The Positive Brexit Thread

[horsefly 4,287]

4 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

How on earth is what I’ve said trickle down economics? The theory behind that was to enrich those at the top and the money would eventually filter down, which has been proven to be nonsense.

The free movement laws you’re so in favour of were much more in keeping with trickle down economics, as they were keeping wages down through increased competition for jobs, which simply enriched those at the top. I’m in favour of removing that competition for jobs, which would mean those at the top having to pay their workers more, the complete opposite of what you’re accusing me of.

Also regarding immigration, on the days before the referendum, what powers did the government of the day have to prevent EU citizens from entering the UK, especially those that had a job lined up? You constantly tell me the government could have restricted immigration without leaving the EU, so what could they have done to prevent EU citizens from entering the country without breaking freedom of movement laws? 

How on earth is what I’ve said trickle down economics? The theory behind that was to enrich those at the top and the money would eventually filter down, which has been proven to be nonsense.

Firstly, everything you have said is basic old-fashioned free market capitalism which has completely failed, leading to more people mired in poverty and frequent economic collapses, and is completely incapable of dealing with the challenges enforced by climate change. Secondly, your "very simplistic" scenario (your description) is also a very simplistic parallel of the "trickle-down" notion that once one group is given an economic advantage that will then trickle down to an advantage for people lower down the chain (you claimed Higher pay for lorry drivers will lead to higher pay for shopworkers). There is absolutely no evidence for that.

The free movement laws you’re so in favour of were much more in keeping with trickle down economics, as they were keeping wages down through increased competition for jobs, which simply enriched those at the top. I’m in favour of removing that competition for jobs, which would mean those at the top having to pay their workers more, the complete opposite of what you’re accusing me of.

Simply bizarre! What on earth has free movement got to do with trickle-down economics?

Also regarding immigration, on the days before the referendum, what powers did the government of the day have to prevent EU citizens from entering the UK, especially those that had a job lined up? You constantly tell me the government could have restricted immigration without leaving the EU, so what could they have done to prevent EU citizens from entering the country without breaking freedom of movement laws? 

I can only assume you are painfully ignorant of the restrictions the government was already applying to immigrants from the EU, and the other options they were free to stipulate if they so wished (not being a part of the Schengen Agreement). Strangely you even mention one of those restrictions which was the requirement to have a guaranteed job offer.

As for the idea you keep banging on about brexit meaning no more immigrants suppressing wages, I can only assume you remain ignorant about the government's quota system. As the true consequences of brexit become more apparent, as food rots in fields, as the number of pigs awaiting the abattoir (70,000 currently) rockets while using up farmers' resources, etc, etc, etc, then you will see those quotas extended to pre-brexit levels out of necessity.

Further, the desperation the government has demonstrated in doing shoddy trade deals with other countries has already opened up the country to more migration from places like Australia. India has already made it explicitly clear that any trade deal will be dependent on the UK allowing vastly increased rights of migration for Indian citizens. I'm afraid you are utterly deluded if you think brexit will  radically alter issues relating to migration, we will simply end up swapping the areas from whence the migrants arrive.

[horsefly 4,287]

31 minutes ago, Herman said:

FFS. You want a high waged, well trained, British only workforce. How does this work in reality?

I doesn't and he knows it. Unless of course you're living in brexit la-la land. It doesn't exist, never could exist, but why let a little detail like that spoil the vision.

[BigFish 1,986]

21 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

It’s a side effect of Brexit I’ll grant you that, but ultimately the cause of the shortage is the haulage industry not doing enough to train and retain enough staff, largely because they haven’t had to worry about it thanks to a continuous supply of immigrants happy to work for meagre wages. Hopefully Brexit forces them to change their ways 

It is not really a side effect, but a direct implication of Brexit. It seems that your solution is accepting that this will also drive higher costs into the supply chain to pay for training and wages, stoke inflation, make everyone poorer in real terms and as I pointed out there is no certainty that this will be successful in addressing the labour shortage. This is the positive Brexit thread, but there is nothing positive in that for the Brexit UK economy.

