Bit of Brexit info required. | Page 249 | Vital Football

Bit of Brexit info required.

You keep going on about decades. These are the decades we have been in the EU with limitless cheap labour !

As far as I can remember the US has not been in the EU and the same applies to their so called wage growth and how it's been lagging behind for decades.

Employment has increased but only using a dubious definition of employment. You also have to question how many of those jobs are insecure and low quality (taken by desperate people), such as ZHC, gig economy/bogus self-employment.

Fastest wage increase in 10 years means nothing if you consider that we've never recovered from the 2008 recession which contrary the fanciful thoughts of many brexitiers has not a jot to do with being in the EU. Low inflation reflects the economic demand.
 
Clearly a mistake and there are several others when it comes to the wackier policies of her party.
But, in general, she's awesome.

What exactly is awesome about Caroline Lucas ? The thing I still find strangest about Brexit is which parties do and don't support it. The Green Party support the EU even though it results in things like car parts being trundled all round Europe, moving the Parliament from Brussells to Strasbourg etc all of which seem very environmentally unfriendly. The Conservatives largely support Brexit, even though the EU supplies cheap Labour to all their rich businesses. Meanwhile the Labour Party oppose Brexit because they will quite happily sell the poorer workers down the river because they believe that migrants will generally vote for them. (The Blair Policy).
 
As far as I can remember the US has not been in the EU and the same applies to their so called wage growth and how it's been lagging behind for decades.

Employment has increased but only using a dubious definition of employment. You also have to question how many of those jobs are insecure and low quality (taken by desperate people), such as ZHC, gig economy/bogus self-employment.

Fastest wage increase in 10 years means nothing if you consider that we've never recovered from the 2008 recession which contrary the fanciful thoughts of many brexitiers has not a jot to do with being in the EU. Low inflation reflects the economic demand.

The USA is not in the EU, but has had inward migration of 15 million (the ones they know about!) in the past 20 years, which probably helps prove my point that migration keeps wages lower. Again as I've said before, with a limited supply of labour companies have to invest to get jobs done. This increases productivity and increases wages. You don't get insecure gig economy style jobs in a limited labour market, as anyone with any sense would leave for a better permanent job.

The recession here wasn't to do with the EU, but whereas our economy recovered the not-fit-for-purpose Euro has helped ruin economies like Greece, Italy, Spain and even Ireland for years.
 
How Phillip Hammond may have already cost us £8 billion pounds ? Hopefully this is part of the withdrawal agreement, and we can still get our money back? Courtesy of The Daily Telegraph letters.

As a member of the board of governors of the European Investment Bank (EIB), Mr Hammond signed off on a most unattractive agreement under which Britain would dispose of its interest in the bank on terms that clearly inequitably benefit the EU to our disadvantage.

Britain owns 16.1 per cent of the EIB. The Withdrawal Agreement provides that Britain will be repaid its nominal capital of €3.5 billion, but will leave its rightful share of the retained earnings, €7.6 billion, for the remaining EU-27 members’ benefit. Worse, Britain only gets back the nominal capital over 12 years in equal instalments, the final one being in December 2030 – and no interest is to be paid during this period.

This EIB settlement is so obviously completely inequitable that it is surprising that it has not yet received much attention.

It’s not as though the EIB can’t afford to buy Britain out at fair value. It makes a profit of around €2 billion a year. It has already approved a pro-rata capitalisation of a small part of its extensive reserves to replace Britain’s paid-in capital.

Ignoring the significant value of deferred payment over 12 years, the £7 billion Britain proposes to give away to the EIB amounts to nearly a fifth of the £39 billion “divorce bill”.

Was not Mr Hammond’s acceptance of this settlement a further example of the defeatism to which Mr Moore refers?

Viscount Trenchard (Con)
London SW1
 
How Phillip Hammond may have already cost us £8 billion pounds ? Hopefully this is part of the withdrawal agreement, and we can still get our money back? Courtesy of The Daily Telegraph letters.

As a member of the board of governors of the European Investment Bank (EIB), Mr Hammond signed off on a most unattractive agreement under which Britain would dispose of its interest in the bank on terms that clearly inequitably benefit the EU to our disadvantage.

