If we vote for Brexit what happens

A_Medium_Size_Jock

wotsthat wrote: »

The poor little things. 12 years of the best education the world has to offer and they're less qualified to pack chocolates into gift packs than a Lithuanian whose only skill was to have the gumption to jump into a minibus with his mates and head for the UK.

You would deny home-grown workers the opportunity to better themselves and advance professionally rather than employ from elsewhere?
According to you then we should continue to allow bussloads of your Lithuanians (as one example only) to arrive daily despite having no job to come to?

I have already mentioned numerous instances of this just within the NHS with doctors; nurses; physiotherapists/occupational therapists; pharmacists etc. etc. etc.
You don't believe that we should train more of our own instead of robbing other countries of theirs?
You don't believe in giving opportunities to our own citizens first instead of relegating them forever to the lower rungs of society?

Oh BTW regarding strawberries, the English ones I have been eating for the past few days are divine.
Picked by a fella called Sainsburys apparently.

davomcdave

wotsthat wrote: »

It's just maths. (Although there are many reasons to work even if it's only marginal money-wise.)

If the maths changes then behaviour might change. Benefits could be cut and some people would grudgingly enter the workforce. Cut the pool of prospective employees and wages might rise and they enter the workforce with a spring in their steps.

However, the consumer decides and, already, quite a few on here have decided they don't really like the taste of strawberries much after all implying that the foreigners won't be replaced by Brits anyway.

Cut benefits and those Ds and Es, only 8% of whom voted in the last general election, might come out and vote en masse. As a group they could kick over the statues if someone could mobilise them, That's why the Tories only tinker around the edges of the welfare system and why Blair and Brown dragged millions into the welfare system. B&B wanted to create a huge client class that would vote Labour just as Thatcher wanted to create a huge asset owning class that would vote Tory.

davomcdave

Conrad wrote: »

Separately on Thursday, a report published by the Federation of Small Businesses showed that confidence among the UK's small firms had risen to the highest level in over a year despite spiralling business costs.
The FSB said that confidence was largely being driven by increased international trade

A net balance of 15.6 per cent of small firms reported a rise in export activity during the past three months, with a net balance of 30.5 per cent expecting international sales to increase over the next quarter

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-investors-cash-new-businesses-startups-smes-iw-capital-a7681931.html

Yes, that's what happens when your currency falls precipitously. Exports rise a lot as foreigners can buy your now cheap goods and you can't buy as many imports.

It's a fall in the standard of living as locals can't afford to buy what they make. Think of it like children making clothes in Bangladesh. They work very hard and do a good job but the product is all exported because they can't afford to buy what they make.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Joeskeppi wrote: »

No. But as he voted brexit he's going to be very angry that his lifestyle choice was removed

On the contrary I would suggest that he would be most appreciative of a potentially vastly-improved disposable income thereby improving his lifestyle, perhaps considerably.

wotsthat

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

You would deny home-grown workers the opportunity to better themselves and advance professionally rather than employ from elsewhere?
According to you then we should continue to allow bussloads of your Lithuanians (as one example only) to arrive daily despite having no job to come to?

I'd employ the best person for the job and so would you so let's not pretend otherwise.

'My' Lithuanians worked in a packing house on the edge of quite a poor housing estate. The commute for the local people (a perfect job for someone looking to get off that first rung) was a 5 minute walk vs the guys that travelled across Europe. No locals applied.

It wasn't like it was a particularly difficult job and it paid above wage . In the earlier days when it was mainly Poles there were more than a few who used 3 - 5 years work to fund buying a house outright back home or university.

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

I have already mentioned numerous instances of this just within the NHS with doctors; nurses; physiotherapists/occupational therapists; pharmacists etc. etc. etc.
You don't believe that we should train more of our own instead of robbing other countries of theirs?
You don't believe in giving opportunities to our own citizens first instead of relegating them forever to the lower rungs of society?

