Hard Brexit

[JamboX2]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

Good question.  I was at a lecture this morning about the new EU data protection directive that comes into effect in May.  It's tedious, it's boring, it's the stuff of bureaucrats' dreams - but it is a fight between the good guys and the bad guys, with the EU's institutions, especially the Court of Justice, championing the rights of people to privacy and dignity over the rights of companies to make a buck.

 

Spot on Uly. 

 

Britain, to me, is ignoring the good being done here. Partly because of the press narrative of an anti-UK EU/ECJ and partly for the Brexiteer nationalists looking to pull the drawbridge up on the EU. 

 

Again - like Scottish independence - it comes down to weight of numbers.  A market of 5 million has less clout than 65 million which has less than 743 million against the corporate giants like Facebook, Amazon, Google and the rest. 

[JamboX2]

41 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Are irish women still having to travel to the uk to get an abortion? If so why has the eu and the european court of human rights not intervened? Sorry it may be a cesspit comment but it it was a reaction to the suggestion that the uk needs the eu to teach it about human rights.

PS i recognise the question applies to all of Ireland and that the uk is culpable in relation to NI.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%2C_B_and_C_v_Ireland?wprov=sfla1

 

A, B and C v Ireland. The non-EU based European Court of Human Rights has said the Irish government needs to deal with this. They are. 

 

NI? Everytime the UN Human Rights Commission report is issued on the UK we get hammered and do little to rectify the issues at home. Like Northern Ireland's archaic laws. Why? In part democracy and the right of the Northern Irish to deal with their mess.

 

But beyond NI we have failed under UN tests of late on numerous points as the UK. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/sep/16/britain-un-human-rights-brexit

 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/sep/22/uk-failing-on-many-human-rights-measures-report-claims

 

Dragging Ireland forward? Check us out before throwing stones.

[Ulysses]

2 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%2C_B_and_C_v_Ireland?wprov=sfla1

 

A, B and C v Ireland. The non-EU based European Court of Human Rights has said the Irish government needs to deal with this. They are. 

 

NI? Everytime the UN Human Rights Commission report is issued on the UK we get hammered and do little to rectify the issues at home. Like Northern Ireland's archaic laws. Why? In part democracy and the right of the Northern Irish to deal with their mess.

 

But beyond NI we have failed under UN tests of late on numerous points as the UK. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/sep/16/britain-un-human-rights-brexit

 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/sep/22/uk-failing-on-many-human-rights-measures-report-claims

 

Dragging Ireland forward? Check us out before throwing stones.

 

 

It's all a red herring.  Ignore it, like I will.  If he genuinely believed his point about the UK he could have made it without espousing attitudes that belong in the 70s and 80s.

 

Back in the land of decency, I'd reiterate that the majority of good workplace law in the UK - and in most other European countries - derives from European law.  To the untrained eye it looks like the Labour Party were responsible for that law, but that's because the EU developed a lot of its employment law framework from the late 90s to the mid 00s, so it was transposed into UK law by the Labour governments of that time.

 

Here's another question.  Decisions in the Council of the EU are generally made by QMV (qualified majority voting) with some made by simple majority.  How often has the UK been on the losing side in a QMV vote?  Has it ever?

[Francis Albert]

18 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

It's all a red herring.  Ignore it, like I will.  If he genuinely believed his point about the UK he could have made it without espousing attitudes that belong in the 70s and 80s.

 

Back in the land of decency, I'd reiterate that the majority of good workplace law in the UK - and in most other European countries - derives from European law.  To the untrained eye it looks like the Labour Party were responsible for that law, but that's because the EU developed a lot of its employment law framework from the late 90s to the mid 00s, so it was transposed into UK law by the Labour governments of that time.

 

Here's another question.  Decisions in the Council of the EU are generally made by QMV (qualified majority voting) with some made by simple majority.  How often has the UK been on the losing side in a QMV vote?  Has it ever?

And yet you didn't ignore me. Instead you introduce, in a reply to someone else, a smear, unsupported by any evidence, about my supposed 70s and 80s attitudes. As an enthusiastic labour party supporter I welcomed labour's pioneering social legislation on issues such as homosexuality and abortion in the 60s. It is good that Ireland (which you introduced to the debate) caught up 25 years late on homosexuality and might soon catch up on abortion over 50 years later. Sorry but I get a bit pissed off by liberal left and  SNP portrayals of Britain and the British as backward proto-fascist neanderthals.

