Poll: The EU Referendum: What Will You Vote? (New Poll)
- Thread starter RJC
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
That's exactly what the issue is there.
And so the hyperbole and overly emotional arguments begin
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35624409
We get the politics we deserve unfortunately.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35624409
We get the politics we deserve unfortunately.
So you don't see an issue with migrant workers being exploited, authorities that have little or no idea about houses being converted in HMO's?
We have an immigration system that fuels this.
Soldato
"'Staying in EU 'exposes UK to terror risk', says Iain Duncan Smith"
Wow, now the mudslinging begins in earnest.
Nate
Wow, now the mudslinging begins in earnest.
Nate
Soldato
I have a huge problem with exploitation of any workers. The issue isn't the migrants, is the dodgy landlords.
Brace yourself for 4 months of this...
However, a similar headline could be used by the In campaign "Leaving the EU 'exposes UK to terror risk', says ...."
IDS being in the out camp strengthens my resolve to vote IN. Man is vileness personified.
It could be, and it will be. Both sides seem incapable of presenting a reasoned argument and it's going to be scaremongering until June.
Although doing the opposite to what IDS and Gove want is probably not a bad way to end up alright in life.
Who do they exploit most, migrant workers or natives?
I do see the point you're making, but it's not the EU that mandates that our local authorities have to be completely useless bodies filled up with people waiting to retire.
Soldato
Pretty much this. IDS looks to Victorian workers rights and sees them too in favour of the workers.
Most things he wants are the opposite of what's good for all but the most wealthy in the country.
Soldato
Does it matter? It's illegal, end of. You don't reduce the problem by banning the victims.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
Nate--IRL-- said:
Ian says many things. Didn't keep him on the Tory throne nor got him into No 10.
I'd like him to slug it out with May on security issues. He'll find it hard bo'bing - hohoho.
There's been a request to bring this thread back down to GD level. In case you've avoided it in the past, this section of the forum...
...is really 99% this:
and 1% this:
Also, text-wall (I did try to abridge as far as I could, I apologise for any typos in advance -- tablet):
Economic outlook:
May not be the end of the world as we know it, but the empirical rule of thumb for big splits isn't good. Some examples, which could proxy a big economy dropping from the EU:
1) American Civil War -> Confederate States in the Union
2) Soviet Union -> Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States
3) Korean War -> North vs South
4) British Empire -> Britain and the Commonwealth
Rough trend: the economic activity lost in the split, and the years onwards, could easily fund another state GDP-wise equal to one of the biggest economies departing; former glories don't return; recovery period is longer than people would like to imagine; greater freedom and more citizen-power is far from guaranteed and can regress; the biggest (absolute or market terms) of the parties in the split benefits the most; middle classes take a dive, the poor are decimated; hasty post-split deals are messy, cost a bomb and are still a bad compromise!
Political bonus:
League of Nations -> ECSC, EEC, EU, UN
Dictats and good intentions of powerful independent states aren't good enough to achieve global goals of peace, prosperity and the rule of law. As soon as the dynamic between powers changes, the shocks cause too much material, economic and cultural damage -- nobody's free when war comes knocking, or you can't pay your bills. This compound damage, like economic crises in their own right, must therefore be minimised -- no-one wins otherwise.
Thus international organisations need both regulations and the means to enforce them to be effective. The international political, security and market bodies, which emerged as a result of previous debacles, learned this lesson the hard way from the shortcomings and failures of the LoN.
The most important conclusion being: politics is not a zero-sum game, particularly international politics. Hence we get the democratic idea of the free common market blocs tied by democratic institutions, state-capitalism and necromancy (trying to resurrect or cling on to the specious ideas from previous eras). Europe went with the first option.
There's a libertarian counterargument to this development, but broadly it has several problems too: a) lack of perfect information for decision making b) Platonic conception of rationalism, from which rational free states and individuals spring (reason and intuition are superior to experience, and the chief source of truth) isn't sufficient to describe and manage human affairs c) free states and inviduals aren't 'naturally' good when left to their own devices d) the arbitrary ruler dilemma (strong personalities and states dominate, how do you ensure a fair exchange?) e) by approaching uncertain total freedom, you somehow 'absolutely certainly' converge on the common good f) moral values are 'natural' they do not require explicitly stating or maintaining g) the market is a 'natural' and amoral system of free agents acting in their self-interest, which always results in the accurate picture of said system; where assuming peoples' positions and anticipating prices, from the point of optimal strategies and information, is therefore as valid as physical law and can be relied upon to deliver the best result for everyone (even academicians don't avidly cling on to this any more).
In general libertarians claim quite a reasoned argument, but eventually end up with appeals to natural law. Debates can be had here. But they haven't yet produced a solid 'state-lite' model yet. General principles are only good in as far as they produce specific policies, when you come down to it. What limited libertarian nuggets have been tried in the context of neo-liberalism , they haven't quite delivered on the promises.
May not be the end of the world as we know it, but the empirical rule of thumb for big splits isn't good. Some examples, which could proxy a big economy dropping from the EU:
1) American Civil War -> Confederate States in the Union
2) Soviet Union -> Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States
3) Korean War -> North vs South
4) British Empire -> Britain and the Commonwealth
Rough trend: the economic activity lost in the split, and the years onwards, could easily fund another state GDP-wise equal to one of the biggest economies departing; former glories don't return; recovery period is longer than people would like to imagine; greater freedom and more citizen-power is far from guaranteed and can regress; the biggest (absolute or market terms) of the parties in the split benefits the most; middle classes take a dive, the poor are decimated; hasty post-split deals are messy, cost a bomb and are still a bad compromise!
Political bonus:
League of Nations -> ECSC, EEC, EU, UN
Dictats and good intentions of powerful independent states aren't good enough to achieve global goals of peace, prosperity and the rule of law. As soon as the dynamic between powers changes, the shocks cause too much material, economic and cultural damage -- nobody's free when war comes knocking, or you can't pay your bills. This compound damage, like economic crises in their own right, must therefore be minimised -- no-one wins otherwise.
Thus international organisations need both regulations and the means to enforce them to be effective. The international political, security and market bodies, which emerged as a result of previous debacles, learned this lesson the hard way from the shortcomings and failures of the LoN.
The most important conclusion being: politics is not a zero-sum game, particularly international politics. Hence we get the democratic idea of the free common market blocs tied by democratic institutions, state-capitalism and necromancy (trying to resurrect or cling on to the specious ideas from previous eras). Europe went with the first option.
There's a libertarian counterargument to this development, but broadly it has several problems too: a) lack of perfect information for decision making b) Platonic conception of rationalism, from which rational free states and individuals spring (reason and intuition are superior to experience, and the chief source of truth) isn't sufficient to describe and manage human affairs c) free states and inviduals aren't 'naturally' good when left to their own devices d) the arbitrary ruler dilemma (strong personalities and states dominate, how do you ensure a fair exchange?) e) by approaching uncertain total freedom, you somehow 'absolutely certainly' converge on the common good f) moral values are 'natural' they do not require explicitly stating or maintaining g) the market is a 'natural' and amoral system of free agents acting in their self-interest, which always results in the accurate picture of said system; where assuming peoples' positions and anticipating prices, from the point of optimal strategies and information, is therefore as valid as physical law and can be relied upon to deliver the best result for everyone (even academicians don't avidly cling on to this any more).
In general libertarians claim quite a reasoned argument, but eventually end up with appeals to natural law. Debates can be had here. But they haven't yet produced a solid 'state-lite' model yet. General principles are only good in as far as they produce specific policies, when you come down to it. What limited libertarian nuggets have been tried in the context of neo-liberalism , they haven't quite delivered on the promises.
Who said I wanted to ban the victims?
I want an immigration system that works for people, not one that means big business can keep its labour costs low by exploiting people.
Soldato
So either big business is bribing landlords to mistreat migrant (but not native apparently) tenants, or the issues are separate.
The EU had done much more to prevent exploitation of workers than any UK government to date.
Big business aren't bribing landlords, don't be daft.
If you tackle slum landlords then the actual costs of living in the UK become higher, so it becomes less attractive to come over here to do crap jobs for poverty wages.
I'm against in-work benefits for the same sort of reasons, but disagree with the methodology of revoking them.
I'm against in-work benefits for the same sort of reasons, but disagree with the methodology of revoking them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
I agree broadly with Speirs and OldCoals, and other points aimed directly at deprivation. It hasn't been managed well. When problems are already there, hoping they go away and people can manage without help isn't the answer. And it's not racist to ask: 'Our area is poor, the population is growing, why is no additional money being spent here/services being maintained at present levels by the council/government?'; 'Why is the cash going elsewhere in town?'
I can't claim to know Wolverhampton like the back of my hand, but a few guesses as to why poorer areas get clustering and extra pressure:
a) Cheap property
b) Bad town and community planning either due to incompetence, general government policy or lack of money and inability to raise more
c) Asylum seekers, whom we always took in and would take in outside the EU, get housed as economically as possible, to put it mildly; councils often hold properties in the most deprived areas; hence they allocate what they have, and families with children normally get priority on the housing list
d) A fraction of economic migrants don't really know much about local history of crime, deprivation etc; they just settle where: there's any connection; work is available or the commute to work is good; and the rents are cheap
I agree, and it is supported by evidence linked above, that the distribution of migrants across the UK is both uneven and has seasonal patterns. I'd support discretionary flexible funds, or cheap loans, being made available for councils to address greater variable demand.
This can be done in collaboration with the EU's development strategy, but it's something they do not traditionally have powers to help much in or get involved directly (their argument would be that the UK government, and others in the EU, do not need the full brunt and machinery of the Union at such a local level). The clustering isn't a result of any specific law or directive for community development/multiculturalism. If anything, everyone's been playing blame games and taking their hands off the wheel, as politicians like to do in between elections, so to speak. The EU increasingly get the stick for it all, though.
Still, I wouldn't vote to depart the EU just to spite the establishment or as a form of protest. The stakes are quite a bit higher than a regular European election, imho.
I can't claim to know Wolverhampton like the back of my hand, but a few guesses as to why poorer areas get clustering and extra pressure:
a) Cheap property
b) Bad town and community planning either due to incompetence, general government policy or lack of money and inability to raise more
c) Asylum seekers, whom we always took in and would take in outside the EU, get housed as economically as possible, to put it mildly; councils often hold properties in the most deprived areas; hence they allocate what they have, and families with children normally get priority on the housing list
d) A fraction of economic migrants don't really know much about local history of crime, deprivation etc; they just settle where: there's any connection; work is available or the commute to work is good; and the rents are cheap
I agree, and it is supported by evidence linked above, that the distribution of migrants across the UK is both uneven and has seasonal patterns. I'd support discretionary flexible funds, or cheap loans, being made available for councils to address greater variable demand.
This can be done in collaboration with the EU's development strategy, but it's something they do not traditionally have powers to help much in or get involved directly (their argument would be that the UK government, and others in the EU, do not need the full brunt and machinery of the Union at such a local level). The clustering isn't a result of any specific law or directive for community development/multiculturalism. If anything, everyone's been playing blame games and taking their hands off the wheel, as politicians like to do in between elections, so to speak. The EU increasingly get the stick for it all, though.
Still, I wouldn't vote to depart the EU just to spite the establishment or as a form of protest. The stakes are quite a bit higher than a regular European election, imho.
Last edited:
- Status