1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Brexit Discussion

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by FrenchTart, Sep 11, 2016.

  1. garnett

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 25, 2008

    Posts: 4,143

    Lol.

    This just describes the history of international travel, and its affordability.

    Every other country will have had the same or similar experiences, varying only due to factors such as that country's accessibility, and the attractiveness of its economy.

    Unless you're suggesting weakening our economy so that nobody wants to visit, this is nonsense, and even then, burning your money so nobody can steal it isn't the brightest idea.
     
  2. Caracus2k

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 27, 2009

    Posts: 4,581

    Demonstrably false....

    have countries like China, Korea (north or south), Israel, Japan, Mongolia Vietnam, Poland, the former USSR successor nations, the Baltic Nations, most of Africa and most of Latin America had a 'similar experiences' since mass international travel became affordable?.

    Mass migration isn't reliant on the attractiveness and accessibility of a countries economy unless the government is either too weak or doesn't care to control immigration.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2019
  3. malachi

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Jun 27, 2006

    Posts: 9,011

    Location: Earth

    You mean they only want British White people in their town like the so called good old days.
     
  4. Caracus2k

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 27, 2009

    Posts: 4,581

    People the world over have a strong tendency to want to retain their local culture and lots of people from other countries entering and tending to congregate in certain areas tends to supplant said local cultures .

    Guess what some Central and Eastern European nations quite often don't want to change their demographic makeup and have politicians willing to support this

     
  5. Caracus2k

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 27, 2009

    Posts: 4,581

    A controlled amount of suitably skilled migrants that benefit the economy whilst showing a willingness to integrate into wider society are okay though. :)

    #brexitdream

    FTFY
     
  6. tamzzy

    Sgarrista

    Joined: May 26, 2012

    Posts: 9,997

  7. malachi

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Jun 27, 2006

    Posts: 9,011

    Location: Earth

    Skilled migrants.... Do people still think randomers from others countries, just to shack up here and get a free house!?!?!

    This isn't the 1970's.
     
  8. Caracus2k

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 27, 2009

    Posts: 4,581

    You forgot having a better economic policy and set of laws for the UK populace and industry but do carry on......


    In the EU we are more exposed to the Euro whether we use it or not


    There's no reason why leaving the EU means we cant share information with our EU neighbours. We do it all the time with our other allies under the 5 eyes group for intelligence. Maybe its only the EU being difficult here?


    I have already stated that we wouldn't necessarily have to leave the customs union (which Turkey is in when its not in the EU) …. again unless its just the EU being difficult?

    But as I said the UK could set taxation, subsidies, incentives and policy to fit specific industries more important or prevalent in the UK rather than towing the EU 'one size fits all' line



    Financial services and Insurance are big industries in the UK (more so than the EU average)…...

    So there you go


    Yes I get that you can make the poor poorer and the rich richer but yet average wealth remains the same...…...


    So we don't need the EU here then


    You have inadvertently stumbled on the problem. You see traditionally the solution to recruitment issues was that companies were forced to increase wages and pass the 'real' cost of things onto their customers. The stream of EU workers willing to work for low pay distorts this normal mechanism but like the woman who swallowed the fly you get in a bit of a vicious cycle of being permanently reliant on immigration.

    Plenty of other countries have 'guest worker' programs as well and the UK could easily employ these in any key areas



    Eu migration only gives this supposed 'benefit' because the demographics of EU migrant and non EU migrants in the country are vastly different. Generally you are a large net cost to the state when you are a child and when you are old/ retired. So importing lots of working age predominately young adults will give you a boost in the short term but the cost rack up and as I showed earlier there isn't the spare billions to pay for he mass infrastructure needed to support recent net migration levels (EU an non EU). Even figures for 'lifetime' costs are misleading because almost all of the 'non EU' component will have been children in the UK whilst relatively few EU migrants are children so they figures don't account for the cost of raising and largely educating the EU part. Mass migration from parts of Europe is causing serious issues.


    Its impossible to be certain of the benefits either ways other than to be fairly certain that any period of change/ adjustment will likely have a negative impact in the shorter term. Longer term I believe the UK is better off free to make its own laws and support its industries as suite the country best not the EU


    It doesnt so much matter who owns things as where the jobs go. Leaving the EU copuld mean more jobs returning to the UK
     
  9. RedvGreen

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 2, 2009

    Posts: 3,592

    Location: Midlands

    The only things that were attractive to businesses was the centre of world finance (which Brexit has cost us the loss of that status); our proximity to EU/USA depending on perspective - we were a useful stop gap for trade and services. Now we don’t have that - Ireland, France, Holland has mopped up most of that.

