Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
If it's important to you to be surrounded by white people (an oddly focused ambition but to each his own), you'll be a bit stuck in a couple of decades if not sooner. Intermingling is happening everywhere, and accelerating, legally or illegally and at varying speeds, but IMO unstoppable. Trump's wall, Europe's Med patrols and anything else governments think up don't get past the fact that people who speak a bit of English and aren't afraid to travel see a better life elsewhere and do what's necessary to get it. If their home countries are in never-ending wars, that just makes it more compelling.
It will only slow down if the countries of origin start to flourish - that's one reason we aren't seeing billions of Chinese migrants. Which is why well-directed foreign aid is actually a sensible investment for people who worry about these things - it would be a perfectly sensible UKIP policy.
Is the EU's free movement actually stopping some countries from flourishing? I have no idea, but suspect that the brain drain of younger people from, say, Poland is not helping their home economies. Are there any stats on this kind of thing?
When you talk to locals in Hungary, they reckon roughly 10% of the population have left for jobs elsewhere (Canada as well as Britain, Germany and Austria). Fear of a brain drain is very real, as evidenced by repayment terms on medical tuition fees should doctors emigrate on qualification.
An idea the UK should adopt. It is ridiculous that NHS spends 10s of thousands of pounds training a junior doctor for them to leave for Oz at first opportunity.
Now is surely the time to arrange a PB poll, if the Smithsonian wallet can take the strain, on whether we should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU. Crucially, there should be a supplementary question, asking whether our opinion has changed over say the past six months and if so in which direction.
I'm in exactly the same selfish position as I was then - if Leave can guarantee that I can continue to live with my EU citizen wife here without any difficulties then I'll vote Leave on sovereignty grounds. If they can't, I'll vote Remain on family grounds.
I have not seen a single suggestion even from the most hardened Leave supporters that a single EU citizen currently resident in the UK would be asked or forced to move in the event of a Leave result. Indeed if that were the case then even I would be hard pressed to support Leave.
I'm sure there are Leave supporters that you have not seen, but that's by-the-by. A problem with Leave's stance on migration is the refusal to state numbers: in numerical terms (to the nearest 10K) what will be the imposed limits? Using phrases like "controlled migration" isn't the same thing.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
If it's important to you to be surrounded by white people (an oddly focused ambition but to each his own), you'll be a bit stuck in a couple of decades if not sooner. Intermingling is happening everywhere, and accelerating, legally or illegally and at varying speeds, but IMO unstoppable. Trump's wall, Europe's Med patrols and anything else governments think up don't get past the fact that people who speak a bit of English and aren't afraid to travel see a better life elsewhere and do what's necessary to get it. If their home countries are in never-ending wars, that just makes it more compelling.
It will only slow down if the countries of origin start to flourish - that's one reason we aren't seeing billions of Chinese migrants. Which is why well-directed foreign aid is actually a sensible investment for people who worry about these things - it would be a perfectly sensible UKIP policy.
Is the EU's free movement actually stopping some countries from flourishing? I have no idea, but suspect that the brain drain of younger people from, say, Poland is not helping their home economies. Are there any stats on this kind of thing?
When you talk to locals in Hungary, they reckon roughly 10% of the population have left for jobs elsewhere (Canada as well as Britain, Germany and Austria). Fear of a brain drain is very real, as evidenced by repayment terms on medical tuition fees should doctors emigrate on qualification.
An idea the UK should adopt. It is ridiculous that NHS spends 10s of thousands of pounds training a junior doctor for them to leave for Oz at first opportunity.
Amen
I would extend that to have a sliding scale - so you need to work as a doctor in the UK for at least 10 years before you can emigrate without repaying a percentage of your training costs.
For those of us old enough to remember, the present so-called re-negotiations are reminiscent of the similar "make or break" talks concerning the fishing rights around our shores which took place prior to the UK originally joining the Common Market forty five years ago. The negotiations were then undertaken by Heath's man Geoffrey Rippon QC MP who was hailed at the time as having done a great job in achieving what was then considered a highly successful outcome for the UK. Unfortunately, history was to judge such events rather differently, evidenced by the subsequent decimation of our finishing industry, accompanied by the near destruction of our fishing stocks:
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
If it's important to you to be surrounded by white people (an oddly focused ambition but to each his own), you'll be a bit stuck in a couple of decades if not sooner. Intermingling is happening everywhere, and accelerating, legally or illegally and at varying speeds, but IMO unstoppable....
The phenomenon is very global and "(Global) South to North" is only a part of it.
South Africa is drawing a lot of immigrants from India, Pakistan, China and Bangladesh.
Brazil is a major destination for Portuguese, Germans, and Lebanese (these three being long-established patterns) but increasingly Chinese and South Koreans (!).
India now has large populations of Nigerians and Somalis.
Anyone seeking "purity" anywhere is going to become increasingly disappointed. And of course even places with fairly low migrations figures are seeing an increasing globalisation of culture, so if quaint/historic/"unspoilt" indigenous culture is your draw there are fewer and fewer places you can do so.
To be sure Mr. Jessop, all the news outlets have their biases, one one needs to read them with that in mind. Where I fell out with the Economist was when it wrote an article on a subject that I was at the time rather an expert on. The article was grossly inaccurate on matters of fact, not of opinion, actual fact. Furthermore, if the author had done an hour's worth of research he/she would have known that their article was complete bollocks. I cancelled my subscription the same day, because if they could not get the facts right on one topic why should they on others.
Friend of mine works at the Economist. Apparently most of the writers are in their early to mid 20s, well-educated and with a cosmopolitan outlook, but not really as well-informed as the rather superior writing style suggests.
For some reason I had an infatuation with the Economist for 10 years from about 2002 to 2012. I still have the beautifully preserved copies in special Economist ring binders. Now I can't understand what I saw in it.
I was the same, but about 3 years behind you (1999-2009)
David Frum Moroccans, Tunisians, and Algerians will soon lose asylum rights in Germany https://t.co/Pv13BusMb8
Having read that in Sweden a lot of the issues surround migrants from those countries, I wonder what reasons they were claiming asylum for.
If you turn up from Syria or Iraq, I can understand that the threat of ISIS lopping your head of might be a rather convincing case for claiming asylum, but none of those countries are at war or widespread civil breakdown.
As I seemed to remember, Tunisia had an uprising several years ago from which they now actually have fully democratic system. It was one of the countries in the Arab Spring where change was positive as a result of it, with fully free elections.
The article in the link goes on to explain that there is evidence of torture in Morocco and Algeria.
There are reports from Germany which has thousands of Moroccan migrants. Germany's efforts to deport them have resulted in literally only a handful being deported, largely due to the non-cooperation of the Moroccan authorities - "not on our database" and then no further contacts for months.
Now is surely the time to arrange a PB poll, if the Smithsonian wallet can take the strain, on whether we should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU. Crucially, there should be a supplementary question, asking whether our opinion has changed over say the past six months and if so in which direction.
I'm in exactly the same selfish position as I was then - if Leave can guarantee that I can continue to live with my EU citizen wife here without any difficulties then I'll vote Leave on sovereignty grounds. If they can't, I'll vote Remain on family grounds.
I have not seen a single suggestion even from the most hardened Leave supporters that a single EU citizen currently resident in the UK would be asked or forced to move in the event of a Leave result. Indeed if that were the case then even I would be hard pressed to support Leave.
My concern is that her right to reside with me here is based solely on her EU citizenship and the UK's EU membership. We've looked into geting her UK citizenship, but it's crazily expensive and currently pointless.
If Brexit sees settled EU citizens entitled to at the minimum ILR with at the maximum filling in one form and perhaps taking a government-funded English language test, that would be fine. If not, I'm going to worry that her right to live here could be rescinded.
It's a tricky one because there are people whose human rights are being abused in Morocco and Algeria, in really quite grotesque ways.
But that is almost completely disconnected to the main reason most migrants are leaving Morocco and Algeria (and Libya, come to that) - that there are no jobs. That's even true for foreign-language-speaking graduates, which bizarrely they have a glut of - a lot of North Africa countries essentially overinvested in education (even though education is supposed to be one of the routes for a country out of poverty).
Similarly a lot of people leave Afghanistan seeking a better life. They may not be under specific threat of persecution, they may not be all that near the war zone*, but they're certainly living in an unstable and unpleasant region where they are not "free" in the same sense that a Westerner is "free". Is it really freedom that they seek, though, or economic and educational advancement? I think this is a really difficult call for governments and there's a lot to be said, if you want to avoid this kind of thing, for governments to expend more effort making the rest of the world a better place.
snip
Surely if we extend this to logical conclusion..i.e. if you country is a rather nasty to its citizens, we would have to accept everybody who arrived from say China, as we know the human rights abuses and lack of freedoms of the masses is widespread.
Again what should be done is that we pressure government of these countries to change their ways. With China and Saudia Arabia we know western leaders get rather concerned at raising these issues, but North African countries have a lot less of the potential drawbacks.
The logical conclusion is to remove the oppressive regimes and encourage a capitalist democracy in these places. Turning our backs on oppression sickness famine and poverty is not going to help anyone. Isolationism and appeasement will do no one any good.
Now is surely the time to arrange a PB poll, if the Smithsonian wallet can take the strain, on whether we should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU. Crucially, there should be a supplementary question, asking whether our opinion has changed over say the past six months and if so in which direction.
I'm in exactly the same selfish position as I was then - if Leave can guarantee that I can continue to live with my EU citizen wife here without any difficulties then I'll vote Leave on sovereignty grounds. If they can't, I'll vote Remain on family grounds.
I have not seen a single suggestion even from the most hardened Leave supporters that a single EU citizen currently resident in the UK would be asked or forced to move in the event of a Leave result. Indeed if that were the case then even I would be hard pressed to support Leave.
My concern is that her right to reside with me here is based solely on her EU citizenship and the UK's EU membership. We've looked into geting her UK citizenship, but it's crazily expensive and currently pointless.
If Brexit sees settled EU citizens entitled to at the minimum ILR with at the maximum filling in one form and perhaps taking a government-funded English language test, that would be fine. If not, I'm going to worry that her right to live here could be rescinded.
I do understand your concerns but as I say I have seen absolutely no indications that anyone already settled here would be threatened and I am sure that the process will be resolved to ensure that remains the case. No serious politician or group whether supporting Remain or Leave could advocate anything else.
The little 'un opened an Economist and pointed at a picture of Hilary Clinton. Obviously that means she's going to be the next US president...
P.S. Reading economist to your offspring is not a good idea. I did it to mine, when he was a babe in arms and wouldn't sleep (to the background music of the Baroque masters, Mozart and Doris Day). However, it was only later when I found how dreadfully inaccurate many, if not most, of the articles are in the Economist that I realised that I may have done my son incalculable harm.
We'll have to see how his track record develops
As for your second paragraph: that's the same for most (all?) news sources, isn't it? We get the Economist, and I find it's a good launching point into topics and items I hadn't considered. I read the LRB for the same reason, even if too many of its articles are pretentious (and sometimes unreadable) tosh.
Oh, and the Economist's coverage of technology is excellent IMO.
