10 minutes ago, tebee said:

There will be just as many of the latte two  whether we are in the EU or out of it.

 

 

That may or may not be the case - the difference is that the UK will be able to make the decisions on how humanitarian it wishes to be .

10 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

If he/she had work that paid well, they would not be homeless after being kicked out of their rented accommodation (for non-payment of rent?)

 

Presumably the person was employed in a very low paying job.  Great for the employer who is able to take advantage of the abundance of cheap, foreign labour - not so great for the brits. at the bottom of the pyramid.

Are you saying you can't trust your own British capitalists?

Maybe the UK should not have stalled on the EU social legislation?

Surely you will vote for Corbyn - unless you concider him a softy?

 

 

45 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

QUOTE: Hundreds of thousands of fit, healthy looking young men arriving in Europe in their designer jeans, clutching their iPhone’s and iPad’s, didn't much look like they were running away from hunger and disease.

Yeah, really? In their rubber boats? Disgracefull to say such a thing!

 

But to come back to the topic:

Was the EU unprepared for the arrival of so many migrants? Of course they were, and they let us down big time.

Would the individual countries have been better prepared? Of course not.

As a matter of fact, the problems with individual countries would have been much bigger, each country trying to let the burdon go to other countries, even more than today.

Criticising the EU for their handling of the migrant problem is not a valid pro Brexit argument, and yet, it is the main reason for the Brexiteers.

 

Nobody can say they were not warned.

The soixante-huitards have been saying for 50 years that such extreme poverty only a short distance away from our "paradise" would not remain accepted.

TV and social media accellerated this.

And we also suggested the solution: investment in those poor countries, and no wars for oil and minerals.

The problem could have been solved through gradual economic progress.

 

 

 

   

I find it deeply offensive to accuse me of saying something disgraceful in order to make your point.

 

You seem to have a predilection for sensationalising everything, as if it gives your comments added weight and morality, whilst steadfastly refusing to accept that Europe has been invaded by hundreds of thousands of economic migrants as well as genuine refugees

 

When I referred to illegal immigrants, you responded by calling them refugees, which are an entirely different group, one that I sympathise with. When I explained the difference, you claimed they were running away from hunger and disease; now you use the sensationalist effect of rubber boat imagery. Thousands of healthy young men have arrived in Europe wearing decent cloths and carrying smart phones, the fact that this does not fit your narrative, does not give you the right to say I have made a disgusting comment by simply mentioning the fact. Please try to remain polite

8 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

   

I find it deeply offensive to accuse me of saying something disgraceful in order to make your point.

 

You seem to have a predilection for sensationalising everything, as if it gives your comments added weight and morality, whilst steadfastly refusing to accept that Europe has been invaded by hundreds of thousands of economic migrants as well as genuine refugees

 

When I referred to illegal immigrants, you responded by calling them refugees, which are an entirely different group, one that I sympathise with. When I explained the difference, you claimed they were running away from hunger and disease; now you use the sensationalist effect of rubber boat imagery. Thousands of healthy young men have arrived in Europe wearing decent cloths and carrying smart phones, the fact that this does not fit your narrative, does not give you the right to say I have made a disgusting comment by simply mentioning the fact. Please try to remain polite

QUOTE: Hundreds of thousands of fit, healthy looking young men arriving in Europe in their designer jeans, clutching their iPhone’s and iPad’s,

 

Rubber boat imagery?

Disgusting comment!

30 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

That may or may not be the case - the difference is that the UK will be able to make the decisions on how humanitarian it wishes to be .

For asylum seekers the UK is bound by international agreements  with the UNHCR - like http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/protection/basic/3b66c2aa10/convention-protocol-relating-status-refugees.html What we would lose is the Dublin Protocol, which lets us return  asylum seekers to the first country of entry to the EU. 

 

For illegal immigrants, they are still going to come if we are not in the EU !

 

I don't think you will see much difference.  

1 minute ago, tebee said:

For asylum seekers the UK is bound by international agreements  with the UNHCR - like http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/protection/basic/3b66c2aa10/convention-protocol-relating-status-refugees.html What we would lose is the Dublin Protocol, which lets us return  asylum seekers to the first country of entry to the EU. 

 

For illegal immigrants, they are still going to come if we are not in the EU !

 

I don't think you will see much difference.  

 

 

What it means is that the EU will not be in a position to dictate allocation of numbers of refugees.

 

That may not mean any difference.

20 minutes ago, tebee said:

For asylum seekers the UK is bound by international agreements  with the UNHCR - like http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/protection/basic/3b66c2aa10/convention-protocol-relating-status-refugees.html What we would lose is the Dublin Protocol, which lets us return  asylum seekers to the first country of entry to the EU. 

The UK is an Island.

 

The only way genuine asylum seekers can reach the UK is by flight.

 

Tramping over a Continent to claim asylum in the UK is not part of the UNHCR protocol, which is to claim asylum in the 1st safe Country.

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

I am lost? We had an empire that spanned the globe at the start of the war and you refer to us as being one of the smallest countries? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are cherry picking.

The point is, the UK has always been resilient. Ok, we had the empire back then.  But how many years since the empire has gone, and we're still one of the world's biggest economies?

 

The UK always finds a way, and will again after we finally escape that ridiculous club we are funding.

3 hours ago, tebee said:

 

Now we in Monty Python black knight territory here  - 'Tis just a flesh  wound.

 

The Banking crisis of 2008 caused a 2.5% reduction in GDP - this would be 3 times as bad

 

If I offer you and analysis of your new pension deal as giving you a 7.7% reduction in payouts would you still go for it because it was just an analysis? 

 

Firstly if they leave there will be a further reduction in GDP as the are mostly young and in employment, we will also lose all the businesses that served them'

 

Secondly we might get 1.5 million UK citizens returning from Europe, 1 million of which will be OAPs  

I'm talking about if we have a hard Brexit - JIT manufacturing can not survive if there are customs checks and services won't be allowed to sell to the EU.

 

So you are going to jump off a cliff and wait until arrive at the  the certan fact of you meeting the ground at the bottom before deciding if it was a good idea or not ?

You never seem to consider any of the potential positive impacts.  All this focus on the negatives must be stressful for you.

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

You never seem to consider any of the potential positive impacts.  All this focus on the negatives must be stressful for you.

 

 

What potential positive impacts?

16 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

You never seem to consider any of the potential positive impacts.  All this focus on the negatives must be stressful for you.

 

 

 

Most irritating video I've seen

27 minutes ago, Justfine said:

Most irritating video I've seen

Very relevant to the remoaners. Apart from being selfish people, many of them seem to be in denial of what is achievable,when we finally leave the straight jacket of the E.U.

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, nontabury said:

Very relevant to the remoaners. Apart from being selfish people, many of them seem to be in denial of what is achievable,when we finally leave the straight jacket of the E.U.

 

 

 

 

 

If someone could suggest a possible positive outcome then I am all ears, however no one seems able to suggest anything other than negative effects from Brexit.  Every pledge the Leave campaign made has been proven to be impossible, so just what are these potential achievements we could see from leaving?

These are some pics of QUOTE: Hundreds of thousands of fit, healthy looking young men arriving in Europe in their designer jeans, clutching their iPhone’s and iPad’s,

Serves them right for being economic migrants.

 

PS. I note that Mr Pilgrim has reduced his claim of hundreds of thousands to thousands - reduce it further and I am sure Europe can cope with them.

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

These are some pics of QUOTE: Hundreds of thousands of fit, healthy looking young men arriving in Europe in their designer jeans, clutching their iPhone’s and iPad’s,

Serves them right for being economic migrants.

 

PS. I note that Mr Pilgrim has reduced his claim of hundreds of thousands to thousands - reduce it further and I am sure Europe can cope with them.

 

 

 

Hey, that's a banana boat at Clacton....

1 minute ago, transam said:

Hey, that's a banana boat at Clacton....

I just remember why I put you on my ignore list.

Yes, I was curious whether you had changed your sense of humour, and perhaps even gave up your silly emoticons.

It will not happen again.

Another deplorable comment on refugees.

 

11 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

These are some pics of QUOTE: Hundreds of thousands of fit, healthy looking young men arriving in Europe in their designer jeans, clutching their iPhone’s and iPad’s,

Serves them right for being economic migrants.

 

PS. I note that Mr Pilgrim has reduced his claim of hundreds of thousands to thousands - reduce it further and I am sure Europe can cope with them.

 

 

 

Nice and tasteful that,   posting a photo of dead bodies on a beach to try and make a point ……… but of course, you don't indulge in sensationalism, do you

45 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

 

If someone could suggest a possible positive outcome then I am all ears, however no one seems able to suggest anything other than negative effects from Brexit.  Every pledge the Leave campaign made has been proven to be impossible, so just what are these potential achievements we could see from leaving?

Yes I would be nice to know some - the brexit leaders seem to have gone "sunlit uplands' to ' at least it probably won't be armageddon' 

"Two sides: between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets; who are formed by a different breeding, are fed by a different food, are ordered by different manners, and are not governed by the same laws...THE REMAINERS AND THE LEAVERS!”

http://www.howtoacademy.com/courses/lets-not-leave-europe-manifesto-saving-britain-will-hutton-andrew-adonis?utm_source=How+To+Academy+List&utm_campaign=71ae891b4d-15%2F05%2F18_Let’s+Not+Leave+Europe+(HtA)&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_857e8c205c-71ae891b4d-45991837&mc_cid=71ae891b4d&mc_eid=ea2dbeb032

 

This should be good!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Nice and tasteful that,   posting a photo of dead bodies on a beach to try and make a point ……… but of course, you don't indulge in sensationalism, do you

Facts, not sensationalism.

And is this the best reply you can come up with?

How about appologising for your QUOTE: Hundreds of thousands of fit, healthy looking young men arriving in Europe in their designer jeans, clutching their iPhone’s and iPad’s,

1 hour ago, tebee said:

 

What potential positive impacts?

There are lots of positive opinions if you dig around.  I think us Brexiteers are less inclined to ram this stuff down people's throats, because the referendum went our way, and also the fact that most of us voted to leave for much more important reasons than keeping the economy steady (sovereignty issues etc.). Here's one example for you. A bit long, so apologies in advance!

 

The benefits of free trade have been familiar to economists since Adam Smith. Trade encourages specialisation and leads to lower costs, higher productivity and higher living standards.

Yet for some economists, things are different when it comes to the UK leaving the EU’s customs union and single market. The customs union was built on the German Zollverein model of protecting domestic industries from foreign competition around the time of German unification 150 years ago. Today, free trade is promoted within the EU, which is good. But the customs union imposes barriers to trade with the rest of the world, which is not.

The single market also imposes a hugely burdensome regulatory edifice on economic activity within the EU. Brexit will give the UK the opportunity to pursue its own free trade policy with the rest of the world and to escape the needless regulatory burdens of the single market.

The consensus is misleading

One of the problems with much of this analysis is the apparent reluctance by many economists to model scenarios in which Brexit provides any benefit at all to the UK economy. For example, a key plank of the CEP modelling is their assumption that Brexit would cause a reduction in foreign direct investment (FDI) of over 20%.

In fact, inward investment in the UK has been at record levels since the referendum, while confidence about future FDI into the UK is higher now than before the referendum. Clearly, had the CEP been prepared to model a scenario in which Brexit increased FDI, they would have come up with a much more balanced range of estimates of the net effect of leaving the EU.

Even worse, the impression is sometimes given that the economics profession is united in predicting that Brexit can only lead to significant losses for the UK economy. In fact, as a new book by economists Phil Whyman and Alina Petrescu demonstrates, this idea of a consensus is misleading.

For example, work by Patrick Minford, chair of Economists for Free Trade (EFT), concludes that embracing free trade, regaining control over the net EU budget contributions and reducing the regulatory burden could give a boost to the UK economy of up to 7% of GDP – some £135 billion a year.

Minford’s work takes a different approach, emphasising rational expectations and the supply side of the economy. Now, of course it is normal for economists to debate the pros and cons of different modelling approaches and it is quite reasonable to question them.

What is not reasonable is to dismiss out of hand any attempt to take seriously potential gains to the supply side of the economy and the efficiency gains from greater free trade. Indeed, Minford has made a detailed and robust defence of his model arguing that it fits the reality of trade flows much better than the gravity approach.

The Brexit issue has brought out the worst of many economists. In some cases, they have allowed their political prejudices to colour their scientific judgement. Whether or not Brexit leads to improvements or reductions in economic well-being remains to be seen.

What should not be in doubt is that there are sound economic reasons for believing that Brexit has the potential to bring about significant economic gains for the UK. The referendum is over and Britain knows that it will be leaving the EU. Rather than prolonging the discredited Project Fear, now is the time for economists to work hard to ensure that those potential benefits from Brexit come to fruition.

A different approach

It has been suggested that the model used in the EFT analysis is so flawed as to be worthless in comparison to the “gravity model” used for calculations favoured by the Treasury and CEP. With the gravity model, bilateral trade and FDI flows between two countries are modelled as a function of economic variables such as a country’s economic output (GDP), demographic variables such as population size, geographic variables such as distance, and cultural variables such as a common language. A standard conclusion of this model is that it is better to be as close as possible to a big trading block.

But how well does the gravity model predict trade and FDI flows? Not that well. Britain’s main trading partners in the 19th century were the US, Canada, the West Indies, Argentina, Brazil and China. Not a near neighbour from the European continent in sight. The UK’s share of exports to the EU has fallen from 54% in 2006 to 43% today, whereas given the move to “ever closer union” over this period, the gravity model would suggest that the share should have moved in the opposite direction.

 

https://theconversation.com/how-the-uk-can-benefit-from-a-free-trade-future-after-brexit-even-outside-the-single-market-84171

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

If he/she had work that paid well, they would not be homeless after being kicked out of their rented accommodation (for non-payment of rent?)

 

Presumably the person was employed in a very low paying job.  Great for the employer who is able to take advantage of the abundance of cheap, foreign labour - not so great for the brits. at the bottom of the pyramid.

OK, you win

 

I had been led to believe that affordable rental property was hard to come by

 

The judge obviously agreed.

7 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

I just remember why I put you on my ignore list.

Yes, I was curious whether you had changed your sense of humour, and perhaps even gave up your silly emoticons.

It will not happen again.

Another deplorable comment on refugees.

 

***Another deplorable comment on refugees***

 

What are you talking about, you just said they were economic migrants, not refugees

 

your quote:  “Serves them right for being economic migrants” maybe you have finally conceded that there is a huge difference between the two groups

Just now, Eloquent pilgrim said:

***Another deplorable comment on refugees***

 

What are you talking about, you just said they were economic migrants, not refugees

 

your quote:  “Serves them right for being economic migrants” maybe you have finally conceded that there is a huge difference between the two groups

No, I have not.

Same same.

And you need to brush up on understanding sarcasm.

3 hours ago, transam said:

Yes, the UK should have remained in control of India...

aren't we?

 

Good Lord! 

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

 

If someone could suggest a possible positive outcome then I am all ears, however no one seems able to suggest anything other than negative effects from Brexit.  Every pledge the Leave campaign made has been proven to be impossible, so just what are these potential achievements we could see from leaving?

See my last comment - something positive for you

6 minutes ago, Grouse said:

aren't we?

 

Good Lord! 

WHAT?????? You guys lost India????

There are no certainties in this world anymore.

Sad.

3 hours ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

What it means is that the EU will not be in a position to dictate allocation of numbers of refugees.

 

That may not mean any difference.

How many refugees has the UK been forced to take in at the behest of the EU?

 

Go on! tell us! Or do I have to tell you what an embarrassingly small number it is?

 

In the meantime, you may care to scan this:

 

44 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

These are some pics of QUOTE: Hundreds of thousands of fit, healthy looking young men arriving in Europe in their designer jeans, clutching their iPhone’s and iPad’s,

Serves them right for being economic migrants.

 

PS. I note that Mr Pilgrim has reduced his claim of hundreds of thousands to thousands - reduce it further and I am sure Europe can cope with them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think I can spot one woman there, no kids, and the rest look like fit young men, probably looking to scam their way around Europe.

These people used to stay where they were.  It's the introduction of people smugglers that has changed things.

That's why these people are washing up dead on the beaches. We shouldn't be encouraging people smuggling.