OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[ramAnag]

[QUOTE=Andy_Faber;38585217]Economically, yes. But, and here's my Nick Clegg moment, TTR is right, its not why most leavers voted to leave. Maybe RR said it too. Ive mentioned before my facebook window on a world different to my own (I sound such a snob talking about class, but these are folk who think Ode To Joy is a perfume), and the anger was and still is about immigration, sovereignty and the size of the bill (yes £350m was a lie but there IS a bill), many of them have no concept of the kind of economics associated with Brexit, it fries my brain and I claim to be knowledgeable in that area.[/QUOTE

I'm aware we're in danger of just going round in circles, have been for a while actually, but this is so frustrating.
Swale is absolutely right to ask 'what exactly will Brexit have achieved'?
We may have been seen to 'stand up' to the bureaucracy and lack of democracy that I accept are too prevalent within the EU but their impact on our laws and legislation is tiny and in some instances actually clearly beneficial. Maybe we will move towards the free movement of 'labour' rather than 'people' and I can see the arguments in favour of that...but at what cost?
You, along with the mischievous Ramjet, accept that 'economically...yes' - times are going to get harder. Again to quote Swale, there are so many 'respected commentators' offering the same prognosis and yet for some bizarre reason we continue down this route of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

We just can't afford the cost of Brexit. Yes of course there is a bill for membership of the EU, just as there is for any 'club' but there are also numerous benefits. Don't be afraid of being labelled a 'snob'. It's not snobbery to wish to avoid being led by a bizarre alliance of social (though not intellectual) elitists such as Gove, Johnson and Rees Mogg and the half wits you describe on Facebook who think that any one who is 'pro-European' is a cowardly collaborator...it's common sense.

[Andy_Faber]

Ramanag Said 'I'm aware we're in danger of just going round in circles, have been for a while actually, but this is so frustrating. Maybe we will move towards the free movement of 'labour' rather than 'people' and I can see the arguments in favour of that...but at what cost?'


At what cost? Good question, and I’ve done a bit of cack-handed research on this (not Swale-proof, I can’t be bothered to cite sources)

To cut a long story short, those who’s mantra is ‘immigration is good for the economy’ are looking at things to simplistically, whether deliberately or not

The big measure of economic/producing wealth is GDP, but that is AGGREGATE wealth, so if a million immigrants arrived, there was one hard-worker and the rest were non-producing loafers, GDP would go up, but the measure of a person’s producing wealth, GDP Per Capita, would go down. So GDP per capita should be the measure

On balance, it looks like immigrants’ impact on GDPPA is about neutral, but being generous lets say it’s marginally positive. All good so far.

But then look at the distribution curve of GDPPA, and its evident that 85% of people sit below the average, ‘propped up’ by those evil bankers, amoral footballers, gob****ing pop stars and, being serious, (proper) engineers, doctors, other pointy heads and clever dicks etc.

So lets assume that such a curve also applies to immigrants. It probably doesn’t, all commentators seem to agree that many more are further down the curve, but let’s assume so.

On that basis, 85% of immigrants do not increase GDPPA because they would be contributing less than the average.
Using that line of reasoning, ‘the ‘cost’ of controlling/limiting immigration that you refer to (lets say reducing by 85%) is actually a benefit, if the 85% were turned away, GDP AND GDPPA would go UP.

And I’m not entrenched/callous/bigoted enough to suggest that this should be the single measure of a person’s chance of being allowed to come to UK, but what it would do is (in theory) satisfy both the little Englanders who want a drastic reduction in immigration come what may, and the soft lefties who use ‘benefit’ to justify their open arms policy.

I doubt TTR or Lily Allen would buy it, but you can’t please everyone.

[ramAnag]

Ramanag Said 'I'm aware we're in danger of just going round in circles, have been for a while actually, but this is so frustrating. Maybe we will move towards the free movement of 'labour' rather than 'people' and I can see the arguments in favour of that...but at what cost?'


At what cost? Good question, and I’ve done a bit of cack-handed research on this (not Swale-proof, I can’t be bothered to cite sources)

To cut a long story short, those who’s mantra is ‘immigration is good for the economy’ are looking at things to simplistically, whether deliberately or not

The big measure of economic/producing wealth is GDP, but that is AGGREGATE wealth, so if a million immigrants arrived, there was one hard-worker and the rest were non-producing loafers, GDP would go up, but the measure of a person’s producing wealth, GDP Per Capita, would go down. So GDP per capita should be the measure

On balance, it looks like immigrants’ impact on GDPPA is about neutral, but being generous lets say it’s marginally positive. All good so far.

But then look at the distribution curve of GDPPA, and its evident that 85% of people sit below the average, ‘propped up’ by those evil bankers, amoral footballers, gob****ing pop stars and, being serious, (proper) engineers, doctors, other pointy heads and clever dicks etc.

So lets assume that such a curve also applies to immigrants. It probably doesn’t, all commentators seem to agree that many more are further down the curve, but let’s assume so.

On that basis, 85% of immigrants do not increase GDPPA because they would be contributing less than the average.
Using that line of reasoning, ‘the ‘cost’ of controlling/limiting immigration that you refer to (lets say reducing by 85%) is actually a benefit, if the 85% were turned away, GDP AND GDPPA would go UP.

And I’m not entrenched/callous/bigoted enough to suggest that this should be the single measure of a person’s chance of being allowed to come to UK, but what it would do is (in theory) satisfy both the little Englanders who want a drastic reduction in immigration come what may, and the soft lefties who use ‘benefit’ to justify their open arms policy.

I doubt TTR or Lily Allen would buy it, but you can’t please everyone.

God, now I'm really confused. When you refer - a lot - to GDPPA do you actually mean GDPPC?
If you don't then I've honestly no idea what you're talking about...if you do then I've marginally more idea (my fault not yours) and actually do understand your conclusion.
It would also be completely impossible to satisfy both TTR and Lily Allen...but then who would ever try?

[roger_ramjet]

I dont think Id even want to try to satisfy either self opinionated bigot

[Trickytreesreds]

Oh er missus, I seem to have touched a nerve!

Your an ignorant xenophobic **** who posts false news whilst berating everyone who isn't white and born in England. Your exactly the type of **** that frankly we should urge the government to exile to some remote island that we own somewhere. No sane person would want to be associated with your twisted views.

I have proven you wrong so many times yet you still come back for more, either your a glutton for punishment or just thick!

You haven't a clue about history, your so called facts are gleaned from the gutter press or right wing sources with a clear agenda and frankly one does not have to know you to understand that the bile and exaggerated rubbish you spout is the sign of someone who clearly has a very low IQ and as you've just proved low self esteem!

Now piss off back to your own forum where it seems even your own kind think your a pathetic joke.

no sir, you and your ilk, in your protected countryside environment are what pisses me off.

NIMBYS, you don't see it or get it.

Not that I give a **** anyway.

You're a jelly fish, roll over, up the butt lover of collaboration going.
The French would have loved you in 1941

[Romanis]

no sir, you and your ilk, in your protected countryside environment are what pisses me off.

NIMBYS, you don't see it or get it.

Not that I give a **** anyway.

You're a jelly fish, roll over, up the butt lover of collaboration going.
The French would have loved you in 1941

By Jove he's still at it. Like a bad penny, he keeps regurgitating the usual looney bin rubbish.

[Trickytreesreds]

By Jove he's still at it. Like a bad penny, he keeps regurgitating the usual looney bin rubbish.

what the **** are you on about?

are you pro EU?

Or are you just another weak backed idiot who would sell their soul to the devil for a small return?

Baring in mind you don't even live here, makes you look a total prick here

[ramAnag]

what the **** are you on about?

are you pro EU?

Or are you just another weak backed idiot who would sell their soul to the devil for a small return?

Baring in mind you don't even live here, makes you look a total prick here

Jeez Tricky...I know Swale didn't cover himself in glory with his 'attack' on you but you calling Romanis as looking like a 'total prick' really is a case of pot, kettle and black. You and Swale wind each other up and it degenerates into boring and infantile name calling...others have at least tried to debate with you but now anyone who disagrees with your view is either a coward, a collaborator, a wuss, a tart, a cock, a jelly fish, a weak backed idiot or a quisling etc etc.
It's an adult debate not the 'kin playground. We argue, we debate, we disagree...that's the point...get a grip.

[Andy_Faber]

God, now I'm really confused. When you refer - a lot - to GDPPA do you actually mean GDPPC?
If you don't then I've honestly no idea what you're talking about...if you do then I've marginally more idea (my fault not yours) and actually do understand your conclusion.
It would also be completely impossible to satisfy both TTR and Lily Allen...but then who would ever try?

yes sorry it should be GDPPC (per capita), this ****ing website kept locking up and eventually wouldn't let me edit even though I saw the error straight away.

Nice rebuke of TTR by the way

[Trickytreesreds]

Jeez Tricky...I know Swale didn't cover himself in glory with his 'attack' on you but you calling Romanis as looking like a 'total prick' really is a case of pot, kettle and black. You and Swale wind each other up and it degenerates into boring and infantile name calling...others have at least tried to debate with you but now anyone who disagrees with your view is either a coward, a collaborator, a wuss, a tart, a cock, a jelly fish, a weak backed idiot or a quisling etc etc.
It's an adult debate not the 'kin playground. We argue, we debate, we disagree...that's the point...get a grip.

Rubbish, Romanis lives in the far east. Yet thinks he understands everything that goes on here.
So sorry Ramanag, he got both barrels and deserved it

[ramAnag]

Rubbish, Romanis lives in the far east. Yet thinks he understands everything that goes on here.
So sorry Ramanag, he got both barrels and deserved it

That's at least two people you've 'dissed' tonight based just on where they live. If that's really what you think this is all about then fine, but I'll stick to arguing with the grown ups.

[swaledale]

no sir, you and your ilk, in your protected countryside environment are what pisses me off.

NIMBYS, you don't see it or get it.

Not that I give a **** anyway.

You're a jelly fish, roll over, up the butt lover of collaboration going.
The French would have loved you in 1941

Ok lets look at some of your laughable posts!

Take your xenophobic rant about the Germans, as if the generation today were responsible for what happened in 1939 - mind you your clearly of the same ilk and If a Uk equivalent to Hitler had been around you would have been an ardent follower. - and if your going to start blaming sons and daughters for the sins of their fathers, I take it your willing to shoulder the blame for the UK's empire and disastrous interference in the middle east, which rather neatly has led to the immigration "problem" you seem so worked up about!


your phrase "we whooped them in them in 1945"

So whose the we? Britain? the British? Take a closer look at history, the only reason we did not follow the French is due to 22 miles of sea between us and europe.

What is more you sneer at the French for collaborating, (although thats a sweeping statement) but you should know that there were significant sections of UK society who would have snuggled up to and welcomed Hitler if he had managed to invade and take over this country!

As for whooping them, two facts make that claim a lie, one Hitler's mistake in attacking Russia and opening up a second front and secondly the little matter of the USA providing the materials and manpower, without which "we" would have done diddly squat.

But there again, why bother debating with someone so far adrift of reality and so full of bile and bigotry? I ceased years ago, even Angram, who is usually even handed was getting cheesed off with you!

Frankly your a waste of breath!

[swaledale]

Jeez Tricky...I know Swale didn't cover himself in glory with his 'attack' on you but you calling Romanis as looking like a 'total prick' really is a case of pot, kettle and black. You and Swale wind each other up and it degenerates into boring and infantile name calling...others have at least tried to debate with you but now anyone who disagrees with your view is either a coward, a collaborator, a wuss, a tart, a cock, a jelly fish, a weak backed idiot or a quisling etc etc.
It's an adult debate not the 'kin playground. We argue, we debate, we disagree...that's the point...get a grip.

I tell it like it is, FFS! There is opinion and then there is the crap that this guy posts, there is a point AR when even you must shift your arse off the fence and agree that debating with someone who is spouting false xenophobic bigotry is pointless.

[swaledale]

what the **** are you on about?

are you pro EU?

Or are you just another weak backed idiot who would sell their soul to the devil for a small return?

Baring in mind you don't even live here, makes you look a total prick here

Pot and kettle springs to mind!

[ramAnag]

I tell it like it is, FFS! There is opinion and then there is the crap that this guy posts, there is a point AR when even you must shift your arse off the fence and agree that debating with someone who is spouting false xenophobic bigotry is pointless.

Hmmm...'tell it like it is'? You tell it like it is...to you. There's a not too subtle difference.
As for shifting my 'arse of the fence'...a little unfair imo, especially from someone who repeatedly boasts about how much money he's making out of Brexit.
I remain completely opposed to Brexit. I remain completely opposed to racism, xenophobia and bigotry and I loathe UKIP, the BNP and religious extremists of any persuasion...that unequivocal enough for you?
I also happen to believe that you change minds by process of reasoned debate not by resorting to name calling and abuse.
My only rule on here is not to write something I wouldn't say to someone's face...otherwise there's a risk of becoming a bit of a 'keyboard warrior' imo.
As for the debate as a whole...there's a reason that we're in this mess and a large part of that reason is that no one took any notice of the growing resentment of poorer folk in certain areas of the country who felt increasingly resentful and disenfranchised as a result of becoming a 'minority' within their own community. I don't blame immigrants for that but it is an issue which needs addressing and there is no point remaining in denial - as politicians on all sides have been inclined to be - any longer.