Is it racist to only want to allow people to move to the UK that add to the economy, i.e have skills/professions that will improve the UK? Like Australia (apparently) does?
I think people having concerns over immigration levels is perfectly valid and absolutely doesn't mark one out as holding racist views. Whether those concerns are justified or not is another issue and I believe that there are many more aspects within the UK that people should be more concerned about than immigration levels...a topic which has been constantly demonised by the popular press.
Btw who are you expecting to carry out the non-skilled/non-professional jobs, with minimal pay and poor conditions and job security in the future? Is a Portuguese cleaner or an Italian waitress not adding to our economy? Neither meet your criteria for entry into the UK.
No but the dickheads illegally or even just incorrectly rinsing up benefits could certainly manage those roles and have their benefits cut down should they choose to make no effort to add to the economy rather than draining it.
(Yes I disagree with benefit sponges, however appreciate that some do in fact need the benefits they claim for legitimate reasons)
So you think or expect the lack Portuguese cleaners or Italian waitresses is going to be addressed by shipping unemployed people around the country doing jobs they don’t want or are unsuited for. Are you expecting the same to address the shortage in vegetable pickers in Lincolnshire or fisherman in Grimsby ?
Apart from the fact that it won’t work ( no pun intended) where are these people going to be housed when being relocated to pick up the slack in foreign workers ? What about those with families with children.
Just like everything else I’ve heard or read about getting rid of low paid unskilled immigrant workforce and indeed Brexit it just hasn’t been thought through.
From my point of view, I don't want anyone moved or shipped or whatever. If there is a waiter job or a picker job and someone in Lisbon or Rome wants to apply for it. Great stuff. Get the job, come over, fill in some paperwork and crack away. If you want to stay long term/forever - no problem, we can discuss it in the future.
What you can't do is bring X friends with you just in case there are X more jobs on offer.
Is it racist to only want to allow people to move to the UK that add to the economy, i.e have skills/professions that will improve the UK? Like Australia (apparently) does?
I think people having concerns over immigration levels is perfectly valid and absolutely doesn't mark one out as holding racist views. Whether those concerns are justified or not is another issue and I believe that there are many more aspects within the UK that people should be more concerned about than immigration levels...a topic which has been constantly demonised by the popular press.
Btw who are you expecting to carry out the non-skilled/non-professional jobs, with minimal pay and poor conditions and job security in the future? Is a Portuguese cleaner or an Italian waitress not adding to our economy? Neither meet your criteria for entry into the UK.
No but the dickheads illegally or even just incorrectly rinsing up benefits could certainly manage those roles and have their benefits cut down should they choose to make no effort to add to the economy rather than draining it.
(Yes I disagree with benefit sponges, however appreciate that some do in fact need the benefits they claim for legitimate reasons)
So you think or expect the lack Portuguese cleaners or Italian waitresses is going to be addressed by shipping unemployed people around the country doing jobs they don’t want or are unsuited for. Are you expecting the same to address the shortage in vegetable pickers in Lincolnshire or fisherman in Grimsby ?
Apart from the fact that it won’t work ( no pun intended) where are these people going to be housed when being relocated to pick up the slack in foreign workers ? What about those with families with children.
Just like everything else I’ve heard or read about getting rid of low paid unskilled immigrant workforce and indeed Brexit it just hasn’t been thought through.
From my point of view, I don't want anyone moved or shipped or whatever. If there is a waiter job or a picker job and someone in Lisbon or Rome wants to apply for it. Great stuff. Get the job, come over, fill in some paperwork and crack away. If you want to stay long term/forever - no problem, we can discuss it in the future.
What you can't do is bring X friends with you just in case there are X more jobs on offer.
It seems like you want your cake and eat it @Valiantphil You want the UK to be open for migrants to come here from the EU if they're going to work, but if they're only here signing on and not working, you'd like to be able to throw them out?
Is that right?
How does almost every other country outside the EU manage it?
More importantly, how does every country inside the EU manage it? Because, of course, these are the rules that apply now, within member states.
If you want to come and work in the UK, you can. If you come to the UK but don't work and, instead, merely claim benefits, you can be chucked out.
So, it seems like the nirvana some Leave voters were hoping to achieve is already in place.
But this almost never happens because the UK fears the EU
It is a public holiday here today, a very resonant one too (Freedom Day, the fall of communism), so sad ****** that I am, I took the time to call the ONS. Very approachable people but unfortunately the main guy is on hols today. Someone else is due to call me back however I think I may have already solved the puzzle.
More than half of the change in net migration can be accounted for by a decrease in net migration of EU citizens (down 51,000); this was driven by an increase (33,000) in emigration for EU citizens (in particular EU8 emigration up 17,000 (both statistically significant)) and a 19,000 decrease in immigration (not statistically significant).
This is the report that will be updated on 30th November.
What these statistics should not be used for, and why These statistics do not measure stocks or flows of recent migrants to the UK, because they include people resident in the UK for many years (many of whom will now be UK nationals) as well as more recent arrivals. This, along with a range of other factors, means that net changes in the number of non-UK workers in the UK cannot be directly compared with long-term net migration for non-UK nationals.
This warning was completely ignored by Migration Watch in the BBC report which @Imissthepeanutman read. It is totally understandable then that he understood it as he did.
Please read my original,post again @PragueAddick. You are doing a Michael gove on what I posted and you are twisting it to suit your own agenda.
I quoted the fact as noted by the ons and reported in the times that the number of eu migrant workers was now higher post referendum than pre referendum. Although net eu migration has fallen it remains positive and hence no surprise to me that the total number in employment is higher now than in June 2016.
No puzzle just you misunderstanding what was quoted in the first place.
I am sorry if my post made you feel that way. I was genuinely interested in your post because it appeared to bring hard information which conflicted with information I had previously relied upon to understand what is going on with EU migrants now. I like robust data that appears to surprise. I was always trained to work with it. It might surprise some people to know that the best advertising has its roots in hard facts which overturn received wisdom. On the other hand it was so much at variance with data from the same source that I thought it needs to be examined more closely. So that is what I did. I rang the source.
In the meantime some people - not you - used your post to argue that when Remainers said that EU citizens are already leaving, this was untrue and Remain propaganda. They had not even bothered to look at the link you had posted.
In the end I have understood what this research tells us. Maybe you got there quicker than I did. But for the avoidance of doubt, so that it is not abused by others, I will state here what it tells us. It tells us that since the referendum more migrants from EU countries have entered employment. It des not tell us when these people arrived in the UK. They might have arrived 2-3 years earlier. They might for example be the female partner has entered employment, having found a solution to child care. It does not confirm or disprove that the number of EU migrants entering is going up or down. The ONS told us specifically not to make any inference of that nature. That we can do with the next study released on 30th November.
Again i apologise if you thought I was challenging your remarks. I was not. I hope you are satsfied with how I have understood the data you posted. Thank you for posting it.
Whilst perusing The FT link posted above, I noticed this article and wondered why it didn't get an airing. Then I realized that any hint of balance isn't seen as a virtue for some.
fastFT UBS Wealth Management: UK picture ‘not as bleak as many think’
“While weak business investment and falling household spending have driven the overall rate of GDP growth down, the picture is not as bleak as many think," said UBS Wealth Management UK economist Dean Turner.
Brexit uncertainty is undoubtedly having some impact, but businesses and consumers are showing resilience and adapting to the situation as it unfolds. Fundamentally, the UK has a flexible economy which is able to adjust to headwinds.
Turner said: "We’ve heard plenty of warnings from businesses that they will redirect investment and relocate staff unless they receive clarity on the Brexit state-of-play soon.
"Regardless of an agreement in principle, we would not be surprised to see contingency plans acted on to some extent. Yet even if we do see this movement, it should not be significant enough to bring about a cliff-edge moment for the economy."
It comes after a UBS analyst warned last year that a vote to leave the European Union could cause the FTSE 100 to fall by more than 10pc in a year. Instead, the benchmark index rose by 20pc.
The bank also claimed at one point it could move 1,000 jobs from the City of London to the Continent. But UBS chief executive Sergio Ermotti admitted last month it was ‘more and more unlikely’ the move would ever happen.
I'm not sure anyone can be kicked out, denied benefits sure, but not kicked out.
I'd LOVE to be proved wrong though.
From their website - Based at the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS) at the University of Oxford, the Migration Observatory provides impartial, independent, authoritative, evidence-based analysis of data on migration and migrants in the UK, to inform media, public and policy debates, and to generate high quality research on international migration and public policy issues.
After they said their biggest complaint theme from customers was the BBC's Brexit coverage - too focussed on what might happen rather than real facts, and too negative - they put on the BBC Europe chief, Katya Adler whose first comment in response was that it was a fair criticism! Her comments were very odd, saying that all EU politicians have been told to say nothing to the press. She even made a zip motion across her lips.
Which begs the question, where does the BBC get their info from? Un-attributed grasses breaking the EU instruction?
Whilst perusing The FT link posted above, I noticed this article and wondered why it didn't get an airing. Then I realized that any hint of balance isn't seen as a virtue for some.
fastFT UBS Wealth Management: UK picture ‘not as bleak as many think’
“While weak business investment and falling household spending have driven the overall rate of GDP growth down, the picture is not as bleak as many think," said UBS Wealth Management UK economist Dean Turner.
Brexit uncertainty is undoubtedly having some impact, but businesses and consumers are showing resilience and adapting to the situation as it unfolds. Fundamentally, the UK has a flexible economy which is able to adjust to headwinds.
Turner said: "We’ve heard plenty of warnings from businesses that they will redirect investment and relocate staff unless they receive clarity on the Brexit state-of-play soon.
"Regardless of an agreement in principle, we would not be surprised to see contingency plans acted on to some extent. Yet even if we do see this movement, it should not be significant enough to bring about a cliff-edge moment for the economy."
It comes after a UBS analyst warned last year that a vote to leave the European Union could cause the FTSE 100 to fall by more than 10pc in a year. Instead, the benchmark index rose by 20pc.
The bank also claimed at one point it could move 1,000 jobs from the City of London to the Continent. But UBS chief executive Sergio Ermotti admitted last month it was ‘more and more unlikely’ the move would ever happen.
Again, an abrasive approach? Why?
One practical problem with the FT is that people don't have access to it, and may relevant articles are longer than that.
If you are a regular reader of the FT, you will know what the settled editorial view is of the paper, having sifted through all of the information they have gathered, including the view of UBS which you rightly post.There are other banks who don't agree with them.
FWIW I don't agree with UBS for this simple reason. They concede that GDP has fallen. This was not planned for by the Treasury. Therefore Hammond has a hole in his budget plans. Therefore he has less room to stimulate the economy with the long term infrastructure projects and support for essential services which the country badly needs, and keep ordinary people in proper jobs for several years. That will make the economy even worse. But that is just my opinion. You are welcome to state why you disagree. If you wish.
Laughable tweet. Merkel was on the brink of being forced to call a snap election. She has been struggling and failing to resolve issues including her 1 million refugee influx policy with a motley crew of potential partners digging in their heels on diametrically opposed demands on immigration.
As one local English Language paper notes ''The awkward bedfellows have been pushed together by September's inconclusive election, which left Merkel badly weakened as the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) lured millions of voters angry over the refugee Influx.''
Plus it might be noted by the vacuous troll tweeting that as well as having much, much greater issues to resolve nationally, Germany is not the country leaving the EU.
Why anyone would post that as a contribution of any value to this thread is beyond me.
Is it racist to only want to allow people to move to the UK that add to the economy, i.e have skills/professions that will improve the UK? Like Australia (apparently) does?
I think people having concerns over immigration levels is perfectly valid and absolutely doesn't mark one out as holding racist views. Whether those concerns are justified or not is another issue and I believe that there are many more aspects within the UK that people should be more concerned about than immigration levels...a topic which has been constantly demonised by the popular press.
Btw who are you expecting to carry out the non-skilled/non-professional jobs, with minimal pay and poor conditions and job security in the future? Is a Portuguese cleaner or an Italian waitress not adding to our economy? Neither meet your criteria for entry into the UK.
No but the dickheads illegally or even just incorrectly rinsing up benefits could certainly manage those roles and have their benefits cut down should they choose to make no effort to add to the economy rather than draining it.
(Yes I disagree with benefit sponges, however appreciate that some do in fact need the benefits they claim for legitimate reasons)
So you think or expect the lack Portuguese cleaners or Italian waitresses is going to be addressed by shipping unemployed people around the country doing jobs they don’t want or are unsuited for. Are you expecting the same to address the shortage in vegetable pickers in Lincolnshire or fisherman in Grimsby ?
Apart from the fact that it won’t work ( no pun intended) where are these people going to be housed when being relocated to pick up the slack in foreign workers ? What about those with families with children.
Just like everything else I’ve heard or read about getting rid of low paid unskilled immigrant workforce and indeed Brexit it just hasn’t been thought through.
From my point of view, I don't want anyone moved or shipped or whatever. If there is a waiter job or a picker job and someone in Lisbon or Rome wants to apply for it. Great stuff. Get the job, come over, fill in some paperwork and crack away. If you want to stay long term/forever - no problem, we can discuss it in the future.
What you can't do is bring X friends with you just in case there are X more jobs on offer.
Seems completely fair.
Is it in any way practical though?
Ignoring the fact you don't think it's necessary/desirable for low skilled workers to come here to do the jobs we don't want to do anyway, it's a fact that we will still require this type of immigrant. All developed countries do.
Following Phil's logic we will never have enough supply of cleaners, catering staff, retail staff, care staff, warehouse staff, etc. in my view.
Amazon might have the infrastructure in place to recruit from abroad and deal with the red tape* in bringing in staff to fill roles they are unable to recruit UK nationals to. But will the small, owner operated café opposite have the time and wherewithal to? Or the independent care home across the road from me that seems to have a "care staff wanted" notice outside permanently? I doubt it very, very much so where does that leave the business?
And what happens if that non-UK employee that makes it through the new system loses their job after 3 years, do we chuck them and their families out straight away? What if one partner loses his minimum wage job but his wife still has her hospital cleaning job, do we chuck him out but keep her because she's still useful to us? What about if they've had a child since arriving?
It's all well and good expecting those that wouldn't look out of place on Shameless to step up and suddenly see a career as a hospital porter as an attractive option. But I fear the reality is going to hit home pretty quickly and in fact we'll see very little change in overall immigration, but what we may see is more immigration from the Commonwealth instead so we can claim we've taken back control (it may even go up due to the restrictions placed on UK citizens moving into the EU I suppose).
*I thought we were leaving to cut bureaucracy btw not introduce more.
Whilst perusing The FT link posted above, I noticed this article and wondered why it didn't get an airing. Then I realized that any hint of balance isn't seen as a virtue for some.
fastFT UBS Wealth Management: UK picture ‘not as bleak as many think’
“While weak business investment and falling household spending have driven the overall rate of GDP growth down, the picture is not as bleak as many think," said UBS Wealth Management UK economist Dean Turner.
Brexit uncertainty is undoubtedly having some impact, but businesses and consumers are showing resilience and adapting to the situation as it unfolds. Fundamentally, the UK has a flexible economy which is able to adjust to headwinds.
Turner said: "We’ve heard plenty of warnings from businesses that they will redirect investment and relocate staff unless they receive clarity on the Brexit state-of-play soon.
"Regardless of an agreement in principle, we would not be surprised to see contingency plans acted on to some extent. Yet even if we do see this movement, it should not be significant enough to bring about a cliff-edge moment for the economy."
It comes after a UBS analyst warned last year that a vote to leave the European Union could cause the FTSE 100 to fall by more than 10pc in a year. Instead, the benchmark index rose by 20pc.
