Brexit: EU considers migration ‘emergency brake’ for UK
Discussion
BJG1 said:
I'd argue that FoM is far more a supply and demand based solution to immigration than a visa system. A visa system is at the whim of Government policy, if we decide there's the demand for labour but the Government don't want people to come for other reasons such as not having the services or infrastructure to cope or indeed, simply to appease those who want less immigration they can put limits in place that mean the demand isn't being satisfied.
It's more complex than that. The big problem the UK economy has is low productivity. Productivity is simply the amount of GDP created per worker. There are two arguments as to why UK productivity is so low. Firstly, that there's something inherent in British companies and workers that makes them lazy; or second, that an effectively unlimited supply of people willing to do minimum wage work makes it cheaper to employ more people than to make the existing people more productive.I believe the second argument.
Take it a little further, and ask yourself this question: If companies know they can get someone on minimum wage, why on earth would they pay any more to someone just because they're British? They wouldn't, and under EU rules they aren't allowed to.
Greg66 said:
Jockman said:
legzr1 said:
Jockman said:
If the EU were to come back with an outstandingly brilliant bespoke deal, better than anything that has ever been on the table before, a deal that was acceptable to the majority of voters........would you thank the Brexiteers?
You think that's how the idea of ignoring the referendum result would be sold?Oh, and thank you
You're more than welcome.
With a second referendum.
See, that's the thing about the "democratic will of the people". It's fine as long as it agrees with you...
jjlynn27 said:
<<stuff x2>>...
Answered, once again.
You're not answering it though.Answered, once again.
You're explaining that these are the rules the great and the good have settled upon, but that does not in itself explain why free movement is necessary or desirable, and indeed why it would appear the UK is not alone in disliking it as a concept. I fully understand those are the rules that faceless EU bureaucrats have set out - it's that, and things like it, that prompted me to vote leave.
It seems, to me, like it was one of the first foundations laid down against "ever closer union". It was probably the easiest to swerve through the European machine (taxation, benefits and other elements of fiscal policy being sensitive) and when we were a trading block 15 nations with no fundamental/material differences in economies/objectives it was probably seen as harmless.
Now the EU is 27 nations, with more on the horizon, and without having covered any of the other bases of "ever closer union" it all looks a bit...awkward.
It feels very much like something that was set up with good intentions, but was very ill thought through, especially in the context of the EU's desire to expand with little thought to the consequences. The same is true of much that the EU does - I can often see the intent was good, but the execution nearly always leaves an awful lot to be desired.
BJG1 said:
GoodOlBoy said:
You don't see FML as an issue, but others certainly do. The only reason FML is defended, especially by the likes of Hollande, is that it forms one of the pillars of the Federalist dream of a United States of Europe. Otherwise would it be so bad to have a more sensible policy based on supply and demand ?
I'd argue that FoM is far more a supply and demand based solution to immigration than a visa system. A visa system is at the whim of Government policy, if we decide there's the demand for labour but the Government don't want people to come for other reasons such as not having the services or infrastructure to cope or indeed, simply to appease those who want less immigration they can put limits in place that mean the demand isn't being satisfied.jjlynn27 said:
...Define others, from 'amongst others' please....
I would start with the rising prominence of the right wing groups in Germany, France, Italy and The Netherlands. With ourselves you have, no surprise, the top 5 net contributors to the EU.If the EU establishment continue to ignore the rise of the right wing parties it will create huge issues in Europe.
Murph7355 said:
I can often see the intent was good, but the execution nearly always leaves an awful lot to be desired.
Sounds a bit like what our prospective points based visa system for EU-migrants will be like 
Actually, how dare I, shame on me <wristslap> our politicians and bureaucrats are far superior to EU ones obviously, because British 
Mario149 said:
Sounds a bit like what our prospective points based visa system for EU-migrants will be like Actually, how dare I, shame on me <wristslap> our politicians and bureaucrats are far superior to EU ones obviously, because British
You can't help yourself, can you Mario Actually, how dare I, shame on me <wristslap> our politicians and bureaucrats are far superior to EU ones obviously, because British 
From a personal perspective I am under no illusions about the quality of our political classes. However I hold firmly with the view that having another bucket of s
te, filled with such luminaries as Tusk and Juncker, on top of the home grown one is not making things better for all concerned.Having that second bucket of s
te in place gives our own people a cop out. I'm hoping that once that is gone, underscored by the political landscape here at the moment, that our politicians start to remember who they are working for and that we might see an improvement in quality/accountability over time.A forlorn hope? Maybe. But one thing was certain - had we voted to remain, things would not have changed for the better. It would have been a vote of confidence in all politicians and they would have stepped up the piss taking.
from that lovely paper the Guardian today:
"Reports from Brussels suggest a compromise is doing the rounds under which it would be given continued access to the single market plus concessions on freedom of movement."
Then the newspaper says:
"... This would be a grave mistake. If Britain comes out of this looking anything less than severely diminished it will be devastating for the EU."
Which is terrible.
"Reports from Brussels suggest a compromise is doing the rounds under which it would be given continued access to the single market plus concessions on freedom of movement."
Then the newspaper says:
"... This would be a grave mistake. If Britain comes out of this looking anything less than severely diminished it will be devastating for the EU."
Which is terrible.
Murph7355 said:
Mario149 said:
Sounds a bit like what our prospective points based visa system for EU-migrants will be like Actually, how dare I, shame on me <wristslap> our politicians and bureaucrats are far superior to EU ones obviously, because British
You can't help yourself, can you Mario Actually, how dare I, shame on me <wristslap> our politicians and bureaucrats are far superior to EU ones obviously, because British 
Murph7355 said:
From a personal perspective I am under no illusions about the quality of our political classes. However I hold firmly with the view that having another bucket of ste, filled with such luminaries as Tusk and Juncker, on top of the home grown one is not making things better for all concerned.
Having that second bucket of ste in place gives our own people a cop out. I'm hoping that once that is gone, underscored by the political landscape here at the moment, that our politicians start to remember who they are working for and that we might see an improvement in quality/accountability over time.
A forlorn hope? Maybe. But one thing was certain - had we voted to remain, things would not have changed for the better. It would have been a vote of confidence in all politicians and they would have stepped up the piss taking.
My comment was specifically on EU immigration where we will be replacing no daft bureaucracy controlling it, with a bureaucracy we can already see doesn't work very well at what it's supposed to do.te, filled with such luminaries as Tusk and Juncker, on top of the home grown one is not making things better for all concerned.Having that second bucket of s
te in place gives our own people a cop out. I'm hoping that once that is gone, underscored by the political landscape here at the moment, that our politicians start to remember who they are working for and that we might see an improvement in quality/accountability over time.A forlorn hope? Maybe. But one thing was certain - had we voted to remain, things would not have changed for the better. It would have been a vote of confidence in all politicians and they would have stepped up the piss taking.
As to your wider point, there may be an extra "bucket of s
te" at the top with the EU bods, but it's minuscule compared to the bucket we already have: ~33K civil servants for 500M people in the EU compared to ~440K for only 65M in the UK. And if our politicians need to remember who they're working for, it's our fault not the EU's. We should be holding them to account already. This is yet another example of blaming our internal failings on the EUwilliamp said:
from that lovely paper the Guardian today:
"Reports from Brussels suggest a compromise is doing the rounds under which it would be given continued access to the single market plus concessions on freedom of movement."
Then the newspaper says:
"... This would be a grave mistake. If Britain comes out of this looking anything less than severely diminished it will be devastating for the EU."
Which is terrible.
You really need to post a link as well please - rather than just quoting or your post will be removed as per The Rules"Reports from Brussels suggest a compromise is doing the rounds under which it would be given continued access to the single market plus concessions on freedom of movement."
Then the newspaper says:
"... This would be a grave mistake. If Britain comes out of this looking anything less than severely diminished it will be devastating for the EU."
Which is terrible.
Jockman said:
B'stard Child said:
You really need to post a link as well please - rather than just quoting or your post will be removed as per The Rules
Did you read the OP?But the quoted content came from the link below wasn't one of the OP's original ones and I couldn't see it anywhere else in the thread
Britain must suffer for brexit - Guardian
If I missed it linked to earlier then sorry
B'stard Child said:
Jockman said:
B'stard Child said:
You really need to post a link as well please - rather than just quoting or your post will be removed as per The Rules
Did you read the OP?But the quoted content came from the link below wasn't one of the OP's original ones and I couldn't see it anywhere else in the thread
Britain must suffer for brexit - Guardian
If I missed it linked to earlier then sorry
Difficult to keep track of all these bloomin' threads
davepoth said:
It's more complex than that. The big problem the UK economy has is low productivity. Productivity is simply the amount of GDP created per worker. There are two arguments as to why UK productivity is so low. Firstly, that there's something inherent in British companies and workers that makes them lazy; or second, that an effectively unlimited supply of people willing to do minimum wage work makes it cheaper to employ more people than to make the existing people more productive.
I believe the second argument.
Take it a little further, and ask yourself this question: If companies know they can get someone on minimum wage, why on earth would they pay any more to someone just because they're British? They wouldn't, and under EU rules they aren't allowed to.
It isn't the either/or you describe. There are lots of factors that contribute to low productivity and it's likely a combination of all of them. If your second argument were the predeominant reason then Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands would not have significantly more productive economies than ours since they have the same access to cheap labour.I believe the second argument.
Take it a little further, and ask yourself this question: If companies know they can get someone on minimum wage, why on earth would they pay any more to someone just because they're British? They wouldn't, and under EU rules they aren't allowed to.
As for the second part of your post, I think that's a good thing.
Murph7355 said:
You can't help yourself, can you Mario
From a personal perspective I am under no illusions about the quality of our political classes. However I hold firmly with the view that having another bucket of ste, filled with such luminaries as Tusk and Juncker, on top of the home grown one is not making things better for all concerned.
Having that second bucket of ste in place gives our own people a cop out. I'm hoping that once that is gone, underscored by the political landscape here at the moment, that our politicians start to remember who they are working for and that we might see an improvement in quality/accountability over time.
A forlorn hope? Maybe. But one thing was certain - had we voted to remain, things would not have changed for the better. It would have been a vote of confidence in all politicians and they would have stepped up the piss taking.
Absolutely had we have voted to stay in we would have been well and truly fFrom a personal perspective I am under no illusions about the quality of our political classes. However I hold firmly with the view that having another bucket of s
te, filled with such luminaries as Tusk and Juncker, on top of the home grown one is not making things better for all concerned.Having that second bucket of s
te in place gives our own people a cop out. I'm hoping that once that is gone, underscored by the political landscape here at the moment, that our politicians start to remember who they are working for and that we might see an improvement in quality/accountability over time.A forlorn hope? Maybe. But one thing was certain - had we voted to remain, things would not have changed for the better. It would have been a vote of confidence in all politicians and they would have stepped up the piss taking.
ked. The right decisions made and in the near future all , ok (most ) will realise.jjlynn27 said:
They are most certainly not ten commandments. Subsidies are not part of the 'four freedoms'. For the rest, see above.
It's all getting a bit too lengthy and I feel we're somewhat at cross purposes.Once we leave the EU the four freedoms no longer apply. Or to put it another way - the FML may be a pillar of the EU but we will no longer be in the EU.
We are negotiating a trade deal with the EU, we're not cherry-picking. If the EU choose to link trade with FML it's a political rather than a constitutional matter and has nothing to do with the founding principles.
For countries outside the EU, why should FML even be a consideration ? Turkey already have a tariff-free deal on manufactured goods that doesn't include FML. Neither the TTIP nor the Canadian deal will include FML. I suggest that a trade deal for the UK, China or Timbuctoo doesn't need to include FML either.
As regards the desirability of FML, there are two main issues.
1. Given a surplus supply of migrant labour for whom the UK wage structure is very attractive, there is no pressure on employers to increase wages. The result, as we are already seeing, is an increase in migrant workers vs locals in certain areas.
2. Of more concern for the future there is no incentive (or need) for employers to invest in training the future UK labour force. With virtually unlimited access to "ready made" qualified professionals it makes absolutely no sense for an employer to invest hundreds of thousands of pounds in training locals.
Unless point 2. in particular is addressed we are building in a real problem for the future and committing ourselves to ever-increasing reliance on migrant labour.
williamp said:
B'stard Child said:
Jockman said:
Ah yes....the thread link was posted at 19.18 yesterday by Dr Jekyll.........On the Referendum thread !!!
Difficult to keep track of all these bloomin' threads
You are right there - I was just trying to help - no harm done Difficult to keep track of all these bloomin' threads
GoodOlBoy said:
As regards the desirability of FML, there are two main issues.
1. Given a surplus supply of migrant labour for whom the UK wage structure is very attractive, there is no pressure on employers to increase wages. The result, as we are already seeing, is an increase in migrant workers vs locals in certain areas.
2. Of more concern for the future there is no incentive (or need) for employers to invest in training the future UK labour force. With virtually unlimited access to "ready made" qualified professionals it makes absolutely no sense for an employer to invest hundreds of thousands of pounds in training locals.
Unless point 2. in particular is addressed we are building in a real problem for the future and committing ourselves to ever-increasing reliance on migrant labour.
Nicely put 1. Given a surplus supply of migrant labour for whom the UK wage structure is very attractive, there is no pressure on employers to increase wages. The result, as we are already seeing, is an increase in migrant workers vs locals in certain areas.
2. Of more concern for the future there is no incentive (or need) for employers to invest in training the future UK labour force. With virtually unlimited access to "ready made" qualified professionals it makes absolutely no sense for an employer to invest hundreds of thousands of pounds in training locals.
Unless point 2. in particular is addressed we are building in a real problem for the future and committing ourselves to ever-increasing reliance on migrant labour.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff