A much-needed reasoned intellectual contribution from Richard.
I think you had perhaps return to your game of Mobile Strike. Much easier to control than real life (although for an utter moron such as yourself, perhaps not without its challenges).
Still not willing to answer the points I raised a couple of nights ago about Cameron's non binding negotiation I see. Run off and hide again little man.
Oh and Gordon Brown from the Queen's Speech response in 1996:
"We dislike and hate VAT on fuel. We will try to reduce it. The Chancellor likes VAT on fuel and wants to extend it. We will seek to cut it to the lowest level possible,"
The only reason it didn't go back to zero is because of EU rules.
That is the message going out to the public and the one they will believe even if you are too dumb to understand it.
Richard someone of as small an intellect as you is really not going to prevent me from going to bed, especially when, entertaining as you are in your imbecility, you continue to make fatuous, inane, repetitive, insignificant arguments that small children, if they could tolerate your own childishness, could refute in an instant.
I'm not sure what you think of yourself when you look in the mirror each morning, but it can't be easy, so bon chance and bon nuit.
The mask slips - "The EU is a club with some rules we like and some we don't. "
So you've openly admitted that you're prepared to settle for a sub-optimal arrangement. What a miserable lack of ambition you have in achieving what's best for the wider population at large! LIFE is about compromise. So what? You think we will leave the EU and the remaining 162 nations on earth will bend to our will because no one knows how to put on a spectacle like Trooping the Colour as well as we do? Why would we want anyone to bend to our will? There are a lot of non-EU countries who want to sell us products at a cheaper rate without the EU taxes that are levied and the other regulatory burdens placed on them. Food from the developing world is one example where we could buy more from them, pay less yet they would receive more £ from us. A win win. Of ocurse that would reduce the £61bn+ surplus that we spend with the EU....
The EU is trying to lower tariffs (including NTBs) on a large number of goods and services. That is its whole point. On the whole it has been successful.
If you think that there is a parallel market for nearly half our exports, then all I can say is that a) there might be; but b) why burn down the edifice we have which is that home for our exports to start again with all the uncertainties that entails?
It simply makes no sense.
Anyway, on that note, I am going to bed.
All you Leavers try to contain yourselves. I know living your lives as slaves to the EU superstate can't be easy, but fear not, freedom is at hand.
Well two postal votes sent off today for leave from close family members should help
A much-needed reasoned intellectual contribution from Richard.
I think you had perhaps return to your game of Mobile Strike. Much easier to control than real life (although for an utter moron such as yourself, perhaps not without its challenges).
Still not willing to answer the points I raised a couple of nights ago about Cameron's non binding negotiation I see. Run off and hide again little man.
Oh and Gordon Brown from the Queen's Speech response in 1996:
"We dislike and hate VAT on fuel. We will try to reduce it. The Chancellor likes VAT on fuel and wants to extend it. We will seek to cut it to the lowest level possible,"
The only reason it didn't go back to zero is because of EU rules.
That is the message going out to the public and the one they will believe even if you are too dumb to understand it.
Richard someone of as small an intellect as you is really not going to prevent me from going to bed, especially when, entertaining as you are in your imbecility, you continue to make fatuous, inane, repetitive, insignificant arguments that small children, if they could tolerate your own childishness, could refute in an instant.
I'm not sure what you think of yourself when you look in the mirror each morning, but it can't be easy, so bon chance and bon nuit.
Right, so people from Venuzuela, USA, Canada etc etc can travel visa free to the EU without visas but the EU will want to make it harder to get money from us?
OK.
Depends if the EU and its governing elites decide to make an example of us, to prevent the exiting contagion spreading. We know how protective they are of their project. A few euros of British holiday wonga is piffling compared to the EU's very survival.
We've all seen how rule by fear worng term. The EU and its ignorance of the lessons of history really is quite staggering.
A failure in exercise of superstate power, surely?
Very simple, Came.
Dear god what is it with morons equating the EU, an institution which we begged to join, and about which we are now holding an in/out referendum, with Nazism?
"the authorities that be"
just listen to yourself.
ow.
Yes. That's fine. It's changed, it's overreached. It now dictates the maximum number of widgets allowed on a thingummyflip. And you hate that. You would prefer a different maximum number of widgets. I get it. So vote Leave.
But don't give me all this bollocks about sovereignty or freedom
As a libertarian I don't want any based central command about the number of widgets to produce........that's been and tried many times....and its always worked out so wonderfully as Venezuela currently attests doesn't it?!
Shouldn't you want every country to optimise its well-being which, inevitably, will involve compromise? Shouldn't everyone? I do.
That's in the sphere of foreign affairs / defence which is a separate discussion in itself ..... and I'd take nation state control over such matters any day of the week compared to a common EU policy straitjacket that serves the interest of the few and not the many.
"We dislike and hate VAT on fuel. We will try to reduce it. The Chancellor likes VAT on fuel and wants to extend it. We will seek to cut it to the lowest level possible,"
The only reason it didn't go back to zero is because of EU rules.
Gordon Brown wouldn't lie to us, right?
No, this is a classic "Sounds good, works badly" policy.
Voters don't like VAT on fuel - it's a noticeable tax of something that you pay for in cash, and whose price varies, so you never get used to how much you're paying. The opposition want their votes, so they affect to dislike VAT on fuel, too.
But governments *love* VAT on fuel. Wonkishly it's pretty much the perfect tax. It's simple, easy to understand, cheap to collect and hard to avoid. It's good for the environment (less driving means less pollution) and for national security (more efficient cars, less need to import oil from dodgy countries).
So what happens is that politicians say they oppose it when they're in opposition, then put it up in government, mixed in with a bunch of other budget changes in the hope the voters won't notice.
Does that mean we wouldn't be able to holiday or retire in Spain?
The Spanish economy would collapse without British tourists. What twaddle this is.
Fuck Europe. Fuck Remain.
LEAVE
Fuck them indeed.
But all of this for what?
What is it that gets your goat so much about our membership of the EU?
It is repulsively undemocn. s we did not will, and laws we can never repeal, however we vote.
Enough. Yes leaving the EU will cost us money, but, as I say, in the end, what is money compared to freedom and self respect?
LEAVE
Does
We could have a referendum on the issue every Thursday if we wanted. It is what sovereignty means. The EU is a club with some rules we like and some we don't. The debate is about whether on balance we prefer the rules we like more than we dislike the rules we don't like.
All this freedom bollox is just embarrassing.
The mask slips - "The EU is a club with some rules we like and some we don't. "
So you've openly admitted that you're prepared to settle for a sub-optimal arrangement. What a miserable lack of ambition you have in achieving what's best for the wider population at large!
Dear fucking hell Jesus Christ God in heaven.
LIFE is about compromise. So what? You think we will leave the EU and the remaining 162 nations on earth will bend to our will because no one knows how to put on a spectacle like Trooping the Colour as well as we do?
You lot really are not the best example of a well-thought through argument.
What you're saying is that we as the UK are not good enough to negotiate on our own behalf -what an utterly defeatist attitude! And you seem to regard negotiation as a zero sum game. A lot of foreign affairs conducted properly can be a win win game. Economic history has shown that countries by and large grow richer together, and poorer together. How many countries did well out of 2008? or the Great Depression? Your whole zero sum game approach really doesn't stand up to the lessons of history.
"We dislike and hate VAT on fuel. We will try to reduce it. The Chancellor likes VAT on fuel and wants to extend it. We will seek to cut it to the lowest level possible,"
The only reason it didn't go back to zero is because of EU rules.
Gordon Brown wouldn't lie to us, right?
No, this is a classic "Sounds good, works badly" policy.
Voters don't like VAT on fuel - it's a noticeable tax of something that you pay for in cash, and whose price varies, so you never get used to how much you're paying. The opposition want their votes, so they affect to dislike VAT on fuel, too.
But governments *love* VAT on fuel. Wonkishly it's pretty much the perfect tax. It's simple, easy to understand, cheap to collect and hard to avoid. It's good for the environment (less driving means less pollution) and for national security (more efficient cars, less need to import oil from dodgy countries).
So what happens is that politicians say they oppose it when they're in opposition, then put it up in government, mixed in with a bunch of other budget changes in the hope the voters won't notice.
Good for governments.
People vote.
And it is increasingly looking like they will vote Leave.
How people on here don't get that unpopular policies lead the public to dislike their politicians astounds me.
A much-needed reasoned intellectual contribution from Richard.
I think you had perhaps return to your game of Mobile Strike. Much easier to control than real life (although for an utter moron such as yourself, perhaps not without its challenges).
Still not willing to answer the points I raised a couple of nights ago about Cameron's non binding negotiation I see. Run off and hide again little man.
Oh and Gordon Brown from the Queen's Speech response in 1996:
"We dislike and hate VAT on fuel. We will try to reduce it. The Chancellor likes VAT on fuel and wants to extend it. We will seek to cut it to the lowest level possible,"
The only reason it didn't go back to zero is because of EU rules.
That is the message going out to the public and the one they will believe even if you are too dumb to understand it.
Richard someone of as small an intellect as you is really not going to prevent me from going to bed, especially when, entertaining as you are in your imbecility, you continue to make fatuous, inane, repetitive, insignificant arguments that small children, if they could tolerate your own childishness, could refute in an instant.
I'm not sure what you think of yourself when you look in the mirror each morning, but it can't be easy, so bon chance and bon nuit.
LOL. So yet again he dodges the questions. It is funny how Topping is happy to come on here and bully people but as soon as he gets asked serious questions or his points are shot down he runs away again.
At least it means I can also wander off when I get tired rather than waiting for hours for his response. Have fun folks. If that nasty Mr Topping comes back let me know and I will give him another wedgie.
However, X does not know if Y knows if Z knows there are any BEs. How so? X knows Z can see Y, but if X is non-BE, Y will not know if Z can see any BEs. Since X doesn't know if he, X, is BE, he therefore cannot know if Y knows if Z knows there are any BEs.
The explorer makes his announcement. Now Z definitely knows there are BEs, and Y knows that Z knows, and X knows that Y knows that Z knows... By symmetry, everyone knows that everyone knows that everyone knows there is at least one BE among them...
On the first morning, no-one kills themselves, because everyone already knows, from seeing each other, there are at least two BEs. When no-one kills themselves on the second day, the three tribesmen know they must all leap over the cliff on the third day.
This logic can be extended all the way up for any number of BEs. Call that number n.
The explorer's announcement imparts Common Knowledge that they did not previously have, and also informs everyone that if the n -1 BEs they can see do not kill themselves on the n-1th day, there must in fact be n, and they are the nth!
So everyone goes over the cliff on the nth day...
Surely an island is surrounded by a reflective surface - the sea?
Well, I've not mentioned an island, although many formulations of the puzzle do, although they are at pains to stress there are no mirrors or anything that could perform the same function.
"We dislike and hate VAT on fuel. We will try to reduce it. The Chancellor likes VAT on fuel and wants to extend it. We will seek to cut it to the lowest level possible,"
The only reason it didn't go back to zero is because of EU rules.
Gordon Brown wouldn't lie to us, right?
No, this is a classic "Sounds good, works badly" policy.
Voters don't like VAT on fuel - it's a noticeable tax of something that you pay for in cash, and whose price varies, so you never get used to how much you're paying. The opposition want their votes, so they affect to dislike VAT on fuel, too.
But governments *love* VAT on fuel. Wonkishly it's pretty much the perfect tax. It's simple, easy to understand, cheap to collect and hard to avoid. It's good for the environment (less driving means less pollution) and for national security (more efficient cars, less need to import oil from dodgy countries).
So what happens is that politicians say they oppose it when they're in opposition, then put it up in government, mixed in with a bunch of other budget changes in the hope the voters won't notice.
I kind of think you missed the point there Edmund. The quote and the argument this evening were about domestic fuel not fuel for cars. So a lot of your points don't really apply.
Putting VAT on such a basic life sustaining necessity as domestic fuel was a stupid thing to do and I don't doubt for a minute that Brown would have got rid of it completely if he had been allowed to by the EU. The political fallout from leaving it on when it could be removed from his own supporters would have been very bad for him.
Quite right, Mr. Meeks, but the question has to be why, after all these years, is the market not complete? Could it be that Germany and France don't want it?
The fact that these things tend to move at a snail's pace actually speaks to the pragmatism and lack of illusions held by the people who've been the key figures in the EU's history. They are playing the very long game and do understand that pushing too fast could be counter-productive. This is in contrast to some of the more passionate admirers of globalisation who are blind to the social consequences of overly rapid economic change.
Aside from politics for a minute, really enjoying re-visiting the 96 Euros on BBC1 right now - I was 9!
I had you down as older than 29 Mortimer! Its amazing what view of a person's age you have in your head from their posts. Would anybody care to guess the age of the Topping Mor*n (to use his favourite insult word)?!
Quite right, Mr. Meeks, but the question has to be why, after all these years, is the market not complete? Could it be that Germany and France don't want it?
The fact that these things tend to more at a snail's pace actually speaks to the pragmatism and lack of illusions held by the people who've been the key figures in the EU's history. They are playing the very long game and do understand that pushing too fast could be counter-productive. This is in contrast to some of the more passionate admirers of globalisation who are blind to the social consequences of overly rapid economic change.
More Europe. Always the answer isn't it? Until it isn't.
Aside from politics for a minute, really enjoying re-visiting the 96 Euros on BBC1 right now - I was 9!
I had you down as older than 29 Mortimer! Its amazing what view of a person's age you have in your head from their posts. Would anybody care to guess the age of the Topping Mor*n (to use his favourite insult word)?!
I had Mortimer down as 60 odd, he is younger than me!!
Enough. Yes leaving the EU will cost us money, but, as I say, in the end, what is money compared to freedom and self respect?
You have enough to afford a Brexit. Many do not.
Considering the number pauperised by cheap Eastern European labour, this faux concern for people's living standards is rich indeed.
It's not faux. It'll be the poor that suffer from a Brexit.
Why? Genuine question.
The cynical response is "because they always do". The less glib answer is more complex. Examples include:
* trade wars (see posts below) increasing costs. * Pre-2015 Eurosceptics held up Singapore as an example. Singapore prioritises the smart professional against the blue- and brown-collar worker. Post-2015 Eurosceptics prioritise immigation control (see today's headlines) but do not accompany it with immigration *limits* - as some have pointed out, the Australian system lets in more migrants than our system. Either way the result is further limited class mobility and it gets a bit 'They Live'. * Drop in GBP resulting in increased purchasing of houses by foreign buyers
Brexit is being cast as commoners vs posh boys, but I think it's one sect of the upper echelon deposing another, with the expectations of the poor being toyed with only to be cynically abandoned post-Brexit by Johnson, Gove et al.
Aside from politics for a minute, really enjoying re-visiting the 96 Euros on BBC1 right now - I was 9!
I had you down as older than 29 Mortimer! Its amazing what view of a person's age you have in your head from their posts. Would anybody care to guess the age of the Topping Mor*n (to use his favourite insult word)?!
I've been very lucky - educated in a 50s style Prep and Grammar, and a 1550s style University!
"We dislike and hate VAT on fuel. We will try to reduce it. The Chancellor likes VAT on fuel and wants to extend it. We will seek to cut it to the lowest level possible,"
The only reason it didn't go back to zero is because of EU rules.
Gordon Brown wouldn't lie to us, right?
No, this is a classic "Sounds good, works badly" policy.
Voters don't like VAT on fuel - it's a noticeable tax of something that you pay for in cash, and whose price varies, so you never get used to how much you're paying. The opposition want their votes, so they affect to dislike VAT on fuel, too.
But governments *love* VAT on fuel. Wonkishly it's pretty much the perfect tax. It's simple, easy to understand, cheap to collect and hard to avoid. It's good for the environment (less driving means less pollution) and for national security (more efficient cars, less need to import oil from dodgy countries).
So what happens is that politicians say they oppose it when they're in opposition, then put it up in government, mixed in with a bunch of other budget changes in the hope the voters won't notice.
I kind of think you missed the point there Edmund. The quote and the argument this evening were about domestic fuel not fuel for cars. So a lot of your points don't really apply.
Putting VAT on such a basic life sustaining necessity as domestic fuel was a stupid thing to do and I don't doubt for a minute that Brown would have got rid of it completely if he had been allowed to by the EU. The political fallout from leaving it on when it could be removed from his own supporters would have been very bad for him.
Exactly the same arguments apply to domestic fuel. It's a tax that any government is going to want to levy, if they can get away with it.
To simplify, forget the rest of the tribespeople, and consider just those with blue eyes.
If there is just one, he will live happily never knowing he has BE, until the explorer arrives and makes the announcement. "There is at least one person with blue eyes." The blue-eyed individual obviously deduces it is him, as he sees no other, and kills himself the next day.
Now for two BEs. Each knows there is at least one BE, as they can see each other, so the announcement says nothing new - or does it? Prior, the two BEs would not kill themselves as they could never know they were BE. Afterwards, they both know that they both know there is at least one BE. This is a new order of knowledge. On the first morning, no-one kills themselves. On the second, they both jump off the cliff, as they both realize that since no-one killed themselves the first day, they both must be BEs!
Now for three BEs. Call them X, Y and Z. Prior to the announcement the position is as follows.
X sees two BEs. He knows that Y sees one BE (Z), and Z sees Y. Therefore everyone already knows there is at least one BE.
However, X does not know if Y knows if Z knows there are any BEs. How so? X knows Z can see Y, but if X is non-BE, Y will not know if Z can see any BEs. Since X doesn't know if he, X, is BE, he therefore cannot know if Y knows if Z knows there are any BEs.
The explorer makes his announcement. Now Z definitely knows there are BEs, and Y knows that Z knows, and X knows that Y knows that Z knows... By symmetry, everyone knows that everyone knows that everyone knows there is at least one BE among them...
On the first morning, no-one kills themselves, because everyone already knows, from seeing each other, there are at least two BEs. When no-one kills themselves on the second day, the three tribesmen know they must all leap over the cliff on the third day.
This logic can be extended all the way up for any number of BEs. Call that number n.
The explorer's announcement imparts Common Knowledge that they did not previously have, and also informs everyone that if the n -1 BEs they can see do not kill themselves on the n-1th day, there must in fact be n, and they are the nth!
So everyone goes over the cliff on the nth day...
Surely an island is surrounded by a reflective surface - the sea?
Well, I've not mentioned an island, although many formulations of the puzzle do, although they are at pains to stress there are no mirrors or anything that could perform the same function.
It's a real brain-hurter of a puzzle!
It is an excellent puzzle. It's the significance of the explorer's intervention that is very tricky to grasp.
Boris at 22% suggests he remains teflon, Fox at 11% is a little worrying, particularly if Gove doesn't fancy it. Where would his supporters go.
If Gove does not run Fox has an outside chance of knocking out Boris as the Leave candidate in the final 2, if there is to be a Leave candidate assuming it is Remain (if Leave win I can't see past Boris)
Quite right, Mr. Meeks, but the question has to be why, after all these years, is the market not complete? Could it be that Germany and France don't want it?
The fact that these things tend to more at a snail's pace actually speaks to the pragmatism and lack of illusions held by the people who've been the key figures in the EU's history. They are playing the very long game and do understand that pushing too fast could be counter-productive. This is in contrast to some of the more passionate admirers of globalisation who are blind to the social consequences of overly rapid economic change.
More Europe. Always the answer isn't it? Until it isn't.
Well, and so what?
It's increasingly clear to me that the utopian idealists of today are the people who would tear down the EU while banking on everyone behaving perfectly rationally. History doesn't work that way.
Quite right, Mr. Meeks, but the question has to be why, after all these years, is the market not complete? Could it be that Germany and France don't want it?
The fact that these things tend to more at a snail's pace actually speaks to the pragmatism and lack of illusions held by the people who've been the key figures in the EU's history. They are playing the very long game and do understand that pushing too fast could be counter-productive. This is in contrast to some of the more passionate admirers of globalisation who are blind to the social consequences of overly rapid economic change.
More Europe. Always the answer isn't it? Until it isn't.
Well, and so what?
It's increasingly clear to me that the utopian idealists of today are the people who would tear down the EU while banking on everyone behaving perfectly rationally. History doesn't work that way.
Once an institution cannot explain itself or sustain itself without accruing more power, it has creased to be democratic. And needs to be replaced.
Boris at 22% suggests he remains teflon, Fox at 11% is a little worrying, particularly if Gove doesn't fancy it. Where would his supporters go.
If Gove does not run Fox has an outside chance of knocking out Boris as the Leave candidate in the final 2, if there is to be a Leave candidate assuming it is Remain (if Leave win I can't see past Boris)
Fox will not be on the final ballot. I'd be surprised if he even ran. Paterson has more chance.
Enough. Yes leaving the EU will cost us money, but, as I say, in the end, what is money compared to freedom and self respect?
You have enough to afford a Brexit. Many do not.
Considering the number pauperised by cheap Eastern European labour, this faux concern for people's living standards is rich indeed.
It's not faux. It'll be the poor that suffer from a Brexit.
Why? Genuine question.
The cynical response is "because they always do". The less glib answer is more complex. Examples include:
* trade wars (see posts below) increasing costs. * Pre-2015 Eurosceptics held up Singapore as an example. Singapore prioritises the smart professional against the blue- and brown-collar worker. Post-2015 Eurosceptics prioritise immigation control (see today's headlines) but do not accompany it with immigration *limits* - as some have pointed out, the Australian system lets in more migrants than our system. Either way the result is further limited class mobility and it gets a bit 'They Live'. * Drop in GBP resulting in increased purchasing of houses by foreign buyers
Brexit is being cast as commoners vs posh boys, but I think it's one sect of the upper echelon deposing another, with the expectations of the poor being toyed with only to be cynically abandoned post-Brexit by Johnson, Gove et al.
The loss of freedom of movement for UK citizens and the EHIC card will also affect the poor more than the rich. Only the rich and/or educated will have the cash/points to emigrate to the EU, should they wish, and the need to buy travel insurance for holidays to the EU will also hit the poor more than the rich.
Enough. Yes leaving the EU will cost us money, but, as I say, in the end, what is money compared to freedom and self respect?
You have enough to afford a Brexit. Many do not.
Considering the number pauperised by cheap Eastern European labour, this faux concern for people's living standards is rich indeed.
It's not faux. It'll be the poor that suffer from a Brexit.
Why? Genuine question.
