them when – as we have already seen – they argue that Scotland’s interests dictate that it should stay in the British Union.

The party political interest of the SNP dictates otherwise and therefore – using the Brexiteers own argument – they will declare that Scottish sovereignty demands separation from an English nation that gives them no say in fundamental decisions affecting their future. The Brexiteers risk being hung with their own sovereign petard.

The impact on negotiations

This definition of sovereignty – most clearly expressed in David Frost’s lecture in Brussels last February – has also critically skewed the negotiations, making a deal to protect British interests all the harder.

In defence of this paper sovereignty, the UK set its red lines in a place that breached the two fundamental issues on which the EU would not, and could not, budge – the integrity of the single market and the preservation of the Good Friday Agreement.

The Brexiteers did this on the grounds that British ‘sovereignty‘ demanded it. In reality, sovereignty does no such thing. This is pure politics.

Setting a hard 31 December deadline made the task all the harder. Besides the Prime Minister’s nature, to take no decisions until they become unavoidable, both he and Conservative MPs held unfailingly to a belief that the EU only makes concessions and cuts deals at the very last minute, so it is essential to hang tough on all key issues until the end.

These two approaches misunderstood both the EU’s purpose and its methods. It may be what happens at European Councils, but not in external negotiations.

The EU is a cumbersome beast, and though on trade the Commission has sole competence, and therefore some freedom to negotiate, it still needs to be able sell the outcome to member states, many of whom have serious political interests at stake.

Any trade deal is therefore built up through painstaking agreements on the components of a balanced overall package which can be sold to both the member states and the European Parliament on the EU side and domestic constituents in the UK. This is a process of building consensus, not a fight to the death.

In that process, the Internal Market Bill has been a spectacular own goal. To renege on the Withdrawal Agreement and propose to break international law undermined the one thing that might have softened the EU negotiating position – trust.

The EU exists as a community of law, something the UK used to defend vigorously, so to play fast and loose with it on departure is taken as a sign of bad faith and makes getting concessions all the more difficult.

Ultimately, the mantra of ‘taking back control over our borders, our trade and our money’ is therefore not only wrong, but leading the UK into a blind alley of its own making.

It will be no surprise if some members of the Union decide to cut and run back to the main road. Sooner or later, England will have to follow, dragging its precious sovereignty behind it.

Sovereignty and Brexit: control of what exactly? - UK in a changing Europe

As Brexit negotiations continue, Nicholas Westcott looks at how the British government's definition of sovereignty is slowly getting lost.

ukandeu.ac.uk

And you call those that wanted to maintain that level of sovereignty over Europe, a cancer...

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It was the greatest weakness of the Remain campaign that they failed to challenge Leave’s definition of sovereignty and explain that the reality of Brexit meant throwing control away, not taking it back.

Right.

Because a country has more power being ruled over by an unaccountable and distant foreign power than it does being sovereign and self-ruled.

And in related news…

• “War is peace!”
• “Freedom is slavery!”
• “Ignorance is strength!”

 

[Captain Caveman]

Define "sovereign" Here's a good analysis of what we threw away in exchange for your version of "sovereignty", which, ironically reflects that of North Korea.

Sovereignty misunderstood?

It was the greatest weakness of the Remain campaign that they failed to challenge Leave’s definition of sovereignty and explain that the reality of Brexit meant throwing control away, not taking it back.

Trading across borders means regulating across borders, and the more you want to trade, the more regulation you need.

This goes for services and data as much as for goods: ‘sovereignty’ in this context means having influence not only of regulation in your domestic market but in the markets you sell to and buy from.

In the 1960s, Britain vividly experienced the drawback of having no control over the European market and too small a domestic market to provide a secure base for its manufacturers.

EFTA did not provide what was needed, so only membership of the EEC would enable Britain to defend its national economic interests effectively.

It was less a case of giving sovereignty away than, by sharing it, extending our sovereignty to mainland Europe.

It is a thinner sovereignty, less absolute than the North Korean variety, but more effective in protecting British interests because it provided far greater influence over the shape of regulation in our main market, as well as on the position of Europe in international affairs – issues that matter more and more in an increasingly unstable world. It provided a de facto veto on both.

That is, you won’t always get your own way, but you can prevent your neighbours going the wrong way.

Ultimately, real sovereignty means having a seat at the table, a voice in the debate and a vote on the outcome.

Brexit threw all that away: we are left with a paper sovereignty that sounds good but has no effect.

We become a rule taker from countries and Unions bigger than us, rather than a rule maker. As Sir John Major recently underlined, in global terms, Britain is not really that big.

Brexiteers argue that their definition of sovereignty, physically controlling borders, laws and money, nevertheless reflects the ‘national interest’.

But this exposes that their understanding of British national interest is in reality confined to their party political interest.

First, the British economy needs immigration if it is to grow: if people don’t come from Europe, they will come from elsewhere.

Second, European laws will still affect all our exports to Europe, but we no longer have any influence over them. Third, the money we save is far less than the additional costs of separation.

And fourth, the fact that Scotland and Northern Ireland both needed membership of the EU to make the United Kingdom work for them was excluded from this interpretation of national interest.

The Brexiteers’ definition of sovereignty will come back to bite them when – as we have already seen – they argue that Scotland’s interests dictate that it should stay in the British Union.

The party political interest of the SNP dictates otherwise and therefore – using the Brexiteers own argument – they will declare that Scottish sovereignty demands separation from an English nation that gives them no say in fundamental decisions affecting their future. The Brexiteers risk being hung with their own sovereign petard.

The impact on negotiations

This definition of sovereignty – most clearly expressed in David Frost’s lecture in Brussels last February – has also critically skewed the negotiations, making a deal to protect British interests all the harder.

In defence of this paper sovereignty, the UK set its red lines in a place that breached the two fundamental issues on which the EU would not, and could not, budge – the integrity of the single market and the preservation of the Good Friday Agreement.

The Brexiteers did this on the grounds that British ‘sovereignty‘ demanded it. In reality, sovereignty does no such thing. This is pure politics.

Setting a hard 31 December deadline made the task all the harder. Besides the Prime Minister’s nature, to take no decisions until they become unavoidable, both he and Conservative MPs held unfailingly to a belief that the EU only makes concessions and cuts deals at the very last minute, so it is essential to hang tough on all key issues until the end.

These two approaches misunderstood both the EU’s purpose and its methods. It may be what happens at European Councils, but not in external negotiations.

The EU is a cumbersome beast, and though on trade the Commission has sole competence, and therefore some freedom to negotiate, it still needs to be able sell the outcome to member states, many of whom have serious political interests at stake.

Any trade deal is therefore built up through painstaking agreements on the components of a balanced overall package which can be sold to both the member states and the European Parliament on the EU side and domestic constituents in the UK. This is a process of building consensus, not a fight to the death.

In that process, the Internal Market Bill has been a spectacular own goal. To renege on the Withdrawal Agreement and propose to break international law undermined the one thing that might have softened the EU negotiating position – trust.

The EU exists as a community of law, something the UK used to defend vigorously, so to play fast and loose with it on departure is taken as a sign of bad faith and makes getting concessions all the more difficult.

Ultimately, the mantra of ‘taking back control over our borders, our trade and our money’ is therefore not only wrong, but leading the UK into a blind alley of its own making.

It will be no surprise if some members of the Union decide to cut and run back to the main road. Sooner or later, England will have to follow, dragging its precious sovereignty behind it.

Sovereignty and Brexit: control of what exactly? - UK in a changing Europe

As Brexit negotiations continue, Nicholas Westcott looks at how the British government's definition of sovereignty is slowly getting lost.

ukandeu.ac.uk

And you call those that wanted to maintain that level of sovereignty over Europe, a cancer...

Sovereign as in pre-EU. As in our government run the show, as in our government makes the legislation, as in we can call the shots for ourselves, for the UK to be the UK.

If trains now don't run direct to parts of Europe from the UK, tough shit. If some poor scientist person doesn't get funded, tough shit.

All this crap remoaners twine about as important is irrelevant crap, but major to only themselves. Did people vote to join the Common Market because they wanted direct trains and scientists funded? Can you see how stupid your stance is?

Anyone disliking the UK, please just go, please just piss off and go, the country doesn't want them.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Sovereign as in pre-EU. As in our government run the show, as in our government makes the legislation, as in we can call the shots for ourselves, for the UK to be the UK.

If trains now don't run direct to parts of Europe from the UK, tough shit. If some poor scientist person doesn't get funded, tough shit.

All this crap remoaners twine about as important is irrelevant crap, but major to only themselves. Did people vote to join the Common Market because they wanted direct trains and scientists funded? Can you see how stupid your stance is?

Anyone disliking the UK, please just go, please just piss off and go, the country doesn't want them.

The genuine dumb voice of brexit. Celebrating their big result.Winning nothing.

 

[Captain Caveman]

The genuine dumb voice of brexit. Celebrating their big result.Winning nothing.

Sovereignty you retard, not being absorbed and taken over by the EU, you retard. Your IQ is lower than your shoe size.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Sovereignty you retard, not being absorbed and taken over by the EU, you retard. Your IQ is lower than your shoe size.

We have to subit to the EU now to keep the GFA. You have won nothing.
truss is already backing down because she cant afford a trade war.
Youve been had.

 

[Captain Caveman]

We have to subit to the EU now to keep the GFA. You have won nothing.
truss is already backing down because she cant afford a trade war.
Youve been had.

We have to what?

 

[Vagabond63]

Sovereign as in pre-EU. As in our government run the show, as in our government makes the legislation, as in we can call the shots for ourselves, for the UK to be the UK.

Hmm, that worked so well before we joined the EEC, Britain was known as the sick man of Europe. Now that we have "sovereignty" we are rapidly heading back to that status. Here's what we influenced when we were members.

"But there were compensations. The relative decline of the UK vis-a-vis the EU stopped almost the second it joined. More competition and access to a huge market count.

Then under Margaret Thatcher, the UK had a huge influence on the future direction of the EU. It led the bloc’s move away from a frankly ridiculous amount of spending on agriculture towards the real benefits of such an economic grouping, the single market. There is even a debate about whether membership of the EU was more important to the UK than those far more famous Thatcherite reforms, or even whether it made them possible.

It was Thatcher’s appointment to the European Commission, Lord Cockfield, who led the charge to create a proper single market. In fact, he helped to create the largest market in the world; barriers to trade were reduced, co-ordination of standards and regulations was enhanced, subsidies cut, national champions were forced to compete, all leading to an increasingly level playing field.

The airline industry is a perfect example. Europe’s airspace was forced open, competition encouraged, new entrants to the sector thrived, new routes multiplied, fares fell, and standards improved. Ryanair and EasyJet became huge airlines – a previously impossible achievement.

As part of the changes that created the single market, the EU became a standards superpower. If you wanted to do business in the EU, you had to meet its common standards. These have become the gold standard of standards, so to speak, and allowed the EU to become a rule-maker, not a rule-taker, something the UK is going to discover to its cost.

But while it was a member, this gave the UK a huge advantage, as one of the most free-market economies in Europe, with a flexible labour market, an excellent legal system and the massive advantage of speaking English. All that and it was still within the single market, meaning it attracted more and more inward investment.

This in turn was a huge boost to productivity, for the simple reason that foreign firms that wanted to make and sell their products in the EU set up shop in the UK and sent their brightest and best to the UK to do business. They invested vast amounts in the latest technology and managed and trained their workers far better than homegrown firms.

They also demanded that their suppliers did the same – the knock-on effects have been felt far and wide in the UK. Our productivity levels are still lamentable compared with France, Germany, and the US (between 20% and 30% lower) but they would be far, far worse without inward investment." The sick man of Europe is back

If the New European is too "biased" for you, try the Economist

Britain: back to being the sick man of Europe?

Constructing a scenario of British decline is all too easy

www.economist.com

or the London Economic on the New Statesman's report

UK has become the 'sick man of Europe' - reports

It comes as Britain was dubbed the "advanced nations' stagflation capital" as prices continue to rise amid stalled economic growth.

www.thelondoneconomic.com

Nothing to do with trains or scientists, leaving the EU, has really screwed us over, thanks a lot, Brexshitters.

 

[Vagabond63]

Right.

Because a country has more power being ruled over by an unaccountable and distant foreign power than it does being sovereign and self-ruled.

And in related news…

• “War is peace!”
• “Freedom is slavery!”
• “Ignorance is strength!”

Erm, you live in the United States of America? The EU is no different.

 

[Dekster]

This is a tough one to take for the racist trash who voted for brexit. The whole point of btrxit was to kick out the foreigners. Especially the darkies.

And so it came to pass that we are now mass recruiting in the third world to replace all the foreigners who went home.

Bad for our services but also bad for our economy. These people were talented and they worked hard and paid taxes. Now they are gone and sensible people are asking why.
The British are as thick as shit.

View attachment 684579

What makes you think the doctors and nurses they hire from India won't be "talented", "hardworking" or pay taxes? Sounds like a pretty racist attitude to me. Is it because they are brown or because they are foreign? Just trying to pin down your particular xenophobia for future reference.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Erm, you live in the United States of America? The EU is no different.

It's very different.

The United States is a single nation.

What would be comparable to the EU would be if an organization was formed, including Canaduh, Mexico, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Venezuela, and all the other countries in The Americas, and we, the U.S., surrendered our sovereignty, to be ruled over by that organization.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

What makes you think the doctors and nurses they hire from India won't be "talented", "hardworking" or pay taxes? Sounds like a pretty racist attitude to me. Is it because they are brown or because they are foreign? Just trying to pin down your particular xenophobia for future reference.

Yes I know. They were already here before brexit, together with people from Europe.

Brexit saw them leave and now we have to go back to tempt them here again.

We are bringing in loads of nurses from Nepal which is great for us but not so great for Nepal which cannot afford to lose its best people.

The fault lies with the uKs inability to train sufficient people o do these jobs. Mainly due to a tory policy.

Now we disrupt the world to cover up our mistakes.

UK to recruit nurses from Nepal under new government deal | Nursing Times

Up to 100 nurses are to be recruited from Nepal to work in the NHS, despite global restrictions on employing health workers because of staff shortages in

www.nursingtimes.net

 

[Dekster]

Yes I know. They were already here before brexit, together with people from Europe.

Brexit saw them leave and now we have to go back to tempt them here again.

We are bringing in loads of nurses from Nepal which is great for us but not so great for Nepal which cannot afford to lose its best people.

The fault lies with the uKs inability to train sufficient people o do these jobs. Mainly due to a tory policy.

Now we disrupt the world to cover up our mistakes.

UK to recruit nurses from Nepal under new government deal | Nursing Times

Up to 100 nurses are to be recruited from Nepal to work in the NHS, despite global restrictions on employing health workers because of staff shortages in

www.nursingtimes.net

Most of your care homes are going to go under due to your energy prices, so you probably won't need nearly as many as you think.