Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[thecrashingisles]

3 minutes ago, highYield said:

Good point - almost exactly the same would be more accurate. A few peripherals changed slightly.

Do you think rebuilding customs infrastructure and reintroducing related checks is a good way to roll back the state?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, thecrashingisles said:

Do you think rebuilding customs infrastructure and reintroducing related checks is a good way to roll back the state?

If it's part & parcel of removing our top 3 layers of politicians (in turn the beginning of focussing on the remaining 7 or so layers), then yes.

[Sheeple Splinter]

3 hours ago, pig said:

Im asking  why have Brexiters worked so hard to turn it into a xenophobic concept ?

As discussed numerous times upthread, it's a remoaner narrative.

Farage et al, expounded the points based immigration system during the referendum campaign. 

If you can bear it :

 

[thecrashingisles]

22 minutes ago, highYield said:

If it's part & parcel of removing our top 3 layers of politicians (in turn the beginning of focussing on the remaining 7 or so layers), then yes.

Think in more practical terms rather than abstractions.  How can reimposing layers of national bureaucracy possibly result in a reduction in arbitrary political power being exercised over you?

[knock out johnny]

3 minutes ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

As discussed numerous times upthread, it's a remoaner narrative.

Farage et al, expounded the points based immigration system during the referendum campaign. 

If you can bear it :

 

fckall mention of a points-based migration system on the ref form

Naughty Nigel the Liar 

[Sheeple Splinter]

12 hours ago, jonb2 said:

One of the things that has caused the chasm between governments and their peoples worldwide is the support for the elites and its consequences.

Did we vote for the snooper's charter? HS2? QE? The punitive tax system for the plebs and a virtual tax-free system for the rich? The breaking of the social contract? The Iraq War number 2? Etc, Etc

I know I didn't.

I must just add:

Quote

Luxembourg PM Juncker to resign over spy scandal...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23264789

Quote

Judge drags Jean-Claude Juncker into scandal over wiretapping

EC president’s former staff face criminal inquiry       Dec 2017

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/judge-drags-jean-claude-juncker-into-scandal-over-wiretapping-zc88s7nxt

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

Think in more practical terms rather than abstractions.  How can reimposing layers of national bureaucracy possibly result in a reduction in arbitrary political power being exercised over you?

In practical terms, the bureaucracy is there - Our freedom of movement UK <> rest of EU is already monitored more than between any other EU countries AFAIK - it's just computerised - when flying, ferrying or chunneling to the rest of the EU we still today are forced to provide API details - try booking any form of travel to the continent without providing your passport number in advance, together with your car registration if you're driving. 

Yours is a very good point, but I don't think that our personal movement can become more monitored or curtailed by our national government - it'll be the EU doing any practical curtailing on us.

[Sheeple Splinter]

23 minutes ago, knock out johnny said:

fckall mention of a points-based migration system on the ref form

Naughty Nigel the Liar 

Not required, Palace of Westminster will sort out the minutiae...

...eventually...

[Sheeple Splinter]

“Full speed ahead! The others can follow when they are ready …” First published in Bonner Generalanzeiger, Germany,  March 10, 2017 | By Heiko Sakurai

 

[Sheeple Splinter]

11 minutes ago, highYield said:

.... ....

IIRC you posted something similar a while back:

Quote

Flemish farmer busts conventional wisdom on EU farm policy

Community-supported model thrives without subsidies from Brussels...

But as Brussels prepares to propose a reform of its landmark €58 billion-per-year Common Agricultural Policy in 2018, the softspoken Flemish farmer offers an alternative model to Europe’s conventional wisdom over the last half century.

Troonbeeckx runs 30 hectares of farmland near the Belgian city of Leuven, only 20 kilometers east of Brussels, without wasting any of his time filling in forms to apply for CAP subsidies. Despite this lack of EU support, he says he can still pay three farmers, including himself, a gross annual salary of €36,000, more than twice the European average for agricultural workers...

https://www.politico.eu/article/flemish-farmer-busts-conventional-wisdom-on-eu-farm-policy/

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

IIRC you posted something similar a while back:

https://www.politico.eu/article/flemish-farmer-busts-conventional-wisdom-on-eu-farm-policy/

The UK Land Workers Alliance has great alternatives to blowing half the EU's budget on subsidising large landowners: https://landworkersalliance.org.uk - they have an interesting relevant publication: Recommendations for Post-Brexit Agricultural Policy

edit: quote from their Post Brexit recommendations:

Quote

One of the most significant failings of the BPS to date is that payments are unrelated to productivity, meaning that a landowner can claim direct payments even if their farming activity is negligible. To put it bluntly, landowners are paid to own land. There is an active farmer clause for the payments, but there is no minimum level of activity and landowners can rent the land out to farmers and still claim payments. Land is now a popular form of investment, exempt from inheritance tax, with investors able to financially benefit not only from the area based payments but also from the sharp increases in the value of land. The meteoric rise in the price of UK farmland from £2,400 in 2004 to over £7,000 per acre today coincides with the introduction of the area-based payment scheme.

 

Edited January 2, 2018 by Guest

[thecrashingisles]

49 minutes ago, highYield said:

In practical terms, the bureaucracy is there - Our freedom of movement UK <> rest of EU is already monitored more than between any other EU countries AFAIK - it's just computerised - when flying, ferrying or chunneling to the rest of the EU we still today are forced to provide API details - try booking any form of travel to the continent without providing your passport number in advance, together with your car registration if you're driving. 

Yours is a very good point, but I don't think that our personal movement can become more monitored or curtailed by our national government - it'll be the EU doing any practical curtailing on us.

Why have you changed the subject?  I didn't talk about free movement of people, but now that you mention it, why is a good thing to restrict the number of people that British businesses can hire without the involvement of the state?

[Confusion of VIs]

15 hours ago, ccc said:

I have made it clear above in my reply to IMHAL. I'm sure you can read. 

I shall repeat again just to make it even simpler as you appear to have thinking issues today.

One results in a decision the other does not. 

Surely this isn't difficult to understand ?

It obviously is for you.

There were two possible sensible answers to my question - you could have said none, which would have been correct, or you could have said I don't know, which would also have been correct. Instead you resorted to your usual bluster.

Legally an advisory referendum carries no more weight than an opinion poll, or even a quick straw poll of whoever is left propping up the bar in your local at closing time.   

 

Edited January 3, 2018 by Confusion of VIs

[Guest]

Just now, thecrashingisles said:

Why have you changed the subject?  I didn't talk about free movement of people, but now that you mention it, why is a good thing to restrict the number of people that British businesses can hire without the involvement of the state?

Sorry, but I don't see how it was me that changed the subject - you said "How can reimposing layers of national bureaucracy possibly result in a reduction in arbitrary political power being exercised over you?" I understood that the 'you' in your quote was referring to me, and I'm a person.

Bit lost now.

[thecrashingisles]

Just now, highYield said:

Sorry, but I don't see how it was me that changed the subject - you said "How can reimposing layers of national bureaucracy possibly result in a reduction in arbitrary political power being exercised over you?" I understood that the 'you' in your quote was referring to me, and I'm a person.

Bit lost now.

We started off talking about customs infrastructure and layers of government.  I was questioning how expanding the national bureaucracy into more areas of national life would help achieve your objective of reducing the amount of government.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, thecrashingisles said:

We started off talking about customs infrastructure and layers of government.  I was questioning how expanding the national bureaucracy into more areas of national life would help achieve your objective of reducing the amount of government.

Ah, OK. Personally, I wouldn't describe customs as a layer of government, but more of an executive arm of the Westminster commons layer. UK customs are there here and now - you pass & see them every time you leave or enter the UK - their job might change a little, if we do ever Brexit properly, perhaps a lot.

The removal of the top 3 EU layers of government would result in a shedload fewer bureaucrats. Changing the job description of the customs arm might involve a few additional bureaucrats - but the numbers would pale in comparison.

[Confusion of VIs]

14 hours ago, highYield said:

There are of course many differences, including the necessity to be a registered voter to participate, a referendum being run by the gubbermint, opinion polls being inaccurate, etc.

But the most important difference is that a referendum preserves a veil of democracy over our system, an opinion poll is just an opinion poll. TPTB and most politicians do not want Brexit; but to ignore an advisory referendum makes it very clear to the majority who voted Brexit that we don't really live in a democracy. That risks some kind of revolution or a loss of power for the politicians. The advisory referendum was supposed to be a green light to continue as normal, but an advisory referendum going the 'wrong' way puts politicians between a rock and a hard place. 

In a country with a lack of democracy, It's this mechanism that makes an advisory referendum walk and talk more like a proper referendum.

Parliament often defies the will of the people, regarding itself as better informed or more capable of analysing the issues than the general public. E.g. over the death penalty, or pushing through policies it knows are unpopular but regards as necessary.

An advisory referendum is just that advisory, especially when it is a close result. While I accept all of what you say above, the real issue that forced May into regarding it as binding is that the Tory party would have split if she had not.

Personally, I don't buy the democracy argument as it is pretty clear that supporters of both sides would be happy to see their preferred outcome irrespective of whether a majority supported it. Even if, by the end of the year, it entirely clear that there is no longer a majority for whatever form of Brexit is on offer I doubt many of the Leavers will be calling for a halt.    

Edited January 3, 2018 by Confusion of VIs

[thecrashingisles]

20 minutes ago, highYield said:

Ah, OK. Personally, I wouldn't describe customs as a layer of government, but more of an executive arm of the Westminster commons layer. UK customs are there here and now - you pass & see them every time you leave or enter the UK - their job might change a little, if we do ever Brexit properly, perhaps a lot.

The removal of the top 3 EU layers of government would result in a shedload fewer bureaucrats. Changing the job description of the customs arm might involve a few additional bureaucrats - but the numbers would pale in comparison.

You're still making the mistake of trying to think abstractly instead of practically in order to reach the conclusions you want.

Leaving the customs union would require huge capital investment in infrastructure that is currently not needed as well as a massive increase in staff.  Businesses trading across Europe will have to exist within an environment that is much more bureaucratic than it is now.

Read this, which focusses only on shipping:

https://www.ft.com/content/b5ee770a-ced1-11e7-9dbb-291a884dd8c6

Edited January 3, 2018 by thecrashingisles

[copydude]

6 hours ago, thecrashingisles said:

Demographic decline in Bulgaria and the Baltic states dates to the collapse into failure of communism.  You are pointing at the wrong target.

The population of Bulgaria rose steadily under socialism and peaked in 1989, the year its borders opened.

Since then, the population has declined by over two million to the level it was in 1946. 

I fail to see how this is not connected with FoM. 

[copydude]

8 hours ago, dugsbody said:

There is no catastrophe in the states you mention or for the reasons you mention. It's a fiction you invented or lifted from some alt-right gutter "journalism". 

I'm not sure the late Edward Hugh would appreciate being called 'some alt-right gutter journalist',

Edward Hugh Bengree-Jones born in Liverpool, and studied at the London School of Economics, but was drawn more to philosophy, science, sociology and literature.

By inclination a macroeconomist, his obsession with trying to understand the economic impact of demographic changes often took him far from economics and towards fields like demography, anthropology, biology, sociology and systems theory. In particular his work was centred on the study of demographic changes, migration patterns, and the impact of these on economic growth.

Have you read any of his papers on Latvian demographics? 

My tip. People on this forum generally have an above average IQ. Don't pick a fight on a subject about which you know the square root of f*ck all. It just wastes everybody's time.

Edited January 3, 2018 by copydude
typo

[thecrashingisles]

32 minutes ago, copydude said:

The population of Bulgaria rose steadily under socialism and peaked in 1989, the year its borders opened.

Since then, the population has declined by over two million to the level it was in 1946. 

I fail to see how this is not connected with FoM. 

Between 1988 and 2007 when Bulgaria joined the EU, its population fell from 8.981m to 7.545m.  At no point during that period did FoM apply to Bulgaria.

[thecrashingisles]

28 minutes ago, copydude said:

I'm not sure the late Edward Hugh would appreciate being called 'some alt-right gutter journalist',

Edward Hugh Bengree-Jones born in Liverpool, and studied at the London School of Economics, but was drawn more to philosophy, science, sociology and literature.

By inclination a macroeconomist, his obsession with trying to understand the economic impact of demographic changes often took him far from economics and towards fields like demography, anthropology, biology, sociology and systems theory. In particular his work was centred on the study of demographic changes, migration patterns, and the impact of these on economic growth.

Have you read any of his papers on Latvian demographics? 

My tip. People on this forum generally have an above average IQ. Don't pick a fight on a subject about which you know the square root of f*ck all. It just wastes everybody's time.

By far the biggest component of the migration-driven population decline in Latvia since the fall of the Soviet Union has been from Russians moving out.  This trend is independent of EU accession and free movement.

[ccc]

7 hours ago, IMHAL said:

I bet you have even forgotten what you think I was wrong about. I'll remind you, opinion polls (and common sense) says that there are more xenophobes and racists amongst the ranks of leavers.

You personally may disqgree, but it does not changes reality.

By extension you are calling all statistical methods conjecture, referenda and elections included. 

I am not sure that labelling the tools we use in day to day life as  conjecture is helpfull in this discussion or any other unless of course you happen to not like the result of a particular poll that does not fit your narrative. Which appears to be the case  here.

We can all see through you. You know it and we know it.

I know exactly what it was about. You not knowing what conjecture meant and me informing you of it.

And instead of just going - oh well I never knew that - you had a three page hissy fit. 

That appears to still be going on. 

 

[ccc]

4 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

It obviously is for you.

There were two possible sensible answers to my question - you could have said none, which would have been correct, or you could have said I don't know, which would also have been correct. Instead you resorted to your usual bluster.

Legally an advisory referendum carries no more weight than an opinion poll, or even a quick straw poll of whoever is left propping up the bar in your local at closing time.   

 

You still going on about this. 

A referendum and an opinion poll are different. Very simple to understand. 

Stop skirting around the edges.

[copydude]

25 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

By far the biggest component of the migration-driven population decline in Latvia since the fall of the Soviet Union has been from Russians moving out.

It's somewhat misleading to call Baltic Russians, Russians.

Ethnic Russians have made up a significant proportion of the population for two centuries. Still today, some 27% of the population of Latvia are ethnic Russians with Latvian citizenship.

34 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

This trend is independent of EU accession and free movement

After the accession of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to the European Union on 1 May 2004, many Baltic Russians moved to other EU countries. In particular, tens of thousands of Baltic Russians (especially those with EU citizenship) moved to the United Kingdom and to Ireland, who were the first 'old' EU countries to open up their labour markets to the new members of the EU. Thousands of Russians from Riga, Tallinn and Vilnius, holding EU passports, now live in London, Dublin and other cities in the UK and Ireland. They make up a substantial part of the Russian-speaking community in London. No reliable statistics on their exact numbers exist, as in the UK they are counted as nationals of the Baltic countries, and not as Russians.

Nothing to do with the EU? You say the same about the Bulgarians. So where did two million people - nearly a quarter of the population - go to? The moon?