[gIzzE]

Originally Posted by Dyl

We have controlled immigration on non E.U. migrants already. What has that got to do with leaving us the E.U.?

Oh and that figure, if correct, is not just scraping through, that is a very large and important contribution to our economy. E.U. Migrants are far less likely to have social housing or claim benefits than natives, they come here to work. These are not just opinions, they are facts.

That was my point originally, that is what I said, immigration may be an issue to many, but it had absolutely nothing do with Brexit. It was brought into it and people voted because of it, but it was a non issue, the area of immigration of concern is not those from the EU.

But the conversation should have happened before Brexit, not during it and made to be seen as an issue.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by Alex340

Not me. I joined in when another poster was daring to suggest it was an influence. The argument looked a little one sided with quite a few attacking his views, so I joined in to offer a bit of support.

But carry on, if you don't like the idea of making positive suggestions, I can easily get back into a destructive, unhealthy conversation with you.

I've no desire to get into a destructive, unhealthy, conversation with you or anyone else; I just felt it was a bit rich to accuse others of going round in circles by re-running old debates when you yourself had helped to create exactly that situation.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by JNW1

I've no desire to get into a destructive, unhealthy, conversation with you or anyone else; I just felt it was a bit rich to accuse others of going round in circles by re-running old debates when you yourself had helped to create exactly that situation.

Can you read? I said everyone had gone around in circles, at no point did I exclude any side of the discussion or myself from that. Someone made a suggestion of trying to turn the thread into something positive.

I embraced that and started with a couple of ideas. You carried on in the old vein. Cool, your choice, but would you mind not continuing to aim your frustration at me. Thanks.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by Alex340

Can you read? I said everyone had gone around in circles, at no point did I exclude any side of the discussion or myself from that. Someone made a suggestion of trying to turn the thread into something positive.

I embraced that and started with a couple of ideas. You carried on in the old vein. Cool, your choice, but would you mind not continuing to aim your frustration at me. Thanks.

I can read but thanks for asking.

The only reason I aimed comments at you was because you were instrumental in resurrecting some of the old debates and stereotypes and then suddenly started to take exception to anyone who continued to participate; just thought it was a bit hypocritical to be honest.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing the positive ideas; I did actually agree with some of the comments on the NHS albeit that's not specifically Brexit as such.

[isleaiw1]

I have some ideas on change but nothing to do with Brexit..

1. Income tax - why only three rates (4 if you include the weird bit where yoyu lose tax free pay when you earn over £100k). £1k per month tax free. Then start at 10% and work up in 5% increments till you get to 55% at about £250k pa. Exact bandings need to be worked out to look at total take. Implement over a 5 year parliament. Scrap NI - its a tax by another name and doesnt do what it was intended for.

2. Council tax - why is it different across different councils? Standard rates for standard values (with possibly a SE adjustment factor).

3. VAT - sort it out. Too many things with it on which shouldnt have, too many things have too little. Introduce a luxury category where it is 30%.

4. Pay people to work - no benefits for sitting at home unemployed (unless you cant work). Give the people retraining courses. Set up publicly owned businesses to house them. Sell the outputs. Will have costs of wages for training but at least the people are turning up and doing something. Might improve capability and their self esteem and get them into the routine of work. Dont want to do it, great, dont ask for money....

5. NHS - we wont be able to afford it in its current form going forward as medicine gets better and people live longer. So there has to be an element of the people that can afford pay or the people that use pay. There should be a special medical tax on alcohol and tobacco specially ring fenced for the NHS. If you want better treatment then as Tengo says, you can pay for better treatment.

6. Give less foreign aid and be very careful where it is given - controversial but we give to things that arent a priority. Our own people and pensioners come first.

No idea if half of that would work or whether it would help close the gap but lets be honest we cant carry on as we are....

[Wills2]

Anyway back to those thicko, uneducated, leave mogs, it has been a while since we had a link to some "research" proving they aren't fit to vote, perhaps you could dig one up for us?

[Tengocity]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

I have some ideas on change but nothing to do with Brexit..

1. Income tax - why only three rates (4 if you include the weird bit where yoyu lose tax free pay when you earn over £100k). £1k per month tax free. Then start at 10% and work up in 5% increments till you get to 55% at about £250k pa. Exact bandings need to be worked out to look at total take. Implement over a 5 year parliament. Scrap NI - its a tax by another name and doesnt do what it was intended for.

2. Council tax - why is it different across different councils? Standard rates for standard values (with possibly a SE adjustment factor).

3. VAT - sort it out. Too many things with it on which shouldnt have, too many things have too little. Introduce a luxury category where it is 30%.

4. Pay people to work - no benefits for sitting at home unemployed (unless you cant work). Give the people retraining courses. Set up publicly owned businesses to house them. Sell the outputs. Will have costs of wages for training but at least the people are turning up and doing something. Might improve capability and their self esteem and get them into the routine of work. Dont want to do it, great, dont ask for money....

5. NHS - we wont be able to afford it in its current form going forward as medicine gets better and people live longer. So there has to be an element of the people that can afford pay or the people that use pay. There should be a special medical tax on alcohol and tobacco specially ring fenced for the NHS. If you want better treatment then as Tengo says, you can pay for better treatment.

6. Give less foreign aid and be very careful where it is given - controversial but we give to things that arent a priority. Our own people and pensioners come first.

No idea if half of that would work or whether it would help close the gap but lets be honest we cant carry on as we are....

Council tax is surely the tax most in need of reform?!

The bandings reflect property prices in 1991 or something ridiculous like that, and thus the steps are all at the lower end of the market, meaning proper luxury piles pay no more tax than folk in modestly sized homes in many areas. So it really isn't all that progressive and certainly not at the upper end where the truly well off are.

I'd sort those out and double the amounts and get rid of stamp duty on main residences at least.

VAT is an interesting one, because less well off people spend much more of their income then VAT hits them more as a proportion of their income. I'm really not sure what the best thing to do with it is.

[Tengocity]

Given this is a Brexit discussion thread, it would perhaps be remiss not to discuss the Supreme Court decision today that parliament must have a vote on whether the government can "pull the trigger" on article 50.

On a point of law, from what I've read it "feels" like the right decision. It's now down to the MPs to vote in accordance with the wishes of electorate as per the referendum result. All imho of course!

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by Tengocity

Given this is a Brexit discussion thread, it would perhaps be remiss not to discuss the Supreme Court decision today that parliament must have a vote on whether the government can "pull the trigger" on article 50.

On a point of law, from what I've read it "feels" like the right decision. It's now down to the MPs to vote in accordance with the wishes of electorate as per the referendum result. All imho of course!

On the basis the Supreme Court have arrived at the decision you'd hope that legally it's the correct one! However, I don't really understand why the government pushed it this far; once the initial case went against them I think it would have been more sensible to just draft an appropriate bill and put it before Parliament as it seemed clear that that was the likely outcome anyway.

I can see the potential for it slowing things down slightly in terms of triggering Article 50; I suspect MP's will vote overwhelmingly in favour but I do wonder if the House of Lords may be a little more awkward given they've no constituents to answer to in an election. I suppose MP's could also fall-back on the "we're elected to do what we think is best for you" line - and vote against triggering Article 50 - but I doubt many will dare to do so (self preservation is a powerful thing!).

So in the end I think the result will be the same (i.e. we'll trigger Article 50) even if the process drags-on for a bit longer...

[mofomat]

Originally Posted by Lobb

I wouldn't worry about Dutchy.

He's a hand wringing liberal leftie

Why do you have to resort to personal attacks all the time? You have no idea what I am, or my background.

[225]

The bill will get tabled shortly but the helpful as always Scotish party have said they have 50 amendments just to slow things down.

