The consequence thread (Brexit)

[NigelFargate]

This discussion of the 'need' for foreign labour is ignoring the fact that migration is demand-creating as well as supply-filling. Mass migration from the EU (currently running at over 2 million people) creates additional demand for housing, transport, consumer goods and, er, plumbers. Trying to fill supply labour 'shortages' by importing foreign labour (particularly through the unregulated 'open door' policy of free movement) is a Sysiphean task. The fundamental error here is to regard labour as essentially the same as the other factors of production, when it clearly is not.

[tzijlstra]

This discussion of the 'need' for foreign labour is ignoring the fact that migration is demand-creating as well as supply-filling. Mass migration from the EU (currently running at over 2 million people) creates additional demand for housing, transport, consumer goods and, er, plumbers. Trying to fill supply labour 'shortages' by importing foreign labour (particularly through the unregulated 'open door' policy of free movement) is a Sysiphean task. The fundamental error here is to regard labour as essentially the same as the other factors of production, when it clearly is not.

 

What you are saying here is that a country that has (for simplicity) 100 inhabitants and imports 4, those 4 create more work than themselves. Therefore creating another 2 jobs (for example) meaning another 2 need to be imported, creating another job, meaning another needs to be imported...

 

See where I am going? Not only is your reasoning very weak, it is also wrong.

[Guest]

May really needs to trigger Article 50 now. She can't leave it till 2019 it's too late given the EU elections are 2020 and it takes 2 years to negotiate because we'll have no idea who we'll be dealing with in a new EU parliament and most probably commission.

 

She's wisely leaving it until after the elections in other European countries takes place.

[Justin Smith]

And then reverse that, and say we should allow free movement across the globe which is what the no borders movement would argue for. Is that what you would argue for?

 

Anyway, the fundamental difference between Sheffield/Leeds, Yorkshire/Lancashire and Poland/UK is that one is fundamentally supply discrepancy led whilst the other is income discrepancy led. You might want to argue that the difference is moot, but actually talking to the Eastern European staff we have employed tells me it's not. Many of them are unhappy that they are here for the money, wishing they were doing what they were trained for back home. Don't imagine there's no shortage of plumbers and teachers in Poland, far from it.

 

Free movement of labour is ultimately great for businesses themselves, great for capitalism, but less so for the workers themselves or society. Encouraging people to travel 1000's of miles to undercut the local workforce is globalism writ large.

 

To be frank, so long as they can`t just sign on and claim benefits, and they stick to the law, I`ve absolutely no problem with that at all. Why would I ? In fact why would anyone ?

 

---------- Post added 18-08-2016 at 14:21 ----------

 

This discussion of the 'need' for foreign labour is ignoring the fact that migration is demand-creating as well as supply-filling. Mass migration from the EU (currently running at over 2 million people) creates additional demand for housing, transport, consumer goods and, er, plumbers. Trying to fill supply labour 'shortages' by importing foreign labour (particularly through the unregulated 'open door' policy of free movement) is a Sysiphean task. The fundamental error here is to regard labour as essentially the same as the other factors of production, when it clearly is not.

 

Tell you what Nigel, will you come and sort out my top flat`s shower ? If not, what do you suggest ? I want a (decent reliable) plumber, and I don`t give a toss which country he`s from.

[Brian Equato]

I'm not sure why you thought that. People can be highly critical of the EU but on balance think staying in is best. I'm one of them.

 

The point though is that despite being in the EU the UK is still one of the most liberal and lightly regulated advanced economies.

 

Seen plenty of forum entries bemoaning the fact that leaving the EU would cut lots of regulation and control (Sorry I'm going to cop out here and not search for entries to back this assertion up).

 

However, I agree with what you say on this page that we won't leave anyway, virtually noone in the 'establishment' wants it, far too much money involved and too many rich and powerful vested interests. Question is, how will said establishment weasel out of it, speculation might make an interesting thread on its Own.

 

In my own simplistic way, maybe;

String it out that long everyone eventually forgets about it or loses interest.

Hope a massive economic nose dive occurs to justify not leaving.

Eventually find some way to justify another referendum properly rigged to ensure the right result (include votes for 16 & 17 year olds maybe)

[I1L2T3]

Seen plenty of forum entries bemoaning the fact that leaving the EU would cut lots of regulation and control (Sorry I'm going to cop out here and not search for entries to back this assertion up).

 

However, I agree with what you say on this page that we won't leave anyway, virtually noone in the 'establishment' wants it, far too much money involved and too many rich and powerful vested interests. Question is, how will said establishment weasel out of it, speculation might make an interesting thread on its Own.

 

In my own simplistic way, maybe;

String it out that long everyone eventually forgets about it or loses interest.

Hope a massive economic nose dive occurs to justify not leaving.

Eventually find some way to justify another referendum properly rigged to ensure the right result (include votes for 16 & 17 year olds maybe)

 

Some EU regulation is bad but most of it is exactly what we would enact anyway. If we do leave watch us keep the vast majority of it.

 

The problem with the Brexit side is the dominance of ultra free marketeers. What they want for us all is not the change that people wanted when they voted out. Staying in the EU goes some way to protecting us from their (for most of us) nightmarish vision.

 

I can't see us leaving while May is in charge. Not a chance because those Brexiters are are the ones who will be briefing against her already. She won't give them what they want.

[Anna B]

I think we will leave, and sooner than you think...

[monkey104]

I think we will leave, and sooner than you think...

 

So do I.

I got the impression that Mrs May was agreeing with er...flipping heck! I had forgot his name already, that's it, Cameron, to his face with regards Brexit but was thinking something else.

Maybe she was a closet Brexiter!

[Cyclone]

So do I.

I got the impression that Mrs May was agreeing with er...flipping heck! I had forgot his name already, that's it, Cameron, to his face with regards Brexit but was thinking something else.

Maybe she was a closet Brexiter!

 

Errr, yeah, didn't everyone know that?

 

She's a eurosceptic, always has been.

 

She didn't declare for the out vote because they were complete lying asshats.

 

She declared very quietly for the stay vote and then did absolutely nothing to support them.

 

She's an extremely clever person, and quite possibly a sociopath.

 

---------- Post added 19-08-2016 at 09:13 ----------

 

Seen plenty of forum entries bemoaning the fact that leaving the EU would cut lots of regulation and control (Sorry I'm going to cop out here and not search for entries to back this assertion up).

 

However, I agree with what you say on this page that we won't leave anyway, virtually noone in the 'establishment' wants it, far too much money involved and too many rich and powerful vested interests. Question is, how will said establishment weasel out of it, speculation might make an interesting thread on its Own.

 

In my own simplistic way, maybe;

String it out that long everyone eventually forgets about it or loses interest.

Hope a massive economic nose dive occurs to justify not leaving.

Eventually find some way to justify another referendum properly rigged to ensure the right result (include votes for 16 & 17 year olds maybe)

 

Allow voting by text/email/online/facebook/twitter. Thus increasing participation amongst <30's and returning an overwhelming stay vote.

[L00b]

I think L00b's point was that even if Article 50 is triggered in 2017, and even if the negotiations are concluded within the 2-year deadline, without being extended, we wouldn't actually be leaving the EU until some time in 2019; so that Hammond's commitment to match EU spending in the UK up to 2020 is a fairly hollow one. I think that's what L00b was saying, anyway.

Entirely correct, Cap'n

 

And in that context, there's insistent noises in the 'serious' media (FT, Economist, Reuters) at the moment, that May isn't willing to trigger Article 50 until and unless EU Member States undertake to consent extensions of time in advance.

 

It's like a poker player asking each opponent around the table to dump a high card or two before the 1st round of betting, so her chances of securing that commitment are slim at best.

 

The UK doesn't hold a good hand, and time is working against the UK. May & Co. know it, EU heads of state know it, Brussels knows it. Only die-hard Brexiters don't, or are in denial about it. The UK is going to have to play the table quick, hard and very smartly, or fold quicker still, if it's to avoid any serious and long-term damage.

Edited August 19, 2016 by L00b