Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, HairyOb1 said:

But all sovereign nations would have to, otherwise the worlds population would still rise, surely you can see that?  I agree with you broadly, but think it's a catastrophe fiscally, a lot of people would hurt.

I do too, broadly speaking.  

You're missing my point. It's as sovereign nations that the decision can be made either as part of a whole or as individual nations. 

Some countries are not developed/mature enough to enforce a cap, maybe through religious or cultural reasons. But examples should be set by those that can and they need doing soon. If my neighbour wants thirteen kids he must know that I'm not going to house four of them, even if they do contribute to the rent - it doesn't make up for being overcrowded.

What's a globalist agenda going to do? Put a cap of 9, 10, 11 billion on the planet? Good luck with that. There's a reason that some things have to be managed on a more micro level.

I saw in a previous post that you mentioned 'can kicking'. Surely what you advocate with this mother of all ponzi schemes is shoving a rocket booster up said can.

I'll take a fiscal catastrophe over one that involves fighting continents for their food. We need to get closer to self-sufficiency. Not further away.

As for looking after our elderly - we need to take on some of that responsibility ourselves, you know, like what used to happen. Unfortunately we live in an era of manufactured ******** jobs that prevents us from doing this. But hey, at least we create tax revenue. Maybe we can bring in another few million to paint the walls of boomer houses or run around amazon warehouses to supply us with cheap crap that noone needs with money they ain't got.

BTW - I've done my bit by having two kids. Mixed race ones too. I'd like a non-dystopian future for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 135.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • GrizzlyDave

    9502

  • Confusion of VIs

    7416

  • jonb2

    5732

  • thehowler

    5043

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I do.   https://twitter.com/housepricemania

1409 pages....you guys should have your own forum !!!

Oh OK. Shame that really, but hey it looks like @IMHAL helped us both out. Nice repost though, thanks ! Any thoughts ?  

Posted Images

41 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

Well I know I bang on about equivalence, but this for me is a balancer, as if we brought all countries up to a decent level, we wouldn't have 3rd world nations producing 7,8, 9 kids, in order some survive then look after the parents.  If all people on earth had a comfortable existence, which is possible, then you'd have less need, from a survival perspective, to produce more kids.  I know it's kind of a Eden thought, but I truly believe those are the issues facing us; if the western world wasn't so cravenly greedy, if we spent less on arms, I am utterly convinced we could end famine and a lot more.  But, well it's a pipe dream unless we all change, and we're never going to unless we're faced with a common issue in which we have to cooperate....

I know; we could leave the EU and make new, bilaterally beneficial trade agreements with places like Africa & India, where much of the population growth will be.

http://www.tuaeu.co.uk/how-the-eu-starves-africa/

Quote

The most obvious and damaging exhibit is, of course, the Common Agricultural Policy which takes up half the EU budget and lavishes subsidies onto the EU’s biggest landowners at the expense of millions of the poorest farmers in Africa.

The criminal £30 billion-a-year subsidy regime allows the EU to dump thousands of tons of heavily-subsidised food into Africa every year. As a result local producers cannot export their products because they compete with the lower prices made possible by the CAP.

For instance EU farmers are guaranteed a price for their sugar which is three times higher than the world price. Mozambique loses more than £100 million a year because of restrictions on importing into EU coupled with the dumping of cheap exports at its door, while many thousands of workers in Swaziland have lost their jobs because the local industry cannot compete.

Kenya, Nigeria and Senegal have been hit by cheap, subsidised imports from Europe while the £30 paid to British farmers for every tonne of wheat they produce inflates the price of breakfast cereals, bread and other goods in Britain.

Thousands of tonnes of surplus powdered milk from the EU are dumped in West African countries such as Mali at a cheaper price than local cattle owners can sell at, devastating the economy and driving them out of business.

https://capx.co/how-the-eu-starves-africa-into-submission-2016/

Quote

There are at least three ways in which EU policies affect Africa’s ability to address its agricultural and food challenges: tariff escalation; technological innovation and food export preferences.

