What would a Labour+SNP+LibDem BREXIT mean for the economy?

michaels

Do we have a view on what a coalition Brexit would look like?

Firstly the politics is complicated, I can't see the libdems supporting any deal that doesn't include a referendum on the final deal. And the Nats? Strangely I can see the 'regrettably' agreeing to Brexit in return for Indy ref 2 on the basis that a Scottish vote for independence would be boosted if it was also an opt out of Brexit.

Now the economics. Corbyn has already said any deal is better than no deal so the EU have a free hand to write whatever they want.

Labour rhetoric has been entirely in favour of uncapped immigration during the campaign but I would have thought they would want to play lip service to some reduction - perhaps some deal on migrants without jobs?

Single market and customs union is a given and whatever fees the eu insist on to grant this. I suspect the rebate will disappear but perhaps regional, science etc funds will be paid directly rather than via Brussels so the 'headline gross contribution' is lower.

Of course the UK will be removed from decision making and financial rules will be tweaked by the French and Germans to try and move business to Paris and Frankfurt (but in reality Singapore, Shanghai and New York).

Definitely no withdrawal from the ECHR as the highest court in the land and so no UK bill of rights or written constitution.

So pretty much a Norway solution.

Thoughts?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

As Labour has already made clear there will be no coalition.

If there's a hung parliament with the Tories as largest party they get to try and form a minority government.

And no doubt if they moderate their current extreme hard right policies then they'll have a chance of doing so.

If however they refuse to do so - and then fail as a result - Labour will get their turn and may try to form a minority government.

Likewise Labour will have to moderate their hard left policies and appeal to the centre ground if they want support from the other parties.

If you want sensible, moderate, centrist policies that have a chance of bringing the country back together then a hung parliament is the best possible outcome.



As for the politics...

The Lib Dems want to give the people a democratic choice on the final deal - shock horror - democracy is bad apparently.

The SNP have already said any deal which involves staying in the single market takes Indyref2 off the table - so if you want to keep the UK together that's an easy one.

The Greens don't have enough support to be important.

Labour has committed to leaving the EU and controlling migration, but not to the extent of damaging the economy for pointless arbitrary targets - some Tories try to portray this as 'uncontrolled migration' which is utter nonsense. Just as David Davis and Boris have said there will be a system of visas for EU migrants to meet the needs of the Uk economy so has Labour.

sevenhills

michaels wrote: »

Do we have a voew on what a coalition Brexit would look like?

They are all the same.

The Tories want immigration as it looks good for our GDP and is good for international money movements; but they have promised to reduce it.
Whereas other parties have promised nothing.

The £6bn-a-year cost of cutting immigration.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/11/6bn-year-cost-cutting-immigration

Hard Brexit is ALL about immigration.

kinger101

sevenhills wrote: »

They are all the same.

The Tories want immigration as it looks good for our GDP and is good for international money movements; but they have promised to reduce it.
Whereas other parties have promised nothing.

The £6bn-a-year cost of cutting immigration.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/11/6bn-year-cost-cutting-immigration

Hard Brexit is ALL about immigration.

The Tory promise to reduce immigration is absolutely worthless.

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...
If you want sensible, moderate, centrist policies that have a chance of bringing the country back together then a hung parliament is the best possible outcome.
...

Didn't we have a moderate centrist coalition from 2010-2015 ?

The LibDems were supposedly the counterbalance.

If this brought the country together, then why did UKIP see such strong growth culminating in 4 million votes in 2015?

I don't see the evidence.

kabayiri

kinger101 wrote: »

The Tory promise to reduce immigration is absolutely worthless.

Is there a difference between immigration and cheap temporary labour?

Qatar uses lots of cheap temporary labour, but this does not lead to immigration issues.

michaels

So no one disagrees - we are looking at 'Norway' model of Brexit where we still pay and we still effectively have freedom of movement but we lose the input so the others do their best to carve up financial services?

Looks great for everyone except for those at the bottom who would otherwise see their wages increasing with unemployment in the UK so low.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

michaels wrote: »

Looks great for everyone except for those at the bottom who would otherwise see their wages increasing with unemployment in the UK so low.

Any impact on wages at the bottom is minuscule - pennies per hour - and has been fully mitigated by the well above inflation rises in minimum wage and the changes to the personal allowance.

So it's risible to suggest that it would be a good idea to worsen our labour shortage in order to tackle a problem that doesn't exist.

On the other hand, the very real Brexitary devaluation of the pound is now causing real terms wage falls, and us all to get poorer...

michaels

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Any impact on wages at the bottom is minuscule - pennies per hour - and has been fully mitigated by the well above inflation rises in minimum wage and the changes to the personal allowance.

So it's risible to suggest that it would be a good idea to worsen our labour shortage in order to tackle a problem that doesn't exist.

On the other hand, the very real Brexitary devaluation of the pound is now causing real terms wage falls, and us all to get poorer...

I guess it depends on whether you care about the many higher up the income scale, like most posters on here, who do very well out of free movement or the few at the bottom who don't. I am much better off being able to get cheaper builders, plumbers and haircuts than would be the case with less immigration but the indigenous plumbers and barbers who have not been able to put prices up and are struggling to find affordable housing due to an increased population and restrictive planning laws are not.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

So perhaps you can explain who it is you'd prefer to suffer the most from reduced immigration:

- Industry?

- Agriculture?

- Academia?

- Family reunion?

- The NHS?

Which stream of immigrants should we reduce?

Net migration from the 8 eastern europe accession states was just 5,000 in the last 12 months. There's another 175,000 to go to reach the Tory target of under 100K...

So now you're into targeting typically more highly skilled Germans, Americans, French, Australians, etc, or IT workers, students, nurses, and families....

So I'm curious - who do you want to cut and why?

kabayiri

You don't want the SNP in a coalition.

They haven't done anything for Scotland, so you really wouldn't want to let them anywhere near a big economy.

The SNP are only for the separatists ..... like Hamish

[or are you an Unionist this week Hamish?]