If we vote for Brexit what happens

Samsonite1

CLAPTON wrote: »

what do you think would happen if 1 million shia moved into Saudi tomorrow

a million palistinians move into Israel tomorrow

a million christians move to Sudan

isil move to Germany tomorrow

I think that has nothing to do with Brexit and those places are not in the EU (apart from Germany, but you are talking about people moving from outside of the EU).

Samsonite1

CLAPTON wrote: »

in what way does free movement of white christian people in europe, provide clean drinking water for the people of the world?
or indeed any of the other on my list?

In what way does leaving the EU accomplish anything on your list? The UK is doing ok on your list, so no need to make us more insular if you believe in providing the same for the world as a whole.

CLAPTON

Samsonite1 wrote: »

I think that has nothing to do with Brexit and those places are not in the EU (apart from Germany, but you are talking about people moving from outside of the EU).

No point in discussing something that already exits :

This discussion was about the inevitablity of free movement of people of ALL people (not just white christian europeans).
My view is that TODAY this would be impractical and would lead to war and the death of millions. mwpt thinks differently.

Originally Posted by mwpt View Post
What I stand for is gradual erosion of borders and more integration of the worlds people. It will inevitably happen but will admittedly take a long time. I was therefore opposed to brexit because I feel it was morally the incorrect decision and an unnecessary and backward step from that ideal. It may or may not work out better for the people of the UK as a whole, I said long ago that neither sides economic arguments convinced me.

Samsonite1

CLAPTON wrote: »

No point in discussing something that already exits :

This discussion was about the inevitablity of free movement of people of ALL people (not just white christian europeans).
My view is that TODAY this would be impractical and would lead to war and the death of millions. mwpt thinks differently.

Well I guess that we are all guilty of hijacking this thread away from what it is/was. It draws parallels with the referendum which was just a simple yes/no question, yet it appears to mean more to people after the vote than before...

CLAPTON

Samsonite1 wrote: »

Well I guess that we are all guilty of hijacking this thread away from what it is/was. It draws parallels with the referendum which was just a simple yes/no question, yet it appears to mean more to people after the vote than before...

well, I apologise to you for the confusion caused.

cells

I am still waiting for a reasonable answer to the idea that immigrants hold back productivity as businesses hire a pole on £7.20ph rather than invest in a machine.

I think that is total bullocks

1: productivity gains and improvements are now global. It doesn't matter what the migrants level to the UK is or what their wages are the Americans will invent the self driving transport and with that haulage and transport insurance maintenance legal worldwide will all get a big jump in productivity. This applies to virtually all software improvements. So that is one very huge chunk of the economy you can definitely say is not impacted by migration levels or UK pay.

2. Most machines. Exactly the same as 1. Global.

3. Productivity due to laws and regulations. Should be obvious that has nothing to do with migration levels.

4. Productivity due to nature. Again obvious. If north sea oil and gas declines it's not down to migrants


There may well be a very very few marginal cases where software or hardware can replace humans but the cost isn't worth at at current local human wages. We can try to put a figure on it. The min wage is £7.20ph now. What would of be without migrants? £7.50ph? The last business I worked for operated on a principle of 4 year payback for capital investment. Your looking at ~£100,000 vs ~£105,000 per person replaced by a machine. Anything under £100k would get the inveswnt go ahead and anything over rejected once a small trial was done to conform everything. So only the machines or software that cost between £100-105k per perspn the grey area are the invesents that are marginal in the shift in wages by 5%. And very very few machines/software fall within that band as almost always the machine/software Costa a hell of a lot less than that per person so the productivity improvement investments get made where they work. And of course only a fraction of a fraction of business actually have realistic human to capital replaceable ability. So a tiny fraction times a tony fraction times a tiny fraction and you are close to nil

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

I am still waiting for a reasonable answer to the idea that immigrants hold back productivity as businesses hire a pole on £7.20ph rather than invest in a machine.

I think that is total bullocks

1: productivity gains and improvements are now global. It doesn't matter what the migrants level to the UK is or what their wages are the Americans will invent the self driving transport and with that haulage and transport insurance maintenance legal worldwide will all get a big jump in productivity. This applies to virtually all software improvements. So that is one very huge chunk of the economy you can definitely say is not impacted by migration levels or UK pay.

2. Most machines. Exactly the same as 1. Global.

3. Productivity due to laws and regulations. Should be obvious that has nothing to do with migration levels.

4. Productivity due to nature. Again obvious. If north sea oil and gas declines it's not down to migrants


There may well be a very very few marginal cases where software or hardware can replace humans but the cost isn't worth at at current local human wages. We can try to put a figure on it. The min wage is £7.20ph now. What would of be without migrants? £7.50ph? The last business I worked for operated on a principle of 4 year payback for capital investment. Your looking at ~£100,000 vs ~£105,000 per person replaced by a machine. Anything under £100k would get the inveswnt go ahead and anything over rejected once a small trial was done to conform everything. So only the machines or software that cost between £100-105k per perspn the grey area are the invesents that are marginal in the shift in wages by 5%. And very very few machines/software fall within that band as almost always the machine/software Costa a hell of a lot less than that per person so the productivity improvement investments get made where they work. And of course only a fraction of a fraction of business actually have realistic human to capital replaceable ability. So a tiny fraction times a tony fraction times a tiny fraction and you are close to nil

a well argued case for productivity being exactly the same all over the world.
clearly no need to have any movement of people except for social reasons and a bit of skiing.

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

I am shocked and appalled by your smug, self satisified, middle class, rich, profit orientated, westerm disregard for the real problems of the vast multitude of the people of the world

No, you're not shocked because you know full well you invented that insult out of thin air. Inventing a persona for your opponent in a debate so you can claim the moral high ground is an old and deceitful trick. Well done.

TrickyTree83

mwpt wrote: »

No, you're not shocked because you know full well you invented that insult out of thin air. Inventing a persona for your opponent in a debate so you can claim the moral high ground is an old and deceitful trick. Well done.

And yet on another thread you seem to think I want to deny democracy to Scotland? Despite me saying nothing to imply that.

Does the same not apply for your posts?

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

No, you're not shocked because you know full well you invented that insult out of thin air. Inventing a persona for your opponent in a debate so you can claim the moral high ground is an old and deceitful trick. Well done.

well we have to agree to disagree.

Nothing wrong about discussing how the world might be in 3-400 years time, but to include such stuff as arguments in favour of contemporary action is simply smug grandstanding.

Fortunately, except for the resident loonie lefties, no-one thinks the free movement of peoples (except between white christian European countries ) is realistic.