• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

Parklaner81 said:
Or we could take a look at some of our existing policies and see if we can find a way of training more Doctors, nurses, carers, construction workers ourselves....possibly instead of encouraging droves of youngsters to go to university to study dog grooming, paper folding or other such interests.
Click to expand...

We should anyway. The question is, why do we need Brexit to do this?

At the moment a trainee nurse starts to work on wards towards the end of their course. They are required to carry out a lot of actual nursing work as part of their training. And here's the kicker...they have to pay £8k per year to do this!

All the various things that Brexit is supposed to magically deliver, we could be actively pursuing. Instead we are putting all our faith in "Brexit" a super fix to heal all ills. When in truth all these things (bar sovereignty walob and immigration) could have been addressed by government now, and Brexit itself won't be a magic cure all.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
Give us your plan....i'm interested?
Click to expand...

Have a plan to enhance UK skills.

Have a plan to enhance UK exports.

Have a plan to mitigate the effects of migration.


If we put all the time, money and energy that Brexit commands from the UK into the above, and made it a national drive, then we might actually achieve something. Brexit itself is a white elephant.
 
SpurMeUp said:
We should anyway. The question is, why do we need Brexit to do this?

At the moment a trainee nurse starts to work on wards towards the end of their course. They are required to carry out a lot of actual nursing work as part of their training. And here's the kicker...they have to pay £8k per year to do this!

All the various things that Brexit is supposed to magically deliver, we could be actively pursuing. Instead we are putting all our faith in "Brexit" a super fix to heal all ills. When in truth all these things (bar sovereignty walob and immigration) could have been addressed by government now, and Brexit itself won't be a magic cure all.
Click to expand...

The EU is capitalist. It's driven by the interests of big business, not society.

British nurses aren't trained because it's cheaper to buy-in ready made ones from abroad who will accept lower pay and worse conditions.

Curbing globalisation and putting society ahead of the interests of big business is not possible within the EU.
 
Gutter Boy said:
The EU is capitalist. It's driven by the interests of big business, not society.

British nurses aren't trained because it's cheaper to buy-in ready made one from abroad who will accept lower pay and worse conditions.

Curbing globalisation and putting society ahead of the interests of big business is not possible within the EU.
Click to expand...

Speak to your alter-ego @scaramanga about that. Apparently the EU is a socialist hotbed with things like the working time directive, controls on emissions etc.

There are plenty of British nurses in the NHS, so your point is moot. If government made it cheaper for nurses to train up (paid their Tuition fees for example) we'd have more British nurses.
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
Speak to your alter-ego @scaramanga about that. Apparently the EU is a socialist hotbed with things like the working time directive, controls on emissions etc.

There are plenty of British nurses in the NHS, so your point is mute. If government made it cheaper for nurses to train up (paid their Tuition fees for example) we'd have more British nurses.
Click to expand...

But there's been no need, because foreign workers have been filling the vacancies.

Even aside from training, the jobs are open to EU wide competition, so wages just stay as low as is attractive to Bulgarians and Romanians (the two poorest countries in the EU)

Ending FoM creates the need to invest in training and offer good pay and conditions. There will be less undercutting by importing cheap labour.
 
SpurMeUp said:
We should anyway. The question is, why do we need Brexit to do this?
Click to expand...

Gutter Boy said:
there's been no need, because foreign workers have been filling the vacancies.

Ending FoM creates the need to invest in training and offer good pay and conditions. There will be less undercutting by importing cheap labour.
Click to expand...

What he said.

It'd be nice to think that we could achieve these things without some kind of imperative need to do so. In reality, however, we simply won't. I'm not saying Brexit is a fix-all. But without some kind of spur to action in areas such as this - which, my hope is, that brexit will provide - these things just won't ever happen.
 
SpurMeUp said:
What is the point of Brexit?
  • Sovereignty? Nope. ECJ will rule.
  • Prosperity? Free trade helps wealth. Brexit will reduce free trade with Europe and likely leave the UK less well off.
  • What are we left with? Controlling EU migrants. Tick.Yes. Something. Instead of EU migrants, we'll have to take in people from further afield to do the cleaning jobs, looking after the old and sick, the worst building jobs etc. Result?

The UK government is in limbo, nothing is being done as all departments wait on Brexit. Need to find some positives in this farce. Try to renegotiate our EU membership and enhance our existing membership terms, then move on! Make the UK more competitive, more export focused, invest in skills...while in the EU trading block. Take the aims of Brexit and put in a plan for the UK that can realise more opportunities for working Brits.
Click to expand...
All of those questions have been asked and answered at least once in this thread.

You don't have to go back many pages to see that.
 
scaramanga said:
All of those questions have been asked and answered at least once in this thread.

You don't have to go back many pages to see that.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough you and parklane1 didn't reply to my last posts a few pages back, when we were talking about car manufacturing. Don't worry I don't take that as winning the argument :) @parklane1 and others who thought sovereignty was crucial to Brexit, what do you think about today's news that the ECJ will continue to preside over the UK post 2019?

https://www.ft.com/content/a21cac8c-87ec-11e7-bf50-e1c239b45787

The promises made about Brexit are dissolving slowly. UKIP told us a 'Norway model' would be most likely scenario, where we continue to be part of the customs union. Shelved. Then we were told no EU judges making decisions. Today is the first climb down on that one. Next we'll find out that migration can not be stopped. What was it people were voting for again?
 
SpurMeUp said:
Funnily enough you and parklane1 didn't reply to my last posts a few pages back, when we were talking about car manufacturing. Don't worry I don't take that as winning the argument :) @parklane1 and others who thought sovereignty was crucial to Brexit, what do you think about today's news that the ECJ will continue to preside over the UK post 2019?

https://www.ft.com/content/a21cac8c-87ec-11e7-bf50-e1c239b45787

?
Click to expand...

