/ Brexit - What Does the Icelandic Premier Know?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Rob Exile Ward on 25 Nov 2016

Well, as next EU President, quite a lot I would have thought.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38100561

Coel, PP, Boris, Nigel et al - our choice is binary. We're either out; or in. The option you have been peddling - pretty much untrammelled access to the market without free movement - is simply unavailable.

So it's time to 'fess up, and start explaining to the unemployed of Sunderland and Merthyr that they never will get jobs now, nor will their environments be improved with EU (or our) money, but it's worth it because we will have 'control' and Polish plumbers will no longer be able to work in London. Or something.
Post edited at 08:28
8
girlymonkey - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Or maybe the PM of Malta? Seems that he is actually the next EU president!!

And surely this isn't news?! It has been common knowledge since before the referendum that we will get screwed over if we leave.
Rob Exile Ward on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to girlymonkey:

Oh F8ck! Yes, the very same. That'll teach my to type over breakfast, I should restrain myself to only posting after a few beers.
TobyA on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Particularly as Iceland isn't in the EU!
RyanOsborne - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Oh F8ck! Yes, the very same. That'll teach my to type over breakfast, I should restrain myself to only posting after a few beers.

Iceland / Malta... easy mistake to make ;-)

Rob Exile Ward on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to TobyA:

Hmm, but now there's a vacancy...
graeme jackson - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Oh F8ck! Yes, the very same. That'll teach my to type over breakfast, I should restrain myself to only posting after a few beers.

you've probably got mixed up with the Iceland sueing Iceland over use of the name 'Iceland' which was also big(ish) news on the radio this morning.
RyanOsborne - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

On to the point in hand.... I do find it laughable that Brexiteers, tory mps etc think that the UK is in such a strong bargaining position. The whole 'they need us more than we need them' line which was spouted by the leave camp was unbelievably arrogant.

Needing to get 27 other (quite disparate) countries who have their own agendas, their own problems, their own national politics to worry about and the fear of other countries trying to get their own version of Brexit will mean that it's very very difficult to get any sort of deal, especially one where we get to eat our cake and still have it.

Right now it looks like we'll end up out on our arses with no favourable deal, and huge economic and soclial impacts that the tories have no mandate to inflict upon us.
7
baron - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:
So let's imagine that we leave the EU with no deal because the single market/free movement conundrum can't be solved.
That way neither the EU nor the UK has backed down or lost face.
Then we have to trade with the EU under WTO tariffs.
Many of these tariffs are quite low and while tariff free trade is preferable would low tariffs really damage thr UK economy?
1
Rob Exile Ward on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

Not instantly, no, but it will result in a slow steady decline. Every major business that wants to access the European market and use the resources of Europe to develop, manufacture and supply goods and services (infrastructure, political stability, educated workforce, quality of life) will take a good hard look at the options, and increasingly opt for an EU destination.

We have committed ourselves to a slow economic death by a 1,000 cuts.
6
cragtaff - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Funny how every time Brexiters make any kind of predictions its refuted as 'Lies, lies and more damn lies!'

Nobody seems to respond to the crystal ball gazing of the remoaners and declare it all 'wild guesswork, unfounded scaremongering and pure negative speculation!'

There was a referendum, we are leaving, get used to the idea, its happening for better or worse. Moaning achieves absolutely nothing.
34
RyanOsborne - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to cragtaff:

> Nobody seems to respond to the crystal ball gazing of the remoaners and declare it all 'wild guesswork, unfounded scaremongering and pure negative speculation!'

That's because remaining was a known quantity, we already were in the EU, so staying in the EU wasn't guesswork.

In terms of what remainers said about leaving, i.e. Dave hinting that world war 3 would break out, that was widely declared as unfounded scaremongering.

What we really needed was a sensible discussion amongst our politicians, with the facts and considered opinions presented to the public to make their decision. But our media doesn't allow air time for anything other than people saying it would be a disaster to not do what they wanted.
2
Bogwalloper - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to cragtaff:

>

> There was a referendum, we are leaving, get used to the idea, its happening for better or worse. Moaning achieves absolutely nothing.

It's a good job Gina Miller didn't have your attitude.

Wally
2
baron - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
If I wanted to export something to the EU and had to pay 2.5% tariff would this mean I wouldn't locate in the UK but within the EU?
Surely such a low tariff wouldn't always be a deal breaker.
Companies which export from the UK to the EU have to pay transport costs but that doesn't make them up sticks and move to continental Europe.
I think that there are or could be other factors beside free trade that will keep companies in the UK.
TobyA on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to cragtaff:

> we are leaving, get used to the idea, its happening for better or worse.

Well, at least you admit that "worse" is a distinct possibility.

2
Dave Garnett - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to TobyA:

But today's Iceland story is good one too!
GrahamD - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to cragtaff:

> Nobody seems to respond to the crystal ball gazing of the remoaners and declare it all 'wild guesswork, unfounded scaremongering and pure negative speculation!'

Err, other than to dismiss expert analysis out of hand as "project fear" you mean ?
3
Mike Stretford - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to cragtaff:

> Moaning achieves absolutely nothing.

On the contrary, years of moaning backed upped with bullshit about straight bananas appears to have achieved quite a lot.
1
Chris the Tall - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Icelandic Premier ? Isn't that like Tesco Finest ?
stevieb - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

Everyone fixates on the tariffs. It's not tariffs that will damage our ability to trade if we leave the single market, it's the regulations, and the delays caused by those restrictions.
Any livestock going into the EU will have to go through a designated port of entry (obviously we don't currently have one) and will be subject to delays.
Any manufacturer creating parts for an EU business will still be subject to EU regulation. They may be stopped at the port of entry, generating delays. For this reason, EU businesses will prefer an EU supplier.
Any drug made in the UK will still need to meet US and EU regulations in order to have a large market, but it is entirely feasible that those regulations could change if Bayer etc. lobby for their advantage.
Plus, as we all have heard about financial passporting etc.
baron - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to stevieb:
Don't we have to meet all those regulations at the moment?
2
Pete Pozman - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to cragtaff:



> There was a referendum, we are leaving, get used to the idea, its happening for better or worse. Moaning achieves absolutely nothing.

It's happening for worse.
Here we all are sitting on a train. Two years before it leaves the station. We all know it's going somewhere horrible but now we're on, we're on. The doors aren't locked, we can get off any time we like. We now find out it might be 2 and half or 3 years. The destination is looking to be even worse than we first thought. But we're on the train, sitting here, looking at each other miserably. We've got to stay, sitting, waiting for the inevitable. And we're not allowed to moan...
Then we all wake up. Hooray! It was only a nightmare.


5
GrahamD - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> Icelandic Premier ? Isn't that like Tesco Finest ?

No, its like the English Premier, but with a more talented crop of home grown players
GrahamD - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:


> Here we all are sitting on a train. Two years before it leaves the station. We all know it's going somewhere horrible but now we're on, we're on. The doors aren't locked, we can get off any time we like. We now find out it might be 2 and half or 3 years.

But we've bought tickets so that appears to be that.
stevieb - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

Yes, but currently all our manufacturers are inside the EU so are assumed to meet them. Therefore any EU business can take it as read that we meet the regulations.

If we are outside the single market, we should expect to be subject to far more checks on the border, and EU companies will be required to ensure their suppliers meet the regulations, which will be more onerous for them.

Also, we currently have a say in those regulations, so currently they won't be written to favour e.g. Bayer over GSK, Deutsche Bank over Barclays.
GrahamD - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

> Don't we have to meet all those regulations at the moment?

Every new product has to go through certification and standards evolve continuously. So if you don't keep up very soon youre products become obsolete
Toerag - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to stevieb:

Add to that there will be issues with movement / employment of staff. The barriers / difficulties put in place by Brexit will be surmountable with effort, but businesses will choose to avoid that effort unless there's a major benefit to their bottom line. I see that all the time here in Guernsey - although its an expensive place to run a business the finance industry put up with those costs because the advantages outweigh them.......or did, the world is changing and global businesses are now moving business units to places where they make more money for their shareholders. The only businesses not doing that are the ones owned by people living in the island, the multinationals are slowly transferring operations elsewhere.
baron - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

I can see how standards need to be maintained or even improved upon. But wouldn't we have to meet these standards within or without the EU?
It's not as if we didn't have standards pre EU, some might even argue that the British Standard often exceeded european standards.
baron - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Toerag:
There doesn't have to be total restriction on all workers after Brexit.
If the UK can't supply the labour or if companies want to use their own workforce where's the problem in that?
Scarab9 - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to cragtaff:

> Funny how every time Brexiters make any kind of predictions its refuted as 'Lies, lies and more damn lies!'

> Nobody seems to respond to the crystal ball gazing of the remoaners and declare it all 'wild guesswork, unfounded scaremongering and pure negative speculation!'

> There was a referendum, we are leaving, get used to the idea, its happening for better or worse. Moaning achieves absolutely nothing.

Brexiters don't make predictions.

What happens is a remainer, or a general economic expert, or the IMF, or the IFS, or our Chancellor, based on all their expertise and knowlege, say "things are gonna be like X".

Brexiters shout and stamp their feet and declare that it's bias and overly pessimistic and might not happen.

Expert says "well...I mean...it COULD be marginally better if everything lines up miraculously better than all information points towards"

Brexiters declare "SEE! Remoaning bullshitters make up everything! Britain is going to be great as we're all going to be wearing gold tophats!"

Er...yeah that's totally what was said, well done you morons.
1
Postmanpat on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Scarab9:
> Brexiters don't make predictions.

> What happens is a remainer, or a general economic expert, or the IMF, or the IFS, or our Chancellor, based on all their expertise and knowlege, say "things are gonna be like X".

>
No, what happens is that the "experts" say we don't really know so lets make some conservative (often worst case) assumptions and, amazingly enough, get a worst case answer. The brexiters say, we don't really know but we don't think that the worst case assumptions are necessarily the right assumptions.

Open Europe has actually made forecasts on the basis of different asumptions and believes that Britiain could be 1.5% better off in 2030 as a result of being out rather than in. It's central range is between a 0.8% permanent loss to GDP in 2030 and a 0.6% permanent gain by 2030.

Even if you rely on quite negative assumptions, organisations like Oxford economics and the CBI come up with a loss of 1-3% of GDP by 2030, most of it in the early years. It's not exactly armageddon.
Post edited at 11:55
10
Dave Garnett - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The brexiters say, we don't really know but we don't think that the worst case assumptions are necessarily the right assumptions.

Right , but good planning demands some worst case projections. The problem is that brexiteers' worst case is 'not as bad as you think' precisely because they have zero data. They haven't a clue. And not just John Redwood, although he's a pretty good example.

The whole brexit case isn't built on logic at all, it's based on emotions - and not generous ones.
1
marsbar - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to cragtaff:

It's my Brexit and I'll moan if I want to.

You would cry too if it happened to you.
Postmanpat on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Dave Garnett:
> Right , but good planning demands some worst case projections. The problem is that brexiteers' worst case is 'not as bad as you think' precisely because they have zero data.
>
No, it's "not as bad as you think" because they make different assumptions. The data is a function of assumptions, not visa versa. Minford and Open Europe have produced some data based on these different assumptions.

The real question is why most of the mainstream organisations insist only on using conservative or worst case assumptions. Partly, of course , that is because they are conservative organisations so adopt conservative assumptions, which is reasonable. But it is also because they have an institutional attachment to the EU and mainstream thinking (eg.OECD, Treasury) so find it very difficult to step outside of that box.

It's kind of self reinforcing vicious circle. Organisations are respected because they are part of the conservative mainstream and therefore adopt the assumptions and attitudes of the conservative mainstream. Organisations that don't do that are not high profile or "respected" because they are not part of the mainstream..
Post edited at 12:13
2
damhan-allaidh on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

There doesn't, but did your listen/read Theresa May's statement in August?

Also the determination to include students in immigration numbers, thereby forcing HE to take a heavy hit (although gov't policy more or less requires institutions to generate a significant proportion of their funding through EU (not in Scotland) and overseas students).

Even if we accept for a moment that limiting immigration to 'the 10s of 1000s' is feasible or desirable, the rhetoric surrounding that is making Britain look like an unattractive place to work or study. Not quite the most effective approach to take if you, reasonably, want to attract the best or the brightest - or even just the most energetic, immigrants are far more likely to be entrepreneurs.

I was wondering today, we'll lose out in future Ove Arups (no shortage of vet surgeons in this country (except large animal), so maybe his dad would've been refused entry),L. G. Patak (think of that next time you don't have to make a curry from scratch), etc, etc.
kipper12 - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to stevieb:

Are any of you involved in regulation within the EU at the moment?

Foe industrial chemicals, pesticides and biocides, there isn't simply a nod to the regs for EU-based duty holders. On the contrary they have to invest a lot of effort ensuring they meet the EU regulations, as do outside businesses (there are some legal differences for non EU businesses as they are not subject directly subject to EU laws). Once the regs have been met, there is access across the EU.

How we interact with the EU regulatory schemes post exit is a matter for discussion, but retaining a similar structure would make sense.

Rob Exile Ward on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Well your arguments rather b*gger any sort of rational decision making process, don't they? You're discounting anyone who has a pessimistic outlook because they are obviously biased. (The fact that they may be biased because of their many years of experience and history doesn't obviously count for anything, especially when compared to the many hours that Farage has spent propping up bars and coming to his rather different conclusions.)

And the point is - Europe works. Not perfectly, plenty of room for improvement, Greece was a fiasco (which hopefully has been learnt from) , blah blah blah... But there is absolutely no guarantee that Brexit will. We've exchanged a predictable outcome for a punt.

If car manufacturers , banks and other service industries start relocating we'd better hope that BAe can sell lots of cattle prods to Saudi, because that's just about all we'll be living off.
1
andyfallsoff - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

I haven't seen as much discussion of the Open Europe analysis, but Minford's analysis was widely criticised (e.g. http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit06.pdf?ftcamp=crm/email//nbe/MartinSandbusFreeLunch/product ) .

For example, the only way he models an economic benefit is by unilaterally removing all tariffs (which seems unlikely to be a reasonable assumption); he ignores the effect of the loss of passporting; and he ignores the "gravity" effect (that all countries trade more with their closer neighbours, so the terms of that trade are important). Even on his analysis, he accepts a near total wipeout of UK manufacturing.

I don't think it is just a reluctance to "step outside the box" that his study is criticised on those grounds, and even if it were academically supported, do you think that this what Brexit voters opted for? Goodbye all UK steelworks / car plants / etc...

(You can say the last point won't happen, but then you are cherry picking results from the academic you are saying we should be listening to).

Also when you say the reports are taking the most pessimistic analysis, they aren't - e.g. the OBR's recent figures assume relatively limited effects (but were still shouted down by economically illiterate Brexiters) and has been criticised for not being more pessimistic; and the treasury report mapped out a number of scenarios acknowledging there is a range of potential outcomes.
Postmanpat on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Well your arguments rather b*gger any sort of rational decision making process, don't they? You're discounting anyone who has a pessimistic outlook because they are obviously biased. (The fact that they may be biased because of their many years of experience and history doesn't obviously count for anything, especially when compared to the many hours that Farage has spent propping up bars and coming to his rather different conclusions.)

>
No, I'm not "discounting anyone who has a pessimistic outlook". I am saying that we shouldn't automatically accept their analysis. Actually I doubt that the economists who do the modelling have much more knowledge or understanding of the likely outcome in terms of trade or other arrangements than anybody else. Why should they? They are economists not EU negotiators. So their economic models may be wonderful, but they can only be as good as their assumptions.
Postmanpat on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:
>

> Also when you say the reports are taking the most pessimistic analysis, they aren't - e.g. the OBR's recent figures assume relatively limited effects (but were still shouted down by economically illiterate Brexiters) and has been criticised for not being more pessimistic; and the treasury report mapped out a number of scenarios acknowledging there is a range of potential outcomes.

I accept that Minford is an outlier. I was simply pointing out that analyses have been made by brexiters. I said that organisations were taking conservative or worst case scenarios, not always worst case.
Post edited at 12:41
3
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

it was you that brought him up, Pat!

can you point to some analyses that weren't made by 'outliers' then?
Rob Exile Ward on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

So let's get this right. We should discount economists, because they're not EU negotiators, so what do they know? We should discount the people who actually ARE going to be negotiating with us - like Malta's PM - because we don't like what they have to say. And we can't ask our own negotiators for their opinions because, er, we haven't in fact got any yet - just David Davies who is hopelessly at sea (and I used to quite like him really.)

Not looking too hopeful, is it? How you continue to support this 'Malice In Blunderland' (thanks, Mick!) I have no idea.
Postmanpat on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> it was you that brought him up, Pat!

> can you point to some analyses that weren't made by 'outliers' then?

You're not reading my posts. I've pointed you to open Europe but there aren't many for just the reaasons I've outlined above.. Almost by definition the major institutions with banks of economists to do this are mainstream. Almost by definition anyone who makes different assumptions is an "outlier" and probably doesn't have the resoures or respect to match the OECD or treasury.

If you want to read up on this I suggest you go to the "economists for brexit" site. They are, of course, by definition "outliers" because there view is not "mainstream".

I've been following economic forecasts, private and governmental for nearly forty years on a regular (for many years, daily) basis. I take them with a healthy dose of salt. One thing they seldom do is call or analyse correctly major turning points
Post edited at 13:04
Postmanpat on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> So let's get this right. We should discount economists, because they're not EU negotiators, so what do they know? We should discount the people who actually ARE going to be negotiating with us - like Malta's PM - because we don't like what they have to say. And we can't ask our own negotiators for their opinions because, er, we haven't in fact got any yet - just David Davies who is hopelessly at sea (and I used to quite like him really.)

>
Why do you keep using the phrase "discount" when I have repudiated it? We can take on board the positions of all three categories above and treat them all with the circumspection that they deserve.
They don't know!! We don't know!
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

just pointing out that the one economist you cite (who i have heard speak on the subject) accepts that the annihilation of british manufacturing would be a consequence of following his suggested path. its gratifyingly honest of him, in a field where honesty is in short supply from all sides, but its not something that would be politically acceptable i'd have thought.

it just struck me as odd that you would have chosen someone whose prescription for action is so clearly impossible to follow in the real world, especially if you have other economists you could have mentioned instead...
andyfallsoff - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> You're not reading my posts. I've pointed you to open Europe but there aren't many for just the reaasons I've outlined above.. Almost by definition the major institutions with banks of economists to do this are mainstream. Almost by definition anyone who makes different assumptions is an "outlier" and probably doesn't have the resoures or respect to match the OECD or treasury.

This is a bit convenient though isn't it? It's like when homeopaths tell you that Doctors are wrong about homeopathy because they are taught the wrong way.

> If you want to read up on this I suggest you go to the "economists for brexit" site. They are, of course, by definition "outliers" because there view is not "mainstream".

As has been pointed out, the main "economist for brexit" (the only one who I know has produced a full report) is Minford...

> I've been following economic forecasts, private and governmental for nearly forty years on a regular (for many years, daily) basis. I take them with a healthy dose of salt. One thing they seldom do is call or analyse correctly major turning points

Fair enough. But if you're asking us to ignore the wealth of evidence / knowledge that is out there, it is then inherent on you to demonstrate (with some evidence) why the alternative is better, and why the assumptions are wrong.
GrahamD - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

> I can see how standards need to be maintained or even improved upon. But wouldn't we have to meet these standards within or without the EU?

We would still have to meet EU regulations, but would almost certainly find it harder to get test house accreditation in the UK

> It's not as if we didn't have standards pre EU, some might even argue that the British Standard often exceeded european standards.

They didn't. Many EU standards started life as British Standards, but have long since superceded them. Thats why we don't bother paying to have kite marks now.

summo on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> Here we all are sitting on a train.

or you could be sitting on train that your parents booked for you in 1975 and destination was changed multiple times, rules for what you could do and take on the train changed too. They weren't given a say over if they wanted to remain on the train, it was pre-booked, no amendments allowed.
3
Gordon Stainforth - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to summo:

Explain what your metaphor of a changing destination refers to.
Dauphin on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Big words from man in the ass kicking financial, industrial and cultural Leviathan of Malta. Assume we have been told.

D
9
ads.ukclimbing.com
RyanOsborne - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Dauphin:

> Big words from man who is going to be the EU president when we start negotiating Brexit.

Fixed that for you.
baron - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:
But won't be when we finish.
And this is partly what's wrong with the EU.
Insignificant countries being given power far beyond their actual status.
The vote is to leave, the EU said 'if you're going, go' now this person is telling us we can't/might not be able to invoke article 50.
We need to leave ASAP.

9
Pete Pozman - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

Remind me again, why exactly are we leaving? I know we shall have to celebrate 23rd June as "Independence Day" because on that day we became independent. Is that right?
These EU regulations ? What are they all about anyway? Can't we just have no regulations? Wouldn't that save us a lot of fuss. And we wouldn't have to pay an army of lawyers to rebrand them as sovereign English laws. That's right isn't it? And now President Breitbart is in charge won't he look after us as Lord Farage is his best mate?
andyfallsoff - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

> But won't be when we finish.

> And this is partly what's wrong with the EU.

> Insignificant countries being given power far beyond their actual status.

It isn't a country being given power, Malta just happens to be where a person is from.

> The vote is to leave, the EU said 'if you're going, go' now this person is telling us we can't/might not be able to invoke article 50.

No he isn't - it doesn't say that anywhere in the article. It just says the same point that has been repeated ad infinitum, by everyone - that if we want to be in the single market, we have to accept the fundamental freedoms of the EU. Which doesn't come as a surprise to anyone, but because they don't agree with it the Brexiters keep saying either (a) they're wrong (e.g. Boris' approach - great diplomacy skills there); or (b) it isn't fair, why don't they want to let us pick what we want (even though for all other countries they see a link between a true single market and the other freedoms, specifically free movement of labour).


Mr Lopez - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

> And this is partly what's wrong with the EU.

To be fair, your post is a good example of what is (partly?) wrong with many leavers motivations. Mainly that you don't seem to know much of what you are talking about and see everything as an attack to your god-given self-importance.

> Insignificant countries being given power far beyond their actual status.

First off, the presidency of the EU is not a position of power. It's just being given the responsibility of chairing and organising the meetings for that period.

Second, to be given power relative to status would be an undemocratic and unfair way of running a Union. The British and German empire's way of doing things are no more, and we have come to apreciate the benefits on treating everyone as equals. I'm afraid we can't just be pushing around what we perceive as lesser countries on the basis that "we are big and you are insignificant".

> The vote is to leave, the EU said 'if you're going, go' now this person is telling us we can't/might not be able to invoke article 50.

This person said he "would not be surprised" if we had not had time by March to go through the appeal in the Supreme Court of Justice about Parliament having a vote in invoking article 50, and then after that actually going through that vote.

However you probably missed that by being outraged at your perception that "this guy is TELLING US we can't/might not be able to invoke article 50."

> We need to leave ASAP.

Well, we first need to go through an appeal at the Supreme Court of Justice about Parliament having a vote in invoking article 50, and then after that, when the appeal fails, we actually have to go through a vote in Parliament and that vote has to pass.

(edited a hundred times for typos)
Post edited at 16:51
colinakmc - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

At some point in the next few months/couple of years we will actually have some understanding of the "deal" on offer (and make no mistake it will be only what the 27 are prepared to offer, Boris or no Boris). At that point, with a bit less ignorance around, there should be another vote, this time based on a vaguely realistic expectation of what might happen as opposed to promises that there'll be £350m for the NHS and no nasty foreign people about clogging up our council housing and NHS and it'll be so good having bananas any shape we want, etc., etc.

If the country still votes to leave, I'll then shut up.

Or maybe shift my attention to the next Indyref....
baron - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

Two points
1. I might not know what I'm talking about but that puts me in the same position as everyone else on this thread.

2. I don't have a god given self importance, it comes from the UK being a far better place than most european countries to live in.

And a third point,
Why when we're leaving the EU do we need to follow its rules on departure?
Let's just leave, they keep saying they won't miss us!
5
Trangia - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:

> Iceland / Malta... easy mistake to make ;-)

Is it true that Malta is going to sue Maltesers over the name.......?
Hugh J - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:
> Two points

> 1. I might not know what I'm talking about but that puts me in the same position as everyone else on this thread.

Having read good posts from both sides of the argument it is self-evident that this is complete bollox!

> 2. I don't have a god given self importance, it comes from the UK being a far better place than most european countries to live in.

From personal experience, I can tell you that your assumption is complete bollox!

> And a third point,

> Why when we're leaving the EU do we need to follow its rules on departure?

> Let's just leave, they keep saying they won't miss us!

I rest my case!
Post edited at 17:42
2
Bulls Crack - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to girlymonkey:

Screwed over implies unfairness - which it wouldn't be!
summo on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Explain what your metaphor of a changing destination refers to.

the fact that the last time anyone had a say on the EU it was only voting for a trade agreement, it's moved on a few destinations in the past 40 years.
baron - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Hugh J:
You've read 'good' points but somehow mine isn't one of them? Why?
Name me a better country to live in than the UK.
Was your 'I rest my case' supposed to be funny, ironic, sarcastic?
Or maybe a put down?
1
Hugh J - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Dauphin:

> Big words from man in the ass kicking financial, industrial and cultural Leviathan of Malta. Assume we have been told.

> D

Ah yes, I see your point.

Apart from Valetta being one of the finest renaissance and baroque cities in Europe, when have the Maltese ever done anything like stand up to an authoritarian European powerhouse?
BnB - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

> Name me a better country to live in than the UK.

Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, Norway, Denmark (a bit flat though), NL (likewise), France (mountains and food, in fact mountains of food). Many people might include Italy but I like queuing.

Mr Lopez - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to summo:

> the fact that the last time anyone had a say on the EU it was only voting for a trade agreement, it's moved on a few destinations in the past 40 years.

You mean other than in 1979, 1984, 1989, 1994, 1999, 2004, 2009, 2014 (european parliament) and 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2010 and 2015 (council)?

Or where you expecting a phone call to ask you directly what would you like to do next?
Post edited at 18:02
Hugh J - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:
> You've read 'good' points but somehow mine isn't one of them? Why?

Possibly statements like " Insignificant countries being given power far beyond their actual status. " and " Let's just leave, they keep saying they won't miss us! "

> Name me a better country to live in than the UK.

France, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, Luxembourg, and MALTA.

> Was your 'I rest my case' supposed to be funny, ironic, sarcastic?

> Or maybe a put down?

All of the above.
Post edited at 18:12
1
baron - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to BnB:
They'll be the places that economic migrants (refugees) are flocking to?
5
baron - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Hugh J:
Bollocks!
I win because I can spell!
2
Hugh J - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

> They'll be the places that economic migrants (refugees) are flocking to?

Errrrrrr . . . . . .. yes!
summo on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:
> You mean other than in 1979, 1984, 1989, 1994, 1999, 2004, 2009, 2014 (european parliament) and 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2010 and 2015 (council)?

> Or where you expecting a phone call to ask you directly what would you like to do next?

Sorry, I must have missed all those referendums where the population voted, or were those cases where MPs decide what they thought best without asking the population?

EDIT, perhaps if people had more choices through the years, then the vote might not have gone the way it did.
Post edited at 18:26
5
summo on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:


> Name me a better country to live in than the UK.

might be a shorter list if you asked name those that aren't.
1
BnB - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

> They'll be the places that economic migrants (refugees) are flocking to?

In the case of Germany, Austria, Denmark and Sweden very much so. Switzerland and Norway too but they are less receptive
Hugh J - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to summo:

> Sorry, I must have missed all those referendums where the population voted, or were those cases where MPs decide what they thought best without asking the population?

And possibly all of the European elections too?
summo on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Hugh J:
> And possibly all of the European elections too?

but the UK population had no say on if the UK should sign up to Lisbon and umpteen other treaties, if the population was consulted more, then perhaps the EU might have moderate things a little and no brexit?
Post edited at 18:28
2
baron - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to summo:
Yes but then they wouldn't have had to waste so much of their time typing those long lists!
2
Hugh J - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to summo:

Do you think Westminster operates in a different way?

We have our say at elections to decide on the people we trust to do what is best for us. Or do you think every policy should have a referendum? Judging by the turn out for European elections it will only those that can be bothered that will decide, which is likely to be those at the further extremes of the political spectrum.
Hugh J - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:
> Yes but then they wouldn't have had to waste so much of their time typing those long lists!

Don't worry, I quite enjoyed asserting our inferiority.
Post edited at 18:44
Postmanpat on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Hugh J:

> Do you think Westminster operates in a different way?

> We have our say at elections to decide on the people we trust to do what is best for us. Or do you think every policy should have a referendum? Judging by the turn out for European elections it will only those that can be bothered that will decide, which is likely to be those at the further extremes of the political spectrum.

As a general principle, if Parliament, to which sovereignty has been temporarily delegated by the people, decides to give away a significant amount of of that sovereignty to a third party, then the people should have the right to express their view on whether their sovereignty should be so delegated.
john arran - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Hugh J:

I quite like the idea that people who have a chance of actually knowing something are mainly in charge of most important decisions. Even if the only candidates on the ballot sheet are pretty uninspiring I'm pretty sure there's usually at least one that can be trusted to do a much better job than a public lied to by manipulative media moguls. If the recent referendum has taught us anything it's that a simple 2-choice referendum is far from simple when it comes to gauging public opinion, nor is it effective as we currently have little to no idea what most of the Brexiteers were actually expecting or indeed hoping for from an Out vote. No wonder delivering it is proving a challenge.
baron - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Hugh J:
Touche!
Frank4short - on 25 Nov 2016
> 2. I don't have a god given self importance, it comes from the UK being a far better place than most european countries to live in.

Just out of curiosity that's a mighty grand statement, i'd say it's on a par with the Yanks saying the US is the best country in the world. So by what metrics or measures, other than plucky britishness or oh i dunno subjugating less well developed peoples in far off lands a couple of hundred years ago, do you believe the UK is better than most of the EU? As really it's too grand a statement to respond in kind without something specific to target otherwise it can be fairly evenly proven to be incorrect as far as most measures go.
Frank4short - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

> You've read 'good' points but somehow mine isn't one of them? Why?

> Name me a better country to live in than the UK.

I'd say by any objective measures Germany, France, the Netherlands probably any of the Scandinavian countries. So do please tell us why you think the UK is best? Ideally using an objective determination rather than national pride or frankly you just happen to like where you live. Of which of course there's nothing inherently wrong with it just doesn't make you right.
baron - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Frank4short:
Just to get you started -

The NHS
Parliament
Education
Cultural diversity
Tolerance
Welfare State
Post edited at 19:08
1
Frank4short - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

> They'll be the places that economic migrants (refugees) are flocking to?

Other than the fact the vast majority of refugees go to Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands.

Contrary to what the Mail, telegraph, sun, etc may tell you, other than the fact due to it's geographic isolation and as a result of which the corralling of migrants in Calais, et al becomes significantly more obvious than in any other place in the EU, the UK is probably only the favored by economic migrants as the majority of which aiming to get to the UK are from former British colonies where you've been telling them for several hundred years how great a place it is, in spite of your nations need to try and take over a large part of the world to enrich yourselves as failing that it seems somewhat pointless taking over large areas you've no intention of living in. Also apparently it's easier to work illegally there, not exactly the greatest selling point for "best country".
Hugh J - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> As a general principle, if Parliament, to which sovereignty has been temporarily delegated by the people, decides to give away a significant amount of of that sovereignty to a third party, then the people should have the right to express their view on whether their sovereignty should be so delegated.

In an idea world I would be in total agreement with you. However, due to the general lack of interest from the majority of the public and the astute points made by JA (see the post following yours), I just don't see it as being workable.
Frank4short - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

> Just to get you started -

> The NHS

> Parliament

> Education

> Cultural diversity

> Tolerance

> Welfare State

You believe the above to be unique to the UK? From a comparative stand point you were likely first out of the blocks when it came to the welfare state and the NHS and they are things to be proud of. That being said with the Tories trying their best to dismantle them they're now neither far from unique or the best provided within the EU. The rest is just flagrantly nothing special on a par with many other EU nations. Never mind the fact if one was to rank all of the above on a league table and then compare yourselves to the rest of the EU it would be patently obvious that whilst the UK does pretty OK in the grand scheme of things you'd probably struggle to get in the top half of the table (at least amongst the non eastern European countries) never mind be the best place to be/live.
Hugh J - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

> Just to get you started -

> The NHS

Fair enough.

> Parliament

The Bullingdon Club vs The Student Union

> Education

Your having a laugh.

> Cultural diversity

Oh please stop now, it's starting to hurt!

> Tolerance

Do you get that from the obvious fact that "it comes from the UK being a far better place than most european countries to live in."?

> Welfare State

Oh, is that the one being taken advantage of by spongers and immigrants?
Gordon Stainforth - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to summo:

> the fact that the last time anyone had a say on the EU it was only voting for a trade agreement, it's moved on a few destinations in the past 40 years.

I always understood it as much more than just a 'trade agreement'. It was always politico-economic (including such ideas as a customs union and human rights) from the start, and that's how I understood it last time I voted to stay in the 'European Community'/Common Market in 1975. I can't see that it's fundamentally changed. Simply enlarged (arguably too fast).
summo on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

> Just to get you started -

> The NHS

> Parliament

> Education

> Cultural diversity

> Tolerance

> Welfare State

I don't think the UK could beat any of nordics, on any of them, let alone all of them. I think they would probably win at football too.
baron - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Hugh J:
Parliament - one reason we haven't had a dictator or military rule for ages. Ask the Germans, Spanish, Greeks about that.

Education - your problem with UK education is what exactly?

Cultural diversity - again, your issue is what?

Tolerance - luckily most Brits are far more tolerant than I am

Welfare state - envy of the world?



2
baron - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to summo:
Cost of a pint?

summo on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

The treaties since the 80s which the UK population were never publically and openly consulted on changed the eu and nation's relationship with it massively.
summo on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

Purchases for home consumption are not much different, only publically in licenced premises cost much much more. I don't really see the fact that in UK cities for the next 36hrs police and the health service will maxed out dealing with the impact of drunkards as a winning situation for the UK.
Hugh J - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to summo:

> I think they would probably win at football too.

"Lord Nelson, Lord Beaverbrook, Sir Winston Churchill, Sir Anthony Eden, Clement Attlee, Henry Cooper, Lady Diana, vi har slått dem alle sammen, vi har slått dem alle sammen! Maggie Thatcher, can you hear me? Maggie Thatcher ... your boys took a hell of a beating! Your boys took a hell of a beating!"
summo on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Hugh J:

You've lost me a little there.
baron - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to summo: true!
How about the weather/hours of darkness in winter?
Come on, there must be something!

Hugh J - on 25 Nov 2016
john arran - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

I don't think many people think the UK is a long way behind in a lot of the areas you listed but it's a long way from being out in front in most. If you live in the UK and only really consume UK media you get a misleading idea of how good UK provision actually is. Since negative stories sell newspapers it's understandable that the majority of media stories end up focusing on (laughing at?) the problems of other countries rather than their successes, which inevitably leads to an unfair picture of 'there' and an artificially rosy view of 'here'.
Hugh J - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

They've never had anyone like Eddie "The Eagle" !!!
baron - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Hugh J:
Yes!
Thanks for that!
ads.ukclimbing.com
summo on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

> How about the weather/hours of darkness in winter?

summers in central Sweden; general dryer and warmer than the UK. Winters you can ski from the door. Darkness - head torch and endless summer evenings.

A negative - some places have killer midges and mossies, that make the West coast of Scotland feel like a pleasant dream in comparison.


summo on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Hugh J:


with you now, I'm not the biggest fan, so I hadn't heard of such an historic event or speech.
Mr Lopez - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Hugh J:

And the UK is the only country not just in Europe, but in the whole World, to have won a football world cup in 1966!!
Hugh J - on 25 Nov 2016
Hugh J - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

Shhhhh . . . don't let those north of the border know!
Frank4short - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

> Welfare state - envy of the world?

I already wrote one response to this which sadly disappeared when my internet went down just as i was about to post but the jist of it was as follows:
In NI (Northern Ireland) anyone born there was entitled to dual citizenship of both NI or the Republic of Ireland (ROI). Basically for a long time unemployed Northerners,especially those living close to the border, would get Irish citizenship and then claim their dole down south as the rates paid down south were multiples better than those paid in NI. By any objective measure the irish welfare system is generous but hardly even comparable to those offered by the northern European social democracies.

This hardly makes the UK system the envy of the world. If that were the case there would likely be another half a million plus people on the northern shores of France trying to get to the UK, as opposed to the million plus already settled in Germany never mind the countless hundreds of thousands in Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden.

Whilst your arguments are well meaning and heartfelt they don't stand up to objective scrutiny.
baron - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Hugh J:
A lucky jump!
Not a patch on Eddie!
Mr Lopez - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Hugh J:

It'll be fine. Nobody cares about facts
baron - on 25 Nov 2016
Big Ger - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Well, I personally wouldn't want this man to be the bloke who decided Britain's future.

> Despite having previously expressed opposition to Malta's entry into the European Union, Muscat was elected to the European Parliament in the 2004 European Parliament election being the Labour Party (formerly the Malta Labour Party) candidate who received the most first-preference votes. Sitting as a Member of the European Parliament, with the Party of European Socialists.
Frank4short - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

At a glance at that telegraph article (Noting for the record the Telegraph is note exactly known for being the least partisan or unbiased paper)

Benefits in Ireland

healthcare free after 3 years (Not quantified in cash terms)
child benefit £110 per month per child (say £25 per week approximately)
unemployment assistance £160 per week
housing benefit immediately for short term lets (from personal experience of some family rental properties this can be as much as €400 per week for periods of multiple years depending on the cost rental accommodation and the availability of public housing stock in a given local, i imagine similar assesments are made in the UK when it comes to subsidizing rental accommodation to welfare recipients).

So lets say for a 2 child family in Dublin or the surrounding counties approximately £500 per week in available benefits

Benefits in the UK
healthcare free (Not quantified in cash terms)
Child benefit for 2 children (£20.30 + £13.40 = £33.70)
Unemployment assistance £71.70
Housing (up to between £250 and £400 depending on number of kids/bedrooms/etc say £280 per week for a 2 bedroom flat, which is probably on the generous side for most of the UK, outside of London and the south east)
So comparably we're looking at approximately £380-390 per week for a family with 2 kids ignoring the delta for the difference in health service provision.

Figures for other northern European member states aren't relate-able or comparable as for the majority of them there are no fixed numbers they're based upon means testing and scales which the article conveniently fails to discuss. Suffice it to say healthcare excluded in the comparison I've provided (which is not the case in the northern European states which are less directly comparable due to lack of provided comparable information) Irish benefits exceed those in the UK by about 25+%. That's after the greatest recession in living memory in Ireland and the IMF and the ECB having prior approval of any Irish government budget for approximately 5 years, so any massively excessive fat that was there to begin with is now long since gone.

This does not back up your "envy of the world " statement other than the fact you believe it when your chosen media tells your that it's the case. After all this is a pretty simple/easy comparison.
baron - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Frank4short:
I guess that this won't have had anything to do with Ireland's ability to pay such handsome benefits. It must all be down to the Celtic Tiger!

http://m.independent.ie/business/irish/ireland-contributes-more-money-than-it-gets-to-eu-for-first-t...
Frank4short - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

Firstly i don't see what relevance that has to your original point. You claimed the British welfare system was the envy of the world. I was just proving that if by the envy of the world you meant not the best in the EU never mind the world ( i imagine NZ, Canada and Aus's systems are comparable if not better from what i know of each country) and you've come back with a petty dig at Ireland's net contribution to the EU budget.

(If i were to take this argument to one conclusion i could argue that this is directly as a result of English Govt. policy to deliberately deprive Ireland of industrial development through the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries, in order to quel possible uprisings by the irish or further the British establishments vested interests. Did you know the Irish potato famines occurred as a direct result of English government instructions to British landowners in Ireland to produce as much grain as possible so it could be exported to the US to kill off the US economy. In effect despite the fact over 1 million people at the time died of starvation, never mind the number that emigrated or died whilst trying to emigrate and the Irish population was decimated for decades if not hundreds of years afterwards, Ireland was a net exporter of food?) Just saying before you sling mud at other countries it's best you get your facts straight about the position you're in or more to the point the effects of what your country may have done in the past to create the positions others are in.

Anyway the fact that ireland has been net recipient is hardly surprising seeing as Ireland for most of it's tenure within the EU Ireland has been small agrarian country therefore subventions to Irish farmers based upon EU rules are likely to be high and the fact EU contributions are calculated on the basis of GDP. Therefore countries within in the EU without a high industrial base are likely to be net recipients, until such time as their industrial base develops. In case you hadn't heard this before that is essentially the point of the EU. We make stuff, give you money from the profits we make so you can develop and then buy the stuff we're selling/made. This seems to be something that's been missing from Brexiters understanding of the EU subvention and development systems. It's why places in the north of England, Scotland, Wales and NI used to get development grants.

In the case of Ireland the balance of other EU development type subventions/grants is likely to have been a net negative number for considerably longer than the period in the article mentioned, it's just that despite the Celtic tiger Ireland's GDP threshold did not exceed the amount paid to our farmers.

This however is not the discussion we were having and continuing on the same track will no doubt feed your anti EU sentiment, which was not the point of this conversation. That being said in effect you've thrown your toys out of the pram cause once your straw man argument was disproven rather then admit as much you've elected to go for a cheap dig instead.
1
cb294 - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Not according to your constitution...

CB
cb294 - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

Just as an outside perspective, I loved living in the UK, and of your list I would agree with Parliament, education, cultural diversity (especially that!). I actually applied for another job there.

But the NHS or the welfare state? Both may be attractive for Bulgarians or Romanians, but anyone from central or Northern Europe will hop on the first plane home if they had anything serious (or even just a toothache...).
Just as one example, waiting lists for cancer treatment in Germany? Not really. A good friend was diagnosed with leukemia in Cambridge, and was already in preparation for her bone marrow transplantation in Germany when her consultant's appointment at the Addenbrookes was eventually scheduled. Similar for a friend, who worked in social services in Hounslow. After a motorcycle accident the NHS refused to pay for an operation on his shoulder when learning he was training to become a priest (which you can apparently do one armed). Not sure about that, but you can certainly fly home like that.
The NHS indeed was groundbreaking half a century ago, and I find the idea still appealing (the idiotic multiplicity of health insurance providers in Germany who by law all more or less have to offer the same deal multiplies admin costs but does not really offer the efficiency gains of true competition). In its current, underfunded situation to most central or Northern Europeans the NHS looks more like battlefield surgery.

CB
kamala - on 25 Nov 2016
In reply to cb294:

I think that people's experiences can vary wildly depending on location and circumstances, in any country.

Your friend got immediate treatment for her cancer - my mother's cancer wasn't even spotted until it was untreatable despite multiple hosital visits. Not to mention that the paperwork burden each time she came out of hospital, debilitated and distressed, made her last few years a misery. (We've still got to get it all straight after her death.)

We've seen on threads here that people have had experiences with the NHS varying from the excellent (prompt and expert surgery for my back injury, with detailed discussions on suitable treatment) to the desperately bad. But at least the variation doesn't come with a nightmare of beaurocracy for the patient!

Big Ger - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to kamala:

Agreed that experiences can vary, I was back in the UK last month as my mother was in the last days of terminal cancer.

The service she received from both the district nurses, (2 x daily visits,) and Marie Currie support staff, (4 x daily visits,) was outstanding, nonpareil even.

baron - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to Frank4short:
You're the one who brought Ireland into the discussion with your idea of how great their benefits system is/was.
I simply pointed out that as a net recipient for many years Ireland might have had money available to it that the UK as a net contributor did not.
Ireland could have, in fact, been using the UK's contributions to fund its benefits.
You think this is OK, I don't.
That's not a cheap dig it's an opinion.
Thanks for the history lesson.
I'm surprised my dad didn't tell me about all that famine stuff, what with him being Irish!
Must have slipped his mind.
2
neilh - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to Frank4short:

There is a whopping great big flaw in all those numbers .What is the migration between UK and Ireland?

They may have better " benefits" . But one hell of a lot come over here still for work.

It is a very very poor example you are using.

