Thread: Brexit - It's Still On!

Originally Posted by Mandaloopy

I am seriously now thinking at moving to France at the end of this contract with the aim of getting my EU citizenship back. Not much point in being part of a backward flag dribbling nationlist shit hole like Blighty. I despair at the lack of any progress I see when I visit the dratted place; it's pretty embarrassing when you look at the speed China and other Asian countries are moving forward.

China's debt problem explained.

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/cam...019175759.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9017316.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8899191.html

https://www.malaymail.com/news/malay...ic-cha/1785340

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/13/e...war/index.html

BRUNEI ? CHINA The sultanate in crisis seeks Beijing?s help

https://water.org/our-impact/philippines/


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-s...-idUSKCN1VY0IC

...apart from that, yeah. Persistent high unemployment in France, German recession, and a run on the Italian banks probably won't affect you much personally, the EU's economic growth remaining below inflation is not really a big deal, what with the progressive vibrancy flowing into the continent like a tsunami.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/pr...ays-world-bank

I agree, England is horrible, the most densely populated country in Europe, and part of the 5th largest economy of the world really are no compensation.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

There is more chance of Troy singing land of hope and glory rather than Deutchland uber alles than Brits getting visa free entry to Australia. The last thing Australians want is half the shite that landed in Blighty knocking on Australia's welfare door.
There is always an unbalanced migration when these deals are done as Britain has found with the E.U.
Looking at New Zealand with a total population less than Melbourne, the two way migration is about 10 new Zealanders to 1 Australian. Approx 2 of those Kiwi citizens are born overseas. Australia now has cases of Refugees granted New Zealand passports coming to Australia.
With The U.K. population being around 68 million one can only contemplate the sort of disaster unrestricted migration would have to a country like Australia whose infrastructure is already overloaded by high immigration numbers with some of the highest housing costs in the world.
Australia though vast has some of the poorest soils, some of the most arid regions, and comparatively poor water resources which will always limit its ability to have a high population compared to other countries.

...and yet
https://www.fpwhitepaper.gov.au/site...ernational.pdf
https://10daily.com.au/news/politics...he-uk-20190918

there are plenty of Australians who would like to work or study in the UK, and vice versa. Cost of living in Australia is arguably worse than parts of the UK, and there's plenty of scope for technology and knowledge transfer. I'd much rather have an additional Australian passport than a French one, any day. The Riviera is nice to visit though. I'm sure there are plenty of Kiwis and Canucks who might like to work and study in the UK for a while too. Politically and culturally, it's not a difficult move.

It's funny hearing immigration being used by progressives as a reason for freedom of movement being a bad thing for Australia. For Kiwis, going across to Australia is not such a big distance, but for British, it's a long way, and the cost of living alone in Australia is going to stymie and mass influx. There's been a steady flow of people from Australia and New Zealand to the UK for years without this sort of deal, it's nothing strange. If the UK starts adopting Aus/Can/NZ immigration policies, and those policies remain firm but fair, and not like an EU conveyer belt, that will be a benefit. Mainly to shut down this immigration free-for-all that harms and distorts economies in the EU.

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

to shut down this immigration free-for-all that harms and distorts economies in the EU.

'Distortions' such as cheaper production costs and lower costs for services such as the NHS?

The kind of distortions that happen because similarly qualified Brits won't work for the same pay?

This xenophobic twaddle about the EU conveyor belt sending millions to the UK to steal British women, jobs, benefits, education and housing is just such facile horseshit it could only b credited by Brexit/Kipper monkeys swallowing propaganda from the right wing nazi shitkicker demagogues.

The ONS have repeatedly published data over 18 years confirming that EU migrants as a group make a net contribution to British GDP of over £2 billions annually.

That they have contributed positively at every level for over 45 years within society is of course nothing to the racist pigs voting for Brexit who in their inimitable bovine and lumpen way can only communicate in bigotry and prejudice.

But on merely logistical terms it is quite telling of the Brexshitter's intellectual impoverishment that these clodhopping morons actually have the effrontery to spout the utter drivel that just 4% of the entire population of the UK can determine the socio - economic metrics of the remaining 96%, or that a mere 6% of the occupational workforce determines the pay levels and working conditions of the remaining 94%.

There's stupid, and then there's Brexit stupid.

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

...and yet

Welcome back CaptainNemo

Avast me Hearties

Originally Posted by David48atTD

Welcome back CaptainNemo

Avast me Hearties

I'm only here because I happened to go onto TV and flicked a bogie at a sensitive soul, and got a warning from one of their white knights.

All I said was - "if you were coherent, you could pass for a bot", I mean, FFS... that's pretty tame. ...alright, and then I said [/snip], still, we know there are two rules.

The increased demand fostered by migration increased GDP and in the case of the EU citizens not only achieved that but yielded a net gain.

The rest is simply vacuous rhetoric from xenophobic shills selling lies, bigotry and prejudice.

^^ So now the brexiteers want protectionism, having fought their case against it.

Whatever.

Fact is there is no case for leaving the EU, just a load of empty rhetoric.

immigration will always boost GDP growth, and so will imports, despite the average idiot thinking

cutting immigration and imports is going to create a shock in the Aggregate Supply curve, and it's not going to be pretty

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

Oh, I thought you were against a "sweatshop Britain"?

Look a little more closely and you'll see that I did not claim they were good things.

It's a strong argument in favour of the EU from the perspective of most grasping, myopic small minded tories, though.

Yet many seem to be able to put all that aside now, just to get BREXIT. They are nothing if not stubborn, and like a porky overindulged nine-year-old they just want to screech about what Santa promised.

Not that your post suggests you'd identify, of course.

Anyway, good luck finding the money to cover your needs when imported goods are either absent or overpriced, and essential services become unaffordable.

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

The increased demand fostered by migration increased GDP and in the case of the EU citizens not only achieved that but yielded a net gain.

The rest is simply vacuous rhetoric from xenophobic shills selling lies, bigotry and prejudice.

That's not even a coherent sentence, never mind thought. How many times are you going to repeat this dreary limited vocabulary.
Increased demand was neglible, and patchy at best, and was not fed back into the communities the impact of extra meatsacks affected, so at the user end, it was a net loss. You can't increase services as rapidly as the rates of immigration due to free movement - it takes a few years to matriculate, graduate, and train to become a fully functional education or medical worker, you can't meet that increased demand by immigration itself, it doesn't work. They can't get enough people to be teachers because the pay and conditions are crap, and you now have increases of completely uneducated immigrants and natives pouring out of state schools further adding to the problem. Prior to the EU, you had a more reasonable immigrant population of about 3% and immigration rates were much lower and of people with some cultural affinity, New Labour added millions of unneeded people from around the world, and the impact has not benefited society, even if on the macroscale GDP has increased - that only benefits large organisations not joe public.

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

New Labour

Christ, you lot always find a way, don't you.

Next it will be Corbyn who's responsible for this whole stupid shit show.

Not dim dave and the dozen MPs he was scared of losing...

Originally Posted by cyrille

Look a little more closely and you'll see that I did not claim they were good things.

Maybe you didn't, but SA certainly prattles on about that.

Originally Posted by cyrille

It's a strong argument in favour of the EU from the perspective of most grasping, myopic small minded tories, though.

...the EU are the Tories... they are exploiting workers and lining their own pockets, and helping big business... why can't you see that?!

Originally Posted by cyrille

Yet many seem to be able to put all that aside now, just to get BREXIT. They are nothing if not stubborn, and like a porky overindulged nine-year-old they just want to screech about what Santa promised.

You can't just back out of elections and referenda, you end up undermining the whole concept.
It isn't the Leavers' fault that they won, it's Remain's fault that they lost. Most pople have voted sincerely because of their personal lived experience, and not just from being wound up by tabloids. The EU has had 27 years since 1992 to prove it's a good idea, and it just hasn't. The EU doesn't grow, it absorbs lower-living-cost states and uses their Labour to create imaginary growth, whilst overall it can't get growth to exceed inflation. There's persistent high unemployment, and it resorts to protectionism.

One of the periods I spent at Uni was studying the history of economic growth in the far east, and the case seemed to be resounding that export-orientated economies outperformed protectionist ones, and this is part of what's happened in the EU. It's answer to everything is more cheap immigrants, and more centralisation, and none of it ever really works long-term. EFTA has all the richest countries of Europe in it, and that more-trade-focussed less politics-focussed idea is better.
The EU and it's supporters refuse to entertain alternatives or have a proper conversation about whether the EU is a good idea, they just want to endlessly fix it, but it's not allowing anyone to challenge the whole concept and Treaty of Rome.

Brexit is necessary for the whole of Europe to have a second look at the whole EU project, and consider alternatives that work better.
The EU might have been a good way of helping win the cold war and helping Warsaw Pact countries transition to capitalist democracies, but for the long-term future, it needs to be challenged to find a better European supranational solution to Europe's economic problems, now that the political problems are largely resolved.
Britain and Germany are the most important members, and so Britain leaving is going to have bigger impact on Europe than any other country apart from Germany leaving (you might say Frexit would be as bad, and it might be similarly bad, but France's importance is more to do with its geography than it's economy).

Originally Posted by cyrille

Not that your post suggests you'd identify, of course.

I don't get what you're trying to say.

Originally Posted by cyrille

Anyway, good luck finding the money to cover your needs when imported goods are either absent or overpriced, and essential services become unaffordable.

Some of them will be, and most of them will be replaced by similar goods from other places. The reduction of population and reduction in land prices in the UK will have the biggest impact on prices of goods and services, as the inflated cost of land is within the cost of everything. It is likely to more than offset any price increases due to tariffs.

Originally Posted by cyrille

Christ, you lot always find a way, don't you.

Next it will be Corbyn who's responsible for this whole stupid shit show.

Not dim dave and the dozen MPs he was scared of losing...

New Labour did unforgivable damage to this country with their diversity agenda, emergent police state, and unprecedented mass immigration. They did it on purpose for puerile ideological reasons too.

Corbyn hasn't helped the Remain cause, has he? He's a leaver at heart, and knows how strongly the working class Labour vote feels about leaving. Yes Blue Labour/TB 2.0 bears some responsibility, but don't forget that Leavers have been campaigning to leave since 1992 when we joined the EU without a referendum. We have an absolute right to a vote to the hell out of it.

Originally Posted by Troy

^^ So now the brexiteers want protectionism, having fought their case against it.

No the EU is all about protectionism, that's what I said.

Originally Posted by Troy

Whatever.

That's about as strong as the average remaintard's debating skills get.

Originally Posted by Troy

Fact is there is no case for leaving the EU, just a load of empty rhetoric.

Fact is there was no case for joining the EU, just a load of empty rhetoric.
Fact is the list of reasons to leave is far longer than you can possibly imagine.
Fact is that the EU is a failed political project that has failed to deliver economically.

The UK is escaping just as the EU slides into recession after decades of low growth, economic problems, and high unemployment.
Freed from propping up this flabby failure, the UK can start to trade with the parts of the world that are growing more than inflation.
Remaining in the EU is fearful, pessimistic, and negative, and allowing failing inefficient bureaucratic states to avoid reform.


Increasing the population without increasing the capacity for it obviously leads to increased land prices, which feed into the price of everything.
https://theconversation.com/how-migr...dability-92502
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/86571/1/sercdp0223.pdf
The left says there's the right number of people and the wrong number of houses; the right says there's the right number of houses and the wrong number of people.
Environmentalists say we need to stop covering the land with housing, roads, and increasing pollution from waste, power generation, traffic, etc...
Those who oppose the wholesale conversion of ethnic states into civil states, resent the dilution of their identity. So that's 3-1 against immigration.

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

immigration will always boost GDP growth, and so will imports

It's not immigration per se, but population growth, but for each unit of increased growth comes an increased cost in required investment to maintain quality of life and growth in quality of life, which is an important part of feeling that immigration is a good thing.
Immigration doesn't boost GDP/Capita growth when it results in displacing an extant population, and rendering them economically inactive, and when the state supports them through a welfare system/danegeld, but that does depend on how much tax and welfare is transferred across, either way it creates an uncomfortable tension, where local people, instead of being training and made economically active are made economically dependent on incomers creating resentment in both directions.

pp157-158 for the conclusions. The results are inconclusive.
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docser...88737-8-en.pdf

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

cutting immigration and imports is going to create a shock in the Aggregate Supply curve, and it's not going to be pretty

Imports aren't going to be cut, some may change source, and some prices may change, but the UK will still be importing. Nobody will be refusing to sell to the 5th largest economy in the world. In the short run, some businesses may go under and present bargains to consumers as they clear stock, but as long as there's a market there will be a business to replace any that disappear; it'll just be different.

American data, but still...

18Once stateand time fixed effects are controlled for, we exploit exogenous variation in the immigrant shareof the workforce by using the shift-share instrument, allowing us to show three interesting impacts. First,a surge in immigration causes a transitional setback to growthof state GDP, GDP per capita, and personal income relative to other states/decades. A one percentage point increase in the foreign born shareof a state’s labor force causes a 0.32percentage point decrease in GDP growth, a 0.28 percentage point decrease in per-capita GDP growth, and a 0.30percentage point decrease in per-capita income growthduring the decade. Second, that effect dissipates, which we know because the effect of a higher levelof immigration has no significant effect on the levels of GDP, GDP per capita, or personal income. It may well be that the negative short-term growth finding is driven by the relative poverty of the migrants who eventually upskill and integrate, but our data cannot clarify that conjecture. Our third finding is that immigration causes a slight but real decline in growth and level of the employment of locals who are native-born, again relative to other states/decade

https://www.hoover.org/sites/default...ge_updated.pdf

You have to wade through the spin and bias in this lefty one, but even they can't deny it; and yes we know it's not just about economics, but culture and ethnicity:

There are at least two potential reasons for the negative rhetoric. It has been argued that migrants can displace native workers in the labour market, or lower their wages. Most studies find only a limited effect of migration on the average wages and employment of native workers (for a survey, see Peri 2014). However, some find a negative impact on the wages of low-skilled workers (e.g., Borjas 2003, Card 2001). Migration has also been associated with social tensions – in part related to differences in culture and language – when migrants find it difficult to integrate in the labour market and in society. In Europe, surveys show that personal concerns over the compositional effects of migration – such as language and culture – matter much more to people than economic concerns such as jobs (Card et al 2012).

https://voxeu.org/article/immigratio...mic-prosperity

You will no doubt reach for the parts in this article that support your case, but this is a crummily-written pro-immigration article that steadfastly ignores the notion that the wage for picking strawberries should rise in order to reflect the value of the work, rather than undermining the value by displacing the population with cheaper immigrants. This goes to the heart of the tension between whether a country is an ethnic state based on families/tribes/ethnicities or a cynical civil state that treats people like numbers to serve corporate masters. The latter seems to be espoused by the left, and seems pretty Tory to me. Why do you wonder why northern English working-class labour-voters vote Leave in droves? Because family/tribe/ethnicity means something to them - their notion of identity is not of a contrived melting pot or rainbow nation, it's of a England of ethnically English people, with a few minorities for fancy food.
The article above makes a reasonable case for an Australian/Canadian points system, to filter out the cockle pickers.

quite some research you did there, too bad you don't understand any of it, and still get to the wrong conclusions, that is Brexit is going to be great for the UK

hopeless

Vive Boris and le Hard Brexit

Impossibl to have a debate if some twat fucks it up by deleting posts they think in their addled mind are inappropriate. Fucking stupid.

I can remember the first bit, but the podgy cross-eyed thread vandaliser will now force us all to copy our text before submitting it and repost it over and over again until it stays.

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

quite some research you did there, too bad you don't understand any of it, and still get to the wrong conclusions, that is Brexit is going to be great for the UK

It took about three minutes of reading, much like the Belgian primary school system:

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

hopeless

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

Vive Boris and le Hard Brexit

My Brexit is so hard right now, I can't wait for them to pull back my prorogation.

Well, I guess the response to that would be that there's a thread for stuff like this in the doghouse...

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

That's about as strong as the average remaintard's debating skills get.

https://teakdoor.com/the-dog-house/19...ol-3-pull.html


In fairness to you Nemo, you weren't posting when the main BREXIT thread was cleaned up.

Now you know.

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

My Brexit is so hard right now, I can't wait for them to pull back my prorogation.

You can repeat your favourite joke there to your heart's content.

The Brexit imbroglio has just gotten that much more imbrolio.

The Sunday Times today are leading with a story by their Insight team which has unearthed evidence that BoJo thE Clown corruptly dispensed patronage while Mayor of London in return for sexual favours he received from an American glamour model he had set up in a London love nest. Not only did he let her travel the world as a bogus London corporate representative but he set her up in business out of public funds earmarked for genuine start-ups.

Even in these times of moral laxity the fat cvunt should be prosecuted for this.

What a bastard, he's a fucking sexual obsessive and a serial liar.

Brexit has just got its extension.

Originally Posted by cyrille

Well, I guess the response to that would be that there's a thread for stuff like this in the doghouse...

https://teakdoor.com/the-dog-house/19...ol-3-pull.html

In fairness to you Nemo, you weren't posting when the main BREXIT thread was cleaned up.

Now you know.

You can repeat your favourite joke there to your heart's content.

It's not my favourite one, that was just a throwaway. When you say "cleaned up", you mean like a Stalinist left-wing purge of EU dissenters?

Well they've wrecked this thread now... mods to the rescue whilst I toss you lot's floppy arguments around like a dog toy.

This whole forum belongs in the doghouse. MKP was always the best part of the forum.

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

The Brexit imbroglio has just gotten that much more imbrolio.

The Sunday Times today are leading with a story by their Insight team which has unearthed evidence that BoJo thE Clown corruptly dispensed patronage while Mayor of London in return for sexual favours he received from an American glamour model he had set up in a London love nest. Not only did he let her travel the world as a bogus London corporate representative but he set her up in business out of public funds earmarked for genuine start-ups.

Even in these times of moral laxity the fat cvunt should be prosecuted for this.

What a bastard, he's a fucking sexual obsessive and a serial liar.

Brexit has just got its extension.

Nobody really cares... John Major and his Back to BDSM, Paddy Pantsdown and hie Libidinous Demagogues, and New Labour orcish army of gargoyles destroyed any notion of moral propriety in politics. the whole point of Trump and Bojo and Farage and whoever else is rile the left and batter down their paper fascist fortress. We know the remainstream media will smear relentlessly, but you also know that they're preaching to the choir and none of it dents the vote. The right don't do cult-followings like Mao, Blair, and Obama, or the Holy EUrine Empire, we just want results.

Just looking at the ST magazine, and it's wall-to-wall wimmin's isshooz; how anyone can call it a right-wing paper is a joke, they put up stories about deposing the queen on the front page, and scarely conceal their europhile diversity-dalek agenda.

uh-oh brexiteers....

Supreme court poised to rule against Boris Johnson, say legal experts

Boris Johnson would have no option but to recall MPs to Westminster if the supreme court rules he misled the Queen, senior legal sources told the Observer yesterday.


There is a growing belief in the legal community that the court will find against the government when it hands down its momentous verdict on Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament.


The prospect of the court finding against the prime minister has left the UK heading towards a “constitutional eruption of volcanic proportions”, according to another senior legal figure who asked not to be named. He said he also believed the case would go against the government.


Before the case, few thought the court would determine that Johnson’s advice to the Queen to suspend parliament for five weeks would be found unlawful. But over the course of the three-day hearing opinion has dramatically shifted.

“The dominant feeling among informed observers is that the government is on the ropes and it’s going to lose,” said Philippe Sands QC, professor of law at University College London.


A panel of 11 justices heard appeals arising out of two separate legal challenges in England and Scotland, in which leading judges reached different conclusions.


The court’s president, Lady Hale, has said the judges hope to give their decision early this week.


“We are solely concerned with the lawfulness of the prime minister’s decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament on the dates in question,” she said. “As we have heard, it is not a simple question, and we will now carefully consider all the arguments that have been presented to us.”

Experts were quick to identify three aspects of the case that should trouble the government. First, the judges spent a large portion of their time exploring possible remedies – what they might determine must happen if they find against the prime minister. In other cases, judges seldom devote effort to discussing remedies if they are not seriously considering finding in favour of the complainant, legal sources say.

Second, Hale’s forensic questioning of the government’s lawyer, Lord Keen, suggested she was dubious about the arguments he was presenting. Third, the fact that the court has yet to deliver a decision should send alarm bells ringing. In the words of one legal expert, “the fact they haven’t given a decision now with reasons to follow would tend to suggest the government is going to lose at some level. If they were going to find for the government, why bother stringing it out?”

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019...P=share_btn_tw

interesting, I thought he would have a good case in court to continue the prorogation

the court might argue that the intentions of the prorogation was against the true spirit of the prorogation rule