Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
GreenDevil

Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, crouch said:

Did I say the the US style was the only alternative? It is an outlier that shows where privatisation can lead if you're not careful.

Well in the post I quoted, you only referred to the NHS and the US. Personally I see nothing wrong with a health insurance element, and strong incentives to healthy lifestyles and keeping fundamentally healthy people from using expensive doctor and hospital resources. AIUI US healthcare is expensive because of the cost of training and insurance of healthcare professionals. The NHS outsources a lot of the training to countries we import doctors from, and litigation is not so deeply ingrained in the UK culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, onlooker said:

Well in the post I quoted, you only referred to the NHS and the US. Personally I see nothing wrong with a health insurance element, and strong incentives to healthy lifestyles and keeping fundamentally healthy people from using expensive doctor and hospital resources. AIUI US healthcare is expensive because of the cost of training and insurance of healthcare professionals. The NHS outsources a lot of the training to countries we import doctors from, and litigation is not so deeply ingrained in the UK culture.

My post was not a detailed comparative analysis of health systems and was not meant to be.

I'm sure you're right but more complex than you say:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/why-is-american-health-care-so-ridiculously-expensive/274425/

Edited by crouch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GrizzlyDave said:

A50 extended?

or

A50 revoked?

A technicality, it's the UK's choice. However, revoking and restarting A50 again will be massively in UK's favour as it takes the pressure off and puts it on the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, kzb said:

Maternity leave – UK: 52 weeks, EU: 14 weeks

That's ********, what is that website you are quoting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

A technicality, it's the UK's choice. However, revoking and restarting A50 again will be massively in UK's favour as it takes the pressure off and puts it on the EU.

It can't.  and no it doesn't.

A50 can only be revoked in good faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

That's ********, what is that website you are quoting?

He is lying. In Poland maternity leave is 52 weeks @ 80% full salary for the year. With full employement security. 

Leavers will stoop to no end to justify their vile hatred and xenophobia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kzb said:

I gave the link in the post.

https://facts4eu.org/news/2019_feb_workers_rights

I must admit I've posted without checking every detail.  I'm interested in where it might be factually wrong so please tell us.

Or indeed any detail. The reference to the ridiculous EU law on cookies (another EU law we supported) and the banner saying "Pro Brexit facts" should have been a give away. 

It is comparing the UK with the lowest standards found in any EU state. Pretty dishonest and you should have checked before you posted. 

Anyway shouldn't we be comparing ourselves with Germany/France, or will Leavers declare Brexit a success if we manage to avoid becoming poorer than Bulgaria/Romania.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Or indeed any detail. The reference to the ridiculous EU law on cookies (another EU law we supported) (1) and the banner saying "Pro Brexit facts" should have been a give away. 

It is comparing the UK with the lowest standards found in any EU state (2). Pretty dishonest and you should have checked before you posted. 

Anyway shouldn't we be comparing ourselves with Germany/France, or will Leavers declare Brexit a success if we manage to avoid becoming poorer than Bulgaria/Romania.

(1)  When you say "we" supported it:  previously when I said something like this,  I was reminded that UK MEPs do not vote as a UK bloc.  MEPs vote on party lines, not national lines.  So how do we know if UK MEPs, as a group, supported or rejected anything?

(2)  is it, or are they comparing with some overarching EU minimum standard?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, ZeroSumGame said:

It can't.  and no it doesn't.

A50 can only be revoked in good faith.

Not sure that is correct.

44 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

A technicality, it's the UK's choice. However, revoking and restarting A50 again will be massively in UK's favour as it takes the pressure off and puts it on the EU.

Fair enough. Revoking A50 is a tough sell to brexiteers though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

https://unherd.com/2019/02/why-europe-cant-cope/

For its part, the Italian government did not hide its anger when the Commission accepted that the French budget deficit for 2019 would rise over the 3% limit because of the concessions made by President Macron to try to end the gilet jaunes protests. France will have managed to keep within the 3% rule now only twice in ten years, but it is Italy’s willingness to stick to the fiscal rules which the New Hanseatic League of north European and Baltic states which will be used as the pre-requisite for fiscal discipline.

In part, this distinction between member-states’ rule breaking reflects the fact that Italy’s debt burden is significantly higher than France’s and investors are much warier of the risks. But it also arises because the European Union works through an internal hierarchy in which – as Jean-Claude Junker blurted out in 2016 when explaining why France was being given yet more leeway over its budget deficit – France is France.

Edited by cock-eyed octopus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.nibusinessinfo.co.uk/content/eu-laws-maternity-rights-and-parental-leave

Women are entitled to take at least 14 weeks maternity leave before and/or after childbirth - and must take at least two weeks leave before and/or after childbirth.

Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kzb said:

(1)  When you say "we" supported it:  previously when I said something like this,  I was reminded that UK MEPs do not vote as a UK bloc.  MEPs vote on party lines, not national lines.  So how do we know if UK MEPs, as a group, supported or rejected anything?

(2)  is it, or are they comparing with some overarching EU minimum standard?

 

1 We is the UK government.

2.  There laws reflect the minimum in any EU state, there are rules about not cutting rights and treating different types or worker fairly but the EU does not force states to implement a set EU wide minimum standard 

Anyway the issue here is that again you are lost in your hatred of the EU that you believe any anti EU drivel no matter how ridiculous it clearly is.     

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, crouch said:

MMT is bunkum because in a fiat currency system the potential extraction through seignorage does have a limit beyond which hyper inflation is likely to occur but MMT ignores this.