[Francis Albert]

Anyway i gather from.the guardian that the latest threat from the nuanced eu side of the negotiation is that uk driving licenses will not be accepted in the eu post-brexit for lorry drivers private motorists or britons hiring a car in eu countries.Now i am not sure if this is a real eu position or threat or just part of the guardian's own project fear. But if the former isn't it a tad pathetic?

[JamboX2]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

And yet you didn't ignore me. Instead you introduce, in a reply to someone else, a smear, unsupported by any evidence, about my supposed 70s and 80s attitudes. As an enthusiastic labour party supporter I welcomed labour's pioneering social legislation on issues such as homosexuality and abortion in the 60s. It is good that Ireland (which you introduced to the debate) caught up 25 years late on homosexuality and might soon catch up on abortion over 50 years later. Sorry but I get a bit pissed off by liberal left and  SNP portrayals of Britain and the British as backward proto-fascist neanderthals.

 

So did Scotland. Homosexuality was decriminalised in Scotland by Thatcher in the 1980s. 

 

Meanwhile, it's inescapably true that the UK lagged hugely behind it's EU neighbours in employment legislation due to Mrs T and the right of the Tories. Signing up to the social chapter was a huge leap forward.

 

Why should those rights - guaranteed by law - be subject to the tinkering of the Tories or others? 

 

Added to that, when was the last time the UK lost a vote in the EU? As Guy Verhofstadt said recently, Britain more than most nations made the EU what it is today. So why are we suddenly fleeing it?

[JamboX2]

56 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Anyway i gather from.the guardian that the latest threat from the nuanced eu side of the negotiation is that uk driving licenses will not be accepted in the eu post-brexit for lorry drivers private motorists or britons hiring a car in eu countries.Now i am not sure if this is a real eu position or threat or just part of the guardian's own project fear. But if the former isn't it a tad pathetic?

 

Thing is though these things are governed by EU laws and directives. Otherwise you need a series (thousands of them imo) of treaties and agreements as a non-EU nation to get parity or access for these benefits.

 

Hence Norway, Switzerland and the like having bilateral deals to accept the rules of the SM. The UK keep saying it doesn't want that. The EU, bound by its founding and governing treaties, cannot therefore offer this to continue for the UK.

 

If you want SkyTV but decide to go onto Freesat you lose your access to SkyTV and it's benefits. This isn't hard. It's barely a threat. It's reality. 

[JamboX2]

19 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

It's all a red herring.  Ignore it, like I will.  If he genuinely believed his point about the UK he could have made it without espousing attitudes that belong in the 70s and 80s.

 

Back in the land of decency, I'd reiterate that the majority of good workplace law in the UK - and in most other European countries - derives from European law.  To the untrained eye it looks like the Labour Party were responsible for that law, but that's because the EU developed a lot of its employment law framework from the late 90s to the mid 00s, so it was transposed into UK law by the Labour governments of that time.

 

Here's another question.  Decisions in the Council of the EU are generally made by QMV (qualified majority voting) with some made by simple majority.  How often has the UK been on the losing side in a QMV vote?  Has it ever?

 

I don't recall if that's happened in the past 20 years tbh Uly. Doubt it has.

 

Luckily for you your nation isn't dancing it's way off the cliff like a petulant, spoilt todler.

 

What I would say is there has been huge domestic strides taken when Labour was in office on a lot. But yes. Somethings were brought here by giving effect to EU laws.

Edited February 9, 2018 by JamboX2

[Francis Albert]

Out of over 700 EU council votes by qmv the uk lost (was outvoted) in 12% between 2009 and 2015. It was by far the most frequent loser the next being Germany with 5%

[JamboX2]

3 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Out of over 700 EU council votes by qmv the uk lost (was outvoted) in 12% between 2009 and 2015. It was by far the most frequent loser the next being Germany with 5%

 

During a period where the PM and Chancellor refused to join any common regulation for banking and played up to their backbenches by stoking euroskepticism?

 

Also 12% of 700 is 84. Hardly an oppressed mass. We won 88% of the time.

