Pound/ Euro

[Conoflex]

Immigration is a part of modern life, but it needs to be controlled- it's that simple.

Under EU rules not only is it uncontrollable, it becomes self fuelling- one person leaves let's say an Eastern European country, establishes a foothold in the UK so that their relatives find it easier to follow suit and get established themselves and so on and so forth. That theory would help explain why Tony's 30,000 became 600,000

So we may see an increase in GDP because of the increased economic activity such migration brings, but we are seeing falling living standards and diminishing social services as the population increases, primarily amongst the low earning, less skilled sections of the "community" that receive more from the state in their lifetime than they ever can contribute

It puts pressure on the limited housing stock, it puts downward pressure on wages (zero hour contracts etc) leads to a rise in black market employment (because income can be supplemented by benefits) and all in all for many parts of the UK freedom of movement has been a complete and utter disaster for the residents (even some of the existing immigrants have had enough)

No one even knows how many people have arrived here - official estimates say 300,000 net per annum but the number may be a lot higher. You cannot plan anything if you have no idea how many people are arriving legally entitled to free education for their kids, subsided housing and free health care (and of course in the light of the UK's decision to quit the 2 transitory year period will see a spike in these numbers as people settle before it becomes a more complicated process )

That is not racism- that is just good old fashioned common sense. Pyramid selling and Ponzi schemes are illegal in the real world, but that is precisely what is going on in the UK at the moment with EU Freedom of Movement and EU expansion policies

quick ps- my step daughter works in the NHS - some of the stories she could tell you are unbelievable, but true. One recent case involved an elderly Polish man who came to the UK effectively to die. He is currently in a UK nursing at astronomical cost to the UK taxpayer (literally thousands per week) which makes some of the recent NHS pay increases little more than laughable. It may even be that he is being looked after by Polish care workers employed by the NHS !!!!

[Steve - SJD]

No one even knows how many people have arrived here - official estimates say 300,000 net per annum but the number may be a lot higher. You cannot plan anything if you have no idea how many people are arriving legally entitled to free education for their kids, subsided housing and free health care (and of course in the light of the UK's decision to quit the 2 transitory year period will see a spike in these numbers as people settle before it becomes a more complicated process )

That is not racism- that is just good old fashioned common sense.

Wasn't the 300,000 net figure estimate total immigration in the year including EU & non-EU?
I think it was around 330,000 net so let's stick with that for a minute.

So over half of that figure was already covered by immigration rules as they are outside the EU.

The figure from the EU was around 180,000 when you take out people going in the other direction.

Around half of those 180,000 came from the established EU countries.

Everyone says they want sensible controls so it seems to me that people are suggesting there
won't be a complete halt to immigration from the EU. We will still need workers etc and that isn't
going to change any time soon.

So let's say for arguments sake that we manage to stop 50% of the immigration from the EU.

That would cut immigration by around 90,000 a year - would that satisfy people??

Of course though in the EU countries where Brits live & work and where we wish to continue
trading there is going to have to be some reciprocal agreement regarding people.

So the figure of 90,000 less might reduce if we consider that Brits will want fair and equal treatment.

Of course we will want to go out in the world and secure new trade deals - but these countries
aren't going to bend over backwards just because the UK has left the EU.

We've so far had soundings from India, Australia etc all big markets and so far they have suggested
that in the course of agreeing a trade deal they would want to secure easier access for their people
to move and work in the UK. I have no doubt that other large countries will wish to do the same.

The above could easily amount to the same number of people that we stopped coming from the EU
don't you think?

That's before you consider the spike that you suggested or any changes that the French may
wish to apply to border controls once we leave.

So the UK may regain control of the part of immigration that it didn't have covered already but the
end result could be very different from what people seem to be anticipating.

BTW Your PS - I agree it's wrong but there are ways of cutting down on this without putting the
economy further at risk. Remembering of course that any faltering of the economy would likely
hit the financing of the very public services that people are supposed to be concerned about.

Cheers

Steve

[Conoflex]

Lots of if and buts and maybes there , but the bottom line is that free trade does not need to include freedom of movement of people-the EU/ Canada deal proves that

The right people, in the right numbers, in the right jobs is ideal and the only way it can actually work in the long term -that scenario is as far removed from the current situation as anyone could ever imagine. Some of the current "regional" EU unemployment rates are only going to exacerbate the problem for the UK (after they have "benefited" from some of the other of the EU's "freedoms" policies )

[Steve - SJD]

Lots of if and buts and maybes there , but the bottom line is that free trade does not need to include freedom of movement of people-the EU/ Canada deal proves that

Not really and the bottom line is that surely if you are a member of a club that has certain rules in
place you can't think by simply leaving you would have the same members benefits but without the rules.

Whilst the EU Canada deal does not include freedom of movement nor does it include access to
some of the important financial services sectors, free trade for all farming and we would still have
to comply with a raft of regulations etc etc. The history, geography and the movement of UK and
other EU citizens means that a deal with the UK would unlikely be the same as that offered to Canada.


Cheers

Steve

[Conoflex]

We can easily have freedom of movement of goods and services in the EU and people could travel vise free throughout Europe without the freedom of movement of people.

Freedom of movement works if you have comparable states of comparable wealth with comparable cultures-it all starts to fall apart if you try and implement it without those basic criteria. The freedom of movement of people principle has been twisted into a tool to break down national barriers in the EU as part of it's supra national agenda, but it now having the effect of increasing nationalism and extreme nationalism

Britain now needs to control it's borders- not because we are racist, but because we cannot cope with the sheer numbers that are heading here. The continuing economic crisis in Europe and the lunatic expansion policy into poorer nations will send a torrent of people to the UK

We need immigration but we need the right numbers and the people. If we need doctors we get doctors- we do not let them all turn up to look for work , employ what we need and let the rest find employment working in our bars and hotels. That doesn't do them any good and it doesn't do the country they came from any good either. The EU also needs to curb freedom of movement because it is giving rise to the political forces that will tear the EU apart .

Britain asked for a deal to control its borders and was denied that. The UK cannot control its borders whilst it remains part of an EU that turns a blind eye to the problems it's polices are creating and that is why we have chosen to leave

The threat of expulsion from the single market is the stick that is used to try and beat nations into accepting the other unacceptable parts of the EU's common policies that are devised for purely political and not economic reasons. It's not only Britain that has wised up to that unacceptable state of affairs, it's becoming a lot more prevalent throughout Europe too. That is the real bottom line

[cyprusgrump]

Whilst the EU Canada deal does not include freedom of movement nor does it include access to
some of the important financial services sectors, free trade for all farming and we would still have
to comply with a raft of regulations etc etc. The history, geography and the movement of UK and
other EU citizens means that a deal with the UK would unlikely be the same as that offered to Canada.

This argument is brought up time and time again...

Of course we will still have to comply with a raft of regulations if we sell to the EU...

But of course we do that already, and we do the same thing when we sell to the US and to Canada and Australia...

We make US compliant when we sell to the US and EU compliant products when we sell to the EU.

The difference is Mr. Dyson would sell a EU compliant vacuum cleaner to the EU but if he wanted he could sell a vacuum cleaner with a whacking great motor to somebody that wanted one ion the UK...

[Conoflex]

and we'd be able to buy light bulbs for 25pence that actually work when it's dark

[Conoflex]

Have you read either of those links thoroughly ?- there are so many caveats in them it defies belief

[cyprusgrump]

Prime Minister of Spain is getting a bit of a squeaky bum though- his country has a unemployment rate of 21%, an "inflation" rate of -0.2% (which is a lot worse than an inflation rate of 3.5%) and Brexit has the capacity to hit Spain a lot harder than it will hit the UK.

Perhaps Spain's economy is actually doing better than you suppose: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/spains-econom ... 50071.html

OMG, two positive EU stories in a row: http://cyprus-mail.com/2017/01/30/euroz ... cal-risks/

Perhaps the EU isn't facing the end of the World after all

Meanwhile In Greece...

Greece has three weeks to deal with 'potentially disastrous' debt

Greece’s embattled government has three weeks to break the deadlock in increasingly difficult talks with creditors or risk the country’s debt crisis resurfacing with renewed vigour.

Faced with the dilemma of agreeing to additional austerity or calling fresh elections, prime minister Alexis Tsipras was weighing his options at the weekend. Fears of further uncertainty in Europe’s weakest member state mounted as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicted that Greece’s debt load could become “explosive” by 2030.

“It is critical that a compromise is found,” said Aristides Hatzis, professor of law and economics at the university of Athens, noting that a slew of elections across Europe would only make Greece’s predicament worse.

“If these negotiations are not wrapped up by 20 February [when eurozone finance ministers next meet] we could be looking at potentially disastrous political turmoil, which would bring back the scenario of Grexit with a vengeance.”

[Conoflex]

They've kicked the Greek can so far down the road so many times it's not even a can any more- it just a few bits of rusty tin held together by a threadbare paper wrapper (apologies to Andy Warhol)

[panoscouse]

Whilst the EU Canada deal does not include freedom of movement nor does it include access to
some of the important financial services sectors, free trade for all farming and we would still have
to comply with a raft of regulations etc etc. The history, geography and the movement of UK and
other EU citizens means that a deal with the UK would unlikely be the same as that offered to Canada.

This argument is brought up time and time again...

Of course we will still have to comply with a raft of regulations if we sell to the EU...

But of course we do that already, and we do the same thing when we sell to the US and to Canada and Australia...

We make US compliant when we sell to the US and EU compliant products when we sell to the EU.

The difference is Mr. Dyson would sell a EU compliant vacuum cleaner to the EU but if he wanted he could sell a vacuum cleaner with a whacking great motor to somebody that wanted one ion the UK...

A vacuum cleaner with a more efficient motor using far less power at an affordably cost is more desirable than an energy guzzler made on the cheep purely for profit.

[cyprusgrump]

Whilst the EU Canada deal does not include freedom of movement nor does it include access to
some of the important financial services sectors, free trade for all farming and we would still have
to comply with a raft of regulations etc etc. The history, geography and the movement of UK and
other EU citizens means that a deal with the UK would unlikely be the same as that offered to Canada.

This argument is brought up time and time again...

Of course we will still have to comply with a raft of regulations if we sell to the EU...

But of course we do that already, and we do the same thing when we sell to the US and to Canada and Australia...

We make US compliant when we sell to the US and EU compliant products when we sell to the EU.

The difference is Mr. Dyson would sell a EU compliant vacuum cleaner to the EU but if he wanted he could sell a vacuum cleaner with a whacking great motor to somebody that wanted one ion the UK...

A vacuum cleaner with a more efficient motor using far less power at an affordably cost is more desirable than an energy guzzler made on the cheep purely for profit.

And if your choice is to have a clever vac with a small motor then so be it...

...but if your choice is to have a cheap vac with a whacking great motor that should be fine too...

It isn't (or shouldn't be) the place of the EU to tell us what sort of vac we should buy or the type of light bulbs we are allowed to use. We have an excellent mechanism for deciding that - it is called The Market.

So make the best, fastest,cheapest lightest, most efficient vac and the public will beat a path to your door - an other manufacturers will no doubt follow suit or go bust.

Create rules and regulations about what we can or cannot use and stifle innovation and competition...

[panoscouse]

This argument is brought up time and time again...

Of course we will still have to comply with a raft of regulations if we sell to the EU...

But of course we do that already, and we do the same thing when we sell to the US and to Canada and Australia...

We make US compliant when we sell to the US and EU compliant products when we sell to the EU.

The difference is Mr. Dyson would sell a EU compliant vacuum cleaner to the EU but if he wanted he could sell a vacuum cleaner with a whacking great motor to somebody that wanted one ion the UK...

A vacuum cleaner with a more efficient motor using far less power at an affordably cost is more desirable than an energy guzzler made on the cheep purely for profit.

And if your choice is to have a clever vac with a small motor then so be it...

...but if your choice is to have a cheap vac with a whacking great motor that should be fine too...

It isn't (or shouldn't be) the place of the EU to tell us what sort of vac we should buy or the type of light bulbs we are allowed to use. We have an excellent mechanism for deciding that - it is called The Market.

So make the best, fastest,cheapest lightest, most efficient vac and the public will beat a path to your door - an other manufacturers will no doubt follow suit or go bust.

Create rules and regulations about what we can or cannot use and stifle innovation and competition...

With that argument it's a wonder we're not still driving round in Morris 1000's or a Volkswagen Beetle. After all they were the popular choice.

[cyprusgrump]

A vacuum cleaner with a more efficient motor using far less power at an affordably cost is more desirable than an energy guzzler made on the cheep purely for profit.

And if your choice is to have a clever vac with a small motor then so be it...

...but if your choice is to have a cheap vac with a whacking great motor that should be fine too...

It isn't (or shouldn't be) the place of the EU to tell us what sort of vac we should buy or the type of light bulbs we are allowed to use. We have an excellent mechanism for deciding that - it is called The Market.

So make the best, fastest,cheapest lightest, most efficient vac and the public will beat a path to your door - an other manufacturers will no doubt follow suit or go bust.

Create rules and regulations about what we can or cannot use and stifle innovation and competition...

With that argument it's a wonder we're not still driving round in Morris 1000's or a Volkswagen Beetle. After all they were the popular choice.

No, quite the opposite...

We used to drive around in those cars and thought they were the bees knees - but then the Japanese came along and we realised how much better they were and started buying those. See also: The British Motorbike Industry.

Healthy competition from a better, cheaper and more importantly more reliable product forced the UK motor industry (and others) to up their game and produce a better product.

Note that we didn't need legislation to achieve this... The Market took care of it...

[panoscouse]

And if your choice is to have a clever vac with a small motor then so be it...

...but if your choice is to have a cheap vac with a whacking great motor that should be fine too...

It isn't (or shouldn't be) the place of the EU to tell us what sort of vac we should buy or the type of light bulbs we are allowed to use. We have an excellent mechanism for deciding that - it is called The Market.

So make the best, fastest,cheapest lightest, most efficient vac and the public will beat a path to your door - an other manufacturers will no doubt follow suit or go bust.

Create rules and regulations about what we can or cannot use and stifle innovation and competition...

With that argument it's a wonder we're not still driving round in Morris 1000's or a Volkswagen Beetle. After all they were the popular choice.

No, quite the opposite...

We used to drive around in those cars and thought they were the bees knees - but then the Japanese came along and we realised how much better they were and started buying those. See also: The British Motorbike Industry.

Healthy competition from a better, cheaper and more importantly more reliable product forced the UK motor industry (and others) to up their game and produce a better product.

Note that we didn't need legislation to achieve this... The Market took care of it...

When the Japanese cars first arrived in the UK they were nothing but rust buckets with engineering based on European cars. Far worse than what was already available. It took them about 10 years to produce a more efficient car that people would buy. Because of the EU marketplace it was no doubt worth their investment to produce a better product.
Their main success was helped enormously by their ability to address the emissions regulations in the US. Most notably California.
You see how legislation played it's part?

[Conoflex]

Oh dear - Volkswagen emissions anyone ?

[cyprusgrump]

With that argument it's a wonder we're not still driving round in Morris 1000's or a Volkswagen Beetle. After all they were the popular choice.

No, quite the opposite...

We used to drive around in those cars and thought they were the bees knees - but then the Japanese came along and we realised how much better they were and started buying those. See also: The British Motorbike Industry.

Healthy competition from a better, cheaper and more importantly more reliable product forced the UK motor industry (and others) to up their game and produce a better product.

Note that we didn't need legislation to achieve this... The Market took care of it...

When the Japanese cars first arrived in the UK they were nothing but rust buckets with engineering based on European cars. Far worse than what was already available. It took them about 10 years to produce a more efficient car that people would buy. Because of the EU marketplace it was no doubt worth their investment to produce a better product.
Their main success was helped enormously by their ability to address the emissions regulations in the US. Most notably California.
You see how legislation played it's part?

No, it was competition generally that moved us away from driving Morris 1000s to more modern and sophisticated cars - not legislation...

[panoscouse]

No, quite the opposite...

We used to drive around in those cars and thought they were the bees knees - but then the Japanese came along and we realised how much better they were and started buying those. See also: The British Motorbike Industry.

Healthy competition from a better, cheaper and more importantly more reliable product forced the UK motor industry (and others) to up their game and produce a better product.

Note that we didn't need legislation to achieve this... The Market took care of it...

When the Japanese cars first arrived in the UK they were nothing but rust buckets with engineering based on European cars. Far worse than what was already available. It took them about 10 years to produce a more efficient car that people would buy. Because of the EU marketplace it was no doubt worth their investment to produce a better product.
Their main success was helped enormously by their ability to address the emissions regulations in the US. Most notably California.
You see how legislation played it's part?

No, it was competition generally that moved us away from driving Morris 1000s to more modern and sophisticated cars - not legislation...

Legislation has been with us since the industrial revolution making lives better on a progressive basis. It will continue ad infinitum.
Unless we go the way of the dinosaurs.

[cyprusgrump]

When the Japanese cars first arrived in the UK they were nothing but rust buckets with engineering based on European cars. Far worse than what was already available. It took them about 10 years to produce a more efficient car that people would buy. Because of the EU marketplace it was no doubt worth their investment to produce a better product.
Their main success was helped enormously by their ability to address the emissions regulations in the US. Most notably California.
You see how legislation played it's part?

No, it was competition generally that moved us away from driving Morris 1000s to more modern and sophisticated cars - not legislation...

Legislation has been with us since the industrial revolution making lives better on a progressive basis. It will continue ad infinitum.
Unless we go the way of the dinosaurs.

I remember my stepfather had a Datsun 120Y Estate. it was a brilliant car for the time - a revelation compared to the British cars on the road. I think they were mostly orange like his.

That car went on forever and he vowed that he would never buy another British car. As it was, he didn't need to as it outlived him and went for scrap when he could no longer drive.

It wasn't legislation that made the Datsun a better car - it was competition and the Japanese were better at it than us...

Innovation makes us better, not competition crushing legislation.

EDIT TO ADD: I just found this on Wiki...

When introduced in the UK, the 120Y quickly gained popularity, further strengthening Datsun's position, helping it to gain second place amongst foreign imports. The car's popularity was due to its having high equipment levels for its price, its reliability, and the fact that UK-manufactured cars were in short supply due to the continual strikes and stoppages affecting British car plants at the time.

[Wallace]

Pound dropped following Supreme Court judgement, but has recovered and increased to 1.1658. Still not great, but better than prophesied post brexit vote. Interested to see where it will go when article 50 is triggered.

Wallace

This was what I would like to have seen discussed when I posted this thread.
Many interesting comments, but we seem to have drifted a bit.

Wallace