UK Government to confirm exit from EU single market in speech on Tuesday

LoFi

ToneControl said:

LoFi said:

ToneControl said:

but a  hypothetical privilege - people like the sound of it but do not use it. Most people live their whole lives within 2 miles of where they grew up
AFAIK about 300k UK citizens work in the EU
That's 0.5%  of us

That's the number of people who permanently work in the EU - I think if you included people who occasionally (or even regularly) visit other EU countries for work, it would be much, much higher. All of those people may now potentially be required to get a visa for those trips.

how many is  that? 
and how much trouble is it really?

Honestly? I have no idea. I could base it on anecdotal evidence - certainly, 20+% of my friends (and 100% of my colleagues) have been abroad for work in the last year, most of them multiple times - but that means nothing. I haven't been able to find any stats (though haven't looked hard), but I'd still be surprised if fewer than 2M UK nationals had traveled to the EU for work in the last year.

How much trouble? Depends on how hard the EU/individual countries want to make it. Of the non-EU places I've worked, SA wasn't too bad (a quick conversation at immigration), US slightly worse (need to apply for ESTA - can take a while and costs £20, plus conversation at immigration, and letting them know where you're staying), Russia a complete ballache (expensive visa which requires supporting docs and takes at least a week even if you fast-track it, and registration at local police station if you're staying more than 3 days).

Now, obviously any country is going to make a short-term work visa easier to get than a permanent work one, but your assertion that we shouldn't care about freedom of movement/work because it only affects 300K people is not true.

quarky

bwets said:

And about the free movement of people...

How about this to cure society's ills: Why not have a mass slaughter of pensioners? It would lead to National Insurance spending savings, huge savings in the NHS and would free up plenty of housing.
(Not 100% serious)

I don't get the immigration "problem". Services are not good in the UK and that is because of lack of investment and good planning. Immigration has nothing to do with it. If more people come you increase the amount of spending (you are getting more money from tax). I heard people say the country is overcrowded-- there's clearly enough square inches for everyone-- that's just silly.

It's interesting that the majority in Scotland voted remain where they prioritise their services more.

It isn't an immigration problem, it is a rising population problem, but immigration happens to represent a major component of that. When the population increases, demand increases. Hence the problems trying to get a doctors appointment, a dentist to register at, a place at school, a seat on a train, a house at affordable levels, etc. It is easy enough to dismiss supply and demand as some kind of fairy story, but it is fairly well established, and there are somethings that can't just be created out of thin air. And the assumption that can we just magically create supply for all of these is another fairy story.

Riddle me this:

If a country (say the UK, but could be any), can keep increasing in population, but just build new infrastructure, create new jobs, etc, so that everything stays constant, why doesn't the whole world move to one country and we wipe out all poverty, inequality, and solve humanities problems in one swoop? Are you honestly proposing that it would work? Why not, given your assumptions above?

Or, If a country (say the UK, but could be any), can keep increasing in population, but just build new infrastructure, create new jobs, etc, so that everything stays constant, why does that apply to a country, but not a state, a city, or actually the world as a whole?

Your comment about pensioners (yes, I realise it was said in jest), is actually more logical your second suggestion, because it does at least recognise the supply and demand issue!

bwets

quarky said:

It isn't an immigration problem, it is a rising population problem, but immigration happens to represent a major component of that. When the population increases, demand increases. Hence the problems trying to get a doctors appointment, a dentist to register at, a place at school, a seat on a train, a house at affordable levels, etc. It is easy enough to dismiss supply and demand as some kind of fairy story, but it is fairly well established, and there are somethings that can't just be created out of thin air. And the assumption that can we just magically create supply for all of these is another fairy story.

Riddle me this:

If a country (say the UK, but could be any), can keep increasing in population, but just build new infrastructure, create new jobs, etc, so that everything stays constant, why doesn't the whole world move to one country and we wipe out all poverty, inequality, and solve humanities problems in one swoop? Are you honestly proposing that it would work? Why not, given your assumptions above?

Or, If a country (say the UK, but could be any), can keep increasing in population, but just build new infrastructure, create new jobs, etc, so that everything stays constant, why does that apply to a country, but not a state, a city, or actually the world as a whole?

Your comment about pensioners (yes, I realise it was said in jest), is actually more logical your second suggestion, because it does at least recognise the supply and demand issue!

There are countries and cities with higher population density than the UK with better services. So yes, there is scope for the population of the UK to increase and for the country to meet demand. Obviously there becomes a point when there just isn't space to go round but that must be quite high (even somewhere as densely populated as New York is doing okay).

I'm not saying say supply can be created out of thin air but it should be able to be created to fill current demand given the examples of other places.

Why isn't the supply there? The UK government knew the situation and cut spending and taxes.

quarky

It isn't just about density.

To summarize, if you can just increase population and keep all the services provided constant, why not move the entire world to one country? Even a big country like Russia or the USA?

Sorry, the world doesn't work like that.

If population increases, yes, services can be ramped up, but (in my opinion), the reasons you can't keep increasing to meet an ever increasing population is firstly that not all resources are finite. In fact, most are not. And secondly, even assuming the number of available jobs (and tax revenue) increased linearly (which again, it can't keep doing in reality), there is a lag on actually building skill, and getting the right people to the right positions in the right places.

bwets

Garthy said

Currently the EU negotiates trade deals for all members as a group, so a trade deal that the Netherlands would like with New Zealand would have to suit all 28 members or however members if it's a majority deal instead of a unilateral one. Also it isn't always one country one vote so it depends on the terms of the negotiations. This is why so many government members have made contact to the UK for post Brexit trade deals, each deal suiting Britain and that country better than that country and the EU as a whole. Also we are not walking away from one country with a GDP of $17tr, over half that figure comes from just three countries, Germany, the UK and France, in that order as of 2015.

There are also advantages of negotiating as a collective (e.g. there are more of you).

And it's a shame that the most of the UK's trade deals are with the EU which we are walking away from.

We'll see anyway. Trade deals are not my thing but leaving the EU just seems very high risk to me. It's not like the country hasn't done well out of it (we have one of the highest GDPs in the world).

Can we do better out of the EU? No one actually knows.

What does the average person want from leaving the EU? Hopefully services get better but I don't see how those two are intrinsically connected. Anyway, food and utilities will probably go up soon (which I'm not looking forward to) because of the value of the £.

Gassage

2 things May hasn't worked out:

1. Trews look shite on anyone and should be avoided in any situation.
2. Until she gets her gerbil teeth fixed, she's not going to be taken seriously in the US.

bwets

quarky said:

It isn't just about density.

To summarize, if you can just increase population and keep all the services provided constant, why not move the entire world to one country? Even a big country like Russia or the USA?

Sorry, the world doesn't work like that.

If population increases, yes, services can be ramped up, but (in my opinion), the reasons you can't keep increasing to meet an ever increasing population is firstly that not all resources are finite. In fact, most are not. And secondly, even assuming the number of available jobs (and tax revenue) increased linearly (which again, it can't keep doing in reality), there is a lag on actually building skill, and getting the right people to the right positions in the right places.

Let's bring in the one child rule like China did?

quarky

No need to be that extreme.

Skipped

I visit a UK forum with a large Politics section. It gets heated but.......nobody knows anything.

The hints and gossip  (heard at meetings between companies and govenment depts) have come on our forum.
I hope there is more inside knowledge to come.
I am also surprised how few people are claiming that Theresa May is gambling on the Eu caving and offering the Softest Soft  Brexit Ever. And then accepting it. And then blaming Cameron. Which is what the Guardian said 2 days after the referendum - we will be outside of the Eu. But only just outside.

Or....is everybody thinking that but no one is saying that? 

quarky

I think the speech was to prepare everyone for the most extreme option (worst/best, depending on your point of view), which is outside the EU (obviously), but outside the single market, outside the CTA, and probably trading on MFN status. I have no doubt that she would *want* more than that (hence the comment about freest access to trade possible). So yes, I think it will be a proper exit of the EU, but perhaps not on the same trading terms as the US, Canada, Australia, etc. We will see.

The funny thing is, a lot of people are (rightly) concerned about the impact on parts and cross-border manufacturing. I wonder if a "no deal" scenario, where the UK starts competing, will encourage some of those other manufacturing plants to move here from expensive (mainly Western I guess) parts of the EU, to benefit form the manufacturing that is already here and a (hypothetical) friendly tax environment?

Either way, despite all the talk, I think everyone is actually still posturing, but keeping their powder dry. The process hasn't even started yet.

marantz1300

Were doomed

doomed I tell you.

ToneControl

LoFi said:

ToneControl said:

LoFi said:

ToneControl said:

but a  hypothetical privilege - people like the sound of it but do not use it. Most people live their whole lives within 2 miles of where they grew up
AFAIK about 300k UK citizens work in the EU
That's 0.5%  of us

That's the number of people who permanently work in the EU - I think if you included people who occasionally (or even regularly) visit other EU countries for work, it would be much, much higher. All of those people may now potentially be required to get a visa for those trips.

how many is  that? 
and how much trouble is it really?

Honestly? I have no idea. I could base it on anecdotal evidence - certainly, 20+% of my friends (and 100% of my colleagues) have been abroad for work in the last year, most of them multiple times - but that means nothing. I haven't been able to find any stats (though haven't looked hard), but I'd still be surprised if fewer than 2M UK nationals had traveled to the EU for work in the last year.

How much trouble? Depends on how hard the EU/individual countries want to make it. Of the non-EU places I've worked, SA wasn't too bad (a quick conversation at immigration), US slightly worse (need to apply for ESTA - can take a while and costs £20, plus conversation at immigration, and letting them know where you're staying), Russia a complete ballache (expensive visa which requires supporting docs and takes at least a week even if you fast-track it, and registration at local police station if you're staying more than 3 days).

Now, obviously any country is going to make a short-term work visa easier to get than a permanent work one, but your assertion that we shouldn't care about freedom of movement/work because it only affects 300K people is not true.

2m?
Where's anything to back that up?
It sounds orders of magnitude out to me

So you're saying that we should all compromise our political  and economic future,  to make it easier to get a summer job abroad?

ToneControl

bwets said:

quarky said:

It isn't an immigration problem, it is a rising population problem, but immigration happens to represent a major component of that. When the population increases, demand increases. Hence the problems trying to get a doctors appointment, a dentist to register at, a place at school, a seat on a train, a house at affordable levels, etc. It is easy enough to dismiss supply and demand as some kind of fairy story, but it is fairly well established, and there are somethings that can't just be created out of thin air. And the assumption that can we just magically create supply for all of these is another fairy story.

Riddle me this:

If a country (say the UK, but could be any), can keep increasing in population, but just build new infrastructure, create new jobs, etc, so that everything stays constant, why doesn't the whole world move to one country and we wipe out all poverty, inequality, and solve humanities problems in one swoop? Are you honestly proposing that it would work? Why not, given your assumptions above?

Or, If a country (say the UK, but could be any), can keep increasing in population, but just build new infrastructure, create new jobs, etc, so that everything stays constant, why does that apply to a country, but not a state, a city, or actually the world as a whole?

Your comment about pensioners (yes, I realise it was said in jest), is actually more logical your second suggestion, because it does at least recognise the supply and demand issue!

There are countries and cities with higher population density than the UK with better services. So yes, there is scope for the population of the UK to increase and for the country to meet demand. Obviously there becomes a point when there just isn't space to go round but that must be quite high (even somewhere as densely populated as New York is doing okay).

I'm not saying say supply can be created out of thin air but it should be able to be created to fill current demand given the examples of other places.

Why isn't the supply there? The UK government knew the situation and cut spending and taxes.

there's more than 1 issue:

1. could we cope with permanent  population growth ?
yes,  but it's a lot easy when driven by reproduction because it can be predicted, and kids have time between birth and buying a house, whereas sudden influxes of  8m people over 20 years  is a massive change, and was not predictable

 2. why should immigration be  something the current population embraces? It's disruptive, and brings down wages, as well as the infrastructure/housing/services issues discussed.   For example, If I proposed that lots of Northern Europeans should move to  Cyprus , Rhodes,  Spain, etc, to the point where 13% were  foreign-born, many would say that was  a cultural  shock to the target country, and the host population cannot be compelled to like it.

Sporky

ToneControl said:

2m?
Where's anything to back that up?
It sounds orders of magnitude out to me

You think it's only 20,000?

stickyfiddle

Ten seconds on google tells me that the UN reckoned it was approximately 1.2m Britain living in the EU in 2015 (excluding the U.K., obvs)

Heartfeltdawn

Gassage said:

2 things May hasn't worked out:

1. Trews look shite on anyone and should be avoided in any situation.
2. Until she gets her gerbil teeth fixed, she's not going to be taken seriously in the US.

What, that country that's just voted in a man with a gerbil for hair? Dem and their standards, jah? 

Garthy

bwets said:

Garthy said

Currently the EU negotiates trade deals for all members as a group, so a trade deal that the Netherlands would like with New Zealand would have to suit all 28 members or however members if it's a majority deal instead of a unilateral one. Also it isn't always one country one vote so it depends on the terms of the negotiations. This is why so many government members have made contact to the UK for post Brexit trade deals, each deal suiting Britain and that country better than that country and the EU as a whole. Also we are not walking away from one country with a GDP of $17tr, over half that figure comes from just three countries, Germany, the UK and France, in that order as of 2015.

There are also advantages of negotiating as a collective (e.g. there are more of you).

And it's a shame that the most of the UK's trade deals are with the EU which we are walking away from.

We'll see anyway. Trade deals are not my thing but leaving the EU just seems very high risk to me. It's not like the country hasn't done well out of it (we have one of the highest GDPs in the world).

Can we do better out of the EU? No one actually knows.

What does the average person want from leaving the EU? Hopefully services get better but I don't see how those two are intrinsically connected. Anyway, food and utilities will probably go up soon (which I'm not looking forward to) because of the value of the £.

Yes a collective is great if you all agee, which the 28 nations rarely do. There are two parliament buildings because France insists that the EU should go to Strasbourg once a month while the other 27 do not want to move to Strasbourg permanently and would rather stay in Brussels. 

Clarky

Garthy said:

Yes a collective is great if you all agee, which the 28 nations rarely do. There are two parliament buildings because France insists that the EU should go to Strasbourg once a month while the other 27 do not want to move to Strasbourg permanently and would rather stay in Brussels. 

that is such a horrific waste of money that it's sickening..

ToneControl

Clarky said:

Garthy said:

Yes a collective is great if you all agee, which the 28 nations rarely do. There are two parliament buildings because France insists that the EU should go to Strasbourg once a month while the other 27 do not want to move to Strasbourg permanently and would rather stay in Brussels. 

that is such a horrific waste of money that it's sickening..

£130m a year, they have to have accomodation  there,  duplicate offices, and then move boxes of paperwork:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10565686/The-farce-of-the-EU-travelling-circus.html

Sambostar

Economics has become extremely right wing under the eu's watch with wealth and wage inequality at it's  peak and wages falling for the majority in real terms whilst everything else including neccessities become more expensive or out of reach or simply turn to shite and still people wonder, why the vote. I despair.  If the pound wasn't  so over valued, if all that the politicians said about our economy was true then why is there a problem?

The eu's is like an embittered and ideological wag with daytime tv,  Britain on it's own is like a lowly father who stsrted grafting at 15 and faces up to realities and makes the tough decisions that need making in the name of fairness and sustainability for his children.