As usual you have slanted the exact truth of the matter ( mostly to suit the drum you have been banging on for ages). I said earlier in this thread when you are sitting round a table trying to come to a agreement there is give and take ( been there and seen it happen). Not sure of your background but it seems you fail to understand this or just ignoring it. Scara had it right earlier when he suggested that the questions you asked a few posts earlier had been answered before and for what ever reason you seem to have ignored that.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41012265
 
parklane1 said:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41012265
Click to expand...
From your link:

In its new policy paper, the government:

  • Does not rule out ECJ keeping its jurisdiction during the Brexit transition period that is planned after March 2019
  • Promises to work with the EU on the "arrangements for judicial supervision" during this period
The promise to end "direct jurisdiction" in recent policy papers - a phrase not used by Mrs May - has raised questions about what "indirect" jurisdiction the EU court could be left with.

Its the beginning of a climb down. The realisation that we can't simply dictate terms to the EU and have a Brexit exactly as we wish. As you say there have to be compromises, and these compromises don't fit with what people voted for. I'm not sure what my background has to do with Brexit? That I've never negotiated anything myself, and don't get it, is that your point?

What is more important to you, that the UK continues to prosper, and has money to invest in the NHS, skills training etc, or that we are not ruled over by the European Court? Because the EU will not grant free trade access (its biggest bargaining chip) without ECJ and free movement. Moreover you need a single arbiter for any trade disputes. Otherwise which countries laws do you use to settle disputes?
 
SpurMeUp said:
From your link:

In its new policy paper, the government:

  • Does not rule out ECJ keeping its jurisdiction during the Brexit transition period that is planned after March 2019
  • Promises to work with the EU on the "arrangements for judicial supervision" during this period
The promise to end "direct jurisdiction" in recent policy papers - a phrase not used by Mrs May - has raised questions about what "indirect" jurisdiction the EU court could be left with.

Its the beginning of a climb down. The realisation that we can't simply dictate terms to the EU and have a Brexit exactly as we wish. As you say there have to be compromises, and these compromises don't fit with what people voted for. I'm not sure what my background has to do with Brexit? That I've never negotiated anything myself, and don't get it, is that your point?

What is more important to you, that the UK continues to prosper, and has money to invest in the NHS, skills training etc, or that we are not ruled over by the European Court? Because the EU will not grant free trade access (its biggest bargaining chip) without ECJ and free movement. Moreover you need a single arbiter for any trade disputes. Otherwise which countries laws do you use to settle disputes?
Click to expand...

The link also includes the following ( below) and as far as i can see there is no basis in you being convinced Its the beginning of a climb down. The questions you asked have been answered in here and there is no point in going over them again, as for your background i was wondering if you have ever sat down at the table to decide changes that may or may not be made, IF you have then you would know that most starting points at the beginning of these discussions can be changed, its called bargaining and any one who has sat around at these meeting would know that.


Analysis
By BBC Legal Correspondent Clive Coleman
Today's paper does not pin the government's colours to any particular mast.

It throws out a number of possible models for how a trade agreement with the EU would work in terms of resolving disputes.

All of the models make it clear that the ECJ will no longer have sole jurisdiction over disputes.

The key question is how much influence the ECJ would retain under a bilateral agreement with the UK.
 
@parklane1 right so we've gone from never ever will EU judges preside over the UK again, to, the ECJ will no longer have sole jurisdiction! That's not a climb down in your eyes?

No point outlining what I've negotiated as you've already decided my negotiating competence. A bit like you've already decided you back Brexit...despite not know what it will look like, when it will fully happen, whether we will have partial sovereignty or full sovereignty, what the impact will be on the economy, and public spending. I admire your loyalty to the cause. I'm just trying to find out what that cause is. What is it we are gaining again?
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
What is more important to you, that the UK continues to prosper, and has money to invest in the NHS, skills training etc, or that we are not ruled over by the European Court? Because the EU will not grant free trade access (its biggest bargaining chip) without ECJ and free movement. Moreover you need a single arbiter for any trade disputes. Otherwise which countries laws do you use to settle disputes?
Click to expand...

Red pill always wins over blue pill. A mostly benevolent autocracy is still an autocracy

Look at CETA (the EU's free trade deal with Canada). The arbitrary bodies there are the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the WTO, and there's no freedom of movement in CETA.
 
parklane1 said:
The link also includes the following ( below) and as far as i can see there is no basis in you being convinced Its the beginning of a climb down. The questions you asked have been answered in here and there is no point in going over them again, as for your background i was wondering if you have ever sat down at the table to decide changes that may or may not be made, IF you have then you would know that most starting points at the beginning of these discussions can be changed, its called bargaining and any one who has sat around at these meeting would know that.


Analysis
By BBC Legal Correspondent Clive Coleman
Today's paper does not pin the government's colours to any particular mast.

It throws out a number of possible models for how a trade agreement with the EU would work in terms of resolving disputes.

All of the models make it clear that the ECJ will no longer have sole jurisdiction over disputes.

The key question is how much influence the ECJ would retain under a bilateral agreement with the UK.
Click to expand...

For me it is not a climb down - as with much of the outcome it will be natural political position that is reached.
Much of what was presented as possible by Leave was idealistic not realistic - this is a good example of what is realistically achievable.

The problem *may* come if too many of the Leave "promises" reach their realistic position (as apposed to ideological position) too close together as that has the potential to get the Leavers knickers in a twist - although I sense there may be a be of resignation setting in that the golden chalices are not going to happen.
Politically it's lose-lose for the party delivering Brexit.
(And lose for whoever takes over as they will have to govern a brick show - but that's just my opinion)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back