In a time of record employment it's a nonsense to try and make out the ranks of the unemployed are swelled by would be doctors, nurses, aircraft engineers and if it wasn't for those pesky foreigners they'd be living the high life.

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Oh BTW regarding strawberries, the English ones I have been eating for the past few days are divine.
Picked by a fella called Sainsburys apparently.

When I were a lad punnets used to be more than one strawberry deep. I don't think strawberries will be able to support British wage requirements and we'll see a balance shift towards imports if migrant labour isn't imported to pick them.

wotsthat

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

On the contrary I would suggest that he would be most appreciative of a potentially vastly-improved disposable income thereby improving his lifestyle, perhaps considerably.

Nice thought but nonsense I'm afraid. There's no evidence to suggest the consumer is willing to pay for this enhanced lifestyle.

Conrad

Bottom line is British companies stopped bothering with pesky training schemes.


Remainers often seem not to care about building the best society we can for the sake of enabling everyone a decent chance in life. Instead their attitude seems to boil down to quite a narrow 'whats best for me me me'.


This same self centred attitude cares not for the fate of Africans left without Doctors and Nurses whilst greedy Brits 'celebrate' this loss to Africa in favour of the UK - and no most do not return to Africa - if they did we would not have a multi cultural society and relentless over-demand on housing etc

A_Medium_Size_Jock

wotsthat wrote: »

Nice thought but nonsense I'm afraid. There's no evidence to suggest the consumer is willing to pay for this enhanced lifestyle.

Oh look, the nonsense is yours.

"The consumer" IS the worker with the newly-enhanced lifestyle.
He now has a greater disposable income and so spends/buys more in this country rather than sending huge amounts home to whatever country.
This decreases further our balance of payments and increases the standard of living for the UK.

all main data sources agree that the UK is one of the top-10 remittances sending countries in the world.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrant-remittances-to-and-from-the-uk/

Migration watch suggests that (back in 2008 mind) this cost the British economy net £4.5 million per day and show how the figure had doubled in five years.
In which case it may not be unreasonable to expect figures today of, say, approaching £20 million per day leaving the country.
That sum alone, if even halved, would boost our own economy significantly would it not?


Do not BTW take this to mean that I am somehow anti-immigrant; I certainly am not.
What I do believe is that migration should be controlled on an "as needed" basis with none allowed entry without first having an employment offer for example.



As to your:

it's a nonsense to try and make out the ranks of the unemployed are swelled by would be doctors, nurses, aircraft engineers and if it wasn't for those pesky foreigners they'd be living the high life.

Oh please, get a grip.

Look, if those that wanted to were actually allowed to train for and then become such professions instead of importing en masse then the "ranks of the unemployed" as you so facetiously describe them would similarly at least be able to climb on to the lower rungs of the employment ladder.
Who says the "would-be" are unemployed?
The likelihood is that they are employed BUT in jobs whereby their potential is not fully realised; i.e. they have not been trained in what they would most like to do.
The whole economy basically could potentially get a huge boost from increasing home-grown talent rather than from importing it.

BobQ

Conrad wrote: »

This is the classic council of despair approach, I do not accept we have to allow people to wallow on benefits. Also companies were disincentivised from training thanks to immigrant labour on tap (which has had a huge negative effect on places such as Lithuania emptied of their young dynamic people).


Lets be a little smarter and get companies back into schools engaging with potential future employees

Hopefully these employers will now be advertising these jobs in the UK first rather than assume that they get better employees by only advertising in Vilnius and Warsaw).

You make a good point about companies being disincentivised from training, but I do wonder how we expect to quickly train competent plumbers and builders, let alone doctors, unless we accept that immigration has positive effects too. Incentivising training means subsidising it through tax breaks or making it more expensive to import labour?

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

Incentivising training means subsidising it through tax breaks or making it more expensive to import labour?

A levy on large employers from the 6th April 2017.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/apprenticeship-levy-how-it-will-work/apprenticeship-levy-how-it-will-work