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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
We can argue about semantics til the cows come home, but if the rest of Europe want to press on with USE then good luck to them. I'm just glad we're out of it.

Like I said a few months back, I have always believed that the closer the people are to the democratic institutions that rule them, then the better it is. Governments govern by consent in Europe, that goes without saying.

But a USE with all the extra layers added on? People feel cut off from Brussels as it is. This would only make it worse. Our current situation gave us UKIP, FN, and AFD plus more

More Europe will produce worse than the above, who will be all to ready to cash in on people's grievances about immigration, globalization, the Brussels elite etc etc

Sadly, they cannot see this.

Being close to democratic institutions is a good thing, which is why I'm pretty sure many people are much more involved in their local politics concerning their town or rural area than they are about the larger, more distant questions of governance. Nevertheless, this planet holds a few billion people by now, and there ARE extremely large nations. Having nothing but close, local democracy won't cut it in the future.

Furthermore, like Ketara mentioned just now, people in the US can feel Texan and American at the same time - and while the local state governments seem to love to rail against the "damn feds", similar to like EU member state governments like to rail against the EU to catch votes, they seem to be doing quite well as the US of A, without any serious talks about secession or revolution, or "Texit".

It's not ideal, and won't be either easy or pretty, but viable to have something like the USE. It doesn't have to follow the exact same pattern as the USA or other Unions, of course - I'm pretty sure if the will is there, there are options for more autonomy and independence within this theoretical USE than the different US states have within the USA, for example.



Just on a personal note: I get the idea of "local government" and "independence" and "freedom", I really get it. I'm from the North of Germany, very much near the coast, and the culture here is certainly a bit different than that of deep Bavaria, I think both sides agree. Sometimes I wonder if we have much more in common with the Danes, maybe even the Swedes than Southern Germany. There's jokes all around about cutting Germany and half, since those damn Prussians and those damn Bavarians don't get along anyway, hurr hurr. And I do feel closer to the North with its coast lines and old thatched-roof fishing houses than to the South, and I'm sure Bavarians feel closer to their mountains and onion-shaped church towers. And sure there's internal political bickering going on about money distribution between states inside Germany, and not everybody is always happy. So it's fun to wonder how one of our tiny states would do on its own.

But taking the thought of Schleswig-Holstein leaving the German states for good, for the sake of "freedom" and "independence" seriously, even for one second? Hell naw. It's ludicrous, it's very much evident that it's economical suicide with far less weight in political decisions in the neighboring countries. There's literally nothing to gain from it, apart from that fleeting feeling of autonomy, while pissing off all the other states. We're better off together, and I like it that way.


So while I get that regions are different culturally, economically, even politically - there is a dire need to work together, with strong bonds between small states and then larger nations. With consistent loyalties and, most of all, stability. Voices might not be heard completely equally, but everything is easier to be solved if you're still part of the team, where entities support each other because they pledged to do so.
Leaving unions just to say "We don't need you guys, we'll make our own deals, with Blackjack and hookers!" seems like the worse of two (not necessarily great) options to me.

 Witzkatz wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
We can argue about semantics til the cows come home, but if the rest of Europe want to press on with USE then good luck to them. I'm just glad we're out of it.

Like I said a few months back, I have always believed that the closer the people are to the democratic institutions that rule them, then the better it is. Governments govern by consent in Europe, that goes without saying.

But a USE with all the extra layers added on? People feel cut off from Brussels as it is. This would only make it worse. Our current situation gave us UKIP, FN, and AFD plus more

More Europe will produce worse than the above, who will be all to ready to cash in on people's grievances about immigration, globalization, the Brussels elite etc etc

Sadly, they cannot see this.

Being close to democratic institutions is a good thing, which is why I'm pretty sure many people are much more involved in their local politics concerning their town or rural area than they are about the larger, more distant questions of governance. Nevertheless, this planet holds a few billion people by now, and there ARE extremely large nations. Having nothing but close, local democracy won't cut it in the future.

Furthermore, like Ketara mentioned just now, people in the US can feel Texan and American at the same time - and while the local state governments seem to love to rail against the "damn feds", similar to like EU member state governments like to rail against the EU to catch votes, they seem to be doing quite well as the US of A, without any serious talks about secession or revolution, or "Texit".

Precisely. I come from a region in Spain with a very strong identity, its own language, flag, anthem, you name it. I wouldn't even mind it having their own sports teams à la Wales, Scotland, etc. I feel very strongly attached to it, I use our own language every day with family, friends and at work, I support devolution in most issues, etc.

But I'm also Spanish. A full half of my family comes from elsewhere in Spain, I've lived for years in one of the most culturally Castillian areas of the country and I fully identify with my passport, flag and Spanish language.

And on top of that there's a vague thing hovering around the EU which I also fully identify with. Last night I spent the night on a Slovenian town just on the border with Italy. By default we were speaking Italian, but when a sales rep from Rijeka heard I was Spanish they all tried to add a bit of their soap opera Spanish, and in turn I tried to join in with the little Southern Slavic I've been able to muster from my 2 years of Russian and a few visits here and there. And whenever the whole thing became too messy, we defaulted back to English which was the only language everyone had formally studied at some point, then on to Italian and so on.

There is an identity in diversity. It's not just a passport with European Union written in small print. Some of these guys might have been shooting each other just 20 years ago, I still remember my first time in Bosnia when I was told not to hike a particular mountain because there were still landmines in place and every now and then a cow or sheep would end with a few less limbs.

While everyone is certainly free to pick and choose what to identify with, it's not true that identities come at the expense of each other. Unless you define your own identity by opposition to everyone else's of course.

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

Spoiler:

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


If that's not a nation state, I don't know what the hell is!

A nation state is a type of state that joins the political entity of a state to the cultural entity of a nation, from which it aims to derive its political legitimacy to rule and potentially its status as a sovereign state.[1] A state is specifically a political and geopolitical entity, whilst a nation is a cultural and ethnic one. The term "nation state" implies that the two coincide, in that a state has chosen to adopt and endorse a specific cultural group as associated with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state

So no, a United States of Europe would not be a nation state

I don't know mind, they are banging the we are Europe drum pretty hard.

It's gotten to the point where quite a few people dont know that there is a difference between Europe and the European Union.

Well sure if they convinced people to seems themselves as ethnic and culturally European rather then their current ethnicity then it could become a nation state, I just think the odds of that happening is slim.

Thats exactly what they're trying to do. They spend millions on pro EU propaganda to that effect.

 Ketara wrote:


You can hold more than one ethnicity. An ethnicity is just a social construct. I can feel that I'm Scottish, British, Jewish, with a dash of Zimbabwean all at the same time.

Sure, never stated anything to the contrary.

I think you're laying the criteria for a nation state on a spot thick there. People in America get to be Texan and American at the same time.

I'm not sure how this contradicts what I said, for example Finland can be a nation state even if there are minorities in the country that consider themselves Swedish or Jewish.

Also, the US would probably be a bad example as I would argue that it's not a nation state to begin with.

It's quite clear (both in this thread and at a more abstract level) that people are beginning to consider themselves European as well as any individual nationality. The EU has deliberately spent large sums of money to generate such a belief.

Sure, I said myself that the United States of Europe could become a nation state if a general European culture became dominant, I just said that I think the chances of that happening is low.

In reply to Witzkatz and others, I make the following points:

The USA works because it was designed that way from Day 1.

They didn't try and take 28 nations, all with their own different systems and history, and try and squeeze them into a one size fits all system.

Yeah, you can be Texan and American, but Texas makes a lot of its own decisions, knows where the federal line is, and functions under a system that was designed to allow it to function.

The EU seems to make the rules up as it goes along.

Macron is trying the old French trick of France riding the German horse. Will the German taxpayer put up with that forever? I doubt it.

At any rate, the Eastern bloc countries will probably torpedo this, but sadly, the EU are thinking about USE, that's fact now, and we know they play the long game.

If Britain had stayed in the EU we'd be dragged into this USE. Cameron would have rolled up the white flag.

The Status Quo was NEVER an option.

And back to news.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-41397181

The US slaps a 200% tariff on Bombardier planes, the wings of which are made in northern Ireland employing 4.000 people.

Of course this was done at the behest of Boeing who have already reminded May they employ four times as many in the rest of the UK.

The people at Airbus are already cracking the popcorn open.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

Spoiler:

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


If that's not a nation state, I don't know what the hell is!

A nation state is a type of state that joins the political entity of a state to the cultural entity of a nation, from which it aims to derive its political legitimacy to rule and potentially its status as a sovereign state.[1] A state is specifically a political and geopolitical entity, whilst a nation is a cultural and ethnic one. The term "nation state" implies that the two coincide, in that a state has chosen to adopt and endorse a specific cultural group as associated with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state

So no, a United States of Europe would not be a nation state

I don't know mind, they are banging the we are Europe drum pretty hard.

It's gotten to the point where quite a few people dont know that there is a difference between Europe and the European Union.

Well sure if they convinced people to seems themselves as ethnic and culturally European rather then their current ethnicity then it could become a nation state, I just think the odds of that happening is slim.

Thats exactly what they're trying to do. They spend millions on pro EU propaganda to that effect.

They bribe us with our own money, and surprisingly, a lot of people fall for the propaganda that they are a generous lot.

Like I say, credit to the EU for pulling it off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:
And back to news.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-41397181

The US slaps a 200% tariff of Bombardier planes, the wings of which are made in northern Ireland employing 4.000 people.

Of course this was done at the best of Boeing who have already reminded May they employ four times as many in the rest of the UK.

The people at Airbus have already cracked the popcorn open.

US government rules in favour of US company. I must admit I never expected that!

I might be a tad late, but 2000 years ago (well, 1974 years ago, close enough) Britain was part of the United States of Rome. If we're making appeals to history, Britain should be thrilled to be part of the EU, no?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I might be a tad late, but 2000 years ago (well, 1974 years ago, close enough) Britain was part of the United States of Rome. If we're making appeals to history, Britain should be thrilled to be part of the EU, no?

But what have the Romans done for them?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I might be a tad late, but 2000 years ago (well, 1974 years ago, close enough) Britain was part of the United States of Rome. If we're making appeals to history, Britain should be thrilled to be part of the EU, no?

And then the western half collapsed due to immigration issues.

Speaking of which, anyone who's into Rome should check out the History of Rome by Mike Duncan. It's a great podcast.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I might be a tad late, but 2000 years ago (well, 1974 years ago, close enough) Britain was part of the United States of Rome. If we're making appeals to history, Britain should be thrilled to be part of the EU, no?

That logic won't wash with the Americans on this forum

At any rate, the Romans left Britain, and we welcomed our Saxon overlords with open arms

 welshhoppo wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I might be a tad late, but 2000 years ago (well, 1974 years ago, close enough) Britain was part of the United States of Rome. If we're making appeals to history, Britain should be thrilled to be part of the EU, no?

And then the western half collapsed due to immigration issues.

Just like how Nazi Germany collapsed due to Russian immigration?

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I might be a tad late, but 2000 years ago (well, 1974 years ago, close enough) Britain was part of the United States of Rome. If we're making appeals to history, Britain should be thrilled to be part of the EU, no?

And then the western half collapsed due to immigration issues.

Just like how Nazi Germany collapsed due to Russian immigration?

Exactly, marauding bands of Russians migrated to Germania and then sacked the Capital.

 Ketara wrote:

I'm simply establishing that stating these things in absolute generalities rarely encompasses any real complexity. Additionally, when you look at things in large scale abstract statistical form, you can miss that even small statistical variations can be significant in real life. For example, Grenfell tower is a single tower block out of so many thousands that went up in flames, and the people who died are a tiny fraction of the population. Statistically at a national level, the impact of the event was negligible, and we shouldn't make any adjustments to existing safety procedures. Not quite how it works out in real life, eh wot?

What you are missing here is how statistics actually work. You are confusing that because an event happens on a local scale is a direct consequence of current actions rather than a statistical probability function. What you can't say is at a local, narrow level that there is a direct cause and effect when it could be natural variation. If you found somewhere with no immigration there still would be areas with depressed wages versus those with higher wages which will follow a statistical distribution. If you take the same case where immigration exists and you get the same statistical distribution then you can be reasonably confident that any depression in wages (and conversely increase) is not due immigration but simply a natural fluctuation that would get with or without immigration. This is why I'm always keen to impress that figures are meaningless without the errors.

Although I hesitate to use Grenfell as an example, I will use this as you've brought it up. You can design buildings that are ultra secure from fire to reduce significant casualties. However it is not possible to make them completely fool proof. However despite this you can't account for all possibilities. There for there is slim median chance of a fire that will cause significant casualties. Lets say the median value is 1/1000 years. However this does not preclude an event tomorrow, next week or in 100 years. The event will happen at some point regardless, you could even have multiple events in a short period of time. That doesn't mean 1/1000 is wrong, it's just a statistical group of events that eventually once the sample is large enough will give you the median and subsequent distribution. Now lets suppose you live somewhere with more lax safety control meaning the result is 1/100 chance. In this case you might not get any serious event for 500 years. This does not mean the result is wrong, it is again a statistical grouping of events. As such no one individual event can be used to infer a cause. You have to look at the wider larger picture to see the overall impact. If you don't you fall into this trap where you associate directly two events - this can result in policies or changes that actually make things worse overall because you are reacting to events not the drivers.

I'm aware that you're better with the finer points of statistics than me, so I'm going to have to ask you to explain the discrepancy between a quick calculation of mine and what you've just posted. Assuming an £8 wage is depressed by 2.5% to £7.80, that's £0.20 lost per hour, £1.60 in an eight hour day, £8 in a five day week, and £416 over the course of the year (52 weeks). That's not quite pence? If there's some statistical quirk I'm not noticing here, please do point it out, but assuming the above is accurate, that's hardly pennies for somebody on a low income. That's a significant chunk of change. Losing £32 plus per month is a lot of money when you're at subsistence level and the kids need new shoes.

The issue you are missing is that the research is only valid at the time it was undertaken; it can't be back inflated like you are doing because there is no research to determine whether the rate today is the same as yesterday or will be tomorrow. Effectively what it demonstrates that the research has determined that based on the last 20 years if the same increase happens at the time of the research then this would lead to a decrease in wages by 2.5%. You could say that based on this research if the same number of immigrants that have arrived over the last 20 years turned up tomorrow then this might lead to a median decrease of 2.5% +/- the error. What you can't do is then use this to infer what the decrease (if any) was over 20, 19, 18 and so years ago because the research was not reviewing the impact that many years ago. We've taken a slightly abstract view that immigration increases are the same each year (which isn't particularly correct which is why the research works in percentages). However if we use this abstraction and assume the research stands firm for a least a few years then we can imply that the median immigration levels reduces wages by 1p per hour. Future research in 2018 may show that immigration increases wages by 5p an hour at that time. As such you could then start aggregating figures in the way you want to, but you can't aggregate figures in the way you are else why couldn't you extrapolate it back another 20,000 years which would be plainly ridiculous.

Since most of us don't have the time or energy to gather them though, we have to rely on the efforts of people who do it, and assume that they did it right. Ain't nobody got the time to read in depth analysis from more than one field and have the expertise to judge it by!

You don't need to, all you need is the error on the result. That way you can be more clear on how realistic a result is. if someone quotes a decrease of 2.5% +/- 0.01% (95% probability ) then you can reasonably be comfortable that the result is very close to 2.5%. On the other hand 2.5% +/- 50% (95% confidence) means that you can't actually say whether there is an decrease or not. Both results are accurate, the latter however is not very precise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
First we had Juncker, now Macron has decided to double down on the EU super state.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/26/profound-transformation-macron-lays-out-vision-for-post-brexit-eu

Macron wants: "giving the 19-member eurozone a finance minister, budget and parliament, as well as creating a Europe-wide “rapid reaction force” to work with national armies."

You know you are bit like a stuck record. Every so often you repeat the same thing over and over in some weird abject horror. All of this was pretty much in Juncker's speech anyway. A centralised military force already operates, but it is disjointed because there is no one command and control. The current government has already said that Brexit or not we will be including UK forces in this combined force. You want our government to make a decision on this and they have, independently decided they will provide the EU with military forces that will not be under direct UK control.

You complain that the EU has no financial oversight, yet when they look to change this, you complain this is just further evidence of integration.

You complain that the EU does not have enough democracy, but when they introduce a democratically elected parliament you complain that this is further integration

The EU already has a budget of about £150bn all they are doing is making sure there is an elected person directly responsible for this, something complained about.

You are just spouting emotional nonsense and rather than argue intelligently why these are 'bad things' you just use the same old hyperbole and thanking some higher power. If you disagree with something state it and argue your point.

I demand a second EU referendum now! Why? Because by playing Juncker's speech on a loop, and now Macron's, Leave would win by 99.9%

Every man, woman, and child in Britain would demand we leave the EU.

Start a petition then...asking for one if you are so confident. It might be 99.9% leave in a bingo club... , however I'd point out that there is one man in Britain that vote to Remain, but I can't talk about anyone else.

How can anybody defend this crackpot scheme? Are we to surrender 2000 years of British history on the altar of the EU super state?

Freedom is our birth right.

What on earth are you babbling on about. Where does it state in the EU that we'd be surrendering British history, or that our 'birth right freedoms' will be thrown away. Strictly speaking I was born an EU citizen and my 'birth right' to work and play anywhere in the EU is being removed. I could argue that in fact Leavers have removed my 'birth right freedoms'?

Yeah it was always going to be pointless taking to the EU. Plans for WTO should have been made from the very beginning.

Just to point out why WTO is not a good idea. Basically under WTO rules you have to apply the same WTO rules to every country you trade with. If you apply certain WTO rules with the EU then you have to comply with those same rules with everybody. I'll let that sink in...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:
And back to news.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-41397181

The US slaps a 200% tariff of Bombardier planes, the wings of which are made in northern Ireland employing 4.000 people.

Of course this was done at the best of Boeing who have already reminded May they employ four times as many in the rest of the UK.

The people at Airbus have already cracked the popcorn open.

US government rules in favour of US company. I must admit I never expected that!

Good thing we're not expecting to have to renegotiate all of our trade deals with them without any international support to back us up then.

Oh, wait...

 Whirlwind wrote:

What you are missing here is how statistics actually work. You are confusing that because an event happens on a local scale is a direct consequence of current actions rather than a statistical probability function.

I think you missed my point. My point being (to be explicit and unambigious) that you can issue a batch of statistics on practically anything; but that the relevancy of those statistics to any one individual subject or situation is entirely a matter of debate and perspective when relating to the point at hand.

I can take Grenfell tower and claim that statistically speaking, there's clearly been many towers which have not burnt down, and therefore existing safety regulations and oversight are satisfactory. Yet such a broad brush 'statistic' fails to take into account how evenly those safety regulations are applied, how old individual buildings are, how many towers are made of that specific material, and so on. There are oodleplexes of variations one could run when generating one's statistics, and you could use such data to prove or disprove practically anything. In the real world meanwhile, everyone recognises that having buildings burning down is a bad thing, and saying something which technically isn't incorrect (like that the percentage of the population which die through such incidents are statistically insignificant when compared to say, car accidents) will just get you funny looks in the pub.

Likewise, one can claim that there is no national wage depression, but when all the plumbers in London suddenly find they can't make a living due to a sudden large influx of immigrants who do the same job for half the price? They're not really going to appreciate a grand 'national statistic' much. (Note; I've no idea how true that one is, I'm just illustrating my point)

The issue you are missing is that the research is only valid at the time it was undertaken; it can't be back inflated like you are doing because there is no research to determine whether the rate today is the same as yesterday or will be tomorrow.

Errr......with all due respect, going 'Well, just because it's resulted in wage depression for the last twenty years doesn't mean it will do in the future or a different scenario!' is kind of stating the obvious. The point under discussion was whether or not immigration had, in the past, in this country, resulted in wage depression. The answer appears to be 'No generally on a national level, but Yes when specifically considering the bottom 5% of earners' if the OUP summary is one to go by. Whether that will continue to be the case in the future is really by the by.

Not to mention (and I'll be blunt here) you appear to be claiming that somehow even though a 2.5% decrease adds up to the sums previously given by me, and that this was the average in the years assessed by the studies, somehow through some statistical quirk (which I'm not quite following) you equate it to a decrease of 1p per hour as opposed to the 20p basic math would indicate (assuming you were referring to that bottom 5% and not generally). You need to explain this better because I'm not following, and if I'm not following, I'm reasonably sure few other people will be. Communication is key in cases like these. Break it down some more.

I can understand there being room for statistical variation, but you appear to be indicating that their research does not reflect the reality of the situation (and is consequently irrelevant and misleading to the layman), which is quite a charge to make in the academic world.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

Spoiler:

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


If that's not a nation state, I don't know what the hell is!

A nation state is a type of state that joins the political entity of a state to the cultural entity of a nation, from which it aims to derive its political legitimacy to rule and potentially its status as a sovereign state.[1] A state is specifically a political and geopolitical entity, whilst a nation is a cultural and ethnic one. The term "nation state" implies that the two coincide, in that a state has chosen to adopt and endorse a specific cultural group as associated with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state

So no, a United States of Europe would not be a nation state

I don't know mind, they are banging the we are Europe drum pretty hard.

It's gotten to the point where quite a few people dont know that there is a difference between Europe and the European Union.

Well sure if they convinced people to seems themselves as ethnic and culturally European rather then their current ethnicity then it could become a nation state, I just think the odds of that happening is slim.

Thats exactly what they're trying to do. They spend millions on pro EU propaganda to that effect.

They spend millions preserving cultural identity.

Ok, then whirlwind, let's put emotion to one side and have a measured discussion about Macron and Juncker's speech.

Why does a common market need a rapid reaction force? Are they worried that French farmers might not follow EU regulations?

Most EU members are also NATO members. So what's it all about? I keep hearing Trump's name getting mentioned, so because one US president isn't keen on NATO, then the logic goes that every future US president won't be keen on NATO...

But the US defence secretary backed NATO 100% and US troops remain in Europe...

Something does not compute here...

Foreign policy: why does a common market need a foreign policy? If it is a union of sovereign nations, then why does it need a foreign policy? Surely every member nation is free to pursue their own foreign policy goals? If the Ukraine debacle is anything to go by, the EU needs a foreign policy like the Titanic needs an iceberg.

Why can't this democractically elected EU parliament propose its own legislation like other parliaments? Sounds more like a sham to me. A talking shop.

Finance minister: why does this union of soveeign nations need a finance minister? Every nation has it's own, so why the need for an EU one?

The answer to these questions is pretty simple: they have power and they want more, and more, and more, and more...

