Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[adrian lord]

Do you not have any thoughts beyond a headline from the Express or Mail?

 

Its about far more than pensions - and even if it were just that we're talking about the contractual pensions owed to "insightless grey mediocrities" like Farage and the other UKIP MEPs. We could save a bit if they resigned now instead pf hanging on for every last pound. Britain has been 'wedded' to the EU for over 40 years with longstanding financial commitments on both sides. We wont leave for around another two years, if we ever do. Unravelling all of that is going to be complex.

 

Not the Mail or Express' words, old chap, but straight from Juncker himself:

 

[buctootim]

Not the Mail or Express' words, old chap, but straight from Juncker himself:

 

 

The Express and Mail point was reference to your "insightless, grey mediocrities" and "feather-nest jobsworth dullard Eurocrats".

 

As I said previously there are long standing commitments on both sides. I have no idea whether the hefty bill will be outweighed by our share of the assets, and nor do you. In any event even if it were all about pension commitments, what would you do? walk away from them like Maxwell or Philip Green. Screw the British civil servants, translators and programme staff who worked in the EC for 40 years? Seems like an interesting idea. Maybe the British taxpayers and companies could save a buck by walking away from the pension commitments made to you and Wes.

[adrian lord]

I don't read such papers- clearly you do since you seem to know about their content!

 

The only print paper I subscribe and read is The Economist.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wes Tender]

Your ability to get the wrong end of the stick, to misread, or simply see what you want is legendary. Thats why Shurlock calls you out. Your own quote endorses what Ive said you utter dimwit.

 

It will be a process of negotiation. There will be assets and liabilities on both sides. Working it all out will be a long process. It cant be completed until there is a leaving date.

 

Just as Adrian Lord has called you out for getting the wrong end of the stick

 

Like him, I also quoted Juncker. So you agree then that Juncker was wrong and that we can after all have a cut price exit once our share of the EU assets has been deducted from our obligational liabilities?

[buctootim]

Just as Adrian Lord has called you out for getting the wrong end of the stick

 

Like him, I also quoted Juncker. So you agree then that Juncker was wrong and that we can after all have a cut price exit once our share of the EU assets has been deducted from our obligational liabilities?

 

Juncker is right. You are confused. State normal

[Wes Tender]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-second-eu-referendum-former-head-of-civil-service-lord-butler-gus-odonnell-a7592066.html

 

Old duffer and former head of the Civil Service Lord Butler, reckons that we ought to have another referendum on whether to leave the EU. This must be the sort of scenario that Timmy hangs his forlorn hopes on, that we might not leave after all.

 

Ironic really that Butler presided as Head of the Civil Service during the period when the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam were signed and I very much doubt at that time that he will have been pressing the Governments in power during his tenure that a referendum should have been held in order that the electorate could pass judgement on the substantial changes from what was the Common Market towards a Federal EU.

[Wes Tender]

Juncker is right. You are confused. State normal

 

Juncker is right, we can't have a cut price deal by virtue of realising the value of the assets of the EU that we are entitled to a share of?

[Guided Missile]

The UK’s Brexit bill: could EU assets partially offset liabilities?

 

The ‘Brexit bill’ is likely to be one of the most contentious aspects of the upcoming negotiations. But estimates so far focus largely on the EU costs and liabilities that the UK will have to buy its way out of. What about the EU’s assets? The UK will surely get a share of those, and they could total €153.7bn.

 

Above article here

[shurlock]

The UK’s Brexit bill: could EU assets partially offset liabilities?

 

The ‘Brexit bill’ is likely to be one of the most contentious aspects of the upcoming negotiations. But estimates so far focus largely on the EU costs and liabilities that the UK will have to buy its way out of. What about the EU’s assets? The UK will surely get a share of those, and they could total €153.7bn.

 

Above article here

 

Keep up Trident - Les already helpfully linked the article.

[shurlock]

So now it's years and years...wonder if that's the kippers on here quite envisaged.

 

Cabinet minister says it will take 'years and years' for Britons to fill jobs done by EU workers

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-davis-migrants-brexit-workers-eu-uk-stay-open-immigration-years-latest-a7592616.html

[CB Fry]

So now it's years and years...wonder if that's the kippers on here quite envisaged.

