Mr. Royale, as well as people easily reaching different conclusions from the same information, it's easier to be on the consensus/fashionable side of the argument. It's not long ago UKIP were just a joke and the race card was played whenever immigration was raised.
A sizeable number of the young simply see nations as no longer relevant, and they believe they have an international culture and identity, and so the argument just stops there.
And they surely have a good point.
I don't think so. Trade, travel and business is (and will become) ever more global but I see no evidence of the decline of the relevance and importance of nations and, indeed, believe they are a fundamental part of the human condition.
Nations in the earlier tribal sense or in the modern nation state sense? The human condition was around long before the nation state was invented.
A couple of people I know have a vision that we might move to a common global government one day.
I think that's an awful idea.
I imagine that many of the Mercians, Iceni, Cantiaci etc. of ancient Britain would also have found the idea of a common British government an awful idea too. Especially the tribal leaders, who would have feared the loss of status resulting from no longer being big fish in little ponds.
Mr. Enjineeya, do you think that the UK leaving the EU would be comparable to the change from pre-Roman Celtic tribes to the present country in which we live?
If Yougov are correct, then there is a small (but potentially crucial) proportion of Labour voters (7%) who are voting Leave to kick Cameron
That's the fear/hope depending on your viewpoint.
They may also just hate the EU for good lefty reasons. The leader of the RMT, whose name I forget, was on Question Time the other day having a right old go at the EU - from the left. Maybe Vote Leave should wheel him out again. He was cogent, lucid and virulently anti-EU (probably Corbyn's true position). As a trade unionist, I think that he could help move the needle a bit. If you're a lefty Brit I can't see what attraction there is at all in being governed by non-British 'fiscal compact' Eurocrats.
Liz Kershaw of DJ fame totally monstered two Remain bigwigs on Sky - she's very well read and killed Ms TUC O'Grady from the Left. She'd be superb for Leave.
I'm really genuinely baffled by Ms O'Grady. Surely having an effectively limitless supply of labour prepared to undercut your members is not good for your members? What am I missing here?
Liz didn't get it either, nor how the EU protected rights "Aren't Labour doing that anymore?"
What the EU does is to ensure a level playing field in terms of workers' rights. Without these EU protections, there is a temptation for nations to engage in a race to the bottom in which workers' rights are dispensed with for the sake of competitivity.
Estobar's posts earlier were interesting, because they suggested not just a leave win, but an emphatic leave win. Not just leave but let's get the hell out of here.
Such a result might have bigger implications outside the UK than inside it.
Why hate the pleasant, clever, studiouly neutral Laura K? Of the BBC?
I really don't understand Corbynites. They seem to hate EVERYONE. Corbyn's Labour are like the Daily Mail of political parties, except that the Mail is, at least, entertaining
The left is as obsessed about BBC bias as the right.
If LEAVE win by a narrow margin, how will Cameron and the Civil Service devise a way to avoid exiting the EU?
The EU will make a big offer to the UK, an "unprecedented" offer no less, that completely changes everything and it is only the right to offer the people another Referendum.
The first part of that is precisely why we should vote Leave.
The verdict to the UK Government and EU should be: "not good enough".
Mr. Royale, as well as people easily reaching different conclusions from the same information, it's easier to be on the consensus/fashionable side of the argument. It's not long ago UKIP were just a joke and the race card was played whenever immigration was raised.
A sizeable number of the young simply see nations as no longer relevant, and they believe they have an international culture and identity, and so the argument just stops there.
And they surely have a good point.
I don't think so. Trade, travel and business is (and will become) ever more global but I see no evidence of the decline of the relevance and importance of nations and, indeed, believe they are a fundamental part of the human condition.
Nations in the earlier tribal sense or in the modern nation state sense? The human condition was around long before the nation state was invented.
A couple of people I know have a vision that we might move to a common global government one day.
I think that's an awful idea.
I imagine that many of the Mercians, Iceni, Cantiaci etc. of ancient Britain would also have found the idea of a common British government an awful idea too. Especially the tribal leaders, who would have feared the loss of status resulting from no longer being big fish in little ponds.
We'll talk when you've bothered to read my blog, where I go through all this.
Mr. Royale, as well as people easily reaching different conclusions from the same information, it's easier to be on the consensus/fashionable side of the argument. It's not long ago UKIP were just a joke and the race card was played whenever immigration was raised.
A sizeable number of the young simply see nations as no longer relevant, and they believe they have an international culture and identity, and so the argument just stops there.
And they surely have a good point.
I don't think so. Trade, travel and business is (and will become) ever more global but I see no evidence of the decline of the relevance and importance of nations and, indeed, believe they are a fundamental part of the human condition.
Nations in the earlier tribal sense or in the modern nation state sense? The human condition was around long before the nation state was invented.
A couple of people I know have a vision that we might move to a common global government one day.
I think that's an awful idea.
I imagine that many of the Mercians, Iceni, Cantiaci etc. of ancient Britain would also have found the idea of a common British government an awful idea too. Especially the tribal leaders, who would have feared the loss of status resulting from no longer being big fish in little ponds.
Maybe they would, but so what? The trend over the past 80 years or so, has been to create smaller political units, in place of larger ones.
Yes. Since the fall of Communism we have seen the rise of the City-state.
Paradoxically a world of small City-states is made possible by international organisations like the UN, WTO and EU that give these small entities the protection to thrive alongside larger more aggresive entities.
Why hate the pleasant, clever, studiouly neutral Laura K? Of the BBC?
I really don't understand Corbynites. They seem to hate EVERYONE. Corbyn's Labour are like the Daily Mail of political parties, except that the Mail is, at least, entertaining
The left is as obsessed about BBC bias as the right.
Corbyn is convinced everybody but Press TV and the Morning Star is against him.
Mr. Royale, as well as people easily reaching different conclusions from the same information, it's easier to be on the consensus/fashionable side of the argument. It's not long ago UKIP were just a joke and the race card was played whenever immigration was raised.
A sizeable number of the young simply see nations as no longer relevant, and they believe they have an international culture and identity, and so the argument just stops there.
And they surely have a good point.
I don't think so. Trade, travel and business is (and will become) ever more global but I see no evidence of the decline of the relevance and importance of nations and, indeed, believe they are a fundamental part of the human condition.
But the modern nation state is no more than 300-odd years old vs our species 100000 odd years.
Mr. Royale, as well as people easily reaching different conclusions from the same information, it's easier to be on the consensus/fashionable side of the argument. It's not long ago UKIP were just a joke and the race card was played whenever immigration was raised.
A sizeable number of the young simply see nations as no longer relevant, and they believe they have an international culture and identity, and so the argument just stops there.
And they surely have a good point.
I don't think so. Trade, travel and business is (and will become) ever more global but I see no evidence of the decline of the relevance and importance of nations and, indeed, believe they are a fundamental part of the human condition.
The EU's problem, in part, is not that it is a superstate, but it isn't one and is never likely to be. The other EU members with functioning polities - France and Germany in particular - have no intention of winding down their nation states. This means that supporters of the EU - like me for the most part - have to argue that a partial solution is a good solution, that a glass half full is much better than no glass at all. On the other hand it makes arguing for exit with EEA difficult. If the EU is half-baked, the EEA is quarter-baked. And actually I don't think it will work for Britain.
Mr. Royale, as well as people easily reaching different conclusions from the same information, it's easier to be on the consensus/fashionable side of the argument. It's not long ago UKIP were just a joke and the race card was played whenever immigration was raised.
A sizeable number of the young simply see nations as no longer relevant, and they believe they have an international culture and identity, and so the argument just stops there.
And they surely have a good point.
I don't think so. Trade, travel and business is (and will become) ever more global but I see no evidence of the decline of the relevance and importance of nations and, indeed, believe they are a fundamental part of the human condition.
Nations in the earlier tribal sense or in the modern nation state sense? The human condition was around long before the nation state was invented.
A couple of people I know have a vision that we might move to a common global government one day.
I think that's an awful idea.
I imagine that many of the Mercians, Iceni, Cantiaci etc. of ancient Britain would also have found the idea of a common British government an awful idea too. Especially the tribal leaders, who would have feared the loss of status resulting from no longer being big fish in little ponds.
We'll talk when you've bothered to read my blog, where I go through all this.
Again, could you repost the link to it? I read it but I've forgotten what you said about this.
Why hate the pleasant, clever, studiouly neutral Laura K? Of the BBC?
I really don't understand Corbynites. They seem to hate EVERYONE. Corbyn's Labour are like the Daily Mail of political parties, except that the Mail is, at least, entertaining
I've a very self-righteous one who keeps responding to me on Twitter. She's just told me and Martin Daubney that everyone who votes Brexit is either a sadistic Tory/Kipper, or a stupid poor easily led Labour voter duped by racists.
I wish I was making this up. The arrogance and bigotry is epic. Martin's just called her a bigot and she's having a hissy-fit.
If Yougov are correct, then there is a small (but potentially crucial) proportion of Labour voters (7%) who are voting Leave to kick Cameron
That's the fear/hope depending on your viewpoint.
They may also just hate the EU for good lefty reasons. The leader of the RMT, whose name I forget, was on Question Time the other day having a right old go at the EU - from the left. Maybe Vote Leave should wheel him out again. He was cogent, lucid and virulently anti-EU (probably Corbyn's true position). As a trade unionist, I think that he could help move the needle a bit. If you're a lefty Brit I can't see what attraction there is at all in being governed by non-British 'fiscal compact' Eurocrats.
Liz Kershaw of DJ fame totally monstered two Remain bigwigs on Sky - she's very well read and killed Ms TUC O'Grady from the Left. She'd be superb for Leave.
I'm really genuinely baffled by Ms O'Grady. Surely having an effectively limitless supply of labour prepared to undercut your members is not good for your members? What am I missing here?
Liz didn't get it either, nor how the EU protected rights "Aren't Labour doing that anymore?"
What the EU does is to ensure a level playing field in terms of workers' rights. Without these EU protections, there is a temptation for nations to engage in a race to the bottom in which workers' rights are dispensed with for the sake of competitivity.
Couple of points. When is Bulgaria introducing £9/hr min wage?
40% of our sales are done outside of the EU/UK. I'm quite sure my Indonesian and Chinese competitors are not engaged on a level playing field with me.
In November, Milne had asked Laura K for advice on how to deal with media. I doubt that she recommended jeering, hissing as ways of getting the leader's message over to a wider audience.
Estobar's posts earlier were interesting, because they suggested not just a leave win, but an emphatic leave win. Not just leave but let's get the hell out of here.
Such a result might have bigger implications outside the UK than inside it.
I agree with him on the value of Remain 40-45% at 21 on Betfair. I have a decent lump on that.
Why hate the pleasant, clever, studiouly neutral Laura K? Of the BBC?
I really don't understand Corbynites. They seem to hate EVERYONE. Corbyn's Labour are like the Daily Mail of political parties, except that the Mail is, at least, entertaining
The left is as obsessed about BBC bias as the right.
Just because my uncle dresses up as a woman on weekends it doesn't make him my aunt.
To have 2/3 of the voters thinking that way makes the idea of 60% for REMAIN, frankly seems to be a dream. Even getting over 50% looks to be optimistic. These are even more reasons for wavering REMAINers to stay at home on election day.
.....The biggest effect on me personally would be staffing shortages and rota gaps, so being pressed to do more with less.
Why would you have staffing shortages? Trained people would be high on the points scale if there are insufficient UK workers with those skills. A spanish doctor is not going to be blocked. WHen independent anlysis was done (quoted on sky or bbc a week ago) they found that almost 90% of EU migrants were to unskilled jobs.
We have staffing vacancies already. Roughly 30 000 Nurses and Medical staff across the NHS. We cannot currently fill them with the existing points system, and I cannot see that in the febrile anti-immigration post Leave it getting easier. Already we are finding it harder to recruit in Europe because of the Brexit debate (and also the worsening terms and conditions of the new contract).
We have 1.7 million unemployed people in this country. Why can't we train some of them to be nurses?
According to Corbyn, it is all the media's fault, everybody from BBC / Guardian rightward is against him.
Some of my Facebook friends are unhappy with how she has treated JC. I can't comment because I don't see enough of her reporting but you can't dismiss claims of bias out of hand. Tories have hardly been unknown to criticise the BBC.
If Yougov are correct, then there is a small (but potentially crucial) proportion of Labour voters (7%) who are voting Leave to kick Cameron
That's the fear/hope depending on your viewpoint.
They may also just hate the EU for good lefty reasons. The leader of the RMT, whose name I forget, was on Question Time the other day having a right old go at the EU - from the left. Maybe Vote Leave should wheel him out again. He was cogent, lucid and virulently anti-EU (probably Corbyn's true position). As a trade unionist, I think that he could help move the needle a bit. If you're a lefty Brit I can't see what attraction there is at all in being governed by non-British 'fiscal compact' Eurocrats.
Liz Kershaw of DJ fame totally monstered two Remain bigwigs on Sky - she's very well read and killed Ms TUC O'Grady from the Left. She'd be superb for Leave.
I'm really genuinely baffled by Ms O'Grady. Surely having an effectively limitless supply of labour prepared to undercut your members is not good for your members? What am I missing here?
Liz didn't get it either, nor how the EU protected rights "Aren't Labour doing that anymore?"
What the EU does is to ensure a level playing field in terms of workers' rights. Without these EU protections, there is a temptation for nations to engage in a race to the bottom in which workers' rights are dispensed with for the sake of competitivity.
Jeremy Corbyn's decision to join the Leave campaign has made me even more certain that I am right to be voting Remain.
Trump has been speaking mainly to the alienated blue collar workers. But Trump is clever enough to modify his approach, and he will. Corbyn has only one gear, somewhere between first and reverse.
Mr. Royale, as well as people easily reaching different conclusions from the same information, it's easier to be on the consensus/fashionable side of the argument. It's not long ago UKIP were just a joke and the race card was played whenever immigration was raised.
A sizeable number of the young simply see nations as no longer relevant, and they believe they have an international culture and identity, and so the argument just stops there.
And they surely have a good point.
I don't think so. Trade, travel and business is (and will become) ever more global but I see no evidence of the decline of the relevance and importance of nations and, indeed, believe they are a fundamental part of the human condition.
But the modern nation state is no more than 300-odd years old vs our species 100000 odd years.
Bwahaha, what a ludicrous argument. Italy didn't exist before 1860, Spain was ruled by generals within living memory.
What point are you trying to make?
Much of human history has been marked by repressive and undemocratic rule by autocrats.
There are lessons to be drawn there, but not the ones many Remainers seem to think.
If Yougov are correct, then there is a small (but potentially crucial) proportion of Labour voters (7%) who are voting Leave to kick Cameron
That's the fear/hope depending on your viewpoint.
They may also just hate the EU for good lefty reasons. The leader of the RMT, whose name I forget, was on Question Time the other day having a right old go at the EU - from the left. Maybe Vote Leave should wheel him out again. He was cogent, lucid and virulently anti-EU (probably Corbyn's true position). As a trade unionist, I think that he could help move the needle a bit. If you're a lefty Brit I can't see what attraction there is at all in being governed by non-British 'fiscal compact' Eurocrats.
Liz Kershaw of DJ fame totally monstered two Remain bigwigs on Sky - she's very well read and killed Ms TUC O'Grady from the Left. She'd be superb for Leave.
I'm really genuinely baffled by Ms O'Grady. Surely having an effectively limitless supply of labour prepared to undercut your members is not good for your members? What am I missing here?
Liz didn't get it either, nor how the EU protected rights "Aren't Labour doing that anymore?"
What the EU does is to ensure a level playing field in terms of workers' rights. Without these EU protections, there is a temptation for nations to engage in a race to the bottom in which workers' rights are dispensed with for the sake of competitivity.
And yet the current Tory government are raising the minimum wage to £9ph, which is a move that will undoubtedly make British companies less competitive.
We also have far better maternity leave allowances than the EU minimum.
Mr. Royale, as well as people easily reaching different conclusions from the same information, it's easier to be on the consensus/fashionable side of the argument. It's not long ago UKIP were just a joke and the race card was played whenever immigration was raised.
A sizeable number of the young simply see nations as no longer relevant, and they believe they have an international culture and identity, and so the argument just stops there.
And they surely have a good point.
I don't think so. Trade, travel and business is (and will become) ever more global but I see no evidence of the decline of the relevance and importance of nations and, indeed, believe they are a fundamental part of the human condition.
The EU's problem, in part, is not that it is a superstate, but it isn't one and is never likely to be. The other EU members with functioning polities - France and Germany in particular - have no intention of winding down their nation states. This means that supporters of the EU - like me for the most part - have to argue that a partial solution is a good solution, that a glass half full is much better than no glass at all. On the other hand it makes arguing for exit with EEA difficult. If the EU is half-baked, the EEA is quarter-baked. And actually I don't think it will work for Britain.
But unless the Eurozone becomes a country soonish then it will break.
I think people are looking through the wrong lens. It is not so much about party affiliation, nor region (Scotland, N.I., London etc), but age, education and social class. This can be seen in the individually detailed YouGov polls published last week. But there is also the messaging. We have lived with the EU and its foibles for over forty years. It's been the constant background noise. For some of us it has been a real irritation, though less so for others. For those who have formed opinions the majority will be negative. They will vote. Only those without opinions are prone to persuasion by authority figures. Young people tend to take the background EU noise for granted and don't have opinions about it or generally think "what's the issue?" Whether they will vote is the issue.
According to Corbyn, it is all the media's fault, everybody from BBC / Guardian rightward is against him.
Some of my Facebook friends are unhappy with how she has treated JC. I can't comment because I don't see enough of her reporting but you can't dismiss claims of bias out of hand. Tories have hardly been unknown to criticise the BBC.
The Corbynistas are making themselves look as ridiculous as the Tory right.
Mr. Royale, as well as people easily reaching different conclusions from the same information, it's easier to be on the consensus/fashionable side of the argument. It's not long ago UKIP were just a joke and the race card was played whenever immigration was raised.
A sizeable number of the young simply see nations as no longer relevant, and they believe they have an international culture and identity, and so the argument just stops there.
And they surely have a good point.
I don't think so. Trade, travel and business is (and will become) ever more global but I see no evidence of the decline of the relevance and importance of nations and, indeed, believe they are a fundamental part of the human condition.