The Economist is certainly biased (strongly pro-EU, for instance), but I tend to see less outright inaccuracies than I do in (say) the Times and especially the Telegraph / Guardian, which also have their own biases.
To be sure Mr. Jessop, all the news outlets have their biases, one one needs to read them with that in mind. Where I fell out with the Economist was when it wrote an article on a subject that I was at the time rather an expert on. The article was grossly inaccurate on matters of fact, not of opinion, actual fact. Furthermore, if the author had done an hour's worth of research he/she would have known that their article was complete bollocks. I cancelled my subscription the same day, because if they could not get the facts right on one topic why should they on others.
I find the Economist quite interesting, but it's tiresome that one can predict what almost any article will say.
If it's about immigration, it's always wonderful, with no downside. If it's about the EU, there'll be a few minor criticisms, but otherwise, it's great. If it's about criminal justice, we should always be imprisoning fewer people. If it's about big business, we should give them whatever they want.
The quality of journalism in its political articles is actually quite poor, with selective use of sources, liberal use of anecdote, quotations from those sympathetic to its cause, and sinewed with dodgy statistics in impressively professional looking graphs.
I've managed in the past to unpick key Economist arguments as hogwash with just a couple of minutes googling.
David Frum Moroccans, Tunisians, and Algerians will soon lose asylum rights in Germany https://t.co/Pv13BusMb8
Having read that in Sweden a lot of the issues surround migrants from those countries, I wonder what reasons they were claiming asylum for.
If you turn up from Syria or Iraq, I can understand that the threat of ISIS lopping your head of might be a rather convincing case for claiming asylum, but none of those countries are at war or widespread civil breakdown.
As I seemed to remember, Tunisia had an uprising several years ago from which they now actually have fully democratic system. It was one of the countries in the Arab Spring where change was positive as a result of it, with fully free elections.
The article in the link goes on to explain that there is evidence of torture in Morocco and Algeria.
There are reports from Germany which has thousands of Moroccan migrants. Germany's efforts to deport them have resulted in literally only a handful being deported, largely due to the non-cooperation of the Moroccan authorities - "not on our database" and then no further contacts for months.
Morocco is notoriously "one way". If somebody of Moroccan descent, even if they have never even been there, commits a serious crime in another country and flees there, they wont send them to the country they committed a crime in (even if it is their "home" country) e.g. Lee Murray. And vice versa, they are extremely "unhelpful" when it comes to accepting their own people back.
Now is surely the time to arrange a PB poll, if the Smithsonian wallet can take the strain, on whether we should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU. Crucially, there should be a supplementary question, asking whether our opinion has changed over say the past six months and if so in which direction.
I'm in exactly the same selfish position as I was then - if Leave can guarantee that I can continue to live with my EU citizen wife here without any difficulties then I'll vote Leave on sovereignty grounds. If they can't, I'll vote Remain on family grounds.
Mi tambien - here in sunny Spain I will be using my vote for remain - self-interest is the only valid justification to vote for anything.
If it's important to you to be surrounded by white people (an oddly focused ambition but to each his own), you'll be a bit stuck in a couple of decades if not sooner. Intermingling is happening everywhere, and accelerating, legally or illegally and at varying speeds, but IMO unstoppable. Trump's wall, Europe's Med patrols and anything else governments think up don't get past the fact that people who speak a bit of English and aren't afraid to travel see a better life elsewhere and do what's necessary to get it. If their home countries are in never-ending wars, that just makes it more compelling.
It will only slow down if the countries of origin start to flourish - that's one reason we aren't seeing billions of Chinese migrants. Which is why well-directed foreign aid is actually a sensible investment for people who worry about these things - it would be a perfectly sensible UKIP policy.
Is the EU's free movement actually stopping some countries from flourishing? I have no idea, but suspect that the brain drain of younger people from, say, Poland is not helping their home economies. Are there any stats on this kind of thing?
When you talk to locals in Hungary, they reckon roughly 10% of the population have left for jobs elsewhere (Canada as well as Britain, Germany and Austria). Fear of a brain drain is very real, as evidenced by repayment terms on medical tuition fees should doctors emigrate on qualification.
An idea the UK should adopt. It is ridiculous that NHS spends 10s of thousands of pounds training a junior doctor for them to leave for Oz at first opportunity.
Amen
I would extend that to have a sliding scale - so you need to work as a doctor in the UK for at least 10 years before you can emigrate without repaying a percentage of your training costs.
That's quite common in other professions with high training costs, no reason why it couldn't be adopted in the UK too.
A friend is an airline pilot, he changed the type of plane he was flying and had to stay for 3 years or pay back a percentage of the training. A "type rating" typically costs around £30k, even though in modern aircraft it is almost all done in the simulator rather than in a plane. A commercial pilot's initial training costs well over £100k, most pilots now take bank loans for it unless they get really lucky with a scholarship or have parents to help out.
For Cameron to make this all about migrant benefits is at best odd, at worst patronising and insulting.
there are far far bigger issues at stake on this our first chance to have a say about the EU since 1975 - in other words the first chance most of us have ever had.
The EU's stated aim is to move to ever closer union. The question is are we in or out of that? It and all the associated issues are huge.
It's NOT dole for Poles Mr Cameron!
This transparently stage managed brinkmanship makes me more likely to vote to leave. Taking us for fools
If it's transparently stage managed, how come Cameron is not coming back with any of the 5 things he was aiming for.
Correct. There is an element of choreography here (both the UK Government and the EU want the UK to vote Remain, and they know some entertaining WWF moves are needed before one taps out) but, at the same time, you can't choreograph what you don't have.
They know Cameron will recommend Remain come hell or high water, he's probably told them so, and the EU probably think the substance of the deal doesn't really matter in that as long as he can broadly map it to what was originally sought Cameron will be ok, as he's trusted.
I expect some elaborate smoke and mirrors (a bit like Osborne's "halved the bill" nonsense) an announcement from Michael Gove on human rights, and perhaps one or two baby rabbits - like a 20 year freeze on free migration for new EU member states, or some such.
If I remember correctly we ended up paying the full amount and Osborne wasn't properly held to account?
Yes. Osborne has proven himself time and time again to not be a man of his word.
Ydoethur said 'A not wholly unreasonable point. But I would still have said that when the best case scenario you can posit on the data is that Labour are standing still after nine months of weak and controversial government following your worst election result in 32 years it is still by any standard an absolutely pathetic performance.'
It is a myth to say that 2015 was Labour's worst result in 32 years. Even in terms of seats Labour exceeded its 1987 total of 229 - despite the collapse in Scotland. In England Labour's result was not that bad - better than 2010 - 1992 - 1987 - 1983 - 1979 - and 1959. Moreover, in terms of % vote the Tory lead - whilst clear and substantial - was at 6.6% less than 2010 (7.3%) - 1992 (7.6%) - 1987 (11.8%) - 1983 (15.2%) - 1979 (7.1%) To repeat a point I have made before, it took Labour almost two years to gain the lead in the Parliaments of 1959 and 1987. Also looking back to the 2001 Parliament , at the same point - Feb/March 2002 Labour's lead over the Tories ranged from 9% to 23%. On that basis, Labour is better placed today than the Tories were in early 2002.
Jesus - you continue to bury your head in so much sand it's a wonder there's not a shortage in the Sahara
Now is surely the time to arrange a PB poll, if the Smithsonian wallet can take the strain, on whether we should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU. Crucially, there should be a supplementary question, asking whether our opinion has changed over say the past six months and if so in which direction.
I'm in exactly the same selfish position as I was then - if Leave can guarantee that I can continue to live with my EU citizen wife here without any difficulties then I'll vote Leave on sovereignty grounds. If they can't, I'll vote Remain on family grounds.
I have not seen a single suggestion even from the most hardened Leave supporters that a single EU citizen currently resident in the UK would be asked or forced to move in the event of a Leave result. Indeed if that were the case then even I would be hard pressed to support Leave.
My concern is that her right to reside with me here is based solely on her EU citizenship and the UK's EU membership. We've looked into geting her UK citizenship, but it's crazily expensive and currently pointless.
If Brexit sees settled EU citizens entitled to at the minimum ILR with at the maximum filling in one form and perhaps taking a government-funded English language test, that would be fine. If not, I'm going to worry that her right to live here could be rescinded.
Good afternoon all. I don't doubt you're worried, but please don't. It should be taken as read that any large movement is going to contain the mad, the bad etc - Leave is no different to Remain, or the Labour, SNP or Tory parties in that regard.
However, I'll assert that only a vanishingly small minority of BOOers believe in forcible repatriation; it's a horrendous idea (and if you don't believe that BOOers are noble creatures, it's also not practical).
Now is surely the time to arrange a PB poll, if the Smithsonian wallet can take the strain, on whether we should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU. Crucially, there should be a supplementary question, asking whether our opinion has changed over say the past six months and if so in which direction.
I'm in exactly the same selfish position as I was then - if Leave can guarantee that I can continue to live with my EU citizen wife here without any difficulties then I'll vote Leave on sovereignty grounds. If they can't, I'll vote Remain on family grounds.
I have not seen a single suggestion even from the most hardened Leave supporters that a single EU citizen currently resident in the UK would be asked or forced to move in the event of a Leave result. Indeed if that were the case then even I would be hard pressed to support Leave.
I'm sure there are Leave supporters that you have not seen, but that's by-the-by. A problem with Leave's stance on migration is the refusal to state numbers: in numerical terms (to the nearest 10K) what will be the imposed limits? Using phrases like "controlled migration" isn't the same thing.
I think there is a more fundamental problem which is that there are two Leave campaigns with diametrically opposed views on immigration. The Vote Leave campaign which I would choose to be associated with is apparently advocating EFTA/EEA type membership and as such is accepting that the ability to limit EU migration would be almost non existent. It is the UKIP backed Leave.EU campaign which is going big on the immigration question. Since I believe their thinking to be flawed I am really not in a position to give any numbers about what they think the limits would be.
For those of us old enough to remember, the present so-called re-negotiations are reminiscent of the similar "make or break" talks concerning the fishing rights around our shores which took place prior to the UK originally joining the Common Market forty five years ago. The negotiations were then undertaken by Heath's man Geoffrey Rippon QC MP who was hailed at the time as having done a great job in achieving what was then considered a highly successful outcome for the UK. Unfortunately, history was to judge such events rather differently, evidenced by the subsequent decimation of our finishing industry, accompanied by the near destruction of our fishing stocks:
If you are voting Remain, let's be honest, you are voting for our membership of the EU "as is" with the significant risk we get sucked in, ignored, sidelined, cheated or overruled, in its future development and any of its subsequent master projects.
Those 'ten million migrants coming our way' links that SeanT posts might turn out to be an underestimate.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
Do people actually believe this nonsense??
Look at the demographics of Western European countries, the demographics of N Africa and the Middle East, the trend - and composition - of migration between those two regions (almost entirely one-way of course), and the unwillingness to integrate by most from N Africa / Middle East...
At what point will it all become clear? Do we need a "Cologne" to happen once a week in the UK?
Now is surely the time to arrange a PB poll, if the Smithsonian wallet can take the strain, on whether we should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU. Crucially, there should be a supplementary question, asking whether our opinion has changed over say the past six months and if so in which direction.
