[Politics] Brexit

[JC Footy Genius]

You forget. Ours is a liberal household.

The mind boggles.

 

[studio150]

we sell financial services all over the world, and countries outside EU sell financial services here and in the EU. why wouldnt we be able to sell into the EU post Brexit? being outside of the single market is not an import ban.

An excellent post as it clearly displays your total lack of understanding on the regulatory requirement for financial services.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

I suspect those that are wanted by EU states are stopped, however those that have served their time are evidently not.

Having just come back from the states I am in no doubt what my chances of getting in would be had I spent conviction for (say) rape.

You and I both know that the EU's principles of freedom of movement is exactly what it says on the tin, and it's a major factor why our prison population includes 10,000 foreigners that the British taxpayer is keeping in our overcrowded prison system.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04334/SN04334.pdf

Gaining control of our borders should mean exactly that, and those who try and enter with serious convictions should be persona non gratia.

If it works for the states it can work here, and what's best about the US model is it not a burden on their taxpayers.......double bubble.

Any thoughts on post 24422?

 

[cunning fergus]

A question, and it's a genuine one, why does a free market across more than one country offend your socialist principles more than a free market within one political boundary? (I thought that it might be because it is bigger but that can't be the reason because then you would regard large countries as being less socialist than small ones, all things being equal, to coin a phrase.) Leading on from the first question, do you similarly object to the free market within the UK and would like to see it ended?

As I say, I ask the questions without rancour. A reply along similar lines would be appreciated.

Free unfettered markets and/or lassiez faire governance, is the ideology of Tories (and classical liberals), and history has proven many times that without state interference and/or control disaster is just around the corner.

Therefore with the gift of hindsight I am against free markets, and politically speaking I am against free markets. The freedom of labour is the worst example of this because quite evidently not being able to manage supply and demand is disastrous. It's disastrous for workers pay, its disastrous for a government to manage state assets, like housing, education, healthcare etc. Politicians in this country can say it's not so, many of the 17m who voted leave no different.

Therefore my view would apply within a state or as with the EU across a group of states, it makes no difference.

The EU is an unashamed pro free market capitalist institution, its why (say) re nationalising the Royal Mail or Railways is not allowed within its competition laws.

Even when the EU does protectionism, like the CAP its in the interests of the producers not the consumers, and therefore indefensible.

The sooner the whole cabal collapses the better.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Damn! - I haven't been everywhere. So I'm disqualified from having a creditable view of the world.

Herr T Is living proof that travel doesn't necessarily broaden the mind

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Herr T Is living proof that travel doesn't necessarily broaden the mind

Very funny.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Very funny.

 

[Baldseagull]

I suspect those that are wanted by EU states are stopped, however those that have served their time are evidently not.

Having just come back from the states I am in no doubt what my chances of getting in would be had I spent conviction for (say) rape.

You and I both know that the EU's principles of freedom of movement is exactly what it says on the tin, and it's a major factor why our prison population includes 10,000 foreigners that the British taxpayer is keeping in our overcrowded prison system.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04334/SN04334.pdf

Gaining control of our borders should mean exactly that, and those who try and enter with serious convictions should be persona non gratia.

If it works for the states it can work here, and what's best about the US model is it not a burden on their taxpayers.......double bubble.

Those with serious convictions can be denied entry, it is another example of Farage saying the EU does not allow us to do something that actually it does, it is a failing on our part if we are not stopping them coming in.

 

[cunning fergus]

I guess it wasn't one of the regulations on this list?



http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/top-100-eu-rules-cost-britain-33-3bn/

The removal of that regulation above (and much more besides) must be like a wet dream come true for unashamed free market Tories?

I can't speak on all these, but none will prevent a convicted rapist making their way across the continent to come to the UK, which was my point.

Ironically, CRD IV is an example where the UK's own national requirements are more robust than the EU's particularly with regard to the capital adequacy of banks.

CRD IV is a directive and a regulation, I would wager that its the regulation that is the cost burden as that includes the requirements about executive pay.