The cynical response is "because they always do". The less glib answer is more complex. Examples include:
* trade wars (see posts below) increasing costs. * Pre-2015 Eurosceptics held up Singapore as an example. Singapore prioritises the smart professional against the blue- and brown-collar worker. Post-2015 Eurosceptics prioritise immigation control (see today's headlines) but do not accompany it with immigration *limits* - as some have pointed out, the Australian system lets in more migrants than our system. Either way the result is further limited class mobility and it gets a bit 'They Live'. * Drop in GBP resulting in increased purchasing of houses by foreign buyers
Brexit is being cast as commoners vs posh boys, but I think it's one sect of the upper echelon deposing another, with the expectations of the poor being toyed with only to be cynically abandoned post-Brexit by Johnson, Gove et al.
The loss of freedom of movement for UK citizens and the EHIC card will also affect the poor more than the rich. Only the rich and/or educated will have the cash/points to emigrate to the EU, should they wish, and the need to buy travel insurance for holidays to the EU will also hit the poor more than the rich.
Travel insurance is very, very cheap and taken out by many people at the post office when they buy their forex.
Quite right, Mr. Meeks, but the question has to be why, after all these years, is the market not complete? Could it be that Germany and France don't want it?
The fact that these things tend to move at a snail's pace actually speaks to the pragmatism and lack of illusions held by the people who've been the key figures in the EU's history. They are playing the very long game and do understand that pushing too fast could be counter-productive. This is in contrast to some of the more passionate admirers of globalisation who are blind to the social consequences of overly rapid economic change.
You make very valid points, Mr. Glenn and I am sure they are correct but I am not sure they apply as to the single market in services. We got the single market in goods very quickly but not services. Why should that be?
Enough. Yes leaving the EU will cost us money, but, as I say, in the end, what is money compared to freedom and self respect?
You have enough to afford a Brexit. Many do not.
Considering the number pauperised by cheap Eastern European labour, this faux concern for people's living standards is rich indeed.
It's not faux. It'll be the poor that suffer from a Brexit.
Why? Genuine question.
The cynical response is "because they always do". The less glib answer is more complex. Examples include:
* trade wars (see posts below) increasing costs. * Pre-2015 Eurosceptics held up Singapore as an example. Singapore prioritises the smart professional against the blue- and brown-collar worker. Post-2015 Eurosceptics prioritise immigation control (see today's headlines) but do not accompany it with immigration *limits* - as some have pointed out, the Australian system lets in more migrants than our system. Either way the result is further limited class mobility and it gets a bit 'They Live'. * Drop in GBP resulting in increased purchasing of houses by foreign buyers
Brexit is being cast as commoners vs posh boys, but I think it's one sect of the upper echelon deposing another, with the expectations of the poor being toyed with only to be cynically abandoned post-Brexit by Johnson, Gove et al.
There are moves to make it harder for foreign capital to buy up property already, and they can (and according to Gove will) get stronger post Brexit.
There is little mileage in a trade war as it will damage the EU as well, causing it immense problems. They might but they'd kill themselves.
As for the points system, Australia simply has a high per capita immigration limit. We can set it lower. At a lower rate with costs imposed on employers possibly, it becomes economic to train staff rather than import them
As an example, before Poland's accession into the EU it was difficult to recruit bus drivers. So they picked up homeless people, rehabilitated them and gave them jobs. This made sense to do. Now you have a ready supply of willing immigrant labour trying to rehabilitate 3 homeless people to get one or two drivers stops making sense.
In short, mass migration means we can ignore our own problems and leave the underclass to themselves. Problem is, it isn't good.
And if you want to see Gove's passion for social mobility, look at what he's trying to do in prisons.
Surely an island is surrounded by a reflective surface - the sea?
Well, I've not mentioned an island, although many formulations of the puzzle do, although they are at pains to stress there are no mirrors or anything that could perform the same function.
It's a real brain-hurter of a puzzle!
It is an excellent puzzle. It's the significance of the explorer's intervention that is very tricky to grasp.
Yep, and leads to thinking about "What is Common Knowledge?"
Everyone may know "the same thing" but unless (everyone knows that everyone knows)^n "the same thing" it is not truly Common Knowledge...
"We dislike and hate VAT on fuel. We will try to reduce it. The Chancellor likes VAT on fuel and wants to extend it. We will seek to cut it to the lowest level possible,"
The only reason it didn't go back to zero is because of EU rules.
Gordon Brown wouldn't lie to us, right?
No, this is a classic "Sounds good, works badly" policy.
Voters don't like VAT on fuel - it's a noticeable tax of something that you pay for in cash, and whose price varies, so you never get used to how much you're paying. The opposition want their votes, so they affect to dislike VAT on fuel, too.
But governments *love* VAT on fuel. Wonkishly it's pretty much the perfect tax. It's simple, easy to understand, cheap to collect and hard to avoid. It's good for the environment (less driving means less pollution) and for national security (more efficient cars, less need to import oil from dodgy countries).
So what happens is that politicians say they oppose it when they're in opposition, then put it up in government, mixed in with a bunch of other budget changes in the hope the voters won't notice.
I kind of think you missed the point there Edmund. The quote and the argument this evening were about domestic fuel not fuel for cars. So a lot of your points don't really apply.
Putting VAT on such a basic life sustaining necessity as domestic fuel was a stupid thing to do and I don't doubt for a minute that Brown would have got rid of it completely if he had been allowed to by the EU. The political fallout from leaving it on when it could be removed from his own supporters would have been very bad for him.
Exactly the same arguments apply to domestic fuel. It's a tax that any government is going to want to levy, if they can get away with it.
Governments don't like taxes that can be linked to people dying. Old poor people die because of the cold. Quite a lot of them in fact. This is why tax on domestic fuel was such a stupid thing to do in the first place and why getting rid of it (I saw it estimated it would cost around £600 million a year to get rid of today) would be a good political move. I just don't see how a Labour government would have survived a bad winter with the VAT on fuel in place if it had been possible to remove it.
Quite right, Mr. Meeks, but the question has to be why, after all these years, is the market not complete? Could it be that Germany and France don't want it?
The fact that these things tend to more at a snail's pace actually speaks to the pragmatism and lack of illusions held by the people who've been the key figures in the EU's history. They are playing the very long game and do understand that pushing too fast could be counter-productive. This is in contrast to some of the more passionate admirers of globalisation who are blind to the social consequences of overly rapid economic change.
More Europe. Always the answer isn't it? Until it isn't.
Well, and so what?
It's increasingly clear to me that the utopian idealists of today are the people who would tear down the EU while banking on everyone behaving perfectly rationally. History doesn't work that way.
Once an institution cannot explain itself or sustain itself without accruing more power, it has creased to be democratic. And needs to be replaced.
I don't think the EU is in that position, and furthermore I would argue that, in aggregate, the existence of the EU increases the level of democracy when properly understood, even in places like Greece and Italy.
Enough. Yes leaving the EU will cost us money, but, as I say, in the end, what is money compared to freedom and self respect?
...
,,,
...
Why? Genuine question.
The cynical response is "because they always do". The less glib answer is more complex. Examples include:
* trade wars (see posts below) increasing costs. * Pre-2015 Eurosceptics held up Singapore as an example. Singapore prioritises the smart professional against the blue- and brown-collar worker. Post-2015 Eurosceptics prioritise immigation control (see today's headlines) but do not accompany it with immigration *limits* - as some have pointed out, the Australian system lets in more migrants than our system. Either way the result is further limited class mobility and it gets a bit 'They Live'. * Drop in GBP resulting in increased purchasing of houses by foreign buyers
Brexit is being cast as commoners vs posh boys, but I think it's one sect of the upper echelon deposing another, with the expectations of the poor being toyed with only to be cynically abandoned post-Brexit by Johnson, Gove et al.
There are moves to make it harder for foreign capital to buy up property already, and they can (and according to Gove will) get stronger post Brexit.
There is little mileage in a trade war as it will damage the EU as well, causing it immense problems. They might but they'd kill themselves.
As for the points system, Australia simply has a high per capita immigration limit. We can set it lower. At a lower rate with costs imposed on employers possibly, it becomes economic to train staff rather than import them
As an example, before Poland's accession into the EU it was difficult to recruit bus drivers. So they picked up homeless people, rehabilitated them and gave them jobs. This made sense to do. Now you have a ready supply of willing immigrant labour trying to rehabilitate 3 homeless people to get one or two drivers stops making sense.
In short, mass migration means we can ignore our own problems and leave the underclass to themselves. Problem is, it isn't good.
And if you want to see Gove's passion for social mobility, look at what he's trying to do in prisons.
Agreed - especially on the last point. There are very few people who I'd give up everything for to work day and night in support of. Gove is one of those people.
Care to explain what being in the EU has to do with that? Or are Leave going to impose a points based system on eBay auctions?
Are you seriously suggesting the migrant crisis will have no impact on the EU referendum? The EU is in a real mess and you think this will not push voters to Leave. Okaaaay....
Enough. Yes leaving the EU will cost us money, but, as I say, in the end, what is money compared to freedom and self respect?
You have enough to afford a Brexit. Many do not.
Considering the number pauperised by cheap Eastern European labour, this faux concern for people's living standards is rich indeed.
It's not faux. It'll be the poor that suffer from a Brexit.
Why? Genuine question.
The cynical response is "because they always do". The less glib answer is more complex. Examples include:
* trade wars (see posts below) increasing costs. * Pre-2015 Eurosceptics held up Singapore as an example. Singapore prioritises the smart professional against the blue- and brown-collar worker. Post-2015 Eurosceptics prioritise immigation control (see today's headlines) but do not accompany it with immigration *limits* - as some have pointed out, the Australian system lets in more migrants than our system. Either way the result is further limited class mobility and it gets a bit 'They Live'. * Drop in GBP resulting in increased purchasing of houses by foreign buyers
Brexit is being cast as commoners vs posh boys, but I think it's one sect of the upper echelon deposing another, with the expectations of the poor being toyed with only to be cynically abandoned post-Brexit by Johnson, Gove et al.
The loss of freedom of movement for UK citizens and the EHIC card will also affect the poor more than the rich. Only the rich and/or educated will have the cash/points to emigrate to the EU, should they wish, and the need to buy travel insurance for holidays to the EU will also hit the poor more than the rich.
You do know we have equivalent bilateral agreements which give the same cover as the EHIC with many non EEA countries don't you?
Enough. Yes leaving the EU will cost us money, but, as I say, in the end, what is money compared to freedom and self respect?
You have enough to afford a Brexit. Many do not.
Considering the number pauperised by cheap Eastern European labour, this faux concern for people's living standards is rich indeed.
It's not faux. It'll be the poor that suffer from a Brexit.
Why? Genuine question.
The cynical response is "because they always do". The less glib answer is more complex. Examples include:
* trade wars (see posts below) increasing costs. * Pre-2015 Eurosceptics held up Singapore as an example. Singapore prioritises the smart professional against the blue- and brown-collar worker. Post-2015 Eurosceptics prioritise immigation control (see today's headlines) but do not accompany it with immigration *limits* - as some have pointed out, the Australian system lets in more migrants than our system. Either way the result is further limited class mobility and it gets a bit 'They Live'. * Drop in GBP resulting in increased purchasing of houses by foreign buyers
Brexit is being cast as commoners vs posh boys, but I think it's one sect of the upper echelon deposing another, with the expectations of the poor being toyed with only to be cynically abandoned post-Brexit by Johnson, Gove et al.
