The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[amogles]

	Quote:	marton
	Surreal isn't it? May is demanding easier immigration from the US!

Assuming that such an agreement would work both ways, I actually see plenty of opportunity.

Certain parts of the US, with their mild climates and low costs of living (compared to the UK) could well turn into retirment paradises for many Brits.

	Quote:	amogles
	Assuming that such an agreement would work both ways, I actually see plenty of opportunity. Certain parts of the US, with their mild climates and low costs of living (compared to the UK) could well turn into retirment paradises for many Brits.

I was watching a TV series showing retirement homes in Florida. I could see why that would be attractive for Brits.

[marton]

	Quote:	amogles
	Assuming that such an agreement would work both ways, I actually see plenty of opportunity. Certain parts of the US, with their mild climates and low costs of living (compared to the UK) could well turn into retirment paradises for many Brits.

I agree.
Just seems contrary to what most Brexiteers wanted.

Anyway the article was about freedom of movement for "workers" but I suppose the agreement could cover more areas?

[FrankZappa]

	Quote:	marton
	Surreal isn't it? May is demanding easier immigration from the US! If every new post Brexit trade deal includes similar clauses then the immigration due to EU FMOP will look tiny!! I expect the EU will be chuffed, not!

This is totally mad - two countries intent on vastly reducing immigration are going to negociate a deal to make it easier to migrate between them? What's the argument - we're rich and our skins are the same color?

[marton]

	Quote:	FrankZappa
	This is totally mad - two countries intent on vastly reducing immigration are going to negociate a deal to make it easier to migrate between them? What's the argument - we're rich and our skins are the same color?

Argument? We are talking about politicians; only the sound bite matters!

	Quote:	FrankZappa
	This is totally mad - two countries intent on vastly reducing immigration are going to negociate a deal to make it easier to migrate between them? What's the argument - we're rich and our skins are the same color?

Which is not even the case.

[Mikers]

	Quote:	FrankZappa
	This is totally mad - two countries intent on vastly reducing immigration are going to negociate a deal to make it easier to migrate between them? What's the argument - we're rich and our skins are the same color?

The Brexit argument was for control of immigration though, not reduction. It was to change the idea of a free movement of people of any skill level, to a mechanism of allowing people who had the right skills into the country. I would imagine that the US-UK would want a similar arrangement - neither side will want unskilled immigration (unless there is a specific job need for it such as fruit picking) so the arrangement would allow for quick skilled migration to take place. From what the papers say, thats just part of it, the rest is the trade agreements and tariffs and all that stuff.

[marton]

	Quote:	Mikers
	The Brexit argument was for control of immigration though, not reduction. It was to change the idea of a free movement of people of any skill level, to a mechanism of allowing people who had the right skills into the country. I would imagine that the US-UK would want a similar arrangement - neither side will want unskilled immigration (unless there is a specific job need for it such as fruit picking) so the arrangement would allow for quick skilled migration to take place. From what the papers say, thats just part of it, the rest is the trade agreements and tariffs and all that stuff.

Skilled people; you mean like Polish plumbers?

Seriously most Leave voters assumed "control of immigration" meant a reduction, if not, what was the point?

[Mikers]

	Quote:	marton
	Skilled people; you mean like Polish plumbers? Seriously most Leave voters assumed "control of immigration" meant a reduction, if not, what was the point?

Yes thats a good example - Plumbers. In the case we are short of plumbers, then Plumbers would be put on the skilled migration list and be able to work here. In the event there was an oversupply of plumbers this would not happen to control the numbers and so prevent wage dumping.

The Leave group were campaigning to have immigration of the right type. What is the point of reducing immigration if it is still the type you dont want ? It's like reducing your workforce but still not conducting interviews. You'll have a smaller company but with just a fewer rubbish staff.

[marton]

	Quote:	Mikers
	Yes thats a good example - Plumbers. In the case we are short of plumbers, then Plumbers would be put on the skilled migration list and be able to work here. In the event there was an oversupply of plumbers this would not happen to control the numbers and so prevent wage dumping. The Leave group were campaigning to have immigration of the right type. What is the point of reducing immigration if it is still the type you dont want ? It's like reducing your workforce but still not conducting interviews. You'll have a smaller company but with just a fewer rubbish staff.

Good points, myself I believe immigration is a good thing; of course, I did not vote leave!.

BTW the FMOP is in Article 3(2) of the Treaty on European Union states "For stays of over three months: the right of residence is subject to certain conditions. EU citizens and their family members — if not working — must have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay."

I think some people claimed otherwise

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	marton
	Good points, myself I believe immigration is a good thing; of course, I did not vote leave!. BTW the FMOP is in Article 3(2) of the Treaty on European Union states "For stays of over three months: the right of residence is subject to certain conditions. EU citizens and their family members — if not working — must have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay." I think some people claimed otherwise

How were you able to vote in the first place?

[Mikers]

	Quote:	marton
	Good points, myself I believe immigration is a good thing; of course, I did not vote leave!. BTW the FMOP is in Article 3(2) of the Treaty on European Union states "For stays of over three months: the right of residence is subject to certain conditions. EU citizens and their family members — if not working — must have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay." I think some people claimed otherwise

yes the whole thing was a pack of lies we all have been over that to death, the best liars won in the end, thats all. but from an external standpoint, because we are now here in switzerland after all, this is the acid test. The new, light, agile britain should be able to create trade deals around the world without being encumbered by the sheer size of the EU. Being bigger you get more power but you are also slower. Britain is now theoretically light and agile. Of course its got less power, so we could get a bunch of trade deals, all really crap.

