Brexit Negotiations

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
 

Pseudonym:

Let me put it like this: Victor Orban has been prime minister for slightly less than 8 years. If Le Pen or Wilders, let alone Farage had been in power for such a time and with the kind of majoraties Orban has to back him up, they'd have taken their country out of the EU. Orban has not done so nor has he even seriously talked about doing so. I agree that there is some friction here, but it just doesn't compare to the kind of anti-EU sentiments found in western Europe.

The EU provides a significant constraint on Orban.

Bear in mind that Orban is not just fiddling elections and appealing to Hungarian fears over national security, he's also buying the happiness of his people with employment and construction projects heavily funded by EU development grants. Orban kind of can't leave the EU - or at least, not unless he finds a new international paymaster. Which he can't do whilst pushing his nationalist fear agenda, because there are issues with selling half your country to China.

In that sense, Orban is engaged in a game of continual brinkmanship - seeing just how far he can push against the EU without the EU financially sanctioning Hungary. He's had to back down or dilute a lot of the measures he's tried so far, I suspect he'll continue having to.

Edit: Accidentally posted twice.

I hate Brexit. It's ruined the news, politics, sensible discussions and it's a stupid media word that sounds like breakfast that people seem to have taken on.

David Cameron was a bumbling fool (who was in a job clearly beyond his natural ability like a lot of the Eton elite) who left an important decision up to Britain that the general populous poorly understood. And he did it for selfish party political reasons. People used the vote as an excuse to vent their displeasure at the system (which to be fair, is crap, especially with the Tories in) or at the growth of immigration, even though leaving will make no difference to it, since the majority of immigrants are from outside the EU. How the whole thing has escalated into this is ridiculous.

dscross:
I hate Brexit. It's ruined the news, politics, sensible discussions and it's a stupid media word that sounds like breakfast that people seem to have taken on.

David Cameron was a bumbling fool (who was in a job clearly beyond his natural ability like a lot of the Eton elite) who left an important decision up to Britain that the general populous poorly understood. And he did it for selfish party political reasons. People used the vote as an excuse to vent their displeasure at the system (which to be fair, is crap, especially with the Tories in) or at the growth of immigration, even though leaving will make no difference to it, since the majority of immigrants are from outside the EU. How the whole thing has escalated into this is ridiculous.

Wow, you've gone full leftie bigot sneering there; the people are too stupid to make the "right" decision and some unpleasant class prejudice because it's alright be a bigot against the "right" people, for good measure. Are you member of Momentum?

The immigration comment is just plain wrong too, as while the majority of immigrants are extra-EU, it's not a huge majority 220,000 vs. 285,000 in the year to Sept 2017.

In February 2018 net migration fell by 75,000 according to the Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/22/net-migration-of-eu-nationals-to-britain-falls-by-75000

ErrrorWayz:

dscross:
I hate Brexit. It's ruined the news, politics, sensible discussions and it's a stupid media word that sounds like breakfast that people seem to have taken on.

David Cameron was a bumbling fool (who was in a job clearly beyond his natural ability like a lot of the Eton elite) who left an important decision up to Britain that the general populous poorly understood. And he did it for selfish party political reasons. People used the vote as an excuse to vent their displeasure at the system (which to be fair, is crap, especially with the Tories in) or at the growth of immigration, even though leaving will make no difference to it, since the majority of immigrants are from outside the EU. How the whole thing has escalated into this is ridiculous.

Wow, you've gone full leftie bigot sneering there; the people are too stupid to make the "right" decision and some unpleasant class prejudice because it's alright be a bigot against the "right" people, for good measure. Are you member of Momentum?

The immigration comment is just plain wrong too, as while the majority of immigrants are extra-EU, it's not a huge majority 220,000 vs. 285,000 in the year to Sept 2017.

In February 2018 net migration fell by 75,000 according to the Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/22/net-migration-of-eu-nationals-to-britain-falls-by-75000

Yes, most people are too stupid to understand the full ramifications of Brexit. It's an incredibly complex issue that on both sides were broken down to nothing more than soundbites and slogans. That's not bigotry, it's acknowledging that most people aren't economists, political scientists or any other profession that gives them a keen understanding of what exactly EU membership costs and delivers. And that is part of the fucking problem of the world today. People spend five minutes on Google and think they understand something. Even Richard Dawkins (a smart person) talked about how he wasn't qualified to make a decision one way or the other on Brexit.

