If we vote for Brexit what happens

Private_Church

Thrugelmir wrote: »

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

Thousands of small Construction companies have been paying a CITB Levy for decades which hasn't sustained quality apprenticeships so I won't hold my breath the new levy will make any difference.

The current training in the Construction industry is dire and has been for the best part of 25yrs.Imported EU labour is worse than the indigenous workforce with regards to workmanship....

Sounds like more Government lip service to me.

Tromking

Woohoo!
Jezza is a Brexiteer!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39588431

We all knew he was all along!:)

BobQ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

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

Yes, it is a start and is encouraging. But it will raise costs for the employer and presumably prices. But better than lots of individual employer's running schemes. The scheme seems well suited to some basic training but I'm not sure it will deliver the technical training needed for employers in complex engineering work, But yes it is a start.

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

Yes, it is a start and is encouraging. But it will raise costs for the employer and presumably prices. But better than lots of individual employer's running schemes. The scheme seems well suited to some basic training but I'm not sure it will deliver the technical training needed for employers in complex engineering work, But yes it is a start.

Technology has down graded many jobs and skills in the past 20 years. Poor management has resulted in a poor non productive generation. Rebuilding peoples skill sets is going to take time to achieve. At least it will give people the opportunity to learn. Up to the individual as to whether they make a success of it or not.

BobQ

mrginge wrote: »

Oh look here we go again.

The leave voters who were conned into voting for their self interest.

Did remain voters not vote in self interest? Are they all great selfless paragons of virtue?

Many did.

'Those who believe it would remove the need for immigration' !!!!!!.
How many actual voters out of 17m do you seriously think believed this?

As you say the margin was close so it did not need that many.....

But to answer your question.... We will never know, but I suggest that the fact that nearly every time a UKIP spokesman was asked a question the problem was nearly always due to immigration, which is a fair indication that it had some effect.

I have got over the result and think we need to make the best of it now. I was not blaming "people like you", just saying that if the coming years are not as successful for the UK as we all hope then people who voted leave will only have yourselves to blame.

You should be blaming people like me.
Middle aged.
Degree educated.
Above average income.
Works and travels in Europe.
Classic middle class demographic.

It's us 600k people around the margin who've lost you your precious single market membership.

I also fit into your profile above. But, if things do not go well, people like us will most likely not suffer the worst consequences of the decision. But if you were a low waged, semi-skilled worker in Sunderland you might be looking for someone to blame in those circumstances.

I genuinely hope that Brexit works and we thrive as you clearly expect. But I am not convinced yet. The economy continues to thrive based on ever rising personal debt but that cannot continue for ever can it?

wotsthat

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

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.

He only gets a newly enhanced lifestyle when and if the prospective pool of employees reduces AND consumers are willing to pay more for their stuff. The newly enhanced lifestyle presumably costs more money and that money needs to come from somewhere?

The consumer currently has no interest in paying more money for stuff which is why consumers choose to maintain 1.5m unemployed people and import 3.5 foreigners into the workplace.

The consumer decides. You chose to buy your strawberries from Sainsburys which are picked by foreigners. It's cheaper - that's what the consumer wants. You made a jibe about me wanting to bus in Lithuanians rather than employ locals - it's you as the consumer that made that choice - not me as the employer. Brexit may well force businesses to employ local labour but you can't force the consumer to pay more.

You imply your priority is local labour over foreign labour. I very much suspect the way you spend your time and money would indicate different priorities.

This is before we even discuss whether there is a pool of 1.5m unemployed people all keen and eager to enter the workplace.

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

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?

Yes but it's based on the premise that the unemployed simply step into the gap left by foreign workers. I'm arguing that's just not going to happen as I think a good chunk of foreign workers will take their jobs with them.

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

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.

I have to remind you you've pointed out quite a few times just how well the economy is ticking along without such controls.

wotsthat

Conrad wrote: »

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'.

I think you could substitute the word 'remainers' with 'pretty much everyone'. Ask anyone if they want everyone everyone to have a decent chance in life and you'll get very few people answering no.

Sadly I think it's rare that people's actions align with their stated values. The biggest lies people tell are the ones they tell themselves.

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

I genuinely hope that Brexit works and we thrive as you clearly expect. But I am not convinced yet. The economy continues to thrive based on ever rising personal debt but that cannot continue for ever can it?

The powers to be are aware of the potential risks. Rebalancing the economy has been an objective of successive Governments for some time now. None has achieved any great impact. With a continual drift to service sector related employment. Much of which requires little real skill. Nor offers any possibility of progression. Yet people are freely allowed to buy today and pay later.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

An interesting update on the forthcoming elections in France:

Other polls have also been showing the race tightening during April, with the two leaders losing ground and the chasing pair, especially Melenchon, picking up support.
Melenchon's rise on the back of a strong performance in television debates is worrying investors, who fear his hostility to the European Union and plans to repeal pro-business labour reforms.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-election-idUKKBN17G0Q4?il=0

A_Medium_Size_Jock

An amusing piece in the New York Times about reactions to the headline "Will London Fall?":

No matter how rapidly the media landscape is changing, headlines still matter. “Will London Fall?” clearly struck a nerve; some people reacted to the headline more than the article. Some viewed it as unduly inflammatory or sensationalistic. #WillLondonFall became a trending topic on British Twitter. Some thought it provoked unwanted memories of the much-maligned disaster movie, “London Has Fallen.” Others thought it was fine. Passionate responses poured in from a city that has survived fire, plague and the Blitz

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/world/europe/will-london-fall-britain-brexit-readers-reaction.html?rref=collection%2Fnewseventcollection%2Fbritain-brexit-european-union&action=click&contentCollection=europe&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=1