Support NeoGAF

[CyclopsRock]

It's also down to the US culture of individualism as well. Ironically there have been American voices who call the Tory party 'filthy leftists' because the mainstream wing of the party is strongly for gun control. Europe tends to be more accepting of strict gun laws (except Switzerland, Austria and the Czech Republic, and even then they're stricter than the US) because there's more of a 'collective' culture.

Ah, but I didn't say there'd be gun control if it were easier to pass amendments. I think there's strong support for gun ownership because of the individualistic streak of the US but it's hard to imagine the wording wouldn't have been changed to a less ambiguous one if constitutional amendments were easier to pass (even if that change was from "well regulated militia" to "everyone"). As it stands right now significant changes to gun policy cannot be enacted by either the elected President or the elected congress as a result of the un-elected SCOTUS. And again, I'm not really arguing that this is a good or bad thing, but it is inherently conservative. It's also a bit of a washy one in the UK where every bit of legislation enacted is, technically, a constitutional amendment.

 

[w1ck3dn1nj4]

If the EU feels it is legally able to demand something from the UK and the UK declines it can sue.

Sure by all means sue. But if the courts find there are no legal grounds, I don’t see how that is equivalent to “not paying your bills” which was the point of my reply to the other poster.

Your example also doesn't make sense. It would be more like you need something from company xy that is vital to your economic future, company xy says you have to pay z to get it. If you don't you won't get the item you need because the company can simply rely on its other customers

You’re reading more to this than I intended with regards to the concept of “not paying bills”, but sure by all means, go to your other customers if you feel you’re the only cowboy in town (which the UK evidently doesn’t feel). They’ll simply have to find another seller. NO deal and NO bill then by the looks of it.

 

[nOoblet16]

Didn't the labour government at the time (early 2000s) lie to the electorate saying only tens of thousands would come. Instead we're currently at around 300k a year.

Pretty sure during the 2015 campaign labour were repeating quite a lot they got immigration wrong because they knew it was biting them in the arse at the election. Brown fucked up at the 2010 election for not addressing the issue and even calling that woman bigoted. He gave us a good laugh though.

There will always be a section of ex labour voters who won't bother with labour any more because of this. Whenever they be voting Tory, abstaining or even ukip.

I'm not sure if Labour actually ever promised bringing down immigration to tens of thousand in early 2000s but I know that Labour did that apology stuff in 2015 to get more votes. But if one were to look more into it and connect some dots you'd realise that the problem was in an area different to the area of the proposed solution. Firstly, the UK will have an immigration of 10,000 a year or so, it's just impossible for a globalised western economy even after leaving the EU, let alone achieve that while being in the EU. But with that said the thing about immigration is that often the non EU immigration numbers are tied to the EU immigration numbers so anytime they want to chop some numbers off to look good they go for non EU migrants, specifically speaking it's the non EU students that get affected the most as they are the most vulnerable (and ironically the most beneficial to the economy of UK), by making it really hard for them to find work. It makes no sense that they train and educate people in shortage areas and then want the talent to leave the country.

The other thing about non EU migration is that it's almost entirely for high skill jobs that already have a shortage, they rarely if ever eat into the unskilled labour market and it's the only type of immigration that UK has full control over. So the only way Labour of early 2000s could have brought down the immigration numbers would have been by cutting on non EU immigration, which is EXACTLY what the Tories did. On the other hand the only migrants that ate into the UK unskilled labour market were the EU migrants, which the government could not possibly have prevented from entering the UK. But even then the UK had some control in that for an EU migrant to stay long term they would have had to work nad pay taxes (this is a policy that all EU countries follow actually, so no one is just coming in and sitting around reaping benefits indefinitely).

I guess what I am trying to say is that regardless of there being 100,000 or so immigrants now vs 300,000 a few years ago, barely anything changed when it comes to the unskilled labour market because they targeted a group of migrants that don;t do unskilled labour. Then there is the fact that there was an economic crisis in the 2nd half of 2000s so everyone wanted this cheap labour from EU. It was just a shitty time and even if the Tories were in power they wouldn't have been able to do anything about it as even if they had brought the numbers down (like they did in the following years) the EU migrants would still have been able to enter UK and provide cheap labour. So blaming that lack of jobs in the unskilled labour market on Labour's immigration policies is kind of a leap as nothing they or anyone could have done would have prevented that from happening during that time.

 

[Pancake Mix]

It's nice to want things.

Nobody is paying that bill upfront, it'd be political suicide and cripple the economy more than Brexit.

Will the costs of a hard Brexit add up? Certainly, but part of leaving something is picking up your tab to that point, in no way is it continuing to pay for the tabs of others who are remaining many years later. There comes a period when prior commitments in which you had little input are cast off if you're leaving a large bloc. No nation in history has paid an equivalent price except as reparations, which is not what's happening here.

Not happening.

As already posted above, it's unenforceable and no potential trade partner (except the EU) will expect that nonexistent bill to be paid.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

It's nice to want things.

Nobody is paying that bill upfront, it'd be political suicide and cripple the economy more than Brexit.

Will the costs of a hard Brexit add up? Certainly, but part of leaving something is picking up your tab to that point, in no way is it continuing to pay for the tabs of others who are remaining many years later. There comes a period when prior commitments in which you had little input are cast off if you're leaving a large bloc. No nation in history has paid an equivalent price except as reparations, which is not what's happening here.

Not happening.

As already posted above, it's unenforceable and no potential trade partner (except the EU) will expect that nonexistent bill to be paid.

It would depend on the contract of the agreement, no?

If the UK signed up knowing that there would be a huge bill if they left abruptly then they knew the consequences.

You can't jingo your way out of a contract no matter how many times you yell "take back control!"

I'm gonna do that I'm gonna take back control and not pay back my mortgage.

I haven't read the EU agreement and what clauses they have that suggests repayment upon exiting. But I assume they have some.

My point being if you sign up to something knowing of the consequences then don't cry about it when you gottah do what you explicitly signed up for.

 

[Pancake Mix]

It would depend on the contract of the agreement, no?

If the UK signed up knowing that there would be a huge bill if they left abruptly then they knew the consequences.

You can't jingo your way out of a contract no matter how many times you yell "take back control!"

I'm gonna do that I'm gonna take back control and not pay back my mortgage.

I haven't read the EU agreement and what clauses they have that suggests repayment upon exiting. But I assume they have some.

My point being if you sign up to something knowing of the consequences then don't cry about it when you gottah do what you explicitly signed up for.

As previously posted:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/06/100bn-brexit-bill-legally-impossible-enforce-european-commissions/

You can find similar legal opinions in other articles.

Nobody can afford to pay a bill that large, and up front too. It would be crippling, more than most war reparations in history.

 

[nOoblet16]

Would you be making the same argument if the result was the other way around? I mean yeah, it's frustrating being pulled out of the EU because a mere 17.4 million people voted to leave but, well, they'd been in a union they didn't want to be in for the last ~30 years. I imagine how we feel now is something like how they've felt for that time, no?

Well you won't be the first person to make that argument and I won't be the first person replying to that argument.

But yes I would be saying the same stuff, I guess I would be happier but I'd still feel like it is not really right for such a big decision. That's why I am for changes to the voting system. For such a major referendum they should've had something like a 60% threshold to win or something. Because when it's so close you can't really confidently double down on the winning side without looking like you are ignoring a proportionally large amount of voters.

Edit: This reply explains the feeling of being left out better

There are tangible things that the pro-EU side is losing. What tangible things have anti-EU people lost? It's pretty understandable to be angry that you're being pulled out of the EU against your will, more so than any anti-EU person.

Pro-EU will lose:
-Freedom of movement-we'll be essentially put onto American/Canadian tier in Europe with no rights of residence/work on our own continent
-To study in the EU at low prices
-Guarantees of workers' rights
-Guaranteed Human Rights legislation (we all know the Tories want rid of them)
-Scientific and research cooperation
-Very close economic links, closer than with anywhere else in the world
-EU funding for poor regions

 

[excelsiorlef]

Yeah I know, that's why I voted remain. But the guy I was quoting seemed to think that 17.4m wasn't bigger than 16.1m by a sufficient margin and therefore the 16.1m should get what they want, not the 17.4m. Which is clearly nonsense.

Not really. Leaving the EU is drastic, the referendum should have had a required 60-40 minimum.

 

[7Th]

Britain is pretty much done now that Macron won.

 

[PillarEN]

This is why you sign a prenup.

 

[ClosingADoor]

As previously posted:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/06/100bn-brexit-bill-legally-impossible-enforce-european-commissions/

You can find similar legal opinions in other articles.

Nobody can afford to pay a bill that large, and up front too. It would be crippling, more than most war reparations in history.

Part of that 100 billion is over the years. Part is pensions. Part is money still owed for projects already finished. So no, it is not such a large bill up front.

If it is not enforceable, then the EU might choose to use certain demands in the negotiations. Like asking Britain to pay their share of already approved future projects, in exchange for things the UK wants. That is perfectly reasonable and a possibility.

Not really. Leaving the EU is drastic, the referendum should have had a required 60-40 minimum.

Agreed. I said this before, but decisions like this should have a 2/3 majority. It is that way here for constitutional changes and I don't see why this should be different. Of course the referendum was just an advise and the ministers voted afterwards. I don't know by which margin that was?

Same goes for joining the EU btw. We should have the same standards there, so we don't get in countries that barely want to join in.

 

[Chinner]

Britain is pretty much done now that Macron won.

Shit is going to be so satisfying, and I'm saying this as a former European/little Englander.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

As previously posted:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/06/100bn-brexit-bill-legally-impossible-enforce-european-commissions/

You can find similar legal opinions in other articles.

Nobody can afford to pay a bill that large, and up front too. It would be crippling, more than most war reparations in history.

I don't subscribe so I couldn't read it all.

But if the basis is "well if we say no, they can't make us! What are they gonna do sail over the channel and raid our banks?!"

So I'm doing business with you and you renege on a previous deal we made.

And now you come back to me asking to do another deal despite the fact you still owe me for the previous deal you fucked me over on.

And if I don't give you good terms or give you terms that make you repay the previous debt then you begin to spin it like I'm the asshole.

Yeah it's not enforceable you're right. But the idea of a future deal where it doesn't begin to pay off that prior debt or a deal that isn't going to be reparations level is nonsense.

You don't renege on the deals you make and not expect to be treated like trash after.

 

[Vixdean]

But I thought Brexit was supposed to leave more money to pay for NHS?

 

[Ogodei]

At the worst, they could simply impose a tariff on British goods until the bill is paid.

 

[pigeon]

Obviously the bill is unenforceable. The U.K. is a sovereign nation. There's no court to take them to that they recognize. The enforcement would come on a sovereign level, in the form of sanctions and lost trade deals.

On the other hand, if Argentina is any example, the EU might be able to get relief by suing in New York City and asking for action against banks that do business with the UK. Figuring out the right cause of action might be tricky.

 

[PJV3]

At the worst, they could simply impose a tariff on British goods until the bill is paid.

Or they could fudge it and hide it in something else like the German pay for single market access idea.

 

[Praetorpwj]

Shit is going to be so satisfying, and I'm saying this as a former European/little Englander.

Yes FUCK the poor. Amirite?

 

[Herr Schwarz]

Yes FUCK the poor. Amirite?

The poor have actively voted to fuck themselves. So I don't know man. I don't want to sound condescending to "the poor". I guess that's what they wanted right? They knew it was going to be an economic clusterfuck. None of them are racists, remember?

 

[RenditMan]

I'm not sure if Labour actually ever promised bringing down immigration to tens of thousand in early 2000s but I know that Labour did that apology stuff in 2015 to get more votes. But if one were to look more into it and connect some dots you'd realise that the problem was in an area different to the area of the proposed solution. Firstly, the UK will have an immigration of 10,000 a year or so, it's just impossible for a globalised western economy even after leaving the EU, let alone achieve that while being in the EU. But with that said the thing about immigration is that often the non EU immigration numbers are tied to the EU immigration numbers so anytime they want to chop some numbers off to look good they go for non EU migrants, specifically speaking it's the non EU students that get affected the most as they are the most vulnerable (and ironically the most beneficial to the economy of UK), by making it really hard for them to find work. It makes no sense that they train and educate people in shortage areas and then want the talent to leave the country.

The other thing about non EU migration is that it's almost entirely for high skill jobs that already have a shortage, they rarely if ever eat into the unskilled labour market and it's the only type of immigration that UK has full control over. So the only way Labour of early 2000s could have brought down the immigration numbers would have been by cutting on non EU immigration, which is EXACTLY what the Tories did. On the other hand the only migrants that ate into the UK unskilled labour market were the EU migrants, which the government could not possibly have prevented from entering the UK. But even then the UK had some control in that for an EU migrant to stay long term they would have had to work nad pay taxes (this is a policy that all EU countries follow actually, so no one is just coming in and sitting around reaping benefits indefinitely).

I guess what I am trying to say is that regardless of there being 100,000 or so immigrants now vs 300,000 a few years ago, barely anything changed when it comes to the unskilled labour market because they targeted a group of migrants that don;t do unskilled labour. Then there is the fact that there was an economic crisis in the 2nd half of 2000s so everyone wanted this cheap labour from EU. It was just a shitty time and even if the Tories were in power they wouldn't have been able to do anything about it as even if they had brought the numbers down (like they did in the following years) the EU migrants would still have been able to enter UK and provide cheap labour. So blaming that lack of jobs in the unskilled labour market on Labour's immigration policies is kind of a leap as nothing they or anyone could have done would have prevented that from happening during that time.

Not quite, Blair declined to implement transitional controls on Eastern European labour when they entered where as the likes of Germany and France had the foresight of implementing maximum controls.

The UK took the brunt of the initial movement of people from there as there wasn't anywhere else to go which decimated earnings to the trades working on building sites and such pretty much overnight long before the crash. This didn't matter to labour for some reason, maybe because self employed earnings don't appear on any government stats anywhere.

The start of the Brexit movement begun at that point. Blair and New Labour were idiots now we have the benefit of hindsight. They just gave the wrong answer to the simplest of questions.

 

[Chinner]

The poor have actively voted to fuck themselves. So I don't know man. I don't want to sound condescending to "the poor". I guess that's what they wanted right? They knew it was going to be an economic clusterfuck. None of them are racists, remember?

I wasn't even associating this with the poor, lol. Regardless, the Tories are basically going "Trust us" and everyone is more than willing to do so. Only a strong dose of reality will wake the deluded up.

 

[Praetorpwj]

I wasn't even associating this with the poor, lol. Regardless, the Tories are basically going "Trust us" and everyone is more than willing to do so. Only a strong dose of reality will wake the deluded up.

Still I think we can ALL agree that the total destruction of the UK economy and inevitable fragmentation of society and institutions can only be a positive thing for European and by extension World stability.

And apparently it will also be entertaining (unless your a poor).

 

[Chinner]

Look fella, didn't mean to trigger you and I am sorry about that, but you're looking for an argument on the internet. Peace.

The poor have actively voted to fuck themselves. So I don't know man. I don't want to sound condescending to "the poor". I guess that's what they wanted right? They knew it was going to be an economic clusterfuck. None of them are racists, remember?

I am sad for those who voted remain, our children and those who do not yet exist as we will be a generation that lost it all. The poor will inevitably be hit hard by this and they will lose what little opportunities they have. However, the government and the right wing media have convinced them that this will be our independence day, which will never happen. Shit is going to suck, but yes, I will take some satisfaction on some emotional level knowing that the EU remains united and Britain's arrogance will not be rewarded.