If we vote for Brexit what happens

TrickyTree83

Rinoa wrote: »

EU migrants - no unemployment benefits for 5 years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3827365/Angela-Merkel-BAN-EU-migrants-claiming-unemployment-benefits-five-years-open-door-policy-continues-hit-Germany.html

No not UK, Germany.

Ties in well with that LSE article by Gunnar Beck.

Here it is again for those of you who missed it the first time.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/09/19/germany-and-the-eu-cant-afford-to-drive-a-hard-bargain-over-brexit/

CKhalvashi

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I don't think you'll be in such a bad position after negotiations.

Did you take a look at that article from the LSE by a German fellow who's quite good on law and economics? He speaks some sense in my opinion.

I have done, yes.

I am also extremely concerned that there will still be significant issues, as has already been stated.

We supply services, mainly to EU clients, and rely on FoM as a part of those services. My main concern is covering my own backside 'just incase' at the moment, which is turning into something very time consuming and stressful. This ultimately will mean that at least temporarily, any planned job creation won't be happening in the UK.

Long-term, I don't know.

Rinoa wrote: »

EU migrants - no unemployment benefits for 5 years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3827365/Angela-Merkel-BAN-EU-migrants-claiming-unemployment-benefits-five-years-open-door-policy-continues-hit-Germany.html

No not UK, Germany.

Fair enough. It's possibly also a good idea to do the same for British nationals in the UK, not just those coming from the EU.

Crashy_Time

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-markets-britain-idUKKCN12714Y

TrickyTree83

CKhalvashi wrote: »

I have done, yes.

I am also extremely concerned that there will still be significant issues, as has already been stated.

We supply services, mainly to EU clients, and rely on FoM as a part of those services. My main concern is covering my own backside 'just incase' at the moment, which is turning into something very time consuming and stressful. This ultimately will mean that at least temporarily, any planned job creation won't be happening in the UK.

Long-term, I don't know.



Fair enough. It's possibly also a good idea to do the same for British nationals in the UK, not just those coming from the EU.

I really feel that ultimately the EU and the UK will reach a reasonable consensus.

So if your business and thousands of others here in the UK and across the EU require the ability to travel between the UK and the EU to conduct business that this will be facilitated in some way.

It may require some red tape application process, or it may not and something like 30 day entry will be automatically given, or maybe a combination of the two to allow contractors to work for longer periods in the UK and vice versa.

The FoM red line the UK government appears to have seems to me to be with settlement in the UK and permanent jobs in the UK.

I don't know what your business is but I do feel deep down that ultimately the EU wants to benefit from doing business with the UK and the UK wants to benefit from doing business with the EU. And that this will eventually trump political bias such as that from Francois Hollande and Junker.

EU citizens will still want to visit and holiday in the UK and vice versa so there will be a will to try to make that as easy as possible for each to spend their money in the other, EU citizens in the UK contribute to the economy and some perform vital services. Similar can be said about UK citizens in the EU, apart from probably the OAP's in Spain. But then Spain won't want to deport them and trash its property market more than it has already. So there's benefits for both sides in maintaining some form of status quo. Quite clearly the UK wants some changes to the relationship so that'll probably involve the UK granting some concessions in the opposite direction too. What they might be I don't know.

CKhalvashi

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I really feel that ultimately the EU and the UK will reach a reasonable consensus.

So if your business and thousands of others here in the UK and across the EU require the ability to travel between the UK and the EU to conduct business that this will be facilitated in some way.

30 day rights to work in the EU would solve the problem, preferably 7-8 times a year would be perfect. Very little contract-wise is more than 30 days.

It may require some red tape application process, or it may not and something like 30 day entry will be automatically given, or maybe a combination of the two to allow contractors to work for longer periods in the UK and vice versa.

I don't know what your business is but I do feel deep down that ultimately the EU wants to benefit from doing business with the UK and the UK wants to benefit from doing business with the EU. And that this will eventually trump political bias such as that from Francois Hollande and Junker.

That's fine too, on the condition that it can be consistent and allow for pre-existing business models. I have already written to my MP to ask for advice on the matter (amongst other things), and as long as a bit of common sense is invoked have absolutely no problem.

This wouldn't be taking jobs from the UK market, nor from the EU market, and forms part of a larger package of services with a high value. There are withholding taxes to be paid in Germany (25%), and if the British government wants to introduce them too, that's fine.

We have very little in the way of competition at our level, and the main priority is both expansion and viability for the longer term, which is in the interests of everyone, especially as we're prepared to work closely with a dying industry in the UK, as part of an expanding industry, to cement a place in the market.

The FoM red line the UK government appears to have seems to me to be with settlement in the UK and permanent jobs in the UK.

That's fine to a point.

My main concern is a position someone I know has found herself in, which is being turned down for promotion in exchange for a non-EU national, as there are systems in place for visas for the higher job, but not the basic job (NHS). This is a job with a severe shortage, and others not willing to transfer internally and train up to the basic job.

Surely it's fairer for everyone to start at the bottom and work up, than put a block on foreign workers earning less than £x, as this would create a level playing field for all.

EU citizens will still want to visit and holiday in the UK and vice versa so there will be a will to try to make that as easy as possible for each to spend their money in the other, EU citizens in the UK contribute to the economy and some perform vital services. Similar can be said about UK citizens in the EU, apart from probably the OAP's in Spain. But then Spain won't want to deport them and trash its property market more than it has already. So there's benefits for both sides in maintaining some form of status quo. Quite clearly the UK wants some changes to the relationship so that'll probably involve the UK granting some concessions in the opposite direction too. What they might be I don't know.

That's fine, however again, I feel it's important to allow those that want to come to the UK, especially those working as self-employed/directors in businesses should be given greater leeway than the requirements for non-EU citizens now.

