Evidence .
The times ,June 8th spokesman for the Bordeaux wine council Allen Sichel urges politicians to strike a deal to avoid tariffs. Britain is the second largest market for French wines
Cheese, I assume you know how cheese is produced,we have literally hundreds of top quality British cheese makers. Go online and view ,it’s very impressive indeed.
Chlorine, this has been used for years in the USA to kill salmonella in chicken. As of yet no major problems. Crops in this country are sprayed with various substances, some of which have raised safety concerns.
Cars. The market is saturated with different models of cars, the customer is spoiled for choice. Quite obviously Germany exports high volumes of cars to the UK. Can’t see Mercedes, bmw etc etc agreeing to high tariffs on cars.
If the dumbass politicians would step aside and let the leaders of major industry get involved. The situation would be resolved to the benefit of everybody.

Car manufacturers have already said they want to protect the integrity of the single market.

If we want anything made in the EU it'll cost us more after Brexit.

Of course it will doesn't mean products from everywhere else will though - do we have to continue buying the same amount of product from Europe is it compulsary or can we swap out EU product for similar product from elsewhere?

Some countries produce the best products in different sectors or have companies which produce the best in different sectors. They are not always interchangeable.

It takes some ideological obsession to decide that the country's best interests are served by trying to import something from further away just because you have some bizarre phobia of the trading partnership we are in with our geographically nearest neighbours. For many products it just isn't possible, certainly not in a short period of time. And even if the base goods are cheaper the landed cost certainly it won't be cheaper until you get a trade arrangement with those other countries (which will take decades to achieve until when you are obliged to WTO rules) and if the higher transit costs don't offset the costs.

So could you explain why we can import goods from the Far East that are significantly cheaper than we can source in Europe e.g. Steel. All the products that we currently import from outside of the EU will be no more expensive than they are, currency fluctuations considered - would you agree?

It's what's got us into this mess.

Not entirely - there's also the small matter of self-interested disaster capitalists, creating the conditions in which *they* can thrive, whilst insulating themselves from the ill effects on ordinary people; the 99% of us who don't have the luxury of offshore investments, tax havens and non-dom status. Rees-Mogg, Farage, Banks, Mr May - these people are the tip of the iceberg.

I think you will find that under the British voting system your so called disaster capitalist has one vote, as does the unemployed person. Also the person on minimum wage has one vote. A large portion of the leave vote came from people who felt let down by the political system. They witnessed immigration into this country never seen before in modern time. Thus creating a vast army of cheap labour. Obviously wages for the unfortunates at the lower end of the labour market are suppressed ,ironically by the so called disaster capitalists. The fat cats of Britain certainly don’t want us to leave the eu that could potentially create a labour shortage. It may even force up wages above the minimum wage. Wonder which way mike Ashley voted, but I think we can guess. He seems to have done remarkably well out of our membership of the eu.

Get a grip - are you suggesting for one minute that the people I listed just turned up and voted Leave? Or were they by any chance front and centre in the Leave campaign, as well as conducting skulduggery in the background to whip up anti-EU sentiment - largely by convincing great swathes of already angry and disenfranchised people that all their troubles would evaporate if only it weren't for those bloody immigrants?

Simple question to you, our population due to us having no control of our borders to eu citizens is rapidly approaching the population of France. Obviously France is a far larger country than ours. Please give me a figure that you think will indicate that we are full up. Or do you think we can carry on with this madness.
I see more dirt poor Eastern European are in the process of joining. And why not, can’t blame them ,access to free health care and housing etc etc.

This is a circular argument - I've posted several times the evidence that EU migrants are net contributors to the UK economy; I don't fancy going around it all over again.

I would be interested to hear your view of the revelations about Leave EU and it's illegal activity and links to Cambridge Analytica, and the latest story about Arron Banks, Nigel Farage and the Russian ambassador; or the Private Eye expose on Jacob Rees-Mogg and his recently created Dublin based investment vehicle, specifically designed to insulate his wealthy investors (and him) from the effects of Brexit?

These people are shamelessly self-interested - you've been duped.

All fake news, next country to join eu is Albania. Negotiations well underway, average wage over in that bastion of democracy is approximately £1.60 per hour. You still haven’t answered my question, you obviously believe in free movement within the eu so what population figure do you think enough is enough.
Reference Arron banks, after wiping the floor with the House of Commons select comitee he is sorting out that Belgian popinjay.
The architects of this mass controlled immigration is Tony Blair and Peter mandleson. Both at the outset had virtually no money whatsoever. Mandelson had to borrow money in dubious circumstances to find a deposit for his fancy London Town house. Let’s not forget kinnock in all this, after gifting the tories an election labour should have won he jumped on the eu gravy train. Conveniently taking along his wife .

Thank you - end of discussion.

I’m still waiting for my answer.

I believe in FoM yes; but with a government that can actually be d to implement the powers it already has to exercise sensible limits - as I've said many times before. The details are nicely summarised [url=https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/richard-bird/immigration-blame-the-uk-_b_13120104.htmlhere.[/url

Your turn - and if you say 'fake news' - I'm blocking you.

Huffington Post, must be based on fact, honest!

There are plenty of other references - I preferred that one because it was simple; but there is no argument, regardless of your political leanings, that those powers exist, have always existed, and successive UK governments have failed to use them.

And yet, more than half of our immigration was already "controlled".
FWIW, there should always have been some control and the leaders of the EU have steadfastly stuck to their "free movement" mantra without any consideration of the consequences.
We should have worked from the inside to make change though and not sacrificed our position.

The housing and free health care is just a red herring though.

Do you think that people would really move 1000's of miles just for these benefits, it's just utter nonsense, again, stirred up by the right wing press, giving their loyal readers what they want on the front page of their chip paper.

The Eastern Europeans that I personally know seem to be willing to work damned hard to try and make a life for themselves and the main issue is probably more to do with them sending money home, rather than spending their money in the UK, something which is also prevalent among some of our Asian immigrants but, the work shy scrounger type comments are just wrong.
Mind you there are plenty of British people who are more than happy to use immigration as an excuse not to work rather than crack on with their lives.

Doesn't matter how often you post it, it's not quite as simple as that. It's actually highly debatable and depends on the methodology and assumptions of the analysis. And beyond the economic effect of immigration you conveniently ignore pressures and disruption on communities, services, housing, etc. A price not worth paying.

Taken in the round, most studies conclude that while more recent and younger EU migrants probably make a negligible fiscal contribution, earlier and older EU migrants tend to be a burden. Non-EU are a burden overall. They also conclude that while the individual migrant sees some benefit to moving to the UK, the existing population sees little to none, and from a social perspective probably experiences a disruptive impact.

And where does it stop? How many a year should we allow in? Even the looniest lefty must accept net migration cannot continue at 250-300,000 a year (up to 600,000 migrants minus 300,000 emigrants). You think the housing crisis is bad now? Take a moment to consider the much higher birth rate of those 600,000 annual migrants, together with our rapidly aging population. Then look 10...20...40...100 years ahead. If you can't see where this massive and exponential population growth is going, you don't understand the wider picture.


This wasn't directed at me, but here's my answer - I really couldn't care less.

Data harvesting and profiling has existed for decades, nothing new. If CA were so effective they'd have steered Ted Cruz to victory when they worked for him, surely? In fact, the only sin CA committed was a violation of Facebook policy when they bought the legally harvested data from Aleksandr Kogan, who developed the harvesting app. Despite their bold sales pitch (widely ridiculed in their field), in reality the degree of influence that several years-old data could have had on Facebook users during the Trump campaign is minimal.

In the same vein, I reckon every marketing company in the world is desperate for the secret of Russian success in somehow swaying millions of voters - Saatchi & Saatchi eat your heart out. Oh they were active, no doubt, but the degree of their influence is also hugely questionable.

And it's not as though all players aren't active online during campaigns. Voters would have most likely seen content related to their profile history either way. Take away the Russians and there are plenty of other campaign groups fighting for Facebook space and pushing the their agenda. Given that Facebook feeds show what the user is already interested in, it's unlikely they swung many voters.

Nah, Remainers clutching at straws to explain why they didn't win is embarrassing.


Really? I'd say you've been duped hook, line & sinker by the great EU project. As far as I'm concerned Remainers have been brainwashed by a Germanic elite with a dangerous agenda.

Answer me a question I've posted a few times without receiving a reply: why are you so desperately concerned with the right of migrants to move to UK? Why is that more important to you than the concerns of the majority of the UK population?

Sorry you were talking about swapping goods currently sourced from the EU for ones sourced outside the EU.

Self-inflicted currency meltdown apart, goods sourced from China (say) will be the same price but that wasn't your point.

To replace EU-sourced ones - even if directly comparable goods could be made of the same quality for a reasonable cost (doubtful in lots of sectors) - you add on transport costs and duty/import tariffs. Oh, and also add on TIME for it to be slow boated by Maersk or MSC to the UK unless you want to airfreight it at huge cost - JIT is so fundamentally critical in a modern economy it's staggering it doesn't get mentioned more to deflect the rubbish spouted by people like the Sun article the other day highlighting how Felixtowe could simply be used instead of Dover.

I'm pretty sure - but happy to be shown otherwise - that the power to place a 7 year transitional period (generally consisting of 2+3+2 year review periods) on working rights is a one-off when a new country joins the EU, not a power that can be implemented at any time. We can therefore thank Blair for being a massive cockwomble. Not that it really matters; a temporary delay is just that and doesn't prevent the inevitable.

As for the remainder of the controls, as with most things it's not that simply and in reality they would do little to limit the numbers even if enforced in full.

First off, pretty much any EU citizen can turn up and live here for 3 months unchallenged, after which they can fudge their way through. if just one member of a family is working - even if they go from job to job - they can stay. Any period not in work but not of their own making is regarded as employment. Any period out of work for health reasons is counted as employment. They can even leave the UK and go home for extended periods without affecting their recorded length of stay here.

Even if not 'economically active', the state MUST assess whether this is a temporary situation and take into account the length of stay, personal circumstances and any welfare awarded. If there are kids involved it's even more complex. Only if they are then judged to be an "unreasonable burden" (a vague test at best) can any action be taken. Of course if they get a job while all this is going on the assessment comes to an end.

Once they have stayed 5 years they are here permanently, without condition.

Deportations are slow, expensive and very difficult to enforce and the fact is until 2010 we had a government completely plugged into the EU experiment and blind to the growing concerns of their own people. Indeed, it's only in the last few years we can even question the EU, FoM and immigration without being shouted down by rabid loonies as racist or xenophobic. Even the Tories were unwilling to go there for a few years for the same reason. On the basis of that track record, it's little surprise there have been few real controls in the UK.

Even if we point the finger of blame solely at successive UK governments, the fact remains millions have flocked here, millions more will come if they can and action needs to be taken. We can't ignore it. In light of Brexit and the rise (and fall) of UKIP, the Tories now seem to appreciate the depth and strength of public feeling against continued mass immigration, hence the need for far stricter immigration laws and to leave the Single Market.


Not true. They were introduced in 2004 when the A-8 joined the EU, precisely because a vast wave of economic migration was predicted.

I think your talking rubbish - Apple consistenly are appraised as having the best supply chain in the world by the likes of Gartner - where do you think all their product is sourced and constructed - not in the EU. Same goes for Dell who used to produce in Eire now its all in the far east. Will these goods be anymore expensive or any less available than now when we leave the EU? Why do you think they don't manaufacture in the EU? because the cost of Labour is cheaper than the cost of transport/tarifs.


These are companies that understand supply chain and how to maximise its value - the idea that other companies will not see us leaving the EU as an opportunity to increase market share is barmy to me. The natural supply/demand curve will come into play - if the goods are too expensive then consummers will locate cheaper alternatives so if the EU countries want to export to the UK then they will have to have prices that represent value for money.

It's not the high cost, long shelf life products that were talking about here.
China = 5 weeks shipping time (+manufacture) EU = 2/3 days shipping time (+manufacture) and yet, some believe there is a magic want to re source our EU purchase elsewhere with cheaper alternatives.
Whilst there will be some products that have been difficult to trade, do you not think that if there were these new supply bases scattered around the world, perhaps we may have found a way to use them already or, maybe, that doesn't suit you're argument.

Not if there was no real need - now there is a potential need - guess what they will start to emerge. Africa would seem low cost reasonably close especially the north - pretty volatile but it is an option. US should be in line cost wise with the EU and not that far away and if Trump revs the economy up who knows.

I think the idea that everything will inevitably cost more is unproven - Aldi/Lidl have shown if you can offer better value people will soon move and ditch the higher priced branded product. There will someone out there who finds a way there always in - simple supply and demand economics.

Quote ="Sal Paradise"Not if there was no real need - now there is a potential need - guess what they will start to emerge. Africa would seem low cost reasonably close especially the north - pretty volatile but it is an option. US should be in line cost wise with the EU and not that far away and if Trump revs the economy up who knows. I think the idea that everything will inevitably cost more is unproven - Aldi/Lidl have shown if you can offer better value people will soon move and ditch the higher priced branded product. There will someone out there who finds a way there always in - simple supply and demand economics.'" Are you being deliberately shy with facts or, just putting your spin on certain issues. Average shipping time from USA would be 3 weeks (slightly less from the East Side). Aldi and Lidl's success is in stocking a limited range of products, topped up with "seasonal specials", which massively reduces their overheads, allowing them to be "more competitive" than such as Sainsbury or Tesco. Trading with the EU makes sense due to its geographic location, which is only needed for short shelf life and quick turnaround product. The UK spends huge amounts in China and India, taking advantage of their extremely cheap labour (around $50/ month in China for factory workers) and less in parts of Asia. There are trading opportunities in Africa but, many of these are not new, the company I worked for previously exported all over the world and imported from India, China, Zimbabwe (until their currency exploded), along with most of the major European countries. We exported into Kenya, Uganda, Australia, Scandinavia, Canada etc and many European countries, which has become far, far easier over the last 30+ years. There will always be new opportunities but, there certainly isnt a huge untapped source in some new unknown nation to either buy from or sell to. Africa will be the next new "cheap" supply option but, this will be available for EU nations to "take advantage of" and not reserved for those on the outside. If all else was equal, why would anyone want to buy from the US instead of The EU, it doesnt make sense. Just more fantasy island stuff www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... -lower-av/ $20 per hour average compared to the UK £14 (with plenty on the minimum wage) I know its difficult but, let's have some serious facts rather than crossed fingers.

Quote ="Sal Paradise"Not if there was no real need - now there is a potential need - guess what they will start to emerge. Africa would seem low cost reasonably close especially the north - pretty volatile but it is an option. US should be in line cost wise with the EU and not that far away and if Trump revs the economy up who knows. I think the idea that everything will inevitably cost more is unproven - Aldi/Lidl have shown if you can offer better value people will soon move and ditch the higher priced branded product. There will someone out there who finds a way there always in - simple supply and demand economics.'" Are you being deliberately shy with facts or, just putting your spin on certain issues. Average shipping time from USA would be 3 weeks (slightly less from the East Side). Aldi and Lidl's success is in stocking a limited range of products, topped up with "seasonal specials", which massively reduces their overheads, allowing them to be "more competitive" than such as Sainsbury or Tesco. Trading with the EU makes sense due to its geographic location, which is only needed for short shelf life and quick turnaround product. The UK spends huge amounts in China and India, taking advantage of their extremely cheap labour (around $50/ month in China for factory workers) and less in parts of Asia. There are trading opportunities in Africa but, many of these are not new, the company I worked for previously exported all over the world and imported from India, China, Zimbabwe (until their currency exploded), along with most of the major European countries. We exported into Kenya, Uganda, Australia, Scandinavia, Canada etc and many European countries, which has become far, far easier over the last 30+ years. There will always be new opportunities but, there certainly isnt a huge untapped source in some new unknown nation to either buy from or sell to. Africa will be the next new "cheap" supply option but, this will be available for EU nations to "take advantage of" and not reserved for those on the outside. If all else was equal, why would anyone want to buy from the US instead of The EU, it doesnt make sense. Just more fantasy island stuff www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... -lower-av/ $20 per hour average compared to the UK £14 (with plenty on the minimum wage) I know its difficult but, let's have some serious facts rather than crossed fingers.