One thing I can't quite work out is just why the EU seem so obsessed about maintaining fishing rights. It must be a microscopic fraction of their economy. I can see why the UK is firm on it, but not the EU.
It impacts some eu countries like france a spain a lot if they can no longer fish our waters. Those countries have a veto and it doesn't play well at home for their leaders
But still, fishing must be a small percentage of France's economy. On the UK side there is the sovereignty issue, that doesn't apply to France.
As we lie amongst the smouldering ruins we can claim it was all worth it to regain our sovereignty, until we are reminded sovereignty was only ever lost in the minds of the Brexiteers.
Gosh hyperbole much? There will be no smoking ruins. We will be able to vote for politicians who can implement the manifesto they stood on even its labour. We won't have politicians making end runs around the things they know we won't accept as a nation by getting the eu to make it law...whats not to like?
As a nation we had sovereignty in the same way as the queen is the ultimate power in the land. As long as we don't try to use it we are sovereign
The sovereignty you're imagining will quickly dry up when the trade deals with China, India and the US come in. It doesn't exist in the modern world.
Trade deal with China lol. Have you even slightly been paying attention?
There will be eventually be a China-specific FTA on terms Brexiters hate ; India will demand immigration terms, ; the US will make multiple demands on agriculture, food standards, and much else. The loss of "sovereignty" will simply be more obvious the larger the power.
Of all the fairytale forecasts made on here, the one you provide is perhaps the most amusing.
Glad to provide a service of entertainment as well as information ;.) A Reithian oracle, hopefully.
Not so much information as that fake news we hear so much about
Scandalous ! I have my hand perched on a bible every time I post.
Careful now. We don't want to know what other posters are doing with their other hand when they are posting.
One thing I can't quite work out is just why the EU seem so obsessed about maintaining fishing rights. It must be a microscopic fraction of their economy. I can see why the UK is firm on it, but not the EU.
It impacts some eu countries like france a spain a lot if they can no longer fish our waters. Those countries have a veto and it doesn't play well at home for their leaders
But still, fishing must be a small percentage of France's economy. On the UK side there is the sovereignty issue, that doesn't apply to France.
As we lie amongst the smouldering ruins we can claim it was all worth it to regain our sovereignty, until we are reminded sovereignty was only ever lost in the minds of the Brexiteers.
Gosh hyperbole much? There will be no smoking ruins. We will be able to vote for politicians who can implement the manifesto they stood on even its labour. We won't have politicians making end runs around the things they know we won't accept as a nation by getting the eu to make it law...whats not to like?
As a nation we had sovereignty in the same way as the queen is the ultimate power in the land. As long as we don't try to use it we are sovereign
The sovereignty you're imagining will quickly dry up when the trade deals with China, India and the US come in. It doesn't exist in the modern world.
Trade deal with China lol. Have you even slightly been paying attention?
There will be eventually be a China-specific FTA on terms Brexiters hate ; India will demand immigration terms ; the US will make multiple demands on agriculture, food standards, and much else. The loss of "sovereignty" will simply be more obvious the larger the power.
No there won't. That's a deal the UK wouldn't sign. The US deal has already burned out now that Trump is gone.
You have no clue over what the UK has been prioritising wrt external trade. Take a look at what the actual deals we have signed have achieved before making these unfounded and grandiose claims about what the UK might do but in all likelihood won't.
These are just simple equations of power. The UK will unquestionably and eventually need specific deals with these huge economies, whatever it prioritises first and one way or the other, and they won't be on the terms wanted by the most faithful Brexit voters.
The point is that those deals won't be done. Part of why India has insisted on immigration being part of the equation is because they know it's an easy get out for them to not do one but still publicly be in favour of free trade. India has already withdrawn from RCEP because it doesn't really do free trade. The US deal has been covered here many times and the UK has a gigantic trade surplus with the US, there's no pressing need for a trade deal with the US, not Dr our perspective. Finally, the UK is already diversifying away from China and Chinese supply chains because of this whole virus crap, it would be completely against the run of play to sign a trade deal with China of any kind, if anything the government is likely to use national security concerns to close up Chinese import and investment over the next few years. We've already passed laws to that effect for investment so that Chinese companies are unable to buy up British companies on the cheap.
I don't agree here, I'm afraid. These are just far too huge powers for a post-Brexit Britain not to engage with specifically on trade, and in time it will.
Trade with these countries is already covered by WTO rules. We're a services based economy and services aren't subject to tariffs so we already export to all three of these countries on that basis without too many issues.
I mean we had predictions that Japan, South Korea and Canada would all give the UK worse terms of trade than the EU but that all turned out to be bullshit with all three interested in extending the current deals into new areas of digital and financial services similar to what we've just achieved with Singapore.
I think you just haven't got a clue about how international trade actually works. You don't need a trade deal to trade with a specific country and in none of these cases is one necessary.
Disney's issue is likely to be going overboard, then overcorrecting. Many criticise the Mavel movies as being a bit formulaic and there's some truth in that, but while some were not great, many were and none were outright bad, despite them turning out by the end 3 of them a year. After Solo was a stupefyingly bland Star Wars film they paused on a bunch of side story movies, but frankly, given the absurd scale of the extended Star Wars canon, they could very easily do 1-2 movies a year, and many a series, without exhausting themselves or churning out complete garbage.
Doesn't mean they won't do just that, there's a finite number of good writers, producers and actors out there, but the scale of that over that period doesn't in itself strike a cause for worry.
If truth be told The Mandlorian isnt really that good. Baby Yoda is ace, but the most of the rest of the episodes aren't really that good. There have been 2-3 episodes where baby yoda hardly features and they expose that the show is quite limited without him. There should have been much more directed towards him doing his job as a bounty hunter.
Looks like the US Covid deaths and cases are going to smash through new records by the end of today, possibly spectacularly, looking at the numbers so far today. And Trump is just going on and on about the election. What a disgrace.
And McConnell is blocking all relief efforts.
I do not say this lightly but McConnell is a truly evil human being.
One thing I can't quite work out is just why the EU seem so obsessed about maintaining fishing rights. It must be a microscopic fraction of their economy. I can see why the UK is firm on it, but not the EU.
It impacts some eu countries like france a spain a lot if they can no longer fish our waters. Those countries have a veto and it doesn't play well at home for their leaders
But still, fishing must be a small percentage of France's economy. On the UK side there is the sovereignty issue, that doesn't apply to France.
As we lie amongst the smouldering ruins we can claim it was all worth it to regain our sovereignty, until we are reminded sovereignty was only ever lost in the minds of the Brexiteers.
Gosh hyperbole much? There will be no smoking ruins. We will be able to vote for politicians who can implement the manifesto they stood on even its labour. We won't have politicians making end runs around the things they know we won't accept as a nation by getting the eu to make it law...whats not to like?
As a nation we had sovereignty in the same way as the queen is the ultimate power in the land. As long as we don't try to use it we are sovereign
The sovereignty you're imagining will quickly dry up when the trade deals with China, India and the US come in. It doesn't exist in the modern world.
Trade deal with China lol. Have you even slightly been paying attention?
There will be eventually be a China-specific FTA on terms Brexiters hate ; India will demand immigration terms ; the US will make multiple demands on agriculture, food standards, and much else. The loss of "sovereignty" will simply be more obvious the larger the power.
No there won't. That's a deal the UK wouldn't sign. The US deal has already burned out now that Trump is gone.
You have no clue over what the UK has been prioritising wrt external trade. Take a look at what the actual deals we have signed have achieved before making these unfounded and grandiose claims about what the UK might do but in all likelihood won't.
These are just simple equations of power. The UK will unquestionably and eventually need specific deals with these huge economies, whatever it prioritises first and one way or the other, and they won't be on the terms wanted by the most faithful Brexit voters.
The point is that those deals won't be done. Part of why India has insisted on immigration being part of the equation is because they know it's an easy get out for them to not do one but still publicly be in favour of free trade. India has already withdrawn from RCEP because it doesn't really do free trade. The US deal has been covered here many times and the UK has a gigantic trade surplus with the US, there's no pressing need for a trade deal with the US, not Dr our perspective. Finally, the UK is already diversifying away from China and Chinese supply chains because of this whole virus crap, it would be completely against the run of play to sign a trade deal with China of any kind, if anything the government is likely to use national security concerns to close up Chinese import and investment over the next few years. We've already passed laws to that effect for investment so that Chinese companies are unable to buy up British companies on the cheap.
I don't agree here, I'm afraid. These are just far too huge powers for a post-Brexit Britain not to engage with specifically on trade, and in time it will.
Trade with these countries is already covered by WTO rules. We're a services based economy and services aren't subject to tariffs so we already export to all three of these countries on that basis without too many issues.
I mean we had predictions that Japan, South Korea and Canada would all give the UK worse terms of trade than the EU but that all turned out to be bullshit with all three interested in extending the current deals into new areas of digital and financial services similar to what we've just achieved with Singapore.
I think you just haven't got a clue about how international trade actually works. You don't need a trade deal to trade with a specific country and in none of these cases is one necessary.
The no cherry picking line has always been titanically stupid, the equivalent of 'Brexit means Brexit' in meaninglessness and intended to shut down discussion with a pithy but vapid statement.
Yes, there are things that the EU will not bend on, and things the UK will not bend on, and things both said they would not bend on which they did in fact end up bending on, and there will have been more from one side than another, but there are also things there were there to be cherry picked, which is why they've spent all bloody year talking about things rather than just calling it quits after day one. Occasionally people will at least remember to be specific about what is not to be cherry picked, but that's pretty rare, instead treating it as an inviolable universal law.
Fair question really. If it is something we have to put up with for the greater good we need to know what we are expected to put up with at least.
Come on, we practised for this in March. Buy bog roll. As much as you can get hold of (not how much you need). Then move onto flour in the vain hope that you will start to make fresh bread (you will actually just get annoyed with too much flour in your cupboards).
One thing I can't quite work out is just why the EU seem so obsessed about maintaining fishing rights. It must be a microscopic fraction of their economy. I can see why the UK is firm on it, but not the EU.
It impacts some eu countries like france a spain a lot if they can no longer fish our waters. Those countries have a veto and it doesn't play well at home for their leaders
But still, fishing must be a small percentage of France's economy. On the UK side there is the sovereignty issue, that doesn't apply to France.
As we lie amongst the smouldering ruins we can claim it was all worth it to regain our sovereignty, until we are reminded sovereignty was only ever lost in the minds of the Brexiteers.
Gosh hyperbole much? There will be no smoking ruins. We will be able to vote for politicians who can implement the manifesto they stood on even its labour. We won't have politicians making end runs around the things they know we won't accept as a nation by getting the eu to make it law...whats not to like?
As a nation we had sovereignty in the same way as the queen is the ultimate power in the land. As long as we don't try to use it we are sovereign
The sovereignty you're imagining will quickly dry up when the trade deals with China, India and the US come in. It doesn't exist in the modern world.
Trade deal with China lol. Have you even slightly been paying attention?
There will be eventually be a China-specific FTA on terms Brexiters hate ; India will demand immigration terms ; the US will make multiple demands on agriculture, food standards, and much else. The loss of "sovereignty" will simply be more obvious the larger the power.
No there won't. That's a deal the UK wouldn't sign. The US deal has already burned out now that Trump is gone.
You have no clue over what the UK has been prioritising wrt external trade. Take a look at what the actual deals we have signed have achieved before making these unfounded and grandiose claims about what the UK might do but in all likelihood won't.
These are just simple equations of power. The UK will unquestionably and eventually need specific deals with these huge economies, whatever it prioritises first and one way or the other, and they won't be on the terms wanted by the most faithful Brexit voters.
The point is that those deals won't be done. Part of why India has insisted on immigration being part of the equation is because they know it's an easy get out for them to not do one but still publicly be in favour of free trade. India has already withdrawn from RCEP because it doesn't really do free trade. The US deal has been covered here many times and the UK has a gigantic trade surplus with the US, there's no pressing need for a trade deal with the US, not Dr our perspective. Finally, the UK is already diversifying away from China and Chinese supply chains because of this whole virus crap, it would be completely against the run of play to sign a trade deal with China of any kind, if anything the government is likely to use national security concerns to close up Chinese import and investment over the next few years. We've already passed laws to that effect for investment so that Chinese companies are unable to buy up British companies on the cheap.
I don't agree here, I'm afraid. These are just far too huge powers for a post-Brexit Britain not to engage with specifically on trade, and in time it will.
Trade with these countries is already covered by WTO rules. We're a services based economy and services aren't subject to tariffs so we already export to all three of these countries on that basis without too many issues.
I mean we had predictions that Japan, South Korea and Canada would all give the UK worse terms of trade than the EU but that all turned out to be bullshit with all three interested in extending the current deals into new areas of digital and financial services similar to what we've just achieved with Singapore.
I think you just haven't got a clue about how international trade actually works. You don't need a trade deal to trade with a specific country and in none of these cases is one necessary.
Come back to me in three years.
What are the terms of the bet and how much? I'll do £100 that we won't have a formal trade deal with any of these three countries lodged by December 10th 2023.
Disney's issue is likely to be going overboard, then overcorrecting. Many criticise the Mavel movies as being a bit formulaic and there's some truth in that, but while some were not great, many were and none were outright bad, despite them turning out by the end 3 of them a year. After Solo was a stupefyingly bland Star Wars film they paused on a bunch of side story movies, but frankly, given the absurd scale of the extended Star Wars canon, they could very easily do 1-2 movies a year, and many a series, without exhausting themselves or churning out complete garbage.
Doesn't mean they won't do just that, there's a finite number of good writers, producers and actors out there, but the scale of that over that period doesn't in itself strike a cause for worry.
If truth be told The Mandlorian isnt really that good. Baby Yoda is ace, but the most of the rest of the episodes aren't really that good. There have been 2-3 episodes where baby yoda hardly features and they expose that the show is quite limited without him. There should have been much more directed towards him doing his job as a bounty hunter.
I'd agree on the second series, it's been a bit disappointing. Honestly, as much as I liked the first series it is actually pretty by the numbers (here's the prison break episode, here's the train the villagers episode), it's just very very well produced, and that's enough for me. Star Wars fans have always taken things way too seriously, including on how good the original movies supposedly were. Mate of mine got angry about ships in the movies coming out of lightspeed too close to a planet for heaven's sake.
Yes, a reminder that we should have listened to him. I should have.
We turned down free owls for this.
No, because he didn't want this.
His arrogance unlocked this. Worst prime minister apart from the incumbent.
That's a completely different point to the one that was being made. You can be mad at him for 'unlocking' something, though personally I'd blame people who voted for it like me, but it's simple fact that he said here's an option, but I advise you not to do it. You might well still say that he shouldn't have offered the option, but the point I was making was about whether we should have listened to his judgement of the situation, which was correct. I think it exceedingly petty that people find it impossible to make that distinction, as it doesn't require the lessening of anger at him for permitting the referendum one bit.
I suggest that your analysis is missing a crucial point. The EU is suggesting that, in the event of their believing there to be a divergence, they get to apply penalties as they see fit, with no equivalent the other way around. That is too one sided and open to political abuse. If the approach involved challenge, evidence, penalties linked to the level of divergence and a robust appeal mechanism, to a neutral third party, then we could accept that. How or who could do that is, of course, moot.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Disney's issue is likely to be going overboard, then overcorrecting. Many criticise the Mavel movies as being a bit formulaic and there's some truth in that, but while some were not great, many were and none were outright bad, despite them turning out by the end 3 of them a year. After Solo was a stupefyingly bland Star Wars film they paused on a bunch of side story movies, but frankly, given the absurd scale of the extended Star Wars canon, they could very easily do 1-2 movies a year, and many a series, without exhausting themselves or churning out complete garbage.
Doesn't mean they won't do just that, there's a finite number of good writers, producers and actors out there, but the scale of that over that period doesn't in itself strike a cause for worry.
If truth be told The Mandlorian isnt really that good. Baby Yoda is ace, but the most of the rest of the episodes aren't really that good. There have been 2-3 episodes where baby yoda hardly features and they expose that the show is quite limited without him. There should have been much more directed towards him doing his job as a bounty hunter.
I'd agree on the second series, it's been a bit disappointing. Honestly, as much as I liked the first series it is actually pretty by the numbers (here's the prison break episode, here's the train the villagers episode), it's just very very well produced, and that's enough for me. Star Wars fans have always taken things way too seriously, including on how good the original movies supposedly were. Mate of mine got angry about ships in the movies coming out of lightspeed too close to a planet for heaven's sake.
I think Mando has been terrifically entertaining, not sure what more people want or expect from 30 mins of telly on a Friday night. You are right, people take themselves far too seriously.
On over saturation, of those 10 series one assumes a couple of them are Mando 3-4, a few animated ones, the Ewan McGregor one. Would be good to see a Darth Maul series, he’s my boy’s favourite: “the man with the red face”.
Would still like to see them do something new with the Indians Jones property. A prequel tv series starring Chris Pratt as Indie would be good fun.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
The removal of a major source of downward pressure on low skilled wages is an obvious benefit to the end of freedom of movement.
Trump files motion to argue in person before U.S. Supreme Court that he won election | National Post
That only happens if they accept a case.
There's an argument it should be accepted as it's so fundamental, means they can deliver an opinion to utterly demolish it on the merits then.
I expect that will be the main debate, those who want to accept it to deliver an opinion adverse to TX and those who just want it chucked in the bin without a hearing.
Oooohhhh... would love to see Trump stand before the Supreme Court. It would be extremely entertaining.
Disney's issue is likely to be going overboard, then overcorrecting. Many criticise the Mavel movies as being a bit formulaic and there's some truth in that, but while some were not great, many were and none were outright bad, despite them turning out by the end 3 of them a year. After Solo was a stupefyingly bland Star Wars film they paused on a bunch of side story movies, but frankly, given the absurd scale of the extended Star Wars canon, they could very easily do 1-2 movies a year, and many a series, without exhausting themselves or churning out complete garbage.
Doesn't mean they won't do just that, there's a finite number of good writers, producers and actors out there, but the scale of that over that period doesn't in itself strike a cause for worry.
