WorkingMummy

.... And Louisa I've just checked on "Full Facts" website. The UK does not have a significantly better bargaining position re EU trade than Switzerland. The EU exports 16% of its goods to the UK. It exports 6% to Switzerland. Although the UK is the EU's largest single customer, it is by no means dependent on us as an export market. And our importance to it as an export market is by no means out of kilter with Switzerland's. On the other hand a massive 44% of our exports go to the EU. (This is directly comparable to Switzerland, which exports 45% of its goods to the EU.) The balance of power would be with the EU in negotiating new terms were we to leave. (That's if it even wanted to. The incentive to make an example of us as treaty delinquents would be pretty strong.) We need the EU's business more than it needs ours.

Which would lead to uuuuuuutopia of course. An exiting, treaty breaking, reneging UK, which is the fifth largest economy in the world BECAUSE of its access to stable, tarrif-free, centrally regulated European market, would not get a better deal than it has now. If you are hoping for the collapse of the EU, my god.

Louisa - the evidence is Norway and Switzerland. Particularly Switzerland. You do not get more isolationist than them. They had to accept free movement. Moreover they had to accept Schengen (which we did not). Did you know that in 2014 the Swiss people had a referendum on migration? They voted to cap migration and unilaterally set quotas. Has the Swiss government implemented this referendum? No. Why? Because it can't. Because it cannot just unilaterally negotiate a new deal with the single biggest market in the world. Get real!!!! No country in the world gets to take whatever it wants from its neighbours without its neighbours getting a say in what is required in return. The kind of "control" and "sovereignty" that Brexit dangles in your face is absolutely imaginary. No one gets to impose unilaterally what it wants on the rest of the bloody world. (Not even the Swiss, who managed to be officially recognised as neutral by the allied forces, and yet avoid invasion by ruddy Hitler in the Second World War.) If you want free trade, you have to have free movement. And outside the EU, free movement equals Schengen. That 1995 opt out for UK and Ireland was possible because we were negotiating members of the EU with full rights.

100%, Blah Blah.

There is a difference. Between who you have to let in. Amd whether you are allowed to check. Why do you think all those Syrian migrants are stuck in God forsaken camps at Calais. It is not because they like French cheese. We are allowed to conduct the full gammet of immigration status checks on everyone, travelling in from anywhere. We get to turn away everyone who is not an EU citizen, including Syrian refugees admitted into the rest of the EU by Greece. I get it, that you want to deny entrance to ALL EU citizens too. But to claim that "leaving the EU" gives you right to deny is just plain wrong. You would have to leave the EEA, and forfeit free trade, too. And were you to try to regain free-trade via a bespoke deal, you would end up worse off, with less control over our borders. You would end up having to accept Schengen. Just look at Switzerland and Norway.

No reason not to give 30 seconds to register your opposition. The negotiations are still alive. Also, the topic is interesting because would be exiters often cite (completely theoretical) prospects of trade deals with other large markets as a reason to leave the EU/EEA. (I've no doubt that many on the far right would relish that.). Whereas a quick look at what TTIP would be like turns the prospect of a UK-US trade deal as a reason to stay in and keep the pro-consumer, pro-worker free market that we already enjoy. (And undervalue in many cases.)