Britain owns 16.1 per cent of the EIB. The Withdrawal Agreement provides that Britain will be repaid its nominal capital of €3.5 billion, but will leave its rightful share of the retained earnings, €7.6 billion, for the remaining EU-27 members’ benefit. Worse, Britain only gets back the nominal capital over 12 years in equal instalments, the final one being in December 2030 – and no interest is to be paid during this period.

This EIB settlement is so obviously completely inequitable that it is surprising that it has not yet received much attention.

It’s not as though the EIB can’t afford to buy Britain out at fair value. It makes a profit of around €2 billion a year. It has already approved a pro-rata capitalisation of a small part of its extensive reserves to replace Britain’s paid-in capital.

Ignoring the significant value of deferred payment over 12 years, the £7 billion Britain proposes to give away to the EIB amounts to nearly a fifth of the £39 billion “divorce bill”.

Was not Mr Hammond’s acceptance of this settlement a further example of the defeatism to which Mr Moore refers?

Viscount Trenchard (Con)
London SW1

Of course if we dont leave we keep the £7b?
 
Of course if we dont leave we keep the £7b?

Shows how the EU works though. We are not allowed any of the benefits of the EU if we are outside it. I understand that, but they still want us to keep paying in. I believe we are happy to stay in the EIB, but the EU won't allow that. If they force us to leave they should immediately pay us our 11 billion euro's back. Of course they won't allow us to participate, but they will keep our money, and won't even pay us any interest on it .

They have actually reduced the amount invested in the UK by about £5 billion, even whilst we are a 16% shareholder of the EIB, for having the temerity to vote to leave.
 
Shows how the EU works though. We are not allowed any of the benefits of the EU if we are outside it. I understand that, but they still want us to keep paying in. I believe we are happy to stay in the EIB, but the EU won't allow that. If they force us to leave they should immediately pay us our 11 billion euro's back. Of course they won't allow us to participate, but they will keep our money, and won't even pay us any interest on it .

They have actually reduced the amount invested in the UK by about £5 billion, even whilst we are a 16% shareholder of the EIB, for having the temerity to vote to leave.

Of course and we would do the same. We chose to leave, albeit in the worst democratic charade ever seen in the uk, no longer in a position to ask for special treatment.

What your post does is highlight the needless losses yet we are still no clearer on the gains- some kind of freedom- mainly for people like rees mogg to put the pension age to 75!

Stepping up my own no deal arrangements
 
In the vote of confidence in 2016 172 of 212 Labour MPs couldn't support Corbyn, so why should the electorate. We also voted to Leave and 80% of the MPs voted into Parliament were voted in on a mandate to honour this.

The problem is the working classes see house prices rocketing and wages not keeping up with inflation. 498 MPs voted to implement article 50. Even Corbyn is saying he would leave, but of course he wants a Labour leave. Not that anyone knows what Labour wants either !

I find hilarious that his statement is coming from the very person who has been lauding wage growth...
 
I find hilarious that his statement is coming from the very person who has been lauding wage growth...

You have totally missed my point. Wage growth has only happened over the last 12 months or so. During this period EU migration has declined. Prior to that (and the referendum) there has been no real wages growth for a decade. During this period we were IN the EU with mass inward migration. You need to read the points made properly !
 
You have totally missed my point. Wage growth has only happened over the last 12 months or so. During this period EU migration has declined. Prior to that (and the referendum) there has been no real wages growth for a decade. During this period we were IN the EU with mass inward migration. You need to read the points made properly !

No, you need to understand that real wage growth has not grown since the 70's and it has nothing to do with this so called "mass inward migration" from the EU.

The root cause for lack of growth for the last decade was the 2008 crash and not the "mass inward migration" from the EU. Following the crash companies and government institutions had to cut their cloth due to austerity and others used it as an excuse to freeze wage growth and/or reduce payroll numbers.
 
Wow, no one said anything yet about bojo making the queen suspend partliament.

Hes certainly enjoying taking the power back. Wot a pity no one voted for him!

So come brexiteers, please explain how this is democracy?
 
Wow, no one said anything yet about bojo making the queen suspend partliament.

Hes certainly enjoying taking the power back. Wot a pity no one voted for him!

So come brexiteers, please explain how this is democracy?

It does sound odd but seems to be legitimate. Don't think he could talk the Queen into anything dubious. From here it does get more interesting.
 
It does sound odd but seems to be legitimate. Don't think he could talk the Queen into anything dubious. From here it does get more interesting.
Really depends on your definition of legitimate ORF! I can't think of much that is less legit. It is certainly far removed from normal, or morally acceptable.

It is the act of a tin pot dictator. Everybody knows it, some don't care.
(It isn't the queen's fault.)
 
Can churn out all the old arguments about Parliament voted to give the decision to the people and they would implement the decision , the people voted to leave, the people voted 80% politicians in who said they would honour the referendum. Note the referendum was Remain or Leave, not leave only if the EU are nice to us.

The two faced politicians such as Soubry, Wollaston, Grieve etc all stood on a mandate of honouring the referendum. It's clear that the likes of the never elected Gina Miller, and numerous politicians want to stop the implementation of the referendum. They voted to implement article 50 by a majority of 384. They have had over two years to rescind this, but even now the Labour leader won't say what he wants. Remain still have next week to stop things, but they are clearly going to have to make a decision. We can't just keep postponing things for ever. Hopefully things will be sorted out this time, and the result of a democratic election will be implemented, and in future on other referendums on other matters, it should be clear that the result is legally binding.
 
Telegraph Wollaston has been in three parties and an independent since the election !

Liberal Democrat defector Sarah Wollaston was tonight accused of hypocrisy after it emerged she had lobbied for automatic by-elections for MPs who switch parties, despite refusing to face one herself.
The former Tory MP, who defected to Change UK in February, before joining the Liberal Democrats on Wednesday defied calls to go back the polls in Totnes.
She claimed her constituents, of whom only 13 per cent voted Lib Dem at the 2017 general election, did not want a Conservative candidate but a “centrist” MP.
She said: “Many of my constituents have been rather horrified by the way the Conservative Party have shifted to the right.
"And I was selected originally by a fully open postal primary, the first in the country, so I think that people do have a support across my constituency for that kind of centre ground approach."
The Lib Dems were backed by just a quarter of the numbers of voters who voted for the Tories in Totnes two years ago - although the Lib Dems consistently finished second to the Conservatives in the constituency until their vote share collapsed following the 2010 coalition.
In 2011, Dr Wollaston, a former GP, supported a 10-minute rule bill that proposed that any colleague who had crossed the floor “should trigger an automatic by-election so that their constituencies can have the final say on their decision”.

Tonight, former Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith said the purpose of the legislation Dr Wollaston voted for was “to give people in constituencies the right to decide if they want someone to continue to represent them when their circumstances have changed”.
“If they vote for a Conservative and then end up with a Lib-Dem that must require such a vote. Dr Wollaston must now do so or risk the damaging charge of hypocrisy.”
Earlier, Conservative Party chairman James Cleverly tweeted: “Part of the Brexit vote was about the frustration millions of people had with the political system.
“The perception that MPs were unaccountable, didn’t stick to their promises, were hypocrites etc. Sarah’s actions can only reinforce that negativity.”
Explaining her decision to join the Lib Dems on Wednesday night, Dr Wollaston said: "As the strongest party for Remainers, we will lead the fight to stop Brexit."
During a grilling by BBC presenter Victoria Derbyshire on her show today, Dr Wollaston was asked whether she would describe herself as principled: “Er, well, I would describe myself as principled but…”
Ms Derbyshire interrupted: “So when are you holding a by-election in your constituency?” to which Dr Wollaston replied: “That should be part of a general election.”.

Tonight Dr Wollaston said a temporary Jeremy Corbyn led government would be “the lesser of two evils” in order to prevent a no-deal Brexit, but added she believed it would have no chance of support from former Tory colleagues.
She told The Guardian: "Obviously, as the lesser of two evils, I would have to make a judgment and probably say: you know what, I think it would be worse to have no deal.
"But you need five or six Tories to do it, and I’m sorry but they are just not going to do it. But they could vote for a strictly time-limited elder statesman who could command broader support, there are plenty of those figures around.”