Westministenders: BAH HUMBUG said Mr Rees-Mogg

[RedToothBrush]

"At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge Rees-Mogg, ... it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."

"Are there no prisons hostels?"

"Plenty of prisons hostels..."

"And the Union workhouses foodbanks." demanded Scrooge Jacob. "Are they still in operation?"

"Both very busy, sir..."

"Those who are badly off must go there."

"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."

"If they would rather die," said Scrooge ^Rees-Mogg, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

He continued "Besides I do not believe that anyone would die without them. I think Theresa is right, there are many complex reasons why nurses go to food banks. The real reason for the rise in numbers is that people know that they are there and Labour deliberately didn't tell them. To have charitable support given by people voluntarily to support their fellow citizens I think is rather uplifting and shows what a good, compassionate country we are"

------------------------

This thread is dedicated to Mrs8 and anyone else who is working to make life just a little better in the difficult circumstances that ALL politicians are currently doing their best to ignore (despite what they profess).

No Deal = even more poverty and destitution.

MERRY CHRISTMAS & HERES HOPING FOR A HAPPIER NEW YEAR
especially to those of you, who might be having a tough time or facing real uncertainity.

As other pp have said, many workers will not have both the salary and the time employed to qualify for the maximum.
I expect in firms like Nissan that some of the 41+ would qualify, but not all

jas Of course all firms that pull out will have to hold to legal binding agreements

It may be different in the public sector, with more powerful unions
However, do many private sector businesses have permanent agreements to pay above the legal minimum redundancy ?
Personally, I've never worked for one that does, but I appreciate others here may have done

More generous payments that I've known of are normally only in a short-term agreement, for a specific round of job cuts,
where they still want to keep the remaining workers and the unions - sweet.

If a firm pulls out completely, or even mostly, they wouldn't not have the commercial justification - e.g. to shareholders - to make redundancy agreements above the legal minimum.

jas Sometimes, when workers are made redundant, they are allowed to retire earlier than the normal works pension age
At least that happened with one employer I know in Germany - may be different in the UK - where the company paid a couple of extra years pension when it wanted to reduce the number of workers
However, the German State Pension can also be taken earlier, after 35 years contributions
So maybe not so simple in the uK:

Again regarding redundancy - the statutory max is £508 a week.

I’m being made redundant right now, employer is a big company but they pay the minimum. Thank fuck I took out insurance.

That's rotten for you, AdequateFood 💐
I hope you can find something suitable asap

Thanks BCF.
It was more of a rhetorical question attempting to raise the profile of any info for others. Personally I am collecting as many bits of paperwork as I can as 'supporting evidence'. So far it appears the UK is leaving on 29 March with or without some transitional period.

Being made redundant doesn't change when or how you can take your pension, that is purely done on age eg 55 or over, the scheme is separate from the company.

This is why I specifically mentioned retirement, not redundancy, with older workers knowing that they would probably be OK if Nissan went. However, recalling the BBC films of the night, there were a lot of younger people jumping with joy at the Leave vote. I hope the BBC goes back to interview them if we crash out and their jobs disappear. Contrast that with Gove and Johnson, of course.

I wonder at what age Nissan workers can take their pension and how good it is when taken early.
Of course, those due to retire in 2019 anyway may be laughing.

I'm not sure who this Edwin Hayward bloke is - some one in the IT industry ? but he writes some perceptive stuff.

I still think it's too late now, but in the second link, he summarises the situation concisely and well if anyone needs an article on how the operation of Article 50 is not the EU punishing us.

He also said on Twitter

Why is nobody saying
“Stop. For heavens sake just stop. This is absurd. We are perpetrating a fraud on the British public, using the result of an advisory referendum as a shield. It is time to level with people. To admit what every man and woman in this place knows to be true:
a successful Brexit is impossible. It is a contradiction in terms, an unattainable notion with no basis in reality.The mechanics of our global, interconnected world, of international trade, and of our EU membership have seen to that.
As MPs, we have all sworn to uphold a Code of Conduct that requires us to act at all times in the best interests of the UK, and of our constituents, and to make all decisions on the basis of merit. Brexit fails all three of those tests, badly. It is time to stop this farce.”?

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1075567606864719872.html

--

https://docdro.id/m3YvOS5

On the topic of retirement, a couple of weeks ago we visited Leave-voter FiL, who casually mentioned that “something” had happened to my brother-in-law’s pension “because of Brexit” and “who knows” whether that will affect when he can retire. (Brother-in-law is in his 60s)

We got the some details from BiL over Christmas dinner. Essentially, everything he paid into his pension pot for the past year has been wiped out. And he’d been paying in extra, with a view towards approaching retirement age.

Quite “amazing” really, that somebody in their late 80s, who was able to retire in their 50s, is so relaxed and casual about voting to screw over their supposed loved ones.

Quite “amazing” really, that somebody in their late 80s, who was able to retire in their 50s, is so relaxed and casual about voting to screw over their supposed loved ones.

It's obviously the territory with FiLs -mine expressly said if Brexit crushed our 80% reliance on financial services that was a good thing. He wants to 'bring back' an industrial revolution type of reliance on manufacturing and coal mining. Somehow he thinks we can quickly acquire the skills (and adjust to the wages paid) in order to compete with China etc on the manufacturing front.

He expressly said the fact that DH ( his only son) would lose his job in financial services was a price worth paying.

Thanks BigChoc

Essentially, everything he paid into his pension pot for the past year has been wiped out

oh your poor BIL. What the hell happened?

It's obviously the territory with FiLs
It’s like a religion for some people. They’ve bought into it and nothing will convince them otherwise.
If you point out people will die they’ll go all Scrooge on you and say it’s best, as at least they will decrease the surplus population.

One year's contributions lost - even with the extra loss - should reduce the monthly pension only slightly,
However, elements your FIL is a callous bastard
Has he always been like this ?

One of my (many) fears about a No Deal Brexit is that one or more of the large private pension schemes could go bust, if share prices of UK firms crash.
I remember one crashed many years ago and its pensioners were left with about 10% of what they expected

The pension business sounds like Philip Green and whatever he did to ruin BHS, which deprived people of their pensions. Not entirely sure it's Brexit related, except that this is how the wealthy who want a hard Brexit can and will behave with their bonfire of regulations.

Have we read this one?

The final option is one which is, as yet, little discussed. There is, following the Court’s judgment, no doubt that it is legally possible. Parliament could simply pass legislation which instructs the Government to revoke Article 50. This would, of course, appeal to remainers. I argue that it may also appeal to those leavers disenchanted by the available leave options.
The Government has, quite simply, not managed to come up with a vision of Brexit which is able to command sufficient support. Brexiters have disowned the Withdrawal Agreement. Support for no deal is also very low. Parliament, in triggering Article 50 in March 2017, allowed the Government to pursue and deliver Brexit. The Government has not proved up to the task. It interpreted the will of the people in a very particular way. It did not reach out and try to build a consensus, either in Westminster, or in the devolved assemblies, or among the public at large. Instead it has sought to marginalise Parliament. It has demonised opposition.
Parliament should feel under no obligation to accept the Withdrawal Agreement. It can legitimately vote to revoke Article 50, and retain the UK’s status as an EU Member State. The result of revocation is that the UK will be able to reconsider its position on Brexit. The Court’s judgment insists that revocation is unconditional and unequivocal. The Court emphasised the ability of a Member State to change its mind. My view is that were the UK to revoke the notice, there would be no appetite to restart the process. It would, I believe, be far better to focus on rebuilding its relations with the EU, and on seeking to mend the divided UK. But, it is entirely possible that, for example after the next General Election a case will be made for a particular form of Brexit. Labour may seek to argue for its own ‘better Brexit’. Others may coalesce around ‘Norway plus’. Were any particular option to command sufficient democratic support, it would be possible for the UK to trigger Article 50 again and, having learned the lessons of the last years, begin to negotiate again.
The country finds itself in an extremely difficult situation. This Government believes that its duty is to deliver on the will of the people. But the results of its efforts fall far short of the claims made for Brexit in 2016.

blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/12/21/the-time-has-come-to-revoke-article-50/

It would, I believe, be far better to focus on rebuilding its relations with the EU, and on seeking to mend the divided UK.

The last part of this sentence is important. They really need to look at why people voted Leave. Yes, even look to those who voted leave because 'there are too many immigrants taking our jobs and stoppping us getting GP appointments....

                                                                                                   ', in those areas which have so few immigrants that it can't be true

Ooops didn't finish, trying to clean some crumbs from the keyboard I pressed enter.

The wealthy tories who voted leave are a different kettle of fish, but we still need to find out why they voted leave. They can't all be self-serving money grubbers.

... but they need to get to the underlying reasons.

There are so many different reasons and sources of discontent but I would suspect it all boils down to fear. Leave is the real Project Fear: the fear to disappear, to fade into irrelevance, and for older voters perhaps the fear to not have a legacy to pass on. It's all about identity and insularity, the irony being that brexit of course would bring all that about.

{It would, I believe, be far better to focus on rebuilding its relations with the EU, and on seeking to mend the divided UK.}

While I think this is true with the state of the UK government of all flavours there is insufficient will to put this into practice.
The EU cannot afford to wait around for 10 years while the UK may or may not spend it's time getting the fluff out of it's tummy button.
The UK has spent tens of years getting more divided (if it has ever not been so) and even by the announcements coming from the government now there is insufficient will and not enough money to do it anytime soon. Brexit will of course make it infinitely more difficult but there are still far too many who will not see this.

Home Office @ ukhomeoffice
EU citizens and their families will need to apply to the EU Settlement Scheme to continue living in the UK after 31 December 2020.

Find out more: t.co/S5UB9n8iFU

And in response to this tweet...

Holger Hestermeyer @hhesterm
Dear @ukhomeoffice - the way your plan reads in this video, it looks like you are already planning to violate the Withdrawal Agreement. Let me explain - and ask @StevePeers and @CSBarnard24 for their opinion (thread)

Art. 24 of the Withdrawal Agreement protects the “rights of workers” - including the rights of frontier workers. Frontier workers are workers living in one and working in another Member State
(t.co/0kysiQwGLw )

Your plan checks UK residence. So you exclude the category of frontier workers from the settlement scheme, which violates Art. 24 unless you plan another scheme in parallel.

This is the result of a 1-minute legal analysis. And I’m not an expert on coordination of social security and citizens’ rights. I am a bit worried, I have to say...

Oh dear... and so it starts...

Part of the problem, is there has never been a golden age of UK industrial manufacturing. Yes, Britain was the first. But even as the 1800s dawned, it was obvious we were never going to make our fortune metal bashing.

And anyway if you really wanted to ramp up UK industrial production, you wouldn't leave the EU, you'd embrace it.

I have less than fuck all time for David Cameron. But having met the cunt, he was right about one thing: the UK trades. And used to do it well until he fucked it over.

Basically if we don't Brexit, some ( and the number seems to be reducing with each passing day) people will be upset, that's the long and short of it, isn't it ? Nothing actually bad will happen to them as a result of remaining in the EU ? They will just be a bit miffed for a while. To continue with this whole debacle so as not to upset a few people is madness.