Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The CBI give a thumbs up to Corbyn and Brussels said to be loo

13

Comments

  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    Danny565 said:

    Foxy said:



    Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.

    I'me now, but still no sign of it.
    I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.

    I even include immigration in that.
    You may well be right - but you are the first p leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.
    It's just as simple as that.

    People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.

    The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.

    As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
    In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.
    It's the modern world, pal.

    Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.
    Who is proposing that we don't value the good, close relationship you believe in? We just don't want to be in their club and the more they try to punish us for wanting to leave the more they prejudice a good, close future relationship!
    We don't want to be in a federal superstate, that's for sure. But then we had taken precautions to ensure that we wouldn't be. But that's a pre-referendum discussion.
    precautions = marginalisation
    hmm - so now we are going to be out we'll be fairly marginalised. And, as Robert has noted, will take years to recreate, for example, the trade deals that we had and had a hand in devising.
    you really don't understand English, do you.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/26/brussels-accused-outrageous-attempt-turn-northern-ireland-eu/

    "Brussels accused of 'outrageous' attempt to turn Northern Ireland into EU province by rejecting British compromises"
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited February 2018
    Ishmael_Z said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    TOPPING said:



    Many immigrants around Sherston?

    Where or what the fuck is Sherston?

    There are virtually no immigrants at all within 10 miles of where I live, if that's the question, and if there were they wouldn't be competing with me for anything (except parking spaces). The thing is, I make an effort to understand the motivations of people in different circumstances from me rather than indulge in this I'm alright Jack pointing at them and laughing which you think is so clever and attractive.
    Don't you keep banging on about how you go with the Beaufort?

    And as @Pulpstar has agreed, he didn't mean what he said when he said he thought immigrants would somehow make (access to? availability of?) open countryside more difficult. So I was examining his motivations and we agreed that it was nothing to do with immigration.

    This is the gift that keeps giving and in this instance, is perfect for you:

    thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-claims-hius-life-being-ruined-by-immigration-but-cant-explain-how-20170227122932
    No, I have said exactly once that I have hunted with the Beaufort, and motorised horse transport is a thing.

    I think that on any given evening you should either drink, or (exclusive or) post because Pulpstar won the argument you think you won, and I have just clearly said that I *don't* see any way that immigrants do or could ruin my life.
    ah right. They way you phrased it sounded like you were a subscriber (you mentioned seeing your plumber out as if it was a regular occasion, but maybe that was with another pack).

    So wrt immigration you are on the side of the angels. I'm delighted to hear it and at least you don't buy the simplistic immigration argument.

    And it was not an argument with pulpstar, it was a clarification by him/her.
  • http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/26/brussels-accused-outrageous-attempt-turn-northern-ireland-eu/

    "Brussels accused of 'outrageous' attempt to turn Northern Ireland into EU province by rejecting British compromises"

    Very embarrassing for those who said Phase I had sorted out the Northern Ireland issue.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    @Sean_F -

    If you listened to some on here,you would think we don't get any bad immigration.

    I use to believe that the tories were the one's on those who lose out deserve their fate but the last twenty years the labour party have taken that prize.

    The World changes. Western Right wing parties become more dependent on working class voters, left wing parties on middle class voters.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @carljackmiller: Hearing some Tory staffers currently leaving jobs to join a Tory leadership campaign in March/April... Just something on the grapevine
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    Danny565 said:

    Foxy said:



    Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.

    I'me now, but still no sign of it.
    I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.

    I even include immigration in that.
    You may well be right - but you are the first p leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.
    It's just as simple as that.

    People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enoug
    The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.

    As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
    In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.
    It's the modern world, pal.

    Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.
    Who is proposing that we don't value the good, close relationship you believe in? We just don't want to be in their club and the more they try to punish us for wanting to leave the more they prejudice a good, close future relationship!
    We don't want to be in a federal superstate, that's for sure. But then we had taken precautions to ensure that we wouldn't be. But that's a pre-referendum discussion.
    precautions = marginalisation
    hmm - so now we are going to be out we'll be fairly marginalised. And, as Robert has noted, will take years to recreate, for example, the trade deals that we had and had a hand in devising.
    you really don't understand English, do you.
    Not as you lot write it, it seems not.

    And on that note, way past my bedtime so I'll note all the responses tomorrow.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,289
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    Danny565 said:

    Foxy said:



    I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.

    I even include immigration in that.
    as that.
    It's just as simple as that.

    People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.

    The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.

    As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
    In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.
    It's the modern world, pal.

    Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.
    Who is proposing that we don't value the good, close relationship you believe in? We just don't want to be in their club and the more they try to punish us for wanting to leave the more they prejudice a good, close future relationship!
    We don't want to be in a federal superstate, that's for sure. But then we had taken precautions to ensure that we wouldn't be. But that's a pre-referendum discussion.
    precautionsbrexit = marginalisation
    Corrected for you
    I mean in the EU we had some opt-outs and some never will opt-ins and that, in @ReggieCide's view, is marginalisation which he said as though it was a bad thing.

    So he prefers to be out of the EU altogether which will what...solve the marginalisation issue??
    Er... yes, that's what I thought I was pointing out! :smile:
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,842

    Danny565 said:

    Clearly Caroline Flint is worried about Con gain Don Valley.

    https://twitter.com/CarolineFlintMP/status/968208027957460992

    However, even she supports the Customs Union stance.
    Yup.

    I think the stat keeps on getting forgotten is that whilst a majority of Labour seats voted Leave, a majority of Labour votes backed Remain.

    I think Corbyn's biggest achievement today is to look pragmatic in contrast to the Tories.
    The number of Labour Leave voters per constituency compared with the Labour majority would be interesting to know.
    Depends how many are Labour first or Leave first. That is a very important distinction often overlooked. (As with Tory Remainers also tbf).
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    Danny565 said:

    Foxy said:



    .

    You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.
    It's just as simple as that.

    People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.

    The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.

    As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
    In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.
    It's the modern world, pal.

    Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.
    Who is proposing that we don't value the good, close relationship you believe in? We just don't want to be in their club and the more they try to punish us for wanting to leave the more they prejudice a good, close future relationship!
    We don't want to be in a federal superstate, that's for sure. But then we had taken precautions to ensure that we wouldn't be. But that's a pre-referendum discussion.
    precautions brexit = marginalisation
    Corrected for you
    you think marginalisation equates to independence?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    Danny565 said:

    Foxy said:



    I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.

    I even include immigration in that.
    as that.
    It's just as simple as that.

    People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.

    The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.

    As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
    In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.
    It's the modern world, pal.

    Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.
    Who is proposing that we don't value the good, close relationship you believe in? We just don't want to be in their club and the more they try to punish us for wanting to leave the more they prejudice a good, close future relationship!
    We don't want to be in a federal superstate, that's for sure. But then we had taken precautions to ensure that we wouldn't be. But that's a pre-referendum discussion.
    precautionsbrexit = marginalisation
    Corrected for you
    I mean in the EU we had some opt-outs and some never will opt-ins and that, in @ReggieCide's view, is marginalisation which he said as though it was a bad thing.

    So he prefers to be out of the EU altogether which will what...solve the marginalisation issue??
    Er... yes, that's what I thought I was pointing out! :smile:
    Yes I was agreeing with you!!

  • TOPPING said:

    Two minute warning, team, then I'm heading off.

    Go for it.

    I hope you have a pleasant evening and restful night. Getting near an early bed for me
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,289
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    Danny565 said:

    Foxy said:



    I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.

    I even include immigration in that.
    as that.
    It's just as simple as that.

    People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.

    The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.

    As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
    In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.
    .
    Who is proposing that we don't value the good, close relationship you believe in? We just don't want to be in their club and the more they try to punish us for wanting to leave the more they prejudice a good, close future relationship!
    We don't want to be in a federal superstate, that's for sure. But then we had taken precautions to ensure that we wouldn't be. But that's a pre-referendum discussion.
    precautionsbrexit = marginalisation
    Corrected for you
    I mean in the EU we had some opt-outs and some never will opt-ins and that, in @ReggieCide's view, is marginalisation which he said as though it was a bad thing.

    So he prefers to be out of the EU altogether which will what...solve the marginalisation issue??
    Er... yes, that's what I thought I was pointing out! :smile:
    Yes I was agreeing with you!!

    Right - got it! :smile:
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    Two minute warning, team, then I'm heading off.

    Go for it.

    I hope you have a pleasant evening and restful night. Getting near an early bed for me
    Thank you and the same to you.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/26/brussels-accused-outrageous-attempt-turn-northern-ireland-eu/

    "Brussels accused of 'outrageous' attempt to turn Northern Ireland into EU province by rejecting British compromises"

    Very embarrassing for those who said Phase I had sorted out the Northern Ireland issue.
    It did solve it, but not in the way they think it did.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    edited February 2018

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    Danny565 said:

    Foxy said:



    I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.

