Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Barky]

33 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

Can someone tell me what the value of the pound would now be had the referendum delivered a remain vote please ?? I need to know so that I can validate all these figures being quoted for how much the price of petrol has risen due to Brexit (which hasn't yet happened). Thanks.

Obviously nobody can say for sure what would have happened had things played out differently, but the pound was relatively stable averaging around 1.57 against the dollar from the start of 2009 all the way through until 2016, so I think that's a solid benchmark. It's now at 1.22, a fall of some 23% against that long term average. 

[Barky]

34 minutes ago, Webbo said:

The Euro has also fallen against the Dollar, is that down to Brexit?

The euro is trading against the dollar in the same range as it has been for a couple of years. 

[Innovindil]

2 hours ago, Barky said:

How?

Boss fearful over brexit ofc. He's worried he won't be able to attract cheap foreign talent in or there will be restrictions put in place. So my fancy pants degree is worth more. 

 

It's not too hard to understand. No matter what any economist bleats about how foreign labour doesn't drive down wages is irrelevant to the individual. My labour is now worth more, the local chav on a cash register at tesco is the same. 

[Barky]

19 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Boss fearful over brexit ofc. He's worried he won't be able to attract cheap foreign talent in or there will be restrictions put in place. So my fancy pants degree is worth more. 

 

It's not too hard to understand. No matter what any economist bleats about how foreign labour doesn't drive down wages is irrelevant to the individual. My labour is now worth more, the local chav on a cash register at tesco is the same. 

I suspect your boss' approach is rare. Most companies in my experience are using brexit uncertainty as their excuse to cut costs, not give people pay rises. I doubt any large supermarket chain has increased their checkout staff's wages. Immigration probably won't even fall that much even if we get full border control. We already have full control over non-eu immigration and the only category of non-eu immigration that has fallen in recent years is of foreign students - the one group nobody has a problem with. What makes your boss think there is suddenly going to be a massive shortage of staff? There won't be. He's wrong.

 

Long term if low skilled immigration reduces it might exert a very modest upward pressure on low skilled wages, but I would expect that continuing automation and reduction in the number of low skilled jobs available will more than counteract that. 

 

[Innovindil]

2 hours ago, Barky said:

I suspect your boss' approach is rare. Most companies in my experience are using brexit uncertainty as their excuse to cut costs, not give people pay rises. I doubt any large supermarket chain has increased their checkout staff's wages. Immigration probably won't even fall that much even if we get full border control. We already have full control over non-eu immigration and the only category of non-eu immigration that has fallen in recent years is of foreign students - the one group nobody has a problem with. What makes your boss think there is suddenly going to be a massive shortage of staff? There won't be. He's wrong.

 

Long term if low skilled immigration reduces it might exert a very modest upward pressure on low skilled wages, but I would expect that continuing automation and reduction in the number of low skilled jobs available will more than counteract that. 

 

Indeed, it probably is very rare. But you have to take into account that since the brexit vote all he's heard from his european based staff is "ARGH we've had a paycut!" because their money is now worth less in euros than before. Couple that with the fact we've never been busier, we've had orders and inquiries from literally every corner of the world since the pound dropped, so it makes financial sense to make sure that those workers who will be sticking around, instead of going home in the next 2-3 years to return to their families are looked after. 

 

And as for the "immigration probably won't fall much" I'm yet to be convinced, as far as I know, there has never been a greater national outcry for tighter boarder controls, the brexit vote - COULD - be just the kick the government needs to start controlling it.

  

[Alf Bentley]

13 hours ago, Innovindil said:

 

And as for the "immigration probably won't fall much" I'm yet to be convinced, as far as I know, there has never been a greater national outcry for tighter boarder controls, the brexit vote - COULD - be just the kick the government needs to start controlling it.

  

 

Time will tell. There has been concern about immigration levels for several years now (witness Matt's 2012 video of Will Self). Yet the high figures for NON-EU immigration, have only fallen slightly (still almost 300,000 per year - fractionally higher than EU immigration). This is despite the fact that the UK has complete control over non-EU immigration, and has taken introduced certain restrictive measures: e.g. student visas. Indeed, when May visited India recently in pursuit of a post-Brexit trade deal, she was told in no uncertain terms that the generosity of any future trade deal would be linked to UK generosity (or not) over Indian immigration. That's not to mention areas where immigrant/migrant labour will be hard to replace in the short-term (NHS, social care, schools, seasonal agricultural labour).

 

I'm sure some reduction in immigration will be possible. But anyone expecting a massive or rapid change should probably think again. A lot of people could be very angry about that disappointment a couple of years down the line. 

[Webbo]

27 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Time will tell. There has been concern about immigration levels for several years now (witness Matt's 2012 video of Will Self). Yet the high figures for NON-EU immigration, have only fallen slightly (still almost 300,000 per year - fractionally higher than EU immigration). This is despite the fact that the UK has complete control over non-EU immigration, and has taken introduced certain restrictive measures: e.g. student visas. Indeed,when May visited India recently in pursuit of a post-Brexit trade deal, she was told in no uncertain terms that the generosity of any future trade deal would be linked to UK generosity (or not) over Indian immigration. That's not to mention areas where immigrant/migrant labour will be hard to replace in the sho rt-term (NHS, social care, schools, seasonal agricultural labour).

 

I'm sure some reduction in immigration will be possible. But anyone expecting a massive or rapid change should probably think again. A lot of people could be very angry about that disappointment a couple of years down the line. 

That's a bit like us telling the EU what we demand to let them trade with us. What you ask for and what you'll accept are 2 different things.

[Guest MattP]

54 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Time will tell. There has been concern about immigration levels for several years now (witness Matt's 2012 video of Will Self). Yet the high figures for NON-EU immigration, have only fallen slightly (still almost 300,000 per year - fractionally higher than EU immigration). This is despite the fact that the UK has complete control over non-EU immigration, and has taken introduced certain restrictive measures: e.g. student visas. Indeed, when May visited India recently in pursuit of a post-Brexit trade deal, she was told in no uncertain terms that the generosity of any future trade deal would be linked to UK generosity (or not) over Indian immigration. That's not to mention areas where immigrant/migrant labour will be hard to replace in the short-term (NHS, social care, schools, seasonal agricultural labour).

 

I'm sure some reduction in immigration will be possible. But anyone expecting a massive or rapid change should probably think again. A lot of people could be very angry about that disappointment a couple of years down the line. 

Absolutely, this often annoyed me when I heard politicians using it as an excuse, it's something Ed Miliband should have been really driving at in the run-up to the 2015 election but I think the so called "progressive" element stopped him doing so. Judging by Chukka Umanna's comments recently, if a centre left politician manages to get hold of Labour again, they won't actually be shy to do so next time.

 

Assuming we are now leaving the FOM agreement, the government has no excuse not to get to any immigration target it sets. (Although I fully expect migrant low skilled labour to continue for the jobs you mention we can't fill, but we have to be ruthless in stopping people arriving from places like Romania to beg or fiddle with cashpoints)

[Alf Bentley]

10 minutes ago, Webbo said:

That's a bit like us telling the EU what we demand to let them trade with us. What you ask for and what you'll accept are 2 different things.

 

That's true. Everyone has to compromise to some degree, depending on the balance of need, power etc. It's not worth getting an extended debate over the comparative power of the UK, the EU and India. But suffice to say that the EU and India are not in such a weak position that they'll have to roll over and accept most of our demands. We'll have to accept a lot less than we ask for, too.

 

Yet 2 of the clearly implied claims for Brexit are: (1) We'll see a large reduction in net immigration; (2) Any decline in our terms of trade with the EU don't matter as we'll be able to do great deals with major countries around the world, such as India.

In reality, once the compromises are done, we'll probably be able to (a) slash immigration and do crap trade deals with India & China; (b) do good trade deals and accept fairly high immigration; or (c) reduce non-EU immigration a bit and do half-decent trade deals. Please don't resort to the argument that Brexit voters want to "control immigration", not to slash it. While most Brexit voters accept some immigration, I'm sure most of them also expect "control" to mean large reductions....and some will be massively pissed off if they discover that "control" means only a minor reduction - as has happened with non-EU immigration, over which, I repeat, the government already has complete control.

 

Can you explain why the Government has achieved very little reduction in non-EU immigration (still almost 300,000, when they targeted a total figure of less than 100,000 for ALL immigration, EU & non-EU combined)? 

[Webbo]

11 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

That's true. Everyone has to compromise to some degree, depending on the balance of need, power etc. It's not worth getting an extended debate over the comparative power of the UK, the EU and India. But suffice to say that the EU and India are not in such a weak position that they'll have to roll over and accept most of our demands. We'll have to accept a lot less than we ask for, too.

 

Yet 2 of the clearly implied claims for Brexit are: (1) We'll see a large reduction in net immigration; (2) Any decline in our terms of trade with the EU don't matter as we'll be able to do great deals with major countries around the world, such as India.

In reality, once the compromises are done, we'll probably be able to (a) slash immigration and do crap trade deals with India & China; (b) do good trade deals and accept fairly high immigration; or (c) reduce non-EU immigration a bit and do half-decent trade deals. Please don't resort to the argument that Brexit voters want to "control immigration", not to slash it. While most Brexit voters accept some immigration, I'm sure most of them also expect "control" to mean large reductions....and some will be massively pissed off if they discover that "control" means only a minor reduction - as has happened with non-EU immigration, over which, I repeat, the government already has complete control.

 

Can you explain why the Government has achieved very little reduction in non-EU immigration (still almost 300,000, when they targeted a total figure of less than 100,000 for ALL immigration, EU & non-EU combined)? 

It very hard to discuss immigration without appearing racist, I'm not making judgements here, just stating what I believe is happening. Most of the non EU immigration will be foreigners who've married a British person, some through love others arranged. And dependants, children, parents etc sent from the Indian sub continent and Africa. Some will obviously be people from every country coming here for work just in the usual way.

 

Could we stop that? would we want to? I don't know but it's not an easy thing to do.

[Carl the Llama]

Again I just can't get my head around how patient you are, Alf.  I'm sure the whole non-EU immigration control (or apparent lack thereof) issue was discussed at length to counter the argument that leaving the EU would reduce net migration back in the pre- referendum thread.  The brexiteers weren't listening then because obviously EU migration is different, what makes you think it'll be any different now?  They'll just give you more (of the same) reasons why it's not the Tory government's fault that targets weren't met a couple of years from now.

[Barky]

55 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It very hard to discuss immigration without appearing racist, I'm not making judgements here, just stating what I believe is happening. Most of the non EU immigration will be foreigners who've married a British person, some through love others arranged. And dependants, children, parents etc sent from the Indian sub continent and Africa. Some will obviously be people from every country coming here for work just in the usual way.

 

Could we stop that? would we want to? I don't know but it's not an easy thing to do.

Work and student visas issued to non-eu migrants run at about 25x the number of family visas. Most of the family visas are direct family members joining people who have previously got a work or study visa and stayed here. I can't find exact statistics but it looks as though people migrating here to marry a British citizen make up an insignificant number overall, less than 1%.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

It very hard to discuss immigration without appearing racist, I'm not making judgements here, just stating what I believe is happening. Most of the non EU immigration will be foreigners who've married a British person, some through love others arranged. And dependants, children, parents etc sent from the Indian sub continent and Africa. Some will obviously be people from every country coming here for work just in the usual way.

 

Could we stop that? would we want to? I don't know but it's not an easy thing to do.

 

There's some data here: file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/SN06077%20(1).pdf

It broadly supports @Barky's post, though migration for family reasons clearly accounts for more than 1%. 

 

Chart 8 (p.14) shows reasons for immigration (EU & non-EU together, I think)

- Numbers arriving as dependents or for marriage have been static since 1992: under 100k per year

- There was a big surge in students arriving until 2012, when this was reversed (due to Govt restrictions on student visas, presumably): now about 160k per year

- The big surge since then has been people arriving to work: up from 70k in 1992 to 300k in 2016 (after falling 2008-2013)

 

Chart 9 (p.15) shows long-term visas issued to non-EU/EEA immigrants:

2015 figures

- About 50-60k for family/dependents

- About 160k for work

- About 210k for study

[Barky]

Less than 1% is my estimate of how many migrants came here because they married a British citizen, which would be a subcategory of family visas. 

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, Barky said:

Less than 1% is my estimate of how many migrants came here because they married a British citizen, which would be a subcategory of family visas. 

 

Fair enough. Those stats don't really break down the different family relationships (spouse, child, parent etc.). Also, some are family members of Brits, others of migrants already here.

 

Anyway, your assumptions seem more accurate than Webbo's, based on official data. That's enough for/from me today! 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

Again I just can't get my head around how patient you are, Alf.  I'm sure the whole non-EU immigration control (or apparent lack thereof) issue was discussed at length to counter the argument that leaving the EU would reduce net migration back in the pre- referendum thread.  The brexiteers weren't listening then because obviously EU migration is different, what makes you think it'll be any different now?  They'll just give you more (of the same) reasons why it's not the Tory government's fault that targets weren't met a couple of years from now.

 

I'd like to pretend that I'm a patient man with a mission to discover the truth, Carl, but the truth is I'm just an argumentative twat! 

[Webbo]

44 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

There's some data here: file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/SN06077%20(1).pdf

It broadly supports @Barky's post, though migration for family reasons clearly accounts for more than 1%. 

 

Chart 8 (p.14) shows reasons for immigration (EU & non-EU together, I think)

- Numbers arriving as dependents or for marriage have been static since 1992: under 100k per year

- There was a big surge in students arriving until 2012, when this was reversed (due to Govt restrictions on student visas, presumably): now about 160k per year

- The big surge since then has been people arriving to work: up from 70k in 1992 to 300k in 2016 (after falling 2008-2013)

 

Chart 9 (p.15) shows long-term visas issued to non-EU/EEA immigrants:

2015 figures

- About 50-60k for family/dependents

- About 160k for work

- About 210k for study

I can only see the figures you've posted but I'll take your word for. Certainly 50-60 seems more realistic than less than 1% that would make it around 3000 a year which doesn't seem realistic.

[Barky]

Some better stats here which put it at about 26k for people getting family visas to join partners.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-january-to-march-2015/immigration-statistics-january-to-march-2015#family-1

 

But that still doesn't break it down specifically to people who are coming here to marry British citizens. The bulk of them are probably people  who were married in their own country, where one partner comes here on a work visa and is later joined by the other partner on a family visa. So the origin of the immigration is still the work visa.

[Strokes]

I don't care about the amount of immigration per se, I care about the quality of it. There are some highly skilled individuals coming from the EU and that should remain but there are also some low skilled and that should be controlled/stemmed, especially when it counters the highly skilled coming in from outside of the EU.

We need to have controls so we can invest in the services before they arrive, not retrospectively, pushing up house prices and straining services. This is making the poorest in society, poorer. Young adults cannot get on the housing ladder, housing shortages and suppressed wages are to blame. This can all be reversed by a well planned immigration policy imo.

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

I don't care about the amount of immigration per se, I care about the quality of it. There are some highly skilled individuals coming from the EU and that should remain but there are also some low skilled and that should be controlled/stemmed, especially when it counters the highly skilled coming in from outside of the EU.

We need to have controls so we can invest in the services before they arrive, not retrospectively, pushing up house prices and straining services. This is making the poorest in society, poorer. Young adults cannot get on the housing ladder, housing shortages and suppressed wages are to blame. This can all be reversed by a well planned immigration policy imo.

Exactly.

[Barky]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

I don't care about the amount of immigration per se, I care about the quality of it. There are some highly skilled individuals coming from the EU and that should remain but there are also some low skilled and that should be controlled/stemmed, especially when it counters the highly skilled coming in from outside of the EU.

We need to have controls so we can invest in the services before they arrive, not retrospectively, pushing up house prices and straining services. This is making the poorest in society, poorer. Young adults cannot get on the housing ladder, housing shortages and suppressed wages are to blame. This can all be reversed by a well planned immigration policy imo.

Fair enough but I think the government's inability to plan for continued immigration has been quite pitiful really. It's not like immigration has taken them by surprise, they've known about it and allowed it to happen for decades. The government sets all these targets for house building and the like but they're never met. They're never even close to being met. It's not immigrants fault that the government is incapable of hitting any of its targets on providing services and housing. It's not their fault that you've got British kids growing up with a crap education and no skills competing for jobs being eroded by automation. 

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Barky said:

Fair enough but I think the government's inability to plan for continued immigration has been quite pitiful really. It's not like immigration has taken them by surprise, they've known about it and allowed it to happen for decades. The government sets all these targets for house building and the like but they're never met. They're never even close to being met. It's not immigrants fault that the government is incapable of hitting any of its targets on providing services and housing. It's not their fault that you've got British kids growing up with a crap education and no skills competing for jobs being eroded by automation. 

I quite agree, successive governments have failed to put in anywhere near the infrastructure required. Which is why we are at this point. I've never blamed the immigrants, I'm not sure why anyone would. In order to reverse this we do need controls. It's a shame a deal couldn't be worked out with the EU but the one size fits all policy, well just doesn't fit. 

If may costs us more money in the short, medium and long term but it's a risk worth taking ( I don't think it will, and it's a hard thing to be accurate about)

I would like to also pick up on a point @davieG made in the thread, about immigration. If immigration is a positive, is emigration a negative? What affect is the mass migration having on the victims of this, the donor countries. They are providing all these skilled and non skilled labour at huge costs and it's harming their development, are we really comfortable with a policy that facilitates us not educating our natives and thieving talented and/or hardworking people from the poorest countries? 

[davieG]

13 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I quite agree, successive governments have failed to put in anywhere near the infrastructure required. Which is why we are at this point. I've never blamed the immigrants, I'm not sure why anyone would. In order to reverse this we do need controls. It's a shame a deal couldn't be worked out with the EU but the one size fits all policy, well just doesn't fit. 

If may costs us more money in the short, medium and long term but it's a risk worth taking ( I don't think it will, and it's a hard thing to be accurate about)

I would like to also pick up on a point @davieG made in the thread, about immigration. If immigration is a positive, is emigration a negative? What affect is the mass migration having on the victims of this, the donor countries. They are providing all these skilled and non skilled labour at huge costs and it's harming their development, are we really comfortable with a policy that facilitates us not educating our natives and thieving talented and/or hardworking people from the poorest countries? 

"Free" uncontolled migration/immigration seems to be at odds with what i would have thought was the ethos of the EU and just benefits a few at the expense of the majority. They seem to put get emphasis on ensuring organisations act in an ethical and fair way but I do not see this applies to the current  free movement laws, what is ethical about rich counties hoovering up the best talents all it does is ensure those rich countries continue to benefit from a never ending supply of cheap labour at the expense of the indigenous population. This is probably a big contribution to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. 

 

[Barky]

21 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I quite agree, successive governments have failed to put in anywhere near the infrastructure required. Which is why we are at this point. I've never blamed the immigrants, I'm not sure why anyone would. In order to reverse this we do need controls. It's a shame a deal couldn't be worked out with the EU but the one size fits all policy, well just doesn't fit. 

If may costs us more money in the short, medium and long term but it's a risk worth taking ( I don't think it will, and it's a hard thing to be accurate about)

I would like to also pick up on a point @davieG made in the thread, about immigration. If immigration is a positive, is emigration a negative? What affect is the mass migration having on the victims of this, the donor countries. They are providing all these skilled and non skilled labour at huge costs and it's harming their development, are we really comfortable with a policy that facilitates us not educating our natives and thieving talented and/or hardworking people from the poorest countries? 

You'd do well to convince anyone that voluntary migration is tantamount to theft to be honest . 

 

I don't know exactly what the impact is on the immigrant's countries of origin, but given most tend to come here for a few years, save money and then return home and spend it, I can't see how it's going to be too detrimental. Maybe it raises wages in those countries, which would be a good thing for them.

 

The same thing happens within the uk as well. Many people move from poor regions to more wealthy areas like London for work and money. That probably contributes to some extent towards the poorer regions staying relatively poor, but if those people had stayed it would be no guarantee that those regions would be any better off. The reasons why some regions and countries are poorer than others are a lot deeper than that, just keeping people there won't solve their problems, but it will prevent the people themselves from bettering themselves.

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, davieG said:

"Free" uncontolled migration/immigration seems to be at odds with what i would have thought was the ethos of the EU and just benefits a few at the expense of the majority. They seem to put get emphasis on ensuring organisations act in an ethical and fair way but I do not see this applies to the current  free movement laws, what is ethical about rich counties hoovering up the best talents all it does is ensure those rich countries continue to benefit from a never ending supply of cheap labour at the expense of the indigenous population. This is probably a big contribution to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. 

 

Absolutely! It's quite sinister when you think about it, which is why I wanted to hear a few more opinions on it. How can these countries ever get above being begging nations, whilst this continues?