ErrrorWayz:

dscross:
I hate Brexit. It's ruined the news, politics, sensible discussions and it's a stupid media word that sounds like breakfast that people seem to have taken on.

David Cameron was a bumbling fool (who was in a job clearly beyond his natural ability like a lot of the Eton elite) who left an important decision up to Britain that the general populous poorly understood. And he did it for selfish party political reasons. People used the vote as an excuse to vent their displeasure at the system (which to be fair, is crap, especially with the Tories in) or at the growth of immigration, even though leaving will make no difference to it, since the majority of immigrants are from outside the EU. How the whole thing has escalated into this is ridiculous.

Wow, you've gone full leftie bigot sneering there; the people are too stupid to make the "right" decision and some unpleasant class prejudice because it's alright be a bigot against the "right" people, for good measure. Are you member of Momentum?

The immigration comment is just plain wrong too, as while the majority of immigrants are extra-EU, it's not a huge majority 220,000 vs. 285,000 in the year to Sept 2017.

In February 2018 net migration fell by 75,000 according to the Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/22/net-migration-of-eu-nationals-to-britain-falls-by-75000

What gave you the impression I was a leftie? Because I think David Cameron is an elitist fool promoted beyond his ability? Many far left wing people are actually anti-EU because they think it's an ultra capitalist club running it. I'm a centrist. I'm just stating facts that the majority of people, even the most educated ones, didn't properly understand the EU and were voting based on what they could see around them.

Fair enough about the immigration comment, but I was more talking about the jobs taken, which is what people were voting for. The bottom line, which may surprise many people, is that EU immigration has not harmed the pay, jobs or public services enjoyed by Britons. In fact, for the most part it has likely made us better off. So, far from EU immigration being a 'necessary evil' that we pay to get access to the greater trade and foreign investment generated by the EU single market, immigration is at worse neutral, and at best, another economic benefit.

1. The Office of National Statistics says that while the numbers of EU workers in Britain increased, they are outnumbered by the extra one million Britons who have gone into employment in the same period. The number of British citizens working in the UK labour force is now at the near-record level of 28 million. That compares with 3 million foreign nationals. As the economist Jonathan Portes has pointed out, it is not a zero-sum game in which there are only a fixed number of jobs to go round: It's true that, if an immigrant takes a job, then a British worker can't take that job - but it doesn't mean he or she won't find another one that may have been created, directly or indirectly, as a result of immigration.

2. HMRC figures also show that EU migrants more than pay their way. Those who arrived in Britain in the last four years paid 2.54bn more in income tax and national insurance than they received in tax credits or child benefit in 2013-14. The Office of Budget Responsibility has estimated that their labour contribution is helping to grow the economy by an additional 0.6% a year.

3. The Uk Statistics Authority also stresses that the number of people in work is not the same as the number of jobs in the economy. The ONS figures are estimates of the numbers of people in employment, so it is nonsense to talk about them showing 'foreigners taking British jobs'. They also stress that the figures do not reflect new migration, since they only cover those migrants who come to work, and some of those newly employed may well have been in the UK for some time.

4. The most recent research from the centre for economic performance at the London School of Economics says the areas of the UK with large increases in EU immigration did not suffer greater falls in the jobs and pay of UK-born workers. The big falls in wages after 2008 are due to the global financial crisis and a weak economic recovery, not to immigration.' Several studies have shown a small negative effect of migration on the wages of low-skilled workers in certain sectors in certain parts of the country, particularly care workers, shop assistants, and restaurant and bar workers. The effect has been measured at less than 1% over a period of eight years.

CheetoDust:

ErrrorWayz:

dscross:
I hate Brexit. It's ruined the news, politics, sensible discussions and it's a stupid media word that sounds like breakfast that people seem to have taken on.

David Cameron was a bumbling fool (who was in a job clearly beyond his natural ability like a lot of the Eton elite) who left an important decision up to Britain that the general populous poorly understood. And he did it for selfish party political reasons. People used the vote as an excuse to vent their displeasure at the system (which to be fair, is crap, especially with the Tories in) or at the growth of immigration, even though leaving will make no difference to it, since the majority of immigrants are from outside the EU. How the whole thing has escalated into this is ridiculous.

Wow, you've gone full leftie bigot sneering there; the people are too stupid to make the "right" decision and some unpleasant class prejudice because it's alright be a bigot against the "right" people, for good measure. Are you member of Momentum?

