In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note.
Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon.
All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting.
On November 03 2016 21:27 bardtown wrote: Doubt it will make any difference at all. All May has to do is go into the debate, say next to nothing of her plans and instead make it about either supporting or blocking the people's decision. Wouldn't even be surprised if Corbyn whips Labour into backing triggering of A50. A very significant majority of constituencies (roughly 420 of 570 in England/Wales and over 2:1 UK level) voted to Leave, so even if every MP with a Remain constituency dissents, it won't be enough.
More likely this will become a party political exercise. Could cause the Tories some issues if they have significant dissent.
If it actually gets blocked, there will be real outrage.
Like Mythical just edited in his post, Parliament will presumably want to see a proper leaving strategy before voting on the issue. Saying next to nothing about her plans won't be the way to get their votes lol.
The argument of "the people voted Brexit" falls flat on its face if Brexit can mean several very different things, and it's unclear which the people voted for.
Brexit = leaving the EU = Article 50.
Not complicated. You can't negotiate a deal between Labour and the Tories - they would only ever agree on a deal that the EU would never accept in the first place. The deal that comes out of the Article 50 process is decided between the UK government and the EU.
Yes complicated. What, if anything, did the people say about EEA access ?
Not complicated. Stop intentionally missing the point. The question on the paper was 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' 52% of people voted 'Leave the European Union'. That means triggering Article 50.
What happens beyond that is up for debate.
That itself is not up for debate, and is not contingent on addressing differences on what should happen afterwards. No guarantees about what happens afterwards can be made, anyway. It is entirely dependent on the negotiations, and making a guarantee would cripple the UK's negotiating position. So incredibly obvious.
Thank you, Captain Obvious. 'Triggering A50' means exactly zilch without context. May has full latitude to go wide spectrum between full independent replication of EU laws and symbolic separation complete with cake and afternoon tea, or walk into negotiations with her middle finger in the air. In the absence of information from vox populi we can only assume. It's all up to her and it this morning's court decision shows it shouldn't be.
Its not up to parliament either since it entirely depends on the negotiations and what the EU is willing to offer the UK.
The only certainly in the entire process is that 2 years after article 50 you are out of the EU (barring a unanimous vote by all EU states to continue negotiations)
It is exactly up to both institutions together indeed, which is why there needs to be a debate on the terms that should be put forth.
What you're arguing for is already unanimously agreed upon and has nothing to do with a vote for triggering Article 50.
Semantics. This morning's ruling makes explicit the link between parliamentary clarity and parliamentary agreement to go ahead ( otherwise they'd just filibuster ad infinitum). This is 'unanimously agreed upon' since today 10.30AM. I for one rejoice of our agreement in that regard.
On November 03 2016 22:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So Theresa May's entire plan was to get the EU to enact Article 50 so she an others would not have to vote on and be on the record?
Seems like a pretty stupid idea.
What? The EU was never going to force article 50, I don't even think they can. England has to do that itself.
Its not a stupid idea. Its literally impossible.
Then why didn't she call for a vote on Article 50 as soon as she was in power? It shouldn't be such a big deal but here she is with her and her Government seeing this decision as bad news for them.
Because you need to prepare for the negotiations?
And last I heard Britain didn't even have the negotiators for it since they haven't had to do trade negotiations on their own for a long time.
So instead the Government is using it's money and time to fight court battles instead of preparing for negotiations?
And you believe they are not preparing atm because?
And running headlong into the most important negotiation of the last couple of decades without prep would be better how?
On November 03 2016 22:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So Theresa May's entire plan was to get the EU to enact Article 50 so she an others would not have to vote on and be on the record?
Seems like a pretty stupid idea.
What? The EU was never going to force article 50, I don't even think they can. England has to do that itself.
Its not a stupid idea. Its literally impossible.
Then why didn't she call for a vote on Article 50 as soon as she was in power? It shouldn't be such a big deal but here she is with her and her Government seeing this decision as bad news for them.
Because you need to prepare for the negotiations?
And last I heard Britain didn't even have the negotiators for it since they haven't had to do trade negotiations on their own for a long time.
She was busy changing her mind, as shown by her earlier talk to none other than Goldman Sachs :
'As Britain’s Prime Minister, Theresa May is leading the U.K.’s long slog to Brexit. At the Conservative Party’s recent conference, she even suggested that the U.K. would leave Europe’s single market and cut the freedom of cross-border movement in a so-called “hard” Brexit. But just weeks before Britain’s June 23 referendum on leaving the EU, she was reportedly telling Goldman Sachs bankers that Brexit had a good chance of being a less than stellar idea for the British economy.
In an audio recording of remarks reportedly made to Goldman Sachs on May 26 in London and leaked to The Guardian, then-Home Secretary Theresa May told the bankers—assembled for Goldman Sachs’ Talks at GS series—that she was worried about the negative effects of a possible Brexit.
“I think the economic arguments are clear,” she said, according to The Guardian. “I think being part of a 500-million trading bloc is significant for us. I think, as I was saying to you a little earlier, that one of the issues is that a lot of people will invest here in the UK because it is the UK in Europe.”'
I can't imagine that a Brexit would go through without new elections that allow people to vote in new MPs that would be committed to triggering Article 50. It's just too consequential a decision for the current government not to choose to drag their feet as long as they possibly can.
On November 03 2016 23:22 LegalLord wrote: I can't imagine that a Brexit would go through without new elections that allow people to vote in new MPs that would be committed to triggering Article 50. It's just too consequential a decision for the current government not to choose to drag their feet as long as they possibly can.
Doesn't really make any sense. Dragging our feet will result in more economic damage. The triggering of A50 is inevitable, and if we do go to a GE the Tories will win a landslide on the back of their Brexit stance (and the incompetence of the opposition), as all polls indicate.
On November 03 2016 23:16 bardtown wrote: Remain campaigner campaigning for Remain. Shocking.
Unlike some she has since shown respect for democracy and reacted appropriately to the people disagreeing with her assessment.
...By banking speech fees ( from people she vilified onwards), talking from both corners of her mouth, pandering to UKIP voters, showing she didn't believe her very own judgement, and dragging her feet as much as possible in the hope her credibility would be restored as the U-turn was completed, Tsipras-style, disregarding the uncertainty her position generated...
On November 04 2016 00:11 bardtown wrote: What's your opinion on Corbyn, Lurker?
In Tolstoyan fashion, I'd reply 'He doesn't even deserve one'. Most likely the reason he failed to properly back Remain is because he's keen on his future as a fruit picker on the innovative jams bandwagon.
The most absurd part of this all is the Supreme Court might troll the entire country by referring the December appeal on A50 to none other than... the European Court of Justice.
Seriously. Did we really need to divert our energies in such a way ?
On November 04 2016 00:34 MyTHicaL wrote: Your poll is clearly only for England.. Again. Gonna be funny SNP blocking parliament.
Tories are the #2 party in Scotland now . They already have a majority now, and all indications are that it will increase hugely at a GE. SNP can't block a thing.
On November 04 2016 00:11 bardtown wrote: What's your opinion on Corbyn, Lurker?
In Tolstoyan fashion, I'd reply 'He doesn't even deserve one'. Most likely the reason he failed to properly back Remain is because he's keen on his future as a fruit picker on the innovative jams bandwagon.
The most absurd part of this all is the Supreme Court might troll the entire country by referring the December appeal on A50 to none other than... the European Court of Justice.
Seriously. Did we really need to divert our energies in such a way ?
No, we didn't. A50 should have been straightforward. Both Labour and the Conservatives support it, anyway. Remainers have jumped on this decision but they are deluding themselves if they think it is anything more than a waste of time and, as you say, a diversion of our energies.
On November 04 2016 00:34 MyTHicaL wrote: Your poll is clearly only for England.. Again. Gonna be funny SNP blocking parliament.
Tories are the #2 party in Scotland now . They already have a majority now, and all indications are that it will increase hugely at a GE. SNP can't block a thing.
On November 04 2016 00:11 bardtown wrote: What's your opinion on Corbyn, Lurker?
In Tolstoyan fashion, I'd reply 'He doesn't even deserve one'. Most likely the reason he failed to properly back Remain is because he's keen on his future as a fruit picker on the innovative jams bandwagon.
The most absurd part of this all is the Supreme Court might troll the entire country by referring the December appeal on A50 to none other than... the European Court of Justice.
Seriously. Did we really need to divert our energies in such a way ?
No, we didn't. A50 should have been straightforward. Both Labour and the Conservatives support it, anyway. Remainers have jumped on this decision but they are deluding themselves if they think it is anything more than a waste of time and, as you say, a diversion of our energies.
But this is just the bickering entree ( starter ). Watch Farage go into cardiac arrest when Cyprus or Latvia veto tariff deals affecting British workers. We have at the very least several years of that nonsense. What's a few months waiting for Godot if we can lay the issue to rest ? Y'know, long term benefits and all.
On November 04 2016 00:52 MyTHicaL wrote: The day that torries win scotland is not one I want to live. They never have and never will.
Actually, Scotland has voted for the Tories in the past. They are currently experiencing a revival and they are polling above Labour there. They won't win Scotland, obviously, but they may pick up another seat or two.
On November 04 2016 00:34 MyTHicaL wrote: Your poll is clearly only for England.. Again. Gonna be funny SNP blocking parliament.
Tories are the #2 party in Scotland now . They already have a majority now, and all indications are that it will increase hugely at a GE. SNP can't block a thing.
On November 04 2016 00:32 MyLovelyLurker wrote:
On November 04 2016 00:11 bardtown wrote: What's your opinion on Corbyn, Lurker?
In Tolstoyan fashion, I'd reply 'He doesn't even deserve one'. Most likely the reason he failed to properly back Remain is because he's keen on his future as a fruit picker on the innovative jams bandwagon.
The most absurd part of this all is the Supreme Court might troll the entire country by referring the December appeal on A50 to none other than... the European Court of Justice.
Seriously. Did we really need to divert our energies in such a way ?
No, we didn't. A50 should have been straightforward. Both Labour and the Conservatives support it, anyway. Remainers have jumped on this decision but they are deluding themselves if they think it is anything more than a waste of time and, as you say, a diversion of our energies.
But this is just the bickering entree ( starter ). Watch Farage go into cardiac arrest when Cyprus or Latvia veto tariff deals affecting British workers. We have at the very least several years of that nonsense. What's a few months waiting for Godot if we can lay the issue to rest ? Y'know, long term benefits and all.
The alternative being... staying in the EU and having to endure Latvia's vetoing of our interests in perpetuity? Did you see Cameron's renegotiations, or the CETA situation?
In an effort to dig out facts in a non-partisan way I've dug out a 2015 government report on the impacts of migration in the UK. One would hope it is neutral and represents our administration's consensual and factual view. The report strikes a mostly positive tone and goes into fascinating detail.
Excerpts that looked salient :
' “The people that we need are not available in the UK. … There is not the capability within the UK any longer to meet our aspirations.” (Manager, Aerospace, Bristol, 5-10% migrants, Large)'
'Empirical evidence – aggregate impacts of immigration on productivity
There is little existing empirical literature that examines the impacts of immigration on productivity. The literature that does exist however emphasises that the effects will vary by different types of migrants, for example by age on arrival, by skill level and by language ability (Alexsynka and Tritah, 2009 and Dadush, 2014). Kangasniemi et al. (2012) finds for the UK from 1996-2005 that although the quality of immigrants did impact positively on labour productivity, this was largely outweighed by the quantity effect of migrants. That is, while there was a growth in output this was largely because of an increase in the quantity of workers, rather than through productivity gains, and so the net effect of immigration on productivity was only marginally positive in the UK. Rolfe et al. (2013) find a positive relationship between the proportion of immigrants in employment for region-sectors and labour productivity, from their descriptive statistics for 1997-2007. In addition their econometric study shows a positive and significant association between increases in the proportion of immigrant workers and labour productivity growth, after controlling for changes in the skill mix of employees. However the positive effect is relatively small, with a 1% change in immigrant share of employment increasing labour productivity by only 0.06 to 0.07%.'
It would appear the aggregate effect has been a small positive for years. As per one of my previous posts, the report makes a statistical distinction between low- and high-skilled workers, one that some may think less-than-honest politicians would be tempted to talk down and take advantage of. Worth reading the full report.
I think you are unaware of the amount of vetos the UK put across. Anything left leaning they veto'd, anything to increase transparency and/or regulation in the financial sector- they veto. Within the EU, if it was agreeable, pressure from the big 3 would eventually allow legislation to pass. Now the UK will have to abide by countries like Malta and Cyprus, unless of course it wants to trade nothing for other countries products/services. The CETA needs to be ammended to disallow NA companies from sueing the EU- that is why Walonnie voted against.
On November 04 2016 00:52 MyTHicaL wrote: The day that torries win scotland is not one I want to live. They never have and never will.
Actually, Scotland has voted for the Tories in the past. They are currently experiencing a revival and they are polling above Labour there. They won't win Scotland, obviously, but they may pick up another seat or two.
On November 04 2016 00:34 MyTHicaL wrote: Your poll is clearly only for England.. Again. Gonna be funny SNP blocking parliament.
Tories are the #2 party in Scotland now . They already have a majority now, and all indications are that it will increase hugely at a GE. SNP can't block a thing.
On November 04 2016 00:32 MyLovelyLurker wrote:
On November 04 2016 00:11 bardtown wrote: What's your opinion on Corbyn, Lurker?
In Tolstoyan fashion, I'd reply 'He doesn't even deserve one'. Most likely the reason he failed to properly back Remain is because he's keen on his future as a fruit picker on the innovative jams bandwagon.
The most absurd part of this all is the Supreme Court might troll the entire country by referring the December appeal on A50 to none other than... the European Court of Justice.
Seriously. Did we really need to divert our energies in such a way ?
No, we didn't. A50 should have been straightforward. Both Labour and the Conservatives support it, anyway. Remainers have jumped on this decision but they are deluding themselves if they think it is anything more than a waste of time and, as you say, a diversion of our energies.
But this is just the bickering entree ( starter ). Watch Farage go into cardiac arrest when Cyprus or Latvia veto tariff deals affecting British workers. We have at the very least several years of that nonsense. What's a few months waiting for Godot if we can lay the issue to rest ? Y'know, long term benefits and all.
The alternative being... staying in the EU and having to endure Latvia's vetoing of our interests in perpetuity? Did you see Cameron's renegotiations, or the CETA situation?
Precisely. You're quoting the EU's poor treatment of leavers as a justification for leaving ??... The EU is well within its rights to apply double standards based on whether a country is friend or foe. If anything, pre-2015 UK enjoyed unique benefits such as the rebate ( The UK rebate (or UK correction) is a financial mechanism that reduces the United Kingdom's contribution to the EU budget in effect since 1985. It is a complex calculation which equates to approximately 66% of the UK's net contribution – the amount paid by the UK into the EU budget less EU expenditure in the UK. ).
On November 04 2016 01:07 MyLovelyLurker wrote: In an effort to dig out facts in a non-partisan way I've dug out a 2015 government report on the impacts of migration in the UK. One would hope it is neutral and represents our administration's consensual and factual view. The report strikes a mostly positive tone and goes into fascinating detail.
