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 »

By the way, the way to police it is to police the employers, 95% of businesses out there are compliant to the point it hurts. A few prosecutions, fines and void insurances when an illegal hurts himself, equipment or another and you'll be down to the most committed illegals and employers. And to an extent as long as they are not claiming benefits and services they are less of a problem, if they choose to live that existence, that's down to them but it wont be for many, not Eastern Europeans who can go to Germany anyway.
I like haggis
Posts: 5048
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 2:54 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by I like haggis »

dr dre2 wrote:
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.
There is absolutely no evidence that immigration pushes down native living standards in any country in the world. The reason living standards have declined lately probably has something to do with austerity. People blame immigrants for leaving standards because every day the front page of a tabloid has something about immigration on it.

Anyway, the fall out from the referendum has shown the UK is actually pretty racist. Immigrants contribute more to the economy than they receive in benefits, they keep the NHS going and make a strong economy. It's a real shame we've become the way we have with immigrants because they really help this country a lot. Saying immigrants clog up hospitals, roads, trains, schools whatever the bigots say they fill up maybe realise the government slashing those budgets was what caused the damage.

I'd like to see any proof of this 'we need to build a Cardiff per year' because of immigrants because it sounds like classic tabloid hysteria.
User avatar
DragsterDriver
Posts: 25753
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Big Willi Style

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by DragsterDriver »

I like haggis wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
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.
There is absolutely no evidence that immigration pushes down native living standards in any country in the world. The reason living standards have declined lately probably has something to do with austerity. People blame immigrants for leaving standards because every day the front page of a tabloid has something about immigration on it.

Anyway, the fall out from the referendum has shown the UK is actually pretty racist. Immigrants contribute more to the economy than they receive in benefits, they keep the NHS going and make a strong economy. It's a real shame we've become the way we have with immigrants because they really help this country a lot. Saying immigrants clog up hospitals, roads, trains, schools whatever the bigots say they fill up maybe realise the government slashing those budgets was what caused the damage.

I'd like to see any proof of this 'we need to build a Cardiff per year' because of immigrants because it sounds like classic tabloid hysteria.


I don't believe that.
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:
dr dre2 wrote:
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.
There is absolutely no evidence that immigration pushes down native living standards in any country in the world. The reason living standards have declined lately probably has something to do with austerity. People blame immigrants for leaving standards because every day the front page of a tabloid has something about immigration on it.

Anyway, the fall out from the referendum has shown the UK is actually pretty racist. Immigrants contribute more to the economy than they receive in benefits, they keep the NHS going and make a strong economy. It's a real shame we've become the way we have with immigrants because they really help this country a lot. Saying immigrants clog up hospitals, roads, trains, schools whatever the bigots say they fill up maybe realise the government slashing those budgets was what caused the damage.

I'd like to see any proof of this 'we need to build a Cardiff per year' because of immigrants because it sounds like classic tabloid hysteria.
Cardiff's population is broadly the same as the net migration figures, we'd need to add capacity for services, housing and infrastructure to the tune of one Cardiff not to be diluting what we have. Yes it's not like for like, a city doesn't have to be built in one place. But it's accurate enough, the more people who share the services the more you are diluting capacity unless you add more to the same level, and we are not. You're adding one Cardiff's worth of demand, but not one Cardiff's worth of supply.

If we were truly earning good "profit" on immigration, they would by definition pay for their increased demand on services (and then some) and we could grow the capacity to match, but that doesn't seem to be the case. We are increasing income but increasing spending at the same rate of benefit. But we are not and cant afford to keep up with the major infrastructure demands on top of that, they are certainly not paying enough for that, more just covering the running costs while we stretch what we have.

Now you mention austerity and you are quite right, but the level of spending was there already and so was the deficit, again...... If we are getting value from the immigrants why is there such a big deficit? Truth be told, we've offered such generosity to our own people, that if we try to extend that generosity to new comers we over stretch ourselves. We can't do it and in the EU, there was no answer to it..... Ever..... The more we took in the more we pumped up the bubble beyond their worth.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

CDU & CSU (sister party) are at odds, with Merkel un-invited to their conference. Other parties talking about withdrawing support of coalition.
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:
I like haggis wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
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.
There is absolutely no evidence that immigration pushes down native living standards in any country in the world. The reason living standards have declined lately probably has something to do with austerity. People blame immigrants for leaving standards because every day the front page of a tabloid has something about immigration on it.

Anyway, the fall out from the referendum has shown the UK is actually pretty racist. Immigrants contribute more to the economy than they receive in benefits, they keep the NHS going and make a strong economy. It's a real shame we've become the way we have with immigrants because they really help this country a lot. Saying immigrants clog up hospitals, roads, trains, schools whatever the bigots say they fill up maybe realise the government slashing those budgets was what caused the damage.

I'd like to see any proof of this 'we need to build a Cardiff per year' because of immigrants because it sounds like classic tabloid hysteria.
Cardiff's population is broadly the same as the net migration figures, we'd need to add capacity for services, housing and infrastructure to the tune of one Cardiff not to be diluting what we have. Yes it's not like for like, a city doesn't have to be built in one place. But it's accurate enough, the more people who share the services the more you are diluting capacity unless you add more to the same level, and we are not. You're adding one Cardiff's worth of demand, but not one Cardiff's worth of supply.

If we were truly earning good "profit" on immigration, they would by definition pay for their increased demand on services (and then some) and we could grow the capacity to match, but that doesn't seem to be the case. We are increasing income but increasing spending at the same rate of benefit. But we are not and cant afford to keep up with the major infrastructure demands on top of that, they are certainly not paying enough for that, more just covering the running costs while we stretch what we have.

Now you mention austerity and you are quite right, but the level of spending was there already and so was the deficit, again...... If we are getting value from the immigrants why is there such a big deficit? Truth be told, we've offered such generosity to our own people, that if we try to extend that generosity to new comers we over stretch ourselves. We can't do it and in the EU, there was no answer to it..... Ever..... The more we took in the more we pumped up the bubble beyond their worth.
Eh? Our infrastructure spending has been well behind the OECD average for decades. We haven't been spending.
bimboman
Posts: 68868
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »


Eh? Our infrastructure spending has been well behind the OECD average for decades. We haven't been spending.

Per head or per GDP ?
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

And there is so much money around to do it.

I know we haven't been spending, but if we are going to increase the user base, we may want to? and if the immigrants are profitable, we should be able to.
bimboman
Posts: 68868
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »

dr dre2 wrote:And there is so much money around to do it.

The tax burden is almost the highest it's ever been (around 38%) in 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 »

bimboman wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:And there is so much money around to do it.

The tax burden is almost the highest it's ever been (around 38%) in the UK.
And so many more people to tax too! We must be rolling in it, bring more in. This approach is working!

Either that, or we are spending more than we take in and that includes on new arrivals who we are legally bound to spend the same on as people who have paid in for years. We are just pumping up a bubble relative to population, with infrastructure groaning under it's weight.

Maybe we could just take the the most profitable ones, control the numbers, just maybe we could see the tax take outgrow the tax spend without harsh austerity. At the moment the policy is anybody can come, everyone gets the same, eventually we'll have an equal share in fudge all, an infrastructure problem so big we can never overcome it and a f**king massive population to share it.
I like haggis
Posts: 5048
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 2:54 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by I like haggis »

Chuckles1188 wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
I like haggis wrote:
There is absolutely no evidence that immigration pushes down native living standards in any country in the world. The reason living standards have declined lately probably has something to do with austerity. People blame immigrants for leaving standards because every day the front page of a tabloid has something about immigration on it.

Anyway, the fall out from the referendum has shown the UK is actually pretty racist. Immigrants contribute more to the economy than they receive in benefits, they keep the NHS going and make a strong economy. It's a real shame we've become the way we have with immigrants because they really help this country a lot. Saying immigrants clog up hospitals, roads, trains, schools whatever the bigots say they fill up maybe realise the government slashing those budgets was what caused the damage.

I'd like to see any proof of this 'we need to build a Cardiff per year' because of immigrants because it sounds like classic tabloid hysteria.
Cardiff's population is broadly the same as the net migration figures, we'd need to add capacity for services, housing and infrastructure to the tune of one Cardiff not to be diluting what we have. Yes it's not like for like, a city doesn't have to be built in one place. But it's accurate enough, the more people who share the services the more you are diluting capacity unless you add more to the same level, and we are not. You're adding one Cardiff's worth of demand, but not one Cardiff's worth of supply.

If we were truly earning good "profit" on immigration, they would by definition pay for their increased demand on services (and then some) and we could grow the capacity to match, but that doesn't seem to be the case. We are increasing income but increasing spending at the same rate of benefit. But we are not and cant afford to keep up with the major infrastructure demands on top of that, they are certainly not paying enough for that, more just covering the running costs while we stretch what we have.

Now you mention austerity and you are quite right, but the level of spending was there already and so was the deficit, again...... If we are getting value from the immigrants why is there such a big deficit? Truth be told, we've offered such generosity to our own people, that if we try to extend that generosity to new comers we over stretch ourselves. We can't do it and in the EU, there was no answer to it..... Ever..... The more we took in the more we pumped up the bubble beyond their worth.
Eh? Our infrastructure spending has been well behind the OECD average for decades. We haven't been spending.
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!.

Kicking all the immigrants out of the country won't help at all with public services if the government continue to underfund. The NHS is reliant on immigration, new public houses overwhelmingly go to Brits and not migrants despite what the Daily Mail thinks, education and schools policy from the government is a complete farce. The only reason people blame immigrants for stretched public services is that their tabloid paper of choice doesn't explain to them austerity and instead blame the easy target of immigration when it's so far from the truth and makes them a very ignorant and bigoted individual.

Edit to add that blaming the deficit on immigration is ridiculous, it's going to get even bigger soon with borrowing to spend on infrastructure at a time we "control" immigration. The mind boggles that people genuinely blame immigrants for Labour borrowing obscene amounts and a banking collapse followed by Gideon's harsh austerity (responsible for killing vulnerable people) and shrinking the state. There are a few words for the kind of people they are but I'm led to believe they don't much enjoy being called by them.
Last edited by I like haggis on Sun Oct 30, 2016 12:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
bimboman
Posts: 68868
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »


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?
I like haggis
Posts: 5048
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 2:54 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by I like haggis »

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.
jorwar
Posts: 2704
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by jorwar »

Why is this lying Tory cow lying to us, asks Nick Cohen:

"Her defenders say that she is responding to the will of the British people. I won’t go on about how a 52-48 vote was hardly the people speaking as one. Instead, you should understand her by looking at how, after abandoning her beliefs, May refused to level with the public and confront them with the hard choices ahead. Rather than speak plainly, she has embraced the Leave campaign’s big lie that Brexit will be painless.

To maintain the illusion, her ministers scramble in secret meetings to cut deals with special interests. Whatever bribes they have offered Nissan will only be the start. Farmers, the City and corporations with muscle will all want taxpayers’ money to compensate them for their losses. The bill will be picked up by small businesses, which cannot afford lobbyists and, of course, by the taxpayers, who will fund the right’s illusion that we can have Brexit without pain."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... e-minister
User avatar
Duff Paddy
Posts: 38544
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Duff Paddy »

bimboman wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:And there is so much money around to do it.

The tax burden is almost the highest it's ever been (around 38%) in the UK.
Just wait until May cuts corporation tax
User avatar
Rocketz
Posts: 4582
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: United States of Europe

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Rocketz »


Live
al jazeera
menu

submit
News
More
Programmes
More
Opinion
Investigations
Video

OPINIONBREXIT CONSEQUENCES2 MINUTES AGO
The UK has no choice on 'hard' or 'soft' Brexit
Brexiteers underestimate the level of spite European negotiators are willing to display.
Political artist Kaya Mar poses with a painting depicting the new British Prime Minister, Theresa May, and key Brexit ministers outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London [EPA]Political artist Kaya Mar poses with a painting depicting the new British Prime Minister, Theresa May, and key Brexit ministers outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London [EPA]
by
Alastair Sloan
@AlastairSloan

Alastair Sloan is a London-based journalist. He focuses on injustice and human rights in the UK.

There's a rumour going round our post-Brexit Britain that the United Kingdom government has a say in the Brexit negotiations.

There's an even more quaint idea that this is going to be a negotiation - not a bulldozer of a deal that European trade negotiators have become so adept at rolling out against lesser nations.

Some are even deluded enough to think that the Brexit "quartet" - International Trade Secretary Liam Fox, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Theresa May, and the Secretary for "Brexit" itself, David Davis - are "in charge" of Brexit negotiations. They aren't, we aren't, but the Europeans most definitely are.


The Listening Post - Brexit: The UK referendum, the rhetoric and the result
Fundamentally different perceptions

By Europeans, I mean firstly the powerful European People's Party (EPP), a transnational alliance of centre-right politicians wielding enormous influence across the European Commission and the domestic politics of many European countries.

The EPP is a pro-European conservative grouping most Britons probably haven't heard of, but it plays an immensely important role in European life.

The EPP currently monopolises nearly every serious position within the European Union establishment, has been the largest political party operating within the Union since 1999, and is increasingly independent from its principal sponsor - Angela Merkel.

The EPP also, crucially, despises the same British Tory party that just engineered Britain's exit from the EU - because in theory the two parties should be natural allies, and now they're marked enemies.

The EPP are centre-right, like the Tories, but the Tories flounced out of the EPP in 2009 because David Cameron, who the EPP deride as a political coward for not standing up to the Eurosceptics, thought the EPP was too pro-European (or at least his backbench MPs did).

Britain is the 28th kid in a very large family, throwing a tantrum during the school run, and Mama Brussels simply doesn't have time for it.


Good news, then, that the chief negotiator for the Commission will be Michel Barnier - the vice president of the European People's Party. So insistent is he that Britain must be made to sweat that he has demanded the negotiations be conducted in French.

Then you have the idea we're entering into any normal trade negotiation where normal rules apply. In a rare moment of clarity, Brexit Secretary and hardliner Eurosceptic David Davis acknowledged at the Conservative Party conference earlier this month that the EU's understanding of the bloc and the British understanding of it remain fundamentally different.

"We need to appreciate and respect what the European Union means to them," he said. "They view it through the prism of their own history - sadly a history often of invasion and occupation, dictatorship and domination."

The prism of sovereignty

Britain, on the other hand, has always and will always see the EU as a matter of money and trade alone - not a matter of stability, national security or essential freedoms.

The Poles, perhaps the most ardently nationalist, pro-sovereignty, anti-immigration, and certainly the most pro-EU public you will find, are exemplary.

OPINION: Three paths to European disintegration

They, if anyone in Europe, understand the meaning of losing sovereignty. It actually happened to them, many, many times, as their sovereignty was repeatedly subsumed by their neighbours.

And yet still the Polish public overwhelmingly love this supposed juggernaut of sovereignty stripping - the EU.

I was in Poland during and after the referendum; and Brexit continues, as it did then, to dominate the Polish news agenda. It does so because for many Poles, Brexit possibly means the EU, at some point, falling apart.

And guess who is also playing a key part in the Brexit negotiations. Donald Tusk, president of the European Council and yes, a Pole - a former prime minister, no less.

Worse still, guess which party Tusk hails from? You guessed it - the European People's Party.

OPINION: After David Cameron we are left only with mistakes

Politicians living next to Vladimir Putin or on the borders of the Middle East and North Africa currently feel under immense pressure.

The refugee crisis is collapsing the Balkans, Greece and Italy into chaos, the Syrian civil war could last for years to come, and the level of resentment that the UK generated by creating another problem for the EU elite, at a time of such massive crisis, cannot be underestimated.

Britain is the 28th kid in a very large family, throwing a tantrum during the school run, and Mama Brussels simply doesn't have time for it.

Bulldozing Britain

That Brussels is willing to bulldoze Britain is now becoming fact. Theresa May's first EU summit in late October demonstrated this well.

Her Brexit speech was pointedly timetabled for the very end of dinner, and was met with stony silence. The EPP bigwig and European Commission President Jean-Claude Junker threw his hands in the air and muttered "pfft", when asked how May had performed.


May insisted before her departure that she wanted Britain to "play a full role until we leave", but 27 member states will now meet without Britain in Malta next year.

Marching orders are being given. Dispatch Britain as quickly as possible. Give them a bloody nose so nobody else thinks they can get a better deal out than in, and move on to dealing with the more serious issues.

Britain might as well end the national debate which is consuming the airwaves about whether we're going to get a "hard" or "soft" Brexit. As Donald Tusk himself put it when he visited May; "it's either hard Brexit ... or no Brexit."

Alastair Sloan is a London-based journalist. He focuses on injustice and human rights in the UK and international affairs, including human rights, the arms trade, censorship, political unrest and dictatorships.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

Source: Al Jazeeera

Brexit consequences Politics Europe United Kingdom
Tell us what you think
CONTINUE READING
Share via Facebook Share via Twitter Share via WhatsApp

0 Comments
MORE FROM AL JAZEERA
Stray Bullets: Guns in the Philippines

As the new Philippines government takes an uncompromising line on crime, will it finally end rampant gun violence?
Mapping Africa's natural resources

An overview of the continent's main natural resources.
The man who would be king of Kurdistan

Decades after warrior-king Sheikh Mahmud's overthrow, Kurds keep on fighting for a homeland.
Canada's wild rice wars

How a conflict over wild ricing on Pigeon Lake is drawing attention to Indigenous rights and traditional foods.

TRENDING
1
Shia militias open new front in battle for Mosul
2
Pakistan information minister removed over news report
3
Will Hillary Clinton overcome her email scandal?
4
How Oman aims to become a tourist hub
5
Families of US consulate staff asked to leave Turkey
RELATED
With around 9,600 full-time students from 140 countries, the LSE is one of Britain's most internationally diverse universities [Al Jazeera]
UK: LSE academics 'barred' from advising on Brexit
Brexit: UK to trigger Article 50 by end of March
Brexit: UK to trigger Article 50 by end of March

Al Jazeera NewsProgrammesOpinionAboutInvestigationsContact Us
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
RSS
Podcast
YouTube
SnapChat
© 2016 Al Jazeera Media Network
bimboman
Posts: 68868
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: 28674
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: 38544
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: 40819
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: 19302
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: 19302
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: 12236
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: 12236
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: 19302
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: 9432
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: 9432
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.
Locked