public policy polling Colorado 46-40 Florida 48-45 NC 49-45 Pennsylvania 49-44 Virginia 49-43
Will all be widely ignored on here
Give it a rest.
Nope. I note Plato has posted a SC poll on the previous thread.
Of course, SC is not a DEM target, so utterly irrelevant to anything much at all, other than the fact it has Trump in the lead.
By that logic nobody should post anything about the UK that isn't a marginal. People regularly post Scottish polling where the SNP are miles ahead. Voodoo internet polls is another matter.
Scottish subsampling and (as of yesterday) voodoo polling lead to PB bans, and quite right too. This is a betting site, not a fanzine for deranged Britain First Trumpers to laud their hero.
I am absolutely certain that no one in the history of the site has ever placed a bet on the basis of an unverified report on here of a subsample or a voodoo poll. If they did, serve them right. DYOR is one of the better acronyms the internet has given rise to.
Yes but many of us have limited time. Trawling through the PB Morning Shift's Trump propaganda presented as scientific polling is just a waste of it.
Feel free to collect your membership fee on the way out then
The problem with the referendum is that Leave isn't a policy. Remain equaled continued membership of the EU and that was a policy. Leave perhaps was a desired outcome but you need a policy to get there. Policy was left deliberately vague during the campaign to avoid startling the horses. May needs one now. She can't keep repeating, I am not going to talk about it. She is also making a tactical error in preventing Parliament having a say. She needs a clear policy to bind her MPs into. So when it all gets a bit crap and they start complaining she can tell them, you voted for it.
I am beginning to think Theresa May is out of her depth.
I have never found her very impressive. On the face of it, having strong-willed mediocrities like Liam Fox, David Davis and Boris Johnson anywhere near the Brexit negotiations is a recipe for trouble. Hammond gives me some hope, but I fear his role will be to make the best of a bad job.
The Brexit process, if not Brexit itself, is entirely about damage limitation. Keeping as much as we can for as little cost as possible. They obviously have to pretend it's something else, but that's how they have to approach the problem.
We are likely in for a Hard Brexit because our opening negotiating position will be no free movement of people. At that point, it is up to the EU27 to decide amongst themselves how much of a fudge if any to give us.
That appears to be what the public at large want (we can argue about how well they understand the implications of that), the polling showing the clear preference for end of freedom of movement over being in the single market was clear cut.
Debateable. Had hard Brexit been put forward as the desired destination before the vote, it would have peeled off sufficient from leave to remain to give staying in the EU a clear majority.
If he'd brought down Blair with it, we'd have had Brown 4 years earlier.
So Brown out of 11 Downing Street 4 years earlier. Brown fully exposed to public opinion 4 years earlier. Brown out on his ear much earlier.
What about this scenario is possibly bad from a Conservative perspective?
Joining the euro, splitting the Conservative party, the shifting of public debate to one based upon tax and spend alone, if that, and the rise of UKIP earlier.
I don't see the evidence for Brown being ejected earlier either.
These PPP polls also show voters think they'll get more bang for their buck from Trump. He leads by around 20 points in all these swing states on .... who is more like likely to start a nuclear war ....
I suppose the weekend will see further "interventions" from Heseltine and Chris Patten so by Monday morning the media will be screaming blue murder about Tory "splits".
These three (Clarke, Heseltine and Patten, sometimes aided by John Major) have been playing this game for 25 years. I guess it was too much to hope that leaving the EU might actually shut them up for a bit...
Equally the right on the Conservative party has been "playing this game" and has actively voted against the government and sought to defeat Conservative administrations. But that's good because they have a moral certainty.
In many ways these arguments are now irrelevant. The public has voted and the politicians have got to get on with it.
Instead of Ken Clarke lamenting what's happened and ranting and raving about Cameron giving people the referendum wouldn't it be more constructive to lay out what his vision of "Brexit" is? (I assume Single Market membership, continuation of free movement, etc.)
Even the Labour Party is (very slowly) starting to come to terms with what's happened and beginning to put forward a few ideas for what they'd like to see happen next...
There is no reason to think that the extreme eurosceptic wing of the Cons won't be just as bloody in regard to hard vs soft Brexit as they were generally anti-EU previously.
We are likely in for a Hard Brexit because our opening negotiating position will be no free movement of people. At that point, it is up to the EU27 to decide amongst themselves how much of a fudge if any to give us.
I don't think that's an opening position. It's a non-negotiable.
So - as you say - the EU27 (-1?) need to decide if they are willing to compromise or not. If not then let's just go ahead and leave rather than faff around for 2 years.
Well that's the theory, in practice our representatives seem to have spent too much time catering to the needs of the already well heeled, and ignoring the bulk of the public. Hence why we are where we are now. The point is neither direct or representative democracy is a panacea, somethings are best left to parliament, somethings need a mandate from the electorate.
The issues of our EU membership is one that has been bubbling away for decades, when parliament finally got around to asking us what we think it turned out that the public was a lot less Europhile than our representatives. Now they need to get on with carrying out our wish to leave, if they choose to ignore that I suppose we will replace our representatives come the next general election with people who have working hearing.
I suppose the weekend will see further "interventions" from Heseltine and Chris Patten so by Monday morning the media will be screaming blue murder about Tory "splits".
These three (Clarke, Heseltine and Patten, sometimes aided by John Major) have been playing this game for 25 years. I guess it was too much to hope that leaving the EU might actually shut them up for a bit...
Equally the right on the Conservative party has been "playing this game" and has actively voted against the government and sought to defeat Conservative administrations. But that's good because they have a moral certainty.
In many ways these arguments are now irrelevant. The public has voted and the politicians have got to get on with it.
Instead of Ken Clarke lamenting what's happened and ranting and raving about Cameron giving people the referendum wouldn't it be more constructive to lay out what his vision of "Brexit" is? (I assume Single Market membership, continuation of free movement, etc.)
Even the Labour Party is (very slowly) starting to come to terms with what's happened and beginning to put forward a few ideas for what they'd like to see happen next...
There is no reason to think that the extreme eurosceptic wing of the Cons won't be just as bloody in regard to hard vs soft Brexit as they were generally anti-EU previously.
We are likely in for a Hard Brexit because our opening negotiating position will be no free movement of people. At that point, it is up to the EU27 to decide amongst themselves how much of a fudge if any to give us.
May is savvy enough not to table a proposal to the EU they will have no choice but to refuse.
She will propose maintenance of free movement for high-income workers in services, together with those with job offers above a certain income level, but demand an end to absolute free movement of citizens and limits/quotas for low-income workers.
All the language has been about how you can't have your cake and eat it, not that you can't have some of the cake if you are willing to share some of it.
Free movement for high-income workers in services, plus income based acceptance, plus quotas for others..isn't free movement. It's a quota system. The likes of which we probably have today for, say, US bankers (no idea what we do wrt non-EU migrants/professionals now).
I suppose the weekend will see further "interventions" from Heseltine and Chris Patten so by Monday morning the media will be screaming blue murder about Tory "splits".
These three (Clarke, Heseltine and Patten, sometimes aided by John Major) have been playing this game for 25 years. I guess it was too much to hope that leaving the EU might actually shut them up for a bit...
Equally the right on the Conservative party has been "playing this game" and has actively voted against the government and sought to defeat Conservative administrations. But that's good because they have a moral certainty.
In many ways these arguments are now irrelevant. The public has voted and the politicians have got to get on with it.
Instead of Ken Clarke lamenting what's happened and ranting and raving about Cameron giving people the referendum wouldn't it be more constructive to lay out what his vision of "Brexit" is? (I assume Single Market membership, continuation of free movement, etc.)
Even the Labour Party is (very slowly) starting to come to terms with what's happened and beginning to put forward a few ideas for what they'd like to see happen next...
There is no reason to think that the extreme eurosceptic wing of the Cons won't be just as bloody in regard to hard vs soft Brexit as they were generally anti-EU previously.
We are likely in for a Hard Brexit because our opening negotiating position will be no free movement of people. At that point, it is up to the EU27 to decide amongst themselves how much of a fudge if any to give us.
May is savvy enough not to table a proposal to the EU they will have no choice but to refuse.
She will propose maintenance of free movement for high-income workers in services, together with those with job offers above a certain income level, but demand an end to absolute free movement of citizens and limits/quotas for low-income workers.
All the language has been about how you can't have your cake and eat it, not that you can't have some of the cake if you are willing to share some of it.
On the second point - the greatest need for EU workers is arguably in lower paid sectors such as agriculture, nursing and social care. It would be a rash government that doesn't make some arrangements for this. I was an inpatient at a London hospital this spring and all but one of the nursing team was non-British EU.
I would be amazed if in five years' time we're still not having our hospitals staffed and fruit & veg picked by young migrant workers from the EU. We have a desperate need, they offer motivated labour at reasonable cost. Economics will trump politics.
Choosing IDS instead of Ken Clarke as leader was a ridiculous act of self harm by the Conservative party entirely analogous to Labour choosing Corbyn. All that can be said in favour of the membership is that they were only that stupid once.
There is enough truth in what he says for it to sting a bit but Ken is no longer a player in the party or the country. Mrs May has a lot of work to do this week in showing that she genuinely has a grip and a vision of where her premiership is going. It is very much in not just the party's interest but the national interest that she succeeds in this.
The problem with Ken Clarke as leader is that he regarded being at the heart of the EU as being more important than the future of the Conservative Party.
No he didn't. He just strongly believed that being an active participant in the EU was very much in the national interest. I disagreed with him about that then and even more so now but he is of a different generation who remembers the incompetence with which this country conducted its affairs in the 60s and the 70s, all that really stupid class based trade union/incompetent management stuff. I think we are more confident now.
I'm not convinced we are much more confident. Industrial success, for what is is, is hugely dependent on foreign ownership and people know it. Our other 'successes', north sea oil and booming finance have hit the buffers. The trade figures seem to be improving but it's taken a $1.30 exchange rate to do it.
The problem with the referendum is that Leave isn't a policy. Remain equaled continued membership of the EU and that was a policy. Leave perhaps was a desired outcome but you need a policy to get there. Policy was left deliberately vague during the campaign to avoid startling the horses. May needs one now. She can't keep repeating, I am not going to talk about it. She is also making a tactical error in preventing Parliament having a say. She needs a clear policy to bind her MPs into. So when it all gets a bit crap and they start complaining she can tell them, you voted for it.
I am beginning to think Theresa May is out of her depth.
Leave had to be vague because of the idiotic process which ensures that we have no idea what is on offer until after Article 50 is enacted. Cameron could have proposed a policy for Leave, as could anyone else, but since no one will negotiate substantively until after A50 it could have fallen at the first hurdle. The only policy that Leave could guarantee to deliver is the least acceptable, vis repealing the European Communities Act and walking away from all the treaties, anything else is the product of negotiations that can't start until after A50.
I am not sure I agree that the Leave campaign was constrained that way. I never thought I would feel sorry for the SNP but they did produce a document detailing how they envisaged independence being achieved. Based on "heroic" assumptions, to be sure, but it was a serious attempt to answer the questions.
Like hell it was. It was a pack of dishonest lies. Right up there with some of Alastair Campbell's dossiers as some of the most dishonest rubbish ever put out by a governing body in this country.
I suppose the weekend will see further "interventions" from Heseltine and Chris Patten so by Monday morning the media will be screaming blue murder about Tory "splits".
These three (Clarke, Heseltine and Patten, sometimes aided by John Major) have been playing this game for 25 years. I guess it was too much to hope that leaving the EU might actually shut them up for a bit...
Equally the right on the Conservative party has been "playing this game" and has actively voted against the government and sought to defeat Conservative administrations. But that's good because they have a moral certainty.
In many ways these arguments are now irrelevant. The public has voted and the politicians have got to get on with it.
Instead of Ken Clarke lamenting what's happened and ranting and raving about Cameron giving people the referendum wouldn't it be more constructive to lay out what his vision of "Brexit" is? (I assume Single Market membership, continuation of free movement, etc.)
Even the Labour Party is (very slowly) starting to come to terms with what's happened and beginning to put forward a few ideas for what they'd like to see happen next...
There is no reason to think that the extreme eurosceptic wing of the Cons won't be just as bloody in regard to hard vs soft Brexit as they were generally anti-EU previously.
We are likely in for a Hard Brexit because our opening negotiating position will be no free movement of people. At that point, it is up to the EU27 to decide amongst themselves how much of a fudge if any to give us.
I don't think that's an opening position. It's a non-negotiable.
So - as you say - the EU27 (-1?) need to decide if they are willing to compromise or not. If not then let's just go ahead and leave rather than faff around for 2 years.
(I suspect they will blink at the 11th hour)
Yes sorry, not an opening position: a red line.
And yes also, I am intrigued to see if and how much the EU does cave.
I suppose the weekend will see further "interventions" from Heseltine and Chris Patten so by Monday morning the media will be screaming blue murder about Tory "splits".
These three (Clarke, Heseltine and Patten, sometimes aided by John Major) have been playing this game for 25 years. I guess it was too much to hope that leaving the EU might actually shut them up for a bit...
Equally the right on the Conservative party has been "playing this game" and has actively voted against the government and sought to defeat Conservative administrations. But that's good because they have a moral certainty.
In many ways these arguments are now irrelevant. The public has voted and the politicians have got to get on with it.
Instead of Ken Clarke lamenting what's happened and ranting and raving about Cameron giving people the referendum wouldn't it be more constructive to lay out what his vision of "Brexit" is? (I assume Single Market membership, continuation of free movement, etc.)
Even the Labour Party is (very slowly) starting to come to terms with what's happened and beginning to put forward a few ideas for what they'd like to see happen next...
There is no reason to think that the extreme eurosceptic wing of the Cons won't be just as bloody in regard to hard vs soft Brexit as they were generally anti-EU previously.
We are likely in for a Hard Brexit because our opening negotiating position will be no free movement of people. At that point, it is up to the EU27 to decide amongst themselves how much of a fudge if any to give us.
May is savvy enough not to table a proposal to the EU they will have no choice but to refuse.
She will propose maintenance of free movement for high-income workers in services, together with those with job offers above a certain income level, but demand an end to absolute free movement of citizens and limits/quotas for low-income workers.
All the language has been about how you can't have your cake and eat it, not that you can't have some of the cake if you are willing to share some of it.
Free movement for high-income workers in services, plus income based acceptance, plus quotas for others..isn't free movement. It's a quota system. The likes of which we probably have today for, say, US bankers (no idea what we do wrt non-EU migrants/professionals now).
No US bankers are subject to immigration controls and work permits. This would not be the case for the EU.
But you've admitted you have no idea, so respect for that.
I suppose the weekend will see further "interventions" from Heseltine and Chris Patten so by Monday morning the media will be screaming blue murder about Tory "splits".
These three (Clarke, Heseltine and Patten, sometimes aided by John Major) have been playing this game for 25 years. I guess it was too much to hope that leaving the EU might actually shut them up for a bit...
Equally the right on the Conservative party has been "playing this game" and has actively voted against the government and sought to defeat Conservative administrations. But that's good because they have a moral certainty.
In many ways these arguments are now irrelevant. The public has voted and the politicians have got to get on with it.
Instead of Ken Clarke lamenting what's happened and ranting and raving about Cameron giving people the referendum wouldn't it be more constructive to lay out what his vision of "Brexit" is? (I assume Single Market membership, continuation of free movement, etc.)
Even the Labour Party is (very slowly) starting to come to terms with what's happened and beginning to put forward a few ideas for what they'd like to see happen next...
There is no reason to think that the extreme eurosceptic wing of the Cons won't be just as bloody in regard to hard vs soft Brexit as they were generally anti-EU previously.
We are likely in for a Hard Brexit because our opening negotiating position will be no free movement of people. At that point, it is up to the EU27 to decide amongst themselves how much of a fudge if any to give us.
May is savvy enough not to table a proposal to the EU they will have no choice but to refuse.
She will propose maintenance of free movement for high-income workers in services, together with those with job offers above a certain income level, but demand an end to absolute free movement of citizens and limits/quotas for low-income workers.
All the language has been about how you can't have your cake and eat it, not that you can't have some of the cake if you are willing to share some of it.
Free movement for high-income workers in services, plus income based acceptance, plus quotas for others..isn't free movement. It's a quota system. The likes of which we probably have today for, say, US bankers (no idea what we do wrt non-EU migrants/professionals now).
There's a minimum salary which depends on the sector.
There will also need to be arrangements made for students and children/spouses of UK citizens, etc.
I don't see the EU like that. Some of your points may have a little validity as regards the Euro, in relation to Greece etc., but the Euro isn't the EU.
The same discontent and reaction is being seen outside the EU, Trump and the US being the obvious case. So surely it is the management of the global economy particularly since the crash: ZIRP & QE boosting the assets of the wealthy; the long trend towards oligarchic capitalism; the small elite of super-powerful/super-rich; the threat from cheap labour as the economy becomes more global - that is fuelling it. None of which is down to the EU (indeed aspects of the EU tend to act as a brake on the trend towards Anglo-American capitalism).
Further, I am yet to be convinced that our leaving the EU will do anything whatsoever to assuage the discontent; indeed it is probable that the discontented may find themselves worse off still.
The same elite that has benefited from having an unlimited source of low wage employees within the EU. They have reaped the gains of the UK economy and done very well out of employing cheap EU labour. The crisis in Greece has been exacerbated by the EU commission which has imposed impossible conditions for a bail out and it's still dragging on today.
In the US jobs of working class people have been outsourced to Mexico and jobs previously held in the US by working class people have seen stagnant wages due to cheap labour from Mexico and the H1Bs. I have a friend in the US who has just been told his job is going to be filled by an H1B worker from January, he will have to train this guy until then and after that he's out of a job. It's absolutely crooked and someone who would not have ever considered voting Trump is now doing so seriously.
Low wage immigration from poorer countries into the west has fuelled anger among ordinary people, you may not want to hear it, but it has happened. The EU and it's stupid free movement of people policy is the reason for it. We either apply limitations on it or should not have let Eastern Europe in, and most certainly not let Romania and Bulgaria in for at least 20 years. Since no limitations are forthcoming and we can't kick Eastern Europe out the people have voted to leave.
Mr. glw, it's a fascinating psychological approach, treating a referendum result as if it's something done to the people rather than by the electorate, whilst claiming democracy in Clarke's desire to thwart the vote of the British people.
I'd say that he exhibits a typically Europhile view of government. A very top down approach, where the "clever" people decide what the public need, rather than carry out the wishes of the public. He can shove his views where the Sun doesn't shine.
AKA representative democracy. If we let public opinion directly determine policy we'd have limitless public spending, public hangings and zero taxes.
I doubt it. The voters can take wrong decisions, but I don't think that on the whole, they take idiotic decisions. And, I don't think that anyone has devised a better alternative, in terms of outcomes, than allowing the voters to take decisions. I'd suggest that autocracy, oligarchy, and government by bureaucracy produce worse outcomes, on average, than democracy does.
I suppose the weekend will see further "interventions" from Heseltine and Chris Patten so by Monday morning the media will be screaming blue murder about Tory "splits".
These three (Clarke, Heseltine and Patten, sometimes aided by John Major) have been playing this game for 25 years. I guess it was too much to hope that leaving the EU might actually shut them up for a bit...
Equally the right on the Conservative party has been "playing this game" and has actively voted against the government and sought to defeat Conservative administrations. But that's good because they have a moral certainty.
In many ways these arguments are now irrelevant. The public has voted and the politicians have got to get on with it.
Instead of Ken Clarke lamenting what's happened and ranting and raving about Cameron giving people the referendum wouldn't it be more constructive to lay out what his vision of "Brexit" is? (I assume Single Market membership, continuation of free movement, etc.)
Even the Labour Party is (very slowly) starting to come to terms with what's happened and beginning to put forward a few ideas for what they'd like to see happen next...
There is no reason to think that the extreme eurosceptic wing of the Cons won't be just as bloody in regard to hard vs soft Brexit as they were generally anti-EU previously.
We are likely in for a Hard Brexit because our opening negotiating position will be no free movement of people. At that point, it is up to the EU27 to decide amongst themselves how much of a fudge if any to give us.
I don't think that's an opening position. It's a non-negotiable.
So - as you say - the EU27 (-1?) need to decide if they are willing to compromise or not. If not then let's just go ahead and leave rather than faff around for 2 years.
(I suspect they will blink at the 11th hour)
I think May wants to wait until after all the EU elections next year when other EU leaders wil have been subjected to the same democratic pressure as she has, and then they might understand there needs to be qualification of the rules.
The problem with the referendum is that Leave isn't a policy. Remain equaled continued membership of the EU and that was a policy. Leave perhaps was a desired outcome but you need a policy to get there. Policy was left deliberately vague during the campaign to avoid startling the horses. May needs one now. She can't keep repeating, I am not going to talk about it. She is also making a tactical error in preventing Parliament having a say. She needs a clear policy to bind her MPs into. So when it all gets a bit crap and they start complaining she can tell them, you voted for it.
I am beginning to think Theresa May is out of her depth.
Leave had to be vague because of the idiotic process which ensures that we have no idea what is on offer until after Article 50 is enacted. Cameron could have proposed a policy for Leave, as could anyone else, but since no one will negotiate substantively until after A50 it could have fallen at the first hurdle. The only policy that Leave could guarantee to deliver is the least acceptable, vis repealing the European Communities Act and walking away from all the treaties, anything else is the product of negotiations that can't start until after A50.
I am not sure I agree that the Leave campaign was constrained that way. I never thought I would feel sorry for the SNP but they did produce a document detailing how they envisaged independence being achieved. Based on "heroic" assumptions, to be sure, but it was a serious attempt to answer the questions.
Like hell it was. It was a pack of dishonest lies. Right up there with some of Alastair Campbell's dossiers as some of the most dishonest rubbish ever put out by a governing body in this country.
But not actually as bad as the Leave campaign. Nowhere near. I am no supporter of the SNP and the way they approached independence, believe me.
''We have a desperate need, they offer motivated labour at reasonable cost. Economics will trump politics.''
No YOU have a desperate need. A desperate need to maintain your excellent standard of living via a never ending stream of cheap labour. Imagine if blue collar jobs got that bit more expensive for you! Imagine if those ignorant plebs who voted leave started to get a bit more money for serving your coffee! started sending their children to grammar schools! where would it end!
I suppose the weekend will see further "interventions" from Heseltine and Chris Patten so by Monday morning the media will be screaming blue murder about Tory "splits".
These three (Clarke, Heseltine and Patten, sometimes aided by John Major) have been playing this game for 25 years. I guess it was too much to hope that leaving the EU might actually shut them up for a bit...
Equally the right on the Conservative party has been "playing this game" and has actively voted against the government and sought to defeat Conservative administrations. But that's good because they have a moral certainty.
In many ways these arguments are now irrelevant. The public has voted and the politicians have got to get on with it.
Instead of Ken Clarke lent, etc.)
Even the Labour Party is (very slowly) starting to come to terms with what's happened and beginning to put forward a few ideas for what they'd like to see happen next...
There is no reason to think that the extreme eurosceptic wing of the Cons won't be just as bloody in regard to hard vs soft Brexit as they were generally anti-EU previously.
We are likely in for a Hard Brexit because our opening negotiating position will be no free movement of people. At that point, it is up to the EU27 to decide amongst themselves how much of a fudge if any to give us.
May is savvy enough not to table a proposal to the EU they will have no choice but to refuse.
She will propose maintenance of free movement for high-income workers in services, together with those with job offers above a certain income level, but demand an end to absolute free movement of citizens and limits/quotas for low-income workers.
All the language has been about how you can't have your cake and eat it, not that you can't have some of the cake if you are willing to share some of it.
Free movement for high-income workers in services, plus income based acceptance, plus quotas for others..isn't free movement. It's a quota system. The likes of which we probably have today for, say, US bankers (no idea what we do wrt non-EU migrants/professionals now).
No US bankers are subject to immigration controls and work permits. This would not be the case for the EU.
But you've admitted you have no idea, so respect for that.
How would you police it, then? Surely immigration controls and work permits? Or can we expect a lot of high-income workers in services from Romania and Bulgaria to turn up at T3 post-Brexit?
Choosing IDS instead of Ken Clarke as leader was a ridiculous act of self harm by the Conservative party entirely analogous to Labour choosing Corbyn. All that can be said in favour of the membership is that they were only that stupid once.
There is enough truth in what he says for it to sting a bit but Ken is no longer a player in the party or the country. Mrs May has a lot of work to do this week in showing that she genuinely has a grip and a vision of where her premiership is going. It is very much in not just the party's interest but the national interest that she succeeds in this.
The problem with Ken Clarke as leader is that he regarded being at the heart of the EU as being more important than the future of the Conservative Party.
With Clarke as leader all three main leaders of the UK political parties would have been very pro EU and Europe, and the centre of gravity would have been decidedly centre/centre-left.
IMHO this would have led to a huge chasm on the Right, and the rise of UKIP much earlier. Possibly enough to stop the Conservatives from even getting near power under FPTP when the time eventually came.
It might have led to PR/fair voting, to the net benefit of the UK population, because as I said before the UK did pretty well overall under consensus government 1945-79 and was *not* in a worse state in 1979 than in 1945 or 1950.
Ken Clarke and Denis Healey both seem examples of one of the best leaders their parties never had, being at the time under the influence of hard right or left, not centre-left or -right. Under PR, one might expect those groups to have their own party to fight it out at the ballot box with One Nation Tories. I think there are more people in the UK who'd vote Clarke than Cash or Redwood.
I don't see the EU like that. Some of your points may have a little validity as regards the Euro, in relation to Greece etc., but the Euro isn't the EU.
The same discontent and reaction is being seen outside the EU, Trump and the US being the obvious case. So surely it is the management of the global economy particularly since the crash: ZIRP & QE boosting the assets of the wealthy; the long trend towards oligarchic capitalism; the small elite of super-powerful/super-rich; the threat from cheap labour as the economy becomes more global - that is fuelling it. None of which is down to the EU (indeed aspects of the EU tend to act as a brake on the trend towards Anglo-American capitalism).
Further, I am yet to be convinced that our leaving the EU will do anything whatsoever to assuage the discontent; indeed it is probable that the discontented may find themselves worse off still.
The same elite that has benefited from having an unlimited source of low wage employees within the EU. They have reaped the gains of the UK economy and done very well out of employing cheap EU labour. The crisis in Greece has been exacerbated by the EU commission which has imposed impossible conditions for a bail out and it's still dragging on today.
In the US jobs of working class people have been outsourced to Mexico and jobs previously held in the US by working class people have seen stagnant wages due to cheap labour from Mexico and the H1Bs. I have a friend in the US who has just been told his job is going to be filled by an H1B worker from January, he will have to train this guy until then and after that he's out of a job. It's absolutely crooked and someone who would not have ever considered voting Trump is now doing so seriously.
Low wage immigration from poorer countries into the west has fuelled anger among ordinary people, you may not want to hear it, but it has happened. The EU and it's stupid free movement of people policy is the reason for it. We either apply limitations on it or should not have let Eastern Europe in, and most certainly not let Romania and Bulgaria in for at least 20 years. Since no limitations are forthcoming and we can't kick Eastern Europe out the people have voted to leave.
Fine, but your argument hits a brick wall at my last point. If we aren't any better off after Brexit then it will have been a mistake. You may be able to explain why it happened but that doesn't make it a good thing or the right answer.
We are likely in for a Hard Brexit because our opening negotiating position will be no free movement of people. At that point, it is up to the EU27 to decide amongst themselves how much of a fudge if any to give us.
That appears to be what the public at large want (we can argue about how well they understand the implications of that), the polling showing the clear preference for end of freedom of movement over being in the single market was clear cut.
Not sure the polling is very clear on what voters think:
How many people get the difference between access to the single market and membership of it, for instance? It's pretty obvious that a lot of politicians - including cabinet ministers - are confused, so it is no surprise that ordinary punters are.
''We have a desperate need, they offer motivated labour at reasonable cost. Economics will trump politics.''
No YOU have a desperate need. A desperate need to maintain your excellent standard of living via a never ending stream of cheap labour. Imagine if blue collar jobs got that bit more expensive for you! Imagine if those ignorant plebs who voted leave started to get a bit more money for serving your coffee! started sending their children to grammar schools! where would it end!
There is no difficulty in finding native Brits who will do dirty, nasty, dangerous jobs - so long as you are prepared to remunerate them, accordingly.
''There is no difficulty in finding native Brits who will do dirty, nasty, dangerous jobs - so long as you are prepared to remunerate them, accordingly.''
I suppose the weekend will see further "interventions" from Heseltine and Chris Patten so by Monday morning the media will be screaming blue murder about Tory "splits".
These three (Clarke, Heseltine and Patten, sometimes aided by John Major) have been playing this game for 25 years. I guess it was too much to hope that leaving the EU might actually shut them up for a bit...
Equally the right on the Conservative party has been "playing this game" and has actively voted against the government and sought to defeat Conservative administrations. But that's good because they have a moral certainty.
In many ways these arguments are now irrelevant. The public has voted and the politicians have got to get on with it.
Instead of Ken Clarke lent, etc.)
Even the Labour Party is (very slowly) starting to come to terms with what's happened and beginning to put forward a few ideas for what they'd like to see happen next...
There is no reason to think that the extreme eurosceptic wing of the Cons won't be just as bloody in regard to hard vs soft Brexit as they were generally anti-EU previously.
We are likely in for a Hard Brexit because our opening negotiating position will be no free movement of people. At that point, it is up to the EU27 to decide amongst themselves how much of a fudge if any to give us.
May is savvy enough not to table a proposal to the EU they will have no choice but to refuse.
She
All the language has been about how you can't have your cake and eat it, not that you can't have some of the cake if you are willing to share some of it.
Free movement for high-income workers in services, plus income based acceptance, plus quotas for others..isn't free movement. It's a quota system. The likes of which we probably have today for, say, US bankers (no idea what we do wrt non-EU migrants/professionals now).
No US bankers are subject to immigration controls and work permits. This would not be the case for the EU.
But you've admitted you have no idea, so respect for that.
How would you police it, then? Surely immigration controls and work permits? Or can we expect a lot of high-income workers in services from Romania and Bulgaria to turn up at T3 post-Brexit?
I suspect a quick check of EU passports - as we do now at the UK border, as we are outside Schengen - with a wave through for those who qualify for a free migration stamp in the passport, or on a certificate, together with visa free visits for tourists.
''If we aren't any better off after Brexit then it will have been a mistake. You may be able to explain why it happened but that doesn't make it a good thing or the right answer.''
The remainer bien pensant middle class WON'T be better off. They may very well be a bit worse off in favour of their menial task performing compatriots.
''We have a desperate need, they offer motivated labour at reasonable cost. Economics will trump politics.''
No YOU have a desperate need. A desperate need to maintain your excellent standard of living via a never ending stream of cheap labour. Imagine if blue collar jobs got that bit more expensive for you! Imagine if those ignorant plebs who voted leave started to get a bit more money for serving your coffee! started sending their children to grammar schools! where would it end!
As someone from a modest background who did well from going to a grammar school myself, I remain a tea drinker and don't consume that much coffee.
But, seriously, I would support an economy where we don't have such inequality and where lower paid jobs got better pay and conditions. I just don't see Brexit taking us there.
I suppose the weekend will see further "interventions" from Heseltine and Chris Patten so by Monday morning the media will be screaming blue murder about Tory "splits".
These three (Clarke, Heseltine and Patten, sometimes aided by John Major) have been playing this game for 25 years. I guess it was too much to hope that leaving the EU might actually shut them up for a bit...
Equally the right on the Conservative party has been "playing this game" and has actively voted against the government and sought to defeat Conservative administrations. But that's good because they have a moral certainty.
In many ways these arguments are now irrelevant. The public has voted and the politicians have got to get on with it.
Instead of Ken Clarke lamenting what's happened and ranting and raving about Cameron giving people the referendum wouldn't it be more constructive to lay out what his vision of "Brexit" is? (I assume Single Market membership, continuation of free movement, etc.)
Even the Labour Party is (very slowly) starting to come to terms with what's happened and beginning to put forward a few ideas for what they'd like to see happen next...
T
May is savvy enough not to table a proposal to the EU they will have no choice but to refuse.
She will propose maintenance of free movement for high-income workers in services, together with those with job offers above a certain income level, but demand an end to absolute free movement of citizens and limits/quotas for low-income workers.
All the language has been about how you can't have your cake and eat it, not that you can't have some of the cake if you are willing to share some of it.
On the second point - the greatest need for EU workers is arguably in lower paid sectors such as agriculture, nursing and social care. It would be a rash government that doesn't make some arrangements for this. I was an inpatient at a London hospital this spring and all but one of the nursing team was non-British EU.
I would be amazed if in five years' time we're still not having our hospitals staffed and fruit & veg picked by young migrant workers from the EU. We have a desperate need, they offer motivated labour at reasonable cost. Economics will trump politics.
No doubt there will still be some but the May Government might take the view that the priority should be training up and supporting British workers to do those jobs.
I suppose the weekend will see further "interventions" from Heseltine and Chris Patten so by Monday morning the media will be screaming blue murder about Tory "splits".
These three (Clarke, Heseltine and Patten, sometimes aided by John Major) have been playing this game for 25 years. I guess it was too much to hope that leaving the EU might actually shut them up for a bit...
Equally the right on the Conserty.
In many ways these arguments are now irrelevant. The public has voted and the politicians have got to get on with it.
Instead of Ken Clarke lent, etc.)
Even the Labour Party is (very slowly) starting to come to terms with what's happened and beginning to put forward a few ideas for what they'd like to see happen next...
There is no reason to think that the extreme eurosceptic wing of the Cons won't be just as bloody in regard to hard vs soft Brexit as they were generally anti-EU previously.
We are likely in for a Hathat point, it is up to the EU27 to decide amongst themselves how much of a fudge if any to give us.
May is savvy enough not to table a proposal to the EU they will have no choice but to refuse.
She
All the language has been about how you can't have your cake and eat it, not that you can't have some of the cake if you are willing to share some of it.
Free movement for high-income workers in services, plus income based acceptance, plus quotas for others..isn't free movement. It's a quota system. The likes of which we probably have today for, say, US bankers (no idea what we do wrt non-EU migrants/professionals now).
No US bankers are subject to immigration controls and work permits. This would not be the case for the EU.
But you've admitted you have no idea, so respect for that.
How would you police it, then? Surely immigration controls and work permits? Or can we expect a lot of high-income workers in services from Romania and Bulgaria to turn up at T3 post-Brexit?
I suspect a quick check of EU passports - as we do now at the UK border, as we are outside Schengen - with a wave through for those who qualify for a free migration stamp in the passport, or on a certificate, together with visa free visits for tourists.
Immigration would question those who did not.
Sounds unfeasibly simple. Surely it would have to be the same system that we employ for US bankers?
Like hell it was. It was a pack of dishonest lies. Right up there with some of Alastair Campbell's dossiers as some of the most dishonest rubbish ever put out by a governing body in this country.
But not actually as bad as the Leave campaign. Nowhere near. I am no supporter of the SNP and the way they approached independence, believe me.
It was much worse. They were a government. Their dishonest propaganda bore to be a "White Paper" published at public expense. They claimed that Scotland would have a few thousand more to spend on every man, woman and child after independence. Scotland was covered in posters claiming that if you wanted children to be fed, have a decent education or any kind of a future independence was critical. They made completely unfounded assumptions about currencies, the effect on Edinburgh's financial services, the risk to our trade with rUK and our national security. It was reckless.
In contrast Leave were not a government and were not made one by the result. They had differing views on what the outcome might be. That was legitimate. Some of the claims, such as the £350m a week, were outlandish but no more so than the nonsense we were hearing from Osborne about emergency budgets, interest rate rises and immediate recessions.
I suppose the weekend will see further "interventions" from Heseltine and Chris Patten so by Monday morning the media will be screaming blue murder about Tory "splits".
These three (Clarke, Heseltine and Patten, sometimes aided by John Major) have been playing this game for 25 years. I guess it was too much to hope that leaving the EU might actually shut them up for a bit...
Equally the right on the Conservative party has been "playing this game" and has actively voted against the government and sought to defeat Conservative administrations. But that's good because they have a moral certainty.
In many ways these arguments are now irrelevant. The public has voted and the politicians have got to get on with it.
Instead of Ken Clarke lamenting what's happened and ranting and raving about Cameron giving people the referendum wouldn't it be more constructive to lay out what his vision of "Brexit" is? (I assume Single Market membership, continuation of free movement, etc.)
Even the Labour Party is (very slowly) starting to come to terms with what's happened and beginning to put forward a few ideas for what they'd like to see happen next...
There is no reason to think that the extreme eurosceptic wing of the Cons won't be just as bloody in regard to hard vs soft Brexit as they were generally anti-EU previously.
We are likely in for a Hard Brexit because our opening negotiating position will be no free movement of people. At that point, it is up to the EU27 to decide amongst themselves how much of a fudge if any to give us.
I don't think that's an opening position. It's a non-negotiable.
So - as you say - the EU27 (-1?) need to decide if they are willing to compromise or not. If not then let's just go ahead and leave rather than faff around for 2 years.
(I suspect they will blink at the 11th hour)
I think May wants to wait until after all the EU elections next year when other EU leaders wil have been subjected to the same democratic pressure as she has, and then they might understand there needs to be qualification of the rules.
If she waits until after the EU elections that means we will elect new MEPs, doesn't it? It's a chance for UKIP to win on a hard Brexit platform or the LibDems to win on a No Brexit platform. The electorate may well be bemused by the fact that the elections are taking place at all. It seems an unnecessary hostage to fortune.
How would you police it, then? Surely immigration controls and work permits? Or can we expect a lot of high-income workers in services from Romania and Bulgaria to turn up at T3 post-Brexit?
I suspect a quick check of EU passports - as we do now at the UK border, as we are outside Schengen - with a wave through for those who qualify for a free migration stamp in the passport, or on a certificate, together with visa free visits for tourists.
Immigration would question those who did not.
Laughable. How would you distinguish who qualifies for a 'free migration stamp' at the border?
Clearly Clarke doesn't have any national influence anymore. The significance of this intervention is that ( a) He's correct ( b) As OGH says he's articulate and commands media attention. Speaking truth to power is a useful function of distinguished backbenchers in the twighlight of their careers. There was no plan, there currently is no plan so when will there be a plan ? None of the policy vacuum really matters as there is no evidence of a shift in public opinion. If a block from of voters ever gets buyers remorse over Brexit then Clarke's analysis becomes more important. Until then it's just mildly entertaining.
How would you police it, then? Surely immigration controls and work permits? Or can we expect a lot of high-income workers in services from Romania and Bulgaria to turn up at T3 post-Brexit?
I suspect a quick check of EU passports - as we do now at the UK border, as we are outside Schengen - with a wave through for those who qualify for a free migration stamp in the passport, or on a certificate, together with visa free visits for tourists.
Immigration would question those who did not.
Laughable. How would you distinguish who qualifies for a 'free migration stamp' at the border?
Why is it laughable?
If you are a EU worker employed in banking, and entitled to free movement into the UK, you will have some endorsement, stamp or letter saying so.
''If we aren't any better off after Brexit then it will have been a mistake. You may be able to explain why it happened but that doesn't make it a good thing or the right answer.''
The remainer bien pensant middle class WON'T be better off. They may very well be a bit worse off in favour of their menial task performing compatriots.
And that will be a very good thing.
It will make absolutely no difference to the bien pensant middle class. If they spend a few quid a week more on a cleaner or a child minder they won't notice it. More competition for labour also drives prices up and restricts services. Those who will notice that are the less well off - especially those who are not working, such as pensioners.
Beyond that, if leaving the single market does mean less job creation and investment in the UK, then the expected leap in wages may not actually occur. What will happen instead is less income for the government.
''There is no difficulty in finding native Brits who will do dirty, nasty, dangerous jobs - so long as you are prepared to remunerate them, accordingly.''
Plenty already do.
Yeah, I was in Perth Sheriff Court this morning wearing horsehair on my head, tails, a gown and stripped trousers. Can't get much nastier or more unpleasant than that.
How would you police it, then? Surely immigration controls and work permits? Or can we expect a lot of high-income workers in services from Romania and Bulgaria to turn up at T3 post-Brexit?
I suspect a quick check of EU passports - as we do now at the UK border, as we are outside Schengen - with a wave through for those who qualify for a free migration stamp in the passport, or on a certificate, together with visa free visits for tourists.
Immigration would question those who did not.
Laughable. How would you distinguish who qualifies for a 'free migration stamp' at the border?
Why is it laughable?
If you are a EU worker employed in banking, and entitled to free movement into the UK, you will have some endorsement, stamp or letter saying so.
I see a huge trade in forged letters with E14 postmarks emerging in Bulgaria.
I suppose the weekend will see further "interventions" from Heseltine and Chris Patten so by Monday morning the media will be screaming blue murder about Tory "splits".
These three (Clarke, Heseltine and Patten, sometimes aided by John Major) have been playing this game for 25 years. I guess it was too much to hope that leaving the EU might actually shut them up for a bit...
Equally the right on the Conservative party has been "playing this game" and has actively voted against the government and sought to defeat Conservative administrations. But that's good because they have a moral certainty.
I
Instead of Ken Clarke lamenting what's happened and ranting and raving about Cameron giving people the referendum wouldn't it be more constructive to lay out what his vision of "Brexit" is? (I assume Single Market membership, continuation of free movement, etc.)
Even the Labour Party is (very slowly) starting to come to terms with what's happened and beginning to put forward a few ideas for what they'd like to see happen next...
There is no reason to think that the extreme eurosceptic wing of the Cons won't be just as bloody in regard to hard vs soft Brexit as they were generally anti-EU previously.
We are likely in for a Hard Brexit because our opening negotiating position will be no free movement of people. At that point, it is up to the EU27 to decide amongst themselves how much of a fudge if any to give us.
I don't think that's an opening position. It's a non-negotiable.
So - as you say - the EU27 (-1?) need to decide if they are willing to compromise or not. If not then let's just go ahead and leave rather than faff around for 2 years.
(I suspect they will blink at the 11th hour)
I think May wants to wait until after all the EU elections next year when other EU leaders wil have been subjected to the same democratic pressure as she has, and then they might understand there needs to be qualification of the rules.
If she waits until after the EU elections that means we will elect new MEPs, doesn't it? It's a chance for UKIP to win on a hard Brexit platform or the LibDems to win on a No Brexit platform. The electorate may well be bemused by the fact that the elections are taking place at all. It seems an unnecessary hostage to fortune.
Sorry, I mean the EU national elections during 2017 (French, German, Czech..) not EU parliament, which would be 2019.
If she can, I think May will wait until Oct/Nov 2017 to invoke Article 50 but political pressure to do so before might simply become irresistible.
How would you police it, then? Surely immigration controls and work permits? Or can we expect a lot of high-income workers in services from Romania and Bulgaria to turn up at T3 post-Brexit?
I suspect a quick check of EU passports - as we do now at the UK border, as we are outside Schengen - with a wave through for those who qualify for a free migration stamp in the passport, or on a certificate, together with visa free visits for tourists.
Immigration would question those who did not.
Laughable. How would you distinguish who qualifies for a 'free migration stamp' at the border?
Why is it laughable?
If you are a EU worker employed in banking, and entitled to free movement into the UK, you will have some endorsement, stamp or letter saying so.
I see a huge trade in forged letters with E14 postmarks emerging in Bulgaria.
Clearly Clarke doesn't have any national influence anymore. The significance of this intervention is that ( a) He's correct ( b) As OGH says he's articulate and commands media attention. Speaking truth to power is a useful function of distinguished backbenchers in the twighlight of their careers. There was no plan, there currently is no plan so when will there be a plan ? None of the policy vacuum really matters as there is no evidence of a shift in public opinion. If a block from of voters ever gets buyers remorse over Brexit then Clarke's analysis becomes more important. Until then it's just mildly entertaining.
I think it matters a bit more than that because Brexit wasn't just a decision taken on the 23 June 2016 and now it's dealt with. Our political life for the next ten years will be dominated by us dealing with the EU, accommodating it, resisting it, working around it and deliberately ignoring it. EU will figure more prominently than it ever did while we were members (ironically if you voted Leave because you couldn't stand the outfit). There will be arguments about all of that stuff.
How would you police it, then? Surely immigration controls and work permits? Or can we expect a lot of high-income workers in services from Romania and Bulgaria to turn up at T3 post-Brexit?
I suspect a quick check of EU passports - as we do now at the UK border, as we are outside Schengen - with a wave through for those who qualify for a free migration stamp in the passport, or on a certificate, together with visa free visits for tourists.
Immigration would question those who did not.
Laughable. How would you distinguish who qualifies for a 'free migration stamp' at the border?
Why is it laughable?
If you are a EU worker employed in banking, and entitled to free movement into the UK, you will have some endorsement, stamp or letter saying so.
I see a huge trade in forged letters with E14 postmarks emerging in Bulgaria.
You mean we will still be providing employment in the EU? Not just for German chemists and car makers? Jolly decent of us I think.
Fine, but your argument hits a brick wall at my last point. If we aren't any better off after Brexit then it will have been a mistake. You may be able to explain why it happened but that doesn't make it a good thing or the right answer.
It really depends doesn't it, if our GDP rises by a little bit less but is spread more equally is that a success? The absolute GDP would be lower but more people at the bottom and middle will have felt the gain.
Take this as a scenario:
2030 Brexit - The economy has slowed down from an average of 2.3% per year to 2% per year. Immigration has reduced to around 150k per year net with about half from the EU and half from RoW. Migration now tends to be highly skilled. The median income has gone up in real terms and because of migration controls the people in the bottom 20% have benefited the most from wage rises, companies are less profitable so management and executives see their incomes stagnate. Overall GDP is 27% larger than when we left.
2030 Bremain - The economy kept growing at an average of 2.3% per year. Immigration settled at a net of 350k for about 10 years and fell to 250k after that. Migrants are still a mix of highly skilled and unskilled workers. The migration pressure has held wages down among the bottom 20% which has enabled companies to post higher profits and pay bigger wages to the management classes who benefit via bonuses, meaning the top 10% benefit the most. Overall GDP is 32.2% larger than the referendum date, 5.2% higher than the Brexit scenario.
Which of these is more or less successful? In one absolute GDP is higher and in the other low wage workers are better off but the economy is smaller overall.
Definitions of success vary wildly. I'd rather have the first scenario and it is much more likely to happen outside of the EU than inside it. The latter scenario is based on the Treasury's analysis.
How would you police it, then? Surely immigration controls and work permits? Or can we expect a lot of high-income workers in services from Romania and Bulgaria to turn up at T3 post-Brexit?
I suspect a quick check of EU passports - as we do now at the UK border, as we are outside Schengen - with a wave through for those who qualify for a free migration stamp in the passport, or on a certificate, together with visa free visits for tourists.
Immigration would question those who did not.
Laughable. How would you distinguish who qualifies for a 'free migration stamp' at the border?
The same way we do with Americans, Canadians, Australians etc
How would you police it, then? Surely immigration controls and work permits? Or can we expect a lot of high-income workers in services from Romania and Bulgaria to turn up at T3 post-Brexit?
I suspect a quick check of EU passports - as we do now at the UK border, as we are outside Schengen - with a wave through for those who qualify for a free migration stamp in the passport, or on a certificate, together with visa free visits for tourists.
Immigration would question those who did not.
Laughable. How would you distinguish who qualifies for a 'free migration stamp' at the border?
Why is it laughable?
If you are a EU worker employed in banking, and entitled to free movement into the UK, you will have some endorsement, stamp or letter saying so.
I see a huge trade in forged letters with E14 postmarks emerging in Bulgaria.
You mean we will still be providing employment in the EU? Not just for German chemists and car makers? Jolly decent of us I think.
Plus there will be lots of Bulgarians who have been invited to be CEO of Barclays at a salary of a few million. Which is nice.
Wages are an economic cost not a benefit. By voluntarily restricting a cheaper and needed unit of production we will be harming not helping the UK economy in GDP terms. The loss of GDP growth will be focused on the poorest voters because it always is. I no longer care about that. The losers will have disproportionately voted Leave anyway. What amuses me is the intellectual gymnastics free market Brexiters will use to justify an extraordinarily left wing policy. Artificially inflating economic costs for redistributive purposes.
I don't see the EU like that. Some of your points may have a little validity as regards the Euro, in relation to Greece etc., but the Euro isn't the EU.
The same discontent and reaction is being seen outside the EU, Trump and the US being the obvious case. So surely it is the management of the global economy particularly since the crash: ZIRP & QE boosting the assets of the wealthy; the long trend towards oligarchic capitalism; the small elite of super-powerful/super-rich; the threat from cheap labour as the economy becomes more global - that is fuelling it. None of which is down to the EU (indeed aspects of the EU tend to act as a brake on the trend towards Anglo-American capitalism).
Further, I am yet to be convinced that our leaving the EU will do anything whatsoever to assuage the discontent; indeed it is probable that the discontented may find themselves worse off still.
The same elite that has benefited from having an unlimited source of low wage employees within the EU. They have reaped the gains of the UK economy and done very well out of employing cheap EU labour. The crisis in Greece has been exacerbated by the EU commission which has imposed impossible conditions for a bail out and it's still dragging on today.
In the US jobs of working class people have been outsourced to Mexico and jobs previously held in the US by working class people have seen stagnant wages due to cheap labour from Mexico and the H1Bs. I have a friend in the US who has just been told his job is going to be filled by an H1B worker from January, he will have to train this guy until then and after that he's out of a job. It's absolutely crooked and someone who would not have ever considered voting Trump is now doing so seriously.
Low wage immigration from poorer countries into the west has fuelled anger among ordinary people, you may not want to hear it, but it has happened. The EU and it's stupid free movement of people policy is the reason for it. We either apply limitations on it or should not have let Eastern Europe in, and most certainly not let Romania and Bulgaria in for at least 20 years. Since no limitations are forthcoming and we can't kick Eastern Europe out the people have voted to leave.
Fine, but your argument hits a brick wall at my last point. If we aren't any better off after Brexit then it will have been a mistake. You may be able to explain why it happened but that doesn't make it a good thing or the right answer.
No it might only be a mistake if we are worse off.
If we are the same, then given the non economic democratic benefits of having taken back control then it will still be the right thing to do.
538 has just moved to a 61.3% chance for Clinton (from 58%) with a 2.2% lead.
RCP now shows Clinton with a 3.0% lead in a fourway.
I'm feeling a bit more comfortable with my very long position on Clinton at an average of 1.51.
Edit: And I see Florida has just gone Democrat (50.1% !) on 538.
I think Tuesday's performance has calmed many Demo nerves. And HRC bettors. I feel slightly more confident at moment, but can't get rid of this nagging feeling that something is going to go wrong.
538 has just moved to a 61.3% chance for Clinton (from 58%) with a 2.2% lead.
RCP now shows Clinton with a 3.0% lead in a fourway.
I'm feeling a bit more comfortable with my very long position on Clinton at an average of 1.51.
Edit: And I see Florida has just gone Democrat (50.1% !) on 538.
I think Tuesday's performance has calmed many Demo nerves. And HRC bettors. I feel slightly more confident at moment, but can't get rid of this nagging feeling that something is going to go wrong.
It's a two horse race: even a horse with three legs which is foaming at the mouth occasionally wins a race. It's unlikely though
Wages are an economic cost not a benefit. By voluntarily restricting a cheaper and needed unit of production we will be harming not helping the UK economy in GDP terms. The loss of GDP growth will be focused on the poorest voters because it always is. I no longer care about that. The losers will have disproportionately voted Leave anyway. What amuses me is the intellectual gymnastics free market Brexiters will use to justify an extraordinarily left wing policy. Artificially inflating economic costs for redistributive purposes.
From Lib Dem to turbo capitalist because of the EU. I think it might be time to have a bit of a rethink.
If the EU Treaties are still in force in the UK in June 2019 we're entitled to representation in the new European Parliament. The UK government could cancel the elections but would be open to legal challenge. Thus delay A50 notification past June 2017 involves us electing MEP's for a few months. It doesn't bother me. It would be funny but it'll p*ss off lots of other people.
Fine, but your argument hits a brick wall at my last point. If we aren't any better off after Brexit then it will have been a mistake. You may be able to explain why it happened but that doesn't make it a good thing or the right answer.
It really depends doesn't it, if our GDP rises by a little bit less but is spread more equally is that a success? The absolute GDP would be lower but more people at the bottom and middle will have felt the gain.
Take this as a scenario:
2030 Brexit - The economy has slowed down from an average of 2.3% per year to 2% per year. Immigration has reduced to around 150k per year net with about half from the EU and half from RoW. Migration now tends to be highly skilled. The median income has gone up in real terms and because of migration controls the people in the bottom 20% have benefited the most from wage rises, companies are less profitable so management and executives see their incomes stagnate. Overall GDP is 27% larger than when we left.
2030 Bremain - The economy kept growing at an average of 2.3% per year. Immigration settled at a net of 350k for about 10 years and fell to 250k after that. Migrants are still a mix of highly skilled and unskilled workers. The migration pressure has held wages down among the bottom 20% which has enabled companies to post higher profits and pay bigger wages to the management classes who benefit via bonuses, meaning the top 10% benefit the most. Overall GDP is 32.2% larger than the referendum date, 5.2% higher than the Brexit scenario.
Which of these is more or less successful? In one absolute GDP is higher and in the other low wage workers are better off but the economy is smaller overall.
Definitions of success vary wildly. I'd rather have the first scenario and it is much more likely to happen outside of the EU than inside it. The latter scenario is based on the Treasury's analysis.
Excellent post. Of course, the second scenario will become entirely a 'what if?' counterfactual, but the judgement call between the two is a broadly sound one from the PoV of 2016 and, like you, I voted for the first.
We are likely in for a Hard Brexit because our opening negotiating position will be no free movement of people. At that point, it is up to the EU27 to decide amongst themselves how much of a fudge if any to give us.
That appears to be what the public at large want (we can argue about how well they understand the implications of that), the polling showing the clear preference for end of freedom of movement over being in the single market was clear cut.
Debateable. Had hard Brexit been put forward as the desired destination before the vote, it would have peeled off sufficient from leave to remain to give staying in the EU a clear majority.
Also debatable, its tied up with the scaremongering both sides now largely seen for the bullshit it was, how many people now have drifted over to Leave because of the failure of most of Osborne's wailing to materialise.
2030 Brexit - The economy has slowed down from an average of 2.3% per year to 2% per year. Immigration has reduced to around 150k per year net with about half from the EU and half from RoW. Migration now tends to be highly skilled. The median income has gone up in real terms and because of migration controls the people in the bottom 20% have benefited the most from wage rises, companies are less profitable so management and executives see their incomes stagnate. Overall GDP is 27% larger than when we left.
2030 Bremain - The economy kept growing at an average of 2.3% per year. Immigration settled at a net of 350k for about 10 years and fell to 250k after that. Migrants are still a mix of highly skilled and unskilled workers. The migration pressure has held wages down among the bottom 20% which has enabled companies to post higher profits and pay bigger wages to the management classes who benefit via bonuses, meaning the top 10% benefit the most. Overall GDP is 32.2% larger than the referendum date, 5.2% higher than the Brexit scenario.
Which of these is more or less successful? In one absolute GDP is higher and in the other low wage workers are better off but the economy is smaller overall.
Definitions of success vary wildly. I'd rather have the first scenario and it is much more likely to happen outside of the EU than inside it. The latter scenario is based on the Treasury's analysis.
"I've made up some numbers which support my point of view. Therefore I am right". Hmm.
Indeed. IF we look at the long term UK growth rate, the economy seemed to have been able to grow pretty well when the labour supply was (arguably) much less plentiful (ie the 50s/60s/70s/80s). The chart is spikier, though.
538 has just moved to a 61.3% chance for Clinton (from 58%) with a 2.2% lead.
RCP now shows Clinton with a 3.0% lead in a fourway.
I'm feeling a bit more comfortable with my very long position on Clinton at an average of 1.51.
Edit: And I see Florida has just gone Democrat (50.1% !) on 538.
I think Tuesday's performance has calmed many Demo nerves. And HRC bettors. I feel slightly more confident at moment, but can't get rid of this nagging feeling that something is going to go wrong.
It's a two horse race: even a horse with three legs which is foaming at the mouth occasionally wins a race. It's unlikely though
That wasn't foaming, that was a faulty microphone!
2030 Brexit - The economy has slowed down from an average of 2.3% per year to 2% per year. Immigration has reduced to around 150k per year net with about half from the EU and half from RoW. Migration now tends to be highly skilled. The median income has gone up in real terms and because of migration controls the people in the bottom 20% have benefited the most from wage rises, companies are less profitable so management and executives see their incomes stagnate. Overall GDP is 27% larger than when we left.
2030 Bremain - The economy kept growing at an average of 2.3% per year. Immigration settled at a net of 350k for about 10 years and fell to 250k after that. Migrants are still a mix of highly skilled and unskilled workers. The migration pressure has held wages down among the bottom 20% which has enabled companies to post higher profits and pay bigger wages to the management classes who benefit via bonuses, meaning the top 10% benefit the most. Overall GDP is 32.2% larger than the referendum date, 5.2% higher than the Brexit scenario.
Which of these is more or less successful? In one absolute GDP is higher and in the other low wage workers are better off but the economy is smaller overall.
Definitions of success vary wildly. I'd rather have the first scenario and it is much more likely to happen outside of the EU than inside it. The latter scenario is based on the Treasury's analysis.
"I've made up some numbers which support my point of view. Therefore I am right". Hmm.
What in there isn't plausible, the latter scenario is based on the Treasury's own figures in their Brexit report. The first is also based on that as well tbh, a mix of WTO and EEA Brexit flavours.
Wages are an economic cost not a benefit. By voluntarily restricting a cheaper and needed unit of production we will be harming not helping the UK economy in GDP terms. The loss of GDP growth will be focused on the poorest voters because it always is. I no longer care about that. The losers will have disproportionately voted Leave anyway. What amuses me is the intellectual gymnastics free market Brexiters will use to justify an extraordinarily left wing policy. Artificially inflating economic costs for redistributive purposes.
From Lib Dem to turbo capitalist because of the EU. I think it might be time to have a bit of a rethink.
Wages are an economic cost not a benefit. By voluntarily restricting a cheaper and needed unit of production we will be harming not helping the UK economy in GDP terms. The loss of GDP growth will be focused on the poorest voters because it always is. I no longer care about that. The losers will have disproportionately voted Leave anyway. What amuses me is the intellectual gymnastics free market Brexiters will use to justify an extraordinarily left wing policy. Artificially inflating economic costs for redistributive purposes.
From Lib Dem to turbo capitalist because of the EU. I think it might be time to have a bit of a rethink.
I've always been an economic liberal. Tories pretending they want a smaller cake so it can be shared more fairly with ' the poor ' when really it's Bulgarians getting a slice that bothers them is hilarious.
These PPP polls also show voters think they'll get more bang for their buck from Trump. He leads by around 20 points in all these swing states on .... who is more like likely to start a nuclear war ....
The best thing about PPP polls is their sincerely spike Twitter account. And the accuracy of their state polling it 2012. But mostly the sick burns they do on Twitter.
Clearly Clarke doesn't have any national influence anymore. The significance of this intervention is that ( a) He's correct ( b) As OGH says he's articulate and commands media attention. Speaking truth to power is a useful function of distinguished backbenchers in the twighlight of their careers. There was no plan, there currently is no plan so when will there be a plan ? None of the policy vacuum really matters as there is no evidence of a shift in public opinion. If a block from of voters ever gets buyers remorse over Brexit then Clarke's analysis becomes more important. Until then it's just mildly entertaining.
Why worry about a plan? Nothing will be done now until the French elections are out of the way.
If the EU Treaties are still in force in the UK in June 2019 we're entitled to representation in the new European Parliament. The UK government could cancel the elections but would be open to legal challenge. Thus delay A50 notification past June 2017 involves us electing MEP's for a few months. It doesn't bother me. It would be funny but it'll p*ss off lots of other people.
It might be quite an interesting proxy for another referendum / parliamentary vote on A50 etc. And of course, being non-specific, open to many different interpretations.
Would turnout be of referendum, or elected police commissioner proportions ?
The lemmings are gathered at the edge of the cliff , rocks hundreds of metres below . The Brexit leaders say come on jump that is what the majority voted to do . 48% of the lemmings say we did not vote to commit suicide and also many of you Brexit leaders promised us a soft landing on inflated cushions not on hard rocks .
Specifically, Assange planned to release emails that show the ties between Clinton and Saudi Arabia, according to Fox News.
“Saudi Arabia is probably the largest single donor to the Clinton Foundation, and you can see Clinton’s arms export policies when she was a secretary of state favoring extensively Saudi Arabia”, Assange said during an interview last week with RT.
2030 Brexit - The economy has slowed down from an average of 2.3% per year to 2% per year. Immigration has reduced to around 150k per year net with about half from the EU and half from RoW. Migration now tends to be highly skilled. The median income has gone up in real terms and because of migration controls the people in the bottom 20% have benefited the most from wage rises, companies are less profitable so management and executives see their incomes stagnate. Overall GDP is 27% larger than when we left.
2030 Bremain - The economy kept growing at an average of 2.3% per year. Immigration settled at a net of 350k for about 10 years and fell to 250k after that. Migrants are still a mix of highly skilled and unskilled workers. The migration pressure has held wages down among the bottom 20% which has enabled companies to post higher profits and pay bigger wages to the management classes who benefit via bonuses, meaning the top 10% benefit the most. Overall GDP is 32.2% larger than the referendum date, 5.2% higher than the Brexit scenario.
Which of these is more or less successful? In one absolute GDP is higher and in the other low wage workers are better off but the economy is smaller overall.
Definitions of success vary wildly. I'd rather have the first scenario and it is much more likely to happen outside of the EU than inside it. The latter scenario is based on the Treasury's analysis.
"I've made up some numbers which support my point of view. Therefore I am right". Hmm.
As a Manager/Business Owner in a service industry rising wages is a double edged sword. On the one hand yes Labour is my single biggest expense and rising that is harmful. On the other hand if my customers have more disposable income they may be more inclined to spend it with me and sales may rise.
Specifically, Assange planned to release emails that show the ties between Clinton and Saudi Arabia, according to Fox News.
“Saudi Arabia is probably the largest single donor to the Clinton Foundation, and you can see Clinton’s arms export policies when she was a secretary of state favoring extensively Saudi Arabia”, Assange said during an interview last week with RT.
No it might only be a mistake if we are worse off.
If we are the same, then given the non economic democratic benefits of having taken back control then it will still be the right thing to do.
I agree with you and Max's analysis, but from the other side. I don't think Brexit will be an economic disaster, at least I hope not. If the government does the damage limitation properly then it will be mitigated. Brexit is affordable if you think it's a worthwhile objective in its own right.
My problem is that it will be very messy. Whatever the motives of the somewhat particular group of Brexiteers on the PB forum, it really is a case of Britain disconnecting and turning inwards. The EU is just one part of the world, but it is dominant in our geography. Disconnecting from it doesn't make connections elsewhere any easier. The reverse, in fact. Brexit doesn't answer the question of where Britain sees itself in the world. The world is connected and globalised and success comes from playing the globalisation game well. With Brexit, people are saying, we want to get off the bus.
I've always been an economic liberal. Tories pretending they want a smaller cake so it can be shared more fairly with ' the poor ' when really it's Bulgarians getting a slice that bothers them is hilarious.
An economy that functions only for the top 10% is storing up long term problems. I say that despite being in the top 10% income bracket, though probably not today given my lack of productivity.
In order to ensure we build a country where everyone benefits from economic growth we need to make sure wages at the bottom aren't stagnant. Taking our eye off the ball for too long will result in our very own Trump, a situation I'd prefer to avoid. You may want to throw everyone in the bottom 20% onto the scrapheap of failure, but we should all be in it together. We succeed as a nation or fail as a nation, the current situation where the top 10% succeed and the bottom 20% fail is not sustainable.
2030 Brexit - The economy has slowed down from an average of 2.3% per year to 2% per year. Immigration has reduced to around 150k per year net with about half from the EU and half from RoW. Migration now tends to be highly skilled. The median income has gone up in real terms and because of migration controls the people in the bottom 20% have benefited the most from wage rises, companies are less profitable so management and executives see their incomes stagnate. Overall GDP is 27% larger than when we left.
2030 Bremain - The economy kept growing at an average of 2.3% per year. Immigration settled at a net of 350k for about 10 years and fell to 250k after that. Migrants are still a mix of highly skilled and unskilled workers. The migration pressure has held wages down among the bottom 20% which has enabled companies to post higher profits and pay bigger wages to the management classes who benefit via bonuses, meaning the top 10% benefit the most. Overall GDP is 32.2% larger than the referendum date, 5.2% higher than the Brexit scenario.
Which of these is more or less successful? In one absolute GDP is higher and in the other low wage workers are better off but the economy is smaller overall.
Definitions of success vary wildly. I'd rather have the first scenario and it is much more likely to happen outside of the EU than inside it. The latter scenario is based on the Treasury's analysis.
"I've made up some numbers which support my point of view. Therefore I am right". Hmm.
No, that was Osborne with the £4,300 crap.
Not to fight old battles, but those were NIESR's numbers. Experts, I grant you, but they are a not too shabby outfit nevertheless.
2030 Brexit - The economy has slowed down from an average of 2.3% per year to 2% per year. Immigration has reduced to around 150k per year net with about half from the EU and half from RoW. Migration now tends to be highly skilled. The median income has gone up in real terms and because of migration controls the people in the bottom 20% have benefited the most from wage rises, companies are less profitable so management and executives see their incomes stagnate. Overall GDP is 27% larger than when we left.
2030 Bremain - The economy kept growing at an average of 2.3% per year. Immigration settled at a net of 350k for about 10 years and fell to 250k after that. Migrants are still a mix of highly skilled and unskilled workers. The migration pressure has held wages down among the bottom 20% which has enabled companies to post higher profits and pay bigger wages to the management classes who benefit via bonuses, meaning the top 10% benefit the most. Overall GDP is 32.2% larger than the referendum date, 5.2% higher than the Brexit scenario.
Which of these is more or less successful? In one absolute GDP is higher and in the other low wage workers are better off but the economy is smaller overall.
Definitions of success vary wildly. I'd rather have the first scenario and it is much more likely to happen outside of the EU than inside it. The latter scenario is based on the Treasury's analysis.
"I've made up some numbers which support my point of view. Therefore I am right". Hmm.
How would you police it, then? Surely immigration controls and work permits? Or can we expect a lot of high-income workers in services from Romania and Bulgaria to turn up at T3 post-Brexit?
I suspect a quick check of EU passports - as we do now at the UK border, as we are outside Schengen - with a wave through for those who qualify for a free migration stamp in the passport, or on a certificate, together with visa free visits for tourists.
Immigration would question those who did not.
Laughable. How would you distinguish who qualifies for a 'free migration stamp' at the border?
Why is it laughable?
If you are a EU worker employed in banking, and entitled to free movement into the UK, you will have some endorsement, stamp or letter saying so.
Free movement for Bankers but not Doctors or Nurses?
Nailed on Tory gain, perhaps extend Bankers to include qualified baby roasters.
Definitions of success vary wildly. I'd rather have the first scenario and it is much more likely to happen outside of the EU than inside it. The latter scenario is based on the Treasury's analysis.
"I've made up some numbers which support my point of view. Therefore I am right". Hmm.
What in there isn't plausible, the latter scenario is based on the Treasury's own figures in their Brexit report. The first is also based on that as well tbh, a mix of WTO and EEA Brexit flavours.
It's one of a largish set of "plausible" scenarios. Selecting one which supports your bias/view/opinion does not make it more likely than the rest. (above posts snipped for brevity).
2030 Brexit - The economy has slowed down from an average of 2.3% per year to 2% per year. Immigration has reduced to around 150k per year net with about half from the EU and half from RoW. Migration now tends to be highly skilled. The median income has gone up in real terms and because of migration controls the people in the bottom 20% have benefited the most from wage rises, companies are less profitable so management and executives see their incomes stagnate. Overall GDP is 27% larger than when we left.
2030 Bremain - The economy kept growing at an average of 2.3% per year. Immigration settled at a net of 350k for about 10 years and fell to 250k after that. Migrants are still a mix of highly skilled and unskilled workers. The migration pressure has held wages down among the bottom 20% which has enabled companies to post higher profits and pay bigger wages to the management classes who benefit via bonuses, meaning the top 10% benefit the most. Overall GDP is 32.2% larger than the referendum date, 5.2% higher than the Brexit scenario.
Which of these is more or less successful? In one absolute GDP is higher and in the other low wage workers are better off but the economy is smaller overall.
Definitions of success vary wildly. I'd rather have the first scenario and it is much more likely to happen outside of the EU than inside it. The latter scenario is based on the Treasury's analysis.
"I've made up some numbers which support my point of view. Therefore I am right". Hmm.
No, that was Osborne with the £4,300 crap.
Not to fight old battles, but those were NIESR's numbers. Experts, I grant you, but they are a not too shabby outfit nevertheless.
No it's not, it is based on the Treasury's analysis, the report is still available to download. The summary specifically mentions the number.
"The analysis in the long-term document sets out a range for each alternative, with a central estimate that gross domestic product (GDP) would be £4,300 lower in 2015 terms for each household after 15 years and every year thereafter."
Specifically, Assange planned to release emails that show the ties between Clinton and Saudi Arabia, according to Fox News.
“Saudi Arabia is probably the largest single donor to the Clinton Foundation, and you can see Clinton’s arms export policies when she was a secretary of state favoring extensively Saudi Arabia”, Assange said during an interview last week with RT.
Specifically, Assange planned to release emails that show the ties between Clinton and Saudi Arabia, according to Fox News.
“Saudi Arabia is probably the largest single donor to the Clinton Foundation, and you can see Clinton’s arms export policies when she was a secretary of state favoring extensively Saudi Arabia”, Assange said during an interview last week with RT.
Specifically, Assange planned to release emails that show the ties between Clinton and Saudi Arabia, according to Fox News.
“Saudi Arabia is probably the largest single donor to the Clinton Foundation, and you can see Clinton’s arms export policies when she was a secretary of state favoring extensively Saudi Arabia”, Assange said during an interview last week with RT.
2030 Brexit - The economy has slowed down from an average of 2.3% per year to 2% per year. Immigration has reduced to around 150k per year net with about half from the EU and half from RoW. Migration now tends to be highly skilled. The median income has gone up in real terms and because of migration controls the people in the bottom 20% have benefited the most from wage rises, companies are less profitable so management and executives see their incomes stagnate. Overall GDP is 27% larger than when we left.
2030 Bremain - The economy kept growing at an average of 2.3% per year. Immigration settled at a net of 350k for about 10 years and fell to 250k after that. Migrants are still a mix of highly skilled and unskilled workers. The migration pressure has held wages down among the bottom 20% which has enabled companies to post higher profits and pay bigger wages to the management classes who benefit via bonuses, meaning the top 10% benefit the most. Overall GDP is 32.2% larger than the referendum date, 5.2% higher than the Brexit scenario.
Which of these is more or less successful? In one absolute GDP is higher and in the other low wage workers are better off but the economy is smaller overall.
Definitions of success vary wildly. I'd rather have the first scenario and it is much more likely to happen outside of the EU than inside it. The latter scenario is based on the Treasury's analysis.
"I've made up some numbers which support my point of view. Therefore I am right". Hmm.
No, that was Osborne with the £4,300 crap.
Not to fight old battles, but those were NIESR's numbers. Experts, I grant you, but they are a not too shabby outfit nevertheless.
No it's not, it is based on the Treasury's analysis, the report is still available to download. The summary specifically mentions the number.
"The analysis in the long-term document sets out a range for each alternative, with a central estimate that gross domestic product (GDP) would be £4,300 lower in 2015 terms for each household after 15 years and every year thereafter."
Definitions of success vary wildly. I'd rather have the first scenario and it is much more likely to happen outside of the EU than inside it. The latter scenario is based on the Treasury's analysis.
"I've made up some numbers which support my point of view. Therefore I am right". Hmm.
What in there isn't plausible, the latter scenario is based on the Treasury's own figures in their Brexit report. The first is also based on that as well tbh, a mix of WTO and EEA Brexit flavours.
It's one of a largish set of "plausible" scenarios. Selecting one which supports your bias/view/opinion does not make it more likely than the rest. (above posts snipped for brevity).
Again, I'm basing it on the Treasury's own figures. Take it up with them if you disagree with them!
2030 Brexit - The economy has slowed down from an average of 2.3% per year to 2% per year. Immigration has reduced to around 150k per year net with about half from the EU and half from RoW. Migration now tends to be highly skilled. The median income has gone up in real terms and because of migration controls the people in the bottom 20% have benefited the most from wage rises, companies are less profitable so management and executives see their incomes stagnate. Overall GDP is 27% larger than when we left.
2030 Bremain - The economy kept growing at an average of 2.3% per year. Immigration settled at a net of 350k for about 10 years and fell to 250k after that. Migrants are still a mix of highly skilled and unskilled workers. The migration pressure has held wages down among the bottom 20% which has enabled companies to post higher profits and pay bigger wages to the management classes who benefit via bonuses, meaning the top 10% benefit the most. Overall GDP is 32.2% larger than the referendum date, 5.2% higher than the Brexit scenario.
Which of these is more or less successful? In one absolute GDP is higher and in the other low wage workers are better off but the economy is smaller overall.
Definitions of success vary wildly. I'd rather have the first scenario and it is much more likely to happen outside of the EU than inside it. The latter scenario is based on the Treasury's analysis.
"I've made up some numbers which support my point of view. Therefore I am right". Hmm.
No, that was Osborne with the £4,300 crap.
Not to fight old battles, but those were NIESR's numbers. Experts, I grant you, but they are a not too shabby outfit nevertheless.
No it's not, it is based on the Treasury's analysis, the report is still available to download. The summary specifically mentions the number.
"The analysis in the long-term document sets out a range for each alternative, with a central estimate that gross domestic product (GDP) would be £4,300 lower in 2015 terms for each household after 15 years and every year thereafter."
2030 Brexit - The economy has slowed down from an average of 2.3% per year to 2% per year. Immigration has reduced to around 150k per year net with about half from the EU and half from RoW. Migration now tends to be highly skilled. The median income has gone up in real terms and because of migration controls the people in the bottom 20% have benefited the most from wage rises, companies are less profitable so management and executives see their incomes stagnate. Overall GDP is 27% larger than when we left.
2030 Bremain - The economy kept growing at an average of 2.3% per year. Immigration settled at a net of 350k for about 10 years and fell to 250k after that. Migrants are still a mix of highly skilled and unskilled workers. The migration pressure has held wages down among the bottom 20% which has enabled companies to post higher profits and pay bigger wages to the management classes who benefit via bonuses, meaning the top 10% benefit the most. Overall GDP is 32.2% larger than the referendum date, 5.2% higher than the Brexit scenario.
Which of these is more or less successful? In one absolute GDP is higher and in the other low wage workers are better off but the economy is smaller overall.
Definitions of success vary wildly. I'd rather have the first scenario and it is much more likely to happen outside of the EU than inside it. The latter scenario is based on the Treasury's analysis.
"I've made up some numbers which support my point of view. Therefore I am right". Hmm.
No, that was Osborne with the £4,300 crap.
Not to fight old battles, but those were NIESR's numbers. Experts, I grant you, but they are a not too shabby outfit nevertheless.
No it's not, it is based on the Treasury's analysis, the report is still available to download. The summary specifically mentions the number.
"The analysis in the long-term document sets out a range for each alternative, with a central estimate that gross domestic product (GDP) would be £4,300 lower in 2015 terms for each household after 15 years and every year thereafter."
I think one of Trump's problems is that he is slow-witted but he doesn't want to appear hesitant so he says the first thing that comes into his head.
Real example from the debate.
Moderator: Our institutions are under attack and our secrets are being stolen. How do we fight it?
Trump: We have to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is -- it is a huge problem. I have a son. He's 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it's unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it's hardly doable. ... ramble ...ramble..
A more effective approach:
(Pause for thought) My first word of advice is - do not put state secrets on an insecure email server. My second word of advice is - do not elect as President someone who is foolish enough to do that. (Then shut up).
Because he is slow-witted but too proud to pause to think, he is going to lose the next two debates.
"Why would we change if we won the debate?” former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a key Trump ally and traveling partner this week, told The Associated Press.
Definitions of success vary wildly. I'd rather have the first scenario and it is much more likely to happen outside of the EU than inside it. The latter scenario is based on the Treasury's analysis.
"I've made up some numbers which support my point of view. Therefore I am right". Hmm.
What in there isn't plausible, the latter scenario is based on the Treasury's own figures in their Brexit report. The first is also based on that as well tbh, a mix of WTO and EEA Brexit flavours.
It's one of a largish set of "plausible" scenarios. Selecting one which supports your bias/view/opinion does not make it more likely than the rest. (above posts snipped for brevity).
Again, I'm basing it on the Treasury's own figures. Take it up with them if you disagree with them!
Unless I've misunderstood (which is plausible), you started with the treasury's figures, then augmented them with your own, plucked-from-thin-air, values on immigration and income distribution.
Comments
I don't see the evidence for Brown being ejected earlier either.
So - as you say - the EU27 (-1?) need to decide if they are willing to compromise or not. If not then let's just go ahead and leave rather than faff around for 2 years.
(I suspect they will blink at the 11th hour)
The issues of our EU membership is one that has been bubbling away for decades, when parliament finally got around to asking us what we think it turned out that the public was a lot less Europhile than our representatives. Now they need to get on with carrying out our wish to leave, if they choose to ignore that I suppose we will replace our representatives come the next general election with people who have working hearing.
Damage limitation? Absolutely. We want to limit ourselves from the damage when the Eurozone monetary system collapses.
I would be amazed if in five years' time we're still not having our hospitals staffed and fruit & veg picked by young migrant workers from the EU. We have a desperate need, they offer motivated labour at reasonable cost. Economics will trump politics.
And yes also, I am intrigued to see if and how much the EU does cave.
But you've admitted you have no idea, so respect for that.
There will also need to be arrangements made for students and children/spouses of UK citizens, etc.
In the US jobs of working class people have been outsourced to Mexico and jobs previously held in the US by working class people have seen stagnant wages due to cheap labour from Mexico and the H1Bs. I have a friend in the US who has just been told his job is going to be filled by an H1B worker from January, he will have to train this guy until then and after that he's out of a job. It's absolutely crooked and someone who would not have ever considered voting Trump is now doing so seriously.
Low wage immigration from poorer countries into the west has fuelled anger among ordinary people, you may not want to hear it, but it has happened. The EU and it's stupid free movement of people policy is the reason for it. We either apply limitations on it or should not have let Eastern Europe in, and most certainly not let Romania and Bulgaria in for at least 20 years. Since no limitations are forthcoming and we can't kick Eastern Europe out the people have voted to leave.
No YOU have a desperate need. A desperate need to maintain your excellent standard of living via a never ending stream of cheap labour. Imagine if blue collar jobs got that bit more expensive for you! Imagine if those ignorant plebs who voted leave started to get a bit more money for serving your coffee! started sending their children to grammar schools! where would it end!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37504966
Ken Clarke and Denis Healey both seem examples of one of the best leaders their parties never had, being at the time under the influence of hard right or left, not centre-left or -right. Under PR, one might expect those groups to have their own party to fight it out at the ballot box with One Nation Tories. I think there are more people in the UK who'd vote Clarke than Cash or Redwood.
http://www.comresglobal.com/polls/bbc-news-brexit-expectations-poll/
How many people get the difference between access to the single market and membership of it, for instance? It's pretty obvious that a lot of politicians - including cabinet ministers - are confused, so it is no surprise that ordinary punters are.
Plenty already do.
Immigration would question those who did not.
The remainer bien pensant middle class WON'T be better off. They may very well be a bit worse off in favour of their menial task performing compatriots.
And that will be a very good thing.
But, seriously, I would support an economy where we don't have such inequality and where lower paid jobs got better pay and conditions. I just don't see Brexit taking us there.
In contrast Leave were not a government and were not made one by the result. They had differing views on what the outcome might be. That was legitimate. Some of the claims, such as the £350m a week, were outlandish but no more so than the nonsense we were hearing from Osborne about emergency budgets, interest rate rises and immediate recessions.
It's a chance for UKIP to win on a hard Brexit platform or the LibDems to win on a No Brexit platform. The electorate may well be bemused by the fact that the elections are taking place at all. It seems an unnecessary hostage to fortune.
If you are a EU worker employed in banking, and entitled to free movement into the UK, you will have some endorsement, stamp or letter saying so.
Beyond that, if leaving the single market does mean less job creation and investment in the UK, then the expected leap in wages may not actually occur. What will happen instead is less income for the government.
We shall see.
If she can, I think May will wait until Oct/Nov 2017 to invoke Article 50 but political pressure to do so before might simply become irresistible.
RCP now shows Clinton with a 3.0% lead in a fourway.
I'm feeling a bit more comfortable with my very long position on Clinton at an average of 1.51.
Edit: And I see Florida has just gone Democrat (50.1% !) on 538.
Take this as a scenario:
2030 Brexit - The economy has slowed down from an average of 2.3% per year to 2% per year. Immigration has reduced to around 150k per year net with about half from the EU and half from RoW. Migration now tends to be highly skilled. The median income has gone up in real terms and because of migration controls the people in the bottom 20% have benefited the most from wage rises, companies are less profitable so management and executives see their incomes stagnate. Overall GDP is 27% larger than when we left.
2030 Bremain - The economy kept growing at an average of 2.3% per year. Immigration settled at a net of 350k for about 10 years and fell to 250k after that. Migrants are still a mix of highly skilled and unskilled workers. The migration pressure has held wages down among the bottom 20% which has enabled companies to post higher profits and pay bigger wages to the management classes who benefit via bonuses, meaning the top 10% benefit the most. Overall GDP is 32.2% larger than the referendum date, 5.2% higher than the Brexit scenario.
Which of these is more or less successful? In one absolute GDP is higher and in the other low wage workers are better off but the economy is smaller overall.
Definitions of success vary wildly. I'd rather have the first scenario and it is much more likely to happen outside of the EU than inside it. The latter scenario is based on the Treasury's analysis.
He's not a USA citizen.
https://t.co/HFVWWaywKE
If we are the same, then given the non economic democratic benefits of having taken back control then it will still be the right thing to do.
Indeed. IF we look at the long term UK growth rate, the economy seemed to have been able to grow pretty well when the labour supply was (arguably) much less plentiful (ie the 50s/60s/70s/80s). The chart is spikier, though.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/opinion/trumps-debate-flameout.html?ref=opinion&_r=1
From Lib Dem to turbo capitalist because of the EU. I think it might be time to have a bit of a rethink.I've always been an economic liberal. Tories pretending they want a smaller cake so it can be shared more fairly with ' the poor ' when really it's Bulgarians getting a slice that bothers them is hilarious.
FL - Clinton +2
NC - Clinton +2
Colorado +6
And of course, being non-specific, open to many different interpretations.
Would turnout be of referendum, or elected police commissioner proportions ?
Specifically, Assange planned to release emails that show the ties between Clinton and Saudi Arabia, according to Fox News.
“Saudi Arabia is probably the largest single donor to the Clinton Foundation, and you can see Clinton’s arms export policies when she was a secretary of state favoring extensively Saudi Arabia”, Assange said during an interview last week with RT.
http://universepolitics.com/2016/09/24/breaking-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-reveals-islamic-oct-surprise-that-will-destroy-hill/
Key findings about Americans’ views on religious liberty and nondiscrimination https://t.co/gc8TObH2Ac https://t.co/AvnOAsZ794
As a Manager/Business Owner in a service industry rising wages is a double edged sword. On the one hand yes Labour is my single biggest expense and rising that is harmful. On the other hand if my customers have more disposable income they may be more inclined to spend it with me and sales may rise.
Nothing is ever black and white only.
My problem is that it will be very messy. Whatever the motives of the somewhat particular group of Brexiteers on the PB forum, it really is a case of Britain disconnecting and turning inwards. The EU is just one part of the world, but it is dominant in our geography. Disconnecting from it doesn't make connections elsewhere any easier. The reverse, in fact. Brexit doesn't answer the question of where Britain sees itself in the world. The world is connected and globalised and success comes from playing the globalisation game well. With Brexit, people are saying, we want to get off the bus.
In order to ensure we build a country where everyone benefits from economic growth we need to make sure wages at the bottom aren't stagnant. Taking our eye off the ball for too long will result in our very own Trump, a situation I'd prefer to avoid. You may want to throw everyone in the bottom 20% onto the scrapheap of failure, but we should all be in it together. We succeed as a nation or fail as a nation, the current situation where the top 10% succeed and the bottom 20% fail is not sustainable.
Nailed on Tory gain, perhaps extend Bankers to include qualified baby roasters.
"The analysis in the long-term document sets out a range for each alternative, with a central estimate that gross domestic product (GDP) would be £4,300 lower in 2015 terms for each household after 15 years and every year thereafter."
In bold no less!
You are entirely free to disregard it.
THIS IS COMPLETELY NEW INFORMATION
I always thought Assange was a blowhard.
Edit: done with the CEP and IFS (experts, all) - but the numbers were crunched by NIESR.
"Households would be £4,300 a year worse off by 2030."
Uncertain - the effect might be bigger or smaller and will fall unevenly across households.
I think one of Trump's problems is that he is slow-witted but he doesn't want to appear hesitant so he says the first thing that comes into his head.
Real example from the debate.
Moderator: Our institutions are under attack and our secrets are being stolen. How do we fight it?
Trump: We have to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is -- it is a huge problem. I have a son. He's 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it's unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it's hardly doable. ... ramble ...ramble..
A more effective approach:
(Pause for thought) My first word of advice is - do not put state secrets on an insecure email server.
My second word of advice is - do not elect as President someone who is foolish enough to do that. (Then shut up).
Because he is slow-witted but too proud to pause to think, he is going to lose the next two debates.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/writeup/election_2016_vs_election_2008_eight_years_ago_today-210.html
"Why would we change if we won the debate?” former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a key Trump ally and traveling partner this week, told The Associated Press.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
CO - Clinton 51 .. Trump 44
FL - Clinton 48 .. Trump 45
NC - Clinton 49 .. Trump 45
PA - Clinton 49 .. Trump 44
VA - Clnton 49 .. Trump 43
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/09/clinton-leads-in-key-battlegrounds-seen-as-big-debate-winner.html
Using the NIESR forecasting model, but the analysis and impact on household GDP is the Treasury's own.