 

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-davis-migrants-brexit-workers-eu-uk-stay-open-immigration-years-latest-a7592616.html

Kipper heart-throbs like Dan Hannan and that bloke from Wetherspoons were and are very clear that "control" over immigration shouldn't ever actually mean reduction in immigration. But that kind of thing got lost in the dizzy glory of all that additional money the NHS are definitely getting.

 

So all the poor saps in Boston and Grimsby and indeed Shirley who think them, like, scrounging dirty foreigners are going back where they came from/enough's enough/we're full etc will be in for something of a shock. The rich establishment will ensure the steady flow of cash generating cheap labour will continue to flow in just as it always has. Especially when we've whored ourselves in trade deals with India and Oz.

 

But, on the plus side, no more foreign bananas.

[aintforever]

So now it's years and years...wonder if that's the kippers on here quite envisaged.

 

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-davis-migrants-brexit-workers-eu-uk-stay-open-immigration-years-latest-a7592616.html

 

Yep, pretty much as expected.

[Weston Super Saint]

 

But, on the plus side, no more foreign bananas.

 

Which is great news! I never knew the 'hidden' benefit of leaving the EU would mean our climate reached the point where we could grow our own bananas. I bet Greece and Spain will be livid when they find out as there won't be any reason for Brits to holiday abroad!

[shurlock]

Kipper heart-throbs like Dan Hannan and that bloke from Wetherspoons were and are very clear that "control" over immigration shouldn't ever actually mean reduction in immigration. But that kind of thing got lost in the dizzy glory of all that additional money the NHS are definitely getting.

 

So all the poor saps in Boston and Grimsby and indeed Shirley who think them, like, scrounging dirty foreigners are going back where they came from/enough's enough/we're full etc will be in for something of a shock. The rich establishment will ensure the steady flow of cash generating cheap labour will continue to flow in just as it always has. Especially when we've whored ourselves in trade deals with India and Oz.

 

But, on the plus side, no more foreign bananas.

 

Meanwhile you have kippers from the Home Counties crying foul on the pages of the Mail, bemoaning why workhouses can't be opened in towns like Boston and Grimbsy for the feckless and idle to do these jobs instead. So much for solidarity among Brexiters.

 

On the plus side, Les can keep his polish carer, Natalia, to wipe his bottom and administer his meds.

[Wes Tender]

 

 

She does a lot more than that, Shatlock, me old mucker.

[Orange]

Kipper heart-throbs like Dan Hannan and that bloke from Wetherspoons were and are very clear that "control" over immigration shouldn't ever actually mean reduction in immigration. But that kind of thing got lost in the dizzy glory of all that additional money the NHS are definitely getting.

 

So all the poor saps in Boston and Grimsby and indeed Shirley who think them, like, scrounging dirty foreigners are going back where they came from/enough's enough/we're full etc will be in for something of a shock. The rich establishment will ensure the steady flow of cash generating cheap labour will continue to flow in just as it always has. Especially when we've whored ourselves in trade deals with India and Oz.

 

But, on the plus side, no more foreign bananas.

 

At least we will have regained our right as a sovereign nation to decide on a year to year basis our own policy. At elections parties can put forward their policy and the electorate can make that decision. We're in control, we won't have our hands tied behind our back having to accept decades of 350,000+ net each year without being able to do a thing about it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

At least we will have regained our right as a sovereign nation to decide on a year to year basis our own policy. At elections parties can put forward their policy and the electorate can make that decision. We're in control, we won't have our hands tied behind our back having to accept decades of 350,000+ net each year without being able to do a thing about it.

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

At least we will have regained our right as a sovereign nation to decide on a year to year basis our own policy. At elections parties can put forward their policy and the electorate can make that decision. We're in control, we won't have our hands tied behind our back having to accept decades of 350,000+ net each year without being able to do a thing about it.

 

Your naivety is endearing.

