The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[sidicks]

walm said:

You mean why would I vote to remove ourselves from our most important trading partnership and create a minimum of two years of uncertainty, putting the entire economic recovery in jeopardy just to be rid of a tiny number of extra people each year (who probably pay their way or are at least close to doing so)?

Good question!

We can still trade with the EU post Brexit.
HTH

[PRTVR]

walm said:

sidicks said:

Conversely if you already have significant issues to address, why would you deliberately make it worse?

You mean why would I vote to remove ourselves from our most important trading partnership and create a minimum of two years of uncertainty, putting the entire economic recovery in jeopardy just to be rid of a tiny number of extra people each year (who probably pay their way or are at least close to doing so)?

Good question!

What number do you think is acceptable immigration wise ? what would be your plan if we exceeded it and were still in the failing EU without control, if things keep getting worse for some EU countries immigration is just going to rocket. in the end we will be able to let in who we need not who wants to come, a big difference.

[walm]

Murph7355 said:

That isn't what regaining sovereignty is about though walm...it's one small manifestation of it.

The economic stuff is just bunkum that people will be making money on at present. It'll wash away soon enough.

I hope you are right.
As for sovereignty, I will trust you on that one, I have to admit it wasn't a huge feature in my decision-making process, I am not a particularly patriotic person, fair enough to those that are.

[Murph7355]

walm said:

I hope you are right.
As for sovereignty, I will trust you on that one, I have to admit it wasn't a huge feature in my decision-making process, I am not a particularly patriotic person, fair enough to those that are.

I'm not sure patriotism describes it either. More "self-determination". But maybe that's the same thing.

I think there's a delicate balance on that front where too much or too little is unhealthy. Over several thousand years we've played at these sort of things and by and large when things get too big they collapse in a pretty unsavoury way.

There is then, of course, the Scottish argument. Personally I think that's too small a "unit" and thankfully so did the Scots by majority...though tbh I don't think Scotland going was as ideologically challenging to me as staying in Europe. With the way the world is evolving, I think the UK is the right sort of size to control itself effectively, and that the EU had become too intrusive with nation states of too disparate a make up for what it was trying to achieve.

Everyone else's MMV of course

Strong trading relations with one's is always preferable. But I don't see Brexit impacting that materially once the political elite have untwisted their collective panties.

[Mrr T]

Murph7355 said:

Mrr T said:

Ok how about.

These are facts that support my arguement.

They don't do it very well though - are you suffering from the cold that everyone's been having? Or have you swapped user accounts with //ajd? Your posts lately haven't been as sound (if somewhat blinkered/misguided ) as they were not long ago...

Averages are fine, but in terms of immigration why are we concerning ourselves with averages? The indigenous population is perfectly capable of breeding those that need taking care of (apparently). So we have enough people born here lowering averages. We do not need to import more.

We need to control immigration to the point where those below the average marker(s) are told they must not pass go, must not collect £200 and can go back from whence they came (other than in exceptional circumstances).

This is one area where we do not have sufficiently strong data to make any case whatsoever, and averages are of no help. One thing I would like us to do with our new found sovereign control is to start collating and using our data more effectively so that in future these sorts of argument are less easy to have - get some true "facts" out there to kill most of the argument before it gets out of hand (you'll never appease the true knuckle dragger...but then I do not believe many of those actually exist).

Are you suggesting I am like //ajd!!!!!!! Now I really am insulted.

I have always made my views on EU immigration clear. It’s the market based solution. Efficient and cheap. The outcome has been strong economic growth while unemployment falls and job availability remains high.

It’s funny the UK economy is currently growing strong. Growth which is at least partly the result of EU immigration.

Some now want to change that and introduce a government run scheme which will be dysfunctional and inefficient.

I would agree about the lack of detailed statistics but what we do have support my views.

[stongle]

Murph7355 said:

That isn't what regaining sovereignty is about though walm...it's one small manifestation of it.

The economic stuff is just bunkum that people will be making money on at present. It'll wash away soon enough.

The economic stuff is not “all” bunkem (unless you are talking about subjective interpretation Viz immigration over incomplete datasets).

The implementation of economic policy IS going to dictate what our business relationship with Europe and RoW looks like.

This in turn will effect sovereign decision making – Fiscal over Monetary policy etc (something that being out better allows). Massive win for us, we get full sovereign control plus greater economic flexibility (e.g. new debt agency / infrastructure led).

Hammond yesterday advanced (publically) the same thoughts myself, you and others made (earlier on the thread) that the negotiations will be asymmetrical (if the EC does not play ball we kick you in the dingaling on Corporation Tax – funnier that Corbyn didn’t see that one coming – says a lot); and that we’re about to play macro (economic) whack-a-mole.

Anyone involved in a business more complex than picking peanuts out of poo, should be able to determine this. Funnier that our most ardant Brexiteers advance a get out quick approach that is dangerous across the business spectrum…

Same can be said for the “loss of passporting” argument. The EC concluded the consultation period on IFRS9 on Friday. They are now looking to kick that can out to 2023. BoE and FASB looking at earlier implementation (especially as the US is implementing a super punitive CECL model – Current Expected Credit Loss). If the non-Eurobanks have regulatory capital bases 20-50% higher than the local competition you wouldn’t be able to compete with the local firms. It’s a f**king nonsense. Passporting = immediate price disadvantage (especially as the sh*tty credit in many member states means the effect is exponential).

Edited by stongle on Monday 16th January 16:04

Edited by stongle on Monday 16th January 16:05

[Burwood]

Mrr T said:

Murph7355 said:

Mrr T said:

Ok how about.

These are facts that support my arguement.

They don't do it very well though - are you suffering from the cold that everyone's been having? Or have you swapped user accounts with //ajd? Your posts lately haven't been as sound (if somewhat blinkered/misguided ) as they were not long ago...

Averages are fine, but in terms of immigration why are we concerning ourselves with averages? The indigenous population is perfectly capable of breeding those that need taking care of (apparently). So we have enough people born here lowering averages. We do not need to import more.

We need to control immigration to the point where those below the average marker(s) are told they must not pass go, must not collect £200 and can go back from whence they came (other than in exceptional circumstances).

This is one area where we do not have sufficiently strong data to make any case whatsoever, and averages are of no help. One thing I would like us to do with our new found sovereign control is to start collating and using our data more effectively so that in future these sorts of argument are less easy to have - get some true "facts" out there to kill most of the argument before it gets out of hand (you'll never appease the true knuckle dragger...but then I do not believe many of those actually exist).

Are you suggesting I am like //ajd!!!!!!! Now I really am insulted.

I have always made my views on EU immigration clear. It’s the market based solution. Efficient and cheap. The outcome has been strong economic growth while unemployment falls and job availability remains high.

It’s funny the UK economy is currently growing strong. Growth which is at least partly the result of EU immigration.

Some now want to change that and introduce a government run scheme which will be dysfunctional and inefficient.

I would agree about the lack of detailed statistics but what we do have support my views.

I would say the economy is growing in spite of immigration I don't have an issue with EU citizens coming here IF they have a job. And it's not just about immigration. Or maybe it is for most but not me. I don't want closer union and erosion of our sovereignty. I have every confidence that we'll strike a decent deal and not look back.

[B'stard Child]

walm said:

Murph7355 said:

You're washing numbers over 65m though. Again, I don't think that's necessarily helpful.

It's more helpful than saying "A CITY THE SIZE OF COVENTRY EVERY YEAR!!!!!", isn't it?
I mean, I have no idea, but the idea of building an entirely new town every year sounds preposterously difficult to me.
But the idea of comfortably absorbing an extra 0.3% seems like a drop in the ocean, when we have c.2% GDP growth etc...

Murph7355 said:

If those 0.3% per annum are in concentrated pockets around the country (which I am pretty sure will be the case), then for the indigenous people in those areas their perception of the drag on services might actually be very true.

And it wouldn't take too many pockets for word to get around that it's a problem and perceptions elsewhere to become tainted (rightly or wrongly).

I think that is an excellent point.

Sadly it just means that a bunch of people made an historic decision based on mis-perceptions, doesn't it?

^ Because you think that the majority voted with immigration in mind - yes?

What about the people who voted leave for other reasons - did they make their decision based on miss-perceptions to use your words? I had 273 reasons to leave and 11 to stay - none of my 273 reasons were racist or xenophobic

My reason to leave number 51

The people of Greece twice voted for the anti-austerity Syriza party and once voted in a national referendum to reject the EU bailout terms. The EU, in collaboration with the International Monetary Fund, ignored their votes and imposed its own onerous debt extension. That has kept the Greek economy crippled for years. Greece's only other option was to leave the eurozone and reinstate the drachma. This is not democracy, if your only choices are "do as we say or implode your economy with a risky currency switch."

Or are we falling back to it was those racist or xenophobic b'stards that ruined the country?

[B'stard Child]

Mrr T said:

B'stard Child said:

Mrr T said:

What annoys me is posters who start a discussion on EU immigrants with the words “uneducated” and “minimum wage”.

I wasn't aware I had?

You had not said that and I was not suggesting you would.



If you check further up the tread you will see I was initially reesponding to a poster who had chosen to use one of the words.

My error - I didn't think you had but was checking to make sure*

* Trying to limit my quotes so people on mobiles don't whinge so much

[turbobloke]

B'stard Child said:

Mrr T said:

B'stard Child said:

Mrr T said:

What annoys me is posters who start a discussion on EU immigrants with the words “uneducated” and “minimum wage”.

I wasn't aware I had?

You had not said that and I was not suggesting you would.



If you check further up the tread you will see I was initially reesponding to a poster who had chosen to use one of the words.

My error - I didn't think you had but was checking to make sure*

* Trying to limit my quotes so people on mobiles don't whinge so much

Very thoughtful!

Ooops, what have I done

[B'stard Child]

turbobloke said:

Very thoughtful!

Ooops, what have I done

I'm not throwing rocks - I live in a glass house

[anonymous-user]

walm said:

jsf said:

When your services are at 99.8% capacity, 0.3% does not become a rounding error, it becomes a crisis.

When your services are at 99.8% capacity, 10 years of 0.3% does not become a rounding error, it becomes beyond a crisis to very dangerous.

When you have governments (all of them) that underestimate the amount of population growth by 5 million over a 10 year period, so don't plan accordingly, you get a crisis.

I have posted endless figures before.
We aren't at or close to 99.8% capacity.

Check available school places.

Here's the NHS bed capacity analysis: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/u...
It's around 90% give or take.

So feel free to continue to make up numbers to support your viewpoint... but it just makes you look ignorant.

Jeez, you are hard work.

[don4l]

walm said:

I have posted endless figures before.
We aren't at or close to 99.8% capacity.

Check available school places.

Here's the NHS bed capacity analysis: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/u...
It's around 90% give or take.

So feel free to continue to make up numbers to support your viewpoint... but it just makes you look ignorant.

Don't you listen to the news or read the newspapers?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/14/he...

Who looks ignorant now?

The Independent said:

More than a dozen hospitals have reported that 100 per cent of their beds are in use, with one hospital in Essex remaining without a single free bed in any general or intensive care ward for 27 days in December.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hosp...

[FiF]

Cancer operations being cancelled due to lack of beds. Guy on radio this morning, had his first session of chemo, two weeks later rang up to check bed availability for second session of chemo, no bed. Rang up every day for ages, no bed every day.

[alfie2244]

Very much doubt there are Trusts that haven't cancelled operations due to lack of beds but things may have eased a little recently I am reliably informed.

[wiggy001]

walm said:

I have posted endless figures before.
We aren't at or close to 99.8% capacity.

Check available school places.

Here's the NHS bed capacity analysis: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/u...
It's around 90% give or take.

So feel free to continue to make up numbers to support your viewpoint... but it just makes you look ignorant.

If bed capacity is at 90% (ie 10% free) then you would agree that there is no reason for single person to spend a single minute in a corridor on a trolley?

[B'stard Child]

loafer123 said:

Some useful data here;

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources...

Found this pre referendum

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...

[don'tbesilly]

wiggy001 said:

walm said:

I have posted endless figures before.
We aren't at or close to 99.8% capacity.

Check available school places.

Here's the NHS bed capacity analysis: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/u...
It's around 90% give or take.

So feel free to continue to make up numbers to support your viewpoint... but it just makes you look ignorant.

If bed capacity is at 90% (ie 10% free) then you would agree that there is no reason for single person to spend a single minute in a corridor on a trolley?

walm said:

Here's the NHS bed capacity analysis: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/u...
It's around 90% give or take.

Refers to:

Bed Availability and Occupancy – Quarter ending 30th September 2016:

[loafer123]

If it is anything like hotels, 100% occupancy might happen on some nights, but certainly nowhere near on a quarterly basis. Think of all the people who have operations on a Thursday or Friday and leave on a Saturday or Sunday.

[ATG]

paulrockliffe said:

walm said:

I have posted endless figures before.
We aren't at or close to 99.8% capacity.

Check available school places.

Here's the NHS bed capacity analysis: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/u...
It's around 90% give or take.

So feel free to continue to make up numbers to support your viewpoint... but it just makes you look ignorant.

National averages are irrelevant to local situations.

Except the hospitals that are announcing they're in the st are all over the country, so, you know, which is it? A few localised problems or a bigger demographic shift working its way through the pipe?