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.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Right but thats not what we were talking about here. We're arguing past each other.

It is though. If the EU blocks the EHIC card for UK citizens the UK will certainly reciprocate and It very likely that the government wants to kill it anyway.

You've just said an hour ago that the EHIC card is open to non-EU member states. Why would the EU block it? And in the event that they do, why aren't you expressing outrage at the EU for choosing to do so? Your outrage seems selective...

What outrage?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


What whining? Nobody here but you is talking about that.

I thought we were talking about the possibility of British ex-pats losing free Healthcare, and whether or not the British Government should reciprocate?

To clarify folks EU expats are already not entitled to 'free' healthcare except in the case of emergencies (but only for stabilising that emergency). They get free healthcare on the 'door' but the NHS is entitled to recover the costs from where that person is currently based.

As it stands:-

If you are permanent UK resident in the UK and 'settled' for over 6 months you are entitled to free healthcare, whoever you are (though no EU migrants will likely have had to pay a fee on entry).
If you are EEA citizen in the country for less than 6 months then you are entitled to free health care on the door if you have an EHIC or S1/S2 form. However the NHS is obligated to charge the costs to the residents home country.
If you are a UK citizen living outside of the EEA (whether you have paid national insurance or taxes for 40 years) you are not entitled to free health care and must get insurance if you visit the UK.
If you are a UK citizen and not a pensioner living inside the EEA but not the UK (again whether you have paid national insurance for 40 years or not) then you are entitled to free health care at the door if you have an EHIC but the NHS is obligation to charge the costs back to the issuer of the EHIC (country of residence).
If you are a UK citizen and a pensioner living inside the EEA but not the UK (again noting stamp duty etc) then you are entitled to free health care at the door if you have an S1 form, which the NHS are obligated to recharge back to the issuing country (country of residence).
If you are UK and/or EEA citizen living outside the UK and do not have an S1/S2 or EHIC then you are obligated to have insurance.
If you are a UK and/or EEA citizen living outside the UK then you are only entitled to free health care where that illness occurs why you are in the UK.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/496951/Overseas_visitor_hospital_charging_accs.pdf

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
What outrage?

Seriously? Almost every second post you write is oozing with contempt for the Tories, their motives and Brexit. Do I have to start quoting your posts back to you?

Edit: Might be conflating your posts with others. Apologies if I'm confusing you with someone else.

Anyway, my point is that people here are expressing outrage/anger/whatever you want to call it at the possibility of the NHS denying free healthcare to EU citizens, but seem to be shrugging their shoulders and blaming the Tories at the possibility of the EU countries doing the same thing.

Oh I do hold the Tories in contempt, I have ever since I became politically aware, but I'm hardly foaming at the mouth.

 obsidianaura wrote:
Sorry having a bit of a rant but I'm so frustrated looking at the news right now when you read what certain EU leaders are saying Brexit will be bad for the UK and the EU. It doesn't have to be! Only has to be because the EU wants it to be.

To me (a remainer) the EU is starting to come across quite badly. Allowing the UK to keep its current trading arrangements with the EU protects jobs, services, and the economy of both the citizens of the EU and UK.

They will not offer this for the simple reason that they don't want other EU countries to have that option. If they did then they may leave too. This is what I have a problem with regarding the EU. The EU comes across as using free trade to hold countries hostage rather than keep its members based on merit.

Constantly saying the 4 freedoms are not negotiable is ridiculous. Why not? If the alternative is that the EU breaks up because of it then it was wrong. It's why we left.

I think the the UK will have to create a new free trade area with a standing option for any EU country that leaves the union a fast track to the new trade area. Call it the post millennium economic area. Then hope that persuades more countries to leave.

There is no reason not maintain the current trade deals other than spite.

It's not spite, it's the benefit of membership that we pay for by contributing and being a fully participating member. If we leave, we're not entitled to the benefits anymore unless we pay for the privilege and adhere to the rules of the club.
That's what this negotiation is all about, the EU members and other nations who aren't members, but who pay in are going to be really pissed off if we leave, dump the stuff we don't like but keep the good bits. It'd mean everyone would start to negotiate again, or threaten to leave.

The best deal was the one we had, whatever we get now will be worse. However, that was known before the referendum and accepted by those who supported leave as an acceptable consequence of this action.

 r_squared wrote:

It's not spite, it's the benefit of membership that we pay for by contributing and being a fully participating member. If we leave, we're not entitled to the benefits anymore unless we pay for the privilege and adhere to the rules of the club.

Eh, yes and no. We're not looking to retain membership of the common market anymore, so we actually don't want that 'benefit' of membership. Instead, we just want a certain degree of access to it through a trade agreement, much like Canada. It's a subtle, but important distinction at this stage I feel. We want to have slightly more involved arrangements than Canada currently does, but we're a country with so much more to offer in exchange . So that's not an unreasonable position to have.

To use the club metaphor, before, we were members of the club trying to find a way of staying in the club without paying as much in fees. We're now in the position of somebody who decided to let their club membership expire, but wants to come to arrangement as a member of the public regarding some usage of the club tennis court. So we'll haggle with the club committee and see what they want in exchange, be it a fresh delivery of our tasty cucumber sandwiches thrice a week, or quid pro quo usage of our private swimming pool down the road.

 Ketara wrote:
Frankly, the individual MP has another day job, so to speak, namely representing their constituency. They don't have the hours in the day to dedicate to any one particular issue anymoreso than any other citizen does I often suspect. It's what lies behind so many embrassing interviews on Andrew Marr and suchlike, where a junior MP is wheeled out, gets asked some basic questions, and literally cannot answer or is proved wrong within seconds.

Seriously, the grasp of our politicians on basic economics and history is embarassing sometimes. Christ knows how much it is in fields I can't spot. As such, I'm sorry, but I really don't buy the argument that your average MP is any better equipped to decide on complex issues than any working professional.

The difference is that the standard UK professional doesn't have an army of civil servants to help them understand the issues and 'dilute it down' to something they can understand. The issue is when they start ignoring the 'experts' who they hire to provide this information and just make it up. Then as you have pointed out they suddenly become rather embarrassing. But we aren't just talking about 'working professionals' voting though.

If that's the case, then fair play to you. I reckon you're in the very small minority on the Remain side there though.

I always try to be as fair in my approach as possible. I may have a view on issues (and will argue) but I don't have much sympathy for any side that will take one approach for one circumstance and another for a different circumstance (which doesn't mean I don't also fail on occasion unfortunately, but then that is a flaw I try an avoid if I can!)

Eh. I'll be honest, I read that as more of a general statement about Britain these days. I think it's impossible to look back at British culture over the last decade and say that there hasn't been an upsurge in people wanting a reduction in immigration. Frankly, it was a natural reaction to the large waves that came from Europe. The fact we've now reached the culmination of that exodus hasn't quite sunk in though, so I'd be inclined to agree with the statement 'The British public would like immigration reduced'. It's been a fairly common feature for a long time and only grown stronger.

Yet we don't really know that. I have no issue with the levels of immigration and don't see any reason for it to be reduced, but I'm also part of the British public. If May had come out with "there has been increasing support to slow the rate of immigration" then I could agree. However she is painting a picture that the whole of the UK populace is behind this thinking. As I've pointed out before I do not like the idea that a whole population should be tarnished with the same brush (in the same way we shouldn't say every Leaver is bigoted for example). My objection is to here putting forward representation that isn't a fair reflection on a good number of UK citizens and that tarnishes us abroad.

There is definitely something to what you are saying. There are many more factors to be considered. Yet I would also caution that I feel you are straying quite far from the fundamentals , and stretching too far to try and prove that it hasn't deflated low skillled pay, when it most assuredly has. It isn't the only factor, but it has been a major one, and I think you're making a fundamental error trying to deny that.

Any great sweeping generalisations about immigrants depressing the wages of the country as a whole, or stealing jobs as a whole/on average, is incorrect, and the data exists (LSE did a study, for example) to prove that. The data also does exist though, to prove that it has depressed wages in the low skill sectors such as waitressing, cleaning, bar workers, shop assistants, and so forth.

Oxford University Report wrote:Dustmann et al (2013) find that each 1% increase in the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population leads to a 0.6% decline in the wages of the 5% lowest paid workers and to an increase in the wages of higher paid workers. Similarly, another study focusing on wage effects at the occupational level during 1992 and 2006, found that, in the unskilled and semi-skilled service sector, a 1% rise in the share of migrants reduced average wages in that occupation by 0.5% (Nickell and Salaheen 2008).

The results aren't significant unfortunately in the Dustmann one (I haven't looked in the other but I suspect it might be similar). For the Dustmann one the error in the lowest 5% of wages is 0.282% for a 1 sigma result; the 3 sigma result (commonly accepted as the minimum for a robust statement) is +/- 0.846%. That means there is a 98% probability that the true result lies somewhere between 0.181% increase and -1.511% looking at the table of results. There is only a significant result in the 50th and 75 percentile results which shows an increase in wages for increased immigration. All the other results aren't statistically significant one way or another (I suspect that is because in the 50th and 75th groups had the largest sample so could batter down the error better). Even the top earners it is unclear whether they are better off (there's a large error so the sample size is probably small). The paper has been a bit 'naughty' highlighting the lowest 5% wages as their evidence does not show what they are claiming and really should have been challenged by the referee (a physics referee would have laughed the statement out of town!). I can see that if people have read this might be misled because of failure to understand but the evidence is not there for May's statement.

Sorry, but this logic could be used to dispute anything. Seriously. If I had 100 houses and domestic workers, and I gave ten away to immigrants, you could argue the resulting ten homeless domestic workers are homeless because I didn't have 110 houses. If the Government had spent the last ten years building, we'd still likely be in a crisis.

But that's not what happened (and note this isn't limited to the last 10 years of government, both Labour and Conservatives are guilty of this). What is closer to what happened is we had a 100 houses. Legislation was brought in to allow any resident who lived in one for over 2(?) years to buy it at a discount (80%ish). If we make the assumption that 60% were sold over a 5 year period then after 5 years we have 40 remaining. The council uses the capital to build new houses but only gets 80% of their market value (and note councils aren't allowed to make profit). So now the council only has enough money to build 80% of the lost homes. That means they can only replace 48 of the ones lost (reducing total stock to 88). The council builds another 48 over the next period but 60% of these are sold off after two years and another 60% of the old stock are sold on. That means they are now left with only 36 and the cycle repeats. The councils didn't get any extra injection cash to offset the shortfall hence now they are woefully under stocked. If they hadn't had to sell off houses at discount prices then there would still be houses available). Immigration isn't an issue here.

 Whirlwind wrote:

The difference is that the standard UK professional doesn't have an army of civil servants to help them understand the issues and 'dilute it down' to something they can understand. The issue is when they start ignoring the 'experts' who they hire to provide this information and just make it up. Then as you have pointed out they suddenly become rather embarrassing.

Political objectives and policies are rarely devised on the back of facts devised by civil servants. It tends to be more the case that studies are ordered to justify the results of decisions undertaken to satisfy political imperatives. It's why ministers are always fudging figures, or quoting misleading but technically accurate ones.

Not to mention that incoming governments haven't had an army of civil servants to formulate their policies, and debates in the House of Commons are rarely tabled with a bibliography of appropriate literature by the civil service beforehand. In other words, I maintain your average politician is no better placed to understand or judge upon complex issues than your average working professional.

After all, ultimately, that's all your politician is. A working professional, albeit in the field of politics. But it's also why the best politicians almost always seem to be ones with a high level of education or experience acquired before entering the political arena, it means they have a knowledge base from somewhere else which can often be applied in a ministry of some kind.

Yet we don't really know that.

We don't have any hard data one way or the other, but I would say its felt that way anecdotally as someone who has lived here. YMMV. At the very least, if I can feel that way, others can too, and clearly she does. You may disagree, but that does not mean any of us, May included, are wrong or right.

The results aren't significant unfortunately in the Dustmann one (I haven't looked in the other but I suspect it might be similar). For the Dustmann one the error in the lowest 5% of wages is 0.282% for a 1 sigma result; the 3 sigma result (commonly accepted as the minimum for a robust statement) is +/- 0.846%. That means there is a 98% probability that the true result lies somewhere between 0.181% increase and -1.511% looking at the table of results. There is only a significant result in the 50th and 75 percentile results which shows an increase in wages for increased immigration. All the other results aren't statistically significant one way or another (I suspect that is because in the 50th and 75th groups had the largest sample so could batter down the error better). Even the top earners it is unclear whether they are better off (there's a large error so the sample size is probably small). The paper has been a bit 'naughty' highlighting the lowest 5% wages as their evidence does not show what they are claiming and really should have been challenged by the referee (a physics referee would have laughed the statement out of town!). I can see that if people have read this might be misled because of failure to understand but the evidence is not there for May's statement.

I can point to another half a dozen pieces of research, but I'm not a statistician. If you want to pick holes in their methodology, you should probably be writing a paper on it! Regardless, to tie into the above points, if I can pull up this much research in support of it easily enough, May can do the same, and she isn't a statistician either.

In which case, the flaw would appear to be in the professional academics producing these reports. Not the politician who cites them. So even if she's wrong, quite frankly, it would be a misjudgement to blame her for getting stuff out of academic journals and rolling with it. She doesn't have the time or expertise to argue with multiple publications.

Note that I am not saying she is right or wrong here. I am simply indicating that sufficient academic research does exist to support her statement. You are free to challenge that research, but that's not really about me or May then, but your beef with the authors of it.

That an individual areas have specific problems is not something I'm debating. However does this just apply to the SW or across the country? There are likely to be areas not overwhelmed. My understanding is that the South west for example has areas of high teenage pregnancies and a significant aging population. Therefore it is probably quite predictable that adding more children that need adoption into the system was likely not to end well. This is a distribution issue rather than a "abandoned foreign children" issue.

Most areas tend to have roughly equivalent numbers of carers in proportion to the population.The issue is that there are different types of carers; namely long term carers, short term ones, ones that specify children of a certain age and below/above, and so forth. When you become a foster carer, you usually place certain stipulations upon your status as such.

The problem though, is that the supply is inflexible. You can't increase supply without spending vast sums of money (effectively bribing people into it) and that doesn't necessarily supply the stable environment the children need. What's more, the children themselves cannot be moved around too much. Just because a child has been taken into care does not mean can change schools, or be uprooted and moved across the country away from everything/one they know because there's capacity elsewhere.

Every council handles its fostering/adoption services separately also. The funds are gathered and allocated separately, the contracts with carers are often different, they have separate filing systems, and so on. When a child is placed into care, it is the responsibility of that local council. Who in turn cannot just say 'Send them to a different council up north', because that other council is a separate administrative body who is not responsible for taking in children from whatever council wants to absolve themselves of the financial and social responsibility of a child.

In other words, it is a very finite resource, and one which is not easily supplemented or adjusted. The input (children) cannot be moved around freely on both social and administrative grounds. The system simply cannot handle large scale influxes, and that's what the various waves of immigration have done to it.

Without giving specific numbers, there's many vulnerable children currently bouncing around private agencies just in my local borough alone. It costs an arm and a leg to the taxpayer, and any new British children entering the system are placed into that limbo because the services are swamped with trying to deal with foreign children.

So yes. To repeat, that is one public service which is suffering quite heavily from immigration. I know you might want to chalk it down to something else, but it isn't the government's fault. There is nothing more that they can do that they are not already. Cameron already passed various kinds of legislation to try and speed up the various administrative processes involved, and that did do some good. But the system, process, and nature of fostering means that nothing more can be done.

In the meantime though, vulnerable British children, who have already been through so much (and trust me, some of the kids I've lived with have had hair raising backstories) cannot get the care that they desperately need, because foreign children are soaking up the resources available. I don't begrudge it to them, Christ knows they must need it as badly. But at the end of the day, it is quite irrefutable that that is a public service which has been badly affected by large scale immigration.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Just saying that things tend to generally work out somehow.

They don't though, the sky doesn't fall in of course but toxic government policy will have a long term effect. Its not as if I am going to be an EU citizen again for a while...

Until it shifts to another toxic government policy in 2 years time. Which will shift again 2 years later. And again. And again, and again as someone new comes into the job wanting to revolutionalise X. Get promoted, someone new will come in, want to make their mark, change everything, then 2 years later, someone else will come in...

Repeat ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

 Ketara wrote:

Not to mention that incoming governments haven't had an army of civil servants to formulate their policies, and debates in the House of Commons are rarely tabled with a bibliography of appropriate literature by the civil service beforehand. In other words, I maintain your average politician is no better placed to understand or judge upon complex issues than your average working professional.

However they do have the resources available to them to be able to answer these questions, which the average person does not (such as conducting a survey etc). Going back to the original point they are there to act on our behalf, if they fail to do that then there is something very wrong with the system (and there is). I've also got to ask what you mean by the 'working professional' as we started of discussing about the public as whole; else we are suggesting the direct democracy should only be voted on by the professionals?

We don't have any hard data one way or the other, but I would say its felt that way anecdotally as someone who has lived here. YMMV. At the very least, if I can feel that way, others can too, and clearly she does. You may disagree, but that does not mean any of us, May included, are wrong or right.

And that is the point I was making. We don't have the information so proclaiming that the public want to see a control on immigration when from the vote 48% see it as a minimal issue casts aspersions about those people they do not want to be associated with. If May wants to be bigoted against immigrants that's her choice but id prefer she didn't imply that I was at the same time!

I can point to another half a dozen pieces of research, but I'm not a statistician. If you want to pick holes in their methodology, you should probably be writing a paper on it! Regardless, to tie into the above points, if I can pull up this much research in support of it easily enough, May can do the same, and she isn't a statistician either.

You don't need to be a statistician though. The actual results are quite badic and easy to read and doesn't need advanced statistical knowledge. I think it is one of the major flaws in teaching maths is that under 16s aren't truly to taught how to interpret basic statistics and what it means. That only really starts at a level and too many have left maths by then. It's part of the reason that people refer to 'lies,damn lies and statistics' is because they don't actually know how to interpret them.

]In the meantime though, vulnerable British children, who have already been through so much (and trust me, some of the kids I've lived with have had hair raising backstories) cannot get the care that they desperately need, because foreign children are soaking up the resources available. I don't begrudge it to them, Christ knows they must need it as badly. But at the end of the day, it is quite irrefutable that that is a public service which has been badly affected by large scale immigration.

There are no 'British' children and 'foreign' children they are all vulnerable children. They are all human beings at the start of their life. There is no difference between them. That there aren't resources to help them all is an issue with the system. It can be resolved given time and money. And if it is money that is needed to help all children get a good start to life then I'm happy to provide.

 Whirlwind wrote:

However they do have the resources available to them to be able to answer these questions, which the average person does not (such as conducting a survey etc). Going back to the original point they are there to act on our behalf, if they fail to do that then there is something very wrong with the system (and there is). I've also got to ask what you mean by the 'working professional' as we started of discussing about the public as whole; else we are suggesting the direct democracy should only be voted on by the professionals?

In that case, something is very wrong with the system!

You ever seen an MP's timetable? Generally speaking, in between conducting surgeries, making appearances at the House of Lords, various Committees, constituency appointments, and suchlike, they barely have time to see their families. If they're a Minister or in any other way involved, their workload quintuples beyond that. They simply don't have the physical time to formulate surveys or read extensively on every bill that comes before Parliament, there's simply far too much legislation.

Usually all they're able to do is order an assistant to read it and tell them if there's anything objectionable, or follow the party line. They absorb a brief summary, and then act off of that. Certainly, they're in no way well placed to carefully consider all the legislation that goes before the house.

I would qualify a working professional in this context as any individual educated to college level (doesn't have to be University) in a position that would tick a certain number (no hard and fast rule) of the following criteria; defined career scheme, paperwork based job, managerial, professionally certified, etc. In other words, somebody with an average level of intelligence, education, and experience.

To go back to the original point, an MP sitting on a new law relating to pesticides will likely have read about as much and understood as much on the subject as any working professional with a vague interest in it. As such, I believe that when it comes to complex matters, the majority of the functional adult population (who fall into what I'd call a working professional) of the country have an opinion just as good as your average MP.

And that is the point I was making. We don't have the information so proclaiming that the public want to see a control on immigration when from the vote 48% see it as a minimal issue casts aspersions about those people they do not want to be associated with. If May wants to be bigoted against immigrants that's her choice but id prefer she didn't imply that I was at the same time!

She may have access to figures you and I do not. She is PM, after all.

]
There are no 'British' children and 'foreign' children they are all vulnerable children. They are all human beings at the start of their life. There is no difference between them. That there aren't resources to help them all is an issue with the system. It can be resolved given time and money. And if it is money that is needed to help all children get a good start to life then I'm happy to provide.

I just pointed out: money is not the issue. Legislation is not the issue. If you throw enough money at it, you might be able to house them, but that won't provide them necessarily with an understanding, supportive, and well experienced family environment which gives abused children the support they need when they get violent towards the other kids/smear gak all over the wall/wet the bed every night/start doing drugs. So no. It can't be resolved with time or money. Only a small percentage of the population have the time and personal inclination/temperament to foster effectively, and writing cheques would solve nothing there.

How can I be so sure? Because as I just said, that's what they're doing already. Those cheques have been written and cashed en masse. Kids are being bounced into private agencies who foist these kids off on anyone. I met one lady who said she did it for the money who had eight kids crammed into her house. There was no way she could be an effective carer for these children, but she was the only option. These agencies are paid an absolute fortune compared to state carers. So the money is being thrown at it already. And it does nothing.

It is well and good to say 'Ah, but all children must be cared for equally', but back in the real world, you have to look at resources. In the same way Britain doesn't have the resources to provide medical care for every person on the planet, regardless of the fact we're all 'human', Britain also does not have the resources to support the large numbers of immigrant children who need caring for.

You seem determined to turn this into a question of resource allocation, but the fact remains. Without the levels of immigration we have experienced, our own abused and abandoned kids in this country would not be struggling for the support they need. And I repeat, I can't provide them here (I wouldn't care to get anyone into trouble), but I do have the precise figures to hand. This isn't a case of debate. You can choose to believe me, or you can struggle to find some way to blame it all on the Tories. It makes little difference to me or the reality on the ground.

