Brexit (Old)

[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Some speak English and some don't. Not all jobs require English to be spoken, particularly as whole workforces will be speaking a foreign language. Many employers won't be bothered about language, they are more concerned about getting cheap labour (which often undercuts the wage of UK residents).

Wage rates are depressed, meaning that to compete others have to agree to a low wage (prompting in work benefit claims) or remain unemployed. Either way, this means more Government expenditure on benefits.

---------- Post added at 03:00 ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 ----------



A lot won't be paying tax or NI, either because the personal allowances have been substantially increased or because they only need to work over 16 hours a week to get round the no Jobseekers Allowance rule as soon as they arrive here.

Aside from the financial aspect, these people are putting a strain on hospitals, schools etc.

You can’t actually quantify any of this. It’s just a checklist of xenophobic statements. The facts are EU nationals are net contributors to the UK economy.

If there’s a strain on public services it’s because they are chronically underfunded. That’s a political choice by people who want low tax and don’t mind austerity as long as they are fine.

If wages are too low why not vote for a party advocating a higher minimum wage? Again these are political choices by both parties, doing so while pointing at the “bogey man” of the EU.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

<SNIP>

If wages are too low why not vote for a party advocating a higher minimum wage? Again these are political choices by both parties, doing so while pointing at the “bogey man” of the EU.

Where to start?

Higher minimum wage leads to higher end prices, cancelling out the value of the wage increase. Lower taxes then becomes the answer for both business and people at home. Then the real challenge - as you say - political choice fuelled by political incompetence.

As to the "bogey man" of the EU, they've proved it again. No sooner is the ink dry on the wretched Withdrawal Agreement", then Macron sticks his chest out to say that if the French can't fish in our waters, there will be no trade deal. We knew all that more than two years ago, and both Leavers and Remainers in this thread have used different sentiment to say this.

If it hurts the French so much not to be able to fish in our waters, and indeed the Spanish who want to seize Gibraltar, then a No Deal solution will cause them exquisite pain. The pain to us will be temporary because we will be free of their shackles, free to compete, free to take advantage of our freedom rather than be aligned to the EU's uncompetitive regime.

Or, we should remain as is and use our picador sticks to annoy them.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Where to start?

Higher minimum wage leads to higher end prices, cancelling out the value of the wage increase. Lower taxes then becomes the answer for both business and people at home. Then the real challenge - as you say - political choice fuelled by political incompetence.

As to the "bogey man" of the EU, they've proved it again. No sooner is the ink dry on the wretched Withdrawal Agreement", then Macron sticks his chest out to say that if the French can't fish in our waters, there will be no trade deal. We knew all that more than two years ago, and both Leavers and Remainers in this thread have used different sentiment to say this.

If it hurts the French so much not to be able to fish in our waters, and indeed the Spanish who want to seize Gibraltar, then a No Deal solution will cause them exquisite pain. The pain to us will be temporary because we will be free of their shackles, free to compete, free to take advantage of our freedom rather than be aligned to the EU's uncompetitive regime.

Or, we should remain as is and use our picador sticks to annoy them.

So whether wages are low or not is irrelevant? So EU nationals “driving down wages” also drives down prices? I’m not sure how that supports the anti-immigrant agenda.

As for Macron the whole point of trade deals is compromise, whether with the EU, USA or Commonwealth countries they are all going to want something in return.

The USA want to sell us chlorinated chicken, the French want fishing rights, we want “frictionless trade” without freedom of movement. I don’t think any of this is hugely surprising or necessarily needs to evoke the adjectives used for the EU when if the shoe was on the other foot, or we had anything meaningful to trade with the EU, we would use that as leverage.

[1andrew1]

It's going to be an interesting week. We should have a decision on whether the UK can cancel Article 50 tomorrow. I also believe the impact reports on no deal and Theresa's deal will be unveiled. Expect much complaining from the Brexit elite when the latter happens.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's going to be an interesting week. We should have a decision on whether the UK can cancel Article 50 tomorrow. I also believe the impact reports on no deal and Theresa's deal will be unveiled. Expect much complaining from the Brexit elite when the latter happens.

No doubt, the impact report will concern itself with costs, loss of EU membership advantage and negative impacts, and less attention to increased trade, opportunities and other benefits. So once again, a report with undue emphasis on the downside.

The impact report will be of limited value, therefore, as have been other forecasts in the past, so this won't wash with your 'hard' Brexiteers.

It's only remainers who are looking seriously on whether we can cancel Article 50. That isn't going to happen. Apply for an extension, perhaps, but I don't know what good that will do other than annoy the public.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

No doubt, the impact report will concern itself with costs, loss of EU membership advantage and negative impacts, and less attention to increased trade, opportunities and other benefits. So once again, a report with undue emphasis on the downside.

The impact report will be of limited value, therefore, as have been other forecasts in the past, so this won't wash with your 'hard' Brexiteers.

It's only remainers who are looking seriously on whether we can cancel Article 50. That isn't going to happen. Apply for an extension, perhaps, but I don't know what good that will do other than annoy the public.

The reports will take into account the small upside. But as we know, it's dwarfed the far larger and perrmanent downside unfortunately.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

No doubt, the impact report will concern itself with costs, loss of EU membership advantage and negative impacts, and less attention to increased trade, opportunities and other benefits. So once again, a report with undue emphasis on the downside.

These trade deals are all speculative and given the reaction of people in this thread and the country impossible to negotiate since any concession will be met with anger.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Some immigration is desirable, it's the fact that anyone who cared to come here could do so and we were powerless to stop them. Under a hard Brexit or Mays deal we will be able to control the quantity and quality of immigrants we allow in.

I think that the problems caused by EU migrants was a major reason why a sizeable number of people voted to leave.

I do hope that the Government will have the sense to let anyone in on the proviso that it is not necessarily a permanent arrangement. Over the next decade millions of jobs will be lost to automation and we will have enough of a problem dealing with this without the extra burden of people who become surplus to requirements from overseas.

Beggars can't be choosers Richard. Other countries are in the market for medical staff (e.g Germany); why would they want to come here where they won't be permanent and apparently unwelcome ?


We don't have enough young people and too many old people, that situation is going to get worse especially with Brexit as our youngsters seek better opportunities elsewhere. Meanwhile Little England is left to fester with the whining oldsters who produce nothing but demand everything.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

These trade deals are all speculative and given the reaction of people in this thread and the country impossible to negotiate since any concession will be met with anger.

People need to grasp the concept that the bigger bloc or country offers the larger market and so has the upper hand in negotiations. Be that the EU, India or the USA. There's nothing mean about that.
If we had all the trade deals lined up that Liam Fox said we would have, then we might be looking at the country taking less of a long term hit than looks the case now. Regrettably, these deals have not occurred.

[jonbxx]

Aah, I see the old EU immigration debate has come up again so I guess it's time to post a link to the governments own study - https://assets.publishing.service.go...EEA_report.PDF.

From that report we have;

Wages;

There is little evidence of substantial impacts of EEA immigration on the
overall employment opportunities of UK-born workers. Where some effect is
found, lower-skilled UK-born workers are more likely to lose out while higher skilled
workers tend to benefit.
• There is little evidence of substantial impacts of EEA immigration on
aggregate wages. Again, there is some evidence that lower-skilled workers
face a negative impact while higher-skilled workers benefit, however the
magnitude of the impacts are generally small.
• The earnings of the self-employed, regardless of nationality, are lower than
for employees and the gap is larger now than in the past. Further research
is required to ascertain what role, if any, immigration has played in this.

Public services;

EEA migrants contribute much more to the health service and the provision
of social care in financial resources and work than they consume in services.
• EEA workers are an increasing share of the health and social care
workforces though these sectors employ greater numbers of non-EEA
migrants.
• There is no evidence that migration has reduced the quality of healthcare.
• Social care is a sector that struggles to recruit and retain workers which is a
cause for concern as demand is rising inexorably. Its underlying problem is
a failure to find a funding policy that allows the payment of higher wages.
• In education, migrant children and the children of migrants are a higher
fraction of the school population than of the school workforce.
• There is no evidence that migration has reduced parental choice in schools
or the educational attainment of UK-born children. On average children with
English as an additional language out-perform native English speakers.
• Migrants are a small fraction of people in social housing but a rising fraction
of new tenants. The share of new tenancies going to migrants from the NMS
in particular is rising. Given there is little building of new social housing this
is inevitably at the expense of other potential tenants.

Again, the question remains why did successive UK governments allow unrestricted migration from the EU when there were mechanisms in place under EU law to prevent migration becoming an excessive burden to the state. This includes rules that say they must be working, self supporting or in education after three months or they must leave.Belgium manages this just fine.

Don’t forget that non-EU immigration has been higher the EU immigration for decades, and still is...

https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Damien

These trade deals are all speculative and given the reaction of people in this thread and the country impossible to negotiate since any concession will be met with anger.

Yep that just about sums it up.

[tweetiepooh]

Thing is if we control our borders we can allow in people with the skills we need as we need them. We can let in seasonal workers even since it seems our local lot don't want to do it. I really can't see that being an issue.

What is the (perceived) problem is uncontrolled immigration.

[heero_yuy]

Quote from jonbxx:


Again, the question remains why did successive UK governments allow unrestricted migration from the EU

Maybe because any politician that suggests limiting immigration is immediatly branded as a racist by the liberal left who use such slurs to avoid actually having a debate on the issue.

According to The Sun Gove and Rudd, along with Labour rebels, will seek the Norway option if the deal is voted down: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit...ove-join-efta/