Brexit Referendum Superthread

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

Which kind of contradicts all their talk about taking back control of their borders, doesn’t it? As said above, it puts them in a very difficult position. How can you claim to have control over your borders if the one land border your country has remains completely open?

I don't follow the campaign that much and not sure what exactly people say, but controlling borders is not the same as controlling immigration flows.

Even with the CTA still in place, there are many things the UK could do outside of the EU that it cannot do as an EU member to control migration flows.

To give a simple and practical example: I came to Ireland as a non-Irish EU citizen. My partner is not an EU citizen. Based on EU legislation, Ireland had to issue her with a residence and work permit. If we were to decide to move to the UK, they would have to let me move there and issue her with the same permit as soon as I find employment. That is two immigrants (one EU, one non-EU) they would have to accept whether they want them or not.

With the CTA still in place and outisde of the EU, they could well decide to not allow me to work and not issue any paperwork to my partner. That's two less immigrants as without this we clearly wouldn't go there for anything but tourism.

Bit cynical

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

1. The process of adapting a regulation from EEA to EU is slow, they made the point that there are regulations still in effect in the EEA that are now gone in the EU because of how slow the EEA is to update. Thats why its 2 different dates and they insist that you need to take account that the number of regulations in the EU is not always increasing and that by 2010 the number of regulations the EU had may have decreased.

2. A lot of regulations (particularly with the CAP) are only temporary and wont exist in the EU by the time the EEA gets around to adapting them.


Put simply of those 7000 regulations a chunk of them dont exist anymore even in the EU, they were temporary.

But remember that the point under dispute here was your claim that the majority of EU law is retained when a country leaves the EU for the EEA.

The table that I produced shows that that is not the case. On the date of 31 December 2010 there were 9685 acts (directives and regulations) in effect in the EU but only 30% of them applied to the EEA member, Norway.

So basically you have to accept that your claim was incorrect.

Now you may argue that many of those regulations are now no longer in effect. Sure that may be the case, but they will be replaced by others. I would not expect there to be significantly less in effect today. In fact I suspect the figure is gradually increasing over time.

Now you personally may have other values and you are entitled to them. You may feel that countries have too much sovereignty and that the EU solves the problem of too much national sovereignty. But remember also that we are assuming for the sake of argument that sovereignty is what we value. As such, we don't care whether as an EEA member it is not practical to transpose those regulations or whatever means we might use to bring them into effect. What we are interested in is whether a country can get out from under this legislative burden but moving from the EU to the EEA. And it would certainly appear from the figures I produced that that is the case at least in significant part.

BlitzKrieg

Bit cynical wrote: »

But remember that the point under dispute here was your claim that the majority of EU law is retained when a country leaves the EU for the EEA.

The table that I produced shows that that is not the case. On the date of 31 December 2010 there were 9685 acts (directives and regulations) in effect in the EU but only 30% of them applied to the EEA member, Norway.

So basically you have to accept that your claim was incorrect.

Ok lets say on counting records it *looks like* there are less laws applied to the EEA then in the EU

But when the very document that you got those numbers from Outright tells you not to take this figures as a definitive number on the difference of laws between the EU and EAA, spends an entire section before this very graph shows up saying that there are so many EU laws they cant track this way because of how they are implemented by Norway, by the EEA. When they spent a section of the report comparing Norway and Denmark on % of national laws introduced by the EU and coming to the conclusion its about the same % for both of them (I quoted this earlier) and highlights the almost red herring nature of counting laws like this by explaining that some regulations have no legislative effect at all to the point that yes for the love of all thats sacred even the BBC has finally woken up and produced a report saying almost the exact same thing (though they get directives and regulations the wrong way round. Dont know if thats a translation error on the norweigen paper, need to double check that)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36473105

Now you may argue that many of those regulations are now no longer in effect. Sure that may be the case, but they will be replaced by others. I would not expect there to be significantly less in effect today. In fact I suspect the figure is gradually increasing over time.