There would need to be minimal controls on this (small levels of capital, possibly a requirement to live and work in an area with an average income under £x until permanent residency), similar to the German freelance equivalent (which I believe is Berlin only), however it would provide a good playing field for something similar in return, would keep the Brexiteers happy, and keep the remainers who want to go to the EU happy.

You have a year to make a go of it, in that year you need to show you have worked for at least 3 clients and have the potential to earn at least £x by the end of year 2, and you can apply for permanent residence after 3 years, provided you've created 5 jobs for existing residents, 5 years if not. No access to any financial support until you've got PR, with the exception of a possibly payment for creating jobs in a disadvantaged area (although IMO that should be given to British companies too).

Would that not be a much better and fairer way of doing things?

HornetSaver

Rinoa wrote: »

EU migrants - no unemployment benefits for 5 years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3827365/Angela-Merkel-BAN-EU-migrants-claiming-unemployment-benefits-five-years-open-door-policy-continues-hit-Germany.html

No not UK, Germany.

And there I was under the mistaken impression that that rag stopped praising the Germans in 1938.

I really feel that ultimately the EU and the UK will reach a reasonable consensus.

I don't.

I'm certain that we will tell the EU the preconditions for any deal other than hard Brexit. I'm equally certain that the EU will tell us that those preconditions cross multiple red lines that they will not budge on (red lines that they have consistently maintained to be red lines, in fairness).

What happens from there remains to be seen - we could compromise towards a soft Brexit, which is the outcome the majority of Brits would want assuming something could be done on immigration (more specifically, the automatic right to live and work here).

But if the Government's recent rhetoric is to be believed, we would effectively respond to the EU's position by saying "fine", and use the rest of the Article 50 timeline to get a head start on new deals with the likes of US, the Commonwealth and China. Such deals really do take years by the way, hence why the Article 50 timeline is so short - it's deliberately designed to make EU exit a decision not to be taken lightly. It is not something you should be able to do on a whim if there is the slightest chance you are going to change your mind.

The net result will therefore be a reasonably short but deep recession, because despite being able to trade with the EU under WTO rules, the economic shock of the actual effects of a hard Brexit will come in a very short period of time, and take a significant period of time to fully grow ourselves back from.

It remains an open-ended question as to whether Brexit will be better over the longer term, due to factors we could not possibly reliably predict yet. 30 years ago who would have predicted China being where it is today? Who would have predicted 9/11 and its aftermath? Who would have predicted the future trend of the British housing market? A unified Germany? The Euro? Peace in Northern Ireland?

What I can say with certainty is that of the two options on the ballot paper in June, Brexit was the one with the greater range of outcomes. At best it was better than we could ever get from being in the EU, but equally, and with equal likelihood, at worst it was worse than it could ever have been. What would ultimately tip those scales in Brexit's favour was the extent to which there was a consensus and a vision of what the future path was and how to get there. And that's what ultimately led me to believe that it was the wrong time to leave. May and Hammond would in normal times be a reassuring factor, but internationally these are not normal times - there is a genuine chance of a President Trump for goodness sake!

Then again if they don't get it right (or, even if they do get it right, are not seen to have done well enough quickly enough), we get Corbyn. As if things weren't precarious enough already!

posh*spice

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Why does everyone arguing the remain side come out with this claptrap?

Because one member state, the UK, leaves the EU we are opening pandoras box of European warfare? It's ridiculous.

If there is a war in the distant future on the continent of Europe it will not be because of the UK leaving a political union with 27 other member states of Europe.

It will be because whilst we were all arguing about tarriffs on german cars Russia was building a military base in the med - in Syria - we are so dumb:o

posh*spice

Rinoa wrote: »

EU migrants - no unemployment benefits for 5 years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3827365/Angela-Merkel-BAN-EU-migrants-claiming-unemployment-benefits-five-years-open-door-policy-continues-hit-Germany.html

No not UK, Germany.

Is it wrong to say I hate the woman - useless F ***

lewisa

HornetSaver wrote: »

What I can say with certainty is that of the two options on the ballot paper in June, Brexit was the one with the greater range of outcomes.

But you have no way of knowing the future legislative initiave of the EU as they do not fight elections based on a manifesto.

So how can Brexit have a wider range of outcomes?

HornetSaver

lewisa wrote: »

But you have no way of knowing the future legislative initiave of the EU as they do not fight elections based on a manifesto.

So how can Brexit have a wider range of outcomes?

I can't tell just by reading whether you have actually understood my meaning? I did not say Brexit was full of endless, wonderful possibilities. I said it had a wider range of outcomes. Wonderful. Good. Average. Bad. Ugly. Who's to say?

But assuming that you did understand my point. The EU is by definition integrationalist, protectionist, and keen to increase its clout in terms of global politics and trade. Whatever you think of it, it's done those latter two things successfully (whether that is a good thing is another matter entirely). The UK - starting with a high population among EU countries, speaking English, and with a track record of bucking the trend - can reasonably have been assumed to have done better than the EU average within the EU over the long term.

The only question being how the EU itself was going to do. Well, the EU has been chugging along boringly with unspectacular growth for a long time, barring the credit crunch, and we've been tracking above that, barring the credit crunch. Hence, our overall future in the EU was quite predictable.

Outside the EU, we have less clout when we play hardball on conditions to bilateral deals which we do not like, but more opportunities to negotiate mutually beneficial conditions which work for us and the other country, but which would have gone down like a lead balloon among other EU countries. That's a double-edged sword, and it's absolutely impossible to tell at this stage which edge is the sharper.

What leans me in the direction of still thinking Brexit will be a bad thing is that the huge economies we are most desperate to increase our dealings with are either countries which know how to divide and conquer better than we do, or far more tightly control access to their markets than we do.