If truth be told The Mandlorian isnt really that good. Baby Yoda is ace, but the most of the rest of the episodes aren't really that good. There have been 2-3 episodes where baby yoda hardly features and they expose that the show is quite limited without him. There should have been much more directed towards him doing his job as a bounty hunter.
I'd agree on the second series, it's been a bit disappointing. Honestly, as much as I liked the first series it is actually pretty by the numbers (here's the prison break episode, here's the train the villagers episode), it's just very very well produced, and that's enough for me. Star Wars fans have always taken things way too seriously, including on how good the original movies supposedly were. Mate of mine got angry about ships in the movies coming out of lightspeed too close to a planet for heaven's sake.
I think Mando has been terrifically entertaining, not sure what more people want or expect from 30 mins of telly on a Friday night. You are right, people take themselves far too seriously.
On over saturation, of those 10 series one assumes a couple of them are Mando 3-4, a few animated ones, the Ewan McGregor one. Would be good to see a Darth Maul series, he’s my boy’s favourite: “the man with the red face”.
Would still like to see them do something new with the Indians Jones property. A prequel tv series starring Chris Pratt as Indie would be good fun.
I personally can't really get onboard with take the child home storyline. I would much have preferred Mando tasks with missions to capture target every week, with all the double dealings etc, with child in tow, who is a mixture of mischief and using his powers to save Mando, and the story arc of slowly learning a bit more about the childs back story.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Do we really want high skilled immigrants coming in to take the jobs that we or our kids want to progress to? Or do we want to be the customers buying the coffees rather than the one serving? In other words, do we want immigrants that prevent our own upward social mobility?
If 106 House Republicans support the Texas case, is it really inconceivable that the five Republican Justices (ie excluding Roberts) will agree to hear the case?
The Supreme Court is not full of politicians, though. Now, sure, the Federalist society approved of Goresuch and Kavanaugh and ACB.
But they're also fiercely independent minded.
And all of them are looking at their place in the history books. Which of them wants to throw the US into civil war (and it would be civil war) on the flimsiest of pretences.
The crazy bit is, of course, than the plaintiffs don't believe the election was fraudulent, they just want to look like big Trump supporters.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
That algorithm that works out who are the high value immigrants is a good one.
'German couple behind vaccine are immigrant success story
Scientist couple born to immigrant parents from Turkey are now among Germany's richest 100 people'
Disney's issue is likely to be going overboard, then overcorrecting. Many criticise the Mavel movies as being a bit formulaic and there's some truth in that, but while some were not great, many were and none were outright bad, despite them turning out by the end 3 of them a year. After Solo was a stupefyingly bland Star Wars film they paused on a bunch of side story movies, but frankly, given the absurd scale of the extended Star Wars canon, they could very easily do 1-2 movies a year, and many a series, without exhausting themselves or churning out complete garbage.
Doesn't mean they won't do just that, there's a finite number of good writers, producers and actors out there, but the scale of that over that period doesn't in itself strike a cause for worry.
If truth be told The Mandlorian isnt really that good. Baby Yoda is ace, but the most of the rest of the episodes aren't really that good. There have been 2-3 episodes where baby yoda hardly features and they expose that the show is quite limited without him. There should have been much more directed towards him doing his job as a bounty hunter.
I'd agree on the second series, it's been a bit disappointing. Honestly, as much as I liked the first series it is actually pretty by the numbers (here's the prison break episode, here's the train the villagers episode), it's just very very well produced, and that's enough for me. Star Wars fans have always taken things way too seriously, including on how good the original movies supposedly were. Mate of mine got angry about ships in the movies coming out of lightspeed too close to a planet for heaven's sake.
I think Mando has been terrifically entertaining, not sure what more people want or expect from 30 mins of telly on a Friday night. You are right, people take themselves far too seriously.
On over saturation, of those 10 series one assumes a couple of them are Mando 3-4, a few animated ones, the Ewan McGregor one. Would be good to see a Darth Maul series, he’s my boy’s favourite: “the man with the red face”.
Would still like to see them do something new with the Indians Jones property. A prequel tv series starring Chris Pratt as Indie would be good fun.
Personally I am not interested in formulaic derivatives of films written decades ago. Why not write new characters and stories instead of retreads?
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Wouldn't it be simpler to let the free market decide that?
Yes, a reminder that we should have listened to him. I should have.
We turned down free owls for this.
No, because he didn't want this.
His arrogance unlocked this. Worst prime minister apart from the incumbent.
That's a completely different point to the one that was being made. You can be mad at him for 'unlocking' something, though personally I'd blame people who voted for it like me, but it's simple fact that he said here's an option, but I advise you not to do it. You might well still say that he shouldn't have offered the option, but the point I was making was about whether we should have listened to his judgement of the situation, which was correct. I think it exceedingly petty that people find it impossible to make that distinction, as it doesn't require the lessening of anger at him for permitting the referendum one bit.
His judgement was legendarily appalling. I’m not angry with him, but he is in large part responsible for this madness. He played politics with forces he couldn’t control. He opened Pandora’s box for short term political advantage.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Wouldn't it be simpler to let the free market decide that?
Get rid of the welfare state (education, NHS, the lot), then you can have as much immigration as you want.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Do we really want high skilled immigrants coming in to take the jobs that we or our kids want to progress to? Or do we want to be the customers buying the coffees rather than the one serving? In other words, do we want immigrants that prevent our own upward social mobility?
Odd perspective. It’s about wealth creation. Well educated and driven kids are as likely to get a good job working in a business line founded by high skilled immigrants than being outcompeted by them.
I want less well educated kids to have the chance to build wealth too. But they never will if we stay stuck in a labour model where the only pay rise they ever get is an increase to the minimum wage, or an extra 70p per hour to take on management responsibility of the coffee house.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Do we really want high skilled immigrants coming in to take the jobs that we or our kids want to progress to? Or do we want to be the customers buying the coffees rather than the one serving? In other words, do we want immigrants that prevent our own upward social mobility?
When all those extra people put a burden on public services they aren't paying enough to cover then we can do without them. Before you say I am wrong when I moved to slough it was white people complaining that schools were inundated with children with a second language that was not english holding their kids back. Now its asian parents complaining about all the kids from eastern europe that don't speak english as a first language holding their kids back. A minimum wage employee doesnt add enough to the treasury to offset that with extra resources, or to hospitals or to doctors surgeries.
As to your argument about competing with our kids its your side that goes on about how all those immigrants help fund other jobs and the lump of labour fallacy.
I can only surmise your view is its alright for the low skilled to have to put up with all that extra competition but you and your kids shouldn't have to. Tough
However this ends I don’t appreciate having my livelihood and my children’s future being gambled like this.
You euphiles have been gambling with mine and my families for 40 years so tough
How?
Up until 2016, I was minding my own business. I did not stop you going on holiday whether in the EU or at home fully insured against any accidents or illnesses that might occur, much like myself. I did not stop you buying the domestic food and drink that you enjoy and I was allowed to buy exotic continental food and drink that I liked at a reasonable price. I could be educated, work or retire and lose none of the benefits I had paid for previously, or afterwards through my taxes. You could be educated, work or retire anywhere in the UK of your chosing, I wasn't going to stop you. True I didn't much like some of my taxes going on the wasteful CAP, but for the benefits I otherwise gained, well I could live with that.
I did not interfere with how you chose to live your life, you have now made choices for me that interfere with mine. Your imaginery sovereignty comes at a high price to some of us. You won, I accept that, now enjoy your victory lap!
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Wouldn't it be simpler to let the free market decide that?
Absolutely.
No Universal Credit or other wage related welfare for non-citizens and an annual NHS subscription fee. If they still want to come then welcome with open arms, if they only want to come for welfare then no thanks.
For me, this is a genuinely exciting choice between two options that both have much to recommend them. With a deal, we put all the recent uncertainty to bed, people on both sides can take a much needed break from thinking about it - the psychological benefits of the smoothest possible transition are not inconsiderable. Without one, undoubtedly the more exciting option, we galvanise the country around the subject of its own future prosperity in a way not seen since the 1930's. We become an independent, prosperous trading nation. I understand that people aren't as excited as me, and that you don't really enjoy reading this, but it's honestly how I feel.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
That algorithm that works out who are the high value immigrants is a good one.
'German couple behind vaccine are immigrant success story
Scientist couple born to immigrant parents from Turkey are now among Germany's richest 100 people'
Total bollocks because one child of an immigrant out of a 10000 probably becomes a genius doesnt mean the other 9999 are offset. Genius's are rare. I guess your thoughts is we should let in all on the grounds that one or two might have a kid thats a genius
Disney's issue is likely to be going overboard, then overcorrecting. Many criticise the Mavel movies as being a bit formulaic and there's some truth in that, but while some were not great, many were and none were outright bad, despite them turning out by the end 3 of them a year. After Solo was a stupefyingly bland Star Wars film they paused on a bunch of side story movies, but frankly, given the absurd scale of the extended Star Wars canon, they could very easily do 1-2 movies a year, and many a series, without exhausting themselves or churning out complete garbage.
Doesn't mean they won't do just that, there's a finite number of good writers, producers and actors out there, but the scale of that over that period doesn't in itself strike a cause for worry.
