If we vote for Brexit what happens

BobQ

CKhalvashi wrote: »

I think it should be reserved for those that are employed, self-employed or self-sufficient long term (with a net worth of £x), and should take effect from the day we leave the EU (eg 2019).

I think also that it's what is going to happen.

Lets be honest, would it be worth asking someone who is contribting to leave the country? I could roll up tomorrow anywhere in the EU and gain a 5 year residence permit then 5 year residency (I believe this will continue to be the case until 2019 too, as no country can discriminate against another EU national), and for those that want/need to leave for personal/business reasons will offer a way to do so.

I take your point on Merkel's recent migrant amnesty, however they will not have German citizenship by 2019, so shouldn't be an issue in the real world. I believe it's 6 years for refugees unless married to a German citizen, at which point it's being married for 3 (not living in Germany for 3). This won't affect many in this situation, and the number being looked at are probably in the 10s or 100s, most of whom probably won't want to move to the UK.

A global Britain shouldn't want to turn away our European neighbours who want to come to the UK to start or expand a business, especially if that can turn the UK to a hub for export to the rest of the world through a subsidary company, nor British businesspeople from using EU27 countries as an EU hub.. I would suggest a lenient visa policy both ways for this purpose (including residence rights), subject to taxable income of maybe 2x the average wage in each country after 2 years before the situation is regularly reviewed and at that point new migrants could be asked to leave. There should also be a minimum jobs created requirement. This will be subject to negotiation both ways. I admit (as should be obvious from what I've said already) that I set to benefit from this sort of policy personally.

Romania has a good system where the business plan has to be reviewed by a state agency (similar to BEIS) before a permit is issued for non-EU nationals and I believe there is further state support through that similar to business hubs, and a proposed minimum salary of about €750, or about double the average wage. A much better system IMO than stipulating a minimum investment as it allows those with innovative businesses that have a good chance to gain investment needed to seek that opportunity.

I'd like honest opinions on this from both leavers and remainers, not taking into account where the policy is from (I've included it so that you can check it out yourselves) but rather the principal of it. I'm not excluding opening this up to the rest of the world, just throwing around ideas for debate.

A very considered post. For the UK it would make a lot of sense to have such an approach to migration. At the start you speak about employed, self employed and self-sufficient although much of your post is about businesses.

I agree businesses should be encouraged like this and so should those who are employed in self-supporting employment, and subject to periodic review on whether they meet the criteria. Whether the EU would see this in reciprocal terms I am less certain.

Clearly those who simply see migration purely in terms of the % of migrants "swamping" their town and the impact on infrastructure will probably not accept any policy like this.

Most people I have spoken to about migration are not bothered about the principle of migration only the ability to control it where migrants are criminal or are not net contributors to society. Such a policy could work although measuring the net contribution of individuals needs to consider the family unit not just the main earner or business. For example, someone coming to the UK to start a consultancy business who creates two other low paid jobs might meet the criteria as an individual but if he has 4 children and a non-working partner the calculation might be unfavourable.

Equally self employed people coming to the UK might be net contributors but should they have to pass a scarce skills test as well. Also many self-employed people do not pay a lot of tax so might not be actually contributing in practice.

BobQ

setmefree2 wrote: »

Unbelievable. And two posters thanked that post.

Poor dude - imagine living in a country you hate that much.

I do not agree with the "sad" statement that has generated subsequent comments, but it was in response to a post that suggested Germany was in disarray which also overstates the reality.

It is certainly true that recently the UK economy has been one of the strongest. The point being made was that in manufacturing terms Germany is much stronger as a nation (and on a per capita) basis. So in 2014 Germany was 4th globally and the UK 9th ( and 4th and 11th on a per capita basis).

The UK's strength is based on its larger service sector which has grown consistently (while IN the EU) and which may still continue to grow outside the EU. Equally services are more easy to relocate.

That does not make us sad, but it does mean we increasingly rely on manufacturing nations like Germany. It also means that if (and I accept it is a big if that may not happen) say our financial services sector contracts as parts relocate to the EU what will replace it to confine this growth?

Thrugelmir

CKhalvashi wrote: »

I think it should be reserved for those that are employed, self-employed or self-sufficient long term (with a net worth of £x), and should take effect from the day we leave the EU (eg 2019).

Not practical to assess "with a net worth of £x". That rule needs to apply on entry to a country. You arrive with hard cash.

Those that don't qualify presumably get kicked out? Likewise UK expats face a similar test. As it'll be a tit for tat arrangement.

BobQ

davomcdave wrote: »

Work, love and life have taken me to a few places and I didn't hang about for long in places I didn't like let alone ones I hated. At the moment British people can currently move freely to 27 other countries plus there are many more with pretty low bars to get over to emigrate to (New Zealand for example). Why hang about if it's that bad?

The funny thing is that as much as Labour tribal posters may hate this Government, income inequality is lower than it was under the Blair and Brown Governments. I think the difference is that the Tories understand that the best way for everyone to get on in the world is to give them the tools to do it, not just pay them to sit at home.

Income inequality has been falling as a long term trend since the Thatcher medicine was administered. Income inequality is not the issue at present, what has happened is that real incomes for most people (at all income levels) has fallen in real terms for around 10 years. Such falls impact more in relative terms on the lower paid than the higher paid who can tolerate it more easily. It is probably one of the main reasons for the Brexit vote, after all, in their minds, it was all the fault of the EU.

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

Income inequality has been falling as a long term trend since the Thatcher medicine was administered.

Don't think it's a Thatcherite policy. As it's a not purely a UK thing. More related to post war economic policies of devaluing the value of debt with inflation. Those with money make more money. Those without money are left standing. Nothing to do with hard work or effort applied.

BobQ

Tromking wrote: »

Germany although a great deal more benign in its intentions than its 20th century incarnations, like every other nation it has its own innate self interest to worry about.
The EU as has been pointed out by the Trump Administration this week has become a vehicle for the much vaunted German industrial strategy. The German economy flourishes while much of southern europe flounders.The EU was done for me when Greek domestic policy was dependent on a vote in the German Bundestag a couple of years back.

Maybe there is some paranoia creeping in. I understand there is road building strategy to improve transport networks across the EU.

Are the roads being built to Poland, uni-directional? Can't they also be used to travel to Germany and indeed through Germany?

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

true there is no certainty but that is as it has always been.

the lower paid will see rising salaries as the flow of young cheap labour dries up

with lower population or lower population grow at least, there will be more housing available for the existing people so the price will fall

fewer people will mean lower pollution, less traffic, etc etc.

there are no benefits at the present time for a higher population in the SE, for the existing population

The above is possible I agree. But the negatives will be a greater proportion of older people and less people in work to pay for the services we need, rising consumer prices as wages rise, more imports to meet that demand and better paid workers will probably be keen to buy cars rather than houses. But who knows!

BobQ

Mortgagefreeman wrote: »

Originally Posted by BobQ
What state we will be in two months from now I have no idea but I bet that many of those who supported this decision will turn on the Government when the economic realities come to pass

Fair point. Had we have declared A50 instantly (and it has taken many months to work out that plan) the situation would have been more unstable.

But at that time nobody really knew what would happen. I still stand by the statement that if the economic consequences of Brexit become very negative, those who voted for exit for irrational reasons will desert the cause and turn on the Government.

That said, I am more hopeful than I was that it will work out in view of recent evidence of the break out of common sense from the EU27.

Its funny how it is coincided with May publishing a White Paper on what she wants from Brexit. When people (me included) were saying this should happen we were told that you could never do that as it would compromise negotiations. Funny how things change?

BobQ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Don't think it's a Thatcherite policy. As it's a not purely a UK thing. More related to post war economic policies of devaluing the value of debt with inflation. Those with money make more money. Those without money are left standing. Nothing to do with hard work or effort applied.

It may be coincidental but the data shows it rose in the 1980s and either flattened or fell from the early 90s (depending on your definitions)

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

The above is possible I agree. But the negatives will be a greater proportion of older people and less people in work to pay for the services we need, rising consumer prices as wages rise, more imports to meet that demand and better paid workers will probably be keen to buy cars rather than houses. But who knows!

-certainly at the moment there is no shortage of workers; if in 20-30 years we need more people then we can consider that at the time.
- the idea that higher wages always leads to higher prices (proportionately) is a philosophy of despair which history clearly shows is wrong
- more people leads to more imports for essential products whereas non essential products can be subsistuted for home grown ones
- more imports without more exports will lead to further devaluation which makes individuals poorer and will reduce imported products
poorer people are unlikely to buy more expensive cars