[CB Fry]

At least we will have regained our right as a sovereign nation to decide on a year to year basis our own policy. At elections parties can put forward their policy and the electorate can make that decision. We're in control, we won't have our hands tied behind our back having to accept decades of 350,000+ net each year without being able to do a thing about it.

Hahahahahaha.

 

If you seriously believe that entire general elections are based on single issues like immigration then bless you.

 

Thankfully them Tories took a right kicking in 2015 following their complete failure to deliver on their "tens of thousands" pledge in 2010.

 

Lastly, the establishment of big business and government will decide on immigration and they really won't give a stuff what you vote.

[Guided Missile]

Thankfully them Tories took a right kicking in 2015 following their complete failure to deliver on their "tens of thousands" pledge in 2010.

By "right kicking", I assume you mean they won the 2015 election with an overall majority?

 

Labour were the party that took a right kicking, due to the fact that the electorate knew they introduced uncontrollable immigration under Tony Blair. Here is the moment that Labour lost it and always makes me chuckle:

 

[shurlock]

By "right kicking", I assume you mean they won the 2015 election with an overall majority?

 

Labour were the party that took a right kicking, due to the fact that the electorate knew they introduced uncontrollable immigration under Tony Blair. Here is the moment that Labour lost it and always makes me chuckle:

 

 

Whooosssshhhhh

 

Is that a heat seeking missile finding its target. Nope it's sarcasm going over some dopey kipper's head.

 

Keep up the good work Trident.

[OldNick]

Hahahahahaha.

 

If you seriously believe that entire general elections are based on single issues like immigration then bless you.

 

Thankfully them Tories took a right kicking in 2015 following their complete failure to deliver on their "tens of thousands" pledge in 2010.

 

Lastly, the establishment of big business and government will decide on immigration and they really won't give a stuff what you vote.

What do you think was the major issue in the Brexit vote that made the difference to the result?

[Wes Tender]

What do you think was the major issue in the Brexit vote that made the difference to the result?

 

Was it immigration, perhaps, Nick? Shatlock believes that the electorate weren't as intelligent as he thinks he is, and were fooled into believing that we would have control over the numbers of immigrants coming into the country if we left the EU. When the Brexit campaign got across its message to the electorate so effectively that leaving the EU meant taking back control of our affairs, immigration was one of the major items covered by that slogan and as you say, it was a strong enough message among others to gain the victory

 

Fry on the other hand, belittles immigration as a major reason for the Conservative election victory, although it was a main policy of UKIP, without whose rise to prominence, there would probably have been no Conservative manifesto promise to hold the referendum.

 

It remains to be seen whether the government do actually reduce the immigration numbers, but as Orange correctly pointed out, at least we will not be obliged to accept uncontrolled immigration as part of the EU single market rules of freedom of movement of peoples. As he says, if the government do not address the immigration issue to the satisfaction of the electorate, then the day of reckoning is the next General Election. However, the chief recipients of any antagonism towards the Government would normally be Her Majesty's opposition, but calling them that is a bit of a misnomer at the moment, as they are pretty well unelectable with Corbyn leading them.

[OldNick]

Was it immigration, perhaps, Nick? Shatlock believes that the electorate weren't as intelligent as he thinks he is, and were fooled into believing that we would have control over the numbers of immigrants coming into the country if we left the EU. When the Brexit campaign got across its message to the electorate so effectively that leaving the EU meant taking back control of our affairs, immigration was one of the major items covered by that slogan and as you say, it was a strong enough message among others to gain the victory

 

Fry on the other hand, belittles immigration as a major reason for the Conservative election victory, although it was a main policy of UKIP, without whose rise to prominence, there would probably have been no Conservative manifesto promise to hold the referendum.

 

It remains to be seen whether the government do actually reduce the immigration numbers, but as Orange correctly pointed out, at least we will not be obliged to accept uncontrolled immigration as part of the EU single market rules of freedom of movement of peoples. As he says, if the government do not address the immigration issue to the satisfaction of the electorate, then the day of reckoning is the next General Election. However, the chief recipients of any antagonism towards the Government would normally be Her Majesty's opposition, but calling them that is a bit of a misnomer at the moment, as they are pretty well unelectable with Corbyn leading them.

To be fair to CB, the General Election was not won on immigration, but to my mind without doubt the Brexit was down to immigration. I knwo people will say its the 350m to the NHS but it was immigration and the labour heartlands voted for Brexit due to that issue

[CB Fry]

What do you think was the major issue in the Brexit vote that made the difference to the result?

 

Not really relevant. The referendum was myriad issues/gripes/concerns/agendas wrapped up in a diametric yes/no question.

 

A general election is all of those issues, plus loads more, wrapped up in a far more complicated parliamentary system. As we saw in 2015, immigration will be one issue but so will everything else that impacts people lives.

 

If Party A don't achieve the immigration level people want, do folk really think that the electorate will then neatly vote in Party B to achieve it instead. To hell with any other policy either party A or B esposes, because every election from now on is just a straw poll on the immigration number. Yay sovereignty.

[Orange]

Hahahahahaha.

 

If you seriously believe that entire general elections are based on single issues like immigration then bless you.

 

Thankfully them Tories took a right kicking in 2015 following their complete failure to deliver on their "tens of thousands" pledge in 2010.

 

Lastly, the establishment of big business and government will decide on immigration and they really won't give a stuff what you vote.

 

I don't get what your point is. It seems you're saying immigration will be hard to get under control because of vested interests by big business, so we should therefore just give up and have no control whatsoever for the next however many decades? Most leave voters didn't believe voting out would stop all immigration/drastically cut it all of a sudden, but they recognised they had the choice of being able to vote for a degree of future control over it, or having our hands tied behind our back accepting these levels for decades to come.

 

It was unforeseeable a decade ago we'd leave the EU, but UKIP and Tory backbenches put sufficient electoral pressure on the Tories to offer an in out referendum, and here we are. So is it really that crazy to think we can reduce numbers on immigration? Remember that current levels are an unprecedented new phenomenon, it's not like we're having to undo something that's historically entrenched or been going on for generations here.

[shurlock]

I don't get what your point is. It seems you're saying immigration will be hard to get under control because of vested interests by big business, so we should therefore just give up and have no control whatsoever for the next however many decades? Most leave voters didn't believe voting out would stop all immigration/drastically cut it all of a sudden, but they recognised they had the choice of being able to vote for a degree of future control over it, or having our hands tied behind our back accepting these levels for decades to come.

 

It was unforeseeable a decade ago we'd leave the EU, but UKIP and Tory backbenches put sufficient electoral pressure on the Tories to offer an in out referendum, and here we are. So is it really that crazy to think we can reduce numbers on immigration? Remember that current levels are an unprecedented new phenomenon, it's not like we're having to undo something that's historically entrenched or been going on for generations here.

 

Not been much appetite to tackle non-EU immigration, even as immigration from the EU was rising. The UK has always had formal 'control' over this. Indeed the UK will likely have to give up some control here as movement of people will invariably be a part of any FTA the UK hopes to sign as it attempts to mitigate the adverse effects of leaving the single market and possibly customs union.

Edited 23 February, 2017 by shurlock

[Orange]

Not been much appetite to tackle non-EU immigration, even as immigration from the EU was rising. The UK has always had formal 'control' over this. Indeed the UK will likely have to give up some control here as movement of people will invariably be a part of any FTA the UK hopes to sign as it attempts to mitigate the adverse effects of leaving the single market and possibly customs union.

 

EU migration has now surpassed non-EU migration- the EU is 6% of the world's population, but accounts for more than half our migration. Seems disproportionate to me. 74,000 alone coming from Romania/Bulgaria in one year (remember when Farage was mocked for saying they'd be a huge increase). If these levels are a recent phenomenon i don't understand the mentality that we have no choice now and have to accept adding over a million to our population every 3 years? And with the state the Eurozone is in, these numbers will probably only get worse.

[moonraker]

EU migration has now surpassed non-EU migration- the EU is 6% of the world's population, but accounts for more than half our migration. Seems disproportionate to me. 74,000 alone coming from Romania/Bulgaria in one year (remember when Farage was mocked for saying they'd be a huge increase). If these levels are a recent phenomenon i don't understand the mentality that we have no choice now and have to accept adding over a million to our population every 3 years? And with the state the Eurozone is in, these numbers will probably only get worse.

