British Expats

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)
-   Take it Outside! (https://britishexpats.com/forum/take-outside-67/)
-   -   Post EU Referendum (https://britishexpats.com/forum/take-outside-67/post-eu-referendum-879308/)

mikelincs Dec 11th 2016 7:56 am

re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by TGA (Post 12126550)
The utter contempt of this vile split ars3. Contempt towards the will of the British people and contempt towards the elected government.


Brexit: Gina Miller brands historic Commons vote 'irrelevant' | UK | News | Daily Express

and she's right in that it, like the referendum, is only advisory. We have to wait for the outcome of the Supreme court's deliberation before there is or isn't a decisive Parliamentary vote. This will be sometime in January.

TGA Dec 11th 2016 8:14 am

re: Post EU Referendum
 
She is not right.

Red Eric Dec 11th 2016 8:30 am

re: Post EU Referendum
 
He'd better tell the others

DaveLovesDee Dec 11th 2016 9:08 am

re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by TGA (Post 12126550)
The utter contempt of this vile split ars3

'Vile split arse'. That's one insult I've never heard before. Which comic did you borrow that on from?


Contempt towards the will of the British people
I'll explain it again, because you've completely missed the point. Yet again.

Neither the High Court case nor her comments regarding the amendment have anything to do with having contempt for the will of the people.

It has everything to do with ensuring that Parliament can ensure that the kind of Brexit deal the government wants is one acceptable to those who elected them.


and contempt towards the elected government
How?

The High Court case s trying to put the power back into the hands of Parliament instead of a small number of multi-milionaires.

You and I definitely have different views of 'taking back control from the EU'.

morpeth Dec 11th 2016 9:58 am

re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by Red Eric (Post 12126184)
I presume you're qualified in some way to dismiss the findings of a group of researchers who spent a great deal of time gathering and analysing data and publishing their findings? Even those who didn't approach the task with the evident intent of finding one thing or another (as they might, perhaps, if the report was sponsored by an industry lobby). What you call flaws might well be what the researchers set out in their preambles as suppositions or premises on which their forecasts are based - in the case of the NIESR's research, for example, they took several different scenarios and modelled results on the basis of each for the purposes of comparison. And it was fully admitted that the figures are highly uncertain but nevertheless do provide a useful guide to the potential impact of Brexit. But that is forecasting the future. The BoE report was research into the present and the past and therefore much more likely to be accurate since it used actual data.

There's some comment here on that BoE report from Jonathan Portes of the NIESR (who produced the other report) How small is small? The impact of immigration on UK wages | National Institute of Economic and Social Research



The government spends a great deal of time commissioning and reviewing research and debating and passing laws. Some people don't like "government intervention" but as far as I'm concerned it's what they're there for.

As far as impact of Brexit I do not know enough about what that might be. My understanding if correct is many people voted for Brexit, but that what laws may be passed after Brexit may not lead to the result some were hoping for.

I do not know if government researchers are necessarily less biased than industry groups.

You are correct that to judge that forecast one needs to look at the premises, and in particular all factors considered. There were many forecasts in the US on the benefits of free trade agreements, that now even the original supporters realize didn't factor in some basic issue to be considered. My own experience in business in USA and personally I saw the effect of importing more lower skilled and lower educated workers on the lower working class. Models that forecast the benefits of that immigration and don't factor in costs of those losing their jobs and effect of downward pressure on wages can be faulty. Increasing supply absent increase in demand generally puts downward pressure on wages, and a theoretical model may assume workers who lose their jobs will get re-trained or have ability/desire to change locations which doesn't always happen, or don't look at the cost and multiplier effect of the increased benefits country has to pay and lower tax revenue from lower or stagnant wages.

I do not know enough about UK economy to know for sure whether that study or similar ones are faulty, that is why I wanted to access that report to see. I do admit my feeling is that those who are for constant immigration wouldn't accept any report that indicated in had a negative effect or that the effect on lower income segments of society even if an overall benefit to economy , aren't worth the cost. In the US I have seen first hands effect of lower or stagnant wages, often in some sectors specifically caused by ongoing immigration of lower skilled migrants.

Kind of like when the pits its closed in northeast I remember a study from government that to buy Polish coal would produce an economic benefit, but didn't include in the study the costs of benefits to be paid out for years to those who lost jobs, not to mention destruction of a way of life on a community.

