politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Mind the Gap

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Mind the Gap

So – much like the Irishman asked for directions saying that they wouldn’t start from here – let me suggest some basic requirements for an immigration policy and compare them with what we have within the EU and what we might get outside it.

Read the full story here

GIN1138

Good piece Cycle.

Edit: And first - Like David Cameron before he committed career suicide.

Scott_P

@Coral: BREAKING: Townsend and Drinkwater miss out on the England squad. Rashford and Sturridge remain. https://t.co/wPtunBEzwz

TheWhiteRabbit

Scott_P said:

@Coral: BREAKING: Townsend and Drinkwater miss out on the England squad. Rashford and Sturridge remain. https://t.co/wPtunBEzwz

Just got to keep Dier from being injured

tlg86

"Free movement of peoples and a welfare system sit uneasily with each other. At some point one or other will have to give."

And I suspect it will be the welfare system that has to go. I do hope that happens when Labour are in power.

MarkHopkins

Excellent article, Cyclefree.

tlg86

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Scott_P said:

@Coral: BREAKING: Townsend and Drinkwater miss out on the England squad. Rashford and Sturridge remain. https://t.co/wPtunBEzwz

Just got to keep Dier from being injured

Last night on Talk Sport, John Cross and Charlie Wyett were suggesting that Dier won't be in the starting 11 for the Russia game.

edmundintokyo

Not all immigrants are of equal value. Any well-run immigration system should distinguish between those groups – and individuals within those groups – who are likely to be a benefit to this country and those who are not_Not all immigrants are of equal value. Any well-run immigration system should distinguish between those groups – and individuals within those groups – who are likely to be a benefit to this country and those who are not

There are no well-run ones. Humans are complicated. The idea that government bureaucrats are going to be able to work out who will benefit the country and who won't based on a bunch of checkboxes and maybe an interview is not plausible.

When the government tries to do this the people demanding it inevitably say they're doing it wrong. But they can keep kicking out governments and electing new ones until the cows home home, they'll never find one that can do it right.

edmundintokyo

tlg86 said:

"Free movement of peoples and a welfare system sit uneasily with each other. At some point one or other will have to give."

And I suspect it will be the welfare system that has to go. I do hope that happens when Labour are in power.

Neither has to give because immigrants don't generally just want to receive welfare any more than non-immigrants do. They want to get jobs and earn decent money, and once they do that the government has tried and tested ways of making them pay taxes.

Indigo

FPT:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Indigo, hope they stay minor.

That second one was a 4.9 thought it was a bit more fruity than the first

http://www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/html/update_SOEPD/2016_Earthquake_Bulletins/May/2016_0531_1132_B2F.html

Indigo

edmundintokyo said:

tlg86 said:

"Free movement of peoples and a welfare system sit uneasily with each other. At some point one or other will have to give."

And I suspect it will be the welfare system that has to go. I do hope that happens when Labour are in power.

Neither has to give because immigrants don't generally just want to receive welfare any more than non-immigrants do. They want to get jobs and earn decent money, and once they do that the government has tried and tested ways of making them pay taxes.

and now back in the real world...

david_herdson

Very good article. It is, admittedly, written from a centre-right perspective so I am more naturally inclined to praise it because I largely agree with it but I'd hope that even those on the centre-left who are don't place such emphasis on cultural factors, or libertarians who are driven primarily by economics would recognise that Cyclefree has articulated a point of view that is widely shared among the public, as well as tentatively putting forward reasonable solutions.

Tykejohnno

Scott_P said:

@Coral: BREAKING: Townsend and Drinkwater miss out on the England squad. Rashford and Sturridge remain. https://t.co/wPtunBEzwz

Rubbish. - should have dropped sturridge and kept Townsend,we have enough strikers.

Townsend offers us something different down the right with pace,poor decision Hodgson.

Scott_P

BBC Remain propaganda piece Brexit documentary on tonight

@bbclaurak: Watch For Richer, For Poorer, tonight BBC 2 at 9pm as we try to work it all out https://t.co/vntGMOgwLe

tlg86

edmundintokyo said:

tlg86 said:

"Free movement of peoples and a welfare system sit uneasily with each other. At some point one or other will have to give."

And I suspect it will be the welfare system that has to go. I do hope that happens when Labour are in power.

Neither has to give because immigrants don't generally just want to receive welfare any more than non-immigrants do. They want to get jobs and earn decent money, and once they do that the government has tried and tested ways of making them pay taxes.

I suspect the rate of immigration would not be so high if the benefits - especially in work benefits - were not on offer. But I agree with your point - the vast majority come here to work. As I see it, the immigration is necessary to enable some of the native population to not have to work. We have a budget deficit of £76bn - we can't go on like this forever, something will have to give.

chestnut

An interesting and thoughtful piece as ever.

"Free movement of peoples and a welfare system sit uneasily with each other. At some point one or other will have to give."

A couple of observations on this.

Firstly, this has only really become a significant problem since the eastward expansion of the EU, and the introduction of the Eurozone.

The pre-expansion EU had no problem because it was made up of broadly similar nations with similar standards of living, wealth and wages. The incentive to migrate was not financial.

Future expansion plans will exacerbate the current problems. Five nations wish to join with 90m relatively poor people.

Secondly, I would expect the eventual european solution to be harmonisation of rules, rights, welfare and wages.

If equalisation isn't mandated by the european authorities, it will arise from the market, where the people of poorer nations will see improvements in their rights as they take work away from the people of wealthier nations and as capital flows towards the cheaper labour. This will erode rights and welfare in the old money nations of Europe, just as it already is.

Union eventually means uniform rights, entitlements, contributions etc.

If we stay in, people need to expect their living standards to fall to some kind of european median over time.

foxinsoxuk

Tykejohnno said:

Scott_P said:

@Coral: BREAKING: Townsend and Drinkwater miss out on the England squad. Rashford and Sturridge remain. https://t.co/wPtunBEzwz

Rubbish. - should have dropped sturridge and kept Townsend,we have enough strikers.

Townsend offers us something different down the right with pace,poor decision Hodgson.

Taking too many players carrying injuries again. We do it every time.

Innocent_Abroad

Indigo said:

edmundintokyo said:

tlg86 said:

"Free movement of peoples and a welfare system sit uneasily with each other. At some point one or other will have to give."

And I suspect it will be the welfare system that has to go. I do hope that happens when Labour are in power.

Neither has to give because immigrants don't generally just want to receive welfare any more than non-immigrants do. They want to get jobs and earn decent money, and once they do that the government has tried and tested ways of making them pay taxes.

and now back in the real world...

First, it won't be Labour in office (not power) when welfare is abolished, for the simple reason that none of us will ever see a Labour government again.

As to what immigrants want, the first thing (so one of them told me many years ago now) is not to be immigrants. People only migrate when they cannot conquer.

Indigo

A right to family life should not mean a right to a family life only in the country of the wrongdoer’s choice. And yet the irony is that any attempt to alter the ECHR or redefine asylum or alter the various refugee conventions will require Britain to work with other countries. Whether we are in or out of the EU will not change that fact.

Or we walk away from the Convention. Less dramatically if we are outside the EU, we are outside the ECJ which removes the inconvenience of the ECFR, and the practical enforcement arm of the Court of Human Rights, which we could then, for want of a better word, ignore the bits we dont like with no realistic comeback.

Luckyguy1983

A very interesting piece, and I agree with most points. That said, under the present circumstances it strikes me as rather an unlikely set of aspirations. The three major parties of UK Government are pro-mass immigration, Cameron with feigned-reluctance, Corbyn ideological enthusiam, and the SNP very pro inward-migration because Scotland suffers far less from it.

In terms of losing consent from the electorate, immigration itself can solve that issue for policy makers by changing the demographics enough to make that an irrelevance.

I would be interested in reading a follow up piece on how some of these ambitions might be realised.

Richard_Nabavi

A very good article from the excellent Ms Cyclefree.

Indigo

tlg86 said:

edmundintokyo said:

tlg86 said:

"Free movement of peoples and a welfare system sit uneasily with each other. At some point one or other will have to give."

And I suspect it will be the welfare system that has to go. I do hope that happens when Labour are in power.

Neither has to give because immigrants don't generally just want to receive welfare any more than non-immigrants do. They want to get jobs and earn decent money, and once they do that the government has tried and tested ways of making them pay taxes.

I suspect the rate of immigration would not be so high if the benefits - especially in work benefits - were not on offer. But I agree with your point - the vast majority come here to work.

Could we take another look at the employment rates in some of our immigrant minorities.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/ethnicity/articles/ethnicityandthelabourmarket2011censusenglandandwales/2014-11-13

AlastairMeeks

Very good article. I take issue with some points but it wouldn't be a very good article if there weren't things to disagree with.

I'll comment properly later when I have more time. My main point, however, is that it isn't the quality of immigrants that's perceived as the problem, it's the volume (I don't see this as a problem but I know others do). In a world of ever-increasing mobility, any measures to restrict the volume are either going to be of baroque complexity or are going to interfere with the admission of the most desirable immigrants or are going to fail.

Pulpstar

foxinsoxuk said:

Tykejohnno said:

Scott_P said:

@Coral: BREAKING: Townsend and Drinkwater miss out on the England squad. Rashford and Sturridge remain. https://t.co/wPtunBEzwz

Rubbish. - should have dropped sturridge and kept Townsend,we have enough strikers.

Townsend offers us something different down the right with pace,poor decision Hodgson.

Taking too many players carrying injuries again. We do it every time.

I heard some talking head on the radio (R Savage ?) saying that Drinkwater wouldn't make the cut because "England don't play like Leicester" apparently...

NickPalmer

Interesting piece, cogent as Cyclefree always is. But a couple of riders:

1. Migration is increasing all over the world and likely to continue doing so, for all the familiar reasons (better internet-based information and organisation of migration, the spread of language skills, civil conflicts as a push factor, shortage of willing labour in developed countries as a pull factor, etc.).
2. What we can sensibly discuss is systems to manage it. If the policy intends to reduce it, they will fail, and illegal migration will increase instead.
3. As EiT observes, bureaucrats only have a limited ability to predict who will turn out to be useful. Availability of a job waiting for them is one good indicator. But once you get into attitudes you're on thin ice, both because there isn't a consensus on exactly what we want and because the sort of people we most worry about will be expert at faking it. I don't think we should get into dictating what the migrants think about culture - it's a morass and we don't apply it to ourselves.

Personally I think that we should primarily make the system work according to pull factors (points system, jobs waiting, etc.) plus a reasonable share of rescue factors (taking migrants from desperate situations). We can debate what that share should be, but few would say it should be 0 or infinity.

But it really needs to be stressed, as Cyclefree points out, that the perceived problems are not mostly related to EU migration at all. We could have any policy we liked, right now, towards non-EU migration (subject only to refugee commitments which are not really questioned). If we Leave, the position on that will be precisely the same. The hypocrisy of Leave is that it appeals to general unease about Islamists etc. and implies that preventing Poles or Frenchmen coming to Britain is going to make a difference, 'cos we'll "have control". For the Islamists, we have that control right now. How we use it is a matter for domestic politicians and voters, and if people don't like what's happening, it's not an EU problem.

Indigo

AlastairMeeks said:

In a world of ever-increasing mobility, any measures to restrict the volume are either going to be of baroque complexity or are going to interfere with the admission of the most desirable immigrants or are going to fail.

The question here is to some extent the ratio of desireable people lost to undesirable people excluded. The Australians and Canadians appear happy with their systems, which to be honest are probably simpler than our own, which manage the unique double of being both totally ineffectual and ludicrously complicated. I am sure they both lose the odd good person they might have preferred to have taken, but it gives them the number and quality of immigrants that their populations find acceptable, and rather less hangers-on that we seem to end up with.

david_herdson

AlastairMeeks said:

Very good article. I take issue with some points but it wouldn't be a very good article if there weren't things to disagree with.

I'll comment properly later when I have more time. My main point, however, is that it isn't the quality of immigrants that's perceived as the problem, it's the volume (I don't see this as a problem but I know others do). In a world of ever-increasing mobility, any measures to restrict the volume are either going to be of baroque complexity or are going to interfere with the admission of the most desirable immigrants or are going to fail.

Restricting the volume is easy. Dealing with the outrage when hard cases get blocked from entry or deported on refusal to stay is the problem.

tlg86

Indigo said:

tlg86 said:

edmundintokyo said:

tlg86 said:

"Free movement of peoples and a welfare system sit uneasily with each other. At some point one or other will have to give."

And I suspect it will be the welfare system that has to go. I do hope that happens when Labour are in power.

Neither has to give because immigrants don't generally just want to receive welfare any more than non-immigrants do. They want to get jobs and earn decent money, and once they do that the government has tried and tested ways of making them pay taxes.

I suspect the rate of immigration would not be so high if the benefits - especially in work benefits - were not on offer. But I agree with your point - the vast majority come here to work.

Could we take another look at the employment rates in some of our immigrant minorities.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/ethnicity/articles/ethnicityandthelabourmarket2011censusenglandandwales/2014-11-13

That's ethnicity - not country of birth.

edmundintokyo

chestnut said:

An interesting and thoughtful piece as ever.

"Free movement of peoples and a welfare system sit uneasily with each other. At some point one or other will have to give."

A couple of observations on this.

Firstly, this has only really become a significant problem since the eastward expansion of the EU, and the introduction of the Eurozone.

The pre-expansion EU had no problem because it was made up of broadly similar nations with similar standards of living, wealth and wages. The incentive to migrate was not financial.

