free hit
counters
Doug Ashley's Content - The Lotus Forums #ForTheOwners Jump to content


Doug Ashley

Gold FFM
  • Posts

    121
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Doug Ashley

  1. Sorry, I think you missed my sarcasm there; I was trying to make the point that surely I'm welcome to point out issues with our current relationship with Europe (and therefore Brexit), after Brexiters have been doing it for decades. Today I'm just trying to get to the bottom of why freedom of movement was so toxic, given the EU treaties themselves allowed countries to send EU nationals back home if they did not contribute. The view that rejoiners/remainers don't consider the collective 'we' isn't at all what I've seen. We want to work together with the continent for the good of everyone. Everyone loses out by the fact we're diverging on standards etc. (see the CE mark fiasco and barriers to trade between GB/NI). I did mention what 'I've' lost as a result of freedom of movement ending, but it's just a way of expressing what everyone has lost. It was necessary to leave the EU (but not with this kind of hard Brexit), and it's now been done, but it's not necessary to stick with it. The question will be asked again at some point, & the country may change its mind.
  2. The total unemployed is 1.6m, but the long term unemployed (12+ months) is only 360,000 according to: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/employmentintheuk/march2021 The unemployment rate is quite stable, so most of the 1.6m therefore find another job within a year. I agree there is some slack which could/should be picked up by UK unemployed, but I don't think the issue was EU membership. It's UK government policy over a number of decades. What was stopping them from training people up before? Then market forces would mean migrants were less likely to come to the UK because there was more competition for jobs. Successive governments took the easier route of relying on foreign labour, then pulled the rug from under industry without proper planning. Also, since freedom of movement was properly introduced (1992 Maastricht treaty), UK unemployment has been coming down (apart from the 2009 crash and Covid): https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/unemployment-rate What you outline sounds great, but I don't agree that Brexit was necessary to achieve that ambition. As for pointing out the issues, sorry, I do remember the complete silence of Brexiters about the issues with the EU prior to 2016, I will now pipe down.. 😉😉. I'm just keen for the UK to prosper, and the simplest solution is to form a closer relationship with Europe.
  3. What exactly was the issue with freedom of movement? The consensus here seems to be that we welcome migrants who integrate and contribute to the economy. Within EU law it states verbatim: 1. All Union citizens shall have the right of residence on the territory of another Member State for a period of longer than three months if they: (a) are workers or self-employed persons in the host Member State; or (b) have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32004L0038&from=EN We just chose never to implement that rule by controlling our borders properly. We now face a cliff edge of EU workers returning home, without a pipeline of replacements. It seems there is no backlog of Brits looking for work which was taken over by EU workers, which might have been an argument for ending free movement but appears to be a myth. We are now seeing the effects with supply chain issues in many industries. Brexit is not the only factor, but it's a big one. Meanwhile, I now do not have the automatic right to work or retire on the continent or in Ireland 🤦‍♂️
  4. I don't think they do. It's only got a range of 130 miles at best though.
  5. The Polestar 2 has just been released & looks good. The other half is currently running an e-Golf and we'll hopefully replace it with one of these in a year or two. She's not keen on the interior of the VW IDs, the Polestar looks a bit more 'normal'. You could argue they're part of the Lotus group too.. 😉 (I've no 'real world' electric car experience to share though, just the e-Golf which is fine).
  6. I saw a load of TVRs on the road yesterday while out & about. Turns out they were heading to Millbrook proving ground for a 'TVR Ties & Spies' event, with use of the Alpine circuit & the bowl. There's not much info online, but from what I can tell it was £80 per car for the whole day. Just thought I'd mention it here to see if there would be much appetite for something similar for us Lotus folk. Seems a good way to enjoy driving without being a full-blown track day.
  7. Very interesting & comprehensive, thanks! Hadn't thought about the games console aspect. I have a tired old PS3 which could be butchered for a chip, might try and flog it to Lotus 😉
  8. I'm intrigued.... Another reason to be grateful I didn't sell the MX5 when I got the Evora. Loaned it out instead, but I should really pry it back out of my sister-in-law's hands before the 'summer' is over.
  9. Democracy dies when the winners try to shut down debate. I didn't see Brexiters moving on from the result of the 1975 referendum, because things change. Our relationship with the EU is fluid, and we can still respect the Brexit vote while working towards a much better arrangement than what we've ended up with.
  10. So everyone of the 52% of the advisory referendum voted for the exact same thing?
  11. Unfortunately, Steve and I are stuck with you in the lift after 52% of you voted we must all get in. We did point out the 'closed for maintenance' signs, but apparently exit meant exit.
  12. How about a verified legal professional, expert in EU law? (now I’m done…)
  13. Provide verified facts or counter-arguments to further the debate? ❌ Attempt to discredit sources? 👍 I think I’m done here, back to the car stuff 😂
  14. I think both sides were just left with limited options after the UK drew several red lines, making negotiations very complex. We had a wide range of options as per the slide below, but painted ourselves into a corner. I’m not sure how the NI issue can be downplayed, just listen to John Major's views. As for the federal state, we had a veto, opt-outs and a vote. We would never have been forced to accept the Euro, an EU army, etc. etc. because of these. A lot of these myths are dispelled here: https://fullfact.org/europe/viral-list-about-lisbon-treaty-wrong/
  15. I agree, it’s going to take a while for things to settle down. I don’t think the government yet understands what it signed up to, despite us being involved in setting the rules for third countries for many years. However, an improvement in relations is needed so the EU will need to be more flexible at some point, I hope both sides move closer together rather than further apart. There’s just not much will/patience at the moment, particularly on top of a pandemic.
  16. 1. I try to make my posts based on what's actually happened, & particularly the vaccines post I think what's actually happened shows that EU membership had little relevance to the vaccine rollout. I just get tired of the continued 'us vs. them' approach to the EU and they get a lot of criticism which I'm just trying to diffuse. 2. Nothing I say will make any difference to the success of Brexit. In terms of my actions, I'm continuing to work in the same industry now working on a way forwards after we no longer need to follow EU regulations, so I'm literally being paid to make Brexit work better. 3. I want our country to be as successful as possible, and I have serious concerns about the path we're taking. Like Brexiters did, I'm willing to live here for decades under a system which I am unhappy with, in order to vote for change when the opportunity arises. The opportunity will arrive someday (unless I'm proved wrong and Brexit is a success), because the young overwhelmingly voted remain. 4. The vote was between: - staying signed up to c.700 pages of specific EU treaties, or - 'something else' The 'something else' could have taken many forms, I believe the form which we've ended up with was too 'hard Brexit' and there is room for a closer & more aligned relationship with Europe in everyone's interest.
  17. I’m taking the Evora to this on Sunday 29th August: http://stamfordcarshow.co.uk Say hello if you’re there ✋ Lovely town well worth a visit, and it’s one of the more varied & family friendly car events I’ve been to.
  18. I think part of it is down to us planning to use more of the AZ (Oxford) vaccine, which turned out to have unacceptable health risks for under 40s. We have fallen back on Pfizer and Moderna for this age range, and have less available due to these supply assumptions about AZ. In itself this is a demonstration of why speeding up the approval process might not have been the best approach. However, this is probably over-simplifying and I’m sure there are many other factors at play.
  19. This chart is for double jabbed, i.e. fully vaccinated. Age is an interesting point, we are not yet planning to vaccinate under 18s as far as I'm aware, which is perhaps why the Government keep referring to the 'adult population' when talking about vaccine success. I believe Spain are planning to vaccinate over 12s and have overtaken us in terms of proportion of population double jabbed. We have been successful and it's a great achievement for the initial procurement and the NHS rollout, but I don't think it's justified to try and paint us as a special case or claim a Brexit benefit.
  20. I think this thread is a great demonstration of just how far the available information sources out there have diverged. The truth is somewhere in the middle, which is why I try to provide an independent source for as many of my claims as possible. 'Vaccines' has been used an an answer to many questions about the UK's handing of the pandemic, and often linked to Brexit. 1. It is untrue that EU laws would have prevented us taking the approach we did. In fact, we started the process during the transition period while still under EU law! https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus-vaccine-brexit/ 2. Ok, some may say we might have gone along with the EU procurement scheme for unity/solidarity, and this would have slowed us down. True, this would have meant we were slower out of the blocks. However, the vaccine rollout has only just now started to benefit us in terms of reduced restrictions etc., because you need most of the population to be vaccinated for the benefits to be felt. In this regard, we have been caught up and in some cases overtaken by Europe, while they continue a quicker trajectory toward completing the project. We have stalled. The chart below shows we began well, but now (when vaccine benefits are starting to be felt) we are underperforming. Funnily enough, this isn't being shouted by the press, as there is money to be made by EU bashing. 3. The faster rollout may have saved more vulnerable lives by getting to them earlier, true. However, our slowness to lock down repeatedly has cost far more lives than a slightly faster rollout has saved, due to the high infection rates the government has been willing to tolerate (hence us having one of the highest death tolls in the world). Sorry if this is slightly off-topic, but as a claimed Brexit benefits go, this is a weak one.
  21. True, it was a bit of an empty point that one. Funny you mention North Korea though, that’s the direction we’re heading, apparently. State controlled media (or vice versa..), reneging on international agreements, deemed a danger to the world by scientists, noisy protests banned, flags everywhere, hard borders & so on…
  22. Brexit was not all about immigration, I can understand anyone who voted leave (I mean David bloody Cameron was the guy trying to sell the status quo) but the vote would have gone the other way without the media and certain politicians stoking up unfounded fears: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/brexit-prejudice-scientists-link-foreigners-immigrants-racism-xenophobia-leave-eu-a8078586.html I think this country has a big problem with xenophobia and has to face up to it. It's a minority, but a loud one. I'm not sure I see a link between the social changes you outline & migrants. Laying the blame with 'the wrong kind of migrants' ignores how the 'native' population & society has changed. The attitudes above are not exclusive to migrants, there are plenty of those born here who don't play by the rules and many let down by the system. Also, if migrants struggle to integrate for whatever reason, their children won't, and will become Doctors, nurses etc. - Local authority funding has been slashed, meaning urban areas have gone into decline. Upkeep of public areas, lack of funding for local services, e.g. libraries, leisure facilities etc. - Technology has created a less personable generation. - The upbringing of the new generation now in work has created a sizeable minority of UK born people unwilling to put in hard graft. The message went from 'hard work pays' to 'you can be/do/have what you want'. - The rise of the need for in-work benefits and food banks, due to 'trickle down' economics being a fallacy. I don't know how you’re suggesting we can filter migrants by attitude, this seems a simplistic solution to the societal problems you describe which are caused by many factors. It's down to an individual level, and making assumptions about someone's intentions based on where they have come from cannot be the answer. This issue gets far too much oxygen, so that the rich can point the finger at others while they continue getting away with murder. Anyway, back to Brexit, funnily enough most of the reasons you state are the same kind of reasons for my thinking it's an absolute disaster. - My rights & freedoms have been taken away. It is now much harder to work or retire in 27 other countries, whereas I had the automatic right before (provided I could support myself, otherwise under EU law I could be returned home within 3 months. A law we never decided to implement in the UK, notably). - Milking the system for all its worth / unelected elite - if the EU are an unelected elite abusing the system (which I dispute, and even if it were true, we used to receive £10 back in economic benefit for every £1 spent on the EU budget), we have simply replaced them with unelected bureaucrats and the vote leave team. They have taken over our government and do whatever the hell they want. E.g. contracts for mates, political donations for a seat in the Lords, a Royal yacht in the pipeline.. - I work in an industry heavily regulated by the EU (until now), and have been involved in EU consultations and the implementation of new laws. My experience is of a fair and transparent process, with consumer protection at the forefront of new lawmaking. My company was expanding into Europe due to being aligned with the same rules, and now we are selling off our European operations. I valued barrier free trade with our nearest neighbours, & the choice this offers. We are facing a lost decade financially, so these Brexit benefits better start arriving soon....
  23. - The vast majority don't come to the UK, and do stay on the continent. - Many of those who do come here already speak some English due to our (& the USA's) success in global entertainment. Hence they have better prospects & can more quickly integrate. - The government and many other nationalists love to paint the UK as the greatest country on earth & intrinsically 'better', and at the same time wonder why some migrants are attracted here.
  24. I do not mean to insult any individuals by linking immigration and Brexit. I don't think anyone can deny that it was certainly a factor (Farage 'Breaking Point' poster, false warnings about Turkey etc.) and in itself is not automatically linked to racism (which I didn't mention). Only a minority of Brexiters are racist (but I am fairly confident that every racist would have voted leave...😉). Yes, there are legal frameworks to take people back to the original country of entry, but this responsibility is not on the migrant themselves, but the country in which they arrive. I just think it is important to make it clear who exactly is being criticised when talking about migrants; if it is genuinely the system/government then it would help gain support from everyone to be explicit about this rather than leaving it open to interpretation. Your views seem based on two main areas: - Financial cost to the public purse - Attitude/legitimacy of the migrants themselves In financial terms, according to this anti-immigration site, the asylum system costs £1bn per year in housing & support payments. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/2020/10/03/cost-of-housing-and-payments-for-failed-asylum-claimants-estimated-at-130-million-per-year This is £15 per year per person in the UK, or around £30 per working person. In comparison: - Brexit is costing around £800m per week. This is £630 per person per year, or £1200 per working person. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-vote-cost-trade-eu-b1843018.html - Test & trace has cost something like £20bn, vastly more than other countries spent for the same systems: https://fullfact.org/online/37bn-test-trace-spending/ - We spend £23bn on housing benefit in total per year. https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/welfare-spending-housing-benefit/ - £1bn is 0.1% of total public spending: https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and-explainers/public-finances/ - It is about 5% of the tax gap: https://fullfact.org/economy/tax-gap/ - We pay less in benefits per migrant than many other European countries. On the Brexit figure alone, we are losing per week what the asylum system costs us per year. And this is for the exact thing which was supposed to fix the 'problem'. Isn't the amount of anger/attention that migration receives grossly disproportionate? Why is the media not spending 20x more time than this on Government misuse of public funds, tax evasion, or the cost of Brexit? Why is it not pointed out that we take in less than our fair share of migrants? In terms of the attitude of migrants, I'm not sure how this could be measured other than employment rates, which I don't see evidence of being any worse than decades ago. Migrants arriving today will become key contributors to the economy in decades to come. And the legitimacy of claims - if you are willing to risk your life crossing the sea in a small dinghy, to get to a country paying less in benefits than Germany, Denmark & others, I don't think it's motivated by pure greed for handouts. Trying to keep it on topic, Brexit is costing a fortune and hasn't delivered on any of its promises.
×
×
  • Create New...