    I even include immigration in that.
    as that.
    It's just as simple as that.

    People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.

    The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.

    As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
    In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.
    It's the modern world, pal.

    Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.
    Who is proposing that we don't value the good, close relationship you believe in? We just don't want to be in their club and the more they try to punish us for wanting to leave the more they prejudice a good, close future relationship!
    We don't want to be in a federal superstate, that's for sure. But then we had taken precautions to ensure that we wouldn't be. But that's a pre-referendum discussion.
    precautionsbrexit = marginalisation

    Corrected for you

    I mean in the EU we had some opt-outs and some never will opt-ins and that, in @ReggieCide's view, is marginalisation which he said as though it was a bad thing.

    So he prefers to be out of the EU altogether which will what...solve the marginalisation issue??

    In the context of the EU, irrefutably.
  • dixiedean said:

    Danny565 said:

    Clearly Caroline Flint is worried about Con gain Don Valley.

    https://twitter.com/CarolineFlintMP/status/968208027957460992

    However, even she supports the Customs Union stance.
    Yup.

    I think the stat keeps on getting forgotten is that whilst a majority of Labour seats voted Leave, a majority of Labour votes backed Remain.

    I think Corbyn's biggest achievement today is to look pragmatic in contrast to the Tories.
    The number of Labour Leave voters per constituency compared with the Labour majority would be interesting to know.
    Depends how many are Labour first or Leave first. That is a very important distinction often overlooked. (As with Tory Remainers also tbf).
    Indeed.
  • Won't mean anything to most of you but Sir Paul Jenkins has died.

    Top bloke.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited February 2018
    One final thing about today’s speech before I retire. It was great symbolism to do it in Coventry.

    For whatever reason, the Tories have been totally tone deaf as to the reality of who Brexit is for and who it will impact. Their Brexit exists in a weird Daily Telegraph bubble, impervious to the outside world. The main government speeches have been at dodgy think tanks, or abroad.

    They should not expect support when push comes to shove. It feels like *their* Brexit, not ours.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312


    Corrected for you

    I mean in the EU we had some opt-outs and some never will opt-ins and that, in @ReggieCide's view, is marginalisation which he said as though it was a bad thing.

    So he prefers to be out of the EU altogether which will what...solve the marginalisation issue??

  • http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/26/brussels-accused-outrageous-attempt-turn-northern-ireland-eu/

    "Brussels accused of 'outrageous' attempt to turn Northern Ireland into EU province by rejecting British compromises"

    Very embarrassing for those who said Phase I had sorted out the Northern Ireland issue.
    It did solve it, but not in the way they think it did.

    Yep - it was always very clear. That’s why the loons now want to get rid of the GFA, of course. The Irish American lobby will love that!

  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Two minute warning, team, then I'm heading off.

    Go for it.

    I hope you have a pleasant evening and restful night. Getting near an early bed for me
    Thank you and the same to you.
    Thank you - my wife is recovering from 8 days in bed with flu, nearly all asleep and I am struggling also so with a warm electric blanket on hand sleep is very welcome
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:


    Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects.

    As these extra people are also less likely to integrate well than more skilled immigrants then there will also be negative social effects.

    Re house prices - the late 1990s house price increases were encouraged by the fall in house prices in the early 1990s, increasing levels of employment and pay and things such as building society windfalls. House building was also at low levels then as well.

    Similar causes were behind the late 1980s house price increases.

    So it is about immigrants coming over here and taking our jobs. But I don't get it. Richard Tyndall thinks this is a simplistic view.

    Now you are not a simpleton, obvs, but it is a conundrum nevertheless.
    I think you've replied to the wrong comment.

    Perhaps you should call it a night Toppo I fear you've either had too much or too little.
    Sozza.

    I took your comment: "Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects" to refer to low-skilled EU immigration and hence had thought my reply relevant.
    My comment was in response to Robert's and referred to the type of immigrant.

    So the more limited the skillset in the more high cost the country will not even be 'taking jobs' but be dependent upon welfare.
    Do you want a moment to edit that? Because I'm not sure it makes sense.

    I'll hang around a minute or two longer if you want.

    Or are you saying that it is a different kind of immigration, not the "other" type of immigration. Or...
    The point is that immigrants come in a range of skillsets and ability to integrate.

    And because of this different types of immigrants will have different effects on the country they migrate to.
  • http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/26/brussels-accused-outrageous-attempt-turn-northern-ireland-eu/

    "Brussels accused of 'outrageous' attempt to turn Northern Ireland into EU province by rejecting British compromises"

    Ah, Brussels accused of being 'outrageous' by 'one UK source'. On such foundations are Tele news articles built upon nowadays.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,289

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    Danny565 said:



    .

    You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.
    It's just as simple as that.

    People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.

    The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.

    As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
    In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.
    It's the modern world, pal.

    Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.
    Who is proposing that we don't value the good, close relationship you believe in? We just don't want to be in their club and the more they try to punish us for wanting to leave the more they prejudice a good, close future relationship!
    We don't want to be in a federal superstate, that's for sure. But then we had taken precautions to ensure that we wouldn't be. But that's a pre-referendum discussion.
    precautions brexit = marginalisation
    Corrected for you
    you think marginalisation equates to independence?
    No. We have been and continue to be an independent nation. You can be independent and influential, or independent and marginalised. We have chosen the latter, sadly.
  • dixiedean said:

    Danny565 said:

    Clearly Caroline Flint is worried about Con gain Don Valley.

    https://twitter.com/CarolineFlintMP/status/968208027957460992

    However, even she supports the Customs Union stance.
    Yup.

    I think the stat keeps on getting forgotten is that whilst a majority of Labour seats voted Leave, a majority of Labour votes backed Remain.

    I think Corbyn's biggest achievement today is to look pragmatic in contrast to the Tories.
    The number of Labour Leave voters per constituency compared with the Labour majority would be interesting to know.
    Depends how many are Labour first or Leave first. That is a very important distinction often overlooked. (As with Tory Remainers also tbf).

    Polling seems to indicate most Labour leavers do not see Brexit as their main political priority.

  • We know that all immigration increases GDP, but have there been any studies in what effect immigration to the UK has had on GDP per capita?
  • One final thing about today’s speech before I retire. It was great symbolism to do it in Coventry.

    For whatever reason, the Tories have been totally tone deaf as to the reality of who Brexit is for and who it will impact. Their Brexit exists in a weird Daily Telegraph bubble, impervious to the outside world. The main government speeches have been at dodgy think tanks, or abroad.

    They should not expect support when push comes to shove. It feels like *their* Brexit, not ours.

    That's a good point.
  • http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/26/brussels-accused-outrageous-attempt-turn-northern-ireland-eu/

    "Brussels accused of 'outrageous' attempt to turn Northern Ireland into EU province by rejecting British compromises"

    Very embarrassing for those who said Phase I had sorted out the Northern Ireland issue.
    It did solve it, but not in the way they think it did.
    I think the elegant solution is to give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    Danny565 said:

    Another possible indirect consequence of this is that the EU might start being more obstructionist in their negotiations with the government, in the hope/expectation of hastening its downfall, and bringing about what they see as a more sensible approach from Labour.

    Yes, very good point.

    However the question has to be will there be enough time?

    Vote on Soubry amendment already delayed until May - and I still haven't seen any reason why it shouldn't be delayed much longer than that - say until after the summer recess - by which time the "final agreement" is meant to have been agreed anyway.

    Plus there's still the chance the Govt could just carry on even if it does lose the amendment as it's not binding - apparently legal advice is being taken on this right now.

    Seems to be that T May can probably stall things long enough that there just won't be time for Govt to collapse and have a GE and new Govt to come in before October.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    Danny565 said:



    .

    You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.
    It's just as simple as that.

    People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.

    The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.

    As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
    In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.
    It's the modern world, pal.

    Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.
    Who is proposing that we don't value the good, close relationship you believe in? We just don't want to be in their club and the more they try to punish us for wanting to leave the more they prejudice a good, close future relationship!
    We don't want to be in a federal superstate, that's for sure. But then we had taken precautions to ensure that we wouldn't be. But that's a pre-referendum discussion.
    precautions brexit = marginalisation
    Corrected for you
    you think marginalisation equates to independence?
    No. We have been and continue to be an independent nation. You can be independent and influential, or independent and marginalised. We have chosen the latter, sadly.
    you do think marginalisation equates to independence
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,289

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/26/brussels-accused-outrageous-attempt-turn-northern-ireland-eu/

    "Brussels accused of 'outrageous' attempt to turn Northern Ireland into EU province by rejecting British compromises"

    Very embarrassing for those who said Phase I had sorted out the Northern Ireland issue.
    It did solve it, but not in the way they think it did.
    I think the elegant solution is to give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
    Elegant it may be but it would almost certainly be very bloody too, sadly.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    One final thing about today’s speech before I retire. It was great symbolism to do it in Coventry.

