Cable Forum - Brexit discussion

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Brexit discussion (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33705369)

Re: Brexit discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35949873)

Whereas you falsely assume that every migrant comes here to sign on.

No, I don't, actually! I just want to ensure that we only take in the people that we need. Why is that so difficult to grasp?

Re: Brexit discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35949897)

I just want to ensure that we only take in the people that we need. Why is that so difficult to grasp?

Fully agree with Old Boy on this one.

There are many 'skilled' economic immigrants in the UK that are quite happy (and work well) doing menial unskilled minimum wage work . . because that minimum wage for an unskilled job actually pays more than their 'skilled' job back home (if they can find one).

It works for them, it doesn't work for the UK people who are unable to find work because it's already taken by 'outsiders'. - leave off with 'the uk people won't work' stuff, it's probably only 1% of the unemployed.

Re: Brexit discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35949897)

No, I don't, actually! I just want to ensure that we only take in the people that we need. Why is that so difficult to grasp?

How do you define the people that you need? Seems like a scheme to create lots of well-paid civil service jobs and strangle the British economy with red tape and cost. Move over Jeremy Corbyn, Old Boy will do your job for you! :td:

You seem to be thinking of a model of a centrally-planned economy like the Soviet Union with minimal technological change. Your theory may work ok in such an economic environment but not in a world where yesterday's jobs are outdated in ways that no one can predict and new jobs are created in areas that we would similarly never have considered.

Re: Brexit discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35949906)

No, of course I don't mean that. What I am saying is that if an organisation is unable to recruit a suitably qualified candidate for a position, the government would give that organisation dispensation to recruit from abroad.

We should only allow in the people we need until such time as our population levels reduce below an optimum figure. That way our services and housing needs will be back on an even keel.

I don't know why these simple concepts are eluding some people. It really isn't rocket science!

Re: Brexit discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35949906)

How do you define the people that you need? Seems like a scheme to create lots of well-paid civil service jobs and strangle the British economy with red tape and cost.

Alternatively, we can flood the market with cheap foreign labour, and strangle the UK economy with high unemployment levels, housing shortages etc. :D

It would all be so much easier if the Government introduced legislation that required employers to hire UK workers rather than foreign ones if their skills were of equivalent levels.

Re: Brexit discussion

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...anks-6lf5xdp6h

Quote:

Arron Banks, the millionaire businessman who helped fund Brexit, had three meetings with the Russian ambassador to Britain — raising explosive questions about attempts by Moscow to influence the referendum result.

Emails by Banks and his sidekick Andy Wigmore, shown to The Sunday Times, reveal an extensive web of links between Banks’s Leave.EU campaign and Russian officials.

Re: Brexit discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35949919)

Alternatively, we can flood the market with cheap foreign labour, and strangle the UK economy with high unemployment levels, housing shortages etc. :D

It would all be so much easier if the Government introduced legislation that required employers to hire UK workers rather than foreign ones if their skills were of equivalent levels.

The statistics don’t seem to reflect that statement.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...mployment-rate

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...3&d=1528573474

Re: Brexit discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35949919)

What UK workers, we have all but 100% employment and it could be argued the low skilled migrants are opening up a higher level tier of jobs for British workers to do, not that it matters, if we keep hemoraging foreign investment we might well need those jobs for our own people after all.

Re: Brexit discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35949911)

How on earth do you determine what that optimum level is? You can't because this is not some planned economy without technological innovation.
Plenty of brownfield sites and closed shops that can be converted into housing. As others have explained to you - and I don't know why you turn a deaf ear to the facts - immigrants more than cover the services they use so are not a burden. Yes, a minority don't and they should be deported as legislation permits us to do.
You've not explained the process, timelines and costs behind your proposal but we're talking about a significant burden you propose to impose on British industry to solve a non-existent problem.

---------- Post added at 21:46 ---------- Previous post was at 21:44 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35949937)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...anks-6lf5xdp6h

Absolutely not surprised by this revelation, Brexit has been a God-send to the Russians.

---------- Post added at 22:02 ---------- Previous post was at 21:46 ----------

Interesting piece by former NI negotiation Jonathon Powell in today's FT.

