‘Brexit Negotiations’ by Jessica McGrann

Screen Shot 2016-07-07 at 12.38.12

All very hush hush on the first phase of the negotiations taking place which will involve Cameron and similar EU stooges to test the waters before real negotiations begin later in the year when there is a PM to talk to and activate article 50. In the mean time I thought I would put together my own thoughts on what a credible PM of England might consider just to keep the arguments going. I would first of all let the UK break up, and allow Scotland to negotiate its own terms for access to the single market or membership of the EU.

I would not pay a single penny to the EU for access to the single market while there was a trade deficit with England, but in return not expect the EU to pay for a free trade deal with England and also agree to review this should there be a change in this deficit.

This would cause major issues with France who also has a large trade deficit with the EU, as do most member nations with Netherlands and Germany the greatest beneficiaries.  Ireland would inherit a trade deficit with the exit of England and the Netherlands would be the most negatively impacted in terms of trade.

The EU will have to reform, at the moment it is totally skewed in favour of Germany and the Netherlands.  I imagine that some import based fee would need to be agreed to keep France on board a while longer anyway.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Intra-EU_trade_balance_by_Member_State,_2013_(EUR_1_000_million).png

Germany refused to reform because they did not believe England would have the courage to leave and they will now have no choice as the EU cannot survive without England inside the single market no matter how positive an outlook they put on it.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would have to pay their way in EU like all the other member nations.

England will allow tariff free access to the gas network running through England to Scotland and Wales which also supplies all of Ireland via Moffat.

http://www.entsog.eu/public/uploads/files/maps/transmissioncapacity/2016/ENTSOG_CAP_MAY2016_A0FORMAT.pdf

On the breakup of the UK, England would no longer fund Scotland or Northern Ireland.

As Northern Ireland wished to remain in the EU, England will agree to pay £20 billion per year over a 10 year period to allow it to rebuild its economy, cement the peace process and hold a referendum on unification at the end of the period.  This would be factored through the single market entrance fees to dupe the French public the way the EU does things.

Ireland will remain in the EU along with Scotland.

Scotland will allow Trident to remain in the Clyde as part of the agreement and will receive remuneration for access until an alternative base is built in north England which will boost the economy there.

England will maintain its own army separate from the EU while Scotland will find its own linked to the EU and Northern Ireland will likewise pay for all its own security costs.

Immigration to England will be open to the whole planet and based on points.  EU nations may be given additional preference points based on negotiations.

Free movement will be acceptable but additional information will be required to work or claim benefits which will be scored against criteria and require all citizens to speak English within a reasonable time frame

The common travel area will apply only to all of Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales.

The NHS in England will be privatised with free hospital care for the most vulnerable but a small charge (£10) for all emergency treatments, ambulance call outs and prescriptions etc…  A Health insurance based system will replace free health care.

Scotland and Northern Ireland can decide their own health systems but the same fees will apply when in England to everyone.

Welfare will also be based on a minimum of 4 years contributions through work or voluntary work to receive benefits while earning contributions.

No EU citizen will be given additional benefits to assist in finding work that is not available to all residents

Existing EU residents will be entitled to remain.

19 Responses to ‘Brexit Negotiations’ by Jessica McGrann

  1. Eamon July 7, 2016 at 12:55 pm #

    “The NHS in England will be privatised with free hospital care for the most vulnerable but a small charge (£10) for all emergency treatments, ambulance call outs and prescriptions etc… A Health insurance based system will replace free health care.”
    No doubt the right wing would love to get rid of the NHS, it would be a very sad day for England if they did. Just look at the inequality in the American system.

    “Welfare will also be based on a minimum of 4 years contributions through work or voluntary work to receive benefits”
    What happens when a young person leaves school and can’t get a job. How would they support themselves? This will increase homelessness.

    • jessica July 7, 2016 at 3:40 pm #

      “No doubt the right wing would love to get rid of the NHS, it would be a very sad day for England if they did. Just look at the inequality in the American system.”

      Why should there be equality in the health service, is that not communist thinking?

      Why shouldn’t working people regardless of their race, colour or country of origin get a better service the more they have paid in contributions than those who for no reason do not work. People unable to work of course should be accommodated as with all children.

      I understand what you are saying though Eamon, a free at the point of delivery health service to all is a wonderful thing indeed, would you know how many nations of the EU have one?

      I am just throwing out ideas as other countries in the EU have various other arrangements. Perhaps a mixture of options starting with a core free for all service with multiple tiers of improved service for working people (not based on the amount of money paid in, but each month they contribute so any job would go towards qualifying for better care same as private care is not equal).