    For whatever reason, the Tories have been totally tone deaf as to the reality of who Brexit is for and who it will impact. Their Brexit exists in a weird Daily Telegraph bubble, impervious to the outside world. The main government speeches have been at dodgy think tanks, or abroad.

    They should not expect support when push comes to shove. It feels like *their* Brexit, not ours.

    I fear there may be something in this; especially since the election.

    If anyone from CCHQ is watching, I wonder if the 'Corbyn's position prevents us striking free trade deals' messaging is somewhat weaker than 'control of our own borders, tariffs and trade policies' message....
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/26/brussels-accused-outrageous-attempt-turn-northern-ireland-eu/

    "Brussels accused of 'outrageous' attempt to turn Northern Ireland into EU province by rejecting British compromises"

    Very embarrassing for those who said Phase I had sorted out the Northern Ireland issue.
    It did solve it, but not in the way they think it did.
    I think the elegant solution is to give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
    Who will be the first person to accuse the EU of annexation when the draft text is published?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,289

    We know that all immigration increases GDP, but have there been any studies in what effect immigration to the UK has had on GDP per capita?


    How could you isolate the immigration impact from everything else that's continuously changing in the economy?
  • http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/26/brussels-accused-outrageous-attempt-turn-northern-ireland-eu/

    "Brussels accused of 'outrageous' attempt to turn Northern Ireland into EU province by rejecting British compromises"

    Very embarrassing for those who said Phase I had sorted out the Northern Ireland issue.
    It did solve it, but not in the way they think it did.
    I think the elegant solution is to give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
    Elegant it may be but it would almost certainly be very bloody too, sadly.
    That's Northern Ireland.
  • http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/26/brussels-accused-outrageous-attempt-turn-northern-ireland-eu/

    "Brussels accused of 'outrageous' attempt to turn Northern Ireland into EU province by rejecting British compromises"

    Very embarrassing for those who said Phase I had sorted out the Northern Ireland issue.
    It did solve it, but not in the way they think it did.
    I think the elegant solution is to give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
    I suspect the consequences might be less than elegant.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/26/brussels-accused-outrageous-attempt-turn-northern-ireland-eu/

    "Brussels accused of 'outrageous' attempt to turn Northern Ireland into EU province by rejecting British compromises"

    Very embarrassing for those who said Phase I had sorted out the Northern Ireland issue.
    It did solve it, but not in the way they think it did.
    I think the elegant solution is to give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
    elegance is not your strong suit, joke or not.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    MikeL said:

    Danny565 said:

    Another possible indirect consequence of this is that the EU might start being more obstructionist in their negotiations with the government, in the hope/expectation of hastening its downfall, and bringing about what they see as a more sensible approach from Labour.

    Yes, very good point.

    However the question has to be will there be enough time?

    Vote on Soubry amendment already delayed until May - and I still haven't seen any reason why it shouldn't be delayed much longer than that - say until after the summer recess - by which time the "final agreement" is meant to have been agreed anyway.

    Plus there's still the chance the Govt could just carry on even if it does lose the amendment as it's not binding - apparently legal advice is being taken on this right now.

    Seems to be that T May can probably stall things long enough that there just won't be time for Govt to collapse and have a GE and new Govt to come in before October.
    Gosh I am stunned reading these Corbynistas fantasies. You really do live on a different planet dont you.
  • Four far-right plots thwarted last year, says counter-terrorism chief

    Mark Rowley warns that threat from extreme rightwing groups is ‘significant and concerning’

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/26/four-far-right-plots-thwarted-last-year-says-counter-terrorism-chief-mark-rowley
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/26/brussels-accused-outrageous-attempt-turn-northern-ireland-eu/

    "Brussels accused of 'outrageous' attempt to turn Northern Ireland into EU province by rejecting British compromises"

    Very embarrassing for those who said Phase I had sorted out the Northern Ireland issue.
    It did solve it, but not in the way they think it did.
    I think the elegant solution is to give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
    Who will be the first person to accuse the EU of annexation when the draft text is published?
    Perhaps one should wait and see what is proposed.
  • One final thing about today’s speech before I retire. It was great symbolism to do it in Coventry.

    For whatever reason, the Tories have been totally tone deaf as to the reality of who Brexit is for and who it will impact. Their Brexit exists in a weird Daily Telegraph bubble, impervious to the outside world. The main government speeches have been at dodgy think tanks, or abroad.

    They should not expect support when push comes to shove. It feels like *their* Brexit, not ours.

    Yep, Labour has been politically astute today. The Tories will own Brexit and its consequences 100%, which is as it should be. The Labour leader who follows Corbyn is likely to benefit.

  • http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/26/brussels-accused-outrageous-attempt-turn-northern-ireland-eu/

    "Brussels accused of 'outrageous' attempt to turn Northern Ireland into EU province by rejecting British compromises"

    Very embarrassing for those who said Phase I had sorted out the Northern Ireland issue.
    It did solve it, but not in the way they think it did.
    I think the elegant solution is to give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
    I suspect the consequences might be less than elegant.
    What have the Northern Irish ever done for us?

    The only positive thing I can think of is the 1996 bombing of Manchester.

    Helped launched a massive regeneration.

    If that bombing didn't happen then I probably wouldn't be working in Manchester.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,289

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:



    .

    It's just as simple as that.

    People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.

    The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.

    As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
    In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.
    It's the modern world, pal.

    Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.
    Who is proposing that we don't value the good, close relationship you believe in? We just don't want to be in their club and the more they try to punish us for wanting to leave the more they prejudice a good, close future relationship!
    We don't want to be in a federal superstate, that's for sure. But then we had taken precautions to ensure that we wouldn't be. But that's a pre-referendum discussion.
    precautions brexit = marginalisation
    Corrected for you
    you think marginalisation equates to independence?
    No. We have been and continue to be an independent nation. You can be independent and influential, or independent and marginalised. We have chosen the latter, sadly.
    you do think marginalisation equates to independence
    You seem to be having trouble with blockquotes and with the meaning of the word No.

    No, I do not think marginalisation equates to independence; we can be independent and influential, or independent and marginalised. We have chosen the latter, sadly.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    One final thing about today’s speech before I retire. It was great symbolism to do it in Coventry.

    For whatever reason, the Tories have been totally tone deaf as to the reality of who Brexit is for and who it will impact. Their Brexit exists in a weird Daily Telegraph bubble, impervious to the outside world. The main government speeches have been at dodgy think tanks, or abroad.

    They should not expect support when push comes to shove. It feels like *their* Brexit, not ours.

    Yep, Labour has been politically astute today. The Tories will own Brexit and its consequences 100%, which is as it should be. The Labour leader who follows Corbyn is likely to benefit.

    This'll be Jesus obviously
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,289

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/26/brussels-accused-outrageous-attempt-turn-northern-ireland-eu/

    "Brussels accused of 'outrageous' attempt to turn Northern Ireland into EU province by rejecting British compromises"

    Very embarrassing for those who said Phase I had sorted out the Northern Ireland issue.
    It did solve it, but not in the way they think it did.
    I think the elegant solution is to give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
    I suspect the consequences might be less than elegant.
    What have the Northern Irish ever done for us?

    The only positive thing I can think of is the 1996 bombing of Manchester.

    Helped launched a massive regeneration.

    If that bombing didn't happen then I probably wouldn't be working in Manchester.
    And that's a good thing for Manchester?? :wink:
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,842

    One final thing about today’s speech before I retire. It was great symbolism to do it in Coventry.

    For whatever reason, the Tories have been totally tone deaf as to the reality of who Brexit is for and who it will impact. Their Brexit exists in a weird Daily Telegraph bubble, impervious to the outside world. The main government speeches have been at dodgy think tanks, or abroad.

    They should not expect support when push comes to shove. It feels like *their* Brexit, not ours.

    Was symbolic too that Corbyn was interviewed by Laura K with machinery and cars in full view.
    Not in Florence.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    We know that all immigration increases GDP, but have there been any studies in what effect immigration to the UK has had on GDP per capita?

    Gross National Happiness is more important than GDP.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @sturdyAlex: Oh, and you know what else has not been even mentioned in the last few months and will definitely get vetoed to fuck in the final deal? Arrangements regarding the Gibraltar border. #BrexitShambles
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:



    .

