Cyclefree said:

antifrank said:

isam said:

HurstLlama said:

antifrank said:

isam said:

antifrank said:

This is as if Liverpool St had been closed indefinitely:

Guardian news @guardiannews Migrant crisis: Hungary closes main Budapest station http://d.gu.com/C1s7Gm

NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).

Little Hungarians?

Hungary got something like 34,000 migrants in July alone (Britain got 25,000 asylum seekers in the whole of the last year). The August figure will be close to double that. Its population is less than a sixth of Britain's. It is far poorer than Britain. The scale of problem that it is facing is an order of magnitude more challenging than anything that Britain is looking at.

And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.

The number of legal immigrants to the UK last year was in excess of 600,000 plus asylum seekers. How many was the total for Hungary? Any comparison of figures which ignore total immigration are going to be pretty meaningless.

I think he thought I was too stupid to notice he was comparing two different things

How many migrants crossing Hungary's borders right now do you think are not going to be asylum seekers somewhere or other?

Antifrank: I'm not trying to make a point but under the Dublin Convention isn't it the case that they are obliged to seek asylum in the first safe country not choose where they would like to end up?

watford30 said:

Desperate people will live anywhere.

Open up your front doors and let them in - you're rich enough to take the hit.

Alanbrooke said:

Yes, you'll salve your conscience with cash and then dump the problem on someone else. Then later you'll gripe about the less well off people who have been dumped on for voting for nasty parties you don't like.

Buy Jobbik.

antifrank said:

JEO said:

If it's a high number, it suggests Hungary should be less worried than the UK, given that they won't have to deal with final settlement.

In the first three months of this year (well before the influx really gathered pace) Hungary received more asylum applications than Britain has in the whole of last year:

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21656230-hungary-shuts-door

Germany's attitude on this puts Britain to shame. It is expecting to take 800,000 asylum seekers this year.

What should have happened is that we should have tried much harder to build stable environments on the ground in and around Syria to enable refugees to build new lives there. By failing to invest in that, we now see a wave of migrants seeking something other than a wretched life. I would much have preferred that they did not come. But it is too late now. We have to play our part.

There is a longer term lesson to be learned here. A moral foreign policy is a self-interested foreign policy and encouraging stability around the world will prevent future such waves of migrants and asylum seekers. We need to be less tolerant of oppressive regimes and more ready with humanitarian plans to help those suffering at their hands.

antifrank said:

watford30 said:

Desperate people will live anywhere.

Open up your front doors and let them in - you're rich enough to take the hit.

Alanbrooke said:

Yes, you'll salve your conscience with cash and then dump the problem on someone else. Then later you'll gripe about the less well off people who have been dumped on for voting for nasty parties you don't like.

Buy Jobbik.

Since I take it that neither of you are remotely serious in this suggestion, you must both be making a point. The point that you make to me is probably not the one that you think you are making.

antifrank said:

Cyclefree said:

antifrank said:

isam said:

HurstLlama said:

antifrank said:

isam said:

antifrank said:

This is as if Liverpool St had been closed indefinitely:

Guardian news @guardiannews Migrant crisis: Hungary closes main Budapest station http://d.gu.com/C1s7Gm

NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).

Little Hungarians?

And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.

The number of legal immigrants to the UK last year was in excess of 600,000 plus asylum seekers. How many was the total for Hungary? Any comparison of figures which ignore total immigration are going to be pretty meaningless.

How many migrants crossing Hungary's borders right now do you think are not going to be asylum seekers somewhere or other?

Antifrank: I'm not trying to make a point but under the Dublin Convention isn't it the case that they are obliged to seek asylum in the first safe country not choose where they would like to end up?

Germany has suspended application of this so far as it is concerned:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11821822/Germany-drops-EU-rules-to-allow-in-Syrian-refugees.html

It's completely impractical to expect Italy, Greece and Hungary to bear all of this by themselves in any case.