Future expansion plans will exacerbate the current problems. Five nations wish to join with 90m relatively poor people.

Secondly, I would expect the eventual european solution to be harmonisation of rules, rights, welfare and wages.

If equalisation isn't mandated by the european authorities, it will arise from the market, where the people of poorer nations will see improvements in their rights as they take work away from the people of wealthier nations and as capital flows towards the cheaper labour. This will erode rights and welfare in the old money nations of Europe, just as it already is.

Union eventually means uniform rights, entitlements, contributions etc.

If we stay in, people need to expect their living standards to fall to some kind of european median over time.

It's easy to forget how poor some of the countries in the *west* like Portugal and even Ireland were when they first joined the EEC. When people have market access and the ability to come and go freely they get richer and more productive. This also makes the people in the countries they trade with richer albeit not as fast, because trade is generally positive-sum.

david_herdson

Indigo said:

A right to family life should not mean a right to a family life only in the country of the wrongdoer’s choice. And yet the irony is that any attempt to alter the ECHR or redefine asylum or alter the various refugee conventions will require Britain to work with other countries. Whether we are in or out of the EU will not change that fact.

Or we walk away from the Convention. Less dramatically if we are outside the EU, we are outside the ECJ which removes the inconvenience of the ECFR, and the practical enforcement arm of the Court of Human Rights, which we could then, for want of a better word, ignore the bits we dont like with no realistic comeback.

Not unless the Human Rights Act is also repealed, which it should be. No court should exist that cannot be overruled by a democratically-elected parliament.

tlg86

Pulpstar said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Tykejohnno said:

Scott_P said:

@Coral: BREAKING: Townsend and Drinkwater miss out on the England squad. Rashford and Sturridge remain. https://t.co/wPtunBEzwz

Rubbish. - should have dropped sturridge and kept Townsend,we have enough strikers.

Townsend offers us something different down the right with pace,poor decision Hodgson.

Taking too many players carrying injuries again. We do it every time.

I heard some talking head on the radio (R Savage ?) saying that Drinkwater wouldn't make the cut because "England don't play like Leicester" apparently...

There's some truth in that. Leicester flagged badly in the second half v Arsenal on a hot afternoon last September. Having said that, I'd have left out Barkley and Rashford.

MarqueeMark

Yet another article - this time from Ms Cyclefree - that shows the standard of debate on pb.com is light-years ahead of the dismal fayre being offered by each of the Remain and Leave campaigns...

[Deleted User]

MarqueeMark said:

Yet another article - this time from Ms Cyclefree - that shows the standard of debate on pb.com is light-years ahead of the dismal fayre being offered by each of the Remain and Leave campaigns...

...or the newspapers...

foxinsoxuk

Pulpstar said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Tykejohnno said:

Scott_P said:

@Coral: BREAKING: Townsend and Drinkwater miss out on the England squad. Rashford and Sturridge remain. https://t.co/wPtunBEzwz

Rubbish. - should have dropped sturridge and kept Townsend,we have enough strikers.

Townsend offers us something different down the right with pace,poor decision Hodgson.

Taking too many players carrying injuries again. We do it every time.

I heard some talking head on the radio (R Savage ?) saying that Drinkwater wouldn't make the cut because "England don't play like Leicester" apparently...

Thats right. England do not win any cups!

AnneJGP

Another excellent article, @Cyclefree, many thanks.

Indigo

NickPalmer said:

For the Islamists, we have that control right now. How we use it is a matter for domestic politicians and voters, and if people don't like what's happening, it's not an EU problem.

But that would be another "death penalty" policy in the UK, there are no parties with even a plausible chance of being part of a government that offer that as part of their policy platform. We can see what happens in countries with parties that do in Holland, Austria and increasingly Germany.

surbiton

tlg86 said:

edmundintokyo said:

tlg86 said:

"Free movement of peoples and a welfare system sit uneasily with each other. At some point one or other will have to give."

And I suspect it will be the welfare system that has to go. I do hope that happens when Labour are in power.

Neither has to give because immigrants don't generally just want to receive welfare any more than non-immigrants do. They want to get jobs and earn decent money, and once they do that the government has tried and tested ways of making them pay taxes.

I suspect the rate of immigration would not be so high if the benefits - especially in work benefits - were not on offer. But I agree with your point - the vast majority come here to work. As I see it, the immigration is necessary to enable some of the native population to not have to work. We have a budget deficit of £76bn - we can't go on like this forever, something will have to give.

Have you any proof that immigrants come only to earn benefits ?

Indigo

surbiton said:

tlg86 said:

edmundintokyo said:

tlg86 said:

"Free movement of peoples and a welfare system sit uneasily with each other. At some point one or other will have to give."

And I suspect it will be the welfare system that has to go. I do hope that happens when Labour are in power.

Neither has to give because immigrants don't generally just want to receive welfare any more than non-immigrants do. They want to get jobs and earn decent money, and once they do that the government has tried and tested ways of making them pay taxes.

I suspect the rate of immigration would not be so high if the benefits - especially in work benefits - were not on offer. But I agree with your point - the vast majority come here to work. As I see it, the immigration is necessary to enable some of the native population to not have to work. We have a budget deficit of £76bn - we can't go on like this forever, something will have to give.

Have you any proof that immigrants come only to earn benefits ?

Have you any proof they dont ? Don't be lazy, you think he is wrong, prove it.

chestnut

tlg86 said:

edmundintokyo said:

tlg86 said:

"Free movement of peoples and a welfare system sit uneasily with each other. At some point one or other will have to give."

And I suspect it will be the welfare system that has to go. I do hope that happens when Labour are in power.

Neither has to give because immigrants don't generally just want to receive welfare any more than non-immigrants do. They want to get jobs and earn decent money, and once they do that the government has tried and tested ways of making them pay taxes.

I suspect the rate of immigration would not be so high if the benefits - especially in work benefits - were not on offer. But I agree with your point - the vast majority come here to work. As I see it, the immigration is necessary to enable some of the native population to not have to work. We have a budget deficit of £76bn - we can't go on like this forever, something will have to give.

It would be impossible for some of the people I have encountered to come and settle here without the UK's welfare state. It specifically applies to people with families.

tlg86

surbiton said:

tlg86 said:

edmundintokyo said:

tlg86 said:

"Free movement of peoples and a welfare system sit uneasily with each other. At some point one or other will have to give."

And I suspect it will be the welfare system that has to go. I do hope that happens when Labour are in power.

Neither has to give because immigrants don't generally just want to receive welfare any more than non-immigrants do. They want to get jobs and earn decent money, and once they do that the government has tried and tested ways of making them pay taxes.

I suspect the rate of immigration would not be so high if the benefits - especially in work benefits - were not on offer. But I agree with your point - the vast majority come here to work. As I see it, the immigration is necessary to enable some of the native population to not have to work. We have a budget deficit of £76bn - we can't go on like this forever, something will have to give.

Have you any proof that immigrants come only to earn benefits ?

I didn't say that they come only to earn benefits. I am saying that if there was no welfare state (i.e. for anyone), Britain would be a less attractive proposition. I suspect, however, plenty would still come.

Sean_F

edmundintokyo said:

tlg86 said:

"Free movement of peoples and a welfare system sit uneasily with each other. At some point one or other will have to give."

And I suspect it will be the welfare system that has to go. I do hope that happens when Labour are in power.

Neither has to give because immigrants don't generally just want to receive welfare any more than non-immigrants do. They want to get jobs and earn decent money, and once they do that the government has tried and tested ways of making them pay taxes.

People acquire entitlements, though, once they've settled in a country for any length of time.

Luckyguy1983

surbiton said:

tlg86 said:

edmundintokyo said:

tlg86 said:

"Free movement of peoples and a welfare system sit uneasily with each other. At some point one or other will have to give."

And I suspect it will be the welfare system that has to go. I do hope that happens when Labour are in power.

Neither has to give because immigrants don't generally just want to receive welfare any more than non-immigrants do. They want to get jobs and earn decent money, and once they do that the government has tried and tested ways of making them pay taxes.

I suspect the rate of immigration would not be so high if the benefits - especially in work benefits - were not on offer. But I agree with your point - the vast majority come here to work. As I see it, the immigration is necessary to enable some of the native population to not have to work. We have a budget deficit of £76bn - we can't go on like this forever, something will have to give.

Have you any proof that immigrants come only to earn benefits ?

Why would he need proof for a statement he hasn't made?

dr_spyn

https://twitter.com/EuroGuido/status/737641744922202113

Seems to be some additions to the electoral roll. George Eaton also cites voting cards sent to EU citizens.

HurstLlama

@NickPalmer

"Personally I think that we should primarily make the system work according to pull factors (points system, jobs waiting, etc.) ..."

Isn't that what Leave campaigners have been arguing for months if not years. On this point there seems not to be fag paper between you and Farage, except you don't want your prefered system to apply to all people, only those who come from outside Europe.

William_H

The logical implication of 8 is that the Britain should take considerably more refugees, which I don't see the ECHR stopping. All we need to do is step up to the plate and offer to take some from places like Greece and Turkey

MarqueeMark

surbiton said:

tlg86 said:

edmundintokyo said:

tlg86 said:

"Free movement of peoples and a welfare system sit uneasily with each other. At some point one or other will have to give."

And I suspect it will be the welfare system that has to go. I do hope that happens when Labour are in power.

Neither has to give because immigrants don't generally just want to receive welfare any more than non-immigrants do. They want to get jobs and earn decent money, and once they do that the government has tried and tested ways of making them pay taxes.

I suspect the rate of immigration would not be so high if the benefits - especially in work benefits - were not on offer. But I agree with your point - the vast majority come here to work. As I see it, the immigration is necessary to enable some of the native population to not have to work. We have a budget deficit of £76bn - we can't go on like this forever, something will have to give.

Have you any proof that immigrants come only to earn benefits ?

Typical Remainer - fighting a different argument because the one that is required to be discussed is in the "too difficult" box...

tlg86

dr_spyn said:

https://twitter.com/EuroGuido/status/737641744922202113

Seems to be some additions to the electoral roll. George Eaton also cites voting cards sent to EU citizens.

The interesting cases would be anyone that didn't get a polling card in the 2015 General Election, but are now getting one for the referendum.

SouthamObserver

A very good article. I wonder where British migrants to other EU member states fit into this. We should not forget them. Post-Brexit deals will have to be done so that they can stay where they are and new ones can join them, or we are going to have to reabsorb them. What are the social and economic costs of having an older and less productive population, with more people dependent on public services? I do not know the answer but it surely has to be part of the calculation.

Luckyguy1983

SouthamObserver said:

A very good article. I wonder where British migrants to other EU member states fit into this. We should not forget them. Post-Brexit deals will have to be done so that they can stay where they are and new ones can join them, or we are going to have to reabsorb them. What are the social and economic costs of having an older and less productive population, with more people dependent on public services? I do not know the answer but it surely has to be part of the calculation.

We already pay Spain to look after them; I highly doubt they will want to change that arrangement, and if they do, the money will come with them.

Scott_P

Meanwhile, in Scotland the dodgy China deal has been FOIed

@scottishlabour: "Brian Souter" mentioned 34 times in SNP Gov papers about China deal. But he wasn't involved in the deal at all... https://t.co/5LVvYaJMdk

@blairmcdougall: Here's email to the First Minister's office at 1603 saying Souter is likely investor in the secret deal.... 1/2 https://t.co/hjdIocWTET

@blairmcdougall: ...and here's email to FM's office sent a few minutes later agreeing the line that he had nothing to do with it 2/2. https://t.co/dvaU0uXAUQ

HurstLlama

SouthamObserver said:

A very good article. I wonder where British migrants to other EU member states fit into this. We should not forget them. Post-Brexit deals will have to be done so that they can stay where they are and new ones can join them, or we are going to have to reabsorb them. What are the social and economic costs of having an older and less productive population, with more people dependent on public services? I do not know the answer but it surely has to be part of the calculation.

Mr. Observer, may I remind you once more that prior to 1973 Brits moved abroad to live and people from abroad moved here to live. Very little paper work was involved then or now. Please do stop carrying on as if the EEC/EC/EU introduced or allowed something new.

SouthamObserver

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Scott_P said:

@Coral: BREAKING: Townsend and Drinkwater miss out on the England squad. Rashford and Sturridge remain. https://t.co/wPtunBEzwz

Just got to keep Dier from being injured

Dier is running on empty. He needs a rest. Not taking Drinkwater will turn out to be a big mistake.

AnneJGP

I suppose the (impossible) ideal would be to deal with the root-problem-at-home that causes large numbers of people to want to emigrate from their country of birth.

That would go some way to reducing the 'push' factor. But it would need large-scale direction of those countries' affairs by the nations on the receiving end of the migration.

That, I think, is known as imperialism, isn't it?

chestnut

Remain's repatriation dog whistle.

Scott_P

SouthamObserver said:

Dier is running on empty. He needs a rest. Not taking Drinkwater will turn out to be a big mistake.

It's good to know that in addition to politics, polling, International Law, climate change, economics, engineering, mathematics and turnips, PB also has experts on International football management posting here regularly...

Pulpstar

Scott_P said:

SouthamObserver said:

Dier is running on empty. He needs a rest. Not taking Drinkwater will turn out to be a big mistake.

It's good to know that in addition to politics, polling, International Law, climate change, economics, engineering, mathematics and turnips, PB also has experts on International football management posting here regularly...

And Twitter.

Scott_P

Pulpstar said:

And Twitter.

Like

SouthamObserver

HurstLlama said:

SouthamObserver said:

A very good article. I wonder where British migrants to other EU member states fit into this. We should not forget them. Post-Brexit deals will have to be done so that they can stay where they are and new ones can join them, or we are going to have to reabsorb them. What are the social and economic costs of having an older and less productive population, with more people dependent on public services? I do not know the answer but it surely has to be part of the calculation.

Mr. Observer, may I remind you once more that prior to 1973 Brits moved abroad to live and people from abroad moved here to live. Very little paper work was involved then or now. Please do stop carrying on as if the EEC/EC/EU introduced or allowed something new.

There are for more of them going both ways now. In 1973 there were not hundreds of thousands of elderly Brits living in Spain and many, many more seeking to join them. If we pull out of the EU there automatic right of to reside there will be in doubt, as will the right of others to migrate. Some kind of deal will have to be done. Before it is, surely we should understand the cost of not doing one.

Scott_P

This may be out of date

https://twitter.com/harryaevans/status/737646681408339968

SouthamObserver

Luckyguy1983 said:

SouthamObserver said:

A very good article. I wonder where British migrants to other EU member states fit into this. We should not forget them. Post-Brexit deals will have to be done so that they can stay where they are and new ones can join them, or we are going to have to reabsorb them. What are the social and economic costs of having an older and less productive population, with more people dependent on public services? I do not know the answer but it surely has to be part of the calculation.

We already pay Spain to look after them; I highly doubt they will want to change that arrangement, and if they do, the money will come with them.

We pay Spain some money to look after them. We do not pay all their costs. And the fact they are in Spain means they are less susceptible to certain illnesses - especially those related to cold - that they may get here. I am afraid I do not but the notion that Spain will happily allow Brits to freely settle in Spain if we are preventing the Spanish from doing the same here.

John_N4

1) Immigration is important enough to have a referendum on.

It's about whether lots of foreign incomers, who, being foreign, have foreign cultures, should settle where you live. Of course that's important. And of course this recognition doesn't make a person racist.

2) Most people think immigration has gone too far, way too far.

But anti-immigration parties have tended to have other policies that people find unpalatable, sufficiently so to rule out voting for these parties in general elections. This explains why, although immigration has been so high - for a decade and a half, each year's immigrants have numbered about 1% of the existing population - the electorate still chooses politicians from parties that are pro-immigration. It's not because they like those parties for being pro-immigration.

3) There needs to be a metric to measure immigration

This is just common sense. Ask McKinseys.

The referendum could then perhaps a multi-choice one, to decide what rate, as measured by the metric, should be achieved.

4) Wars cause refugees, and those who cause wars should pay reparations

Wars have happened and are happening in areas, especially Arab areas (half of the world's 20 million refugees are Arabs), that have been subject to deliberate policies of western and Israeli destabilisation, military attack, ethnic cleansing and invasion, including by means of "hybrid warfare"[1].

In particular, there is a direct line from the criminal invasions of Iraq to the war in Syria, and from the soft and hybrid warfare efforts branded "Springtime in Arabia" to the rise of the obscene headchopper new state in Iraq-Syria ("ISIS").

Large-scale reparations should be paid, directed not to the benefit of Halliburton and other western war profiteers but directed most of all to the benefit of the refugees.

Note

1) "To wage hybrid warfare" is an irregular verb:

* We send regular troops and we understand that Facebook has become more popular in the region and also that private military and security contractors are sending some personnel

* You use mercenaries

* They engage in hybrid warfare

HurstLlama

Scott_P said:

SouthamObserver said:

Dier is running on empty. He needs a rest. Not taking Drinkwater will turn out to be a big mistake.

It's good to know that in addition to politics, polling, International Law, climate change, economics, engineering, mathematics and turnips, PB also has experts on International football management posting here regularly...

Also trains. Don't forget the trains, Mr. P., also history (especially the Punic Wars) and, of course cats, border collies and grammatical pedantry. PB is a unique place.

TheScreamingEagles

The Ipsos Mori issue index is out

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3736/Economist-Ipsos-MORI-May-2016-Issues-Index.aspx

PlatoSaid

GIN1138 said:

Good piece Cycle.

Edit: And first - Like David Cameron before he committed career suicide.

Good piece, Ms @Cyclefree

edmundintokyo

AnneJGP said:

I suppose the (impossible) ideal would be to deal with the root-problem-at-home that causes large numbers of people to want to emigrate from their country of birth.

That would go some way to reducing the 'push' factor. But it would need large-scale direction of those countries' affairs by the nations on the receiving end of the migration.

That, I think, is known as imperialism, isn't it?

Looking at the current refugee situation it would be known as not invading middle eastern countries or funding the overthrow of their governments.

That aside, there's an interesting techno-utopian version of imperialism people have been floating recently where rich countries (or in the libertarian version, individuals or companies) would sponsor/govern/police new cities where people could get away from bad governments, which it's hoped would have successful economies like Hong Kong. Assuming you can make a voluntary deal with some government to get some land to build the city on, that makes imperialism opt-in by the imperial subjects.

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

Good piece, Miss Cyclefree. Immigration is a peculiar area because it's one of the few whereby the status quo is a disadvantage for Remain. Just as the Remain camp points at the scary darkness of leaving the EU's trading bloc, Leave can point at the migration system and (correctly) remark how rubbish it is.

I agree that leaving may help a little but it's not going to make a huge difference when it comes to illegal immigration.

The coastguard being a taxi service for illegal immigrants trying to cross the Channel then claiming to be Christians/homosexuals/Zoroastrians who face persecution wherever they lived will not necessarily be advantageous for Remain.

Cameron may be able to persuade the frogs to actually police their border a little bit during the three weeks or so to the referendum. But even if the French try their best, they've got a huge coastline and there's a lot of money to be made.

This sort of thing could be what leads to a serious rising of the far right (probably not here, but elsewhere in Europe).

TheScreamingEagles

HurstLlama said:

Scott_P said:

SouthamObserver said:

Dier is running on empty. He needs a rest. Not taking Drinkwater will turn out to be a big mistake.

It's good to know that in addition to politics, polling, International Law, climate change, economics, engineering, mathematics and turnips, PB also has experts on International football management posting here regularly...

Also trains. Don't forget the trains, Mr. P., also history (especially the Punic Wars) and, of course cats, border collies and grammatical pedantry. PB is a unique place.

Some of us actually know what happened in The Second Punic War (Hannibal had the bejesus spanked out of him at Zama) whereas there are those who wrongly think they know what happened during The Second Punic War

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Tokyo, we didn't invade Syria. And most of the migrants aren't Syrian or Iraqi.

They're economic migrants using illegal routes to take advantage of the situation which was hugely exacerbated by Merkel's demented utterances about a year ago.

PlatoSaid

chestnut said:

An interesting and thoughtful piece as ever.

"Free movement of peoples and a welfare system sit uneasily with each other. At some point one or other will have to give."

A couple of observations on this.

