David Davis resigns

[martin_p]

In that event nothing would be lost.

Well I don’t want to shock you, but quite a few people do drink or go abroad.

[Jakubclaret]

Well I don’t want to shock you, but quite a few people do drink or go abroad.

I know, it's a weak argument anyway because Brexit wouldn't restrict that to that extent, people also visit the UK. Too much scaremongering going mostly by ill informed people, some aspects of Schengen will still be preserved.

[nil_desperandum]

In that event nothing would be lost.

Unless you happened to have children and they were deprived of the opportunities that their peers were entitled to, (e.g. studying or working in the EU without potential restriction).

[nil_desperandum]

I know, it's a weak argument anyway because Brexit wouldn't restrict that to that extent, people also visit the UK. Too much scaremongering going mostly by ill informed people, some aspects of Schengen will still be preserved.

Just to clarify. We're not in Schengen, and leaving the EU should have no impact on this agreement.

[Lancasterclaret]

He's so obviously Mr Brexit you have to wonder if he's taking the ****.

[burnleymik]

What do we think of this take on what leading brexiteers are looking to achieve? Would you say this represents 'taking back control'?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ain-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That article is incredibly bias, including the disingenuous assertion that the EU didn't want the TTIP deal, they absolutely did:

https://www.politico.eu/article/juncker ... e-council/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The problem is that it makes lots of those types of guesses about what Fox is doing, when in reality he doesn't really know and says as much at the end of the article. The article cannot have credibility when it is attempting to criticise something it not only knows little about, but has only just started.

[AndrewJB]

That article is incredibly bias, including the disingenuous assertion that the EU didn't want the TTIP deal, they absolutely did:

https://www.politico.eu/article/juncker ... e-council/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The problem is that it makes lots of those types of guesses about what Fox is doing, when in reality he doesn't really know and says as much at the end of the article. The article cannot have credibility when it is attempting to criticise something it not only knows little about, but has only just started.

It’s an opinion piece, so not meant to be a neutral news story. The facts we can take from it is in the legislation last week were provisions to allow the government to make trade deals without parliament oversight or requiring approval. We also know that more than a few within this government would be happy to trade away worker rights, and various standards to get a trade deal. These points are the nub of the argument. Lowered working conditions, and reduced environmental standards - to name two concerns - is not ‘taking back control’

[AndrewJB]

So if we leave a trade relationship in which we have long agreed protections for workers, and move instead to one in which those protections are lessened, how is that good for the average Briton? I know how it’s good for the multinationals, and for rich. Britons (who fund the Tory Party), but bad for the rest of us.

[burnleymik]

How do you know the standards would be significantly lowered? Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it will happen. The British people and businesses expect high standards and will hold the government to account for anything that is not good enough.

Also, what makes you think the EU is good for workers rights? In the last 15 years or so, whilst being members of the EU, I have seen our workers rights fall significantly. Sacked within the first two years for pretty much any non-discriminatory reason, massive introduction of temping agencies and zero hour contracts. Most of the rights we have were fought for by the unions back in the day and have very little to do with the EU.

[Imploding Turtle]

Also, what makes you think the EU is good for workers rights?

literally all i did was google "eu workers rights". I don't know why you people can't do the same. I'm sure you have it in you.

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=82" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[burnleymik]

literally all i did was google "eu workers rights". I don't know why you people can't do the same. I'm sure you have it in you.

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=82" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cherry pick one quote, totally ignore the rest and add the usual snarky comment.

[martin_p]

Cherry pick one quote, totally ignore the rest and add the usual snarky comment.

It was a question and he answered it! Hardly cherry picking.

[Imploding Turtle]

Cherry pick one quote, totally ignore the rest and add the usual snarky comment.

The "cherry picking" argument only works if I've unfairly taking something out of context in order to attack it. I haven't. You asked what makes us think the EU is good for workers rights, and i sent you a link. And then mocked you for not even trying to find this information yourself. I could apologise for mocking you, but i don't want to.

[Jakubclaret]

He's so obviously Mr Brexit you have to wonder if he's taking the ****.

Far from it, just vastly different views, you’re a longer serving poster than me & more embedded on posting on a political spectrum, I don’t see how any further input from me can enhance things on this thread so the shows yours.

[burnleymik]

literally all i did was google "eu workers rights". I don't know why you people can't do the same. I'm sure you have it in you.

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=82" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The EU are claiming they are giving rights that in reality were fought for by other groups, such as trade unions. I.e Holiday Pay, which the Eu claim rights for was a battle won by Trade Unions. Holiday leave was already won before the Eu stepped in. The Equal pay rights that the EU claim, was already introduced in the UK in 1970, before we joined the EU. Maternity pay was available in the 70's too. British governments also introduced measures throughout the time. The only other real one I can see is Health and Safety, but once again we were already subject to the Health and safety at work regulations of 1974, to protect workers and I am sure would have been updated had we not encompassed the Eu directives.

I mean what about the rights of the workers in Greece or Italy, both EU members? They were sold out pretty quickly when the going got tough. Why did the EU not help protect them?


Also the minimum wage is something not in EU Law and is there to protect Birtish workers.

[Imploding Turtle]

The EU are claiming they are giving rights ...

I'm stopping you right here because if we can't even get this right then there's no point going on. Where are the EU claiming that they are giving rights?

[burnleymik]

The "cherry picking" argument only works if I've unfairly taking something out of context in order to attack it. I haven't. You asked what makes us think the EU is good for workers rights, and i sent you a link. And then mocked you for not even trying to find this information yourself. I could apologise for mocking you, but i don't want to.

What about the very next sentence, that explains why I asked that question?. That is cherry picking.

Listen, I have tried to remain civil and courteous to you as much as I can, but your self-importance, arrogance and constant need to make personal slights is making it pretty difficult to debate with you.

I am done responding to you.

[Imploding Turtle]

What about the very next sentence, that explains why I asked that question?. That is cherry picking.

Listen, I have tried to remain civil and courteous to you as much as I can, but your self-importance, arrogance and constant need to make personal slights is making it pretty difficult to debate with you.

I am done responding to you.

Actually, your penchant for talking bullshit is why it's difficult to debate with me.

[burnleymik]

Interesting, so after months posturing and pushing the UK government into a corner, regarding the Irish Border, the Eu are telling Varadkar that will be no physical border on a no deal scenario...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politic ... -1.3569485" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[If it be your will]

.

[AndrewJB]

How do you know the standards would be significantly lowered? Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it will happen. The British people and businesses expect high standards and will hold the government to account for anything that is not good enough.

Also, what makes you think the EU is good for workers rights? In the last 15 years or so, whilst being members of the EU, I have seen our workers rights fall significantly. Sacked within the first two years for pretty much any non-discriminatory reason, massive introduction of temping agencies and zero hour contracts. Most of the rights we have were fought for by the unions back in the day and have very little to do with the EU.

Why do I think working rights would be bargained away in any trade deal outside the EU? Because the EU holds us to certain standards, and without those EU standards we can lower ours even further.

All the points you make about being let go without reason within two years, and zero hours contracts are U.K. law. So that kind of answers your first question of why would they lower our standards - because they’ve done it before, and without EU protections they can do it even further. A lot of companies here would love that. Get into a trade deal with the US and they’ll say; “we can’t afford maternity leave now, because our competitors in the US don’t have to pay it” And this doesn’t even touch on environmental standards which are far higher in the EU than in the US. Most of U.K. business would rather stay in the EU, but if we were out of it it’s all bets off when it comes to standards, as they’re focus will be on winning new markets out of it. Think we’ll move with the EU on tax avoidance (when we leave)? Ive heard it said this is why they want to get out - before that comes in.
You are right that British unions won a lot of workers rights after the war, but now union membership is a pale shadow of what it once was, and union rights have been gutted.

So yes, I think we are in real danger of seeing working rights and standards of all kinds diminishing if we have a hard Brexit. Think about what this government might demand of us once 80% of our export trade is disrupted. And wonder too about why all those people publicly pushing for hard Brexit, and how insulated they are from all the affects compared to most people. They don’t care about us. They are the real traitors.

[If it be your will]

.

[burnleymik]

Why do I think working rights would be bargained away in any trade deal outside the EU? Because the EU holds us to certain standards, and without those EU standards we can lower ours even further.

All the points you make about being let go without reason within two years, and zero hours contracts are U.K. law. So that kind of answers your first question of why would they lower our standards - because they’ve done it before, and without EU protections they can do it even further.

That is why we have democratic elections. To hold governments responsible for their choices and actions. As an individual I have no power to hold the EU to the same standard, but my point was if the Eu cannot protect even the basic rights, such as those I pointed out, then they are not that much help to us. Unions are far more important to us, as workers.

A lot of companies here would love that. Get into a trade deal with the US and they’ll say; “we can’t afford maternity leave now, because our competitors in the US don’t have to pay it” And this doesn’t even touch on environmental standards which are far higher in the EU than in the US. Most of U.K. business would rather stay in the EU, but if we were out of it it’s all bets off when it comes to standards, as they’re focus will be on winning new markets out of it. Think we’ll move with the EU on tax avoidance (when we leave)? Ive heard it said this is why they want to get out - before that comes in.

.

This is speculation on your part. We really don't know if these things would happen and if it was tried I imagine there would be uproar to stop it.

You are right that British unions won a lot of workers rights after the war, but now union membership is a pale shadow of what it once was, and union rights have been gutted.

Agree Unions are not as powerful as they once were, but they still do hold a good level of power, and as a member of one, I can assure you they have protected my working conditions and rights plenty.

So yes, I think we are in real danger of seeing working rights and standards of all kinds diminishing if we have a hard Brexit. Think about what this government might demand of us once 80% of our export trade is disrupted. And wonder too about why all those people publicly pushing for hard Brexit, and how insulated they are from all the affects compared to most people. They don’t care about us. That are the real traitors.

Look, I am not saying you are wrong, we don;t know what the government would do and I agree they have proven very untrustworthy on many occasions, but we live in a democracy and have the ability to get them out if they start pushing things the public dislike.

Also, I think you under-estimate the plight of the poor working classes, they are already at rock bottom, they have nothing to lose at this point, at least Brexit offers them some hope for the future. With new trade deals maybe we could start to move away froma service based economy and back towards a manufacturing economy, which would help them enormously. We would be able to protect British jobs. Heck, we could even make ourselves a tax haven and entice businesses to the UK that way (which would really annoy the EU).

I just don't see it as all bad, despite how hard that narrative is pushed in our direction.

[Imploding Turtle]

When you did that, were you somewhat surprised, disappointed even, by both the brevity and lack of gravity of the list of rights that had been added since 1975? Ones we didn't already have, I mean? The reason I ask is because about 2 years ago a Lexiter challenged me to do exactly this, at a time when I was still wavering about the EU, and I was, indeed, surprised.

Said Lexiter then rattled off a list of workers' rights - particularly union rights - that had been wiped away since 1975, that our membership of the EU had failed to stop being taken away (both under Thatcher and beyond). Then, for good measure, he emailed some examples of grossly unfair, anti-union, pro-corporate judgements that have made in the European courts. Finally, he asked 'So, do you think workers have more power now, after 40 years of EU membership, than they had in 1975?' He then insisted I read the Maastricht Treaty in full (he was keen, this fellow). I'm not wholly convinced the EU is the bastion of workers' rights everyone supposes it to be, you know.

That said, I fully accept the argument that leaving the EU and then being governed by the Tories might well result in a complete bonfire of rights and regulations, but that is a completely separate argument.

I get that we're losing, and have lost, a bunch of workers rights to the Tories and New Labour. But that only goes to show that we need the EU protecting as many rights as possible. I'd like them to protect more, but i'm unwilling to just let us leave because they don't protect ALL the rights i want to stop the Tories from burning through. The if-they-can't-protect-all-our-rights-then-they-shouldn't-protect-any-of-our-rights argument doesn't convince me.

[Imploding Turtle]

This all feels a bit defeatist to me. The assumption that, as UK citizens, we are no longer capable of protecting and gaining our own rights anymore. I'm not saying that assumption is incorrect, just that it feels defeatist. We were global leaders at this sort of thing once, are we really so useless at it now?

Lol. We're not. I have absolutely no faith in our government protecting our rights since they've spent the last twenty years giving them away by stoking up fear, jealousy, and anger. And i have no faith in the electorate identifying charlatans and con-men trying to convince them to hand over their rights.


“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'”

[burnleymik]

This all feels a bit defeatist to me. The assumption that, as UK citizens, we are no longer capable of protecting and gaining our own rights anymore. I'm not saying that assumption is incorrect, just that it feels defeatist. We were global leaders at this sort of thing once, are we really so useless at it now?

I think you are spot-on. We have a country full of talented, creative, dynamic people and businesses. I think we would have an awful lot to offer in the global markets and I think if we could just actually get on and focus on that side of things we could get a truer picture of what Brexit would really look like.

[Imploding Turtle]

I think you are spot-on. We have a country full of talented, creative, dynamic people and businesses. I think we would have an awful lot to offer in the global markets and I think if we could just actually get on and focus on that side of things we could get a truer picture of what Brexit would really look like.

Yes. You're very patriotic. Everyone is in awe at how patriotic you are. But the rest of us unpatriotic lot can remember how this electorate full of "talented, creative, dynamic people" is sick and tired of experts.

I think i'd like an electorate of smarter people protecting my rights, tyvm.

[aggi]

I think this is part of the reason why people have concerns about workers' rights being cut post-brexit
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 49716.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://realbusiness.co.uk/hr-and-manag ... -and-fire/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[If it be your will]

.

[nil_desperandum]

Interesting, so after months posturing and pushing the UK government into a corner, regarding the Irish Border, the Eu are telling Varadkar that will be no physical border on a no deal scenario...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politic ... -1.3569485" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course the EU don't want a hard border, indeed their negotiations have been underpinned by a determination to avoid one, but if the UK wants to revert to WTO rules then the WTO requires one. (Why do you think that the government have been desperately proposing radical technological solutions for this that haven't even been invented yet?)

[If it be your will]

.

[If it be your will]

.

[Paul Waine]

Hi Paul

You've made me go back and read the rest of Crosspool's post now - I may not forgive you for that

Let's take a closer look at some of his "expert" analysis, shall we?

Hi Greenmile, apologies if my comments made you read the rest of Crosspool's post.

Crosspool has addressed this himself; he wasn't claiming to be, and I didn't read his post, as an "expert" - just an "ordinary joe" (with a little education around the subject matter) making a few comments.

Like you, I don't recall the details of the "Phillips Curve." Crosspool's post appeared reasonable reflection of this 1958 (published) research:

http://economicsonline.co.uk/Global_eco ... curve.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I feel there is more to it these days with "faster moving" economies and the change from predominantly manufacturing base to an economy dominated by services and "exciting" technological progress.

[burnleymik]

Of course the EU don't want a hard border, indeed their negotiations have been underpinned by a determination to avoid one, but if the UK wants to revert to WTO rules then the WTO requires one. (Why do you think that the government have been desperately proposing radical technological solutions for this that haven't even been invented yet?)

WTO doesn't require a hard border. Checkpoints, yes, but a hard border, no.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I feel there is more to it these days with "faster moving" economies and the change from predominantly manufacturing base to an economy dominated by services and "exciting" technological progress.

Not sure if I’ll regret making another comment on this subject after the grief I got last time, but I think the link you attached is an excellent one Paul, and I also agree with your above comment - as one variable.

The article has this excellent short explanation of the impact:

• 1. An increase in the demand for labour as government spending generates growth.
  2. The pool of unemployed will fall.
  3. Firms must compete for fewer workers by raising nominal wages.
  4. Workers have greater bargaining power to seek out increases in nominal wages.
  5. Wage costs will rise.
  6. Faced with rising wage costs, firms pass on these cost increases in higher prices.

That is what SHOULD happen, but we all agree the world has changed. It does though feel certain to me that numbers 3 and 4 are massively impacted by migration in some sectors, which then impacts on 5 and 6.

I note the webpage concludes with this statement:

• The improvements in labour market flexibility have helped, along with increased labour migration – both of which have eased pressure in the labour market at times of growth.

Reading the above, I am not sure what is so controversial about my suggestion that if low skilled migration falls, wages will rise, even if there are other variables? The only debate is by how much.

[Paul Waine]

Not sure if I’ll regret making another comment on this subject after the grief I got last time, but I think the link you attached is an excellent one Paul, and I also agree with your above comment - as one variable.

The article has this excellent short explanation of the impact:

• 1. An increase in the demand for labour as government spending generates growth.
  2. The pool of unemployed will fall.
  3. Firms must compete for fewer workers by raising nominal wages.
  4. Workers have greater bargaining power to seek out increases in nominal wages.
  5. Wage costs will rise.
  6. Faced with rising wage costs, firms pass on these cost increases in higher prices.

That is what SHOULD happen, but we all agree the world has changed. It does though feel certain to me that numbers 3 and 4 are massively impacted by migration in some sectors, which then impacts on 5 and 6.

I note the webpage concludes with this statement:

• The improvements in labour market flexibility have helped, along with increased labour migration – both of which have eased pressure in the labour market at times of growth.

Reading the above, I am not sure what is so controversial about my suggestion that if low skilled migration falls, wages will rise, even if there are other variables? The only debate is by how much.

Hi Crosspool, thanks for posting.

I'd expect that there are economists today who are researching the UK labour market and seeking to determine the impact of imigration on the Phillips Curve. Maybe there are factors which continue to attract new migrants that add to the labour supply, rather than pulling up wages as the growth in employment reduces the "spare capacity" in the labout market.

I'm sure that this effect will be felt at all workforce levels, highly skilled through to lower skilled. Of course, it's more likely to be experienced negatively at the lower waged end of the labout market.

But, I'm sure the situation is complex. I, for one, will not argue that immigration should be halted/controlled so that the wages of the lower skilled/lower paid will rise. I'm sure everyone will lose much more than might be gained for such an approach. Much better to provide the training opportunities that increase the skills across the workforce, especially for those in low paid employment.

[Greenmile]

Not sure if I’ll regret making another comment on this subject after the grief I got last time....

Snowflake.

I note the webpage concludes with this statement:

• The improvements in labour market flexibility have helped, along with increased labour migration – both of which have eased pressure in the labour market at times of growth.

I’m no qualified economist (and I am a bit drunk) so I may well be wrong, but doesn’t that statement say the opposite of what you’ve been arguing? - ie migration helps the economy grow and reduce unemployment without increasing inflation (and thus reducing the working man’s spending power)

Or does “labour migration” mean something different from just “migration”? I hope you might be able to enlighten me and that you don’t dismiss this post as a far-left inane rant.

Edit - Oh, and it seems (to me) that the article Paul kindly linked to says that the Phillips Curve hasn’t really existed since 1993, in which case your decade (of “mass immigration”), which became 14 years has just become 25 years.

[nil_desperandum]

WTO doesn't require a hard border. Checkpoints, yes, but a hard border, no.

So if vehicles have to stop at a checkpoint, it's effectively a hard border, yes?
.... and May has stated again in the last 24 hours that the Good Friday agreement has to be honoured.
She said both sides in the negotiation "share a determination never to see a hard border in Northern Ireland".
"And no technology solution to address these issues has been designed yet, or implemented anywhere in the world, let alone in such a unique and highly sensitive context as the Northern Ireland border".

[AndrewJB]

That is why we have democratic elections. To hold governments responsible for their choices and actions. As an individual I have no power to hold the EU to the same standard, but my point was if the Eu cannot protect even the basic rights, such as those I pointed out, then they are not that much help to us. Unions are far more important to us, as workers.

.

This is speculation on your part. We really don't know if these things would happen and if it was tried I imagine there would be uproar to stop it.




Agree Unions are not as powerful as they once were, but they still do hold a good level of power, and as a member of one, I can assure you they have protected my working conditions and rights plenty.



Look, I am not saying you are wrong, we don;t know what the government would do and I agree they have proven very untrustworthy on many occasions, but we live in a democracy and have the ability to get them out if they start pushing things the public dislike.

Also, I think you under-estimate the plight of the poor working classes, they are already at rock bottom, they have nothing to lose at this point, at least Brexit offers them some hope for the future. With new trade deals maybe we could start to move away froma service based economy and back towards a manufacturing economy, which would help them enormously. We would be able to protect British jobs. Heck, we could even make ourselves a tax haven and entice businesses to the UK that way (which would really annoy the EU).

I just don't see it as all bad, despite how hard that narrative is pushed in our direction.

I can see I'm not as optimistic as you are, so that will account for some of our differences. And by no means do I think the EU is perfect. I don't think there is any doubt though that leaving will bring an economic hit, and the harder the brexit, the bigger that hit. My prediction is that if we go with a hard brexit, many Tories will call for de-regulation as a means of making Britain competitive. This will be in response to economic turmoil, and the major newspapers will champion it too. We'll be told "there is no alternative" and "it is the price we all must pay" - though the only way it will affect the richest will be by making them richer.

I think even the Labour Party would struggle to deliver a decent brexit - considering the fear in EU circles of us taking back control of our railways and utilities.

I think you're wrong to say the EU isn't democratic, because you can't be a member unless you're a democracy. It could probably be improved upon in that respect, but it's not authoritarian.

Lastly the UK is already a tax haven. Turning it into more of one will do nothing for ordinary working people, except see the evisceration of more public services. I agree that many people are just a paycheque away from poverty, and the ranks of those in poverty has grown hugely. It was in the news today that Theresa May has earned the Tories £7Million in donations by having lunch with donors. You can be certain that with so much money being handed over the conversation wasn't just about the weather. She will have been provided with a wish-list, and I can't imagine that included "higher taxes on the wealthy" or "better public services for ordinary people" She'll use a crisis to hammer through the lower taxes her donors have asked for.

[burnleymik]

So if vehicles have to stop at a checkpoint, it's effectively a hard border, yes?
.... and May has stated again in the last 24 hours that the Good Friday agreement has to be honoured.
She said both sides in the negotiation "share a determination never to see a hard border in Northern Ireland".
"And no technology solution to address these issues has been designed yet, or implemented anywhere in the world, let alone in such a unique and highly sensitive context as the Northern Ireland border".

Essentially you are correct, but the media are trying to paint it like we would need to build a Berlin type wall between the North and South of Ireland.

The problem with the old border was Security and it was manned by the armed forces, this border issue is something quite different.

Even Ex-IRA members don't think it would be that much of an issue:


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland ... -1.3041131" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[nil_desperandum]

Essentially you are correct, but the media are trying to paint it like we would need to build a Berlin type wall between the North and South of Ireland.

The problem with the old border was Security and it was manned by the armed forces, this border issue is something quite different.

Even Ex-IRA members don't think it would be that much of an issue:


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland ... -1.3041131" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ex-IRA members are entitled to their opinion.
Theresa May reinforced yesterday that it is a problem. Some people cross over the border several times a day. Unless the WTO / EU / UK were going to totally ignore smuggling in and out of of the world's largest trading block, then checks would have to be made. (It's most likely that - as everywhere else in the UK the checkpoints would have to be backed up with armed guards.)

[If it be your will]

.

[Greenmile]

If migration is suppressing inflation, then it does so by suppressing 'working man's' wage demands*. 'Working man' doesn't gain from this, his spending power is lower because his wages are lower. The one that gains from this effect is the one that employs 'working man'. 'Employing man' - if you like - gains twice: he pays lower wages and his money goes further in the shops due to lower inflation.

(*if someone says 'Ah, but migration might improve productivity, which will also reduce inflation'. This is a different effect, and can be discussed separately.)

So suppressing inflation is bad for the working classes as, even though (presumably) they get more for their money, their wages are (necessarily?) lower?

How does the cause and effect work here? Is lower inflation a result of lower wages, or can employers just get away with paying less if inflation happens to be lower? Or are you working backwards from an existing assumption that migration suppresses wages? Does the level of inflation really matter at all to the working man if he gets a wage rise “in line with inflation” every year (I realise this isn’t that common nowadays, but hypothetically)?

That business studies GCSE seems a long old time ago.

[If it be your will]

.

[If it be your will]

.

[martin_p]

Rees-Mogg now predicting a no deal Brexit and says it won’t be that bad. I agree, he’ll probably be fine.

[CrosspoolClarets]

If migration is suppressing inflation, then it does so by suppressing 'working man's' wage demands*. 'Working man' doesn't gain from this, his spending power is lower because his wages are lower. The one that gains from this effect is the one that employs 'working man'. 'Employing man' - if you like - gains twice: he pays lower wages and his money goes further in the shops due to lower inflation.

(*if someone says 'Ah, but migration might improve productivity, which will also reduce inflation'. This is a different effect, and can be discussed separately.)

Spot on, I suspect.

Wage inflation is good for “working man” because his bills are higher in general, yet lower than his income gain. As for your comment that “employing man” gains twice by low wages (and low working conditions) - it reminded me of this old news article about Amazon (who are arguably exploiting self employed Eastern European migrant drivers, who seem to be the bulk of their workforce near me).

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/a ... 0-11668823

[Greenmile]

I think you under-estimate the plight of the poor working classes, they are already at rock bottom, they have nothing to lose at this point.

I think I’ve seen you (or maybe another Brexiteer) make this point before, and I think you’re underestimating where rock bottom is. Not that I want to underestimate the plight of the working poor, particularly under this Tory government, but surely you can see the inherent contradiction between “we’re at rock bottom, we’ve got nothing to lose” and “the problem is all these Poles who will do my shitty job for even shittier wages than me”.

No matter how low you think you are, things can almost always get worse. Fact is, every last one of us in the UK (and on the internet) is currently in the top 20%* or so of the world’s population in terms of distance from “rock bottom”.

(*no research was involved In reaching this number, but I think the point still stands)

[burnleymik]

I think I’ve seen you (or maybe another Brexiteer) make this point before, and I think you’re underestimating where rock bottom is. Not that I want to underestimate the plight of the working poor, particularly under this Tory government, but surely you can see the inherent contradiction between “we’re at rock bottom, we’ve got nothing to lose” and “the problem is all these Poles who will do my shitty job for even shittier wages than me”.

No matter how low you think you are, things can almost always get worse. Fact is, every last one of us in the UK (and on the internet) is currently in the top 20%* or so of the world’s population in terms of distance from “rock bottom”.

(*no research was involved In reaching this number, but I think the point still stands)

Of course things could be worse, but in real-terms the working class poor have seen a huge decrease in their living standards and a rapid rise in competition for all their services, jobs and housing. As it stands they feel pretty hopeless and it would only get worse as the EU keeps increasing in size and inviting more and more poor economies to join the bloc, meaning the workers from those countries moving to the richer economies to find employment and make some extra money.

Article about more expansion of the EU to 6 more Balkan States:

https://www.ft.com/content/e0774a28-069 ... 0ad2d7c5b5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's also the same with the refugee crisis across Europe, that Merkel encouraged and then washed her hands of. All the people fleeing in and the EU have said everyone has to take their fair share, but in the UK, once again, it's the poor that take the burden of these refugees, as they put them in the cheap housing in poor areas, even more competition for resources of the poor.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... of-britain" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The poor are taking the hit everywhere and it's got a lot to do with the EU.

[Greenmile]

Of course things could be worse, but in real-terms the working class poor have seen a huge decrease in their living standards and a rapid rise in competition for all their services, jobs and housing. As it stands they feel pretty hopeless and it would only get worse as the EU keeps increasing in size and inviting more and more poor economies to join the bloc, meaning the workers from those countries moving to the richer economies to find employment and make some extra money.

Article about more expansion of the EU to 6 more Balkan States:

https://www.ft.com/content/e0774a28-069 ... 0ad2d7c5b5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's also the same with the refugee crisis across Europe, that Merkel encouraged and then washed her hands of. All the people fleeing in and the EU have said everyone has to take their fair share, but in the UK, once again, it's the poor that take the burden of these refugees, as they put them in the cheap housing in poor areas, even more competition for resources of the poor.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... of-britain" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The poor are taking the hit everywhere and it's got a lot to do with the EU.

So if things could be worse, they’re not at rock bottom and folk do, in fact, have something to lose. And they will lose a lot in the event of a hard Brexit.