Ketara wrote:To use the club metaphor, before, we were members of the club trying to find a way of staying in the club without paying as much in fees. We're now in the position of somebody who decided to let their club membership expire, but wants to come to arrangement as a member of the public regarding some usage of the club tennis court. So we'll haggle with the club committee and see what they want in exchange, be it a fresh delivery of our tasty cucumber sandwiches thrice a week, or quid pro quo usage of our private swimming pool down the road.

The club probably prefers all paying members having the same deal instead of everybody getting a separate individual solution (the standardised paperwork is less irritating and makes the process so much faster when you want to use the tennis court). If you decide that full membership is not worth it then in any custom arrangement for individual features these features will cost more than if they were included in a packaged deal of all the features. If you really need only a few club features then the hassle of an individual plan might be worth it to you but the more of the full package you need the worse an individual deal gets.

Mario wrote:

Ketara wrote:To use the club metaphor, before, we were members of the club trying to find a way of staying in the club without paying as much in fees. We're now in the position of somebody who decided to let their club membership expire, but wants to come to arrangement as a member of the public regarding some usage of the club tennis court. So we'll haggle with the club committee and see what they want in exchange, be it a fresh delivery of our tasty cucumber sandwiches thrice a week, or quid pro quo usage of our private swimming pool down the road.

The club probably prefers all paying members having the same deal instead of everybody getting a separate individual solution (the standardised paperwork is less irritating and makes the process so much faster when you want to use the tennis court). If you decide that full membership is not worth it then in any custom arrangement for individual features these features will cost more than if they were included in a packaged deal of all the features. If you really need only a few club features then the hassle of an individual plan might be worth it to you but the more of the full package you need the worse an individual deal gets.

Oh, certainly. I won't dispute that. We have the issue of having been one of the main financial supporters of the club to date, so doubtless the remaining members are going to try and milk us for all we're worth. Ultimately, the club still wants some of our cash/swimming pool access to help keep their own club running. But as a member of the public, we are still free to go 'eh, sod it', and walk away. Therein lies the negotiation!

 Ketara wrote:


Oh, certainly. I won't dispute that. We have the issue of having been one of the main financial supporters of the club to date,

The UK is actually the 8th net per capita contributor (3rd last), despite being the 2nd largest economy.

So more like that loud guy who always got their way in club meetings because the others were too polite to tell him to feth off.

jouso wrote:

 Ketara wrote:


Oh, certainly. I won't dispute that. We have the issue of having been one of the main financial supporters of the club to date,

The UK is actually the 8th net per capita contributor (3rd last), despite being the 2nd largest economy.

So more like that loud guy who always got their way in club meetings because the others were too polite to tell him to feth off.

You got bad/old information dude - this source says we're actually third in that list, contributing 12.57% of the overall budget in 2015...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/316691/european-union-eu-budget-share-of-contributions/

And this study shows we get sidelined financially...
https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/budget-european-union

Figure 4 shows the amount each member state receives from the EU budget on a per person basis. The UK receives a relatively low amount of spending per person from both the CAP and rural development. This largely reflects a relatively low amount of agricultural land per person, but also reflects relatively low payments per hectare of agricultural land: this arises because the UK has a large amount of unimproved agricultural land, for example in the highlands of Scotland, that historically attracted a much lower per-hectare subsidy rate. It also receives relatively little in the way of structural funding despite having a number of rather poor regions such as West Wales and the Valleys.

So we have regions that are poor by the EUs standards?

This link is of an interview with Herman Van Rompuy...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-already-had-no-friends-in-europe-before-brexit-eus-van-rompuy-says-a7308771.html

“Britain had already not many friends any more. I saw this clearly when I was in office when we had to vote on the candidacy of Jean-Claude Juncker for the Commission. Britain was isolated"

We were never repected or listened to in the EU.
A more correct metaphor would be that the club is on board the titanic and the UK is the only person in the room saying "guys, we think theres a problem here" as the angle of the room changes and the rest of the people on the room just turn as one to say "shut up britain, we're having a discussion about how the alcohol is making us think the room is on an angle"

Abandon ship!

jouso wrote:

 Ketara wrote:


Oh, certainly. I won't dispute that. We have the issue of having been one of the main financial supporters of the club to date,

The UK is actually the 8th net per capita contributor (3rd last), despite being the 2nd largest economy.

So more like that loud guy who always got their way in club meetings because the others were too polite to tell him to feth off.

Net per capita is a bit of a misleading way of looking at it. How about we look at the actual figures involved instead?




I'd say being in the top four putting cash in is enough to qualify us as 'one of the main contributors' of the EU. You might not like it, but you're just sounding a spot bitter there.

SirDonlad wrote:

We were never repected or listened to in the EU.

You underestimate the major role the UK had in shaping the current EU.

 Ketara wrote:





I'd say being in the top four putting cash in is enough to qualify us as 'one of the main contributors' of the EU. You might not like it, but you're just sounding a spot bitter there.

Those are contributions, the relevant figure is contributions minus return payments.

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

And of course per capita is a relevant figure, per capita is a measure of effort as well as economic weight, this being a common project with very small as well as very big countries. The UK pays per-capita basically the same as non-EU members Norway, which is saying something.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35943216

https://infacts.org/norwegians-pay-same-brits-eu-access/

And it's not really bitter. More like "how on earth can't they see how good of a deal they had". Don't be surprised things like this are doing the rounds:

jouso wrote:


Those are contributions, the relevant figure is contributions minus return payments.

...you're aware even then we're still one of the largest bankrollers of the EU, right? We don't get a vast amount back in subsidy (being one of the richer countries, and all).

And of course per capita is a relevant figure, per capita is a measure of effort as well as economic weight,

Relevant to what? My statement was that we were one of the largest contributors (net) to the EU. Which we are. Talking about it in terms of how much more we actually make domestically is completely irrelevant to my statement. If two people donate to a charity, and the rich one donates a far larger sum than the poor one, you don't turn around and argue 'Yeah, but the fact he donated ten times as much as the other guy doesn't mean anything because it's a lower percentage of his income than what the poor guy donated'.

The EU is going to have to make up a substantial budget shortfall once we leave. So naturally, I have no doubt they'll try and squeeze us for as much cash as they can in exchange for whatever we do all eventually settle on.

 Ketara wrote:
If two people donate to a charity, and the rich one donates a far larger sum than the poor one, you don't turn around and argue 'Yeah, but the fact he donated ten times as much as the other guy doesn't mean anything because it's a lower percentage of his income than what the poor guy donated'.

Actually it is relevant...

The EU is going to have to make up a substantial budget shortfall once we leave. So naturally, I have no doubt they'll try and squeeze us for as much cash as they can in exchange for whatever we do all eventually settle on.

Income might drop but so does expenses. And of course extra tax we get from stuff you export to EU will compensate.

There's Lithium in them thar mines!

Some much needed good news. Cornwall has apparently significant deposits of Lithium, and is thought to be the only source of that in Europe.

tneva82 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
If two people donate to a charity, and the rich one donates a far larger sum than the poor one, you don't turn around and argue 'Yeah, but the fact he donated ten times as much as the other guy doesn't mean anything because it's a lower percentage of his income than what the poor guy donated'.

Actually it is relevant...

Not to my statement, which is what it was typed as a response to. I have no doubt it's relevant to many things in the world, but my comment ain't one of 'em!

At least, not unless you're trying to give the misleading impression that we only pay a small, irrelevant sum into the EU finances. Which is patently untrue, as has now been established.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There's Lithium in them thar mines!

Some much needed good news. Cornwall has apparently significant deposits of Lithium, and is thought to be the only source of that in Europe.

That'll replace the ol' Tin mines. Cue Cornish Independence campaigners kicking up a stink in 3, 2,1....

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There's Lithium in them thar mines!

Some much needed good news. Cornwall has apparently significant deposits of Lithium, and is thought to be the only source of that in Europe.

dances a merry jig

That's fantastic news. Especially at this point in time. I just hope they don't squander it like they did with North Sea oil.

It also begs the question - where else might Lithium be found on this septic isle?

I'm about as far from a Geologist as you can get (rock is a rock is a rock to me, and even then it's probably actually a pebble. Or a sea shell), but if it's there, might it be elsewhere in traditional mining areas?

Imagine if seams are found in Wales. That'd be a very welcome game changer (I've been through the valleys. People exist there, but you cannot call it living, not in the old mining towns and villages)

 Ketara wrote:


The EU is going to have to make up a substantial budget shortfall once we leave. So naturally, I have no doubt they'll try and squeeze us for as much cash as they can in exchange for whatever we do all eventually settle on.

Not as substantial as 2nd largest economy is leaving suggests (thanks to all the kinds of special deals the UK got through membership), but of course, it's a lose-lose situation and each party will have to try to get the best out of it.

At least now terms will be decided on their own merits rather than "give me this or I'm leaving"

jouso wrote:

SirDonlad wrote:

We were never repected or listened to in the EU.

Spoiler:

You underestimate the major role the UK had in shaping the current EU.

That is astonishingly disingenuous, the UK joined the EEC for access to the food reserves available in Europe as well as ensuring eu actions didn't ruin our country
http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm#8

That little conversational fantasy you found conveniently misses out all the legislation the eu enacted between those lines of dialogue that they attempted to feth our economy with - remember the financial transaction tax? called "a financial bullet aimed at the heart of london"? convenient that the German and french financial ministers made clear that they wanted to take the financial markets away from britain and move them to ether France or Germany - the whole EU project is a scam with Germany reaping the rewards.

The problem with open borders and free movement of anything (people, money, resources) is that economic activity coalesces in one place - economic stagnation for everyone else.

The other thing i have a problem with is that the EU is essentially communist (take money from developed nations and give it to poorer nations) and my problem with communism is that it is legislated theft

Taking something from someone without reperative return or prior agreement is theft.

You could also liken it to rape; no consent is given.

 SirDonlad wrote:


The other thing i have a problem with is that the EU is essentially communist (take money from developed nations and give it to poorer nations) and my problem with communism is that it is legislated theft

Taking something from someone without reperative return or prior agreement is theft.

You could also liken it to rape; no consent is given.

And this is why it's difficult to take you seriously. "Legislated theft" is a complete oxymoron. Further, your argument completely ignores the fact that money isn't made in a vacuum.

 SirDonlad wrote:

jouso wrote:

SirDonlad wrote:

We were never repected or listened to in the EU.

Spoiler:

You underestimate the major role the UK had in shaping the current EU.

That is astonishingly disingenuous, the UK joined the EEC for access to the food reserves available in Europe as well as ensuring eu actions didn't ruin our country
http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm#8

That little conversational fantasy you found conveniently misses out all the legislation the eu enacted between those lines of dialogue that they attempted to feth our economy with - remember the financial transaction tax? called "a financial bullet aimed at the heart of london"? convenient that the German and french financial ministers made clear that they wanted to take the financial markets away from britain and move them to ether France or Germany - the whole EU project is a scam with Germany reaping the rewards.

The problem with open borders and free movement of anything (people, money, resources) is that economic activity coalesces in one place - economic stagnation for everyone else.

The other thing i have a problem with is that the EU is essentially communist (take money from developed nations and give it to poorer nations) and my problem with communism is that it is legislated theft

Taking something from someone without reperative return or prior agreement is theft.

You could also liken it to rape; no consent is given.

Whilst I don't agree with much the other chap wrote, much of this is pure fantasy. We joined the EU for a number of reasons, from our economy being in the gutters to various other ones. The EU isn't a communist organisation, the EU isn't a scam project by Germany, and there are prior agreements relating to what countries pay and when, so the theft/rape analogy is ludicrous (it would be OTT even if it were true).

jouso wrote:


Not as substantial as 2nd largest economy is leaving suggests (thanks to all the kinds of special deals the UK got through membership), but of course, it's a lose-lose situation and each party will have to try to get the best out of it.

At least now terms will be decided on their own merits rather than "give me this or I'm leaving"

I look on it as a chance for a fresh start. I didn't like the EU, and I resolved I was willing to accept economic pain in exchange for my leave vote. And it has hit me in the wallet, I change up a fair number of dollars. I estimate I'm about twenty five quid a month poorer right now, thanks to the exchange rate. But I regard it as an acceptable price to get my country away from an organisation I consider unsavoury, and completely against reform or change. I'm clearly not alone in that.

But that's just us. If Europe wants the EU, they're free to have it. It's no reason to bear grudges, or even disunity. We're all civilised people in a civilised world, and I have faith we can all still settle down and do productive business and get on with things. Might take a few years of turbulence whilst this whole Brexit thing washes over, but we'll get there.

https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2017/sessions/britain-after-brexit?utm_content=buffer92d16&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Chancellor to #davos: "people are starting to feel" the effects of falling sterling - its the "transmission mechanism"



We think Brexit can be done in 2 years if there is a political will on both sides to do so, says Philip Hammond

 Ketara wrote:


Whilst I don't agree with much the other chap wrote, much of this is pure fantasy. We joined the EU for a number of reasons, from our economy being in the gutters to various other ones.

Not just that. The UK spearheaded EU policy in many fields. Eastwards enlargement was one such project (while, for example Germany that supposedly was running the whole thing was against).