The EU refused to settle recepirocal rights early
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK General Election - 8th June 2017 |OT| - The Red Wedding
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
The EU refused to settle recepirocal rights early
ReplacementPelican
Member
Holy shit some of these comments:
What's weird about the idea of grade drift is that, if I remember correctly, my A-Levels were means-tested so their difficulty was somewhat irrelevant.
Economically? How?
Note I'm asking how guaranteeing that ahead of a negotiation is economically right. I know that EU migrants are a net positive.
Edit: actually I think I misread your comment, nevermind
Jezbollah
Member
People have long memories. Plus it helps when incidents jog those memories, such as the explosive device that was found outside a school the other day.
Polling figures mostly. There's an article here from November that shows 70% in favour of migration controls on EU citizens, and 51% saying we should have an end to freedom of movement even at the cost of single market access. Which is close, for sure, but I'm sure there's other polls out there.
It prevents EU citizens who are working here and making a positive contribution to society feeling like they might have to leave, which is likely causing some to leave now before being thrown out. It should have been guaranteed the morning after the referendum.
This hard/soft brexit is nonsense. If we're out, it's hard. Freedom of movement isn't happening. All Labour are doing is not living in cloud cuckoo land.
Such a weird statement seeing as the places with the lowest average intelligence were shown to have voted for brexit. I guess facts don't matter these days though.
Such a weird statement seeing as the places with the lowest average intelligence were shown to have voted for brexit. I guess facts don't matter these days though.
Not sure where this disinformation comes from but the EU didn't refuse anything.
Merkel refused to negotiate for the EU before Art. 50 was triggered and their were any consensus on how the EU would negotiate
Oh, fair point.
I think we could have just gone with "we'll guarantee if the EU does too" suggested on the last page. I don't get the impression the EU actually wants to start a fight over this point.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
They don't! It is all on May that this is even an issue.
Huw_Dawson
Member
- insert link to one of the Brexiteers talking about how we could be like Norway or Switzerland here -
This election is the mandate to leave the single market. Wake up.
They refused to discuss anything before article 50 was invoked. An entirely sensible position.
Regardless, that doesn't matter. There is nothing stopping the UK from guaranteeing the rights of people that are already here.
This idea that it has to be reciprocal is wrong. Both logically and morally.
JimiNutz
Banned
So the UK couldn't pay a fee to have access to the single market (so long as we accept free movement of people) and still leave the EU? That's not possible?
The reality of the referendum is that Free Movement cannot happen, so any kind of deal where the EU are going to be asking for free movement isn't really going to be considered by the UK, which happens to be basically all of them.
Huw_Dawson
Member
Having access is double speak for a trade deal.
To be a member of the single market requires being a member of the EFTA, if I have the name right, NOT the EU.
You can also be a member of the Customs Union without being a member of the EU.
Norway is one country that went down this road.
The ballot paper said 'leave the EU.' It said nothing about the single market or the customs union, or the ECHR, or the Council of Europe, or the various other European groupings we are a part of.
To say May has a mandate to leave the single market is as silly as saying she has a mandate to leave the UN.
Camp Freddie
Member
May tried to discuss citizens' rights unilaterally with Germany and was told to talk to the EU instead. I'm sure May knew that Merkel couldn't discuss it with her unilaterally and simply asked the question in an attempt to frame the EU as the real bad guys(using Germany as a proxy to appeal to the idiots who think Merkel is the puppetmaster), despite May refusing to talk about citizens' rights in any previous meetings with EU heads of state.
May could've sorted something out in the EU council meetings (the regular meetings of every head of state, one of which occurred shortly after Brexit). It wouldn't be a binding agreement and wouldn't go into all the details, but they could've issued a joint statement assuring immigrants/ex-pats that their rights would be protected throughout the UK and EU.
This is basically the entire purpose of the council, to issue guidance setting the objectives for the commission and parliament to implement.
Instead, May and her Three Brexiteers took that opportunity tell the press that they wouldn't discuss the matter because they didn't want to lose a bargaining chip.
