Farrage Resigns (again)

[MrM]

 

Not entirely accurate (at least as I understand it).

 

The legal challenge currently being put forward suggests that a Bill must be passed to allow the PM to invoke Article 50. Opposition suggests that the PM may use Royal Perogative to do so without a Bill being passed.

 

Should Parliament vote to repeal the 1972 Act then that would immediately pull us out of the EU and any later legislation passed under the auspices of that Act would also be effectively repealed.

 

The expected or at least preferred course of action would be to invoke Article 50. Spend 2 years negotiating our exit and then at the end of that period repeal the 1972 Act.

 

I would expect a 3 line whip on the vote so only serious rebels would act against it. As already discussed MPs refusing to vote in line with the wishes of the public on this matter would be potentially commiting political suicide.

 

DM, that makes an awful lot of sense having looked again at some of the information. So correct me if I am wrong, but the most likely scenario will be to invoke Article 50 then after the 2 years (or earlier if we get what we want), repeal the EC 1972 Act? So the legal bid is to insist that there is a vote by Parliament to invoke A50 instead of the PM using Royal Prerogative - is that how you understand it?

 

Have you seen that the French governments own lawyers have advised them that even if we invoke article 50, we are able to reverse the decision? I have also heard that May might wait until after the French and German elections to start proceedings to see if either country has a more Leave culture.

 

Interesting point on 3 line whips - bearing in mind that there was a majority in both parties to Remain including both leaders, do you think they would they change their decisions and Whip accordingly?

Edited July 7, 2016 by MrM

[Jaymo]

.5 of a percent is not 250 times larger than .2 of a percent--- unless in a parallel universe where maths is inverse.

[MrM]

 

If you use the maths in links I have provided then you will get the .51 %, and to jaymo in the links I have provided the national statistics clearly state the figures are NET so it is .51% which is 250 times greater than the grossly misleading figures you gave.

 

quote "

Net migration to the UK was estimated to be 336,000 in the year ending June 2015 "

 

 

.5 of a percent is not 250 times larger than .2 of a percent--- unless in a parallel universe where maths is inverse.

 

I think the misunderstanding here is Jaymo is using net EU migration (184,000 or 0.28%) and Sportsbob is using overall net immigration (336,000 or 0.51%) - have a look at this link...https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/may2016

 

These figures are pretty much the same as those on Migration watch. http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics

Edited July 7, 2016 by MrM

[Danger-Mouse]

 

DM, that makes an awful lot of sense having looked again at some of the information. So correct me if I am wrong, but the most likely scenario will be to invoke Article 50 then after the 2 years (or earlier if we get what we want), repeal the EC 1972 Act? So the legal bid is to insist that there is a vote by Parliament to invoke A50 instead of the PM using Royal Prerogative - is that how you understand it?

 

Have you seen that the French governments own lawyers have advised them that even if we invoke article 50, we are able to reverse the decision? I have also heard that May might wait until after the French and German elections to start proceedings to see if either country has a more Leave culture.

 

Interesting point on 3 line whips - bearing in mind that there was a majority in both parties to Remain including both leaders, do you think they would they change their decisions and Whip accordingly?

 

More or less, yes. The legal challenge would like Parliament to create an Act giving the new PM the power to invoke Article 50. However the government lawyers and many other constitutional experts disagree that it`s necessary.

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21701695-despite-claims-some-lawyers-act-parliament-not-needed-invoke-article-50-who

 

Yes I`ve seen the French comments. Article 50 is rather vague so it may well be possible. It may require consent from all members but I suspect that wouldn`t be much of an issue given how much we contribute.

 

All the public commentary I`ve heard suggests Parliament will follow the public`s mandate. Even Osborne has said they must do so. Given that the repeal of the 1972 Act will likely take place in 2019 just a year before the next General Election I would expect MPs will follow the party line.

[Jaymo]

Even allowing for the diff in nett versus gross .5 is only a shade over double.

And 'Nett'is the figure that is more accurate as if say two mill arrive and one mill leave then the amount that we have increased by is one mill-

It all depends on how scary you wish to make numbers look- to get your point across one would state 'gross' but to counter one would state 'nett'

[Piebob]

Which is 51.692%. Your formula is wrong though. Why are you multiplying by 100.

lol. No, the question is why are YOU multiplying by 100, when he already has to turn the figure into a percentage.

[Rewulf]

Even allowing for the diff in nett versus gross .5 is only a shade over double.

And 'Nett'is the figure that is more accurate as if say two mill arrive and one mill leave then the amount that we have increased by is one mill-

It all depends on how scary you wish to make numbers look- to get your point across one would state 'gross' but to counter one would state 'nett'

 

I think 336,000 net a year is scary enough.

Especially when infrastructure is not keeping up with it.

[sportsbob]

.5 of a percent is not 250 times larger than .2 of a percent--- unless in a parallel universe where maths is inverse.

Go back and look at what you said, you clearly said unless I am reading it wrong .002%.

 

Post 121

 

Quote the current net migration stood at what? 188000- is that not less than .002%

Edited July 7, 2016 by sportsbob

[Gordon R]

Jaymo has never been one to let facts cloud the issue. He doesn't answer any questions either. :lol:

[sportsbob]

I am starting to see that also.

[Jaymo]

Boys- play nicely

 

Check out an earlier post and you will see my apology over my mis-use of decimal and placing of a percentage sign.

But I would hope that even you could see that 188000 of 64 million people works out at less than half a percent.

 

But what would I know being an unskilled- in educated person :-)

[Rewulf]

Boys- play nicely

 

Check out an earlier post and you will see my apology over my mis-use of decimal and placing of a percentage sign.

But I would hope that even you could see that 188000 of 64 million people works out at less than half a percent.

 

But what would I know being an unskilled- in educated person :-)

 

I dont think anyone accused you of being unskilled or un educated.

What I will pull you up on is the figures.

188000 extra people,thats just from the EU ,every year.

You make it sound paltry,'only half a percent ' you say.

Thats still a lot of people every year ,how many people live in your town ?

They all need to live somewhere,they all need healthcare and schooling..and benefits.

I suppose if you say it fast....

[Gordon R]

Rewulf - steady on. You might start asking just how many the UK can take, without housing and services being overwhelmed.

I know that Jaymo will not put a figure on it.

[Jaymo]

At least I'm trying to put numbers to arguments/ comments :-)

 

ReWulf, it is a lot of people but also compare it to the UK birthrate.

The healthcare / housing issues are of course a concern- but putting these issues firmly at the 'door' of immigrants is not the whole picture.

 

So Mr Gordon- what number would you accept?

[Gordon R]

Jaymo - after you. Post your limit and I will then post mine. You have been asked often enough.

[mick miller]

12

[Jaymo]

I did , several posts ago in saying I thought the current rate was ok.

Same time I think as said that of those how many were working and contributing compared to the miners whi didn't want them here who are themselves not working!

 

Only have my phone and not scrolling through to find it

That's generous Mick :-)

[MrM]

12

Now is that a net balance of 12 or just 12 in total ? if so can you please name them.

[Jaymo]

Now you know We have to include 'seasonal drift' so think your figure is indeed 12 :-)

[Rewulf]

 

ReWulf, it is a lot of people but also compare it to the UK birthrate.

The healthcare / housing issues are of course a concern- but putting these issues firmly at the 'door' of immigrants is not the whole picture.

 

 

The UK birthrate is not what we are talking about though is it?

 

I did , several posts ago in saying I thought the current rate was ok.

Same time I think as said that of those how many were working and contributing compared to the miners whi didn't want them here who are themselves not working!

 

 

 

You think the current rate is OK ,and the non EU migrants on top of that,and the ones that sneak in,that we dont have figures for ?

Call it 350k a year,I know its probably more ,but thats a decent sized CITY every year,plus birth rates that are not part of the equation.

Are we building enough houses,flats,can the NHS cope,schools ,the social system ?

If you think the answer to that is yes,then you dont live anywhere near me,or understand the magnitude of the problem.

 

To say the more immigration the better (because they pay taxes) is also not fully understanding the situation.

The Polish lads that set up a garage/car wash/building firm will avoid paying taxes like the plague,whilst undercutting local businesses and causing resentment.

Yes they graft,by god they work hard!

But we have a thing called social cohesion,and its being eroded because there is TOO MUCH IMMIGRATION.

Thats not being racist or xenophobic ,its being sensible.

You could replace the entire workforce with eastern europeans who would work harder,longer,and for less pay,they might even pay tax.

But what about the indigenous population,how are they going to feel about it ?

You wonder why far right groups are on the rise,across ALL the EU ?

Because they dont like whats happening.

 

And before Grannet pops up and starts calling us all racists for thinking like this,just remember,this is not the only reason we voted out,but its a damned good one.

[Gordon R]

Jaymo - don't be naïve. You haven't answered yet again. You have been asked at what point you would say enough is enough. Put a maximum figure on what the UK can stand - total population.

 

Stop evading the issue. It's embarrassing.

[12gauge82]

 

The UK birthrate is not what we are talking about though is it?

 

 

You think the current rate is OK ,and the non EU migrants on top of that,and the ones that sneak in,that we dont have figures for ?

Call it 350k a year,I know its probably more ,but thats a decent sized CITY every year,plus birth rates that are not part of the equation.

Are we building enough houses,flats,can the NHS cope,schools ,the social system ?

If you think the answer to that is yes,then you dont live anywhere near me,or understand the magnitude of the problem.

 

To say the more immigration the better (because they pay taxes) is also not fully understanding the situation.

The Polish lads that set up a garage/car wash/building firm will avoid paying taxes like the plague,whilst undercutting local businesses and causing resentment.

Yes they graft,by god they work hard!

But we have a thing called social cohesion,and its being eroded because there is TOO MUCH IMMIGRATION.

Thats not being racist or xenophobic ,its being sensible.

You could replace the entire workforce with eastern europeans who would work harder,longer,and for less pay,they might even pay tax.

But what about the indigenous population,how are they going to feel about it ?

You wonder why far right groups are on the rise,across ALL the EU ?

Because they dont like whats happening.

 

And before Grannet pops up and starts calling us all racists for thinking like this,just remember,this is not the only reason we voted out,but its a damned good one.

Add to that the fact that if we stayed in the eu, if turkey or whoever else is given membership and half those countries decide the uk is a nicer place to live, there's nothing the uk would be able to do about, remember when Poland etc joined and the uk estated something like 13000 a year extra, you then realise the only way you can have any say at all on immigration is outside of the EU. Just for the record, I am totally for CONTROLLED migration

[Jaymo]

No what's embarrassing is you haven't been to Specsavers recently to see that I am happy with the current quoted figures and if I have to say it once again then jeeez

 

ReWulf, don't get me wrong- I do understand what your saying but those who 'sneak' in aren't/ shouldn't be able to receive any assistance as they are considered 'illegal' and so are not even included into the official figures ( blame your south coast fisherman for bringing them in - that's if I'm allowed to generalise as other here do?)

The paying of taxes by Poles etc working in the UK- last time I check if you take the NHS an an employer for example did not allow their employees to go onto HMRC NT ( no tax at source) pay!

The other who as you put 'only work in car washes' and pocket all their money ... Well some do most likely, same as maybe your window cleaner or your British builder

Don't tell me you have never 'paid cash' or been offered it.

( was going to liken saying no to denying you never do something in the privacy of you own home) .

 

HMRC for all their problems can and do carry out Audits on these type of Carwas businesses.

 

Birth rates are really- if your worried about lack of access to schools and hospitals etc- why not start the 'stop having babies campaign' too as this is a far far higher proportion of the annual increase. But like you said- it's ok for 'indigenous ' people to do so........

[Jaymo]

And if Granner wants to 'pop up' then let him- it's a free forum, full of 'Democracy ' :-)

[Gordon R]

Jaymo - I asked what is the total population that the UK can stand without seriously impacting on services etc. You have not answered at any time. Pathetic statements such as:-

 

if I have to say it once again then jeeez

 

Are just that - pathetic. Don't hide behind silly percentages of silly figures which are pure invention. Official figures are plainly unbelievable. That isn't rocket science - even for you.

 

Now if you want to get really silly, here's a starter, from Planet Unreality:-

 

HMRC for all their problems can and do carry out Audits on these type of Carwas businesses.

 

 

I don't know where you get your "facts", but you really need to get out more. That is just rubbish.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Gordon R