Brexit negotiations

[Mr D]

Noteworthy that more Londoners voted leave than voted for Khan.

I daresay there are MPs who would be able to claim that more voted leave in their area than voted for them.
Luckily referendum was done on a national level.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45543609

Battle lines are being drawn.

May's government, the Brexiteer brigade, and the remainers. Someone has to blink first.

It all depends on how serious May and her cabinet are about walking away without a deal if necessary. I suspect there's some bluffing going on.

Even though a second referendum seems extremely far fetched, it's still within the realms of possibility. If the deal fails to get through parliament, May's choice will be to either leave without a deal, or find an alternative. She won't want to deal with the fallout of a no deal scenario (and neither would most Conservatives), so the most politically appealing option may be to put the decision back in the hands of the people a final time.

Yes, that would irk an awful lot of leave voters, but the economic impact of no deal would irk the electorate even more, as would the politicians overruling the referendum result of their own accord. The people overruling their own decision is a lot more palatable. And if the people still vote to leave without a deal, then she can't be blamed for it as much.

As crazy as it is, a final say of the people could end up being the best option of all, just because the other options are so intolerable from a political point of view.

Yes, it could be claimed that May isn't bluffing, and that she will walk away without a deal if she has to. But I'm dubious. The Conservatives have gone to great lengths to get the country, in their eyes, on a more fiscally sound footing. Record deficits have been brought down, and the pain of the last decade is starting to bear some fruit.

The question is whether May and her cabinet are prepared to throw all that away, particularly when the world is due another financial crash within the next few years.

 

[KM-Tiger]

Yes, it could be claimed that May isn't bluffing, and that she will walk away without a deal if she has to.

I think she has painted herself into a corner. There isn't support anywhere for the Chequers deal, but equally there is not that much support for a WTO exit.

Perhaps reason will prevail on both sides and we can exit out of the Single Market, out of the Customs Union and sign a Canada++ trade deal. Everyone happy!

 

[Newchodge]

Everyone happy!

Well, perhaps a few, but absolutely not everyone.

 

[Mr D]

I think she has painted herself into a corner. There isn't support anywhere for the Chequers deal, but equally there is not that much support for a WTO exit.

Perhaps reason will prevail on both sides and we can exit out of the Single Market, out of the Customs Union and sign a Canada++ trade deal. Everyone happy!

Yes, trouble with dealing with multiple groups each with their own agenda is that to keep enough happy or at least away from the door means also painting herself into a position that she cannot easily escape from.

If she got replaced now, as in September - then there's time for a new party leader to be selected to carry on Brexit. Or not carry it on.
Boris, Michael, Jacob anyone?
Or maybe a general election (again). That would probably be in the new year. Not leaving much time to make changes and get agreement before end of March if some other party won.

 

[Mr D]

Well, perhaps a few, but absolutely not everyone.

No way to make everyone happy unless she takes us out of the customs union while keeping us in the customs union while scrapping the EU payment while still receiving EU payments and controlling immigration as we have never done for non EU immigrants while also accepting lots of workers in some sectors on short term contracts...

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I think she has painted herself into a corner. There isn't support anywhere for the Chequers deal, but equally there is not that much support for a WTO exit.

Perhaps reason will prevail on both sides and we can exit out of the Single Market, out of the Customs Union and sign a Canada++ trade deal. Everyone happy!

The EU won't budge on their red lines regarding the four freedoms, for obvious reasons. Anything close to single market freedom would undermine the point of EU membership, and a "Canada ++" trade deal would be too close to that (hence why Canada didn't get a ++ deal, and neither did Japan despite having an economy 85% larger than ours). Giving the UK that would be pretty dreadful reasoning from their perspective.

The Irish border is also a continued problem that makes a typical free trade deal extremely hard to achieve. May seems to be one of the few people taking the Good Friday Agreement as seriously as it should be taken. It's one of the reasons why she's came up with this idea. It also makes her more likely to be bluffing on the "take it or leave it" ultimatum, because a no deal scenario would create an even "harder" border.

Others take the issue seriously too. So serious, in fact, that they're gambling on rejecting the Chequers plan to force the UK to stay in the EU.

There's some talk going around that a hard border wouldn't exist in the event of no deal, but that's not because there's a solution. It's because the idea is so unfathomable for those who fully understand the situation that they aren't even contemplating that it might have to happen.

