UK Politics: Deal, or No Deal. To May and Beyond.

[redriver]

It was for his rendition of the Welsh national anthem.

[A wilding]

On 12/29/2018 at 9:34 PM, Maltaran said:

Surely the reason he's been knighted is so he'll vote in favour of May's deal?

Of course it was, He has even denied publicly that it will influence him.

 

[Werthead]

The government has given a ferry company which doesn't have any ships and doesn't have a working port a contract for $14 million to run emergency ferry services to Belgium in the event of a No Deal Brexit, despite there being no prospect of them being ready to run such services in less than three months.

Having worked in the DoT, I can confirm that this is something that passes for logic in that world.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

I was considering posting this a few days ago, but I was somewhat afraid of triggering/worsening a holiday depression in here, or more likely would raise the rage level (further) with the family over christmas.

Quote

Odey has boasted that each day of Brexit-related political crisis is a “good day” for him and his hedge fund. “I have had a good day,” he told the Times last month, on a day when the pound fell 2%. “Bad days tend to be good days for us.”

He has repeatedly called for Theresa May to resign as prime minister and said he would “love” Boris Johnson to replace her.

I am pretty sure JRM has a similar agenda with his ivestment firm. But then again, I've said a few times, that's why he really doesn't want to be PM and have that sort of thing given proper scrutiny.

As for Wethead's ferry story. Don't worry, they'll charter ferries.

Despite, I think the EU's contigency plans for a no-deal would give them some additional 9 months. But I really fail to see how additional ferries solve much of the problems. I mean there's still that problem with checks and delays and insufficient infrastructures.

[mormont]

4 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

But I really fail to see how additional ferries solve much of the problems.

Well, it addresses the problem of the government being criticised for doing nothing?

I'm inclined to think the Seaborne contract was a desperation move because one of the contracts had to go to a British company, come what may. But I'm open to it being some old-fashioned corruption too.

Meanwhile the Defence Secretary is making his appeal to party members with an article discussing how post-Brexit, we'll open more military bases in the Caribbean and east Asia. Not sure how this relates to Brexit? It's got something to do with how tall we actually are, or something.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-could-set-up-far-13794297

[ants]

On 12/26/2018 at 11:38 PM, Heartofice said:

And @ants your post is exactly what I'm trying to get away from. Rather than examine your own beliefs you've sat there and stated that Brexit voters are just a bunch of ignorant racist old people who should be ignored. That shows a stunning lack of reflection. At least try and look at what Leave voters were worried about and why, and then maybe there won't be such a huge level of polarisation next time.

lol, I make a criticism of your argument, where you're setting up a basis of classifying whether criticisms are valid on the disingenuous basis of whether or not they're effective, and you decide to take a few sentences out of context and claim I'm racist.  Nice sidestep.  Maybe try arguing the merits next time.  

[Heartofice]

5 hours ago, ants said:

lol, I make a criticism of your argument

You really didn't.

[SeanF]

On ‎12‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 1:35 PM, A Horse Named Stranger said:

On the other hand we have people acting like those are not racists. (I mean the inked guy with the colourful beard in particular)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jofDZjruhD4

If you think that's normal, then you are mistaken.

I like the slightly racist undertone of that argument. The lazy ass immigrant living on the expense of the welfare state of the hardworking white Briton. While it basically ignores the fact, that EU migrants pay into the NHS and other institutions of the English welfare state. You know who is living on the expense of it? Elderly Britons living in Britain.

That's not really the killer point that you think it is.  Most of the elderly were themselves taxpayers during their working lives.

[SeanF]

On ‎12‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 12:46 PM, Lord Sidious said:

That’s true, and there are some British people who wouldn’t take on such work for various reasons.

Also a lot of Eastern European workers seem to have a very good work ethic and already be qualified to do the job they’re applying for, in construction for example, how long would it take and how much would it cost to train someone up to be an electrician, drive a digger etc, I bet it’s not cheap.

Businesses are allowed to employ them and lets be honest, it’s good business sense to.

 

 

Of course it is.  Stuart Rose's argument in favour of remaining in the EU was because it enabled firms to keep wage rises down and/or enable businesses to take on better qualified people at lower rates than you would need to pay to take on a similarly qualified British national.   As Eastern European living standards have risen, however, so low wage jobs in the UK look less attractive.  Picking fruit or working behind a bar is decreasingly attractive to Eastern Europeans, so fruit farmers and the hospitality sector will have to invest in capital equipment instead.

[Heartofice]

20 minutes ago, SeanF said:

  As Eastern European living standards have risen, however, so low wage jobs in the UK look less attractive.  Picking fruit or working behind a bar is decreasingly attractive to Eastern Europeans, so fruit farmers and the hospitality sector will have to invest in capital equipment instead.

I think it was on the Economist podcast I heard that the UK Construction industry in particular has overly relied on cheap foreign workers for quite some time and hasn't invested much on equipment. If the cheap labour supply disappears its going to have to catch up. I'm sure there are a number of other industries that have taken great advantage of the swell of budget labour from abroad.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

That's not really the killer point that you think it is.  Most of the elderly were themselves taxpayers during their working lives.

Yes, and no. While true, that doesn't do much about the original argument.

They paid taxes, to fund the services during their working lives (and for the elderly back then). So in that sense, today's working population is paying for the upkeep of the current social services. The problem here is for a change actually demographics. More elderly Britons, less working Britons. Thus the welfare system needs an influx of people of working age.

[SeanF]

4 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Yes, and no. While true, that doesn't do much about the original argument.

They paid taxes, to fund the services during their working lives (and for the elderly back then). So in that sense, today's working population is paying for the upkeep of the current social services. The problem here is for a change actually demographics. More elderly Britons, less working Britons. Thus the welfare system needs an influx of people of working age.

That's not the way to go, because the people who immigrate, of working age, grow old, and the countries which they emigrate from have low birth rates.  There's not an endless supply of young Eastern or Southern Europeans to come here, and in the case of the latter, we're relying upon high unemployment rates back home, to keep them leaving home.

[ants]

18 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Quote

lol, I make a criticism of your argument

You really didn't.

Hmm, let's break down my post....

On 12/26/2018 at 5:15 PM, ants said:

On 12/24/2018 at 8:06 PM, Heartofice said:

.....I even said many of the same things I’ve read here on a daily basis, which is why I now see how totally ineffective they are. ....

You keep saying this like it wins your argument. Yes some have just said they were/are racist (which is true), but many have given good reasons. You then go that those arguments are ineffective, as if that somehow trumps them. 

The reality is that these people either aren’t hearing these arguments (due to media choices), are racist and don’t care, or for a few are just ignorant. Yet somehow it’s Remain’s fault for not expressing the issues appropriately. Sorry for being the ones using facts. Sorry for that they don’t want to listen and want to believe what they want to believe. Funny that their not susceptible to logic, it’s all our fault....

You have criticised the arguments made against Brexit on the basis that they are ineffective.  You're quote above mentions you've said them, and you have made statements such as "I'm just seeing many of the same arguments here that were being trotted out during the referendum, and that failed enormously to engage half the country, and yet people are still trying to make them.".  The implication is that because they are ineffective, that they are somehow wrong or incorrect. 

The fact one side is figuratively putting their fingers in their ears and saying "nah nah nah", doesn't mean they win the argument.  All your arguments effectively revolve around a core truth - a bunch of British people believe things have changed in ways they don't like, and want it back the way it was.  Now that could be driven by racism, ignorance, or a justified basis, but if you want to argue the later the onus is now on them or you to show that the justified basis is, well, justified.  Something that they have failed to do.  In the face of the arguments against, they have not come up with an alternative that doesn't turn the UK into an also ran country.  The fact that you say the arguments against Brexit are ineffective doesn't disqualify the arguments, but only indicates that either racism or ignorance are driving their beliefs.

In Animal Farm the sheep weren't racist.  But they were ignorant and used for others' ends.  

 

On 12/26/2018 at 5:15 PM, ants said:

Oh, and a few other fallacies you keep mentioning. That people voting leave are worried over losing jobs and that they have no power. The biggest block of people voting Leave were the elderly. They aren’t working and are the most powerful voting block in the UK. The people whose jobs would be theoretically lost to immigrants (the young) voted Remain. 

I'm not really sure how the above became:

On 12/26/2018 at 11:38 PM, Heartofice said:

And @ants your post is exactly what I'm trying to get away from. Rather than examine your own beliefs you've sat there and stated that Brexit voters are just a bunch of ignorant racist old people who should be ignored. That shows a stunning lack of reflection. At least try and look at what Leave voters were worried about and why, and then maybe there won't be such a huge level of polarisation next time.

I mentioned a number of the fallacies you've claimed.  You said that the Brexiters have no power.  This is patently false, as the largest demographic supporting Brexit is also the most powerful voting block in elections.  The entire system is currently skewed towards the elderly because of how much power they wield in elections.  The statement is just wrong.

You also claimed that Brexiters are worried about losing their jobs.  Again, that largest demographic supporting Brexit (the elderly) don't have jobs.  So this is patently false.

Sure, you could be talking about the smaller group of younger people, but it is fundamentally the elderly votes which drove the result, so I'm not sure why you would.  Quite how you got from what I wrote to claiming I said they're all just ignorant racist old people who should be ignored is a bit staggering.  Or maybe you could get some arguments for Brexit which actually fit with those who were the main drivers of the vote. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

That's not the way to go, because the people who immigrate, of working age, grow old, and the countries which they emigrate from have low birth rates.  There's not an endless supply of young Eastern or Southern Europeans to come here, and in the case of the latter, we're relying upon high unemployment rates back home, to keep them leaving home.

The stagnant dropping birthrates means the (north) western European economies need migrants to keep functioning and them to pay taxes (and into the social services). Are you making a case for freedom of movement there? Not necessarily high unemployment, but relatively lower wages back home, so that they bugger off home and enjoy their retirement in Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, or sunny Spain (isn't the goldcoast turning into something like EU Florida in that respect).

A bit cynically put, Britain and Germany have the economy, the Poles, Greek, Romanians, Spanish etc. have the workforce. And that holds particularly true for the shitty jobs (like nurses) that do not get properly paid for their work and hardly anybody wants to do. And without the foreign nurses, the NHS has a much bigger problem than the mere underfunding.

That the population in the EU 28 is overall aging, that is a problem for the future. But let me ask you this, if you want to rule migration, how do you suppose to keep the welfare state running with an aging population. The only other conceivable ways are not particularly pleasent. Either you make the elderly pay into the system (again, check the ill-fated dementia tax), which is also happening and is/will be particularly shitty for our generation. As we are pretty much the first that have to pay into the existing and future private system in some shape or form (future generations might be fortunate enough to only pay into their private retirement), in combination with a prolonged working life obviously (so you can pay longer into the system). The other way is to kindly ask the people to drop dead after they hit the retirement age. So that they don't get as much out of it.

[Heartofice]

@ants the reason most of your posts are exactly what we should be trying to get away from are because they seem to come from a core belief you seem to have that anyone voting for Brexit is either racist, thick or ignorant. Your posts stink of it that attitude and its pretty unhelpful.

In numerous polls large percentages of Brexit voters have stated that they are prepared to take an economic hit in return for controlling immigration, showing that the economy is seemingly less important to people than community and culture. Yet every argument being made for immigration seems to be along economic lines - ie they raise GDP, they contribute more to the welfare state (disputed btw). But because these Brexit voters do not see these economic gains, because they aren't owning businesses and the high GDP growth has seemingly not benefitted them in the first place, those arguments fall on deaf ears.

That doesn't mean the economic arguments are wrong, although many of them are contestable, it is that its like talking a different language and so is mainly wasted breath.

It also doesn't mean Brexit voters are all ignorant or racist. Most Brexit voters have a strong sense of identity , whether that is local or national, value their communities and heritage. A globalist, liberal agenda is seen as a direct threat to that, and large scale immigration is a hugely visible symbol that communities are changing at a rapid rate and that heritage and local identity is not seen as a worthwhile value. Very few Remain arguments address this, worse they deride the idea of community, or of being British ('mongrel nation etc').
This isn't just a phenomenon we are seeing in the UK either, its a global issue of globalism, and it needs to be addressed.

Quote

You said that the Brexiters have no power.  This is patently false, as the largest demographic supporting Brexit is also the most powerful voting block in elections.  The entire system is currently skewed towards the elderly because of how much power they wield in elections.  The statement is just wrong.

The power I was referring to was the power to limit immigration. The perception was the no matter how worried people were about immigration, there was no way to stop it. Right or wrong that was how it was viewed, in fact much of the talk is about how we should all get used to it, how its inevitable. Politicians were actively ignoring calls to limit immigration, up until recently even discussing it would have you deemed racist in the press, it was a dirty word. And yet it was what most people wanted. It is only now that there is any sort of political will to address it, but as you can see, its too late, we've had the over-reaction. 





 

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

The stagnant dropping birthrates means the (north) western European economies need migrants to keep functioning and them to pay taxes (and into the social services). Are you making a case for freedom of movement there? Not necessarily high unemployment, but relatively lower wages back home, so that they bugger off home and enjoy their retirement in Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, or sunny Spain (isn't the goldcoast turning into something like EU Florida in that respect).

A bit cynically put, Britain and Germany have the economy, the Poles, Greek, Romanians, Spanish etc. have the workforce. And that holds particularly true for the shitty jobs (like nurses) that do not get properly paid for their work and hardly anybody wants to do. And without the foreign nurses, the NHS has a much bigger problem than the mere underfunding.

That the population in the EU 28 is overall aging, that is a problem for the future. But let me ask you this, if you want to rule migration, how do you suppose to keep the welfare state running with an aging population. The only other conceivable ways are not particularly pleasent. Either you make the elderly pay into the system (again, check the ill-fated dementia tax), which is also happening and is/will be particularly shitty for our generation. As we are pretty much the first that have to pay into the existing and future private system in some shape or form (future generations might be fortunate enough to only pay into their private retirement), in combination with a prolonged working life obviously (so you can pay longer into the system). The other way is to kindly ask the people to drop dead after they hit the retirement age. So that they don't get as much out of it.

My point is more that there is not an endless supply of biddable workers that will keep coming from Southern and Eastern Europe.  Countries like Poland, the Baltic States, Italy, Spain have lower birthrates than our own, which means that this supply will dry up, unless their economies collapse, which none of us would want to see happen.

As to your final paragraph, the way to fund an ageing population is indeed by extending peoples' working lives, and by boosting productivity.  We've managed to do it since the Industrial Revolution began.

[Nevarfeather]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

In numerous polls large percentages of Brexit voters have stated that they are prepared to take an economic hit in return for controlling immigration, showing that the economy is seemingly less important to people than community and culture. Yet every argument being made for immigration seems to be along economic lines - ie they raise GDP, they contribute more to the welfare state (disputed btw). But because these Brexit voters do not see these economic gains, because they aren't owning businesses and the high GDP growth has seemingly not benefitted them in the first place, those arguments fall on deaf ears.
 

How then do you explain that the areas with the highest immigration voted remain?

Given that areas with actual experience of immigration voted Remain, I'd say the vote was driven mainly by (mis)perception, aided by a right wing press. Why would people in areas with such low immigration be prepared to take an economic hit to their own lives/jobs/family in turn for reducing immigration when it's not an issue in their area and of which they have very little actual experience of?

[Heartofice]

15 minutes ago, Nevarfeather said:

How then do you explain that the areas with the highest immigration voted remain?

There is a high correlation between the change in immigration levels and voting leave.

[Nevarfeather]

really?
It was my understanding that the areas with the highest immigration (largely the cities like London and Manchester etc) all voted Remain, while the areas with the lowest immigration tended to vote Leave. Happy to be corrected with a good source and data though, please do share? Ta 

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, Nevarfeather said:

really?
It was my understanding that the areas with the highest immigration (largely the cities like London and Manchester etc) all voted Remain, while the areas with the lowest immigration tended to vote Leave. Happy to be corrected with a good source and data though, please do share? Ta 

https://www.economist.com/britain/2016/07/08/britains-immigration-paradox

 

Quote

Where foreign-born populations increased by more than 200% between 2001 and 2014, a Leave vote followed in 94% of cases. The proportion of migrants may be relatively low in Leave strongholds such as Boston, in Lincolnshire (where 15.4% of the population are foreign-born). But it has grown precipitously in a short period of time (by 479%, in Boston’s case). High levels of immigration don’t seem to bother Britons; high rates of change do.