Brexit Thread

[Gilrandir]

Be honest, you and husar didn't read further than the first line, did you?

My selected skin is obviously the only one that can ever be used as a reference.

Yo, line-counters, would you like to hear me out?

Greyblades brought up the homeless problem as one of the reasons the UK should get out of the EU.
BUT: homeless were there before the UK joined the EU and even before there was any UK (I don't mean those were the same people, though) and will be there anyway. Blaming societal ulcers onto someONE is ridiculous. They were always there rising and ebbing depending on many factors. Even if you subtract one of those it doesn't mean the situation will improve. What if by exiting the EU Great Britain (or Lesser Britain) will provoke a downhill tendency in economy thus increasing the number of local (not imported) hobos?

Conclusion: don't expect that Brexit will heal all sores of your country since they were not begotten by EU membership.

[Husar]

And people wonder why this forum is going down hill...

When they aid and abett a mass migration of foriegn young men with lower wage expectations and a tendency to molest rape and murder those who do not share thier belief system[...]

Hmm, yes...

I dont know, Honestly every source I find are contradictorary, guardan says 184,000 in 2013, while wikipedia says there were 54,430 homeless households in 2014, but only 498 people sleeping rough each night, while the guardian says 3,500 each night and that's not counting the increasing number of young adults working from thier parents homes instead of thier own because they cannot afford houses.

So because you can't find data you can trust, you know it is the fault of the EU?
Even with the data we used earlier, you couldn't really explain the math that would imply it is the fault of the EU.
Yet you know it is the fault of the EU?

...What makes you think they cant? 0 hour contracts and the like add to the problem because they do not provide a stable source of income required to maintain a household, it takes you off the unemployment list but can mean you can be only paid for anywhere as little as one hour of work each 6 months on a minimum wage. It pads the numbers of new jobs the government can tell the public it created without actually providing a proper source of income for the new "employee".

Obviously the fault of the EU?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedo...European_Union
When we joined the EU we agreed to the policy of freedom of movment for workers in the European Union, and that freedom means we cannot turn away EU migrants who can secure work, so no quota, no limitation, we must let them all in and mr camron could not or would not secure an exemption for the UK, the only option given to legally limit or halt immigration from the EU was to leave it.

And why can so many of them secure work in your country?
Because of the EU? Again, does the EU enforce cheap contracts for cheap foreign workers? Why do the non-EU immigrants come? Are their cheap jobs also mandated by the EU?

Homelessness and unemployment cannot be solved if the need for jobs and houses out paces the supply, every new person in the country means one more person without a job, usually the local he is replacing because the employer is either too lazy to train or too stingy to pay. It is highly unlikely a good government could grow our economy fast enough to support the demands of such a fast growing population, let alone the lack-wit governments we were stuck choosing between a year ago.

Probably overlooked this part:

However, research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has shown that a cut in the number of migrants would have a negative impact on the economy.

Well, first of all, your article does not prove what you say right before it, it does not say every immigrant puts a UK citizen out of a job, it merely says a lot of the new jhobs go to immigrants, but that could just as well be due to a stagnating or slowly growing native population.
That the economic growth cannot keep pace with the population growth is something you did not show. And what about all the non-EU immigrants? Are they all allowed in and slip straight into unemployment?

The simple answer is our government is dominated by uncaring assholes who dont care about the issues of people poorer than themselves, be they champagne socialists or ivory tower conservatives.

Makes you wonder who let them rise through the party ranks and continuously elected them into higher and higher offices or how does one become a politician in the UK?

Yo, line-counters, would you like to hear me out?

Greyblades brought up the homeless problem as one of the reasons the UK should get out of the EU.
BUT: homeless were there before the UK joined the EU and even before there was any UK (I don't mean those were the same people, though) and will be there anyway. Blaming societal ulcers onto someONE is ridiculous. They were always there rising and ebbing depending on many factors. Even if you subtract one of those it doesn't mean the situation will improve. What if by exiting the EU Great Britain (or Lesser Britain) will provoke a downhill tendency in economy thus increasing the number of local (not imported) hobos?

Conclusion: don't expect that Brexit will heal all sores of your country since they were not begotten by EU membership.

There will always be those who want to live in the streets, yes. For everyone else it should be possible to provide them with a home at least.

[Greyblades]

When Andrea Leadsom says one way for small companies to cope with Brexit is to remove all regulations and employees' rights, it would suggest that the EU has a part in making sure these regulations and rights are there.

Actually it suggests that andrea leadsome is an idiot and that's why she lost to may.

Greyblades brought up the homeless problem as one of the reasons the UK should get out of the EU.
BUT: homeless were there before the UK joined the EU and even before there was any UK (I don't mean those were the same people, though) and will be there anyway. Blaming societal ulcers onto someONE is ridiculous. They were always there rising and ebbing depending on many factors. Even if you subtract one of those it doesn't mean the situation will improve. What if by exiting the EU Great Britain (or Lesser Britain) will provoke a downhill tendency in economy thus increasing the number of local (not imported) hobos?

Conclusion: don't expect that Brexit will heal all sores of your country since they were not begotten by EU membership.

Econimic downturns can reverse, EU immigration could not be stopped or controlled without leaving and meant that the economic prosperity we were capable of creating in the EU would never be enough to eliminate unemployment, AKA the leading cause of sleeping rough.

Hmm, yes...

Better a truth you dont like than no real response at all.

So because you can't find data you can trust, you know it is the fault of the EU?
Even with the data we used earlier, you couldn't really explain the math that would imply it is the fault of the EU.
Yet you know it is the fault of the EU?

I know that the 184,000 immigrants a year is uncontrollable because of EU. I know that the homeless problem is increasing because I can see it on my streets and both sides of the political spectrum confirm it. I know that rough sleeping is largely a result of unemployment from both common sense (you cant afford to rent a house if you are broke) and said political consensus. I can find data I can trust, I just cant find data that can answer your question. Where are immigrants getting houses? Who knows, I suspect a lowered definition of housing on the part of the immigrant and a reliance on voluntary application on the part of the surveys.

Obviously the fault of the EU?

You brought it up. I only exploited it to pre-empt an appeal to dropping unemployment rates.

And why can so many of them secure work in your country?
Because of the EU? Again, does the EU enforce cheap contracts for cheap foreign workers? Why do the non-EU immigrants come? Are their cheap jobs also mandated by the EU?

The government doesnt control the private sector and cant put controls on who we take in thanks to the EU, meaning that if I voted in a government that wanted to it couldnt, hence my problem with the EU.

Probably overlooked this part:

I didnt: you overlooked this part: "I'm fine with an economic depression when the alternative is having to witness hopeless stagnation every time I leave my home, the comfort and luxury of a first world country doesnt seem worth it if so many of my fellow britons are stuck outside."

Well, first of all, your article does not prove what you say right before it, it does not say every immigrant puts a UK citizen out of a job, it merely says a lot of the new jhobs go to immigrants, but that could just as well be due to a stagnating or slowly growing native population.

Nitpicking, every job going to an immigrant is one not going to a local and there is only so much that could be explained by lack of qualification on the part of the local in such an educated population. If it was down to a stagnating or slowly growing native population: unemployment would be near zero.

That the economic growth cannot keep pace with the population growth is something you did not show. And what about all the non-EU immigrants? Are they all allowed in and slip straight into unemployment?

Immigration of 330000 a year, mostly employed before arrival job creation of about 400,000 a year of which, lets be generous and say 350,000 are worth anything, gives a net growth of jobs of around 20,000 a year. Unemployment is at 1.67 million so we can say that at this rate UK in the EU would beat unemployment in 83 &1/2 years.

Assuming of course the numbers stays static and that the European economy could stay stable for 83 years, I somewhat doubt it considering Deuschbank just asked for a bailout, the mediteranian is going down the drain and Germany is putting 90 billion into a project of self harm, I give odds that it doesnt last 2 years before another crisis.

As you mentioned lowering immigration would damage the economy, diminishing returns, we need to lower it gradually but we cannot do that well if half a continent of poor people is utterly at liberty to undercut every job seeker in the country for a taste of a good life. Immigration shot up 100,000 in 2013 there's nothing stopping the EU immigrants from making up for any reduction in non EU immigration

Makes you wonder who let them rise through the party ranks and continuously elected them into higher and higher offices or how does one become a politician in the UK?

Makes you wonder if they can keep it up forever.

[Husar]

Econimic downturns can reverse, EU immigration could not be stopped or controlled without leaving and meant that the economic prosperity we were capable of creating in the EU would never be enough to eliminate unemployment, AKA the leading cause of sleeping rough.

I know that the 184,000 immigrants a year is uncontrollable because of EU. I know that the homeless problem is increasing because I can see it on my streets and both sides of the political spectrum confirm it. I know that rough sleeping is largely a result of unemployment from both common sense (you cant afford to rent a house if you are broke) and said political consensus. I can find data I can trust, I just cant find data that can answer your question. Where are immigrants getting houses? Who knows, I suspect a lowered definition of housing on the part of the immigrant and a reliance on voluntary application on the part of the surveys.

The government doesnt control the private sector and cant put controls on who we take in thanks to the EU, meaning that if I voted in a government that wanted to it couldnt, hence my problem with the EU.

I didnt: you overlooked this part: "I'm fine with an economic depression when the alternative is having to witness hopeless stagnation every time I leave my home, the comfort and luxury of a first world country doesnt seem worth it if so many of my fellow britons are stuck outside."

Nitpicking, every job going to an immigrant is one not going to a local and there is only so much that could be explained by lack of qualification on the part of the local in such an educated population. If it was down to a stagnating or slowly growing native population: unemployment would be near zero.

Immigration of 330000 a year, mostly employed before arrival job creation of about 400,000 a year of which, lets be generous and say 350,000 are worth anything, gives a net growth of jobs of around 20,000 a year. Unemployment is at 1.67 million so we can say that at this rate UK in the EU would beat unemployment in 83 &1/2 years.

Assuming of course the numbers stays static and that the European economy could stay stable for 83 years, I somewhat doubt it considering Deuschbank just asked for a bailout, the mediteranian is going down the drain and Germany is putting 90 billion into a project of self harm, I give odds that it doesnt last 2 years before another crisis.

As you mentioned lowering immigration would damage the economy, diminishing returns, we need to lower it gradually but we cannot do that well if half a continent of poor people is utterly at liberty to undercut every job seeker in the country for a taste of a good life. Immigration shot up 100,000 in 2013 there's nothing stopping the EU immigrants from making up for any reduction in non EU immigration

Makes you wonder if they can keep it up forever.

Cut out a few parts to keep only the relevant ones, but there seem to be a series of assumptions that I would heavily doubt.

1) Your calculations are way too simple, so first of all, you won't realistically reach a point of having 0 unemployed people, simply because some people always switch jobs. An unemployment rate of around 4% is usually considered full employment for that reason.

2) You seem to think population and number of jobs are completely decoupled, but the population also affects consumption and consumption influences the number of available jobs... If your population stops growing, the number of jobs may stagnate or even go down. Or growth can become very slow. A counterbalance could come through export/trade, but given that you left the EU, you also gave up the common market, making that harder to achieve.

3) You complain about the inability of your government to control immigration within the EU and say it can't control the private sector. There are two issues here:
3A) The government could control non-EU migration, if it agreed with you that migration is such a problem, why does it not lower that type of migration to at least mitigate the problem? After all you say all parties admit the problem exists and apparently want to do something about it.
3B) That the government can't control the private sector is just laughable. Even the USA have a minimum wage and here you talk about zero-hour contracts as though nothing can be done about them. The EU does not forbid minimum wages, Germany only recently introduced some.

4) "Every job going to an immigrant is not going to a local": Again, a lot of these jobs wouldn't even exist if it weren't for population growth. Can you show me where on the following graph the unemployment rate is affected by EU immigration?
https://www.google.de/publicdata/exp...de&hl=en&dl=en
Your country must have had a lot of EU immigration in the late 80s and early 90s and then threw all the immigrants out until 2008? Why is the rate dropping since July 2013? And didn't you just say homelessness has gone up between 2013 and now? Why?

5) The US had "full employment" for a while and still had homeless people. How does that fit your idea that employment and homelessness are directly linked?

6) Why is the number of houses not growing fast enough? Apparently this was never a big issue in the past, but now after the housing bubble burst it is? Couldn't have something to do with capitalism and the bubble having destroyed the confidence of investors in real estate and a shortage giving owners higher profits?

[Greyblades]

1. Of course it is simplistic, it's illustrating that job growth is being rendered largely useless for tackling unemployment by population growth. And as previously illustrated here the UK's employment figures are padded with zero hour contracts and various unpaid "training" jobs.

2. I adressed this by acknowledging diminishing returns and expressing the desire for control not complete halt. Control the EU prevents being effective.

3.
a) Because they dont give a shit about the people detrimentally affected by it.

Less flippantly because the Conservative government is trying to make the national numbers to go the way they want; unemployment, gdp, FTSE etc and they are not very interested in how it is done or how it actually affects the population because thus far the numbers are all they have needed to prove that they are better than the alternatives which they technicaly are because Labour tried to do the same thing for 15 years but even less effectively. For example in a practical terms Zero hour contracts wouldnt count as full employment and thus the number of unemployed would go up by 800,000. The job growth is at 400,000 a year, who cares if any of those jobs actually goes to anyone who didnt move in from europe.

b) As stipulated in the freedom of movment policy we agreed to who's second line clearly states "Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment" we cannot get them to stop hiring from the EU as forcing the private sector to only hire britons is in direct violation of that.

4) You're doing the same thing as Gilrandir, taking it to the most simplistic conclusion, ignoring pre established context and giving no benefit of doubt. It is strawmanning to the highest degree and is highly aggrivating, even insulting.

The majority of immigrants coming from the EU is coming to take a job that existed before the immigrant arrived and could have gone to a local but didn't, and it is extremely safe to say that a lack of skill does not account for the majority.

5) America has never had full employment.

6) Does it matter? It isnt growing fast enough, it will never grow fast enough to accomodate such a population growth, it never did even in the days of massive council housing development. The government might be willing to ignore that uncontrolled immigration is countering the benefits it brings but I am not.

[Husar]

1. Of course it is simplistic, it's illustrating that job growth is being rendered largely useless for tackling unemployment by population growth. And as previously illustrated here the UK's employment figures are padded with zero hour contracts and various unpaid "training" jobs.

2. I adressed this by acknowledging diminishing returns and expressing the desire for control not complete halt. Control the EU prevents being effective.

3.
a) Because they dont give a shit about the people detrimentally affected by it.

Less flippantly because the Conservative government is trying to make the national numbers to go the way they want; unemployment, gdp, FTSE etc and they are not very interested in how it is done or how it actually affects the population because thus far the numbers are all they have needed to prove that they are better than the alternatives which they technicaly are because Labour tried to do the same thing for 15 years but even less effectively. For example in a practical terms Zero hour contracts wouldnt count as full employment and thus the number of unemployed would go up by 800,000. The job growth is at 400,000 a year, who cares if any of those jobs actually goes to anyone who didnt move in from europe.

b) As stipulated in the freedom of movment policy we agreed to who's second line clearly states "Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment" we cannot get them to stop hiring from the EU as forcing the private sector to only hire britons is in direct violation of that.

4) You're doing the same thing as Gilrandir, taking it to the most simplistic conclusion, ignoring pre established context and giving no benefit of doubt. It is strawmanning to the highest degree and is highly aggrivating, even insulting.

The majority of immigrants coming from the EU is coming to take a job that existed before the immigrant arrived and could have gone to a local but didn't, and it is extremely safe to say that a lack of skill does not account for the majority.

5) America has never had full employment.

6) Does it matter? It isnt growing fast enough, it will never grow fast enough to accomodate such a population growth, it never did even in the days of massive council housing development. The government might be willing to ignore that uncontrolled immigration is countering the benefits it brings but I am not.

1) Yes, but stopping population growth is just as useless and can also limit market growth. If the population growth has no effect on unemployment, why did you bring it up as a reason for unemployment?

2) You mean control your government does not even attempt. Who tells you that a decrease in EU immigration will not lead to a corresponding increase in general immigration? Would you rather have more Pakistani immigrants than Polish ones? Is that your point?

3A) Yes, leads us right back to point two. Except that here you basically seem to say that none of the parties with a shot at getting elected will change anything...
As for zero-hour contracts, how can you say they won't exist anymore once you stop or limit EU immigration? The US and Germany have similar wage problems and at least the US is not in the EU. Even New Zealand:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post...-get-low-wages

In New Zealand, wage and salary earners lost about a quarter of their share of the income the economy generated between the early 1980s and 2002. The fall wasn't because employers had invested aggressively to make their firms more productive. Growth in capital intensity was weak, and weaker than Australia. It began to rise again, but by 2010 was still well below 30 years earlier.

This is a problem pretty much everywhere but in developing countries as far as I can tell. The borders are opened more by corporate lobbies than the EU and just leaving the EU will probably not help you a lot unless you elect a communist government afterwards.

3B) Are you deliberately trying not to get my point? I talked about other government tools such as minimum wages, which can make hiring locals for the same wage more attractive (no language barriers, etc.) and you counter by saying they can't limit immigration?

4) That's just hilarious, especially when you say it's insulting.
You're the one who over-simplifies, that two people disagree doesn't even bother you, you just call us insulting...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...g-british-jobs

As the economist Jonathan Portes has pointed out, it is not a zero-sum game in which there are only a fixed number of jobs to go round: “It’s true that, if an immigrant takes a job, then a British worker can’t take that job – but it doesn’t mean he or she won’t find another one that may have been created, directly or indirectly, as a result of immigration.”

HMRC figures also show that EU migrants more than pay their way. Those who arrived in Britain in the last four years paid £2.54bn more in income tax and national insurance than they received in tax credits or child benefit in 2013-14. The Office of Budget Responsibility has estimated that their labour contribution is helping to grow the economy by an additional 0.6% a year.

How about you extend your benefit of the doubt to what this article says or find any kind of proof that this is not true?

5) Yeah, just change the definition and only look at a certain timeframe...
https://www.google.de/publicdata/exp...:S&hl=en&dl=en

I mentioned 4% as the ideal figure, their law defines a mix of 3% and 4%, in 1953 they even got below the 3% but in a few years they were somewhere around 4%, which is why I made that comment. You have so far not shown anything that suggests homelessness is tied to the unemployment rate. There is surely a connection, I won't deny that, but it's not a direct correlation and full employment alone does not fix all homelessness.

6) Yes it does matter, because an abundance of homes lower the rent but also the profit of the owners. Whether someone can afford a home does not just depend on how much they earn, but also how much the rent costs, no? And whether investors build enough new homes depends on the profits they can expect. Building more homes would also create more jobs.

[Greyblades]

Or am I misunderstanding something here?

What's happening here is I'm getting sidetracked by Gilrandir being an antagonistic ass.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

1) Yes, but stopping population growth is just as useless and can also limit market growth. If the population growth has no effect on unemployment, why did you bring it up as a reason for unemployment?

2) You mean control your government does not even attempt. Who tells you that a decrease in EU immigration will not lead to a corresponding increase in general immigration? Would you rather have more Pakistani immigrants than Polish ones? Is that your point?

3A) Yes, leads us right back to point two. Except that here you basically seem to say that none of the parties with a shot at getting elected will change anything...
As for zero-hour contracts, how can you say they won't exist anymore once you stop or limit EU immigration? The US and Germany have similar wage problems and at least the US is not in the EU. Even New Zealand:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post...-get-low-wages


This is a problem pretty much everywhere but in developing countries as far as I can tell. The borders are opened more by corporate lobbies than the EU and just leaving the EU will probably not help you a lot unless you elect a communist government afterwards.

3B) Are you deliberately trying not to get my point? I talked about other government tools such as minimum wages, which can make hiring locals for the same wage more attractive (no language barriers, etc.) and you counter by saying they can't limit immigration?

4) That's just hilarious, especially when you say it's insulting.
You're the one who over-simplifies, that two people disagree doesn't even bother you, you just call us insulting...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...g-british-jobs



How about you extend your benefit of the doubt to what this article says or find any kind of proof that this is not true?

