I wonder if one day we MIGHT see a Brexit Bad story where MIGHT doesn't do an almighty large amount of heavy lifting?
Honda closing? They were not going to say it is because the UK has chosen this path because they still want to sell cars in the future.
The reason why "might" is still used is because we have not left the EU yet. Once all these jobs and industries have closed for good in a hard Brexit it will be a bit late to start thinking they were not joking.
But then why out of Turkey, too? Suspect the EU FTA has more to do with it. No longer need plants in the customs union.
I wonder if one day we MIGHT see a Brexit Bad story where MIGHT doesn't do an almighty large amount of heavy lifting?
Honda closing? They were not going to say it is because the UK has chosen this path because they still want to sell cars in the future.
The reason why "might" is still used is because we have not left the EU yet. Once all these jobs and industries have closed for good in a hard Brexit it will be a bit late to start thinking they were not joking.
But then why out of Turkey, too? Suspect the EU FTA has more to do with it. No longer need plants in the customs union.
Correct. We can expect most Japanese and Korean manufacturing to leave the UK anyway. International shipping is so cheap that it makes no financial sense to stay.
I am not sure why there is this obsession with Banks. Maybe there was dodgy financial goings on - in which case, report them to the proper authorities and let the legal process do what it needs to.
But the referendum is not going to get overturned. No matter what they try to dig up.
I wonder if one day we MIGHT see a Brexit Bad story where MIGHT doesn't do an almighty large amount of heavy lifting?
Honda closing? They were not going to say it is because the UK has chosen this path because they still want to sell cars in the future.
The reason why "might" is still used is because we have not left the EU yet. Once all these jobs and industries have closed for good in a hard Brexit it will be a bit late to start thinking they were not joking.
It is the blind faith that staying in the EU means everything will be hunky dory, I struggle with. Whilst we have been in the EU Rover collapsed, Peugeot closed Ryton, Ford closed Hailewood, Ford closed Southampton, JLR made the decision to invest in Slovakia. The EU car makers are already moving to North Africa from the EU.
There is a reason why the current and previous manufacturing regions of the UK voted leave.
What we need is a Government focused on making the UK the best place to manufacture after brexit, if the population want manufacturing jobs. Unfortunately the bloke with the responsibility for this seems to spend his time getting businesses to issues press statements about how bad the UK is for business and that they are worried that the Government, of which he is a part, can not even manage a simple thing like getting a customs system to work at the ports.
I am not sure why there is this obsession with Banks. Maybe there was dodgy financial goings on - in which case, report them to the proper authorities and let the legal process do what it needs to.
But the referendum is not going to get overturned. No matter what they try to dig up.
Isn't the obsession with Banks personal on the part of a fair few media folk?
I think they are still pissed off with all that nonsense to-ing and fro-ing over his "dramatic" donation to UKIP that had them spend a day outside of London only to be let down.
I wonder if one day we MIGHT see a Brexit Bad story where MIGHT doesn't do an almighty large amount of heavy lifting?
Honda closing? They were not going to say it is because the UK has chosen this path because they still want to sell cars in the future.
The reason why "might" is still used is because we have not left the EU yet. Once all these jobs and industries have closed for good in a hard Brexit it will be a bit late to start thinking they were not joking.
But then why out of Turkey, too? Suspect the EU FTA has more to do with it. No longer need plants in the customs union.
Correct. We can expect most Japanese and Korean manufacturing to leave the UK anyway. International shipping is so cheap that it makes no financial sense to stay.
To be fair, Patrick Minford - Brexit’s preferred economist - did suggest that the auto industry would close down. However he said this would be a good thing.
A no deal Brexit will simply mean they do it quickly. With a deal-Brexit they will have longer to achieve the transition.
Love it, Sky News and The Guardian with something MAY happen IF something unlikely happens. Project Fear doesn't even deal in facts, it just hopes for the worst.
Yawn!! It is Project Realism now. The Fear piece is left to you guys; the Fear of the Foreigner, a sick exploitation which has been amply used by Farage, and continues to be used by thickos like Mark Francois. It is a very old and sinister tactic and it will do no one any good longer term, except exploitative politicians and journalists who will continue to stir up the gullible.
It's not though is it and you know it. Even when the arch Europhiles were jerking off about Nissan cutting jobs they soon had to backtrack when Nissan publicly said Brexit was not involved. Almost all Project Fear and Sky News/Guardian's scare stories revolve around 'might' or 'could' rather than being based upon actual events. It's all a bit desperate, and I say that as someone who completely understands many prominent leave supporters also have failed to deliver on their promises.
WE'VE GOT HIM. CONGRATULATIONS!!!
We've found the person who takes the statement of company management over an extremely sensitive political issue in their host country...AT FACE VALUE.
Well, yes, but this does work both ways. Firms going bust because of bad management or other economic conditions and blaming Brexit also can't be taken at face value.
Nearly all firms have their challenges so it is easy to say 'it wasn't Brexit it was x, y and z'. Maybe if it was just x y and z it wouldn't go under. It is those near the edge that are going to go. Others will do worse, but we won't be aware of the impact of Brexit because they won't collapse so won't be on the news. With the exception of those for whom the impact is tremendous all those that go will have other contributing reasons for people to blame instead of Brexit
I wonder if one day we MIGHT see a Brexit Bad story where MIGHT doesn't do an almighty large amount of heavy lifting?
Honda closing? They were not going to say it is because the UK has chosen this path because they still want to sell cars in the future.
The reason why "might" is still used is because we have not left the EU yet. Once all these jobs and industries have closed for good in a hard Brexit it will be a bit late to start thinking they were not joking.
But then why out of Turkey, too? Suspect the EU FTA has more to do with it. No longer need plants in the customs union.
I think the EU FTA is small part of the problem but Brexit causing disruption to the supply chain, potentially putting tariffs on parts from the EU and then selling the cars back into the EU with tariffs is the problem. I would have to look at the productivity figures for the Turkey plant, the cost profile and profitability per unit to decide on why they closed that. You would think a low cost base like Turkey would stay open!
A lot of people in the UK Parliament – both Brexit and non-Brexit supporters – have argued that more should be done to give greater certainty to citizens. The joint Brexit lead in the Dutch Parliament, Pieter Omtzigt, also called on the EU and the UK to safeguard citizens' rights.
On 27 February, the Government accepted an amendment by Conservative MP Alberto Costa, which proposes that the UK and EU commit to part two of the Withdrawal Agreement on citizens’ rights in the case of no deal. However, the EU has insisted throughout that it will not do a mini-deal as this is an issue for member states. That was why the Prime Minister suggested that it would be impossible for the UK to deliver on this.
Short version - UK more generous than most EU countries - and better prepared (if legislation counts as 'preparation' of course.....but then again I'm not sure our Home Office is uniquely dysfunctional....)
I wonder if one day we MIGHT see a Brexit Bad story where MIGHT doesn't do an almighty large amount of heavy lifting?
Honda closing? They were not going to say it is because the UK has chosen this path because they still want to sell cars in the future.
The reason why "might" is still used is because we have not left the EU yet. Once all these jobs and industries have closed for good in a hard Brexit it will be a bit late to start thinking they were not joking.
But then why out of Turkey, too? Suspect the EU FTA has more to do with it. No longer need plants in the customs union.
Correct. We can expect most Japanese and Korean manufacturing to leave the UK anyway. International shipping is so cheap that it makes no financial sense to stay.
To be fair, Patrick Minford - Brexit’s preferred economist - did suggest that the auto industry would close down. However he said this would be a good thing.
Perhaps the Brexiteer hopes and dreams will only be realised when we return to a truly agrarian society, replete with rickets, scurvy, and weevils in the bread.
I am not sure why there is this obsession with Banks. Maybe there was dodgy financial goings on - in which case, report them to the proper authorities and let the legal process do what it needs to.
But the referendum is not going to get overturned. No matter what they try to dig up.
Its displacement activity.
Despite outspending their opponents by a substantial margin (even ignoring the Government contribution) they still lost - but rather than address the arguments they focus on the money
But then they though arguments about 'money' would sway it.
Fools and their money are easy parted. If anyone wishes to send me their life savings I promise to look after them very well.
Only if you use it to buy a tank.
[ Response deleted as excessively nerdy]
My nerdy sense caught you.
One of my (many) guilty pleasures is Combat Dealers, I believe they're aiming to restore or reconstruct a Jagdpanther, of which I wholly approve.
Why a Nazi tank rather than an Allied one?
Because they look better, performed better and are far rarer. Also they had a much better naming policy; imagine the sniggering if the Heer had come up with the Pzkfw IX Hitler.
I wonder if one day we MIGHT see a Brexit Bad story where MIGHT doesn't do an almighty large amount of heavy lifting?
Honda closing? They were not going to say it is because the UK has chosen this path because they still want to sell cars in the future.
The reason why "might" is still used is because we have not left the EU yet. Once all these jobs and industries have closed for good in a hard Brexit it will be a bit late to start thinking they were not joking.
But then why out of Turkey, too? Suspect the EU FTA has more to do with it. No longer need plants in the customs union.
Correct. We can expect most Japanese and Korean manufacturing to leave the UK anyway. International shipping is so cheap that it makes no financial sense to stay.
To be fair, Patrick Minford - Brexit’s preferred economist - did suggest that the auto industry would close down. However he said this would be a good thing.
How on earth of could it be a good thing? Singapore, which is held up as an example by people with these views is getting a new car industry supplied by Brexit supporting James Dyson! They cite Singapore's economic model as one that the UK should follow but the only thing it seems to be doing is swallowing up our industry!
As an aside I will never forget seeing Patrick Minford giving a lecture at Manchester Free Trade Hall and mid speech someone throw a paper aeroplane that hit the end of his nose! I thought it was incredibly rude to do that to someone giving a lecture.
Perhaps the Brexiteer hopes and dreams will only be realised when we return to a truly agrarian society, replete with rickets, scurvy, and weevils in the bread.
They will just complain about the arrival of Black Death from Europe...
I wonder if one day we MIGHT see a Brexit Bad story where MIGHT doesn't do an almighty large amount of heavy lifting?
Honda closing? They were not going to say it is because the UK has chosen this path because they still want to sell cars in the future.
The reason why "might" is still used is because we have not left the EU yet. Once all these jobs and industries have closed for good in a hard Brexit it will be a bit late to start thinking they were not joking.
But then why out of Turkey, too? Suspect the EU FTA has more to do with it. No longer need plants in the customs union.
Correct. We can expect most Japanese and Korean manufacturing to leave the UK anyway. International shipping is so cheap that it makes no financial sense to stay.
To be fair, Patrick Minford - Brexit’s preferred economist - did suggest that the auto industry would close down. However he said this would be a good thing.
Perhaps the Brexiteer hopes and dreams will only be realised when we return to a truly agrarian society, replete with rickets, scurvy, and weevils in the bread.
I am not sure why there is this obsession with Banks. Maybe there was dodgy financial goings on - in which case, report them to the proper authorities and let the legal process do what it needs to.
But the referendum is not going to get overturned. No matter what they try to dig up.
Yes, but if it was in any way subverted it strengthens the case for another vote. Also, IF there is any truth in the allegations then hopefully the little toe rag will end up in jail and perhaps he will take the other of utensils of Putin with him.
I wonder if one day we MIGHT see a Brexit Bad story where MIGHT doesn't do an almighty large amount of heavy lifting?
Honda closing? They were not going to say it is because the UK has chosen this path because they still want to sell cars in the future.
The reason why "might" is still used is because we have not left the EU yet. Once all these jobs and industries have closed for good in a hard Brexit it will be a bit late to start thinking they were not joking.
But then why out of Turkey, too? Suspect the EU FTA has more to do with it. No longer need plants in the customs union.
I think the EU FTA is small part of the problem but Brexit causing disruption to the supply chain, potentially putting tariffs on parts from the EU and then selling the cars back into the EU with tariffs is the problem. I would have to look at the productivity figures for the Turkey plant, the cost profile and profitability per unit to decide on why they closed that. You would think a low cost base like Turkey would stay open!
The main problem Honda had was terrible sales in the EU. Honda sell 2mill cars in USA, 2 mill in Asia and they sold about 150K in Europe. They have put their investment money in the markets where they have volume
At the end of the day, Brexit creates trade friction with by far our biggest market.
At the margin, according to all known economic theory except perhaps that taught in North Korea, this will reduce trading activity and both economic activity and jobs will reduce as a result.
The harder the Brexit, the bigger these effects.
It will be difficult to take any particular anecdote of say a factory closing down and attribute it solely to Brexit. It is in aggregate where the effects will be seen, along the with the effects of ongoing uncertainty since 2016.
Obviously there is a trade off to be made. It is reasonable enough I suppose to say that this is a cost worth paying in order to regain sovereignty over immigration.
What makes you look stupid is when you deny there is any cost to be paid at all. It is surprising this is still a debating point.
Perhaps the Brexiteer hopes and dreams will only be realised when we return to a truly agrarian society, replete with rickets, scurvy, and weevils in the bread.
They will just complain about the arrival of Black Death from Europe...
I wonder if one day we MIGHT see a Brexit Bad story where MIGHT doesn't do an almighty large amount of heavy lifting?
Honda closing? They were not going to say it is because the UK has chosen this path because they still want to sell cars in the future.
The reason why "might" is still used is because we have not left the EU yet. Once all these jobs and industries have closed for good in a hard Brexit it will be a bit late to start thinking they were not joking.
But then why out of Turkey, too? Suspect the EU FTA has more to do with it. No longer need plants in the customs union.
Correct. We can expect most Japanese and Korean manufacturing to leave the UK anyway. International shipping is so cheap that it makes no financial sense to stay.
To be fair, Patrick Minford - Brexit’s preferred economist - did suggest that the auto industry would close down. However he said this would be a good thing.
How on earth of could it be a good thing? Singapore, which is held up as an example by people with these views is getting a new car industry supplied by Brexit supporting James Dyson! They cite Singapore's economic model as one that the UK should follow but the only thing it seems to be doing is swallowing up our industry!
As an aside I will never forget seeing Patrick Minford giving a lecture at Manchester Free Trade Hall and mid speech someone throw a paper aeroplane that hit the end of his nose! I thought it was incredibly rude to do that to someone giving a lecture.
According to Minford’s naive and purist worldview, Britain’s auto industry - protected behind trade barriers - is an inefficient use of resource, and really a cost to consumers. Getting rid of auto manufacturing allows us to use the workers in more productive ways and allows consumer spending to go further.
I wonder if one day we MIGHT see a Brexit Bad story where MIGHT doesn't do an almighty large amount of heavy lifting?
Honda closing? They were not going to say it is because the UK has chosen this path because they still want to sell cars in the future.
The reason why "might" is still used is because we have not left the EU yet. Once all these jobs and industries have closed for good in a hard Brexit it will be a bit late to start thinking they were not joking.
But then why out of Turkey, too? Suspect the EU FTA has more to do with it. No longer need plants in the customs union.
Correct. We can expect most Japanese and Korean manufacturing to leave the UK anyway. International shipping is so cheap that it makes no financial sense to stay.
To be fair, Patrick Minford - Brexit’s preferred economist - did suggest that the auto industry would close down. However he said this would be a good thing.
Perhaps the Brexiteer hopes and dreams will only be realised when we return to a truly agrarian society, replete with rickets, scurvy, and weevils in the bread.
Is that decision because or in spite of weevils? Anyway, weevils in the bread are just part of Project Fear. Post Brexit we will only have British bread - proper food, none of these froggie baguette EU imperialistic tit-bits!
At the end of the day, Brexit creates trade friction with by far our biggest market.
At the margin, according to all known economic theory except perhaps that taught in North Korea, this will reduce trading activity and both economic activity and jobs will reduce as a result.
The harder the Brexit, the bigger these effects.
It will be difficult to take any particular anecdote of say a factory closing down and attribute it solely to Brexit. It is in aggregate where the effects will be seen, along the with the effects of ongoing uncertainty since 2016.
Obviously there is a trade off to be made. It is reasonable enough I suppose to say that this is a cost worth paying in order to regain sovereignty over immigration.
What makes you look stupid is when you deny there is any cost to be paid at all. It is surprising this is still a debating point.
Brexit may mean the UK "regains sovereignty" over immigration but that does not mean it is going to stop immigration. There are going to be some very unhappy people who voted for Brexit who will see immigrants from Europe replaced by those from the rest of the World, especially if the replacement immigrants follow different faiths and establish even more separatist diasporas.
Even in a No Deal Brexit due to demographic change the UK will require migrants to fill all manner of jobs. People retire, die or move to other better paying jobs all the time. It seems to me Brexit wrecks the economy and all the problems a divided society faces will just get worse as their is less money to address these problems.
A lot of people in the UK Parliament – both Brexit and non-Brexit supporters – have argued that more should be done to give greater certainty to citizens. The joint Brexit lead in the Dutch Parliament, Pieter Omtzigt, also called on the EU and the UK to safeguard citizens' rights.
On 27 February, the Government accepted an amendment by Conservative MP Alberto Costa, which proposes that the UK and EU commit to part two of the Withdrawal Agreement on citizens’ rights in the case of no deal. However, the EU has insisted throughout that it will not do a mini-deal as this is an issue for member states. That was why the Prime Minister suggested that it would be impossible for the UK to deliver on this.
Short version - UK more generous than most EU countries - and better prepared (if legislation counts as 'preparation' of course.....but then again I'm not sure our Home Office is uniquely dysfunctional....)
I am not sure why there is this obsession with Banks. Maybe there was dodgy financial goings on - in which case, report them to the proper authorities and let the legal process do what it needs to.
But the referendum is not going to get overturned. No matter what they try to dig up.
Its displacement activity.
Despite outspending their opponents by a substantial margin (even ignoring the Government contribution) they still lost - but rather than address the arguments they focus on the money
But then they though arguments about 'money' would sway it.
You don’t think investigations into whether he broke the rules are valid? In which case, why bother with rules at all?
I wonder if one day we MIGHT see a Brexit Bad story where MIGHT doesn't do an almighty large amount of heavy lifting?
Honda closing? They were not going to say it is because the UK has chosen this path because they still want to sell cars in the future.
The reason why "might" is still used is because we have not left the EU yet. Once all these jobs and industries have closed for good in a hard Brexit it will be a bit late to start thinking they were not joking.
But then why out of Turkey, too? Suspect the EU FTA has more to do with it. No longer need plants in the customs union.
Correct. We can expect most Japanese and Korean manufacturing to leave the UK anyway. International shipping is so cheap that it makes no financial sense to stay.
To be fair, Patrick Minford - Brexit’s preferred economist - did suggest that the auto industry would close down. However he said this would be a good thing.
Perhaps the Brexiteer hopes and dreams will only be realised when we return to a truly agrarian society, replete with rickets, scurvy, and weevils in the bread.
Is that decision because or in spite of weevils? Anyway, weevils in the bread are just part of Project Fear. Post Brexit we will only have British bread - proper food, none of these froggie baguette EU imperialistic tit-bits!
I wonder if one day we MIGHT see a Brexit Bad story where MIGHT doesn't do an almighty large amount of heavy lifting?
Honda closing? They were not going to say it is because the UK has chosen this path because they still want to sell cars in the future.
The reason why "might" is still used is because we have not left the EU yet. Once all these jobs and industries have closed for good in a hard Brexit it will be a bit late to start thinking they were not joking.
But then why out of Turkey, too? Suspect the EU FTA has more to do with it. No longer need plants in the customs union.
Correct. We can expect most Japanese and Korean manufacturing to leave the UK anyway. International shipping is so cheap that it makes no financial sense to stay.
To be fair, Patrick Minford - Brexit’s preferred economist - did suggest that the auto industry would close down. However he said this would be a good thing.
How on earth of could it be a good thing? Singapore, which is held up as an example by people with these views is getting a new car industry supplied by Brexit supporting James Dyson! They cite Singapore's economic model as one that the UK should follow but the only thing it seems to be doing is swallowing up our industry!
As an aside I will never forget seeing Patrick Minford giving a lecture at Manchester Free Trade Hall and mid speech someone throw a paper aeroplane that hit the end of his nose! I thought it was incredibly rude to do that to someone giving a lecture.
According to Minford’s naive and purist worldview, Britain’s auto industry - protected behind trade barriers - is an inefficient use of resource, and really a cost to consumers. Getting rid of auto manufacturing allows us to use the workers in more productive ways and allows consumer spending to go further.
It will blow open the UKs trade deficit but knowing Minford he probably will say this will not matter!
A lot of people in the UK Parliament – both Brexit and non-Brexit supporters – have argued that more should be done to give greater certainty to citizens. The joint Brexit lead in the Dutch Parliament, Pieter Omtzigt, also called on the EU and the UK to safeguard citizens' rights.
On 27 February, the Government accepted an amendment by Conservative MP Alberto Costa, which proposes that the UK and EU commit to part two of the Withdrawal Agreement on citizens’ rights in the case of no deal. However, the EU has insisted throughout that it will not do a mini-deal as this is an issue for member states. That was why the Prime Minister suggested that it would be impossible for the UK to deliver on this.
Short version - UK more generous than most EU countries - and better prepared (if legislation counts as 'preparation' of course.....but then again I'm not sure our Home Office is uniquely dysfunctional....)
I am not sure why there is this obsession with Banks. Maybe there was dodgy financial goings on - in which case, report them to the proper authorities and let the legal process do what it needs to.
But the referendum is not going to get overturned. No matter what they try to dig up.
Its displacement activity.
Despite outspending their opponents by a substantial margin (even ignoring the Government contribution) they still lost - but rather than address the arguments they focus on the money
But then they though arguments about 'money' would sway it.
You don’t think investigations into whether he broke the rules are valid? In which case, why bother with rules at all?
Then it should be investigated by the authorities, surely?
I am not sure why there is this obsession with Banks. Maybe there was dodgy financial goings on - in which case, report them to the proper authorities and let the legal process do what it needs to.
But the referendum is not going to get overturned. No matter what they try to dig up.
Yes, but if it was in any way subverted it strengthens the case for another vote. Also, IF there is any truth in the allegations then hopefully the little toe rag will end up in jail and perhaps he will take the other of utensils of Putin with him.
At the end of the day, Brexit creates trade friction with by far our biggest market.
At the margin, according to all known economic theory except perhaps that taught in North Korea, this will reduce trading activity and both economic activity and jobs will reduce as a result.
The harder the Brexit, the bigger these effects.
It will be difficult to take any particular anecdote of say a factory closing down and attribute it solely to Brexit. It is in aggregate where the effects will be seen, along the with the effects of ongoing uncertainty since 2016.
Obviously there is a trade off to be made. It is reasonable enough I suppose to say that this is a cost worth paying in order to regain sovereignty over immigration.
What makes you look stupid is when you deny there is any cost to be paid at all. It is surprising this is still a debating point.
Brexit may mean the UK "regains sovereignty" over immigration but that does not mean it is going to stop immigration. There are going to be some very unhappy people who voted for Brexit who will see immigrants from Europe replaced by those from the rest of the World, especially if the replacement immigrants follow different faiths and establish even more separatist diasporas.
Even in a No Deal Brexit due to demographic change the UK will require migrants to fill all manner of jobs. People retire, die or move to other better paying jobs all the time. It seems to me Brexit wrecks the economy and all the problems a divided society faces will just get worse as their is less money to address these problems.
Indeed. 50% of our immigration comes from outside the EU. Completely within the ability of government to be controlled, but not reduced. The immigration argument is the biggest lie (and boy there have been some whoppers) of the pro-Leave lobby.
I wonder if one day we MIGHT see a Brexit Bad story where MIGHT doesn't do an almighty large amount of heavy lifting?
Honda closing? They were not going to say it is because the UK has chosen this path because they still want to sell cars in the future.
The reason why "might" is still used is because we have not left the EU yet. Once all these jobs and industries have closed for good in a hard Brexit it will be a bit late to start thinking they were not joking.
But then why out of Turkey, too? Suspect the EU FTA has more to do with it. No longer need plants in the customs union.
Correct. We can expect most Japanese and Korean manufacturing to leave the UK anyway. International shipping is so cheap that it makes no financial sense to stay.
To be fair, Patrick Minford - Brexit’s preferred economist - did suggest that the auto industry would close down. However he said this would be a good thing.
Perhaps the Brexiteer hopes and dreams will only be realised when we return to a truly agrarian society, replete with rickets, scurvy, and weevils in the bread.
Is that decision because or in spite of weevils? Anyway, weevils in the bread are just part of Project Fear. Post Brexit we will only have British bread - proper food, none of these froggie baguette EU imperialistic tit-bits!
I hold no truck with the assorted loonies dressing themselves up in EU etc flags, but it's clear as day neither front bench has the competence to pull it off; and directly or indirectly it could cost me money (And I don't have much !)
At the end of the day, Brexit creates trade friction with by far our biggest market.
At the margin, according to all known economic theory except perhaps that taught in North Korea, this will reduce trading activity and both economic activity and jobs will reduce as a result.
The harder the Brexit, the bigger these effects.
It will be difficult to take any particular anecdote of say a factory closing down and attribute it solely to Brexit. It is in aggregate where the effects will be seen, along the with the effects of ongoing uncertainty since 2016.
Obviously there is a trade off to be made. It is reasonable enough I suppose to say that this is a cost worth paying in order to regain sovereignty over immigration.
What makes you look stupid is when you deny there is any cost to be paid at all. It is surprising this is still a debating point.
Brexit may mean the UK "regains sovereignty" over immigration but that does not mean it is going to stop immigration. There are going to be some very unhappy people who voted for Brexit who will see immigrants from Europe replaced by those from the rest of the World, especially if the replacement immigrants follow different faiths and establish even more separatist diasporas.
Even in a No Deal Brexit due to demographic change the UK will require migrants to fill all manner of jobs. People retire, die or move to other better paying jobs all the time. It seems to me Brexit wrecks the economy and all the problems a divided society faces will just get worse as their is less money to address these problems.
Indeed. 50% of our immigration comes from outside the EU. Completely within the ability of government to be controlled, but not reduced. The immigration argument is the biggest lie (and boy there have been some whoppers) of the pro-Leave lobby.
Wait, I thought Brexit was good to destroy the economy, in which case there would be no demand for immigrant labour?
At the end of the day, Brexit creates trade friction with by far our biggest market.
At the margin, according to all known economic theory except perhaps that taught in North Korea, this will reduce trading activity and both economic activity and jobs will reduce as a result.
The harder the Brexit, the bigger these effects.
It will be difficult to take any particular anecdote of say a factory closing down and attribute it solely to Brexit. It is in aggregate where the effects will be seen, along the with the effects of ongoing uncertainty since 2016.
Obviously there is a trade off to be made. It is reasonable enough I suppose to say that this is a cost worth paying in order to regain sovereignty over immigration.
What makes you look stupid is when you deny there is any cost to be paid at all. It is surprising this is still a debating point.
Brexit may mean the UK "regains sovereignty" over immigration but that does not mean it is going to stop immigration. There are going to be some very unhappy people who voted for Brexit who will see immigrants from Europe replaced by those from the rest of the World, especially if the replacement immigrants follow different faiths and establish even more separatist diasporas.
Even in a No Deal Brexit due to demographic change the UK will require migrants to fill all manner of jobs. People retire, die or move to other better paying jobs all the time. It seems to me Brexit wrecks the economy and all the problems a divided society faces will just get worse as their is less money to address these problems.
If preventing immigration is important enough to enough people then they can elect a government that will reduce immigration.
One of the problems British politics has had for the past several years is that we have had a government that has made a public commitment to reduce net migration to < 100,000 - but the government have not taken the necessary steps to reduce immigration (or encourage emigration) to hit this target. All the while that net immigration from outside the EU was above 100,000 they hid behind the excuse of EU Freedom of Movement for not hitting their target.
If the UK does leave the EU (and the Single Market) then any government pledging to reduce immigration will no longer find it so easy to excuse its failures in this way. This will hopefully introduce some more honesty into the debate.
I am not sure why there is this obsession with Banks. Maybe there was dodgy financial goings on - in which case, report them to the proper authorities and let the legal process do what it needs to.
But the referendum is not going to get overturned. No matter what they try to dig up.
Yes, but if it was in any way subverted it strengthens the case for another vote. Also, IF there is any truth in the allegations then hopefully the little toe rag will end up in jail and perhaps he will take the other of utensils of Putin with him.
Nurse Nurse! Carole Cadwalladr has a login!
I assume you believe the findings of the FBI that Moscow wishes to subvert western democratic processes a conspiracy eh? Not convenient to your belief that good old Uncle Vladimir couldn't possibly want to interfere? Well I guess naivete is the by-word for most Leave supporters. How does it feel to help support the foreign policy objectives of a hostile power? How very patriotic of you!
I am not sure why there is this obsession with Banks. Maybe there was dodgy financial goings on - in which case, report them to the proper authorities and let the legal process do what it needs to.
But the referendum is not going to get overturned. No matter what they try to dig up.
Its displacement activity.
Despite outspending their opponents by a substantial margin (even ignoring the Government contribution) they still lost - but rather than address the arguments they focus on the money
But then they though arguments about 'money' would sway it.
Maybe. Or maybe this is just one more thing that over time erodes, slowly, the perception of the referendum as binding. The politically binding nature of the referendum currently remains while the majority of people believe in it. Like all laws, policies, rules, systems it only exists while people have faith. When the people stop believing in it then it ceases to have much effect. See the Western Australian Succession Referendum of 1933 or the Old Zimbabwe Dollar, neither of which were "overturned" (well, until 2005 anyway in the case of the latter) , but people just stopped believing in their value. At introduction in 1980 1 ZWD = 1.47 USD, so you could buy several houses with a million of them. By the time it was pulled in 2005, a million of them wouldn't even buy you a controlling interest in a Mars Bar. Similarly, the 2016 referendum is not an object, it is just a shared subjectivity, backed by a government with questionable competence, and this type of disclosure erodes the "shared" bit over time. Those 17.4 million votes may eventually represent as much political capital as the equivalent number of Old Zimbabwe Dollars.
At the end of the day, Brexit creates trade friction with by far our biggest market.
At the margin, according to all known economic theory except perhaps that taught in North Korea, this will reduce trading activity and both economic activity and jobs will reduce as a result.
The harder the Brexit, the bigger these effects.
It will be difficult to take any particular anecdote of say a factory closing down and attribute it solely to Brexit. It is in aggregate where the effects will be seen, along the with the effects of ongoing uncertainty since 2016.
Obviously there is a trade off to be made. It is reasonable enough I suppose to say that this is a cost worth paying in order to regain sovereignty over immigration.
What makes you look stupid is when you deny there is any cost to be paid at all. It is surprising this is still a debating point.
Brexit may mean the UK "regains sovereignty" over immigration but that does not mean it is going to stop immigration. There are going to be some very unhappy people who voted for Brexit who will see immigrants from Europe replaced by those from the rest of the World, especially if the replacement immigrants follow different faiths and establish even more separatist diasporas.
Even in a No Deal Brexit due to demographic change the UK will require migrants to fill all manner of jobs. People retire, die or move to other better paying jobs all the time. It seems to me Brexit wrecks the economy and all the problems a divided society faces will just get worse as their is less money to address these problems.
