Support NeoGAF

[KingSnake]

New German polls:

About the UK deciding to leave the EU:
70% Not good / 12% Good / 16% Don't care

About possible concessions the EU should make in negotiations with the UK:
10% EU should make very strong or strong concessions / 49% not that strong concessions / 37% no concessions at all / 4% don't know

51% believe the EU is benefitial for Germany while only 10% believe the disantvages are bigger than the advantages (the rest says they equal each other out).
The postitivity towards the EU has never been higher in Germany.

http://www.heute.de/nach-dem-brexit...gen-terroranschlaegen-geaendert-44298798.html

Translation: Germany won't go easy in the negotiations.

Leavers usually think that they are the only "people" in Europe and that the voice of others doesn't matter. Ignoring completely that a lenient EU would mean bad news for both France and Germany in the upcoming elections.

 

[shinra-bansho]

About possible concessions the EU should make in negotiations with the UK:
10% EU should make very strong or strong concessions / 49% not that strong concessions / 37% no concessions at all / 4% don't know

http://www.heute.de/nach-dem-brexit...gen-terroranschlaegen-geaendert-44298798.html

Translation: Germany won't go easy in the negotiations.

As is obvious.

When the relative bargaining power of the other party is an order of magnitude less, you don't need to make concessions.

You take concessions.

 

[War Peaceman]

As is obvious.

When the relative bargaining power of the other party is an order of magnitude less, you don't need to make concessions.

You take concessions.

Yes, it is basic logic and the refusal of others to accept this is either a lack of intelligence on their part or arguing in bad faith.

 

[kmag]

It's not a special arrangement, article 112 is part of the agreement and it has been invoked several times, including by the EU themselves.

I've already shown to you the extreme limitations of 112. It's literally in the text of the agreement. It's limited in scope, duration and requires agreement with the EU to use. There's a reason only you and your crew of lunatics are talking about it. Literally it's a brexiter fantasy. And it's assuming you get an EEA deal which again you'd need to sell to the UK electorate. Good luck with that.

People have tried to talk to you in substantive terms. Your response is normally 'hmm interesting' then you're back a couple of hours later with the same nonsense as if the previous exchange didn't happen. It's tiring so I'm going for straight derision. I'm all for different view points but at this point its like talking to a climate change denier. There's always some crackpot theory being presented which has no real expert backing outside a small sliver of loons. It's basically sunspot theory redux.

 

[KingSnake]

It's not a special arrangement, article 112 is part of the agreement and it has been invoked several times, including by the EU themselves.

Once again you refuse to read an article of regulation even if it's quoted here specially for you and you keep quoting your favourite blog. Read the damn article. It can be invoked only under certain circumstances. And look at Switzerland who's about to be kicked out of EEA next year if they implement restrictions to the freedom of movement. Do you think Switzerland is not as smart as UK and they didn't find this "loop"?

 

[Vagabundo]

The EU likes stability. They won't want to drag this process out for ever. They will push for a sharp shock, severing the UK quickly from the EU. They might give an EEA deal but it would have to be long term and they won't sweeten that deal with financial services or no freedom of movement, in the unlikely event that it does happen.

I think Brexiters need to start ramping up their negotiation teams, because its going to be a busy few decades.

 

[accel]

I've already shown to you the extreme limitations of 112. It's literally in the text of the agreement. It's limited in scope, duration and requires agreement with the EU to use. There's a reason only you and your crew of lunatics are talking about it. Literally it's a brexiter fantasy. And it's assuming you get an EEA deal which again you'd need to sell to the UK electorate. Good luck with that.

It doesn't require an agreement with the EU to use, it requires a one-month notification.

It is limited in scope and the party implementing the measure should seek to remove it, no problems with that (ie, if the measure is a quota on the number of immigrants per year, if the immigration stops being an issue, the UK will increase or remove the quota).

Once again you refuse to read an article of regulation even if it's quoted here specially for you and you keep quoting your favourite blog. Read the damn article. It can be invoked only under certain circumstances. And look at Switzerland who's about to be kicked out of EEA next year if they implement restrictions to the freedom of movement. Do you think Switzerland is not as smart as UK and they didn't find this "loop"?

