Some more lefty propaganda for you, this time from the socialist institute called
*takes glasses out of pocked and places on end of nose*
'The Bank Of England'
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/Rep...cenarios-and-monetary-and-financial-stability
Brexit - The UK leaves the EU
- Thread starter Touring Mars
- 6,870 comments
- 301,504 views
Some more lefty propaganda for you, this time from the socialist institute called
*takes glasses out of pocked and places on end of nose*
'The Bank Of England'
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/Rep...cenarios-and-monetary-and-financial-stability
- 140
- Melbourne, Australia
In the list of trustworthy UK newspapers I'd put The Guardian relatively high up considering the amount of absolute dross we have.
- 29,371
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
It is - very high... that said, it does have an obvious left-leaning bias and I've found their reporting/analysis of Brexit to be relentlessly negative, partly due to their bias and partly down to the fact that there really will be negative consequences for alot of people...
The Guardian and The Telegraph are my two regular ports of call - both are biased but in opposite directions, but the quality of their reporting is generally very good. It's also quite revealing to see what they both say on the exact same topic.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Listening to the BBC this morning, I recall hearing that a no deal Brexit can be expected to exact an economic toll on the order of 3-4% of the total UK economy. It seems to me this is a relatively small (and ultimately temporary?) price to pay for the enduring benefits of sovereignty and control of borders and immigration.
- 29,952
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Three things the United Kingdom already has:
- Sets its own defence policy and establishes its own diplomatic missions as well as having its own executive with devolved bodies for member nations.
- Is not a member of Schengen and is an island state freely able to police its airports and waterways with whatever degree of scrutiny it desires.
Special status for Northern Ireland regarding a land border.
- Has had the opportunity to set its own immigration quotas and immigrant registration criteria since 2004 but has not done so.
- 29,952
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Nothing negative is widely accepted by those in favour of Brexit, at the very least. Jacob Rees-Mogg called the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, a "second-tier politician" because Carney and his team dared to publish and publicise their negative forecasts. That remark coming from what one can only assume is a first-tier politician who has never held political office outside that of his return as an MP yet gets so much airtime and vaunted credibility and actually lost his first two efforts at running for Parliament. And happens to be the son of an influential former editor of The Times and member of the House of Lords.
He went on to say that Carney "failed to get a job in Canada". Mark Carney is a very successful, highly rated economist who has been Governor of the Bank of Canada as well as an executive with Goldman Sachs and Chairman of the G20-affiliated Financial Stability Board. He wouldn't be clueless about these matters. I don't think he's doing these reports to take the piss or for a laugh.
But if you have something bad to say about Brexit you're simply told to shut up, whether there is merit to the argument or not. Not a very nice way to treat a loyal subject of the Commonwealth many seem so keen to do business with post-Brexit.
- 87,570
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
There's a "yes but" on the last one.
The UK does not have the ability to restrict worker immigration from other EU28 states, except in a limited, short-term capacity. It can - but didn't - impose a restriction on workers from "new" states for a period of up to seven years after the new state has joined. For example, Austria and Switzerland have imposed this restriction on Croatia, which joined in 2017.
In addition, should an EU28 immigrant to the UK not be economically active within three months, we can remove them to their home country. Only we don't register them, unlike some other EU nations, so we can't.
As we neither imposed the travel restrictions on Poland when it joined nor registered its migrants, we got the media trope of Polish itinerant workers coming over here and taking our plumbing jobs, and taking the money back home to Poland. This stokes fears that should Turkey join, we'll have to accept Turkish workers - and we will have to, no later than seven years after Turkey joins. The problem with Turkey is the fear that much of its migrant population would be Syrian refugees who are, according to the Daily Mail, Da'esh terrorists because they're Syrian...
... and whether that's true or not, it does raise questions about exactly how safe and secure total freedom of movement across the EU actually is. Turkey's membership would give the whole of the EU a land border with Iran, Iraq, Georgia and Syria, meaning that anyone who could get into Turkey could travel anywhere in the EU without ever being checked. The UK's border agency is thus the Turkish border agency - we'd be entrusting our security to them (and the guys at the Eurotunnel in Coquelles).