 

MMT has significant shortcomings w.r.t foreign trade and investment. It is inflationary by design. Hyperinflation, however, requires very specific pre-conditions in foreign currency obligations and a loss of tax revenue and productive resources. Printing money just doesn't get you there. In Weimar Germany war reparations were one third of German spending and the budget deficit fully one half of GDP. When the German govt defaulted on its obligations French and Belgian troops occupied the Ruhr resulting in widespread strikes and massive idle capacity. It simply isn't credible to assert that the UK will experience a similar hyperinflation in the forseeable future. Of course, if the private sector economy isn't deleveraged then eventually the UK govt's cumulative borrowing requirements will become a liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, ****-eyed octopus said:

 

https://unherd.com/2019/02/why-europe-cant-cope/

For its part, the Italian government did not hide its anger when the Commission accepted that the French budget deficit for 2019 would rise over the 3% limit because of the concessions made by President Macron to try to end the gilet jaunes protests. France will have managed to keep within the 3% rule now only twice in ten years, but it is Italy’s willingness to stick to the fiscal rules which the New Hanseatic League of north European and Baltic states which will be used as the pre-requisite for fiscal discipline.

In part, this distinction between member-states’ rule breaking reflects the fact that Italy’s debt burden is significantly higher than France’s and investors are much warier of the risks. But it also arises because the European Union works through an internal hierarchy in which – as Jean-Claude Junker blurted out in 2016 when explaining why France was being given yet more leeway over its budget deficit – France is France.

They would say that wouldn't they

The site is funded by Paul Marshall, founder of Marshall Wallace, one of Europe's largest hedge-funds. He gave £100,000 to the Leave campaign. He also co-edited The Orange Book, a free-market loving tome which is influential among the right-wing of the Lib Dems. Now, he's giving four years of financial backing to a career Tory politico/editor to end the cruel silencing of the incredibly wealthy.

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/a3d95p/the-unherd-and-the-whining-of-the-perfectly-well-represented

Brexit is for the very rich. Not for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:
1 hour ago, ZeroSumGame said:

It can't.  and no it doesn't.

A50 can only be revoked in good faith.

Not sure that is correct.

OK. Prove me wrong then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

MMT has significant shortcomings w.r.t foreign trade and investment. It is inflationary by design. Hyperinflation, however, requires very specific pre-conditions in foreign currency obligations and a loss of tax revenue and productive resources. Printing money just doesn't get you there. In Weimar Germany war reparations were one third of German spending and the budget deficit fully one half of GDP. When the German govt defaulted on its obligations French and Belgian troops occupied the Ruhr resulting in widespread strikes and massive idle capacity. It simply isn't credible to assert that the UK will experience a similar hyperinflation in the forseeable future. Of course, if the private sector economy isn't deleveraged then eventually the UK govt's cumulative borrowing requirements will become a liability.

I quite agree but it's getting traction somewhere:

https://www.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ommt-modern-monetary-theory-how-pay-for-policies-2019-1?r=US&IR=T

As a POTUS wanabe she's obviously attracted by the "deficits don't matter" idea to support egregious spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

1 We is the UK government.

2.  There laws reflect the minimum in any EU state, there are rules about not cutting rights and treating different types or worker fairly but the EU does not force states to implement a set EU wide minimum standard (*)

Anyway the issue here is that again you are lost in your hatred of the EU that you believe any anti EU drivel no matter how ridiculous it clearly is.     

 

I don't hate the EU. 

(*)  the specific question on Maternity Rights is set by Directive 2010/18/EU.  The EU forced states to implement this by sometime in 2012. 

However the main point is about people who believe our rights are only protected by EU directives.  In most cases the EU Directive is way below that enshrined in UK legislation.  This is the point. 

It isn't about most countries exceeding the EU minimum, it is about how much our rights are protected by the EU.  Turns out not much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ZeroSumGame said:

OK. Prove me wrong then.

Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State — for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired — to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=208636&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1297534

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

They would say that wouldn't they

The site is funded by Paul Marshall, founder of Marshall Wallace, one of Europe's largest hedge-funds. He gave £100,000 to the Leave campaign. He also co-edited The Orange Book, a free-market loving tome which is influential among the right-wing of the Lib Dems. Now, he's giving four years of financial backing to a career Tory politico/editor to end the cruel silencing of the incredibly wealthy.

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/a3d95p/the-unherd-and-the-whining-of-the-perfectly-well-represented

Brexit is for the very rich. Not for us.

And you would say that wouldn't you.

What is wrong with the article?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State — for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired — to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=208636&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1297534

That's during the (extended) lifetime of A50.

You haven't answered my question. The revocation MUST be in good faith.

Quote

The final and most important departure from the Advocate General’s Opinion concerns the conditions regulating the unilateral right of revocation. At point 148 of the Opinion it is claimed that the principles of good faith and sincere cooperation (Article 4(3) TEU) function as limits on the exercise of revocation

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ZeroSumGame said:

That's during the (extended) lifetime of A50.

You haven't answered my question. The revocation MUST be in good faith.

 

I think that’s a massive overstretch of A4

The UK can unilaterally revoke A50. It does not need to provide any reason.

That’s what unconditional means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, kzb said:

I don't hate the EU. 

(*)  the specific question on Maternity Rights is set by Directive 2010/18/EU.  The EU forced states to implement this by sometime in 2012. 

However the main point is about people who believe our rights are only protected by EU directives.  In most cases the EU Directive is way below that enshrined in UK legislation.  This is the point. 

It isn't about most countries exceeding the EU minimum, it is about how much our rights are protected by the EU.  Turns out not much.

The EU rules make it difficult to cut rights once granted. It is losing this that the current concern is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   325 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.