Politics, politics, politics

[glorygloryeze]

Brexit was the defeat of complex truth in the face of simple lies. Maybe "lies" is too strong, misrepresentation is probably fairer.

@glorygloryeze if the above is correct, it shows that Switzerland doesn't get much from being out of the EU's tax regiem. They still have free movement of people, and just copy and paste the EUs laws into their own to allow them to trade freely on some goods. So they don't get out of free movement, they don't get sovrignity on laws that involve trade (but can't participate in making these laws). Things cost Swiss people more becuase there isn't completely free compeition, and there are the hassels of border checks. Does the Swiss model sound benificial to the UK? This is the complex truth. Not the misrepresentation that some peddle to get votes. Who are those that spin these mistruths? Generally, a private school educated elite, who want to see a victorian gentry and the rest of the population as surfs and trades people.

It's not a vision I think most people who voted Leave share?

The Swiss model shows that a border with the EU is possible and isn't "the end of the world" scenario that remainers paint; to me it's not ideal but it's a price to pay to stay outside of the push towards a Unites States of Europe. Ireland is a key trading country so if not for the fact that the EU want to have jurisdiction over Ireland in a way to make it just a sub-region of the EU, having arrangements across the Irish border that would be beneficial to both the UK and Ireland would be eminently possible, like it is between various countries around the world.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

And therein lies the issue with a certain demographic.....
To be British is to contribute to Britain.
Not the colour of your passport.

I have a simple question for you, why is the nationality of the protestor important to you?

I think we both know the answer to that question.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Ireland is a key trading country so if not for the fact that the EU want to have jurisdiction over Ireland in a way to make it just a sub-region of the EU, having arrangements across the Irish border that would be beneficial to both the UK and Ireland would be eminently possible, like it is between various countries around the world.

A very simple question without a boarder how are you going to control immigration from the EU into the UK?

 

[Gutter Boy]

I'm not sure about the intercontinental ties. New Zealand is peculiarly British - you just have to put your watch back by 25 years - but I'd definitely feel that I had more in common with a Dutch person in the same profession if I was anywhere in the States, than with the Yank in Holland.

It's not just British - Portugal have it with Brazil, Spain with the rest of Latin America, France with their ex-colonies. Look at how Italy diplomatically had to play the Falklands conflict because their instinctive bond was their kinship one with Argentineans

 

[wiziwig]

Out of curiosity, what price would you pay for controlling immigration? How much poorer personally would you take as a trade off? How much poorer would you accept our public services becoming as a fair trade off?

Do you think being out of the EU would stop immigration, bearing in mind 50% of our immigration has been from outside the EU and has zilch to do with the EU? Do you have a preferance between EU immigrants and rest of the world immigrants?

Why is it that you Remainer/open border people always assume, that uncontrolled mass immigration automatically leads to prosperity for all and that controlled/less immigration means that, we will all forever be trapped into a life of never ending poverty?

Where is your evidence that uncontrolled mass immigration such as we have seen since 1997 (Tony Blair), has made us all richer financially and more importantly to me at least, a socially cohesive society at ease with itself?

Show me a country, your very best example of where economic and social cohesion success can be attributed to uncontrolled immigration?

In answer to the second part of your post....

I do not have a problem with controlled immigration.

I believe that uncontrolled immigration and a welfare state cannot go hand in hand. A net influx annually of 300,000 people, on top of the 200,000 birth to death ratio, equals 500,000 people added annually to the population. Should we find ourselves with a Corbyn Labour government, then I believe we will see a market increase on these numbers.

IMO this is not the way forward and I put it to you, that uncontrolled immigration leads to
1). bigger government ( all good for the Tories and Labour ),
2). higher taxes( all good for the Tories and Labour ),
3). unaffordable housing prices and rents ( all good for the few and not the many )
And
4). most importantly, envitibale authoritarianism ( again , all good for the Tories and Labour ).

 

[r-u-s-x]

Why is it that you Remainer/open border people always assume, that uncontrolled mass immigration automatically leads to prosperity for all and that controlled/less immigration means that, we will all forever be trapped into a life of never ending poverty?

Where is your evidence that uncontrolled mass immigration such as we have seen since 1997 (Tony Blair), has made us all richer financially and more importantly to me at least, a socially cohesive society at ease with itself?

Show me a country, your very best example of where economic and social cohesion success can be attributed to uncontrolled immigration?

In answer to the second part of your post....

I do not have a problem with controlled immigration.

I believe that uncontrolled immigration and a welfare state cannot go hand in hand. A net influx annually of 300,000 people, on top of the 200,000 birth to death ratio, equals 500,000 people added annually to the population. Should we find ourselves with a Corbyn Labour government, then I believe we will see a market increase on these numbers.

