Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Herzlos wrote: »

So it's talking about a soft Brexit. It's also saying one of our key advantages is the working age population, due to raising the retirement age [and the number of working age immigrants we have].

Where?
Are you reading what isn't actually written?

Migrants are not exclusively from the EU you know; post-Brexit we may choose both how and from where any further migration will come.
Also we are already discussing trade with some emerging economies which we cannot (so we are told) complete as an EU member.

andrewf75

Herzlos wrote: »

So it's talking about a soft Brexit. It's also saying one of our key advantages is the working age population, due to raising the retirement age [and the number of working age immigrants we have].

Immigration isn’t going to go down much whether it is a hard or soft Brexit. This is the greatest irony of the whole thing. Brexit was driven by a desire to control immigration, but even if we bring immigration entirely under our control its hard to see numbers falling dramatically unless we are doing badly economically.

TrickyTree83

andrewf75 wrote: »

Immigration isn’t going to go down much whether it is a hard or soft Brexit. This is the greatest irony of the whole thing. Brexit was driven by a desire to control immigration, but even if we bring immigration entirely under our control its hard to see numbers falling dramatically unless we are doing badly economically.

Having control over immigration is different to bringing it down, the two are not intertwined.

If immigration is too high then if we have control we can deal with it. Within the EU if immigration is deemed too high we can only control approx. half of it, which includes those who immigrate into the EU and then migrate within the EU to the UK.

Control is different to volume. The ability to act in our own interests should be paramount.

Thrugelmir

[QUOTE=Herzlos;72799113still_move_most_of_their_staff_overseas._[/QUOTE]

So easy from your armchair. Logistically moving an entire office , at least those who wish to move, is extremely complex, costly and not without it's pitfalls.

Herzlos

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Where?
Are you reading what isn't actually written?

Bit in [] was inference, I thought that was clear. Everything else was in the paragraph above the one I quoted. Did you read it?

It's essentially saying that post-Brexit economy will be great if we mitigate all of Brexit.

Migrants are not exclusively from the EU you know; post-Brexit we may choose both how and from where any further migration will come.

True, but we already have full control over the non-EU migrants.

Also we are already discussing trade with some emerging economies which we cannot (so we are told) complete as an EU member.

But then so is the EU. So I'm not entirely sure what we gain here either.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

So easy from your armchair. Logistically moving an entire office , at least those who wish to move, is extremely complex, costly and not without it's pitfalls.

Indeed it's a nightmare. But if you need to move staff to keep a business functioning then that's what you do.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Having control over immigration is different to bringing it down, the two are not intertwined.

True you can have control without reducing numbers, which is what we're going to do. But it's always been framed as an effort to reduce numbers because apparently we're full.

Ballard

Matt_L wrote: »

Instead of a poll i would sooner go by the 80+% of the population that actually voted in the very recent election for parties that made it clear that we are leaving. A huge and real endorsement imo...

In the 2015 election there was a candidate standing for 'National Health Action' who was standing to save the local A&E from closure. Being as he only managed 1,216 votes this is presumably a clear indication that the Old Bexley & Sidcup constituents were happy to lose the A&E.

cogito

Herzlos wrote: »

That reads like a pretty biased article. Talking about how the UK is getting down to business with free trade deals, like the US one they're going to start this month, whilst ignoring the EU-Japan deal that's closing.

The EU and Japan are nowhere near closing a deal. An agreement in principle has been reached. Nothing has been signed, sealed or delivered and major obstacles remain over EU dairy exports in particular. An agreement is at least a year away.

lisyloo

Ballard wrote: »

In the 2015 election there was a candidate standing for 'National Health Action' who was standing to save the local A&E from closure. Being as he only managed 1,216 votes this is presumably a clear indication that the Old Bexley & Sidcup constituents were happy to lose the A&E.

Or possibly that many people don't want to vote for a candidate who only has a policy on one issue !!

Thrugelmir

lisyloo wrote: »

Or possibly that many people don't want to vote for a candidate who only has a policy on one issue !!

Well there was the Newbury By Pass. The incumbrent long standing Tory didn't grasp the local feeling at all.

gfplux

cogito wrote: »

The EU and Japan are nowhere near closing a deal. An agreement in principle has been reached. Nothing has been signed, sealed or delivered and major obstacles remain over EU dairy exports in particular. An agreement is at least a year away.

You are quite right, however if the EU deal is at least a year away, your words how far away would the Britain/Japan deal be?

Anyone who thinks the EU -Japan deal is not important is not living in the EU, which you won't be very soon.