UK Politics: Deal, or No Deal. To May and Beyond.

[Jen'ari]

EU immigration has never been an issue, I really don't get how some people complain about people coming over and stealing 'thier' jobs, which 'they' are either unqualified or simply don't want to do in the first place.

Freedom of movement and free trade are two of the best things about the EU, it's a shame we're going to lose it.

I'm in favour of a Norway style deal and remaining in the EEC but that has been ruled out mainly because of the freedom of movement thing, I hope that the government does something good for once and ignores peoples wishes as movement being a red line.

[Heartofice]

Quote

As noted above, this is ignoring the fact that immigrants 1) pay more into the welfare state than any other group and 2) are needed to pay into that pot to keep it viable.

Not really the point I was making, rather that in order for a welfare state to work, you need to have a sense of community and common purpose in order for people to feel their tax money is helping members of their own group, the group being the nation state. Having a large, transitory group of people rapidly entering the country erodes that sense of community. 

And even your point about immigrants paying more into the system than they take out is highly contentious and I think I would be very cautious as treating it as a fact.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/
 

Quote

This demonstrates the problem. When history, logic, politics and economics are brought into the argument, Brexit loses, loses hard and loses every single time. And because those arguing for Brexit are doing so from an emotional position based on vague "feelings", they get angry because they are frustrated by their own lack of articulation and sense and vow to keep fighting for Brexit because it's about their own sense of self-importance, their egos and their overwhelming need to be "right" in the face of the evidence.

Again this is a mischaracterisation constantly rolled out, and I don't find it to be very useful. People who voted for Brexit wanted to leave the EU, that is a quite simple goal. That it has proven to be so disasterously handled is pretty predictable and I can't think of a single thing that May has done correctly since the Referendum in order to ensure an orderly exit from the EU. But there are definitely those out there talking about what steps should be taken next and long term plans for the UK outside the EU. I'm read many of them. I don't agree with all of them, and I think the struggle to leave the EU is simply not worth the potential benefits of leaving, but I have at least bothered to look at what Brexiteers are suggesting. 

Quote

I really don't get how some people complain about people coming over and stealing 'thier' jobs, which 'they' are either unqualified or simply don't want to do in the first place.

I think this is a huge overstatement. Clearly there are some industries that have been hugely impacted by EE workers such as construction and factory (especially food) jobs. I'm not sure there is evidence that UK born citizens would be unwilling to do these jobs, but it does seem that businesses have been able to get away with bringing in cheap labour to keep costs down and pricing out local labour. 

 

Quote

I'm in favour of a Norway style deal and remaining in the EEC but that has been ruled out mainly because of the freedom of movement thing, I hope that the government does something good for once and ignores peoples wishes as movement being a red line.

I've got no idea why anyone would prefer a long Norway deal. Its a complete disaster, its worse than No Deal and its worse than Brexit. Short term it would be fine, but long term no.

[polishgenius]

5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

its worse than No Deal

Lol no it fucking isn't.

[DMC]

5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Not really the point I was making, rather that in order for a welfare state to work, you need to have a sense of community and common purpose in order for people to feel their tax money is helping members of their own group, the group being the nation state. Having a large, transitory group of people rapidly entering the country erodes that sense of community.

This is absolute hogwash.  The rate of immigrants - "illegal" or otherwise - is orthogonal to the success of "welfare states."  Moreover, welfare states have been demonstrably successful in the western world for over a century now - certainly more successful than any alternatives.  As others have stated, immigrant populations tend to pay more into the "welfare" part of welfare states than they get out of it.  Your supposed correlation has absolutely no basis.

5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

That it has proven to be so disasterously handled is pretty predictable and I can't think of a single thing that May has done correctly since the Referendum in order to ensure an orderly exit from the EU.

If it was so predictably disastrous why do you continue to appear to defend/advocate for it?

[Heartofice]

7 hours ago, polishgenius said:

Lol no it fucking isn't.

Lol... its a terrible, awful option. Includes all of the downsides of being inside the EU, with none of the benefits of being outside of the EU. You could say the same thing about May's Chequers plan.

[Heartofice]

7 hours ago, DMC said:

This is absolute hogwash.  The rate of immigrants - "illegal" or otherwise - is orthogonal to the success of "welfare states." 

 http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/too-diverse-david-goodhart-multiculturalism-britain-immigration-globalisation
 

Quote

If it was so predictably disastrous why do you continue to appear to defend/advocate for it?

I'm guessing you haven't actually read too completely the conversation, but I am not advocating for it at all. 

[polishgenius]

45 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Lol... its a terrible, awful option.

Of course it's an awful option, and if you really wanted to you could argue that it's 'the worst' for the reasons you stated because there is absolutely nobody who wants it, whereas there are probably people who still think No Deal is acceptable.

In terms of how much damage it does to the nation, though, it is absolutely nowhere near as bad as a No Deal would be.

[mormont]

'Benefits of being outside the EU'.

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

'Benefits of being outside the EU'.

You don't believe there are any?

[DMC]

5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/too-diverse-david-goodhart-multiculturalism-britain-immigration-globalisation

Thank you for proving my point by citing an essay with no systematic data, nor empirics of any kind for that matter.  As a kicker, it is written by a guy that founded a magazine precisely to whine about immigration and uses Robert Putnam as one of his primary "sources" - a man infamous across disciplines for making overly-broad claims with little to no evidence.  If that's the standard, literally any baseless claim can be "sourced" by someone else's opinion on the internet.

5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I'm guessing you haven't actually read too completely the conversation, but I am not advocating for it at all. 

Unfortunately I have read enough of your conversation to make it apparent to any observer that you're pretending not to advocate for it when you actually are.

[Jen'ari]

17 hours ago, Heartofice said:

 

I think this is a huge overstatement. Clearly there are some industries that have been hugely impacted by EE workers such as construction and factory (especially food) jobs. I'm not sure there is evidence that UK born citizens would be unwilling to do these jobs, but it does seem that businesses have been able to get away with bringing in cheap labour to keep costs down and pricing out local labour. 

 

 

That’s true, and there are some British people who wouldn’t take on such work for various reasons.

Also a lot of Eastern European workers seem to have a very good work ethic and already be qualified to do the job they’re applying for, in construction for example, how long would it take and how much would it cost to train someone up to be an electrician, drive a digger etc, I bet it’s not cheap.

Businesses are allowed to employ them and lets be honest, it’s good business sense to.

 

I know some people had well informed and well meaning reasons for Brexit, but a lot didn’t, they were misinformed about the NHS and immigration.

I’m in favour of a Norway style deal because it’s the closest thing to staying in the EU with the least impact to trade, free movement etc while still leaving it in name.

I don’t think the EU is perfect by any means but it’s certainly a better proposition than what we’re heading for.

 

[Rippounet]

11 hours ago, DMC said:

This is absolute hogwash.  The rate of immigrants - "illegal" or otherwise - is orthogonal to the success of "welfare states."  Moreover, welfare states have been demonstrably successful in the western world for over a century now - certainly more successful than any alternatives.  As others have stated, immigrant populations tend to pay more into the "welfare" part of welfare states than they get out of it.  Your supposed correlation has absolutely no basis.

In a sense it doesn't matter that it has no basis in reality. If people (or a majority thereof) think the success of welfare states depends on having a culturally (and/or ethnically) homogeneous nation, then the success of welfare states will indeed depend on it. You can't deny that right-wing populists (and a fair number of mainstream politicians) have been quite successful at attacking the foundations of solidarity and empathy in most Western societies. And saying that such issues haven't been addressed isn't necessarily condoning the fact.

A different way to put it: like it or not, many people have been convinced to reject universal notions when considering how to define their nationalism. And I believe it's true there is a tendency on this board to dismiss this rejection as either the product of political manipulation or of racism, without necessarily discussing some of the underlying issues.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

In a sense it doesn't matter that it has no basis in reality. If people (or a majority thereof) think the success of welfare states depends on having a culturally (and/or ethnically) homogeneous nation, then the success of welfare states will indeed depend on it. You can't deny that right-wing populists (and a fair number of mainstream politicians) have been quite successful at attacking the foundations of solidarity and empathy in most Western societies. And saying that such issues haven't been addressed isn't necessarily condoning the fact.

Certainly can't deny the success of right wing populists, but the reason such issues haven't been addressed is precisely because of such niche parties that's demagoguery inhibits sensible solutions from being implemented.

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

And I believe it's true there is a tendency on this board to dismiss this rejection as either the product of political manipulation or of racism, without necessarily discussing some of the underlying issues.

Whole-heartedly agree accusations of racism are thrown around far too much around here.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

On 12/26/2018 at 2:52 PM, BigFatCoward said:

Hey, Gazza learned italian when he went to Lazio, how, I'm still not sure. 

Uff, I am torn between two joking replies, which are offensive in equally good measures. Ah, you can pick one...

Answer a.) So you are saying Gazza is smarter than the average obese drunk Brit? Gods help you.

b.) You mean he spoke English slower and louder?

Personally, I prefer option b.) :)

 

[BigFatCoward]

21 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

 

Answer a.) So you are saying Gazza is smarter than the average obese drunk Brit? Gods help you.

b.) You mean he spoke English slower and louder?

Personally, I prefer option b.)

 

He's no less smart than your average brit abroad.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Anyway, moving on, before poor old forum commander mormont gets Gazza moment over it, let's get back to something more substantive.

Nice little piece in the Guardian dismantling Corbyn's State Aid Lexit argument.

Bottom line is pretty much (what I think has also been said here in some shape or form).

Quote

As the backstop provisions show, the EU would not for a moment consider relinquishing that weapon unless it was sure that the UK would not breach state aid rules; and to be sure it will require cast-iron and enforceable treaty commitments binding the UK to the EU state aid regime. So Corbyn’s complaint is actually no more than a howl to the moon about the inevitable consequence of his own flagship Brexit policy.

Edit:

Also, about the advantages of no deal.

[Werthead]

I am unsure why Redwood has been knighted. Is it for his consistent failures in government and his repeated, defeated attempts to become party leader, or his consistent voting against LGBT rights? Or his support of Brexit, whilst privately advising firms to take their investments out of the UK until it blows over?

[Which Tyler]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

I am unsure why Redwood has been knighted. Is it for his consistent failures in government and his repeated, defeated attempts to become party leader, or his consistent voting against LGBT rights? Or his support of Brexit, whilst privately advising firms to take their investments out of the UK until it blows over?

Yes, he's a conservative

[mormont]

He's been given a knighthood because he thinks he's owed one, because he has zero self-awareness and an ego the size of Nelson's Column. In other words, he's typical of the fuckers that run this country.

The biggest 'service to politics' John Redwood could ever provide is to resign and spend his retirement writing letters of apology to all the people he's trampled to advance his political career.

[Maltaran]

Surely the reason he's been knighted is so he'll vote in favour of May's deal?