A+A on Brexit - The Return of the Living Dead

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

IMO the outcome will make very little difference in the long term, one way or the other. The UK has already opted out of the euro currency, the Schengen common travel area, and has negotiated derogations on lots of EU legislation, especially anything to do with labour law. After leaving the EU they wouldn't be in a very different position to Norway and Switzerland, which position vis a vis the EU is not very different to the UK position today.

Yes, if they want to retain single market access they'll have to continue to implement current and future EU legislation, contribute to the EU budget and allow the free movement of people.

All the things the Leave side want rid of.

The only real difference between N / CH and UK atm is that at least the UK gets a say in the EU legislation it has to implement.

Oh, and fish. Lots and lots of lovely fish (Norway obviously, not CH...) The same sh1te the lunatic fringe here were spouting a few years ago about how if we told the EU to go hang we could all gain billions from fishing, so who cares if everyone else is picking spuds or unemployed.

The whole bloody thing is a ridiculous waste of time and it's all really about that goon Cameron and the internal politics of his increasingly deranged party. A very dangerous game to play where you can win nothing you don't already have, but lose big if you lose. It's already done damage to the UK economy (and stoked up Scottish separatism again) even if they do vote to remain.

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The whole bloody thing is a ridiculous waste of time and it's all really about that goon Cameron and the internal politics of his increasingly deranged party. A very dangerous game to play where you can win nothing you don't already have, but lose big if you lose.

Its worth remembering the reason for the referendum in the first place.
Prior to their last general election, Cameron's party were losing their traditional support base to UKIP. UKIP were promising to pull the UK out of the EU, but had no realistic chance of winning. Nevertheless, they could have taken enough votes to allow Labour to win that election. So Cameron's ingenious plan was to claw back these votes temporarily by promising to hold this referendum himself. His was the only party that could realistically offer to hold the referendum. The plan worked, and Cameron is the PM. So now its payback time for those borrowed votes.

Hotblack Desiato

Yes, the terrifying electoral might of UKIP which has managed to win a single Commons seat in its entire existence (and that an incumbent MP who defected from the Tories.)

It's really about keeping the right wing of his party from defecting, at least for now. But Eurosceptics are like rabid wolves, you can throw meat at them but you will never satisfy them and eventually they will devour you.

MrPudding

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yes, the terrifying electoral might of UKIP which has managed to win a single Commons seat in its entire existence (and that an incumbent MP who defected from the Tories.)

It's really about keeping the right wing of his party from defecting, at least for now. But Eurosceptics are like rabid wolves, you can throw meat at them but you will never satisfy them and eventually they will devour you.

The only reason they only have one is first past the post voting. If we had PR they would have 54 MPs.

MrP

Bristolscale7

Had a look at the derogations the U.K. currently has: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union
I'm not sure if the U.K. left it would make much difference at all since they are already operating outside so much EU policy. As I've said before, the democratic deficit is a real thing and the neo-liberal technocrats in Brussels could use kick to the crotch. If it comes at the cost of a strategic error by the U.K. so much the better.

De Gaulle had it right in 1967

. . . the Common Market is a sort of prodigy. To introduce into it now new and massive elements, into the midst of those that have been fit together with such difficulty, would obviously be to jeopardize the whole and the details and to raise the problem of an entirely different undertaking. All the more that if the Six have been able to build this famous edifice it is because it concerned a group of continental countries, immediate neighbors to each other, doubtless offering differences of size, but complementary in their economic structure. Moreover, the Six form through their territory a compact geographic and strategic unit. It must be added that despite, perhaps because of their great battles of the past-I am naturally speaking of France and Germany - they now find themselves inclined to support one another mutually rather than to oppose one another. Finally, aware of the potential of their material resources and their human values, all desire either aloud or in whispers that their unit constitute one day an element that might provide a balance to any power in the world.

Compared with the motives that led the Six to organize their unit, we understand for what reasons, why Britain-who is not continental, who remains, because of the Commonwealth and because she is an island, committed far beyond the seas, who is tied to the United States by all kinds of special agreements-did not merge into a Community with set dimensions and strict rules. While this Community was taking shape, Britain therefore first refused to participate in It and even took toward it a hostile attitude as if she saw in It an economic and political threat. Then she tried to negotiate in order to join the Community, but in such conditions that the latter would have been suffocated by this membership. The attempt having failed, the British Government then asserted that it no longer wanted to enter the Community and set about strengthening its ties with the Commonwealth and with other European countries grouped around it in a free-trade area. Yet, apparently now adopting a new state of mind, Britain declares she is ready to subscribe to the Rome Treaty, even though she is asking exceptional and prolonged delays and, as regards her, that basic changes be made in the Treaty's implementation. At the same time, she acknowledges that in order to arrive there, it will be necessary to surmount obstacles that the great perceptiveness and profound experience of her Prime Minister have qualified as formidable.

This is true, for instance, of the agricultural regulations. We know that they tend to have the countries of the Community nourish themselves on what they produce and to compensate, by what is called "financial levies," for all the advantages that each could have in importing less expensive produce from elsewhere. Now, Britain nourishes herself, to a great extent, on food-stuffs bought inexpensively throughout the world and, particularly, in the Commonwealth. If she submits to the rules of the Six, then her balance of payments will be crushed by "levies" and, on the other hand, she would then be forced to raise the price of her food to the price level adopted by the continental countries, consequently to increase the wages of her workers and, thereby, to sell her goods all the more at a higher price and with more difficulty. It is clear that she cannot do this. But, if she enters the Community without being really subjected to the agricultural system of the Six, this system will thereby collapse, completely upsetting the equilibrium of the Common Market and removing for France one of the main reasons she can have for participating in it.

Another basic difficulty arises from the fact that, among the Six, it is a rule that capital circulates freely to promote expansion, but that in Britain-if she were allowed to enter-it is forbidden for capital to leave so as to limit the balance-of-payments deficit, a deficit that, despite praiseworthy efforts and some recent progress, still remains threatening. How can this problem be solved? For it would be for the British an excessive risk to eliminate the sluice-gates which, in Britain, block the movement of money to the outside and, for the Europeans, it would be unthinkable to take into the organization a partner which, in this respect, would find itself isolated in such a costly regime,

Also, how can it not be seen that the very situation of the pound sterling prevents the Common Market from incorporating Britain. The very fact that the organization of the Six is entirely freeing their mutual trade necessarily implies that the currency of the member countries has a constant relative value and that, if it happened that one of them were disturbed, the Community would ensure its recovery. But this is possible only due to the well-established soundness of the mark, the lira, the florin, the Belgian franc and the French franc. Now, without despairing of seeing the pound hold its own, for a long time we would not be assured that it will succeed. . . . Monetary parity and solidarity are the essential conditions of the Common Market and assuredly could not be extended to our neighbors across the Channel, unless the pound appears, one day, in a new situation and such that its future value appears assured; unless it also frees itself of the character of reserve currency; unless, finally, the burden of Great Britain's deficitary balances within the sterling area disappear. When and how will this happen?

What is true, at this very moment, from the economic standpoint, would also be true, eventually, from the political standpoint. The idea, the hope which, from the beginning, led the Six continental countries to unite, tended without any doubt toward the formation of a unit which would be European in all respects, and, because of this would become capable not only of carrying its own weight in production and trade, but also of acting one day politically by itself and for itself toward anyone. Considering the special relations that tic the British to America, with the advantage and also the dependence that results for them; considering the existence of the Commonwealth and their preferential relations with it; considering the special commitment that they still have in various parts of the world and which, basically, distinguishes them from the continentals, we see that the policy of the latter, as soon as they have one, would undoubtedly concur, in certain cases, with the policy of the former. But we cannot see how both policies could merge, unless the British assumed again, particularly as regards defense, complete command of themselves, or else if the continentals renounced forever a European Europe.

[]

In truth, it really seems that the change in the situation of the British in relation to the Six, once we would be ready by common consent to proceed with it, might consist of a choice between three issues.

Either recognize that, as things stand at present, their entry into the Common Market, with all the exceptions that it would not fail to be accompanied by, with the irruption of entirely new facts, new both in nature and in quantity, that would necessarily result from this entry, with the participation of several other States that would certainly be its corollary, would amount to necessitating the building of an entirely new edifice, scrapping nearly all of that which has just been built. What, then, would we end tip with if not, perhaps, the creation of a free-trade area of Western Europe, pending that of the Atlantic area, which would deprive our continent of any real personality?

Or, establish, between the Community on the one band, and Britain and some States of the "little" free-trade area on the other, a system of association, such as the one provided for in the Treaty of Rome and which could, without creating an upheaval, multiply and facilitate the economic relations between the contracting parties.

Or else, lastly, before changing what exists, wait until a certain internal and external evolution, of which Great Britain seems already to be showing signs, is eventually completed, that is to say, until that great people which is endowed with tremendous ability and courage has itself accomplished first and for its part the necessary profound economic and political transformation so that it can join with the Six continental countries. I really believe that this is the desire of many people, who are anxious to see the emergence of a Europe corresponding to its natural dimensions and who have great admiration and true friendship for Britain. If, one day, she were to come to this point, how warmly France would welcome this historic conversion.

http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1967-degaulle-non-uk.html

smacl

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

I'm not sure if the U.K. left it would make much difference at all since they are already operating outside so much EU policy.

From a purely pragmatic viewpoint, a negative market reaction to brexit looks likely to devalue sterling further, which regardless of trade agreements will significantly affect export from the EU countries such as Ireland into the UK where margins are tight. This includes the likes of tourism and labour costs as well as goods. Of all the jobs carried out by EU nationals in the UK, a large proportion of them are highly skilled where the local UK workforce could simply not meet the demand. Massive infrastructural projects such as Crossrail (£14bn cost) would simply not be feasible without a huge skilled migrant workforce among contractors and subcontractors, Crossrail 2 looks like a furthe £27bn-£32bn, and I can think of a number of large Irish and European firms that will suffer if use of EU workers is impeded. It will be interesting to see how the UK handles all this in the case of a brexit.

What UKIP and its followers perhaps fail to realise is that very many of the jobs being taken off them by foreigners are jobs they simply don't have the local workforce to fill. If those jobs don't get done, the economy will suffer.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Of all the jobs carried out by EU nationals in the UK, a large proportion of them are highly skilled where the local UK workforce could simply not meet the demand. Massive infrastructural projects such as Crossrail (£14bn cost) would simply not be feasible without a huge skilled migrant workforce...

Of all the bizarre claims I have heard, the notion that British engineers are incapable of building their own railways is one of the funniest.
Somehow they managed to build railways not only throughout the UK, but also Africa and India. The cliff section of the Dart railway around Bray head was a project taken on by Isambard Kingdom Brunel, more or a less because other projects were too easy and he liked a challenge.

robindch

pH wrote: »

[...] I missed the call for killing those who disagree, perhaps someone could provide me with the timestamp?

Last month, following the election of Sadiq Khan as mayor of London, Britain First announced that it was going to launch a campaign of direction action against muslims:

http://metro.co.uk/2016/05/24/britain-first-announce-they-plan-to-target-elected-muslim-officials-5902460/

Britain First wrote:

Britain First is about to launch a direct action campaign against Muslim elected officials, at all levels of politics. Figures such as Sadiq Khan (mayor of London), Sajid Javid (cabinet minister), MOHAMMED Altaf-Khan (mayor of Oxford), Hussain Akhtar (mayor of Blackburn), Shafique Shah (mayor of Birmingham) and so on.

This campaign was prompted by the election of Islamic extremist Sadiq Khan as mayor of London. Britain First leader Paul Golding said: ‘Britain First specialises in militant direct action and has tracked down and confronted numerous hate preachers and terrorists. Britain First now considers all Muslim elected officials as ‘occupiers’ and will start to oppose their strategy of entryism and take-over of our political system.

Our intelligence-led operations will focus on all aspects of their day-to-day lives and official functions, including where they live, work, pray and so on. Britain First has an official policy of banning Islam in the UK and will not stop until all Islamist occupiers are driven out of politics completely. Stand by for a flurry of direct operations, similar to those we have launched numerous times against Islamists such as hate preacher Anjem Choudary.

Yesterday in court, Thomas Mair said that his name was "death to traitors, freedom for Britain"

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/18/jo-cox-murder-suspect-thomas-mair-told-police-he-was-political-activist

The Guardian wrote:

A written summary of the prosecution’s case revealed the findings of a search of the defendant’s house. Newspaper articles relating to Cox and ideological material relating to extreme rightwing and white-supremacist organisations and individuals were recovered from the property.

From evidence so far, Mair appears to have been motivated primarily by hatred of muslims rather than intra-EU migration, though I'm sure he probably believed the two were the same.

In any case, it seems reasonable to me that Mair's extremist views were comforted by the mainstream anti-immigrant rhetoric which has been part of the strategy of the brexit crew.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Of all the bizarre claims I have heard, the notion that British engineers are incapable of building their own railways is one of the funniest.
Somehow they managed to build railways not only throughout the UK, but also Africa and India. The cliff section of the Dart railway around Bray head was a project taken on by Isambard Kingdom Brunel, more or a less because other projects were too easy and he liked a challenge.

And how many of those railways were actually built by Englishmen? When Britain was building railways in India and Africa it had an empire, where all the construction was carried out by local people. Kitchener's railway across the Sudan for example was built almost entirely by Egyptians, many of who died in the process. The major contractors on Crossrail include Dragados, Ferrovial Agroman, and Skanska. There were hundreds of Irish workers on the tunnelling section alone, and thousands once you get as far as various subcontractors. Running a small company myself where the bulk of my customers are in the UK infrastructure sector, they all employ a large number of non-nationals and they are all suffering from skills shortages and recruitment issues.

All major British railways have relied on foreign workforces to be built, from the very first to the most recent.

recedite

All British railways built outside Britain have relied on foreign unskilled labour for construction. Not the railways built within Britain.
The labour was not always local either BTW; there is a large ethnic population in East Africa who are descended from railway navvies imported from the Indian subcontinent.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

All British railways built outside Britain have relied on foreign unskilled labour for construction. Not the railways built within Britain.
The labour was not always local either BTW; there is a large ethnic population in East Africa who are descended from railway navvies imported from the Indian subcontinent.

Not quite. From The Navvies: How the Irish built the modern British railways;

Of the 250,000 Navigators, or ‘Navvies’ (in the US, Navigational Engineers) operating in Britain at the height of railway expansion, roughly 1 in 3 was an Irishman.

and Wikipedia on Navvies;

A study of 19th century British railway contracts by David Brooke, coinciding with census returns, conclusively demonstrates that the great majority of navvies in Britain were English. He does, however, state that 'only the ubiquitous Irish can be regarded as a truly international force in railway construction' although the Irish only comprised about 30% of the navvies.

Certainly on large modern infrastructural projects in the UK, much of the design and build is carried out by international consultants, with Irish companies well represented alongside Scandinavian, French, and Spanish companies. At an individual level, the civil engineering industry in the UK currently has a huge number of Eastern Europeans, Spanish and Greeks, as does the much smaller indigenous Irish civil engineering and construction sector in Ireland. From my understanding there are similar skills deficits in the medical sector, with nurses, doctors and specialists in short supply.

anothernight

smacl wrote: »

At an individual level, the civil engineering industry in the UK currently has a huge number of Eastern Europeans, Spanish and Greeks, as does the much smaller indigenous Irish civil engineering and construction sector in Ireland. From my understanding there are similar skills deficits in the medical sector, with nurses, doctors and specialists in short supply.

The mechanical engineering sector where I live (Midlands) is also crying out for foreign engineers, as there aren't enough local engineers to meet the demand. Lots and lots of Irish people moving here for that reason, but also Spanish, Italian, German, etc., often with juicy relocation packages. A lot of the local engineering companies are practically poaching employees from similar companies in other countries. The atmosphere in these companies is that they'll be in a very difficult situation (to put it mildly) if the UK leaves the EU.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Not quite. From The Navvies: How the Irish built the modern British railways;

It is somewhat disingenuous not to include the Irish as statistically "British" in the context of 19th Century. I presume you would accept that the railways in Britain and Ireland were built by Irish, English, Scottish, Welsh labour, and not "foreign" labour.

As for the modern situation, I agree that foreign and/or EU workers are employed in the engineering sector, but then you have to ask why are all these new roads and houses and schools needed? Its largely because of the pressure put on infastructure by immigrants.
A similar situation arose here with large numbers of eastern europeans being employed to build houses, the demand for which was largely driven by immigration. But that does not mean the Irish have somehow lost the ability to build enough houses for their own needs.

A country like Japan is more representative of a stable economy. There is very little immigration, the population is relatively stable, so there is no great demand for covering whatever countryside they have left in new infastructure.

anothernight

recedite wrote: »

As for the modern situation, I agree that foreign and/or EU workers are employed in the engineering sector, but then you have to ask why are all these new roads and houses and schools needed? Its largely because of the pressure put on infastructure by immigrants.

Engineering isn't just civil/structural engineering.

silverharp

the question might be why does Britain have a skills shortage and not Japan or Germany? if the reason is that open emigration means companies or the education system are too lazy to bother training for the right skills then they should change that and focus of letting British people get first bite of the cake?

PopePalpatine

Speaking of Germany and skills shortages: http://www.expatica.com/de/news/Plagued-by-worker-shortage-Germany-tries-out-points-based-immigration_600529.html

silverharp

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Speaking of Germany and skills shortages: http://www.expatica.com/de/news/Plagued-by-worker-shortage-Germany-tries-out-points-based-immigration_600529.html

traditionally they had a good system of technical training and company apprenticeships that would leave the UK in the shade. given that average births there has been ~1.4 for a long time now, I'd say they have a people shortage more than anything else. A points system is at least a reasonable way to go about it

MrPudding

recedite wrote: »

Of all the bizarre claims I have heard, the notion that British engineers are incapable of building their own railways is one of the funniest.
Somehow they managed to build railways not only throughout the UK, but also Africa and India. The cliff section of the Dart railway around Bray head was a project taken on by Isambard Kingdom Brunel, more or a less because other projects were too easy and he liked a challenge.

There was actually a really interesting BBC2 (I think) documentary about the Crossrail project. Quite a lot of the engineers involved were not from the UK. There were some of course, but there were/are plenty of foreigners.

Also, interestingly, even the crews manning the TBMs are not all local. The numbers varied across the shifts, but on some shifts the TBMs were being run by Polish guys.

smacl wrote: »

From a purely pragmatic viewpoint, a negative market reaction to brexit looks likely to devalue sterling further, which regardless of trade agreements will significantly affect export from the EU countries such as Ireland into the UK where margins are tight. This includes the likes of tourism and labour costs as well as goods. Of all the jobs carried out by EU nationals in the UK, a large proportion of them are highly skilled where the local UK workforce could simply not meet the demand. Massive infrastructural projects such as Crossrail (£14bn cost) would simply not be feasible without a huge skilled migrant workforce among contractors and subcontractors, Crossrail 2 looks like a furthe £27bn-£32bn, and I can think of a number of large Irish and European firms that will suffer if use of EU workers is impeded. It will be interesting to see how the UK handles all this in the case of a brexit.

What UKIP and its followers perhaps fail to realise is that very many of the jobs being taken off them by foreigners are jobs they simply don't have the local workforce to fill. If those jobs don't get done, the economy will suffer.

Whilst there will be pockets where the figures are considerably worse (and probably other where they are a little better) the overall unemployment rate in the UK is 5%, the lowest in something like 11 years. At the same time, there are thousands of vacancies not being filled. Now, part of that issue might be that the is a dislocation between the location of those that need the jobs and where the jobs are, but the fact remains there are plenty of job vacancies that simply aren't being filled.

And that does irritate me somewhat. I am from NI and until relatively recently I didn't have any qualification beyond a handful of GCSEs. As a result, I couldn't get anything close to a worthwhile job in NI. So I moved my family (which was much smaller) to Dublin to get a decent job and improve my prospects. Some years later I moved to the UK for a better job. The point being, there do seem to be jobs if people are willing to put the effort in. I find it a little amusing to see people complaining about Eastern Europeans taking job which they are willing to travel to the UK to take when the people doing the complaining don't seem willing to move or travel to the nearby city where the jobs are.

Admittedly, not everyone can move or travel, but there is definitely an element of people being unwilling to move or travel. There are jobs and if UK people aren't will to move or commute to take those jobs then they will be filled by people that are willing to move. I remember a conversatrion with a pub landlord in Dublin. I was asking him why all the floor staff were Polish girls. His response was "I can only hire people that apply for the jobs."

MrP

smacl

recedite wrote: »

It is somewhat disingenuous not to include the Irish as statistically "British" in the context of 19th Century. I presume you would accept that the railways in Britain and Ireland were built by Irish, English, Scottish, Welsh labour, and not "foreign" labour.

By that token you could refer to the Indians who built the Indian railways as British on the basis that they were British occupied countries at that point much as Ireland was. The point remains that a substantial part English railways in England were built by Irishmen. Funny enough, in the context of brexit, many of the people Britain has been so keen to keep out are people that also would have statistically been referred to as British in the 19th century.

As for the modern situation, I agree that foreign and/or EU workers are employed in the engineering sector, but then you have to ask why are all these new roads and houses and schools needed? Its largely because of the pressure put on infastructure by immigrants.

A similar situation arose here with large numbers of eastern europeans being employed to build houses, the demand for which was largely driven by immigration. But that does not mean the Irish have somehow lost the ability to build enough houses for their own needs.

A country like Japan is more representative of a stable economy. There is very little immigration, the population is relatively stable, so there is no great demand for covering whatever countryside they have left in new infastructure.

The UK have an expanding population, which is being contributed to significantly by immigration. They also have another problem in common with many European countries in that they have an ageing population, and certainly in the professions such as engineering, the migrant population are almost entirely employed and thus net contributors to the economy.

The huge amount of housing development in Ireland was largely due to availability of cheap money through reckless lending by the banks, both to developers and buyers. While Eastern Europeans were employed during construction they were hardly the target market. As of the last census, the largest non-national group living in Ireland were actually British at 112,000 with Polish about half that.

The Japanese population is actually in decline and ageing with an average birth rate of 1.4 children per woman, which is a source of concern for its economy. I think any country with an ageing population should consider immigration to be on balance advantageous.

silverharp

smacl wrote: »

The Japanese population is actually in decline and ageing with an average birth rate of 1.4 children per woman, which is a source of concern for its economy. I think any country with an ageing population should consider immigration to be on balance advantageous.

the Japanese case is interesting, they are with the Germans in not bothering to replace themselves. Maybe its better for Japan to let its population drop. The place is crowded and their society is a bit mental. Maybe it would become a nicer place to live in the future with a bit more space.
The Japanese seem to be trying to introduce more technology for a lot of the manual work which is kind of what you would expect a high tech society to do

smacl

silverharp wrote: »

the Japanese case is interesting, they are with the Germans in not bothering to replace themselves. Maybe its better for Japan to let its population drop. The place is crowded and their society is a bit mental. Maybe it would become a nicer place to live in the future with a bit more space.
The Japanese seem to be trying to introduce more technology for a lot of the manual work which is kind of what you would expect a high tech society to do

I think it is not so much the size of the population, as the average age coupled the retirement age firstly and the average retiree life expectancy secondly. As medical costs increase with old age society needs to be able cope, and perhaps unfortunately the fewer children are willing to look after elderly parents in their homes as they once did. Pensions and geriatric care costs are the next economic time bomb for many first world countries.

jackofalltrades

robindch wrote: »

It's impossible to say whether the current climate of xenophobia and hatred whipped up by the majority of the brexit crew has contributed directly to yesterday's murder of Labour MP Jo Cox, but indirectly?

Can you give examples of the "xenophobia and hatred whipped up the the majority of the brexit crew"?

In any case, it seems reasonable to me that Mair's extremist views were comforted by the mainstream anti-immigrant rhetoric which has been part of the strategy of the brexit crew.

Being critical of the level of immigration is a reasonable position to take, provided it's based on reason.
If someone with a history of mental illness takes comfort in this then there's not a lot you can do.
And I'd say a lot of the content in the current debate would be considered quite tame for a man who's had letters published in pro-apartheid magazines.
I think it's very unfair to be trying to insinuate that the brexit campaign is in somehow culpable for the death of Jo Cox.

silverharp

smacl wrote: »

I think it is not so much the size of the population, as the average age coupled the retirement age firstly and the average retiree life expectancy secondly. As medical costs increase with old age society needs to be able cope, and perhaps unfortunately the fewer children are willing to look after elderly parents in their homes as they once did. Pensions and geriatric care costs are the next economic time bomb for many first world countries.

its a hump for sure , still when they come out the far side of it, it might worth it for people there to have families again. it went from something like 40m in 1900 to over 120m , if it halved from here in a 100 years it would be a good thing and more sustainable

recedite

smacl wrote: »

By that token you could refer to the Indians who built the Indian railways as British on the basis that they were British occupied countries at that point much as Ireland was...

Well no, the residents of overseas territories were never considered British citizens and did not have British passports. The Act of Union applied only to the countries England, Ireland, Wales, Scotland. The Channel Islands were not included, and certainly not the most far flung territories of the empire.

smacl wrote: »

The Japanese population is actually in decline and ageing with an average birth rate of 1.4 children per woman, which is a source of concern for its economy. I think any country with an ageing population should consider immigration to be on balance advantageous.

The Japanese are well aware of economic changes due to their demographic situation, but they have chosen not to use immigration to stimulate economic growth. They are instead on the path to a steady state economy.

recedite

As expected, the celebs have been wheeled out by the Remain side for the final week of the campaign. "Fearful" Richard Branson, a concerned David Beckham and "Brexit will make you all poorer" George Soros all warning of dire consequences.

Mind you, Soros never really explained how his own plan was going to make everyone richer.

In the statement Mr Soros called on the EU to create a new border control, whereby it "has to accept at least a million asylum-seekers annually for the foreseeable future".
He said: "Adequate financing is critical. The EU should provide £10,000 (€15,000) per asylum-seeker for each of the first two years to help cover housing, health care, and education costs – and to make accepting refugees more appealing to member states."
Mr Soros also said that it is important to "place refugees where they want to go".

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

As expected, the celebs have been wheeled out by the Remain side for the final week of the campaign. "Fearful" Richard Branson, a concerned David Beckham and "Brexit will make you all poorer" George Soros all warning of dire consequences.

To be fair this was very much expected, the english pulled the same stuff with the Scottish ref last year, the leave side would do the same....if they had any decent names on their side :pac:

recedite

Cabaal wrote: »

..the leave side would do the same....if they had any decent names on their side :pac:

Not really, its a fear mongering thing. It only works when you are trying to maintain the status quo, and it works best at the last minute. If you suddenly convince previously uninterested people that they may be standing at the edge of an abyss, they will step back, just in case.

smacl

Sterling getting stronger against the Euro suggests a confidence in the financial markets that the remain vote will win. Similarly Paddy Power are only giving 1/4 for remain but 3/1 to leave. Looks very much like the pundits are all going for remain.

seamus

The death of Jo Cox seems to have caused fairly serious ripples according to a few polls and analysts.

They're suggesting that it's somewhat focussed voters' minds about the kinds of people who are in support of a leave, but also put something of a gag on leave campaigners who can't be seen to be going all-out on their campaign while the country is effectively in mourning. It also means they have to pick their words carefully.

When Nigel Farage is using a carbon copy of Nazi propaganda in his campaign and the next day an MP is murdered by an extremist nationalist, people start joining the dots.

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

Not really, its a fear mongering thing.

Its a laugh that you'd claim the leave side wouldn't use fear mongering tack-ticks when they've already copied Nazi propaganda from the 30's,

jackofalltrades

Cabaal wrote: »

To be fair this was very much expected, the english pulled the same stuff with the Scottish ref last year, the leave side would do the same....if they had any decent names on their side :pac:

If this is turning into a game of Top Trumps then I play the Michael Caine card.

seamus wrote: »

When Nigel Farage is using a carbon copy of Nazi propaganda in his campaign...

It's not a carbon copy though.
The stills from the Nazi propaganda film demonises the refugees.
UKIP's Ad attacks the EU and uses the picture to backup the "breaking point" narrative.
If the Nazi film inspired the creator of the Ad or the Ad attacked the refugees, then you'd have a point.

Cabaal

jackofalltrades wrote: »

If this is turning into a game of Top Trumps then I play the Michael Caine card.

Considering Caine left the UK to goto the US in the 70's for income tax reasons, he only returned after Thatcher lowered it....a fan of Thatcher is never a good fan. He's still apparently big into tax avoidance even recently....strange for somebody that loves his country

He also thinks everyone at 16 years of age should do compulsory time doing national service, so I'd take his viewpoints with a pinch of salt

jackofalltrades

Cabaal wrote: »

Considering Caine left the UK to goto the US in the 70's for income tax reasons, he only returned after Thatcher lowered it....a fan of Thatcher is never a good fan. He's still apparently big into tax avoidance even recently....strange for somebody that loves his country

He also thinks everyone at 16 years of age should do compulsory time doing national service, so I'd take his viewpoints with a pinch of salt

Yeah, but his acting.
It was either him or Keith Chegwin, I think I made the right choice when it comes to "celeb power".

robindch

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Can you give examples of the "xenophobia and hatred whipped up the the majority of the brexit crew"?

Farage's pseudo-Nazi "breaking point" ad is a good example. Otherwise, well, if you haven't noticed already that the brexit campaign is jingoistic and xenophobic, then I don't think that anything I can say is likely to enlighten you.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

If someone with a history of mental illness takes comfort in this then there's not a lot you can do.

As somebody said recently, you can't deny responsibility for a fire by claiming that all you did was strike the match.

robindch

Thoughtful article on what the UK government can do in the event of a Leave result.

http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2016/06/14/can-the-united-kingdom-government-legally-disregard-a-vote-for-brexit/

recedite

All this talk of nazis and racists.
I suppose when rational arguments aren't good enough, godwinning is the next best thing.

Kiwi in IE

I'm not well informed on the consequences of this referendum at all to be honest, and I don't usually buy into the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' crap, however I think if I lived in the UK, Nigel Farage being on the 'leave' side might be enough to decide my vote.

MrPudding

recedite wrote: »

All this talk of nazis and racists.
I suppose when rational arguments aren't good enough, godwinning is the next best thing.

Have you actually talked to any brexit supporters here in the UK? I have spoken to a bunch of then, here is how it goes:

Them: I am voting leave because blah...

Me: OK, were you aware that it is not quite as has been portrayed [goes on to explain their misunderstanding]

Them: Hmmm, well I am also voting leave for blah.

Me: Well that is quite interesting because [goes on to explain their misunderstanding]

- this process then continues for a number of iterations. Typical reason would be, the steel industry, the fishing industry, immigrations, sovereignty, unemployment/jobs being taken, the NHS, housing etc.

The conversation usually ends with something along the lines of:

Them: Well I am just voting out. OK.

They are, for the most part, impervious to rational arguments.

MrP

MrPudding

So, interesting story... I have just been speaking to my neighbour. She went to vote and as she approached the entrance to the polling station she noticed there was a man partially blocking the entrance. She assumed he was part of the polling team, but was confused as he had a political button on his jacket. As she got up to him he asked her for her polling card. She told him she didn't have it, and did not think she needed it. She pushed passed him into the centre.

She spoke to the staff inside and they told her he was not a polling official. Apparently, early that had been considerably more of them, but they moved them on. As my neighbour was leaving the guy had stopped a young woman and had her polling card in his hand and was either writing something on it, or copying something off it. Very odd, my neighbour called the police and reported it.

Very odd behaviour. Not entirely sure what the purpose of it is.

MrP

Alun

Very odd. There's not a lot someone could do with a polling card for someone who has already voted I'd imagine.

jackofalltrades

robindch wrote: »

Farage's pseudo-Nazi "breaking point" ad is a good example.
Otherwise, well, if you haven't noticed already that the brexit campaign is jingoistic and xenophobic, then I don't think that anything I can say is likely to enlighten you.

So all you have is one debatable example.

As somebody said recently, you can't deny responsibility for a fire by claiming that all you did was strike the match.

In which case you should probably close this thread, before others like Michael Steven Sandford are "comforted" by it.

jackofalltrades

MrPudding wrote: »

So, interesting story... I have just been speaking to my neighbour. She went to vote and as she approached the entrance to the polling station she noticed there was a man partially blocking the entrance. She assumed he was part of the polling team, but was confused as he had a political button on his jacket. As she got up to him he asked her for her polling card. She told him she didn't have it, and did not think she needed it. She pushed passed him into the centre.

She spoke to the staff inside and they told her he was not a polling official. Apparently, early that had been considerably more of them, but they moved them on. As my neighbour was leaving the guy had stopped a young woman and had her polling card in his hand and was either writing something on it, or copying something off it. Very odd, my neighbour called the police and reported it.

Very odd behaviour. Not entirely sure what the purpose of it is.

MrP

Having to push past someone partially blocking the entrance to a polling station is ridiculous.
I'd encourage her to contact the police, because the polling staff don't seem to be doing a good enough job.
Behaviour like that needs to be nipped in the bud fast before others think of copying them.

MrPudding

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Having to push past someone partially blocking the entrance to a polling station is ridiculous.
I'd encourage her to contact the police, because the polling staff don't seem to be doing a good enough job.
Behaviour like that needs to be nipped in the bud fast before others think of copying them.

So I have some more details. It is perfectly legal for people to be outside the polling station and ask for the polling cards. What is not allowed is making entry difficult and being aggressive and intimidating.

i spoke with the staff in the station and they told me that had to get some of them to move on, they had received over 20 complaints from people trying to vote. It seems that some of these guys were overly aggressive.

So, what were they actually up to? Well, you learn something new every day. Apparently, as the party workers are canvassing, when they visit a house and the person tells them they will be voting their way, they will make a note of that. On polling day they take a copy of the register with them and wait outside the polling station. As people tell them their polling number (which they don't have to) they mark them off the list. After about 2000hrs they check their list for people that said they would vote their way, but haven't turned up. They will then send a car to that address to ask why the person hasn't voted yet and if they want a lift. I had no idea that went on.

My objection to it was the aggressive and intimidating behaviour, though the guy I saw when I took my mother to vote was very polite. I also think they are being a little misleading. The guy that was there when I was had a chair and a clipboard, he looked reasonably official. Whilst he did not say he was an official, neither did he say be wasn't.

MrP

smacl

Wow, not as expected. Bad news for anyone exporting products to the UK on a tight margin as sterling took a dive this morning. Fingers crossed the markets don't take too much of a knicker fit and turn a problem into a crisis, as Tim Farron of the lib dems reckons the UK is now heading for recession. Still, not all bad as Marine Le Penn hails it as a "Victory for Freedom" :rolleyes:

Wonder how much the flooding in London and the south affected the outcome? Act of God maybe? The end is nigh, I tell you!! :pac:

silverharp

its a big fck you to Merkel , her open door migration policy from last year easily behind the marginal vote

nozzferrahhtoo

Is there any credibility to this? I know entirely nothing about EU Law....

http://www.businessinsider.de/green-eu-referendum-not-legally-binding-brexit-2016-6?r=UK&IR=T

smacl

silverharp wrote: »

its a big fck you to Merkel , her open door migration policy from last year easily behind the marginal vote

The worst political decision since a bunch of Germans decided to vote for a small man with a small moustache.

pH

Who would have thought that calling people racists and bigots isn't a good way to get them to vote the way you'd like?

Still, not as resounding a defeat as the Irish people gave the first Lisbon treaty, but we all know how that turned out. Maybe the UK might get another chance to get it right like we did?

MrPudding

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Is there any credibility to this? I know entirely nothing about EU Law....

http://www.businessinsider.de/green-eu-referendum-not-legally-binding-brexit-2016-6?r=UK&IR=T

I can't read that, but I think I get the gist. The answer is, kind of... The referendum does not start the process of the UK's exit from the EU, it simply shows that a small majority of the population want it. This could, technically, be ignored.

Article 50 of the Lisbon Agreement lays out the process and procedure for exiting the EU. It requires certain formalities, a referendum is not a requirement, nor does it satisfy the formalities.

There are, I believe there are 3 options for the government:

1) Trigger Article 50 and begin the formal process of leaving the EU.
2) Don't trigger Article 50 but pass legislation to reverse the treaty that started the UK's membership and unpick the subsequent legislation.
3) Do nothing.

I don't think the government can do nothing. I genuinely believe leaving is the wrong decision, but it would be unthinkable for the government to ignore that decision.

I don't think number 2 would be wise. It would indicate a disdain for international agreements and commitments that would be highly damaging to the country.

The only thing that is certain right now is that interesting time lie ahead.

MrP

PopePalpatine

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Is there any credibility to this? I know entirely nothing about EU Law....

http://www.businessinsider.de/green-eu-referendum-not-legally-binding-brexit-2016-6?r=UK&IR=T

Technically speaking, yes, the parliament can decide to vote against the result of the referendum.