May could've sorted something out in the EU council meetings (the regular meetings of every head of state, one of which occurred shortly after Brexit). It wouldn't be a binding agreement and wouldn't go into all the details, but they could've issued a joint statement assuring immigrants/ex-pats that their rights would be protected throughout the UK and EU.
This is basically the entire purpose of the council, to issue guidance setting the objectives for the commission and parliament to implement.
Instead, May and her Three Brexiteers took that opportunity tell the press that they wouldn't discuss the matter because they didn't want to lose a bargaining chip.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Aside from the rhetoric there's a timing issue. I think all parties - Tory, Labour, LibDem, SNP at least - would happily guarantee rights for EU citizens already here now. But what's on the table in the EU guidelines is the reciprocal guarantee of rights at the point of us leaving the EU, which is at least two years away.
No sane UK party leader would blanket guarantee rights to whoever happens to come to the country in the next two years, it would be just asking for mass immigration. But on the other hand, we're not in a position (as an EU member) to deny rights to those who arrive between now and Brexit taking effect.
That's why it needs negotiating.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Depressing.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Edit: I need to read more carefully!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Class is a reliable predictor, there's just a terrible understanding of what class is - probably because most modern economics degrees don't cover economic history and focus just on models of individuals and not collectives. E.g., the NRS' definition of social classes (the ABC1C2DE system) includes people receiving the state pension, since they're not in work. But you can be receiving the state pension and be rather wealthy indeed, so it throws the entire distribution out of whack.
The other terrible thing you see people to do is try and do regression analysis on income and make conclusions about class based on that. That means you end up grouping the fresh-out-of-university undergraduate earning £18,000 as part of her first job but who can rise to a management position earning £40,000 within 5 years together with a 55-year old who used to work in the steel factory but got let go and has taken up a position in retail with no career prospects at £18,000. They're very obviously not in the same class.
A class is a group of people with similar relationships to the means of production, which in simpler terms is something like: they can do the same jobs and can expect to have very similar career trajectories and earnings - they exist in the same slot of the economy. One of the best ways of determining someone's class in the modern world is... their educational attainment! Having a degree means you have access to an entirely different set of jobs that can lock out those without degrees. So saying that "class has no correlation but education does" makes no sense - education has an effect entirely because it alters your class (alters your economic potential/your position as a cog in the economic machine).
That does mean there is no 'working class' - that's a lazy term, albeit a convenient shorthand. You have 'the working classes' - because a factory worker doesn't necessarily have the ability to transfer into nursing; they demand different skills despite both being at the bottom end of the income-ladder - and a pensioner is in an entirely different class to the factory worker even if they're both equally poor in terms of income, because one is a worker and the other is dependant on the state, which are not the same economic position. So you need to have much more careful examinations than we seem to get, unfortunately.
Of course, the depressing thing is that once you realise this, you also realise that the Conservatives are relatively more working class (in terms of support) than Labour is - a greater proportion of Labour's supporters are of the middle classes. And that's Labour's problem! Too many educated university students with degrees, not enough people who dropped out of school.
This is happening everywhere, incidentally - the Republicans are now the party of the American working classes. The Front National had a plurality of the French working classes. It's new and terrifying and completely at odds with the historical precedent.
The other terrible thing you see people to do is try and do regression analysis on income and make conclusions about class based on that. That means you end up grouping the fresh-out-of-university undergraduate earning £18,000 as part of her first job but who can rise to a management position earning £40,000 within 5 years together with a 55-year old who used to work in the steel factory but got let go and has taken up a position in retail with no career prospects at £18,000. They're very obviously not in the same class.
A class is a group of people with similar relationships to the means of production, which in simpler terms is something like: they can do the same jobs and can expect to have very similar career trajectories and earnings - they exist in the same slot of the economy. One of the best ways of determining someone's class in the modern world is... their educational attainment! Having a degree means you have access to an entirely different set of jobs that can lock out those without degrees. So saying that "class has no correlation but education does" makes no sense - education has an effect entirely because it alters your class (alters your economic potential/your position as a cog in the economic machine).
That does mean there is no 'working class' - that's a lazy term, albeit a convenient shorthand. You have 'the working classes' - because a factory worker doesn't necessarily have the ability to transfer into nursing; they demand different skills despite both being at the bottom end of the income-ladder - and a pensioner is in an entirely different class to the factory worker even if they're both equally poor in terms of income, because one is a worker and the other is dependant on the state, which are not the same economic position. So you need to have much more careful examinations than we seem to get, unfortunately.
Of course, the depressing thing is that once you realise this, you also realise that the Conservatives are relatively more working class (in terms of support) than Labour is - a greater proportion of Labour's supporters are of the middle classes. And that's Labour's problem! Too many educated university students with degrees, not enough people who dropped out of school.
This is happening everywhere, incidentally - the Republicans are now the party of the American working classes. The Front National had a plurality of the French working classes. It's new and terrifying and completely at odds with the historical precedent.
anonymous_abc
Member
Indeed.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Why depressing?
Talk about voting against yourself
w1ck3dn1nj4
Member
Instead of reversing the idiocy that is Brexit, what this snap election will provide unfortunately, is another opportunity for UK to highlight how stupid it is. If there was ever any doubt that the UK electorate is predominantly made up of clueless idiots, then this election will put those doubts to rest.
PJV3
Member
I think the original decision to leave was stupid, the government said they didn't prepare and any studies Cameron did said the EU was good for the government. But the people aren't stupid and there are reasons to leave for the left and right.
This vote is even less stupid really, people are trying to shore up the country and union, the opposition is chaotic and people think a strong mandate for the Tories will help somehow(it might with her own loony lot) .
Blame Cameron for holding the referendum in the shadow of the financial crisis and cuts to public services.
Randy Lanzarote
Member
I think this is Labour's main problem. They are supposedly the party of the working classes, but I'm not sure any of them actually understand the working classes.
Something that was highlighted with Emily Thornberry's tweet during the 2015 GE campaign of the house draped in a St George flag. And now she's in the shadow cabinet. :/
Emily Thornberry.. argh. I don't think there's anyone more dislikeable, snooty and smug in politics... and she's in Labour! Really can't stand her and the tweet of the flag just showed her true colours. If it wasn't for Corbyn's desperation to form a cabinet she'd be nowhere.
PJV3
Member
Her background with her dad as an assistant secretary General of the UN is just very different, she's an internationalist by birth. I don't mind her that much, she just suffers from Diane Abbott syndrome.
The tweet wasn't that bad as she was right about the man's politics if I remember, it was just absolutely terrible as a gaffe during an election.
Huw_Dawson
Member
If you want an idea of why politics is the way it is right now, that graph is an excellent indicator. The working class vote votes for the right, and a large minority of the middle class votes right.
If you added in lunatic Christians and the KKK, you'd get US politics.
If you added in lunatic Christians and the KKK, you'd get US politics.
IDK about that, remember that Jacob Rees-Mogg exists!
I just don't understand why. The conservatives over the past 40 years have been doing everything they possibly can to fuck over the poor.
It's like turkeys voting for Christmas.
CyclopsRock
Member
I'm asking you think because I'm interested and you'll probably know the answer, but how do you think this will (or does) skew with age? There's a pretty significant correlation there with age. Is that, as the commentators above suggested, because the older generations are far less likely to have gone to university, or is this a trend that our generation will also see applied to it (we will get more likely to vote Tory as we age)? If so, how does this work with your suggestion that class (indicated by educational attainment) is a good indicator? The types of jobs available to one when they're 25 and 35 isn't significantly different (though the ones they want might be), yet it seems like in those ten years they're likely to switch.
CyclopsRock
Member
I imagine if you'd said to a working poor person in the mid 80's "Don't vote for Thatcher, look at how much worse she's making your life compared to the 70's!" they'd laugh in your face.
Because the uneducated shouldn't be allowed to get what they want because what they want is obviously wrong.
Huw_Dawson
Member
Nationalism and identity/religion/race. "The Tories will bring jobs to the local area" too.
This is the power of controlling the message.
Honestly I'd take Jacob over Emily any day of the week. At least he isn't pretending to be anything he isn't!
