Jump to content
Cheshire-Cat

UK Teresa May's post-brexit immigration policy

Recommended Posts

Ortac

I think that it has now got to the point where the Conservative party in the UK have now condemned themselves to a very long period in opposition, and they are not going to be able to do anything now to prevent that regardless of what happens with Brexit. Deal, no deal, or cancel and remain; they have conducted themselves so badly and upset the nation so much that the damage they have done to themselves is now irreversible. 

 

The question of when it happens is entirely in the hands of the Labour party and when they get their act together and make themselves into a party that is fit to govern. Right now, the Labour party is in such an appalling state that people probably wouldn't want to risk electing them into government, but all they have to do is get rid of Corbyn and Abbott and any other useless individuals making up the shadow cabinet, install a competent leader, and they will have no problem beating the Conservative party in a general election, and probably a couple more after that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyenAutowegCaptain

Therein lies the problem. None of the main parties have demonstrated that they are fit to govern. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ortac
12 minutes ago, Sleighcaptain said:

Therein lies the problem. None of the main parties have demonstrated that they are fit to govern. 

I think that if the Labour party had done the sensible thing and made Owen Smith party leader when he challenged Jeremy Corbyn instead of keeping Corbyn, things could now be very different. I am not saying that Mr Smith would have been the most brilliant leader ever, but he would at least have been much more competent than Corbyn and Milliband before him, and there would actually be a proper opposition to the Conservative government right now. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyenAutowegCaptain

It's a bit off topic, but many people don't trust Labour after the Blair/Brown years of unfettered borrowing, wars of questionable legality etc. The Lib-dems lost credibility by jumping into coalition with the Tories. UKIP got us into this mess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

I'd vote for Corbyn, he's a decent bloke. The media has done an excellently biased job painting him as an anti-semetic, 'evil communist' though, and people are stupid enough they won't do any thinking for themselves on the matter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
michaeld
2 hours ago, Sleighcaptain said:

It's a bit off topic, but many people don't trust Labour after the Blair/Brown years of unfettered borrowing, wars of questionable legality etc. The Lib-dems lost credibility by jumping into coalition with the Tories. UKIP got us into this mess. 

I think the lib dems were treated rather unfairly. They went into a coalition with the Tories because the numbers didn't add up to make a coalition with Labour, and this was the only way they could make a difference. Plus they were under a lot of pressure to make a government for the sake of the country. I think they threw out a lot of bad stuff that didn't even make it to a vote. If they'd still been in the coalition after the 2015 election, they would have thrown out the Brexit referendum and we wouldn't be in this mess. Cameron would probably have been relieved to have a get-out.

 

I think Corbyn is a decent person but I dont agree with his politics. I'd only consider voting Labour if they ran on a clear promise of halting Brexit or having another referendum. Or at the very least, adopt a policy of staying in the single market (e.g. the EEA). Unfortunately, Corbyn keeps on ruling this out.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tanwen

Lib Dems are merely Tories under a different name.

Are those who were influenced by the Brexit propaganda any more delusional than those who believed that of Project Fear? Because the dire consequences they forecast have simply not materialised. The pound has dropped in value, but has not gone into freefall - and it could be said that the Euro is in greater danger. Growth is still healthy - better than some other EU countries; countries outside the EU are keen to trade with us. 

And British fishermen will be able to go to sea when weather permits, not confined to port other than a few days each year.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
michaeld
2 hours ago, Frankentan said:

Lib Dems are merely Tories under a different name.

False. Leaving aside every other difference in policy, the lib dems are resolutely pro-remaining in the EU.

 

2 hours ago, Frankentan said:
Are those who were influenced by the Brexit propaganda any more delusional than those who believed that of Project Fear? Because the dire consequences they forecast have simply not materialised.

The current situation is every bit as bad as I feared. If anything I'd say "Project Fear" were guilty of understatement. And we haven't even left the EU yet.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
3 hours ago, Frankentan said:

And British fishermen will be able to go to sea when weather permits, not confined to port other than a few days each year.

There's a valid reason to restrict fishing, to prevent overfishing. Fish stocks in many places have collapsed 90% or more. If people want to continue slaughtering fish they're going to have to stop eating the oceans bare. It has nothing to do with the pesky EU being nasty.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tanwen

A good proportion of the Tories are pro EU, that's why May is having such a hard time getting anything agreed.

 

The ONS figures aren't bad - https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/abmi/qna

But, as I say I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer so what would I know? :) 

 

Under the CFP, the British fishermen are allowed to go to sea only for a set number of days and are further restricted as to teh TYPE of fish they can catch. Now, although radar can indicate a shoal, it does not tell them the breed of fish. They only know that when the bring the nets on board. If it's a type they are not allowed catch then it must be returned to the sea. Unfortunately the fish are dead by this time so they're in effect polluting the seas with dead fish. Can you tell me how that policy helps to preserve fish stocks? Don't forget,the UK is signed up to the UN Law of the Sea Convention which allows countries to establish an Exclusive Economic Zone of up to 200 nautical miles from their coast. The convention also require countries to ensure that fish stocks are conserved. Cornish lobster fishermen have strict regulations as to the size and gender of the lobsters they're allowed to land. THe EU does not have a monopoly on conservation of anything.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

I mean, I'd rather people just stop eating fish. It would solve many issues and prevent needless, widespread, inhumane deaths.

 

/end diversion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daveb

The more I hear about UK politics the more it reminds me of US politics. :P My condolences.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
michaeld

Not quite but it's getting that way. And in some ways Brexit is even more devastating than Trump. At least the Trump insanity will be over in 2 or 6 years, whereas Brexit will have a detrimental effect possibly for decades or forever.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daveb

Some of the effects of Trump could last quite a while, too (like judicial appointments, and impacts to things like global climate change, the economy, etc.). But I take your point. Hopefully we can start getting back to better things once he's out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyenAutowegCaptain

Trouble is that here it's not just TM. This whole charade has split the country in two. Like apartheid in South Africa only not divided on race, but your political view. 

In my opinion if this goes ahead I will be stripped of my European citizenship. To remove someone's citizenship is a capital crime persuant to the Geneva Convention on War Crimes. Nuff said really 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

The US is pretty much split in two also.  Actually, it's split into more  than two divisions; we only have two major parties, but within those parties there are very ugly divisions with various sectors yelling at each other.   The frustration with Trump has heightened our natural surliness.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
michaeld

I think at the moment Trump is a step too far for most Brits. I have a couple of Brexit supporting relatives[1] (I try to avoid discussing the subject) and at least one of them is horrified by Trump. There are a few Brits such as Farage who like him, but I can't imagine him getting a significant portion of the vote.

 

[1] However my two living grandparents (who are on opposite sides of the family) - at the time 88 and 90 - voted Remain, defying the stereotype that all older people voted leave. Maybe the generation before the baby-boomers are more likely to support Remain? Who knows...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ben8884

Apparently my great grandparents were in favour of joining the EU. They had seen Europe ripped apart by war twice and wanted peace.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
michaeld
59 minutes ago, ben8884 said:

Apparently my great grandparents were in favour of joining the EU. They had seen Europe ripped apart by war twice and wanted peace.

That's what my grandparents say too.

 

Of course this kind of thing triggers the inevitable "ooh Project Fear - you're saying there's going to be World War 3 if the UK leaves the EU??" response. No, I don't think there will be another European war immediately on leaving the EU (though we already came closer than I would have expected over Gibraltar!) No, I don't think the EU and its predecessor the EEC is the only reason we've had peace in Europe for over half a century - I'd give NATO at least equal credit.

 

However the cooperation of a continent that was twice at war in the last century is not something to be sniffed at and thrown away at least without a thoroughly thought out alternative plan. Which of course we never had.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ortac
On 12/23/2018 at 11:46 AM, Anthracite_Impreza said:

I'd vote for Corbyn, he's a decent bloke. The media has done an excellently biased job painting him as an anti-semetic, 'evil communist' though, and people are stupid enough they won't do any thinking for themselves on the matter.

That may be, but it is not really a good idea to choose your politicians based on whether they are decent and nice people. Of course, I haven’t met Mr Corbyn, but I do get the impression from what I do know that he probably is a decent and genuine bloke with honest intent, and if we did meet, I am sure we would get along well. (I think he is probably a nicer person than Mrs May or Monsieur Macron). I don’t believe any of this anti-Semitism nonsense, that is just the usual pathetic print media picking up on the slightest insignificant thing and twisting it and blowing it out of all proportion.

 

However, crucially I also believe that Mr Corbyn is not competent enough to govern and run a country. He and his colleagues have shown that they are woefully ignorant of matters of finance, and the Labour party seems to have a “magic money tree” policy, which essentially means borrow and spend money they don’t have and worry about the consequences later. That is just a recipe for disaster.

 

That is a situation we have already been through in France after Nicolas Sarkozy went up against François Hollande for the presidency in 2012. I do suspect very strongly that it is highly likely that Sarko is not a very nice man (as demonstrated by the infamous «Casse-toi, pauvre con» incident) but he was without doubt the right man to hold the role of president at the time because he was an experienced and extremely competent politician with realistic policies. Hollande was portrayed as the “ordinary” nice bloke, but he also had a "borrow our way out of this mess" policy and he too thought he had a magic money tree.

 

As it was, Hollande prevailed, and look what then happened - by the end of his term, he had screwed up so badly with his unsustainable social policies that he didn’t even bother standing for re-election because he knew he didn’t stand a chance.

 

3 hours ago, michaeld said:

However my two living grandparents (who are on opposite sides of the family) - at the time 88 and 90 - voted Remain, defying the stereotype that all older people voted leave. Maybe the generation before the baby-boomers are more likely to support Remain? Who knows...

 

1 hour ago, michaeld said:

However the cooperation of a continent that was twice at war in the last century is not something to be sniffed at and thrown away at least without a thoroughly thought out alternative plan. Which of course we never had.

 

Yes, I have thought exactly the same thing. But to expand a bit on what you’ve said, I think that people who were of a mature age at the time of the second world war and who have real memories and understanding of it are likely to have a more favourable view of the European project and what it strives to achieve than those who are a little bit younger. By my calculations, your grandparents would have been around 17 and 19 in 1945, old enough for the war to have affected them and shaped their opinions on life.

 

I think those senior leave voters are those who are a little bit younger, who were maybe 10 years old and younger when the war ended. Those are the people who never had real first hand experience of the true meaning and sacrifices of the war (Because when you are ten years old, unless you are exceptionally mature for your age, you never have a true understanding of current affairs and you are largely sheltered from them).

 

I think that many of the people who did go through World War II but were no longer with us to vote in 2016 would have been extremely happy and humbled by what the nations of Europe have achieved and built together since those dark times, but they would also be extremely disappointed and saddened to see that their children have decided to make Britain the rogue nation by throwing all that away. My British grandfather who was born in the 1910s decade died years ago, but I am confident that would have been his viewpoint.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
20 minutes ago, Ortac said:

Labour party seems to have a “magic money tre

Except, that's exactly how a sovereign nation works. The government of a sovereign nation can NEVER go bankrupt as it can produce its own money. It doesn't need to borrow anything.

The first few paragraphs explain how it works:

https://dailyreckoning.com/modern-monetary-theory-mmt-fiat-money-works/

 

*This doesn't work with Euro countries individually, because they can't produce the Euro, but it works the same with the EU as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ortac
On 12/23/2018 at 11:58 AM, michaeld said:

If they'd still been in the coalition after the 2015 election, they would have thrown out the Brexit referendum and we wouldn't be in this mess. Cameron would probably have been relieved to have a get-out.

I reckon that was Cameron's intentions all along. The referendum idea was a promise to get elected, but he didn't believe that the Conservative party would win a majority; he thought the coalition would continue as it was and then he could throw out the promise of holding a referendum and blame it on the Liberal Democrat party. Unfortunately the plan backfired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
michaeld
15 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

Except, that's exactly how a sovereign nation works. The government of a sovereign nation can NEVER go bankrupt as it can produce its own money. It doesn't need to borrow anything.

The more money you print, the more you devalue your currency. This means your entitlement to assets goes down, for a given amount of money.

 

That isn't to say that printing money is always a bad thing. It can be the best thing to do in a given circumstance. But it always comes with a price, even if not immediately obvious.

 

This is really a separate topic - maybe a thread split?

 

11 minutes ago, Ortac said:

I reckon that was Cameron's intentions all along. The referendum idea was a promise to get elected, but he didn't believe that the Conservative party would win a majority; he thought the coalition would continue as it was and then he could throw out the promise of holding a referendum and blame it on the Liberal Democrat party. Unfortunately the plan backfired.

Yes that seems very plausible.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ortac
5 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

Except, that's exactly how a sovereign nation works. The government of a sovereign nation can NEVER go bankrupt as it can produce its own money. It doesn't need to borrow anything. 

 

That is not the case. Well, in theory, a government could do that and produce its own money. Indeed they have done it with quantitive easing, but it had to be done in an extremely careful and measured way. The actual value of money cannot be created. All that printing money does is effectively re-distribute funds, it does not create them. Producing money makes no difference to the level of goods and services that are available for that money to purchase, and as such you have a greater amount of money chasing the same goods and services which causes inflation. So in effect, by producing more money for itself, a government would be taking money off ordinary people and business who had saved it and utilising it for their own ends. If a government did that excessively, that would have dire consequences.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

The government is taking no money off anyone; did you read the analogy? The government has to create the money in the first for the people to have any; taxes are simply destroyed/wiped off the sheet. A government deficit (government spending) is a surplus to the people (more money in the real economy), which is what makes it so sad that everyone seems to believe this "debt" nonsense.

 

MMT simply states how it works, not how it should be handled. Indeed, if run correctly, taxes would take excess money out of the economy and reduce inflation. They also create a desire for the currency and give it worth (if you have to pay in that currency, rather than grain bushels, the currency gains a value). They can also incentivise a behaviour (tax breaks if you recycle more etc.).

 

I'm aware this is against what you've been taught your whole life, but read up on it. MMT simply is how it actually works and some very nasty people are benefitting from this idea the government has to borrow/tax to fund spending (because they make money from it). The only constraints we do have are resource/workforce ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
michaeld

Believe me, I've read the arguments on this. I'm well aware there are renowned economists who make exactly this case. As far as my best judgement goes, they are dead wrong. I'm not an economist (I'm a mathematician whose research doesn't really intersect economics) but as far as I can tell, their arguments are flawed.

 

My views are somewhat closer to

https://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2012/10/why-dean-baker-and-paul-krugman-were-wrong-on-the-debt-burden-for-at-least-11-months.html

and

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/06/do_we_just_owe.html (see also link within).

 

Again maybe this should be split to a separate thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ben8884

I mean, I don't think that Europe will now descend into civil war because of Brexit or that the EU is the only reason it hasn't happened yet. That being said, the EU was created for peace and since its creation none of the EU countries have been at war with themselves-it surely served its purpose and I think to this day is still a major factor in a peaceful Europe. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lil
On 12/23/2018 at 10:23 PM, Skycaptain said:

Trouble is that here it's not just TM. This whole charade has split the country in two. Like apartheid in South Africa only not divided on race, but your political view. 

In my opinion if this goes ahead I will be stripped of my European citizenship. To remove someone's citizenship is a capital crime persuant to the Geneva Convention on War Crimes. Nuff said really 

Not saying I'm not agreeing with you but isn't their argument that EUropean citzenship doesn't really exist as the EU isnt a 'country' as it were and therefore we can't be stripped of something we never had?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
michaeld
47 minutes ago, Lil said:

Not saying I'm not agreeing with you but isn't their argument that EUropean citzenship doesn't really exist as the EU isnt a 'country' as it were and therefore we can't be stripped of something we never had?

The EU isn't a country, true, but EU citizenship definitely exists. It entitles one to reside in any EU country.

 

I don't know if removing EU citizenship is covered by the Geneva Convention though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyenAutowegCaptain

I don't think it can be, or there'd have been a major outcry by now 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...