UK Politics - From Russia with Love

[Rippounet]

5 hours ago, mormont said:

Immigration is not against my personal economic interest. In fact, it's rather in favour of my economic interests. My country needs immigrant workers. Which means that yours does too, so immigration is in your economic interests.

Given that more than 80% of the wealth created in any given year goes to the top 1% it's safe to say that one's country's economic interests and one's personal economic interest are not necessarily aligned.
In fact, immigration is pretty much the perfect example of something that benefits the economy, but not most citizens.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Given that more than 80% of the wealth created in any given year goes to the top 1% it's safe to say that one's country's economic interests and one's personal economic interest are not necessarily aligned.
In fact, immigration is pretty much the perfect example of something that benefits the economy, but not most citizens.

I disagree with you entirely.  Everywhere I've traveled in this country over the last decades the vitality of entrepreneurship, work ethic, etc. is fueled by immigrants starting businesses, working long hard hours, having strong family ties -- and paying taxes and social security. Not to mention the vitality of cultural input. Seeing an annual Latin Culture Festival in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and the variety of businesses and restaurants in the region -- from a variety of Latin cultures, particularly Puerto Rican, Dominican Republic and Mexico, how much this contributes the vitality of civic and cultural life.

One is seeing already the effects of this going missing now with the dumpster's anti-immigrant policies.

There's no one for a work ethic like a Haitian.  I cannot tell you how many Mexican-Americans I met in Mexico who were forced out of the US, where they'd been born or had lived for decades by the dumpster, and now all their hustling and money-making is there, not here.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Given that more than 80% of the wealth created in any given year goes to the top 1% it's safe to say that one's country's economic interests and one's personal economic interest are not necessarily aligned.
In fact, immigration is pretty much the perfect example of something that benefits the economy, but not most citizens.

That is a very odd position to take. Your personal economic interest and your country (in the sense the country in which you live and work), are somewhat connected. I don't think you'd actually enjoy a repression. Of course we can talk about the distribution of wealth, which we should really do, but to say a suffering economy is in my personal economic interest is not necessarily the smartest position to take.

[Rippounet]

2 minutes ago, Notone said:

That is a very odd position to take. Your personal economic interest and your country (in the sense the country in which you live and work), are somewhat connected. I don't think you'd actually enjoy a repression.

You mean "recession."
Come on, what I meant was very clear given what I was answering to. So unless lack of migration causes recessions now, you're just attempting to strawman here.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Sorry, my bad.

Anyway, your wording suggested a somewhat

If your economy needs immigration, as the British economy apparently does, then the economy is gonna take a hit. How big that hit's gonna be, time will tell. And I found it somewhat annoying, that you brought up the 1% as if the distribution of wealth was linked to immigration. 

[mankytoes]

8 hours ago, mormont said:

I would, but being in favour of immigration is not an example of that. Immigration is not against my personal economic interest. In fact, it's rather in favour of my economic interests. My country needs immigrant workers. Which means that yours does too, so immigration is in your economic interests. Which makes the issue you voting against your personal economic interests for ideological reasons, because you've been sold a false prospectus. Which is not uncommon at all, actually. 

This is such a terrible false dichotomy. If the question is "some immigration" v "no immigration", I'm obviously on the side of some immigration. Only idiots and radicals think stopping all immigration should even be considered. Similarly, if the debate is "some limits on immigration" v "no limits on immigration", I'm on the side of "some limits". Again, I don't know anyone who is respected who really thinks it would be a good idea to totally abolish border controls. 

So hopefully we all have the same starting position- some immigration is a good thing, but some limits are also a good thing. So the debate is not "immigration- good or bad?" but "immigration- how much is optimal" or perhaps "immigration- what limitations should we implement". You can't just divide everyone into the good people who like immigration and the bad people who don't, as handy as it might be if you could. 

I'm in favour of immigration too. I'm not in favour of unlimited immigration, and if you are, you need to also support massive building schemes for housing, hospitals, schools, etc. And you need to say where that money is going to come from, the health budget, education, welfare, increase the deficit? 

[mormont]

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Given that more than 80% of the wealth created in any given year goes to the top 1% it's safe to say that one's country's economic interests and one's personal economic interest are not necessarily aligned.
In fact, immigration is pretty much the perfect example of something that benefits the economy, but not most citizens.

Well, that certainly was an attempt to move the goalposts.

Anyway, getting back to more directly UK politics related subjects: it seems that there are two options for post-Brexit customs arrangements being considered. One is widely hated by Brexiteers and got vetoed and the other will cost 20bn. And neither is acceptable to the EU anyway.

So that's going well.

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, Notone said:

Anyway, your wording suggested a somewhat

If your economy needs immigration, as the British economy apparently does, then the economy is gonna take a hit. How big that hit's gonna be, time will tell. And I found it somewhat annoying, that you brought up the 1% as if the distribution of wealth was linked to immigration. 

Yes, you're hitting the nail on its head here.
If there is a shortage of labour, this can hurt the economy. But conversely, if there is an abundance of labour (especially of low-skilled workers) it benefits the employers and can have adverse effects on wages and the political power of workers. Not to mention various social issues.
I don't think this should even be controversial. I'm pretty sure it can be demonstrated with a couple of hours of research tops.

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

This is such a terrible false dichotomy. If the question is "some immigration" v "no immigration", I'm obviously on the side of some immigration. Only idiots and radicals think stopping all immigration should even be considered. Similarly, if the debate is "some limits on immigration" v "no limits on immigration", I'm on the side of "some limits". Again, I don't know anyone who is respected who really thinks it would be a good idea to totally abolish border controls. 

So hopefully we all have the same starting position- some immigration is a good thing, but some limits are also a good thing. So the debate is not "immigration- good or bad?" but "immigration- how much is optimal" or perhaps "immigration- what limitations should we implement". You can't just divide everyone into the good people who like immigration and the bad people who don't, as handy as it might be if you could. 

I'm in favour of immigration too. I'm not in favour of unlimited immigration, and if you are, you need to also support massive building schemes for housing, hospitals, schools, etc. And you need to say where that money is going to come from, the health budget, education, welfare, increase the deficit? 

Thank you for this articulate response.

Like you I'm a "centrist" on the issue of immigration. Generally speaking I tend to think the importance of this particular issue tends to be exagerated, for obvious electoral purposes -generally on the right.
However, the initial disagreement was about whether leftists can oppose free movement of people. And I think a case can be made that unrestricted movement of labour can have a negative effect on social progress or on a welfare state.
I found myself unable to make that case however, falling instead into general platitudes about immigration and the economy that I'm not really confortable with in the first place. Among other things because of the false dichotomy that you underline. It seems even trying to point out that it's actually reasonable for people to seek protections from global economic phenomenons turns you into a chauvinistic idiot or something.
Anyway, it was my poor attempt to explain why leftist Britons could have very well have voted for Brexit. Make of it what you want.
 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

17 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

If there is a shortage of labour, this can hurt the economy. But conversely, if there is an abundance of labour (especially of low-skilled workers) it benefits the employers and can have adverse effects on wages and the political power of workers. Not to mention various social issues.

It only benefits them if there are no strong unions or union contracts, that apply to all the low skilled workers (migrants or not). Of course if you play along with the right wing game, that workers from other countries should not have the same rights and benefits you're playing into their hands.

[Zorral]

Speaking of limits here seems to confuse asylum seekers and refugees with immigration, among a lot of other things. They are very different.

What I am against is holding dual and sometimes even more citizenships / passports.  Either one is a citizen of the US or the citizen of another country -- you should be both, because that's been proven quite clearly, as with Israel as only a single example, severe political conflict of interest that isn't good for the US either.  When one qualifies to be granted US citizenship, that should be that -- no more citizenship with another nation.  If one accepts citizenship with another country, that's the end of one's US citizenship.  And we should really crack down on the wealthy sending their pregnant wives here to the USS so their newborns can automatically receive US citizenship, as so many nations do.

 

 

[mormont]

If you want to talk about who should hold US citizenship, take it out of the UK Politics thread.

[mankytoes]

32 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Speaking of limits here seems to confuse asylum seekers and refugees with immigration, among a lot of other things. They are very different.

What I am against is holding dual and sometimes even more citizenships / passports.  Either one is a citizen of the US or the citizen of another country -- you should be both, because that's been proven quite clearly, as with Israel as only a single example, severe political conflict of interest that isn't good for the US either.  When one qualifies to be granted US citizenship, that should be that -- no more citizenship with another nation.  If one accepts citizenship with another country, that's the end of one's US citizenship.  And we should really crack down on the wealthy sending their pregnant wives here to the USS so their newborns can automatically receive US citizenship, as so many nations do.

You need a loose concept of the net migration for planning purposes. Our current problem is the government say they only want "tens of thousands" coming in net every year, so that's what they plan for. The problem is they don't really do anything to achieve that (in fact net migration reached a record high recently, though it has gone down post Brexit), so we have the people without the planning. I think we've all been talking about economic migrants, not refugees. 

I don't see that as a big issue in the UK. I mean, many people have legitimately got two national identities. 

[mormont]

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

they don't really do anything to achieve that

Er, does 'the hostile environment' ring no bells?

The target is beyond stupid in the first place. It's an entirely arbitrary number, plucked out of the air and clung to way beyond reason by political weaklings too terrified to admit failure. So they should be doing nothing to achieve it: there is no sensible reason to try to achieve it, only that terror.

But the government have been taking steps to try to achieve it, they've just failed, as they've failed at so much. Don't mistake that failure and weakness for inaction, though.

Oh, and whatever we have been talking about here, the random cruelty that the government have been inflicting in their flailing attempts to achieve this stupid, pointless target has been visited on asylum seekers and immigrant workers alike.

[mankytoes]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Er, does 'the hostile environment' ring no bells?

The target is beyond stupid in the first place. It's an entirely arbitrary number, plucked out of the air and clung to way beyond reason by political weaklings too terrified to admit failure. So they should be doing nothing to achieve it: there is no sensible reason to try to achieve it, only that terror.

Ok, well that's illegal immigration which isn't really what we're talking about here. And did it really achieve its' goals? Above all else, it is cheap- instead of the government enforcing immigration law, they want private individuals to do so. And those vans were pure propaganda and pandering. 

Neoliberalism is about profit first, people second. I think we agree that immigrants are profitable. That's why there isn't any real desire to reduce immigration in the Tory party. 

[mormont]

9 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Ok, well that's illegal immigration which isn't really what we're talking about here.

Again, whatever we're talking about, the hostile environment has the effect (and was intended) to decrease migration both legal and illegal. Windrush?

It's as if you are ignoring stuff that happens in the real world that doesn't fit your narrative.

 

[williamjm]

22 hours ago, mormont said:

 

Anyway, getting back to more directly UK politics related subjects: it seems that there are two options for post-Brexit customs arrangements being considered. One is widely hated by Brexiteers and got vetoed and the other will cost 20bn. And neither is acceptable to the EU anyway.

So that's going well.

As well as the 20bn a year cost to business there is presumably also going to need to be lots more government bureaucracy required which we will have to pay for. 

I don't remember 'let's charge business 20 billion a year,  and buy Boris a plane' being one of the Brexit slogans. 

[Werthead]

Several websites now predicting that the cabinet differences over Brexit are irreconcilable and a snap election is likely by the winter.

Although I have no idea what that will achieve, if the Tories lose or come back with a very similar seat share, that will have achieved utterly nothing.

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

3 hours ago, Werthead said:

Several websites now predicting that the cabinet differences over Brexit are irreconcilable and a snap election is likely by the winter.

Although I have no idea what that will achieve, if the Tories lose or come back with a very similar seat share, that will have achieved utterly nothing.

Could you post a link to any of these websites? I'd like to have a read.

[williamjm]

3 hours ago, Werthead said:

Several websites now predicting that the cabinet differences over Brexit are irreconcilable and a snap election is likely by the winter.

Although I have no idea what that will achieve, if the Tories lose or come back with a very similar seat share, that will have achieved utterly nothing.

It would be very typical of British politics in the last few years if we did have another vote and still had no idea what to do afterwards.

[Werthead]

The BBC just had Rees-Mogg on basically saying he had lost faith in Theresa May's ability to deliver Brexit, followed by Daniel "the fact people seem to listen to me shows how fucked the Conservative Party really is" Hannan kind of trying not to say the same thing (excellent weasel words going on here) whilst clearly believing it. He also says a snap election is now a necessity. Given the inexplicable weight paid to their opinions, that could be sign that's on the cards, at least among the hard Brexiteer wing of the party.

 

Quote

Could you post a link to any of these websites? I'd like to have a read.

 

 

Oddly, Rees-Mogg seems to be singing a different tune today to a few days ago when he said (via The Spectator) it should be avoided. The original story was in the Sunday Times (paywalled) as reported here in the Huffington Post.

 

The appetite for a snap election amongst the rest of the Tory Party is low - if they call one, they know that act by itself would piss so many Tory votes off that they'd suffer at the ballot box - and certainly amongst the British public it is non-existent.