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

buglawton

whatmichaelsays wrote: »

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.

What you can't see in the picture is the army of highly paid engineers, technician and software people behind the scenes. Desperate caracature there about 'kicking out foreigners'. When the actual Brexit idea is to rebalance to a more selective policy of skilled immigration.

buglawton

Britain will prosper with a 'hard but smart' Brexit say top German economists
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/03/06/slash-tariffs-boost-economy-flip-pressure-back-eu-top-german/

phillw

buglawton wrote: »

Britain will prosper with a 'hard but smart' Brexit say top German economists
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/03/06/slash-tariffs-boost-economy-flip-pressure-back-eu-top-german/

I think they are only "top" because they agree with them.

If we go WTO then there are rules that we have to adhere to, it's not as simple as he says. WTO requires you to use the same tariffs for everyone, we can't just drop tariffs to 0% for EU countries. As other non EU countries have lower production costs, then dropping our import duty to 0% would hurt british farmers. WTO rules don't allow you to just wave all lorries through either.

There also appears to be a caveat:

Top economists at Germany’s Ifo Institute have admitted that a “No Deal” Brexit — “Hard Brexit”, according to detractors, or “Clean Brexit”, according to proponents — would not leave the United Kingdom any worse off than the European Union, unless it was executed extremely poorly.

So if we do go WTO we can't blame the "top" economists because they'll blame the execution, I suspect that executing it within WTO rules would be considered as extremely poorly. From where I'm sitting, looking at our governments track record, it's a dead cert it will be executed extremely poorly in any case.

Takedap

phillw wrote: »

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.

Can someone please tell how the backstop suddenly becomes acceptable if it is amended so that it has a legally binding end date?


Surely Article 50 already provides this. And as this legally binding end date is hurtling towards us, we are talking about changing it!

Herzlos

The backstop having an end date or unilaterality about it prevents fears that the EU will use it to trap us in the EU permanently.

However that argument misses 2 key points: first, if the backstop can be dropped unilaterally, it ceases to be a backstop because it could be dropped without the problem being fixed, and second, it sort of is unilateral - we just need to go to WTO terms and the agreement is dissolved.


If only the time was spent trying to solve the underlying issue (or deciding who to upset) instead of arguing over the semantics of the backstop, then the backstop could have been irrelevant by now. The EU will be happy to drop the backstop entirely once we solve the NI border issue.

buglawton wrote: »

What you can't see in the picture is the army of highly paid engineers, technician and software people behind the scenes. Desperate caracature there about 'kicking out foreigners'. When the actual Brexit idea is to rebalance to a more selective policy of skilled immigration.

That army will be a lot smaller than you expect, and with modern technology most of them might not even need to be based in the UK. A factory of that size can probably run quite happily with 2 or 3 people on site, with software and servicing bought in.



The minimum wage unskilled packing staff that will be laid off aren't suddenly all going to turn into highly paid and skilled engineers. They might get to go pick potatoes seasonally, though.

whatmichaelsays

buglawton wrote: »

What you can't see in the picture is the army of highly paid engineers, technician and software people behind the scenes. Desperate caracature there about 'kicking out foreigners'. When the actual Brexit idea is to rebalance to a more selective policy of skilled immigration.

You're right, automation does create skilled work. However, the point was in response to an argument about low-skilled and unskilled workers and the impact on wages that low-skilled migration has.

The point stands that unless the output value of low skilled work can increase in a way that is cheaper than either outsourcing, automation or both, low skilled wages are not going to increase despite what many people believe.

Reducing the supply of low skilled workers is one thing, but its highly likely that the demand for low skilled work will decrease at an equivalent or faster rate.

Herzlos

It's also worth noting that a lot of the low skilled work in the UK is service based and relies on people spending money on luxuries. Without all those immigrants who have the cheek to come here and spend their money, there will be less demand for things like restaurant staff, hair dressers, cleaners and so on.



The typical immigrant is portrayed as some kind of bogeyman that works cash-in-hand, claims benefits for himself + family, lives 12 to a room in a grotty flat and sends his entire paycheck to Eastern Europe. The reality is far from that though, and lots of immigrants earn good money and spend it in the community. Removing those immigrants without replacing the work just means there is less money in the community, both directly from them spending it and indirectly from things like council tax being split between less people.

kabayiri

buglawton wrote: »

Britain will prosper with a 'hard but smart' Brexit say top German economists
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/03/06/slash-tariffs-boost-economy-flip-pressure-back-eu-top-german/

I reckon that if it were Germany exiting, they would make it work.

But then...they may not have a bunch of self-serving politicians bickering at each other for the last few years.

whatmichaelsays

kabayiri wrote: »

I reckon that if it were Germany exiting, they would make it work.

But then...they may not have a bunch of self-serving politicians bickering at each other for the last few years.

The voting system has a lot to do with it. I don't believe that our politicians are fundamentally that different to those in other countries, but the way our politicians are elected encourages the wrong behaviour.

Electoral systems in Germany and many parts of Europe tend to result in more hung and coalition parliaments. It's a system that encourages politicians and parties to compromise in the national interest.

Our FPTP system doesn't do that in the slightest. It isn't proportional, doesn't accurately reflect the wishes of the electorate and essentially splits the country into two distinct party lines. It emboldens party ideology (see the "will of the people" rethoric) and results in the sort of confrontational politics that we see now - everybody on the leave side is convinced that people voted for the very particular flavour of Brexit that they have in their own head, and anybody attempting to disagree with their own version of Brexit is "frustrating the will of the people", despite the pre-referendum campaigning mooting numerous shades of grey.

You wouldn't get that in a more proportional electoral system - at least not the extent we have it here.

phillw

whatmichaelsays wrote: »

You wouldn't get that in a more proportional electoral system - at least not the extent we have it here.

There is no way the establishment will allow proportional representation to be seen as a good thing. They've been manipulating the people against the EC/EU by lying for the last 40 years.