Negotiations would be a lot easier for a country that doesn't have such a border issue, but we do, and there's the possibility of violence if it isn't handled correctly. That's just the way it is.

These are the options supposedly on the table:

Chequers = gets around the Irish border issues (at least in part) and minimises economic impact, but with the possibility it won't get through parliament.

No deal = Economic chaos with an even worse situation for the Irish border.

"Canada ++" = Isn't within the realms of reality, and doesn't solve the problem of the Irish border.

Number 10 has consistently rejected the idea of a second referendum, but don't rule it out just yet. If the choice ends up being between staying in the EU or leaving without a deal, it frankly could be in the best long-term interests of the Conservative party to back a new referendum, and there would be quite a few remain MPs backing it too.

 

[Cobby]

I think she has painted herself into a corner. There isn't support anywhere for the Chequers deal, but equally there is not that much support for a WTO exit.

There's probably much more support for the Chequers proposal than the chaos of a No Deal Brexit, but that's irrelevant since the EU already made it clear that Chequers is untenable.

Perhaps ... we can exit out of the Single Market, out of the Customs Union and sign a Canada++ trade deal. Everyone Happy!

Except the Irish (and honestly most of the population) because "Canada++" (a thing that doesn't exist) violates the Good Friday Agreement and means a border in Ireland.

And all that to make the UK much worse off.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45520517

An interesting analysis today from Sir John Curtis.

Overall, there's no major swing in any particular direction. Another referendum would certainly be very close the second time around.

I think the most telling part, and crucial to the result as a whole, would be the don't knows. It's one thing to make a clear switch from leave to remain (or vice versa), but there will also be a segment of people who have gone from being certain of their vote to being much less sure.

In Lord Ashcroft polls regarding the referendum from back in 2016, about a quarter of voters decided how they would vote in the week before the referendum date. 10% of those decided on the day they had to vote.

If a similar pattern happened again in the event of a second referendum, it means many of those in the don't know category will be leaning in a certain direction, but only solidify their vote much closer to the date, which won't be reflected in the opinion polls.

Which way they're more likely to lean is the question. I would imagine it has a lot to do with what the options on the table are.

Turnaround would also be critical. It's undeniable that electorate demographics have shifted in favour of remain. Most 15-17 year olds back in 2016 will now be able to vote, and they favour remain by a huge amount. Meanwhile, it's just a fact that a number of older, leave-leaning voters will no longer be with us. But young people would need to turn out on the day.

 

[Cobby]

My concern with another referendum would be similar underhand tactics rolled out by those with a vested interest in seeing the UK weakened and separated from the EU; there's evidence they helped push out the "dark ads" in the days leading up to the last referendum which swung the vote and there's really nothing to prevent them doing it again.

Then of course if May decides a People's Vote is necessary but only gives a choice between her untenable proposal or No Deal then no matter which way it swings the scapegoat will still be The People and without any Remain option it'll be a drum that Brexiteers beat loudly as they crow about how everyone "saw sense and voted for Brexit, so we've only got ourselves to blame."

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...rexit-migrants-british-citizens-a8542506.html

EU migrant workers contribute £2,300 more per year to UK than average British citizen, study reveals

And, over their lifetimes, they pay in £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits - while the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution is zero.

Oxford Economics, which carried out the assessment, said this meant the value of EU citizens to the economy was the equivalent of slapping 5p on income tax rates.

Well whad'ya know.

It makes sense, when you think about it. Their home country has already dealt with the cost of education and childhood. They often come to this country young, healthy and qualified. They then work hard, and when they get older, many decide to spend retirement back in their home country, so there are minimal social support or healthcare costs.

Obviously this will not apply to everyone, but certainly to a lot of them. Seemingly most, considering the figures.

There's talk of EU migrants claiming benefits and being unemployed etc, but some common sense has to be applied here. Income is relative to the cost of living. When people have left their family, friends and culture behind (and probably better weather), and then they end up worse off here than they were back home, many of them do the common sense thing and go back. Tens of thousands do it every year.

Yes, there's a positive net migration figure, but with those doing well statistically more likely to stay, and those doing badly statistically more likely to leave, it's very plausible that the EU migrant population in the UK is gradually becoming more skilled, productive and financially beneficial for the country over time.

It's certainly not going to be the opposite, where poorer migrants with no decent quality of life are hanging around more than those with well-paid jobs and mortgages.

 

[dan19900]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...rexit-migrants-british-citizens-a8542506.html







Well whad'ya know.

It makes sense, when you think about it. Their home country has already dealt with the cost of education and childhood. They often come to this country young, healthy and qualified. They then work hard, and when they get older, many decide to spend retirement back in their home country, so there are minimal social support or healthcare costs.

Obviously this will not apply to everyone, but certainly to a lot of them. Seemingly most, considering the figures.

There's talk of EU migrants claiming benefits and being unemployed etc, but some common sense has to be applied here. Income is relative to the cost of living. When people have left their family, friends and culture behind (and probably better weather), and then they end up worse off here than they were back home, many of them do the common sense thing and go back. Tens of thousands do it every year.

Yes, there's a positive net migration figure, but with those doing well statistically more likely to stay, and those doing badly statistically more likely to leave, it's very plausible that the EU migrant population in the UK is gradually becoming more skilled, productive and financially beneficial for the country over time.

It's certainly not going to be the opposite, where poorer migrants with no decent quality of life are hanging around more than those with well-paid jobs and mortgages.

So what you're saying is it would be great if we could leave the EU and then we can let the ones doing well in and refuse any not doing well?

I keep reading that people are worrying that we won't have anyone to harvest fruit on minimum wage (or less), now we're going to be losing 78k per migrant also. Those fruit pickers must all be working 150 hours per week.

 

[Mr D]

So what you're saying is it would be great if we could leave the EU and then we can let the ones doing well in and refuse any not doing well?

I keep reading that people are worrying that we won't have anyone to harvest fruit on minimum wage (or less), now we're going to be losing 78k per migrant also. Those fruit pickers must all be working 150 hours per week.

Fruit pickers, NHS staff, hospitality staff, building site staff etc.

When are you least likely to use a country resources? As a working adult. Education, health, benefits etc aren't needed as much.
So they pay plenty of taxes and don't cost us much.

Lots of cash saved.

Oh wait, we are preventing them coming here. Farms going under? Price of certain foods going up?

 

[Cobby]

I keep reading that people are worrying that we won't have anyone to harvest fruit on minimum wage (or less), now we're going to be losing 78k per migrant also. Those fruit pickers must all be working 150 hours per week.

Over their lifetimes.

 

[dan19900]

Over their lifetimes.

I know that, they'd still have to be working about 150 hours to provide a gain to the economy each year.

Fruit pickers, NHS staff, hospitality staff, building site staff etc.

When are you least likely to use a country resources? As a working adult. Education, health, benefits etc aren't needed as much.
So they pay plenty of taxes and don't cost us much.

Lots of cash saved.

Oh wait, we are preventing them coming here. Farms going under? Price of certain foods going up?

Most of the Eastern Europeans who've moved here haven't been here long enough to reach retirement age so no idea if they'll go home for retirement or not. I'm not sure they would, their kids would be living in England and their parents back home probably dead by that point.
Farms going under? Lol just get Theresa to give me the go ahead and I'll bring 1000s of Filipino fruit pickers over for 4 pounds per hour, like I said a few pages back.

 

[Mr D]

I know that, they'd still have to be working about 150 hours to provide a gain to the economy each year.




Most of the Eastern Europeans who've moved here haven't been here long enough to reach retirement age so no idea if they'll go home for retirement or not. I'm not sure they would, their kids would be living in England and their parents back home probably dead by that point.
Farms going under? Lol just get Theresa to give me the go ahead and I'll bring 1000s of Filipino fruit pickers over for 4 pounds per hour, like I said a few pages back.

I'd hate to think what you would expect the natives to work in order to provide a gain to the economy each year then.
Maternity, childhood, education, health, then later in life old age, pension, NHS etc.

 

[thetiger2015]

Many I've heard interviewed on radio are getting confused between natural migration and immigration. There are many migrant workers, from all over the world, who contribute a great deal to the UK. They may go on to migrate to another country, after working here for a few years.

Depending on how you want to spin the data. You can include those 'successful' migrants in some figures, to paint the picture that we let everyone in and only a small percentage are beneficial. Or you can extract them and put them in a different data set, where 70% or more are generally beneficial and working, paying taxes and contributing. Depends on which picture you wish to paint.

The news channels seem to conveniently put people in different data sets, to confuse everyone. The whole voting to leave the EU was a load of nonsense, nobody can honestly say they knew exactly what they were voting for.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

So what you're saying is it would be great if we could leave the EU and then we can let the ones doing well in and refuse any not doing well?

I keep reading that people are worrying that we won't have anyone to harvest fruit on minimum wage (or less), now we're going to be losing 78k per migrant also. Those fruit pickers must all be working 150 hours per week.

"Well" is subjective. Anyone with a job who is paying more in tax than they cost during their time in the country is a net contributor, not just in government finances but overall GDP.

Even fruit pickers can earn respectable salaries that makes them net contributors. They also tend to be younger and healthier so they're at a lower risk of being a "burden" on the system. Even in cases like housing, these workers usually live in house shares or employer-provided dorms, so they put far less net pressure on the UK, in any form, than many British people potentially earning more.

And the big danger is that many lower-paid migrants do jobs that a lot of young British people tend not to do. Our economy is more reliant than people think when it comes to such jobs. The benefit of bringing lots of highly skilled people in is severely hampered if the other cogs in the machine aren't there. It harms productivity.

There's this suggestion that we can just "turn the taps on" when needed. However, that's inevitably going to involve far more bureaucracy than EU freedom of movement. Applications, visas, tracking, enforcement etc. Potentially costs for the applicant (unless the taxpayer wants to foot the bill for processing all of this). And then there's the factor of how welcoming a country is. Over the past year there has been an exodus of EU nationals, even though they don't have to leave.

All of these factors make people less likely to come. It makes the labour market less flexible. It could result in shortages even if, technically speaking, the gates are open.

Don't think non-EU migration can fill the gap, either. Geography is important. Those in Europe can get a flight to the UK for less than £50 in some cases. A flight from the Philippines costs x10 more, and due to the difference in earning power, it could take someone from such a country x100 longer just to get the basic funds together.

Good luck getting migrants in to do these jobs when they can't even afford to get here.

 

[Mr D]

The news channels seem to conveniently put people in different data sets, to confuse everyone. The whole voting to leave the EU was a load of nonsense, nobody can honestly say they knew exactly what they were voting for.

So was it just the one group who knew exactly what they were voting for then? The remainers.

 

[dan19900]

"Well" is subjective. Anyone with a job who is paying more in tax than they cost during their time in the country is a net contributor, not just in government finances but overall GDP.

Even fruit pickers can earn respectable salaries that makes them net contributors. They also tend to be younger and healthier so they're at a lower risk of being a "burden" on the system. Even in cases like housing, these workers usually live in house shares or employer-provided dorms, so they put far less net pressure on the UK, in any form, than many British people potentially earning more.

And the big danger is that many lower-paid migrants do jobs that a lot of young British people tend not to do. Our economy is more reliant than people think when it comes to such jobs. The benefit of bringing lots of highly skilled people in is severely hampered if the other cogs in the machine aren't there. It harms productivity.

There's this suggestion that we can just "turn the taps on" when needed. However, that's inevitably going to involve far more bureaucracy than EU freedom of movement. Applications, visas, tracking, enforcement etc. Potentially costs for the applicant (unless the taxpayer wants to foot the bill for processing all of this). And then there's the factor of how welcoming a country is. Over the past year there has been an exodus of EU nationals, even though they don't have to leave.

All of these factors make people less likely to come. It makes the labour market less flexible. It could result in shortages even if, technically speaking, the gates are open.

Don't think non-EU migration can fill the gap, either. Geography is important. Those in Europe can get a flight to the UK for less than £50 in some cases. A flight from the Philippines costs x10 more, and due to the difference in earning power, it could take someone from such a country x100 longer just to get the basic funds together.

Good luck getting migrants in to do these jobs when they can't even afford to get here.

You need to earn over 30k per year to be a net contributor don't you? I don't think any fruit pickers are earning that but if they are then I know lots of British people who would be willing to do it.
Getting workers from 3rd world countries to do it wouldn't be an issue, nurses and call center workers would be applying aswell, not just the really poor people. They could easily afford a plane ticket for 300 pounds when they know they're coming to earn over 1500 per month (with over time). Ofcourse bureaucracy would be an issue but that's down to the government to sort out, no reason why it should cost too much to sort out.

 

[The Byre]

You need to earn over 30k per year to be a net contributor don't you?

No!

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

You need to earn over 30k per year to be a net contributor don't you? I don't think any fruit pickers are earning that but if they are then I know lots of British people who would be willing to do it.

Where did you get that figure from? If you pay more in tax than the state pays on you, you're a net contributor.

Ofcourse bureaucracy would be an issue but that's down to the government to sort out, no reason why it should cost too much to sort out.

Ahh, another one of those classic "whatever, it'll figure itself out" arguments.

 

[dan19900]

Where did you get that figure from? If you pay more in tax than the state pays on you, you're a net contributor.



Ahh, another one of those classic "whatever, it'll figure itself out" arguments.

There's an average figure surely. Also none of these studies seem to note that the immigrants send a lot more money out of the country to their family and how that impacts the economy.

 

[Mr D]

You need to earn over 30k per year to be a net contributor don't you? I don't think any fruit pickers are earning that but if they are then I know lots of British people who would be willing to do it.
Getting workers from 3rd world countries to do it wouldn't be an issue, nurses and call center workers would be applying aswell, not just the really poor people. They could easily afford a plane ticket for 300 pounds when they know they're coming to earn over 1500 per month (with over time). Ofcourse bureaucracy would be an issue but that's down to the government to sort out, no reason why it should cost too much to sort out.

So who needs to earn 30k?

The natives with their up to 16 years education costs, early nhs costs, probably benefit costs, then in later life pension, old age costs, health and death?

Or the people coming here for a few months each year and were raised and educated in another country?

Or the people coming here with skills raised, educated and trained in another country?

Or the people coming here for a few years to work and leaving later - raised and educated in another country and getting old in that country?

 

[Mr D]

There's an average figure surely. Also none of these studies seem to note that the immigrants send a lot more money out of the country to their family and how that impacts the economy.

They send money after government has already taken relevant tax? What do you care the state has already got all it can demand from them.

 

[The Byre]

There's an average figure surely. Also none of these studies seem to note that the immigrants send a lot more money out of the country to their family and how that impacts the economy.

Oh yes they do!

There are also the millions of Brits who live and work in the rest-EU. Brexiteers seem to think that the UK is some kind of Nirvana filled with milk and honey and that everyone wants to come here. The reality is that hardly a village in Spain, Portugal, Germany, France or (increasingly) Bulgaria is complete without its British conclave of economic refugees.

 

[KM-Tiger]

There are also the millions of Brits who live and work in the rest-EU.

Err ... cough, the figure is actually under one million, less than the number of expats in Australia.

If the migration traffic were approximately equal, we would not have had the population growth that we have had.

 

[Mr D]

Err ... cough, the figure is actually under one million, less than the number of expats in Australia.

If the migration traffic were approximately equal, we would not have had the population growth that we have had.

Under one million permanently live there? Or under 1 million working there?
Some can go work in the rest of the EU without living there.

 

[dan19900]

They send money after government has already taken relevant tax? What do you care the state has already got all it can demand from them.

No, they spend the money in the UK then they pay VAT and it keeps circulating. Like I said before I've no idea if fruit pickers and their families end up retiring in the UK or not. If I was a fruit picker from Poland I'd probably just stay in the UK, work full time year round and retire here.

 

[Mr D]

No, they spend the money in the UK then they pay VAT and it keeps circulating. Like I said before I've no idea if fruit pickers and their families end up retiring in the UK or not. If I was a fruit picker from Poland I'd probably just stay in the UK, work full time year round and retire here.

They are avoiding spending money here how? Still got to live, still got to eat, quite likely use some local businesses.

What is the difference between them sending some money home and me sticking some in a sock drawer? Or some in a bank / pension fund?
Money still gets recirculated anyway we are in a closed monetary system on the planet.

Regardless of whether a fruit picker retires here or not we are avoiding a major part of government outlay for them - the early years and education.

So a fruit picker in good health spends as a minimum how much a week here? Pays as a minimum how much in taxes and costs government how much?

 

[Cobby]

Err ... cough, the figure is actually under one million, less than the number of expats in Australia.

If the migration traffic were approximately equal, we would not have had the population growth that we have had.

The figure is somewhere between 1.8 and 3.6million (see here) and even if it were only the 900,000 figure the government suggests, let's not forget the referendum result was swung by only 650,000 votes.

 

[Cobby]

So was it just the one group who knew exactly what they were voting for then? The remainers.

Yes, actually. Because the question (that you are so fond of, yet refuse to engage upon) was, put simply:

"Would you like: The thing we have right now and is defined or A thing we don't have but haven't defined"

One of those is a known quantity and the other isn't.

 

[Cobby]

Ofcourse bureaucracy would be an issue but that's down to the government to sort out, no reason why it should cost too much to sort out.

This is a rather common form of hand-waving to dismiss a problem without an actual solution, but the bigger problem for the UK isn't the cost as much as the bureaucracy itself. The system we have at present can't manage visas and whatnot for non-EU migration, the idea that an unknown amount of money conjured out of the air can be used to make it work for all migration is ridiculous.

Here's a little taster of what we have right now:
https://twitter.com/fozmeadows/status/1027667863169990656

There's an average figure surely. Also none of these studies seem to note that the immigrants send a lot more money out of the country to their family and how that impacts the economy.

And what's your evidence for this? I'm sure we'd all like to see your numbers.

No, they spend the money in the UK then they pay VAT and it keeps circulating. Like I said before I've no idea if fruit pickers and their families end up retiring in the UK or not. If I was a fruit picker from Poland I'd probably just stay in the UK, work full time year round and retire here.

What fruit are you going to be picking in the winter and spring? I mean, you could rotate between businesses for other farm work but that'd likely mean not living in one place and having to move constantly. Also, what you're doing here is assuming the sole motivation of Polish people is money.

By your own admission, you keep saying "I've got no idea" but most of this stuff is easy to look up.

 

[dan19900]

This is a rather common form of hand-waving to dismiss a problem without an actual solution, but the bigger problem for the UK isn't the cost as much as the bureaucracy itself. The system we have at present can't manage visas and whatnot for non-EU migration, the idea that an unknown amount of money conjured out of the air can be used to make it work for all migration is ridiculous.

Here's a little taster of what we have right now:
https://twitter.com/fozmeadows/status/1027667863169990656



And what's your evidence for this? I'm sure we'd all like to see your numbers.



What fruit are you going to be picking in the winter and spring? I mean, you could rotate between businesses for other farm work but that'd likely mean not living in one place and having to move constantly. Also, what you're doing here is assuming the sole motivation of Polish people is money.

By your own admission, you keep saying "I've got no idea" but most of this stuff is easy to look up.

Literally just got a spouse visa for my wife a few weeks ago, was very simple to be honest.

Obviously migrants send money out of the country more than people born in the UK do, surely that's just common sense. My whole point was that I've not seen the studies take account of this though, so no idea where to find figures.

There's other jobs available in the UK other than fruit picking you know? I didn't say money was the sole motivation for them moving here, pretty sure it's the main reason though.

 

[dan19900]

They are avoiding spending money here how? Still got to live, still got to eat, quite likely use some local businesses.

What is the difference between them sending some money home and me sticking some in a sock drawer? Or some in a bank / pension fund?
Money still gets recirculated anyway we are in a closed monetary system on the planet.

Regardless of whether a fruit picker retires here or not we are avoiding a major part of government outlay for them - the early years and education.

So a fruit picker in good health spends as a minimum how much a week here? Pays as a minimum how much in taxes and costs government how much?

Yeah use some local businesses but less than a guy born in the UK who's family all live in the UK also.

Because you'd spend it at some point or you'd get taxed to shit when you die atleast. Not many people keep money in their sock draw though, most would atleast put it in a bank or buy shares etc.
Money recirculating in another country isn't as good for the UK economy clearly.

Well as a minimum if they just worked 35 hours per week then they'd pay close to zero tax. I think they normally get free accommodation so I expect they'd only spend 3-400 per month, probably less. Makes sense for them to save the money and take it back to their families in a cheaper country.
Not sure how much they cost the government, I don't think they publish a sub category for 'Polish fruit picker', probably more than zero on average though.

 

[Newchodge]

Well as a minimum if they just worked 35 hours per week then they'd pay close to zero tax. I think they normally get free accommodation so I expect they'd only spend 3-400 per month, probably less.

35 hours per week at minimum wage is about £14,305. That is £491 income tax and £701 employee's NI. You may think they get free accommodation, but it is not something I have ever heard of happening. They are often given appalling basic accommodation for which the maximum possible is deducted from their minimum wage. If they don't have accommodation provided, they have to pay for it. Then they have to pay council tax. Whatever they buy they pay the same VAT as us. So even on the most basic wages they have a tax burden. As many of them are young, single and without children they don't use education, they don't use as much healthcare as the average British person (they use the same amount as the average young, single, British person without children), they don't claim satte benefits, they don't claim satte pensions.

 

[Mr D]

Yeah use some local businesses but less than a guy born in the UK who's family all live in the UK also.

Because you'd spend it at some point or you'd get taxed to **** when you die atleast. Not many people keep money in their sock draw though, most would atleast put it in a bank or buy shares etc.
Money recirculating in another country isn't as good for the UK economy clearly.

Well as a minimum if they just worked 35 hours per week then they'd pay close to zero tax. I think they normally get free accommodation so I expect they'd only spend 3-400 per month, probably less. Makes sense for them to save the money and take it back to their families in a cheaper country.
Not sure how much they cost the government, I don't think they publish a sub category for 'Polish fruit picker', probably more than zero on average though.

So basically paying out similar amounts to the natives then.
If they can afford to send a particular amount out of the country then anyone else with similar income and expenses will be able to save / stick in sock drawer etc same money.

As Cyndy says they will pay tax (if here full year), NI and they'll pay VAT. So a fair amount of government income. Not much different than the natives.

What are the costs of them being here?

As for money being sent out of country, its back in circulation. Same as me sticking it in the bank for the future.

 

[dan19900]

So basically paying out similar amounts to the natives then.
If they can afford to send a particular amount out of the country then anyone else with similar income and expenses will be able to save / stick in sock drawer etc same money.

As Cyndy says they will pay tax (if here full year), NI and they'll pay VAT. So a fair amount of government income. Not much different than the natives.

What are the costs of them being here?

As for money being sent out of country, its back in circulation. Same as me sticking it in the bank for the future.

People don't generally stick money in their sock draw though, inflation ruins them.

Already said twice now I think, they'll spend much less here than someone from the UK. The money sent out of the country is clearly bad for the UK economy as I just said.

I expect they cost on average more than the 1200 that they pay in tax. If they're paying tax (and living here full time) then they'll have kids and probably retire here too, so there's your net loss.

Surely you understand that a polish worker sending 2/3rds of their salary back to their family in Poland rather than spending all of it in the UK is bad for the economy right?

 

[Cobby]

Literally just got a spouse visa for my wife a few weeks ago, was very simple to be honest.

So we have 2 anecdotes, one that goes into detail highlighting the problems inherent in the system and another that is one line long saying "it was simple".
I'm pleased it was simple for you and while the first anecdote may not be representative of the entire system it's certainly indicative that it's going to be a severe challenge to ramp up our bureaucracy to deal with this aspect of Brexit.

Obviously migrants send money out of the country more than people born in the UK do, surely that's just common sense. My whole point was that I've not seen the studies take account of this though, so no idea where to find figures.

You want studies to "take account" of an activity you have no information about but which you just assume must be rife. There's not a lot of evidence on it because it's quite difficult to keep an accurate accounting of it, but you can find out more by researching "UK Migration Remittances".

Hope that helps.

 

[dan19900]

So we have 2 anecdotes, one that goes into detail highlighting the problems inherent in the system and another that is one line long saying "it was simple".
I'm pleased it was simple for you and while the first anecdote may not be representative of the entire system it's certainly indicative that it's going to be a severe challenge to ramp up our bureaucracy to deal with this aspect of Brexit.



You want studies to "take account" of an activity you have no information about but which you just assume must be rife. There's not a lot of evidence on it because it's quite difficult to keep an accurate accounting of it, but you can find out more by researching "UK Migration Remittances".

Hope that helps.

Yeah but when evaluating anecdotal evidence I tend to value my own experience and my friends experiences than some random of twitter.

So you think that EU migrants working in the UK on minimum wage with their family living in the EU and UK citizens working on minimum wage in the UK with their family in the UK would both send an equal amount of money out of the country? As your link says there's no stats for it but surely you can use common sense for something like that no?