Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

[Lukraak_Sisser]

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ges-eu-to-offer-britons-associate-citizenship

This is what's called having your cake and eating it too. British people really have an inflated sense of importance.

As others have said, I'm sure the EU would allow that, provided the UK gives the same rights to EU citizens.

But the current UK government, sorry, Dominic Cummings has made clear he does not want that. It must be great to replace lots of unelected bureacrats with a single one.

 

[The Don]

The government has announced its points-based immigration system with no allowance for low paid (which implies low skilled but IMO that's often a nonsense) workers.

Low-skilled workers would not get visas under post-Brexit immigration plans unveiled by the government.

It is urging employers to "move away" from relying on "cheap labour" from Europe and invest in retaining staff and developing automation technology.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51550421

Of course automating away the low-skilled jobs will hit many of those people who voted for Brexit - those left behind in an economy which is more skills driven - whilst rewarding those with higher skills.

Industries which rely on large numbers of low paid (but not necessarily low skilled) workers such as agriculture, food processing and social care are naturally up in arms. Whilst the Porkmaster 3000 may be able to turn pigs into ham and bacon, there isn't a similar machine who can look after Auntie Doris in her care home.

It seems that labour costs will rise in the UK which in turn will make UK businesses less competitive both at home and abroad. A lot of the cost in the food we buy in the supermarket are the labour costs of harvesting and processing it. If labour becomes more expensive then the costs of providing that labour and/or automating it will be passed onto the consumer.

If the government is serious about tariff-free trade then this means that UK producers will lose out to cheaper EU produced goods. If it isn't and protectionist tariffs are introduced then exports will suffer and the UK consumer will have to bear the additional costs.

Those people who will be hit hardest will be those who can afford the additional costs least well, the low paid and retirees on low and/or fixed incomes - many of whom voted in favour of Brexit.

 

[Garrison]

Well I assume the intention is to strip away rights so all those people who lose their jobs when various industries pack up and move to Europe have no choice but to take jobs picking fruit, cleaning hospitals, etc. or end up sleeping on the streets.

 

[The Don]

Well I assume the intention is to strip away rights so all those people who lose their jobs when various industries pack up and move to Europe have no choice but to take jobs picking fruit, cleaning hospitals, etc. or end up sleeping on the streets.

That would be a plan, and one which would unfortunately end up hurting those who, because they felt left behind by changes to the economy and/or the effects of austerity, voted in favour of Brexit.

There would have to be a mass migration of people from areas of high unemployment to areas where there is high demand for labour which would mean that all the complaints that led to the Brexit vote; a shortage of local services, a lack of housing stock, pressure on the NHS and school places; would still be in place in those Brexit-voting areas.

This presupposes that a family from the Welsh valleys would be willing to take seasonal agricultural work hundreds of miles away. There's a reason why so much of the seasonal work is done by young people with few or no ties.

 

[KDLarsen]

Priti Patel was on BBC radio, arguing that the loss of low skill immigrants would be offset by companies training the large proportion of British 16-64 year olds who are not 'economically active'.

When it was put to her, that most of those are either students, long-term unemployed, retired, or with caring responsibilities, and that the UK is at almost full employment, she doubled down, insisting that there are 8 million 'non-economically active' available and ready for training.

This isn't going to end well, is it?

 

[abaddon]

Priti Patel was on BBC radio, arguing that the loss of low skill immigrants would be offset by companies training the large proportion of British 16-64 year olds who are not 'economically active'.

When it was put to her, that most of those are either students, long-term unemployed, retired, or with caring responsibilities, and that the UK is at almost full employment, she doubled down, insisting that there are 8 million 'non-economically active' available and ready for training.

This isn't going to end well, is it?

Re-education camps? Forced labour?

Seems familiar.

 

[The Don]

Priti Patel was on BBC radio, arguing that the loss of low skill immigrants would be offset by companies training the large proportion of British 16-64 year olds who are not 'economically active'.

When it was put to her, that most of those are either students, long-term unemployed, retired, or with caring responsibilities, and that the UK is at almost full employment, she doubled down, insisting that there are 8 million 'non-economically active' available and ready for training.

