dex_sda posted:

its funny, all im hearing is 'austerity' and 'close the borders'

An insane mind posted:

I know. It fills me with despair, but it's not going to make me stop...

An insane mind posted:

We can deal with unregulated migration, we choose not to.

Gort posted:

They wouldn't because 50 million new people would be 50 million new people to educate, feed, sell things to and so on. That's why migrants are an economic positive.

V. Illych L. posted:

migrants aren't evenly distributed - for perfectly understandable reasons they prefer to go to places like germany, britain and sweden, and 50 million people settling in germany would absolutely be noticable - even the flat increase of 10% of the population that you're suggesting would mean the end of every european welfare state and a huge amount of tension and instability, and there's no reason to believe that we're not going to see much more than that in the years to come. we're at eighty million refugees in the world right now, and that number is only going to increase.

like, ok, it's not an obvious case, but there *is* a legitimate and coherent case for regulated borders. even if one accepted that, however, what we're doing right now is barbaric and stupid

steinrokkan posted:

You think nobody would notice if unemployment and homeless numbers rose by 10% over a year? It wouldn't be unsurmountable, but it would be a drat big crisis.

Gort posted:

They wouldn't because 50 million new people would be 50 million new people to educate, feed, sell things to and so on. That's why migrants are an economic positive.

An insane mind posted:

The problems with the 'native workforce' aren't going to magically go away because you close the borders

Glah posted:

There's already huge problems with unemployment in the native workforce that has had an education and language skills of the home country. How do you think unregulated migration will work in this situation when the immigrants don't know the language and don't have the needed education to integrate into workforce? Add to that a welfare state that is nearing the breaking point, realistically those migrants would add to that strain.

We are looking at a situation were we'd need to adopt more American system that arguably does a better job in integrating immigrants. But that would mean doing away with robust welfare system, liberalizing the job markets, ie. making it easier to hire and fire people meaning that union influence is lessened and labour laws are loosened. Work or die/become homeless. But personally I'm not ready to do that, I like a robust welfare state and labour protections.

More realistic solution, with the system we have, is to up the development funds and make investments to the countries immigrants are coming from. And NATO to stop destabilizing countries. Help them at their homes so there's no pressure to make the risky journey to Europe.

Orange Devil posted:

You appear to be under the impression that the welfare system is strained due to overuse or something, rather than as a result of deliberate political choices made over the last 3 decades with the express purpose of destroying it.

The presence or absence of immigrants is going to have no effect on the viability of the welfare system. The capitalist class in the countries with welfare systems have decided to abolish them as quickly as they can get away with. So they've been simultaneously defunded, understaffed, (partially) privatized and given increased responsibilities (thus further spreading their insufficient resources).

Our robust welfare system is being done away with. Our job markets are being liberalized. This has been happening for decades and will continue. As a result of choices made by the politically powerful. Recent immigrants, especially refugees, are some of the least politically powerful people on the continent. They can not possibly have caused any of this.

Orange Devil posted:

You appear to be under the impression that the welfare system is strained due to overuse or something, rather than as a result of deliberate political choices made over the last 3 decades with the express purpose of destroying it.

The presence or absence of immigrants is going to have no effect on the viability of the welfare system. The capitalist class in the countries with welfare systems have decided to abolish them as quickly as they can get away with. So they've been simultaneously defunded, understaffed, (partially) privatized and given increased responsibilities (thus further spreading their insufficient resources).

Our robust welfare system is being done away with. Our job markets are being liberalized. This has been happening for decades and will continue. As a result of choices made by the politically powerful. Recent immigrants, especially refugees, are some of the least politically powerful people on the continent. They can not possibly have caused any of this.

Orange Devil posted:

Our robust welfare system is being done away with. Our job markets are being liberalized. This has been happening for decades and will continue. As a result of choices made by the politically powerful. Recent immigrants, especially refugees, are some of the least politically powerful people on the continent. They can not possibly have caused any of this.

Glah posted:

I agree that welfare state has been under attack for longer than the current immigrant crisis. But it is undeniable that it is exacerbating it. Not to go too deep into tinfoil hat territory, I think that part of the liberal push for immigration is because of this. It is a yet another convenient way to do away with robust welfare state. Naturally I don't fault immigrants coming here but they are dangerously shaking the house of cards that is our system. The reason that the system is a wobbly house of cards is because of past political decisions by powers that be.

Of course there's enough resources to have a robust welfare state and allow for mass immigration. But that isn't possible with the system we have. The solution is socialism

steinrokkan posted:

So to work properly, unregulated immigration would require a previous radical restructuring of power in the EU first, and of the fundamental economic systems second. Which isn't a trivial thing, or even one with a known path towards achieving it. So all the posts about how easy it would be to do this or that are basically dealing with some sort of parallel universe where the social and political structures aren't stacked to make the "easy" solutions as problematic as possible.

Nilbop posted:

What part of the Portuguese border are people arriving at where coyotes are eating them while they wait?

Celexi posted:

pointsofdata posted:

Do States Have the Right to Exclude Immigrants? Is an ok book on this topic.

The comparison that really stuck with me is the emancipation of the serfs - you could have made many of the same arguments against it based on flooding the cities, jobs, etc. And it did have a massive impact! But society adjusted and it was much better overall than before, even though it wasn't exactly done with the serfs best interests at heart.