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
I hate to give him any credit but Jacob Rees-Mogg can take a joke about himself.
Huw_Dawson
Member
Note that the Tories are repeating the same line over and over again about a 'coalition of chaos', 'strong leadership' etc.
The former is fake news - nobody on the left wants to deal with anyone else.
But then look at all those voters from poor and low education backgrounds.
Put two and two together and you begin to realise the scale of the victory May is trying for.
The former is fake news - nobody on the left wants to deal with anyone else.
But then look at all those voters from poor and low education backgrounds.
Put two and two together and you begin to realise the scale of the victory May is trying for.
Because policy doesn't matter, and the Tories have no qualms about telling people what they want to hear, regardless of the truth.
Same with Republicans in the US. I don't know how you combat it without resorting to the same. A pretty lie will always be more popular than an ugly truth, and people who care enough about politics to do the homework will always be an insignificant minority.
CyclopsRock
Member
I think calling it "fake news" is a weird (and basically dumb) use of the term. Let's say by some miracle we end up with a hung parliament and someone - whether it's Tories, LD or Labour - form a minority government, suddenly the make up of the left becomes very important, because (whether they have an official coalition deal or not) they will "work together" in the sense that the minority government will have to take their views into account when legislating, lest nothing ever pass. You can't tell me that a Lib Dem government 40 shy of a majority won't give the SNP what they want in order to pass a budget. You'll deal with them whether you want to or not.
PJV3
Member
If you want to break the SNP then them bringing down a non Tory government is what you want. Tories go on about leftwingers being mean but it's alright to keep calling everyone else a threat to national security if they get a say in anything.
Huw_Dawson
Member
No deal, no coalition, no arrangement, no supply and confidence...
It's false, and the Tories will now get called out on it being false. But it does not matter, because as long as enough voters buy it, it does not matter if it is true or not.
This is modern politics.
It's false, and the Tories will now get called out on it being false. But it does not matter, because as long as enough voters buy it, it does not matter if it is true or not.
This is modern politics.
Tbh I don't know much about Thornberry aside from that tweet. Just thought pswii60s description was basically perfect for Jacob Rees-Mogg!
CyclopsRock
Member
True - swap for Labour, in that case.
But the version you're stating is the obviously untrue one. You honestly, honestly, honestly think that a minority Lib Dem government would just float their budget without talking to anyone and let the chips fall where they may? Come on, man.
I don't believe it
For an easy example, suppose 1 green seat, 10 UKIP, 10 Lib Dem, remaining seats evenly split between Lab/Con.
Green say they'll side with anyone but prefer Lab/Lib. UKIP refuse to side with Lab.
You're saying that in this scenario Lib Dems would refuse to form a Labour/Lib Dem/Green government, giving us a Conservative/UKIP/Green government instead?
Huw_Dawson
Member
No pacts, no agreements, no supply and confidence, no coalitions, no secret foot rubs.
We have not ruled out a coalition with the Greens or the Monster Raving Loony Party, or indeed Plaid, but if you vote Lib Dem, you get Lib Dems.
We are a pro-EU, pro-UK party. If you are not both of those things, we will under no circumstances ally with you. If May/Corbyn resigned and the respective party committed to remaining in the single market or the EU, then that would be different. But that is not on the cards.
Passing budgets and individual votes would not be much fun in such a situation, but that would be a second general election situation anyway.
In the scenario I just posted if you vote Lib Dem, you get Tory/UKIP/Green.
Billy_Pilgrim
Member
It's fairly telling that the Corbyn lot are licking her hoop just because she's loyal to the cult leader.
PJV3
Member
It can be done though, if you don't want to suffer the fallout of bringing in a Tory government by being difficult.
It doesn't matter anyway with the Tory Tsunami on its way.
Huw_Dawson
Member
If you vote Lib Dem, you get Lib Dem.
If there are not enough Lib Dems to prevent a Brexit majority, then the solution is to vote for more Lib Dems.
There is no situation where we can join a coalition which exits the single market or wishes to break up the UK.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked