25 Brexit need to knows ( Martin Lewis)

Migration Watch, the pressure group, has woken up to the fact that leaving the EU will not solve what it sees as the problem of excess immigration. It says that the immigration white paper, published at the end of last year, implies future net migration of between 267,000 and 331,000 a year, depending on the Tier 2 salary threshold adopted. If the threshold is £30,000, net migration is at the lower end of the range than if it is set at £21,000. In all cases, the lion’s share of migration, around three quarters, is from outside the EU.

For employers who have made use of EU migrants, these changes pose a big challenge, as they do for the economy. The immigration numbers may not change much, but the shift away from EU migrants, who have a higher propensity to work (their employment rate is 83.3 per cent, against 65.6 per cent for non-EU nationals) and make a bigger contribution to the public finances, will make a difference. Brexit means more red tape, not less, and the pool of EU workers is falling, with a drop of more than 90,000 in EU nationals working in Britain since summer 2017.

Source The Times 24 Aril.

I don’t think you understand the concept that people were and still are concerned about Mickeyfinn.

The fact that the UK should not be dictated to by the EU with regard to their failure to take account of growing citizen concern relating to the rules that they apply that negatively impact their own country. Tying a country’s hands by removing control to implement necessary changes in response to realities “on the ground” so to speak, and in so doing using that country as a scapegoat to further it’s political aims for enlargement, is no solution. Open door policies without effective management to control from within is a recipe for disaster. More so for those countries that already have geographical densities to contend with, whilst having to find effective methods to manage growing debt in as responsible a manner as possible. Agreed domestic solutions play their part but free swift movements of people from the EU have exacerbated the problems as already identified.

 It goes without saying that if Commissioners refuse to listen and respond with a willingness to find workable solutions to address problems, to review and engage, and remain flexible where necessary, rather than rigidly stick by rules without sufficient regard to major impact, then they only have themselves to blame. It’s no solution to point fingers elsewhere and not recognise problems with the existing treaty arrangements, to recognise failures with regard to the speed of enlargement and it’s impact on other member states.....

Other countries have been calling for reform, and you only have to listen to these dissenters in the European Parliamentary debates to recognise growing concerns and fears of how this impacts cohesion. Ironically the UK was always perceived as a necessary influence to enact reform from within, but sadly there comes a point where you have to recognise you are hitting your head against a brick wall given the resistance to change from Commissioners intent to retain the status quo.

For those that have given up on the EU demonstrating any willingness to reform, the following article from February 2019 by the economist Patrick Minford might prove of interest....

https://brexitcentral.com/treasury-bank-england-civil-service-let-us-brexit/

“My advice to the British people is: make it known to MPs that you will not stand for their bad economics, stick to your previous thinking, ignore the ongoing Project Fear as you got it right and these ‘servants’ of yours got it all wrong.”

Fascinating article. I found his solution to the Irish border issue and the GFA particularly interesting. 

Bank of England Governor Mark Carney has called Brexit an acid test for how consumers and companies respond to the new environment, and the similarities give economists and investors all the more reason to pay attention to the latest twists and turns in the debate. “We’ve had 30 years of globalization and the U.K. is probably the best example right now of actively trying to reverse that,” said Daniel Vernazza, chief U.K. and senior global economist at UniCredit

The stakes are high: According to calculations by Bloomberg Economics, close to $2 trillion globally is tied to trade flows that are risk from greater protectionism.

Source Bloomberg.

Patrick Minford is a professor of macroeconomics at Cardiff University. He is not regarded by the profession as a trade expert. His model has not been adopted by other academics. That is not to belittle his beliefs which I am sure are sincerely held. However, most mainstream trade experts and economists take the opposite view that leaving the EU without any deal opens the UK to economic collapse and growth reduction.

He argues that leaving the EU without a deal and cutting import tariffs to zero will usher in billions of pounds of cheap goods to the UK, reducing inflation and improving living standards. He fails to take into account that ditching the UK’s import tariffs also jettisons any bargaining power the UK might have with other trading blocs, such as the US and EU. He dismisses the concerns that Sterling and a flood of cheap imports would have on UK inflation. Opening Britain to low-cost imports would also damage vulnerable industries such as agriculture and manufacturing, which are currently protected from cheap copycat goods by being inside the EU’s tariff regime. 

There are also the current trade protectionist policies of Donald Trump which are likely to make any free trade deal with the US very one-sided and difficult to conclude. WTO trade deals take years to negotiate during which time the UK with tariffs removed under Milton's model would become a dumping ground. Governments subsidies would have to be used particularly for agriculture to offset the competition which would likely reduce any beneficial gains. 

But at least his model upholds the GFA. Oh, wait.....

The GFA and the concequences for NI of a no deal exit is indeed one of the subjects he seems to ignore. Minford was one of the principle advocates of the poll tax and was instrjumental in influencing Thatchers decision.

Micky. I did not list some differences I listed some facts. These should be addressed (or should have been addressed) before any or any further immigration. The fact is that the UK is not in control of immigration either from the EU or externally and that membership of the EU makes control more difficult. The current situation on Immigration is the fault of both political parties as well as the EU. Labour allowed massive immigration purely because it believed immigrants would vote Labour and the Conservatives blocked Labour's plans for a national ID card which would have given us one of the levers necessary to control immigration.

It is argued that Immigration is good because it causes the economy to expand, but the population of the UK has always been against further immigration and the facts I listed are some of the reasons why they are correct. The correct way to expand the ecomomy is by increasing productivity and efficiency. The UK is one of the least productive economies in the advanced world.

Elsewhere it is pointed out that the 'commission' will not allow us to do things. This is a clear indication of what is wrong with the EU in that our democratically elected government is prevented from action by an unelected caucus.

Not much point in repeating statements about someone elses research if those statements do not refer you to the source. If you want to know Patrick Minfords research results it is better to read from his own sources rather than repeat uninformed opinions. I prefer our own uniformed opinions to those of a 3rd source but better still read the original matter and try and veryfy the veracity. 3rd hand opinions are worse than worthless.

Micky

Just because the Community charge was overthrown by unrepresentitive minority through civil disobedience does not make it inherently wrong.

John Major made a stategic retreat but it did not do him or the country any favours in the long run.

A robust and successful democract needs conflicting views and debate. Thatchers famous quote that she didn't want her advisers to agree with her is valid. Political policy however has to be acceptable to the majority and I suggest Brexit and the poll tax didn't and do not. A referendum only reflects public sentiment at a given time.  Three years on sentiment may have changed. Given the national debate since and the failure of parliament to agree any settlements the public must be asked again if they want to leave the EU.

Who was it who said that democracy ceases to be a democracy if it can't change its mind?

When you look at the GFA it’s important to review the highly complex details and sequence of events of how the EU used Ireland to take control of Brexit.

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/1019/1005373-backstop-tony-connelly/

The only way forward to protect this GFA appears to be for the EU to show willingness to derive a trusted means of constructing a bespoke customs arrangement for Ireland to the benefit of all, until such time as technological solutions become available. But will they be willing to do so?

 A referendum only reflects public sentiment at a given time. 

Whilst in some sense that might be true, the fact is that the electorate was told by both sides that we would have to abide by the result. The referendum actually reflects the electorates 40 years of experience of membership of the EEC/EU.

The timing of the referendum was chosen because Mr Cameron believed the polls that said that we would vote remain.

In a representative democracy referendums are a once in a lifetime exercise used when the representatives need the guidance of the electorate.

The advice was given and should be acted on.

The facts have not changed so there is no reason to re-run the referendum. The result of a new referendum would be incredibly damaging whichever way it went.

There is only one possible reason to have a new referendum - wholesale changes to the way the EU operates. Transfer of powers to the EU parliament from the Commission and the barring of unqualified politicians from the ECJ would do it for me. But this is not going to happen.

 failure of parliament to agree any settlements the public must be asked again if they want to leave the EU.

The reason we have not left the EU is that MP's, who committed themselves to leaving, have obstructed the process. Are we saying that disrupting the will of the people is rewarded with a second referendum? They should have been honest and said 'we are going to disrupt the process because we do not believe in it' before the last election when they all stood on a ticket of leaving the EU.

No, there should not be a second referendum as we have had one and it should be acted on. However, it should be up to HM Gov to get the best deal we can for the UK (bearing in mind the EU, which seems to come as a surprise to some, will be trying to get the best deal for the EU). 

Leaving with no deal at all will, IMHO, be disastrous for the UK in economic terms as well as overturning the current agreements we have in place. All this should have been sorted out a long time ago. Davis started the rot (remember how easy it was going to be?) and subsequent negotiators don't seem to have had their heart in it.

It was all sorted out over 18 months ago but the NI DUP didn't like it so we started again and have a worse deal than we had then. Seems like 10 MPs can control how parliament works.

I do take issue with one bit by tteedd, though. Why do you think the members of the ECJ are unqualified politicians?
They are qualified judges in their own country and are nominated by each member state.

The treaties require that they are chosen from legal experts whose independence is "beyond doubt" and who possess the qualifications required for appointment to the highest judicial offices in their respective countries or who are of recognised competence

In fact, our member was Eleanor Sharpston, a QC and did a stint as First Advocate General on the ECJ. 

The difficulty is tteedd the public were not asked HOW they wanted to leave. The government seeks to leave in the least destructive way. Parliamentarians seek something else.

The referendum should ask the question do they want to leave with the deal as well as an option to remain the result would go a long way to fu fundamentally settle the issue.

"The facts have not changed so there is no reason to re-run the referendum."

That may be true, but the fact is we know far more facts than before, when the "facts" we were told were actually complete BS.

Mariedav and all

You may be interested to read the following which is a damning criticism of treasury forecasting ( Feb 2018) upon which many of the negative Brexit scenarios are based.

https://brexitcentral.com/treasurys-record-economic-forecasting-poor-given-trying-years-ago/

It makes for stark reading I’m afraid and all those concerned should be bringing this to the attention of their MPs and demanding a response (http://www.writetothem.com)

P.s. A more recent paper dated January 2019 might also prove of interest.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/twec.12771

“The key point of this review is that this Civil Service work has taken a sharp turn in the past year towards the CGE methods we have been using throughout and has rightly in our view abandoned the original Treasury methodology of gravity‐based associations which are incapable of establishing causality. In this methodological sense, our work is certainly not, as repeatedly claimed by our opponents, an “outlier” but rather entirely “mainstream.” Where the Civil Service continues to differ from us is in their assumptions about the extent to which FTAs with the rest of the world can reduce current EU protection and also about the trade and border barriers that would be created between us and the EU. However, these assumptions of theirs are almost impossible to justify, since such barriers would be illegal and the scope for reducing EU protection is very large.

Once one substitutes reasonable assumptions into the type of world trade model used by the Civil Service, the trade effects estimated for Brexit become positive and potentially rather large. When one adds these to the less controversial gains from proceeding with UK‐created regulation of the economy, the control of unskilled immigration and the ceasing of our payments into the EU budget, the gains to the UK economy suggest that growth could rise by around 0.5% per annum on average for the next decade and a half.”

This message was last edited by ads on 25/04/2019.

And  there are dozens of reports (not from the treasury) that forecast a drop in GDP of 5% plus.

Problem is, who do you believe? Those that chime with your particular POV I suppose. Sites like brexit central, lawyers for Britain and so on should be avoided because of the obvious bias. So should better in and Europagood also show bias the other way.

Like a lot of the Brexit sites don't actually lie but do twist the truth. Talk to some and they would have you believe the UK is in and out of the ECJ all the time. Then read instituteforgovernment and they state UK is very rarefly taken to the ECJ unlike other countries. Some would have you believe the UK is constantly being picked on by the ECJ when they aren't but it all goes to making their case stronger, or so they think.

And the number that mix up the ECHR (nothing to do with the ECJ) is frightening that those people were actually entitled to vote. 

The UK rarely ends up in the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and when it does it wins its cases more often than most European Union (EU) member states, a new report finds.

The UK won around a quarter of all the cases against it in the last 14 years: the highest success rate of any country that joined the EU before 2004 and the third-highest success rate of any country in the EU now.

Since 2003 the European Commission has opened over 750 complaints against the UK for failing to follow or apply EU law. The UK resolved 668 of these complaints before even reaching the court through negotiation and informal dispute resolution.

But listening to some it would seem they think the EU is being vindictive against the UK and leaving other countries alone. I heard one Brexit guy saying that the EU was picking on UK for having high CO2 levels but totally ignored the fact that Germany and France were also being indicted for the same thing and Italy, Hungary and Romania were actually fined for it.

Nope, this will go on for a long time but I do hope UK leaves (with a deal that is good for it) before the farcical EU parliament elections take place. 

UK is already being held up as a laughing stock throughout the world (USA, Canada and Australia think we have lost the plot) for the way Brexit has been handled. If we get rid of May and put Bojo in we'll go down even further.

The only advantage to the above is that we won't be referring to May as the worst Prime Minister ever in a few years time.

If a deal is to be achieved isn’t it essential for ALL our sakes that this be based on as realistic data as possible, from forecasting methods that have a PROVEN track record of accuracy to date?  How can any of us have faith in the deal if the basics upon which it has been derived are highly questionable? Why else would the Govt change in principle their forecasting methods this last year ( based upon the proven alternative) and yet continue to make assumptions that cannot be justified? It doesn’t make sense....

They are qualified judges in their own country and are nominated by each member state.

This is supposed to be the case but there have been many who have only had legal qualifications and have not actually sat as even ordinary trial judges in thier own countries.

It is some time now since this was investigated (Panorama I think) but many were clearly political appointees making political decisions.

They have a history of not making sound legal judgements.

This is not to say that most of their work is not considered good, but If their Judgements are to apply to the UK the rules on qualification (they should have sat as appeal judges in thier own country) should be upheld and their method of selection should be free of political bias. People with legal qual's but who are in fact politicians should be barred.