 

Don't worry once the Quitters have ruined our country these dammed johnny foreigners will have no reason to come.

[Orange]

Don't worry once the Quitters have ruined our country these dammed johnny foreigners will have no reason to come.

 

It's almost like you're trying to be a parody act.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The labour working class voters outside of metropolitan areas have always had some pretty right wing views on immigration , it's just that they never voted Tory. They are also pretty right facing on social issues, certainly more so than Cameron & his merry band of pinkos. Obviously the referendum result highlighted this & the coalition between lefties & socially conservative (small c) people is causing Steptoe major problems

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

As I expect many will already know, today's statistics from the ONS show that net immigration in the UK is now falling - I understand in large part because the number of foreign students choosing to study here is declining. While no doubt some will welcome this development, I'm thinking that this is rather bad news for UK PLC as foreign students actually represent a valuable source of income for our further education sector. To state the patently obvious, business activity such as this has in recent decades gone some way towards replacing our now (largely lost) traditional heavy industries. It seems to me that fewer foreign students will almost certainly hurt our economy to some extent - for the hard of thinking on here that would be a bad thing.

 

The next question is to ask WHY are so many foreign students suddenly 'voting with their feet' and deciding to study elsewhere in the world? We might also wonder why are unprecedented numbers of foreign born EU nationals living and working here in the UK opting now to apply for official documentation proving their legal status here?

 

The most probable answer to both questions seems clear enough - i.e. rightly or wrongly Brexit Britain has acquired for itself a reputation as a insular - if not outright xenophobic - place that no longer welcomes foreigners as it once did. I suspect that this too will be a matter of little concern to some reading this.

[Wes Tender]

It's almost like you're trying to be a parody act.

 

It is; he's trying to parody CEC.

[Wes Tender]

https://capx.co/does-the-single-market-really-boost-exports/

 

As it says, does the EU single market really boost exports?

[shurlock]

https://capx.co/does-the-single-market-really-boost-exports/

 

As it says, does the EU single market really boost exports?

 

Les- the civitas report is a shockingly bad piece of analysis. An undergraduate econometrician could have done a better job. The only thing I learned from it is not to trust nonleague sociologists.

[Weston Super Saint]

Les- the civitas report is a shockingly bad piece of analysis. An undergraduate econometrician could have done a better job. The only thing I learned from it is not to trust nonleague sociologists.

 

Or to put it another way, you will not accept the findings of anyone who is not on your 'approved' academics list

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Or to put it another way, you will not accept the findings of anyone who is not on your 'approved' academics list

 

Or put another way Brexit supporters only post stuff that they feel support their argument.

[shurlock]

Or to put it another way, you will not accept the findings of anyone who is not on your 'approved' academics list

 

No mare. Scroll back and read my original criticisms. They focus on the analysis, not the author behind them. Don't you think if you're going to contrast growth of exports during the Common Market years (flatteringly) with growth of exports during the Single Market years (unflatteringly), you might want to look at services given 80% of the UK economy comes from providing services? This is particularly true since the biggest difference made by the Single Market was in the area of services.

 

I could go into the study's failure to control for omitted variables (essential when one is making causal or counterfactual statements i.e. the UK would have been better off in a common market-type arrangement) or take account of dynamic effects (essential for any welfare analysis); but I dare say, you wouldn't understand.

Edited 23 February, 2017 by shurlock

[aintforever]

Not really relevant. The referendum was myriad issues/gripes/concerns/agendas wrapped up in a diametric yes/no question.

 

A general election is all of those issues, plus loads more, wrapped up in a far more complicated parliamentary system. As we saw in 2015, immigration will be one issue but so will everything else that impacts people lives.

 

If Party A don't achieve the immigration level people want, do folk really think that the electorate will then neatly vote in Party B to achieve it instead. To hell with any other policy either party A or B esposes, because every election from now on is just a straw poll on the immigration number. Yay sovereignty.

 

Of course immigration is just one issue, same can be said for every other issue that a government controls. Everyone votes for different reasons, if mass uncontrolled immigration is causing people problems then it will become a more important factor when voting. **** me it's not rocket science.

 

The Tories won the last election despite Cameron's bull**** targets because Immigration was not an issue because whoever won would have zero control on EU numbers anyway. If immigration was your main gripe then there was no point even voting.

Edited 23 February, 2017 by aintforever

[shurlock]

Of course immigration is just one issue, same can be said for every other issue that a government controls. Everyone votes for different reasons, if mass uncontrolled immigration is causing people problems then it will become a more important factor when voting. **** me it's not rocket science.

 

The Tories won the last election despite Cameron's bull**** targets because if immigration was your main issue there was no one to vote for that could make any difference and dodgy Daves 100k target was the best you could hope for.

 

Not how I remember things. The Tories won by playing up their economic credentials and seriousness in tackling the deficit -all while attacking Labours supposed untrustworthiness and incompetence on the economy -not only for borrowing too much when in power but then not taking responsibility for its record. Reread the pages on here: immigration wasn't irrelevant, but it was massively overshadowed by attention on the deficit.

Edited 23 February, 2017 by shurlock

[aintforever]

Not how I remember things. The Tories won by playing up its economic credentials and seriousness in tackling the deficit -all while attacking Labours supposed untrustworthiness and incompetence on the economy -not only for borrowing too much when in power but then not taking responsibility for its record. Reread the pages on here: immigration wasn't irrelevant, but it was massively overshadowed by attention on the deficit.

 

Immigration was irrelivant because all three parties knew that they would have no control anyway so it was just swept under the carpet. If it was something that effected you, you had no vote, if you brought the subject up you were a racist - hence the refurendum result.

[shurlock]

Immigration was irrelivant because all three parties knew that they would have no control anyway so it was just swept under the carpet. If it was something that effected you, you had no vote, if you brought the subject up you were a racist - hence the refurendum result.

 

Don't follow. Government had plenty of control over immigration if it singlemindedly wanted to do something about it. Non-EU immigration is at similar recorded levels as those for the EU. Fact is outside the most fundamentalist kippers, nobody in a general election votes solely on the basis of immigration.

[Wes Tender]

Or put another way Brexit supporters only post stuff that they feel support their argument.

 

Whereas the Remoaners only post stuff that opposes their own arguments, do they?

[aintforever]

Don't follow. Government had plenty of control over immigration if it singlemindedly wanted to do something about it. Non-EU immigration is at similar recorded levels as those for the EU. Fact is outside the most fundamentalist kippers, nobody in a general election votes solely on the basis of immigration.

 

Well it's obviously an issue because the country are happy to take the economic leap in the dark to do something about it.

 

To be honest it doesn't effect my daily life in the slightest but it doesn't take a huge amount of empathy to understand why some people see it as an issue.

[Weston Super Saint]

Don't follow. Government had plenty of control over immigration if it singlemindedly wanted to do something about it. Non-EU immigration is at similar recorded levels as those for the EU. Fact is outside the most fundamentalist kippers, nobody in a general election votes solely on the basis of immigration.

 

For someone who claims to be super intelligent, you certainly can be a bit dim sometimes!

 

Yes, the Government COULD have controlled immigration from non-EU countries if it wanted to, but with the completely free movement of people FROM EU countries, which the Government had NO control over, immigration as a whole was uncontrollable!

[Wes Tender]

I could go into the study's failure to control for omitted variables (essential when one is making causal or counterfactual statements i.e. the UK would have been better off in a common market-type arrangement) or take account of dynamic effects (essential for any welfare analysis); but I dare say, you wouldn't understand.

 

Go on, try us. Here is the link to the original article on which the post was based.

 

http://www.civitas.org.uk/email-resources/myth-and-paradox.pdf

 

Explain yourself. It is easy to be critical of a report like this with the sort of throwaway platitudes that you have employed. Let's see some substance to your criticism. No doubt you will quote the parts you disagree with and explain where Burrage has got it wrong, using factual statistics from reputable bodies to disprove his figures.

 

And whilst you are at it, rubbishing Michael Burrage for producing a report that you claim is at the level of an undergraduate econometrician, perhaps you will enlighten us with your qualifications as an expert on economics and trade, so that we can compare them with Burrage's.

 

I welcome the possibility that we might have such a heavyweight expert on this football forum, giving us such knowledgeable insights into matters like this when his expertise and time must surely be so much in demand. We are indeed blessed.

[shurlock]

Go on, try us. Here is the link to the original article on which the post was based.

 

http://www.civitas.org.uk/email-resources/myth-and-paradox.pdf

 

Explain yourself. It is easy to be critical of a report like this with the sort of throwaway platitudes that you have employed. Let's see some substance to your criticism. No doubt you will quote the parts you disagree with and explain where Burrage has got it wrong, using factual statistics from reputable bodies to disprove his figures.

 

And whilst you are at it, rubbishing Michael Burrage for producing a report that you claim is at the level of an undergraduate econometrician, perhaps you will enlighten us with your qualifications as an expert on economics and trade, so that we can compare them with Burrage's.

 

I welcome the possibility that we might have such a heavyweight expert on this football forum, giving us such knowledgeable insights into matters like this when his expertise and time must surely be so much in demand. We are indeed blessed.

 

Bless you Les. My criticism is that it doesn't even get out of the starting blocks because it's methodology is so flawed. Let's be clear - it is worse than an undergraduate econometrician.

 

Not sure why you didn't copy or respond to the first half of my post regarding his omission of services in his comparison of the Single Market and the Common Market? Why is that Les - perhaps because you realise it misses a huge part of the picture. Most people would stop reading right there.

 

Reread my response to Trident a few pages back. Without even the most basic controls to exclude other economic trends and factors that might have affected trade volumes and growth (e.g. systematic differences in GDP growth between the two periods given it affects trade - hence most analyses look at long-run elasticity of imports to GDP), it is impossible to make the causal and counterfactual statements that Burrage carelessly throws around. It really is peak amateur hour and bad science - equivalent to saying that Saints win fewer games today than they did in L1 and Championship and concluding they are not as good despite obvious differences in league quality and number of games played. This is not a strawman - this is effectively what he does - that you missed it speaks to your own ignorance and ultimately why you should stick to the football threads.

 

The report is riddled with howlers. Saying that nonEU countries have concluded trade deals with larger markets than the EU misses the blindingly obvious point is that it is because they've done a deal with the EU, the world's largest market and the EU can't do a deal with itself!

 

More seriously, no sophisticated analysis is done on the quality of those deals. Just because Switzerland or Australia have FTAs with China, unlike the EU, doesn't mean they've magically unlocked a $10tn economy. Far from it. The reality is that most nonEU FTAs are not associated with significantly greater trade flows than do countries without any trade agreement -see the Ebell work you've refused to address (note that does have proper controls). The dismal performance of most FTAs can be attributed to their lack of progress in dismantling non-tariff barriers, which are particularly important for services trade and the UK's prospects.

 

I could go on and on but you'd have to pay me to comment in detail on s staggeringly cr*p piece of analysis. You'd be getting value for money as I can assure you my credentials are top notch

Edited 24 February, 2017 by shurlock

[shurlock]

Mandleson did a great job for Brexit supporters on Marr this morning. It's great seeing unelected peers, with massive EU pensions, telling the British people they didn't know what they were voting for. Of course Marr being a raving pinko let him off the hook, but hopefully Nuttell will be quoting him this week in Stoke

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I wonder whether Nuttell quoted Mandy or not.

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

I wonder whether Nuttell quoted Mandy or not.

 

 

To get elected, a ardent remoaner who called Brexit a piece of shiete, guaranteed he'd vote for Brexit in any commons vote . They're all Leavers now, it's game set & match. No need for UKIP , when we're getting a UKIP Brexit anyway.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John B]

For someone who claims to be super intelligent, you certainly can be a bit dim sometimes!

 

Yes, the Government COULD have controlled immigration from non-EU countries if it wanted to, but with the completely free movement of people FROM EU countries, which the Government had NO control over, immigration as a whole was uncontrollable!

 

The EU Freedom of Movement of workers into the UK has been a major success – despite the spin and deception surrounding these rights. However, by failing to demonstrate control, successive UK Governments have invited criticism – to the point that it was used by the Leave campaign as a representation of how the EU has lost control of it’s borders.

 

The FoM directive allows for the “old” countries to restrict the rights of migrants from “new” countries for up to 7 years. The powers vary from stopping migration completely or allowing only for selected categories of work on a work permit basis.

 

IN 2004 THE UK CHOSE NOT TO USE THIS POWER AT ALL.

 

One of the sharpest rises in net migration came in 2004, when the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia joined. The UK was one of only 3 of the original EU members (UK, Sweden and Eire) to choose not to apply transitional restrictions on these eight countries.

 

In contrast Germany and Austria kept the transitional restrictions in place for a full seven years. Other countries kept restrictions for between 2-5 years and the Netherlands reserved the right to impose further restrictions if there were ever more than 22,000 migrants in a year.

 

By not implementing the restrictions the UK invited the surge of migration. They could have avoided the surge and the enormous bad press that accompanied it if they so chose.

 

 

The FoM directive is clear. The directive enables Member States to adopt the necessary measures to refuse, terminate or withdraw any right conferred in the event of abuse of rights or fraud, such as marriages of convenience. Article 35 of the directive expressly grants Member States the power, in the event of abuse or fraud, to withdraw any right conferred by the directive. The Migrant could be removed from the UK as well as prosecuted for Fraud.

 

The UK have not used this power – ever. As the UK does not know or track how many migrants are using the welfare system in this way then it is unable to even try to exercise this power.

 

Other EU members insist on migrants proving that they can support themselves. For example Belgium requires all migrants to prove they have sufficient funds, health insurance and suitable housing.

 

Whilst the FoM directive is now widely blamed for an “unacceptable burden” (Theresa May) the problem would seem to be more one of lack of control by the UK Government rather than “Benefit Tourism” by migrants.

 

 

After 3 months in the UK EU migrants need to be either working, have a member of the family working or have sufficient funds to live (and have full sickness insurance). If not then they can be returned to their home country.

 

The UK does not register migrants as they arrive and as such has no way of knowing how long they have been in the UK. There are no efforts to track or control this movement *. This once more allows the EU-skeptics to portray the FoM as “uncontrolled migration”.

 

In contrast Belgium requires all migrants to register at their Town Hall within 3 months of entering the country and if they intend to work their claim will be assessed and will be processed within 6 months. During this time they can reside in Belgium provided they can prove they have sufficient funds, health insurance and suitable housing. If permission is granted they will be issued with a Foreigners ID card. Only after 5 years of legal and continuous residence in Belgium will EU/EEA and Swiss citizens automatically acquire the right to permanent residence in Belgium (residence card E+)

 

It is not the FoM that causes the lack of control in migration it is the UK Government themselves.

 

 

As part of the pre-referendum renegotiation, Mr Cameron secured a further power. This “emergency brake/Red Card” mechanism would allow any EU country whose welfare system has come under strain, as the result of an influx of EU migrants of ‘an exceptional magnitude’, to restrict access to certain kinds of welfare benefits.

 

This power was lost once the UK voted Leave in the June Referendum.

 

 

To summarize it was the UK’s choice to not implement a 7 year partial or full migrant break in order to prepare for fresh immigration from new EU countries, almost all other countries did so.

 

Even with that failure, considerable EU powers already exist to manage migration. It is legally possible to register & track all immigrants, ensure they are entirely financially and medically self supporting, prevent and/or prosecute benefit fraud and return home any migrants who are not economically active.

 

Furthermore, Cameron secured an “emergency brake” to suspend Welfare Payments to migrants if necessary – powers which are now lost.

 

Other EU countries use these powers which might explain their reluctance to fix something that is not broken.

 

It is entirely likely that we are leaving the EU in part because successive UK governments have failed to understand or have been unwilling to use these significant existing powers.