[Francis Albert]

16 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Thing is though these things are governed by EU laws and directives. Otherwise you need a series (thousands of them imo) of treaties and agreements as a non-EU nation to get parity or access for these benefits.

 

Hence Norway, Switzerland and the like having bilateral deals to accept the rules of the SM. The UK keep saying it doesn't want that. The EU, bound by its founding and governing treaties, cannot therefore offer this to continue for the UK.

 

If you want SkyTV but decide to go onto Freesat you lose your access to SkyTV and it's benefits. This isn't hard. It's barely a threat. It's reality. 

American and Canadian driving licences are valid in the eu. I understand brexit is complicated but how difficult would recognising uk licences be after brexit?

[Francis Albert]

11 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

During a period where the PM and Chancellor refused to join any common regulation for banking and played up to their backbenches by stoking euroskepticism?

 

Also 12% of 700 is 84. Hardly an oppressed mass. We won 88% of the time.

Or as good europeans we acceded 88% of the time. Anyway 84 is more than zero as you recalled (over 20 years not 6)

Edited February 9, 2018 by Francis Albert

[jake]

20 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

 

 

If you want SkyTV but decide to go onto Freesat you lose your access to SkyTV and it's benefits. This isn't hard. It's barely a threat. It's reality. 

? 

 

Just when you thought you had heard it all.

Vote brexit and no sky tv.

 

??

[JamboX2]

15 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

American and Canadian driving licences are valid in the eu. I understand brexit is complicated but how difficult would recognising uk licences be after brexit?

 

As I said, there must be a deal in place between these nations to that effect.

 

It's hard because we're leaving a pre-arranged (good deal imo) atm that we've built over a long time, to negotiate a new deal where we are rescinding membership and our current rights in order to achieve a new relationship with the club from outside the club. Therefore everything we've built up since the 70s is gone and we're trying to get the best bits back. What's easy about that?

[JamboX2]

15 minutes ago, jake said:

? 

 

Just when you thought you had heard it all.

Vote brexit and no sky tv.

 

??

No Jake. It's a simile. 

 

I took a real and complex issue and compared it to a simpler thing which perhaps illustrated the drawbacks from the bigger issues. 

 

You'll still get SkyTV. At no point did I say you wouldn't get Sky tv. 

[JamboX2]

19 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Or as good europeans we acceded 88% of the time. Anyway 84 is more than zero as you recalled (over 20 years not 6)

 

84 out of 700! 700!  

 

If we played Hibs 700 times in a row and lost 84 times, is that good or bad? 

 

And 88% of the time with QMV you must have VOTED for what won. It's Qualified Majority Voting. 

[Francis Albert]

8 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

84 out of 700! 700!  

 

If we played Hibs 700 times in a row and lost 84 times, is that good or bad? 

 

And 88% of the time with QMV you must have VOTED for what won. It's Qualified Majority Voting. 

Sorry but that is an absurd analogy. You said earlier you couldn't recall a single instance in 20 years when the uk lost due to qmv. Well it did about 80 times in just 6 years. Compared to every other eu member that puts the uk bottom of the league in terms of winning qmv decisions  by a huge margin. 

[Ulysses]

2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

[waffle removed]

 

 

Yeah, right.

 

Deflect all you want.  I know what you meant. 

[Francis Albert]

18 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

As I said, there must be a deal in place between these nations to that effect.

 

It's hard because we're leaving a pre-arranged (good deal imo) atm that we've built over a long time, to negotiate a new deal where we are rescinding membership and our current rights in order to achieve a new relationship with the club from outside the club. Therefore everything we've built up since the 70s is gone and we're trying to get the best bits back. What's easy about that?

Having googled a bit more on the driving licence issue i see the american automobile association offers very varied advice on whether American licences are valid in different eu countries. In some eg austria and hungary the advice is you need an international driving permit and in others your passport and america licence will be fine so it sounds like there is no eu rule on this and either the eu is bluffing or the guardian is just inventing project fear nonsense.

[Ulysses]

21 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

84 out of 700! 700!  

 

If we played Hibs 700 times in a row and lost 84 times, is that good or bad? 

 

And 88% of the time with QMV you must have VOTED for what won. It's Qualified Majority Voting. 