This isn't going to end well, is it?

Even if you ignore the fact that a significant proportion (most ?) of the 8 million economically inactive because they are in education or training, are disabled or otherwise unable to work, have retired and so on - are these people in the right place ?

Is someone in their late 50's who has a house in the Welsh valleys and who isn't in the best physical health really going to relocate themselves and their dependants to Lincolnshire for six weeks' casual labour picking cabbages for minimum wage ?

If so how will they get there ? Where will they live while they are there ? Will people really have the skills - and attitude - to perform these allegedly low-skill jobs ?

It's going to end as expected, with a scrapping of workers' rights and an evisceration of the welfare state. Employers will be able to hire and fire at will, claiming any benefits other than the retirement pension will be nigh-on impossible and the government will have recreated the underclass whose exploitation provided the grease for the Industrial Revolution.

Looks like the architects of Brexit will get all their wishes.

 

[KDLarsen]

Then again, probably just as much sheer incompetence. Some real wonder stories coming out of the Home Office, such as that of a 101 year old being asked to have his parents(!) sign off on his birth certificate. Yes indeed, a Y2K bug in 2020...

 

[The Don]

Then again, probably just as much sheer incompetence

It's typical Priti Patel tbh. Given a talking point she simply repeats it - or gets it wrong repeatedly



- regardless of points raised or how irrelevant subsequent conversation has made it

 

[Pixel42]

Looks like the architects of Brexit will get all their wishes.

You have to admit they've played an absolute blinder. They've gone from the Tory party's crackpot right wing, whose silence Cameron bought in the 2015 election by agreeing to the referendum so their extreme views wouldn't scupper his chance of re-election, to total control of their party and the country. They now have five years to do whatever the **** they want to maximise their own personal wealth, which was always their one and only priority.

 

[The Don]

You have to admit they've played an absolute blinder. They've gone from the Tory party's crackpot right wing, whose silence Cameron bought in the 2015 election by agreeing to the referendum so their extreme views wouldn't scupper his chance of re-election, to total control of their party and the country. They now have five years to do whatever the **** they want to maximise their own personal wealth, which was always their one and only priority.

The only thing I'd disagree with is that I think that they'll have a generation or more to do whatever they want, not just 5 years. The next part of the project is to have a managed Scottish Independence and Irish reunification so as to ensure a Conservative Majority in Westminster for the foreseeable future.

I'm hoping that Mrs Don and I are wealthy enough to be the "right " side of the economic chasm when it opens up. Sadly although we're "very comfortably off", I think we're a long way off.

 

[catsmate]

The government has announced its points-based immigration system with no allowance for low paid (which implies low skilled but IMO that's often a nonsense) workers.

Meh, not unexpected. Using illegals will be even cheaper....

Of course automating away the low-skilled jobs will hit many of those people who voted for Brexit - those left behind in an economy which is more skills driven - whilst rewarding those with higher skills.

True. Though I suspect that the irony will be lost on the D³ crowd.

...there isn't a similar machine who can look after Auntie Doris in her care home.

Actually there is. Meet Stevie.

It seems that labour costs will rise in the UK which in turn will make UK businesses less competitive both at home and abroad. A lot of the cost in the food we buy in the supermarket are the labour costs of harvesting and processing it. If labour becomes more expensive then the costs of providing that labour and/or automating it will be passed onto the consumer.

If the government is serious about tariff-free trade then this means that UK producers will lose out to cheaper EU produced goods. If it isn't and protectionist tariffs are introduced then exports will suffer and the UK consumer will have to bear the additional costs.

Those people who will be hit hardest will be those who can afford the additional costs least well, the low paid and retirees on low and/or fixed incomes - many of whom voted in favour of Brexit.

Fundamentally most of the pro-Bexit voters are (IMO) too dumb, and willfully uninformed, to be allowed to vote. They're incapable of thinking through the consequences of their actions and blinded by a media churned fecalstorm of lies and nonsense, racism and nationalism.

 

[The Don]

Actually there is. Meet Stevie.

