Brexit Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Which sort of bigot would you like me to pretend to be?

---

Allison Pearson said that this wasn't what she voted for when she voted Leave. I pointed out that the sentiments of the Leave voters, straight after the referendum, focused on immigration as the biggest issue, and that there was markedly increased hostility towards foreigners immediately after the referendum. The Tory government has taken the referendum result and the reasons for the result to mean a mandate for things like the Rudd proposal. And polls indicate that she's right. The referendum result, polls about the result, and polls specifically about the measure indicate that she has the support of he British people. But what do individual Brexiters think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Which sort of bigot would you like me to pretend to be?

---

It's one of the consequences you should have seen comming really, Brexit dug a hole and it's filled with nothing. That was to be expected no? I fully believe it was for the best for you brittish and I hope whe get rid of that hissing in our necks here in the the Netherlands soon as well, back of go away. I am not going to pretend I am not a bigot because I'll have someone riding against my Legs in no time

One question for Brexiters to answer is, does Rudd have the mandate for this?

I have absolutly no idea, never even heard of him/her

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I have absolutly no idea, never even heard of him/her

---

She's the Home Secretary, ie. the person the heads the department dealing with domestic affairs. The position may be called Interior Minister in some countries. Anything to do with UK residents is her area. Another way of wording the question is, since Rudd is the official spokesperson for the government in this area, does the UK government have the mandate to make companies list their foreign employees?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

One question for Brexiters to answer is, does Rudd have the mandate for this?

---

According to you it has the support of the British people - so I suppose the answer is "yes".

Whether it's a morally defensible measure would be a separate question because democracies are effectively amoral when it comes to foreigners.

It is "funny" how everything regarding Brexit has to have a mandate whereas almost all other activities the government does can just sail along; Often when the MPs vote, even if they all unanimously voted for a motion they would still represent less than 50% of the UK populace due to first past the post.

If the relationship between the UK and EU was between two people, the EU would be locked up for aggressive and threatening behaviour. The best argument to remain continues to appear to be that if we leave the other European countries will be as unpleasant as possible - no upside whatsoever.

An economic union such as South Korea has with the EU is clearly possible, so their attitude is intentional.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

If the relationship between the UK and EU was between two people

---

This metaphor is rhetorically inert unless you wish to reorganize your conception of international relations according to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

It is "funny" how everything regarding Brexit has to have a mandate whereas almost all other activities the government does can just sail along; Often when the MPs vote, even if they all unanimously voted for a motion they would still represent less than 50% of the UK populace due to first past the post.

If the relationship between the UK and EU was between two people, the EU would be locked up for aggressive and threatening behaviour. The best argument to remain continues to appear to be that if we leave the other European countries will be as unpleasant as possible - no upside whatsoever.

An economic union such as South Korea has with the EU is clearly possible, so their attitude is intentional.

~:smoking:

---

The mandate bit is important, because the government accepts that it has to do something. What is that something? Does it include the Rudd proposal? Does it include other measures to further clamp down on foreigners? Should the government do these things, if they have popular approval?

The mandate was to do something.

The government is often elected and then proceeds to undertake acts that it never so much as mentioned on the election platform, including wars.

The mandate was to get out. The details of what "out" looked like is for the government and civil service to work out.

Popular approval is a two edged sword: what about deporting all minorities / homeless / non-straight people? So the government is there to do what is best for the country (which itself is a woolly concept) rather than pander to the flavour of the moment.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

She's the Home Secretary, ie. the person the heads the department dealing with domestic affairs. The position may be called Interior Minister in some countries. Anything to do with UK residents is her area. Another way of wording the question is, since Rudd is the official spokesperson for the government in this area, does the UK government have the mandate to make companies list their foreign employees?

---

Absolutily not, that goes way too far for me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

You really don't know anything if you think Havering is poor.

---

Romford's an unswept hole in the ground dotted with rusting factories and decaying offices choked with congested roads and plaugued by homicidal traffic light sequencers. The rest of havering must be a dream land if it's supposed to shake off romford's shell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The mandate bit is important, because the government accepts that it has to do something. What is that something? Does it include the Rudd proposal? Does it include other measures to further clamp down on foreigners? Should the government do these things, if they have popular approval?

---

The mandate was conferred last year during the election. The Referendum was held to decide who governs, not how​ they govern. To suggest that our democratically elected government does not have a mandate to govern is, as we say, unwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Romford's an unswept hole in the ground dotted with rusting factories and decaying offices choked with congested roads and plaugued by homicidal traffic light sequencers. The rest of havering must be a dream land if it's supposed to shake off romford's shell.

---

So you don't know about the suburbia that is Upminster, Hornchurch, and the rest of Old Havering. There are areas where houses are near mansion size. The reason why Havering may be relatively cheap, house wise, is because the rail lines only serve the borough sparsely. The bits that used to be farmland, pre-war, are far away from any rail service. And of course, areas like proper, really Ye Olde Havering (such as the village that gives the borough its name) don't even pretend to have rail service. These areas have properties that are nearabouts an acre per as standard, each supporting several cars (including a minimum of one Rover, Land or Range). I don't know about their house prices, but I wouldn't call them poor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

The mandate was conferred last year during the election. The Referendum was held to decide who governs, not how​ they govern. To suggest that our democratically elected government does not have a mandate to govern is, as we say, unwise.

---

Would a Norwegian solution, retaining access to the single market whilst respecting the four freedoms (including freedom of movement), but severing links to the European parliament, be an acceptable response to the referendum result?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Would a Norwegian solution, retaining access to the single market whilst respecting the four freedoms (including freedom of movement), but severing links to the European parliament, be an acceptable response to the referendum result?

---

I suggested exactly that directly after the Referendum result. I has been my preferred position for several years now. However, in the long term I don't believe Freedom of Movement will last - unregulated movement of labour is rather like unregulated capitalism. You institute it in the hope it will result in something better for everyone, but what you tend to find is it devolves to the lowest common denominator. In the case of product that means a crap fridge that lasts five years, in the case of the labour market it means minimum wage.

"Oh we can't get Brits to do this job!"

You could if you offered them a decent wage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

I suggested exactly that directly after the Referendum result. I has been my preferred position for several years now. However, in the long term I don't believe Freedom of Movement will last - unregulated movement of labour is rather like unregulated capitalism. You institute it in the hope it will result in something better for everyone, but what you tend to find is it devolves to the lowest common denominator. In the case of product that means a crap fridge that lasts five years, in the case of the labour market it means minimum wage.

"Oh we can't get Brits to do this job!"

You could if you offered them a decent wage.

---

Greyblades made the case that freedom of movement was one of the reasons he voted no, on the grounds that there are limited resources to go round (housing was one cited resource IIRC) and that immigrants inflated the housing market. Goodness knows what he made of Corbyn's position that there should be no limits on immigration, but then that lot have a habit of ignoring logic and consistency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Greyblades made the case that freedom of movement was one of the reasons he voted no, on the grounds that there are limited resources to go round (housing was one cited resource IIRC) and that immigrants inflated the housing market. Goodness knows what he made of Corbyn's position that there should be no limits on immigration, but then that lot have a habit of ignoring logic and consistency.

---

Tart as it may seem, I'm not Greyblades. Nor am I Rory or InsaneApache.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

"Oh we can't get Brits to do this job!"

You could if you offered them a decent wage.

---

And then the price would probably triple or worse in quite a few cases.
People might stop buying that thing and then what happens to the jobs?
If people continue to buy it, they have less disposable money for other things, affecting other jobs.
The question is whether the ones getting jobs at first will get a sufficient amount of income to make up for that.
But consider that their income has to be less than what everybody else spends on the produce they produce or else the company is working at a loss, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Tart as it may seem, I'm not Greyblades. Nor am I Rory or InsaneApache.

---

A fair number of people think like him though. And I'd like to know what he thinks of the Rudd proposal. It hammers immigrants, which was his key area of concern. The Rudd proposal seeks to dissuade companies from employing immigrants, thus making the UK less attractive to them, thus reducing immigration whilst leaving the government's hands free in other areas. If immigration is thus reduced and the government is still free to negotiate a way to remain in the single market, then the housing market can be made accessible to people like him without further damaging the economy. Thus would Greyblades and others who think like him agree with proposals like the above that seek to make the UK more unpleasant for immigrants?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

And then the price would probably triple or worse in quite a few cases.
People might stop buying that thing and then what happens to the jobs?
If people continue to buy it, they have less disposable money for other things, affecting other jobs.
The question is whether the ones getting jobs at first will get a sufficient amount of income to make up for that.
But consider that their income has to be less than what everybody else spends on the produce they produce or else the company is working at a loss, no?

---

Triple? No, I don't think so - possibly double.

In wealthy Western countries Eastern European and African immigrants have begun to form a specific subclass, One that works harder, for less money, with less benefits and worse housing. The free movement of people exacerbates this problem so that instead of integrating they they are beginning to form new ghettos.

We need to start weening ourselves off this cheap labour, it causes wage depression across the continent, that means we all have four TV's and people in Poland are still a decade behind us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Triple? No, I don't think so - possibly double.

In wealthy Western countries Eastern European and African immigrants have begun to form a specific subclass, One that works harder, for less money, with less benefits and worse housing. The free movement of people exacerbates this problem so that instead of integrating they they are beginning to form new ghettos.

We need to start weening ourselves off this cheap labour, it causes wage depression across the continent, that means we all have four TV's and people in Poland are still a decade behind us.

---

Consider that when the net pay doubles or almost doubles, the income tax bracket and other related payments may go up considerably, so the labour cost of the employer may easily triple. But even a doubling of the price of food for example may just counter the wage increase especially for the poorer strata of society.

I fully agree though that the wealth discrepancies are a bad thing, I'm just not sure whether they are caused by the free movement of labour alone. You also get free movement of labour within a country and it is perfectly possible for the wealth discrepancy within a nation to be as large as the one between two nations. Within Germany we also have a few wealthy cities and some cities that are close to bankruptcy. With your argument, we should limit the movement of labour between these cities to give the poor ones a chance?

One could even argue that the wealth discrepancy leads to the wage depression as wealthy people get more control over politics and therefore it is a vicious circle. However, we worship the free market with all of its invisible hands and every politician who wants to change it seems to have close to zero chance of getting elected. I still maintain that wealth is relative and every time you "empower" a poor guy to be able to buy a TV, having a TV is now the new standard for poverty. That is something you can only mitigate by doing something against the income and wealth inequality and therefore the difference in political power.

We currently have a competitive system where everyone likes to pretend that we can all be winners if we just want it enough and stick to the rules. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Greyblades made the case that freedom of movement was one of the reasons he voted no, on the grounds that there are limited resources to go round (housing was one cited resource IIRC) and that immigrants inflated the housing market. Goodness knows what he made of Corbyn's position that there should be no limits on immigration, but then that lot have a habit of ignoring logic and consistency.

---

I think it is funny that the main thing that proved corbyn unelectable is that he didnt diverge from the party line you defended so vigerously.

And here comes Scotland:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...eferendum.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

And here comes Scotland:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...eferendum.html

---

I don't think that having to divest themselves of Scotland would slow the Tory push for a hard exit. Might well enhance it. British "country mice" want OUT and they want out last week or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I don't think that having to divest themselves of Scotland would slow the Tory push for a hard exit. Might well enhance it. British "country mice" want OUT and they want out last week or so.

---

Tories like the status quo. Scotland within the Union but denied to its main opponents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Tories like the status quo. Scotland within the Union but denied to its main opponents.

---

Tony Blair doomed the UK when he created the devolved administration. No government will ever agree to federalise England into its historic regions and the longer Scotland remains an anomaly the more inevitable a divorce becomes. Just like Ireland, just like India, Canada, Australia.

Ironically Blair made Disraeli's mistake of believing people would be grateful for getting a vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

And here comes Scotland:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...eferendum.html

---

Reminds me of the Life of Brian - they don't want a referendum (since economically it'd be a disaster unless oil doubles / triples in value) but their electorate gets all excited about discussing the right to have one.

~:smoking:

Doesn't this repetitive "In, Out; In, Out" strike you as metaphorical?

For the most part, I'm interested in the economic outlook that's related to the Brexit. Initially, the weakness in the pound triggered a solid business/economical outlook, but that took a serious crash dive when PM May outlined her plans to trigger the Brexit, which caused some serious havoc in the exchange markets. GBP/USD (Pound to dollar ratio) took a serious beating, and even suffered a flash crash of 6%.

That's not a good sign by any standards - even if a flash crash was most likely triggered by automatic sellings because of the breaking of a support/resistance point within the exchange market.

In the long run, economically, it can benefit or it can suffer. It depends very much on the government.

Britain needs to do the Brexit really carefully. Manage it properly, or else there will be some consequences for the entire world, not just for Britain.

Bloomberg article on the GBP - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...-hedges-expire