Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, davieG said:

Restrictions or not the biggest impact was having to share our fishing grounds with rest of the EU.

We have no way of knowing whether or not that's true, so I'm just going to operate on the not unreasonable assumption that UK fishermen are equally as self interested as their EU counterparts (being human and all) and would have covered those areas that the EU fishermen did in a similar way anyway.

 

20 minutes ago, davieG said:

Well the result is obviously more severe with having to share with the rest of the EU.

With respect, I think there's nothing obvious about it, for the reasons above. It's not like the demand for fish in the UK has ever been met in a way that meant the fishermen wouldn't keep pushing for bigger and bigger hauls.

[Alf Bentley]

46 minutes ago, davieG said:

It was but we were still not aware of the impact it would have as far as I was led to believe it was about standardisation to make trade easier. 

Heath told everyone that our fishing rights would remain the same knowing quite well that after a number of years they woul be restricted.

 

 

As for the fishing industry not particularly but many of those other industry were due to our inability to adapt to the new competition from abroad. With the fishing our rights to our fishing grounds were severely reduce to allow other Common Market countries equal access, therefore to avoid overfishing due to all the additional foreign boats quotas were introduced thus causing a massive reduction in our fishing fleets.

 

Thanks for clarifying your view.

 

I don't have sufficient knowledge of this subject to make too many claims. But the idea that, left to its own devices, the UK would not have depleted fishing resources seems dubious.

We seem to have depleted wildlife on land through the use of more intensive farming methods and pesticides, without any EU farmers coming onto our land.

 

It's my understanding that the fishing catch has declined in other EU countries, too - partly to maintain viable stock reproduction. There has also been a shift from smaller family-run boats to large vessels, which obviously makes the smaller boats less viable, and I understand that the UK has gone further in this direction (intensive fishing by larger vessels) than most other countries, though the trend is general. Same applies in agriculture, where there are still a lot more small farmers in France (and even Germany, I think) compared to the UK, apart from certain areas like Wales, hill farms etc. My knowledge is limited, though.

 

Granted, British fishermen and the British economy would have benefited more economically during the decline in stocks, if there had been no shared access to waters. But likewise, British fishing fleets enjoy access to continental waters - and access to EU markets on better terms under the Single Market. I remember reading that a lot of the British catch is exported to the continent - and a lot of the fish that we eat in the UK is caught by continental boats. 

 

Enough from me, as I lack expertise.....

 

Interesting blog here (can't vouch for its accuracy, but it looks credible - from LSE): http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/06/10/dont-blame-the-eu-for-the-decline-in-some-british-fishing-ports/

[Buce]

Just now, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

Strokes' avatar suggests that his dog is fully equipped to assist in this task.

 

All very patriotic, like the "Dig for Victory" grow-your-own campaign during WW2. 

 

You’re obviously not a gardener, Alf, if you think you can fertilize edibles with dogshit. 

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

You’re obviously not a gardener, Alf, if you think you can fertilize edibles with dogshit. 

 

I have unlimited faith in the special powers of Strokes' dog's anus. It spoke to me once before, don't you remember? 

[davieG]

5 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Enough from me, as I lack expertise.....

I guess that goes for all of us we’re all relying on what we read and hear from other sources.

 

But what I do know is that I voted to stay back then and my understanding was that it was just a Common Market not an ever merging political union. I have nothing against that in principal provided there’s sufficient common approach to life to enable sufficient agreement but as it seems we can’t even achieve that in the UK then I see no future, well not for a very long time in a politically and culturally united Europe.

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I have unlimited faith in the special powers of Strokes' dog's anus. It spoke to me once before, don't you remember? 

 

I remember Strokes talking out of his own arse a time or two...  

 

...but memories of his dog’s is sketchy. Remind me. 

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, davieG said:

I guess that goes for all of us we’re all relying on what we read and hear from other sources.

 

But what I do know is that I voted to stay back then and my understanding was that it was just a Common Market not an ever merging political union. I have nothing against that in principal provided there’s sufficient common approach to life to enable sufficient agreement but as it seems we can’t even achieve that in the UK then I see no future, well not for a very long time in a politically and culturally united Europe.

 

Quite agree with your first point.

 

I recognise the difficulties that you describe in your second point, too. Some would argue that the EU is attempting to achieve the political unity that you describe, and that cultural unity is not necessary (or maybe even possible), that we just need agreed rules for handling cultural differences. There are fewer cultural differences than there used to be, anyway.

 

Bottom line for me is that the capitalist economy increasingly operates on an international or global level, so democracy increasingly needs to operate internationally or globally. Otherwise, we end up in a world that operates solely to suit big capital (not even small capital) as global capital can exert more power than national democracies and can play them off against one another so as to maximise profits. That's why I have almost as little time for Corbyn's Euroscepticism based on ideas of "socialism in one country" as I have for Euroscepticism motivated by nationalism and/or the quest for deregulation to suit big business interests.

[Alf Bentley]

30 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I remember Strokes talking out of his own arse a time or two...  

 

...but memories of his dog’s is sketchy. Remind me. 

 

Special powers used to broadcast fake news.....

Don't blame me, you asked!

 

[bovril]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46257168

Brexit plan will stop EU migrants 'jumping the queue'

Those 'queue jumpers' include my partner, my housemate, many of my work colleagues, my brother in law and many of the doctors and nurses who recently cared for my Dad when he was sick. Nice that their contributions are so appreciated. 

Edited 19 November 2018 by bovril

[simFox]

The fishing stocks depleted not due to over fishing, it was using the wrong nets and poor marine management. It was a bit of a ruse at the time and the northern fishing towns, like the mining towns haven't forgot.

 

Plenty of info on it. I'll dig it out, but I believe the sand eels were the cause, which led to a breakdown in the ecological system.

Edited 19 November 2018 by simFox

[simFox]

Fishing

 

If anyone's interested, here's a good read'

 

http://campaignforanindependentbritain.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Fisheries-booklet-FULL.pdf

[Alf Bentley]

14 hours ago, bovril said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46257168

Brexit plan will stop EU migrants 'jumping the queue'

Those 'queue jumpers' include my partner, my housemate, many of my work colleagues, my brother in law and many of the doctors and nurses who recently cared for my Dad when he was sick. Nice that their contributions are so appreciated. 

 

 

Indeed. Likewise, presumably you were a "queue jumper" when you were working in Bulgaria, Italy and wherever. Presumably I was a "queue jumper" during my stints working in France and Portugal and studying in Spain. Presumably my Dad was a "queue jumper" when he arrived from Ireland, was employed by the British merchant navy and then devoted his career to the Immigration Service. Likewise, my Czech cardiologist, my Dad's Greek carer, the French woman who used to give me lots of translation jobs.

 

Dog-whistle stuff to bolster support for her deal by appealing to racists and Sun readers. I love the disingenuous aspect to it. As if her audience is going to be happy to see all the Europeans go home and be replaced by Indians (Australians are always mentioned in this vision of "global Britain", but never Pakistanis or Nigerians, I notice).

 

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

Indeed. Likewise, presumably you were a "queue jumper" when you were working in Bulgaria, Italy and wherever. Presumably I was a "queue jumper" during my stints working in France and Portugal and studying in Spain. Presumably my Dad was a "queue jumper" when he arrived from Ireland, was employed by the British merchant navy and then devoted his career to the Immigration Service. Likewise, my Czech cardiologist, my Dad's Greek carer, the French woman who used to give me lots of translation jobs.

 

Dog-whistle stuff to bolster support for her deal by appealing to racists and Sun readers. I love the disingenuous aspect to it. As if her audience is going to be happy to see all the Europeans go home and be replaced by Indians (Australians are always mentioned in this vision of "global Britain", but never Pakistanis or Nigerians, I notice).

 

Yeah, it's always them, Canada and New Zealand. Just three countries selected entirely at random whenever greater bonds with the Commonwealth are mentioned. Nothing more to it, I'm sure...

[Innovindil]

Hold on a minute, weren't some in here reeeing about the NHS not being allowed to import foreign doctors/nurses/whatever because of immigration quotas? Now having a skill based system is being touted we've still got people reeeing about those with skills being given priority? 

 

Jesus wept. 

[Alf Bentley]

Just now, Voll Blau said:

Yeah, it's always them, Canada and New Zealand. Just three countries selected entirely at random whenever greater bonds with the Commonwealth are mentioned. Nothing more to it, I'm sure...

 

To be fair to them, they're slightly subtler than that. They do often refer to Indians to add the message "we're not racist, you know". But I never recall any positive reference to Pakistani or African immigrants in this "global Britain".....

 

I suppose Indians are deemed more acceptable as most people will have been seen by an Indian doctor or been to an Indian restaurant (even if many are run by Bangladeshis) whereas Pakistanis are associated with Islamist terrorism and child sex abuse - and Africans? 

[Alf Bentley]

12 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Hold on a minute, weren't some in here reeeing about the NHS not being allowed to import foreign doctors/nurses/whatever because of immigration quotas? Now having a skill based system is being touted we've still got people reeeing about those with skills being given priority? 

 

Jesus wept. 

 

The point was about May describing Europeans living and working here legally as "jumping the queue". If you'd quite legally taken up a job in France, would you be happy for the French PM to describe you as a "queue jumper"?

If you were a doctor or nurse working all hours doing a valuable job in a French hospital, would that make you feel welcome and want to stay in France?

 

The problem at the moment in the NHS is staff shortages, exacerbated by a major outflow of European staff, partly due to them no longer feeling welcome here. In the meantime, the govt seems to be doing next to nothing to prepare others to fill those vacancies, even hindering the process by eliminating nurse training bursaries.

 

There's also the plan not to allow migrants to come for jobs paying less than £30k. That will affect nursing (except higher grades, maybe), not to mention sectors like catering, care homes, farm labour.....and what is being done to ensure that labour is available for such jobs?

[FoxNotFox]

It sounds, on the face of it, as if stopping the 'queue jumping' is a fairer system but there's a degree of spin to it, no? It also (perhaps deliberately?) muddles the image of a passport control queue with a jobs queue, but whatever, moot perhaps. It's certainly an emotive - and, imho, unhelpful and misleading - turn of phrase.

 

What May is saying is that everyone, regardless of nationality, will be subject to the same immigration checks and controls - EU citizen and non-EU citizen alike are now in a single queue controlled by HMG (Note that EU citizens weren't actually in an immigration queue at all, so couldn't really be accused of 'queue jumping' per se as they weren't required to be in the queue... but that's perhaps being pedantic). This ends the contentious 'freedom of movement' that makes it easier for businesses to employ EU citizens over non-EU, and as easy as to employ a British citizen. 

 

To assert queue jumping then there's an assumption required that there are British citizens ready and able to do the available jobs, and that EU candidates have been given preference for some reason. That is, the assumption that EU citizens have 'queue jumped' ahead of British citizens in the jobs queue rather than just/also ahead of non-EU citizens in an immigration queue - right there is the muddling of imagery I mentioned. 

 

I'm sure employers may not necessarily agree with that assumption. I'd guess that they see themselves as simply employing from an available talent pool. They would perhaps see the end of freedom of movement as the reduction of the size of that talent pool. I suspect that's an over simplification (both by me AND of the argument) but as 'queue jumping' is seen as inherently unfair (particularly in Britain  ) then it's an argument that carries an intuitive 'rightness' even if it does betray the reality.

Edited 20 November 2018 by FoxNotFox

[Innovindil]

7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

The point was about May describing Europeans living and working here legally as "jumping the queue". If you'd quite legally taken up a job in France, would you be happy for the French PM to describe you as a "queue jumper"?

If you were a doctor or nurse working all hours doing a valuable job in a French hospital, would that make you feel welcome and want to stay in France?

 

The problem at the moment in the NHS is staff shortages, exacerbated by a major outflow of European staff, partly due to them no longer feeling welcome here. In the meantime, the govt seems to be doing next to nothing to prepare others to fill those vacancies, even hindering the process by eliminating nurse training bursaries.

 

There's also the plan not to allow migrants to come for jobs paying less than £30k. That will affect nursing (except higher grades, maybe), not to mention sectors like catering, care homes, farm labour.....and what is being done to ensure that labour is available for such jobs?

I wouldn't give a crap what the french pm said as I'm not looking to play the victim. You make out like these people are here out of the kindness of their hearts and not because living conditions/wages/opportunities/whatever are better here than at home. Yes, they provide a valuable service, but let's not pretend they get nothing it return. 

 

Yes, NHS is suffering from staff shortages, maybe they should use some of the extra billions that's just been marked for them to target the million or so people already here without employment to fill those jobs, instead of taking the easy way out of getting outside help in. 

 

As for the third paragraph, good! You want people raised from the bottom of the ladder, you want to see people lifted out of poverty, that's exactly how you do it. Not by bringing in hundreds of thousands of people every year to flood the labour market with cheap labour, while handing out money to people at the bottom so they can get by, you do it by making the people at the bottom command a higher price. You can see it working right now in the figures, it's not a coincidence that wages are rising now that Europeans are leaving is it. Don't get me wrong, some sectors won't cope, others will adapt and invest to raise productivity, others will charge higher prices to offset increasing wage demands, but overall, it surely has to be a better option, especially for those at the bottom. 

[Innovindil]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46223217

 

Crazy good timing from the BBC to back up a story I said a while back about my Polish co-worker. When I was shot down and pretty much called a liar. 

 

By all means, argue that this is a good thing, that it benefits poorer countries and helps spread wealth, but don't for one second argue that taking £8billion from the UK economy has any benefit at all to the people at the bottom in this country. 

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

I wouldn't give a crap what the french pm said as I'm not looking to play the victim. You make out like these people are here out of the kindness of their hearts and not because living conditions/wages/opportunities/whatever are better here than at home. Yes, they provide a valuable service, but let's not pretend they get nothing it return. Straw man argument. I said nothing about people being here "out of the kindness of their hearts" or "getting nothing in return". Not wanting to be abused for doing something perfectly legal, just because you're a foreigner, is not "playing the victim". I hope you've never "jumped the queue" by seeing your GP, attending school, obtaining a passport or doing other legal stuff?

 

Yes, NHS is suffering from staff shortages, maybe they should use some of the extra billions that's just been marked for them to target the million or so people already here without employment to fill those jobs, instead of taking the easy way out of getting outside help in. Precisely the point that I made about the govt doing nothing to prepare others (e.g. Brits) to fill vacancies & actively hindering the process re. nursing bursaries. Of course, training people for skilled jobs takes several years and requires spending (more tax?) and only some of the 1m+ unemployed will be suitable....not an excuse to do nothing, though - and not a good idea to alienate skilled European employees in the meantime.

 

As for the third paragraph, good! You want people raised from the bottom of the ladder, you want to see people lifted out of poverty, that's exactly how you do it. Not by bringing in hundreds of thousands of people every year to flood the labour market with cheap labour, while handing out money to people at the bottom so they can get by, you do it by making the people at the bottom command a higher price. You can see it working right now in the figures, it's not a coincidence that wages are rising now that Europeans are leaving is it. Don't get me wrong, some sectors won't cope, others will adapt and invest to raise productivity, others will charge higher prices to offset increasing wage demands, but overall, it surely has to be a better option, especially for those at the bottom.  I agree with some of this, but if the outflow of European labour continues, the govt will need to intervene to help ensure that Brits are taking up those jobs in the spud fields, care homes, kitchens etc. Market forces causing a slight increase in pay levels won't be enough alone. Again, there will be various knock-on effects: higher care home fees (when councils are already struggling financially due to central govt funding cuts) or more care homes closing and more elderly staying with family, who may have to give up work; higher food prices if farm labour costs more or some farmers jack it in; higher prices in catering outlets so punters have less to spend elsewhere etc. If there's a big switch to more Brit labour, there needs to be some planning for it. It also requires a change in mindset as a lot of people wouldn't consider working in a care home, turnip field or kitchen for various reasons (unsociable hours, distant location, dirty work, low social status etc.). 

 

[urban.spaceman]

 

[Guest MattP]

Do people really get that wound up about someome using the term "queue jumpers" - it's not ideal language but it's pretty clear surely the point she was intending to make was it was easier for EU nationals to get here than others who may have been more helpful to us as a country.

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

Yeah, it's always them, Canada and New Zealand. Just three countries selected entirely at random whenever greater bonds with the Commonwealth are mentioned. Nothing more to it, I'm sure...

 

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

To be fair to them, they're slightly subtler than that. They do often refer to Indians to add the message "we're not racist, you know". But I never recall any positive reference to Pakistani or African immigrants in this "global Britain".....

 

I suppose Indians are deemed more acceptable as most people will have been seen by an Indian doctor or been to an Indian restaurant (even if many are run by Bangladeshis) whereas Pakistanis are associated with Islamist terrorism and child sex abuse - and Africans? 

You aren't the only ones to say this and it always leaves me baffled as it's the total opposite of what I hear.

 

At the Vote Leave event I attended in Leicester there was a speech on the growing African economies - on Any Questions just a couple of months ago a leaver (think it was Dale) specifically mentioned "Indian or Pakistani doctors". Jacob Rees-Mogg always mentioned non white countries on the issue.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/149de13e-44aa-11e8-803a-295c97e6fd0b

 

Michael Gove:

 

“Outside the European Union, we can have a truly colour-blind migration policy that, if the British people want to, treats people from the Bahamas in the same way we treat people from Bulgaria,” Michael Gove, environment secretary, said earlier this week.

When people mention the commonwealth they often mention this, for some bizarre reason so many Remain voters seem incapable of taking it in. I think it's subconsciously deliberate, another myth in the heads of people that gives them license to again try and smear political opponents as racist for whatever reason.

[Alf Bentley]

11 minutes ago, MattP said:

Do people really get that wound up about someome using the term "queue jumpers" - it's not ideal language but it's pretty clear surely the point she was intending to make was it was easier for EU nationals to get here than others who may have been more helpful to us as a country.

 

Nobody's getting wound up, just expressing disapproval. If you'd exercised a legal right to take a job, would you then think it fair for people to describe you as "jumping the queue"?

 

I understand the policy - equalising employment rights between EU and non-EU immigrants. She could have said that "engineers from Sydney, Paris, Berlin or Delhi would now have equal rights". Instead, she chose to refer to "jumping the queue", which clearly implies cheating to gain UNFAIR advantage. She did so to appeal to those who are actively hostile to foreigners.

 

I do not understand how an engineer in Sydney or a software developer in Delhi have been more helpful to us as a country than an engineer or software developer who came here from the EU and has been working in this country.

Are you referring back to days of British Empire or World Wars or something? If the latter, presumably we should be offering better terms to French citizens than to Germans? 

[bovril]

Theresa May making a point that it's difficult for non-EU citizens to come to the UK is up there with Kissinger Peace Prize levels of irony.