Can we have another discussion of Brexit?

[burnleymik]

That was your Tory government, not Remain. You've been told that before. Stop with the lies.

The government outright supported remain. If you claim that the result should be overturned because of the percieved issues with leave.EU, which wasn't the official leave campaign, then you should accept the government spending on behalf of remain.

[Imploding Turtle]

I think that's a resounding no Turtle ? Let's be honest if God himself shocked us all and said "Listen my people Trump is not guilty of Russian collusion you have my word " you would trot of muttering...

Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice. He admitted it in an interview. Why would Trump commit obstruction of justice if he wasn't guilty?

You came out with a line yesterday saying that Banks welcomes the investigation because it'll prove his innocence. So why doesn't Trump? He's been desperate to fire Mueller and Rosenstein for over a year. He even tried to once. He is furious with Sessions for recusing himself because Trump believes Sessions was supposed to protect him from this kind of thing. If Trump is so innocent, and being innocent means you welcome investigation to prove your innocence, then why isn't Trump delighted?

Funny, isn't it? You think Banks welcomes the investigation because he's innocent, yet you think Trump is innocent even though he's **** scared of the investigation. Classic NPC.

[Imploding Turtle]

The government outright supported remain. If you claim that the result should be overturned because of the percieved issues with leave.EU, which wasn't the official leave campaign, then you should accept the government spending on behalf of remain.

I don't think the result should be overturned without a second referendum. So that kinda pisses on your coco pops, doesn't it?

[dsr]

The government outright supported remain. If you claim that the result should be overturned because of the percieved issues with leave.EU, which wasn't the official leave campaign, then you should accept the government spending on behalf of remain.

Turtle's point, repeatedly, is that the Government set the rules on the referendum and abided by them; the fact that they skewed the rules in their favour is irrelevant. And the government, or a government-funded body, advised the Leave campaign what they could legally do, which the Leave campaign then did, but it seems their government-supported advice was wrong; the fact that this breach of rules was caused by following government advice is also irrelevant.

The point is nothing to do with morality or unfairness. It's to do with breach of rules, because rules are rules and there are no excuses. Have you ever been fined for putting a wheel in a bus lane to let an ambulance go past? It's the same principle. Not only is ignorance of the law no excuse; it's no mitigation either.

[aggi]

Just a quick one - on the above, Mik is correct, the Independant is deliberately misleading to pander to its audience.

The ful Migration Advisory Committee report does indeed suggest low skilled migrants are a net LOSS to the U.K., but migrants overall are positive.

Arguing we should only look at the overall average is like saying bringing in 500 doctors makes it acceptable to also bring in 500 waiters part time on massive tax credits. Of course it doesn’t make it acceptable. That’s not left wing nor right wing, just high school economics.

I don't think it was that definitive. Looking back, the only conclusion I can see is:

The evidence is less clear on whether low-skilled migration (perhaps those in the bottom 25 per cent of the earnings distribution) has had costs or been broadly neutral.

It's a lengthy report though so I may well have missed something, can you point out where it definitively stated that low skilled migrants are a net LOSS to the U.K.

Obviously cherry picking immigrants would be nice but in reality it may not be that simple. That high skilled immigrant may want to move with a partner/family who is low-skilled, you're more likely to get immigrants where there are already a number of people from that culture already here (and it's unlikely that they'd all be high-skilled), etc

If low-skilled workers are being replaced by immigrants then you've got to ask the question why. If it's because they'll accept worse conditions, don't know their rights, are being exploited, etc then that's a UK issue, not an EU issue. If it's because they are more productive, as studies suggest, then why is that?

[burnleymik]

I don't think the result should be overturned without a second referendum. So that kinda pisses on your coco pops, doesn't it?

That totally ignores the jist of my post.

[Imploding Turtle]

That totally ignores the jist of my post.

No, it refutes its entire premise.

[Pstotto]

Nationalize the education sector and prioritize UK citizens right now. Turning education into a business is a crime against the nation. 25% of jobs to go by 2030 to A.I. and automation. Repatriation not immigration, no migrants necessary. We have the facilities to train and the manpower to be trained. Folk from elsewhere not needed.

[KateR]

all the usual BS I see,

did anyone actually change there mind regarding leave/stay?

was there anything at all that was considered a valid point in the rhetoric were someone thought, that's new, hadn't thought of that, need to take that in to consideration?

[burnleymik]

No, it refutes its entire premise.

You couldn't refute your own underpants.

The jist was the claim the government spending on the leaflet that supported remaining was nothing to do with remain, in that vein leave.EU must have nothing to do with the official vote leave campaign.

[tiger76]

Met Police still conducting an investigation into both major leave campaigns.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46070710

Clearly the crime rate in the capital isn't high enough to occupy their time.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I don't think it was that definitive. Looking back, the only conclusion I can see is:

The evidence is less clear on whether low-skilled migration (perhaps those in the bottom 25 per cent of the earnings distribution) has had costs or been broadly neutral.

It's a lengthy report though so I may well have missed something, can you point out where it definitively stated that low skilled migrants are a net LOSS to the U.K.

Obviously cherry picking immigrants would be nice but in reality it may not be that simple. That high skilled immigrant may want to move with a partner/family who is low-skilled, you're more likely to get immigrants where there are already a number of people from that culture already here (and it's unlikely that they'd all be high-skilled), etc

If low-skilled workers are being replaced by immigrants then you've got to ask the question why. If it's because they'll accept worse conditions, don't know their rights, are being exploited, etc then that's a UK issue, not an EU issue. If it's because they are more productive, as studies suggest, then why is that?

Hi. Yes, I can answer that. It’s a subject close to my heart.

You have to dance around the report, feeder reports and annexes, which are all on the gov website, the money bit was done by Oxford Economics so their report is a good start.

First of all, they say that non EEA migrants are EACH a net loss of £840 annually (and some things are not factored in as well). This is obviously, if we saw the figures fully broken down, due to mid-Asian migrants, they earn far less and have far more non working dependants than other migrant groups. That is ALL migrants from outside the EEA, including rich groups like doctors, who if split out into a different group would worsen the figures far more.

On that one, I would suggest that despite that not SEEMING to be an EU issue, having full freedom of movement in the EU makes it morally harder to have tight controls on the Commonwealth countries. If we had a fair equivalence it would be easier to justifier tougher rules (i.e. people should be welcomed if they benefit the U.K., and not if they do not).

Secondly, there are some statements dotted about which clearly show that some sub sections from the EEA would also be net losses. For example “ single, working 20-year-old with no dependent children, for example, must earn a gross income between £10,000 and £15,000 per annum to become a net contributor to the public finances”. In other words a couple with children where the family income is only £20,000 (and probably £30,000) are guaranteed to be a net loss to the U.K., likewise with other groups that would clearly receive more from the public purse than the person in the Oxford Economics example. They rightly say there are many variables, but it is also clear from this quote and others like it that some migrants would be certain to cost us money,

So those are two firm examples from the reports proving that control of our migration will be a net benefit to the public finances. Other aspects, such as whether the abundance of low skilled migration makes firms not invest in productive alternatives, such as automated crop picking, would be issues on top of that. It was on the radio yesterday that such things are holding back productivity and GDP growth.

I feel 100% sure, to the point where I would stake my whole career on it, in my belief that freedom of movement is a huge, huge financial problem for the U.K., and the sooner it is gone, the better (but still inviting in plenty of the people that genuinely benefit us). If we put our personal feelings about border controls to one side, and look at it financially and dispassionately, that is a clear conclusion.

[Pstotto]

DNA cards for all people entering the UK. If they come from a country that does not have UK standards of freedom of speech, democracy, civil law, driving test standards, health standards etc., then no right of entry to the UK.

Any entrant to the UK must have to declare any religious beliefs as subjective and qualified as 'belief only' and subject to open critique as a value system like any other political franchise. No signing of declaration, no entry. Our ancestors have worked for a 1000 years to bring this country to where it's at, including 2 world wars, the Enlightenment has been here for 500 years since the establishment of the Church of England and that is sacrosanct to the peaceful secular functioning of our country.

I don't see why it should be open Britain for the rest of the world to come and tuck into this country's larder, hard won and hard worked for.

[Imploding Turtle]

You couldn't refute your own underpants.

The jist was the claim the government spending on the leaflet that supported remaining was nothing to do with remain, in that vein leave.EU must have nothing to do with the official vote leave campaign.

You said: "If you claim that the result should be overturned because of the percieved issues with leave.EU,..."

Well, I don't claim that. So anything that follows is irrelevant.