Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Strokes said:

 Im not sure you believe that, you're a smart guy and that's the daftest thing I've read today.

So I may have gone a bit OTT on the Tory bit....

 

I do believe the Labour bit. I don't think they're particularly concerned about immigration at all. 

 

With the Tories I do think there is a substantial anti-EU wing in the party that is a real threat to this country. Unfortunately, that wing seems to hold a fair bit of sway. Also, TM repeatedly talked about the need to cut immigration and get away from the Euro courts. It appeared to me that the no deal scenario was what they honestly believed was a more popular choice than giving in on immigration and the courts. 

EDIT: Although I also found it hard to believe they could go through with that. The Tory position appears the most risky IMHO.

[Strokes]

26 minutes ago, toddybad said:

So I may have gone a bit OTT on the Tory bit....

 

I do believe the Labour bit. I don't think they're particularly concerned about immigration at all. 

 

With the Tories I do think there is a substantial anti-EU wing in the party that is a real threat to this country. Unfortunately, that wing seems to hold a fair bit of sway. Also, TM repeatedly talked about the need to cut immigration and get away from the Euro courts. It appeared to me that the no deal scenario was what they honestly believed was a more popular choice than giving in on immigration and the courts. 

No deal is better than giving in over immigration and the courts, if you are going to give in on those you might as well stay full membership. People talk like a trade deal can't be negotiated in such a short time frame but it can, as we already have one with the membership it just needs extending. 

Jeremy Corbyn wants to leave the EU, it's what I like about him. He won't end immigration, no party will. He might have looser controls over it, although I really don't think the conservatives really plan on stemming it. 

The only problem I have with immigration from the EU, is it deters companies from training staff adequately, why train someone up, when you can go get a readymade from abroad? We owe it to our kids to have a workplace that develops and trains staff, so they can prosper. If we all have to be collectively poorer for that, then fine. That's part of my ideology, if you truly believe in a fairer society, you should at least understand that. 

I would like my vote/our votes to actually be worthwhile, not diluted by unaccountable dictators in Brussels.

I know it's fair game to paint all tories as nasty old bigoted money hoarders that vote for themselves but that's not entirely true. Some of us are middle aged.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Strokes said:

No deal is better than giving in over immigration and the courts, if you are going to give in on those you might as well stay full membership. People talk like a trade deal can't be negotiated in such a short time frame but it can, as we already have one with the membership it just needs extending. 

Jeremy Corbyn wants to leave the EU, it's what I like about him. He won't end immigration, no party will. He might have looser controls over it, although I really don't think the conservatives really plan on stemming it. 

The only problem I have with immigration from the EU, is it deters companies from training staff adequately, why train someone up, when you can go get a readymade from abroad? We owe it to our kids to have a workplace that develops and trains staff, so they can prosper. If we all have to be collectively poorer for that, then fine. That's part of my ideology, if you truly believe in a fairer society, you should at least understand that. 

I would like my vote/our votes to actually be worthwhile, not diluted by unaccountable dictators in Brussels.

I know it's fair game to paint all tories as nasty old bigoted money hoarders that vote for themselves but that's not entirely true. Some of us our middle aged.

Look, I'm a firm believer in staying in the EU but of course I can see both sides of the argument.

I do have concerns over immigration levels. I think they have been too high. I think they do impact upon jobs/services etc. I don't neccessarily think its to blame for everything as Farage tells everybody, At the same time, however, the world has changed. Globalisation has changed everything and we can't pretend otherwise. The reality is the NHS can't function without immigration. The same can be said of other areas of the economy. 

There is nothing stopping us developing the workforce of tomorrow already. If we got rid of tuition fees and properly policed the minimum wage then the young could afford higher education and EU national couldn't undercut our own workforce. I think what is really needed (and I suspect you'll agree with this) is for the government to engage with both industry and education to find a way forward that involves HE/FE establishments offering training and education that gives employers the skills they need, then not charge tuition fees (but charge for David Beckham degrees etc). The government could foot the bill possibly with industry paying into this. THIS is how to improve the chances of our young. 

Regarding votes, if you want votes to be worthwhile then the first thing we have to do is introduce PR so every vote actually counts. I personally don't have a problem with European accountability. There probably is a need to have less paid technocrats with power and more elected officials but things will move in that direction as the EU integrates further. The reality is that you could vote for MEPs in this country but everybody (well everybody out of the minority that actually voted in european elections) was voting UKIP rather than trying to have a positive effect on european politics. 

I'm sure there are plenty of very nice tories but, at this moment, they're on the wrong side. 

 

EDIT: too many typos and spelling mistakes to fix. Somehow I type better on my phone than my daughter's laptop!

[Foxxed]

 

Dave's just conceded to sort the "you agreed to pay into the budget but now now you're f---ing off" bill before the free trade talks.

 

He conceded his first demand rather quickly. Strange since they need our market much more than we need their market. I'm sure he'll be strong on the free trade talks though.

 

We've just paid to throw away our sizable influence in the world's largest trading block. Strong. Powerful.

[Foxxed]

Davis's face looks like he's waking up from a delusion. Sad bulldog face, innit.

[Buce]

8 hours ago, Strokes said:

 Im not sure you believe that, you're a smart guy and that's the daftest thing I've read today.

 

Do you have Thracian on ignore then?

 

7 hours ago, Strokes said:

No deal is better than giving in over immigration and the courts, if you are going to give in on those you might as well stay full membership. People talk like a trade deal can't be negotiated in such a short time frame but it can, as we already have one with the membership it just needs extending. 

Jeremy Corbyn wants to leave the EU, it's what I like about him. He won't end immigration, no party will. He might have looser controls over it, although I really don't think the conservatives really plan on stemming it. 

The only problem I have with immigration from the EU, is it deters companies from training staff adequately, why train someone up, when you can go get a readymade from abroad? We owe it to our kids to have a workplace that develops and trains staff, so they can prosper. If we all have to be collectively poorer for that, then fine. That's part of my ideology, if you truly believe in a fairer society, you should at least understand that. 

I would like my vote/our votes to actually be worthwhile, not diluted by unaccountable dictators in Brussels.

I know it's fair game to paint all tories as nasty old bigoted money hoarders that vote for themselves but that's not entirely true. Some of us are middle aged.

 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

[Thracian]

Seems to me we should just eat humble pie and climb back in with the federalist fans of free movement and slowly wave goodbye to the world we know and have mostly enjoyed until Blair's intervention..  

 

All we're negotiating - or likely to get now - is to be bound by the same rules but lose all say and all sorts.

 

If our membership of the EU were scrutinised like the Grenfell Towers tragedy it show the shiftily subdued ways we threw away our independence but a big body of influence would be delighted by that, so there'd be no backlash and we'd still be left walking in a theoretical wonderland that will one day prove a nightmare of naivity and a form of mass ideological suicide.

 

Forward thiking's not about seeing what's in front of your eyes but what's round the corner.           

[Jon the Hat]

7 hours ago, Foxxed said:

 

Dave's just conceded to sort the "you agreed to pay into the budget but now now you're f---ing off" bill before the free trade talks.

 

He conceded his first demand rather quickly. Strange since they need our market much more than we need their market. I'm sure he'll be strong on the free trade talks though.

 

We've just paid to throw away our sizable influence in the world's largest trading block. Strong. Powerful.

We weren't going to win that one.  Pick your battles.  Lets see what we actually end up paying.  I think some compromise over commitment vs share of assets will work on balance.  None of this will be finalised before we agree trade deals, you realise this?  

[Thracian]

10 hours ago, toddybad said:

But it comes down to personal interpretation of what the two parties were saying. 

 

My reading (and it doesn't matter if this is different to your reading because it was my vote):

 

Labour - we want tariff-free access to the single market. We'll mention immigration because we feel we have to but we don't really believe it. We will reach a deal on the single market whatever happens. 

 

Tories - we want tariff-free access to the single market. But we want to reduce immigration from the EU too. And we're sticking to our guns on that. Oh and we aren't particularly interested in the customs union either. We're hopelessly divided over Europe and cant do anything other than risk the whole thing if the EU plays hard ball because of the significant anti-EU feeling within our party. 

Labour have no interest in curbing immigration. It's just a way of importing votes to them whatever the consequences.      

[DJ Barry Hammond]

3 minutes ago, Thracian said:

Seems to me we should just eat humble pie and climb back in with the federalist fans of free movement and slowly wave goodbye to the world we know and have mostly enjoyed until Blair's intervention..  

 

All we're negotiating - or likely to get now - is to be bound by the same rules but lose all say and all sorts.

 

If our membership of the EU were scrutinised like the Grenfell Towers tragedy it show the shiftily subdued ways we threw away our independence but a big body of influence would be delighted by that, so there'd be no backlash and we'd still be left walking in a theoretical wonderland that will one day prove a nightmare of naivity and a form of mass ideological suicide.

 

Forward thiking's not about seeing what's in front of your eyes but what's round the corner.           

 

These days it's easy to forget, when we joined in the 1970's Europe had had a long and recent history of tearing lumps off each other. 

 

That many a memory no longer go back to those times probably makes the idea of pooling some areas of sovereignty for the sake of peace a minor consideration these days, especially given the fact we face very different threats now - but we should not forget that regardless of what you think of the EU now, it was born out of a noble cause and has been so far successful in achieving that aim.

 

The other thing I'm quite astounded by... that was the 1st day of talks. So the UK conceded on the time table. It would have been stupid not too - pick your fights, that wasn't the one to have.

 

 

[Jon the Hat]

9 hours ago, toddybad said:

Look, I'm a firm believer in staying in the EU but of course I can see both sides of the argument.

I do have concerns over immigration levels. I think they have been too high. I think they do impact upon jobs/services etc. I don't neccessarily think its to blame for everything as Farage tells everybody, At the same time, however, the world has changed. Globalisation has changed everything and we can't pretend otherwise. The reality is the NHS can't function without immigration. The same can be said of other areas of the economy. 

There is nothing stopping us developing the workforce of tomorrow already. If we got rid of tuition fees and properly policed the minimum wage then the young could afford higher education and EU national couldn't undercut our own workforce. I think what is really needed (and I suspect you'll agree with this) is for the government to engage with both industry and education to find a way forward that involves HE/FE establishments offering training and education that gives employers the skills they need, then not charge tuition fees (but charge for David Beckham degrees etc). The government could foot the bill possibly with industry paying into this. THIS is how to improve the chances of our young. 

Regarding votes, if you want votes to be worthwhile then the first thing we have to do is introduce PR so every vote actually counts. I personally don't have a problem with European accountability. There probably is a need to have less paid technocrats with power and more elected officials but things will move in that direction as the EU integrates further. The reality is that you could vote for MEPs in this country but everybody (well everybody out of the minority that actually voted in european elections) was voting UKIP rather than trying to have a positive effect on european politics. 

I'm sure there are plenty of very nice tories but, at this moment, they're on the wrong side. 

 

EDIT: too many typos and spelling mistakes to fix. Somehow I type better on my phone than my daughter's laptop!

I do get confused as to why anyone thinks we would not recruit staff for the NHS.  We need them, everyone agrees we need them, and we will hire them.  We hire plenty from outside the EU without too much difficulty, so I don't see why people keep making out this is an issue.

 

I also get confused as to why anyone thinks tuition "fees" should deter anyone from attending university, to study nursing or medicine or anything else.  Literally no one ever said "**** going to uni and becoming a successful doctor, I would have to pay higher rate tax!!".  Explain to me how having to pay a % of your salary in "loan" repayments is any different?  (hint - it isn't).  I note also that Labour supporters are quite happy for the better paid to pay more tax in general, but not in the case of tuition fees.  Any logic here?

 

It's sweet that you think there is a right and wrong side of politics

[Jon the Hat]

1 minute ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

These days it's easy to forget, when we joined in the 1970's Europe had had a long and recent history of tearing lumps off each other. 

 

That many a memory no longer go back to those times probably makes the idea of pooling some areas of sovereignty for the sake of peace a minor consideration these days, especially given the fact we face very different threats now - but we should not forget that regardless of what you think of the EU now, it was born out of a noble cause and has been so far successful in achieving that aim.

 

The other thing I'm quite astounded by... that was the 1st day of talks. So the UK conceded on the time table. It would have been stupid not too - pick your fights, that wasn't the one to have.

 

 

Indeed you could argue the EU has been a stabilising force, although I think international trade and NATO had more impact.  That is not necessarily an argument to stay in it forever.  The world changed, the EU is run by federalists, and we have zero interest in closer political and fiscal integration.  Time to move on.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

4 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Indeed you could argue the EU has been a stabilising force, although I think international trade and NATO had more impact.  That is not necessarily an argument to stay in it forever.  The world changed, the EU is run by federalists, and we have zero interest in closer political and fiscal integration.  Time to move on.

 

Don't disagree with your sentiment... even if I'd have preferred us to stay in and try and move the EU away from ever closer Union... given that could be a receipe for war in itself. 

 

But my point was purely rely focused on Thracian's comments about scrutinising our time within and throwing away our independence, which belies the fact as a country we've got plenty out of being in the EU.

[Innovindil]

12 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I do get confused as to why anyone thinks we would not recruit staff for the NHS.  We need them, everyone agrees we need them, and we will hire them.  We hire plenty from outside the EU without too much difficulty, so I don't see why people keep making out this is an issue.

 

I also get confused as to why anyone thinks tuition "fees" should deter anyone from attending university, to study nursing or medicine or anything else.  Literally no one ever said "**** going to uni and becoming a successful doctor, I would have to pay higher rate tax!!".  Explain to me how having to pay a % of your salary in "loan" repayments is any different?  (hint - it isn't).  I note also that Labour supporters are quite happy for the better paid to pay more tax in general, but not in the case of tuition fees.  Any logic here?

 

It's sweet that you think there is a right and wrong side of politics

Yeah I don't get this bit either. I was under the impression you don't have to pay back the "loans" until you were already earning a fair amount. Don't understand how it's a negative to pay for a service you use.  I've never heard of a single person being denied student loans to go into further education, even those whose families aren't in the best financial state. 

[Jon the Hat]

12 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Yeah I don't get this bit either. I was under the impression you don't have to pay back the "loans" until you were already earning a fair amount. Don't understand how it's a negative to pay for a service you use.  I've never heard of a single person being denied student loans to go into further education, even those whose families aren't in the best financial state. 

Indeed the low paid will pay back very little and have most of it written off.  This is a more effective way of charging that having variable up front rates, as you pay based on the benefit you get rather than the cost to deliver a course.  Generally the longer course lead to better rewarded professions I think.

If it also makes people think twice about doing a wanky degree then all the better.

[Guest BlueBrett]

27 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Yeah I don't get this bit either. I was under the impression you don't have to pay back the "loans" until you were already earning a fair amount. Don't understand how it's a negative to pay for a service you use.  I've never heard of a single person being denied student loans to go into further education, even those whose families aren't in the best financial state. 

Yeah it's so frustrating to hear people talk about low income kids being 'priced out' of going to university when there is no up front cost whatsoever. Easy propaganda though I guess.

 

Having amassed over 30k of student debt myself, I still feel like university education is something you should have to pay for. If it was publicly funded it seems likely the quality of the courses would suffer. I've often wondered though whether it's right that all courses should be priced the same. Maybe there should be some kind of link between the cost of delivering the programme and the amount you have to pay. I mean a 3 year politics degree with 8 contact hours a week and no course materials beyond online journals and library books obviously costs the university a lot less than say a 5 year dentistry programme which requires all sorts of tech, materials and way more teaching hours. Plus if you do a course to prepare you for a specific profession like this you are virtually guaranteed a well paying job as soon as you graduate whereas a degree in humanities comes with no such comfort blanket. Obviously it would be unreasonable to expect students of the sciences to pay for the entire cost of the course but perhaps it would be fair if the course to course fee structure at least acknowledged the vast difference in delivery costs and, to a lesser extent, the tangibility of the value of the qualification you receive at the end.

[Foxxed]

1 hour ago, Thracian said:

Seems to me we should just eat humble pie and climb back in with the federalist fans of free movement and slowly wave goodbye to the world we know and have mostly enjoyed until Blair's intervention..  

       

 

1 hour ago, Thracian said:

Forward thiking's not about seeing what's in front of your eyes but what's round the corner.           

And when you look at our trading links, what gives you better leverage in trade negotiations (hint, it's not having a smaller market), our economy and its dependencies and the surrounding world economy then you can see round the corner and go "Oh."

 

I'm not anti-Brexit per se, but when you look at how our economy is shaped and our competitive advantages against the Single Market then the phrase economic suicide springs to my mind.

 

If the UK had an industry that gave us immense economic competitive advantage, like the industrial revolution or tech revolution, rather than a financial industry which is so heavily dependent on the Single Market it's already moving (https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1WJtRyiXqs4QG0Px3kR-pGMYScAM&ll=53.52689954771088%2C3.4575292560105026&z=5) and has warned heavily against this, then I'd consider Brexit.

 

But we're not at that point. Get to that point of economic advantage - and get past the point when our government and parties shirks responsibility for poor economic policy on immigration and our trading partners - then I'd consider Brexit as wise.

[Foxxed]

I always believed British economy and British diplomacy and British reputation works to help shape the world - not retreat from it.

[Innovindil]

17 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

Yeah it's so frustrating to hear people talk about low income kids being 'priced out' of going to university when there is no up front cost whatsoever. Easy propaganda though I guess.

 

Having amassed over 30k of student debt myself, I still feel like university education is something you should have to pay for. If it was publicly funded it seems likely the quality of the courses would suffer. I've often wondered though whether it's right that all courses should be priced the same. Maybe there should be some kind of link between the cost of delivering the programme and the amount you have to pay. I mean a 3 year politics degree with 8 contact hours a week and no course materials beyond online journals and library books obviously costs the university a lot less than say a 5 year dentistry programme which requires all sorts of tech, materials and way more teaching hours. Plus if you do a course to prepare you for a specific profession like this you are virtually guaranteed a well paying job as soon as you graduate whereas a degree in humanities comes with no such comfort blanket. Obviously it would be unreasonable to expect students of the sciences to pay for the entire cost of the course but perhaps it would be fair if the course to course fee structure at least acknowledged the vast difference in delivery costs and, to a lesser extent, the tangibility of the value of the qualification you receive at the end.

My worry with offering further education for free would be the amount of people that would take it up just to have a few years ****ing about. Don't know about you, but when I was 16 I'd have loved to get away from home and cause a little chaos. If you don't have to worry about paying the money back, you aren't going to be as committed to getting the most out of your education surely. 

 

About pricing brackets I completely agree. They seem a bit skewed right now, if I remember right something like 70% of all courses charge the maximum amount? Doesn't sound right to me at all.

[Innovindil]

13 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

I always believed British economy and British diplomacy and British reputation works to help shape the world - not retreat from it.

We can't even shape ourselves. How exactly are you expecting us to shape the world? 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

I do get confused as to why anyone thinks we would not recruit staff for the NHS.  We need them, everyone agrees we need them, and we will hire them.  We hire plenty from outside the EU without too much difficulty, so I don't see why people keep making out this is an issue.

 

I also get confused as to why anyone thinks tuition "fees" should deter anyone from attending university, to study nursing or medicine or anything else.  Literally no one ever said "**** going to uni and becoming a successful doctor, I would have to pay higher rate tax!!".  Explain to me how having to pay a % of your salary in "loan" repayments is any different?  (hint - it isn't).  I note also that Labour supporters are quite happy for the better paid to pay more tax in general, but not in the case of tuition fees.  Any logic here?

 

It's sweet that you think there is a right and wrong side of politics

We've had this conversation before though Jon - a nurse will be earning £25k with a £30k debt repaid forever as a 9% tax. That isn't going to help us recruit from within is it?

[davieG]

42 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

Yeah it's so frustrating to hear people talk about low income kids being 'priced out' of going to university when there is no up front cost whatsoever. Easy propaganda though I guess.

 

Having amassed over 30k of student debt myself, I still feel like university education is something you should have to pay for. If it was publicly funded it seems likely the quality of the courses would suffer. I've often wondered though whether it's right that all courses should be priced the same. Maybe there should be some kind of link between the cost of delivering the programme and the amount you have to pay. I mean a 3 year politics degree with 8 contact hours a week and no course materials beyond online journals and library books obviously costs the university a lot less than say a 5 year dentistry programme which requires all sorts of tech, materials and way more teaching hours. Plus if you do a course to prepare you for a specific profession like this you are virtually guaranteed a well paying job as soon as you graduate whereas a degree in humanities comes with no such comfort blanket. Obviously it would be unreasonable to expect students of the sciences to pay for the entire cost of the course but perhaps it would be fair if the course to course fee structure at least acknowledged the vast difference in delivery costs and, to a lesser extent, the tangibility of the value of the qualification you receive at the end.

Or you could take the view that the degrees that provide trained people for jobs where we have a shortage and have to import that skill should be subsidised to encourage greater numbers being trained. 

However this would require some forward and lateral thinking but as we are a nation/political set up that generally can't see beyond the immediate cost saving and isolated impact of decisions then I can't see that working anyway.

[Innovindil]

1 minute ago, davieG said:

Or you could take the view that the degrees that provide trained people for jobs where we have a shortage and have to import that skill should be subsidised to encourage greater numbers being trained. 

However this would require some forward and lateral thinking but as we are a nation/political set up that generally can't see beyond the immediate cost saving and isolated impact of decisions then I can't see that working anyway.

Why should we have to bribe people to get educated? It's in their best interests too. How about we start teaching people to take accountability for themselves, instead of constantly hearing "I don't earn enough as a part-time burger flipper, this country isn't fair!". 

 

I'd much rather be on a decent wage with additional tax than on minimum wage with none, that's for damn sure. 

[Bayfox]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Yeah I don't get this bit either. I was under the impression you don't have to pay back the "loans" until you were already earning a fair amount. Don't understand how it's a negative to pay for a service you use.  I've never heard of a single person being denied student loans to go into further education, even those whose families aren't in the best financial state. 

Correct I can't remember the exact figure but sure it's north of 20k before you have to pay any back, my wife borrowed a small amount only about 5k or something when at uni and although she has done ok for herself she works in local authority so the wages aren't up there like private, but it has taken her over 10 years to pay it back as it's such a small percentage that you hardly notice it in the deductions.