    Our lower skill areas of manufacturing has gone too.

    There is literally no reason for anyone to wish to invest in us now; we have nothing worth investing in.
     
  10. Caracus2k

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 27, 2009

    Posts: 4,581

    'Skilled migrants' don't need 'free' housing...….

    You appear to have inadvertently stumbled on an issue with not controlling immigration...
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2019
  11. Caracus2k

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 27, 2009

    Posts: 4,581

    Citation required that 'most of that' has been 'mopped up'


    Like the rest of the west/ 1st world nations because we cant pay pennies like they can abroad to our workforce for stuff that's easy to ship cheaply around the world


    Its rather sad you have been brainwashed into having so little confidence in the UK...…..


    Regardless depending on who you speak it wont be better if we humiliate ourselves as a nation and do a 180 anyway here

    and others say London will remain central for world finace

    Even people who have worked for the Germans seem to have come around.....


    So we may as well get on with it now?
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2019
  12. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 19,256

    Imagine voting for something to help out the working class only to maybe sort of boost the banking sector which maybe sort of ruined the West not a decade earlier. I think we all know that London wont be harmed if at all by Brexit, what it might lose to Europe, it can gain elsewhere because at least in that sphere it is actually a giant among others, where as agriculture/manufacturing is easily sourced elsewhere because we haven't invested much at all over the last couple of decades into actually providing something people need in the world.

    And to still hold on to that view that it will help them is seriously deranged, but then it would make sense considering the poor mental health in this country.
     
  13. malachi

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Jun 27, 2006

    Posts: 9,011

    Location: Earth

    Its been said millions of times, the UK can control immigration but they choose not to. Why!?!?! Because to the UK government its not a problem. They do the jobs british born don't want to do.

    The people who say "immigration is out of control" are the same people who do minimum wage crappy jobs all their lives and never try to better themselves. You never hear doctors or business owners complaining about immigration.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2019
  14. DarkHorizon472

    Mobster

    Joined: May 16, 2007

    Posts: 2,782

    Unfortunately it is another long List of criticisms and wishes. What I am looking for are what the positives are overall for the UK of your preferred brexit version. You mentioned economic benefits but did not describe them in any real life detail.

    Can you explain in real life detail how your preferred version of brexit benefits the the UK overall compared to the current EU deal for manufacturing with reference to supply chain and market access ?

    WTO terms means a significantly worse trading position and a customs union means you lose your expected benefits of sovereignty, border control etc. becoming simply a rule taker.

    When it comes to security the issue is not sharing data but the cost and efficiency of doing so with the legal backup to use it. Currently the UK makes over 500,000,000 instant accesses to EU security systems. In future these would need to be requested with cost, delay and bureaucracy of the UK having to request not access the systems, and then not having the current EU legal framework to use the information.

    I am not clear on your immigration view. You argue it should specifically benefit the UK which makes sense, but then explain most of the issues are down to national uk governments choices and EU migration has not been a burden on the tax payer which is the £13.5bn. Net it gives the UK.
     
  15. DarkHorizon472

    Mobster

    Joined: May 16, 2007

    Posts: 2,782

    The government has claimed for years it is cracking down on immigration while doing the complete opposite, leaving the EU does not change this.The other point to be aware of are the areas with the lowest levels of immigration tend to be those with the highest anti immigration sentiment.
     
  16. garnett

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 25, 2008

    Posts: 4,143

    In the list of countries you consider most analogous to the UK, which out of Mongolia, China, Vietnam etc, do you consider to be the most like the UK?

    :rolleyes:
     
  17. Murphy

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Sep 16, 2018

    Posts: 1,704

    We have that control now, jobs shouldn't be advertised outside of the UK unless the role has remained unfulfilled for a certain amount of time.

    People can't just rock up to the UK and work in any sector irregardless of skill shortages, they can come here for 3 months and if they've not found work in that time they can legally be deported, if someone from another country can come here and find a job in 3 months shouldn't you be asking why someone born and raised in that country couldn't do the same, you'd think they'd be at a distinct advantage after all.

    Evidence suggests but does not definitively conclude, and even the suggestions say it's only in the region of a 2% reduction for every 10% increase in immigration in certain regions.
    See above, we already have control of our borders.

    You're conflating having control and exercising that control, we have control but choose not to use it, if we've chosen not to use it in the past I'm not sure why you believe that will change.​
    We can do that now, you only have to look at the many guises of the Snoopers charter to see that despite it being ruled contrary to human rights in EU courts it's still on the statute books, we can already implement laws and economic policies that are a better fit for the UK because, as the government has explained, the UK parliament has always been sovereign.

