Moran Lindsay Oldenski. Successful Stock Speculation. John James Butler. Finance Capitalism and Its Discontents. International trade statistics World Trade Organization. Wie Den Richtigen Standort Finden? Altersvorsorgeberatung in Deutschland in Zeiten Der Finanzkrise. Nachhaltige Geldanlagen in Deutschland. Ludmila Krasowitzki.
Allgemeine Volkswirtschaftslehre. Robert Z. Lawrence Robert E. Savings in the Modern Economy A Symposium. Tax Incentives and Economic Growth. Barry P. Robert William Fogel Enid M. Fogel Mark Guglielmo Nathaniel Grotte. Industrial Relations Counselors. Consumers' Cooperatives in the North Central States. The French Challenge Adapting to Globalization. Philip H. Gordon Sophie Meunier-Aitsahalia. Innovation and the Productivity Crisis. Martin Neil Baily A. Trends in American Economic Growth. Edward F. Thomas Allison Kirk. Chronology of a Crisis.
Consistency and Credibility? Environmental Reporting, Environmental Performa William C. Math at the Store Math on the Job. Stormy Friday Mpa. Technology, Sustainability, and Rural Development in Africa. Wall Street Journeyman. Extreme Plight Americans on the Line.
Common Sense Modernized. The No Good Leader. Land: An Insider's View Vom Menschen. Successful Real Estate Investing. Malcolm did mention having rung David Cameron so perhaps he gave him a heads up based on the Coalition's internal polling. The thing that jumps out the most to me about the EU debate in the run up to the referendum was the sheer amount of parroting going on. Areas with the lowest levels of migration complained the most about free movement.
Areas most dependant on the EU for funding became obsessed with the rebate. People who had never ran a business complained about EU bureaucracy. What the result highlights is the shocking level of education in England. From the Oxford educated Prime Minister to the poor unfortunates who were left behind by Westminster, none of them knew what they were talking about. David Cameron could not explain a single benefit about being in the EU.
I know he liked scare tactics but did he have anything positive to say? And then there were the people who actually fell for the lies. Who could possibly believe the NHS figures? In the middle of all this you have sections of the media. I know the media is in the middle of its last throes but seriously there does come a point where you have to get off before you crash the economy.
From Trump to Brexit, certain sections of the media is creating chaos. In the US Fox, who helped created Trump, don't know how to put him back in his box. Sure they could probably rein in some of the inefficiencies but it has also created a situation where we are becoming ungovernable. The vast majority of MPs in England were in favour of remaining and encouraged their electorate to vote remain.
Their electorate rejected their elected officials out of hand. The electorate rejected experts. And they sure stuck it to Westminster. With disastrous consequences. Enough is enough. The thing that galls ME the most about the EU debate leading up to the referendum is that someone was murdered by a pro-leave nutjob, and then Farage has the gall to say that they won 'without firing a single shot.
Either open borders are good or you have regulation that restricts both imports of goods and would be immigrants or are you like many in the LNP and indeed the ALP who want free trade but closed borders to would be immigrants. This want your cake and eat it too policy seems endemic in politics today as evidence by Donald Trump great wall of Mexico and his statement that he will make USA great again as a free trader economy, that is force every other nation to import USA goods but limit import competition.
It's time, I think, to invent 'socionomics' and to replace economics as we have made it up with a very different system and 'science'. While we are at it, I think we sould invent a replacement for politics as well - although socionomics might adequately cover that field too. Politics and economics are based on exclusion - on winning some artificially constructed competition for power, wealth, property, preferment, and privilege and,by winning big time, creating a large majority of non-winners, most of whom are actual losers. Then these non-winners are made beholden to the winners for their share of the products and the boons of society, and the winners establish gangs which battle each other but simultaneously align to ensure the playing field is always pitched in their favour.
This is to say that politics and economics are anti-social things. They project the ambitions of winners and protect their winnings and their positions of advantage on the one hand, and they set out the manners of good competition, which is observed more in the breach than in the spirit in very many of the competitive arenas - and politics and economics see and hear little of such underhand behaviours. Politics and economics make much of the actual 'doing' of political and economic things so difficult or so noisome that very many good ordinary people shy away from participating in things that their communities and societies need to do - but not politically and economically.
So, socionomics. Let's say the planet can deal with human demands on it at only 30 percent of what we takefrom-dumpon it now anyone who thinks that we can double our demands on the planet and people every years in perpetuity or that technology will save us should be excluded from serious discussions, I think. Let's say all people have the entitlement to a similar allocation of basics products and opportunities which they can take in forms that they choose that permit the growth of their selves and souls.
Let's say all people have an obligation to make a contribution to their community and the society which is the community of communities that is worthy of what they share in. Let's say people can contribute more than the 'common' good to communities and societies and those societies and communities can acknowledge them materially beyond the ordinary basic dividend, making them richer than ordinary people. This acknowledgement is given by societies, not charged by individuals.
