UK Politics: Oh Ambassador you are really spoiling us!

[Heartofice]

52 minutes ago, mormont said:

I'm not sure but I think you might've missed my point, which was: is there a net gain for the UK in trade to CPTPP countries from being able to join CPTPP, but having to leave the EU in order to do so? In other words: was our trade with CPTPP countries in our EU membership days significantly restricted?

I'm 100% in favour of more freedom of movement. If capital is free to move, labour should be too. It's a big issue for me. Unfortunately I don't foresee it coming to pass any time soon.

I think at the moment, no its a net loss from leaving the EU, and joining CPTPP isn't going to make up for it. Of course thats only taking into account the state of things right now, and not considering how things might change in the future and what opportunities it creates. Also not taking into account the benefits of generally not being part of the EU. 

As for Freedom of movement, its a noble idea, but it's hard to see how it would work as imagined unless you have freedom of movement between relatively similar countries economically. EU freedom of movement has seen almost entirely one way travel from poor eastern european countries to the richer western ones. That cannot be the intended consequence, or the overall goal I would imagine. 

[mormont]

5 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

As for Freedom of movement, its a noble idea, but it's hard to see how it would work as imagined unless you have freedom of movement between relatively similar countries economically. EU freedom of movement has seen almost entirely one way travel from poor eastern european countries to the richer western ones. That cannot be the intended consequence, or the overall goal I would imagine. 

No, that's the goal. Movement of workers to economies that need them. Freedom to move to better your life. Transfers of money from that movement from more developed economies, to less developed ones. What else would be the goal? What other goal would make sense?

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

No, that's the goal. Movement of workers to economies that need them. Freedom to move to better your life. Transfers of money from that movement from more developed economies, to less developed ones. What else would be the goal? What other goal would make sense?

Or the goal is decimating the original country, causing brain drains, moving low income workers into richer countries so they can be exploited, undercutting the native workforce and creating tension? I mean that is the outcome so either it's not working as intended or it is.

[mormont]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

Or the goal is decimating the original country, causing brain drains, moving low income workers into richer countries so they can be exploited, undercutting the native workforce and creating tension? I mean that is the outcome so either it's not working as intended or it is.

Do you have citations for that?

Because the studies I've seen suggest that freedom of movement reduces unemployment not only in the country from which the emigration is occurring, but across the board: that the economic effect is beneficial to both countries: that workers who move within the EU generally enjoy equal or better employment protections: and that wages for the 'native' workforce do not fall in any significant way.

It is true that many workers who move within the EU wind up being somewhat overqualified for the job they get. And it's true that in some cases, tension results, though it's an open question to what degree this is because of cynical exploitation for political purposes. And it's true, finally, that some people just don't like the idea of freedom of movement and tend to blame it for all ills. But the rest of your claims, I haven't seen much evidence for.

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, mormont said:

Do you have citations for that?

Because the studies I've seen suggest that freedom of movement reduces unemployment not only in the country from which the emigration is occurring, but across the board: that the economic effect is beneficial to both countries: that workers who move within the EU generally enjoy equal or better employment protections: and that wages for the 'native' workforce do not fall in any significant way.

It is true that many workers who move within the EU wind up being somewhat overqualified for the job they get. And it's true that in some cases, tension results, though it's an open question to what degree this is because of cynical exploitation for political purposes. And it's true, finally, that some people just don't like the idea of freedom of movement and tend to blame it for all ills. But the rest of your claims, I haven't seen much evidence for.

I mean in terms of emigration, it's clearly been a one way direction of travel, nobody can deny that, and that is damaging to the countries in question. 
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2019/06/24/why-the-eu-must-debate-and-address-the-challenges-arising-from-emigration/

It has reduced unemployment in the original countries by removing much of the workforce, I guess that is one solution! 

I'm not claiming either that immigration has huge effects on wages, it doesn't seem to be the case, though much of the research suggests that it does have a negative impact on low income jobs, even if that is a 1-2% drop in wages. It might also have an effect on the unemployment of those in lower income jobs as well.

 

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/

 

Either way, I don't see that this can be the ideal when it comes to Freedom of movement. Freedom of movement should be about the right to work wherever you want. The EU should be moving around at will, I understand the idea and I like it, I just don't think it works in practice. It's a bit like the Euro, it's a nice idea, in practice a bit of a disaster. 

[Gorn]

52 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I mean in terms of emigration, it's clearly been a one way direction of travel, nobody can deny that, and that is damaging to the countries in question. 
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2019/06/24/why-the-eu-must-debate-and-address-the-challenges-arising-from-emigration/

It has reduced unemployment in the original countries by removing much of the workforce, I guess that is one solution! 

I'm not claiming either that immigration has huge effects on wages, it doesn't seem to be the case, though much of the research suggests that it does have a negative impact on low income jobs, even if that is a 1-2% drop in wages. It might also have an effect on the unemployment of those in lower income jobs as well.

 

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/

 

Either way, I don't see that this can be the ideal when it comes to Freedom of movement. Freedom of movement should be about the right to work wherever you want. The EU should be moving around at will, I understand the idea and I like it, I just don't think it works in practice. It's a bit like the Euro, it's a nice idea, in practice a bit of a disaster. 

Would you support ending freedom of movement between London and the rest of UK? After all, there is a clear difference in wages and standards of living, immigration to London is causing brain drain in other areas, and travel is mostly in one direction.

[Heartofice]

12 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Would you support ending freedom of movement between London and the rest of UK? After all, there is a clear difference in wages and standards of living, immigration to London is causing brain drain in other areas, and travel is mostly in one direction.

Well maybe actually, I think the UK has got a serious problem in that the south of England and London is so different economically than the rest of the UK, it's quite scandalous.  The difference is that this didn't happen over night, and it's not like they opened the gates one day and said everyone can move if they want to, where they couldn't before. 

You could extend your question even further, why is freedom of movement only within the EU, why shouldn't it just be world wide? Would you be happy if literally everybody from the entire world moved to 3 or 4 richer countries?

[Pebble thats Stubby]

24 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Well maybe actually, I think the UK has got a serious problem in that the south of England and London is so different economically than the rest of the UK, it's quite scandalous.  The difference is that this didn't happen over night, and it's not like they opened the gates one day and said everyone can move if they want to, where they couldn't before. 

You could extend your question even further, why is freedom of movement only within the EU, why shouldn't it just be world wide? Would you be happy if literally everybody from the entire world moved to 3 or 4 richer countries?

well not everyone from a single country will leave it, unless it becomes uninhabitable so I guess your scenario could happen with extreme climate change.

Under normal conditions (so not during a global pandemic) I personally have no problem with anyone in the entire world moving to the UK or any other country.  I don't care if they even move next door.  I will say they should not get benefits or long term residents unless they have a job or have official refugee status.  I personally think anyone in the country should have a right to work in this country without needing a visa.

 

although if 7.8 billion people all do decide to spontaneously live next door to me, then I'll probably move somewhere less crowded.

 

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

well not everyone from a single country will leave it, unless it becomes uninhabitable so I guess your scenario could happen with extreme climate change.

No, it wouldn't be everyone, probably just younger working age populations, probably males. So obviously there would be some people left behind.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

No, it wouldn't be everyone, probably just younger working age populations, probably males. So obviously there would be some people left behind.

still got no problem.

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

still got no problem.

And what about the people who don't have the luxury of being able to move somewhere less crowded?

And also, where do you imagine this less crowded place is?

[Pebble thats Stubby]

7 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

And what about the people who don't have the luxury of being able to move somewhere less crowded?

as we are debating your silly point of the population of the entire world moving into the house next door to me,  (ok corrected to young males - so lets say a quarter of the world population so 2 billion instead of 7.8)  I really don't think they would physically fit - yes its a big house but its still only 6 bedrooms.   

 

all those poor people who can't more somewhere less crowded only have to walk a mile.

 

edit.

to be honest its my neighbours who currently live in that house I feel sorry for.   

 

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

as we are debating your silly point of the population of the entire world moving into the house next door to me,  (ok corrected to young males - so lets say a quarter of the world population so 2 billion instead of 7.8)  I really don't think they would physically fit - yes its a big house but its still only 6 bedrooms.   

 

all those poor people who can't more somewhere less crowded only have to walk a mile.

Ok lets be generous say you live in London, and 2 billion extra people decide to live there. What happens?

[Pebble thats Stubby]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

Ok lets be generous say you live in London, and 2 billion extra people decide to live there. What happens?

I really feel you want to choose a more realistic number if you actually want me to take your argument seriously.

 

1/4 of the world population is not gonna physically fit in London even if they all stood next to each other.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

I really feel you want to choose a more realistic number if you actually want me to take your argument seriously.

 

1/4 of the world population is not gonna physically fit in London even if they all stood next to each other.

Well they might not figure that out until they arrive! 

What do you think is a realistic number?

[mormont]

24 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

No, it wouldn't be everyone, probably just younger working age populations, probably males. So obviously there would be some people left behind.

Of what relevance is this?

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

Of what relevance is this?

Cos if you just leave behind women and elderly people then does that seem like a good thing for a country?

[Pebble thats Stubby]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Well they might not figure that out until they arrive! 

What do you think is a realistic number?

do you know how much bigger a billion is than a million?

there is only 66 million people in the UK.

8.9 million in London.

 

If there was complete FOM with the entire world we still would not get another 66 million arrive.

5 minutes ago, mormont said:

Of what relevance is this?

I think its very important since they are all gonna live in the house next door to me.  I can be very fussy and enjoy a different one every night for the rest of my life and still only meet a tiny fraction. 

[Heartofice]

5 minutes ago, Leap said:

Out of curiosity, I just looked at this and you can probably fit about 6.8bn people in Greater London, assuming 4 people per m², and assuming you raze London to the ground (and presumably move the four walls of Pebbles' neighbours' house to points around the perimeter).

It would probably be a bit cramped, but I have to imagine that this would ultimately make the vaccination process easier. 

Social distancing would be a nightmare.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

5 minutes ago, Leap said:

Out of curiosity, I just looked at this and you can probably fit about 6.8bn people in Greater London, assuming 4 people per m², and assuming you raze London to the ground (and presumably move the four walls of Pebbles' neighbours' house to points around the perimeter).

It would probably be a bit cramped, but I have to imagine that this would ultimately make the vaccination process easier. 

I had not done the math, so apparently with only 2 billion people we can at least waggle our arms.

 

As for the vaccination process, well I'm not sure you get time to vaccinate everyone with this massive super spreader event and no room to take anyone to hospital.