How do we think EU negotiations will go?

[anonymous-user]

Just for once I was trying to be serious, and even a bit kind to SB.

Now back to the knob gags.

[superlightr]

Breadvan72 said:

There is no very principled basis for saying that X has more rights than Y because X was born in a A Land whilst Y was born in B Land. It is a purely pragmatic and historically based rule. Blood and soil are not rational principles. Then, once you start measuring how much people contribute to A Land and make that a relevant decision factor, why not ask if X contributes as much as Y?

Blood and soil ties are very strong in human nature and I cant agree that its just a historic based rule - it goes much deeper than that I would suggest to a primeval base level.

Its not wrong to want to protect and look after "your" blood and soil. To conserve your own positon to survive and prosper.

ie against invasion, protecting the week and helping those in need. Each country only has limited recourses/tax. Yes we have developed where we are able to give money away and have principles of helping other countries and people in need because its good for our own position/makes us feel good/may give security to us.

I agree with the principle that it would be great to help everybody in the world if we have unlimited resources - but we don't. We are taxed hard and constantly told the govt needs more money. Perhaps that's why Britex happened because people feel its time to hunker down and look after ourselves and our own soil - a normal human instinct.

[John145]

Tuna said:

Not really wanting to get dragged into the "It's immigrants, innit?" fight, but..

Isn't the distinction we're trying to make between workers in industries where we have a shortage (fruit pickers, brain surgeons..) and industries where we have sufficient workers, but immigrant staff offer a (short term) drop in wages?

The social goal of most nations is to ensure (through minimum wage and high employment) that everyone who can contribute to society has the ability to do so, regardless of their skills and background etc. That includes the concept that, having contributed, each person can expect a minimum living standard.

So if we're bringing in immigrants who provide cheap labour simply because they're willing to accept a lower living standard, we're effectively lowering the minimum living standard of the country. In the process we're doing everyone a disservice.

I'm not sure how you codify that into an immigration policy, but should the idea be that in welcoming people into the country, we should also be ensuring that by our own living standards, they are not being exploited?

How does that translate into government policy for you?

[Garvin]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Garvin said:

So that's it is it? Shell the EU some dosh for access to the Single Market. OK, doesn't seem much of a penalty to me!

But if that is the only real sticking point why are the EU delaying the negotiation of such - it seems they want a bigger penalty to me and I still don't understand why!

Perhaps you missed David Davis in committee this morning & I couldn't blame you for doing so, however, it throws a little sunlight on your question. DD essentially poured cold water on the no deal deal, you know the walking into oblivion no deal where we live in mud huts, barter with goat bones but have German made Blue passports. He used the phrase 'so improbable as to be off the scale', so if you follow the logic that the government is not countenancing non agreement on nuclear, aviation etc. in the absence of any trade deal, then it tells you who has the whip hand in negotiations. It's been pretty apparent since forever, but is one of those things that Brexiteers turn a cheek against, so I'm happy to point it out again.

So if the EU has the whip hand why not just get on with it? Or is it just about 'the money'. Even so it doesn't explain Bloomberg's comments and the basic questions posed.

[Eddie Strohacker]

Garvin said:

So if the EU has the whip hand why not just get on with it? Or is it just about 'the money'. Even so it doesn't explain Bloomberg's comments and the basic questions posed.

Because hardline Brexiteers + Politics + weakened Prime Minister with repeated poor judgement + ignoring reality = logjam.

[Eddie Strohacker]

Funkycoldribena said:

Breadvan72 said:

Off topic, but my take on Santa Barbara is that he or she may be a person with some degree of autism. I do not say this with any intention to insult. I agree that if he or she is a troll then he or she fails because of insufficient provocation and/or humour. The best trolls are those that drive you mega nuts and/or make you laugh.

Like Eddie?

Excuse me?

[anonymous-user]

superlightr said:

[Blood and soil stuff snipped to save space]

I suggest that primeval instincts are not rational principles. We left the primordial forest a while back.

Look also at history: polities that included several language groups and/or several ethnic groups and sometimes straddled so called "natural" borders such as coastlines have been commonplace in human history. Nation states with monocultures are recent inventions

[ORD]

B'stard Child said:

Breadvan72 said:

Tuna, I agree with that.

You aren't alone either - it's pretty much spot on how I feel

I largely agree. I much prefer people to be in work (with government policy effectively but silently subsidising them with £10k from taxes) than out of work with government handouts giving them £10k from taxes. I think worklessness is poison to a person and to a family.

[Garvin]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Because hardline Brexiteers + Politics + weakened Prime Minister with repeated poor judgement + ignoring reality = logjam.

I have to say I'm not overly convinced by that explanation as to why negotiations are slow. However, it still doesn't address the questions re penalties and everyone else leaving the EU!

