The UK is Out - New PM - and whither now for Article 50
This discussion has been closed.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.5K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 34 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 415 Fun & Games
- 111 BA Predictor Threads
- 34 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 299 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 117 Current West Ham
- 200 Men's First Team
- 3 Women's Team
- 12 PL2 & Academy
- 32 Management & Board
- 15 Stadium & Training Ground
- 27 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 401 Match Threads
- 72 MOTM
- 9 West Ham Nostalgia
- 35 Former Players and Staff
- 4 Past Games & Glories
- 37 Transfers
- 46 Transfer Speculation
- 87 Completed Transfers
- 55 Internationals
- 48 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 121 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 270 Other Teams & Matches
- 26 Other Players & Staff
Comments
I never claimed that the figures used in the example of Romanian benefit claimants were correct and as I said before the point was to say if something is costing you £5 but to prevent the cost of wasting that £5 you spend £500 it is a massively false economy. The figures were irrelevant and not proposed as accurate and I think that was made clear. I was not using the figures to represent the points being made as I think the points stand up for themselves, whether they are agreed with of course is another thing but I think what I was saying was clear.
Economic forecasters aren't predicting the future. They themselves are very clear about that. Which is why their figures are always accompanied by a clear statement for all to see of what they are based on (including any assumptions made about, for example inflation rates or the value of sterling). They are in effect saying 'if this happens and that happens' then the result will be X.
Their 'ifs' are openly stated. And the calculations are clear.
Others who think their assumptions are wrong can replace 'if this happens' with 'if something else happens' and come up with a different scenario of what the economy will look like.
i wasn't meaning that it was you alleging bias, or trying to somehow hide the woeful govt record. Just that it is the agenda of some, and the reason for their criticism of the OBR or IFS or whoever.
the proportion of that nominally caused by Brexit is £59bn.
My examples of Romanian issues have absolutely nothing to do with benefit claimants. What I was trying to highlight was a situation whereby current member states are being allowed to transfer their existing and longstanding cultural and economic problems to other member states using the freedom of movement principal. No such reciprocal arrangement exists although I, and others, carrying out short term project work in that country were invited to buy a 'special visa' for circa €2,000.
As to the nationality and EU passporting arrangement - when my company enquired about this (to the EU) they were told this was a long standing arrangement that existed prior to Romania joining and 'it would be looked at in the future when Romania became more integrated'.
Can I respectfully suggest that if you wish to make a point and do not have actual numbers to support that point it's best not to just make some up. Personnally I think your points are well enough made without doing that.
The use of the word hard, as acknowledge on the AM show today by the people on the remain side is a deliberate misdirection to invoke fear, also it was acknowledged that a lot of the experts who predicted doom and gloom are (even though there has been little of it so far) continuing to do so to try and talk it in to happening so they were proved right. There was further acknowledgement that slowly acceptance of the leave vote is happening and the realisation we must work together to get the best deal.
More pressing for the EU are:
Next week Italy has a referendum which the current PM is expected to lose and therefore resign. The vote is to strip the Italian Gov't and senate of numbers and their powers and also making the senate appointed not elected, and giving more sovereign powers to Brussels/Strasbourg - although not that reliable in the UK, ALL the polls in Italy give the current prediction of a 'No' win by between 5 -8% with one predicting more than 55% . If the PM then resigns as he has promised to do so if it is a 'No' it will spark a general election that will be won by a more nationalist PM/Party who will want to claw powers back from the EU.
Then there are both the French and German Elections, not to mention the Turkish problem that has now blown up again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38168942
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/robin-lustig/brexit-cost-donald-trump_b_13220674.html
Do we really want this bunch of clowns to decide our future?
*I'm not really amused.
*other emotions are available. And may actually be more accurately what I feel.
Short answer is - no I cannot provide a link. The comments I made were based on a) personal experience and b) conversations with HR professionals from the construction/civil engineering/infrastructure industries - a profession and industry sector I was employed in until recently.
A bit of background:
In the early 2000s I worked for an American company - one contract was to construct roads and accommodation in a remote region of Russia for workers engaged in the decommissioning of the Russian/Soviet Union fleet.
As a contract condition the company had to employ 'trades staff' who were Russian nationals through designated recruitment agencies (based in the Eastern bloc). We quickly found out that many of the staff provided had Russian passports but were from other Eastern European states (Hungary/Bulgaria/Poland etc).