Again the very paper you are taking these figures from tell you that this is not the case:

It is therefore inappropriate to compare the number of legislative acts in the EEA with the number in the EU about a year earlier. Moreover, the trend does not always go in the direction increasing the number of net acts. For example, in 2009 added 127 directives while 185 ceased. In the same year, it was added to 497 decrees, while 265 ceased.

The paper stresses again and again that these figures alone cannot be used to judge how much law Norway embraces. In fact in its conclusions it points out those figures are applied the EU as whole including Germany and that means it includes all the regulation on the euro, Schrangen boarder and numerous other areas that the UK doesnt take part in

The majority would like to emphasize that the figure of 4.3 is a comparison with the EU states that are on the whole, as f. Ex. Finland or Germany. Comparing with the states with the least, such as the UK, the figure is different. It also applies compared with Sweden, which is not part of the euro, and with Denmark, nor are there and also have other exceptions, including in areas where Norway is associated. Compared with these countries, Norway adapted considerably more than 3/4 of what they are agreeing to.

Now you personally may have other values and you are entitled to them. You may feel that countries have too much sovereignty and that the EU solves the problem of too much national sovereignty. But remember also that we are assuming for the sake of argument that sovereignty is what we value. As such, we don't care whether as an EEA member it is not practical to transpose those regulations or whatever means we might use to bring them into effect. What we are interested in is whether a country can get out from under this legislative burden but moving from the EU to the EEA. And it would certainly does appear from the figures I produced that that is the case at least in part.

Honestly this stopped being about my personal opinion when you brought up that paper because its not me you are arguing with on this issue. I am literally repeating back to you what the very paper you pulled this figures from is stating. I've quoted them, I've linked the specific sections etc. This is not about my opinion. This is about you giving a figure but ignoring that the very people who collected those figures have stated that its a pointless figure to argue how much EU/EEA law affects Norway. There is a reason why this ended up being a 900 page report.


The more interesting thing I thought they brought up is that even in the EEA, EEA law trumps national law, which if we were having a discussion about sovereignty, then thats the killing blow that the UK joining the EEA over the EU will change much.


This is all under section 8 btw:

This was then implemented in Norwegian law by EEA Act ​​1992 § 2 which reads:

"Provisions in law that serves to fulfill Norway's obligations under the Agreement, in case of conflict go in front of other provisions governing the same conditions. The same applies if a regulation which serves to fulfill Norway's obligations under the Agreement, are in conflict with another regulation, or comes into conflict with a later law. "

This is the provision that gives the EU / EEA law takes precedence in Norwegian law, which in practice means that if Norwegian courts find that an ordinary Norwegian statutory provision is contrary to the EEA Agreement, it must generally give way.

Thats a much crucial point on the issue of British Sovereignty and institutions like the EU and EEA then the number of regulations because that pretty much leaves things open for yes you guessed it

EUROPEAN COURTS!

This time its the European Free Trade Association Courts but dont worry, they are modelled on the european courts of justice and they are also in Luxembourg its almost like the UK never left.

whatever_

Now, can we please put to bed the idea that we’re all unskilled, uneducated individuals with poor English who’ll work in crappy conditions for crap wages because we’re just grateful to have a job? Ta.

Lol ! I have said or suggested nothing of the sort. Again you are misrepresenting what I am saying. You should be able to argue you position without adopting such an immoderate tone. The fact that you can't speaks volumes about the weakness of your argument.

An analysis of "dropping out" age is a very weak way of trying to prove that immigrants are better educated than natives. There are many factors (including the availability of work) that dictate when people leave school. And anyway, where are you trying to go with this, really ?

As I said in that post, I am well aware that many migrants are highly-skilled. I am, myself, an immigrant.

To reiterate the main point I was making in that post: as a result of migration, the wages of the low-paid in Britain have fallen by around 10% over the last 10 years. Young low-paid families in Britain have higher "running costs" than single migrants and simply cannot afford to take some of the jobs on offer. This is not simply a problem of the Benefits system. The statistics that you quoted do not relate to this.

Bob24

whatever_ wrote: »

To reiterate the point I was making in that post: wages of the low-paid in Britain have fallen by around 10% over the last 10 years. The statistics you quoted are unrelated to this.

It is actually the same across Europe and possibly the western world. There are winners and losers with having a job market open to people who used to be outsiders (it is a bit more complicated but to make it short: the well educated who live in cities connected to the global economy are winning, and the less educated and the ones not living in global hubs tend to lose out). The winners have (intentionally or not) been ignoring complains from the losers and labelling anyone who does take them on board as populist. Their problem is that the quantity of losers is growing (especially among the less well off), and their anger is seriously starting to show in election results (Brexit referendum opinion pools included, but not only).

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

...controlling borders is not the same as controlling immigration flows.

Fair point.

djpbarry

whatever_ wrote: »

An analysis of "dropping out" age is a very weak way of trying to prove that immigrants are better educated than natives. There are many factors (including the availability of work) that dictate when people leave school. And anyway, where are you trying to go with this, really ?

You dismissed the idea that immigrants were more educated than the British as a “ridiculous position”. I’m just pointing out that according to available data, it would indeed appear that immigrants are more educated than British natives.

whatever_ wrote: »

To reiterate the main point I was making in that post: as a result of migration, the wages of the low-paid in Britain have fallen by around 10% over the last 10 years.

I’m really not convinced there’s a causal relationship. If large numbers of immigrants were working for significantly less than British people were prepared to work for, we would expect to see the average wages earned by immigrants to be less than that earned by British workers. But that is clearly not the case. Granted, that’s taking a fairly macroscopic view of things, but I’ve seen little evidence that immigration is responsible for deprivation in the UK.

BlitzKrieg

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m really not convinced there’s a causal relationship. If large numbers of immigrants were working for significantly less than British people were prepared to work for, we would expect to see the average wages earned by immigrants to be less than that earned by British workers. But that is clearly not the case. Granted, that’s taking a fairly macroscopic view of things, but I’ve seen little evidence that immigration is responsible for deprivation in the UK.

I'd be curious if there are numbers comparing the % of immigrant workers who work on zero hour contracts vs UK citizens, becuase if there is anything that has driven down wages I'd imagine it has been the increase of zero hour contracts.


Cause if anything is keeping wages down it is the growing scale of zero hour contracts.


its practically its own little economic bubble in the Uk that is going to cause hell of a lot of problems when it bursts.

whatever_

djpbarry wrote: »

You dismissed the idea that immigrants were more educated than the British as a “ridiculous position”. I’m just pointing out that according to available data, it would indeed appear that immigrants are more educated than British natives.

Fair point. If someone posted on here that immigrants into Ireland were better educated than Irish people, I suspect that some people would object, call this trolling, bigotry or worse. So when you assert that immigrants into Britain are better educated than the natives, I am rightly going to dismiss this as a ridiculous position. Whilst I found your reference interesting, it does not in my opinion, prove anything. That Oxford Migration Group are not impartial, and are UK Government funded. Their assertions are flawed : People who can't find jobs are often sent on courses to keep them off the unemployment register. Drop out age is not the same as education level.

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m really not convinced there’s a causal relationship. If large numbers of immigrants were working for significantly less than British people were prepared to work for, we would expect to see the average wages earned by immigrants to be less than that earned by British workers. But that is clearly not the case. Granted, that’s taking a fairly macroscopic view of things, but I’ve seen little evidence that immigration is responsible for deprivation in the UK.

Again, a fair point. I was repeating a figure that I heard last night (I think, anyway, I don't think it is disputed). Anecdotally, many British people associate the decline in permanent employment and the rise in temporary, part-time, zero hours, low-paid employment with the rise in EU migration to Britain. As others have said, there are undoubtedly other drivers like "globalisation", but it could not happen without an abundant supply of labour able and willing to work at less than a "living wage". I agree with your logic re. average salaries, but I am specifically talking about low paid workers here - and again anecdotally (as you are well aware), this is often used as a reason to attack the Benefits system in the UK.

djpbarry

whatever_ wrote: »

If someone posted on here that immigrants into Ireland were better educated than Irish people...

They are. You can find figures on the CSO website to confirm this:
http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/pme/populationandmigrationestimatesapril2015

Roughly half of the people who have migrated to Ireland over the last number of years have some form of third-level qualification. Likewise, roughly half of emigrants from Ireland over the same time-period have a third level qualification, so they will generally be more educated than the natives wherever they migrate to.

whatever_ wrote: »

So when you assert that immigrants into Britain are better educated than the natives, I am rightly going to dismiss this as a ridiculous position.

Well, no, you are wrong to dismiss it. Clearly.

whatever_ wrote: »

Whilst I found your reference interesting, it does not in my opinion, prove anything. That Oxford Migration Group are not impartial, and are UK Government funded.

In other words, it contradicts your preconceptions and you're therefore going to dismiss it and continue to believe that immigrants are relatively uneducated.

whatever_ wrote: »

Drop out age is not the same as education level.

It's a pretty good indicator. There are obviously exceptions, but we're interested in the population average.

Bob24

I think (while not irrelevant) looking at short term economic stats related to today's migrants is not what will make a yes or no vote.

When people raise concerns about immigration, it is not based on stats but on the long term effect of older migration waves they percieve around them.

More importantly, limiting the discussion to financial numbers is missing a large (if not the largest) part of the story. A number of people feel they are being replaced, both economically but also culturally by other groups which are importing a different lifestyle.

I don't want to get into more details as this obviously is a huge can of worms (which is why most politicians/media would rather ignore it as well), but I think discussing immigration without talking about the long term cultural aspect of if cannot possibly explain what is happening wit the electorate or convince anyone to change their mind.

K-9

Zero hour contracts, subcontracting, out sourcing, Globalism in general, the decline of unions, companies going after profits above everything else, all those factors are part of stagnant wages. Not much the UK can do there in or out for me.

AFAIK and it was linked on a thread in this forum before, a UK Central Bank report did show immigration lowers wages, competition I suppose, Labour mobility that type of thing, and is probably connected to some of the points above.

One thing djpbarry said and we can probably all agree on is your average person in the UK doesn't really care about the border with us!

ancapailldorcha

K-9 wrote: »

Zero hour contracts, subcontracting, out sourcing, Globalism in general, the decline of unions, companies going after profits above everything else, all those factors are part of stagnant wages. Not much the UK can do there in or out for me.

AFAIK and it was linked on a thread in this forum before, a UK Central Bank report did show immigration lowers wages, competition I suppose, Labour mobility that type of thing, and is probably connected to some of the points above.

One thing djpbarry said and we can probably all agree on is your average person in the UK doesn't really care about the border with us!

I was with you for the first paragraph, K. According to this, any impact is quite minimal. There is a zero sum fallacy involved stating that jobs are present in a fixed amount whereas some immigrants actually create other jobs by setting up business or creating new markets.

As I noted before, it seems odd that so few people think the border between Northern Ireland and her southern neighbour insignificant given the prominence afforded to migration in the debates. Surely a secure border there is paramount in order to keep immigration to "manageable levels". What those are I can't say.

djpbarry

K-9 wrote: »

AFAIK and it was linked on a thread in this forum before, a UK Central Bank report did show immigration lowers wages, competition I suppose, Labour mobility that type of thing, and is probably connected to some of the points above.

As ancapailldorcha says above, there's scarcely any effect at all, because jobs tend to create more jobs. I'm not seeing this displacement of British workers and lowering of wages that the likes UKIP are banging on about. Generally speaking, areas with high immigration are areas of low unemployment that are doing quite well economically.

K-9

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/628640/Bank-of-England-migration-down-wages

“A 10 percentage point rise in the proportion of immigrants working in semi/unskilled services — that is, in care homes, bars, shops, restaurants, cleaning, for example — leads to a 1.88 per cent reduction in pay.”

That shows there maybe an effect and it is more pronounced with lower skilled jobs, which seems logical enough.

I suppose if you work in those areas and jobs are creating more jobs, but at lesser pay, you might not see much of a benefit.

ancapailldorcha

If there is one source to avoid, it's the Express. I follow UKIP's page on Facebook and every single post is a link to UKIP.org, the Express or, occasionally Breitbart.

K-9

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If there is one source to avoid, it's the Express. I follow UKIP's page on Facebook and every single post is a link to UKIP.org, the Express or, occasionally Breitbart.

Ah here, agreed but it's the study that matters! Obviously the first page of google returned those 2 usual suspects and the Mail, click bait for them so higher traffic.

BlitzKrieg

“A 10 percentage point rise in the proportion of immigrants working in semi/unskilled services — that is, in care homes, bars, shops, restaurants, cleaning, for example — leads to a 1.88 per cent reduction in pay.”

Also all areas that have seen a massive increase in zero hour contracts.

K-9

Central Bank research

That's the report. It's odd something like this has never come up before, so could be an outlier.

But if you agree with the other causes I outlined it seems odd to dismiss immigration, it's part of Globalisation really.

BlitzKrieg

K-9 wrote: »

Central Bank research

That's the report. It's odd something like this has never come up before, so could be an outlier.

But if you agree with the other causes I outlined it seems odd to dismiss immigration, it's part of Globalisation really.

Thanks for that.

I'm getting a lot of interesting reads from this thread


I'll have a proper read of it when I finish work. But a quick glance through (and I'm tempting fate repeating the same mistake as Skeptic did with me) I notice the charts on page 10 and page 12.

page 10 shows what sort of fields EU immigration and non eu immigration were filling in 2 year blocks every 4 years

while page 12 shows the decline in wages.

Like I said I need to read into it much more but with the exception of professionals it looks like most wages started declining in the early 2000s

but the chart they showed earlier seems to show that at least with EU immigration it really wasnt until post 2006 that the numbers started rising dramatically.

Professionals is an interesting graph though.



But like I said I wont make the same mistake I criticized someone else for. When I get the time I'll sit down and read it through fully to grasp the situation.

ancapailldorcha

K-9 wrote: »

Ah here, agreed but it's the study that matters! Obviously the first page of google returned those 2 usual suspects and the Mail, click bait for them so higher traffic.

Of course but there are two types of people who'll see this. Those who are happy that it conforms to their world view and those, like myself in fairness who'll disregard it because it came from the Express.

whatever_

Well, trying to set aside my own particular views for a few minutes, I'd be interested to know what people made of the two ITV debates this week:

Farage v Cameron

Boris Johnson, Andrea Leadsom and Gisela Stuart for Leave against Nicola Sturgeon, Angela Eagle and Amber Rudd for Remain

feardeas

Just watched the ITV debate having only been half paying attention so far. Thought that Remain were strong and anyone with an ounce of sense would be voting that way. Just want to make a few general points. I am amazed at how little the Tories on the right have changed. It is beyond belief that Cameron gave the referendum although I have a hunch that if he thought that they were going to win a majority last year he woudn't have done it.

I think they will vote remain I mean when you have the IMF Bank of England Obama and Lord knows who else surely they will listen. They are the fifth economy but how long will that last.

On the chance they vote out I think inevitably that will lead to Scotland leaving the UK. Could take time. Our government need to be clever, look after OUR interests and shout from the rooftops that we are now the only English speaking country in the EU with full unfettered access to the largest single market only in the developed world. We should also point to the fact that we are already the EU HQ for the pharma and IT industries and that there is no reason why we can't provide it for the Financial Services sector as well,the 12.5% could come in handy too.

The border will be a problem and I'd say Iveagh House will be busy with people looking for the harp on the passport.

Jimoslimos

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Especially for Cameron when he was forced to thread a delicate balancing act on the topic for over a half decade before Brexit was scheduled.

Cameron has been playing with fire for quite a while now and the seeds were sown back in 2011 with the (watered-down) AV referendum. Back then he was happy enough to keep the electorate ignorant and won that easily enough.

On to the Scottish independence referendum, a lot closer and a major scare for DC. Quite late in the campaign the No side were forced into action and found themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to engage with the electorate.

...and now Brexit. Suddenly that ignorant electorate aren't so useful anymore. If you cannot explain a relatively simple concept like AV or PR-STV then trying to educate the common voter on the intricate and obscure workings of EU membership might be a step too far.

Rjd2

whatever_ wrote: »

Well, trying to set aside my own particular views for a few minutes, I'd be interested to know what people made of the two ITV debates this week:

Farage v Cameron

Boris Johnson, Andrea Leadsom and Gisela Stuart for Leave against Nicola Sturgeon, Angela Eagle and Amber Rudd for Remain

I just finished the second one and thought it was interesting enough despite been an ITV production

No real flops bar Eagle who has the voice that could drive a men to suicide, Stuart was probably the star of the whole thing, likeable, measured and definitely someone the ordinary Joe Soap would warm to.

I thought Sturgoen was fine, but she seemed to run out of steam towards the end despite been all over Boris who to be fair despite initially looking a disaster was very solid the whole way through.

Rudd is an interesting one, she did fine, but she crass with Boris which I dunno will really click with the wider public.

Although in the year of Trump, back her to be the next priminister.:pac:


The other debate? A score draw I think, Cameron had an easier ride than Farage who was jumped quite a bit when he answered any question.

whatever_

Rjd2 wrote: »

I just finished the second one and thought it was interesting enough despite been an ITV production

No real flops bar Eagle who has the voice that could drive a men to suicide, Stuart was probably the star of the whole thing, likeable, measured and definitely someone the ordinary Joe Soap would warm to.

I thought Sturgoen was fine, but she seemed to run out of steam towards the end despite been all over Boris who to be fair despite initially looking a disaster was very solid the whole way through.

Rudd is an interesting one, she did fine, but she crass with Boris which I dunno will really click with the wider public.

Although in the year of Trump, back her to be the next priminister.:pac:


The other debate? A score draw I think, Cameron had an easier ride than Farage who was jumped quite a bit when he answered any question.

Essentially, I agree with you on both debates. On Thursday's:

Rudd was the best performer on the Remain side but her attacks on Johnson went too far, and although clearly sanctioned by No.10, will effectively prevent her from becoming party leader. I think even if Remain win, Cameron will be held responsible by his party for this and will pay a price. Sturgeon was fine, but her pro-EU anti-Westminster stance does not resonate with English voters. Eagle had turned up for the wrong debate. Johnson did not get drawn into the personal stuff (which will boost his party leader prospects), and he performed well. However, all this left the pitch clear for Leadsom and Stuart, and they both performed very well.

ancapailldorcha

I thought the Tuesday debates with Cameron & Farage were quite poor as they didn't debate head to head. The stand out moment was where someone asked Farage what would happen if the UK left and unemployment rose because wages had increased. He was completely stumped and started banging on about immigration again.

Rudd was clearly the best performer yesterday. I don't know why her attacks on Boris would rule her out of number 10. Boris refrained from getting bogged down in that though which is the only credit I'd afford him given his motivations for leaving are incredibly transparent. Farage at least has been pushing for this all his political career.

Bob24

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I thought the Tuesday debates with Cameron & Farage were quite poor as they didn't debate head to head.

This is really ridiculous, it can't be called a debate if contenders even refuse to face each other.

ancapailldorcha

Bob24 wrote: »

This is really ridiculous, it can't be called a debate if contenders even refuse to face each other.

I was disappointed as well. A reasonable assumption I would have thought. Nigel took the stage for half an hour and then handed it over to Dave.

ancapailldorcha

If anyone is looking for a debate on the EU, the Spectator held one recently with Daniel Hannan, Nigel Farage and Kate Hoey arguing for Brexit against Nick Clegg, Liz Kendall and Chuka Umunna arguing for Bremain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYTJGBBjkGo