Discussion:
Foreign workers in Ambridge
(too old to reply)
Btms
2017-03-19 19:38:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
According to Countryfile Brexit threatens labour availability. I am a bit
confused because first of all we had overseas workers before there was an
EU. Secondly, surely it just means we can decide who gets a work visa as
opposed to their being a right of entry. HMG seem to have said this too.
Back in the 50s we recruited loads of West Indians to come and work in the
transport industry I believe. We may never see Stephan again.
Peter Percival
2017-03-19 20:03:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
According to Countryfile Brexit threatens labour availability. I am a bit
confused because first of all we had overseas workers before there was an
EU. Secondly, surely it just means we can decide who gets a work visa as
opposed to their being a right of entry. HMG seem to have said this too.
Back in the 50s we recruited loads of West Indians to come and work in the
transport industry I believe.
Yes, but the BBC is opposed to Brexit. Those who voted in its favour
are deemed "uneducated". By "uneducated", the BBC means "racist".
Post by Btms
We may never see Stephan again.
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Btms
2017-03-19 20:43:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Btms
According to Countryfile Brexit threatens labour availability. I am a bit
confused because first of all we had overseas workers before there was an
EU. Secondly, surely it just means we can decide who gets a work visa as
opposed to their being a right of entry. HMG seem to have said this too.
Back in the 50s we recruited loads of West Indians to come and work in the
transport industry I believe.
Yes, but the BBC is opposed to Brexit. Those who voted in its favour
are deemed "uneducated". By "uneducated", the BBC means "racist".
Post by Btms
We may never see Stephan again.
That doesn't link to my confusion. It seems a bit of a leap to go from
rights of entry to the notion of no entry when this has never been the
case. Especially never the case for agricultural workers in Ambridge and
similar.
--
BTMS - Usurped as Editor in waiting
Peter Percival
2017-03-19 20:51:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Btms
According to Countryfile Brexit threatens labour availability. I am a bit
confused because first of all we had overseas workers before there was an
EU. Secondly, surely it just means we can decide who gets a work visa as
opposed to their being a right of entry. HMG seem to have said this too.
Back in the 50s we recruited loads of West Indians to come and work in the
transport industry I believe.
Yes, but the BBC is opposed to Brexit. Those who voted in its favour
are deemed "uneducated". By "uneducated", the BBC means "racist".
Post by Btms
We may never see Stephan again.
That doesn't link to my confusion. It seems a bit of a leap to go from
rights of entry to the notion of no entry when this has never been the
case. Especially never the case for agricultural workers in Ambridge and
similar.
You are right. I was explaining the leap in terms of the BBC's agenda.
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Btms
2017-03-19 21:03:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Btms
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Btms
According to Countryfile Brexit threatens labour availability. I am a bit
confused because first of all we had overseas workers before there was an
EU. Secondly, surely it just means we can decide who gets a work visa as
opposed to their being a right of entry. HMG seem to have said this too.
Back in the 50s we recruited loads of West Indians to come and work in the
transport industry I believe.
Yes, but the BBC is opposed to Brexit. Those who voted in its favour
are deemed "uneducated". By "uneducated", the BBC means "racist".
Post by Btms
We may never see Stephan again.
That doesn't link to my confusion. It seems a bit of a leap to go from
rights of entry to the notion of no entry when this has never been the
case. Especially never the case for agricultural workers in Ambridge and
similar.
You are right. I was explaining the leap in terms of the BBC's agenda.
Oh yes. I see what you mean.
--
BTMS - Usurped as Editor in waiting
krw
2017-03-19 22:55:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Back in the 50s we recruited loads of West Indians to come and work in the
transport industry I believe.
And for all sorts of other jobs. Freedom of movement in the EU has made
it a lot easier for UK residents to take benefits and for basic jobs to
be taken by gangmasters running gangs of EU origin people (farms in East
Anglia in particular).
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
tiny.cc/KRWpics
Btms
2017-03-20 07:37:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by krw
Post by Btms
Back in the 50s we recruited loads of West Indians to come and work in the
transport industry I believe.
And for all sorts of other jobs. Freedom of movement in the EU has made
it a lot easier for UK residents to take benefits and for basic jobs to
be taken by gangmasters running gangs of EU origin people (farms in East
Anglia in particular).
Well, making this more difficult sounds like a good thing which will work
to protect these EU folk from gangmasters.
--
BTMS - Usurped as Editor in waiting
Robin Stevens
2017-03-20 19:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
According to Countryfile Brexit threatens labour availability. I am a bit
confused because first of all we had overseas workers before there was an
EU. Secondly, surely it just means we can decide who gets a work visa as
opposed to their being a right of entry. HMG seem to have said this too.
Back in the 50s we recruited loads of West Indians to come and work in the
transport industry I believe. We may never see Stephan again.
I imagine the visa process is costly, lengthy and bureaucratic. Employers
(and probably potential employees) would rather not have to do that if they
can possibly avoid it, especially not for short-term low-paid labour.