Edited August 29, 2021 by BigFish

[Fen Canary 797]

12 minutes ago, horsefly said:

How on earth is what I’ve said trickle down economics? The theory behind that was to enrich those at the top and the money would eventually filter down, which has been proven to be nonsense.

Firstly, everything you have said is basic old-fashioned free market capitalism which has completely failed, leading to more people mired in poverty and frequent economic collapses, and is completely incapable of dealing with the challenges enforced by climate change. Secondly, your "very simplistic" scenario (your description) is also a very simplistic parallel of the "trickle-down" notion that once one group is given an economic advantage that will then trickle down to an advantage for people lower down the chain (you claimed Higher pay for lorry drivers will lead to higher pay for shopworkers). There is absolutely no evidence for that.

The free movement laws you’re so in favour of were much more in keeping with trickle down economics, as they were keeping wages down through increased competition for jobs, which simply enriched those at the top. I’m in favour of removing that competition for jobs, which would mean those at the top having to pay their workers more, the complete opposite of what you’re accusing me of.

Simply bizarre! What on earth has free movement got to do with trickle-down economics?

Also regarding immigration, on the days before the referendum, what powers did the government of the day have to prevent EU citizens from entering the UK, especially those that had a job lined up? You constantly tell me the government could have restricted immigration without leaving the EU, so what could they have done to prevent EU citizens from entering the country without breaking freedom of movement laws? 

I can only assume you are painfully ignorant of the restrictions the government was already applying to immigrants from the EU, and the other options they were free to stipulate if they so wished (not being a part of the Schengen Agreement). Strangely you even mention one of those restrictions which was the requirement to have a guaranteed job offer.

As for the idea you keep banging on about brexit meaning no more immigrants suppressing wages, I can only assume you remain ignorant about the government's quota system. As the true consequences of brexit become more apparent, as food rots in fields, as the number of pigs awaiting the abattoir (70,000 currently) rockets while using up farmers' resources, etc, etc, etc, then you will see those quotas extended to pre-brexit levels out of necessity.

Further, the desperation the government has demonstrated in doing shoddy trade deals with other countries has already opened up the country to more migration from places like Australia. India has already made it explicitly clear that any trade deal will be dependent on the UK allowing vastly increased rights of migration for Indian citizens. I'm afraid you are utterly deluded if you think brexit will  radically alter issues relating to migration, we will simply end up swapping the areas from whence the migrants arrive.

So the government had no power to refuse entry to an EU citizen who had a job offer?  Which is what I’ve been saying all along is it not?

As for the ins and outs of future trade deals, nobody knows how that will play out. If large numbers of unskilled Indians start arriving and suppressing wages the same as the EU citizens were doing then I’ll vote for whoever promises to renegotiate that particular trade deal.

I’ve no problem with immigration, as long as it’s done properly. It should only be for areas we have a skills shortage, and there should be minimum wage levels in order to get a visa. If you want to employ a foreign national then you should have to prove you’ve advertised and tried to employ UK citizens first, and the company should have to pay 25% over the going wage rate to do so. That way you’ll soon see if there is a genuine shortage of skills or whether they’re simply after cheap labour. 

[BigFish 1,986]

3 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

If large numbers of unskilled Indians start arriving and suppressing wages the same as the EU citizens were doing then I’ll vote for whoever promises to renegotiate that particular trade deal.

This is of course untrue, or at least there is no evidence for this whatsoever. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly and yet you continue peddling this idea. Why?

[Fen Canary 797]

6 minutes ago, BigFish said:

It is not really a side effect, but a direct implication of Brexit. It seems that your solution is accepting that this will also drive higher costs into the supply chain to pay for training and wages, stoke inflation, make everyone poorer in real terms and as I pointed out there is no certainty that this will be successful in addressing the labour shortage. This is the positive Brexit thread, but there is nothing positive in that for the Brexit UK economy.

So what was so good about the UK economy before? Wealthy businesses paying low wages because they knew they had an endless supply of labour from poorer countries. Higher wages will lead to higher prices I admit, but I’d rather live in a high wage high price economy than the other way round. Also wages for those at the bottom will rise faster than the costs do, as wages aren’t the only item that sets prices, therefore those at the bottom will be better off

[Fen Canary 797]

Just now, BigFish said:

This is of course untrue, or at least there is no evidence for this whatsoever. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly and yet you continue peddling this idea. Why?

So the last two pages on this thread have been devoted to how the end of free movement has led to shortages in industries previously reliant on migrant labour, which is leading to companies having to offer higher wages and possibly causing price rises. Yet while complaining about possible price rises caused by a lack of staff and companies having to pay more to attract, train and keep staff, you also claim that large scale immigration actually had no effect on wages? 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

11 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

But if those immigrants weren’t there, the companies would have 2 options. Either they improve the pay and conditions on offer until they find the staff they need, or the work doesn’t get done and they make no money.

The fact is that because they’ve had a ready source of cheap labour, so they haven’t had to improve pay and conditions beyond the government set minimums for a long time 

And now the immigrants aren't here. So wages will soar?

[BigFish 1,986]

5 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

So what was so good about the UK economy before? Wealthy businesses paying low wages because they knew they had an endless supply of labour from poorer countries. Higher wages will lead to higher prices I admit, but I’d rather live in a high wage high price economy than the other way round. Also wages for those at the bottom will rise faster than the costs do, as wages aren’t the only item that sets prices, therefore those at the bottom will be better off

 

1 minute ago, Fen Canary said:

So the last two pages on this thread have been devoted to how the end of free movement has led to shortages in industries previously reliant on migrant labour, which is leading to companies having to offer higher wages and possibly causing price rises. Yet while complaining about possible price rises caused by a lack of staff and companies having to pay more to attract, train and keep staff, you also claim that large scale immigration actually had no effect on wages? 

It is a start that you admit Brexit will lead to higher prices but the high wage high price economy you envisage leaves us all worse off in real terms. You do make a new unfounded unsourced opinion that inflation leaves those at the bottom  better off when the evidence would seem to be the opposite.

In addition is it really so difficult to understand if there is a shortage of drivers then deliveries will be cancelled, there will be shortages and GDP will be less than what it would be? Is it so difficult that we have the problem now, and your solution even if it works is long term? Is it difficult to understand that inflation makes us poorer, raises interest rates and the amount it costs the government to service the National Debt? Is it impossible to understand that the UK has a productivity problem, and this problem has been made worse by Brexit rather than better. Is impossible for you to have this debate without inventing unsubstantiated assertions (e.g. EU workers cause significantly lower wages).

[horsefly 4,287]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

So the government had no power to refuse entry to an EU citizen who had a job offer?  Which is what I’ve been saying all along is it not?

As for the ins and outs of future trade deals, nobody knows how that will play out. If large numbers of unskilled Indians start arriving and suppressing wages the same as the EU citizens were doing then I’ll vote for whoever promises to renegotiate that particular trade deal.

I’ve no problem with immigration, as long as it’s done properly. It should only be for areas we have a skills shortage, and there should be minimum wage levels in order to get a visa. If you want to employ a foreign national then you should have to prove you’ve advertised and tried to employ UK citizens first, and the company should have to pay 25% over the going wage rate to do so. That way you’ll soon see if there is a genuine shortage of skills or whether they’re simply after cheap labour. 

So the government had no power to refuse entry to an EU citizen who had a job offer?  Which is what I’ve been saying all along is it not?

Wrong again! That was the UK' government's stipulation which it freely chose to implement.

As for the ins and outs of future trade deals, nobody knows how that will play out. If large numbers of unskilled Indians start arriving and suppressing wages the same as the EU citizens were doing then I’ll vote for whoever promises to renegotiate that particular trade deal.

We already have evidence of the trade deals done to date which are all demonstrably in favour of the other country. The Australian deal is a clear case in point, and will very likely  lead to severe damage (if not destruction) of the UK beef and sugar beet industries (among others). Seems you don't care about that as long as eastern europeans are no longer needed to service those industries, because they have been eradicated. 

As for future deals, the Indian government couldn't have stated more clearly and publicly  that a trade deal with the UK is completely dependent on a very significant increase in the entitlement of Indian citizens to migrate to the UK.

I’ve no problem with immigration, as long as it’s done properly. It should only be for areas we have a skills shortage, and there should be minimum wage levels in order to get a visa. If you want to employ a foreign national then you should have to prove you’ve advertised and tried to employ UK citizens first, and the company should have to pay 25% over the going wage rate to do so. That way you’ll soon see if there is a genuine shortage of skills or whether they’re simply after cheap labour. 

Please provide a reference where in the brexit deal these conditions are stipulated. You might be happy playing "fantasy brexit", the rest of us will concern ourselves with reality brexit.

 

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

12 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

But if those immigrants weren’t there, the companies would have 2 options. Either they improve the pay and conditions on offer until they find the staff they need, or the work doesn’t get done and they make no money.

The fact is that because they’ve had a ready source of cheap labour, so they haven’t had to improve pay and conditions beyond the government set minimums for a long time 

Thats what we are trying to do now and it has failed.Fresh food supply and demand depends on the crops being picked when ready and Fenland farmers tried to use UK staff to do the job, but it failed. UK pickers earn the same money as EU migrants, unless on piecework, which means with less being picked less is being earned.

I worked for £10/day on Crete in 1981, at the time they joined the EU under Goldman Sachs misguidance. I was picking shifting and moving oranges south of Sparta as well, for not much more. Fellow Greek workers and immigrants alike did not want to join the EU, but the land owners and large farmers did, so it happened, and Greece at large became poorer because they had a completely different pension system to everyone else.

We should introduce a 2 days/week field work, for rich and poor regardless, no excuses given and for that you get a voucher for your fresh food. Would we starve or thrive?

[BigFish 1,986]

Evidence in this Report shows that the areas of the UK with large increases in EU immigration did not suffer greater falls in the jobs and pay of UK-born workers.

The big falls in wages after 2008 are due to  the global financial crisis and a weak economic recovery, not to immigration.

There is also little effect of EU immigration on inequality through reducing the pay and jobs of less skilled UK workers. Changes in wages and joblessness for less educated UK- born workers show little correlation with changes in EU immigration.

EU immigrants pay more in taxes than they take out in welfare and the use of public services. They therefore help reduce the budget deficit. Immigrants do not have a negative effect on local services such as crime, education, health, or social housing

[horsefly 4,287]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

So what was so good about the UK economy before? Wealthy businesses paying low wages because they knew they had an endless supply of labour from poorer countries. Higher wages will lead to higher prices I admit, but I’d rather live in a high wage high price economy than the other way round. Also wages for those at the bottom will rise faster than the costs do, as wages aren’t the only item that sets prices, therefore those at the bottom will be better off

Wow! how brazenly callous and simply ignorant. 

So what was so good about the UK economy before? Wealthy businesses paying low wages because they knew they had an endless supply of labour from poorer countries.

For a start low wages affects certain particular industries not all, and some wealthy businesses actually pay high wages.

Also wages for those at the bottom will rise faster than the costs do, as wages aren’t the only item that sets prices, therefore those at the bottom will be better off

Again, this is pure fantasy brexit speculation without the slightest evidence to support it. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that higher prices will be compensated for by wage increases for the poorer paid. Where on earth have you lived for the past 40 years?

All you have done in these posts is focus on one tiny area of the brexit fall out (speculative wage increases in certain limited industries) without paying any regard to how the overall effects of brexit will devastate the economy and industry of the country. Witness your failure to recognise that the trade deal done with Australia will completely undercut the farmers in this country. Not only will they not be able to afford to pay higher wages, they will not be able to afford to farm at all. Please tell how that is going to result in the high wage brexit fantasy utopia that you are badly trying to sell us.

Edited August 29, 2021 by horsefly

[BigFish 1,986]

32 minutes ago, horsefly said:

All you have done in these posts is focus on one tiny area of the brexit fall out (speculative wage increases in certain limited industries) without paying any regard to how the overall effects of brexit will devastate the economy and industry of the country. Witness your failure to recognise that the trade deal done with Australia will completely undercut the farmers in this country. Not only will they not be able to afford to pay higher wages, they will not be able to afford to farm at all. Please tell how that is going to result in the high wage brexit fantasy utopia that you are badly trying to sell us.

True, if the food processing industry cannot replace the EU workers it has lost, it will close and we will import more.

[horsefly 4,287]

3 hours ago, BigFish said:

True, if the food processing industry cannot replace the EU workers it has lost, it will close and we will import more.

It wasn't that long ago (pre-covid, however) that the Telegraph leaked an email from a top government adviser arguing that the UK should give up on supporting agriculture as it made more sense to import all the food we need. Perhaps the recent trade deals are an indication that this is what the government wants for the future of brexit UK.  It certainly fits with their plan to allow huge parts of the countryside to be bricked over by the Tory Party's major donors.

[Fen Canary 797]

7 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

And now the immigrants aren't here. So wages will soar?

I did read that haulage companies are offering improved wages, and I believe Tesco were offering bonuses to come drive for them. Working in the building industry anecdotally I’ve noticed a lot more people moving jobs this year for more money than in previous years, so yes I believe wages are improving thanks to EU citizens now being treated the same as the rest of the world, compared to the racist two tier immigration system we had before 

[Fen Canary 797]

6 hours ago, horsefly said:

So the government had no power to refuse entry to an EU citizen who had a job offer?  Which is what I’ve been saying all along is it not?

Wrong again! That was the UK' government's stipulation which it freely chose to implement.

As for the ins and outs of future trade deals, nobody knows how that will play out. If large numbers of unskilled Indians start arriving and suppressing wages the same as the EU citizens were doing then I’ll vote for whoever promises to renegotiate that particular trade deal.

We already have evidence of the trade deals done to date which are all demonstrably in favour of the other country. The Australian deal is a clear case in point, and will very likely  lead to severe damage (if not destruction) of the UK beef and sugar beet industries (among others). Seems you don't care about that as long as eastern europeans are no longer needed to service those industries, because they have been eradicated. 

As for future deals, the Indian government couldn't have stated more clearly and publicly  that a trade deal with the UK is completely dependent on a very significant increase in the entitlement of Indian citizens to migrate to the UK.

I’ve no problem with immigration, as long as it’s done properly. It should only be for areas we have a skills shortage, and there should be minimum wage levels in order to get a visa. If you want to employ a foreign national then you should have to prove you’ve advertised and tried to employ UK citizens first, and the company should have to pay 25% over the going wage rate to do so. That way you’ll soon see if there is a genuine shortage of skills or whether they’re simply after cheap labour. 

Please provide a reference where in the brexit deal these conditions are stipulated. You might be happy playing "fantasy brexit", the rest of us will concern ourselves with reality brexit.

 

So I’ll ask one last time, what powers did the government have to refuse entry to an EU citizen that had a job offer? You’ve told me numerous times that I’m wrong, but have failed every time to explain how I am wrong.

As you seem so concerned with areas of skills shortages, and seem happy to keep the wages of the poor deflated, tell me, would you support short term work visas in areas such as haulage, if they didn’t lead to residency. Say it takes 6 months to train an HGV driver, would you support the government offering year long work visas for a year, which would effectively give firms 2 years to find and train the staff they need?

[Herman 9,717]

You're a bit desperate to make your decision seem righteous.

[Fen Canary 797]

I have no intention of trying to appear righteous, it was a political decision that I took largely down to my negative experience of large scale EU immigration.

Unfortunately for many on here they’re that ideologically wedded to the idea that Brexit was evil they can’t even bring themselves to say that wage rises brought about by large amounts of labour leaving the country are a good thing for workers. If that’s the attitude for what passes as the current incarnation of the left it’s no wonder Labour has lost large areas of its traditional working class heartlands, while now challenging the more wealthy seats that were traditionally Tory.

I’ll leave you all to your echo chamber, you seem to enjoy it more that way anyway 

[horsefly 4,287]

44 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

So I’ll ask one last time, what powers did the government have to refuse entry to an EU citizen that had a job offer? You’ve told me numerous times that I’m wrong, but have failed every time to explain how I am wrong.

As you seem so concerned with areas of skills shortages, and seem happy to keep the wages of the poor deflated, tell me, would you support short term work visas in areas such as haulage, if they didn’t lead to residency. Say it takes 6 months to train an HGV driver, would you support the government offering year long work visas for a year, which would effectively give firms 2 years to find and train the staff they need?

You have been given countless pieces of evidence by several posters pointing out the entirely fallacious claims you are making about the one tiny area that seems to be your only concern. You simply repeat the same mantra about immigrants suppressing wages without answering any of the points that have been made in response (e.g. BigFish has pointed you in the direction of economic research which shows your claims to be unfounded). I'll leave you to your fantasy brexit utopia where everyone will be earning high wages  because there will be no immigrants to suppress pay rates, and poverty will obviously be erradicated, and all the previously poor will now be "better off". You clearly know something that every other respectable economist doesn't, so well done you. Who would have thought that after all this time it was a million or so eastern european migrant workers that were responsible for the decades of poverty pay in this country.

 

Edited August 29, 2021 by horsefly

[Herman 9,717]

I think you'll find we are thinking of the country as a whole. Yes it will be great for workers, myself included, now businesses having a smaller pool to choose from, which will hopefully lead to pay increases but you are clearly not looking at potential knock-on effects that this will lead to.

[BigFish 1,986]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

Unfortunately for many on here they’re that ideologically wedded to the idea that Brexit was evil they can’t even bring themselves to say that wage rises brought about by large amounts of labour leaving the country are a good thing for workers

We tried to have a reasonable debate with you based on facts.  It was repeatly explained to you that there was no  evidence to back up your arguments and a link to a London School of Economics paper that in fact said exactly the opposite. You are obviously profoundly ignorant, so who do we believe: a fool with no evidence or economists who do this for a living? Clearly you are trying to resort to the old Brexit trope: "I can't be racist because I treat all foreigners the same".

[Surfer 1,547]

Well two positive outcomes of Brexit is that awful hot mess sausage and stinky cheeses will no longer be taking up shelf space in British supermarkets .....  plus the Mail is upset about border bureaucracy. 

Edited August 29, 2021 by Surfer

[A Load of Squit 5,135]

Very patronising to the refugees. 

 

Edited August 30, 2021 by A Load of Squit

[Yellow Fever 3,749]

15 hours ago, Herman said:

I think you'll find we are thinking of the country as a whole. Yes it will be great for workers, myself included, now businesses having a smaller pool to choose from, which will hopefully lead to pay increases but you are clearly not looking at potential knock-on effects that this will lead to.

I think what Fen clearly shows is the dysfunctional thinking at the very heart of Brexit.

Fen basically as per many of the so called 'working class' want is to lift the drawbridge and become a very protectionist state to safeguard what they perceive as their very own narrow interests.

Contrast this with 'Global Britain' - free trade deals (i.e. no protections) and true competition.

Clearly the two distinct trains of thought are incompatible yet the UK is too small a market to be an island unto itself (hence why Thatcher joined/created the SM - a far larger like minded market or pond where we could still be a big fish but with external protections).    

Oh well. I think the economic jury has already returned its verdict on Brexit. Relegated.

Edited August 30, 2021 by Yellow Fever

[dj11 377]

Keeps on giving. From the leader of the Brexit party. 
 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

59 minutes ago, dj11 said:

Keeps on giving. From the leader of the Brexit party. 
 

Somebody should ask OED to allow the word Mummery in.

[Yellow Fever 3,749]

1 hour ago, dj11 said:

Keeps on giving. From the leader of the Brexit party. 
 

Yup - hook line and sinker.

[horsefly 4,287]

4 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Somebody should ask OED to allow the word Mummery in.

It is in the dictionary and one of its meanings is (and I kid you not):

"any display or ceremony regarded as pretentious or hypocritical"

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/mummery

 

Also a troupe of Mummers turn up in one of Hardy's novels (I think its Return of the Native, but could be Tess) where they provide a traditional "dumb" (speechless) performance.

Edited August 30, 2021 by horsefly

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Funnily enough I did download a song by the Mummers.