On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 21:59:42 +0100, pamela wrote:

On 17:11 8 Jul 2016, alan_m wrote:

On 08/07/2016 14:09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Good, isn't it? You expect people to take financial advice from a
failing bank. Or use that bank's predictions to back up yours.



And similarly we are asked to believe the predictions of those who
didn't foresee the 2008 financial crisis.

Who would you choose to believe?

Predicting the future is error prone and at some point will always be
wrong but that doesn't mean we should expect as most likely the opposite
of what reputable forecasters say.

I somewhat expected my post to over comrade plowperson's head. I was not
wrong.

--
So, the UK €œBrexited€� and the sky didnt fall in. Sensible people (no matter
how they voted) are now turning their attention to the opportunities opening up
for Britain in the wider world, including China.
-- RT-UK News --

"Martin Barclay" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 21:59:42 +0100, pamela wrote:

On 17:11 8 Jul 2016, alan_m wrote:

On 08/07/2016 14:09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Good, isn't it? You expect people to take financial advice from a
failing bank. Or use that bank's predictions to back up yours.



And similarly we are asked to believe the predictions of those who
didn't foresee the 2008 financial crisis.

Who would you choose to believe?

Predicting the future is error prone and at some point will always be
wrong but that doesn't mean we should expect as most likely the opposite
of what reputable forecasters say.

I somewhat expected my post to over comrade plowperson's head. I was not
wrong.

Now c'mon, Dave is an old fart like me with old fart values.
We're still using gas TV and crystal sets listening to Churchill.
Cripes, we're still mowing grass on Anderson shelters.
Mobile phones? WTF?

On 08/07/2016 09:22, Rod Speed wrote:


They are on what gets agreed with the EU to get free trade.

Countries outside of the EU that have trade deals don't require to have
free movement of people.

No-one knows what will happen as negotiations haven't started but its
unlikely to be the worst scenario predicted by some on this group.
Trade is a 2 way process and if, say, French farmers believe that they
may disadvantaged by a deal with the UK their form of protest by
blocking the roads to Paris may change politicians minds.

If the remainders get their way and a second referendum is held on the
outcome of the negotiations think what may happen if all the existing EU
rules are still in place and we have to pay just as much for the
privilege. The politicians better have plan B at that time. By then they
may be thinking more about their political future in the next general
election!


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article ,
alan_m wrote:
On 08/07/2016 09:22, Rod Speed wrote:


They are on what gets agreed with the EU to get free trade.

Countries outside of the EU that have trade deals don't require to have
free movement of people.

Name one that has the same free trade deal like Norway, etc. Basically,
the four 'freedoms' go together. If you want a deal without one of them,
you'll not get the full others. Or rather that is what exists now.

No-one knows what will happen as negotiations haven't started but its
unlikely to be the worst scenario predicted by some on this group.
Trade is a 2 way process and if, say, French farmers believe that they
may disadvantaged by a deal with the UK their form of protest by
blocking the roads to Paris may change politicians minds.

And the leavers hope we can get a far better deal than any other country
outside the EU has managed. Which would then open the gates for those
countries - like Norway - to demand the same.

If the remainders get their way and a second referendum is held on the
outcome of the negotiations think what may happen if all the existing EU
rules are still in place and we have to pay just as much for the
privilege. The politicians better have plan B at that time. By then they
may be thinking more about their political future in the next general
election!

Try looking at things from the EU side. To give in to the UK opens a whole
can of worms. Like other countries leaving the EU for the same deal. And
the EU isn't stupid.

The same arguments for the UK being better off outside the EU apply to
some other countries in the EU too.

--
*Until I was thirteen, I thought my name was SHUT UP .

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 10/07/2016 09:31, alan_m wrote:
On 08/07/2016 09:22, Rod Speed wrote:


They are on what gets agreed with the EU to get free trade.

Countries outside of the EU that have trade deals don't require to have
free movement of people.


Of course - but the deals they have are carefully managed. Take Chinese
steel for example.

Free movement is simply part of the EU business model - get cheap labour
where it's needed to produce competitive goods. 'Fortress Europe'
wouldn't work any other way.

UK workers are notoriously inert when it comes to moving to where the
jobs are - one thing we do lead the world in.

No-one knows what will happen as negotiations haven't started but its
unlikely to be the worst scenario predicted by some on this group.

It is interesting - we'll see!

Trade is a 2 way process and if, say, French farmers believe that they may
disadvantaged by a deal with the UK their form of protest by blocking
the roads to Paris may change politicians minds.


Again - should prove interesting.


--
Cheers, Rob

In article ,
RJH wrote:
Free movement is simply part of the EU business model - get cheap labour
where it's needed to produce competitive goods. 'Fortress Europe'
wouldn't work any other way.

It is one of the four freedoms. Rather more than a 'business model'

--
*Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

alan_m wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Big Les Wade wrote
lid posted

All the (potential) leaders have stated it will have no significant
effect on immigration so where does this tightening come from?

No they haven't, and even if they had, they aren't in a position to
determine the outcome.

They are on what gets agreed with the EU to get free trade.

Countries outside of the EU that have trade deals don't require to have
free movement of people.

Norway, Switzerland and Iceland do. Whether Norway was
REQUIRED to have that is less clear but certainly Switzerland
which had always been very restrictive on who it allowed to
move there was required to change their policy on that to
get a free trade agreement with the EU.

No-one knows what will happen as negotiations haven't started

That is overstated given that dozens have an agreement
already, including some majors like Korea and Israel.
\https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

but its unlikely to be the worst scenario predicted by some on this group.

Yes. OTOH is it hard to ignore what Norway, Switzerland and Iceland
have. But Britain is a lot more economically significant to the EU than
those are too. But there is clearly a real incentive for the EU to
discourage any other country from leaving the EU too.

Trade is a 2 way process and if, say, French farmers believe that they may
disadvantaged by a deal with the UK their form of protest by blocking the
roads to Paris may change politicians minds.

No evidence that that sort of thing has much effect at all on
the EU unelected bureaucrats that determine stuff like that.

People like Merkle and Hollande have a lot more effect on that.

And there is clearly a real incentive for the EU to make it very
hard to get a good agreement when leaving the EU to discourage
other countrys which are considering leaving from doing that too.

If the remainders get their way and a second referendum is held on the
outcome of the negotiations

IMO that isnt going to happen.

think what may happen if all the existing EU rules are still in place and
we have to pay just as much for the privilege.

IMO the absolute vast bulk of leavers would still want to leave,
and you may even see quite a few who didn’t expect the leave
vote to prevail and who voted to remain for that reason may
well choose to vote to leave in a second referendum. And some
who didn’t bother to vote to leave because they had decided
that the remain vote was going to prevail may well vote to
leave in a second referendum.

And certainly some who voted to leave would vote to stay too.

The politicians better have plan B at that time.

There can't be any plans in situations like that and no point
in even attempting one either. All Britain could do in that
situation is decide not to leave if the remain vote prevailed
and hope that the EU wouldn’t actually try kicking Britain
out because they do want Britain to remain in the EU and
would be happy to fudge Article 50 which doesn’t say
explicitly that Article 50 can be withdrawn if the leaving
country changes its mind.

By then they may be thinking more about their political future in the next
general election!

Unlikely given that Labour is completely unelectable to
govt now. Yes, UKIP could well be a problem if the govt
decides not to leave the EU because of the result of the
second referendum, but it isnt even possible to plan for that.

IMO there wont be a second referendum so the question
of what will happen after it is completely academic.

IMO the only real possibility is that someone like May
might actually end up with the same sort of agreement
that Norway and Switzerland and Iceland have, because
she doesn’t actually want Britain to leave and hope that
she can bull**** her way thru with that given that Labour
is completely unelectable to govt and that UKIP has become
completely politically irrelevant with Britain leaving.

Yes, that might see Farage return to UKIP and mount
a campaign to bin that new agreement, but IMO it is
unlikely to change anything even if he did.

IMO I bet May has decided that referendums are much too
risky and wont actually be stupid enough to have another
because it is so difficult to handle the result you don’t want.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
alan_m wrote:
On 08/07/2016 09:22, Rod Speed wrote:


They are on what gets agreed with the EU to get free trade.

Countries outside of the EU that have trade deals don't require to have
free movement of people.

Name one that has the same free trade deal like Norway, etc.

All but 3 of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

Basically, the four 'freedoms' go together.

They clearly don’t with all but 3 of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

If you want a deal without one of them, you'll not get the full others.

How odd that all but 3 of these have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

Or rather that is what exists now.

Not with all but 3 of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

No-one knows what will happen as negotiations haven't started but
its unlikely to be the worst scenario predicted by some on this group.
Trade is a 2 way process and if, say, French farmers believe that they
may disadvantaged by a deal with the UK their form of protest by
blocking the roads to Paris may change politicians minds.

And the leavers hope we can get a far better deal
than any other countryoutside the EU has managed.

That is a lie with all but 3 of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

Which would then open the gates for those
countries - like Norway - to demand the same.

Yes, and given that all of these already have that, they might well get it
too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

If the remainders get their way and a second referendum is held on
the outcome of the negotiations think what may happen if all the
existing EU rules are still in place and we have to pay just as much for
the
privilege. The politicians better have plan B at that time. By then they
may be thinking more about their political future in the next general
election!

Try looking at things from the EU side. To give in to the UK
opens a whole can of worms. Like other countries leaving
the EU for the same deal. And the EU isn't stupid.

But Britain is free to do without a free trade deal and trade under
the WTO rules just like all of the USA, China, India, Japan, Canada,
Australia etc etc etc all do fine.

The same arguments for the UK being better off outside
the EU apply to some other countries in the EU too.

Like hell it does with the countrys that receive
more from the EU than they pay the EU.

And with both France and Germany being the two countrys
that invented the EU, it is a tad unlikely that either of them
would want to leave and they don’t appear to actually be
stupid enough to have a referendum on leaving themselves.

RJH wrote
alan_m wrote
Rod Speed wrote

They are on what gets agreed with the EU to get free trade.

Countries outside of the EU that have trade deals don't require to have
free movement of people.

Of course - but the deals they have are carefully managed. Take Chinese
steel for example.

Didn’t happen with the free trade deals with Israel and Korea.

Free movement is simply part of the EU business model

Yes, but isnt included in any but 3 of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

- get cheap labour where it's needed to produce competitive goods.

The EU isnt about competitive goods, ever since the EU was
invented, the whole of the modern first world is completely
dominated by the service sector, not manufacturing anymore.

'Fortress Europe' wouldn't work any other way.

The EU isnt about Fortress Europe. If it was countrys like
Romania and Poland wouldn’t have been allowed to join.

UK workers are notoriously inert when it comes to moving to where the jobs
are - one thing we do lead the world in.

That mangles the real story too. British workers have in fact migrated
all over the world in a way that few other countrys have seen. There
are a few other countrys that have too like Norway, but not very many
at all. In fact americans migrate all over the world much less often.
Same with the Japanese.

Yes, there are also SOME groups in Britain that refuse
to move within the country, but plenty more like the
Scots and Irish and even the Welsh who do too.

No-one knows what will happen as negotiations haven't started but its
unlikely to be the worst scenario predicted by some on this group.

It is interesting - we'll see!

Yeah, but in a real sense like the Chinese curse, 'may you live in
interesting times'

Trade is a 2 way process and if, say, French farmers believe that they
may disadvantaged by a deal with the UK their form of protest by blocking
the roads to Paris may change politicians minds.

Again - should prove interesting.

Ditto.

On 10/07/2016 14:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
Free movement is simply part of the EU business model - get cheap labour
where it's needed to produce competitive goods. 'Fortress Europe'
wouldn't work any other way.

It is one of the four freedoms. Rather more than a 'business model'


I think the 'freedoms' are business propositions - freedom of movement
for *workers*.

--
Cheers, Rob

"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 10/07/2016 14:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
Free movement is simply part of the EU business model - get cheap labour
where it's needed to produce competitive goods. 'Fortress Europe'
wouldn't work any other way.

It is one of the four freedoms. Rather more than a 'business model'


I think the 'freedoms' are business propositions

Nope.

- freedom of movement for *workers*.

Not just for workers, anyone.

On 10/07/2016 20:44, Rod Speed wrote:
RJH wrote
alan_m wrote
Rod Speed wrote

They are on what gets agreed with the EU to get free trade.

Countries outside of the EU that have trade deals don't require to
have free movement of people.

Of course - but the deals they have are carefully managed. Take
Chinese steel for example.

Didn’t happen with the free trade deals with Israel and Korea.

Free movement is simply part of the EU business model

Yes, but isnt included in any but 3 of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements


'Free trade' is nothing of the sort - it's just an agreement in which
movement of labour is a part.

- get cheap labour where it's needed to produce competitive goods.

The EU isnt about competitive goods, ever since the EU was
invented, the whole of the modern first world is completely
dominated by the service sector, not manufacturing anymore.


Primary and secondary industry is still a huge sector.

'Fortress Europe' wouldn't work any other way.

The EU isnt about Fortress Europe. If it was countrys like
Romania and Poland wouldn’t have been allowed to join.


Well, I would argue it is. Poorer countries are allowed to join so that
they get in debt (and pay interest) to retool, then their economic
potential can be tapped (labour and materials). The top table EU
countries get the benefit of cheap labour, and access to an emerging
market. Plus one less 'competitor' in the world.

Certainly, there are social benefit arguments, as well as the practical
boundaries/movement. But overall, I think the EU was designed for business.

UK workers are notoriously inert when it comes to moving to where the
jobs are - one thing we do lead the world in.

That mangles the real story too. British workers have in fact migrated
all over the world in a way that few other countrys have seen. There
are a few other countrys that have too like Norway, but not very many
at all. In fact americans migrate all over the world much less often.
Same with the Japanese.

Yes, there are also SOME groups in Britain that refuse
to move within the country, but plenty more like the
Scots and Irish and even the Welsh who do too.


I would agree with the notable exceptions.

Reluctance to move to jobs is more something I've been told than know a
great deal about - it's a big part of planning theory and policy,
apparently. Same with consultation - we're near leaders in not
participating in making decisions, but moan after they're made.



--
Cheers, Rob

RJH wrote
Rod Speed wrote
RJH wrote
alan_m wrote
Rod Speed wrote

They are on what gets agreed with the EU to get free trade.

Countries outside of the EU that have trade deals don't require to have
free movement of people.

Of course - but the deals they have are carefully managed. Take Chinese
steel for example.

Didn’t happen with the free trade deals with Israel and Korea.

Free movement is simply part of the EU business model

Yes, but isnt included in any but 3 of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

'Free trade' is nothing of the sort

It is in the sense that no tariffs or dutys or quotas apply so some of the
trade.

- it's just an agreement in which movement of labour is a part.

There is no agreement on the movement of labour with all but 3 of those.

- get cheap labour where it's needed to produce competitive goods.

The EU isnt about competitive goods, ever since the EU was
invented, the whole of the modern first world is completely
dominated by the service sector, not manufacturing anymore.

Primary and secondary industry is still a huge sector.

'Fortress Europe' wouldn't work any other way.

The EU isnt about Fortress Europe. If it was countrys like
Romania and Poland wouldn’t have been allowed to join.

Well, I would argue it is.

More fool you.

Poorer countries are allowed to join so that they get in debt (and pay
interest) to retool, then their economic potential can be tapped (labour
and materials).

That isnt what the EU is about.

The top table EU countries get the benefit of cheap labour,

Some like France have plenty of cheap
labour without the EU providing that.

and access to an emerging market.

That isnt what the more recent additions are about.

Plus one less 'competitor' in the world.

And neither is that with the more recent additions.

Certainly, there are social benefit arguments, as well as the practical
boundaries/movement. But overall, I think the EU was designed for
business.

Doesn’t explain the CAP which is essentially
a hybrid welfare/agriculture system.

UK workers are notoriously inert when it comes to moving to where the
jobs are - one thing we do lead the world in.

That mangles the real story too. British workers have in fact migrated
all over the world in a way that few other countrys have seen. There are
a few other countrys that have too like Norway, but not very many at all.
In fact americans migrate all over the world much less often. Same with
the Japanese.

Yes, there are also SOME groups in Britain that refuse
to move within the country, but plenty more like the
Scots and Irish and even the Welsh who do too.

I would agree with the notable exceptions.

Reluctance to move to jobs is more something I've been told than know a
great deal about - it's a big part of planning theory and policy,
apparently. Same with consultation - we're near leaders in not
participating in making decisions, but moan after they're made.

That mangles the real story too. The Industrial Revolution
wouldn’t have happened if that was true, let alone the Empire.

In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 10/07/2016 14:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
Free movement is simply part of the EU business model - get cheap
labour where it's needed to produce competitive goods. 'Fortress
Europe' wouldn't work any other way.

It is one of the four freedoms. Rather more than a 'business model'


I think the 'freedoms' are business propositions - freedom of movement
for *workers*.

Actually read it. Workers may be in the title but the text mentions
citizens. It includes things like common basic human rights etc. Which is
one of the many things that the extreme right hate. People having rights.

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
RJH wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
RJH wrote

Free movement is simply part of the EU business model -
get cheap labour where it's needed to produce competitive
goods. 'Fortress Europe' wouldn't work any other way.

It is one of the four freedoms. Rather more than a 'business model'

I think the 'freedoms' are business propositions
- freedom of movement for *workers*.

Actually read it. Workers may be in the title but the text mentions
citizens. It includes things like common basic human rights etc.

Yes.

Which is one of the many things that the
extreme right hate. People having rights.

How odd that it was arguably one of the most extreme
right PMs you lot have ever had, Churchill, who actually
legislated for common basic human rights.

pamela wrote
Rod Speed wrote
pamela wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Nightjar wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Nightjar wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Nightjar wrote

Of course, we won't be able to test whether the
leave camp were right about what will happen,
as their predictions about how Britain will fare
post-Brexit were conspicuous by their absence.

Because they weren't silly enough to
try to predict the unpredictable...

Yet they were telling us that Britain would be better off
out of the EU. Are you saying that was simply blind faith?

Yet they were telling us that Britain would be better off
in the EU. Are you saying that was simply blind faith?

The people predicting that gave detailed reports,

From the same fools that had predicted that Britain would
be better in the eurozone and didn't manage to predict that
the the world would see the worst recession since the great
depression or that much of the world financial system
would implode in 2008. With a record like that anyone
with even half a clue would have noticed that it is pointless
trying to predict the unpredictable.

Vince Cable? He wasn't so brilliant in office.

Yeah, just another complete dud. Didn’t do
as much damage as that fool Brown tho.

Don't know about "complete dud".

I do.

Cable predicted the recession.

Anyone can predict a recession, you're
bound to be right sometime.

He never predicted the complete implosion of much of the
world financial system, again, or what caused that either.

Brown had contributed to it.

By stupidly deregulating the banks because he listened
to those so called 'experts' that all predicted that it was
the way to do, just like they are currently claiming that
it only makes sense to stay in the EU.

with figures, that anybody could check for themselves.

No one can check figures in a PREDICTION.

That was conspicuously missing from the leave campaign.

Because they weren't actually stupid/dishonest enough to
try to claim that it is possible to predict the unpredictable.

On 11/07/2016 11:06, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 10/07/2016 14:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
Free movement is simply part of the EU business model - get cheap
labour where it's needed to produce competitive goods. 'Fortress
Europe' wouldn't work any other way.

It is one of the four freedoms. Rather more than a 'business model'


I think the 'freedoms' are business propositions - freedom of movement
for *workers*.

Actually read it. Workers may be in the title but the text mentions
citizens. It includes things like common basic human rights etc. Which is
one of the many things that the extreme right hate. People having rights.


Yes, I know - the more cynical (me) might suggest that the wider
definition is a necessary inconvenience. I'd suggest that if there
wasn't a business case, it wouldn't be there - and that case is made by
freedom of movement for labour.

--
Cheers, Rob