Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Whirlwind wrote: I suppose downwards is a direction, but for me its not preferable as I don't have gills. However I'd question anyone that said they knew where any direction will lead to. None of us have crystal balls.
Nonsense. We DO know what direction the EU is heading in. Ever Closer Union. Its written into the very foundation of the EU, it is the very antithesis of the independent Nation State.
All we can do is make predictions based on the evidence to hand.
Exactly. And the evidence indicates that the EU will never be satisfied, the leaders of the EU (Juncker et al) make no secret about their desire for further integration. In their own words there is no Status Quo. We either continue integrating and allow our national independence and sovereignty to be chipped away, or we leave now before its too late.
However, these nation states agree to these changes, it's not as if some office in Brussels is overruling all of the states. The UK has been resistant to a lot of it whilst the rest of the EU doesn't seem so against the idea. We had a veto.
The EU still cannot do what the nation states don't want it to do.
My apologies to anybody who is not young, but I'd like to remind younger dakka members that there was a time when we were not in the EU. And we built things. And we passed laws. And the sun rose, and the sun set, and so on and so on...
You build infrastructure by saying you want it built, and then leave the detail for others to sort out. If the Prime Minister wants a new rail line between London and Birmingham, it's their job to provide the political vision and the funding. It's not their job to make sure that Joe the builder has enough concrete for the day's work! Lower level managers see to that. That's the detail I'm on about. David Davis is in Brussels today for round 4 of the talks, but he won't be thrashing out the details. That's for the civil servants. Davis is there to make sure it gets done and not to micro manage.
And when the lower-level servants tell you that building a castle on top of a swamp is an eminently silly idea, do you listen or do you brush them aside with a disparaging snort about "experts" and just keep going anyway because you know best?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
And when the lower-level servants tell you that building a castle on top of a swamp is an eminently silly idea, do you listen or do you brush them aside with a disparaging snort about "experts" and just keep going anyway because you know best?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/25 11:52:33
For example their is a myth that EU immigration has depressed wages. There is little to no evidence that this has actually happened.
I'd like to step in there actually, and specify that saying immigration hasn't depressed wages is actually as inaccurate as saying it has.
That isn't what I said though. I was noting that there is a myth that immigration has depressed wages and was exaggerated by populists to meet their own aims. The evidence is severely lacking. I used the Bank of England reference as it was widely advertised, but in principle is not much different from the OU report, so hence if you take this research as 'gospel' then the decrease in wages is still only pence per year which is insignificant compared to other factors. However the real test is how significant the results are, so if the wage change is -0.5% +/- 1.0% within 95% accuracy then you can't say anything meaningful about changes to wages other than they stayed approximately the same. We've had a previous discussion on other work which showed this no significant change in wages (and perhaps a small increase for some in the upper wage bands). However the general rule is that overall immigration is negligible impact on wage growth. However this was exaggerated to the extreme by populists feeding on fears that this was happening to meet their own personal goals. That there are likely to be other factors were completely ignored and washed over. I could easily suggest that wages are not a factor of the number of people but the 'relative worth' in terms of skills sets of those jobs. Simply if there are less people in the country then the number of 'coffee shops' or other low skilled businesses is less because the smaller population can only support a smaller number of them. By having less people you don't get wage rises, you just end up with less businesses paying the same amount to their staff.
You've misread. The phrases were 'waste' and 'oversight'. That doesn't mean purely expenditure that can't be traced properly in the accounts (although it includes it, and 3.8% is a terrible figure far in excess of what I expected for that). We're talking about pointless expenditure, wasteful expenditure, unnecessary expenditure. Things like the sorts of subsidies high ranking EU officials get, pet projects that achieve little of worth or meaning, and so on. You couldn't find a single government department in Britain that has the degree of lax sanctioning of expenditure that the EU indulges in. Too much pressure to squeeze the value from every penny on this side, and far too little on the other.
3.8% is not beyond the realms of normality. You will likely find a similar number for the UK. Council's and Government award grants/funding towards charities, research institutions, academy funding etc. There will be lots where there is little track of where the money actually went.
If you are referring to personal views of what money should be spent on then that shouldn't classed as 'waste' as it is sanctioned expenditure. You hold the UK in high regard however May just went to Florence to provide a speech with little content that could have easily been done in the UK. Why was it done in Florence, why not just in Parliament? Couldn't Davis just taken it to the next negotiating meeting. Did May do this to avoid the protesting crowds (and in that she failed). This is a waste is not. What about Lords that turn up clock in and clock out and not do anything but still get paid the subsidies? The list goes on. The EU and the UK are no difference in this regard. As for per projects what about HS2 (which many people here think is wasteful?) , or Hinkley Point Nuclear power station where the UK government has committed both the populace and future governments to overpay for the value of electricity it will generate using untried technology and that is causing all sorts of problems with the test reactor? What about Trident renewal? These are all 'pet projects'. It is being overly blinkered to say the EU does this and UK is some kind of angel. Personal perceptions of individual work/projects doesn't necessarily mean it is being 'wasteful'
Whirlwind wrote: I suppose downwards is a direction, but for me its not preferable as I don't have gills. However I'd question anyone that said they knew where any direction will lead to. None of us have crystal balls.
Nonsense. We DO know what direction the EU is heading in. Ever Closer Union. Its written into the very foundation of the EU, it is the very antithesis of the independent Nation State.
