This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
There's a total misunderstanding about this. It's not 'just' an ideological position; it's a pre-requisite to free trade within the EU, for practical reasons. Every time that DMM want to launch a new product in Europe today they can just jump in a van and go (I've done it myself); if post Brexit they have to jump through hoops to get visas etc, that ceases to be free trade. It becomes a huge non-tariff barrier. No free movement = no free trade.
Which isn't to say there hasn't been an issue with migration; how do schools and medical services in, say, Tottenham or Boston suddenly cope with an influx of non-English speaking children and adults with poor English and different health needs? The answer, of course, should be: throw money at it. If the EU had some sort of formula that areas particularly impacted by migration, received significant sums to improve services and infrastructure, how great would that be? How much would that take the sting from some areas that definitely have been adversely affected by migration, whatever cosily insulated Corbyn may believe to the contrary.
Post edited at 09:00
12
3
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
We didn't need a visa to go to France before we joined the EU and we won't do so in future. We do require a passport to go to France at the moment.
We didn't need a visa to go to France before we joined the EU and we won't do so in future. We do require a passport to go to France at the moment.
7
12
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Throw money at it - isn't migration generally from countries that contribute less to the EU, to those that contribute more? So you either charge the migrated from countries that are atrophying their most productive people, or the same countries as now pay, only with more overheads for EU administration.
Freedom of movement is separate to the right to be treated as a national when it comes to employment? Control the later and the problem from the former drops a lot?
I increasingly think the right to be treated as a national for employment should be reserved for "professional grade" jobs; it's one thing to expect someone highly trained and paid to compete in a global market, but a dock worker or a manual labourer?
Throw money at it - isn't migration generally from countries that contribute less to the EU, to those that contribute more? So you either charge the migrated from countries that are atrophying their most productive people, or the same countries as now pay, only with more overheads for EU administration.
Freedom of movement is separate to the right to be treated as a national when it comes to employment? Control the later and the problem from the former drops a lot?
I increasingly think the right to be treated as a national for employment should be reserved for "professional grade" jobs; it's one thing to expect someone highly trained and paid to compete in a global market, but a dock worker or a manual labourer?
Post edited at 09:54
3
3
In reply to wintertree:
Sounds like you're going down a classic bureaucratic, government type solution, totally unworkable in practice. Define 'professional grade'. Who would agree it? What would the cut off be? What would happen if someone became unemployed and took a non professional job?
If the EU paid areas that receive a large influx of migrants then it would ease the pain of the indigenous; it might even provide an incentive to distribute migration a bit more evenly.
Sounds like you're going down a classic bureaucratic, government type solution, totally unworkable in practice. Define 'professional grade'. Who would agree it? What would the cut off be? What would happen if someone became unemployed and took a non professional job?
If the EU paid areas that receive a large influx of migrants then it would ease the pain of the indigenous; it might even provide an incentive to distribute migration a bit more evenly.
2
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
We don't yet know how the work situation is going to turn out. There are currently around 3 million EU nationals living in the UK of whom around 2 million are in work, while around 1.2 million UK nationals live in other EU countries of whom around 800,000 are in work. The EU would be shooting themselves in the foot if they introduced barriers to employment, so don't scaremonger about something which probably won't happen.
We don't yet know how the work situation is going to turn out. There are currently around 3 million EU nationals living in the UK of whom around 2 million are in work, while around 1.2 million UK nationals live in other EU countries of whom around 800,000 are in work. The EU would be shooting themselves in the foot if they introduced barriers to employment, so don't scaremonger about something which probably won't happen.
5
3
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Oh come on. Many countries have deals allowing people to make a 10-day business trip or holiday to another country, just by turning up at the airport. (E.g, I routinely go to conferences in the US on such terms.) That's a hugely different matter from the right of residency, long-term work and eligibility for benefits, etc.
> Every time that DMM want to launch a new product in Europe today they can just jump in a van and go (I've done it myself); if post Brexit they have to jump through hoops to get visas etc, that ceases to be free trade.
Oh come on. Many countries have deals allowing people to make a 10-day business trip or holiday to another country, just by turning up at the airport. (E.g, I routinely go to conferences in the US on such terms.) That's a hugely different matter from the right of residency, long-term work and eligibility for benefits, etc.
10
2
In reply to John2:
FFS, how is this scaremongering? It is the UK (or rather, the leave campaign) which has specifically said they want to introduce limits on the rights of people to live / work here - it isn't the big bad EU who are now threatening to introduce limits on us, it's vice versa. Do you really think the EU will make an agreement where we have free movement in the EU but it isn't reciprocated?
> We don't yet know how the work situation is going to turn out. There are currently around 3 million EU nationals living in the UK of whom around 2 million are in work, while around 1.2 million UK nationals live in other EU countries of whom around 800,000 are in work. The EU would be shooting themselves in the foot if they introduced barriers to employment, so don't scaremonger about something which probably won't happen.
FFS, how is this scaremongering? It is the UK (or rather, the leave campaign) which has specifically said they want to introduce limits on the rights of people to live / work here - it isn't the big bad EU who are now threatening to introduce limits on us, it's vice versa. Do you really think the EU will make an agreement where we have free movement in the EU but it isn't reciprocated?
5
2
In reply to wintertree:
You don't know what you are saying. Are you suggesting my wife should have no right to work? If so, then you can get stuffed! If not then you can clarify
She was the wife of someone well paid who become redundant unexpectedly at an extremely awkward age (I'm 60 now) so what of our position? We depend at the moment on what she earns.
It is bloody easy to say things from a position of youth, affluence and security. I hope you aren't doing that as it sounds very threatening.
You don't know what you are saying. Are you suggesting my wife should have no right to work? If so, then you can get stuffed! If not then you can clarify
She was the wife of someone well paid who become redundant unexpectedly at an extremely awkward age (I'm 60 now) so what of our position? We depend at the moment on what she earns.
It is bloody easy to say things from a position of youth, affluence and security. I hope you aren't doing that as it sounds very threatening.
Post edited at 10:11
4
1
In reply to wintertree:
Or, and this is radical, we could tax these workers and properly fund our services with said taxes.
Yours,
Che Guavara.
> Throw money at it - isn't migration generally from countries that contribute less to the EU, to those that contribute more? So you either charge the migrated from countries that are atrophying their most productive people, or the same countries as now pay, only with more overheads for EU administration.
Or, and this is radical, we could tax these workers and properly fund our services with said taxes.
Yours,
Che Guavara.
9
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Do you seriously think attending an academic conference, with the protocols long established, all your arrangements made for you etc, for a few days, is in the slightest way comparable with setting up business deals in new markets, making distribution arrangements, setting up office facilities etc etc etc? For goodness' sake.
Do you seriously think attending an academic conference, with the protocols long established, all your arrangements made for you etc, for a few days, is in the slightest way comparable with setting up business deals in new markets, making distribution arrangements, setting up office facilities etc etc etc? For goodness' sake.
7
1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
We do. But most tax goes to central government, not the region generating it.
We do. But most tax goes to central government, not the region generating it.
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
"If the EU had some sort of formula that areas particularly impacted by migration, received significant sums to improve services and infrastructure, how great would that be?"
I guess such an idea runs counter to the EUs Structural and Cohesion Fund that aim to reduce regional disparities in income, wealth and opportunities through development projects. Europe's poorer regions (mostly the east) receive most of the support but it will take decades before there would be any kind of econmoic parity and I imagine the very same new EU members would probably object to a city such as London receiving millions of euros to build new schools and hospitals when their own countries are still making do with crumbling Stalin era infrastructure.
Or, maybe the UK should have kept in place migration controls back in 2004 like most other senior EU countries when Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined the newly expanded EU. It was absurd back then to think that a Polish person on £250 - 300 a month was not going to be tempted to earn 4 or 5 times that sum in the UK. Anyway, all a bit late now!!
"If the EU had some sort of formula that areas particularly impacted by migration, received significant sums to improve services and infrastructure, how great would that be?"
I guess such an idea runs counter to the EUs Structural and Cohesion Fund that aim to reduce regional disparities in income, wealth and opportunities through development projects. Europe's poorer regions (mostly the east) receive most of the support but it will take decades before there would be any kind of econmoic parity and I imagine the very same new EU members would probably object to a city such as London receiving millions of euros to build new schools and hospitals when their own countries are still making do with crumbling Stalin era infrastructure.
Or, maybe the UK should have kept in place migration controls back in 2004 like most other senior EU countries when Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined the newly expanded EU. It was absurd back then to think that a Polish person on £250 - 300 a month was not going to be tempted to earn 4 or 5 times that sum in the UK. Anyway, all a bit late now!!
Post edited at 10:24
2
In reply to andyfallsoff:
What many of the Brexiters have suggested is that we should introduce a points based system so that there was no restriction on people from the EU or anywhere else in the world obtaining jobs which need filling. The objection is to the current situation where an EU national can move to the UK and obtain benefits.
What many of the Brexiters have suggested is that we should introduce a points based system so that there was no restriction on people from the EU or anywhere else in the world obtaining jobs which need filling. The objection is to the current situation where an EU national can move to the UK and obtain benefits.
2
3
In reply to John2:
We know what Brexiters suggested thanks very much, 'The Australian system'. After all Australia is so like the UK in many ways. And it's part of the Commonwealth too - another of Farage's big ideas!
We know what Brexiters suggested thanks very much, 'The Australian system'. After all Australia is so like the UK in many ways. And it's part of the Commonwealth too - another of Farage's big ideas!
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Um... we're talking about academic conferences, here?
> Do you seriously think attending an academic conference, with the protocols long established, all your arrangements made for you etc, for a few days
Um... we're talking about academic conferences, here?
In reply to climbwhenready:
Well Coel presumably is. Because he can attend an academic conference in the States that's the same as setting up trading arrangements in a foreign country. I don't quite get the comparison either.
Well Coel presumably is. Because he can attend an academic conference in the States that's the same as setting up trading arrangements in a foreign country. I don't quite get the comparison either.
5
In reply to Cú Chullain:
Yes, funnily enough that was ideology based decision, and one that Corbyn accepts that he would repeat today. Rarely do we have such a clear example of the results of a poor decision, and the inability of someone like Corbyn to learn from it.
Yes, funnily enough that was ideology based decision, and one that Corbyn accepts that he would repeat today. Rarely do we have such a clear example of the results of a poor decision, and the inability of someone like Corbyn to learn from it.
1
1
In reply to John2:
I'm aware what has been suggested, I've followed the news quite closely. There are, of course, arguments about whether this will lead to any net reduction in migration at all (given the stats in Australia show more immigration, not less). Do you not think the EU would impose equivalent rules for working in the EU for UK citizens - exactly the "restrictions on work" that Rob described (and you called "scaremongering")?
No one is saying that it will be impossible to work in the EU after an exit. But to say it won't be harder is absurd, unless we allow equivalent free movement into the UK.
Part of the economic benefit of free movement of people is that there aren't these restrictions, so people can move about and ideas / knowhow / expertise move with them. This isn't just about plumbers and fruit pickers - the free movement of people allows scientists, doctors, tech specialists, lawyers... These people may well satisfy your points system and be allowed in, I accept that. But highly mobile, skilled people will be less inclined to come here if we are now openly hostile (which we appear to be). Why would you go to the UK with your skills when we are the least welcoming country in Europe?
> What many of the Brexiters have suggested is that we should introduce a points based system so that there was no restriction on people from the EU or anywhere else in the world obtaining jobs which need filling. The objection is to the current situation where an EU national can move to the UK and obtain benefits.
I'm aware what has been suggested, I've followed the news quite closely. There are, of course, arguments about whether this will lead to any net reduction in migration at all (given the stats in Australia show more immigration, not less). Do you not think the EU would impose equivalent rules for working in the EU for UK citizens - exactly the "restrictions on work" that Rob described (and you called "scaremongering")?
No one is saying that it will be impossible to work in the EU after an exit. But to say it won't be harder is absurd, unless we allow equivalent free movement into the UK.
Part of the economic benefit of free movement of people is that there aren't these restrictions, so people can move about and ideas / knowhow / expertise move with them. This isn't just about plumbers and fruit pickers - the free movement of people allows scientists, doctors, tech specialists, lawyers... These people may well satisfy your points system and be allowed in, I accept that. But highly mobile, skilled people will be less inclined to come here if we are now openly hostile (which we appear to be). Why would you go to the UK with your skills when we are the least welcoming country in Europe?
1
In reply to John2:
Unless of course you also factor in the ones who disagree with them "coming over here and taking our jobs"
> The objection is to the current situation where an EU national can move to the UK and obtain benefits.
Unless of course you also factor in the ones who disagree with them "coming over here and taking our jobs"
Post edited at 11:03
In reply to John2:
But Cameron had already sorted that, hadn't he? I thought people from the EU weren't/aren't allowed to claim any benefits for two years?
> The objection is to the current situation where an EU national can move to the UK and obtain benefits.
But Cameron had already sorted that, hadn't he? I thought people from the EU weren't/aren't allowed to claim any benefits for two years?
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
The way I see it is that free movement, Access to the free market and the cost in tarrifs are all directly related, The less open our borders are the less access we have to the market or the more expensive the access is. It wouldn't take too much of a cost restriction to the free market to see business using the UK as European HQ move to Dublin or Paris etc. This is the clincher for me the arguement that Europe needs our business therfore will accept limitations on movement becomes less strong if the businesses moves to the EU. Yes we will save a nominal amount on benefits but and what cost?
Setting up a points system will involve setting up a massive bureaucracy which would sit alongside the other massive bureaucracy needed to replace the other stuff currently done by Brussels. I can see a way foreward without a huge increase in public sector spending at the same time as partial strangulation of the private sector.
The way I see it is that free movement, Access to the free market and the cost in tarrifs are all directly related, The less open our borders are the less access we have to the market or the more expensive the access is. It wouldn't take too much of a cost restriction to the free market to see business using the UK as European HQ move to Dublin or Paris etc. This is the clincher for me the arguement that Europe needs our business therfore will accept limitations on movement becomes less strong if the businesses moves to the EU. Yes we will save a nominal amount on benefits but and what cost?
Setting up a points system will involve setting up a massive bureaucracy which would sit alongside the other massive bureaucracy needed to replace the other stuff currently done by Brussels. I can see a way foreward without a huge increase in public sector spending at the same time as partial strangulation of the private sector.
In reply to doz generale:
Completely agree - I think that's also how the EU sees it, hence the idiocy of the leavers' negotiation stance
> The way I see it is that free movement, Access to the free market and the cost in tarrifs are all directly related, The less open our borders are the less access we have to the market or the more expensive the access is.
Completely agree - I think that's also how the EU sees it, hence the idiocy of the leavers' negotiation stance
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Of course, but there's no reason that the EU should fund these regions specifically when it would be much more efficient for our own government to do so. I agree with additional funding for areas of high immigration.
> We do. But most tax goes to central government, not the region generating it.
Of course, but there's no reason that the EU should fund these regions specifically when it would be much more efficient for our own government to do so. I agree with additional funding for areas of high immigration.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
If you're setting up office facilities in another country, effectively a branch of your business, then obviously that's more involved.
But, setting up business deals in new markets, making distribution arrangements etc, is indeed pretty similar to academic collaboration, and is exactly why most counties have policies that allow people to make business trips to their country with minimal hassle.
Again, that really is rather different from EU free-movement policy.
> ... is in the slightest way comparable with setting up business deals in new markets, making distribution arrangements, setting up office facilities etc etc etc? For goodness' sake.
If you're setting up office facilities in another country, effectively a branch of your business, then obviously that's more involved.
But, setting up business deals in new markets, making distribution arrangements etc, is indeed pretty similar to academic collaboration, and is exactly why most counties have policies that allow people to make business trips to their country with minimal hassle.
Again, that really is rather different from EU free-movement policy.
4
6
In reply to andyfallsoff:
The US requires visas for people wanting to work there, and yet plenty of people do seem to want to work there. Really, if one is taking the fairly major step of moving to another nation, then applying for a visa is a pretty small part of the process. It's minor compared to, say, selling your house and buying a new one in that nation.
> But highly mobile, skilled people will be less inclined to come here if we are now openly hostile (which we appear to be). Why would you go to the UK with your skills when we are the least welcoming country in Europe?
The US requires visas for people wanting to work there, and yet plenty of people do seem to want to work there. Really, if one is taking the fairly major step of moving to another nation, then applying for a visa is a pretty small part of the process. It's minor compared to, say, selling your house and buying a new one in that nation.
3
In reply to andy:
No, that's what Cameron *asked for* in his renegotiations. The EU refused to agree.
[I've no idea whether they now regret not giving Cameron that sort of concession, which would likely have led to a different referendum outcome, or whether they really would prefer the UK to leave rather than concede on such an issue.]
> But Cameron had already sorted that, hadn't he? I thought people from the EU weren't/aren't allowed to claim any benefits for two years?
No, that's what Cameron *asked for* in his renegotiations. The EU refused to agree.
[I've no idea whether they now regret not giving Cameron that sort of concession, which would likely have led to a different referendum outcome, or whether they really would prefer the UK to leave rather than concede on such an issue.]
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I don't think it's just the visa. I think it's also the pervasive sense of being a country that is less welcoming. I have friends who are from other EU states living here, and they all feel less inclined to stay. It's part of the problem of having been seen to be accepting but then deciding you no longer want to be - that sends quite a different message to that of always having been a state where a visa etc. is required. I appreciate that effect will lessen over time, though.
I also think that the US is a different story - because of its size, and the fact that it is the biggest economy in the world. The UK doesn't have the same advantages.
In terms of your "selling a house" example - I think most expats rent, at least initially, because it is typically the younger people who are more mobile, so the visa may well be the most difficult administrative hurdle.
> The US requires visas for people wanting to work there, and yet plenty of people do seem to want to work there. Really, if one is taking the fairly major step of moving to another nation, then applying for a visa is a pretty small part of the process. It's minor compared to, say, selling your house and buying a new one in that nation.
I don't think it's just the visa. I think it's also the pervasive sense of being a country that is less welcoming. I have friends who are from other EU states living here, and they all feel less inclined to stay. It's part of the problem of having been seen to be accepting but then deciding you no longer want to be - that sends quite a different message to that of always having been a state where a visa etc. is required. I appreciate that effect will lessen over time, though.
I also think that the US is a different story - because of its size, and the fact that it is the biggest economy in the world. The UK doesn't have the same advantages.
In terms of your "selling a house" example - I think most expats rent, at least initially, because it is typically the younger people who are more mobile, so the visa may well be the most difficult administrative hurdle.
In reply to andyfallsoff:
The way I see it, is the referendum just asked the nation one question put to it by the government. Do you want to remain, or do you want to leave, a simple yes or no. It did not ask us what kind of exit deal we wanted. So by leaving surely the promise outlined by the Prime Minister is fulfilled. What the deal is from hereon in should be down to the government to decide acting as our proxy - not from the referendum - but from the election.
Any deal brokered should therefore be in the best interests of the country, not the leave campaign, not the brexit voter nor the remain voter.
The way I see it, is the referendum just asked the nation one question put to it by the government. Do you want to remain, or do you want to leave, a simple yes or no. It did not ask us what kind of exit deal we wanted. So by leaving surely the promise outlined by the Prime Minister is fulfilled. What the deal is from hereon in should be down to the government to decide acting as our proxy - not from the referendum - but from the election.
Any deal brokered should therefore be in the best interests of the country, not the leave campaign, not the brexit voter nor the remain voter.
Post edited at 11:48
4
In reply to wintertree:
You are assuming that our population want to do the manual labour type jobs. Yes, some do, but many don't. My husband is a landscape gardener, and his boss uses labourers a lot during the summer months. It is not all that unusual for me to get a phone call at 8am to ask if I am free to come and labour as the labourer who was booked has not turned up. One week, 3 labourers didn't show up! They didn't leave a message or anything, just didn't show up. The boss is a very fair man, but does work you hard.
I realise that this a limited experience to draw on, but it does seem that some in our country do not want to work hard and get their hands dirty. I am not saying that no one wants the work, they have a couple of fairly reliable labourers with them at the moment, but I do find it alarming how many agree to work and then just don't turn up. If people from other places have a better work ethic, why should they be denied this work?
> I increasingly think the right to be treated as a national for employment should be reserved for "professional grade" jobs; it's one thing to expect someone highly trained and paid to compete in a global market, but a dock worker or a manual labourer?
You are assuming that our population want to do the manual labour type jobs. Yes, some do, but many don't. My husband is a landscape gardener, and his boss uses labourers a lot during the summer months. It is not all that unusual for me to get a phone call at 8am to ask if I am free to come and labour as the labourer who was booked has not turned up. One week, 3 labourers didn't show up! They didn't leave a message or anything, just didn't show up. The boss is a very fair man, but does work you hard.
I realise that this a limited experience to draw on, but it does seem that some in our country do not want to work hard and get their hands dirty. I am not saying that no one wants the work, they have a couple of fairly reliable labourers with them at the moment, but I do find it alarming how many agree to work and then just don't turn up. If people from other places have a better work ethic, why should they be denied this work?
3
In reply to andyfallsoff:
How can you possibly judge this only one week after the referendum when the media and the twittersphere is overwhelmed by remainers telling us the economy will collapse, foreigners are all being mugged in the streets and they'll all be sent home in cattle trucks.
Do migrants to Canada or Australia or Switzerland feel "unwelcome" ?
Everybody really needs to calm down a little and stop extrapolating the shock of the result into their own worst but unfounded fears.
> I don't think it's just the visa. I think it's also the pervasive sense of being a country that is less welcoming. I have friends who are from other EU states living here, and they all feel less inclined to stay.
>How can you possibly judge this only one week after the referendum when the media and the twittersphere is overwhelmed by remainers telling us the economy will collapse, foreigners are all being mugged in the streets and they'll all be sent home in cattle trucks.
Do migrants to Canada or Australia or Switzerland feel "unwelcome" ?
Everybody really needs to calm down a little and stop extrapolating the shock of the result into their own worst but unfounded fears.
6
2
In reply to andyfallsoff:
As you say, I think this will lessen considerably over time. At the moment there is a "shocked" reaction to the vote. In the longer run not much will change. No government is going to start being nasty to EU citizens, and nor are the vast majority of the people of Britain. (Obviously there's a small fringe, but then there always was.)
> I think it's also the pervasive sense of being a country that is less welcoming.
As you say, I think this will lessen considerably over time. At the moment there is a "shocked" reaction to the vote. In the longer run not much will change. No government is going to start being nasty to EU citizens, and nor are the vast majority of the people of Britain. (Obviously there's a small fringe, but then there always was.)
2
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
If we paid those workers enough, and if those workers were not taking jobs that non migrant workers find economically unviable, then I would agree with you.
I see immigrant labour as one pillar of the problem. A much bigger pillar is a combination of high house prices and low wages making a lot of low paid work highly unattractive to people who expect to live in a reasonable low end accommodation.
> Or, and this is radical, we could tax these workers and properly fund our services with said taxes.
If we paid those workers enough, and if those workers were not taking jobs that non migrant workers find economically unviable, then I would agree with you.
I see immigrant labour as one pillar of the problem. A much bigger pillar is a combination of high house prices and low wages making a lot of low paid work highly unattractive to people who expect to live in a reasonable low end accommodation.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I agree with all these points. They're ones that some of my colleagues whi work on visas have to face and deal with.
Isn't this another large, bureaucratic, government type solution however? As I said as well the countries receiving more migrants tend to be the ones paying more into the EU and therefore paying for this. It's hardly fair to charge the countries who in some cases are already suffering from the outflux of young people.
> Sounds like you're going down a classic bureaucratic, government type solution, totally unworkable in practice. Define 'professional grade'. Who would agree it? What would the cut off be? What would happen if someone became unemployed and took a non professional job?
I agree with all these points. They're ones that some of my colleagues whi work on visas have to face and deal with.
> If the EU paid areas that receive a large influx of migrants then it would ease the pain of the indigenous; it might even provide an incentive to distribute migration a bit more evenly.
Isn't this another large, bureaucratic, government type solution however? As I said as well the countries receiving more migrants tend to be the ones paying more into the EU and therefore paying for this. It's hardly fair to charge the countries who in some cases are already suffering from the outflux of young people.
In reply to John2:
Nonsense. Any non-EEA have to get a work permit if they want to go to France to work. Even short term. Not sure why it would be different for uk passport holders.
> We didn't need a visa to go to France before we joined the EU and we won't do so in future. We do require a passport to go to France at the moment.
Nonsense. Any non-EEA have to get a work permit if they want to go to France to work. Even short term. Not sure why it would be different for uk passport holders.
2
In reply to wercat:
Actually I've thought about it a lot and discussed it with a lot of people of widely varying circumstances.
I'm not suggesting anything about you wife. I was wondering if it is fair that people without any wealth or social mobility have to compete on equal footing with mobile labour from half a continent.
I am sorry if I have hit a nerve and I have no wish to argue on your circumstances. I would be very angry if the current situation results in anyone from the EU residing here without citizenship having the rug pulled out from under them; I am going to write to my MP with my views on this as if potentially affects many friends and colleagues. There is a world of difference between a change moving forwards and a retrospective change that affects over a million people.
I was wondering about why the best thing for the future is - not for me (I have to compete with people willing to migrate from anywhere in the world, with visas easily arranged) - but for those without affluence or security who have to compete with people used to substantially different culture and living conditions.
It's a very hard issue to discuss without getting jumped on or called racist, but is clearly a real concern and a large contributor to the recent vote.
We need to protect the low end of the wage bracket - by regulating access to jobs, or by dealing with labour laws to make the jobs sustainable regardless of migration.
I don't know what is going to change, but clearly something must.
> You don't know what you are saying.
Actually I've thought about it a lot and discussed it with a lot of people of widely varying circumstances.
> Are you suggesting my wife should have no right to work? If so, then you can get stuffed! If not then you can clarify
I'm not suggesting anything about you wife. I was wondering if it is fair that people without any wealth or social mobility have to compete on equal footing with mobile labour from half a continent.
I am sorry if I have hit a nerve and I have no wish to argue on your circumstances. I would be very angry if the current situation results in anyone from the EU residing here without citizenship having the rug pulled out from under them; I am going to write to my MP with my views on this as if potentially affects many friends and colleagues. There is a world of difference between a change moving forwards and a retrospective change that affects over a million people.
> It is bloody easy to say things from a position of youth, affluence and security. I hope you aren't doing that as it sounds very threatening.
I was wondering about why the best thing for the future is - not for me (I have to compete with people willing to migrate from anywhere in the world, with visas easily arranged) - but for those without affluence or security who have to compete with people used to substantially different culture and living conditions.
It's a very hard issue to discuss without getting jumped on or called racist, but is clearly a real concern and a large contributor to the recent vote.
We need to protect the low end of the wage bracket - by regulating access to jobs, or by dealing with labour laws to make the jobs sustainable regardless of migration.
I don't know what is going to change, but clearly something must.
Post edited at 12:24
1
2
In reply to girlymonkey:
I largely agree. But why aren't these jobs attractive locally? Either welfare is to high, or pay is to low. It certainty isn't a great excess of job opportunities. My take is that pay is to low, and we are exploiting resources from other nations to continue this situation - often at the expense of the other nations.
Sorting out pay and housing costs is a more sensible approach I think than blanket restrictions on migrant work.
I largely agree. But why aren't these jobs attractive locally? Either welfare is to high, or pay is to low. It certainty isn't a great excess of job opportunities. My take is that pay is to low, and we are exploiting resources from other nations to continue this situation - often at the expense of the other nations.
Sorting out pay and housing costs is a more sensible approach I think than blanket restrictions on migrant work.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Because that's what they've told me they feel. I can reassure them (and have tried) but are you telling me I should say they're wrong?
Don't know about Canada or Aus but I have heard that in Switzerland, yes.
As above - not unfounded. The biggest fear was that if we vote out, noone would know what is going on / what the plan is - is that an unfounded fear?
> How can you possibly judge this only one week after the referendum when the media and the twittersphere is overwhelmed by remainers telling us the economy will collapse, foreigners are all being mugged in the streets and they'll all be sent home in cattle trucks.
Because that's what they've told me they feel. I can reassure them (and have tried) but are you telling me I should say they're wrong?
> Do migrants to Canada or Australia or Switzerland feel "unwelcome" ?
Don't know about Canada or Aus but I have heard that in Switzerland, yes.
> Everybody really needs to calm down a little and stop extrapolating the shock of the result into their own worst but unfounded fears.
As above - not unfounded. The biggest fear was that if we vote out, noone would know what is going on / what the plan is - is that an unfounded fear?
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I wouldn't bet on that, they had to be very nasty to non-EEA and even then just the number of non-EEA migrant alone is way over the net migration target.
The only practical way, other than wrecking the economy (which we may have done - too early to tell) to reduce net migration to the 10s of 1000s would be to be even nastier, and get as many existing migrants to leave as well.
> As you say, I think this will lessen considerably over time. At the moment there is a "shocked" reaction to the vote. In the longer run not much will change. No government is going to start being nasty to EU citizens, and nor are the vast majority of the people of Britain. (Obviously there's a small fringe, but then there always was.)
I wouldn't bet on that, they had to be very nasty to non-EEA and even then just the number of non-EEA migrant alone is way over the net migration target.
The only practical way, other than wrecking the economy (which we may have done - too early to tell) to reduce net migration to the 10s of 1000s would be to be even nastier, and get as many existing migrants to leave as well.
1
In reply to andyfallsoff:
Yes, of course you should.
Europeans?
To coin a phrase "we have nothing to fear but fear itself". The biggest fear wasn't some confusion in the immediate aftermath. The biggest fears are large scale repatriations, economic disaster, remergence of wars within Europe and so forth. There is no reason to think that these are going to happen just because politicians are, not very surprisingly, struggling to get their act together.
We were also told that the government would be a bunch of right wing nutters run by Boris, Farage and Gove. Doesn't look like that's going to happen....
> Because that's what they've told me they feel. I can reassure them (and have tried) but are you telling me I should say they're wrong?
>Yes, of course you should.
> Don't know about Canada or Aus but I have heard that in Switzerland, yes.
Europeans?
> As above - not unfounded. The biggest fear was that if we vote out, noone would know what is going on / what the plan is - is that an unfounded fear?
To coin a phrase "we have nothing to fear but fear itself". The biggest fear wasn't some confusion in the immediate aftermath. The biggest fears are large scale repatriations, economic disaster, remergence of wars within Europe and so forth. There is no reason to think that these are going to happen just because politicians are, not very surprisingly, struggling to get their act together.
We were also told that the government would be a bunch of right wing nutters run by Boris, Farage and Gove. Doesn't look like that's going to happen....
Post edited at 12:41
1
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
I don't agree that setting up a visa system for *new* arrivals is being "nasty". I'd have to get a visa to go and work in the US; and they may turn me down. Either way that is not "nasty".
Now, expelling EU nationals already here, or depriving them of the right to work, or similar, would indeed be very nasty, and I don't think there's the slightest prospect of that.
> ... they had to be very nasty to non-EEA
I don't agree that setting up a visa system for *new* arrivals is being "nasty". I'd have to get a visa to go and work in the US; and they may turn me down. Either way that is not "nasty".
Now, expelling EU nationals already here, or depriving them of the right to work, or similar, would indeed be very nasty, and I don't think there's the slightest prospect of that.
4
In reply to Coel Hellier:
You must have long standing EU colleagues. What have they said to you?
Have you mentioned to them they should dig out old poll tax bills or pay slips?
You must have long standing EU colleagues. What have they said to you?
Have you mentioned to them they should dig out old poll tax bills or pay slips?
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
But they aren't wrong. The country is saying that we want fewer EU migrants. They are EU migrants, ergo they are less welcome... Besides, that is their perception. If someone told you they were the subject of racism / sexism would you say they were wrong? Or would you listen to them, because they are the people who feel the effects so are probably better able to judge than you are?
I have been told so, yes. I don't have first hand experience though.
Economically speaking, the not knowing is damaging, though. I'm already seeing investments being cancelled, deals pulled, etc. because people don't know what's going to happen, and there isn't any sign of that being resolved for quite some time - even when we actually have leading political parties, it still won't be clear for years what the actual deal is. A lot of damage can be done in the meanwhile.
I don't think anyone thought it would include Farage, what with how he isn't an MP. The fact that Boris isn't running for leadership doesn't preclude him from being involved, though, and it certainly looks like Gove will be a leading figure (even if May beats him to the PM job). Also, it isn't as if the alternative is particularly less right wing - May is hardly a liberal.
> Yes, of course you should.
But they aren't wrong. The country is saying that we want fewer EU migrants. They are EU migrants, ergo they are less welcome... Besides, that is their perception. If someone told you they were the subject of racism / sexism would you say they were wrong? Or would you listen to them, because they are the people who feel the effects so are probably better able to judge than you are?
> Europeans?
I have been told so, yes. I don't have first hand experience though.
> To coin a phrase "we have nothing to fear but fear itself". The biggest fear wasn't some confusion in the immediate aftermath. The biggest fears are large scale repatriations, economic disaster, remergence of wars within Europe and so forth. There is no reason to think that these are going to happen just because politicians are, not very surprisingly, struggling to get their act together.
Economically speaking, the not knowing is damaging, though. I'm already seeing investments being cancelled, deals pulled, etc. because people don't know what's going to happen, and there isn't any sign of that being resolved for quite some time - even when we actually have leading political parties, it still won't be clear for years what the actual deal is. A lot of damage can be done in the meanwhile.
> We were also told that the government would be a bunch of right wing nutters run by Boris, Farage and Gove. Doesn't look like that's going to happen....
I don't think anyone thought it would include Farage, what with how he isn't an MP. The fact that Boris isn't running for leadership doesn't preclude him from being involved, though, and it certainly looks like Gove will be a leading figure (even if May beats him to the PM job). Also, it isn't as if the alternative is particularly less right wing - May is hardly a liberal.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
'To coin a phrase "we have nothing to fear but fear itself".
IIRC that was about the Great Depression, which only truly ended when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and the US entered the WWII. So a good phrase, but not exactly reassuring. Basically, he was wrong.
The current situation is potentially shattering. There are centripetal forces driving the EU apart, together with assorted right wing and left wing nut jobs (in the UK alone Farage, Gove, Corbyn and many others) happy to see the whole EU project disintegrate for a variety of ideological reasons, at whatever cost.
And people will be saying 'calm down, how bad can it get?' as we enter a deep recession, (that is going to happen), we no longer have a joint forum to deal with supra national issues like the environment and the refugee crisis, and real bullets start flying in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
I admire your sunny optimism; I hope it's not as misplaced as FDR's was.
'To coin a phrase "we have nothing to fear but fear itself".
IIRC that was about the Great Depression, which only truly ended when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and the US entered the WWII. So a good phrase, but not exactly reassuring. Basically, he was wrong.
The current situation is potentially shattering. There are centripetal forces driving the EU apart, together with assorted right wing and left wing nut jobs (in the UK alone Farage, Gove, Corbyn and many others) happy to see the whole EU project disintegrate for a variety of ideological reasons, at whatever cost.
And people will be saying 'calm down, how bad can it get?' as we enter a deep recession, (that is going to happen), we no longer have a joint forum to deal with supra national issues like the environment and the refugee crisis, and real bullets start flying in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
I admire your sunny optimism; I hope it's not as misplaced as FDR's was.
4
2
In reply to elsewhere:
Yes, and nothing, Really, they are not going to get sacked!
No, why on earth would I say that?
> You must have long standing EU colleagues. What have they said to you?
Yes, and nothing, Really, they are not going to get sacked!
> Have you mentioned to them they should dig out old poll tax bills or pay slips?
No, why on earth would I say that?
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I guess the thousands whose family have been broken up by the changes in family visa rules disagree with you.
Really ? I've seen absolutely no guarantee of that, appart from some vague statements from professional liars. As things stand, if we leave the EU, EEA nationals have to qualify for a visa/citizenship or go, simple as that.
Do you really believe they'll give citizenship or permanent residence to 3m people ? UKIP membership would explode if they did.
There is no prospect of that happening, the reality is that eventually, they'll have to go.
> I don't agree that setting up a visa system for *new* arrivals is being "nasty". I'd have to get a visa to go and work in the US; and they may turn me down. Either way that is not "nasty".
I guess the thousands whose family have been broken up by the changes in family visa rules disagree with you.
> Now, expelling EU nationals already here, or depriving them of the right to work, or similar, would indeed be very nasty, and I don't think there's the slightest prospect of that.
Really ? I've seen absolutely no guarantee of that, appart from some vague statements from professional liars. As things stand, if we leave the EU, EEA nationals have to qualify for a visa/citizenship or go, simple as that.
Do you really believe they'll give citizenship or permanent residence to 3m people ? UKIP membership would explode if they did.
There is no prospect of that happening, the reality is that eventually, they'll have to go.
Post edited at 13:32
2
1
In reply to andyfallsoff:
The ones I've spoken to (not many, I accept) have told me that apparently they are supposed to be scared aren't clear why. There has been a large percentage increase from a very very low base in reported incidents. Most of them seen to be by ignorant drunken half wits. They need to be cracked down on but the immigrants need to be reassured that the vast bulk of the population is not anti "them".
They'll probably be a recession . Economic cycles happen and it's been 8 years since the last one. This is not the same as massive dislocations in the economy. It doesn't help when Mr.Carney and the media seem to be doing his best to provoke one.
> Or would you listen to them, because they are the people who feel the effects so are probably better able to judge than you are?
>The ones I've spoken to (not many, I accept) have told me that apparently they are supposed to be scared aren't clear why. There has been a large percentage increase from a very very low base in reported incidents. Most of them seen to be by ignorant drunken half wits. They need to be cracked down on but the immigrants need to be reassured that the vast bulk of the population is not anti "them".
>
> Economically speaking, the not knowing is damaging, though. I'm already seeing investments being cancelled, deals pulled, etc. because people don't know what's going to happen, and there isn't any sign of that being resolved for quite some time -
>They'll probably be a recession . Economic cycles happen and it's been 8 years since the last one. This is not the same as massive dislocations in the economy. It doesn't help when Mr.Carney and the media seem to be doing his best to provoke one.
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I wouldn't regard the EU being reformed into a democratic, free-trade area (with a more integrated core, if that's that some countries want) as any sort of disaster or "cost".
How do you know that?
Yep, it will indeed be quite impossible for European leaders to talk to each other on that issue!
Why would that be a consequence of Brexit?
I discounted most of Project Fear's disaster predictions leading up to the referendum and I don't find them any more convincing now.
> ... happy to see the whole EU project disintegrate for a variety of ideological reasons, at whatever cost.
I wouldn't regard the EU being reformed into a democratic, free-trade area (with a more integrated core, if that's that some countries want) as any sort of disaster or "cost".
> And people will be saying 'calm down, how bad can it get?' as we enter a deep recession, (that is going to happen),
How do you know that?
> ... we no longer have a joint forum to deal with supra national issues like the environment and the refugee crisis,
Yep, it will indeed be quite impossible for European leaders to talk to each other on that issue!
> ... and real bullets start flying in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
Why would that be a consequence of Brexit?
> I admire your sunny optimism;
I discounted most of Project Fear's disaster predictions leading up to the referendum and I don't find them any more convincing now.
4
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
How will long standing EU residents distinguish themselves from newbies at the border?
How will long standing EU residents distinguish themselves from newbies at the border?
In reply to RomTheBear:
I'm sorry, I simply don't believe you.
Yes I do think that any plausible UK government would not expel EU citizens. They'd be grandfathered in and allowed to remain, whatever the altered deal for *new* migrants.
> As things stand, if we leave the EU, EEA nationals have to qualify for a visa/citizenship or go, simple as that. Do you really believe they'll give citizenship to 3m people ? There is no prospect of that happening, the reality is that eventually, they'll have to go.
I'm sorry, I simply don't believe you.
Yes I do think that any plausible UK government would not expel EU citizens. They'd be grandfathered in and allowed to remain, whatever the altered deal for *new* migrants.
In reply to elsewhere:
By a passport and a right-to-remain permit issued to EU nationals already in the country.
> How will long standing EU residents distinguish themselves from newbies at the border?
By a passport and a right-to-remain permit issued to EU nationals already in the country.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
As a phobophobic I find that particularly unhelpful!
> To coin a phrase "we have nothing to fear but fear itself".
As a phobophobic I find that particularly unhelpful!
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
Difficult to believe the population is not anti "them" when the leave vote was in large part driven by the desire to keep "them" out.
As an immigrant myself I can tell that the atmosphere has completely changed, I'm not scared, but when I first came to this country, I was amazed that nobody frankly cared where you came from, it has radically changed in the past 7 years.
Maybe you think it's all the immigrants fault for feeling unwelcome, but the fact is, when you get people telling you to your face on a regular basis that there are too many people like you in this country ( "but don't worry mate you you're ok"), when it's on telly and the press everyday that you're "stealing jobs" and "driving down wages", yes I'm sorry, but you do feel unwelcome.
> The ones I've spoken to (not many, I accept) have told me that apparently they are supposed to be scared aren't clear why. There has been a large percentage increase from a very very low base in reported incidents. Most of them seen to be by ignorant drunken half wits. They need to be cracked down on but the immigrants need to be reassured that the vast bulk of the population is not anti "them".
Difficult to believe the population is not anti "them" when the leave vote was in large part driven by the desire to keep "them" out.
As an immigrant myself I can tell that the atmosphere has completely changed, I'm not scared, but when I first came to this country, I was amazed that nobody frankly cared where you came from, it has radically changed in the past 7 years.
Maybe you think it's all the immigrants fault for feeling unwelcome, but the fact is, when you get people telling you to your face on a regular basis that there are too many people like you in this country ( "but don't worry mate you you're ok"), when it's on telly and the press everyday that you're "stealing jobs" and "driving down wages", yes I'm sorry, but you do feel unwelcome.
Post edited at 13:43
3
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
On what basis would they be allowed to remain ? As I said, I don't see the home office giving PR ot citizenship to 3 millions people, not mentioning that it would be utterly impractical to do so.
So far, I haven't seen any guarantees, and if they really want to reduce immigration to 100,000 just tightening the entry requirements won't be enough, they'll have to get people out as well. This may not be done by expelling them but simply by removing access to NHS, state pension etc etc (which currently non-EEA do not have), making it more expensive/complicated for employers to employ them etc etc.
> I'm sorry, I simply don't believe you.
> Yes I do think that any plausible UK government would not expel EU citizens. They'd be grandfathered in and allowed to remain, whatever the altered deal for *new* migrants.
On what basis would they be allowed to remain ? As I said, I don't see the home office giving PR ot citizenship to 3 millions people, not mentioning that it would be utterly impractical to do so.
So far, I haven't seen any guarantees, and if they really want to reduce immigration to 100,000 just tightening the entry requirements won't be enough, they'll have to get people out as well. This may not be done by expelling them but simply by removing access to NHS, state pension etc etc (which currently non-EEA do not have), making it more expensive/complicated for employers to employ them etc etc.
Post edited at 13:53
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I read an article by some "expert" about how this would come about, because as you say they cannot simply expel the EU citizens.
How the proccess works is by applying pressure to EU citizens with a slow degradation of their rights. It could start with non UK citizens having none or reduced access to benefits, an increase in tax and NI contributons, restricted access to the NHS and a charge for using it, etc. This measures would apply to both new and old EU citizens living in the UK, and would have the result of both limiting EU immigration and 'expelling' EU citizens currently living here who cannot qualify, cannot afford, or simply don't want to take UK citizenship. That also solves the problem of having a 2 tiered system of EU citizens split by those who came before brexit and those that came after.
> I'm sorry, I simply don't believe you.
> Yes I do think that any plausible UK government would not expel EU citizens. They'd be grandfathered in and allowed to remain, whatever the altered deal for *new* migrants.
I read an article by some "expert" about how this would come about, because as you say they cannot simply expel the EU citizens.
How the proccess works is by applying pressure to EU citizens with a slow degradation of their rights. It could start with non UK citizens having none or reduced access to benefits, an increase in tax and NI contributons, restricted access to the NHS and a charge for using it, etc. This measures would apply to both new and old EU citizens living in the UK, and would have the result of both limiting EU immigration and 'expelling' EU citizens currently living here who cannot qualify, cannot afford, or simply don't want to take UK citizenship. That also solves the problem of having a 2 tiered system of EU citizens split by those who came before brexit and those that came after.
Post edited at 13:50
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
'I wouldn't regard the EU being reformed into a democratic, free-trade area (with a more integrated core, if that's that some countries want) as any sort of disaster or "cost".'
That may have been what Boris envisaged; the likes of Gove and Farage seem to more interested in re-instating the Commonwealth. If not the Empire.
Yep, it will indeed be quite impossible for European leaders to talk to each other on that issue!
No, but it will be significantly more difficult. Negotiators and politicians are still human beings, after all, and you discount the human factor of people dealing with us, after we have trashed a project very dear to their hearts, and deeply embedded in their culture, at your peril.
'I wouldn't regard the EU being reformed into a democratic, free-trade area (with a more integrated core, if that's that some countries want) as any sort of disaster or "cost".'
That may have been what Boris envisaged; the likes of Gove and Farage seem to more interested in re-instating the Commonwealth. If not the Empire.
Yep, it will indeed be quite impossible for European leaders to talk to each other on that issue!
No, but it will be significantly more difficult. Negotiators and politicians are still human beings, after all, and you discount the human factor of people dealing with us, after we have trashed a project very dear to their hearts, and deeply embedded in their culture, at your peril.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
As I said, I have reassured them. But they feel a sentiment against them, and I can see why. Maybe it is all ignorant half-wits, but that's cold comfort to anyone who experiences it, and doesn't prevent an increase in this kind of behaviour from being very worrying.
We aren't even out of the last one yet, though - insofar as that productivity and income as a country has yet to recover. Average real earnings are still below pre-2008 levels. We've been in a depression which we have yet to claw out of, and we're now giving ourselves a recession to undo some of the tentative recovery before we get there. Not great, is it?
What do you mean?
This is a ridiculous comment. His job is to ensure stability and he has done that - announcing stimulus measures will be available, but setting out reasonable expectations. What do you expect he should do - pretend nothing has happened?
> The ones I've spoken to (not many, I accept) have told me that apparently they are supposed to be scared aren't clear why. There has been a large percentage increase from a very very low base in reported incidents. Most of them seen to be by ignorant drunken half wits. They need to be cracked down on but the immigrants need to be reassured that the vast bulk of the population is not anti "them".
As I said, I have reassured them. But they feel a sentiment against them, and I can see why. Maybe it is all ignorant half-wits, but that's cold comfort to anyone who experiences it, and doesn't prevent an increase in this kind of behaviour from being very worrying.
> They'll probably be a recession . Economic cycles happen and it's been 8 years since the last one.
We aren't even out of the last one yet, though - insofar as that productivity and income as a country has yet to recover. Average real earnings are still below pre-2008 levels. We've been in a depression which we have yet to claw out of, and we're now giving ourselves a recession to undo some of the tentative recovery before we get there. Not great, is it?
> This is not the same as massive dislocations in the economy.
What do you mean?
> It doesn't help when Mr.Carney and the media seem to be doing his best to provoke one.
This is a ridiculous comment. His job is to ensure stability and he has done that - announcing stimulus measures will be available, but setting out reasonable expectations. What do you expect he should do - pretend nothing has happened?
In reply to RomTheBear:
Over the last decade immigration has been running at a rate of a million people every three years, coupled with, when concerns are expressed, the politicians simply declaring (truthfully) that there's nothing they can do about it and that it's not within their control.
One could blame people for reacting to that by wanting Brexit, or one can blame the "powers that be" for expecting that immigration at that rate would not lead to such a reaction.
Yes, it is a pity if the UK has got less welcoming to migrants. But what do people expect?
> ... when I first came to this country, I was amazed that nobody frankly cared where you came from, it has radically changed in the past 7 years.
Over the last decade immigration has been running at a rate of a million people every three years, coupled with, when concerns are expressed, the politicians simply declaring (truthfully) that there's nothing they can do about it and that it's not within their control.
One could blame people for reacting to that by wanting Brexit, or one can blame the "powers that be" for expecting that immigration at that rate would not lead to such a reaction.
Yes, it is a pity if the UK has got less welcoming to migrants. But what do people expect?
2
In reply to andyfallsoff:
No, but I'm much more worried about the impact of a Euro implosion over the next decade than of the impact of brexit.
It won't, for example, mean the end of UK exports to the EU or long term shrinkage of the economy. It may mean a slightly lower growth pattern over the medium term. Nothing that has happened since last Friday has changed that.
He did most of that on day 1. Why keep repeating it with more warnings thus driving down the currency? People who matter, in finance and commerce, heard him first time.
> We aren't even out of the last one yet, though - insofar as that productivity and income as a country has yet to recover. Average real earnings are still below pre-2008 levels. We've been in a depression which we have yet to claw out of, and we're now giving ourselves a recession to undo some of the tentative recovery before we get there. Not great, is it?
>No, but I'm much more worried about the impact of a Euro implosion over the next decade than of the impact of brexit.
> What do you mean?
It won't, for example, mean the end of UK exports to the EU or long term shrinkage of the economy. It may mean a slightly lower growth pattern over the medium term. Nothing that has happened since last Friday has changed that.
> This is a ridiculous comment. His job is to ensure stability and he has done that - announcing stimulus measures will be available, but setting out reasonable expectations. What do you expect he should do - pretend nothing has happened?
He did most of that on day 1. Why keep repeating it with more warnings thus driving down the currency? People who matter, in finance and commerce, heard him first time.
In reply to Mr Lopez:
I can see that a government *could* proceed with such a process, if it really wanted to. But I don't regard it as the slightest bit plausible that any government would.
> How the proccess works is by applying pressure to EU citizens with a slow degradation of their rights.
I can see that a government *could* proceed with such a process, if it really wanted to. But I don't regard it as the slightest bit plausible that any government would.
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Given the huge benefits of European immigration, you would normally expect people to be happy about it and enjoy it whilst it lasts.
Unfortunately this has been transformed into a perceived problem into the mind of voters by opportunistic politicians, keen to harness xenophobic instincts that are in all of us.
> Over the last decade immigration has been running at a rate of a million people every three years, coupled with, when concerns are expressed, the politicians simply declaring (truthfully) that there's nothing they can do about it and that it's not within their control.
> One could blame people for reacting to that by wanting Brexit, or one can blame the "powers that be" for expecting that immigration at that rate would not lead to such a reaction.
> Yes, it is a pity if the UK has got less welcoming to migrants. But what do people expect?
Given the huge benefits of European immigration, you would normally expect people to be happy about it and enjoy it whilst it lasts.
Unfortunately this has been transformed into a perceived problem into the mind of voters by opportunistic politicians, keen to harness xenophobic instincts that are in all of us.
Post edited at 14:08
In reply to Cú Chullain:
So you're saying that there isn't a uniformity of the right to movement of EU nationals across the EU? Which 'senior EU countries' have more stringent movement controls for EU nationals?
> Or, maybe the UK should have kept in place migration controls back in 2004 like most other senior EU countries
So you're saying that there isn't a uniformity of the right to movement of EU nationals across the EU? Which 'senior EU countries' have more stringent movement controls for EU nationals?
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I've ran a smallish creative agency for the past twenty years or so. We employ 15 people and have clients in the UK, Germany and Scandinavia. The most red-tape I've had to deal with in that time was when we wanted to extend our sponsorship for an existing employee who happens to be a US citizen and therefore required a work visa.
Because of an admin delay, she had to return the the US while we had to build a dossier that proved she was the only person capable of doing the job in hand. The process we went through required us to advertised in the jobcentre as well as on standard job boards. To make sure we did everything by the book, we also had legal costs and the whole process must have taken about a week of my time.
Contrast this with employing someone from an EU country, the process is barely any different to hiring a UK citizen.
Our industry cannot thrive on home-grown talent alone. We need a constant supply on creatives, developers marketing and project managers. So much talent is sucked into the media bubble of London, it's going to be very difficult in the years ahead for companies like ours to mind affordable staff if employing EU citizens becomes as time-consuming as my experience of taking on a US citizen.
I've ran a smallish creative agency for the past twenty years or so. We employ 15 people and have clients in the UK, Germany and Scandinavia. The most red-tape I've had to deal with in that time was when we wanted to extend our sponsorship for an existing employee who happens to be a US citizen and therefore required a work visa.
Because of an admin delay, she had to return the the US while we had to build a dossier that proved she was the only person capable of doing the job in hand. The process we went through required us to advertised in the jobcentre as well as on standard job boards. To make sure we did everything by the book, we also had legal costs and the whole process must have taken about a week of my time.
Contrast this with employing someone from an EU country, the process is barely any different to hiring a UK citizen.
Our industry cannot thrive on home-grown talent alone. We need a constant supply on creatives, developers marketing and project managers. So much talent is sucked into the media bubble of London, it's going to be very difficult in the years ahead for companies like ours to mind affordable staff if employing EU citizens becomes as time-consuming as my experience of taking on a US citizen.
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
What a joke, just look at the way non-EEA have been treated in the past few years.
The colleague sitting right next to me at work had is pregnant wife being told she must leave the country withing 14 days - because she can't find a missing payslip.
> I can see that a government *could* proceed with such a process, if it really wanted to. But I don't regard it as the slightest bit plausible that any government would.
What a joke, just look at the way non-EEA have been treated in the past few years.
The colleague sitting right next to me at work had is pregnant wife being told she must leave the country withing 14 days - because she can't find a missing payslip.
Post edited at 14:10
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
...so let's try to trigger a recession in Europe by pulling out of the EU?
I broadly agree with this, but I question whether "slightly" is appropriate, and what "medium term" means. If we need to renegotiate a world's worth of trade agreements, that is likely to take a long time.
I also think that to ignore the short term is foolish - the damage done in the short term can hinder longer term growth (e.g. by people being deskilled due to unemployment or unskilled work, by a lack of funding for education due to lower tax receipts, by fewer skilled people coming here to study and exchange knowledge while the climate is uncertain...)
His interventions were different, though, and the stock markets rallied following yesterday's speech. Besides, weren't you arguing on a different thread that a low pound was good, or have I confused you with one of the other Brexit economic experts?
> No, but I'm much more worried about the impact of a Euro implosion over the next decade than of the impact of brexit.
...so let's try to trigger a recession in Europe by pulling out of the EU?
> It won't, for example, mean the end of UK exports to the EU or long term shrinkage of the economy. It may mean a slightly lower growth pattern over the medium term. Nothing that has happened since last Friday has changed that.
I broadly agree with this, but I question whether "slightly" is appropriate, and what "medium term" means. If we need to renegotiate a world's worth of trade agreements, that is likely to take a long time.
I also think that to ignore the short term is foolish - the damage done in the short term can hinder longer term growth (e.g. by people being deskilled due to unemployment or unskilled work, by a lack of funding for education due to lower tax receipts, by fewer skilled people coming here to study and exchange knowledge while the climate is uncertain...)
> He did most of that on day 1. Why keep repeating it with more warnings thus driving down the currency? People who matter, in finance and commerce, heard him first time.
His interventions were different, though, and the stock markets rallied following yesterday's speech. Besides, weren't you arguing on a different thread that a low pound was good, or have I confused you with one of the other Brexit economic experts?
In reply to RomTheBear:
What are these huge benefits?
Yes, they provide a pool of qualified cheap labour, but that's not such a good thing from the point of view of less-educated and lower-skilled Brits, since it makes them less employable and holds down wages.
Or take housing. House prices are huge in this country, which is one of the biggest factors in the "standard of living" of many averaged-waged people. Having 3 million extra people over a decade puts a lot of pressure on housing. Yes you could build a million or so extra houses every decade to compensate, but things like traffic congestion are already bad, and few want new cities built over the countryside.
There are *some* benefits from migration, yes, but there are also downsides. It's not the big boon it's made out to be.
> Given the huge benefits of European immigration, ...
What are these huge benefits?
Yes, they provide a pool of qualified cheap labour, but that's not such a good thing from the point of view of less-educated and lower-skilled Brits, since it makes them less employable and holds down wages.
Or take housing. House prices are huge in this country, which is one of the biggest factors in the "standard of living" of many averaged-waged people. Having 3 million extra people over a decade puts a lot of pressure on housing. Yes you could build a million or so extra houses every decade to compensate, but things like traffic congestion are already bad, and few want new cities built over the countryside.
There are *some* benefits from migration, yes, but there are also downsides. It's not the big boon it's made out to be.
4
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
That happened to a friend of mine. Pregnant wife from a very affluent family, but her income or 'fortune' is disregarded as only the UK's spouse income counts. He's self-employed, so he didn't have payslips, sent a load of documents to the home office and out of the blue got a letter back saying they were insufficient to prove his income and that she had a few weeks to leave the country.
> What a joke, just look at the way non-EEA have been treated in the past few years.
> The colleague sitting right next to me at work had is pregnant wife being told she must leave the country withing 14 days - because she can't find a missing payslip.
That happened to a friend of mine. Pregnant wife from a very affluent family, but her income or 'fortune' is disregarded as only the UK's spouse income counts. He's self-employed, so he didn't have payslips, sent a load of documents to the home office and out of the blue got a letter back saying they were insufficient to prove his income and that she had a few weeks to leave the country.
In reply to andyfallsoff:
It may accelerate it. It may not. But the degree of recession wil not be down to brexit.
Well, excluding the outliers, the estimates in the run up to the referendum averaged something like 4% points over 15 years, so 30% v 34% growth.
Sterling fell, equities rallied which is logical. But what did he add to a febrile situation?
I argued lower sterling had many positives. Sterling will find a level without Carney opening his gob every other day with not much to add.
> ...so let's try to trigger a recession in Europe by pulling out of the EU?
>It may accelerate it. It may not. But the degree of recession wil not be down to brexit.
> I broadly agree with this, but I question whether "slightly" is appropriate, and what "medium term" means. If we need to renegotiate a world's worth of trade agreements, that is likely to take a long time.
>Well, excluding the outliers, the estimates in the run up to the referendum averaged something like 4% points over 15 years, so 30% v 34% growth.
> I also think that to ignore the short term is foolish - the damage done in the short term can hinder longer term growth (e.g. by people being deskilled due to unemployment or unskilled work, by a lack of funding for education due to lower tax receipts, by fewer skilled people coming here to study and exchange knowledge while the climate is uncertain...)
> His interventions were different, though, and the stock markets rallied following yesterday's speech. Besides, weren't you arguing on a different thread that a low pound was good, or have I confused you with one of the other Brexit economic experts?
Sterling fell, equities rallied which is logical. But what did he add to a febrile situation?
I argued lower sterling had many positives. Sterling will find a level without Carney opening his gob every other day with not much to add.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
In this entire discussion a difference should made between in-work benefits and non work related benefits. The entire internal logic, and hence the reason why any original citizen or intra EU migrant may or may not be entitled to benefits from either of these classes is different:
Any entitlement to work related benefits (e.g. government topping up of low wages, pension scheme support, or work related child benefit) arises because a person works in an EU country. As long as you do so legally, it should not make any difference where you are from with respect to the logic of these benefits.
Non work related benefits arise because a government/parliament decides to grant its citizens some benefit (e.g., contribution independent job seekers allowances, general basic welfare payments). These payments can already be restricted under existing regulations, pretty much as any state pleases.
E.g., German local authorities can grant basic living subsidies for EU job seekers even if they do not yet have a contract lined up when arriving (essentially they have to demonstrate that they are actually looking for a job and have qualifications that give them a reasonable chance of success), while in Sweden AFAIK you get nothing of the kind, but instead have to prove that you have a contract lined up or sufficient funds to support yourself if staying longer than a rather short grace period.
Essentially Cameron asked for nothing and got nothing.
CB
In this entire discussion a difference should made between in-work benefits and non work related benefits. The entire internal logic, and hence the reason why any original citizen or intra EU migrant may or may not be entitled to benefits from either of these classes is different:
Any entitlement to work related benefits (e.g. government topping up of low wages, pension scheme support, or work related child benefit) arises because a person works in an EU country. As long as you do so legally, it should not make any difference where you are from with respect to the logic of these benefits.
Non work related benefits arise because a government/parliament decides to grant its citizens some benefit (e.g., contribution independent job seekers allowances, general basic welfare payments). These payments can already be restricted under existing regulations, pretty much as any state pleases.
E.g., German local authorities can grant basic living subsidies for EU job seekers even if they do not yet have a contract lined up when arriving (essentially they have to demonstrate that they are actually looking for a job and have qualifications that give them a reasonable chance of success), while in Sweden AFAIK you get nothing of the kind, but instead have to prove that you have a contract lined up or sufficient funds to support yourself if staying longer than a rather short grace period.
Essentially Cameron asked for nothing and got nothing.
CB
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Are you saying that is good because it shows the system works, or that it is bad because people you know weren't able to buy their way in?
> That happened to a friend of mine. Pregnant wife from a very affluent family, but her income or 'fortune' is disregarded as only the UK's spouse income counts. He's self-employed, so he didn't have payslips, sent a load of documents to the home office and out of the blue got a letter back saying they were insufficient to prove his income and that she had a few weeks to leave the country.
Are you saying that is good because it shows the system works, or that it is bad because people you know weren't able to buy their way in?
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Lowering budget deficit and filling crucial skills gap mostly. Making out economy more attractive by giving businesses access to a vast pool of talent.
And here is the problem, all of this is completely untrue, just myths.
They have not held down wages. There is a marginal positive effect on wages in certain jobs, and a marginal negative effect on others (mostly affecting existing migrants as they may have duplicate skills).
Overall no pressure on wages.
I'll refer you to the MAC meta study collating evidence from all of the studies done in the UK on the topic.
Also completely untrue, what matters is really is how many houses you build per capita, thats now too low because of planning regulations, lack of skilled construction workers, and low investment in social housing.
Lowering eu immigration will make the housing situation worse, not better.
> What are these huge benefits?
Lowering budget deficit and filling crucial skills gap mostly. Making out economy more attractive by giving businesses access to a vast pool of talent.
> Yes, they provide a pool of qualified cheap labour, but that's not such a good thing from the point of view of less-educated and lower-skilled Brits, since it makes them less employable and holds down wages.
And here is the problem, all of this is completely untrue, just myths.
They have not held down wages. There is a marginal positive effect on wages in certain jobs, and a marginal negative effect on others (mostly affecting existing migrants as they may have duplicate skills).
Overall no pressure on wages.
I'll refer you to the MAC meta study collating evidence from all of the studies done in the UK on the topic.
> Or take housing. House prices are huge in this country, which is one of the biggest factors in the "standard of living" of many averaged-waged people. Having 3 million extra people over a decade puts a lot of pressure on housing. Yes you could build a million or so extra houses every decade to compensate, but things like traffic congestion are already bad, and few want new cities built over the countryside.
Also completely untrue, what matters is really is how many houses you build per capita, thats now too low because of planning regulations, lack of skilled construction workers, and low investment in social housing.
Lowering eu immigration will make the housing situation worse, not better.
> There are *some* benefits from migration, yes, but there are also downsides. It's not the big boon it's made out to be.
Post edited at 14:36
1
In reply to cb294:
Is that actually true? I've never looked into this but, for example, I understood that if the UK decides to offer university tuition-fee loans to its own nationals then it is obliged to offer the same to any EU student?
If that is not the case then why is the UK government currently offering them?
> Non work related benefits ... can already be restricted under existing regulations, pretty much as any state pleases.
Is that actually true? I've never looked into this but, for example, I understood that if the UK decides to offer university tuition-fee loans to its own nationals then it is obliged to offer the same to any EU student?
If that is not the case then why is the UK government currently offering them?
2
In reply to RomTheBear:
'Yes, they provide a pool of qualified cheap labour, but that's not such a good thing from the point of view of less-educated and lower-skilled Brits, since it makes them less employable and holds down wages.'
Er excuse me PP, haven't we had a minimum wage for 'n' years and more recently a legally binding living wage, that represented quite a significant increase over the minimum that was paid to many unskilled workers? If workers are being paid less than the living wage then the law is being broken.
'Yes, they provide a pool of qualified cheap labour, but that's not such a good thing from the point of view of less-educated and lower-skilled Brits, since it makes them less employable and holds down wages.'
Er excuse me PP, haven't we had a minimum wage for 'n' years and more recently a legally binding living wage, that represented quite a significant increase over the minimum that was paid to many unskilled workers? If workers are being paid less than the living wage then the law is being broken.
In reply to RomTheBear:
I agree with you where there are crucial skills needed. Most Brexiters are not asking for zero immigration, they're asking for controlled immigration. UK employers wanting particular skills is a good argument for some immigration.
> ... filling crucial skills gap mostly.
I agree with you where there are crucial skills needed. Most Brexiters are not asking for zero immigration, they're asking for controlled immigration. UK employers wanting particular skills is a good argument for some immigration.
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
But here you go, given that the vast majority of EU migrant are filling those gaps , if we want to reduce immigration , the only way is to leave those gaps unfilled. And that's really bad for business and attractiveness. Unless you have a system that lets in the same people as before in which case you've just added an extra layer of bureaucracy and hassle for nothing.
> I agree with you where there are crucial skills needed. Most Brexiters are not asking for zero immigration, they're asking for controlled immigration. UK employers wanting particular skills is a good argument for some immigration.
But here you go, given that the vast majority of EU migrant are filling those gaps , if we want to reduce immigration , the only way is to leave those gaps unfilled. And that's really bad for business and attractiveness. Unless you have a system that lets in the same people as before in which case you've just added an extra layer of bureaucracy and hassle for nothing.
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
OK, I am an inmigrant (24 years here, married to a Brit, professional class as someone would have said earlier in the topic). Yes, I understand that if your are a labourer in a building site you have more competition and likely your wages have not gone up as they might, but it is a fallacy to think inmigrants are taking local jobs, those jobs are partly being created because the inmigrants are here. Example, you want to do some building work in your house, you ask for quotes, local British builder says 2,000, Polish builder (stereotype I know) say 500. You get the job done by them. If you only had the 2,000 quote you might decide to do the job yourself or in fact not doi it at all as you cannot afford to.
British farmers are competitive (behind EU tariffs) because they get agricultural workers from the Eastern Europe. If they were not available they simply could not compete, as they could not offer higher salaries to the "locals".
For what is worth, I too feel less welcome here, and yes worried about whether I will continue to be able to leave here as I have done, and yes I know nothing has changed yet, but regardless of whatever people say this was a vote decided by inmigration, and so one never knows where things lead.
OK, I am an inmigrant (24 years here, married to a Brit, professional class as someone would have said earlier in the topic). Yes, I understand that if your are a labourer in a building site you have more competition and likely your wages have not gone up as they might, but it is a fallacy to think inmigrants are taking local jobs, those jobs are partly being created because the inmigrants are here. Example, you want to do some building work in your house, you ask for quotes, local British builder says 2,000, Polish builder (stereotype I know) say 500. You get the job done by them. If you only had the 2,000 quote you might decide to do the job yourself or in fact not doi it at all as you cannot afford to.
British farmers are competitive (behind EU tariffs) because they get agricultural workers from the Eastern Europe. If they were not available they simply could not compete, as they could not offer higher salaries to the "locals".
For what is worth, I too feel less welcome here, and yes worried about whether I will continue to be able to leave here as I have done, and yes I know nothing has changed yet, but regardless of whatever people say this was a vote decided by inmigration, and so one never knows where things lead.
1
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Probably more complicated, this being the EU.
However, the one issue that is being brought up again and again, namely that of EU migrants arriving to one country and then receiving living subsidies without working, is essentially a red herring. The EU contracts include the freedom of migration of labour, not of receiving benefits. The EU courts recently supported Germany (in fact overruling a lower German court following an appeal by the state) in cutting off benefit payments to a Bulgarian woman who came to Germany, applied and received benefits, and lived for two years with her sister without ever applying for work. It was in the context of this ruling that the court stated that the reason why specific benefits are paid should determine who is entitled to them.
This is to the best of my knowledge, but as much as I like the idea of a united Europe, EU regulations generally do my head in....
CB
Just re-read your post, should have read it properly right away. My guess is that training mobility is extremely high on the EU agenda, as you will well know from any EU grant application. I assume that after deciding to charge for your universities, you are not supposed to generate an uneven playing field by offering loans only to UK citizens. Conversely, Germany would not be allowed to charge English students could for attending German universities as long as German students study for free.
Probably more complicated, this being the EU.
However, the one issue that is being brought up again and again, namely that of EU migrants arriving to one country and then receiving living subsidies without working, is essentially a red herring. The EU contracts include the freedom of migration of labour, not of receiving benefits. The EU courts recently supported Germany (in fact overruling a lower German court following an appeal by the state) in cutting off benefit payments to a Bulgarian woman who came to Germany, applied and received benefits, and lived for two years with her sister without ever applying for work. It was in the context of this ruling that the court stated that the reason why specific benefits are paid should determine who is entitled to them.
This is to the best of my knowledge, but as much as I like the idea of a united Europe, EU regulations generally do my head in....
CB
Just re-read your post, should have read it properly right away. My guess is that training mobility is extremely high on the EU agenda, as you will well know from any EU grant application. I assume that after deciding to charge for your universities, you are not supposed to generate an uneven playing field by offering loans only to UK citizens. Conversely, Germany would not be allowed to charge English students could for attending German universities as long as German students study for free.
Post edited at 14:50
In reply to winhill:
I'm saying the system is ill-thought, doesn't work, is not fit for the purpose, and within context of this thread shows the Home Office willing to apply new rules retrospectively to people who are already living here, breaking families apart in the proccess, for the sake of political gain.
> Are you saying that is good because it shows the system works, or that it is bad because people you know weren't able to buy their way in?
I'm saying the system is ill-thought, doesn't work, is not fit for the purpose, and within context of this thread shows the Home Office willing to apply new rules retrospectively to people who are already living here, breaking families apart in the proccess, for the sake of political gain.
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Because the peace treaty is delicate. It relies on an open border with the Republic. The vote went along the republican / loyalist lines, and if one side feels it is being dragged out then old tensions could easily flare up. There are already some noises being made about wanting a united Ireland (one sided, obviously), which will be hugely contentious if it gathers momentum. The EU is a neutral identity for both sides of the divide. Marching season is about to start, which is a tense time anyway.
So many things that could trigger problems. I sincerely hope they don't kick off, but I am worried for them.
> Why would that be a consequence of Brexit?
Because the peace treaty is delicate. It relies on an open border with the Republic. The vote went along the republican / loyalist lines, and if one side feels it is being dragged out then old tensions could easily flare up. There are already some noises being made about wanting a united Ireland (one sided, obviously), which will be hugely contentious if it gathers momentum. The EU is a neutral identity for both sides of the divide. Marching season is about to start, which is a tense time anyway.
So many things that could trigger problems. I sincerely hope they don't kick off, but I am worried for them.
1
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Basically the rule is that EU residents who qualify as an EEA person (there are rules around that, i.e, being self sufficient, or working, or studying and have private healthcare) cannot be discriminated against in terms of access to public services.
Cameron's deal (now gone) was actually changing that.
Of course this works both ways, and uni being free in many EU countries, many uk students can go study for free in the EU.
> Is that actually true? I've never looked into this but, for example, I understood that if the UK decides to offer university tuition-fee loans to its own nationals then it is obliged to offer the same to any EU student?
> If that is not the case then why is the UK government currently offering them?
Basically the rule is that EU residents who qualify as an EEA person (there are rules around that, i.e, being self sufficient, or working, or studying and have private healthcare) cannot be discriminated against in terms of access to public services.
Cameron's deal (now gone) was actually changing that.
Of course this works both ways, and uni being free in many EU countries, many uk students can go study for free in the EU.
Post edited at 15:12
1
In reply to girlymonkey:
there have been open borders there since 1922, security check points were only even put in place because of terrorism from the 70s onwards, prior to that it was open with no need for ID or anything.
Some sides may wish to use the EU vote as means to stir up nationalism or trouble, but the root cause is elsewhere and the EU vote an excuse.
> Because the peace treaty is delicate. It relies on an open border with the Republic.
there have been open borders there since 1922, security check points were only even put in place because of terrorism from the 70s onwards, prior to that it was open with no need for ID or anything.
Some sides may wish to use the EU vote as means to stir up nationalism or trouble, but the root cause is elsewhere and the EU vote an excuse.
3
In reply to cb294:
Because under EU law it is illegal to discriminate between EU citizens so it has been possible to come from another country to the UK and immediately receive benefits. However, this was not possible in eg.Germany because by definition a new arrival would not have made contributions to the system so, like a German national in the same situation, would not have been due benefits..
Is that wrong?
> This is to the best of my knowledge, but as much as I like the idea of a united Europe, EU regulations generally do my head in....
>
I don't know about this case but my understanding is that the UK's problem is that its benefits are non contributory. So in the UK as long as you are of a certain age and meet other requirements you will get benefits. In other European countries people need to have made contributions in the past to be in receipt of benefits.Because under EU law it is illegal to discriminate between EU citizens so it has been possible to come from another country to the UK and immediately receive benefits. However, this was not possible in eg.Germany because by definition a new arrival would not have made contributions to the system so, like a German national in the same situation, would not have been due benefits..
Is that wrong?
Post edited at 15:18
2
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Not wrong, but even though the rules have to be the same for brits and non-brits, the rules have been made in such a way that they discriminate against eea nationals anyway (despite being the same rule for everybody).
Plus there are safeguard in EU law against abuses, and Cameron's deal was going further.
Anyway it was all mostly a red herring given that the number of EU immigrants claiming benefit is completely insignificant and very likely to be offset by Brits using benefits in other EU countries.
> (In reply to cb294)
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
> I don't know about this case but my understanding is that the UK's problem is that its benefits are non contributory. So in the UK as long as you are of a certain age and meet other requirements you will get benefits. In other European countries people need to have made contributions in the past to be in receipt of benefits.
> Because under EU law it is illegal to discriminate between EU citizens so it has been possible to come from another country to the UK and immediately receive benefits. However, this was not possible in eg.Germany because by definition a new arrival would not have made contributions to the system so, like a German national in the same situation would not have been due benefits..
>
> Is that wrong?
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
> I don't know about this case but my understanding is that the UK's problem is that its benefits are non contributory. So in the UK as long as you are of a certain age and meet other requirements you will get benefits. In other European countries people need to have made contributions in the past to be in receipt of benefits.
> Because under EU law it is illegal to discriminate between EU citizens so it has been possible to come from another country to the UK and immediately receive benefits. However, this was not possible in eg.Germany because by definition a new arrival would not have made contributions to the system so, like a German national in the same situation would not have been due benefits..
>
> Is that wrong?
Not wrong, but even though the rules have to be the same for brits and non-brits, the rules have been made in such a way that they discriminate against eea nationals anyway (despite being the same rule for everybody).
Plus there are safeguard in EU law against abuses, and Cameron's deal was going further.
Anyway it was all mostly a red herring given that the number of EU immigrants claiming benefit is completely insignificant and very likely to be offset by Brits using benefits in other EU countries.
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
I agree.
> Anyway it was all mostly a red herring given that the number of EU immigrants claiming benefit is completely insignificant and very likely to be offset by Brits using benefits in other EU countries.
I agree.
In reply to summo:
Oh, I not saying that a return to the troubles is justified or right, but merely answering the question of how it could trigger it.
Oh, I not saying that a return to the troubles is justified or right, but merely answering the question of how it could trigger it.
In reply to girlymonkey:
you implied the treaty relied on that open border, I was pointing out that it has been open for nearly a century, long before the EU was even a twinkle in a eurocrat's eye.
> Oh, I not saying that a return to the troubles is justified or right, but merely answering the question of how it could trigger it.
you implied the treaty relied on that open border, I was pointing out that it has been open for nearly a century, long before the EU was even a twinkle in a eurocrat's eye.
1
In reply to captain paranoia:
No I am not saying that, at all.
I was pointing out that historically when 10 new countries joined the EU in 2004 a number of EU member states exercised their right to maintain immigration controls with only the UK, Ireland and Sweden electing not to do the same. These controls were finally ended in 2011 in line with the Treaty of Accession of 2003. It is not surprising that the UK, and to a lesser extent Ireland and Sweden experienced a boom in migration from mainly Poland, Slovakia and Lithuania.
> So you're saying that there isn't a uniformity of the right to movement of EU nationals across the EU? Which 'senior EU countries' have more stringent movement controls for EU nationals?
No I am not saying that, at all.
I was pointing out that historically when 10 new countries joined the EU in 2004 a number of EU member states exercised their right to maintain immigration controls with only the UK, Ireland and Sweden electing not to do the same. These controls were finally ended in 2011 in line with the Treaty of Accession of 2003. It is not surprising that the UK, and to a lesser extent Ireland and Sweden experienced a boom in migration from mainly Poland, Slovakia and Lithuania.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Not really. In Germany there are both contributory benefits (pensions and unemployment payment) as well as noncontributory ones (basic living subsidy, which is still higher than the average income in many Eastern European countries, especially in deprived areas). The benefit tourism into Germany obviously only affects the noncontributory type. However, the EC has recently ruled that even noncontributory benefits need only be paid to EU citizens MIGRATING FOR WORK, and potentially their dependents. No country is forced to tolerate pure benefit tourism under existing rules. If they decide to arrange these benefits in a way that they are paid to anyone that is a political decision of the receiving country. Go some work to do now, but will see whether I can dig up that ruling on German noncontributory benefits when I have time.
CB
Not really. In Germany there are both contributory benefits (pensions and unemployment payment) as well as noncontributory ones (basic living subsidy, which is still higher than the average income in many Eastern European countries, especially in deprived areas). The benefit tourism into Germany obviously only affects the noncontributory type. However, the EC has recently ruled that even noncontributory benefits need only be paid to EU citizens MIGRATING FOR WORK, and potentially their dependents. No country is forced to tolerate pure benefit tourism under existing rules. If they decide to arrange these benefits in a way that they are paid to anyone that is a political decision of the receiving country. Go some work to do now, but will see whether I can dig up that ruling on German noncontributory benefits when I have time.
CB
In reply to Cú Chullain:
Yep, basically it was a British decision by our sovereign parliament to not go for the transitional migration control.... But you know... It's always all the EU's fault .... (Facepalm)
> No I am not saying that, at all.
> I was pointing out that historically when 10 new countries joined the EU in 2004 a number of EU member states exercised their right to maintain immigration controls with only the UK, Ireland and Sweden electing not to do the same. These controls were finally ended in 2011 in line with the Treaty of Accession of 2003. It is not surprising that the UK, and to a lesser extent Ireland and Sweden experienced a boom in migration from mainly Poland, Slovakia and Lithuania.
Yep, basically it was a British decision by our sovereign parliament to not go for the transitional migration control.... But you know... It's always all the EU's fault .... (Facepalm)
1
In reply to summo:
So are you saying there would be borders or not? Not really clear from this. The situation is problematic violence or no violence.
> there have been open borders there since 1922, security check points were only even put in place because of terrorism from the 70s onwards, prior to that it was open with no need for ID or anything.
> Some sides may wish to use the EU vote as means to stir up nationalism or trouble, but the root cause is elsewhere and the EU vote an excuse.
So are you saying there would be borders or not? Not really clear from this. The situation is problematic violence or no violence.
In reply to cb294:
Further to my posts above,
I actually mixed up three decisions by the EuGH concerning migration and benefits.
RS C.333/13 (Dano) established that freedom of movement exclusively means freedom of movement for work. Immigration without intent to work does not establish a right to non work related, noncontributory benefits.
RS C.67/14 (Alimanovic) in addition approved cutting the basic living allowance for EU citizens who become unemployed in another EU country. In this case, a Swedish woman and her four daughters moved to Germany, where mother and oldest daughter were briefly employed, and then stopped working. After a grace period following the running out of their contributory unemployment benefits the court then agreed that Germany did not have to pay the family the German basic, noncontributory living allowance, as their right to stay in Germany was coupled to working here.
Finally, in C-299/14, the court decided that the German system of paying noncontributary benefits to newly arrived EU citizens only after a three month delay was fully legal. In this case a Spanish man joined and his son joined the wife already working in Germany, but were declared not immediately eligible to receive the basic living allowance to top up their low, joint family income, even they would in principle fall under the income threshold.
Together this probably goes a long way to explain why the EU did not offer Cameron much of a deal back in February, as the issue of benefits tourism is more to do with the regulations of the individual receiving countries.
CB
Further to my posts above,
I actually mixed up three decisions by the EuGH concerning migration and benefits.
RS C.333/13 (Dano) established that freedom of movement exclusively means freedom of movement for work. Immigration without intent to work does not establish a right to non work related, noncontributory benefits.
RS C.67/14 (Alimanovic) in addition approved cutting the basic living allowance for EU citizens who become unemployed in another EU country. In this case, a Swedish woman and her four daughters moved to Germany, where mother and oldest daughter were briefly employed, and then stopped working. After a grace period following the running out of their contributory unemployment benefits the court then agreed that Germany did not have to pay the family the German basic, noncontributory living allowance, as their right to stay in Germany was coupled to working here.
Finally, in C-299/14, the court decided that the German system of paying noncontributary benefits to newly arrived EU citizens only after a three month delay was fully legal. In this case a Spanish man joined and his son joined the wife already working in Germany, but were declared not immediately eligible to receive the basic living allowance to top up their low, joint family income, even they would in principle fall under the income threshold.
Together this probably goes a long way to explain why the EU did not offer Cameron much of a deal back in February, as the issue of benefits tourism is more to do with the regulations of the individual receiving countries.
CB
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
As an aside, John McDonnell has just effectively declared the Labour position as against freedom of movement of people.
The whole speech had a vague whiff of someone/some people who may not have really wanted to stay in the EU anyway, but maybe I'm being paranoid...
As an aside, John McDonnell has just effectively declared the Labour position as against freedom of movement of people.
The whole speech had a vague whiff of someone/some people who may not have really wanted to stay in the EU anyway, but maybe I'm being paranoid...
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Lib dems could do very well out of this! Labour have lost the plot the cons have to stick with Brexit and the lib debs have very clearly stated they will re-apply for EU status. With the tories going right and the Labour going left the lib dems could seriously make a bid for the centre ground. 48% is enough to win a general election in a three party system.
> As an aside, John McDonnell has just effectively declared the Labour position as against freedom of movement of people.
> The whole speech had a vague whiff of someone/some people who may not have really wanted to stay in the EU anyway, but maybe I'm being paranoid...
Lib dems could do very well out of this! Labour have lost the plot the cons have to stick with Brexit and the lib debs have very clearly stated they will re-apply for EU status. With the tories going right and the Labour going left the lib dems could seriously make a bid for the centre ground. 48% is enough to win a general election in a three party system.
In reply to RomTheBear:
I'm sure they want to reduce inward immigration to 100,000/year, not reduce the total number of immigrants in the UK to 100,000.
> So far, I haven't seen any guarantees, and if they really want to reduce immigration to 100,000 just tightening the entry requirements won't be enough, they'll have to get people out as well. This may not be done by expelling them but simply by removing access to NHS, state pension etc etc (which currently non-EEA do not have), making it more expensive/complicated for employers to employ them etc etc.
I'm sure they want to reduce inward immigration to 100,000/year, not reduce the total number of immigrants in the UK to 100,000.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
UK Irish govt coop was greatly facilitated by EU level 'political cooperation ' as it was called back then, and the EU funnelled in lots of money to cross border projects. I'm not sure if it is good thing or not but you can pay people to stop fighting to some extent!
> Why would that be a consequence of Brexit?
UK Irish govt coop was greatly facilitated by EU level 'political cooperation ' as it was called back then, and the EU funnelled in lots of money to cross border projects. I'm not sure if it is good thing or not but you can pay people to stop fighting to some extent!
In reply to Ridge:
Yes, that's what I meant, but it's a net migration target so it's those who come in minus those who leave. Given that even with some of the toughest visa rules in the developed world they can't get it down to that kind of number, no doubt they'll have to increase the other side of the equation, I.e increase the number of people leaving the country.
They've done it with non-eu to try to achieve this nonsensical target, I see no reason why they wouldn't do it with eu immigrants.
> I'm sure they want to reduce inward immigration to 100,000/year, not reduce the total number of immigrants in the UK to 100,000.
Yes, that's what I meant, but it's a net migration target so it's those who come in minus those who leave. Given that even with some of the toughest visa rules in the developed world they can't get it down to that kind of number, no doubt they'll have to increase the other side of the equation, I.e increase the number of people leaving the country.
They've done it with non-eu to try to achieve this nonsensical target, I see no reason why they wouldn't do it with eu immigrants.
Post edited at 18:42
In reply to TobyA:
I have always wanted Brexit, but the Northern Ireland situation is in my opinion the worst result of the current situation. Border controls will presumably have to be implemented between Eire and Northern Ireland, and I sincerely hope that this will not lead to increased tensions among the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland. Hopefully the Queen will continue to be able to engage in face to face conversation with Martin Mcguinness.
I have always wanted Brexit, but the Northern Ireland situation is in my opinion the worst result of the current situation. Border controls will presumably have to be implemented between Eire and Northern Ireland, and I sincerely hope that this will not lead to increased tensions among the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland. Hopefully the Queen will continue to be able to engage in face to face conversation with Martin Mcguinness.
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
Its a shocking prospect. How will repatriation effect the figures?
> Yes, that's what I meant, but it's a net migration target so it's those who come in minus those who leave. Given that even with some of the toughest visa rules in the developed world they can't get it down to that kind of number, no doubt they'll have to increase the other side of the equation, I.e increase the number of people leaving the country.
> They've done it with non-eu to try to achieve this nonsensical target, I see no reason why they wouldn't do it with eu immigrants.
Its a shocking prospect. How will repatriation effect the figures?
In reply to Cú Chullain:
Yep, the famous transition period. The UK (and Sweden) got a lot of Poles post 2004 because Germany (and Finland) didn't.
It's oft used in EU studies circles of one the examples of where the UK actually does the proper European thing (like enforcing food safety regulations) while super pro-eu-France while talking a good talk, doesn't!
But as Cú says, the transition periods ran out in 11. The UK 'learnt the lesson' and got a transition period on Bulgarians and Romanians after they joined IIRC.
Yep, the famous transition period. The UK (and Sweden) got a lot of Poles post 2004 because Germany (and Finland) didn't.
It's oft used in EU studies circles of one the examples of where the UK actually does the proper European thing (like enforcing food safety regulations) while super pro-eu-France while talking a good talk, doesn't!
But as Cú says, the transition periods ran out in 11. The UK 'learnt the lesson' and got a transition period on Bulgarians and Romanians after they joined IIRC.
1
In reply to doz generale:
Well basically the number of people leaving the country reduces net migration by the same number.
Incidentally the fact that less native British people left the country because of good job opportunities at home has contributed a lot the recent increase in net migration.
Thats why the net migration target is utterly stupid, but it has completely taken over the debate about immigration, what can I say... Facepalm again ...
> Its a shocking prospect. How will repatriation effect the figures?
Well basically the number of people leaving the country reduces net migration by the same number.
Incidentally the fact that less native British people left the country because of good job opportunities at home has contributed a lot the recent increase in net migration.
Thats why the net migration target is utterly stupid, but it has completely taken over the debate about immigration, what can I say... Facepalm again ...
Post edited at 18:49
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
It may be worst than that. The other night a vocal Brexiter was explaining to me that we should restrict jobs to more local people even within the UK.
The example he used was Aaron Ramsey, who he said shouldn't be allowed to play for Arsenal because he was Welsh...
Admittedly, this was in a pub. In Essex (although not by much).
> We know what Brexiters suggested thanks very much, 'The Australian system'.
It may be worst than that. The other night a vocal Brexiter was explaining to me that we should restrict jobs to more local people even within the UK.
The example he used was Aaron Ramsey, who he said shouldn't be allowed to play for Arsenal because he was Welsh...
Admittedly, this was in a pub. In Essex (although not by much).
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...