Immigration is why Leave will win. It is also why a lot of Leave voters are subsequently going to feel betrayed.
That doesn't make sense
Southam is saying that - post Leave - it is highly likely that we end up with something that looks like EEA, in which case there will be a lot of Leavers who will feel betrayed.
Yes.
If they feel betrayed it's because they haven't really understood that leaving the EU after 40 years of entanglement will be a process not an event.
And unfortunately, nobody can effectively challenge the ignorance of the Leave campaign for not making this perfectly clear.
Ilford North (large Muslim population) was gained by Labour in 2015 whilst the tories held Harrow east (large Hindu population) and also held Hendon ( large jewish population) do you think the Tory candidate jewishness played a big part in him (very narrowly) losing?
Wes Streeting, the Labour MP, is LGBT, I can't see that being a plus for Muslims.
Personally, and TSE will probably lambast me for all eternity, I voted for him over the ex-MP Lee Scott because the latter kept sending us leaflets in Tamil - a language which we don't speak. I just saw it as pandering.
And yet - yet - I stayed up all night on Election Night cheering all the other Labour losses around the country!
No Alistair it really isn't. Every aspect of EU membership is still up for debate and challenge and the idea that Leave gave already lost on any of these points is just fanciful wishful thinking.
Among the public, Immigration/sovereignty/public services favour Leave, while economics and British influence favour Remain.
Why would the issue of public services favour Leave, given the dependence of many of our public services on immigrant staff?
People take the view that immigration is placing pressure on public services. Look how big Leave's lead is on whether the NHS would benefit from Brexit.
Surely that could be easily countered by a Remain campaign pointing out that, for example, almost a third of our doctors are foreign-born.
I am not quite sure that Leave means we can't admit doctors from anywhere we feel like to work in our hospitals. It means we get to CHOOSE who we admit and from where, I would argue useful people that want to contribute (including obviously working in our hospitals) and integrate should be welcome from anywhere, and people that want to sponge or commit crimes should be welcome from nowhere.
A lot of our doctors come from India or Pakistan, and a lot of our nurses from the Philippines, none of which are in the EU, nothing will change.
Ken Livingstone on Naz Shah as she is suspended from Labour: "No I don’t think her comments were anti-Semitic." @LBC
Labour need to find their Theresa May to deliver a 'nasty party' wake up call speech. Except in their case it will be, "Some people call us the Nazi party."
“Jeremy Corbyn and Naz Shah have mutually agreed that she is administratively suspended from the Labour Party by the General Secretary."
Well, at least there is hope for our police to be issued with shoot to kill orders by a Corbyn administration - just as long as they can reach mutual agreement on this with the ISIS beheaders roaming Oxford Street.
In which case their lives will no doubt be "administratively suspended"...
This is why she should have resigned. By supporting her Corbyn has blown it up into something much bigger.
A Labour MP is going to address the Commons and personally apologise for being an anti-Semite.
I mean, how much worse can it get? Can't they see how damaging it is?
Damaging from who's point of view though? From a point of view which gets 10-15% of their total votes from Muslims, probably not. There is going to be a lot more handwringing and acceptance of disturbing views by Labour in the coming years as they become more dependent on inner cities. Ask surbiton of this parish, Muslim vote harvesting is a Labour policy, he has said as much time and again.
Anti-Semitism is virtually non-existent in WWC Britain.
I think the equation that Labour have made is that there are 400,000 Jews eligible to vote in Britain and about 2.5m Muslims, the former group is shrinking and the latter is the fastest growing demographic in Britain.
I think they figure that even if they lose some votes they get more out of motivating Muslims to vote for them.
I wouldn't say "Labour" as a whole. Many Labour activists have nothing but contempt for anti-Semitism.
But, I think some members of the Party have made that calculation.
Yes, of course, I don't doubt that there are activists in Labour who abhor it and are 100% against it, but I fear the leadership has looked at the sums and decided that the numbers make sense to pursue a policy platform which attracts Muslim voters.
But it repels white voters. That's the point. Labour is in danger of becoming the "Muslim" party, which is a fast track to total self-destruction.
The Labour leadership tolerates anti-Semitism because the leadership is profoundly anti-American. It has nothing to do with the leadership disliking Jews, but everything to do with it disliking Israel because it is such a close ally of the US. This hatred leads Corbyn, McDonnell et al to contort themselves into offering justifications for and support to anti-Semites. It is sickening and a betrayal of all that labour is supposed to be. But they are ever so polite.
They are only polite when they lack power. There are plenty of examples what happens when Momentum gains power - and they ain't nice.
Ilford North (large Muslim population) was gained by Labour in 2015 whilst the tories held Harrow east (large Hindu population) and also held Hendon ( large jewish population) do you think the Tory candidate jewishness played a big part in him (very narrowly) losing?
Wes Streeting, the Labour MP, is LGBT, I can't see that being a plus for Muslims.
Personally, and TSE will probably lambast me for all eternity, I voted for him over the ex-MP Lee Scott because the latter kept sending us leaflets in Tamil - a language which we don't speak. I just saw it as pandering.
And yet - yet - I stayed up all night on Election Night cheering all the other Labour losses around the country!
Also Streeting was 11-4 in one of the most marginal seats in the country... *whistles*
I think Leave have one big advantage and one big disadvantage against Remain, which may explain why the two sides are close.
Leave's big advantage is that they have a much simpler story: Vote Leave to take control of our own affairs. Any Remain reply to that statement is qualified and complicated. Arguments for the EU go along the lines of, I accept they are remote, bureaucratic and corrupt, but it's better to have a forum where countries get together than not to have one. A glass half full is better than no glass at all - is hardly an inspiring slogan.
Leave's difficulty is is in coming up with a coherent and credible alternative to membership of the EU. Yes, we can leave easily enough but the EU is still there and we will want to have some kind of relationship. Do we go for an EEA deal? But that neutralises the main perceived benefit of leaving. Would it actually work - we're not Norway. Or do we go for glorious isolation with implications for trade? And so on.The response is muddled partly because you are replacing a definite thing with proposals with options and everyone has opinions. And partly because it's not under your control anyway.
I think the second point will tell in the end, if we don't vote for Out in June. Barring an EU cataclysm - always possible - we'll stay in for the foreseeable. Swimming upstream gets to be too tiring.
That is absolutely right.
I don't think, as @blackburn63 had trouble understanding earlier, any Leaver would be happy with:
1. Leave, CRY FREEDOM, once and for all we throw off the shackles of the European Superstate. 2. Back in to Europe with EFTA/EEA and all that that implies.
I thought M Gove had made it clear, however, that the preferred option is out-out. It may not be the optimal option especially according to many Leavers on here, but I think, simply, that the EFTA/EEA options (EFTA only? EFTA/EEA?) would be too difficult to articulate simply and effectively for all but the geekiest of the electorate (ie here on PB).