Firstly, this has only really become a significant problem since the eastward expansion of the EU, and the introduction of the Eurozone.

The pre-expansion EU had no problem because it was made up of broadly similar nations with similar standards of living, wealth and wages. The incentive to migrate was not financial.

Future expansion plans will exacerbate the current problems. Five nations wish to join with 90m relatively poor people.

Secondly, I would expect the eventual european solution to be harmonisation of rules, rights, welfare and wages.

If equalisation isn't mandated by the european authorities, it will arise from the market, where the people of poorer nations will see improvements in their rights as they take work away from the people of wealthier nations and as capital flows towards the cheaper labour. This will erode rights and welfare in the old money nations of Europe, just as it already is.

Union eventually means uniform rights, entitlements, contributions etc.

If we stay in, people need to expect their living standards to fall to some kind of european median over time.

Well said. Brits aren't moving en masse to Eastern Europe. And the failing economies in southern EU areas are pulling enormous numbers of young unemployed here.

FrancisUrquhart

Scott_P said:

@Coral: BREAKING: Townsend and Drinkwater miss out on the England squad. Rashford and Sturridge remain. https://t.co/wPtunBEzwz

With Wellbeck and Oxlaide-Chamberlain already out, seems a little strange to leave out Towensend, as if we want to play with any width Sterling is the only one who even remotely fits that bill.

I presume Uncle Roy is going to try and square the circle of getting Rooney in the team, when the likes of Kane, Vardy and Alli are playing well and Rashford was very good in the last friendly.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, a man who confuses a battle for a war in the same sentence he claims to know what happened in the war is a silly fellow.

Luckyguy1983

SouthamObserver said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

SouthamObserver said:

A very good article. I wonder where British migrants to other EU member states fit into this. We should not forget them. Post-Brexit deals will have to be done so that they can stay where they are and new ones can join them, or we are going to have to reabsorb them. What are the social and economic costs of having an older and less productive population, with more people dependent on public services? I do not know the answer but it surely has to be part of the calculation.

We already pay Spain to look after them; I highly doubt they will want to change that arrangement, and if they do, the money will come with them.

We pay Spain some money to look after them. We do not pay all their costs. And the fact they are in Spain means they are less susceptible to certain illnesses - especially those related to cold - that they may get here. I am afraid I do not but the notion that Spain will happily allow Brits to freely settle in Spain if we are preventing the Spanish from doing the same here.

Well you have nothing except supposition based on your own political partiality to go on, so it doesn't seem worth debating.

TGOHF

" (1) Brexit will not be an answer to all or even most of the immigration issues Britain currently faces."

Why not - there are no limits on what a future out of EU govt could legislate for.

AnneJGP

Scott_P said:

SouthamObserver said:

Dier is running on empty. He needs a rest. Not taking Drinkwater will turn out to be a big mistake.

It's good to know that in addition to politics, polling, International Law, climate change, economics, engineering, mathematics and turnips, PB also has experts on International football management posting here regularly...

I love the regular unimpassioned F1 contributions from @Morris_Dancer, especially when debate is getting overheated. They are like a drum-beat of solid sanity against a back-drop of hysteria.

FrancisUrquhart

Multiple reports are emerging that EU citizens have been sent polling cards despite not having a vote in the referendum.

http://order-order.com/2016/05/31/eu-citizens-sent-referendum-polling-cards/

MikeL

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Ipsos Mori issue index is out

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3736/Economist-Ipsos-MORI-May-2016-Issues-Index.aspx

Look where Poverty/Inequality comes.

Yet that is arguably the single biggest issue that Corbyn campaigns on.

And it rates pretty low even amongst Labour supporters.

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, a man who confuses a battle for a war in the same sentence he claims to know what happened in the war is a silly fellow.

I did no such thing. I merely gave an executive summary.

You're approach is to say Japan had a successful second world war because they bombed the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour, invaded a load of countries/territories in 1942 and ignoring what happened after that, especially in 1944 and 1945

Morris_Dancer

Miss JGP, thanks

TCPoliticalBetting

Luckyguy1983 said:

SouthamObserver said:

A very good article. I wonder where British migrants to other EU member states fit into this. We should not forget them. Post-Brexit deals will have to be done so that they can stay where they are and new ones can join them, or we are going to have to reabsorb them. What are the social and economic costs of having an older and less productive population, with more people dependent on public services? I do not know the answer but it surely has to be part of the calculation.

We already pay Spain to look after them; I highly doubt they will want to change that arrangement, and if they do, the money will come with them.

About £1bn from us to look after medical bills for the 2m in EU and we charge just over £100m to look after 2m from the EU here. AFAIK

Tim_B

BBC America ran 11 episodes of 'old' Top Gear yesterday, leading up to the 'new' version bursting upon the evening air at 9pm.

Whether they slavishly stuck to the formula or went off at a tangent, the criticism was going to be forthcoming, and so it was.

It had its bizarre moments, like having the crew of Evans' favorite Italian restaurant sitting on top of a Vauxhall, representing a metric tonne, which apparently is the downforce of the new Dodge Viper wing. Clarkson would have had a comment or two about that.

The two glaring omissions from the old series were the banter of the presenters, and the interplay with the studio audience.

For example, my favorite piece of audience interaction was Clarkson during a Cool Wall segment, asking audience members if a particular car was cool or not. He asked a man his opinion, then - obviously disagreeing - turned to the woman next to him and asked "Would you sleep with this man?" "I have to." came the reply. It was a genuinely funny moment, and It's hard to see Evans doing this.

Even the 'star in a reasonably priced car' suffered. Clarkson would always get some piece of interesting personal insight out of whoever it was, from Cameron Diaz to Rowan Atkinson. But not so with Evans - instead we were into a contest for 'best first car' and 'best car ever' between the two guests. All they needed was Hughie Green's Clapometer. Pointless and basically content free.

Matt leBlanc will be just fine. He has the laid back approach, the wry sense of humor, and is comfortable in his own skin. Ditto Sabine Schmitz - she is bubbly, competent, a great driver, and has the personality. Her Nurburgring segment with Clarkson showed her promise.

The problem is front and center - Chris Evans. He doesn't do empathy, seems utterly unable to speak in a normal conversational voice, is unable to establish rapport with guests, and has no warmth at all. None. He also seems unable to share the stage with anyone without trying to dominate. That's probably not fixable, even allowing for fixing his ludicrous appearance in drainpipe jeans and bovver boots. He needs to go, but he appears to be one of those stars in the BBC firmament whose location is fixed regardless of talent, popularity or anything else.

Which brings us to 'Extra Gear'. Other than 'the news' - another glaring omission from the main show, what is the point of this, other than to show up the shortcomings of the new Top Gear itself?

I will watch next week, but they need to start fixing this soon, it won't live on the past for long.