[sidicks]

ORD said:

I largely agree. I much prefer people to be in work (with government policy effectively but silently subsidising them with £10k from taxes) than out of work with government handouts giving them £10k from taxes. I think worklessness is poison to a person and to a family.

I agree 100%

[mx5nut]

Garvin said:

So if the EU has the whip hand why not just get on with it?

Brextremists and the gutter press would portray it as a betrayal of "the will of the people" and the government does not consider it's domestic position strong enough to withstand that.

[ORD]

mx5nut said:

Brextremists and the gutter press would portray it as a betrayal of "the will of the people" and the government does not consider it's domestic position strong enough to withstand that.

I don't think anyone can seriously doubt that.

May would obviously like to be reasonable but is terrified of the Daily Mail.

[Mrr T]

Breadvan72 said:

It is maybe worth mentioning that EU free movement rights depend on being economically active, or being related to someone who is economically active. Free movement of persons is not an end in itself, it is an adjunct to the common market.

You do not need to be related to someone who is economical active (but it’s always nice) FOM applied to anyone who can support themselves without access to benefits.

I see the figure of £32k before immigrants contribute to society is being mentioned again. The figure is complete rubbish and is a statistical trick. The trick is to compare apples and oranges and decide because they are round they are the same.

[anonymous-user]

You are right that people of independent means can move around, but those people may be relatively few in number.

Trying to monetise what a person gives to and takes from society is almost as daft as trying to monetise EU membership, but Mail and Telegraph World is all about hard cash.

[anonymous-user]

Despite the weather, wealthy characters love the UK. They can go somewhere sunny when they like, but London is a draw for financially independent types. Monaco is Alcatraz for Billionaires (Jack Nicholson)*. Some of the rich London lovers could be asked to pay a bit more for the benefits of London life, which takes us into the property tax debate currently going on in the Hudson thread.



* My wife spent a year living in Monaco with a crook she was seeing at the time. She agrees with Jack Nicholson.

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 25th October 12:31

[sidicks]

Breadvan72 said:

You are right that people of independent means can move around, but those people may be relatively few in number.

Trying to monetise what a person gives to and takes from society is almost as daft as trying to monetise EU membership, but Mail and Telegraph World is all about hard cash.

Except of course many people are claiming that staying in the EU is the best ‘economic’ choice thereby being highly selective with when they allow economics to become important.

[Mrr T]

Tuna said:

I'm not sure how you codify that into an immigration policy, but should the idea be that in welcoming people into the country, we should also be ensuring that by our own living standards, they are not being exploited?

There are I suggest 2 ways of implementing such a policy.
1. You can leave the Government to organise the policy, on that basis I will bet the policy will not work, will provide the wrong outcomes, and will be expensive to implement.
2. You can let the market control immigration.

The current EU FOML is the closest we have to a market solution.

Its worked look at the economic data, GDP growing, low unemployment, high job vacancies, and real income growth. Who would not love it? (I do know the answer to that).

[sidicks]

Mrr T said:

There are I suggest 2 ways of implementing such a policy.
1. You can leave the Government to organise the policy, on that basis I will bet the policy will not work, will provide the wrong outcomes, and will be expensive to implement.
2. You can let the market control immigration.

The current EU FOML is the closest we have to a market solution.

Its worked look at the economic data, GDP growing, low unemployment, high job vacancies, and real income growth. Who would not love it? (I do know the answer to that).

And yet, on those same metrics, controlled immigration would work better.

Which just goes back to the point a number of pages ago explaining that just because EU immigration has been a net benefit overall (there are of course credible analyses that dispute whether this is more than marginal), it doesn’t mean that all immigration is positive.

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

Breadvan72 said:

You are right that people of independent means can move around, but those people may be relatively few in number.

Trying to monetise what a person gives to and takes from society is almost as daft as trying to monetise EU membership, but Mail and Telegraph World is all about hard cash.

Except of course many people are claiming that staying in the EU is the best ‘economic’ choice thereby being highly selective with when they allow economics to become important.

Economics are only part of the argument (an important part). My point is that the value of being in the EU is not measurable purely in cash terms. Many Brexiteers accept this principle, as they say "better to be poorer but freer" (I exaggerate on purpose), and don't buy the freer premise. Some things can't be evaluated precisely.

[sidicks]

Breadvan72 said:

Economics are only part of the argument. My point is that the value of being in the EU is not measurable purely in cash terms. Many Brexiteers accept this principle, as they say "better to be poorer but freer" (I exaggerate on purpose), and don't buy the freer premise. Some things can't be evaluated precisely.

But of course there is no reason that those positive immigration benefits could not be achieved outside of the EU.