[Politics] Brexit

[Fitzcarraldo]

Freedom of movement will not be on the table though,The EU may ask but it wont receive.
And as has been shown the EU does trade and is negotiating with other nations in the capacity of Free Trade Agreements where free movement is not part of the parcel

There are no European countries that have access to the single market without accepting freedom of movement of workers. You saying that it wouldn't be on the table is for the birds. I think it would be one of inarguable conditions that we would have to accept alongside payment into the EU budget. Payment despite not having any say about how it's spent.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

There are no European countries that have access to the single market without accepting freedom of movement of workers. You saying that it wouldn't be on the table is for the birds. I think it would be one of inarguable conditions that we would have to accept alongside payment into the EU budget. Payment despite not having any say about how it's spent.

This is the part that frustrates me about this whole argument, who says we have to adhere to the freedom of movement. America, Australia, Canada don't have to adhere to it, but they can still trade with the EU, so why can't we, what is the difference? Nobody owns us, we can't do what we like.

 

[Maldini]

Jobs - the EU has helped create jobs by reducing barriers to trade. 3 million jobs depend on trade with the EU and most of our small exporting businesses operate in Europe. If we leave the EU and our economy contracts unemployment will rise. PwC says it could be 8% by 2020 if Brexit, rather than 5% remain. EU = jobs.

Housing - we need to build more houses in the right places sure. House building is good for the economy - and Latvian bricklayers.

Schools, nurseries and universities - the population is growing - this is a good thing because we have old people to support. Luckily migrants pay a net contribution to the treasury so we can afford more infrastructure. Universities = our world class universities depend on easy movement, EU and international, of staff and students. We should also let extremely intelligent people stay after their degrees and harvest their above average taxes.

Doctors - There's a whole literature on the EU and the NHS which you can google if you're interested. We import a lot of NHS staff from the EU, literally it would stop working without them.

Wages - Brexit would damage productivity. This would damage growth. This would lead to decline in real wages. IT would also weaken the pound, so what you get with your wage buys you less.Brexit = poorer wages + higher prices.

Security - better integration, info-sharing, europol, european arrest warrant. The European Criminal Records Information System, Financial Intelligence Units, the Prisoner Transfer Framework, SIS II, Joint Investigation Teams, Prüm. All useful stuff. We also control our own borders and we're not in schegen, everyone gets scanned.

Let's assume the EU has helped create jobs and there's no proof of this, as I said before what's the point if these jobs are taken up by migrants.
PWC is guess work.

Housing-You didn't answer the question.You only acknowledged we need housing.Yes Latvian bricklayers who like many EU tradesmen will work for half of what a British tradesmen does therefore dragging wages down,producing less tax revenue and less money to spend on goods and services.

Doctors~You didn't answer the question on waiting times.Just to make it clear I do not mean we should stop ALL migrants and I'm sure you know that.As with other countries we should accept skilled workers/professionals if needed. Whilst we can take on Doctors/Nurses etc from abroad this makes us lazy and gives us less incentive/pressure to train British people.

Wages-Wages have already declined thanks to migrants.Everything else you have written here as with alot of what Remain is saying is pure guesswork.

Security-Did it work in Paris and Brussels.Seriously I'm surprised Remain is still churning this one out.As you know most planned attacks in the UK have been from British muslims so for the most part info from abroad is not so relevant. The more people we let in because we have to the more chance that could be the wrong people.Simple.

 

[Maldini]

The EU was supposed to be about economic union but the EU has turned into a big,ugly control freak monster that wants everything and will stop at nothing to get it.

 

[sten_super]

So many myths but myths do stick.

A European working here will only replace the tax a British worker would have paid so this myth that we benefit financially from foreign workers needs to be stamped out.In fact I would say they pay less tax and contribute less financially if you take into account they have driven wages down therefore pay less tax plus with some of them they send money back to their own country or spend it there/save it here then move home.

The idea the goverment have all this money to spend here,there and everywhere is a nonsense.

You have some serious chutzpah, accusing me of pedalling myths and then spouting a load of unevidenced nonsense.

On wages - there is mixed evidence (some studies have shown no negative impact, some a small negative impact particularly amongst the low skilled, and a couple a positive impact). This article from the Huffington Post (albeit a couple of years old) has a decent summary of the evidence. Fundamentally though, you keep coming back to this idea that there's a fixed number of jobs and that immigrants are 'taking' jobs from residents, and as I've said, it's simply not an accurate depiction, certainly not at a macro level. Economic activity creates more economic activity. Migrant workers create jobs for other residents, whether you like it or not.

On government finances - I didn't say that the government is awash with cash. What I said is that it's their decision to build hospitals, nurseries, etc. If migrants create economic activity, they create government revenue, through the taxes that they pay and the businesses that they work for. The government can then choose what to do with that cash (and indeed what level to generate it at in terms of tax rates). This government have chosen to prioritise narrowing the tax base and reducing business taxation - they could instead have chosen to build hospitals and other public services.

Let's assume the EU has helped create jobs and there's no proof of this, as I said before what's the point if these jobs are taken up by migrants.
PWC is guess work.

Housing-You didn't answer the question.You only acknowledged we need housing.Yes Latvian bricklayers who like many EU tradesmen will work for half of what a British tradesmen does therefore dragging wages down,producing less tax revenue and less money to spend on goods and services.

Doctors~You didn't answer the question on waiting times.Just to make it clear I do not mean we should stop ALL migrants and I'm sure you know that.As with other countries we should accept skilled workers/professionals if needed. Whilst we can take on Doctors/Nurses etc from abroad this makes us lazy and gives us less incentive/pressure to train British people.

Wages-Wages have already declined thanks to migrants.Everything else you have written here as with alot of what Remain is saying is pure guesswork.

Security-Did it work in Paris and Brussels.Seriously I'm surprised Remain is still churning this one out.As you know most planned attacks in the UK have been from British muslims so for the most part info from abroad is not so relevant. The more people we let in because we have to the more chance that could be the wrong people.Simple.

Sorry, but these answers are mostly nonsensical. Trade creates jobs and economic activity. Any (and I do mean any) economist will tell you that's true. Freedom of movement with the EU has created jobs - FACT. That's not to say that they couldn't have been created elsewhere (e.g. if we had freedom of movement with the US or elsewhere) but they've been created thanks to trade with the EU.

I've answered most of the rest elsewhere (in terms of wages, government policy, etc.). On security, you acknowledge that most terrorism threats so far have come from EU-born nationals (both in the UK and France/Belgium), but then say that the more people we let in the more danger we put ourselves in. How do you reconcile those two points?

I have no problem with you having an opposing view - but trying to present your own unevidenced hypotheses as self-evident facts does your argument no favours.

 

[Pretty Plnk Fairy]

You have some serious chutzpah, accusing me of pedalling myths and then spouting a load of unevidenced nonsense.

On wages - there is mixed evidence (some studies have shown no negative impact, some a small negative impact particularly amongst the low skilled, and a couple a positive impact). This article from the Huffington Post (albeit a couple of years old) has a decent summary of the evidence. Fundamentally though, you keep coming back to this idea that there's a fixed number of jobs and that immigrants are 'taking' jobs from residents, and as I've said, it's simply not an accurate depiction, certainly not at a macro level. Economic activity creates more economic activity. Migrant workers create jobs for other residents, whether you like it or not.

On government finances - I didn't say that the government is awash with cash. What I said is that it's their decision to build hospitals, nurseries, etc. If migrants create economic activity, they create government revenue, through the taxes that they pay and the businesses that they work for. The government can then choose what to do with that cash (and indeed what level to generate it at in terms of tax rates). This government have chosen to prioritise narrowing the tax base and reducing business taxation - they could instead have chosen to build hospitals and other public services.



Sorry, but these answers are mostly nonsensical. Trade creates jobs and economic activity. Any (and I do mean any) economist will tell you that's true. Freedom of movement with the EU has created jobs - FACT. That's not to say that they couldn't have been created elsewhere (e.g. if we had freedom of movement with the US or elsewhere) but they've been created thanks to trade with the EU.

I've answered most of the rest elsewhere (in terms of wages, government policy, etc.). On security, you acknowledge that most terrorism threats so far have come from EU-born nationals (both in the UK and France/Belgium), but then say that the more people we let in the more danger we put ourselves in. How do you reconcile those two points?

I have no problem with you having an opposing view - but trying to present your own unevidenced hypotheses as self-evident facts does your argument no favours.

Long words bore off

Regards

DR

 

[5ways]

This is the part that frustrates me about this whole argument, who says we have to adhere to the freedom of movement. America, Australia, Canada don't have to adhere to it, but they can still trade with the EU, so why can't we, what is the difference? Nobody owns us, we can't do what we like.

Because we're actually in Europe. We're next door. Other European nations outside the EU also have free movement, and migration is higher in Switzerland and Norway (as a %) than the UK. The EU will want the best deals for its members - that includes the millions who live and work in the UK and many more who would like to. We are negotiating from a weaker position than the EU. Half of our trade is to the EU, about 6% of theirs is to the UK. The raw economic weight will tell in these negotiations as they always do. We go from rule maker inside the EU to rule taker.

 

[DTES]

America, Australia, Canada don't have to adhere to it, but they can still trade with the EU, so why can't we, what is the difference?

They all trade with the single market, they aren't in the single market, so there are some tariffs/duties on imports & exports, ultimately meaning that (some) trade is more expensive. Norway (for example) on the other hand is in the single market, but as a price it accepts freedom of movement.

You're right that we wouldn't have to, it would depend what deals we wanted to strike afterwards. That really is one of the issues with the Leave campaign - there is no consensus on which way they would want to go. Are we being encouraged to vote Leave to be outside the EU but in the SM? Or are we being encouraged to vote Leave so we can be completely separate and just trade with the EU from outside?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

For those that view economic forecasts as significant http://www.economistsforbrexit.co.uk/publications/

 

[Deleted member 22389]

They all trade with the single market, they aren't in the single market, so there are some tariffs/duties on imports & exports, ultimately meaning that (some) trade is more expensive. Norway (for example) on the other hand is in the single market, but as a price it accepts freedom of movement.

You're right that we wouldn't have to, it would depend what deals we wanted to strike afterwards. That really is one of the issues with the Leave campaign - there is no consensus on which way they would want to go. Are we being encouraged to vote Leave to be outside the EU but in the SM? Or are we being encouraged to vote Leave so we can be completely separate and just trade with the EU from outside?

We are voting to Leave to be outside of the EU, so NO Norway model. However by Leaving, the ball is in our court, the EU could panic and do us a deal or tell us to be on our merry way, we haven't lost anything, we have saved billions of pounds every year, which could well go back in to things to help our own country, not bailout others.

If the EU decided to make things difficult for us, then I'm sure businesses in the EU would have something to say about it. We import lots, and the EU is in no position to mess around, it's hardly in the best of shape and need all the friends it can get from within, popularity with the EU is at an all time low with even the French looking at a Frexit.

For me anyway Leaving feels like a new start, Remaining feels like a dark cloud of more laws, more money and more migration. The EU in it's current form doesn't deserve our support.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

It didnt read like a what if at all,more like a what will
Im sorry if you thought my reaction was prickly but if was a silly notion and as you say yourself unrealistic (i could use other more prickly words)

i dont know where i ruled out anything as regards to trade,if i did i certainly didnt mean to or imply it,
cant speak for others but i (personally) hope all varying degrees of options of trade are available for discussion when it comes to the trade negotiations.

Freedom of movement will not be on the table though,The EU may ask but it wont receive.
And as has been shown the EU does trade and is negotiating with other nations in the capacity of Free Trade Agreements where free movement is not part of the parcel

I said you seemed to rule out any trade deal that includes free access to the single market. The EU has made it entirely clear that free access can be achieved only with free movement of people - by ruling out one you are ruling out the other. (No one has ever denied that the 'EU does trade'. Every nation or group of nations 'trades'.) My question was simply whether you ruled out free access, and I think you have confirmed that you do.

 

[DTES]

We are voting to Leave to be outside of the EU, so NO Norway model

Norway has voted NO to the EU in referendums, twice - and now operates under that exact model. Why do you think the Norway option is a definite NO? There's every chance that, in the event of a Leave vote, whoever leads the negotiations signs something just like it.

Or do you just mean that your preference wouldn't be the Norway model and you'd be voting Leave in the hope that that doesn't happen?

 

[Lincoln Imp]

This is the part that frustrates me about this whole argument, who says we have to adhere to the freedom of movement. America, Australia, Canada don't have to adhere to it, but they can still trade with the EU, so why can't we, what is the difference? Nobody owns us, we can't do what we like.

The inability of some of those favouring Brexit to understand the difference between 'free access to the single market' and 'trade' is apparently never-ending.

Free access to the single market requires free movement; simple trade, under whatever terms, doesn't. Economists and exporters to the EU prefer free access to the markets of Europe. People who feel lives are being blighted by free movement don't feel free access is worth it and are prepared to pay the cost of losing it.

 

[5ways]

For those that view economic forecasts as significant http://www.economistsforbrexit.co.uk/publications/

"EU Budget – Warwick Lightfoot explains that the UK could better spend its large EU budget contribution elsewhere."

If you think anyone will be swayed by the opinions of hobbits you are mistaken sir.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

"EU Budget – Warwick Lightfoot explains that the UK could better spend its large EU budget contribution elsewhere."

If you think anyone will be swayed by the opinions of hobbits you are mistaken sir.

The Economists for Brexit is a group of eight independent, leading economists who are convinced of the strong economic case for leaving the EU. To date, debate on the economic merits of whether the UK should remain in the EU has become overwhelmed by the Government's Project Fear campaign. Each of the eight economists have become exasperated by the scaremongering and often economic illiteracy of this campaign.

At the same time, the group believes that whilst there are a substantial number of economic arguments to support Brexit, they are yet to be made in public. The purpose of this group is to explain the very clear economic arguments in favour of Brexit, offering voters - who are crying out for clarity on the economics of Brexit facts based on proven economic models, as opposed to speculation.

The group will seek to communicate over the coming weeks, through the media and at various events, the clear benefits that will be felt by the UK on leaving the EU. The campaign will hope to ensure that the voting public has a clear picture of arguments in favour of Brexit, based on proper economic research, fighting the speculation and hyperbole of the Project Fear campaign.

I'm surprised anyone is swayed by any economic forecasts

 

[GT49er]

"EU Budget – Warwick Lightfoot explains that the UK could better spend its large EU budget contribution elsewhere."

If you think anyone will be swayed by the opinions of hobbits you are mistaken sir.

Fatuous comment.





............and not even remotely amusing.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The Economists for Brexit is a group of eight independent, leading economists who are convinced of the strong economic case for leaving the EU. To date, debate on the economic merits of whether the UK should remain in the EU has become overwhelmed by the Government's Project Fear campaign. Each of the eight economists have become exasperated by the scaremongering and often economic illiteracy of this campaign.

At the same time, the group believes that whilst there are a substantial number of economic arguments to support Brexit, they are yet to be made in public. The purpose of this group is to explain the very clear economic arguments in favour of Brexit, offering voters - who are crying out for clarity on the economics of Brexit facts based on proven economic models, as opposed to speculation.

The group will seek to communicate over the coming weeks, through the media and at various events, the clear benefits that will be felt by the UK on leaving the EU. The campaign will hope to ensure that the voting public has a clear picture of arguments in favour of Brexit, based on proper economic research, fighting the speculation and hyperbole of the Project Fear campaign.

I'm surprised anyone is swayed by any economic forecasts

"The eight economists in the independent group include respected figures such as Gerard Lyons, Boris Johnson’s economic adviser; Roger Bootle, founder of consultancy Capital Economics; and Ryan Bourne, head of public policy at the Institute of Economic Affairs, the free market think-tank."

No agenda here then

 

[The Rivet]

Fatuous comments.





............and not even remotely amusing.

Kind of reflects this thread really.

 

[pastafarian]

The inability of some of those favouring Brexit to understand the difference between 'free access to the single market' and 'trade' is apparently never-ending.

i think the brexiters on here fully understand the difference,there seems to be more on the remain side unable to see.
can you please explain to 5ways who is adamant we have to accept free movement to trade with the EU because

Because we're actually in Europe. We're next door.

 

[5ways]

i think the brexiters on here fully understand the difference,there seems to be more on the remain side unable to see.
can you please explain to 5ways who is adamant we have to accept free movement to trade with the EU because

I've always said if we want access to the internal market free movement will be part of the deal. This is preferable to a WTO scenario that doesn't seem to bother M. Gove.