The EU's problem, in part, is not that it is a superstate, but it isn't one and is never likely to be. The other EU members with functioning polities - France and Germany in particular - have no intention of winding down their nation states. This means that supporters of the EU - like me for the most part - have to argue that a partial solution is a good solution, that a glass half full is much better than no glass at all. On the other hand it makes arguing for exit with EEA difficult. If the EU is half-baked, the EEA is quarter-baked. And actually I don't think it will work for Britain.
Not at all. The EU is a political union. The EEA is a trading partnership. To try and in any way conflate the two is ridiculous.
If LEAVE win by a narrow margin, how will Cameron and the Civil Service devise a way to avoid exiting the EU?
The EU will make a big offer to the UK, an "unprecedented" offer no less, that completely changes everything and it is only the right to offer the people another Referendum.
The first part of that is precisely why we should vote Leave.
The verdict to the UK Government and EU should be: "not good enough".
Quite. I really really wanted to vote "in" and be in a reformed EU or at least have a real stand alone deal for us worth the taking. It wasn't, it was derisory, and Cameron made it far worse by trying to dupe us it was great ("I sure would"). Nobody around that negotiating table from Cameron to Merkel to Tusk, the lot of them, ever thought they would be checking their underwear this close to the vote. That's why the deal was crap. Either that or the Continent really doesn't give a damn which is worse.
I just hope they take real stock of the reform needed if it is 52/48 to Remain or something like that. They won't of course and the next crisis will be staggered in to be fudged as best they can.
Why hate the pleasant, clever, studiouly neutral Laura K? Of the BBC?
I really don't understand Corbynites. They seem to hate EVERYONE. Corbyn's Labour are like the Daily Mail of political parties, except that the Mail is, at least, entertaining
The left is as obsessed about BBC bias as the right.
Just because my uncle dresses up as a woman on weekends it doesn't make him my aunt.
If LEAVE win by a narrow margin, how will Cameron and the Civil Service devise a way to avoid exiting the EU?
The EU will make a big offer to the UK, an "unprecedented" offer no less, that completely changes everything and it is only the right to offer the people another Referendum.
You mean Cameron will have got a PROPER renegotiation of our position within the EU? Pfffft.....
Casino- that is a superb observation, and sums up forty something people like me too.
I think national identity will become even more fluid in the future through migration. You can see through football- fans are much less involved in the national team, and instead are drawn to their team of choice (often not even local) which sometimes comprises only foreign players.
Brexit is a last but vain attempt to hold back the tide- but the die is cast, the world is changing, and even if we vote Brexit, we will not stop the momentum of change. We cannot roll back technology which is the primary cause of change.
Trump's populism too is made of the same ilk, trying to roll back the clock, and similarly flawed.
I firmly believe we have to welcome the change- the breaking down of barriers is part of human evolution. If we withdraw back to national identities the world will become a much more dangerous place.
And, whilst I am in somewhat of a philosophical mood- spare a thought for the African migrants coming through Libya. They are only following what our ancestors did- escaping poverty and disease in Africa for a better life in Europe.
Lastly, just to make you all feel better in Blighty- it is pissing down and freezing here in Florence. I am half tempted to stick on the central heating.
Mr. Royale, as well as people easily reaching different conclusions from the same information, it's easier to be on the consensus/fashionable side of the argument. It's not long ago UKIP were just a joke and the race card was played whenever immigration was raised.
A sizeable number of the young simply see nations as no longer relevant, and they believe they have an international culture and identity, and so the argument just stops there.
Mr. Royale, as well as people easily reaching different conclusions from the same information, it's easier to be on the consensus/fashionable side of the argument. It's not long ago UKIP were just a joke and the race card was played whenever immigration was raised.
A sizeable number of the young simply see nations as no longer relevant, and they believe they have an international culture and identity, and so the argument just stops there.
And they surely have a good point.
I don't think so. Trade, travel and business is (and will become) ever more global but I see no evidence of the decline of the relevance and importance of nations and, indeed, believe they are a fundamental part of the human condition.
Nations in the earlier tribal sense or in the modern nation state sense? The human condition was around long before the nation state was invented.
A couple of people I know have a vision that we might move to a common global government one day.
I think that's an awful idea.
I imagine that many of the Mercians, Iceni, Cantiaci etc. of ancient Britain would also have found the idea of a common British government an awful idea too. Especially the tribal leaders, who would have feared the loss of status resulting from no longer being big fish in little ponds.
To have 2/3 of the voters thinking that way makes the idea of 60% for REMAIN, frankly seems to be a dream. Even getting over 50% looks to be optimistic. These are even more reasons for wavering REMAINers to stay at home on election day.
.....The biggest effect on me personally would be staffing shortages and rota gaps, so being pressed to do more with less.
Why would you have staffing shortages? Trained people would be high on the points scale if there are insufficient UK workers with those skills. A spanish doctor is not going to be blocked. WHen independent anlysis was done (quoted on sky or bbc a week ago) they found that almost 90% of EU migrants were to unskilled jobs.
We have staffing vacancies already. Roughly 30 000 Nurses and Medical staff across the NHS. We cannot currently fill them with the existing points system, and I cannot see that in the febrile anti-immigration post Leave it getting easier. Already we are finding it harder to recruit in Europe because of the Brexit debate (and also the worsening terms and conditions of the new contract).
We have 1.7 million unemployed people in this country. Why can't we train some of them to be nurses?
Our government cut the number of training places and recently withdrew Bursaries for Nurse training.
If we were serious about reducing immigration then a good place to start would be by training enough Doctors, Nurses, IT workers, hotel receptionists and chefs that we didn't need to import.
Then create pay and working conditions to retain them!
Why hate the pleasant, clever, studiouly neutral Laura K? Of the BBC?
I really don't understand Corbynites. They seem to hate EVERYONE. Corbyn's Labour are like the Daily Mail of political parties, except that the Mail is, at least, entertaining
The left is as obsessed about BBC bias as the right.
Corbyn is convinced everybody but Press TV and the Morning Star is against him.
If Yougov are correct, then there is a small (but potentially crucial) proportion of Labour voters (7%) who are voting Leave to kick Cameron
That's the fear/hope depending on your viewpoint.
They may also just hate the EU for good lefty reasons. The leader of the RMT, whose name I forget, was on Question Time the other day having a right old go at the EU - from the left. Maybe Vote Leave should wheel him out again. He was cogent, lucid and virulently anti-EU (probably Corbyn's true position). As a trade unionist, I think that he could help move the needle a bit. If you're a lefty Brit I can't see what attraction there is at all in being governed by non-British 'fiscal compact' Eurocrats.
Liz Kershaw of DJ fame totally monstered two Remain bigwigs on Sky - she's very well read and killed Ms TUC O'Grady from the Left. She'd be superb for Leave.
I'm really genuinely baffled by Ms O'Grady. Surely having an effectively limitless supply of labour prepared to undercut your members is not good for your members? What am I missing here?
Liz didn't get it either, nor how the EU protected rights "Aren't Labour doing that anymore?"
What the EU does is to ensure a level playing field in terms of workers' rights. Without these EU protections, there is a temptation for nations to engage in a race to the bottom in which workers' rights are dispensed with for the sake of competitivity.
UK minimum wage £7.20 EU minimum wage €0.96
In general, national electorates are more significant in determining workers' statutory rights than supranational institutions are. Employment rights have always struck me as being exactly the sort of thing that ought to be determined at national level.
If Yougov are correct, then there is a small (but potentially crucial) proportion of Labour voters (7%) who are voting Leave to kick Cameron
That's the fear/hope depending on your viewpoint.
They may also just hate the EU for good lefty reasons. The leader of the RMT, whose name I forget, was on Question Time the other day having a right old go at the EU - from the left. Maybe Vote Leave should wheel him out again. He was cogent, lucid and virulently anti-EU (probably Corbyn's true position). As a trade unionist, I think that he could help move the needle a bit. If you're a lefty Brit I can't see what attraction there is at all in being governed by non-British 'fiscal compact' Eurocrats.
Liz Kershaw of DJ fame totally monstered two Remain bigwigs on Sky - she's very well read and killed Ms TUC O'Grady from the Left. She'd be superb for Leave.
I'm really genuinely baffled by Ms O'Grady. Surely having an effectively limitless supply of labour prepared to undercut your members is not good for your members? What am I missing here?
Liz didn't get it either, nor how the EU protected rights "Aren't Labour doing that anymore?"
What the EU does is to ensure a level playing field in terms of workers' rights. Without these EU protections, there is a temptation for nations to engage in a race to the bottom in which workers' rights are dispensed with for the sake of competitivity.
UK minimum wage £7.20 EU minimum wage €0.96
In general, national electorates are more significant in determining workers' statutory rights than supranational institutions are. Employment rights have always struck me as being exactly the sort of thing that ought to be determined at national level.
Exactly. There is no valid argument in having a fraction of employment rights at an international level. It doesn't even create a level playing field when our minimum wage is nearly 8 times that as elsewhere.
Mr. Royale, as well as people easily reaching different conclusions from the same information, it's easier to be on the consensus/fashionable side of the argument. It's not long ago UKIP were just a joke and the race card was played whenever immigration was raised.
A sizeable number of the young simply see nations as no longer relevant, and they believe they have an international culture and identity, and so the argument just stops there.
And they surely have a good point.
I don't think so. Trade, travel and business is (and will become) ever more global but I see no evidence of the decline of the relevance and importance of nations and, indeed, believe they are a fundamental part of the human condition.
Nations in the earlier tribal sense or in the modern nation state sense? The human condition was around long before the nation state was invented.
A couple of people I know have a vision that we might move to a common global government one day.
I think that's an awful idea.
I imagine that many of the Mercians, Iceni, Cantiaci etc. of ancient Britain would also have found the idea of a common British government an awful idea too. Especially the tribal leaders, who would have feared the loss of status resulting from no longer being big fish in little ponds.
Casino- that is a superb observation, and sums up forty something people like me too.
I think national identity will become even more fluid in the future through migration. You can see through football- fans are much less involved in the national team, and instead are drawn to their team of choice (often not even local) which sometimes comprises only foreign players.
Brexit is a last but vain attempt to hold back the tide- but the die is cast, the world is changing, and even if we vote Brexit, we will not stop the momentum of change. We cannot roll back technology which is the primary cause of change.
Trump's populism too is made of the same ilk, trying to roll back the clock, and similarly flawed.
I firmly believe we have to welcome the change- the breaking down of barriers is part of human evolution. If we withdraw back to national identities the world will become a much more dangerous place.
And, whilst I am in somewhat of a philosophical mood- spare a thought for the African migrants coming through Libya. They are only following what our ancestors did- escaping poverty and disease in Africa for a better life in Europe.
Lastly, just to make you all feel better in Blighty- it is pissing down and freezing here in Florence. I am half tempted to stick on the central heating.
So why do Scotland want independence from the UK and
Mr. Royale, as well as people easily reaching different conclusions from the same information, it's easier to be on the consensus/fashionable side of the argument. It's not long ago UKIP were just a joke and the race card was played whenever immigration was raised.
A sizeable number of the young simply see nations as no longer relevant, and they believe they have an international culture and identity, and so the argument just stops there.
And they surely have a good point.
I don't think so. Trade, travel and business is (and will become) ever more global but I see no evidence of the decline of the relevance and importance of nations and, indeed, believe they are a fundamental part of the human condition.
The EU's problem, in part, is not that it is a superstate, but it isn't one and is never likely to be. The other EU members with functioning polities - France and Germany in particular - have no intention of winding down their nation states. This means that supporters of the EU - like me for the most part - have to argue that a partial solution is a good solution, that a glass half full is much better than no glass at all. On the other hand it makes arguing for exit with EEA difficult. If the EU is half-baked, the EEA is quarter-baked. And actually I don't think it will work for Britain.
But unless the Eurozone becomes a country soonish then it will break.
The Eurozone won't become a country for the reasons I mentioned, but it could break. The Eurozone has been highly stressed but the constituent parts have shown a remarkable willingness to keep the show on the road. Bear in mind there have been Euro winners as well as losers and that the relatively successful countries like Germany are more important in the scheme of things than basket cases like Greece. The probability of breakup in the medium term is unknowable, but I would put it at less than 20%.
Casino- that is a superb observation, and sums up forty something people like me too.
I think national identity will become even more fluid in the future through migration. You can see through football- fans are much less involved in the national team, and instead are drawn to their team of choice (often not even local) which sometimes comprises only foreign players.
Brexit is a last but vain attempt to hold back the tide- but the die is cast, the world is changing, and even if we vote Brexit, we will not stop the momentum of change. We cannot roll back technology which is the primary cause of change.
Trump's populism too is made of the same ilk, trying to roll back the clock, and similarly flawed.
I firmly believe we have to welcome the change- the breaking down of barriers is part of human evolution. If we withdraw back to national identities the world will become a much more dangerous place.
And, whilst I am in somewhat of a philosophical mood- spare a thought for the African migrants coming through Libya. They are only following what our ancestors did- escaping poverty and disease in Africa for a better life in Europe.
Lastly, just to make you all feel better in Blighty- it is pissing down and freezing here in Florence. I am half tempted to stick on the central heating.
Mr. Royale, as well as people easily reaching different conclusions from the same information, it's easier to be on the consensus/fashionable side of the argument. It's not long ago UKIP were just a joke and the race card was played whenever immigration was raised.
A sizeable number of the young simply see nations as no longer relevant, and they believe they have an international culture and identity, and so the argument just stops there.
I cannot believe the Govt took away bursaries for nurses. I just cannot understand how they could have thought that was a good idea. Nurses train for 48 weeks a year, many of these are spent working on placement. Who in their right mind is going to want to pay 10k a year to do this?
It is the same with the Police now. And social workers. It is crazy, ill thought through policy making. Next they'll be asking soldiers to pay their costs for the first 3 years of training.
We have staffing vacancies already. Roughly 30 000 Nurses and Medical staff across the NHS. We cannot currently fill them with the existing points system, and I cannot see that in the febrile anti-immigration post Leave it getting easier. Already we are finding it harder to recruit in Europe because of the Brexit debate (and also the worsening terms and conditions of the new contract).
We have 1.7 million unemployed people in this country. Why can't we train some of them to be nurses?
Our government cut the number of training places and recently withdrew Bursaries for Nurse training.
If we were serious about reducing immigration then a good place to start would be by training enough Doctors, Nurses, IT workers, hotel receptionists and chefs that we didn't need to import.
Then create pay and working conditions to retain them!
To have 2/3 of the voters thinking that way makes the idea of 60% for REMAIN, frankly seems to be a dream. Even getting over 50% looks to be optimistic. These are even more reasons for wavering REMAINers to stay at home on election day.
.....The biggest effect on me personally would be staffing shortages and rota gaps, so being pressed to do more with less.
Why would you have staffing shortages? Trained people would be high on the points scale if there are insufficient UK workers with those skills. A spanish doctor is not going to be blocked. WHen independent anlysis was done (quoted on sky or bbc a week ago) they found that almost 90% of EU migrants were to unskilled jobs.
We have staffing vacancies already. Roughly 30 000 Nurses and Medical staff across the NHS. We cannot currently fill them with the existing points system, and I cannot see that in the febrile anti-immigration post Leave it getting easier. Already we are finding it harder to recruit in Europe because of the Brexit debate (and also the worsening terms and conditions of the new contract).
We have 1.7 million unemployed people in this country. Why can't we train some of them to be nurses?
Our government cut the number of training places and recently withdrew Bursaries for Nurse training.
If we were serious about reducing immigration then a good place to start would be by training enough Doctors, Nurses, IT workers, hotel receptionists and chefs that we didn't need to import.
Then create pay and working conditions to retain them!
I absolutely agree with all of that. It seems that immigration is just a useful sticking plaster for the government to avoid solving more fundamental problems.
To have 2/3 of the voters thinking that way makes the idea of 60% for REMAIN, frankly seems to be a dream. Even getting over 50% looks to be optimistic. These are even more reasons for wavering REMAINers to stay at home on election day.
.....The biggest effect on me personally would be staffing shortages and rota gaps, so being pressed to do more with less.
Why would you have staffing shortages? Trained people would be high on the points scale if there are insufficient UK workers with those skills. A spanish doctor is not going to be blocked. WHen independent anlysis was done (quoted on sky or bbc a week ago) they found that almost 90% of EU migrants were to unskilled jobs.
We have staffing vacancies already. Roughly 30 000 Nurses and Medical staff across the NHS. We cannot currently fill them with the existing points system, and I cannot see that in the febrile anti-immigration post Leave it getting easier. Already we are finding it harder to recruit in Europe because of the Brexit debate (and also the worsening terms and conditions of the new contract).
We have 1.7 million unemployed people in this country. Why can't we train some of them to be nurses?
Our government cut the number of training places and recently withdrew Bursaries for Nurse training.
If we were serious about reducing immigration then a good place to start would be by training enough Doctors, Nurses, IT workers, hotel receptionists and chefs that we didn't need to import.
Then create pay and working conditions to retain them!
One way to increase the number of trained nurses is to get rid of the requirement that they have degrees nowadays.
Mr. Eagles, it's unsurprising to find anti-Conservative sentiment in the People's Republic of South Yorkshire (about as shocking as finding Conservative voters in North Yorkshire).
It's West Yorkshire, and places like it, that may be the determining factor. Full of marginals and more voters accustomed to being floating voters.
Also worth noting those who are anti-Conservative may vote Leave to try and get rid of Cameron.
I'm coming to West Yorkshire next week. I was a hit last year there helping to elect several Tory MPs. I might come canvass you.
y everyone where it is mentioned in my company at work family and friends is saying that they are not definite either way.
Depends on what you consider important. If it is the economy, I'd pitch that and the spirit of Thatcher, and only Trump and Le Pen want Brexit whilst the great and the good are for Remain.
If the mosaic said you were left leaning, I'd go for workers' rights (and do you really want to see Boris/IDS/Gove as PM) and NHS workers' are overwhelming for Remain.
Whatever you choose this is a decision not to sit out.
Thanks TSE. I am concerned about democracy sovereignty.
For my daughter who has just got a new job promotion and is moving up from London to Leeds and will be buying a house in the next 3 months . The consideration is more short term interest rates , and workers rights.
Currently my close family is Father - Leave Mother- Undecided Wife- Remain Brother - Leave Brother - Remain Daughter- Remain Daughter- Not voting
We're a sovereign nation. We're having a referendum, if we vote Remain and in the future membership of the EU isn't in our interest we can have another referendum or elect a party who have a manifesto pledge to take us out.
But the Meeks' of this forum are trying to fetter that right, with all this "last referendum for a generation" crap, what about if the EU isn't in our interests in five years time ?
William Hague has promised us that if there's a vote for Remain, this issue will be settled for all time.
Casino- that is a superb observation, and sums up forty something people like me too.
I think national identity will become even more fluid in the future through migration. You can see through football- fans are much less involved in the national team, and instead are drawn to their team of choice (often not even local) which sometimes comprises only foreign players.
Brexit is a last but vain attempt to hold back the tide- but the die is cast, the world is changing, and even if we vote Brexit, we will not stop the momentum of change. We cannot roll back technology which is the primary cause of change.
Trump's populism too is made of the same ilk, trying to roll back the clock, and similarly flawed.
I firmly believe we have to welcome the change- the breaking down of barriers is part of human evolution. If we withdraw back to national identities the world will become a much more dangerous place.
And, whilst I am in somewhat of a philosophical mood- spare a thought for the African migrants coming through Libya. They are only following what our ancestors did- escaping poverty and disease in Africa for a better life in Europe.
Lastly, just to make you all feel better in Blighty- it is pissing down and freezing here in Florence. I am half tempted to stick on the central heating.
So why do Scotland want independence from the UK and
why do the Catalans want independence from Spain?
Crucially, both want independence within the EU.
An example of "City-states" feeling more comfortable within international bodies.
Casino- that is a superb observation, and sums up forty something people like me too.
I think national identity will become even more fluid in the future through migration. You can see through football- fans are much less involved in the national team, and instead are drawn to their team of choice (often not even local) which sometimes comprises only foreign players.
Brexit is a last but vain attempt to hold back the tide- but the die is cast, the world is changing, and even if we vote Brexit, we will not stop the momentum of change. We cannot roll back technology which is the primary cause of change.
Trump's populism too is made of the same ilk, trying to roll back the clock, and similarly flawed.
I firmly believe we have to welcome the change- the breaking down of barriers is part of human evolution. If we withdraw back to national identities the world will become a much more dangerous place.
And, whilst I am in somewhat of a philosophical mood- spare a thought for the African migrants coming through Libya. They are only following what our ancestors did- escaping poverty and disease in Africa for a better life in Europe.
Lastly, just to make you all feel better in Blighty- it is pissing down and freezing here in Florence. I am half tempted to stick on the central heating.
Mr. Royale, as well as people easily reaching different conclusions from the same information, it's easier to be on the consensus/fashionable side of the argument. It's not long ago UKIP were just a joke and the race card was played whenever immigration was raised.
A sizeable number of the young simply see nations as no longer relevant, and they believe they have an international culture and identity, and so the argument just stops there.
Except the problem with that logic is the EU is not simply about breaking down barriers, if it was I'd support it. The EU wants to raise new barriers between Europe and the rest of the world.
If the choice is between a nation called the UK (or England) or a nation called Europe then I'll choose the former.
Mr. Royale, as well as people easily reaching different conclusions from the same information, it's easier to be on the consensus/fashionable side of the argument. It's not long ago UKIP were just a joke and the race card was played whenever immigration was raised.
A sizeable number of the young simply see nations as no longer relevant, and they believe they have an international culture and identity, and so the argument just stops there.
And they surely have a good point.
I don't think so. Trade, travel and business is (and will become) ever more global but I see no evidence of the decline of the relevance and importance of nations and, indeed, believe they are a fundamental part of the human condition.
The EU's problem, in part, is not that it is a superstate, but it isn't one and is never likely to be. The other EU members with functioning polities - France and Germany in particular - have no intention of winding down their nation states. This means that supporters of the EU - like me for the most part - have to argue that a partial solution is a good solution, that a glass half full is much better than no glass at all. On the other hand it makes arguing for exit with EEA difficult. If the EU is half-baked, the EEA is quarter-baked. And actually I don't think it will work for Britain.
Not at all. The EU is a political union. The EEA is a trading partnership. To try and in any way conflate the two is ridiculous.
It's the difference between a political union that isn't very united and a trading partnership that isn't a partnership in any real sense of the word. I think it is fair to say that if the EU lacks coherence, the EEA lacks it even more.
Casino- that is a superb observation, and sums up forty something people like me too.
I think national identity will become even more fluid in the future through migration. You can see through football- fans are much less involved in the national team, and instead are drawn to their team of choice (often not even local) which sometimes comprises only foreign players.
Brexit is a last but vain attempt to hold back the tide- but the die is cast, the world is changing, and even if we vote Brexit, we will not stop the momentum of change. We cannot roll back technology which is the primary cause of change.
Trump's populism too is made of the same ilk, trying to roll back the clock, and similarly flawed.
I firmly believe we have to welcome the change- the breaking down of barriers is part of human evolution. If we withdraw back to national identities the world will become a much more dangerous place.
And, whilst I am in somewhat of a philosophical mood- spare a thought for the African migrants coming through Libya. They are only following what our ancestors did- escaping poverty and disease in Africa for a better life in Europe.
Lastly, just to make you all feel better in Blighty- it is pissing down and freezing here in Florence. I am half tempted to stick on the central heating.
So why do Scotland want independence from the UK and
why do the Catalans want independence from Spain?
They want mutual interdependence within a common system of governance. The only place in Europe were true independence is still sought is Moscow.
To have 2/3 of the voters thinking that way makes the idea of 60% for REMAIN, frankly seems to be a dream. Even getting over 50% looks to be optimistic. These are even more reasons for wavering REMAINers to stay at home on election day.
.....The biggest effect on me personally would be staffing shortages and rota gaps, so being pressed to do more with less.
Why would you have staffing shortages? Trained people would be high on the points scale if there are insufficient UK workers with those skills. A spanish doctor is not going to be blocked. WHen independent anlysis was done (quoted on sky or bbc a week ago) they found that almost 90% of EU migrants were to unskilled jobs.
We have staffing vacancies already. Roughly 30 000 Nurses and Medical staff across the NHS. We cannot current....
We have 1.7 million unemployed people in this country. Why can't we train some of them to be nurses?
Our government cut the number of training places and recently withdrew Bursaries for Nurse training. If we were serious about reducing immigration then a good place to start would be by training enough Doctors, Nurses, IT workers, hotel receptionists and chefs that we didn't need to import. Then create pay and working conditions to retain them!
Not quite an accurate picture. Are you trying to spin this? The previous Labour govt decided that nurses needed degrees. So they started bringing that in. Problem was they did not fully fund it and when it came into effect for 100% of nurses, the coalition govt inherited the problem. The coalition govt did then cut back a little in the places but fundamentally the number of trained nurses being produced and then working in the NHS were well below the needs of the NHS.
This was made worse by the practice of some people using the bursaries to get themselves a good degree at a good univeristy and then never working as a nurse.... A free degree - who would have thunk it? Only 60% of the places funded produced a nurse for the NHS. Abandon bursaries and then only those who want to be a nurse take a place - it also means that more nurses will eventually be trained. Since nursing degrees are oversubscribed by 2 x or more times, having "free " degrees was a nonsense.
According to Corbyn, it is all the media's fault, everybody from BBC / Guardian rightward is against him.
Some of my Facebook friends are unhappy with how she has treated JC. I can't comment because I don't see enough of her reporting but you can't dismiss claims of bias out of hand. Tories have hardly been unknown to criticise the BBC.
The Corbynistas are making themselves look as ridiculous as the Tory right.
Laura Kuenssberg was very negative on the early results as they came in for the council elections for Labour. She showed no balance when the full weekends elections came in which included the mayoralty elections. From my perspective she is the most anti labour BBC political correspondent they have ever had. Whether this is anti corbyn rather Labour is hard to tell.
Mr. Royale, as well as people easily reaching different conclusions from the same information, it's easier to be on the consensus/fashionable side of the argument. It's not long ago UKIP were just a joke and the race card was played whenever immigration was raised.
A sizeable number of the young simply see nations as no longer relevant, and they believe they have an international culture and identity, and so the argument just stops there.
And they surely have a good point.
I don't think so. Trade, travel and business is (and will become) ever more global but I see no evidence of the decline of the relevance and importance of nations and, indeed, believe they are a fundamental part of the human condition.
The EU's problem, in part, is not that it is a superstate, but it isn't one and is never likely to be. The other EU members with functioning polities - France and Germany in particular - have no intention of winding down their nation states. This means that supporters of the EU - like me for the most part - have to argue that a partial solution is a good solution, that a glass half full is much better than no glass at all. On the other hand it makes arguing for exit with EEA difficult. If the EU is half-baked, the EEA is quarter-baked. And actually I don't think it will work for Britain.
Not at all. The EU is a political union. The EEA is a trading partnership. To try and in any way conflate the two is ridiculous.
It's the difference between a political union that isn't very united and a trading partnership that isn't a partnership in any real sense of the word. I think it is fair to say that if the EU lacks coherence, the EEA lacks it even more.
Or that what coherence the EEA has comes from the fact that the vast majority of it is the EU. If everyone left the EU to and wanted the EEA option, the EEA would suddenly need to become very much like the EU.
Exactly my point. Like Brexit, Trump, the anti politics of new European movements, Jeremy Corbyn, the nationalist movements are part of the same sentiment- vain attempts to stop the world changing.
Casino Royale posted earlier he is starting to see solidarity withy the hard left Brexit. Incredible. Politics is fascinating at the minute, as interesting as it's been in my lifetime for sure.
Casino- that is a superb observation, and sums up forty something people like me too.
I think national identity will become even more fluid in the future through migration. You can see through football- fans are much less involved in the national team, and instead are drawn to their team of choice (often not even local) which sometimes comprises only foreign players.
Brexit is a last but vain attempt to hold back the tide- but the die is cast, the world is changing, and even if we vote Brexit, we will not stop the momentum of change. We cannot roll back technology which is the primary cause of change.
Trump's populism too is made of the same ilk, trying to roll back the clock, and similarly flawed.
I firmly believe we have to welcome the change- the breaking down of barriers is part of human evolution. If we withdraw back to national identities the world will become a much more dangerous place.
And, whilst I am in somewhat of a philosophical mood- spare a thought for the African migrants coming through Libya. They are only following what our ancestors did- escaping poverty and disease in Africa for a better life in Europe.
Lastly, just to make you all feel better in Blighty- it is pissing down and freezing here in Florence. I am half tempted to stick on the central heating.
So why do Scotland want independence from the UK and
Casino- that is a superb observation, and sums up forty something people like me too.
I think national identity will become even more fluid in the future through migration. You can see through football- fans are much less involved in the national team, and instead are drawn to their team of choice (often not even local) which sometimes comprises only foreign players.
Brexit is a last but vain attempt to hold back the tide- but the die is cast, the world is changing, and even if we vote Brexit, we will not stop the momentum of change. We cannot roll back technology which is the primary cause of change.
Trump's populism too is made of the same ilk, trying to roll back the clock, and similarly flawed.
I firmly believe we have to welcome the change- the breaking down of barriers is part of human evolution. If we withdraw back to national identities the world will become a much more dangerous place.
And, whilst I am in somewhat of a philosophical mood- spare a thought for the African migrants coming through Libya. They are only following what our ancestors did- escaping poverty and disease in Africa for a better life in Europe.
Lastly, just to make you all feel better in Blighty- it is pissing down and freezing here in Florence. I am half tempted to stick on the central heating.
So why do Scotland want independence from the UK and
why do the Catalans want independence from Spain?
They want mutual interdependence within a common system of governance. The only place in Europe were true independence is still sought is Moscow.
Although that's only really independence for one person rather than an entire country.
To have 2/3 of the voters thinking that way makes the idea of 60% for REMAIN, frankly seems to be a dream. Even getting over 50% looks to be optimistic. These are even more reasons for wavering REMAINers to stay at home on election day.
.....The biggest effect on me personally would be staffing shortages and rota gaps, so being pressed to do more with less.
Why would you have staffing shortages? Trained people would be high on the points scale if there are insufficient UK workers with those skills. A spanish doctor is not going to be blocked. WHen independent anlysis was done (quoted on sky or bbc a week ago) they found that almost 90% of EU migrants were to unskilled jobs.
We have staffing vacancies already. Roughly 30 000 Nurses and Medical staff across the NHS. We cannot currently fill them with the existing points system, and I cannot see that in the febrile anti-immigration post Leave it getting easier. Already we are finding it harder to recruit in Europe because of the Brexit debate (and also the worsening terms and conditions of the new contract).
We have 1.7 million unemployed people in this country. Why can't we train some of them to be nurses?
Our government cut the number of training places and recently withdrew Bursaries for Nurse training.
If we were serious about reducing immigration then a good place to start would be by training enough Doctors, Nurses, IT workers, hotel receptionists and chefs that we didn't need to import.
Then create pay and working conditions to retain them!
I absolutely agree with all of that. It seems that immigration is just a useful sticking plaster for the government to avoid solving more fundamental problems.
Leave will expose the fundamental problems of the UK fairly quickly. Importing Polish vegetables rather than Polish vegetable pickers, using Nursing auxillaries in place of trained nurses, pushing up the cost of employing a plumber etc.
Grimmest of all will be converting Primary Schools to understaffed old peoples homes.
Mr. Royale, as well as people easily reaching different conclusions from the same information, it's easier to be on the consensus/fashionable side of the argument. It's not long ago UKIP were just a joke and the race card was played whenever immigration was raised.
A sizeable number of the young simply see nations as no longer relevant, and they believe they have an international culture and identity, and so the argument just stops there.
And they surely have a good point.
I don't think so. Trade, travel and business is (and will become) ever more global but I see no evidence of the decline of the relevance and importance of nations and, indeed, believe they are a fundamental part of the human condition.
The EU's problem, in part, is not that it is a superstate, but it isn't one and is never likely to be. The other EU members with functioning polities - France and Germany in particular - have no intention of winding down their nation states. This means that supporters of the EU - like me for the most part - have to argue that a partial solution is a good solution, that a glass half full is much better than no glass at all. On the other hand it makes arguing for exit with EEA difficult. If the EU is half-baked, the EEA is quarter-baked. And actually I don't think it will work for Britain.
Not at all. The EU is a political union. The EEA is a trading partnership. To try and in any way conflate the two is ridiculous.
It's the difference between a political union that isn't very united and a trading partnership that isn't a partnership in any real sense of the word. I think it is fair to say that if the EU lacks coherence, the EEA lacks it even more.
If the EU is an empire then the EEA simply counts in its client states.
To have 2/3 of the voters thinking that way makes the idea of 60% for REMAIN, frankly seems to be a dream. Even getting over 50% looks to be optimistic. These are even more reasons for wavering REMAINers to stay at home on election day.
.....The biggest effect on me personally would be staffing shortages and rota gaps, so being pressed to do more with less.
Why would you have staffing shortages? Trained people would be high on the points scale if there are insufficient UK workers with those skills. A spanish doctor is not going to be blocked. WHen independent anlysis was done (quoted on sky or bbc a week ago) they found that almost 90% of EU migrants were to unskilled jobs.
We have staffing vacancies already. Roughly 30 000 Nurses and Medical staff across the NHS. We cannot currently fill them with the existing points system, and I cannot see that in the febrile anti-immigration post Leave it getting easier. Already we are finding it harder to recruit in Europe because of the Brexit debate (and also the worsening terms and conditions of the new contract).
We have 1.7 million unemployed people in this country. Why can't we train some of them to be nurses?
Our government cut the number of training places and recently withdrew Bursaries for Nurse training.
If we were serious about reducing immigration then a good place to start would be by training enough Doctors, Nurses, IT workers, hotel receptionists and chefs that we didn't need to import.
Then create pay and working conditions to retain them!
One way to increase the number of trained nurses is to get rid of the requirement that they have degrees nowadays.
And rebuild the nurses' homes closed and sold in the 1980s.
According to Corbyn, it is all the media's fault, everybody from BBC / Guardian rightward is against him.
Some of my Facebook friends are unhappy with how she has treated JC. I can't comment because I don't see enough of her reporting but you can't dismiss claims of bias out of hand. Tories have hardly been unknown to criticise the BBC.
The Corbynistas are making themselves look as ridiculous as the Tory right.
Laura Kuenssberg was very negative on the early results as they came in for the council elections for Labour. She showed no balance when the full weekends elections came in which included the mayoralty elections. From my perspective she is the most anti labour BBC political correspondent they have ever had. Whether this is anti corbyn rather Labour is hard to tell.
She did cock that up slightly (although the mayoral landslide victory was despite Corbyn, certainly not because of him) but the idea that booing and hissing a journalist at a press conference is ever acceptable resides only in the warped minds of the Momentum group.
Estobar's posts earlier were interesting, because they suggested not just a leave win, but an emphatic leave win. Not just leave but let's get the hell out of here.
Such a result might have bigger implications outside the UK than inside it.
I wonder if the existing three tier arrangement - EZ,EU,EFTA - would rationalise down to two in the event of us going with the EZ becoming the EU, the remainder becoming the new broader EFTA. It seems the obvious way to keep the project going whilst getting doubters to make up their minds once and for all and would allow for some obvious reduction of EU social intrusion into non-EU countries.
As an aside, the unweighted raw numbers showed a 54-46 lead for Leave in the ICM phone poll at 10/10 to vote. Online was 53-47.
Mr. Tyson, changes aren't always good. The Western Roman Empire's fall led to centuries of Dark Ages.
There's a tendency to assume progress marches alongside time, but that's utter tosh. The barbarism of ISIS/Daesh is happening today, not a thousand years ago.
Casino- that is a superb observation, and sums up forty something people like me too.
I think national identity will become even more fluid in the future through migration. You can see through football- fans are much less involved in the national team, and instead are drawn to their team of choice (often not even local) which sometimes comprises only foreign players.
Brexit is a last but vain attempt to hold back the tide- but the die is cast, the world is changing, and even if we vote Brexit, we will not stop the momentum of change. We cannot roll back technology which is the primary cause of change.
Trump's populism too is made of the same ilk, trying to roll back the clock, and similarly flawed.
I firmly believe we have to welcome the change- the breaking down of barriers is part of human evolution. If we withdraw back to national identities the world will become a much more dangerous place.
And, whilst I am in somewhat of a philosophical mood- spare a thought for the African migrants coming through Libya. They are only following what our ancestors did- escaping poverty and disease in Africa for a better life in Europe.
Lastly, just to make you all feel better in Blighty- it is pissing down and freezing here in Florence. I am half tempted to stick on the central heating.
Mr. Royale, as well as people easily reaching different conclusions from the same information, it's easier to be on the consensus/fashionable side of the argument. It's not long ago UKIP were just a joke and the race card was played whenever immigration was raised.
A sizeable number of the young simply see nations as no longer relevant, and they believe they have an international culture and identity, and so the argument just stops there.
Except the problem with that logic is the EU is not simply about breaking down barriers, if it was I'd support it. The EU wants to raise new barriers between Europe and the rest of the world.
If the choice is between a nation called the UK (or England) or a nation called Europe then I'll choose the former.
Who is asking you to make any of those choices? Identity is a very multi-layered concept.
Although that's only really independence for one person rather than an entire country.
To be fair he does command genuine majority support.
Incidentally I would respect the Brexit camp much more if they were also arguing to withdraw from NATO but for most of them that seems to be an even bigger sacred cow: a security blanket as much as a security alliance.
Mr. Royale, as well as people easily reaching different conclusions from the same information, it's easier to be on the consensus/fashionable side of the argument. It's not long ago UKIP were just a joke and the race card was played whenever immigration was raised.
A sizeable number of the young simply see nations as no longer relevant, and they believe they have an international culture and identity, and so the argument just stops there.
And they surely have a good point.
I don't think so. Trade, travel and business is (and will become) ever more global but I see no evidence of the decline of the relevance and importance of nations and, indeed, believe they are a fundamental part of the human condition.
The EU's problem, in part, is not that it is a superstate, but it isn't one and is never likely to be. The other EU members with functioning polities - France and Germany in particular - have no intention of winding down their nation states. This means that supporters of the EU - like me for the most part - have to argue that a partial solution is a good solution, that a glass half full is much better than no glass at all. On the other hand it makes arguing for exit with EEA difficult. If the EU is half-baked, the EEA is quarter-baked. And actually I don't think it will work for Britain.
Not at all. The EU is a political union. The EEA is a trading partnership. To try and in any way conflate the two is ridiculous.
It's the difference between a political union that isn't very united and a trading partnership that isn't a partnership in any real sense of the word. I think it is fair to say that if the EU lacks coherence, the EEA lacks it even more.
Or that what coherence the EEA has comes from the fact that the vast majority of it is the EU. If everyone left the EU to and wanted the EEA option, the EEA would suddenly need to become very much like the EU.
Yes, which is why the EU as a trading partnership isn't on the table. People refer glibly to the EEA as a major international system but it is really just Norway (no disrespect to Liechtenstein and Andorra...). Norway is a small, wealthy, self-disciplined and independent-minded country. They are happy to outsource their trading systems to people who deal with these things and operate within the systems these people devise. The EEA works for Norway. I think it highly unlikely to work for the UK, given our objections to the EU.
Dr. Foxinsox, I know you used quotation marks but Catalonia and Scotland cannot possibly be considered city-states.
A better example for the argument you're seeking to make would be the desire of Venice and its environs to secede from Italy.
Could London secede from the UK? It would make sense, everybody in England seems to hate it, it is europhile not eurosceptic and is outward-looking and internationalist. London would make an interesting city-state.
Mr. Royale, as well as people easily reaching different conclusions from the same information, it's easier to be on the consensus/fashionable side of the argument. It's not long ago UKIP were just a joke and the race card was played whenever immigration was raised.
A sizeable number of the young simply see nations as no longer relevant, and they believe they have an international culture and identity, and so the argument just stops there.
And they surely have a good point.
I don't think so. Trade, travel and business is (and will become) ever more global but I see no evidence of the decline of the relevance and importance of nations and, indeed, believe they are a fundamental part of the human condition.
The EU's problem, in part, is not that it is a superstate, but it isn't one and is never likely to be. The other EU members with functioning polities - France and Germany in particular - have no intention of winding down their nation states. This means that supporters of the EU - like me for the most part - have to argue that a partial solution is a good solution, that a glass half full is much better than no glass at all. On the other hand it makes arguing for exit with EEA difficult. If the EU is half-baked, the EEA is quarter-baked. And actually I don't think it will work for Britain.
But unless the Eurozone becomes a country soonish then it will break.
The Eurozone won't become a country for the reasons I mentioned, but it could break. The Eurozone has been highly stressed but the constituent parts have shown a remarkable willingness to keep the show on the road. Bear in mind there have been Euro winners as well as losers and that the relatively successful countries like Germany are more important in the scheme of things than basket cases like Greece. The probability of breakup in the medium term is unknowable, but I would put it at less than 20%.
The problem is not the Eurozone per se but the lack of commonality between Europe's leaders and its citizens. I was going to write 'a lack of democracy' but while that's true - particularly within the EU - it's only one of three aspects. The other two are democratically-elected politicians like Merkel doing stupid things her country disapproves of (now - they didn't necessarily last summer), and electorates like Greece's wanting to have their cake and eat it.
Dr. Foxinsox, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Denmark, the Netherlands, would all do perfectly well without the EU. There have always been larger and smaller nations. The EU is necessary for neither.
More small nations would help centralise power, though.
"This was made worse by the practice of some people using the bursaries to get themselves a good degree at a good univeristy and then never working as a nurse.... A free degree - who would have thunk it? Only 60% of the places funded produced a nurse for the NHS. Abandon bursaries and then only those who want to be a nurse take a place - it also means that more nurses will eventually be trained. Since nursing degrees are oversubscribed by 2 x or more times, having "free " degrees was a nonsense."
@TC PoliticalBetting Nurses degree courses are 48 weeks a year, many of these spent in hospital placements working full time shifts. A normal student has 30 weeks courseworkper year- none of these working. That gives some time to get a holiday job to help pay their fees, something nurse trainees cannot do- unless you expect them to work the extra 4 weeks a year.
Many of the nurse trainees are mums (many single) trying to establish a career.
Even if 40% never become nurses- they still would have spent many weeks working in hospitals whilst they were training over the three years. Hardly a free degree.
And having nurse courses over subscribed is a good thing. We want motivated, good people. And it is good that there is some slippage after qualifying because we want only those committed to the job to stay on.
Cutting nurse bursaries is one of the most stupid, cruel, short sighted, counter productive policies that has come out of any Govt in my memory. Shame on the Tories for doing this.
Our government cut the number of training places and recently withdrew Bursaries for Nurse training.
If we were serious about reducing immigration then a good place to start would be by training enough Doctors, Nurses, IT workers, hotel receptionists and chefs that we didn't need to import.
Then create pay and working conditions to retain them!
Leave aside the NHS and public bodies the question of training people is perhaps a bit of a chicken and egg situation. An awful lot of companies just will not invest in training young people into skilled trades because they do not need to all the time they can get people from overseas, possibly pay them less than a native and dump the marginal costs (housing benefit etc. on to the taxpayers).
Perhaps if the ability to import trained staff were greatly restricted then such companies might start training our own young people.
That said, and to give Oborne and his mates some credit, they have at least made a start with forcing companies to pay for training through the new compulsory apprenticeship levy. A policy first proposed, albeit in slightly different form, on this site by our own Nick Palmer. Though go back a couple of decades and there was a building trades training levy on all building companies, so I suppose there is rarely anything new in politics.
To sum up, until UK management (public and private sector) start seeing training as an investment and not a cost, I think we will always have high levels of immigration.
Simply wrong to bracket Telegraph with Mail and Sun in its position on this. They probably will come out for Leave but their coverage has alternated pretty evenly between Remain and Leave scare stories
As for the conclusion of the piece - it's called being too clever by half
Mr. Royale, as well as people easily reaching different conclusions from the same information, it's easier to be on the consensus/fashionable side of the argument. It's not long ago UKIP were just a joke and the race card was played whenever immigration was raised.
A sizeable number of the young simply see nations as no longer relevant, and they believe they have an international culture and identity, and so the argument just stops there.
And they surely have a good point.
I don't think so. Trade, travel and business is (and will become) ever more global but I see no evidence of the decline of the relevance and importance of nations and, indeed, believe they are a fundamental part of the human condition.
Nations in the earlier tribal sense or in the modern nation state sense? The human condition was around long before the nation state was invented.
A couple of people I know have a vision that we might move to a common global government one day.
I think that's an awful idea.
I imagine that many of the Mercians, Iceni, Cantiaci etc. of ancient Britain would also have found the idea of a common British government an awful idea too. Especially the tribal leaders, who would have feared the loss of status resulting from no longer being big fish in little ponds.
And there were also those who feared the collapse of the Soviet Empire, and of course people who now fear the collapse of the EU. Power has been agglomerated and dispersed throughout history, and will continue to do so. There is no reason to believe the former represents progress and the latter the opposite.
Mr. Royale, as well as people easily reaching different conclusions from the same information, it's easier to be on the consensus/fashionable side of the argument. It's not long ago UKIP were just a joke and the race card was played whenever immigration was raised.
A sizeable number of the young simply see nations as no longer relevant, and they believe they have an international culture and identity, and so the argument just stops there.
And they surely have a good point.
I don't think so. Trade, travel and business is (and will become) ever more global but I see no evidence of the decline of the relevance and importance of nations and, indeed, believe they are a fundamental part of the human condition.
Nations in the earlier tribal sense or in the modern nation state sense? The human condition was around long before the nation state was invented.
A couple of people I know have a vision that we might move to a common global government one day.
I think that's an awful idea.
I imagine that many of the Mercians, Iceni, Cantiaci etc. of ancient Britain would also have found the idea of a common British government an awful idea too. Especially the tribal leaders, who would have feared the loss of status resulting from no longer being big fish in little ponds.
The size of government that works is linked to the geography of culture. Government, in the sense of a ruling body with time-limited monopoly of power granted to it by the electorate, only works with a broad consensus of the populace as to what powers it agrees to cede to the government and what responsibilities are assumed by the voters. It is simply inconceivable that we could, at this stage, have a government of this type covering roughly equal numbers of people who come from the agnostic Western Christian culture and those who subscribe to the Wahabi Sunni or Twelver Shia Islam as currently practiced in Saudi Arabia and Iran respectively.
Trying to force a European or World government before the cultures of the populace have sufficiently converged would be as disastrous as joining the Euro was for Greece before economic convergence.
Comments
Such a result might have bigger implications outside the UK than inside it.
The verdict to the UK Government and EU should be: "not good enough".
Senior Labour figure says Corbyn speech amounts to "sabotage" of Remain camp.
Milne Hunts for Mole.
Paradoxically a world of small City-states is made possible by international organisations like the UN, WTO and EU that give these small entities the protection to thrive alongside larger more aggresive entities.
edit - you already have - thanks
I wish I was making this up. The arrogance and bigotry is epic. Martin's just called her a bigot and she's having a hissy-fit.
40% of our sales are done outside of the EU/UK. I'm quite sure my Indonesian and Chinese competitors are not engaged on a level playing field with me.
EU minimum wage €0.96
Corbyn has only one gear, somewhere between first and reverse.
There are lessons to be drawn there, but not the ones many Remainers seem to think.
After all Scotland says it would want independance from the UK if the vote was to LEAVE and Scotland voted REMAIN.
But there is also the messaging. We have lived with the EU and its foibles for over forty years. It's been the constant background noise. For some of us it has been a real irritation, though less so for others. For those who have formed opinions the majority will be negative. They will vote. Only those without opinions are prone to persuasion by authority figures. Young people tend to take the background EU noise for granted and don't have opinions about it or generally think "what's the issue?" Whether they will vote is the issue.
I just hope they take real stock of the reform needed if it is 52/48 to Remain or something like that. They won't of course and the next crisis will be staggered in to be fudged as best they can.
I think national identity will become even more fluid in the future through migration. You can see through football- fans are much less involved in the national team, and instead are drawn to their team of choice (often not even local) which sometimes comprises only foreign players.
Brexit is a last but vain attempt to hold back the tide- but the die is cast, the world is changing, and even if we vote Brexit, we will not stop the momentum of change. We cannot roll back technology which is the primary cause of change.
Trump's populism too is made of the same ilk, trying to roll back the clock, and similarly flawed.
I firmly believe we have to welcome the change- the breaking down of barriers is part of human evolution. If we withdraw back to national identities the world will become a much more dangerous place.
And, whilst I am in somewhat of a philosophical mood- spare a thought for the African migrants coming through Libya. They are only following what our ancestors did- escaping poverty and disease in Africa for a better life in Europe.
Lastly, just to make you all feel better in Blighty- it is pissing down and freezing here in Florence. I am half tempted to stick on the central heating.
If we were serious about reducing immigration then a good place to start would be by training enough Doctors, Nurses, IT workers, hotel receptionists and chefs that we didn't need to import.
Then create pay and working conditions to retain them!
(gets coat)
Remain will win by around 10pts, and we'll wonder what all the fuss was about.
We aren't going to vote to leave the EU.
So why do Scotland want independence from the UK and
why do the Catalans want independence from Spain?
It is the same with the Police now. And social workers. It is crazy, ill thought through policy making. Next they'll be asking soldiers to pay their costs for the first 3 years of training.
We have staffing vacancies already. Roughly 30 000 Nurses and Medical staff across the NHS. We cannot currently fill them with the existing points system, and I cannot see that in the febrile anti-immigration post Leave it getting easier. Already we are finding it harder to recruit in Europe because of the Brexit debate (and also the worsening terms and conditions of the new contract).
We have 1.7 million unemployed people in this country. Why can't we train some of them to be nurses?
Our government cut the number of training places and recently withdrew Bursaries for Nurse training.
If we were serious about reducing immigration then a good place to start would be by training enough Doctors, Nurses, IT workers, hotel receptionists and chefs that we didn't need to import.
Then create pay and working conditions to retain them!
One way to increase the number of trained nurses is to get rid of the requirement that they have degrees nowadays.
An example of "City-states" feeling more comfortable within international bodies.
If the choice is between a nation called the UK (or England) or a nation called Europe then I'll choose the former.
The previous Labour govt decided that nurses needed degrees. So they started bringing that in. Problem was they did not fully fund it and when it came into effect for 100% of nurses, the coalition govt inherited the problem. The coalition govt did then cut back a little in the places but fundamentally the number of trained nurses being produced and then working in the NHS were well below the needs of the NHS.
This was made worse by the practice of some people using the bursaries to get themselves a good degree at a good univeristy and then never working as a nurse.... A free degree - who would have thunk it? Only 60% of the places funded produced a nurse for the NHS. Abandon bursaries and then only those who want to be a nurse take a place - it also means that more nurses will eventually be trained. Since nursing degrees are oversubscribed by 2 x or more times, having "free " degrees was a nonsense.
She showed no balance when the full weekends elections came in which included the mayoralty elections.
From my perspective she is the most anti labour BBC political correspondent they have ever had.
Whether this is anti corbyn rather Labour is hard to tell.
Casino Royale posted earlier he is starting to see solidarity withy the hard left Brexit. Incredible. Politics is fascinating at the minute, as interesting as it's been in my lifetime for sure.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/alan-kelly-ireland-must-pay-water-charges-or-fines-1.2668374
Grimmest of all will be converting Primary Schools to understaffed old peoples homes.
A better example for the argument you're seeking to make would be the desire of Venice and its environs to secede from Italy.
As an aside, the unweighted raw numbers showed a 54-46 lead for Leave in the ICM phone poll at 10/10 to vote. Online was 53-47.
There's a tendency to assume progress marches alongside time, but that's utter tosh. The barbarism of ISIS/Daesh is happening today, not a thousand years ago.
Edited extra bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IH_NzbA-xY
Incidentally I would respect the Brexit camp much more if they were also arguing to withdraw from NATO but for most of them that seems to be an even bigger sacred cow: a security blanket as much as a security alliance.
*ATFRSNHH
Remain And Leave Are Both Crap Remain Wins*
* And This ----ing Referendum Should Never Have Happened
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-31/is-trump-immune-to-the-attack-ad?int=a14709
If the message gets out that the referendum vote is close, will it motivate more luke warm REMAIN voters to go and vote rather than stay at home?
A further example is in the Balkans. After breaking up Yugoslavia, the successor states are all* busy applying to re-unify under the EU.
*Kosova excluded
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/dylan-jones-modern-london-is-so-far-ahead-of-the-rest-it-should-be-a-citystate-a3253346.html
More small nations would help centralise power, though.
@TC PoliticalBetting
Nurses degree courses are 48 weeks a year, many of these spent in hospital placements working full time shifts. A normal student has 30 weeks courseworkper year- none of these working. That gives some time to get a holiday job to help pay their fees, something nurse trainees cannot do- unless you expect them to work the extra 4 weeks a year.
Many of the nurse trainees are mums (many single) trying to establish a career.
Even if 40% never become nurses- they still would have spent many weeks working in hospitals whilst they were training over the three years. Hardly a free degree.
And having nurse courses over subscribed is a good thing. We want motivated, good people. And it is good that there is some slippage after qualifying because we want only those committed to the job to stay on.
Cutting nurse bursaries is one of the most stupid, cruel, short sighted, counter productive policies that has come out of any Govt in my memory. Shame on the Tories for doing this.
Though I've never visited, I've never hated London.
And no, it shouldn't. Your suggestion is as daft as those who want a Yorkshire Assembly.
768,000 people claim tax credits for working < 24 hours a week.
601,000 people claim tax credits for working 25-29 hours a week.
Others working these patterns will not be in receipt of tax credits.
Perhaps if the ability to import trained staff were greatly restricted then such companies might start training our own young people.
That said, and to give Oborne and his mates some credit, they have at least made a start with forcing companies to pay for training through the new compulsory apprenticeship levy. A policy first proposed, albeit in slightly different form, on this site by our own Nick Palmer. Though go back a couple of decades and there was a building trades training levy on all building companies, so I suppose there is rarely anything new in politics.
To sum up, until UK management (public and private sector) start seeing training as an investment and not a cost, I think we will always have high levels of immigration.
As for the conclusion of the piece - it's called being too clever by half
Trying to force a European or World government before the cultures of the populace have sufficiently converged would be as disastrous as joining the Euro was for Greece before economic convergence.
BREAKING: German police arrest 3 Syrian men over alleged plot to carry out an attack for #ISIS in Düsseldorf - @BNONews