Quote:

Thursday June 7 2018 may go down in history as the day hard Brexit died. It has tripped over the conundrum of the Northern Ireland border, as it was always going to do. The only reason there isn’t more noise is that the Brexiters do not realise it yet.
There was only ever one possible answer to avoiding a hard border, and that is either Northern Ireland or the UK as a whole staying in the customs union and the single market for goods. Finally the British government has accepted the inevitable in its “ backstop” proposal: the UK will stay in the customs union, although it will be called something else, and we will have to negotiate regulatory alignment by remaining in the single market for industrial and agricultural goods. The proposal suggests that the UK will be able to negotiate new trade deals with third countries from this position, but you only have to think about that for a moment to realise it is nonsense. The only area where we would have any scope for separate deals would be on services. And who is going to reach a free-trade agreement with the UK on services alone?

He concludes by pointing out that the only bit of the EU we will be leaving is the one area where we are strongest in — the single market for services.
https://www.ft.com/content/05dc4920-...1-39f3459514fd

Re: Brexit discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35949938)

The statistics don’t seem to reflect that statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35949939)

What UK workers, we have all but 100% employment . .

I know what the 'statistics' say, and I know how they get them.

I guess by 'employment' you guys would be happy with 16hrs a week?

Re: Brexit discussion

We need to find another way to solve the NI border issue than staying in 'a' customs union if such an arrangement allows the EU to sell their strengths to us but not our strength to them. Leave or Remain we're heading for a disaster no-one wants. I wanted to stay in the EU because I think it helps us to have access to that market but it's mental to constrict our access to them but not their access to us!

At the moment it seems they can sell cars to us but we'll face tariffs selling services to them! It's crazy. Brexit is going to leave them laughing at this rate.

Re: Brexit discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35949949)

We've had two years to devise a solution for Ireland and failed. Even if we devised a solution that all members of the Cabinet agreed to, what motivation is there for the EU to accept it? None. The game to me was up on 8 December 2017 when Theresa May signed the backstop agreement which allowed the Brexit talks to move onto the next stage.
The EU will be quite happy for high-value services to relocate from the UK to Dublin and the Continent whilst at the same time selling us their cars and wine. We will continue to fund the EU but be a rule-taker, consulted if they are feeling generous.
If the Brexit deal has to be approved by the British Parliament, I seriously wonder if it will be accepted as by then the penny will have truly dropped.

---------- Post added at 23:23 ---------- Previous post was at 23:01 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35949937)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...anks-6lf5xdp6h

Tomorrow's Observer has further revelations on the scandal.

Quote:

Banks, who gave £12m of services to the campaign, becoming the biggest donor in UK history, has repeatedly denied any involvement with Russian officials, or that Russian money played any part in the Brexit campaign. The Observer has seen documents which a senior Tory MP says, if correct, raise urgent and troubling questions about his relationship with the Russian government.

The communications suggest:

- Multiple meetings between the leaders of Leave.EU and high-ranking Russian officials, from November 2015 to 2017.
- Two meetings in the week Leave.EU launched its official campaign.
- An introduction to a Russian businessman, by the Russian ambassador, the day after Leave.EU launched its campaign, who reportedly offered Banks a multibillion dollar opportunity to buy Russian goldmines.
- A trip to Moscow in February 2016 to meet key partners and financiers behind a gold project, including a Russian bank.
- Continued extensive contact in the run-up to the US election when Banks, his business partner and Leave.EU spokesman Andy Wigmore, and Nigel Farage campaigned in the US to support Donald Trump’s candidacy.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...brexit-meeting

Re: Brexit discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35949848)

Risking the wrath of the off-topic police but here goes :)

They seem very happy to let this naturally flow wherever it is going and we are still talking about the EU here so it does come back full circle. :)

Quote:

Trying to govern a country of mainly non-theist individuals and a disparate set of widely differing faiths based on the tenets of one specific faith is misguided at best, disturbing at worst. So any politician who try to bring their personal beliefs to the (political) table is on a hiding to nothing.

Actually, in the midst of struggling to govern a nation of non believers in such a way shows that his religious principle is unmovable, right?

Not like he gains much from it (politically speaking) so it goes to show that he believes what he says, he means it and it does not matter whether it is unpopular or not.

Would you rather that he ignore his views and pretend to hide them?

Quote:

Quoting scripture to backup an argument is as useful as a chocolate teapot. You can put together justification for most things from the Old and New Testament so it means nothing when reinforcing an objective point.

So? Those of us who have faith in our life do not use it for the purpose of making an objective point. We believe what we believe and irregardless of how it may or may not be ridiculed, we believe it none the less.

Quote:

If JRM ever puts God before Country, he's political toast ...

Again, he won't care - comes back to this EU stuff. When we get up to the gates you think that Saint Peter is really going to care what we did about the bill to leave and referendum?

JRM will not care one hoot if his political career is toast. He is a rich man who is only involved in politics for other people...he isn't doing this for himself.

His true judge is all he will care about.

---------- Post added at 02:31 ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35949867)

I know your belief is sincere, Chloé, but I think we should make up our own minds and think for ourselves on these matters, rather than rely on ancient texts written by people who lacked the depth of understanding we now have. The danger of unconditional belief are amply demonstrated in the rise of ISIL.

Those texts are what guide us into the views that we hold, though - dear or otherwise.

For example (as difficult as it may be) if you saw an Eastern European immigrant who was starving on the street instead of wishing him to be deported I would hope that you would try and help him out / give him a hand.

The teaching of the belief is different and while IS may have painful, hideous and nasty teachings nothing in my faith tells me to show anything but love to my fellow human beings. In following God's laws I try do that to the best of my abilities.

Quote:

Look at abortion from a different perspective. Rather than just quote from a firm 'belief', argue the point that abortion involves the murder of a human being who has consciousness and feeling. The issue should not be whether the baby is capable of living after abortion, but whether it can be conscious of its situation and feel pain. If it can do so, then abortion in those circumstances is murder, pure and simple. Abortion at up to 12 weeks, to my mind, is acceptable, based on what I know.

Let's say that you are correct and that they feel no physical pain before 12 weeks. For me that is irrelevant to my own actions and behavior and could never see any justifications for killing a child in the womb either way. Just because he or she does not feel pain does not justify it at all, IMO. For me, it is still murder and the pain makes it even worse. Even without any pain though, the act is still wrong IMO.

Quote:

As far as the subject of this thread is concerned, I don't think religion is relevant at all. Either Brexit will work or it won't. Personally, I think there are enormous potential benefits from getting out, and the real danger is staying in. This monolithic monstrosity will implode sooner or later, and we don't want to be in it when that happens.

Religion is not relevant? If it was not for the religious divide, Ireland would be whole / one. If that were the case it would be the biggest stumbling block taken care of.

Another thing (on that front) - how difficult is it to get major figures and media to realize the flaw of the word Brexit? Britain - presumably what the BR in Brexit stands for? That is defined as the kingdom of England merging with the Kingdom of Scotland (Wales was a part of England back then). Now the UK...that is the Island of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So if it was truly just "Brexit" then the Ireland issue would not exist, either.

That is tripping this thing up all over the place - the Ireland issue. God's holy own Catholic nation, bordering with the protestants north of the border and there is no way round that.

See why religion is relevant? Because you are correct, it will either work, or it will not.

Without acceptance that religious accommodation is needed, it won't.

Re: Brexit discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35949937)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...anks-6lf5xdp6h

FFS not this bullshit again...

The Russians did not influence the EU Referendum... I did NOT need any assistance from ANY foreign entity to tick 'Leave the EU' and I am damn sure that's the case for the other 17.4 Million other people who voted to leave the EU!!!

Any excuse to find and de-legitimise, a legitimate result....

Re: Brexit discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35949961)

You shouldn't be so sure of the other 17.4 million, just looking at what some posted here confirms that.

---------- Post added at 03:57 ---------- Previous post was at 03:54 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35949948)

I know what the 'statistics' say, and I know how they get them.

I guess by 'employment' you guys would be happy with 16hrs a week?

How do they get them?