Brexit Referendum Superthread

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

While correct, the two points you are mentioning are very limited in scope as they only look at the economic impact of immigration and only on a fairly short time frame.

Sure, but it was purely to illustrate that in this one particular context, immigration is a very complex issue.

Considered on the full macroeconomic scale, it quickly becomes unfathomably complex.

BoJack Horseman

Donny Tusk knocks it out of the park today.

"As a historian I fear that Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also of western political civilisation in its entirety".

So, 2000 years of European hegemony & civilisation rests on this one vote.

When this is the level of stupidity thrown out as argument, it's no wonder the Brexit camp remain in with a chance.

djpbarry

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Donny Tusk knocks it out of the park today.

"As a historian I fear that Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also of western political civilisation in its entirety".

Because, Muslims?

BoJack Horseman

djpbarry wrote: »

Because, Muslims?

Because vote on 23rd.

I assume the EU will be distributing armoured shelters to harbour us from the distopic post-civilisation hellscape or feral cannibalism after June 24th!

If Pres Donny says that civilisation is on the brink, it would be foolish not to.

whatever_

I think it is generally accepted that economists did not predict the credit crunch in the UK. I know about McWilliams (?) in Ireland who stood out from the herd, but we are talking about the UK here. This from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308#Role_of_economic_forecasting

"The financial crisis was not widely predicted by mainstream economists except Raghuram Rajan, who instead spoke of the Great Moderation. A number of heterodox economists predicted the crisis, with varying arguments."

The resilience of the "Leave" debaters last Thursday on "the economy" was very apparent, and is I think a reason why they seem to be fairing better in the polls.

Regarding immigration, the arguments are inevitably boiled down on both sides, but at least we seem to be moving away from the anti-immigration=racist nonsense that people were peddling here a few pages back. Saying that EU immigrants pay for services out of taxes does not "cut the mustard". The point is that we have no control over the numbers coming to Britain and housing, schools, hospitals and public transport impacts have to be planned years in advance.

djpbarry

whatever_ wrote: »

I think it is generally accepted that economists did not predict the credit crunch in the UK. I know about McWilliams (?) in Ireland who stood out from the herd, but we are talking about the UK here.

McWilliams just parrots what he reads elsewhere, but anyway, I'm not talking about the UK or Ireland specifically, but on a global scale.

Granted, nobody predicted the scale of the crash (mainly because financial institutions, such as Anglo, were hiding the true scale of their exposure), but there were plenty of warnings from economists that something was amiss.

Suryavarman

whatever_ wrote: »

I think it is generally accepted that economists did not predict the credit crunch in the UK. I know about McWilliams (?) in Ireland who stood out from the herd, but we are talking about the UK here. This from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308#Role_of_economic_forecasting

"The financial crisis was not widely predicted by mainstream economists except Raghuram Rajan, who instead spoke of the Great Moderation. A number of heterodox economists predicted the crisis, with varying arguments."

Regarding immigration, the arguments are inevitably boiled down on both sides, but at least we seem to be moving away from the anti-immigration=racist nonsense that people were peddling here a few pages back.

The public seem to vastly overestimate the ability of economists to predict recessions. If economists could reliably predict recessions then recessions might never occur as actions could be taken to prevent them.

What economists can do with a reasonable degree of accuracy is predict what will happen if a Government enacts a policy and all else stays equal. They can therefore predict the effect Brexit will have if everything else stays the same. If the UK Government changes some policies to offset Brexit then the loss of income won't be as great.

BlitzKrieg

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Donny Tusk knocks it out of the park today.



So, 2000 years of European hegemony & civilisation rests on this one vote.

When this is the level of stupidity thrown out as argument, it's no wonder the Brexit camp remain in with a chance.

full interview here http://uk.businessinsider.com/donald-tusk-bild-interview-brexit-2016-6?r=US&IR=T

found english version

whatever_

Suryavarman wrote: »

If the UK Government changes some policies to offset Brexit then the loss of income won't be as great.

The lack of growth in the Eurozone and the slow progress in negotiating trade agreements has held the UK economy back in recent years. This map shows the parts of the world with which the EU has successfully negotiated trade deals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements

It's a bleak picture. Of course they are trying to negotiate deals with the US and many other countries, but some of these have already gone through ten or more rounds of negotiation with no end in sight. By the EU's own numbers, if they concluded all these deals tomorrow they would add nearly Euro 300 billion to the EU economy and 2 million more jobs. So why don't they do it ? Because these negotiations are held up by a variety of political considerations and spanners thrown in by EU members trying to protect their own domestic industries.
The "protectionists" heavily outnumber the "free traders" (Britain, Holland, Ireland, Germany any more ?). When Turkey and other Asian countries join, it will get far worse.

Britain, with the means to influence its own exchange rate and the will to negotiate simple, mutually beneficial, bilateral agreements, can do far better than this.

View

whatever_ wrote: »

Regarding immigration, the arguments are inevitably boiled down on both sides, but at least we seem to be moving away from the anti-immigration=racist nonsense that people were peddling here a few pages back. Saying that EU immigrants pay for services out of taxes does not "cut the mustard". The point is that we have no control over the numbers coming to Britain and housing, schools, hospitals and public transport impacts have to be planned years in advance.

The majority of immigrants to the UK are non-EU ones. The U.K. has full control over the numbers being admitted and it is choosing to have the most liberal immigration policy of all the EU member states.

As the Leave campaign is not objecting to this and instead is objecting to the minority that arrives from the EU, it is perfectly reasonable to say they are carrying out a racist campaign.

Bob24

View wrote: »

The majority of immigrants to the UK are non-EU ones. The U.K. has full control over the numbers being admitted and it is choosing to have the most liberal immigration policy of all the EU member states.

The first statement is fairly questionable, if you look at the table page 6 here , 8 out of the top 10 nationalities for immigrants to the UK are EU ones.

The second statement is incorrect. The UK does not have full control on immigration policies for non EU citizens as European Directive 2004/38/EC does impose open immigration policies for non EU citizens who are family members of an EU citizen (with a fairly broad definition of what a family member is).

A Dub in Glasgo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Donny Tusk knocks it out of the park today.



So, 2000 years of European hegemony & civilisation rests on this one vote.

When this is the level of stupidity thrown out as argument, it's no wonder the Brexit camp remain in with a chance.

No different to the Scottish Independence referendum 2 years ago

A Dub in Glasgo

Bob24 wrote: »

The first statement is fairly questionable, if you look at the table page 6 here , 8 out of the top 10 nationalities for immigrants to the UK are EU ones.

This the table you refer to?

K-9

djpbarry wrote: »

Because, Muslims?

Mod:

Can we up the standard of replies a little please.

Bob24

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

This the table you refer to?

[...]

Yes correct.

A Dub in Glasgo

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes correct.

Thought so, that table does not disprove what 'View' has posted. It outlines the fact that 4 countries in the top 10 of people born outside the UK who moved to the UK are from EU countries. That includes Ireland so with the CTA that means 3 countries out of the top 10 are affected by this EU referendum. The other side of the table presumably refers to nationality of the person when entering the UK

Bob24

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes correct.

Thought so, that table does not disprove what 'View' has posted. It outlines the fact that 4 countries in the top 10 of people born outside the UK who moved to the UK are from EU countries. That includes Ireland so with the CTA that means 3 countries out of the top 10 are affected by this EU referendum. The other side of the table presumably refers to nationality of the person when entering the UK

You are looking at the wrong side of the table. What matters for immigration policy purposes (what the poster was talking about) is the country of citizenship, not the country of birth.

A Dub in Glasgo

Bob24 wrote: »

You are looking at the wrong side of the table. What matters for immigration policy purposes (what the poster was talking about) is the country of citizenship, not the country of birth.

A lot of people I discuss about immigration do not make the difference you do

Bob24

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

A lot of people I discuss about immigration do not make the difference you do

Well, if they don't in the context of the post I was replying to ("The U.K. has full control over the numbers being admitted"), they probably don't understand how EU immigration policies work.

Trompette

For everyone information, but you certainly know it.
So in case
BREXIT THE MOVIE FULL FILM

Sam Russell

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

This the table you refer to?

In the country of birth, the non-EU in this table totals 25%, while the EU only counts 19% of which 4.4% are Irish.

Bob24

Sam Russell wrote: »

In the country of birth, the non-EU in this table totals 25%, while the EU only counts 19% of which 4.4% are Irish.

This is not the column relevant to the OP's post though:

View wrote: »

The majority of immigrants to the UK are non-EU ones. The U.K. has full control over the numbers being admitted and it is choosing to have the most liberal immigration policy of all the EU member states.

As the Leave campaign is not objecting to this and instead is objecting to the minority that arrives from the EU, it is perfectly reasonable to say they are carrying out a racist campaign.

He was talking abut non-EU citizens for which the UK has full control in terms of immigration policies (in many cases but not all - the OP's other mistake). The country of nationality (right column) is the relevant one here and the country of birth has no influence whatsoever.

Calling people "racist" based on dubious information was not exactly fair-game on his part btw, and shows there is a lot of manipulations and ideology over facts on both sides of the argument ...

BlitzKrieg

whatever_ wrote: »

The lack of growth in the Eurozone and the slow progress in negotiating trade agreements has held the UK economy back in recent years. This map shows the parts of the world with which the EU has successfully negotiated trade deals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements

It's a bleak picture. Of course they are trying to negotiate deals with the US and many other countries, but some of these have already gone through ten or more rounds of negotiation with no end in sight. By the EU's own numbers, if they concluded all these deals tomorrow they would add nearly Euro 300 billion to the EU economy and 2 million more jobs. So why don't they do it ? Because these negotiations are held up by a variety of political considerations and spanners thrown in by EU members trying to protect their own domestic industries.
The "protectionists" heavily outnumber the "free traders" (Britain, Holland, Ireland, Germany any more ?). When Turkey and other Asian countries join, it will get far worse.

Britain, with the means to influence its own exchange rate and the will to negotiate simple, mutually beneficial, bilateral agreements, can do far better than this.

I'm sorry, please go take a look at US negotiated trade deals

actually no let me just link it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_trade_agreements

looks quite similar eh?

Free trade deals are f*cking hard. regardless of who is involved. EU or UK.

In fact when you look at these trade deals I notice that where both the US and EU have succeeded with actually crossover a lot, Chile, Isreal, Mexico, South Korea, Canada (almost there) etc.

There is a lot of overlap with who've they've proposed and the few exceptions seem to be odd trade offs for each other (south africa for europe, australia for USA) some of south america for some of north africa etc etc.


The only reason many think the UK would have an easier time then the EU is because the UK currently has a tory government that people imagine would sell everything to get a trade deal.

Problem there is two fold

A) The US has shown to be a slow negotiator just as much as any other state with the average time span for most of its deals clocking in around 6 years. Some have been dragged out for decades. The US and Australia have been back and forth on theirs for over a decade. George Bush Senior started it and it was not successful until 2005 with his son. Even with a willing and push over partner it seems the US side of the process is still very time consuming.

The UK's notion of being an easier trade negotiator goes out the window the second the conservatives lose their majority and the trade negotiations will come under the same if not even more of a public outcry then the European ones. Especially when the cold truth is splashed in everyone's face and realise it was not because of the EU that negotiations were done in secret and you can bet every bloody penny that it will be a hot potato in a British election year that can very well cost the Tory's the election.

Michah

View wrote: »

The majority of immigrants to the UK are non-EU ones. The U.K. has full control over the numbers being admitted and it is choosing to have the most liberal immigration policy of all the EU member states.

You realise that a lot of non EU citizens get in due to EU Directives, right? Spouses of EU citizens, family reunification etc. Czech Republic and Germany have the most liberal immigration policies towards non EU migrants. It's very difficult to move to the UK unless you have EU citizenship or an EU family member.

whatever_

whatever_ wrote: »

The lack of growth in the Eurozone and the slow progress in negotiating trade agreements has held the UK economy back in recent years. This map shows the parts of the world with which the EU has successfully negotiated trade deals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements

It's a bleak picture. Of course they are trying to negotiate deals with the US and many other countries, but some of these have already gone through ten or more rounds of negotiation with no end in sight. By the EU's own numbers, if they concluded all these deals tomorrow they would add nearly Euro 300 billion to the EU economy and 2 million more jobs. So why don't they do it ? Because these negotiations are held up by a variety of political considerations and spanners thrown in by EU members trying to protect their own domestic industries.
The "protectionists" heavily outnumber the "free traders" (Britain, Holland, Ireland, Germany any more ?). When Turkey and other Asian countries join, it will get far worse.

Britain, with the means to influence its own exchange rate and the will to negotiate simple, mutually beneficial, bilateral agreements, can do far better than this.

A) The US has shown to be a slow negotiator just as much as any other state with the average time span for most of its deals clocking in around 6 years. Some have been dragged out for decades. The US and Australia have been back and forth on theirs for over a decade. George Bush Senior started it and it was not successful until 2005 with his son. Even with a willing and push over partner it seems the US side of the process is still very time consuming.

The UK's notion of being an easier trade negotiator goes out the window the second the conservatives lose their majority and the trade negotiations will come under the same if not even more of a public outcry then the European ones. Especially when the cold truth is splashed in everyone's face and realise it was not because of the EU that negotiations were done in secret and you can bet every bloody penny that it will be a hot potato in a British election year that can very well cost the Tory's the election.

I agree that the US is a slow negotiator. Not unlike the EU it is too fat and bureaucratic and increasingly protectionist in its approach. But there are many other countries (including large ones like India) who are desperate for access to European markets and take a far more pragmatic approach in negotiations.

Your belief that the UK's willingness to negotiate trade deals is somehow tied up in party politics is wrong. Successive Labour Governments have negotiated trade deals around the world. The fact that the current Labour leadership is opposed to the proposed EU-USA deal in its current form is beside the point. They are unelectable in their current configuration.

BlitzKrieg

whatever_ wrote: »

I agree that the US is a slow negotiator. Not unlike the EU it is too fat and bureaucratic and increasingly protectionist in its approach. But there are many other countries (including large ones like India) who are desperate for access to European markets and take a far more pragmatic approach in negotiations.

Once again a 2 minute search will show that India is just as slow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bilateral_free_trade_agreements#/media/File:India_FTA.png

Also you need to remember India is part of the South Asian Free Trade Area so the UK/EU/USA also have to juggle the requirements of that on top of it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asian_Free_Trade_Area


I repeat Free Trade deals are HARD regardless of who is involved. There is a reason that most of the maps on the wiki page for them (bi or multi) all look very similar. The countries most open to free trade deals have already signed such deals with most countries.

Your belief that the UK's willingness to negotiate trade deals is somehow tied up in party politics is wrong.

Considering your argument against EU trade negotiations is the same except its european party politics its a bit pot kettle black. We already see TTIP being used as a hot potato in party politics both in the UK and across europe, do you not think that it will repeat pretty much the same way on a local level when the british government goes through the same secret trade meetings?

Successive Labour Governments have negotiated trade deals around the world. The fact that the current Labour leadership is opposed to the proposed EU-USA deal in its current form is beside the point. They are unelectable in their current configuration.

Yes I've been looking into pre EU UK trade deals, it seems neither side has really thrown out any examples, I've been mostly poking around the inside of GATT but the best I can find is that the UK failed in the 1950s to make a trade agreement with Canada, they may easily succeed now, but as I have shown again and again there is little evidence to show they'd make negotiations any quicker then the EU or USA. In fact they'll initially lose trade agreements with 13 commonwealth countries when they leave the EU.

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

You are looking at the wrong side of the table. What matters for immigration policy purposes (what the poster was talking about) is the country of citizenship, not the country of birth.

I’m not sure about that. The immigration numbers that are repeatedly bandied about include everyone, regardless of country of birth or citizenship.

So, for example, a British-born, British citizen returning from abroad is still counted as an immigrant. Of course, the Brits will refer to such a person as a “returning ex-pat”, but statistically speaking, they’re a migrant.

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not sure about that. The immigration numbers that are repeatedly bandied about include everyone, regardless of country of birth or citizenship.

So, for example, a British-born, British citizen returning from abroad is still counted as an immigrant. Of course, the Brits will refer to such a person as a “returning ex-pat”, but statistically speaking, they’re a migrant.

Have you read the original post I was replying to when I quoted that table? Can you clarify how what you said matter in that particular context?

(I have already explained a few times including here how it doesn't, and I don't believe anyone has disagreed in saying country of birth is irrelevant in that context)

whatever_

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Once again a 2 minute search will show that India is just as slow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bilateral_free_trade_agreements#/media/File:India_FTA.png

Also you need to remember India is part of the South Asian Free Trade Area so the UK/EU/USA also have to juggle the requirements of that on top of it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asian_Free_Trade_Area


I repeat Free Trade deals are HARD regardless of who is involved. There is a reason that most of the maps on the wiki page for them (bi or multi) all look very similar. The countries most open to free trade deals have already signed such deals with most countries.





Considering your argument against EU trade negotiations is the same except its european party politics its a bit pot kettle black. We already see TTIP being used as a hot potato in party politics both in the UK and across europe, do you not think that it will repeat pretty much the same way on a local level when the british government goes through the same secret trade meetings?




Yes I've been looking into pre EU UK trade deals, it seems neither side has really thrown out any examples, I've been mostly poking around the inside of GATT but the best I can find is that the UK failed in the 1950s to make a trade agreement with Canada, they may easily succeed now, but as I have shown again and again there is little evidence to show they'd make negotiations any quicker then the EU or USA. In fact they'll initially lose trade agreements with 13 commonwealth countries when they leave the EU.

Fair points, even if it is all coming from Google rather than your own specific knowledge or experience. I suppose it depends what we mean by a trade deal. But I would include some of the more pragmatic deals that Britain has negotiated over the years. Inevitably the ones that spring to mind are going to be some of the more controversial ones that Britain has struck. Obviously these include

1) The Commonwealth (and as you probably know, Britain is largely responsible for helping those countries secure trade deals with the EU in the first place)

2) The ongoing trading relationship with Saudi Arabia which is at least 100 years old and has been sustained by both Labour and Conservative governments

3) Concorde (Labour Wilson / Benn)

4) Any time somebody dodgy stays at Buckingham Palace. The Queen's least favourite apparently was the Ceausescus visit which was imposed on her by the Callaghan Labour Government and resulted in several BA1-11's being sold to the Romanians.

This is really just a snapshot of some of the more controversial deals which have been supported by both Conservative and Labour Governments.


Within the EU it is not possible for Britain to negotiate formal trade agreements, and, if Brexit does happen, Britain may well have to resort to more specific deals in the short term like the ones I have mentioned above. As you have suggested (your patronising HARD ejaculation bit), it is much easier to negotiate specific mutually beneficial, bilateral agreements, and that is one reason why Britain could trade more successfully outside of the EU.

However, it is wrong to say things like "the pot calling the kettle black" because historically civil servants in Trade and in the Foreign Office have been able to negotiate trade deals free of political interference in Britain. The proof of this is that these relationships have generally been cultivated by both Conservative and Labour Governments, even if they are controversial. It is widely recognised that protectionism by EU states holds up EU trade negotiations.

It is also wrong to say that Britain will initially lose those EU trade agreements with Commonwealth countries (or for that matter any trade agreements). If Britain leaves it will have a period of two years to negotiate with whoever it chooses.

Michah

Britain Elects on Twitter: "EU referendum poll: Remain: 40% (-1) Leave: 47% (+4) (via TNS, online)"