However you don't know the specific's and how it will affect you. You just state it is a bad thing and that you know where it will lead, it's just fear-mongering with no substantial evidence. We've had a discussion about his speech before and i listed all the things that were proposed to be undertaken. If you think any of these are 'bad' then you need to be more specific (rather than hand wavy statements). Ever closer union doesn't mean the dissolution of individual states, it means that everyone in the EU is treated the same and fairly. For example some of this closer union includes that goods sold in one country are identical to that in another (for example I think the example was chocolate where the content of cocoa is different for the *same* product when you cross a line on a map. These are not bad things.
Exactly. And the evidence indicates that the EU will never be satisfied, the leaders of the EU (Juncker et al) make no secret about their desire for further integration. In their own words there is no Status Quo. We either continue integrating and allow our national independence and sovereignty to be chipped away, or we leave now before its too late.
And so what? If eventually we did become a United Europe what is the great fear in this happening?
My apologies to anybody who is not young, but I'd like to remind younger dakka members that there was a time when we were not in the EU. And we built things. And we passed laws. And the sun rose, and the sun set, and so on and so on...
You make it sound like that since we joined the EU nothing like this happened, that basically we stuck our fingers in our ass and just let everyone else undertake everything. That we joined the EU and then all legislation stopped being written, we didn't build anything and so on...We never stopped doing any of these things. In some ways given that that we were the 'sick man' of Europe in the 70s and earlier it could be argued that we have done even more building since we joined as we had access to a large pool of funds that would never have been awarded by UK Governments. I also think you are ignoring that before the EU we rivers which were polluted sludges, acid rain, smog etc etc. So Are arguing that we are going to go back to these conditions as well? Perhaps I could remind 'older dakka members' that things weren't as rosy as they seem to recall before joining the EU.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/09/25 12:23:31
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
If a politician gets elected on a pledge to build more roads and railways in the UK, then I expect that person as PM, to win the political battle (i.e get it passed in parliament) and make sure the money is there to build the stuff by whatever means are necessary (higher taxes, borrow money, whatever)
I don't expect that person to put on a high visibility jacket and start laying down some tarmac on a Monday morning.
I hope my fellow dakka members can grasp this simple concept. The difference between vision and detail.
When Churchill asked Monty to defeat the Germans in North Africa, it's not Churchill's job to check that the infantry have enough ammunition on the day of battle! That's Monty's.
And it's the same with Brexit. The PM sets the tone. It's May's job to make sure that Dover can cope, to hire more border staff, or 1000 other things are getting done.
If the civil service need more staff, May has to say to somebody hire more. But again, nobody expects May to conduct the interviews!
Leadership sets the tone, the direction. That is what is missing here in our Brexit position.
Whirlwind wrote: I suppose downwards is a direction, but for me its not preferable as I don't have gills. However I'd question anyone that said they knew where any direction will lead to. None of us have crystal balls.
Nonsense. We DO know what direction the EU is heading in. Ever Closer Union. Its written into the very foundation of the EU, it is the very antithesis of the independent Nation State.
All we can do is make predictions based on the evidence to hand.
Exactly. And the evidence indicates that the EU will never be satisfied, the leaders of the EU (Juncker et al) make no secret about their desire for further integration. In their own words there is no Status Quo. We either continue integrating and allow our national independence and sovereignty to be chipped away, or we leave now before its too late.
We had Juncker's speech the other day. What more evidence do they need?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/25 12:29:08
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
For example their is a myth that EU immigration has depressed wages. There is little to no evidence that this has actually happened.
I'd like to step in there actually, and specify that saying immigration hasn't depressed wages is actually as inaccurate as saying it has.
That isn't what I said though. I was noting that there is a myth that immigration has depressed wages and was exaggerated by populists to meet their own aims.
I literally quoted what you said, which is that it is a myth that Eu immigration has depressed wages. Which it has in specific areas. I've just provided the evidence for it.
I used the Bank of England reference as it was widely advertised, but in principle is not much different from the OU report, so hence if you take this research as 'gospel' then the decrease in wages is still only pence per year which is insignificant compared to other factors.
The OUP summary says that for every 1% rise in immigrants of working age, there's roughly a 0.5% decrease in the wage of the lowest 5% paid workers. Not that overall there's been a 0.5% decrease, but 0.5% decrease per 1% increase. It also leads to a boost in the earnings of the highest paid, meaning that there's no net overall depression in pay, but the lowest 5% get shafted.
Between 1991 & 2011, the percentage of the foreign born population in Britain has shot up from 6.7% to 12.7 % according to the census. If we were to assume that 5% of that 6% increase is of working age (not unlikely, given that immigrants tend to be of working age), that's a overall depression in the wages across the nation of 2.5%. When you're struggling by on the bare minimum wage, being told you're taking a 2.5% pay hit so that people richer than you can earn more is something of a depressing thing, don't you think?
On top of that, as stated before, that's nation wide. If you break it down further and look at areas with higher than usual immigration (the South essentially), that wage depression only gets worse. It's no secret that Farage's power base was Thanet, and this is a good part of the reason why. If you look at the population of London alone, the immigrant population has roughly doubled from 1.4 million in 1991 to 3 million in 2011. They have, in effect, made up virtually the entire population increase of London from 6.8 to 8.2 million people in those 20 years. In terms of percentages, that's an increase (in rough, without reaching for a calculator) from about 20% of the makeup of London through to around 35%. That's around a 7.5% depression in wages for those on the bottom rung of life, who also inconveniently live in one of the most expensive cities in the world.
I personally think immigration is a great thing, and wouldn't do it any differently. But at the same time, it has to be recognised that it does have an impact on those who compete with them for the lowest paid jobs. By doing so, we can then pressure the government to make better financial provision for the poorer off in those areas, and stop votes going the way of the Immigrant-hate mob. The way to defuse xenophobic tendencies isn't to deny that there are problems, but to address and fix them. Simply saying 'Let's get rid of the immigrants' is stupid and impractical on every level, from personal to macro, but the people saying these things and voting in accordance with them are only doing so because they've been let down by a lack of central forward planning by the Government.
So rather than focusing on the macro and saying 'well, there's no overall wage depression from immigration', the best way to defang Farage and those like him, is to make appropriate provision for those who suffer the short end of what is (I believe) a forward facing and necessary attitude towards immigration.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/09/25 12:57:11
None. They know its the truth, they just either don't care (Whirlwind) or lie through their teeth and deny it.
For years I've been hearing from EU supporters that EU laws and regulations don't impact on sovereign nations or their ability to act independently etc etc
but the sheer difficulty of extracting ourselves from the embrace of this giant squid is proof enough that EU encroachment had crossed a line.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Alternatively, it proves that you have precious little understanding of how terrifyingly complex international politics is.
Complex? The EU couldn't even cope with the simple parts of international politics.
Trouble in Ukraine? The EU's response was to send it's representative to meet with the protestors rather than follow diplomatic protocols and stop off at the Ukraine foreign ministry first.
I'll take no lectures on international politics from the EU or its supporters
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I'll take no lectures on international politics from the EU or its supporters
And right there is the core of the problem.
It's all very well to criticise me for not knowing the complexities of international politics, but the EU on numerous occasions have clearly demonstrated they don't understand the complexities themselves.
If I make a mistake with these things all that happens is that a verbal scuffle breaks out on the interweb or something. If the EU does the same, money could be lost, a diplomatic incident could happen, or somebody important gets annoyed. That's a major difference with major consequences.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Oh deary me, it seems that German opinion is that they are quite willing to let BMW take a hit to secure the single market..
Kundnani said Germany was indeed driven by economic interest, but its economic interest was “long term rather than short term … which means preserving the cohesion of the EU and the single market”, not protecting the German car industry from the limited effects of a hard Brexit.
It would seem that the assertion that the Germans will ensure we have a smooth Brexit to secure German jobs and industry maybe misplaced. Any German members out there care to comment?
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
r_squared wrote: Oh deary me, it seems that German opinion is that they are quite willing to let BMW take a hit to secure the single market..
Kundnani said Germany was indeed driven by economic interest, but its economic interest was “long term rather than short term … which means preserving the cohesion of the EU and the single market”, not protecting the German car industry from the limited effects of a hard Brexit.
It would seem that the assertion that the Germans will ensure we have a smooth Brexit to secure German jobs and industry maybe misplaced. Any German members out there care to comment?
Right now, the papers are mostly filled with discussions about yesterday's elections and the surge of voters for our right-wing AfD (12% overall and actually more votes than Merkel's CDU/CSU in some voting districts) and what kind of coalition exactly will form, since Merkel's CDU will need not one, but two partner parties to form a strong government.
International politics has, at least for the next few days, taken a bit of a backseat, at least in the news. However, there's a little bit of possible impact on EU/Brexit forming:
Most possibly, the CDU will ally with the FDP, our liberals and party of business owners and rich people in general, to simplify it a bit. Their boss, Christian Lindner, has recently spoken out quite vocally against Emanuel Macron's recent plans for an EU finance minister. It's a "red line" that he wouldn't cross. German newspaper "Der Spiegel" is calling it a harsh dampening to "recent EU euphoria after Macron's win". http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/emmanuel-macron-bundestagswahl-gefaehrdet-seine-plaene-fuer-eu-reformen-a-1169717.html
So, in short, the CDU won't ally with the far-right AfD, but they will have to form a coalition most likely involving the FDP, and while they are not full-blown Euro sceptics, they seem to oppose any quick, overt plans for strengthening the EU's overall powers and further integration. What I can't tell you right now is what exactly that means for Brexit negotiations, the papers here mostly report about what May is or is not doing these days, kind of on page 2, not so much about what German politics are up to in regards to that.
Personal take on this, if the FDP is opposed to further EU integration because they don't want Germany to pay for other countries' "failures like in Berlusconi's Italy" (Lindner, FDP, roughly quoted), I'm pretty sure they're not going to want to play nice with Germany taking a hit for the benefit of the UK in any way, shape or form any time soon. I'd still have preferred if you Brits had stayed and made your voice heard as 4th strongest country in the EU from the inside, but oh well...
If I'm wrong on this, any other Geman poster back me up, our politics are a bit more complex than America's Red vs Blue and it's hard to keep track.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/09/25 16:55:30
So the German elections, depending on who Merkel forms a coalition with, may serve as a brake (however temporary) on EU expansion and integration? Well thats some good news at least.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: So the German elections, depending on who Merkel forms a coalition with, may serve as a brake (however temporary) on EU expansion and integration? Well thats some good news at least.
