Another Brexit Casualty

[Guest pelmetman]

Violet1956 - 2017-10-11 6:08 PM

 

I don’t believe all of the consequences of Brexit were difficult to predict before the referendum.

 

Correct ;-) ......But seeing as the UK has survived much worse....... I suspect the only permanent consequences will be serious Remoaner whinging >:-) ......

 

I intend to Keep Calm and Carry On.........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Taking the p1ss out of the sado's :D ......

 

 

[antony1969]

Those experts that select the variables and determine the risk factors and so on and son on did just that before Blairs Labour opened up the labour market to the new East European members of the EU in the early noughties ... 14000 a year coming here to work was the figure given to government by those very educated and highly paid professionals who in then Home Secretary David Blunketts very own words got it "very wrong" ... So those that got it "very wrong" and who Brian puts much faith in probably were the main reason most voted leave in the referendum as EU migration was the biggest single issue

[Violet1956]

antony1969 - 2017-10-12 6:41 AM

 

EU migration was the biggest single issue

 

I think you're right Antony it was the biggest single issue for many people. The remain camp in the government were very weak in tackling that in the debates because they were intent of hiding that fact that it was their policies and their failure to use effectively the enforcement powers they already had in controlling EU migration, particularly in relation to those EU migrants who were a strain on public resources be it because they were entitled to state subsidies in the form of tax credits etc or because they were in low paid employment or were criminals etc.

 

Veronica

[John52]

Violet1956 - 2017-10-12 10:48 AM

The remain camp in the government were very weak in tackling that in the debates because they were intent of hiding that fact that it was their policies and their failure to use effectively the enforcement powers they already had .......

 

Veronica

 

Exactly.

Immigration increases property prices and reduces wages, both of which seem to suit the British Government, so they have long taken a half-hearted attitude to restricting immigration.

Easier to blame it on the EU

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-10-12 11:24 AM

Violet1956 - 2017-10-12 10:48 AMThe remain camp in the government were very weak in tackling that in the debates because they were intent of hiding that fact that it was their policies and their failure to use effectively the enforcement powers they already had .......Veronica

Exactly.Immigration increases property prices and reduces wages, both of which seem to suit the British Government, so they have long taken a half-hearted attitude to restricting immigration.Easier to blame it on the EU

Short term or selective memories as usual distort the picture.  Yes the property/wages situation is affected but which government benefited? Not Labour's successor that is for certain. 

This from the Groniad:

QUOTE "As today’s generation of political leaders prepares to fight an election that is in part a contest about the mistakes, judgements and assumptions Labour made in government on immigration, it is easy to forget just how much immigration and asylum haunted Downing Street throughout New Labour’s time in office. Between 1997 and 2010, net annual immigration quadrupled, and the UK population was boosted by more than 2.2 million immigrants, more than twice the population of Birmingham. In Labour’s last term in government, 2005-2010, net migration reached on average 247,000 a year.

The dramatic changes have left British politics ruptured. Immigration remains the No 1 issue on the doorstep, according to pollsters – a stream that feeds into the well of mistrust in politics. It has spawned the emergence of Ukip and helped create four- or five-party politics in the UK for the first time". UNQUOTE

Interestingly the Tories did make an attempt at restricting immigration, admittedly it appeared to be a half hearted effort and was ineffective, (horse, stable, bolted) but it was Labour under B'liar looking to bolster his political (Joe public) base in order to remain in 'power' that caused the mass immigration which has altered the fabric of every social aspect in the UK today.

This article is extremely interesting reading for those really interested in the recent history of the immigrant crisis:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/mar/24/how-immigration-came-to-haunt-labour-inside-story

Mandy, The Prince of Darkness admitted that under B'liars instructions Britain sent officials, and told embassy/consular staff to encourage people to come to the UK.....resulting in this comment:

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: "Now at least the truth is out, and it's dynamite.

"Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right.

"This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage."

Clearly now the three million is way off the mark and understandably Joe Public spoke................and voted 'OUT'

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-10-11 4:59 PM...........................However if those results were published for Joe Public to digest before partaking of the democratic process in a referendum then the referendum asks what? ....if this, that or the other happens do you want to leave or stay in the EU?

I disagree, because the outcome you are proposing is based upon your own interpretation of what might have been asked.

 

It is clear that the main issues can be, so could have been, identified. All that is necessary is to ask the question: "what would be the main risks to the UK economy from leaving the EU"? Once the risks were identified, their potential consequences could be estimated. They would probably mainly fall into a range, but the highest probability being concentrated around the middle fifth. That would have enabled the probable economic impacts of each to be calculated. So, you could have seen probable, costed, outcomes against each heading. In respect of each of the identified risk areas, one would therefore have been able see the outcomes in terms of benefit or disbenefit, with their cost, plus the possible impacts at the extremes. A cumulative picture could also have been presented giving a rolled up estimate of whether such a move would be beneficial, deleterious, or neutral, overall.

 

That would have told people whether our national circumstances were likely to have been improved, diminished, or unchanged.

 

Provide information on that basis, and those so inclined could have decided on the basis of the analysis, while those whose minds were already made up could still have voted on that basis. But, more importantly, IMO, no-one would have been able to say they were "inadequately informed", or that "no-one voted to become poorer", or that the result was the result of misinformation, or that the £M350 per week for the NHS was a lie, etc. etc. So apart from disappointment on the part of those who didn't support the result, there would have been little scope for anyone to claim "we was robbed", and that would have been far better politics!

 

There are too many variables and too many unknowns because no one knows what the EU negotiators are going to be directed to offer, decline or compromise on.  All of this means that regardless of whatever 'war games' might have been played out none of the resulting conclusions would mean a jot.............which brings us back to the core of the matter.  No one knew pre referendum, no one knows now and no one will know until the negotiations are over.

Again, I disagree. This is not about the negotiations, this is only about the probable outcomes of leaving. Anything offered on either side during subsequent negotiations would alter the probable outcomes, and could easily be evaluated by entering the offer into the analysis as it arises, to see if it is more, or less, favourable than the planning assumptions. That is where one keeps quiet. I think you are looking for certainties, while I am looking for properly assessed probabilities. What I want, and wanted, is the tool to be able to foresee the most likely outcomes, not the answers before the event. Those are never available.

 

What sensible people do before taking complex decisions with potentially extremely costly impacts, is to look at the probabilities. Sensible people first ask why take the risk at all, then they ask what is the likely result of taking it, then they ask for evidence for that likely result, and then they ask what is the risk that the result will not materialise, and they ask what would be the consequence if the result doesn't materialise. They then know where their boundaries are, and when to walk away. That knowledge gives power in negotiation, it does not tell one's opposite numbers what one is thinking, or why. Then, if the final outcome is unacceptable, one can simply withdraw. One does not leave anyway, with no idea of the economic consequences.

 

Would gaining a bit more sovereignty still be worth doing, if the price was a period of economic decline? The missing analysis would allow that question to be answered.

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2017-10-11 10:59 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-10-11 6:08 PM

 

I don’t believe all of the consequences of Brexit were difficult to predict before the referendum.

 

Correct ;-) ......But seeing as the UK has survived much worse....... I suspect the only permanent consequences will be serious Remoaner whinging >:-) ........

Correct Dave, we survived - while others prospered! We eventually paid off the debts from WW1 the South Seas Bubble and the Crimean war in 2014, and those from WW2 in 2006. Of course, we haven't yet paid off the debt from the 2008 economic crash. Still, we survived. Mind, we'd have survived in much better shape had we not amassed those debts in the first place, so who's bothered if leaving the EU leaves us a bit worse off, we'll survive. Survival, eh? That's quite an ambition! :-D

[Violet1956]

RogerC - 2017-10-12 3:28 PM

John52 - 2017-10-12 11:24 AM

Violet1956 - 2017-10-12 10:48 AMThe remain camp in the government were very weak in tackling that in the debates because they were intent of hiding that fact that it was their policies and their failure to use effectively the enforcement powers they already had .......Veronica

Exactly.Immigration increases property prices and reduces wages, both of which seem to suit the British Government, so they have long taken a half-hearted attitude to restricting immigration.Easier to blame it on the EU

Short term or selective memories as usual distort the picture.  Yes the property/wages situation is affected but which government benefited? Not Labour's successor that is for certain. 

This from the Groniad:

QUOTE "As today’s generation of political leaders prepares to fight an election that is in part a contest about the mistakes, judgements and assumptions Labour made in government on immigration, it is easy to forget just how much immigration and asylum haunted Downing Street throughout New Labour’s time in office. Between 1997 and 2010, net annual immigration quadrupled, and the UK population was boosted by more than 2.2 million immigrants, more than twice the population of Birmingham. In Labour’s last term in government, 2005-2010, net migration reached on average 247,000 a year.

The dramatic changes have left British politics ruptured. Immigration remains the No 1 issue on the doorstep, according to pollsters – a stream that feeds into the well of mistrust in politics. It has spawned the emergence of Ukip and helped create four- or five-party politics in the UK for the first time". UNQUOTE

Interestingly the Tories did make an attempt at restricting immigration, admittedly it appeared to be a half hearted effort and was ineffective, (horse, stable, bolted) but it was Labour under B'liar looking to bolster his political (Joe public) base in order to remain in 'power' that caused the mass immigration which has altered the fabric of every social aspect in the UK today.

This article is extremely interesting reading for those really interested in the recent history of the immigrant crisis:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/mar/24/how-immigration-came-to-haunt-labour-inside-story

Mandy, The Prince of Darkness admitted that under B'liars instructions Britain sent officials, and told embassy/consular staff to encourage people to come to the UK.....resulting in this comment:

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: "Now at least the truth is out, and it's dynamite.

"Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right.

"This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage."

Clearly now the three million is way off the mark and understandably Joe Public spoke................and voted 'OUT'

I agree Roger the Conservative/lib Dem Coalition and David Cameron’s subsequent government inherited a major problem due to disastrous Labour policies that failed to manage migration numbers. However they made a daft promise that they would reduce net migration down to 10s of thousands and were unrealistic about how they could manage migration numbers better whilst starving the executive of sufficient resources to deal with it. They’d been in power for 6 years and achieved nothing approaching those early promises when the referendum took place and no wonder people were fed up. People were also diverted from biggest problem which is not EU migrants at all who are net contributors, but illegal migrants who are not removed. I think many people were led to believe that the numbers illegal migrants in the UK was also a problem caused by EU interference which is of course nonsense.Added to that the hidden costs of Brexit include the fact that the Home Office will soon be inundated with applications from EU citizens and their family members who believe they need to secure permanent residence rights after being here for five years or more before we leave the EU. That will begin to take up valuable resources that should be aimed at finding and removing those people who have no right to be here in the first place. Veronica

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-12 4:09 PM

RogerC - 2017-10-11 4:59 PM...........................However if those results were published for Joe Public to digest before partaking of the democratic process in a referendum then the referendum asks what? ....if this, that or the other happens do you want to leave or stay in the EU?

I disagree, because the outcome you are proposing is based upon your own interpretation of what might have been asked. It is clear that the main issues can be, so could have been, identified. All that is necessary is to ask the question: "what would be the main risks to the UK economy from leaving the EU"? Once the risks were identified, their potential consequences could be estimated. They would probably mainly fall into a range, but the highest probability being concentrated around the middle fifth. That would have enabled the probable economic impacts of each to be calculated. So, you could have seen probable, costed, outcomes against each heading. In respect of each of the identified risk areas, one would therefore have been able see the outcomes in terms of benefit or disbenefit, with their cost, plus the possible impacts at the extremes. A cumulative picture could also have been presented giving a rolled up estimate of whether such a move would be beneficial, deleterious, or neutral, overall. That would have told people whether our national circumstances were likely to have been improved, diminished, or unchanged. Provide information on that basis, and those so inclined could have decided on the basis of the analysis, while those whose minds were already made up could still have voted on that basis. But, more importantly, IMO, no-one would have been able to say they were "inadequately informed", or that "no-one voted to become poorer", or that the result was the result of misinformation, or that the £M350 per week for the NHS was a lie, etc. etc. So apart from disappointment on the part of those who didn't support the result, there would have been little scope for anyone to claim "we was robbed", and that would have been far better politics!

There are too many variables and too many unknowns because no one knows what the EU negotiators are going to be directed to offer, decline or compromise on.  All of this means that regardless of whatever 'war games' might have been played out none of the resulting conclusions would mean a jot.............which brings us back to the core of the matter.  No one knew pre referendum, no one knows now and no one will know until the negotiations are over.

Again, I disagree. This is not about the negotiations, this is only about the probable outcomes of leaving. Anything offered on either side during subsequent negotiations would alter the probable outcomes, and could easily be evaluated by entering the offer into the analysis as it arises, to see if it is more, or less, favourable than the planning assumptions. That is where one keeps quiet. I think you are looking for certainties, while I am looking for properly assessed probabilities. What I want, and wanted, is the tool to be able to foresee the most likely outcomes, not the answers before the event. Those are never available.What sensible people do before taking complex decisions with potentially extremely costly impacts, is to look at the probabilities. Sensible people first ask why take the risk at all, then they ask what is the likely result of taking it, then they ask for evidence for that likely result, and then they ask what is the risk that the result will not materialise, and they ask what would be the consequence if the result doesn't materialise. They then know where their boundaries are, and when to walk away. That knowledge gives power in negotiation, it does not tell one's opposite numbers what one is thinking, or why. Then, if the final outcome is unacceptable, one can simply withdraw. One does not leave anyway, with no idea of the economic consequences.Would gaining a bit more sovereignty still be worth doing, if the price was a period of economic decline? The missing analysis would allow that question to be answered.

You said:

"the outcome you are proposing is based upon your own interpretation of what might have been asked".......

I say.........similarly the outcome you propose is also based on your own interpretation of what might have been despite my contention that we would be showing our hand to the EU players in a rather important game of poker.  I fail to see why your prediction is any more valid than mine.

Emboldened above......I really can not condone or agree to disagree over the conveyance, by those two statements above, of downright bloody arrogance.  As they clearly relate to your way of thinking it really is IMO the highest expression of superiority and arrogance I have seen for a very long time.  Because the processes you are favouring were not (apparently to your satisfaction) considered or indeed enacted you appear to be inferring that all those who think otherwise are 'not sensible'.  Now that is sheer downright arrogance.

My last comment is that I consider the 'possibility' of a period of economic uncertainty, which, should it transpire, we will (IMO) undoubtedly recover will be a price worth paying if it allows us to throw off the yoke of being subjected to, and part of, what I consider to be an entity that has grown too big, too self serving, too overbearing and too dominated by two of the biggest players.

You might be happy with the prospect of future citizens of these lands becoming 'Europeans' (with no national identity) under a United States of Europe, loss of sovereignty and complete absorption into the great EU advance towards total central control and governance.  That is not a price I am prepared to pay. 

[Brian Kirby]

antony1969 - 2017-10-12 6:41 AM

 

Those experts that select the variables and determine the risk factors and so on and son on did just that before Blairs Labour opened up the labour market to the new East European members of the EU in the early noughties ... 14000 a year coming here to work was the figure given to government by those very educated and highly paid professionals who in then Home Secretary David Blunketts very own words got it "very wrong" ... So those that got it "very wrong" and who Brian puts much faith in probably were the main reason most voted leave in the referendum as EU migration was the biggest single issue

Well, actually, they didn't Antony.

 

They were asked for a forecast of migration to UK from the A8 countries. Problem was, they had no comparable data on which to base their forecast, so used data based on migration to UK from other countries. The actual problem was that the A8 countries had living standards approximately half that of the UK, whereas the living standards in the countries the forecasts were based on were much closer to those in UK. So, the "pull" factor was wildly underestimated in the forecast.

 

Whether or not that was deliberate, in order to minimise resistance from those who would have been fearful of an influx of cheap labour, seems still to be contentious. It is strongly rumoured, with some support, that the government had decided it wanted that influx (though it was a bit surprised that it became so large!) precisely to bring in cheap labour to suppress UK labour costs.

 

No-one seems to have peer-reviewed the forecast, which was commissioned by the Home Office, so who knows if the decision not to impose a limit on migration from those countries was because the forecast was inaccurate, or whether it was merely a fig leaf for a government policy that was likely to be unpopular? This is the realm of politics, not forecasting.

 

Forecasts are educated guesses. The better the information available, the better the guess. They do not give precise predictions (though they may appear to do so - remember that a guess to four decimal places is still a guess!), they merely indicate probable outcomes based on known information. Some are spot on (luck!), most are less accurate. However, they are the best tool we have. For 100% accuracy, a crystal ball is required. :-)

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-10-12 5:23 PM

....................................You said: "the outcome you are proposing is based upon your own interpretation of what might have been asked".......I say.........similarly the outcome you propose is also based on your own interpretation of what might have been despite my contention that we would be showing our hand to the EU players in a rather important game of poker.  I fail to see why your prediction is any more valid than mine.

So, how would assessing and publishing the probable economic impacts of leaving the single market and trading with the EU 27 on WTO terms before the referendum, have given the EU negotiators an advantage?

 

Both sides would then have known two things. One, that the UK was prepared to bear that cost, or hoped to gain that advantage, and two, the approximate scale of that cost, or advantage. In essence, they are negotiating to keep us in, or at best, reduce the cost to them (not to us), if we leave.

 

So, if they wanted us to stay and we'd benefit outside, they'd need to offer compensatory sweeteners, if we'd accepted that we'd lose, they'd need to offer larger sweeteners If they'd accepted that we'd leave and only wanted to reduce the cost to them, and we'd gain outside, they'd need to impose greater costs, but that would fall foul of the WTO for imposition of direct or indirect punitive tariffs, and if we'd accepted that we'd lose, same outcome. And so on down the list.

 

......I really can not condone or agree to disagree over the conveyance, by those two statements above, of downright bloody arrogance.  As they clearly relate to your way of thinking it really is IMO the highest expression of superiority and arrogance I have seen for a very long time.  Because the processes you are favouring were not (apparently to your satisfaction) considered or indeed enacted you appear to be inferring that all those who think otherwise are 'not sensible'.  Now that is sheer downright arrogance.

Not sure how you get to arrogance, unless it is because I have the temerity to disagree with you Roger. What I said is, to me, based on my experience, a self-evident truth. Sensible people do not bet the house, far less a country, on gut feeling. I have had the privilege of working with some pretty sensible people, and I have never (with one possible exception :-)) encountered anyone, or organisation, who proceeds on risky and potentially costly ventures without first evaluating the risks and rewards. None of them would have accepted the excuse that there were too many unknowns and too many variables. They would simply have insisted that the attempt be made, and the areas of doubt suitably highlighted and explained, or they'd go elsewhere. The UK government has almost limitless resources at its disposal: the only thing that would stop them being deployed is a lack of political will.

 

My last comment is that I consider the 'possibility' of a period of economic uncertainty, which, should it transpire, we will (IMO) undoubtedly recover will be a price worth paying if it allows us to throw off the yoke of being subjected to, and part of, what I consider to be an entity that has grown too big, too self serving, too overbearing and too dominated by two of the biggest players.

 

You might be happy with the prospect of future citizens of these lands becoming 'Europeans' (with no national identity) under a United States of Europe, loss of sovereignty and complete absorption into the great EU advance towards total central control and governance.  That is not a price I am prepared to pay. 

Ah well, that comes to the crux of our disagreement. Not that the EU in its present form is imperfect, it is, and doubtless always will be to some extent, but that it's present imperfections are so great as to render it something we should leave.

 

I really reject your dystopian view for the future of the UK within the EU. What you describe would require fundamental treaty changes, and that could only happen if our government supported those changes. It would involve the dissolution of the Monarchy. Don't see many willing to propose, or support that at present! 'Strewth, even the USA hasn't reached that stage of unification after 240 years! It could only happen if countries voluntarily agreed to federalise their states - the EU has no powers whatever to impose that. The UK is free to sign or reject treaties as it sees fit. Were the EU to try to coerce us (and by implication others) to sign up against our will, we have the absolute right to refuse to do so, as with the Euro, and remain members, or alternatively, if we wished, to leave at that point. At present we are under no such apocalyptic threat. Besides, I rather like the other Europeans I have met, and don't see any of them as a threat to Britain. Neither do I see any of them being happy with the idea of losing their national identities: quite the reverse in fact - with various regions around Europe seeking to assert their independence.

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-12 4:25 PM

pelmetman - 2017-10-11 10:59 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-10-11 6:08 PMI don’t believe all of the consequences of Brexit were difficult to predict before the referendum.

Correct ;-) ......But seeing as the UK has survived much worse....... I suspect the only permanent consequences will be serious Remoaner whinging >:-) ........

Correct Dave, we survived - while others prospered! We eventually paid off the debts from WW1 the South Seas Bubble and the Crimean war in 2014, and those from WW2 in 2006. Of course, we haven't yet paid off the debt from the 2008 economic crash. Still, we survived. Mind, we'd have survived in much better shape had we not amassed those debts in the first place, so who's bothered if leaving the EU leaves us a bit worse off, we'll survive. Survival, eh? That's quite an ambition! :-D

Interesting selective comments again Brian to paint the Uk in a poor financial light.  I say interesting because we 'have' paid off our WWl and WWll etc debts whereas Germany is deemed to still owe, to name but one country, Greece estimates of between 450,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 Euro in reparations for Holocaust Jewish slave labour.  It also, so it is claimed owes Poland a considerable sum.  However had it not been for the London Debt Agreement in 1953 being a considered and compassionate agreement by cutting Germany's war/reparations debt by 50% then Germany most certainly would not be the driving force it is today.   So the likely reasons for German prosperity can be firmly placed at the feet of the nations concerned in brokering the London deal.  

By the way.....you say it would have been better had we not amassed those debts in the first place!!  Whose bloody fault was it we amassed the majority of those debts in the first place?......remind me which nation started the Crimean war?.......which nation started WWl and WWll???......and by quoting from an event back in the 1720's you clearly have taken a leaf out of John's book of ridiculous irrelevances, so don't go putting the shadow of blame on the UK in a pathetic attempt to divert the spotlight because if any one nation is responsible it is Germany.  

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-12 5:24 PM

antony1969 - 2017-10-12 6:41 AMThose experts that select the variables and determine the risk factors and so on and son on did just that before Blairs Labour opened up the labour market to the new East European members of the EU in the early noughties ... 14000 a year coming here to work was the figure given to government by those very educated and highly paid professionals who in then Home Secretary David Blunketts very own words got it "very wrong" ... So those that got it "very wrong" and who Brian puts much faith in probably were the main reason most voted leave in the referendum as EU migration was the biggest single issue

Well, actually, they didn't Antony. They were asked for a forecast of migration to UK from the A8 countries. Problem was, they had no comparable data on which to base their forecast, so used data based on migration to UK from other countries. The actual problem was that the A8 countries had living standards approximately half that of the UK, whereas the living standards in the countries the forecasts were based on were much closer to those in UK. So, the "pull" factor was wildly underestimated in the forecast.Whether or not that was deliberate, in order to minimise resistance from those who would have been fearful of an influx of cheap labour, seems still to be contentious. It is strongly rumoured, with some support, that the government had decided it wanted that influx (though it was a bit surprised that it became so large!) precisely to bring in cheap labour to suppress UK labour costs. 

Oh for goodness sake Brian.....Mandelson has unequivocally admitted, alongside others in the know, that the mass of immigration was promoted by B'liar policy and supported by 'Mandy' and others.  It was a cynical attempt to alter the construct of UK society in order to provide wider support for the Labour party and return them to 'power'. There is wide acknowledgement that B'liar intentionally enacted decisions to assist and encourage immigration from the newly acceding nations....so where your 'whether or not' nonsense comes from is beyond me. 

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-12 6:56 PM  Not sure how you get to arrogance, unless it is because I have the temerity to disagree with you Roger.  

Disagree till the cows come home.....It really doesn't bother me. However what does are your comments:  'What sensible people do' and 'Sensible people'..... which I enlarged and emboldened in your post quote.  IMO it is crystal clear to anyone who reads my reply properly.  Those two comments serve to demonstrate that you think anyone who disagrees with your idea of preparations and showing ones hand to the opposition is not sensible.  Ergo the opposite of sensible is, according to the online Thesaurus (amongst others), clearly stated as foolish/unwise/irrational....oh and stupid.  So arrogant?  Most certainly.

As regarding your other post vis a vis EU citizens etc.  I too have a great many pleasant memories of working with and alongside most of the EU nationalities and a great many more outside of the EU.  However it is not Joe Public pulling the political or economic strings.  Using your premise one could say Germany was OK back in the 20th century.  Well actually it likely was until they were under the direction of the Kaiser and Hitler.  I have worked with Russians and Japanese all of whom have been very pleasant likeable people until the likes of Stalin came along.  I even flew/worked with, for many years, an ex Soviet Air Forces pilot whose nuclear target was Bristol.  He was/is a really nice chap.  However none of this matters a jot because it is not the 'little' guy that determines direction, except through successful revolution which I don't envisage any time soon.

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-12 5:24 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-10-12 6:41 AM

 

Those experts that select the variables and determine the risk factors and so on and son on did just that before Blairs Labour opened up the labour market to the new East European members of the EU in the early noughties ... 14000 a year coming here to work was the figure given to government by those very educated and highly paid professionals who in then Home Secretary David Blunketts very own words got it "very wrong" ... So those that got it "very wrong" and who Brian puts much faith in probably were the main reason most voted leave in the referendum as EU migration was the biggest single issue

Well, actually, they didn't Antony.

 

They were asked for a forecast of migration to UK from the A8 countries. Problem was, they had no comparable data on which to base their forecast, so used data based on migration to UK from other countries. The actual problem was that the A8 countries had living standards approximately half that of the UK, whereas the living standards in the countries the forecasts were based on were much closer to those in UK. So, the "pull" factor was wildly underestimated in the forecast.

 

Whether or not that was deliberate, in order to minimise resistance from those who would have been fearful of an influx of cheap labour, seems still to be contentious. It is strongly rumoured, with some support, that the government had decided it wanted that influx (though it was a bit surprised that it became so large!) precisely to bring in cheap labour to suppress UK labour costs.

 

No-one seems to have peer-reviewed the forecast, which was commissioned by the Home Office, so who knows if the decision not to impose a limit on migration from those countries was because the forecast was inaccurate, or whether it was merely a fig leaf for a government policy that was likely to be unpopular? This is the realm of politics, not forecasting.

 

Forecasts are educated guesses. The better the information available, the better the guess. They do not give precise predictions (though they may appear to do so - remember that a guess to four decimal places is still a guess!), they merely indicate probable outcomes based on known information. Some are spot on (luck!), most are less accurate. However, they are the best tool we have. For 100% accuracy, a crystal ball is required. :-)

 

So those highly paid experts basically used migration data from countries wealthier than the A8 countries and used it like for like ... Im not totally convinced your experts should be in any employment Brian never mind predicting what would happen to Britain ... Those same experts along with the Government of the day are the main reason we are leaving your much loved EU ... In my view they are the disastrous Micheal Fish weather forecast equivalent of predicting migration numbers and you say we should trust em more

[Violet1956]

antony1969 - 2017-10-12 7:49 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-12 5:24 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-10-12 6:41 AM

 

Those experts that select the variables and determine the risk factors and so on and son on did just that before Blairs Labour opened up the labour market to the new East European members of the EU in the early noughties ... 14000 a year coming here to work was the figure given to government by those very educated and highly paid professionals who in then Home Secretary David Blunketts very own words got it "very wrong" ... So those that got it "very wrong" and who Brian puts much faith in probably were the main reason most voted leave in the referendum as EU migration was the biggest single issue

Well, actually, they didn't Antony.

 

They were asked for a forecast of migration to UK from the A8 countries. Problem was, they had no comparable data on which to base their forecast, so used data based on migration to UK from other countries. The actual problem was that the A8 countries had living standards approximately half that of the UK, whereas the living standards in the countries the forecasts were based on were much closer to those in UK. So, the "pull" factor was wildly underestimated in the forecast.

 

Whether or not that was deliberate, in order to minimise resistance from those who would have been fearful of an influx of cheap labour, seems still to be contentious. It is strongly rumoured, with some support, that the government had decided it wanted that influx (though it was a bit surprised that it became so large!) precisely to bring in cheap labour to suppress UK labour costs.

 

No-one seems to have peer-reviewed the forecast, which was commissioned by the Home Office, so who knows if the decision not to impose a limit on migration from those countries was because the forecast was inaccurate, or whether it was merely a fig leaf for a government policy that was likely to be unpopular? This is the realm of politics, not forecasting.

 

Forecasts are educated guesses. The better the information available, the better the guess. They do not give precise predictions (though they may appear to do so - remember that a guess to four decimal places is still a guess!), they merely indicate probable outcomes based on known information. Some are spot on (luck!), most are less accurate. However, they are the best tool we have. For 100% accuracy, a crystal ball is required. :-)

 

So those highly paid experts basically used migration data from countries wealthier than the A8 countries and used it like for like ... Im not totally convinced your experts should be in any employment Brian never mind predicting what would happen to Britain ... Those same experts along with the Government of the day are the main reason we are leaving your much loved EU ... In my view they are the disastrous Micheal Fish weather forecast equivalent of predicting migration numbers and you say we should trust em more

 

I've managed to wade through the Grauniad article in the link that Roger provided and it is very good. One thing that I had not appreciated previously was that the disastrously awry forecasts about migration from the A8 countries was in part down to the fact that they were based on the premise that migration from those countries would be evenly spread between 15 member states when only three, the UK, Ireland and Sweden opened their doors without any transitional provisions...that meant a Polish plumber for example could not immediately move next door to Germany to find work. Hindsight is a wonderful thing eh?

 

Veronica

[nowtelse2do]

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-12 4:25 PM

 

Correct Dave, we survived - while others prospered! We eventually paid off the debts from WW1

 

I think you will find that we didn't fully pay our debt to America Brian.

 

Dave

[antony1969]

Violet1956 - 2017-10-12 8:38 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-10-12 7:49 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-12 5:24 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-10-12 6:41 AM

 

Those experts that select the variables and determine the risk factors and so on and son on did just that before Blairs Labour opened up the labour market to the new East European members of the EU in the early noughties ... 14000 a year coming here to work was the figure given to government by those very educated and highly paid professionals who in then Home Secretary David Blunketts very own words got it "very wrong" ... So those that got it "very wrong" and who Brian puts much faith in probably were the main reason most voted leave in the referendum as EU migration was the biggest single issue

Well, actually, they didn't Antony.

 

They were asked for a forecast of migration to UK from the A8 countries. Problem was, they had no comparable data on which to base their forecast, so used data based on migration to UK from other countries. The actual problem was that the A8 countries had living standards approximately half that of the UK, whereas the living standards in the countries the forecasts were based on were much closer to those in UK. So, the "pull" factor was wildly underestimated in the forecast.

 

Whether or not that was deliberate, in order to minimise resistance from those who would have been fearful of an influx of cheap labour, seems still to be contentious. It is strongly rumoured, with some support, that the government had decided it wanted that influx (though it was a bit surprised that it became so large!) precisely to bring in cheap labour to suppress UK labour costs.

 

No-one seems to have peer-reviewed the forecast, which was commissioned by the Home Office, so who knows if the decision not to impose a limit on migration from those countries was because the forecast was inaccurate, or whether it was merely a fig leaf for a government policy that was likely to be unpopular? This is the realm of politics, not forecasting.

 

Forecasts are educated guesses. The better the information available, the better the guess. They do not give precise predictions (though they may appear to do so - remember that a guess to four decimal places is still a guess!), they merely indicate probable outcomes based on known information. Some are spot on (luck!), most are less accurate. However, they are the best tool we have. For 100% accuracy, a crystal ball is required. :-)

 

So those highly paid experts basically used migration data from countries wealthier than the A8 countries and used it like for like ... Im not totally convinced your experts should be in any employment Brian never mind predicting what would happen to Britain ... Those same experts along with the Government of the day are the main reason we are leaving your much loved EU ... In my view they are the disastrous Micheal Fish weather forecast equivalent of predicting migration numbers and you say we should trust em more

 

I've managed to wade through the Grauniad article in the link that Roger provided and it is very good. One thing that I had not appreciated previously was that the disastrously awry forecasts about migration from the A8 countries was in part down to the fact that they were based on the premise that migration from those countries would be evenly spread between 15 member states when only three, the UK, Ireland and Sweden opened their doors without any transitional provisions...that meant a Polish plumber for example could not immediately move next door to Germany to find work. Hindsight is a wonderful thing eh?

 

Veronica

 

I believe Germany were to do the same as us only to drop out of the agreement at the last minute ... Lucky them , mind Mrs Merkel has made up for it since and more

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-10-12 3:28 PM

 Yes the property/wages situation is affected but which government benefited? Not Labour's successor that is for certain. 

Can't you even see how the landed aristocracy have benefitted from higher property prices/rents and lower labour costs?

[Violet1956]

John52 - 2017-10-13 8:08 AM

 

RogerC - 2017-10-12 3:28 PM

 Yes the property/wages situation is affected but which government benefited? Not Labour's successor that is for certain. 

Can't you even see how the landed aristocracy have benefitted from higher property prices/rents and lower labour costs?

 

 

Some interesting statements about who benefits from the CAP in the link below which presents arguments for and against the CAP including the following on the "against" side of the debate.

 

"Eighty percent of CAP aid goes to just 20 percent of farms. The biggest slice of the subsidy pie is handed to the landed gentry, environment- destroying mega-farms and vast agro-industrial conglomerates. Figures from the UK show Queen Elizabeth II gets around half-a-million euros a year. Food industry giants like Campina or Nestle have been handed hundreds of millions. Small-scale European farmers get little and poor farmers in developing nations are shut out of European markets."

 

http://www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/arguments-for-and-against-the-common-agricultural-policy/#.WeBxbjco_IU

 

Whilst CAP has its downsides to put it mildly I remain to be convinced that the powers that be in the UK will do anything to redress the disproportionate gains made by the current beneficiaries of CAP in any new domestic scheme.

 

Veronica

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-12 4:25 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-10-11 10:59 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-10-11 6:08 PM

 

I don’t believe all of the consequences of Brexit were difficult to predict before the referendum.

 

Correct ;-) ......But seeing as the UK has survived much worse....... I suspect the only permanent consequences will be serious Remoaner whinging >:-) ........

Correct Dave, we survived - while others prospered! We eventually paid off the debts from WW1 the South Seas Bubble and the Crimean war in 2014, and those from WW2 in 2006. Of course, we haven't yet paid off the debt from the 2008 economic crash. Still, we survived. Mind, we'd have survived in much better shape had we not amassed those debts in the first place, so who's bothered if leaving the EU leaves us a bit worse off, we'll survive. Survival, eh? That's quite an ambition! :-D

 

Yeah poor old UK eh?.......We're only the 5th biggest economy in the world *-) .......

 

 

[John52]

Violet1956 - 2017-10-13 9:19 AM

 

John52 - 2017-10-13 8:08 AM

 

RogerC - 2017-10-12 3:28 PM

 Yes the property/wages situation is affected but which government benefited? Not Labour's successor that is for certain. 

Can't you even see how the landed aristocracy have benefitted from higher property prices/rents and lower labour costs?

 

 

Some interesting statements about who benefits from the CAP in the link below which presents arguments for and against the CAP including the following on the "against" side of the debate.

 

"Eighty percent of CAP aid goes to just 20 percent of farms. The biggest slice of the subsidy pie is handed to the landed gentry, environment- destroying mega-farms and vast agro-industrial conglomerates. Figures from the UK show Queen Elizabeth II gets around half-a-million euros a year. Food industry giants like Campina or Nestle have been handed hundreds of millions. Small-scale European farmers get little and poor farmers in developing nations are shut out of European markets."

 

http://www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/arguments-for-and-against-the-common-agricultural-policy/#.WeBxbjco_IU

 

Whilst CAP has its downsides to put it mildly I remain to be convinced that the powers that be in the UK will do anything to redress the disproportionate gains made by the current beneficiaries of CAP in any new domestic scheme.

 

Veronica

 

Its even worse than that Veronica.

Farmers usually fit into 2 categories

1) Landowners (rich farmers)

2) Tenants (poor farmers)

Even the small proportion of subsidy that goes to poor farmers tends to be clawed back because as soon as they start making money their landlors (rich farmers) put their rent up.

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-10-13 9:31 AM

 

Yeah poor old UK eh?.......We're only the 5th biggest economy in the world *-) .......

 

 

Turnover is Vanity, Profit is Sanity

http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/

 

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-10-13 11:06 AM

 

pelmetman - 2017-10-13 9:31 AM

 

Yeah poor old UK eh?.......We're only the 5th biggest economy in the world *-) .......

 

 

Turnover is Vanity, Profit is Sanity

http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/

 

Just imagine how fast that clock would tick if Corbyn got hold of the UK cheque book >:-) ..........

 

(lol) (lol) (lol) ......

 

 

[Violet1956]

John52 - 2017-10-13 11:04 AM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-10-13 9:19 AM

 

John52 - 2017-10-13 8:08 AM

 

RogerC - 2017-10-12 3:28 PM

 Yes the property/wages situation is affected but which government benefited? Not Labour's successor that is for certain. 

Can't you even see how the landed aristocracy have benefitted from higher property prices/rents and lower labour costs?

 

 

Some interesting statements about who benefits from the CAP in the link below which presents arguments for and against the CAP including the following on the "against" side of the debate.

 

"Eighty percent of CAP aid goes to just 20 percent of farms. The biggest slice of the subsidy pie is handed to the landed gentry, environment- destroying mega-farms and vast agro-industrial conglomerates. Figures from the UK show Queen Elizabeth II gets around half-a-million euros a year. Food industry giants like Campina or Nestle have been handed hundreds of millions. Small-scale European farmers get little and poor farmers in developing nations are shut out of European markets."

 

http://www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/arguments-for-and-against-the-common-agricultural-policy/#.WeBxbjco_IU

 

Whilst CAP has its downsides to put it mildly I remain to be convinced that the powers that be in the UK will do anything to redress the disproportionate gains made by the current beneficiaries of CAP in any new domestic scheme.

 

Veronica

 

Its even worse than that Veronica.

Farmers usually fit into 2 categories

1) Landowners (rich farmers)

2) Tenants (poor farmers)

Even the small proportion of subsidy that goes to poor farmers tends to be clawed back because as soon as they start making money their landlords (rich farmers) put their rent up.

 

Considering joining you at the barricades come the revolution John. I've had a bit of a thing about landowning farmers ever since I went to University where I met a poor little rich girl whose daddy was a farmer and who was on a full grant. I had to rely on contributions from my wage earning parents that they couldn't really afford from earnings or resources they couldn't hide. Cue violins.

 

Veronica