32,000 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria in the last twelve months...
Not the 29 million pledged by Farage then.
Little wonder politicians are so mistrusted when they fail to keep their promises.
Farage said 29 million would have the right to come here. That's entirely true. He didn't come 29 million would come here. The reason you Europhiles are losing the argument is that you just lie and lie again about such things.
Poppycock.
Farage used the 29 million as a dog whistle to arouse fears of east European EU immigration. It's was a tawdry and distasteful statement entirely in keeping with the fear mongering wing of his party.
Neither was it of course an "entirely true" statement as the combined population, let alone working age population, of Bulgaria and Rumania is so far short of 29 million as to make Ed Balls use of statistics a model of mathematical rectitude.
I'm saddened you accuse me of being a Europhile and liar. I am neither.
What's a dog whistle are the constant smears and distortions of Europhiles about UKIP. Farage raised an entirely legitimate point about just how many Romanians and Bulgarians have the right to come here, with the point that the upside uncertainty of immigration from those countries had effectively no limit.
And 29 million was an entirely accurate number of the Romanians and Bulgarians that could come here. You realise that their right to come here depends on whether they had Romanian or Bulgarian passport, not whether they were presently resident in Romanian and Bulgaria, right?
The distortion by omission is as bad from Eurosceptics as from the Europhiles. Farage might have said :
"29 million are entitled to come but of course it would be foolish to suggest that would happen, perhaps XXXX might emigrate ...."
It's this idiocy and the raw abuse and prejudice dished out by erstwhile fellow Conservatives to UKIP that drive me ever closer towards them.
The abuse comes mainly from the Kippers. Many of them seem incapable of writing any post without accusing anyone who disagrees with them, or points out inconvenient facts, of being 'liars' or (even worse in their eyes!) 'Europhiles', whatever that means. I don't think I've ever met a Europhile other than some LibDem friends of mine.
"Prime Minister David Cameron has promised to get net migration below 100,000 before the election in 2015.
But according to the data, 583,000 people immigrated to the UK in the last year - an increase of 45,000 from the EU and 30,000 from outside.
BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith said the figures were "deeply, deeply significant" and "deeply awkward for David Cameron".
and now I have some chores to do (boo!). Back later.
Those are simply huge numbers. That's well over a million extra people every 4 years.
Why do politicians and the commentariat think we all stop complaining and be entirely comfortable with that?
It's this idiocy and the raw abuse and prejudice dished out by erstwhile fellow Conservatives to UKIP that drive me ever closer towards them.
Even weirder is the belief that UKIP will just fade away. Pretty soon, a party that will end immigration on this scale -which may or may not b UKIP - will win a general election.
Ah - but post 2017 the pretence of being a party about the EU will be washed away - particularly if OUT wins (which there is a great chance of).
Can we deduce from the lack of outrage from Nats that they are reasonably satisfied with the Smith Commission ?
Remember it would never happen - just like the referendum....
The results of the Smith Commission are as exactly as shit as I expected them to be.
Not bad consolation prizes for the losing team though.
No, it's awful.
"Devolving" income tax is damaging to both Scotland and Britain as a whole.
If you look back through the dis-aggregated accounts for the UK then there are lots of years where year-on-year Scottish total tax take increases but Income tax take is down. Should Scotland's budget be cut in those years?
Likewise there are plenty of years where overall tax-take is down but income tax is up. Should Scotland's budget be increased those years?
There are masses of technical issues with calculating how large Scotland's budget should be under this scheme which can only lead to gross unfairness one way or the other.
And then there is the ludicrous nature of this to begin with. If the Scottish Government devises a plan to boost Income tax but crushes corporation tax that would seem to mean a budget increase for Scotland. The counter proposal ( a plan that reduces income tax take but boosts corporation tax take but mean a budget cut) is equally foolish. Only granting partial control of the fiscal levers is a recipe for bad fiscal policy no matter who is in charge.
Jim Murphy tweeting that he approves of the Smith Commission report.
Wonder if the Unite puppet candidate is so happy.
SLab's policy is to get hard behind the Smith Commission and dare the SNP to oppose it thus allowing them to paint the SNP as anti-Scottish/responsibility if they do.
The distortion by omission is as bad from Eurosceptics as from the Europhiles. Farage might have said :
"29 million are entitled to come but of course it would be foolish to suggest that would happen, perhaps XXXX might emigrate ...."
You're as bad as each other.
"Distortion by omission" is a hilarious phrase. You could apply it to the vast majority of human speech. People make the points they want to make. It's up for their opponents to argue against them. But Farage's opponents can't do that, because they know their points are weaker than his. That's why they go on the ludicrous witch hunt over distorting what he says.
In this debate there is one person who has outright broken promises. David "no ifs, no buts" Cameron. He said he'd reduce immigration by 60%, and has increased it instead.
Supporting reducing immigration is simply not consistent with supporting the Conservative party.
Yep p26. All EEA migrants since 2001 contributed £20bn.
Got my number wrong too. Out by £15bn though!
You referred to "immigrants", not "EEA immigrants". And you can time limit it all you want. The longer a timeframe you take, the less they contribute. Non-EEA immigrants are, overall, a huge drain, and EEA immigrants are basically neutral, and will likely be a drain once they've been here long enough to need elderly care and pensions.
All immigrants including non EEA = £25bn. Even higher.
Only if you ignore immigrants that came here between 1995-2001. You're deliberately cherry picking data because you know how bad the overall numbers are.
Punch and Judy time but...
...I'm afraid you're the one cherry picking.
Your data excludes the huge contribution by those immigrants BEFORE 1995.
Pre-1995 immigrants weren't included in the analysis. I'd love to include that data. Do you have numbers for them?
Ben/Socrates: I don't wish to intrude on your statistical squabble, but I'm mightily intrigued as to why immigrants who arrived here between 1995 and 2001 were so detrimental to the economy. Do either of you know?
Huzzah for Virgin, they run the West Coast franchise, and it is bloody lovely.
Have you actually taken their trains? Due to interesting ventilation choices the carriages smell of poo constantly. When the air conditioning is working at all. The only way to get from Scotland to London like a civilized person is first class on the East coast main line.
Can we deduce from the lack of outrage from Nats that they are reasonably satisfied with the Smith Commission ?
Remember it would never happen - just like the referendum....
The results of the Smith Commission are as exactly as shit as I expected them to be.
Not bad consolation prizes for the losing team though.
What consolation prize will Dave offer the Kippers if he spanks their bottom in the in/out referendum, as Dave has always been on the winning side on plebiscites in this country.
Personally the best thing he could post the referendum, is to make sure Turkey becomes a member of the EU.
The Kippers would be so happy, they could bang on about Muslim immigration to this country forever.
You are forgetting the minor detail that whatever Dave renegotiates from the EU he won't actually get, so in 2020 Nige's successor will stand up and tell the British public that we tried the renegotiations and they didn't work, so now its time for the "f*ck it, lets go" strategy.
The muslims in Holland now feel strong enough to to come out of hiding from under their Labour Party blanket. The same will probably happen here in a year or two. The Respect party was something of an attempt to make a mass muslim centred party here in the UK, but has so far failed to tempt muslims embedded in other parties to participate.
The Dutch have made the same mistakes we have. Their mentality of "tolerance" has been applied even to those that are intolerant and not integrating. The result is segregation socially, and now, apparently, politically. Will the left be happy with themselves when we have an Islamist parliamentary party in the UK, supporting bans on abortion, the revocation of gay marriage, and second class status for women? Left-wingers usually claim it's just a matter of time, and integration will happen. Well, please show me one example of a country that has had a large Muslim minority and has successfully integrated them fully, or even mostly.
Ban on abortion? Revocation of gay "marriage"?
Where do I put my cross on the ballot paper?
I get that your comment was tongue in cheek, but do you seriously want to revoke gay marriage?
It's this idiocy and the raw abuse and prejudice dished out by erstwhile fellow Conservatives to UKIP that drive me ever closer towards them.
The abuse comes mainly from the Kippers. Many of them seem incapable of writing any post without accusing anyone who disagrees with them, or points out inconvenient facts, of being 'liars' or (even worse in their eyes!) 'Europhiles', whatever that means. I don't think I've ever met a Europhile other than some LibDem friends of mine.
A Europhile is someone that likes the European Union and their nation's membership of it. It's very simple.
Huzzah for Virgin, they run the West Coast franchise, and it is bloody lovely.
Have you actually taken their trains? Due to interesting ventilation choices the carriages smell of poo constantly. When the air conditioning is working at all. The only way to get from Scotland to London like a civilized person is first class on the East coast main line.
Absolutely, especially with the complimentary meals. I'm not at all pleased about the news.
Can we deduce from the lack of outrage from Nats that they are reasonably satisfied with the Smith Commission ?
Remember it would never happen - just like the referendum....
The results of the Smith Commission are as exactly as shit as I expected them to be.
Not bad consolation prizes for the losing team though.
No, it's awful.
"Devolving" income tax is damaging to both Scotland and Britain as a whole.
If you look back through the dis-aggregated accounts for the UK then there are lots of years where year-on-year Scottish total tax take increases but Income tax take is down. Should Scotland's budget be cut in those years?
Oh dear- the penny hasn't dropped - indy is about responsibility - Scotland now has to set out policies to succeed as a country - not succeed in getting the SNP re-elected.
Maximise the tax take that you get to keep - that probably means encouraging private enterprise etc.
Or spend the next 30 years blaming Westminster - your choice.
Yep p26. All EEA migrants since 2001 contributed £20bn.
Got my number wrong too. Out by £15bn though!
You referred to "immigrants", not "EEA immigrants". And you can time limit it all you want. The longer a timeframe you take, the less they contribute. Non-EEA immigrants are, overall, a huge drain, and EEA immigrants are basically neutral, and will likely be a drain once they've been here long enough to need elderly care and pensions.
All immigrants including non EEA = £25bn. Even higher.
Only if you ignore immigrants that came here between 1995-2001. You're deliberately cherry picking data because you know how bad the overall numbers are.
Punch and Judy time but...
...I'm afraid you're the one cherry picking.
Your data excludes the huge contribution by those immigrants BEFORE 1995.
Pre-1995 immigrants weren't included in the analysis. I'd love to include that data. Do you have numbers for them?
Ben/Socrates: I don't wish to intrude on your statistical squabble, but I'm mightily intrigued as to why immigrants who arrived here between 1995 and 2001 were so detrimental to the economy. Do either of you know?
Predominantly from the third world, Jamaica, Nigeria, the subcontinent.
And the impact of falling oil prices? well From $110/barrel to $80 now times (say) 250million barrels /year - rounded to give easy sums $7.5Billion or £5 billion. Total Scots public spending is £65B.
You do realise that the government only gets a fraction of the price of a barrel of oil not the whole thing right?
Almost all of those are in the eurozone. As the eurozone integrates further, their economic cycles will become ever more convergent. Ours, on the other hand, will not, but we will often be bound by the decisions made there.
That's true, but it would remain largely true even if we left the EU, just as Canada (even without NAFTA) has always been very dependent on decisions made in the US. If you have a much bigger neighbour on your doorstep, you're going to be greatly affected by it. All the more so if, as everyone agrees we should, we retain access to the Single Market.
If we left the EU, we would have full control over our immigration policy. Currently, our hands are bound by decisions made by the eurozone countries, and we are subject to free full migration from them.
We could also strike a different approach to our neighbours in matters of trade. Over time the EU is going to become less and less dominant in matters of global trade.
Yep p26. All EEA migrants since 2001 contributed £20bn.
Got my number wrong too. Out by £15bn though!
You referred to "immigrants", not "EEA immigrants". And you can time limit it all you want. The longer a timeframe you take, the less they contribute. Non-EEA immigrants are, overall, a huge drain, and EEA immigrants are basically neutral, and will likely be a drain once they've been here long enough to need elderly care and pensions.
All immigrants including non EEA = £25bn. Even higher.
Only if you ignore immigrants that came here between 1995-2001. You're deliberately cherry picking data because you know how bad the overall numbers are.
Punch and Judy time but...
...I'm afraid you're the one cherry picking.
Your data excludes the huge contribution by those immigrants BEFORE 1995.
Pre-1995 immigrants weren't included in the analysis. I'd love to include that data. Do you have numbers for them?
Ben/Socrates: I don't wish to intrude on your statistical squabble, but I'm mightily intrigued as to why immigrants who arrived here between 1995 and 2001 were so detrimental to the economy. Do either of you know?
Because they've been here longer. When you come here as a young person, you don't use much public services. As you get into middle age, you use more healthcare and, as you get into old age, you start drawing a pension. The longer timeframe you examine for immigration, the more immigrants move from a slight benefit to a huge drain.
A Europhile is someone that likes the European Union and their nation's membership of it. It's very simple.
Right, well as I said only my LibDem friends count in that case. I know some people who hate it ('Europhobes', then?) - they are well represented here. Many people think it has advantages and disadvantages, like other international organisations we are members of. I guess those are 'Eurosceptics' in this hierarchy?
Can we deduce from the lack of outrage from Nats that they are reasonably satisfied with the Smith Commission ?
Remember it would never happen - just like the referendum....
The results of the Smith Commission are as exactly as shit as I expected them to be.
Not bad consolation prizes for the losing team though.
No, it's awful.
"Devolving" income tax is damaging to both Scotland and Britain as a whole.
If you look back through the dis-aggregated accounts for the UK then there are lots of years where year-on-year Scottish total tax take increases but Income tax take is down. Should Scotland's budget be cut in those years?
Oh dear- the penny hasn't dropped - indy is about responsibility - Scotland now has to set out policies to succeed as a country - not succeed in getting the SNP re-elected.
Maximise the tax take that you get to keep - that probably means encouraging private enterprise etc.
Or spend the next 30 years blaming Westminster - your choice.
So you approve of the UK government increasing Scotland's budget in years when Scotland's total tax contribution to the UK is down?
"Prime Minister David Cameron has promised to get net migration below 100,000 before the election in 2015.
But according to the data, 583,000 people immigrated to the UK in the last year - an increase of 45,000 from the EU and 30,000 from outside.
BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith said the figures were "deeply, deeply significant" and "deeply awkward for David Cameron".
and now I have some chores to do (boo!). Back later.
Those are simply huge numbers. That's well over a million extra people every 4 years.
Why do politicians and the commentariat think we all stop complaining and be entirely comfortable with that?
It's this idiocy and the raw abuse and prejudice dished out by erstwhile fellow Conservatives to UKIP that drive me ever closer towards them.
Even weirder is the belief that UKIP will just fade away. Pretty soon, a party that will end immigration on this scale -which may or may not b UKIP - will win a general election.
A Europhile is someone that likes the European Union and their nation's membership of it. It's very simple.
Right, well as I said only my LibDem friends count in that case. I know some people who hate it ('Europhobes', then?) - they are well represented here. Many people think it has advantages and disadvantages, like other international organisations we are members of. I guess those are 'Eurosceptics' in this hierarchy?
If you think our membership of the EU has more benefits than drawbacks, you like it overall and are a Europhile. If you think our membership of the EU has more drawbacks than benefits, you dislike it overall and are a Eurosceptic. People who are close to the tipping point are moderate Europhiles and moderate Eurosceptics respectively.
The term "Europhobe" implies fear, and is thus a term of abuse.
Can we deduce from the lack of outrage from Nats that they are reasonably satisfied with the Smith Commission ?
Remember it would never happen - just like the referendum....
The results of the Smith Commission are as exactly as shit as I expected them to be.
Not bad consolation prizes for the losing team though.
No, it's awful.
"Devolving" income tax is damaging to both Scotland and Britain as a whole.
If you look back through the dis-aggregated accounts for the UK then there are lots of years where year-on-year Scottish total tax take increases but Income tax take is down. Should Scotland's budget be cut in those years?
Oh dear- the penny hasn't dropped - indy is about responsibility - Scotland now has to set out policies to succeed as a country - not succeed in getting the SNP re-elected.
Maximise the tax take that you get to keep - that probably means encouraging private enterprise etc.
Or spend the next 30 years blaming Westminster - your choice.
So you approve of the UK government increasing Scotland's budget in years when Scotland's total tax contribution to the UK is down?
Probably has some merit in that scenario Scotland will have lost 000s of jobs to England due to the "social justice" parties ramping up income taxes.
Scottish unemployment figures will fall on the doormat of Holyrood.
Man up - you have got more levers - grab them - cut income taxes - encourage businesses to move to Scotland where workers get to keep more of their pay packet.
Doesn't fit with your spare bedrooms for all social justice mantra - but thems the facts of economic reality - see France for details.
"Prime Minister David Cameron has promised to get net migration below 100,000 before the election in 2015.
But according to the data, 583,000 people immigrated to the UK in the last year - an increase of 45,000 from the EU and 30,000 from outside.
BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith said the figures were "deeply, deeply significant" and "deeply awkward for David Cameron".
and now I have some chores to do (boo!). Back later.
Those are simply huge numbers. That's well over a million extra people every 4 years.
Why do politicians and the commentariat think we all stop complaining and be entirely comfortable with that?
It's this idiocy and the raw abuse and prejudice dished out by erstwhile fellow Conservatives to UKIP that drive me ever closer towards them.
Even weirder is the belief that UKIP will just fade away. Pretty soon, a party that will end immigration on this scale -which may or may not b UKIP - will win a general election.
I agree.
Its almost bound to be the Tories after Ed wins next year, they will be desperate to reconnect with the voters they lost to UKIP so they have some sort of chance in 2020. Dan Hannan for LoO ;-)
Can we deduce from the lack of outrage from Nats that they are reasonably satisfied with the Smith Commission ?
Remember it would never happen - just like the referendum....
The results of the Smith Commission are as exactly as shit as I expected them to be.
Not bad consolation prizes for the losing team though.
No, it's awful.
"Devolving" income tax is damaging to both Scotland and Britain as a whole.
If you look back through the dis-aggregated accounts for the UK then there are lots of years where year-on-year Scottish total tax take increases but Income tax take is down. Should Scotland's budget be cut in those years?
Oh dear- the penny hasn't dropped - indy is about responsibility - Scotland now has to set out policies to succeed as a country - not succeed in getting the SNP re-elected.
Maximise the tax take that you get to keep - that probably means encouraging private enterprise etc.
Or spend the next 30 years blaming Westminster - your choice.
So you approve of the UK government increasing Scotland's budget in years when Scotland's total tax contribution to the UK is down?
Redistribution from the wealthy to he less wealthy is a good thing. As a constituent part of the UK it is absolutely right for Scotland to benefit from that if it is necessary.
If we left the EU, we would have full control over our immigration policy. Currently, our hands are bound by decisions made by the eurozone countries, and we are subject to free full migration from them.
We could also strike a different approach to our neighbours in matters of trade. Over time the EU is going to become less and less dominant in matters of global trade.
Whilst I agree in part, I think it's unrealistic to assume we'd ever have 'full' control over our immigration policy. That would depend entirely on the terms of the trade treaty we entered into with our EU friends. It is near-inconceivable that such a treaty wouldn't include a substantial chunk of freedom of movement of labour. It might even end up as including full freedom of movement, like the Swiss-EU treaty.
Of course we can't know exactly what terms would finally be agreed in such a scenario, but I'd be very surprised if the net effect was very different from what we have now.
Yep p26. All EEA migrants since 2001 contributed £20bn.
Got my number wrong too. Out by £15bn though!
You referred to "immigrants", not "EEA immigrants". And you can time limit it all you want. The longer a timeframe you take, the less they contribute. Non-EEA immigrants are, overall, a huge drain, and EEA immigrants are basically neutral, and will likely be a drain once they've been here long enough to need elderly care and pensions.
All immigrants including non EEA = £25bn. Even higher.
Only if you ignore immigrants that came here between 1995-2001. You're deliberately cherry picking data because you know how bad the overall numbers are.
Punch and Judy time but...
...I'm afraid you're the one cherry picking.
Your data excludes the huge contribution by those immigrants BEFORE 1995.
Pre-1995 immigrants weren't included in the analysis. I'd love to include that data. Do you have numbers for them?
Ben/Socrates: I don't wish to intrude on your statistical squabble, but I'm mightily intrigued as to why immigrants who arrived here between 1995 and 2001 were so detrimental to the economy. Do either of you know?
Predominantly from the third world, Jamaica, Nigeria, the subcontinent.
That's also true of post-2001 immigrants, so wouldn't explain the difference.
Nigerians that come here are mostly from the top 5% of the population and tend to be wealthy. I suspect they make a net contribution.
Huzzah for Virgin, they run the West Coast franchise, and it is bloody lovely.
Have you actually taken their trains? Due to interesting ventilation choices the carriages smell of poo constantly. When the air conditioning is working at all. The only way to get from Scotland to London like a civilized person is first class on the East coast main line.
Absolutely, especially with the complimentary meals. I'm not at all pleased about the news.
"Prime Minister David Cameron has promised to get net migration below 100,000 before the election in 2015.
But according to the data, 583,000 people immigrated to the UK in the last year - an increase of 45,000 from the EU and 30,000 from outside.
BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith said the figures were "deeply, deeply significant" and "deeply awkward for David Cameron".
and now I have some chores to do (boo!). Back later.
Those are simply huge numbers. That's well over a million extra people every 4 years.
Why do politicians and the commentariat think we all stop complaining and be entirely comfortable with that?
It's this idiocy and the raw abuse and prejudice dished out by erstwhile fellow Conservatives to UKIP that drive me ever closer towards them.
So... GDP goes up - but to who - who really benefits - it's not your common or working man - and the inevitable pressure on infrastructure follows (Hospitals, schools, roads, housing) - I understand and sympathise completly.
And the Conservatives had better come up with a better message than "Ed might be PM" - it ain't going to convince UKIPers and the Doncaster North polling will show Vote Dave, get Ed.
The next election may well see an even clearer ideological fight than in GE2010. Ed Miliband has clearly taken Labour to the left, and the Conservatives have been a little bit more noisy to their base on tax, pensions and EU immigration reform.
But most lower-middle/ upper-working class voters think they're buggered either way, don't believe what they're saying, and so couldn't really give a toss who wins.
Can we deduce from the lack of outrage from Nats that they are reasonably satisfied with the Smith Commission ?
Remember it would never happen - just like the referendum....
The results of the Smith Commission are as exactly as shit as I expected them to be.
Not bad consolation prizes for the losing team though.
No, it's awful.
"Devolving" income tax is damaging to both Scotland and Britain as a whole.
If you look back through the dis-aggregated accounts for the UK then there are lots of years where year-on-year Scottish total tax take increases but Income tax take is down. Should Scotland's budget be cut in those years?
Oh dear- the penny hasn't dropped - indy is about responsibility - Scotland now has to set out policies to succeed as a country - not succeed in getting the SNP re-elected.
Maximise the tax take that you get to keep - that probably means encouraging private enterprise etc.
Or spend the next 30 years blaming Westminster - your choice.
So you approve of the UK government increasing Scotland's budget in years when Scotland's total tax contribution to the UK is down?
Probably has some merit in that scenario Scotland will have lost 000s of jobs to England due to the "social justice" parties ramping up income taxes.
Scottish unemployment figures will fall on the doormat of Holyrood.
Man up - you have got more levers - grab them - cut income taxes - encourage businesses to move to Scotland where workers get to keep more of their pay packet.
Doesn't fit with your spare bedrooms for all social justice mantra - but thems the facts of economic reality - see France for details.
Being able to have your finger on the trigger of the gun is no good if you don't also get to point it.
If we left the EU, we would have full control over our immigration policy. Currently, our hands are bound by decisions made by the eurozone countries, and we are subject to free full migration from them.
We could also strike a different approach to our neighbours in matters of trade. Over time the EU is going to become less and less dominant in matters of global trade.
Whilst I agree in part, I think it's unrealistic to assume we'd ever have 'full' control over our immigration policy. That would depend entirely on the terms of the trade treaty we entered into with our EU friends. It is near-inconceivable that such a treaty wouldn't include a substantial chunk of freedom of movement of labour. It might even end up as including full freedom of movement, like the Swiss-EU treaty.
Of course we can't know exactly what terms would finally be agreed in such a scenario, but I'd be very surprised if the net effect was very different from what we have now.
Several nations have FTAs with the EU. The vast majority have no requirements on free movement. We could just replicate the Canada deal.
And the impact of falling oil prices? well From $110/barrel to $80 now times (say) 250million barrels /year - rounded to give easy sums $7.5Billion or £5 billion. Total Scots public spending is £65B.
You do realise that the government only gets a fraction of the price of a barrel of oil not the whole thing right?
The SNP's economic plan for an independent Scotland was predicated on increasing oil production and a minimum price per barrel of $110 at today's prices. There's just no getting round that.
Can we deduce from the lack of outrage from Nats that they are reasonably satisfied with the Smith Commission ?
Remember it would never happen - just like the referendum....
The results of the Smith Commission are as exactly as shit as I expected them to be.
Not bad consolation prizes for the losing team though.
No, it's awful.
"Devolving" income tax is damaging to both Scotland and Britain as a whole.
If you look back through the dis-aggregated accounts for the UK then there are lots of years where year-on-year Scottish total tax take increases but Income tax take is down. Should Scotland's budget be cut in those years?
Oh dear- the penny hasn't dropped - indy is about responsibility - Scotland now has to set out policies to succeed as a country - not succeed in getting the SNP re-elected.
Maximise the tax take that you get to keep - that probably means encouraging private enterprise etc.
Or spend the next 30 years blaming Westminster - your choice.
So you approve of the UK government increasing Scotland's budget in years when Scotland's total tax contribution to the UK is down?
Redistribution from the wealthy to he less wealthy is a good thing. As a constituent part of the UK it is absolutely right for Scotland to benefit from that if it is necessary.
So long as Scotland is happy to send money the otherway on similar terms should they discover a diamond mine under the Grampians... seems unlikely, they are more likely to run off with the cash
Having both Scotland-to-London lines being run by Virgin is going to be bloody awful.
Virigin were great in the first couple of years after they got the West Coast mainline franchise but over the years they have got shitter and shitter and shitter to the point where I actively avoide travelling with them. The DOR East Coast main line has been a touch of class in an uncivilised world and I am mighty sad to see it go.
Can we deduce from the lack of outrage from Nats that they are reasonably satisfied with the Smith Commission ?
Remember it would never happen - just like the referendum....
The results of the Smith Commission are as exactly as shit as I expected them to be.
Not bad consolation prizes for the losing team though.
No, it's awful.
"Devolving" income tax is damaging to both Scotland and Britain as a whole.
If you look back through the dis-aggregated accounts for the UK then there are lots of years where year-on-year Scottish total tax take increases but Income tax take is down. Should Scotland's budget be cut in those years?
Oh dear- the penny hasn't dropped - indy is about responsibility - Scotland now has to set out policies to succeed as a country - not succeed in getting the SNP re-elected.
Maximise the tax take that you get to keep - that probably means encouraging private enterprise etc.
Or spend the next 30 years blaming Westminster - your choice.
So you approve of the UK government increasing Scotland's budget in years when Scotland's total tax contribution to the UK is down?
Probably has some merit in that scenario Scotland will have lost 000s of jobs to England due to the "social justice" parties ramping up income taxes.
Scottish unemployment figures will fall on the doormat of Holyrood.
Man up - you have got more levers - grab them - cut income taxes - encourage businesses to move to Scotland where workers get to keep more of their pay packet.
Doesn't fit with your spare bedrooms for all social justice mantra - but thems the facts of economic reality - see France for details.
Being able to have your finger on the trigger of the gun is no good if you don't also get to point it.
But you do - you can cut income tax and increase the take as employment rises = more money for Holyrood to spend on well whatever.
The STUC HATE the report - tells you all you need to know.
Yep p26. All EEA migrants since 2001 contributed £20bn.
Got my number wrong too. Out by £15bn though!
You referred to "immigrants", not "EEA immigrants". And you can time limit it all you want. The longer a timeframe you take, the less they contribute. Non-EEA immigrants are, overall, a huge drain, and EEA immigrants are basically neutral, and will likely be a drain once they've been here long enough to need elderly care and pensions.
All immigrants including non EEA = £25bn. Even higher.
Only if you ignore immigrants that came here between 1995-2001. You're deliberately cherry picking data because you know how bad the overall numbers are.
Punch and Judy time but...
...I'm afraid you're the one cherry picking.
Your data excludes the huge contribution by those immigrants BEFORE 1995.
Pre-1995 immigrants weren't included in the analysis. I'd love to include that data. Do you have numbers for them?
Ben/Socrates: I don't wish to intrude on your statistical squabble, but I'm mightily intrigued as to why immigrants who arrived here between 1995 and 2001 were so detrimental to the economy. Do either of you know?
Predominantly from the third world, Jamaica, Nigeria, the subcontinent.
That's also true of post-2001 immigrants, so wouldn't explain the difference.
Nigerians that come here are mostly from the top 5% of the population and tend to be wealthy. I suspect they make a net contribution.
Hardly any European immigration pre 2001, there whole flawed, http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/395, report really highlighted the difference between third world and European immigration.
And the impact of falling oil prices? well From $110/barrel to $80 now times (say) 250million barrels /year - rounded to give easy sums $7.5Billion or £5 billion. Total Scots public spending is £65B.
You do realise that the government only gets a fraction of the price of a barrel of oil not the whole thing right?
The SNP's economic plan for an independent Scotland was predicated on increasing oil production and a minimum price per barrel of $110 at today's prices. There's just no getting round that.
Yes but if the actual difference in government income (no one likes to work out what this figure would be) we are talking about is just a Tunnocks Caramel Wafer for everyone then it's not really a thing to wank yourself silly over whilst imagining the apocalyptic wasteland Scotland would become in an $80 barrel of oil world.
Hardly any European immigration pre 2001, there whole flawed, http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/395, report really highlighted the difference between third world and European immigration.
European migration has been a minority post-2001, and assuming you mean the common meaning for "third world" being "developing countries", that applies to half of Europe.
If you think our membership of the EU has more benefits than drawbacks, you like it overall and are a Europhile.
Ah, I see. It's just a meaningless insult meaning 'not a Kipper'. Got it, thanks for the clarification.
It's a curious twist of the English language, in which '-phile' normally means to love something, or be enthusiastic for it.
So Dan Hannan is a Kipper now, is he?
When I've heard him, Dan doesn't throw insults around at Conservatives who are not yet persuaded that the balance has definitely shifted towards leaving the EU. Instead he argues his case very persuasively.
The fact that OPEC can't agree on the most basic of issues is the best news the West has had for a long time IMO. Lets hope petrol prices continue to drop in line with the oil price.
Can we deduce from the lack of outrage from Nats that they are reasonably satisfied with the Smith Commission ?
Remember it would never happen - just like the referendum....
The results of the Smith Commission are as exactly as shit as I expected them to be.
Not bad consolation prizes for the losing team though.
No, it's awful.
"Devolving" income tax is damaging to both Scotland and Britain as a whole.
If you look back through the dis-aggregated accounts for the UK then there are lots of years where year-on-year Scottish total tax take increases but Income tax take is down. Should Scotland's budget be cut in those years?
Oh dear- the penny hasn't dropped - indy is about responsibility - Scotland now has to set out policies to succeed as a country - not succeed in getting the SNP re-elected.
Maximise the tax take that you get to keep - that probably means encouraging private enterprise etc.
Or spend the next 30 years blaming Westminster - your choice.
So you approve of the UK government increasing Scotland's budget in years when Scotland's total tax contribution to the UK is down?
Redistribution from the wealthy to he less wealthy is a good thing. As a constituent part of the UK it is absolutely right for Scotland to benefit from that if it is necessary.
But you also then back reducing Scotland's budget in years when it increases it's total tax contribution to the UK.
This is what is nonsensical about the income tax powers - there is no link between Scotland's fiscal performance and its budget. It is neither a useful power nor a source of responsibility.
If we left the EU, we would have full control over our immigration policy. Currently, our hands are bound by decisions made by the eurozone countries, and we are subject to free full migration from them.
We could also strike a different approach to our neighbours in matters of trade. Over time the EU is going to become less and less dominant in matters of global trade.
Whilst I agree in part, I think it's unrealistic to assume we'd ever have 'full' control over our immigration policy. That would depend entirely on the terms of the trade treaty we entered into with our EU friends. It is near-inconceivable that such a treaty wouldn't include a substantial chunk of freedom of movement of labour. It might even end up as including full freedom of movement, like the Swiss-EU treaty.
Of course we can't know exactly what terms would finally be agreed in such a scenario, but I'd be very surprised if the net effect was very different from what we have now.
An independent UK government would be commiting political suicide to sign-up to any treaty including full freedom of movement. It would be booted out at the next election, and the treaty renegotiated.
I don't think anyone is arguing for *zero* labour movement, incidentally, only that it's at practical and acceptable levels and not an ideological dogma of absolute free movement that we are forced to sign up to and unable to change.
NAFTA has sensible provisions on this. Under the TN status, U.S. consulates issued employer sponsored visas for free-trade areas valid under the treaty (valid for a maximum of 3 years) to between 4,000 and 5,000 Mexicans per year between 2007-2009.
Hardly any European immigration pre 2001, there whole flawed, http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/395, report really highlighted the difference between third world and European immigration.
European migration has been a minority post-2001, and assuming you mean the common meaning for "third world" being "developing countries", that applies to half of Europe.
What proportion of immigration was EEA for the 20 years befrore 2001, and what is the proportion post 2001? Europe is solely first and second world.
If you think our membership of the EU has more benefits than drawbacks, you like it overall and are a Europhile.
Ah, I see. It's just a meaningless insult meaning 'not a Kipper'. Got it, thanks for the clarification.
It's a curious twist of the English language, in which '-phile' normally means to love something, or be enthusiastic for it.
So Dan Hannan is a Kipper now, is he?
When I've heard him, Dan doesn't throw insults around at Conservatives who are not yet persuaded that the balance has definitely shifted towards leaving the EU. Instead he argues his case very persuasively.
That has absolutely nothing to do with your claim that my definition ("If you think our membership of the EU has more benefits than drawbacks, you like it overall and are a Europhile.") meant "not a Kipper".
Can we deduce from the lack of outrage from Nats that they are reasonably satisfied with the Smith Commission ?
Remember it would never happen - just like the referendum....
The results of the Smith Commission are as exactly as shit as I expected them to be.
Not bad consolation prizes for the losing team though.
No, it's awful.
"Devolving" income tax is damaging to both Scotland and Britain as a whole.
If you look back through the dis-aggregated accounts for the UK then there are lots of years where year-on-year Scottish total tax take increases but Income tax take is down. Should Scotland's budget be cut in those years?
