BREXIT positives and negatives

796 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, Keleth said:

Ah the old I could explain it but I don´t want to answer.

Not true, I already have answered, look back as I suggested!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cb6dba said:

Yep, you have to ask how FoM depressed wages when we had more open jobs than workers all these years.

Amazing isn't it. If you do not agree that UK wages had  been depressed all those years then prove me wrong!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, keith2011 said:

Not true, I already have answered, look back as I suggested!

 

1 hour ago, keith2011 said:

Amazing isn't it. If you do not agree that UK wages had  been depressed all those years then prove me wrong!

Amazing isn't it, you didn't want to talk about it, now you do. Also amazing that you have made a statement and are asking people to disprove you. We've seen enough of the over on the covid threads.

 

Let's just chalk it up, or crayon it, or even better, i'll do you a picture or what's going on with you..

 

butt_hurt.JPG.75fefc14ec78ddaabb9d32e45c

 

(over what, we can only guess)..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the biggest tragedy from ending FoM is depriving millions of Brits (mainly young) the chance of moving freely, working and settling in Europe, that we (and that includes all the Brits on this Forum), have benefitted from.  And that includes the freedom to study in Europe, who now have to apply to an Embassy for a visa. I would imagine if a policy of stopping FoM amongst European states was put forward, most here would be aghast. They see it as part of their birthright.  That , and many economic sectors here in Germany would be facing collapse. 

 

As far as the impact on the rest of the UK, FoM was something largely hyped up by the tabloid press and the usual suspect politicians.  All the cr@p about EU workers coming over taking our jobs, was shown up for the humbug it was, when the vacancies for lorry drivers, fruit pickers, NHS staff etc.remain unfilled. And even the stuff about them putting a strain on the NHS was twaddle , when you consider that most of the European workers were youngish, whereas more Brits in Europe are of an age where medical treatment is more likely.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, alexunterwegs said:

I think the biggest tragedy from ending FoM is depriving millions of Brits (mainly young) the chance of moving freely, working and settling in Europe, that we (and that includes all the Brits on this Forum), have benefitted from.  And that includes the freedom to study in Europe, who now have to apply to an Embassy for a visa. I would imagine if a policy of stopping FoM amongst European states was put forward, most here would be aghast. They see it as part of their birthright.  That , and many economic sectors here in Germany would be facing collapse. 

 

As far as the impact on the rest of the UK, FoM was something largely hyped up by the tabloid press and the usual suspect politicians.  All the cr@p about EU workers coming over taking our jobs, was shown up for the humbug it was, when the vacancies for lorry drivers, fruit pickers, NHS staff etc.remain unfilled. And even the stuff about them putting a strain on the NHS was twaddle , when you consider that most of the European workers were youngish, whereas more Brits in Europe are of an age where medical treatment is more likely.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm still wanting for people who wanted an end to FoM to take all those jobs now left empty.

Apparently the wages have gone up loads, strange no one is jumping at the chance.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, cb6dba said:

Amazing isn't it, you didn't want to talk about it, now you do. Also amazing that you have made a statement and are asking people to disprove you. We've seen enough of the over on the covid threads.

 

Let's just chalk it up, or crayon it, or even better, i'll do you a picture or what's going on with you..

 

Typical, rhetoric, diversion and quotes from others but no facts! Come on prove me wrong if you can.

But no you are all mouth and no trousers with juvenile insults!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, keith2011 said:

 

Typical, rhetoric, diversion and quotes from others but no facts! Come on prove me wrong if you can.

But no you are all mouth and no trousers with juvenile insults!

Ah, the call of "prove me wrong".. You make a statement, add no facts or proof and then ask for other people to provide you with proof you are wrong.

It's nice to see proof that an inability to to provide any kind of evidence to back up a statement isn't just limited to covid.

 

Now I wandered back to page 31/32 expecting to see your proof, but there wasn't any. There were serious butt hurt comments from you about  french people and Merkel kissing butts (I think Freud has that kind of slip covered) but zero, zero, I'll say it again, zero proof. You saying other posters comments were BS in a similar way to how you are posting now. A pattern of comment, reply, comment, reply, dummy flies out because people keep discussing. Why, this whole discussion started as you couldn't handle my comments about the UK government. 

 

All you are doing is trying to get other people to provide proof as you haven't got any. It's a standard on the back foot tactic and to be honest, you're not that good at it.

You say juvenile, I'd say nail on the head. I even picked that one as thought of you trying to think about your next reply when looking at the picture...

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, cb6dba said:

All you are doing is trying to get other people to provide proof as you haven't got any. It's a standard on the back foot tactic and to be honest, you're not that good at it.

 

Then at the risk of repeating myself from not so long ago take a look at this, which by the way was part of an exchange in which you contributed but you seem to have forgotten!

So go on prove me wrong!

 

On 13/10/2021, 15:36:53, keith2011 said:

But this is what the people in the street were seeing :-

fb.jpg.022b579b151519bd1cfda13673389dcf.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/382695/uk-foodbank-users/

 
and this
pay.jpg.dbf179b29456a403d0112d26d19d7557
 
 
 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, keith2011 said:

 

Then at the risk of repeating myself from not so long ago take a look at this, which by the way was part of an exchange in which you contributed but you seem to have forgotten!

So go on prove me wrong!

 

 

That could easily be down to the economic downturn over those 20 years. Didn't we have a financial crisis or two over that time? Maybe you have forgotten.

All you have done there is see wage data, pick a potential cause and decide that is the reason. If wages were being depressed, why do they go up, and then down, and then up? They actually dropped to one of their lowest levels after the 2016 referendum (and recently), they only climbed back up recently and look to be going down again. 

 

A lot of people who use food banks are working in industries with a shortfall of workers, health etc. I think most people would understand that if FoM created a situation where there were more workers than jobs, wages would fall. How can FoM be responsible if there are open jobs? That is more likely down to what the a given industry sector is willing to pay. In the case of health, the government pay so much for a given job, they don't seem to care if the NHS is understaffed or not, they seem more concerned about the budget than health.

We could also say that the increase in food banks is down to austerity imposed by the conservatives. 

This is "Ug sneezed, sun came up, Ug is sun god" stuff.

 

Those graphs are not proof, you have inferred an opinion on them, dressed it up in it's Sunday clothes and tried to sell it as fact. Then again, this was all said before, nothing new to see here. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cb6dba said:

That could easily be down to the economic downturn over those 20 years.

 

I think you will find that the UK was having something of a boom from 2000 up until the Finance crisis of 2007/8 but wages fell, explain that.

2 hours ago, cb6dba said:

How can FoM be responsible if there are open jobs? That is more likely down to what the a given industry sector is willing to pay.

 

Wasn't it you who said you knew people back in the UK who were out of work but refused to take low paid jobs? For FOM workers from the eastern EU those low paid jobs were still attractive and employers took the advantage.

2 hours ago, cb6dba said:

Those graphs are not proof, you have inferred an opinion on them, dressed it up in it's Sunday clothes and tried to sell it as fact.

 

The graphs are fact and they do support my opinion. Your opinion on the other hand is completely lacking in any kind of support except your own empty rhetoric.

2 hours ago, cb6dba said:

Then again, this was all said before, nothing new to see here. 

 

Indeed which is precisely why I was reluctant to return to it was but it was you who wouldn't let it rest!

 

And here is a picture from me of what's going on with you:-

external-content.duckduckgo.com.jpg.8c76

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, keith2011 said:

 

I think you will find that the UK was having something of a boom from 2000 up until the Finance crisis of 2007/8 but wages fell, explain that.

 

Wasn't it you who said you knew people back in the UK who were out of work but refused to take low paid jobs? For FOM workers from the eastern EU those low paid jobs were still attractive and employers took the advantage.

 

The graphs are fact and they do support my opinion. Your opinion on the other hand is completely lacking in any kind of support except your own empty rhetoric.

 

Indeed which is precisely why I was reluctant to return to it was but it was you who wouldn't let it rest!

 

And here is a picture from me of what's going on with you:-

external-content.duckduckgo.com.jpg.8c76

 

Lots of words, lots of butt hurt, zero facts, zero evidence beyond what you want them to say.

The low paid jobs were the ones that are there now, so you are now saying the jobs are low paid? Getting yourself in a bit of a twist in the haste to get an answer out eh?

Wagers fell after financial crisis, yep, that would explain it. So you're now saying it was the financial crisis that drove down wages? That's just what I said, you are now agreeing with me. Totally in a twist. Contradicting yourself,, great stuff.

Taking notice of what I've said in other posts, getting invested, yep, butt hurt is there. I'm guessing this whole conversation hasn't gone as you'd liked, that's why you are getting annoyed, bit red in the face. 

 

Self portrait to boot. Although I'd have thought your Y-fronts would have a been a bit more soiled.

 

0

Share this post


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

So surely the number of people using food banks should have dropped this year rather than shot up yet again?

 

That food bank data is only up to May 21 and I haven't found anything newer so given the loss of earnings during the UK lockdowns, as shown on the earnings graphs, I don't think that is at all surprising. We will have to wait a while to see if there is an improvement when more data from this year is included.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Keleth said:

So surely the number of people using food banks should have dropped this year rather than shot up yet again?

 

For there to be any correlation between the two graphs, the trends would have to match in some way.

The wage trend is up and down, the foodbank trend goes up. Add in that wages are only one factor in if people need food banks (prices and the local cost of living are also factors) and the data is pretty much useless for examining if FoM depressed wages. What people on the street see is what they see, what matters is what is causing it. For that you need relevant data. What we have here isn't (at least by itself).    

 

I've mentioned four possible factors/indicators, only two of which are presented here. I'd also guess that there are other factors involved, industry sector, employment contract etc. We have no information if any of the data collected for the graphs are from any area where immigrant workers make up a share of the work force, what percentage they are etc. Was that data even collected?

 

To look at the trends in the graphs and say "that's got to be FoM" is a jump only possible when someone is looking for data to prove what they think. 

It's the same tactic as as looking to prove that refugees increase crime in an area. You see that crime has increased over time and you blame refugees for it. No need to bother looking at the statistics on the actual people prosecuted, no need to look at any given areas, types of crime, just the overall number and any increase.

 

What will be interesting is if foodbank usage goes up as these wages rise. If the claim that FoM has depressed wages is correct, then wages will rise in those areas, not across the board. As those wages rise so will the expense of producing that given areas product.  If no one else in that chain gets a wage increase, then they effectively have less buying power. If that drops significantly (which it will if FoM was such a big problem and companies do not just absorb the extra cost)  then foobank usage could still continue to rise. Which makes that graph in this context absolutely useless. Add in that unemployed people also use foodbanks and the graph can be thrown in the bin. 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Channel migrants: Macron rounds on Johnson in boat crossings row

Emmanuel Macron has reacted angrily to Boris Johnson's public call for France to take back migrants who reach the UK.

The French President accused the UK prime minister of not being "serious" by making the call on Twitter, after the deaths of 27 people on Wednesday.

And his spokesman accused Mr Johnson of "double talk" for saying something different to Mr Macron privately.

The diplomatic row erupted after France withdrew a summit invitation to Home Secretary Priti Patel.

Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Germany and the European Commission are due to attend Sunday's talks.

0

Share this post


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

The French President accused the UK prime minister of not being "serious"

In his letter to Macron (shared with everyone via the well known diplomatic channel of Twitter) BJ was implying that there was an understanding that ALL of the immigrants (I think he was using the expression "victims of human trafficking") would be returned to France. I can't imagine anything like that was actually agreed.

Of course, after shouting about wanting to be in control of its own borders, getting that control, then immediately asking someone else to do it for him sounds a bit daft.

 

0

Share this post


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

In his letter to Macron (shared with everyone via the well known diplomatic channel of Twitter) BJ was implying that there was an understanding that ALL of the immigrants (I think he was using the expression "victims of human trafficking") would be returned to France. I can't imagine anything like that was actually agreed.

Of course, after shouting about wanting to be in control of its own borders, getting that control, then immediately asking someone else to do it for him sounds a bit daft.

 

I think you have hit a nail on the head there.

 

"An understanding", a topic where international agreements are in place (as well as international law), BJ implies there is an agreement. Nothing written down, nothing was discussed, but an understanding. There was an agreement when we were in the EU, but we left, now that doesn't cover us.

From the brexit campaign, you'd have thought it would have become easier. We were supposed to get control of our borders, seems we need the french for that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now