I'm in exactly the same selfish position as I was then - if Leave can guarantee that I can continue to live with my EU citizen wife here without any difficulties then I'll vote Leave on sovereignty grounds. If they can't, I'll vote Remain on family grounds.
I have not seen a single suggestion even from the most hardened Leave supporters that a single EU citizen currently resident in the UK would be asked or forced to move in the event of a Leave result. Indeed if that were the case then even I would be hard pressed to support Leave.
My concern is that her right to reside with me here is based solely on her EU citizenship and the UK's EU membership. We've looked into geting her UK citizenship, but it's crazily expensive and currently pointless.
If Brexit sees settled EU citizens entitled to at the minimum ILR with at the maximum filling in one form and perhaps taking a government-funded English language test, that would be fine. If not, I'm going to worry that her right to live here could be rescinded.
Don't believe this nonsense, because it is nonsense.
My wife is a Bulgarian (who has lived her for over 10 years) and I am as fervent a Leave supporter as they come. She has permanent residence, not citizenship, but even those who did not would be in no trouble.
I think a UK Government would allow any EEA citizen to work for 90 days here visa-free, and require a work-permit for future workers after that date to bring migration down.
Existing workers that were already settled here and/or employed here would be unaffected.
To be sure Mr. Jessop, all the news outlets have their biases, one one needs to read them with that in mind. Where I fell out with the Economist was when it wrote an article on a subject that I was at the time rather an expert on. The article was grossly inaccurate on matters of fact, not of opinion, actual fact. Furthermore, if the author had done an hour's worth of research he/she would have known that their article was complete bollocks. I cancelled my subscription the same day, because if they could not get the facts right on one topic why should they on others.
Friend of mine works at the Economist. Apparently most of the writers are in their early to mid 20s, well-educated and with a cosmopolitan outlook, but not really as well-informed as the rather superior writing style suggests.
For some reason I had an infatuation with the Economist for 10 years from about 2002 to 2012. I still have the beautifully preserved copies in special Economist ring binders. Now I can't understand what I saw in it.
When it comes to the Economist my rule of thumb is "whatever they write the opposite is true".
That rule is accurate, from who to politically support, to which wars to support, to economic predictions, I keep their yearly predictions book as proof that they know nothing of what's going on now or in the future.
But it's a general disease in academia too, I have a copy of Time magazine from 2006 where a Harvard historian predicted a massive banking crisis in China in 2008 leading to american supremacy in the 2010's led by president Jim Webb and Tim Allen with a peaceful middle east after america won the Iraq war.
You couldn't get more wrong than that, which proves that they are useless, it's better to do the opposite of what the "experts" recommend.
"it's better to do the opposite of what the "experts" recommend."
True. But there are often a lot of "opposites".
When they say something do not do it.
Support George. W. Bush they said, support invading Iraq they said, support Blair they said, support Major they said, there will be no crash they said in 2007, there will be no bust they said in 1999, I even remember when they came out against Thatcher in the early 80's and they are constantly peddling for Japan (I remember a front page of the Economist about how Japan was about to do great, the next day Japan entered yet another recession in 2005 I think) They can't be more contrarian from reality from what they are already.
So when they said "invade Syria", "support the arab spring", I came against it and I was right.
And a correction, the Harvard historian predicted president George Allen not Tim Allen.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
If it's important to you to be surrounded by white people (an oddly focused ambition but to each his own), you'll be a bit stuck in a couple of decades if not sooner. Intermingling is happening everywhere, and accelerating, legally or illegally and at varying speeds, but IMO unstoppable. snip
Is the EU's free movement actually stopping some countries from flourishing? I have no idea, but suspect that the brain drain of younger people from, say, Poland is not helping their home economies. Are there any stats on this kind of thing?
I think thats a fair point. Some from say Poland will perhaps stay in the UK and settle and become UK citizens. But others will probably return back to Poland. The whole free movement principal has been handled very badly by the EU and exacerbated by the last Labour govt who almost alone in the EU ignored the transition period. But for that the movement would not have been overwhelmingly to the UK and been more balanced. In any event and in so far as there are good ideas behind workers moving to where there are jobs it should have been phased so that the worst of the great initial economic imbalances were addressed first. Eventually these movements will settle down but the initial strains have been bigger than they needed to be. However from a UK point of view what we ignored under Labour were our own ready available workers here and on benefits. Lack of action here tied with ignoring the EU transitional periods has been our biggest social disaster.
1. Competitiveness. In particular, completing the Single Market in services, energy and digital, and “addressing the sclerotic, inefficient decision-making” and “creating a leaner, less bureaucratic Union”.
waffle
2. Flexibility. He mentioned doing away with ‘ever closer union’ and ensuring that members outside the Eurozone needed changes to safeguard their interests as a quid pro quo for those within it to develop the institutional power they needed to be able to run the currency.
waffle
3. That power must be able to flow back to member states, as promised at Laeken. He specifically mentioned repatriating powers not just to Britain but to all member states in the fields of the environment, social affairs and crime.
no chance
4. Democratic accountability and a bigger role for national parliaments.
waffle/no chance
5. Fairness and in particular that the rules of the Single Market are not skewed to favour Eurozone members.
Ydoethur said 'A not wholly unreasonable point. But I would still have said that when the best case scenario you can posit on the data is that Labour are standing still after nine months of weak and controversial government following your worst election result in 32 years it is still by any standard an absolutely pathetic performance.'
It is a myth to say that 2015 was Labour's worst result in 32 years. Even in terms of seats Labour exceeded its 1987 total of 229 - despite the collapse in Scotland. In England Labour's result was not that bad - better than 2010 - 1992 - 1987 - 1983 - 1979 - and 1959. Moreover, in terms of % vote the Tory lead - whilst clear and substantial - was at 6.6% less than 2010 (7.3%) - 1992 (7.6%) - 1987 (11.8%) - 1983 (15.2%) - 1979 (7.1%) To repeat a point I have made before, it took Labour almost two years to gain the lead in the Parliaments of 1959 and 1987. Also looking back to the 2001 Parliament , at the same point - Feb/March 2002 Labour's lead over the Tories ranged from 9% to 23%. On that basis, Labour is better placed today than the Tories were in early 2002.
Jesus - you continue to bury your head in so much sand it's a wonder there's not a shortage in the Sahara
Now is surely the time to arrange a PB poll, if the Smithsonian wallet can take the strain, on whether we should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU. Crucially, there should be a supplementary question, asking whether our opinion has changed over say the past six months and if so in which direction.
I'm in exactly the same selfish position as I was then - if Leave can guarantee that I can continue to live with my EU citizen wife here without any difficulties then I'll vote Leave on sovereignty grounds. If they can't, I'll vote Remain on family grounds.
I have not seen a single suggestion even from the most hardened Leave supporters that a single EU citizen currently resident in the UK would be asked or forced to move in the event of a Leave result. Indeed if that were the case then even I would be hard pressed to support Leave.
I'm sure there are Leave supporters that you have not seen, but that's by-the-by. A problem with Leave's stance on migration is the refusal to state numbers: in numerical terms (to the nearest 10K) what will be the imposed limits? Using phrases like "controlled migration" isn't the same thing.
I think there is a more fundamental problem which is that there are two Leave campaigns with diametrically opposed views on immigration. The Vote Leave campaign which I would choose to be associated with is apparently advocating EFTA/EEA type membership and as such is accepting that the ability to limit EU migration would be almost non existent. It is the UKIP backed Leave.EU campaign which is going big on the immigration question. Since I believe their thinking to be flawed I am really not in a position to give any numbers about what they think the limits would be.
At least being outside the EU gives our parliament the ability to determine the law on immigration. Yes, it might be the case that with EEA membership or a Swiss-style bilateral arrangement we end up with similar rules as now, but at least it would be up to our own parliament, elected by citizens of this country, to provide for/change immigration rules.
Now is surely the time to arrange a PB poll, if the Smithsonian wallet can take the strain, on whether we should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU. Crucially, there should be a supplementary question, asking whether our opinion has changed over say the past six months and if so in which direction.
I'm in exactly the same selfish position as I was then - if Leave can guarantee that I can continue to live with my EU citizen wife here without any difficulties then I'll vote Leave on sovereignty grounds. If they can't, I'll vote Remain on family grounds.
I have not seen a single suggestion even from the most hardened Leave supporters that a single EU citizen currently resident in the UK would be asked or forced to move in the event of a Leave result. Indeed if that were the case then even I would be hard pressed to support Leave.
My concern is that her right to reside with me here is based solely on her EU citizenship and the UK's EU membership. We've looked into geting her UK citizenship, but it's crazily expensive and currently pointless.
If Brexit sees settled EU citizens entitled to at the minimum ILR with at the maximum filling in one form and perhaps taking a government-funded English language test, that would be fine. If not, I'm going to worry that her right to live here could be rescinded.
The fee for UK naturalization is GBP1005. What price love? Does not seem extraordinarily high to me.
The qualification for your wife is hardly strenuous either - that she have lived in the UK for three years, with less than 270 days absence in that time or 90 days in the last 12 months.
Granted, if she does not need to get UK citizenship, why bother? But with Brexit, she would surely get citizenship easily if she meets the criteria. Furthermore, given the very large number of people who are presumably in the same boat as you - and the even larger number of EU citizens and their families living and working in the UK without the need for a work or residence visa - these issues will be a central part of any divorce negotiations. Not much point wasting time on them in detail though until the parties have decided on divorce.
Now is surely the time to arrange a PB poll, if the Smithsonian wallet can take the strain, on whether we should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU. Crucially, there should be a supplementary question, asking whether our opinion has changed over say the past six months and if so in which direction.
I'm in exactly the same selfish position as I was then - if Leave can guarantee that I can continue to live with my EU citizen wife here without any difficulties then I'll vote Leave on sovereignty grounds. If they can't, I'll vote Remain on family grounds.
I have not seen a single suggestion even from the most hardened Leave supporters that a single EU citizen currently resident in the UK would be asked or forced to move in the event of a Leave result. Indeed if that were the case then even I would be hard pressed to support Leave.
My concern is that her right to reside with me here is based solely on her EU citizenship and the UK's EU membership. We've looked into geting her UK citizenship, but it's crazily expensive and currently pointless.
If Brexit sees settled EU citizens entitled to at the minimum ILR with at the maximum filling in one form and perhaps taking a government-funded English language test, that would be fine. If not, I'm going to worry that her right to live here could be rescinded.
Don't believe this nonsense, because it is nonsense.
My wife is a Bulgarian (who has lived her for over 10 years) and I am as fervent a Leave supporter as they come. She has permanent residence, not citizenship, but even those who did not would be in no trouble.
I THINK a UK Government would allow any EEA citizen to work for 90 days here visa-free, and require a work-permit for future workers after that date to bring migration down.
Existing workers that were already settled here and/or employed here would be unaffected.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
If it's important to you to be surrounded by white people (an oddly focused ambition but to each his own), you'll be a bit stuck in a couple of decades if not sooner. Intermingling is happening everywhere, and accelerating, legally or illegally and at varying speeds, but IMO unstoppable. snip
Is the EU's free movement actually stopping some countries from flourishing? I have no idea, but suspect that the brain drain of younger people from, say, Poland is not helping their home economies. Are there any stats on this kind of thing?
I think thats a fair point. Some from say Poland will perhaps stay in the UK and settle and become UK citizens. But others will probably return back to Poland. The whole free movement principal has been handled very badly by the EU and exacerbated by the last Labour govt who almost alone in the EU ignored the transition period. But for that the movement would not have been overwhelmingly to the UK and been more balanced. In any event and in so far as there are good ideas behind workers moving to where there are jobs it should have been phased so that the worst of the great initial economic imbalances were addressed first. Eventually these movements will settle down but the initial strains have been bigger than they needed to be. However from a UK point of view what we ignored under Labour were our own ready available workers here and on benefits. Lack of action here tied with ignoring the EU transitional periods has been our biggest social disaster.
Unless Poland's economic situation radically alters I don't foresee Poles returning in huge numbers. On the whole they are doing extremely well here, securing employment, integrating, having families, buying houses and setting up businesses. Also, I don't mean to be funny, but its bloody cold and miserable in Poland in the winter. Not quite the draw as say a life in the sun in Spain, Portugal or Italy (which when I speak to people from those countries they always say they miss so much and is a continued draw on them potentially returning).
I seemed to remember seeing some stats that showed even when unemployment went right up, the number of Poles leaving to go elsewhere (or "home) was very low and nor were many claiming unemployment benefits.
If we set the bar at a similar level for say Chinese, we would have to accept everybody who arrived, as we know the human rights abuses and lack of freedoms of the masses is widespread.
Precisely. And yet it is very difficult to verify, or disprove, specific claims of risk of persecution. If an Iranian lad turns up and claims to be gay, or a Chinese lass claims that her religious or political leanings put her at risk, how do we expect them to demonstrate proof?
One other issue...many countries have "troubled" regions e.g. Pakistan North region is really bad, as is Northern Nigeria. But large areas of the rest of the country are largely unaffected. It is a bit like saying all bombs and shooting in Northern Ireland means every mainland Brit and Irish person should have been able to get asylum or the Spanish because of ETA.
Even in Egypt during the uprising, outside of some isolated areas life continued as normal. I know a couple of people who were there and said it was anarchy in certain parts of Cario, but for instance Sharm El Sheikh nothing was different.
Mexico is another good example. Cities on the routes for the drug smugglers are hell holes, but away from that I know a number of westerners who say you really would have no idea of the issues. Life is perfectly calm and safe.
Yes, that was my point about the Belfast or London bombings comparison really. A really quite grave situation of violence or abuse of human rights might only affect a fairly limited % of the population while for most people "life goes on" much as it ever did. Not necessarily pleasantly of course. The question of why come to Britain or Germany or Sweden (rather than, say, a less lousy part of your own country) clearly has an economic component. In many cases, it's clearly the main component. It's no sin to want a better life for yourself - our market-based economic system is basically founded on that principle - but it isn't what the asylum laws are for.
Which is why, at least in theory, I disagree with the bleeding-hearts who claim we have a moral imperative to grant asylum to every Afghan or Iranian or Somali who turns up here. In practice, sorting out who was really at risk and who wasn't is always going to be a nightmare, particularly if documentation is going to be conveniently lost along the journey.
Those 'ten million migrants coming our way' links that SeanT posts might turn out to be an underestimate.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
Do people actually believe this nonsense??
Look at the demographics of Western European countries, the demographics of N Africa and the Middle East, the trend - and composition - of migration between those two regions (almost entirely one-way of course), and the unwillingness to integrate by most from N Africa / Middle East...
At what point will it all become clear? Do we need a "Cologne" to happen once a week in the UK?
It's not nonsense. Europe's population will stabilise at around 1 billion by 2100, and the same for the Americas.
The remainder of the planet will be 9 billion. Africa will account for almost all of that increase.
The UK will be very likely to be majority non-white by 2100.
Now, that's not necessarily a problem if race ceases to become an issue, but those on the Left are just as interested as those on the far-right to see that it doesn't.
IMHO, such a UK would only work with repeal of race/religious discrimination laws, a total end to multiculturalism and any equivocation in identity or cultural relativism in our politics.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
If it's important to you to be surrounded by white people (an oddly focused ambition but to each his own), you'll be a bit stuck in a couple of decades if not sooner. Intermingling is happening everywhere, and accelerating, legally or illegally and at varying speeds, but IMO unstoppable. Trump's wall, Europe's Med patrols and anything else governments think up don't get past the fact that people who speak a bit of English and aren't afraid to travel see a better life elsewhere and do what's necessary to get it. If their home countries are in never-ending wars, that just makes it more compelling.
It will only slow down if the countries of origin start to flourish - that's one reason we aren't seeing billions of Chinese migrants. Which is why well-directed foreign aid is actually a sensible investment for people who worry about these things - it would be a perfectly sensible UKIP policy.
To be sure Mr. Jessop, all the news outlets have their biases, one one needs to read them with that in mind. Where I fell out with the Economist was when it wrote an article on a subject that I was at the time rather an expert on. The article was grossly inaccurate on matters of fact, not of opinion, actual fact. Furthermore, if the author had done an hour's worth of research he/she would have known that their article was complete bollocks. I cancelled my subscription the same day, because if they could not get the facts right on one topic why should they on others.
Friend of mine works at the Economist. Apparently most of the writers are in their early to mid 20s, well-educated and with a cosmopolitan outlook, but not really as well-informed as the rather superior writing style suggests.
For some reason I had an infatuation with the Economist for 10 years from about 2002 to 2012. I still have the beautifully preserved copies in special Economist ring binders. Now I can't understand what I saw in it.
I was the same, but about 3 years behind you (1999-2009)
For me, it was 1980-85. I think it has something to do with one's own political maturity. At an early stage, the single-minded confidence the Economist has of its views on politics and economics is attractive. Then, as your own political and economic confidence grows, the Economist writing style grates. Then you find yourself hating the smugness coupled with often completely wrong analysis and policy prescriptions.
Now is surely the time to arrange a PB poll, if the Smithsonian wallet can take the strain, on whether we should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU. Crucially, there should be a supplementary question, asking whether our opinion has changed over say the past six months and if so in which direction.
I'm in exactly the same selfish position as I was then - if Leave can guarantee that I can continue to live with my EU citizen wife here without any difficulties then I'll vote Leave on sovereignty grounds. If they can't, I'll vote Remain on family grounds.
I have not seen a single suggestion even from the most hardened Leave supporters that a single EU citizen currently resident in the UK would be asked or forced to move in the event of a Leave result. Indeed if that were the case then even I would be hard pressed to support Leave.
My concern is that her right to reside with me here is based solely on her EU citizenship and the UK's EU membership. We've looked into geting her UK citizenship, but it's crazily expensive and currently pointless.
If Brexit sees settled EU citizens entitled to at the minimum ILR with at the maximum filling in one form and perhaps taking a government-funded English language test, that would be fine. If not, I'm going to worry that her right to live here could be rescinded.
Don't believe this nonsense, because it is nonsense.
My wife is a Bulgarian (who has lived her for over 10 years) and I am as fervent a Leave supporter as they come. She has permanent residence, not citizenship, but even those who did not would be in no trouble.
I THINK a UK Government would allow any EEA citizen to work for 90 days here visa-free, and require a work-permit for future workers after that date to bring migration down.
Existing workers that were already settled here and/or employed here would be unaffected.
No-one will be deported.
Emphasis mine
Eh? No-one knows exactly what future policy would be - it could be 180 days or 365 days - but this entirely consistent with non-EU states at present, and other nations that allow visa-wavers for the UK.
If you think an independent democratically accountable UK Government would be delighted it could finally unleash its secret Jean-Marie Le Pen then you don't understand this country, or its people.
To be sure Mr. Jessop, all the news outlets have their biases, one one needs to read them with that in mind. Where I fell out with the Economist was when it wrote an article on a subject that I was at the time rather an expert on. The article was grossly inaccurate on matters of fact, not of opinion, actual fact. Furthermore, if the author had done an hour's worth of research he/she would have known that their article was complete bollocks. I cancelled my subscription the same day, because if they could not get the facts right on one topic why should they on others.
Friend of mine works at the Economist. Apparently most of the writers are in their early to mid 20s, well-educated and with a cosmopolitan outlook, but not really as well-informed as the rather superior writing style suggests.
For some reason I had an infatuation with the Economist for 10 years from about 2002 to 2012. I still have the beautifully preserved copies in special Economist ring binders. Now I can't understand what I saw in it.
I was the same, but about 3 years behind you (1999-2009)
For me, it was 1980-85. I think it has something to do with one's own political maturity. At an early stage, the single-minded confidence the Economist has of its views on politics and economics is attractive. Then, as your own political and economic confidence grows, the Economist writing style grates. Then you find yourself hating the smugness coupled with often completely wrong policy prescriptions.
Amen. Ultimately it's the absence of an ability to "see things from two sides" that damned it in my eyes - can anyone really be 100% sure that they are correct, all the time? Does the whole magazine really have to be written in the same style and from the same point of view? It's an incredibly heavy-handed editorial approach.
You might like or loathe The Speccie or The Staggers, but while each has its own clear leanings, their pages contain meaningful debate (i.e. writers who disagree and will argue their own side of an issue).
The little 'un opened an Economist and pointed at a picture of Hilary Clinton. Obviously that means she's going to be the next US president...
Well your lad doesn't yet have the track record of predicting winners that TimB's GSD does. So, full respect to your boy, but I'll stick with Heidi this time around.
P.S. Reading economist to your offspring is not a good idea. I did it to mine, when he was a babe in arms and wouldn't sleep (to the background music of the Baroque masters, Mozart and Doris Day). However, it was only later when I found how dreadfully inaccurate many, if not most, of the articles are in the Economist that I realised that I may have done my son incalculable harm.
We'll have to see how his track record develops
As for your second paragraph: that's the same for most (all?) news sources, isn't it? We get the Economist, and I find it's a good launching point into topics and items I hadn't considered. I read the LRB for the same reason, even if too many of its articles are pretentious (and sometimes unreadable) tosh.
Oh, and the Economist's coverage of technology is excellent IMO.
The Economist is certainly biased (strongly pro-EU, for instance), but I tend to see less outright inaccuracies than I do in (say) the Times and especially the Telegraph / Guardian, which also have their own biases.
To be sure Mr. Jessop, all the news outlets have their biases, one one needs to read them with that in mind. Where I fell out with the Economist was when it wrote an article on a subject that I was at the time rather an expert on. The article was grossly inaccurate on matters of fact, not of opinion, actual fact. Furthermore, if the author had done an hour's worth of research he/she would have known that their article was complete bollocks. I cancelled my subscription the same day, because if they could not get the facts right on one topic why should they on others.
That seems a little hasty. I'm sure they'd've preferred a letter explaining their errors which they might well have published.
I have a friend who worked in electronic security and read a piece in Times saying how some security algorithm he was using turned out to be hackable. Concerned, he phoned up the journalist what wrote it who eventually admitted whole piece was based on single article on scientific press. When he tracked down the original article, he realised journo had misunderstood it, and scientist had proved it was unhackable.
Now is surely the time to arrange a PB poll, if the Smithsonian wallet can take the strain, on whether we should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU. Crucially, there should be a supplementary question, asking whether our opinion has changed over say the past six months and if so in which direction.
I'm in exactly the same selfish position as I was then - if Leave can guarantee that I can continue to live with my EU citizen wife here without any difficulties then I'll vote Leave on sovereignty grounds. If they can't, I'll vote Remain on family grounds.
I have not seen a single suggestion even from the most hardened Leave supporters that a single EU citizen currently resident in the UK would be asked or forced to move in the event of a Leave result. Indeed if that were the case then even I would be hard pressed to support Leave.
My concern is that her right to reside with me here is based solely on her EU citizenship and the UK's EU membership. We've looked into geting her UK citizenship, but it's crazily expensive and currently pointless.
If Brexit sees settled EU citizens entitled to at the minimum ILR with at the maximum filling in one form and perhaps taking a government-funded English language test, that would be fine. If not, I'm going to worry that her right to live here could be rescinded.
I do understand your concerns but as I say I have seen absolutely no indications that anyone already settled here would be threatened and I am sure that the process will be resolved to ensure that remains the case. No serious politician or group whether supporting Remain or Leave could advocate anything else.
You can blithely say "I am sure". In my position, I can't.
Mr. Die, that's depressing but not overly surprising. It was, I think, only last year the BBC wrote an article about blue light from e-readers interfering with sleep.
Except e-readers don't emit blue light. They were using tablets to read e-books.
I have a friend who worked in electronic security and read a piece in Times saying how some security algorithm he was using turned out to be hackable. Concerned, he phoned up the journalist what wrote it who eventually admitted whole piece was based on single article on scientific press. When he tracked down the original article, he realised journo had misunderstood it, and scientist had proved it was unhackable.
No security algorithm has lasted, eventually they all get hacked or comprised. However, the chances of an expert in the field not knowing this before a journalist are so incredibly small, especially one writing for a general mainstream media outlet.
Journalists were writing about bitcoin and the blockchain technology as if it was "new" years after those in the know had already cashed in. Not that I am bitter that I had the opportunity in the early days and didn't take it
Now is surely the time to arrange a PB poll, if the Smithsonian wallet can take the strain, on whether we should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU. Crucially, there should be a supplementary question, asking whether our opinion has changed over say the past six months and if so in which direction.
I'm in exactly the same selfish position as I was then - if Leave can guarantee that I can continue to live with my EU citizen wife here without any difficulties then I'll vote Leave on sovereignty grounds. If they can't, I'll vote Remain on family grounds.
I have not seen a single suggestion even from the most hardened Leave supporters that a single EU citizen currently resident in the UK would be asked or forced to move in the event of a Leave result. Indeed if that were the case then even I would be hard pressed to support Leave.
My concern is that her right to reside with me here is based solely on her EU citizenship and the UK's EU membership. We've looked into geting her UK citizenship, but it's crazily expensive and currently pointless.
If Brexit sees settled EU citizens entitled to at the minimum ILR with at the maximum filling in one form and perhaps taking a government-funded English language test, that would be fine. If not, I'm going to worry that her right to live here could be rescinded.
I do understand your concerns but as I say I have seen absolutely no indications that anyone already settled here would be threatened and I am sure that the process will be resolved to ensure that remains the case. No serious politician or group whether supporting Remain or Leave could advocate anything else.
You can blithely say "I am sure". In my position, I can't.
You could honestly see the Tories deporting EU citizens post-Brexit? Then again some people were convinced the Tories were going to destroy the NHS in 24 hours...
It could be BBC researchers on a mission but I've just listened to 'Any Questions' and those phoning-in who support 'Leave' sound like Colonel Blimps. This is increasingly becoming the media voice of the 'Leavers'.
As every advertiser who has used celebrity endorsement will tell you people take notice of those they respect and reject the voices of those they don't. 'Leave' will really have to start mobilizing some younger and more articulate champions if they don't want to be dead in the water.
Now is surely the time to arrange a PB poll, if the Smithsonian wallet can take the strain, on whether we should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU. Crucially, there should be a supplementary question, asking whether our opinion has changed over say the past six months and if so in which direction.
I'm in exactly the same selfish position as I was then - if Leave can guarantee that I can continue to live with my EU citizen wife here without any difficulties then I'll vote Leave on sovereignty grounds. If they can't, I'll vote Remain on family grounds.
I have not seen a single suggestion even from the most hardened Leave supporters that a single EU citizen currently resident in the UK would be asked or forced to move in the event of a Leave result. Indeed if that were the case then even I would be hard pressed to support Leave.
My concern is that her right to reside with me here is based solely on her EU citizenship and the UK's EU membership. We've looked into geting her UK citizenship, but it's crazily expensive and currently pointless.
If Brexit sees settled EU citizens entitled to at the minimum ILR with at the maximum filling in one form and perhaps taking a government-funded English language test, that would be fine. If not, I'm going to worry that her right to live here could be rescinded.
The fee for UK naturalization is GBP1005. What price love? Does not seem extraordinarily high to me.
The intermingling is quite superficial in Erdington in Birmingham - large Pakistani origin electorate, but the CLP is in special measures so Jack Dromey could be imposed as the Labour MP.
Now is surely the time to arrange a PB poll, if the Smithsonian wallet can take the strain, on whether we should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU. Crucially, there should be a supplementary question, asking whether our opinion has changed over say the past six months and if so in which direction.
I'm in exactly the same selfish position as I was then - if Leave can guarantee that I can continue to live with my EU citizen wife here without any difficulties then I'll vote Leave on sovereignty grounds. If they can't, I'll vote Remain on family grounds.
I have not seen a single suggestion even from the most hardened Leave supporters that a single EU citizen currently resident in the UK would be asked or forced to move in the event of a Leave result. Indeed if that were the case then even I would be hard pressed to support Leave.
My concern is that her right to reside with me here is based solely on her EU citizenship and the UK's EU membership. We've looked into geting her UK citizenship, but it's crazily expensive and currently pointless.
If Brexit sees settled EU citizens entitled to at the minimum ILR with at the maximum filling in one form and perhaps taking a government-funded English language test, that would be fine. If not, I'm going to worry that her right to live here could be rescinded.
I do understand your concerns but as I say I have seen absolutely no indications that anyone already settled here would be threatened and I am sure that the process will be resolved to ensure that remains the case. No serious politician or group whether supporting Remain or Leave could advocate anything else.
You can blithely say "I am sure". In my position, I can't.
You could honestly see the Tories deporting EU citizens post-Brexit? Then again some people were convinced the Tories were going to destroy the NHS in 24 hours...
Deport? No. But not let her back in after going abroad?
Those 'ten million migrants coming our way' links that SeanT posts might turn out to be an underestimate.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
Now is surely the time to arrange a PB poll, if the Smithsonian wallet can take the strain, on whether we should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU. Crucially, there should be a supplementary question, asking whether our opinion has changed over say the past six months and if so in which direction.
I'm in exactly the same selfish position as I was then - if Leave can guarantee that I can continue to live with my EU citizen wife here without any difficulties then I'll vote Leave on sovereignty grounds. If they can't, I'll vote Remain on family grounds.
I have not seen a single suggestion even from the most hardened Leave supporters that a single EU citizen currently resident in the UK would be asked or forced to move in the event of a Leave result. Indeed if that were the case then even I would be hard pressed to support Leave.
My concern is that her right to reside with me here is based solely on her EU citizenship and the UK's EU membership. We've looked into geting her UK citizenship, but it's crazily expensive and currently pointless.
If Brexit sees settled EU citizens entitled to at the minimum ILR with at the maximum filling in one form and perhaps taking a government-funded English language test, that would be fine. If not, I'm going to worry that her right to live here could be rescinded.
I do understand your concerns but as I say I have seen absolutely no indications that anyone already settled here would be threatened and I am sure that the process will be resolved to ensure that remains the case. No serious politician or group whether supporting Remain or Leave could advocate anything else.
You can blithely say "I am sure". In my position, I can't.
You could honestly see the Tories deporting EU citizens post-Brexit? Then again some people were convinced the Tories were going to destroy the NHS in 24 hours...
Personally I can't imagine even UKIP would do so if they were, remarkably, in power.
But it's not unreasonable to want a guarantee when one's own affairs are at stake, even if such a guarantee is undeliverable.
It's just one of the reasons the "no change" option in referenda all over the world on all kinds of issues have a natural head-start.
Now is surely the time to arrange a PB poll, if the Smithsonian wallet can take the strain, on whether we should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU. Crucially, there should be a supplementary question, asking whether our opinion has changed over say the past six months and if so in which direction.
I'm in exactly the same selfish position as I was then - if Leave can guarantee that I can continue to live with my EU citizen wife here without any difficulties then I'll vote Leave on sovereignty grounds. If they can't, I'll vote Remain on family grounds.
I have not seen a single suggestion even from the most hardened Leave supporters that a single EU citizen currently resident in the UK would be asked or forced to move in the event of a Leave result. Indeed if that were the case then even I would be hard pressed to support Leave.
My concern is that her right to reside with me here is based solely on her EU citizenship and the UK's EU membership. We've looked into geting her UK citizenship, but it's crazily expensive and currently pointless.
If Brexit sees settled EU citizens entitled to at the minimum ILR with at the maximum filling in one form and perhaps taking a government-funded English language test, that would be fine. If not, I'm going to worry that her right to live here could be rescinded.
The fee for UK naturalization is GBP1005. What price love? Does not seem extraordinarily high to me.
It's totally unaffordable for us at the moment.
When Mrs J gained citizenship ten or so years ago, she paid for a company to take her through the process. I always thought it was wasted money, but at that time it was her wasted money. She wanted it done right with as little hassle as possible.
Although a strong support of Leave, I think I'd probably be adopting Mr. Quidder's caution in his situation.
The best solution would be if he won the lottery, his wife became a British citizen, and he bought twelve thousand copies of my forthcoming book: The Adventures of Sir Edric, Volume One.
Now is surely the time to arrange a PB poll, if the Smithsonian wallet can take the strain, on whether we should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU. Crucially, there should be a supplementary question, asking whether our opinion has changed over say the past six months and if so in which direction.
I'm in exactly the same selfish position as I was then - if Leave can guarantee that I can continue to live with my EU citizen wife here without any difficulties then I'll vote Leave on sovereignty grounds. If they can't, I'll vote Remain on family grounds.
I have not seen a single suggestion even from the most hardened Leave supporters that a single EU citizen currently resident in the UK would be asked or forced to move in the event of a Leave result. Indeed if that were the case then even I would be hard pressed to support Leave.
My concern is that her right to reside with me here is based solely on her EU citizenship and the UK's EU membership. We've looked into geting her UK citizenship, but it's crazily expensive and currently pointless.
If Brexit sees settled EU citizens entitled to at the minimum ILR with at the maximum filling in one form and perhaps taking a government-funded English language test, that would be fine. If not, I'm going to worry that her right to live here could be rescinded.
I do understand your concerns but as I say I have seen absolutely no indications that anyone already settled here would be threatened and I am sure that the process will be resolved to ensure that remains the case. No serious politician or group whether supporting Remain or Leave could advocate anything else.
You can blithely say "I am sure". In my position, I can't.
You could honestly see the Tories deporting EU citizens post-Brexit? Then again some people were convinced the Tories were going to destroy the NHS in 24 hours...
Deport? No. But not let her back in after going abroad?
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
If it's important to you to be surrounded by white people (an oddly focused ambition but to each his own), you'll be a bit stuck in a couple of decades if not sooner. Intermingling is happening everywhere, and accelerating, legally or illegally and at varying speeds, but IMO unstoppable. Trump's wall, Europe's Med patrols and anything else governments think up don't get past the fact that people who speak a bit of English and aren't afraid to travel see a better life elsewhere and do what's necessary to get it. If their home countries are in never-ending wars, that just makes it more compelling.
It will only slow down if the countries of origin start to flourish - that's one reason we aren't seeing billions of Chinese migrants. Which is why well-directed foreign aid is actually a sensible investment for people who worry about these things - it would be a perfectly sensible UKIP policy.
Completely missing my point, but that was to be expected. I'm not after living with just other white people - that's a typical assertion made against people like myself who are concerned with immigration and the lack of integration. In fact I mentioned "white reserves" in a negative way, but somehow you've twisted it round to mean that's what I want..?
I want to live in a civilized Europe. At the moment that civilization is being eroded.
I couldn't care less about the ethnicity or skin colour or whatever of people - it's culture and politics etc that matter. Hence my concern about lack of integration.
Why does it result every time when someone raises concern about immigration/integration of immigrants that it's about race? It's immensely troubling - and a factor in why we are facing the mess today. We can't discuss the matter without it spiraling into this sort of thing.
Now is surely the time to arrange a PB poll, if the Smithsonian wallet can take the strain, on whether we should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU. Crucially, there should be a supplementary question, asking whether our opinion has changed over say the past six months and if so in which direction.
I'm in exactly the same selfish position as I was then - if Leave can guarantee that I can continue to live with my EU citizen wife here without any difficulties then I'll vote Leave on sovereignty grounds. If they can't, I'll vote Remain on family grounds.
I have not seen a single suggestion even from the most hardened Leave supporters that a single EU citizen currently resident in the UK would be asked or forced to move in the event of a Leave result. Indeed if that were the case then even I would be hard pressed to support Leave.
My concern is that her right to reside with me here is based solely on her EU citizenship and the UK's EU membership. We've looked into geting her UK citizenship, but it's crazily expensive and currently pointless.
If Brexit sees settled EU citizens entitled to at the minimum ILR with at the maximum filling in one form and perhaps taking a government-funded English language test, that would be fine. If not, I'm going to worry that her right to live here could be rescinded.
I do understand your concerns but as I say I have seen absolutely no indications that anyone already settled here would be threatened and I am sure that the process will be resolved to ensure that remains the case. No serious politician or group whether supporting Remain or Leave could advocate anything else.
You can blithely say "I am sure". In my position, I can't.
You could honestly see the Tories deporting EU citizens post-Brexit? Then again some people were convinced the Tories were going to destroy the NHS in 24 hours...
Deport? No. But not let her back in after going abroad?
I think you're just scaremongering now.
I'm not scaremongering, I'm scared. At the moment my wife's right of entry to and residence in this country is only because she's an EU citizen and the UK is a member of the EU.
Now is surely the time to arrange a PB poll, if the Smithsonian wallet can take the strain, on whether we should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU. Crucially, there should be a supplementary question, asking whether our opinion has changed over say the past six months and if so in which direction.
I'm in exactly the same selfish position as I was then - if Leave can guarantee that I can continue to live with my EU citizen wife here without any difficulties then I'll vote Leave on sovereignty grounds. If they can't, I'll vote Remain on family grounds.
I have not seen a single suggestion even from the most hardened Leave supporters that a single EU citizen currently resident in the UK would be asked or forced to move in the event of a Leave result. Indeed if that were the case then even I would be hard pressed to support Leave.
My concern is that her right to reside with me here is based solely on her EU citizenship and the UK's EU membership. We've looked into geting her UK citizenship, but it's crazily expensive and currently pointless.
If Brexit sees settled EU citizens entitled to at the minimum ILR with at the maximum filling in one form and perhaps taking a government-funded English language test, that would be fine. If not, I'm going to worry that her right to live here could be rescinded.
I do understand your concerns but as I say I have seen absolutely no indications that anyone already settled here would be threatened and I am sure that the process will be resolved to ensure that remains the case. No serious politician or group whether supporting Remain or Leave could advocate anything else.
You can blithely say "I am sure". In my position, I can't.
You could honestly see the Tories deporting EU citizens post-Brexit? Then again some people were convinced the Tories were going to destroy the NHS in 24 hours...
Deport? No. But not let her back in after going abroad?
I think you're just scaremongering now.
I'm not scaremongering, I'm scared. At the moment my wife's right of entry to and residence in this country is only because she's an EU citizen and the UK is a member of the EU.
If the UK was a member of the EEA instead, or had a Swiss-style arrangement, there would be no issue at all. Swiss and Norwegians have rights of residence and work in the EU and vice versa.
I'm not scaremongering, I'm scared. At the moment my wife's right of entry to and residence in this country is only because she's an EU citizen and the UK is a member of the EU.
See page 4 of the below document from Business for Britain:
Therefore, the EU’s freedom of movement rights would be honoured for all those citizens who reside in other EEA nations prior to any Treaty changes. Furthermore, the Greenland example also included a transitional period. This works both ways, and the UK’s Vienna Convention obligations would prevent any government from deporting migrants who came to the UK under the old system. The UK’s large expatriate retiree community in Spain, France and Italy would also not have to worry.
Also, if the designated campaign group for Leave proposes EEA+EFTA you would have nothing to worry about.
Mr Quiddder..are you saying your wife has no rights to re enter if she leaves the country after Brexit ...not even as Mrs Quidder..first time i have heard that one....
Those 'ten million migrants coming our way' links that SeanT posts might turn out to be an underestimate.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
Now is surely the time to arrange a PB poll, if the Smithsonian wallet can take the strain, on whether we should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU. Crucially, there should be a supplementary question, asking whether our opinion has changed over say the past six months and if so in which direction.
I'm in exactly the same selfish position as I was then - if Leave can guarantee that I can continue to live with my EU citizen wife here without any difficulties then I'll vote Leave on sovereignty grounds. If they can't, I'll vote Remain on family grounds.
I have not seen a single suggestion even from the most hardened Leave supporters that a single EU citizen currently resident in the UK would be asked or forced to move in the event of a Leave result. Indeed if that were the case then even I would be hard pressed to support Leave.
My concern is that her right to reside with me here is based solely on her EU citizenship and the UK's EU membership. We've looked into geting her UK citizenship, but it's crazily expensive and currently pointless.
If Brexit sees settled EU citizens entitled to at the minimum ILR with at the maximum filling in one form and perhaps taking a government-funded English language test, that would be fine. If not, I'm going to worry that her right to live here could be rescinded.
I do understand your concerns but as I say I have seen absolutely no indications that anyone already settled here would be threatened and I am sure that the process will be resolved to ensure that remains the case. No serious politician or group whether supporting Remain or Leave could advocate anything else.
You can blithely say "I am sure". In my position, I can't.
You could honestly see the Tories deporting EU citizens post-Brexit? Then again some people were convinced the Tories were going to destroy the NHS in 24 hours...
Deport? No. But not let her back in after going abroad?
I think you're just scaremongering now.
I'm not scaremongering, I'm scared. At the moment my wife's right of entry to and residence in this country is only because she's an EU citizen and the UK is a member of the EU.
If the UK was a member of the EEA instead, or had a Swiss-style arrangement, there would be no issue at all.
Is the EU's free movement actually stopping some countries from flourishing? I have no idea, but suspect that the brain drain of younger people from, say, Poland is not helping their home economies. Are there any stats on this kind of thing?
I think thats a fair point. Some from say Poland will perhaps stay in the UK and settle and become UK citizens. But others will probably return back to Poland. The whole free movement principal has been handled very badly by the EU and exacerbated by the last Labour govt who almost alone in the EU ignored the transition period. But for that the movement would not have been overwhelmingly to the UK and been more balanced. In any event and in so far as there are good ideas behind workers moving to where there are jobs it should have been phased so that the worst of the great initial economic imbalances were addressed first. Eventually these movements will settle down but the initial strains have been bigger than they needed to be. However from a UK point of view what we ignored under Labour were our own ready available workers here and on benefits. Lack of action here tied with ignoring the EU transitional periods has been our biggest social disaster.
Unless Poland's economic situation radically alters I don't foresee Poles returning in huge numbers. On the whole they are doing extremely well here, securing employment, integrating, having families, buying houses and setting up businesses. Also, I don't mean to be funny, but its bloody cold and miserable in Poland in the winter. Not quite the draw as say a life in the sun in Spain, Portugal or Italy (which when I speak to people from those countries they always say they miss so much and is a continued draw on them potentially returning).
I seemed to remember seeing some stats that showed even when unemployment went right up, the number of Poles leaving to go elsewhere (or "home) was very low and nor were many claiming unemployment benefits.
But over time a lot of these issues will resolve themselves and they would be with us even in the EEA. The issue of muslims and africans is not an issue of EU membership and its pretty nasty of the anti EU crowd to try to attach it to their campaign.
Mr Quiddder..are you saying your wife has no rights to re enter if she leaves the country after Brexit ...not even as Mrs Quidder..first time i have heard that one....
Mr Dancer, re the cold. It's amazing how quickly we adapt to it. Winter has not been with us long, but the Blizzard of 2016 was a brutal couple of days. Two days after, with clear blue skies, I went out to walk the puppy for 5 minutes in shirt sleeves. It felt ok. Once back in, my wife asked if I was mad going out like that in 9F (-13C) weather.
But over time a lot of these issues will resolve themselves and they would be with us even in the EEA. The issue of muslims and africans is not an issue of EU membership and its pretty nasty of the anti EU crowd to try to attach it to their campaign.
I have a Polish friend whose experience in the UK hasn't been entirely positive. Some poor jobs well below her experience and qualifications, treated poorly etc. But when I ask her if she is thinking of going back home, all the above is still in her option better than Poland e.g. her equivalent shifts / pay were far worse.
The only thing that might take her back is that her long term boyfriend is still in Poland and he won't come to the UK (he is a knobhead and shall we say rather racist about the number of non-whites in the UK). If her boyfriend would move, there wouldn't even be a minimal chance of her going back.
If the UK was a member of the EEA instead, or had a Swiss-style arrangement, there would be no issue at all.
This is correct. Will we have?
Why wouldn't we?
The UK's government and main opposition would want an EEA/Swiss arrangement; and I suspect the rump EU would also want a similar arrangement - after all, we are net financial contributors (which we would still be under an EEA/Swiss arrangement) and the Germans still want to sell their cars to us tariff-free...
I half-agree with her. It's not advisable for women to walk on their own late at night in virtually any British city centre, and it's naive to think otherwise. I've been out on Broad Street myself a few years ago and some dickhead came up to my female friend and put his hand down her top and tried to lead her away until me and the other guy we were with got rid of him.
But the problems with Jess's argument is firstly that what seems most horrifying about Cologne is that apparently more than 10 people would be harassing one woman at one time (presumably having been planned in advance), with male acquaintances of the victims powerless to stop it; just one or two attackers on their own, as is common in Britain, is a completely different situation to a whole horde of them. Secondly, her argument is a bit irrelevant anyway, since just because our countries already have sexist creeps, that's not a reason to import more sexist creeps.
Mr Quiddder..are you saying your wife has no rights to re enter if she leaves the country after Brexit ...not even as Mrs Quidder..first time i have heard that one....
Mr. 565, Philips[sp] is the same fool who found the idea of discussing men's issues (things like why more then 3/4 of suicides are men) in Parliament were laughable.
Mr. 565, Philips[sp] is the same fool who found the idea of discussing men's issues (things like why more then 3/4 of suicides are men) in Parliament were laughable.
Mr Dancer, re the cold. It's amazing how quickly we adapt to it. Winter has not been with us long, but the Blizzard of 2016 was a brutal couple of days. Two days after, with clear blue skies, I went out to walk the puppy for 5 minutes in shirt sleeves. It felt ok. Once back in, my wife asked if I was mad going out like that in 9F (-13C) weather.
I'm amazed you can tolerate the yank's propensity to panic. The recent snowfall paralyzed the Eastern Seaboard, the world laughed.
Mr. 565, Philips[sp] is the same fool who found the idea of discussing men's issues (things like why more then 3/4 of suicides are men) in Parliament were laughable.
Add to your list....previous been on QT as an "impartial" audience member.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
If it's important to you to be surrounded by white people (an oddly focused ambition but to each his own), you'll be a bit stuck in a couple of decades if not sooner. Intermingling is happening everywhere, and accelerating, legally or illegally and at varying speeds, but IMO unstoppable. Trump's wall, Europe's Med patrols and anything else governments think up don't get past the fact that people who speak a bit of English and aren't afraid to travel see a better life elsewhere and do what's necessary to get it. If their home countries are in never-ending wars, that just makes it more compelling.
It will only slow down if the countries of origin start to flourish - that's one reason we aren't seeing billions of Chinese migrants. Which is why well-directed foreign aid is actually a sensible investment for people who worry about these things - it would be a perfectly sensible UKIP policy.
Is the EU's free movement actually stopping some countries from flourishing? I have no idea, but suspect that the brain drain of younger people from, say, Poland is not helping their home economies. Are there any stats on this kind of thing?
When you talk to locals in Hungary, they reckon roughly 10% of the population have left for jobs elsewhere (Canada as well as Britain, Germany and Austria). Fear of a brain drain is very real, as evidenced by repayment terms on medical tuition fees should doctors emigrate on qualification.
An idea the UK should adopt. It is ridiculous that NHS spends 10s of thousands of pounds training a junior doctor for them to leave for Oz at first opportunity.
Amen
They already are. Medical students will now graduate with c. £54k of tuition fees debt, which they will be liable for wherever they are in the world.
Mr Quiddder..are you saying your wife has no rights to re enter if she leaves the country after Brexit ...not even as Mrs Quidder..first time i have heard that one....
Can’t see Farage agreeing to that!
Farage has no say - the government and parliament would create the post-EU relationship, not UKIP with its sole MP.
They already are. Medical students will now graduate with c. £54k of tuition fees debt, which they will be liable for wherever they are in the world.
When people move abroad (both UK citizens and those returning home to other EU countries), the chances / actual return rate of that money is not much more than the square root of bugger all. You are suppose to inform the student loans company and setup a payment plan, but they don't know your income etc and pretty much can't enforce anything.
If you move to Oz and have zero intention of returning to live in the UK, I would imagine the number of people "volunteering" to pay that back is about as many oldies who are going to volunteer to pay the telly tax when the BBC come with their charity tin.
But over time a lot of these issues will resolve themselves and they would be with us even in the EEA. The issue of muslims and africans is not an issue of EU membership and its pretty nasty of the anti EU crowd to try to attach it to their campaign.
I have a Polish friend whose experience in the UK hasn't been entirely positive. Some poor jobs well below her experience and qualifications, treated poorly etc. But when I ask her if she is thinking of going back home, all the above is still in her option better than Poland e.g. her equivalent shifts / pay were far worse.
The only thing that might take her back is that her long term boyfriend is still in Poland and he won't come to the UK (he is a knobhead and shall we say rather racist about the number of non-whites in the UK). If her boyfriend would move, there wouldn't even be a minimal chance of her going back.
A lot of my Polish friends went back. But the ones who haven't, have now been here for about ten years and feel more at home here than in Poland (which feels like an increasingly foreign country to them). Indeed, the fact that Polish society is less liberal/tolerant is one of the factors that would now make it feel quite suffocating to go back to.
Still, this is mere anecdata - I'd love to see what the detailed stats on Polish migration look like. There's a certain degree of the same people popping back and forth, on a contractual basis, which might exaggerate both inflows and outflows.
Mr Quiddder..are you saying your wife has no rights to re enter if she leaves the country after Brexit ...not even as Mrs Quidder..first time i have heard that one....
Can’t see Farage agreeing to that!
Farage has no say - the government and parliament would create the post-EU relationship, not UKIP with its sole MP.
I think the point was being.made that Farage's wife is herself German.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
If it's important to you to be surrounded by white people (an oddly focused ambition but to each his own), you'll be a bit stuck in a couple of decades if not sooner. Intermingling is happening everywhere, and accelerating, legally or illegally and at varying speeds, but IMO unstoppable. Trump's wall, Europe's Med patrols and anything else governments think up don't get past the fact that people who speak a bit of English and aren't afraid to travel see a better life elsewhere and do what's necessary to get it. If their home countries are in never-ending wars, that just makes it more compelling.
It will only slow down if the countries of origin start to flourish - that's one reason we aren't seeing billions of Chinese migrants. Which is why well-directed foreign aid is actually a sensible investment for people who worry about these things - it would be a perfectly sensible UKIP policy.
Is the EU's free movement actually stopping some countries from flourishing? I have no idea, but suspect that the brain drain of younger people from, say, Poland is not helping their home economies. Are there any stats on this kind of thing?
When you talk to locals in Hungary, they reckon roughly 10% of the population have left for jobs elsewhere (Canada as well as Britain, Germany and Austria). Fear of a brain drain is very real, as evidenced by repayment terms on medical tuition fees should doctors emigrate on qualification.
An idea the UK should adopt. It is ridiculous that NHS spends 10s of thousands of pounds training a junior doctor for them to leave for Oz at first opportunity.
Amen
They already are. Medical students will now graduate with c. £54k of tuition fees debt, which they will be liable for wherever they are in the world.
Mr Quiddder..are you saying your wife has no rights to re enter if she leaves the country after Brexit ...not even as Mrs Quidder..first time i have heard that one....
Can’t see Farage agreeing to that!
Farage has no say - the government and parliament would create the post-EU relationship, not UKIP with its sole MP.
I think the point was being.made that Farage's wife is herself German.
Ah! Yes, true, true.
He'd also be out of a job if we left... perhaps that's something many will think of when voting!
But over time a lot of these issues will resolve themselves and they would be with us even in the EEA. The issue of muslims and africans is not an issue of EU membership and its pretty nasty of the anti EU crowd to try to attach it to their campaign.
I have a Polish friend whose experience in the UK hasn't been entirely positive. Some poor jobs well below her experience and qualifications, treated poorly etc. But when I ask her if she is thinking of going back home, all the above is still in her option better than Poland e.g. her equivalent shifts / pay were far worse.
The only thing that might take her back is that her long term boyfriend is still in Poland and he won't come to the UK (he is a knobhead and shall we say rather racist about the number of non-whites in the UK). If her boyfriend would move, there wouldn't even be a minimal chance of her going back.
A lot of my Polish friends went back. But the ones who haven't, have now been here for about ten years and feel more at home here than in Poland (which feels like an increasingly foreign country to them). Indeed, the fact that Polish society is less liberal/tolerant is one of the factors that would now make it feel quite suffocating to go back to.
Still, this is mere anecdata - I'd love to see what the detailed stats on Polish migration look like. There's a certain degree of the same people popping back and forth, on a contractual basis, which might exaggerate both inflows and outflows.
I think you have a point about the 'tolerant' business. But even there overtime things will change. There is a campaign/policy/programme isn't there to encourage former emigrants to return?
The student loans system is something else that needs sorting. It is again rooted in the idea that people are generally immobile and all come from / will remain in the UK, when in reality people are more mobile than ever and many receiving student loans are not UK citizens and the student loans company has limited powers and access to information.
If you are from Eastern Europe and you go home after your degree, more chance you get done for a speeding ticket than the SLC tracking you down and making you pay. And when you talk outside of Europe, no chance at all.
It currently relying a lot of goodwill of people to pay back the money honestly if they aren't getting paid in the UK. Even if you make a payment plan, are you really going to phone up the SLC as soon as you get a pay rise? Yes please I really really really want to increase my payments please....after you guys I am going to phone the tax department, as I would really like to pay some more tax.
PB, where Diane Abbott is Britain's most dangerous racist, and black Africans who don't like statues commemorating Cecil Rhodes should just shut up and take it.
Completely missing my point, but that was to be expected. I'm not after living with just other white people - that's a typical assertion made against people like myself who are concerned with immigration and the lack of integration. In fact I mentioned "white reserves" in a negative way, but somehow you've twisted it round to mean that's what I want..?
I want to live in a civilized Europe. At the moment that civilization is being eroded.
I couldn't care less about the ethnicity or skin colour or whatever of people - it's culture and politics etc that matter. Hence my concern about lack of integration.
Why does it result every time when someone raises concern about immigration/integration of immigrants that it's about race? It's immensely troubling - and a factor in why we are facing the mess today. We can't discuss the matter without it spiraling into this sort of thing.
Well, no offence but you were the one who raised colour as an issue, even if you meant it negatively. Britain seems pretty civilised to me, and more so (less figuratively insular and full of pointless prejudices) than 20 years ago. I think you're too gloomy about it.
PB, where Diane Abbott is Britain's most dangerous racist, and black Africans who don't like statues commemorating Cecil Rhodes should just shut up and take it.
Abbott is a racist - and holds high political office - and that certainly makes her dangerous.
And there is a major difference between not liking something and running a petulant campaign demanding that your host institution act so as to rewrite history.
The fact that you can't see a problem with either of these two people says more about you than PB
Mr Dancer, re the cold. It's amazing how quickly we adapt to it. Winter has not been with us long, but the Blizzard of 2016 was a brutal couple of days. Two days after, with clear blue skies, I went out to walk the puppy for 5 minutes in shirt sleeves. It felt ok. Once back in, my wife asked if I was mad going out like that in 9F (-13C) weather.
I'm amazed you can tolerate the yank's propensity to panic. The recent snowfall paralyzed the Eastern Seaboard, the world laughed.
Are you talking from UK, where trains get delayed due to wrong type of sunlight!!
Those 'ten million migrants coming our way' links that SeanT posts might turn out to be an underestimate.
Absolutely. Europe will be finished very soon. I am now planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or NZ, and I suggest others do the same, otherwise you'll end up in "white reserves" in what used to be your own country.
You'd disagree then with certain contributors on here about the cowardice & selfishness of middle eastern migrants not willing to stay and fight Daesh in their own country?
Comments
South Africa is drawing a lot of immigrants from India, Pakistan, China and Bangladesh.
Brazil is a major destination for Portuguese, Germans, and Lebanese (these three being long-established patterns) but increasingly Chinese and South Koreans (!).
India now has large populations of Nigerians and Somalis.
Anyone seeking "purity" anywhere is going to become increasingly disappointed. And of course even places with fairly low migrations figures are seeing an increasing globalisation of culture, so if quaint/historic/"unspoilt" indigenous culture is your draw there are fewer and fewer places you can do so.
RadioClydeNews: Scotland's Jamie Murray has won his first men's doubles grand slam title with victory at the Australian Open tennis.
If Brexit sees settled EU citizens entitled to at the minimum ILR with at the maximum filling in one form and perhaps taking a government-funded English language test, that would be fine. If not, I'm going to worry that her right to live here could be rescinded.
Turning our backs on oppression sickness famine and poverty is not going to help anyone.
Isolationism and appeasement will do no one any good.
I've managed in the past to unpick key Economist arguments as hogwash with just a couple of minutes googling.
A friend is an airline pilot, he changed the type of plane he was flying and had to stay for 3 years or pay back a percentage of the training. A "type rating" typically costs around £30k, even though in modern aircraft it is almost all done in the simulator rather than in a plane. A commercial pilot's initial training costs well over £100k, most pilots now take bank loans for it unless they get really lucky with a scholarship or have parents to help out.
However, I'll assert that only a vanishingly small minority of BOOers believe in forcible repatriation; it's a horrendous idea (and if you don't believe that BOOers are noble creatures, it's also not practical).
At what point will it all become clear? Do we need a "Cologne" to happen once a week in the UK?
My wife is a Bulgarian (who has lived her for over 10 years) and I am as fervent a Leave supporter as they come. She has permanent residence, not citizenship, but even those who did not would be in no trouble.
I think a UK Government would allow any EEA citizen to work for 90 days here visa-free, and require a work-permit for future workers after that date to bring migration down.
Existing workers that were already settled here and/or employed here would be unaffected.
No-one will be deported.
Support George. W. Bush they said, support invading Iraq they said, support Blair they said, support Major they said, there will be no crash they said in 2007, there will be no bust they said in 1999, I even remember when they came out against Thatcher in the early 80's and they are constantly peddling for Japan (I remember a front page of the Economist about how Japan was about to do great, the next day Japan entered yet another recession in 2005 I think)
They can't be more contrarian from reality from what they are already.
So when they said "invade Syria", "support the arab spring", I came against it and I was right.
And a correction, the Harvard historian predicted president George Allen not Tim Allen.
Bit cold today. Had a little snow earlier.
Was going to ask the site for good name suggestions for a prince, but as I was going through the list of verboten names a good one came to me
Some from say Poland will perhaps stay in the UK and settle and become UK citizens. But others will probably return back to Poland.
The whole free movement principal has been handled very badly by the EU and exacerbated by the last Labour govt who almost alone in the EU ignored the transition period. But for that the movement would not have been overwhelmingly to the UK and been more balanced.
In any event and in so far as there are good ideas behind workers moving to where there are jobs it should have been phased so that the worst of the great initial economic imbalances were addressed first.
Eventually these movements will settle down but the initial strains have been bigger than they needed to be. However from a UK point of view what we ignored under Labour were our own ready available workers here and on benefits. Lack of action here tied with ignoring the EU transitional periods has been our biggest social disaster.
waffle
2. Flexibility. He mentioned doing away with ‘ever closer union’ and ensuring that members outside the Eurozone needed changes to safeguard their interests as a quid pro quo for those within it to develop the institutional power they needed to be able to run the currency.
waffle
3. That power must be able to flow back to member states, as promised at Laeken. He specifically mentioned repatriating powers not just to Britain but to all member states in the fields of the environment, social affairs and crime.
no chance
4. Democratic accountability and a bigger role for national parliaments.
waffle/no chance
5. Fairness and in particular that the rules of the Single Market are not skewed to favour Eurozone members.
nothing concrete is even being asked for
The qualification for your wife is hardly strenuous either - that she have lived in the UK for three years, with less than 270 days absence in that time or 90 days in the last 12 months.
Granted, if she does not need to get UK citizenship, why bother? But with Brexit, she would surely get citizenship easily if she meets the criteria. Furthermore, given the very large number of people who are presumably in the same boat as you - and the even larger number of EU citizens and their families living and working in the UK without the need for a work or residence visa - these issues will be a central part of any divorce negotiations. Not much point wasting time on them in detail though until the parties have decided on divorce.
I seemed to remember seeing some stats that showed even when unemployment went right up, the number of Poles leaving to go elsewhere (or "home) was very low and nor were many claiming unemployment benefits.
Which is why, at least in theory, I disagree with the bleeding-hearts who claim we have a moral imperative to grant asylum to every Afghan or Iranian or Somali who turns up here. In practice, sorting out who was really at risk and who wasn't is always going to be a nightmare, particularly if documentation is going to be conveniently lost along the journey.
The remainder of the planet will be 9 billion. Africa will account for almost all of that increase.
The UK will be very likely to be majority non-white by 2100.
Now, that's not necessarily a problem if race ceases to become an issue, but those on the Left are just as interested as those on the far-right to see that it doesn't.
IMHO, such a UK would only work with repeal of race/religious discrimination laws, a total end to multiculturalism and any equivocation in identity or cultural relativism in our politics.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/08/us/census-race-map.html?_r=0
Upper East Side would suit CornishBlue's ambition.
If you think an independent democratically accountable UK Government would be delighted it could finally unleash its secret Jean-Marie Le Pen then you don't understand this country, or its people.
You might like or loathe The Speccie or The Staggers, but while each has its own clear leanings, their pages contain meaningful debate (i.e. writers who disagree and will argue their own side of an issue).
Except e-readers don't emit blue light. They were using tablets to read e-books.
Journalists were writing about bitcoin and the blockchain technology as if it was "new" years after those in the know had already cashed in. Not that I am bitter that I had the opportunity in the early days and didn't take it
As every advertiser who has used celebrity endorsement will tell you people take notice of those they respect and reject the voices of those they don't. 'Leave' will really have to start mobilizing some younger and more articulate champions if they don't want to be dead in the water.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35450394
Dembele passes to Dembele who passes back to Dembele, forward run from Dembele found by Dembele, who is looking for a return from Dembele...
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/267600-rent-is-too-damn-high-party-founder-endorses-trump
It's kind of weird, because it means that from all the people depicted in this video from 2011 the only one not supporting Trump yet is Romney:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0lUaIoEF70
But it's not unreasonable to want a guarantee when one's own affairs are at stake, even if such a guarantee is undeliverable.
It's just one of the reasons the "no change" option in referenda all over the world on all kinds of issues have a natural head-start.
The citizenship test was a bit of a joke ...
The best solution would be if he won the lottery, his wife became a British citizen, and he bought twelve thousand copies of my forthcoming book: The Adventures of Sir Edric, Volume One.
I think you're just scaremongering now.
I want to live in a civilized Europe. At the moment that civilization is being eroded.
I couldn't care less about the ethnicity or skin colour or whatever of people - it's culture and politics etc that matter. Hence my concern about lack of integration.
Why does it result every time when someone raises concern about immigration/integration of immigrants that it's about race? It's immensely troubling - and a factor in why we are facing the mess today. We can't discuss the matter without it spiraling into this sort of thing.
So stop being scared by the Remain brigade.
http://forbritain.org/migration.pdf Also, if the designated campaign group for Leave proposes EEA+EFTA you would have nothing to worry about.
http://www.polishforums.com/uk-ireland/poland-living-england-reality-returning-72472/
But over time a lot of these issues will resolve themselves and they would be with us even in the EEA.
The issue of muslims and africans is not an issue of EU membership and its pretty nasty of the anti EU crowd to try to attach it to their campaign.
Campaigners who claim Trident is not the number one issue on #LabourDoorstep are simply knocking on the wrong doors.
Sir Humphrey explains Hillary Clinton’s email misstatements https://t.co/tJM4T42uxr
The only thing that might take her back is that her long term boyfriend is still in Poland and he won't come to the UK (he is a knobhead and shall we say rather racist about the number of non-whites in the UK). If her boyfriend would move, there wouldn't even be a minimal chance of her going back.
The UK's government and main opposition would want an EEA/Swiss arrangement; and I suspect the rump EU would also want a similar arrangement - after all, we are net financial contributors (which we would still be under an EEA/Swiss arrangement) and the Germans still want to sell their cars to us tariff-free...
But the problems with Jess's argument is firstly that what seems most horrifying about Cologne is that apparently more than 10 people would be harassing one woman at one time (presumably having been planned in advance), with male acquaintances of the victims powerless to stop it; just one or two attackers on their own, as is common in Britain, is a completely different situation to a whole horde of them. Secondly, her argument is a bit irrelevant anyway, since just because our countries already have sexist creeps, that's not a reason to import more sexist creeps.
ScottishBritish lads won in the tennis today. Not so confident about the hat trick tomorrow though...BBC Radio Kent
Diane Abbott addresses anti-racism demonstrators as rival groups clash in #Dover https://t.co/fTYUMNbI8c https://t.co/B0cXcQKqsV
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01/28/bbc-question-time-jess-phillips-first-appearance-was-as-an-impassioned-audience-member_n_9101874.html
If you move to Oz and have zero intention of returning to live in the UK, I would imagine the number of people "volunteering" to pay that back is about as many oldies who are going to volunteer to pay the telly tax when the BBC come with their charity tin.
Still, this is mere anecdata - I'd love to see what the detailed stats on Polish migration look like. There's a certain degree of the same people popping back and forth, on a contractual basis, which might exaggerate both inflows and outflows.
He'd also be out of a job if we left... perhaps that's something many will think of when voting!
If you are from Eastern Europe and you go home after your degree, more chance you get done for a speeding ticket than the SLC tracking you down and making you pay. And when you talk outside of Europe, no chance at all.
It currently relying a lot of goodwill of people to pay back the money honestly if they aren't getting paid in the UK. Even if you make a payment plan, are you really going to phone up the SLC as soon as you get a pay rise? Yes please I really really really want to increase my payments please....after you guys I am going to phone the tax department, as I would really like to pay some more tax.
And there is a major difference between not liking something and running a petulant campaign demanding that your host institution act so as to rewrite history.
The fact that you can't see a problem with either of these two people says more about you than PB
Old Holborn
Meanwhile, in Dover
https://t.co/wondpjYjh6