Blah Blah

I repeat that EU exports to the UK are JUST 3% of EU GDP. We can NOT do a unilateral deal with Germany outside of the EU because Germany is a member of a trading block - i.e. the EU. Germany has to follow EU rules on trade. What part of that don't you understand Louisa and ?????

Again Workingmummy, it's that 'but we are sooo special' nonsense.

We are just 3% of EU GDP in imports Louisa. We only have 65 million people - hardly a sniff for block trade deals. And the EU isn't just Germany and France. It is 27 countries that would ALL have to agree to give us sepcial treatment. We can count Norway and Switzerland out for a start can't we. It's just not going to happen, and the big trade negotiators for the EU have said so as well. Have a look at this article for a sensible analysis of what part imports and exports might play in post brexit negotiations. http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/after-brexit-how-important-would-uk-trade-be-eu#.V12vxKJZiZY There's a very good table there on who are the biggest trading partners of the EU and then each individual country. There you will see how Germany have plenty of export partners within the EU to not need the UK at all. It's far more complex than you realise or want to understand.

Yes and the EU negotiates deals as a trading market of 500 million. On our own we would be negotiating as a trading partner of just 65 million. We are never going to get favourable deals with countries like America with 350 million consumers. China is a perfect point on this. China is now so economically powerful that it can dump subsidised steel on markets, and no-one can do anything about it. When we complained they just slapped a huge tariff on our steel. The other thing no-one ever talks about either is how China has been propping the Dollar for almost two decades now. Even North Korea, who is supposed to be subject to import sanctions, manages to bypass that. It's newest Universities for example are full of Western and American IT technology and computers. There is no such thing as free trade, or a level playing field anywhere.

Here are some other things to consider on this. We let 180,000 in from outside the EU last year. They were granted access according to the points/quota system we have for non EU migrants. A small number were asylum seekers. If we leave the EU, EU citizens will still be able to apply to come here under the same system as non EU migrants. Given that most EU migrants come here to work or study, they would still qualify to come under our points system. So any idea that immigration will be significantly reduced if we leave the EU is nonsense. This is why the Brexit campaign is ramping up the idea of Turkey and Syria etc joining the EU. They know that people aren't scared by Europeans per se, so they have to find people we are scared of and fit them into their arguments, whether based in truth or not. What they don't tell you is that the UK has a veto on new nations joining - that's a powerful thing. If we leave the EU we will have no say who joins the EU, and then becomes an EU citizen, and then in turn becomes eligible to apply to Britain for entry AS AN EU CITIZEN. This immigration debate is so easy to tear apart, it really is. And that's before we get into Brits moving to the continent. The Spanish say the same about us btw, that we move there and take all their jobs, don't learn the language, don't assimilate etc. It cuts both ways.

TTIP is not likely to happen now. The US won't move on anything, which has turned the Germans off the deal. France are now strongly opposed to it too and the UK have guaranteed the NHS will be exempt. Both Trump and Clinton are opposed to it, so once Obama is out of office, the deal is dead in the water. It has taken 10 years of negotiation on TTIP to arrive at what is proposed now. And to also add that huge people pressure on this accross Europe has played a major part in shaping government concerns. So please sign the petition, the pressure has to stay on until the deal is dead.

You posted this on the EU thread as well and it was pointed out there that leaving the EU would not change any of that as the grants were awarded to the countries of destination. Companies go where labour is cheapest. That is just the way it is. The EU is not the cause of that. Labour costs are the primary reason why the UK fails to compete in manufacturing. Nothing to do with the EU at all.

WorkingMummy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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/ TTIP isn't going to happen. The French are now strongly opposed and the Germans aren't happy that the US won't budge on anything. The UK has guaranteed the NHS will be exempt. TTIP has been 10 years of negotiation so far. It has until Obama leaves office to ratify (hence the high profile at the moment). The chances of the EU nations reaching agreement if the US won't conceed anything by then is pretty slim. And just to add that TTIP is a perfect example of the difficulty of negotiating trade deals. The minimum time it takes to agree a trade deal is two years. This is what we face if we leave the EU.

And I think it's also worth reiterating that council employees (doing these jobs) are seperate from councillors who we elect. Councillors in turn do not hire or fire council employees. It is very difficult to hold anyone to account who is an employee (unless they break the law) and councils tend to shuffle people who do bad jobs to other departments/ roles because that's easier than trying to fire. My instinct on this, if there is reason for blame with the council, is that individual performance is to blame. That's why it becomes so hard to find out exactly who or what has failed.

This article appeared in my facebook timeline. Don't know where it is from or who wrote it, but it's an interesting take on the immigration debate I think. "Immigration has been in the news a lot lately, especially with the EU referendum coming up. So let's use the tools and data of political science to understand the topic better. Last year, 270,000 EU citizens immigrated to the UK, and 85,000 returned to the EU. So EU net migration was around 185,000 (1). Additionally, a similar number came from outside the EU, so 330,000 in total. That was the highest ever level of EU migration ? going all the way back to when we joined the EEC in 1975. Indeed during the 1980s the trend was the other way ? British workers moved overseas, particularly to Germany, as their economy was doing better than ours at that time. You might remember the TV show ?Auf Wiedersehen Pet?. Currently our economy is doing better than many European ones so more people are coming than going. But there's no reason to think that will always be the case. The Leave campaign claim that EU migration is putting unsustainable pressure on our public services, worsening the housing crisis, putting pressure on the NHS, on schools and on our roads. Their latest TV broadcast for instance shows a sick older lady receiving NHS treatment much faster in an imaginary hospital if we leave the EU. Are they right? Imagine that we left the EU and banned EU immigration completely. Nobody else allowed ? no footballers, no entertainers, no chefs, no businessmen, no nurses, no cleaners, nobody. And we kept that door shut for ten years. And for comparison let?s say that we stayed in the EU and immigration continues at this year?s record level (the highest ever) for the next ten years. How would that impact our population and our public services? In terms of population, we?d end up with 1.85m fewer people living in our country after the 10 years. That sounds like a lot of people, which it is. But we?re a big country ? 64.6m in total at the moment (2). So even under these very extreme assumptions the difference is only 2.8%. Less than 1 in 35. Would you notice the difference if there were 34 instead of 35 people in your doctors? waiting room? If there were 34 instead of 35 cars ahead of you in the traffic jam? Would your child?s education suffer in a class of 34 instead of 35? I doubt it. And don?t forget that we?re making crazily unrealistic assumptions about how much we could reduce immigration if we left the EU. Because even the most ardent Leave campaigners don?t say that we should stop immigration altogether. They usually talk of using a points system to reach the government?s net target of 100,000 per year. So the difference in population after 10 years wouldn?t be anything like as much as 1 in 35. Let?s say we could hit the net target of 100,000 ? half from the EU and half from non-EU countries for the sake of argument. In that case, the difference in population after 10 years would be 1.35m or 1 in 49. And don?t forget that we?re also making another very aggressive assumption ? that migration will continue at the same level as last year, our highest ever. It would be more realistic to take the average of the last five years migration (3). If we do that, then the difference in our population after ten years would be only 790,000 or 1 in 82. 1 in 82. I can?t tell the difference between a crowd of 81 and 82 people (even when they were my own wedding guests!). Can you? So here?s the thing: however you feel about EU immigration, even under extreme assumptions the impact on our overall population just isn?t very large. Now at this point some of you might be thinking ? ?This can't be right - step outside and look with your own eyes! Britain is full of foreigners! The place I grew up is like another country! How can you claim that EU immigration is not significant??. I live in inner London so I can sense where you might be coming from. A few things to bear in mind: 1) The overwhelming majority of immigration to the UK over the last 40 years has been from outside the EU (3). However you feel about that, it has nothing to do with our EU membership; 2) Whether you like it or not, Britain has been a multicultural country for several generations at least. You can?t tell whether somebody is an immigrant just by looking at them (sorry if this is an obvious point). You might hazard a guess at their ethnicity or race but that?s a very different thing; 3) Historically, immigrants have clustered in particular areas of the country, so your neighbourhood may not be representative of the country at large; 4) British people from all backgrounds have become much more cosmopolitan in their tastes over the last 40 years. We drink in pubs much less, but enjoy wine at home or go to restaurants and cafes a lot more. Instead of just eating British food, we enjoy flavours from all over the world. So the retail and commercial landscape of our country has changed - to reflect our changing tastes, not just because of new arrivals. ?But wait! What when Turkey, Montenegro and Albania join the EU? We?ll be swamped!? No we won?t. Mainly because Turkey and Albania are nowhere near being eligible to join the EU, and Montenegro is tiny. Also don't forget there are 27 other countries in the EU to choose from if residents of those countries did fancy a change of scene. And even if in the distant future many other countries did join and we did find ourselves swamped, Britain could leave. We?re free to leave the EU whenever we want. But if we leave and then want to rejoin, we?d need the consent of all 27 other member states. Better to stay and keep our options open than leave in fear of something that is very unlikely to happen. And so far we?ve also not factored in the contribution that immigrants make to our country, and specifically our public finances. EU migrants contribute more in taxes than they use in public services, as they are much more likely to be of working age than the general population (4). So if we used that extra tax revenue to hire more doctors, build more schools, invest in transport and so on, we?d actually have better public services than we would without any EU immigration. It takes time to hire and train teachers and doctors, build schools and roads, and so forth. So it?s true that a sudden influx of people into an area can put short-term pressure on services. But the fundamental reason for the issues we identified at the start ? NHS pressure, oversubscribed schools, congested roads, the housing crisis ? is not EU immigration. We are now six years into a government austerity programme to attempt to balance the books. So it?s not surprising that our public services are feeling the pinch. An ageing population and new advances in medicine put particular strain on the NHS. For the last thirty years, we have failed by a wide margin to build enough houses in the UK. Interest rates have been at an ?emergency? rate of 0.5% for the last seven years. That is why house prices are so high. And this story of decades of underinvestment is repeated for our roads and railways too. All of these issues are home-grown. And all of those policy areas are entirely within the control of our government in Westminster. They have nothing to do with the EU and are not the fault of EU migrants. Finally, there?s been plenty of academic research into this issue, including a summary paper just published by the London School of Economics (5). The research shows, contrary to many tabloid headlines, that 1) Immigrants do not take a disproportionate share of jobs created by our economy; 2) There is no evidence of an overall negative impact of immigration on wages; 3) There is no evidence that EU migrants affect the labour market performance of native-born workers (i.e. make it harder for native-born workers to get promoted, get a pay rise, etc) So it is clear from examining the evidence that fears of immigration have been blown out of all proportion by the Eurosceptic press and the Leave campaign. But what about all that money we send the EU? Couldn't we use that to improve public services? Yes, but it wouldn't go very far, and it would be outweighed by the economic damage from leaving. Our net contribution to the EU was ?8.5bn last year (6) which works out at 36 pence per person per day. That is a drop in the ocean compared to our annual NHS budget of ?116.4bn (7). And if you?re trying to work out the impact of leaving the EU on our public services, you can?t just look at our net contribution. You also need to consider the effect that leaving would have on the size of our economy, and hence the tax revenue the government can generate. Seven highly respected independent economic organisations have tried to work this out (8). And all seven of them have reached the same conclusion: that the economic damage caused by Brexit would more than offset the saving from our EU contribution. The best estimate suggests that the government would have between ?20bn and ?40bn less to spend on public services than if we remained in the EU (9). So our public services wouldn't be better if we left the EU - they would be much worse. So if we left the EU to ?take control of immigration?, and then reduced it as discussed above, we?d still have all the same problems we have today ? the housing crisis, an overstretched NHS, oversubscribed schools, heavy traffic, etc. But we?d also have two even more serious problems to add to the list: a recession and the unknown consequences of destabilising the very institution which has secured peace in Europe for the last 70 years. People are sceptical of economists? forecasts. But you don?t even need to estimate many of the economic problems that will arise from Brexit ? you can see them already in the currency markets. The pound suffered its biggest one day fall in seven years when Boris and other MPs joined the leave campaign (10). You can watch the impact of movements in the referendum opinion polls in the EUR/GBP exchange rate. A major bank recently warned that Brexit could wipe 20% off the value of the pound through devaluation (11). Devaluation sounds like a dry and abstract concept. So let me explain what that means: 20% of your life savings wiped out overnight. The numbers in your bank account will be the same, but what you can buy with it will be 20% less, since most things we buy these days come from overseas. Only the other day the Financial Times reported that hedge funds are planning to run their own private exit polls on referendum day to speculate on the currency markets ahead of the official result (12). Just as during the ERM crisis of 1992, the vultures are circling, waiting to feast on our self-inflicted wounds. And here?s another very clear threat: to our jobs. Only last Friday, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan, warned his staff in Bournemouth that one, two or even four thousand of them would be made redundant if we leave the EU (13). Imagine how his staff are feeling today. And as a manager, let me tell you: that?s not the kind of thing you tell your employees unless you?re deadly serious. Even leading Leave campaigner Michael Gove admitted just a few days ago that jobs are at risk if we leave the EU (14). Multimillionaire UKIP donor Arron Banks described this economic damage as ?a price worth paying? (15). Arron Banks, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage might be rich enough to gamble their jobs on Brexit - but are you? It is quite possible that some of your friends and family will lose their jobs as a direct result of Britain leaving the EU. Do you want to be responsible for that? We took an evidence-based look at the immigration and EU issue above. But the Leave campaign and Eurosceptic press (Express, Sun and Mail in particular) choose to paint a very different picture. A picture which blows these statistics out of all proportion. 'Strangers in Our Own Country' 'Our borders are out of control!'. You know the stuff I mean. Pictures which invite us to eye our friends and neighbours with suspicion and even hostility. Editorial which pins the blame for every problem from housing to wages to traffic to NHS waiting times on immigrants. And it's not even because they don't know any better. The leaders of the Leave campaign and the political editors of those newspapers are clever, well-educated people. They know the facts I set out above just as well as I do. Yet instead of presenting a balanced view, they choose to deliberately whip up fear and suspicion of immigrants for their own political purposes. Shame on them. Why? Because appealing to people's basest prejudices sells newspapers and gathers votes. Just ask Donald Trump. And what greater contrast could there be between the divisive rhetoric of the leave campaign and the noble vision of the EU's founding fathers. Men who, amid the ashes of World War Two, set their national differences aside and dared - not just to dream but to build - a better Europe for us all. A Europe in which war was ?not only unthinkable ? but materially impossible? (16). Here?s Winston Churchill addressing the Congress of Europe in 1948: ?A high and a solemn responsibility rests upon us here ... If we allow ourselves to be rent and disordered by pettiness and small disputes, if we fail in clarity of view or courage in action, a priceless occasion may be cast away for ever. But if we all pull together and pool the luck and the comradeship - and we shall need all the comradeship and not a little luck ? then all the little children who are now growing up in this tormented world may find themselves not the victors nor the vanquished in the fleeting triumphs of one country over another in the bloody turmoil of ? war, but the heirs of all the treasures of the past and the masters of all the science, the abundance and the glories of the future.? And - against all the odds - we did it. We pooled the luck and the comradeship and achieved Churchill?s vision. Those ?little children? are now retired ? the first generation in a thousand years to grow up without the horror of war in Europe. Instead of building weapons, our scientists work together to solve the greatest problems of our age. We enjoy a standard of living unimaginable to people in 1948. All the cities, art, history, people, food and culture of this wonderful continent are open to us whenever we want to visit, to live or to work. Hundreds of millions of European people who until only a few decades ago were ruled by dictators or communists now enjoy democracy, human rights, the rule of law and the abundance of the free market. I think that?s worth 36 pence a day. And yet here we stand, about to turn our backs on this great project, thanks to cynical newspaper owners and barefaced lies from the Leave campaign. Forget what the Sun says. Forget what?s good for Boris? and Farage?s careers. Listen to every current and former British Prime Minister (17). Every other major UK political party leader (18). To Barack Obama, to Hillary Clinton, to Angela Merkel and a host of other world leaders (19). To Stephen Hawking and 83% of scientists (20). To 40 religious leaders (21). To 300 leading historians (22). To the Trades Union Congress and our six largest trades unions (23). To 88% of economists (24). To the National Farmers Union (25). To the Chief Executive of NHS England (26), to the Royal College of Midwives (27) To British businesses of all sizes (28). For there is an overwhelming consensus among experts of all kinds that Britain is stronger in Europe. And what does the Leave campaign say to this? ?I think people in this country have had enough of experts? (Michael Gove, Friday 3rd June) What an extraordinary response. If you were sick, you?d want to see a doctor. If you had a plane to fly, you?d want a pilot. So when we have the most important political, economic and foreign policy decision of our lifetime to make I think we should listen to the people who are in the best position to evaluate what to do. And they?re all telling us the same thing ? we?re much better off in Europe. It might not be what Michael Gove wants to hear. But it sounds like the right answer to me. So when you?re in the polling station on Thursday 23rd - with that stubby little pencil in your hand ?Vote Remain. Not in fear, but with pride ? about what we, the people of Europe, have achieved together. Not in ignorance, but with science firmly on our side. And not alone, but with the greatest statesmen of the past three generations urging us on. And then in years to come, when your children ask you how you voted in the referendum of 2016, you can look them in the eye and tell them you were on the right side of history. Thank you for reading"

In.

I think that's a fair analysis Louisa. Those campaigning for Brexit are on a completely different agenda to the public reasons for wanting to leave. Agree Loz - QT was awful tonight.

Completely disgree Louisa on your analysis of Labour party voters. Voting share was not affected in recent local elections by the issue (in fact it was up in many areas) and the London Mayor was the biggest mandate for the winner so far. It is up to us to decide - it's not about party politics - hence the straight vote. The result may well depend on what undecideds do on the day, but whichever way the result goes, I hope those on both sides will accept it with good grace.

:D I did indeed mean irrelevant to Wandle and SC (and irrelevant to the legal proceedings that will no doubt follow). It's a good question though in a wider context, especially when looking at what topics readers/posters seize upon. I personally don't think any forum is very representative of anything, a bit like comments sections under articles, or social media groups. And I would argue that the most useful aspect of this forum are things like the for sale section, or lost and found, or finding local resources, what's on etc. A kind of yellow pages for the internet, with the card previously in the local shop window thrown in :)

I think it's too easy to stereotype leavers. As with most things, the most shocking supporters of anything will make the first tier of consciouness. It's not helped though by the leave campaign focussing on immigration so much. It's clear what demographic they are going for there. There's a lot of hypocracy going on too (on both sides). Farage has a German wife for example.

Just to point something out. By far the biggest reason for pressures of social housing is right to buy. Many estates in London are almost half leasehold, and of those leaseholds, most are now in the hands of private landlords. The EU and immigration has had nothing to do with that. And government policy through the Housing and Planning Bill is going to make that situation far worse whether we leave or stay. This is the problem with many of the issues referenced, a lack of recognition of the role sucessive governments have played. It strikes me as completely ironic that some people are so angry at the EU but don't have that same anger for our own governments. And I also agree with the sentiment that anyone that thinks the likes of Gove et al will spend any money saved from EU membership on housing or public services is deluded.

And residents can instruct their own legal representation of course. Councillors can only 'advocate' for the residents. It's not council property and never has been, so their powers are limited. The people who are responsible for sorting out the mess are Wandle. They are the liable party and in turn they will enact liability with the developers. My honest opinion is that some posts here have been very unfair on councillors.

Ah uncle does it again, claiming that only those wanting a job in the EU are for staying - but wait a second. Just remind me which party has the most MEPs - yes that would be UKIP, the party that wants us to leave.

Sigh Spider - no I did not say that. If you read back my reply was to a comment asking if three councillers were lawyers. My reply was simply making the point as to why councilors need to be lawyers when LAs and HAs have their own legal experts in house. And it's also completely obvious from Renata's posts that those councillors are very involved in liaising with residents as too is the local MP. She has also pointed out that Wandle are starting their own legal action against those responsible. They don't have to report every 5 mins to this irrelevant forum.

Don't see how that is relevant either. Wandle and Southwark both have legal teams they can refer to when needed.

But it's exactly because of those fractious turns to the extremes that we need to keep the EU together - or would you rather everyone went their own way and we see real upheaval in Europe again because of the economic decline many countries would incur? The EU is not just about the bigger players, it's also about the opportunity and stability is gives to smaller economies. I believe the idea of a EU is still a good one, and think working towards reform is the right way to go. And I also really wish voters had an inbetween option on this too, i.e. of being part of the marketplace, but not full members. A lot of people for in want reform, and a lot of people for out, are focused on too narrow a definition of EU membership.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Or, in other words, people's voting and party > manifestos will always change to ensure that the > government changes regularly. We won't be subject > to perpetual Tory rule if Scotland depart unless > something very weird happens and every other party > suddenly decides to become extremist. No, every party would have to become the same to have any chance of winning a majority. The only time Labour have ever won a majority of seats in England and Wales was at the height of Blair, and there a reason for that - the same reason I have being trying to get through to you, which you are clearly not understanding. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

It's not about being centrist though, it's about encompassing the centre ground in policy as well as the right or left. Maggie was a step to the right of course, but she also appealed to the centre ground. Blair too could only keep Labour elected by appealing to the centre ground. A party that stands solely on the left or right whilst ignoring the centre, struggles to get elected. There's plenty of electoral evidence for that.

My original point Loz is that it is parties that change to win the centre ground vote, not voters per se. That's where I disagree with you. And what has happened since 2008 is very different to what went before, because of the collapse of the neoliberal dream and the rise of extremems following the crash. Yes Seabag - the last MEP elections had just a 36% turnout if I remember correctly. It will be interesting to see if the undecideds turnout, or not.

'People are voting in increasing numbers for smaller parties.' But prior to 2010, that wasn't significantly the case, with the Libdems being the sole beneficiaries of swings away from Labour and the Tories. You are trying to argue that the shifts of the last six years somehow are part of a trend from the 1950's onwards. That just isn't the case. And under FPTP, the votes of smaller parties don't count for anything. It would also be naive to not link the shifts of the last six years to the crash of 2008. The rise of extremes on both the right and left always follow economic collapse - that is nothing new.