The loss of freedom of movement for UK citizens and the EHIC card will also affect the poor more than the rich. Only the rich and/or educated will have the cash/points to emigrate to the EU, should they wish, and the need to buy travel insurance for holidays to the EU will also hit the poor more than the rich.
Your forgetting the poor unskilled are coming here from the EU in great numbers and this is hitting the poor here in which the rich,educated couldn't give a shit.
Boris at 22% suggests he remains teflon, Fox at 11% is a little worrying, particularly if Gove doesn't fancy it. Where would his supporters go.
If Gove does not run Fox has an outside chance of knocking out Boris as the Leave candidate in the final 2, if there is to be a Leave candidate assuming it is Remain (if Leave win I can't see past Boris)
Fox will not be on the final ballot. I'd be surprised if he even ran. Paterson has more chance.
Fox very nearly got to the final two in 2005 and many of his supporters are still in Parliament, though I agree Paterson also has an outside chance. Goodnight
I have noted that the tie has become increasingly unpopular for London mayors. Sadiq, while undeniably a snappy dresser, is rarely seen wearing one. Boris, too, was often without neckwear. Their predecessor Ken was, by contrast, a relatively committed tie-wearer while mayor.
British politicians are appallingly dressed. British men - on the whole, to be honest. (I now expect a load of posts from TSE pointing out his exquisite taste in shoes so I will exempt him from the charge.) They can't do casual and seem wholly unacquainted with mirrors. And the suits these days are an abomination. They rarely fit and those stupid skinny suits make men look like Victorian bank clerks.
And men with long dirty fingernails should be executed, frankly. Unless they're Monty Don - and even then they should keep them short.
The suit wearers that make me wince are those who obviously went to the tailor and asked for their trousers to be made two inches too-sodding-short.
Trousers should break once, somewhere between the top of the shin and the shoe according to taste.
I agree but find that most people have trousers that are too long not too short, I have seen chaps that have paid a lot of cash for a nice suit but the trousers end with a concertina effect at the bottom end, and look awful.
My biggest beef is with shoes. The number of men in expensive, if ill-fitting, suits flashy shirts and silk ties but with shoes that have never been polished astonishes me. When I was in business the feet were the first place I looked when I met someone new. Very few people with dirty shoes got a job or a contract from me. It is all about attention to detail.
In court tomorrow. Polished shoes tonight. You are not the only one that notices.
I notice too, it's why I'm so fussy, choosy, and particular when it comes to buying the right footwear for myself.
Can't remember the last time I paid less than £300 for a pair of shoes.
Most I've paid for shoes is £500. I did wince at that, but they are luvverly jubbles.
DON'T SKIMP ON SHOES
Ordinarily I'm with you, mainly due to gout. But a few weeks ago I bought a pair for £9.99 in Aldis, tried them on in the aisle, as you say, luvverly jubbly.
I spent an extravagant £25 on a pair of trainers from Sports Direct at the weekend. I have a bit of a blister as I'm still wearing them in but it didn't stop me checking out 170 in darts tonight.
Quite right, Mr. Meeks, but the question has to be why, after all these years, is the market not complete? Could it be that Germany and France don't want it?
The fact that these things tend to more at a snail's pace actually speaks to the pragmatism and lack of illusions held by the people who've been the key figures in the EU's history. They are playing the very long game and do understand that pushing too fast could be counter-productive. This is in contrast to some of the more passionate admirers of globalisation who are blind to the social consequences of overly rapid economic change.
More Europe. Always the answer isn't it? Until it isn't.
Well, and so what?
It's increasingly clear to me that the utopian idealists of today are the people who would tear down the EU while banking on everyone behaving perfectly rationally. History doesn't work that way.
Once an institution cannot explain itself or sustain itself without accruing more power, it has creased to be democratic. And needs to be replaced.
I don't think the EU is in that position, and furthermore I would argue that, in aggregate, the existence of the EU increases the level of democracy when properly understood, even in places like Greece and Italy.
No, it takes power away from the people as well as impoverishing them. That is not increasing democracy or freedom.
Enough. Yes leaving the EU will cost us money, but, as I say, in the end, what is money compared to freedom and self respect?
You have enough to afford a Brexit. Many do not.
Considering the number pauperised by cheap Eastern European labour, this faux concern for people's living standards is rich indeed.
It's not faux. It'll be the poor that suffer from a Brexit.
Why? Genuine question.
The cynical response is "because they always do". The less glib answer is more complex. Examples include:
* trade wars (see posts below) increasing costs. * Pre-2015 Eurosceptics held up Singapore as an example. Singapore prioritises the smart professional against the blue- and brown-collar worker. Post-2015 Eurosceptics prioritise immigation control (see today's headlines) but do not accompany it with immigration *limits* - as some have pointed out, the Australian system lets in more migrants than our system. Either way the result is further limited class mobility and it gets a bit 'They Live'. * Drop in GBP resulting in increased purchasing of houses by foreign buyers
Brexit is being cast as commoners vs posh boys, but I think it's one sect of the upper echelon deposing another, with the expectations of the poor being toyed with only to be cynically abandoned post-Brexit by Johnson, Gove et al.
The loss of freedom of movement for UK citizens and the EHIC card will also affect the poor more than the rich. Only the rich and/or educated will have the cash/points to emigrate to the EU, should they wish, and the need to buy travel insurance for holidays to the EU will also hit the poor more than the rich.
Your forgetting the poor unskilled are coming here from the EU in great numbers and this is hitting the poor here in which the rich,educated couldn't give a shit.
I know it is widely thought that unskilled immigration hits the poor, but according to a study I read recently (and anecdotally), that isn't actually the case. Instead, the immigrants tend to take over the lowest jobs, while the natives that formerly did these jobs are shifted to better-paying, supervisory roles. So, on the whole, the poor natives also benefit.
Enough. Yes leaving the EU will cost us money, but, as I say, in the end, what is money compared to freedom and self respect?
You have enough to afford a Brexit. Many do not.
Considering the number pauperised by cheap Eastern European labour, this faux concern for people's living standards is rich indeed.
It's not faux. It'll be the poor that suffer from a Brexit.
Why? Genuine question.
The cynical response is "because they always do". The less glib answer is more complex. Examples include:
* trade wars (see posts below) increasing costs. * Pre-2015 Eurosceptics held up Singapore as an example. Singapore prioritises the smart professional against the blue- and brown-collar worker. Post-2015 Eurosceptics prioritise immigation control (see today's headlines) but do not accompany it with immigration *limits* - as some have pointed out, the Australian system lets in more migrants than our system. Either way the result is further limited class mobility and it gets a bit 'They Live'. * Drop in GBP resulting in increased purchasing of houses by foreign buyers
Brexit is being cast as commoners vs posh boys, but I think it's one sect of the upper echelon deposing another, with the expectations of the poor being toyed with only to be cynically abandoned post-Brexit by Johnson, Gove et al.
The loss of freedom of movement for UK citizens and the EHIC card will also affect the poor more than the rich. Only the rich and/or educated will have the cash/points to emigrate to the EU, should they wish, and the need to buy travel insurance for holidays to the EU will also hit the poor more than the rich.
You do know we have equivalent bilateral agreements which give the same cover as the EHIC with many non EEA countries don't you?
No, I didn't know that. Which countries are these?
Enough. Yes leaving the EU will cost us money, but, as I say, in the end, what is money compared to freedom and self respect?
You have enough to afford a Brexit. Many do not.
Considering the number pauperised by cheap Eastern European labour, this faux concern for people's living standards is rich indeed.
It's not faux. It'll be the poor that suffer from a Brexit.
Why? Genuine question.
The cynical response is "because they always do". The less glib answer is more complex. Examples include:
* trade wars (see posts below) increasing costs. * Pre-2015 Eurosceptics held up Singapore as an example. Singapore prioritises the smart professional against the blue- and brown-collar worker. Post-2015 Eurosceptics prioritise immigation control (see today's headlines) but do not accompany it with immigration *limits* - as some have pointed out, the Australian system lets in more migrants than our system. Either way the result is further limited class mobility and it gets a bit 'They Live'. * Drop in GBP resulting in increased purchasing of houses by foreign buyers
Brexit is being cast as commoners vs posh boys, but I think it's one sect of the upper echelon deposing another, with the expectations of the poor being toyed with only to be cynically abandoned post-Brexit by Johnson, Gove et al.
The loss of freedom of movement for UK citizens and the EHIC card will also affect the poor more than the rich. Only the rich and/or educated will have the cash/points to emigrate to the EU, should they wish, and the need to buy travel insurance for holidays to the EU will also hit the poor more than the rich.
Your forgetting the poor unskilled are coming here from the EU in great numbers and this is hitting the poor here in which the rich,educated couldn't give a shit.
I know it is widely thought that unskilled immigration hits the poor, but according to a study I read recently (and anecdotally), that isn't actually the case. Instead, the immigrants tend to take over the lowest jobs, while the natives that formerly did these jobs are shifted to better-paying, supervisory roles. So, on the whole, the poor natives also benefit.
Except it doesn't actually work that way, unless a Guardianista is doing the study.
There are moves to make it harder for foreign capital to buy up property already, and they can (and according to Gove will) get stronger post Brexit.
There is little mileage in a trade war as it will damage the EU as well, causing it immense problems. They might but they'd kill themselves.
As for the points system, Australia simply has a high per capita immigration limit. We can set it lower. At a lower rate with costs imposed on employers possibly, it becomes economic to train staff rather than import them
As an example, before Poland's accession into the EU it was difficult to recruit bus drivers. So they picked up homeless people, rehabilitated them and gave them jobs. This made sense to do. Now you have a ready supply of willing immigrant labour trying to rehabilitate 3 homeless people to get one or two drivers stops making sense.
In short, mass migration means we can ignore our own problems and leave the underclass to themselves. Problem is, it isn't good.
And if you want to see Gove's passion for social mobility, look at what he's trying to do in prisons.
Keeping it quick (because late)
1. ...harder for foreign capital to buy up property...get stronger post Brexit. 2. ...little mileage...trade war...They might but they'd kill themselves. 3. ...As for the points system...We can set it lower. 4. ...mass migration...ignore our own problems...leave the underclass to themselves.
1. I didn't know that, but I'm a little cynical about whether they will. But thank you for telling me 2. People are irrational and tempers are high. Irrational people do irrational things 3. We *can*. I'm not sure we *will*. 4. True.
I go to either Costco or an outlet mall and buy a couple of pairs of Reebok or Nike sneakers for about $45 a pair, and that's me for a while.
I only wear 'real' shoes on rare occasions these days.
Have you done your thing with Sandra Bernhard yet? That might be an occasion for proper footwear! I'd recommend checking out her one-woman shows if you're not familiar with her.
Considering the number pauperised by cheap Eastern European labour, this faux concern for people's living standards is rich indeed.
It's not faux. It'll be the poor that suffer from a Brexit.
Why? Genuine question.
The cynical response is "because they always do". The less glib answer is more complex. Examples include:
* trade wars (see posts below) increasing costs. * Pre-2015 Eurosceptics held up Singapore as an example. Singapore prioritises the smart professional against the blue- and brown-collar worker. Post-2015 Eurosceptics prioritise immigation control (see today's headlines) but do not accompany it with immigration *limits* - as some have pointed out, the Australian system lets in more migrants than our system. Either way the result is further limited class mobility and it gets a bit 'They Live'. * Drop in GBP resulting in increased purchasing of houses by foreign buyers
Brexit is being cast as commoners vs posh boys, but I think it's one sect of the upper echelon deposing another, with the expectations of the poor being toyed with only to be cynically abandoned post-Brexit by Johnson, Gove et al.
The loss of freedom of movement for UK citizens and the EHIC card will also affect the poor more than the rich. Only the rich and/or educated will have the cash/points to emigrate to the EU, should they wish, and the need to buy travel insurance for holidays to the EU will also hit the poor more than the rich.
Your forgetting the poor unskilled are coming here from the EU in great numbers and this is hitting the poor here in which the rich,educated couldn't give a shit.
I know it is widely thought that unskilled immigration hits the poor, but according to a study I read recently (and anecdotally), that isn't actually the case. Instead, the immigrants tend to take over the lowest jobs, while the natives that formerly did these jobs are shifted to better-paying, supervisory roles. So, on the whole, the poor natives also benefit.
Bollocks,this sounds like it comes from someone who has never been poor or lived in a poor area.
I go by what I see with my own eyes and I can tell that the newcomers into my area are mainly poor families on some sort of benefits.
It's not faux. It'll be the poor that suffer from a Brexit.
Why? Genuine question.
The cynical response is "because they always do". The less glib answer is more complex. Examples include:
* trade wars (see posts below) increasing costs. * Pre-2015 Eurosceptics held up Singapore as an example. Singapore prioritises the smart professional against the blue- and brown-collar worker. Post-2015 Eurosceptics prioritise immigation control (see today's headlines) but do not accompany it with immigration *limits* - as some have pointed out, the Australian system lets in more migrants than our system. Either way the result is further limited class mobility and it gets a bit 'They Live'. * Drop in GBP resulting in increased purchasing of houses by foreign buyers
Brexit is being cast as commoners vs posh boys, but I think it's one sect of the upper echelon deposing another, with the expectations of the poor being toyed with only to be cynically abandoned post-Brexit by Johnson, Gove et al.
The loss of freedom of movement for UK citizens and the EHIC card will also affect the poor more than the rich. Only the rich and/or educated will have the cash/points to emigrate to the EU, should they wish, and the need to buy travel insurance for holidays to the EU will also hit the poor more than the rich.
Your forgetting the poor unskilled are coming here from the EU in great numbers and this is hitting the poor here in which the rich,educated couldn't give a shit.
I know it is widely thought that unskilled immigration hits the poor, but according to a study I read recently (and anecdotally), that isn't actually the case. Instead, the immigrants tend to take over the lowest jobs, while the natives that formerly did these jobs are shifted to better-paying, supervisory roles. So, on the whole, the poor natives also benefit.
Except it doesn't actually work that way, unless a Guardianista is doing the study.
I read about the study in New Scientist, and it does seem that way to me. Most of the really crap jobs tend to be done by immigrant labour nowadays, but unemployment is still low. That means that those natives who formerly did these jobs must now be doing better paid jobs.
Surely an island is surrounded by a reflective surface - the sea?
Well, I've not mentioned an island, although many formulations of the puzzle do, although they are at pains to stress there are no mirrors or anything that could perform the same function.
It's a real brain-hurter of a puzzle!
It is an excellent puzzle. It's the significance of the explorer's intervention that is very tricky to grasp.
Yep, and leads to thinking about "What is Common Knowledge?"
Everyone may know "the same thing" but unless (everyone knows that everyone knows)^n "the same thing" it is not truly Common Knowledge...
This may be a bit of a leap but I think the growth and democratisation of mass media has had that effect on bringing elements of society completely into the open in a way that cannot be ignored, where previously it may have been something that 'everyone' knew but wasn't openly considered. I'm thinking particularly of LGBT rights.
There are moves to make it harder for foreign capital to buy up property already, and they can (and according to Gove will) get stronger post Brexit.
There is little mileage in a trade war as it will damage the EU as well, causing it immense problems. They might but they'd kill themselves.
As for the points system, Australia simply has a high per capita immigration limit. We can set it lower. At a lower rate with costs imposed on employers possibly, it becomes economic to train staff rather than import them
As an example, before Poland's accession into the EU it was difficult to recruit bus drivers. So they picked up homeless people, rehabilitated them and gave them jobs. This made sense to do. Now you have a ready supply of willing immigrant labour trying to rehabilitate 3 homeless people to get one or two drivers stops making sense.
In short, mass migration means we can ignore our own problems and leave the underclass to themselves. Problem is, it isn't good.
And if you want to see Gove's passion for social mobility, look at what he's trying to do in prisons.
Keeping it quick (because late)
1. ...harder for foreign capital to buy up property...get stronger post Brexit. 2. ...little mileage...trade war...They might but they'd kill themselves. 3. ...As for the points system...We can set it lower. 4. ...mass migration...ignore our own problems...leave the underclass to themselves.
1. I didn't know that, but I'm a little cynical about whether they will. But thank you for telling me 2. People are irrational and tempers are high. Irrational people do irrational things 3. We *can*. I'm not sure we *will*. 4. True.
Ok. Shorter.
We have our own problems to fix.
We don't need to because we can import people. If we don't we have to. The latter is good.
We can't however fix our own problems in the EU, at least we have the chance to out.
Enough. Yes leaving the EU will cost us money, but, as I say, in the end, what is money compared to freedom and self respect?
You have enough to afford a Brexit. Many do not.
Considering the number pauperised by cheap Eastern European labour, this faux concern for people's living standards is rich indeed.
It's not faux. It'll be the poor that suffer from a Brexit.
Why? Genuine question.
The cynical response is "because they always do". The less glib answer is more complex. Examples include:
* trade wars (see posts below) increasing costs. * Pre-2015 Eurosceptics held up Singapore as an example. Singapore prioritises the smart professional against the blue- and brown-collar worker. Post-2015 Eurosceptics prioritise immigation control (see today's headlines) but do not accompany it with immigration *limits* - as some have pointed out, the Australian system lets in more migrants than our system. Either way the result is further limited class mobility and it gets a bit 'They Live'. * Drop in GBP resulting in increased purchasing of houses by foreign buyers
Brexit is being cast as commoners vs posh boys, but I think it's one sect of the upper echelon deposing another, with the expectations of the poor being toyed with only to be cynically abandoned post-Brexit by Johnson, Gove et al.
The loss of freedom of movement for UK citizens and the EHIC card will also affect the poor more than the rich. Only the rich and/or educated will have the cash/points to emigrate to the EU, should they wish, and the need to buy travel insurance for holidays to the EU will also hit the poor more than the rich.
You do know we have equivalent bilateral agreements which give the same cover as the EHIC with many non EEA countries don't you?
No, I didn't know that. Which countries are these?
Basically all the non EEA European countries.
We also had them with all the Russian Federation and former Soviet countries until the beginning of this year. Not sure why they got dumped or which side decided to do it. I think it was as part of the sanctions we put in place against Russia and her allies. I assume one things return to normal with Russia we will put them back in place.
It's not faux. It'll be the poor that suffer from a Brexit.
Why? Genuine question.
The cynical response is "because they always do". The less glib answer is more complex. Examples include:
* trade wars (see posts below) increasing costs. * Pre-2015 Eurosceptics held up Singapore as an example. Singapore prioritises the smart professional against the blue- and brown-collar worker. Post-2015 Eurosceptics prioritise immigation control (see today's headlines) but do not accompany it with immigration *limits* - as some have pointed out, the Australian system lets in more migrants than our system. Either way the result is further limited class mobility and it gets a bit 'They Live'. * Drop in GBP resulting in increased purchasing of houses by foreign buyers
Brexit is being cast as commoners vs posh boys, but I think it's one sect of the upper echelon deposing another, with the expectations of the poor being toyed with only to be cynically abandoned post-Brexit by Johnson, Gove et al.
The loss of freedom of movement for UK citizens and the EHIC card will also affect the poor more than the rich. Only the rich and/or educated will have the cash/points to emigrate to the EU, should they wish, and the need to buy travel insurance for holidays to the EU will also hit the poor more than the rich.
Your forgetting the poor unskilled are coming here from the EU in great numbers and this is hitting the poor here in which the rich,educated couldn't give a shit.
I know it is widely thought that unskilled immigration hits the poor, but according to a study I read recently (and anecdotally), that isn't actually the case. Instead, the immigrants tend to take over the lowest jobs, while the natives that formerly did these jobs are shifted to better-paying, supervisory roles. So, on the whole, the poor natives also benefit.
Except it doesn't actually work that way, unless a Guardianista is doing the study.
I read about the study in New Scientist, and it does seem that way to me. Most of the really crap jobs tend to be done by immigrant labour nowadays, but unemployment is still low. That means that those natives who formerly did these jobs must now be doing better paid jobs.
Unemployment is 1.5 million which would have been unacceptable in 1979, whilst under employment is still high, and wages growth according to the BoE is low.
I read about the study in New Scientist, and it does seem that way to me. Most of the really crap jobs tend to be done by immigrant labour nowadays, but unemployment is still low. That means that those natives who formerly did these jobs must now be doing better paid jobs.
Or have gone self employed and are now doing jobs for even less pay than before. The number of self employed has gone up by 700,000 since 2008 whilst the average earnings for self employed has dropped by 22%
I have been wondering whether it is best to insure against a BREXIT by placing a bet or buying currency. Here's the math.
Firstly, let's throw away the online options. Most people will bet in a betting shop or trade currency in a bureau de change, and these things have costs. At about noon today the options for GBP-USD were:
* Eurochange's buy/sell for GBP->USD is buy at 1.42, sell at 1.54, midpoint 1.48[1]. * Ladbrokes Remain/Leave odds are 3/10 vs 5/2[2]
I'll assume GBP on LEAVE drops to $1.2 (buy 1.14, sell 1.26) and rises to 1.5 (buy 1.44, sell 1.56) on REMAIN. So let's go thru each case.
CASE 1: £1000 CURRENCY Our cautious consumer takes £1000 and buys dollars from Eurochange, getting 1000*1.42 = $1,420. If he has buyer's remorse he can immediately change back but he would get 1420/1.54 = £922, an immediate loss of £78. So he waits. On a LEAVE vote GBP dives to $1.2. He converts his $1420 dollars back to GBP, which gives him 1420/1.26 = £1127, a profit of £127. Conversely if REMAIN, GBP rises to £1.5, he converts back so 1420/1.56 = £910, a loss of £90
CASE 2: £1000 BETTING Our more adventurous consumer takes £1000 and bets on LEAVE@5/2. On a LEAVE vote he recieves £2500 plus his stake, a return of £3500. On a REMAIN vote he recieves nothing
So currency conversion gives little reassurance but large risk, betting gives great reassurance but large risk. In conclusion, if you are sorely troubled by LEAVE you should bet not convert, but if only moderately troubled currency conversion seems good
Notes * [1] Yes, really. I think there's a delay. I thought they update their rates instantaneously but apparently not. * [2] 0.77 vs 0.29, an overround of 1.06-1 = 6%. Isn't that low for a political betting market? I'll take that to assume liquidity is increasing
The main problem with doing any sort of currency purchase (Unless you're headed abroad in short order) is the spread. I'd guess one of the financial spread betting firms might be the best way to do it..
I read about the study in New Scientist, and it does seem that way to me. Most of the really crap jobs tend to be done by immigrant labour nowadays, but unemployment is still low. That means that those natives who formerly did these jobs must now be doing better paid jobs.
Or have gone self employed and are now doing jobs for even less pay than before. The number of self employed has gone up by 700,000 since 2008 whilst the average earnings for self employed has dropped by 22%
The loss of freedom of movement for UK citizens and the EHIC card will also affect the poor more than the rich. Only the rich and/or educated will have the cash/points to emigrate to the EU, should they wish, and the need to buy travel insurance for holidays to the EU will also hit the poor more than the rich.
Your forgetting the poor unskilled are coming here from the EU in great numbers and this is hitting the poor here in which the rich,educated couldn't give a shit.
I know it is widely thought that unskilled immigration hits the poor, but according to a study I read recently (and anecdotally), that isn't actually the case. Instead, the immigrants tend to take over the lowest jobs, while the natives that formerly did these jobs are shifted to better-paying, supervisory roles. So, on the whole, the poor natives also benefit.
Except it doesn't actually work that way, unless a Guardianista is doing the study.
I read about the study in New Scientist, and it does seem that way to me. Most of the really crap jobs tend to be done by immigrant labour nowadays, but unemployment is still low. That means that those natives who formerly did these jobs must now be doing better paid jobs.
Unemployment is 1.5 million which would have been unacceptable in 1979, whilst under employment is still high, and wages growth according to the BoE is low.
So no, I don't agree with that study.
Unemployment in the UK over the last few decades shows very little correlation with immigration. This alone indicates that the simplistic picture of immigrants putting natives out of work is flawed.
I read about the study in New Scientist, and it does seem that way to me. Most of the really crap jobs tend to be done by immigrant labour nowadays, but unemployment is still low. That means that those natives who formerly did these jobs must now be doing better paid jobs.
Or have gone self employed and are now doing jobs for even less pay than before. The number of self employed has gone up by 700,000 since 2008 whilst the average earnings for self employed has dropped by 22%
Why would they switch to a job that pays less?
If you've lost your job, you take what you're given, to a point.
I don't think any one thought "f*ck it, looks like a nice day for a pay cut".
The loss of freedom of movement for UK citizens and the EHIC card will also affect the poor more than the rich. Only the rich and/or educated will have the cash/points to emigrate to the EU, should they wish, and the need to buy travel insurance for holidays to the EU will also hit the poor more than the rich.
Your forgetting the poor unskilled are coming here from the EU in great numbers and this is hitting the poor here in which the rich,educated couldn't give a shit.
I know it is widely thought that unskilled immigration hits the poor, but according to a study I read recently (and anecdotally), that isn't actually the case. Instead, the immigrants tend to take over the lowest jobs, while the natives that formerly did these jobs are shifted to better-paying, supervisory roles. So, on the whole, the poor natives also benefit.
Except it doesn't actually work that way, unless a Guardianista is doing the study.
I read about the study in New Scientist, and it does seem that way to me. Most of the really crap jobs tend to be done by immigrant labour nowadays, but unemployment is still low. That means that those natives who formerly did these jobs must now be doing better paid jobs.
Unemployment is 1.5 million which would have been unacceptable in 1979, whilst under employment is still high, and wages growth according to the BoE is low.
So no, I don't agree with that study.
Unemployment in the UK over the last few decades shows very little correlation with immigration. This alone indicates that the simplistic picture of immigrants putting natives out of work is flawed.
Here is the rub. It is keeping wages at the bottom down. We've created loads of jobs.
In a limited market the jobs have to start moving to the workers or you have to pay more to house the workers who have moved from high unemployment areas where housing is cheaper.
Right now, migrants are prepared to accept room sharing and sometimes bed shares in ways locals would not. It just distorts the market down.
I read about the study in New Scientist, and it does seem that way to me. Most of the really crap jobs tend to be done by immigrant labour nowadays, but unemployment is still low. That means that those natives who formerly did these jobs must now be doing better paid jobs.
Or have gone self employed and are now doing jobs for even less pay than before. The number of self employed has gone up by 700,000 since 2008 whilst the average earnings for self employed has dropped by 22%
Why would they switch to a job that pays less?
They don't choose to. They can't find work and so go self employed. And going self employed is a leap in the dark for many. They hope they will make more money than before but there is no certainty because everything is fluid - hours, rates etc.
I read about the study in New Scientist, and it does seem that way to me. Most of the really crap jobs tend to be done by immigrant labour nowadays, but unemployment is still low. That means that those natives who formerly did these jobs must now be doing better paid jobs.
Or have gone self employed and are now doing jobs for even less pay than before. The number of self employed has gone up by 700,000 since 2008 whilst the average earnings for self employed has dropped by 22%
Why would they switch to a job that pays less?
If you've lost your job, you take what you're given, to a point.
I don't think any one thought "f*ck it, looks like a nice day for a pay cut".
That makes no sense though. If they were prepared to work for the same as the immigrants, they wouldn't have lost their jobs. So why would they voluntarily leave to work in a job that pays less? That, and the fact that unemployment doesn't correlate well with immigration, tends to indicate that the academic study is correct: unskilled natives tend to be displaced to better paying (often supervisory) roles by immigrants rather than being made unemployed by them.
I'm sure there must be some parallels with the advent of industrialisation here, except that then it was machines rather than unskilled immigrants taking the jobs. Those displaced by the machines ultimately ended up doing higher-level, better paid jobs.
I read about the study in New Scientist, and it does seem that way to me. Most of the really crap jobs tend to be done by immigrant labour nowadays, but unemployment is still low. That means that those natives who formerly did these jobs must now be doing better paid jobs.
Or have gone self employed and are now doing jobs for even less pay than before. The number of self employed has gone up by 700,000 since 2008 whilst the average earnings for self employed has dropped by 22%
Why would they switch to a job that pays less?
If you've lost your job, you take what you're given, to a point.
I don't think any one thought "f*ck it, looks like a nice day for a pay cut".
That makes no sense though. If they were prepared to work for the same as the immigrants, they wouldn't have lost their jobs. So why would they voluntarily leave to work in a job that pays less? That, and the fact that unemployment doesn't correlate well with immigration, tends to indicate that the academic study is correct: unskilled natives tend to be displaced to better paying (often supervisory) roles by immigrants rather than being made unemployed by them.
I'm sure there must be some parallels with the advent of industrialisation here, except that then it was machines rather than unskilled immigrants taking the jobs. Those displaced by the machines ultimately ended up doing higher-level, better paid jobs.
I'm sorry, you've lost job X because the firms gone bust or made you redundant.
You are now earning less. To boot you can't get a full time job. You go self employed. I know I've done this myself in a downturn, except I didn't have to compete with 15 migrants for the 3 jobs I was doing, so I was OK.
All the jobs that would have to pay more if there was less migration don't have to, so they pay less than they otherwise would.
I don't think Scotland will want a border at Berwick if Britain votes to Leave. I can't see Scotland choosing to join the E.U after an independence vote because England and Scotland are much closer than Scotland then the rest of the E.U.
A vote for leave will kill the nationalists stone dead.
I read about the study in New Scientist, and it does seem that way to me. Most of the really crap jobs tend to be done by immigrant labour nowadays, but unemployment is still low. That means that those natives who formerly did these jobs must now be doing better paid jobs.
Or have gone self employed and are now doing jobs for even less pay than before. The number of self employed has gone up by 700,000 since 2008 whilst the average earnings for self employed has dropped by 22%
Why would they switch to a job that pays less?
If you've lost your job, you take what you're given, to a point.
I don't think any one thought "f*ck it, looks like a nice day for a pay cut".
That makes no sense though. If they were prepared to work for the same as the immigrants, they wouldn't have lost their jobs. So why would they voluntarily leave to work in a job that pays less? That, and the fact that unemployment doesn't correlate well with immigration, tends to indicate that the academic study is correct: unskilled natives tend to be displaced to better paying (often supervisory) roles by immigrants rather than being made unemployed by them.
I'm sure there must be some parallels with the advent of industrialisation here, except that then it was machines rather than unskilled immigrants taking the jobs. Those displaced by the machines ultimately ended up doing higher-level, better paid jobs.
So the industrial looms led to weavers getting higher paid jobs?
I read about the study in New Scientist, and it does seem that way to me. Most of the really crap jobs tend to be done by immigrant labour nowadays, but unemployment is still low. That means that those natives who formerly did these jobs must now be doing better paid jobs.
Or have gone self employed and are now doing jobs for even less pay than before. The number of self employed has gone up by 700,000 since 2008 whilst the average earnings for self employed has dropped by 22%
Why would they switch to a job that pays less?
If you've lost your job, you take what you're given, to a point.
I don't think any one thought "f*ck it, looks like a nice day for a pay cut".
That makes no sense though. If they were prepared to work for the same as the immigrants, they wouldn't have lost their jobs. So why would they voluntarily leave to work in a job that pays less? That, and the fact that unemployment doesn't correlate well with immigration, tends to indicate that the academic study is correct: unskilled natives tend to be displaced to better paying (often supervisory) roles by immigrants rather than being made unemployed by them.
I'm sure there must be some parallels with the advent of industrialisation here, except that then it was machines rather than unskilled immigrants taking the jobs. Those displaced by the machines ultimately ended up doing higher-level, better paid jobs.
So the industrial looms led to weavers getting higher paid jobs?
You do know where the word Luddite comes from?
Smashing up the machines was not the answer then, just as ending freedom of movement is not the answer now.
I read about the study in New Scientist, and it does seem that way to me. Most of the really crap jobs tend to be done by immigrant labour nowadays, but unemployment is still low. That means that those natives who formerly did these jobs must now be doing better paid jobs.
Or have gone self employed and are now doing jobs for even less pay than before. The number of self employed has gone up by 700,000 since 2008 whilst the average earnings for self employed has dropped by 22%
Why would they switch to a job that pays less?
If you've lost your job, you take what you're given, to a point.
I don't think any one thought "f*ck it, looks like a nice day for a pay cut".
That makes no sense though. If they were prepared to work for the same as the immigrants, they wouldn't have lost their jobs. So why would they voluntarily leave to work in a job that pays less? That, and the fact that unemployment doesn't correlate well with immigration, tends to indicate that the academic study is correct: unskilled natives tend to be displaced to better paying (often supervisory) roles by immigrants rather than being made unemployed by them.
I'm sure there must be some parallels with the advent of industrialisation here, except that then it was machines rather than unskilled immigrants taking the jobs. Those displaced by the machines ultimately ended up doing higher-level, better paid jobs.
So the industrial looms led to weavers getting higher paid jobs?
You do know where the word Luddite comes from?
It led to much cheaper cloth, and low skilled workers from the farms getting jobs that paid better than farming (or not farming as the case may be) but no, it hit high skilled weavers hard.
However the interesting thing about the industrial revolution is that it could have happened anywhere but happened here. The program I watched on it could only find one explanation. Wages. They were higher (in terms of silver) here than anywhere else. Correlation doesn't equal causation but it certainly doesn't exclude it.
I read about the study in New Scientist, and it does seem that way to me. Most of the really crap jobs tend to be done by immigrant labour nowadays, but unemployment is still low. That means that those natives who formerly did these jobs must now be doing better paid jobs.
Or have gone self employed and are now doing jobs for even less pay than before. The number of self employed has gone up by 700,000 since 2008 whilst the average earnings for self employed has dropped by 22%
Why would they switch to a job that pays less?
If you've lost your job, you take what you're given, to a point.
I don't think any one thought "f*ck it, looks like a nice day for a pay cut".
That makes no sense though. If they were prepared to work for the same as the immigrants, they wouldn't have lost their jobs. So why would they voluntarily leave to work in a job that pays less? That, and the fact that unemployment doesn't correlate well with immigration, tends to indicate that the academic study is correct: unskilled natives tend to be displaced to better paying (often supervisory) roles by immigrants rather than being made unemployed by them.
I'm sure there must be some parallels with the advent of industrialisation here, except that then it was machines rather than unskilled immigrants taking the jobs. Those displaced by the machines ultimately ended up doing higher-level, better paid jobs.
So the industrial looms led to weavers getting higher paid jobs?
You do know where the word Luddite comes from?
Smashing up the machines was not the answer then, just as ending freedom of movement is not the answer now.
The self employed figures are an absolute con. This is what happened: Osborne introduced the "benefit cap" but it doesn't apply to those classed as in work including the self employed, it only applies to those on out of work benefits like JSA and ESA. So someone who would earn more in benefits than the £23k "cap" simply registers as self employed instead and voila no cap and all benefits (housing benefit, child tax credits, working tax credit, child allowances etc) continue to be paid and an added benefit for the Government is the figures show low unemployment. You dont have to provide any proof of self employment if you claim to earn under a certain amount, only an NI number, the hours you class as working and the type of work you do. This "scam" is also known about by the Eastern Europeans coming over who are advised exactly what to do by their compatriots already here. Thats why the first thing they do is get an NI number.
The so called "jobs miracle" is a myth, based on nothing more than low skilled, low waged employment topped up by in work benefits, a massive increase in insecure zero hours contracts and an explosion in fake self employment.
The self employed figures are an absolute con. This is what happened: Osborne introduced the "benefit cap" but it doesn't apply to those classed as in work including the self employed, it only applies to those on out of work benefits like JSA and ESA. So someone who would earn more in benefits than the £23k "cap" simply registers as self employed instead and voila no cap and all benefits (housing benefit, child tax credits, working tax credit, child allowances etc) continue to be paid and an added benefit for the Government is the figures show low unemployment. You dont have to provide any proof of self employment if you claim to earn under a certain amount, only an NI number, the hours you class as working and the type of work you do. This "scam" is also known about by the Eastern Europeans coming over who are advised exactly what to do by their compatriots already here. Thats why the first thing they do is get an NI number.
The so called "jobs miracle" is a myth, based on nothing more than low skilled, low waged employment topped up by in work benefits, a massive increase in insecure zero hours contracts and an explosion in fake self employment.
Utter nonsense. The benefit cap does not apply to anyone who is working, nothing to do with self employment. And of course anyone newly arriving in the UK gets an NI number as it is required for various basic interactions with society.
I read about the study in New Scientist, and it does seem that way to me. Most of the really crap jobs tend to be done by immigrant labour nowadays, but unemployment is still low. That means that those natives who formerly did these jobs must now be doing better paid jobs.
Or have gone self employed and are now doing jobs for even less pay than before. The number of self employed has gone up by 700,000 since 2008 whilst the average earnings for self employed has dropped by 22%
That may be more related to the global crash than immigration, though.
"How we lost the plot on immigration: As a one-legged Albanian drug dealing murderer gets citizenship, benefits and a home, two utterly decent and hardworking families face being expelled
The Zielsdorfs and their children face deportation to Canada, (pictured top right) while Australians Greg and Kathryn Brain and son Lachlan (pictured bottom right) fell foul of altered immigration rules - despite being invited to the UK. But a one-legged Albanian drug dealing double murderer (left) gets citizenship, a lovely house, £500 a week benefits and legal aid to use Human Rights to fight deportation. Two utterly decent families from kith and kin nations which fought for us in the war are being expelled..."
The self employed figures are an absolute con. This is what happened: Osborne introduced the "benefit cap" but it doesn't apply to those classed as in work including the self employed, it only applies to those on out of work benefits like JSA and ESA. So someone who would earn more in benefits than the £23k "cap" simply registers as self employed instead and voila no cap and all benefits (housing benefit, child tax credits, working tax credit, child allowances etc) continue to be paid and an added benefit for the Government is the figures show low unemployment. You dont have to provide any proof of self employment if you claim to earn under a certain amount, only an NI number, the hours you class as working and the type of work you do. This "scam" is also known about by the Eastern Europeans coming over who are advised exactly what to do by their compatriots already here. Thats why the first thing they do is get an NI number.
The so called "jobs miracle" is a myth, based on nothing more than low skilled, low waged employment topped up by in work benefits, a massive increase in insecure zero hours contracts and an explosion in fake self employment.
Utter nonsense. The benefit cap does not apply to anyone who is working, nothing to do with self employment. And of course anyone newly arriving in the UK gets an NI number as it is required for various basic interactions with society.
No 100% accurate, there are no checks on self certifying self employment status. I know a number of people doing exactly this. You really think we have 700,000 productive self employed nail workers. Join the real world, where loopholes in the system are always exploited.
Agreed the Albanian case is a scandal but cases like the Australian and Canadian families will only become more common if Leave gets their way with their "hardline" immigration policy.
The self employed figures are an absolute con. This is what happened: Osborne introduced the "benefit cap" but it doesn't apply to those classed as in work including the self employed, it only applies to those on out of work benefits like JSA and ESA. So someone who would earn more in benefits than the £23k "cap" simply registers as self employed instead and voila no cap and all benefits (housing benefit, child tax credits, working tax credit, child allowances etc) continue to be paid and an added benefit for the Government is the figures show low unemployment. You dont have to provide any proof of self employment if you claim to earn under a certain amount, only an NI number, the hours you class as working and the type of work you do. This "scam" is also known about by the Eastern Europeans coming over who are advised exactly what to do by their compatriots already here. Thats why the first thing they do is get an NI number.
The so called "jobs miracle" is a myth, based on nothing more than low skilled, low waged employment topped up by in work benefits, a massive increase in insecure zero hours contracts and an explosion in fake self employment.
And many of them are not real self employed jobs anyway. The hundreds of thousands of Nail bars dog walkers and grooming parlours and the rest of them that make no or little profit (and are just doing each others nails and walking each others dogs in a circular fiddle), are just fake businesses so that they can enter the tax credits trough and avoid the cap.
Once universal credit comes in then that loophole will go, as after one year anyone self employed is treated as earning 35h x minimum wage even if they are not (other than a one year per lifetime allowance to start a business up)
Perhaps you can knock up a graph showing European unemployment over the last decade to show how much Remain care, or maybe a Greek Special.
Are you saying unemployment will go down in Europe if the UK leaves the EU?
Tory Leavers are so worried about the plight of the poorest in society that they have enthusiastically supported policies that hurt the poorest in society most.
In the same way, they are so concerned about preventing illegal immigration that they have supported major cuts to the navy and the coastguard.
Paul Waugh Corbyn to set out his opposition to an EU-US free trade deal (aka TTIP) - while urging Labour voters to back Remain: https://t.co/V4VsW7KMWP
"How we lost the plot on immigration: As a one-legged Albanian drug dealing murderer gets citizenship, benefits and a home, two utterly decent and hardworking families face being expelled
The Zielsdorfs and their children face deportation to Canada, (pictured top right) while Australians Greg and Kathryn Brain and son Lachlan (pictured bottom right) fell foul of altered immigration rules - despite being invited to the UK. But a one-legged Albanian drug dealing double murderer (left) gets citizenship, a lovely house, £500 a week benefits and legal aid to use Human Rights to fight deportation. Two utterly decent families from kith and kin nations which fought for us in the war are being expelled..."
Paul Waugh Corbyn to set out his opposition to an EU-US free trade deal (aka TTIP) - while urging Labour voters to back Remain: https://t.co/V4VsW7KMWP
I hope that this is the old Plato writing as in PlatoDid?
Perhaps you can knock up a graph showing European unemployment over the last decade to show how much Remain care, or maybe a Greek Special.
Are you saying unemployment will go down in Europe if the UK leaves the EU? Tory Leavers are so worried about the plight of the poorest in society that they have enthusiastically supported policies that hurt the poorest in society most. In the same way, they are so concerned about preventing illegal immigration that they have supported major cuts to the navy and the coastguard. That's how much they care.
Cyclefree set out recently what a professional, coherent, immigration policy and system would look like. It also needs a Chancellor who backs it up. Your comment on the navy is a tiny example, a bigger one is a fully resourced border police. But, in Osborne we have someone who does not support the tens of thousands promise and it shows in the govt shambles in this area. Quite why Cameron let this all happen will be for his next biography to answer.
Paul Waugh Corbyn to set out his opposition to an EU-US free trade deal (aka TTIP) - while urging Labour voters to back Remain: https://t.co/V4VsW7KMWP
I hope that this is the old Plato writing as in PlatoDid?
It's all a bit What Katy Did, isn't it! I loved those books.
"How we lost the plot on immigration: As a one-legged Albanian drug dealing murderer gets citizenship, benefits and a home, two utterly decent and hardworking families face being expelled
The Zielsdorfs and their children face deportation to Canada, (pictured top right) while Australians Greg and Kathryn Brain and son Lachlan (pictured bottom right) fell foul of altered immigration rules - despite being invited to the UK. But a one-legged Albanian drug dealing double murderer (left) gets citizenship, a lovely house, £500 a week benefits and legal aid to use Human Rights to fight deportation. Two utterly decent families from kith and kin nations which fought for us in the war are being expelled..."
Perhaps you can knock up a graph showing European unemployment over the last decade to show how much Remain care, or maybe a Greek Special.
Are you saying unemployment will go down in Europe if the UK leaves the EU? Tory Leavers are so worried about the plight of the poorest in society that they have enthusiastically supported policies that hurt the poorest in society most. In the same way, they are so concerned about preventing illegal immigration that they have supported major cuts to the navy and the coastguard. That's how much they care.
Cyclefree set out recently what a professional, coherent, immigration policy and system would look like. It also needs a Chancellor who backs it up. Your comment on the navy is a tiny example, a bigger one is a fully resourced border police. But, in Osborne we have someone who does not support the tens of thousands promise and it shows in the govt shambles in this area. Quite why Cameron let this all happen will be for his next biography to answer.
Tory Leavers have backed every single one of the Chancellor's budgets and the government's overall economic and fiscal policies.
Paul Waugh Corbyn to set out his opposition to an EU-US free trade deal (aka TTIP) - while urging Labour voters to back Remain: https://t.co/V4VsW7KMWP
I hope that this is the old Plato writing as in PlatoDid?
It's all a bit What Katy Did, isn't it! I loved those books.
"How we lost the plot on immigration: As a one-legged Albanian drug dealing murderer gets citizenship, benefits and a home, two utterly decent and hardworking families face being expelled
The Zielsdorfs and their children face deportation to Canada, (pictured top right) while Australians Greg and Kathryn Brain and son Lachlan (pictured bottom right) fell foul of altered immigration rules - despite being invited to the UK. But a one-legged Albanian drug dealing double murderer (left) gets citizenship, a lovely house, £500 a week benefits and legal aid to use Human Rights to fight deportation. Two utterly decent families from kith and kin nations which fought for us in the war are being expelled..."
Comments
The mask slips - "The EU is a club with some rules we like and some we don't. "
So you've openly admitted that you're prepared to settle for a sub-optimal arrangement. What a miserable lack of ambition you have in achieving what's best for the wider population at large!
LIFE is about compromise. So what? You think we will leave the EU and the remaining 162 nations on earth will bend to our will because no one knows how to put on a spectacle like Trooping the Colour as well as we do?
Why would we want anyone to bend to our will? There are a lot of non-EU countries who want to sell us products at a cheaper rate without the EU taxes that are levied and the other regulatory burdens placed on them. Food from the developing world is one example where we could buy more from them, pay less yet they would receive more £ from us. A win win.
Of ocurse that would reduce the £61bn+ surplus that we spend with the EU....
The EU is trying to lower tariffs (including NTBs) on a large number of goods and services. That is its whole point. On the whole it has been successful.
If you think that there is a parallel market for nearly half our exports, then all I can say is that a) there might be; but b) why burn down the edifice we have which is that home for our exports to start again with all the uncertainties that entails?
It simply makes no sense.
Anyway, on that note, I am going to bed.
All you Leavers try to contain yourselves. I know living your lives as slaves to the EU superstate can't be easy, but fear not, freedom is at hand.
Well two postal votes sent off today for leave from close family members should help
No, this is a classic "Sounds good, works badly" policy.
Voters don't like VAT on fuel - it's a noticeable tax of something that you pay for in cash, and whose price varies, so you never get used to how much you're paying. The opposition want their votes, so they affect to dislike VAT on fuel, too.
But governments *love* VAT on fuel. Wonkishly it's pretty much the perfect tax. It's simple, easy to understand, cheap to collect and hard to avoid. It's good for the environment (less driving means less pollution) and for national security (more efficient cars, less need to import oil from dodgy countries).
So what happens is that politicians say they oppose it when they're in opposition, then put it up in government, mixed in with a bunch of other budget changes in the hope the voters won't notice.
People vote.
And it is increasingly looking like they will vote Leave.
How people on here don't get that unpopular policies lead the public to dislike their politicians astounds me.
At least it means I can also wander off when I get tired rather than waiting for hours for his response. Have fun folks. If that nasty Mr Topping comes back let me know and I will give him another wedgie.
Putting VAT on such a basic life sustaining necessity as domestic fuel was a stupid thing to do and I don't doubt for a minute that Brown would have got rid of it completely if he had been allowed to by the EU. The political fallout from leaving it on when it could be removed from his own supporters would have been very bad for him.
Until it isn't.
* trade wars (see posts below) increasing costs.
* Pre-2015 Eurosceptics held up Singapore as an example. Singapore prioritises the smart professional against the blue- and brown-collar worker. Post-2015 Eurosceptics prioritise immigation control (see today's headlines) but do not accompany it with immigration *limits* - as some have pointed out, the Australian system lets in more migrants than our system. Either way the result is further limited class mobility and it gets a bit 'They Live'.
* Drop in GBP resulting in increased purchasing of houses by foreign buyers
Brexit is being cast as commoners vs posh boys, but I think it's one sect of the upper echelon deposing another, with the expectations of the poor being toyed with only to be cynically abandoned post-Brexit by Johnson, Gove et al.
It's increasingly clear to me that the utopian idealists of today are the people who would tear down the EU while banking on everyone behaving perfectly rationally. History doesn't work that way.
Tonight: Topping.
Last night: Scott_P.
Monday night: Southam_Observer.
Does anyone want to start a sweepstake on who will be tomorrow's funny farm admission?
There is little mileage in a trade war as it will damage the EU as well, causing it immense problems. They might but they'd kill themselves.
As for the points system, Australia simply has a high per capita immigration limit. We can set it lower. At a lower rate with costs imposed on employers possibly, it becomes economic to train staff rather than import them
As an example, before Poland's accession into the EU it was difficult to recruit bus drivers. So they picked up homeless people, rehabilitated them and gave them jobs. This made sense to do. Now you have a ready supply of willing immigrant labour trying to rehabilitate 3 homeless people to get one or two drivers stops making sense.
In short, mass migration means we can ignore our own problems and leave the underclass to themselves. Problem is, it isn't good.
And if you want to see Gove's passion for social mobility, look at what he's trying to do in prisons.
Everyone may know "the same thing" but unless (everyone knows that everyone knows)^n "the same thing" it is not truly Common Knowledge...
(Smug mode off.)
Some very emotional Remainiacs at the moment...
I only wear 'real' shoes on rare occasions these days.
1. ...harder for foreign capital to buy up property...get stronger post Brexit.
2. ...little mileage...trade war...They might but they'd kill themselves.
3. ...As for the points system...We can set it lower.
4. ...mass migration...ignore our own problems...leave the underclass to themselves.
1. I didn't know that, but I'm a little cynical about whether they will. But thank you for telling me
2. People are irrational and tempers are high. Irrational people do irrational things
3. We *can*. I'm not sure we *will*.
4. True.
You have enough to afford a Brexit. Many do not.
Considering the number pauperised by cheap Eastern European labour, this faux concern for people's living standards is rich indeed.
It's not faux. It'll be the poor that suffer from a Brexit.
Why? Genuine question.
The cynical response is "because they always do". The less glib answer is more complex. Examples include:
* trade wars (see posts below) increasing costs.
* Pre-2015 Eurosceptics held up Singapore as an example. Singapore prioritises the smart professional against the blue- and brown-collar worker. Post-2015 Eurosceptics prioritise immigation control (see today's headlines) but do not accompany it with immigration *limits* - as some have pointed out, the Australian system lets in more migrants than our system. Either way the result is further limited class mobility and it gets a bit 'They Live'.
* Drop in GBP resulting in increased purchasing of houses by foreign buyers
Brexit is being cast as commoners vs posh boys, but I think it's one sect of the upper echelon deposing another, with the expectations of the poor being toyed with only to be cynically abandoned post-Brexit by Johnson, Gove et al.
The loss of freedom of movement for UK citizens and the EHIC card will also affect the poor more than the rich. Only the rich and/or educated will have the cash/points to emigrate to the EU, should they wish, and the need to buy travel insurance for holidays to the EU will also hit the poor more than the rich.
Your forgetting the poor unskilled are coming here from the EU in great numbers and this is hitting the poor here in which the rich,educated couldn't give a shit.
I know it is widely thought that unskilled immigration hits the poor, but according to a study I read recently (and anecdotally), that isn't actually the case. Instead, the immigrants tend to take over the lowest jobs, while the natives that formerly did these jobs are shifted to better-paying, supervisory roles. So, on the whole, the poor natives also benefit.
Bollocks,this sounds like it comes from someone who has never been poor or lived in a poor area.
I go by what I see with my own eyes and I can tell that the newcomers into my area are mainly poor families on some sort of benefits.
Except it doesn't actually work that way, unless a Guardianista is doing the study.
I read about the study in New Scientist, and it does seem that way to me. Most of the really crap jobs tend to be done by immigrant labour nowadays, but unemployment is still low. That means that those natives who formerly did these jobs must now be doing better paid jobs.
We have our own problems to fix.
We don't need to because we can import people. If we don't we have to. The latter is good.
We can't however fix our own problems in the EU, at least we have the chance to out.
We also had them with all the Russian Federation and former Soviet countries until the beginning of this year. Not sure why they got dumped or which side decided to do it. I think it was as part of the sanctions we put in place against Russia and her allies. I assume one things return to normal with Russia we will put them back in place.
I read about the study in New Scientist, and it does seem that way to me. Most of the really crap jobs tend to be done by immigrant labour nowadays, but unemployment is still low. That means that those natives who formerly did these jobs must now be doing better paid jobs.
Unemployment is 1.5 million which would have been unacceptable in 1979, whilst under employment is still high, and wages growth according to the BoE is low.
So no, I don't agree with that study.
Unemployment is 1.5 million which would have been unacceptable in 1979, whilst under employment is still high, and wages growth according to the BoE is low.
So no, I don't agree with that study.
Unemployment in the UK over the last few decades shows very little correlation with immigration. This alone indicates that the simplistic picture of immigrants putting natives out of work is flawed.
I don't think any one thought "f*ck it, looks like a nice day for a pay cut".
So no, I don't agree with that study.
Unemployment in the UK over the last few decades shows very little correlation with immigration. This alone indicates that the simplistic picture of immigrants putting natives out of work is flawed.
Here is the rub. It is keeping wages at the bottom down. We've created loads of jobs.
In a limited market the jobs have to start moving to the workers or you have to pay more to house the workers who have moved from high unemployment areas where housing is cheaper.
Right now, migrants are prepared to accept room sharing and sometimes bed shares in ways locals would not. It just distorts the market down.
I'm sure there must be some parallels with the advent of industrialisation here, except that then it was machines rather than unskilled immigrants taking the jobs. Those displaced by the machines ultimately ended up doing higher-level, better paid jobs.
You are now earning less. To boot you can't get a full time job. You go self employed. I know I've done this myself in a downturn, except I didn't have to compete with 15 migrants for the 3 jobs I was doing, so I was OK.
All the jobs that would have to pay more if there was less migration don't have to, so they pay less than they otherwise would.
A vote for leave will kill the nationalists stone dead.
You do know where the word Luddite comes from?
However the interesting thing about the industrial revolution is that it could have happened anywhere but happened here. The program I watched on it could only find one explanation. Wages. They were higher (in terms of silver) here than anywhere else. Correlation doesn't equal causation but it certainly doesn't exclude it.
https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Interview/Every-man-in-a-village-of-100-married-couples-has-cheated-on-his-wife-Every-wife-in-the-village-instantly-knows-when-a-man-QTN_481429.htm
Perhaps, if you thought you were strolling to victory.
The so called "jobs miracle" is a myth, based on nothing more than low skilled, low waged employment topped up by in work benefits, a massive increase in insecure zero hours contracts and an explosion in fake self employment.
The Zielsdorfs and their children face deportation to Canada, (pictured top right) while Australians Greg and Kathryn Brain and son Lachlan (pictured bottom right) fell foul of altered immigration rules - despite being invited to the UK. But a one-legged Albanian drug dealing double murderer (left) gets citizenship, a lovely house, £500 a week benefits and legal aid to use Human Rights to fight deportation. Two utterly decent families from kith and kin nations which fought for us in the war are being expelled..."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3620924/How-lost-plot-immigration-one-legged-Albanian-drug-dealing-murderer-gets-citizenship-benefits-home-two-utterly-decent-hardworking-families-face-expelled.html
Once universal credit comes in then that loophole will go, as after one year anyone self employed is treated as earning 35h x minimum wage even if they are not (other than a one year per lifetime allowance to start a business up)
https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/737525064199856128
Quite a cunning move, it's largely about immigration impact.
Tory Leavers are so worried about the plight of the poorest in society that they have enthusiastically supported policies that hurt the poorest in society most.
In the same way, they are so concerned about preventing illegal immigration that they have supported major cuts to the navy and the coastguard.
That's how much they care.
Paul Waugh
Corbyn to set out his opposition to an EU-US free trade deal (aka TTIP) - while urging Labour voters to back Remain: https://t.co/V4VsW7KMWP
https://twitter.com/MikkiL/status/738148221956984833
It also needs a Chancellor who backs it up. Your comment on the navy is a tiny example, a bigger one is a fully resourced border police.
But, in Osborne we have someone who does not support the tens of thousands promise and it shows in the govt shambles in this area. Quite why Cameron let this all happen will be for his next biography to answer.
It's all a bit What Katy Did, isn't it! I loved those books.