    It's just as simple as that.

    People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.

    The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.

    As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
    In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.
    It's the modern world, pal.

    Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.
    Who is proposing that we don't value the good, close relationship you believe in? We just don't want to be in their club and the more they try to punish us for wanting to leave the more they prejudice a good, close future relationship!
    We don't want to be in a federal superstate, that's for sure. But then we had taken precautions to ensure that we wouldn't be. But that's a pre-referendum discussion.
    precautions brexit = marginalisation
    Corrected for you
    you think marginalisation equates to independence?
    No. We have been and continue to be an independent nation. You can be independent and influential, or independent and marginalised. We have chosen the latter, sadly.
    you do think marginalisation equates to independence
    You seem to be having trouble with blockquotes and with the meaning of the word No.

    No, I do not think marginalisation equates to independence; we can be independent and influential, or independent and marginalised. We have chosen the latter, sadly.
    It was the contradictions that I found problematical
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,780

    stodge said:

    My experience of the impact of uncontrolled migration may be atypical but it's the inevitable impact of the Single Market and the Four Freedoms - the depopulation of Lithuania, Romania and other parts of Europe for the enrichment of London, parts of the Rhineland and elsewhere

    Population decline in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and Bulgaria correlates with the collapse of communism, not EU accession.
    There are two separate issues.

    Firstly, there is the negative pressure on populations caused by collapsing birth rates in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s.

    Secondly, there is the impact of migration.

    Estonia's population decline seems to have almost entirely stopped. (Indeed, Talinn is growing quite rapidly now.) According to the Estonian government more people are now emigrating to Estonia than leaving it.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    AndyJS said:

    We know that all immigration increases GDP, but have there been any studies in what effect immigration to the UK has had on GDP per capita?

    Gross National Happiness is more important than GDP.
    Ceteris paribus immigration should increase GDP. The "capita" bit definitely heads north ;)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082

    One final thing about today’s speech before I retire. It was great symbolism to do it in Coventry.

    For whatever reason, the Tories have been totally tone deaf as to the reality of who Brexit is for and who it will impact. Their Brexit exists in a weird Daily Telegraph bubble, impervious to the outside world. The main government speeches have been at dodgy think tanks, or abroad.

    They should not expect support when push comes to shove. It feels like *their* Brexit, not ours.

    Quite astute of Jezza. His instincts are sound.

    Brexit is not about fantasy trade deals, it is about ordinary people in places like Coventry, once a boomtown and wanting a sniff of that day in the sun again.
  • http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/26/brussels-accused-outrageous-attempt-turn-northern-ireland-eu/

    "Brussels accused of 'outrageous' attempt to turn Northern Ireland into EU province by rejecting British compromises"

    Very embarrassing for those who said Phase I had sorted out the Northern Ireland issue.
    It did solve it, but not in the way they think it did.
    I think the elegant solution is to give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
    I suspect the consequences might be less than elegant.
    What have the Northern Irish ever done for us?

    The only positive thing I can think of is the 1996 bombing of Manchester.

    Helped launched a massive regeneration.

    If that bombing didn't happen then I probably wouldn't be working in Manchester.
    And that's a good thing for Manchester?? :wink:
    I bring a certain class to Manchester.

    Plus my retail habits really do help Manchester.

    Having a Selfridges and an Apple Store that close to me is paradise.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,289
    dixiedean said:

    One final thing about today’s speech before I retire. It was great symbolism to do it in Coventry.

    For whatever reason, the Tories have been totally tone deaf as to the reality of who Brexit is for and who it will impact. Their Brexit exists in a weird Daily Telegraph bubble, impervious to the outside world. The main government speeches have been at dodgy think tanks, or abroad.

    They should not expect support when push comes to shove. It feels like *their* Brexit, not ours.

    Was symbolic too that Corbyn was interviewed by Laura K with machinery and cars in full view.
    Not in Florence.
    Agreed. Let's see what empty room TMay chooses for her riposte.

    Also, I think we should have a sweep on how many times she says "I have been clear..." or "Let me be clear... " In both her speech and, especially, when under pressure in any follow-up Q&A (assuming she's brave enough to have one). I'd guess at least 5 times.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,780

    stodge said:

    My experience of the impact of uncontrolled migration may be atypical but it's the inevitable impact of the Single Market and the Four Freedoms - the depopulation of Lithuania, Romania and other parts of Europe for the enrichment of London, parts of the Rhineland and elsewhere

    Population decline in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and Bulgaria correlates with the collapse of communism, not EU accession.
    Presumably if the Baltics et al were so convinced that the EU was causing a population exodus, they would be in favour of leaving the EU or perhaps getting rid of FOM.

    But they aren’t.
    In the Baltic states the trend is clearly driven primarily by ethnic Russians emigrating.
    image
    Its clearly caused by Latvians emigrating too. That's a marked and accelerating drop in the Latvian population there - let alone having natural population growth which should be expected in normal circumstances.
    Latvia had a TFR sub-1.5 from 1971 to 2012.

    That will lead to natural population shrinkage before migration.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    stodge said:

    Well, unless you are arguing for completely open borders, everyone thinks there should be controls on immigration.

    Likewise, no one sane thinks immigration should be zero.

    It comes down to quality (skill), volumes (ability to manage) and cultural fit. The last category is where people are most squeamish, but I’m not sure why it should be controversial to say that a Dutch immigrant is more likely to assimilate than a Pakistani one. Policy should be colour blind, but perhaps not culture blind.

    To pick my words very carefully

    We have created new slums for the 21st Century - yes, they aren't the same as the slums of old when they were inhabited by whole families. The modern slum is almost exclusively male and many of these are migrants, both EU and non-EU.

    The problem is people from other parts of the EU who come to the UK "looking for work". Many find gainful and productive employment, no doubt, but there are undoubtedly those who fall into the black or at best grey economy not assimilating or integrating and living on a cash handout basis from which the bed in their terrace semi in Forest Gate or Canning Town has to be funded.

    There are also those for whom the UK is a magnet in terms of criminality and making money illegally or through violence - only a very small number of course.

    The population rise strains the infrastructure - tubes are full, the local GP sees a near 50% increase in registrations in the past three years and crime is rising at a time when Police numbers are being reduced and, like Pharaoh, we build our monuments using foreign labour.

    My experience of the impact of uncontrolled migration may be atypical but it's the inevitable impact of the Single Market and the Four Freedoms - the depopulation of Lithuania, Romania and other parts of Europe for the enrichment of London, parts of the Rhineland and elsewhere.

    That's not the EU I wanted.


    The missing point in your argument is, if there was no paid work available, legal or otherwise, why would they be here? The UK legal unemployment rate is at historical lows. The illegals, as far as I can gather, mostly do not try and screw our DWP and government systems as it brings them dangerously close to being returned to their own countries. (Yes, i am aware that there are some who try and game the system, just like some MP's tried to game their expenses). So paid work of some kind tempts and keeps them in the UK, able to pay incidental expenses (rent, travel, food, etc.) and send money back home. I suspect the employment rate is far higher than the government figures, in which case, restricting the inflow and accelerating the return of the illegals is going to have a vast impact on the UK's finances....
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,289

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/26/brussels-accused-outrageous-attempt-turn-northern-ireland-eu/

    "Brussels accused of 'outrageous' attempt to turn Northern Ireland into EU province by rejecting British compromises"

    Very embarrassing for those who said Phase I had sorted out the Northern Ireland issue.
    It did solve it, but not in the way they think it did.
    I think the elegant solution is to give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
    I suspect the consequences might be less than elegant.
    What have the Northern Irish ever done for us?

    The only positive thing I can think of is the 1996 bombing of Manchester.

    Helped launched a massive regeneration.

    If that bombing didn't happen then I probably wouldn't be working in Manchester.
    And that's a good thing for Manchester?? :wink:
    I bring a certain class to Manchester.

    Plus my retail habits really do help Manchester.

    Having a Selfridges and an Apple Store that close to me is paradise.
    :smile:
  • http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/26/brussels-accused-outrageous-attempt-turn-northern-ireland-eu/

    "Brussels accused of 'outrageous' attempt to turn Northern Ireland into EU province by rejecting British compromises"

    Very embarrassing for those who said Phase I had sorted out the Northern Ireland issue.
    It did solve it, but not in the way they think it did.
    I think the elegant solution is to give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
    I suspect the consequences might be less than elegant.
    What have the Northern Irish ever done for us?

    The only positive thing I can think of is the 1996 bombing of Manchester.

    Helped launched a massive regeneration.

    If that bombing didn't happen then I probably wouldn't be working in Manchester.
    The two Alanbrookes ?
  • Foxy said:

    One final thing about today’s speech before I retire. It was great symbolism to do it in Coventry.

    For whatever reason, the Tories have been totally tone deaf as to the reality of who Brexit is for and who it will impact. Their Brexit exists in a weird Daily Telegraph bubble, impervious to the outside world. The main government speeches have been at dodgy think tanks, or abroad.

    They should not expect support when push comes to shove. It feels like *their* Brexit, not ours.

    Quite astute of Jezza. His instincts are sound.

    Brexit is not about fantasy trade deals, it is about ordinary people in places like Coventry, once a boomtown and wanting a sniff of that day in the sun again.
    Coventry not done well in the EU then?
  • http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/26/brussels-accused-outrageous-attempt-turn-northern-ireland-eu/

    "Brussels accused of 'outrageous' attempt to turn Northern Ireland into EU province by rejecting British compromises"

    Very embarrassing for those who said Phase I had sorted out the Northern Ireland issue.
    It did solve it, but not in the way they think it did.
    I think the elegant solution is to give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
    I suspect the consequences might be less than elegant.
    What have the Northern Irish ever done for us?

    The only positive thing I can think of is the 1996 bombing of Manchester.

    Helped launched a massive regeneration.

    If that bombing didn't happen then I probably wouldn't be working in Manchester.
    The two Alanbrookes ?
    Alan Brooke was French.
  • We know that all immigration increases GDP, but have there been any studies in what effect immigration to the UK has had on GDP per capita?


    How could you isolate the immigration impact from everything else that's continuously changing in the economy?
    I imagine this would not be a simple exercise but surely it's in our interests to have an idea about whether immigration is a net benefit or a net drain, purely from a government's coffers perspective?

    To give an example, a family from a relatively deprived part of Europe move to the UK to take up jobs on the minimum wage. This is very sensible for the family as they can earn much more on the minmum wage in the UK than they can dream of earning back home. This family will increase our GDP but will at the same time cost the government money as the costs of providing healthcare, services and top up benefits will outweigh the minimal amount of tax collected. So according to the GDP stats their coming to the UK is a benefit but they are actually costing the country money.

    It would be good to understand whether the average immigrant is a cost or a benefit to the government's coffers.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,780

    We know that all immigration increases GDP, but have there been any studies in what effect immigration to the UK has had on GDP per capita?

    Yes.

    Immigration of working age people will tend to increase GDP-per-capita, because only about 40% of the total population work (with the rest being too young, too old, a parent, a student, in training, unwell or unemployed). Immigrants tend to work.

    But.

    If someone emigrated to the UK at the age of 66 and worked for a year, then they would likely increase GDP for a year, before retiring and depressing it.

    Likewise, someone who came at 21 with good skills could well depress GDP in year one, as they'd get only an entry level job, and then increase it in future years.

    So, it's complicated.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,964
    Scott_P said:

    @faisalislam: ... and meanwhile Sir John Major is also planning an intervention on Wednesday - we haven’t heard much from him since he heavily criticised the then prospect of a Tory-DUP deal re n Irish peace

    "You're all still bastards....."
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697

    Scott_P said:

    @faisalislam: ... and meanwhile Sir John Major is also planning an intervention on Wednesday - we haven’t heard much from him since he heavily criticised the then prospect of a Tory-DUP deal re n Irish peace

    "You're all still bastards....."

    Continuity Remain are really on the march this week...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    rcs1000 said:

    We know that all immigration increases GDP, but have there been any studies in what effect immigration to the UK has had on GDP per capita?

    Yes.

    Immigration of working age people will tend to increase GDP-per-capita, because only about 40% of the total population work (with the rest being too young, too old, a parent, a student, in training, unwell or unemployed). Immigrants tend to work.

    But.

    If someone emigrated to the UK at the age of 66 and worked for a year, then they would likely increase GDP for a year, before retiring and depressing it.

    Likewise, someone who came at 21 with good skills could well depress GDP in year one, as they'd get only an entry level job, and then increase it in future years.

    So, it's complicated.
    The vast majority of EU migrants have been younger working age. We also need to think about time course second generation migrants often do very well economically, indeed that is often an annoyance to natives.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,780

    We know that all immigration increases GDP, but have there been any studies in what effect immigration to the UK has had on GDP per capita?


    How could you isolate the immigration impact from everything else that's continuously changing in the economy?
    I imagine this would not be a simple exercise but surely it's in our interests to have an idea about whether immigration is a net benefit or a net drain, purely from a government's coffers perspective?

    To give an example, a family from a relatively deprived part of Europe move to the UK to take up jobs on the minimum wage. This is very sensible for the family as they can earn much more on the minmum wage in the UK than they can dream of earning back home. This family will increase our GDP but will at the same time cost the government money as the costs of providing healthcare, services and top up benefits will outweigh the minimal amount of tax collected. So according to the GDP stats their coming to the UK is a benefit but they are actually costing the country money.

    It would be good to understand whether the average immigrant is a cost or a benefit to the government's coffers.
    Almost no-one in work costs the government money,

    It's all people not in work. (And specifically the old.)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    We know that all immigration increases GDP, but have there been any studies in what effect immigration to the UK has had on GDP per capita?


    How could you isolate the immigration impact from everything else that's continuously changing in the economy?
    I imagine this would not be a simple exercise but surely it's in our interests to have an idea about whether immigration is a net benefit or a net drain, purely from a government's coffers perspective?

    To give an example, a family from a relatively deprived part of Europe move to the UK to take up jobs on the minimum wage. This is very sensible for the family as they can earn much more on the minmum wage in the UK than they can dream of earning back home. This family will increase our GDP but will at the same time cost the government money as the costs of providing healthcare, services and top up benefits will outweigh the minimal amount of tax collected. So according to the GDP stats their coming to the UK is a benefit but they are actually costing the country money.

    It would be good to understand whether the average immigrant is a cost or a benefit to the government's coffers.
    In the year they arrive, almost certainly a benefit. Long term when they get sick or old? Questionable
  • http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/26/brussels-accused-outrageous-attempt-turn-northern-ireland-eu/

    "Brussels accused of 'outrageous' attempt to turn Northern Ireland into EU province by rejecting British compromises"

    Very embarrassing for those who said Phase I had sorted out the Northern Ireland issue.
    It did solve it, but not in the way they think it did.
    I think the elegant solution is to give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
    I suspect the consequences might be less than elegant.
    What have the Northern Irish ever done for us?

    The only positive thing I can think of is the 1996 bombing of Manchester.

    Helped launched a massive regeneration.

    If that bombing didn't happen then I probably wouldn't be working in Manchester.
    The two Alanbrookes ?
    Alan Brooke was French.
    I suspect he would have paraphrased an earlier Field Marshal on whether being born in some place makes you something.
  • rcs1000 said:

    We know that all immigration increases GDP, but have there been any studies in what effect immigration to the UK has had on GDP per capita?

    Yes.

    Immigration of working age people will tend to increase GDP-per-capita, because only about 40% of the total population work (with the rest being too young, too old, a parent, a student, in training, unwell or unemployed). Immigrants tend to work.

    But.

    If someone emigrated to the UK at the age of 66 and worked for a year, then they would likely increase GDP for a year, before retiring and depressing it.

    Likewise, someone who came at 21 with good skills could well depress GDP in year one, as they'd get only an entry level job, and then increase it in future years.

    So, it's complicated.
    That makes total sense. Do we know what proportion of the immigrant population are in work?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082

    Foxy said:

    One final thing about today’s speech before I retire. It was great symbolism to do it in Coventry.

    For whatever reason, the Tories have been totally tone deaf as to the reality of who Brexit is for and who it will impact. Their Brexit exists in a weird Daily Telegraph bubble, impervious to the outside world. The main government speeches have been at dodgy think tanks, or abroad.

    They should not expect support when push comes to shove. It feels like *their* Brexit, not ours.

    Quite astute of Jezza. His instincts are sound.

    Brexit is not about fantasy trade deals, it is about ordinary people in places like Coventry, once a boomtown and wanting a sniff of that day in the sun again.
    Coventry not done well in the EU then?
    Coventry was certainly hit by globalisation, preceeded by Thatchers anti inflationary strategy.

    Not sure that an FTA will help Coventry.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    edited February 2018
    MikeL said:

    Danny565 said:

    Another possible indirect consequence of this is that the EU might start being more obstructionist in their negotiations with the government, in the hope/expectation of hastening its downfall, and bringing about what they see as a more sensible approach from Labour.

    Yes, very good point.

    However the question has to be will there be enough time?

    Vote on Soubry amendment already delayed until May - and I still haven't seen any reason why it shouldn't be delayed much longer than that - say until after the summer recess - by which time the "final agreement" is meant to have been agreed anyway.

    Plus there's still the chance the Govt could just carry on even if it does lose the amendment as it's not binding - apparently legal advice is being taken on this right now.

    Seems to be that T May can probably stall things long enough that there just won't be time for Govt to collapse and have a GE and new Govt to come in before October.
    a) they can win the vote, as they with the DUP command a slender majority. IMO the most obvious result is that the amendment isn't going to pass. Stephen Hammond, for example has since Corbyn's speech, suggested he might not vote for it, despite having signed it. I wouldn't be surprised to see Field, Hoey and perhaps Hopkins voting with the Govt.

    b) as you suggest, if the numbers don't add up, they can delay the vote and hope either for something to come up (a vacancy in the House, a change of heart amongst a rebel, a ministerial resignation followed by an appointment of a rebel)

    c) and, if all else fails the wording of the amendment seems to make seeking a customs union an objective, apparently - seems a pretty easy thing to work around given the executive has power over treaty negotiations.

    The government have a lot of outs over this, and given the golden rule of Brexit suggests that Remainer glee is inversely proportional to Remainer ability to influence events post referendum, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was another red herring.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    rcs1000 said:

    We know that all immigration increases GDP, but have there been any studies in what effect immigration to the UK has had on GDP per capita?

    Yes.

    Immigration of working age people will tend to increase GDP-per-capita, because only about 40% of the total population work (with the rest being too young, too old, a parent, a student, in training, unwell or unemployed). Immigrants tend to work.

    But.

    If someone emigrated to the UK at the age of 66 and worked for a year, then they would likely increase GDP for a year, before retiring and depressing it.

    Likewise, someone who came at 21 with good skills could well depress GDP in year one, as they'd get only an entry level job, and then increase it in future years.

    So, it's complicated.
    Only 40% ? Blimey..
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    On a lighter note, a great twitter thread here:

    https://twitter.com/neontaster/status/966792848522797057

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    Foxy said:

    One final thing about today’s speech before I retire. It was great symbolism to do it in Coventry.

    For whatever reason, the Tories have been totally tone deaf as to the reality of who Brexit is for and who it will impact. Their Brexit exists in a weird Daily Telegraph bubble, impervious to the outside world. The main government speeches have been at dodgy think tanks, or abroad.

    They should not expect support when push comes to shove. It feels like *their* Brexit, not ours.

    Quite astute of Jezza. His instincts are sound.

    Brexit is not about fantasy trade deals, it is about ordinary people in places like Coventry, once a boomtown and wanting a sniff of that day in the sun again.
    Coventry not done well in the EU then?
    Coventry was one of the most prosperous towns in the country in the 1960s when the car industry was booming.
  • rcs1000 said:

    We know that all immigration increases GDP, but have there been any studies in what effect immigration to the UK has had on GDP per capita?


    How could you isolate the immigration impact from everything else that's continuously changing in the economy?
    I imagine this would not be a simple exercise but surely it's in our interests to have an idea about whether immigration is a net benefit or a net drain, purely from a government's coffers perspective?

    To give an example, a family from a relatively deprived part of Europe move to the UK to take up jobs on the minimum wage. This is very sensible for the family as they can earn much more on the minmum wage in the UK than they can dream of earning back home. This family will increase our GDP but will at the same time cost the government money as the costs of providing healthcare, services and top up benefits will outweigh the minimal amount of tax collected. So according to the GDP stats their coming to the UK is a benefit but they are actually costing the country money.

    It would be good to understand whether the average immigrant is a cost or a benefit to the government's coffers.
    Almost no-one in work costs the government money,

    It's all people not in work. (And specifically the old.)
    Shouldn't that be almost no-one in full time work and on PAYE costs the government money ?

    And how much tax and NI does someone on minimum wage pay ?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,780
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    We know that all immigration increases GDP, but have there been any studies in what effect immigration to the UK has had on GDP per capita?

    Yes.

    Immigration of working age people will tend to increase GDP-per-capita, because only about 40% of the total population work (with the rest being too young, too old, a parent, a student, in training, unwell or unemployed). Immigrants tend to work.

    But.

    If someone emigrated to the UK at the age of 66 and worked for a year, then they would likely increase GDP for a year, before retiring and depressing it.

    Likewise, someone who came at 21 with good skills could well depress GDP in year one, as they'd get only an entry level job, and then increase it in future years.

    So, it's complicated.
    Only 40% ? Blimey..
    I'm probably a bit low. 59% of people above the age of 15 are working. But close to 0 of the people below. Which means the total number is about 50%.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/26/brussels-accused-outrageous-attempt-turn-northern-ireland-eu/

    "Brussels accused of 'outrageous' attempt to turn Northern Ireland into EU province by rejecting British compromises"

    Very embarrassing for those who said Phase I had sorted out the Northern Ireland issue.
    It did solve it, but not in the way they think it did.
    I think the elegant solution is to give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
    I suspect the consequences might be less than elegant.
    What have the Northern Irish ever done for us?

    The only positive thing I can think of is the 1996 bombing of Manchester.

    Helped launched a massive regeneration.

    If that bombing didn't happen then I probably wouldn't be working in Manchester.
    Kate Hoey, George Best, Rory McElroy, Patrick Kielty.

    As long as the majority of people in Northern Ireland want to stay part of the UK it will remain part of the UK
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,842
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    We know that all immigration increases GDP, but have there been any studies in what effect immigration to the UK has had on GDP per capita?

    Yes.

    Immigration of working age people will tend to increase GDP-per-capita, because only about 40% of the total population work (with the rest being too young, too old, a parent, a student, in training, unwell or unemployed). Immigrants tend to work.

    But.

    If someone emigrated to the UK at the age of 66 and worked for a year, then they would likely increase GDP for a year, before retiring and depressing it.

    Likewise, someone who came at 21 with good skills could well depress GDP in year one, as they'd get only an entry level job, and then increase it in future years.

    So, it's complicated.
    Only 40% ? Blimey..
    And falling...the demographics over the next ten or so years are grim.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    One final thing about today’s speech before I retire. It was great symbolism to do it in Coventry.

    For whatever reason, the Tories have been totally tone deaf as to the reality of who Brexit is for and who it will impact. Their Brexit exists in a weird Daily Telegraph bubble, impervious to the outside world. The main government speeches have been at dodgy think tanks, or abroad.

    They should not expect support when push comes to shove. It feels like *their* Brexit, not ours.

    Yep, Labour has been politically astute today. The Tories will own Brexit and its consequences 100%, which is as it should be. The Labour leader who follows Corbyn is likely to benefit.

    As far as I can see Corbyn even hedged his Customs Union plan by demanding a full British say in FTAs which the EU won't grant.

    A pivotal reason for Brexit of course, Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004, lies firmly at Labour's door and both Corbyn and May still agree free movement has to end
  • rcs1000 said:

    We know that all immigration increases GDP, but have there been any studies in what effect immigration to the UK has had on GDP per capita?


    How could you isolate the immigration impact from everything else that's continuously changing in the economy?
    I imagine this would not be a simple exercise but surely it's in our interests to have an idea about whether immigration is a net benefit or a net drain, purely from a government's coffers perspective?

    To give an example, a family from a relatively deprived part of Europe move to the UK to take up jobs on the minimum wage. This is very sensible for the family as they can earn much more on the minmum wage in the UK than they can dream of earning back home. This family will increase our GDP but will at the same time cost the government money as the costs of providing healthcare, services and top up benefits will outweigh the minimal amount of tax collected. So according to the GDP stats their coming to the UK is a benefit but they are actually costing the country money.

    It would be good to understand whether the average immigrant is a cost or a benefit to the government's coffers.
    Almost no-one in work costs the government money,

    It's all people not in work. (And specifically the old.)
    That surprises me but I certainly wouldn't question your wisdom on this. So, that being the case, if we forbade any immigrant from claiming benefits for 3-5 years, possibly longer in the case of retirement benefits, then we could virtually ensure that immigration was a pronounced financial benefit to the country? I seem to recall Cameron asking for something similar to this in his 2016 negotiation with the EU and getting knocked back?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,780
    edited February 2018

    rcs1000 said:

    We know that all immigration increases GDP, but have there been any studies in what effect immigration to the UK has had on GDP per capita?

    Yes.

    Immigration of working age people will tend to increase GDP-per-capita, because only about 40% of the total population work (with the rest being too young, too old, a parent, a student, in training, unwell or unemployed). Immigrants tend to work.

    But.

    If someone emigrated to the UK at the age of 66 and worked for a year, then they would likely increase GDP for a year, before retiring and depressing it.

    Likewise, someone who came at 21 with good skills could well depress GDP in year one, as they'd get only an entry level job, and then increase it in future years.

    So, it's complicated.
    That makes total sense. Do we know what proportion of the immigrant population are in work?
    These are the ONS statistics on people in work: https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/datasets/employmentbycountryofbirthandnationalityemp06/current/emp06feb2018.xls

    The most employed category are those from the EU8 (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovak Republic and Slovenia), where 85.3% of those of working age are in employment. (And there are relatively few children or retirees from these countries, so this probably isn't a bad proxy for the total.)

    The worst rate (by far) is for immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh, which is just 52.6%.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,842
    Talk of Coventry leads to this from 1981. Any excuse...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ2oXzrnti4
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,780

    rcs1000 said:

    We know that all immigration increases GDP, but have there been any studies in what effect immigration to the UK has had on GDP per capita?


    How could you isolate the immigration impact from everything else that's continuously changing in the economy?
    I imagine this would not be a simple exercise but surely it's in our interests to have an idea about whether immigration is a net benefit or a net drain, purely from a government's coffers perspective?

    To give an example, a family from a relatively deprived part of Europe move to the UK to take up jobs on the minimum wage. This is very sensible for the family as they can earn much more on the minmum wage in the UK than they can dream of earning back home. This family will increase our GDP but will at the same time cost the government money as the costs of providing healthcare, services and top up benefits will outweigh the minimal amount of tax collected. So according to the GDP stats their coming to the UK is a benefit but they are actually costing the country money.

    It would be good to understand whether the average immigrant is a cost or a benefit to the government's coffers.
    Almost no-one in work costs the government money,

    It's all people not in work. (And specifically the old.)
    That surprises me but I certainly wouldn't question your wisdom on this. So, that being the case, if we forbade any immigrant from claiming benefits for 3-5 years, possibly longer in the case of retirement benefits, then we could virtually ensure that immigration was a pronounced financial benefit to the country? I seem to recall Cameron asking for something similar to this in his 2016 negotiation with the EU and getting knocked back?
    The Swiss do that, plus they make private health insurance compulsory.

    This means there is very little low skilled immigration, yet they have a relatively open economy.

    (They also crack down very hard on illegal immigration.)
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    rcs1000 said:

    We know that all immigration increases GDP, but have there been any studies in what effect immigration to the UK has had on GDP per capita?


    How could you isolate the immigration impact from everything else that's continuously changing in the economy?
    I imagine this would not be a simple exercise but surely it's in our interests to have an idea about whether immigration is a net benefit or a net drain, purely from a government's coffers perspective?

    To give an example, a family from a relatively deprived part of Europe move to the UK to take up jobs on the minimum wage. This is very sensible for the family as they can earn much more on the minmum wage in the UK than they can dream of earning back home. This family will increase our GDP but will at the same time cost the government money as the costs of providing healthcare, services and top up benefits will outweigh the minimal amount of tax collected. So according to the GDP stats their coming to the UK is a benefit but they are actually costing the country money.

    It would be good to understand whether the average immigrant is a cost or a benefit to the government's coffers.
    Almost no-one in work costs the government money,

    It's all people not in work. (And specifically the old.)
    Presumably you mean from a pure welfare POV, not including public service provision?
  • Scott_P said:

    @faisalislam: ... and meanwhile Sir John Major is also planning an intervention on Wednesday - we haven’t heard much from him since he heavily criticised the then prospect of a Tory-DUP deal re n Irish peace

    "You're all still bastards....."
    Perhaps he'll advocate moving to the narrow bands of the ERM.
  • AndyJS said:

    Foxy said:

    One final thing about today’s speech before I retire. It was great symbolism to do it in Coventry.

    For whatever reason, the Tories have been totally tone deaf as to the reality of who Brexit is for and who it will impact. Their Brexit exists in a weird Daily Telegraph bubble, impervious to the outside world. The main government speeches have been at dodgy think tanks, or abroad.

    They should not expect support when push comes to shove. It feels like *their* Brexit, not ours.

    Quite astute of Jezza. His instincts are sound.

    Brexit is not about fantasy trade deals, it is about ordinary people in places like Coventry, once a boomtown and wanting a sniff of that day in the sun again.
    Coventry not done well in the EU then?
    Coventry was one of the most prosperous towns in the country in the 1960s when the car industry was booming.

    Coventry has yet to recover from the deindustrialisation of the 1980s. That’s how long it can take to get over a big economic shock. A bad Brexit deal promises something similar.

  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    We know that all immigration increases GDP, but have there been any studies in what effect immigration to the UK has had on GDP per capita?


    How could you isolate the immigration impact from everything else that's continuously changing in the economy?
    I imagine this would not be a simple exercise but surely it's in our interests to have an idea about whether immigration is a net benefit or a net drain, purely from a government's coffers perspective?

    To give an example, a family from a relatively deprived part of Europe move to the UK to take up jobs on the minimum wage. This is very sensible for the family as they can earn much more on the minmum wage in the UK than they can dream of earning back home. This family will increase our GDP but will at the same time cost the government money as the costs of providing healthcare, services and top up benefits will outweigh the minimal amount of tax collected. So according to the GDP stats their coming to the UK is a benefit but they are actually costing the country money.

    It would be good to understand whether the average immigrant is a cost or a benefit to the government's coffers.
    Almost no-one in work costs the government money,

    It's all people not in work. (And specifically the old.)
    That surprises me but I certainly wouldn't question your wisdom on this. So, that being the case, if we forbade any immigrant from claiming benefits for 3-5 years, possibly longer in the case of retirement benefits, then we could virtually ensure that immigration was a pronounced financial benefit to the country? I seem to recall Cameron asking for something similar to this in his 2016 negotiation with the EU and getting knocked back?
    The Swiss do that, plus they make private health insurance compulsory.

    This means there is very little low skilled immigration, yet they have a relatively open economy.

    (They also crack down very hard on illegal immigration.)

    A policy such as this would surely make freedom of movement far more tolerable to the UK population as a whole. Why were the EU so implacably opposed?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    dixiedean said:

    Talk of Coventry leads to this from 1981. Any excuse...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ2oXzrnti4

    Released on June 20 1981 in Coventry ;)
  • Mortimer said:

    MikeL said:

    Danny565 said:

    Another possible indirect consequence of this is that the EU might start being more obstructionist in their negotiations with the government, in the hope/expectation of hastening its downfall, and bringing about what they see as a more sensible approach from Labour.

    Yes, very good point.

    However the question has to be will there be enough time?

    Vote on Soubry amendment already delayed until May - and I still haven't seen any reason why it shouldn't be delayed much longer than that - say until after the summer recess - by which time the "final agreement" is meant to have been agreed anyway.

    Plus there's still the chance the Govt could just carry on even if it does lose the amendment as it's not binding - apparently legal advice is being taken on this right now.

    Seems to be that T May can probably stall things long enough that there just won't be time for Govt to collapse and have a GE and new Govt to come in before October.
    The government have a lot of outs over this, and given the golden rule of Brexit suggests that Remainer glee is inversely proportional to Remainer ability to influence events post referendum, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was another red herring.
    +1

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,780

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    We know that all immigration increases GDP, but have there been any studies in what effect immigration to the UK has had on GDP per capita?


    How could you isolate the immigration impact from everything else that's continuously changing in the economy?
    I imagine this would not be a simple exercise but surely it's in our interests to have an idea about whether immigration is a net benefit or a net drain, purely from a government's coffers perspective?

    To give an example, a family from a relatively deprived part of Europe move to the UK to take up jobs on the minimum wage. This is very sensible for the family as they can earn much more on the minmum wage in the UK than they can dream of earning back home. This family will increase our GDP but will at the same time cost the government money as the costs of providing healthcare, services and top up benefits will outweigh the minimal amount of tax collected. So according to the GDP stats their coming to the UK is a benefit but they are actually costing the country money.

    It would be good to understand whether the average immigrant is a cost or a benefit to the government's coffers.
    Almost no-one in work costs the government money,

    It's all people not in work. (And specifically the old.)
    That surprises me but I certainly wouldn't question your wisdom on this. So, that being the case, if we forbade any immigrant from claiming benefits for 3-5 years, possibly longer in the case of retirement benefits, then we could virtually ensure that immigration was a pronounced financial benefit to the country? I seem to recall Cameron asking for something similar to this in his 2016 negotiation with the EU and getting knocked back?
    The Swiss do that, plus they make private health insurance compulsory.

    This means there is very little low skilled immigration, yet they have a relatively open economy.

    (They also crack down very hard on illegal immigration.)

    A policy such as this would surely make freedom of movement far more tolerable to the UK population as a whole. Why were the EU so implacably opposed?
    Most - perhaps all - the things the Swiss did were within the constraints of the EU's rules on Freedom of Movement.
  • Just a few thoughts before heading into bed with a nice hot water bottle

    1. Are we sure this CU amendment would pass? It seems like there would be a few Labour rebels at least (Field, Hoey, Stringer at least, possibly Hopkins, Mann and (who knows) Skinner). You then add on those like Caroline Flint who feel nervous (probably rightly) that this will be interpreted as a cop-out / first step to heading back to the SM and so will probably abstain. On the Conservative side, Heidi Allen seems to have gone remarkably quiet of late. Wasn't there a report that her constituency chairman was furious at her behaviour? You start to add these factors in and the DUP, and the Government might be fine.

    2. Increasingly, I think we will see the DUP take a more hard line Brexit stance and their comments suggest that is the way they are heading. Not because they necessarily like it but because they have worked out that there is a risk that, if Brexit is thwarted because of NI, the more zealous Brexiteers may push for a united Ireland as a sacrifice worth paying to bring about their version of Brexit. That probably helps May in that it gives her more leverage over the DUP than may appear.

    3. Re Corbyn's CU speech today, the problem for Labour with its Brexit-voting WWC base is that Brexit was, in a large part, a big FU to their social superiors, including the middle class types who run the Labour Party today. I think the CU speech risks inflamming that again because it just sounded like the sort of smart-arse policy that some smarmy lawyer like Starmer would come up with to try and get round what people voted for.

    4. I have just been doing some analysis on Labour seats in traditional Labour areas and what sort of swing there has been to the Tories, and some of the swings should be worrying Labour. The Durham seats have seen something like a 10% swing to the Conservatives since 2005, Cumbria and Northumberland have both seen 8% swings to the Tories and some of the seats in Lancashire, such as Leigh and Makerfield, have seen double-digit swings. They still have healthy majorities in most, but not all, cases but I would not be so blase re traditional Labour voters voting for a donkey.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    edited February 2018
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    We know that all immigration increases GDP, but have there been any studies in what effect immigration to the UK has had on GDP per capita?


    How could you isolate the immigration impact from everything else that's continuously changing in the economy?
    I imagine this would not be a simple exercise but surely it's in our interests to have an idea about whether immigration is a net benefit or a net drain, purely from a government's coffers perspective?

    To give an example, a family from a relatively deprived part of Europe move to the UK to take up jobs on the minimum wage. This is very sensible for the family as they can earn much more on the minmum wage in the UK than they can dream of earning back home. This family will increase our GDP but will at the same time cost the government money as the costs of providing healthcare, services and top up benefits will outweigh the minimal amount of tax collected. So according to the GDP stats their coming to the UK is a benefit but they are actually costing the country money.

    It would be good to understand whether the average immigrant is a cost or a benefit to the government's coffers.
    Almost no-one in work costs the government money,

    It's all people not in work. (And specifically the old.)
    That surprises me but I certainly wouldn't question your wisdom on this. So, that being the case, if we forbade any immigrant from claiming benefits for 3-5 years, possibly longer in the case of retirement benefits, then we could virtually ensure that immigration was a pronounced financial benefit to the country? I seem to recall Cameron asking for something similar to this in his 2016 negotiation with the EU and getting knocked back?
    The Swiss do that, plus they make private health insurance compulsory.

    This means there is very little low skilled immigration, yet they have a relatively open economy.

    (They also crack down very hard on illegal immigration.)

    A policy such as this would surely make freedom of movement far more tolerable to the UK population as a whole. Why were the EU so implacably opposed?
    They aren't. But the EU won't countenance different rules for EU citizens compared to the natives. The UK system is set up entirely to work sans immigration and needs changes to "fit". Also the UK never enforced all the rules it could have done so, UK judges seem to take somewhat generous interpretations of EU rules and Blair ditched a whole lot of immigration controls we could have had..
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,780
    Mortimer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    We know that all immigration increases GDP, but have there been any studies in what effect immigration to the UK has had on GDP per capita?


    How could you isolate the immigration impact from everything else that's continuously changing in the economy?
    I imagine this would not be a simple exercise but surely it's in our interests to have an idea about whether immigration is a net benefit or a net drain, purely from a government's coffers perspective?

    To give an example, a family from a relatively deprived part of Europe move to the UK to take up jobs on the minimum wage. This is very sensible for the family as they can earn much more on the minmum wage in the UK than they can dream of earning back home. This family will increase our GDP but will at the same time cost the government money as the costs of providing healthcare, services and top up benefits will outweigh the minimal amount of tax collected. So according to the GDP stats their coming to the UK is a benefit but they are actually costing the country money.

    It would be good to understand whether the average immigrant is a cost or a benefit to the government's coffers.
    Almost no-one in work costs the government money,

    It's all people not in work. (And specifically the old.)
    Presumably you mean from a pure welfare POV, not including public service provision?
    No, I mean entire service provision.

    People in work cost the government very little in healthcare costs, nothing for pensions, and nothing for education (although their children might). Their presence adds nothing to the interest bill of the national debt (and probably nothing to the cost of the armed services). We probably do need to add something on for additional police and other law and order provision.

    The issue comes - of course - when they stop working.
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    We know that all immigration increases GDP, but have there been any studies in what effect immigration to the UK has had on GDP per capita?


    How could you isolate the immigration impact from everything else that's continuously changing in the economy?
    I imagine this would not be a simple exercise but surely it's in our interests to have an idea about whether immigration is a net benefit or a net drain, purely from a government's coffers perspective?

    To give an example, a family from a relatively deprived part of Europe move to the UK to take up jobs on the minimum wage. This is very sensible for the family as they can earn much more on the minmum wage in the UK than they can dream of earning back home. This family will increase our GDP but will at the same time cost the government money as the costs of providing healthcare, services and top up benefits will outweigh the minimal amount of tax collected. So according to the GDP stats their coming to the UK is a benefit but they are actually costing the country money.

    It would be good to understand whether the average immigrant is a cost or a benefit to the government's coffers.
    Almost no-one in work costs the government money,

    It's all people not in work. (And specifically the old.)
    That surprises me but I certainly wouldn't question your wisdom on this. So, that being the case, if we forbade any immigrant from claiming benefits for 3-5 years, possibly longer in the case of retirement benefits, then we could virtually ensure that immigration was a pronounced financial benefit to the country? I seem to recall Cameron asking for something similar to this in his 2016 negotiation with the EU and getting knocked back?
    The Swiss do that, plus they make private health insurance compulsory.

    This means there is very little low skilled immigration, yet they have a relatively open economy.

    (They also crack down very hard on illegal immigration.)

    A policy such as this would surely make freedom of movement far more tolerable to the UK population as a whole. Why were the EU so implacably opposed?
    Most - perhaps all - the things the Swiss did were within the constraints of the EU's rules on Freedom of Movement.
    I would imagine that if this law were introduced with the blessing of the EU, and a 2nd referendum called, the referendum could reasonably be justified and Remain would win by a landslide.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    Mortimer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    We know that all immigration increases GDP, but have there been any studies in what effect immigration to the UK has had on GDP per capita?


    How could you isolate the immigration impact from everything else that's continuously changing in the economy?
    I imagine this would not be a simple exercise but surely it's in our interests to have an idea about whether immigration is a net benefit or a net drain, purely from a government's coffers perspective?

    To give an example, a family from a relatively deprived part of Europe move to the UK to take up jobs on the minimum wage. This is very sensible for the family as they can earn much more on the minmum wage in the UK than they can dream of earning back home. This family will increase our GDP but will at the same time cost the government money as the costs of providing healthcare, services and top up benefits will outweigh the minimal amount of tax collected. So according to the GDP stats their coming to the UK is a benefit but they are actually costing the country money.

    It would be good to understand whether the average immigrant is a cost or a benefit to the government's coffers.
    Almost no-one in work costs the government money,

    It's all people not in work. (And specifically the old.)
    Presumably you mean from a pure welfare POV, not including public service provision?
    From the NHS point of view EU migrants do not put pressure on the system, apart from maternity services, as the majority of NHS expense is on the retired and the long term sick, both of which are predominately natives. Healthy twenty somethings pay for others to use the NHS.
  • I can’t see the “CBI giving the thumbs” up to Corbyns Brexit policy is going to win many votes for Corbyn in traditional working class seats. The fanatical remail posters on PB will of course welcome this with open arms and tell us how clever Corbyn has been.

    I’m not so sure....
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,780
    As an aside, it's worth looking at total central government spending of £606bn/year.

    £156bn in pension (old British people)
    £141bn healthcare (mostly old British people)
    £57bn welfare
    £48bn interest payments
    £45bn defence
    £41bn education

    That's 80% of the total.
This discussion has been closed.