5) Yeah, just change the definition and only look at a certain timeframe...
https://www.google.de/publicdata/exp...:S&hl=en&dl=en

I mentioned 4% as the ideal figure, their law defines a mix of 3% and 4%, in 1953 they even got below the 3% but in a few years they were somewhere around 4%, which is why I made that comment. You have so far not shown anything that suggests homelessness is tied to the unemployment rate. There is surely a connection, I won't deny that, but it's not a direct correlation and full employment alone does not fix all homelessness.

6) Yes it does matter, because an abundance of homes lower the rent but also the profit of the owners. Whether someone can afford a home does not just depend on how much they earn, but also how much the rent costs, no? And whether investors build enough new homes depends on the profits they can expect. Building more homes would also create more jobs.

1) I disagree that our population growth is entirely reliant on the immigration, but I argue that the population growth being uncontrolled is not causing the majoirty of the job growth but cancelling out it's effects on unemployment. We began growing a lot of jobs in 2012 and the immigration rate jumped in 2013 in response to it as immigrants were brought into take the jobs.

The jobs being grown werent caused by the immigration, as they started increasing before the spike, but because of open borders the companies imported cheap labour instead of hiring locals with greater expectations in wages and thus cancelled out most of the benefit.

I understand that the growth likely wouldnt have been as great if the companies were forced to hire locals, as the more fragile companies would have gone to cheaper pastures, but a halved or even quartered job growth without an immigration spike would be of greater benefit to my countrymen than having a huge deluge of jobs that near all of them will never benefit from.

2) That they do not even attempt it is a reason why I do not blame the EU for all my problems, despite Gilrandir's protestations otherwise. I am hopeful with the effect of the brexit vote and the rise of corbyn that will change and proper immigration controls are resumed, we are unlikely to see it happen before 2020 but the possibility is there; it could never resume while we are in the EU.

3A) I never said they wont exist once we stop or limit EU immigration, that is a problem we will have to solve internally. That you and gilrandiir claim I did say it was because of the EU is what I find insulting. Though I will admit my sensitivity to misrepresentation may be a tad hightened compared to the average person.

3B) My understanding is that a Briton is undesirable because they expect wage increases with time whereas an immigrant from a poor country is going to be happy they just have a job in a rich country and not agitate for raises. A Briton cannot compete with that and a minimum wage increase wont change that and will have the side effect of making everyone else's jobs worth less.

4) I quote the highest voted comment on that :

Are EU migrants really taking British jobs

There's no such thing as a British job.

They are, however, taking jobs. By increasing the supply of labour, they are inevitably putting downward pressure on wages. To deny that is to deny a basic law of economics.

I also quote Mr Worthlessdollar1 who interjects:

More British workers are in work than ever - that's true. But what the Guardian fails to highlight is the number of British people forced into part time jobs and zero hour, dead end contracts.

5) Fair enough, when there is not enough housing there will be those in a proper full employment who cannot afford housing, however full employment would go a long way to eliminating the worst of the conditions the homeless endure and all but remove the need for street sleeping/begging.

6) True but my issue is that we were importing more households than we could account for if we were building houses at full tilt, the homeless numbers would still climb. Building mass housing at a great rate is a somewhat undesireable solution anyway considering we are rather attached to our somewhat shrinking countryside here and are running out of brown land(land that was previously built upon).

[Gilrandir]

Econimic downturns can reverse,

And again they may not. You can never tell.

EU immigration could not be stopped or controlled without leaving

Let's see how those that stayed in the EU will handle it. I'm sure they will come up with a solution. Leaving the EU before you tried to address the challenges together is like divorcing the husband the day after he had lost his job on the pretext he can't support the family any more.

4) You're doing the same thing as Gilrandir, taking it to the most simplistic conclusion, ignoring pre established context and giving no benefit of doubt. It is strawmanning to the highest degree and is highly aggrivating, even insulting.

I'm just parroting your approach - presenting the EU as a strawman and making a simplistic conclusion that all problems will vanish into the thin air once you leave it.

[Greyblades]

I have in no form ever said or even implied that leaving the EU would cause all problems to vanish and I challenge you to prove otherwise.