[cherdano]

Zelandakh, on 2019-August-27, 05:21, said:

what should happen when reporters wilfully publish false stories (as Boris famously did back in the day before he entered mainstream politics).

Cyberyeti, on 2019-August-27, 07:29, said:

Boris wasn't a reporter anytime recently, he was a columnist, different job, more of a shock jock, not paid to find facts, paid to provoke comment and raise the profile of the paper.

As always, I recommend reading posts before replying to them.

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2019-August-27, 07:46, said:

As always, I recommend reading posts before replying to them.

Oh I read it, I thought he was a columnist BEFORE entering parliament, and indeed while that wasn't correct, he'd moved on to editing long before standing for mayor so was not investigating/making up stories himself

[hrothgar]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-August-27, 07:29, said:

Boris wasn't a reporter anytime recently, he was a columnist, different job, more of a shock jock, not paid to find facts, paid to provoke comment and raise the profile of the paper.

This is non responsive to the original post.

Regardless of whether or not Boris was a shock jock, he was fired from from his job at the Times of London for inventing quotes and misrepresenting facts.

[Cyberyeti]

hrothgar, on 2019-August-27, 08:48, said:

This is non responsive to the original post.

Regardless of whether or not Boris was a shock jock, he was fired from from his job at the Times of London for inventing quotes and misrepresenting facts.

As a graduate trainee, lots of whom do stupid things in their first jobs.

Btw I'm not here to defend Boris, I very much think he's unsuited to lead a dog let alone the country but due to things he's done as a proper adult.

[fromageGB]

Winstonm, on 2019-August-26, 08:40, said:

I have two questions: 1) What are the skills needed to be welcomed and who makes that determination? 2) Why are other immigrants unwelcome?

cherdano, on 2019-August-26, 16:55, said:

Thank you! That makes me feel so welcome!! Especially the restricted basis! And only for "skilled" immigrants! I guess I should feel honoured because you are implying I might pass the skill test?

The first is a question for the new government, of which I will not be a part, so bridge-playing might not count. I fully expect there to be points-based system of immigration qualification (together with "compassionate" entries) as there is in say Australia.

The second is simply because once the quota has been reached, the impact on resources and existing residents would cause too much strain.

Not knowing you personally, cherdano, I am guessing you might qualify !

[Winstonm]

fromageGB, on 2019-August-27, 12:25, said:

The first is a question for the new government, of which I will not be a part, so bridge-playing might not count. I fully expect there to be points-based system of immigration qualification (together with "compassionate" entries) as there is in say Australia.

The second is simply because once the quota has been reached, the impact on resources and existing residents would cause too much strain.

Not knowing you personally, cherdano, I am guessing you might qualify !

Quotas by their nature ore tautological. Whatever impacts or strains caused or relieved by immigrants is unrelated to the quota. To argue that a quota is a part of a solution advances an unspoken argument that too many immigrants are a net negative on an economy and its country, which I do not think is accurate. To argue that way is to assume that the pie can only be so big, and any additional bodies mean taking a smaller slice. In my understanding, immigrants tend to increase the size of the pie so they are at least a neutral but more likely a positive. https://www.independ...t-a8542841.html

[Cyberyeti]

Winstonm, on 2019-August-27, 14:07, said:

Quotas by their nature ore tautological. Whatever impacts or strains caused or relieved by immigrants is unrelated to the quota. To argue that a quota is a part of a solution advances an unspoken argument that too many immigrants are a net negative on an economy and its country, which I do not think is accurate. To argue that way is to assume that the pie can only be so big, and any additional bodies mean taking a smaller slice. In my understanding, immigrants tend to increase the size of the pie so they are at least a neutral but more likely a positive.

Some immigrants are hugely positive and in the net figures they outweigh the ones that aren't.

[Lovera]

Have you read this one ?:https://brexitcentra...-their-demands/
Does not seems that EU image looks good. Is it so ? What kind of agreement was delivered ?

[cherdano]

Lovera, on 2019-August-27, 14:36, said:

Have you read this one ?:https://brexitcentra...-their-demands/
Does not seems that EU image looks good. Is it so ? What kind of agreement was delivered ?

This article cannot even quote article 50 correctly. Either brexitcentral has horribly incompetent editorial processes, or it takes its readers for fools.

[cherdano]

fromageGB, on 2019-August-27, 12:25, said:

The second is simply because once the quota has been reached, the impact on resources and existing residents would cause too much strain.

Not knowing you personally, cherdano, I am guessing you might qualify !

I am terribly sorry for the impact I've had on you, and the strain I have caused!
I am also thankful for clarifying that your opposition to the EU has nothing at all to do with xenophobia. Just some cold hard facts about resources and impacts and strain. Your life must be so difficult.

[cherdano]

I've got to say, the most exciting thing I've learned in this thread is that we have an Orange Juice Tariff specialist among us on BBF!

[fromageGB]

Winstonm, on 2019-August-27, 14:07, said:

... To argue that a quota is a part of a solution advances an unspoken argument that too many immigrants are a net negative on an economy and its country, which I do not think is accurate. To argue that way is to assume that the pie can only be so big, and any additional bodies mean taking a smaller slice.

Let me speak it then. Too many immigrants are a net negative on the country. Which pie you mean is critical here. The land pie is definitely only so big, and we are already a densely populated country. I moved to the north from the south to avoid being surrounded by so many people, so many big buildings, and so much traffic. I choose not to live in NewYork, Hong Kong, or similar. While we live on the edge of a town/city for the convenient facilities, open fields and woods are alongside the house, and it does not take long to walk out of sight of practically all habitation. I can drive on comparatively empty roads a short distance to be in open country. This is being destroyed by new housing that appears all the time, and each year immigration is equivalent to building a whole city.

Other pies, such as supply of water, sewage, health services and other necessities may be growable, but are limited and not capable of rapid expansion. Hence there has to be a quota. To my mind, a reasonable quota would be to keep the total population down to a steady level.

I see no purpose in increasing GDP, or even GDP per head, if it means more heads. If this is your definition of improving the economy, I do not want it improved.
A reducing GDP and reducing headcount would be my choice.

[cherdano]

fromageGB, on 2019-August-28, 03:39, said:

A reducing GDP and reducing headcount would be my choice.

Do you tell your Polish bridge partners that if it were up to you, they'd have to draw lots and the loser would have to leave the country?
But as always, I want to credit your for your honesty. hrothgar was accusing the no-deal-Brexiters of trying to shoot themselves in the foot. You proudly announce that you intend to do so!
(I assume you do know that lower GDP will also mean less money for NHS, schools, streets, ...)

[fromageGB]

cherdano, on 2019-August-26, 16:55, said:

... No, VAT doesn't count, because if the EU encouraged the UK to switch part of their taxbase from one method of taxation to a more economically efficient method of taxation that doesn't inconvenience anyone.

This statement is astounding. It can only have been said by someone who has not had to administer it. My company was VAT registered, and I have never known so much administration and reporting to no purpose. "We'll tax the work you do, but if you spend a good portion of your life recording in minute detail every breath you draw in, individually, and send us the documentation of that breathing, you can claim some of the tax back again." Such a bureaucratic nightmare can only have been invented by the EU.

Efficiency?

* * *

Yes, Cherdano, obviously a lower GDP means less money for schools etc. The concomitant reduction in people would mean this has no adverse impact. But that is by the by. I think we should just agree that we disagree, and leave it at that.

[cherdano]

"Efficiency" for taxation is a technical term in economics. Google if you want to discuss it.

And you were talking about lower GDP per head, so not, the lower money wouldn't be fully offset by fewer people. Just proudly stand in the shoot yourself in the foot corner, nothing wrong with that!

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2019-August-28, 04:30, said:

"Efficiency" for taxation is a technical term in economics. Google if you want to discuss it.

And you were talking about lower GDP per head, so not, the lower money wouldn't be fully offset by fewer people. Just proudly stand in the shoot yourself in the foot corner, nothing wrong with that!

You are unsufferably patronising. Pure wealth is not everything if you can't enjoy it, and if the price of wealth/growth is ever shrinking green spaces, less clean air, lower quality of life etc it's not a price worth paying in his view. A reasonable view, not shooting himself in the foot.

[cherdano]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-August-28, 09:06, said:

You are unsufferably patronising. Pure wealth is not everything if you can't enjoy it, and if the price of wealth/growth is ever shrinking green spaces, less clean air, lower quality of life etc it's not a price worth paying in his view. A reasonable view, not shooting himself in the foot.

LOL, this guy tells me more-or-less directly "you might even be still be allowed to stay in the country under my preferred regime" and your main worry is that *I* am patronizing to *him*? May I suggest that you are reading this thread with some coloured glasses?

Also, I set him straight on the meaning of economically efficient taxation *after* he made it clear he didn't know what this term meant. If I wanted to be patronizing I would have assumed from the start that this is above his head...

But all that aside, ok, let me take back the "shoot yourself in the foot" metaphor. Do I understand correctly that the Brexiter position in this thread is to accept lower material living standards in exchange for fewer people living in the UK? This is certainly not an illogical position, and it's quite a bit more honest and less dilusional than the standard Brexiter talking points...

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2019-August-28, 10:25, said:

But all that aside, ok, let me take back the "shoot yourself in the foot" metaphor. Do I understand correctly that the Brexiter position in this thread is to accept lower material living standards in exchange for fewer people living in the UK? This is certainly not an illogical position, and it's quite a bit more honest and less dilusional than the standard Brexiter talking points...

I don't know if it's the standard position, it appeared to be the one he was taking. It also tallies with the position some remainers/environmentalists take re: having less kids etc.

[Lovera]

cherdano, on 2019-August-28, 03:26, said:

This article cannot even quote article 50 correctly. Either brexitcentral has horribly incompetent editorial processes, or it takes its readers for fools.

Maybe. You could say that the narration of the article written by Austin Mitchell is eventually dramatized but when it brings the words in quotation marks (like those said by Michel Barnier) those things happened. And I don't think this is correct, seen in the context of implementing such an important agreement.

[Winstonm]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-August-28, 11:25, said:

I don't know if it's the standard position, it appeared to be the one he was taking. It also tallies with the position some remainers/environmentalists take re: having less kids etc.

The main point IMO is to have honest discussions.