 

In fairness, I asked because I didn't know.  It means the UK was on the winning side in QMV a lot, which means it has a strong influence over the laws of the EU.  If that's not good enough in the UK's opinion, then you're better off leaving.

[Francis Albert]

39 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

In fairness, I asked because I didn't know.  It means the UK was on the winning side in QMV a lot, which means it has a strong influence over the laws of the EU.  If that's not good enough in the UK's opinion, then you're better off leaving.

Come on it doesn't mean the uk has a strong influence. If the uk votes against the consensus over twice as much as any other member and four or more times as often as the average member it demonstrates a pretty weak influence.

[Francis Albert]

48 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

Yeah, right.

 

Deflect all you want.  I know what you meant. 

It is hard to imagine a better example of deflecting than that.

[JamboX2]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

Come on it doesn't mean the uk has a strong influence. If the uk votes against the consensus over twice as much as any other member and four or more times as often as the average member it demonstrates a pretty weak influence.

 

It means the UK got what it wanted more than not. How does being on the winning side not suggest that!?

 

If you read what members of Visegard grouping said after the UK left you'll see how much influence the UK had.  Read what Sarkozy and Merkel and Rutte said about Brown and Cameron's influence on meetings. 

 

Britain led the EU. Backed currency union happening. Pushed for a single market we know now. Crafted the structure of the EU as it is; i.e. QMV over Veto.

 

It worked for us splendidly. Rebate, favourable banking rules, international focus from the EU, huge amounts of development subsidy, research funding... we're leaving a well working system for little benefit.

[JamboX2]

2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Sorry but that is an absurd analogy. You said earlier you couldn't recall a single instance in 20 years when the uk lost due to qmv. Well it did about 80 times in just 6 years. Compared to every other eu member that puts the uk bottom of the league in terms of winning qmv decisions  by a huge margin. 

 

And yet in the other 620 votes we got what we wanted.

 

So no. It's not absurd as an analogy.

 

Here's a follow up - what did we lose on? Have those defeats been hugely detrimental to us? 

 

What are we set to gain that we didn't already have? 

[Ulysses]

3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

It is hard to imagine a better example of deflecting than that.

 

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  If you don't want to be thought of as a nasty piece of work, don't behave like one.  Your snide jibe might have been OK back in the 70s or 80s, but it has no place now.

 

But for the record - I don't give a crap what you think, and I won't be dignifying this unpleasantness of yours with any further comment.

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, JamboX2 said:

 

And yet in the other 620 votes we got what we wanted.

 

So no. It's not absurd as an analogy.

 

Here's a follow up - what did we lose on? Have those defeats been hugely detrimental to us? 

 

What are we set to gain that we didn't already have? 

 

By the way, even though I posed the question I have no idea whether the ratio of wins to losses even crossed the minds of Leave campaigners or voters.  I doubt it's important to them in any meaningful way.  One thing I noticed was that several countries increased the rate at which they voted against decisions at the Council after 2009.  The UK had the highest rate of increase, which is why the UK had the highest "rejection" rate.

 

I find it hard to think of a law based on an EU source to which I object.  I can think of several rules of Irish origin (and one or two of British origin) that I'd like to see changed, but that's a whole other story.

[ri Alban]

11 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

And yet you didn't ignore me. Instead you introduce, in a reply to someone else, a smear, unsupported by any evidence, about my supposed 70s and 80s attitudes. As an enthusiastic labour party supporter I welcomed labour's pioneering social legislation on issues such as homosexuality and abortion in the 60s. It is good that Ireland (which you introduced to the debate) caught up 25 years late on homosexuality and might soon catch up on abortion over 50 years later. Sorry but I get a bit pissed off by liberal left and  SNP portrayals of Britain and the British as backward proto-fascist neanderthals.

I think you'll find the SNP just want an Indy Scotland. You can keep your Lords, Royals and Empire for your forward thinking Democratic selves.

 

 

I'm... What's the phrase? Pro choice? A woman can decide what she wants to do about her pregnancy. But to suggest abortion is some sort of forward thinking brainwave of sorts is just stupid.

Yes that opinion written down sounds contradictory. But still, maybe I should change my own opinion on it.

Edited February 10, 2018 by ri Alban

[JamboX2]

2 hours ago, ri Alban said:

I think you'll find the SNP just want an Indy Scotland. You can keep your Lords, Royals and Empire for your forward thinking Democratic selves.

 

 

The same side of the coin as Brexit. Replace Lords with Bureaucrats. Royals with Commissioners. Empire with dictatorship.

 

Christ, the now often heard phrase "short term pain for better in the longer term" echoes in my ears from the indyref campaign from the SNP and Yes supporters.

 

Little Scotland meets Little England.

[Francis Albert]

On ‎10‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 00:42, Ulysses said:

 

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  If you don't want to be thought of as a nasty piece of work, don't behave like one.  Your snide jibe might have been OK back in the 70s or 80s, but it has no place now.

 

But for the record - I don't give a crap what you think, and I won't be dignifying this unpleasantness of yours with any further comment.

Yet you keep replying. I see one of the Fianna Fail men has courageously (in an Irish context) rebelled against the idea that Irish women should have to travel to England to get abortions even after they have been told they will give birth to dead babies. And that the  idea that women should be allowed to abort after 12 weeks as part of the new  "liberal" Irish abortion proposals is opposed  because it might mean fewer Downs Syndrome babies may be born.

 

Sorry but if England/UK can be castigated for being backward ...

 

 

Edited February 12, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Ulysses]

India expects additional visas for entry to the UK as a condition of a trade deal. 

 

Does that mean the UK won't be agreeing a trade deal with India in order to keep immigration numbers down?

 

Meanwhile, the EU expects that it will be easier for it to agree a trade deal with India once the UK is no longer on the EU side of the table in talks.

[Francis Albert]

11 hours ago, Ulysses said:

India expects additional visas for entry to the UK as a condition of a trade deal. 

 

Does that mean the UK won't be agreeing a trade deal with India in order to keep immigration numbers down?

 

Meanwhile, the EU expects that it will be easier for it to agree a trade deal with India once the UK is no longer on the EU side of the table in talks.

If India insists on free movement of people on the EU model then of course there won't be a trade deal.

 

However what India is seeking is less restrictive access for students and qualified people so they can compete for university places  and jobs where people are in demand in IT, medicine etc.

 

That would be good for the UK - indeed even at present without a trade deal and while in the EU it would be good for the UK but politically difficult while unrestricted immigration continues from the EU.

 

A non-discriminatory immigration policy where entry is granted to those (from India and Rumania alike) who have most to contribute (see the policies of Australia and indeed India) could be one of the benefits  of "taking back control" ... if the UK is sensible enough to take advantage of the opportunity (which of course is not a given).

[manaliveits105]

I see Jimmy Crankie is nowhere to be seen at Byfab this time - another snp feck up 

[The Comedian]

1 hour ago, manaliveits105 said:

I see Jimmy Crankie is nowhere to be seen at Byfab this time - another snp feck up 

 

You can't save BIFAB. They **** up every job they get. Clients usually paying the men's wages by the end of a contract.

[JamboX2]

8 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

If India insists on free movement of people on the EU model then of course there won't be a trade deal.

 

However what India is seeking is less restrictive access for students and qualified people so they can compete for university places  and jobs where people are in demand in IT, medicine etc.

 

That would be good for the UK - indeed even at present without a trade deal and while in the EU it would be good for the UK but politically difficult while unrestricted immigration continues from the EU.

 

A non-discriminatory immigration policy where entry is granted to those (from India and Rumania alike) who have most to contribute (see the policies of Australia and indeed India) could be one of the benefits  of "taking back control" ... if the UK is sensible enough to take advantage of the opportunity (which of course is not a given).

But we have lots of skilled workers. We lack people willing to pick fruit for minimum wage and willingto clean toilets. Our economy is as dependent on them as it is Indian neurosurgeons or Canadian aeronautical engineers.

 

We could've put restrictions on EU immigration. Treaties allow it. We didn't. Why? It was good for the economy and good for our demographics. Oh and the cost of policing it.

Edited February 13, 2018 by JamboX2

[Ulysses]

Apparently the UK is busily scrambling around trying to work out how to get trade deals.  Not new trade deals, but trade deals to make up for the ones that will fall by the wayside once the UK leaves the EU.

 

The government is planning to "rollover" existing trade deals negotiated by the EU with non-EU countries.  But some of those countries are gearing up to demand additional concessions from the UK for access to their markets - concessions they couldn't get from the EU. 

 

https://www.fginsight.com/news/news/uk-forced-to-import-more-food-as-price-for-brexit-transition-rollover-52206

 

If they get concessions from the UK, that will hamper the UK's ability to do a "seamless" trade deal with the EU, because the EU will have to introduce additional customs and documentation checks to prevent the UK from being used by those countries to bypass trade and tariff restrictions in their arrangements with the EU.

 

 

[JamboX2]

19 hours ago, Ulysses said:

India expects additional visas for entry to the UK as a condition of a trade deal. 

 

Does that mean the UK won't be agreeing a trade deal with India in order to keep immigration numbers down?

 

Meanwhile, the EU expects that it will be easier for it to agree a trade deal with India once the UK is no longer on the EU side of the table in talks.

 

It'll happen each time. 

 

We want access.

 

Good, we do too. 

 

So all trade?

 

Nah we want lesser restrictions on immigration too. Afterall, we don't just produce goods you need but people you'll want...

 

Fair point. But immigration bad.

 

Ah... no trade deal then.

 

Again and again. Britain had 0 immigration restrictions to naturalisation pre-1900.  None. We are an immigrant nation - the guarantee to citizenship to imperial citizens in the 1940s, acceptance of free movement, the CTA with Ireland, the lessened requirements on the commonwealth nations.... It's what makes us the UK. Now with an aging population we need the young to come here, work and contribute. To not will hurt us longer term when there's less population growth at working age to fund our increasing elderly population - baby boomers are getting close to social care. That'll cost us.

 

We are going to reverse where we've been. We've tightened up non-EU immigration for little reason. Now we'll loosen that and tighten EU immigration. It's barmy stuff. Really is.

[JamboX2]

5 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

Apparently the UK is busily scrambling around trying to work out how to get trade deals.  Not new trade deals, but trade deals to make up for the ones that will fall by the wayside once the UK leaves the EU.

 

The government is planning to "rollover" existing trade deals negotiated by the EU with non-EU countries.  But some of those countries are gearing up to demand additional concessions from the UK for access to their markets - concessions they couldn't get from the EU. 

 

https://www.fginsight.com/news/news/uk-forced-to-import-more-food-as-price-for-brexit-transition-rollover-52206

 

If they get concessions from the UK, that will hamper the UK's ability to do a "seamless" trade deal with the EU, because the EU will have to introduce additional customs and documentation checks to prevent the UK from being used by those countries to bypass trade and tariff restrictions in their arrangements with the EU.

 

 

 

Perfect storm. 

 

All illustrated by May refusing to rule out access to the NHS in free trade deals with America post-Brexit.

 

There's strength in numbers. No more so than a globalised economy like this.

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, JamboX2 said:

But we have lots of skilled workers. We lack people willing to pick fruit for minimum wage and willingto clean toilets. Our economy is as dependent on them as it is Indian neurosurgeons or Canadian aeronautical engineers.

 

We could've put restrictions on EU immigration. Treaties allow it. We didn't. Why? It was good for the economy and good for our demographics. Oh and the cost of policing it.

I wonder what the UK unemployment rate among neurosurgeons and aeronautical engineers is compared to that among unskilled workers. Maybe an alternative to importing cheap labour at the minimum wage (or in practice of course often below the minimum wage) to clean toilets and pick fruit would be to pay toilet cleaners and fruit pickers more. I think that is how the law of supply and demand is supposed to work.

Edited February 13, 2018 by Francis Albert

[JamboX2]

11 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I wonder what the UK unemployment rate among neurosurgeons and aeronautical engineers is compared to that among unskilled workers. Maybe an alternative to importing cheap labour at the minimum wage (or in practice of course often below the minimum wage) to clean toilets and pick fruit would be to pay toilet cleaners and fruit pickers more. I think that is how the law of supply and demand is supposed to work.

 

Never underestimate the human ability to view something as beneath them. 

 

I do not disagree with you on wages. They should get more - but again this comes down to enforcement of legislation. We are masters of not enforcing well. Agencies undercut the minimum wage for years. Little down. Equal Pay Act, 50 years on still no equality of pay.

 

We should be auditing and reviewing companies to ensure these things are done. We should regulate the economy more. We should have workers on remuneration panels. Laws capping upper pay... 

 

...we could. We can do all that. And we can do this from within the EU too because other EU nations do this too.

 

In effect; our problems are of our own making. Let's solve them without destroying a key plank of our foreign policy, leaving our key trading block and opening ourselves up to declining to a third rate power behind the EU's big nations.

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Never underestimate the human ability to view something as beneath them. 

 

I do not disagree with you on wages. They should get more - but again this comes down to enforcement of legislation. We are masters of not enforcing well. Agencies undercut the minimum wage for years. Little down. Equal Pay Act, 50 years on still no equality of pay.

 

We should be auditing and reviewing companies to ensure these things are done. We should regulate the economy more. We should have workers on remuneration panels. Laws capping upper pay... 

 

...we could. We can do all that. And we can do this from within the EU too because other EU nations do this too.

 

In effect; our problems are of our own making. Let's solve them without destroying a key plank of our foreign policy, leaving our key trading block and opening ourselves up to declining to a third rate power behind the EU's big nations.

What evidence do you have that other EU countries police minimum wage rules better than we do?

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

It'll happen each time. 

 

We want access.

 

Good, we do too. 

 

So all trade?

 

Nah we want lesser restrictions on immigration too. Afterall, we don't just produce goods you need but people you'll want...

 

Fair point. But immigration bad.

 

Ah... no trade deal then.

 

Again and again. Britain had 0 immigration restrictions to naturalisation pre-1900.  None. We are an immigrant nation - the guarantee to citizenship to imperial citizens in the 1940s, acceptance of free movement, the CTA with Ireland, the lessened requirements on the commonwealth nations.... It's what makes us the UK. Now with an aging population we need the young to come here, work and contribute. To not will hurt us longer term when there's less population growth at working age to fund our increasing elderly population - baby boomers are getting close to social care. That'll cost us.

 

We are going to reverse where we've been. We've tightened up non-EU immigration for little reason. Now we'll loosen that and tighten EU immigration. It's barmy stuff. Really is.

No we are not. We are not the USA or Canada or Australia, When I was born which is not yet ancient history the UK was a very homogeneous society. The only major immigration in 1000 years were the Normans and Huegenots  both on a small scale compared to immigration since the 1950's. The Irish of course in the 19th and early 20th centuries but that was at the time nationally internal migration, like Scots and Welsh to England and Gaels from the Highlands and Islands to Glasgow (although the Irish on the whole certainly had a much harder time). I think immigration since I was born has to date been on the whole a good thing for the UK but I don't see the need to invent myths about the UK being "an immigrant nation".  

Edited February 13, 2018 by Francis Albert

[JamboX2]

7 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

No we are not. We are not the USA or Canada or Australia, When I was born which is not yet ancient history the UK was a very homogeneous society. The only major immigration in 1000 years were the Normans and Huegenots  both on a small scale compared to immigration since the 1950's. The Irish of course in the 19th and early 20th centuries but that was at the time nationally internal migration, like Scots and Welsh to England and Gaels from the Highlands and Islands to Glasgow (although the Irish on the whole certainly had a much harder time). I think immigration since I was born has to date been on the whole a good thing for the UK but I don't see the need to invent myths about the UK being "an immigrant nation".  

 

How about the large influx of eastern European jews in the 19th and early 20th centuries fleeing pogroms in Russia? The reactionary French in the late 18th and early 19th centuries? Imperial citizens throughout the early 20th century - Indians, Africans? The huge growth of Germans in Britain pre-WW1? The Belgians during the first war? Italians in the 19th Century? A mixture of Eastern Europeans in the 19th/20th centuries fleeing war in the Balkans?

 

Britain isn't - nor has it been - a nation with a strict anti-immigrant background. Dispersal of immigrants hasn't been uniform hence the lack of impact in some areas of Britain - Scotland and the North of England, Wales for example.

 

Throughout our history since Rome we have regularly accepted incoming peoples and gained from it more than most of our neighbours. Why fear it now? 

[JamboX2]

8 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

What evidence do you have that other EU countries police minimum wage rules better than we do?

 

My point was that EU nations seem to do a better job at regulating and developing a mixed economy than ours. Added to that check statistics on wealth inequalities between the UK and other EU nations and we are more unequal as a nation.

 

These are not the fault of the EU though. It's a failing of British politicians to tackle the root causes of inequality.

[jake]

My god jambox2 are you brainwashed into believing that life in the EU is as you say?

If it is why do so many of my work mates and neighbours want to come here?

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, JamboX2 said:

 

How about the large influx of eastern European jews in the 19th and early 20th centuries fleeing pogroms in Russia? The reactionary French in the late 18th and early 19th centuries? Imperial citizens throughout the early 20th century - Indians, Africans? The huge growth of Germans in Britain pre-WW1? The Belgians during the first war? Italians in the 19th Century? A mixture of Eastern Europeans in the 19th/20th centuries fleeing war in the Balkans?

 

Britain isn't - nor has it been - a nation with a strict anti-immigrant background. Dispersal of immigrants hasn't been uniform hence the lack of impact in some areas of Britain - Scotland and the North of England, Wales for example.

 

Throughout our history since Rome we have regularly accepted incoming peoples and gained from it more than most of our neighbours. Why fear it now? 

I wonder what the maximum level of immigration in any one year was in the examples you quote. I am pretty sure it would be a small fraction of 300,000. In fact I suspect it would be a small fraction of 300,000 over a  decade let alone per year. When I said the UK population when I was born was remarkably homogenous it wasn't nostalgia for better times. Boring is in this context is a synonym for homogenous. I don't fear immigration but welcome it. But on the other hand I don't see the point of the liberal pretence that recent levels of immigration have not been exceptional. In fact this pretence  that it s just normal when people in many parts of England at least can see with their own eyes changes on an unprecedented scale must be very helpful to anti-immigrant groups. 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, JamboX2 said:

 

My point was that EU nations seem to do a better job at regulating and developing a mixed economy than ours. Added to that check statistics on wealth inequalities between the UK and other EU nations and we are more unequal as a nation.

 

These are not the fault of the EU though. It's a failing of British politicians to tackle the root causes of inequality.

I am sure the 40% youth unemployed in much of Southern Europe appreciate the better job EU nations are doing in regulating and developing their economies. Of course they will have better workers rights (at least on paper) ... if they ever get a job.

[JamboX2]

1 hour ago, jake said:

My god jambox2 are you brainwashed into believing that life in the EU is as you say?

If it is why do so many of my work mates and neighbours want to come here?

 

Because we are one of the wealthier EU nations. However there are clear failings in our system. 

[Boris]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/14/dover-could-suffer-20-mile-permanent-traffic-jam-after-brexit

 

Hopefully some sort of deal can be agreed because this sounds bloody hopeless!  Ironic that Kent will potentially grind to a halt given that Kent was very pro-brexit.

 

See you in the food queues!

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

1 hour ago, Boris said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/14/dover-could-suffer-20-mile-permanent-traffic-jam-after-brexit

 

Hopefully some sort of deal can be agreed because this sounds bloody hopeless!  Ironic that Kent will potentially grind to a halt given that Kent was very pro-brexit.

 

See you in the food queues!

Garden of England, too. All that pollution won't be good for their crops. 

[Francis Albert]

3 hours ago, Boris said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/14/dover-could-suffer-20-mile-permanent-traffic-jam-after-brexit

 

Hopefully some sort of deal can be agreed because this sounds bloody hopeless!  Ironic that Kent will potentially grind to a halt given that Kent was very pro-brexit.

 

See you in the food queues!

The Guardian and a scary anti-Brexit story? I am shocked.

Well not really a story. Someone's prediction based on god knows what assumptions and analysis.

The Guardian in its desperate fight against falling sales increasingly splashes CP Scott's old maxim "Opinion is free. Facts are sacred" across its pages. "Opinions are Free. Facts are hard to come by" fits the paper better these days. For some reason I still buy it nearly fifty years after I started but I don't really know why. The "I" offers  much the same product, pro EU but less fanatically and obsessively so, and now in much the same format at nearly one third of the price. With the bonus you don't have Polly Toynbee, George Monbiot and Polly Toynbee preaching at you.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Francis Albert