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

User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

piquant wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
piquant wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
piquant wrote:Also one we've triggered article 50 then it rather locks us into a process. I happen to view the government as being technically entitled to do just that, but it doesn't feel like a correct procedure of due process. To parliament first to actually secure a mandate seems a much better idea to me, a much more democratic idea (and I'm sure we heard details on bringing decision making back into this country), and hopefully avoids the awful scenario of the government later putting a deal before the commons which gets rejected. Yes going to parliament adds some complications and more negotiations, but to have an unelected PM use the royal prerogative brings us more in line with a decision making process that Mugabe would approve of than I'm comfortable with.

I'm still struck that we're going to spend billions on this process, and that it'll restrict so much else that could be getting worked on as it'll drain governmental and civil service resources in alarming fashion.
We have to trigger a50 before we know what the deal will be, we cant possibly know what the deal will be, by the time we do the process is irreversible and the deal we get is the deal we get, what exactly are parliament going to vote on?
What are aims are.

Such aims may fail in the negotiations, but it'd be good to get a reasonable mandate established.
It's ridiculous to enter negotiations with a voted on list of demands you cant really bend on.
Meh. This government was elected on a manifesto to amongst cut the deficit in specific fashion, and yet they've happily just scrapped that detail on the back of a new PM no one voted for.

Clearly it's not that tricky to bend even when you've said you will not. And too if they meet such problems then go back to parliament. These don't have to be one time can never be revisited decisions, as we've recently proved with a decision to leave.
There is a new mandate from the people post GE that sets a new priority that makes the old mandate unworkable. In most cases arguing a case that you have a indirect and quite loosely defined mandate from the people, and putting that to a vote of their representatives is quite sufficient for everyday government. But in the presence of a direct mandate from the people, it's hard to argue that their representatives have a more solid one. This direct mandate says leave the EU and the overwhelming evidence is that this includes ending free movement. Now if the peoples representatives vote and set another mandate at odds to the mandate of the people it should not take precedence anyway, your representatives should not overrule you.
piquant
Posts: 9576
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by piquant »

dr dre2 wrote: There is a new mandate from the people post GE that sets a new priority that makes the old mandate unworkable. In most cases arguing a case that you have a indirect and quite loosely defined mandate from the people, and putting that to a vote of their representatives is quite sufficient for everyday government. But in the presence of a direct mandate from the people, it's hard to argue that their representatives have a more solid one. This direct mandate says leave the EU and the overwhelming evidence is that this includes ending free movement. Now if the peoples representatives vote and set another mandate at odds to the mandate of the people it should not take precedence anyway, your representatives should not overrule you.
I agree there's a mandate to leave the EU. To scrap free movement, well maybe, certainly there's a large number against people coming here.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

piquant wrote:
dr dre2 wrote: There is a new mandate from the people post GE that sets a new priority that makes the old mandate unworkable. In most cases arguing a case that you have a indirect and quite loosely defined mandate from the people, and putting that to a vote of their representatives is quite sufficient for everyday government. But in the presence of a direct mandate from the people, it's hard to argue that their representatives have a more solid one. This direct mandate says leave the EU and the overwhelming evidence is that this includes ending free movement. Now if the peoples representatives vote and set another mandate at odds to the mandate of the people it should not take precedence anyway, your representatives should not overrule you.
I agree there's a mandate to leave the EU. To scrap free movement, well maybe, certainly there's a large number against people coming here.
The scrap free movement mandate is certainly looser than the leave the EU mandate, but it's a whole lot stronger than a hell of a lot of other loose mandates. It was the winning argument according to just about every poll and opinion. Now that creates a red line that rules out some of the other leave options and we know that the EU has a red line there too. Which leaves a solid mandate for "hard brexit" that the representatives cant really argue they have a more solid one, and should not contradict. Now i'm uncomfortable with "hard brexit" as a term, yes it forces us to leave the "single market tm" as that has free movement as a package, BUT we are going to attempt to negotiate "near single market tm" access something close to CETA (or EEA-), so we will hard brexit but them hopefully reenter something closely resembling the single market. Now CETA took many years of negotiating but that was from a standing start. We are already perfectly in sync with the EU and it's a matter of a handful of things being removed, rather than ripping it up and starting again. It's better that the government don't have their hands tied and cards facing up going in to these negotiations.

Now people play us down, but we hold a lot of cards. It's become a bit of a toxic subject that gets mocked but it's very valid. We buy more from them than they do from us, we are their best customer and there are no absolutes. If you are faced with losing a big chunk of custom over a few workable differences you suck it up and negotiate, that's just business. And Germany alone would be risking the sale of 800,000 cars in just one industry. What would the share holders say to that kind of retraction? jobs lost heads would roll. Now I'm not suggesting the German car industry or Germany have the final say, but pragmatism and good business will win over spite and we'll end up with EEA-.
piquant
Posts: 9576
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by piquant »

dr dre2 wrote:
The scrap free movement mandate is certainly looser than the leave the EU mandate, but it's a whole lot stronger than a hell of a lot of other loose mandates. It was the winning argument according to just about every poll and opinion. Now that creates a red line that rules out some of the other leave options and we know that the EU has a red line there too. Which leaves a solid mandate for "hard brexit" that the representatives cant really argue they have a more solid one, and should not contradict. Now i'm uncomfortable with "hard brexit" as a term, yes it forces us to leave the "single market tm" as that has free movement as a package, BUT we are going to attempt to negotiate "near single market tm" access something close to CETA (or EEA-), so we will hard brexit but them hopefully reenter something closely resembling the single market. Now CETA took many years of negotiating but that was from a standing start. We are already perfectly in sync with the EU and it's a matter of a handful of things being removed, rather than ripping it up and starting again. It's better that the government don't have their hands tied and cards facing up going in to these negotiations.
I'm not sure one can claim to be in perfect sync having just noted one would cross a red line such as free movement.

CETA is probably a more straightforward deal tbh, and wasn't coming from a standing start. What it probably does show is there's no chance to get the work done in two years once we trigger a50, and hopefully the EU at least plays ball by giving us an interim deal

And it's arguably better for the government not to have their hands tied, but that's a different thing to being democratic about it, it's always easier to just dictate.

And there's no mandate for hard brexit, or soft either. There's no mandate bar leave the EU, and i can only hope we don't allow pollsters to ever create policy in such fashion as using word maps with immigration to the fore to reveal the roadmap
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

piquant wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
The scrap free movement mandate is certainly looser than the leave the EU mandate, but it's a whole lot stronger than a hell of a lot of other loose mandates. It was the winning argument according to just about every poll and opinion. Now that creates a red line that rules out some of the other leave options and we know that the EU has a red line there too. Which leaves a solid mandate for "hard brexit" that the representatives cant really argue they have a more solid one, and should not contradict. Now i'm uncomfortable with "hard brexit" as a term, yes it forces us to leave the "single market tm" as that has free movement as a package, BUT we are going to attempt to negotiate "near single market tm" access something close to CETA (or EEA-), so we will hard brexit but them hopefully reenter something closely resembling the single market. Now CETA took many years of negotiating but that was from a standing start. We are already perfectly in sync with the EU and it's a matter of a handful of things being removed, rather than ripping it up and starting again. It's better that the government don't have their hands tied and cards facing up going in to these negotiations.
I'm not sure one can claim to be in perfect sync having just noted one would cross a red line such as free movement.

CETA is probably a more straightforward deal tbh, and wasn't coming from a standing start. What it probably does show is there's no chance to get the work done in two years once we trigger a50, and hopefully the EU at least plays ball by giving us an interim deal

And it's arguably better for the government not to have their hands tied, but that's a different thing to being democratic about it, it's always easier to just dictate.

And there's no mandate for hard brexit, or soft either. There's no mandate bar leave the EU, and i can only hope we don't allow pollsters to ever create policy in such fashion as using word maps with immigration to the fore to reveal the roadmap
I said we are CURRENTLY in perfect sync. Free movement is one of the handful of things that need to be un-sync'd on each side. 95% of the agreements can stay in place, now i'd hardly call that simple but it's hardly akin to starting negotiations on a whole trade deal, it's starting with one and working backwards and much more straight forward. It was plainly obvious that free movement was the key issue, how many interviews did you see where pro remain Labour MPs admitted to fighting a losing battle on the doorstep over immigration? I think you'll find they will freely admit it was the key motivating factor if asked, it's a mandate and I'd be keen to hear what you think, or anybody thinks was the winning argument if not that. Good luck arguing that immigration was not the major factor, jesus christ!! When it suited, all the slurs of racism were just fine, now it's not an issue.
piquant
Posts: 9576
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by piquant »

dr dre2 wrote:
piquant wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
The scrap free movement mandate is certainly looser than the leave the EU mandate, but it's a whole lot stronger than a hell of a lot of other loose mandates. It was the winning argument according to just about every poll and opinion. Now that creates a red line that rules out some of the other leave options and we know that the EU has a red line there too. Which leaves a solid mandate for "hard brexit" that the representatives cant really argue they have a more solid one, and should not contradict. Now i'm uncomfortable with "hard brexit" as a term, yes it forces us to leave the "single market tm" as that has free movement as a package, BUT we are going to attempt to negotiate "near single market tm" access something close to CETA (or EEA-), so we will hard brexit but them hopefully reenter something closely resembling the single market. Now CETA took many years of negotiating but that was from a standing start. We are already perfectly in sync with the EU and it's a matter of a handful of things being removed, rather than ripping it up and starting again. It's better that the government don't have their hands tied and cards facing up going in to these negotiations.
I'm not sure one can claim to be in perfect sync having just noted one would cross a red line such as free movement.

CETA is probably a more straightforward deal tbh, and wasn't coming from a standing start. What it probably does show is there's no chance to get the work done in two years once we trigger a50, and hopefully the EU at least plays ball by giving us an interim deal

And it's arguably better for the government not to have their hands tied, but that's a different thing to being democratic about it, it's always easier to just dictate.

And there's no mandate for hard brexit, or soft either. There's no mandate bar leave the EU, and i can only hope we don't allow pollsters to ever create policy in such fashion as using word maps with immigration to the fore to reveal the roadmap
I said we are CURRENTLY in perfect sync. Free movement is one of the handful of things that need to be un-sync'd on each side. 95% of the agreements can stay in place, now i'd hardly call that simple but it's hardly akin to starting negotiations on a whole trade deal, it's starting with one and working backwards and much more straight forward. It was plainly obvious that free movement was the key issue, how many interviews did you see where pro remain Labour MPs admitted to fighting a losing battle on the doorstep over immigration? I think you'll find they will freely admit it was the key motivating factor if asked, it's a mandate and I'd be keen to hear what you think, or anybody thinks was the winning argument if not that.
I think it was a key argument, albeit in part mistakenly directed at the EU and ignoring some economic reality. But it wasn't actually voted on. To have established a mandate on what direction we should now be taking such question would have to have been posed by the referendum and obviously it wasn't, which to me leaves us going to parliament to debate what our aims should be.

I've no idea where you're getting 95% of agreements can stay the same from other than as a figure plucked from the air, but it does seem to overlook the downstream impact of so many decisions that can or might be made in the months and years ahead. The idea things can basically stay the same makes sense as an interim deal whilst we work towards a new deal, I'm hopeful the EU will go for that, and that we'll have to accept on our end that the interim will be the status quo.

I'm worried of course that until a new deal is established that we'll see lower rates of investment, doubt always tending to see firms delaying or canceling spend. I know at my firm we've moved all new spending in Europe into Poland, now we might have done that anyway, but there's basically a ban on hiring and any serious capital spend in the UK now and it's not even up for discussion.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

It was so core to the argument that the pro remain PM went to negotiate free movement prior to the referendum, he came back with an offer of a "handbrake" and put that to the people, his deal, his handbrake, his solution were rejected. MANDATE.
bimboman
Posts: 69916
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »

dr dre2 wrote:It was so core to the argument that the pro remain PM went to negotiate free movement prior to the referendum, he came back with an offer of a "handbrake" and put that to the people, his deal, his handbrake, his solution were rejected. MANDATE.

Don't be silly.
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:
dr dre2 wrote:It was so core to the argument that the pro remain PM went to negotiate free movement prior to the referendum, he came back with an offer of a "handbrake" and put that to the people, his deal, his handbrake, his solution were rejected. MANDATE.

Don't be silly.
Care to expand? It was key to the case for remain and the counter key to the case to leave. It was put to the people as a case to remain. The people deemed it insufficient as a solution. The issue of EU immigration was strong enough for the PM to recognise it as key and attempt to renegotiate it, then put that to the people at the referendum, it kicked it all off. He made the claim that if he didn't deem it sufficient, he would campaign to leave also. Curbing benefits for the reason of reducing attractiveness and therefore EU immigration was deemed to be insufficient by the people. It was his centre piece. Therefore EU immigration and free movement was a central issue and one that the PM himself declared the determining factor on which he would cast his vote.
User avatar
Petej
Posts: 4738
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Monmouthshire

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Petej »

dr dre2 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:It was so core to the argument that the pro remain PM went to negotiate free movement prior to the referendum, he came back with an offer of a "handbrake" and put that to the people, his deal, his handbrake, his solution were rejected. MANDATE.

Don't be silly.
Care to expand? It was key to the case for remain and the counter key to the case to leave. It was put to the people as a case to remain. The people deemed it insufficient as a solution. The issue of EU immigration was strong enough for the PM to recognise it as key and attempt to renegotiate it, then put that to the people at the referendum, it kicked it all off. He made the claim that if he didn't deem it sufficient, he would campaign to leave also. Curbing benefits for the reason of reducing attractiveness and therefore EU immigration was deemed to be insufficient by the people. It was his centre piece. Therefore EU immigration and free movement was a central issue and one that the PM himself declared the determining factor on which he would cast his vote.
A lot of people don't differentiate between EU immigration (which i don't have a problem with) and external immigration (which i do have a problem with due to greater difficulties in integration).
piquant
Posts: 9576
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by piquant »

dr dre2 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:It was so core to the argument that the pro remain PM went to negotiate free movement prior to the referendum, he came back with an offer of a "handbrake" and put that to the people, his deal, his handbrake, his solution were rejected. MANDATE.

Don't be silly.
Care to expand? It was key to the case for remain and the counter key to the case to leave. It was put to the people as a case to remain. The people deemed it insufficient as a solution. The issue of EU immigration was strong enough for the PM to recognise it as key and attempt to renegotiate it, then put that to the people at the referendum, it kicked it all off. He made the claim that if he didn't deem it sufficient, he would campaign to leave also. Curbing benefits for the reason of reducing attractiveness and therefore EU immigration was deemed to be insufficient by the people. It was his centre piece. Therefore EU immigration and free movement was a central issue and one that the PM himself declared the determining factor on which he would cast his vote.
It was a central issue, along with a number of other central issues. Seeing as the question wasn't actually set though it'd seem unwise to ascribe motive looking backwards. If a mandate was wanted on such it could have been asked - though what we might see the GE with manifestos setting out the various party views on this and that might now be the best we can hope for in establishing an actual mandate.

As it stands we'd probably find a large number of people in favour of ending free movement in both leave and remain voting camps. We'd also find large numbers against it in both. And we'd find another group across both leave and remain being in favour of ending free movement providing it doesn't lead to lower economic wealth, and with any number of gradations on that theme.
User avatar
camroc1
Posts: 43062
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by camroc1 »

An interesting piece from today's Irish Times, by Chris Johns, a Welsh economist who's lived in Ireland for the past 25 years.
Brexit: Chris Johns on Britain’s lazy, jaw-dropping act of visceral self-harm
Ireland and Britain have stronger links than many realise, and it’s not all economics

about 20 hours ago
Chris Johns



October 1st found me sitting in an Irish bar in Cambridge watching a replay of the All-Ireland football final. I’ve lived in Ireland since 1988 and have tried to develop an interest in GAA but have to admit I don’t get it. Never mind, my sports-mad Irish son was starting university and I was happy to be spending time with him after delivering his gear to his new college. I spent most of the match reading the newspapers which were full, as is usual these days, of Brexit-related articles and commentary.
I needed a drink, having just shelled out for fees which, in England, run at just over three times the cost of an Irish university. Before the referendum that would have been roughly four times Irish fees; such are the effects of sterling’s devaluation. Sterling is the single most important barometer of unemotional Brexit opinion, one that is sending a powerful message that the Conservatives are happy to dismiss as just another expert opinion.
Travel freely
I am getting a British passport for my younger son, aware that the fees issue is likely to be rather a bigger problem in 2020, should he opt to leave Dublin. At the same time, I’m getting an Irish passport, qualifying via my Irish wife and 28 years of residency. I need to be able to travel freely around Europe and I am learning to speak French in an Irish accent – believe me, it helps.
Like most expat Brits I took a personal interest in the referendum and still feel resentful that I didn’t get a vote. As an economist I share the bafflement of those who believe that Brexit is an extraordinary act of self harm: those words are chosen carefully because I can only rationalise the outcome in terms of psychology. At best, Brexit is an emotional spasm; delusion on a grand scale. At worst, much darker forces are in play.


Initial characterisations of Brexiteers as the very rich, the very poor, the old and uneducated were found to be only partly true. The statistical picture is nuanced, something I discovered via a more informal route: the number of people I know; friends who voted to Leave.

I’ve holidayed in France for three decades, always sharing a house with various groups of people, mostly British, several of whom I have known since school days in Cardiff. When you have been acquainted for that long there are few surprises. Or at least that is what I thought.
Jaw-dropping
For the first time, late-night, wine-fuelled conversation turned into full-blown arguments and, on two occasions, a fist fight that I had to break up. The rows were about Brexit of course, and I was astonished to discover not just how deeply both sides hold their beliefs, but just how visceral, rather than rational, it has all become. The arguments of the Brexiteers are anti-intellectual, lazy, populist, xenophobic (if not racist) and utterly inward-looking.
Much is rightly made over the Tory reinterpretation of the referendum. Apparently, it was a protest against globalisation, immigration, the political classes, the elites, low wages and foreign doctors. It was a demand to bring back grammar schools and put workers on to company boards. And because 52 per cent of voters are upset about all of this, something must be done. Oh, and two fingers to the 48 per cent who aren’t as bothered; they are part of an elite that only exists to be sneered at. Didn’t anybody ever warn Theresa May about creating hostages to fortune? She wont be able to do anything about any of these “problems”. And she has made exactly the same mistake as Hillary Clinton: demonising voters who happen to disagree with you.
The shallowness – or unseriousness – of all this is jaw-dropping. Maybe de Gaulle was right, Europe should never have let the Brits in. After all, they have never understood Europe. I blame, partly, successive generations of Europhile politicians such as Ted Heath and Ken Clarke: they always downplayed Europe’s federal ambitions and kept telling us that it was just a free-trade zone. You have to know a little bit about history to understand the EU, perhaps even forgive some of its many infuriating aspects. Indeed, there is a lot to forgive.
Global citizenship
It is lazy to blame globalisation – another thing the UK political scene has in common with the US. There is a problem with unskilled labour. There are fewer jobs and no wage growth, but this is a global phenomenon with virtually no evidence that migration is the cause. It has got lots to do with technological change and low growth. Moaning about globalisation means that politicians can absolve themselves of responsibility and always “blame the other”. If they did something about anaemic economic growth, something now easily within their grasp, they would find a lot of the things they worry about would magically disappear. In the process, they would discover that it has got nothing to do with Europe or immigration.
In Ireland, we have, proportionately, more immigrants than the UK. And we are utterly relaxed about this. That’s a huge change from when I first arrived: it was a monolithically white culture back then. The Irish are outward-looking and choose to focus on the benefits of migration. That’s a stark and unexpected contrast between these two islands. Our newspapers don’t demonise immigrants or Europe and our Government leaders don’t have private meetings with Rupert Murdoch.
Ireland only joined the EU because the UK did. We think we are no longer as connected to the British economy as we were back then. While that is true, it may not be the whole truth: my fear is that we are still too linked together. And it’s not just the economic connections: you don’t have to live here to understand the significance of the Border. It would be a tragedy with potentially devastating consequences if anything like a hard border between North and South were reinstated. The consequences of this cannot be underestimated. Of course, those consequences will be the collateral damage of the Tory Party’s long European war, damage that they will have caused but will never take responsibility for.

Belittled
Ms May was insulting when she belittled anyone who thinks of themselves as a world citizen. Those of us who are quite comfortable with the concept of global citizenship understand the importance of contribution to local culture, paying local taxes and simply being involved.
Citizenship is most definitely not populist pandering to the imaginary and conflicting desires of 52 per cent of voters: a good citizen understands there are other people with rights, hopes and desires both within and without a country’s borders.
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 »

camroc1 wrote:
And she has made exactly the same mistake as Hillary Clinton: demonising voters who happen to disagree with you.
Good piece with the exception of this bizarre tangent
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

piquant wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:It was so core to the argument that the pro remain PM went to negotiate free movement prior to the referendum, he came back with an offer of a "handbrake" and put that to the people, his deal, his handbrake, his solution were rejected. MANDATE.

Don't be silly.
Care to expand? It was key to the case for remain and the counter key to the case to leave. It was put to the people as a case to remain. The people deemed it insufficient as a solution. The issue of EU immigration was strong enough for the PM to recognise it as key and attempt to renegotiate it, then put that to the people at the referendum, it kicked it all off. He made the claim that if he didn't deem it sufficient, he would campaign to leave also. Curbing benefits for the reason of reducing attractiveness and therefore EU immigration was deemed to be insufficient by the people. It was his centre piece. Therefore EU immigration and free movement was a central issue and one that the PM himself declared the determining factor on which he would cast his vote.
It was a central issue, along with a number of other central issues. Seeing as the question wasn't actually set though it'd seem unwise to ascribe motive looking backwards. If a mandate was wanted on such it could have been asked - though what we might see the GE with manifestos setting out the various party views on this and that might now be the best we can hope for in establishing an actual mandate.

As it stands we'd probably find a large number of people in favour of ending free movement in both leave and remain voting camps. We'd also find large numbers against it in both. And we'd find another group across both leave and remain being in favour of ending free movement providing it doesn't lead to lower economic wealth, and with any number of gradations on that theme.
As I said it's looser, but more than sufficient in comparison to precedent. It was made key to the case to remain (and leave), it's no more loose than a manifesto pledge, we can't differentiate between the bits of a manifesto the public agreed with or disagreed with when they voted for a party on an individual basis now can we, nor can we rightly expect every pledge to be achieved, though we can expect them to be attempted. But we have to assume a mandate. And being a central policy in both the remain and leave camps, with regard to curbing free movement for remain being rejected in the remain "manifesto" more than curbing should be expected at a minimum, with ending free movement being central to the leave campaign also. Now while neither of the options state ending single market access, they both necessitate it for reasons beyond our control. Which is why we arrive where we are and will leave the single market and attempt to create EEA-. Parliament cannot influence if get that or not and it should not try to overide the people they represent. All a vote can do is hinder the negotiation. It's not perfect, but it's perfectly logical in the presence of asymmetrical knowledge due to reality, it's as perfect as can be reasonably established.
bimboman
Posts: 69916
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »

it was a monolithically white culture back then. The Irish are outward-looking and choose to focus on the benefits of migration.
Indeed all those poles and Latvians with their funny ways. :lol:
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:
it was a monolithically white culture back then. The Irish are outward-looking and choose to focus on the benefits of migration.
Indeed all those poles and Latvians with their funny ways. :lol:
You have very little migration, it's a new thing and you're still on the part of the curve where it's still a benefit to you. In just about every place in the Western world who've been under real pressure from immigration there is a strong and growing movement to counter it. You are not super human, super nice. Do you remember the roaring argument on here when I pointed out a report of "white flight" in Ireland, where a headmaster had written a report on it occurring had got all excited about a 1st world problem but by the time anybody had read it all the Poles had f*cked off home because their economy tanked.
User avatar
camroc1
Posts: 43062
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by camroc1 »

dr dre2 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
it was a monolithically white culture back then. The Irish are outward-looking and choose to focus on the benefits of migration.
Indeed all those poles and Latvians with their funny ways. :lol:
You have very little migration, it's a new thing and you're still on the part of the curve where it's still a benefit to you. In just about every place in the Western world who've been under real pressure from immigration there is a strong and growing movement to counter it. You are not super human, super nice. Do you remember the roaring argument on here when I pointed out a report of "white flight" in Ireland, where a headmaster had written a report on it occurring had got all excited about a 1st world problem but by the time anybody had read it all the Poles had f*cked off home because their economy tanked.
Dre, the guy who wrote the article is Welsh, and as he points out Ireland has proportionately more immigrants than the UK.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

camroc1 wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
it was a monolithically white culture back then. The Irish are outward-looking and choose to focus on the benefits of migration.
Indeed all those poles and Latvians with their funny ways. :lol:
You have very little migration, it's a new thing and you're still on the part of the curve where it's still a benefit to you. In just about every place in the Western world who've been under real pressure from immigration there is a strong and growing movement to counter it. You are not super human, super nice. Do you remember the roaring argument on here when I pointed out a report of "white flight" in Ireland, where a headmaster had written a report on it occurring had got all excited about a 1st world problem but by the time anybody had read it all the Poles had f*cked off home because their economy tanked.
Dre, the guy who wrote the article is Welsh, and as he points out Ireland has proportionately more immigrants than the UK.
It's fair to say a Welshman living in Ireland or vice versa is a much softer form of immigration, certainly in the UK we don't consider Irishman (or any anglo/celtic immigration regarless of skin colour before you start) as truly the same thing, there is an over lap in culture and language, hell we even let you vote in the referendum, the disruption caused is nothing like it is with a true foreigner. And correct me if wrong, most of your immigration is British?
bimboman
Posts: 69916
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »

camroc1 wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
it was a monolithically white culture back then. The Irish are outward-looking and choose to focus on the benefits of migration.
Indeed all those poles and Latvians with their funny ways. :lol:
You have very little migration, it's a new thing and you're still on the part of the curve where it's still a benefit to you. In just about every place in the Western world who've been under real pressure from immigration there is a strong and growing movement to counter it. You are not super human, super nice. Do you remember the roaring argument on here when I pointed out a report of "white flight" in Ireland, where a headmaster had written a report on it occurring had got all excited about a 1st world problem but by the time anybody had read it all the Poles had f*cked off home because their economy tanked.
Dre, the guy who wrote the article is Welsh, and as he points out Ireland has proportionately more immigrants than the UK.

That's only true if you take at very narrow view of immigration and time periods. But hey
piquant
Posts: 9576
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by piquant »

dr dre2 wrote:
You have very little migration, it's a new thing and you're still on the part of the curve where it's still a benefit to you. In just about every place in the Western world who've been under real pressure from immigration there is a strong and growing movement to counter it.
We're still benefiting from immigration. Which isn't to say that there aren't issues, some of which are much harder to resolve, and that the distribution of migrants has been far from equal is yet another issue (though it does sort of amuse that some of the most anti-migrant places have virtually no migrants)

Push back on migration comes from a sense of national values which isn't unreasonable, or it's at least reasonable to me that if people want to move to the UK they accept our customs and accept we're a plural society, push back comes from ignorance and racism which is far less reasonable, push back comes from some notion of globilisation and the impact on 'our' jobs and wages (i get some of those concerns but on balance I'd suggest we benefit still), and push back comes as over the last few decades the rise of the middle class has whittled out the more progressive, skilled and hard working and left what it's left behind.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

piquant wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
You have very little migration, it's a new thing and you're still on the part of the curve where it's still a benefit to you. In just about every place in the Western world who've been under real pressure from immigration there is a strong and growing movement to counter it.
We're still benefiting from immigration. Which isn't to say that there aren't issues, some of which are much harder to resolve, and that the distribution of migrants has been far from equal is yet another issue (though it does sort of amuse that some of the most anti-migrant places have virtually no migrants)

Push back on migration comes from a sense of national values which isn't unreasonable, or it's at least reasonable to me that if people want to move to the UK they accept our customs and accept we're a plural society, push back comes from ignorance and racism which is far less reasonable, push back comes from some notion of globilisation and the impact on 'our' jobs and wages (i get some of those concerns but on balance I'd suggest we benefit still), and push back comes as over the last few decades the rise of the middle class has whittled out the more progressive, skilled and hard working and left what it's left behind.
The suggestion has been for some time that migration is of neutral benefit (OECD 2014), which doesn't include the dilution of living standards as we share infrastructure with more and more people. If we were truly to negate that and build enough infrastructure then we would be well in the hole, we need to build Cardiff every single year to keep up and we are not. So yes, the tax take and boost to GDP is undeniable, but the costs in services make that neutral, then we share our stuff.
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 »

We need more people for economic growth, there is no model for increasing GDP while population size remains static. Those new people have to be immigrants because the native fertility rate is below 2.1, so the net benefit of migrants is that without them we will be going backwards
bimboman
Posts: 69916
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »

we need to build Cardiff every single year
Shudder......
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 »

bimboman wrote:
we need to build Cardiff every single year
Shudder......
You live in Essex
piquant
Posts: 9576
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by piquant »

Chuckles1188 wrote:We need more people for economic growth, there is no model for increasing GDP while population size remains static. Those new people have to be immigrants because the native fertility rate is below 2.1, so the net benefit of migrants is that without them we will be going backwards
Indeed. Also, and specifically, if we don't want the migrants we need a new policy on how we're going to pay for pensions.

Further whilst migrants have likely constrained wage growth the lack of inflationary pressure from wages has been a positive in many respects.
piquant
Posts: 9576
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by piquant »

dr dre2 wrote:
The suggestion has been for some time that migration is of neutral benefit (OECD 2014), which doesn't include the dilution of living standards as we share infrastructure with more and more people. If we were truly to negate that and build enough infrastructure then we would be well in the hole, we need to build Cardiff every single year to keep up and we are not. So yes, the tax take and boost to GDP is undeniable, but the costs in services make that neutral, then we share our stuff.
I'll confess I've seen no research which suggests anything close to this.

I'd agree we're a long way behind on infrastructure spend, but we're that without migration. Certainly there's a problem that the migration isn't something we're able to always plan for even if we were willing to spend so specific local services can be overwhelmed and that's far from good.
bimboman
Posts: 69916
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »

Chuckles1188 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
we need to build Cardiff every single year
Shudder......
You live in Essex

Indeed, thanks for the support.
haunch
Posts: 758
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by haunch »

Chuckles1188 wrote:We need more people for economic growth, there is no model for increasing GDP while population size remains static. Those new people have to be immigrants because the native fertility rate is below 2.1, so the net benefit of migrants is that without them we will be going backwards
Even a model that involves improved productivity? Your model involves an exponential increase in the size of the population otherwise.

If we take all the young and bright from all these other countries that wont be storing up trouble for the future. :(
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

haunch wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:We need more people for economic growth, there is no model for increasing GDP while population size remains static. Those new people have to be immigrants because the native fertility rate is below 2.1, so the net benefit of migrants is that without them we will be going backwards
Even a model that involves improved productivity? Your model involves an exponential increase in the size of the population otherwise.

If we take all the young and bright from all these other countries that wont be storing up trouble for the future. :(
And for the 1,000,000,001st time, nobody is arguing for 0 immigration, controlled immigration. We have a lack of nurses? get some, we have a lack of fruit pickers, get some. We have too many labourers, no thanks.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

piquant wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
The suggestion has been for some time that migration is of neutral benefit (OECD 2014), which doesn't include the dilution of living standards as we share infrastructure with more and more people. If we were truly to negate that and build enough infrastructure then we would be well in the hole, we need to build Cardiff every single year to keep up and we are not. So yes, the tax take and boost to GDP is undeniable, but the costs in services make that neutral, then we share our stuff.
I'll confess I've seen no research which suggests anything close to this.

I'd agree we're a long way behind on infrastructure spend, but we're that without migration. Certainly there's a problem that the migration isn't something we're able to always plan for even if we were willing to spend so specific local services can be overwhelmed and that's far from good.
https://www.oecd.org/policy-briefs/PB-F ... y-2014.pdf

From memory the treasury admitted it during the campaign too.
Immigrants have a broadly neutral impact on the public purse in OECD countries, receiving in state
benefits around about as much as they pay in tax and social contributions
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 »

dr dre2 wrote:
haunch wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:We need more people for economic growth, there is no model for increasing GDP while population size remains static. Those new people have to be immigrants because the native fertility rate is below 2.1, so the net benefit of migrants is that without them we will be going backwards
Even a model that involves improved productivity? Your model involves an exponential increase in the size of the population otherwise.

If we take all the young and bright from all these other countries that wont be storing up trouble for the future. :(
And for the 1,000,000,001st time, nobody is arguing for 0 immigration, controlled immigration. We have a lack of nurses? get some, we have a lack of fruit pickers, get some. We have too many labourers, no thanks.
What's the mechanism for controlling it supposed to be? How do you determine what "too many" looks like? What do you do when an industry unexpectedly contracts? Do we just deport foreigners because their services are no longer needed?
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:
dr dre2 wrote:
haunch wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:We need more people for economic growth, there is no model for increasing GDP while population size remains static. Those new people have to be immigrants because the native fertility rate is below 2.1, so the net benefit of migrants is that without them we will be going backwards
Even a model that involves improved productivity? Your model involves an exponential increase in the size of the population otherwise.

If we take all the young and bright from all these other countries that wont be storing up trouble for the future. :(
And for the 1,000,000,001st time, nobody is arguing for 0 immigration, controlled immigration. We have a lack of nurses? get some, we have a lack of fruit pickers, get some. We have too many labourers, no thanks.
What's the mechanism for controlling it supposed to be? How do you determine what "too many" looks like? What do you do when an industry unexpectedly contracts? Do we just deport foreigners because their services are no longer needed?
Work permits that expire and need to be renewed. If there is no longer demand in an industry and you have transferable skills apply for a different one, otherwise go home. If you've been a valuable member of society and have continued employment, apply for citizenship after a given number of years. The only answer can't be, wave everybody in and get on with it. Maybe that works, if you are just dealing with rich countries. Trade bodies keep an eye on this kind of thing and can make their opinions heard to the relevant government dept and request x number of WP be considered.
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 »

It just keeps raising more questions, and when you examine it in the context of a) the current approach b) the rest of the world and c) policing it, the whole thing seems to me to fall completely to pieces. I have more time for the cultural argument for restricting migration than I do the attempt at constructing an economic rationale. Though neither is compelling as far as I am concerned.
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:It just keeps raising more questions, and when you examine it in the context of a) the current approach b) the rest of the world and c) policing it, the whole thing seems to me to fall completely to pieces. I have more time for the cultural argument for restricting migration than I do the attempt at constructing an economic rationale. Though neither is compelling as far as I am concerned.
Having the right people in the right places with next to no waste doesn't appeal to you, but having hoards descend to put pressure on wages and living standards does? It's not beyond the wit of man to police it, ffs. Anyway, it's what the majority want.
piquant
Posts: 9576
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by piquant »

dr dre2 wrote:
piquant wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
The suggestion has been for some time that migration is of neutral benefit (OECD 2014), which doesn't include the dilution of living standards as we share infrastructure with more and more people. If we were truly to negate that and build enough infrastructure then we would be well in the hole, we need to build Cardiff every single year to keep up and we are not. So yes, the tax take and boost to GDP is undeniable, but the costs in services make that neutral, then we share our stuff.
I'll confess I've seen no research which suggests anything close to this.

I'd agree we're a long way behind on infrastructure spend, but we're that without migration. Certainly there's a problem that the migration isn't something we're able to always plan for even if we were willing to spend so specific local services can be overwhelmed and that's far from good.
https://www.oecd.org/policy-briefs/PB-F ... y-2014.pdf

From memory the treasury admitted it during the campaign too.
Immigrants have a broadly neutral impact on the public purse in OECD countries, receiving in state
benefits around about as much as they pay in tax and social contributions
Nothing in particular there, even before it might scarce apply to the UK. Though we likely have a much higher share of labour migration than some and thus we're likely to be be doing rather better than the OECD avg.
piquant
Posts: 9576
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by piquant »

dr dre2 wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
haunch wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:We need more people for economic growth, there is no model for increasing GDP while population size remains static. Those new people have to be immigrants because the native fertility rate is below 2.1, so the net benefit of migrants is that without them we will be going backwards
Even a model that involves improved productivity? Your model involves an exponential increase in the size of the population otherwise.

If we take all the young and bright from all these other countries that wont be storing up trouble for the future. :(
And for the 1,000,000,001st time, nobody is arguing for 0 immigration, controlled immigration. We have a lack of nurses? get some, we have a lack of fruit pickers, get some. We have too many labourers, no thanks.
What's the mechanism for controlling it supposed to be? How do you determine what "too many" looks like? What do you do when an industry unexpectedly contracts? Do we just deport foreigners because their services are no longer needed?
Work permits that expire and need to be renewed. If there is no longer demand in an industry and you have transferable skills apply for a different one, otherwise go home. If you've been a valuable member of society and have continued employment, apply for citizenship after a given number of years. The only answer can't be, wave everybody in and get on with it. Maybe that works, if you are just dealing with rich countries. Trade bodies keep an eye on this kind of thing and can make their opinions heard to the relevant government dept and request x number of WP be considered.
So basically we leave the EU in return for increased red tape?
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

So basically we leave the EU in return for increased red tape?
Where it's appropriate, not where it's not. It's an overall efficiency.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

piquant wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
piquant wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
The suggestion has been for some time that migration is of neutral benefit (OECD 2014), which doesn't include the dilution of living standards as we share infrastructure with more and more people. If we were truly to negate that and build enough infrastructure then we would be well in the hole, we need to build Cardiff every single year to keep up and we are not. So yes, the tax take and boost to GDP is undeniable, but the costs in services make that neutral, then we share our stuff.
I'll confess I've seen no research which suggests anything close to this.

I'd agree we're a long way behind on infrastructure spend, but we're that without migration. Certainly there's a problem that the migration isn't something we're able to always plan for even if we were willing to spend so specific local services can be overwhelmed and that's far from good.
https://www.oecd.org/policy-briefs/PB-F ... y-2014.pdf

From memory the treasury admitted it during the campaign too.
Immigrants have a broadly neutral impact on the public purse in OECD countries, receiving in state
benefits around about as much as they pay in tax and social contributions
Nothing in particular there, even before it might scarce apply to the UK. Though we likely have a much higher share of labour migration than some and thus we're likely to be be doing rather better than the OECD avg.
We also have higher benefits and a very generous health service. The benefit certainly doesn't outstrip the living standard squeeze and wage pressure.
piquant
Posts: 9576
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by piquant »

dr dre2 wrote:
piquant wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
piquant wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
The suggestion has been for some time that migration is of neutral benefit (OECD 2014), which doesn't include the dilution of living standards as we share infrastructure with more and more people. If we were truly to negate that and build enough infrastructure then we would be well in the hole, we need to build Cardiff every single year to keep up and we are not. So yes, the tax take and boost to GDP is undeniable, but the costs in services make that neutral, then we share our stuff.
I'll confess I've seen no research which suggests anything close to this.

I'd agree we're a long way behind on infrastructure spend, but we're that without migration. Certainly there's a problem that the migration isn't something we're able to always plan for even if we were willing to spend so specific local services can be overwhelmed and that's far from good.
https://www.oecd.org/policy-briefs/PB-F ... y-2014.pdf

From memory the treasury admitted it during the campaign too.
Immigrants have a broadly neutral impact on the public purse in OECD countries, receiving in state
benefits around about as much as they pay in tax and social contributions
Nothing in particular there, even before it might scarce apply to the UK. Though we likely have a much higher share of labour migration than some and thus we're likely to be be doing rather better than the OECD avg.
We also have higher benefits and a very generous health service. The benefit certainly doesn't outstrip the living standard squeeze and wage pressure.
The migrants weren't especially abusing either of those. There are plenty of non Brits using the NHS, but that's the NHS selling their services to Africans and Russians for example and then telling people here there aren't beds available for Ops.

Also you see many more migrants per capita head for Denmark, Sweden and Germany, and it's not because they've lower benefits. The real costs come as we see in some Italian and Greek towns where they're nearly flooded with people running from their own countries and who aren't close to working.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

The migrants weren't especially abusing either of those. There are plenty of non Brits using the NHS, but that's the NHS selling their services to Africans and Russians for example and then telling people here there aren't beds available for Ops.

Also you see many more migrants per capita head for Denmark, Sweden and Germany, and it's not because they've lower benefits. The real costs come as we see in some Italian and Greek towns where they're nearly flooded with people running from their own countries and who aren't close to working.

Be that as it may, the direct benefit is broadly neutral / small net gain at best. Before you look at the living standard / wage pressure squeeze. Controlling it leads to a stronger net benefit and less of a living standard / wage pressure squeeze. We want to make it efficient and work better for us, it's logical, waving everyone in is irrational. It's what we want at the end of the day and is what is going to happen.
Locked