I've been involved in recruitment (generally for permanent positions,
almost certainly far better-paid that Adam's strawberry pickers) quite a
bit over the years. We've been told that we can only take on applicants
without permission to work in the UK (slightly broader than "only EU
applicants") if we can demonstrate to the Home Office's satisfaction that
no-one else is available to do the job. To date my group have not had to
go through the visa process for a potential hire, though we've taken on a
lot of staff from other EU countries[1]. I imagine it happens a lot more
with academic roles than for IT.

[1] For some value of "from" - one former employee's right to work here
was as holder of a passport of a country he'd never even visited.
Marjorie
2017-03-21 17:46:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
According to Countryfile Brexit threatens labour availability. I am a bit
confused because first of all we had overseas workers before there was an
EU. Secondly, surely it just means we can decide who gets a work visa as
opposed to their being a right of entry. HMG seem to have said this too.
Back in the 50s we recruited loads of West Indians to come and work in the
transport industry I believe. We may never see Stephan again.
Depends what you mean by "we can decide". The Government will set down
the criteria, and I supsect many people will be disappointed to find
that "we" (individuals) cannot decide these things for ourselves without
being impeded by regulations. We are unlikely to return to a 1950s
scenario, as we had a labour shortage then, and immigration was not seen
as a problem.
--
Marjorie

To reply, replace dontusethisaddress with marje
Btms
2017-03-21 18:23:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marjorie
Post by Btms
According to Countryfile Brexit threatens labour availability. I am a bit
confused because first of all we had overseas workers before there was an
EU. Secondly, surely it just means we can decide who gets a work visa as
opposed to their being a right of entry. HMG seem to have said this too.
Back in the 50s we recruited loads of West Indians to come and work in the
transport industry I believe. We may never see Stephan again.
Depends what you mean by "we can decide". The Government will set down
the criteria, and I supsect many people will be disappointed to find
that "we" (individuals) cannot decide these things for ourselves without
being impeded by regulations. We are unlikely to return to a 1950s
scenario, as we had a labour shortage then, and immigration was not seen
as a problem.
Well yes....but.... sticking to the agricultural world, Countryfile said
there is a prevailing shortage of labour. So, I guess that we, through
HMG, will revert to something like the 50s+ criteria. Not everyone in
Parliament was keen on Brexit so I guess there will be a significant number
who will not want an entire ban on foreign workers.
--
BTMS - Usurped as Editor in waiting
Penny
2017-03-21 18:27:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 17:46:32 +0000, Marjorie
Post by Marjorie
We are unlikely to return to a 1950s
scenario, as we had a labour shortage then, and immigration was not seen
as a problem.
Um, from my recollections it certainly was by some. Signs in boarding house
windows saying "No blacks, no Irish" were a common sight.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-03-21 20:17:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 17:46:32 +0000, Marjorie
Post by Marjorie
We are unlikely to return to a 1950s
scenario, as we had a labour shortage then, and immigration was not seen
as a problem.
Um, from my recollections it certainly was by some. Signs in boarding house
windows saying "No blacks, no Irish" were a common sight.
Some would say that was more xenophobia than the thought that
immigration was a problem; obviously the two overlap, but they aren't
the same thing.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Society has the right to punish wrongdoing; it doesn't have the right to make
punishment a form of entertainment. This is where things have gone wrong:
humiliating other people has become both a blood sport and a narcotic.
- Joe Queenan, RT 2015/6/27-7/3
Marjorie
2017-03-23 09:35:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Penny
On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 17:46:32 +0000, Marjorie
Post by Marjorie
We are unlikely to return to a 1950s
scenario, as we had a labour shortage then, and immigration was not seen
as a problem.
Um, from my recollections it certainly was by some. Signs in boarding house
windows saying "No blacks, no Irish" were a common sight.
Some would say that was more xenophobia than the thought that
immigration was a problem; obviously the two overlap, but they aren't
the same thing.
Yes, that's what I meant. There was overt racism, but most people
accepted that we needed these immigrants to do the jobs we couldn't or
wouldn't do. They just didn't want to live next door to them.
--
Marjorie

To reply, replace dontusethisaddress with marje
Btms
2017-03-21 22:04:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 17:46:32 +0000, Marjorie
Post by Marjorie
We are unlikely to return to a 1950s
scenario, as we had a labour shortage then, and immigration was not seen
as a problem.
Um, from my recollections it certainly was by some. Signs in boarding house
windows saying "No blacks, no Irish" were a common sight.
No change there then. They may find it a challenge to find a collective
noun though.
--
BTMS - Usurped as Editor in waiting
Joe Kerr
2017-03-31 16:09:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
According to Countryfile Brexit threatens labour availability. I am a bit
confused because first of all we had overseas workers before there was an
EU. Secondly, surely it just means we can decide who gets a work visa as
opposed to their being a right of entry. HMG seem to have said this too.
Back in the 50s we recruited loads of West Indians to come and work in the
transport industry I believe. We may never see Stephan again.
I believe that the concern is that there is no longer a visa system in
place. Such a process would need to be set up from scratch, at the right
time, to let in the correct number of suitable people. There is also the
question of whether people would want to come for short term employment
when they are accustomed to being able to move freely at will from one
job, or country, to another, and may face an element of hostility when here.
--
Ric
Btms
2017-03-31 19:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Kerr
Post by Btms
According to Countryfile Brexit threatens labour availability. I am a bit
confused because first of all we had overseas workers before there was an
EU. Secondly, surely it just means we can decide who gets a work visa as
opposed to their being a right of entry. HMG seem to have said this too.
Back in the 50s we recruited loads of West Indians to come and work in the
transport industry I believe. We may never see Stephan again.
I believe that the concern is that there is no longer a visa system in
place.
Other countries manage this; surely UK can.

Such a process would need to be set up from scratch, at the right
Post by Joe Kerr
time, to let in the correct number of suitable people.
Sir Humphrey has got to you. I ay again; other countries manage this.

is also the
Post by Joe Kerr
question of whether people would want to come for short term employment
when they are accustomed to being able to move freely at will from one
job, or country, to another,
Doesn't have to be short term.


and may face an element of hostility when here.
So no change there then.
--
BTMS - Usurped as Editor in waiting
Mike Bayliss
2017-04-03 09:45:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by Joe Kerr
I believe that the concern is that there is no longer a visa system in
place.
Other countries manage this; surely UK can.
Such a process would need to be set up from scratch, at the right
Post by Joe Kerr
time, to let in the correct number of suitable people.
Sir Humphrey has got to you. I ay again; other countries manage this.
The UK has just voted to throw away whatever scheme it currently has
with 27 other countries. It now has to re-invent something it thought
it didn't want, with civil servants who have too much extra work to do
the normal running of the country.

Mike
--
BA9020C 26/11/2003 - The triumph of accounting over engineering.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-04-03 19:28:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@4ax.com>, Mike Bayliss
<mike.bayliss+***@gmail.com> writes:
[]
Post by Mike Bayliss
The UK has just voted to throw away whatever scheme it currently has
with 27 other countries. It now has to re-invent something it thought
it didn't want, with civil servants who have too much extra work to do
the normal running of the country.
Mike
A point that has been occurring to me frequently recently: we keep
hearing mention of "27 ... countries". But, because of the rules of that
organisation, in most of the matters involved, the individual countries
_can't_ make _individual_ arrangements with us [or anyone else, for that
matter] - they have to agree with the other 26. (Part of the reason
_some_ of those who voted for Brexit did so: it wasn't _all_ immigration
concerns.) So, in practice, we _don't_ have to agree things with 27
countries: we have to agree them with _one_ big country. (Which will
take ages to agree its side, because it will have to argue among itself,
if that's grammatical.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Where [other presenters] tackle the world with a box of watercolours, he
takes a spanner. - David Butcher (on Guy Martin), RT 2015/1/31-2/6
Fenny
2017-04-03 19:43:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 20:28:14 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Mike Bayliss
The UK has just voted to throw away whatever scheme it currently has
with 27 other countries. It now has to re-invent something it thought
it didn't want, with civil servants who have too much extra work to do
the normal running of the country.
Mike
A point that has been occurring to me frequently recently: we keep
hearing mention of "27 ... countries". But, because of the rules of that
organisation, in most of the matters involved, the individual countries
_can't_ make _individual_ arrangements with us [or anyone else, for that
matter] - they have to agree with the other 26. (Part of the reason
_some_ of those who voted for Brexit did so: it wasn't _all_ immigration
concerns.) So, in practice, we _don't_ have to agree things with 27
countries: we have to agree them with _one_ big country. (Which will
take ages to agree its side, because it will have to argue among itself,
if that's grammatical.)
The 26 will have to agree with Germany, as they won't want to lose a
valuable trading partner.
--
Fenny

