The economic consequences of Brexit

[anonymous-user]

alfie2244 said:

jsf said:

It wasn't a grant, it was a loan at below market cost. That money was paid back.

A cheap loan part funded by the UK taxpayer so Ford could ship jobs from Southampton to Turkey which isn't even in the EU and only 5% in Europe. Even if there is nothing wrong with the loan and it was repaid why give them a loan below the market rate... would that not qualify as a subsidy?

I was responding to the Southampton loan, read the discussion.

[alfie2244]

///ajd said:

Countdown said:

Digga said:

Read the article, or further into the case and you will see the EU involvement in this. It is very well documented.

I have read it and I may well have missed something. The loan to Ford is EU funded. It is not the EU forcing Ford to do something (ie move jobs away from the UK).

You missed the fact the xenophobes & expressistas dressed it up as EU stealing jobs (even though Turkey not in EU) and the less critical thinkers lapped it up.

Worse than that - we the UK taxpayer(not sure about you)indirectly loaned cheap money to a company which was used to move production to a non EU country when UK jobs were being lost. This doesn't sit right with my understanding of the whole ethos of the EU let alone the EIB...unless there were ulterior motives or palms were being greased of course.

Edited by alfie2244 on Friday 21st October 16:23

[alfie2244]

jsf said:

alfie2244 said:

jsf said:

It wasn't a grant, it was a loan at below market cost. That money was paid back.

A cheap loan part funded by the UK taxpayer so Ford could ship jobs from Southampton to Turkey which isn't even in the EU and only 5% in Europe. Even if there is nothing wrong with the loan and it was repaid why give them a loan below the market rate... would that not qualify as a subsidy?

I was responding to the Southampton loan, read the discussion.

I did..but incorrectly.....sorry

Edited by alfie2244 on Friday 21st October 16:22

[///ajd]

ATG said:

BMRuss said:

I got asked for an example, I gave one.

I'm so glad we voted to leave, it really makes me happy that it upsets irritants like you

You gave an example that was obviously wrong. And then you make a feeble attempt at a joke. Maybe you can see why some people have suspicions that some Brexiteers didn't understand the issues?

Suspicions?

I think the patient polite refrain from pointing this out is also running out.

[Digga]

ATG said:

This ^^^.

About a fifth of the country's population and economically very successful, but probably still just a parasitic city that is our of touch with the real world, 'cause there's no way that London and the South East might just be doing better on their own merit.

If that is the case, why the panic about Brexit? Surely not an insurmountable problem for such a gifted elite to navigate?

Or is it a case that if steel workers in Middlesborough or Port Talbot lose jobs through lack of the right trading environment that's 'tough' but when it happens within you own industry it's something that transcends other priorities?

[anonymous-user]

alfie2244 said:

jsf said:

alfie2244 said:

jsf said:

It wasn't a grant, it was a loan at below market cost. That money was paid back.

A cheap loan part funded by the UK taxpayer so Ford could ship jobs from Southampton to Turkey which isn't even in the EU and only 5% in Europe. Even if there is nothing wrong with the loan and it was repaid why give them a loan below the market rate... would that not qualify as a subsidy?

I was responding to the Southampton loan, read the discussion.

I did..but incorrectly.....sorry

Edited by alfie2244 on Friday 21st October 16:22

No worries

[Jockman]

AC43 said:

My kids' friends and/or parents from school that I hang out with are from all over the place - to name a few places they come from Italy, France, Germany, Switzerland, the US, Sri Lanka, Syria, NZ and Poland.

Off the top of my head I've had neighbours from Iran, Cyprus, India, Pakistan, the US, SA, Australia, Nigeria, Syria and Iran.

My clients & colleagues also come from a vast range of countries - Russia, Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Denmark, Germany, Turkey etc etc etc

It's just normal in London.

It's normal in most cities. Why would that change?

[Borghetto]

///ajd said:

Thats business.

Your leave vote just made it 100x more likely.

Congratulations!

More hyperbole - so show us the statistics/article whereby this 10,000% increase in firms leaving is.

[davepoth]

///ajd said:

Thats business.

Your leave vote just made it 100x more likely.

Congratulations!

Keep thinking it if you like, but the EU pumped a lot of money into Slovakia which enabled them to greatly upgrade the infrastructure in the area, reducing the relocating costs of Peugeot while keeping just the right side of the state aid rules.

Do you disagree that the point of the EU development funding is to encourage companies to set up shop in the poorer EU nations?

[Ridgemont]

SilverSixer said:

Your fear is that we don't control our own border when in fact we do. Turkey have been trying to get in for what, 40 years? More? Mind you it became more likely once UK announced it was leaving and taking its veto with it. So, once we've done the trade deal involving free movement, Turkey joins and *poof*, we've lost control where previously we had it.

Slow hand clap.

You really are quite a fellow aren't you.
Twisting any old story to your strange world view.

FWIW the British gov was highly unlikely to exercise any veto on Turkish entry never minding Cameron's fibbing on the matter. The UK was the biggest proponent of its entry. The French on the other hand are against and unlikely to change their view. The point here being that the FO for 30 odd years come labour, conservative or coalition had pursued the same policy objective of enlargement no matter the view of the populace. That now has to change.

[///ajd]

Borghetto said:

///ajd said:

Thats business.

Your leave vote just made it 100x more likely.

Congratulations!

More hyperbole - so show us the statistics/article whereby this 10,000% increase in firms leaving is.

Its just a ROM

Could be 10x or 1000x

Definately not less likely though, unless you're in Brenial.

[Mrr T]

jsf said:

What is fairly easy to see if you read the various governmental reports and listen to people, is there is a major disconnect between low skill low wage migration and high skill medium to high wage migration

Can I suggest you read the Governmental (and other) reports and stop listening to a mate down the pub. Your post might then contain less errors.
.

jsf said:

Mass low skill migration has severely affected the low wage economy and has had a negative impact on the people who through their personal circumstances are affected by that. The higher skill and wage economy has benefited from migration.

The conclusion of the studies are immigration has a very minor impact on wages of the less skilled,

jsf said:

The reality about life, is not everyone has the ability to be a high skill worker and don't have the ability to earn good wages. Society needs to work for these people just as much as it needs to work for the high skill people.

This is where the issue needs addressing, this is why the ROW has migration control. One of the core responsibilities of a government is to ensure social cohesion and help the less fortunate to have a worthwhile existence.

The only practical way to achieve that is to have some controls over the migration you allow, no sensible thinker is going to shut off migrants who offer benefits to the country, but also no sensible thinker should allow migrants who have the effect of diminishing prospects for the less fortunate in our society.

Since immigration has not reduced wages of the lower paid, employment is at the highest for year, and job vacancies remain high. Exactly what effect has EU immigration had on social cohesion?

jsf said:

Free movement was designed around high skill low volume migration within a relatively small block of similar countries, it worked well. When the EU expanded there were transitional controls available which limited low skill migration, unfortunately the Labour Government chose to not use those controls, which led to a 10 fold higher migrant flow of low paid workers from the new eastern block countries to the UK. The low wage economy regions have not recovered from that unexpected (by the government, not by the academics who predicted it) rapid influx.

Lucky the studies showed most EU immigrants are better educated than the UK average.

jsf said:

Where do we go from here?

The first step is to acknowledge that the effect has been negative for a sector of our society that have just as much right to a decent life as the other sectors of our society.

Since we have established EU immigration has had only a very minor impact on the lower paid what effects are you talking about.

jsf said:

The next step is to acknowledge that the current policies are not working and need to be changed to rectify the imbalance, without adversely affecting the overall benefits we have seen at the higher skill sector.

It would have been ideal if the EU had addressed this issue properly or even showed some signs that they will in future. They steadfastly refused to, not because of practical reasons, but because it fits their political long game of a single federal state.

Why should the EU address it when its not a problem except in the eyes of the average kipper?

jsf said:

So now what I predict will happen, is the UK will put in place a system that protects the lower wage economy UK workers in the future, whilst still allowing easy access to high skill workers. That is very much the norm world wide and is a system that works.

You mean we will have an efficient and effective government immigration policy. I assume you are being ironic.

EU immigration has been the best demonstration of a market based system on immigration. Its worked lots of people got jobs the economy has been growing.

[ATG]

Digga said:

ATG said:

This ^^^.

About a fifth of the country's population and economically very successful, but probably still just a parasitic city that is our of touch with the real world, 'cause there's no way that London and the South East might just be doing better on their own merit.

If that is the case, why the panic about Brexit? Surely not an insurmountable problem for such a gifted elite to navigate?

Or is it a case that if steel workers in Middlesborough or Port Talbot lose jobs through lack of the right trading environment that's 'tough' but when it happens within you own industry it's something that transcends other priorities?

It's not panic; it's disappointment that such a stupid decision had been made.

The people who will feel the biggest impact of further economic underperformance are those at the bottom of the heap. Those of us who are doing just fine now are in a far, far better position to ride this period of turbulence out.

The only economist of any note who was calling for Brexit was doing so on the basis that the UK will naturally shed all of its heavy industry and concentrate on services. Where does that leave the Steel industry in the UK?

Quite a few people in this thread have talked about the UK govt needing to support industry and British jobs and they seem to mean by this protectionism and subsidy. Both policies are almost always a massive mistake. A bit of s helping hand during a period of transition is one thing, but if anyone things we should go back to long term subsidies for coal, steel, ship building, car manufacturing etc, they are crazy. Any industry has to remain competitive or it must be allowed to die. Doesn't matter if it's banking or steel.

[Borghetto]

Digga said:

If that is the case, why the panic about Brexit? Surely not an insurmountable problem for such a gifted elite to navigate?

Or is it a case that if steel workers in Middlesborough or Port Talbot lose jobs through lack of the right trading environment that's 'tough' but when it happens within you own industry it's something that transcends other priorities?

Definition of a recession - your next door neighbour loses his job.
Definition of depression - you lose your job.

[///ajd]

ATG said:

Digga said:

ATG said:

This ^^^.

About a fifth of the country's population and economically very successful, but probably still just a parasitic city that is our of touch with the real world, 'cause there's no way that London and the South East might just be doing better on their own merit.

If that is the case, why the panic about Brexit? Surely not an insurmountable problem for such a gifted elite to navigate?

Or is it a case that if steel workers in Middlesborough or Port Talbot lose jobs through lack of the right trading environment that's 'tough' but when it happens within you own industry it's something that transcends other priorities?

It's not panic; it's disappointment that such a stupid decision had been made.

The people who will feel the biggest impact of further economic underperformance are those at the bottom of the heap. Those of us who are doing just fine now are in a far, far better position to ride this period of turbulence out.

The only economist of any note who was calling for Brexit was doing so on the basis that the UK will naturally shed all of its heavy industry and concentrate on services. Where does that leave the Steel industry in the UK?

Quite a few people in this thread have talked about the UK govt needing to support industry and British jobs and they seem to mean by this protectionism and subsidy. Both policies are almost always a massive mistake. A bit of s helping hand during a period of transition is one thing, but if anyone things we should go back to long term subsidies for coal, steel, ship building, car manufacturing etc, they are crazy. Any industry has to remain competitive or it must be allowed to die. Doesn't matter if it's banking or steel.

+1

It seems so obvious, yet many seem to fail to understand this.

[London424]

ATG said:

Digga said:

ATG said:

This ^^^.

About a fifth of the country's population and economically very successful, but probably still just a parasitic city that is our of touch with the real world, 'cause there's no way that London and the South East might just be doing better on their own merit.

If that is the case, why the panic about Brexit? Surely not an insurmountable problem for such a gifted elite to navigate?

Or is it a case that if steel workers in Middlesborough or Port Talbot lose jobs through lack of the right trading environment that's 'tough' but when it happens within you own industry it's something that transcends other priorities?

It's not panic; it's disappointment that such a stupid decision had been made.

The people who will feel the biggest impact of further economic underperformance are those at the bottom of the heap. Those of us who are doing just fine now are in a far, far better position to ride this period of turbulence out.

The only economist of any note who was calling for Brexit was doing so on the basis that the UK will naturally shed all of its heavy industry and concentrate on services. Where does that leave the Steel industry in the UK?

Quite a few people in this thread have talked about the UK govt needing to support industry and British jobs and they seem to mean by this protectionism and subsidy. Both policies are almost always a massive mistake. A bit of s helping hand during a period of transition is one thing, but if anyone things we should go back to long term subsidies for coal, steel, ship building, car manufacturing etc, they are crazy. Any industry has to remain competitive or it must be allowed to die. Doesn't matter if it's banking or steel.

You should have a word with the EU then as it's massively protectionist.

[walm]

jsf said:

What is fairly easy to see if you read the various governmental reports and listen to people, is there is a major disconnect between low skill low wage migration and high skill medium to high wage migration.

Mass low skill migration has severely affected the low wage economy and has had a negative impact on the people who through their personal circumstances are affected by that. The higher skill and wage economy has benefited from migration.

The reality about life, is not everyone has the ability to be a high skill worker and don't have the ability to earn good wages. Society needs to work for these people just as much as it needs to work for the high skill people.

This is where the issue needs addressing, this is why the ROW has migration control. One of the core responsibilities of a government is to ensure social cohesion and help the less fortunate to have a worthwhile existence.

The only practical way to achieve that is to have some controls over the migration you allow, no sensible thinker is going to shut off migrants who offer benefits to the country, but also no sensible thinker should allow migrants who have the effect of diminishing prospects for the less fortunate in our society.

Free movement was designed around high skill low volume migration within a relatively small block of similar countries, it worked well. When the EU expanded there were transitional controls available which limited low skill migration, unfortunately the Labour Government chose to not use those controls, which led to a 10 fold higher migrant flow of low paid workers from the new eastern block countries to the UK. The low wage economy regions have not recovered from that unexpected (by the government, not by the academics who predicted it) rapid influx.

Where do we go from here?

The first step is to acknowledge that the effect has been negative for a sector of our society that have just as much right to a decent life as the other sectors of our society.

The next step is to acknowledge that the current policies are not working and need to be changed to rectify the imbalance, without adversely affecting the overall benefits we have seen at the higher skill sector.

It would have been ideal if the EU had addressed this issue properly or even showed some signs that they will in future. They steadfastly refused to, not because of practical reasons, but because it fits their political long game of a single federal state.

So now what I predict will happen, is the UK will put in place a system that protects the lower wage economy UK workers in the future, whilst still allowing easy access to high skill workers. That is very much the norm world wide and is a system that works.

Genuinely I am interested in the evidence for this.
Research like this: http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources...
...suggests that the delta is tiny, hardly a "major disconnect".
And I find myself repeating that we are at an incredibly low level of unemployment right now... macro-economic forces such as a recession absolutely swamp the impact of a few more people (0.3% per annum)... I am genuinely fairly baffled about what people are complaining about but freely admit I am probably very out of touch.

[don4l]

Borghetto said:

Definition of depression - you lose your [-]job{/-] referendum.

FTFY.

[don4l]

Daniel Hannan said:

Full WTO tariffs would cost British exporters £5.2 billion and EU exporters £12.9 billion. Which is why neither side will impose them.

[anonymous-user]

Mrr T said:

jsf said:

What is fairly easy to see if you read the various governmental reports and listen to people, is there is a major disconnect between low skill low wage migration and high skill medium to high wage migration

Can I suggest you read the Governmental (and other) reports and stop listening to a mate down the pub. Your post might then contain less errors.
.

jsf said:

Mass low skill migration has severely affected the low wage economy and has had a negative impact on the people who through their personal circumstances are affected by that. The higher skill and wage economy has benefited from migration.

The conclusion of the studies are immigration has a very minor impact on wages of the less skilled,

jsf said:

The reality about life, is not everyone has the ability to be a high skill worker and don't have the ability to earn good wages. Society needs to work for these people just as much as it needs to work for the high skill people.

This is where the issue needs addressing, this is why the ROW has migration control. One of the core responsibilities of a government is to ensure social cohesion and help the less fortunate to have a worthwhile existence.

The only practical way to achieve that is to have some controls over the migration you allow, no sensible thinker is going to shut off migrants who offer benefits to the country, but also no sensible thinker should allow migrants who have the effect of diminishing prospects for the less fortunate in our society.

Since immigration has not reduced wages of the lower paid, employment is at the highest for year, and job vacancies remain high. Exactly what effect has EU immigration had on social cohesion?

jsf said:

Free movement was designed around high skill low volume migration within a relatively small block of similar countries, it worked well. When the EU expanded there were transitional controls available which limited low skill migration, unfortunately the Labour Government chose to not use those controls, which led to a 10 fold higher migrant flow of low paid workers from the new eastern block countries to the UK. The low wage economy regions have not recovered from that unexpected (by the government, not by the academics who predicted it) rapid influx.

Lucky the studies showed most EU immigrants are better educated than the UK average.

jsf said:

Where do we go from here?

The first step is to acknowledge that the effect has been negative for a sector of our society that have just as much right to a decent life as the other sectors of our society.

Since we have established EU immigration has had only a very minor impact on the lower paid what effects are you talking about.

jsf said:

The next step is to acknowledge that the current policies are not working and need to be changed to rectify the imbalance, without adversely affecting the overall benefits we have seen at the higher skill sector.

It would have been ideal if the EU had addressed this issue properly or even showed some signs that they will in future. They steadfastly refused to, not because of practical reasons, but because it fits their political long game of a single federal state.

Why should the EU address it when its not a problem except in the eyes of the average kipper?

jsf said:

So now what I predict will happen, is the UK will put in place a system that protects the lower wage economy UK workers in the future, whilst still allowing easy access to high skill workers. That is very much the norm world wide and is a system that works.

You mean we will have an efficient and effective government immigration policy. I assume you are being ironic.

EU immigration has been the best demonstration of a market based system on immigration. Its worked lots of people got jobs the economy has been growing.

I have read many reports on the subject, ranging from well before the EU expansion to current day. The consensus of the reports are that mass uncontrolled migration does impact the lower end of the scale people adversely. Open door policies are bad for the social cohesion of a country.