If truth be told The Mandlorian isnt really that good. Baby Yoda is ace, but the most of the rest of the episodes aren't really that good. There have been 2-3 episodes where baby yoda hardly features and they expose that the show is quite limited without him. There should have been much more directed towards him doing his job as a bounty hunter.
I'd agree on the second series, it's been a bit disappointing. Honestly, as much as I liked the first series it is actually pretty by the numbers (here's the prison break episode, here's the train the villagers episode), it's just very very well produced, and that's enough for me. Star Wars fans have always taken things way too seriously, including on how good the original movies supposedly were. Mate of mine got angry about ships in the movies coming out of lightspeed too close to a planet for heaven's sake.
I think Mando has been terrifically entertaining, not sure what more people want or expect from 30 mins of telly on a Friday night. You are right, people take themselves far too seriously.
On over saturation, of those 10 series one assumes a couple of them are Mando 3-4, a few animated ones, the Ewan McGregor one. Would be good to see a Darth Maul series, he’s my boy’s favourite: “the man with the red face”.
Would still like to see them do something new with the Indians Jones property. A prequel tv series starring Chris Pratt as Indie would be good fun.
Personally I am not interested in formulaic derivatives of films written decades ago. Why not write new characters and stories instead of retreads?
What’s wrong with having new characters and stories set in already loved narrative universes? Star Wars and the MCU are just a canvas to paint stories onto. A few decades ago the popular canvases were world war 2 or the American Wild West.
For me, this is a genuinely exciting choice between two options that both have much to recommend them. With a deal, we put all the recent uncertainty to bed, people on both sides can take a much needed break from thinking about it - the psychological benefits of the smoothest possible transition are not inconsiderable. Without one, undoubtedly the more exciting option, we galvanise the country around the subject of its own future prosperity in a way not seen since the 1930's. We become an independent, prosperous trading nation. I understand that people aren't as excited as me, and that you don't really enjoy reading this, but it's honestly how I feel.
One thing I can't quite work out is just why the EU seem so obsessed about maintaining fishing rights. It must be a microscopic fraction of their economy. I can see why the UK is firm on it, but not the EU.
Yes, two are tangoing on that issue, inexplicably. I think it's worth considering that just because the EU are in a stronger position, and even if they are, in general, seen by many as being more reasonable, they are not perfect in their choices and actions, especially when politics is in play and our perhaps pig headed leaders' stance is pitted against their leaders' ignorance of and contempt for the British political situation which, worthy of contempt people may think it is, but it is not useful to allow that to impact your decision making.
I think the EU have been unnecessarily dickish: things like fishing are of little economic benefit to the EU, and they didn't have to behave like they did.
Now, that doesn't mean that I think we've been great; I think the internal markets bill got everyone's back up (and was also contrary to a bunch of other treaties we are signatories to). I also think there are things that are standard in FTAs, that we are arguing the toss about with the EU, which frankly we shouldn't have.
But fundamentally, I think the EU has behaved quite poorly, particularly over fish. Ultimately, it's our coastal waters and our fish. And blackmailing us to get a (large) share is not good behaviour.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Do we really want high skilled immigrants coming in to take the jobs that we or our kids want to progress to? Or do we want to be the customers buying the coffees rather than the one serving? In other words, do we want immigrants that prevent our own upward social mobility?
Odd perspective. It’s about wealth creation. Well educated and driven kids are as likely to get a good job working in a business line founded by high skilled immigrants than being outcompeted by them.
I want less well educated kids to have the chance to build wealth too. But they never will if we stay stuck in a labour model where the only pay rise they ever get is an increase to the minimum wage, or an extra 70p per hour to take on management responsibility of the coffee house.
No, I am simply making a case that immigration is resented by those who see themselves being overtaken by the immigrants (there are other reasons too while immigrants are resented, of course).
So do people want immigrant doctors, or do they want an education system where their own children can become doctors? Do they resent more an immigrant living in social housing, or the one who bids up the prices of the nice leafy houses that they want? Do they mind more the immigrant cleaning the factory, or the new immigrant supervisors preventing their own promotion?
However this ends I don’t appreciate having my livelihood and my children’s future being gambled like this.
You euphiles have been gambling with mine and my families for 40 years so tough
How?
Up until 2016, I was minding my own business. I did not stop you going on holiday whether in the EU or at home fully insured against any accidents or illnesses that might occur, much like myself. I did not stop you buying the domestic food and drink that you enjoy and I was allowed to buy exotic continental food and drink that I liked at a reasonable price. I could be educated, work or retire and lose none of the benefits I had paid for previously, or afterwards through my taxes. You could be educated, work or retire anywhere in the UK of your chosing, I wasn't going to stop you. True I didn't much like some of my taxes going on the wasteful CAP, but for the benefits I otherwise gained, well I could live with that.
I did not interfere with how you chose to live your life, you have now made choices for me that interfere with mine. Your imaginery sovereignty comes at a high price to some of us. You won, I accept that, now enjoy your victory lap!
You stopped me voting for any party that might have a manifesto commitment that wouldn't be approved by the eu as none bothered.
You stopped me being able to vote against a party that had a will to bring in a law with that they couldn't get elected on because they could just side step that and get the eu to push it forward
As I told you earlier if Corbyn was elected in 2019 he would have been told by the EU he couldn't implement some of the things that those that voted for him supported.
Nothing after we leave is going to stop you going to france or spain or eating exotic food or even going there to work. At worst you will have some extra paperwork. People did that before the eu, they still go to visit and work in non eu countries and still eat food from non eu countries
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Do we really want high skilled immigrants coming in to take the jobs that we or our kids want to progress to? Or do we want to be the customers buying the coffees rather than the one serving? In other words, do we want immigrants that prevent our own upward social mobility?
When all those extra people put a burden on public services they aren't paying enough to cover then we can do without them. Before you say I am wrong when I moved to slough it was white people complaining that schools were inundated with children with a second language that was not english holding their kids back. Now its asian parents complaining about all the kids from eastern europe that don't speak english as a first language holding their kids back. A minimum wage employee doesnt add enough to the treasury to offset that with extra resources, or to hospitals or to doctors surgeries.
As to your argument about competing with our kids its your side that goes on about how all those immigrants help fund other jobs and the lump of labour fallacy.
I can only surmise your view is its alright for the low skilled to have to put up with all that extra competition but you and your kids shouldn't have to. Tough
"When all those extra people put a burden on public services they aren't paying enough to cover then we can do without them"
So long as immigrants work and leave before they get old, then they're highly unlikely to be burdens on the taxpayer. If you look at the British budget, the biggest chunks go on oldies via pensions and the NHS. Other benefits are insignificant compared to those costs.
There's plenty of academic evidence, from all sides of the political debate, on this.
Where I think there are costs that are less well measured, I think it is in areas such as crowding out housing rental markets.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
That is a spurious argument in relation to the EU. Johnson was asked not long after the EU Referendum who would do all those jobs we didn't want to do after Brexit. As I recall, he quite fairly suggested these jobs could be done by UK nationals and "our friends from the Indian subcontinent". That doesn't alarm me, but it might alarm some.
For me, this is a genuinely exciting choice between two options that both have much to recommend them. With a deal, we put all the recent uncertainty to bed, people on both sides can take a much needed break from thinking about it - the psychological benefits of the smoothest possible transition are not inconsiderable. Without one, undoubtedly the more exciting option, we galvanise the country around the subject of its own future prosperity in a way not seen since the 1930's. We become an independent, prosperous trading nation. I understand that people aren't as excited as me, and that you don't really enjoy reading this, but it's honestly how I feel.
Brexit Kool Aid overdose.
Not at all - I've always felt this way and said as much. We have just suffered (and are suffering) the dislocation of a global plague - and doing ok. Problems find solutions. Anyone trading away long term benefits because of fear of short-term disruption isn't thinking straight.
For me, this is a genuinely exciting choice between two options that both have much to recommend them. With a deal, we put all the recent uncertainty to bed, people on both sides can take a much needed break from thinking about it - the psychological benefits of the smoothest possible transition are not inconsiderable. Without one, undoubtedly the more exciting option, we galvanise the country around the subject of its own future prosperity in a way not seen since the 1930's. We become an independent, prosperous trading nation. I understand that people aren't as excited as me, and that you don't really enjoy reading this, but it's honestly how I feel.
Brexit Kool Aid overdose.
Not at all - I've always felt this way and said as much. We have just suffered (and are suffering) the dislocation of a global plague - and doing ok. Problems find solutions. Anyone trading away long term benefits because of fear of short-term disruption isn't thinking straight.
You don’t become a trading nation by walking away from free trade.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Wouldn't it be simpler to let the free market decide that?
Absolutely.
No Universal Credit or other wage related welfare for non-citizens and an annual NHS subscription fee. If they still want to come then welcome with open arms, if they only want to come for welfare then no thanks.
Nobody in their right mind would come here for welfare. Living on welfare in 2020 Britain is utter shite.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
That algorithm that works out who are the high value immigrants is a good one.
'German couple behind vaccine are immigrant success story
Scientist couple born to immigrant parents from Turkey are now among Germany's richest 100 people'
Total bollocks because one child of an immigrant out of a 10000 probably becomes a genius doesnt mean the other 9999 are offset. Genius's are rare. I guess your thoughts is we should let in all on the grounds that one or two might have a kid thats a genius
I hate to drag you away from your total bollocks level of discourse, but are immigrants net contributors to or net recipients from the UK economy?
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Do we really want high skilled immigrants coming in to take the jobs that we or our kids want to progress to? Or do we want to be the customers buying the coffees rather than the one serving? In other words, do we want immigrants that prevent our own upward social mobility?
Odd perspective. It’s about wealth creation. Well educated and driven kids are as likely to get a good job working in a business line founded by high skilled immigrants than being outcompeted by them.
I want less well educated kids to have the chance to build wealth too. But they never will if we stay stuck in a labour model where the only pay rise they ever get is an increase to the minimum wage, or an extra 70p per hour to take on management responsibility of the coffee house.
No, I am simply making a case that immigration is resented by those who see themselves being overtaken by the immigrants (there are other reasons too while immigrants are resented, of course).
So do people want immigrant doctors, or do they want an education system where their own children can become doctors? Do they resent more an immigrant living in social housing, or the one who bids up the prices of the nice leafy houses that they want? Do they mind more the immigrant cleaning the factory, or the new immigrant supervisors preventing their own promotion?
Well your choice of doctors is a dodgy one for me. I think it’s a moral outrage that we so readily import doctors and nurses trained at great expense by the developing world without any thought to the consequences in that country. I know loads of straight A people in this country who dreamed their whole lives of being doctors that never even got interviews to medical school. Something super wrong with that.
I also think it odd after all these years that very smart people like yourself can’t accept that there are some societal benefits to Brexit, namely in this case to exert upward pressure on the wages of low skilled British workers. I can see the advantages of being an EU member, as well as the disadvantages. Why is it so hard for you to do the same?
One thing I can't quite work out is just why the EU seem so obsessed about maintaining fishing rights. It must be a microscopic fraction of their economy. I can see why the UK is firm on it, but not the EU.
Yes, two are tangoing on that issue, inexplicably. I think it's worth considering that just because the EU are in a stronger position, and even if they are, in general, seen by many as being more reasonable, they are not perfect in their choices and actions, especially when politics is in play and our perhaps pig headed leaders' stance is pitted against their leaders' ignorance of and contempt for the British political situation which, worthy of contempt people may think it is, but it is not useful to allow that to impact your decision making.
I think the EU have been unnecessarily dickish: things like fishing are of little economic benefit to the EU, and they didn't have to behave like they did.
Now, that doesn't mean that I think we've been great; I think the internal markets bill got everyone's back up (and was also contrary to a bunch of other treaties we are signatories to). I also think there are things that are standard in FTAs, that we are arguing the toss about with the EU, which frankly we shouldn't have.
But fundamentally, I think the EU has behaved quite poorly, particularly over fish. Ultimately, it's our coastal waters and our fish. And blackmailing us to get a (large) share is not good behaviour.
Well each of the EU countries has their equivalent of Brixham or Peterhead too. It is a totemic to their politics too.
Those fishing in what we are declaring as UK waters have often been doing so for centuries. When we joined the EU, we only controlled the seas to 3 miles offshore. Indeed we clashed with Iceland and saw as unreasonable the extension of their territorial waters to 50 miles then 200 miles. Prior to 1982, It was a strong British principle to have freedom of the seas outside that narrow limit.
We had free trade, now we’re on the brink of tariffs. Brexiteers claim we’re somehow poised to become a trading nation.
It’s cult like levels of denial.
Since we all know what the geographical constraints of our 'free trade' were, and the conditions which came with it, I don't know why you insist on rehearsing these arguments. You're not convincing anyone who disagrees with you, you're really just riling up the choir, and yourself. I am really sorry you feel that way - perhaps in the future you'll be able to gain perspective and see that it really is just a feeling.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
That algorithm that works out who are the high value immigrants is a good one.
'German couple behind vaccine are immigrant success story
Scientist couple born to immigrant parents from Turkey are now among Germany's richest 100 people'
Total bollocks because one child of an immigrant out of a 10000 probably becomes a genius doesnt mean the other 9999 are offset. Genius's are rare. I guess your thoughts is we should let in all on the grounds that one or two might have a kid thats a genius
I hate to drag you away from your total bollocks level of discourse, but are immigrants net contributors to or net recipients from the UK economy?
Careful, you are asking @Pagan2 to consider facts now.
For me, this is a genuinely exciting choice between two options that both have much to recommend them. With a deal, we put all the recent uncertainty to bed, people on both sides can take a much needed break from thinking about it - the psychological benefits of the smoothest possible transition are not inconsiderable. Without one, undoubtedly the more exciting option, we galvanise the country around the subject of its own future prosperity in a way not seen since the 1930's. We become an independent, prosperous trading nation. I understand that people aren't as excited as me, and that you don't really enjoy reading this, but it's honestly how I feel.
I'm happy for your genuine excitement, but perhaps don't want to visualise it too much.
For me, this is a genuinely exciting choice between two options that both have much to recommend them. With a deal, we put all the recent uncertainty to bed, people on both sides can take a much needed break from thinking about it - the psychological benefits of the smoothest possible transition are not inconsiderable. Without one, undoubtedly the more exciting option, we galvanise the country around the subject of its own future prosperity in a way not seen since the 1930's. We become an independent, prosperous trading nation. I understand that people aren't as excited as me, and that you don't really enjoy reading this, but it's honestly how I feel.
Brexit Kool Aid overdose.
Not at all - I've always felt this way and said as much. We have just suffered (and are suffering) the dislocation of a global plague - and doing ok. Problems find solutions. Anyone trading away long term benefits because of fear of short-term disruption isn't thinking straight.
You don’t become a trading nation by walking away from free trade.
Indeed not! Embrace free trade and abolish tariffs on imports. (Seriously)
However this ends I don’t appreciate having my livelihood and my children’s future being gambled like this.
You euphiles have been gambling with mine and my families for 40 years so tough
How?
Up until 2016, I was minding my own business. I did not stop you going on holiday whether in the EU or at home fully insured against any accidents or illnesses that might occur, much like myself. I did not stop you buying the domestic food and drink that you enjoy and I was allowed to buy exotic continental food and drink that I liked at a reasonable price. I could be educated, work or retire and lose none of the benefits I had paid for previously, or afterwards through my taxes. You could be educated, work or retire anywhere in the UK of your chosing, I wasn't going to stop you. True I didn't much like some of my taxes going on the wasteful CAP, but for the benefits I otherwise gained, well I could live with that.
I did not interfere with how you chose to live your life, you have now made choices for me that interfere with mine. Your imaginery sovereignty comes at a high price to some of us. You won, I accept that, now enjoy your victory lap!
You stopped me voting for any party that might have a manifesto commitment that wouldn't be approved by the eu as none bothered.
You stopped me being able to vote against a party that had a will to bring in a law with that they couldn't get elected on because they could just side step that and get the eu to push it forward
As I told you earlier if Corbyn was elected in 2019 he would have been told by the EU he couldn't implement some of the things that those that voted for him supported.
Nothing after we leave is going to stop you going to france or spain or eating exotic food or even going there to work. At worst you will have some extra paperwork. People did that before the eu, they still go to visit and work in non eu countries and still eat food from non eu countries
I would be jolly grateful that someone was there to curb the excesses of Jeremy Corbyn, or any other half-witted totalitarian.
I have already been told I can't afford exotic French cheeses in my own country. I can't afford to retire to Southern France as planned. I won't even get basic healthcare for a holiday to Southern France without insurance which, if I have a myriad of conditions will not be available to me.
I don't care about political theorising. I was living my life how I wanted, and now I cannot, because you wanted an intangible called "sovereignty".
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Wouldn't it be simpler to let the free market decide that?
Absolutely.
No Universal Credit or other wage related welfare for non-citizens and an annual NHS subscription fee. If they still want to come then welcome with open arms, if they only want to come for welfare then no thanks.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Do we really want high skilled immigrants coming in to take the jobs that we or our kids want to progress to? Or do we want to be the customers buying the coffees rather than the one serving? In other words, do we want immigrants that prevent our own upward social mobility?
When all those extra people put a burden on public services they aren't paying enough to cover then we can do without them. Before you say I am wrong when I moved to slough it was white people complaining that schools were inundated with children with a second language that was not english holding their kids back. Now its asian parents complaining about all the kids from eastern europe that don't speak english as a first language holding their kids back. A minimum wage employee doesnt add enough to the treasury to offset that with extra resources, or to hospitals or to doctors surgeries.
As to your argument about competing with our kids its your side that goes on about how all those immigrants help fund other jobs and the lump of labour fallacy.
I can only surmise your view is its alright for the low skilled to have to put up with all that extra competition but you and your kids shouldn't have to. Tough
"When all those extra people put a burden on public services they aren't paying enough to cover then we can do without them"
So long as immigrants work and leave before they get old, then they're highly unlikely to be burdens on the taxpayer. If you look at the British budget, the biggest chunks go on oldies via pensions and the NHS. Other benefits are insignificant compared to those costs.
There's plenty of academic evidence, from all sides of the political debate, on this.
Where I think there are costs that are less well measured, I think it is in areas such as crowding out housing rental markets.
A lot of those academic studies purely look at benefits however as a measure. Just because you are young doesnt mean you dont use public services. Slough schools are full of eastern european children. There parents may be young people but they are still taking money from the pot. Go up to the local hospital saturday night plenty of eu nationals there. Strangely they don't seem any averse to the "saturday night punch up" than brits
For me, this is a genuinely exciting choice between two options that both have much to recommend them. With a deal, we put all the recent uncertainty to bed, people on both sides can take a much needed break from thinking about it - the psychological benefits of the smoothest possible transition are not inconsiderable. Without one, undoubtedly the more exciting option, we galvanise the country around the subject of its own future prosperity in a way not seen since the 1930's. We become an independent, prosperous trading nation. I understand that people aren't as excited as me, and that you don't really enjoy reading this, but it's honestly how I feel.
And to think some people say that Brexit is driven by WW2 nostalgia!
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
That algorithm that works out who are the high value immigrants is a good one.
'German couple behind vaccine are immigrant success story
Scientist couple born to immigrant parents from Turkey are now among Germany's richest 100 people'
Total bollocks because one child of an immigrant out of a 10000 probably becomes a genius doesnt mean the other 9999 are offset. Genius's are rare. I guess your thoughts is we should let in all on the grounds that one or two might have a kid thats a genius
I hate to drag you away from your total bollocks level of discourse, but are immigrants net contributors to or net recipients from the UK economy?
There are both of course, I am happy to have immigrants that are net contributors, I am not happy to have those that are net recipients. Is that so hard to understand?
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Wouldn't it be simpler to let the free market decide that?
Absolutely.
No Universal Credit or other wage related welfare for non-citizens and an annual NHS subscription fee. If they still want to come then welcome with open arms, if they only want to come for welfare then no thanks.
For me, this is a genuinely exciting choice between two options that both have much to recommend them. With a deal, we put all the recent uncertainty to bed, people on both sides can take a much needed break from thinking about it - the psychological benefits of the smoothest possible transition are not inconsiderable. Without one, undoubtedly the more exciting option, we galvanise the country around the subject of its own future prosperity in a way not seen since the 1930's. We become an independent, prosperous trading nation. I understand that people aren't as excited as me, and that you don't really enjoy reading this, but it's honestly how I feel.
And to think some people say that Brexit is driven by WW2 nostalgia!
For me it's more harking back to the spacious days of Good Queen Bess.
Disney's issue is likely to be going overboard, then overcorrecting. Many criticise the Mavel movies as being a bit formulaic and there's some truth in that, but while some were not great, many were and none were outright bad, despite them turning out by the end 3 of them a year. After Solo was a stupefyingly bland Star Wars film they paused on a bunch of side story movies, but frankly, given the absurd scale of the extended Star Wars canon, they could very easily do 1-2 movies a year, and many a series, without exhausting themselves or churning out complete garbage.
Doesn't mean they won't do just that, there's a finite number of good writers, producers and actors out there, but the scale of that over that period doesn't in itself strike a cause for worry.
If truth be told The Mandlorian isnt really that good. Baby Yoda is ace, but the most of the rest of the episodes aren't really that good. There have been 2-3 episodes where baby yoda hardly features and they expose that the show is quite limited without him. There should have been much more directed towards him doing his job as a bounty hunter.
I'd agree on the second series, it's been a bit disappointing. Honestly, as much as I liked the first series it is actually pretty by the numbers (here's the prison break episode, here's the train the villagers episode), it's just very very well produced, and that's enough for me. Star Wars fans have always taken things way too seriously, including on how good the original movies supposedly were. Mate of mine got angry about ships in the movies coming out of lightspeed too close to a planet for heaven's sake.
I think Mando has been terrifically entertaining, not sure what more people want or expect from 30 mins of telly on a Friday night. You are right, people take themselves far too seriously.
On over saturation, of those 10 series one assumes a couple of them are Mando 3-4, a few animated ones, the Ewan McGregor one. Would be good to see a Darth Maul series, he’s my boy’s favourite: “the man with the red face”.
Would still like to see them do something new with the Indians Jones property. A prequel tv series starring Chris Pratt as Indie would be good fun.
Personally I am not interested in formulaic derivatives of films written decades ago. Why not write new characters and stories instead of retreads?
What’s wrong with having new characters and stories set in already loved narrative universes? Star Wars and the MCU are just a canvas to paint stories onto. A few decades ago the popular canvases were world war 2 or the American Wild West.
Sure, they make money, so some people clearly want that sort of thing. Not my cup of tea, I prefer originality and artistc and cultural innovation.
For me, this is a genuinely exciting choice between two options that both have much to recommend them. With a deal, we put all the recent uncertainty to bed, people on both sides can take a much needed break from thinking about it - the psychological benefits of the smoothest possible transition are not inconsiderable. Without one, undoubtedly the more exciting option, we galvanise the country around the subject of its own future prosperity in a way not seen since the 1930's. We become an independent, prosperous trading nation. I understand that people aren't as excited as me, and that you don't really enjoy reading this, but it's honestly how I feel.
Brexit Kool Aid overdose.
Not at all - I've always felt this way and said as much. We have just suffered (and are suffering) the dislocation of a global plague - and doing ok. Problems find solutions. Anyone trading away long term benefits because of fear of short-term disruption isn't thinking straight.
You don’t become a trading nation by walking away from free trade.
Indeed not! Embrace free trade and abolish tariffs on imports. (Seriously)
There's a lot to be said for that policy.
Against it, South Korea has some of the highest published tariffs in the world. It has used the existence of these tariffs to get FTAs with the EU, the US, Japan, China, Australia and India. Indeed, the South Koreans have more FTA partners - in terms of market access - than any other country on the planet.
For me, this is a genuinely exciting choice between two options that both have much to recommend them. With a deal, we put all the recent uncertainty to bed, people on both sides can take a much needed break from thinking about it - the psychological benefits of the smoothest possible transition are not inconsiderable. Without one, undoubtedly the more exciting option, we galvanise the country around the subject of its own future prosperity in a way not seen since the 1930's. We become an independent, prosperous trading nation. I understand that people aren't as excited as me, and that you don't really enjoy reading this, but it's honestly how I feel.
And to think some people say that Brexit is driven by WW2 nostalgia!
For me it's more harking back to the spacious days of Good Queen Bess.
For me, this is a genuinely exciting choice between two options that both have much to recommend them. With a deal, we put all the recent uncertainty to bed, people on both sides can take a much needed break from thinking about it - the psychological benefits of the smoothest possible transition are not inconsiderable. Without one, undoubtedly the more exciting option, we galvanise the country around the subject of its own future prosperity in a way not seen since the 1930's. We become an independent, prosperous trading nation. I understand that people aren't as excited as me, and that you don't really enjoy reading this, but it's honestly how I feel.
And to think some people say that Brexit is driven by WW2 nostalgia!
For me it's more harking back to the spacious days of Good Queen Bess.
However this ends I don’t appreciate having my livelihood and my children’s future being gambled like this.
You euphiles have been gambling with mine and my families for 40 years so tough
How?
Up until 2016, I was minding my own business. I did not stop you going on holiday whether in the EU or at home fully insured against any accidents or illnesses that might occur, much like myself. I did not stop you buying the domestic food and drink that you enjoy and I was allowed to buy exotic continental food and drink that I liked at a reasonable price. I could be educated, work or retire and lose none of the benefits I had paid for previously, or afterwards through my taxes. You could be educated, work or retire anywhere in the UK of your chosing, I wasn't going to stop you. True I didn't much like some of my taxes going on the wasteful CAP, but for the benefits I otherwise gained, well I could live with that.
I did not interfere with how you chose to live your life, you have now made choices for me that interfere with mine. Your imaginery sovereignty comes at a high price to some of us. You won, I accept that, now enjoy your victory lap!
You stopped me voting for any party that might have a manifesto commitment that wouldn't be approved by the eu as none bothered.
You stopped me being able to vote against a party that had a will to bring in a law with that they couldn't get elected on because they could just side step that and get the eu to push it forward
As I told you earlier if Corbyn was elected in 2019 he would have been told by the EU he couldn't implement some of the things that those that voted for him supported.
Nothing after we leave is going to stop you going to france or spain or eating exotic food or even going there to work. At worst you will have some extra paperwork. People did that before the eu, they still go to visit and work in non eu countries and still eat food from non eu countries
Put that way I can see your point.
It would be much harder to vote for totalitarian govts or fascist ones with the Treaty of Rome in your way... I mean look at the trouble the Poles and Hungarians are having at setting up govts that want to sweep away citizens' rights.
I guess I never thought of it that way because I would never think to vote for that type of govt.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
That algorithm that works out who are the high value immigrants is a good one.
'German couple behind vaccine are immigrant success story
Scientist couple born to immigrant parents from Turkey are now among Germany's richest 100 people'
Total bollocks because one child of an immigrant out of a 10000 probably becomes a genius doesnt mean the other 9999 are offset. Genius's are rare. I guess your thoughts is we should let in all on the grounds that one or two might have a kid thats a genius
I hate to drag you away from your total bollocks level of discourse, but are immigrants net contributors to or net recipients from the UK economy?
There are both of course, I am happy to have immigrants that are net contributors, I am not happy to have those that are net recipients. Is that so hard to understand?
How many immigrants do you think are net recipients? Any evidence?
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Do we really want high skilled immigrants coming in to take the jobs that we or our kids want to progress to? Or do we want to be the customers buying the coffees rather than the one serving? In other words, do we want immigrants that prevent our own upward social mobility?
Odd perspective. It’s about wealth creation. Well educated and driven kids are as likely to get a good job working in a business line founded by high skilled immigrants than being outcompeted by them.
I want less well educated kids to have the chance to build wealth too. But they never will if we stay stuck in a labour model where the only pay rise they ever get is an increase to the minimum wage, or an extra 70p per hour to take on management responsibility of the coffee house.
No, I am simply making a case that immigration is resented by those who see themselves being overtaken by the immigrants (there are other reasons too while immigrants are resented, of course).
So do people want immigrant doctors, or do they want an education system where their own children can become doctors? Do they resent more an immigrant living in social housing, or the one who bids up the prices of the nice leafy houses that they want? Do they mind more the immigrant cleaning the factory, or the new immigrant supervisors preventing their own promotion?
Well your choice of doctors is a dodgy one for me. I think it’s a moral outrage that we so readily import doctors and nurses trained at great expense by the developing world without any thought to the consequences in that country. I know loads of straight A people in this country who dreamed their whole lives of being doctors that never even got interviews to medical school. Something super wrong with that.
Exactly my point. People resent skilled immigrants that prevent the social progress of their own kin.
For me, this is a genuinely exciting choice between two options that both have much to recommend them. With a deal, we put all the recent uncertainty to bed, people on both sides can take a much needed break from thinking about it - the psychological benefits of the smoothest possible transition are not inconsiderable. Without one, undoubtedly the more exciting option, we galvanise the country around the subject of its own future prosperity in a way not seen since the 1930's. We become an independent, prosperous trading nation. I understand that people aren't as excited as me, and that you don't really enjoy reading this, but it's honestly how I feel.
I'm happy for your genuine excitement, but perhaps don't want to visualise it too much.
I thought that's what you did visualise, just without the stinky old English.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Do we really want high skilled immigrants coming in to take the jobs that we or our kids want to progress to? Or do we want to be the customers buying the coffees rather than the one serving? In other words, do we want immigrants that prevent our own upward social mobility?
When all those extra people put a burden on public services they aren't paying enough to cover then we can do without them. Before you say I am wrong when I moved to slough it was white people complaining that schools were inundated with children with a second language that was not english holding their kids back. Now its asian parents complaining about all the kids from eastern europe that don't speak english as a first language holding their kids back. A minimum wage employee doesnt add enough to the treasury to offset that with extra resources, or to hospitals or to doctors surgeries.
As to your argument about competing with our kids its your side that goes on about how all those immigrants help fund other jobs and the lump of labour fallacy.
I can only surmise your view is its alright for the low skilled to have to put up with all that extra competition but you and your kids shouldn't have to. Tough
"When all those extra people put a burden on public services they aren't paying enough to cover then we can do without them"
So long as immigrants work and leave before they get old, then they're highly unlikely to be burdens on the taxpayer. If you look at the British budget, the biggest chunks go on oldies via pensions and the NHS. Other benefits are insignificant compared to those costs.
There's plenty of academic evidence, from all sides of the political debate, on this.
Where I think there are costs that are less well measured, I think it is in areas such as crowding out housing rental markets.
A lot of those academic studies purely look at benefits however as a measure. Just because you are young doesnt mean you dont use public services. Slough schools are full of eastern european children. There parents may be young people but they are still taking money from the pot. Go up to the local hospital saturday night plenty of eu nationals there. Strangely they don't seem any averse to the "saturday night punch up" than brits
I'm not denying that there are plenty of EU nationals who get in pub fights, or whose kids go to school.
However, very few people who are in work are net recipients, even including healthcare and family education.
Casualty costs next to nothing relative to oncology. And payments to retirees utterly dwarf payments to people who working age.
For me, this is a genuinely exciting choice between two options that both have much to recommend them. With a deal, we put all the recent uncertainty to bed, people on both sides can take a much needed break from thinking about it - the psychological benefits of the smoothest possible transition are not inconsiderable. Without one, undoubtedly the more exciting option, we galvanise the country around the subject of its own future prosperity in a way not seen since the 1930's. We become an independent, prosperous trading nation. I understand that people aren't as excited as me, and that you don't really enjoy reading this, but it's honestly how I feel.
And to think some people say that Brexit is driven by WW2 nostalgia!
For me it's more harking back to the spacious days of Good Queen Bess.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
That algorithm that works out who are the high value immigrants is a good one.
'German couple behind vaccine are immigrant success story
Scientist couple born to immigrant parents from Turkey are now among Germany's richest 100 people'
Total bollocks because one child of an immigrant out of a 10000 probably becomes a genius doesnt mean the other 9999 are offset. Genius's are rare. I guess your thoughts is we should let in all on the grounds that one or two might have a kid thats a genius
I hate to drag you away from your total bollocks level of discourse, but are immigrants net contributors to or net recipients from the UK economy?
There are both of course, I am happy to have immigrants that are net contributors, I am not happy to have those that are net recipients. Is that so hard to understand?
You know what the meaning of the word net when applied to immigrants is, right?
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
They can shut the doors to forriners. Farage gave the game away with his "Turkey is moving to Essex" poster...
For me, this is a genuinely exciting choice between two options that both have much to recommend them. With a deal, we put all the recent uncertainty to bed, people on both sides can take a much needed break from thinking about it - the psychological benefits of the smoothest possible transition are not inconsiderable. Without one, undoubtedly the more exciting option, we galvanise the country around the subject of its own future prosperity in a way not seen since the 1930's. We become an independent, prosperous trading nation. I understand that people aren't as excited as me, and that you don't really enjoy reading this, but it's honestly how I feel.
Brexit Kool Aid overdose.
Not at all - I've always felt this way and said as much. We have just suffered (and are suffering) the dislocation of a global plague - and doing ok. Problems find solutions. Anyone trading away long term benefits because of fear of short-term disruption isn't thinking straight.
You don’t become a trading nation by walking away from free trade.
Indeed not! Embrace free trade and abolish tariffs on imports. (Seriously)
There's a lot to be said for that policy.
Against it, South Korea has some of the highest published tariffs in the world. It has used the existence of these tariffs to get FTAs with the EU, the US, Japan, China, Australia and India. Indeed, the South Koreans have more FTA partners - in terms of market access - than any other country on the planet.
"Free Trade" has always favoured the economically and militarily powerful. That was why we favoured it in Victoria times, only shifting to Imperial preference in the 1930s when more potent competitors reversed our advantage.
"Europe has almost never operated a level playing field. The closest it ever came to it was when the bloc was just a handful of countries of broadly similar income and social security arrangements, and even back then, things were about as level as the Scottish highlands. “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” backroom deals and trade-offs have always offered a high degree of protection and competitive advantage for particular national interests. In any case, any pretence at free and fair competition between comparable economies disappeared the moment the EU opened its doors to Europe’s outer reaches. Where were the level playing field constraints on German car manufacturers shifting production to low cost Eastern Europe, or indeed cheap Eastern European labour overwhelming the more prosperous European north? Levelling down, rather than up, became the unintended consequence of the day.
As it is, the UK has some of the most taxing environmental, animal welfare and labour market standards in Europe, with one of the highest minimum wages and now by far the most ambitious target for reducing greenhouse gases.
Perhaps Brussels is right to fear the creation of a low cost, low tax sweatshop on its own doorstep, but if that’s the view, it is almost wholly unsupported by the evidence. There is no majority political constituency in Britain for that kind of future. If it ever came to pass, it would ironically be made more likely by a no-deal outcome, with Europe’s supposed tariff protections arbitraged away by UK currency adjustment and tax breaks to attract international investment. If there was ever a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face, the EU is it."
For me, this is a genuinely exciting choice between two options that both have much to recommend them. With a deal, we put all the recent uncertainty to bed, people on both sides can take a much needed break from thinking about it - the psychological benefits of the smoothest possible transition are not inconsiderable. Without one, undoubtedly the more exciting option, we galvanise the country around the subject of its own future prosperity in a way not seen since the 1930's. We become an independent, prosperous trading nation. I understand that people aren't as excited as me, and that you don't really enjoy reading this, but it's honestly how I feel.
And to think some people say that Brexit is driven by WW2 nostalgia!
For me it's more harking back to the spacious days of Good Queen Bess.
Luvvin' the England, this sceptred isle vibe.
When the UK breaks up in a few years time, we should apply market forces and let everyone in the UK decide which of the British Isles nation they wish to belong to.
I'll be opting to become a citizen of a Scotland committed to rejoining the EU, just saying.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
That algorithm that works out who are the high value immigrants is a good one.
'German couple behind vaccine are immigrant success story
Scientist couple born to immigrant parents from Turkey are now among Germany's richest 100 people'
Total bollocks because one child of an immigrant out of a 10000 probably becomes a genius doesnt mean the other 9999 are offset. Genius's are rare. I guess your thoughts is we should let in all on the grounds that one or two might have a kid thats a genius
I hate to drag you away from your total bollocks level of discourse, but are immigrants net contributors to or net recipients from the UK economy?
There are both of course, I am happy to have immigrants that are net contributors, I am not happy to have those that are net recipients. Is that so hard to understand?
How many immigrants do you think are net recipients? Any evidence?
Quite a lot. Most studies have put the total addition to gdp of immigration as about 2%, considering they are now numbered as a percentage as a lot more %age of the population (approx 5.5%) then then obviously there are many net recipients offsetting the net contributors
Comments
I mean we had predictions that Japan, South Korea and Canada would all give the UK worse terms of trade than the EU but that all turned out to be bullshit with all three interested in extending the current deals into new areas of digital and financial services similar to what we've just achieved with Singapore.
I think you just haven't got a clue about how international trade actually works. You don't need a trade deal to trade with a specific country and in none of these cases is one necessary.
I do not say this lightly but McConnell is a truly evil human being.
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1337039575726895106?s=20
Yes, there are things that the EU will not bend on, and things the UK will not bend on, and things both said they would not bend on which they did in fact end up bending on, and there will have been more from one side than another, but there are also things there were there to be cherry picked, which is why they've spent all bloody year talking about things rather than just calling it quits after day one. Occasionally people will at least remember to be specific about what is not to be cherry picked, but that's pretty rare, instead treating it as an inviolable universal law.
I suggest that your analysis is missing a crucial point. The EU is suggesting that, in the event of their believing there to be a divergence, they get to apply penalties as they see fit, with no equivalent the other way around. That is too one sided and open to political abuse. If the approach involved challenge, evidence, penalties linked to the level of divergence and a robust appeal mechanism, to a neutral third party, then we could accept that. How or who could do that is, of course, moot.
You are missing 'corrupt'.
On over saturation, of those 10 series one assumes a couple of them are Mando 3-4, a few animated ones, the Ewan McGregor one. Would be good to see a Darth Maul series, he’s my boy’s favourite: “the man with the red face”.
Would still like to see them do something new with the Indians Jones property. A prequel tv series starring Chris Pratt as Indie would be good fun.
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1337165638129889290?s=19
But they're also fiercely independent minded.
And all of them are looking at their place in the history books. Which of them wants to throw the US into civil war (and it would be civil war) on the flimsiest of pretences.
The crazy bit is, of course, than the plaintiffs don't believe the election was fraudulent, they just want to look like big Trump supporters.
'German couple behind vaccine are immigrant success story
Scientist couple born to immigrant parents from Turkey are now among Germany's richest 100 people'
https://tinyurl.com/y5tdtgk8
I want less well educated kids to have the chance to build wealth too. But they never will if we stay stuck in a labour model where the only pay rise they ever get is an increase to the minimum wage, or an extra 70p per hour to take on management responsibility of the coffee house.
As to your argument about competing with our kids its your side that goes on about how all those immigrants help fund other jobs and the lump of labour fallacy.
I can only surmise your view is its alright for the low skilled to have to put up with all that extra competition but you and your kids shouldn't have to. Tough
https://twitter.com/HackedOffHugh/status/1337168935960064000?s=20
Night all
Up until 2016, I was minding my own business. I did not stop you going on holiday whether in the EU or at home fully insured against any accidents or illnesses that might occur, much like myself. I did not stop you buying the domestic food and drink that you enjoy and I was allowed to buy exotic continental food and drink that I liked at a reasonable price. I could be educated, work or retire and lose none of the benefits I had paid for previously, or afterwards through my taxes. You could be educated, work or retire anywhere in the UK of your chosing, I wasn't going to stop you. True I didn't much like some of my taxes going on the wasteful CAP, but for the benefits I otherwise gained, well I could live with that.
I did not interfere with how you chose to live your life, you have now made choices for me that interfere with mine. Your imaginery sovereignty comes at a high price to some of us. You won, I accept that, now enjoy your victory lap!
No Universal Credit or other wage related welfare for non-citizens and an annual NHS subscription fee. If they still want to come then welcome with open arms, if they only want to come for welfare then no thanks.
Now, that doesn't mean that I think we've been great; I think the internal markets bill got everyone's back up (and was also contrary to a bunch of other treaties we are signatories to). I also think there are things that are standard in FTAs, that we are arguing the toss about with the EU, which frankly we shouldn't have.
But fundamentally, I think the EU has behaved quite poorly, particularly over fish. Ultimately, it's our coastal waters and our fish. And blackmailing us to get a (large) share is not good behaviour.
Getting away from 4 is the very reason we took back control, it isn't a compromise.
So do people want immigrant doctors, or do they want an education system where their own children can become doctors? Do they resent more an immigrant living in social housing, or the one who bids up the prices of the nice leafy houses that they want? Do they mind more the immigrant cleaning the factory, or the new immigrant supervisors preventing their own promotion?
It’s cult like levels of denial.
You stopped me being able to vote against a party that had a will to bring in a law with that they couldn't get elected on because they could just side step that and get the eu to push it forward
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-used-bypass-national-democracy-home-office-minister-admits-a6680341.html
As I told you earlier if Corbyn was elected in 2019 he would have been told by the EU he couldn't implement some of the things that those that voted for him supported.
Nothing after we leave is going to stop you going to france or spain or eating exotic food or even going there to work. At worst you will have some extra paperwork. People did that before the eu, they still go to visit and work in non eu countries and still eat food from non eu countries
So long as immigrants work and leave before they get old, then they're highly unlikely to be burdens on the taxpayer. If you look at the British budget, the biggest chunks go on oldies via pensions and the NHS. Other benefits are insignificant compared to those costs.
There's plenty of academic evidence, from all sides of the political debate, on this.
Where I think there are costs that are less well measured, I think it is in areas such as crowding out housing rental markets.
I also think it odd after all these years that very smart people like yourself can’t accept that there are some societal benefits to Brexit, namely in this case to exert upward pressure on the wages of low skilled British workers. I can see the advantages of being an EU member, as well as the disadvantages. Why is it so hard for you to do the same?
Those fishing in what we are declaring as UK waters have often been doing so for centuries. When we joined the EU, we only controlled the seas to 3 miles offshore. Indeed we clashed with Iceland and saw as unreasonable the extension of their territorial waters to 50 miles then 200 miles. Prior to 1982, It was a strong British principle to have freedom of the seas outside that narrow limit.
We don't discuss it enough on here!
I have already been told I can't afford exotic French cheeses in my own country. I can't afford to retire to Southern France as planned. I won't even get basic healthcare for a holiday to Southern France without insurance which, if I have a myriad of conditions will not be available to me.
I don't care about political theorising. I was living my life how I wanted, and now I cannot, because you wanted an intangible called "sovereignty".
Against it, South Korea has some of the highest published tariffs in the world. It has used the existence of these tariffs to get FTAs with the EU, the US, Japan, China, Australia and India. Indeed, the South Koreans have more FTA partners - in terms of market access - than any other country on the planet.
In your opinion. No historic evidence for that though is there?
It is the equivalent of man leaving a marriage for fear of commitment and a desire to revisit a rose tinted vision of bachelorhood that never was.
It would be much harder to vote for totalitarian govts or fascist ones with the Treaty of Rome in your way... I mean look at the trouble the Poles and Hungarians are having at setting up govts that want to sweep away citizens' rights.
I guess I never thought of it that way because I would never think to vote for that type of govt.
What odds on a pardon?
However, very few people who are in work are net recipients, even including healthcare and family education.
Casualty costs next to nothing relative to oncology. And payments to retirees utterly dwarf payments to people who working age.
At least it isn't Brexit.
https://twitter.com/JohnAnzo/status/1337162814214074368?s=19
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/12/10/vindictive-eu-harms-turning-brexit-punishment/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
It's behind a paywall, so I'll quote selectively:
"Europe has almost never operated a level playing field. The closest it ever came to it was when the bloc was just a handful of countries of broadly similar income and social security arrangements, and even back then, things were about as level as the Scottish highlands. “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” backroom deals and trade-offs have always offered a high degree of protection and competitive advantage for particular national interests. In any case, any pretence at free and fair competition between comparable economies disappeared the moment the EU opened its doors to Europe’s outer reaches. Where were the level playing field constraints on German car manufacturers shifting production to low cost Eastern Europe, or indeed cheap Eastern European labour overwhelming the more prosperous European north? Levelling down, rather than up, became the unintended consequence of the day.
As it is, the UK has some of the most taxing environmental, animal welfare and labour market standards in Europe, with one of the highest minimum wages and now by far the most ambitious target for reducing greenhouse gases.
Perhaps Brussels is right to fear the creation of a low cost, low tax sweatshop on its own doorstep, but if that’s the view, it is almost wholly unsupported by the evidence. There is no majority political constituency in Britain for that kind of future. If it ever came to pass, it would ironically be made more likely by a no-deal outcome, with Europe’s supposed tariff protections arbitraged away by UK currency adjustment and tax breaks to attract international investment. If there was ever a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face, the EU is it."
I'll be opting to become a citizen of a Scotland committed to rejoining the EU, just saying.