In terms of reduction in immigration then I dont think there will be much, if any, numerical reduction because there should be a swap of unskilled EU immigration with a rise in skilled migration from new trade deals. the actual figures will remain the same.

The big question is: Will there be a backlash against widespread 4th July celebrations going on in Suffolk Villages ?

	Quote:	Mikers
	Yes thats a good example - Plumbers. In the case we are short of plumbers, then Plumbers would be put on the skilled migration list and be able to work here. In the event there was an oversupply of plumbers this would not happen to control the numbers and so prevent wage dumping. The Leave group were campaigning to have immigration of the right type. What is the point of reducing immigration if it is still the type you dont want ? It's like reducing your workforce but still not conducting interviews. You'll have a smaller company but with just a fewer rubbish staff.

Under the EU, the market effectively determines immigration - where the market for labour exists it will be filled. Where there is no market (or the market value is too low) it won't.

Under a skilled migration list you rely on burocrats to decide what is needed.

Which system do you think will benefit the economy better?

Proof of this is to look at where EU migrants actually live and work - well over half in London and the South East. Exactly where the jobs are but where many UK people refuse (for whatever reason) to move to. There's another much smaller peak in East England made up of fruit pickers and the like which again UK people largely refuse to do.

[marton]

	Quote:
	Under the EU, the market effectively determines immigration - where the market for labour exists it will be filled. Where there is no market (or the market value is too low) it won't. Under a skilled migration list you rely on burocrats to decide what is needed. Which system do you think will benefit the economy better? Proof of this is to look at where EU migrants actually live and work - well over half in London and the South East. Exactly where the jobs are but where many UK people refuse (for whatever reason) to move to. There's another much smaller peak in East England made up of fruit pickers and the like which again UK people largely refuse to do.

"Under a skilled migration list you rely on bureaucrats to decide what is needed." It will be a similar process to deciding who can fish where, which fish type and how many; you all know what a great success that is

You can imagine it.
We need robotics and Artificial Intelligence experts?
Sorry these skills are not in our lists and there are no formal qualifications listed for these skills.

[Mikers]

	Quote:
	Under the EU, the market effectively determines immigration - where the market for labour exists it will be filled. Where there is no market (or the market value is too low) it won't. Under a skilled migration list you rely on burocrats to decide what is needed. Which system do you think will benefit the economy better? Proof of this is to look at where EU migrants actually live and work - well over half in London and the South East. Exactly where the jobs are but where many UK people refuse (for whatever reason) to move to. There's another much smaller peak in East England made up of fruit pickers and the like which again UK people largely refuse to do.

The second one i would say. If your looking to fill a football stadium with a 50,000 seat capacity, do you let everyone pile on in until its like really crushed with a few injuries and some people wander out in disgust ? Or do you get a ticket office to sell 50,000 tickets ?

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	marton
	Skilled people; you mean like Polish plumbers? Seriously most Leave voters assumed "control of immigration" meant a reduction, if not, what was the point?

Exactly, that's why they repeatedly asserted that immigration was a drain on the NHS and appointment waiting times.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Exactly, that's why they repeatedly asserted that immigration was a drain on the NHS and appointment waiting times.

If the immigrants are net tax payers earning £35k plus then they are unlikely to be a big drain, a cleaner working part time earning 10k will likely be getting benefits. Perhaps the minimum salary limit should be higher than £35k.

[marton]

	Quote:	Mikers
	Yes thats a good example - Plumbers. In the case we are short of plumbers, then Plumbers would be put on the skilled migration list and be able to work here. In the event there was an oversupply of plumbers this would not happen to control the numbers and so prevent wage dumping. The Leave group were campaigning to have immigration of the right type. What is the point of reducing immigration if it is still the type you dont want ? It's like reducing your workforce but still not conducting interviews. You'll have a smaller company but with just a fewer rubbish staff.

Thought I remembered this

	Quote:
	May has reiterated her commitment to reducing net migration to below 100,000 a year, a target David Cameron’s government repeatedly missed. Net migration to the U.K. in the year ending June 2016 was 335,000, of which 189,000 were EU citizens.

Source

Theresa May wants to explore how to boost US-UK migration when she meets the US president, Donald Trump, this week.

Confirmation from the Australian high commissioner in London that exploratory talks have already begun on a UK-Australian free trade deal, and that greater access for Australian businesspeople to Britain will have to form part of it.
Source

Will be interesting to see how she balances these conflicting aims?

[marton]

	Quote:	FrankZappa
	This is totally mad - two countries intent on vastly reducing immigration are going to negotiate a deal to make it easier to migrate between them? What's the argument - we're rich and our skins are the same color?

Could be! She is having similar discussions with Australia on easing immigration whereas last November she clearly told India to forget any easing of immigration.

Did anyone watch the Andrew Marr show yesterday?

Nick Clegg says it very well- trade deals with the USA, Australia and NZ are unlikely to match up to the Single Market:

https://www.facebook.com/BBCPolitics...7116908638494/