OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

All things Rugby

Whether you can or can't actually vote IRL, In, or Out

In
248
60%
Out
167
40%
 
Total votes: 415

bimboman
Posts: 72910
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »

I like haggis wrote:
bimboman wrote:

Again, immigration makes a net contribution of 4 billion pounds to the UK economy. That's far more than they receive back in benefits so our generosity does not extend to these migrants. Thank you for agreeing that I am correct about austerity. We are stretched purely because of austerity not building schools, hospitals etc that migrants could help fund with their 4 billion pound contribution (profit as you described it) to our economy but they are not responsible for the decision as to where their taxes are spent. The government decides that, don't blame immigrants for government economic policy cutting public service budgets
If it's a net figure I'd like to think it's post benefits so as to make it "net"

As for the rest of the paragraph. :lol: . What austerity ? Does migration bring 4 billion in one hit ? Annually? Do you realise 4 bln is a f ucking rounding error currently?
The economic policy we've experienced since Osbourne took over the exchequer in which all public sector spending has been cut leading to stretched services not getting the funding they need to provide an efficient service.

Obviously the contributions in tax that people make aren't an annual hit. I'm unsure what you mean by rounding error but you or anyone else would be very hard pressed to find any statistical evidence that immigrants are a drain on public spending because it doesn't exist as immigration is a positive for the UK economy.

:lol: austerity as an economic policy..... An increase in spending annually isn't austerity.

And you're claiming 4 bln in total ? And think that's relevant in any way to tax receipts ? It's not even 1% of 1 years tax take. An irrelevance .
User avatar
Chuckles1188
Posts: 40610
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Chuckles1188 »

You never did answer my question about whether Neville Chamberlain was a warhawk
User avatar
Sandstorm
Posts: 29044
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Chickenrunning...

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Sandstorm »

Hård Bexit is coming, no lube, etc, etc

And after just 4% majority :(
User avatar
SamShark
Posts: 20522
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by SamShark »

Independent editorial today on the theme of everyone shutting up now as the "people have spoken"

They have also publicised a BMG poll showing that 66% of people advocate guaranteeing EU citizens’ rights to stay immediately if other EU states were prepared to do the same for British citizens living abroad
We know Theresa May’s game, and we are not falling for it. Her cunning plan, as Jeremy Corbyn might have characterised it, is to pretend that anyone who seeks any kind of democratic oversight of her Brexit negotiation is trying to “frustrate the will of the British people”.

She tried to use that argument at Prime Minister’s Questions this week against Mr Corbyn. It was rather ineffective because the Labour leader’s ambivalence about the European Union makes it hard to suggest that his heart is really in trying to block our exit.

However, it could be effective against the Labour Party as a whole, and against shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer and Brexit select committee chair Hilary Benn, the leaders of the opposition to a hard exit deal – that is, a deal that puts cutting immigration above our national prosperity.

Those who are opposed to that kind of Brexit need to make sure that they are not painted into the corner of appearing to stand against the referendum result. The idea that giving Parliament a say over the terms of our departure from the EU is an attempt to block our departure is a clever rhetorical device, but Ms May must not be allowed to get away with it.

As we report today, a majority of the British people want to guarantee the right of EU nationals already in the UK to stay here. They disagree with Ms May, who says she hopes that can happen, but that it depends on the attitude of other EU countries towards our citizens. At least she avoids the language of Liam Fox, her International Trade Secretary, who spoke of the rights of EU nationals here as one of the UK’s “main cards” in the Brexit negotiations. But our poll finds that 58 per cent of the British people think that we should guarantee the rights of EU citizens already here, even while other EU countries have not made a reciprocal promise.

This is precisely the kind of question on which Parliament should be allowed to influence the Government’s negotiating stance. And, as we also report today, that is what Ms May herself once thought. In 2007, she wrote that parliamentary sovereignty demanded “a system that gives Parliament real powers over ministers”. As she was writing about giving MPs enough time to scrutinise European legislation, the principle must apply to her European negotiations too.

Obviously in the end, Parliament will face what Ms May calls a binary choice between the Brexit deal negotiated by her Government or no deal at all. But there is an infinite range between a deal that protects the UK interest in the single market as much as possible and one that pulls down the shutters on trade and the movement of people. The British people, through their parliamentary representatives, should have as much of a say over that choice as they can.

It was unhelpful, therefore, for Tony Blair to engage in the debate this week. Much of what he said about keeping options open was sensible, but he also refused to rule out the possibility of a second referendum if there were sufficient evidence that the British people were horrified by the reality of the Brexit deal. That too is a reasonable view, but any talk of a second referendum plays into Ms May’s hands: it looks as if bad losers are trying to overturn the result of the first vote and it spawns thousands of sarcastic questions on social media about whether we should have the “best of three”.

The Independent accepts the result of the referendum, but that does not mean that we accept Ms May’s absolute right to decide the terms on which we leave the EU.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

I like haggis wrote:
bimboman wrote:

Again, immigration makes a net contribution of 4 billion pounds to the UK economy. That's far more than they receive back in benefits so our generosity does not extend to these migrants. Thank you for agreeing that I am correct about austerity. We are stretched purely because of austerity not building schools, hospitals etc that migrants could help fund with their 4 billion pound contribution (profit as you described it) to our economy but they are not responsible for the decision as to where their taxes are spent. The government decides that, don't blame immigrants for government economic policy cutting public service budgets
If it's a net figure I'd like to think it's post benefits so as to make it "net"

As for the rest of the paragraph. :lol: . What austerity ? Does migration bring 4 billion in one hit ? Annually? Do you realise 4 bln is a f ucking rounding error currently?
The economic policy we've experienced since Osbourne took over the exchequer in which all public sector spending has been cut leading to stretched services not getting the funding they need to provide an efficient service.

Obviously the contributions in tax that people make aren't an annual hit. I'm unsure what you mean by rounding error but you or anyone else would be very hard pressed to find any statistical evidence that immigrants are a drain on public spending because it doesn't exist as immigration is a positive for the UK economy.
Thank's for proving my point really, £4bn is £1.32 "Profit" per day, per head of person not born in the UK (2014 figures), that's fairly neutral. It's going to be a while before we can save up and build the infrastructure they need, so we're not diluting our current stock and a hell of a lot of expense, inconvenience and effort to go through for £1.32. And I doubt that includes the services they use either. By rounding error he means that even that may not exist as the numbers are so small they fall within the acceptable margin of error. Our generosity makes there very little benefit to them being here and thm an awful drain on infrastructure and services. While they drag down wages and push up demand and prices for things like housing.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

Here you go, here's some figures.

Recent EU immigrants contribute £1.34 for every £1 they take, so so we are +34p so a small net gain. Those outside the EU contribute 2p on the same basis. Recent immigrants from the 10 countries that joined the EU in 2004 (mainly eastern European) contribute 12p. Those from established members 64p.

(The longer they stay the worse it gets) But by the time they settle down and have kids EU immigrants contribute 5p, non-EU immigrants -15p. It doesn't mention the 2004 lot but I'd imagine that's -something.

So we need to allow in the young from the established countries and "encourage" them to fudge off before they settle down. And of course yet again, this doesn't include the dilution of living standards it's hard to put a cost on that but it does include services, well at least education, but limiting the numbers and quality limits the impact on infrastructure and increases the contribution.
https://fullfact.org/immigration/do-eu- ... y-receive/


Encourage the young educated to come from 1st world nations in or outside of the EU on time limited work permits but pay no child related benefits and limit the rights to bring family until full citizenship is granted. Come down harshly on companies and individuals who employ those with no work permits. We'll have a fraction of numbers and a multiplication of the contribution.
User avatar
Duff Paddy
Posts: 41249
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Duff Paddy »

It doesn't work like that, but then again you already know this don't you.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

Duff Paddy wrote:It doesn't work like that, but then again you already know this don't you.
If you are talking about people choosing to live between the cracks Duff, I see no reason to feel sympathy for people who take it upon themselves to do that and even less reason to fund them. I also think that will be limited with regard to EU immigration because living between the cracks in the UK can be no better than living a legal existence in even the poorest EU country, especially when you have the right to go to Ireland, be welcomed and funded legally.
fisgard792
Posts: 4515
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by fisgard792 »

SamShark wrote:Independent editorial today on the theme of everyone shutting up now as the "people have spoken"

They have also publicised a BMG poll showing that 66% of people advocate guaranteeing EU citizens’ rights to stay immediately if other EU states were prepared to do the same for British citizens living abroad
We know Theresa May’s game, and we are not falling for it. Her cunning plan, as Jeremy Corbyn might have characterised it, is to pretend that anyone who seeks any kind of democratic oversight of her Brexit negotiation is trying to “frustrate the will of the British people”.

She tried to use that argument at Prime Minister’s Questions this week against Mr Corbyn. It was rather ineffective because the Labour leader’s ambivalence about the European Union makes it hard to suggest that his heart is really in trying to block our exit.

However, it could be effective against the Labour Party as a whole, and against shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer and Brexit select committee chair Hilary Benn, the leaders of the opposition to a hard exit deal – that is, a deal that puts cutting immigration above our national prosperity.

Those who are opposed to that kind of Brexit need to make sure that they are not painted into the corner of appearing to stand against the referendum result. The idea that giving Parliament a say over the terms of our departure from the EU is an attempt to block our departure is a clever rhetorical device, but Ms May must not be allowed to get away with it.

As we report today, a majority of the British people want to guarantee the right of EU nationals already in the UK to stay here. They disagree with Ms May, who says she hopes that can happen, but that it depends on the attitude of other EU countries towards our citizens. At least she avoids the language of Liam Fox, her International Trade Secretary, who spoke of the rights of EU nationals here as one of the UK’s “main cards” in the Brexit negotiations. But our poll finds that 58 per cent of the British people think that we should guarantee the rights of EU citizens already here, even while other EU countries have not made a reciprocal promise.

This is precisely the kind of question on which Parliament should be allowed to influence the Government’s negotiating stance. And, as we also report today, that is what Ms May herself once thought. In 2007, she wrote that parliamentary sovereignty demanded “a system that gives Parliament real powers over ministers”. As she was writing about giving MPs enough time to scrutinise European legislation, the principle must apply to her European negotiations too.

Obviously in the end, Parliament will face what Ms May calls a binary choice between the Brexit deal negotiated by her Government or no deal at all. But there is an infinite range between a deal that protects the UK interest in the single market as much as possible and one that pulls down the shutters on trade and the movement of people. The British people, through their parliamentary representatives, should have as much of a say over that choice as they can.

It was unhelpful, therefore, for Tony Blair to engage in the debate this week. Much of what he said about keeping options open was sensible, but he also refused to rule out the possibility of a second referendum if there were sufficient evidence that the British people were horrified by the reality of the Brexit deal. That too is a reasonable view, but any talk of a second referendum plays into Ms May’s hands: it looks as if bad losers are trying to overturn the result of the first vote and it spawns thousands of sarcastic questions on social media about whether we should have the “best of three”.

The Independent accepts the result of the referendum, but that does not mean that we accept Ms May’s absolute right to decide the terms on which we leave the EU.
thats a pretty juvenile piece of writing tbf

if thats the precedent they want, they can take to to the chancellor before each budget
"The Independent accepts the Chancellor has to do the Budget to bring down inflation/debt/or whatever, but that does not mean that we accept the Chancellor's absolute right to decide the terms on which he does it."
User avatar
SamShark
Posts: 20522
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by SamShark »

That's not the same thing at all is it?

The editorial says that the vote was for out, so that's what will happen, but the PM can't accuse anyone who tries to scrutinise the terms of leaving as frustrating the will of the people.
fisgard792
Posts: 4515
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by fisgard792 »

SamShark wrote:That's not the same thing at all is it?

The editorial says that the vote was for out, so that's what will happen, but the PM can't accuse anyone who tries to scrutinise the terms of leaving as frustrating the will of the people.
yes it is
the vote was in/out, it was not, in or out with this caveat or out with that caveat

if it was vote in, we would have to have gone with what came down the line irrespective of what that was, and so be it with the vote out

i voted remain, but its totally hypocritical position a lot of remainers have at the moment.

you voted remain, so if it had been you preferred vote outcome, would you be now moaning, ohh i didnt vote for an defence budget, or ohh i didnt vote an eu foreign policy or whatever else that was coming down the line, i doubt it, and what would you say to those who did
C69
Posts: 41831
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Location: For Wales the Welsh and aproppriate pronouns

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by C69 »

Tbh Sam that is a very lazy piece of writing.
User avatar
SamShark
Posts: 20522
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by SamShark »

yes it is
the vote was in/out, it was not, in or out with this caveat or out with that caveat

So are you happy to go with whatever the PM chooses, and no scrutiny. There was no this caveat or that caveat for either side, or any sort of roadmap, so why shouldn't people try to influence matters if for instance they value single market access over immigration control?

if it was vote in, we would have to have gone with what came down the line irrespective of what that was, and so be it with the vote out. i voted remain, but its totally hypocritical position a lot of remainers have at the moment.

What position? The position where you feel there is still a debate to be had about the terms of exit? Are you saying there isn't? I don't understand your standpoint here - you think everyone should just remain silent here and let what happens happens or be accused of hypocrisy?

you voted remain, so if it had been you preferred vote outcome, would you be now moaning, ohh i didnt vote for an defence budget, or ohh i didnt vote an eu foreign policy or whatever else that was coming down the line, i doubt it, and what would you say to those who did

Of course people continue to offer an opinion on political decisions - I really don't get what you're driving at here with this whole "suck it up bad loser" narrative. Decisions in a "remain" world would have been as open to challenge as they always are.

I suspect after a sadly hypothetical very tight remain victory Cameron would have HAD to offer something to disgruntled leavers. The issues wouldn't have gone away for those that wanted to leave. I suspect I would have had little time for anyone demanding a second referendum but it would be beyond belief to expect that the issues of what "stay" looks like would no longer be on the table.
Last edited by SamShark on Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
paddyor
Posts: 19514
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by paddyor »

fisgard792 wrote:
TranceNRG wrote:
SamShark wrote:Anyway my original question about what the PM thinks still interests me. There are people like Liam Fox who would leave come what may, or people like Clegg who are ideologically pro EU

If presented with all the data, the views, the available deal and all the behind closed doors info, and leaving looked bad, would the PM press ahead anyway because of a vote in 2016 or take another route.

I don't think it's anti democratic or sneering to be concerned that because of politics we'd go down a clearly inferior path.

It might not be that clear cut when it comes to the crunch, but was 23rd June 2016 the last time anyone had any right to influence this issue?
I think only Theresa May and her close colleagues know what she really thinks but I suspect she was a reluctant remainer (like so many other people) who didn't like a lot of things about the EU but was supporting it purely for economical reasons (uncertainty is not great for the economy). Since the referndum she's accepted the result and is committed to delivering the result and getting the best deal possible for the UK - they are being ambitious but a lot of people are trying to stop them but she's shown her great leadership qualities and in resilient in her approach. Theresa May and the government must also be very encouraged by the positive economic data that has come out since referendum - UK economy is one of the strongest in the EU and can withstand tough times. She knows the majority of the UK want immigration controls and she also knows businesses want tariff free access for goods and services. They have a tough job going in to negotiations but they are being optimistic.

I reckon people/parliament will get a say on the final deal before UK leave the EU.
theres a lot of people bitching, but offering no alternative practicable solutions, but because some feel personally aggrieved the result wasnt the one they wanted, they are losing all rationale

if you broadcast your grey and red lines prior to entering into a negotiation, its actually becomes not a negotiation

how many times in a career, does a person get told to pursue and enact policies on behalf of senior management, they dont agree with, its a pretty common event from my experience, but you generally with caveats, you just get on and do it
They've already broadcast their "red line" issues and it reamins to be seen how baked in they are.

The problem is in part that 2 strategys of post Ref Brexit have been debunked. The first, David Davis's big plan to side step the EU altogether and do a deal with Germany and France (not happening). And the second, preliminary talks before art 50 is triggered (nothing so far). Both of those would have given a fairly clear idea of what kind of deal could be expected before it happened.
User avatar
paddyor
Posts: 19514
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by paddyor »

dr dre2 wrote:Here you go, here's some figures.

Recent EU immigrants contribute £1.34 for every £1 they take, so so we are +34p so a small net gain. Those outside the EU contribute 2p on the same basis. Recent immigrants from the 10 countries that joined the EU in 2004 (mainly eastern European) contribute 12p. Those from established members 64p.

(The longer they stay the worse it gets) But by the time they settle down and have kids EU immigrants contribute 5p, non-EU immigrants -15p. It doesn't mention the 2004 lot but I'd imagine that's -something.

So we need to allow in the young from the established countries and "encourage" them to f**k off before they settle down. And of course yet again, this doesn't include the dilution of living standards it's hard to put a cost on that but it does include services, well at least education, but limiting the numbers and quality limits the impact on infrastructure and increases the contribution.
https://fullfact.org/immigration/do-eu- ... y-receive/


Encourage the young educated to come from 1st world nations in or outside of the EU on time limited work permits but pay no child related benefits and limit the rights to bring family until full citizenship is granted. Come down harshly on companies and individuals who employ those with no work permits. We'll have a fraction of numbers and a multiplication of the contribution.
I just think people should be warned that Dre tried to argue that the Uk market was bigger than the single market earlier in the week.

If someone pays their taxes and NI shoudldn't they be entitled to avail of state services etc? Child benefit, which isn't that much in the UK, in all likelihood ends up back in the UK economy fairly rapidly(excepting situtations where the immigrants move abroad/back home). Would tax credits not be a better example of unearned benefits?
fisgard792
Posts: 4515
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by fisgard792 »

SamShark wrote:yes it is
So are you happy to go with whatever the PM chooses, and no scritiny. There was no this caveat or that caveat for either side, or any sort of roadmap, so why shouldnt people try to influence matters if for instance they value single market access over immigration control?
sam, by all means, and please i hope it does happen, that business etc lobbies for certain positions beforehand on the negotiations, they know infinitely more than me, but that is different from demanding a running commentary
Rugby2023
Posts: 12395
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:05 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Rugby2023 »

paddyor wrote:They've already broadcast their "red line" issues and it reamins to be seen how baked in they are.

The problem is in part that 2 strategys of post Ref Brexit have been debunked. The first, David Davis's big plan to side step the EU altogether and do a deal with Germany and France (not happening). And the second, preliminary talks before art 50 is triggered (nothing so far). Both of those would have given a fairly clear idea of what kind of deal could be expected before it happened.
Article 50 hasn't been activated. Bear in mind it was Davis's initiative to delay the activation of Article 50 in the first instance in order to prepare a negotiating team. I should imagine it remains the UK's intention to strike deals with Germany and France, whether Merkel and Hollande will still be in situ is another question.
User avatar
SamShark
Posts: 20522
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by SamShark »

I dont want a running commentary as I agree there's no point - I wouldn't trust the commentary anyway as politicians in the UK and beyond need to look tough and uncompromising.

I do want accountability though - whether it's a vote in parliament, a GE or a referendum, I think there has to be an opportunity to accept or reject what the Govt have negotiated.

If parliament does it, fine. If they can;t or wont, have another referendum - not sure why that's simply unacceptable and so readily ruled out (I accept that for now no politician can call for it)
Rugby2023
Posts: 12395
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:05 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Rugby2023 »

SamShark wrote:I dont want a running commentary as I agree there's no point - I wouldn't trust the commentary anyway as politicians in the UK and beyond need to look tough and uncompromising.

I do want accountability though - whether it's a vote in parliament, a GE or a referendum, I think there has to be an opportunity to accept or reject what the Govt have negotiated.

If parliament does it, fine. If they can;t or wont, have another referendum - not sure why that's simply unacceptable and so readily ruled out (I accept that for now no politician can call for it)
May has already confirmed that will take place.
Parliament will be given the chance to approve a new treaty agreed with the EU following the Article 50 process
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... a-may-con/
User avatar
paddyor
Posts: 19514
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by paddyor »

Rugby2023 wrote:
paddyor wrote:They've already broadcast their "red line" issues and it reamins to be seen how baked in they are.

The problem is in part that 2 strategys of post Ref Brexit have been debunked. The first, David Davis's big plan to side step the EU altogether and do a deal with Germany and France (not happening). And the second, preliminary talks before art 50 is triggered (nothing so far). Both of those would have given a fairly clear idea of what kind of deal could be expected before it happened.
Article 50 hasn't been activated. Bear in mind it was Davis's initiative to delay the activation of Article 50 in the first instance in order to prepare a negotiating team. I should imagine it remains the UK's intention to strike deals with Germany and France, whether Merkel and Hollande will still be in situ is another question.
It won't happen because any deal would require the approval of all 27 members of the EU.

You're probably right about Hollande (approval 5%) but Merkel has little opposition in Germany.
piquant
Posts: 9881
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by piquant »

Rugby2023 wrote: May has already confirmed that will take place.
Problem with that is once we've triggered a50 it's in many ways going to be a done deal, in that we can't then simply say we don't want the deal without the EU saying we're fine to go back as we there. I'd still hold that going to parliament first makes more sense in democratic terms vs the PM acting as a Queen, and it'll also allow the full range of views to come to bear on what our negotiations should be, and it'd avoid the utter mess that Parliament doesn't ratify the deal 2 ( or 3, or 5, or 10) years following triggering a50
Silver
Posts: 9980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Silver »

piquant wrote:
Rugby2023 wrote: May has already confirmed that will take place.
Problem with that is once we've triggered a50 it's in many ways going to be a done deal, in that we can't then simply say we don't want the deal without the EU saying we're fine to go back as we there. I'd still hold that going to parliament first makes more sense in democratic terms vs the PM acting as a Queen, and it'll also allow the full range of views to come to bear on what our negotiations should be, and it'd avoid the utter mess that Parliament doesn't ratify the deal 2 ( or 3, or 5, or 10) years following triggering a50
Parliament agreed to pass this decision to the people. so now its just up to the Govt to get us out.
piquant
Posts: 9881
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by piquant »

Silver wrote:
piquant wrote:
Rugby2023 wrote: May has already confirmed that will take place.
Problem with that is once we've triggered a50 it's in many ways going to be a done deal, in that we can't then simply say we don't want the deal without the EU saying we're fine to go back as we there. I'd still hold that going to parliament first makes more sense in democratic terms vs the PM acting as a Queen, and it'll also allow the full range of views to come to bear on what our negotiations should be, and it'd avoid the utter mess that Parliament doesn't ratify the deal 2 ( or 3, or 5, or 10) years following triggering a50
Parliament agreed to pass this decision to the people. so now its just up to the Govt to get us out.
Technically I think that sufficient. In practice I think it poor practice and rather anti democratic. And if Parliament not having been consulted then votes down the deal it's a mess, if Parliament advises on the terms of our negotiations I think it much harder for them to then vote down the outcome, and actually in advance it'd be much easier to shout down those who are tempted to to try and skirt over the referendum result.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

paddyor wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:Here you go, here's some figures.

Recent EU immigrants contribute £1.34 for every £1 they take, so so we are +34p so a small net gain. Those outside the EU contribute 2p on the same basis. Recent immigrants from the 10 countries that joined the EU in 2004 (mainly eastern European) contribute 12p. Those from established members 64p.

(The longer they stay the worse it gets) But by the time they settle down and have kids EU immigrants contribute 5p, non-EU immigrants -15p. It doesn't mention the 2004 lot but I'd imagine that's -something.

So we need to allow in the young from the established countries and "encourage" them to f**k off before they settle down. And of course yet again, this doesn't include the dilution of living standards it's hard to put a cost on that but it does include services, well at least education, but limiting the numbers and quality limits the impact on infrastructure and increases the contribution.
https://fullfact.org/immigration/do-eu- ... y-receive/


Encourage the young educated to come from 1st world nations in or outside of the EU on time limited work permits but pay no child related benefits and limit the rights to bring family until full citizenship is granted. Come down harshly on companies and individuals who employ those with no work permits. We'll have a fraction of numbers and a multiplication of the contribution.
I just think people should be warned that Dre tried to argue that the Uk market was bigger than the single market earlier in the week.

If someone pays their taxes and NI shoudldn't they be entitled to avail of state services etc? Child benefit, which isn't that much in the UK, in all likelihood ends up back in the UK economy fairly rapidly(excepting situtations where the immigrants move abroad/back home). Would tax credits not be a better example of unearned benefits?
I think you ought to back that up :lol: :lol:

Child tax credits is substantial, much more so than child benefit. You get both, I'm suggesting neither.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

paddyor wrote:
Rugby2023 wrote:
paddyor wrote:They've already broadcast their "red line" issues and it reamins to be seen how baked in they are.

The problem is in part that 2 strategys of post Ref Brexit have been debunked. The first, David Davis's big plan to side step the EU altogether and do a deal with Germany and France (not happening). And the second, preliminary talks before art 50 is triggered (nothing so far). Both of those would have given a fairly clear idea of what kind of deal could be expected before it happened.
Article 50 hasn't been activated. Bear in mind it was Davis's initiative to delay the activation of Article 50 in the first instance in order to prepare a negotiating team. I should imagine it remains the UK's intention to strike deals with Germany and France, whether Merkel and Hollande will still be in situ is another question.
It won't happen because any deal would require the approval of all 27 members of the EU.

You're probably right about Hollande (approval 5%) but Merkel has little opposition in Germany.
Are you not keeping up with the situation there? Her approval rating is dropping like a stone, her party is getting beaten in to third place in the local elections by a bunch of far right loons, she's been un-invited from attending the convention of her sister party (an event it's traditional she attends) the sister party who are so close to her party they decide to only put one candidate forward between them (since ww2), that sister party's leader has publicly fallen out with her, there is talk of other member of her coalition dropping her and one of her ministers has come out in support of a policy against the party line. All while she ponders whether to run again or not in 10 months time. Yeah, she's probably not going to be there.
bimboman
Posts: 72910
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »

If someone pays their taxes and NI shoudldn't they be entitled to avail of state services etc? Child benefit, which isn't that much in the UK, in all likelihood ends up back in the UK economy fairly rapidly(excepting situtations where the immigrants move abroad/back home). Would tax credits not be a better example of unearned benefits?
It's whether they're paying enough tax and NI to cover the bill though, it's disengenuos to argue they're still contributing if the tax paid is less than the services offered.

Child benefit in the UK is a damm sight higher than it is in Lithuania or Poland, again it's a value judgement regarding cheaper services and food being worth the subsidy.
User avatar
Zico
Posts: 8207
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: อีสาน

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Zico »

bimboman wrote:
If someone pays their taxes and NI shoudldn't they be entitled to avail of state services etc? Child benefit, which isn't that much in the UK, in all likelihood ends up back in the UK economy fairly rapidly(excepting situtations where the immigrants move abroad/back home). Would tax credits not be a better example of unearned benefits?
It's whether they're paying enough tax and NI to cover the bill though, it's disengenuos to argue they're still contributing if the tax paid is less than the services offered.

Child benefit in the UK is a damm sight higher than it is in Lithuania or Poland, again it's a value judgement regarding cheaper services and food being worth the subsidy.
Holy shit you're really suggesting a country might be better off with a smaller economy. :lol:
bimboman
Posts: 72910
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »

Zico wrote:
bimboman wrote:
If someone pays their taxes and NI shoudldn't they be entitled to avail of state services etc? Child benefit, which isn't that much in the UK, in all likelihood ends up back in the UK economy fairly rapidly(excepting situtations where the immigrants move abroad/back home). Would tax credits not be a better example of unearned benefits?
It's whether they're paying enough tax and NI to cover the bill though, it's disengenuos to argue they're still contributing if the tax paid is less than the services offered.

Child benefit in the UK is a damm sight higher than it is in Lithuania or Poland, again it's a value judgement regarding cheaper services and food being worth the subsidy.
Holy shit you're really suggesting a country might be better off with a smaller economy. :lol:

Well per head they may be. What's odd about that ? Plus if the cost of services like food delivery and "childcare" rise proportionately then there's not actually an economic loss.
Last edited by bimboman on Sun Oct 30, 2016 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

bimboman wrote:
If someone pays their taxes and NI shoudldn't they be entitled to avail of state services etc? Child benefit, which isn't that much in the UK, in all likelihood ends up back in the UK economy fairly rapidly(excepting situtations where the immigrants move abroad/back home). Would tax credits not be a better example of unearned benefits?
It's whether they're paying enough tax and NI to cover the bill though, it's disengenuos to argue they're still contributing if the tax paid is less than the services offered.

Child benefit in the UK is a damm sight higher than it is in Lithuania or Poland, again it's a value judgement regarding cheaper services and food being worth the subsidy.
:thumbup: I I posted earlier, he's not looking at child tax credits either and I posted the figures earlier, We make jusp a 5p "profit" (£1.05 payed in tax, for every £1.00 taken) on Long term EU migrants, this includes migrants from rich countries. The rich country EU migrants are a lot more profitable (as shown in the other figures), We will be losing heavily on the Eastern European EU long term migrants. We only make 12p on the young single ones (Eastern European), 64p we make on the French young single etc.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

bimboman wrote:
Zico wrote:
bimboman wrote:
If someone pays their taxes and NI shoudldn't they be entitled to avail of state services etc? Child benefit, which isn't that much in the UK, in all likelihood ends up back in the UK economy fairly rapidly(excepting situtations where the immigrants move abroad/back home). Would tax credits not be a better example of unearned benefits?
It's whether they're paying enough tax and NI to cover the bill though, it's disengenuos to argue they're still contributing if the tax paid is less than the services offered.

Child benefit in the UK is a damm sight higher than it is in Lithuania or Poland, again it's a value judgement regarding cheaper services and food being worth the subsidy.
Holy shit you're really suggesting a country might be better off with a smaller economy. :lol:

Well per head they may be. What's odd about that ?
Yeah, having a big turnover but running at a massive loss or a slightly smaller one and running at a profit. I know which one makes business sense to me. Pushing up T/O and seeking borrowing to cover the shortfall is the very definition of insolvency and illegal trading, if you do that knowingly as a director you can be made personally liable for the debt and go to jail. Pushing up T/O and creating a bubble is just great until you can no longer fuel the bubble with growth, ask labour. Ask Ireland!!! As long as you bring in £1.1m this month to cover last months £1m bill you're just grand, then £1.2 next month and on and on until you can no longer keep up, then the market adjusts and you're f**ked. I've been there personally.
Last edited by dr dre2 on Sun Oct 30, 2016 5:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Zico
Posts: 8207
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: อีสาน

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Zico »

Well there's already a name for reducing the size of your economy it's called a recession and you boys are the first people I've ever heard suggest it's a good thing. :uhoh:
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

Zico wrote:Well there's already a name for reducing the size of your economy it's called a recession and you boys are the first people I've ever heard suggest it's a good thing. :uhoh:
It's only a good thing if you can manage to come out of it with more money to spend, rationalising it's called. I'll give you that it's not usually applied to countries, but is, in business all the time. We'd hope to see growth too with a very short term readjustment. T/O for T/Os sake just gets out of control.
bimboman
Posts: 72910
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »

Zico wrote:Well there's already a name for reducing the size of your economy it's called a recession and you boys are the first people I've ever heard suggest it's a good thing. :uhoh:
Are you being deliberately dense ? If the cost of the services provided by migrants rises if theres less immigrants then actually the economy doesn't reduce in size. Plus as pointed out a reduction in turn over with less costs then I'd take that kind of recession all day long.
User avatar
paddyor
Posts: 19514
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by paddyor »

dr dre2 wrote:
paddyor wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:Here you go, here's some figures.

Recent EU immigrants contribute £1.34 for every £1 they take, so so we are +34p so a small net gain. Those outside the EU contribute 2p on the same basis. Recent immigrants from the 10 countries that joined the EU in 2004 (mainly eastern European) contribute 12p. Those from established members 64p.

(The longer they stay the worse it gets) But by the time they settle down and have kids EU immigrants contribute 5p, non-EU immigrants -15p. It doesn't mention the 2004 lot but I'd imagine that's -something.

So we need to allow in the young from the established countries and "encourage" them to f**k off before they settle down. And of course yet again, this doesn't include the dilution of living standards it's hard to put a cost on that but it does include services, well at least education, but limiting the numbers and quality limits the impact on infrastructure and increases the contribution.
https://fullfact.org/immigration/do-eu- ... y-receive/


Encourage the young educated to come from 1st world nations in or outside of the EU on time limited work permits but pay no child related benefits and limit the rights to bring family until full citizenship is granted. Come down harshly on companies and individuals who employ those with no work permits. We'll have a fraction of numbers and a multiplication of the contribution.
I just think people should be warned that Dre tried to argue that the Uk market was bigger than the single market earlier in the week.

If someone pays their taxes and NI shoudldn't they be entitled to avail of state services etc? Child benefit, which isn't that much in the UK, in all likelihood ends up back in the UK economy fairly rapidly(excepting situtations where the immigrants move abroad/back home). Would tax credits not be a better example of unearned benefits?
I think you ought to back that up :lol: :lol:

Child tax credits is substantial, much more so than child benefit. You get both, I'm suggesting neither.
dr dre2 wrote:They also sell over twice as many cars in the UK than they do in their next best European market (France). And already have EU plants to make EÙ sales through.

I think the realisation is, as much as it's a pain in the arse you just cant throw that kind of business away. Cool heads will win out.

Toyota have expressed support today too.
User avatar
Chuckles1188
Posts: 40610
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Chuckles1188 »

Oh dear
User avatar
paddyor
Posts: 19514
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by paddyor »

dr dre2 wrote:
paddyor wrote:
Rugby2023 wrote:
paddyor wrote:They've already broadcast their "red line" issues and it reamins to be seen how baked in they are.

The problem is in part that 2 strategys of post Ref Brexit have been debunked. The first, David Davis's big plan to side step the EU altogether and do a deal with Germany and France (not happening). And the second, preliminary talks before art 50 is triggered (nothing so far). Both of those would have given a fairly clear idea of what kind of deal could be expected before it happened.
Article 50 hasn't been activated. Bear in mind it was Davis's initiative to delay the activation of Article 50 in the first instance in order to prepare a negotiating team. I should imagine it remains the UK's intention to strike deals with Germany and France, whether Merkel and Hollande will still be in situ is another question.
It won't happen because any deal would require the approval of all 27 members of the EU.

You're probably right about Hollande (approval 5%) but Merkel has little opposition in Germany.
Are you not keeping up with the situation there? Her approval rating is dropping like a stone, her party is getting beaten in to third place in the local elections by a bunch of far right loons, she's been un-invited from attending the convention of her sister party (an event it's traditional she attends) the sister party who are so close to her party they decide to only put one candidate forward between them (since ww2), that sister party's leader has publicly fallen out with her, there is talk of other member of her coalition dropping her and one of her ministers has come out in support of a policy against the party line. All while she ponders whether to run again or not in 10 months time. Yeah, she's probably not going to be there.
According to the latest poll for the ARD-Tagesthemen media company, 45 percent of Germans are satisfied with Merkel’s work, her lowest poll rating since 2011.
.....

When asked who they would vote for if the next parliamentary elections were on Sunday, only 33 percent of Germans backed Merkel’s Christian Democrats, down one point from last month. Meanwhile the AfD won two percentage points, leapfrogging the Green party as the third most popular party in the country for the second time this year, with 14 percent.
She has been around a while, though that's hardly abnormal in German politics.
Helmut Josef Michael Kohl (German: [ˈhɛlmuːt ˈjoːzɛf 'mɪçaʔeːl ˈkoːl]; born 3 April 1930) is a German retired politician and statesman, who served as Chancellor of Germany from 1982 to 1998 (of West Germany 1982–90 and of the reunited Germany 1990–98) and as the chairman of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) from 1973 to 1998.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

Chuckles1188 wrote:Oh dear
Exactly! I was clearly comparing country vs country, not country vs trading block to show they actually sell an amount of cars here they couldn't risk losing. Not, of course comparing the UK to the whole continent of Europe.
User avatar
Zico
Posts: 8207
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: อีสาน

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Zico »

bimboman wrote:
Zico wrote:Well there's already a name for reducing the size of your economy it's called a recession and you boys are the first people I've ever heard suggest it's a good thing. :uhoh:
Are you being deliberately dense ? If the cost of the services provided by migrants rises if theres less immigrants then actually the economy doesn't reduce in size. Plus as pointed out a reduction in turn over with less costs then I'd take that kind of recession all day long.
Which corner shop is this?
bimboman
Posts: 72910
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »

Zico wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Zico wrote:Well there's already a name for reducing the size of your economy it's called a recession and you boys are the first people I've ever heard suggest it's a good thing. :uhoh:
Are you being deliberately dense ? If the cost of the services provided by migrants rises if theres less immigrants then actually the economy doesn't reduce in size. Plus as pointed out a reduction in turn over with less costs then I'd take that kind of recession all day long.
Which corner shop is this?

Not sure it's deliberate , I guess I should apologise.
User avatar
Zico
Posts: 8207
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: อีสาน

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Zico »

bimboman wrote:
Zico wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Zico wrote:Well there's already a name for reducing the size of your economy it's called a recession and you boys are the first people I've ever heard suggest it's a good thing. :uhoh:
Are you being deliberately dense ? If the cost of the services provided by migrants rises if theres less immigrants then actually the economy doesn't reduce in size. Plus as pointed out a reduction in turn over with less costs then I'd take that kind of recession all day long.
Which corner shop is this?

Not sure it's deliberate , I guess I should apologise.
You're trying to make an economic case against immigration on a simplist costs anaylsis basis, regardless of whether you've the data to do it acurately it's meaningless on the scale of a country's economy.

Frankly I think it's laughable that you'd even try because immigration is not only beneficial but it's essential for economic prosperity in countries like Britain.
Locked