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
krw
2017-04-03 21:01:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fenny
On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 20:28:14 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Mike Bayliss
The UK has just voted to throw away whatever scheme it currently has
with 27 other countries. It now has to re-invent something it thought
it didn't want, with civil servants who have too much extra work to do
the normal running of the country.
Mike
A point that has been occurring to me frequently recently: we keep
hearing mention of "27 ... countries". But, because of the rules of that
organisation, in most of the matters involved, the individual countries
_can't_ make _individual_ arrangements with us [or anyone else, for that
matter] - they have to agree with the other 26. (Part of the reason
_some_ of those who voted for Brexit did so: it wasn't _all_ immigration
concerns.) So, in practice, we _don't_ have to agree things with 27
countries: we have to agree them with _one_ big country. (Which will
take ages to agree its side, because it will have to argue among itself,
if that's grammatical.)
The 26 will have to agree with Germany, as they won't want to lose a
valuable trading partner.
We do buy a lot of their cars.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
tiny.cc/KRWpics
Sam Plusnet
2017-04-04 20:19:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by krw
Post by Fenny
On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 20:28:14 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Mike Bayliss
The UK has just voted to throw away whatever scheme it currently has
with 27 other countries. It now has to re-invent something it thought
it didn't want, with civil servants who have too much extra work to do
the normal running of the country.
Mike
A point that has been occurring to me frequently recently: we keep
hearing mention of "27 ... countries". But, because of the rules of that
organisation, in most of the matters involved, the individual countries
_can't_ make _individual_ arrangements with us [or anyone else, for that
matter] - they have to agree with the other 26. (Part of the reason
_some_ of those who voted for Brexit did so: it wasn't _all_ immigration
concerns.) So, in practice, we _don't_ have to agree things with 27
countries: we have to agree them with _one_ big country. (Which will
take ages to agree its side, because it will have to argue among itself,
if that's grammatical.)
The 26 will have to agree with Germany, as they won't want to lose a
valuable trading partner.
We do buy a lot of their cars.
Each and every one of those 27 countries has their own special interests
(Spain's strong distaste for separatist movement & desire to take
Gibraltar for example) and any one of those countries can block
agreement if they don't get what they want.
Where the interests of one of the 27 conflict with the UK interest, the
EU will side with its member states (it can't really do otherwise).
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter Percival
2017-04-04 20:31:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by krw
Post by Fenny
On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 20:28:14 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Mike Bayliss
The UK has just voted to throw away whatever scheme it currently has
with 27 other countries. It now has to re-invent something it thought
it didn't want, with civil servants who have too much extra work to do
the normal running of the country.
Mike
A point that has been occurring to me frequently recently: we keep
hearing mention of "27 ... countries". But, because of the rules of that
organisation, in most of the matters involved, the individual countries
_can't_ make _individual_ arrangements with us [or anyone else, for that
matter] - they have to agree with the other 26. (Part of the reason
_some_ of those who voted for Brexit did so: it wasn't _all_ immigration
concerns.) So, in practice, we _don't_ have to agree things with 27
countries: we have to agree them with _one_ big country. (Which will
take ages to agree its side, because it will have to argue among itself,
if that's grammatical.)
The 26 will have to agree with Germany, as they won't want to lose a
valuable trading partner.
We do buy a lot of their cars.
Each and every one of those 27 countries has their own special interests
(Spain's strong distaste for separatist movement & desire to take
Gibraltar for example) and any one of those countries can block
agreement if they don't get what they want.
Where the interests of one of the 27 conflict with the UK interest, the
EU will side with its member states (it can't really do otherwise).
It is my belief that the EU (or, more precisely, the rest of the EU)
will try to make things as unpleasant as it can for the UK. Not so much
so as to punish the UK (though there may be some of that) but rather to
say to their own citizens 'look how awful it will be if we leave the EU,
so don't go getting such ideas yourself'.
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
krw
2017-04-04 20:43:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Not so much so as to punish the UK (though there may be some of that)
but rather to say to their own citizens 'look how awful it will be if we
leave the EU, so don't go getting such ideas yourself'.
A belief I share.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
tiny.cc/KRWpics
Btms
2017-04-04 21:34:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by krw
Not so much so as to punish the UK (though there may be some of that)
but rather to say to their own citizens 'look how awful it will be if we
leave the EU, so don't go getting such ideas yourself'.
A belief I share.
I think it inevitable.
--
BTMS - Usurped as Editor in waiting
Sam Plusnet
2017-04-06 19:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by krw
Not so much so as to punish the UK (though there may be some of that)
but rather to say to their own citizens 'look how awful it will be if we
leave the EU, so don't go getting such ideas yourself'.
A belief I share.
I think it inevitable.
Indeed. They would be foolish to take any other approach.
--
Sam Plusnet
Btms
2017-04-04 21:34:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[]
Post by krw
We do buy a lot of their cars.
Each and every one of those 27 countries has their own special interests
(Spain's strong distaste for separatist movement & desire to take
Gibraltar for example) and any one of those countries can block
agreement if they don't get what they want.
Where the interests of one of the 27 conflict with the UK interest, the
EU will side with its member states (it can't really do otherwise).
Which is one of the reasons for the exit
--
BTMS - Usurped as Editor in waiting
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-04-04 22:31:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by krw
Post by Fenny
On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 20:28:14 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Mike Bayliss
The UK has just voted to throw away whatever scheme it currently has
with 27 other countries. It now has to re-invent something it thought
it didn't want, with civil servants who have too much extra work to do
the normal running of the country.
Mike
A point that has been occurring to me frequently recently: we keep
hearing mention of "27 ... countries". But, because of the rules of that
organisation, in most of the matters involved, the individual countries
_can't_ make _individual_ arrangements with us [or anyone else, for that
matter] - they have to agree with the other 26. (Part of the reason
_some_ of those who voted for Brexit did so: it wasn't _all_ immigration
concerns.) So, in practice, we _don't_ have to agree things with 27
countries: we have to agree them with _one_ big country. (Which will
take ages to agree its side, because it will have to argue among itself,
if that's grammatical.)
The 26 will have to agree with Germany, as they won't want to lose a
valuable trading partner.
We do buy a lot of their cars.
(I think Fenny meant they - the other 26 - don't want to lose Germany,
as Germany buys a lot of their products/services.)
Post by Sam Plusnet
Each and every one of those 27 countries has their own special
interests (Spain's strong distaste for separatist movement & desire to
take Gibraltar for example) and any one of those countries can block
agreement if they don't get what they want.
Where the interests of one of the 27 conflict with the UK interest, the
EU will side with its member states (it can't really do otherwise).
Which was the point I was making: we _can't_ negotiate with any single
country of the 27. So in effect we are dealing with 1.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... the greatest musical festival in the world that doesn't involve mud.
- Eddie Mair, RT 2014/8/16-22
Fenny
2017-04-05 00:06:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 23:31:28 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by krw
Post by Fenny
The 26 will have to agree with Germany, as they won't want to lose a
valuable trading partner.
We do buy a lot of their cars.
(I think Fenny meant they - the other 26 - don't want to lose Germany,
as Germany buys a lot of their products/services.)
What I meant is that Germany is the main economic strength of the
Eurozone [1] and once the UK leaves, will be bankrolling most of the
smaller/poorer countries. Whatever Frau Merkel says, Germany can't
really afford to lose the trade with the UK (nor can any of the
others), so will want a deal that makes sure their exports are safe.
Everyone else needs the German economy to stay strong and the value of
the Euro not to tank.

France will whinge and moan whatever happens. This is not news! The
eastern European countries will drag things out for as long as they
are allowed to before Germany kicks them to shut up and get on with
it.

[1] Much of the economic problems of countries like Greece are down to
the rules of the Eurozone not being followed as new entrants joined
the currency. The Germans effectively glossed over things like
interest rates and made sure that once the two sides of Germany had
reunited and stabilised, they weren't going to have any currency
issues.
--
Fenny

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Flop
2017-04-05 08:57:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Which was the point I was making: we _can't_ negotiate with any single
country of the 27. So in effect we are dealing with 1.
And there lies the problem. That 1 has to negotiate with 27.

Each of the 27 has their own agenda. And none will gain by not
permitting an agreement with the UK.

Eg, Spain will try to veto any agreement which does not give it
Gibraltar. But without an agreement it risks the jobs of thousands of
Spanish workers in Gibraltar. Its unemployment is far too high already.

I suspect that the UK has an incredibly powerful hand when it comes to
negotiating. The threat of swapping the EU for the Commonwealth is
terrifying.
--
Flop
General Norman Schwarzkopf was asked if he thought there was room for
forgiveness toward terrorists.
The General said, "I believe that forgiving them is God's function...
OUR job is to arrange the meeting."
Penny
2017-04-05 11:05:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:57:11 +0100, Flop <***@flop.knot.me.uk> scrawled in
the dust...
Post by Flop
Spain will try to veto any agreement which does not give it
Gibraltar. But without an agreement it risks the jobs of thousands of
Spanish workers in Gibraltar. Its unemployment is far too high already.
But surely, since we currently import much of our seasonal* fruit and veg
from Spain, they won't want to lose that market.

*out of season stuff seems to come largely from Africa and S America where
they could probably take up the slack.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Loading...