Brexit, the economy and house prices (Part 3)

A_Medium_Size_Jock

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Project Fantasyland

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

panglossian nonsense

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Project Fear Hamish-style.
If only your imagination were not quite so flowery as your vocabulary

See what Fullfact has to say:

The principle of non-discrimination means that WTO members must not treat any member less advantageously than any other: grant one country preferential treatment, and the same must be done for everyone else.
There are exceptions for regional free trade areas and customs unions like the EU, but the principle implies that, outside of these, the tariff that applies to the ‘most-favoured nation’ (MFN) must similarly apply to all.
In practice, this should prevent the EU introducing tariffs on the UK which would discriminate against us or punish us, or the UK introducing similar tariffs on the EU.

Just as important for trade, are the standards required of products imported from outside the EU. All UK businesses must comply with these standards already, although leaving the EU might lead to costly differences between the UK and EU product standards. On the other hand, Leave campaigners have argued that if we leave the single market as well as the EU, only exporters will have to be bound by the EU’s product standards. Other businesses would be free to operate under a UK regime.

https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-leaving-eu-trade/

LSE?

The second economic argument relates to the regulatory zeal of the European Commission that has placed numerous and unnecessary burdens on businesses. The rules and regulations of the single market relate to the 44 percent of exports to the EU. This is less than 15% of GDP but all those regulations apply to the remaining 85% of the economy.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/06/03/leaving-the-eu-would-reduce-prices-cut-regulation-and-redirect-money-toward-priorities/

It seems quite obvious therefore that as with most things Brexit-related, there simply is no clear-cut evidence - in this case to support the opinion that Brexit will involve great cost.
Despite Hamish's assertions to the contrary.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

From ABC News & an interview with George Stephanopoulos:

"I'm going to make sure that Brexit happens because the British people voted for it."

:T

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkFI1weiQB0

A bit of an "iffy" transcript here if you would rather: (Grammatical & spelling errors mostly.)
http://nhub.news/ru/2017/09/uk-prime-minister-on-brexit-it-will-happen-video/

padington

Conrad wrote: »

I think the Boris intervention is all part of he game we're playing. It sends the message to the EU that if Mrs May doesn't get the right deal, we could end up with someone like Boris in number ten which the EU would probably not want.

I know some Tories say they are fuming, but I do think this is all part of a classic British assault tactic.

No, it's just a shambles.

BobQ

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

For all the Brexit naysayers and doom mongers thinking that a Great Britain outside the EU will suffer some kind of "cash" and suffer diminishing influence globally, the following suggests otherwise:

http://henryjacksonsociety.org/2017/09/12/towards-global-britain/
From the report itself:

http://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Towards-Global-Britain.pdf

What do these people know?

BobQ

mrginge wrote: »

(1) should only ever be a short term solution used to cover the lead time on (2). That's sensible long term strategic planning.

Blair and the EU's FoM policy turned (1) into the norm and therefore chucked (2) in the bin.

Its true that these things need long term strategies. Have you noticed any of them?

Are we training enough nurses and motivating enough of them to work in the NHS for example?

Blair left Government in 2008. What did Cameron and May do to address the problem. Had a strategy been in place we would have been training enough nurses by now that there would be no need to employ foreign nurses.

I am not absolving Blair of his part in this but there were 20% more nurses being trained under Blair in 2004 than currently in the UK. My point is - where is the strategy?

https://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/Nursing-workforce-February2016.pdf

CKhalvashi

BobQ wrote: »

Its true that these things need long term strategies. Have you noticed any of them?

Are we training enough nurses and motivating enough of them to work in the NHS for example?

Blair left Government in 2008. What did Cameron and May do to address the problem. Had a strategy been in place we would have been training enough nurses by now that there would be no need to employ foreign nurses.

I am not absolving Blair of his part in this but there were 20% more nurses being trained under Blair in 2004 than currently in the UK. My point is - where is the strategy?

https://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/Nursing-workforce-February2016.pdf

And then, at a time the NHS is struggling to cope in more areas than nursing (although it is the main one, granted) largely due to an aging population, we have the MP for Harlow (which has a hospital with a bad reputation) rejoicing how we're saving money by scrapping bursaries, whilst paying R&R to the staff they have solely to keep them (ok, he kept that part quiet although from conversations with staff both at that hospital and others, R&R are being paid almost routinely in many more circumstances than in 2010).

I'm gathering from the debate in question paired with my knowledge at least of what is happening locally that cost cutting could be actually increasing costs.

I haven't gone fully Labour towards a belief that university education should be free, however I believe in the Lib Dem 2010 policy of keeping tuition fees around the £3k mark. A theoretical CK government would also bring back bursaries for the NHS (subject to a minimum employment period following qualification) and look at introducing bursaries for other shortage sectors with conditions attached.

We do need a strategy and while it's too late tonight to come up with anything other than the above, remind me at a time my brain is fully functioning and I will happily come up with a rough plan for debate purposes.

System

Conrad wrote: »

I think the Boris intervention is all part of he game we're playing. It sends the message to the EU that if Mrs May doesn't get the right deal, we could end up with someone like Boris in number ten which the EU would probably not want.

I know some Tories say they are fuming, but I do think this is all part of a classic British assault tactic.

A fantastical theory which has no basis in reality.

There are two messages being sent

(1) there's a party leadership campaign happening
(2) the reason negotiations are going nowhere is the government still haven't decided what they want.

Tory internal politics trumps all. It always has - they can't help themselves.

Arklight

kabayiri wrote: »

No. No they don't.

Maybe you are confusing 'club' with 'prison'?

When Poland and the other EU countries start making net contributions on a regular and substantial basis, you can be darn sure they will be demanding more out of the EU in return.

We are too stupid and too compliant to belong to this club. Time to focus on our interests for a change.

Europeans, including Poland, believe in Europe as an institution which has prevented war and delivered prosperity for the longest period in Europe's history, and provides the only logical bulwark between Russian and American hegemony.

Do you seriously believe the Polish want to be run by Russia again? They are well aware of what being a member of a club you have no say in is like.

The UK, on the whole, has never understood this. Will European countries complain about the EU and try and get as much from it as possible? Yes. Will they ever go it alone? No.

The UK already had an amazingly good deal in Europe, with opt outs of almost everything we wanted to opt out of, control over our own borders, and a veto.

I am still waiting for anything to look forward to in the Brexiteers' vision of the future.

TrickyTree83

CKhalvashi wrote: »

No, it does matter.

A lot of blame has been put on the EU for 'only making Germany richer at the expense of everyone else', so lets pull your argument apart and look at this from a different perspective.

This isn't an EU fault, it's a domestic government fault. Surely you can see that whatever the government has to spend on leaving would be better spent dealing with new export contracts, looking after the disabled properly and properly funding our public services. After all if that were to happen we'd all be better off as a result of it rather than waiting on trade deals that we are fine in principal but we all know we won't have for a number of years and may not viably bring the great successes that some of the more overconfident members here believe it will.

As I've said before, it's easier to do business on our doorstep than thousands of miles away, why has the UK never embraced that opportunity?

No really, it doesn't matter.

It's like arguing over how WW1 or WW2 started, it's happened and there's nothing anyone can do to change that. The focus should be on building a better future and what the immediate future might entail.

TrickyTree83

CKhalvashi wrote: »

And then, at a time the NHS is struggling to cope in more areas than nursing (although it is the main one, granted) largely due to an aging population, we have the MP for Harlow (which has a hospital with a bad reputation) rejoicing how we're saving money by scrapping bursaries, whilst paying R&R to the staff they have solely to keep them (ok, he kept that part quiet although from conversations with staff both at that hospital and others, R&R are being paid almost routinely in many more circumstances than in 2010).

I'm gathering from the debate in question paired with my knowledge at least of what is happening locally that cost cutting could be actually increasing costs.

I haven't gone fully Labour towards a belief that university education should be free, however I believe in the Lib Dem 2010 policy of keeping tuition fees around the £3k mark. A theoretical CK government would also bring back bursaries for the NHS (subject to a minimum employment period following qualification) and look at introducing bursaries for other shortage sectors with conditions attached.

We do need a strategy and while it's too late tonight to come up with anything other than the above, remind me at a time my brain is fully functioning and I will happily come up with a rough plan for debate purposes.

Bursaries are a mistake.

Too many would take up the course and fail to finish it at total taxpayer expense.

Source, my sister a recently graduated ITU nurse.

If we agreed to refund the tuition payments of those who graduated and then worked in the NHS for say 5 years afterwards that seems more reasonable. For those who take from the public purse and give nothing back - it should be a loan.

Because I know you like to argue the toss.

https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/education/student-nurse-dropout-rates-tackled-in-national-study/7005392.article

States in 2015 the attrition rate for England is circa 20%.

It costs circa £70,000 to train a nurse.

https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/scharr/news/healthcare_immigration-1.473917

Around 20,000 nursing training places are offered each year under the bursary system. 20% of that (the attrition) is 4000, that would mean that £280,000,000 is spent on training people who never become nurses in the UK. Of the remaining 80% I've not got a figure for how many are nurses in the UK for more than 6 months let alone 5 years or anything more substantial.