UKIP - The Future - Volume 4

[s2art]

Wombat3 said:

s2art said:

Wombat3 said:

Re freedom of movement of capital. There are capital controls in effect all over the shop and they are introduced as and when governments feel like it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_control

The whole point of the EU is to allow freedom of movement between member states.

And it looks like the EU is on the wrong side of the argument for both free movement of people and capital. Basically UKIP have it right, there needs to be some control on free movement. In addition macroprudential controls on capital movement need to be implemented for the sake of stability.

UKIP only have it right if your basic belief is that we should leave the EU under all circumstances.

On the one hand there are immense benefits for functioning businesses and economies to be had from both freedom of movement of Capital and labour, but the system as it is now needs significant change to make it work. The labour part is probably the easy bit.

On the other hand, quite how you stop people moving their money out of places like Greece is another matter (and there is no doubt that the significant capital/asset flight from Greece is not helping in that instance). Much as we need changes to the freedom of movement of labour, there may well have to be some changes made to help situations like that.

Not easy to do, but nor is it impossible & if it can be made to work the benefits are significant so we should not just write the whole thing off just because its not working right now.

I think the benefits can be had with just some common sense limits. Such as a variable cap on immigration, preferably with a points system, and a few more tools in the BoEs hands to enable it to manage capital flows when required. Problem is, thats an anathema to the EU.

[Wombat3]

s2art said:

Wombat3 said:

s2art said:

Wombat3 said:

Re freedom of movement of capital. There are capital controls in effect all over the shop and they are introduced as and when governments feel like it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_control

The whole point of the EU is to allow freedom of movement between member states.

And it looks like the EU is on the wrong side of the argument for both free movement of people and capital. Basically UKIP have it right, there needs to be some control on free movement. In addition macroprudential controls on capital movement need to be implemented for the sake of stability.

UKIP only have it right if your basic belief is that we should leave the EU under all circumstances.

On the one hand there are immense benefits for functioning businesses and economies to be had from both freedom of movement of Capital and labour, but the system as it is now needs significant change to make it work. The labour part is probably the easy bit.

On the other hand, quite how you stop people moving their money out of places like Greece is another matter (and there is no doubt that the significant capital/asset flight from Greece is not helping in that instance). Much as we need changes to the freedom of movement of labour, there may well have to be some changes made to help situations like that.

Not easy to do, but nor is it impossible & if it can be made to work the benefits are significant so we should not just write the whole thing off just because its not working right now.

I think the benefits can be had with just some common sense limits. Such as a variable cap on immigration, preferably with a points system, and a few more tools in the BoEs hands to enable it to manage capital flows when required. Problem is, thats an anathema to the EU.

Indeed so - because then you don't have free movement. As I said, I think it should be not too difficult to get the labour market to self regulate fairy effectively by simply removing all the safety nets. In doing so we would then see much more benefit from free movement because it will much more closely match the economic needs of the host country rather than those of any and all migrants (which is what the current situation engenders).

The freedom of movement of capital, while highly desirable for functioning businesses , people and economies is a much more difficult/dangerous issue to deal with IMO.

[Scuffers]

Wombat3 said:

Indeed so - because then you don't have free movement. As I said, I think it should be not too difficult to get the labour market to self regulate fairy effectively by simply removing all the safety nets. In doing so we would then see much more benefit from free movement because it will much more closely match the economic needs of the host country rather than those of any and all migrants (which is what the current situation engenders).

The freedom of movement of capital, while highly desirable for functioning businesses , people and economies is a much more difficult/dangerous issue to deal with IMO.

Disagree..

Even if you cut all and any benefits, unlimited immigration will still lead to wage compression with migrants from the seriously poor third world.

[s2art]

Wombat3 said:

s2art said:

Wombat3 said:

s2art said:

Wombat3 said:

Re freedom of movement of capital. There are capital controls in effect all over the shop and they are introduced as and when governments feel like it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_control

The whole point of the EU is to allow freedom of movement between member states.

And it looks like the EU is on the wrong side of the argument for both free movement of people and capital. Basically UKIP have it right, there needs to be some control on free movement. In addition macroprudential controls on capital movement need to be implemented for the sake of stability.

UKIP only have it right if your basic belief is that we should leave the EU under all circumstances.

On the one hand there are immense benefits for functioning businesses and economies to be had from both freedom of movement of Capital and labour, but the system as it is now needs significant change to make it work. The labour part is probably the easy bit.

On the other hand, quite how you stop people moving their money out of places like Greece is another matter (and there is no doubt that the significant capital/asset flight from Greece is not helping in that instance). Much as we need changes to the freedom of movement of labour, there may well have to be some changes made to help situations like that.

Not easy to do, but nor is it impossible & if it can be made to work the benefits are significant so we should not just write the whole thing off just because its not working right now.

I think the benefits can be had with just some common sense limits. Such as a variable cap on immigration, preferably with a points system, and a few more tools in the BoEs hands to enable it to manage capital flows when required. Problem is, thats an anathema to the EU.

Indeed so - because then you don't have free movement. As I said, I think it should be not too difficult to get the labour market to self regulate fairy effectively by simply removing all the safety nets. In doing so we would then see much more benefit from free movement because it will much more closely match the economic needs of the host country rather than those of any and all migrants (which is what the current situation engenders).

The freedom of movement of capital, while highly desirable for functioning businesses , people and economies is a much more difficult/dangerous issue to deal with IMO.

Its very difficult to remove the safety nets. For some of them removing them would break EU law. Many immigrants just come here for the NHS, which is constitutionally incapable of dealing with the idea that non-brits without insurance shouldnt get more than emergency treatment.

Re Capital controls. I dont think its that difficult to put some laws in place that allows the BoE to manage inflows and outflows in exceptional cases. And thats all we really need. I dont know if that would be against EU law.

Edited by s2art on Friday 22 May 17:55

[Scuffers]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

that site is full of crap.

seriously, whoever writes that stuff is either terminally gullible or plain lying.

there are NO HARD NUMBERS for health tourism because it's not something that's logged/audited/etc.

you only have to stand in the arrivals hall of Heathrow for a couple of hours to see the scale of the problem, or better still a trip to Hillingdon Hospital and watch the admissions from heathrow, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.


then we get to the foreigners coming in with AIDS, the numbers are simply staggering.

fullfact.org is a joke, read their other so called facts, yes, they might have read a paper or two right, but they have usually missed the target by a country mile.

[s2art]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I know what is supposed to happen, just sceptical that it always does. The situation is particularly bad if someone with AIDS turns up. Farage got slated for stating a simple truth; we are already stretched to the limit and if we provide free treatment for HIV then we will suck in many more immigrants with AIDS to the detriment of our own AIDS suffferers. Its already happening.

[PRTVR]

L

Wombat3 said:

PRTVR said:

Wombat3 said:

Re freedom of movement of capital. There are capital controls in effect all over the shop and they are introduced as and when governments feel like it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_control

The whole point of the EU is to allow freedom of movement between member states.

But capital control can come in many forms, the EU proposed Tobin tax is one, I am sure in the future there will be more if the coffers become bare, free movement between states but you have to pay for it.

That seems very confused to me

WTF does a transaction tax (aimed at the boys in the city) have to do with freedom of movement of capital? I very much doubt there will be any such tax on the basic transfer of capital from one place to another within the EU. If there was then there is no longer freedom of movement of capital, much as a points based immigration system destroys the whole concept of freedom f movement of people/labour.

Can I suggest you read the link you posted.

[don4l]

Wombat3 said:

Re freedom of movement of capital. There are capital controls in effect all over the shop and they are introduced as and when governments feel like it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_control

The whole point of the EU is to allow freedom of movement between member states.

Wrong!

The whole point of the EU is summed up neatly in the very first sentence of the Treaty of Rome(1957).

It is "an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe".

Before the 1970's referendum, some politicians tried to warn us, but they were loudly derided. Other politicians told us that simply about free trade, and food security. Much to my shame, I believed that it was about free trade, and I supported membership.

Also, can you explain why you think that the free movement of capital without the free movement of people?

Finally, the EEC was about the free movement of goods rather than capital.

[don4l]

TKF said:

don4l said:

So, I'd like to politely ask you to reduce your input for a couple of days.

Oh do run along you patronising baby

Essentially, you appear to be admitting that your only reason for posting on this thread is to fill it with garbage.

What do you hope to achieve?

[wolves_wanderer]

don4l said:

TKF said:

don4l said:

So, I'd like to politely ask you to reduce your input for a couple of days.

Oh do run along you patronising baby

Essentially, you appear to be admitting that your only reason for posting on this thread is to fill it with garbage.

Throwing a mars wrapper in a landfill?

[Wombat3]

Scuffers said:

Wombat3 said:

Indeed so - because then you don't have free movement. As I said, I think it should be not too difficult to get the labour market to self regulate fairy effectively by simply removing all the safety nets. In doing so we would then see much more benefit from free movement because it will much more closely match the economic needs of the host country rather than those of any and all migrants (which is what the current situation engenders).

The freedom of movement of capital, while highly desirable for functioning businesses , people and economies is a much more difficult/dangerous issue to deal with IMO.

Disagree..

Even if you cut all and any benefits, unlimited immigration will still lead to wage compression with migrants from the seriously poor third world.

Define "third world". Not aware that there are any countries in the EU that would be formerly described as "third world". Wage levels can be managed if necessary - indeed they already are.

[anonymous-user]

Scuffers said:

there are NO HARD NUMBERS for health tourism because it's not something that's logged/audited/etc.

Ok so there is no hard numbers for health tourism, there's only anecdotal data?

Scuffers said:

then we get to the foreigners coming in with AIDS, the numbers are simply staggering.

Wait a second-I thought there were not hard numbers for health tourism? How can the numbers be simply staggering when by your own admission there aren't any reliable numbers!!

As I stated beforehand-have you considered the fact that we might leave the eu but have to retain free movement of people with them?

[Scuffers]

Wombat3 said:

Define "third world". Not aware that there are any countries in the EU that would be formerly described as "third world". Wage levels can be managed if necessary - indeed they already are.

Romania, Bulgaria, etc.

And whilst we are at it, let's not forget the thousands of migrants currently coming into the EU on boats from Africa.

cookie118 said:

Scuffers said:

there are NO HARD NUMBERS for health tourism because it's not something that's logged/audited/etc.

Ok so there is no hard numbers for health tourism, there's only anecdotal data?

Scuffers said:

then we get to the foreigners coming in with AIDS, the numbers are simply staggering.

Wait a second-I thought there were not hard numbers for health tourism? How can the numbers be simply staggering when by your own admission there aren't any reliable numbers!!

As I stated beforehand-have you considered the fact that we might leave the eu but have to retain free movement of people with them?

Does playing with words make you feel really cleaver?

[anonymous-user]

Scuffers said:

Does playing with words make you feel really cleaver?

Well there either are reliable figures and you can say the numbers of HIV positive migrants are staggering, or there aren't reliable figures and you can dismiss the previous article out of hand.

Which would you like to go for?

[NicD]

cookie118 said:

Scuffers said:

there are NO HARD NUMBERS for health tourism because it's not something that's logged/audited/etc.

Ok so there is no hard numbers for health tourism, there's only anecdotal data?

Scuffers said:

then we get to the foreigners coming in with AIDS, the numbers are simply staggering.

Wait a second-I thought there were not hard numbers for health tourism? How can the numbers be simply staggering when by your own admission there aren't any reliable numbers!!

As I stated beforehand-have you considered the fact that we might leave the eu but have to retain free movement of people with them?

What am I missing here?

someone attempts to lambast a poster by comparing two differing metrics - 'health tourism' vs 'foreigners coming in with AIDS'

and how is this a fact? - 'we might leave the eu but have to retain free movement of people with them'
At best, it is a distant possibility, not sure why we would go for that as one of the biggest drivers to leave the EU is to gain control of our borders.
The UK is not Switzerland, after all.

[Scuffers]

cookie118 said:

Scuffers said:

Does playing with words make you feel really cleaver?

Well there either are reliable figures and you can say the numbers of HIV positive migrants are staggering, or there aren't reliable figures and you can dismiss the previous article out of hand.

Which would you like to go for?

there are not reliable figures for the whole subject, that does not mean there are no figures for any of it though.
eg, there are some 7,000 new HIV diagnosis every year of which some ~60% are not indigenous (this is another fudge as there are no figures for who is british, only where they were born).

average cost of treatment is estimated at some £25K a year per patient (in drugs/time/etc). every year the number of people on antiretroviral treatment (ART) in the UK increases by 7-10%
and currently (december 2014) there are some 72,000 (20-25% of people with HIV who are currently undiagnosed.).

so, 60% of 7,000 PA new cases = 4,200 * £25,000 = £105M additional PA

currently, the ART bill for the NHS is in the order of £2Bn PA

[NicD]

Scuffers said:

there are not reliable figures for the whole subject, that does not mean there are no figures for any of it though.
eg, there are some 7,000 new HIV diagnosis every year of which some ~60% are not indigenous (this is another fudge as there are no figures for who is british, only where they were born).

average cost of treatment is estimated at some £25K a year per patient (in drugs/time/etc). every year the number of people on antiretroviral treatment (ART) in the UK increases by 7-10%
and currently (december 2014) there are some 72,000 (20-25% of people with HIV who are currently undiagnosed.).

so, 60% of 7,000 PA new cases = 4,200 * £25,000 = £105M additional PA

currently, the ART bill for the NHS is in the order of £2Bn PA

Good on you Scuffers, some facts, not not just hot air.
You would think these deniers didn't pay tax themselves, or have to queue for the hospital.

[anonymous-user]

NicD said:

What am I missing here?

someone attempts to lambast a poster by comparing two differing metrics - 'health tourism' vs 'foreigners coming in with AIDS'

and how is this a fact? - 'we might leave the eu but have to retain free movement of people with them'
At best, it is a distant possibility, not sure why we would go for that as one of the biggest drivers to leave the EU is to gain control of our borders.
The UK is not Switzerland, after all.

It's a common theme though-every single time figures or articles are quoted against ukip they must be wrong and denounced. As it happens in the election debate thread the HIV numbers were gone over-and it turns out no-one knows how much it costs the uk because the numbers had a large possible spread and then of the numbers treated it didn't capture how many had the costs recouped from health insurance and other sources.

However because it is pro ukip I seem to have to just accept that the costs are known and massive!!

As for the other point-I think it's a distinct possibility, it seems the anti side has several primary reasons for leaving and if the eu held firm on free movement of people for access to the free market I think we may accede to their demands. I just think in among all the talk of immigration and seizing control of our borders to point out that in the process of post brexit negotiations we may be in a similar situation as before with immigration.

[anonymous-user]

NicD said:

Good on you Scuffers, some facts, not not just hot air.
You would think these deniers didn't pay tax themselves, or have to queue for the hospital.

Where does 7000 come from btw-6000 is the figure for 2013 on Wikipedia?

[TKF]

If I went to another country and fell ill I'd hope to be treated with more compassion than the Kippers are displaying here.