      A few members of my own family work in it as nurses one in accident and emergency and it was her suggestion during a conversation we had to have the small fee to reduce the time wasters getting ambulances for minor injuries usually involving alcohol would take a lot of the pressures off. That was one suggestion the nurses were discussing within the NHS as they are aware it is under pressure.

      It certainly sounds reasonable to me?

      “What happens when a young person leaves school and can’t get a job. How would they support themselves? This will increase homelessness.”

      That is a good question Eamon, in Bulgaria, the EU’s poorest country, you do not qualify for unemployment benefit unless you have been working for at least nine of the last 15 months. You would therefore indeed be homeless or be forced to move to another EU state to look for a job within your three months entitlement to welfare.

      But rather than send our kids out to look work in other countries as some do, I would have them enter a voluntary work program for which they receive additional pay on top of benefits which starts their contributions off and hopefully results in them having a job and work experience at the end of it.

      People failing to keep their voluntary placement employment should fall back to defaults, in case of EU nationals, current rules apply, local citizens I suppose will need to have to fall back on the basic income support safety net as you say, we cant increase homelessness.

      We cannot have a situation where people refuse to do certain jobs because they are better off on welfare.

      • billy July 7, 2016 at 4:37 pm #

        we wouldnt need any cuts to hospitals or handing a few quid out on benefits if foreign aid was stopped being sent to corrupt governments around the world.charity begins at home.

        • jessica July 8, 2016 at 5:34 am #

          In light of brexit and leaving the EU, I would increase the foreign aid to over £20bn but not allow a penny to leave, so it would have to be spent on goods and services within England, or within a new economic union with other nations outside of the EU.

          I would most definitely not stop foreign aid. Let the US destroy the world, I would rather support its economic development.

  2. Eamon July 7, 2016 at 5:35 pm #

    “Why should there be equality in the health service, is that not communist thinking?”

    Obviously it is England you are referring to, but when I read what you had typed I thought of our own 1916 proclamation.

    “The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman. The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien Government, which have divided a minority from the major”.

    Equality should be at the heart of what politicians are working towards.

    • jessica July 7, 2016 at 10:26 pm #

      “Equality should be at the heart of what politicians are working towards.”

      I would agree totally with this Eamon, but are you saying that only through communism and left wing socialism can people be treated equally?

      Does equality mean everyone should have the same wages?

      Does equality mean getting rid of grammar schools altogether?

      Does equality mean everyone should get a place at university no matter what their ability?

      I am not a socialist, but I would support equality, equal rights and equal opportunities.

      Equality
      the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_rights

      Equality before the law, also known as equality under the law, equality in the eyes of the law, or legal equality, is the principle under which all people are subject to the same laws of justice.

      Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals’ freedom from infringement by governments, social organizations, and private individuals. They ensure one’s ability to participate in the civil and political life of the society and state without discrimination or repression.

      equal opportunities

      the right to be treated without discrimination, especially on the grounds of one’s sex, race, or age.

      Where does entitlement to the same level of healthcare as everyone else to be provided by the state come into equality?

      That would not even be equality, that would be preferential treatment for those that do less to receive the same.

      • Eamon July 8, 2016 at 10:19 am #

        Equality means no two tier health care system in which on those that have the means have access to health care. In reality we have the working poor within these islands. They don’t qualify for state benefits but they live below the poverty line. Having a two tier system will mean they have to make an additional choice between heating or eating.

        • jessica July 8, 2016 at 5:50 pm #

          “Equality means no two tier health care system in which on those that have the means have access to health care. In reality we have the working poor within these islands. They don’t qualify for state benefits but they live below the poverty line. Having a two tier system will mean they have to make an additional choice between heating or eating.”

          That might be your preference Eamon, but it has nothing to do with equality.

          No one would have no access to health care. Everyone would have a small fee to pay for emergency services, no one would be refused but everyone would have to pay.

          What I had suggested was a multi tier system, where everyone working including the working poor would have access to more services for them and their families.
          The amount paid in would make no difference, so working poor would qualify just as equally as the working wealthy.
          The un-working wealthy would be on tier 1 only user as equally would the un-working poor. To receive health care they would have to have private insurance or take up voluntary employment. Tax based on savings would not qualify.

          Someone with no job would also qualify by accepting a voluntary work program, where they get full benefits plus additional expenses plus an optional employer bonus.

          This will help build their CV and they can switch employers through this scheme until they get into a position where they will be better treated and have a job at the end of it. Employers would have to register and would be monitored to ensure the employee is benefitting and is gaining skills for employment and will end up with a good job out of it.

          Anyone who chooses benefits as a career choice, will be free to do so, but will have safety net cover only. If they want cover for surgery or cancer etc… they must work to pay into the system. The months or years you pay into it, should be covered by the state, so if you pay in for 6 months, and are out for 6, you are covered for the second six months.

          Otherwise, where is the incentive to work?

          Giving those who choose not to work benefits is not equality, it is making those who work pay for those who choose not to. I don’t see how that is equality.

          So you would be wrong about a two tier health care system would result in anyone not having access to health care.

          And your suggestion that a two tier health care system would mean some would have to make an additional choice between heating or eating, just makes no sense whatsoever.

          Change is coming to the NHS in England, would you rule out all of my suggestions.

          How would we pay for a free at point of delivery health service here without English subvention which is not guaranteed, should it stop ?

          It is a reasonable question is it not in light of brexit?

          • Eamon July 8, 2016 at 7:27 pm #

            Jessica imagine a mother has to go to the doctor, but does not have enough money to do that and also feed and clothe the children. It would be a horrible position to be in. Much easier to have a more progressive tax system which funds the NHS. Jessica take a look at the state of the health service in US.

          • jessica July 9, 2016 at 9:05 am #

            Why would she not be able to feed or cloth the children just because she has to go to the doctor?

            The important factors are,

            1
            Children are free on matter what treatment is required.

            2
            Dr visits are free for everyone, no matter what. I clearly suggested a safety net of basic care was there.

            If further treatment was needed and neither her or her husband had been working to build up credit, then certain treatments will require a fee, but will not require payment in advance, but they will have to sign over to pay at least a means tested percentage of the costs yes. That is the way I believe it should be.

            Think about this as about incentivisation, not denial of health services.

            Having a small £5 or £10 free for accident and emergency treatment is not going to stop someone eating or heating. The majority of users have spent more than that on drink to end up there in the first place.

            It would certainly help take pressures off and improve the services for everyone.

            But lets explore also your suggestion.

            What type of progressive tax system would you envisage?

            How much additional tax would you consider reasonable for working people to pay?

            Is there any point at where you would say, hold on, this is simply not feasible?

            Would you accept that it would be cheaper for working people to pay for private care and have a much better service than it would cost them in progressive taxes?

          • EAMON July 9, 2016 at 10:33 am #

            Jessica are you aware that your polices are very similar to those of the right wing of the conservatives.

            I think that your system will disenfranchise those from poorer backgrounds. Your saying a tenner wouldn’t hurt anyone, I can tell you as a teacher that far to many children come into school hungry as there is poverty in the home.
            Leaving that aside, it’s fundamentally flawed as too much bureaucracy involved. Ask doctors and nurses and they will tell you they just want to do their jobs.
            We already have tax department set up Jessica.

          • jessica July 9, 2016 at 1:42 pm #

            It was nurses in the NHS who suggested it as a way of helping deal with the pressures they were under Eamon.

            I have already said on this site many times that I am not a socialist and I never will be, and that my views on the economy would be closer to that of the conservatives, as it is throughout Ireland. When is the last time a conservative party was not in power in Ireland?

            There are no teachers in my family but there are a few work as nursery nurses looking after children pre school and after school.

            I can tell you that many are left in without their nappies changed, no breakfast and hungry. As they are all local people, I can also tell you that the majority have parents not working but who have money for cigarettes and alcohol.

            I never understood why non working parents qualified to have their children in such developmental programmes ahead of working parents, but it is probably down to if they didn’t, more children would be malnourished and neglected.

            But at least I am not afraid to discuss such serious matters honestly, you seem to have lots of preconditions but no answers on how to fairly achieve them and simply avoid engaging in debate with me by answering any questions I have.

          • EAMON July 9, 2016 at 3:59 pm #

            Jessica I have already said I would favour businesses such as Google and Starbucks to pay more tax rather than have a situation where a mother has to make a decision whether to pay for heating, eating or health

          • jessica July 9, 2016 at 5:41 pm #

            “Jessica I have already said I would favour businesses such as Google and Starbucks to pay more tax rather than have a situation where a mother has to make a decision whether to pay for heating, eating or health”

            Perhaps we could get them to top up the pensions deficits too while we are at it. The population isn’t getting any younger.

          • Eamon July 10, 2016 at 4:24 am #

            Jessica it is not unreasonable to ask businesses which make billions in profit to pay their fair share of tax. You and I have to pay our taxes, why not them? Given that it is 100 years since the Easter Rising I suggest that you should read some of the works of James Connelly.

            Jessica each to their own opinion but if you were starting the country from scratch then you should aim to be more ambitious.

  3. Mark July 7, 2016 at 9:43 pm #

    Jessica, listening to ‘sky news’ this evening I am now convinced we could hold our breaths ’til the holding of the next brit/six county referendum on EU membership, mainstream media simply shaping public opinion to accept their wishes,or Brussels will, and vote their ‘right way.
    They’ve done it before’ in Ireland, twice, britain and the six is just next.

