Who should be next UK PM?

And we call that rethink Brexit.  Which as we all know is the most devisive issue the Kingdom has ever had to face.   All so some people who don't think we should have Eastern European workers and others who have been brainwashed into believing they are the source of our Social Fabric Collapse and economic plight can soapbox.

Yes ads, but when you are in the club you have to abide by it’s rules. How can you blame migrants for seeking a better life, what would you do, free healthcare, housing, universal credit (don’t know why it’s called credit, nobody pays it back).

We have welcomed the world into the UK with open arms, it’s a bit late to think leaving the EU now will make it all disappear.

What any of this has to do with the next Prime Minister I don't know. I do know that Angeleyes started off with good intentions about no B word but it has degenerated somewhat.

However, a couple of things that Ads has mentioned.

Firstly migration to UK. It is not unfettered. The UK controls its own borders with relation to those outside the EU coming into the country but, as they outnumber the EU citizens by some 2 to 1 at least, they don't seem to be doing such a good job of it. They also control, to an extent, the EU citizens coming into UK and have denied access to (according to the Home Office) some 6,500 EU citizens over the last couple of years. The EU states they can refuse access to EU citizens on public policy, public security or public health grounds. So. as Michael Gove once said, "Inside the EU we have to accept that anyone with an EU passport, even if they have a criminal record, can breeze into Britain." The Home Office were quick to put the lie to that one. So there is no policy that REMOVES (sorry for the capitals) a nation's ability to refuse entry.

Then there's the bit Ads talked about with regards to a weak pound being good for an economy as it can boost exports. Surely that would only work if the country was a net exporter? UK is, by a long shot, a net importer which means the price of goods coming in will increase and far outweigh any benefit to the export market. Exporting £274 billion of goods to the EU is rather dwarfed by the £341 billion we import. And the difference will only get greater as the pound devalues as the export price will be less whilst the import price will increase. And if it wasn't for the service industry (banking, insurance etc) that export figure would be some 40% less.

Still, the next PM will be Boris (just to try and put the subject back on the original). Then you can start worrying.

UK immigration control is now history and a lost cause. Even the current immigrants are protesting about the open door ‘’come on in’’ situation. The horse has bolted.

BORIS

If the devaluation of Sterling was a positive for the UK economy it should be booming by now having lost some 20% of it's value since the referendum. In fact exports are struggling. Imports are increasingly adding to inflation.

In reality if Johnson leaves without a deal and that's by no means certain he actually could, then very soon Britain will have to return, cap in hand to the EU to seek some form of trade deal. It's bargaining strength will be weakened in that event and the country will have to accept the terms the EU hands out. The reason is that despite the rhetoric Europe needs Britain far less than Britain needs Europe. Europe have had three years to get used to the idea of a Union without Britains contributions 

That said I'm sure the EU wants a settlement accetable to both but only on the current terms agreed. They are never going to throw Ireland under a bus.

Johnson was never an actual Euro sceptic anyway. He campaigned to leave only for self advancement. It looks like he won for now but it will prove a pyrrhic victory. It will destroy him politically because natural justice has a way of always defeating the disingenuious.

In comparison to the rest of the EU, the U.K. has been booming relatively, Italy for example has had NO growth since 2010 and unemployment in many EU countries remains high.

Germany is heading for recession, Greece is still a basket case and Spain continues to keep its head in the sand of the Med.

IF Boris or whoever finds a way to deliver on a democratic decision of the British public, Tory & Labour supporters alike and we do find a way to leave either via No Deal or a deal similar to Mays then we will be able to import many goods from countries outside the U.K. at reduced prices.

Some economists have suggested a 7% reduction in food costs as there is a big world out there waiting to sell goods to the U.K. without the imposition of EU tariffs.

The Irish would need to come to us to do a deal to ensure all their agricultural exports to EU countries which currently all go through the U.K. 

Farmers and manufacturers in the U.K. can increase output to sell at home or abroad, slowly, yes but achievable.

I am no Boris fan and he may well fall flat on his face but at least he will give it a chance.

Mariedav,

My point re the EU taking away control re entry to the UK was not relating to border control concerning security or health issues etc but more related to the fact that EU citizens (and subsequently their families ) were allowed entry under EU rules without any regard for the UK govt to assess and control where they needed specific skills or labour....this is where it appears unfettered...nor does it allow the UK to asses whether there is sufficient infrastructure, housing etc in place to accommodate for any swift uncontrolled influx as occurred. I’m sure you can appreciate the ensuing impacts when this form of control is taken away and becomes an unfettered right in this particular regard.

Mickeyfinn

According to latest data, UK imports are not increasing as you suggest

“Among major trading partners, imports of goods from the EU tumbled 16.4 percent, primarily Germany (-12.3 percent), the Netherlands (-27.2 percent), France (-24.3 percent), Italy (-9.1 percent), Belgium (-8.4 percent) and Spain (-16.2 percent). Meantime, purchases from non-EU countries shrank 8.5 percent, mostly the US (-13.2 percent), China (-1.2 percent), Switzerland (-4.1 percent), Australia (-41 percent) and India (-4.1 percent).”