I replied to that (the circumstances).

Stop saying I refuse to read something, this is just noise that doesn't get anybody anywhere. Show that by quoting the relevant portion which you think is important and explain why it is important and how.

 

[Xando]

Translation: Germany won't go easy in the negotiations.

Especially with elections coming up next year. No way Merkel will give in

 

[shinra-bansho]

Well, Norway's not convinced either anyway.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...k-single-market-passporting-eea-a7113101.html

 

[Number45]

Yes, it is basic logic and the refusal of others to accept this is either a lack of intelligence on their part or arguing in bad faith.

Or trying to convince themselves that they didn't vote for an option that is going to cause huge economic issues... *and* not necessarily satisfy their reasons for voting that way in the first place.

I hope we manage to get some kind of deal that makes it clear that we're getting the shitty end of the stick, without totally crippling the country at the same time. I'll continue to hope this until there's no more room for hope.

 

[accel]

Well, Norway's not convinced either anyway.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...k-single-market-passporting-eea-a7113101.html

A different opinion from Norway (a week later):

http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/debatt/Dra-til-London--Trygve-Slagsvold-Vedum-593338b.html

 

[mclem]

Supposedly Boris was dumped by Gove because he forgot a letter for Leadsom. Now Boris is backing Leadsom and Gove is choking on his own poison.

Clearly a devilish plot!

I do wonder if any 'experts' told Gove that backstabbing Boris would be unwise?

 

[mclem]

The English idiots you need to focus on are the Home Counties and the stupid fucks up north who voted for economic suicide like Sunderland. London and Scotland should be forming our own federation and escape England!

If you guys could pick up the university towns on the way, that'd be awesome.

Mind you, that'd be one hell of a border!

 

[KingSnake]

Ok, let's do this for one last time.

The UK would argue that it is facing a "societal difficulty of regional nature liable to persist" with respect to immigrants

No, it can't. There's no indicator supporting that. UK is quite in the average, not worse than most.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statis...p/Migration_and_migrant_population_statistics

Share of non-nationals in the resident population, 1 January 2015 (%):

Notice how Liechtenstein, having a quota in place, is worse than UK? Or Switzerland? You have no case.

Also, immigration is a net contributor for UK.

"I don't like people speaking a foreign language" doesn't qualify as societal difficulty.

we just had the referendum voting to Leave the EU partly based on that, that demonstrates "societal difficulty".

The referendum doesn't demonstrate societal difficulty in relations with immigrants, because there was no question about immigrants. And even so, xenophobia is not a sufficient reason for 112.

 

[mclem]

The prospect of Theresa May as the leader of a major European country is scary.

S'okay, that won't be an issue on two fronts!

 

[Joni]

Do you think Switzerland is not as smart as UK and they didn't find this "loop"?

Clearly, who in Switzerland can even find Liechtenstein on a map?

 

[kmag]

It doesn't require an agreement with the EU to use, it requires a one-month notification.

It is limited in scope and the party implementing the measure should seek to remove it, no problems with that (ie, if the measure is a quota on the number of immigrants per year, if the immigration stops being an issue, the UK will increase or remove the quota).



I replied to that.

Stop saying I refuse to read the article. Show that by quoting the relevant portion which you thinks is important and explain why it is important and how.

The safeguard measures taken shall be the subject of consultations in the EEA Joint Committee every three months from the date of their adoption with a view to their abolition before the date of expiry envisaged, or to the limitation of their scope of application. Each Contracting Party may at any time request the EEA Joint Committee to review such measures.

If a dispute concerns the scope or duration of safeguard measures taken in accordance with Article 111(3) or Article 112, or the proportionality of rebalancing measures taken in accordance with Article 114, and if the EEA Joint Committee after three months from the date when the matter has been brought before it has not succeeded to resolve the dispute, any Contracting Party may refer the dispute to arbitration under the procedures laid down in Protocol 33. No question of interpretation of the provisions of this Agreement referred to in paragraph 3 may be dealt with in such procedures. The arbitration award shall be binding on the parties to the dispute.

In short you have to consult with the EU, tell them what you are doing, when and for how long. If they don't like it it goes to binding arbitration.

 

[accel]

Ok, ...

You are talking that the UK might not be successful arguing that it has reasons to limit immigration via article 112. I acknowledged that by saying "Whether or not it will be successful, I don't know".

I added that I don't see much suggesting why it wouldn't be, and that's a soft topic which concerns interpreting numbers like those you linked and more. Net migration from EU to UK was ~200k in 2015, for example, it stayed positive for years and together with net migration from non-EU it contributes to a serious number. You think these numbers aren't enough to qualify for a societal or another difficulty from immigrants, fine, that's your opinion, others would argue that they are enough.

If your argument is that, for example, the absolute number of immigrants is slightly larger for Germany and some other metric is larger for some other country and that they don't invoke article 112, that's all fine as well, but that's not grounds for dismissing the UK wanting to invoke it.

In short you have to consult with the EU, tell them what you are doing, when and for how long. If they don't like it it goes to binding arbitration.

Yes. You said that the article requires an agreement with the EU to use, and it doesn't.

 

[Vagabundo]

Ok, let's do this for one last time.



No, it can't. There's no indicator supporting that. UK is quite in the average, not worse than most.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statis...p/Migration_and_migrant_population_statistics

Share of non-nationals in the resident population, 1 January 2015 (%):

Notice how Liechtenstein, having a quota in place, is worse than UK? Or Switzerland? You have no case.

Also, immigration is a net contributor for UK.

"I don't like people speaking a foreign language" doesn't qualify as societal difficulty.



The referendum doesn't demonstrate societal difficulty in relations with immigrants, because there was no question about immigrants. And even so, xenophobia is not a sufficient reason for 112.

I believe electing Theresa May as PM would be enough to trigger Article 112.

 

[KingSnake]

Edit: I like how now the plan is "EU will sign an agreement with us in very good faith and we'll trick them"

You are talking that the UK might not be successful arguing that it has reasons to limit immigrants via article 112. I acknowledged that by saying "Whether or not it will be successful, I don't know".

I added that I don't see much suggesting why it wouldn't be, and that's a soft topic which concerns interpreting numbers like those you linked and more. Net migration from EU to UK was ~200k in 2015, for example, it stayed positive for years and together with net migration from non-EU it contributes to a serious number. You think these numbers aren't enough to qualify for a societal or another difficulty from immigrants, fine, that's your opinion, others would argue that they are enough.

If your argument is that, for example, the absolute number of immigrants is slightly larger for Germany and some other metric is larger for some other country and that they don't invoke article 112, that's all fine as well, but that's not grounds for dismissing the UK wanting to invoke it.
.

I'll post it again, maybe you didn't see it first time (hint: it includes also non-EU migrants):
Share of non-nationals in the resident population, 1 January 2015 (%):

Luxembourg, Cyprus, Austria, Ireland, Belgium, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland have a bigger percent of EU immigrants than UK. Germany and Spain are around the same level as UK.

You don't have an immigration problem. You have a perception problem. Not enough to trigger article 112. I mean, sure, you can try whatever you want if your government is nuts enough, but you'll end up kicked out of the agreement.

 

[kmag]

Edit: I like how now the plan is "EU will sign an agreement with us in very good faith and we'll trick them"



I'll post it again, maybe you didn't see it first time (hint: it includes also non-EU migrants):
Share of non-nationals in the resident population, 1 January 2015 (%):

Luxembourg, Cyprus, Austria, Ireland, Belgium, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland have a bigger percent of EU immigrants than UK. Germany and Spain are around the same level as UK.

You don't have an immigration problem. You have a perception problem. Not enough to trigger article 112. I mean, sure, you can try whatever you want if your government is nuts enough, but you'll end up kicked out of the agreement.

What do you mean we're the UK. Like it or lump Brussels. GERMAN CARS!!!!!

 

[Jasup]

You are talking that the UK might not be successful arguing that it has reasons to limit immigration via article 112. I acknowledged that by saying "Whether or not it will be successful, I don't know".

I added that I don't see much suggesting why it wouldn't be, and that's a soft topic which concerns interpreting numbers like those you linked and more. Net migration from EU to UK was ~200k in 2015, for example, it stayed positive for years and together with net migration from non-EU it contributes to a serious number. You think these numbers aren't enough to qualify for a societal or another difficulty from immigrants, fine, that's your opinion, others would argue that they are enough.

If your argument is that, for example, the absolute number of immigrants is slightly larger for Germany and some other metric is larger for some other country and that they don't invoke article 112, that's all fine as well, but that's not grounds for dismissing the UK wanting to invoke it.

You're right, that's not grounds for dismissing the UK wanting to invoke it. It is however grounds for others to reject it, and as ha been said many times (and how these things go) all partners have to agree if one wants to invoke the article. That is because it directly affects all the other members in the treaty.

 

[shinra-bansho]

A different opinion from Norway (a week later):

http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/debatt/Dra-til-London--Trygve-Slagsvold-Vedum-593338b.html

A cross-bench minor party leader writing an editorial trying to critique the Norwegian PM, is supposed to mean what exactly, in response to the an article citing concerns by the Prime Minister, the Industry Minister, and Leader of the Opposition, about whether the UK fits into the EEA, that they aren't likely to change the agreement to accommodate, and that it's rightly "Norway’s responsibility to ensure the EEA’s stability and integrity."

 

[accel]

Luxembourg, Cyprus, Austria, Ireland, Belgium, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland have a bigger percent of EU immigrants than UK. Germany and Spain are around the same level as UK.

You don't have an immigration problem. You have a perception problem. Not enough to trigger article 112. I mean, sure, you can try whatever you want if your government is nuts enough, but you'll end up kicked out of the agreement.

This is not analysis, sorry.

You are going off a single metric, that's not by far the only metric that is important - there is, for example, net migration per year and total migration over the years, try comparing to Luxembourg, Cyprus, Austria, etc, on those.

Even more importantly, you are saying that since those who are worse than the UK on that metric don't invoke article 112, the UK shouldn't do it either. This is a non-starter.

You're right, that's not grounds for dismissing the UK wanting to invoke it. It is however grounds for others to reject it, and as ha been said many times (and how these things go) all partners have to agree if one wants to invoke the article. That is because it directly affects all the other members in the treaty.

The article is actually invoked unilaterally, no agreement is necessary. There is an obvious point, however, that invoking it without having some sort of understanding from others isn't a good idea, and I agree with that.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

I believe electing Theresa May as PM would be enough to trigger Article 112.

Or even Order 66.

 

[Condom]

Are some seriously arguing that the xenophobia will be reason enough to put a brake to free movement to the UK? Do people think we Europeans are stupid or something?

I don't know maybe I'm misunderstanding things here?

 

[kmag]

Here's what a pro leave lawyer has to say about article 112 in any proposed EEA deal

There are limitations to the EEA option, although they could be addressed. First of all, staying in the EEA does entail continued free movement of people, and that is one of the key reasons for the Leave vote. However, unlike between EU members there is a special safeguard. A Member State can disapply part of the EEA ‘If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising.’

This decision is unilateral, although an arbitrator can rule on the ‘scope and duration’ of the safeguard. Also, the EEA specifies remaining EU could retaliate against any such UK decision (limiting UK car exports or financial services exports), although again an arbitrator can rule on the scope of this retaliation.

In short, the UK could invoke a safeguard clause to limit the free movement of persons under the EEA – but it would not be cost-free. Having said that the EEA option would probably only be politically viable in the UK if the government announced its immediate intention to trigger immediately the safeguard clause as regards free movement of people

 

[accel]

A cross-bench minor party leader writing an editorial trying to critique the Norwegian PM, is supposed to mean what exactly, in response to the an article citing concerns by the Prime Minister, the Industry Minister, and Leader of the Opposition, about whether the UK fits into the EEA, that they aren't likely to change the agreement to accommodate, and that it's rightly "Norway’s responsibility to ensure the EEA’s stability and integrity."

You have a point. Will vet links harder to keep the discussion cleaner (I mean, the link does show that someone kind of semi-important in Norway does welcome Brexit, but that's not much news, what the Norwegian ministers think is more important).

Here's what a pro leave lawyer has to say about article 112 in any proposed EEA deal

(No objections, yes, that's how it is, there are costs to everything.)

 

[Binabik15]

New German polls:

About the UK deciding to leave the EU:
70% Not good / 12% Good / 16% Don't care

About possible concessions the EU should make in negotiations with the UK:
10% EU should make very strong or strong concessions / 49% not that strong concessions / 37% no concessions at all / 4% don't know

51% believe the EU is benefitial for Germany while only 10% believe the disantvages are bigger than the advantages (the rest says they equal each other out).
The EU has never been more popular in Germany.

http://www.heute.de/nach-dem-brexit...gen-terroranschlaegen-geaendert-44298798.html

Translation: Germany won't go easy in the negotiations.

Now we only need to curb islamophobia, hope that IS goes bust and the AfD won't be a problem anymore.

 

[KingSnake]

T
You are going off a single metric, that's not by far the only metric that is important - there is, for example, net migration per year and total migration over the years, try comparing to Luxembourg, Cyprus, Austria, etc, on those.

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu...ime_most_recent=false&lang=EN&cfo=###,###.###

Notice how you're bellow EFTA average for 2015.

Edit: screenshot for better reading

 

[accel]

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu...ime_most_recent=false&lang=EN&cfo=###,###.###

Notice how you're bellow EFTA average for 2015.

You are talking about rates and I am talking about absolute numbers.

 

[KingSnake]

You are talking about rates and I am talking about absolute numbers.

Oh, come on. You're trolling by now, right? You can't be so naive to not understand how rates are relevant here.

 

[accel]

Oh, come on. You're trolling by now, right? You can't be so naive to not understand how rates are relevant here.

Rates are relevant, yes. But absolute numbers are relevant, too. (Do I have to explain why?)

 

[The Friendly Monster]

You are talking about rates and I am talking about absolute numbers.

You might as well compare the total number of non-migrants and determine that the UK has less migration (you're being ridiculous).

 

[KingSnake]

Rates are relevant, yes. But absolute numbers are relevant, too. (Do I have to explain why?)

I can't wait to see the explanation why the greatest country in the world can't accommodate 300k people per year. I hope it's not about blaming on EU the incompetence of the British government. Again.

 

[accel]

I can't wait to see the explanation why the greatest country in the world can't accommodate 300k people per year. I hope it's not about blaming on EU the incompetence of the British government. Again.

It would be one thing if one year it was plus 300k and the next minus 300k, but it is straight pluses for the UK since early 90s. 300k per year during the course of 10 years accumulates to 3 milion. For illustration, the referendum that we just had was decided by less.

But that's not all there is, absolute numbers matter because immigration is uneven, so a flat rate of whatever percent means that in some places there is less and in others there is more. The larger the numbers, the larger the discrepancies, more grounds for "societal" issues.

 

[Jasup]

And there we have it.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

It would be one thing if one year it was plus 300k and the next minus 300k, but it is straight pluses for the UK. 300k per year during the course of 10 years accumulates to 3 milion. For illustration, the referendum that we just had was decided by less.

But that's not all there is, absolute numbers matter because immigration is uneven, so a flat rate of whatever percent means that in some places there is less and in others there is more. The larger the numbers, the larger the discrepancies, more grounds for "societal" issues.

So now it's the variance that matters? Not the absolute value?

Anyway in England and Wales the leave vote was roughly inversely correlated to the level of immigration.

 

[KingSnake]

But that's not all there is, absolute numbers matter because immigration is uneven, so a flat rate of whatever percent means that in some places there is less and in others there is more. The larger the numbers, the larger the discrepancies, more grounds for "societal" issues.

Show some receipts. I want to see numbers. Statistics. From an official site. Let's see how big the issues are and where.

 

[*Splinter]

It would be one thing if one year it was plus 300k and the next minus 300k, but it is straight pluses for the UK since early 90s. 300k per year during the course of 10 years accumulates to 3 milion. For illustration, the referendum that we just had was decided by less.

But that's not all there is, absolute numbers matter because immigration is uneven, so a flat rate of whatever percent means that in some places there is less and in others there is more. The larger the numbers, the larger the discrepancies, more grounds for "societal" issues.

I know you've already seen this

 

[KingSnake]

So now it's the variance that matters? Not the absolute value?

#myratesmatter

 

[Jackpot]

So ... they're conservatives?

Articles like this are so silly. Look how disgusting it is that this person holds a conservative position on a given social issue!

Wants to treat people as less than human = "so silly!"

 

[accel]

I know you've already seen this

Yes, I've seen it. When I've seen it I asked if there are any composites expressed as numbers, because they are a bit hard to decipher from the images (ie, the regions that voted Leave have this percentage of immigrants, the regions that voted Reman that, etc).

That would be one more characteristic to keep in mind for the UK if it decided to argue for activating article 112 to limit immigration, whatever the numbers are.

Show some receipts. I want to see numbers. Statistics. From an official site. Let's see how big the issues are and where.

High-level:

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06077.pdf

Obviously, the smaller the area unit the larger the discrepancies, you can see this from, eg, images linked a couple of posts above.

 

[KingSnake]

Yes, I've seen it. When I've seen it I asked if there are any composites expressed as numbers, because they are a bit hard to decipher from the images (ie, the regions that voted Leave have this percentage of immigrants, the regions that voted Reman that, etc).

That would be one more characteristic to keep in mind for the UK if it decided to argue for activating article 112 to limit immigration, whatever the numbers are.

Doesn't UK have a statistical institute? Doesn't it have a website? If you troll at least you can do a bit of research on your own and back your statements with some figures. I'm waiting.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

This whole conversation and approach from blackcrane is disgusting, as it basically sneaks in the idea that immigration is a problem.

Immigration is wonderful.

 

[mclem]

But that's not all there is, absolute numbers matter because immigration is uneven, so a flat rate of whatever percent means that in some places there is less and in others there is more. The larger the numbers, the larger the discrepancies, more grounds for "societal" issues.

But aren't the places that have more immigrants integrated into society the ones who voted more heavily pro-remain?

Edit: Very much beaten.

 

[Deleted member 13876]

This whole conversation and approach from blackcrane is disgusting, as it basically sneaks in the idea that immigration is an issue.

Immigration is wonderful.

But is is absolutely wonderful or only relatively?

 

[accel]

Doesn't UK have a statistical institute? Doesn't it have a website? If you troll at least you can do a bit of research on your own and back your statements with some figures. I'm waiting.

I am tired of this.

You think I don't contribute to the discussion? Fine, have at it.

It's all dooooooom, the Brexiters are nutters, etc. Enjoy your echo chamber.

 

[KingSnake]

High-level:

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06077.pdf

Obviously, the smaller the area unit the larger the discrepancies, you can see this from, eg, images linked a couple of posts above.

So, which UK region has "societal" issues according to this document?

Edit: Except London, all other regions have much lower proportion of EU migrants than the EU average I posted some posts back.

North East 1.6%
North West 3.1%
Yorkshire & Humbs 2.9%
East Midlands 4.2%
West Midlands 3.5%
East 4.3%
London 12.1%
South East 4.1%
South West 3.2%

 

[KarneeKarnay]

This whole conversation and approach from blackcrane is disgusting, as it basically sneaks in the idea that immigration is an issue.

Immigration is wonderful.

When handled correctly. I don't think Immigration is really as big a problem as some in the UK believe, but I do think there is an argument to be made about stricter immigration.

However us leaving has totally shut us in the foot. We would have had more room to maneuver on this in the EU then out of it.