[Politics] Brexit

[smeg]

I don't think I did, perhaps I should have used a new paragraph for clarity.

I can only imagine what some of the poster are going to say after the "deal" that our esteemed leader is negotiating with India comes to fruition.

 

[Pretty Plnk Fairy]

For a while there have been two Pretty pink fairy accounts. One posts as Pretty pink fairy, which is the punishment meted out by mods to a notorious poster called Das Reich. The other is Pretty PInk Fairy and this is definitely a spoof, although I find it amusing as it tends to write stuff about jamborees and preserves.

Three for two on winter berries compote if you are sharpish this Saturday at Haywards Heath Harvest Festival. Further discoant for cash, keep it quiet from the OB though, dont want my collar felt for underdeclaring VAT. Nuff said

Regards
DR

 

[nicko31]

Brexit benefits - British craft beer is more plentiful due to the drop in price. A small price drop in Burts Crisps as well.

Indian Mangoes too, Theresa is working hard. Its not all bad...

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

That's a shame on two counts. One, you failed to appreciate my tone was an amplification of yours. Two, you'd now realise why your view as expressed is not valid.

I feel suitably admonished. Look, I'm just giving my view. You're right that it is just that rather than fact but
I am not claiming any more to it. Not much different to voting in an election. One takes a view on which representative to choose for office. Likewise yours is just a view. Your view is not any more valid than mine, it's just different. What surprised me was the certainty with which you dismissed my view as that is not debating the issue. You may not see it but my views on the EU are based on economic theory and a lot of those who are driving the project would be in agreement that more integration is needed rather than more opt outs. Where I differ from the EU is that I think the price to be paid for greater integration is too high. This is where I think the debate is to be had. The idea of a many speed EU is simply a compromise presented to divided electorates until such a time that full integration can be sold. This really isn't a soapbox, it's a view of what's in store for those nations that remain within the project. It is the reason I voted Leave.
I think that perhaps you view your ideals as higher than those people on the Leave side which is why you feel able to express such disdain. This is the reason I was disappointed with your post. No worries at all though.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I can only imagine what some of the poster are going to say after the "deal" that our esteemed leader is negotiating with India comes to fruition.

Why do you put 'deal' in quotation marks ? Don't you want a trade deal with India ? I can understand voting Remain but
I'm really struggling with the concept of wishing ill on a trade deal.
I can assure you that if Remain had won the referendum I would have supported EU efforts to increase trade with India.

 

[nicko31]

This reminds me a lot of Zanu PF's henchman on the streets of Harare when they didn't get what they want from the courts...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-100000-strong-march-on-supreme-court-on-day/

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Your reasoning is base on prejudiced assumption, your opinion presented as fact, your conclusions flawed and you have a predilection to slip into the language of a 21st century politician. Let's ease you off the soap box, deconstruct and rationalise the whole bugger's muddle.



It is and it illustrates two points. First, the EU is flexible in accommodating the desires of member states and there is no evidence to suggest that will not continue. Second it gives the lie to the obviously popular misconception that there an evil bureaucratic force behind the scenes driving us to a terrible fate; rather decisions are made by member states after exhaustive negotiation, review and agreement.

The evidence you are missing is the economic debate on whether it is tenable to run the EU economy without EU control of taxation, banking laws and fiscal flows to offset localized economic slowdown. The current set up in the absence of these powers simply entrenches inequality and does not allow for poorer areas to emerge from recession. Consider what would happen in the sterling area if tax rIsing powers were different in every county and central government was not able to compensate with large scale government spending. There is no shortage of EU politicians and members of the commission making these very points which is the reason all new members of the EU must join the Euro. That is a material change in direction that means it would be complacent to believe that the EU will stay the same.

Cameron's widely derided mission to Brussels did at least achieve some of his objectives, primarily convincing Tusk that when the EU Treaties were next opened they would include a new reference to make it clear that the words "ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom".

Sure, fine words. However if Remain had won the referendum I would have expected such a direction to have been challenged by ideological EU advocates such as yourself. Only a view but I wasn't prepared to take the risk.

That is quite unequivocal then, no change immediately and the UK opt outs enshrined in EU Treaties going forward. We would have returned to the status quo. You are wrong.

No, I don't think so. That other EU ideologue Tony Blair gave up the previously negotiated rebate. That was an opt out.


Impressive, an assumption and a supposition in the same sentence. Simple opinion then, no logic, nothing of substance to see here.

I have explained elsewhere the process of assumption and supposition. It is how you and I and everybody else forms a political view.You may crave certainty and thereby assume your opinion as fact but
I'm afraid you have no more certainty than anyone else.



It's true that economics has taken over from peace as the driving force behind the EU but to dismiss it's other fundamental aspirations as liberal idealism is conveniently simplistic and self serving, suiting your (to borrow your phrase) binary hypothesis.

It may be simplistic but it is far from self serving. Rather, my views on capitalism inform my views on the liberal idealists promoting the EU project. I don't think you can dismiss so easily the economics and vested commercial interests at the heart of the project and you should surely consider the possibility that your idealism is being manipulated.



Your paternalistic introductory assertion achieves a slightly hysterical note although the rest of the paragraph subsides in a rather less grandoise fashion into opinion based on what appears to be an agglomeration of econo-broadsheet-speak-waffle. Let's cut through the gobbledegook. The existing UK opt outs (along with those of Eire, Denmark and Poland) are enshrined in EU Treaties and these will be modified to exclude the UK from ever closer union. This is the current situation. This will be the situation going forward. You are arguing from a viewpoint informed by your prejudice as oppose to the facts. The status quo is on offer going forward. Economic literacy?! What are you on about?

You perhaps need to re-read what I wrote. It is simply an economic analysis with a couple of consequent pathways. There is no hysteria, it's actually standard economic theory and is the premise for economists on both side of the debate. At the risk of patronizing you I really think you need to study the economics of this issue and not just the global citizen stuff. Likewise you seem confused about the single market in another post. This was created by the Tories to allow capital to move with very little
constraint and to drive down wage costs. Quite why anyone would resign from the Labour Party because they will not
promote this extension of capitalism is difficult to work out.

See above.

Now that I have a bit more time I have ignored your tone and directly addressed your points.
Unfortunately it has quoted your points and mine in the same format so it's difficult to distinguish your words from mine. Oh well.

 

[Diego Napier]

I think that perhaps you view your ideals as higher than those people on the Leave side which is why you feel able to express such disdain.

I'm not a binary(!) person and I recognise that some Brexit supporters can rationalise their choice, you included. I think your observation would probably be better expressed as me having disdain for the gullibility of the multitude of vociferously ardent yet woefully ill-informed Brexit supporters whose vote was guided solely by their gut instinct.

 

[smeg]

Don't you want a trade deal with India ? I can understand voting Remain but I'm really struggling with the concept of wishing ill on a trade deal.

Sometimes i wonder if you just type a response for the hell of it, where do I say or even suggest I don't want a trade agreement, or that I wish it ill?

 

[Hastings gull]

I'm not a binary(!) person and I recognise that some Brexit supporters can rationalise their choice, you included. I think your observation would probably be better expressed as me having disdain for the gullibility of the multitude of vociferously ardent yet woefully ill-informed Brexit supporters whose vote was guided solely by their gut instinct.

You really must come to grips with the fact that most folk do not have your intellectual superiority and just bumble along regardless, unable to sift out any fact from fiction. Thankfully we have you on here to point out so many others' failings.

 

[smeg]

Mr Farage claimed that being able to deny entry to EU citizens would open the door for more immigration from the rest of the World and in particular, the Commonwealth, you know Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh etc. Not a problem for me, but if you hoped you will be seeing less Muslims migrating here, you are going to be disappointed.

Indeed: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...migration-policy-wreck-post-brexit-trade-deal

 

[heathgate]

I'm not a binary(!) person and I recognise that some Brexit supporters can rationalise their choice, you included. I think your observation would probably be better expressed as me having disdain for the gullibility of the multitude of vociferously ardent yet woefully ill-informed Brexit supporters whose vote was guided solely by their gut instinct.

There it is, that casual disregard and obvious intolerance for any alternate view... you know it smacks of fascism don't you?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Two Professors]

So Diego is still clever. This is a rather shit put-down.

You obviously confuse me with someone who gives a monkey's what a totally irrelevant urophile thinks!It really is about time you dinosaurs gave up whinging and moved on,or passed on.You really have taken whining as far as it can go.If you and your financial Shangri-La want to leave Great Britain then please hurry up and do so.If you can take all the other useless people with degrees in knitting and sociology with you,it would be greatly appreciated.Thank you,and hopefully,goodbye!

 

[Two Professors]

There it is, that casual disregard and obvious intolerance for any alternate view... you know it smacks of fascism don't you?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Or even communism!

 

[Diego Napier]

There it is, that casual disregard and obvious intolerance for any alternate view... you know it smacks of fascism don't you?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Or even communism!

You thicko right-wing boot-boy thugs won't succeed in goading me.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Sometimes i wonder if you just type a response for the hell of it, where do I say or even suggest I don't want a trade agreement, or that I wish it ill?

Well, you put 'deal' in speech marks. That would usually be to imply some sort of doubt about the process or the true intent of something else I am missing. If you hadn't used the speech marks I wouldn't have typed my reply. It wasn't for the hell of it but rather that I genuinely didn't (and don't) know what you mean. UK trade negotiators have travelled to India to try to strike a trade agreement. Seems straightforward.
By the way I understand the point you are making about those that may dislike any deal because of concessions on Indian immigration. Who knows if those people are significant in numbers but whether they are or are not doesn't negate the powerful reasons why a directly negotiated trade deal may be a good thing.

 

[heathgate]

You thicko right-wing boot-boy thugs won't succeed in goading me.

At least your tedious barbs serve to help cure my insomnia.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[El Presidente]

Well, you put 'deal' in speech marks. That would usually be to imply some sort of doubt about the process or the true intent of something else I am missing. If you hadn't used the speech marks I wouldn't have typed my reply. It wasn't for the hell of it but rather that I genuinely didn't (and don't) know what you mean. UK trade negotiators have travelled to India to try to strike a trade agreement. Seems straightforward.
By the way I understand the point you are making about those that may dislike any deal because of concessions on Indian immigration. Who knows if those people are significant in numbers but whether they are or are not doesn't negate the powerful reasons why a directly negotiated trade deal may be a good thing.

It would be churlish for anyone to want a free trade greement to be unsuccessful. There are however a number of significant hurdles to overcome first. India has high tariffs and barriers to the domestic market, and has had significant GDP growth during that period. So the benefits to India for a free trade agreement must be significant for India before they sign up, as otherwise, why bother?

One of the concessions that Modi wants is more flexibility in relation to student visas. When May was Home Secretary she oversaw a regime which reduced these from 68,000 in 2010 to less than 12,000 by 2015. The average international student is paying £15,000 a year to study in the UK, so the HE sector is losing £840 million a year purely from fees, plus the ancillary amounts they spend in terms of transport, housing and ad hoc purchases.

Once these students graduate (and IMO they tend to be pretty good as a rule) then if there are graduate jobs available, then it makes sense to give them to the best candidates, regardless of birthplace, as grads tend to earn more and therefore pay more in tax than non-grads.

May is proposing a golden ticket in terms of speeding up the visa process for rich businessmen, but not much more. These businessmen didn't have many problems getting visas historically anyway.

Surely if British business expects to sell to India then it needs the knowledge of the market that comes from having, say, Indian MBA graduates working for British companies in the UK? Knowledge of the local market is essential, and so is networking. These students have both, which is why I can't understand the government's approach.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

It would be churlish for anyone to want a free trade greement to be unsuccessful. There are however a number of significant hurdles to overcome first. India has high tariffs and barriers to the domestic market, and has had significant GDP growth during that period. So the benefits to India for a free trade agreement must have significant benefits for India before they sign up.

One of the concessions that Modi wants is more flexibility in relation to student visas. When May was Home Secretary she oversaw a regime which reduced these from 68,000 in 2010 to less than 12,000 by 2015. The average international student is paying £15,000 a year to study in the UK, so the HE sector is losing £840 million a year purely from fees, plus the ancillary amounts they spend in terms of transport, housing and ad hoc purchases.

Once these students graduate (and IMO they tend to be pretty good as a rule) then if there are graduate jobs available, then it makes sense to give them to the best candidates, regardless of birthplace, as grads tend to earn more and therefore pay more in tax than non-grads.

May is proposing a golden ticket in terms of speeding up the visa process for rich businessmen, but not much more. These businessmen didn't have many problems getting visas historically anyway.

Surely if British business expects to sell to India then it needs the knowledge of the market that comes from having, say, Indian MBA graduates working for British companies in the UK? Knowledge of the local market is essential, and so is networking. These students have both, which is why I can't understand the government's approach.

Completely agree. I think this illustrates the point about the relative merits of skilled and
unskilled immigration. Skilled people have been traveling between countries for centuries. I think it should be encouraged and particularly with regard to India. As you say, that market is extremely challenging and we need all the local knowledge we can get ! If we can replace unskilled Euro area immigration with a smaller number of skilled workers and students from
India (and elsewhere, including the EU) our economy will benefit and we would not face the current downward pressure on the wages of the low skilled and low paid. Sounds simplistic but so is the free for all that comes with EU membership.

 

[portslade seagull]

You thicko right-wing boot-boy thugs won't succeed in goading me.

I think you'll find the left wing boot boy thugs are worse