What really pi55es me off is the the lib dems are pushing for a vote on what ever deal we get from the eu in 2 years time before it can be approved. Therefore instantly giving the eu every reason to give us the worst deal possible so it gets rejected. Nice one bunch of to55ers, so what we would then stay in the eu or drop to a basic world trade agreement just because they are sore losers.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by mofomat

Why do you have to resort to personal attacks all the time? You have no idea what I am, or my background.

Don't bite. He won't rise to your level, he'll just continuously bombard you with stupid comments til you stop responding.

[Ajs_435d]

If Gina Miller and company lose are they going to foot the bill?

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by Ajs_435d

If Gina Miller and company lose are they going to foot the bill?

I think the legal costs for her campaign were covered mostly via crowdfunding. Not sure whether they'll get any reimbursement from the government now they've won as I've not seen any announcement on the awarding of costs; however, both sides have been pretty cagey about the size of their legal bills and, as is often the case with litigation, I suspect the lawyers have been the real winners!

As I said in a previous post, I'm not actually sure why the government even chose to push this to the Supreme Court. It seemed pretty clear which way the wind was blowing so they could have saved the time and cost and had a bill in front of Parliament by now if they'd just accepted the initial judgement from the High Court....

[Bryans69]

Originally Posted by Brigand

The rules for the EU and non EU are not equal.

Example.

One person serves 20 years as an RAF officer and on leaving RAF by default must leave the U.K.

One person enters the UK with no job offer, works in a car wash or similar and has full right to remain the the U.K.

The difference, one comes from New Zealand, spends 20 years and is not allowed to remain in the U.K. The other is from an EU country.

The ruling should be, no firm job offer, no entry, worked here x number of years then you should have the chance to stay.

If you lose your job, you have say 6 months without any monetary support to find another job, fail to get employment.

Also, all EU countries are not equal, those from Poland are usually better educated and easier to employ than those from other areas of Europe.

Except EU Rules already allow us to deport people from Europe that still aren't working after 6 months. We just never implement it.

[Tengocity]

Well that does seem to be democracy/sovereignty/due legal process all in action and we move inexorably closer to the point of no return...

The world's got quite exciting these days hasn't it!

[TouringPleb]

Originally Posted by Tengocity

Well that does seem to be democracy/sovereignty/due legal process all in action and we move inexorably closer to the point of no return...

The world's got quite exciting these days hasn't it!

I think I liked it dull and predictable..

[rosstin]

Eur 40-60 Billion?

[rosstin]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...divorce-battle

[Carjack]

The original post header said: "Brexit - How do we think it's going?"

I think it's going so far, IMO, much better than expected!
I am much heartened to think that there is a good possibility that we could
eventually break free and change from EU control to areas of co-operation.
Be an independant control and not just a state within the EU, eventually under control by the wealthiest state: Germany.
Keep going Teresa May you are doing OK, so far!

[mofomat]

Originally Posted by Carjack

The original post header said: "Brexit - How do we think it's going?"

I think it's going so far, IMO, much better than expected!
I am much heartened to think that there is a good possibility that we could
eventually break free and change from EU control to areas of co-operation.
Be an independant control and not just a state within the EU, eventually under control by the wealthiest state: Germany.
Keep going Teresa May you are doing OK, so far!

Nothing has actually happened yet. Come back to this thread in a couple of years when we've actually agreed these "red, white and blue" trade deals that all these other countries are so desperate to sign up to.

[GEP77]

Other than the tanking of the value of Sterling which has personally cost me quite a bit - put it this way I'll be taking at least one trip less abroad this year than normally - not a great deal has happened.

There has been a lot of posturing, but very little actual doing especially from those who campaigned for us to leave.

It will be very interesting how the Goverment tackles the negotiations - most of them are not experienecd negotiators. The balance between what we get, what we give and how they manage to keep the UK together will be a fine balacing act. Given the complexity of what they need to acheive - this goes far deeper than just trade and immigration - I think 2 years is an exceptionally ambitious timetframe to exit.

Will be an interesting couple of years whatever happens.