Brexit and moving London forward

0
1 month ago (11:08 AM)
To join this discussion please register or log in

Comments:

clark

Must have been disappointing for Reminders to have lost out nationally despite London voting in favour. However it did highlight how London stands outside the rest of the UK and will help achieve greater autonomy

alggomas

The truth is that the whole country voted. Just because the majority ( which could only be 3 %,,). Of certain parts voted against brexit is neither here or there. It was a vote out. The media and some politicians are the cause if " divisions". Do we hold another general election because the voters may have been misled?
Let's leave the u government but remain in reasonable terms with Europe.
We may not get the best terms but we will trade with Europe and the rest of the world. There us not enough space or time to discuss everything but everyone who voted out knew it was not going to be an easy ride.

livehere

new

Sadly, only two thirds of the country voted. But probably the percentages for and against would have been similar.

londheart

I was an active member of the Remain campaign. However I was very conflicted about it because of the appalling deal that the EU has been setting up in the shape of TTIP. The Referendum seemed an odd, unprecedented and unfortunate political situation in which voting either way would lead to disastrous consequences. I am sincerely hoping that the divisive Brexit vote will not decide UK membership of the EU for all time, but give Britain strength and time to negotiate something genuinely beneficial and acceptable to all.

livehere

We are able to fight against TTIP clauses that are bad while we are in the EU. It will be impossible to fight against them from outside it, whether they come with EEA etc trade deals or whether the same removal of sovereignty clauses come in trade agreements with US, China etc separately. Especially now that we will have far-right Tories in power, who will not even tell the UK population what deals they are signing up to. It was a measure of combine EU people-power that we got the info on TTIP and the campaigning against it.

Steve R

livehere - Totally agree, I have read the TTIP and also the other equivalents that the US has imposed, no other way to say it, on other nations, the use of secret UN courts for arbitration, so secret that neither the action, process or conclusion can ever be made public under these "trade" agreements is the most evil part of TTIP, only the EU has the power to strike it out. I have requested more information from my 2 MEPS but hold out little hope for any action by them.

jchollo

Well Steve the EU is taking an awfully long time to "Strike it Out" I doubt it ever will! The UKIP MEPs lead a revolt against TTIP some time ago and stop it being passed, but as you know
the EU keeps coming back pushing for TTIP.

LloydFoulds

We as a country have had 43 years to negotiate a mutually beneficial deal with the EU. In all that time the UK has remained the second largest contributor. Essentially we have been supporting the EU finances second only to Germany. And for what? Supporting the EU has only served the interests of the poorer nations such as Poland (the single largest benefactor of the EU). The EU is also the largest non-elected, non-audited governing body in the world. There is no accountability for anything they do.

At least by leaving the UK will be able to make it's own decisions to benefit solely the UK. Remember always that the UK entered the Common Market and not the EU. The EU was never mentioned, nor was the controlling interest of Brussels. Having spoken to many who voted for us to join the Common Market, not one of them would have voted ues, had they been told the truth.

It is not acceptable to then say well we are in the EU now so we should stay. No form of dishonesty should be allowed to continue and it is only my opinion, but the lies of 43 years ago are being undone, not only by those who were lied to all those years ago, but also by those of us who believe our sovereignty as a nation is more important than the financial industry and banking.

Rs3

It was always obvious, indeed was always clear as an objective of the Common Market, that harmonisation of laws was a predictable outcome. Look at the history of the Sterling Area in the 1950's, where the actions and desires of Commonwealth countries to act to support their own local priorities rather than act for the good of the Sterling community as a whole was a primary cause of the failure of the Sterling Area and the need for the UK to give in to the demands of some commonwealth countries, especially Australia and New Zealand, to go it alone.

The actions of their politicians caused thirty years of economic difficulty ( blamed in a typical political fashion not on themselves but on the UK for 'abandoning them'). Blaming the politicians in the UK for 'not telling us about the EU" at the time is a bit like watching football only for global events like the Euro Championships. The first time observer sees that footballers are unable to play 'the game' but are always cheating by tripping, pulling shirts, professional fouls, diving and so on. The regular observer is surprised that this 'normal' behaviour should cause comment 'because that is how the game is played'. In the same way the politicians of the day recognised the underlying implications of the Common Market and didn't feel the need to explain what was so obvious to them.

LloydFoulds

"that harmonisation of laws was a predictable outcome" is not something the average voter would have been aware of. Like all hindsight, things become clear after they happened. At the time the common market was only that. As I stated previously, had the voters been told that laws would have to be harmonised to suit other countries rather than the UK, the voters would have said no.

Bearing in mind that in the early seventies, the war for most middle aged was a memory. We had been fighting Europe for hundreds of years and no one was likely to want to join the old enemies in harmonised legislation.

It was a time of trying to move on from the economically stagnant 50's and 60's. Oil was starting to be the driving force we now know it to be with the formation of OPEC and the 1970's restrictions on oil production massively increased world oil prices. Joining a common market was a good idea and still is. However the harmonisation of legislation was not and still isn't.

Ask yourselves which laws have benefited the UK. Human rights - the legalised inability to remove those we do not want from our own country because someone in another country says we can't?
The removal of the original and historic routemaster buses from London streets?
The controlled size of bananas?
The restrictions upon us as to who we may trade with?
The inability for the UK to influence where our billions of pounds of EU contributions go to coupled with weak politicians who have been unable to negotiate a suitable financial arrangement for the UK?
The list goes on and whilst I do mention the bad, I am aware there are some good laws that have been placed upon us.

With regard to football, the outcome of football is not something that affects the way of life or economics of a country. I agree politicians as a whole are not as honest as they should be, it is still unacceptable that the EU was sold, promoted and informed very deliberately as a common market. Afterall, it is common folk and not law makers who voted for us to join.

I do believe they should have been told the truth. It is clear now that the vote in generation have now voted out. Shame in some respects as I believe a common market would have been great for everybody, not just the other Euro countries at the UK's expense.

Rs3

" a predictable outcome" is not something the average voter would have been aware of."

The ONS reports that the average adult today has the abilities in literacy, numeracy and comprehension of an 11 year old child. Eleven year olds are still sticking heir hands into fire to see if it hurts.. It is for this reason that Britain has a representational democracy, while a referendum is simply the expression of inadequate understanding.

Harmonising laws is not done to 'suit other countries' exclusively they are a result of compromise on the part of all the countries involved.

At the time Britain had just gone through the destruction of the Sterling Area because the various countries all wanted to retain their own standards, their own unharmonised laws, their own self interest, it was clear that in order to function without trade barriers laws had to be harmonised.

But, the average voter today or even then simply did not want to know about 'the Sterling Area' but would prefer to repeat the errors of (then ) an immediate past because "it sounded good"

You criticise human rights law, but you haven't specified which of those laws, which we ought to remember were initially created and put forward by Britain, you would be happy to do without.. Moreover the complaint would be more impressive if it did not resort to misrepresentation to back up the reasons:
The RouteMaster bus was removed because the open rear platform constituted an obvious safety risk, and in a litigious society where people were being held responsible for unsafe practices, no bus company or council could fund the compensation claims.

The controlled size of bananas was a trade description. What the directive actually says (you clearly haven't read it) is that categories of bananas can only be sold if properly described. So one could not sell 'dollar' bananas as 'caribbean' bananas or describe 'small' bananas as 'large', and defined what constitued dollar, caribbean, small and large when applied to bananas. The problem was simply that the supermarkets and journalists of a certain disreputability made up a story that the word 'class', used in the context of a group like a school class, was used in the context of quality, as in "first class". One can suspect that this was simply deliberate, the supermarkets used it as an excuse to sell the cheaper 'dollar' bananas at the same price as the more expensive 'Caribbean' bananas, claiming that 'the EU won't allow us to sell Caribbean banans as they are in the same class as Dollar bananas". They relied on the misrepresentations put forward by journalists and the lack of ability or inclination of the 'average adult' to research the facts.

There are no restrictions on trading partners between companies. However no company may break the law as regards the export of goods or the import of goods and the quotas, charges and tariffs that may apply. This has long been the law in Britain, for example, where evading taxes due on the import of goods is called 'smuggling'. Equally, by international agreement, countries cannot simply break trade treaties which they have signed with other countries in order to 'undercut' other signatories of that same agreement. This isn't simply the resul;t of the EU, but is explicit in agreements like the World Trade Organisation, to which the UK is a signatory..

" it is still unacceptable that the EU was sold, promoted and informed very deliberately as a common market. After all, it is common folk and not law makers who voted for us to join."

However it seems clear that the Brexit politicians told lies, distortions and misrepresentations and the fact that the majority of people voting in the referendum admit that they didn't have any clear understanding what they were voting about is acceptable.

robbyhead

I have read a few of your long comments on how marvellous the EU is. If that is true why did a majority of people reject it? Decided to leave, totally. The victory of the Leavers was similar to Tranmere Rovers beating Manchester United 12-0......the Referendum result gap is only marginal in absolute terms but in terms of overcoming all the massive hurdles and entrenchment of the state sponsored machinery and infrastructure, it is truly magnificent. That little Tranmere could beat United, with all their immense resources....again, how magnificent. Remember Cameron's tax payer funded pro EU leaflet. The Red herring of lies told by the Leavers is just that.....a lie itself. I have seen no lies, or untruths....you people are so overcome with defeater remorse, that you cling at anything, repeating rubbish and hearsay without validation. The entry of the Eastern Europeans, for purely political reasons, into the EU, and the charitable right to work in the UK, reduced so many here to poverty and suicide. How would you like to have your salary revert to what it was 15 years ago, overnight? This is what happened to so many honest, hardworking self employed people. In 2007 I had friends on £100 a day for skilled plumbing and other work, by 2009 it had fallen to £40 a day. I never understood how a country with just of half our people could have so many plumbers and carpenters....of course, the truth is they are not real tradesmen, and no-one can challenge them because of EU rules. So we reject the EU rules.

Natasa

OK so why don' we start a petition NOW that the country's future is being shaped? One against multinational organisations rules that keep us in the dark and want to control us behind our backs?
But be aware in the day of instant gratification, when people want to have cheap goods, newest iPhone, biggest TV, cheap flights, this will hurt their every day pockets. It will however, be easier to implement wages on which you can live without stressing where is the money for the next bill coming from, without worry whether you will still have a job tomorrow. Maybe we need to start with advertising against consumerism, which is so very bad for this planet. Maybe we should start with campaigning on reducing population, which is expanding to earth's destruction.

jchollo

You are right, we do not need or want all these new devices that are constantly being Sold to us by media Propaganda. This consumer society is not good for Human kind nor for animal welfare, more Humans less animals, less diversity! Do we really want new, new and more new I doubt it! The young have been targeted to buy, buy,buy which is why they are treated as more important than older people. Seniors don't buy much so they are less valued in our society, they may have the means but they don't spend unnecessarily. If the young were not influenced by propaganda so much they would have a better future.

Rs3

The problem you face is that the justification for being paid is that one has made a worthwhile contribution to society. This contribution has historically been measured by the work that one has done, valued by the amount that people are willing to pay for it.

Since automation means that most manufacturing industries are running at less than full employment (full employment does not only mean that everyone who wants or needs a job can have one, but also that factories are running at full capacity and that the markets can buy everything that is produced), the result of decreasing output is to put even more people out of work and make them dependent on society's willingness to support people who can be represented as non-contributive.

In a globalised system, every sale is made in a competitive environment and most people will buy according to the cheapest option ( as UK farming demonstrates, the need to act as people wish them to act in terms of production, whether animal or vegetable makes them non-competitive globally, unless they are subsidised.). In the past certain markets had a 'local' protection, the cost of transporting the goods were higher than the wage difference then a local market for local goods thrived, but as the cost of transport has been lowered, so the protection of a local market has been eroded.

As the movement of migrants for work has shown, the supply of available labour is vastly in excess of the demand.

The biggest problem facing London, and anywhere else, in a world where transport is low-cost, is simply automation. Various authorities suggest that 40% of all current, productive jobs will have disappeared by the 2050's, replaced by automated systems.

Already there are examples of industries where automation is or shortly will replace large scale human employment. We can look at the iron ore mine in Australia, where there is no significant human input from digging out the ore through to its delivery and loading onto ships. There are already plans for fully automated ships, the US Navy is already running fully autonomous warships. In Europe there was a demonstration of autonomous truck platoons ( convoys of trucks without a driver) over 2500 miles of public roads, to the dockyards of Rotterdam (http://www.logisticsmanager.com/european-truck-platooning-challenge-appr...) where the crew on board the trucks was simply there to reassure other road users rather than drive the vehicles. In other threads on TalkLondon the use of autonomous vans is regularly suggested as a solution to traffic congestion, both for human and goods delivery and there have been trials of such vehicles..

The anti-Luddite party suggest that jobs won't disappear but that we will turn increasingly to other tasks, which may be regarded as unnecessary to human existence, but for which some people may pay a sum. Examples already exist, there is no need for some of the complex and beautiful models of engineering, which can take thousands of manhours to manufacure but which find buyers, even when priced in the tens of thousands of pounds, while there is a huge industry centred entirely around creating and documenting fame for people known only for being famous rather than any particular socially beneficail activity on their part.

But while our economy is based on a recognised 'value of productivity' which denies payment for such activities as being a 'supportive partner'; unless and until 'divorce' forces such recognition; any drop in output will be damaging to the economy as a whole.

If people were only influenced to buy what they 'needed' rather than what they desired, there would be mass unemployment possibly to the extent of revolt, rebellion or the extermination of 'useless' mouths. While the latter is regularly derided as unthinkable, one of the central pillars of many people's Brexit expectations is that the volume of 'useless mouths' will be limited and those deemed useless and unentitled will be 'removed from society", usually by removal to another country which will be suffering the same problems.

ajt5000

But it seems to me there is masses and masses of work to be done in the creation of a better system and in finding solutions for the environmental and social problems which result from current system.

Rs3

However the demands of such a job will possibly demand certain educational qualifications, abilities and experience which do not fit the profile of the people most likely to be made redundant by automation.

Natasa

Have you considered another avenue? When industrial revolution came about people were first smashing the machines as they were made redundant by them. After many years the hours of work dropped to 8 working hours per day. I would like to think that with automation the working hours will also slowly decrease, give people more opportunities to study and better themselves or to leisure by going traveling, going to a spa, or something not so expensive, reading or going for a walk or a simple picnic.
On another matter, for example, washing machines used to last 20 years, now you can be happy if they reach 5 which means more materials needed, more scrap. Much of it is now thankfully recycled but not all. So what would be the option to keep generating the money but not producing the items? Well, one way would be more expensive item but I would rather suggest payment in installments like a mortgage.
All these is not achievable now or in an instant but we could start paving the path for the future now. Sooner or later we will have to get it right.
On another comment later on in the discussion about agricultural jobs having vacancies because people that live here in nice homes don't need to move into slum dormitories to do these low paid jobs. How about people who move from another country? Why should they live in "slum" dormitories? It's all right for them but not for people here. There are people here who would rather claim benefits than do a lowly job, especially if they have to move. Something wrong here. As long as there are any jobs there shouldn't be lengthy unemployment support. So well, yes, maybe you will have to scrub the kitchen or wash the floor or do the waitressing or even pick up strawberries, or do some voluntary work like support staff in sporting events... But nobody should just sit around waiting for their dream job and be supported by those who work, even those who work for minimum wage. And this is why we needed migration in a first place, because some people are just too good to pick up a mop or to retrain themselves for the jobs where labor is needed.

Rs3

". I would like to think that with automation the working hours will also slowly decrease, give people more opportunities to study and better themselves or to leisure by going traveling, going to a spa, or something not so expensive, reading or going for a walk or a simple picnic"

However, under current economics, if the people don't do the work, why pay them fot it?

Now there's a suggestion, implicit in your contribution, that there should be a "Citizens Income", people would get paid either by being 'associated' with a company or by the state., with the money coming from , effectively, taxation of automated production.

However this means that any country taking this route must be reliant on every other country doing the same thing. Otherwise production will simply shift to countries that don't have this extra layer of tax built in.

Our recent Brexit has declared that Britain is against such co-operation with other countries, "we won't be told what to do by other countries" being a recurrent mantra among the Brexiteers. Politicians of course will have recognised that this refusal to co-operate is nonsense, even those who supported Leave. In practice, any such moves will be presented as Britain 'choosing to co-operate' however much the outcomes are forced on Britain by circumstance.

"So what would be the option to keep generating the money but not producing the items? Well, one way would be more expensive item but I would rather suggest payment in installments like a mortgage."

Again the problem lies in your perception of cost. Companies price their goods by economic theory, not in relation to the cost of the components. The difference between a long-lifed item and a short lifed item may be the few pennies difference between a budget bearing and a standard bearing. As for your staggered payments, this is called Hire Purchase and is usually the source of income notto the manufacturer but the sales outlet/ finance company.

Artificially inflating the cost to allow a 4fold drop in production and sales would again require global agreement, the internationl harmonisaton of tariff rules and agreed standards of longevity and price to prevent some non signatory country (Brexited Britain?) from undercutting those artificial price barriers and selling 'cheap' machines that one could afford to update with all the new and desirable features that two or three years progress brings.

Which brings us to another reality. Technology advances, and a washing machine of 20 years ago uses more water, more soap, more electricity than its current day counterpart. Yet today people think it right that we should legislate to prevent such outdated goods being used. ( Cars which meet emissions standards of 20 years ago, when they were made, but not the emissions standards of today, a different thread on this site, for example). How do you square producing items with a 20 year life when they will be 'illegal' within 5, partiticularly if you are artificially inflating the price to compensate companies for a reduced production, itself made necessary by the desire for a "Citizen's Income" inflated to reflect what one would like our living standard to be, in relation to those in a 'develo-ping country' abel and willing to work for much less.

"How about people who move from another country? Why should they live in "slum" dormitories?"

Well, one reason is automation. A person is simply part of a production machine, a cheap, re-programmable robot responding to a limited set of instructions, many of which relate to their vulnerability and fallibility. The moment they become more expensive than the capital investment in an automated system, they are redundant. The higher one sets a 'minimum wage' the more likely it is that automation will replace that set of humans..

This takes us into the realm of agreements like TTIP.and an understanding of the Human Rights Act. The HRA states that a government is obliged to obey its own laws and cannot wilfully introduce a retrospective law that makes a successful defence unlawful.

Examples include instances where the State has 'lost' cases because the law says that there is a time limit on an action and the State has exceeded that time limit. The HRA means that the state cannot suddenly pass a law retrospectively allowing itself a few extra days to complete the task on which the limelimit has been set.

The TTIP was intrended to allow firms the same sort of rights, it would be illegal for countries to suddenly and wilfully invent laws that made a firm's products that met current legislation illegal, and even more so to fine companies for products that were legal when sold but have been made illegal by subsequent legislation.

It is quite foreseeable that a goverment seeking popularity over the issue of employment and living standards ( do we raise or drop global living standards to a level?) would campaign on the basis of declaring automated systems taxable, or illegal and that improvements in living standard would be funded by fining firms who had highly automated system or sold them. ( It's more or less what the Leave Campaign were perceived to do by many people," we will make Britain better by punishing other people, erecting walls around 'our way of life'" and it had a certain resonance among the resentful part of the population).

Natasa

"
However, under current economics, if the people don't do the work, why pay them for it?
Now there's a suggestion, implicit in your contribution, that there should be a "Citizens Income", people would get paid either by being 'associated' with a company or by the state., with the money coming from , effectively, taxation of automated production."

Ahh, you are already light years ahead. That I guess could be met with nationalization or workers having shares in the company they work for. However, my first suggestion is to reduce working hours to 30 or 32 and find jobs for 1.8 million people on jobseeker's allowance. Part is to reduced hours, part is to automation. It will never be a process from today to tomorrow but it could get started to be implemented now. People will still be needed, just not as many. There would be a discrepancy in wages as if you work fewer hours you earn less money but the new hires could already start on that. At the moment this communal money is in a form of benefits. I am not suggesting at all that it would be an easy process but I would rather look at ways how could it happen rather why it can not.

"Which brings us to another reality. Technology advances,..." The truth is that they can already make the futuristic technology now but it is not implemented because they want people to buy better, newer things all the time, that is why we are having such hard sales and pushy advertising and brain washing. This is why I am talking about a much better and more expensive product that will be modern in 10 years time but it will be therefore more expensive. I'm not saying it is possible for everything because there will be new discoveries but many things are already achievable and are strategically planned how they will be released so that people will keep on shopping.To get companies interested in new way I recommend a new form of payment which would not be hire purchase as you suggested and exists now but the new form of payment that would go to producers of the product. Yes, perhaps too advanced for current economic but why can't we start thinking and working on how t could work?
Or will we wait until we completely destroy the earth, just because we want instant gratification and lazy lives?
We are at the moment of change and we can make it great and we can start putting down fundamentals of the future that is different and better than the past or present.
To really say everything we think we would need a debate and as you pointed out in later posts this is not relevant to the question in this post.

Rs3

". I would like to think that with automation the working hours will also slowly decrease, give people more opportunities to study and better themselves or to leisure by going traveling, going to a spa, or something not so expensive, reading or going for a walk or a simple picnic"

However, under current economics, if the people don't do the work, why pay them fot it?

Now there's a suggestion, implicit in your contribution, that there should be a "Citizens Income", people would get paid either by being 'associated' with a company or by the state., with the money coming from , effectively, taxation of automated production.

However this means that any country taking this route must be reliant on every other country doing the same thing. Otherwise production will simply shift to countries that don't have this extra layer of tax built in.

Our recent Brexit has declared that Britain is against such co-operation with other countries, "we won't be told what to do by other countries" being a recurrent mantra among the Brexiteers. Politicians of course will have recognised that this refusal to co-operate is nonsense, even those who supported Leave. In practice, any such moves will be presented as Britain 'choosing to co-operate' however much the outcomes are forced on Britain by circumstance.

"So what would be the option to keep generating the money but not producing the items? Well, one way would be more expensive item but I would rather suggest payment in installments like a mortgage."

Again the problem lies in your perception of cost. Companies price their goods by economic theory, not in relation to the cost of the components. The difference between a long-lifed item and a short lifed item may be the few pennies difference between a budget bearing and a standard bearing. As for your staggered payments, this is called Hire Purchase and is usually the source of income notto the manufacturer but the sales outlet/ finance company.

Artificially inflating the cost to allow a 4fold drop in production and sales would again require global agreement, the internationl harmonisaton of tariff rules and agreed standards of longevity and price to prevent some non signatory country (Brexited Britain?) from undercutting those artificial price barriers and selling 'cheap' machines that one could afford to update with all the new and desirable features that two or three years progress brings.

Which brings us to another reality. Technology advances, and a washing machine of 20 years ago uses more water, more soap, more electricity than its current day counterpart. Yet today people think it right that we should legislate to prevent such outdated goods being used. ( Cars which meet emissions standards of 20 years ago, when they were made, but not the emissions standards of today, a different thread on this site, for example). How do you square producing items with a 20 year life when they will be 'illegal' within 5, partiticularly if you are artificially inflating the price to compensate companies for a reduced production, itself made necessary by the desire for a "Citizen's Income" inflated to reflect what one would like our living standard to be, in relation to those in a 'develo-ping country' abel and willing to work for much less.

"How about people who move from another country? Why should they live in "slum" dormitories?"

Well, one reason is automation. A person is simply part of a production machine, a cheap, re-programmable robot responding to a limited set of instructions, many of which relate to their vulnerability and fallibility. The moment they become more expensive than the capital investment in an automated system, they are redundant. The higher one sets a 'minimum wage' the more likely it is that automation will replace that set of humans..

This takes us into the realm of agreements like TTIP.and an understanding of the Human Rights Act. The HRA states that a government is obliged to obey its own laws and cannot wilfully introduce a retrospective law that makes a successful defence unlawful.

Examples include instances where the State has 'lost' cases because the law says that there is a time limit on an action and the State has exceeded that time limit. The HRA means that the state cannot suddenly pass a law retrospectively allowing itself a few extra days to complete the task on which the limelimit has been set.

The TTIP was intrended to allow firms the same sort of rights, it would be illegal for countries to suddenly and wilfully invent laws that made a firm's products that met current legislation illegal, and even more so to fine companies for products that were legal when sold but have been made illegal by subsequent legislation.

It is quite foreseeable that a goverment seeking popularity over the issue of employment and living standards ( do we raise or drop global living standards to a level?) would campaign on the basis of declaring automated systems taxable, or illegal and that improvements in living standard would be funded by fining firms who had highly automated system or sold them. ( It's more or less what the Leave Campaign were perceived to do by many people," we will make Britain better by punishing other people, erecting walls around 'our way of life'" and it had a certain resonance among the resentful part of the population).

jchollo

Quite a lot to take in, but your last paragraph really sums it up for me. I cannot see that there would be so much unemployment if we bought less goods that we don't need. Firstly people change their habits slowly, I do not say people should have less children, this has come about gradually in the 70's and 80's but the politicians answer was to increase immigration into the UK which was going against Nature's answer to the expanding population. The reason given for the increased immigration was that we needed more workers to pay for the Pensions of the retired. They didn't see that people could live longer productive lives and support their own retirement. Those employed in manual jobs were given retirement at 50yrs after which they could have been taught to use Computers and encouraged to look for Part-Time work until they reached 60 for women or 65 for men these were the normal retirement ages. The fact that young immigrants will grow old and increase the numbers of Pensioners was ignored. This is why we have always needed more and more immigrants to pay for the increase in Pensioners! We must stop the increase in population so that we do not get a situation of 'Useless' mouths. This was happening all over Europe until mass immigration came about. The increase in population brings new problems so we need less immigration as part of the solution combined with less births per couple.
As I said habits change slowly and it will take time before we start to buy only what we need therefor I doubt there would be any mass unemployment or revolts caused by future Environmental friendly Government action. Unless the politicos adopt environmental policies then a Doomsday scenario is possible all over Europe so we have to encourage government to change their ideas. Now we can do that with a New Prime Minister and a New opposition Leader.

Geoffwolf

I agree

margheritamascia

I am against TTIP too, but I think the fact that the people against TTIP supported Brexit does not make sense; the UK particularly under Tories is only looking for economic opportunities and are ready to partner with China and any other countries able to invest capital here. No questions about ethics and human values and rights of these countries. The UK outside EU will sign agreements much worse than TTIP.
We have seen so far that EU have not agreed on any clause with US on TTIP and this is falling apart; this should encourage some trust towards EU leaders.

livehere

new

But at least the democratic lobbying by individuals from all EU countries had minimised some of the worst aspects of the TTIP deal. People will not have the same opportunity once we are negotiating trade deals on our own - it will all take place in secret without even parliament getting a say, let alone the UK population. Even if details of trade negotiations are leaked, it UK lobbyists will not have the benefit of the support of campaigners in other EU countries, so will be the weaker.

klyinliu

Option 1:
Declare London Independence and join EU

Option 2:
Rather than leaving the EU directly. Persuade other developed countries e.g. France, Netherland, Denmark, Spain and Italy etc. (All country join the new club need to met a criteria regarding to average household income) to leave together and create a new trade union (not political union) to allow free trade and free movement inside. And this new union can also include countries like Canada, Iceland, Norway (so any country that met the criteria of minimum household income) can join. Then we can negotiate a very good trade deal with the old EU and this time we will be in a much better position and it's time for EU pay us to get a deal, not we pay EU.

JamesBritton

Single market access. London manifestly does not have a problem with freedom of movement. We should seek a "Freeport" arrangement

livehere

There would be huge problems with the rest of England wanting secure borders all round London.

Steve R

Why, are they as worried as East Germany was with Berlin and everyone wanting to escape?
:)

LloydFoulds

Which London do you live in? Wages have steadily fallen over the years since we joined the EU. It has been proven again and again that the introduction of foreign labour at wage levels far below that of our own, has significantly reduced our standard of living. Trades people from various trades are earning the same now as they did 20 years ago. Sure, competition is good, but only on a level playing field. The average age of first time buyers has gone from mid twenties to nearly 40. The pressure on housing prices, caused by demand when demand is caused to be so strong by uncontrolled immigration. Our natural population increases over the years would never have been anywhere near the population increases caused by excessive immigration. I agree with a single market. Afterall that is how the common market (now called the EU) was sold to us as a country. Unfortunately, politicians of the time lied to our then population. So I cannot agree that London manifestly does not have a problem with freedom of movement. I believe there has been a dire cost to that freedom of movement for London.

Rs3

However, we exist in a globally competitive world in which labour costs are a significant factor in the costs of products we export.

Where there is external competition for the product, raising the costs inside Britain merely makes it more difficult in those markets. Britain doesn't exist in isolation, we cannot compel customers to buy our goods at elevated prices where substitutes exist.

The housing market is a symptom of increasing automation, it absorbs a large quantity of labour. Maintaining the return on housing and hence stimulating a healthy market keeps a lot of people in employment. It is a political and economic necessity that the market should not soften because of the employment implications. Additionally some figures suggest that the financing of property contributes significantly to our GDP (possibly by as much as a third of GDP is property finance related)

The ONS report that prior to large scale immigration, the 'indigent' British population is actually falling. A falling population indicates a reducing market, which would create a fall in the demand for many goods. A fall in demand results in more people going out of work. If you subscribe to the economic theory that one has to continually expand one's business it follows that we need a continuously expanding internal market to absorb the over-capacity present in many industries in the UK.

So, correcting the property market and reducing the growth of the internal population both place significant negative stresses on the economy. In 'the good old days' to which many of the Leave Voters apparently affectionately look back, the solution to an internal market unable to support full employment ( and that means the operation of factories at full capacity and the ability of the internal market to buy goods as well as personal occupation) the solution was to export the surplus goods. Today many of the emerging markets are in direct competition to produce those goods and would welcome any attempt by the UK to raise its costs of production, because they know that the average memebr of the British public will buy entirely on cost; raising the costs of British goods merely makes Britain a target for someone else's exports.

Of course, it may offer a solution in that the reduction in wages occasioned by a recession may well see the inclination and attractiveness of the UK fall as a destination of choice, but I'm not sure that entering a full blown recession, at the time the rest of the world has concerns about the volatility caused by Brexit will be beneficial.

LloydFoulds

Are you saying that those who live in the UK and particularly the larger cities should not be in a financial position to buy themselves a home because other countries have cheaper labour? I agree we do not live in isolation, but I cannot see where the inability to buy a home in relation to the income levels of previous decades, is in someway good for the UK? The UK used to be able to buy a home on one persons income normally in their mid twenties. That is now impossible for the majority of full time employed people living in the big cities and of course in London especially.

Whilst you do comment that immigration is falling, you didn't mention that immigration is still occurring at a rate faster than our infrastructure can handle. We cannot build houses fast enough. The NHS is definitely sinking under the weight of a population increasing at the rate it is.

Would you not agree that seriously restricting immigration from everywhere, whilst we try to catch up with our infrastructure, is a good idea?

I don't know your back ground, but already we do not have enough places in our schools. Compound that with the fact the in my sons class we have six different first languages and of those six, there are five people paid to translate. If the children can't go to school due to too great a population in the big cities, then what good would your mentioned economic theories be?

I am not opposed to immigration, but I do not agree with cheap labour. It is detrimental to our economy in my opinion. I can employ Romanian immigrants for £25 a day to work on a building site. They co habit in one property which is seriously overcrowded. But at least the builder will make a larger profit than if he employed 'English trades people'. You defend cheap labour (you obviously aren't in that category) and yet I believe that the greater social cost out weighs the financial gain.

Rs3

The problem is not the level of wages in the Uk but the fact that wages are a substantial part of the cost of any goods. One cannot in isolation set a higher level of wage in the UK than the competitive price of goods available in any market.

if it costs £x to manufacture a brick in the UK and £x-y to import a brick from abroad, then house builders will buy bricks from abroad, and British brick manufacturers will go bust. In the same way, it by automating the process one can increase productivity, then one either has to sell a lot more bricks or reduce the work force. If everyone can buy the automated brick manufacturing system, then employment here and abroad will fall.

If you have a socially responsible society, then taxes will go up in order to provide 'welfare' for those unemployed,and the price of bricks will rise until they are marginally uncompetitive on the world market and the price of housing will go up accordingly. to the point of unaffordability.

"Would you not agree that seriously restricting immigration from everywhere, whilst we try to catch up with our infrastructure, is a good idea?"

Britain has a manufacturing capacity far in excess of the needs of the productive population, we laud ourselves on advances in productivity over the last century. Unfortunately this means that we hhave to have a bigger market in which to sell those goods. That market will either be internal, ie within the boundaries of Britain or be an export market, outside the boundaries.

Unfortunately most of the developed nations also produce and wish to sell their own surplus capacity, which means that the export markets lie in undeveloped or emerging countries. However in order to sell our over capacity, the export markets have to be able to afford our goods. In many cases they aren't, and what is needed is an enrichment of those people in order that they can buy our goods. This means that Britain has to enable the people of a countryt to get richer so they can buy from us. This is what the US did at the end of WW2, when they used the Marshall Plan to enable Europe to become rich enough to buy mainly US goods and thus avoid a second Depression like the one following WW1. Elsewhere it is known as Vendor Finance.

In part this is done through the International Development Fund, though this is acknowledged to have limited success because of the dificulty of ensuring that the money spent goes to the most effective destinations.

Another method of ensuring speedy enrichment of a people is to allow migration to a rich country, where the migrants will create a ready market for local goods and by sending money home to the extended family create an ability and, hopefully, a desire to buy
goods exported from Britain. However to do this effectively demands large scale immigration.

So, from an economic standpoint there are advantages from having large imigrant populations, especially if they are primarily transient.

There are problems too. Politicians have to balance the desired result of politics, the enrichment and therefore support of their voters with the costs and expenditures of creating the export ability. At one level this may appear to be the underfunding of certain 'free' services like education, health and so on, while creating abroad the society that will bring riches to the voting society through exports.

"The NHS is definitely sinking under the weight of a population increasing at the rate it is."
The NHS is not sinking under the weight of population, the NHS is sinking under the weight of expectation.

At a certain level of sophistication, improvements in any technical solution may bring results that generate benefits in excess of the cost of creating those benefits. This isn't just in Health but as widely diversified as military engineering. Some years ago the Department of Defence costs noted that any improvement in weapon systems or platforms increased the cost of that system by greater than the rate of inflation or the cost of manufacture. In simple terms, to quote a recent programme on Jutland, the combined cost of Beatty's fleet at Jutland equates to £2 billion today and included 10 capital ships ( 6 battlecruisers and 4 Super-Dreadnaughts).The construction of just two capital ships, the Queen Elizabeth class Aircraft Carriers, is already 3 times greater (£6.2 billion) yet it is doubtful that they would be three times as effective (ie: would deter three fleets of enemy ships from an equivalent power).

As medicine becomes ever more capable, the cost and expectation of performance grows far in excess of inflation. Even if we limited the population only to the immediately healthy, we would expect diagnosis and treatment of ever more complex conditions, such as the reversal of aging and firms would provide treatments to stretch the budget to sinking point.

" You defend cheap labour (you obviously aren't in that category) and yet I believe that the greater social cost out weighs the financial gain."

We may be about to discover that the social costs of impoverishing our export markets may far outweigh the temporary financial gain of pricing ourselves out of the market. The slowdown in China has left the world with an overcapacity in producing a great many goods. Causing our migrant markets to become less able to purchase goods is not a recipe for greater growth, and protectionism as an economic strategy for enrichment is long past its sell-by date.

apmatthews

- what Sadiq is doing. A seat at the Brexit negotiating table, in the single market with free movement, keep the bank passport arrangements or whatever they're called. More powers for London especially on housing, get funding for that. If money is short in the forthcoming recession, scrap Crossrail 2 which will just cause 10 more years of disruption in Central London (where I live) - would be better spent tp pacify the disaffected in the north who've voted this nightmare on us. Let's not be too selfish with our money - they already hate us.

jayukchelsea

what a mess - maintaining and strengthening links with other great European cities - address those who feel emboldened to be intolerant and racist - seat at the table to protect London's position in the world, including infrastructure - yes London is a pro-EU city and that should be reflected nationally and internationally - something along the lines of the "we are Londoners" approach after bombings

jchollo

You are continuing with the line that London can be separate from the UK. I wish people would forget this line and give us here suggestions that work for the UK as a whole after Brexit. Do you mean after the Bombings in '39 etc or the bombings by the IRA. The War bombings were received patriotically by the Media and population at that time and everyone responded with a positive attitude, by the time of the IRA terrorists the British media had changed and was not so patriotic against this enemy, and therefor did not promote a common attitude to the population. Then more recently the Muslim bombers at Kings Cross,
great emphasis was put on the mixed ethnicity of the killed and injured as if that was the most important thing about those bombings. Where was the 'Community', there isn't One!
Only selfish perceived interests for London. Don't keep on about London being different, it is as the Capital and the Largest city in Europe, not because there are many non Brits here. This pushing of ethnicity by the Mass Media and many writers here does not help with good ideas to keep London ahead of others Financial Centres. London needs to be Efficient and show our traditional British/ English culture which as been respected all over the world, unfortunately the over emphasis on its Multicultural life does detract from that image. Keep London's reputation as a city which brings together the best brains of Britain and don't get side tracked with fighting against a positive future for Brexit.

Chris365

Tricky. I think the whole country needs to act as one. London is indeed a bubble within the country. Very successful I know but to some extent it has taken energy away from the regions .
Regardless of Europe where there seems to be no solution to please everybody we do need a sensible strategy to manage globalisation

livehere

We need fast and fierce action to nip the rising tide of racist attacks in the bud. Windows of shops with 'foreign' owners/managers are smashed in Lewisham; there are people in Hackney who haven't dared go out for several days because they are immediately subjected to racist abuse on the streets. It is everywhere.

Steve R

This is the third time I agree with you.

JPEACHEY

Time to leave the UK, moving back to Australia

jrichemont

Me too but the exchange rate is not great. I have to wait a bit I think...

wiglaas

Have a good journey home

wiglaas

We have been denighed a say all this time. If you prefer to go back to Aus. That's your choice. But your comment seeks to deigh us our. Have a good journey home.

jrichemont

In fairness to me I planned to emigrate ages ago, not as a result of the referendum. The immediate effect for me though is I can but 1.8 AUD with my pound rather than 2.0 as was the case a few months ago.

matthewn5

Australia's a very expensive country now, was different when I lived there, but same globalisation pressures have pushed up prices and created a master race of super rich like the UK. On recent visits it seems much more American in feel than it was then, and the Christian right is on the rise too as in the US. Enjoy the empty roads, but it's a poor show if you're expecting public transport like in London...

livehere

Wish I could go too!

jgaines2019

Considering the UK is already an integrated part of the EU, the question should have been "Should the UK remain a full member of the EU" - YES / NO and the vote decided by a two thirds majority. That aside. I wholeheartedly support Mayor Khan in his request for a seat on the governments new EU unit. It is imperative that the Mayor set up a specific population and planning task force. This task force should, as quickly as possible produce a report of 'people and place'. It should lead on ensuring that continental EU citizens rights are secured. Engagement with these communities must broad and inclusive. Planning for all implications of population movement should start following the initial review. We should have a robust plan by sept 1st.

E17 Pioneer

While we need to acknowledge the majority of the UK has voted to leave the EU, we should also acknowledge that the majority of London voted to Remain. If London takes a hit financially, then the rest of the UK will suffer alongside us. I am already aware of business orders being cancelled, people in their twenties relocating overseas, house purchases being abandoned, and talk of head offices being relocated to EU zones. This reflects a general lack of confidence in London because of our withdrawal. If we are going to stop a full recession we need to get reassurances that London will not lose it's standing as an international city or lose it's special economic privileges, such as passporting to retain the 10bn per annum we generate via the City.
The GLA should move towards further independence within the next two years, with more control over it's finances and politics, eventually becoming a special economic zone to generate trade of goods and services.

wiglaas

I'm backing Britain, what ever happened to positive thinking

E17 Pioneer

The thread is asking for suggestions on how to move forward and quite specific suggestions on how to do that. The time for slogans is over, we now have to make a plan on what to do next.

Pages

Showing 1-50 of 547 comments