Results

[turbobloke]

Almost 1,000 British nationals who work for the EU are not facing the sack (Associated Press claims).

EU commission president Jean-Claude Juncker wrote in an internal memo that according to regulations, they are “union officials” and work for the EU.

Juncker said:

You left your national ‘hats’ at the door when you joined this institution and that door is not closing on you now.

His memo was distributed to commission personnel after the referendum result became known and Associated Press apparently got hold of a copy today.

[sidicks]

walm said:

So you're not sure that it is "not true"? (The Italian/Polish guy sitting next to me certainly earns above minimum wage, for example.)

? I'm sure that not all immigrants are net contributors to the country, regardless of where they come from. Removing those will improve outcomes for everyone else. At no point have I said that no EU immigrants are net contributors, that would be a ridiculous claim!

walm said:

And for the analysis I have seen the non-EU migrants into the UK (where we are as choosy as we want) appear to contribute FAR FAR LESS!! (I am really not sure why, but I think it has something to do with families joining their wage-earning relatives rather than younger healthier people temporarily heading over here to earn and then moving home again.)

That may be the case, but that suggests a review of the system for non-EU immigrants too, not a case for uncontrolled immigration!

walm said:

In any case, we are talking about such small numbers it's an absolute rounding error compared to the impact of a recession.
100k migrants accounts for 0.15% of the population!!

What you seem to miss is that immigration has been around 600k each and every year for the last 10+ years. That's 6m people.

The important issue is whether those coming into the country are likely to contribute more or less than those leaving the country...

[RichB]

walm said:

sidicks said:

405dogvan said:

Some say it's the number of EU immigrants lowering wages and stressing public services but we know for a fact that they contribute more than they cost

Still not true, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Link?
I have seen analysis on both sides. Nothing so conclusive that I would say it is "not true".
What's your evidence?

As you say there is no absolute evidence one way or the other hence when someone posts the word fact in bold letters I know they are bluffing.

[Gandahar]

Filling up now, you can watch it here, will be packed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbcparliament

[walm]

sidicks said:

What you seem to miss is that immigration has been around 600k each and every year for the last 10+ years. That's £6m people.

The important issue is whether those coming into the country are likely to contribute more or less than those leaving the country...

405dogvan said "they contribute more than they cost" - you claimed that wasn't true.
He obviously didn't mean every single one of them!!!

We have no say on who leaves the country, obviously, so that is wholly irrelevant.

What is relevant is whether those coming in are net positive in contribution. Which you admit you don't know! (I think...)

And we need FAR MORE than 1% extra each year (the 600k) to replace the ageing workforce!!!

6m sounds like a lot but:
1. That's gross, not net.
2. Lots of it is from non-EU people.
3. We need migrants because we need more people to enter the workforce owing to our aging problem.

You are absolutely right that a silver lining is that we might get to review the entire immigration system.

BUT again - it's a rounding error IMHO.

[walm]

RichB said:

As you say there is no absolute evidence one way or the other hence when someone posts the word fact in bold letters I know they are bluffing.

Ha!
So true.
Fact.

[Sway]

405dogvan said:

Given that what happens after you invoke it is a negotiation process I'm sure that process can have a 'OK, forget I said it" outcome (what's the point of negociating if the end-result is the same?)

I'm NOT sure the other states will take well to someone using Article 50 as a lever to get what they want/something no-other member has tho - I think they expect you to 'leave something' at least.

If anyone thinks it's a tool to get what previous PMs have failed to get - they've been taking too many happy pills.

As we seem to be talking of some sort of EEA deal (but a different one to Iceland and Norway - or EEFTA with Switz. and Liecht.) I guess that might be a long conversation tho - and some sort of leaving is involved (Boris wants out of the EU parliament/law/courts fo sure?)

Edited by 405dogvan on Monday 27th June 14:26

Just a quick point - if we go for EFTA over EEA, then there is no conversation with the EU, as it's not an organisation that the EU have any influence over...

Indeed the free trade deal EFTA has with the EU were driven by the fact that we were a Founding member of EFTA, and did not want to lose our FTA with Norway/Switzerland/etc. when we joined the EU - so the EU signed a FTA with the EFTA nations.

Iceland's top dog has said that he would welcome us back into EFTA, I'd strongly suggest both Norway and Switzerland would too. The EU have no ability to block that joining (unlike EEA membership).

Interestingly, in theory (I've not yet done the research) that may well be a handy mechanism to achieve FTA with the EU without the EU's direct consent. By default any EFTA member has an FTA with the EU, there is no requirement for an EFTA member to adopt Schengen or any of the non-trade related compliances.

[sidicks]

walm said:

405dogvan said "they contribute more than they cost" - you claimed that wasn't true.
He obviously didn't mean every single one of them!!!

Why would we allow unfettered access to those who are not net contributors?

walm said:

We have no say on who leaves the country, obviously, so that is wholly irrelevant.

It is very relevant for those that try and focus on the net number without understanding the gross figures!

walm said:

What is relevant is whether those coming in are net positive in contribution. Which you admit you don't know! (I think...)

Given the analysis that shows that UK households have to be earning more than £35k (from memory) to be net contributors, even allowing for the obvious differences between local and (temporary?) immigrants, given the large number of non-working and low wage immigrants, I'm sceptical that in aggregate they are net positive contributors.

walm said:

And we need FAR MORE than 1% extra each year (the 600k) to replace the ageing workforce!!!

6m sounds like a lot but:
1. That's gross, not net.
2. Lots of it is from non-EU people.
3. We need migrants because we need more people to enter the workforce owing to our aging problem.

You are absolutely right that a silver lining is that we might get to review the entire immigration system.

BUT again - it's a rounding error IMHO.

Why do we need 'far more' than 1% extra to replace the 'ageing workforce'? On what basis do you make that calculation?

Surely it's about paying for the retirees that is the issue and that is based on £ not numbers, emphasising the need to ensure that those coming into the country are net contributors.

Simply importing large numbers is creating a massive Ponzi scheme.

[Tycho]

ash73 said:

Gandahar said:

Filling up now, you can watch it here, will be packed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbcparliament

"Keep your mobile phone on, you might be in the shadow cabinet by the end of the day"

Fair play Dave, that was a good one

Almost spat my coffee over my screen at that.

[SilverSpur]

Immigrants don't have to be 'net contributors'. That's a stupid and silly pretext. All they have to do is the stuff that no one else will do. I don't for a minute believe anyone doing a mundane, menial job is a net contributor to the country, whether they are immigrants or British Nationals.

The country will go to the dogs if we dont have a valid workforce doing the s**t jobs. Doesn't matter if they contribute more than they take - without someone doing the underclass work it all falls apart.

[405dogvan]

Jimbeaux said:

I agree that lower regulation, more competition, etc. are great things. However, let Britain do those things for itself as opposed to Brussels doing it for you. I am certain you can better define what is good for Britain than the E.U. can.

Problem is as separate entities - if we lower X, they'll either lower X further or lower Y to compensate - which means we'll have to lower Y and well or lower X further or find Z.

Might not be relevant of course - if we go fully independent and the EU remains as-is, we aren't going to be able to compete on many things anyway...

[smithyithy]

Sway said:

Just a quick point - if we go for EFTA over EEA, then there is no conversation with the EU, as it's not an organisation that the EU have any influence over...

Indeed the free trade deal EFTA has with the EU were driven by the fact that we were a Founding member of EFTA, and did not want to lose our FTA with Norway/Switzerland/etc. when we joined the EU - so the EU signed a FTA with the EFTA nations.

Iceland's top dog has said that he would welcome us back into EFTA, I'd strongly suggest both Norway and Switzerland would too. The EU have no ability to block that joining (unlike EEA membership).

Interestingly, in theory (I've not yet done the research) that may well be a handy mechanism to achieve FTA with the EU without the EU's direct consent. By default any EFTA member has an FTA with the EU, there is no requirement for an EFTA member to adopt Schengen or any of the non-trade related compliances.

This is very interesting. A quick read of the EFTA website does make it seem like this could a good route the UK.


1. What is the European Economic Area?

The European Economic Area (EEA) brings together the EU Member States and three of the EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). It was established by the EEA Agreement, an international agreement which enables these three EFTA States to participate fully in the Single Market. It covers the four freedoms, i.e. the free movement of goods, capital, services and persons, plus competition and state aid rules and horizontal areas related to the four freedoms (see point 4 for an overview of what is included in the EEA Agreement).
The objective of the EEA Agreement is to create a homogenous European Economic Area. All relevant EU legislation in the field of the Single Market is integrated into the EEA Agreement so that it applies throughout the whole of the EEA, ensuring uniform application of laws relating to the Single Market.

4. What is included in the EEA Agreement?

The EEA Agreement provides for the inclusion of EU legislation in all policy areas of the Single Market. This covers the four freedoms, i.e. the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital, as well as competition and state aid rules, but also the following horizontal policies: consumer protection, company law, environment, social policy, statistics. In addition, the EEA Agreement provides for cooperation in several flanking policies such as research and technological development, education, training and youth, employment, tourism, culture, civil protection, enterprise, entrepreneurship and small and medium-sized enterprises. The EEA Agreement guarantees equal rights and obligations within the Single Market for citizens and economic operators in the EEA. Through Article 6 of the EEA Agreement, the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union is also of relevance to the EEA Agreement, as the provisions of the EEA Agreement shall be interpreted in conformity with the relevant rulings of the Court given prior to the date of signature (i.e. 2 May 1992).

5. What is not covered by the EEA Agreement?

The EEA Agreement does not cover the following EU policies: common agriculture and fisheries policies (although the EEA Agreement contains provisions on trade in agricultural and fish products); customs union; common trade policy; common foreign and security policy; justice and home affairs (the EEA EFTA States are however part of the Schengen area); direct and indirect taxation; or economic and monetary union.

I don't know if the inclusions / exclusions are set in stone, but it could be favourable.

http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement/eea-basic-fe...

[Murph7355]

405dogvan said:

Problem is as separate entities - if we lower X, they'll either lower X further or lower Y to compensate - which means we'll have to lower Y and well or lower X further or find Z.

Might not be relevant of course - if we go fully independent and the EU remains as-is, we aren't going to be able to compete on many things anyway...

Why?

We've faced the prospect of having to compete with cheap labour many times before, if that's the angle. Often you can't, so you adapt.

Size isn't always a good thing.

[405dogvan]

RichB said:

walm said:

sidicks said:

405dogvan said:

Some say it's the number of EU immigrants lowering wages and stressing public services but we know for a fact that they contribute more than they cost

Still not true, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Link?
I have seen analysis on both sides. Nothing so conclusive that I would say it is "not true".
What's your evidence?

As you say there is no absolute evidence one way or the other hence when someone posts the word fact in bold letters I know they are bluffing.

Plenty of evidence that EU immigrants earn/pay more tax than we give-out in support - the problem tends to focus on what you deem 'cost'.

'Cost' does not include the fact that someone coming from the EU and taking a well-paid job is potentially displacing someone from the UK having that job.

The 'cost' of dealing with areas where Eu immigrants stretch services or drive-down wages is also not calculable (but as we generally don't bother fixing those issues, it might be quite low!)

A lot depends on whether you're one of those people that think where you're born gives you some golden ticket to a home/job/livelihood in that place - as opposed to a system whereby the qualified candidate who'll work for the least is the one who gets the job.

[405dogvan]

Murph7355 said:

405dogvan said:

Problem is as separate entities - if we lower X, they'll either lower X further or lower Y to compensate - which means we'll have to lower Y and well or lower X further or find Z.

Might not be relevant of course - if we go fully independent and the EU remains as-is, we aren't going to be able to compete on many things anyway...

Why?

We've faced the prospect of having to compete with cheap labour many times before, if that's the angle. Often you can't, so you adapt.

Size isn't always a good thing.

I'm thinking in terms of trade - in terms of what we make/process/sell rather than in manpower terms - competing for sales from the factory over where the cheapest place to build/run it would be if you like.

[405dogvan]

Also - this is a cross-port from the Boris thread - I thought it might be interest here (I may have missed it)

--

Not sure we've had this one yet???

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-ba...

WAY over my paygrade and out of my bullst alarm range but these people seem to believe that the PM cannot unilaterally activate Article 50 without some sort of Parliamentary approval!?

How easy would that be to get I wonder??

Of course piddling things like law didn't stop us invading another country so leaving the EU is ezsauce?

--

[RichB]

405dogvan said:

A lot depends on whether you're one of those people that think where you're born gives you some golden ticket to a home/job/livelihood in that place - as opposed to a system whereby the qualified candidate who'll work for the least is the one who gets the job.

Well you've completely changed the question and personalised it somewhat however as I never shy away from answering a direct question on Pistonheads, unlike others who avoid answering questions at all costs, I will try. You actually didn't cover a third train of thought and personally I believe that the best qualified candidate should get the job regardless of what county they were born in, be it England, the UK, the EU or the Rest of the World.

[sidicks]

405dogvan said:

Plenty of evidence that EU immigrants earn/pay more tax than we give-out in support - the problem tends to focus on what you deem 'cost'.

Where?

405dogvan said:

'Cost' does not include the fact that someone coming from the EU and taking a well-paid job is potentially displacing someone from the UK having that job.

So not a true cost then?!

dogvan405 said:

The 'cost' of dealing with areas where Eu immigrants stretch services or drive-down wages is also not calculable (but as we generally don't bother fixing those issues, it might be quite low!)

A lot depends on whether you're one of those people that think where you're born gives you some golden ticket to a home/job/livelihood in that place - as opposed to a system whereby the qualified candidate who'll work for the least is the one who gets the job.

Straw man nonsense.

[Trabi601]

smithyithy said:

I don't know if the inclusions / exclusions are set in stone, but it could be favourable.

http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement/eea-basic-fe...

It looks like the worst of everything!

[Jimbeaux]

405dogvan said:

Jimbeaux said:

I agree that lower regulation, more competition, etc. are great things. However, let Britain do those things for itself as opposed to Brussels doing it for you. I am certain you can better define what is good for Britain than the E.U. can.

Problem is as separate entities - if we lower X, they'll either lower X further or lower Y to compensate - which means we'll have to lower Y and well or lower X further or find Z.

Might not be relevant of course - if we go fully independent and the EU remains as-is, we aren't going to be able to compete on many things anyway...

If the E.U. "stays as it is", it will basically be the German E.U. "and everyone else". The U.K. was a counterbalance to Germany. It is like an unbalanced wheel, it is going to wobble badly.