/ The Conservative's Sterling Crisis

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Shani - on 13 Oct 2016
"The pound’s effective exchange rate, which is weighted to reflect the UK’s trade flows, hit a low of 73.38 on Tuesday – weaker than the depths hit during the financial crisis, Britain’s ejection from the European Rate Mechanism in 1992, and its decision to leave the Gold Standard in the 1930s."

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/markets/pound-slumps-to-168-year-low-1.2827172
3
GrahamD - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Shani:

Its not the Conservative's crisis. Its ours.
Bogwalloper - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

Depends how far you go back in the blame game - see the David Cameron thread.

Wally
GrahamD - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Bogwalloper:

Hi Wally, the blame game ? then blame anyone who voted us into this situation.
4
bouldery bits - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Shani:

We're all going to hell in a hand cart.
The silver lining is I can be smug about having been right all along.

Phew!

What've I got to worry about any way? I don't even like Marmite.
2
wercat on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to bouldery bits:

Marmite will become a luxury anyway as we struggle to pay heating, fuel and food bills.
1
DerwentDiluted - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Shani:

When Boris' plan to embroil us in a contretemps with Russia over Syria in the next few months to divert us away from Brexit come to fruition, we'll look back on this with fond nostalgia.
1
Bogwalloper - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> Hi Wally, the blame game ? then blame anyone who voted us into this situation.

I do and I also blame Cameron for getting us into this mess.

Wally
2
GrahamD - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Bogwalloper:

> I do and I also blame Cameron for giving us the opportunity to get into this mess.

> Wally

Corrected that for you. I agree Cameron was a monumental idiot for holding a referendum. But the subsequent referendum outcome isn't his doing.
1
Bulls Crack - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

His lacklustre and arrogant campaign helped to turn a small majority in favour of remaining into a defeat so he's very much to blame.
GrahamD - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Bulls Crack:

> His lacklustre and arrogant campaign helped to turn a small majority in favour of remaining into a defeat so he's very much to blame.

He's not to blame. He's a contributer, just as is Rothermire et al, just as are Nigel and Boris. Probably less so than the press Barons, actually. Ultimately none of them put the X in yours and my ballot papers though.
1
Alyson - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> Corrected that for you. I agree Cameron was a monumental idiot for holding a referendum. But the subsequent referendum outcome isn't his doing.

He spent 6 years squeezing every last penny from the poor while giving tax breaks to the rich (breaching our Human Rights in the process) as the gutter press spun a continual anti-immigration narrative. Then he asked the nation whether they were feeling the benefits of EU membership, and seemed greatly surprised that many were not. The man is an utterly despicable piece of gristle.
15
Wanderer100 - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Alyson:
> He spent 6 years squeezing every last penny from the poor while giving tax breaks to the rich (breaching our Human Rights in the process) as the gutter press spun a continual anti-immigration narrative. Then he asked the nation whether they were feeling the benefits of EU membership, and seemed greatly surprised that many were not. The man is an utterly despicable piece of gristle.

What are these human rights he breached?
I don't think the general public needed the press to "spin their narrative". Mrs Merkel did that all on her own and the rest of Europe are paying the political price.
I don't doubt what happened in Germany helped tip the scales in favour of Brexit.
Post edited at 20:06
8
john arran - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Alyson:

> He spent 6 years squeezing every last penny from the poor while giving tax breaks to the rich (breaching our Human Rights in the process) as the gutter press spun a continual anti-immigration narrative. Then he asked the nation whether they were feeling the benefits of EU membership, and seemed greatly surprised that many were not. The man is an utterly despicable piece of gristle.

Hear, hear.
8
john arran - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Wanderer100:

I very much doubt many voters were much influenced by events in Germany, except of course by the spin that was put on them by the UK press. (They'll all be coming to the UK in x years time - yeah, right.)

They definitely did seem to be influenced by oversubscribed local services - meanwhile Cameron was squeezing Council budgets yet further while pocketing for him and his high earning mates the undisputed financial advantage the immigrants brought.
5
ian caton on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Alyson:

I have no time for Cameron on many levels, but he and Osbourne did help a lot of people by raising the personal allowance significantly.

Moley on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Bulls Crack:

> His lacklustre and arrogant campaign helped to turn a small majority in favour of remaining into a defeat so he's very much to blame.

I disagree he is to blame, the British public are to blame, those who voted and those who couldn't be bothered to put an X on a slip of paper. That is democracy, we get a vote and live with the consequences, same as we have with every government we have voted in.

The "leave EU" had been grumbling away and gaining momentum for years, it needed putting to bed once and for all. Cameron said he would have a vote on it and amazingly kept his word and did. He conducted a crap campaign, with less than enthusiastic support from other parties and the Brexit side played a blinder - to their obvious surprise they won.

Ultimately it was nobodies fault but ours, the voters. We weren't held at gunpoint, we weren't cheated and we had months and months to engage brain cells and give it 60 seconds thought. I hardly recall anyone talking about it before the vote, even in the pubs it was the elephant in the room without open discussion.
I am appalled by the vote, but blame nobody but us voters (and Jeremy Corbyn, naturally )
4
Wanderer100 - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to john arran:

> I very much doubt many voters were much influenced by events in Germany, except of course by the spin that was put on them by the UK press. (They'll all be coming to the UK in x years time - yeah, right.)

You're in denial. You didn't need the gutter press to see what was happening even less to form an opinion. Facts are facts and 1 million refugees making their way to open armed Merkel would have influenced many referendum decisions.

> They definitely did seem to be influenced by oversubscribed local services -
Well that's what net migration of 300000 people does. It impacts on essential services and those services are more thinly spread.

meanwhile Cameron was squeezing Council budgets yet further while pocketing for him and his high earning mates the undisputed financial advantage the immigrants brought.

Squeezing budgets yes ( apart from Witney)
but are you suggesting he made personal financial gain from immigrants? Sounds a bit far fetched.
7
john arran - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Wanderer100:

> You're in denial.
If you say so. I beg to differ.

> You didn't need the gutter press to see what was happening even less to form an opinion. Facts are facts and 1 million refugees making their way to open armed Merkel would have influenced many referendum decisions.
How many were being accepted into the UK, despite huge numbers being persecuted and destitute? Almost none, yet still the press managed to create fear and hatred of foreigners to feed their agenda.

> Well that's what net migration of 300000 people does. It impacts on essential services and those services are more thinly spread.
Of course it impacts on essential services, which is why some of the acknowledged financial benefits of immagration should have been used to better support local councils, instead of starving them for political reasons and blaming the immigrants. It really isn't very hard.

> meanwhile Cameron was squeezing Council budgets yet further while pocketing for him and his high earning mates the undisputed financial advantage the immigrants brought.

> Squeezing budgets yes ( apart from Witney)

> but are you suggesting he made personal financial gain from immigrants? Sounds a bit far fetched.
Most of the Coalition and later Tory policies disproportionately benefitted higher earners, such as Cameron and his mates. Yes, there were a few scraps thrown at those at the very bottom of the pyramid but the vast majority of relatively low earners have been well and truly screwed, repeatedly. And the immigrants, despite contributing positively financially overall, have got the blame.
2
Dauphin on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Wanderer100:

How do you manage to write the first couple of paragraphs and get to the last? Why d'ya imagine we are getting bummed? Wealth transfer.

D

Wanderer100 - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to john arran:
> If you say so. I beg to differ.

> How many were being accepted into the UK, despite huge numbers being persecuted and destitute? Almost none, yet still the press managed to create fear and hatred of foreigners to feed their agenda.

When the most powerful politician in Europe talks of sharing the burden then people have a right to be concerned.

> Of course it impacts on essential services, which is why some of the acknowledged financial benefits of immagration should have been used to better support local councils, instead of starving them for political reasons and blaming the immigrants. It really isn't very hard.

Do you live in an area widely populated by immigrants?
Have you any idea of the additional financial burden created by mass immigration?
One economic migrant on the living wage who pays little in the way of income tax and ni but has a wife and 2 children is a massive drain on the public purse but is putting very little back in.
Council resources are massively overstretched and I'm not convinced throwing more money at it is the best long term solution.

> Most of the Coalition and later Tory policies disproportionately benefitted higher earners, such as Cameron and his mates. Yes, there were a few scraps thrown at those at the very bottom of the pyramid but the vast majority of relatively low earners have been well and truly screwed, repeatedly. And the immigrants, despite contributing positively financially overall, have got the blame.

I'm sorry, that makes no sense whatsoever.
Post edited at 21:08
14
Wanderer100 - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Dauphin:

> How do you manage to write the first couple of paragraphs and get to the last? Why d'ya imagine we are getting bummed? Wealth transfer.

> D

Go on ....enlighten me.
1
Alyson - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Wanderer100:

> What are these human rights he breached?

International human rights obligations

http://www.centreforwelfarereform.org/news/uk-in-breachhuman-rights/00287.html


2
Jon Stewart - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Wanderer100:
> Have you any idea of the additional financial burden created by mass immigration?

> One economic migrant on the living wage who pays little in the way of income tax and ni but has a wife and 2 children is a massive drain on the public purse but is putting very little back in.

Please look at the evidence. I could provide you with links, but you'll just assumed I've cherry-picked, so just google it. Have a god look for what the range of evidence is, and where the consensus lies.

Or have you, like Michael Gove, "had enough of experts"? (By the way, only a complete wanker believes their own opinions more than people who've spent their lives studying something.)

> Council resources are massively overstretched and I'm not convinced throwing more money at it is the best long term solution.

What do you buy A&E services, social housing and school places, etc with? That's right, money! What did you have in mind?

John is absolutely right. At the moment, we need immigrants because we haven't worked out what to do about the aging population, who want pensions and health and social care, but there aren't sufficient working age people to pay for them. There is a big problem though: the extra money they bring in doesn't get spent on public services in the places the immigrants live, so everyone says that they - the immigrants - are putting a strain on services. When what's happening is that immigrants are keeping the economy afloat, but the government won't spend the money on public services in areas full of immigrants because that doesn't get them votes. The government wants to eliminate the deficit and offer tax breaks (maybe, May seems to have completely reversed policy on this, which is hilarious).

It is absolutely correct to point out that just constantly using immigration to plug the gap between between tax and spend is not sustainable. But we need a solution to that gap, reducing immigration is not going to be a lot of help, it's going to make the situation worse. It does please two groups of people though: those who have suffered due to the strain on services caused by immigration (and not mitigated by provision of extra services); and the small-minded.

It's the second group here that matter to politicians: they make or break elections.
Post edited at 21:36
3
Wanderer100 - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Wanker and small minded? Your insults do you no credit.
12
Dave Perry - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Shani:

I don't think the government actually voted for Brexit. It was the public who did that. And that is what has weakened the £.
Jon Stewart - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Wanderer100:

Michael Gove is a wanker, and I won't apologise for that!

People who think that immigration is on balance a bad thing, and yet have no experience of the negative effects while they enjoy the benefits (the economy) are small minded. They don't understand the issue, because they haven't thought about it properly or looked at the facts.

So I stand entirely by what I said.
3
Wanderer100 - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> Michael Gove is a wanker, and I won't apologise for that!
I don't disagree but I had other reasons for my reply which don't matter.
> People who think that immigration is on balance a bad thing, and yet have no experience of the negative effects while they enjoy the benefits (the economy) are small minded.
Uncontrolled immigration is a bad thing and I would venture plenty of people have had direct experience of the negative aspects of this. I think people seriously underestimate the strength of feeling about this issue. Particularly outside of the metropolitan areas.

They don't understand the issue, because they haven't thought about it properly or looked at the facts.

Facts are open to interpretation.

> So I stand entirely by what I said.

I wouldn't expect you would change your mind.
Post edited at 22:13
6
Wanderer100 - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Alyson:

What? Like giving prisoners the right to vote?
4
Jon Stewart - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Wanderer100:

> Uncontrolled immigration is a bad thing and I would venture plenty of people have had direct experience of the negative aspects of this. I think people seriously underestimate the strength of feeling about this issue. Particularly outside of the metropolitan areas.

I clearly identified two different groups: those who had experienced the downsides of immigration, and those who hadn't but just think it's bad for unjustified reasons or prejudice. I didn't call the former group small-minded.

1
FactorXXX - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

People who think that immigration is on balance a bad thing, and yet have no experience of the negative effects while they enjoy the benefits (the economy) are small minded. They don't understand the issue, because they haven't thought about it properly or looked at the facts.

How about the people who experience the negative effects?
How about the people that acknowledge and experience the positives of migration, but understand that there are actually negatives to the current migration situation.
Are they wankers as well?
Jon Stewart - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to FactorXXX:

> How about the people who experience the negative effects?

I've been absolutely clear, twice, that I'm not criticising those people.

> How about the people that acknowledge and experience the positives of migration, but understand that there are actually negatives to the current migration situation.

> Are they wankers as well?

No, what implies that? When re-read my post it's very clear that I criticise two very specific views:

1. Michael Gove and anyone else who's "fed up of experts". Anyone who thinks this can f*ck off, because they're thick and dangerous.

2. People who think we need to stop immigration, but who live in places which haven't been affected by immigration and don't have other experience of it.

What can I do in future to express myself more clearly, or shall I just post everything twice, preemptively?
1
FactorXXX - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I clearly identified two different groups: those who had experienced the downsides of immigration, and those who hadn't but just think it's bad for unjustified reasons or prejudice.

There's another group to add to your list: Those that think that immigration is good, who haven't thought about it and just think it's good for unjustified reasons or prejudice (altruism?).
KevinD - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Wanderer100:

> What? Like giving prisoners the right to vote?

Yes a perfectly sensible rule. At least if you consider what the actual judgement was as opposed to the spin put on it.
What the ruling said was that there should not be a blanket ban on voting but it should be proportionate to the offence.
Consider someone who is in for a week should they lose their vote just because it happened to be election week?
Bearing in mind the parliament will last five years.
On the other side someone serving five years could have their right to vote removed. The latter isnt a random figure but a judgement from the court.
Jon Stewart - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to FactorXXX:

> There's another group to add to your list: Those that think that immigration is good, who haven't thought about it and just think it's good for unjustified reasons or prejudice (altruism?).

If such people exist, they have no effect on policy and are therefore irrelevant.
1
Yanis Nayu - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

There are 2 types of people in this world - wankers and liars.
1
Alyson - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Wanderer100:

> What? Like giving prisoners the right to vote?

No, like everything conveyed succinctly in the link I gave you.
Wanderer100 - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> Yes a perfectly sensible rule. At least if you consider what the actual judgement was as opposed to the spin put on it.

> What the ruling said was that there should not be a blanket ban on voting but it should be proportionate to the offence.

> Consider someone who is in for a week should they lose their vote just because it happened to be election week?

> Bearing in mind the parliament will last five years.

> On the other side someone serving five years could have their right to vote removed. The latter isnt a random figure but a judgement from the court.

It's a stupid rule. If people fall foul of the criminal justice system then they deserve to lose certain privileges of which the vote is one.
I would imagine very few people are in prison for a 1 week stint having been convicted therefore there is no merit in using them as an example of unfairness.
It's just another example of the ECHR pandering to the bleeding hearts.
9
DaveN - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to ian caton:

> I have no time for Cameron on many levels, but he and Osbourne did help a lot of people by raising the personal allowance significantly.

This policy came from the lib dem side of the coalition agreement, so you can relax at having no time for Cameron and osbourne
GrahamD - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Alyson:

Apart from Gay marriage of course. And which other human rights ?
KevinD - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Wanderer100:

> I would imagine very few people are in prison for a 1 week stint having been convicted therefore there is no merit in using them as an example of unfairness.

and yet they will be some. There will be plenty more serving three months or less. There will be more who have only a short time left to serve on voting day.

> It's just another example of the ECHR pandering to the bleeding hearts.

No it really wasnt. It was them taking the sensible approach that restrictions on voting should be proportional. If they were pandering to the bleeding hearts then they would have said everyone should always have the vote.
pasbury on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Wanderer100:

I think on balance you are a small minded wanker.
Post edited at 00:01
5
Wanderer100 - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to
> I think on balance you are a small minded wanker.

I really couldn't give a shit what you think.
But good for you anyway for expressing yourself so succinctly.
Big Ger - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Moley:

Well said sir.
Big Ger - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Isn't the actual quote; " there's two types of people in the world, there's us, and there's wankers."
ian caton on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to DaveN:

Thank you, phew.
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

2. People who think we need to stop immigration, but who live in places which haven't been affected by immigration and don't have other experience of it.

On this point, I think its possible to be anti immigration and live in a predominantly white area by having genuine fears rather than being small minded. It could be an altruistic defence of trying to help other areas that have been overwhelmed with immigration, a fear (however rational) that the area they live in is in danger of being overwhelmed by immigration. No different to having fears about a conflict with Russia over Syria, or having an opinion on Scottish independence, or Clinton/Trump. None of these currently directly effect millions of people in the UK, yet if you gave them a vote on it , would they all be "small minded" because their decision wasn't based on being submerged and living in the area of direct consequence?

johncoxmysteriously - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

You mean that people are not small-minded themselves but affected by concern for other small-minded people? Strange suggestion.

jcm
2
galpinos on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Wanderer100:

> Well that's what net migration of 300000 people does. It impacts on essential services and those services are more thinly spread.

Is it the net migration that's causing "essential services" to be overwhelmed or the continual budget cuts for the government that means the local agencies are struggling to provide the level of service required.

Of the 330,000 immigrant in 2015 in the UK, 133,000 of those were based in London, who voted remain. The next biggest recipient of immigrants was Manchester, which voted remain. The places with the most immigrants voted to remain and had/have no fear of a wave of immigrants from the EU. The "stats" showed that the areas that showed the biggest change in immigration (not in absolute numbers but in %age change) where are areas most like to vote Leave.
neilh - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to galpinos:

What about areas like Boston , Linc which voted out from what I recall?

Where does that fit in.
galpinos on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

I was making sweeping generalisations Neil, give me a break!

I don't know what much about Boston, only what I've gleaned from locals when working over that way, and that's that they have a high %age of immigrants, low unemployment, a lower than average hourly wage and a shortage of housing and subsequent high rents.

I've no idea what the absolute %age is, nor the % change but the overall population has increased quite a bit, quite quickly which will have put pressure on housing, services etc. It is interesting that the unemployment is so low, backing up the theory that immigrants don't displace locals from jobs as they generally go where is plenty of employment opportunities.
Alyson - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:
> Apart from Gay marriage of course. And which other human rights ?

I stated that fiscal policies (including austerity) have breached international human rights obligations. They have removed "economic, social and cultural rights... of disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups" - this quote taken directly from the UN report.

https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G16/152/41/PDF/G1615241.pdf?OpenElement

It has nothing to do with Article 16 (the right to marry and start a family), and, as far as I know, abiding by one or more articles on human rights doesn't absolve you from a responsibility to abide by others.
Post edited at 10:04
1
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Ahh, ok. You think people who have actually been detrimentally affected by immigration are small minded to be anti immigration.

In that case yes, you are correct. It would seem like a strange suggestion to you.
3
neilh - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to galpinos:

I have taken the view that I do not live in these areas so its impossible for me to know what it has been like as a local.

Personnally I have decided not to decry locals like this as being xenophobic or racist.Instead of ramming it down their throat( especially the stats portraying the plus side), maybe we might be better stepping back and trying to figure it all out.

I suspect all the statistics fall short on the issue of personal experience and the day to day environment.

In a parallell way its like gentrification.


GrahamD - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Alyson:

Link doesn't open for me. So what rights do you think have been removed ? not funding, but rights ?

For all Cameron and Osborne's 'faults' (an elected Conservative government implementing a Conservative budget isn't a 'fault' as such), levelling 'human rights' violation at them isn't exactly top of most people's lists. Bad judgement definately.
1
john arran - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Ahh, ok. You think people who have actually been detrimentally affected by immigration are small minded to be anti immigration.

Maybe, and this is just a wild stab in the dark here, people supposedly "detrimentally affected by immigration" have not been affected by immigration per se but rather by an absence of government support to manage immigration in a responsible and harmonious way. As has been pointed out above, the absolute levels of immigration don't seem to be the issue, and we know already that (despite the inevitable percentage of non-contributing individuals so easily pointed at) there is a positive economic benefit from immigration in general. Is it not obvious therefore that this is a management problem and not really an immigration problem at all?
2
galpinos on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> I have taken the view that I do not live in these areas so its impossible for me to know what it has been like as a local.

I agree with you there. I found it interesting that it appeared to be a "fear of change" that influenced the vote.

> Personnally I have decided not to decry locals like this as being xenophobic or racist.Instead of ramming it down their throat( especially the stats portraying the plus side), maybe we might be better stepping back and trying to figure it all out.

> I suspect all the statistics fall short on the issue of personal experience and the day to day environment.

There's obviously a problem and standing on one side of the line shouting racist and pointing doesn't help anyone. I don't think the solutions are going to come easily though. I do feel that now we are here (i.e. Brexit is going to happen), we've got to make it work.

I still blame all the old buggers who voted leave though, sat there is their over inflated mansions on final salary pensions while all us youngsters (!) pay our taxes to keep them in the manner to which they have become accustomed......

john arran - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to galpinos:

> I still blame all the old buggers who voted leave though, sat there is their over inflated mansions on final salary pensions while all us youngsters (!) pay our taxes to keep them in the manner to which they have become accustomed......

'Twas ever thus, just in different ways. Thatcher's great triumph was in fooling huge numbers of "us" into believing we were actually part of "them"!
1
summo on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to john arran:
> . Thatcher's great triumph was in fooling huge numbers of "us" into believing we were actually part of "them"!

... think about where you live, your car, the electrical devices in your house, the places you travel working or for leisure plus the frequency of that travel, your general lifestyle, diet.... you have more than likely become one of them. As standards of living have risen, the supposed working class have a lifestyle now that would have been middle class or above in 70/80s, etc.. the boundaries have shifted quicker than the mentality.

You just have to listen on here, people who are staunch far left corbinistas, complaining that the drop in the pound's value will impact the cost of Audis or BMWs.(edit, I wouldn't dream of spending more than £10k on any car, I'd rather clear debts and retire early, but I'm not left luvvie or Cameron lover either.)
Post edited at 10:59
4
GrahamD - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to galpinos:

> I still blame all the old buggers who voted leave though, sat there is their over inflated mansions on final salary pensions while all us youngsters (!) pay our taxes to keep them in the manner to which they have become accustomed......

Hmm, I don't see THAT many mansions around. I suspect that stereotype represents a tiny proportion of the voting population. And not in a lot of the areas that voted leave.
Alyson - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

The government was found by the UN to have breached the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which forms part of the International Bill of Human Rights and the UDHR. You could find this out yourself if you bothered to read the judgement. It details the government’s failings against the Articles adopted within the ICESCR.

It isn’t really about what I “think” is it? You seem to be arguing against a set of verifiable facts, which is never a good position to be in. What background and experience do you have which enables you to dismiss the findings of the UN Economic and Social Council as a ‘bad judgement, definately (sic)”?
2
Cú Chullain - on 14 Oct 2016
Just out of interest, do people here think there should be a max ceiling number for the population of the UK, and if so, what number should that be?

2
The New NickB - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Cú Chullain:

> Just out of interest, do people here think there should be a max ceiling number for the population of the UK, and if so, what number should that be?

I think it is a fairly ridiculous concept.
2
summo on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Cú Chullain:

> Just out of interest, do people here think there should be a max ceiling number for the population of the UK, and if so, what number should that be?

Don't care, but there has to be a discussion globally, a family who have more than 2 kids in a country with clean water, food, shelter, disease prevention and a functioning medical service etc.. are not helping the planet or future generations in the long term. A globally pandemic or natural disaster is probably the only thing that will prevent our growth and use of all of earth resources faster than we can colonise another planet.
neilh - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to galpinos:
I do not think its "fear" as these areas were experiencing high levels already( and for a good few years,its not happened overnight), that is the point it is their actual experiences that nobody has measured locally.

When you think about the local services issue, that has been going on for years, even labour did not address those concerns ( remember the brown/duffy spat).

Anyway this has nothing to do with the £.
Post edited at 11:18
Cú Chullain - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to The New NickB:

> I think it is a fairly ridiculous concept.

You don't think that a nation managing its population growth to a sustainable level is a desirable or necessary policy?
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to john arran:

I'm not disagreeing with some of the points made above about govt. cuts and perceptions and blame games. I was making a wider point about remotely giving a shit about an issue elsewhere. Jon said

"2. People who think we need to stop immigration, but who live in places which haven't been affected by immigration and don't have other experience of it."

Ignoring the word "stop" (on the basis that I suspect most people who voted leave on the immigration issue were more in favour of controlled immigration) I am asking whether it is small minded to have an opinion on anything that doesn't directly affect you but that you project, as Jon alluded to. Yes, I understand that Jon personally feels that it's small minded because he disagrees with it, just as the other John (Cox) takes it further and believes it's small minded to be anti immigration even if you live in the middle of an area where immigration has had a huge impact on your life, because he disagrees with it.

I was just exploring this notion away from the immigration angle. Using Scottish Independence, I live in the South East, work in London and rarely visit Scotland yet I have an opinion on it. If I was given a vote on it (I know I won't) I would vote for Scotland to stay in the Union. It wouldn't have much impact on my life either way though. Small minded or wise? Scot Nats would probably go with the former and unionists the latter.

Anyway, it's all a load of nonsense. I like Jon's posts and he makes good, thought provoking points...hence my meander
1
galpinos on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> I do not think its "fear" as these areas were experiencing high levels already( and for a good few years,its not happened overnight), that is the point it is their actual experiences that nobody has measured locally.

The "fear" came from the fact that there was a prevalence to vote Leave in areas with a low number of immigrants overall but who had experienced a significant change recently (from none to a few). I realise Boston flies in the face of this though.

> When you think about the local services issue, that has been going on for years, even labour did not address those concerns ( remember the brown/duffy spat).

I totally agree and immigration has been (in some cases) scapegoated as a reason for the issues with local services instead of consistent under funding from successive governments.

> Anyway this has nothing to do with the £.

It doesn't, it also doesn't help me complete my manning plan till the end of the year so I shall bow out. It has been nice to have a discussion on one of these threads without any name calling and grumpiness, especially as we have veered significantly off topic.

GrahamD - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Alyson:

I'm not dismissing them. I was asking precisely who and what had been violated and how. In laymans terms.

The problem with cases like this is that the response can go two ways (three if you discount just ignoring it)): either we admit we are wrong OR we opt out of the human rights (PC gone mad ...). Whilst it gets dressed up in the flowery terms you have used - is it surprising that people, egged on by the press, will try to take the second option ?
The New NickB - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Cú Chullain:

Managing population growth and setting a population ceiling are two different things.
1
Big Ger - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Cú Chullain:

> Just out of interest, do people here think there should be a max ceiling number for the population of the UK, and if so, what number should that be?

You cannot set a ceiling as anyone who can show a genuine need to be here should be allowed in. That includes the total populations of Africa, the middle east, Asian and Europe.

5
MG - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Alyson:

The word "breach" doesn't appear in that document, which expresses concern in various areas, perhaps justified, but to jump from that to claiming human rights have been breached is a stretch.
RyanOsborne - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> Don't care, but there has to be a discussion globally, a family who have more than 2 kids in a country with clean water, food, shelter, disease prevention and a functioning medical service etc.. are not helping the planet or future generations in the long term. A globally pandemic or natural disaster is probably the only thing that will prevent our growth and use of all of earth resources faster than we can colonise another planet.

That's a pretty pessimistic view. I agree that overpopulation at our current levels of consumption and destruction of the natural world is a massive problem, but I'm pretty optimistic that humans are intelligent enough to come up with ways of facilitating our population without sacrificing the planet we live on. Whether people have the will to do these difficult changes in their lifetime for the sake of future humans is another issue though.
Alyson - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

The Government has been found to be failing to meet its obligations to UK citizens as agreed and ratified in the UDHR.

19. The Committee reminds the State party of its obligations under the Covenant
to use the maximum of its available resources with a view to progressively achieving
the full realization of economic, social and cultural rights. The Committee draws the
State party’s attention to the recommendations contained in its open letter of 16 May
2012 to States parties on economic, social and cultural rights in the context of the
economic and financial crisis, with regard to the criteria for austerity measures. Such
measures must be temporary, necessary, proportionate and not discriminatory, must
not disproportionately affect the rights of disadvantaged and marginalized individuals
and groups and respect the core content of rights. In that context, the Committee
recommends that the State party review its policies and programmes introduced since
2010 and conduct a comprehensive assessment of the cumulative impact of these
measures on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by disadvantaged
and marginalized individuals and groups, in particular women, children and persons
with disabilities, that is recognized by all stakeholders.


breach: an act of breaking or failing to observe a law, agreement, or code of conduct.
MG - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Alyson:
> The Government has been found to be failing to meet its obligations to UK citizens as agreed and ratified in the UDHR.

Your quote doesn't say that! Language like "reminds", "recommends" etc. is not the same as failing. It's quite normal in fact for external review bodies to make recommendations for improvement without implying failure. Clearly the committee has concerns and is making these plain, but to take that as a claim the UK breached human rights is exaggerating a lot, and sounds hysterical.
Post edited at 12:44
1
GrahamD - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Alyson:

Thanks for posting. So basically a reminder to apply austerity fairly ?
Alyson - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

With regard to each Article within the Declaration, the State is either meeting its obligations, or not meeting them. In this case it is not meeting them.

I don't know what else you expect it to say - it is a committee report not a legal judgement.
2
MG - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Alyson:

> With regard to each Article within the Declaration, the State is either meeting its obligations, or not meeting them. In this case it is not meeting them.

Says who? Your report is silent on the matter. It has concerns and makes recommendations. It doesn't say anything either way about meeting obligations, let alone human rights

> I don't know what else you expect it to say - it is a committee report not a legal judgement.

Exactly. Although above you claimed it was a judgement, which I nearly commented on before.

2
wercat on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to galpinos:

would you not be so effing ageist.

blame the Reckless Buggers who voted Leave en bloc instead of responding to stereotypes - use your head.

I , at the younger age of you, 18, exercised my vote for the first time to Confirm membership of the EU in 1974-5.

You'll get no respect from me for ageist nonsense. I'm probably in a considerably worse financial state than you as well. Apologies if that is not true.
Shani - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to john arran:
> Maybe, and this is just a wild stab in the dark here, people supposedly "detrimentally affected by immigration" have not been affected by immigration per se but rather by an absence of government support to manage immigration in a responsible and harmonious way. As has been pointed out above, the absolute levels of immigration don't seem to be the issue, and we know already that (despite the inevitable percentage of non-contributing individuals so easily pointed at) there is a positive economic benefit from immigration in general. Is it not obvious therefore that this is a management problem and not really an immigration problem at all?

Absolutely this. If you concentrate the placing of immigrants in socially deprived areas where the chances of economic mobility are already MUCH reduced, and add in the friction of cultural disparity, you increase the chances of negative outcomes.

Rich people don't often make themselves rich, rather they are born in to wealth and into a social dynamic where wealth creating opportunities present themselves (the wealthy are very good at amassing and protecting these opportunities). This is why we need to pursue goals of egalitarianism. 'They' talk of the 'politics of jealousy' but it is hard to sit back and hear the wealthy declare that everyone would or could win the race of life "if only the poor worked as hard as they, the wealthy do", when what they need to reflect upon is that they started the race with a massive social and economic head start.
Post edited at 13:48
1
Alyson - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> Says who? Your report is silent on the matter. It has concerns and makes recommendations. It doesn't say anything either way about meeting obligations, let alone human rights

This is such a good example of the absolute ridiculousness of these forums. You are now telling me the report stays quiet on the subject of human rights?! What. The. Actual. Fook.

IT IS A REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ONE OF THE COVENANTS OF THE CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS.

Seriously, how is this conversation even happening? Ok, let’s try that one another way:

a) Can you provide any evidence that austerity measures affect all British citizens equally?
b) Can you provide any evidence that we are exempt from complying with our obligations under the Covenant?

Here is another section from the report, which is not a recommendation but a direct instruction to reverse benefit cuts:

41. The Committee calls upon the State party to: (a) Review the entitlement conditions and reverse the cuts in social security benefits introduced by the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016; (b) Restore the link between the rates of State benefits and the costs of living and guarantee that all social benefits provide a level of benefit sufficient to ensure an adequate standard of living, including access to health care, adequate housing and food; (c) Review the use of sanctions in relation to social security benefits and ensure that they are used proportionately and are subject to prompt and independent dispute resolution mechanisms; (d) Provide in its next report disaggregated data on the impact of the reforms to social security on women, children, persons with disabilities, low-income families and families with two or more children.

Is that unequivocal enough for you?
3
neilh - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Alyson:

No wonder people in the Uk generally get hacked off with this sort of rubbish. When you travel round India etc and you see real poverty etc, you realise that these sort of reports are missing the big global picture.

Why on earth do you not concentrate on something which is worthy?Aleppo etc.
6
summo on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:

> , but I'm pretty optimistic that humans are intelligent enough to come up with ways of facilitating our population without sacrificing the planet we live on.

given the current global action over carbon, climate, use of resources... I think you are overly optimistic. At best the human race will survive and our generation or era will looked up as doing very little when all the warning signs were in place. Given that most predictors estimate a leveling off of global population around the 10billion mark in 2100ish, that is a phenomenal amount of extra people to put on the planet in the next two or three generations, without detrimental impact. Imagine a near doubling of the UK population.
Big Ger - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Shani:

If there was more certainty in the housing market I may be tempted to see if the quid goes low enough for me to invest in a second property.

The risk/uncertainty is too great at present.

(I post this knowing it will raise the hackles of some here. My only excuse is that I wish to provide as best as possible for my family's future.)
MG - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Alyson:
> This is such a good example of the absolute ridiculousness of these forums. You are now telling me the report stays quiet on the subject of human rights?! What. The. Actual. Fook.

> IT IS A REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ONE OF THE COVENANTS OF THE CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS.

Ranting and raving won't help your case. You claimed a report was a judgement that stated the UK breached human rights. That simply isn't true.


> a) Can you provide any evidence that austerity measures affect all British citizens equally?

> b) Can you provide any evidence that we are exempt from complying with our obligations under the Covenant?

No of course I can't. Don't be ridiculous.

> Here is another section from the report, which is not a recommendation but a direct instruction to reverse benefit cuts:


> Is that unequivocal enough for you?

It is very clear the committee is asking the government to change certain policies, yes. It doesn't say anything about Human Rights being breached (or at all) as far as I can see. If the UK is breaching these rights as you seem to think, is it not odd that a case has not been made in the courts?
Post edited at 15:27
4
The New NickB - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

We all love a bit of patronising whataboutery. You have demonstrated an obvious talent for it.
3
sebastian dangerfield on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> "2. People who think we need to stop immigration, but who live in places which haven't been affected by immigration and don't have other experience of it."

RE the above from Jon. I'd add that people who live in areas with low immigration, might quote reasonably see a risk from potential future immigration - they just don't know what impact it will have.

MG - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Alyson:
A more accurate interpretation here, which does in fact note people can't go to court over these matters.

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2016/06/30/un-committee-seriously-concerned-about-the-impact-of-auster...

See also the comments, making exactly the point I am.
Post edited at 15:46
john arran - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> It is very clear the committee is asking the government to change certain policies, yes. It doesn't say anything about Human Rights being breached (or at all) as far as I can see. If the UK is breaching these rights as you seem to think, is it not odd that a case has not been made in the courts?

It's a document about human rights. It appears to be saying very clearly that the UK needs to make changes in order to be compliant with its human rights obligations. Do you not think that pointing out failings/breaches as they are brought to light and giving a government chance to rectify them is a better strategy than simply going to court immediately?



1
MG - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to john arran:

> It's a document about human rights. It appears to be saying very clearly that the UK needs to make changes in order to be compliant with its human rights obligations

Except it doesn't. Read it. Saying a recommendation implies breaching rights is a bit like saying that if School Inspectors make recommendations about how a school should improve, they are saying the school is failing to educate pupils.

>. Do you not think that pointing out failings/breaches as they are brought to light and giving a government chance to rectify them is a better strategy than simply going to court immediately?

I was wondering why individuals hadn't but the answer is above.

john arran - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

It isn't a recommendation; it's a call for action.
1
Shani - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> given the current global action over carbon, climate, use of resources... I think you are overly optimistic. At best the human race will survive and our generation or era will looked up as doing very little when all the warning signs were in place. Given that most predictors estimate a leveling off of global population around the 10billion mark in 2100ish, that is a phenomenal amount of extra people to put on the planet in the next two or three generations, without detrimental impact. Imagine a near doubling of the UK population.

The fate of Easter Island is a good case in point as to our innate inability to self-control. I recall five or so years ago my child was in a school play about global warming after which many parents climbed back in to their 4x4s to drive the mile back home...the irony continues in that many of those same parents are now driving 4x4s with a 16 plate. (I am not saying I live a hypocrisy free life but there is some low hanging fruit to pick on this matter).
sebastian dangerfield on 15 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> Except it doesn't. Read it. Saying a recommendation implies breaching rights is a bit like saying that if School Inspectors make recommendations about how a school should improve, they are saying the school is failing to educate pupils.

Nope. It's like there being things in law that a school needs to achieve, and the inspector saying the school isn't achieving these things and recommending changes so they do.

Shani - on 15 Oct 2016
neilh - on 15 Oct 2016
In reply to Shani:

It all depends on local added value.......
neilh - on 15 Oct 2016
In reply to The New NickB:

LOl
Shani - on 15 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> It all depends on local added value.......

Are you assuming a perfect, rational free-market? Please elaborate.
1
Shani - on 16 Oct 2016
In reply to Shani:

Another good summary of why we'll all be poorer.

http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/pound-your-pocket#.WANcplBwZnH
1
tripehound - on 16 Oct 2016
In reply to Moley:

The media are culpable along with the politicians. The public had no proper data or information on which to base a decision, only lies and misinformation particularily from the press.
neilh - on 16 Oct 2016
In reply to Shani:
As an example The article assumes certain import costs which are clearly affected by the devalued £.

But it fails to asssume that there are still businesses out there which have very low costs for imports. These businesses will still thrive.

It s all to do with how much added value you put on in the uk. It's not a difficult concept.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Shani - on 16 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> It s all to do with how much added value you put on in the uk. It's not a difficult concept.

....and terms of trade, administration/regulation, availability of relevant skills.....
neilh - on 16 Oct 2016
In reply to Shani:
Minor issues and all depend on the busines you are in.

Put it this way I know plenty of exporters with high uk added value who are rubbing their hands with glee.

Post edited at 18:52
Shani - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

Nissan?
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to Shani:

Nissan are 40 odd % owned by Renault. I suspect they will be under pressure to move to make an example
1
Rob Exile Ward on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

'But it fails to asssume that there are still businesses out there which have very low costs for imports. These businesses will still thrive.'

You are kidding. In the short term - of course. In the longer term, as the pound fails to 'bounce back' but stays low as a reflection that our economy is no longer as competitive as it was when were part of the EU, with access to markets, control of regulations and access to a huge pool of skilled and unskilled labour, inflation will inexorably rise, more traditional industries will fail or move to Europe, unemployment will grow, the government tax take will decline and our infrastructure will deteriorate. The UK, in short, will become a significantly less attractive place to live - as it was in, say, the 70s, but with no credible way of recovering.

I wonder at what point the Brexiteers will say, 'you know what, those predictions of a significantly poorer economic outlook actually seem to be coming true'. Followed, 30 seconds later, by them saying 'It's all the Remainers fault, if they hadn't talked down the economy and our plucky Bulldog spirit we'd have been fine.'

No we wouldn't. Our economic decline is now inevitable, and based on the simplest of economic and political precepts.
2
neilh - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to Shani:

All depends on the business you are in as I keep saying.

neilh - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Well as I voted remain please do not put me in the same light.

And as I keep saying there are businesses out there - including my own - for which it is a benefit.

Unfortunately we are in the minority so we will never be able to compensate for the turmoil for the majority.

By the way I am also not sure of your prediction, as it is well recognised that devaluation is a useful economic measure.
Post edited at 10:53
John2 - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

Indeed. The UK economy performed very well after the ERM debacle.
John2 - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

'Nissan are 40 odd % owned by Renault. I suspect they will be under pressure to move to make an example'

The Nissan story is a little mysterious. Ghosn threatens not to invest in Sunderland if the UK do not compensate Nissan for any tariffs imposed as a result of Brexit, then he holds a one-hour meeting with May and emerges smiling, saying he is confident that the government will keep the UK a competitive place to do business. What on earth did May say? I find it hard to believe that she promised to repay any export tariffs.
Postmanpat on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> 'But it fails to asssume that there are still businesses out there which have very low costs for imports. These businesses will still thrive.'

> You are kidding. In the short term - of course. In the longer term, as the pound fails to 'bounce back' but stays low as a reflection that our economy is no longer as competitive as it was when were part of the EU, with access to markets, control of regulations and access to a huge pool of skilled and unskilled labour, inflation will inexorably rise, more traditional industries will fail or move to Europe, unemployment will grow, the government tax take will decline and our infrastructure will deteriorate. The UK, in short, will become a significantly less attractive place to live - as it was in, say, the 70s, but with no credible way of recovering.

> I wonder at what point the Brexiteers will say, 'you know what, those predictions of a significantly poorer economic outlook actually seem to be coming true'. Followed, 30 seconds later, by them saying 'It's all the Remainers fault, if they hadn't talked down the economy and our plucky Bulldog spirit we'd have been fine.'

> No we wouldn't. Our economic decline is now inevitable, and based on the simplest of economic and political precepts.

A sharp fall in sterling doesn't cause an "inexorable rise" in inflation. It logically produces a one off rise as prices adjust to the new level, and then stabilises again. The fall in tariffs on non EU imports will actually be a disinflationary factor. Actually the UK would rather like some inflation, not least because it is about the least painful way to reduce the real cost of debt.

The fall in in sterling of course makes the UK much more competitive interntionally and at least offsets all likely tariffs that might be imposed by the EU-which still leaves the expensive regulatory requirements of the EU. If the UK cannot negotiate a compromise on these it nevertheless be a relatively low cost producer adjacent to the EU and with beneficial trade arrangements with the rest of the world. And all that assumes that the EU wants to make good on its ridiculous threats to "punish" the UK. It also assumes that the EU hasn't changed radically itself in the interim.

So, there are countless swings and roundabouts, but your description is ludicrously one sided.
1
Shani - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to John2:

> The Nissan story is a little mysterious. Ghosn threatens not to invest in Sunderland if the UK do not compensate Nissan for any tariffs imposed as a result of Brexit, then he holds a one-hour meeting with May and emerges smiling, saying he is confident that the government will keep the UK a competitive place to do business. What on earth did May say? I find it hard to believe that she promised to repay any export tariffs.

There is also talk of a 'passport' system for The City. May appears to be aiming for the mother of all political fudges.
1
Shani - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> All depends on the business you are in as I keep saying.

That is so obvious as to be rather pointless to articulate.
Postmanpat on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to Shani:

> There is also talk of a 'passport' system for The City. May appears to be aiming for the mother of all political fudges.

You mean "negotiating a compromise"?
1
Jim C - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:
That's a pretty pessimistic view. I agree that overpopulation at our current levels of consumption and destruction of the natural world is a massive problem, but I'm pretty optimistic that humans are intelligent enough to come up with ways of facilitating our population without sacrificing the planet we live on.

Don't agree with this, we are not sacrificing the planet, the planet will be quite happy as a frozen ball or a fireball, or much as it is just now.
(I bet it's a bit bored with the very little activity it now has compared to its earlier times ;)

Whether people have the will to do these difficult changes in their lifetime for the sake of future humans is another issue though.

That is the point exactly, and I agree with that, we are not 'saving the planet' when we cut greenhouse gasses, we are really only interested in it for our own survival.
Post edited at 12:35
Rob Exile Ward on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

There are countless swings and roundabouts, but the swings are all on the side of countries that have access to large tariff free markets, free mobility of labour and significant negotiating clout with the rest of the world. Remind me what we've just signed away?

Yes this devaluation of sterling is a one off hit, but as other currencies continue to draw ahead and become more attractive then it will recur - it wasn't a one off hit in the 70s, every time I went on holiday it devalued again! And then people will start asking for higher wages to maintain their standard of living, costs will rise and away we go.

Neither of us are in very much position to do anything about it, but let's see where we are in 2 - 3 - 4 years time. A lot poorer that we would have been seems to be most economists' view.
1
neilh - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to Shani:

Well it does seem to me that you keep missing this point and bringing up articles where certain businesses are clearly affected.So I will continue to restate--- it all depends.

LOL

let us call it a draw
Ian W - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to John2:

> 'Nissan are 40 odd % owned by Renault. I suspect they will be under pressure to move to make an example'

> The Nissan story is a little mysterious. Ghosn threatens not to invest in Sunderland if the UK do not compensate Nissan for any tariffs imposed as a result of Brexit, then he holds a one-hour meeting with May and emerges smiling, saying he is confident that the government will keep the UK a competitive place to do business. What on earth did May say? I find it hard to believe that she promised to repay any export tariffs.

Ghosn is a Renault man who is laughing all the way to the bank with this one. The fall in sterling means Nissans output, a very large part of which is exported to Europe, is much more competitive / profitable. He can also therefore increase the Renault input into Nissan in order to at last maintain some of the poorly performing Renault factories. He can and no doubt will continue to use the threat of moving production to Europe if the UK Government wont continue to financially support investment in Nissan.

So, He gets a further free bung in any new model development costs. His product can absorb more inter group componentry, and is more competitive in its major markets. Whats not to smile about?
David Martin - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> People who think that immigration is on balance a bad thing, and yet have no experience of the negative effects while they enjoy the benefits (the economy) are small minded.

I don't see anything wrong with thinking net immigration is a bad thing, so long as it isn't based on bigotry.

I'd like to see the world's population reduced from what it is now, and to be a tiny fraction of what it is forecast to be in 100 years from now. Looking at the issue locally, I'd like to see the countries I live in embark on a course which leads to fewer people, not more, with action beginning now rather than being kicked in to the future when (apparently, hopefully, but unlikely) we will have resolved our pension/elderly timebomb. I can't do much about, nor dictate to, those I don't live in. So to that end, I would be happy to see dramatically reduced immigration, rates of child-birth (or at least support aimed at encouraging families), etc.

The idea that we need to increase our population to resolve a future demographic problem is like fighting a fire with buckets of petrol. The argument that if we can't increase our own population we should therefore import people is being proposed as a medium-term solution but it only fixes a short-term problem. Likewise, the data on the financial benefits of migrants is a bit more nuanced when it comes to their costs over a life-span, not to mention the negative impact skilled migration has on countries with a skills shortage (but insufficient funds to buy back the skills they export).

David Martin - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> Given that most predictors estimate a leveling off of global population around the 10billion mark in 2100ish, that is a phenomenal amount of extra people to put on the planet in the next two or three generations, without detrimental impact. Imagine a near doubling of the UK population.

Something that brought this home to me was a recent infographic showing the current global population of chimps, orangutans, gorillas, etc. Animals essentially our closest living relatives, somewhat similar to us, similar size, etc. Yet they number in just the hundreds of thousands, in no small part due to our own actions. At the same time we are kicking at the door of 10 billion with an environmental footprint per person growing at an exponential rate. The numbers just don't seem right and we seem to be spreading like a disease across the planet.

There may be enough food for everyone. But there isn't enough planet for everyone if we all start living the lives we aspire to and believe we are owed.
David Martin - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> Don't agree with this, we are not sacrificing the planet, the planet will be quite happy as a frozen ball or a fireball, or much as it is just now.

I take the planet to be the solid thing we stand on AND the organisms on it. Those organisms come in millions of varieties of which we are but one. On our present path, while the rock we stand on might continue to exist, we are genocidally knocking off entire species we share this rock with. That is the saddest thing in my mind and points very much to the planet being sacrificed...even if it does continue turning once we have wiped ourselves out.

Bjartur i Sumarhus on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

ESMA have given advice that they see no reason to not allow a number of applications to non EU countries for passporting rights into the EU for financial services (Australia, Bermuda, Canada, Cayman Islands, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Japan, Jersey, Isle of Man, Singapore, Switzerland, and the United States)

I'm sure this has raised a few eye brows both sides of the channel

https://www.esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/esma-advises-extension-funds-passport-12-non-eu-coun...
https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/issues/21-july-2016/esma-passporting-blueprint-non-eu-country/

neilh - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Both brilliant and hilarious.........



John2 - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to Ian W:

'He can and no doubt will continue to use the threat of moving production to Europe if the UK Government wont continue to financially support investment in Nissan'

My question was, what form will this financial support take?
neilh - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to John2:

Any form the govt wants if we come out of the EU, as currently state intervention rules are controlled by the EU......

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.