An Australian-style points-based actually give the UK government *less* control over immigration than it currently has. Sounds counter-intuitive? Read on...
Currently, UKGov offers visas based on a classification system - with various caps on the number of visas that can be granted in each class. (There is also a "general" classification, but since this thread is comparing with a points-based system, I'll not cover that)
So if UKGov decides that the economy needs (for example) 10,000 more plumbers it can create a plumber-class visa to be granted to applicants who intend to come to work in the UK as plumbers, and grant up to a limit of 10K visas.
The different tactical voting sites all use different methodologies. BfB uses MRP, which is analysis based on a large sample of recent polling and has shown to be more accurate than "normal" polling. They make a recommendation based on which party has the best chance of winning.
Most of the "normal" polling services (YouGov, Survation, etc.) take polls but are not making tactical voting recommendations. People can make use of their results to make their own decision which party has the best chance of winning.
"Normal" polls may or may not be using MRP analysis (mostly they don't) so their constituency-by-constituency forecasts will have a higher margin of error (especially in constituencies where the sample size is small)
Northern Ireland remains within the Customs Union but has to be renewed by the DUP (effectively) every 4 years (which they obviously won't). This is effectively a time-limited Backstop without using the word "Backstop".
Checks at the border. Checks away from the border. It makes no difference.
Everyone else seems to realise that this is an emotive issue and anything that breaks the spirit of the GFA is unacceptable, even if it doesn't break the letter of the law.
The number of border crossings all freight will be moved through to be to limited to... I can't remember what the number was but I want to say 4? There's over 200 border crossings - what will happen to them??
There is effectively no difference between a minimum wage and minimum living wage. A minimum wage which is too low to live off is simply too low - the minimum should be equal or higher to the living wage.
The problem is how (or more likely who) to determine the minimum wage? Centrally by the EU? or nationally by the member states? (or, I would argue, regionally?). I'm afraid that until all EU states start reaching something like economic parity, the answer is to do it nationally.
The EU does not have the structures (let alone the treaty mandate) in place to be able to not only investigate cost of living in each nation and region, but also determine how wages, taxes, and public services, etc. interact to determine what the optimal minimum wage should be.
Survation has just published the results of a survey showing preferences of whether people wish to a) Remain in the EU, b) Leave with a Deal, or c) Crash out of the EU with no deal.
In addition to which choice voters would prefer, the survey also asked which would be the second preferred outcome i.e. the second preference - which is a good question to ask BUT its results must be treated with care.
In /most/ regions (in England) the LibDems *do* have the best chance in the #EUelection2019 /however/ treating each region each region the same is naive and wrong. There are small regions (3-5 seats) and large regions (8-10 seats) and they can be treated differently.
In a small region, tactical voting necessitates targeting a single party - and it should be the party that has the most natural support in that region i.e. the one that has the best chance of winning and the most people would be comfortable voting for if asked to vote tactically.
From the polling and tactical voting calculators I've seen, most are simply looking at the base voting intentions and selecting the highest - none of them are asking or trying to work out which party tactical voters would be most comfortable voting for.
Whichever party controls government will have to both borrow and print money - there is simply tons of things the UKGov will have to spend money on for any kind of Brexit. If you take a look at UKGov spending just in the last two years it has shot up (in preparation for Brexit).
Sure, Labour would probably print more money than the Tories, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. They would also be more likely to invest in services and pump money into regional infrastructure than just prop up banks (which will also need a lot of support).
In cases where inflation is caused by a recession because of the economy being hit (rather than just currency fluctuations, the economy overheating, or excess debt), investing in infrastructure projects is the best way to stabilise it.
I actually have his book on the desk behind me. Much like Machiavelli's The Prince, it's a manual on how to be a complete and utter bastard (and win). Many of the chapters point to why Leave won, others to why Remain lost. Based on its content, #FBPE need to get its hands dirty.
The article is very different, and it's Leavers that are the narcissists - they hold a belief in something and won't accept being called up on it, deny any facts they're shown as fake news and propaganda, while never questioning their own sources.
I have #FBPE in my bio, and it's because I value Freedom of Movement. I have benefited from it, as have my friends and family. I want to keep it, I want my fellow UK citizens to keep it, and I want EU residents in the UK to keep it too.
Outrageous that we should be paying money to the EU that they fritter away on development projects in far away impoverished areas like Cornwall, West Wales, and the North. Let's call this tyranny what it really is - foreign aid.
We are the unwilling recipients of foreign aid.
How dare they suggest we should be spending money on environmental protection like pollution control and flood defences. It's our fucking country and we should be allowed to fuck it up how we like, yes?
"Important" industries tend to have one or more international agencies or regulators. For aviation, the ICAO sits at the top with the FAA, the EASA, and probably a whole load of national agencies as the actual regulators.
At the highest level, all regulators generally align their regulations (on procedures, parts, testing, etc.) up to a certain point, at least in so far as to accept each others certification. This allows a EASA-certified plane to fly within the FAA jurisdiction, and vice-versa.
You're not understanding that this isn't about trade between companies, it's about trade agreements between states. If SK has a default tariff of 30% on aero, but has negotiated a 10% tariff rate for the first £10Bn/yr with the EU - that puts the UK companies at a disadvantage.
An SK company buying the aero parts is going to be choosing between EU parts at a 10% tariff or UK parts at 30%. Which are they going to choose?
Of course, the UK would want to rack up an say they want a trade agreement too. They want, let's say 5% tariffs on aero parts. SK may say they want a reciprocal 5% tariff on mobile phones (it's 10% with the EU, but they have the leverage so they can argue for a better agreement)
When Ireland voted no on the Lisbon treaty, over 40% of voters stated that not knowing enough about the treaty as the primary reason for their vote, followed by a lack of clarity on certain issues.
The EU gave clarity and legal reassurances on the issues identified (turning some of the more open-ended clauses into more tightly defined ones - kind of like making mini-amendments) to address these concerns and asked them to vote again.
It says at the same time that devolved powers will be preserved except the role of Brussels being transferred to Westminster (which sounds reasonable), but at the same time that Westminster wants to apply a common UK-wide policies.
"Common UK-wide policies" basically means Westminster will dictate the policies, which contradicts that the devolved powers will be able to control their implementation - unlike now where the EU defines the policy and the devolved assemblies implement them as appropriate.
The Tory's control more than half of councils, nearly double Labour. Losing control of even half of them is unrealistic, and even if it happened under fixed term government I can all but guarantee it won't result in a General Election.
A Prime Minister calls a GE under two circumstances: 1) They are miles ahead in the polls and think they can increase their majority (as in 2017) 2) They have suffered a humiliating defeat or scandal.
I'd rather be on the losing side than the wrong side.
I'd rather be on the side of facts and reason, than impotent feelings of no control and paranoid fantasy.
I'd rather be on the side of cooperation with our neighbors, than competition with a made-up enemy.
A say in whether the EU enlarges or not.
A say in if the EU federalises or remains a union of independent states.
A say in if there is an EU army.
Being the financial capital through which the majority of € is traded while still keeping the £.
The UK has taken the lead in efforts for EU enlargement. It pushed for the inclusion of Eastern European states. It pushed for Turkey to get its shit together so that it could join (which it made very slow progress with, and has largely been undone by Erdogan)
After #Brexit, the UK will have no influence on EU enlargement. In fact, as setting the EU as a rival, every country that joins the EU will a) strengthen the EU, and b) unravels any trade deals that the UK will have made with that country, isolating it further.
If you cut off all trade to the EU as you propose, you would have to negotiate a lot of FTAs *and* sell at least 100 apples at £1 to the ROW to make up for the loss of stopping selling to the EU. And even then you're only breaking even.
50% becomes 100% of exports, but 50 apples doesn't automatically become 100 apples. Until you can sell more apples you've cut your income from £100 to £50.
While this is what you implied, I don't think this is what you meant, so I'll move on.