Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Arakhor, Jul 9, 2018.
Missed opportunity for "socialism with a side of British nationalism"
The NHS throws them in the gutter to die if they are taken there for care?
And whether or not they are a drain on the welfare state, they certainly crate prejudice against those foreigners. Cheetah's reference to gypsies in Norway is one example of how that can happen. My point here is that prejudice, racism or what you may call it has real causes. If those are not taken care of it will always arise.
I remember a German judge deciding it was ok for someone to have beaten their wife because it was part of their culture. That sort of attitude is ridiculous.
Looks like ED Davey hasn't learnt anything from the election result.
I think that immigrants receiving state benefit is a problem only if the amount is relatively close to what a (low-end wage) working person would get - cause in that case many non-immigrants would use it too, instead of facing survival problems. For example, I am all in favor of a few hundred euros/month for such cases, but if you just hand out >500 euro/month just cause one is an immigrant, it will create issues.
Though I don't mind if the hand-out is larger, but ends being the same amount due to less people getting it. I am not against people just cause they get pay from the state due to immigrant programs. If I had a different personality, and was starving, I would be though.
Yes? That's really not much of a problem. People have addresses, a workplace, family or friends with addresses, mobile phones, subscriptions, etc. Police can easily come and pick them up at any time, and put them on a flight and expel them within a day or two.
If one doesn't have a job, and live on the street in a foreign country with no support but basic healthcare and charity, one necessarily supports themselves through crime. That's not much of a life, and very few EEA citisens choose to do that.
I'm far from a open-all-the-borders person, I know I've had some disagreements with Lexicus over this topic. However, capitulating to the right on the issue of immigration and endorsing the 'send them all back home, no new ones' policy is quite morally abhorrent.
EDIT: Missed @innonimatu post and want to avoid a doublepost
I think you overstate the leverage the potential of a 'hard Brexit' gives the UK. Leaving hard Brexit open as a viable option is equivalent of holding a loaded gun to your head and saying "Give me what I want or I'll pull the trigger". The other party has two options: one, they assume gunman is rational and will not blow off his head - thus removing the leverage; or two, the other party knows that the gunman is clearly irrational and thus negotiations aren't really viable as gunman has no rational interest.
I agree that the Tories won't see any implosion, not for at least a year or two. Politicians like winners and Johnson definitely won this election. Similar for economic crisis. Short of a general world recession, nothing will fundamentally change in the UK economic relation with the EU and the rest of the world for at least a year. Johnson has made it clear he wants - and I'm 99% sure the EU has agreed to it- a year long transition period where the UK is part of Europe in economic terms while a trading and financial agreement is finalized. Given it took Canada several years to negotiate a trade agreement - and arguably it was a simpler one as the UK's financial sector is far larger than Canada's- I doubt the UK will get an agreement before the transition is up. An extension or two will be had from the EU, but eventually it will sink into voters that Johnson and the Tories are waffling on Brexit.
Scotland has consistently been won on local and general elections by an explicitly pro-independence party, and Johnson quite simply doesn't seem capable of understanding Scottish concerns. I'd place good money on a serious showdown over independence between Scotland and Westminster in the next five years or so.
Even Northern Ireland, even before seeing how badly Johnson's internal border fouls things up between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, has shown definite signs that commitment to Unionism is falling.
You don't need to do that just limit visas, work out how many immigrants you need to keep the population up and prioritize skill based visa grants.
Combine that with cracking down on companies that violate the laws over employing undocumented labour up to and including jail time and seizing the company.
Yes you need some immigration but you don't need 50% population growth in a few decades when a lot if nation's have a sub replacement birthrate.
Well that may be your interpretation, but when the UK's Home Office tried to follow
through with deportations on much that same basis, it was overruled by the courts.
But perhaps Norway has more patriotic judges!
Huh. That's strange...
How can people be working (which rightly gives them permission to stay, according to the rules), but not afford accommodations??
Oh my gosh what happened in the election guys? That was so disappointing. Anyone think Scotland's going to mount a series attempt at a second referendum?
I can't see them going all Catalan, but at the moment they certainly have the moral high ground. The main argument for staying in the British union was the Britains EU membership. The millisecond Britain gets a non-tory government(which is almost certainly have to be supported by the SNP) there will be a referendum.
And thinking about it, that will benefit the Tories since Scotland often votes to the left.
Hereby imo a cold shower for that:
* Scotland cannot force a referendum for independence on its own: it needs Westminster to approve.
* if we should have learned anything from that 52%-48% Brexit vote is that for such colossal decisions you need a bigger qualified majority than 50% to have the confidence that it is really a lasting, a sustainable choice.
* the negative economical GDP per Capita implications of Scotland going independent are much smaller when both England+ and Scotland would still be member of the EU for frictionless trade at similar standards. Scotland missed the boat in 2014 while in the EU.