HurstLlama said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

malcolmg said:

calum said:

Good news for the real economy:

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/86320/breaking/

Calum, expect tumbleweed on here regarding it , no nuclear warheads and not bad for Scotland.

The significant part for some is that George Osborne pops up again, rather than the SoS for Scotland or Energy. Heir-to-Brown is running the whole government from the Treasury.

I am glad someone else is finally making the point about Osborne behaving lik Brown.

Cyclefree said:

antifrank said:

Cyclefree said:

antifrank said:

isam said:

HurstLlama said:

antifrank said:

isam said:

antifrank said:

This is as if Liverpool St had been closed indefinitely:

Guardian news @guardiannews Migrant crisis: Hungary closes main Budapest station http://d.gu.com/C1s7Gm

NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).

Little Hungarians?

And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.

The number of legal immigrants to the UK last year was in excess of 600,000 plus asylum seekers. How many was the total for Hungary? Any comparison of figures which ignore total immigration are going to be pretty meaningless.

How many migrants crossing Hungary's borders right now do you think are not going to be asylum seekers somewhere or other?

Germany has suspended application of this so far as it is concerned:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11821822/Germany-drops-EU-rules-to-allow-in-Syrian-refugees.html

It's completely impractical to expect Italy, Greece and Hungary to bear all of this by themselves in any case.

Exactly. So we need a new settlement. But that may also mean accepting that we cannot accept every single person who wants to leave the Middle East. It is completely impractical to expect Europe to take in virtually the entire population of the Middle East which, after all, contains a number of really rather rich countries with space to house these people.

Whom we should accept, how many we should accept and who should take them has to be based on something more hard headed than just saying that they are human beings. Of course they are. And we should try to behave with humanity where we can. But not all human beings are necessarily nice or an asset, though, and it would be foolish to ignore the possibility that amongst those arriving are some who we should not be inviting in: Assad thugs or IS thugs or other varieties of thugs (and there are, sadly, plenty of those in the Middle East these days).

And there are human beings in Europe already who also deserve to be thought of by politicians, even to be thought of first by the politicians they elect, some might think.

JosiasJessop said:

Cyclefree said:

antifrank said:

Cyclefree said:

antifrank said:

isam said:

HurstLlama said:

antifrank said:

isam said:

antifrank said:

This is as if Liverpool St had been closed indefinitely:

Guardian news @guardiannews Migrant crisis: Hungary closes main Budapest station http://d.gu.com/C1s7Gm

NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).

Little Hungarians?

And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.

The number of legal immigrants to the UK last year was in excess of 600,000 plus asylum seekers. How many was the total for Hungary? Any comparison of figures which ignore total immigration are going to be pretty meaningless.

How many migrants crossing Hungary's borders right now do you think are not going to be asylum seekers somewhere or other?

Antifrank: I'm not trying to make a point but under the Dublin Convention isn't it the case that they are obliged to seek asylum in the first safe country not choose where they would like to end up?

Germany has suspended application of this so far as it is concerned:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11821822/Germany-drops-EU-rules-to-allow-in-Syrian-refugees.html

It's completely impractical to expect Italy, Greece and Hungary to bear all of this by themselves in any case.

Exactly. So we need a new settlement. But that may also mean accepting that we cannot accept every single person who wants to leave the Middle East.

(snip)

From memory, Turkey's got 2 million Syrian refugees inside it and in camps, nearly half of the refugees from that country. It's alright for us to say we cannot accept them, but we must ensure the countries that do have to house them - especially when they are relatively poor countries - get help.

JEO said:

Cyclefree's point about wealthier countries in the Middle East is a very valid one.

Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE are all a lot wealthier than the UK is. If we are to start parcelling out asylum seekers, they should be the first ones to receive them. Especially as they are in the Middle Eastern region, and there would be a better cultural fit.

I accept Assyrians, Yazidis and and Ismailis may face persecution in these places too, so perhaps the EU could take those, but Sunni Muslims should be going there.

antifrank said:

isam said:

antifrank said:

This is as if Liverpool St had been closed indefinitely:

Guardian news @guardiannews Migrant crisis: Hungary closes main Budapest station http://d.gu.com/C1s7Gm

NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).

Little Hungarians?

Hungary got something like 34,000 migrants in July alone (Britain got 25,000 asylum seekers in the whole of the last year). The August figure will be close to double that. Its population is less than a sixth of Britain's. It is far poorer than Britain. The scale of problem that it is facing is an order of magnitude more challenging than anything that Britain is looking at.

And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.

Alanbrooke said:

foxinsoxuk said:

antifrank said:

I wonder how many of the Tory supporters who signed up for their £3 vote for Jeremy Corbyn are this morning feeling outraged that David Cameron has dropped any attempt to renegotiate the social chapter in order to keep a Corbyn-led Labour party on board for an In vote in the EU referendum?

The social and work protections are a very important factor for many. It is why Labour and the Trade Unions have shifted sides in the debate.

The No campaign will be associated with rapracious expoloitative employers slavering over the possibility of shedding employment protections. Not a good look.

Whereas the Yes campaign will be associated with multi nat Big Business where the executives avoid company taxation, push immigration to keep wages down and avoid training their employees, demand the public purse bail out their low wage employees with benefits and then pay themselves huge salaries on which they also minimise their tax bills.

logical_song said:

MattW said:

NickPalmer said:

Plato said:

Labour chief whip Rosie Winterton claims that Corbyn will be defenestrated within 6 months according to party grandees involved in the pre-coup. And told worried MPs *not to worry*. Let's see. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4543699.ece

EDIT Ms Sylvester has also stated that the membership has changed totally since it elected EdM - only 10% remain from GE2010. That's feels a bit OTT to me - but if accurate, that's a complete takeover.

Odd report. In the two very different CLPs that I know well (Broxtowe and Islington North) the membership is up by 50% or so since 2010, but that leaves two thirds as veterans. Contrary to what one might think (or wish) the new members aren't being especially active - there are a few at each meeting, cautiously saying er I'm new, how does this work, rather than stomping in demanding this or that. My concern would not be that they're sweeping in to take over but more that they'll feel they've done their bit by joining and won't do the hard work. We'll see.

As for the supposed coup, you'd think a chief whip (even a presumably outgoing one) should know, but the MPs who I know are in "ruthless pragmatism" mood. If Corbyn proves reasonably successful, fine. If he doesn't, act. Almost nobody wants instant rebellion against the vote of the membership, whatever it is.

How long do you think JC has to succeed before the ruthless pragmatists make their decisions?

Half term or the last possible moment before the next GE?

Who can the Labour Party offer in a couple of years or four years that they didn't offer now?

Casino_Royale said:

antifrank said:

isam said:

antifrank said:

This is as if Liverpool St had been closed indefinitely:

Guardian news @guardiannews Migrant crisis: Hungary closes main Budapest station http://d.gu.com/C1s7Gm

NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).

Little Hungarians?

Hungary got something like 34,000 migrants in July alone (Britain got 25,000 asylum seekers in the whole of the last year). The August figure will be close to double that. Its population is less than a sixth of Britain's. It is far poorer than Britain. The scale of problem that it is facing is an order of magnitude more challenging than anything that Britain is looking at.

And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.

FWIW - I think the UK's asylum system is broadly under control. It's only vulnerable when people infiltrate through the tunnel/ferries, and I suspect the numbers will be much higher this year (50,000?) but, still, it's not unrestricted.

By contrast, the numbers entering places like Greece, Macedonia, Hungary and Germany are totally off the scale.

My issue is the UK's mass net immigration through legal means. I would, for example, reinstate primary purpose and end the automatic right to spousal passports - which is a huge source of immigration from the subcontinent. I'd also up the residency requirement for a British passport from 5 years to 8 years.

It also seems to me that the "student" system is widely abused too - with only a small fraction of those who gain visas returning home at the end of their "studies". The rest disappear into the ether.

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

Cyclefree said:

antifrank said:

Cyclefree said:

antifrank said:

isam said:

HurstLlama said:

antifrank said:

isam said:

antifrank said:

This is as if Liverpool St had been closed indefinitely:

Guardian news @guardiannews Migrant crisis: Hungary closes main Budapest station http://d.gu.com/C1s7Gm

NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).

Little Hungarians?

And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.

The number of in excess of 600,000 plus asylum seekers. How many was the total for Hungary? Any comparison of figures which ignore total immigration are going to be pretty meaningless.

How many migrants crossing Hungary's borders right now do you think are not going to be asylum seekers somewhere or other?

Antifrank: I'm not trying to make a ose where they would like to end up?

Germany has suspended application of this so far as it is concerned:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11821822/Germany-drops-EU-rules-to-allow-in-Syrian-refugees.html

It's completely impractical to expect Italy, Greece and Hungary to bear all of this by themselves in any case.

Exactly. So we need a new settlement. But that may also mean accepting that we cannot accept every single person who wants to leave the Middle East.

(snip)

From memory, Turkey's got 2 million Syrian refugees inside it and in camps, nearly half of the refugees from that country. It's alright for us to say we cannot accept them, but we must ensure the countries that do have to house them - especially when they are relatively poor countries - get help.

Lebanon has more than Turkey and is a much smaller place.

Does it have more? I'll have a check.

But if accepting that's the case, then the point is even more strongly made.

Edit: according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War , you are wrong. As of March, Turkey had 1,758,092 and Lebanon 1,196,560.

Yes, I meant to say as a percentage, but was to lazy to correct it and knew you'd post the numbers later.

I'm not sure if that last clause is meant as a complement or insult.

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

I'm not sure if that last clause is meant as a complement or insult.

A compliment Mr JJ, I know an engineer will never let a duff figure pass ! :-)

flightpath01 said:

Alanbrooke said:

Osborne successfully rebalancing the economy I see.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11836202/Pound-stumbles-as-UK-manufacturing-lurches-towards-stagnation.html

The pound is relying on higher interest rates which are less likely for a while.
'' "The survey indicates that UK manufacturers are continuing to find life very challenging as they are being held back, particularly by weak foreign orders," said Howard Archer from IHS Global Insight.
"In particular, sterling's strength - particularly against the euro - is seemingly constraining UK manufacturers." ''

edmundintokyo said:

calum said:

Plato said:

Ove

T

O

antifrank said:

Cyclefree said:

antifrank said:

isam said:

HurstLlama said:

antifrank said:

isam said:

antifrank said:

This is as if Liverpool St had been closed indefinitely:

Guardian news @guardiannews Migrant crisis: Hungary closes main Budapest station http://d.gu.com/C1s7Gm

NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).

Little Hungarians?

H

T.

I think he thought I was too stupid to notice he was comparing two different things

Ho

A

G

Casino_Royale said:

edmundintokyo said:

calum said:

Plato said:

Ove

T

O

More evidence in favour of an independent City of London. If England leaves the EU the City of London can rejoin, and if England stays they can leave. Businesses that want the opposite to whatever the City of London ends up with can move out to Canary Wharf.

antifrank said:

Cyclefree said:

antifrank said:

isam said:

HurstLlama said:

antifrank said:

isam said:

antifrank said:

This is as if Liverpool St had been closed indefinitely:

Guardian news @guardiannews Migrant crisis: Hungary closes main Budapest station http://d.gu.com/C1s7Gm

NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).

Little Hungarians?

H

T.

I think he thought I was too stupid to notice he was comparing two different things

Ho

A

G

Casino_Royale said:

Look: I have no issue with temporarily accommodating our fair share of desperate people who are genuinely fleeing savage wars and conflict. The UK has a proud history of this.

My contention is that a large proportion of these migrants are, in fact, fit, healthy, ambitious - and, also, quite aggressive - young men who are trying to take advantage of the confusion of the above to force our borders. Whereupon they intend to disappear.

We must distinguish between the two.

If I was satisfied our borders were robust, and migration numbers were under control, I'd have no problem with providing temporary refuge for up to 4 years for, say, 20-30,000 refugees this year.

SimonStClare said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

Given the commissions recommendation, what are the new terms to describe the two camps? Remainders and Leavers? Surely PB can do better than me!

I'm a BeLeaver (To the theme of I'm A Believer)

T sta(y)ins & T leaves?

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

edmundintokyo said:

calum said:

Plato said:

Ove

T

O

...

antifrank said:

Cyclefree said:

antifrank said:

isam said:

HurstLlama said:

antifrank said:

isam said:

antifrank said:

This is as if Liverpool St had been closed indefinitely:

.. This one is Keleti (Eastern).

Little Hungarians?

H

T.

I think he thought I was too stupid to notice he was comparing two different things

Ho

A

G

That doesn't mean we should join them in ferrying across to Europe anyone who wants to come, and opening our doors to them.

Look: I have no issue with temporarily accommodating our fair share of desperate people who are genuinely fleeing savage wars and conflict. The UK has a proud history of this.

My contention is that a large proportion of these migrants are, in fact, fit, healthy, ambitious - and, also, quite aggressive - young men who are trying to take advantage of the confusion of the above to force our borders. Whereupon they intend to disappear.

We must distinguish between the two.

If I was satisfied our borders were robust, and migration numbers were under control, I'd have no problem with providing temporary refuge for up to 4 years for, say, 20-30,000 refugees this year.

However, that would have to be coupled with a coherent and credible return strategy. And also an equally fair and robust in-filter, including proper reviews of entitlement as close to the point of origin in MENA as possible.

Not the current free for all, which filters by default by automatically rewarding the initiative of those who are strong, wealthy and pushy enough to fathom a route to our doorstep.

Pulpstar said:

Casino_Royale said:

Look: I have no issue with temporarily accommodating our fair share of desperate people who are genuinely fleeing savage wars and conflict. The UK has a proud history of this.

My contention is that a large proportion of these migrants are, in fact, fit, healthy, ambitious - and, also, quite aggressive - young men who are trying to take advantage of the confusion of the above to force our borders. Whereupon they intend to disappear.

We must distinguish between the two.

If I was satisfied our borders were robust, and migration numbers were under control, I'd have no problem with providing temporary refuge for up to 4 years for, say, 20-30,000 refugees this year.

Quite - opening an asylum centre in say a Turkish refugee camp would surely be the way to go. Obviously we can't take all those that would apply, but as you say 30,000 to be taken in and given asylum would surely be 'doing our bit'.

Alot of the Calais bunch are putting our hauliers at risk, and look fundamentally to be a security risk for the country. We should continue to do all we can to stop them coming in.

I can see where you're coming from on this, and I agree entirely.

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

edmundintokyo said:

calum said:

Plato said:

Ove

T

O

More evidence in favour of an independent City of London. If England leaves the EU the City of London can rejoin, and if England stays they can leave. Businesses that want the opposite to whatever the City of London ends up with can move out to Canary Wharf.

antifrank said:

Cyclefree said:

antifrank said:

isam said:

HurstLlama said:

antifrank said:

isam said:

antifrank said:

This is as if Liverpool St had been closed indefinitely:

Guardian news @guardiannews Migrant crisis: Hungary closes main Budapest station http://d.gu.com/C1s7Gm

NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).

Little Hungarians?

H

T.

I think he thought I was too stupid to notice he was comparing two different things

Ho

A

G

That doesn't mean we should join them in ferrying across to Europe anyone who wants to come, and opening our doors to them.

Look: I have no issue with temporarily accommodating our fair share of desperate people who are genuinely fleeing savage wars and conflict. The UK has a proud history of this.

My contention is that a large proportion of these migrants are, in fact, fit, healthy, ambitious - and, also, quite aggressive - young men who are trying to take advantage of the confusion of the above to force our borders. Whereupon they intend to disappear.

We must distinguish between the two.

If I was satisfied our borders were robust, and migration numbers were under control, I'd have no problem with providing temporary refuge for up to 4 years for, say, 20-30,000 refugees this year.

However, that would have to be coupled with a coherent and credible return strategy. And also an equally fair and robust in-filter, including proper reviews of entitlement as close to the point of origin in MENA as possible.

Not the current free for all, which filters by default by automatically rewarding the initiative of those who are strong, wealthy and pushy enough to fathom a route to our doorstep.

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

antifrank said:

isam said:

antifrank said:

This is as if Liverpool St had been closed indefinitely:

Guardian news @guardiannews Migrant crisis: Hungary closes main Budapest station http://d.gu.com/C1s7Gm

NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).

Little Hungarians?

Hungary got something like 34,000 migrants in July alone (Britain got 25,000 asylum seekers in the whole of the last year). The August figure will be close to double that. Its population is less than a sixth of Britain's. It is far poorer than Britain. The scale of problem that it is facing is an order of magnitude more challenging than anything that Britain is looking at.

And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.

FWIW - I think the UK's asylum system is broadly under control. It's only vulnerable when people infiltrate through the tunnel/ferries, and I suspect the numbers will be much higher this year (50,000?) but, still, it's not unrestricted.

By contrast, the numbers entering places like Greece, Macedonia, Hungary and Germany are totally off the scale.

My issue is the UK's mass net immigration through legal means. I would, for example, reinstate primary purpose and end the automatic right to spousal passports - which is a huge source of immigration from the subcontinent. I'd also up the residency requirement for a British passport from 5 years to 8 years.

It also seems to me that the "student" system is widely abused too - with only a small fraction of those who gain visas returning home at the end of their "studies". The rest disappear into the ether.

If 1.5m asylum seekers were a one-off, I don't see much of a problem with distributing them among EU member states. If it becomes 1.5m a year, on an indefinite basis, and rising, then that's insupportable.

JosiasJessop said:

Does it have more? I'll have a check.

But if accepting that's the case, then the point is even more strongly made.

Edit: according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War , you are wrong. As of March, Turkey had 1,758,092 and Lebanon 1,196,560.

Plato said:

Like belly buttons?

MTimT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

Given the commissions recommendation, what are the new terms to describe the two camps? Remainders and Leavers? Surely PB can do better than me!

I'm a BeLeaver (To the theme of I'm A Believer)

Innies and Outies

antifrank said:

JEO said:

If it's a high number, it suggests Hungary should be less worried than the UK, given that they won't have to deal with final settlement.

In the first three months of this year (well before the influx really gathered pace) Hungary received more asylum applications than Britain has in the whole of last year:

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21656230-hungary-shuts-door

Germany's attitude on this puts Britain to shame. It is expecting to take 800,000 asylum seekers this year.

What should have happened is that we should have tried much harder to build stable environments on the ground in and around Syria to enable refugees to build new lives there. By failing to invest in that, we now see a wave of migrants seeking something other than a wretched life. I would much have preferred that they did not come. But it is too late now. We have to play our part.

There is a longer term lesson to be learned here. A moral foreign policy is a self-interested foreign policy and encouraging stability around the world will prevent future such waves of migrants and asylum seekers. We need to be less tolerant of oppressive regimes and more ready with humanitarian plans to help those suffering at their hands.

dr_spyn said:

HurstLlama said:

flightpath01 said:

Alanbrooke said:

Osborne successfully rebalancing the economy I see.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11836202/Pound-stumbles-as-UK-manufacturing-lurches-towards-stagnation.html

The pound is relying on higher interest rates which are less likely for a while.
'' "The survey indicates that UK manufacturers are continuing to find life very challenging as they are being held back, particularly by weak foreign orders," said Howard Archer from IHS Global Insight.
"In particular, sterling's strength - particularly against the euro - is seemingly constraining UK manufacturers." ''

More whining from senior executives about how its everyone else's fault that they cannot run a good business. Someone ought to point them at Germany and ask them to find out how in the days of a strong and appreciating DeutscheMark German executives managed to build strong businesses based on exports.

Any UK executive who complains about the strength of the pound deserves to have his/her, frequently massive, remuneration reduced by ten per cent every time he or she complains.

Quite, not difficult to see how Germans and Japanese companies managed to thrive for so long with appreciating currencies in the last 50 years. A focus on design, reliability, & quality has always helped customer focused manufacturers. There are some British firms who have learned, but too many others have just gone whining to MPs and the CBI.

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

antifrank said:

isam said:

antifrank said:

This is as if Liverpool St had been closed indefinitely:

Guardian news @guardiannews Migrant crisis: Hungary closes main Budapest station http://d.gu.com/C1s7Gm

NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).

Little Hungarians?

Hungary got something like 34,000 migrants in July alone (Britain got 25,000 asylum seekers in the whole of the last year). The August figure will be close to double that. Its population is less than a sixth of Britain's. It is far poorer than Britain. The scale of problem that it is facing is an order of magnitude more challenging than anything that Britain is looking at.

And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.

FWIW - I think the UK's asylum system is broadly under control. It's only vulnerable when people infiltrate through the tunnel/ferries, and I suspect the numbers will be much higher this year (50,000?) but, still, it's not unrestricted.

By contrast, the numbers entering places like Greece, Macedonia, Hungary and Germany are totally off the scale.

My issue is the UK's mass net immigration through legal means. I would, for example, reinstate primary purpose and end the automatic right to spousal passports - which is a huge source of immigration from the subcontinent. I'd also up the residency requirement for a British passport from 5 years to 8 years.

It also seems to me that the "student" system is widely abused too - with only a small fraction of those who gain visas returning home at the end of their "studies". The rest disappear into the ether.

If 1.5m asylum seekers were a one-off, I don't see much of a problem with distributing them among EU member states. If it becomes 1.5m a year, on an indefinite basis, and rising, then that's insupportable.

Which do you think we're going to get?

Personally, I think it'll be the latter - right up until the established order of the EU becomes unsustainable and starts to schism, which may not be an entirely pleasant process.

RobD said:

SimonStClare said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

Given the commissions recommendation, what are the new terms to describe the two camps? Remainders and Leavers? Surely PB can do better than me!

I'm a BeLeaver (To the theme of I'm A Believer)

T sta(y)ins & T leaves?

For the quintessentially British referendum.

SouthamObserver said:

HurstLlama said:

flightpath01 said:

Alanbrooke said:

Osborne successfully rebalancing the economy I see.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11836202/Pound-stumbles-as-UK-manufacturing-lurches-towards-stagnation.html

The pound is relying on higher interest rates which are less likely for a while.
'' "The survey indicates that UK manufacturers are continuing to find life very challenging as they are being held back, particularly by weak foreign orders," said Howard Archer from IHS Global Insight.
"In particular, sterling's strength - particularly against the euro - is seemingly constraining UK manufacturers." ''

More whining from senior executives about how its everyone else's fault that they cannot run a good business. Someone ought to point them at Germany and ask them to find out how in the days of a strong and appreciating DeutscheMark German executives managed to build strong businesses based on exports.

Any UK executive who complains about the strength of the pound deserves to have his/her, frequently massive, remuneration reduced by ten per cent every time he or she complains.

Fail to invest in plant and machinery - tick
Fail to invest in training - tick
Fail to tackle poor productivity - tick
Fail to invest in R&D - tick
Fail to focus on offering high-quality products - tick
Squeeze the business until the pips squeak - tick
Take massive salary, pension and related benefits - tick
Blame everyone else when no-one wants your stuff - tick

God bless our business leaders. And some people think that the private sector should be running everything.

DecrepitJohnL said:

flightpath01 said:

HurstLlama said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

malcolmg said:

calum said:

Good news for the real economy:

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/86320/breaking/

Calum, expect tumbleweed on here regarding it , no nuclear warheads and not bad for Scotland.

The significant part for some is that George Osborne pops up again, rather than the SoS for Scotland or Energy. Heir-to-Brown is running the whole government from the Treasury.

I am glad someone else is finally making the point about Osborne behaving lik Brown.

You mean someone else missing the point? He is Cameron's official deputy. The second minister of the government. He is doing what deputies do. And unlike Blair / Brown it is by agreement.

You are missing the point which is that Osborne is tinkering in every department across Whitehall, just as Brown used to: defence, energy, education; not to mention Scotland.

Richard_Nabavi said:

I can't see this idea of 'well-managed facilities' in Turkey or Tunisia or elsewhere for would-be asylum seekers is a runner. Why on earth would the governments of Turkey or Tunisia agree? It would be an invitation to very large numbers of migrants to head for these camps; after the Western European countries had accepted (say) 10% of them, what would happen to the other 90%? They'd become an immediate and huge problem for Turkey or Tunisia.

flightpath01 said:

We should use aid more (not entirely but more) as an instrument of policy than we do now. I think we have moved in that direction but as we see the problems change then our aid should change. I think the use of our military should be classed as and paid from aid more and never mind official UN definitions. The current problems show that aid is needed and we should be more hard nosed about what we do with it.

Tykejohnno said:

Cameron should tell Merkel where to get off on the shared asylum /immigration strategy,this mad woman has caused the mass immigration movement.

Indigo said:

Disraeli said:

NickPalmer said:

Offered a choice of really well-managed facilities in Tunisia or a hazardous trip to an uncertain reception in Hungary or Greece, many refugees may opt for the former.

It might not work as well as we would hope, but I don't see a better option.

Well I've had some "vigorous" disagreements with you in the past, but in all fairness I think that you are making an excellent, well-made point here.

Except that the 90% failure rate of asylum seekers suggests that the majority of the people knocking on our national door are not going be satisfied with Tunisia, because they are after the good life, not safety.

These articles makes a number of good points

https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2015/08/06/africa-is-getting-richer-so-expect-more-migrants/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/young-men-in-senegal-join-migrant-wave-despite-growing-prosperity-at-home-1434127244

Notably that making peoples lives a bit better increases the number of migrants, rather than decreases it, because people with means can afford the journey, and to pay for traffickers and other help, people who are bone poor, frankly, can't. So if you have to get over the rather large threshold level of prosperity before the number of emigrants starts to drop, and we aren't rich enough to increase their standard of living enough to do it.

Plato said:

10k a month...

Tykejohnno said:

Yvette cooper saying we should take ten thousand Syrian refugees,this is what Germany proberly did at first and now Germany has a immigration crisis.

Our political elite haven't a clue.

SouthamObserver said:

HurstLlama said:

flightpath01 said:

Alanbrooke said:

Osborne successfully rebalancing the economy I see.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11836202/Pound-stumbles-as-UK-manufacturing-lurches-towards-stagnation.html

The pound is relying on higher interest rates which are less likely for a while.
'' "The survey indicates that UK manufacturers are continuing to find life very challenging as they are being held back, particularly by weak foreign orders," said Howard Archer from IHS Global Insight.
"In particular, sterling's strength - particularly against the euro - is seemingly constraining UK manufacturers." ''

More whining from senior executives about how its everyone else's fault that they cannot run a good business. Someone ought to point them at Germany and ask them to find out how in the days of a strong and appreciating DeutscheMark German executives managed to build strong businesses based on exports.

Any UK executive who complains about the strength of the pound deserves to have his/her, frequently massive, remuneration reduced by ten per cent every time he or she complains.

Fail to invest in plant and machinery - tick
Fail to invest in training - tick
Fail to tackle poor productivity - tick
Fail to invest in R&D - tick
Fail to focus on offering high-quality products - tick
Squeeze the business until the pips squeak - tick
Take massive salary, pension and related benefits - tick
Blame everyone else when no-one wants your stuff - tick

God bless our business leaders. And some people think that the private sector should be running everything.

new thread