The immigration comment is just plain wrong too, as while the majority of immigrants are extra-EU, it's not a huge majority 220,000 vs. 285,000 in the year to Sept 2017.

In February 2018 net migration fell by 75,000 according to the Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/22/net-migration-of-eu-nationals-to-britain-falls-by-75000

Yes, most people are too stupid to understand the full ramifications of Brexit. It's an incredibly complex issue that on both sides were broken down to nothing more than soundbites and slogans. That's not bigotry, it's acknowledging that most people aren't economists, political scientists or any other profession that gives them a keen understanding of what exactly EU membership costs and delivers. And that is part of the fucking problem of the world today. People spend five minutes on Google and think they understand something. Even Richard Dawkins (a smart person) talked about how he wasn't qualified to make a decision one way or the other on Brexit.

Hmm, I didn't really get that from the comment, but reading it again I see now that was the intention. I shall apologise below, good spot!

dscross:

ErrrorWayz:

dscross:
I hate Brexit. It's ruined the news, politics, sensible discussions and it's a stupid media word that sounds like breakfast that people seem to have taken on.

David Cameron was a bumbling fool (who was in a job clearly beyond his natural ability like a lot of the Eton elite) who left an important decision up to Britain that the general populous poorly understood. And he did it for selfish party political reasons. People used the vote as an excuse to vent their displeasure at the system (which to be fair, is crap, especially with the Tories in) or at the growth of immigration, even though leaving will make no difference to it, since the majority of immigrants are from outside the EU. How the whole thing has escalated into this is ridiculous.

Wow, you've gone full leftie bigot sneering there; the people are too stupid to make the "right" decision and some unpleasant class prejudice because it's alright be a bigot against the "right" people, for good measure. Are you member of Momentum?

The immigration comment is just plain wrong too, as while the majority of immigrants are extra-EU, it's not a huge majority 220,000 vs. 285,000 in the year to Sept 2017.

In February 2018 net migration fell by 75,000 according to the Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/22/net-migration-of-eu-nationals-to-britain-falls-by-75000

What gave you the impression I was a leftie? Because I think David Cameron is an elitist fool promoted beyond his ability? Many far left wing people are actually anti-EU because they think it's an ultra capitalist club running it. I'm a centrist. I'm just stating facts that the majority of people, even the most educated ones, didn't properly understand the EU and were voting based on what they could see around them

Fair enough about the immigration comment, but I was more talking about the jobs taken, which is what people were voting for. The bottom line, which may surprise many people, is that EU immigration has not harmed the pay, jobs or public services enjoyed by Britons. In fact, for the most part it has likely made us better off. So, far from EU immigration being a 'necessary evil' that we pay to get access to the greater trade and foreign investment generated by the EU single market, immigration is at worse neutral, and at best, another economic benefit.

1. The Office of National Statistics says that while the numbers of EU workers in Britain increased, they are outnumbered by the extra one million Britons who have gone into employment in the same period. The number of British citizens working in the UK labour force is now at the near-record level of 28 million. That compares with 3 million foreign nationals. As the economist Jonathan Portes has pointed out, it is not a zero-sum game in which there are only a fixed number of jobs to go round: It's true that, if an immigrant takes a job, then a British worker can't take that job - but it doesn't mean he or she won't find another one that may have been created, directly or indirectly, as a result of immigration.

Well, Portes is the economic cheerleader for immigration, on permanent retainer at the Guardian and a fellow of Changing Europe, so I always feel that he perhaps lets his personal prejudices colour his approach. That said, I have always felt the "taking our jobs" argument was the weakest of all the arguments against immigration. This argument is based on unlimited growth

2. HMRC figures also show that EU migrants more than pay their way. Those who arrived in Britain in the last four years paid 2.54bn more in income tax and national insurance than they received in tax credits or child benefit in 2013-14. The Office of Budget Responsibility has estimated that their labour contribution is helping to grow the economy by an additional 0.6% a year.

3. The Uk Statistics Authority also stresses that the number of people in work is not the same as the number of jobs in the economy. The ONS figures are estimates of the numbers of people in employment, so it is nonsense to talk about them showing 'foreigners taking British jobs'. They also stress that the figures do not reflect new migration, since they only cover those migrants who come to work, and some of those newly employed may well have been in the UK for some time.

4. The most recent research from the centre for economic performance at the London School of Economics says the areas of the UK with large increases in EU immigration did not suffer greater falls in the jobs and pay of UK-born workers. The big falls in wages after 2008 are due to the global financial crisis and a weak economic recovery, not to immigration.' Several studies have shown a small negative effect of migration on the wages of low-skilled workers in certain sectors in certain parts of the country, particularly care workers, shop assistants, and restaurant and bar workers. The effect has been measured at less than 1% over a period of eight years.

Well yes, the classism did seem quite left wing. I am sorry though, I was needlessly aggressive in retrospect.

I am quite depressed about the whole affair really, the EU could have been great but Blair's refusal to use the very methods the EU created to allow for staged integration (i.e. immigration controls for a limited time period) caused a backlash in opinion. France and Germany used them! This was worsened by Labour's active policy of smearing discussion as "racist" and the BBC's one eyed reporting.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jul/03/bbc-deep-liberal-bias-immigration

It's actually very hard to say what the impact of immigration is. I see you quote Portes (who I always have a suspicion lets his pro-immigration politics colour his thinking but that's probably just me).

He's also said that at a local level immigration has (or had) impacted public services and jobs markets. This is the best summary I could see:

"It has created jobs, boosted growth and improved the public finances. It has, however, also increased mobility and ?churn? in the labour market and in UK society as a whole; it would be surprising if this did not have an impact on public services and housing at a local level"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/hysteria-immigration-statistics-migration-government

It just makes no sense to suggest adding 300,000 to the population every year will not cause public service challenges.

Various studies have found different pictures with regards to jobs and wages. The BoE has founded wages are reduced, albeit quite mildly, a 2% drop per 10% increase in immigrant population

- https://fullfact.org/immigration/does-immigration-reduce-wages/.

Other studies, notably by LSE, have found different results but again I am always slightly wary of University immigration studies as Universities are, to a body, aggressively pro-immigration.

Also, and I think this is a major point, these are all pure economic arguments, many people just felt alienated by huge influxes of other cultures in their area or simply don't want to become a small part of a large politically unified EU, which seems remote and largely interested in extracting money from the EU. Others may feel this is a xenophobic opinion but that doesn't make them "right", nor does it make it any less of a valid concern, nor does it mean their vote shouldn't count.

All in all, I would probably agree that economically immigration is a "good", although I do wonder for how long it could have continued to prompt the growth that causes it to "pay for itself". However, I feel you may how downplayed the effect it has had on public services, the social cost and we've not really addressed the political dimension that often left us disagreeing with EU/EC law.

ErrrorWayz:
It's actually very hard to say what the impact of immigration is. I see you quote Portes (who I always have a suspicion lets his pro-immigration politics colour his thinking but that's probably just me).

Is Portes economically biased because he is pro-immigration, or pro-immigration because of his economic analyses? I might note that Portes is well on the side of orthodoxy, consistent with the majority of research on the effect of immigration on the economy. Even right wing economists support this: laissez-faire capitalism also heavily includes the notion of free movement of labour.

It just makes no sense to suggest adding 300,000 to the population every year will not cause public service challenges.

Indeed, obviously it will. But the idea that the government cannot plan for population increases in terms of service provision is risible.

Other studies, notably by LSE, have found different results but again I am always slightly wary of University immigration studies as Universities are, to a body, aggressively pro-immigration.

Again, as per Portes, what's actually informing what in terms of immigration and economics? I think it is unfair to suggest researchers have a conclusion which they fiddle their results to demonstrate without providing adequate evidence of that bias. It is the most basic of ad hominems.

ErrrorWayz:

All in all, I would probably agree that economically immigration is a "good", although I do wonder for how long it could have continued to prompt the growth that causes it to "pay for itself". However, I feel you may how downplayed the effect it has had on public services, the social cost and we've not really addressed the political dimension that often left us disagreeing with EU/EC law.

Fair enough so what are you saying the social costs and costs to public services are and we'll discuss it if you like?

I didn't discuss the EU law side because I honestly don't think most people were voting on that. Some people may use it as an argument, but I don't think that's the underlying emotional reason for their decision once you start digging into their views, just from listening to phone ins around the country and from talking to people. The people who genuinely were voting on that are in the minority.

dscross:
How the whole thing has escalated into this is ridiculous.

Behold what happens when the Center fails.

Agema:

Pseudonym:

Let me put it like this: Victor Orban has been prime minister for slightly less than 8 years. If Le Pen or Wilders, let alone Farage had been in power for such a time and with the kind of majoraties Orban has to back him up, they'd have taken their country out of the EU. Orban has not done so nor has he even seriously talked about doing so. I agree that there is some friction here, but it just doesn't compare to the kind of anti-EU sentiments found in western Europe.

The EU provides a significant constraint on Orban.

Bear in mind that Orban is not just fiddling elections and appealing to Hungarian fears over national security, he's also buying the happiness of his people with employment and construction projects heavily funded by EU development grants. Orban kind of can't leave the EU - or at least, not unless he finds a new international paymaster. Which he can't do whilst pushing his nationalist fear agenda, because there are issues with selling half your country to China.

In that sense, Orban is engaged in a game of continual brinkmanship - seeing just how far he can push against the EU without the EU financially sanctioning Hungary. He's had to back down or dilute a lot of the measures he's tried so far, I suspect he'll continue having to.

Thanks for laying it out so well. I was trying to argue something similar upthread (though it seems that I underestimated just how important EU money is for Hungary), but it was pointed out that people like Orban sometimes take bad decisions. Which is why I felt it helpful to point out that he simply has not done so in this case, even though he easily could have.

The thing at the back of my mind here is an interview in my newspaper (too long ago for me to find, and it'd be in Dutch anyway) with a Hungarian diplomat or political scientist pointing our that Orban and many of his people don't consider themselves anti-EU, but rather to have a different view on what the EU should be from the rest of it. Whilst that might be partially propaganda, it is clearly a very different approach to the EU from the west-European populists.

Pseudonym:
Whilst that might be partially propaganda, it is clearly a very different approach to the EU from the west-European populists.

If I;m remembering this correctly, that was Sinn Fein's EU Stance in Ireland until recently, they called themselves "Euro-Critical" if memory serves.

Pseudonym:
Thanks for laying it out so well.

Thanks :)

The thing at the back of my mind here is an interview in my newspaper (too long ago for me to find, and it'd be in Dutch anyway) with a Hungarian diplomat or political scientist pointing our that Orban and many of his people don't consider themselves anti-EU, but rather to have a different view on what the EU should be from the rest of it. Whilst that might be partially propaganda, it is clearly a very different approach to the EU from the west-European populists.

Hungarians have bitter memories of Turkish domination, Austrian domination, and Soviet domination. They are very sensitive to invasion and dominance, understandably so. Naturally, they can perhaps be inclined to view the EU negatively. Some more extreme Hungarians dream of "Greater Hungary" (roughly equal to adding Transylvania, Slovakia, northern Serbia and Croatia), even though only Translyvania has significant Hungarian populations. Their argument is that the European consensus will never it give it to them, so perhaps they should leave. But that is an extreme minority.

Mostly, there's a degree of reasonableness that many Europeans feel about what the EU is for and where it should go, and that perhaps a trading block with looser political ties is preferable. On the other hand, I think it is flagrantly unreasonable to think the EU should be so politically loose as to be a load of liberal democracies funding corrupt, illiberal authoritarians such as Orban to cement their rule. And so I have precious little time for the contemptible attitude of "EU stay out of our business (but give us lots of your money)".

Ninjamedic:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/eu-rejects-theresa-may-s-irish-border-proposals-says-report-1.3467713

Back to square -1 then.

Ans as a bonus: https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2018/0424/956901-david-davis/

https://www.joe.ie/news/ireland-brexodus-623801

Maybe he's here handing out CVs?

CheetoDust:

Maybe he's here handing out CVs?

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-customs-union-tory-conservative-brexit-boris-johnson-a8321466.html

Man, who'd have thought our sarcasm would define Tory Policy?

I thought Johnson had lost leadership ambition as he kept on making gaffes that won't make him a Brexit martyr. He'll resign instead but that's rubbish as his Brexit credentials aren't up to those of the true believers like Rees-Mogg or Gove. He might try claiming centre-attracting candidate but most regard him as a buffoon and a liar, whereas Gove might claim that with his new, green credentials.

warmachine:
whereas Gove might claim that with his new, green credentials.

His GFA comments I'd imagine would bite him in the arse once the border comes back to the news as the deadline approaches, that would place Gove back on the hard-right.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2018/0509/961286-amnesty/

The sweet symphony of document shredders...

Ninjamedic:
https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2018/0509/961286-amnesty/

The sweet symphony of document shredders...

Calling the IRA an illegal organisation? Yeah true but somehow I don't think England filed a bunch of paperwork and followed the correct legal procedure for invading a country, subjugating it's people and attempting genocide via starvation. It's weird that the nazis were evil but the British were "an empire".

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here