Surely that's irrelevant to the UK now?
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: So the German elections, depending on who Merkel forms a coalition with, may serve as a brake (however temporary) on EU expansion and integration? Well thats some good news at least.
Surely that's irrelevant to the UK now?
We are only leaving the EU, we aren't moving to the Caribbean.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: So the German elections, depending on who Merkel forms a coalition with, may serve as a brake (however temporary) on EU expansion and integration? Well thats some good news at least.
Yeah, since the UK can't do it anymore we need to rely on a German coalition.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: So the German elections, depending on who Merkel forms a coalition with, may serve as a brake (however temporary) on EU expansion and integration? Well thats some good news at least.
Surely that's irrelevant to the UK now?
We still need to get along with them and follow their rules, since they are our biggest and best export market.
All we've walked away from is the ability to have a say in things.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/25 18:26:06
r_squared wrote: Oh deary me, it seems that German opinion is that they are quite willing to let BMW take a hit to secure the single market..
Kundnani said Germany was indeed driven by economic interest, but its economic interest was “long term rather than short term … which means preserving the cohesion of the EU and the single market”, not protecting the German car industry from the limited effects of a hard Brexit.
It would seem that the assertion that the Germans will ensure we have a smooth Brexit to secure German jobs and industry maybe misplaced. Any German members out there care to comment?
Right now, the papers are mostly filled with discussions about yesterday's elections and the surge of voters for our right-wing AfD (12% overall and actually more votes than Merkel's CDU/CSU in some voting districts) and what kind of coalition exactly will form, since Merkel's CDU will need not one, but two partner parties to form a strong government.
International politics has, at least for the next few days, taken a bit of a backseat, at least in the news. However, there's a little bit of possible impact on EU/Brexit forming:
Most possibly, the CDU will ally with the FDP, our liberals and party of business owners and rich people in general, to simplify it a bit. Their boss, Christian Lindner, has recently spoken out quite vocally against Emanuel Macron's recent plans for an EU finance minister. It's a "red line" that he wouldn't cross. German newspaper "Der Spiegel" is calling it a harsh dampening to "recent EU euphoria after Macron's win". http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/emmanuel-macron-bundestagswahl-gefaehrdet-seine-plaene-fuer-eu-reformen-a-1169717.html
So, in short, the CDU won't ally with the far-right AfD, but they will have to form a coalition most likely involving the FDP, and while they are not full-blown Euro sceptics, they seem to oppose any quick, overt plans for strengthening the EU's overall powers and further integration. What I can't tell you right now is what exactly that means for Brexit negotiations, the papers here mostly report about what May is or is not doing these days, kind of on page 2, not so much about what German politics are up to in regards to that.
Personal take on this, if the FDP is opposed to further EU integration because they don't want Germany to pay for other countries' "failures like in Berlusconi's Italy" (Lindner, FDP, roughly quoted), I'm pretty sure they're not going to want to play nice with Germany taking a hit for the benefit of the UK in any way, shape or form any time soon. I'd still have preferred if you Brits had stayed and made your voice heard as 4th strongest country in the EU from the inside, but oh well...
If I'm wrong on this, any other Geman poster back me up, our politics are a bit more complex than America's Red vs Blue and it's hard to keep track.
German politics certainly is more nuanced than we have come to read about in other nations over the last year. I've been reading up on parts to see if I can understand how this will effect Merkels position, and how it may shape future negotiations, and it's complicated to say the least.
The best thing I can see was an article I read in the Telegraph earlier which suggests that many Brits simply don't understand how Germans feel about the EU and see it as a good thing that needs protection. It was suggested that Germans have invested themselves fully in it's future. Whereas we have always been, and have made ourselves, outsiders.
The right wing resurgence is a worrying trend though, nationalists and other less reputable groups are trying to turn this into some validation of their beliefs and that leads down a dark path that we've only recently emerged from.
It's almost as if people are resistant to learning from history, even very recent history.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: So the German elections, depending on who Merkel forms a coalition with, may serve as a brake (however temporary) on EU expansion and integration? Well thats some good news at least.
Surely that's irrelevant to the UK now?
We are only leaving the EU, we aren't moving to the Caribbean.
So? How does greater EU integration affect us now we're leaving? If they want to do that, it's up to them surely and won't really affect us?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/25 18:31:30
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
The right wing resurgence is a worrying trend though, nationalists and other less reputable groups are trying to turn this into some validation of their beliefs and that leads down a dark path that we've only recently emerged from.
It's almost as if people are resistant to learning from history, even very recent history.
It is, but in any case the first big rift in AfD has happened even before they've had time to take their seats. One of the biggest names scoffing that is one thing to gain votes and sorry totally different thing to actually be in a position of power.
There's quite a rift between the as close to Nazis as you can get in today's Germany and the "just slightly to the right of Merkel"
Apparently the only thing you need to discredit the far right is give them a sniff at power.
...The OUP summary says that for every 1% rise in immigrants of working age, there's roughly a 0.5% decrease in the wage of the lowest 5% paid workers. Not that overall there's been a 0.5% decrease, but 0.5% decrease per 1% increase. It also leads to a boost in the earnings of the highest paid, meaning that there's no net overall depression in pay, but the lowest 5% get shafted.