Excerpts that looked salient :
' “The people that we need are not available in the UK. … There is not the capability within the UK any longer to meet our aspirations.” (Manager, Aerospace, Bristol, 5-10% migrants, Large)'
'Empirical evidence – aggregate impacts of immigration on productivity
There is little existing empirical literature that examines the impacts of immigration on productivity. The literature that does exist however emphasises that the effects will vary by different types of migrants, for example by age on arrival, by skill level and by language ability (Alexsynka and Tritah, 2009 and Dadush, 2014). Kangasniemi et al. (2012) finds for the UK from 1996-2005 that although the quality of immigrants did impact positively on labour productivity, this was largely outweighed by the quantity effect of migrants. That is, while there was a growth in output this was largely because of an increase in the quantity of workers, rather than through productivity gains, and so the net effect of immigration on productivity was only marginally positive in the UK. Rolfe et al. (2013) find a positive relationship between the proportion of immigrants in employment for region-sectors and labour productivity, from their descriptive statistics for 1997-2007. In addition their econometric study shows a positive and significant association between increases in the proportion of immigrant workers and labour productivity growth, after controlling for changes in the skill mix of employees. However the positive effect is relatively small, with a 1% change in immigrant share of employment increasing labour productivity by only 0.06 to 0.07%.'
It would appear the aggregate effect has been a small positive for years. As per one of my previous posts, the report makes a statistical distinction between low- and high-skilled workers, one that some may think less-than-honest politicians would be tempted to talk down and take advantage of. Worth reading the full report.
Somewhere upthread I linked another study commissioned by the U.K. Parliament that analyzed the net effect of immigrants, coming to the conclusion that there is such a thing as good and bad immigrants, and that those who took a "immigrants good, immigrants always good" stance are just wrong. I'm on mobile so I'm not about to dig for it, but it's there. The basic takeaway from these reports in conjunction is that there is a perfectly valid case for limiting immigration to encourage "good immigration" and discourage "bad immigration."
On November 04 2016 00:52 MyTHicaL wrote: The day that torries win scotland is not one I want to live. They never have and never will.
Actually, Scotland has voted for the Tories in the past. They are currently experiencing a revival and they are polling above Labour there. They won't win Scotland, obviously, but they may pick up another seat or two.
On November 04 2016 00:56 MyLovelyLurker wrote:
On November 04 2016 00:39 bardtown wrote:
On November 04 2016 00:34 MyTHicaL wrote: Your poll is clearly only for England.. Again. Gonna be funny SNP blocking parliament.
Tories are the #2 party in Scotland now . They already have a majority now, and all indications are that it will increase hugely at a GE. SNP can't block a thing.
On November 04 2016 00:32 MyLovelyLurker wrote:
On November 04 2016 00:11 bardtown wrote: What's your opinion on Corbyn, Lurker?
In Tolstoyan fashion, I'd reply 'He doesn't even deserve one'. Most likely the reason he failed to properly back Remain is because he's keen on his future as a fruit picker on the innovative jams bandwagon.
The most absurd part of this all is the Supreme Court might troll the entire country by referring the December appeal on A50 to none other than... the European Court of Justice.
Seriously. Did we really need to divert our energies in such a way ?
No, we didn't. A50 should have been straightforward. Both Labour and the Conservatives support it, anyway. Remainers have jumped on this decision but they are deluding themselves if they think it is anything more than a waste of time and, as you say, a diversion of our energies.
But this is just the bickering entree ( starter ). Watch Farage go into cardiac arrest when Cyprus or Latvia veto tariff deals affecting British workers. We have at the very least several years of that nonsense. What's a few months waiting for Godot if we can lay the issue to rest ? Y'know, long term benefits and all.
The alternative being... staying in the EU and having to endure Latvia's vetoing of our interests in perpetuity? Did you see Cameron's renegotiations, or the CETA situation?
Precisely. You're quoting the EU's poor treatment of leavers as a justification for leaving ??... The EU is well within its rights to apply double standards based on whether a country is friend or foe. If anything, pre-2015 UK enjoyed unique benefits such as the rebate ( The UK rebate (or UK correction) is a financial mechanism that reduces the United Kingdom's contribution to the EU budget in effect since 1985. It is a complex calculation which equates to approximately 66% of the UK's net contribution – the amount paid by the UK into the EU budget less EU expenditure in the UK. ).
That was won by Thatcher, I wonder how all those leave Tories felt once they realised they had trashed arguably one of the most beneficial achievements of the Conservative party's greatest leader.
On November 04 2016 01:07 MyLovelyLurker wrote: In an effort to dig out facts in a non-partisan way I've dug out a 2015 government report on the impacts of migration in the UK. One would hope it is neutral and represents our administration's consensual and factual view. The report strikes a mostly positive tone and goes into fascinating detail.
Excerpts that looked salient :
' “The people that we need are not available in the UK. … There is not the capability within the UK any longer to meet our aspirations.” (Manager, Aerospace, Bristol, 5-10% migrants, Large)'
'Empirical evidence – aggregate impacts of immigration on productivity
There is little existing empirical literature that examines the impacts of immigration on productivity. The literature that does exist however emphasises that the effects will vary by different types of migrants, for example by age on arrival, by skill level and by language ability (Alexsynka and Tritah, 2009 and Dadush, 2014). Kangasniemi et al. (2012) finds for the UK from 1996-2005 that although the quality of immigrants did impact positively on labour productivity, this was largely outweighed by the quantity effect of migrants. That is, while there was a growth in output this was largely because of an increase in the quantity of workers, rather than through productivity gains, and so the net effect of immigration on productivity was only marginally positive in the UK. Rolfe et al. (2013) find a positive relationship between the proportion of immigrants in employment for region-sectors and labour productivity, from their descriptive statistics for 1997-2007. In addition their econometric study shows a positive and significant association between increases in the proportion of immigrant workers and labour productivity growth, after controlling for changes in the skill mix of employees. However the positive effect is relatively small, with a 1% change in immigrant share of employment increasing labour productivity by only 0.06 to 0.07%.'
It would appear the aggregate effect has been a small positive for years. As per one of my previous posts, the report makes a statistical distinction between low- and high-skilled workers, one that some may think less-than-honest politicians would be tempted to talk down and take advantage of. Worth reading the full report.
Somewhere upthread I linked another study commissioned by the U.K. Parliament that analyzed the net effect of immigrants, coming to the conclusion that there is such a thing as good and bad immigrants, and that those who took a "immigrants good, immigrants always good" stance are just wrong. I'm on mobile so I'm not about to dig for it, but it's there. The basic takeaway from these reports in conjunction is that there is a perfectly valid case for limiting immigration to encourage "good immigration" and discourage "bad immigration."
You agree with the last paragraph of my post - I said that it is right to cluster into good and bad.
I say - the government says - the net, total, aggregate, impact - the sum - is a small positive. Happy to dig further into the multiple research studies here.
I am arguing that the distribution is bimodal and skewed and it is, in fact, intellectually dishonest to hide that fact for ideological reasons. Because voters are counted by number and not by tax impact, it makes political sense to court low-skilled domestic voters dealing with low-skilled migrants, because there are many more, when in fact their cost to the country is more than offset by the much smaller number of high-skilled migrants. This is what a skewed distribution does ( refer Pareto, etc ).
The May government has shown an uncanny predisposition to tar all migrants with one brush by referring to them all as 'foreigners' and suggested they be 'counted' so that businesses could be 'named and shamed'. This fallacy is inflammatory to all migrants including the high-skilled ones.
But then, since we all agree here that Brexit is a cost and a risk : why take away a small positive at a great cost and great risk ? It would only make sense to get greedy if, in fact, the process was riskless and painless.
EPT
