He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind – politicalbetting.com

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, if Remain had made that argument, it would've won.

Yes. ‘The EU adds £500 million a week to our economy.* If we leave, the NHS is screwed’ would have been far more effective.

*Very approximate figure based on the estimate EU membership had increased the size of the economy by around 10%.

Though if that were the case then our economy should have shrank £500mn a week post-Brexit.

Strip out the Covid effects and that's absolutely not happened. So it was never the case.

I said it was very approximate

The point that could be raised against that is if there are to be significant losses from Brexit they won’t be instant. They will likely be incremental. A decision between keeping a factory in Britain and one in Italy now tends towards Italy. A decision about where a multinational wants to open a new branch for European operations might have gone to London before and to Dublin now.

Which over time means we will be less prosperous than we would have otherwise been.

What ultimately tipped me to Remain - and I don’t think I come across as a great admirer of the EU - was the belief that partly due to Northern Ireland and partly due to the sheer size and proximity of the EU it would be very difficult in practice for us to regain any meaningful level of sovereignty commensurate with those future losses and short-term disruption.

But nuanced arguments were strangers to both sides in the campaign.

But we have regained a meaningful level of sovereignty haven't we?

At the Referendum the Leave campaigned promised to: Leave the ECJ, Leave the Single Market, Leave the Customs Union, stop paying fees and determine immigration policy.

Post-Brexit deal we've left the ECJ, left the Single Market, left the Customs Union, stopped paying fees and can now determine our immigration policy.

How is that anything other than all five promises of meaningful sovereignty met?

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, if Remain had made that argument, it would've won.

Yes. ‘The EU adds £500 million a week to our economy.* If we leave, the NHS is screwed’ would have been far more effective.

*Very approximate figure based on the estimate EU membership had increased the size of the economy by around 10%.

Though if that were the case then our economy should have shrank £500mn a week post-Brexit.

Strip out the Covid effects and that's absolutely not happened. So it was never the case.

I said it was very approximate

The point that could be raised against that is if there are to be significant losses from Brexit they won’t be instant. They will likely be incremental. A decision between keeping a factory in Britain and one in Italy now tends towards Italy. A decision about where a multinational wants to open a new branch for European operations might have gone to London before and to Dublin now.

Which over time means we will be less prosperous than we would have otherwise been.

What ultimately tipped me to Remain - and I don’t think I come across as a great admirer of the EU - was the belief that partly due to Northern Ireland and partly due to the sheer size and proximity of the EU it would be very difficult in practice for us to regain any meaningful level of sovereignty commensurate with those future losses and short-term disruption.

But nuanced arguments were strangers to both sides in the campaign.

But we have regained a meaningful level of sovereignty haven't we?

At the Referendum the Leave campaigned promised to: Leave the ECJ, Leave the Single Market, Leave the Customs Union, stop paying fees and determine immigration policy.

Post-Brexit deal we've left the ECJ, left the Single Market, left the Customs Union, stopped paying fees and can now determine our immigration policy.

How is that anything other than all five promises of meaningful sovereignty met?

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, if Remain had made that argument, it would've won.

Yes. ‘The EU adds £500 million a week to our economy.* If we leave, the NHS is screwed’ would have been far more effective.

*Very approximate figure based on the estimate EU membership had increased the size of the economy by around 10%.

Though if that were the case then our economy should have shrank £500mn a week post-Brexit.

Strip out the Covid effects and that's absolutely not happened. So it was never the case.

Are you sure it hasn't? So many industries down the toilet, short of HGV drivers, short of workers? Not collecting customs at the borders to save queues? City of London individual earnings up the creek?

Yes.

The reason there's a supposed "shortage of workers" is because we're doing so very well that we've got full employment and burgeoning demand, not because of a collapsing economy leading to mass layoffs.

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, if Remain had made that argument, it would've won.

Yes. ‘The EU adds £500 million a week to our economy.* If we leave, the NHS is screwed’ would have been far more effective.

*Very approximate figure based on the estimate EU membership had increased the size of the economy by around 10%.

Though if that were the case then our economy should have shrank £500mn a week post-Brexit.

Strip out the Covid effects and that's absolutely not happened. So it was never the case.

Are you sure it hasn't? So many industries down the toilet, short of HGV drivers, short of workers? Not collecting customs at the borders to save queues? City of London individual earnings up the creek?

Yes.

The reason there's a supposed "shortage of workers" is because we're doing so very well that we've got full employment and burgeoning demand, not because of a collapsing economy leading to mass layoffs.

Not according to the last GDP figures. Also in a full employment situation you can't create workers, you need to import them.

No you don't.

In a full employment situation you become more productive, raising the incomes of everyone and culling the least productive jobs altogether.

felix said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, if Remain had made that argument, it would've won.

Yes. ‘The EU adds £500 million a week to our economy.* If we leave, the NHS is screwed’ would have been far more effective.

*Very approximate figure based on the estimate EU membership had increased the size of the economy by around 10%.

Though if that were the case then our economy should have shrank £500mn a week post-Brexit.

Strip out the Covid effects and that's absolutely not happened. So it was never the case.

Pre Covid, the period 2015-2019 saw our rate of growth fall behind peer nations.

By a rounding error.

Pre-Covid, the period 2010-2019 saw our rate of growth increase beyond that of our peer nations. "Despite Brexit" referendum result being in that period.

It is retarded to use 2010-2014 as in any way relevant to Brexit, though, isn’t it?

No it is absolutely not. Looking over the course of a decade gives a big picture.

Plus the referendum was announced with accompanying "uncertainty" around the start of the decade not the middle of it.

If your argument is that the referendum result led to a drop in GDP so utterly inconsequential that we still grew faster than Europe over the course of the entire decade, then it can't have been a very significant drop now, can it?

It is not relevant to use 2010-2014 to look at the impact of Brexit. Only a liar or an idiot would seek to do so.

In terms of the impact of Brexit, the analysis I’ve seen suggests our growth rate has dropped compared to peer economies, and in fact this is broadly in line with the Treasury’s estimates before the vote.

Year on year it’s not very noticeable.
Give it 5 or 10 more years and people will be wondering why they are noticeably poorer than European travellers.

Covid has swamped everything, temporarily.

"Give it 5 or 10 more years and people will be wondering why they are noticeably poorer than European travellers."

That has been pretty much the case for nearly every decade since the end of the WW2 - at least wrt some European countries.

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, if Remain had made that argument, it would've won.

Yes. ‘The EU adds £500 million a week to our economy.* If we leave, the NHS is screwed’ would have been far more effective.

*Very approximate figure based on the estimate EU membership had increased the size of the economy by around 10%.

Though if that were the case then our economy should have shrank £500mn a week post-Brexit.

Strip out the Covid effects and that's absolutely not happened. So it was never the case.

I said it was very approximate

The point that could be raised against that is if there are to be significant losses from Brexit they won’t be instant. They will likely be incremental. A decision between keeping a factory in Britain and one in Italy now tends towards Italy. A decision about where a multinational wants to open a new branch for European operations might have gone to London before and to Dublin now.

Which over time means we will be less prosperous than we would have otherwise been.

What ultimately tipped me to Remain - and I don’t think I come across as a great admirer of the EU - was the belief that partly due to Northern Ireland and partly due to the sheer size and proximity of the EU it would be very difficult in practice for us to regain any meaningful level of sovereignty commensurate with those future losses and short-term disruption.

But nuanced arguments were strangers to both sides in the campaign.

But we have regained a meaningful level of sovereignty haven't we?

At the Referendum the Leave campaigned promised to: Leave the ECJ, Leave the Single Market, Leave the Customs Union, stop paying fees and determine immigration policy.

Post-Brexit deal we've left the ECJ, left the Single Market, left the Customs Union, stopped paying fees and can now determine our immigration policy.

How is that anything other than all five promises of meaningful sovereignty met?

Except part of the UK hasn’t done the first three, and our immigration policy looks set to be far more relaxed than it was in the EU.

Gardenwalker said:

DavidL said:

Gardenwalker said:

DavidL said:

kinabalu said:

felix said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

No you didn't get any subsidies from the EU. You got a fraction of the UK's own money back.

If you give me a £20 note, then I give you back a £10 note along with a letter saying "this £10 note has been given to you by Philip Thompson", then is that a good arrangement for you or not?

It depends what the other £10 was for, such as access to free trade markets helping to grow our trade? You Tories are all the same, never telling the whole story.

It reminds me of the old joke about a Bed+Breakfast.

"The morning bill was larger than usual, and when queried the proprietor says there is an extra charge of £1 for the cruet set. The customer said that he didn't use it, yet the proprietor said it was there anyway. In retaliation the customer gave back a bill for £10, for sleeping with his wife. The proprietor said no way, it wasn't me. The customer replied 'but she was there anyway'.

You're the one being dishonest and not saying the whole story, claiming that charities and organisations received funding from the EU in Pembrokeshire but the local populace "threw it away". They didn't, there was no such thing as EU money. People in Pembrokeshire got a fraction of their own taxes back recycled to them.

Now you may claim that being net contributors was worthwhile in order to get access to trade markets, in which case make that argument. You're wrong IMHO, but at least that is a credible argument to be had. But to claim people got money from the EU when that was just a tiny fraction of the UK's own money returned back to us having had a massive haircut? That's preposterous.

No such thing as EU money?, like UK government money? or even BBC money? Tesco money?, Leisure centre money?

When you buy a service, such as membership of a leisure centre the money ceases to be your money, but the Leisure centre's money. If someone in the community gets cheap use of the pool before 8am that's still leisure centre money paying for it. When I taught in a private school, the school offered scholarships. That was school money not parents' money.

The bottom line is that the UK paid in to the EU much more than it got back. I voted remain in spite of that but to pretend otherwise is frankly absurd.

And the bottom line below that bottom line was that the wider economic benefits exceeded the net contribution. Whether that was true - and if so the extent of its truth - will become clear in due course.

Absolutely not so. The real cost of membership of the SM was an £80bn a year trade deficit with the EU year after year after year. The cost of that was roughly 1m well paid jobs in this country and low tens of billions of foregone tax revenue.

You can make arguments that we did not play the game well, that it was our own fault that we were so inept at exporting and so prone to import, that government policy in this country positively encourages excess consumption etc but the fact remains that being in the SM was economically ruinous for this country and free trade with the EU is not actually in our interests until we can improve our competitiveness.

Weird mercantilism.
I thought this kind of thinking died out in the early 19th century.

It went out of fashion because both ourselves and then the Americans had huge competitive advantages that made free trade very much in our interests. We were in the 19th century extremely competitive and the US was the same in the 20th. In these circumstances the country with these advantages is the one enriched and their economists were quick to sell the advantages to everyone else.

Now that neither ourselves or the US has these advantages the benefits of free trade are less obvious. Creating a free trade market with China has been one of the most disastrous policies in the history of the west and may ultimately prove fatal to it. It has created a dangerous rival which has no interest in our views on civil rights, equality and human rights. Massive mistake.

I wasn’t clear in my original response.

The bit I take objection to is the idea that a trade deficit equals millions of lost jobs.

That’s a fantasy.

One can argue that the U.K. could / should be protectionist but of course there are considerable downsides to doing so (ie slower growth, slower productivity, lower wages, and loss of consumer choice).

Gardenwalker said:

DavidL said:

kinabalu said:

felix said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

No you didn't get any subsidies from the EU. You got a fraction of the UK's own money back.

If you give me a £20 note, then I give you back a £10 note along with a letter saying "this £10 note has been given to you by Philip Thompson", then is that a good arrangement for you or not?

It depends what the other £10 was for, such as access to free trade markets helping to grow our trade? You Tories are all the same, never telling the whole story.

It reminds me of the old joke about a Bed+Breakfast.

"The morning bill was larger than usual, and when queried the proprietor says there is an extra charge of £1 for the cruet set. The customer said that he didn't use it, yet the proprietor said it was there anyway. In retaliation the customer gave back a bill for £10, for sleeping with his wife. The proprietor said no way, it wasn't me. The customer replied 'but she was there anyway'.

You're the one being dishonest and not saying the whole story, claiming that charities and organisations received funding from the EU in Pembrokeshire but the local populace "threw it away". They didn't, there was no such thing as EU money. People in Pembrokeshire got a fraction of their own taxes back recycled to them.

Now you may claim that being net contributors was worthwhile in order to get access to trade markets, in which case make that argument. You're wrong IMHO, but at least that is a credible argument to be had. But to claim people got money from the EU when that was just a tiny fraction of the UK's own money returned back to us having had a massive haircut? That's preposterous.

No such thing as EU money?, like UK government money? or even BBC money? Tesco money?, Leisure centre money?

When you buy a service, such as membership of a leisure centre the money ceases to be your money, but the Leisure centre's money. If someone in the community gets cheap use of the pool before 8am that's still leisure centre money paying for it. When I taught in a private school, the school offered scholarships. That was school money not parents' money.

The bottom line is that the UK paid in to the EU much more than it got back. I voted remain in spite of that but to pretend otherwise is frankly absurd.

And the bottom line below that bottom line was that the wider economic benefits exceeded the net contribution. Whether that was true - and if so the extent of its truth - will become clear in due course.

Absolutely not so. The real cost of membership of the SM was an £80bn a year trade deficit with the EU year after year after year. The cost of that was roughly 1m well paid jobs in this country and low tens of billions of foregone tax revenue.

You can make arguments that we did not play the game well, that it was our own fault that we were so inept at exporting and so prone to import, that government policy in this country positively encourages excess consumption etc but the fact remains that being in the SM was economically ruinous for this country and free trade with the EU is not actually in our interests until we can improve our competitiveness.

Weird mercantilism.
I thought this kind of thinking died out in the early 19th century.

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, if Remain had made that argument, it would've won.

Yes. ‘The EU adds £500 million a week to our economy.* If we leave, the NHS is screwed’ would have been far more effective.

*Very approximate figure based on the estimate EU membership had increased the size of the economy by around 10%.

Though if that were the case then our economy should have shrank £500mn a week post-Brexit.

Strip out the Covid effects and that's absolutely not happened. So it was never the case.

Are you sure it hasn't? So many industries down the toilet, short of HGV drivers, short of workers? Not collecting customs at the borders to save queues? City of London individual earnings up the creek?

Yes.

The reason there's a supposed "shortage of workers" is because we're doing so very well that we've got full employment and burgeoning demand, not because of a collapsing economy leading to mass layoffs.

Not according to the last GDP figures. Also in a full employment situation you can't create workers, you need to import them.

No you don't.

In a full employment situation you become more productive, raising the incomes of everyone and culling the least productive jobs altogether.

Can you tell me how an HGV driver can drive more than one truck at once?

ydoethur said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, if Remain had made that argument, it would've won.

Yes. ‘The EU adds £500 million a week to our economy.* If we leave, the NHS is screwed’ would have been far more effective.

*Very approximate figure based on the estimate EU membership had increased the size of the economy by around 10%.

Though if that were the case then our economy should have shrank £500mn a week post-Brexit.

Strip out the Covid effects and that's absolutely not happened. So it was never the case.

Are you sure it hasn't? So many industries down the toilet, short of HGV drivers, short of workers? Not collecting customs at the borders to save queues? City of London individual earnings up the creek?

Yes.

The reason there's a supposed "shortage of workers" is because we're doing so very well that we've got full employment and burgeoning demand, not because of a collapsing economy leading to mass layoffs.

Not according to the last GDP figures. Also in a full employment situation you can't create workers, you need to import them.

No you don't.

In a full employment situation you become more productive, raising the incomes of everyone and culling the least productive jobs altogether.

Can you tell me how an HGV driver can drive more than one truck at once?

Aussie truck driver: ‘Challenge accepted.’

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_train

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, if Remain had made that argument, it would've won.

Yes. ‘The EU adds £500 million a week to our economy.* If we leave, the NHS is screwed’ would have been far more effective.

*Very approximate figure based on the estimate EU membership had increased the size of the economy by around 10%.

Though if that were the case then our economy should have shrank £500mn a week post-Brexit.

Strip out the Covid effects and that's absolutely not happened. So it was never the case.

I said it was very approximate

The point that could be raised against that is if there are to be significant losses from Brexit they won’t be instant. They will likely be incremental. A decision between keeping a factory in Britain and one in Italy now tends towards Italy. A decision about where a multinational wants to open a new branch for European operations might have gone to London before and to Dublin now.

Which over time means we will be less prosperous than we would have otherwise been.

What ultimately tipped me to Remain - and I don’t think I come across as a great admirer of the EU - was the belief that partly due to Northern Ireland and partly due to the sheer size and proximity of the EU it would be very difficult in practice for us to regain any meaningful level of sovereignty commensurate with those future losses and short-term disruption.

But nuanced arguments were strangers to both sides in the campaign.

But we have regained a meaningful level of sovereignty haven't we?

At the Referendum the Leave campaigned promised to: Leave the ECJ, Leave the Single Market, Leave the Customs Union, stop paying fees and determine immigration policy.

Post-Brexit deal we've left the ECJ, left the Single Market, left the Customs Union, stopped paying fees and can now determine our immigration policy.

How is that anything other than all five promises of meaningful sovereignty met?

Except part of the UK hasn’t done the first three, and our immigration policy looks set to be far more relaxed than it was in the EU.

kinabalu said:

DavidL said:

kinabalu said:

felix said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

No you didn't get any subsidies from the EU. You got a fraction of the UK's own money back.

If you give me a £20 note, then I give you back a £10 note along with a letter saying "this £10 note has been given to you by Philip Thompson", then is that a good arrangement for you or not?

It depends what the other £10 was for, such as access to free trade markets helping to grow our trade? You Tories are all the same, never telling the whole story.

It reminds me of the old joke about a Bed+Breakfast.

"The morning bill was larger than usual, and when queried the proprietor says there is an extra charge of £1 for the cruet set. The customer said that he didn't use it, yet the proprietor said it was there anyway. In retaliation the customer gave back a bill for £10, for sleeping with his wife. The proprietor said no way, it wasn't me. The customer replied 'but she was there anyway'.

You're the one being dishonest and not saying the whole story, claiming that charities and organisations received funding from the EU in Pembrokeshire but the local populace "threw it away". They didn't, there was no such thing as EU money. People in Pembrokeshire got a fraction of their own taxes back recycled to them.

Now you may claim that being net contributors was worthwhile in order to get access to trade markets, in which case make that argument. You're wrong IMHO, but at least that is a credible argument to be had. But to claim people got money from the EU when that was just a tiny fraction of the UK's own money returned back to us having had a massive haircut? That's preposterous.

No such thing as EU money?, like UK government money? or even BBC money? Tesco money?, Leisure centre money?

When you buy a service, such as membership of a leisure centre the money ceases to be your money, but the Leisure centre's money. If someone in the community gets cheap use of the pool before 8am that's still leisure centre money paying for it. When I taught in a private school, the school offered scholarships. That was school money not parents' money.

The bottom line is that the UK paid in to the EU much more than it got back. I voted remain in spite of that but to pretend otherwise is frankly absurd.

And the bottom line below that bottom line was that the wider economic benefits exceeded the net contribution. Whether that was true - and if so the extent of its truth - will become clear in due course.

Absolutely not so. The real cost of membership of the SM was an £80bn a year trade deficit with the EU year after year after year. The cost of that was roughly 1m well paid jobs in this country and low tens of billions of foregone tax revenue.

You can make arguments that we did not play the game well, that it was our own fault that we were so inept at exporting and so prone to import, that government policy in this country positively encourages excess consumption etc but the fact remains that being in the SM was economically ruinous for this country and free trade with the EU is not actually in our interests until we can improve our competitiveness.

But that wasn't and isn't the consensus view. If EU membership was viewed as pooling sovereignty in exchange for financial LOSS it would have been a no-brainer to leave. And - obvious joke aside - it wasn't.

Gardenwalker said:

felix said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, if Remain had made that argument, it would've won.

Yes. ‘The EU adds £500 million a week to our economy.* If we leave, the NHS is screwed’ would have been far more effective.

*Very approximate figure based on the estimate EU membership had increased the size of the economy by around 10%.

Though if that were the case then our economy should have shrank £500mn a week post-Brexit.

Strip out the Covid effects and that's absolutely not happened. So it was never the case.

Pre Covid, the period 2015-2019 saw our rate of growth fall behind peer nations.

By a rounding error.

Pre-Covid, the period 2010-2019 saw our rate of growth increase beyond that of our peer nations. "Despite Brexit" referendum result being in that period.

It is retarded to use 2010-2014 as in any way relevant to Brexit, though, isn’t it?

No it is absolutely not. Looking over the course of a decade gives a big picture.

Plus the referendum was announced with accompanying "uncertainty" around the start of the decade not the middle of it.

If your argument is that the referendum result led to a drop in GDP so utterly inconsequential that we still grew faster than Europe over the course of the entire decade, then it can't have been a very significant drop now, can it?

It is not relevant to use 2010-2014 to look at the impact of Brexit. Only a liar or an idiot would seek to do so.

In terms of the impact of Brexit, the analysis I’ve seen suggests our growth rate has dropped compared to peer economies, and in fact this is broadly in line with the Treasury’s estimates before the vote.

Year on year it’s not very noticeable.
Give it 5 or 10 more years and people will be wondering why they are noticeably poorer than European travellers.

Covid has swamped everything, temporarily.

"Give it 5 or 10 more years and people will be wondering why they are noticeably poorer than European travellers."

That has been pretty much the case for nearly every decade since the end of the WW2 - at least wrt some European countries.

From the 80s to the early 2010s, Britain closed the gap.

The nadir was presumably “sorpasso”, when Britain fell behind Italy, but at some stage in the 90s-00s it overtook successively Italy, France, and Japan (in terms of GDP per head).

It was closing the gaps with the USA.

It is now falling behind again.
Even 5 years after Brexit the data suggests we are stalling and countries like Czechia and maybe Spain could overtake us in GDP per person over the next decade.

London remains “immune” in some senses, the divide is actually scary when one looks at Hartlepool etc vs comparable regions in Western Europe.

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

DavidL said:

kinabalu said:

felix said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

No you didn't get any subsidies from the EU. You got a fraction of the UK's own money back.

If you give me a £20 note, then I give you back a £10 note along with a letter saying "this £10 note has been given to you by Philip Thompson", then is that a good arrangement for you or not?

It depends what the other £10 was for, such as access to free trade markets helping to grow our trade? You Tories are all the same, never telling the whole story.

It reminds me of the old joke about a Bed+Breakfast.

"The morning bill was larger than usual, and when queried the proprietor says there is an extra charge of £1 for the cruet set. The customer said that he didn't use it, yet the proprietor said it was there anyway. In retaliation the customer gave back a bill for £10, for sleeping with his wife. The proprietor said no way, it wasn't me. The customer replied 'but she was there anyway'.

You're the one being dishonest and not saying the whole story, claiming that charities and organisations received funding from the EU in Pembrokeshire but the local populace "threw it away". They didn't, there was no such thing as EU money. People in Pembrokeshire got a fraction of their own taxes back recycled to them.

Now you may claim that being net contributors was worthwhile in order to get access to trade markets, in which case make that argument. You're wrong IMHO, but at least that is a credible argument to be had. But to claim people got money from the EU when that was just a tiny fraction of the UK's own money returned back to us having had a massive haircut? That's preposterous.

No such thing as EU money?, like UK government money? or even BBC money? Tesco money?, Leisure centre money?

When you buy a service, such as membership of a leisure centre the money ceases to be your money, but the Leisure centre's money. If someone in the community gets cheap use of the pool before 8am that's still leisure centre money paying for it. When I taught in a private school, the school offered scholarships. That was school money not parents' money.

The bottom line is that the UK paid in to the EU much more than it got back. I voted remain in spite of that but to pretend otherwise is frankly absurd.

And the bottom line below that bottom line was that the wider economic benefits exceeded the net contribution. Whether that was true - and if so the extent of its truth - will become clear in due course.

Absolutely not so. The real cost of membership of the SM was an £80bn a year trade deficit with the EU year after year after year. The cost of that was roughly 1m well paid jobs in this country and low tens of billions of foregone tax revenue.

You can make arguments that we did not play the game well, that it was our own fault that we were so inept at exporting and so prone to import, that government policy in this country positively encourages excess consumption etc but the fact remains that being in the SM was economically ruinous for this country and free trade with the EU is not actually in our interests until we can improve our competitiveness.

Weird mercantilism.
I thought this kind of thinking died out in the early 19th century.

Trade is a zero sum game. Only countries that live in a perpetual state of austerity can win out of it by using beggar-thy-neighbour policies.

I used to think it wasn't. Evidence has shown me that the most cynical players win because they have already accepted it is a zero sum game and their gains will necessarily mean other nations will have to lose.

That realisation isn't a Brexit issue either, it's more an acceptance that there are fundamental issues with how the world conducts business. As usual, I've got no answers but I do recognise there's an issue.

Daveyboy1961 said:

Stocky said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, if Remain had made that argument, it would've won.

Yes. ‘The EU adds £500 million a week to our economy.* If we leave, the NHS is screwed’ would have been far more effective.

*Very approximate figure based on the estimate EU membership had increased the size of the economy by around 10%.

Though if that were the case then our economy should have shrank £500mn a week post-Brexit.

Strip out the Covid effects and that's absolutely not happened. So it was never the case.

Are you sure it hasn't? So many industries down the toilet, short of HGV drivers, short of workers? Not collecting customs at the borders to save queues? City of London individual earnings up the creek?

Yes.

The reason there's a supposed "shortage of workers" is because we're doing so very well that we've got full employment and burgeoning demand, not because of a collapsing economy leading to mass layoffs.

Not according to the last GDP figures. Also in a full employment situation you can't create workers, you need to import them.

No you don't.

In a full employment situation you become more productive, raising the incomes of everyone and culling the least productive jobs altogether.

Can you tell me how an HGV driver can drive more than one truck at once?

Higher earnings = higher GDP

How does higher earnings mean more work done?

Are you extendung their hours? or doubling the height of the lorries.

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, if Remain had made that argument, it would've won.

Yes. ‘The EU adds £500 million a week to our economy.* If we leave, the NHS is screwed’ would have been far more effective.

*Very approximate figure based on the estimate EU membership had increased the size of the economy by around 10%.

Though if that were the case then our economy should have shrank £500mn a week post-Brexit.

Strip out the Covid effects and that's absolutely not happened. So it was never the case.

Are you sure it hasn't? So many industries down the toilet, short of HGV drivers, short of workers? Not collecting customs at the borders to save queues? City of London individual earnings up the creek?

Yes.

The reason there's a supposed "shortage of workers" is because we're doing so very well that we've got full employment and burgeoning demand, not because of a collapsing economy leading to mass layoffs.

Not according to the last GDP figures. Also in a full employment situation you can't create workers, you need to import them.

No you don't.

In a full employment situation you become more productive, raising the incomes of everyone and culling the least productive jobs altogether.

Can you tell me how an HGV driver can drive more than one truck at once?

dixiedean said:

This is not a Brexit issue, but a demographic one.

Gardenwalker said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

DavidL said:

kinabalu said:

felix said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

No you didn't get any subsidies from the EU. You got a fraction of the UK's own money back.

If you give me a £20 note, then I give you back a £10 note along with a letter saying "this £10 note has been given to you by Philip Thompson", then is that a good arrangement for you or not?

It depends what the other £10 was for, such as access to free trade markets helping to grow our trade? You Tories are all the same, never telling the whole story.

It reminds me of the old joke about a Bed+Breakfast.

"The morning bill was larger than usual, and when queried the proprietor says there is an extra charge of £1 for the cruet set. The customer said that he didn't use it, yet the proprietor said it was there anyway. In retaliation the customer gave back a bill for £10, for sleeping with his wife. The proprietor said no way, it wasn't me. The customer replied 'but she was there anyway'.

You're the one being dishonest and not saying the whole story, claiming that charities and organisations received funding from the EU in Pembrokeshire but the local populace "threw it away". They didn't, there was no such thing as EU money. People in Pembrokeshire got a fraction of their own taxes back recycled to them.

Now you may claim that being net contributors was worthwhile in order to get access to trade markets, in which case make that argument. You're wrong IMHO, but at least that is a credible argument to be had. But to claim people got money from the EU when that was just a tiny fraction of the UK's own money returned back to us having had a massive haircut? That's preposterous.

No such thing as EU money?, like UK government money? or even BBC money? Tesco money?, Leisure centre money?

When you buy a service, such as membership of a leisure centre the money ceases to be your money, but the Leisure centre's money. If someone in the community gets cheap use of the pool before 8am that's still leisure centre money paying for it. When I taught in a private school, the school offered scholarships. That was school money not parents' money.

The bottom line is that the UK paid in to the EU much more than it got back. I voted remain in spite of that but to pretend otherwise is frankly absurd.

And the bottom line below that bottom line was that the wider economic benefits exceeded the net contribution. Whether that was true - and if so the extent of its truth - will become clear in due course.

Absolutely not so. The real cost of membership of the SM was an £80bn a year trade deficit with the EU year after year after year. The cost of that was roughly 1m well paid jobs in this country and low tens of billions of foregone tax revenue.

You can make arguments that we did not play the game well, that it was our own fault that we were so inept at exporting and so prone to import, that government policy in this country positively encourages excess consumption etc but the fact remains that being in the SM was economically ruinous for this country and free trade with the EU is not actually in our interests until we can improve our competitiveness.

Weird mercantilism.
I thought this kind of thinking died out in the early 19th century.

Trade is a zero sum game. Only countries that live in a perpetual state of austerity can win out of it by using beggar-thy-neighbour policies.

I used to think it wasn't. Evidence has shown me that the most cynical players win because they have already accepted it is a zero sum game and their gains will necessarily mean other nations will have to lose.

That realisation isn't a Brexit issue either, it's more an acceptance that there are fundamental issues with how the world conducts business. As usual, I've got no answers but I do recognise there's an issue.

I tend to agree that a persistent balance of trade deficit is not ideal. This has been the case in NZ for example.

Now, NZ has delivered years of growth and low unemployment etc, and the balance of trade issue is not at all politically salient there, but it does mean that NZ is forced to keep selling its businesses to overseas investors so that all the sums balance. Over time that pushes NZ toward a branch economy model.

I tend to follow young Smithson though in believing the issue is NOT access to a free trading area, which has been an utter boon for NZ via trade agreements, but rather domestic savings rates which are amenable to govt policy.

NZers (and Brits) don’t save enough.

Gardenwalker said:

Brexiters still blaming everyone but themselves, I see.

TimT said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, if Remain had made that argument, it would've won.

I highly doubt it. The No vote was not about economics. That is the huge mistake that the Remain campaign made - to assume it was.

Charles said:

The protocol is causing a problem

It needs to be renegotiated

One side is refusing to engage

It is therefore their fault

Theuniondivvie said:

I reckon I've stumbled on the one person still using that True Blue Cookery Book. Bring back the British Restaurants, down with foreign muck like water, beans and lemons!

Scott_xP said:

dixiedean said:

This is not a Brexit issue, but a demographic one.

Of course it's a Brexit issue.

One way of changing the demographics is 'free movement of people'...

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Stocky said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, if Remain had made that argument, it would've won.

Yes. ‘The EU adds £500 million a week to our economy.* If we leave, the NHS is screwed’ would have been far more effective.

*Very approximate figure based on the estimate EU membership had increased the size of the economy by around 10%.

Though if that were the case then our economy should have shrank £500mn a week post-Brexit.

Strip out the Covid effects and that's absolutely not happened. So it was never the case.

Are you sure it hasn't? So many industries down the toilet, short of HGV drivers, short of workers? Not collecting customs at the borders to save queues? City of London individual earnings up the creek?

Yes.

The reason there's a supposed "shortage of workers" is because we're doing so very well that we've got full employment and burgeoning demand, not because of a collapsing economy leading to mass layoffs.

Not according to the last GDP figures. Also in a full employment situation you can't create workers, you need to import them.

No you don't.

In a full employment situation you become more productive, raising the incomes of everyone and culling the least productive jobs altogether.

Can you tell me how an HGV driver can drive more than one truck at once?

Higher earnings = higher GDP

How does higher earnings mean more work done?

Are you extendung their hours? or doubling the height of the lorries.

No need to do so.

If their least valuable hauls are no longer carried, because they're no longer efficient to be carried, then the remaining hauls are the most efficient ones, which means more work done per driver.

Daveyboy1961 said:

Stocky said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, if Remain had made that argument, it would've won.

Yes. ‘The EU adds £500 million a week to our economy.* If we leave, the NHS is screwed’ would have been far more effective.

*Very approximate figure based on the estimate EU membership had increased the size of the economy by around 10%.

Though if that were the case then our economy should have shrank £500mn a week post-Brexit.

Strip out the Covid effects and that's absolutely not happened. So it was never the case.

Are you sure it hasn't? So many industries down the toilet, short of HGV drivers, short of workers? Not collecting customs at the borders to save queues? City of London individual earnings up the creek?

Yes.

The reason there's a supposed "shortage of workers" is because we're doing so very well that we've got full employment and burgeoning demand, not because of a collapsing economy leading to mass layoffs.

Not according to the last GDP figures. Also in a full employment situation you can't create workers, you need to import them.

No you don't.

In a full employment situation you become more productive, raising the incomes of everyone and culling the least productive jobs altogether.

Can you tell me how an HGV driver can drive more than one truck at once?

Higher earnings = higher GDP

How does higher earnings mean more work done?

Are you extendung their hours? or doubling the height of the lorries.

Daveyboy1961 said:

felix said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, if Remain had made that argument, it would've won.

Yes. ‘The EU adds £500 million a week to our economy.* If we leave, the NHS is screwed’ would have been far more effective.

*Very approximate figure based on the estimate EU membership had increased the size of the economy by around 10%.

Though if that were the case then our economy should have shrank £500mn a week post-Brexit.

Strip out the Covid effects and that's absolutely not happened. So it was never the case.

Are you sure it hasn't? So many industries down the toilet, short of HGV drivers, short of workers? Not collecting customs at the borders to save queues? City of London individual earnings up the creek?

Yes.

The reason there's a supposed "shortage of workers" is because we're doing so very well that we've got full employment and burgeoning demand, not because of a collapsing economy leading to mass layoffs.

Not according to the last GDP figures. Also in a full employment situation you can't create workers, you need to import them.

No you don't.

In a full employment situation you become more productive, raising the incomes of everyone and culling the least productive jobs altogether.

Can you tell me how an HGV driver can drive more than one truck at once?

Golly - stop - you're really embarrassing yourself now.

Ok, I'll rephrase. Can you tell me how 516000 HGV drivers can suddenly start doing the work of at least 650000 lorry drivers? Assuming that you aren't expecting them to do illegal overtime?

dixiedean said:

Brexiteers have closed off one solution. It is up to them to advance others.

Philip_Thompson said:

dixiedean said:

The fundamental problem is we have fewer and fewer working age people as a percentage of the population.
This is not a Brexit issue, but a demographic one. And one only soluble by the free market if you incentivise more supply into the labour market.

Importing ever more minimum wage people at the bottom of the pay pyramid (who are then entitled to in-work benefits and pensions) doesn't solve the pensions issue, or our deficit.

Having better more productive jobs per person does.

Sustainable growth has always come from creative destruction. New more productive processes arrive that lead to better growth, and older least productive jobs die out. Importing people on minimum wage, then subsidising them with in-work benefits, just keeps the least productive jobs alive rather than letting them die off.

algarkirk said:

kinabalu said:

kjh said:

kinabalu said:

Mexicanpete said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, it seemed bizarre to me that pro-EU MPs didn't even attempt (they had three shots) to slip in a confirmatory referendum clause and back May's deal.

By what means would they get something better? And, if they opposed her deal, what alternative except a harder departure was on the table?

I would have opposed on all three occasions. I was outraged Mrs May brought the same deal back on a one more heave basis.

However, knowing what I know now, I would have voted it through on the first time of asking, such is Johnson's thin gruel deal.

Defo. I was always for it. Never a Ref2 man. Just felt like tilting at windmills.

I was 100% sure Brexit would never happen.

Yes, a lot of people thought that. I think they underestimated just what a momentous and necessarily one-off event the 23 June vote was and that it really had to be implemented in some fashion.

People confuse what will cause great inconvenience and trouble and what can't happen. Lots of people think deep down that the worst case prospect of global warming couldn't happen just because the consequences are so grave.

Brexit is a special case. Once a truly significant number of people (I am one, though in general politically boring centrist/one nation/communitarian) believe that membership of the EU is, in the very long run, unsustainable for good reasons, including old fashioned sovereignty, there is a problem which no more has a good solution than Israel/Palestine or RoI/NI/UK.

It belongs to the category of problem where the one thing you should avoid is starting from where we currently are, because we should should never have got here in the first place.

Such problems have alternatives and choices, but not solutions.

Theuniondivvie said:

I reckon I've stumbled on the one person still using that True Blue Cookery Book. Bring back the British Restaurants, down with foreign muck like water, beans and lemons!

theProle said:

To a certain extent drivers will be becoming more productive - in some cases by driving bigger vehicles

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

felix said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, if Remain had made that argument, it would've won.

Yes. ‘The EU adds £500 million a week to our economy.* If we leave, the NHS is screwed’ would have been far more effective.

*Very approximate figure based on the estimate EU membership had increased the size of the economy by around 10%.

Though if that were the case then our economy should have shrank £500mn a week post-Brexit.

Strip out the Covid effects and that's absolutely not happened. So it was never the case.

Are you sure it hasn't? So many industries down the toilet, short of HGV drivers, short of workers? Not collecting customs at the borders to save queues? City of London individual earnings up the creek?

Yes.

The reason there's a supposed "shortage of workers" is because we're doing so very well that we've got full employment and burgeoning demand, not because of a collapsing economy leading to mass layoffs.

Not according to the last GDP figures. Also in a full employment situation you can't create workers, you need to import them.

No you don't.

In a full employment situation you become more productive, raising the incomes of everyone and culling the least productive jobs altogether.

Can you tell me how an HGV driver can drive more than one truck at once?

Golly - stop - you're really embarrassing yourself now.

Ok, I'll rephrase. Can you tell me how 516000 HGV drivers can suddenly start doing the work of at least 650000 lorry drivers? Assuming that you aren't expecting them to do illegal overtime?

One option is to increase the pay for lorry drivers so that more drivers are attracted to the industry and all drivers in the industry are better off.

Another option is for 516,000 lorry drivers could carry the most productive 516,000 hauls meaning the least productive 134,000 hauls don't get carried. The average value of the hauls carried would be higher then as a result (because the useless valueless hauls aren't being taken anymore) justifying a pay increase.

Reality would be something between these two. Prices go up, paying for pay rises, meaning more drivers, and the least productive hauls find its not worth paying the higher prices so they drop.

That is supply and demand 101. First lesson in an Economics class.

Theuniondivvie said:

I see Brexit is a distant memory again.

dixiedean said:

Philip_Thompson said:

dixiedean said:

The fundamental problem is we have fewer and fewer working age people as a percentage of the population.
This is not a Brexit issue, but a demographic one. And one only soluble by the free market if you incentivise more supply into the labour market.

Importing ever more minimum wage people at the bottom of the pay pyramid (who are then entitled to in-work benefits and pensions) doesn't solve the pensions issue, or our deficit.

Having better more productive jobs per person does.

Sustainable growth has always come from creative destruction. New more productive processes arrive that lead to better growth, and older least productive jobs die out. Importing people on minimum wage, then subsidising them with in-work benefits, just keeps the least productive jobs alive rather than letting them die off.

That is the free market ultra solution. Not one being advocated by any Party right now. Nor the voting public after the last 40 years. Best of luck.

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

felix said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, if Remain had made that argument, it would've won.

Yes. ‘The EU adds £500 million a week to our economy.* If we leave, the NHS is screwed’ would have been far more effective.

*Very approximate figure based on the estimate EU membership had increased the size of the economy by around 10%.

Though if that were the case then our economy should have shrank £500mn a week post-Brexit.

Strip out the Covid effects and that's absolutely not happened. So it was never the case.

Are you sure it hasn't? So many industries down the toilet, short of HGV drivers, short of workers? Not collecting customs at the borders to save queues? City of London individual earnings up the creek?

Yes.

The reason there's a supposed "shortage of workers" is because we're doing so very well that we've got full employment and burgeoning demand, not because of a collapsing economy leading to mass layoffs.

Not according to the last GDP figures. Also in a full employment situation you can't create workers, you need to import them.

No you don't.

In a full employment situation you become more productive, raising the incomes of everyone and culling the least productive jobs altogether.

Can you tell me how an HGV driver can drive more than one truck at once?

Golly - stop - you're really embarrassing yourself now.

Ok, I'll rephrase. Can you tell me how 516000 HGV drivers can suddenly start doing the work of at least 650000 lorry drivers? Assuming that you aren't expecting them to do illegal overtime?

One option is to increase the pay for lorry drivers so that more drivers are attracted to the industry and all drivers in the industry are better off.

Another option is for 516,000 lorry drivers could carry the most productive 516,000 hauls meaning the least productive 134,000 hauls don't get carried. The average value of the hauls carried would be higher then as a result (because the useless valueless hauls aren't being taken anymore) justifying a pay increase.

Reality would be something between these two. Prices go up, paying for pay rises, meaning more drivers, and the least productive hauls find its not worth paying the higher prices so they drop.

That is supply and demand 101. First lesson in an Economics class.

So the least productive hauls don't happen then.

MarqueeMark said:

Theuniondivvie said:

I reckon I've stumbled on the one person still using that True Blue Cookery Book. Bring back the British Restaurants, down with foreign muck like water, beans and lemons!

There are other supermarkets than Waitrose, luv....

Alanbrooke said:

Oh dear

another thread of Brexit whining

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, if Remain had made that argument, it would've won.

Yes. ‘The EU adds £500 million a week to our economy.* If we leave, the NHS is screwed’ would have been far more effective.

*Very approximate figure based on the estimate EU membership had increased the size of the economy by around 10%.

Though if that were the case then our economy should have shrank £500mn a week post-Brexit.

Strip out the Covid effects and that's absolutely not happened. So it was never the case.

Pre Covid, the period 2015-2019 saw our rate of growth fall behind peer nations.

By a rounding error.

Pre-Covid, the period 2010-2019 saw our rate of growth increase beyond that of our peer nations. "Despite Brexit" referendum result being in that period.

It is retarded to use 2010-2014 as in any way relevant to Brexit, though, isn’t it?

No it is absolutely not. Looking over the course of a decade gives a big picture.

Plus the referendum was announced with accompanying "uncertainty" around the start of the decade not the middle of it.

If your argument is that the referendum result led to a drop in GDP so utterly inconsequential that we still grew faster than Europe over the course of the entire decade, then it can't have been a very significant drop now, can it?

It is not relevant to use 2010-2014 to look at the impact of Brexit. Only a liar or an idiot would seek to do so.

In terms of the impact of Brexit, the analysis I’ve seen suggests our growth rate has dropped compared to peer economies, and in fact this is broadly in line with the Treasury’s estimates before the vote.

Year on year it’s not very noticeable.
Give it 5 or 10 more years and people will be wondering why they are noticeably poorer than European travellers.

Covid has swamped everything, temporarily.

Completely disagreed. It is entirely appropriate to look at a long term trend to look at the impact of Brexit. Only a liar or an idiot would seek to exclude the big picture.

We'll see what happens in 5 or 10 more years time but I expect that our GDP per capita will grow more not less than the EU's will over the next decade, just as it has done every decade since the Euro was launched without the UK, which will really put a stake through the heart of your argument would it not?

Well I have 5 years of data so far, and you have zero.

So, thus far at least the stake is rather thrusting at your argument not mine.

Let us also all note for the future that you think GDP growth post the the financial crisis (2010-2014) is relevant to Brexit effects. You are usually, at least, more careful than to admit to such a fallacy.

theProle said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, if Remain had made that argument, it would've won.

Yes. ‘The EU adds £500 million a week to our economy.* If we leave, the NHS is screwed’ would have been far more effective.

*Very approximate figure based on the estimate EU membership had increased the size of the economy by around 10%.

Though if that were the case then our economy should have shrank £500mn a week post-Brexit.

Strip out the Covid effects and that's absolutely not happened. So it was never the case.

Are you sure it hasn't? So many industries down the toilet, short of HGV drivers, short of workers? Not collecting customs at the borders to save queues? City of London individual earnings up the creek?

Yes.

The reason there's a supposed "shortage of workers" is because we're doing so very well that we've got full employment and burgeoning demand, not because of a collapsing economy leading to mass layoffs.

Not according to the last GDP figures. Also in a full employment situation you can't create workers, you need to import them.

No you don't.

In a full employment situation you become more productive, raising the incomes of everyone and culling the least productive jobs altogether.

Can you tell me how an HGV driver can drive more than one truck at once?

To a certain extent drivers will be becoming more productive - in some cases by driving bigger vehicles, in others by their companies working harder to secure back loads, reducing empty mileage.

Philip_Thompson said:

dixiedean said:

Scott_xP said:

dixiedean said:

This is not a Brexit issue, but a demographic one.

Of course it's a Brexit issue.

One way of changing the demographics is 'free movement of people'...

It is. It is one out of a number of ways of addressing the fundamental issue. Which is demography. Efficiency and automation are other ways of tinkering with it.
We need more working taxpayers. Brexiteers have closed off one solution. It is up to them to advance others.

But we are advancing others. Better and more productive jobs that pay more (and will thus pay more in taxes/demand less in benefits too).

How is importing people to work minimum wage jobs, then giving them Universal Credit including Housing Benefit and Child Benefits "solving the issue"?

Charles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

The relative economic performance isn’t quite as simple as that - Belfast was the industrialised part of Ireland while the rest was much more agricultural.

The shift on wealth is more about the failure of the UK to manage de-industrialisation plus the stresses of the Troubles vs the success of the RoI’s parasitic business model

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

felix said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, if Remain had made that argument, it would've won.

Yes. ‘The EU adds £500 million a week to our economy.* If we leave, the NHS is screwed’ would have been far more effective.

*Very approximate figure based on the estimate EU membership had increased the size of the economy by around 10%.

Though if that were the case then our economy should have shrank £500mn a week post-Brexit.

Strip out the Covid effects and that's absolutely not happened. So it was never the case.

Are you sure it hasn't? So many industries down the toilet, short of HGV drivers, short of workers? Not collecting customs at the borders to save queues? City of London individual earnings up the creek?

Yes.

The reason there's a supposed "shortage of workers" is because we're doing so very well that we've got full employment and burgeoning demand, not because of a collapsing economy leading to mass layoffs.

Not according to the last GDP figures. Also in a full employment situation you can't create workers, you need to import them.

No you don't.

In a full employment situation you become more productive, raising the incomes of everyone and culling the least productive jobs altogether.

Can you tell me how an HGV driver can drive more than one truck at once?

Golly - stop - you're really embarrassing yourself now.

Ok, I'll rephrase. Can you tell me how 516000 HGV drivers can suddenly start doing the work of at least 650000 lorry drivers? Assuming that you aren't expecting them to do illegal overtime?

One option is to increase the pay for lorry drivers so that more drivers are attracted to the industry and all drivers in the industry are better off.

Another option is for 516,000 lorry drivers could carry the most productive 516,000 hauls meaning the least productive 134,000 hauls don't get carried. The average value of the hauls carried would be higher then as a result (because the useless valueless hauls aren't being taken anymore) justifying a pay increase.

Reality would be something between these two. Prices go up, paying for pay rises, meaning more drivers, and the least productive hauls find its not worth paying the higher prices so they drop.

That is supply and demand 101. First lesson in an Economics class.

So the least productive hauls don't happen then.

Exactly! Now you're getting it.

Every year we should be innovating more new productive ways of doing things, and losing the least productive ways of doing so. That's what generates growth, leads to sustainable pay rises, and allows for us to pay for pensions and other niceties.

So what happens to the customers for the least productive hauls?

Carnyx said:

Charles said:

Carnyx said:

Mexicanpete said:

kinabalu said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. B, big test now for many countries, especially the US. Go along with it and just accept China's land (sea) grab, or tell them to sod off?

Tell them to sod off? Yes, let's give that a whirl.

Government Ministers and their friends and family could make an absolute killing on the provision of tin hats ( from China?) to protect us from the onslaught.

I seem to remember that the MoD had run down UK productive capability so much that when it started one of the Middle East wars of recent decades, it discovered that its sole supplier of ammunition for one particular artillery equipment (can't recall if land, air or sea) was Swiss/Swedish - ergo neutral and at once stopping the supply. No idea if they have learnt that lesson.

I think the story you are thinking of is Belgium and it wasn’t neutrality and shitheadishness on their part.

That's it - thank you. Still pretty basic issue not having own capability for the main natures of artillery ammunition.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020410/halltext/20410h02.htm

Daveyboy1961 said:

ydoethur said:

MarqueeMark said:

Theuniondivvie said:

I reckon I've stumbled on the one person still using that True Blue Cookery Book. Bring back the British Restaurants, down with foreign muck like water, beans and lemons!

There are other supermarkets than Waitrose, luv....

Maybe she exaggerated a Lidl.

There are aldi-ternatives....

felix said:

kinabalu said:

felix said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

No you didn't get any subsidies from the EU. You got a fraction of the UK's own money back.

If you give me a £20 note, then I give you back a £10 note along with a letter saying "this £10 note has been given to you by Philip Thompson", then is that a good arrangement for you or not?

It depends what the other £10 was for, such as access to free trade markets helping to grow our trade? You Tories are all the same, never telling the whole story.

It reminds me of the old joke about a Bed+Breakfast.

"The morning bill was larger than usual, and when queried the proprietor says there is an extra charge of £1 for the cruet set. The customer said that he didn't use it, yet the proprietor said it was there anyway. In retaliation the customer gave back a bill for £10, for sleeping with his wife. The proprietor said no way, it wasn't me. The customer replied 'but she was there anyway'.

You're the one being dishonest and not saying the whole story, claiming that charities and organisations received funding from the EU in Pembrokeshire but the local populace "threw it away". They didn't, there was no such thing as EU money. People in Pembrokeshire got a fraction of their own taxes back recycled to them.

Now you may claim that being net contributors was worthwhile in order to get access to trade markets, in which case make that argument. You're wrong IMHO, but at least that is a credible argument to be had. But to claim people got money from the EU when that was just a tiny fraction of the UK's own money returned back to us having had a massive haircut? That's preposterous.

No such thing as EU money?, like UK government money? or even BBC money? Tesco money?, Leisure centre money?

When you buy a service, such as membership of a leisure centre the money ceases to be your money, but the Leisure centre's money. If someone in the community gets cheap use of the pool before 8am that's still leisure centre money paying for it. When I taught in a private school, the school offered scholarships. That was school money not parents' money.

The bottom line is that the UK paid in to the EU much more than it got back. I voted remain in spite of that but to pretend otherwise is frankly absurd.

And the bottom line below that bottom line was that the wider economic benefits exceeded the net contribution. Whether that was true - and if so the extent of its truth - will become clear in due course.

May well be - although money was not the reason I voted remain. BTW is this the same 'due course' we've been hearing about from the Labour since 2010 about the polls on the turn from Miliband/Corbyn/Starmer et al? Or is it the 'due course' beloved of Sir Humphrey?

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

I reckon I've stumbled on the one person still using that True Blue Cookery Book. Bring back the British Restaurants, down with foreign muck like water, beans and lemons!

Not fair, you need parsley to put into the white sauce for the boiled cod.

My gran and mum used to live above a British Restaurant.

I imagine a whiff of boiled cabbage was an occasional occurrence? I read on Wiki that they transformed into 'civic restaurants' and in some cases survived till the late 60s. I guess it's not impossible that I may have been taken to one, though they'd have been an improvement on my school dinners.

kinabalu said:

felix said:

kinabalu said:

felix said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

RobD said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

A united Ireland makes sense on a number of points, but occasionally people stumble into arguing for it on the basis that both current entities are in the same island so should be together or words to that effect, which I doubt they hold consistently for other islands like hispaniola, new guinea or Britain, as if islands are required to have unified politics.

The partition of Ireland is a historical anomaly, driven by decisions hundreds of years ago and then a political miscalculation by Carson combined with shameless manipulation and opportunism by Craig. It were better that it had never happened.

Unfortunately we are where we are - unless and until our brothers and sisters in the North chose differently they remain part of the United kingdom (which is why @Philip_Thompson ‘s approach - “good riddance” - is so inappropriate)

Its an anomaly that should have never happened that has been almost criminally devastating to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Northern Ireland was the relatively wealthier part of Ireland when partition happened. Now its completely the other way around as quite frankly the Republic has in recent decades much better managed their own business than the United Kingdom has managed Northern Ireland.

Which is hardly a surprise because the people of Northern Ireland are quite frankly a forgotten irrelevance to British politics. They're not even a part of Britain proper and the British parties don't even stand properly in Northern Ireland either.

Median full time salary in Northern Ireland is £28,000
Median full time salary in the Republic of Ireland is €48,946 which converts to £42,000

What possible good reason is there that the people of Northern Ireland should be worth 2/3rds of a person just over the border? Its a disgraceful and shameful situation and I unashamedly will say good riddance to it the day that the people in NI vote to end this ridiculous mess that should have never occurred. That's entirely appropriate in my eyes.

Yes well we would expect no different from a republican, non Unionist, non conservative as you are.

Some of us proper Conservatives however remain committed to our Unionist brothers across the sea.

The Republic of course has no NHS either unlike the UK, it has hospital charges instead which pay for its very low taxes to boost its median income. It also has investment from the EU you voted to leave

So committed to the union you want to continue to impoverish your "brothers" [and forgotten sisters no doubt] across the sea?

The union has failed Northern Ireland because the people of Northern Ireland are alternatively either forgotten about, misunderstood or treated as an inconvenience by their "brethren".

Self determination works better than subsidies which is why no amount of "subsidising" NI has made them succeed like the Republics self-determination has allowed them to succeed.

I wonder which is better off for a household's income - avoiding a £50 charge rarely needed, or £14,000 extra in annual salary? 🤔

Every region and country of the UK is net subsidised apart from London, the South East and East.

On that basis the only parts of the UK left would be those 3 regions.

Ireland has also had vast subsidy from the EU, as almost every development project there has had EU funding.

It also benefits from very low corporation tax attracting multinational companies which Biden and the G7 want to end

I suspect they are also benefiting from UK companies getting a foothold in Ireland to make trading with the rest of the EU easier. Also just as a matter of interest, Ireland may have benefitted from subsidies, like a lot of EU countries, but in return they joined a free trade area and customs Union etc. It's a shame we never made use of EU subsidies as much when we were in.

The UK would have had to have a significantly lower GDP to receive vast subsidies from the EU. Instead it got its own recycled money back (well, a small fraction of it).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7847/

We used to receive a lot of subsidies based on a like for like basis I think. I remember a large number of local charities and organisations also received funding from the EU, (CADW etc), in Pembrokeshire. It's a shame the local populace threw it away by putting their cross in the wrong box.

No you didn't get any subsidies from the EU. You got a fraction of the UK's own money back.

If you give me a £20 note, then I give you back a £10 note along with a letter saying "this £10 note has been given to you by Philip Thompson", then is that a good arrangement for you or not?

It depends what the other £10 was for, such as access to free trade markets helping to grow our trade? You Tories are all the same, never telling the whole story.

It reminds me of the old joke about a Bed+Breakfast.

"The morning bill was larger than usual, and when queried the proprietor says there is an extra charge of £1 for the cruet set. The customer said that he didn't use it, yet the proprietor said it was there anyway. In retaliation the customer gave back a bill for £10, for sleeping with his wife. The proprietor said no way, it wasn't me. The customer replied 'but she was there anyway'.

You're the one being dishonest and not saying the whole story, claiming that charities and organisations received funding from the EU in Pembrokeshire but the local populace "threw it away". They didn't, there was no such thing as EU money. People in Pembrokeshire got a fraction of their own taxes back recycled to them.

Now you may claim that being net contributors was worthwhile in order to get access to trade markets, in which case make that argument. You're wrong IMHO, but at least that is a credible argument to be had. But to claim people got money from the EU when that was just a tiny fraction of the UK's own money returned back to us having had a massive haircut? That's preposterous.

No such thing as EU money?, like UK government money? or even BBC money? Tesco money?, Leisure centre money?

When you buy a service, such as membership of a leisure centre the money ceases to be your money, but the Leisure centre's money. If someone in the community gets cheap use of the pool before 8am that's still leisure centre money paying for it. When I taught in a private school, the school offered scholarships. That was school money not parents' money.

The bottom line is that the UK paid in to the EU much more than it got back. I voted remain in spite of that but to pretend otherwise is frankly absurd.

And the bottom line below that bottom line was that the wider economic benefits exceeded the net contribution. Whether that was true - and if so the extent of its truth - will become clear in due course.

May well be - although money was not the reason I voted remain. BTW is this the same 'due course' we've been hearing about from the Labour since 2010 about the polls on the turn from Miliband/Corbyn/Starmer et al? Or is it the 'due course' beloved of Sir Humphrey?

No, not my reason either. Mine was the same as most people - IDENTITY. It applies to hard Remainers as well as hard Leavers.

Yes, "in due course" - as in at some point before the 12th of Never a settled consensus will form as to the long term economic impact on the UK of Brexit.

Philip_Thompson said:

dixiedean said:

Philip_Thompson said:

dixiedean said:

Scott_xP said:

dixiedean said:

This is not a Brexit issue, but a demographic one.

Of course it's a Brexit issue.

One way of changing the demographics is 'free movement of people'...

It is. It is one out of a number of ways of addressing the fundamental issue. Which is demography. Efficiency and automation are other ways of tinkering with it.
We need more working taxpayers. Brexiteers have closed off one solution. It is up to them to advance others.

But we are advancing others. Better and more productive jobs that pay more (and will thus pay more in taxes/demand less in benefits too).

How is importing people to work minimum wage jobs, then giving them Universal Credit including Housing Benefit and Child Benefits "solving the issue"?

You are arguing a point I haven't made. I was clear that this isn't fundamentally a Brexit issue.
However. Minimum wage jobs will need doing. Regardless of the rate of the NMW. Who will do them if everyone has better and more productive jobs?
Bins need collecting, small ahops need staff, bogs need cleaning, bums need wiping. These are not tasks easily done by exhortations to higher productivity.

Why should bums being wiped be a minimum wage job?

If the only way to get bums wiped is to pay more than minimum wage, then pay more than minimum wage.

The minimum is supposed to be a minimum not a maximum. The culture that you can fill almost any of certain types of roles at no more than the minimum wage is one I'd be happy to see the back of.