Moving on to 2010/12 I was working on civil contracts for a UK company in Romania. Again we were required (by contract) to recruit Romanian nationals through the same designated agencies. Again we found many of the staff presenting Romanian passports were from other countries - predominantly Russia. When we questioned this we were informed that legitimate 'duel nationality' arrangements were in place and this was confirmed by the Romanian authorities.
In 2014 the same UK company, now with major contracts in the UK, was approached by the same designated agencies looking to provide 'trades qualified staff' for the UK contracts. Although I had retired I was asked to return to work in an advisory capacity to help in the significant recruitment drive. We were assured by the agencies that all staff presented had EU citizenship - subsequently it became clear that many (with Romanian passports) were, in fact, Russian nationals with 'duel nationality'. When we questioned these people they freely admitted they were Russian but had qualified as Romanian (and by default EU citizenship) on payment of a fee and a 6 week qualifying period. Although I have now left/retired I understand from ex HR colleagues that the validity of these arrangements has been checked with both UK and EU authorities - the response has been, apparently, as this is 'a legacy arrangement' it is allowed but will be addressed when the Romanian membership of the EU has settled down. Nobody appears willing or able to say if or when action will be taken to address this.
Incidentally, this might help to explain in part why the highest numbers of EU migrants arriving in the UK now come from Romania.
Hence the arrangements for some Moldovans to be able to claim Romanian dual nationality.
I think that's fair enough, tbh.
Bit like folks in the UK who were born there, but whose parents were born in Ireland, to be able to claim dual Irish nationality. There are issues of geography, ethnicity, patrimony and history.
Preparing for Brexit, hundreds of thousands of UK citizens will be getting themselves Irish passports, and thus securing rights as EU members. Would you take the view that Ireland is 'selling citizenship to Brits' so they can travel, live and work in EU countries when they would otherwise have been barred by virtue of being British?
I don't think it is fair to specify a single cut-off date - and anybody a citizen of an EU country at that point is OK in perpetuity, but anybody not is barred in perpetuity.
It is quite interesting and I will try to find out more.
And while I have no doubt you, and your colleagues re giving information in good faith, I'm not sure I feel confident trusting to their accuracy.
You refer to 'Russia' but for many people, and for a long time, that term was used interchangeably with 'USSR'. But they are distinct. And post-dissolution, many 'countries' that had been part of the USSR but that were NOT Russia, were trying to establish a new identity (including a democratic political system). So saying their citizens were Russian just because they were citizens of the USSR (sometimes unwillingly) is a bit confusing, imo.
I just think we need to be clear on our terms, and also on whether the facts bear out (only) the interpretation that Romanians are selling 'fake' EU passports to (non-eligible) Russians. Or whether there's a legitimate process going on (a matter of opinion, obviously) that is being exploited by crooks (who will always be with us).
(Will check if that is still the case, but I think it is.)
If you want to extend your research I can probably introduce you to a few of the English guys working on building sites in London. They in turn will be able to introduce you to some of the Russians (and they are Russians) working on the sites who, I'm sure, will be happy to tell you how much they paid for their EU passports. They will probably also tell you proudly about how much money they are able to send home to meet their plan of buying a nice apartment on the outskirts of Moscow in a couple of years time.
I am assuming (in the absence of any contradictory info, and based on what I have been able to find out about dual nationality/passport entitlements) that the people in the example you give are entitled to dual nationality as 'Russians' and some other EU state. And that they have taken up this entitlement.
I have no problem with this, and don't see it as a negative of being in the EU.
I also don't have a problem with individual member states having sovereignty over what criteria and requirements they place on people seeking citizenship. Ireland can offer passports to anyone who had a parent or grandparent born in Ireland and nobody in the EU is allowed to insist on stricter rules, residency requirements nor indeed say how much the Irish government can charge applicants for passports.
I think it would be wrong for states to start laying down the law to other member states on this - and am fine with Ireland and Romania giving passports to folks who meet their requirements.
You impute certain motives to the people who have taken advantage of their entitlements - the express purpose of circumventing the rules on freedom of movement which apply to non EU citizen . That seems debatable to me, but even so, I don't care.
I have no problem with EU citizens (as they are now, not what they were at some arbitrary cut-off point in the past) going to other places in the EU to earn a living. They are working, paying taxes, buying stuff - all things that bolster the economy.
I think it's great! It's one of the big advantages, for me, of EU membership.
You've benefited from it, Expat has, I have ... and who says what is the right thing or wrong thing to do with our earnings. If we want to buy a flat somewhere else, great.
tbh, this example reflects our fundamental difference of thinking on this, it seems to me.
No factual proof exists about anything in the future, but I would say that the key issue is the link between freedom of movement within the EU and the single market., which is basically the freedom of movement of goods and services without national tariffs and taxes etc.
When Boris idiotically said that the Italians might like to come to a separate deal so that Brits can continue to buy their prosecco, although Britain would reserve the right to limit people's movement from elsewhere in the EU (including Italy) the response from the Italian Commisioner was very simple and very correct - with our vote (or perhaps its interpretation) we have decided that we dont want people from the EU coming to the UK but we do want cheap goods (made cheap becuase they come from the EU).
There is no way these two can be separated, and we now face barriers to our goods from 26 countries that previously did not apply them to us and for 26 countries will have some or other item made more expensive (like prosecco from Italy) that Brits like to consume.
The reasoning doesn't work, we are threatening to cut off our nose, in effect, except if it is to conclude that Boris is a drivelling fool who seems to enjoy his little England playground prep school antics of baiting the foreigner and sniggering behind his fingers. We have gone back at least 50 years with the vote and another 25 with the politicians selected by Teresa M to implement it with their inane, abusive and damaging comments.
It depends what you call the long term future, 1 year, 5 years, 20 years, 50 years?? I know that there will undoubtedly be some short term volatility, but I don`t think this will be in any way worse than what The UK and The EU have suffered over various times over the course of the past 40 years + anyway. You only have to look at recent history to know how volatile "free markets" and capitalism generically are. Boom and bust. I think this cycle of boom and bust is not sustainable, the booms seem to be getting bigger, but inherently more fragile, they are consumer led and generally rely on burgeoning credit, and the busts, as we have seen, are getting deeper and longer. At the same time the gap between rich and poor (both from an individual and national level) widens, this cannot go on forever. As part of The EU we have very little influence over European social, political or economic policy, if we stay in I guarantee we will one day HAVE to join the Euro, the idea of a common currency is fine in principle, but has proved almost catastrophic for certain member states. We will also be sucked into a European army, we should be looking to demilitarise, not look to add another layer of (armed) bureaucracy. We will also be bound (some see this as a good thing) by trade deals negotiated on our behalf by The EU which may actually be detrimental to OUR economy, they may shut out markets and opportunities which we wish to pursue for OUR benefit. The larger an organisation gets the harder it becomes to please everybody. If we remain members of The EU we are bound forever to the social, political and economic doctrines of an organisation we may end up vehemently opposing. Central planning, however it is dressed up, never works. At some point "the plan" will be opposed by a number of people, if that number of people becomes significant, you have a problem. To put it simply, if The EU receives reports that there is a crisis in the supply of carrots, the crops have failed and peoples eye sight will damaged irreparably, then it would deem it right and proper to pass a dictat that from next spring all farmers should turn over 80% of their land to carrot production. Seems logical. However, The UK crop didn`t fail, we have plenty of carrots, Spain positively despises carrots, what are The UK and Spain to do?? Every instance of large scale "control" has proved historically to have failed, The EU by its very nature is failing, and it wants its member states to cede more and more of their sovereignty, their long standing, hard fought for powers to Brussels. Just. Plain. Wrong. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity, if we don`t leave now, we will forever be bound by the whims and wishes of Brussels, all member states will gradually relinquish their ability to not only make decisions, but influence in any meaningful way, what happens in their own backyards. As a coherent, co-operative trading bloc, The EU as a concept is fine, as an all encompassing social, economic, political "one size fits all" ideology it will fail. If we suffer 5, 10 or 15 years of "hardship" then so be it, at least we will have the choice and chance of shaping our own futures and on our own terms. From the people I have spoken to, the reasons for leaving are not economic ones, they are ideological ones, which is why I have always said, put up as many graphs and pie charts as you like, they make no difference at all from my perspective.
http://brendanoneill.co.uk/
So instead of "the plebs" perhaps we should put our trust in:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/01/tony-blair-sets-new-institute-tackle-brexit-populism/
Still, if democracy fails, at least there is still the courts to fall back on..........