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

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

michaels wrote: »

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.

And as already posted that's just completely false.

The many higher up the income scale have done well from migration as it's increased wages on average....

The tiny minority at the bottom have had any impact fully mitigated by above inflation minimum wage increases and changes to personal allowance.

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.

Build. More. Houses.

Simples....

The solution to a housing shortage is not to create an artificial labour shortage - it's just to build more houses.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

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

[or are you an Unionist this week Hamish?]

I'm always a Unionist.

I believe that Scotland is better off in the UK which is also better off in the EU.

But if you make me pick just one Union -I'll take the EU.;)

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

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

Qatar does not recognise human rights.

Thrugelmir

michaels wrote: »

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.

Appears that we are witnessing the first signs of correlation between immigration (and subsequent emigration) and house prices.

kabayiri

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Qatar does not recognise human rights.

Truthfully....and speak it quietly...

But when I buy some cheap t-shirt from the supermarkets/discount retailers, I'm not really thinking about the human rights of the workers who made it.

So I might as well be consistent.

Cousin employs people at well below NMW by making money on their board and lodgings. He's not that bothered about rights either.

It's a brutal world alright.

cogito

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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?

We all know that you favour unlimited immigration regardless of pressures on services and housing. Who suffers from that?

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

Truthfully....and speak it quietly...

Have a friend who works out there. She is not allowed to make herself a cup of tea at work. One of the Indian servants has to perform the task.

kabayiri

cogito wrote: »

We all know that you favour unlimited immigration regardless of pressures on services and housing. Who suffers from that?

We could always have more robots I suppose.

Here's one, with a different take on garment manufacture
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/09/22/this-sewing-robot-could-put-sweatshops-out-of-business/

Imagine if you could roll this out to be cost competitive. Imagine the millions you could flog across the globe.

Now, of course, instead of Seattle we could have come up with robots making garments.

Actually, we did have active research projects over 30 years ago. I remember our robot dealing with the tricky issue of shirt collars, funnily enough.

It's a shame we lack politicians with true vision.

kabayiri

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Have a friend who works out there. She is not allowed to make herself a cup of tea at work. One of the Indian servants has to perform the task.

It was a similar thing in Thailand. Ex-pats had to have drivers and maids.

We still treat workers better here than vast sections of the globe.

This idea that we are somehow utterly dependent on a small subset of Romanians and Poles is laughable.

A_Pict_In_A_Past_Life

kabayiri wrote: »

It was a similar thing in Thailand. Ex-pats had to have drivers and maids.

We still treat workers better here than vast sections of the globe.

This idea that we are somehow utterly dependent on a small subset of Romanians and Poles is laughable.

As both you and Thrugs have said, we do indeed treat workers better here than vast sections of the globe.
A few times now I have had Filipino colleagues tell me of family and friends of theirs working in various Arab nations and in various jobs from builders to maids and nurses who are not allowed to leave unless they can find a replacement willing to do their work.
At first I thought I was being teased but I have heard this so often from so many different sources that it makes me wonder.

Back to the OP though and - my opinion only - although the polls might indeed be right or even near the mark I think they're mostly way out.
The chances of a Labour government, even a minority one are pure speculation ..................... and while I accept that I could indeed be wrong I strongly suspect that I'm not.
Here in Scotland in the real world & not that "Fish" thread fantasy-land in this forum, I can say that the Conservatives have a very realistic chance of winning maybe over half a dozen seats.
According to what I'm hearing from friends, family & "the grapevine".