Brexit Referendum Superthread

recedite

recedite wrote: »

Naysayers will be naysayers
She quotes a slowing of "employment growth" while ignoring the main point of the story which is a drop in unemployment.
Why the difference in these two?
Because.....
Or, in other words, people leaving their low-paid jobs and unemployment benefits and having the confidence to set up small businesses.

As discussed yesterday from this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37678065

First Up wrote: »

The nature of "self employment" has changed drastically since 1995 (when the internet was in its infancy). The category now includes many who would previously have been on a company's payroll but who now sell their services, in many cases on a casual or part-time basis (as in Uber etc.).

Attributing all or even any of this to immigration is very superficial analysis.

And of course.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37997713

Meanwhile, the number of people claiming unemployment benefits in October increased by 9,800, the biggest rise since May, the ONS said.
The employment figures are based on the Labour Force Survey, in which the ONS speaks to about 40,000 households once every three months.
That is a very large survey, but it still means the figures are not precise.
The ONS is 95% confident that the figure of a 37,000 fall in unemployment is accurate give or take 79,000. That means that the fall in unemployment is not statistically significant.

recedite

whatstherush wrote: »

Being an uber driver..

Low paid, and only very recently reclassified as employed, not self-employed.
But yes there are lots of sub-contractors on building sites etc. who are classed as self employed when they could also be classed as employees.
In general they represent the flexible side of the economy. As such they would be a good gauge of growth V a slow-down.

K-9

Well I suppose putting the burden of national insurance on "subbies/employees" could be classed as flexibility!

recedite

K-9 wrote: »

Well I suppose putting the burden of national insurance on "subbies/employees" could be classed as flexibility!

There is that. But also they can be hired and fired at will. No notice and no redundancy.
I'm not necessarily saying I'm a fan of the system. Usually they get a slightly higher hourly pay rate than employees, to compensate.
If the guy has a free choice about which he wants to be, its fair enough. I'm all in favour of freedom and choice.

Thomas_...

Interesting PMQ in which Mrs May appears to be weak and has no other answers to many issues she's been confronted with than she said before. Corbyn on the other hand appears to perform better.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38004165

It is clear enough that the govt has no plan and by all the laughter on the govt benches, they simply cannot admit it. The Thing that takes the bloody biscuit is the matter about a Peerage for Nigel Farage on which the PM said that such matters are "not talked about in public". Looks as if she likes to give Farage the prize for his efforts to campaign for the Brexit. At least, one might think that something is cooking behind closed doors.

K-9

Well you get less for a self employed insurance contribution here so it could be a false economy down the line, but most people are just seeing their next pay cheque. The employer just sees the saving and nothing else really. It's very short term thinking is my point really.

If the choice is "if you don't do it, the next guy will", not much freedom in that.

I suppose it's similar to employing the immigrant just because they are cheaper, or paying somebody cash on the side, they aren't consequence free decisions. If we all decide to cut corners we all suffer.

KingBrian2

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not that new. It was founded in 1957 as an expansion of the European Coal and Steel Community (founded in 1951); we didn't join until 1973.

Yes I know the history of the EU, what I am getting at is the present EU was made after the various treaties were compiled and agreed upon by the member states. The ECSC became the EEC shortened to EC before becoming the EU and with each change Europe became slightly different. Today's Union exists in a post cold war era. Hardly the same yet not 100% different to what it was like in the 1950's or 1980's. The original purpose was socio-political and economic cooperation between the Nations of Europe. Today we just have to add in the competing at an international level and greater security roles a lot more than in the 50's. These new member states are fully part of the EU and that is why I am saying they need to contribute be it financially or in some other way.

dinorebel

Thomas_... wrote: »

Interesting PMQ in which Mrs May appears to be weak and has no other answers to many issues she's been confronted with than she said before. Corbyn on the other hand appears to perform better.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38004165

It is clear enough that the govt has no plan and by all the laughter on the govt benches, they simply cannot admit it. The Thing that takes the bloody biscuit is the matter about a Peerage for Nigel Farage on which the PM said that such matters are "not talked about in public". Looks as if she likes to give Farage the prize for his efforts to campaign for the Brexit. At least, one might think that something is cooking behind closed doors.

No it means they don't talk about it May will become President of Europe before Farage gets a Peerage.

recedite

K-9 wrote: »

If the choice is "if you don't do it, the next guy will", not much freedom in that.
I suppose it's similar to employing the immigrant just because they are cheaper.

Its not that simple. I worked as a subby myself in London for a while. Initially I had no choice, but after a while I was offered a choice to switch to employee status. I chose not to, because I wasn't intending to stay long term, so "the benefits" of being an employee were less beneficial than the higher pay rate.
Also, as an immigrant, I was getting the exact same pay as the next guy. Arguably, I was helping to drive down pay rates overall though. But no more than anyone else entering the workforce ie a newly trained native.

The problem with illegal immigrants is different, they can be forced to work for lower pay, as cash under the table. Thereby undermining legitimate tax paying workers.

K-9

If it's a legitimate choice like yours, great, just choose what suits, problem is it often isn't and is just more race to the bottom stuff.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Yes I know the history of the EU, what I am getting at is the present EU was made after the various treaties were compiled and agreed upon by the member states. The ECSC became the EEC shortened to EC before becoming the EU and with each change Europe became slightly different. Today's Union exists in a post cold war era. Hardly the same yet not 100% different to what it was like in the 1950's or 1980's. The original purpose was socio-political and economic cooperation between the Nations of Europe. Today we just have to add in the competing at an international level and greater security roles a lot more than in the 50's. These new member states are fully part of the EU and that is why I am saying they need to contribute be it financially or in some other way.

That's a lot of ways of avoiding the core issue of member contributions vs benefits. The Cohesion Fund and ESF Grants date from 1988 - Ireland took many years beyond this date to become a net contributor - nothing to do with security roles, nothing to do with the cold war, but entirely to do with the consistent member benefits and responsibilities that are no different for the most recent accession States than they were for ourselves, or Portugal, or whoever.

oscarBravo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Yes I know the history of the EU, what I am getting at is the present EU was made after the various treaties were compiled and agreed upon by the member states.

Nope. The present EU was made by the treaties compiled and agreed upon by the member states.

KingBrian2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nope. The present EU was made by the treaties compiled and agreed upon by the member states.

Not sure what your getting at. That's what I said.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

That's a lot of ways of avoiding the core issue of member contributions vs benefits. The Cohesion Fund and ESF Grants date from 1988 - Ireland took many years beyond this date to become a net contributor - nothing to do with security roles, nothing to do with the cold war, but entirely to do with the consistent member benefits and responsibilities that are no different for the most recent accession States than they were for ourselves, or Portugal, or whoever.

The Lisbon treaty, the Fiscal Compact treaty and the Single European Act changed the EU and those states that joined are very much apart of the present Union. Time for them to put their cards on the desk and show their commitment to the EU or else do they want Germany to be running the show for the foreseeable future.

ancapailldorcha

Bit cynical wrote: »

You say there was little appetite for it, but when the referendum was held, there was a very high turnout of 72.2 per cent. The greatest turnout in any referendum in Ireland was the one to join the EU. In that 70.88% turned out - somewhat less than the UK brexit one. The marriage equality referendum turnout, also considered high by Irish referendum standards, was only 60.52%.

This was after a year of debate on it though. I'm talking about the period leading up to last year's election.

oscarBravo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Not sure what your getting at. That's what I said.

No; you said after. I understood you to mean that the Union had changed since the Treaties were agreed and ratified.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Lisbon treaty, the Fiscal Compact treaty and the Single European Act changed the EU and those states that joined are very much apart of the present Union. Time for them to put their cards on the desk and show their commitment to the EU or else do they want Germany to be running the show for the foreseeable future.

You seem to be operating on the assumption that being a net recipient of EU funds shows a lack of commitment to the Union. Do you feel that Ireland was less than fully committed to the EU before we became a net contributor? Do you feel that the UK, as a net contributor, is more committed than we are?

Bit cynical

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This was after a year of debate on it though. I'm talking about the period leading up to last year's election.

I would say, though, that it is unlikely that such a high turnout would have been achieved if the issue was not highly significant for a longer time than that even if the political establishment has only caught on relatively recently.

ancapailldorcha

Bit cynical wrote: »

I would say, though, that it is unlikely that such a high turnout would have been achieved if the issue was not highly significant for a longer time than that even if the political establishment has only caught on relatively recently.

I'm inclined to believe that an anti-establishment mood fuelled much of the turnout and was an important card which Farage played often. He did achieve over 4 million votes in 2015 so it was a strong one.

KindOfIrish

recedite wrote: »

UK unemployment hits a record low.
The good news just keeps on flowing since the Brexit vote.
Exports boost, narrowing budget deficit, steady low inflation, low unemployment.... its like some sort of economic dream team.

How much more of this good news can the naysayers take?

It shows that UK has been doing very well as the EU member and it will be full EU member for at list another 2.5 years.

ancapailldorcha

recedite wrote: »

UK unemployment hits a record low.
The good news just keeps on flowing since the Brexit vote.
Exports boost, narrowing budget deficit, steady low inflation, low unemployment.... its like some sort of economic dream team.

How much more of this good news can the naysayers take?

You still haven't provided any specifics on these exports. You just keep saying "Exports boost".

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm inclined to believe that an anti-establishment mood fuelled much of the turnout and was an important card which Farage played often. He did achieve over 4 million votes in 2015 so it was a strong one.

Good evening!

Dismissing the result as "populism" is just a way of dismissing genuine concerns that voters had in the referendum.

Look, I really get it. Our side didn't win.

There's two ways of dealing with that:
The first is to bemoan the result and to claim that those who voted another way are idiots etc.

The other way is to accept that we lost the referendum and now is the time to address the concerns that were raised in the referendum and to make the best of it. Instead of prophesying the apocalypse with all four horsemen with bells on top, it might be better to see how Brexit can work to address some concerns that people had.

As recedite has said. The fundamentals of the UK economy are strong. There will be a cost to Brexit but it is absurd to say it will tank the UK's economy in a way that won't hurt other member states if the EU play hard ball.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

KingBrian2

oscarBravo wrote: »

No; you said after. I understood you to mean that the Union had changed since the Treaties were agreed and ratified.

You seem to be operating on the assumption that being a net recipient of EU funds shows a lack of commitment to the Union. Do you feel that Ireland was less than fully committed to the EU before we became a net contributor? Do you feel that the UK, as a net contributor, is more committed than we are?

Their are other ways to contribute to the EU without being a net contributor. When Britain was attacking the € which the other eastern states did not bother to enter or when some countries choice to align themselves with superpowers that damaged the cohesion of the EU this shows that commitment to the EU was fraying along the edges. We are all mature democracies in this union but when it comes to fighting against common threats I would expect the various EU states to put aside their differences and unite for European Unity.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Dismissing the result as "populism" is just a way of dismissing genuine concerns that voters had in the referendum.

I didn't dismiss the result. I'm dismissing the reasons that were given for why the referendum was called.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Look, I really get it. Our side didn't win.

You voted leave. You said so earlier. You're now lying.

solodeogloria wrote: »

There's two ways of dealing with that:
The first is to bemoan the result and to claim that those who voted another way are idiots etc.

I haven't bemoaned anyone.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The other way is to accept that we lost the referendum and now is the time to address the concerns that were raised in the referendum and to make the best of it. Instead of prophesying the apocalypse with all four horsemen with bells on top, it might be better to see how Brexit can work to address some concerns that people had.

I have accepted the result. Your talk about prophesying the apocalypse is a very weak strawman. I simply want to know what the government is aiming for. The recent leak suggests that they haven't a clue.

solodeogloria wrote: »

As recedite has said. The fundamentals of the UK economy are strong. There will be a cost to Brexit but it is absurd to say it will tank the UK's economy in a way that won't hurt other member states if the EU play hard ball.

He's just presented a load of vague soundbites such as a weak pound boosting exports. No specifics or source have been provided.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

I didn't say I voted for Brexit in that post. I was talking about Farage.

I voted to remain. Reluctantly because of Irish interests, continued single market access and a hope that the UK would stay and continue to argue for reform that would lead to a looser union rather than a tighter one. I lost.

If I was asked to vote again I would vote to leave and I will be voting for political parties who will implement it in future elections.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

recedite

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

He's just presented a load of vague soundbites such as a weak pound boosting exports. No specifics or source have been provided.

I linked to sources showing low unemployment, low inflation, narrowing deficit balance of payments.

Would you not agree that a weak pound and a narrowing budgetary deficit illustrate a cause and effect for the boost in exports?

If you want to pick holes in what I was saying, I suggest that KindofIrish is on the right track. UK is still in the EU, and for the moment it is "having its cake and eating it".

ancapailldorcha

recedite wrote: »

I linked to sources showing low unemployment, low inflation, narrowing deficit balance of payments.

Would you not agree that a weak pound and a narrowing budgetary deficit illustrate a cause and effect for the boost in exports?

If you want to pick holes in what I was saying, I suggest that KindofIrish is on the right track. UK is still in the EU, and for the moment it is "having its cake and eating it".

But the trade deficit is getting worse and exports have dropped:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/09/uk-trade-deficit-widens-september-exports-fall-pound-drop

The UK has had a low unemployment rate for a long time. You can't attribute that to the leave vote.

recedite

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/09/uk-trade-deficit-widens-september-exports-fall-pound-drop

The Guardian has its own agenda, which is why it headlines a widening of the trade deficit in September.
But when you drill down into the article a bit more, you get....

Britain’s trade position looked better in the third quarter overall, with the trade in goods deficit narrowing by £1.5bn compared with the second quarter, to £33.bn. Growth in exports of £4.5bn or 6.1% outpaced growth in imports of £3.1bn or 2.8%.



....The broader goods and services deficit also narrowed over the third quarter, by £1.6bn to £11bn.

It can take a while for changes in the exchange rate to feed through to actual exports. Especially with Forex hedging and the like being commonplace.

In other words, the facts listed in the article do not match its narrative very well.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

But the trade deficit is getting worse and exports have dropped:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/09/uk-trade-deficit-widens-september-exports-fall-pound-drop

The UK has had a low unemployment rate for a long time. You can't attribute that to the leave vote.

Good evening!

I don't think he's saying that.

The point is that Britain hasn't fallen apart. People are still in work. The fundamentals are still strong. The value of sterling is helping in many cases.

That means at the very least that Brexit has had an immaterial impact on employment to date. The apocalypse hasn't happened. It probably won't happen at all. There will be a price but the discussions haven't begun.

Therefore claiming that the sky is going to fall in is premature.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Therefore claiming that the sky is going to fall in is premature.

This is just you wheeling out your condescending strawman yet again. I know the country isn't in mortal peril. All I have said is that I would like to know what sort of immediate future the government is going to aim for. That's it.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is just you wheeling out your condescending strawman yet again. I know the country isn't in mortal peril. All I have said is that I would like to know what sort of immediate future the government is going to aim for. That's it.

Good evening!

It's not intended as condescension. Some responses have pretty much said that the British economy is going to tank itself or wishing that it would happen. I think as Irish people we should want the very best outcome for our British friends in this negotiation.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria