[ingliz]

It's peak irony when communists or socialists make this argument,

I can make any argument that serves my purposes.

Which. in this thread, at this time, is mocking Baff's 'Britain rules the waves' silliness.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I can make any argument that serves my interest.

And I can point out the incoherence of your argument.

Also, since we've now established that you don't have anything to fear regarding your pension payment, it's somewhat murky what your interest in Brexit actually is. It increasingly looks like as if your main motivation is just an intense dislike of the English, which verges on the irrational.

[ingliz]

your interest

It is in everyone's interest to mock stupidity.

You cannot argue with it.

we've now established that you don't have anything to fear regarding your pension payment

We have only established what should happen regarding my pension payment. We will see what happens soon enough.

[Baff]

No mate we've established that your pension is already qualified and being paid and that the EU law you cited is entirely unrelated to you. A faux grievance. An attempt to paint yourself the victim of UK injustice rather than someone enjoying the security of UK taxpayer subsidence.

@ingliz We rule the waves mate. China, US, Russia, Britain in that order... but not you.
Never you.
Why not? Because we know you are out to get us if you can.

And that is the simple truth of it.
You will never rule here, because you mean us ill.
And we know it.

You command a hostile response.
History demands we take it seriously and we do.

Do we rule the waves, yes.
That's why we honour your people above the EU.
For the part they played in that victory.

That's why we give you privileges over them.
Like chipping in for your pension in a "pro rata" agreement with people who have nothing to pro rata back with.

You want to be told that you are in charge. World leaders. That your historical humiliations have been overturned.
That you are part of something so big and so powerful the world has to do as you say.
But you aren't. You haven't and we don't.

And once again, plucky little old Britain is showing you clowns the finger.
And embarrassingly for you as crap and useless and stupid as we are... we are still better than you.
Gutted.

And I can point out the incoherence of your argument.

Also, since we've now established that you don't have anything to fear regarding your pension payment, it's somewhat murky what your interest in Brexit actually is. It increasingly looks like as if your main motivation is just an intense dislike of the English, which verges on the irrational.

Basically nails it.

There is a story there I suppose.


The other category of remainer I forgot, is one who is married to an EU person.
That kind of loyalty overrides loyalty to your own country.

I find it highly understandable.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

It is in everyone's interest to mock stupidity.

Since there's nothing more stupid than communism, my post served that purpose just fine.

We have only established what should happen regarding my pension payment. We will see what happens soon enough.

The possibility that the UK unilaterally reneges on the bilateral agreement is remote at best, and in this thread you've consistently conflated your own rather different situation with that of pensioners whose pensions actually are likely affected in some way by a no-deal Brexit.

[Baff]

Tne agreement covers the funding of the pension,
If he took a year out of his ten qualifying years to work in Malta, it would have still counted as a qualifying year to his UK pension.
He has qualified for it.
By the sounds of it he qualified for it 10 years before the EU even existed and 20-30 years before the law he crapping on about came in to give the same deal to all EU countries.

Just a great big play for victimhood.

The cancellation of this deal will affect anyone currently employed in the UK.
They will not necessarily be allowed to count work done in their home countries as qualifying towards a UK pension anymore.
Given that we have 5 million of them working here. and almost none of ours working there. This kind of a pro rata deal on pension contributions stands to leave the UK out of pocket by billions.
It should never have been agreed and can't be cancelled too soon.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

How pension contributions are counted is one factor. The other main one is whether the payment is index-linked or "uprated". Brits in NZ with UK pension entitlements don't have index-linked pensions, which obviously eats into the payment after a few years. I know a few who have just transferred whatever they've accumulated as a lump sum. Bilateral social security agreements usually provide for uprating, as do EU regulations. It's understandable that pensioners want clarity on this, but again the UK can hardly be blamed for the delay.

Edit: The exchange rate is also a factor although that is obviously a risk you knowingly take if you move abroad and get your pension paid in GBP.

[JohnRawls]

A globalist visionary cabal that is pouring hundreds of thousands migrants from third world every year. Because they think it is amazing and good.

So either by Europeans or a globalist cabal which Brexit not going to fix anyways. So what is the point of Brexit again?

[Albert]

To show the middle finger, of coarse, to our all benevolent globalist cabal!

Go them all pretty riled up as you can see.

[Baff]

We aren't going to fix the globalist cabal?

oow.

Can we? Can we?

[ingliz]

The possibility that the UK unilaterally reneges on the bilateral agreement is remote at best.

Ignoring the spin, we know that the UK will be seeking to renegotiate terms of the Social Security Convention post brexit.

In a ministerial declaration where he gave an update on affairs related to Brexit, Joseph Muscat said that, until EU-level negotiations with Britain were concluded, it had been agreed that the member states would not negotiate bilaterally with the UK.

Britain’s attitude had been “very conducive to continued good relations with Malta”, and that the idea had also emerged that the two countries will negotiate a comprehensive framework agreement on various sectors, which will capture the UK-Malta agreements concluded over the years - including before Malta was an EU member.

And, if the brexit negotiations are anything to go by, it is not unthinkable that the UK walks away.

Looking further ahead than the next two years, many employers are now starting to plan for a three-to-five-year period and therefore may need to budget on a worst-case basis for the potential increased costs for new assignments.

[Soldmann]

Are you sure?

A legal action to establish whether the UK can unilaterally revoke Art.50 has been referred to the European Court of Justice by the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

No. I am not sure. I have read the article 50 of the treaty

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

Ir says that the state will leave the EU automatically two years later. There is mentioned how this period can be prolonged and how this state can reenter but not that it can step back from it's decision during those 2 years. Why would an unanimously decision be necessary to just prolong this phase while the possibility to simply step back from this is not even mentioned.

[ingliz]

a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin

The argument made is the UK hasn't left, therefore, it is not rejoining and Article 49 is not applicable.

An ‘intention’ is not a binding commitment; it can be changed or withdrawn. This is so as a matter of ordinary language.

[Baff]

Economic predictions for a "hard brexit" range from +3% to GDP to -6%.

Economists for Europe predict +3%
OECD predict -.5%
Treasury Dept -6%

And all of these rely on a set of assumptions for UK's future policy that are as yet undecided.

Worst case is no biggie. Far smaller recession than was caused by joining the EU.
Best case = best growth in years.

So far best case predictions have been true. Mini boom.
It's been great for consumer confidence and inward investment.

[ingliz]

Economists for Europe predict +3%

Professor Patrick Minford, one of the ‘Economists for Brexit’, argues the UK should strike no new trade deals but instead unilaterally abolish all its import tariffs. Under this policy (‘Britain Alone’), he describes his model as predicting the ‘elimination’ of UK manufacturing and a big increase in wage inequality. These outcomes may be hard to sell to UK citizens as a desirable political option.

[Baff]

Yes, this is called "Laissez Faire". Free trade.
It's a well known and well used trade policy that the UK used to become the worlds largest economy and that America copied to the same effect.

In the end some protectionism will always take place. It's inevitable.

Personally, like Trump's America I think we need a little more protectionism vs the EU right now.
Although ideologically I am more comfortable with Laissez Faire.


So for me either of those two as a policy goal is happy days.

And the one that is predicted to bring a 6% recession, the remainer government policy, I don't fucking want at all.
EU twats deliberately trying to sabotage the economy to prove themselves right. Prison for them. Traitors all.
They need purging before they damage much more.


Laissez Faire vs protectionism is the great economic debate. Same argument the Great Depression was fought over. Same as the Corn Laws. As old an economic dispute as trade itself. Millenia old. And still hotly contested today.
EU is protectionist. UK and USA are liberal.
Persuading the UK of Laissez Faire isn't going to be an issue. We are all taught of it's success in schools. Everyone here is raised to believe in it by default. It's our cultural norm. It's the EU culture of protectionism that is the hard sell to UK people.
And you can see this in America too, with the bad response Trump gets from his use of Tariffs. We are all raised to believe in Laissez Faire. It's the historical policy pursued to our world beating success.
My preference for protectionist tariffs vs EU goods will be highly controversial. Laissez Faire? Not so much.

[Soldmann]

The argument made is the UK hasn't left, therefore, it is not rejoining and Article 49 is not applicable.

The UK hasn't left yet but it will leave soon automatically. The way how to prevent this is mentioned in the treaty and it is not GB changing their mind. At least that's how I understand it.

What's so difficult to understand about not wanting to be part of a future EU-superstate?

Because it makes no sense. EU grants freedom, prosperity, peace and social justice. How could someone not want to be a member? This is absurd.

In addition from a German point of view, the idea to ask the people is irritating. The government leads and the people follow. Not vice versa. It would have probably been easier to accept if this would have been decided by the British government without making a plebiscite. Then it would have been at least a rational decision.

[KS mod edit: double post]

[Baff]

LMAO.

The exact opposite of UK thinking.

100% inversion.
No sense.
No freedom, no prosperity, no peace and no social justice. How could someone want this.

The idea of not asking the people is enraging.
The people lead and the government follow. Not vice versa.
We call this "democracy" the rule of the demos. The people.

Germany is doing well out the EU, it makes sense that an authoritarian and undemocratic society that is getting rich from the EU is loving it. Exports booming on currency set to the wrong price. That it isn't spending any money on defence because it's borders are secured by friendly countries. and so on.

But Germans seem unable to recognise there is a world outside of Germany. And that what is true for them is not true for the rest.

[ingliz]

The idea of not asking the people is enraging.

Why?

Asking the people is not the English way.

A representative democracy, your democracy, is founded on the principle that elected officials decide what is best for the plebs.

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

Edmund Burke

[Albert]

So has May basically screwed everything up?


Nigel should run for prime minister already.