This is a prospect that would be concerning for many - enough to vote to leave.
- 29,371
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I would say not, but it's a no brainer that a No Deal Brexit is likely to have a much more significant short term cost than any possible 'deal' that allows for minimal disruption to trade, travel etc., but the question is what are the long term costs/gains likely to be. The figures published by the Treasury and other sources yesterday have stoked some controversy, however, because there are obvious assumptions that have been made (necessarily) in order to produce these figures, which (surprise surprise) bolster May's case for agreeing to a deal as opposed to opting for a No Deal Brexit - but the figures are also somewhat counterproductive to May's cause as they show that even her deal will leave the UK worse off (relative to staying in the EU) than no Brexit at all, at least in the short term.
The biggest beef with these figures, however, is that they do not (and cannot) factor in any potential gains (e.g. in economic growth) from policies and trade deals enacted after Brexit. Ironically, May's deal makes those much-vaunted trade deals much harder to achieve, while a No Deal Brexit would, ironically, allow the UK to strike trade deals with the rest of the world at our leisure. Hence, the short term costs may be substantially higher, but so too may be the long term gains. The elephant in the room with all of these assumptions is the idea that the EU continues to function smoothly - even regardless of the effects of Brexit, that is a major assumption and really cannot be accurately predicted (and therefore modelled). A big question would be, would the UK be better or worse of in 15 years' time if the Eurozone collapses in 5-10 years time? No-one can tell, but the increasing dysfunctionality of the EU is one of the very reasons the UK voted for Brexit in the first place, and for many the cost of leaving may be considered a wise investment.
- 87,570
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Moot. And it is now, but it wasn't in 2016 when the referendum happened - indeed the agreement between the EU and Turkey over the Syrian refugee crisis couldn't have happened at a worse time for the remain camp (March 2016) - remember Farage's poster? - and the two had agreed the first chapter of Turkey's accession (May 2016) literally three weeks before the referendum (June 2016).
Turkey had been in negotiations to join since 2005, having been recommended for full membership in 1999. But in 2017 the EU decided Turkey had internal policies that were incompatible with EU membership, and Turkey decided it wanted to brutally oppress freedom of speech, assembly and the press more than be in the EU.
Officially though, negotiations are still open and it's still in the customs union (which it joined in 1995)...
The refugee crisis was probably Schengen's first major test, and it didn't do well. The Dublin agreement means migrants must register in the first safe country they reach, and can be returned to that country by any subsequent country they travel to. But in Schengen, there's no restrictions on movement, so migrants were reaching Hungary and Greece and then heading off to northern Europe. Some countries were recognising free travel, others were turning them back.
The EU's freedom of movement for workers isn't quite the same thing as Schengen, but it's enough to stoke the fears that migrants (and terrorists) could get into the EU and then show up here.
Last edited:
- 29,952
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
I don't dispute what you're saying but it's these bits that was the point of my argument on the immigration bit; could have but didn't.
It's this pretense that the UK has been powerless at the hands of the big, nasty EUSSR. There have been opportunities to check these things but neither a Labour nor a Conservative government have done anything about it. But we're taking back control. Of something we could have reigned in ages ago.
And as someone who has needlessly had his passport checked on a Schengen to Schengen train where the police delight in finding obviously foreign people, I assure you that non-EU citizens are routinely harrassed and checked where possible. Airports might be different, getting a flight from Athens to Paris is seamless enough, but you still have to get into Schengen and then out of it to get to the UK.
If Turkey hypothetically joins the EU that doesn't mean it will automatically become part of the Schengen area straight away; Romania and Bulgaria have been EU members since 2007 and despite both having land borders with Schengen countries (Hungary and Greece respectively) are still not included in the Schengen area as well as Cyprus (joined 2004) and Croatia (joined 2013 - also has land borders with Schengen countries Slovenia and Hungary). Checks would be made between Turkey and Greece as they are now and you couldn't fly from Istanbul to London without being checked. Border control does exist and it's not like the second Turkey joins the EU all the terrorists would be "in".
As I mentioned earlier, this will affect me as I brazenly cycle over the border into Austria or Hungary and back. Being inside Schengen is one thing but being an unregistered, non-EU citizen is quite another.
It was largely moot prior to the referendum too, the human rights violations and the way in which Turkey operated needed changing to such an extreme degree it wasn’t ever feasible at least in the short term (less than 4-5 years).
Yet like you said because it was possible we got plastered with insane nonsense like all 50million odd Turks moving to the U.K... it wasn’t going to happen and didn’t.
- 87,570
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Yes and no - even if we do our maximum as permitted by the ECJ, we can't do anything about EU28 workers after seven years of new membership. I mean, that's not intrinsically a problem - if they're working, they're contributing GDP - but you know, coming over here, taking our jobs, etc. etc.
Schengen is just freedom of movement within the Union. The EEA's rules on freedom of movement for workers is slightly different, and extends to Switzerland, Norway and the UK. If Turkey joins the EU, it becomes part of the EEA and we have no right to stop workers coming from Turkey to the UK after a seven year period if we choose to invoke that.
Leaving the EU does give us "back" that control, in that we can then treat EU workers as any other workers, requiring working visas in order to come here.
And yet shortly before the Referendum in June 2016, the EU agreed a refugee deal with Turkey as part of the EU-Turkey negotiations (March 2016) and then agreed the first chapter of Turkey's membership (May 2016).
For leave, that was wonderful timing. They could highlight how awful Turkey is for human rights - as you note - and point out that the EU was pursuing its membership anyway, and then show all the
I wonder how much of an effect that had.
Last edited:
- 29,952
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Yeah, I know. Lowest common denominator politics and public opinion. But what is somewhat nefarious is that these nuances and controls that we've been discussing here are things which are almost never addressed in public or told to the public at large. I'd guess that few people who go for the take our jobs option have even the first clue about these quotas and registration checks the UK has willfully not done. It's easier to let people believe the EU is doing the dirty work, I suppose.
---
Another key difference between other European countries and the UK is that a lot of European countries legally require all residents to have valid ID on them at all times. It's a consequence of Schengen sure, but it isn't exclusive to Schengen countries and the UK does not make this a requirement. It doesn't need to, no, but it is something else which the UK has control over and has chosen not to do. I remember the uproar when Labour suggested introducing ID cards around 2002ish; not every one has a passport or driver's licence.
I swear this was some people's argument.
Do you want control checks on every one entering the country and those already in the country? Yes, let's control our population!
Would you be willing to have an ID card on you at all times then? No, I want to be left alone!
Same old Mary Whitehouse effect.
Yes, because the goal was for them to become a member, but they needed massive reforms in order to be allowed as a member.
Sorta;
This is interesting and mirrors my own opinions at the time (though obviously the ones in the link are qualified); http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/unfounded-claim-turkey-swing-brexit-referendum/
- 87,570
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Yes, absolutely.
Well, ultimately the only things the UK hasn't done is to invoke the 2+3+2 probation and register migrant workers for the welfare handbrake. We can't really impose quotas on EU worker migrants.
I'm violently opposed to mandatory identity cards for citizens. Having to prove to the police who you are or face arrest and imprisonment is the antithesis of innocent until proven guilty. If you choose to carry one for convenience, that's pretty much up to you.
I don't see it as the same issue as checking people at the border to ensure they have the right to be in the country. I'd be kind of behind the idea that people on short-term visas should be required to register and carry identity for the duration of their stay, as a visa is a legal construct conferring right to stay until it expires, but it should be eliminated if they become citizens.
And yet the two bodies agreed the first chapter. That's enough to prove that the EU wanted Turkey to become an EU member (and vice versa) regardless of its human rights record at that time - it wasn't until 2017 that the EU decided Turkey's human rights record was enough to hit pause on it.
Yup. 76 million more workers on our doorstep, looking at our wages... That'll put the willies up casual and minimum wage workers - enough to vote leave...
... and then there was this:
The timings of the EU-Turkey negotiations couldn't have been better for leave if they'd planned it themselves.
I want to be a millionaire, so I work hard and occasionally have a flutter on the Euro-Millions, that doesn't make me a millionaire.
The possibility of Turkey actually being a fully signed up member where remote and the reforms needed massive. Hell the EU wanting them in and Turkey wanting in, are good things because it meant the country was (at least looking at) moving into a more fair, and democratic society and that the EU wanted to help this process... but it would take a long time even in the very best case scenario.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/unfounded-claim-turkey-swing-brexit-referendum/
- 29,952
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
I'm not in favour of the idea either, it was just a point of contrast between the UK and other countries on the continent.
Just on the underlined section, what about if you are a foreigner but living and working there? If you want a more practical example, I'm not a citizen of the Slovak Republic and neither is my Iranian friend Massoud but he requires far more documentation than I do.
Me, a UK citizen living and working in Slovakia. I do not need a visa to be here but I do need to register with the foreign police.
Massoud, an Iranian citizen living and working in Slovakia. He needs visas to be here as well as registering with the foreign police with extra documentation. He also needs an airport transit visa for using a Schengen airport.
Should either of us be required to have IDs based on your point? It just seems wrong to hold citizenship to different standards but I know it's ultimately because my EU status confers working and travel benefits on me that a citizen of Iran does not have here. Then again, I'm soon to join them in being a non-EU citizen so it's probably a moot discussion...
- 87,570
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Have you entered top-level negotiations with Euromillions and agreed the first step? The EU and Turkey have, bilaterally. The accession negotiations were, and are, a real thing.
The EU has a rulebook for membership that covers 35 chapters, of which 33 must be negotiated and agreed between the potential member state and the current EU nations (chapter 34 and 35 are not included, as they do not require negotiations). At present, 15 of these chapters are still open and still subject to negotiation, with one - chapter 25 - opened, agreed and closed.
The dispute over Cyprus has caused eight chapters to be frozen. Four chapters were frozen by a veto from France, but it lifted the veto on them and three are now unfrozen.
This is still an ongoing negotiation, even though Erdogan referred to European governments as Nazis (in 2017, after the referendum). I don't think anything has recently been negotiated, and various EU officials have declared it should be dead now, but the chapters are still open.
Interestingly, nations in the accession process get a grant from the EU. This is around 750m Euros a year for Turkey, with payments up to 2020.
And yet it got worse. Erdogan, who became President in 2014, denounces freedom of speech and freedom of press, believes journalists should be prosecuted as terrorists, and has banned LGBT events. But even before him (although he was PM at the time) the Turkish parliament enacted laws making it a criminal offence to insult Turkishness, among other things.
Ultimately a citizen is someone who has an indefinite right to remain, while a non-citizen has a conditional right to remain. They are legally distinct statuses. The former shouldn't have to prove to anyone that they have the right to be there (but it would take a massive weapon to refuse to identify yourself to the police - although it should be your right to be a massive weapon), but the latter should have their identity and duration of stay registered somewhere at least, if only to ensure they don't overstay and accidentally become criminals.
So yes, as an EU citizen you probably should have different requirements in the EU from your non-EU citizen colleague. Although in four months you'll both be non-EU citizens.
This outburst from Erdogan didn't come out of the blue, Turkey where miles away from being signed up members (like I've said), simply entering negotiations =/= being a signed up member.
Further highlighting how unready Turkey are/is to being a signed up member of the EU.
https://fullfact.org/europe/turkey-likely-join-eu/
Dated the month before the vote. Turkey wasn't ever likely to join the EU at least not in the short term. The idea it was is founded on a lie and a fundamental misunderstanding of reality.
- 87,570
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Yet France lifted all of its four vetoes on chapter negotiations between February 2013 and March 2016 (one chapter remained vetoed, because Cyprus had already vetoed it).
Sarkozy was indeed a very outspoken critic of Turkey joining the EU - on the basis of it being too big and too poor - but Hollande was more supportive. Macron is more of a fence-sitter, suggesting the equivalent of the EU and Turkey being **** buddies rather than married. Germany hasn't been very supportive either (which is odd, as Germany's economy in the 1970s was built on Turkish immigration) and more recently Merkel has suggested the negotiations die...
... but they are still open, with 15 open chapters and one closed. If it was never going to happen, Turkey wouldn't have even passed the screening stage. Or started it.
- 29,371
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Theresa May has told a select committee of MPs this morning that requesting an extension to Article 50 would invalidate the Withdrawal Agreement and said "To extend article 50, actually, you’re then in the business of renegotiating the deal." - go figure.
And yet again, we have an MP calling for a People's Vote, saying that 'we have three choices - go with the current deal, exit with No Deal, or stay in the EU on our current terms'. There appears to be little to no appreciation for the fact that the third option is currently not legally an option, or at least it is an option that lies beyond the legal power of the UK Parliament (or people) to deliver. It would be better to be clear and say that the third option is 'to request that we stay in the EU on our current terms', as opposed to assuming that it is simply the case that a second referendum can make it happen automatically - which it cannot. There is, unfortunately, a fourth option that arises as a result of this predicament, which is 'stay in the EU on the terms demanded by the EU'.
Obviously, I would hope (and would fully expect) that in reality there is no distinction between the third and fourth options as set out above, but the fact is that we cannot say for sure that that is the case. What we need is for Juncker, Tusk, Barnier, Merkel, Macron, whoever (and preferably more than one of them) to make clear whether staying in the EU on our current terms is infact still on offer (if it ever really was), because unless and until that happens, then a second referendum result instructing 'Remain' would be as blind a vote as the first one was to Leave.
And yet again, we have an MP calling for a People's Vote, saying that 'we have three choices - go with the current deal, exit with No Deal, or stay in the EU on our current terms'. There appears to be little to no appreciation for the fact that the third option is currently not legally an option, or at least it is an option that lies beyond the legal power of the UK Parliament (or people) to deliver. It would be better to be clear and say that the third option is 'to request that we stay in the EU on our current terms', as opposed to assuming that it is simply the case that a second referendum can make it happen automatically - which it cannot. There is, unfortunately, a fourth option that arises as a result of this predicament, which is 'stay in the EU on the terms demanded by the EU'.
Obviously, I would hope (and would fully expect) that in reality there is no distinction between the third and fourth options as set out above, but the fact is that we cannot say for sure that that is the case. What we need is for Juncker, Tusk, Barnier, Merkel, Macron, whoever (and preferably more than one of them) to make clear whether staying in the EU on our current terms is infact still on offer (if it ever really was), because unless and until that happens, then a second referendum result instructing 'Remain' would be as blind a vote as the first one was to Leave.
- 29,371
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
There are those who believe that the whole 'No Deal' thing is a bit of a red herring - it will be a political and diplomatic failure of monumental proportions, but I don't think it will be anything like the Doomsday scenario that some people are saying it will be. If the UK exits the EU in March next year and no deal is agreed, then it will not (and cannot) simply be left like that - there will/must be a deal of some description eventually, and I strongly suspect that there are bare-bones agreements already in place, as there is just too much at stake trade-wise for both parties to not be ready to roll on March 30th on WTO terms. There will doubtless be much disruption, and the UK will bear the brunt of it. But, ironically, the UK would stand to gain in the long term while it could all too easily spell the beginning of the end for the EU, in a make-or-break few years where Brexit is likely to be the least of their worries.
How do you figure that one?
Literally the news today seems like a long term benefit for the EU and a long term and lasting negative for the UK.
