Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Enzokk

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.

Had to laugh at "Well if we can't bring the (foreign) workers to us we'll take the work to them".

Bit cynical

listermint wrote: »

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

As I said earlier it might well be a net benefit to GDP but that is to miss the point.

Bit cynical

Enzokk wrote: »

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

How immigrants affect jobs and wages

However even this link does not suggest that mass immigration is universally beneficial:

• If the skills of migrants and existing workers are substitutes, immigration can be expected to increase competition in the labour market and drive down wages in the short run. The closer the substitute, the greater the adverse wage effects will be.
• Whether and to what extent declining wages increase unemployment or inactivity among existing workers depends on their willingness to accept the new lower wages.
• If, on the other hand, the skills of migrants are complementary to those of existing workers, all workers experience increased productivity which can be expected to lead to a rise in the wages of existing workers.

In other words, immigration policy should based on complementing skills of existing workers rather than indiscriminate importing of people.

Were the age group who mostly voted for Brexit really the ones losing their jobs over immigration?

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

Were the age group who mostly voted for Brexit really the ones losing their jobs over immigration?

I would expect that different groups voted for different reasons and not all of them for reasons of immigration. The point I was trying to counter was that being against mass immigration is not purely a result of being misled by propaganda. Some people do pay a price (even the links provided by those arguing against it say this) while others benefit even if the overall effect is an increase in GDP. Those who do not benefit are not being necessarily misled when they voice opinions against it.

sondagefaux

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

From next year that physical change in British life will be reflected in the separate queues for non-EEA/non-Swiss passport holders that British travellers using their British passports will have to join on arrival in Schengen countries.

And also in the legal sphere: not only will British passport holders have to apply online for a visa waiver (or visit a Schengen Visa processing centre if they are refused a waiver: about 22% of British people have a criminal record), and pay a fee, before they can travel to a Schengen country, they will lose freedom of movement rights to 26 EU countries (all except Ireland), and to the 3 EFTA countries (Iceland, Norway and Switzerland) that have reciprocal freedom of movement arrangements with the EU.

This summer will be the last summer that British people who want to work or travel, or both, for some or all of the summer in most of the EU will just be able to hop on a train or ferry or plane, and wander across much of Europe at will.

From next year on, they'll have to apply for pre-authorisation before they can even travel to any Schengen country, will be restricted to a maximum of 90 days travel at any one time, may be asked the purpose of their visit on arrival, may be refused entry if they can't prove they have enough money to support themselves for the intended duration of their trip, will need private health or travel insurance, will need special documents, and have to pay fees, if they want to use their own British-registered vehicles, will need special documents, and have to pay fees, if they want to drive with a British driving license, may have to have special documents, and have to pay fees, to be able to bring some personal possessions with them, and will need to get special permission, and have to pay fees, to work, even as seasonal or temporary workers.

20silkcut

Bit cynical wrote: »

As I said earlier it might well be a net benefit to GDP but that is to miss the point.

It obviously is a net benefit to the overall mental well being of the average Brit, the prospect of seeing less foreigners in their country.

Economic arguments can’t reach on that.

Bit cynical

20silkcut wrote: »

It obviously is a net benefit to the overall mental well being of the average Brit, the prospect of seeing less foreigners in their country.

Economic arguments can’t reach on that.

Obviously tempting to make accusations of xenophobia but I don't think this approach ever worked or was an accurate assessment of why the majority voted the way they did.

Xertz

It’s actually already gone. A British friend of mine was written to and turned down for a job they applied for in Spain, citing visa and work permit uncertainty beyond 2020.

sondagefaux

Xertz wrote: »

It’s actually already gone. A British friend of mine was written to and turned down for a job they applied for in Spain, citing visa and work permit uncertainty beyond 2020.

Brexit means adios.

sondagefaux

Bit cynical wrote: »

As I said earlier it might well be a net benefit to GDP but that is to miss the point.

A net increase in economic activity, as represented by a net increase in GDP, isn't harmful to any group in a democratic society, governed for the benefit of all.

If the UK has failed in both of those respects, it's not because of immigration or EU membership.

It's because the UK has never fully transitioned to democracy: it still uses First Past The Post, has no proper constitution, its government is dominated by the executive, with decreasing accountability to parliament, it has still not decentralised significant powers away from the centre, its media ownership laws permit a national press overwhelmingly owned by plutocrats, its judiciary and senior administrators are mainly recruited from an extremely narrowly-based and largely self-perpuating inter-generational élite, its land ownership and corporate ownership structures remain opaque and facilitate mass tax avoidance and tax evasion, its public education system is designed and operated to reward exam performance, not critical thinking or independent research-based study, its private education system encourages nepotism and cronyism, its out-of-work benefits system is designed to make recipients feel fear and to comply with often erratic and inconsistent demands rather than to provide them with social security.

Any one of these would be bad enough, but the combination of them all operating together is utterly toxic.

All of these features of the UK state and society are entirely within its control to remedy: neither restricting immigration nor leaving the EU will make the UK a better place to live in. Fixing these home-grown problems will.

sondagefaux

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 an active supporter of Tommeh. No need to suppose she's been manipulated, some people just grow up to be hateful.

sondagefaux

CelticRambler wrote: »

It's all suspiciously reminiscent of the US, where benefits don't exist in any meaningful way, where unemployment is supposedly at an all-time low, yet the lowest income earners have to work two or three jobs simultaneously to make ends meet.

I suppose if nothing else good comes from Brexit, at least there's an outside chance that the Leavers might realise just how much those pesky European immigrants contributed to the benefits safety net enjoyed by the natives.

If you don't have a younger workforce paying taxes, it gets harder and harder to pay state pensions to retired people.

Which can lead to suggestions like this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20044862

It's from 2012, but it chimes with Patel's ideas about putting the economically inactive to work.

briany

sondagefaux wrote: »

If you don't have a younger workforce paying taxes, it gets harder and harder to pay state pensions to retired people.

Which can lead to suggestions like this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20044862

It's from 2012, but it chimes with Patel's ideas about putting the economically inactive to work.

Said by a peer who doesn't have to worry about being made do any work himself.

Anyway, the Tories can't be far away from just saying they need to reopen the workhouses. They might dress it up a little bit, though, call them 'activation centres' or something.

McGiver

briany wrote:

Anyway, the Tories can't be far away from just saying they need to reopen the workhouses. They might dress it up a little bit, though, call them 'activation centres' or something.

There's has always been a certain Tory fascist/authoritarian undercurrent. Even within the so called "One Nation" Tories. They have it in the blood. So do the Labour (see CCTV police state policy under Blair) to some extent. Their political elite are in majority fascist, exceptionalist, entitled, arrogant imperialists, but many wouldn't say it directly.

It's just that now the extreme amongst extreme got into power and this is all so apparent. This is an attempt for Reaganism-Thatcherism on steroids and to complete what Thatcher started and basically deconstruct the welfare state, deregulate and privatise everything.

briany

McGiver wrote: »

There's has always been a certain Tory fascist/authoritarian undercurrent. Even within the so called "One Nation" Tories. They have it in the blood. So do the Labour (see CCTV police state policy under Blair) to some extent. Their political elite are in majority fascist, exceptionalist, entitled, arrogant imperialists, but many wouldn't say it directly.

It's just that now the extreme amongst extreme got into power and this is all so apparent. This is an attempt for Reaganism-Thatcherism on steroids and to complete what Thatcher started and basically deconstruct the welfare state, deregulate and privatise everything.

To what end? Before the welfare state, poverty and destitution were rife, and the means of providing for the old, sick, and otherwise needy was crude and harsh. It was only with the introduction of the welfare state that the UK and many other countries could guarantee a certain basic standard of living to all of its people, and although the media loves to focus on a certain minority who game the system, the positives would far outweigh the negatives.

I just think the desire to end the welfare state and privatise everything is short-sighted, even for the biggest fat cat around. You grow your underclass exponentially who cannot afford to spend money, thereby stagnating the economy, and if you let large companies run amok, you'll probably find they try to rig the laws in their favour, thereby stifling innovation and new entrepreneurs entering the marketplace. To do these things would be to sow the seeds of a revolution.

Bit cynical

sondagefaux wrote: »

A net increase in economic activity, as represented by a net increase in GDP, isn't harmful to any group in a democratic society, governed for the benefit of all.

I'm not sure I agree with that as a general assumption. Not all increases in GDP benefit society equally.

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm not sure I agree with that as a general assumption. Not all increases in GDP benefit society equally.

Of course not. That's not his point.

CrabRevolution

Strazdas wrote: »

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).

I remember seeing a post on a scottish page about QT Scotland after a debate on independence. During the episode a front row audience member gave a passionate anti-SNP rant. Nothing wrong with this one its own, but a few viewers thought he seemed quite familiar, and after further research it turned out he'd been on QT 4 times in the last few years, and on 3 of those occasions he just happened to be sitting in the front rows and asked to comment by the host. It also transpired he was a UKIP election candidate and avid supporter of loyalist bands and the orange order.

The odds on appearing on QT once are slim, never mind getting a speaking part. So the odds on getting to speak 3 separate times must be astronomically low.....unless of course the producers specifically want you there.

amacca

briany wrote: »

To what end? Before the welfare state, poverty and destitution were rife, and the means of providing for the old, sick, and otherwise needy was crude and harsh. It was only with the introduction of the welfare state that the UK and many other countries could guarantee a certain basic standard of living to all of its people, and although the media loves to focus on a certain minority who game the system, the positives would far outweigh the negatives.

I just think the desire to end the welfare state and privatise everything is short-sighted, even for the biggest fat cat around. You grow your underclass exponentially who cannot afford to spend money, thereby stagnating the economy, and if you let large companies run amok, you'll probably find they try to rig the laws in their favour, thereby stifling innovation and new entrepreneurs entering the marketplace. To do these things would be to sow the seeds of a revolution.

None of that matters to loons/zealots and borderline morons (if not outright)

And the disaster capitalists amongst them will smile so the way to the bank.

kowloon

CrabRevolution wrote: »

The odds on appearing on QT once are slim, never mind getting a speaking part. So the odds on getting to speak 3 separate times must be astronomically low.....unless of course the producers specifically want you there.

You need to have someone with the opposite viewpoint to give a balanced programme. For example, that time they had someone on about how it was bad to pitchfork babies, they also had to have someone on the panel who loved to pitchfork babies. That way they were able to create balance and reflect the views of the general public who fall on both sides of the pitchforking babies debate.

Itssoeasy

https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1230625055803133953?s=21

I've kept away as much as I can from brexit since the date they withdrew and are now in the transition but still try to figure why they though leaving was a good idea and what mindset underpinned the brexiteers thinking and the tweet reminded me as to why it happened.

Nody

Itssoeasy wrote: »

https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1230625055803133953?s=21

I've kept away as much as I can from brexit since the date they withdrew and are now in the transition but still try to figure why they though leaving was a good idea and what mindset underpinned the brexiteers thinking and the tweet reminded me as to why it happened.

It's easy; "Brown people bad; English the bestest"; Brexit in a nutshell and so easy even the local voters get it if their arguments are to be believed. Everything beyond that point is window dressing to try to make an actual coherent non racist argument in some form but the core values here are very simple to understand.

ThePanjandrum

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.

The procurement had to take place under EU tendering rules. We aren't French so we don't subvert the rules with claims of national security.

ThePanjandrum

Nody wrote: »

It's easy; "Brown people bad; English the bestest"; Brexit in a nutshell and so easy even the local voters get it if their arguments are to be believed. Everything beyond that point is window dressing to try to make an actual coherent non racist argument in some form but the core values here are very simple to understand.

I see (via Wikipedia) that the Irish population is 2.1% Asian, 1.4% Black, the United Kingdom is 4.2% Asian, 3% Black. Perhaps you should look in the mirror before claiming that other countries are racist.

Bit cynical

Nody wrote: »

It's easy; "Brown people bad; English the bestest"; Brexit in a nutshell and so easy even the local voters get it if their arguments are to be believed. Everything beyond that point is window dressing to try to make an actual coherent non racist argument in some form but the core values here are very simple to understand.

But the new points system that people are upset about here on this thread removes the preference given to majority white Europeans. Not sure how that is racist.

Strazdas

Bit cynical wrote: »

But the new points system that people are upset about here on this thread removes the preference given to majority white Europeans. Not sure how that is racist.

Why reduce immigration at all? It seems a purely racist / xenophobic policy. UK businesses are totally opposed to it and are in despair at what the Tories are doing - there can scarcely be a single company in the UK lobbying for a reduction in immigration numbers.

(UK Govt have openly stated they are trying to reduce immigration numbers alongside changing the skills set criteria).

Bit cynical

Strazdas wrote: »

Why reduce immigration at all? It seems a purely racist / xenophobic policy. UK businesses are totally opposed to it and are in despair at what the Tories are doing - there can scarcely be a single company in the UK lobbying for a reduction in immigration numbers.

(UK Govt have openly stated they are trying to reduce immigration numbers alongside changing the skills set criteria).

I think they might have overdone it a bit and will probably change some time in the future but most countries world have some form of immigration control. Skills based point systems are not uncommon.

Strazdas

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

I see (via Wikipedia) that the Irish population is 2.1% Asian, 1.4% Black, the United Kingdom is 4.2% Asian, 3% Black. Perhaps you should look in the mirror before claiming that other countries are racist.

Ireland was a colony of the UK and never had any territories overseas. Most of the UK's (England's) multi ethnic mix is due to the former empire and the Commonwealth. Population of Scotland and NI is very similar in make up to that of the ROI.

ThePanjandrum

Brendan O'Neill posts one of the few sensible articles about "that woman on Question Time"

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/02/21/why-they-hate-that-question-time-woman/