Would make a change for you to quote someone serious rather than a Lewk-like clown.
Printable View
Would make a change for you to quote someone serious rather than a Lewk-like clown.
https://politwoops.eu/p/unknown/DanielJHannan?page=1Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I only had the patience to go back to page 10. I don't think that was the end of it. If you like a summary:
https://www.newstatesman.com/2017/02...re-are-13-them
And this prime example shows him for the tiny Goebbels he is:
https://twitter.com/GeorgePeretzQC/s...20544531718144
Is this the same Hannan who said "but to repeat, absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market"?
And https://infacts.org/dan-hannans-problem-truth/
LOL, like when you were squeezing the life blood out of your colonies you mean? You will not become the Singapore of Europe for the simple reason we will not let you.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by gogobongopop
Neither will British voters. The party that proposes a unilateral waiver of all tariffs will be voted out. In addition to voters having a hard-on for mild protectionism, there's the problem that abolishing all tariffs across the board significantly reduces a country's leverage and maneuvering space in trade negotiations, forcing greater concessions on things like immigration etc, which would definitely not be popular in a post-Brexit Britain that has already demonstrated its desire to reduce immigration by an order of magnitude in two different elections. RB is out of touch
Lewkian clowns are no longer the irrelevant fringe. They are the princes and gentry of the new western idiocracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
That of course is also true; the British electorate isn't going to sit by as the Tories destroy the last parts of manufacturing in the UK. But I didn't feel I should talk on their behalf.
You can't stop us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
You can and will stop yourselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Yet in the real world nations that have unilaterally cut protectionism like Singapore and New Zealand have thrived. It also makes goods cheaper so that people can buy more from their income and they are thus richer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
With a government that's too afraid to try absolutely. Won't stop me campaigning for one that does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Just try.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Love it if we could. The beauty of unilateral actions is they only take one party to agree.
You can no more stop us being the Singapore of Europe than Asian blocs like the USSR/China could stop Singapore being the Singapore of Asia.
We actually don't need to. You'll rip yourselves apart long before.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I mean, you cannot even handle Brexit. And then you tell us that you'll thrive on the next lunacy. Heh. As if.
NZ hasn't abolished all tariffs. You can easily confirm this. Singapore's economy and society are different from the UK's and specifically from Little England's.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
It's a pipe dream. The British public would sooner agree to liberalize immigration rules than to unilaterally abolish all tariffs. It has nothing to do with timidity. A govt would not get a majority for such a policy in parliament and the party that goes to election on such a platform will lose said election.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Well, to be Singapoore they'd not only have to scrap most tariffs, but they'd also have to liberalize immigration to the point where they create almost free movement for the entire world. No doubt Randy will now declare that's what he voted for, denying that a lot of his 'out' majority mostly want the 'Pakis and Polaks' out.
No but NZ has abolished most of them and has a far more liberal policy than we do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Singapore's economy and society are more successful than ours I agree. One of the worlds safest, more successful, wealthiest, highest educated nations with 90% of the population owning their own home - gee how awful!
So we can't abolish tariffs with nations like America or poor nations in Asia yet you reckon not only should we abolish all tariffs with Germany and poor nations across Europe but that we should pay billions a year for the privilege of doing so.Quote:
It's a pipe dream. The British public would sooner agree to liberalize immigration rules than to unilaterally abolish all tariffs. It has nothing to do with timidity. A govt would not get a majority for such a policy in parliament and the party that goes to election on such a platform will lose said election.
I don't have to "now declare" it, I have said clearly and consistently all along my views on migration. Find one thing I've ever written that is inconsistent with their policies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
This is obviously not the same as unilaterally abolishing all tariffs. Because important tariffs remain, NZ can use them in trade negotiations by offering to make concessions on tariffs rather than on their regulatory practices.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
This is stupid and you make yourself look stupid by presenting this asinine argument. Singapore is different wrt size, geography, resources, demographics, structure of economy etc. What works for Singapore isn't likely to work for you, politically or economically. The argument you're making is akin to saying that what works politically and economically for a particularly affluent part of London will work as is for all of England or the UK. This is stupid.Quote:
Singapore's economy and society are more successful than ours I agree. One of the worlds safest, more successful, wealthiest, highest educated nations with 90% of the population owning their own home - gee how awful!
This has very little to do with what I wrote. You can in theory unilaterally waive all tariffs, but your voters wouldn't let you, and doing so would remove much of the leverage you'd need to have in your future trade negotiations.Quote:
So we can't abolish tariffs with nations like America or poor nations in Asia yet you reckon not only should we abolish all tariffs with Germany and poor nations across Europe but that we should pay billions a year for the privilege of doing so.
This has little to do with your present EU membership. The EU's greatest accomplishment wasnt simply a removal of tariffs but the harmonization of disparate markets and the elimination of non-tariff barriers. The money you pay helps sustain and develop that large integrated market, and you get far more back from that market--and the others you access through the EU's deals--than you pay in. You will not conclude a completely tariff-free and fully harmonizing trade agreement with the US, China, India, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Japan or any of your other fantasy Tradr hookups. Every single one of those deals, when they are finally concluded years from now, will be less beneficial wrt trade than your current deals with and through the EU. The US and SK in particular are likely to wring many more concessions out of you than vice versa.
Re. poor countries, most of the world's poorest countries have tariff free or nearly tariff free access to our market.
It is ridiculous to claim that you voted for that when such drastic loosening of immigration restrictions were never on any ballot and your govt. ran on a platform promising to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands.Quote:
I don't have to "now declare" it, I have said clearly and consistently all along my views on migration. Find one thing I've ever written that is inconsistent with their policies.
Oh but Randy isn't responsible for that, his vote magically only touches the things he likes.
My government under Remain-backing PM David Cameron and Remain-backing Home Secretary then PM Theresa May did indeed pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands.
Vote Leave did not. Its arguments were about controlling migration and treating people (whether born in Europe or other continents) equally. I approve of the latter far more than the former. Don't you?
We're talking about the UK becoming "the Singapore of Europe" by significantly loosening immigration restrictions. Vote Leave did not campaign on any such promises and Tories have reiterated their commitment to reducing immigration to the tens of thousands since Cameron resigned, which is appropriate because that's what a majority of Little Englanders want. In conclusion, you didn't vote to loosen restrictions on immigration; you voted with people who demanded the opposite, and you voted for a govt. that agreed to oblige these xenophobes.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No you misunderstand either through ignorance or wilfully. The proposal is for the UK to be the "Singapore of Europe" by slashing or abolishing tariffs and dramatically reducing corporation tax rates. Become the clear friendliest place in Europe to do business. Migration has been a factor in Singapore's success but its also been a factor in ours with our massive net inwards migration that continues to this day. Incidentally Singapore itself in recent years has been tightening and not loosening migration controls too.
Also Singapore has dramatically different welfare etc issues with migration than are permissible in the EU. Under EU rules people who migrate to the UK can take advantage of the UK's welfare system then send welfare cheques home. Cameron sought to get that changed in his renegotiation and failed. Under Singapore's rules people who migrate to Singapore do so to work and support themselves, they pay taxes and don't take benefits. Not only do I have no qualms with the latter nor do most Brits.
So, you're going to be the Singapore of Europe by being entirely different than Singapore.
Oh, and about what Cameron tried to do was to burden all of the EU with a home spun problem in the UK. The UK could have solved the problem by sensible legislation at home. But your chickenshit PM rather lay the blame at the feet of the rest of the EU. That's why he didn't get anything.
Now take your pathetic island and get the fuck out.
Away from the far-right ravings that Hazir and Aimless seem to swim in our new Home Secretary introduces a new liberalised visa scheme to make it easier to attract migrants: http://www.cityam.com/287463/home-se...-start-up-visa
Paywall.
Is that introduced now? As in - whilst we're in the EU? Or is it going to be implemented thereafter?
It's not paywalled, you just need to disable AdBlock on that site (at least I did).
Article says it will be introduced Spring 2019. So after we leave I guess but during the transition.
Lipstick on a pig.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8383311.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
What a perversion that we have a cap on non-EU skilled workers to make up for the uncapped EU unskilled workers. The sooner this anomaly is consigned to the history books the better, I think Javid can do it especially if May goes.Quote:
However, he was unable to obtain a certificate of sponsorship from his employer because the UK had already reached the cap on non-European Union workers.
Good news :up:Quote:
And it comes after Mr Javid pledged to take a “fresh look” at the cap on the number of foreign doctors after it emerged more than 1,500 visa applications from doctors with job offers in the UK were refused as a result of the cap on the number of tier 2 visas issued to workers from outside the European Economic Area.
That's an idiocy entirely of your own doing. Don't blame the EU for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No-one forced you to cap skilled migration; you chose to do so yourselves, perhaps because Little Englanders became infatuated with the thought of cutting immigration by an order of magnitude. Most immigrants in the UK are not from EU countries--net migration from non-EU countries has dwarfed that from EU countries for the past few decades. Half of the ones from the EU have a guaranteed job, and a fifth are students--these ratios are reversed for non-EU migrants. 60% of migrants in low-skilled jobs come from non-EU countries. If you believe your long-standing immigration policies are perverse, you should remember that they are so because they reflect the fantasies and fears and wishes of the British public.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Given that the last decades' cockups were entirely unforced it's pretty naive to expect the HO to improve substantially, especially in the next few years when it'll be busy dealing with the fallout from Brexit.Quote:
Good news :up:
I didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
I'd like to see a source for those figures. Given that 93% of the world's population is non-EU then we should expect non-EU migration to dwarf EU migration by a factor of roughly 13:1 if all else were equal, that's not remotely the case though. This attitude of yours though is precisely why the ratchet has been tightened on non-EU migration because EU migration can't be dealt with then people point to non-EU migration which is a moronic shame. Treat everybody equally and quit viewing people as "EU" or "non-EU" and instead view them as "skilled" vs "unskilled".Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Though as I've repeatedly posted post-Brexit Britain's attitudes to migration is improving significantly despite small-minded people like yourself refusing to acknowledge it. :up: Liberal Britain out of the EU is better than closed-Britain inside it.Quote:
Given that the last decades' cockups were entirely unforced it's pretty naive to expect the HO to improve substantially, especially in the next few years when it'll be busy dealing with the fallout from Brexit.
Boom! Seriously, Javid for PM!
Twitter Link
Rumours that next step is excluding students from net migration numbers. Seriously starting to see sane reforms to migration at last - more doctors, nurses and students yes please.
says the man whose vote has made the number of people in all three categories plummet.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No I haven't the problem was that the numbers were so high they had reached the cap. My vote has helped redirect attention and get that fixed so they can increase further.
In your wet dreams maybe.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I guess you missed the news, I understand it must be confusing to your small mind that Tories here could be liberalising our migration in the appropriate areas while your CSU/CDU are at a brink of war over tighening yours but maybe educate yourself on what's happening here before you spout off.
This is the thread about your idiocies, thankyouverymuch. You're welcome to open another thread if that CDU/CSU debacle matters to you that much.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
But we're not being idiotic as much as you project your own problems onto us.
Liberalising skilled migration especially for doctors is a good thing, shame you are so full of anger that you can't acknowledge a good thing when it happens.
With the way you're systematically underfunding the NHS you'll be lucky to retain any of those immigrants (if(!) there is an actual meaningful upswing). It's one thing to hire people. It's another thing altogether to get them to stay.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade