REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[The Saturday Boy]

Don't get them would be the answer but that's too harsh so a minimum of 5 k in the bank when they get a work permit and no benefits payable until 1 years minimum NI subscription paid and I would be happier. Then a maximum of 3 months whilke you look for a new job over herer to start the process again.

But as we know, any trade deals are going to require agreements on the movement of labour from one country to another so any stringent rules that would be detrimental to workers from another country are going to impact on potential trade deals.

Australia want to do a trade deal with the UK, they will want to reduce the current restrictions on their citizens coming to live and work in the UK as past of that deal and their ask is that Australian citizens should be able to get access to benefits in line with the Habitual Residence Test that we already have in this country. In order to get the trade deal we agree. Bangladesh want to do a trade deal with the UK and want to reduce the current restrictions for their citizens too - the UK isn't going to want to have different systems based on nationality so everybody is going to be treated the same in terms of access to benefits.

As we are setting out to get new trade deals, we aren't really in a position where we can impose harsh requirements on citizens of other countries with who we want deals - that's not a great negotiating position. Nor can we reinvent a system that is different depending on where you come from. Realistically, nothing much is likely to change. We need trade deals, we need immigration and we can't really be all that choosy given that we are starting from scratch.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

But as we know, any trade deals are going to require agreements on the movement of labour from one country to another so any stringent rules that would be detrimental to workers from another country are going to impact on potential trade deals.

Australia want to do a trade deal with the UK, they will want to reduce the current restrictions on their citizens coming to live and work in the UK as past of that deal and their ask is that Australian citizens should be able to get access to benefits in line with the Habitual Residence Test that we already have in this country. In order to get the trade deal we agree. Bangladesh want to do a trade deal with the UK and want to reduce the current restrictions for their citizens too - the UK isn't going to want to have different systems based on nationality so everybody is going to be treated the same in terms of access to benefits.

As we are setting out to get new trade deals, we aren't really in a position where we can impose harsh requirements on citizens of other countries with who we want deals - that's not a great negotiating position. Nor can we reinvent a system that is different depending on where you come from. Realistically, nothing much is likely to change. We need trade deals, we need immigration and we can't really be all that choosy given that we are starting from scratch.

I see the dilemma. The Australian style system has already been rejected I believe. Free movement doesn't work. Look at what has been working for non EU citizens now and couple it to welfare reforms if required. A very simplistic starting point I know but you have to start somewhere. In addition what about emigration as part of any trade deal for pensioners or those with requiured skills? Make that easier too and that also reduces the migration surplus.

 

[visage]

Shows what a great place to live the UK is.At least those coming will need work permits or similar and need to have jobs so economic migrants, which was the real elephant in the room, will go or at least reduce. Stick some tough rules on non UK citizens claiming benefits and its job done. Then get on with improving the infrastructure.

But the government already had extensive powers to limit EU migration, and absolute powers to block non-EU migration. They didnt do either.

So why, when governments of all persuasions didnt block immigration before, would they suddenly do it now?

Doesnt that tell you something?

 

[visage]

I see the dilemma. The Australian style system has already been rejected I believe. Free movement doesn't work. Look at what has been working for non EU citizens now and couple it to welfare reforms if required. A very simplistic starting point I know but you have to start somewhere. In addition what about emigration as part of any trade deal for pensioners or those with requiured skills? Make that easier too and that also reduces the migration surplus.

*Maybe* we need to realise that the existing system, while far from perfect, was a compromise that worked....

Wouldnt it have been wonderful to think about what we'd do with all this freedom *before* we voted to leave?

 

[Deleted Cyber]

But the government already had extensive powers to limit EU migration, and absolute powers to block non-EU migration. They didnt do either.

So why, when governments of all persuasions didnt block immigration before, would they suddenly do it now?

Doesnt that tell you something?

Because they are up shit creek infrastructure wise thanks to a generation of under investment v growing population and with brexit they will have to be seen to be doing something to restrict freedom of movement

 

[Deleted Cyber]

*Maybe* we need to realise that the existing system, while far from perfect, was a compromise that worked....

Wouldnt it have been wonderful to think about what we'd do with all this freedom *before* we voted to leave?

Without going back on that roundabout I would like to think we all agree both sides fought awful campaigns based on a variety of Ill thought strategies from apathy to lies to scaremongering.

 

[visage]

Because they are up shit creek infrastructure wise thanks to a generation of under investment v growing population and with brexit they will have to be seen to be doing something to restrict freedom of movement

But countless careful studies have shown that immigrants - being generally of working age, with few dependents bring in more money than they cost;

They're adults, so dont need schooling
They're generally young, so they dont require much healthcare.
They're likely to be single individuals, so generally dont have kids.

A lack of investment in infrastructure is a political decision, not a natural consequence. BSF, for example, involved 55 billion quid to rebuild schools, and was easily affordable. Gove cut the programme as soon as the Tories took over.

That was a political decision, not an economic one.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

But countless careful studies have shown that immigrants - being generally of working age, with few dependents bring in more money than they cost;

They're adults, so dont need schooling
They're generally young, so they dont require much healthcare.
They're likely to be single individuals, so generally dont have kids.

A lack of investment in infrastructure is a political decision, not a natural consequence. BSF, for example, involved 55 billion quid to rebuild schools, and was easily affordable. Gove cut the programme as soon as the Tories took over.

That was a political decision, not an economic one.

Exactly why we needed a credible opposition. But we got Corbyn. Actions have consequences. That re election has sealed the toriues in for the foreseeable.

Again a fine line between immigration and freedom of movement. Freedom of movement is what coiulkd end not immigration

 

[visage]

Its not the oppositions fault that you're saying things that arent true.

 

[nimrod]

i've never really understood the attempts to direct link poor infrastructure with immigration other than as a convenient propaganda tool. any link is peripheral at worst - ie we have shit infrastructure, each new immigrant can only make it worse. it fails to deal with why infrastructure is so bad or how limiting immigration would improve it. investment decisions over the last 40 or so years have included the ceding of investment responsibility in a number of industries to private company board rooms under the mandate of governments elected in by the country, so if we do have shit infrastructure then at least we should accept that it's "democratically elected" shit infrastructure that as a nation we have chosen.

 

[leedswolf]

But that's the crux of all this isn't it. 40% turn out for the PR vote. 72% for the brexit vote. Protests about Trump who has actually not committed human rights abuses yet, while the Chinese leader, whose country has and does, is welcomed with minimal fuss. Its human nature I am afraid

I would suggest that it is social conditioning as opposed to human nature?

 

[lemonjelly]

Bundesbank are forecasting significant adverse implications for the city of london and financial services as a result of brexit.

Farmers, and our food supply will be affected adversely by brexit (oh, and it appears that the EU was able to make payments in 90% of cases, whereas the UK government couldn't manage 40% - obvious where the inefficiencies are eh?):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38923450

The Public Accounts Committee report said: "The department's record of failure when developing systems to support subsidy payments to farmers does not inspire confidence in its ability to cope with the challenges associated with Brexit that lie ahead."
It called on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to use better data and to make sure "accurate, full payments are made in a timely manner".
The committee heard that some farmers had needed to take out bank loans or sell livestock to cover their costs because payments had been delayed.
'Sorry affair'
The government was also criticised for the high number of "disallowance penalties" - fines imposed by the European Commission for late or inaccurate payments or other failures to meet the rules.
England has already incurred £642m in the penalties - about 2.98% of the total value of payments made since 2005, the fourth highest in the EU.
The committee's deputy chairman, Richard Bacon, described the late payment of subsidies as "a sorry affair".
He said: "Farmers have suffered badly from the collapse in service levels, and government has done too little to help them cope with the fallout."

Oh, and we also may face delays in gaining access to appropriate treatments for severe illnesses etc:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38922366

The EMA authorises drugs for use across the EU and is currently based in the UK, although it is expected to leave after Brexit.
Sir Alasdair - who was the chairman of the UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) for almost a decade - said companies could be slower to seek permission for Britain alone, as they may need to pay for a separate assessment of their product for use in the country.
His concerns echo those expressed by the current MHRA chairman Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, who said the UK could be at the back of the queue behind Japan, the US and the EU when drugs are introduced.
In previously unreported comments in January, he told peers: "One of the biggest worries I have about Brexit and standing alone as a regulator is that we are only 3% of the world market for new drugs and if we are not careful we are going to be at the back of the queue."

Jeremy Hunt wants us to leave this efficient system (that creates jobs in the UK by the way!) Pound to a penny whatever takes it over is privately run.

 

[Tredman]

Hmm

 

[visage]

Its pretty cool that Spain has no immigrants.

 

[Tredman]

But they do have Britain First, lucky them.

 

[ProgWolf]

I've just skimmed through some of the pages on this thread and one of the first things that struck me is that about 90% of the posters wanted to Remain as opposed to the 62% of voters in Wolverhampton who wanted to leave, or the 52% of people over the UK who wanted to Leave. I wonder how many people told the pollsters that they were going to vote Remain, but actually voted to Leave ? It's not just Older / Younger either, also looks like well off / less well off and poorer areas / more affluent areas ?

 

[visage]

Maybe leave voters are just struggling to turn on their computers?

 

[leedswolf]

Maybe leave voters are just struggling to turn on their computers?

Or have run out of credit on their Top up card?

 

[visage]

Careful - dont want to trigger too many snowflakes. Maybe we need a new forum to give them a safe space where their opinions arent challenged?

 

[leedswolf]

A sort of Amy's Tavern?