“Jeremy Corbyn and Naz Shah have mutually agreed that she is administratively suspended from the Labour Party by the General Secretary."
Well, at least there is hope for our police to be issued with shoot to kill orders by a Corbyn administration - just as long as they can reach mutual agreement on this with the ISIS beheaders roaming Oxford Street.
In which case their lives will no doubt be "administratively suspended"...
Forget "bathroom gate", Ted Cruz has blundered much worse in Indiana - enter "Ringgate"
It seems calling a basketball "hoop" a basketball "ring" in Indiana is a very serious error. Ted Cruz has been ousted as not really a basketball fan, and trying to pander to get votes - they take basketball seriously in Indiana !
To be fair to NaziShah, I think she's an idiot rather than an antisemite. She did also tweet support for World Holocaust Day, not something that proper antisemites would do.
Ilford North (large Muslim population) was gained by Labour in 2015 whilst the tories held Harrow east (large Hindu population) and also held Hendon ( large jewish population) do you think the Tory candidate jewishness played a big part in him (very narrowly) losing?
Wes Streeting, the Labour MP, is LGBT, I can't see that being a plus for Muslims.
Personally, and TSE will probably lambast me for all eternity, I voted for him over the ex-MP Lee Scott because the latter kept sending us leaflets in Tamil - a language which we don't speak. I just saw it as pandering.
And yet - yet - I stayed up all night on Election Night cheering all the other Labour losses around the country!
Wes Streeting is also avowedly pro-Israel and a fierce critic of tolerance of anti-Semitism within Labour. I'd expect a challenge to him at some stage in this parliament.
To be fair to NaziShah, I think she's an idiot rather than an antisemite. She did also tweet support for World Holocaust Day, not something that proper antisemites would do.
It is also possible that she is just a really idiotic anti-semite....
I think Leave have one big advantage and one big disadvantage against Remain, which may explain why the two sides are close.
Leave's big advantage is that they have a much simpler story: Vote Leave to take control of our own affairs. Any Remain reply to that statement is qualified and complicated. Arguments for the EU go along the lines of, I accept they are remote, bureaucratic and corrupt, but it's better to have a forum where countries get together than not to have one. A glass half full is better than no glass at all - is hardly an inspiring slogan.
Leave's difficulty is is in coming up with a coherent and credible alternative to membership of the EU. Yes, we can leave easily enough but the EU is still there and we will want to have some kind of relationship. Do we go for an EEA deal? But that neutralises the main perceived benefit of leaving. Would it actually work - we're not Norway. Or do we go for glorious isolation with implications for trade? And so on.The response is muddled partly because you are replacing a definite thing with proposals with options and everyone has opinions. And partly because it's not under your control anyway.
I think the second point will tell in the end, if we don't vote for Out in June. Barring an EU cataclysm - always possible - we'll stay in for the foreseeable. Swimming upstream gets to be too tiring.
That is absolutely right.
I don't think, as @blackburn63 had trouble understanding earlier, any Leaver would be happy with:
1. Leave, CRY FREEDOM, once and for all we throw off the shackles of the European Superstate. 2. Back in to Europe with EFTA/EEA and all that that implies.
I thought M Gove had made it clear, however, that the preferred option is out-out. It may not be the optimal option especially according to many Leavers on here, but I think, simply, that the EFTA/EEA options (EFTA only? EFTA/EEA?) would be too difficult to articulate simply and effectively for all but the geekiest of the electorate (ie here on PB).
Well you know a number of Leave supporters who are on here who would be very happy with the EEA option. It is one reason why do many Remain supporters spent do long truing to trash it.
Forget "bathroom gate", Ted Cruz has blundered much worse in Indiana - enter "Ringgate"
It seems calling a basketball "hoop" a basketball "ring" in Indiana is a very serious error. Ted Cruz has been ousted as not really a basketball fan, and trying to pander to get votes - they take basketball seriously in Indiana !
Well, there's a gate that is less exciting than its name suggests.
I think Leave have one big advantage and one big disadvantage against Remain, which may explain why the two sides are close.
Leave's big advantage is that they have a much simpler story: Vote Leave to take control of our own affairs. Any Remain reply to that statement is qualified and complicated. Arguments for the EU go along the lines of, I accept they are remote, bureaucratic and corrupt, but it's better to have a forum where countries get together than not to have one. A glass half full is better than no glass at all - is hardly an inspiring slogan.
Leave's difficulty is is in coming up with a coherent and credible alternative to membership of the EU. Yes, we can leave easily enough but the EU is still there and we will want to have some kind of relationship. Do we go for an EEA deal? But that neutralises the main perceived benefit of leaving. Would it actually work - we're not Norway. Or do we go for glorious isolation with implications for trade? And so on.The response is muddled partly because you are replacing a definite thing with proposals with options and everyone has opinions. And partly because it's not under your control anyway.
I think the second point will tell in the end, if we don't vote for Out in June. Barring an EU cataclysm - always possible - we'll stay in for the foreseeable. Swimming upstream gets to be too tiring.
That is absolutely right.
I don't think, as @blackburn63 had trouble understanding earlier, any Leaver would be happy with:
1. Leave, CRY FREEDOM, once and for all we throw off the shackles of the European Superstate. 2. Back in to Europe with EFTA/EEA and all that that implies.
I thought M Gove had made it clear, however, that the preferred option is out-out. It may not be the optimal option especially according to many Leavers on here, but I think, simply, that the EFTA/EEA options (EFTA only? EFTA/EEA?) would be too difficult to articulate simply and effectively for all but the geekiest of the electorate (ie here on PB).
Well you know a number of Leave supporters who are on here who would be very happy with the EEA option. It is one reason why do many Remain supporters spent do long truing to trash it.
I think both (EFTA/EEA & EFTA) are sub-optimal as you know. I respect the out-out position more but that wasn't my point.
You may have the intelligence of a cucumber but you have been paying attention to the options much more than 99% of the electorate.
No Alistair it really isn't. Every aspect of EU membership is still up for debate and challenge and the idea that Leave gave already lost on any of these points is just fanciful wishful thinking.
Among the public, Immigration/sovereignty/public services favour Leave, while economics and British influence favour Remain.
Why would the issue of public services favour Leave, given the dependence of many of our public services on immigrant staff?
People take the view that immigration is placing pressure on public services. Look how big Leave's lead is on whether the NHS would benefit from Brexit.
Surely that could be easily countered by a Remain campaign pointing out that, for example, almost a third of our doctors are foreign-born.
I am not quite sure that Leave means we can't admit doctors from anywhere we feel like to work in our hospitals. It means we get to CHOOSE who we admit and from where, I would argue useful people that want to contribute (including obviously working in our hospitals) and integrate should be welcome from anywhere, and people that want to sponge or commit crimes should be welcome from nowhere.
A lot of our doctors come from India or Pakistan, and a lot of our nurses from the Philippines, none of which are in the EU, nothing will change.
This will, of course, mean a whole load more bureaucracy as each potential immigrant is assessed for their desirability rather simply allowing the laws of supply and demand to do their job across borders. This will inevitably push up employment costs in many sectors.
As an example, I have a German relative who is a doctor. In the early 2000s, she decided she'd like to gain some experience of the English medical system, and ended up working here for 3 years or so. It's unlikely that she would have bothered if this had meant applying for visas and other bureaucratic hassle.
No Alistair it really isn't. Every aspect of EU membership is still up for debate and challenge and the idea that Leave gave already lost on any of these points is just fanciful wishful thinking.
Among the public, Immigration/sovereignty/public services favour Leave, while economics and British influence favour Remain.
Why would the issue of public services favour Leave, given the dependence of many of our public services on immigrant staff?
People take the view that immigration is placing pressure on public services. Look how big Leave's lead is on whether the NHS would benefit from Brexit.
Surely that could be easily countered by a Remain campaign pointing out that, for example, almost a third of our doctors are foreign-born.
I am not quite sure that Leave means we can't admit doctors from anywhere we feel like to work in our hospitals. It means we get to CHOOSE who we admit and from where, I would argue useful people that want to contribute (including obviously working in our hospitals) and integrate should be welcome from anywhere, and people that want to sponge or commit crimes should be welcome from nowhere.
A lot of our doctors come from India or Pakistan, and a lot of our nurses from the Philippines, none of which are in the EU, nothing will change.
This will, of course, mean a whole load more bureaucracy as each potential immigrant is assessed for their desirability rather simply allowing the laws of supply and demand to do their job across borders. This will inevitably push up employment costs in many sectors.
As an example, I have a German relative who is a doctor. In the early 2000s, she decided she'd like to gain some experience of the English medical system, and ended up working here for 3 years or so. It's unlikely that she would have bothered if this had meant applying for visas and other bureaucratic hassle.
Some how just about every other country in the world manages it, and as I said since a lot of our doctors come from India/Pakistan and nurses from the Philippines, nothing will change, they need a visa now.
Matthew Sinclair very good on the OECD report today
Perhaps even more striking than the dubious assumptions (again) used in the report was the over-the-top spin used by Gurria in presenting it. He really abandoned all pretence that what what they had done was a sober and balanced piece of analysis. Quite extraordinary, and more than a whiff of desperation evident.
To be fair to NaziShah, I think she's an idiot rather than an antisemite. She did also tweet support for World Holocaust Day, not something that proper antisemites would do.
To be fair to NaziShah, I think she's an idiot rather than an antisemite. She did also tweet support for World Holocaust Day, not something that proper antisemites would do.
I'll try and keep everyone up to date with developments there.
Amusingly, the Spanish stock market is among the best performing in the world year-to-date, demonstrating that absence of government is probably more of a positive than a negative.
No Alistair it really isn't. Every aspect of EU membership is still up for debate and challenge and the idea that Leave gave already lost on any of these points is just fanciful wishful thinking.
Among the public, Immigration/sovereignty/public services favour Leave, while economics and British influence favour Remain.
Why would the issue of public services favour Leave, given the dependence of many of our public services on immigrant staff?
People take the view that immigration is placing pressure on public services. Look how big Leave's lead is on whether the NHS would benefit from Brexit.
Surely that could be easily countered by a Remain campaign pointing out that, for example, almost a third of our doctors are foreign-born.
I am not quite sure that Leave means we can't admit doctors from anywhere we feel like to work in our hospitals. It means we get to CHOOSE who we admit and from where, I would argue useful people that want to contribute (including obviously working in our hospitals) and integrate should be welcome from anywhere, and people that want to sponge or commit crimes should be welcome from nowhere.
A lot of our doctors come from India or Pakistan, and a lot of our nurses from the Philippines, none of which are in the EU, nothing will change.
This will, of course, mean a whole load more bureaucracy as each potential immigrant is assessed for their desirability rather simply allowing the laws of supply and demand to do their job across borders. This will inevitably push up employment costs in many sectors.
As an example, I have a German relative who is a doctor. In the early 2000s, she decided she'd like to gain some experience of the English medical system, and ended up working here for 3 years or so. It's unlikely that she would have bothered if this had meant applying for visas and other bureaucratic hassle.
Some how just about every other country in the world manages it, and as I said since a lot of our doctors come from India/Pakistan and nurses from the Philippines, nothing will change, they need a visa now.
I never said we wouldn't manage it, just that staffing will become less efficient and more costly, given that substantial numbers do come from EU countries.
I think Leave have one big advantage and one big disadvantage against Remain, which may explain why the two sides are close.
Leave's big advantage is that they have a much simpler story: Vote Leave to take control of our own affairs. Any Remain reply to that statement is qualified and complicated. Arguments for the EU go along the lines of, I accept they are remote, bureaucratic and corrupt, but it's better to have a forum where countries get together than not to have one. A glass half full is better than no glass at all - is hardly an inspiring slogan.
Leave's difficulty is is in coming up with a coherent and credible alternative to membership of the EU. Yes, we can leave easily enough but the EU is still there and we will want to have some kind of relationship. Do we go for an EEA deal? But that neutralises the main perceived benefit of leaving. Would it actually work - we're not Norway. Or do we go for glorious isolation with implications for trade? And so on.The response is muddled partly because you are replacing a definite thing with proposals with options and everyone has opinions. And partly because it's not under your control anyway.
I think the second point will tell in the end, if we don't vote for Out in June. Barring an EU cataclysm - always possible - we'll stay in for the foreseeable. Swimming upstream gets to be too tiring.
That is absolutely right.
I don't think, as @blackburn63 had trouble understanding earlier, any Leaver would be happy with:
1. Leave, CRY FREEDOM, once and for all we throw off the shackles of the European Superstate. 2. Back in to Europe with EFTA/EEA and all that that implies.
I thought M Gove had made it clear, however, that the preferred option is out-out. It may not be the optimal option especially according to many Leavers on here, but I think, simply, that the EFTA/EEA options (EFTA only? EFTA/EEA?) would be too difficult to articulate simply and effectively for all but the geekiest of the electorate (ie here on PB).
Well you know a number of Leave supporters who are on here who would be very happy with the EEA option. It is one reason why do many Remain supporters spent do long truing to trash it.
I think the response to an EEA suggestion would be, "What's that? I thought we were already in the EU and you guys wanted out." Then you explain, it's a bit like the EU, but not the EU, and you've lost them along with the straightforward, "be in control of our destiny" argument.