Whilst that may help, Steve's range of skills/duties are very narrow. Thinking of Daddy Don's 18 months in care, Steve would only have met a fraction of his needs and for the final 6 months would have freaked him out completely.

Which is not to say that something far better won't be in place when I need them in 30 or so years time.

 

[Lothian]

Fairly sure the Tories will withdraw benefits from those who refuse to upsticks to areas needing workers.
Who knows perhaps in 18 months the good folk of Boston will be campaigning to convert the co-op to a Polish Deli in a desperate attempt to attract back those nice young people who worked hard snd kept themselves to themselves as opposed to the spice addled feckless who have been bused in by the government to take their place.

 

[wobs]

Industries which rely on large numbers of low paid (but not necessarily low skilled) workers such as agriculture, food processing and social care are naturally up in arms. Whilst the Porkmaster 3000 may be able to turn pigs into ham and bacon, there isn't a similar machine who can look after Auntie Doris in her care home.

Perhaps they are hoping that the sausage maker who is laid off due to automation, can look after Auntie Doris.

 

[Darat]

Fairly sure the Tories will withdraw benefits from those who refuse to upsticks to areas needing workers.
Who knows perhaps in 18 months the good folk of Boston will be campaigning to convert the co-op to a Polish Deli in a desperate attempt to attract back those nice young people who worked hard snd kept themselves to themselves as opposed to the spice addled feckless who have been bused in by the government to take their place.

Bused in? Why can't they walk? Lazy good for nothings.

And I'm sure they will enjoy the luxury of their time shared bunk in the room with 8 other bunks and a house with one toilet and bathroom for the 32 people living there...

 

[jimbob]

It's typical Priti Patel tbh. Given a talking point she simply repeats it - or gets it wrong repeatedly



- regardless of points raised or how irrelevant subsequent conversation has made it

See also



Look at Ian Hislop's expression

"It's not a deterrent to kill the wrong people"

 

[The Don]

Priti Patel was on BBC radio, arguing that the loss of low skill immigrants would be offset by companies training the large proportion of British 16-64 year olds who are not 'economically active'.

When it was put to her, that most of those are either students, long-term unemployed, retired, or with caring responsibilities, and that the UK is at almost full employment, she doubled down, insisting that there are 8 million 'non-economically active' available and ready for training.

This isn't going to end well, is it?

The BBC have done a breakdown of the Office of National Statistics (ONS) analysis of the 8 million "economically inactive" people and have found that:

• 27% are in education - so at best could do part-time work
• 26% are unable to work due to sickness - almost all are long-term sick
• 22% are carers - if you force them to work, you're creating demand elsewhere
• 13% are retired - good luck forcing them back into work

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/51560120

That does leave around 12% who are "other" which includes those waiting to start a job, those in the process of application and a very small number who are "discouraged".

Some of those in other categories could be tempted into work and the ONS have found that nearly 1.9 million would like a job but:

• That doesn't mean that they'd take any job. If I retire before 65 I might be tempted to part-time work in a music shop or upscale off-licence. I wouldn't work in a care home for all the money in the world.
• They may be in the wrong place. If I retire before 65 I'd only consider work within an easy commute. If I was a second wage earner in a home, I wouldn't take a job which would require me to work away from home or move my family (especially if the commuting and accommodation costs were higher than my wages)
• That doesn't mean that they are suitable for that job. I'm a terrible fit for any kind of customer-facing or personal care job and though I'm reasonably spry, at 52 I'm not cut out for outdoor work with heavy lifting
• That also doesn't mean that they have the skills, or can easily acquire the skills to do an allegedly low-skilled job

IMO Lothian has hit the nail on the head. This is the usual Conservative attack on the benefits system. Someone who doesn't take a job, no matter how unsuited they are for it or how impossible it is for them to get to it will lose their benefits.

 

[Ulf Nereng]

Well, there is a large economic potential for UK in the low-skill sector, I'm sure! And when the low-skill market in the UK itself is filled you can get back at those EU countries by sending your low-skill workers there to take the jobs from the locals. That'll learn them!

 

[wobs]

Its a de-skilling excercise. By only letting in skilled workers, you push many Brits into low skilled work, where they will stay.