Brexit and the Consequences

[tomorton]

Heaven forbid that we stick our noses in foreign affairs militarily--we've done enough already. There has to be another way to stop the strife that is taking place in Africa and ME. Civil wars cause extreme poverty and misery to countless millions, who were poor, to begin with.

These poor peaople move. Where? Prosperous countries with more stable and tolerant governments.

Where? Europe, for one. That means us. If we don't like it we have to stop it at source. Stopping people at the border, when they, already, have nothing to lose, fills them with dread at the prospect of trekking all that way home again, so they camp where they are.

So, until we stop the strife at source, they'll keep on coming.

Why is it the west's job to clean up some of the most despotic and corrupt regimes in the world? I seem to recall a lot of opposition when this was enacted in Iraq.

 

[tomorton]

Just saw on the news, Irish women are denied abortions in Ireland so they come over to the UK to have them.

Whilst any other medical treatment is free for them they have to pay for their abortions at private clinics.


Why is this so? Out of respect for their DUP laws persecuting and restricting human rights because of other peeps religion.


On the other hand, having the baby means much conflict, strife and hard ship for both mother, reluctant father, those relatives and ultimately society. Do we need to mention the quality of life this new born baby is likely to live?

Laws in Europe way ahead of supporting humane and civil rights of individuals imo.

http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/14/europes-abortion-rules---no-single-policy

Do the DUP run Ireland?

 

[barjon]

Arrrrggh Tim. You set me up then you knock me down.

I do not agree. Public service provision will always be the cheapest and therefore lowest quality available. So even a stable population, even a shrinking population, even a tiny UK population of immense personal wealth levels, will always suffer a rubbishly minimal level of public service provision. Because its cheaper.

The physical loss of the majority of UK countryside is not something I worry about. Don't forget we're talking about the UK now having a population over 6 times greater than in 1801 and we're still able to appreciate that most of the country is rural and should be protected. But in 1801, if you had been able to convince people that the population would rise to more than 60 million, they would have said something very much like, I suspect, what you have just said about Exeter and Plymouth. They would have been wrong too.

But another point is also worth a mention - would you say the country and the 10 million population as a whole in the UK were richer in 1801 or 2017?

Tomo

I can't accept that public services have been and will be of the lowest quality available. The NHS, for example, has historically always offered high quality and still does for chronic conditions despite the enormous pressure it is working under.

As for the rest there's more to peoples' well-being than pound notes (although they help ). I suppose if you enjoy walking about on crowded city streets, or sqeezing into jam packed trains, or driving on crowded roads (wasn't the third lane on motorways to be left clear for overtaking ), or finding yourself hemmed in by more houses, or finding your loved view suddenly blocked by a 500 house estate in the fields next door, etc, then you won't feel that your quality of life has worsened., otherwise you probably would.

 

[timsk]

You somehow missed my point. Even if you end immigration and the population declines, there is still maintenance: roads, rails, bridges, dams, power grids, and so on. Who's going to pay for all this, particularly as you've just dramatically decreased your revenue stream?

Hi dbp,
No, I didn't miss your point, I just don't agree with it. I'm not disputing that public services will have to be paid for - whether it's by taxation or some other means. However, the answer can not possibly be to deploy yet another Ponzi scheme whereby we encourage open ended and unsustainable population growth in the vain hope that the additional tax revenue more than covers the cost of services that these ever growing numbers of people require. In my book, that's sheer madness.
Tim.

 

[timsk]

Arrrrggh Tim. You set me up then you knock me down.

Hi Tom.
I don't often say this and, indeed, I don't ever recall saying anything remotely like it in any post of mine on T2W before: I am genuinely flabbergasted by your response. I'm literally lost for words, other than to say I agree wholeheartedly with Jon's comments, above.

As for setting you up and then knocking you down - apologies - that wasn't my intention!
Tim.

 

[tomorton]

Tomo

I can't accept that public services have been and will be of the lowest quality available. The NHS, for example, has historically always offered high quality and still does for chronic conditions despite the enormous pressure it is working under.

As for the rest there's more to peoples' well-being than pound notes (although they help ). I suppose if you enjoy walking about on crowded city streets, or sqeezing into jam packed trains, or driving on crowded roads (wasn't the third lane on motorways to be left clear for overtaking ), or finding yourself hemmed in by more houses, or finding your loved view suddenly blocked by a 500 house estate in the fields next door, etc, then you won't feel that your quality of life has worsened., otherwise you probably would.

Jon, this is the most unsupportable idea - that the NHS has offered the highest health care standards. It has always been a cut-price crisis service. It has always lagged behind medical developments, patients' expectations and other civilised countries' health services. Maybe there's are areas that can be listed in which the NHS has led the field?

I think we can find smart ways to accommodate a higher population without concreting over all our agricultural land - that's not a binary choice. But what we can say is that whatever good things we want to do for the country will requite money. So the more of that we have, the better.

 

[dbphoenix]

Why is it the west's job to clean up some of the most despotic and corrupt regimes in the world? I seem to recall a lot of opposition when this was enacted in Iraq.

Largely because if we don't, and we haven't, the populations will seek to emigrate, as they are doing now.

 

[dbphoenix]

Hi dbp,
No, I didn't miss your point, I just don't agree with it. I'm not disputing that public services will have to be paid for - whether it's by taxation or some other means. However, the answer can not possibly be to deploy yet another Ponzi scheme whereby we encourage open ended and unsustainable population growth in the vain hope that the additional tax revenue more than covers the cost of services that these ever growing numbers of people require. In my book, that's sheer madness.
Tim.

So where's the money going to come from? This is a niggling detail that conservatives and libertarians gloss over.

 

[barjon]

Jon, this is the most unsupportable idea - that the NHS has offered the highest health care standards. It has always been a cut-price crisis service. It has always lagged behind medical developments, patients' expectations and other civilised countries' health services. Maybe there's are areas that can be listed in which the NHS has led the field?

I think we can find smart ways to accommodate a higher population without concreting over all our agricultural land - that's not a binary choice. But what we can say is that whatever good things we want to do for the country will requite money. So the more of that we have, the better.

Well, hip replacement springs to mind since I'm having one next week. Pioneered by the NHS in the early sixties. Google for many more. For many years NHS was the envy of he world, both hospital provision and the GP set up. And it's free.

It's only in recent years that cost cutting in our services has taken strong hold, but they are all still there and fit for purpose, albeit of slightly less quality than they were. A far cry from cheap and nasty.

 

[tomorton]

Largely because if we don't, and we haven't, the populations will seek to emigrate, as they are doing now.

I'm very happy for them to emigrate to here, if by doing so they enrich the economy. I think even economists don't agree about that so we should err on the side of prudence until we're sure and be very very tight who we let in.

 

[Atilla]

I'm very happy for them to emigrate to here, if by doing so they enrich the economy. I think even economists don't agree about that so we should err on the side of prudence until we're sure and be very very tight who we let in.

You better believe it!

Money talks and BS walks. If they weren't a positive contribution you'd think we'd be letting them in the numbers that we are?

Do you seriously think this is in question?

The industrial revolution and international trade is all about the free or controlled movement of goods and services, capital and labour.

Free is better and controlled is contrived and doesn't really work as well. Even Japan has started importing migrants.

Choices are clear.

1. Raise tax burden on young or
2. Increase speed of natural wastage of the old

There is a third way for those who think population growth is not desirable...

3. Build robot droids to look after the elderly on life support machines.

Wall-E comes to mind here

 

[tomorton]

Well, hip replacement springs to mind since I'm having one next week. Pioneered by the NHS in the early sixties. Google for many more. For many years NHS was the envy of he world, both hospital provision and the GP set up. And it's free.

It's only in recent years that cost cutting in our services has taken strong hold, but they are all still there and fit for purpose, albeit of slightly less quality than they were. A far cry from cheap and nasty.

The NHS is not free, it requires advance payment through taxation. And when you require medication as part of an NHS treatment, its not free either. The NHS picks and chooses what is delivered free and what is charged for so this blanket its free label is very poor camouflage.

On hip replacements, it seems the leading light on this technique had to get started using a charitable funding campaign. Once the technique was established and the financial risks moderated, the NHS stepped in.

As far as the NHS being the envy of the world, look at the usual medical parameters from 10 western countries - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_system#International_comparisons
Life expectancy - UK is 7th out of 10
Infant mortality rate - 8th
Preventable deaths per 100,000 people in 2007 - 9th
Physicians per 1000 people - 7th
Nurses per 1000 people - 6th
Per capita expenditure on health (USD PPP) - 8th
Healthcare costs as a percent of GDP - 9th
% of government revenue spent on health -7th
% of health costs paid by government - 3rd

The fact that the UK government spends a vast amount on healthcare might be good, but actually we get a below average service according to these parameters. Which is just what I said.

 

[tomorton]

You better believe it!

Money talks and BS walks. If they weren't a positive contribution you'd think we'd be letting them in the numbers that we are?

Do you seriously think this is in question?

The industrial revolution and international trade is all about the free or controlled movement of goods and services, capital and labour.

Free is better and controlled is contrived and doesn't really work as well. Even Japan has started importing migrants.

Choices are clear.

1. Raise tax burden on young or
2. Increase speed of natural wastage of the old

There is a third way for those who think population growth is not desirable...

3. Build robot droids to look after the elderly on life support machines.

Wall-E comes to mind here

When even the experts can't universally pronounce whether immigration enriches the host economy or not, immigration policy is likely to be decided on grounds of -
* political ideology
* political expediency
* diplomatic relations with donor countries/regions
* cheap as chips enforcement policy

I don't say immigration is bad, because actually nobody knows for sure. What I say is we have a cheapo policy based on very unsound fundamentals as listed above. Maybe maybe Brexit will lead to a demand for a meaningful focus on the UK's immigration policy - no politicians here have wanted to talk about it since WWII.

 

[Atilla]

When even the experts can't universally pronounce whether immigration enriches the host economy or not, immigration policy is likely to be decided on grounds of -
* political ideology
* political expediency
* diplomatic relations with donor countries/regions
* cheap as chips enforcement policy

I don't say immigration is bad, because actually nobody knows for sure. What I say is we have a cheapo policy based on very unsound fundamentals as listed above. Maybe maybe Brexit will lead to a demand for a meaningful focus on the UK's immigration policy - no politicians here have wanted to talk about it since WWII.

Tomorton matey, you apply your economic analysis to most things and you stalling on migration.

Whether it was the slave era or our modern cheap migrant below or min wage era labour is one very serious factor of input in the production process.

This is capitalism we are talking about. It doesn't even care for its own race and do you seriously think cheap migrant or skilled migrant input into the production process is beyond dispute over 00s of years? Of course not. If the economics of the argument wasn't there than we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Economists can talk till the cows come home you just look at the facts on the ground. It's all about Land Labour and Capital.

The only problem right now is the deep recession of 2008/9 and introduction of AI, automation and droids taking over various job functions changing the ratio of inputs ine production process that's called into question just how many workers we need and wouldn't it be good if some of them simply went back when we don't need them as much.

 

[tomorton]

It doesn't even care for its own race and do you seriously think cheap migrant or skilled migrant input into the production process is beyond dispute over 00s of years?

So, is it good for the UK economy or bad? I think there's a lot of opinion about the social impact of immigration, but facts about immigration's impact on the economy are rare. And that's all I'm going to put faith in because its objective, not dependent on someone's individual "tolerance" or culture or biases.

 

[counter_violent]

So, is it good for the UK economy or bad? I think there's a lot of opinion about the social impact of immigration, but facts about immigration's impact on the economy are rare. And that's all I'm going to put faith in because its objective, not dependent on someone's individual "tolerance" or culture or biases.

Some of it is good and some of it is bad.

We need a mechanism to filter out the good from bad. By staying in the EU we had no control over it. Time for the politicians to get real and deal with it.

If you generally accept the principle that the rich and above average earners contribute a disproportionate share in taxes that go to pay for everything, then the answer to the immigration issue becomes a lot clearer. In other words, if our immigrants do not contribute "above average" in taxes, then they are a nett drain on the countries coffers.

 

[Atilla]

Some of it is good and some of it is bad.

We need a mechanism to filter out the good from bad. By staying in the EU we had no control over it. Time for the politicians to get real and deal with it.

If you generally accept the principle that the rich and above average earners contribute a disproportionate share in taxes that go to pay for everything, then the answer to the immigration issue becomes a lot clearer. In other words, if our immigrants do not contribute "above average" in taxes, then they are a nett drain on the countries coffers.

So by your standards, raise wages, reduce corporate profitability by raising cost of production and further reduce corporate tax so who gets to pay any tax.

You are looking at only one side of the argument.

For example the car wash valeting business... Boss must be making some money and customers getting a low cost service from low skilled migrants.

Boot the migrant back to wherever and replace with higher wage Brit. By your argument all things being the same:
1. Wages go up
2. Prices remain the same
3. Profit falls
4. Business ends up paying less corporation tax

Try and work through your proposal in case I have got it wrong?

 

[Atilla]

So, is it good for the UK economy or bad? I think there's a lot of opinion about the social impact of immigration, but facts about immigration's impact on the economy are rare. And that's all I'm going to put faith in because its objective, not dependent on someone's individual "tolerance" or culture or biases.

On the contrary I'm stating precisely that - it has nothing to do with social or political pros/cons wrt migration.

It's simply about the money. If there wasn't any viable reason, we would not have migrant labour. That is as per our interests not migrants.

This is about as simple as it gets.

Anyone who contradicts this is in denial. It is simply about low cost of input and skills.


If governments wanted these foreigners migrants out they would be out. Just issue ID cards and penalise any employer who employs them with a financial penalty.

I don't buy the nonsense about humanity or giving exile to people because we are kind at all. That's one big joke. It's just pure business and about making money.


I usually do a usual acid test and ask the question who are the most successful countries in the world at the moment and what makes them so?

India and China doing well. Why?

Well they have billions of people who could do with what we have. So they have a long way to catch up but they are fast learners. So those who say having a big population is a problem obviously haven't hit the right button. Others have pointed to cities with twice the size of ours doing equally well wrt public services. We arn't unique.

On the other hand happiest countries are norsk nations with very small populations and highest taxes?

That's also cool but take note of "highest tax" and some of the nonsense in approach suggested here doesn't add up. It's all the same rhetoric if only migrants weren't flooding our Island everything will be hunky dory. Fudge and dodge the issue. Let's have small population and pay less tax. Or only import the highest tax paying migrants by giving them high wages. Alternatively, lets boot the low wage migrant out and replace with high wage low skilled but only more lazy endogenous worker.

I'm sure it makes perfect sense in some peoples alternative reality.

:idea:

 

[csc2009]

May continue give statment in Brussels: ''Very clear that UK will leave EU, but not Europe''. Softer tone of Brexit talks, maybe?

 

[dbphoenix]

If you generally accept the principle that the rich and above average earners contribute a disproportionate share in taxes that go to pay for everything, then the answer to the immigration issue becomes a lot clearer. In other words, if our immigrants do not contribute "above average" in taxes, then they are a nett drain on the countries coffers.

And is the contribution of the CEO that much greater than that of the individual who cleans his office? What if there suddenly is no one to clean that office?

There are other ways to contribute other than tax.