Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

Thrugelmir

Herzlos wrote: »

I don't doubt that many Brexiteers genuinely felt there was an immigration problem and that Brexit was the way to address it. However, I'm not convinced that (a) that's actually the reality or (b) that Brexit will make anything better for them.

In your personal view there are no problems with the UK absorbing thousands of people every year. The demands put on housing, schools, GP's etc could easily be resolved. By simply increasing capacity. Controlling the flow of people the UK won't be better equipped to vet who comes to live and work here.

Sounds as if live either in a leafy suburb or a gated community. Somewhat detached from the reality of what some people are experiencing.

Filo25

Thrugelmir wrote: »

In your personal view there are no problems with the UK absorbing thousands of people every year. The demands put on housing, schools, GP's etc could easily be resolved. By simply increasing capacity. Controlling the flow of people the UK won't be better equipped to vet who comes to live and work here.

Sounds as if live either in a leafy suburb or a gated community. Somewhat detached from the reality of what some people are experiencing.

On the other hand the fact that we had high non-EU immigration (fully controlled by the UK government) even while we were seeing high levels of EU immigration, implies that we had a high demand for immigration in the job market anyway.

Plus we had tools available to us to control EU immigration (immigrants should be self supporting after 3 months) we just chose not to use them.

On a simplistic level we could have stayed within the EU and more than halved immigration, we just chose not to even when we had that "control" ourselves, still its an easier argument for many just to blame the EU.

Equally I will admit that high levels of immigration bring challenges and those challenges are maybe more focused on certain groups than others but it also brings significant benefits in terms of dealing with the issues we face due to skills/labour shortages and an aging population.

Thrugelmir

Filo25 wrote: »

On the other hand the fact that we had high non-EU immigration (fully controlled by the UK government) even while we were seeing high levels of EU immigration, implies that we had a high demand for immigration in the job market anyway.

Plus we had tools available to us to control EU immigration (immigrants should be self supporting after 3 months) we just chose not to use them.

On a simplistic level we could have stayed within the EU and more than halved immigration, we just chose not to even when we had that "control" ourselves, still its an easier argument for many just to blame the EU.

Equally I will admit that high levels of immigration bring challenges and those challenges are maybe more focused on certain groups than others but it also brings significant benefits in terms of dealing with the issues we face due to skills/labour shortages and an aging population.

FoM results in little control. Whether people are self supporting or not makes no difference. There's an underworld to the UK. A black economy. People trafficking, drugs, prostitution, building labourers, restaurant staff. We recently had a case here where 3 families, 23 people were sharing a three bed semi. People adapt. If it's a better life from where they came why wouldn't they. Most likely with the aim of saving money and one day returning home.

There's high demand for skills in many sectors. UK based companies haven't invested. As there's been no need to over the past decade. Now we are seeing the long term effects of such policies. Our local college stopped offering apprenticeship training 3 years ago. As local companies reduced their take up. It's the kids that require vocational rather academic work that require assistance.

kabayiri

Thrugelmir wrote: »

...
There's high demand for skills in many sectors. UK based companies haven't invested. As there's been no need to over the past decade. Now we are seeing the long term effects of such policies. Our local college stopped offering apprenticeship training 3 years ago. As local companies reduced their take up. It's the kids that require vocational rather academic work that require assistance.

FOM provides no incentive to address these issues.

The firm making supermarket displays, which decides day to day whether they need 5 agency staff or 50, why should they look at things like more intelligent planning systems or even automation?

Carl31

Arklight wrote: »

The objectives of the EU are very clearly laid out, starting with the Treaty of Rome. As are all the UK's many opt outs.

The Brexit referendum was almost entirely taken up with the right wing press spewing poisonous scaremongering lies about Europe and foreigners from start to finish. Disgraceful images of refugees in Turkey, escaping a Syrian war with the clear intimation that they were in the UK under the strapline 'Breaking Point'.

Then there were the economic lies, £350 million a week for the NHS, a figure that was completely fabricated. There will be nothing but real terms cuts for the NHS.

It's pretty difficult for the truth to percolate through that. Unless of course, Brexit supporters had wanted to spend the ten minutes Googling 'what is the EU?' before the referendum rather than after it, like they eventually did.

the other thing is of course that everyone voting lived in the EU for the past 40 years, so no matter what was said in the lead up to the referendum, the evidence needed to make minds peoples minds up was all around them for years before that. The problem is, people living London have a very different life to those living in Cornwall, or Dover, or the Black country, but assumed that everyone thought the same as they do

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

Agreed. It's not the fault of the voters that they made decisions based on terrible information.
...

Maybe they didn't trust the people responsible for delivering the information? That's different to the quality of information.

I still think it was a big mistake for Cameron to head up the Remain team. It kind of undermines his own judgement in floating the referendum question in the first place.

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

...
How much of that is an impact, based on actual experience, or perceived based on, say, biased media?
...

There isn't much migration in my village, if any.

However, when I visit an old Uni friend over near Boston, it's difficult not to notice the change.

It's not for me to deny the grievances of people I know who have more direct experience, is it?

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

Maybe they didn't trust the people responsible for delivering the information? That's different to the quality of information.

No different to a local or general election. People vote on what matters to them in their own locality. The impacts on their daily lives. Their jobs. Their quality of life. Their culture. No one here can relate to issues in Hungary, Slovakia or Latvia for example.

cogito

Arklight wrote: »

The objectives of the EU are very clearly laid out, starting with the Treaty of Rome.

Agreed. But back in the 60s when first McMillan and then Heath tried to drag us in, the public were told that the Common Market was exactly that. Heath went out of his way to tell the electorate that we were joining a free trade area and there was no threat to our sovereignty.

There was no internet at the time and actually getting information about the CM, other than the line fed by politicians, was far from easy.
Heath was either lying about the nature of the project or he had been misinformed about the Treaty of Rome.

Many people at the time, myself included (I was already eurosceptic at the age of 18) had doubts about the whole thing and these were cemented when the Common Market rushed through the Common Fisheries Policy just before we joined. Heath was so besotted with the idea of the Common Market that he completely ignored this obligation to hand over our fishing grounds and ploughed on regardless.

Of course, unlike a few other countries, notably Norway, the UK electorate were never given the opportunity to consent to joining. If we had, I have no doubt that we would have voted against and we would not be where we are now.

kabayiri

Thrugelmir wrote: »

No different to a local or general election. People vote on what matters to them in their own locality. The impacts on their daily lives. Their jobs. Their quality of life. Their culture. No one here can relate to issues in Hungary, Slovakia or Latvia for example.

True.

I think Osborne made a tactical error when, early on in the referendum lead up, he started to quote drops in national average incomes by 2030. He misjudged the local nature of the voting patterns.

It doesn't really resonate well with people who can't even control their income next year, never mind next decade.

I think Osborne had been reading too many of Hamish's posts
(sorry Hamish :rotfl:)