IMO this is not the way forward and I put it to you, that uncontrolled immigration leads to
1). bigger government ( all good for the Tories and Labour ),
2). higher taxes( all good for the Tories and Labour ),
3). unaffordable housing prices and rents ( all good for the few and not the many )
And
4). most importantly, envitibale authoritarianism ( again , all good for the Tories and Labour ).

I think the point he made was making, we can control immigration (from the EU ) only by leaving the EU - all respectable models show leaving will make us poorer, the point wasnt immigration makes us richer (an argument for another time).

The second point is one I personally predict will happen, outside of the EU immigration wont go down, we will just stop havign to give the workers the same rights.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Why is it that you Remainer/open border people always assume, that uncontrolled mass immigration automatically leads to prosperity for all and that controlled/less immigration means that, we will all forever be trapped into a life of never ending poverty?

Where is your evidence that uncontrolled mass immigration such as we have seen since 1997 (Tony Blair), has made us all richer financially and more importantly to me at least, a socially cohesive society at ease with itself?

Show me a country, your very best example of where economic and social cohesion success can be attributed to uncontrolled immigration?

In answer to the second part of your post....

I do not have a problem with controlled immigration.

I believe that uncontrolled immigration and a welfare state cannot go hand in hand. A net influx annually of 300,000 people, on top of the 200,000 birth to death ratio, equals 500,000 people added annually to the population. Should we find ourselves with a Corbyn Labour government, then I believe we will see a market increase on these numbers.

IMO this is not the way forward and I put it to you, that uncontrolled immigration leads to
1). bigger government ( all good for the Tories and Labour ),
2). higher taxes( all good for the Tories and Labour ),
3). unaffordable housing prices and rents ( all good for the few and not the many )
And
4). most importantly, envitibale authoritarianism ( again , all good for the Tories and Labour ).

I think it's because they use 'growth' as the key metric. But growth really means bugger all. It simply means more consumption, which is inevitable with population increases.

Negative growth/recession/de-growth is actually the ideal state. It means the country's population is stable and it's becoming more sustainable.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I think the point he made was making, we can control immigration (from the EU ) only by leaving the EU - all respectable models show leaving will make us poorer, the point wasnt immigration makes us richer (an argument for another time).

The second point is one I personally predict will happen, outside of the EU immigration wont go down, we will just stop havign to give the workers the same rights.

Poorer is ok if the population is slightly declining. It means wages rise and housing becomes more affordable.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Poorer is ok if the population is slightly declining. It means wages rise and housing becomes more affordable.

That's not a relationship - declining population = rising wages where did you get that from.

 

[Gutter Boy]

That's not a relationship - declining population = rising wages where did you get that from.

History. So far it's mainly happened because of disasters, whereas now it will happen because of female emancipation. But wages rose massively for the survivors of the black death and potatoes famine for example.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I agree A United States of Europe is indeed not workable; doesn't mean that the EU bigwigs don't think that way though and they don't even try to hide it these days...

People have all sorts of beliefs. Doesn't mean we should fear them! In the EU parliment there are facists, left wing radicales, neo-nazis etc but people don't talk about Europe becoming communist or a new third reich taking over. In fact Europe has been a stabilising force, set up specifically to ensure something like the Nazis and World Wars would never happen again.

Why is it that you Remainer/open border people always assume, that uncontrolled mass immigration automatically leads to prosperity for all and that controlled/less immigration means that, we will all forever be trapped into a life of never ending poverty?

Where is your evidence that uncontrolled mass immigration such as we have seen since 1997 (Tony Blair), has made us all richer financially and more importantly to me at least, a socially cohesive society at ease with itself?

Show me a country, your very best example of where economic and social cohesion success can be attributed to uncontrolled immigration?

In answer to the second part of your post....

I do not have a problem with controlled immigration.

I believe that uncontrolled immigration and a welfare state cannot go hand in hand. A net influx annually of 300,000 people, on top of the 200,000 birth to death ratio, equals 500,000 people added annually to the population. Should we find ourselves with a Corbyn Labour government, then I believe we will see a market increase on these numbers.

IMO this is not the way forward and I put it to you, that uncontrolled immigration leads to
1). bigger government ( all good for the Tories and Labour ),
2). higher taxes( all good for the Tories and Labour ),
3). unaffordable housing prices and rents ( all good for the few and not the many )
And
4). most importantly, envitibale authoritarianism ( again , all good for the Tories and Labour ).

As @r-u-s-x outlined, you've missed the point, though it is an interesting post never the less. To control or stop free EU migration we have to make sacrafices. Not least being able to freely trade with no impairment with 500m consumers in the EU. We might also lose a lot of industry such as car manufacturing, some fiancial services etc Income tax from these industries equates to millions if not billions in revenue for the Exchequer. Money that is currently earmarked for schools, hospitals etc.

There is research that others maybe able to point to, which shows that migration stimulates economies.

There is also the fact that without some form of migration we won't be able to care for the elderly, or do the most menial jobs. How many English cleaners do you know? Or how many English labourers doing the dirtiest, hardest non-skilled building jobs do you know? Having people willing to do these jobs helps our economy function.

At the moment we get access to this labour and in return we get access to a free market. In the future we maybe importanting people from further afield who can't go back home so easily when the work ends.

 

[SpurMeUp]

European has always been a strange concept. It obviously evolved from Christendom, and is used to mark distinction from the other two classical continents - Asia and Africa. I guess the problem is that Europeans colonised the 3 new world continents and more, so inter-continental ancestral ties are typically stronger than intra-continental geographic ones. Most people would bond with a Kiwi in Holland, in a way they wouldn't with a Dutch person in New Zealand, be that due to language or culture.

Actually the only place I've ever particularly felt European was in China. And that was simply because nearly all the Chinese were about a foot shorter, while the Europeans were at eye-level. There was a little bit of 'land of the giants' bonding there

Europe is quite a straight forward concept I thought. Not least because you can define Europe with physical borders (doesn't stop Isreal participating in the EuroVision!).

What is a strange concept is....sovereignty. It is a legal concept that has morphed into a philosphical one. You can't touch sovereignty. But like it or not, if you're reading from within the UK, you're within Europe.

 

[r-u-s-x]

History. So far it's mainly happened because of disasters, whereas now it will happen because of female emancipation. But wages rose massively for the survivors of the black death and potatoes famine for example.

and are there any examples of the opposite is true? I will give you a clue, the answer is yes

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-a...nalysis-40-of-the-public-up-for-grabs-by-eith

Seriously good analysis here of the different political positions within the Leave and Remain voter coalitions.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

If Im reading it right it amounts to analysis (with "a cutting-edge bespoke algorithm" which I find quite irksome) of 8000 people. People inclined to participate in a YouGov survey. So is it really indicative of anything?

Other than, obviously, different people have different views and priorities. Wow, groundbreakng stuff!

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

It's one thing to say that people are different, it's another thing to delineate and quantify that, and get granular about the propensity for change. That's when insight becomes actionable.

 

[r-u-s-x]

If Im reading it right it amounts to analysis (with "a cutting-edge bespoke algorithm" which I find quite irksome) of 8000 people. People inclined to participate in a YouGov survey. So is it really indicative of anything?

the answer is yes, even more so if the selection is done correctly 8000 people is plenty to provide conclusion to a decent standard of error. If you want to find out more there are plenty of papers and research on the matter and if you want a more gut / anecdotal evidence businesses, politicians and parties spend £10M's on this type of surveying and you would hope they have done the research. It won't always predict the outcome of things (people lie / bias / mind changes etc.) but to a decent level of error asking 8000 will lead to the same result as asking 8 million.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Interesting. Id expect it to be a pretty insignificant number.

And, ultimately, does it REALLY offer that much insight?

Some are baked in Leave/Remain, everyone in between has varying levels of care and priority. I could have told you that for free, and without a tossy algorithm.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

The value is the analysis of propensity to shift. Basically, it helps write the script for a future remain campaign. It’s saying that we have to work on @Gutter Boy and ignore you, and then identifying what to say to him.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

LOL, GB believes algorithms will mean we never have to work again, I expect he might buy into this sort of analysis!

Maybe Im missing the point, but this:
There is also often an assumption that soft voters have the same priorities as the baked-in groups, just held less fiercely. This is just not true and is likely to be counterproductive. Assuming that 'sovereignty liberals' and 'Lexiters', for instance, care about immigration is missing the point completely. Assuming that all Remainers are left-leaning also risks alienating them.

Remain campaigners need to concentrate on keeping the soft Remainers just as much as persuading the soft Leavers. Emphasising the control the UK has within the EU together with the overwhelming economic argument for Remain seems the most persuasive message for the three soft-sovereignty voter groups. Lexiters are the main soft leavers and 20% of them have already changed their minds – a full throated Labour leadership campaign for Remain could probably persuade many of these to switch.

Just doesnt blow my socks off. It seems pretty obvious to me in the first place.

While the decision offered was a binary one, this very thread alone has shown a full spectrum of people and their priorities, hasnt it?

If this turns out to be news to the higher ups in government I despair.

So this exercise is of a pretty small sample size (IMO), running through an algorithm - which we all know is ifs and buts, albeit somewhat justified, to come up with "Different people have different priorities and might change their mind".

Wow, mind blowing.

I think the real battle is between ideology and practicality.

Ideologically one might think the EU is the devil incarnate, hate the lack of sovereignty and be absolutely in the Leave camp. But - not have the appetite for the practical hardships that will follow and vote remain on that basis.

And similar arguments could be made for all sides, however you wish to group them.

Its all well and good believing in something in theory, its different seeing it through.

Again, basic common sense.

Remain could - and indeed should - have run a much better and less complacent campaign in the first place. Equally leave. Would this analysis really change anything?