In terms of trade opportunity it’s important to note that Brexit provides far greater opportunities to address  the economic disparity across regions of the UK. As a member of the EU, the UK has been restricted by the need to adhere to a trade policy heavily shaped by rules and regulations from Brussels. 

It has been noted that leaving the EU Customs Union and Single Market, would allow the UK to establish free ports, something currently prohibited by EU membership, and this could be accomplished in many of the poorer areas in the UK, creating jobs and fuelling the regional economy. This would prove a huge opportunity for the UK.

It has also been suggested that establishing opportunity zones could assist with the aim of boosting investment to the most economically distressed areas. As with free ports, these would be geographic areas where tax incentives could be conferred to encourage individuals to reinvest and retain capital gains within them. The result of this would be an increase in investment in the regions that need it the most, helping to recompense the disparity between them and London and the South East.

Re UK deficit

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_deficit_analysis 

The “current budget deficit*” is estimated to be a surplus of £17.7 billion.

In 2005 the UK “current budget deficit” was less that £20 billion. But then came the worldwide financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent recession. The budget deficit skyrocketed to £50 billion in 2009 and £103 billion in 2010. In the subsequent recovery the deficit has steadily declined, down to £1.9 billion in 2018. At the end of March 2019 the “current budget deficit” was a surplus of £19 billion.

In terms of Gross Domestic Product the UK “current budget deficit” in 2005 was less than 2 percent of GDP, and declined to about 0.6 percent GDP in 2007 and 2008. In the Great Recession the deficit ballooned, to 6.9 percent of GDP in 2010. Since then the deficit has steadily declined, to less than one percent GDP in 2017. At the end of March 2019 the “current budget deficit” was a surplus of 0.9 percent of GDP.

Agreed however that the debt as opposed to deficit, is far too large, hence my query re a country’s need to take control of its migration policy when austerity measures are needed to control spiralling debt repayments.

As Hugh man has observed there have been alternative economic assessments which should not be dismissed out of hand without detailed review and account should be factored in for positive new opportunities and growth potential.

So given all of the above who has been debating this in the PM hustings? Both candidates if the truth be known, although Boris appears to have picked up more so on the regional disparities.

But the UK has never controlled Non EU immigration, so all this give us back are borders is nonsense.

Hugh

Trading under WTO tariffs will increase import/export costs not decrease them. Currently, WTO food imports into the EU are 21% of the value. The UK would have to start from scratch in brokering its own trade deals, which require considerable capacity and time, with the potential for significant delays. It cannot start trading on 1st November under WTO tariff-free. Each member country has its own set of tariffs it applies. Since the EU has to legally treat all WTO members equally UK exports to the EU will attract the 21% tariff. The UK’s fishing exports to the EU would be subject to a 9.6% tariff under WTO-only rules. Clothes manufactured in the UK and exported to the EU would be subject to an 11% tariff. The lists are long.

Post-Brexit a decrease in food costs is very unlikely for some time until reciprocal deals are signed up which can take years. All this disruption and pain for what benefit? Satisfying a misled population in a referendum which if it were held today would probably produce an opposite result.

Boris

Ads

If Spain only only allowed those with specific skills or labour then I, for one, wouldn't be living here and neither would many Brits.

‘’Probably’’ is only a guess and your desire.

Mariedav

I understand your point but this is exactly where one side does not suit all in the rules according to free movement, as Spain was understandably content for those expats who could afford to invest in the country and had an income supply or filled jobs or created employment, or spent their income  etc,  which supported the Spanish economy, but in so doing without major disruption to infrastructure and health etc. 

In other words they did not at that time require strict controls because it suited the Spanish economy. They were not impacted in the same manner as the UK which was acting as a swift uncontrolled magnet, before the UK was ready and able to support the quantity of migrants coming from the EU ( hence having witnessed the problems from the first round of movements under labour when other countries had not done so, the PMs request for a delay in the second round of movements was subsequently denied by the EU Commission). 

Having said that some years on the problem associated with Spanish coastal overbuild reared its head, and innocent citizens were scapegoated in the absence of protection, used as pawns between local and regional authorities. Not to mention the Banking abuses, and all other issues related to corrupt practices, for which the innocent citizen was exposed. Again it came down to the EU not dealing effectively or in any timely manner with uncomfortable unforeseen circumstances that left citizens at risk.

As for unemployment, this again was not planned for in any responsible manner by effective EU growth strategies (which they have finally woken up to if you listen to EU parliamentary debates)...but far too late for the UK who as Kavanagh has suggested is after the horse has bolted, so to speak.

Basically what I am suggesting is that free movement has been presumably envisaged with good intent but by the Commission’s intransigence and lack of flexibility to adequately respond,  has worked against the UK, which has sadly impacted the cohesive and tolerant desires of many. It shouldn’t be a case of us and them, it should be a case of how best can we work together as nation states and not be dictated to by a Commission unwilling to effectively respond when the need arises.

Now it appears through the Brexit vote that UK citizens have lost trust in the EU system in recognition of the lack of control and influence that we have in reforming a system in which we appear to be being scapegoated.

ads: Again it came down to the EU not dealing effectively or in any timely manner with uncomfortable unforeseen circumstances that left citizens at risk.

It is not the EU's role to deal with Spanish property, corruption and banking abuse. It was/is a national and regional government issue. You are blaming once again the wrong horse. Spain is awash with migrants from every corner of Europe and beyond. The Spanish deal with the situation pragmatically. They do not make knee-jerk political decisions such as leaving the EU. If their infrastructure can cope why not Britains? Spain suffered badly in the recession yet it has recovered without any reduction in public services. 

UK annual growth to March 19 - 1.4%, Spain 2.4 Euroland 1.5%.

Much depends upon the scale of abuse and when a country does not take adequate action to protect citizens, other than exposing them to further financial burdens to defend themselves within an under resourced justice system . Likewise with adherence to Banking compliance mechanisms....the Bank of Spain has done little to protect citizens caught up in their financial abusive practices that impacted innocent citizens and exposes them to further financial burdens and lengthy litigation ( and still continues to do so). The Banks hypocritically write their compliance statements but in reality fail to comply. Catch 22.

There should be a fair and effective system in place for the EU to protect and act as last line of protection , which includes ensuring the rule of law is being complied with ( which includes adequate and enforceable disincentive mechanisms). 

But the irony is that the EU were by their free movement policies encouraging movements without adequate checks in place to protect both citizens and a nations infrastructure etc. Bad mismanagement and too many tuning of blind eyes I’m afraid. Using citizens as scapegoats is no solution to test out a theory without flexible mechanisms in place to adapt as required.

As for migrants in Spain, there are calls going out for better EU management as we speak, but they have not been subjected to anywhere near the scale of impacts that the UK have been subjected to. Please examine the facts as shown in the year by year chart titled “Establishment of rights of nationals of each EEA member state to work in each other member state”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_for_workers_in_the_European_Union

This message was last edited by ads on 22/07/2019.

One of the reasons the UK voted to leave the EU is always given as too much EU interference in member states governance. You ads suggest more of that is desirable not less. You want stricter regulation and state control. A Johnson government will cut red tape, reduce controls and remove regulations. So Brexit will deliver exactly the opposite of that which you seek.

The reason EU migrants favoured Britain as a destination was the opportunities for employment and a better life. They contributed to the economy and created wealth, efficient public services and market demand. That is now at an end as unsuprisingly many no longer see a future in a post brexit Britain. Severe austerity imposed after the recession caused services to fail not the 3m new inhabitants. Suddenly EU migration became a political problem. To avoid criticism where it should actually live, Brexit became a useful political tool to deflect criticism for failing government. 

Britain has been led up a primrose path to everlasting disaster. 

Boris

We could debate ad infinitum Mickeyfinn,  but you refuse to see some uncomfortable realities when presented with factual evidence, that dispute your observations.

You also have a tendency to misinterpret...for instance when you conclude and generalise that I want  more interference not less.

You fail to appreciate that there is a requirement for more protection of citizens in the scenario relating to abuse, whilst also recognising the need for the EU to remain flexible when circumstances that impact nation states citizens dictate. That is not me wanting more interference  per see... it’s facing up to finding a better way of managing and responding, when needs must. Common sense really if the truth be known.

Once again to generalise that migration is “at an end” is to fail to see that migration into the UK would continue but under  greater control from within. Brexit won’t stop those who still wish to come and work, where circumstances are mutually beneficial, but there’s the point....mutually beneficial. No one other than yourself appears to be suggesting that we close up shop, so to speak. 

As for austerity in the UK, it was inevitable following the Banking crisis that control had to be taken to stop the debt repayments spiralling out of control, but again it comes down to a balance and good financial modelling and analysis to identify at what point austerity could be relaxed.

There are many schools of thought in this regard, and this is an area that requires great reflection and reassessment of methods used, to learn where mistakes have been made, not only from the UK perspective but also the EU.

When to print money, when not to, when to take appropriate action to control debt, when to control money supply, or over spending, under investment, compliance within the  Banking industry....etc. But also focus on strategies associated with  growth. 

You talk of deflecting criticism for failing government....well in reality it could easily be also argued that you too have deflected criticism for failing EU Commission mismanagement and intransigence.

Each have played their part in this scenario, but the difference is that one Govt appears willing to respect its citizens democratic decision, and hopefully take back control to improve the status quo, whereas the other remains intransigent to change, refusing to listen to growing concerns across its member states.

Have you listened to the recent debates in EU Parliament where many have expressed disillusionment in the methods employed to decide upon the President of the EU Commission. Have you also heard the cries for reform etc.

Ads - if I could understand your English usages then that might be a better form of progress. In almost all your posts you complain the EU or somone else are failing in this and that because of lack of intervention. Challenge you on that and there's denial. Reading your posts is like researching the meto-physical properties of mass. I have the impression that I'm communicating with Amazon's Alexa. 

"How are we today"? "Here are some web sites you can visit to see how being well can be found."  Being well is a fundamental human aspiration but its failing because regulations are not being applied which in turn leads to a lack of intransigence, social cohesion and harmony leading to.....?

Your not really real but its amusing reading your missives.