scrubbedexpat141

I honestly wouldn't have a clue what the rules / regs are for passports.

But your views are interesting. I like the second point, the other two I don't know what to say really. The first is irrelevant, because low skilled immigration is needed. The last, I think, is basically your situation....no?

norsk

I don't believe you. Not that it matters

DXBtoDOH

The EU is a changing force. The EU today was not the EU of the 1990s or the early 2000s, for example. The Lisbon and Maastricht treaties were unpopular enough among a segment of the population but at the same time Labour was in firm control so there was no central voice to oppose the treaties. The economy was also booming, things were great, you really couldn't observe or experience the influence of the EU, so why rock the boat even if on a level you didn't agree with the sovereignty issue. It was all still mostly abstract issues and revolutions are never fought over abstract concepts.

But then Freedom of Movement began in 2004 and accelerated from there and the longer it went on the more unpopular the EU became / the more fearful many people became. It was probably the FOM in 2004 that for the first time people became very aware of what the power of the EU really meant - it moved from being abstract concepts that was out of sight and out of mind into an entity that was very real and clearly had powers beyond British voters and sovereignty. Then we had the financial crisis in 2008 and the Greek crisis, followed by the migrant crisis of 2015, none of which the EU handled well - the migrant crisis is especially telling as one single person, Angela Merkel, made a decision that not only contravened existing EU laws but demonstrated how one person, who was not British, could make a decision that radically affected the UK.

The more visible the EU and EU policies became - certainly the more controversial the topic became. So it's no surprising that when Cameron promised the referendum, which was the *first time* a genuine national debate on the EU was offered to the British public, people suddenly became much more outspoken on the topic. Because the opportunity presented itself. You had a real *choice* for once.

Cameron got a lot of flak he didn't deserve (as all PMs do) and he was a sincere man in his own way, but May clearly has principles and people recognise and resonate with her principles. She's firmly rooted in Middle Britain and understands their aspirations, fears and frustrations for she's not an outsider looking at them as Cameron was (similarly so is Corby is for the left, hence his strong popularity among the left if only the left). Does the May - Cameron divide make a difference? Yes, I would say it does. We can go on more about it but I don't want to bore people

norsk

I got bored of Scandi girls growing up. They are all duplicates and yes I tried every country just to be sure . Boring as ****.

My wife is one of those you are afraid of. Second generation!

scrubbedexpat141

Interesting. I think the EU has been blamed for failing as a result of other issues, '08 financial crisis for example. The EU was rock solid against Greece, whilst they bailed them out as a unit should, they've been pretty savage. The support for Greece is dwindling and rightly so, they haven't done a great deal to help themselves. What else can the EU do?

Regarding things like the migrant crisis, we haven't opened the floodgates and we haven't been forced to open the doors to all. We've got some of the lowest immigration stats and the lowest requirements set out by the EU.

Distribution of refugees is quite fair in terms of countries taking a share of responsibility. It's just that some countries are more appealing than others (Germany, UK etc).

UKIP have always been looked at as a nonsense party who just proffer bullshit. Until recently. The Migrant crisis I believe has been the turning point...it's moved both left and right towards the leave vote which is why it garnered so much support so quickly. People then managed to justify their vote in any which way with that gut feeling and pride and nationalistic tendency that we all have deep down.

Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to see the UK flourish as an independent nation but I really worry that it won't. I don't think this vote was anything other than predominantly anti-immigration. Whether folk like my Mum admit it, it definitely played a key role in why she voted leave.

Anyway, old ground mate.

I have faith in May. I believe she's smart and savvy and will play the game to get what we need for Britain, not just conceded.

But we all know the end result is both sides pointing the finger that they've won more. Even closer to home remain and leave voters will point the finger that they've failed and won in different areas and all that shit.

This saga goes well beyond 2019 eh.

Inselaffen

But the EU holds a lot of responsibility for what happened in Greece. Greece like many other countries completely fudged their figures to meet the entry criteria for joining the Euro. The EU knew this and did nothing to stop it because it would have meant the Euro would have been stillborn.

scrubbedexpat141

Interesting. I doubt there are many countries in the EU that haven't played the game like that, or don't still do it.

I'm very glad we never joined the Euro.

Inselaffen

correct. most of the countries entering the Euro only did so by massaging their figures. practically none of them would have been able to meet the criteria without doing so.

weasel decentral

Come on Norm, that's a lazy chart. Its a lower percentage of a higher overall total world GDP. Of course the developing countries like Russia/China/Asia etc were going to take back their own percentage of GDP.

Also the commonwealth includes the like of India, who I don't believe are queuing up to credit the UK for their growth

The chart could be more accurately titled the hunt for confirmation bias.

iggle

Embarrassing

Calais children: Children without UK links among 70 new arrivals - BBC News

Even putting up scaffolding and netting because we can tell that these aren't kids. Wasn't there a bomb found in London yday as well? I guess it'll be mental issues, bullied from a kid story...

Millhouse

Yes. All western economies have. I have a great chart showing the growth of emerging markets really outpacing the west.

The fact is that they are catching up and the world is normalising. Peak income and wealth disparity has passed. the west will find increasing pressure on living standards going forward. Protectionism can only go so far.

The US has done better than Europe for sure. But they are facing the same issues.

Australia might as well be an emerging economy given its heavily (almost) sole reliance in resource exports.

lightandbitter2

Don't even get me started

Eeyore

It's merely a reflection of the world-turned-upside-down nature of things today that Tories are now basically in favour of state subsidies, despite having spent my lifetime insisting that the state should not subsidise industry.

Because subsidies have to be the bottom line with the Nissan deal. Nissan's overriding concern will obviously have been about remaining within the single market and customs union, but the government cannot make any assurances whatsoever about that.

So all it can logically have done is promise that the taxpayer will compensate Nissan for increased costs post-Brexit if it turns out that it will have to pay tariffs and deal with cross-border customs and rules of origin for its parts.

The fact that the government is so desperate not to reveal the substance of the deal is obviously extremely telling, but then it could not afford to let such a prominent employer in a depressed part of the country be the first to relocate to continental Europe to protect itself from Brexit - it would have been politically catastrophic. So it will have been a "we will do whatever's necessary to convince you to stay" deal, and that will have meant a promise of taxpayers' money, lots of it.

DXBtoDOH

It's called having a national industrial policy.... something that has been glaringly missing in the last few decades.

It's the government's job to help anticipate and mitigate disruptions to the economy. If, and this is still a big if without any evidence, Theresa May and her mandarins promised oodles of money or support to Nissan to remain in Britain during a period of potential economic instability, that seems like a fair responsibility on the government's part. Whatever the political machinery behind the scenery, the announcement from Nissan is a big coup for the Brexiters and a testament of faith in the country.

As it is, May is promising a quite different type of Tory government. And speaking as a former pro-neoliberal I rather like it. Interesting times we live in.

Don't fall into the trap like so many do of criticising the government for doing something while simultaneously criticising the government for doing nothing.

Eeyore

What else did they have the power to offer that would actually have meant something solid to Nissan?

Obviously, Nissan's overriding concern will have been about remaining within the single market and customs union, but the government cannot make any promises at all about that.

And of course, Nissan is going to be completely hard-headed about this. It will have run the numbers, it knows exactly how much it stands to lose if it finds itself outside the single market and customs union. It won't have been bought off with the kind of jingoistic flag-waving bullshit that won the referendum, it will have wanted rock-solid assurances that translate though to a balance sheet.

So you don't need to be a genius to work out that all the government could have done is promise that the taxpayer will compensate Nissan for increased costs post-Brexit if it turns out that it will have to pay tariffs and deal with cross-border customs and rules of origin for its parts. And that will, of course, be no small bill - and that's just one company. What about the others? You think they're not going to want the same thing? How much is all this going to end up costing the taxpayer? £350m a week, perhaps?

Well, which multinational company *wouldn't* have faith in the UK if they'd just been promised truckloads of taxpayers' cash as a guarantee against increased costs?

Of course, this is just the first example of the true cost of Brexit. Why, do you think, were the Leavers not upfront about this during the referendum? Why weren't they convinced enough of their case to be truthful and say "This isn't going to be plain sailing, the likelihood of serious economic harm in the short to medium term is high and it could easily cost us an awful lot of money in sweeteners and guarantees to keep major employers here if we pull out of the single market completely, but we think it's worth it"?

Well, we all know why, don't we? The truth would have been too dangerous, too likely to lose them votes. People don't like being told the painful truth, they'd rather hear an appealing lie.

It's the fact that this has been quite nakedly done to save their political necks. They could not afford to let such a prominent employer in a depressed part of the country be the first to relocate to continental Europe to protect itself from Brexit, it would have been politically catastrophic - and socially catastrophic too of course, but the Tories have never been too concerned about the social cost of their policies in the past, and especially not in the north of England.

This was all about saving themselves, and the Brexit project, on a political level. Pure partisan self-interest, because if Nissan had chosen to relocate, it would have blown an irrepairable hole in both the government and Brexit.