As always, I admire the EU's honesty, they ain't hiding it anymore. Just a pity they won't ask the 400 million other people in the EU want they think about all this.

Ordinary citizens usually find out when it's a fait accompli...

Herzlos wrote:
They spend millions preserving cultural identity.

The knee jerk reaction to that is "Who's cultural identity?"

Which is unfair to all sides, but relevant to a sizable portion of the UK populace.

I do not trust the present direction of the EU. I do not trust their ability to quietly grab power while no one is looking. I do not trust my own Government to not sell out our country to the EU while no one is looking. I want the UK Government to be held accountable for its actions, which in the present climate, I feel, we can not do unless the UK leaves the EU and such treaties become visible as a matter of parliamentary scrutiny and debate, which the present climate does not provide.

As the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, the single market, was that good intention. The single market was what we were asked to decide upon in the seventies. How did that single market get to todays present Machiavilian organisation?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Thats exactly what they're trying to do. They spend millions on pro EU propaganda to that effect.

What's the definition of "Propaganda"?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In reply to Witzkatz and others, I make the following points:

The USA works because it was designed that way from Day 1.

Actually, it wasn't. There were serious teething problems for the first few decades of our history, as our various presidential administrations found out that what the Founding Fathers designed didn't always function properly when confronted with reality.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
They didn't try and take 28 nations, all with their own different systems and history, and try and squeeze them into a one size fits all system.

Yeah, we kind of did. We had to shoot 250,000 of our own countrymen in the face about 80+ years into the show specifically because the 'one size fits all' didn't sit well with a whole lot of people...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Yeah, you can be Texan and American, but Texas makes a lot of its own decisions, knows where the federal line is, and functions under a system that was designed to allow it to function.

It does now, yeah. Mostly because we showed them where the federal line was when we shot 250,000 of our own countrymen in the face. Prior to that, there was a lot of debate. Heck, even after the face-shooting there is still a lot of debate. Federal powers have changed and expanded several times through all the decades since 1865.

Life moves fast eh ?



.. so we threatened war with Spain just after article 50 and now we're going to pick a fight with the USA..

..whilst grovelling around for a trade deal.

Hope these blue passports are nutritious too.






it's a toughy isn't it eh ?

It's almost life his golf courses aside he really doesn't give a rats arse about us/not the USA at all.

... or understand the issues either but that's a whole other thread.


The Brexit bogus victimhood and toy throwing continues as people discover that, amazingly enough, it won't be as easy as people claimed.

Davis original claim -- in parliament





and May now :




Meanwhile DEFRA won't release the govt. report about food prices post Brexit


http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/government-withholds-brexit-food-price-report.htm

efra is under fire after choosing to withhold a report on the food prices changes it expects as a result of the UK leaving the European Union.

It follows a freedom of information request by the union Unite, which represents food, drink and agriculture workers.

Unite asked Defra to publish details of any assessment or estimate made of the increase in food prices in the run-up to Brexit and the first five years afterwards.

The union said any price increases were likely to have a major effect on consumers – as well as on the UK’s food industry, which employs more than three million workers.

But Defra said the requested information was being withheld because it fell under an exemption in Section 35 of the Freedom of Information Act.

The exemption relates to the formulation and development of government policy.

Appeal
Unite said it would appeal against the decision to withhold the information, arguing that release of the report was in the public interest.

If an internal review was rejected, Unite said it would appeal further to the information commissioner’s office.

Unite national officer Julia Long said: “If the government knows that Brexit is going to affect food prices, then it needs to tell the general public and not pretend that there isn’t a problem.

She added: “The type of Brexit that the UK chooses will clearly have major implications on the nations shopping basket and we need to know what those factors will be.

“Unite will do everything it can to ensure that this report is published.

Public interest
Defra said the department had to balance the public interest in withholding the information against the public interest in disclosure.

It said: “At this early stage of the policy process, where the UK is formulating its negotiating position with the EU, a public authority needs a safe space to formulate policy effectively and to ensure the information it is preparing is timely and accurate.

Defra said its EU exit policy development work was ongoing.

It added: “We consider that premature disclosure of information could seriously mislead the public and is not in the public interest.

“In the meantime, however, Defra will continue to monitor food prices.”

TBF to May she has managed something truly unique :

The TUC ( trade unions congress ) and CBI -- http://www.cbi.org.uk/about/about-us/ -- have put out a joint statement ... ...



...so that's both the workers and the bosses saying your policy is wrong.

Bravo !

Henry Bolton is the new UKIP leader.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/29/henry-bolton-former-soldier-has-reputation-as-competent-technocrat

Henry Bolton?

He has previous experience of running for the role of Kent Police and Crime Commissioner. And that's it.

If memory serves, reds8n was a big fan of the police and crime commissioners, so maybe he knows something about this

At any rate, who knows how long he'll last for? UKIP seems pretty fractured these days.

 AndrewC wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
They spend millions preserving cultural identity.

The knee jerk reaction to that is "Who's cultural identity?"

Which is unfair to all sides, but relevant to a sizable portion of the UK populace.
?

Everyone's. It's up to the different levels of government in each state to decide where to allocate those funds.

It goes to promoting local museums, Welsh language and British cinema, for instance.

 Ketara wrote:

I think you missed my point. My point being (to be explicit and unambigious) that you can issue a batch of statistics on practically anything; but that the relevancy of those statistics to any one individual subject or situation is entirely a matter of debate and perspective when relating to the point at hand.

Except this is really making my point that you misunderstanding the outcomes of statistical analysis. A full statistical analysis will ask a specific question at hand. For example does immigration reduce wages etc. As you've correctly pointed out research has been undertaken by Dustmann amongst others on the larger UK scale. There results show that to a three sigma level (i.e. 99.7%, noting this would be the lowest value in scientific circles that a result would be considered significant) that immigration at the levels you stated result a national wage change in the lowest5% quartile of +0.181% to -1.51% with the mean result being -0.665%. Therefore we can conclusively say that at the 3 sigma level the result of whether wage increases or decreases is not significant. That more data needs to be collected and analysed to refine the results. You can expect variances nationally on similar sized data groups (for example the lowest 5%) there will be some worse than the mean result, but conversely to maintain the mean there will also be those in the 5% bracket that do better than the mean. However what we do not know is whether this variance would be the same without immigration; we can also not say that plumbers in London are worse off because of immigration because this specific question has not been researched. This data would need to be gathered and statistically analysed at this level. Claiming that the results in the papers mean that plumbers in London are worse off due to immigration is very poor interpretation of the results. It does not say this, a supposition has been made without appropriate evidence. It could quite possibly be that plumbers in London are better off because of immigration. We simply don't know as the research hasn't been carried out. All we can say specifically is what happens on a national scale. The latter is the correct interpretation, the former is where the 'myths' start (or misquoted). The reason plumbers can't make a living could be due to other factors (as a random example all lots of new builds all with modern plumbing requiring less plumbers per household)

Errr......with all due respect, going 'Well, just because it's resulted in wage depression for the last twenty years doesn't mean it will do in the future or a different scenario!' is kind of stating the obvious. The point under discussion was whether or not immigration had, in the past, in this country, resulted in wage depression. The answer appears to be 'No generally on a national level, but Yes when specifically considering the bottom 5% of earners' if the OUP summary is one to go by. Whether that will continue to be the case in the future is really by the by.

As I pointed out though the result isn't actually statistically significant at the 99.7% confidence level though (3 sigma). Therefore it is questionable at this time without more data that this is actually happening. The report sticks to 95% confidence interval which effectively means that there is a 1 in 20 chance that the result is outside their stated range. That's just too high probabilities to have much confidence in the conclusion.

Not to mention (and I'll be blunt here) you appear to be claiming that somehow even though a 2.5% decrease adds up to the sums previously given by me, and that this was the average in the years assessed by the studies, somehow through some statistical quirk (which I'm not quite following) you equate it to a decrease of 1p per hour as opposed to the 20p basic math would indicate (assuming you were referring to that bottom 5% and not generally). You need to explain this better because I'm not following, and if I'm not following, I'm reasonably sure few other people will be. Communication is key in cases like these. Break it down some more.

2.5% was calculated by yourself over a 20 year period

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%

. The problem is that you've calculated it over the 20 years and inferred a wage decrease of this amount at the current time, but excludes other potential factors such as the minimum wage. We can't actually say this. The reports only refer to a wage change in relation to changes in the percentage of immigration levels (not over a time period). Therefore you need to correct for the aggregation bias by considering things over 20 years. I made an arbitrary decision to accept your figures and pro-rata them to a by year rate on the assumption that immigration levels remained the same each year over that time. This is a bit of a generalisation and a better method would be to look at the latest year figures and calculate the current year value from that. As such £0.20 per hour over the stated 20 years assuming equal immigration changes over all years hence equates to 1p per hour; to iterate this is likely to be different based on actual immigration figures, although it is reasonable first estimate without having to dig out specific figures.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Why does a common market need a rapid reaction force? Are they worried that French farmers might not follow EU regulations?

Armed forces don't just go to war. They also can also provide support for crises, or the prevention of some crime operations. For example a rapid reaction force could be used to support EU islands devastated by a hurricane (noting the UKs poor response to other countries here). Rather than multiple forces all with ad hoc fleets about you could have one co-ordinated effort, where resources can be pooled (such as man power, storage vessels etc). Alternatively the active and co-ordinated campaigns to stop illegal people smuggling, rather than different countries doing different things. Support for those trapped by an earthquake in Greece and so on. Armed forces aren't just there to go to war, they also provide a lot of other support and humanitarian roles.

Foreign policy: why does a common market need a foreign policy? If it is a union of sovereign nations, then why does it need a foreign policy? Surely every member nation is free to pursue their own foreign policy goals? If the Ukraine debacle is anything to go by, the EU needs a foreign policy like the Titanic needs an iceberg.

If you have common market then you also need common foreign polices for how this applies globally. Such as the EU has stated it wants to be seen as a 'moral compass' in how they trade and deal with other countries that it trades with; they want to introduce a EU wide requirement to protect EU assets being bought out by other countries (for example ports). If you want to have trade deals then it want's to be seen as acting fairly to all countries and hence these countries need to know what principles they need to agree to get the trade deals.

Why can't this democractically elected EU parliament propose its own legislation like other parliaments? Sounds more like a sham to me. A talking shop.

It can propose legislation...here's a simplified guide

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/external/html/legislativeprocedure/default_en.htm

Finance minister: why does this union of soveeign nations need a finance minister? Every nation has it's own, so why the need for an EU one?

Because as noted before the EU has it's own budget of approx. £150bn and believes that there should be more oversight on how this is spent and who is responsible. It's not there to take away the budget control of individual country's finances.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Henry Bolton is the new UKIP leader.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/29/henry-bolton-former-soldier-has-reputation-as-competent-technocrat

Henry Bolton?

He has previous experience of running for the role of Kent Police and Crime Commissioner. And that's it.

If memory serves, reds8n was a big fan of the police and crime commissioners, so maybe he knows something about this

At any rate, who knows how long he'll last for? UKIP seems pretty fractured these days.

And? So? Whats your point? UKIP is a 2nd rate party. Its hardly surprising it has 2nd rate leaders.

My point is that for a healthy democracy, a multi-party system is a good thing.

Sadly, British politics is in a dire state.

The non-Conservative Conservative party is literally a dying party. Membership is declining and the average age of it's members is 75

The PM is a lame duck, the cabinet is useless, and their annual jolly (where they pretend to be Tories for a few days) will struggle to do anything of note other than divide the party further.

The Labour party have 1970s solutions to 1970s problems, which is all very well and good...except it's 2017

And at any rate, Corbyn won't be able to fudge Brexit forever.

As for the rest, the Lib Dems are as feeble as always, the Greens a fringe party, the SNP have lost their way, and so we come to UKIP.

I'm not a UKIP supporter or member, but by God, we desperately need somebody to stand up for Brexit.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
My point is that for a healthy democracy, a multi-party system is a good thing.

Sadly, British politics is in a dire state.

The non-Conservative Conservative party is literally a dying party. Membership is declining and the average age of it's members is 75

The PM is a lame duck, the cabinet is useless, and their annual jolly (where they pretend to be Tories for a few days) will struggle to do anything of note other than divide the party further.

The Labour party have 1970s solutions to 1970s problems, which is all very well and good...except it's 2017

And at any rate, Corbyn won't be able to fudge Brexit forever.

As for the rest, the Lib Dems are as feeble as always, the Greens a fringe party, the SNP have lost their way, and so we come to UKIP.

I'm not a UKIP supporter or member, but by God, we desperately need somebody to stand up for Brexit.

UKIP, well with Brexit seemingly a given and the whole thing going ahead it seemed that they where redundant and they rapidly failed.
Now with things in doubt there bvoter base might start coming back as they become the Brexit party again. and become the lobby for presure to make things move forward.

they may have a second chance to shine.

Thats all they ever were and ever will be - a pressure group.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The Labour party have 1970s solutions to 1970s problems, which is all very well and good...except it's 2017

To anyone who keeps up to date with political, social, andd economic theory, they have extremely up-to-date solutions to very modern problems - they're the only major party in UK politics (both the English and Welsh Greens and Scottish Greens are onto it as well) who've even used phrases like internet of things or smart factories, never mind acknowledged that we need to coompletely reform our economies before everyone gets replaced by machines, whilst everyone else is wandering about thinking petrol cars are at the forefront of technology and economic systems from the 1900s are here forever. Hell, the Tories and Lib Dems slaughtered Corbyn when he mentioned the internet of things on the basis that he was using meaningless buzzwords - but it's Labour that are out of date?