African leaders would like to escape the colonial trap of being viewed simply as raw material exporters. But their efforts to add value to the materials continue to be frustrated by existing EU policies.

Take the example of coffee. In 2014 Africa —the home of coffee— earned nearly $2.4 billion from the crop. Germany, a leading processor, earned about $3.8 billion from coffee re-exports.

The concern is not that Germany benefits from processing coffee. It is that Africa is punished by EU tariff barriers for doing so. Non-decaffeinated green coffee is exempt from the charges. However, a 7.5 per cent charge is imposed on roasted coffee. As a result, the bulk of Africa’s export to the EU is unroasted green coffee.

The charge on cocoa is even more debilitating. It is reported that the “EU charges (a tariff) of 30 per cent for processed cocoa products like chocolate bars or cocoa powder, and 60 per cent for some other refined products containing cocoa.”

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

 

:lol:

 I can't because controlled immigration isn't, but since you frequently use xenophobia/c to describe leave voters, I had hoped that you would be able to. 

      Here's one of your previous posts again:

 

 

Oh OK. Shame that really, but hey it looks like @IMHAL helped us both out.

Nice repost though, thanks ! Any thoughts ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maynardgravy said:

1.  You're missing my point. It's as sovereign nations that the decision can be made either as part of a whole or as individual nations. 

2.  Some countries are not developed/mature enough to enforce a cap, maybe through religious or cultural reasons. But examples should be set by those that can and they need doing soon. If my neighbour wants thirteen kids he must know that I'm not going to house four of them, even if they do contribute to the rent - it doesn't make up for being overcrowded.

3.  What's a globalist agenda going to do? Put a cap of 9, 10, 11 billion on the planet? Good luck with that. There's a reason that some things have to be managed on a more micro level.

4.  I saw in a previous post that you mentioned 'can kicking'. Surely what you advocate with this mother of all ponzi schemes is shoving a rocket booster up said can.

5.  I'll take a fiscal catastrophe over one that involves fighting continents for their food. We need to get closer to self-sufficiency. Not further away.

6.  As for looking after our elderly - we need to take on some of that responsibility ourselves, you know, like what used to happen. Unfortunately we live in an era of manufactured ******** jobs that prevents us from doing this. But hey, at least we create tax revenue. Maybe we can bring in another few million to paint the walls of boomer houses or run around amazon warehouses to supply us with cheap crap that noone needs with money they ain't got.

7.  BTW - I've done my bit by having two kids. Mixed race ones too. I'd like a non-dystopian future for them.

1.  I am not, I understand your point completely, but in reference to that, you have to link it to #2

2.  It's superfluous an idea if it's not taken on board by al nations; western nations, or the developed world, are already doing their bit, by not reproducing as much as they need to, so are replacing the people needed and staving off financial meltdown by using migrants.

3.  Micro management will never work on this level; look at China, did that help them?  No, it needs to be managed cross the board, otherwise it's pissing in the wind and hoping to stay dry.

4.  I agree, but in the obvious absence of any other ideas, I see little else we can do.  A massive crash will happen, it's bound to, but when it happens is what is being managed.  As I said, I don't quite know what to do, I genuinely don't; I think it isn't AI that is the biggest issue facing the world, it's the constant need for growth that fuels capitalism that is the biggest issue.

5.  I am not too sure we're ready for what I fear will happen, not as a nation.  We've been fighting continents for fuel since I've been alive, change that for food and there's no real change, it's just a different asset.

6.  Like paying NI for our pensions for our entire working lives?  People expect a government pension, as that's what's been sold to them.  I think there will come a time, especially with all the noise about compulsory private pensions, that the state pension will be removed.  I also think it's our duty to look after our elderly and that does indeed mean more onus on the families.  But as a nation, we have to look after the elderly, more importantly the elderly who've been in poorly paid work most of their lives.

7.  I have 3, and from checking just now, to maintain the status quo, you'd need to produce 2.075 kids for that ;) - With a global crash, a massive crash, that dystopian future is more likely to happen sooner than with any other scenario, as the global elite, the 1% that control 50% of the worlds assets and money, will fortify any area they choose to.  We're almost fecked if we do, and fecked if we didn't - For the record, I'd not want a future like that for my kids either.

Edited by HairyOb1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, highYield said:

I know; we could leave the EU and make new, bilaterally beneficial trade agreements with places like Africa & India, where much of the population growth will be.

http://www.tuaeu.co.uk/how-the-eu-starves-africa/

https://capx.co/how-the-eu-starves-africa-into-submission-2016/

 

Discussing trade agreements with Africa will not stop them reproducing in larger numbers than us, only by making their countries wealthier would that happen.  We already trade with Africa, through the EU; if you think we're going to cut African farmers some slack I think you're woefully wide of the mark: The UK will try and secure as favourable a deal as it can, with all new partners, we're not altruistic in this area.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Futuroid said:

1. So productivity dropped off in the early 90s recession, and also in the 2008 "great recession".

Wonder why it hasn't recovered since? Must be because we are in the EU or something...

2. Oh wait, I know, it's because the UK chose the zombification route. Don't let bad banks, companies, consumers fail, just change the rules and squirt in a few magic printed pounds to keep the show rolling - hoping you can think of something better at a later date (of course, it turns out you can't).

3. And your post to a random article about a car wash company struggling to sell itself in 2012? Er, what has that got to do with the price of fish? :blink:

1. It did recover after the 90's so why not after the GFC? 

2. Agree on zombification, QE, FLS, Ponzi etc. but immigration is also a factor.

3. Not like you to be obtuse? I bolded the sentence in dlm''s post about automation and added the IMO article and graph. Hope this adds clarity for you:

Quote

...

The hand car wash also shows something else – the shift towards a grey, informal economy – again something more associated with developing countries. Car washes should be subject to local authority licensing and planning. But councils struggle to bring them into line, as people take the opportunity to set them up on any piece of land, or in disused petrol stations by a main road.

Then there is the small matter of taxes. Many hand car washes are part of the cash-in-hand economy, where there is no record of the VAT, national insurance and tax that is being paid and passed on. And, inevitably in a country concerned with migration, there are suggestions that some of those working in your hand car wash are illegal or even trafficked workers.

Hand car washes are taking the economy backwards. They are part of the low-wage, low-productivity trap. Their proliferation in the UK shouldn’t be seen as merely a quirk of people’s preference for them over the machine wash. And they shed interesting light on Britain’s productivity puzzle.

https://theconversation.com/the-return-of-the-hand-car-wash-and-the-uks-productivity-puzzle-39594

 

Edited by Sheeple Splinter
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, IMHAL said:

2 - benefits and early ascesion are seen as the big attractors from within the EU, plus we have full control to do with as we please regarding immigration from outside of the EU - as I said, we have control but have chosen no to exercise it for what is a very large part of the problem that you (and your bretheren) perceive - so don't go bleating that it just an EU thang!,  its a home made thang!                         I get the feeling that no amount of facts and no amount of arguing the point will ever get this across - its like groundhog day - you just keep coming back to the same point just to be told that its a home grown problem and that WE have chosen not to control the situation.

3 - if I see it I call it. Can't speak for the other remainers but from what I have seen, generally, if it is justified, then they wade in and quite right too.  

4- its your homework remember. I stand by what I said previously which is to say if I have called anyone that and it was unjustified (taking into account the full context of the conversation and other related comments that they have made), then I will apologise, otherwise, well.... see 3.

 

2. The attractions of the UK to immigration from around the world are far more than just benefits e.g. NLW, education, NHS, racial & religious tolerance, lack of corruption etc. FoM is an EU thing and the UK cannot control the numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, IMHAL said:

...

3 - if I see it I call it. Can't speak for the other remainers but from what I have seen, generally, if it is justified, then they wade in and quite right too.  

4- its your homework remember. I stand by what I said previously which is to say if I have called anyone that and it was unjustified (taking into account the full context of the conversation and other related comments that they have made), then I will apologise, otherwise, well.... see 3.

 

Very sparse pickings for posts you label as xenophobic, but I did find this non-xenophobic one and your measured reply :) :

On 23/11/2017 at 10:58 PM, ExiledMatty said:

The point of Brexit is to get rid of all the spongers from Eastern Europe and to secure our border. Simple as that.

 

On 23/11/2017 at 11:10 PM, IMHAL said:

Why not get rid of the very many more British spongers?

That's a bit racist of you don't you think?

 

Edited by Sheeple Splinter
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dryrot said:

EU and migration. Rather than ad hominem attacks, why not go to the official EU leaders for a statement of policy?

"Brussels has said that Europeans must accept mass migration from the third world as the “new norm”, warning that neither walls nor policies will allow any part of the EU to remain “homogenous and migration-free”. 

“It’s time to face the truth. We cannot and will never be able to stop migration,” writes EU Commissioner for Migration Dimitris Avramopoulos, in a piece for POLITICO, published Monday entitled, “Europe’s Migrants Are Here to Stay”. In it, the Eurocrat wrote “human mobility will increasingly define the 21st century”, and that mass migration is an issue Brussels has committed Europe to “for the long haul”, stating: “Migration is deeply intertwined with our policies on economics, trade, education and employment — to name just a few.”

[..]

"At the end of the day, we all need to be ready to accept migration, mobility and diversity as the new norm and tailor our policies accordingly. The only way to make our asylum and migration policies future-proof, is to collectively change our way of thinking first." Dimitris Avramopoulos is European commissioner for migration, home affairs and citizenship.

https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-migration-migrants-are-here-to-stay-refugee-crisis/ 

Is this what the Remainers want? It is the official EU strategy, spelled out by the EU Commissioner!

:lol: 

The EU is always so slow; just look at the lack of BME presence in the EU institutions:

Quote

EU criticised for leaving out ethnic minorities in 'diversity' drive

European commission sets out goal to improve workplace for women and LGBT, disabled and older – but not BME – people...

Within the European parliament, of the 776 MEPs elected in 2014, fewer than 20 are thought to be from a minority ethnic background, although no official statistics are held....

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/27/eu-criticised-leaving-out-ethnic-minorities-diversity-drive

plenary_session.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Maynardgravy said:

I refer you to my previous statement. Give people space and time to breed and they will. Price people out and they can't. We haven't just become a nation that hates having kids.

I think the total opposite is true. Sovereign nations setting their caps is the only way. It would be much more plastic too. Much easier than a global free-for-all.

Your opinions on population growth fly in the face of current research on the topic, what evidence have you seen that backs up your opinions.  

People don't breed because they have space/time. The main driver is insecurity, as nations become richer their birth rate declines. This trend has proved to be consistent across the world with attempts by government to manage it having little long term impact. 

Current thinking is that the words population will peak at around 9.5bn and decline from there.  On the bright side farming technology is improving so rapidly it is expected that this population could be supported using less land than is devoted to agriculture today. So unless you fancy the taste no need for soylent green.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HairyOb1 said:

Discussing trade agreements with Africa will not stop them reproducing in larger numbers than us, only by making their countries wealthier would that happen.  We already trade with Africa, through the EU; if you think we're going to cut African farmers some slack I think you're woefully wide of the mark: The UK will try and secure as favourable a deal as it can, with all new partners, we're not altruistic in this area.

A possibility could be that, as we wouldn't have to charge extra tariffs for roasted coffee, it could be roasted in Africa using solar drying & roasting, rather than coal fired power stations in Germany. It could be called Rainbow Coffee :)

Quote
35 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Your opinions on population growth fly in the face of current research on the topic, what evidence have you seen that backs up your opinions.  

People don't breed because they have space/time. The main driver is insecurity, as nations become richer their birth rate declines. This trend has proved to be consistent across the world with attempts by government to manage it having little long term impact. 

Current thinking is that the words population will peak at around 9.5bn and decline from there.  On the bright side farming technology is improving so rapidly it is expected that this population could be supported using less land than is devoted to agriculture today. So unless you fancy the taste no need for soylent green.

 

In reference to 'farming technology is improving rapidly', in the 2nd link I posted, Calestous Juma says:

Quote

The second example where EU policy undermines African agricultural innovation is in the field of genetically modified (GM) crops. The EU exercises its right not to cultivate transgenic crops but only to import them as animal feed. However, its export of restrictive policies on GM crops has negatively affected Africa.

The adoption of restrictive policies across Africa has been pursued under the pretext of protecting the environment and human health. So far there has been little evidence to support draconian biosafety rules. It is important that the risks of new products be assessed. But the restrictions should proportionate and consistent with needs of different countries.

Africa’s needs are different from those of the EU. There are certain uniquely African problems where GM should be considered as an option. Let us look at the examples of Uganda and Nigeria.

The Xanthomonas banana wilt bacterial disease causes early ripening and discoloration of bananas, a staple crop for Uganda. This costs the Great Lakes region nearly US $500m annuallyin losses. There is no treatment for the disease, which continues to undermine food security.

Ugandan scientists at Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute have developed a GM approach but their efforts to further their research in the technology are hampered by opposition to it. Those opposed to the technology advocate the adoption of an EU biosafety approach that would effectively stall the adoption of the technology. In fact, some of opponents using scare tacticsagainst the technology are EU-based non-governmental organizations.

The moth Maruca vitrata destroys about US $300 million worth of blackeyed peas in Nigeria. The country is forced to import pesticides worth US $500m annually to control the pest. Scientists at the Institute for Agricultural Research at Nigeria’s Ahmadu Bello University have developed a Maruca-resistant, GM blackeyed pea variety. Nigerian policy makers are hesitant to pursue a technology that they fear might put them on a collision course with the EU.

Pursuing EU-inspired biosafety policies denies Africa the capacity to leverage biotechnology and use it to meet its own local needs. GM technology has wider application in fields such as medicine and can be used in the development of diagnostics.

edit: and, more relevantly to the UK <> Africa trade discussion:

Quote

But boosting food exports is not going to be satisfied by dependence on niche organic markets provided by the EU. Africa needs robust efforts to upgrade its agriculture through technology adoption and not simply reliance on the exploitation of Africa’s “cheap ecology”.

To achieve its technological objectives, Africa needs to partner with countries such as the United Kingdom that have historical knowledge of the continent. But collective EU policies make it difficult for Africa to engage productively with the UK in areas such as agricultural biotechnology.

 

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/12/2017 at 8:52 PM, IMHAL said:
On 17/12/2017 at 8:25 PM, debtlessmanc said:

We really don’t have to go through this again but at least 50% of the refugees in Southern Europe have never been near a conflict provoked by anyone in Europe. With the upper range of the UNs estimate of African population by 2100 being 8Bn I think the Mediterranean will look like a warzone by then whatever the EU says or does. If it sticks to its humanitarian principles anyway. 

Then those economic migrants can be sent back.

Did you know that just one return of 29 Nigerians cost EU citizens  €260,000?

Quote

...1. Introduction At the 40th Direct Contact Point Meeting held on 11.05.2016 in Warsaw, the representative of Austria confirmed their readiness to organize a Joint Return Operation from Vienna to Nigeria on 22.09.2016. Frontex identified the needs and interest among other Member States (MS) to participate, and in accordance with Article 9 of the Frontex Regulation, Frontex has provided assistance, co-ordination and co-financing to the operation. The cost of the Austrian charter (Vienna – Lagos - Vienna) was 260,000.00 Euro...

http://frontex.europa.eu/assets/Operations/2016/JRO_to_Nigeria_22.09.2016.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

2. The attractions of the UK to immigration from around the world are far more than just benefits e.g. NLW, education, NHS, racial & religious tolerance, lack of corruption etc. FoM is an EU thing and the UK cannot control the numbers.

Why are you still worrying about FoM, it will not be a problem by the time we leave.

My prediction made shortly after the vote that we would be past the peak and close to being back in balance by the time we leave in 2021 looks like it might come true well before we leave.

I suspect we will soon see campaigns being launched to encourage more EU immigration. 

   

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

 

Very sparse pickings for posts you label as xenophobic, but I did find this non-xenophobic one and your measured reply :) :

 

 

5/10 - could do better.

Edit: If he had said spongers in general and not EE spongers then I would not have a problem. So why EE spongers? and not muslim spongers? or gay spongers or British spongers, or Italian spongers, or Jewish spongers?

He is being racist against EE's - he may not know it - but he is, and the fact that you cannot see it is worrying.

Edited by IMHAL
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, highYield said:

A possibility could be that, as we wouldn't have to charge extra tariffs for roasted coffee, it could be roasted in Africa using solar drying & roasting, rather than coal fired power stations in Germany. It could be called Rainbow Coffee :)

In reference to 'farming technology is improving rapidly', in the 2nd link I posted, Calestous Juma says:

edit: and, more relevantly to the UK <> Africa trade discussion:

 

I agree the EU is a protectionist organisation, all trade blocks are, but don't see how this is relevant to the Brexit debate as I don't think many Leave voters voted that way because they wanted to feel the full force of Globalisation.

One of the strange quirks of the vote was that despite rejecting the EU's protectionist tendencies Leave voters tended to be much more protectionist than Remainers 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Your opinions on population growth fly in the face of current research on the topic, what evidence have you seen that backs up your opinions.  

People don't breed because they have space/time. The main driver is insecurity, as nations become richer their birth rate declines. This trend has proved to be consistent across the world with attempts by government to manage it having little long term impact. 

Current thinking is that the words population will peak at around 9.5bn and decline from there.  On the bright side farming technology is improving so rapidly it is expected that this population could be supported using less land than is devoted to agriculture today. So unless you fancy the taste no need for soylent green.

Which current thinking is that?

'The current world population of 7.3 billion is expected to reach 8.5 billion by 2030, 9.7 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100, according to a new UN DESA report, “World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision”, launched today.' link

I'll agree with you that as nations become richer the birth rate declines - for obvious reasons. But recently there have been additional effects, certainly in the UK. Our work/life balance has been eroded. Very few can afford a decent place to live. Yes, it's my opinion (sorry I'm not in the habit of putting IMO at the end of every post). But are you telling me people aren't putting off having children because of costs, housing etc? If we are running currently at 1.7 - 1.8 children then would it take an awful lot for people to be encouraged to get to 2 if quality of life was markedly better. It won;t be if we keep importing stupid numbers each year.

And if we do need a top up, how about limiting immigration to an amount that brings the average up to 2? You know, so we put a lid on the ponzi scheme.

I'll believe the modern agriculture bit when we're not importing over half our food.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

2. The attractions of the UK to immigration from around the world are far more than just benefits e.g. NLW, education, NHS, racial & religious tolerance, lack of corruption etc. FoM is an EU thing and the UK cannot control the numbers.

And again - we can control immigration outside of the EU but we chose not to.

I agree there are a great number of things that are attractive about the UK, but Europe in the whole is not unattractive either. As other posters have noted, Eastern Europe is coming on strong and it is likely that immigration from there will decline strongly as their economies catch up and we become less of a draw, which is happening now. So it looks like it will have been a temporary phenomena, excacerbated by our decision to unilaterally allow early access thereby concentrating migration to the Uk - a home made policy.

It is still a fact that many posters on here site benefits tourism as their main concern and we do have control over this, yet chose not to excersice it. There are many things that we could do and don't ,you have to acknowledge this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

Brexit will cause loss of influence on scale of 1970s, says ex-MI6 chief

Sir John Sawers tells MPs Britain will need to figure out how to rebuild its economy and international standing after leaving EU. Brexit is set to cause a loss of UK influence on a par with the 1970s, requiring a national assessment of how the UK’s future standing can be recovered once Brexit is complete, Sir John Sawers, the former head of MI6, has warned.

Speaking to the foreign affairs select committee, Sawers warned: “We can see the trend of the coming years and we do not want to go through a repeat of the 1970s where the UK went progressively downhill compared to our national partners. We will need to turn it around. I am not sure how we are going to do it.”

Calling for an urgent reprioritisation of resources post-Brexit, he said: “We have to recognise a pretty stark reality faces us at the end of this process, and we have to rebuild from that.” Guardian

 

Post - Brexit Britain could become one of the who cares what you think or saying country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

It is still a fact that many posters on here site benefits tourism as their main concern and we do have control over this, yet chose not to excersice it. There are many things that we could do and don't ,you have to acknowledge this.

There is a lot of truth in this and for whatever reason TPTB never did anything to address this simple issue. Which only confirms to me that Brexit will never happen in any meaningful way anyway, so I don;t even know why I bothered voting :mellow:

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Maynardgravy said:

There is a lot of truth in this and for whatever reason TPTB never did anything to address this simple issue. Which only confirms to me that Brexit will never happen in any meaningful way anyway, so I don;t even know why I bothered voting :mellow:

I can only put it down to incompetence. It is sad that we have been brought to the state of blaming other for our own misgiivings tho.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

I agree the EU is a protectionist organisation, all trade blocks are, but don't see how this is relevant to the Brexit debate as I don't think many Leave voters voted that way because they wanted to feel the full force of Globalisation.

One of the strange quirks of the vote was that despite rejecting the EU's protectionist tendencies Leave voters tended to be much more protectionist than Remainers 

My point was in relation to your 'farming technology is improving rapidly'. Given that the EU is hindering the use of GMOs there, which other rapidly improving farming technologies can increase productivity on a scale able to transform Africa?

Also, IMO, somebody like* Calestous Juma saying the following (in How the EU starves Africa) is very relevant to the Brexit debate:

Quote

But boosting food exports is not going to be satisfied by dependence on niche organic markets provided by the EU. Africa needs robust efforts to upgrade its agriculture through technology adoption and not simply reliance on the exploitation of Africa’s “cheap ecology”.

To achieve its technological objectives, Africa needs to partner with countries such as the United Kingdom that have historical knowledge of the continent. But collective EU policies make it difficult for Africa to engage productively with the UK in areas such as agricultural biotechnology.

* no apparent Brexit VI?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Not remotely. Only if the rate of decrease is too great. How many of the problems in the world would be far less severe with fewer people? A decline in population is the best possible thing imaginable for most countries, just as long as it isn't very rapid. The only thing to really suffer is the short-termist "economic growth above all else, no matte the fallout," and that's a mentality the world needs to move on from. How you move on from it though, that's difficult, if not impossible, because the short-termists will always be able to out-compete in the short term, and you need to survive the short term to have a long term.

I agree, but don't worry the elites are working on it:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/05/hookworm-lowndes-county-alabama-water-waste-treatment-poverty

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/tory-austerity-deaths-study-report-people-die-social-care-government-policy-a8057306.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/us/opioid-crisis-public-health-emergency.html

https://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/outbreaks/2017March-HepatitisA.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4903030/Hepatitis-outbreak-Los-Angeles.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/28/hepatitis-a-san-diego-deaths

We need more wars and pestilence. That will help the arms builders and Big Pharma too.

I blame the EU.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

1. Why are you still worrying about FoM, it will not be a problem by the time we leave.

2. My prediction made shortly after the vote that we would be past the peak and close to being back in balance by the time we leave in 2021 looks like it might come true well before we leave.

3. I suspect we will soon see campaigns being launched to encourage more EU immigration. 

   

1. :blink: I was responding to a point made by another poster. Assume you must be 100% sure on leaving; I'm at 80%.

2. As in zero net migration from EU27?

3. Do you mean the introduction of the new immigration regime May mentioned recently?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 428 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.