Between 1991 & 2011, the percentage of the foreign born population in Britain has shot up from 6.7% to 12.7 % according to the census. If we were to assume that 5% of that 6% increase is of working age (not unlikely, given that immigrants tend to be of working age), that's a overall depression in the wages across the nation of 2.5%. When you're struggling by on the bare minimum wage, being told you're taking a 2.5% pay hit so that people richer than you can earn more is something of a depressing thing, don't you think?
On top of that, as stated before, that's nation wide. If you break it down further and look at areas with higher than usual immigration (the South essentially), that wage depression only gets worse. It's no secret that Farage's power base was Thanet, and this is a good part of the reason why. If you look at the population of London alone, the immigrant population has roughly doubled from 1.4 million in 1991 to 3 million in 2011. They have, in effect, made up virtually the entire population increase of London from 6.8 to 8.2 million people in those 20 years. In terms of percentages, that's an increase (in rough, without reaching for a calculator) from about 20% of the makeup of London through to around 35%. That's around a 7.5% depression in wages for those on the bottom rung of life, who also inconveniently live in one of the most expensive cities in the world.
I personally think immigration is a great thing, and wouldn't do it any differently. But at the same time, it has to be recognised that it does have an impact on those who compete with them for the lowest paid jobs. By doing so, we can then pressure the government to make better financial provision for the poorer off in those areas, and stop votes going the way of the Immigrant-hate mob. The way to defuse xenophobic tendencies isn't to deny that there are problems, but to address and fix them. Simply saying 'Let's get rid of the immigrants' is stupid and impractical on every level, from personal to macro, but the people saying these things and voting in accordance with them are only doing so because they've been let down by a lack of central forward planning by the Government.
So rather than focusing on the macro and saying 'well, there's no overall wage depression from immigration', the best way to defang Farage and those like him, is to make appropriate provision for those who suffer the short end of what is (I believe) a forward facing and necessary attitude towards immigration.
I tend to agree. Having spoken to a number of people locally, and extensively with one of my brothers from Farage's neck of the woods, the frustration and anger about the issue being ignored is real, and needs to be dealt with properly. If it hadn't been ignored and dismissed, Brexit might never have happened.
The right wing resurgence is a worrying trend though, nationalists and other less reputable groups are trying to turn this into some validation of their beliefs and that leads down a dark path that we've only recently emerged from.
It's almost as if people are resistant to learning from history, even very recent history.
It is, but in any case the first big rift in AfD has happened even before they've had time to take their seats. One of the biggest names scoffing that is one thing to gain votes and sorry totally different thing to actually be in a position of power.
There's quite a rift between the as close to Nazis as you can get in today's Germany and the "just slightly to the right of Merkel"
Apparently the only thing you need to discredit the far right is give them a sniff at power.
That might be the case, however the fact that people feel comfortable voting for the further right wing parties is the issue. Just because, at the moment, they're not coordinated and effective is not the issue, but the groundswell of support for that kind of thinking is the issue. Perhaps people feel ignored and left behind and without a voice, and they're voting for people who reflect their anger and frustration.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/25 20:24:23
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Witzkatz wrote: I'd still have preferred if you Brits had stayed and made your voice heard as 4th strongest country in the EU from the inside, but oh well...
I'm curious. The 4th strongest?
The first rule of unarmed combat is: don’t be unarmed.
r_squared wrote: Oh deary me, it seems that German opinion is that they are quite willing to let BMW take a hit to secure the single market..
Kundnani said Germany was indeed driven by economic interest, but its economic interest was “long term rather than short term … which means preserving the cohesion of the EU and the single market”, not protecting the German car industry from the limited effects of a hard Brexit.
It would seem that the assertion that the Germans will ensure we have a smooth Brexit to secure German jobs and industry maybe misplaced. Any German members out there care to comment?
Right now, the papers are mostly filled with discussions about yesterday's elections and the surge of voters for our right-wing AfD (12% overall and actually more votes than Merkel's CDU/CSU in some voting districts) and what kind of coalition exactly will form, since Merkel's CDU will need not one, but two partner parties to form a strong government.
International politics has, at least for the next few days, taken a bit of a backseat, at least in the news. However, there's a little bit of possible impact on EU/Brexit forming:
Most possibly, the CDU will ally with the FDP, our liberals and party of business owners and rich people in general, to simplify it a bit. Their boss, Christian Lindner, has recently spoken out quite vocally against Emanuel Macron's recent plans for an EU finance minister. It's a "red line" that he wouldn't cross. German newspaper "Der Spiegel" is calling it a harsh dampening to "recent EU euphoria after Macron's win". http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/emmanuel-macron-bundestagswahl-gefaehrdet-seine-plaene-fuer-eu-reformen-a-1169717.html
So, in short, the CDU won't ally with the far-right AfD, but they will have to form a coalition most likely involving the FDP, and while they are not full-blown Euro sceptics, they seem to oppose any quick, overt plans for strengthening the EU's overall powers and further integration. What I can't tell you right now is what exactly that means for Brexit negotiations, the papers here mostly report about what May is or is not doing these days, kind of on page 2, not so much about what German politics are up to in regards to that.