Then we do not need money as we know it at all. Neither do we 'trade'. If communities are able to produce more than they need of some product that other people can use well, they produce it and 'donate" it to the material stream of the socionomy. What we might 'account' for are the true costs of our socionomic choices, the opportunity costs on the biosphere, nature and man of things we think. What we might 'account' for are the true costs of our socionomic choices, the opportunity costs on the biosphere, nature and man of things we think we might do.
We have to strip down the overhead costs of our way of life - most of which arise out of political, economic, legal, normative artifices amd the expemses of competition and excesses of aggrandisement - if we are going to successfully match our sustainable product to our population's needs and a margin of 'riches'. This means no political structures, processes and systems; no economic complications for the sake of complications.
No structural legalisms propping up a discredited status quo. We maymjust be starting on such a course. BJ, Indeed the EU member states were so entrenched in their dislike of the UK as evidenced by the statements by Junker that they have ended up cutting their nose off to spite their face.
They should have negotiated in good faith, but instead they politicised the negotiations and let traditional animosity over rule good judgment and ended up handing Cameron a set of negotiate options which were both unpalatable for the indigenous people of the UK and literally un-implementable in real terms. Now the second largest contributor to the EU coffers just left the EU in due course and large numbers of people in the EU are questioning whether they too should exit, while others are demanding a reformation of the political control of the EU so that all member states benefit not just the controlling power block in Berlin.
Junker will be asked to stand aside. He is part of the problem. I'll write more later, but try reading some of the articles by fisherman and people who don't care whether their cucumbers are crooked, and object to paying Eurocrats billions to decide on these issues. It is a broken model, BUT , something good may come from this protest. A protest, of course that Cameron didn't envisage.
I don't know how long Corbyn, can hang on without support. Especially as he was a Euroscepitc. Boris should beat May, then he can re-arrange The EU, to suit. The U. And will need to be courted, not alienated. Merkel, saw this immediately. Unfortunately, you can't chase off your establishment quite that easily. The problem is that these days there is nothing else they are actually qualified to do, other than being the establishment. It's not like they are going to go and get real jobs, is it? They are going to need to be thumped over the head a few more times yet, i fear.
Put your money where your mouth is. At least Verrender's has quoted a right wing scribe, whether intentionLly or not. He's gambling on Cohen's indignant essay, critiquing two fellow scribes who have made the jump, to politics, that he himself is not brave Enoch to do. Although Cihen is diligent and articulate, he is underestimating two fellow Oxbridgers. Johnson took London away from Red Ken, twice - so he's more that an unkempt intellectual.
What heave you got say for yourself arsup? Surprise me? Because I think you have nothing to contribute; just your normal lowbrow slop! I'll try again. WSDD, may I suggest that, before you denigrate other people's capabilities, you spend a little time in running a red pencil through your own poor construction and grammar. There's an old adage that you might also ponder: "Example is better than precept". Iv'e explained this several times Eric. I travel about and , mainly use an iPhone for blogging. It's bloody awkward, because as well as changing whole words, or amalgamating words, it's impossibly see the previous post becsue of the size of the screen.
Plus, if you use an iphone not iPad , you'll appreciate that you, although you can save some passwords, saving email adreses and pseudonym's for blogging on live websites is difficult. Cutting and pasting is hard work to So I have to rely on my knowledge : So usually, I just punch out a stream of thought and hope for the best. My sincere apologies if I have caused any concern :. Keep it up, old chap; we all assist each other by acceptance or rejection, perhaps by further reflection or investigation. Thank you WSDD for your explanation. I understand the problem - I am far from infallible with my full-size keyboard.
I also thank you for your apology. It does make it more difficult though to judge the intrinsic quality of posts if they are not written as clearly as one would hope. At least you've got a reasonable technical excuse. Another point that I should make, since it may excuse other posters. Using an iphone in the vertical position, which is really the only option, when moving around and taling it in and out of one's pocket, means that the keyboard is narrow, leading to tapping the wrong letter, so often, and i, instead of an o, or p, gets inserted. Now if one had time to correct it, it would reasd properly, but I can't be bothered.
One, they wouldn't have been able to attain a majority had voting in this referendum been compulsory, even within the 'indigenous people of Britain. Two, its arguable the extent of the majority that was had among voters, as being less than 3 percentage points puts it within the margin of error.
Three, demographic changes in the UK aren't likely to stop due to it no longer being part of the EU, as its borders are likely to remain open, or close to it, for whatever countries it negotiates trade with, and due to its current economic structure. Of course, is that the leave vote does not ensure Britain will leave. The referendum was advisory, meaning that either the house of commons, or the unelected house of lords has the ability to block the necessary legislation from going through, and the next government in power is likely to campaign on ignoring the referendum result.
