Politics, politics, politics

[Baleforce]

Completely open to correction - but IMHO the main issue people have with "immigration" is the dependence on welfare, the taking of homes and jobs, and the ease with which it happens for immigrants. Especially in more deprived areas*. That there are immigrants isnt really the issue.

It's been proven that this is not the case with EU immigrants.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

It's been proven that this is not the case with EU immigrants.

Proven how?

 

[Baleforce]

Proven how?

that EU immigrants are net contributors to the economy

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac....s/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Boris Johnson is calling on his former cabinet colleagues to stage a mutiny over Theresa May's Brexit plan - but he admits "it will make little difference".

Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Mr Johnson says the PM is "on the verge of total surrender" to Brussels and her proposals are "a recipe for continued strife".

"We are on the verge of signing up for something even worse than the current constitutional position. These are terms that might be enforced on a colony," he adds.

Mr Johnson, who resigned as foreign secretary in July over Mrs May's Brexit strategy, writes in his column: "Even if we agree with the EU that the UK must have a unilateral break clause, so that we can go our own sweet way at a time of our own choosing, it is irrelevant because the programme and ambition of the government is to remain in captivity, to stay in our cell even if we are given the theoretical key to escape."

With no deal reached, time is running out to secure a special EU summit before the end of the month.

An extra cabinet meeting had been pencilled in this week but that's looking highly unlikely.

Mr Johnson warns MPs not to surrender to the "scare tactic" approach of the PM when she speaks of the "chaos of no deal".



Probably a fair assessment by the buffoon, isnt it?

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

that EU immigrants are net contributors to the economy

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac....s/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/

Which completely glosses over the point I made about it being a regional/geographic issue.

Come to the ass end of Croydon and see if immigration is a net benefit, then ask in central London, then go out to the sticks and see what they say - you think youll get the same answer from each?

As well as, for me, this kind of caveat raises huge questions about the validity of the result anyway:

The existing estimates of the fiscal impact of immigration in the UK are limited because of a lack of data and accurate information about a wide range of important factors. For this and other reasons, a significant number of assumptions must be made in order to estimate the fiscal effects of immigration, and results tend to change based on these assumptions.

First lines of the "understanding the evidence" section.

 

[Gutter Boy]

as I understand it, their position is that it can be avoided if we are inline with the four freedoms

My understanding is the 1923 common travel area means people aren't a problem, it's just goods. Which is why Chequers is just alignment on goods (not people, services or capital), and why you can have technological solutions.

 

[Baleforce]

Which completely glosses over the point I made about it being a regional/geographic issue.

Come to the ass end of Croydon and see if immigration is a net benefit, then ask in central London, then go out to the sticks and see what they say - you think youll get the same answer from each?

As well as, for me, this kind of caveat raises huge questions about the validity of the result anyway:

The existing estimates of the fiscal impact of immigration in the UK are limited because of a lack of data and accurate information about a wide range of important factors. For this and other reasons, a significant number of assumptions must be made in order to estimate the fiscal effects of immigration, and results tend to change based on these assumptions.

First lines of the "understanding the evidence" section.

I'm sure you wouldn't get the same answer, responses would be emotive and anecdotal I expect.

So maybe if people perceive an issue, they'll perceive a solution too?

 

[the dza]

I havent ignored your other post, its just that it kind of rolls into this one.

What exactly do you think will happen if Labour get in in an election in the coming weeks?

I assume the EU will grant an extension to the negotiations to allow for the hand over etc. But then what?

Negotiations start from scratch? We go back to the divorce bill? The EU are suddenly really amenable to the anti EU leader? What do you suppose Corbyn will achieve that May cant?

I see very little difference to be achieved at all. The only thing that gets a deal done is further concession to the EUs will. Chances are May is getting shafted on it right now, and that Corbyn will be no different.

More and more Im convinced the outcome will be a referendum, not an exit. As I said, its the get out of jail free card. The government offer it, cross their fingers, and with a little luck (for them) it all goes away - just like that.

If Labour gets in, it will be on a position of a permanent customs union and alignment with EU regulations when it comes to workers rights, environmental protections, with no prospect of a tax regime that seeks to undercut the EU in some way. That's the starting point for Labour's negotiations and has been for some time. Labour is a pro-EU party in the main, in terms of members, MPs, trade union backers etc. So for Labour to negotiate from that position is very different from the Tory negotiating position. If Labour negotiated a deal along those lines and was aligned enough with the single market, then Labour MPs would vote it through and if they had won a general election and formed a government, then there's be enough votes that this sort of deal would get through Parliament.

That sort of deal might not be to your liking, but that's where Labour will go with things should they get the opportunity to be leading the negotiations.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

I'm sure you wouldn't get the same answer, responses would be emotive and anecdotal I expect.

So maybe if people perceive an issue, they'll perceive a solution too?

For some, there is no issue. For others there is a very real impact on their daily lives. I dont know the solution they might come up with.

Not that Im trying to start an argument about it, more just putting out there how I feel it is wrongly perceived.

To be anti immigration is not necessarily racist, stupid or xenophobic, but can actually be based on pretty fair things.

And yet that side of this particular conversation is never really given a fair shake, IMO.

 

[Baleforce]

My understanding is the 1923 common travel area means people aren't a problem, it's just goods. Which is why Chequers is just alignment on goods (not people, services or capital), and why you can have technological solutions.

assuming that can be protected

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

If Labour gets in, it will be on a position of a permanent customs union and alignment with EU regulations when it comes to workers rights, environmental protections, with no prospect of a tax regime that seeks to undercut the EU in some way. That's the starting point for Labour's negotiations and has been for some time. Labour is a pro-EU party in the main, in terms of members, MPs, trade union backers etc. So for Labour to negotiate from that position is very different from the Tory negotiating position. If Labour negotiated a deal along those lines and was aligned enough with the single market, then Labour MPs would vote it through and if they had won a general election and formed a government, then there's be enough votes that this sort of deal would get through Parliament.

That sort of deal might not be to your liking, but that's where Labour will go with things should they get the opportunity to be leading the negotiations.

So you think we start again, then?

And you think because we will essentially align with the EU the EU will deal, and parliament will pass such a deal (assuming a big enough Labour majority?)

You dont hide your Labour affiliations, from what I can see you seem to be a true believer - I have to ask, are you just buying whatever they are selling at this point?

And I mean no offence, honestly. Have you really broken this down logically to see what is likely and or possible? Not least, then, what is even preferable?

I dont see the EU granting another few years to start again, period. Why would they?

And I dont see Labours "alignment" as so appealing to make them think its worth it. They have May over a barrell, is it really any different in a significant way?

I do understand the threat of no deal - but I think they know very well we are likely to completely give up and back out before that happens.

So whats in it for them?
- May somehow gets a bastard deal through parliament and we become an EU vassall state = Win for them.
- May fudges it up, a referendum follows, we stay in = Win for them.
- Referendum goes the other way? = Hard Brexit and, presumably, they have us even further over a barrell when it comes to consequent negotiations = Win for them.

What does Labour coming in, trying to play nice on the promise of getting a deal through - no matter how heavily weighted to the EU - what interest does that hold for them?

And Corbyn doesnt even want to do a deal, he'll be up front begrudgingly just to keep the party happy - what happens when he starts seeing his own red lines? Or is he supposed to blindly sign up to EU policy?

You're a Labour man, you want your team in the big seat - I get it. However, the line that they are the ones to get a deal done etc - it really doesnt stack up for me.

 

[the dza]

So you think we start again, then?

And you think because we will essentially align with the EU the EU will deal, and parliament will pass such a deal (assuming a big enough Labour majority?)

You dont hide your Labour affiliations, from what I can see you seem to be a true believer - I have to ask, are you just buying whatever they are selling at this point?

And I mean no offence, honestly. Have you really broken this down logically to see what is likely and or possible? Not least, then, what is even preferable?

I dont see the EU granting another few years to start again, period. Why would they?

And I dont see Labours "alignment" as so appealing to make them think its worth it. They have May over a barrell, is it really any different in a significant way?

I do understand the threat of no deal - but I think they know very well we are likely to completely give up and back out before that happens.

So whats in it for them?
- May somehow gets a bastard deal through parliament and we become an EU vassall state = Win for them.
- May fudges it up, a referendum follows, we stay in = Win for them.
- Referendum goes the other way? = Hard Brexit and, presumably, they have us even further over a barrell when it comes to consequent negotiations = Win for them.

What does Labour coming in, trying to play nice on the promise of getting a deal through - no matter how heavily weighted to the EU - what interest does that hold for them?

And Corbyn doesnt even want to do a deal, he'll be up front begrudgingly just to keep the party happy - what happens when he starts seeing his own red lines? Or is he supposed to blindly sign up to EU policy?

You're a Labour man, you want your team in the big seat - I get it. However, the line that they are the ones to get a deal done etc - it really doesnt stack up for me.

You are correct, I want a Labour government. I also want a brexit that is least damaging, which imo is to stay closely aligned with the EU in terms of the single market and be part of a customs union. I voted to remain but the vote was to leave, so we leave. For me, leaving but staying in close alignment with the EU is about as good as we can do. If they can work out a deal re. immigration then that would probably satisfy enough leavers for the issue to be settled, but that's not particularly high on my list of priorities.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

You are correct, I want a Labour government. I also want a brexit that is least damaging, which imo is to stay closely aligned with the EU in terms of the single market and be part of a customs union. I voted to remain but the vote was to leave, so we leave. For me, leaving but staying in close alignment with the EU is about as good as we can do. If they can work out a deal re. immigration then that would probably satisfy enough leavers for the issue to be settled, but that's not particularly high on my list of priorities.

You miss my point. And believe me, Im not trying to pick on you or start a row or something.

Yes you want a Labour government, of course you do. And yes, you are pro EU and want to stay close. Its pretty par for the course for Labour supporters, isnt it?

My point is this - while it all sounds great that Labour get power, then do a deal, and then live happily ever after - what are the actual chances of any of it happening?

As I said, why would the EU even entertain starting again? Why would they offer a significant extension? If they did - at what cost?

We already know their "deal" is "no deal". Work out something on immigration? Why do you think this all started!?

All likely outcomes from this point suit them, so for what reason would they let it all carry on longer?

Other than you would like them to, because it suits your desired outcome?

 

[parklane1]

For some, there is no issue. For others there is a very real impact on their daily lives. I dont know the solution they might come up with.

Not that Im trying to start an argument about it, more just putting out there how I feel it is wrongly perceived.

To be anti immigration is not necessarily racist, stupid or xenophobic, but can actually be based on pretty fair things.

And yet that side of this particular conversation is never really given a fair shake, IMO.

But you know there are some who will always play the race card over the Brexit result. Sad to say but its true.

 

[Rorschach]

I agree on soft Brexit.

I think we will end up with hard Brexit due to the incompetence you expected.

Chance of hard brexit is rising daily. I'd say it is more likely than not now.

 

[the dza]

You miss my point. And believe me, Im not trying to pick on you or start a row or something.

Yes you want a Labour government, of course you do. And yes, you are pro EU and want to stay close. Its pretty par for the course for Labour supporters, isnt it?

My point is this - while it all sounds great that Labour get power, then do a deal, and then live happily ever after - what are the actual chances of any of it happening?

As I said, why would the EU even entertain starting again? Why would they offer a significant extension? If they did - at what cost?

We already know their "deal" is "no deal". Work out something on immigration? Why do you think this all started!?

All likely outcomes from this point suit them, so for what reason would they let it all carry on longer?

Other than you would like them to, because it suits your desired outcome?

IMO, The EU would prefer that we never left. But as we are where we are, the next best option from their point of view is for us to be closely aligned, with a customs union and some sort of single market arrangement/alignment. They have already indicated a willingness to extend article 50, I don't think that would be a problem should we elect a new government. I'm not passionately pro-EU, but it strikes me as the least worst option to stay close to them. In or out of the EU, I want a Labour Government.

And I don't think you are trying to start a row, but don't worry if you do, this is politics!

*edit -- I agree with you that a deal on immigration is unlikely (should we want a very close arrangement/whatever we want to call it). The difference is, if Labour are elected to government, this would not be a problem for Labour in terms of the votes of their MPs. The Tory Party have to have this as a red line because of the make-up of their party.

 

[Rorschach]

Revisit the technical solutions if we're stopping just being weak

There are no technical solutions. That is a complete fantasy.

 

[the dza]

Chance of hard brexit is rising daily. I'd say it is more likely than not now.

I did think this, but hearing some MPs talk recently (particularly Hilary Benn earlier today) I have faith in our Parliament that they won't let it happen. Whether this faith is misplaced or not, we'll see...

 

[milo]

@milo can we put up a poll? Or an open question to you all...What do you think the outcome of Brexit will be?

• A Soft Brexit.
• A Hard Brexit.
• A new Vote?

Yep.

 

[Rorschach]

I did think this, but hearing some MPs talk recently (particularly Hilary Benn earlier today) I have faith in our Parliament that they won't let it happen. Whether this faith is misplaced or not, we'll see...

I have feeling that the ship is already sinking. What's going on now is just arranging the deck chairs. NI might get a special arrangement but that's about it.

The blame game has already started.