politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s Migration dilemma

Pulpstar said:

Hartlepool and Stoke sound well within reach to UKIP now

Perhaps, but unless UKIP can do serious well it's just going to impact Labour/Tory races.

Jonathan said:

Has Paul Nuttall resigned yet?

PlatoSaid said:

Bruno Waterfield
Oh dear. @EU_Commission lectures Czechs for having a “narrow” view of Castro - the Cuban leader supported the crushing of the Prague Spring

EU Commision does not speak with one voice shocker:

https://twitter.com/MalmstromEU/status/802489197659619328?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Pulpstar said:

Hartlepool and Stoke sound well within reach to UKIP now

Perhaps, but unless UKIP can do serious well it's just going to impact Labour/Tory races.

That was enough to gain them the promise of the Brexit referendum.

Recidivist said:

PlatoSaid said:

I can't think of an issue that totally demonstrates the yawning gulf between the majority of Labour front benchers and their core vote outside Islington than this.

It's visceral stuff that can't be handwaved away or smothered with name calling.

Except it isn't that simple. We keep hearing about the white working class, but just have a look at what it looks like nowadays. I'll be meeting my white working class family members on the south coast this Xmas. Most of us look like the Anglo Saxons who beat the Britons at nearby Pevensey Castle in the fifth century and may well have been here ever since. But they'll be a couple of North African muslims that have married in and an American jew flying in from Berlin. The plain fact is that the white working class isn't all that white any more. Any policy on immigration is going to offend somebody, especially if it involves sending current residents back. It's easy to mock Corbyn, but that is about the only easy thing about this issue. There is plenty that Theresa May can do to get it wrong.

Labour don't need a policy of sending anyone back just a sensible control on low skilled migration from wihin and outside the e.u. Some wwc supporters won't be satisfoed with this but enough will be to hold on to their current seats and they will gain new ones with other sensible policies.

It really is not that hard.

PlatoSaid said:

Bruno Waterfield
Oh dear. @EU_Commission lectures Czechs for having a “narrow” view of Castro - the Cuban leader supported the crushing of the Prague Spring

And what did the US government do about it?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Divvie, that'll probably play well with his target audience. Be interesting to see if Nutall proposes an English Parliament.

Having lost the EU as a hate figure, I guess UKIP will now move onto hating the Scots and then the Northern Irish and then the Welsh...

Haters gonna hate.

@TheUnionDivvie If he's not an Olympic fencer, I'm not interested.

SandyRentool said:

PlatoSaid said:

SandyRentool said:

Outside of the Islington bubble, the party is waking up to what actually matters to working class voters.

My timeline is rammed full of journalists sneering and cheap point scoring about UKIP and Nuttal.

I thought after Brexit, the penny would drop - it didn't. Then after Trump... and it didn't. And now Nuttal and they resort to silly playground name-calling.

I honestly don't think they'll ever get it until Labour get wiped out a la SNP in Scotland. And even then they still won't get it.

It's such an entrenched groupthink mindset that they reinforce to each other.

They need to talk to their journo colleagues on regional papers like The Northern Echo. Then they might start to get it.

UKIP have almost one MP and around 11% in the polls. They have been losing councillors and support in elections since the GE.
What's to 'get'?
http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

logical_song said:

SandyRentool said:

PlatoSaid said:

SandyRentool said:

Outside of the Islington bubble, the party is waking up to what actually matters to working class voters.

My timeline is rammed full of journalists sneering and cheap point scoring about UKIP and Nuttal.

I thought after Brexit, the penny would drop - it didn't. Then after Trump... and it didn't. And now Nuttal and they resort to silly playground name-calling.

I honestly don't think they'll ever get it until Labour get wiped out a la SNP in Scotland. And even then they still won't get it.

It's such an entrenched groupthink mindset that they reinforce to each other.

They need to talk to their journo colleagues on regional papers like The Northern Echo. Then they might start to get it.

UKIP have almost one MP and around 11% in the polls. They have been losing councillors and support in elections since the GE.
What's to 'get'?
http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

Labour's polling position would be immeasurably improved by taking 5% back off UKIP.

logical_song said:

SandyRentool said:

PlatoSaid said:

SandyRentool said:

Outside of the Islington bubble, the party is waking up to what actually matters to working class voters.

My timeline is rammed full of journalists sneering and cheap point scoring about UKIP and Nuttal.