Indeed. 50% of our immigration comes from outside the EU. Completely within the ability of government to be controlled, but not reduced. The immigration argument is the biggest lie (and boy there have been some whoppers) of the pro-Leave lobby.
Wait, I thought Brexit was good to destroy the economy, in which case there would be no demand for immigrant labour?
Demographic change as the UK population becomes comparatively older will mean gaps in the workforce will need to be filled. Even if an economy is in slump it can still be hard to get people to fill jobs in some sectors of the economy. It must also be remembered that for instance the minimum wage may seem like peanuts to many on this forum but to somebody in Pakistan for instance on £1 a day it will be a strong pull factor.
People who continue to push the Leave line are completely divorced from the reality of how the world works and how Immigration will continue despite the protestations of some who claim mass immigration will be ended.
At the end of the day, Brexit creates trade friction with by far our biggest market.
At the margin, according to all known economic theory except perhaps that taught in North Korea, this will reduce trading activity and both economic activity and jobs will reduce as a result.
The harder the Brexit, the bigger these effects.
It will be difficult to take any particular anecdote of say a factory closing down and attribute it solely to Brexit. It is in aggregate where the effects will be seen, along the with the effects of ongoing uncertainty since 2016.
Obviously there is a trade off to be made. It is reasonable enough I suppose to say that this is a cost worth paying in order to regain sovereignty over immigration.
What makes you look stupid is when you deny there is any cost to be paid at all. It is surprising this is still a debating point.
Brexit may mean the UK "regains sovereignty" over immigration but that does not mean it is going to stop immigration. There are going to be some very unhappy people who voted for Brexit who will see immigrants from Europe replaced by those from the rest of the World, especially if the replacement immigrants follow different faiths and establish even more separatist diasporas.
Even in a No Deal Brexit due to demographic change the UK will require migrants to fill all manner of jobs. People retire, die or move to other better paying jobs all the time. It seems to me Brexit wrecks the economy and all the problems a divided society faces will just get worse as their is less money to address these problems.
Indeed. 50% of our immigration comes from outside the EU. Completely within the ability of government to be controlled, but not reduced. The immigration argument is the biggest lie (and boy there have been some whoppers) of the pro-Leave lobby.
Wait, I thought Brexit was good to destroy the economy, in which case there would be no demand for immigrant labour?
A fair point Mr D, though we will always have immigrants, and the point was that many people say that the Brexit vote was a vote against immigration, nobody has really reflected that we did always have "control" over 50% of it. Economic meltdown will be one way of reducing it of course, though it may have a delayed effect!
Mr. Royale, yeah, but police numbers do comfort the public, and attacking cuts is convenient for the Opposition and police (we'd be doing so much better if only the politicians would give us more money etc).
I guess the solution is to do what the US do with funding speculative science and technology research: In their case military expenditure is politically bombproof, so they fund stuff as part of the military.
In Britain everyone wants more police, but actually stopping crime needs social workers and probation officers, so give the social workers and probation officers little helmets and make them part of the police.
And give them armoured cars ...
In Britain the voters want them "on the beat" so they're mostly going to be walking to whoever they're visiting.
My point was that militarization of people who should be working with the community - and helmets or even shared budgets is the first step in this slippery slope - results in unintended consequences.
I know you were not entirely serious in your suggestion of giving them helmets, but I think a better way than hiding appropriations in more 'acceptable' budget lines is to actually prove the value of the service being offered.
At the end of the day, Brexit creates trade friction with by far our biggest market.
At the margin, according to all known economic theory except perhaps that taught in North Korea, this will reduce trading activity and both economic activity and jobs will reduce as a result.
The harder the Brexit, the bigger these effects.
It will be difficult to take any particular anecdote of say a factory closing down and attribute it solely to Brexit. It is in aggregate where the effects will be seen, along the with the effects of ongoing uncertainty since 2016.
Obviously there is a trade off to be made. It is reasonable enough I suppose to say that this is a cost worth paying in order to regain sovereignty over immigration.
What makes you look stupid is when you deny there is any cost to be paid at all. It is surprising this is still a debating point.
Brexit may mean the UK "regains sovereignty" over immigration but that does not mean it is going to stop immigration. There are going to be some very unhappy people who voted for Brexit who will see immigrants from Europe replaced by those from the rest of the World, especially if the replacement immigrants follow different faiths and establish even more separatist diasporas.
Even in a No Deal Brexit due to demographic change the UK will require migrants to fill all manner of jobs. People retire, die or move to other better paying jobs all the time. It seems to me Brexit wrecks the economy and all the problems a divided society faces will just get worse as their is less money to address these problems.
Indeed. 50% of our immigration comes from outside the EU. Completely within the ability of government to be controlled, but not reduced. The immigration argument is the biggest lie (and boy there have been some whoppers) of the pro-Leave lobby.
Wait, I thought Brexit was good to destroy the economy, in which case there would be no demand for immigrant labour?
A fair point Mr D, though we will always have immigrants, and the point was that many people say that the Brexit vote was a vote against immigration, nobody has really reflected that we did always have "control" over 50% of it. Economic meltdown will be one way of reducing it of course, though it may have a delayed effect!
The new system will be inherently fairer though. No discrimination based on country of origin.
I am not sure why there is this obsession with Banks. Maybe there was dodgy financial goings on - in which case, report them to the proper authorities and let the legal process do what it needs to.
But the referendum is not going to get overturned. No matter what they try to dig up.
Its displacement activity.
Despite outspending their opponents by a substantial margin (even ignoring the Government contribution) they still lost - but rather than address the arguments they focus on the money
But then they though arguments about 'money' would sway it.
Maybe. Or maybe this is just one more thing that over time erodes, slowly, the perception of the referendum as binding.
It was never 'binding'.
Political commitments before and during the campaign and GE17 (where more than 80% of votes cast were for parties promising to implement it) made it politically "binding" (or "very problematic to ignore")
I am not sure why there is this obsession with Banks. Maybe there was dodgy financial goings on - in which case, report them to the proper authorities and let the legal process do what it needs to.
But the referendum is not going to get overturned. No matter what they try to dig up.
Yes, but if it was in any way subverted it strengthens the case for another vote. Also, IF there is any truth in the allegations then hopefully the little toe rag will end up in jail and perhaps he will take the other of utensils of Putin with him.
Nurse Nurse! Carole Cadwalladr has a login!
I assume you believe the findings of the FBI that Moscow wishes to subvert western democratic processes a conspiracy eh? Not convenient to your belief that good old Uncle Vladimir couldn't possibly want to interfere? Well I guess naivete is the by-word for most Leave supporters. How does it feel to help support the foreign policy objectives of a hostile power? How very patriotic of you!
Wow you are literally batshit mental. Your belief in conspiracy theories added to year distaste towards non EU immigration suggests you need to get out into the real world and talk to people. Not everything in life you disagree with is down to Putin, sometimes people just think differently to you. I really couldn't care less what Putin's views are on anything, like other Brits I'm capable of thinking for myself.
At the end of the day, Brexit creates trade friction with by far our biggest market.
At the margin, according to all known economic theory except perhaps that taught in North Korea, this will reduce trading activity and both economic activity and jobs will reduce as a result.
The harder the Brexit, the bigger these effects.
It will be difficult to take any particular anecdote of say a factory closing down and attribute it solely to Brexit. It is in aggregate where the effects will be seen, along the with the effects of ongoing uncertainty since 2016.
Obviously there is a trade off to be made. It is reasonable enough I suppose to say that this is a cost worth paying in order to regain sovereignty over immigration.
What makes you look stupid is when you deny there is any cost to be paid at all. It is surprising this is still a debating point.
Brexit may mean the UK "regains sovereignty" over immigration but that does not mean it is going to stop immigration. There are going to be some very unhappy people who voted for Brexit who will see immigrants from Europe replaced by those from the rest of the World, especially if the replacement immigrants follow different faiths and establish even more separatist diasporas.
