Brexit Referendum Superthread

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Controlling unskilled migration isn't much to ask for on Britain's part and I agree with them asking for it as a result of the referendum. I don't think that other migration out of the EU will be significantly affected. I'm fairly sure that everyone here now will have indefinite leave to remain. So I don't understand the hysterics on immigration. They're making a reasonable and fair request to give quotas per sector in unskilled labour so as to improve the pressures that have existed because of oversupply.

I'm not hoping any other country leaves the EU or the EEA. I'm hoping Britain gets a deal that works for it.

As for Euro clearing - I've dealt with that before and cited an article from the FT that gives reasons for that being unlikely.

In fact if there are losses it will probably benefit New York and not the EU.

I think Britain will pay a price now, but it could benefit in the long term.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

K-9

But nobody is stopping controlled skilled immigration to Britain. If that is what Britain wants, the EU will agree.

The question then becomes about what restrictions to common market access Britain will accept in return.

Fratton Fred

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No, it's the parliaments. The same thing happened with CETA.

Oh, OK. It's just that the Lisbon treaty clearly states the European council. http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

ancapailldorcha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Oh, OK. It's just that the Lisbon treaty clearly states the European council. http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

No, it doesn't. It says that the arrangements for leaving are down to the departing state and the European Council. Trade deals are a different matter entirely and require unanimous approval as we've just seen with CETA.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Controlling unskilled migration isn't much to ask for on Britain's part and I agree with them asking for it as a result of the referendum. I don't think that other migration out of the EU will be significantly affected. I'm fairly sure that everyone here now will have indefinite leave to remain. So I don't understand the hysterics on immigration. They're making a reasonable and fair request to give quotas per sector in unskilled labour so as to improve the pressures that have existed because of oversupply.

Please explain these so-called pressures in detail with sources. The four freedoms are a package deal. You can't cherrypick. The trade deals the EU has with external nations are very limited in scope and do not include free movement. They would not suit the UK.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think Britain will pay a price now, but it could benefit in the long term.

Again, please elaborate with sources. You seem to think ambassadors are queuing up to sign trade deals but they aren't. Theresa May went to India recently. Narendra Modi is keen to make it easier for more Indians to work in the UK but she isn't. This is the essence of deals, both sides must compromise.

Nate--IRL--

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Again - forgive me but why would European countries choose to deny themselves access to the British market?

This simplistic bull**** like this is the crux of the matter - nobody is denied access to anything in this regard - simply the terms will be much less favourable than they currently are.

If both sides could just stop peddling bull**** as fact please.....

Nate

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

Controlling unskilled migration isn't much to ask for on Britain's part

No-one is saying they can't ask.

I think they should ask for the Moon while they are at it.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Controlling unskilled migration isn't much to ask for on Britain's part and I agree with them asking for it as a result of the referendum . . .

That's not how this works, Solo.

Britaind doesn't have to ask to control unskilled migration. They are leaving the EU and they can control both skilled and unskilled migration as much as they like without asking anybody.

What they have to ask for is any kind of preferential access to EU markets for UK goods, services and (if they care about this) workers.

And here's the thing. Most the EU members are really, really proud of what they have acheived with the single market. It took forty years to put together (and it's still not quite together) and they think it's a wonderful achievement, a thing of beauty. And if the UK wanted to remain in, they'd be welcomed with open arms, and the years of carping petulance would never be mentioned.

What EU member's don't want is to see the single market unpicked, pulled apart, by states who want this and that and a few of those please, but none of the other. So if the UK's position is, we don't want free movement; we want to control unskilled migration. Oh, and we don't want to be bound by EU regulatory requirements or the European court's rulings about them. And we want to exit the customs union so we can make our own trade deals with third countries. But otherwise can it be business as usual, more or less? That's a huge thing to ask; it's exactly what the EU doesn't want to happen, and for good reason. Any any UK leader who goes into the negotations unwilling or unable to recognise this is doing the UK a huge disservice.

130Kph

@solo; in relation to the Bloomberg link the euro-clearing business is a special case as the clearing location could be decided by EU legislation and therefore would be moved to the EU which would be the bulk of the 100,000 clearing-related jobs in the U.K. which Rolet estimated could be lost post-Brexit.

There may be a possibility that some or a lot of the jobs across all other financial services could move to New York.

How is that not an economic disaster for London. The jewel in the crown of the UK’s economy would be almost disembowelled. Also, 300,000 taxpayers paid £46 billion last year (27% of income tax).

This may just be a communication problem here. When I say the above and you say “I think Britain will pay a price now” – we probably both mean approximately the same thing.

solodeogloria

130Kph wrote: »

@solo; in relation to the Bloomberg link the euro-clearing business is a special case as the clearing location could be decided by EU legislation and therefore would be moved to the EU which would be the bulk of the 100,000 clearing-related jobs in the U.K. which Rolet estimated could be lost post-Brexit.

There may be a possibility that some or a lot of the jobs across all other financial services could move to New York.

How is that not an economic disaster for London. The jewel in the crown of the UK’s economy would be almost disembowelled. Also, 300,000 taxpayers paid £46 billion last year (27% of income tax).

This may just be a communication problem here. When I say the above and you say “I think Britain will pay a price now” – we probably both mean approximately the same thing.

Good morning!

Presumably that would mean moving Euro-clearing outside of New York also? (The Financial Times article I quoted last month argued that that would be unlikely. I'll link you to the post.)

Therefore removing European trade from the top two world trade centres in the world. It would also be a concession that the European Union doesn't want the Euro to be considered as a reserve currency. For example, dollar and yen clearing happen in London for that reason.

Forgive me, but how would doing that improve the EU and the Eurozone's access to global financial markets?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Fratton Fred

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No, it doesn't. It says that the arrangements for leaving are down to the departing state and the European Council. Trade deals are a different matter entirely and require unanimous approval as we've just seen with CETA.

any extension only has to be agreed by the council.

ambro25

130Kph wrote: »

@solo;<...>

This may just be a communication problem here. When I say the above and you say “I think Britain will pay a price now” – we probably both mean approximately the same thing.

I'm afraid to think that it's more of a cognitive problem, tbh.

Namely, an inability -innate or curated- by Leave debaters to comprehend how much this exit is going to end up costing the UK as a nation, short- to medium-term (I'll readily concede that the UK, as a highly-developed economy, is equally highly-likely to eventually sort itself out long-term).

Just so long as they could understand that cost (and I don't just mean £s here: social, cultural, professional, infrastructural, <etc.> ) , and then decide to proceed regardless demonstrably in full cognisance and acceptance of it, then fine, that would be their decision.

The really irking issue is that many of us know full well, that they'll most likely turn into the loudest complainants and scapegoaters, rather than assume the consequences of their opinion and real-life choice, when enough of the proverbial stuff starts getting spread and hitting home.

Zubeneschamali

ambro25 wrote: »

The really irking issue is that many of us know full well, that they'll most likely turn into the loudest complainants and scapegoaters

I think they have already signalled what the message will be:

No-one will ever know whether the UK is worse off or better off outside the EU. There are too many variables. It'll take decades to measure the real impact. It is for future historians to decide. We must look forward, not back, make the best of it.Britannia, sovereignty, bulldog spirit, Winston Churchill.
They will repeat this every time something bad predicted before the Referendum by the Remain side happens.

130Kph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Presumably that would mean moving Euro-clearing outside of New York also? (The Financial Times article I quoted last month argued that that would be unlikely. I'll link you to the post.)

I’ll just repost 2 comments from below that article, which explains my response to this.

1 wrote:

The problem with this piece is it argues why it may not happen. And then concedes the whole argument with "they may pass a law and business will move".

2 wrote:

Lets hold the champagne here. No-one in the EU is suggesting that the the ECB is suddenly going to attempt to block Hong Kong or Britain (if it is totally out) from acting as a counterpart in a swap. That is just ridiculous. No Hong Kong bank is a regulated entity for the purposes of any EU banking operations unless it operates completely in accordance with EU regulations within the jurisdiction. The magic that UK EU membership worked was to use the UK's unique powerful pre-referendum position to create and keep regulatory opt-outs that improved City competitiveness while allowing it to dance freely with light touch regulation across a risk averse and far more regulated Europe.

Hollande was not talking about clearing "euro-denominated derivatives" he was talking about Euro "clearing operations." The pan-European payment systems.

The big win Britain had against the ECB last year against the location policy was based solely on our EU membership and our constitutional reliance on EU "freedom of movement of capital and services" particularly the right to establish cross border business across a multi currency EU.

I am sure Mr Stafford did not mean to mislead but his "may not happen" is based on continued ECB regulatory oversight and a negotiated settlement to stay within the EU for nearly all purposes.

Now it may be that 27 nations will agree in two years to give the UK a sweetheart deal, anyone can win the lottery after all, but clearly the best financial, commercial, industrial, political and regulatory outcome for the Eurozone now is, UK out.

demfad

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Controlling unskilled migration isn't much to ask for on Britain's part and I agree with them asking for it as a result of the referendum. I don't think that other migration out of the EU will be significantly affected. I'm fairly sure that everyone here now will have indefinite leave to remain. So I don't understand the hysterics on immigration. They're making a reasonable and fair request to give quotas per sector in unskilled labour so as to improve the pressures that have existed because of oversupply.

I'm not hoping any other country leaves the EU or the EEA. I'm hoping Britain gets a deal that works for it.

As for Euro clearing - I've dealt with that before and cited an article from the FT that gives reasons for that being unlikely.

In fact if there are losses it will probably benefit New York and not the EU.

I think Britain will pay a price now, but it could benefit in the long term.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Britian will not negotiate on immigration according to David Davis and don't want to be under the ECJ.

They will be under WTO rules with no Mutual Recognition Agreement and their economy will collapse unless they take a transition deal with full free movement and fair 'punishment'.

ancapailldorcha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

any extension only has to be agreed by the council.

Fair enough but the council is composed of representatives of the 27 EU nations. They'll be looking out for their own nations interests.

K-9

130Kph wrote: »

I’ll just repost 2 comments from below that article, which explains my response to this.

Indeed, Britain is free to pursue its best interests but EU will be looking to exploit the Uk leaving, naturally enough. A nationalist from Britain cannot really complain much when other countries want the best deal for them.

Anyway the question to ask about the above case is: is the UK being unreasonable in this case and EU/Euro countries unreasonable?

I don't think anybody can objectively answer yes there. The EU will naturally want to keep that business within the EU, why would it give an outside country access like that?

solodeogloria

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed, Britain is free to pursue its best interests but EU will be looking to exploit the Uk leaving, naturally enough. A nationalist from Britain cannot really complain much when other countries want the best deal for them.

Anyway the question to ask about the above case is: is the UK being unreasonable in this case and EU/Euro countries unreasonable?

I don't think anybody can objectively answer yes there. The EU will naturally want to keep that business within the EU, why would it give an outside country access like that?

Good afternoon!

I think what the UK is proposing is reasonable, yes.

I agree that the other countries will be looking what is best for them. However, what is actually best for them if they are being pragmatic would be a generous third country trade deal with the UK to give good access for goods into Britain, which is a net consumer from the European Union. It's share of exports with the EU has been decreasing in recent years.

Now as for what will actually happen, we don't know. If the EU chooses to put principles above pragmatic logic, we could see a bad Brexit, but that's neither in the interests of the EU member states or Britain. It's definitely not in the interests of Ireland.

I'm not particularly afraid. Britain will continue being a successful country even if it takes a hit in the short to medium term. That's why I've staked my personal future here. However, the voters concerns from June 23rd must be addressed, including unskilled immigration. The people asked for change in this referendum and things must actually change in the UK as a result of this vote.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Fratton Fred

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Fair enough but the council is composed of representatives of the 27 EU nations. They'll be looking out for their own nations interests.

and in whose best interest would a rushed hard Brexit be?

FreudianSlippers

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Not the parliaments, just the council.

Ireland would require a referendum on any treaty change potentially that significant. I don't think it could be argued that such a treaty change didn't "substantially alter the character of the Union".

Fratton Fred

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ireland would require a referendum on any treaty change potentially that significant. I don't think it could be argued that such a treaty change didn't "substantially alter the character of the Union".

like the referendum on CETA?

FreudianSlippers

solodeogloria wrote: »

Controlling unskilled migration isn't much to ask for on Britain's part and I agree with them asking for it as a result of the referendum. I don't think that other migration out of the EU will be significantly affected. I'm fairly sure that everyone here now will have indefinite leave to remain. So I don't understand the hysterics on immigration. They're making a reasonable and fair request to give quotas per sector in unskilled labour so as to improve the pressures that have existed because of oversupply.

Except that makes no sense logically. The UK does not have a problem migration from within the EU, their problem is fundamentally from outside the EU.


University of Oxford Migration Observatory published a report about a month or two ago and found that:

1) There are 3.5m EU citizens (non-UK) living in the UK;
2) 2.2m of those (63%) are employed in the UK labour market;
3) 27% are residing in the UK for approved full-time and formal study (pursuant to the UK's own immigration rules).

That means that only 10% (350,000) of the citizens residing in the UK are not there for a valid reason (i.e. pursuant to the free movement rules). I would argue that's a significantly lower figure than is normally presented as being the case in the UK.


4) EU inflow represented 49% of the total non-British inflow in 2015;
5) Of that 49%, half were from accession countries joining the EU post-2004;
6) In 2004, 85% of employed EU-born were from the EU14;
7) Since 2011, this has reduced to 44% with the number of employed accession-born surpassing the number of EU14-born.

If you therefore extrapolate this information out, it means that only 6.6% of the EU migrants residing in the UK who are not there for a valid purpose are from accession countries.


Therefore, approximately 3.5m are non-EU nationals, of which 1.2m were employed; the Home Office has found it extremely difficult to ascertain the number of non-European students adding to the permanent population, but estimate between 60k-100k have remained despite an expired visa.

So what that means is that approximately 1.3m of 3.5m non-EU nationals residing in the UK are there lawfully - that is a striking 2.2m non-EU nationals unlawfully residing in the UK without work, 63%.


Ironically, that is the same percentage of EU nationals employed in the UK.

So, the UK has 10% EU nationals unlawfully residing in the UK of which 6.6% are from accession countries; versus 63% of non-EU nationals residing unlawfully in the UK.

But sure, the EU and accession countries are totally to blame, right!?

I'm not hoping any other country leaves the EU or the EEA. I'm hoping Britain gets a deal that works for it.

You're hoping that they get a deal that other countries don't have.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

I think you've missed the word unskilled.

I don't think the UK has a problem with skilled immigration from anywhere else at all. Full stop. Skilled migration adds a lot to the UK economy. Most people when polled by the Guardian seemed to suggest that they had no interest in reducing skilled migration into the country. It isn't about absolute numbers. It's about what kind of immigration is beneficial.

Unskilled immigration is good provided that it is controlled to ensure that the right amount of labour is coming in to the correct sectors to ensure that it doesn't have a negative impact on the domestic labour market.

I don't know why you think I expect that the UK will get a better deal than other EEA members. It may well be a less beneficial trade deal that allows for key UK services and goods to enter the single market, with light controls on unskilled labour established (I think free movement should apply to skilled labour). We'll have to see what happens during the negotiation. A third country deal bespoke for Britain could also work (like CETA was bespoke for Canada's needs).

You should read my posts before replying.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

FreudianSlippers

Fratton Fred wrote: »

like the referendum on CETA?

How does CETA in any way change the character of the Union?

K-9

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I think what the UK is proposing is reasonable, yes.

I agree that the other countries will be looking what is best for them. However, what is actually best for them if they are being pragmatic would be a generous third country trade deal with the UK to give good access for goods into Britain, which is a net consumer from the European Union. It's share of exports with the EU has been decreasing in recent years.

Now as for what will actually happen, we don't know. If the EU chooses to put principles above pragmatic logic, we could see a bad Brexit, but that's neither in the interests of the EU member states or Britain. It's definitely not in the interests of Ireland.

I'm not particularly afraid. Britain will continue being a successful country even if it takes a hit in the short to medium term. That's why I've staked my personal future here. However, the voters concerns from June 23rd must be addressed, including unskilled immigration. The people asked for change in this referendum and things must actually change in the UK as a result of this vote.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So you think the EU wanting to take away Euro clearing systems from a non EU country is unreasonable?

K-9

Fratton Fred wrote: »

like the referendum on CETA?

Depends on the extent of the changes. But seeing as we are on CETA, that wasn't a simple process getting it passed either!

demfad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and in whose best interest would a rushed hard Brexit be?

That depends on if there is revocability or not of article 50.
If there is a rushed hard Brexit would mean that the UK would have to revoke article 50 to save their economy. The Tories would take a huge hit but not as big a hit as if the didnt revoke it.

FreudianSlippers

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

That's getting pretty old

I think you've missed the word unskilled.

No, I didn't miss it... I think you don't understand that the UK has an immigration problem, not a migration problem.

Unskilled employees still contribute to the nation; if you think that getting rid of them means that your average dole recipient will go take that job, then you're delusional. It's the same problem that we have in Ireland... there are only certain people that will take these jobs.

I don't think the UK has a problem with skilled immigration from anywhere else at all. Full stop. Skilled migration adds a lot to the UK economy. Most people when polled by the Guardian seemed to suggest that they had no interest in reducing skilled migration into the country. It isn't about absolute numbers. It's about what kind of immigration is beneficial.

It's clear from the numbers the EU migration is beneficial to the economy; it's immigration from outside the EU which is causing a strain on the economy vis-a-vis the NHS and social welfare (not to mention crime etc.).

Unskilled immigration is good provided that it is controlled to ensure that the right amount of labour is coming in to the correct sectors to ensure that it doesn't have a negative impact on the domestic labour market.

Unfortunately that's not the way the EU works or will ever work... so enjoy being out of it!

You should read my posts before replying.

I have had the misfortune of reading many of them at this stage.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

:rolleyes:

solodeogloria

K-9 wrote: »

So you think the EU wanting to take away Euro clearing systems from a non EU country is unreasonable?

Good afternoon!

I'm of the mind that it won't happen. It means withdrawing from trading activity in the worlds two biggest financial centres. That would hurt the EU significantly. Not just Britain. It would also mean pulling out of New York.

Mark Carney was very clear in warning other European member states about a bad Brexit deal for the City a few weeks ago. It's very bad for the European Union not just for Britain. For the third time on this thread. Here you go.

It's too early for making idle threats. Particularly when they come from a president that's going to lose his job in France in January. What we need is sober judgement rather than a hyperventilated rush to fear. Britain are looking for a good deal, and to co-operate with the EU in a new more appropriate relationship. If the EU are pragmatic rather than politically idealistic they will do the same and a good deal will be struck.

There's really no need at all for vain and idle fear at this point. Calm, reasoned consideration is what we need from our politicians. I'm hopeful Theresa May will take the UK out of the European Union and deliver on her aims. Perhaps with some compromise, but nonetheless ensure that Britain remains a progressive established country in Europe but not in the European Union.

There are issues that have been festering in Britain arguably since John Major and Maastricht that need to be settled once and for all. Let's do this and move on. That's my view on it. Doing a half-Brexit will just continue the festering, and that's what the doomsayers are looking for. Perhaps Charles de Gaulle was right about stopping Britain joining the EEC after all.

EDIT:

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Unfortunately that's not the way the EU works or will ever work... so enjoy being out of it!

We're not discussing Britain rejoining the European Union. Britain voted out. Although I voted remain, I now think that May should crack on with it and get the UK out of the European Union so that Britain can adjust to this new reality. I'm supportive of the best Brexit deal possible, but it must include controls on unskilled labour.

Also, I'm not discussing kicking anyone who is already here out of the country. Rather, I'm discussing about new controls that hopefully will be established on unskilled labour in the UK. (There is no visa for unskilled labour for non-EU countries, so this is an EU migration only issue).

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

FreudianSlippers

demfad wrote: »

That depends on if there is revocability or not of article 50.
If there is a rushed hard Brexit would mean that the UK would have to revoke article 50 to save their economy. The Tories would take a huge hit but not as big a hit as if the didnt revoke it.

The legal opinion is split in the UK and has been very quiet in the rest of Europe. The general thought is leaning towards the idea that it may not be revoked, but there is a not insignificant minority that believes that it may be revoked but only before (and I would suggest this is obvious) it takes effect.

Edit: sorry, I should say that the European Parliament has actually said that revocation is either impossible or legally doubtful; that the withdrawal itself is triggered by the notification and not the agreement - so the 2 year timer runs regardless of any agreement that may be entered into.