Can we talk about the Brexit vote??

[Bluegoat]

Well, yes, no rushing, but no delaying either. This is what European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, European Council President Donald Tusk, European Parliament President Martin Schulz, and Dutch PM Mark Rutte have to say about that:

 

"We now expect the United Kingdom government to give effect to this decision of the British people as soon as possible, however painful that process may be. Any delay would unnecessarily prolong uncertainty."

 

 

It sounds like they're saying, "You did this. Now own it." I can't really blame them. 

 

Well, but what counts as delaying?  If they say - it will take us five years to get all the treaty obligations, trade issues, other infrastructure and admin stuff worked out and sorted away I is that delaying?  Or setting out a reasonable timeline.

 

And I also think, given how narrow the vote is, that while it is reasonable to want a quick plan or decision, it just may not be that clear a mandate.  Wanting it to be decisive just can't make it so.

[regentrude]

Well, but what counts as delaying?  If they say - it will take us five years to get all the treaty obligations, trade issues, other infrastructure and admin stuff worked out and sorted away I is that delaying?  Or setting out a reasonable timeline.

 

According to Article 50, the default is to have two years from notification of intent. (An extension can be granted if all EU members agree; it can be requested immediately with the notification.)

They signed the treaty; I think they should adhere to it.

Edited June 24, 2016 by regentrude

[FaithManor]

Well, I don't blame the EU for its response. The UK has to own the decision and move forward. The reality for the EU is that they also have plans to make, and can't be waiting breathlessly for years to figure out how things are going to play out with the UK.

 

Plus, they do not want to set a precedent of other countries voting to leave and then dragging out the process. It is no longer their concern whether or not this is good or bad for the UK nor whether or not it is a decisive mandate. They should not be expected at this point to molly coddle parliament.

[Joules]

Well, I don't blame the EU for its response. The UK has to own the decision and move forward. The reality for the EU is that they also have plans to make, and can't be waiting breathlessly for years to figure out how things are going to play out with the UK.

 

Plus, they do not want to set a precedent of other countries voting to leave and then dragging out the process. It is no longer their concern whether or not this is good or bad for the UK nor whether or not it is a decisive mandate. They should not be expected at this point to molly coddle parliament.

 

Yeah, and maybe, just maybe, those who were selling the Brexit should have made clear plans ahead of time for how this would play out.  I mean, if you didn't have plans for how it would all work out, how did you decide that it was a good idea in the first place?

 

And, it should go without saying, that voters should expect that politicians lay out their exact plans for accomplishing their outlandish claims and promises of how it will all be so awesome. 

[Laura Corin]

Yeah, and maybe, just maybe, those who were selling the Brexit should have made clear plans ahead of time for how this would play out.  I mean, if you didn't have plans for how it would all work out, how did you decide that it was a good idea in the first place?

 

And, it should go without saying, that voters should expect that politicians lay out their exact plans for accomplishing their outlandish claims and promises of how it will all be so awesome. 

 

I agree that this is the ideal.  But really, no one knows how this works: it's never been done before, so everyone will be making it up as they go along.  I'm cultivating a refined air of detachment from the whole mess.  And buying a new meditation app.

[zarabellesmom]

And... anyone else also always get the urge to visit a place when the currency drops? I was like, ooh, dh, let's do a quickie London trip. :001_rolleyes: (that eyeroll is for myself)

I'm already booked for Northern Ireland (and have been for a year). I felt guilty thinking I was glad my money will go further.

[madteaparty]

Maybe it won't be so bad. The markets are reactive and frankly should have priced it better. But it is not clear to me who the EU is working well for. Not for Greece, surely. Some of the refugee policy the EU has been throwing out is horrific, like paying Macedonia (a non EU state) to block in refugees in Idomeni, Greece (which is a EU state), as well as that demonic deal with Turkey. The whole euro project seems a little bit fictional.

Maybe I'm delusional.

Edited June 24, 2016 by madteaparty

[MSNative]

I think if you broke the poll down by "what media outlet do you consult for news" then you'd probably find that Americans watching mainstream weren't particularly informed, but those that are NPR, BBC, and PBS people - oh and for me, we also regularly read the Copenhagen Post - were more aware, more informed. Now my version of "more informed" for myself in particular is still more ignorant than I'd like to be about the issue, but I'm learning at least.

Several news outlets have had decent coverage of the Brexit. Wsj has had some very good pro and con articles. Heck even the USA Today had articles about it when I read it at a hotel I suspect media has covered it somewhat but that people aren't actually reading it.

[Free]

Relevant.

[Faithr]

The first thing dh said to me when they called the vote was:  wanna go to England?  I hear the currency exchanges will be in our favor.  I was all like, you bet.  Let's go!  

 

So maybe tourism will go up!  

 

My bil is a financial planner and he sent out a soothing memorandum on why not to panic about markets.  We've seen lots of coverage about it.  I tend read the National Review and they've been covering it a lot (definitely from the point of view of Leave rather than Remain).  

 

And I've read in several places what Sadie linked to in that article; that if you have money you want to stay in but middle and lower class were feeling left out and so they wanted out.  

 

I tend to be a small government/subsidiary kind of person but I do think it seems awfully complicated and will probably have mixed results, some good, some not so good.

[Joules]

 

And I've read in several places what Sadie linked to in that article; that if you have money you want to stay in but middle and lower class were feeling left out and so they wanted out.  

 

 

 

 

I don't have a crystal ball, but I worry that when the economic impact hits, it will be the middle and lower class that gets hurt.  The people with money will be fine either way.

[snowbeltmom]

 

That is assuming it doesn't start a larger breakdown, and that is something I see as entirely possible.  I don't know that that would be a bad thing - I think there are a lot of elements of the EU that people don't see as working for them, or connected at all to their concerns, or that they have any way to make their concerns count.  I think many people are rightly worried about things like control of their currencies and their economic direction.

 

It seems to me like many people want to stay or go depending largely on what the EU does for them - does it help them assert local power or culture against their own national government?  Or does it prevent that?  The idea of a European identity against a national or regional one is a little tenuous at times, and some seem to have depended on that existing.  But that is not an easy thing to do, to create identity like that - I think for some it's a bit like saying "Canadians, Americans, and Mexicans, you should have a shared identity as North Americans, or people who are all part of a free trade zone."  Saying that would just tick people off I suspect.

 

I also think this isn't just a right thing.  Not all people on the left are supports of high level type social democracy, there is also a fairly significant, if not large, left movement that tends to prefer low level control and localism.  Those people might actually identify more with the EU in some ways, but not appreciate aspects of its structure or power over lower level governance structures, or things like international trade deals that tend toward libertarian or corporatist structures.

 

I had dinner last night with two Brits who voted to leave.  Their comments last night echoed Bluegoat's comments in her post.

 

[Lady Florida.]

I am old enough to remember a Europe without the EU, and I suspect that the older voters in the UK remembered, too. For younger people who have grown up in the current system, it must seem frightening to leave what is familiar. However, in the end, the UK will be able to govern itself just fine. 

 

If the EU leaders choose to punish the UK economically, they will certainly have the power to do so.

 

Well yes, it's only been an official union since the nineties. The last time I visited the UK there was no EU. The twenty-somethings who voted remain know nothing but the EU. Of course the UK can govern itself, but for hundreds of years its fate has been tied with that of Europe. Now with them on their own and if the rest of the EU stays together, I believe the biggest impact will be economic - and not in the UK's favor.

[nobeatenpath]

Haven't read all the responses but for us:

In the short term - the cost of our trip to go visit our family later this year has just gotten 20% more expensive. My husband's pension is probably going to be worth a lot, lot less.

 

But more importantly - this has shown that people will reject reality if it means it gets in the way of their bigoted racist ideas. Make no mistake - most people voting Leave were voting to get rid of immigrants (and many are now learning actually, they aren't going to get what they want). This is an election where the term 'expert' became a slur. It is now becoming totally acceptable to be an open, outright racist bigot in the UK and be proud of it. Seriously, stuff like this. And this. And this.

 

It's not about sovereignty. It's  not about 'young people are a little frightened because they don't know any different, but it will be okay'. People's lives are ruined, and are going to be torn apart. The chance to travel, study, meet other people and find jobs in Europe are going to be gone. And guess what - it's going to actually cost the UK a LOT more, rather than saving them money.

 

But what do I care - we are going to move to Scotland once it is independent.

Edited June 25, 2016 by nobeatenpath

[Mabelen]

It does seem the Leave supporters rallied over the immigration issue more than anything else. Also, there was a big generational split.

 

Here is a Financial Times reader's take that has gone viral.

 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CltKzSsUkAEcx1h.jpg

Edited June 25, 2016 by Mabelen

[FaithManor]

Nobeatenpath,

 

We also have this issue of it suddenly being acceptable to be an openly racist, bigotted, virulently hateful person in this election cycle. It is so sad it is happening elsewhere in what are supposed to be civilized nations. I weep. It feels like we are goinf backward.

[Joules]

Nobeatenpath,

 

We also have this issue of it suddenly being acceptable to be an openly racist, bigotted, virulently hateful person in this election cycle. It is so sad it is happening elsewhere in what are supposed to be civilized nations. I weep. It feels like we are goinf backward.

I'm feeling the same way. I see the exact same things here and am so disheartened to see it victorious in a sister nation.

[Guest]

Some want a do-over and already have a million signatures on a petition.

 

"The petition, created on Friday, has already gained far more than the 100,000 signatures required for it to be considered by the U.K. parliament for a debate and has caused the parliament website to crash several times due to high demand."

 

"The online petition calls for the government to hold another referendum in cases where the result is determined by a majority of less than 60-40 and where turnout is less than 75 percent. More than 30 million people voted in the referendum, with a national turnout of 72 percent—higher than the 2015 general election, where turnout was 66 percent. Signatories of the petition were clustered around London—where 28 out of 33 boroughs voted in favor of Remain—but significant numbers of people also signed in other parts of the southeast and southwest England, particularly in Bristol."

 

http://www.newsweek.com/brexit-second-referendum-petition-gains-more-1-million-signatures-474534

It seems like a do-over demanded by the losing party would set a very destructive precedent. If they wanted thresholds it seems they should've been set ahead of time. It just makes me think the people that should have considered outcomes either way really didn't take Leave seriously. I can't imagine if we allowed "do-overs" here in general elections. The chaos is unimaginable- any time the electoral votes didn't reflect the popular vote as accurately as some woul like......I hope that doesn't happen here.

[SporkUK]

 

 

I suspect that if the vote had gone to the "remain" side, those same people (calling for a re-vote) wouldn't have any problem with winning with less than a 60/40 super-majority.

 

Farage said last month specifically that a 52-48 vote would mean 'unfinished business' and require another referendum. That he would only accept a 2/3rd vote remain as clear cut. Seems fair that remain fights in the same situation - and they're asking for less than that. And, in light off severe misrepresentation on Leave side on what polls show were some of the major reasons people chose to vote Leave [immigration - this won't reduce it, NHS - this won't increase funding, and that even if we do split, we wouldn't be "free" of EU rulings on human rights and several other areas.], it isn't only those who voted to remain who are petitioning. There is also the issue that those UK citizens who are greatly affected by this - those who live and work in the EU - were not allowed to vote but can sign a UK government petition and want their voice to be heard. Similarly those under 18, UK residents without citizenship, and so on which likely make up a fair few of the names on the petition. 

 

The UK is part of the international community and part of several international organizations. Saying being part of the EU means we aren't governing ourselves is like saying we're not governing ourselves because we're part of the UN - which we also pay money to and affects our laws and means we're meant to let certain people in.

 

The big issue for many now is whether this surprise will get any at the top to see the issues that are fracturing us across lines before the fury against the governments, and the far right's use of that anger, get worse. Reports of attacks on immigrants and other minority groups has already taken an uptick and will likely get worse until someone can listen and talk to the concerns of everyone. Parapharasing Owen Jones, this vote was as much if not more against the modern world and politics as it was against the EU with spite in it on all sides. 

Edited June 25, 2016 by SporkUK

[chiguirre]

It just makes me think the people that should have considered outcomes either way really didn't take Leave seriously.

What shocks me most about all of this is that the Leave leaders didn't take it seriously either. They don't seem to have a plan. Many of them were asking David Cameron to stay on before he put the kibosh on that and resigned. WTH? How do they expect the leader of Remain to start negotiating Brexit? They clearly didn't think through Scotland and Northern Ireland's reactions and now they have the UK melting down and no one countering Nicola Sturgeon or Sinn Fein.

 

The interview with Nigel Farage stating that promising the EU "savings" of GBP 350 to the National Health Service was a mistake. Really, buddy? You couldn't  have said that when they painted the bus, not the day after the referendum? But Nigel Farage is not a serious person, he's flash and no substance. I am completely disappointed in Boris Johnson who is supposed to be the favorite to be the next PM and he looks like a guy who woke up after a bender with a lampshade on his head and no idea where the heck he is. I can't believe he doesn't have his talking points in place to calm markets' meltdown and show that he does have a roadmap for the future. "No need for haste" does not cut it, it adds fuel to the panic because people rightly interpret that as "I have no idea wth I'm going to do, I was just jockeying for position in the Conservative party."

 

IMHO, GB could negotiate a reasonable deal with the EU. But the Leave camp needs to step up their game or their negotiating position might deteriorate further. They need to get a grip on things by the start of business Monday.

[redsquirrel]

the UK has always governed itself. They didn't give up sovereignty when they joined the EU. They always had their own national and local government. The US, Canada and Mexico have many, many, MANY trade agreements, border agreements to the point where it is difficult to pick them all apart etc, but we remain separate sovereign nations. Being in the EU isn't like being a state. I've seen some people comparing this to a state seceding from the US, but it isn't the same

[goldberry]

 Boris Johnson who is supposed to be the favorite to be the next PM and he looks like a guy who woke up after a bender with a lampshade on his head and no idea where the heck he is. 

 

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:

[MSNative]

Nm- someone just said it better than I

Edited June 25, 2016 by MSNative

[redsquirrel]

The EU isn't just a trade agreement of sorts between members. The UK's laws are subordinate to the laws issued by the EU's headquarters in Brussels, and the European court's rulings must be followed as the final word. This is giving up sovereignty to an un-elected governing body.

 

If you get arrested for shoplifting in the UK, then the laws of the UK apply. If you get arrested for fraud etc then UK laws apply. You will not be tried in a Spanish court and subject to Spanish law. Nor are you brought before some EU court.  The UK has it's own government, their own legal system, electoral system, educational system, penal system, transportation system, the BBC is not available to people outside the BBC due to copyright laws etc.  The social services systems are not the same between countries. There are some EU regs that countries can opt to not follow, it's up to the individual country. It's not like the United States of America, which has much stronger central, federal, government.

 

There are more similarities, I think, between the EU than maybe the UN, than the EU and the USA.

 

But there are some who think that US membership in the UN is a "loss of sovereignty" etc.

[JoJosMom]

In my travels about the internet I ran across this article from February of last year.  It is written from an anti-EU perspective, but I think it does reflect the reality that the "leave" position was a bit more complex than just a bunch of racist simpletons seeking isolationism.  Although denouncing people with different viewpoints as stupid rubes does tend to relieve one of the necessity of, you know, debating rationally.

[goldberry]

Let's get back to the intellegent discussion we were having.

 

Wow, excuse me then for interrupting!  :001_rolleyes:  It's not like we don't have joking around on discussions far more serious than this one.  

[MSNative]

If you get arrested for shoplifting in the UK, then the laws of the UK apply. If you get arrested for fraud etc then UK laws apply. You will not be tried in a Spanish court and subject to Spanish law. Nor are you brought before some EU court. The UK has it's own government, their own legal system, electoral system, educational system, penal system, transportation system, the BBC is not available to people outside the BBC due to copyright laws etc. The social services systems are not the same between countries. There are some EU regs that countries can opt to not follow, it's up to the individual country. It's not like the United States of America, which has much stronger central, federal, government.

 

There are more similarities, I think, between the EU than maybe the UN, than the EU and the USA.

 

But there are some who think that US membership in the UN is a "loss of sovereignty" etc.

 

But there are many regulations that individual countries cannot choose to follow or not. They must follow them. And there are so many regulations - each one costing time and money to learn about and implement. Some are no doubt very good but many are minor and micromanaging.

 

"Since the 2010 general election Brussels has handed down almost 3,600 pieces of new regulation and directives affecting British businesses.

A campaign group said last night that the 13million words contained in the deluge of bureaucracy would take more than 92 days to read in all."

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2458354/3-600-new-laws-3-years-EU-strangles-UK-firms.html#ixzz4CgSrLzIG

 

 

As far as the criminal system, even in that area there were issues of European overreach into the UK system. This example is the ECHR stating that life without parole is unacceptable.

 

"The new president of the ECHR, Judge Dean Spielmann, threatened in June 2013 that if Britain did not adhere to European human rights laws, it could face being ejected from the European Union altogether.

 

Britain's Lord Judge told the BBC that Judge Spielmann was claiming too much power for a body of unelected judges whose rulings could not be challenged. "This is a court which is not answerable to anybody," he said. "My own view is: stop here.""

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4134/echr-uk

Edited June 26, 2016 by MSNative

[saw]

But there are many regulations that individual countries cannot choose to follow or not. They must follow them. And there are so many regulations - each one costing time and money to learn about and implement. Some are no doubt very good but many are minor and micromanaging.

 

"Since the 2010 general election Brussels has handed down almost 3,600 pieces of new regulation and directives affecting British businesses.

A campaign group said last night that the 13million words contained in the deluge of bureaucracy would take more than 92 days to read in all."

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2458354/3-600-new-laws-3-years-EU-strangles-UK-firms.html#ixzz4CgSrLzIG

 

 

As far as the criminal system, even in that area there were issues of European overreach into the UK system. This example is the ECHR stating that life without parole is unacceptable.

 

"The new president of the ECHR, Judge Dean Spielmann, threatened in June 2013 that if Britain did not adhere to European human rights laws, it could face being ejected from the European Union altogether.

 

Britain's Lord Judge told the BBC that Judge Spielmann was claiming too much power for a body of unelected judges whose rulings could not be challenged. "This is a court which is not answerable to anybody," he said. "My own view is: stop here.""

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4134/echr-uk

 

While my own personal opinion is that Brussels overregulates and that certain entities are overreaching (EBA eg), the flip side is that at least in the sphere of financial regulation, UK financial institutions and those based elsewhere in the EU do benefit from having regulation unified across the EU. If you're a financial institution of a certain type, for instance, and are authorised in the UK by the Financial Conduct Authority, you will automatically be permitted to passport that authorisation into other Member States. In other words, you don't have to jump through the hoops set up by the financial authorities of all the other Member States to be able to do business in each one. So one the one hand lots of regs from Brussels, on the other hand lots of country-specific regs set up by individual Member States. 

[MSNative]

While my own personal opinion is that Brussels overregulates and that certain entities are overreaching (EBA eg), the flip side is that at least in the sphere of financial regulation, UK financial institutions and those based elsewhere in the EU do benefit from having regulation unified across the EU. If you're a financial institution of a certain type, for instance, and are authorised in the UK by the Financial Conduct Authority, you will automatically be permitted to passport that authorisation into other Member States. In other words, you don't have to jump through the hoops set up by the financial authorities of all the other Member States to be able to do business in each one. So one the one hand lots of regs from Brussels, on the other hand lots of country-specific regs set up by individual Member States.

Absolutely! There are definitely benefits to being in the EU. That is why it appealed in the first place - breaking down barriers, streamlining processes, etc.

[Starr]

The other side of feeling like there are too many regulations is that once Britain leaves they have no regulations and everything has to be written into law. That sounds like a forever job.

[ktgrok]

What is killing me is the people coming out saying they didn't really want to Leave, they just voted that way to make a point. 

 

Ugh. 

 

 

[saw]

The other side of feeling like there are too many regulations is that once Britain leaves they have no regulations and everything has to be written into law. That sounds like a forever job.

That depends on the nature of the regulation. If the regulation was implemented in the form of a Directive, the Directive would have been implemented into British law already and would be part of British law. These could of course then be repealed as their existence would no longer be required. If it's a Regulation, it would have direct effect and not require implementation and would not strictly speaking have been written into British law. I'm not sure what the legal status of these would be upon exit, but, given that contracts and businesses have relied on these Regulations, it would be contrary to fundamental principles of predictability to dispose of these summarily. It would I think be fairly simple to decide to continue to accept as binding law certain regulations. 

[Laura Corin]

The other side of feeling like there are too many regulations is that once Britain leaves they have no regulations and everything has to be written into law. That sounds like a forever job.

 

Not quite.  As far as I understand, the EU regulations are already 'written into British law'.  If we leave the EU, we will have the choice to change them, but they are already in place.  So, for example, the EU directive on working conditions currently forms part of UK law and no one with an ounce of sense would say: 'Okay, every law that originally derived from Europe will be null from today'.  It's not going to be a sudden lawlessness, rather a slow and piecemeal change.

[nobeatenpath]

For those who think that pointing out racism/xenophobia  was the main factor behind the Leave vote, I suggest you read this article.

 

[Murphy101]

What is killing me is the people coming out saying they didn't really want to Leave, they just voted that way to make a point.

 

Ugh.

As frustrating as that is to read, imagine how frustrating it was to feel that was the only way to make their point.

 

That so many felt the only way they could be heard was to vote leave is a scary statement in and of itself. It points to the many failures of both the UK and the EU to address their many valid concerns, all of which are problems that are growing harder and harder to address.

[ktgrok]

As frustrating as that is to read, imagine how frustrating it was to feel that was the only way to make their point.

 

That so many felt the only way they could be heard was to vote leave is a scary statement in and of itself. It points to the many failures of both the UK and the EU to address their many valid concerns, all of which are problems that are growing harder and harder to address.

 

My concern is more that these people are upset that the choice they voted for won. They thought they could vote and it wouldn't really have any repercussions. I don't think they understand how voting works. 

[Murphy101]

My concern is more that these people are upset that the choice they voted for won. They thought they could vote and it wouldn't really have any repercussions. I don't think they understand how voting works.

Leave voters feel they have no voice and expected that their vote wouldn't matter, so they cast a defiant vote.

 

Let's face it, the remain people didn't think the leave votes would matter either or they would have taken it serious and more would have turned out.

 

Remains didn't take Leave serious and didn't listen.

 

So it's no surprise that the Leave voters didn't expect their vote to matter.

 

As far as I can tell, Remain doesn't seem to comprehend how voting works either bc now they are crying about needing to vote again to get what they want, despite doing nearly nothing to convince different outcome prior and now further cementing that they think Leave votes shouldn't matter.

[goldberry]

I was discussing this with someone else, and he said that anyone from the EU can automatically apply for a job and go to work anywhere else in the EU.  Is that true?  He made it sound like EU was like the US, which I have heard is not true.

[Laura Corin]

I was discussing this with someone else, and he said that anyone from the EU can automatically apply for a job and go to work anywhere else in the EU.  Is that true?  He made it sound like EU was like the US, which I have heard is not true.

 

Yes, that's true.  You don't need a job in advance - you can just go and look for work.

 

I worked in France for two years as a Brit and needed no kind of visa or permission.

 

It's not like the US, because it's not all one country, but there is free movement of people.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Laura Corin

[goldberry]

Yes, that's true.  You don't need a job in advance - you can just go and look for work.

 

I worked in France for two years as a Brit and needed no kind of visa or permission.

 

It's not like the US, because it's not all one country, but there is free movement of people.

 

The person I was talking to is an American who lived and worked in Germany for awhile.  He said that in his field, large groups of workers from Poland would come in and greatly undercut the prices, so that no one local could find work anymore.  In his mind, he said things like that contributed to the Brexit mentality.  I sort of understand that?  Or is there something missing there?

[Laura Corin]

The person I was talking to is an American who lived and worked in Germany for awhile.  He said that in his field, large groups of workers from Poland would come in and greatly undercut the prices, so that no one local could find work anymore.  In his mind, he said things like that contributed to the Brexit mentality.  I sort of understand that?  Or is there something missing there?

 

It is true that there have been people coming from Eastern Europe to work in Britain.  Mostly this has been to do work that British people don't want to do, like field work, basic factory work and low-level medical caring work.  

 

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/migrants-uk-labour-market-overview

 

British unemployment has dropped over the last five years, so it may be more of a perception than a reality that jobs are going to other Europeans in any major way.

 

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/unemployment-rate

Edited June 26, 2016 by Laura Corin

[Guest]

It is true that there have been people coming from Eastern Europe to work in Britain. Mostly this has been to do work that British people don't want to do, like field work, basic factory work and low-level medical caring work.

 

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/migrants-uk-labour-market-overview

 

British unemployment has dropped over the last five years, so it may be more of a perception than a reality that jobs are going to other Europeans in any major way.

 

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/unemployment-rate

On the work "people don't want to do" I have to ask- is it that they find the work so beneath them they don't want to, or is it that the immigrants have driven the price down to such a level that it isn't worth it? I often hear that same thing said here about illegal immigration but I don't really understand it. The work is the work and I can't see unemployed unskilled workers turning their noses up at them, but here because they are illegal they get paid dirt wages and no citizen would probably readily work for half of minimum wage. It's pointless because you can't live off of it and the employers wouldn't hire you anyway because then it's theoretically reportable. Most citizens are going to demand at least minimum wage, but the illegal immigrants are at the mercy of the system because if they speak up they risk deportation. I personally fine it abusive to the illegal immigrants. I know in the UK the illegal part is moot. But it seems there is still must be some economic inequality at play, rather than some snooty people who don't want to farm or provide nursing care or something?? I mean when pay it good an awful lot of people are willing to put up with distasteful jobs. Edited June 26, 2016 by texasmom33

[goldberry]

It is true that there have been people coming from Eastern Europe to work in Britain.  Mostly this has been to do work that British people don't want to do, like field work, basic factory work and low-level medical caring work.  

 

But is that really true, or is it that British people don't want to do those jobs for the wages companies want to pay?  Normally then, if the market were controlling, companies would have to pay more or offer better benefits in order to get workers.  

 

In the US, for example, tech companies would rather have a foreign worker they can pay $50,000 a year than an American worker who expects to have decent housing in San Francisco and pay off college debt, and therefore expects to make $100,000 a year or more.  (Just throwing out these numbers.)  The idea that "no one wants these jobs" is sometimes an incomplete thought that really means "no one wants these jobs at what we want to pay".  

 

ETA cross posted similar thought above.

Edited June 26, 2016 by goldberry

[JoJosMom]

But is that really true, or is it that British people don't want to do those jobs for the wages companies want to pay?  Normally then, if the market were controlling, companies would have to pay more or offer better benefits in order to get workers.  

 

In the US, for example, tech companies would rather have a foreign worker they can pay $50,000 a year than an American worker who expects to have decent housing in San Francisco and pay off college debt, and therefore expects to make $100,000 a year or more.  (Just throwing out these numbers.)  The idea that "no one wants these jobs" is sometimes an incomplete thought that really means "no one wants these jobs at what we want to pay".  

 

This. Exactly this.

[Laura Corin]

I saw a programme that offered long-term unemployed British people the option to have work experience at the jobs that are normally done by immigrants: field work, packing, restaurant work, etc.  Only two out of the eight people did well at the jobs: the field workers worked very slowly, the restaurant workers didn't like how hard the work was, some people didn't turn up or didn't come back after the first day, etc.  

 

Honestly, I'm a left-leaning kind of person, and I would normally have dismissed stories like this as right-wing propaganda about shiftless poor people, but the programme was made by a journalist whom I respect.  Small sample, I know, but the attitudes were startling.  Yes, the jobs were low-paid, but they offered more than the benefits that the people were receiving.  The two British people who were put on waiting lists for jobs were married men in their fifties who really wanted to support their families better.

 

So yes, these were minimum wage jobs - but they were entirely unskilled, so they were what they were.

[nobeatenpath]

As the article I previously posted shows, and has any study done on the matter - the introduction of Eastern European workers to the UK has NOT driven down wages (and don't forget the UK has a legally binding minimum wage). There is not one shred of proof other EU nationals have displaced British workers. Nor has immigration made for a rise in unemployment in the UK. It is all dog whistle politics.

[Guest]

As the article I previously posted shows, and has any study done on the matter - the introduction of Eastern European workers to the UK has NOT driven down wages (and don't forget the UK has a legally binding minimum wage). There is not one shred of proof other EU nationals have displaced British workers. Nor has immigration made for a rise in unemployment in the UK. It is all dog whistle politics.

But would the jobs no longer be considered a minimum wage job had workers not willing to work for less entered the picture? I am not trying to be argumentative, I am just curious. As an American our system is so different and no one can deny that illegal immigration and offshoring have definitely effected wages here. It just seems hard for me to understand the snobbery implied that someone would rather be unemployed than take a physically difficult job, as a country wide affliction if other issues were not in play.

 

As mentioned in a post above- offshoring and outsourcing has done major damage to the IT industry here. My husband has had to deal with it in his position at his company. The board DEMANDED they offshore to India and another Central American company because they could get workers for less than half of the wages commanded in the US. It made my husband physically ill to deal with the lay offs of honestly more qualified US workers in this instance to meet with the demands of the board. However the board was going to have its way and all he would have won by fighting is a loss of his own job.

 

Activist investors here in the US have an overwhelming amount of control of business practices. Now the board is bemoaning the fact that said offshore company isn't performing at the peak level they had assumed. There is a language barrier, there are management differences across cultural borders (big surprise- they're people not automatic robots and employing them with a US firm doesn't automatically make them privy to all things American). I find it hard to believe the same doesn't happen in the UK. Is it the fault of the Indians my husband company outsourced to that they are willing to work for a wage, that although acceptable in terms of minimums, is still far beneath the living wage? No, definitely not. Is it the fault of the board who's job in life is profit? I don't know. It's an extremely complicated issue. I just am struggling to see how in Britian, immigration doesn't play SOME role in wages, even if it's not clearly black and white. It seems impossible that is has zero effect. I'm not buying it. That's not to say it justifies xenophobia, but rather than dismissing it completely as having any affect at all seems suspect. There is no way I can see that immigration doesn't have societal effects, be they positive or negative. It will have an effect of some sort though. I mean it's the story of the world in itself right? If populations were static they would be leas war and far less social change. But that never happens.

Edited June 26, 2016 by texasmom33

[Guest]

One more question- who controls the minimum wage in the UK? Does the EU have a say in it, or is it like in the US where it's determined state by state (or in your case country by country) with the exception of federal jobs and federal contractors?

[Murphy101]

While texasmom33 does bring up a part of the issue.

 

Something to consider is the countries with the highest immigration problem have an extremely low national birth rate and the immigrants tend to be both from countries with much higher birth rates and to have higher birth rates themselves. So in just one generation, you can see a completely different demographic. Thus it can both be true that there are more immigrants being employeed and yet not necessarily "taking" the job of the locals. Because as the locals die off AND have less children, they are replaced by immigrants. It is not racist or elitist to point this fact out. The fact itself does not presume negative of the immigrants. But if not handled well, there's little doubt that the Nationals will start to feel resentful, however peacefully or inevitable the situation might be at the time. This feeling goes double or triple when the immigrants appear to not be assimilating and adopting the national culture. (Whether that is true or not.). The concept of safety and power in numbers is very strongly instinctively felt by most people.

 

Not sure I worded that well at all.

[Serenade]

 

 

In the US, for example, tech companies would rather have a foreign worker they can pay $50,000 a year than an American worker who expects to have decent housing in San Francisco and pay off college debt, and therefore expects to make $100,000 a year or more.  (Just throwing out these numbers.)  The idea that "no one wants these jobs" is sometimes an incomplete thought that really means "no one wants these jobs at what we want to pay".  

 

ETA cross posted similar thought above.

 

Amen.  And Amen again.