Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Zubeneschamali

Xertz wrote: »

Whatever their points of view or political outlook, they are introducing enormous risks and they will ultimately hit the most vulnerable in society i.e. those who don't have a financial buffer.

Hitting the most vulnerable is not the goal, but it is a welcome bonus for the Tories

And the press will blame the bogeymen in Brussels anyhow.

Sam Russell

I wonder if the Tories have heard about Venezuela and their attempt at social engineering by enforcing a Marxist social reform agenda.

What started off well, sort of, has completely collapsed. This is in an oil rich economy.

What chance has the UK got with this doctrinaire political elite?

Strazdas

Xertz wrote: »

All I would say is that forcing an economy into radical reshaping, structural or socioeconomic changes to suit an ideological notion is usually a recipe for absolute disaster. It's impossible to foresee all of the unintended consequences and the intended ones are fairly radical and aggressive to start with.

I think there's a bit of a risk of people sitting in a tech bubble somewhere imagining that they can solve everything with automation and AI are driving this. The UK isn't some tech start up. It's a pretty large, complex, mixed economy that has run as a social democracy since the early 20th century. If you start undermining those things, you will cause serious economic shocks and very dire social and economic consequences for many.

Not only that, but the people who are driving these notions aren't even expert in any of these areas. They're largely a bunch of populists and jingoists two are trying to fit an economy to their ideological needs, rather than fitting the politics to the practical needs of the society they're supposed to be the elected government of.

It's reckless, dangerous and carries enormous risks to the 66 million who live in the UK.

Whatever their points of view or political outlook, they are introducing enormous risks and they will ultimately hit the most vulnerable in society i.e. those who don't have a financial buffer.

Indeed. Some analysts are now speculating that this is not about Brexit or the EU at all and is in fact a power grab by right wing Tories and their numerous media buddies.

People like Cash, Bone, Redwood and IDS are genuine Eurosceptics, but have no influence at all in this regime. The likes of Johnson, Cummings, Patel and Raab are ruthlessly ambitious right wingers and populists who probably couldn't give a hoot about the subject of EU membership, one way or the other. Many in the Daily Telegraph and elsewhere probably fall also into the latter category.

It's an extraordinary thing to watch from the outside.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

I wonder if the Tories have heard about Venezuela and their attempt at social engineering by enforcing a Marxist social reform agenda.

What started off well, sort of, has completely collapsed. This is in an oil rich economy.

What chance has the UK got with this doctrinaire political elite?

Well it's not a Marxist social reform agenda for starters, in fact it's the opposite.
More Trump than Maduro.

Xertz

Strazdas wrote: »

Indeed. Some analysts are now speculating that this is not about Brexit or the EU at all and is in fact a power grab by right wing Tories and their numerous media buddies.

People like Cash, Bone, Redwood and IDS are genuine Eurosceptics, but have no influence at all in this regime. The likes of Johnson, Cummings, Patel and Raab are ruthlessly ambitious right wingers and populists who probably couldn't give a hoot about the subject of EU membership, one way or the other. Many in the Daily Telegraph and elsewhere probably fall also into the latter category.

It's an extraordinary thing to watch from the outside.

Have a read of Dominic Cummings blog posts if you ever want to get a sense of what they're up to. They're publicly accessible, as are writings by several other influential people in the current Tories and their associated think tanks and so on.

It's interesting, but it's also rather detached and does not explain how a country with a vast array of skillsets and abilities is going to function with what is being hinted at, which seems to be a country run by an elite for an elite.

There's a similar vibe to what you'd see in some of the writings of the tech bubble elites in the US, almost like a sense of social engineering by some kind of odd group who would claim to be of superior intellect to the rest of the population.

It really is very odd stuff.

Had Labour not been so chaotic, weak and in-fighting, we would never have arrived at this second term of Tories with a majority.

I really think the UK is facing a very strange few years and it's a lot more than just Brexit. That was just about taking off the safety mechanisms and external checks and balances.

Unless the moderate and pragmatic side of the Tories take back the rudder, there are going to be big problems ahead and there's no prospect of this government ending ahead of their end of term due to the strength of the majority that they won.

serfboard

Xertz wrote: »

Unless the moderate and pragmatic side of the Tories take back the rudder

Are there any moderate Tories left?

Xertz

serfboard wrote: »

Are there any moderate Tories left?

I would suspect there are a lot more than have a platform and a voice at the moment or at least than are willing to stand up against the flow.

If the economy takes a nose dive, I would say you'll start to get a lot of much louder centrist Tory voices coming the fore.

Brexit is certainly, at the stage, not going to be undone. So, I think any arguments around that are really a lost cause, but it may end up that there's a more pragmatic approach taken when this stuff all does come crashing down, which is looking to me anyway as almost inevitable. It's just a load of arrogance and pseudo intellectualism wrapped up in rhetoric, lies and misdirection and appealing to a sense of fear, xenophobia and patriotism. That kind of thing tends to be a house built on sand.

The single biggest challenge to the current Tories is that they are actually in government and will have to deliver on all of these outlandish promises.

ArthurDayne

Strazdas wrote: »

Indeed. Some analysts are now speculating that this is not about Brexit or the EU at all and is in fact a power grab by right wing Tories and their numerous media buddies.

People like Cash, Bone, Redwood and IDS are genuine Eurosceptics, but have no influence at all in this regime. The likes of Johnson, Cummings, Patel and Raab are ruthlessly ambitious right wingers and populists who probably couldn't give a hoot about the subject of EU membership, one way or the other. Many in the Daily Telegraph and elsewhere probably fall also into the latter category.

It's an extraordinary thing to watch from the outside.

From what I can see so far, Brexit is proving to be less about the retention of sovereignty and more about the reduction of executive accountability. ‘Taking Back Control’ seems to have meant something rather narrower to a certain section of the British political class than it did to those who provided the votes for leaving.

- The idea of individual citizens or organisations being able to hold the State to account in the European Court of Justice for breaches of certain rights / obligations — the Executive has moved to eliminate that.

- The process of judicial review whereby citizens can challenge the State, and the judiciary enemies of the people can declare State actions illegal or unconstitutional — the Executive has made it clear that it will seek to curb this.

- The rights inherent in the European Convention on Human Rights, enacted via the Human Rights Act 1998, which provides legal recourse for individuals to challenge the State on human rights breaches — the Executive has made it clear it will seek to curb this.

- The idea of challenge and independence within the Cabinet — the Executive has moved to eliminate that.

- The idea of challenge from government-commissioned committees, such as that which came from Prof Alan Manning of the Migration Advisory Committee (who criticised the government’s migration proposals as vague “soundbites” and was promptly ousted as Chair) — the Executive has moved to eliminate that.

There now seems to be a clear theme of (a) attacking the institutions and constitutional processes via which the Executive finds itself having to account for its actions and (b) eliminating voices of dissent and independence from within. The problem is that, given the UK’s lack of a codified consitution (and therefore a general lack of understanding and appreciation among the average person of what their constitution actually is and does), Brexit has created a kind of vacuum where the Tories are bringing all manner of changes to fit under the Brexit umbrella of ‘taking back control’. Therefore, the Leaver faithful cheer them all the way as, bit by bit, the Executive consolidates its power and lessens the ability of the people to challenge them.

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

Exactly. Where has anyone said they are looking for no growth? I though the whole point of Brexit was that it opened up the UK to the world, that the rest of the world was where future growth lay, not in staid old Europe.

Yes the UK will be opened up to the rest of the world but not in a good way.

IIRC isn' t up 80% of this growth going to be in India and China ?
Visas,visas and visas.

China will also want payback for loosing face because of the opium wars a trade deal that suits themselves. Large investments in UK infrastructure will mean they'll be calling the tune.


And this cannot be said enough, UK exports didn't increase when Sterling fell. Not even to the ex-colonies in Africa where they have brand recognition and budgets can be tight. The myth of growth was debunked in 2017.

Strazdas

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Brexit has created a kind of vacuum where the Tories are bringing all manner of changes to fit under the Brexit umbrella of ‘taking back control’. Therefore, the Leaver faithful cheer them all the way as, bit by bit, the Executive consolidates its power and lessens the ability of the people to challenge them.

And don't forget the right wing press's role in this. Business, the civil service and the judiciary are now the enemy but an unholy alliance has developed between the Tory govt and their corrupt media backers (classic authoritarian stuff).

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe they have come to the conclusion that it is better not to try for infinite growth.
By not importing any more people they will be able to plateau growth and achieve full employment and eventually eliminate homelessness simply by making the natives do the work that currently are dome by immigrants.


Japan has had near zero growth for decades and it does not appear to have done them any serious harm.

Are you talking about the same Japan that has recently taken steps to encourage immigration, primarily because their ageing population is incapable of looking after itself?

Japan’s population is aging and its birth rate is among the lowest in the world. The labor force is depleted, and businesses are desperate for new workers to jump-start a stalled economy. So officials are starting to recognize that they can’t afford to live without immigrants.

source

In recent years, the Abe administration has adopted major changes that will probably sustain the influx of immigrants. In 2017 Japan implemented fast-track permanent residency for skilled workers. In 2018 it passed a law that will greatly expand the number of blue-collar work visas, and — crucially — provide these workers with a path to permanent residency if they want it.

source

Aidric

Enzokk wrote: »

As per my previous post, this is what you expect to hear from someone who believes the drivel the newspapers have been printing for the last few years about immigration. The likes of Patel, Johnson and Cummings seems more like the types to feed them the lies than believe them.

https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1230625055803133953?s=20

Of course people are going to pile on to this woman. Not defending her but she is nothing more than a byproduct of the toxic hysteria that delivered Brexit in the first place.

Instead of lynching her it would be a much better investment of time trying to understand why people like her are so easily manipulated.

Seth Brundle

Aidric wrote: »

Instead of lynching her it would be a much better investment of time trying to understand why people like her are so easily manipulated.

She is easily manipulated because she has been misinformed by the media she reads and the politicians who govern her country.

Strazdas

Seth Brundle wrote: »

She is easily manipulated because she has been misinformed by the media she reads and the politicians who govern her country.

Yes, but probably too dim / uneducated to realise she is being manipulated. The anti-immigrant propaganda has always been pitched at the most stupid people in the country. Farage for example would be well aware of this fact.

listermint

Aidric wrote: »

Of course people are going to pile on to this woman. Not defending her but she is nothing more than a byproduct of the toxic hysteria that delivered Brexit in the first place.

Instead of lynching her it would be a much better investment of time trying to understand why people like her are so easily manipulated.

She's a Tommy Robinson supporter and mouth piece. Not Maggy from around the corner who just happened to walk in off the street.

People like her now what they're doing

Professor Moriarty

listermint wrote: »

She's a Tommy Robinson supporter and mouth piece. Not Maggy from around the corner who just happened to walk in off the street.

People like her now what they're doing

He's right. She's just a useful idiot. A symptom of the malaise.

Strazdas

listermint wrote: »

She's a Tommy Robinson supporter and mouth piece. Not Maggy from around the corner who just happened to walk in off the street.

People like her now what they're doing

Some suspicion on social media too that she was planted in the first row by the BBC and they knew what she was going to say (you wouldn't put anything past the QT producers).

Bit cynical

Strazdas wrote: »

Yes, but probably too dim / uneducated to realise she is being manipulated. The anti-immigrant propaganda has always been pitched at the most stupid people in the country. Farage for example would be well aware of this fact.

If it was merely anti-immigration propaganda then it could be debunked easily. The problem is that not everyone benefits equally from immigration even though it contributes positively to GDP.

Strazdas

Bit cynical wrote: »

If it was merely anti-immigration propaganda then it could be debunked easily. The problem is that not everyone benefits equally from immigration even though it contributes positively to GDP.

But the most Brexity / impoverished parts of England have virtually no immigrants at all (as understandably, no immigrant would want to move there). You have people on the scrapheap being told the reason they are on the scrapheap is because of immigration (and the EU).

Bit cynical

Strazdas wrote: »

But the most Brexity / impoverished parts of England have virtually no immigrants at all (as understandably, no immigrant would want to move there). You have people on the scrapheap being told the reason they are on the scrapheap is because of immigration (and the EU).

So you can either live in a sh*thole part of the country where even immigrants don't go or move and enter into direct competition with immigrants in a slightly better area.

I think the fact still remains that not everyone benefits to the same extent from immigration. If you are an employer you are probably quite glad that you have a large pool of people to draw on without having to raise wages. If you are an employee of that same company you are probably not so happy that your employer is able to keep wages low.

I remember, during one of the earlier incarnations of this thread, someone trying to illustrate the horrors of Brexit. The example was a farmer having to improve living conditions at the accommodation he was providing to temporary farm workers. Since there were going to be fewer EU workers he had to install WIFI and make other improvements - a pain for the farmer but for the employees it meant improved living conditions.

Another group that probably isn't worried about immigrants is highly skilled and paid employees. For them immigration just means cheaper restaurants and other services. They are sufficiently embedded in their jobs that they can't easily be replaced.

I can think of other groups that benefit from immigration. Landlords for example.

But most people aren't in any of these groups. To these other people mass immigration just means longer queues, greater competition for jobs, lower wages.

kowloon

Bit cynical wrote: »

But most people aren't in any of these groups. To these other people mass immigration just means longer queues, greater competition for jobs, lower wages.

An interesting area to watch would be if they fully implemented their points style system and didn't concede visas as part of any trade deals. How would those criticising immigration as it stands feel if now the only immigrants they meet are in well paid , highly trained professions. I'm not sure everyone would be okay with having to call an immigrant boss.

Bit cynical

kowloon wrote: »

An interesting area to watch would be if they fully implemented their points style system and didn't concede visas as part of any trade deals. How would those criticising immigration as it stands feel if now the only immigrants they meet are in well paid , highly trained professions. I'm not sure everyone would be okay with having to call an immigrant boss.

I can't say for sure but I would guess the bigger problem for these people is direct competition for jobs leading to lower wages combined with higher rents and greater waiting times for services.

The point is that it is unlikely to be just propaganda. There are people who don't benefit to any great degree from large scale immigration even though GDP can be boosted. There are others who do benefit directly and significantly.

Strazdas

Bit cynical wrote: »

So you can either live in a sh*thole part of the country where even immigrants don't go or move and enter into direct competition with immigrants in a slightly better area.

I think the fact still remains that not everyone benefits to the same extent from immigration. If you are an employer you are probably quite glad that you have a large pool of people to draw on without having to raise wages. If you are an employee of that same company you are probably not so happy that your employer is able to keep wages low.

I remember, during one of the earlier incarnations of this thread, someone trying to illustrate the horrors of Brexit. The example was a farmer having to improve living conditions at the accommodation he was providing to temporary farm workers. Since there were going to be fewer EU workers he had to install WIFI and make other improvements - a pain for the farmer but for the employees it meant improved living conditions.

Another group that probably isn't worried about immigrants is highly skilled and paid employees. For them immigration just means cheaper restaurants and other services. They are sufficiently embedded in their jobs that they can't easily be replaced.

I can think of other groups that benefit from immigration. Landlords for example.

But most people aren't in any of these groups. To these other people mass immigration just means longer queues, greater competition for jobs, lower wages.

The lower wages thing seems to be just a far right myth. Academics have studied this and think the effect of immigration on wages is nowhere near as strong as imagined.

Another key point is that immigration actually fuels economic growth. The more people at work, the healthier the economy. Reducing the size of the workforce, as the Tories are attempting to do, is very risky - you still have the exact same number of inactive people who need to be looked after by the state.

Bit cynical

Strazdas wrote: »

The lower wages thing seems to be just a far right myth. Academics have studied this and think the effect of immigration on wages is nowhere near as strong as imagined.

At the lower end it is likely to be hidden by the statuary minimum wage so it will manifest itself in lower quality jobs, zero-hour contracts etc rather than simple wage reductions, and also lower employment rates for non-immigrants.

Reviewing the results of 12 studies conducted between 2003 and 2018, the Migration Advisory Committee (2018) drew three conclusions. First, that immigration has little or no impact on average employment or unemployment of existing workers. Second, that where an impact is found it tends to be concentrated among certain groups – i.e. a negative effect for those with lower education and a positive effect for those with higher levels of education. And third, that the impact may depend on the economic cycle; some—though not all—studies have found adverse effects on employment or unemployment specifically during downturns. URL="https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/"]source[/URL

People at the bottom tend to pay the price even if the average impact is not that great.

listermint

Bit cynical wrote: »

At the lower end it is likely to be hidden by the statuary minimum wage so it will manifest itself in lower quality jobs, zero-hour contracts etc rather than simple wage reductions, and also lower employment rates for non-immigrants.

Reviewing the results of 12 studies conducted between 2003 and 2018, the Migration Advisory Committee (2018) drew three conclusions. First, that immigration has little or no impact on average employment or unemployment of existing workers. Second, that where an impact is found it tends to be concentrated among certain groups – i.e. a negative effect for those with lower education and a positive effect for those with higher levels of education. And third, that the impact may depend on the economic cycle; some—though not all—studies have found adverse effects on employment or unemployment specifically during downturns. URL="https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/"]source[/URL

People at the bottom tend to pay the price even if the average impact is not that great.

These look like summations and opinions rather than solid facts I've yet to see a study where immigration isn't a net benefit.

And immigration doesn't happen in low cycles as there are no jobs.

It's all very Facebookey....

Let me guess they take welfare but also take the low paid jobs equally..

rogue-entity

ArthurDayne wrote: »

From what I can see so far, Brexit is proving to be less about the retention of sovereignty and more about the reduction of executive accountability. ‘Taking Back Control’ seems to have meant something rather narrower to a certain section of the British political class than it did to those who provided the votes for leaving.

- The idea of individual citizens or organisations being able to hold the State to account in the European Court of Justice for breaches of certain rights / obligations — the Executive has moved to eliminate that.

- The process of judicial review whereby citizens can challenge the State, and the judiciary enemies of the people can declare State actions illegal or unconstitutional — the Executive has made it clear that it will seek to curb this.

- The rights inherent in the European Convention on Human Rights, enacted via the Human Rights Act 1998, which provides legal recourse for individuals to challenge the State on human rights breaches — the Executive has made it clear it will seek to curb this.

- The idea of challenge and independence within the Cabinet — the Executive has moved to eliminate that.

- The idea of challenge from government-commissioned committees, such as that which came from Prof Alan Manning of the Migration Advisory Committee (who criticised the government’s migration proposals as vague “soundbites” and was promptly ousted as Chair) — the Executive has moved to eliminate that.

There now seems to be a clear theme of (a) attacking the institutions and constitutional processes via which the Executive finds itself having to account for its actions and (b) eliminating voices of dissent and independence from within. The problem is that, given the UK’s lack of a codified consitution (and therefore a general lack of understanding and appreciation among the average person of what their constitution actually is and does), Brexit has created a kind of vacuum where the Tories are bringing all manner of changes to fit under the Brexit umbrella of ‘taking back control’. Therefore, the Leaver faithful cheer them all the way as, bit by bit, the Executive consolidates its power and lessens the ability of the people to challenge them.

Its a similar pattern emerging in other countries, a trend towards authoritarianism.

kowloon wrote: »

An interesting area to watch would be if they fully implemented their points style system and didn't concede visas as part of any trade deals. How would those criticising immigration as it stands feel if now the only immigrants they meet are in well paid , highly trained professions. I'm not sure everyone would be okay with having to call an immigrant boss.

I would be interested in seeing how this plays out.

Meanwhile, the physical changes resulting from Brexit continues to rollout into British life.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51585018

The first blue British passports for nearly 30 years will be issued next month, the Home Office has said.

The current burgundy design is being replaced, following the UK's departure from the European Union.

Blue passports were introduced in 1921 and phased out after 1988 when members of the then European Economic Community agreed to harmonise designs.

Home Secretary Priti Patel said the passport will "once again be entwined with our national identity".

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

Meanwhile, the physical changes resulting from Brexit continues to rollout into British life.

About those passports,

https://twitter.com/paullewismoney/status/1231080360827596800?s=20

Made in Poland by a French firm when the UK company who didn't win the contract has now pulled out of the passport printing business and is putting 200 jobs in the UK at risk.

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

About those passports,

https://twitter.com/paullewismoney/status/1231080360827596800?s=20

Made in Poland by a French firm when the UK company who didn't win the contract has now pulled out of the passport printing business and is putting 200 jobs in the UK at risk.

They're lucky they got them done before WTO tarriffs kick in.

Enzokk

Bit cynical wrote: »

At the lower end it is likely to be hidden by the statuary minimum wage so it will manifest itself in lower quality jobs, zero-hour contracts etc rather than simple wage reductions, and also lower employment rates for non-immigrants.

Reviewing the results of 12 studies conducted between 2003 and 2018, the Migration Advisory Committee (2018) drew three conclusions. First, that immigration has little or no impact on average employment or unemployment of existing workers. Second, that where an impact is found it tends to be concentrated among certain groups – i.e. a negative effect for those with lower education and a positive effect for those with higher levels of education. And third, that the impact may depend on the economic cycle; some—though not all—studies have found adverse effects on employment or unemployment specifically during downturns. URL="https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/"]source[/URL

People at the bottom tend to pay the price even if the average impact is not that great.

Here is a link looking at the impact of immigration on wages from fullfact.org

How immigrants affect jobs and wages

A lot of the supposed problems that immigration is responsible for is actually policy decisions from the government and immigration has little to do with it. So the shortage of school places or waiting times to see doctors has nothing to do with the immigrants coming in. The policy of the government of the time has more impact on this and the reason why people may feel immigrants are responsible for a loss of services is because they hear foreign accents and conflate one problem with the other. But just because there are foreigners also going to the doctor or school or looking to rent doesn't mean they are responsible for the shortage of those services. Correlation isn't causation.

https://twitter.com/AmeetRKini/status/1186491285919731713?s=20