Brexit and the Consequences

[Signalcalc]

Why such reliance on economic grounds when all it needs is for a dissatisfied member to call an election on ideological grounds. After all Brexit is mostly based on ideology, not economics, project fear made the economic case, whilst Brexiteers voted on ideology, look who won and who was wrong!

If Germany, Poland, Greece, France, Hungary, Italy, or any of the rest of them has a government that calls a referendum, you can easily see the people voting for their own Brexit’s and none of that will be based on the economic situation of the UK.

AFD in Germany springs to mind, the rise of eurosceptic power makes this a real possibility, what a disaster for the EU that would be [emoji1360]

What about Orban? If the EU cuts funding based on migration quotas, then they must be having a very hard think about their own Brexit.

 

[tomorton]

Why such reliance on economic grounds when all it needs is for a dissatisfied member to call an election on ideological grounds.......

Because the general population won't vote for something that - they believe - will make them worse off.

Plus, the situation has changed since the UK referendum because we are going to be the GDP guinea pigs for everyone else who might want to run an exit campaign. If they can see in 5 years time we have a stable government and a stronger and faster growing GDP than we had up to 2016 and than the EU has post-Brexit, the European Exiteers are home and dry. But if the best we manage is to stand still, there'll be no more exit campaigns in Europe for the foreseeable (unless an extreme populist ideological leader is in power: unfortunately, we've seen that before).

 

[Atilla]

Why such reliance on economic grounds when all it needs is for a dissatisfied member to call an election on ideological grounds. After all Brexit is mostly based on ideology, not economics, project fear made the economic case, whilst Brexiteers voted on ideology, look who won and who was wrong!

If Germany, Poland, Greece, France, Hungary, Italy, or any of the rest of them has a government that calls a referendum, you can easily see the people voting for their own Brexit’s and none of that will be based on the economic situation of the UK.

AFD in Germany springs to mind, the rise of eurosceptic power makes this a real possibility, what a disaster for the EU that would be [emoji1360]

What about Orban? If the EU cuts funding based on migration quotas, then they must be having a very hard think about their own Brexit.

Dear SC, do you really know or understand what the EU is all about? Without throwing all my toys out the pram, you honestly haven't a clue - eh hemmm imo. Cough cough cough.

EU is an Economic Union and primarily so. Politics is what followed. You need to go back to Coal and Steel and start reading again. Then move on to CAP policy as a way of preventing outbreak of war and starvation post WW1 & WW2 suffering.

It then progressed to harmonisation of taxes with a common market.

The big criticism was having a common fiscal policy ie taxation and no mention of supply side monetary policy until single currency which followed. That in turn
necessitates sort of a common due political establishment to manage it all as success of the common market required it so.

Politics has been the tail end.


I think Tomoroton's posts are spot on with respect to how the future is likely to unwind for us and windup for the EU.

 

[Atilla]

Because the general population won't vote for something that - they believe - will make them worse off.

Plus, the situation has changed since the UK referendum because we are going to be the GDP guinea pigs for everyone else who might want to run an exit campaign. If they can see in 5 years time we have a stable government and a stronger and faster growing GDP than we had up to 2016 and than the EU has post-Brexit, the European Exiteers are home and dry. But if the best we manage is to stand still, there'll be no more exit campaigns in Europe for the foreseeable (unless an extreme populist ideological leader is in power: unfortunately, we've seen that before).

Agree with your posts strongly Tom,


This move by the Lords also look's like wise direction and stewardship of our Brexit process imo.

It has nothing to do with thwarting Brexit but merely establishing a controlled exit, assuming facts and benefits on the ground remain the same and earth beneath our feet doesn't shift as the words of quite a few politicians do.


The House of Lords inflicted another defeat on the U.K. government over its key piece of Brexit legislation, voting to strip out the fixed timing for Britain to leave the European Union.

The government in November inserted 11 p.m. on March 29, 2020 into its own bill to “remove any confusion or concern about what ‘exit day’ means,” Brexit Secretary David Davis said at the time. It was viewed as an attempt to pacify Brexit supporters who feared exit talks dragging on, but critics said it removed the flexibility to extend discussions if needed. Those seeking to thwart Brexit also want to be able to extend membership to give them time to maneuver.

EU member states would have to agree unanimously to any extension.

“What is the point of putting the date on the face of this bill when it may have to be changed in circumstances which we cannot foresee?” Conservative peer Charles Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, told lawmakers on Tuesday. “This date should not be defined and specified on the face of the bill in case it becomes necessary and in the national interest to agree an extension” to talks.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-may-over-eu-agencies-in-key-brexit-bill-vote

 

[Signalcalc]

Dear SC, do you really know or understand what the EU is all about? Without throwing all my toys out the pram, you honestly haven't a clue - eh hemmm imo. Cough cough cough.

EU is an Economic Union and primarily so. Politics is what followed. You need to go back to Coal and Steel and start reading again. Then move on to CAP policy as a way of preventing outbreak of war and starvation post WW1 & WW2 suffering.

It then progressed to harmonisation of taxes with a common market.

The big criticism was having a common fiscal policy ie taxation and no mention of supply side monetary policy until single currency which followed. That in turn
necessitates sort of a common due political establishment to manage it all as success of the common market required it so.

Politics has been the tail end.


I think Tomoroton's posts are spot on with respect to how the future is likely to unwind for us and windup for the EU.

I don't know, you and Tomo are just stick in the muds, you need to move with the times, get with the program, the EU has just shafted itself with an unsustainable uncontrolled immigration programme. Would you care to explain the reasons behind that, as I'm finding it difficult to find an economic reason, so one must conclude that it is a political ideology reason, but wait, no-one has explained that either, so it must just be a miscalculation? If it was the latter, then why hasn't it already been halted, maybe it's because they have absolutely no idea how to handle the number of migrants knocking on the border of the EU (alot stuck on the Turkish/Greek border), there are millions approaching just from Africa alone - the EU would rather stick their heads in the sand and ignore it and the consequences (and you appeared to have joined them)!

Of course without an economic backbone, none of the political ideology would matter as no dominant class would exist and nothing could be imposed under the guise of an economic union. What was/is the plan all along, now gone horribly wrong?

It's just political Marxism, carefully planned, except for one thing, they didn't count on European resistance, so not so carefully planned after all.

Bleat on about how it's all economic all you want, but history has moved on faster than your observations. Brexit shows just how quickly life can come at you, the EU and UK politicians were/are totally unprepared for it People did not vote on the economics, they voted on what they had been observing for the previous 20-30 years with a little nudge in 2015 with Merkels disastrous open border policy.

I'll ask the question again, what plan has the EU communicated to it's members for the future vision in 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years?

 

[Atilla]

I don't know, you and Tomo are just stick in the muds, you need to move with the times, get with the program, the EU has just shafted itself with an unsustainable uncontrolled immigration programme. Would you care to explain the reasons behind that, as I'm finding it difficult to find an economic reason, so one must conclude that it is a political ideology reason, but wait, no-one has explained that either, so it must just be a miscalculation? If it was the latter, then why hasn't it already been halted, maybe it's because they have absolutely no idea how to handle the number of migrants knocking on the border of the EU (alot stuck on the Turkish/Greek border), there are millions approaching just from Africa alone - the EU would rather stick their heads in the sand and ignore it and the consequences (and you appeared to have joined them)!

Of course without an economic backbone, none of the political ideology would matter as no dominant class would exist and nothing could be imposed under the guise of an economic union. What was/is the plan all along, now gone horribly wrong?

It's just political Marxism, carefully planned, except for one thing, they didn't count on European resistance, so not so carefully planned after all.

Bleat on about how it's all economic all you want, but history has moved on faster than your observations. Brexit shows just how quickly life can come at you, the EU and UK politicians were/are totally unprepared for it People did not vote on the economics, they voted on what they had been observing for the previous 20-30 years with a little nudge in 2015 with Merkels disastrous open border policy.

I'll ask the question again, what plan has the EU communicated to it's members for the future vision in 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years?

UK is under no compulsion to take on any migrants outside of the EU. I don't know where you get your facts from.

As before there is nothing to prevent UK policing it's borders for migrants outside of UK.


Maybe you might learn something from the migrants if you allowed your self to pause for reflection. Governments and nationalities alone mean jack. It's all about living in peace and finding some work to do.

If UK starts to struggle then yes people will move to find jobs and I can only imagine migrating over the river to Europe or anywhere else that'll have them.


Sometimes I think the Brexit plan is to reduce employment prospects in the UK to drive migrants to other countries in the hope the lazy unemployed will have to get off their back sides once social services are cut to the bone and people all over the place become destitute. Becareful what you whish for

 

[Signalcalc]

UK is under no compulsion to take on any migrants outside of the EU. I don't know where you get your facts from.

I didn't say that, stop putting words into my mouth, I am talking about the migrant crisis in Europe, some of which spills into the UK, as you well know.

As before there is nothing to prevent UK policing it's borders for migrants outside of UK.

But the UK doesn't! Why?

Maybe you might learn something from the migrants if you allowed your self to pause for reflection. Governments and nationalities alone mean jack. It's all about living in peace and finding some work to do.

I don't even know what this means?

If UK starts to struggle then yes people will move to find jobs and I can only imagine migrating over the river to Europe or anywhere else that'll have them.

Sounds like a line from project fear.

Sometimes I think the Brexit plan is to reduce employment prospects in the UK to drive migrants to other countries in the hope the lazy unemployed will have to get off their back sides once social services are cut to the bone and people all over the place become destitute. Becareful what you whish for

Even I don't believe that you believe that

 

[tomorton]

The EU migrant policy is a tricky one, as its fairly well established that migrants have a short-term economic impact which is at best neutral and more often slightly negative.

However, beyond that term, and I mean 30+ years beyond, they have a positive impact. They increase the population, and large populations normally mean a larger economy, with a larger tax base. Immigrants and second and third generation immigrants are often highly incentivised to succeed and outperform the host population in academic achievements and earning power. They may bring assets with them, which is a bonus, but more likely they offer an immediate pool of low cost labour which is unrooted within Europe and free to transfer wherever there is work. They generate children faster than the indigenous European population, which accelerates population growth. When they acquire voting rights, they are highly likely to support the (usually leftist) governments which admitted them, and cetainly the EU itself as a framework, whereas they are not highly committed to any particular nation states within Europe. To some extent they are also hostages to an EU structure with continuing benign migration policy as they wish to bring spouses and relatives into the EU in future years when they are established: it certainly appears that few national governments are keen on uncontrolled immigration so why would the migrants or their descendants vote in any way for continuing European states?

So there are three main benefits to a committed EU-believer - economic, political and anti-nation state. They will be a large and fast-growing voter body which will support the EU in its quest to abolish individual European states and unite Europe.

This only makes sense on a 50-100 year time-frame, but I have tried to emphasise that the EU is not a trading association with its profit-driven short-termism - it is a historic political project and in that context the migrant policy is totally rational.

 

[mike.]

just a couple of figures to throw into the pot... Quote:"Jonathan Portes, a professor of economic and public policy at King’s College London, said the fall in EU net migration was because the UK had become “significantly less attractive to European migrants, for both economic and psychological reasons”, after the Brexit vote. He said this was likely to be one of the factors that explained the slowdown in UK economic growth relative to the rest of Europe and the world.

The annual net migration figure of 244,000 remains more than double the official government target of below 100,000. The immigration minister, Caroline Nokes, said: “Net migration remains 29,000 lower than it was a year ago and once we leave the EU we will be able to put in place an immigration system which works in the best interest of the whole of the UK"

If the EU strives for equality within its member nations why is there such a migration deficit ? What is so attractive about the Uk as opposed to the other 27 ? the weather ?

 

[Signalcalc]

The EU migrant policy is a tricky one, as its fairly well established that migrants have a short-term economic impact which is at best neutral and more often slightly negative.

However, beyond that term, and I mean 30+ years beyond, they have a positive impact. They increase the population, and large populations normally mean a larger economy, with a larger tax base. Immigrants and second and third generation immigrants are often highly incentivised to succeed and outperform the host population in academic achievements and earning power. They may bring assets with them, which is a bonus, but more likely they offer an immediate pool of low cost labour which is unrooted within Europe and free to transfer wherever there is work. They generate children faster than the indigenous European population, which accelerates population growth. When they acquire voting rights, they are highly likely to support the (usually leftist) governments which admitted them, and cetainly the EU itself as a framework, whereas they are not highly committed to any particular nation states within Europe. To some extent they are also hostages to an EU structure with continuing benign migration policy as they wish to bring spouses and relatives into the EU in future years when they are established: it certainly appears that few national governments are keen on uncontrolled immigration so why would the migrants or their descendants vote in any way for continuing European states?

So there are three main benefits to a committed EU-believer - economic, political and anti-nation state. They will be a large and fast-growing voter body which will support the EU in its quest to abolish individual European states and unite Europe.

This only makes sense on a 50-100 year time-frame, but I have tried to emphasise that the EU is not a trading association with its profit-driven short-termism - it is a historic political project and in that context the migrant policy is totally rational.

Well put and most likely the reason why there is a large, growing resistance to the EU across Europe. On a 50-100 year timescale, it is a frightening prospect to many citizens that the nation states of Europe will 'disappear' as a direct result of EU mass migration policies, replaced by the dreaded political 'I' ideology (dreaded not just because no-one dare speak about such a word for fear of being labelled, but also because of what it represents), this idea alone is driving many to oppose the EU.

Modern migrants are not the same as those from 50 years ago, the 'windrush era' were hard working commonwealth citizens, with great work ethics, family orientated, adopted host nations culture whilst integrating thier own cultures and instilled a greater work and achievement ethic in their offspring.

The latest migrants appear not to be the same at all, a mixed bag of pre-westernised consumers and religious freakery, with little regard for citizen's rights of host nations, no family values, corrupt in various forms, feral and bringing tribal conflicts with them and an aggressive resistance to integrate with host cultures. There are genuine refugees of course, but it doesn't appear that they make up the majority, we all lose out under these circumstances.

The fate of the EU is at a juncture, there are no signs that the central command of the EU is going to change it's course of action, quite the opposite, therefore it is left to the citizens to act at the ballot box. The race is on, if the EU is able to import enough future voters they will maintain their domination, albeit morphed into something probably unrecognisable to what we see today, otherwise indigenous citizens may save themselves from themselves.

Closer to home, you have already seen the same playbook operate in major cities in the UK where the minority vote aligns mostly with the left to become the majority, aided by the left of course, and those areas have all turned red (left-wing). The conservative right also seems incapable of making a stand for their own traditional values and has progressively also moved left, where do we go from here?

Oh dear, what a mess this has become, it was going so well until political union, the economics are really a side show in this context.

 

[Signalcalc]

just a couple of figures to throw into the pot... Quote:"Jonathan Portes, a professor of economic and public policy at King’s College London, said the fall in EU net migration was because the UK had become “significantly less attractive to European migrants, for both economic and psychological reasons”, after the Brexit vote. He said this was likely to be one of the factors that explained the slowdown in UK economic growth relative to the rest of Europe and the world.

One should note that Jonathan Porter writes for the Guardian, so no MSM bias there

What is so attractive about the Uk as opposed to the other 27 ? the weather ?

Benefits?

 

[mike.]

One should note that Jonathan Porter writes for the Guardian, so no MSM bias there



Benefits?

Surely not.. Thats got to be the last thing on the minds. :whistling

 

[Signalcalc]

The annual net migration figure of 244,000 remains more than double the official government target of below 100,000. The immigration minister, Caroline Nokes, said: “Net migration remains 29,000 lower than it was a year ago and once we leave the EU we will be able to put in place an immigration system which works in the best interest of the whole of the UK"

244,000 works out around 4,700 per week, and the politicians scratch their heads about why there is a housing and NHS crisis? Head/sand/clueless/or something more sinister springs to mind maybe?

 

[Pat494]

244,000 works out around 4,700 per week, and the politicians scratch their heads about why there is a housing and NHS crisis? Head/sand/clueless/or something more sinister springs to mind maybe?

The immigrants are cheap labour and a boost to the building industry for housing needs.

 

[timsk]

. . . If the EU strives for equality within its member nations why is there such a migration deficit ? What is so attractive about the Uk as opposed to the other 27 ? the weather ?

Apologies to one and all if I've told this story earlier in the thread . . .

Just prior to the referendum, our house was on the market and one of the viewings we had was by a GP who ran a practice in Birmingham but was wanting to retire to Devon to be near her children and grandchildren. After talking about the house, I asked her if she'd decided which way to vote. She said she was struggling because, with her GP hat on she'd vote leave, but if she took the NHS out of the equation, then she'd vote remain. I was perplexed by her answer and asked her to expand on it. She went on to explain that her practice was overwhelmed by migrants with HIV and that she was obligated to provide the med's they needed at a cost of circa £16k per patient per year. According to her, the UK is one of the few countries (the only one?) where they can get their med's for free - which is one reason why they are so keen to come here in preference to anywhere else. Needless to say, this isn't just confined to patients with HIV - that was just one example - it applies to healthcare across the board. Have you ever wondered why migrants in Calais risk life and limb to cross the channel to the UK rather than just putting down roots in France - well now you know!

All EU pigs are equal, although it seems that some EU pigs are more equal (or less equal, depending upon your point of view) than others.
Tim.

 

[barjon]

Apologies to one and all if I've told this story earlier in the thread . . .

Just prior to the referendum, our house was on the market and one of the viewings we had was by a GP who ran a practice in Birmingham but was wanting to retire to Devon to be near her children and grandchildren. After talking about the house, I asked her if she'd decided which way to vote. She said she was struggling because, with her GP hat on she'd vote leave, but if she took the NHS out of the equation, then she'd vote remain. I was perplexed by her answer and asked her to expand on it. She went on to explain that her practice was overwhelmed by migrants with HIV and that she was obligated to provide the med's they needed at a cost of circa £16k per patient per year. According to her, the UK is one of the few countries (the only one?) where they can get their med's for free - which is one reason why they are so keen to come here in preference to anywhere else. Needless to say, this isn't just confined to patients with HIV - that was just one example - it applies to healthcare across the board. Have you ever wondered why migrants in Calais risk life and limb to cross the channel to the UK rather than just putting down roots in France - well now you know!

All EU pigs are equal, although it seems that some EU pigs are more equal (or less equal, depending upon your point of view) than others.
Tim.

Very few of the migrants in Calais are EU citizens. Similarly I would guess most of your GP’s HIV migrant cases are not EU citizens. Thus the EU’s free movement is not the main culprit and that particular pressure on the NHS is unaffected by in or out.

 

[Atilla]

just a couple of figures to throw into the pot... Quote:"Jonathan Portes, a professor of economic and public policy at King’s College London, said the fall in EU net migration was because the UK had become “significantly less attractive to European migrants, for both economic and psychological reasons”, after the Brexit vote. He said this was likely to be one of the factors that explained the slowdown in UK economic growth relative to the rest of Europe and the world.

The annual net migration figure of 244,000 remains more than double the official government target of below 100,000. The immigration minister, Caroline Nokes, said: “Net migration remains 29,000 lower than it was a year ago and once we leave the EU we will be able to put in place an immigration system which works in the best interest of the whole of the UK"

If the EU strives for equality within its member nations why is there such a migration deficit ? What is so attractive about the Uk as opposed to the other 27 ? the weather ?

We've had this before.

Net migration means - not much without composition info. Otherwise simply strokes brexiteers agenda.

What is EU net migration and what % are university students.

It is the composition of migrants that are important as well. Skilled, non-skilled. Sectors employed in ie farming or NHS.

What % are from the Commonwealth?

What % are relatives of bodies here already?


These are the numbers we should be looking at to make an informed opinion :idea:

 

[Atilla]

Apologies to one and all if I've told this story earlier in the thread . . .

Just prior to the referendum, our house was on the market and one of the viewings we had was by a GP who ran a practice in Birmingham but was wanting to retire to Devon to be near her children and grandchildren. After talking about the house, I asked her if she'd decided which way to vote. She said she was struggling because, with her GP hat on she'd vote leave, but if she took the NHS out of the equation, then she'd vote remain. I was perplexed by her answer and asked her to expand on it. She went on to explain that her practice was overwhelmed by migrants with HIV and that she was obligated to provide the med's they needed at a cost of circa £16k per patient per year. According to her, the UK is one of the few countries (the only one?) where they can get their med's for free - which is one reason why they are so keen to come here in preference to anywhere else. Needless to say, this isn't just confined to patients with HIV - that was just one example - it applies to healthcare across the board. Have you ever wondered why migrants in Calais risk life and limb to cross the channel to the UK rather than just putting down roots in France - well now you know!

All EU pigs are equal, although it seems that some EU pigs are more equal (or less equal, depending upon your point of view) than others.
Tim.

Also, this is not an EU requirement. As said before UK benefits far more generous. Cameron was told this as well.

Why put this stuff on EU I have no idea... Brexiteers are desperate bunch even if I do agree with them.

 

[Atilla]

Noticed the Union Jack has been changed down my way!

Was it you CV?


Also, there was an old, somewhat torn one on a boat and that's been renewed as well. I'l get some pics of that another day.

 

[sminicooper]

Is this the problem with Brexit?

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/sell-the-may-and-walk-away/

Perhaps a bit of old-fashioned trading folklore is what is needed?