The consequence thread (Brexit)

[Cyclone]

You see. It's not as bad as you claim. I've just watched the FTSE rise 250 points in the last hour. Thank god for the panickers like you.

 

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/indices/summary/summary-indices-chart.html?index=MCX

 

2000 points down on yesterday. That's over 10% down.

 

---------- Post added 24-06-2016 at 12:27 ----------

 

To be fair to him Carney at the BofE has done a good job. His comments this morning have helped steady things a lot

 

Lucky we have an expert immigrant running the bank isn't it... Oh wait... Immigrants, experts, we don't like those, they can't be trusted and they steal our jobs.

[milquetoast1]

In other words, you only become eligible for benefits in the Netherlands if you contributed enough to the system.

 

This was always the problem with the EU stamping their foot down, removing democratic accountability from the member's governments, and demanding that they pay welfare benefits equally to all EU citizens.

 

A lot of EU countries pay very little in the way of benefits, and as you explain it the Netherlands has a contributory system. These function fairly within the demands of the European Commission.

 

The UK has a generous system of benefits compared to many (more than average wages in some EU countries), and it's non-contributory. Just take a wander to Darnall to see how some in the EU have taken advantage of this.

 

The EU's position results in an onerous unfair burden on the UK, unless the UK makes structural changes and lowers the benefits (lets try that one with the SJWs shall we?). The UK wanted the EU to be more pragmatic (I would say fair), and the EU said naff off. So hear we are.

[tzijlstra]

Interesting. >=70% is a lot.

How do you prevent people building up benefit entitlement and then simply stopping work and living off the accrued benefits for as long as they last?

Are such people counted as unemployed?

 

Yes, it is a lot, I was actually off by 5%, they recently changed it so it is 75% in the first two months.

 

It does happen that people simply stop work for a while, mainly because the Dutch employment law is a bit bonkers. Effectively an employer doesn't have to contribute as much for people who are contracted. So they give their employees 1 year contracts. Your contract can be renewed twice, both for a year and then it has to turn into a permanent contract. It doesn't, because at that stage the employer has to pay a premium. So people are employed for three years, get told they can't be renewed, go on benefits, find a new job after they've charged the batteries (or whatever they want to do, many also travel for a few months...) and then start the next contract cycle.

 

It helps with flexibility in the workforce, but is lethal in the longer term as employers are now contributing less to the collective pot than they did before.

 

Regardless though - it demonstrates that the current benefit system in the UK is not, and I really do feel this has to be stressed, the result of EU rules. If it was, than all EU member states would have a similar system. They don't.

[Flanker7]

The leavers have won the day.

The field is theirs.

All the foggy sound bites can stop.

The £300+ billion per day that could go to the NHS has already been dumped by Farage when called out by Suzanne Reed.

 

Lets hear their proposals for immigration/asylum. . . .

and I mean the 'Leaver's' here on Sheffield Forum. Now is your chance to truly influence the direction of the country.

[unbeliever]

This was always the problem with the EU stamping their foot down, removing democratic accountability from the member's governments, and demanding that they pay welfare benefits equally to all EU citizens.

 

A lot of EU countries pay very little in the way of benefits, and as you explain it the Netherlands has a contributory system. These function fairly within the demands of the European Commission.

 

The UK has a generous system of benefits compared to many (more than average wages in some EU countries), and it's non-contributory. Just take a wander to Darnall to see how some in the EU have taken advantage of this.

 

The EU's position results in an onerous unfair burden on the UK, unless the UK makes structural changes and lowers the benefits (lets try that one with the SJWs shall we?). The UK wanted the EU to be more pragmatic (I would say fair), and the EU said naff off. So hear we are.

 

This was my understanding. On the other hand Germans have a non-contributory based JSA equivalent from which they exclude immigrants and that has been ruled legal by the ECJ. I never really understood why the UK could not do the same. Anyway it's moot now.

[Glennis]

I cannot believe Anna Soubry, this morning on BBC, saying 'this is down to white working class people who in the face of it have probably never even seen a migrant!'

Are these elected representatives really so out of touch with ordinary people?

 

Yes, hence the vote to Brexit

[truman]

I didnt vote as i was busy with a BBQ with friends

 

You said you were Polish in another thread..you couldn't have voted anyway..which is it?

[milquetoast1]

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/indices/summary/summary-indices-chart.html?index=MCX

 

2000 points down on yesterday. That's over 10% down.

 

My trading screen has the FTSE down 285 (4.5%) at the moment. The DAX is down 7.3%.

[Eater Sundae]

I made a joke about it on the Thatcher thread, but what about EU regulations on pollution, water quality in the rivers and seas? Will we see a return to higher pollution?

 

I think we probably will.

 

A lot of the environmental standards are EU driven. I posted on the other thread that these are partially trade driven, ensuring a level playing field. There is always the risk that in an unregulated market, one country would compromise on environmental standards in order to be more competitive. The EU directives prevented this.

 

We can take one of two directions, either a rush to the bottom or an attempt to maintain, or even improve, standards.

 

A lot will depend on the political climate, going forward.

 

1. Many Labour supporters have bought in to the Jeremy Corbyn philosophy, and so voted him in. I think he might (attempt to) buy in to the high quality, high standard point of view, from a basic socialist "best for everyone" attitude. If he does this, then this would probably protect the environment, but would we still be competitive in a global market?

 

The EU can take the cost of being environmentally good, partially because of its size and financial strength, but also because everyone within the internal market is in the same boat and nobody is able to undercut other members by using shoddy practices. I'm not convinced that we would be able to do this on our own and still be as competitve as we would have been within the EU.

 

Even if we were, in order to do this a Corbyn led Labour party must first get elected. To do this, it has to attract new voters from those who either don't vote or who currently vote for other parties. I cannot see anyone moving from either Lib Dems or Conservative to what they will see as a left leaning Corbyn led Labour party. I think it will depend on whether or not Corbyn can attract those who never voted because they didn't like the Blair style of Labour, but are now happier with a more "traditional" Labour party. Another issue is the failure of Labour in Scotland. In order to form a government, on its own, it would need to reverse the switch over to SNP. Without that (and/or if Scotland have another referendum and vote to leave the UK), along with constituancy boundary changes, Labour may not get back into power for many years. It's not much use having wonderful policies if you're not in power to implement them.

 

2. If we finish up with a Conservative government, then we will be driven by simple market forces, by which the cheapest (and least environmentally friendly) systems will win. There will no longer be the levelling forces of the single market. It took the combined efforts of the many nations of the EU to set environmental standards. No single country would do it on its own as it would be economic suicide in a global market.

 

Who knows what government we will finish up with. If it is option 1, then I think we risk not competing with the rest of the world. If it is option 2, then I think we risk finishing up with a compromised environment.

 

Similarly, the same sort of pressures will apply regarding workers rights, with similar options.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Eater Sundae

[tzijlstra]

This was always the problem with the EU stamping their foot down, removing democratic accountability from the member's governments, and demanding that they pay welfare benefits equally to all EU citizens.

 

Correction - they don't. They say that all workers have to be treated equally.

 

A lot of EU countries pay very little in the way of benefits, and as you explain it the Netherlands has a contributory system. These function fairly within the demands of the European Commission.

 

Why does the UK not have a contributory system? Is that the fault of the EU? Isn't your gripe with the fact that the UK doesn't have such a system? Wouldn't that resolve a lot of different issues, from 'benefit scroungers' to 'migrants coming for benefits'? The EU isn't wasn't stopping the UK changing that.

 

The UK has a generous system of benefits compared to many (more than average wages in some EU countries), and it's non-contributory. Just take a wander to Darnall to see how some in the EU have taken advantage of this.

 

No it doesn't have a generous system at all, it has an appallingly low welfare system as a percentage of average income compared to many EU countries. It is a fallacy to think EU migrants come here for benefits. What are they going to live of? Where are they going to live?

 

The EU's position results in an onerous unfair burden on the UK, unless the UK makes structural changes and lowers the benefits (lets try that one with the SJWs shall we?). The UK wanted the EU to be more pragmatic (I would say fair), and the EU said naff off. So hear we are.

 

The EU didn't say that at all, the EU has consistently told the UK that it can change its system as long as it remains equal for all employees. The UK tried to introduce a system where British workers were favoured over EU workers, that is discrimination. However, the EU never told the UK it couldn't stop benefits for non-working EEA migrants, that was just the UK government not wanting to change. So here we are, Britain out of the EU, a Tory government with who knows what in charge in a few months and no doubt a lot of panic football to mitigate the impact of Brexit.