Frank4short - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to neilh:

Firstly if you were to look at the demographics of Irish in the UK i'd say the vast majority of them went to the UK from the mid 90's and before. So current benefits differential wouldn't overly effect that. Anyways for people that want to work moving from a small market to a larger culturally similar market is a no brainer, also businesses are more likely to employ people that move for work as their motivation to work is much stronger. The net migration between England and Ireland since around the early 2,000's is likely to be significantly smaller. The majority of which will have been irish moving to the UK(mostly london) for opportunities that simply don't exist in Ireland e.g. in areas such as high end creative industries and the likes of the city of London. That is my experience from family and friends. The vast majority of people don't move to claim benefits as a: it's harder to claim benefits in somewhere you're not from and b: even if benefits are better somewhere else it's still a poor existence so why would you move and leave the support of family and friends so you can be broke but not as broke somewhere else?

All of that being said this is a side show and was never about showing off ireland's wonderful benefits system as that's an irrelevance to the argument. My point was that Baron had been lauding the UK's benefits system as the "envy of the world" my point was NOT hey look at us aren't we great and you aren't but that you're not even the envy of your neighbourhood nevermind the world so it's a clearly incorrect assumption.
baron - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to Frank4short:

Hey, I never said the UK was the envy of the world.
I asked people where was a better place to live than the UK and then someone asked me wwhy the UK was a good place to live.
I mentioned the welfare state but don't remember saying it was a world leader in the amounts it paid out.
You seem to have an issue with the UK vs Ireland. Fine but don't twist whwtI said!
1
Frank4short - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

> You're the one who brought Ireland into the discussion with your idea of how great their benefits system is/was.

No i was simply proving that the UK is hardly the envy of the neighbourhood never mind the envy of the world when it comes to benefits. I have my own opinions on the irish social welfare system but that's not the conversation we're having here. Whether you chose to pay attention or not.

> I simply pointed out that as a net recipient for many years Ireland might have had money available to it that the UK as a net contributor did not.

This is unlikely. Like i've said before EU contributions and subventions are individually calculated on different metrics. Perhaps a better analogy is ireland chooses to spend our money differently for instance we don't go around getting into wars with other nations or feel the need to big ourselves up by having a nuclear deterrent or trident. So money your nation is spending on it's military could otherwise be spent elsewhere if your priorities were different.

> Ireland could have, in fact, been using the UK's contributions to fund its benefits.

> You think this is OK, I don't.

> That's not a cheap dig it's an opinion.

Do you think at the start or the end of each year the EU sits down and rights a cheque for each country to add into their annual budget how they say fit?

Cause believe or not the UK is the only country that gets this as part of Thatcher's rebate. EU payments are generally made individually to either as the case is farmers, development projects or development organizations which have an element of EU funding. National Governments have little or no say in how the EU gives out it's money to them. So to say that "Ireland could have, in fact, been using the UK's contributions to fund its benefits" is flagrantly wrong as that's not how the EU works no matter what the Telegraph et al would have you believe. How the democratically elected irish government decides to spend the money it raises in taxes is it's own business. If the EU decides to spend more money on development projects in rural Ireland using some development calculations is the EU's business. These are not monies coming from the same pot. It's your entitlement to get angry about, especially so seeing as you've been proved wrong elsewhere, but at heart you're confusing matters and it would appear deliberately so and playing to the braying mob as you continue to push this particular angle in spite of the fact that was not where the conversation was headed when you first brought it up.

> Thanks for the history lesson.

> I'm surprised my dad didn't tell me about all that famine stuff, what with him being Irish!

> Must have slipped his mind.

What does that have to do with anything?

1
Frank4short - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:
> Hey, I never said the UK was the envy of the world.

Right there at 19.32 "Welfare state - envy of the world?"

> I asked people where was a better place to live than the UK and then someone asked me wwhy the UK was a good place to live.

No one's ever argued that the UK isn't a good place to live. It was your contention that it was the best place in the EU to live most of us took umbrage with.

> I mentioned the welfare state but don't remember saying it was a world leader in the amounts it paid out.

I'm not arsed trawling through posts again but initially you said why are all of the refugees/migrants trying to get to the UK then? After which in a later post you posted number of links as to why UK benefits were amongst the highest paid. At which point i did a comparison based around the differences of the UK and Irish systems to disprove your contention, as i happen to be cursorily familiar with both, had i been German or Swedish no doubt i'd have used where i was from but i amn't so i chose Ireland.

> You seem to have an issue with the UK vs Ireland. Fine but don't twist whwtI said!

I really don't my points were just there to disprove some rather glaring sweeping statements you made. Really it's all there in black and white at no point have i tried to twist what you've said. I'm just responding to your points on an ad hoc basis.
Post edited at 09:51
1
baron - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to Frank4short:
Some more points for you to pick holes in.
Ireland saves money on defence by hiding behind NATO while not being willing to join said organisation or contribute financially.
Hence more money for benefits. (Mind you, this seems to be the model for most european countries, even those who do belong to NATO)
This is not a dig at Ireland's fighting men and women who have in the past and still do serve with courage both in Ireland's and the UK's defence forces.
It's a dig at the Irish government saving money at other government's expense and a direct response to your accusation of the UK bigging it up militarily.
This discussion was never meant to turn into 'look at the UK, the best country in the world' (which it obviously isn't) but I'll be damned if I'll let people, especially politicians of other less than perfect countries, bad mouth and run down the UK at a time when it needs all the positive promotion it can get!
If this is 'playing to the braying mob' then fine.
I'm out of here, you win.

2
neilh - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to Frank4short:

Never said they moved here to claim benefits . All I am saying is that despite Ireland having a good benefits system, the big picture is that they still come here for other reasons, I hope this continues to happen!
wbo - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward: the real argument then is how many EU migrants are claiming benefits? My understanding was that it is rather few.

You can then look this argument back into the relationship between the single market and fredom of labour movement, and how we are 'trading' the access to the single market for access to our labour market. The EU is not just a simple trading block. If it was i dont understand why some parties would join it - it has to benefit all parties to function.

Offwidth - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to baron:

Britain is best for some things...variety of climbing and the trad emphasis (especially on lower grade mountain routes, gritstone and seacliffs) ... weak warm beer (just head and shoulders ahead of anywhere)... whisky... cultural range. I might have added the BBC the NHS (still up with the best for outcomes given comparable fractional GDP investment levels) and Universities but they are declining fast.
Pekkie - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> ... weak warm beer (just head and shoulders ahead of anywhere)...

Where do you do your drinking? I'll be off out for a pint of cool, delicious amber nectar in a bit. In fact, forget the 'in a bit'. I'm fed up with reading twaddle posted by know-nothings on UKC. I'm off now.


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.