Brexit Negoiations

[Jeff Gaines]

Can I ask for a memory refresh please. I think I remember when the Brexit
deal was put together that it allowed for renegotiation of one aspect but
can't remember if it was NI or something else. Can anybody remind me what
it was please? Hard to cut through the dross on Google.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Indecision is the key to flexibility

[notya...@gmail.com]

There is a https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/withdrawal-agreement-joint-committee
which AIUI allows some flexibility about implementation.

Similarly Rees-Mogg has chosen for the UK not to implement import controls on EU goods
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/516/european-affairs-committee/news/170896/government-questioned-on-fourth-delay-to-import-controls

But basically Johnson sold Brexit to the UK electorate
Johnson negotiated Brexit
Johnson signed the treaty https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICY3vf94sRs&t=26s
Johnson had his party ratify it in Parliament

Barely was the ink dry than Johnson wants the UK to renege and abrogate the Treaty, for the first time in about eight centuries, unlike say the Treaty of Utrecht (1715) where the UK expects Spain to leave Gibraltar British.

Pound $1.21, it lowest since 1985 - isn't Brexit going well?

[Jeff Gaines]

On 14/06/2022 in message
<562b54c3-ed12-47de...@googlegroups.com>

notya...@gmail.com wrote:

>But basically Johnson sold Brexit to the UK electorate
>Johnson negotiated Brexit
>Johnson signed the treaty https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICY3vf94sRs&t=26s
>Johnson had his party ratify it in Parliament
>
>Barely was the ink dry than Johnson wants the UK to renege and abrogate
>the Treaty, for the first time in about eight centuries, unlike say the
>Treaty of Utrecht (1715) where the UK expects Spain to leave Gibraltar
>British.

That's what triggered my memory that there was one aspect of he treaty
that was left open or perhaps it was that one aspect could be cancelled if
agreement couldn't be reached. Can't find anything on it now.

>Pound $1.21, it lowest since 1985 - isn't Brexit going well?

It's going extremely well, we have balance between job vacancies and
unemployed (we need to start reducing benefits now), we were free to help
Ukraine, we are independent and can hold our heads up. Economics is only
one part of it and I doubt anybody an distinguish between the impact of
Brexit, the pandemic. the invasion of Ukraine and the usual ups and downs
seen in economies. Anyway we left, we need to get on with it and stop
moaning.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <xn0nj498s...@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
<jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> writes

>On 14/06/2022 in message
><562b54c3-ed12-47de...@googlegroups.com>
>notya...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>But basically Johnson sold Brexit to the UK electorate
>>Johnson negotiated Brexit
>>Johnson signed the treaty https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICY3vf94sRs&t=26s
>>Johnson had his party ratify it in Parliament
>>
>>Barely was the ink dry than Johnson wants the UK to renege and
>>abrogate the Treaty, for the first time in about eight centuries,
>>unlike say the Treaty of Utrecht (1715) where the UK expects Spain to
>>leave Gibraltar British.
>
>That's what triggered my memory that there was one aspect of he treaty
>that was left open or perhaps it was that one aspect could be cancelled
>if agreement couldn't be reached. Can't find anything on it now.
>
>>Pound $1.21, it lowest since 1985 - isn't Brexit going well?
>
>It's going extremely well, we have balance between job vacancies and
>unemployed (we need to start reducing benefits now)

Much of this somewhat novel 'virtually no unemployment' situation is
largely because we've physically lost a lot of workers.

Many EU workers went back home as a result of Covid and the 'no work'
lockdown.

The Covid 'no work' lockdown and the policy of not travelling to work
also gave a lot of UK workers a taste for the 'good life', and many of
those who have suitable pensions have opted to retire earlier than they
would have.

>, we were free to help Ukraine

And so are all the EU members!

>, we are independent and can hold our heads up.

Which is a great consolation if your once-small-but-thriving business
finds it no longer economically viable to trade with the EU.

> Economics is only one part of it and I doubt anybody an distinguish
>between the impact of Brexit, the pandemic. the invasion of Ukraine

These have been three hammer-blows in rapid succession. While all are
partly responsible for our present increasingly dire situation, it's
fairly easy to apportion the blame. Covid and Ukraine have been outside
our control, but Brexit has been a totally (and largely
correctly-predicted) self-inflicted wound - and it will continue to
fester.

> and the usual ups and downs seen in economies.

The present situation is far from 'usual'!

> Anyway we left, we need to get on with it and stop moaning.
>

Why? Brexit was a stupid decision, which needs to be corrected.
--
Ian

[Roger Hayter]

On 14 Jun 2022 at 22:54:25 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 14/06/2022 in message
> <562b54c3-ed12-47de...@googlegroups.com>
> notya...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> But basically Johnson sold Brexit to the UK electorate
>> Johnson negotiated Brexit
>> Johnson signed the treaty https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICY3vf94sRs&t=26s
>> Johnson had his party ratify it in Parliament
>>
>> Barely was the ink dry than Johnson wants the UK to renege and abrogate
>> the Treaty, for the first time in about eight centuries, unlike say the
>> Treaty of Utrecht (1715) where the UK expects Spain to leave Gibraltar
>> British.
>
> That's what triggered my memory that there was one aspect of he treaty
> that was left open or perhaps it was that one aspect could be cancelled if
> agreement couldn't be reached. Can't find anything on it now.

There was some flexibility on implementation, but we've already used all that
and more, and we apparently want to completely change the agreement in a way
that was not envisaged - in fact the fundamental point of it, to protect the
EU from smuggled goods, would be lost.

There was also (article 16?) a chance to change it temporarily if the other
side didn't cooperate, but we really have no grounds to use that.

>
>> Pound $1.21, it lowest since 1985 - isn't Brexit going well?
>
> It's going extremely well, we have balance between job vacancies and
> unemployed (we need to start reducing benefits now), we were free to help
> Ukraine, we are independent and can hold our heads up. Economics is only
> one part of it and I doubt anybody an distinguish between the impact of
> Brexit, the pandemic. the invasion of Ukraine and the usual ups and downs
> seen in economies. Anyway we left, we need to get on with it and stop
> moaning.


--

Roger Hayter

[Fredxx]

So it should be a lot better for workers then. Just think what the
continuing downward slide in pay would be if we stayed in the EU.

>> , we were free to help Ukraine
>
> And so are all the EU members!
>
>> , we are independent and can hold our heads up.
>
> Which is a great consolation if your once-small-but-thriving business
> finds it no longer economically viable to trade with the EU.

The reduction in the GBP should offset any inconvenience.

>> Economics is only one part of it and I doubt anybody an distinguish
>> between the impact of Brexit, the pandemic. the invasion of Ukraine
>
> These have been three hammer-blows in rapid succession. While all are
> partly responsible for our present increasingly dire situation, it's
> fairly easy to apportion the blame. Covid and Ukraine have been outside
> our control, but Brexit has been a totally (and largely
> correctly-predicted) self-inflicted wound - and it will continue to fester.

Hardly a wound for those who work.

>> and the usual ups and downs seen in economies.
>
> The present situation is far from 'usual'!
>
>> Anyway we left, we need to get on with it and stop moaning.
>>
> Why? Brexit was a stupid decision, which needs to be corrected.

It was a stupid idea to expand the EU to include developing countries.
Which has now been corrected, in part.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2022-06-14, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
> There was also (article 16?) a chance to change it temporarily if the
> other side didn't cooperate, but we really have no grounds to use that.

The mysterious bit is that the UK government clearly doesn't think it
has grounds to use Article 16, since it hasn't done so, yet at the
same time thinks it has such extreme and urgent grounds that it can
unilaterally violate its agreements with the EU and claim "necessity".

[Fredxx]

I suspect the UK legislation will be such that Article 16 will be
invoked nearer the time of implementation. The simple reason would be to
maintain democracy in NI.

[Jeff Gaines]

On 15/06/2022 in message <jgsjuh...@mid.individual.net> Roger Hayter
wrote:

>>>Barely was the ink dry than Johnson wants the UK to renege and abrogate
>>>the Treaty, for the first time in about eight centuries, unlike say the
>>>Treaty of Utrecht (1715) where the UK expects Spain to leave Gibraltar
>>>British.
>>
>>That's what triggered my memory that there was one aspect of he treaty
>>that was left open or perhaps it was that one aspect could be cancelled if
>>agreement couldn't be reached. Can't find anything on it now.
>
>There was some flexibility on implementation, but we've already used all
>that
>and more, and we apparently want to completely change the agreement in a
>way
>that was not envisaged - in fact the fundamental point of it, to protect
>the
>EU from smuggled goods, would be lost.
>
>There was also (article 16?) a chance to change it temporarily if the other
>side didn't cooperate, but we really have no grounds to use that.

Many thanks Roger :-)

That must be what triggered the memory.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

Here we go it's getting close, now it's just who wants it most.

[Jon Ribbens]

Given that the majority of people in NI support the Protocol, rather
than "maintain democracy" it would be to ignore democracy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/61798013

[Martin Harran]

Brexiteer mythology continues to ignore the facts:

"There is a consensus among academics that immigration has little or
no effect on native British wages, but these studies have not refined
their analysis by occupations. Our contribution is to extend the
literature to incorporate occupations. Doing so, we find that
immigration has a small negative impact on average British wages, with
a somewhat larger impact within the semi/unskilled service
occupations. This paper also explores if there is any differential
impact between EU and non-EU immigration on wages. We find there to be
none. These findings are likely to be useful for shaping future
immigration policy in Britain."

https://izajodm.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40176-017-0096-0

This and other research shows that EU immigration had less than 1%
impact overall and where there was a negative impact, it was in
unskilled and semi-skilled jobs which British workers generally avoid.
Then again, post-Brexit, they may become very glad of those jobs.

[kat]

On 15/06/2022 00:01, Ian Jackson wrote:

> In message <xn0nj498s...@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
> <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>> On 14/06/2022 in message
>> <562b54c3-ed12-47de...@googlegroups.com> notya...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But basically Johnson sold Brexit to the UK electorate
>>> Johnson negotiated Brexit
>>> Johnson signed the treaty https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICY3vf94sRs&t=26s
>>> Johnson had his party ratify it in Parliament
>>>
>>> Barely was the ink dry than Johnson wants the UK to renege and abrogate the
>>> Treaty, for the first time in about eight centuries, unlike say the Treaty of
>>> Utrecht (1715) where the UK expects Spain to leave Gibraltar British.
>>
>> That's what triggered my memory that there was one aspect of he treaty that
>> was left open or perhaps it was that one aspect could be cancelled if
>> agreement couldn't be reached. Can't find anything on it now.
>>
>>> Pound $1.21, it lowest since 1985 - isn't Brexit going well?
>>
>> It's going extremely well, we have balance between job vacancies and
>> unemployed (we need to start reducing benefits now)
>
> Much of this somewhat novel 'virtually no unemployment' situation is largely
> because we've physically lost a lot of workers.

Exactly! Just what some of us wanted to happen! Put British people into jobs
that were taken by others, and off benefits.

It seemed to be taken for granted that we got people over to do jobs our own
people wouldn't do for one reason or another, but now lots of those "lazy" Brits
are employed. Odd, that.

It also has the real advantage that we can see clearly where we need immigrant
workers and make it, through our own policies rather than those imposed upon us,
easy for them to come, short term, long term, or permanently.

You won't agree, I am sure, but long term that has to be good for our economy.


--
kat
>^..^<

[Pancho]

On 15/06/2022 09:47, Martin Harran wrote:

>
> Brexiteer mythology continues to ignore the facts:
>
> "There is a consensus among academics that immigration has little or
> no effect on native British wages"

That is a surprisingly strong claim. I couldn't see much support to
justify it.

[Roland Perry]

In message <t8ckqo$1pg$1...@dont-email.me>, at 13:54:47 on Wed, 15 Jun
2022, Pancho <Pancho...@proton.me> remarked:

Regardless of whether or not you can see references to that in the cited
material, most unfilled jobs at the moment are minimum-wage (for example
the runners who collect bins and bin-bags and dump them in the back of
the council trucks) and by definition not even immigrants can depress
such wages below that minimum.

And despite the alleged vast pool of previously dispossessed British
unemployed, they don't appear to be queuing up to fill those jobs.
--
Roland Perry

[JNugent]

On 15/06/2022 12:01 am, Ian Jackson wrote:

> Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> writes

>> notya...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> But basically Johnson sold Brexit to the UK electorate
>>> Johnson negotiated Brexit
>>> Johnson signed the treaty
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICY3vf94sRs&t=26s
>>> Johnson had his party ratify it in Parliament
>>> Barely was the ink dry than Johnson wants the UK to renege and
>>> abrogate the Treaty, for the first time in about eight centuries,
>>> unlike say the Treaty of Utrecht (1715) where the UK expects Spain to
>>> leave Gibraltar British.
>
>> That's what triggered my memory that there was one aspect of he treaty
>> that was left open or perhaps it was that one aspect could be
>> cancelled if agreement couldn't be reached. Can't find anything on it
>> now.
>
>>> Pound $1.21, it lowest since 1985 - isn't Brexit going well?
>
>> It's going extremely well, we have balance between job vacancies and
>> unemployed (we need to start reducing benefits now)
>
> Much of this somewhat novel 'virtually no unemployment' situation is
> largely because we've physically lost a lot of workers.

Since the substantial over-supply of (especially) unskilled workers was
one of the complaints raised about membership of the Common Market, that
reduction would seem to be a success.

Objective met - wouldn't you agree?

>
> Many EU workers went back home as a result of Covid and the 'no work'
> lockdown.

They were free to do that.

> The Covid 'no work' lockdown and the policy of not travelling to work
> also gave a lot of UK workers a taste for the 'good life', and many of
> those who have suitable pensions have opted to retire earlier than they
> would have.

They were free to do that.

>> , we were free to help Ukraine

> And so are all the EU members!

Good.

Offhand (and it's an obvious question given your statement), how many
are doing so?

>> , we are independent and can hold our heads up.
>
> Which is a great consolation if your once-small-but-thriving business
> finds it no longer economically viable to trade with the EU.
>
>> Economics is only one part of it and I doubt anybody an distinguish
>> between the impact of Brexit, the pandemic. the invasion of Ukraine
>
> These have been three hammer-blows in rapid succession. While all are
> partly responsible for our present increasingly dire situation, it's
> fairly easy to apportion the blame. Covid and Ukraine have been outside
> our control, but Brexit has been a totally (and largely
> correctly-predicted) self-inflicted wound - and it will continue to fester.
>
>> and the usual ups and downs seen in economies.
>
> The present situation is far from 'usual'!
>
>> Anyway we left, we need to get on with it and stop moaning.
>>
> Why? Brexit was a stupid decision, which needs to be corrected.

You aren't an arch-democrat, are you?

[JNugent]

Hmmm....

I wonder whether the academics referred to were economists?

Unlikely, I'd have thought.

Probably sociologists.

[Jon Ribbens]

The quote above is from a paper written by Stephen Nickell, who has been
President of the Royal Economic Society, Professor of Economics, and a
member of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee, and Jumana
Saleheen, who has a PhD in economics from UCL, a degree from the London
School of Economics, and has held various jobs with titles such as
Deputy Chief Economist and Chief Economist.

I think it's probably safe to call them "economists" and to assume that
they were referring to other economists. Perhaps you should have thought
a bit harder before posting.

[JNugent]

Thank you for answering my wondered-aloud question.

Hmmm... economists maintaining that changes in supply don't affect (or
"have little or no effect on) the operation of the market?

It's a little startling...

A new paradigm, perhaps?

[Pancho]

The authors referred to "a consensus among academics", one presumes they
meant that this consensus extended to academics other than themselves.
If they wanted to specify economists, they could have.

I actually think JNugent's point was, broadly speaking, fair. There has
to be a suspicion that this consensus occurred in an echo chamber like
environment.

Their remark suggests causation, which is notoriously difficult to
attribute in complex systems in the hard sciences. In a system such as
economics, which is hugely affected by sociological concerns, it is more
difficult.

So I find it hard to believe that this is a consensus view with
academics, including the harder sciences.

[Fredxx]

The one that said 22% of those polled said they were happy, or didn't
care, with the current arrangements without change?

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2022-06-15, Pancho <Pancho...@proton.me> wrote:
> On 15/06/2022 16:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> The quote above is from a paper written by Stephen Nickell, who has been
>> President of the Royal Economic Society, Professor of Economics, and a
>> member of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee, and Jumana
>> Saleheen, who has a PhD in economics from UCL, a degree from the London
>> School of Economics, and has held various jobs with titles such as
>> Deputy Chief Economist and Chief Economist.
>>
>> I think it's probably safe to call them "economists" and to assume that
>> they were referring to other economists. Perhaps you should have thought
>> a bit harder before posting.
>
> The authors referred to "a consensus among academics", one presumes they
> meant that this consensus extended to academics other than themselves.

Yes. Hence my saying "they were referring to other economists".
By "other" I did indeed mean "other" and not "themselves".

> If they wanted to specify economists, they could have.

Or maybe it didn't even occur to them that anyone might misunderstand
such a simple and obvious statement in such a bizarre way. It's an
academic paper not a newspaper article or Usenet post - the authors are
not trying to mislead by omission, and if for some reason they were then
the peer-review process is supposed to pick it up.

> I actually think JNugent's point was, broadly speaking, fair. There has
> to be a suspicion that this consensus occurred in an echo chamber like
> environment.

JNugent was suggesting the consensus was amongst a *wider* group
of academics, i.e. less of an "echo chamber" than economic academics
alone. So even if your suspicion is reasonable, it wasn't what he said.

> Their remark suggests causation, which is notoriously difficult to
> attribute in complex systems in the hard sciences. In a system such as
> economics, which is hugely affected by sociological concerns, it is more
> difficult.
>
> So I find it hard to believe that this is a consensus view with
> academics, including the harder sciences.

Who cares? It's a single sentence on the background to the paper. It's
not part of the argument, evidence, or conclusions of the paper. You
could entirely disbelieve that sentence and it would make no difference
to anything.

[Jon Ribbens]

Read the article.

[Roland Perry]

In message <jgubk8...@mid.individual.net>, at 16:19:37 on Wed, 15
Jun 2022, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:

>Hmmm... economists maintaining that changes in supply don't affect (or
>"have little or no effect on) the operation of the market?
>
>It's a little startling...
>
>A new paradigm, perhaps?

Not a new paradigm, but one that is more complex than armchair
economists (and especially armchair Brexiteer economists) appear
to comprehend. When applied to certain specialist markets, like
labour.

One aspect is the way that both all minimum (and near-minimum) wage
jobs have in effect capped remuneration even in the private sector. In
the public sector almost all wages have been capped for a generation or
more.

Need more nurses - simply "pay them more".

I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

A combination of nationally fixed wages, public sector pay freezes (or
near freezes), and the scarce resource is mainly training places anyway.
--
Roland Perry

[kat]

I have. I find it odd to suggest there is currently a majority in favour -

"Another way of reading the poll would be that 42% of people thought the
protocol should be scrapped or needed serious reform while 57% thought it was
fine as it was or needed some adjustments to be acceptable - a majority."

given only 21% actually do ( and 1% don't care). That leaves a majority of that
"majority" who think it needs amendment! They might accept a protocol, they
certainly aren't supporting the current arrangements.

--
kat
>^..^<

[pensive hamster]

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 3:30:40 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 15/06/2022 12:01 am, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >> notya...@gmail.com wrote:

> >>> Pound $1.21, it lowest since 1985 - isn't Brexit going well?
> >
> >> It's going extremely well, we have balance between job vacancies and
> >> unemployed (we need to start reducing benefits now)
> >
> > Much of this somewhat novel 'virtually no unemployment' situation is
> > largely because we've physically lost a lot of workers.
>
> Since the substantial over-supply of (especially) unskilled workers was
> one of the complaints raised about membership of the Common Market, that
> reduction would seem to be a success.
>
> Objective met - wouldn't you agree?

Farmers might not agree that the objective has been met:

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/fruit-and-veg/uk-farms-missing-up-to-75-of-seasonal-workers-needed-for-harvest/667635.article
19 May 2022
UK farms missing up to 75% of seasonal workers needed for harvest

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-61568286
UK labour shortage: 'It used to be easy to get fruit pickers'

[pensive hamster]

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 5:44:20 PM UTC+1, Pancho wrote:
> On 15/06/2022 16:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> > On 2022-06-15, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >> On 15/06/2022 01:54 pm, Pancho wrote:
> >>> On 15/06/2022 09:47, Martin Harran wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Brexiteer mythology continues to ignore the facts:
> >>>
> >>>> "There is a consensus among academics that immigration has little or
> >>>> no effect on native British wages"

[...]

> >
> > The quote above is from a paper written by Stephen Nickell, who has been
> > President of the Royal Economic Society, Professor of Economics, and a
> > member of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee, and Jumana
> > Saleheen, who has a PhD in economics from UCL, a degree from the London
> > School of Economics, and has held various jobs with titles such as
> > Deputy Chief Economist and Chief Economist.
> >
> > I think it's probably safe to call them "economists" and to assume that
> > they were referring to other economists. Perhaps you should have thought
> > a bit harder before posting.
> >
> The authors referred to "a consensus among academics", one presumes they
> meant that this consensus extended to academics other than themselves.
> If they wanted to specify economists, they could have.
>
> I actually think JNugent's point was, broadly speaking, fair. There has
> to be a suspicion that this consensus occurred in an echo chamber like
> environment.

Might it not be equally true that the consensus among Brexiteers
occurs in an echo chamber like environment within that community?

[Roger Hayter]

It is a little hard to see how causation is related to a lack of effect. The
bottom line is that a populist shibboleth - "immigration drives down wages" -
has no evidence for its truth. Once the populists are in charge they can
presumably, like Putin, put people in prison for denying the truth of populist
slogans. But, for the moment, economists should be allowed to point out truths
however unpopular they may be with, for instance, Brexiteers.

>
> So I find it hard to believe that this is a consensus view with
> academics, including the harder sciences.

--
Roger Hayter

[Pancho]

If there were causation, there would be an effect. In a system with
multiple confounding factors, we can't just look at an empirical lack of
correlation and say something has no effect.

> The
> bottom line is that a populist shibboleth - "immigration drives down wages" -
> has no evidence for its truth.

We have the obvious causative mechanism of supply and demand. That would
be the default expectation, if it isn't acting as expected, we would
want an explanation of why not.

> Once the populists are in charge they can
> presumably, like Putin, put people in prison for denying the truth of populist
> slogans.

Julian Assange is in prison, for revealing war crimes. RT.COM is
censored for giving an alternative version of events.

> But, for the moment, economists should be allowed to point out truths
> however unpopular they may be with, for instance, Brexiteers.
>

I have always been an ardent remainer.

Unfortunately, economics is not a hard science. An economist can rise to
high rank by politics, espousing the right popularism.

It is often good to look at track record. The most obvious, most
egregious, recent failure of economists was a failure to predict the
credit crunch. Technically, it, and systemic risk in the banking
industry, was on the simpler scale of things to predict. So I wondered
what an economist working for the Bank of England might have said on the
subject:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Nickell>

Quote:

"According to the British Academy Keynes Lecture, delivered in September
2005, he argued "In what follows we shall, among other things, argue
that there has not been a spending boom, the non-spending boom was not
credit-fuelled and there has probably not been a house price bubble."

[kat]

On 15/06/2022 22:07, Roger Hayter wrote:

"Drives down" suggests that wages were actually reduced. I tended to think they
were "held down" - as in low or no increase over the years. Which would be a
version of "little or no effect" on wages, because it certainly didn't
contribute to increases, or they would have said so.


--
kat
>^..^<

[Ian Jackson]

In message <jgu61k...@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> writes

Offhand, I don't know (and I don't intend to spend time Googling for
you). However, many of the major EU players certainly are - some by
taking in those escaping from the invasion (something that the UK fell
down badly on), and some with supplying weapons (something that the UK
seems to have been in the forefront).

>>> , we are independent and can hold our heads up.
>> Which is a great consolation if your once-small-but-thriving
>>business finds it no longer economically viable to trade with the EU.
>>
>>> Economics is only one part of it and I doubt anybody an distinguish
>>>between the impact of Brexit, the pandemic. the invasion of Ukraine
>> These have been three hammer-blows in rapid succession. While all
>>are partly responsible for our present increasingly dire situation,
>>it's fairly easy to apportion the blame. Covid and Ukraine have been
>>outside our control, but Brexit has been a totally (and largely
>>correctly-predicted) self-inflicted wound - and it will continue to fester.
>>
>>> and the usual ups and downs seen in economies.
>> The present situation is far from 'usual'!
>>
>>> Anyway we left, we need to get on with it and stop moaning.
>>>
>> Why? Brexit was a stupid decision, which needs to be corrected.
>
>You aren't an arch-democrat, are you?

No - I'm just an ordinary one.

Yes - the Brexit decision was 'democratic' (at least in the sense we
were able to cast a 'one man - one man' vote, and there are no
suspicions that anyone 'stole the referendum', but being democratic does
not prevent it turning out to be a stupid decision.
--
Ian

[JNugent]

Actually, it would be impossible for them NOT to agree.

All you have done there is provide evidence that the objective of
reducing excess competition for unskilled jobs has been successfully met.

And I for one have never accepted or agreed that the UK should be run
for the benefit of farmers (in the sense of that being a paramount
consideration).

The farming industry exists for the benefit of the population in
general, not the other way round.

Any shortage of workers for farm work needs to be addressed in a more
focused way than just allowing anyone from anywhere to come and go as
they please.

[JNugent]

Not the same words, at least.

>
>> Their remark suggests causation, which is notoriously difficult to
>> attribute in complex systems in the hard sciences. In a system such as
>> economics, which is hugely affected by sociological concerns, it is more
>> difficult.
>>
>> So I find it hard to believe that this is a consensus view with
>> academics, including the harder sciences.
>
> Who cares? It's a single sentence on the background to the paper. It's
> not part of the argument, evidence, or conclusions of the paper. You
> could entirely disbelieve that sentence and it would make no difference
> to anything.

How does that work?

If you have reason to disbelieve (or not accept) one part of a paper,
what are the implications for the rest of it?

Does it make it more credible?

[JNugent]

Are you claiming that changes in supply do not - or cannot - affect
equilibrium pricing?

[JNugent]

It might be.

But I for one am not a Brexiteer and never have been. Neither do I live
within a community of Brexiteers (whatever that thing might be). You
will not be able to find any trail of Brexit or Farage-supporting usenet
posts from me. I regard Farage as a opponent, albeit a dangerous one.

As a pragmatic choice, I voted "Leave", in the firm belief (vigorously
aided by the media and by the bullish confidence of the remainers) that
the vote would be a minority and nothing more than a warning shot across
the bows of federalists.

Late on June 16th 2016, I was as astounded as either you or Nigel Farage
to see those results coming in.

But make no mistake, had "Remain" won, I'd have accepted that *without
demur*. I certainly would not have gone on a ten-year sulk. But as you
are well aware, the Remainers have not behaved as well as I would have
and have positioned themselves - well, some of 'em, at least - as
enemies of democracy as she is spoken. Tey're alright with it when they
win, but not so much when they lose.

Some (OK, a few) of them criticise ex-President Trump's behaviour after
the election of 2000. The fact that they are behaving in much the same
way doesn't seem to strike them at all.

[JNugent]

Priceless.

[In a good way.]

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2022-06-16, Pancho <Pancho...@proton.me> wrote:
> Julian Assange is in prison, for revealing war crimes.

I think it might be more accurate to say that he is in prison for
jumping bail. He may in future be in prison for revealing war crimes.

[JNugent]

Some might think that.

> I tended to
> think they were "held down" - as in low or no increase over the years.
> Which would be a version of "little or no effect" on wages, because it
> certainly didn't contribute to increases, or they would have said so.

A very fair point. One should always try to look out for what is not
being said! And should be wary when what is being said is couched in
strangulated and contrived terms*.

But yes... "drive down" is not a term used in economics and is a mere
everyday shorthand for the effect. Wage levels are suppressed *in*
*real* *terms* by comparison with what they would be if competition
between suppliers of relatively unskilled labour were not so fierce.


* A clip of Arthur Scargill was shown on TV on Monday in the opening
credits for a new BBC detective mini-series. He was doing his famous
"Get off your knees" speech. He was never as good as Jimmy James, who
always made you laugh even if you'd seen the sketch twenty times before.

But one speech of Arfur's which I recall was his critique of British
Coal (which he still insisted on calling "The National Coal Board"). He
was trying to "prove" that the company knew nothing about business and
that he himself did.

He complained that British Coal had reduced the losses it w
had inherited from The National Coal Board, but had, in the process,
"doubled the loss per worker".

Imagine: a SME company making a loss of (say) a million pounds a year
and employing a thousand workers. The loss per worker would be £1,000 pa.

But if the company had to be so drastically "downsized" as to have only
two workers left in order to reduce its losses to £4,000 whilst
remaining in business and anticipating an eventual return to profit,
that would double the loss per worker (as though that were a meaningful
measure of anything useful).

If I were a shareholder in a loss-making company, a loss of £4,000 would
be preferred to a loss of £1,000,000.

Arthur wasn't so stupid as not to know that. He was hoping that his
audience *were*.

[Roger Hayter]

Obviously it does, but it may be inelastic to the extent that an observed
change in supply has a negligible effect, or even an apparent negative effect
due to other concurrent factors. And you could not get a more classical market
distortion than a fixed minimum wage! So agreeing supply affects demand does
not confirm that the particular example (immigration lowered wages in England
over the last 20 years) is true in a particular place at a particular time. I
am not saying that it didn't, just that a resort to a particular economic
'rule' does not prove it is true in a real economy where other things are
happening.

--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

Remarks in the introduction, and even more so remarks in the discussion, do
not normally affect an objective appraisal of a scientific research paper.
They may, of course, affect one's opinion of the author(s).

--
Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <jh0ipl...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:34:14 on Thu, 16

A classic false dichotomy. Of course they *can* but not *always*. It
depends on the details of the market concerned.

One effect we were taught in O-level economics (so not even a degree,
let alone a Phd thesis) is that in a simple market economy if you put
up the price of bread, people buy more.

That's because they are obliged to buy a certain amount of it as a
staple food, and if they have less money remaining having done that,
they have to buy cheaper items in addition, the most convenient being
'more bread'.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <jh0ihd...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:29:50 on Thu, 16

Jun 2022, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:

It's an industry these days, just like any other. The days of Gentleman
Farmers making enough excess profit from the toil of their labourers to
buy a second Range Rover are long gone. Most of the farmers I know are
actually accountants/lawyers in disguise, such is the complexity of
doing the books and complying with all the regulations.

One of the biggest farmers in the country was the CoOp, growing food for
their own (and maybe other) supermarkets. But they sold it fairly
recently to The Wellcome Trust, to concentrate on their High Street
businesses.

>Any shortage of workers for farm work needs to be addressed in a more
>focused way than just allowing anyone from anywhere to come and go as
>they please.

The answer of course is to put a "British-grown-food" levy onto
supermarket prices, and use that to subsidise the pay of the pickers, or
at the very least fund an advertising campaign to attract the country's
unemployed to live in portacabins a hundred miles from home for weeks on
end while picking crops in all weathers for minimum wage.

Meanwhile, shoppers might find it more conducive to buy imported food
which would escape that levy.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <VIn2q7BG...@brattleho.plus.com>, at 21:25:42 on Thu, 16
Jun 2022, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.co.uk> remarked:

>the Brexit decision was 'democratic' (at least in the sense we were
>able to cast a 'one man - one man' vote, and there are no suspicions
>that anyone 'stole the referendum',

They didn't rig the ballot (which is what Trump etc claimed) but they
duped sufficient people into voting "leave" by propaganda and lies,
whipping up xenophobia rather than presenting a solid economic case.

>but being democratic does not prevent it turning out to be a stupid
>decision.

Perhaps the most stupid in a lifetime.
--
Roland Perry

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 13:54:47 +0100, Pancho <Pancho...@proton.me>
wrote:

>On 15/06/2022 09:47, Martin Harran wrote:
>
>>
>> Brexiteer mythology continues to ignore the facts:
>>
>> "There is a consensus among academics that immigration has little or
>> no effect on native British wages"
>
>That is a surprisingly strong claim. I couldn't see much support to
>justify it.

You might see it if you bothered to check the references.

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 17:42:02 +0100, Pancho <Pancho...@proton.me>
wrote:

Causation is irrelevant in regard to the claim that immigration drove
down wages. There was no "driving down" - immigration can't be blamed
for causing something that didn't happen.

>
>So I find it hard to believe that this is a consensus view with
>academics, including the harder sciences.

People often find it hard to believe things that contradict their
existing worldview.

>
>
>

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 19:27:32 +0100, kat <little...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Amendment is not the issue here; the EU have shown that they are more
than willing to make amendments and have already put forward a number
of suggested amendments e.g.

https://www.moorethompson.co.uk/northern-ireland-protocol-eu-proposals-would-cut-80-per-cent-of-checks-on-goods/

The problem is that the DUP don't want amendments, they want the whole
thing scrapped and it suits Boris to play along with that for the
moment at least. The DUP are idiots to think that Boris gives a
tuppenny f**k about them or the protocol other than how he can use
them and it to his personal advantage.

[Roland Perry]

In message <jh0jfs...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:46:05 on Thu, 16
Jun 2022, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:

>I for one am not a Brexiteer and never have been. Neither do I live
>within a community of Brexiteers (whatever that thing might be). You
>will not be able to find any trail of Brexit or Farage-supporting
>usenet posts from me. I regard Farage as a opponent, albeit a dangerous
>one.
>
>As a pragmatic choice, I voted "Leave", in the firm belief (vigorously
>aided by the media and by the bullish confidence of the remainers) that
>the vote would be a minority and nothing more than a warning shot
>across the bows of federalists.
>
>Late on June 16th 2016, I was as astounded as either you or Nigel
>Farage to see those results coming in.

One of the "give Cameron a bloody nose" contingent. Wouldn't it be
ironic if that was as many as 2% and swung the result in the "wrong"
direction? In other words, we voted to leave, even if not all the
members of the eventual tallied majority who voted to leave did not
in fact *want* to leave.
--
Roland Perry

[Ian Jackson]

In message <DFY1XUCe...@perry.uk>, Roland Perry
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes

The levy and subsidy could also help persuade the EU pickers to get off
their lazy backsides and do the right thing, and return to the UK to do
the job to which they had become accustomed, and WE rightfully expect
them to do. ;>)
--
Ian

[JNugent]

On 16/06/2022 09:25 pm, Ian Jackson wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> writes
>> Ian Jackson wrote:

[ ... ]

>>>> It's going extremely well, we have balance between job vacancies and
>>>> unemployed (we need to start reducing benefits now)
>>>  Much of this somewhat novel 'virtually no unemployment' situation is
>>> largely because we've physically lost a lot of workers.
>
>> Since the substantial over-supply of (especially) unskilled workers
>> was one of the complaints raised about membership of the Common
>> Market, that reduction would seem to be a success.
>> Objective met - wouldn't you agree?

>>>  Many EU workers went back home as a result of Covid and the 'no
>>> work'  lockdown.
>
>> They were free to do that.
>
>>> The Covid 'no work' lockdown and the policy of not travelling to work
>>> also gave a lot of UK workers a taste for the 'good life', and many
>>> of those who have suitable pensions have opted to retire earlier than
>>> they  would have.
>
>> They were free to do that.
>
>>>> , we were free to help Ukraine
>
>>> And so are all the EU members!

>> Good.
>> Offhand (and it's an obvious question given your statement), how many
>> are doing so?
>
> Offhand, I don't know (and I don't intend to spend time Googling for
> you).

It was YOUR claim!

> However, many of the major EU players certainly are - some by
> taking in those escaping from the invasion (something that the UK fell
> down badly on), and some with supplying weapons (something that the UK
> seems to have been in the forefront).

So is it "all the EU members" [your first claim] or "many of the major
EU players" [your second claim]?

>>>> , we are independent and can hold our heads up.

>>>  Which is a great consolation if your once-small-but-thriving
>>> business  finds it no longer economically viable to trade with the EU.
>
>>>> Economics is only one part of it and I doubt anybody an distinguish
>>>> between the impact of Brexit, the pandemic. the invasion of Ukraine
>>>  These have been three hammer-blows in rapid succession. While all
>>> are  partly responsible for our present increasingly dire situation,
>>> it's  fairly easy to apportion the blame. Covid and Ukraine have been
>>> outside  our control, but Brexit has been a totally (and largely
>>> correctly-predicted) self-inflicted wound - and it will continue to
>>> fester.
>
>>>> and the usual ups and downs seen in economies.

>>>  The present situation is far from 'usual'!
>
>>>> Anyway we left, we need to get on with it and stop moaning.
>
>>> Why? Brexit was a stupid decision, which needs to be corrected.
>
>> You aren't an arch-democrat, are you?
>
> No - I'm just an ordinary one.

You aren't one at all if you don't accept the primacy of the majority.
And you don't.

> Yes - the Brexit decision was 'democratic' (at least in the sense we
> were able to cast a 'one man - one man' vote, and there are no
> suspicions that anyone 'stole the referendum', but being democratic does
> not prevent it turning out to be a stupid decision.

You can howl at the moon for the rest of your life. It won't change the
result.

Can you not even see that the EU-philes brought it upon themselves?

[JNugent]

On 16/06/2022 01:36 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

> Pancho <Pancho...@proton.me> wrote:

>> Julian Assange is in prison, for revealing war crimes.
>
> I think it might be more accurate to say that he is in prison for
> jumping bail.

It's less inaccurate than what you were responding to, but he's served
his time for that one.

> He may in future be in prison for revealing war crimes.

He's on remand because he cannot be trusted to surrender to bail.

He is untrustworthy. Some of us said that at the time that he was
released on bail by the magistrates.

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 09:07:33 +0100, kat <little...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 15/06/2022 00:01, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> In message <xn0nj498s...@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
>> <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>> On 14/06/2022 in message
>>> <562b54c3-ed12-47de...@googlegroups.com> notya...@gmail.com

>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But basically Johnson sold Brexit to the UK electorate
>>>> Johnson negotiated Brexit
>>>> Johnson signed the treaty https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICY3vf94sRs&t=26s
>>>> Johnson had his party ratify it in Parliament
>>>>
>>>> Barely was the ink dry than Johnson wants the UK to renege and abrogate the
>>>> Treaty, for the first time in about eight centuries, unlike say the Treaty of
>>>> Utrecht (1715) where the UK expects Spain to leave Gibraltar British.
>>>
>>> That's what triggered my memory that there was one aspect of he treaty that
>>> was left open or perhaps it was that one aspect could be cancelled if
>>> agreement couldn't be reached. Can't find anything on it now.
>>>

>>>> Pound $1.21, it lowest since 1985 - isn't Brexit going well?
>>>

>>> It's going extremely well, we have balance between job vacancies and
>>> unemployed (we need to start reducing benefits now)
>>
>> Much of this somewhat novel 'virtually no unemployment' situation is largely
>> because we've physically lost a lot of workers.
>

>Exactly! Just what some of us wanted to happen! Put British people into jobs
>that were taken by others, and off benefits.

Have you any evidence to support that having happened?

>
>It seemed to be taken for granted that we got people over to do jobs our own
>people wouldn't do for one reason or another, but now lots of those "lazy" Brits
>are employed. Odd, that.
>
>It also has the real advantage that we can see clearly where we need immigrant
>workers and make it, through our own policies rather than those imposed upon us,
>easy for them to come, short term, long term, or permanently.
>
>You won't agree, I am sure, but long term that has to be good for our economy.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2022-06-17, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 16/06/2022 09:25 pm, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> writes

>>> You aren't an arch-democrat, are you?
>>
>> No - I'm just an ordinary one.
>
> You aren't one at all if you don't accept the primacy of the majority.
> And you don't.

Neither do you, unless you agree that it is undemocratic that we
currently have a Tory government given the majority of voters do
not want it.

>> Yes - the Brexit decision was 'democratic' (at least in the sense we
>> were able to cast a 'one man - one man' vote, and there are no
>> suspicions that anyone 'stole the referendum', but being democratic does
>> not prevent it turning out to be a stupid decision.
>
> You can howl at the moon for the rest of your life. It won't change the
> result.
>
> Can you not even see that the EU-philes brought it upon themselves?

Yes, of course. The Brexit disaster is the fault of the people who
voted against it - the people who voted for it are blameless. It's
just common sense, in "opposite world".

[pensive hamster]

On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 7:06:47 AM UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
Ian Jackson remarked:

> >the Brexit decision was 'democratic' (at least in the sense we were
> >able to cast a 'one man - one man' vote, and there are no suspicions
> >that anyone 'stole the referendum',
>
> They didn't rig the ballot (which is what Trump etc claimed) but they
> duped sufficient people into voting "leave" by propaganda and lies,
> whipping up xenophobia rather than presenting a solid economic case.

Carole Cadwalladr gave TED talk entitled "Facebook's role in
Brexit -- and the threat to democracy"

She suggested that it may have been Russian intelligence trolls
posting on Facebook that swung the Brexit vote. Putin's aim was
to weaken / split the EU. The trolls spun a lot of lies about the EU,
and possibly persuaded enough people that the EU was a really
bad thing.

https://www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy/transcript?language=en

Her talk is 15 m long, or there is "Read Transcript' button on the right

Arron Banks recently lost his libel action against Carole Cadwalladr,
though he says he is likely to appeal.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/13/arron-banks-loses-libel-action-against-reporter-carole-cadwalladr-guardian-defamation-brexit-russia

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2022-06-17, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> On 16/06/2022 01:36 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> Pancho <Pancho...@proton.me> wrote:
>>> Julian Assange is in prison, for revealing war crimes.
>>
>> I think it might be more accurate to say that he is in prison for
>> jumping bail.
>
> It's less inaccurate than what you were responding to, but he's served
> his time for that one.
>
>> He may in future be in prison for revealing war crimes.
>
> He's on remand because he cannot be trusted to surrender to bail.

Exactly my point. The reason he's in prison is because he jumped bail.
He's not in prison as punishment for that, but if he were not a bail
jumper then he would be free on bail currently.

[kat]

We have made suggestions. The bill itself makes suggestions which aren't
exactly awful, just little things like green lanes. The EU don't want to play,
they want to punish us for daring to leave.


--
kat
>^..^<

[kat]

We have full employment now. And more people in work than before. That sort of
suggests that some people on benefits are now in work.


--
kat
>^..^<

[pensive hamster]

On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 9:25:21 PM UTC+1, kat wrote:
> On 17/06/2022 16:53, Martin Harran wrote:

> > On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 09:07:33 +0100, kat wrote:
> >> On 15/06/2022 00:01, Ian Jackson wrote:

> >>> Much of this somewhat novel 'virtually no unemployment' situation is largely
> >>> because we've physically lost a lot of workers.
> >>
> >> Exactly! Just what some of us wanted to happen! Put British people into jobs
> >> that were taken by others, and off benefits.

Not everyone who is in a job, is off benefits.

> > Have you any evidence to support that having happened?

> We have full employment now. And more people in work than before. That sort of
> suggests that some people on benefits are now in work.

Some people are both in work, and also on benefits. For example,
this site says the mean percentage of Universal Credit claimants in
employment in English single tier and county councils is 41.5 %,
and the maximum is 71.9 %, as of April 2022

https://lginform.local.gov.uk/reports/lgastandard?mod-metric=13382&mod-area=E06000031&mod-group=AllSingleTierAndCountyLaInCountry_England&mod-type=namedComparisonGroup

[Ian Jackson]

In message <jh463a...@mid.individual.net>, kat
<little...@hotmail.com> writes

>
>We have made suggestions. The bill itself makes suggestions which
>aren't exactly awful, just little things like green lanes. The EU don't
>want to play, they want to punish us for daring to leave.
>

How can you use green lanes when lorries are carrying a mixed cargo -
some for NI and some for the RoI?
--
Ian

[Sir Tim]

I don’t see anything in Ian’s posts to suggest he does not accept the
primacy of the majority. He is merely suggesting that Brexit was a stupid
decision, which it clearly was.

>
>> Yes - the Brexit decision was 'democratic' (at least in the sense we
>> were able to cast a 'one man - one man' vote, and there are no
>> suspicions that anyone 'stole the referendum', but being democratic does
>> not prevent it turning out to be a stupid decision.
>
> You can howl at the moon for the rest of your life. It won't change the
> result.

Of course not, but I have no doubt that within a few years we will apply to
re-enter the world’s largest trading bloc. Sadly we will not be granted the
highly favourable terms we once enjoyed, nor will we be able to become the
leader of Europe we could have been.

> Can you not even see that the EU-philes brought it upon themselves?
>

Possibly, although the reasons for the vote in favour of Brexit were many,
varied and certainly not all based economic realities.

--
Sir Tim

[Ian Jackson]

In message <hl59PoAY...@perry.uk>, Roland Perry
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes

Somewhere there is an estimate of the reasons that people gave for
voting Leave. IIRC, the main reason was to be able to stop immigrants
(who, it was believed, were taking our jobs, and pushing down wages).
From what I subsequently heard said in various LBC phone-ins, a fair
proportion of these Leave voters mistakenly believed that leaving would
also enable us to stop the 'illegal' cross-Channel traffic (many almost
certainly as a result of Nigel Farage's 'Breaking Point' poster). If it
hadn't been for this, how many would not have voted to leave?

And there's the group who didn't specifically vote to leave the EU, but
instead seized the opportunity to cast a protest vote to express their
dissatisfaction with the policies of the government in power (Cameron's
Conservatives), and even simply express their dislike of 'successive UK
governments in general'. As stated above, some specifically voted 'to
give Cameron a bloody nose', or 'against the present policy of
austerity', while others simply 'voted for change' (ANY change,
regardless of what it was).

Of course, there WERE those who DID actually vote to leave the EU, but
many had little (or no) idea as to the consequences of doing so. [It
takes a brave man to suggest that they 'didn't know what they were
voting for'.] And then there's the question of the bent (straight?)
bananas (and similar). Laugh if you will about the bananas, but that
really IS what several of my friends gave as the reason for their Leave
vote, and few could really think of any other reason.

All things considered, it's almost certain that those who really did
want the UK leave the EU were considerably less than what the
'democratic' 52% indicates - but the damage has been done, and we'll
never know.
--
Ian

[JNugent]

*Don't* worry too much about it.

As I said (but you snipped), as a democrat, I am happy to go with the
majority, either way, without demur.

Aren't you?

[JNugent]

*Real* *terms*.

And it did happen in real terms.

>> So I find it hard to believe that this is a consensus view with
>> academics, including the harder sciences.
>
> People often find it hard to believe things that contradict their
> existing worldview.

Indeed, you among them, it seems.

[JNugent]

On 17/06/2022 08:36 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

> On 2022-06-17, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 16/06/2022 01:36 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> Pancho <Pancho...@proton.me> wrote:

>>>> Julian Assange is in prison, for revealing war crimes.
>
>>> I think it might be more accurate to say that he is in prison for
>>> jumping bail.
>
>> It's less inaccurate than what you were responding to, but he's served
>> his time for that one.
>
>>> He may in future be in prison for revealing war crimes.
>
>> He's on remand because he cannot be trusted to surrender to bail.
>
> Exactly my point. The reason he's in prison is because he jumped bail.
> He's not in prison as punishment for that,

He was in prison for almost a year as a punishment for that, but now
he's on remand on a different matter.

> but if he were not a bail
> jumper then he would be free on bail currently.

He only has himself to blame for it.

[JNugent]

On 17/06/2022 09:05 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

> On 2022-06-17, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 16/06/2022 09:25 pm, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> writes

>>>> You aren't an arch-democrat, are you?
>
>>> No - I'm just an ordinary one.
>
>> You aren't one at all if you don't accept the primacy of the majority.
>> And you don't.
>
> Neither do you, unless you agree that it is undemocratic that we
> currently have a Tory government given the majority of voters do
> not want it.

Oh... please...

On that basis, we've probably never had a majority government.

>>> Yes - the Brexit decision was 'democratic' (at least in the sense we
>>> were able to cast a 'one man - one man' vote, and there are no
>>> suspicions that anyone 'stole the referendum', but being democratic does
>>> not prevent it turning out to be a stupid decision.
>
>> You can howl at the moon for the rest of your life. It won't change the
>> result.
>
>> Can you not even see that the EU-philes brought it upon themselves?
>
> Yes, of course. The Brexit disaster is the fault of the people who
> voted against it - the people who voted for it are blameless. It's
> just common sense, in "opposite world".

The Remainers were disdainful of every reservation and every complaint.

[JNugent]

On 17/06/2022 11:25 pm, Ian Jackson wrote:

> kat <little...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>
>>
>> We have made suggestions.  The bill itself makes suggestions which
>> aren't exactly awful, just little things like green lanes. The EU
>> don't want to play, they want to punish us for daring to leave.
>>
> How can you use green lanes when lorries are carrying a mixed cargo -
> some for NI and some for the RoI?

Such a lorry would obviously have to use the red lane in order to
declare things which have to be declared.

Was that too difficult?

Have you ever flown internationally?

[Ian Jackson]

In message <jh49id...@mid.individual.net>, Sir Tim
<no_e...@invalid.invalid> writes

Some time ago, someone suggested that the pro-Brexit vote was a result
of the pro-EU supporters failing to put forward their case with
sufficient enthusiasm and clarity. It has to be admitted that this could
to some extent be true, and they underestimated the need to do so, as no
one (including Boris Johnson and, I believed, even Nigel Farage) ever
really expected the UK populous to be so effectively duped by the
pro-Brexit propaganda.
--
Ian

[Ian Jackson]

In message <jh4jn2...@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> writes

Surely no one is happy with a bad decision? As I have a vested interest
in the ongoing prosperity of the UK in general (and mine in
particular!), I'd have been much happier if the majority had been in
favour of the better option.
--
Ian

[Ian Jackson]

In message <jh4kaa...@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> writes

>On 17/06/2022 11:25 pm, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> kat <little...@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>>
>>> We have made suggestions.  The bill itself makes suggestions which
>>>aren't exactly awful, just little things like green lanes. The EU
>>>don't want to play, they want to punish us for daring to leave.
>>>
>> How can you use green lanes when lorries are carrying a mixed cargo -
>>some for NI and some for the RoI?
>
>Such a lorry would obviously have to use the red lane in order to
>declare things which have to be declared.

What if the customs decided to do a physical check (which I presume they
do sometimes, otherwise there wouldn't be any purpose in having red and
green lanes)? This would require the two loads to be kept completely
separate, and both easily accessible.
>
>Was that too difficult?

The concept is simple, but it's wise to anticipate any snags and
inconveniences.

>
>Have you ever flown internationally?
>

Countless (and also driven) - and often had to take the red channel. The
blue was a great blessing!
--
Ian

[Roland Perry]

In message <M+5QHYD6...@brattleho.plus.com>, at 23:18:34 on Fri, 17
Jun 2022, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.co.uk> remarked:

>In message <hl59PoAY...@perry.uk>, Roland Perry
><rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
>>In message <jh0jfs...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:46:05 on Thu, 16
>>Jun 2022, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:
>>
>>>I for one am not a Brexiteer and never have been. Neither do I live
>>>within a community of Brexiteers (whatever that thing might be). You
>>>will not be able to find any trail of Brexit or Farage-supporting
>>>usenet posts from me. I regard Farage as a opponent, albeit a
>>>dangerous one.
>>>
>>>As a pragmatic choice, I voted "Leave", in the firm belief
>>>(vigorously aided by the media and by the bullish confidence of the
>>>remainers) that the vote would be a minority and nothing more than a
>>>warning shot across the bows of federalists.
>>>
>>>Late on June 16th 2016, I was as astounded as either you or Nigel
>>>Farage to see those results coming in.
>>
>>One of the "give Cameron a bloody nose" contingent. Wouldn't it be
>>ironic if that was as many as 2% and swung the result in the "wrong"
>>direction? In other words, we voted to leave, even if not all the
>>members of the eventual tallied majority who voted to leave did not
>>in fact *want* to leave.
>
>Somewhere there is an estimate of the reasons that people gave for
>voting Leave.

Yes, I've published a link to a contemporaneous study so many times my
keyboard is almost worn out.

<https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-
and-why/>

>IIRC, the main reason was to be able to stop immigrants (who, it was
>believed, were taking our jobs, and pushing down wages). From what I
>subsequently heard said in various LBC phone-ins, a fair proportion of
>these Leave voters mistakenly believed that leaving would also enable
>us to stop the 'illegal' cross-Channel traffic

That's turn out so well, hasn't it. Leaving the EU has meant we are
actually worse off because an agreement with the French evaporated.

>(many almost certainly as a result of Nigel Farage's 'Breaking Point'
>poster). If it hadn't been for this, how many would not have voted to
>leave?
>
>And there's the group who didn't specifically vote to leave the EU, but
>instead seized the opportunity to cast a protest vote to express their
>dissatisfaction with the policies of the government in power (Cameron's
>Conservatives), and even simply express their dislike of 'successive UK
>governments in general'. As stated above, some specifically voted 'to
>give Cameron a bloody nose', or 'against the present policy of
>austerity', while others simply 'voted for change' (ANY change,
>regardless of what it was).

That last one is what I call by-election syndrome. Which incumbent
governments lose so many of, because the choice often becomes one of
"continue with the status quo", or make a protest vote about any one of
dozens of issues that particular voter has a bee in their bonnet about.

>Of course, there WERE those who DID actually vote to leave the EU,

Indeed, and I have no argument with those who had for a long time been
against "greater federalism", they are entitled to that view, and are
vastly over-repesented in forums such as this. But they a relatively
small minority.

Also remember (see charts above) how many voters made their mind up in
the final week or even day. None of those could claim to be lifelong
anti-federalists.

["Just under half (43%) of voters said they always knew how they would
end up voting or decided more than a year ago. Nearly a quarter (24%)
decided in the week before referendum day; and one in ten decided
yesterday, or on the day they filled in their postal vote."]

>but many had little (or no) idea as to the consequences of doing so.
>[It takes a brave man to suggest that they 'didn't know what they were
>voting for'.] And then there's the question of the bent (straight?)
>bananas (and similar).

Actually, many were voting for leaving the EU but staying in the Single
Market. After all, the Leave campaign said the worst it could be was a
"Norway Style" deal. The Single Market issue was always what was going
to create an impasse in NI, too.

>Laugh if you will about the bananas, but that really IS what several of
>my friends gave as the reason for their Leave vote, and few could
>really think of any other reason.

And worse because the story was a lie. Yes, there are some rules about
the minimum quality of bananas, but they relate almost entirely to the
number of pests, or amount of pesticide [pick your poison, as they say].
Not being a banana-growing country, even those don't apply directly to
us, only to what we import from Third Countries.

>All things considered, it's almost certain that those who really did
>want the UK leave the EU were considerably less than what the
>'democratic' 52% indicates - but the damage has been done, and we'll
>never know.

I think there's plenty of scope to do more detailed statistical post-
mortems, but the anti-federalists are somewhere between 5-10% of the
electorate *who voted*. We can then discuss why, if it's apparently such
a passion of theirs, lifelong anti-federalists would have stayed at
home.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <32Ce1qAXxXriFw$t...@brattleho.plus.com>, at 08:18:47 on Sat, 18

Jun 2022, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.co.uk> remarked:

While it's impractical to do anything about the existing Brexit vote,
one can agitate to try to make sure that such an egregious miscarriage
of democracy never happens again.

Surely that's what a true democrat (rather than a sheep) should do.
--
Roland Perry

[Max Demian]

[snip]

> All things considered, it's almost certain that those who really did
> want the UK leave the EU were considerably less than what the
> 'democratic' 52% indicates - but the damage has been done, and we'll
> never know.

I'm sure if you thought hard enough, and were so inclined, you could
think of loads of daft reasons why people voted remain.

Like thinking it makes it easier to holiday on Europe, thinking that
it's good for World Peace (that Miss World standby), or just thinking
about how cosy it feels to be part of a big club.

--
Max Demian

[kat]

How many would that problem actually affect? Is it not likely that most lorries
would just deliver to one or the other? The few that might have loads for each
side of the border would obviously have to go "red".

And does that level of detail actually change the fact that the suggestion has
been made, something the post to which I replied said hadn't happened?

--
kat
>^..^<

[kat]

I was of course referring to those who were receiving benefits because they were
unemployed.


--
kat
>^..^<

[Ian Jackson]

In message <UpOdnTT8x9JYCjD_...@brightview.co.uk>, Max
Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com> writes

But it actually DOES!

For example, we no longer have the privilege of relatively rapid entry
via the EU passport control queues, but instead have to mix with the hoi
poloi of the RoW. [I was actually talking to someone last week who had
just been to Spain with her daughter. Although the daughter travelled on
an Irish passport, in order to stay together they both had to use the
RoW queue - and it took nearly two hours to get through.] I also
understand that those crossing The Channel, instead of merely waving a
passport at the French are having their passports properly checked and
stamped (although how widespread this is, I'm not sure).

> thinking that it's good for World Peace (that Miss World standby), or
>just thinking about how cosy it feels to be part of a big club.
>

I have a feeling that you are maybe being a little fanciful, and are
letting your imagination run away with you.!
--
Ian

[Pancho]

On 18/06/2022 10:03, Roland Perry wrote:

>
> While it's impractical to do anything about the existing Brexit vote,
> one can agitate to try to make sure that such an egregious miscarriage
> of democracy never happens again.
>

There is a tendency to present democracy as universally "good", when it
clearly isn't. Most people are not particularly well-informed, do not
understand the problem space well enough to make good decisions.

Democracy's only real benefit is that it helps ensure people have a fair
share of the pie. Or perhaps, more accurately, prevents them from
perceiving themselves to be hard done by.

Any sensible system will delegate decision-making to a small management
team of people who have the resources and ability to understand problems
and make sensible decisions.

But I'm pretty sure we all know and agree on this.

> Surely that's what a true democrat (rather than a sheep) should do.

I think you are optimising a characteristic other than "democracy", i.e.
good management. Referenda are democratic, but I don't think they are
sensible for deciding every issue, possibly any issue, beyond electing
an executive, for a period of time.

I think many of us now understand the referendum was a dumb idea, I'm
pretty sure EU politicians told Cameron that before it occurred. I would
happily have ignored, overturned, the referendum result anyway possible.
I don't think another referendum would have been undemocratic, if that
was the only way to solve the problem. It is about the only thing I
agreed with Kier Starmer on.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2022-06-18, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 17/06/2022 08:36 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2022-06-17, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> On 16/06/2022 01:36 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>> Pancho <Pancho...@proton.me> wrote:
>>>>> Julian Assange is in prison, for revealing war crimes.
>>
>>>> I think it might be more accurate to say that he is in prison for
>>>> jumping bail.
>>
>>> It's less inaccurate than what you were responding to, but he's served
>>> his time for that one.
>>
>>>> He may in future be in prison for revealing war crimes.
>>
>>> He's on remand because he cannot be trusted to surrender to bail.
>>
>> Exactly my point. The reason he's in prison is because he jumped bail.
>> He's not in prison as punishment for that,
>
> He was in prison for almost a year as a punishment for that, but now
> he's on remand on a different matter.

Yes, that's what I just said. How are you managing to make an argument
over us both saying the same thing!?

[JNugent]

On 18/06/2022 10:27 am, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <jh4kaa...@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> writes
>> On 17/06/2022 11:25 pm, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>>> kat <little...@hotmail.com> writes
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We have made suggestions.  The bill itself makes suggestions which
>>>> aren't exactly awful, just little things like green lanes. The EU
>>>> don't want to play, they want to punish us for daring to leave.
>>>>
>>> How can you use green lanes when lorries are carrying a mixed cargo -
>>> some for NI and some for the RoI?
>>
>> Such a lorry would obviously have to use the red lane in order to
>> declare things which have to be declared.
>
> What if the customs decided to do a physical check (which I presume they
> do sometimes, otherwise there wouldn't be any purpose in having red and
> green lanes)? This would require the two loads to be kept completely
> separate, and both easily accessible.

The Customs can do that to green lane traffic as well.

My experience of red lane use is that HMRC accept what the traveller
says, without demur, and either calculate a sum due or give an oral waiver.

>> Was that too difficult?
>
> The concept is simple, but it's wise to anticipate any snags and
> inconveniences.
>>
>> Have you ever flown internationally?
>>
> Countless (and also driven) - and often had to take the red channel. The
> blue was a great blessing!

Then you are familiar with th way it works.

Why the difficulty?

[Ian Jackson]

In message <jh5sa0...@mid.individual.net>, JNugent

<jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> writes
>On 18/06/2022 10:27 am, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> In message <jh4kaa...@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>><jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> writes
>>> On 17/06/2022 11:25 pm, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>
>>>> kat <little...@hotmail.com> writes
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We have made suggestions.  The bill itself makes suggestions which
>>>>>aren't exactly awful, just little things like green lanes. The EU
>>>>>don't want to play, they want to punish us for daring to leave.
>>>>>
>>>> How can you use green lanes when lorries are carrying a mixed cargo
>>>>- some for NI and some for the RoI?
>>>
>>> Such a lorry would obviously have to use the red lane in order to
>>>declare things which have to be declared.
>> What if the customs decided to do a physical check (which I presume
>>they do sometimes, otherwise there wouldn't be any purpose in having
>>red and green lanes)? This would require the two loads to be kept
>>completely separate, and both easily accessible.
>
>The Customs can do that to green lane traffic as well.
>
>My experience of red lane use is that HMRC accept what the traveller
>says, without demur, and either calculate a sum due or give an oral
>waiver.

Relatively few travellers present themselves in the red channel. If you
DO need to (usually because you have goods to declare), my experience is
that the customs officer is sometimes so excited to have found a
customer (or so annoyed to be disturbed!) that you occasionally get the
rest of your baggage searched, just in case you're trying to pull a fast
one.

>
>>> Was that too difficult?
>> The concept is simple, but it's wise to anticipate any snags and
>>inconveniences.
>>>
>>> Have you ever flown internationally?
>>>
>> Countless (and also driven) - and often had to take the red channel.
>>The blue was a great blessing!
>
>Then you are familiar with th way it works.
>
>Why the difficulty?

You are aware that, for us, the blue channel no longer exists - so it's
rather difficult to use it now!
--
Ian

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2022-06-18, Pancho <Pancho...@proton.me> wrote:
> On 18/06/2022 10:03, Roland Perry wrote:
>> While it's impractical to do anything about the existing Brexit vote,
>> one can agitate to try to make sure that such an egregious miscarriage
>> of democracy never happens again.
>
> There is a tendency to present democracy as universally "good", when it
> clearly isn't. Most people are not particularly well-informed, do not
> understand the problem space well enough to make good decisions.

Indeed. Not only that but it there's a tendency to misdescribe democracy
as "the rule of the majority". It doesn't mean that, it means "the rule
of the people". Generally, countries these days have representative
democracries, where the people elect representatives and those
representatives rule the country.

> Democracy's only real benefit is that it helps ensure people have a fair
> share of the pie. Or perhaps, more accurately, prevents them from
> perceiving themselves to be hard done by.

Indeed. People hopefully won't start violent revolutions to overthrow
the government if they feel their views are taken into account via
regular elections.

> I think many of us now understand the referendum was a dumb idea, I'm
> pretty sure EU politicians told Cameron that before it occurred. I would
> happily have ignored, overturned, the referendum result anyway possible.

It was quite obviously a terrible idea before it happened. Everybody
knew this. The only reason Cameron called it at all, in the way that
he did, was that he thought there was no chance of the wrong option
being chosen. It's the reason that I'd say that Cameron is the worst
prime minister of all time rather than the more obvious choice of
Johnson. It is utterly stupid to call a referendum unless all the
alternatives are sane. Calling a referendum that says "do you want
to destroy your country? Yes/No" is insane - the only possible
outcomes are "nothing changes" or "disaster".

> I don't think another referendum would have been undemocratic, if that
> was the only way to solve the problem. It is about the only thing I
> agreed with Kier Starmer on.

More than that - *not* calling another referendum was massively
*undemocratic*. But the authoritarians were having too much fun
with a result that they could use to justify doing whatever they
wanted.

[Roland Perry]

In message <jh4697...@mid.individual.net>, at 21:25:10 on Fri, 17
Jun 2022, kat <little...@hotmail.com> remarked:

Apparently there are also record numbers of people "economically
inactive". Whether that's early retirement or something else, it has
recently shrunk the workforce by a million.

>That sort of suggests that some people on benefits are now in work.

Some, but people on benefits are often because they are trapped in
circumstances where it's very difficult to work - disabled, single mums,
and so on. They are not candidates for a three-month shift picking crops
100 miles from home.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <jh5pnh...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:03:10 on Sat, 18

Jun 2022, kat <little...@hotmail.com> remarked:

>>> We have made suggestions.  The bill itself makes suggestions which
>>>aren't exactly awful, just little things like green lanes. The EU
>>>don't want to play, they want to punish us for daring to leave.
>>>
>> How can you use green lanes when lorries are carrying a mixed cargo -
>>some for NI and some for the RoI?
>
>How many would that problem actually affect? Is it not likely that most
>lorries would just deliver to one or the other? The few that might
>have loads for each side of the border would obviously have to go "red".

The elephant in the room here is a lorry genuinely making a delivery to
NI, which is then promptly transhipped across the borderless divide to
ROI.
--
Roland Perry

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 14 June 2022 at 22:54:36 UTC+1, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 14/06/2022 in message
> <562b54c3-ed12-47de...@googlegroups.com>
> notya...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >But basically Johnson sold Brexit to the UK electorate
> >Johnson negotiated Brexit
> >Johnson signed the treaty https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICY3vf94sRs&t=26s
> >Johnson had his party ratify it in Parliament
> >
> >Barely was the ink dry than Johnson wants the UK to renege and abrogate
> >the Treaty, for the first time in about eight centuries, unlike say the
> >Treaty of Utrecht (1715) where the UK expects Spain to leave Gibraltar
> >British.
> That's what triggered my memory that there was one aspect of he treaty
> that was left open or perhaps it was that one aspect could be cancelled if
> agreement couldn't be reached. Can't find anything on it now.

There was article 16 - oft threatened, that did allow some temporary variation in dire circumstances.
What Johnson and Frost want to do it just renege on terms they personally agreed and as above the PM signed and got ratified.

> >Pound $1.21, it lowest since 1985 - isn't Brexit going well?
> It's going extremely well,

try alt.uk.comedy - it's a bleeding shambles and you know it.

> we have balance between job vacancies and unemployed (we need to start reducing benefits now)

No we caused loads of essential workers to go home, and many of these can't be quickly or easily replaced (e.g. lorry drivers)

> we were free to help Ukraine

some countries weren't?

> we are independent and can hold our heads up.

Hang them in shame more like given some of the other antics of our current government.

> Economics is only
> one part of it and I doubt anybody an distinguish between the impact of

> Brexit, the pandemic. the invasion of Ukraine and the usual ups and downs
> seen in economies.

Well the Office of Budget Responsibility can - do read up: -

https://obr.uk/box/the-latest-evidence-on-the-impact-of-brexit-on-uk-trade/

no need to trawl through the monotonous text, just look at the pictures (graphs)

> Anyway we left, we need to get on with it and stop moaning.

Anyway quite a lot of the damage could be reversed by rejoining the Customs Union.

> --
> Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 00:40:14 UTC+1, Fredxx wrote:
> On 15/06/2022 00:01, Ian Jackson wrote:

SNIP

> > These have been three hammer-blows in rapid succession. While all are
> > partly responsible for our present increasingly dire situation, it's
> > fairly easy to apportion the blame. Covid and Ukraine have been outside
> > our control, but Brexit has been a totally (and largely
> > correctly-predicted) self-inflicted wound - and it will continue to fester.

> Hardly a wound for those who work.

Tell that to fishermen, farmers and hauliers - well if they still have a job / business...

> >> and the usual ups and downs seen in economies.
> >

> > The present situation is far from 'usual'!
> >

> >> Anyway we left, we need to get on with it and stop moaning.
> >>

> > Why? Brexit was a stupid decision, which needs to be corrected.

> It was a stupid idea to expand the EU to include developing countries.
> Which has now been corrected, in part.

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 06:04:10 UTC+1, Fredxx wrote:
> On 15/06/2022 01:18, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> > On 2022-06-14, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
> >> There was also (article 16?) a chance to change it temporarily if the
> >> other side didn't cooperate, but we really have no grounds to use that.
> >
> > The mysterious bit is that the UK government clearly doesn't think it
> > has grounds to use Article 16, since it hasn't done so, yet at the
> > same time thinks it has such extreme and urgent grounds that it can
> > unilaterally violate its agreements with the EU and claim "necessity".
> I suspect the UK legislation will be such that Article 16 will be
> invoked nearer the time of implementation. The simple reason would be to
> maintain democracy in NI.

NI had lots of votes.

2016 Referendum - large majority to remain.
2017 GE - unionists in a minority
2019 GE - unionists in a minority
2022 Assembly - DUP got about a quarter of the vote and only just came second, yet expect to be able to overturn the NI protocol with fractional support when protocol supporters got more than half.

Yes they should maintain democracy in NI and let the people have what they voted for.

[Norman Wells]

On 18/06/2022 12:50, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <UpOdnTT8x9JYCjD_...@brightview.co.uk>, Max
> Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com> writes

>> Like thinking it makes it easier to holiday on Europe,
>
> But it actually DOES!
>
> For example, we no longer have the privilege of relatively rapid entry
> via the EU passport control queues, but instead have to mix with the hoi
> poloi of the RoW. [I was actually talking to someone last week who had
> just been to Spain with her daughter. Although the daughter travelled on
> an Irish passport, in order to stay together they both had to use the
> RoW queue - and it took nearly two hours to get through.]

The length of time it takes is a function of how many staff or e-gates
they have on the passport control booths relative to the number of
holidaymakers, not just on that latter number alone. It's within the
authority's control to make the queuing time more or less.

Anyway, the opposite should happen on returning to the UK when, in
theory at least, UK citizens should just breeze through in minutes
because they do not have to 'mix with the hoi poloi of the RoW', now
including the EU.

[JNugent]

On 17/06/2022 10:21 pm, Sir Tim wrote:
> JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>> On 16/06/2022 09:25 pm, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> writes
>>>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>

>>>>>> It's going extremely well, we have balance between job vacancies and

>>>>>> unemployed (we need to start reducing benefits now)

>>>>>  Much of this somewhat novel 'virtually no unemployment' situation is
>>>>> largely because we've physically lost a lot of workers.
>>>

>>>>>> Economics is only one part of it and I doubt anybody an distinguish
>>>>>> between the impact of Brexit, the pandemic. the invasion of Ukraine

>>>>>  These have been three hammer-blows in rapid succession. While all
>>>>> are  partly responsible for our present increasingly dire situation,
>>>>> it's  fairly easy to apportion the blame. Covid and Ukraine have been
>>>>> outside  our control, but Brexit has been a totally (and largely
>>>>> correctly-predicted) self-inflicted wound - and it will continue to
>>>>> fester.
>>>

>>>>>> and the usual ups and downs seen in economies.
>>
>>>>>  The present situation is far from 'usual'!
>>>
>>>>>> Anyway we left, we need to get on with it and stop moaning.
>>>
>>>>> Why? Brexit was a stupid decision, which needs to be corrected.
>>>

>>>> You aren't an arch-democrat, are you?
>>>
>>> No - I'm just an ordinary one.
>>
>> You aren't one at all if you don't accept the primacy of the majority.
>> And you don't.
>
> I don’t see anything in Ian’s posts to suggest he does not accept the

> primacy of the majority. He is merely suggesting that Brexit was a stupid
> decision, which it clearly was.

Is that what "Brexit was a stupid decision, which needs to be
*corrected*" means, then? [my emphasis]

It sounds more like a *rejection* of a democratic decision.

Doesn't it?

>>> Yes - the Brexit decision was 'democratic' (at least in the sense we
>>> were able to cast a 'one man - one man' vote, and there are no
>>> suspicions that anyone 'stole the referendum', but being democratic does
>>> not prevent it turning out to be a stupid decision.
>
>> You can howl at the moon for the rest of your life. It won't change the
>> result.
>
> Of course not, but I have no doubt that within a few years we will apply to
> re-enter the world’s largest trading bloc. Sadly we will not be granted the
> highly favourable terms we once enjoyed, nor will we be able to become the
> leader of Europe we could have been.
>
>> Can you not even see that the EU-philes brought it upon themselves?
>
> Possibly, although the reasons for the vote in favour of Brexit were many,
> varied and certainly not all based economic realities.

Unimportant. There are all sorts of people, all with their own thoughts.

But the vote went the way it did.

The EU-o-philes brought it on themselves.

[JNugent]

All you have to do is convince a majority that their decision was bad
(because in your estimation, they are stupid, though you are clever).

Let us know how you get on, won't you?

[JNugent]

He isn't in prison because he jumped bail.

[JNugent]

I absolutely agree with you that EU politicians will have told Cameron
that letting the people vote on the matter was a bad idea.

I'd be shocked it it ever turned out to be otherwise.

[JNugent]

That latter has never happened to me. The last time I went "red" was a
few years ago, when I had - believe it or not - won an expensive item
(UK retail value £2,300+ inc. VAT) in a raffle in the USA.

The customs officer read the little note from the manufacturer to the
effect that I had been presented with the item as a prize, satisfied
himself that I was not in the retail trade and waived me thorough,
"nothing to pay".

Honesty is the best policy.

>
>>>> Was that too difficult?

>>>  The concept is simple, but it's wise to anticipate any snags and
>>> inconveniences.

Going through the red channel when you have dutiable goods to declare
isn't a snag and it's hardly inconvenient.

>>>> Have you ever flown internationally?
>
>>> Countless (and also driven) - and often had to take the red channel.
>>> The  blue was a great blessing!
>
>> Then you are familiar with th way it works.
>> Why the difficulty?
>
> You are aware that, for us, the blue channel no longer exists - so it's
> rather difficult to use it now!

There's green.

[JNugent]

On 18/06/2022 03:05 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

> kat <little...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>> We have made suggestions.  The bill itself makes suggestions which
>>>> aren't  exactly awful, just little things like green lanes. The EU
>>>> don't want to play,  they want to punish us for daring to leave.
>
>>> How can you use green lanes when lorries are carrying a mixed cargo -
>>> some for  NI and some for the RoI?
>
>> How many would that problem actually affect? Is it not likely that
>> most lorries would just deliver to one or the other?  The few that
>> might have loads for each side of the border would obviously have to
>> go "red".
>
> The elephant in the room here is a lorry genuinely making a delivery to
> NI, which is then promptly transhipped across the borderless divide to ROI.

Isn't that just as possible under the current conditions?

It would be very difficult to devise any system to eliminate that short
of a full international border between the UK and Ireland, which for
some reason, the actors all say they wish to avoid.

[Jon Ribbens]

That's odd - someone claiming to be you recently said "He's on remand
because he cannot be trusted to surrender to bail". "On remand" means
"in prison", and he "cannot be trusted to surrender to bail" because
he jumped bail. So are are you wrong now, or were you wrong then?

[kat]

I doubt you will ever eliminate smuggling, anywhere.

--
kat
>^..^<

[kat]

Have you seen the actual figures? There is a very good graph here

https://www.statista.com/statistics/281998/employment-figures-in-the-united-kingdom-uk

Total number of employed persons peaked in February at 33, 073. That was the
month just after we finally left the EU, and also started a pandemic and
lockdowns and unsurprisngly numbers dropped. By March this year they had risen
again to 32,632. A lot less than a million fewer, and rising not falling, which
is, I suppose, why more recent reports have suggested we have "record" numbers
in work. I also assume previously the numbers would have included more people
from elsewhere than they do now.

--
kat
>^..^<

[Ian Jackson]

In message <jh60cb...@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells
<h...@unseen.ac.am> writes

>On 18/06/2022 12:50, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> In message <UpOdnTT8x9JYCjD_...@brightview.co.uk>, Max
>>Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com> writes
>
>>> Like thinking it makes it easier to holiday on Europe,
>> But it actually DOES!
>> For example, we no longer have the privilege of relatively rapid
>>entry via the EU passport control queues, but instead have to mix
>>with the hoi poloi of the RoW. [I was actually talking to someone
>>last week who had just been to Spain with her daughter. Although the
>>daughter travelled on an Irish passport, in order to stay together
>>they both had to use the RoW queue - and it took nearly two hours to
>>get through.]
>
>The length of time it takes is a function of how many staff or e-gates
>they have on the passport control booths relative to the number of
>holidaymakers, not just on that latter number alone. It's within the
>authority's control to make the queuing time more or less.

I believe that the Spanish are also short of staff at airports (but not
as bad as the UK). Whatever the reason for the delay, it's little
consolation to a traveller.

>
>Anyway, the opposite should happen on returning to the UK when, in
>theory at least, UK citizens should just breeze through in minutes
>because they do not have to 'mix with the hoi poloi of the RoW', now
>including the EU.
>

Not necessarily. Today I heard an in-phoner saying that it too two hours
to get through Stansted arrivals.
--
Ian

[Max Demian]

On 18/06/2022 12:41, Pancho wrote:
> On 18/06/2022 10:03, Roland Perry wrote:

>> While it's impractical to do anything about the existing Brexit vote,
>> one can agitate to try to make sure that such an egregious miscarriage
>> of democracy never happens again.

> There is a tendency to present democracy as universally "good", when it
> clearly isn't. Most people are not particularly well-informed, do not
> understand the problem space well enough to make good decisions.
>
> Democracy's only real benefit is that it helps ensure people have a fair
> share of the pie. Or perhaps, more accurately, prevents them from
> perceiving themselves to be hard done by.

You mean make them *think* they have a "fair share of the pie" when they
clearly don't.

> Any sensible system will delegate decision-making to a small management
> team of people who have the resources and ability to understand problems
> and make sensible decisions.
>
> But I'm pretty sure we all know and agree on this.

*Theoretically* "philosopher kings" are a good idea. Except that kings,
"philosopher" or otherwise, always think they ought to live in nice palaces.

--
Max Demian

[Pancho]

On 19/06/2022 11:01, Max Demian wrote:
> On 18/06/2022 12:41, Pancho wrote:
>> On 18/06/2022 10:03, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>>> While it's impractical to do anything about the existing Brexit vote,
>>> one can agitate to try to make sure that such an egregious
>>> miscarriage of democracy never happens again.
>
>> There is a tendency to present democracy as universally "good", when
>> it clearly isn't. Most people are not particularly well-informed, do
>> not understand the problem space well enough to make good decisions.
>>
>> Democracy's only real benefit is that it helps ensure people have a
>> fair share of the pie. Or perhaps, more accurately, prevents them from
>> perceiving themselves to be hard done by.
>
> You mean make them *think* they have a "fair share of the pie" when they
> clearly don't.
>

No, I meant make them think they have a fair share of the pie. If they
do, or don't, isn't relevant. As Jon pointed out, it is the perception
that stops revolutions.

>> Any sensible system will delegate decision-making to a small
>> management team of people who have the resources and ability to
>> understand problems and make sensible decisions.
>>
>> But I'm pretty sure we all know and agree on this.
>
> *Theoretically* "philosopher kings" are a good idea. Except that kings,
> "philosopher" or otherwise, always think they ought to live in nice
> palaces.
>

And even in our democracy, we see that. We see democratic elites in
Brussels, Washington and London. In many ways, the Brexit vote was a
vote against this. EU democracy is failing to convince many they are
getting a fair slice of the pie. I suspect US democracy is suffering
similarly, and the UK.

Money, vested interests, dominate western politics, it is hard to see
how that will change, perhaps we do need a revolution.

[JNugent]

He's in prison on remand. He would be on remand no matter what.

The relevant alleged offence is that cited by the USA federal government.

Because of his previous behaviour, he cannot be trusted to answer bail,
so his remand is custodial.

There was a time when he was (a) remanded and (b) serving a sentence in
custody on a bail-jumping charge.

That was then. This is now.

[JNugent]

On 18/06/2022 10:11 pm, Ian Jackson wrote:

> Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> writes

>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com> writes
>
>>>> Like thinking it makes it easier to holiday on Europe,

>>> But it actually DOES!
>>> For example, we no longer have the privilege of relatively rapid
>>> entry  via the EU passport control queues, but instead have to mix
>>> with the hoi  poloi of the RoW. [I was actually talking to someone
>>> last week who had  just been to Spain with her daughter. Although the
>>> daughter travelled on  an Irish passport, in order to stay together
>>> they both had to use the  RoW queue - and it took nearly two hours to
>>> get through.]
>
>> The length of time it takes is a function of how many staff or e-gates
>> they have on the passport control booths relative to the number of
>> holidaymakers, not just on that latter number alone.  It's within the
>> authority's control to make the queuing time more or less.
>
> I believe that the Spanish are also short of staff at airports (but not
> as bad as the UK). Whatever the reason for the delay, it's little
> consolation to a traveller.
>
>> Anyway, the opposite should happen on returning to the UK when, in
>> theory at least, UK citizens should just breeze through in minutes
>> because they do not have to 'mix with the hoi poloi of the RoW', now
>> including the EU.
>
> Not necessarily. Today I heard an in-phoner saying that it too two hours
> to get through Stansted arrivals.

And who knows?

It might even be true.

Or it might just have been a lily being gilded.

"I heard some bloke say this on a radio phone-in" is not exactly an
argument-trumping gambit, is it?

If you'd heard someone say they got through in ten minutes, I suspect
that you'd have discounted that entirely and would not have mentioned it
here.

[Jon Ribbens]

because he cannot be trusted to surrender to bail". Now you're saying
"He would be on remand no matter what". So are you wrong now, or were
you wrong then?

[JNugent]

That depends on what "the workforce" consists and consisted of.

We are advised that many citizens of other European states have left the
UK. That being the case, it would be surprising if "the workforce" were
not smaller than it was.

>> That sort of suggests that some people on benefits are now in work.
>
> Some, but people on benefits are often because they are trapped in
> circumstances where it's very difficult to work - disabled, single mums,
> and so on. They are not candidates for a three-month shift picking crops
> 100 miles from home.

Such people would not be required to seek work.