I think Leave have one big advantage and one big disadvantage against Remain, which may explain why the two sides are close.
Leave's big advantage is that they have a much simpler story: Vote Leave to take control of our own affairs. Any Remain reply to that statement is qualified and complicated. Arguments for the EU go along the lines of, I accept they are remote, bureaucratic and corrupt, but it's better to have a forum where countries get together than not to have one. A glass half full is better than no glass at all - is hardly an inspiring slogan.
Leave's difficulty is is in coming up with a coherent and credible alternative to membership of the EU. Yes, we can leave easily enough but the EU is still there and we will want to have some kind of relationship. Do we go for an EEA deal? But that neutralises the main perceived benefit of leaving. Would it actually work - we're not Norway. Or do we go for glorious isolation with implications for trade? And so on.The response is muddled partly because you are replacing a definite thing with proposals with options and everyone has opinions. And partly because it's not under your control anyway.
I think the second point will tell in the end, if we don't vote for Out in June. Barring an EU cataclysm - always possible - we'll stay in for the foreseeable. Swimming upstream gets to be too tiring.
That is absolutely right.
I don't think, as @blackburn63 had trouble understanding earlier, any Leaver would be happy with:
1. Leave, CRY FREEDOM, once and for all we throw off the shackles of the European Superstate. 2. Back in to Europe with EFTA/EEA and all that that implies.
I thought M Gove had made it clear, however, that the preferred option is out-out. It may not be the optimal option especially according to many Leavers on here, but I think, simply, that the EFTA/EEA options (EFTA only? EFTA/EEA?) would be too difficult to articulate simply and effectively for all but the geekiest of the electorate (ie here on PB).
Well you know a number of Leave supporters who are on here who would be very happy with the EEA option. It is one reason why do many Remain supporters spent do long truing to trash it.
I think the response to an EEA suggestion would be, "What's that? I thought we were already in the EU and you guys wanted out." Then you explain, it's a bit like the EU, but not the EU, and you've lost them along with the straightforward, "be in control of our destiny" argument.
No that's how you would explain it. Anyone else who actually knew anything about 8t would explain it very differently as we have done on here in the past.
Sorry but I couldn't make head nor tail of that article.
I don't know whether I'm anti-zionist or not - I think it has something to do with the right of return. I'm not going to automatically sign up to something I don't necessarily believe in.
No Alistair it really isn't. Every aspect of EU membership is still up for debate and challenge and the idea that Leave gave already lost on any of these points is just fanciful wishful thinking.
Among the public, Immigration/sovereignty/public services favour Leave, while economics and British influence favour Remain.
Why would the issue of public services favour Leave, given the dependence of many of our public services on immigrant staff?
People take the view that immigration is placing pressure on public services. Look how big Leave's lead is on whether the NHS would benefit from Brexit.
Surely that could be easily countered by a Remain campaign pointing out that, for example, almost a third of our doctors are foreign-born.
I am not quite sure that Leave means we can't admit doctors from anywhere we feel like to work in our hospitals. It means we get to CHOOSE who we admit and from where, I would argue useful people that want to contribute (including obviously working in our hospitals) and integrate should be welcome from anywhere, and people that want to sponge or commit crimes should be welcome from nowhere.
A lot of our doctors come from India or Pakistan, and a lot of our nurses from the Philippines, none of which are in the EU, nothing will change.
This will, of course, mean a whole load more bureaucracy as each potential immigrant is assessed for their desirability rather simply allowing the laws of supply and demand to do their job across borders. This will inevitably push up employment costs in many sectors.
As an example, I have a German relative who is a doctor. In the early 2000s, she decided she'd like to gain some experience of the English medical system, and ended up working here for 3 years or so. It's unlikely that she would have bothered if this had meant applying for visas and other bureaucratic hassle.
Say the processing cost of a 5 year work visa is GBP875. At a cost of GBP175 per year, what percentage of total employment costs (not just wage costs) for a doctor does that represent? Minuscule. Certainly not a significant barrier to either employer or employee. Even within the context of relocation costs, it will not be a major cost.
Anecdote alert: London election update. Today's round up: All 5 parties say they are doing really well! In reality: UKIP don't know their arse from their elbow and are completely disorganised. But referendum seems to be helping their cause. I really think Mayoral candidate will come 3rd and they might pick up assembly member seats.
Green/Libs are having good campaigns but oddly no one will vote for them. Greens can't manage a tea party in a Cafe and Libs are not trusted.
Last opinion poll puts Labour 16 points ahead. It won't be more than 10 (famous last words) guaranteed. Labour has led every London election except Boris so being ahead is perfectly normal. But Labour are still worried about three assembly member seats. On the other hand, they are sitting cockily on mayoralty and believe supremely that Khan has won. They are shining his crown as we speak. No chance of any other result. Don't forget that Zac, to win, would have needed a 6.5% swing over GE, he has to be far better than the Labour candidate to achieve that.
Tories: well, realistic. But, quiet anti-Khan voters may appear and individual voter regeneration may knock Labour vote a bit. I maintain that a bet for Zac at 10 to 1 is a value bet. I think Zac is 6 to 1 curently. DYOR, but if you are an incessant better 6 to 1 must be value. It's a 2 horse race after all and incumbent is Zac's party! Just a thought.
I think the response to an EEA suggestion would be, "What's that? I thought we were already in the EU and you guys wanted out." Then you explain, it's a bit like the EU, but not the EU, and you've lost them along with the straightforward, "be in control of our destiny" argument.
No that's how you would explain it. Anyone else who actually knew anything about 8t would explain it very differently as we have done on here in the past.
I am genuinely curious to know how a campaigner for Leave can explain the EEA in a couple of sentences to someone who hasn't heard of it before. So I googled the two campaigns, who aren't, it's fair to say, particularly interested in the EEA.
Leave.eu has this: "We are not Norway" Getbritainout.org has a much more detailed article entitled "Life After Brexit: New Research Shows the UK is Spoiled for Choice"
I never said we wouldn't manage it, just that staffing will become less efficient and more costly, given that substantial numbers do come from EU countries.
OT but in reply to your last post on the last thread. ( I have been working)
You are wrong to claim that because the temperature has been declining steadily since the last post glacial maximum that it must be due to human intervention. Firstly there is no evidence that such cooling is inevitable and previous interglacials have not always exhibited such steady temperature declines. Secondly and more importantly the short term temperature rise we are seeing at the moment covering less than a century is by no means unique in this interglacial. There have been higher and more rapid temperature peaks on many occasions since the end of the last ice age. There is nothing at all unique about this one.
I think the response to an EEA suggestion would be, "What's that? I thought we were already in the EU and you guys wanted out." Then you explain, it's a bit like the EU, but not the EU, and you've lost them along with the straightforward, "be in control of our destiny" argument.
No that's how you would explain it. Anyone else who actually knew anything about 8t would explain it very differently as we have done on here in the past.
I am genuinely curious to know how a campaigner for Leave can explain the EEA in a couple of sentences to someone who hasn't heard of it before. So I googled the two campaigns, who aren't, it's fair to say, particularly interested in the EEA.
Leave.eu has this: "We are not Norway" Getbritainout.org has a much more detailed article entitled "Life After Brexit: New Research Shows the UK is Spoiled for Choice"
I'm not getting a lot of clarity.
Richard bases his argument, when he is not insulting your intelligence, upon what he wishes were the case rather than what is the case.
Small children in Hexham would agree that the proposition: let's leave the EU and then join it again (for all the world what the EEA option looks like)...ain't a flyer.
Why would the issue of public services favour Leave, given the dependence of many of our public services on immigrant staff?
People take the view that immigration is placing pressure on public services. Look how big Leave's lead is on whether the NHS would benefit from Brexit.
Surely that could be easily countered by a Remain campaign pointing out that, for example, almost a third of our doctors are foreign-born.
I am not quite sure that Leave means we can't admit doctors from anywhere we feel like to work in our hospitals. It means we get to CHOOSE who we admit and from where, I would argue useful people that want to contribute (including obviously working in our hospitals) and integrate should be welcome from anywhere, and people that want to sponge or commit crimes should be welcome from nowhere.
A lot of our doctors come from India or Pakistan, and a lot of our nurses from the Philippines, none of which are in the EU, nothing will change.
This will, of course, mean a whole load more bureaucracy as each potential immigrant is assessed for their desirability rather simply allowing the laws of supply and demand to do their job across borders. This will inevitably push up employment costs in many sectors.
As an example, I have a German relative who is a doctor. In the early 2000s, she decided she'd like to gain some experience of the English medical system, and ended up working here for 3 years or so. It's unlikely that she would have bothered if this had meant applying for visas and other bureaucratic hassle.
Say the processing cost of a 5 year work visa is GBP875. At a cost of GBP175 per year, what percentage of total employment costs (not just wage costs) for a doctor does that represent? Minuscule. Certainly not a significant barrier to either employer or employee. Even within the context of relocation costs, it will not be a major cost.
It's not just the cost of the visa, though, is it? It's the paperwork that goes with it. And will the bureaucrats who decide the eligibility criteria do a better job than the free market? I suspect not.
Presumably we'll have a similar process to go through should any of us should want to work in the EU in future too. At my age, I'll probably not be eligible for a work visa in a post-Brexit EU, so, for me, voting to leave the EU would mean voting away my freedom to live elsewhere in Europe.
I think the response to an EEA suggestion would be, "What's that? I thought we were already in the EU and you guys wanted out." Then you explain, it's a bit like the EU, but not the EU, and you've lost them along with the straightforward, "be in control of our destiny" argument.
No that's how you would explain it. Anyone else who actually knew anything about 8t would explain it very differently as we have done on here in the past.
I am genuinely curious to know how a campaigner for Leave can explain the EEA in a couple of sentences to someone who hasn't heard of it before. So I googled the two campaigns, who aren't, it's fair to say, particularly interested in the EEA.
Leave.eu has this: "We are not Norway" Getbritainout.org has a much more detailed article entitled "Life After Brexit: New Research Shows the UK is Spoiled for Choice"
I'm not getting a lot of clarity.
Richard bases his argument, when he is not insulting your intelligence, upon what he wishes were the case rather than what is the case.
Small children in Hexham would agree that the proposition: let's leave the EU and then join it again (for all the world what the EEA option looks like)...ain't a flyer.
Brilliant. This is the only song I remember from watching the Jungle Book as a kid, aged 8, 49 years ago. Although I do remember Ringo as a vulture being bored.
@paulwaugh: Lab source:Corbyn aides suggested only "stylistic changes" to Shah article "Nothing substantive + categorically nothing about anti-semitism"
@PolhomeEditor: Labour sources say they helped Naz Shah make "stylistic changes" to her apology, but "categorically deny" taking out anti-Semitism refs.
Danny Cohen, despite being a knob, is quite right.
What Jewish person could sincerely and whole-heartedly join or support the Labour Party, right now?
This is a huge problem for the Left.
Sadly, only a handful of non-Jews care enough to change their vote on such things. Meanwhile, Muslim anti-Semites grow as a share of the population. MigrationWatch points out the 3 million migrants arriving in Germany will begin getting EU passports in 3-6 years.
As a Reluctant Remainer, I would be more inclined to vote Leave if there was a cast iron guarantee that it was a clean break with the EU and we would indeed "go it alone" as a free-standing independent nation unencumbered by Brussels-made bureaucracy, with more freedom to make our own laws, and more UK taxpayer money left here to pay for what the EU no longer provides. Even if that meant some pain and faff through needing visas to travel or work in the EU, paying higher prices for imported goods and on exported sales etc.
But I would be mortified if we "left" and then just carried on as we are, being saddled with the full panoply of EU law by virtue of EEA/EFTA membership and not having any say on it anymore, and possibly even having our former allies ganging up on us with outrageously anti-British measures because they now can do.
It's the achiles heel of the Leave case, and presumably why they are pandering to anti-immigration xenophobes and "out at any cost" UKIP fruitcakes with a false prospectus of nonsense which can't be delivered, rather than addressing this fundamental concern.
For me, the only time to vote "no" to Europe is if a new Treaty comes along which is a bridge too far, the UK votes "no" in the referendum and we get a real chance to have the fundamental renegotiation and realignment that Cameron promised but spectacularly failed to deliver. That might be some years hence, and we have of course to vote Remain in 2016 to have the chance to do this.
Apologies if I have missed something re Hillsborough but why didn't Labour have an inquiry and subsequent inquest? I notice the PM and Theresa May were quite generous in their praise for the "Liverpool MPs" but didn't anyone acknowledge the PM and Theresa May's role in this?
I think the response to an EEA suggestion would be, "What's that? I thought we were already in the EU and you guys wanted out." Then you explain, it's a bit like the EU, but not the EU, and you've lost them along with the straightforward, "be in control of our destiny" argument.
No that's how you would explain it. Anyone else who actually knew anything about 8t would explain it very differently as we have done on here in the past.
I am genuinely curious to know how a campaigner for Leave can explain the EEA in a couple of sentences to someone who hasn't heard of it before. So I googled the two campaigns, who aren't, it's fair to say, particularly interested in the EEA.
Leave.eu has this: "We are not Norway" Getbritainout.org has a much more detailed article entitled "Life After Brexit: New Research Shows the UK is Spoiled for Choice"
I'm not getting a lot of clarity.
Richard bases his argument, when he is not insulting your intelligence, upon what he wishes were the case rather than what is the case.
Small children in Hexham would agree that the proposition: let's leave the EU and then join it again (for all the world what the EEA option looks like)...ain't a flyer.
Why would the issue of public services favour Leave, given the dependence of many of our public services on immigrant staff?
People take the view that immigration is placing pressure on public services. Look how big Leave's lead is on whether the NHS would benefit from Brexit.
Surely that could be easily countered by a Remain campaign pointing out that, for example, almost a third of our doctors are foreign-born.
I am not quite sure that Leave means we can't admit doctors from anywhere we feel like to work in our hospitals. It means we get to CHOOSE who we admit and from where, I would argue useful people that want to contribute (including obviously working in our hospitals) and integrate should be welcome from anywhere, and people that want to sponge or commit crimes should be welcome from nowhere.
A lot of our doctors come from India or Pakistan, and a lot of our nurses from the Philippines, none of which are in the EU, nothing will change.
This will, of course, mean a whole load more bureaucracy as each potential immigrant is assessed for their desirability rather simply allowing the laws of supply and demand to do their job across borders. This will inevitably push up employment costs in many sectors.
As an example, I have a German relative who is a doctor. In the early 2000s, she decided she'd like to gain some experience of the English medical system, and ended up working here for 3 years or so. It's unlikely that she would have bothered if this had meant applying for visas and other bureaucratic hassle.
Say the processing cost of a 5 year work visa is GBP875. At a cost of GBP175 per year, what percentage of total employment costs (not just wage costs) for a doctor does that represent? Minuscule. Certainly not a significant barrier to either employer or employee. Even within the context of relocation costs, it will not be a major cost.
It's not just the cost of the visa, though, is it? It's the paperwork that goes with it. And will the bureaucrats who decide the eligibility criteria do a better job than the free market? I suspect not.
Presumably we'll have a similar process to go through should any of us should want to work in the EU in future too. At my age, I'll probably not be eligible for a work visa in a post-Brexit EU, so, for me, voting to leave the EU would mean voting away my freedom to live elsewhere in Europe.
Voting to Remain means voting to reduce housing access. The OECD said so today..
I never said we wouldn't manage it, just that staffing will become less efficient and more costly, given that substantial numbers do come from EU countries.
OT but in reply to your last post on the last thread. ( I have been working)
You are wrong to claim that because the temperature has been declining steadily since the last post glacial maximum that it must be due to human intervention. Firstly there is no evidence that such cooling is inevitable and previous interglacials have not always exhibited such steady temperature declines. Secondly and more importantly the short term temperature rise we are seeing at the moment covering less than a century is by no means unique in this interglacial. There have been higher and more rapid temperature peaks on many occasions since the end of the last ice age. There is nothing at all unique about this one.
Needless to say, I disagree with you completely. I'm not going to argue further here, though, because I don't want to hijack the thread (and because I still have work to do!).
If there's ever a thread on the effect of EU withdrawal on environmental issues, though, I'll be more than happy to oblige.
She's the real victim here. She thought her private social media accounts were a 'safe space' to express her still unformed political views, and now that space has been violated by a hate mob led by a privileged right-wing white male blogger.
It's not just the cost of the visa, though, is it? It's the paperwork that goes with it. And will the bureaucrats who decide the eligibility criteria do a better job than the free market? I suspect not.
Presumably we'll have a similar process to go through should any of us should want to work in the EU in future too. At my age, I'll probably not be eligible for a work visa in a post-Brexit EU, so, for me, voting to leave the EU would mean voting away my freedom to live elsewhere in Europe.
I get visas on a very regular basis in my work (2 or 3 per quarter to countries far less administratively efficient as the UK). The paperwork, even for the most demanding country, is an hour or so. The main non-monetary cost is the time to drop off the application and pick up the passport, which I prefer to do in person, but I could forego even that expense by using Fedex for another $50 or so.
Granted, for a five-year visa, the employer/sponsor has prove a skills shortage nationally and then write a letter. But major employers of work visa labour have already done this and have cut and paste letters ready to go.
The banking, medical, farming and IT industries in the US all work this way. Doesn't seem that the costs are too burdensome for them. Granted, much of the construction and landscaping industries rely on illegal immigrants.
Danny Cohen, despite being a knob, is quite right.
What Jewish person could sincerely and whole-heartedly join or support the Labour Party, right now?
This is a huge problem for the Left.
Sadly, only a handful of non-Jews care enough to change their vote on such things. Meanwhile, Muslim anti-Semites grow as a share of the population. MigrationWatch points out the 3 million migrants arriving in Germany will begin getting EU passports in 3-6 years.
This is why control of immigration is THE key power that any government can have now. Its the 21st century equivalent of the mass army or nuclear weapon.
Labour are simply waiting for the cavalry to arrive.
I think the response to an EEA suggestion would be, "What's that? I thought we were already in the EU and you guys wanted out." Then you explain, it's a bit like the EU, but not the EU, and you've lost them along with the straightforward, "be in control of our destiny" argument.
No that's how you would explain it. Anyone else who actually knew anything about 8t would explain it very differently as we have done on here in the past.
I am genuinely curious to know how a campaigner for Leave can explain the EEA in a couple of sentences to someone who hasn't heard of it before. So I googled the two campaigns, who aren't, it's fair to say, particularly interested in the EEA.
Leave.eu has this: "We are not Norway" Getbritainout.org has a much more detailed article entitled "Life After Brexit: New Research Shows the UK is Spoiled for Choice"
I'm not getting a lot of clarity.
Richard bases his argument, when he is not insulting your intelligence, upon what he wishes were the case rather than what is the case.
Small children in Hexham would agree that the proposition: let's leave the EU and then join it again (for all the world what the EEA option looks like)...ain't a flyer.
I think the response to an EEA suggestion would be, "What's that? I thought we were already in the EU and you guys wanted out." Then you explain, it's a bit like the EU, but not the EU, and you've lost them along with the straightforward, "be in control of our destiny" argument.
No that's how you would explain it. Anyone else who actually knew anything about 8t would explain it very differently as we have done on here in the past.
I am genuinely curious to know how a campaigner for Leave can explain the EEA in a couple of sentences to someone who hasn't heard of it before. So I googled the two campaigns, who aren't, it's fair to say, particularly interested in the EEA.
Leave.eu has this: "We are not Norway" Getbritainout.org has a much more detailed article entitled "Life After Brexit: New Research Shows the UK is Spoiled for Choice"
I'm not getting a lot of clarity.
Richard bases his argument, when he is not insulting your intelligence, upon what he wishes were the case rather than what is the case.
Small children in Hexham would agree that the proposition: let's leave the EU and then join it again (for all the world what the EEA option looks like)...ain't a flyer.
I can't insult your intelligence because you have shown you don't have any.
I base my argument on a couple of simple principles which a number of others including Robert Smithson agree with.
The first is that I am not concerned about EU migration. Now clearly this is a problem for many which is why they do not like the EEA option. But for me it is not an issue.
The second is that EFTA/EEA membership would mean a net contribution of around £2billion a year based on our GDP. This compares with a net contribution of between £8.5 billion and £10billion currently and a gross contribution of around £15-£16 billion. SO there is a huge saving in money.
In addition we would no longer be subject to the (very large) majority of EU rule and regulations. Somewhere around 80% of EU regulation would no longer apply.
There are lots of other reasons for being in favour of EFTA/EEA membership but since you seem to have trouble with even the simple bits it is probably best not to go into those at the moment.
@DPJHodges: At root of all this is a simple truth. Corbyn's election convinced many on the Left it was now morally acceptable to be openly anti-Semitic.
Danny Cohen, despite being a knob, is quite right.
What Jewish person could sincerely and whole-heartedly join or support the Labour Party, right now?
This is a huge problem for the Left.
Sadly, only a handful of non-Jews care enough to change their vote on such things. Meanwhile, Muslim anti-Semites grow as a share of the population. MigrationWatch points out the 3 million migrants arriving in Germany will begin getting EU passports in 3-6 years.
This is why control of immigration is THE key power that any government can have now. Its the 21st century equivalent of the mass army or nuclear weapon.
Labour are simply waiting for the cavalry to arrive.
Trump gets this. That is why he is winning.
The Conservatives only need to look at London if they surrender on this. Even with a far left, joke of a Labour Party, their candidate is miles ahead for mayor. Unless immigration is controlled, the rest of the country will follow. Of course, no party will be in power forever, but both parties will move left. The Tories will have to become a Brownite party, while Labour will be more like RESPECT.
On the EFTA website: "The EEA Agreement provides for the inclusion of EU legislation covering the four freedoms — the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital — throughout the 31 EEA States"
"Free movement of persons" if we leave the EU and join EFTA?
I think the response to an EEA suggestion would be, "What's that? I thought we were already in the EU and you guys wanted out." Then you explain, it's a bit like the EU, but not the EU, and you've lost them along with the straightforward, "be in control of our destiny" argument.
No that's how you would explain it. Anyone else who actually knew anything about 8t would explain it very differently as we have done on here in the past.
I am genuinely curious to know how a campaigner for Leave can explain the EEA in a couple of sentences to someone who hasn't heard of it before. So I googled the two campaigns, who aren't, it's fair to say, particularly interested in the EEA.
Leave.eu has this: "We are not Norway" Getbritainout.org has a much more detailed article entitled "Life After Brexit: New Research Shows the UK is Spoiled for Choice"
I'm not getting a lot of clarity.
Richard bases his argument, when he is not insulting your intelligence, upon what he wishes were the case rather than what is the case.
Small children in Hexham would agree that the proposition: let's leave the EU and then join it again (for all the world what the EEA option looks like)...ain't a flyer.
I think the response to an EEA suggestion would be, "What's that? I thought we were already in the EU and you guys wanted out." Then you explain, it's a bit like the EU, but not the EU, and you've lost them along with the straightforward, "be in control of our destiny" argument.
No that's how you would explain it. Anyone else who actually knew anything about 8t would explain it very differently as we have done on here in the past.
I am genuinely curious to know how a campaigner for Leave can explain the EEA in a couple of sentences to someone who hasn't heard of it before. So I googled the two campaigns, who aren't, it's fair to say, particularly interested in the EEA.
Leave.eu has this: "We are not Norway" Getbritainout.org has a much more detailed article entitled "Life After Brexit: New Research Shows the UK is Spoiled for Choice"
I'm not getting a lot of clarity.
I refer you to the reply I just gave to Topping. Please ignore the insults,. They are intended specifically for him as he tends to do a good line in wilful ignorance.
I never said we wouldn't manage it, just that staffing will become less efficient and more costly, given that substantial numbers do come from EU countries.
OT but in reply to your last post on the last thread. ( I have been working)
You are wrong to claim that because the temperature has been declining steadily since the last post glacial maximum that it must be due to human intervention. Firstly there is no evidence that such cooling is inevitable and previous interglacials have not always exhibited such steady temperature declines. Secondly and more importantly the short term temperature rise we are seeing at the moment covering less than a century is by no means unique in this interglacial. There have been higher and more rapid temperature peaks on many occasions since the end of the last ice age. There is nothing at all unique about this one.
Needless to say, I disagree with you completely. I'm not going to argue further here, though, because I don't want to hijack the thread (and because I still have work to do!).
If there's ever a thread on the effect of EU withdrawal on environmental issues, though, I'll be more than happy to oblige.
No worries. A nice line in agreeing to disagree. I look forward to future discussions.
She's the real victim here. She thought her private social media accounts were a 'safe space' to express her still unformed political views, and now that space has been violated by a hate mob led by a privileged right-wing white male blogger.
Comments
And unfortunately, nobody can effectively challenge the ignorance of the Leave campaign for not making this perfectly clear.
Personally, and TSE will probably lambast me for all eternity, I voted for him over the ex-MP Lee Scott because the latter kept sending us leaflets in Tamil - a language which we don't speak. I just saw it as pandering.
And yet - yet - I stayed up all night on Election Night cheering all the other Labour losses around the country!
Or Shah ///
A lot of our doctors come from India or Pakistan, and a lot of our nurses from the Philippines, none of which are in the EU, nothing will change.
Apparently Cruz still thinks he can survive.
In which case their lives will no doubt be "administratively suspended"...
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/199847/anti-zionism-is-anti-semitism
I don't think, as @blackburn63 had trouble understanding earlier, any Leaver would be happy with:
1. Leave, CRY FREEDOM, once and for all we throw off the shackles of the European Superstate.
2. Back in to Europe with EFTA/EEA and all that that implies.
I thought M Gove had made it clear, however, that the preferred option is out-out. It may not be the optimal option especially according to many Leavers on here, but I think, simply, that the EFTA/EEA options (EFTA only? EFTA/EEA?) would be too difficult to articulate simply and effectively for all but the geekiest of the electorate (ie here on PB).
Was this written before yesterday's polls?
The following is interesting too
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/labour-hq-deleted-references-to-anti-semitism-from-naz-shahs?utm_term=.oclg5EN5Q
It seems calling a basketball "hoop" a basketball "ring" in Indiana is a very serious error. Ted Cruz has been ousted as not really a basketball fan, and trying to pander to get votes - they take basketball seriously in Indiana !
Dear Labour don't make any other mistakes until I'm back.
The EU is about to crash - so we had better remain in.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/26/europe-doesnt-work-for-germany-either-as-schubles-faux-pas-demon/
You may have the intelligence of a cucumber but you have been paying attention to the options much more than 99% of the electorate.
As an example, I have a German relative who is a doctor. In the early 2000s, she decided she'd like to gain some experience of the English medical system, and ended up working here for 3 years or so. It's unlikely that she would have bothered if this had meant applying for visas and other bureaucratic hassle.
Are you watching Green Room tonight?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/26/spain-faces-new-elections-june-parties-fail-to-form-government
Perhaps even more striking than the dubious assumptions (again) used in the report was the over-the-top spin used by Gurria in presenting it. He really abandoned all pretence that what what they had done was a sober and balanced piece of analysis. Quite extraordinary, and more than a whiff of desperation evident.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/27/beware-the-oecd-and-its-faulty-assumptions-on-brexit/
Amusingly, the Spanish stock market is among the best performing in the world year-to-date, demonstrating that absence of government is probably more of a positive than a negative.
Watching The Jungle Book again
It read like 1930s Germany.
Hope you are taking children otherwise no excuse to watch more than once.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOTZJ8EFgpk
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9187675a-0c77-11e6-b0f1-61f222853ff3.html?siteedition=uk#axzz46pk0XzGf
I wonder what private motive Vote Leave will accuse him of harbouring.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rV8HrpOu1FA
I don't know whether I'm anti-zionist or not - I think it has something to do with the right of return. I'm not going to automatically sign up to something I don't necessarily believe in.
See Tier 2 skills shortage: https://www.gov.uk/tier-2-general/overview
Green/Libs are having good campaigns but oddly no one will vote for them. Greens can't manage a tea party in a Cafe and Libs are not trusted.
Last opinion poll puts Labour 16 points ahead. It won't be more than 10 (famous last words) guaranteed. Labour has led every London election except Boris so being ahead is perfectly normal. But Labour are still worried about three assembly member seats. On the other hand, they are sitting cockily on mayoralty and believe supremely that Khan has won. They are shining his crown as we speak. No chance of any other result. Don't forget that Zac, to win, would have needed a 6.5% swing over GE, he has to be far better than the Labour candidate to achieve that.
Tories: well, realistic. But, quiet anti-Khan voters may appear and individual voter regeneration may knock Labour vote a bit. I maintain that a bet for Zac at 10 to 1 is a value bet. I think Zac is 6 to 1 curently. DYOR, but if you are an incessant better 6 to 1 must be value. It's a 2 horse race after all and incumbent is Zac's party! Just a thought.
Leave.eu has this: "We are not Norway"
Getbritainout.org has a much more detailed article entitled "Life After Brexit: New Research Shows the UK is Spoiled for Choice"
I'm not getting a lot of clarity.
You are wrong to claim that because the temperature has been declining steadily since the last post glacial maximum that it must be due to human intervention. Firstly there is no evidence that such cooling is inevitable and previous interglacials have not always exhibited such steady temperature declines. Secondly and more importantly the short term temperature rise we are seeing at the moment covering less than a century is by no means unique in this interglacial. There have been higher and more rapid temperature peaks on many occasions since the end of the last ice age. There is nothing at all unique about this one.
Your mortgage job on Trump is certainly "@Gettingbetter"
Small children in Hexham would agree that the proposition: let's leave the EU and then join it again (for all the world what the EEA option looks like)...ain't a flyer.
Presumably we'll have a similar process to go through should any of us should want to work in the EU in future too. At my age, I'll probably not be eligible for a work visa in a post-Brexit EU, so, for me, voting to leave the EU would mean voting away my freedom to live elsewhere in Europe.
When someone announces that his VP is a woman then he knows that he's losing badly.
https://twitter.com/minefornothing/status/714041298622160896
They got the suspension wrong.
They got the apology wrong.
They got the cover up wrong.
How about denying the cover up?
@paulwaugh: Lab source:Corbyn aides suggested only "stylistic changes" to Shah article
"Nothing substantive + categorically nothing about anti-semitism"
"America First is the main theme"
https://twitter.com/PlatoSays/status/725362070959575040
But I would be mortified if we "left" and then just carried on as we are, being saddled with the full panoply of EU law by virtue of EEA/EFTA membership and not having any say on it anymore, and possibly even having our former allies ganging up on us with outrageously anti-British measures because they now can do.
It's the achiles heel of the Leave case, and presumably why they are pandering to anti-immigration xenophobes and "out at any cost" UKIP fruitcakes with a false prospectus of nonsense which can't be delivered, rather than addressing this fundamental concern.
For me, the only time to vote "no" to Europe is if a new Treaty comes along which is a bridge too far, the UK votes "no" in the referendum and we get a real chance to have the fundamental renegotiation and realignment that Cameron promised but spectacularly failed to deliver. That might be some years hence, and we have of course to vote Remain in 2016 to have the chance to do this.
Were they told the truth, or some utopian "best of both worlds" vision that is utterly unrealistic, no matter how much Leavers wish it weren't.
If there's ever a thread on the effect of EU withdrawal on environmental issues, though, I'll be more than happy to oblige.
Granted, for a five-year visa, the employer/sponsor has prove a skills shortage nationally and then write a letter. But major employers of work visa labour have already done this and have cut and paste letters ready to go.
The banking, medical, farming and IT industries in the US all work this way. Doesn't seem that the costs are too burdensome for them. Granted, much of the construction and landscaping industries rely on illegal immigrants.
Labour are simply waiting for the cavalry to arrive.
Trump gets this. That is why he is winning.
I base my argument on a couple of simple principles which a number of others including Robert Smithson agree with.
The first is that I am not concerned about EU migration. Now clearly this is a problem for many which is why they do not like the EEA option. But for me it is not an issue.
The second is that EFTA/EEA membership would mean a net contribution of around £2billion a year based on our GDP. This compares with a net contribution of between £8.5 billion and £10billion currently and a gross contribution of around £15-£16 billion. SO there is a huge saving in money.
In addition we would no longer be subject to the (very large) majority of EU rule and regulations. Somewhere around 80% of EU regulation would no longer apply.
There are lots of other reasons for being in favour of EFTA/EEA membership but since you seem to have trouble with even the simple bits it is probably best not to go into those at the moment.
"Free movement of persons" if we leave the EU and join EFTA?
Albanians coming here, taking our jobs, filling our hospitals, clogging our roads.....?
Hm.
Of course, your average Sun reader or disgruntled white working class Labour voter isn't going to look at the EFTA website before 23rd June....
"An irate farmer today sprayed raw sewage at Oscar winning star Emma Thompson." https://t.co/y36JYsrGlU