EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[radamfi]

This merely places you in the same position as the majority of the developed world; I do not see any unjust hardship if that were to become the case.

Actually, we will have very limited free movement compared to almost all other developed countries. The US and Canada have vast territories to roam around in. Australia and New Zealand enjoy free movement between them.

A massive difference is that we have grown up with free movement and thus planned our lives, education etc. with that expectation. Nobody seriously would have expected that to end. We are now in a right pickle and nobody is doing anything to help.

 

[AlterEgo]

Actually, we will have very limited free movement compared to almost all other developed countries. The US and Canada have vast territories to roam around in.

So what? If Britain was bigger you still wouldn't like it; you'd still want to leave. The principal driver for people leaving is either that another country simply looks more attractive or that they dislike the country they currently live in.

PS: we will always have free movement with Ireland.

But this is reciprocal! So we have been paying for other Europeans to use British services with the understanding that we will be able to do the same in other parts of Europe in the future.

Indeed we have, and perhaps you could let me know how many citizens from the EU on modest means come to retire and die in the UK without ever working, compared to the reverse.

Retiring somewhere with the intention of growing older and spending the rest of your days there means that - to be frank - you're going to be a net drain on the public purse. Nobody has an issue with that if you're a citizen. I'm British and have been so forever. I'm quite happy to retire and die here and cost the NHS loads of money, because by then I'll have contributed 50 years of work and income tax into the system. I'm an active citizen and can honestly say I pay my fair share into the state, which acts as a safety net for all.

 

[Howardh]

No, and for good reason. Want to know why? It's because you've contributed nothing and will under-contribute to the economy as a retired person with a modest lifestyle.

That's also why Americans and Australians (and South Africans, like my good lady) can't just come here and work unless they can satisfy strict visa requirements. My other half pays an NHS surcharge on top of her tax and NI simply to work here.

This merely places you in the same position as the majority of the developed world; I do not see any unjust hardship if that were to become the case.
So it's fine to put pressure on local services and the health systems in other EU countries then? These are services someone else paid for and for which you, as a British person, never paid.

Why not, then, extend it to the UK so we, in the north, can't move south and be a drain on the south's resources? What if Scotland becomes independent, can't I move there afterwards??!! And in any case, long-stay migrants have to join that country's system which often involves payment/taxes so they aren't a drain on resources. If I moved permanently to Spain or Portugal I would fully expect to pay into their system and/or insurance; and if I didn't I could hardly expect to receive benefits such as free/cheap health care. Where's the "pressure" when I've paid for it?

 

[radamfi]

Indeed we have, and perhaps you could let me know how many citizens from the EU on modest means come to retire and die in the UK without ever working, compared to the reverse.

Retiring somewhere with the intention of growing older and spending the rest of your days there means that - to be frank - you're going to be a net drain on the public purse. Nobody has an issue with that if you're a citizen. I'm British and have been so forever. I'm quite happy to retire and die here and cost the NHS loads of money, because by then I'll have contributed 50 years of work and income tax into the system. I'm an active citizen and can honestly say I pay my fair share into the state, which acts as a safety net for all.

The flow has been primarily young to the UK and old out of the UK, which means, according to your philosophy, that the UK has long been milking the benefits of gaining young, productive immigrants whilst passing off the costs of old age elsewhere. So by this logic, the UK should want continued EU membership and Spain should want to leave. But EU membership doesn't seem that controversial in Spain, despite having to nurse all those parasitic British/Belgian etc. ex-pats.

 

[Howardh]

The flow has been primarily young to the UK and old out of the UK, which means, according to your philosophy, that the UK has long been milking the benefits of gaining young, productive immigrants whilst passing off the costs of old age elsewhere. So by this logic, the UK should want continued EU membership and Spain should want to leave. But EU membership doesn't seem that controversial in Spain, despite having to nurse all those parasitic British/Belgian etc. ex-pats.

I'm sure I have read that the Spanish, Portuguese and Greeks are very concerned about our ex-pats leaving, as it leaves holes in their income in places where they rely on tourism and retirement? If so then there could be conflict between an EU-wide plan for non-EU immigration (eg a financial minimum) and each country's individual requirement.
Example, Germany with a higher cost-of-living could demand an income of £20k minimum, whereas Spain might only require £15,000 as the COL is much lower; heating bills for starters!
I have no idea which is correct, whether there IS an EU-wide limit or whether each country can dictate it's own residence/retirement visa requirements. The latter would make more sense for the reasons given.

 

[AlterEgo]

Why not, then, extend it to the UK so we, in the north, can't move south and be a drain on the south's resources? What if Scotland becomes independent, can't I move there afterwards??!! And in any case, long-stay migrants have to join that country's system which often involves payment/taxes so they aren't a drain on resources. If I moved permanently to Spain or Portugal I would fully expect to pay into their system and/or insurance; and if I didn't I could hardly expect to receive benefits such as free/cheap health care. Where's the "pressure" when I've paid for it?

Sure, you’d fully pay into Spain’s system, for how long until you retired? How old are you?

By your utopian logic, let’s make the whole world open.

Countries exist for a reason.

 

[AlterEgo]

The flow has been primarily young to the UK and old out of the UK, which means, according to your philosophy, that the UK has long been milking the benefits of gaining young, productive immigrants whilst passing off the costs of old age elsewhere. So by this logic, the UK should want continued EU membership and Spain should want to leave. But EU membership doesn't seem that controversial in Spain, despite having to nurse all those parasitic British/Belgian etc. ex-pats.

The trap was set and you fell in. Thank you for so succinctly explaining why free movement is not a good idea, and is inherently beneficial only to wealthy established states like the UK.

Wanting to milk young migrants is EXACTLY what is happening to my other half. She even has to pay a surcharge for the NHS, even though she is young and rarely uses it, earns over £50k and pays substantial tax and NI.

In the case of EU migrants, the brain drain from places like Bulgaria and Romania is alarming. It’s great we can have their doctors, research scientists, marketing professionals, and accountants. But what about those countries?

I want people to stop thinking free movement is a universal good and to consider what impact it has both on potential wage depression here and on the countries from whence the migrants came.

 

[Howardh]

Sure, you’d fully pay into Spain’s system, for how long until you retired? How old are you?
By your utopian logic, let’s make the whole world open.
.

Nope. Reason - the UK and Europe are places where citizens from both are likely to move around, I'm sure a Spaniard or German would just as well come and live here as we would want to move there. However make that, say Syria and the UK, how many Brits would move to Syria? Count on one hand, whereas I reckon many from there would want to move here. So it's unbalanced.
What will happen, of course, is we offer more visas to places like India, Pakistan, Indionesia, China, Brazil etc etc to get trade deals, and have an increase of migrants from there, but we won't wish to leave in the opposite direction - at least not the volume that we send to the EU to work/retire. So that's unbalanced...but you voted for it. Why??

EDIT; the first part, I'm just short of retirement age, working as a carer for my mother and I already take one private pension.
My plans on her death were to inherit the house, sell (downsizing) and own two smaller properties, on in the UK and one in Ibiza (Formentera if I could afford); live in the UK long enough not to pay taxes in Spain and keep my state pension increases.
I would need private health insurance over there once the EHIC has gone.
Possibility of letting out my home overseas to gain extra income (I have a Formentera agent on the case).
However, the uncertainty over Brexicide has put a stop to that. Hopefully - worst case - I will be able to rent for 6 months and visit 90 days out of 180. But thtat's your decision, you voted for it.

 

[radamfi]

I want people to stop thinking free movement is a universal good and to consider what impact it has both on potential wage depression here and on the countries from whence the migrants came.

That's why the governments of Bulgaria and Romania have always been opposed to joining the EU. Their citizens have also always been very opposed to membership.

 

[mmh]

That's why the governments of Bulgaria and Romania have always been opposed to joining the EU. Their citizens have also always been very opposed to membership.

That's obviously untrue, else how did Bulgaria and Romania join the EU?

 

[radamfi]

That's obviously untrue, else how did Bulgaria and Romania join the EU?

Why would they join the EU? It would clearly be against their interests as there would be an inevitable brain drain.

 

[mmh]

Why would they join the EU? It would clearly be against their interests as there would be an inevitable brain drain.

Oh, I see, you're trying to be "clever", and sadly failing dismally. Yes, I wonder why they would join. It's a complete mystery!

 

[edwin_m]

Bulgaria and Romania obviously wanted to join the EU - it's not as if it's some kind of evil empire annexing countries. I think previous posters were trying a bit of sarcasm/irony, but it doesn't really work on a subject where what is actually happening is sometimes so hard to believe and falsehood so prevalent.

Their motivation was partly to tie themselves to the west, rather than to some of their more warlike eastern neighbours.

In economic terms they were prepared to supply cheap labour to the rest of the EU, many of whom would send money home. They also receive direct funding via the EU intended to improve the state of their infrastructure, and ultimately will expect to approach a western standard of development and living. This is all subject to maintaining a democratic system within a broad range of capitalist norms, conditions on which Hungary and Italy are sailing close to the wind at present.

In relation to the UK, our unemployment rate is much lower than the population of non-nationals, so without that source of labour our economy would (and will) be damaged.

Spain is an example of a country further advanced in this process of development and integration. It was a fascist dictatorship in the 70s, suffered an attempted coup in 1981 and had seen little development in the latter half of the 20th century. With help from the EU it is now a modern democracy with better standards of living and by some measures the largest high speed rail network in Europe. Nevertheless they had big problems after the 2008 banking crisis, which precipitated an influx of Spanish graduates to work for my employer in the UK, which for various reasons unrelated to the EU doesn't produce enough engineers. This was a benefit for the people concerned and for both countries. Although Spain has largely recovered, most of these people have stayed and are contributing to the British economy. But a hardening of attitudes to foreigners could cause them to move out - and take the work with them.

 

[bramling]

In relation to the UK, our unemployment rate is much lower than the population of non-nationals, so without that source of labour our economy would (and will) be damaged.

What's to say we can't get a better quality of labour with controlled immigration, as opposed to the open door which the EU mandates?

At the moment there's nothing stopping the bottom of the barrel coming and finding low-wage (and in consequence low-tax-contributing) work, but meanwhile still imposing a burden on things like housing, health care, the education system, et cetera.

Meanwhile people can't argue both ways on the NHS, on the one hand how the NHS relies on immigrant labour, yet on the other hand saying that most of this *isn't* from the EU.

 

[Spamcan81]

What's to say we can't get a better quality of labour with controlled immigration, as opposed to the open door which the EU mandates?

At the moment there's nothing stopping the bottom of the barrel coming and finding low-wage (and in consequence low-tax-contributing) work, but meanwhile still imposing a burden on things like housing, health care, the education system, et cetera.

Meanwhile people can't argue both ways on the NHS, on the one hand how the NHS relies on immigrant labour, yet on the other hand saying that most of this *isn't* from the EU.

But there's a fair proportion of EU citizens working in the social care sector.

 

[EM2]

At the moment there's nothing stopping the bottom of the barrel coming and finding low-wage (and in consequence low-tax-contributing) work, but meanwhile still imposing a burden on things like housing, health care, the education system, et cetera.

Except for the VAT on the products they buy, the Council Tax on the property they live in, the IPT, VED, and fuel duty on running their car, the ADT when they fly home to visit family...

 

[Howardh]

65,000 NHS staff in England are EU nationals - 5.5% of all staff. Overall, 13.1% of NHS staff say that their nationality is not British. Facts and figures on the nationality of NHS staff for doctors, nurses and other groups, and changes since the Brexit vote.

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7783

The majority of NHS staff in England are British – but a substantial minority are not. Around 153,000 out of 1.2 million staff report a non-British nationality. This is 13.1% of all staff for whom a nationality is known, or just over one in eight. Between them, these staff hold 200 different non-British nationalities. Around 65,000 are nationals of other EU countries - 5.5% of NHS staff in England. Around 52,000 staff are Asian nationals.

No idea what to read into that - I would assume that the low wages and poor working conditions are OK to Indians and Filipinos rather than Dutch and Germans? I certainly wouldn't consider working for the NHS; as a cleaner or a doctor - if I had the qualifications I'd be off to Canada or Australia.
Naturally if we paid more and reduce hours - the money would have to come out of the public purse or we privatise the NHS and pay through the nose for insurance. We get what we vote for??

 

[bramling]

Except for the VAT on the products they buy, the Council Tax on the property they live in, the IPT, VED, and fuel duty on running their car, the ADT when they fly home to visit family...

One does wonder where all this money comes from for people on minimum-wage work. Do strawberries grow on a magic money tree?!

 

[EM2]

I certainly wouldn't consider working for the NHS; as a cleaner or a doctor - if I had the qualifications I'd be off to Canada or Australia.

It doesn't help when the NHS won't necessarily recognise qualifications gained elsewhere. My stepson was a Senior Paramedic in Ireland, but h had to retrain when he returned to the UK. It's madness!
A patient is a patient, they get the same things wrong with them. If you can treat an Irish patient, you can treat a British one.

 

[Howardh]

It doesn't help when the NHS won't necessarily recognise qualifications gained elsewhere. My stepson was a Senior Paramedic in Ireland, but h had to retrain when he returned to the UK. It's madness!
A patient is a patient, they get the same things wrong with them. If you can treat an Irish patient, you can treat a British one.

Indeed, although there may be very rare occasions where a doctor has moved to somewhere with different issues, eg malaria, hunger etc and may require a little re-training to bring him/her up to speed on developments here (and they would probably request that anyway), but other than that, yes.

 

[Howardh]

One does wonder where all this money comes from for people on minimum-wage work. Do strawberries grow on a magic money tree?!

There was no shortage of government workers willing to pick the notes of the money trees when Arlene demanded £1bn!!

 

[bramling]

There was no shortage of government workers willing to pick the notes of the money trees when Arlene demanded £1bn!!

Arguable one could blame that on the electorate (i.e. all of us) for delivering an election result which resulted in this being the only way of a governing majority being formed. I don't like it any more than the next person, but it was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Conservatives not getting a majority of their own.

 

[edwin_m]

What's to say we can't get a better quality of labour with controlled immigration, as opposed to the open door which the EU mandates?

At the moment there's nothing stopping the bottom of the barrel coming and finding low-wage (and in consequence low-tax-contributing) work, but meanwhile still imposing a burden on things like housing, health care, the education system, et cetera.

With controlled immigration the government decides what professions are in need of staff, which is likely to become an inflexible central planning system like that run by the Soviet states. Freedom of movement is market-driven - if people can't find a job that pays enough they'll go or stay somewhere that does. Other EU countries manage to implement measures to prevent these people staying and being dependent on benefits, so it's wrong to say that the EU makes that impossible.

My personal view is that we shouldn't be subsidising employers to pay people so poorly that they need benefits or tax credits to reach a basic standard of living. George Osborne apparently thought the same as he had started to raise the minimum wage above inflation in 2016, but too late to stop it being another reason for people to vote for Brexit. Again this has little to do with the EU.

 

[Howardh]

Arguable one could blame that on the electorate (i.e. all of us) for delivering an election result which resulted in this being the only way of a governing majority being formed. I don't like it any more than the next person, but it was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Conservatives not getting a majority of their own.

They are the ones who called it, and called it because they had a lead the size of Kansas and expected a majority of 100+. Can hardly blame the electorate for the mess it created when we didn't like what was on offer!

 

[AlterEgo]

That's why the governments of Bulgaria and Romania have always been opposed to joining the EU. Their citizens have also always been very opposed to membership.

So if something is decided democratically or by popular will, this, by extension, means it must be a good idea?

I think you may have some difficulty signing up to that logic unless you believe that British people are uniquely masochistic among nations.

 

[AlterEgo]

With controlled immigration the government decides what professions are in need of staff, which is likely to become an inflexible central planning system like that run by the Soviet states.

...or by the United States, or by Australia, or a multitude of modern democratic societies.

Freedom of movement is market-driven - if people can't find a job that pays enough they'll go or stay somewhere that does.

Indeed, and conversely, the inverse applies to wages.

 

[radamfi]

So if something is decided democratically or by popular will, this, by extension, means it must be a good idea?

I think you may have some difficulty signing up to that logic unless you believe that British people are uniquely masochistic among nations.

Ever since the fall of communism, Bulgaria and Romania have wanted to be in the EC/EU. The people wanted it. The governments and the people still want it. So what's the problem? It is like saying you can't have chocolate even though you like it because you might get fat.

The imbalance between west and east is only temporary as eventually there will be economic convergence as the east is growing faster.

 

[AlterEgo]

Ever since the fall of communism, Bulgaria and Romania have wanted to be in the EC/EU. The people wanted it. The governments and the people still want it. So what's the problem? It is like saying you can't have chocolate even though you like it because you might get fat.

Not everything which is democratically decided is by extension a good idea.

It is indeed like saying "chocolate will make you fat" yet people vote to eat chocolate anyway because it tastes good.

Democracies can do some pretty strange things.

 

[nidave]

Freedom of movement has been hinted at as is a requirement from what's been said for free trading agreements.

Why is this better than the freedom of movement we have with the EU. Places like India, Turkey and Pakistan. What makes these places better than the EU??

 

[AlterEgo]

Ah so your against freedom of movement for no other reason than a desire to help other countries and other nations.

This alone shows you didn’t even read my full post.

I voted remain.