The referendum turnout was the highest for a nationwide vote in the UK for over 25 years. Another vote, which would only be called because the very people that large parts of the UK rebelled against, the 'establishment', decided that they were going to ignore the choice made by the people. That way leads disaster and conflict. The highest turnout is still a pretty poor showing. What I was trying to elucidate, however, was that if we apply the voting trends we saw from this poll on the massive numbers that didn't vote, the leave camp wouldn't have won.
Beyond that, the way the poll was held is questionable, as it should have been based on a majority of seats returning a majority support, rather than an oversimplified popular vote. That being said, I wasn't suggesting another vote. They've made their bed, and now they'll sleep in it. At least, until the measures to enact it are blocked by either the house of commons or the house of lords, as the referendum was purely advisory, rather than binding.
They don't have compulsory voting. People chose not to vote. Don't be trying to change the rules now a result is known. People argue that the 'Leave' vote got up because of this reason - governments have been ignoring the will of the people they are there to govern and work for. Surely "the people of the UK" would have sufficed. I think he means the people with an historical and cultural tie to the land of England, and not the immigrants who show up to rob and steal and are unable to be deported because they whine racism to the EU. Or the Muslims who don't belong in England because they hate its fundamental values of individual rights and freedoms and that it is a secular state.
The types who behead off duty British soldiers in the streets are the first ones to whine racism when the people in Britain who belong there say enough. There is way too much tolerance toward the intolerant, both there and here. The people who voted to leave didn't want to become the next rape capital of Europe when all of these foreigners descend like locusts for support from British taxpayers whilst at the same time demanding they change their entire culture to accommodate them.
While everyone in the UK falls within the definition of "the people of the UK", the category 'indigenous' defines an ethnic sub population perfectly. How does one qualify to be indigenous in the UK? Does it mean Angle or Celt? Are you still indigenous if you have Norman, Saxon or Viking genes? What if you're a full blooded member of the House of Hanover, or you are the Greek born son of Greek and German parents? Alternatively, if you are descended from Africans forcibly taken to the UK to be slaves in the seventeenth century are you indigenous? I'm just reaffirming my support for compulsory voting as being more democratic for multiple reasons.
Rather, it is mainly hereditary, and as a result, they have nothing to lose by blocking the measures. In other words, the house of lords isn't part of the government, despite having comparable power. Also of note is that the House of Lords is likely to prefer to remain in the EU. Is it undemocratic? But if they knock it back I'd be willing to bet you'd be calling for systematic change, despite the hypocrisy.
Onieros, you have just confirmed my suspicions regarding how much weight to assign your contributions. The result was within the margin of error? What margin of error? You have no idea what you are talking about it seems. You are not projecting from a relatively small non-random number here. In particular, people who want change of any sort are more likely to vote than people who don't want change. It is true that this isn't an opinion poll, but it is also not a census. It has a margin of error. As the result was within two percentage points, it falls within what many consider an electoral margin of error.
N regards to the projections, assuming that the behaviour of those that didn't vote mirrors those that did on a demographic level, the numbers come out in favour of remain by around 10 million. In other words, the result was about who came out to vote, which due to various factors including sociopolitical restrictions, is not exactly a question of democracy as much as it is one of resources. I personally have always held the view that voting on such matters should have been compulsory, and would be arguing that point regardless.
That being said, the die has been cast, and I will watch with interest what happens next. It was up to you to register. You can't cast multiple ballots as it isn't the back blocks of Zimbabwe. Nice try. The taste is still sour is it? In this case, unless the votes are processed into the system immediately, there is a window in which a person can go to another districts polling station and cast their ballot again, to be counted by another counting group.
It happens at every election. I would note that the leave movement said itself that a vote would be too close to be considered legitimate, and that if they lost at such a small margin, they would press for a re-polling. Surely the remain camp is entitled to that right as well. Also, by your reckoning we have no idea who has really won government in this country even with compulsory voting because of this typical margin of error you speak of.
You are incorrect on multiple counts. First, whilst seats are 'called' by analysts, it is not until either a concession is made or all votes are counted that the seat is officially written as won or lost. Second, the margin of error occurs on a seat by seat basis, and due to the smaller population is lower than the overall margin. It is one of the advantages held by representative democracy over the popular vote.
A case of the bitter pill to swallow getting stuck in your throat I see? The turn out was the highest it UK history. And the voters, the turnout and the demographics of the voters showed that the leave camp not only won The margin of error in polls is irrelevant as the vote was actually counted. They won with a significant majority. Demographic changes are likely to alter in the future due to the ability of the UK to shape its own migration policies. Having trade agreements with individual nations or blocks will not entail open borders any more. Your desperate if you think any political party would commit political suicide by going against the wishes of the majority of the British electorate.
Did you not notice that the conservatives were very active for the Brexit? You'd clutching at straws if you think the house of lords or the queen would block an Exit don't you like Liz is happy at getting her country back too? Try washing it all down with a cup of British tea My analysis shows between million more voters in the remain camp were it a compulsory vote, and demographic trends from the polls held. But the biggest one is that the majority was only by around 2 percentage points.
That is a narrow majority at best. The UK's citizens will always shape its migration policy. To say that the demographic changes they bring with them changes that is to say that their citizenship and political views aren't valid. On the second point, I would say that, in crafting negotiations with EU nations, the UK is going to find itself saddled with open borders whether they want it or not.
In regards to your other points, I would say that it is highly likely that the house of lords blocks the move, due to self-interest, and would say that I don't think it is proper to comment on the views of someone who is meant to be politically neutral.
In any case, my feelings on the issue are irrelevant. What matters is what happens next. Joe Bloggs wrote: 'the indigenous peoples of the UK had nothing to lose' The indigenous Celts mainly live in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which both voted to stay. I think you'll find that it is mainly those who came from Europe the Angles, Saxons and Normans who voted to leave. Sure they're not first generation immigrants, but I think those you intended to class as "non-indigenous" are also often not first generation immigrants.
You must be delighted. The pound falling to its lowest level in 30 years. The Prime Minister gone. Scotland going. Northern Ireland - who knows? The Labour Party in chaos. The Leave campaign already rolling back on promises including most importantly for some voters the removal of free movement. A British parliament with an obligation to carry out steps which it knows are against the best interests of the people. It ends up the "fear" campaign was actually the "reality". But "reality" from "so called experts" is just so boring.
Now I wonder when all of those Poles will be leaving?
- Brexit will deliver a few home truths - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)?
- Tag: degrowth.
- The Unemployment Blues?
- nach außen: Lyrik (German Edition).
What's that? So why did people vote? FFGR, 1. Which is in effect a statement by the global market that the UK economy is in fact strong, it is growing, it remains the 5th largest economy in the world, it still remains one of the largest and most important centres of capital on planet Earth. Good for exports. And yip G. He's there until October. Northern Ireland remains were it is note the vote was split between the coast and the border lands. Labour in Chaos? Not at all. The status quo with the EU remains until such time as Article 50 is triggered and the negotiated outcomes cemented leading to the actual 'Exit' in many years time.
That is just your ill informed opinion. Not the opinion of many learned political, industry, scientific, economic groups The fear campaign When will the Poles leave? Why did people vote? Great Britain Totally and utterly delusional. You'll have an answer to everything except the truth. I think racism had a pretty big part to play in it all.
devyzuzyvoby.tk | The Rise of Viagra (ebook), Meika Loe | | Boeken
Just look at the t-shirts proudly telling people to go home. And it would really help make your posts seem even the slightest bit balanced if you could refrain from referring to the "indigenous" English and making "Great Britain Great again" whatever that's supposed to mean. It's the go to place for all of the worlds' problems. People get to blame someone else for their problems. It's the easiest sell in the world. But the one tricky thing is there's actually no simple solution.
So politicians identify a problem that they know they cannot offer a solution to. Migration is a fact of life. Yeah we can nominally control our boarders which of course the UK already does but we will not stop human beings moving. We can of course focus on raising living standards elsewhere which in turn manages migration in the long term.
It is curious how migration is not as big an issue in Ireland. Even after the GFC and the austerity that followed the Irish never turned on migrants. I think it's partly because the Irish were once immigrants. We know what it's like to be targeted and scapegoated. They used to have signs in London: No Blacks.
No Dogs. No Irish. Instead of blaming the Poles for the banking crash the Irish married them. That's what you call spreading the love. The same reason that they try to get here. People were sick of the broken EU model. Just as I am sick of the three layers of bureaucrats here. A parliament in every state plus local councils.
Australia is over-governed and there are too many people living off 10, taxpayers. It's a huge part of our problem. Well, The UK, did something about it. He made a deal with UKIP in return for their support in, if necessary, forming a coalition government. The result of that deal was this referendum, which, being advisory, will likely be blocked from proceeding into law, and in any case, cannot come into effect for at least 2 years, by which point the British Labour Party will have been swept back into power promising to remain an EU member.
You can't have given that much thought. If Labour promises to stay in the EU it won't get the vote of the traditional Labour supporter and without that vote it has no hope of coming to power. As people come to question why free trade depends on political unity in Europe markets will settle down. As European trade restrictions are lifted, so will markets. The real economic devastation will be to the Eurocrats in Brussels, and they don't have a lot of support anywhere outside Belgium. The leave contagion might briefly be help up by the hostility of European leaders, but the Brussels bureaucrats won't be able to sustain the rage when the benefits to the UK start to become clear.
I disagree, mainly because of a few calculations I performed based on the results of the polls, extrapolated over the remaining non-voting population. Of course, you are right, in that undoing the referendum would not, at present time, be of benefit to the party. That will need to wait until the legislation to enact the leave motion fails to materialise. In terms of the economic dimensions, that all depends on the assumptions one makes. If the EU remains intact, then two paths appear.
On one, Britain is able to negotiate a favourable economic status. Of course, this is unlikely to happen, at least in the short term, as the EU will want to Britain to continue to pay for their access to the free market, much as it already does. In this scenario, growth declines, then picks up again, but at a cost to the common man, with goods and materials becoming more expensive, and the current workforce structure being redesigned to cope with the lack of migrants.
If Britain is unable to negotiate good trade deals, it goes into a major recession. If however, this causes the EU to break up, most likely due to a lack of funds, then the ramifications are global in scale, and will be especially punitive to Britain, which is going to have trouble making deals with the remaining powers. Of course, this doesn't account for the wildcards of Scottish Independence resurgent, the collapse of the pound, the effects on the US election, and the reaction of non EU nations. These also assume that the Brexit actually gets legislated, which is unlikely, especially as the House of Lords, being unelected, have nothing to lose by blocking it.
It's funny, really; Britain chooses to leave the EU through rhetoric based on a fear of un-elected 'Eurocrats,' and its own unelected aristocracy is going to be the force that blocks it from going ahead at least, according to some. You've mentioned Brussels twice in your comments and stated that "the Eurocrats in Brussels Do you think that the people of Strasbourg that's in France, not Belgium haven't noticed that the Parliament and Court of Human Rights are located in their city?
Do you think the citizens of other European countries aren't aware of the employment and funding of projects provided by EU agencies operating in their cities? Do you think the crew on freight barges on the Rhine think they'd be better of if navigation was a free for all, rather than being regulated by the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine yes, another part of the EU bureaucracy? Do you think that lorry drivers taking goods on the R6 into Prague don't know where the funding for upgrading the highway is coming from? Just one person has mentioned Russia on this forum today.
ONE person! Don't you understand what the post-war Western alliance achieved and what weakening the EU could mean for the balance of power in Europe and beyond? Try using some common sense. Take western civilisation and its achievements seriously just for once.
Nor do I see why someone with a UK driving licence can't drive on European roads. It isn't as if they ever changed over to driving on the same side as the other Europeans anyway. Why don't you try to think of something relevant to complain about? Which is more often than not due to the deliberate efforts of the UK. In many ways, the EU will be better off without the knuckle headed Brits - as would we. The one thing the British have shown over those thousands of years that they love to paint as being "seminal" in the development of "modern Parliamentary style democracy" and "the modern Western way of life" is the idea of 'co-operation' and of "uniting" in the common cause.
They mouth that bollocks until it comes time for them to actually show the balls to actually live up to it themselves - at which time their true colours come shining on through!! Britain has been playing the "fly in the ointment" game with the EU since they reluctantly accepted the inevitable This aberration is merely the taking of an opportunity by those who didn't want to be dragged into the EU in the first place; regardless of how much benefit even they could see in being a member State.
Britain; after all, exported more than just Unionists They also exported some of their "born to rule" types who couldn't actually cut the mustard back in old Blighty; but in the Antipodes, they didn't have the sort of competition that could put them back in the box where they belong. One even became a former P. I dare say, that unlike Britain resurrecting a bid for EU membership; he'll be looking for 'resurrection' to where he feels he rightfully belongs, regardless of the outcome of Saturday's election Both sides should have clearly negotiated with the EU what could be gained by staying and what would be lost by leaving, they didn't so this left open the door to wild emotion.
And a win should have required a significant percentage not just a bare majority. The Brits handled this badly and will pay a heavy price for this stuff up. A rare day of agreement Yank. My initial reaction would have been to vote Leave if I were a UK citizen, but thinking through what the divorce would look like - even just for a moment - would have had me voting Remain. I can't help but think it's a vote to further impoverish UK citizens, with Leave most enthusiastically supported by those who stand to lose the most.
The elite will remain unaffected by wealth or mobility. World trade is full of retaliation over the years and this will be no different. It goes to prove a good scare campaign works wonders. And this in the world's most mature democracy. Goodness knows where the scare campaign will go here in Australia this weekend. I'll rhetorically wager the LNP will cling on with a 4 seat majority. The TV ads from all sides have hit saturation now I agree to an extent Yank.
So how about a referendum closer to home. On the UN refugee convention. It ditches Australia's rights to protect borders as we see fit. No advantage from being a signatory whatsoever. Refugees aren't the problem - they are a complete distraction, and was used to distract the general public from the fact that our borders are wide open.
Just read the SMH today. It's regular immigration that has become the real problem. Even under Rudd, the total number of boat arrivals was about one twentieth the number of people immigrating via the normal process. The process has been completely abused. I don't mind some truly skilled immigration, but our current immigration process is a con. Start worrying about the real problem - with which the Coalition is just as complict as the ALP. Vote Sustainable Australia. Graham H Pollies hate Referendum unless they can rig them by manipulating the question asked , the powers to be don't represent the people and referendum's show this, but here's a list of Questions we could put to a vote -Should Corporations who pay little or no tax be banned from trading in Australia?
Not all that grey GrahamH. For instance, "Should pensions be a right or a privilege? Not grey, just simplistic. Generally speaking so-called direct democracy is called for by people convinced there is a silent majority aligned with themselves naturally who will somehow make all the right decisions that the folks they themselves just elected somehow cannot. It is the embodiment of the expression: "Every complex problem has a simple answer, which is wrong".
The assumption a priori that "powers that be don't represent the people" is wrong on its face. It is a cheap get-out from the fact that different people take different views and that no decision is ever welcome by all. No Australian government has ever ignored an election or maintained itself by force against the constitution. If you want better politics, do your own bit to raise the tone of debate. The issues you list are valid questions to ask. Why not state your position on them and argue the case instead of assuming some shadowy conspiracy of elites is in your way?
Excellent point Gordon regarding the delusions of direct democracy advocates, and one that I will reference in future. Thank you. Your comment about "looking for conspiracy theories" does not hold water. It is no secret that the mining corporations conducted a successful campaign against the mining tax and carbon tax.
Alongbwithndestroying the renewable energy industry. There is no secret that the banks threatened to go on the attack if a Royal Commission was called to investigate them. In Australia we're discussing a plebiscite on "gay marriage", or "marriage equality" if you prefer. Let's get our money's worth out of that plebiscite. Negative gearing - yes or no? Asylum seeker detention in offshore prisons - yes or no?
Destroy the ABC from without - yes or no? Hand billions of dollars to large, mainly multinational, corporations - yes or no? Privatise and Americanise our health care system - yes or no? Privatise And Americanise our education system and institutions - yes or no? Now wouldn't THAT be a plebiscite worth having? Although I'm sure a few lefties would still stuff it up.
I'm all for it. A few more. How about Ditch unions - yes or no. No discounts. No exemptions. Yes or No. Graham H Indeed, it is not the question asked, but how it's asked, very broad questions will always struggle. Like work for the dole, what does that entail? And will the campaigns be run on fact? From the discussion on AM this morning, it would be well worth watching. As you said, the boat people aren't the issue, it's the other immigration.
The Middle Class or You only live twice
In particular, the s. Known as "skilled worker visas", companies can advertise on international job sites etc for workers in Australia, with the promise of a sponsorship for permanent residency. Often the applicant will 'grease the wheels' for the PR sponsorship. Stopping refugees is inhumane. Stopping the unnecessary economic immigrants should be much MUCH higher on the agenda than stopping a couple of incredibly desperate refugees from entering the country. One of the federal government's greatest money earners - in the top 5 - is visas - particularly overseas students, as well as the 's you mention.
So don't expect that not so little gravy train to have it's blind eye removed too quickly! We must have a stupendous hair fashion industry in Australia. The amount of student hairdressers, particularly from the sub-continent, is quite phenomenal! The refugee intake then was - as about now - 13, refugees per year. That excludes the cost of Centrelink Special Benefits and Medicare costs and the one off cost of a TB Xray - these are granted in the first week of arrival and in many cases that welfare support goes on for many years. Figures readily available from Immigration Department Annual Reports for any investigative journo interested in objective fact finding rather than pushing the latest PC ideology and their own opinion.
That's an awful lot of taxpayers money that is not going to our own citizens, not going to aged care, not going to infrastructure, not going to education, not going to health and hospitals. So just what is 'inhumane' here, fellow?
Throwing our money away on 'refugee's just a dubious in genuineness as your 's just looking for another back door for an attempt at permanent residency at the expense of our own citizenry that sorely need it? The vulnerable. Old people, poor people, sick people, unemployed people. It was that government thinking that was at the core of the Brexit vote - mountains of money being sifted away from the citizenry for those who owed no allegiance nor ever intended to at the expense of the locals' conditions and employment.
Those areas that voted to remain like Scotland are the least effected by it - for now at least - that should be crystal clear to even the blindest observer. The surprise of Brexit is only amongst pontificating, self righteous commentators that as usual got it all wrong in their insular little world removed from reality from the safety of their own safe suburb and investment portfolio. Amazing how 'stupid' people are from that vantage point when they disagree with your pontificating so easily rationalised in your own minds by simply labelling and dismissing hurting, everyday people as 'racist'.
It was indeed a historic day, a victory for the ordinary people and democracy over political and social manipulation sourced in a corrupt, undemocratic and hypocritical system. Merkel can take a bow for almost singlehandedly destroying the EU with what was to any rational objective mind the epitome of real.
That's a suggestion that is well overdue. It might also help people who are upset at the level of immigration - or who were in the past not have to consider only one party to do some thing about it, at he expense of being able to objectively evaluate all parties economic policies. Better to have gotten - or to get - to that stage rather than have a significant drift to the right wing 'send 'em all home' parties as they have no idea how to govern.
In the Howard era Howard said one of the smartest thing in relation to immigration - that 'we ought to be able to decide who comes to this and the terms under which they come'. That our culture was later sold out to the Yank media barons is unfortunate, but Howard was speaking to the simple but crucial factor called self-determination an absolute pivot of political advocacy the whole notion of the right to representation.
This vital aspect has been painted as xenophobia by the left. It isn't. In the UK working people long disenfranchised by the elite have just been given a huge serve. The fact they didn't see it coming just goes to underscore how out of touch and uncaring of their own countrymen they have become.
Yank, some part of it is about money per se but really only in the sense that money is involved in the disaster that is galloping inequality. Inequality means division and divisiveness and it seems to me that the EU is copping the blame for the disease. Look around the world and you will see the same thing, people lashing out at the nearest symptom, migration, refugees, job insecurity etc.
The EU didn't cause the inequality. As you will see over the next few weeks, months and possibly years, many people will wear the costs of this. They won't just be economic, more importantly, they will be social. You can't create a sense of interdependence and then rip it away. The younger generations see themselves much more as citizens of the world, not primarily Brits or Aussies.
They are not likely to conform to some old idea of an England without all those foreigners with their brown skin and foreign ways. England may end up being a very small lonely country in a very big interconnected world. Yes, the young will pick up the tab as they will with climate change. Maybe when people get to retirement age they should lose the vote. No tax without representation and by the same margin, no representation without tax. Unfortunately Pom, you can't generalize about the old any more than you can about the young.
Wisdom is supposed to accumulate with age and maybe it did once in a world with stable value systems but does it still? But I do feel sorry for the young ones who are going to cop a double bunger, that is climatic and economic. While Brexit is a bit like confining them to quarters, it is pretty certain that human ingenuity will find a way around it.
The others are much less amenable to beating the system. The fear of change too. Even for the betterment of the young. Perhaps it depends on what circles you move in Pom. My experience is that as people age they become more politically radical, welcome and enjoy change and have developed the resilience to cope with a bit of economic or physical adversity. Maybe you townies are different.
Personally, I would sacrifice a lot for my grandchildren and their generation. And I'm no townie. Quite a difference. Perhaps it's because the older generations actually have some life experience, have lived through a few more elections and seen the results of poorly thought out policies. I wonder what the result might have been if Britain had compulsory voting, but I guess that is a moot point, since they don't.
You lose the vote. Alt least it might motivate them to hire a good accountant. WP, Sort of agree. Why should politically savvy 16 year olds be denied a vote, while demented elders are forced to vote? Seems a little broken. The young will pick up the tab on a lot of things. There will be very few new businesses, as unlike years ago, you can't buy a house, so you don't have access to remortgaging for cashflow for a business venture. There won't be home ownership, rental cycle forever. How many young people will inherit debt from their parents?
Are you seriously grouping anyone over the age of 65 in the 'demented' pile?. Voting is not compulsory over there. No-one was forced to vote. Youth apathy v's accrued wisdom. Wining Pom, re your statement "Maybe when people get to retirement age they should loose the vote, no representation with out tax" as people who are of retirement age still pay VAT on goods and services it makes your point moot.
As for the young people picking up the tab, that is a bit rich, many of the young people in the 18 to 25 bracket are couch bound, that is they spend much of their conscience life flopped down on the couch eating vast quantities off fish and chips or curried chicken while watching brain numbing pap on TV, from time to time they will have a snogging session with their partners when the food is consumed. The only time they leave the couch is to use lavatory, have a bath or go to the local pub where they end up drunk to the point of incontinence , this glorious life style is supported by both of their hard working parents, when Brexit takes affect, these young couch dwellers will have to get off their backsides, get out of the couch and start working and contributing to their societies if they want to deal with climate change.
So that's only Wining Pom, the figures that you quote on youth unemployment are alarming and would indicate that the ruling class over there needs to get off their backsides as well to promote new industries. This is not an impossible task as several nations have started new industries from scratch,admittedly it was done with the aid of cheaper labour costs at the begining but the workers there now have higher wages due to the success off these new industries.
If these young British people can show the same enthusiasm for working in new industries as they do for slap and tickle snogging on the couch, there is no reason that can't make a go of it as workers and managers, there by contributing to their society. Yes, and the young are marching headlong toward giving up all of their democratic rights, opting for huge unaccountable, unelected world government type organisations like the UN and the EU.
If they want a life where government is in their pocket and their head in every aspect of their lives, let them have it. The shine might start to wear off once they realize what they have given up though. When you go on a pension you continue to pay taxes on the majority of your purchases. If as a pensioner would I be able to rort the system with questionable deductions if I had to pay taxes.
Desert Woman, have you tried to get work in Britain under EU rules? Being part of the EU has actually forced Britian to restrict its borders to much of the rest of the world. It has certainly made it much harder for young Australians and Kiwis to travel there for work. In a truly globalised world, why does it really make sense to sign preferential trade deals with your neighbours.
Trade these days isn't about jam and motor cars. We live in the era of the service economy. Linguistic, cultural and legal similarities start to matter much more than how far a boat full of white goods has to sale to unload. The simple reality is that i can comfortably intergrate into a british workplace within my professional field tomorrow, whereas someone from Poland can't. I might just get a bit of grief about the rugby, but that's it. Our old links are actually becoming more important, not less, because distance doesn't matter so much anymore.
Shaing similar cultural and legal concepts is much, much important. The world is much bigger than the EU, and the EU tends to look inwards more than outwards.
- The Happy Pill: Portrait of a Middle-Class Homeowner During the Fallout of Economic Meltdown.
- Hawaiian Crossover; Conversations with a god?!
- The State of the US and World Economies | Levy Economics Institute?
Done right, Britain can be far more globally integrated than it can be under the EU, certainly as the EU exists today. The natural opportunities in the anglophone world and old Commonwealth nations far exceed those within the "old europe" - we are far more dynamic as a group of nations, with far, far stronger economies although that shouldn't be a reason to abandon Europe - Britain should be negotiating free trade deals with the entire world, not just it's neighbours. Many in Britain have been pointing to countries like Australia and New Zealand, who have been pushed away by the relationship with the EU, but who have done much better in our ability to sign trade deals because we can act as smaller, more agile agents.
We can hardly discourage them from doing exactly what we have done. Perhaps you are right Hairy, it remains to be tested. What I know of Europe and UK is that many speak many languages and have long been used to wandering across boundaries. It is far too early for me to make any firm predictions about how this will pan out along various dimensions apart from the fact that I reckon it is going to be longer and deeper than some are now anticipating. Britain doesn't care about the "Old Commonwealth" when it comes to business and trade. Have a look at their trade figures - the USA is still their biggest trading partner.
Have a look at who we trade with - i think Britain is still number 5 for us. You'll get a suprise. Our traditional alliances stil count for an awful lot, and when you think about it, it is easy to understand why. As i have said, our legal, cultural and linguistic bonds are in some respect becoming more important again as distance per se is becoming less important in a truly globalised world, and as trade is dominated by services, not goods.
And besides, unlike the EU, the English-speaking West actually has economic growth.
Lulu Its fanciful nonsense indeed. In the UK was 7th in the ranking of Australia's trading partners in goods and services. And its trade with Australia is declining, not growing. Are common legal, cultural and linguistic backgrounds becoming more important? They don't seem to be. Only 2 of the top 5 trading partners are common law jurisdictions. Four of the 5 are in Asia and only 1 has English as its only "national" language.
Desert Woman. Very well said Desert Woman. Yes, "many of the younger generations see them-selves as Citizens of the World, not just Brits or Aussies". If the Brits carry out their threats, and stop "all those foreigners working in Briton", then they will pay a price. People like our young Australians, and numerous other young European people, that work all around Europe, will just leave Briton to just "rot in isolation". I have never really been in favor of "an Australian Republic", but I might just have to change my mind in the very near future.
You tried getting a job in Britain recently? The EU has made it much more difficult for them to employ "globally". That's part of the rules. Part of the problem with the EU is that it thinks that it is "the world". The EU isn't global. Real free trade has much bigger horizons than the EU. And it's the younger generations flooding the country with warm bodies to pad out the tax base so old people have services they never contributed to when they were young.
No, wait The younger generations are the ones who are waking up and realising the 'citizens of the world' seem to be increasingly Asian and Middle Eastern, breeding or warring until they overflow their national borders then moving to the white, Western democracies they constantly complain about. Immigration was the reason Britain left the EU but, for some people, objective lessons are just an opportunity to double down on your rhetoric. Wait for the Olympic Games Oi oi oi! It's funny isn't it. Yet people like Desert Woman not only want to ignore it but actually act like that increased immigration was a net positive to the people losing their jobs and actively increasing the inequality she normally complains about.
I am not sure whether he actually hoped that Brexit would lose, so nothing would change but he might have gained a good standing among the Tories as a Conservative Fighter Messy times ahead for the Disunited Kingdom
Related The Happy Pill: Portrait of a Middle-Class Homeowner During the Fallout of Economic Meltdown
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved