Will Britain ever just piss off and get on with Brexit? -mod warning in OP (21/12)

davedanon

davedanon wrote: »

Not sure, but I'm pretty sure they consciously decided to try and attract people in, more so than other countries.

no, they attracted large amounts of Polish people because there are jobs in the UK.

SantaCruz wrote: »

The same free movement that allows millions of British pensioners retire in Spain and Portugal?

Or the *perception* of free movement shovelled down their throats for a generation by a despicable (foreign-owned) right-wing press?

yes, the same movement of people. What is your point?

VinLieger wrote: »

Your talking about the immigration controls afforded them by the EU they refused to make use of under succesive governments?

post May 2011, there are effectively no immigration controls/

fly_agaric wrote: »

The other very large & wealthy EU countries (Germany, France) had transition periods of 7 years (so the accession states would have had full freedom of movement only since about 2011*, but of course Poland etc. were a lot wealthier by then than when they joined the EU in 2004).

*(Going by numbers on this wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_for_workers_in_the_European_Union)

I think only UK, Ireland and Sweden had the "open door" full EU freedom of movement from day 1 so they had a large surge of immigration of young people who wanted "out" right away (and the rest is history for the UK).

and a lot of those went home as well.

If I am not mistaken, up until the Brexit vote, net immigration from the eu has steadily increased. The fact that those three countries opted to allow free movement of people from day one most likely had little impact in the longer term.

it is an irrelevant discussion though. Since 2011, there have been no restrictions on immigration from the eu and there was nothing the government could do about it.

fly_agaric

Aegir wrote: »

If I am not mistaken, up until the Brexit vote, net immigration from the eu has steadily increased.

After you posted I googled the figures. It looks like it was plateauing at a very high level coming up the EU referendum, and obviously decreased alot after the referendum.

see Figure 3
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/november2019

I'm surprised the UK did not manage to reduce net inward migration according to that source, just kept it on an even keel with "Rest of the World" compensating for the EU immigration reduction.

joseywhales

SantaCruz wrote: »

Why? What does the Vatican have to do with the EU?

The Vatican has been influencing European governments and monarchs for thousands of years, the holy Roman empire was most of central Europe. They obviously don't have that influence now but if you were a true Roman Catholic you would absolutely be pro-europe. A strong federalized Europe with Catholicism as the official religion and right wing value, is like a Vatican wet dream. We are past that as a possibility of course.

fly_agaric

fly_agaric wrote: »

After you posted I googled the figures. It looks like it was plateauing at a very high level coming up the EU referendum, and obviously decreased alot after the referendum.

see Figure 3
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/november2019

I'm surprised the UK did not manage to reduce net inward migration according to that source, just kept it on an even keel with "Rest of the World" compensating for the EU immigration reduction.

it is worth remembering as well, that those figures are net migration, so although it has reduced, there are still more people coming to the UK than leaving.

theological

fly_agaric wrote: »

The other very large & wealthy EU countries (Germany, France) had transition periods of 7 years (so the accession states would have had full freedom of movement only since about 2011*, but of course Poland etc. were a lot wealthier than when they joined the EU in 2004 by then).

*(Going by numbers on this wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_for_workers_in_the_European_Union)

I think only UK, Ireland and Sweden had the "open door" full EU freedom of movement from day 1 so they had a large surge of immigration of young people who wanted "out" right away (and the rest is history for the UK).

Yes you're right the UK government at the time took too much too soon.

Freedom of movement in this regard is only really beneficial to recipient countries actually. Immigration isn't my top reason for wanting Brexit to be done with. Immigration only has a small impact on wage growth according to any study I see on it.

However freedom of movement isn't good for countries like Hungary and Poland. It's really nice that Western European countries can find medical professionals but part of me thinks isn't it doing their home countries a disservice. There's a serious brain drain particularly in some of the Baltic states because of this freedom. Or is it a case of every benefit had a drawback for someone and we have to pick the least worst option.

Having been in Krakow (an amazing city) recently enough it seems to be that the gap that many Poles have left is now being filled by Ukrainians and so the cycle continues.

theological

theological wrote: »

Yes you're right the UK government at the time took too much too soon.

Freedom of movement in this regard is only really beneficial to recipient countries actually. Immigration isn't my top reason for wanting Brexit to be done with. Immigration only has a small impact on wage growth according to any study I see on it.

However freedom of movement isn't good for countries like Hungary and Poland. It's really nice that Western European countries can find medical professionals but part of me thinks isn't it doing their home countries a disservice. There's a serious brain drain particularly in some of the Baltic states because of this freedom. Or is it a case of every benefit had a drawback for someone and we have to pick the least worst option.

Having been in Krakow (an amazing city) recently enough it seems to be that the gap that many Poles have left is now being filled by Ukrainians and so the cycle continues.

I was talking with a Slovak colleague about the new car plants being built there (per capita, Slovakia is the largest car manufacturer in Europe, if not the world now) and he laughed and said its great, they pay taxes so the government can give Romanians a job building Jaguars.

fly_agaric

theological wrote: »

Freedom of movement in this regard is only really beneficial to recipient countries actually. Immigration isn't my top reason for wanting Brexit to be done with. Immigration only has a small impact on wage growth according to any study I see on it.

However freedom of movement isn't good for countries like Hungary and Poland. It's really nice that Western European countries can find medical professionals but part of me thinks isn't it doing their home countries a disservice. There's a serious brain drain particularly in some of the Baltic states because of this freedom. Or is it a case of every benefit had a drawback for someone and we have to pick the least worst option.

Having been in Krakow (an amazing city) recently enough it seems to be that the gap that many Poles have left is now being filled by Ukrainians and so the cycle continues.

It can be beneficial I think if they manage to improve skills while they are there & then return home at some point?

Yes if the differences are too great between the economies, the downsides are worse & disruption is bigger on both sides. I assume that was why Germany etc. had that transition period.

Whatever about the downsides of freedom of movement for the emigrant countries, it looks like Poland made the right choice joining the EU.

I don't see that there is a way around having such freedom of movement if you want to interlink economies/countries in the way the EU attempts to.

You can't really have free trade, free movement of capital to the extent there is between EU countries (even a single currency in the Eurozone) and then say to the citizens "no, you cannot move to x country in the union". That does not seem right (to me).

fash

Aegir wrote: »

no, they attracted large amounts of Polish people because there are jobs in the UK.

The UK attracted lots of Polish people because the UK state wanted them - and relentlessly pushed the EU to take the 10 accession states in as early as possible and far earlier than any of the other major states wanted and then by deliberately ensuring that they almost alone did not make use of the EU brakes on the freedom of movement- they sucked Eastern Europe dry of its young healthy educated and massively tax and social welfare-positive workforce like the disgusting evil parasites they are.

At all stages migration from the EU could not satiate the UK's insatiable lust and gluttony for working fodder and it had continued to suck the rest of the world dry of its workers to a far greater extent - up to 90% and at all stages the vast majority of its migrants being from outside the EU.

SantaCruz

Aegir wrote: »

yes, the same movement of people. What is your point?

My pioint is that things that are good can be made to look very bad by a determined and unscrupulous press. And vice versa.

What was your point?

Aegir wrote: »

post May 2011, there are effectively no immigration controls/

Incorrect.

SantaCruz

joseywhales wrote: »

The Vatican has been influencing European governments and monarchs for thousands of years, the holy Roman empire was most of central Europe. They obviously don't have that influence now but if you were a true Roman Catholic you would absolutely be pro-europe. A strong federalized Europe with Catholicism as the official religion and right wing value, is like a Vatican wet dream. We are past that as a possibility of course.

I don't think that makes any sense at all to be honest. And the far-right Catholics would say the same.

theological

fly_agaric wrote: »

It can be beneficial I think if they manage to improve skills while they are there & then return home at some point?

Yes if the differences are too great between the economies, the downsides are worse & disruption is bigger on both sides. I assume that was why Germany etc. had that transition period.

Whatever about the downsides of freedom of movement for the emigrant countries, it looks like Poland made the right choice joining the EU.

I don't see that there is a way around having such freedom of movement if you want to interlink economies/countries in the way the EU attempts to.

You can't really have free trade, free movement of capital to the extent there is between EU countries (even a single currency in the Eurozone) and then say to the citizens "no, you cannot move to x country in the union". That does not seem right (to me).

How many actually do return though? I'd be interested to know the stats. You can see how there are two sides to this argument though.

The downsides of not having freedom of movement are worse? Can we quantify that? It depends on which side of the argument you are on. If you have lots of medical professionals in your country from Poland and Latvia that is super. If you struggle to find them in Poland or in Latvia as a result you mightn't see it that way.

Similarly in respect to other sectors. It seems like in Poland about 2 million Ukrainians have moved to Poland in recent years to fill some of these gaps. That's good for Poland. Not so great for Ukraine which could be benefiting from these people.

Perhaps some migration controls are good. This topic in particular is pretty debatable. I'm not the most exercised about it but it is helpful sometimes to think about things from a different angle or from someone else's view.

SantaCruz

theological wrote: »

Freedom of movement in this regard is only really beneficial to recipient countries actually.

I don't think that's accurate. Emigrants send remittances to their home countries, and in the long term often return with skills, ideas, business plans and capital acquired where they had been living.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR244.html

Abstract/summary:

While the effects of immigration on the receiving country have received a great deal of attention, less has been paid to its affects on the sending country. The available data suggest that, on net, emigration has a positive effect on the sending country. For example, by decreasing the labor pool in the sending country, emigration helps to alleviate unemployment and increase the incomes of the remaining workers. Also, emigres often send money home, enhancing their families' standards of living and thereby contributing both to the home economy and the nations' trade balance. Most emigres are young, male, and married, however, so there can be a destabilizing effect on the family. Some countries have attempted to restrict immigration, in the belief that it does not enhance economic development. However, the evidence suggests that, because of the benefits noted above, this might result in an even greater economic decline than such countries fear.

SantaCruz

Aegir wrote: »

I was talking with a Slovak colleague about the new car plants being built there (per capita, Slovakia is the largest car manufacturer in Europe, if not the world now) and he laughed and said its great, they pay taxes so the government can give Romanians a job building Jaguars.

Where do the Romanians' income taxes go?

theological

SantaCruz wrote: »

I don't think that's accurate. Emigrants send remittances to their home countries, and in the long term often return with skills, ideas, business plans and capital acquired where they had been living.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR244.html

Abstract/summary:

Some of these benefits are only good in certain circumstances. Decreasing the labour pool isn't automatically good. If there are job shortages in critical areas as a result of emigration that isn't a good thing.

I accept your argument about remittances but I don't think sending remittances home is as beneficial as developing a growing economy with a large domestic labour pool.

Perhaps I should read it more closely but any stated benefit in this scenario has a drawback. Perhaps some controls are a good thing if even to regulate economies.

Immigration isn't an issue that exercises me too greatly. Perhaps controls could be useful to slow the rates to more manageable levels but I agree that it can be beneficial.

fash

fash wrote: »

The UK attracted lots of Polish people because the UK state wanted them - and relentlessly pushed the EU to take the 10 accession states in as early as possible and far earlier than any of the other major states wanted and then by deliberately ensuring that they almost alone did not make use of the EU brakes on the freedom of movement- they sucked Eastern Europe dry of its young healthy educated and massively tax and social welfare-positive workforce like the disgusting evil parasites they are.

At all stages migration from the EU could not satiate the UK's insatiable lust and gluttony for working fodder and it had continued to suck the rest of the world dry of its workers to a far greater extent - up to 90% and at all stages the vast majority of its migrants being from outside the EU.

Wow.

What a bizarre post.

SantaCruz

theological wrote: »

Some of these benefits are only good in certain circumstances. Decreasing the labour pool isn't automatically good. If there are job shortages in critical areas as a result of emigration that isn't a good thing.

I accept your argument about remittances but I don't think sending remittances home is as beneficial as developing a growing economy with a large domestic labour pool.

Perhaps I should read it more closely but any stated benefit in this scenario has a drawback. Perhaps some controls are a good thing if even to regulate economies.

Immigration isn't an issue that exercises me too greatly. Perhaps controls could be useful to slow the rates to more manageable levels but I agree that it can be beneficial.

Well I think we can agree it's a mixed picture, but in general it seems migration has - on balance - advantages for both sending and receiving countries.

SantaCruz

SantaCruz wrote: »

My pioint is that things that are good can be made to look very bad by a determined and unscrupulous press. And vice versa.

so not remotely relevant to my post then

SantaCruz wrote: »

Incorrect.

Thank you for that well structured and detailed response.

fly_agaric

theological wrote: »

How many actually do return though? I'd be interested to know the stats. You can see how there are two sides to this argument though.

I don't know the statistics for Ireland (or UK) and I'm afraid I don't have time or the inclination to check at the moment. Have probably already spent too much time here today!:pac:
Anecdotally I thought (again without confirming from data) that when Ireland had its economic bust, alot of the immigrants that lost jobs as a result left (to go where?), likely with some gained skills and a knowledge of English.

theological wrote: »

The downsides of not having freedom of movement are worse?

No - I mean the downsides you refer to are far worse when the countries and economies are very different. It is predictable what would happen if the EU introduced freedom of movement with Turkey tomorrow morning!

theological wrote: »

Can we quantify that? It depends on which side of the argument you are on. If you have lots of medical professionals in your country from Poland and Latvia that is super. If you struggle to find them in Poland or in Latvia as a result you mightn't see it that way.

There is no way that anyone can really argue that Poland or Latvia (or indeed ourselves looking further back) should not have joined the EU IMO.
The answer to any "brain drain" effect benefitting richer EU states isn't restrictions in the long run, it is structural funds and developing the economies of the emigrant states so people will want to stay (and maybe even move there some day as you are saying is happening with Poland/Ukraine). Emigration to greener pastures is a way of life here, but nothing like to the extent it was when Ireland was a poorer (and nastier) place to live.

theological wrote: »

Perhaps some migration controls are good. This topic in particular is pretty debatable. I'm not the most exercised about it but it is helpful sometimes to think about things from a different angle or from someone else's view.

Yes that is true, but who would be willing to leave the EU over it? Apart from the obvious...
Don't think the UK should have either (I understand that it wasn't the only factor behind the Leave vote but it was important).
Before the referendum, about 1/2 its inward migration was non EU, which UK could have reduced, but chose not to.
Going by ONS link I posted, UK has increased this since 2016 and seems to have failed to reduce net inward migration despite leaving (edit: voting to leave) the EU (I didn't know this, so I suppose every day is a school day).

fly_agaric

Aegir wrote: »

I was talking with a Slovak colleague about the new car plants being built there (per capita, Slovakia is the largest car manufacturer in Europe, if not the world now) and he laughed and said its great, they pay taxes so the government can give Romanians a job building Jaguars.

Just on this. Romania is also an EU member.
Really, the hope might be that in future, this situation should be no more remarkable than people moving from a poorer US state to benefit from the job creation/development that is occurring in another one a few state lines away.
I know, I know that may sound like a nightmare/fever dream from the diseased mind of a EU loving federalist.

fly_agaric

fly_agaric wrote: »

Just on this. Romania is also an EU member.
Really, the hope might be that in future, this situation should be no more remarkable than people moving from a poorer US state to benefit from the job creation/development that is occurring in another one a few state lines away.
I know, I know that may sound like a nightmare/fever dream from the diseased mind of a EU loving federalist.

That is the way of the world now. A bit like when Dell moved their Limerick factory to Poland and lots of Poles lost their jobs.

FrancieBrady

SantaCruz wrote: »

Where do the Romanians' income taxes go?

They must have a Slovakian version of the Daily Mail too. 'They took our jobs'.

SantaCruz

Aegir wrote: »

so not remotely relevant to my post then

I can certainly see how it would seem to be irrelevant to people who don't understand the relationship between cause and effect.

SantaCruz

Aegir wrote: »

A bit like when Dell moved their Limerick factory to Poland and lots of Poles lost their jobs.

Were there that many Poles working for Dell in Limerick?

SantaCruz

SantaCruz wrote: »

I can certainly see how it would seem to be irrelevant to people who don't understand the relationship between cause and effect.

I understand cause and effect perfectly well thanks. What I don’t get is why you decided it was relevant to my post. It looked like you just wanted to have a little rant.

feargale

droidman123 wrote: »

Britain is not ruled by the british,its ruled by the english

With grand English names like Blair, Brown, Callaghan, Macmillan, MacDonald, Lloyd George, Disraeli, Canning, Stuart, Tudor.

Not forgetting Oliver Cromwell aka Williams, son of a Welshman, and Boris Johnson sort of aka O'Gorman.

Come to think of it that Cameron lad (another fine English name) has some Waterford hurling credentials.

feargale

feargale wrote: »

Come to think of it that Cameron lad (another fine English name) has some Waterford hurling credentials.

Cameron is a mix of Welsh, Scottish, English and even some German=Jewish ancestry.

droidman123

feargale wrote: »

With grand English names like Blair, Brown, Callaghan, Macmillan, MacDonald, Lloyd George, Disraeli, Canning, Stuart, Tudor.

Not forgetting Oliver Cromwell aka Williams, son of a Welshman, and Boris Johnson sort of aka O'Gorman.

Come to think of it that Cameron lad (another fine English name) has some Waterford hurling credentials.

I,m not too sure what your point is,i assume you are aware that the british prime minister doesnt have sole rights in decision making

feargale

droidman123 wrote: »

I,m not too sure what your point is,i assume you are aware that the british prime minister doesnt have sole rights in decision making

Right. They don't. They have to share that function with people like John Reid, David Dewar, Aneurin Bevan, Brendan Bracken, Bernard Montgomery, Cosmo Lang, Robin Williams, Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd etc, not to talk of Clare Short, a daughter of Crossmaglen.

marieholmfan

SantaCruz wrote: »

Well I think we can agree it's a mixed picture, but in general it seems migration has - on balance - advantages for both sending and receiving countries.

It seems to me that the country receiving people certainly benefits but individuals in that country may not and by inclination may dislike foreigners (which may be unreasonable but people can feel how they like).


However in the modern world it seems to me that either people are coming or going I'd rather that they were coming.

Kermit.de.frog

This gave me a giggle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQq8Y-imL0c

And they just voted for it today