Brexit has created chaos in Britain – nobody voted for this

[RuamRudy]

19 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

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!

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

 

 

 

 

Apologies but I cut the meat of your post to limit the size of my response.

 

There is a lot of technical details there that I am not qualified to challenge, but a couple of things jump out at me.

1) The removal of trade barriers really means the removal of protective tariffs, resulting in a flood of foreign made cheap goods - great until we try to compete at the same game. UK salaries will fall and workers' rights, already under assault for years, will weaken further - or our domestic manufacturers will go out of business.

2) Regulatory burden - a more loaded way of describing consumer protection laws. We have all heard the stories of chlorinated chicken and the cattle pumped full of steroids, but they may be the tip of the iceberg as the UK waters down or even eliminates the standards that have protected us from such potentially harmful products.

 

So maybe the author is right - maybe on paper there are gains to be made, but at what cost to the average person?

[Grouse]

8,000 refugees have been offered safe haven in the UK 

 

0.0125% of our population!

 

Well done!

 

That's 1 for every 8,000 Brits. Doesn't that give you a nice warm feelin 

 

Oh the USA have taken 44 to date....

[CG1 Blue]

7 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Apologies but I cut the meat of your post to limit the size of my response.

 

There is a lot of technical details there that I am not qualified to challenge, but a couple of things jump out at me.

1) The removal of trade barriers really means the removal of protective tariffs, resulting in a flood of foreign made cheap goods - great until we try to compete at the same game. UK salaries will fall and workers' rights, already under assault for years, will weaken further - or our domestic manufacturers will go out of business.

2) Regulatory burden - a more loaded way of describing consumer protection laws. We have all heard the stories of chlorinated chicken and the cattle pumped full of steroids, but they may be the tip of the iceberg as the UK waters down or even eliminates the standards that have protected us from such potentially harmful products.

 

So maybe the author is right - maybe on paper there are gains to be made, but at what cost to the average person?

That's your negative spin on it, and you're entitled to that.  You make a lot of assumptions - and I expect all the Remainers to do the same.

[RuamRudy]

6 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

That's your negative spin on it, and you're entitled to that.  You make a lot of assumptions - and I expect all the Remainers to do the same.

 

But you are missing the point - these are valid concerns that have never been assuaged. Calling it negative spin without explaining why such fears are baseless goes no way to assuring half the country, who share the same concerns.

[Grouse]

49 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Patrick Minford,

You can not be serious!

 

Thatcher'a monetarist expert? Oh, yes, let's trust his opinion ?

 

 

[oldhippy]

13 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

 

 

 

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.

 

Thanks for the insight.

 

We are actually doing the refugees a favour by letting so many drown. It is all part of the fight against people smugglers.

Would you also please explain why those people smugglers have it so easy to find such large numbers risking their lives in rubber boats?

After all, QUOTE:  These people used to stay where they were.

What has happened to these noble savages to be QUOTE: looking to scam their way around Europe.

 

And again I ask: Woud the situation have been any different with individual countries rather than the EU? So there goes the main pro brexit argument.

And while we are at it: Why would France stop the refugees in Calais if France and UK were not members of the EU? Be carefull what you wish for!

 

 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

38 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

 

 

 

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.

 

Absolutely, the photo paints a vivid picture, of fit healthy young men that have left their wives, daughters, mothers, sisters, nieces, aunties and grandmothers behind, to embrace their impending fate, while they flee to the utopia of Europe.

 

Most people seem to understand that there are two distinct groups of migrants, but a handful of remainers seem incapable of the distinction between the two, and for emotional effect and moral superiority, claim that they are all refugees.

 

P.S. The guys on the boat don't look like Syrians, Lybian's or Iraqis, so does anyone know which war there are fleeing from 

Edited May 15, 2018 by Eloquent pilgrim

[Grouse]

42 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

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

There are no certainties in this world anymore.

Sad.

Outrageous! Wait till I tell the Memsahib!

Edited May 15, 2018 by Grouse

[tebee]

https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21727078-patrick-minford-thinks-gdp-could-increase-68-most-economists-say-brexit-will-hurt

 

[CG1 Blue]

9 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

But you are missing the point - these are valid concerns that have never been assuaged. Calling it negative spin without explaining why such fears are baseless goes no way to assuring half the country, who share the same concerns.

Everything you said assumes our (electable) governments, whoever they are over the coming years,  will allow our very high standards to drop, and will crush workers rights etc. These are simply assumptions - negative assumptions.

You have no proof these things will happen, and I have no proof they won't. I have more faith in the UK to maintain our standards.

[oldhippy]

4 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Absolutely, the photo paints a vivid picture, of fit healthy young men that have left their wives, daughters, mothers, sisters, nieces, aunties and grandmothers behind, to embrace their impending fate, while they flee to the utopia of Europe.

 

Most people seem to understand that there are two distinct groups of migrants, but a handful of remainers seem incapable of the distinction between the two, and for emotional effect and moral superiority, claim that they are all refugees

QUOTE: the photo paints a vivid picture, of fit healthy young men that have left their wives, daughters, mothers, sisters, nieces, aunties and grandmothers behind, to embrace their impending fate, while they flee to the utopia of Europe.

 

555 Something similar could be said about those Brits that come to Thailand.

Except that these are not healthy young men of course.

[Grouse]

8 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Absolutely, the photo paints a vivid picture, of fit healthy young men that have left their wives, daughters, mothers, sisters, nieces, aunties and grandmothers behind, to embrace their impending fate, while they flee to the utopia of Europe.

 

Most people seem to understand that there are two distinct groups of migrants, but a handful of remainers seem incapable of the distinction between the two, and for emotional effect and moral superiority, claim that they are all refugees

It seems a reasonable strategy to leave loved ones, the young and infirm temporarily while an asylum seeker goes ahead. Problem is that we don't process these people on arrival 

[CG1 Blue]

4 minutes ago, Grouse said:

So you would be happier to see more women and children drowning?

 

See, I told you the UK was becoming a nastier place. We've lost the moral high ground ?

I would prefer to see less people smuggling - more dealing with the issue at source

[RuamRudy]

4 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Everything you said assumes our (electable) governments, whoever they are over the coming years,  will allow our very high standards to drop, and will crush workers rights etc. These are simply assumptions - negative assumptions.

You have no proof these things will happen, and I have no proof they won't. I have more faith in the UK to maintain our standards.

I am going on my interpretation of what was meant by trade barriers and regulatory burden. Unless the author of the piece meant something different for these points, I can see now way that the outcomes I predicted will not transpire should the author's vision be enacted.

[CG1 Blue]

14 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

Would you also please explain why those people smugglers have it so easy to find such large numbers risking their lives in rubber boats?

After all, QUOTE:  These people used to stay where they were.

The world evolves.  Right now we are going through an era of mass people smuggling. Perhaps the opportunities (and the rubber boats) hadn't been discovered 20 years ago.

[Grouse]

10 minutes ago, tebee said:

https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21727078-patrick-minford-thinks-gdp-could-increase-68-most-economists-say-brexit-will-hurt

 

Fabulous ?

[Eloquent pilgrim]

15 minutes ago, Grouse said:

So you would be happier to see more women and children drowning?

 

See, I told you the UK was becoming a nastier place. We've lost the moral high ground ?

Maybe it was in a previous comment, but I did not see where CG1Blue said, or even implied that he would be happier to see women and children drowning.

[Grouse]

5 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

I would prefer to see less people smuggling - more dealing with the issue at source

You mean like Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan? I'll bet they're happy we intervened? Rebuilding their economies and infrastructure just like the Marshall plan?

[Grouse]

14 minutes ago, Grouse said:

the photo paints a vivid picture, of fit healthy young men that have left their wives, daughters, mothers, sisters, nieces, aunties and grandmothers behind, to embrace their impending fate, while they flee to the utopia of Europe.

So what should I infer? I think the point being made was that these people were not genuine asylum seekers because they left their loved ones and went ahead. Seems rational to me?

Edited May 15, 2018 by Grouse

[CG1 Blue]

27 minutes ago, Grouse said:

1 hour ago, CG1 Blue said:

Patrick Minford,

You can not be serious!

 

Thatcher'a monetarist expert? Oh, yes, let's trust his opinion ?

You remain folk continually tell us to listen to experts and economists.  I offer you one and you dismiss him out of hand because he doesn't agree with you.

I am really surprised Grouse - particularly as you tell us how important education is (looking at Minford's impressive education).

[CG1 Blue]

12 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I am going on my interpretation of what was meant by trade barriers and regulatory burden. Unless the author of the piece meant something different for these points, I can see now way that the outcomes I predicted will not transpire should the author's vision be enacted.

I would suggest that unless you know the full extent of all of the trade barriers and regulatory burdens (rather than just the ones cherry picked by remainers), you needn't worry too much.  

[Grouse]

22 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

You remain folk continually tell us to listen to experts and economists.  I offer you one and you dismiss him out of hand because he doesn't agree with you.

I am really surprised Grouse - particularly as you tell us how important education is (looking at Minford's impressive education).

Cardiff? That economic boom town? Ask the Welsh! 

 

Cardiff is ranked 162 compared to Oxford at 1 

 

some academics have uncovered a gold mine by adopting obtuse positions and allowing the BBC to give them a voice

 

You think Thatchers policies in the80s were "a good thing"

 

Im from Yorkshire. The man was a disaster? Where's our sovereign fund from oil? Wasted on dole payments!

 

Sure, he helped emasculate the unions instead of bringing them

inside the tent as Germany did.Good call!

 

Then we have The Big Bang. We all benefited from

that!

 

No, sorry. The man makes me vomit

Edited May 15, 2018 by Grouse

[Eloquent pilgrim]

32 minutes ago, Grouse said:

It seems a reasonable strategy to leave loved ones, the young and infirm temporarily while an asylum seeker goes ahead. Problem is that we don't process these people on arrival 

I don't understand how an asylum seeker can go ahead temporarily, when the whole concept of seeking asylum is to leave your country permanently because of political or other persecutions; people seek asylum because they want the protection of international law from the persecution in their own country, that threatens their safety and makes it impossible or far too dangerous for them to ever return. 

[StreetCowboy]

47 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

QUOTE: the photo paints a vivid picture, of fit healthy young men that have left their wives, daughters, mothers, sisters, nieces, aunties and grandmothers behind, to embrace their impending fate, while they flee to the utopia of Europe.

 

555 Something similar could be said about those Brits that come to Thailand.

Except that these are not healthy young men of course.

They used to stay where they are.

[StreetCowboy]

11 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

I don't understand how an asylum seeker can go ahead temporarily, when the whole concept of seeking asylum is to leave your country permanently because of political or other persecutions; people seek asylum because they want the protection of international law from the persecution in their own country, that threatens their safety and makes it impossible or far too dangerous for them to ever return. 

I think the idea is that the breadwinner goes ahead, gets established, and brings the clan over in less perilous and uncertain manner. That’s generally the way I do it.

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, CG1 Blue said:

See my last comment - something positive for you

 

Have you read the LSE response to Minfords idea?  It isn't our economy lunacy by the way, he wants to make the UK free from import tariffs and for the tax payer to foot the bill for all our export tariffs, we would lose any chance of any future bargaining and instead see countries impose whatever taxes they want on us, in his imagination they would simply give us the same deal, burn there would be no incentive for them to do so and the most likely outcome is a serious knock to our manufacturing industry as well as higher taxes and lower wages.  But have a read, that is only one of several major problems with his idea.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-britain-alone-scenario-how-economists-for-brexit-defy-the-laws-of-gravity/#Author

[Grouse]

https://goo.gl/images/FSkF55

 

Bye bye, everyone, bye bye 

[CG1 Blue]

29 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Cardiff? That economic boom town? Ask the Welsh! 

 

Cardiff is ranked 162 compared to Oxford at 1 

 

some academics have uncovered a gold mine by adopting obtuse positions and allowing the BBC to give them a voice

 

You think Thatchers policies in the80s were "a good thing"

 

Im from Yorkshire. The man was a disaster? Where's our sovereign fund from oil? Wasted on dole payments!

 

Sure, he helped emasculate the unions instead of bringing them

inside the tent as Germany did.Good call!

 

Then we have The Big Bang. We all benefited from

that!

 

No, sorry. The man makes me vomit

Was he not educated at Balliol College, Oxford?

 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

22 minutes ago, Grouse said:

So you want the whole family in the same rubber boat? 

 

No, did I say that, no, I did not. Why are you always suggesting that people have said or implied something that they categorically have not. I just did not understand how seeking asylum could be a temporary measure, and I was hoping that you might be able to inform me as to how that could be.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Eloquent pilgrim

[CG1 Blue]

7 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Have you read the LSE response to Minfords idea?  It isn't our economy lunacy by the way, he wants to make the UK free from import tariffs and for the tax payer to foot the bill for all our export tariffs, we would lose any chance of any future bargaining and instead see countries impose whatever taxes they want on us, in his imagination they would simply give us the same deal, burn there would be no incentive for them to do so and the most likely outcome is a serious knock to our manufacturing industry as well as higher taxes and lower wages.  But have a read, that is only one of several major problems with his idea.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-britain-alone-scenario-how-economists-for-brexit-defy-the-laws-of-gravity/#Author

Yep, lots of different opinions. 

You asked for an example and I gave you one!