If there isn't a hard-border what would stop Eastern European immigrants entering UK via Ireland??

phillw

andrewf75 wrote: »

Its probably partly because as time has gone by the extreme remainers have become more vocal, whereas with leavers, the extreme ones have largely piped down.

Leavers have had 40 years to vent, remainers are only just getting started.

andrewf75 wrote: »

But their aims are compatible with the Brexit deal on offer aren't they?

The current deal is only an exit deal, nothing has been decided on the future relationship.

Right, but they have leverage today to push for what they promised in their manifesto. Once the exit deal is passed then Labour will have no leverage, because they won't benefit from the ERG. If they let it pass without trying to apply that leverage then they are letting down all those who voted for them. If May gave a legally binding assurance of Labours red lines then they would likely let it pass. This is politics.

I think the backstop is the only good idea Theresa May has ever had.

markin

mayonnaise wrote: »

And they did so by the EU Referendum Bill, which stipulated that the referendum would be advisory only and not legally binding.

Well a fat lot of use that was when ROI voted no to the EU

peterbaker

Autumn86 wrote: »

I would of loved it if 90% of the foreign nationals who have moved here over the last 5-7years did get deported back to their own country, yes.
Would never ever happen in reality ofcourse, so Brexit won't actually fix the immigration disaster that has plagued our county,
as the millions of eastern European immigrants are already here.

I'm not racist, and do ofcourse know that these people are typically extremely hard workers, willing to work long hours for low pay/no pay-rises, but THAT is the problem!
As they cause wages to be frozen at low levels, since employers have no need to pay higher salaries when they have an endless supply of good cheap labour from Poland.

But so the core reason I voted Brexit is so that employers will eventually be forced to increase pay-rates for workers to be able to attract the staff they need.

What makes you think there will be much choice of work - low paid or well paid - for anyone left in the UK to do after Brexit pulls one of the main rugs from under us and tips us onto the cold bare floor outside EU? Dreary low paid work actually might be still widely available for years of course and it will appeal only to those who by victim of circumstance, (or like turkeys at Christmas, victims of their own vote for Brexit), or of simple geography mixed with an aversion to move/travel/emigrate, have given themselves no choice when all the best jobs have disappeared in their locality.

So do you really think the upshot of Brexit will increase your wages and job security? And do you think you might sensibly in 2019 be still able to suggest that new labour for higher skilled jobs will be developed best amongst those of us who reside in UK, as opposed to those who reside in Eastern EU or could move back there as opportunities arise? It would be extremely blinkered to think that UK remains an ideal place to invest when so many better investment opportunities exist elsewhere (in EU rather than out of it). Huge numbers of educated EU citizens are fluent in written and spoken business English which is more than you can say for large swathes of UK born citizens for a start. So how are educated East Europeans less likely to win global brand business than UK workers post Brexit? Answer: they are more likely to win global brand business than UK, and UK will continue to lose business to them.

Global brands couldn't care less where they find skilled labour on tap, as long as it makes longer term economic sense. If they can find very high quality labour in Eastern Europe, and they receive other incentives to put down roots there, then that's where they will find and employ such a labour force, and develop it longer term if it makes economic sense, not here, and in the process they can also tempt away some of the best UK brains to compliment the EU skilled labour on tap if that makes sense too - it certainly seems from the sorts you now meet on Ryanair on any given day of the week, travelling on business or more likely back from business, that it might already be happening!

whatmichaelsays

Autumn86 wrote: »

I would of loved it if 90% of the foreign nationals who have moved here over the last 5-7years did get deported back to their own country, yes.
Would never ever happen in reality ofcourse, so Brexit won't actually fix the immigration disaster that has plagued our county,
as the millions of eastern European immigrants are already here.

I'm not racist, and do ofcourse know that these people are typically extremely hard workers, willing to work long hours for low pay/no pay-rises, but THAT is the problem!
As they cause wages to be frozen at low levels, since employers have no need to pay higher salaries when they have an endless supply of good cheap labour from Poland.

But so the core reason I voted Brexit is so that employers will eventually be forced to increase pay-rates for workers to be able to attract the staff they need.

You're falling for the lump of labour fallacy; that there is only a finite amount of work to do and so only a finite number of people are needed to do it.

Your employer is not going to increase your salary unless two things align in your favour:

1. The value of your output increases to a level that justifies the increased salary. Given that the UK is one of the least productive developed nations in Europe, that's unlikely.

2. The cost of outsourcing or automating a role doesn't make it viable to do so.

This is what low-skilled logistics work looks like in Britain today.

.

No expensive humans picking and packing, no lunch breaks, no sick and maternity costs, no pension contributions.

This isn't just in warehousing either - it's happening across industry.

If you genuinely think that "kicking out dem immigrants" is going to see your pay packet grow, you're in for a big shock. Employers will adapt to the market situation, and it's unlikely to be for your benefit.

whatmichaelsays

buglawton wrote: »

and now having seen the EU leadership's behaviour in negotiations, is leaning back towards Leave again.

Out of interest, what is it about the EU's position that is so disagreeble?

The EU is not the beligerent here, the UK is. The EU rightly wants to protect its interests and it has been very open in saying that its interests is maintaining the integrety of its single market and the rights and responsibilities that go with that.

The UK meanwhile, in my view, have tried to undermine that at every stage, with May's "red lines" cemented in place with no room for compromise due to her despotic obsession with immigration whilst the people around her insist that "we have the leverage" because "something something German cars".

I really don't think that the EU have been unreasonable in any of this.

Malthusian

I don't think the EU has been unreasonable either.

The fundamental theme of the last two years is that the negotiations for leaving the EU have been principally conducted by politicians who don't want to leave the EU. (David Davis posturing in a made-up department doesn't signify.) Consciously and unconsciously they have made the UK negotiating position simultaneously as incoherent and unreasonable as possible in the hope that it somehow results in not being dragged off the gravy train. Like a child deliberately doing a chore badly in the hope their parent gives up and stops making them do it.

Faced with that, the only possible negotiating position from the EU side is "er, what".

whatmichaelsays

Malthusian wrote: »

I don't think the EU has been unreasonable either.

The fundamental theme of the last two years is that the negotiations for leaving the EU have been principally conducted by politicians who don't want to leave the EU. (David Davis posturing in a made-up department doesn't signify.) Consciously and unconsciously they have made the UK negotiating position simultaneously as incoherent and unreasonable as possible in the hope that it somehow results in not being dragged off the gravy train. Like a child deliberately doing a chore badly in the hope their parent gives up and stops making them do it.

Faced with that, the only possible negotiating position from the EU side is "er, what".

The situation with the backstop is a case in point.

The backstop is not an EU idea. It is the UK's suggestion to the EU after we rejected the EU proposal. The EU compromised and agreed to the UK's proposed alternative.

Yet now we are arguing that we want to change our original idea and on top of that, we're expecting the EU to come up with an idea on how to change it.

It's idiocy.

andrewf75

whatmichaelsays wrote: »

The situation with the backstop is a case in point.

The backstop is not an EU idea. It is the UK's suggestion to the EU after we rejected the EU proposal. The EU compromised and agreed to the UK's proposed alternative.

Yet now we are arguing that we want to change our original idea and on top of that, we're expecting the EU to come up with an idea on how to change it.

It's idiocy.

Its incredible how people have been deceived on the backstop. The thing likely to break the deal is precisely the thing we came up with to get around the NI-issue!

You could not make it up. A large part of me hopes that the EU refuses an extension and doesn't continue to indulge our ridiculous behaviour. Its embarrassing. As damaging as it would inevitably be, there surely comes a point where a country has to deal with the consequences of its incompetence?

phillw

andrewf75 wrote: »

Its incredible how people have been deceived on the backstop. The thing likely to break the deal is precisely the thing we came up with to get around the NI-issue!

I may be cynical, but I can't shake the feeling the backstop was put there to make sure the deal wouldn't go through.

mayonnaise

Revised 'Breaking Point' poster.