Luckily I already have Amazon Prime, and 1gb fiber optic internet just waiting for the Grand Tour in a few months time.

dr_spyn

HurstLlama said:

Scott_P said:

SouthamObserver said:

Dier is running on empty. He needs a rest. Not taking Drinkwater will turn out to be a big mistake.

It's good to know that in addition to politics, polling, International Law, climate change, economics, engineering, mathematics and turnips, PB also has experts on International football management posting here regularly...

Also trains. Don't forget the trains, Mr. P., also history (especially the Punic Wars) and, of course cats, border collies and grammatical pedantry. PB is a unique place.

And the tips re food, drink...

HurstLlama

SouthamObserver said:

HurstLlama said:

SouthamObserver said:

A very good article. I wonder where British migrants to other EU member states fit into this. We should not forget them. Post-Brexit deals will have to be done so that they can stay where they are and new ones can join them, or we are going to have to reabsorb them. What are the social and economic costs of having an older and less productive population, with more people dependent on public services? I do not know the answer but it surely has to be part of the calculation.

Mr. Observer, may I remind you once more that prior to 1973 Brits moved abroad to live and people from abroad moved here to live. Very little paper work was involved then or now. Please do stop carrying on as if the EEC/EC/EU introduced or allowed something new.

There are for more of them going both ways now. In 1973 there were not hundreds of thousands of elderly Brits living in Spain and many, many more seeking to join them. If we pull out of the EU there automatic right of to reside there will be in doubt, as will the right of others to migrate. Some kind of deal will have to be done. Before it is, surely we should understand the cost of not doing one.

I think there are about 300,000 British Expats now living in Spain, how many of those are elderly or retired criminals or both I don't know. What I am bloody certain of is that UK policy should not be decided, even in part, by consideration of the needs of a relatively small number of people who have decided to live elsewhere.

I rather suspect that the UK diaspora is rather greater in the Middle and Far East not to mention Australia and New Zealand, but nobody is suggesting we should think about keeping policy to suit the needs of them.

Morris_Dancer

F1: it's the next race but one (Canada is next), but I thought I'd check the Azerbaijan circuit to see if it's as bad as I remembered. And it is:
https://www.formula1.com/content/fom-website/en/championship/races/2016/Europe.html

A vomit of nothingness full of right angle turns. Right angles are what you want when your house is extended, not when designing a circuit. [Just one more reason street circuits are tedious].

FrancisUrquhart

Tim_B said:

BBC America ran 11 episodes of 'old' Top Gear yesterday, leading up to the 'new' version bursting upon the evening air at 9pm.

Whether they slavishly stuck to the formula or went off at a tangent, the criticism was going to be forthcoming, and so it was.

It had its bizarre moments, like having the crew of Evans' favorite Italian restaurant sitting on top of a Vauxhall, representing a metric tonne, which apparently is the downforce of the new Dodge Viper wing. Clarkson would have had a comment or two about that.

The two glaring omissions from the old series were the banter of the presenters, and the interplay with the studio audience.

For example, my favorite piece of audience interaction was Clarkson during a Cool Wall segment, asking audience members if a particular car was cool or not. He asked a man his opinion, then - obviously disagreeing - turned to the woman next to him and asked "Would you sleep with this man?" "I have to." came the reply. It was a genuinely funny moment, and It's hard to see Evans doing this.

Even the 'star in a reasonably priced car' suffered. Clarkson would always get some piece of interesting personal insight out of whoever it was, from Cameron Diaz to Rowan Atkinson. But not so with Evans - instead we were into a contest for 'best first car' and 'best car ever' between the two guests. Pointless and basically content free.

Matt leBlanc will be just fine. He has the laid back approach, the wry sense of humor, and is comfortable in his own skin. Ditto Sabine Schmitz - she is bubbly, competent, a great driver, and has the personality. Her Nurburgring segment with Clarkson showed her promise.

The problem is front and center - Chris Evans. He doesn't do empathy, seems utterly unable to speak in a normal conversational voice, is unable to establish rapport with guests, and has no warmth at all. None. He also seems unable to share the stage with anyone without trying to dominate. That's probably not fixable, even allowing for fixing his ludicrous appearance in drainpipe jeans and bovver boots. He needs to go, but he appears to be one of those stars in the BBC firmament whose location is fixed regardless of talent, popularity or anything else.

Which brings us to 'Extra Gear'. Other than 'the news' - another glaring omission from the main show, what is the point of this, other than to show up the shortcomings of the new Top Gear itself?

I will watch next week, but they need to start fixing this soon, it won't live on the past for long.

Luckily I already have Amazon Prime, and 1gb fiber optic internet just waiting for the Grand Tour in a few months time.

The point of Extra Gear is to keep 7 presenters employed ;-) To be fair, it is now a standard thing that BBC and ITV do with their hit shows, they have spin-off 30 mins "Extra" shows. How popular the Xtra Factor and the Come Dancing one (don't remember what it is is called) I have no idea.

SouthamObserver

Luckyguy1983 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

SouthamObserver said:

A very good article. I wonder where British migrants to other EU member states fit into this. We should not forget them. Post-Brexit deals will have to be done so that they can stay where they are and new ones can join them, or we are going to have to reabsorb them. What are the social and economic costs of having an older and less productive population, with more people dependent on public services? I do not know the answer but it surely has to be part of the calculation.

We already pay Spain to look after them; I highly doubt they will want to change that arrangement, and if they do, the money will come with them.

We pay Spain some money to look after them. We do not pay all their costs. And the fact they are in Spain means they are less susceptible to certain illnesses - especially those related to cold - that they may get here. I am afraid I do not but the notion that Spain will happily allow Brits to freely settle in Spain if we are preventing the Spanish from doing the same here.

Well you have nothing except supposition based on your own political partiality to go on, so it doesn't seem worth debating.

As opposed to your complete political disinterest :-)

So, this is how it works: Cyclefree writes an interesting, well considered piece on immigration. I praise it and raise what I think is an important issue - that immigration is a two way street and our elderly, less productive migrants may pose challenges to us - if they were not longer able to migrate - that younger, more productive incomers do not. I am then told it is not a problem, though no reasons for this are given. When I disagree and explain why I am told I am not worth debating with. I can only conclude that many of those who say they want to talk about immigration actually don't want to. They want to pontificate and not consider issues that are inconvenient to their preconceived ideas. '

Tim_B

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, a man who confuses a battle for a war in the same sentence he claims to know what happened in the war is a silly fellow.

I did no such thing. I merely gave an executive summary.

You're approach is to say Japan had a successful second world war because they bombed the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour, invaded a load of countries/territories in 1942 and ignoring what happened after that, especially in 1944 and 1945

Ah yes, the famous "Other than that Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?" argument.

kjohnw

tlg86 said:

dr_spyn said:

https://twitter.com/EuroGuido/status/737641744922202113

Seems to be some additions to the electoral roll. George Eaton also cites voting cards sent to EU citizens.

The interesting cases would be anyone that didn't get a polling card in the 2015 General Election, but are now getting one for the referendum.

http://www.tydzien.co.uk/artykuly/2016/05/28/masz-wladze-masz-glos/
uk polish newspaper asking poles if they are registered to vote in EU referendum

TheScreamingEagles

FrancisUrquhart said:

Tim_B said:

The point of Extra Gear is to keep 7 presenters employed ;-) To be fair, it is now a standard thing that BBC and ITV do with their hit shows, they have spin-off 30 mins "Extra" shows. How popular the Xtra Factor and the Come Dancing one (don't remember what it is is called) I have no idea.

The Strictly spin-off is called 'It Takes Two'

TheScreamingEagles

Tim_B said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, a man who confuses a battle for a war in the same sentence he claims to know what happened in the war is a silly fellow.

I did no such thing. I merely gave an executive summary.

You're approach is to say Japan had a successful second world war because they bombed the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour, invaded a load of countries/territories in 1942 and ignoring what happened after that, especially in 1944 and 1945

Ah yes, the famous "Other than that Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?" argument.

You could argue Pearl Harbour led to the greatest strategic blunder of whole war.

Hitler declaring war on America.

Made FDR's job a lot easier, and selling 'Germany First' to the American public a lot easier.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Urquhart, that's incompetent at best and sinister at worst.

Mr. Eagles, did a Japanese army maraud on the US mainland for a decade and a half without suffering defeat?

Mr. B, do let those of us without Amazon Prime know how the Grand Tour goes.

Scott_P

On 23rd June, the British public will vote on whether the UK should remain a member of the European Union. We will be running a 'people's poll' until the 22nd June where you will able to debate and vote on the referendum, and we will keep you updated with the results. As part of the people’s poll, one lucky voter will be able to win an iPhone 7 when it is released in September 2016. All you have to do is register and vote on this poll and you will automatically be entered into a prize draw. The winner will be selected at random on 23rd June.

http://www.notemyvote.co.uk/polls/174/Should+the+UK+remain+a+member+of+the+EU+or+leave+the+EU?

Scott_P

@dansabbagh: New ICM polls -> UK voters leaning towards Brexit; both phone and online surveys agree https://t.co/JTFGGOVxgG

RodCrosby

Press Conference coming up at Trump Tower...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqNnxCO0uVU

SouthamObserver

HurstLlama said:

SouthamObserver said:

HurstLlama said:

SouthamObserver said:

A very good article. I wonder where British migrants to other EU member states fit into this. We should not forget them. Post-Brexit deals will have to be done so that they can stay where they are and new ones can join them, or we are going to have to reabsorb them. What are the social and economic costs of having an older and less productive population, with more people dependent on public services? I do not know the answer but it surely has to be part of the calculation.

Mr. Observer, may I remind you once more that prior to 1973 Brits moved abroad to live and people from abroad moved here to live. Very little paper work was involved then or now. Please do stop carrying on as if the EEC/EC/EU introduced or allowed something new.

There are for more of them going both ways now. In 1973 there were not hundreds of thousands of elderly Brits living in Spain and many, many more seeking to join them. If we pull out of the EU there automatic right of to reside there will be in doubt, as will the right of others to migrate. Some kind of deal will have to be done. Before it is, surely we should understand the cost of not doing one.

I think there are about 300,000 British Expats now living in Spain, how many of those are elderly or retired criminals or both I don't know. What I am bloody certain of is that UK policy should not be decided, even in part, by consideration of the needs of a relatively small number of people who have decided to live elsewhere.

I rather suspect that the UK diaspora is rather greater in the Middle and Far East not to mention Australia and New Zealand, but nobody is suggesting we should think about keeping policy to suit the needs of them.

That is not what I am suggesting. In total there are over one million Brits living and working in other parts of the EU. If we are to significantly limit migration form the EU to the UK that is going to have a significant impact on them and may mean they have to come back and/or that others in the future may not be able to migrate. All I am saying is that in developing policy we should seek to understand what the impact of that might be. For example, from an economic perspective it may be that one elderly, non-productive pensioner no longer able to migrate to southern Europe equals three younger, working migrants no longer able to live in the UK.

david_herdson

PlatoSaid said:

chestnut said:

An interesting and thoughtful piece as ever.

"Free movement of peoples and a welfare system sit uneasily with each other. At some point one or other will have to give."

A couple of observations on this.

Firstly, this has only really become a significant problem since the eastward expansion of the EU, and the introduction of the Eurozone.

The pre-expansion EU had no problem because it was made up of broadly similar nations with similar standards of living, wealth and wages. The incentive to migrate was not financial.

Future expansion plans will exacerbate the current problems. Five nations wish to join with 90m relatively poor people.

Secondly, I would expect the eventual european solution to be harmonisation of rules, rights, welfare and wages.

If equalisation isn't mandated by the european authorities, it will arise from the market, where the people of poorer nations will see improvements in their rights as they take work away from the people of wealthier nations and as capital flows towards the cheaper labour. This will erode rights and welfare in the old money nations of Europe, just as it already is.

Union eventually means uniform rights, entitlements, contributions etc.

If we stay in, people need to expect their living standards to fall to some kind of european median over time.

Well said. Brits aren't moving en masse to Eastern Europe. And the failing economies in southern EU areas are pulling enormous numbers of young unemployed here.

But is that a problem? They want to work (and do, often in jobs that Brits won't touch - or not at the wages offered). At the same time, unemployment is near its lowest in decades and employment is at an all time high.

As for the 90m people in applicant countries, about 85% of these are in Turkey, which won't be joining any time soon.

Tim_B

The original "after the show show" was the 60 minute "Talking Dead", airing live after "The Walking Dead", featuring guests from that episode of the show plus viewer call ins and fan giveaways. This actually added to the understanding of the show, bringing out plot subtleties, aspects of characters etc.

Extra gear adds absolutely nothing.

TheScreamingEagles

Tuck me, ICM PHONE Poll has LEAVE ahead by 4% last poll had Remain ahead by 10%

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/31/uk-voters-leaning-towards-brexit-guardian-poll-reveals?CMP=share_btn_tw

Scott_P

@JohnRentoul: Both phone and online ICM polls have Remain 48%, Leave 52%, excl don't knows https://t.co/KvXPjJNy0x

@JohnRentoul: The ICM phone poll has Remain down 7 points, Leave up 7. The online poll is unchanged from two weeks ago.

Scott_P

@JohnRentoul: The ICM phone poll also has an election voting question, Con 36%, Lab 32%.

TheScreamingEagles

Sorry Miss CycleFree, I'm going to have to cut your thread short, again

Wanderer

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tuck me, ICM PHONE Poll has Remain ahead by 4% last poll had Remain ahead by 10%

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/31/uk-voters-leaning-towards-brexit-guardian-poll-reveals?CMP=share_btn_tw

It has Leave ahead by 4, no?