Brexit means Brexit

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

Its actually very simple

we don't have a labour problem at the moment
but we do have housing problems and we do have massive infrastructure backlog
and we do have an imports problems

there is zero evidence that high population but low productivity countries are better off that lower population but higher productivity countries

we may or may not have a labour problem in about 25 years time

so a rational person will wait and see what will happen and stop immigration now and make the UK a better place to live for its citizens

if in the future we choose to encourage immigration in the circumstances at the time, then so beit.

What do you think is going to work more smoothly
0.25 million immigrants each year for 30 years
or waking up in 2046 and try to import a million immigrants each year for 10 years?

the uk has no housing problem, most of it is cheaper than social housing. The uk has no infrastructure problem, where there are needs and thus costs, that is more than offset where under utilized infrastructure is used better.


If you take the native birth rate to be 1.5 longer term deaths will outnumber births by ~280,000 a year.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

about 100% of the countries of the world do not allow free movement of labour. 100% of countries of the world live with the consequences.

it is not so much about free movement, but to have a growing population which for the UK is linked to EU free movement. If the UK got rid of free movement but still gave out enough residency permits for the population to grow about 500,000 a year things would not be all that bad

Many of the countries of the world already have this growing population. Only a few are shrinking, places like Japan/Germany and some smaller countries.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

What do you think is going to work more smoothly
0.25 million immigrants each year for 30 years
or waking up in 2046 and try to import a million immigrants each year for 10 years?

the uk has no housing problem, most of it is cheaper than social housing. The uk has no infrastructure problem, where there are needs and thus costs, that is more than offset where under utilized infrastructure is used better.


If you take the native birth rate to be 1.5 longer term deaths will outnumber births by ~280,000 a year.

clearly no rational person thinks the alternatives are between 0.25 million per year for 30 years and a million for 10 years after 2046.

There are absolutely no downsides to stopping immigration for, say 5-10 years and seeing what the situation will be at that time.
There is a considerable need to spend a lot of money on support services and infrastructure.
I don't really see that the NHS has a lot of under utilised capacity that will 'benefit' from additional demand, although I do think it is used inefficiently.

I don't share your wonder with the idea of megacities and each of us having 6 x 3 living space however 'efficient ' that may be.

AnotherJoe

nkomp18 wrote: »

Welcome to the real world

Countries don't operate on emotion and on "being nice".

When a bank tells you "Your home may be repossessed if you don't keep up with your payments", that's not blackmail. It would be nice if the banks and the laws where a bit "nicer", but it's not realistic.

Trade agreements and politics between nations or groups of nations is right about the most sterile and strict agreements so that there are no misunderstandings and abuses of either side. These agreements took decades to forge and have eventually led to great prosperity.

Now UK needs to forge new ones from scratch and it will be painfully difficult but what did you expect? Other countries to be "nice" and throw free billions at the UK?

Again, its Project Fear. An equating with bank lending is a false analogy. This is a meeting of equals. A better bank analogy would be more along the lines of "if you owe a bank a million pounds, you're in trouble. If you owe a bank a billion pounds, the bank is in trouble". And in this case, the EU "owes" us billions though its exports to us.

What I expect is that economic rationality will take hold rather them them being driven by spite, the shock and pique is alreday trending into calmer statements. From no negotiation until Rule 50, to lots of things being floated in the press about what might be acceptable to them,and thats just after a few weeks. They haven't yet had the full impact of exchange rates starting to hit their exports. Adding tariffs on top of that would be an economic disaster for them.

So lets wait and see. Any tariffs that the EU will impose on the UK will spectacularly backfire on their politicians. They arent that irrational, they like their jobs.

The unelected Eurocrats may be, but they are heading for a fall, they've already been slapped down by Merkel, Juncker is on borrowed time, the EU needs us economically as much as we need them (and arguably less).

Arguments like yours make me wish i had voted for Brexit, I have no wish to be ruled by the scum you are quite happy to hold us to ransom for a few pounds.

AnotherJoe

mayonnaise wrote: »

I love this argument.
We decide to leave the largest free trade area in the world and when that free trade area then points out that we will lose unfettered access, it's them being irrational and spiteful.

But we were just told by a Remainer that CETA would be a good model to follow but we cant have it merely because of their spite, "to teach us a lesson" in effect. !

(c) Canada is close to negotiating CETA which offers tariff-free imports. ....

But CETA won't be an option for the UK. A point needs to made about the consequences of tearing up your club membership. Originally posted by kinger101

If thats not spite what is?

mayonnaise

AnotherJoe wrote: »

But we were just told by a Remainer that CETA would be a good model to follow but we cant have it merely because of their spite, "to teach us a lesson" in effect. !

(c) Canada is close to negotiating CETA which offers tariff-free imports. ....

But CETA won't be an option for the UK. A point needs to made about the consequences of tearing up your club membership. Originally posted by kinger101

If thats not spite what is?

CETA is a trade agreement between Canada and the EU.
If we leave the EU, we're obviously not part of CETA.
It's really not that hard to understand.
No spite.

AnotherJoe

mayonnaise wrote: »

CETA is a trade agreement between Canada and the EU.
If we leave the EU, we're obviously not part of CETA.
It's really not that hard to understand.
No spite.

It obviously is for you? Unless you are deliberately trying not to understand??

The simple concept would be an analogous agreement between Britain and EU. Lets call it BETA

It would not involve just anyone from the EU rocking up here and claiming housing, child, medical and other benefits, just as I'm positive, without even knowing the details, that CETA wont give anyone in the EU the right to rock up at Toronto airport and breeze through immigration by flashing a burgundy passport.

mayonnaise

AnotherJoe wrote: »

It obviously is for you? Unless you are deliberately trying not to understand??

The simple concept would be an analogous agreement between Britain and EU. Lets call it BETA

It would not involve just anyone from the EU rocking up here and claiming housing, child, medical and other benefits, just as I'm positive, without even knowing the details, that CETA wont give anyone in the EU the right to rock up at Toronto airport and breeze through immigration by flashing a burgundy passport.

No idea how a BETA would look like, mate.
I expected there would be a plan by now. Something more than 'brexit is brexit'.
I could say 'lunch is lunch' and that could be anything between lamb fillets with aubergine puree and couscous...or a bowl of porridge.

Eric_the_half_a_bee

mayonnaise wrote: »

I expected there would be a plan by now.

There is a clear plan. Negotiate the best possible deal on trade consistent with retaining control over immigration. Only a naive fool would want to conduct that negotiation in public.

mwpt

Eric_the_half_a_bee wrote: »

There is a clear plan. Negotiate the best possible deal on trade consistent with retaining control over immigration.

Err, why do we have to do this? I haven't yet been asked to vote on a government who want to control or restrict immigration.

I don't think there is any mandate to restrict immigration at this point, merely to exit the European Union.