Gort posted:

The deaths of migrants at sea reminds me of Coffin Ships, which were old, rotten wooden ships that ship owners overloaded, crewed and sent out to sea to sink so they could collect the insurance money as though it was a seaworthy vessel. It was illegal for sailors to refuse to crew these ships, and thousands were killed in the wrecks.

ronya posted:

there is remarkably little evidence that Plimsoll was actually right about the prevalence of coffin ships as a deliberate insurance scam

Celexi posted:

Portuguese Immigration police (SEF) is pretty good at deportation, torture, murder and rape.

Owling Howl posted:

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1333687678550814723?s=19

Taking back control of fish by blowing up trade relations to the people that buy all of your fish is a good summary of Brexit.

quote:

Boris Johnson has vowed to take back control of the UK’s “spectacular maritime wealth” but at 6am on Monday in Brixham, England’s biggest fishing port by value, there is nervousness that the prime minister’s efforts to defend the industry in post-Brexit EU trade talks could end in disaster.

Ian Perkes is sitting at his computer screen by the harbour buying sole in an online auction to sell to markets across Europe. He fears that if Mr Johnson allows EU trade talks to collapse in a dispute about fisheries, the industry will face crippling tariffs in its main market on January 1 when the UK’s Brexit transition period ends.

“If the tariff was only 5 per cent we would be killed,” said Mr Perkes, the founder of a £5m-a-year fish exporting company. In fact, if trade talks collapse, the EU will soon be levying tariffs of 20 per cent on key catches like scallops.

The scene on Brixham quayside tells a story of Britain’s emotional but ultimately detached relationship with its fishing industry, which contributes about 0.1 per cent to the UK’s GDP, if processing is included.

Workers hose down boats, gut fish and pack boxes as the sun rises over the south Devon port, on England’s south-west coast — but the fish landed here are not, generally, heading for the dining tables and restaurants of Britain.

According to Mr Perkes, 80 per cent of the scallops, squid, sole, ray, langoustines and other delicacies landed here will be loaded on to trucks and sent straight to Calais and on to markets in France, Italy, Spain and Germany. Similarly, the herring and mackerel caught by Scottish boats are not staples on a UK shopping list.

The problem, rarely acknowledged by ministers, is that Britons do not much like the fish caught in the UK’s rich fishing waters. To the extent the country eats fish, it is mainly the “big five” of cod, haddock, tuna, salmon and prawns — most of which are imported.

So as trade talks with Brussels enter a decisive phase, Mr Johnson might secure more fish for UK boats but — without a trade deal — will they be able to sell them?

Leaving aside processing, fishing and aquaculture, output slumped to just £75m in the third quarter, due mainly to the effects of Covid-19. By contrast, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility reported last week that a “no trade deal” Brexit would cost the economy 2 per cent of GDP next year.

But Mr Johnson recognises that fishing is not just about numbers. Even if Britons are not big fish eaters, the industry has a place in the nation’s psyche; some like to fall asleep listening to the BBC shipping forecast, evoking trawlers working distant storm-tossed waters.

A reminder of that visceral connection with the sea can be seen at the venerable “Man and Boy” statue on Brixham waterfront, now transformed into a shrine to Adam Harper, a young local who died when the scallop boat Joanna C overturned on November 21. Another crew member, Robert Morley, is still missing.

Mr Johnson’s fight for the restoration of fishing rights to UK fishermen after Britain leaves the EU’s common fisheries policy on January 1 is thus highly popular, especially in Scotland, which represents the biggest part of the UK industry.

EU chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has suggested that the EU fishing fleet should accept a 15-18 per cent cut in its share of rights in UK waters; David Frost, the UK’s negotiator, wants to seize 80 per cent of the €650m worth of fishing rights.

Jim Portus, chief executive of the South West Fish Producers’ Organisation, said the boat owners he represented believed Brexit was a chance to redress historic wrongs; he said that France, for example, had 84 per cent of the cod quota in the English Channel.
UK fishing

Mr Portus claims new boats — or second-hand boats — could be acquired in months to take up the extra quota and he insisted that EU consumers would still buy the fish even with high tariffs after the transition period expired. He added: “For the catching sector, no deal is better than a bad deal that sacrifices the industry.”

But Mr Portus’s optimism is not shared by Mitch Tonks, a restaurateur behind the Rockfish chain and the upmarket Seahorse in Dartmouth, who said British consumers would not take up the slack if tariffs were imposed and reduced exports to the EU.

“The sale of the fish is as important as the fishing,” he said, on a regular early-morning tour of Brixham fish market. “You could end up with fish rotting on the docks.”

He said diners at his Rockfish outlets were gradually moving from traditional (imported) cod and chips to locally caught fish, but the transition would not make up for the loss of EU markets.

Mr Perkes, who set up his fish export business in 1976, is grappling with the paperwork required to sell into the EU single market after January 1 — paperwork that will be needed regardless of whether there is a trade deal.

“It’s a nightmare,” he said, noting that he will soon have to complete catch certificates and health certificates for each consignment to the EU, covering perhaps 30 different boats catching different species.

He has also been warned that each truck, carrying maybe £150,000 of fish supplied by a number of different exporting firms, could be turned back at Calais if all of the paperwork is not in order.

Sean Perkes, his brother, looks up from his trading screen and said that if there is no trade deal there will be trouble at the border. “If the French are losing their fishing quota, they will make life extremely difficult,” he added.

Ian Perkes, like most of the south-west fishing community, voted for Brexit as a means of taking back control of UK waters. “I wish I hadn’t,” he said. “I never looked at the implications of the paperwork. I was brainwashed.”

Tariffs on exports would — he fears — be a catastrophe for his business and the fishing boats that supply it. Barring a radical change in the dietary habits of Britain, he said the sector would be “stuffed”, adding: “If there’s no deal and there are tariffs, we are out of the game.”