Brexit discussion thread IV

Enzokk

J Mysterio wrote: »

Corbyn is some waster. Labour are apparently clamouring for a second referendum (this seemingly came from nowhere? 70%?), so to avoid going down that route, he has instead offered his support to May for a 'sensible Brexit'.

I mean.... Really?

This has apparently gone down well at conference. Offering support to that shambles of a government in spite of their interminable series of screw ups. Does he/ anyone actually think May is capable of delivering a 'sensible Brexit'? That they are deserving of support based on their record in this most serious of negotations? And this is fine.

Any Labour leader worth his salt would have torn this government to shreds long, long ago, and pushed for a GE. But Corbyn wants Brexit. He is happy for it all to go to pot and then play the messiah.

Corbyn has shown himself to be just another politician and not some saviour of the people. Lets not forget that he had this to say only a year ago when he was challenged on his leadership,

Policy will be made by Labour members and not the leader, shadow cabinet, or parliamentary party, Jeremy Corbyn has said in a debate with his three leadership rivals organised by the Guardian. The frontrunner has previously made clear that his policy proposals are only suggestions that would have to be agreed by colleagues, but this is his clearest indication yet that the role of MPs and the shadow cabinet would be diminished.

“I don’t think we can go on having policy made by the leader, shadow cabinet, or parliamentary Labour party. It’s got to go much wider. Party members need to be more enfranchised. Whoever is elected will have a mandate from a large membership.”

Jeremy Corbyn: Labour membership will determine policy, not me

Then when you have this from the membership,

About 90% of Labour members say they would vote to remain in the EU if there were a referendum now, while 86% back a public vote on the outcome of the negotiations, with just 8% against. Support for another referendum stands at 93% in London among Labour members, 82% in the rest of the south, and 86% in the north. The poll also revealed that should a general election be called, 74% of members want a commitment for a new referendum included in Labour’s manifesto.

Tom Watson tells Corbyn: ‘We must back members on new Brexit vote’

So will we ever get a reasonable answer on why there was such a battle over the wording on a second referendum on Sunday night? Another snake oil salesman when the UK needs cool and calm heads that work in the interest of the nation. Instead we have May and Corbyn, who should have shattered a lot of supporters view of him the last week.

Capt'n Midnight

UK Budget moved forward to Monday October 29

The traditional day is Wednesday but that would be Halloween but that's not the reason they moved it. No sireeee.

Larbre34

Good popcorn moments on Stephen Nolan on BBCNI, Hermann Kelly and Jim Allister getting owned by farmers and business men dealing in facts and market realities.

I don't know how the audience is selected but they are 95% remain.

FrancieBrady

Larbre34 wrote: »

Good popcorn moments on Stephen Nolan on BBCNI, Hermann Kelly and Jim Allister getting owned by farmers and business men dealing in facts and market realities.

I don't know how the audience is selected but they are 95% remain.

Some of the stuff being said is just incredible.

Mr.Nice Guy

Jim Allister should be given some of Nolan's salary since he's on his shows that often.

Some truly deluded comments on the programme.

FrancieBrady

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Jim Allister should be given some of Nolan's salary since he's on his shows that often.

Some truly deluded comments on the programme.

Who was the guy beside Allister going on and on about Irexit?

Larbre34

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who was the guy beside Allister going on and on about Irexit?

That'll be Hermann Kelly, UKIP associate and founder of the recent Irexit Freedom to Prosper Party, aka utterly unhinged political fantasist who doesnt let the facts get in the way of trying to grow a movement that has next to no attractiveness for Irish people.

Blanco100

Larbre34 wrote: »

Good popcorn moments on Stephen Nolan on BBCNI, Hermann Kelly and Jim Allister getting owned by farmers and business men dealing in facts and market realities.

I don't know how the audience is selected but they are 95% remain.

Is there anywhere to watch reruns of the latest Nolan live tv show?

I find it often provides some of the best unintentionally comedy you will ever see. Jamie Bryson is always good value.

Nelson McCausland has dropped some clangers aswell in not being able to disguise his bitterness.

mayo.mick

https://twitter.com/SebDance/status/1045013011524734977

Peregrinus

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The UK now has a Minister for Food Supplies - if I remember my secondary school history correctly, didn't Lemass hold a similar title during the Emergency?

He was Minister of Supplies. The job involved "controlling production, distribution and pricing of vital supplies". Basically it was setting up and administering the rationing system for food and fuel.

Peregrinus

kuro68k wrote: »

Labour are the best bet if we can't get a People's Vote. Their requirement that the UK gets the "exact same benefits" after leaving ensures that it will have to remain in the Single Market and Customs Union.

. . . and also that it can't remain in the Single Market and Customs Union. The "exact same benefits" of being in the Single Market include, of course, free movement but, if the deal preserves free movement, it becomes hard to argue that another of the six tests is satisfied - "Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?"

Sam Russell

Peregrinus wrote: »

. . . and also that it can't remain in the Single Market and Customs Union. The "exact same benefits" of being in the Single Market include, of course, free movement but, if the deal preserves free movement, it becomes hard to argue that another of the six tests is satisfied - "Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?"

There is no reason why a properly managed immigration system that complies with the FOM required by the single market would not satisfy the test.

EU migrants contribute more to UK economy than they take from it, are better educated than their UK colleagues, are less likely by quite a margin not to be on welfare or require health intervention, and fill vital roles within the UK economy.

Welfare tourists are easy to spot and can easily be repatriated.

If the UK had a proper immigration policy, based on a just system, rather than a 'Hostile Environment', the immigration could have been controlled. Joining Shengen might have worked better for them, and a National ID system would solve a lot of their problems.

Winters

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2018/sep/26/may-put-on-the-spot-over-brexit-how-bad-can-things-get-video

Video of Theresa May in the US answering "how bad can things get?". Doesnt give much confidence.

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

. . . and also that it can't remain in the Single Market and Customs Union. The "exact same benefits" of being in the Single Market include, of course, free movement but, if the deal preserves free movement, it becomes hard to argue that another of the six tests is satisfied - "Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?"

This is another reason I am a little frustrated with Labour. Both sides seem to think they are winning the Brexit battle but all they are doing is setting themselves up for failure. Keir Starmer has secured his 6 tests that effectively means they will stay in the EU and Jeremy Corbyn believes he has won the battle because he has not agreed to a second referendum and even if there is a second referendum the wording that Labour will be asking for is sufficiently vague that he can feel he is not going against his pledge of following the membership policies.

Jeremy Corbyn will be having meetings with the EU about no deal. He is also once again talking about fighting no deal and not trying to reverse Brexit.

I will work to avoid 'national disaster' of no-deal Brexit, Corbyn tells EU

Jeremy Corbyn has said he will work to avoid the “national disaster” of a no-deal Brexit as he travelled to Brussels for meetings at the request of the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, and Martin Selmayr, the most senior official in charge of dealing with a cliff-edge Brexit.

Here is the most interesting part of the article for me,

“Crashing out of Europe with no deal risks being a national disaster. That is why I’m meeting EU officials today, and I will be urging them to do all they can to avoid a ‘no-deal’ outcome, which would be so damaging to jobs and living standards in both the UK and EU countries.”

In his party conference speech in Liverpool, Corbyn said Labour MPs would vote against her Chequers plan unless she was willing to accept his proposal to keep Britain in a customs union and protect consumer standards and workers’ rights after Brexit.

While seemingly offering the prime minister a way to get a deal through parliament, in reality the Labour party has set six effectively insurmountable tests for their support, including that any deal delivers the “exact same benefits” as the current arrangement.

You get the feeling that Labour believe they will be able to do what the Tories have not, go to the EU and leave the EU without leaving the EU. Even if they were in power all they will do is repeat the mistakes of the Conservatives and they will face the same choices. Either you leave everything and only have a trade deal, or you are in but not in like Norway without a say. There is no middle ground.

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

There is no reason why a properly managed immigration system that complies with the FOM required by the single market would not satisfy the test.

EU migrants contribute more to UK economy than they take from it, are better educated than their UK colleagues, are less likely by quite a margin not to be on welfare or require health intervention, and fill vital roles within the UK economy.

Welfare tourists are easy to spot and can easily be repatriated.

If the UK had a proper immigration policy, based on a just system, rather than a 'Hostile Environment', the immigration could have been controlled. Joining Shengen might have worked better for them, and a National ID system would solve a lot of their problems.

Yeah, I agree. But it all depends on what is meant by "fair management of migration". I reckon that when the six tests were framed, Labour was appealing to Brexit voters whose votes were primarily driven by concerns about migration, and no permissible variation on EU free movement was likely ever to satisfy those voters.

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

This is another reason I am a little frustrated with Labour. Both sides seem to think they are winning the Brexit battle but all they are doing is setting themselves up for failure. Keir Starmer has secured his 6 tests that effectively means they will stay in the EU and Jeremy Corbyn believes he has won the battle because he has not agreed to a second referendum and even if there is a second referendum the wording that Labour will be asking for is sufficiently vague that he can feel he is not going against his pledge of following the membership policies .

Jeremy Corbyn will be having meetings with the EU about no deal. He is also once again talking about fighting no deal and not trying to reverse Brexit. . . .

Well, one reading of Corbyn's recent speech is that it's actually intended to supersede the six tests. Up to now, Labour policy was that it would vote for a Brexit deal that met Starmer's six tests. Now, however, Labour will vote for a "sensible deal" if it:

- includes a customs union
- delivers no hard border in Ireland
- protects jobs and employment rights
- protects environmental and consumer standards

So, four tests. And no mention of migration. This may reflect that migration concerns are less of an issue with voters (or with actual/potential Labour voters) than they were two years ago.

I think there's a balance going on here. On the one hand, Labour is now open to a second referendum. (As in, they don't rule it out.) That will cheer remainers but obviously risks pissing off Labour Leavers. So to reassure the Labour Leavers Corbyn replaces Starmer's "six questions" with a "sensible deal" test agains which any Brexit deal will be measured. The sensible deal test is less demanding and vaguer, and therefore seems to open up more possibility that Labour will support a deal secured by May, in which case of course there would be no second referendum. So this is designed to cheer the Labour Leavers.

But it's all cosmetic. Regardless of whether you apply Starmer's "six questions" or Corbyn's "sensible deal" test, it's wildly unlikely that any deal May brings to Parliament will pass either test. So Labour is still almost certainly going to vote against any deal that May secures with the EU and brings to Parliament.

prawnsambo

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, four tests. And no mention of migration. This may reflect that migration concerns are less of an issue with voters (or with actual/potential Labour voters) than they were two years ago.

Or it may suggest that it's too much of a thorny issue and won't bring majority support from labour members. /cynical

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

it becomes hard to argue that another of the six tests is satisfied - "Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?"

I think free movement within the EU is the beat way to ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities. There is lots of research to show that immigrants from the EU contribute positively to the UK economy and they are very much needed to maintain communities, for example nurses and doctors in the NHS, fruit pickers in rural communities.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think free movement within the EU is the beat way to ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities. There is lots of research to show that immigrants from the EU contribute positively to the UK economy and they are very much needed to maintain communities, for example nurses and doctors in the NHS, fruit pickers in rural communities.

I wouldn't disagree. But I have a strong impression that a fair chunk of Brexit voters in 2016 would have disagreed. And I feel sure that when Starmer framed that test he had them in mind, not you and me.

Still, it seems to be moot now. Public concern in the UK about migration has greatly reduced since 2016, and the new "sensible deal" test that Labour says it will apply doesn't mention it at all.

First Up

Zubeneschamali wrote:

I think free movement within the EU is the beat way to ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities. There is lots of research to show that immigrants from the EU contribute positively to the UK economy and they are very much needed to maintain communities, for example nurses and doctors in the NHS, fruit pickers in rural communities.

Yes, but the average Labour voter or trade union official doesn't think in macro economic terms. They see hard working immigrants as a threat. The more their positive impact is mentioned, the less they like them.

Jim2007

Sam Russell wrote: »

There is no reason why a properly managed immigration system that complies with the FOM required by the single market would not satisfy the test.

That is not where the problem actually is. If you look back over the various government and parliamentary statements of the past several years, the real issue is that they want to treat EU citizens differently in terms of qualification for benefits and in particular in work tax credits to the way they deal with UK citizens.

If they had been allowed to use tax credits the way they had intended, then they would have been in a position to subsidise firms employing UK citizens, since such workers would be willing to accept a lower over all employment package than EU workers who would not be in receipt of tax credits. And this was never going to fly in the EU.

Leroy42

I understand the positive benefits of immigration so this is not some sort of anti immigration rant.

But I do question this seemingly accepted fact that immigration is needed in an economy. The UK has some 60m people, there is more than enough people to go around.

Isn't immigration, basically, at way to maintain wages as low as possible as domestic workers are forced to compete with immigrants. In many, although of course not all, cases immigrants are coming to a country for a relatively short period of time and as such are willing to put up with issues that a domestic person can't. SO the level of the health service, the schools, the government etc are not as big a deal. Rent of course is, but long term housing is not.

Isn't that giving them an unfair advantage against the domestic worker who will no doubt have children, a house, car, debts, family, friends etc etc. Basically, the domestic worker is looking for jobs that they can do for many years, whilst immigrants are looking for jobs that they can maximise the income from for a shorter time before returning 'home' (I use home in terms of their first country not trying to imply that they are at home whilst in the country.)

Of course I get the argument that in many cases domestic workers simply do not have the skills needed. But surely the answer is to invest in creating the skills rather than simply buy in the skills. Of course some skills will need to be brought in, as they don't exist, but after say 5 years in a country there really is no excuse for Intel to need to hire foreign workers in Ireland, they should be investing in up-skilling and educating the domestic workforce. Not doing so allows them to get in relatively cheaper workers from abroad.

Akrasia

Enzokk wrote: »

This is another reason I am a little frustrated with Labour. Both sides seem to think they are winning the Brexit battle but all they are doing is setting themselves up for failure. Keir Starmer has secured his 6 tests that effectively means they will stay in the EU and Jeremy Corbyn believes he has won the battle because he has not agreed to a second referendum and even if there is a second referendum the wording that Labour will be asking for is sufficiently vague that he can feel he is not going against his pledge of following the membership policies.

Jeremy Corbyn will be having meetings with the EU about no deal. He is also once again talking about fighting no deal and not trying to reverse Brexit.

I will work to avoid 'national disaster' of no-deal Brexit, Corbyn tells EU



Here is the most interesting part of the article for me,



You get the feeling that Labour believe they will be able to do what the Tories have not, go to the EU and leave the EU without leaving the EU. Even if they were in power all they will do is repeat the mistakes of the Conservatives and they will face the same choices. Either you leave everything and only have a trade deal, or you are in but not in like Norway without a say. There is no middle ground.

It's gone for 'whats best for Britain' to avoiding 'national disaster'

Corbyn seems to be happy to accept a brexit that leaves the UK in a materially worse condition then they are within the EU as long as it isn't a 'national disaster'

If Corbyn thinks there is any possibility of a deal that will satisfy his conditions for a successful brexit, then he should bloody well publish that deal, put it forward and let May accept it or reject it, and let the EU negotiators comment on whether it is in any way agreeable to them.

jm08

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who was the guy beside Allister going on and on about Irexit?

It was amusing to see Kelly on the same side as Jim Allister considering his republican credentials according to the Mirror:

Nigel Farage's key aide in IRA outrage as he's revealed as hardline Irish Republican


https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farages-key-aide-ira-8072605


It says in that article that he represents the views of “Irish Catholic nationalism” (hardly surprising as a former Editor of the Irish Catholic). In the Repeal the 8th referendum, he was interviewed in home to vote interviews at Dublin Airport where he said he was home to vote ''no''. Only thing about that is that he has been living in Brussels for the last 8 years so I don't think he would have been eligible to vote!


https://twitter.com/newsworthy_ie/status/999654334018269185?lang=en

Akrasia

Leroy42 wrote: »

I understand the positive benefits of immigration so this is not some sort of anti immigration rant.

But I do question this seemingly accepted fact that immigration is needed in an economy. The UK has some 60m people, there is more than enough people to go around.

Isn't immigration, basically, at way to maintain wages as low as possible as domestic workers are forced to compete with immigrants. In many, although of course not all, cases immigrants are coming to a country for a relatively short period of time and as such are willing to put up with issues that a domestic person can't. SO the level of the health service, the schools, the government etc are not as big a deal. Rent of course is, but long term housing is not.

Isn't that giving them an unfair advantage against the domestic worker who will no doubt have children, a house, car, debts, family, friends etc etc. Basically, the domestic worker is looking for jobs that they can do for many years, whilst immigrants are looking for jobs that they can maximise the income from for a shorter time before returning 'home' (I use home in terms of their first country not trying to imply that they are at home whilst in the country.)

Of course I get the argument that in many cases domestic workers simply do not have the skills needed. But surely the answer is to invest in creating the skills rather than simply buy in the skills. Of course some skills will need to be brought in, as they don't exist, but after say 5 years in a country there really is no excuse for Intel to need to hire foreign workers in Ireland, they should be investing in up-skilling and educating the domestic workforce. Not doing so allows them to get in relatively cheaper workers from abroad.

In terms of the EU as a single market, free movement of labour is about the most efficient allocation of resources. Locally, it may seem like it's driving down wages but the bigger picture is in allowing safety valves and smoothing out boom bust cycles within the EU. The eastern european workers who came here did so to either settle permanently, or to earn and save, and return to their home country with skills experience and capital to boost their local economy.

The goal of the EU is to bring the conditions of the poorer countries closer into alignment with the more affluent countries. The EU invests heavily in structural funds, social and education programmes to develop economies on the periphery of Europe because this is the best way to maximise stability and prosperity.

There are two sides to the immigration/free movement coin. Immigrants can come to your country and 'push you out of your job' but also you and your family can move to other parts of Europe for education or employment opportunities.
I have two brothers working in EU countries, one in Estonia, one in Germany.

I wonder how many anti immigration voters have themselves, or have close family who have in the past worked or continue to work in other EU countries

listermint

Akrasia wrote: »

In terms of the EU as a single market, free movement of labour is about the most efficient allocation of resources. Locally, it may seem like it's driving down wages but the bigger picture is in allowing safety valves and smoothing out boom bust cycles within the EU. The eastern european workers who came here did so to either settle permanently, or to earn and save, and return to their home country with skills experience and capital to boost their local economy.

The goal of the EU is to bring the conditions of the poorer countries closer into alignment with the more affluent countries. The EU invests heavily in structural funds, social and education programmes to develop economies on the periphery of Europe because this is the best way to maximise stability and prosperity.

There are two sides to the immigration/free movement coin. Immigrants can come to your country and 'push you out of your job' but also you and your family can move to other parts of Europe for education or employment opportunities.
I have two brothers working in EU countries, one in Estonia, one in Germany.

I wonder how many anti immigration voters have themselves, or have close family who have in the past worked or continue to work in other EU countries

If these people were working in those jobs then there would be no need to get in immigrants.

The stats of for example Vets in the uk , Over 90% of practising Vets in the UK are from EU countries.

Now if there was UK people doing this job then there would be zero need to grab people from abroad. The same applies to all jobs. The notion that you suddenly get in foreign workers with different languages to perform the same task at locals at half the wages is quite literally nonsense based on no science.

Its Pseudoscience.

The jobs exist but locals wont fill them for what reason, who knows...

trellheim

jul 2016 Cameron appeals to merkel for some deal but nothing forthcoming. Days later the referendum occurs.

Two years later same place again and apparently no deal again.


So : either there is a deal or it’s brinkmanship for the cameras down to the wire, or Olly Robbins is doing a bad job .

First Up

Leroy42 wrote:

I understand the positive benefits of immigration so this is not some sort of anti immigration rant.

But I do question this seemingly accepted fact that immigration is needed in an economy. The UK has some 60m people, there is more than enough people to go around.

Those questions can be asked but they apply more to immigration from South Asia, the Caribbean and former UK colonies in Africa. These immigrants are almost always permanent and are heavier users of social services than EU migrants.

Free movement and labour mobility is an essential part of a single market. Can you imagine New York or California restricting migration from elsewhere in the US?

J Mysterio

Leroy42 wrote: »

I understand the positive benefits of immigration so this is not some sort of anti immigration rant.

But I do question this seemingly accepted fact that immigration is needed in an economy. The UK has some 60m people, there is more than enough people to go around.

From 18/9:

J Mysterio wrote: »

I'm sure May will be very pleased with the findings of the Migration Advisory Committee:

"Key myths on the negative impacts of EU immigration have been blown apart by a major report commissioned by the government."

"The document found EU citizens have little impact on UK workers’ wages, pay more in taxes, have no adverse impact on young Britons’ schooling, are not linked to increasing crime and contribute “much more” to the NHS than they consume."

"It did highlight how immigration helped push up house prices, but concluded the rise is directly linked to a broader failure to build new homes."

....

"the report concluding that EU migrants contribute £2,300 more to the exchequer each year in net terms than the average adult."

"Over their lifetimes, they pay in £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits, while the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution is zero."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/immigration-myths-brexit-leave-government-report-eu-citizens-migrants-tax-income-a8543121.html

Lemming

Blanco100 wrote: »

Is there anywhere to watch reruns of the latest Nolan live tv show?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=humAMb9Tc9Q