Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Johnny Bognor]

In terms of the EU migrants contributions, there are a number of things to consider...

 

One of these, which aside of earnings and tax, is the money that is taken out of the economy and sent to the country of origin.

 

In my business, the shop floor is 100% staffed by eastern Europeans. Their work ethic is exemplary. They earn good wages and pay tax.

 

But a significant proportion save money to take back with them. We had an Estonian account manager on 27k a year. She was brilliant. Over 8 years she saved enough to build a house for cash back in Estonia. So whilst she paid her dues, her net income didn't end up in our economy...

 

Not sure if this drain of cash is taken into account..

Edited 17 January, 2017 by Johnny Bognor

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

So is Nigel Farage.

 

Not on this scale

 

https://order-order.com/2016/05/13/eu-paid-e160-million-to-pro-remain-groups/

[shurlock]

Not on this scale

 

https://order-order.com/2016/05/13/eu-paid-e160-million-to-pro-remain-groups/

 

You're making a fool of yourself and becoming a parody of baldrick.

 

Surprise, surprise, that source is factually incorrect. As a case in point, the IFS does not receive funding from the European Commission but from the European Research Council, an arms-length, independent body which funds cutting-edge academic research -and is one of the ways in which the UK's budget contribution is used. Indeed May expressed her hope that collaboration in the area of scientific research would continue, testimony to the value it generates.

Either way, it forms only a small part of the IFS income.

 

Try and learn the difference between research and policy.

Edited 17 January, 2017 by shurlock

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

You're making a fool of yourself and becoming a parody of baldrick.

 

Surprise, surprise, that source is factually incorrect. As a case in point, the IFS does not receive funding from the European Commission but from the European Research Council, an arms-length, independent body which funds cutting-edge academic research -and is one of the ways in which the UK's budget contribution is used. Indeed May expressed her hope that collaboration in the area of academic research would continue, testimony to the value it generates.

 

Either way, it forms only a small part of its income.

 

Try and learn the difference between research and policy.

 

All the sources factually incorrect apart from yours which was written by Europhiles for an outspoken institution supporting remain.

[Winnersaint]

So victory for the small minded, the self interested, the thick and racist bigots.

[Batman]

So victory for the small minded, the self interested, the thick and racist bigots.

And it is views like this that helped to make it happen

 

You helped to make brexit happen. Congrats

[saint1977]

All the sources factually incorrect apart from yours which was written by Europhiles for an outspoken institution supporting remain.

 

That is such a 'myth' of Portsmouth FC proportions (and after your last 'myth' claiming they were EU-funded) it has to be refuted. I've worked with the ESRC in the past and it is very independent. In fact, it's private poll a couple of days before the referendum predicted a 52/48 Brexit outcome. One of it's leading scholars it funds, John Curtiss also got the 2015 election result correct (hence the Ashdown hat-eating quote).

 

Today's speech was not a surprise re: Single Market. However, if the UK is to have a chance to prosper as a fully developed, innovation and technology-driven economy, our science and R&D base (ranging from environmental technologies, manufacturing to social sciences and heritage) has to be helped to mitigate the worst impacts.

 

Thankfully, with May's comments today on this, and Hammond's autumn statement. this appears to indeed be a priority.

[Winnersaint]

And it is views like this that helped to make it happen

 

You helped to make brexit happen. Congrats

 

Genuinely interested, how so?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

That is such a 'myth' of Portsmouth FC proportions (and after your last 'myth' claiming they were EU-funded) it has to be refuted. I've worked with the ESRC in the past and it is very independent. In fact, it's private poll a couple of days before the referendum predicted a 52/48 Brexit outcome. One of it's leading scholars it funds, John Curtiss also got the 2015 election result correct (hence the Ashdown hat-eating quote).

 

Today's speech was not a surprise re: Single Market. However, if the UK is to have a chance to prosper as a fully developed, innovation and technology-driven economy, our science and R&D base (ranging from environmental technologies, manufacturing to social sciences and heritage) has to be helped to mitigate the worst impacts.

 

Thankfully, with May's comments today on this, and Hammond's autumn statement. this appears to indeed be a priority.

 

I would maintain that if you ask people who back one side to write a report then it will lose some of its integrity. Maybe my rhetoric about EU funding was a little Daily Mail, you are obviously better qualified than me to say but LSE backed Remain vocally and as I understand it is funded by the EU. I can appreciate that questioning the ESRC's independence would be offensive to you. I understand that there is a difference between having a bias in opinion within an organisation and that organisation having an agenda in its research findings.

[Lord Duckhunter]

So victory for the small minded, the self interested, the thick and racist bigots.

 

This is what makes victory even sweeter. Snowflakes reacting like this, really put the icing on the cake

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guided Missile]

Today's speech was not a surprise re: Single Market. However, if the UK is to have a chance to prosper as a fully developed, innovation and technology-driven economy, our science and R&D base (ranging from environmental technologies, manufacturing to social sciences and heritage) has to be helped to mitigate the worst impacts.

 

Thankfully, with May's comments today on this, and Hammond's autumn statement. this appears to indeed be a priority.

Spot on...and for me, the help needed is not financial but regulatory.

[shurlock]

I would maintain that if you ask people who back one side to write a report then it will lose some of its integrity. Maybe my rhetoric about EU funding was a little Daily Mail, you are obviously better qualified than me to say but LSE backed Remain vocally and as I understand it is funded by the EU. I can appreciate that questioning the ESRC's independence would be offensive to you. I understand that there is a difference between having a bias in opinion within an organisation and that organisation having an agenda in its research findings.

 

 

Regarding the report

 

Rinse and repeat:

 

"The Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) is a politically independent Research Centre at the London School of Economics. The CEP has no institutional views, only those of its individual researchers. Professor John Van Reenen, who was CEP's director from 2003 to the summer of 2016, did not (and does not) support joining the Euro. CEP's Brexit work is funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the UK Economic and Social Research Council. As a whole the CEP, receives less than 5% of its funding from the European Union. The EU funding is from the European Research Council for academic projects and not for general funding or consultancy".

 

In the other corner we have Guido's blog and Migration Watch Pathetic.

[Jonnyboy]

That evidence depends on who you choose to believe.

 

So you really cannot see any correlation between the fact more people are coming to the country and thus using the NHS and the fact that the NHS is under pressure? Do you think that if our population fell by 330,000 each year then there would be the same amount of people using the NHS?

 

I will of course acknowledge that an ageing population and a knackered care system play their part!

 

You again make the assumption that you are either for or against migration - that could not be further from the truth, migration is a wonderful thing. Uncontrolled migration is scary.

 

Evidence is not about who you believe.

 

Sergei has had enough of experts!

[Winnersaint]

This is what makes victory even sweeter. Snowflakes reacting like this, really put the icing on the cake

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I am genuinely interested in what motivates people to vote in this way, simply because I don't get it. Not trying to provoke an argument LDH just would like an insight. GM has alluded to over-regulation by the EU ,as motivation for his views on the subject. The problem is that it always resorts to 'victorious crowing' re reference to 'snowflakes'.

[Jonnyboy]

And it is views like this that helped to make it happen

 

You helped to make brexit happen. Congrats

 

Calling thick person thick doesn't prevent thick person voting in a thick manner shocker.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Regarding the report

 

Rinse and repeat:

 

"The Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) is a politically independent Research Centre at the London School of Economics. The CEP has no institutional views, only those of its individual researchers. Professor John Van Reenen, who was CEP's director from 2003 to the summer of 2016, did not (and does not) support joining the Euro. CEP's Brexit work is funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the UK Economic and Social Research Council. As a whole the CEP, receives less than 5% of its funding from the European Union. The EU funding is from the European Research Council for academic projects and not for general funding or consultancy".

 

In the other corner we have Guido's blog and Migration Watch Pathetic.

 

and I would add that your paper was published in May 2016 just before the referendum. That would further undermine its impartiality.

[Jonnyboy]

and I would add that your paper was published in May 2016 just before the referendum. That would further undermine its impartiality.

 

Only if you're deeply paranoid.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I am genuinely interested in what motivates people to vote in this way, simply because I don't get it. Not trying to provoke an argument LDH just would like an insight. GM has alluded to over-regulation by the EU ,as motivation for his views on the subject. The problem is that it always resorts to 'victorious crowing' re reference to 'snowflakes'.

 

It's no good coming over all reasonable you resorted to insults calling Brexit voters thick, self interested , racists . Snowflake is tame compared to that . If you were genuinely interested in having a reasonable debate , I suggest calling people who disagree with you thick or racist isn't the way to go about it. You clearly think you're so superior than the majority voters and that your vote is somehow more righteous. Democracy is a terrible thing isn't it Snowflake?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited 18 January, 2017 by Lord Duckhunter

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Only if you're deeply paranoid.

 

It had its place in the debate but I think it should have declared the fact that it was written by Europhiles, released by the fervently remain LSE and published at the time to have most impact on the referendum. It was a political document, which is fine but it should be exposed as such. The toe curling protests at the beginning declaring that it is only partly funded by the EU discredit it further - one author even embarrassingly declares that he does not support the Euro and never did. What has that got to do with it.

[hypochondriac]

I am genuinely interested in what motivates people to vote in this way, simply because I don't get it. Not trying to provoke an argument LDH just would like an insight. GM has alluded to over-regulation by the EU ,as motivation for his views on the subject. The problem is that it always resorts to 'victorious crowing' re reference to 'snowflakes'.

Unfortunately for you, ill-informed rants about Sexism and being thick have rather lost their clout nowadays. It's one of the reasons that Trump got in and brexit is happening and it demonstrates a huge lack of awareness on the left. Post Trump and brexit, rather than trying to empathise with the opposing viewpoint you and others like you have doubled down on the whole racist and sexist thing, suggesting that it was worse than you thought. Votes like this will become more commonplace until that sort of attitude disappears. The satirical Jonathan pie character did a video about this on YouTube following the Trump election and it really is worth a watch.

[trousers]

I do find it interesting (to coin a Puel phrase) that it now seems 'OK' (in particular, by a faction of remain voters) to derogatorily label the less intelligent in society as "thick". Surely there is nothing wrong or bad in not being blessed with as much intelligence as someone else? Are those who call people "thick" suggesting that we only let people of a certain intelligence level vote in elections and referendums? Where would you draw the line? Doesn't sound very socialist to me...

Edited 18 January, 2017 by trousers

[Winnersaint]

I have a history on this thread of saying that the vote must be upheld, equally I feel I am entitled to a rant about something I fundamentally disagree with. I accept that perhaps the tone of the rant wasn't great, but occasionally this 'snowflake' gets hot enough under the collar over this that he actually melts, so I'll come clean on that. I am not one of those remainers who hopes that the whole Brexit project goes tits up, because that doesn't serve anyone's purpose, but to paraphrase Theresa May in her speech yesterday perhaps it is time for magnanimity in victory in return for acceptance of the legitimacy of the vote, something I have always done. I have enjoyed this thread in a strange way and hope now that it develops into something forward looking rather than point scoring by either side.

[badgerx16]

I do find it interesting (to coin a Puel phrase) that it now seems 'OK' (in particular, by a faction of remain voters) to derogatorily label the less intelligent in society as "thick". Surely there is nothing wrong or bad in not being blessed with as much intelligence as someone else? Are those who call people "thick" suggesting that we only let people of a certain intelligence level vote in elections and referendums? Where would you draw the line? Doesn't sound very socialist to me...

Are you presuming that remainers are all socialist ?

[shurlock]

It had its place in the debate but I think it should have declared the fact that it was written by Europhiles, released by the fervently remain LSE and published at the time to have most impact on the referendum. It was a political document, which is fine but it should be exposed as such. The toe curling protests at the beginning declaring that it is only partly funded by the EU discredit it further - one author even embarrassingly declares that he does not support the Euro and never did. What has that got to do with it.

 

Again not a shred of evidence for half of these claims. You do realise that the "embarrassing declaration" is specifically aimed at post-truth yokels like yourself who resort to playing the man (as you've predictably done on this thread) rather than the ball because they're hopelessly out of the depth on the substance.

Edited 18 January, 2017 by shurlock

[Guided Missile]

I think everyone should realise that whatever the rights and wrongs of the vote, it was a bl00dy difficult decision, with many factors, both social and economic, aspects of which, even the experts got wrong. For that reason, however people voted, those that did, should be given the credit for considering the complex issue they were presented with and getting out to the polling station in large numbers. Now it is done, we should all try and make Britain a success.

As Winston Churchill said:

“I am a child of the House of Commons,” he told a joint session of the US Congress in December 1941. “I was brought up in my father’s house to believe in democracy. Trust the people – that was his message….”

[trousers]

Are you presuming that remainers are all socialist ?

No, although I'm guessing a significantly larger percentage of 'remainers' are? (Compared with the 'leavers')

[Johnny Bognor]

Again not a shred of evidence for half of these claims. You do realise that the "embarrassing declaration" is specifically aimed at post-truth yokels like yourself who resort to playing the man (as you've predictably done on this thread) rather than the ball because they're hopelessly out of the depth on the substance.

 

 

OK I've played the man, as you well know. Now I'll play the ball.

 

Page 1 - "But immigrants consume goods and services and thisincreased demandhelps to create more employment opportunities."

 

Yes they do (as well as paying their taxes), but there is absolutely no consideration for the money that's sent back to countries of origin. In my personal experience, I know a number of Eastern Europeans that have settled here. But equally, I know a significant number that are either living frugally and sending their money back to their families or are saving money for when they go back home. A world bank report estimated that some £11 billion is sent home from the UK every year, which is aside of the amounts being saved for future use back home.

 

I would expect such esteemed economists, with vast resources at their disposal, to at least acknowledge this factor. Instead it has been completely ignored, presumably because it doesn't help to support their conclusions??? Still this "independent" and "unbias" research has some validity, even if it doesn't consider the complete picture and is selective in which evidence is assessed.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Again not a shred of evidence for half of these claims. You do realise that the "embarrassing declaration" is specifically aimed at post-truth yokels like yourself who resort to playing the man (as you've predictably done on this thread) rather than the ball because they're hopelessly out of the depth on the substance.

 

I am pointing out that the report you quote was a political document written and published at a point that was designed to intervene in favour of remain vote in the referendum - it makes some convincing arguments but also neglects to address key issues in the debate. How many reports do you read that feel it is necessary to distance themselves from the institutions they support to make their points more valid. If you are going to rely on them to mould your argument than you should expect people to point out that the authors and the publisher have a vested interest.

 

You should adopt a more balanced diet of reading and maybe as GM pointed out you may start making more accurate predictions post Brexit.

[Johnny Bognor]

No, although I'm guessing a significantly larger percentage of 'remainers' are? (Compared with the 'leavers')

 

I know a few leftie remainers, whose primary reason to vote remain was because they would prefer EU domination/control, as opposed to unchecked tory party rule.

[shurlock]

I am pointing out that the report you quote was a political document written and published at a point that was designed to intervene in favour of remain vote in the referendum - it makes some convincing arguments but also neglects to address key issues in the debate. How many reports do you read that feel it is necessary to distance themselves from the institutions they support to make their points more valid. If you are going to rely on them to mould your argument than you should expect people to point out that the authors and the publisher have a vested interest.

 

You should adopt a more balanced diet of reading and maybe as GM pointed out you may start making more accurate predictions post Brexit.

 

Which issues are those and where is it wrong? Stick to specifics pal.

 

The 'declaration' is because helmets like yourself can only resort to smear and discredit organisations by pointing to EU funding. The Press Complaints Commission has already forced newspapers who've made similar baseless allegations to publish withdrawals and apologise. There is no basis in fact for them, little kipper.

[Guided Missile]

Read all about it, here.

 

With just over two months to go before the government is due to get official Brexit talks under way, Mr Johnson wrote in the Daily Telegraph: "We will no longer be part of the common commercial policy, or bound by the Common External Tariff, and we will no longer have our trade policy run by the EU commission. "That means - crucially - that we will be able to do new free trade deals with countries around the world. They are already queuing up. "Under EU rules, we are not formally allowed to negotiate these new treaties until we leave. But there is nothing to say that ideas cannot be pencilled in."

 

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Timmy.

 

Odd that Brexiteers never mentioned this "Under EU law, the bloc cannot negotiate a separate trade deal with one of its own members, hence the commissioner's insistence that the UK must first leave. It is also against EU law for a member to negotiate its own trade deals with outsiders, which means the UK cannot start doing this until after it has left the EU"

 

Go for it, Boris. negotiate. As I posted earlier:

 

Personally, I think that's a load of cr@p. Of course we can negotiate trade deals now. Maybe we can't sign them, but I can't believe we can't negotiate them. Anyway, what are they going to do if we do? Throw us out of the EU? Invade us?

 

Just a bunch of jobsworths that we didn't vote for...

[shurlock]

OK I've played the man, as you well know. Now I'll play the ball.

 

Page 1 - "But immigrants consume goods and services and thisincreased demandhelps to create more employment opportunities."

 

Yes they do (as well as paying their taxes), but there is absolutely no consideration for the money that's sent back to countries of origin. In my personal experience, I know a number of Eastern Europeans that have settled here. But equally, I know a significant number that are either living frugally and sending their money back to their families or are saving money for when they go back home. A world bank report estimated that some £11 billion is sent home from the UK every year, which is aside of the amounts being saved for future use back home.

 

I would expect such esteemed economists, with vast resources at their disposal, to at least acknowledge this factor. Instead it has been completely ignored, presumably because it doesn't help to support their conclusions??? Still this "independent" and "unbias" research has some validity, even if it doesn't consider the complete picture and is selective in which evidence is assessed.

 

So you agree with the headline statement?

 

Can you also point me to those World Bank numbers.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Which issues are those and where is it wrong? Stick to specifics pal.

 

The 'declaration' is because helmets like yourself can only resort to smear and discredit organisations by pointing to EU funding. The Press Complaints Commission has already forced newspapers who've made similar baseless allegations to publish withdrawals and apologise. There is no basis in fact for them, little kipper.

 

It does not tackle the key concept of 'unlimited' immigration, the inability to put a cap on how many people can enter the country and the subsequent implications for population growth

 

It fails to address the future risk of benefit tourism and how vulnerable our welfare system is to abuse

 

It does not tackle the extra cost of funding the infrastructure needed for a acceleration in population

 

It does not address the social impact on certain communities with a sudden influx of workers

 

 

Your people skills are not getting any better.

[Johnny Bognor]

So you agree with the headline statement?

 

Can you also point me to those World Bank numbers.

 

The world bank data is based upon money remitted... here's their latest factbook.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROSPECTS/Resources/334934-1199807908806/4549025-1450455807487/Factbookpart1.pdf

 

The £11 billion remitted from the UK includes ALL migrants and I'm not sure of the proportion EU vs Non-EU migrants remittances.

 

But when you consider that the impact of remittances to Eastern Europe are twice as important as trade, it must be significant. If we take Lithuania for example, 4% of their GDP is reliant on overseas remittances... money which is being taken out of other economies...

[Wes Tender]

Read all about it, here.

 

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Timmy.

 

Go for it, Boris. negotiate. As I posted earlier:

 

The Remoaners love to give the impression that we will not be permitted by EU rules to begin negotiations of trade deals with countries outside of the EU before we have completed the Article 50 process and actually left the EU. As you say, apart from the position you take that I would agree with, that we should go ahead anyway and what can they do about it, it appears that the legal position renders that approach unnecessary.

 

According to the legal eagles, we have a perfect legal right to begin negotiations during the period following the triggering of Article 50, although those trade agreements cannot be signed until we have actually left.

 

http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/int-trade-before-exit.shtml

 

We should proceed to negotiate as many free trade deals as possible in preparation for our departure from the EU, every one sorted increasing our bargaining position with the EU and making us less reliant on our trade with them in the post-Brexit era. It will be immensely satisfying if we were to conclude trade deals with countries outside the EU at a far faster pace than the sclerotic EU bureaucracy has managed.

[aintforever]

The world bank data is based upon money remitted... here's their latest factbook.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROSPECTS/Resources/334934-1199807908806/4549025-1450455807487/Factbookpart1.pdf

 

The £11 billion remitted from the UK includes ALL migrants and I'm not sure of the proportion EU vs Non-EU migrants remittances.

 

But when you consider that the impact of remittances to Eastern Europe are twice as important as trade, it must be significant. If we take Lithuania for example, 4% of their GDP is reliant on overseas remittances... money which is being taken out of other economies...

 

I think the whole referendum debate opened quite a few eyes to what was going on. Ignoring the whole £350mill figure argument I was surprised at how much we paid into the thing for the privilege of having no control of our borders.

 

I was also gobsmacked to find out a Polish immigrant living here could claim child benefit for kids living in Poland. I assume that was the UK amount not the Polish amount as well. Completely bonkers.

[shurlock]

The world bank data is based upon money remitted... here's their latest factbook.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROSPECTS/Resources/334934-1199807908806/4549025-1450455807487/Factbookpart1.pdf

 

The £11 billion remitted from the UK includes ALL migrants and I'm not sure of the proportion EU vs Non-EU migrants remittances.

 

But when you consider that the impact of remittances to Eastern Europe are twice as important as trade, it must be significant. If we take Lithuania for example, 4% of their GDP is reliant on overseas remittances... money which is being taken out of other economies...

 

 

Baldrick, we're pals. We both know you did a sloppy Google search and are citing a dodgy Express article given the figures are in £ (2015 prices).

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/585860/Foreign-aid-British-Migrants-11bn-other-countries-year

 

Thank you for massively qualifying your original statement - yes the figure covers both EU, non-EU migrants and critically the diaspora-not trivial as countries like India, Nigeria and to a lesser extent Pakistan overwhelmingly account for flows. Guess those distinctions don't matter to your average kipper #globalbritain.

 

That said, I'm still struggling to see how you reached £11bn given the UK only sent $11.5bn in 2014. It does make more sense if, however, you included the remittances the UK received ($5bn); but that runs counter to the point you're trying to make. Oooopps.

 

Edited 18 January, 2017 by shurlock

[Saint86]

I do find it interesting (to coin a Puel phrase) that it now seems 'OK' (in particular, by a faction of remain voters) to derogatorily label the less intelligent in society as "thick". Surely there is nothing wrong or bad in not being blessed with as much intelligence as someone else? Are those who call people "thick" suggesting that we only let people of a certain intelligence level vote in elections and referendums? Where would you draw the line? Doesn't sound very socialist to me...

 

I think the opposite of many Remainers but at least I rarely label them as such in public. I also often do my best to engage or help them out; unless of course they are of the particularly vociferous kind which are devoutly pro-corbyn / pro-farren. Those numbskulls are lost to the world and are a damning sign of our education system along with the idiots that can't pronounce the letter "t" through either stupidity or ignorance.

 

But then it's all just personal views and opinions and we have to remember that whilst the left would oppress free speech, the rest of us uphold it as a fundamental pillar of freedom and democracy.

 

[shurlock]

Read all about it, here.

 

 

 

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Timmy.

 

 

 

Go for it, Boris. negotiate. As I posted earlier:

 

Thanks for this pal - time to short the pound again thanks to more gratuitous f**kwittery by the chuckle brothers, davo and bojo.

Edited 18 January, 2017 by shurlock

[shurlock]

The Remoaners love to give the impression that we will not be permitted by EU rules to begin negotiations of trade deals with countries outside of the EU before we have completed the Article 50 process and actually left the EU. As you say, apart from the position you take that I would agree with, that we should go ahead anyway and what can they do about it, it appears that the legal position renders that approach unnecessary.

 

According to the legal eagles, we have a perfect legal right to begin negotiations during the period following the triggering of Article 50, although those trade agreements cannot be signed until we have actually left.

 

http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/int-trade-before-exit.shtml

 

We should proceed to negotiate as many free trade deals as possible in preparation for our departure from the EU, every one sorted increasing our bargaining position with the EU and making us less reliant on our trade with them in the post-Brexit era. It will be immensely satisfying if we were to conclude trade deals with countries outside the EU at a far faster pace than the sclerotic EU bureaucracy has managed.

 

 

Watch your heart, old boy, you're working yourself in a frenzy. Back on planet earth:

 

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2017/01/on-brexit-over-optimism.html

[Guided Missile]

Thanks for this pal - time to short the pound again thanks to more gratuitous f**kwittery by the chuckle brothers, davo and bojo.

Short the pound.... Your predictive powers are on a par with Gordon Brown. I never tire of chuckling at your posts, pal:

 

Its a bit more complicated pal. If you've followed the primaries closely (obviously you haven't), you'll have noted that there has been hardening on both sides against free trade.

"Free trade will not have an ally in the White House next year"

 

Here's another quote I like:

 

Anthony Scaramucci, a Wall Street financier and member of Trump’s transition team, said at the World Economic Forum in Davos that Barack Obama’s successor would seek a swift and mutually beneficial (free trade) agreement. Interviewed by ITV News, Scaramucci – who has sold his hedge fund so that he can take up a job in the White House – said the US would be hoping to finalise talks within the “first six months or the first year of the administration”.

 

What does he know, though? He just made over €100M selling his hedge fund.

 

"Short the pound".... "Free trade will not have an ally in the White House next year"...

[shurlock]

Short the pound.... Your predictive powers are on a par with Gordon Brown. I never tire of chuckling at your posts, pal:

 

 

 

Here's another quote I like:

 

 

 

What does he know, though? He just made over €100M selling his hedge fund.

 

"Short the pound".... "Free trade will not have an ally in the White House next year"...

 

Pounds down today - some quick trading profits already realised. Thanks for asking.

 

Re. free trade. You misconstrue my point: I said the next president, whether Clinton and Trump, would not be a natural ally of free trade. As such the situation would be more complicated than blithely assumed. That's true. I didn't say a deal with the UK wouldn't happen. Please show where I've done so or wind your neck in little kipper.

 

Of course, it's all dribble and hot air till it happens and whether we can judge whether it's good for the UK. No matter how many times you try or how many lols you include, you're not anymore correct

Edited 18 January, 2017 by shurlock

[buctootim]

Short the pound.... Your predictive powers are on a par with Gordon Brown. I never tire of chuckling at your posts, pal:

 

 

 

Here's another quote I like:

 

 

 

What does he know, though? He just made over €100M selling his hedge fund.

 

"Short the pound".... "Free trade will not have an ally in the White House next year"...

 

You think Trump is an advocate of free trade? You seriously think the biggest advocate of protectionism in a generation is a free trader? wow.

[Guided Missile]

Pounds down today - some quick trading profits already realised. Thanks for asking.

 

Yeah, right.

 

 

You would make more money at the circus, pal. The only sociopathic clown in the world

[Johnny Bognor]

 

Baldrick, we're pals. We both know you did a sloppy Google search and are citing a dodgy Express article given the figures are in £ (2015 prices).

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/585860/Foreign-aid-British-Migrants-11bn-other-countries-year

 

Thank you for massively qualifying your original statement - yes the figure covers both EU, non-EU migrants and critically the diaspora-not trivial as countries like India, Nigeria and to a lesser extent Pakistan overwhelmingly account for flows. Guess those distinctions don't matter to your average kipper #globalbritain.

 

That said, I'm still struggling to see how you reached £11bn given the UK only sent $11.5bn in 2014. It does make more sense if, however, you included the remittances the UK received ($5bn); but that runs counter to the point you're trying to make. Oooopps.

 

 

 

I actually got the 11bn figure from page 31 http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROSPECTS/Resources/334934-1199807908806/4549025-1450455807487/Factbookpart1.pdf, hence why I pasted the link to it. I generally don't make a habit of quoting the Express.

 

However, I concede that I made a mistake by quoting £ instead of $. But then I'm not an esteemed economist. Nevertheless, my point still stands. A significant factor has not been taken into account. This maybe a genuine mistake by such esteemed economists or it may be a deliberate omission by "unbiased" economists. I'll leave that for others to decide...

 

Many EU migrants come here to work and to earn money. Hey, I would do the same. A significant proportion of them do not settle here indefinitely. A significant proportion of them save/send money home. Only last week I was chatting to my Romanian taxi driver. Thoroughly nice bloke. Apart from talking about Saints vs Steaua Bucharest, he was telling me how he lost his job in the Bucharest police force due to cutbacks and how he had a wife with two young children who he needs to support. He came over here three months ago to live with his brother and is sending as much home as he can. Then there are the two members of staff who have asked for a raise, because what they send home has fallen 20% in real terms since the £ devalued. Then there's our Spanish animation professional, who commutes weekly from Spain, to support his family.

 

I can't be the only person out there, that is aware of this drain of GDP overseas and that there is some impact. I'm not knocking them. I would do the same.

 

So the point in the document that states that EU immigrants spend all there money here and this is good for the economy, is factually incorrect.

 

Jeez, I'm only on page one of your beloved document and I'm already picking holes in it.

Edited 18 January, 2017 by Johnny Bognor

[buctootim]

Yeah, right.

 

 

You would make more money at the circus, pal. The only sociopathic clown in the world

 

Schoolboy error. The rise was yesterday. The fall is today.

[shurlock]

I actually got the 11bn figure from page 31 http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROSPECTS/Resources/334934-1199807908806/4549025-1450455807487/Factbookpart1.pdf, hence why I pasted the link to it. I generally don't make a habit of quoting the Express.

 

However, I concede that I made a mistake by quoting £ instead of $. But then I'm not an esteemed economist. Nevertheless, my point still stands. A significant factor has not been taken into account. This maybe a genuine mistake by such esteemed economists or it may be a deliberate omission. I'll leave that for others to decide...

 

I'm picking holes and haven't even got past the 1st page of your beloved document.

 

The Express article also cites the World Bank and you're now in the habit of rounding down figure - are you sure you're not telling porkies?

 

To repeat, the headline statement is correct (never mind you're unable to establish, even using official data how much EU migrants send home).

 

Keep ploughing away Baldrick.

Edited 18 January, 2017 by shurlock

[shurlock]

Schoolboy error. The rise was yesterday. The fall is today.

 

 

Candy from a baby with this lot and they try so hard to please

[Guided Missile]

Schoolboy error. The rise was yesterday. The fall is today.

Another Nostradamus joins the fray. That graph is today, shows a rising pound from the start of business and is only a c*** hair lower (or will be), by the close. Sherlock clown feet is not making squat on the pound.

 

Here's another quote:

 

Whether we get priority in queue jumping depends on who wins the Presidential election. Clinton isnt going to bolster the UK conservative right epitomised by Boris and Farage against her more natural allies the conservative left. Trump might, but then he isnt going to win.

[Guided Missile]

Candy from a baby with this lot and they try so hard to please

 

Here's another picture for you to colour in:

 

 

Shorting the pound... Pal, you're a financial genius, making the square root of f*** all. If you were making money trading, you as sure as hell wouldn't be wasting time posting drivel on here.