I thought after Brexit, the penny would drop - it didn't. Then after Trump... and it didn't. And now Nuttal and they resort to silly playground name-calling.

I honestly don't think they'll ever get it until Labour get wiped out a la SNP in Scotland. And even then they still won't get it.

It's such an entrenched groupthink mindset that they reinforce to each other.

They need to talk to their journo colleagues on regional papers like The Northern Echo. Then they might start to get it.

UKIP have almost one MP and around 11% in the polls. They have been losing councillors and support in elections since the GE.
What's to 'get'?
http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

What is to get is that the centre-left/left isn't addressing the issues that concern the typical working class traditionally Labour-voting family across the country. Blair thought that these voters 'has nowhere else to go'; he was wrong.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Pulpstar said:

Hartlepool and Stoke sound well within reach to UKIP now

Perhaps, but unless UKIP can do serious well it's just going to impact Labour/Tory races.

I don't think Nuttal does anything in Labour / Tory races. His entire raison d'etre is for UKIP to do in traditional Labour voting heartlands of the Midlands and North what the SNP did in Scotland.

And chances are that is exactly what he will do...

TheWhiteRabbit said:

logical_song said:

SandyRentool said:

PlatoSaid said:

SandyRentool said:

Outside of the Islington bubble, the party is waking up to what actually matters to working class voters.

My timeline is rammed full of journalists sneering and cheap point scoring about UKIP and Nuttal.

I thought after Brexit, the penny would drop - it didn't. Then after Trump... and it didn't. And now Nuttal and they resort to silly playground name-calling.

I honestly don't think they'll ever get it until Labour get wiped out a la SNP in Scotland. And even then they still won't get it.

It's such an entrenched groupthink mindset that they reinforce to each other.

They need to talk to their journo colleagues on regional papers like The Northern Echo. Then they might start to get it.

UKIP have almost one MP and around 11% in the polls. They have been losing councillors and support in elections since the GE.
What's to 'get'?
http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

Labour's polling position would be immeasurably improved by taking 5% back off UKIP.

And destroyed if UKIP take another 5% of Labour...

I suspect the latter is more likely than the former at the moment.

AlastairMeeks said:

@TheUnionDivvie If he's not an Olympic fencer, I'm not interested.

Mr Whittle, if not an Olympian, may be a closeted fencer. Further research definitely required.

logical_song said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

logical_song said:

SandyRentool said:

PlatoSaid said:

SandyRentool said:

Outside of the Islington bubble, the party is waking up to what actually matters to working class voters.

My timeline is rammed full of journalists sneering and cheap point scoring about UKIP and Nuttal.

I thought after Brexit, the penny would drop - it didn't. Then after Trump... and it didn't. And now Nuttal and they resort to silly playground name-calling.

I honestly don't think they'll ever get it until Labour get wiped out a la SNP in Scotland. And even then they still won't get it.

It's such an entrenched groupthink mindset that they reinforce to each other.

They need to talk to their journo colleagues on regional papers like The Northern Echo. Then they might start to get it.

UKIP have almost one MP and around 11% in the polls. They have been losing councillors and support in elections since the GE.
What's to 'get'?
http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

Labour's polling position would be immeasurably improved by taking 5% back off UKIP.

True, but Labour have also been losing support since the GE.

Something which is unusual for the main opposition party to be achieving at this stage in the electoral cycle.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/renireni/status/802828652442484736

must be one of those Latvian homophobes

edmundintokyo said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

I wonder how easy it would be to federalise immigration/work permits to a regional level in the UK?

Theoretically London and Scotland could retain free movement of people, and NI numbers could be developed to allow workers to only find employment with companies in certain areas, while other areas could develop quota's.

Could this be the hallowed 'middle ground' between free market access and controls on EU immigration? Or a bureaucratic nightmare?

It's an interesting thought. IIUC the LibDems were advocating a regional immigration policy, and you could take it to another level with local referendums and thing. The bureaucracy would be a huge waste of time and money but then all immigration bureaucracy is a huge waste of time and money.

The political difficulty is that the voters think that immigration is something that can be controlled at the border, and will find the idea of controlling it somewhere else unintuitive. To make matters worse there would be more than zero people who worked where they weren't supposed to, and the press would find these people and make it look like it was happening all the time.

1. Has to be done through work permits.
2. Start to charge the employer £10k per work permit.
Problem of regional working can then be managed and the system would be revenue positive.

RochdalePioneers said:

Labour have had a problem with immigration for at least 20 years - when the economy was booming there was a big pull factor and the public didn't seem too bothered. Once the skids come off suddenly its a big problem because "They Took Our Jobs".

We fix the immigration question by fixing the economy. People who have a job that pays the bills are less bothered about migration - and having done a fair bit of door knocking in 90% white areas a lot of the "migrants" they are worried about aren't living where they are.

But anyway it doesn't matter. UKIP have finally appointed the right leader, he will unahamedly play the race card and UKIP will clean up across the North and Midlands. Amongst all the chaos of 2016 - a world that seems too scary complex and depressing - they want softly spoken magic spells not longer term complex solutions.

I do not agree that Labour voters in the Midlands and North have been waiting for a hardline right-winger with a regional accent to play the race card before they abandon the Labour party.

SouthamObserver said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Labour have had a problem with immigration for at least 20 years - when the economy was booming there was a big pull factor and the public didn't seem too bothered. Once the skids come off suddenly its a big problem because "They Took Our Jobs".

We fix the immigration question by fixing the economy. People who have a job that pays the bills are less bothered about migration - and having done a fair bit of door knocking in 90% white areas a lot of the "migrants" they are worried about aren't living where they are.

But anyway it doesn't matter. UKIP have finally appointed the right leader, he will unahamedly play the race card and UKIP will clean up across the North and Midlands. Amongst all the chaos of 2016 - a world that seems too scary complex and depressing - they want softly spoken magic spells not longer term complex solutions.

I do not agree that Labour voters in the Midlands and North have been waiting for a hardline right-winger with a regional accent to play the race card before they abandon the Labour party.

On economic policy UKIP are not right wing.

Bishop Auckland, 2015 Result:

Conservative: 12799 (32.5%)
Labour: 16307 (41.4%)
Lib Dem: 1723 (4.4%)
Green: 1545 (3.9%)
UKIP: 7015 (17.8%)
MAJORITY: 3508 (8.9%)

So if the Kippers take another slice of the Labour vote, the LibDems get a bit of an anti-Jezza bounce-back and the Tories take the votes from the people buying all of the nice new houses, Con gain.

(For illustration purposes only - I know the boundaries are changing)

williamglenn said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

On economic policy UKIP are not right wing.

On policy UKIP are hardly coherent.

Didn't seem to cause Trump any issues...

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/renireni/status/802828652442484736

must be one of those Latvian homophobes

Nah an English leaver.

Was in Bolton, complaining about plans for a new mosque.

Apparently they are the English Knights Templar.

Bunch of twats if you ask me. They worship a bloody foreigner from Muslimistan as England's patron saint.

SouthamObserver said:

Working class Labour voters are not suddenly going to vote for a party led by a hardline right-winger who is opposed to trade unions and wants to privatise the NHS just because he has a Scouse accent. There is undoubtedly a huge open goal for UKIP in the North and Midlands, but the party has to move left and it has to start working hard on a constituency by constituency level to make the breakthroughs. That's what the SNP did in Scotland. It was not enough for Labour to be useless, voters had to see that the alternative was worth the bother.

They won't see him as right wing. On issues like unions and the NHS I'm not sure that normal punters care enough. We campaigned on the EU vote on protecting employee rights - so many people said they weren't interested, or that we were lying, or that immigration is the only issue.

The joy of UKIP is that they are all things to all people. I honestly don;t know what their position is on various topics and I don't think their target voters care. What they do know is that they no longer trust us and can't vote Tory and that doesn't leave them much choice. If Nuttall chooses his words carefully and pitches the UKIP message to non-southern non-posh voters, they will decimate Labour. We are seriously vulnerable to them across swathes of England.

SouthamObserver said:

Working class Labour voters are not suddenly going to vote for a party led by a hardline right-winger who is opposed to trade unions and wants to privatise the NHS just because he has a Scouse accent. There is undoubtedly a huge open goal for UKIP in the North and Midlands, but the party has to move left and it has to start working hard on a constituency by constituency level to make the breakthroughs. That's what the SNP did in Scotland. It was not enough for Labour to be useless, voters had to see that the alternative was worth the bother.

Give it time. I expect this will happen.

On topic, there is no dilemma. Parties exist to develop & fight for a body of values. If loyal voters dont agree with those values then you need to talk with them. Labours problems on this come from decades when they havent been trying to persuade "their" voters. In many Safe Seats Labour havent been talking to voters at all. Too often appeals to Class loyalty replace discussion of values.

logical_song said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'd expect that the average potential UKIP voter will continue to believe that Nigel Farage is UKIP leader for a long time to come. In substance it's entirely possible that they would be right as well.

Only if he continues as head of the UKIP MEPs.

Why are there any UKIP MEPs any more? Anybody would think that they were only there for the pay and allowances.

They were always there for the pay and allowances amongst other things.
Now, bar a bit of Farage gloating & internecine fisticuffs, it's the ONLY reason.

MarqueeMark said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

logical_song said:

SandyRentool said:

PlatoSaid said:

SandyRentool said:

Outside of the Islington bubble, the party is waking up to what actually matters to working class voters.

My timeline is rammed full of journalists sneering and cheap point scoring about UKIP and Nuttal.

I thought after Brexit, the penny would drop - it didn't. Then after Trump... and it didn't. And now Nuttal and they resort to silly playground name-calling.

I honestly don't think they'll ever get it until Labour get wiped out a la SNP in Scotland. And even then they still won't get it.

It's such an entrenched groupthink mindset that they reinforce to each other.

They need to talk to their journo colleagues on regional papers like The Northern Echo. Then they might start to get it.

UKIP have almost one MP and around 11% in the polls. They have been losing councillors and support in elections since the GE.
What's to 'get'?
http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

Labour's polling position would be immeasurably improved by taking 5% back off UKIP.

In doing that, they'd have to adopt policies that would lose 5% to the LibDems/Greens....

Adding votes without losing votes is what a functioning political party does.

The Tories have swept up some UKIP votes without losing votes to the LDs.

SouthamObserver said:

Working class Labour voters are not suddenly going to vote for a party led by a hardline right-winger who is opposed to trade unions and wants to privatise the NHS just because he has a Scouse accent. There is undoubtedly a huge open goal for UKIP in the North and Midlands, but the party has to move left and it has to start working hard on a constituency by constituency level to make the breakthroughs. That's what the SNP did in Scotland. It was not enough for Labour to be useless, voters had to see that the alternative was worth the bother.

They said that about Nigel and he delivered a lot of votes for UKIP in the north.

Very strong rumours that the UK will today announce it will ratify the Unified Patent Court agreement. If that is the case - and it is not yet confirmed - it would imply a softer rather than a harder Brexit. It would certainly mean the UK ceding sovereignty to non-UK courts and agreeing that the ECJ would be the ultimate court of appeal.

SouthamObserver said:

Very strong rumours that the UK will today announce it will ratify the Unified Patent Court agreement. If that is the case - and it is not yet confirmed - it would imply a softer rather than a harder Brexit. It would certainly mean the UK ceding sovereignty to non-UK courts and agreeing that the ECJ would be the ultimate court of appeal.

If this were happening after a Remain vote people would be saying it's proof that we were conned, there's no status quo and we're now being fast-tracked to deeper integration...

williamglenn said:

I didn't expect such a big policy announcement so soon... Nuttall comes out in favour of small-b brexit.

https://twitter.com/paulnuttallukip/status/803209450081439744

Ha!

In all seriousness, I am Growing to despise that phrase. Even by political standards it means nothing. Of course Brexit means we must Brexit, that is (voting for)Brexit means (we will)Brexit, but everyone can see plain as day that what most of those who say it mean is (only my)Brexit means (proper)Brexit.

There will be people advocating softer Brexits who, in their hearts, are hoping Brexit will not happen at all, but it would be wrong to suggest that anyone holding that position does not intend to leave. I'd prefer a more honest Brexit must mean Full Brexit or Complete Brexit as a slogan, it actually means something, even if one can quibble over it still.

williamglenn said:

I didn't expect such a big policy announcement so soon... Nuttall comes out in favour of small-b brexit.

https://twitter.com/paulnuttallukip/status/803209450081439744

Ha!

In all seriousness, I am Growing to despise that phrase. Even by political standards it means nothing. Of course Brexit means we must Brexit, that is (voting for)Brexit means (we will)Brexit, but everyone can see plain as day that what most of those who say it mean is (only my)Brexit means (proper)Brexit.

There will be people advocating softer Brexits who, in their hearts, are hoping Brexit will not happen at all, but it would be wrong to suggest that anyone holding that position does not intend to leave. I'd prefer a more honest Brexit must mean Full Brexit or Complete Brexit as a slogan, it actually means something, even if one can quibble over it still.

SouthamObserver said:

RochdalePioneers said:

SouthamObserver said:

Working class Labour voters are not suddenly going to vote for a party led by a hardline right-winger who is opposed to trade unions and wants to privatise the NHS just because he has a Scouse accent. There is undoubtedly a huge open goal for UKIP in the North and Midlands, but the party has to move left and it has to start working hard on a constituency by constituency level to make the breakthroughs. That's what the SNP did in Scotland. It was not enough for Labour to be useless, voters had to see that the alternative was worth the bother.

They won't see him as right wing. On issues like unions and the NHS I'm not sure that normal punters care enough. We campaigned on the EU vote on protecting employee rights - so many people said they weren't interested, or that we were lying, or that immigration is the only issue.

The joy of UKIP is that they are all things to all people. I honestly don;t know what their position is on various topics and I don't think their target voters care. What they do know is that they no longer trust us and can't vote Tory and that doesn't leave them much choice. If Nuttall chooses his words carefully and pitches the UKIP message to non-southern non-posh voters, they will decimate Labour. We are seriously vulnerable to them across swathes of England.

I think that UKIP is more likely to deliver many Labour seats to the Tories.

And when I say vulnerable to UKIP thats what it means in a lot of seats. UKIP could win places like Hartlepool but in the rest it just means splitting the non-Tory vote and letting them into places not seen since 1987. From our perspective it doesn't matter whether the MP has a Blue or Purple rosette, its the same difference.

SouthamObserver said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

SouthamObserver said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Labour have had a problem with immigration for at least 20 years - when the economy was booming there was a big pull factor and the public didn't seem too bothered. Once the skids come off suddenly its a big problem because "They Took Our Jobs".

We fix the immigration question by fixing the economy. People who have a job that pays the bills are less bothered about migration - and having done a fair bit of door knocking in 90% white areas a lot of the "migrants" they are worried about aren't living where they are.

But anyway it doesn't matter. UKIP have finally appointed the right leader, he will unahamedly play the race card and UKIP will clean up across the North and Midlands. Amongst all the chaos of 2016 - a world that seems too scary complex and depressing - they want softly spoken magic spells not longer term complex solutions.

I do not agree that Labour voters in the Midlands and North have been waiting for a hardline right-winger with a regional accent to play the race card before they abandon the Labour party.

On economic policy UKIP are not right wing.

Wanting to privatise the NHS is pretty right wing.

Where in its 2015 Manifesto did UKIP say that it wanted to privatise the NHS?
"UKIP will not continue to privatise the NHS by the back door, as both Labour and the Conservatives have done. We will end the use of PFI contracts within the NHS."
http://www.ukip.org/manifesto2015

Evan McMullin Verified account
‏@Evan_McMullin

Evan McMullin Retweeted Donald J. Trump

It should not go unrecognized that @realDonaldTrump's effort to inflate his election performance without cause is typical of autocrats.

edmundintokyo said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

edmundintokyo said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

I wonder how easy it would be to federalise immigration/work permits to a regional level in the UK?

Theoretically London and Scotland could retain free movement of people, and NI numbers could be developed to allow workers to only find employment with companies in certain areas, while other areas could develop quota's.

Could this be the hallowed 'middle ground' between free market access and controls on EU immigration? Or a bureaucratic nightmare?

It's an interesting thought. IIUC the LibDems were advocating a regional immigration policy, and you could take it to another level with local referendums and thing. The bureaucracy would be a huge waste of time and money but then all immigration bureaucracy is a huge waste of time and money.

The political difficulty is that the voters think that immigration is something that can be controlled at the border, and will find the idea of controlling it somewhere else unintuitive. To make matters worse there would be more than zero people who worked where they weren't supposed to, and the press would find these people and make it look like it was happening all the time.

1. Has to be done through work permits.
2. Start to charge the employer £10k peir work permit.
Problem of regional working can then be managed and the system would be revenue positive.

If you make this properly local, and the revenue stays local, it sets up quite an interesting dynamic where towns and cities compete with each other to attract immigrants. The extra twist is that you allow the locality to set the price of the permit, and they can compete on price as well.

But like I say I don't think you can do it without first somehow disabusing the voters of the view that nasty foreign things can be kept out at the border. There's quite a deeply-rooted cognitive illusion at work here, which is why management will happily spend a lot of money on firewall hardware even when they don't want to pay for useful security.

I have worked in countries with work permit systems. In the Cayman Islands more than half the work force are foreign, but all are on work permits. Some permits for high paying jobs cost £20,000 pa. None provide free NHS or free education. Since the foreigners get no state benefits they do not consume state medical or state educational services that Caymanians enjoy.

I remember these in the 1970s in student rooms.

James Forsyth ✔ @JGForsyth
Corbyn’s reaction to Castro’s death, highlights the opportunity 4 Paul Nuttall’s Ukip: How many Labour heartland voters put Che posters up?

TCPoliticalBetting said:

edmundintokyo said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

edmundintokyo said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

I wonder how easy it would be to federalise immigration/work permits to a regional level in the UK?

Theoretically London and Scotland could retain free movement of people, and NI numbers could be developed to allow workers to only find employment with companies in certain areas, while other areas could develop quota's.

Could this be the hallowed 'middle ground' between free market access and controls on EU immigration? Or a bureaucratic nightmare?

It's an interesting thought. IIUC the LibDems were advocating a regional immigration policy, and you could take it to another level with local referendums and thing. The bureaucracy would be a huge waste of time and money but then all immigration bureaucracy is a huge waste of time and money.

The political difficulty is that the voters think that immigration is something that can be controlled at the border, and will find the idea of controlling it somewhere else unintuitive. To make matters worse there would be more than zero people who worked where they weren't supposed to, and the press would find these people and make it look like it was happening all the time.

1. Has to be done through work permits.
2. Start to charge the employer £10k peir work permit.
Problem of regional working can then be managed and the system would be revenue positive.

If you make this properly local, and the revenue stays local, it sets up quite an interesting dynamic where towns and cities compete with each other to attract immigrants. The extra twist is that you allow the locality to set the price of the permit, and they can compete on price as well.

But like I say I don't think you can do it without first somehow disabusing the voters of the view that nasty foreign things can be kept out at the border. There's quite a deeply-rooted cognitive illusion at work here, which is why management will happily spend a lot of money on firewall hardware even when they don't want to pay for useful security.

I have worked in countries with work permit systems. In the Cayman Islands more than half the work force are foreign, but all are on work permits. Some permits for high paying jobs cost £20,000 pa. None provide free NHS or free education. Since the foreigners get no state benefits they do not consume state medical or state educational services that Caymanians enjoy.

I imagine the Cayman government have leeway to optimize for revenue, whereas the British government has to optimize for Daily Mail headlines.

The other political problem is how voters who live outside Britain are going to feel about those countries reciprocating.

CD13 said:

I know we have a few law experts on here (boo, boo, hiss, hiss), so what's the latest challenge to Art 50 about?

Can we legally remain in the EEA if we exit the EU? Could we then control our own borders if we did that? If we remain in the EEA, do we have to pay?

I suspect the answers are No, No, and Yes?

The answers are:
- Yes (You do not have to be a member of the EU to be in the EEA; see Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein for examples)
- To a degree (We do not apply all the border controls we may apply as an EU member, let alone an EEA member - for example, we do not carry out exit checks. In addition, "Free Movement" is a wider term than many want to admit from either side. Further to that, Article 112 of the EEA agreement allows for a temporary suspension of Free Movement in any case, subject to agreement - Liechtenstein has exercised this "temporary" measure since 1998)
- Yes, based on GDP. Using a comparison with Norway, our per-capita contribution should be about £96 million per week (compare with the £350 million per week from THE BUS)

I find it remarkable that post Brexit that there is still such a reluctance to recognise that the benefits of immigration are almost entirely gained by a metropolitan elite and the disbenefits are almost entirely borne by the victims of our inadequate education systems and the generally feckless.

Immigration undoubtedly helped boost GDP for the UK and it is no coincidence that during a period of very high immigration the UK broke away from its usual position at the back of the pack to the fastest growing economy in the EU and, briefly, in the G7.

GDP per capita was of course somewhat less impressive. The standard of living for those on less than the average wage has been pitiful and is projected to remain so. The proportion of the population dependent upon the living wage for an increase has increased markedly. I also think that the ready supply of cheap labour has been a disincentive to improving productivity, investing in training and buying more expensive kit although I accept that the arguments about that are more complex.

From Labour supporters' point of view freedom of movement has undermined trade unions, destroyed the negotiating power of the semi-skilled and, increasingly, the skilled, greatly assisted in the growth of the gig economy and the casualization of work, increased the pressure for those dependent upon public services making it more difficult to get help (whilst at the same time providing much of the labour that such help requires) and disrupted communities who have had to find a wholly disproportionate share of the housing and school places that such mass immigration requires.

It is hard to think of a class of voters who have been more royally betrayed by those whom they elected than the poor and existing immigrant families in this country. It may not feel that way in Islington but out of touch really doesn't do it justice.

DavidL said:

I find it remarkable that post Brexit that there is still such a reluctance to recognise that the benefits of immigration are almost entirely gained by a metropolitan elite and the disbenefits are almost entirely borne by the victims of our inadequate education systems and the generally feckless.

Immigration undoubtedly helped boost GDP for the UK and it is no coincidence that during a period of very high immigration the UK broke away from its usual position at the back of the pack to the fastest growing economy in the EU and, briefly, in the G7.

GDP per capita was of course somewhat less impressive. The standard of living for those on less than the average wage has been pitiful and is projected to remain so. The proportion of the population dependent upon the living wage for an increase has increased markedly. I also think that the ready supply of cheap labour has been a disincentive to improving productivity, investing in training and buying more expensive kit although I accept that the arguments about that are more complex.

From Labour supporters' point of view freedom of movement has undermined trade unions, destroyed the negotiating power of the semi-skilled and, increasingly, the skilled, greatly assisted in the growth of the gig economy and the casualization of work, increased the pressure for those dependent upon public services making it more difficult to get help (whilst at the same time providing much of the labour that such help requires) and disrupted communities who have had to find a wholly disproportionate share of the housing and school places that such mass immigration requires.

It is hard to think of a class of voters who have been more royally betrayed by those whom they elected than the poor and existing immigrant families in this country. It may not feel that way in Islington but out of touch really doesn't do it justice.

they made the cake bigger and took a larger slice

Andy_Cooke said:

CD13 said:

I know we have a few law experts on here (boo, boo, hiss, hiss), so what's the latest challenge to Art 50 about?

Can we legally remain in the EEA if we exit the EU? Could we then control our own borders if we did that? If we remain in the EEA, do we have to pay?

I suspect the answers are No, No, and Yes?

The answers are:
- Yes (You do not have to be a member of the EU to be in the EEA; see Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein for examples)
- To a degree (We do not apply all the border controls we may apply as an EU member, let alone an EEA member - for example, we do not carry out exit checks. In addition, "Free Movement" is a wider term than many want to admit from either side. Further to that, Article 112 of the EEA agreement allows for a temporary suspension of Free Movement in any case, subject to agreement - Liechtenstein has exercised this "temporary" measure since 1998)
- Yes, based on GDP. Using a comparison with Norway, our per-capita contribution should be about £96 million per week (compare with the £350 million per week from THE BUS)

Does the Norway number include their contribution to CERN? I ask because we'd probably want to remain a member of things like that (and possibly the ESA) in the event of Brexit, so all headline numbers should be taken with a slight pinch of salt.

There are other questions. The EIB: do we remain a shareholder post Brexit? If not, are we bought out? And if so, at what price? If we remain a shareholder, do we include the dividend as an offset against costs?

williamglenn said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Further to that, Article 112 of the EEA agreement allows for a temporary suspension of Free Movement

Is there a provision in the EU treaties which overrides this?

The EEA treaty is fabulously and wonderfully short, and can be found here: http://www.efta.int/media/documents/legal-texts/eea/the-eea-agreement/Main Text of the Agreement/EEAagreement.pdf

The EEA Treaty is a treaty between the states of the EU on one side and the EFTSA states (ex-Switzerland) on the other. It is not possible for EU treaties to override the EEA one, because the EEA Treaty defines the relationship between the EU and the EFTA states. EFTA countries are not signatories of EU treaties and cannot be bound by them.