I guess my feelings are affected by seeing first hand the effects in US in the region I lived of immigration and wages or jobs of lower skilled workers,let alone free trade policies that backfired.

Fredbargate Dec 11th 2016 10:27 am

re: Post EU Referendum
 

morpeth Dec 11th 2016 10:39 am

re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by Red Eric (Post 12126551)
Here is that NIESR report which I haven't previously provided a link to :

The Economic Impact of Brexit-induced Reductions in Migration

Thank you for posting that link.

While I suppose those writing the report had some bias against Brexit, it did seem a reasonable report which did include caveats as to the speculative nature of such studies.

The report seems fairly clear that higher skilled workers contributed to economic growth to the extent that for the UK such immigration beneficial. It also indicated that importation of lower skilled workers does have an effect of reducing wages ( or by implication wage growth). As you indicated the percentage they indicate of the negative effect is small, but is any such effect beneficial ? Suppose the figure actually 1.5% or even 2.5% ? Or no reduction but no growth in such wages on a real basis over the long run ? There is nothing in the report that contradicts the basic premise that increasing the supply of lower skilled workers doesn't have negative effects on wages of lower skilled workers. As usual with such reports I see little reference to the negative effects of costs to be incurred for those who may lose jobs or exit the workforce and the multiplier effect of those costs ( a similar flaw to similar US reports). And does society benefit if certain sections to do not participate in the overall economic growth ?

I guess I would ask from those more familiar with Brexit issues, based on this report how would UK post-Brexit continue to bring in higher skilled workers while reducing migration of lower workers ? Would a post-Brexit UK have policies to continue to allow in higher-skilled workers but clamp down on lower skilled workers ? Would higher skilled workers from EU still come in at same rate if UK out of Brexit if UK made more difficult or complicated for them to enter , or would UK devise immigration rules that would allow free entry of skilled workers only ? Are government official exhibiting the ability to negotiate decent terms with the EU on Brexit ?

Red Eric Dec 11th 2016 11:21 am

re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12126591)
I do not know if government researchers are necessarily less biased than industry groups.

The Bank of England is an independent central bank, so its researchers could hardly be said to be working for the government. The NIESR is also completely independent

The National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) is Britain's longest established independent economic research institute and think-tank located in London, England. It was established in 1938 with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, the Pilgrim Trust, the Leverhulme Trust and the Halley Stewart Trust.[1][2]

...

The National Institute is independent of all party political interests, and receives no core funding from government or other sources. They are not affiliated to any single university, although staff regularly undertake projects in collaboration with leading academic institutions. Funding is received through commissioned research projects from a variety of sources: government departments and agencies, the research councils, particularly the Economic and Social Research Council, the European Commission, charitable foundations, and the private sector.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...ocial_Research



Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12126591)
I do admit my feeling is that those who are for constant immigration wouldn't accept any report that indicated in had a negative effect or that the effect on lower income segments of society even if an overall benefit to economy , aren't worth the cost.

I'm not sure there's anybody who's particularly "for constant immigration" - from my point of view it's more a case of countering claims that the UK has an "open door immigration policy", that immigration is "uncontrolled" or that the UK is being "swamped with migrants" and of pointing out that there is a large body of research out there which, contrary to the tabloids and various sections of social media and the internet, show immigration as being positive in economic and other terms.


Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12126594)
While I suppose those writing the report had some bias against Brexit, it did seem a reasonable report which did include caveats as to the speculative nature of such studies.

It isn't bias if the research is objective and presents a set of results as possible outcomes without making value judgements about them.

Novocastrian Dec 11th 2016 11:24 am

re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12126594)
Would higher skilled workers from EU still come in at same rate if UK out of Brexit if UK made more difficult or complicated for them to enter , or would UK devise immigration rules that would allow free entry of skilled workers only ? Are government official exhibiting the ability to negotiate decent terms with the EU on Brexit ?

I met a Slovakian lady on the bus home last night who was coming off a 12 hour shift on the children's ICU at the RVI. She said she'd move on from the UK rather than apply for a visa to stay.

What makes you think that many EU skilled workers/professionals would have any interest in residing outside of the EU?

It doesn't matter how skilled UK negotiators are, they're ****ed before they start.

jimenato Dec 11th 2016 11:37 am

re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by Fredbargate (Post 12126593)

What do you think about that Fred? I found it very confusing as he said that Gibraltar wasn't part of the internal market and then a few seconds later that they wanted to remain in it.

He (and I suspect the people of Gibraltar) want to maintain free movement. How about you?

morpeth Dec 11th 2016 11:45 am

re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by Novocastrian (Post 12126612)
I met a Slovakian lady on the bus home last night who was coming off a 12 hour shift on the children's ICU at the RVI. She said she'd move on from the UK rather than apply for a visa to stay.

What makes you think that many EU skilled workers/professionals would have any interest in residing outside of the EU?

It doesn't matter how skilled UK negotiators are, they're ****ed before they start.

I haven't the slightest clue whether skilled EU workers would stay on after Brexit, guess it would depend what they are paid vs any financial disincentives of working outside the EU. I would assume some highly skilled EU workers also work outside the EU such as in USA.

On the other hand if they are lucky enough to be in Northumberland maybe they will stay on !

morpeth Dec 11th 2016 12:04 pm

re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by Red Eric (Post 12126611)
The Bank of England is an independent central bank, so its researchers could hardly be said to be working for the government. The NIESR is also completely independent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...ocial_Research



I'm not sure there's anybody who's particularly "for constant immigration" - from my point of view it's more a case of countering claims that the UK has an "open door immigration policy", that immigration is "uncontrolled" or that the UK is being "swamped with migrants" and of pointing out that there is a large body of research out there which, contrary to the tabloids and various sections of social media and the internet, show immigration as being positive in economic and other terms.


It isn't bias if the research is objective and presents a set of results as possible outcomes without making value judgements about them.

I do not know enough to judge whether the Bank of England or NIESR are completely objective or not unduly influenced to political or ideological influence. I know in US many supporters of continued immigration of lower skilled workers do tend to have a political bas or lack of concern for the lower working class, so I guess that could make me- perhaps unfairly- a little skeptical of similar supporters in UK. You are correct one should try to be objective and judge on the best facts available.

I agree the tabloids can paint a distorted picture at times. I do think that there can be a reasonable debate whether continued immigration into the US, Europe or UK is in the long run a positive thing or not. One would think it would be more clear whether positive or not from an economic perspective. On the other hand the scare-mongering perhaps of reports UK is being "swamped" may be just as non-objective as saying UK has strict controls on levels of immigration. Unless I am mistaken is there a numerical limit on number of European workers or asylum seekers ? Do not asylum seekers or refugees get immediate benefits while a returning British citizen from living abroad has to wait until they get some benefits ?

Judging from report you linked ( thanks it was helpful) as policy of reducing level of less skilled immigrants and increasing level of skilled immigration would be better for the economy.

As far as constant immigration I don't know why there should be any immigration unless beneficial for Britain. I don't know enough to be for or against Brexit but it seems a mess to implement. I do get impression there is a perception that the UK must have some level of immigration.

EMR Dec 11th 2016 12:08 pm

re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by TGA (Post 12126550)
The utter contempt of this vile split ars3. Contempt towards the will of the British people and contempt towards the elected government.


Brexit: Gina Miller brands historic Commons vote 'irrelevant' | UK | News | Daily Express

It is irrelevant it is not law and does not committ the government to doing anything.
The only vote in Parliament that matters will be the one that repeals tne original act to join the EU.
Thats the problem with Express readers, ignorance.

Bipat Dec 11th 2016 12:21 pm

re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by Novocastrian (Post 12126612)
I met a Slovakian lady on the bus home last night who was coming off a 12 hour shift on the children's ICU at the RVI. She said she'd move on from the UK rather than apply for a visa to stay.

What makes you think that many EU skilled workers/professionals would have any interest in residing outside of the EU?

It doesn't matter how skilled UK negotiators are, they're ****ed before they start.

I keep asking the same question---why is it so difficult to fill in a visa for a work permit. Non-EU skilled workers seem to manage it!

Bipat Dec 11th 2016 12:23 pm

re: Post EU Referendum
 
Niall Ferguson seems to have changed his views.


Welcome to the Fight: Niall Ferguson Reverses His Course on Brexit - The New York Sun


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:15 am.

Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.