The bank also claimed at one point it could move 1,000 jobs from the City of London to the Continent. But UBS chief executive Sergio Ermotti admitted last month it was ‘more and more unlikely’ the move would ever happen.
Again, an abrasive approach? Why?
One practical problem with the FT is that people don't have access to it, and may relevant articles are longer than that.
If you are a regular reader of the FT, you will know what the settled editorial view is of the paper, having sifted through all of the information they have gathered, including the view of UBS which you rightly post.There are other banks who don't agree with them.
FWIW I don't agree with UBS for this simple reason. They concede that GDP has fallen. This was not planned for by the Treasury. Therefore Hammond has a hole in his budget plans. Therefore he has less room to stimulate the economy with the long term infrastructure projects and support for essential services which the country badly needs, and keep ordinary people in proper jobs for several years. That will make the economy even worse. But that is just my opinion. You are welcome to state why you disagree. If you wish.
Pointing out the one sided nature of many posters on both sides (and I feel I stand in the middle) is not abrasive. It's clear you are consistently posting without any balance whatsoever.
I'm interested that you choose to ignore experts if they show even a glimmer of deflection from your negative narrative. You have a long track record of this.
There was an outcry on here when banks like UBS said that thousands of bankers would leave after Brexit...a few months later I post and article from one such source saying its unlikely to happen - the reaction,? ''well I don't agree with them'' (now).
UBS predicted a 10% drop in FT100 after any Brexit vote in the referendum, to more outcry and argument on a previous thread, now it's gone up over 15%, the goalposts are moved and revisionists say no one ever said it would be after the vote but after Brexit itself. Project fear of what might happen vs facts.
I'm happy to snuffle nuggets of positivity and post them on here if that's OK and not too abrasive for you.
Is it racist to only want to allow people to move to the UK that add to the economy, i.e have skills/professions that will improve the UK? Like Australia (apparently) does?
I think people having concerns over immigration levels is perfectly valid and absolutely doesn't mark one out as holding racist views. Whether those concerns are justified or not is another issue and I believe that there are many more aspects within the UK that people should be more concerned about than immigration levels...a topic which has been constantly demonised by the popular press.
Btw who are you expecting to carry out the non-skilled/non-professional jobs, with minimal pay and poor conditions and job security in the future? Is a Portuguese cleaner or an Italian waitress not adding to our economy? Neither meet your criteria for entry into the UK.
No but the dickheads illegally or even just incorrectly rinsing up benefits could certainly manage those roles and have their benefits cut down should they choose to make no effort to add to the economy rather than draining it.
(Yes I disagree with benefit sponges, however appreciate that some do in fact need the benefits they claim for legitimate reasons)
So you think or expect the lack Portuguese cleaners or Italian waitresses is going to be addressed by shipping unemployed people around the country doing jobs they don’t want or are unsuited for. Are you expecting the same to address the shortage in vegetable pickers in Lincolnshire or fisherman in Grimsby ?
Apart from the fact that it won’t work ( no pun intended) where are these people going to be housed when being relocated to pick up the slack in foreign workers ? What about those with families with children.
Just like everything else I’ve heard or read about getting rid of low paid unskilled immigrant workforce and indeed Brexit it just hasn’t been thought through.
From my point of view, I don't want anyone moved or shipped or whatever. If there is a waiter job or a picker job and someone in Lisbon or Rome wants to apply for it. Great stuff. Get the job, come over, fill in some paperwork and crack away. If you want to stay long term/forever - no problem, we can discuss it in the future.
What you can't do is bring X friends with you just in case there are X more jobs on offer.
It seems like you want your cake and eat it @Valiantphil You want the UK to be open for migrants to come here from the EU if they're going to work, but if they're only here signing on and not working, you'd like to be able to throw them out?
Is it racist to only want to allow people to move to the UK that add to the economy, i.e have skills/professions that will improve the UK? Like Australia (apparently) does?
I think people having concerns over immigration levels is perfectly valid and absolutely doesn't mark one out as holding racist views. Whether those concerns are justified or not is another issue and I believe that there are many more aspects within the UK that people should be more concerned about than immigration levels...a topic which has been constantly demonised by the popular press.
Btw who are you expecting to carry out the non-skilled/non-professional jobs, with minimal pay and poor conditions and job security in the future? Is a Portuguese cleaner or an Italian waitress not adding to our economy? Neither meet your criteria for entry into the UK.
No but the dickheads illegally or even just incorrectly rinsing up benefits could certainly manage those roles and have their benefits cut down should they choose to make no effort to add to the economy rather than draining it.
(Yes I disagree with benefit sponges, however appreciate that some do in fact need the benefits they claim for legitimate reasons)
So you think or expect the lack Portuguese cleaners or Italian waitresses is going to be addressed by shipping unemployed people around the country doing jobs they don’t want or are unsuited for. Are you expecting the same to address the shortage in vegetable pickers in Lincolnshire or fisherman in Grimsby ?
Apart from the fact that it won’t work ( no pun intended) where are these people going to be housed when being relocated to pick up the slack in foreign workers ? What about those with families with children.
Just like everything else I’ve heard or read about getting rid of low paid unskilled immigrant workforce and indeed Brexit it just hasn’t been thought through.
From my point of view, I don't want anyone moved or shipped or whatever. If there is a waiter job or a picker job and someone in Lisbon or Rome wants to apply for it. Great stuff. Get the job, come over, fill in some paperwork and crack away. If you want to stay long term/forever - no problem, we can discuss it in the future.
What you can't do is bring X friends with you just in case there are X more jobs on offer.
You're expecting small, local employers to advertise minimum pay level, low skilled jobs abroad and recruit to them while the prospective employee is still based abroad and then go to the effort of some sort of as yet undefined green card system?
Assuming they can't be filled by the existing U.K. based workforce - then yes.
Whilst perusing The FT link posted above, I noticed this article and wondered why it didn't get an airing. Then I realized that any hint of balance isn't seen as a virtue for some.
fastFT UBS Wealth Management: UK picture ‘not as bleak as many think’
“While weak business investment and falling household spending have driven the overall rate of GDP growth down, the picture is not as bleak as many think," said UBS Wealth Management UK economist Dean Turner.
Brexit uncertainty is undoubtedly having some impact, but businesses and consumers are showing resilience and adapting to the situation as it unfolds. Fundamentally, the UK has a flexible economy which is able to adjust to headwinds.
Turner said: "We’ve heard plenty of warnings from businesses that they will redirect investment and relocate staff unless they receive clarity on the Brexit state-of-play soon.
"Regardless of an agreement in principle, we would not be surprised to see contingency plans acted on to some extent. Yet even if we do see this movement, it should not be significant enough to bring about a cliff-edge moment for the economy."
It comes after a UBS analyst warned last year that a vote to leave the European Union could cause the FTSE 100 to fall by more than 10pc in a year. Instead, the benchmark index rose by 20pc.
The bank also claimed at one point it could move 1,000 jobs from the City of London to the Continent. But UBS chief executive Sergio Ermotti admitted last month it was ‘more and more unlikely’ the move would ever happen.
Again, an abrasive approach? Why?
One practical problem with the FT is that people don't have access to it, and may relevant articles are longer than that.
If you are a regular reader of the FT, you will know what the settled editorial view is of the paper, having sifted through all of the information they have gathered, including the view of UBS which you rightly post.There are other banks who don't agree with them.
FWIW I don't agree with UBS for this simple reason. They concede that GDP has fallen. This was not planned for by the Treasury. Therefore Hammond has a hole in his budget plans. Therefore he has less room to stimulate the economy with the long term infrastructure projects and support for essential services which the country badly needs, and keep ordinary people in proper jobs for several years. That will make the economy even worse. But that is just my opinion. You are welcome to state why you disagree. If you wish.
Pointing out the one sided nature of many posters on both sides (and I feel I stand in the middle) is not abrasive. It's clear you are consistently posting without any balance whatsoever.
I'm interested that you choose to ignore experts if they show even a glimmer of deflection from your negative narrative. You have a long track record of this.
There was an outcry on here when banks like UBS said that thousands of bankers would leave after Brexit...a few months later I post and article from one such source saying its unlikely to happen - the reaction,? ''well I don't agree with them'' (now).
UBS predicted a 10% drop in FT100 after any Brexit vote in the referendum, to more outcry and argument on a previous thread, now it's gone up over 15%, the goalposts are moved and revisionists say no one ever said it would be after the vote but after Brexit itself. Project fear of what might happen vs facts.
I'm happy to snuffle nuggets of positivity and post them on here if that's OK and not too abrasive for you.
I think you will find that I am the one that stands in the middle.
I know the source is poor (which is why I've not bothered posting articles like this), and the data less than robust with hindsight, but UBS arent alone are they? From City AM back in Feb The European Commission has become the latest body to lift its UK growth forecast, admitting today that the impact of Brexit might not be as bad as it originally feared.
EU forecasters now expect the UK economy to expand 1.5 per cent this year, up from their prediction of just one per cent growth, made back in November.
"The impact of the vote, by the UK to leave the EU in the referendum held on 23 June 2016, on growth has yet to be felt," the report read.
Finnish minister vows to push for "a good deal" between the UK and the EU
The EU's economists follow in the footsteps of the Bank of England, which recently hiked its 2017 growth forecast to two per cent – significantly higher than the 0.8 per cent it predicted in the aftermath of last summer's referendum.
Britain's economy defied expectations last year, with official figures pointing to a two per cent expansion in GDP for 2016 – making the UK the fastest-growing G7 nation. Both the IMF and OECD were forced to make screeching U-turns, having predicted a post-Brexit vote slump.
Whilst perusing The FT link posted above, I noticed this article and wondered why it didn't get an airing. Then I realized that any hint of balance isn't seen as a virtue for some.
fastFT UBS Wealth Management: UK picture ‘not as bleak as many think’
“While weak business investment and falling household spending have driven the overall rate of GDP growth down, the picture is not as bleak as many think," said UBS Wealth Management UK economist Dean Turner.
Brexit uncertainty is undoubtedly having some impact, but businesses and consumers are showing resilience and adapting to the situation as it unfolds. Fundamentally, the UK has a flexible economy which is able to adjust to headwinds.
Turner said: "We’ve heard plenty of warnings from businesses that they will redirect investment and relocate staff unless they receive clarity on the Brexit state-of-play soon.
"Regardless of an agreement in principle, we would not be surprised to see contingency plans acted on to some extent. Yet even if we do see this movement, it should not be significant enough to bring about a cliff-edge moment for the economy."
It comes after a UBS analyst warned last year that a vote to leave the European Union could cause the FTSE 100 to fall by more than 10pc in a year. Instead, the benchmark index rose by 20pc.
The bank also claimed at one point it could move 1,000 jobs from the City of London to the Continent. But UBS chief executive Sergio Ermotti admitted last month it was ‘more and more unlikely’ the move would ever happen.
Retail could take a battering this Xmas, but I’m not 100% sure that can be attributed to Brexit yet.
Interestingly, unless I missed it, whatever happened about those reports being published
Is it racist to only want to allow people to move to the UK that add to the economy, i.e have skills/professions that will improve the UK? Like Australia (apparently) does?
I think people having concerns over immigration levels is perfectly valid and absolutely doesn't mark one out as holding racist views. Whether those concerns are justified or not is another issue and I believe that there are many more aspects within the UK that people should be more concerned about than immigration levels...a topic which has been constantly demonised by the popular press.
Btw who are you expecting to carry out the non-skilled/non-professional jobs, with minimal pay and poor conditions and job security in the future? Is a Portuguese cleaner or an Italian waitress not adding to our economy? Neither meet your criteria for entry into the UK.
No but the dickheads illegally or even just incorrectly rinsing up benefits could certainly manage those roles and have their benefits cut down should they choose to make no effort to add to the economy rather than draining it.
(Yes I disagree with benefit sponges, however appreciate that some do in fact need the benefits they claim for legitimate reasons)
So you think or expect the lack Portuguese cleaners or Italian waitresses is going to be addressed by shipping unemployed people around the country doing jobs they don’t want or are unsuited for. Are you expecting the same to address the shortage in vegetable pickers in Lincolnshire or fisherman in Grimsby ?
Apart from the fact that it won’t work ( no pun intended) where are these people going to be housed when being relocated to pick up the slack in foreign workers ? What about those with families with children.
Just like everything else I’ve heard or read about getting rid of low paid unskilled immigrant workforce and indeed Brexit it just hasn’t been thought through.
From my point of view, I don't want anyone moved or shipped or whatever. If there is a waiter job or a picker job and someone in Lisbon or Rome wants to apply for it. Great stuff. Get the job, come over, fill in some paperwork and crack away. If you want to stay long term/forever - no problem, we can discuss it in the future.
What you can't do is bring X friends with you just in case there are X more jobs on offer.
It seems like you want your cake and eat it @Valiantphil You want the UK to be open for migrants to come here from the EU if they're going to work, but if they're only here signing on and not working, you'd like to be able to throw them out?
Is that right?
How does almost every other country outside the EU manage it?
More importantly, how does every country inside the EU manage it? Because, of course, these are the rules that apply now, within member states.
If you want to come and work in the UK, you can. If you come to the UK but don't work and, instead, merely claim benefits, you can be chucked out.
So, it seems like the nirvana some Leave voters were hoping to achieve is already in place.
But your point is centred around benefit claimants - and as I pointed out earlier, this is not a focus for me personally.
The reason why someone comes to the UK (work or "spongeing") is what I want under control. We have already established that we have very low unemployment and a tough benefits system, along with the "chucked out" option already described.
So (for me) - the country is overcrowded, there is little or no work available and no benefits on offer. I expect the next net migration figures (EU and other) to reflect this. We will see on Nov 30th when the stats are published.
Now I'm not a fan of public schoolboy (born in Peru) tri-lingual, Oxford educated Tory Vote Leave bigwig former Hague advisor, Daniel Hannan, but the other day he said on his vlog that the forecast from the World Bank paints an overly negative picture of the effects Brexit will have on the UK's GDP. It was picked up by a few of the obvious papers, but he makes an interesting point nontheless especially if one was aiming to calm the panic.
The British MEP said: "A new study by the World Bank says that if Britain leaves the EU with no deal, and devolves to World Trade Organisation terms, our trade with the EU will fall by two per cent.
"Our total trade with the EU amounts to 12.6 per cent of our GDP. We have a large domestic economy, we’re a big home market and most of our trade is outside the EU.
"So we’re talking about a total, in terms of our economy, of two per cent of the 12.6 per cent. In other words, around a quarter of one per cent of GDP."
Mr Hannan said that the UK losing that amount of the GDP was not "the end of the world" and dismissed claims the UK would sign "whatever" deal the EU creates in order to avoid reverting to WTO rules.
He continued: "A quarter of one per cent of GDP is hardly the end of the world and that is if we assume a worst-case scenario.
"The idea that we are supplicants, that we are desperate, that we have no other option but to sign whatever is put in front of us is simply not compatible with the figures."
Is it racist to only want to allow people to move to the UK that add to the economy, i.e have skills/professions that will improve the UK? Like Australia (apparently) does?
I think people having concerns over immigration levels is perfectly valid and absolutely doesn't mark one out as holding racist views. Whether those concerns are justified or not is another issue and I believe that there are many more aspects within the UK that people should be more concerned about than immigration levels...a topic which has been constantly demonised by the popular press.
Btw who are you expecting to carry out the non-skilled/non-professional jobs, with minimal pay and poor conditions and job security in the future? Is a Portuguese cleaner or an Italian waitress not adding to our economy? Neither meet your criteria for entry into the UK.
No but the dickheads illegally or even just incorrectly rinsing up benefits could certainly manage those roles and have their benefits cut down should they choose to make no effort to add to the economy rather than draining it.
(Yes I disagree with benefit sponges, however appreciate that some do in fact need the benefits they claim for legitimate reasons)
So you think or expect the lack Portuguese cleaners or Italian waitresses is going to be addressed by shipping unemployed people around the country doing jobs they don’t want or are unsuited for. Are you expecting the same to address the shortage in vegetable pickers in Lincolnshire or fisherman in Grimsby ?
Apart from the fact that it won’t work ( no pun intended) where are these people going to be housed when being relocated to pick up the slack in foreign workers ? What about those with families with children.
Just like everything else I’ve heard or read about getting rid of low paid unskilled immigrant workforce and indeed Brexit it just hasn’t been thought through.
From my point of view, I don't want anyone moved or shipped or whatever. If there is a waiter job or a picker job and someone in Lisbon or Rome wants to apply for it. Great stuff. Get the job, come over, fill in some paperwork and crack away. If you want to stay long term/forever - no problem, we can discuss it in the future.
What you can't do is bring X friends with you just in case there are X more jobs on offer.
Seems completely fair.
Is it in any way practical though?
Ignoring the fact you don't think it's necessary/desirable for low skilled workers to come here to do the jobs we don't want to do anyway, it's a fact that we will still require this type of immigrant. All developed countries do.
Following Phil's logic we will never have enough supply of cleaners, catering staff, retail staff, care staff, warehouse staff, etc. in my view.
Amazon might have the infrastructure in place to recruit from abroad and deal with the red tape* in bringing in staff to fill roles they are unable to recruit UK nationals to. But will the small, owner operated café opposite have the time and wherewithal to? Or the independent care home across the road from me that seems to have a "care staff wanted" notice outside permanently? I doubt it very, very much so where does that leave the business?
And what happens if that non-UK employee that makes it through the new system loses their job after 3 years, do we chuck them and their families out straight away? What if one partner loses his minimum wage job but his wife still has her hospital cleaning job, do we chuck him out but keep her because she's still useful to us? What about if they've had a child since arriving?
It's all well and good expecting those that wouldn't look out of place on Shameless to step up and suddenly see a career as a hospital porter as an attractive option. But I fear the reality is going to hit home pretty quickly and in fact we'll see very little change in overall immigration, but what we may see is more immigration from the Commonwealth instead so we can claim we've taken back control (it may even go up due to the restrictions placed on UK citizens moving into the EU I suppose).
*I thought we were leaving to cut bureaucracy btw not introduce more.
A good post with some valid points.
We already have a rules system in place for when one partner loses his/her job as you describe.
Same for when someone loses a job and is looking for another. Like Phil Scolari getting sacked by Chelskie etc.
As for small cafe and care home scenarios, I don't imagine this is a big number and it will get solved - perhaps by employment groups/agencies that bring in a block of workers at a time via employment fairs overseas and such like. Like all things Brexit - we will see.
Re the Irish Border - how do other Lifers think this will be sorted. The Republic are saying that categorically there can not be a hard border, but if that is the case how can this square with leaving the EU and therefore having control over our immigration. The way I see it is that if you don't have border controls or checkpoints then anyone landing by plane, boat or any other means can easily walk into N Ireland, and therefore the UK, without passport checks & therefore makes a mockery of "maintaining out borders / immigration levels". I know that there are no physical borders between Norway & Sweden (I think that's the right 2 countries) but that's mainly to do with trade & with respect I doubt if there are many people wanting to cross between those 2 countries - a completely different story between the UK & EU.
I just cant see a way past this & the main reason why I think its all going to collapse very soon. Unless there are passport checks for anyone coming in from N Ireland by plane or boat, but that is defeating the object imo.
It’s a massive hurdle. I don’t think people quite realise just how big this issue is.
People from the ROI have had the right to come and go. Reside and work in the UK and to use the passport phrase without let and hindrance for years. The national meld between the UK and Ireland is on every level. Even contemplating trying to unpick the rights and consequences are mind blowing.
That’s even before we start thinking about the soft or hard border and the implications to trade and immigration issues.
Whilst perusing The FT link posted above, I noticed this article and wondered why it didn't get an airing. Then I realized that any hint of balance isn't seen as a virtue for some.
fastFT UBS Wealth Management: UK picture ‘not as bleak as many think’
“While weak business investment and falling household spending have driven the overall rate of GDP growth down, the picture is not as bleak as many think," said UBS Wealth Management UK economist Dean Turner.
Brexit uncertainty is undoubtedly having some impact, but businesses and consumers are showing resilience and adapting to the situation as it unfolds. Fundamentally, the UK has a flexible economy which is able to adjust to headwinds.
Turner said: "We’ve heard plenty of warnings from businesses that they will redirect investment and relocate staff unless they receive clarity on the Brexit state-of-play soon.
"Regardless of an agreement in principle, we would not be surprised to see contingency plans acted on to some extent. Yet even if we do see this movement, it should not be significant enough to bring about a cliff-edge moment for the economy."
It comes after a UBS analyst warned last year that a vote to leave the European Union could cause the FTSE 100 to fall by more than 10pc in a year. Instead, the benchmark index rose by 20pc.
The bank also claimed at one point it could move 1,000 jobs from the City of London to the Continent. But UBS chief executive Sergio Ermotti admitted last month it was ‘more and more unlikely’ the move would ever happen.
Again, an abrasive approach? Why?
One practical problem with the FT is that people don't have access to it, and may relevant articles are longer than that.
If you are a regular reader of the FT, you will know what the settled editorial view is of the paper, having sifted through all of the information they have gathered, including the view of UBS which you rightly post.There are other banks who don't agree with them.
FWIW I don't agree with UBS for this simple reason. They concede that GDP has fallen. This was not planned for by the Treasury. Therefore Hammond has a hole in his budget plans. Therefore he has less room to stimulate the economy with the long term infrastructure projects and support for essential services which the country badly needs, and keep ordinary people in proper jobs for several years. That will make the economy even worse. But that is just my opinion. You are welcome to state why you disagree. If you wish.
Pointing out the one sided nature of many posters on both sides (and I feel I stand in the middle) is not abrasive. It's clear you are consistently posting without any balance whatsoever.
I'm interested that you choose to ignore experts if they show even a glimmer of deflection from your negative narrative. You have a long track record of this.
There was an outcry on here when banks like UBS said that thousands of bankers would leave after Brexit...a few months later I post and article from one such source saying its unlikely to happen - the reaction,? ''well I don't agree with them'' (now).
UBS predicted a 10% drop in FT100 after any Brexit vote in the referendum, to more outcry and argument on a previous thread, now it's gone up over 15%, the goalposts are moved and revisionists say no one ever said it would be after the vote but after Brexit itself. Project fear of what might happen vs facts.
I'm happy to snuffle nuggets of positivity and post them on here if that's OK and not too abrasive for you.
I think you will find that I am the one that stands in the middle.
LOL. Let's stand together and I'll try super hard not to be abrasive!
Whilst perusing The FT link posted above, I noticed this article and wondered why it didn't get an airing. Then I realized that any hint of balance isn't seen as a virtue for some.
fastFT UBS Wealth Management: UK picture ‘not as bleak as many think’
“While weak business investment and falling household spending have driven the overall rate of GDP growth down, the picture is not as bleak as many think," said UBS Wealth Management UK economist Dean Turner.
Brexit uncertainty is undoubtedly having some impact, but businesses and consumers are showing resilience and adapting to the situation as it unfolds. Fundamentally, the UK has a flexible economy which is able to adjust to headwinds.
Turner said: "We’ve heard plenty of warnings from businesses that they will redirect investment and relocate staff unless they receive clarity on the Brexit state-of-play soon.
"Regardless of an agreement in principle, we would not be surprised to see contingency plans acted on to some extent. Yet even if we do see this movement, it should not be significant enough to bring about a cliff-edge moment for the economy."
It comes after a UBS analyst warned last year that a vote to leave the European Union could cause the FTSE 100 to fall by more than 10pc in a year. Instead, the benchmark index rose by 20pc.
The bank also claimed at one point it could move 1,000 jobs from the City of London to the Continent. But UBS chief executive Sergio Ermotti admitted last month it was ‘more and more unlikely’ the move would ever happen.
Again, an abrasive approach? Why?
One practical problem with the FT is that people don't have access to it, and may relevant articles are longer than that.
If you are a regular reader of the FT, you will know what the settled editorial view is of the paper, having sifted through all of the information they have gathered, including the view of UBS which you rightly post.There are other banks who don't agree with them.
FWIW I don't agree with UBS for this simple reason. They concede that GDP has fallen. This was not planned for by the Treasury. Therefore Hammond has a hole in his budget plans. Therefore he has less room to stimulate the economy with the long term infrastructure projects and support for essential services which the country badly needs, and keep ordinary people in proper jobs for several years. That will make the economy even worse. But that is just my opinion. You are welcome to state why you disagree. If you wish.
Pointing out the one sided nature of many posters on both sides (and I feel I stand in the middle) is not abrasive. It's clear you are consistently posting without any balance whatsoever.
I'm interested that you choose to ignore experts if they show even a glimmer of deflection from your negative narrative. You have a long track record of this.
There was an outcry on here when banks like UBS said that thousands of bankers would leave after Brexit...a few months later I post and article from one such source saying its unlikely to happen - the reaction,? ''well I don't agree with them'' (now).
UBS predicted a 10% drop in FT100 after any Brexit vote in the referendum, to more outcry and argument on a previous thread, now it's gone up over 15%, the goalposts are moved and revisionists say no one ever said it would be after the vote but after Brexit itself. Project fear of what might happen vs facts.
I'm happy to snuffle nuggets of positivity and post them on here if that's OK and not too abrasive for you.
What??? I rang up the ONS - proper, dispassionate experts - because I know these stats people are always friendly and helpful, so I could seek their help to get my limited brain around an apparent contradiction in recent stats. That's "ignoring experts"???
And on what grounds can you brand Nina Schick a "vacuous troll"? I don't know her from Adam, but a quick look at her Twitter feed shows she's got two things going for her that you haven't:
1. She seems respected enough for credible media outlets to seek out her views
1. Well done for phoning one set of experts. My point which as usual you have avoided, is that you dismiss experts, in this case the Swiss bankers, when they don't match your narrative. This is worth pointing out as previously they have been used to validate the previous negative predictions . 2. You've missed out the reasons I clearly gave, as to why her tweet was irrelevant and pointless. Why? And why make her tweet better by saying I'm not German or used by the media. That whole ball not the man a thing. One might, if one was precious, call that abrasive. But I wont! ;-)
You claim that I - particularly - deliberately post a twisted narrative. I regard that as unfair, since we all post things which support what we believe to be true or our opinions about what may happen. I respect your intention to provide a balanc. My issue is only when you get personal about those whom you think deliberately don't try to do the same. We are not journalists. I do though believe that I am better than some at conceding from time to time that I might have something wrong, or that i have learnt something new. But rather than just argue about our integrity with you let me make you an offer to prove that what I post here I genuinely believe rather than to wind people up or whatever you think.
Let's take a bet on the issue which UBS pronounce on. Where the UK economy is heading. The bet would not be payable to each other but to a good Charlton cause, namely the Upbeats (the alternative is the CARD fighting fund but I hope that will be irrelevant by the time the bet becomes payable). I will let you name the amount. Since you seem to consider me a person of dubious integrity I will mention that I have done this at least three times before in plain sight on CL, each time was £50. The good news for you as I recall is that I only won once.
The bet is quite simple. Forecast total UK GDP for the year 2018. I can tell you now that I will forecast a lower figure than those in the articles you've mentioned. You forecast yours. Whoever is closer wins. A draw means we both send half the total to the Upbeats.
We could also do the same for the Eurozone (or EU27) if you like, but that might make things complicated. Up to you. I'll post my Eurozone forecast anyway to make my point, which is that UK will be significantly lower than Eurozone, because of the Brexit vote and aftermath.
How about it? Money where our mouths are, for a good cause...
Interesting to listen to John Cryan last week, the English, Frankfurt-based, CEO of Deutsche Bank.
Post-Brexit - Frankfurt is far from ready to take over from London, despite some regulatory aspects being in synch. “What determines who gets what piece of the cake?” said Cryan. It was not about changing laws or tax subsidies, he added. “In truth, it is its infrastructure that makes London unique in Europe. In this respect, this is where Germany needs to catch up if it wants to take over a large share of the business performed in London.” He said Frankfurt needed “more attractive, urban residential areas, enough international schools and a dozen additional theatres and a few hundred restaurants”.
Job losses - The problem will not be Brexit. He issued a stark warning about the impact of technology, saying a “big number” of his staff will lose their jobs as robots take over. “In our bank we have people doing work like robots. Tomorrow we will have robots behaving like people. It doesn’t matter if we as a bank will participate in these changes or not, it is going to happen." He also referred to accountants inside the bank who “spend a lot of time basically being an abacus”, who would also be replaced by machines. “The sad truth for the banking industry is, we won‘t need as many people as today.”
You claim that I - particularly - deliberately post a twisted narrative. I regard that as unfair, since we all post things which support what we believe to be true or our opinions about what may happen. I respect your intention to provide a balanc. My issue is only when you get personal about those whom you think deliberately don't try to do the same. We are not journalists. I do though believe that I am better than some at conceding from time to time that I might have something wrong, or that i have learnt something new. But rather than just argue about our integrity with you let me make you an offer to prove that what I post here I genuinely believe rather than to wind people up or whatever you think.
Let's take a bet on the issue which UBS pronounce on. Where the UK economy is heading. The bet would not be payable to each other but to a good Charlton cause, namely the Upbeats (the alternative is the CARD fighting fund but I hope that will be irrelevant by the time the bet becomes payable). I will let you name the amount. Since you seem to consider me a person of dubious integrity I will mention that I have done this at least three times before in plain sight on CL, each time was £50. The good news for you as I recall is that I only won once.
The bet is quite simple. Forecast total UK GDP for the year 2018. I can tell you now that I will forecast a lower figure than those in the articles you've mentioned. You forecast yours. Whoever is closer wins. A draw means we both send half the total to the Upbeats.
We could also do the same for the Eurozone (or EU27) if you like, but that might make things complicated. Up to you. I'll post my Eurozone forecast anyway to make my point, which is that UK will be significantly lower than Eurozone, because of the Brexit vote and aftermath.
How about it? Money where our mouths are, for a good cause...
You claim that I - particularly - deliberately post a twisted narrative. I regard that as unfair, since we all post things which support what we believe to be true or our opinions about what may happen. I respect your intention to provide a balanc. My issue is only when you get personal about those whom you think deliberately don't try to do the same. We are not journalists. I do though believe that I am better than some at conceding from time to time that I might have something wrong, or that i have learnt something new. But rather than just argue about our integrity with you let me make you an offer to prove that what I post here I genuinely believe rather than to wind people up or whatever you think.
Let's take a bet on the issue which UBS pronounce on. Where the UK economy is heading. The bet would not be payable to each other but to a good Charlton cause, namely the Upbeats (the alternative is the CARD fighting fund but I hope that will be irrelevant by the time the bet becomes payable). I will let you name the amount. Since you seem to consider me a person of dubious integrity I will mention that I have done this at least three times before in plain sight on CL, each time was £50. The good news for you as I recall is that I only won once.
The bet is quite simple. Forecast total UK GDP for the year 2018. I can tell you now that I will forecast a lower figure than those in the articles you've mentioned. You forecast yours. Whoever is closer wins. A draw means we both send half the total to the Upbeats.
We could also do the same for the Eurozone (or EU27) if you like, but that might make things complicated. Up to you. I'll post my Eurozone forecast anyway to make my point, which is that UK will be significantly lower than Eurozone, because of the Brexit vote and aftermath.
How about it? Money where our mouths are, for a good cause...
Whilst perusing The FT link posted above, I noticed this article and wondered why it didn't get an airing. Then I realized that any hint of balance isn't seen as a virtue for some.
fastFT UBS Wealth Management: UK picture ‘not as bleak as many think’
“While weak business investment and falling household spending have driven the overall rate of GDP growth down, the picture is not as bleak as many think," said UBS Wealth Management UK economist Dean Turner.
Brexit uncertainty is undoubtedly having some impact, but businesses and consumers are showing resilience and adapting to the situation as it unfolds. Fundamentally, the UK has a flexible economy which is able to adjust to headwinds.
Turner said: "We’ve heard plenty of warnings from businesses that they will redirect investment and relocate staff unless they receive clarity on the Brexit state-of-play soon.
"Regardless of an agreement in principle, we would not be surprised to see contingency plans acted on to some extent. Yet even if we do see this movement, it should not be significant enough to bring about a cliff-edge moment for the economy."
It comes after a UBS analyst warned last year that a vote to leave the European Union could cause the FTSE 100 to fall by more than 10pc in a year. Instead, the benchmark index rose by 20pc.
The bank also claimed at one point it could move 1,000 jobs from the City of London to the Continent. But UBS chief executive Sergio Ermotti admitted last month it was ‘more and more unlikely’ the move would ever happen.
Again, an abrasive approach? Why?
One practical problem with the FT is that people don't have access to it, and may relevant articles are longer than that.
If you are a regular reader of the FT, you will know what the settled editorial view is of the paper, having sifted through all of the information they have gathered, including the view of UBS which you rightly post.There are other banks who don't agree with them.
FWIW I don't agree with UBS for this simple reason. They concede that GDP has fallen. This was not planned for by the Treasury. Therefore Hammond has a hole in his budget plans. Therefore he has less room to stimulate the economy with the long term infrastructure projects and support for essential services which the country badly needs, and keep ordinary people in proper jobs for several years. That will make the economy even worse. But that is just my opinion. You are welcome to state why you disagree. If you wish.
Pointing out the one sided nature of many posters on both sides (and I feel I stand in the middle) is not abrasive. It's clear you are consistently posting without any balance whatsoever.
I'm interested that you choose to ignore experts if they show even a glimmer of deflection from your negative narrative. You have a long track record of this.
There was an outcry on here when banks like UBS said that thousands of bankers would leave after Brexit...a few months later I post and article from one such source saying its unlikely to happen - the reaction,? ''well I don't agree with them'' (now).
UBS predicted a 10% drop in FT100 after any Brexit vote in the referendum, to more outcry and argument on a previous thread, now it's gone up over 15%, the goalposts are moved and revisionists say no one ever said it would be after the vote but after Brexit itself. Project fear of what might happen vs facts.
I'm happy to snuffle nuggets of positivity and post them on here if that's OK and not too abrasive for you.
I think you will find that I am the one that stands in the middle.
LOL. Let's stand together and I'll try super hard not to be abrasive!
OK, but I don't know why you put a LOL. I am a deadly serious, I am the voice of reason on this thread and everything I say is spot on.
The problem is that everybody else thinks they are too, except @Chippycafc.
1. I've never said a twisted narrative. I said, and stand by, a relentlessly negative narrative. 2.I have never questioned your integrity. It would be lovely if you could acknowledge these points.
3. By (again) turning this into a bet on something as complex as a nations future GDP (so many factors beyond Brexit as we both well know) you are deflecting from answering the focused points raised.
4. This is boring other listers and as you are never going to acknowledge things might not be as bad as you (and others) persistently insist, I will take a break from this thread.
Comments
I'd LOVE to be proved wrong though.
In the meantime some people - not you - used your post to argue that when Remainers said that EU citizens are already leaving, this was untrue and Remain propaganda. They had not even bothered to look at the link you had posted.
In the end I have understood what this research tells us. Maybe you got there quicker than I did. But for the avoidance of doubt, so that it is not abused by others, I will state here what it tells us. It tells us that since the referendum more migrants from EU countries have entered employment. It des not tell us when these people arrived in the UK. They might have arrived 2-3 years earlier. They might for example be the female partner has entered employment, having found a solution to child care. It does not confirm or disprove that the number of EU migrants entering is going up or down. The ONS told us specifically not to make any inference of that nature. That we can do with the next study released on 30th November.
Again i apologise if you thought I was challenging your remarks. I was not. I hope you are satsfied with how I have understood the data you posted. Thank you for posting it.
Some others, though...
Then I realized that any hint of balance isn't seen as a virtue for some.
fastFT
UBS Wealth Management: UK picture ‘not as bleak as many think’
“While weak business investment and falling household spending have driven the overall rate of GDP growth down, the picture is not as bleak as many think," said UBS Wealth Management UK economist Dean Turner.
Brexit uncertainty is undoubtedly having some impact, but businesses and consumers are showing resilience and adapting to the situation as it unfolds. Fundamentally, the UK has a flexible economy which is able to adjust to headwinds.
Turner said: "We’ve heard plenty of warnings from businesses that they will redirect investment and relocate staff unless they receive clarity on the Brexit state-of-play soon.
"Regardless of an agreement in principle, we would not be surprised to see contingency plans acted on to some extent. Yet even if we do see this movement, it should not be significant enough to bring about a cliff-edge moment for the economy."
It comes after a UBS analyst warned last year that a vote to leave the European Union could cause the FTSE 100 to fall by more than 10pc in a year. Instead, the benchmark index rose by 20pc.
The bank also claimed at one point it could move 1,000 jobs from the City of London to the Continent.
But UBS chief executive Sergio Ermotti admitted last month it was ‘more and more unlikely’ the move would ever happen.
From their website - Based at the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS) at the University of Oxford, the Migration Observatory provides impartial, independent, authoritative, evidence-based analysis of data on migration and migrants in the UK, to inform media, public and policy debates, and to generate high quality research on international migration and public policy issues.
migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/deportations-removals-and-voluntary-departures-from-the-uk/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qjrk2/episodes/player
After they said their biggest complaint theme from customers was the BBC's Brexit coverage - too focussed on what might happen rather than real facts, and too negative - they put on the BBC Europe chief, Katya Adler whose first comment in response was that it was a fair criticism!
Her comments were very odd, saying that all EU politicians have been told to say nothing to the press. She even made a zip motion across her lips.
Which begs the question, where does the BBC get their info from? Un-attributed grasses breaking the EU instruction?
One practical problem with the FT is that people don't have access to it, and may relevant articles are longer than that.
If you are a regular reader of the FT, you will know what the settled editorial view is of the paper, having sifted through all of the information they have gathered, including the view of UBS which you rightly post.There are other banks who don't agree with them.
FWIW I don't agree with UBS for this simple reason. They concede that GDP has fallen. This was not planned for by the Treasury. Therefore Hammond has a hole in his budget plans. Therefore he has less room to stimulate the economy with the long term infrastructure projects and support for essential services which the country badly needs, and keep ordinary people in proper jobs for several years. That will make the economy even worse. But that is just my opinion. You are welcome to state why you disagree. If you wish.
Laughable tweet.
Merkel was on the brink of being forced to call a snap election.
She has been struggling and failing to resolve issues including her 1 million refugee influx policy with a motley crew of potential partners digging in their heels on diametrically opposed demands on immigration.
As one local English Language paper notes ''The awkward bedfellows have been pushed together by September's inconclusive election, which left Merkel badly weakened as the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) lured millions of voters angry over the refugee Influx.''
Plus it might be noted by the vacuous troll tweeting that as well as having much, much greater issues to resolve nationally, Germany is not the country leaving the EU.
Why anyone would post that as a contribution of any value to this thread is beyond me.
Ignoring the fact you don't think it's necessary/desirable for low skilled workers to come here to do the jobs we don't want to do anyway, it's a fact that we will still require this type of immigrant. All developed countries do.
Following Phil's logic we will never have enough supply of cleaners, catering staff, retail staff, care staff, warehouse staff, etc. in my view.
Amazon might have the infrastructure in place to recruit from abroad and deal with the red tape* in bringing in staff to fill roles they are unable to recruit UK nationals to. But will the small, owner operated café opposite have the time and wherewithal to? Or the independent care home across the road from me that seems to have a "care staff wanted" notice outside permanently? I doubt it very, very much so where does that leave the business?
And what happens if that non-UK employee that makes it through the new system loses their job after 3 years, do we chuck them and their families out straight away? What if one partner loses his minimum wage job but his wife still has her hospital cleaning job, do we chuck him out but keep her because she's still useful to us? What about if they've had a child since arriving?
It's all well and good expecting those that wouldn't look out of place on Shameless to step up and suddenly see a career as a hospital porter as an attractive option. But I fear the reality is going to hit home pretty quickly and in fact we'll see very little change in overall immigration, but what we may see is more immigration from the Commonwealth instead so we can claim we've taken back control (it may even go up due to the restrictions placed on UK citizens moving into the EU I suppose).
*I thought we were leaving to cut bureaucracy btw not introduce more.
It's clear you are consistently posting without any balance whatsoever.
I'm interested that you choose to ignore experts if they show even a glimmer of deflection from your negative narrative. You have a long track record of this.
There was an outcry on here when banks like UBS said that thousands of bankers would leave after Brexit...a few months later I post and article from one such source saying its unlikely to happen - the reaction,? ''well I don't agree with them'' (now).
UBS predicted a 10% drop in FT100 after any Brexit vote in the referendum, to more outcry and argument on a previous thread, now it's gone up over 15%, the goalposts are moved and revisionists say no one ever said it would be after the vote but after Brexit itself. Project fear of what might happen vs facts.
I'm happy to snuffle nuggets of positivity and post them on here if that's OK and not too abrasive for you.
From City AM back in Feb
The European Commission has become the latest body to lift its UK growth forecast, admitting today that the impact of Brexit might not be as bad as it originally feared.
EU forecasters now expect the UK economy to expand 1.5 per cent this year, up from their prediction of just one per cent growth, made back in November.
"The impact of the vote, by the UK to leave the EU in the referendum held on 23 June 2016, on growth has yet to be felt," the report read.
Finnish minister vows to push for "a good deal" between the UK and the EU
The EU's economists follow in the footsteps of the Bank of England, which recently hiked its 2017 growth forecast to two per cent – significantly higher than the 0.8 per cent it predicted in the aftermath of last summer's referendum.
Britain's economy defied expectations last year, with official figures pointing to a two per cent expansion in GDP for 2016 – making the UK the fastest-growing G7 nation. Both the IMF and OECD were forced to make screeching U-turns, having predicted a post-Brexit vote slump.
Interestingly, unless I missed it, whatever happened about those reports being published
The reason why someone comes to the UK (work or "spongeing") is what I want under control.
We have already established that we have very low unemployment and a tough benefits system, along with the "chucked out" option already described.
So (for me) - the country is overcrowded, there is little or no work available and no benefits on offer.
I expect the next net migration figures (EU and other) to reflect this.
We will see on Nov 30th when the stats are published.
The British MEP said: "A new study by the World Bank says that if Britain leaves the EU with no deal, and devolves to World Trade Organisation terms, our trade with the EU will fall by two per cent.
"Our total trade with the EU amounts to 12.6 per cent of our GDP. We have a large domestic economy, we’re a big home market and most of our trade is outside the EU.
"So we’re talking about a total, in terms of our economy, of two per cent of the 12.6 per cent. In other words, around a quarter of one per cent of GDP."
Mr Hannan said that the UK losing that amount of the GDP was not "the end of the world" and dismissed claims the UK would sign "whatever" deal the EU creates in order to avoid reverting to WTO rules.
He continued: "A quarter of one per cent of GDP is hardly the end of the world and that is if we assume a worst-case scenario.
"The idea that we are supplicants, that we are desperate, that we have no other option but to sign whatever is put in front of us is simply not compatible with the figures."
We already have a rules system in place for when one partner loses his/her job as you describe.
Same for when someone loses a job and is looking for another. Like Phil Scolari getting sacked by Chelskie etc.
As for small cafe and care home scenarios, I don't imagine this is a big number and it will get solved - perhaps by employment groups/agencies that bring in a block of workers at a time via employment fairs overseas and such like. Like all things Brexit - we will see.
People from the ROI have had the right to come and go. Reside and work in the UK and to use the passport phrase without let and hindrance for years. The national meld between the UK and Ireland is on every level. Even contemplating trying to unpick the rights and consequences are mind blowing.
That’s even before we start thinking about the soft or hard border and the implications to trade and immigration issues.
And on what grounds can you brand Nina Schick a "vacuous troll"? I don't know her from Adam, but a quick look at her Twitter feed shows she's got two things going for her that you haven't:
1. She seems respected enough for credible media outlets to seek out her views
2. She's German.
2. You've missed out the reasons I clearly gave, as to why her tweet was irrelevant and pointless. Why? And why make her tweet better by saying I'm not German or used by the media. That whole ball not the man a thing. One might, if one was precious, call that abrasive. But I wont! ;-)
You claim that I - particularly - deliberately post a twisted narrative. I regard that as unfair, since we all post things which support what we believe to be true or our opinions about what may happen. I respect your intention to provide a balanc. My issue is only when you get personal about those whom you think deliberately don't try to do the same. We are not journalists. I do though believe that I am better than some at conceding from time to time that I might have something wrong, or that i have learnt something new.
But rather than just argue about our integrity with you let me make you an offer to prove that what I post here I genuinely believe rather than to wind people up or whatever you think.
Let's take a bet on the issue which UBS pronounce on. Where the UK economy is heading. The bet would not be payable to each other but to a good Charlton cause, namely the Upbeats (the alternative is the CARD fighting fund but I hope that will be irrelevant by the time the bet becomes payable). I will let you name the amount. Since you seem to consider me a person of dubious integrity I will mention that I have done this at least three times before in plain sight on CL, each time was £50. The good news for you as I recall is that I only won once.
The bet is quite simple. Forecast total UK GDP for the year 2018. I can tell you now that I will forecast a lower figure than those in the articles you've mentioned. You forecast yours. Whoever is closer wins. A draw means we both send half the total to the Upbeats.
We could also do the same for the Eurozone (or EU27) if you like, but that might make things complicated. Up to you. I'll post my Eurozone forecast anyway to make my point, which is that UK will be significantly lower than Eurozone, because of the Brexit vote and aftermath.
How about it? Money where our mouths are, for a good cause...
Post-Brexit - Frankfurt is far from ready to take over from London, despite some regulatory aspects being in synch. “What determines who gets what piece of the cake?” said Cryan. It was not about changing laws or tax subsidies, he added. “In truth, it is its infrastructure that makes London unique in Europe. In this respect, this is where Germany needs to catch up if it wants to take over a large share of the business performed in London.” He said Frankfurt needed “more attractive, urban residential areas, enough international schools and a dozen additional theatres and a few hundred restaurants”.
Job losses - The problem will not be Brexit. He issued a stark warning about the impact of technology, saying a “big number” of his staff will lose their jobs as robots take over. “In our bank we have people doing work like robots. Tomorrow we will have robots behaving like people. It doesn’t matter if we as a bank will participate in these changes or not, it is going to happen." He also referred to accountants inside the bank who “spend a lot of time basically being an abacus”, who would also be replaced by machines. “The sad truth for the banking industry is, we won‘t need as many people as today.”
The problem is that everybody else thinks they are too, except @Chippycafc.
2.I have never questioned your integrity.
It would be lovely if you could acknowledge these points.
3. By (again) turning this into a bet on something as complex as a nations future GDP (so many factors beyond Brexit as we both well know) you are deflecting from answering the focused points raised.
4. This is boring other listers and as you are never going to acknowledge things might not be as bad as you (and others) persistently insist, I will take a break from this thread.