Oh dear- the penny hasn't dropped - indy is about responsibility - Scotland now has to set out policies to succeed as a country - not succeed in getting the SNP re-elected.
Maximise the tax take that you get to keep - that probably means encouraging private enterprise etc.
Or spend the next 30 years blaming Westminster - your choice.
So you approve of the UK government increasing Scotland's budget in years when Scotland's total tax contribution to the UK is down?
Redistribution from the wealthy to he less wealthy is a good thing. As a constituent part of the UK it is absolutely right for Scotland to benefit from that if it is necessary.
But you also then back reducing Scotland's budget in years when it increases it's total tax contribution to the UK.
This is what is nonsensical about the income tax powers - there is no link between Scotland's fiscal performance and its budget. It is neither a useful power nor a source of responsibility.
But there is a link between income tax and budget - so if oil revenues go up the Uk as a whole benefits. For Scottish govt revenues to rise they have to follow a lower tax Laffer curve model -absolute genius from Ruth and Dave. Happy Days.
An independent UK government would be commiting political suicide to sign-up to any treaty including full freedom of movement. It would be booted out at the next election, and the treaty renegotiated.
I don't think anyone is arguing for *zero* labour movement, incidentally, only that it's at practical and acceptable levels and not an ideological dogma of absolute free movement that we are forced to sign up to and unable to change.
NAFTA has sensible provisions on this. Under the TN status, U.S. consulates issued employer sponsored visas for free-trade areas valid under the treaty (valid for a maximum of 3 years) to between 4,000 and 5,000 Mexicans per year between 2007-2009.
That seems sensible and practical to me.
NAFTA is not as integrated as the Single Market. In particular we would be pushing for a free market in Services. I can't see how in practice that would be compatible with visas and work permits.
On the political point, there is a very good precedent: Switzerland. It's one to watch, but I'm pretty sure it will end up with the Swiss backing down.
Hardly any European immigration pre 2001, there whole flawed, http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/395, report really highlighted the difference between third world and European immigration.
European migration has been a minority post-2001, and assuming you mean the common meaning for "third world" being "developing countries", that applies to half of Europe.
What proportion of immigration was EEA for the 20 years befrore 2001, and what is the proportion post 2001? Europe is solely first and second world.
A minority in both cases.
If you're using the meaning of "third world" to mean "alignment during the Cold War", rather than income levels, how is that relevant to the contribution of their migrants? Swedish and Irish immigrants are from the third world on that basis.
"Its almost bound to be the Tories after Ed wins next year, they will be desperate to reconnect with the voters they lost to UKIP so they have some sort of chance in 2020. Dan Hannan for LoO ;-)"
though as one particular squire of this parish keeps reminding us "Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister"
The muslims in Holland now feel strong enough to to come out of hiding from under their Labour Party blanket. The same will probably happen here in a year or two. The Respect party was something of an attempt to make a mass muslim centred party here in the UK, but has so far failed to tempt muslims embedded in other parties to participate.
The Dutch have made the same mistakes we have. Their mentality of "tolerance" has been applied even to those that are intolerant and not integrating. The result is segregation socially, and now, apparently, politically. Will the left be happy with themselves when we have an Islamist parliamentary party in the UK, supporting bans on abortion, the revocation of gay marriage, and second class status for women? Left-wingers usually claim it's just a matter of time, and integration will happen. Well, please show me one example of a country that has had a large Muslim minority and has successfully integrated them fully, or even mostly.
Ban on abortion? Revocation of gay "marriage"?
Where do I put my cross on the ballot paper?
I get that your comment was tongue in cheek, but do you seriously want to revoke gay marriage?
Having both Scotland-to-London lines being run by Virgin is going to be bloody awful.
Virigin were great in the first couple of years after they got the West Coast mainline franchise but over the years they have got shitter and shitter and shitter to the point where I actively avoide travelling with them. The DOR East Coast main line has been a touch of class in an uncivilised world and I am mighty sad to see it go.
Just you wait until the IEP's are foisted upon East Coast. That project's a government-led disaster that will cost passengers dear.
Hardly any European immigration pre 2001, there whole flawed, http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/395, report really highlighted the difference between third world and European immigration.
European migration has been a minority post-2001, and assuming you mean the common meaning for "third world" being "developing countries", that applies to half of Europe.
What proportion of immigration was EEA for the 20 years befrore 2001, and what is the proportion post 2001? Europe is solely first and second world.
A minority in both cases.
If you're using the meaning of "third world" to mean "alignment during the Cold War", rather than income levels, how is that relevant to the contribution of their migrants? Swedish and Irish immigrants are from the third world on that basis.
What was the change?
No one uses third wold as a term to do with cold war alignment, stop trying to deflect the issue and answer the question.
An independent UK government would be commiting political suicide to sign-up to any treaty including full freedom of movement. It would be booted out at the next election, and the treaty renegotiated.
I don't think anyone is arguing for *zero* labour movement, incidentally, only that it's at practical and acceptable levels and not an ideological dogma of absolute free movement that we are forced to sign up to and unable to change.
NAFTA has sensible provisions on this. Under the TN status, U.S. consulates issued employer sponsored visas for free-trade areas valid under the treaty (valid for a maximum of 3 years) to between 4,000 and 5,000 Mexicans per year between 2007-2009.
That seems sensible and practical to me.
NAFTA is not as integrated as the Single Market. In particular we would be pushing for a free market in Services. I can't see how in practice that would be compatible with visas and work permits.
On the political point, there is a very good precedent: Switzerland. It's one to watch, but I'm pretty sure it will end up with the Swiss backing down.
A free market in services does not require the right to permanent migration: just that people can travel to the place to carry out the work contract before returning. That's perfectly consistent with project-dependent work permits. CETA is a good example of how this would work. It includes better ease of movement for labour, but not free movement.
Hardly any European immigration pre 2001, there whole flawed, http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/395, report really highlighted the difference between third world and European immigration.
European migration has been a minority post-2001, and assuming you mean the common meaning for "third world" being "developing countries", that applies to half of Europe.
What proportion of immigration was EEA for the 20 years befrore 2001, and what is the proportion post 2001? Europe is solely first and second world.
A minority in both cases.
If you're using the meaning of "third world" to mean "alignment during the Cold War", rather than income levels, how is that relevant to the contribution of their migrants? Swedish and Irish immigrants are from the third world on that basis.
Assuming that is all true (I'm not suggesting it isn't) then why would immigrants 2001-2014 deliver c.£20bn, whereas immigrants 1995-2014 take c.£110bn. This implies that those who arrived between 1995 and 2001 have taken c.£130bn (net).
Completely implausible unless some statistical chicanery has taken place.
That has absolutely nothing to do with your claim that my definition ("If you think our membership of the EU has more benefits than drawbacks, you like it overall and are a Europhile.") meant "not a Kipper".
Ah, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant Dan Hannan threw insults around and accused everyone who disagreed with him of being a liar and a Europhile.
Yes, you're right, the definition as used by the Kippers seems to be 'anyone who disagrees with the view that we should unconditionally leave the EU'. OK, but it's a silly and meaningless term then, isn't it? What does it add to the argument?
To put this ComRes marginals poll into context, it shows Labour short of a majority and barely ahead on the popular vote.
The Marginals poll of September 2009 but the Tories on course for a majority of 70.
Yes - and your implication, I think, is that oppositions tend to lose ground in the final months. Equally, it's possible that election campaigns tend to disproportionately increase Labour voters' propensity to vote, e.g. if we may have more voters preoccupied by the pressures of everyday life and only paying attention to politics when the GE actually comes round.
The truth is that we don't know - by any statistical measure, the sample of comparable situations (a handful of GEs, each in different circumstances) is negligible.
Of course, it would be dead boring if we DID know.
Hardly any European immigration pre 2001, there whole flawed, http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/395, report really highlighted the difference between third world and European immigration.
European migration has been a minority post-2001, and assuming you mean the common meaning for "third world" being "developing countries", that applies to half of Europe.
What proportion of immigration was EEA for the 20 years befrore 2001, and what is the proportion post 2001? Europe is solely first and second world.
A minority in both cases.
If you're using the meaning of "third world" to mean "alignment during the Cold War", rather than income levels, how is that relevant to the contribution of their migrants? Swedish and Irish immigrants are from the third world on that basis.
Assuming that is all true (I'm not suggesting it isn't) then why would immigrants 2001-2014 deliver c.£20bn, whereas immigrants 1995-2014 take c.£110bn. This implies that those who arrived between 1995 and 2001 have taken c.£130bn (net).
Completely implausible unless some statistical chicanery has taken place.
Difference between Jamaican immigrants to that of Germans.
Hardly any European immigration pre 2001, there whole flawed, http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/395, report really highlighted the difference between third world and European immigration.
European migration has been a minority post-2001, and assuming you mean the common meaning for "third world" being "developing countries", that applies to half of Europe.
What proportion of immigration was EEA for the 20 years befrore 2001, and what is the proportion post 2001? Europe is solely first and second world.
A minority in both cases.
If you're using the meaning of "third world" to mean "alignment during the Cold War", rather than income levels, how is that relevant to the contribution of their migrants? Swedish and Irish immigrants are from the third world on that basis.
Assuming that is all true (I'm not suggesting it isn't) then why would immigrants 2001-2014 deliver c.£20bn, whereas immigrants 1995-2014 take c.£110bn. This implies that those who arrived between 1995 and 2001 have taken c.£130bn (net).
Completely implausible unless some statistical chicanery has taken place.
You're correct. I just checked the data. The 1995-2011 panel is the net effect of ALL migrants, including those that came before 1995 for those years. The 2001-2011 panel included just those who arrived after 2001 for those years.
If Britain left the EU, I think the EU would be so pissed off - because it would be such a blow to its amour propre - that it would seek to harm or otherwise impose very damaging (to Britain) terms on Britain "pour encourager les autres". The fact that this might also harm the EU would not necessarily change matters.
You could see the same sort of thinking at work here when people thought Scotland might vote for independence.
I think such an approach is wrong but I fear that this will be the attitude - and it may be one reason why, in the end, people won't vote to leave, however much they may dislike the EU.
Whether the EU can really thrive when one of its largest members feels so reluctant about it is another matter.
Von Rompuy's claim that the EU can survive without Britain is, I think, wrong. Not because it can't survive but because the shock to it - and to the rest of the world - of having one of its more significant members choosing to leave will be very great and the consequences incalculable. Empires - or quasi-empires - which start breaking up usually - over time - carry on breaking up.
A free market in services does not require the right to permanent migration: just that people can travel to the place to carry out the work contract before returning. That's perfectly consistent with project-dependent work permits. CETA is a good example of how this would work. It includes better ease of movement for labour, but not free movement.
Any form of work permit means bureaucracy, delay and uncertainty. Would the UK - for which services are massively more important than for our EU friends - really want that?
These are the kinds of question that need serious examination. There's precious little sign of that from the BOOers, although Owen Paterson's speech a couple of days ago was interesting.
The muslims in Holland now feel strong enough to to come out of hiding from under their Labour Party blanket. The same will probably happen here in a year or two. The Respect party was something of an attempt to make a mass muslim centred party here in the UK, but has so far failed to tempt muslims embedded in other parties to participate.
The Dutch have made the same mistakes we have. Their mentality of "tolerance" has been applied even to those that are intolerant and not integrating. The result is segregation socially, and now, apparently, politically. Will the left be happy with themselves when we have an Islamist parliamentary party in the UK, supporting bans on abortion, the revocation of gay marriage, and second class status for women? Left-wingers usually claim it's just a matter of time, and integration will happen. Well, please show me one example of a country that has had a large Muslim minority and has successfully integrated them fully, or even mostly.
Ban on abortion? Revocation of gay "marriage"?
Where do I put my cross on the ballot paper?
I get that your comment was tongue in cheek, but do you seriously want to revoke gay marriage?
I was being entirely serious.
Would you be in favour of recriminalising homosexuality?
A free market in services does not require the right to permanent migration: just that people can travel to the place to carry out the work contract before returning. That's perfectly consistent with project-dependent work permits. CETA is a good example of how this would work. It includes better ease of movement for labour, but not free movement.
Any form of work permit means bureaucracy, delay and uncertainty. Would the UK - for which services are massively more important that for our EU friends - really want that?
These are the kinds of question that need serious examination. There's precious little sign of that from the BOOers, although Owen Paterson's speech a couple of days ago was interesting.
The requirement for travel to deliver many services is receding fast. I haven't travelled to the office of any of my clients for over six years.
Von Rompuy's claim that the EU can survive without Britain is, I think, wrong. Not because it can't survive but because the shock to it - and to the rest of the world - of having one of its more significant members choosing to leave will be very great and the consequences incalculable. Empires - or quasi-empires - which start breaking up usually - over time - carry on breaking up.
More concretely, the remaining contributing countries would have to shoulder our £19bn per year contribution, or other countries will have to start contributing, or (at least theoretically) they will have to take an axe to EU budgets, any of these is going to be massively divisive.
Hardly any European immigration pre 2001, there whole flawed, http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/395, report really highlighted the difference between third world and European immigration.
European migration has been a minority post-2001, and assuming you mean the common meaning for "third world" being "developing countries", that applies to half of Europe.
What proportion of immigration was EEA for the 20 years befrore 2001, and what is the proportion post 2001? Europe is solely first and second world.
A minority in both cases.
If you're using the meaning of "third world" to mean "alignment during the Cold War", rather than income levels, how is that relevant to the contribution of their migrants? Swedish and Irish immigrants are from the third world on that basis.
Assuming that is all true (I'm not suggesting it isn't) then why would immigrants 2001-2014 deliver c.£20bn, whereas immigrants 1995-2014 take c.£110bn. This implies that those who arrived between 1995 and 2001 have taken c.£130bn (net).
Completely implausible unless some statistical chicanery has taken place.
You're correct. I just checked the data. The 1995-2011 panel is the net effect of ALL migrants, including those that came before 1995 for those years. The 2001-2011 panel included just those who arrived after 2001 for those years.
Ok, now that I can believe. The 1995 figures would includes decades of immigration from (primarily) commonwealth countries, many of whom will have been pensioners for a very long time.
That has absolutely nothing to do with your claim that my definition ("If you think our membership of the EU has more benefits than drawbacks, you like it overall and are a Europhile.") meant "not a Kipper".
Ah, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant Dan Hannan threw insults around and accused everyone who disagreed with him of being a liar and a Europhile.
Yes, you're right, the definition as used by the Kippers seems to be 'anyone who disagrees with the view that we should unconditionally leave the EU'. OK, but it's a silly and meaningless term then, isn't it? What does it add to the argument?
It doesn't mean "unconditionally". Even I do not fall in that camp. What I mean is that anyone that advocates leaving the European Union in the current circumstances. That's a pretty meaningful term in describing the two sides of the debate.
Von Rompuy's claim that the EU can survive without Britain is, I think, wrong. Not because it can't survive but because the shock to it - and to the rest of the world - of having one of its more significant members choosing to leave will be very great and the consequences incalculable. Empires - or quasi-empires - which start breaking up usually - over time - carry on breaking up.
More concretely, the remaining contributing countries would have to shoulder our £19bn per year contribution, or other countries will have to start contributing, or (at least theoretically) they will have to take an axe to EU budgets, any of these is going to be massively divisive.
Of course. But the psychological shock will be enormous. The question the EU - and other countries round the world - will be asking is why the EU was unable to keep an important country. Given the stagnation the EU has been suffering from for a number of years, that is going to hit hard.
An independent UK government would be commiting political suicide to sign-up to any treaty including full freedom of movement. It would be booted out at the next election, and the treaty renegotiated.
I don't think anyone is arguing for *zero* labour movement, incidentally, only that it's at practical and acceptable levels and not an ideological dogma of absolute free movement that we are forced to sign up to and unable to change.
NAFTA has sensible provisions on this. Under the TN status, U.S. consulates issued employer sponsored visas for free-trade areas valid under the treaty (valid for a maximum of 3 years) to between 4,000 and 5,000 Mexicans per year between 2007-2009.
That seems sensible and practical to me.
NAFTA is not as integrated as the Single Market. In particular we would be pushing for a free market in Services. I can't see how in practice that would be compatible with visas and work permits.
On the political point, there is a very good precedent: Switzerland. It's one to watch, but I'm pretty sure it will end up with the Swiss backing down.
In that case, no single market in services.
If the cost-benefits of the deal on the table aren't acceptable to the British people, we don't take it. This really isn't difficult.
National Insurance Number (NINo) registrations to adult overseas nationals increased by 12% to 668,000 in the year ending September 2014 from the previous year. Romanian citizens had the highest number of registrations (104,000), followed by Polish citizens (98,000).
Of course. But the psychological shock will be enormous. The question the EU - and other countries round the world - will be asking is why the EU was unable to keep an important country. Given the stagnation the EU has been suffering from for a number of years, that is going to hit hard.
Which is why the renegotiation, if we have a Conservative government, will certainly produce something non-negligible in the way of concessions from our EU friends (and will be dressed up as bigger still). Quite what remains to be seen, of course.
That has absolutely nothing to do with your claim that my definition ("If you think our membership of the EU has more benefits than drawbacks, you like it overall and are a Europhile.") meant "not a Kipper".
Ah, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant Dan Hannan threw insults around and accused everyone who disagreed with him of being a liar and a Europhile.
Yes, you're right, the definition as used by the Kippers seems to be 'anyone who disagrees with the view that we should unconditionally leave the EU'. OK, but it's a silly and meaningless term then, isn't it? What does it add to the argument?
It doesn't mean "unconditionally". Even I do not fall in that camp. What I mean is that anyone that advocates leaving the European Union in the current circumstances. That's a pretty meaningful term in describing the two sides of the debate.
Neither of those definitions say anything above "love", or "unconditional", or "absolute", and usually Mr N's suggestion that is does is starting to look
Includes full international borrowing powers!!! That is a BIG mistake. Who is going to be backstopping Scottish debt? Is it ONLY Scottish taxpayers or all of us? I fear I smell a lefty bankruptopia being paid for by England coming around the corner.
The muslims in Holland now feel strong enough to to come out of hiding from under their Labour Party blanket. The same will probably happen here in a year or two. The Respect party was something of an attempt to make a mass muslim centred party here in the UK, but has so far failed to tempt muslims embedded in other parties to participate.
The Dutch have made the same mistakes we have. Their mentality of "tolerance" has been applied even to those that are intolerant and not integrating. The result is segregation socially, and now, apparently, politically. Will the left be happy with themselves when we have an Islamist parliamentary party in the UK, supporting bans on abortion, the revocation of gay marriage, and second class status for women? Left-wingers usually claim it's just a matter of time, and integration will happen. Well, please show me one example of a country that has had a large Muslim minority and has successfully integrated them fully, or even mostly.
Ban on abortion? Revocation of gay "marriage"?
Where do I put my cross on the ballot paper?
I get that your comment was tongue in cheek, but do you seriously want to revoke gay marriage?
I was being entirely serious.
Would you be in favour of recriminalising homosexuality?
No. All that imprisonment, blackmail and intrusion into private lives.
Hardly any European immigration pre 2001, there whole flawed, http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/395, report really highlighted the difference between third world and European immigration.
European migration has been a minority post-2001, and assuming you mean the common meaning for "third world" being "developing countries", that applies to half of Europe.
What proportion of immigration was EEA for the 20 years befrore 2001, and what is the proportion post 2001? Europe is solely first and second world.
A minority in both cases.
If you're using the meaning of "third world" to mean "alignment during the Cold War", rather than income levels, how is that relevant to the contribution of their migrants? Swedish and Irish immigrants are from the third world on that basis.
Assuming that is all true (I'm not suggesting it isn't) then why would immigrants 2001-2014 deliver c.£20bn, whereas immigrants 1995-2014 take c.£110bn. This implies that those who arrived between 1995 and 2001 have taken c.£130bn (net).
Completely implausible unless some statistical chicanery has taken place.
You're correct. I just checked the data. The 1995-2011 panel is the net effect of ALL migrants, including those that came before 1995 for those years. The 2001-2011 panel included just those who arrived after 2001 for those years.
Ok, now that I can believe. The 1995 figures would includes decades of immigration from (primarily) commonwealth countries, many of whom will have been pensioners for a very long time.
Indeed.
Which is why Socrates throwing around big numbers and using them to call migration a "drain" makes him look silly.
If the cost-benefits of the deal on the table aren't acceptable to the British people, we don't take it. This really isn't difficult.
The British people want a strong economy and jobs. They also, mostly, want a reduction in EU immigration. In the real world, those are in part contradictory aims, which have to be traded off against each other. Different people will see the trade-off differently - personally I'd put the free market in services as massively more important, others will disagree. But there's no escaping the trade-off, as the Swiss are discovering, and it is disingenuous to pretend we can have 'full control of our borders' with no downside.
It's this idiocy and the raw abuse and prejudice dished out by erstwhile fellow Conservatives to UKIP that drive me ever closer towards them.
The abuse comes mainly from the Kippers. Many of them seem incapable of writing any post without accusing anyone who disagrees with them, or points out inconvenient facts, of being 'liars' or (even worse in their eyes!) 'Europhiles', whatever that means. I don't think I've ever met a Europhile other than some LibDem friends of mine.
A statement of fact can hardly be construed as an insult. I said two things about you. One that you were lying - which you were doing by supporting and perpetuating a lie about what Farage had said - and two that you were a Europhile which by any reasoned (and has been shown authoritative) definition you clearly are.
Of course when you are shown to be making false and dishonest statements you always try to claim it is nasty kippers throwing insults but unfortunately the statement of facts is rather difficult to construe as an insult.
And the impact of falling oil prices? well From $110/barrel to $80 now times (say) 250million barrels /year - rounded to give easy sums $7.5Billion or £5 billion. Total Scots public spending is £65B.
You do realise that the government only gets a fraction of the price of a barrel of oil not the whole thing right?
The SNP's economic plan for an independent Scotland was predicated on increasing oil production and a minimum price per barrel of $110 at today's prices. There's just no getting round that.
Yes but if the actual difference in government income (no one likes to work out what this figure would be) we are talking about is just a Tunnocks Caramel Wafer for everyone then it's not really a thing to wank yourself silly over whilst imagining the apocalyptic wasteland Scotland would become in an $80 barrel of oil world.
More than anything what it demonstrates is the extreme volatility in income that countries which are highly dependent on oil revenues are exposed to. One year of below forecast returns can be an absolute disaster if you have based your spending plans on a higher amount - as the SNP did. What it also shows, once again, is that very little that the SNP said in the run-up to the referendum actually had any basis in reality.
The muslims in Holland now feel strong enough to to come out of hiding from under their Labour Party blanket. The same will probably happen here in a year or two. The Respect party was something of an attempt to make a mass muslim centred party here in the UK, but has so far failed to tempt muslims embedded in other parties to participate.
The Dutch have made the same mistakes we have. Their mentality of "tolerance" has been applied even to those that are intolerant and not integrating. The result is segregation socially, and now, apparently, politically. Will the left be happy with themselves when we have an Islamist parliamentary party in the UK, supporting bans on abortion, the revocation of gay marriage, and second class status for women? Left-wingers usually claim it's just a matter of time, and integration will happen. Well, please show me one example of a country that has had a large Muslim minority and has successfully integrated them fully, or even mostly.
Ban on abortion? Revocation of gay "marriage"?
Where do I put my cross on the ballot paper?
I get that your comment was tongue in cheek, but do you seriously want to revoke gay marriage?
I was being entirely serious.
Would you be in favour of recriminalising homosexuality?
No. All that imprisonment, blackmail and intrusion into private lives.
It's interesting IMO that UKIP are regarded as being "anti-immigration" by most of the other parties when they support immigration of 50,000 people a year, (which is probably a lot more than the average voter).
Of course. But the psychological shock will be enormous. The question the EU - and other countries round the world - will be asking is why the EU was unable to keep an important country. Given the stagnation the EU has been suffering from for a number of years, that is going to hit hard.
Which is why the renegotiation, if we have a Conservative government, will certainly produce something non-negligible in the way of concessions from our EU friends (and will be dressed up as bigger still). Quite what remains to be seen, of course.
That depends on said government negotiating hard and being prepared to walk away from the EU if we don't get something worthwhile.
Cameron's negotiating tactics strike me as about as hard as a rice pudding. Look how long it took Thatcher over the rebate - and she was determined and prepared to go on about it - almost in spite of her advisors and the general opprobrium heaped on her. Cameron - or any of the other leaders we currently have (or are likely to have) don't have that toughness or determination or, indeed, give off any sense that their job is to do the best job for Britain.
The muslims in Holland now feel strong enough to to come out of hiding from under their Labour Party blanket. The same will probably happen here in a year or two. The Respect party was something of an attempt to make a mass muslim centred party here in the UK, but has so far failed to tempt muslims embedded in other parties to participate.
The Dutch have made the same mistakes we have. Their mentality of "tolerance" has been applied even to those that are intolerant and not integrating. The result is segregation socially, and now, apparently, politically. Will the left be happy with themselves when we have an Islamist parliamentary party in the UK, supporting bans on abortion, the revocation of gay marriage, and second class status for women? Left-wingers usually claim it's just a matter of time, and integration will happen. Well, please show me one example of a country that has had a large Muslim minority and has successfully integrated them fully, or even mostly.
Ban on abortion? Revocation of gay "marriage"?
Where do I put my cross on the ballot paper?
I get that your comment was tongue in cheek, but do you seriously want to revoke gay marriage?
I was being entirely serious.
Would you be in favour of recriminalising homosexuality?
No. All that imprisonment, blackmail and intrusion into private lives.
No thanks.
Ok, so there's some nuance in your position. I'd like to explore this further if I may - what do you expect gay people to do? You have a child who, at puberty, figures out they're gay. What do you tell them?
Or what if you have an intersex child who presents as male, but has female bits?
What do you tell them? That they can't have a boyfriend/girlfriend? That they shouldn't get married when they're older? Or should they have surgery to correct god's mistake?
Hardly any European immigration pre 2001, there whole flawed, http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/395, report really highlighted the difference between third world and European immigration.
European migration has been a minority post-2001, and assuming you mean the common meaning for "third world" being "developing countries", that applies to half of Europe.
What proportion of immigration was EEA for the 20 years befrore 2001, and what is the proportion post 2001? Europe is solely first and second world.
A minority in both cases.
If you're using the meaning of "third world" to mean "alignment during the Cold War", rather than income levels, how is that relevant to the contribution of their migrants? Swedish and Irish immigrants are from the third world on that basis.
Assuming that is all true (I'm not suggesting it isn't) then why would immigrants 2001-2014 deliver c.£20bn, whereas immigrants 1995-2014 take c.£110bn. This implies that those who arrived between 1995 and 2001 have taken c.£130bn (net).
Completely implausible unless some statistical chicanery has taken place.
You're correct. I just checked the data. The 1995-2011 panel is the net effect of ALL migrants, including those that came before 1995 for those years. The 2001-2011 panel included just those who arrived after 2001 for those years.
Ok, now that I can believe. The 1995 figures would includes decades of immigration from (primarily) commonwealth countries, many of whom will have been pensioners for a very long time.
The report, to be published in the Economic Journal, said the non-EEA group – largely made up of immigration from countries such as India, Pakistan and African Commonwealth countries – contributed less because families tended to have more children and lower employment rates.
"Immigrants from non-EEA countries ... contribute less than they receive,” the 50-page study concluded.
Comments
"29 million are entitled to come but of course it would be foolish to suggest that would happen, perhaps XXXX might emigrate ...."
You're as bad as each other.
"Devolving" income tax is damaging to both Scotland and Britain as a whole.
If you look back through the dis-aggregated accounts for the UK then there are lots of years where year-on-year Scottish total tax take increases but Income tax take is down. Should Scotland's budget be cut in those years?
Likewise there are plenty of years where overall tax-take is down but income tax is up. Should Scotland's budget be increased those years?
There are masses of technical issues with calculating how large Scotland's budget should be under this scheme which can only lead to gross unfairness one way or the other.
And then there is the ludicrous nature of this to begin with. If the Scottish Government devises a plan to boost Income tax but crushes corporation tax that would seem to mean a budget increase for Scotland. The counter proposal ( a plan that reduces income tax take but boosts corporation tax take but mean a budget cut) is equally foolish. Only granting partial control of the fiscal levers is a recipe for bad fiscal policy no matter who is in charge.
It's not his fault that he's the spokesman from Conservative Party HQ on here....
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.628675
In this debate there is one person who has outright broken promises. David "no ifs, no buts" Cameron. He said he'd reduce immigration by 60%, and has increased it instead.
Supporting reducing immigration is simply not consistent with supporting the Conservative party.
Maximise the tax take that you get to keep - that probably means encouraging private enterprise etc.
Or spend the next 30 years blaming Westminster - your choice.
We could also strike a different approach to our neighbours in matters of trade. Over time the EU is going to become less and less dominant in matters of global trade.
The term "Europhobe" implies fear, and is thus a term of abuse.
Scottish unemployment figures will fall on the doormat of Holyrood.
Man up - you have got more levers - grab them - cut income taxes - encourage businesses to move to Scotland where workers get to keep more of their pay packet.
Doesn't fit with your spare bedrooms for all social justice mantra - but thems the facts of economic reality - see France for details.
Of course we can't know exactly what terms would finally be agreed in such a scenario, but I'd be very surprised if the net effect was very different from what we have now.
Nigerians that come here are mostly from the top 5% of the population and tend to be wealthy. I suspect they make a net contribution.
At least it isn't !FIRST!
But most lower-middle/ upper-working class voters think they're buggered either way, don't believe what they're saying, and so couldn't really give a toss who wins.
It's a curious twist of the English language, in which '-phile' normally means to love something, or be enthusiastic for it.
Virigin were great in the first couple of years after they got the West Coast mainline franchise but over the years they have got shitter and shitter and shitter to the point where I actively avoide travelling with them. The DOR East Coast main line has been a touch of class in an uncivilised world and I am mighty sad to see it go.
The STUC HATE the report - tells you all you need to know.
NOUN
A person who admires Europe or is in favour of participation in the European Union.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Europhile
Nationalised to the French, Germans and Dutch !
This is what is nonsensical about the income tax powers - there is no link between Scotland's fiscal performance and its budget. It is neither a useful power nor a source of responsibility.
I don't think anyone is arguing for *zero* labour movement, incidentally, only that it's at practical and acceptable levels and not an ideological dogma of absolute free movement that we are forced to sign up to and unable to change.
NAFTA has sensible provisions on this. Under the TN status, U.S. consulates issued employer sponsored visas for free-trade areas valid under the treaty (valid for a maximum of 3 years) to between 4,000 and 5,000 Mexicans per year between 2007-2009.
That seems sensible and practical to me.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-mps-to-vote-on-english-matters-from-2017
On the political point, there is a very good precedent: Switzerland. It's one to watch, but I'm pretty sure it will end up with the Swiss backing down.
If you're using the meaning of "third world" to mean "alignment during the Cold War", rather than income levels, how is that relevant to the contribution of their migrants? Swedish and Irish immigrants are from the third world on that basis.
"Its almost bound to be the Tories after Ed wins next year, they will be desperate to reconnect with the voters they lost to UKIP so they have some sort of chance in 2020. Dan Hannan for LoO ;-)"
though as one particular squire of this parish keeps reminding us "Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister"
No one uses third wold as a term to do with cold war alignment, stop trying to deflect the issue and answer the question.
Completely implausible unless some statistical chicanery has taken place.
Yes, you're right, the definition as used by the Kippers seems to be 'anyone who disagrees with the view that we should unconditionally leave the EU'. OK, but it's a silly and meaningless term then, isn't it? What does it add to the argument?
The truth is that we don't know - by any statistical measure, the sample of comparable situations (a handful of GEs, each in different circumstances) is negligible.
Of course, it would be dead boring if we DID know.
You could see the same sort of thinking at work here when people thought Scotland might vote for independence.
I think such an approach is wrong but I fear that this will be the attitude - and it may be one reason why, in the end, people won't vote to leave, however much they may dislike the EU.
Whether the EU can really thrive when one of its largest members feels so reluctant about it is another matter.
Von Rompuy's claim that the EU can survive without Britain is, I think, wrong. Not because it can't survive but because the shock to it - and to the rest of the world - of having one of its more significant members choosing to leave will be very great and the consequences incalculable. Empires - or quasi-empires - which start breaking up usually - over time - carry on breaking up.
These are the kinds of question that need serious examination. There's precious little sign of that from the BOOers, although Owen Paterson's speech a couple of days ago was interesting.
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull-East-vote-UKIP-Labour-s-Karl-Turner-warns/story-24736222-detail/story.html
http://www.ross-shirejournal.co.uk/News/Highland-Council-leader-reveals-his-bid-to-become-MP-24112014.htm
If the cost-benefits of the deal on the table aren't acceptable to the British people, we don't take it. This really isn't difficult.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_386531.pdf
Europhile
A person who admires Europe or is in favour of participation in the European Union.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Europhile
Eurosceptic
A person who is opposed to increasing the powers of the European Union.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Eurosceptic
Neither of those definitions say anything above "love", or "unconditional", or "absolute", and usually Mr N's suggestion that is does is starting to look
Tendentious
Expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, especially a controversial one
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/tendentious
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/lewishamilton/11256242/Lewis-Hamilton-may-be-Britains-first-multiple-F1-champion-for-41-years-but-his-success-taxes-British-fans.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/11257164/Scottish-devolution-Smith-Commission-report-live.html
Includes full international borrowing powers!!! That is a BIG mistake. Who is going to be backstopping Scottish debt? Is it ONLY Scottish taxpayers or all of us? I fear I smell a lefty bankruptopia being paid for by England coming around the corner.
No thanks.
Which is why Socrates throwing around big numbers and using them to call migration a "drain" makes him look silly.
Of course when you are shown to be making false and dishonest statements you always try to claim it is nasty kippers throwing insults but unfortunately the statement of facts is rather difficult to construe as an insult.
Cameron's negotiating tactics strike me as about as hard as a rice pudding. Look how long it took Thatcher over the rebate - and she was determined and prepared to go on about it - almost in spite of her advisors and the general opprobrium heaped on her. Cameron - or any of the other leaders we currently have (or are likely to have) don't have that toughness or determination or, indeed, give off any sense that their job is to do the best job for Britain.
Or what if you have an intersex child who presents as male, but has female bits?
What do you tell them? That they can't have a boyfriend/girlfriend? That they shouldn't get married when they're older? Or should they have surgery to correct god's mistake?
"Immigrants from non-EEA countries ... contribute less than they receive,” the 50-page study concluded.
No mention of pensions.