Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

kabayiri

Brown_Bear wrote: »

I agree with what you say.
But if the workers think that the govt will allow labour supply to tighten and wages to increase - they're wrong.
The govt will do what they did post WW2 - invite workers from the Commonwealth / RoW.

A slight change to the immigration rules and boom - plenty of workers for the Tory Party donors to employ and Tory voting landlords to house etc.

It's quite possible. All the voter could do was to vote. Implementation is not in our control.

It's the same with General Elections. They can promise to do things, but that's not the same as carrying out these promises.

We shouldn't rely on help from global business either. I've been in enough meetings, to realize that they really don't care where the labour comes from, or where work is relocated to.

Brown_Bear

Takedap wrote: »

Seroiusly?? You seem to be talking about a "thinking man's racist"



I'm on about the genuine knuckle draggers who believe that anyone who isn't English shouldn't be here & the ones who truly believe that all Muslims are rapists & terrorists.


How many Tommy Robinson supporters do you think voted to remain because they EU backs up their extremist views?

I think the complicating issue to this EU = white migrants mindset - is the Middle East refugee issue. That was prominent around 2014-16. Many leave voters probably feared that the ME/NA refugees would come from Greece / Italy to the UK.

This fear was actually well justified - as the Greek govt had hinted that without more money, they'd just issue Greek (ie EU) citizenship to all the refugees. That was one good bargaining chip the Greeks and Italians had - because everyone knew the refugees wouldn't stay in Greece.

Obviously Merkel stepped in and invited the refugees to Germany (ie called the Greeks' bluff and removed their bargaining power) - but it was certainly enough of an issue for the UK Leave campaign to use the 'migrant poster'.

Brown_Bear

kabayiri wrote: »

It's quite possible.

We shouldn't rely on help from global business either. I've been in enough meetings, to realize that they really don't care where the labour comes from, or where work is relocated to.

True. Business managers have a legal responsibility to maximise profits for the shareholders. It would be illegal for them to do anything else.

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

You've unintentionally pointed out the problem with the WA. Most treaties and agreements contain a clause that permits one of the parties to opt out. The Treaty of Utrecht didn't so Spain is stuck with the loss of Gibraltar unless and until the UK hands it back.

The WA has no clause by which the UK can abrogate it so if we signed it we would be stuck with it until the EU agrees to release us. We would have to be bonkers to accept it.

That's the whole point of the backstop though - if we can't ensure a borderless system we are stuck until we solve it one way or another. It'd be a pointless backstop if we could just drop it after some time period*.


If you want the backstop to end, prove to the EU that it's not needed.


*Naturally, we could end it by going full WTO and putting up a hard border, or by rejoining the single market. So it's not as if we're completely stuck honouring the terms we agreed to.

Herzlos

phillw wrote: »

Not only that, saying £18 billion a year seems less. 350 is bigger than 18 and saying we pay that every week multiplies it. I can't find anything to say that we actually make weekly contributions, I don't think it's a coincidence that the numbers were chose for maximum manipulation.

We send our contribution to the EU once a year, minus the previous years rebate (as I understand it). The bus figures were deliberately picked and framed to play to emotion, whilst having no hint of accuracy.


For the claims it didn't make a difference - how many people needed to be swayed to scrape the marginal win, again? Something like 600,000?


And that's only for a single lie. Can any leavers honestly say that they weren't helped over the line by racists and people who believe lies written on buses? That an informed public would vote leave again?

Herzlos

I'm surprised no-one has been talking about the £33m Eurotunnel payout after Graylings mess with the ferry company with no ferries or history of shipping:


https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-eurotunnel/uk-pays-eurotunnel-33-million-pounds-over-secretive-no-deal-brexit-ferry-contracts-idUKKCN1QI4BR


Given that the £33m is a pre-court settlement, does that not cast serious doubts on our governments ability to do, well, anything, properly in regards Brexit?

Brown_Bear

kabayiri wrote: »

I have 2 factors for choosing Leave.

One is a belief that we will not be able to spend enough on infrastructure and housing to meet the open-ended demand that a freedom like FOM dictates. This belief is based on seeing decades of under-investment, combined with the austerity situation we are in. For me, it's a logical reaction to kill off FOM.

Second is a belief that the EU is heading for much deeper problems, linked to the Euro, and also malcontent based on flawed refugee decisions, this malcontent pushing individual states/EU parliament to the right.

I prefer a risk-mitigation approach, which is to sit outside the EU. If the EU offered almost guaranteed success, then a successful nation like Norway would have signed up.

But...here's the key point.

Both the above rely on projections. I am entitled to interpret these as I see fit, and I do not have to apologize to anybody for my resulting vote. Until as such time voting is made illegal, I will continue to make my own decision.

You make a fair point - but the decision not to improve infrastructure is a political choice.
The UK has the labour (immigration).
It has the currency to pay the workers and materials etc (QE).
It has the space (in the North / Scotland etc).

Problem is the choice to prioritise financial services etc in London and the SE.

Brown_Bear

Herzlos wrote: »

I'm surprised no-one has been talking about the £33m Eurotunnel payout after Graylings mess with the ferry company with no ferries or history of shipping:

Given that the £33m is a pre-court settlement, does that not cast serious doubts on our governments ability to do, well, anything, properly in regards Brexit?

UK politician f**ks up and wastes money...?
Hardly an unusual event.

Brown_Bear

Much of the money the UK govt gives to the EU comes back to the UK in regeneration projects.

The problem for the govt is that those projects tend not to be in marginal constituencies. The EU basically redistributes wealth around the UK in a way that the UK govt will not do.

However, most EU regeneration projects have been in poorer areas which voted leave (in general).

So the obvious, but slightly harsh, conclusion could be that most Leave voters were stupid.

BUT - in fact, Danny Dorling has shown that it was actually Hyacinth Bucket (the middle class, village bunting types) who pushed Brexit over the line. NOT the flat-capped Northerner.

kabayiri

Brown_Bear wrote: »

You make a fair point - but the decision not to improve infrastructure is a political choice.
The UK has the labour (immigration).
It has the currency to pay the workers and materials etc (QE).
It has the space (in the North / Scotland etc).

Problem is the choice to prioritise financial services etc in London and the SE.

I think the UK public has been remarkably compliant when it comes to dealing with mass migration.

But...decades of underspend on housing, and half a dozen years of austerity, well it all starts to catch up at some point. You see the pinch points now.

I live in a good area. I'm lucky. It has good schools. DW attends the school board meetings, and they are scratching their head at coping with the additional demand the new houses will generate.

It would be nice to think the government were planning to splash the cash, but it's unlikely. We are still running a deficit.