Personal take on this, if the FDP is opposed to further EU integration because they don't want Germany to pay for other countries' "failures like in Berlusconi's Italy" (Lindner, FDP, roughly quoted), I'm pretty sure they're not going to want to play nice with Germany taking a hit for the benefit of the UK in any way, shape or form any time soon. I'd still have preferred if you Brits had stayed and made your voice heard as 4th strongest country in the EU from the inside, but oh well...
If I'm wrong on this, any other Geman poster back me up, our politics are a bit more complex than America's Red vs Blue and it's hard to keep track.
German politics certainly is more nuanced than we have come to read about in other nations over the last year. I've been reading up on parts to see if I can understand how this will effect Merkels position, and how it may shape future negotiations, and it's complicated to say the least.
The best thing I can see was an article I read in the Telegraph earlier which suggests that many Brits simply don't understand how Germans feel about the EU and see it as a good thing that needs protection. It was suggested that Germans have invested themselves fully in it's future. Whereas we have always been, and have made ourselves, outsiders.
The right wing resurgence is a worrying trend though, nationalists and other less reputable groups are trying to turn this into some validation of their beliefs and that leads down a dark path that we've only recently emerged from.
It's almost as if people are resistant to learning from history, even very recent history.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: So the German elections, depending on who Merkel forms a coalition with, may serve as a brake (however temporary) on EU expansion and integration? Well thats some good news at least.
Surely that's irrelevant to the UK now?
We are only leaving the EU, we aren't moving to the Caribbean.
So? How does greater EU integration affect us now we're leaving? If they want to do that, it's up to them surely and won't really affect us?
Having a stable neighbour is always good. It's no fun for everyone else if they start rocking the boat.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
r_squared wrote: Oh deary me, it seems that German opinion is that they are quite willing to let BMW take a hit to secure the single market..
Kundnani said Germany was indeed driven by economic interest, but its economic interest was “long term rather than short term … which means preserving the cohesion of the EU and the single market”, not protecting the German car industry from the limited effects of a hard Brexit.
It would seem that the assertion that the Germans will ensure we have a smooth Brexit to secure German jobs and industry maybe misplaced. Any German members out there care to comment?
Right now, the papers are mostly filled with discussions about yesterday's elections and the surge of voters for our right-wing AfD (12% overall and actually more votes than Merkel's CDU/CSU in some voting districts) and what kind of coalition exactly will form, since Merkel's CDU will need not one, but two partner parties to form a strong government.
International politics has, at least for the next few days, taken a bit of a backseat, at least in the news. However, there's a little bit of possible impact on EU/Brexit forming:
Most possibly, the CDU will ally with the FDP, our liberals and party of business owners and rich people in general, to simplify it a bit. Their boss, Christian Lindner, has recently spoken out quite vocally against Emanuel Macron's recent plans for an EU finance minister. It's a "red line" that he wouldn't cross. German newspaper "Der Spiegel" is calling it a harsh dampening to "recent EU euphoria after Macron's win". http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/emmanuel-macron-bundestagswahl-gefaehrdet-seine-plaene-fuer-eu-reformen-a-1169717.html
So, in short, the CDU won't ally with the far-right AfD, but they will have to form a coalition most likely involving the FDP, and while they are not full-blown Euro sceptics, they seem to oppose any quick, overt plans for strengthening the EU's overall powers and further integration. What I can't tell you right now is what exactly that means for Brexit negotiations, the papers here mostly report about what May is or is not doing these days, kind of on page 2, not so much about what German politics are up to in regards to that.
Personal take on this, if the FDP is opposed to further EU integration because they don't want Germany to pay for other countries' "failures like in Berlusconi's Italy" (Lindner, FDP, roughly quoted), I'm pretty sure they're not going to want to play nice with Germany taking a hit for the benefit of the UK in any way, shape or form any time soon. I'd still have preferred if you Brits had stayed and made your voice heard as 4th strongest country in the EU from the inside, but oh well...
If I'm wrong on this, any other Geman poster back me up, our politics are a bit more complex than America's Red vs Blue and it's hard to keep track.
German politics certainly is more nuanced than we have come to read about in other nations over the last year. I've been reading up on parts to see if I can understand how this will effect Merkels position, and how it may shape future negotiations, and it's complicated to say the least.
The best thing I can see was an article I read in the Telegraph earlier which suggests that many Brits simply don't understand how Germans feel about the EU and see it as a good thing that needs protection. It was suggested that Germans have invested themselves fully in it's future. Whereas we have always been, and have made ourselves, outsiders.
The right wing resurgence is a worrying trend though, nationalists and other less reputable groups are trying to turn this into some validation of their beliefs and that leads down a dark path that we've only recently emerged from.
It's almost as if people are resistant to learning from history, even very recent history.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: So the German elections, depending on who Merkel forms a coalition with, may serve as a brake (however temporary) on EU expansion and integration? Well thats some good news at least.
Surely that's irrelevant to the UK now?
We are only leaving the EU, we aren't moving to the Caribbean.
So? How does greater EU integration affect us now we're leaving? If they want to do that, it's up to them surely and won't really affect us?
Having a stable neighbour is always good. It's no fun for everyone else if they start rocking the boat.
I would argue that tighter integration would actually provide a more stable and coherent trading partner.
But I gathered from Captain Edithae's post that tighter integration is to be resisted, even if we're not involved, which is why I questioned his objection.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/25 20:13:46
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
r_squared wrote: So? How does greater EU integration affect us now we're leaving? If they want to do that, it's up to them surely and won't really affect us?
I do not want to see the Nations of Europe coalesce into one massive Superstate, whether we're a part of it or not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/25 20:36:30
...The OUP summary says that for every 1% rise in immigrants of working age, there's roughly a 0.5% decrease in the wage of the lowest 5% paid workers. Not that overall there's been a 0.5% decrease, but 0.5% decrease per 1% increase. It also leads to a boost in the earnings of the highest paid, meaning that there's no net overall depression in pay, but the lowest 5% get shafted.
Between 1991 & 2011, the percentage of the foreign born population in Britain has shot up from 6.7% to 12.7 % according to the census. If we were to assume that 5% of that 6% increase is of working age (not unlikely, given that immigrants tend to be of working age), that's a overall depression in the wages across the nation of 2.5%. When you're struggling by on the bare minimum wage, being told you're taking a 2.5% pay hit so that people richer than you can earn more is something of a depressing thing, don't you think?
On top of that, as stated before, that's nation wide. If you break it down further and look at areas with higher than usual immigration (the South essentially), that wage depression only gets worse. It's no secret that Farage's power base was Thanet, and this is a good part of the reason why. If you look at the population of London alone, the immigrant population has roughly doubled from 1.4 million in 1991 to 3 million in 2011. They have, in effect, made up virtually the entire population increase of London from 6.8 to 8.2 million people in those 20 years. In terms of percentages, that's an increase (in rough, without reaching for a calculator) from about 20% of the makeup of London through to around 35%. That's around a 7.5% depression in wages for those on the bottom rung of life, who also inconveniently live in one of the most expensive cities in the world.
I personally think immigration is a great thing, and wouldn't do it any differently. But at the same time, it has to be recognised that it does have an impact on those who compete with them for the lowest paid jobs. By doing so, we can then pressure the government to make better financial provision for the poorer off in those areas, and stop votes going the way of the Immigrant-hate mob. The way to defuse xenophobic tendencies isn't to deny that there are problems, but to address and fix them. Simply saying 'Let's get rid of the immigrants' is stupid and impractical on every level, from personal to macro, but the people saying these things and voting in accordance with them are only doing so because they've been let down by a lack of central forward planning by the Government.
So rather than focusing on the macro and saying 'well, there's no overall wage depression from immigration', the best way to defang Farage and those like him, is to make appropriate provision for those who suffer the short end of what is (I believe) a forward facing and necessary attitude towards immigration.
I tend to agree. Having spoken to a number of people locally, and extensively with one of my brothers from Farage's neck of the woods, the frustration and anger about the issue being ignored is real, and needs to be dealt with properly. If it hadn't been ignored and dismissed, Brexit might never have happened.
The right wing resurgence is a worrying trend though, nationalists and other less reputable groups are trying to turn this into some validation of their beliefs and that leads down a dark path that we've only recently emerged from.
It's almost as if people are resistant to learning from history, even very recent history.
It is, but in any case the first big rift in AfD has happened even before they've had time to take their seats. One of the biggest names scoffing that is one thing to gain votes and sorry totally different thing to actually be in a position of power.
There's quite a rift between the as close to Nazis as you can get in today's Germany and the "just slightly to the right of Merkel"
Apparently the only thing you need to discredit the far right is give them a sniff at power.
That might be the case, however the fact that people feel comfortable voting for the further right wing parties is the issue. Just because, at the moment, they're not coordinated and effective is not the issue, but the groundswell of support for that kind of thinking is the issue. Perhaps people feel ignored and left behind and without a voice, and they're voting for people who reflect their anger and frustration.
You've hit the nail on the head here, I'm impressed. Thats remarkably astute of you.
The Left deliberately pursued policies of mass immigration (New Labour in the late 90's), then ignored the problems caused by mass immigration and denounced anyone who cared about these issues as racists. People are sick of being ignored and abused and labelled as bigots, so they turn to the only parties they perceived as being willing to listen to their concerns - the Right and Far Right.
Perhaps if our Governments had been more balanced and less dogmatic, and actually acknowledged the problems that come with Mass Immigration and the concerns that ordinary folk might have with it, then things might not have gotten to this point, and we might not have voted for Brexit.
I am not myself fundamentally opposed to immigration, but I think the massive waves of immigration and subsequent social upheaval we've experienced (both the UK and Europe) in the last couple decades has been horrifically mismanaged.
r_squared wrote: So? How does greater EU integration affect us now we're leaving? If they want to do that, it's up to them surely and won't really affect us?
I do not want to see the Nations of Europe coalesce into one massive Superstate, whether we're a part of it or not.
What makes you think Europe will become one large nationless/characterless superstate?
Empires have been trying to remove our identify for millenia now without any success - the Romans tried it with the Gauls, the Vandals, the Celts, the Brits.
Even in the UK, each county has it's own distinct flavour and identity despite being more closely integrated than any superstate.
Germans will still always be Germans (or Bavarians, etc), no matter how closely integrated the EU becomes.
welshhoppo wrote:Having a stable neighbour is always good. It's no fun for everyone else if they start rocking the boat.