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > While Briatin is in the EU, anyone from EU can > come - no questions. ... > > Leaving the EU permits UK to regain control of > it's borders and control the flow of people - to > suit teh available jobs, resources etc. This is not accurate. The U.K. already "controls" its borders. This is because of its opt out from the Schengen Treaty concluded in 1995. The U.K. is permitted to conduct not only security checks, but also immigration status checks, at its borders, no matter where the person is travelling from, and even if they are coming in from the EU. So a person's entrance to Greece from Turkey gives that person effective freedom of travel throughout the Schengen area - but not the UK (or Ireland). This marks the UK out not only from France, Germany, Spain etc - but also from Norway and Switzerland - the oft cited paradigms of "tailor made" arrangements with the EU. They are out of the EU but they want to trade freely with the EU. So they have had to accept free movement of persons. But a point that is not often made is that as EU outsiders they were not included in the Schengen Treaty negotiations are were unable to do as the UK and Ireland did, and opt-out. So ironically, the two major EEA states who are not EU members have LESS control over their borders than do we. We have full control. We are not able to deny entry to EU citizens. But if you want to regain our ability to do that, then it's goodbye single market: we would have to leave the EEA (not just the EU). Honestly, if the Swiss (yes we are going to house the HQ of the United Nations here in Geneva but no we are not bloody joining the United Nations (until 2002)) could not get access to tariff-free trade without accepting free movement of persons than neither can we. We are able to deny entry to non-EU citizens with Schengen visas. (Unlike Switzerland and Norway, who cannot.) As for Turkey, they will not "join soon". Many countries oppose the move. All that is being negotiated now (as a pragmatic move in return for stemming the tide of Syrian migration through Greece) is for Turkey to get Schengen visa entitlement. As I say this will NOT entitle them to enter the UK. The U.K. already has the best and most self-determined position vis-a-vis European migration. If you leave, and try to renegotiate a trade deal with the EU from the outside, you will be required to join the Schengen area. Just like any other new member of the EEA.

I've posted a link below. It's a potential bi-lateral trade deal between the EU and the US which would oblige the EU to remove "barriers" to US trade in the EU (including by lowering the standards of regulation on things like food safety, fracking - pretty much everything). It would open up European public services - including health services - to bids from US coporations and has horrible implications for the NHS and other public services. It would give US corporations the right to sue governments for policies that damaged profit. It would give corporate America hugely enhanced powers over our lives. Some "Lexit" campaigners are citing it as a reason to leave. I actually think it needs to be halted whether we stay or go (and is in fact a WAY bigger issue than Brexit). I certainly don't want to lose my status as an EU citizen, not least so that I can petition against it. On balance I favour the regulatory environment in the EU, which is pro-consumer, pro-worker, pro-planet. Or more so than any other market place in the world. We are already in the most progressive free-trade area available to anyone. One of the reasons I distrust the Leave campaign so much is its association with people whose tendencies are more sympathetic to a US-type big business and social environment. So I am, remain, and petition against TTIP. http:///what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html

Whether you want to leave or remain, if you oppose TTIP (which will radically affect us - and the planet - either way) don't forget to sign this petition. Something you won't be able to do if we leave. https://stop-ttip.org/sign/

...don't forget to sign this petition. You may lose your ability to do so, if we leave. https://stop-ttip.org/sign/

But Bodsier has not shown any sign of taking offence. And the OP was generous and did not make any accusation against anyone or put anyone in the wrong. All that is being requested, is the opportunity to share perspective on what, from time-to-time, may be a use of language, which accidentally, unknowingly, prompts discomfort of some kind in others who are different from you. Bodsier is asking, wouldn't we all like to know when this occurs, and understand each other's perspective? And the implication so far from some of the responses seems to be, "Thanks but no. Because I am right." As I said, no one is saying anyone is wrong. As for Jeremy's very reasonable question, "Would you mind being described as being of European appearance?" I feel that this too, misses the point. For several reasons. But most of all because a white European living in London feeling fine with that label does not illegitimise the response of a black person living in London who feels uncomfortable with being described as looking African. In fact, one black Londonder not minding the "African" description does not invalidate another black Londoner not liking that. Can we really not express "not liking" something without causing a big ruckus?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But black people are if African descent! So a > valid (albeit broad) description of ethnicity. > Some black people prefer the word 'African' and > dislike the word 'black'. > > A white South African is not of African > heritage/ethnicity. All valid points. But the big point is that anyone should be able to say "ouch" over a particular label without being read as being insulting/implying that the other person is racist, or in any way in the wrong. It's not about right or wrong, but perspective and willingness to address accidental, blameless upset.

I find this really helpful and would welcome comment on any unintentional blunder of my own, especially if expressed as reasonably as this. It would really help, when someone pointed out that a particular use of language is problematic, if none of us automatically read that as an accusation of racisim/sexism or any other kind of bigatory. If it's seen and accepted as information and perspective sharing, it doesn't need to be inflammatory. Thanks Bodsier.

I think we agree on lots. But I disagree with your statement that the "poor" performance in these results reflect, in your words, "below average teaching". I don't think the evidence of one set of very unusual results enables you to conclude that so definitively, without more. You are effectively saying "this is the result, it's odd, there must be A cause". I don't think that is correct. You are working on the basis that all statistical anomalies are 1) explicable 2) by a single cause and 3) in this case the cause is sub standard teaching. I would challenge each of those assumptions. Of course it MIGHT be that the standard of teaching has radically altered in one year. But maybe....not. I know I am coming off as very defensive of the school - I have no link to at all. And a trend, that continued like this, would certainly worry me, if my kids were there. But a blip can be just a blip.

Just had a prick of conscience - of course when I wrote "intelligence" in my last post, I should have said "aptitude to perform as required in tests". Both can vary widely in any given group, but they are obviously different. Also wanted to say that there are many other influences, outside of "what the school is doing" which affect these snapshot results, other than the kids' natural aptitude and other than social-economic group. And a really big one - how many kids in that school in that year group are being/have been tutored at home for the purpose of entrance exams to independent or selective state schools? It's a huge thing, which lots of people are quite quiet about.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- However,there is nothing in Goose Greens intake > that would explain such as significant > underperformance this year compared to other local > schools, Southwark more broadly or the nation as a > whole on multiple measures. All state schools' > socio-economic mixes as well as the proportions of > low performers (at KS1), those with English as a > second language and those with learning > disabilities are available as part of the data > released with he performance information each > year. I fully appreciate that you are not saying that social-economic group fixes performance at a certain level. But what I am saying is that even adjusting for social-economic grouping - so, say, within one social group - ability and also rate of progress, will vary widely. There will be years where you happen to have a higher average intelligence across a particular group of kids than other years. I disagree that atypical or "poor" results from one third of one year group of one, single primary school is statistically significant when compared to "averages" calculated nationwide across millions of kids. I just feel so gutted for a school that faces this; all of a sudden there has to be a narrative of what went wrong or what changed; and there have to be steps and measures etc. And of course we all want the best for our kids. But really, I think it's all about reading far too much into really tiny data pools. WM xx

I don't particularly disagree with anything which has been said here. But I wanted to add, that a very large proportion of a school's results in any given year will depend on the abilities and circumstances of the particular children they happen to have in the key stage assessment groups that year. Even in a non-selective, community school, there will be years when the children who are up for assessment at that school happen to be more able on average than last year. Even when it comes to "value add", children develop at different rates, and in a non linear way. So a school which is doing a really good job may nevertheless score low on value add if they happen to have a higher than average cohort who happened to have developed young, plateaued (but perhaps be on the verge of another little burst soon). I'm not saying to ignore all the league tables. But personally, I put little store by them. I'm just not sure that any one school is large enough to have a truly statistically significant set of data in any given year. And it is impossible to screen out all the millions of factors which are influencing each child's progress other than the school's relative merits. I also agree that all the schools listed are good.

So, the Donald Trump thread is the serious conversation. But I just love this. Obama treating Trump to the kind of response he truly deserves. It's a bad time for politics but a great time fir comedy.

If anyone you know has a Christmas order booked from any of the supermarkets, you could ask them to check to see if they could get you a bird. I have my Christmas delivery booked for Monday, but when I reserved the slot a few weeks ago, all the turkeys were marked as sold-out. I checked again this morning and they had some again. Phew....

Has anyone else seen this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c2DgwPG7mAA I can't begin to unpack it. The layers of self-reference and narcissism are obviously plastered on extremely thickly. But I can't see what Trump thinks would be funny about it. Just, can't, compute.

have pm'd you

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And then there's Ben Carson > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson#Political > _positions Crikey. But then, even Maccain was very pro-life. Was live on the Ellen Degeneres show when he said that Roe v Wade was a "terrible decision". I think he later tried to retreat - said that was an expression of belief in the self-determination of individual states to make their own abortion law. Which obviously ranked higher than the self-determination of said States' women, with him.

Does anyone know if the US relatively leftish and liberalish media is ribbing/ridiculing him like Katie Couric and SNL (rightly) went after Palin? Because he is every bit as ridiculous and quite a bit more scary.

And he gets the headline and a little bump in the poles. Yuck. Stomach churning.