Even in a No Deal Brexit due to demographic change the UK will require migrants to fill all manner of jobs. People retire, die or move to other better paying jobs all the time. It seems to me Brexit wrecks the economy and all the problems a divided society faces will just get worse as their is less money to address these problems.
If preventing immigration is important enough to enough people then they can elect a government that will reduce immigration.
One of the problems British politics has had for the past several years is that we have had a government that has made a public commitment to reduce net migration to < 100,000 - but the government have not taken the necessary steps to reduce immigration (or encourage emigration) to hit this target. All the while that net immigration from outside the EU was above 100,000 they hid behind the excuse of EU Freedom of Movement for not hitting their target.
If the UK does leave the EU (and the Single Market) then any government pledging to reduce immigration will no longer find it so easy to excuse its failures in this way. This will hopefully introduce some more honesty into the debate.
The only way the population is coming down is with massive investment in industrial capital to replace labour.
Fools and their money are easy parted. If anyone wishes to send me their life savings I promise to look after them very well.
Only if you use it to buy a tank.
[ Response deleted as excessively nerdy]
My nerdy sense caught you.
One of my (many) guilty pleasures is Combat Dealers, I believe they're aiming to restore or reconstruct a Jagdpanther, of which I wholly approve.
Why a Nazi tank rather than an Allied one?
Allied ones look crap, the Germans had the most stylish and best tanks, do a compare of a sherman v jagdpanther.
The Panthers and Tigers have a certain style, but the average PanzerKamfwagen much less so.
Personally I rather enjoy the Soviet SU series, there is a fine SU 100 at the St Petersburg Artillary museum, which I took in while at the World Cup, and free of Mrs Foxy's idea of suitable sightseeing.
I am not sure why there is this obsession with Banks. Maybe there was dodgy financial goings on - in which case, report them to the proper authorities and let the legal process do what it needs to.
But the referendum is not going to get overturned. No matter what they try to dig up.
Its displacement activity.
Despite outspending their opponents by a substantial margin (even ignoring the Government contribution) they still lost - but rather than address the arguments they focus on the money
But then they though arguments about 'money' would sway it.
Maybe. Or maybe this is just one more thing that over time erodes, slowly, the perception of the referendum as binding.
It was never 'binding'.
Political commitments before and during the campaign and GE17 (where more than 80% of votes cast were for parties promising to implement it) made it politically "binding" (or "very problematic to ignore")
I am not sure why there is this obsession with Banks. Maybe there was dodgy financial goings on - in which case, report them to the proper authorities and let the legal process do what it needs to.
But the referendum is not going to get overturned. No matter what they try to dig up.
Its displacement activity.
Despite outspending their opponents by a substantial margin (even ignoring the Government contribution) they still lost - but rather than address the arguments they focus on the money
But then they though arguments about 'money' would sway it.
Maybe. Or maybe this is just one more thing that over time erodes, slowly, the perception of the referendum as binding.
It was never 'binding'.
Political commitments before and during the campaign and GE17 (where more than 80% of votes cast were for parties promising to implement it) made it politically "binding" (or "very problematic to ignore")
Yes - that why I said "perception" as binding. If it were legally binding that would make a difference to my post. But even there, laws fall away, like the Easter Act 1928.
At the end of the day, Brexit creates trade friction with by far our biggest market.
At the margin, according to all known economic theory except perhaps that taught in North Korea, this will reduce trading activity and both economic activity and jobs will reduce as a result.
The harder the Brexit, the bigger these effects.
It will be difficult to take any particular anecdote of say a factory closing down and attribute it solely to Brexit. It is in aggregate where the effects will be seen, along the with the effects of ongoing uncertainty since 2016.
Obviously there is a trade off to be made. It is reasonable enough I suppose to say that this is a cost worth paying in order to regain sovereignty over immigration.
What makes you look stupid is when you deny there is any cost to be paid at all. It is surprising this is still a debating point.
Brexit may mean the UK "regains sovereignty" over immigration but that does not mean it is going to stop immigration. There are going to be some very unhappy people who voted for Brexit who will see immigrants from Europe replaced by those from the rest of the World, especially if the replacement immigrants follow different faiths and establish even more separatist diasporas.
Even in a No Deal Brexit due to demographic change the UK will require migrants to fill all manner of jobs. People retire, die or move to other better paying jobs all the time. It seems to me Brexit wrecks the economy and all the problems a divided society faces will just get worse as their is less money to address these problems.
Indeed. 50% of our immigration comes from outside the EU. Completely within the ability of government to be controlled, but not reduced. The immigration argument is the biggest lie (and boy there have been some whoppers) of the pro-Leave lobby.
Wait, I thought Brexit was good to destroy the economy, in which case there would be no demand for immigrant labour?
A fair point Mr D, though we will always have immigrants, and the point was that many people say that the Brexit vote was a vote against immigration, nobody has really reflected that we did always have "control" over 50% of it. Economic meltdown will be one way of reducing it of course, though it may have a delayed effect!
The new system will be inherently fairer though. No discrimination based on country of origin.
It will continue to be based on various factors, including skill and income.
There’s nothing inherently “fairer” or “unfairer” about favouring some countries over others in that equation.
I am not sure why there is this obsession with Banks. Maybe there was dodgy financial goings on - in which case, report them to the proper authorities and let the legal process do what it needs to.
But the referendum is not going to get overturned. No matter what they try to dig up.
Its displacement activity.
Despite outspending their opponents by a substantial margin (even ignoring the Government contribution) they still lost - but rather than address the arguments they focus on the money
But then they though arguments about 'money' would sway it.
Maybe. Or maybe this is just one more thing that over time erodes, slowly, the perception of the referendum as binding. The politically binding nature of the referendum currently remains while the majority of people believe in it. Like all laws, policies, rules, systems it only exists while people have faith. When the people stop believing in it then it ceases to have much effect. See the Western Australian Succession Referendum of 1933 or the Old Zimbabwe Dollar, neither of which were "overturned" (well, until 2005 anyway in the case of the latter) , but people just stopped believing in their value. At introduction in 1980 1 ZWD = 1.47 USD, so you could buy several houses with a million of them. By the time it was pulled in 2005, a million of them wouldn't even buy you a controlling interest in a Mars Bar. Similarly, the 2016 referendum is not an object, it is just a shared subjectivity, backed by a government with questionable competence, and this type of disclosure erodes the "shared" bit over time. Those 17.4 million votes may eventually represent as much political capital as the equivalent number of Old Zimbabwe Dollars.
You learn something new ever day here! The Western Australian Secession Referendum apparently resulted in a win for the Secessionists but not nor a means of achieving that aim. The British Parliament, still, at the time 'responsible' ruled the vote invalid. The overturning is still, according to Wikipedia, grumbled about in some parts of WA.
I am not sure why there is this obsession with Banks. Maybe there was dodgy financial goings on - in which case, report them to the proper authorities and let the legal process do what it needs to.
But the referendum is not going to get overturned. No matter what they try to dig up.
Its displacement activity.
Despite outspending their opponents by a substantial margin (even ignoring the Government contribution) they still lost - but rather than address the arguments they focus on the money
But then they though arguments about 'money' would sway it.
Maybe. Or maybe this is just one more thing that over time erodes, slowly, the perception of the referendum as binding. The politically binding nature of the referendum currently remains while the majority of people believe in it. Like all laws, policies, rules, systems it only exists while people have faith. When the people stop believing in it then it ceases to have much effect. See the Western Australian Succession Referendum of 1933 or the Old Zimbabwe Dollar, neither of which were "overturned" (well, until 2005 anyway in the case of the latter) , but people just stopped believing in their value. At introduction in 1980 1 ZWD = 1.47 USD, so you could buy several houses with a million of them. By the time it was pulled in 2005, a million of them wouldn't even buy you a controlling interest in a Mars Bar. Similarly, the 2016 referendum is not an object, it is just a shared subjectivity, backed by a government with questionable competence, and this type of disclosure erodes the "shared" bit over time. Those 17.4 million votes may eventually represent as much political capital as the equivalent number of Old Zimbabwe Dollars.
You learn something new ever day here! The Western Australian Secession Referendum apparently resulted in a win for the Secessionists but not nor a means of achieving that aim. The British Parliament, still, at the time 'responsible' ruled the vote invalid. The overturning is still, according to Wikipedia, grumbled about in some parts of WA.
I think that Westminster took the view that it was a matter for Canberra under the Statute of Westminster.
I am not sure why there is this obsession with Banks. Maybe there was dodgy financial goings on - in which case, report them to the proper authorities and let the legal process do what it needs to.
But the referendum is not going to get overturned. No matter what they try to dig up.
Yes, but if it was in any way subverted it strengthens the case for another vote. Also, IF there is any truth in the allegations then hopefully the little toe rag will end up in jail and perhaps he will take the other of utensils of Putin with him.
Nurse Nurse! Carole Cadwalladr has a login!
I assume you believe the findings of the FBI that Moscow wishes to subvert western democratic processes a conspiracy eh? Not convenient to your belief that good old Uncle Vladimir couldn't possibly want to interfere? Well I guess naivete is the by-word for most Leave supporters. How does it feel to help support the foreign policy objectives of a hostile power? How very patriotic of you!
Wow you are literally batshit mental. Your belief in conspiracy theories added to year distaste towards non EU immigration suggests you need to get out into the real world and talk to people. Not everything in life you disagree with is down to Putin, sometimes people just think differently to you. I really couldn't care less what Putin's views are on anything, like other Brits I'm capable of thinking for myself.
Wait, I thought Brexit was good to destroy the economy, in which case there would be no demand for immigrant labour?
A fair point Mr D, though we will always have immigrants, and the point was that many people say that the Brexit vote was a vote against immigration, nobody has really reflected that we did always have "control" over 50% of it. Economic meltdown will be one way of reducing it of course, though it may have a delayed effect!
I am strongly anti-borders as a point of principle of maximum freedom, but is it true to say that "we will always have immigrants"?
I looked at the wikipedia statistics on net migration and there are a few Western countries that had a migration rate (for the period 2007-12) that would have been equivalent to <100,000 per year for the UK.
Some of them, such as Greece, Spain, Iceland and Ireland, are perhaps countries that were strongly affected by the Great Recession and so saw strong levels of emigration due to economic turbulence at home - not a great model to follow.
However, France and the Netherlands (and New Zealand, Japan) are also on the list at the requisite level, and the Dutch in particular seems to have been doing reasonably well economically.
I don't think you can just say to people that immigration is inevitable for economic reasons and expect them to just accept that. For one thing, it ain't necessarily so, and for the other, even if it is that won't stop people voting for it.
Why would they need to be "in talks"? The rules for registering are on the website.
I wonder if they're discussing the use of the name "The Independent Group". "Independent" is a word with special significance on ballot papers. There will be elections with no TIG candidate, yet with a candidate standing as "Independent", which is potentially confusing.
They're great fun! One of my earliest flights was on a BEA Vanguard (when everyone dressed in their "Sunday Best" to fly....)
BOAC = Better On A Camel?
GARUDA = Good And Reliable Under Dutch Administration TWA = Try Walking Across SABENA = Such A Bloody Experience Never Again QANTAS = Queens And Nymphomaniacs To Australia
Why would they need to be "in talks"? The rules for registering are on the website.
I wonder if they're discussing the use of the name "The Independent Group". "Independent" is a word with special significance on ballot papers. There will be elections with no TIG candidate, yet with a candidate standing as "Independent", which is potentially confusing.
Is it protected in the same way established party names are?
I am not sure why there is this obsession with Banks. Maybe there was dodgy financial goings on - in which case, report them to the proper authorities and let the legal process do what it needs to.
But the referendum is not going to get overturned. No matter what they try to dig up.
Yes, but if it was in any way subverted it strengthens the case for another vote. Also, IF there is any truth in the allegations then hopefully the little toe rag will end up in jail and perhaps he will take the other of utensils of Putin with him.
Nurse Nurse! Carole Cadwalladr has a login!
I assume you believe the findings of the FBI that Moscow wishes to subvert western democratic processes a conspiracy eh? Not convenient to your belief that good old Uncle Vladimir couldn't possibly want to interfere? Well I guess naivete is the by-word for most Leave supporters. How does it feel to help support the foreign policy objectives of a hostile power? How very patriotic of you!
Wow you are literally batshit mental. Your belief in conspiracy theories added to year distaste towards non EU immigration suggests you need to get out into the real world and talk to people. Not everything in life you disagree with is down to Putin, sometimes people just think differently to you. I really couldn't care less what Putin's views are on anything, like other Brits I'm capable of thinking for myself.
Do you think Russia interfered in the poll?
No, because I'm not bonkers and don't believe everything I read on twitter. If Russia was rigging polls they'd have put Corbyn in power. It worries me that both anti-semetic and Russia has ruined our democracy conspiracy theories are so commonplace on the fringes of our society.
Hard to argue. Leadsom has excelled in recent months and Grayling has sunk. May really should get rid, though I guess she can't afford to lose any more allies.
At the end of the day, Brexit creates trade friction with by far our biggest market.
At the margin, according to all known economic theory except perhaps that taught in North Korea, this will reduce trading activity and both economic activity and jobs will reduce as a result.
The harder the Brexit, the bigger these effects.
It will be difficult to take any particular anecdote of say a factory closing down and attribute it solely to Brexit. It is in aggregate where the effects will be seen, along the with the effects of ongoing uncertainty since 2016.
Obviously there is a trade off to be made. It is reasonable enough I suppose to say that this is a cost worth paying in order to regain sovereignty over immigration.
What makes you look stupid is when you deny there is any cost to be paid at all. It is surprising this is still a debating point.
Brexit may mean the UK "regains sovereignty" over immigration but that does not mean it is going to stop immigration. There are going to be some very unhappy people who voted for Brexit who will see immigrants from Europe replaced by those from the rest of the World, especially if the replacement immigrants follow different faiths and establish even more separatist diasporas.
Even in a No Deal Brexit due to demographic change the UK will require migrants to fill all manner of jobs. People retire, die or move to other better paying jobs all the time. It seems to me Brexit wrecks the economy and all the problems a divided society faces will just get worse as their is less money to address these problems.
One of the problems British politics has had for the past several years is that we have had a government that has made a public commitment to reduce net migration to < 100,000 - but the government have not taken the necessary steps to reduce immigration (or encourage emigration) to hit this target. All the while that net immigration from outside the EU was above 100,000 they hid behind the excuse of EU Freedom of Movement for not hitting their target.
If the UK does leave the EU (and the Single Market) then any government pledging to reduce immigration will no longer find it so easy to excuse its failures in this way. This will hopefully introduce some more honesty into the debate.
The only way the population is coming down is with massive investment in industrial capital to replace labour.
Not even then, because highly skilled migration tends to be in jobs and industries not easily automated.
However. Migration is an economic choice, with overwhelming benefits but also some costs.
We can reduce migration to zero, but then we must forgo the overwhelming economic benefits.
I am not sure why there is this obsession with Banks. Maybe there was dodgy financial goings on - in which case, report them to the proper authorities and let the legal process do what it needs to.
But the referendum is not going to get overturned. No matter what they try to dig up.
Yes, but if it was in any way subverted it strengthens the case for another vote. Also, IF there is any truth in the allegations then hopefully the little toe rag will end up in jail and perhaps he will take the other of utensils of Putin with him.
Nurse Nurse! Carole Cadwalladr has a login!
I assume you believe the findings of the FBI that Moscow wishes to subvert western democratic processes a conspiracy eh? Not convenient to your belief that good old Uncle Vladimir couldn't possibly want to interfere? Well I guess naivete is the by-word for most Leave supporters. How does it feel to help support the foreign policy objectives of a hostile power? How very patriotic of you!
Wow you are literally batshit mental. Your belief in conspiracy theories added to year distaste towards non EU immigration suggests you need to get out into the real world and talk to people. Not everything in life you disagree with is down to Putin, sometimes people just think differently to you. I really couldn't care less what Putin's views are on anything, like other Brits I'm capable of thinking for myself.
Do you think Russia interfered in the poll?
No, because I'm not bonkers and don't believe everything I read on twitter. If Russia was rigging polls they'd have put Corbyn in power. It worries me that both anti-semetic and Russia has ruined our democracy conspiracy theories are so commonplace on the fringes of our society.
I am not sure why there is this obsession with Banks. Maybe there was dodgy financial goings on - in which case, report them to the proper authorities and let the legal process do what it needs to.
But the referendum is not going to get overturned. No matter what they try to dig up.
Yes, but if it was in any way subverted it strengthens the case for another vote. Also, IF there is any truth in the allegations then hopefully the little toe rag will end up in jail and perhaps he will take the other of utensils of Putin with him.
Nurse Nurse! Carole Cadwalladr has a login!
I assume you believe the findings of the FBI that Moscow wishes to subvert western democratic processes a conspiracy eh? Not convenient to your belief that good old Uncle Vladimir couldn't possibly want to interfere? Well I guess naivete is the by-word for most Leave supporters. How does it feel to help support the foreign policy objectives of a hostile power? How very patriotic of you!
Wow you are literally batshit mental. Your belief in conspiracy theories added to year distaste towards non EU immigration suggests you need to get out into the real world and talk to people. Not everything in life you disagree with is down to Putin, sometimes people just think differently to you. I really couldn't care less what Putin's views are on anything, like other Brits I'm capable of thinking for myself.
Do you think Russia interfered in the poll?
No, because I'm not bonkers and don't believe everything I read on twitter. If Russia was rigging polls they'd have put Corbyn in power. It worries me that both anti-semetic and Russia has ruined our democracy conspiracy theories are so commonplace on the fringes of our society.
Presumably you believe the ongoing investigations by the Electoral Commission, the Culture Select Committee, and relatedly, the US Senate, are a waste of time, then.
Comments
But the referendum is not going to get overturned. No matter what they try to dig up.
There is a reason why the current and previous manufacturing regions of the UK voted leave.
What we need is a Government focused on making the UK the best place to manufacture after brexit, if the population want manufacturing jobs. Unfortunately the bloke with the responsibility for this seems to spend his time getting businesses to issues press statements about how bad the UK is for business and that they are worried that the Government, of which he is a part, can not even manage a simple thing like getting a customs system to work at the ports.
I think they are still pissed off with all that nonsense to-ing and fro-ing over his "dramatic" donation to UKIP that had them spend a day outside of London only to be let down.
Bitter wind blowing.
A lot of people in the UK Parliament – both Brexit and non-Brexit supporters – have argued that more should be done to give greater certainty to citizens. The joint Brexit lead in the Dutch Parliament, Pieter Omtzigt, also called on the EU and the UK to safeguard citizens' rights.
On 27 February, the Government accepted an amendment by Conservative MP Alberto Costa, which proposes that the UK and EU commit to part two of the Withdrawal Agreement on citizens’ rights in the case of no deal. However, the EU has insisted throughout that it will not do a mini-deal as this is an issue for member states. That was why the Prime Minister suggested that it would be impossible for the UK to deliver on this.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/british-citizens-europe-after-brexit
Short version - UK more generous than most EU countries - and better prepared (if legislation counts as 'preparation' of course.....but then again I'm not sure our Home Office is uniquely dysfunctional....)
Despite outspending their opponents by a substantial margin (even ignoring the Government contribution) they still lost - but rather than address the arguments they focus on the money
But then they though arguments about 'money' would sway it.
As an aside I will never forget seeing Patrick Minford giving a lecture at Manchester Free Trade Hall and mid speech someone throw a paper aeroplane that hit the end of his nose! I thought it was incredibly rude to do that to someone giving a lecture.
I'm reluctantly concluding a second referendum might be needed too though.
At the margin, according to all known economic theory except perhaps that taught in North Korea, this will reduce trading activity and both economic activity and jobs will reduce as a result.
The harder the Brexit, the bigger these effects.
It will be difficult to take any particular anecdote of say a factory closing down and attribute it solely to Brexit. It is in aggregate where the effects will be seen, along the with the effects of ongoing uncertainty since 2016.
Obviously there is a trade off to be made. It is reasonable enough I suppose to say that this is a cost worth paying in order to regain sovereignty over immigration.
What makes you look stupid is when you deny there is any cost to be paid at all. It is surprising this is still a debating point.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1102934910900363266
Even in a No Deal Brexit due to demographic change the UK will require migrants to fill all manner of jobs. People retire, die or move to other better paying jobs all the time. It seems to me Brexit wrecks the economy and all the problems a divided society faces will just get worse as their is less money to address these problems.
Have you seen the lovely paint jobs that BA are doing for the 100th anniversary.
https://twitter.com/ShannonAirport/status/1102500149354524672
https://twitter.com/HeathrowAirport/status/1102101424731758592
One of the problems British politics has had for the past several years is that we have had a government that has made a public commitment to reduce net migration to < 100,000 - but the government have not taken the necessary steps to reduce immigration (or encourage emigration) to hit this target. All the while that net immigration from outside the EU was above 100,000 they hid behind the excuse of EU Freedom of Movement for not hitting their target.
If the UK does leave the EU (and the Single Market) then any government pledging to reduce immigration will no longer find it so easy to excuse its failures in this way. This will hopefully introduce some more honesty into the debate.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/warren-buffett-s-berkshire-to-set-up-post-brexit-insurance-hub-in-dublin-1.3815009
I do think that a campaign that outspent its opponent by 2:1 needs a better argument than "it was the funding" to overthrow the result.
And much better arguments....
People who continue to push the Leave line are completely divorced from the reality of how the world works and how Immigration will continue despite the protestations of some who claim mass immigration will be ended.
I know you were not entirely serious in your suggestion of giving them helmets, but I think a better way than hiding appropriations in more 'acceptable' budget lines is to actually prove the value of the service being offered.
Political commitments before and during the campaign and GE17 (where more than 80% of votes cast were for parties promising to implement it) made it politically "binding" (or "very problematic to ignore")
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/points-based-system-tier-2
Personally I rather enjoy the Soviet SU series, there is a fine SU 100 at the St Petersburg Artillary museum, which I took in while at the World Cup, and free of Mrs Foxy's idea of suitable sightseeing.
http://www.saint-petersburg.com/museums/artillery-museum/
There’s nothing inherently “fairer” or “unfairer” about favouring some countries over others in that equation.
I looked at the wikipedia statistics on net migration and there are a few Western countries that had a migration rate (for the period 2007-12) that would have been equivalent to <100,000 per year for the UK.
Some of them, such as Greece, Spain, Iceland and Ireland, are perhaps countries that were strongly affected by the Great Recession and so saw strong levels of emigration due to economic turbulence at home - not a great model to follow.
However, France and the Netherlands (and New Zealand, Japan) are also on the list at the requisite level, and the Dutch in particular seems to have been doing reasonably well economically.
I don't think you can just say to people that immigration is inevitable for economic reasons and expect them to just accept that. For one thing, it ain't necessarily so, and for the other, even if it is that won't stop people voting for it.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/03/leadsom-climbs-to-the-top-spot-in-our-cabinet-league-table.html
TWA = Try Walking Across
SABENA = Such A Bloody Experience Never Again
QANTAS = Queens And Nymphomaniacs To Australia
However. Migration is an economic choice, with overwhelming benefits but also some costs.
We can reduce migration to zero, but then we must forgo the overwhelming economic benefits.
People needing radioactive cancer drugs should be happy.
https://twitter.com/JamesKanag/status/1102904347556528130