    What you're describing is what the governments whitepaper described as the 'feeling' that the UK is not sovereign.
    An ever closer union that we could have had written into the treaties that we wouldn't be a party to, that's what Cameron's deal would've done BTW, it would've written into international law what would've effectively been a two speed Europe.
    That's just semantics, MEPs can't indeed 'initiate' legislation but they do propose it, write it, construct it and do everything that's needed to get it to the stage of being 'initiated'.

    As for the votes get pushed through when one nation objects thing, that's how democracy works, are you suggesting that a single nation should be allowed to prevent the others from doing something they feel is in the best interests of the group? That would be like saying the MP for north east Somerset should be able to block legislation that's of benefit to the whole of the UK, that a single MP should be able to block the building of a high-speed railway line or nuclear power plant.
    So you mean exactly as JRM, The Economists for Free Trade, and every other person who sings the praises of leave the EU wants, to turn the UK into a tax haven with zero tariff barriers al a Singapore.

    As i asked McstylisT do you have any idea what the consequences of doing that would be?

    Because if you're worried about the suppression of low skilled wages, supposedly uncontrolled immigration, and laws effecting us that we supposedly have no control over you've not seen anything yet, the closest analogy is Singapore but what the disaster capitalists have in store for the UK would put Singapore to shame as at least over there they have a socialist government in charge so the wealth is, at least in some part, distributed down to the indigenous people.

    If you think any UK government is going to provide the sort of things the Singaporean government does to what's left of the Singaporean people in the UK you'd be very much mistaken.

    That's even if they managed to enact their grand scheme for a post Brexit UK as not only have plenty of politicians said they'd block any attempt to turn London into a Singapore on the Thames but the EU have also said they'd consider it unacceptable.
    See Above, the UK is and always has been Sovereign, the government whitepaper that was published 8 months after people voted told them so, and it also explained that what you're describing is a feeling, not reality.
    Yes it would be 'less' constricted but it's not like we can't nationalise industries while being inside the EU, take the recent collapse of British Steel, that certainly qualified for nationalisation under EU rules, and it's not like leaving the EU is going to change any of that as the WTO has very similar rules when it comes to nationalising industries.

    To paraphrase both the EU and WTO say you shouldn't nationalise industries for the sake of it or for competitive advantage in the markets, that nationalising industries should be of benefit to the local community or in order to prevent an adverse effect (Steel work in Scunthorpe would be OK because there's very little else in the area that could employ those people, Steel works in London not so much).
    But that's not what your earlier link is advocating and it's not what most people who support leaving the EU are advocating, in fact to some people being in 'a' customs union is not Brexit at all.
    Insulated but not immune, if you think something like the collapse of the single currency wouldn't effect the UK, seeing as they're our largest single trading partner, then you don't understand global economics.

    And had we agreed to Cameron's deal it would've been written into law that we wouldn't be a part of any future 'bailouts', not that we were forced to bail them out last time, we chose to do so because it was a nice little earner, those interest payments where to tempting.
    Not really, yes we're a net contributor but if you think that will change after we've left you're sadly mistaken, i can't find the article right now but calculations have been done that show the amount of tariffs that we'll be paying after we've left will likely be equal to our contributions, the only difference is we'll be paying it directly on the goods we buy instead of indirectly via central government taxes.

    (I'll try to dig out the article later and update this post if i find it)
    Take back control from who? Certainly not the EU as it's the UK government who sold off fishing quotas to the highest bidder instead bidders who would benefit the local community, in fact the EU passed legislation that seeks to make it harder for the UK to do what it did, legislation that was proposed via the fisheries comity that Farage was meant to take part in, legislation that was proposed by politicians from other nations in order to protect small fishing fleets such as those Mr Farage keeps telling everyone he's a champion of.

    I mean politicians from other member nations literally did Farage's job for him and still he has the gall to moan about how the EU are destroying UK fishing.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2019
  18. do_ron_ron

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 8,782

    Just had a mailshot from the European of freedom and direct democracy(EFD2). I read a bit then realised it was from Farage and his one time buddy Coburn then I binned it and washed my hands.
    Playing the 'they are trying to punish us' mentality. I was surprised as here we voted 2:1 Remain and the latest European elections Remain parties increased their numbers.
     
  19. Caracus2k

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 27, 2009

    Posts: 4,581

    Now now Garnett I will remind you of your own words.....

    Wasn't true now was it?
     
  20. garnett

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 25, 2008

    Posts: 4,143

    Lol...



    It was just telling and funny that your position was so weak that as soon as you were challenged, you immediately had to go to comparisons of the UKs immigration position with such similar countries as China and Mongolia.

    Which country do you consider the most similar to the UK which our immigration policies should be imitating?