If we vote for Brexit what happens

prosaver

Thrugelmir wrote: »

There's a sizable EU steel industry as well.......... You could ask why it's taken so long to act.

good question :beer:

CKhalvashi

Herzlos wrote: »

The naming and shaming was that Amber Rudd suggestion that companies who hire foreigners be named and shamed. I'm sure you knew that though.

So you're conflating different things here. He's saying that as he hires foreigners, who move between UK/EU, he'd need to register for the shame list. AND THEN he's got all of the additional hassles that come with no FoM or customs union; namely restrictions in travel and loads of extra paperwork.

Almost, as I am allegedly a foreigner (can't remember who posted it on here now, but I promise I do have a British passport) I'd need to register, name and shame myself, then sort out the grief of immigration for British staff and customs for vehicles/equipment, plus immigration one way or the other for clients (depending on EU or non-EU nationality), when it would just be a lot easier to focus on actually running a business instead of being tied up in Brexit-related red tape.

I worked with some non-EU nationals last year (as most), and it is always a complete pain in the backside to do the paperwork, leaving me in a position where what is often an additional 100 man hours of time dealing with it can be put elsewhere, which is why I try to avoid it.

100 man hours of time is more than my entire base margin gone on UK wages, so I'm personally of the opinion that the entire business model would become completely unviable to run from the UK, but a slimmed down version where only one part would be run from the UK, and the other from Eastern Europe (around half the actual revenue-generating work plus 80-90% of the admin, plus any growth) is looking extremely preferable now.

We're a specialist company offering a specialist service, in that we are international (although even national companies are rare), and operating at the 'starter' end of an industry, with lower value contracts and much lower costs than the higher end of the industry.

It's a vital service to my clients, but one it's very difficult to consistently make money from at the best of times, let alone the worst, which is why I'm very worried.

Of course, a weaker UK economy could strengthen that position, as the higher level spending could come down, however it's something I doubt would happen in huge numbers.

CKhalvashi

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Does the reduction in the deficit make it anymore sustainable in the longer term?

If the economy generally is growing faster than the deficit, then possibly, as the deficit to GDP ratio would be down meaning it's less of an issue and can be placed on the back burner to be dealt with after more important matters.

I do agree though that it's bad for the country to run indefinitely, and unproportionately to the GDP.

Moby

Liam Fox released a statement yesterday on the work his dept are doing with the WTO:-

"In order to minimise disruption to global trade as we leave the EU, over the coming period the government will prepare the necessary draft schedules which replicate as far as possible our current obligations."

Does this mean that we are going to keep the exact same tarrif structures that the Brexiteers said were strangling our country? In short, despite all the disruption, despite all the attacks against immigrants and the threats against EU citizens in the UK, despite all the Brexit votes and the Richmond rebellions and the sudden change in this country's political dynamic, the government is not aiming to change anything of any substance. None of this will be mentioned by the Brexiters, of course. In public they puff out their chests and accuse critics of not believing in Britain and thumb their nose at their European counterparts. But in private, well away from prying eyes, they delicately and loyally replicate all of the EU's trading arrangements, just so they stand a chance of setting themselves up in a viable manner at the WTO.

Taken from Ian Dunt the editor of Politics.co.uk. His book - Brexit: What The Hell Happens Now?

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

As you know, the background was the suggestion that some employers discriminated against UK born people. There were suggestions that some companies would e.g. only employ poles and the working language was Polish. There were suggestions that these companies preferred non UK people because they would work for less than the minimum wage.
There is the ongoing issue of why there are unemployed UK people but plenty of jobs for immigrants.

So you think the solution is shaming any company that hire foreigners? Rather than targeting the companies that are avoid minimum wage laws?

There is no similarities with wearing a yellow star

If you say so.

most EU governments keep records of where their residents live and NOT for tax purposes; some insist you register within 24 hours of moving house; indeed some even have compulsory ID cards: No idea whether you approve or not but I know you would be outraged if it was introduced here.

But not for shaming on tracking purposes either, and not with any targeted demographics.

Most have ID cards, which also double as passes to prove they don't need a passport to travel within the EU.

Even you must be able to admit that's not the same thing as maintaining a register of companies and schools that have foreigners on their books.

wotsthat

Thrugelmir wrote: »

There's a sizable EU steel industry as well.......... You could ask why it's taken so long to act.

..or why they've determined the European consumer should pay more for steel to support inefficient industry.

The UK were against increased tariffs on Chinese steel not so long ago. Hopefully after Brexit they'll reverse this nonsense but I doubt it.

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

So you think the solution is shaming any company that hire foreigners? Rather than targeting the companies that are avoid minimum wage laws?


If you say so.





But not for shaming on tracking purposes either, and not with any targeted demographics.

Most have ID cards, which also double as passes to prove they don't need a passport to travel within the EU.

Even you must be able to admit that's not the same thing as maintaining a register of companies and schools that have foreigners on their books.

I've explained the background which you have of course ignored.
I explained that your equating it to a holocaust is absurd and shows huge disrespect for the real victims of the holocaust.
I've explained that the proposal has been dropped.
You KNOW the purpose wasn't to name and shame but to ensure that there was equal opportunity for low paid local workers.

presumably you would support a complusory ID card in the UK on the grounds that it sometime doubles as a passport within the EU and we wouldn't hear that its holocaust like.

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

I've explained the background which you have of course ignored.

But I actually addressed it. It doesn't pertain to solve the problem you state in the background. It's a diversion at best.

I explained that your equating it to a holocaust is absurd and shows huge disrespect for the real victims of the holocaust.

I wasn't equating it to the holocaust directly; I've no doubt that we won't start executing foreigners. A whole lot of nasty stuff happened long before that, starting with the idea that <some group> needs to be registered and needs special treatment.

I've explained that the proposal has been dropped.

I didn't dispute that it was dropped. I'm glad it did. The fact it was suggested by our Home Secretary alone is a damning enough indictment of her suitability for any job in public office, let alone that one. To someone manage to be a worse HS than May takes some doing.

You KNOW the purpose wasn't to name and shame but to ensure that there was equal opportunity for low paid local workers.

"name and shame" were words used herself, in the proposal.
You may think the effect of that is to ensure equal opportunity for local workers, but you must realize the unintended consequences of such a shame list.

That's ignoring the fact that it's a terrible way to ensure equal rights, when there are a whole raft of existing laws which would do it in a more effective way. Nothing you think this may solve, isn't already illegal, and can't already be solved without creating a foreigner shame list.

presumably you would support a complusory ID card in the UK on the grounds that it sometime doubles as a passport within the EU and we wouldn't hear that its holocaust like.

If it applied to everyone, and provided some value, and allowed FoM, sure. They are all pretty much linked, anyway. If it was only compulsary for <specific group> to have them, then that'd be an issue.

CKhalvashi

CLAPTON wrote: »

As you know, the background was the suggestion that some employers discriminated against UK born people. There were suggestions that some companies would e.g. only employ poles and the working language was Polish. There were suggestions that these companies preferred non UK people because they would work for less than the minimum wage.
There is the ongoing issue of why there are unemployed UK people but plenty of jobs for immigrants.

Don't quote paragraphs 2, 3 or 4 below or discuss in detail, as they will disappear later for privacy reasons.

Have you considered that bringing in visa restrictions for jobs to EU nationals would disadvantage Brits even more though in some circumstances?

[Removed personal info, that as stated above was only here temporarily.]

At least with EEA workers being available, everyone has the same chance to start at the bottom and work up generally, where without the EU this won't be as practical in the real world, despite what the theory might be.

ruggedtoast

You can't argue that there should be more races in the UK with someone who only wants to see one.

Of course freedom of movement is good, who wouldn't want freedom to move? What would happen to the UK if people from Essex couldn't commute to London and steal Londoners' jobs.

Sadly there is a subset of people whose lives encompass the street they grew up in which they will never leave, the school they went to which must provide an identical experience for their children as it did for them, and the factory / office down the road they believe they have a god given right to work in.

It is these persons, these Brexiteers, who are trembling with excitement as they believe their parochialism has been vindicated in a loosely worded referendum.

These Claptons, et al, are waving their Charles and Diana tea towels, polishing their commemorative biscuit tins, and marching down the road with their plastic union jack hats held on with elastic, in the belief that they have defeated the metropolitan elite.

They must be stopped.