I am not against the restrictions of executive pay per se, however much of the regulation is disproportionate for all but the largest financial services firms. As with the banks capital adequacy there is no reason why this can't be dealt with by the state.

 

[cunning fergus]

Those with serious convictions can be denied entry, it is another example of Farage saying the EU does not allow us to do something that actually it does, it is a failing on our part if we are not stopping them coming in.

I see, so your point is that we could have stronger border restrictions to keep those people out we want to, but it's the UK Governments fault for not implementing them?

I have to say I didn't hear this line of argument once during the referendum campaign, given the importance that gaining control of our borders had during the referendum campaign why do you think the view you have was not conveyed to the public by the remain campaign?

 

[Baldseagull]

I suspect those that are wanted by EU states are stopped, however those that have served their time are evidently not.

Having just come back from the states I am in no doubt what my chances of getting in would be had I spent conviction for (say) rape.

You and I both know that the EU's principles of freedom of movement is exactly what it says on the tin, and it's a major factor why our prison population includes 10,000 foreigners that the British taxpayer is keeping in our overcrowded prison system.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04334/SN04334.pdf

Gaining control of our borders should mean exactly that, and those who try and enter with serious convictions should be persona non gratia.

If it works for the states it can work here, and what's best about the US model is it not a burden on their taxpayers.......double bubble.

Half of those foreign nationals in our prisons are from the EU, so about 5000.
About 3 million EU nationals are residing in the UK.
UK has a prison population of around 1500 per million of population, so you could expect, if all things were equal for there to be around 4500.
Given that most of the EU nationals here are working age adults, and the rate per million of population includes all our OAPS and children, it is not reasonable to assume any higher level of criminality amongst EU arrivals than in the rest of the population.

 

[Soulman]

He's probably got a passport but I recall Soulman seemed quite pleased to tell us he had never visited France and didn't want to in future. I remember being surprised, especially as the place is only about ten miles drive plus a boat from Brighton.

Why are you surprised, is it compulsory to visit France then, i have not visited Germany, Scotland or Ireland either......hopefully Spain, Austria, USA, Cuba, Jamaica, Greece meet with your approval.

 

[cunning fergus]

An excellent post as it clearly displays your total lack of understanding on the regulatory requirement for financial services.

I don't think you understand, London accounts for 85% of the EU’s hedge fund assets, 78% of its foreign exchange turnover, 74% of over-the-counter interest rate derivatives, 64% of private equity assets and 59% of its international insurance premiums.

More EU entities passport into the UK than UK based entities passport into the EU.

The EU knows that restricting the UK market will not mean that activity will move to the EU it will go to outside the EU, most likely New York.

Then it's lose lose........it won't happen.

 

[Baldseagull]

I see, so your point is that we could have stronger border restrictions to keep those people out we want to, but it's the UK Governments fault for not implementing them?

I have to say I didn't hear this line of argument once during the referendum campaign, given the importance that gaining control of our borders had during the referendum campaign why do you think the view you have was not conveyed to the public by the remain campaign?

About 6000 EU nationals have been denied entry to the UK since 2010, we are not allowed to have a blanket ban on all convicted criminals, but we are able to refuse entry to any individual on grounds of public security or public health.

 

[cunning fergus]

Half of those foreign nationals in our prisons are from the EU, so about 5000.
About 3 million EU nationals are residing in the UK.
UK has a prison population of around 1500 per million of population, so you could expect, if all things were equal for there to be around 4500.
Given that most of the EU nationals here are working age adults, and the rate per million of population includes all our OAPS and children, it is not reasonable to assume any higher level of criminality amongst EU arrivals than in the rest of the population.

You have lost the argument on this issue......the majority of people in this country want border controls, not just to keep out criminals etc.

There is no algorithm that you can run to say it's OK that we have 5000 EU citizens in our jails.

At a time when the Govt is having to spend millions building new jails at a cost of about 120k per place, and with prisoners costing 40k pa not including the costs of investigating the crimes, court costs etc. I would expect most taxpayers would rather they were deported to their countries of origin and do their time there.

Not that you can put a price on what the crime means to the victim..........

 

[Baldseagull]

I don't think you understand, London accounts for 85% of the EU’s hedge fund assets, 78% of its foreign exchange turnover, 74% of over-the-counter interest rate derivatives, 64% of private equity assets and 59% of its international insurance premiums.

More EU entities passport into the UK than UK based entities passport into the EU.

The EU knows that restricting the UK market will not mean that activity will move to the EU it will go to outside the EU, most likely New York.

Then it's lose lose........it won't happen.

The number of passports used is not as relevant as the value of the business done with them.

 

[Baldseagull]

You have lost the argument on this issue......the majority of people in this country want border controls, not just to keep out criminals etc.

There is no algorithm that you can run to say it's OK that we have 5000 EU citizens in our jails.

At a time when the Govt is having to spend millions building new jails at a cost of about 120k per place, and with prisoners costing 40k pa not including the costs of investigating the crimes, court costs etc. I would expect most taxpayers would rather they were deported to their countries of origin and do their time there.

Not that you can put a price on what the crime means to the victim..........

Not suggesting it is ok, just providing some context.

 

[Baldseagull]

Free unfettered markets and/or lassiez faire governance, is the ideology of Tories (and classical liberals), and history has proven many times that without state interference and/or control disaster is just around the corner.

Therefore with the gift of hindsight I am against free markets, and politically speaking I am against free markets. The freedom of labour is the worst example of this because quite evidently not being able to manage supply and demand is disastrous. It's disastrous for workers pay, its disastrous for a government to manage state assets, like housing, education, healthcare etc. Politicians in this country can say it's not so, many of the 17m who voted leave no different.

Therefore my view would apply within a state or as with the EU across a group of states, it makes no difference.

The EU is an unashamed pro free market capitalist institution, its why (say) re nationalising the Royal Mail or Railways is not allowed within its competition laws.

Even when the EU does protectionism, like the CAP its in the interests of the producers not the consumers, and therefore indefensible.

The sooner the whole cabal collapses the better.

Nationalisation is not banned, state run monopolies are banned. A rail system that requires subsidy from the tax payer, cannot be seen as a monopoly enterprise.

 

[cunning fergus]

Nationalisation is not banned, state run monopolies are banned. A rail system that requires subsidy from the tax payer, cannot be seen as a monopoly enterprise.

You are splitting hairs, all EU members states are required to "liberalise" their national rail infrastructure.

To be fair to the French and the Germans they have gone for fill fat privatisation for their national operators like we have, however they have to allow other operators to use their rail network. Their Govts hold a golden share, however investors can take a stake by contributing to Deutsche Bahn bonds, which pay a dividend.

Taxpayer subsidies would therefore be illegal.

In any event, renationalising in the conventional sense is a non starter as you know.......

http://www.leftfutures.org/2015/09/eu-membership-means-no-renationalisation/

 

[pastafarian]

Those with serious convictions can be denied entry, it is another example of Farage saying the EU does not allow us to do something that actually it does, it is a failing on our part if we are not stopping them coming in.

How do you deny entry based on serious convictions if you cant see what their criminal convictions are?
Mr Farage it seems knows more than you do on this matter.

Yes we can access criminal records from across The EU since 2012, but only after a request is made for this information in matters such as criminal investigations and court proceedings.
Swiping an I.D. or passport at our border control will not automatically show up the criminal history of a EU citizen from The European Criminal Records Information System.

All that is checked on entry of a EU national into the UK is ID against data on the Schengen Information System ,this data lists alerts about wanted persons via an arrest warrant or missing persons and objects such as cars wanted in connection with a crime.
There are no historical criminal records kept on the Schengen Information System either.

You do seem to be happy though for all EU citizens to have their convictions checked via a request before entry can be permitted. In this instance Leavers will agree with you,for those wishing to come here to work and live they should have their background checked, its called having proper border controls and issuing relevant visas for entry after relevant checks.