The UKvoted for Brexit. If that's not rocking the boat then I don't know what is. Having a predictable neighbour would have been nice during that referendum :/
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:I do not want to see the Nations of Europe coalesce into one massive Superstate, whether we're a part of it or not.
The UK as part of the EU could have influenced that but once the UK is out what is it their business what others do? I would love that massive Superstate where bureaucratic bs gets unified (and hopefully simplified and reduced), where different cultures are protected and can work together a bit easier, and where the chance of a war inside Europe gets reduced even more.
Do you want some veto power for the UK? Sorry but those are independent countries and not colonies. The UK can't just start meddling in their affairs anymore. Besides I would really love the UK to stay in the EU but it's not my place to dictate what the UK does, and even less once they are out.
...The OUP summary says that for every 1% rise in immigrants of working age, there's roughly a 0.5% decrease in the wage of the lowest 5% paid workers. Not that overall there's been a 0.5% decrease, but 0.5% decrease per 1% increase. It also leads to a boost in the earnings of the highest paid, meaning that there's no net overall depression in pay, but the lowest 5% get shafted.
Between 1991 & 2011, the percentage of the foreign born population in Britain has shot up from 6.7% to 12.7 % according to the census. If we were to assume that 5% of that 6% increase is of working age (not unlikely, given that immigrants tend to be of working age), that's a overall depression in the wages across the nation of 2.5%. When you're struggling by on the bare minimum wage, being told you're taking a 2.5% pay hit so that people richer than you can earn more is something of a depressing thing, don't you think?
On top of that, as stated before, that's nation wide. If you break it down further and look at areas with higher than usual immigration (the South essentially), that wage depression only gets worse. It's no secret that Farage's power base was Thanet, and this is a good part of the reason why. If you look at the population of London alone, the immigrant population has roughly doubled from 1.4 million in 1991 to 3 million in 2011. They have, in effect, made up virtually the entire population increase of London from 6.8 to 8.2 million people in those 20 years. In terms of percentages, that's an increase (in rough, without reaching for a calculator) from about 20% of the makeup of London through to around 35%. That's around a 7.5% depression in wages for those on the bottom rung of life, who also inconveniently live in one of the most expensive cities in the world.
I personally think immigration is a great thing, and wouldn't do it any differently. But at the same time, it has to be recognised that it does have an impact on those who compete with them for the lowest paid jobs. By doing so, we can then pressure the government to make better financial provision for the poorer off in those areas, and stop votes going the way of the Immigrant-hate mob. The way to defuse xenophobic tendencies isn't to deny that there are problems, but to address and fix them. Simply saying 'Let's get rid of the immigrants' is stupid and impractical on every level, from personal to macro, but the people saying these things and voting in accordance with them are only doing so because they've been let down by a lack of central forward planning by the Government.
So rather than focusing on the macro and saying 'well, there's no overall wage depression from immigration', the best way to defang Farage and those like him, is to make appropriate provision for those who suffer the short end of what is (I believe) a forward facing and necessary attitude towards immigration.
I tend to agree. Having spoken to a number of people locally, and extensively with one of my brothers from Farage's neck of the woods, the frustration and anger about the issue being ignored is real, and needs to be dealt with properly. If it hadn't been ignored and dismissed, Brexit might never have happened.
The right wing resurgence is a worrying trend though, nationalists and other less reputable groups are trying to turn this into some validation of their beliefs and that leads down a dark path that we've only recently emerged from.
It's almost as if people are resistant to learning from history, even very recent history.
It is, but in any case the first big rift in AfD has happened even before they've had time to take their seats. One of the biggest names scoffing that is one thing to gain votes and sorry totally different thing to actually be in a position of power.
There's quite a rift between the as close to Nazis as you can get in today's Germany and the "just slightly to the right of Merkel"
Apparently the only thing you need to discredit the far right is give them a sniff at power.
That might be the case, however the fact that people feel comfortable voting for the further right wing parties is the issue. Just because, at the moment, they're not coordinated and effective is not the issue, but the groundswell of support for that kind of thinking is the issue. Perhaps people feel ignored and left behind and without a voice, and they're voting for people who reflect their anger and frustration.
You've hit the nail on the head here, I'm impressed. Thats remarkably astute of you.
The Left deliberately pursued policies of mass immigration (New Labour in the late 90's), then ignored the problems caused by mass immigration and denounced anyone who cared about these issues as racists. People are sick of being ignored and abused and labelled as bigots, so they turn to the only parties they perceived as being willing to listen to their concerns - the Right and Far Right.
That's not true if you look at the whole picture. Greece got left-wing populists in the government, Spain's largest anti-establishment party (3rd overall, and one that was very close to make a ruling coalition with the Socialist party) is left-wing, in Portugal the Communist party brought themselves to the ruling coalition with the Socialists. In Italy, the 5-star movement can't decide whether they're left or right wing but are happy to collect votes from both camps. In Germany everyone is raving about AfD now, but a couple elections back it was Die Linke that put the establishment pants in a twist (and it's not like they're dead and buried, they still got some 4 million votes).
Angry people cast protest votes to whoever they think will carry their voice further.
As I said before, let them rule. The best way to expose a populist is to have them put their policies in practice. Either they won't dare, or they fail. And in the unlikely event that they were right indeed, everyone benefits.
I'd still have preferred if you Brits had stayed and made your voice heard as 4th strongest country in the 