    • jessica July 7, 2016 at 10:43 pm #

      Brussels would have to back down and drop its free movement policy to allow more control to member states to offer a points based system so businesses are not left with the burden of ineffectual policy. Something they should have done in the first place.

      If they are even considering this, then they would be admitting they will not survive Britain leaving as they risk other nations doing the same to get reforms they want. It would be an action of last resort. Only serious pressure from the US would make Germany even contemplate such a u-turn.

      You cannot compare Ireland to the UK Mark. Ireland is irrelevant as would be Scotland. It is the wealth and global connections of England they want and fear going up against.

      I have seen some of the reports looking into new trade deals outside of the EU and they would be mad not to go ahead with them. I don’t see there being another referendum, I would expect article 50 to be activated in September.

      What benefit is there to England of being in the EU really?

      Why are you convinced the people would even allow a rerun if there was political will?

      There would be riots and civil unrest. I don’t see it happening.

  4. Mark July 8, 2016 at 10:21 am #

    Morning Jessica, I, for my own part now, nor since the late eighties have wanted anything to do with europes ‘ever closer union’ or, german-france domination.
    What I referenced was what I heard on sky news yesterday evening, some Scot’s lassie called Mone making the point there must be a second referendum, this is just what happened at home post Nice and more forcefully post Lisbon, the euro clowns do not wish to go down in history as the one’s whom presided over the break up, nor even the slow down of project federalism.
    I was not comparing our, free state, economy to that of britain, rather just the means by which federalists will seek to persuade through main stream media and social media, to accept a rerun.
    Reports this AM are french, german andnow even spanish economy ministers are meeting with US bankers to attract them to spain, despite obvious language barriers.
    My thinking is, it’s all in the air and wemightwell see Brexit 2 in May next year.

    • jessica July 8, 2016 at 6:24 pm #

      There are nations in the EU that it can bully because they control that nations debt such as Ireland, but England is not one of them. The EU will not be able to push for a second referendum and even if the Tories were foolish enough to attempt it, it would result in a much larger vote to leave, plus there would be civil unrest. Even NI would have a majority leave vote next time out, I would certainly vote if it were just to go against the EU and I am not alone.

      If Scotland are not happy with England calling the shots, they would need to vote for independence, lose the hundreds of millions annual revenues they get from Trident in the Clyde, lost the subvention they get from England and pay their own contributions to the EU, and either hand over the bulk of the legislative control to Brussels or employ hundreds of suitable legislators to run a local administration.

      What they want is to have their cake and eat it and that is not going to be on their referendum options unfortunately. When they see what is in the black and white following England staying out of the EU, Scotland will lose their opportunity for independence as they will finally realise that it is not going to benefit them without England.

      The same will happen with Dublin. Sure, they have come on a way, England felt the same as the EU now, when Ireland opted out of the commonwealth without actually opting out of it, by declaring itself a republic in name only and after initial bad feelings, they got over it just as the EU will get over England leaving.

      Spain would be a good choice if it wasn’t for its debt. Both Spain and Italy will be making Germany very nervous now and will pressing them for austerity measures soon if they aren’t already.

      Financial companies will have to choose either the additional risk but potential for greater profits in Spain which wont be guaranteed, or after time goes by and it is clear England has new trade deals with the whole world including the EU, who they should allow come up with the deal as it is more in their interest. The negotiations before activating article 50 will not only be with the EU but every single nation in the commonwealth plus others.

      It is not the EU calling the shots and the financial companies threats will not deter England. They know they are only interested in profits and risk avoidance is something they do not have the luxury of ignoring.

      India’s economy is about to go through a similar growth spurt as China. The EU will want its share and over 400,000 people is a lot, but how may of them are poor nations with low trade volumes and only there to pump up the numbers. On the other hand, the commonwealth has 2.8 billion people and if they can reform it into a less monarchical group to an economic union, it would be the most powerful economic grouping on the planet which all of Asia, Africa, the EU and US would want trade deals with it.

      The EU as a concept has proven this to work, where it fell over was its attempt at moving from an economic union to a political union or empire through the back door.

      A one nation world will never work, we are different peoples and diversity is a good thing. Why do we need to consume and control one another?

      I believe Scotland are very well aware of this and are using the EU to boost desire for independence which is hopefully working.

      In Ireland Fine Gael are doing the best, Sinn Fein is all over the place, but they like the SNP will make the most of the popular opinion and will end up with a greater mandate out of it. What they are doing is simply playing to what the people want to hear.

      That is politics for you.