* the Scotland share of the Westminster national debt will have to be established. That will be ugly for Scotland unless England+ has benefits from Scotland separating. Scotland has I think not a culture to take a lighthearted approach on money and risks.
The only thing I think Scottish separatists can do is keep on nurturing the dream and prepare-transform the Scottish economy for it.
When the SNP stays strong, there will be elections the coming years-decades where both the Tories as Labour are forced to be a minority government, despite the FPTP system.
Those are the moments where the SNP can choose between leveraging that position for more devolution (when not prepped enough) or for a referendum (whenready to launch).
And the Tories-Labour can ofc counter by holding new elections.
I think a Boris Johnson government was exactly what Nicola Sturgeon secretly hoped for all along. With Johnson in command, she can prepare for a referendum the next five years. The latest independence polls are still only 50/50. Better to wait a few years and up the number to 55/45 and more.
an opportunity indeed.
Scottish independence was for sure the only priority of Sturgeon in this whole Brexit affair.
But I would really go for a 60% majority in a referendum. Separating Scotland from England+ will have imo (as % of GDP) a bigger economical damage the first 5-10 years than Brexit for the UK. You will need a solid support of the Scottish people.
What I think will help Sturgeon the coming years is when the Bojo-ERG-Britannia Unchained changes to the degree of inequality in the UK are going to bite.
The tricky thing with more devolution is that Westminster is using it since many years to pump down cost cutting to lower government level, the city councils.
I recognise all the points you're making in general, but just as a nitpick I really feel it's important to the that Brexit is still happening anyway. It being a close vote hasn't stopped it. Effective arguments against it, poor negotiating, and a complete inability to make a good plan out of it (spoilers for the Leave crowd: because there isn't one) have made it go on for as long as it has.
Even if another Scottish referendum is close, it's a far less controversial thing for people in Scotland to get behind. And more than that, with Brexit, nobody can logically oppose it from Westminster having just spent the better part of half a decade campaigning on the 52 / 48 split.
When you talk about a massive change of the status quo, when there is no urgency to take a decision, it is in general bad practice to take a decision when it is a close call. In such cases you postpone.
That's elementary common sense.
It still happened as you say.
And the feeble majority has caused a lot of avoidable damage already the past 3.5 years. In money and trust.
And more uncertainty and damage to come:
Even now it is unclear what kind of Brexit it will become. And all kind of factions will battle civil wars on it, meaning no clear future scenario for people and companies what to do, keeping even longer all option open. With Trump as unguided missile interfering for his own November election interests only.
There are 3-4 more deadlines to come:
* the easy one on Jan 31 after the Parliament agreeing to the divorce deal.
* the other easy one (at launching it) in March: the financial budget for the year April 2019-2020
* then in June the first real deadline on Brexit: will the UK decide to extend the transition period (of still being in the EU rules on trade) beyond January 2020 or not.
) If not: the EU will aim for a bare bone WTO with perhaps some minimal FTA elements such as fisheries and airline space. And this negotiation could still end up in a no-deal Brexit in Jan 2020.
) if yes: the UK will have to commit in June already to basic general commitments to get that extension of the transition period until 2022. The EU is otherwise not going to give an extension anymore.
* if June decides for an extension, and the UK stays even longer in the trade rules of the EU, 6.5 years in total after the referendum, it could still end up in a no-deal hard Brexit.
I guess the same
But the damage being relatively much bigger in Scotland (trade to England+ much higher as % of Scottish GDP), there is also more need for a lower risk profile.
Power is brutally simple.
Has its own logic.
Perhaps you did not read the article:
Most attention atm on the analysis of the election, the manoevring within Labour, Brexit, etc.
But less attention for the simple fact that the coup within the Tory party has been executed and the extreme rightwing thinktanks are ready to poor as much as they can their thoughts of a Singapore on Thames intothe strategy of Bojo.
Here an article of Politico on Singapore a la Cummings for the UK.
It is in the last pages of the long article starting here:
Excess immigration results in excess competition for jobs and thereby drives down real pay rates below subsistence level.
Oh, I read the article.
My point is that the UK courts do not interpret freedom of movement in quite the same way as Cheetah seems to.
I regard the term "thoughts" as flattery, it is their fantasy.
Singapore's economy is planned, BoJo cannot plan anything useful.
No, I think they do. If EU citisens have jobs, they have the right to stay.
The problem seems to be that one can hold a job in the UK, and still not support oneself.
Not in a properly regulated market. What happened to the concept of a «living wage»?
If your labour organisations and business organisations do not negotiate over minimum salaries and benefits within each industry, like in Norway, then at least set a national minimum salary level?
Separate names with a comma.