Brexit Opinions/predictions? Watch

DJKL
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#41
Report 2 weeks ago
#41
(Original post by paul514)
The single market doesn’t include services as for arbitration I have no idea it’s above my pay grade so to speak.
So where do services fit into the acquis if not in the Single Market?

They are certainly one of the four freedoms, albeit I accept their cross border provisions have been augmented by subsequent legislation adding to the development of such a services market. It is tricky to say x creates the freedom re services or y does but it is certainly considered in the round to be part of the Single Market and developments towards creating and augmenting it, coupled with the other freddoms, probably needs to be considered as a unified whole, e.g. tricky to look at cross border services without considering cross border capital and labour, and of course more and more goods trade involves services as well, e.g. if a lift is to be built in a building the company often supplies the lift materials, the service of installation and then runs the maintenance for x years, some of the older deals re these- I did one such install in the mid 1990s- had a ten year operator service contract coupled with the installation contract.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#42
Report 2 weeks ago
#42
(Original post by DJKL)
So where do services fit into the acquis if not in the Single Market?

They are certainly one of the four freedoms, albeit I accept their cross border provisions have been augmented by subsequent legislation adding to the development of such a services market. It is tricky to say x creates the freedom re services or y does but it is certainly considered in the round to be part of the Single Market and developments towards creating and augmenting it, coupled with the other freddoms, probably needs to be considered as a unified whole, e.g. tricky to look at cross border services without considering cross border capital and labour, and of course more and more goods trade involves services as well, e.g. if a lift is to be built in a building the company often supplies the lift materials, the service of installation and then runs the maintenance for x years, some of the older deals re these- I did one such install in the mid 1990s- had a ten year operator service contract coupled with the installation contract.
(Original post by DJKL)
So where do services fit into the acquis if not in the Single Market?

They are certainly one of the four freedoms, albeit I accept their cross border provisions have been augmented by subsequent legislation adding to the development of such a services market. It is tricky to say x creates the freedom re services or y does but it is certainly considered in the round to be part of the Single Market and developments towards creating and augmenting it, coupled with the other freddoms, probably needs to be considered as a unified whole, e.g. tricky to look at cross border services without considering cross border capital and labour, and of course more and more goods trade involves services as well, e.g. if a lift is to be built in a building the company often supplies the lift materials, the service of installation and then runs the maintenance for x years, some of the older deals re these- I did one such install in the mid 1990s- had a ten year operator service contract coupled with the installation contract.
Services being free like goods are is not part of the EU.

It’s simple fact.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
DJKL
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#43
Report 2 weeks ago
#43
(Original post by paul514)
Services being free like goods are is not part of the EU.

It’s simple fact.
If it is simple fact explain why rather than making bold assertions.

How does our leaving the EU impact Services and why does our leaving impact services, where are cross border services covered if not as part of the Single Market

Here is one close to home example, one of my clients (my brother in law) has a company that sells services into the EU as a Qualified Person (pharma industry), it is about 75% of the turnover, the other 25% being into the UK. He may even provide the service in countries outside the EU re drugs destined for the EU (Australia has been one such), he can do this as his degrees, membership of various UK institutions and bodies etc are cross border recognised into the EU marketplace, his PI cover and his PL cover are cross border recognised. For a batch of drugs to say be released from a factory in the EU (and UK) for the EU marketplace a QP (Qualified Person) requires to sign them out, in effect this process is akin to auditing their production, without cross border recognition , as part of the Single Market, this service cannot be done

see recent update below dated yesterday advising pharmas in the EU what they require to do re a No Deal Brexit.

https://www.ema.europa.eu/documents/...-within_en.pdf

"Practical guidance for procedures related to Brexit for
medicinal products for human and veterinary use within
the framework of the centralised procedure

This practical guidance complements:
• Notice to stakeholders – withdrawal of the United Kingdom and EU rules for medicinal
products for human use and veterinary medicinal products, and
• The list of Questions and Answers (Q&As) related to the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the
European Union with regard to the medicinal products for human and veterinary use within the
framework of the Centralised Procedure.
These documents have been drafted jointly by the European Commission and EMA and are available on
the EMA website.
The below Practical Guidance addresses the situation where the United Kingdom becomes a third
country on 30 March 2019 (“the withdrawal date”) without a withdrawal agreement and hence without
a transition period provided for in the draft Withdrawal Agreement"


"6. How do I submit changes to Qualified Person for
Pharmacovigilance (QPPV) and/or changes in the
Pharmacovigilance Master File (PSMF) location? (for
medicines for human use)
According to EU pharmaceutical legislation the QPPV must reside and carry out his/her tasks in an EEA
Member State; and the PSMF also must be located within EEA.
For medicinal products for Human use, changes to the summary of the pharmacovigilance system i.e.
changes in QPPV (including contact details) and/or changes in the Pharmacovigilance Master File
(PSMF) location are to be notified to the authorities through the Article 57 database only without the
need for a variation. MAHs are therefore not required to notify EMA of changes to the QPPV or PSMF
location by submitting a variation.
Upon a change in the QPPV or location of the PMSF, the Article 57 database should be updated by the
MAH immediately to allow continuous supervision by the Competent Authorities.
Please also refer to Question: How to inform the authorities of a change in the summary of the
pharmacovigilance system? as published under the Pharmacovigilance system section of the PostAuthorisation Guidance.
Please also note that as part of a transfer application, an updated summary of the PSMF should be
provided in Module 1.8.1.
There is no fee to be paid for updates in Article 57 database."
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#44
Report 2 weeks ago
#44
(Original post by DJKL)
If it is simple fact explain why rather than making bold assertions.

How does our leaving the EU impact Services and why does our leaving impact services, where are cross border services covered if not as part of the Single Market

Here is one close to home example, one of my clients (my brother in law) has a company that sells services into the EU as a Qualified Person (pharma industry), it is about 75% of the turnover, the other 25% being into the UK. He may even provide the service in countries outside the EU re drugs destined for the EU (Australia has been one such), he can do this as his degrees, membership of various UK institutions and bodies etc are cross border recognised into the EU marketplace, his PI cover and his PL cover are cross border recognised. For a batch of drugs to say be released from a factory in the EU (and UK) for the EU marketplace a QP (Qualified Person) requires to sign them out, in effect this process is akin to auditing their production, without cross border recognition , as part of the Single Market, this service cannot be done

see recent update below dated yesterday advising pharmas in the EU what they require to do re a No Deal Brexit.

https://www.ema.europa.eu/documents/...-within_en.pdf

"Practical guidance for procedures related to Brexit for
medicinal products for human and veterinary use within
the framework of the centralised procedure

This practical guidance complements:
• Notice to stakeholders – withdrawal of the United Kingdom and EU rules for medicinal
products for human use and veterinary medicinal products, and
• The list of Questions and Answers (Q&As) related to the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the
European Union with regard to the medicinal products for human and veterinary use within the
framework of the Centralised Procedure.
These documents have been drafted jointly by the European Commission and EMA and are available on
the EMA website.
The below Practical Guidance addresses the situation where the United Kingdom becomes a third
country on 30 March 2019 (“the withdrawal date”) without a withdrawal agreement and hence without
a transition period provided for in the draft Withdrawal Agreement"


"6. How do I submit changes to Qualified Person for
Pharmacovigilance (QPPV) and/or changes in the
Pharmacovigilance Master File (PSMF) location? (for
medicines for human use)
According to EU pharmaceutical legislation the QPPV must reside and carry out his/her tasks in an EEA
Member State; and the PSMF also must be located within EEA.
For medicinal products for Human use, changes to the summary of the pharmacovigilance system i.e.
changes in QPPV (including contact details) and/or changes in the Pharmacovigilance Master File
(PSMF) location are to be notified to the authorities through the Article 57 database only without the
need for a variation. MAHs are therefore not required to notify EMA of changes to the QPPV or PSMF
location by submitting a variation.
Upon a change in the QPPV or location of the PMSF, the Article 57 database should be updated by the
MAH immediately to allow continuous supervision by the Competent Authorities.
Please also refer to Question: How to inform the authorities of a change in the summary of the
pharmacovigilance system? as published under the Pharmacovigilance system section of the PostAuthorisation Guidance.
Please also note that as part of a transfer application, an updated summary of the PSMF should be
provided in Module 1.8.1.
There is no fee to be paid for updates in Article 57 database."
tldr 😂

Ok it’s an assertion but it’s one incredibly well known go on full fact or some website like that and it will surely have that info there.

It’s forever being mentioned on shows like the daily politics or news night during debates
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#45
Report 1 week ago
#45
(Original post by paul514)
Sorry but the single market does not include services it’s a verifiable fact.
Really?
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/services_en

Could you show me your verifiable fact that opposes mine?

Of course services are included. This is why British companies like Easyjet can fly services from Paris to Geneva or haulage companies in Kent can pick up work in France or UK banks can provide transfers of money from Italy to wherever or I can go and work in Bulgaria.
Last edited by ByEeek; 1 week ago
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#46
Report 1 week ago
#46
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
Sorry mate I believe you are incorrect, trading of goods and free movement of people are completely separate issues. This is a reason why I was trying to explain that the NHS won't have the issues I believe you was claiming it to have in the other thread.

The two issues are separate altogether mate
They are and they aren't. Yes, I understand that people don't want free movement. But free movement is pretty vital to allow the transfer of services around Europe. And given that the service sector accounts for the majority of trade in and around Europe and the UK it is pretty important.

Trade in physical goods is easy to think about because you can see them and touch them. But how do you control the trade of financial services? How do you control the flow of software products or internet services or even services like our airlines being permitted to run routes inside Europe, or British companies setting up subsiduries in Europe and running local operations there? Complicated isn't it? It isn't two separate issues. It is about a thousand highly complex and very integrated issues.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#47
Report 1 week ago
#47
(Original post by ByEeek)
They are and they aren't. Yes, I understand that people don't want free movement. But free movement is pretty vital to allow the transfer of services around Europe. And given that the service sector accounts for the majority of trade in and around Europe and the UK it is pretty important.

Trade in physical goods is easy to think about because you can see them and touch them. But how do you control the trade of financial services? How do you control the flow of software products or internet services or even services like our airlines being permitted to run routes inside Europe, or British companies setting up subsiduries in Europe and running local operations there? Complicated isn't it? It isn't two separate issues. It is about a thousand highly complex and very integrated issues.
Take what you are saying, however when ever you take technical issues like this at root cause the problem is normally simple and made difficult by people whom want to make it difficult for their own gain.

At the end of the day nobody (whom matters anyway) are trying to limit skilled immigration or there is no reason we cannot set our own laws and make things simple. Anyway the Conservatives want mass immigration so realistically nothing is going to change regarding this in real terms. The 'leavers' just believe that the elected politicians they electe should have the power to control this and remain camps don't.

That's it really
0
reply
DJKL
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#48
Report 1 week ago
#48
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
Take what you are saying, however when ever you take technical issues like this at root cause the problem is normally simple and made difficult by people whom want to make it difficult for their own gain.

At the end of the day nobody (whom matters anyway) are trying to limit skilled immigration or there is no reason we cannot set our own laws and make things simple. Anyway the Conservatives want mass immigration so realistically nothing is going to change regarding this in real terms. The 'leavers' just believe that the elected politicians they electe should have the power to control this and remain camps don't.

That's it really
The issues are going to be access not immigration, what we are going to have issues with under No Deal is x from UK driving over to Paris to repair that lift his UK employer installed 2 years before, he will likely not be able to fulfill the contract as the lift insurance will be an EU insurance and will assume say monthly inspection by an accredited engineer, but he stopped being such a one on 30th March.

I work in property, the first thing I want exhibited to me before someone gets access to my building to do any works is his PL insurance, no cross border recognised insurance no access, pretty simple. If I employ a professional I want to know he is suitably qualified, covered by PI and is regulated, non recognition cross border will be an issue.

Now the current WA does very little re these sorts of issues except it buys a transition period, but if No Deal then these are front and centre to the fore, come 30th March this year all these issues hit us in the face like a very solid wall, and that impact is going to really hurt.
Last edited by DJKL; 1 week ago
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#49
Report 1 week ago
#49
(Original post by DJKL)
The issues are going to be access not immigration, what we are going to have issues with under No Deal is x from UK driving over to Paris to repair that lift his UK employer installed 2 years before, he will likely not be able to fulfill the contract as the lift insurance will be an EU insurance and will assume say monthly inspection by an accredited engineer, but he stopped being such a one on 30th March.

I work in property, the first thing I want exhibited to me before someone gets access to my building to do any works is his PL insurance, no cross border recognised insurance no access, pretty simple. If I employ a professional I want to know he is suitably qualified, covered by PI and is regulated, non recognition cross border will be an issue.

Now the current WA does very little re these sorts of issues except it buys a transition period, but if No Deal then these are front and centre to the fore, come 30th March this year all these issues hit us in the face like a very solid wall, and that impact is going to really hurt.
Agree to be honest we should never be in the situation we are in, our government is poor, the EU is looking after the unions interests more than its peoples interests.

I think we just need to sit tight, find out what we are going to get and deal with it (pardon the pun) when it happens.

Brexit has been handled so badly from all sides however longer term prospects do not mirror the short term. People are always scared of change.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#50
Report 1 week ago
#50
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
Take what you are saying, however when ever you take technical issues like this at root cause the problem is normally simple and made difficult by people whom want to make it difficult for their own gain.

At the end of the day nobody (whom matters anyway) are trying to limit skilled immigration or there is no reason we cannot set our own laws and make things simple. Anyway the Conservatives want mass immigration so realistically nothing is going to change regarding this in real terms. The 'leavers' just believe that the elected politicians they electe should have the power to control this and remain camps don't.

That's it really
The Tories don't want mass immigration. It has been part of their manefesto to reduce migration to less than 10,000 for the last 10 years or more. What you don't seem to grasp is that migration is not simple. I remember Tony Blair trying to grapple with the problem when we had an influx of asylum seekers after the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and he failed to get a handle on it. At the end of the day you can't stop people coming into your country just as you can't stop people breaking into your house or jumping into your garden. At least you can but you wouldn't be able to get out so what is the point?

The reason people come here is to work. You work in a factory - you have illuded to the face that your workmates are from the EU. Why is that? Why are they not British? Perhaps British people don't have the right skills? That isn't the EUs fault. That is ours. We have choosen not to invest in education and skills. However, we have choosen to create a very business friendly economy and as a result, there are lots of jobs but no people to fill those jobs. If you have a problem with immigration, take it out on British employers for employing immigrants. Ask them why they do it. Cutting off the supply of labour that feeds our economy helps no one because once that labour has left, there isn't a ready supply of skilled British labour to fill its place. And that is the point.

The other point is that nothing is simple. You come across as no-nonsense kind of person but if you were put in power right now, you would falter simply because you fail to appreciate the complexity of the world and system in which we are trying to operate. It isn't easy. It isn't simple and it never will be.
0
reply
rubystudy
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#51
Report 1 week ago
#51
Does anyone think if they have a second referendum people will still vote for Brexit? Lots of people will probably say no obviously not but a lot of people who actually voted for Brexit are people who don't watch the news and don't realise the consequences.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#52
Report 1 week ago
#52
(Original post by ByEeek)
The Tories don't want mass immigration. It has been part of their manefesto to reduce migration to less than 10,000 for the last 10 years or more. What you don't seem to grasp is that migration is not simple. I remember Tony Blair trying to grapple with the problem when we had an influx of asylum seekers after the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and he failed to get a handle on it. At the end of the day you can't stop people coming into your country just as you can't stop people breaking into your house or jumping into your garden. At least you can but you wouldn't be able to get out so what is the point?

The reason people come here is to work. You work in a factory - you have illuded to the face that your workmates are from the EU. Why is that? Why are they not British? Perhaps British people don't have the right skills? That isn't the EUs fault. That is ours. We have choosen not to invest in education and skills. However, we have choosen to create a very business friendly economy and as a result, there are lots of jobs but no people to fill those jobs. If you have a problem with immigration, take it out on British employers for employing immigrants. Ask them why they do it. Cutting off the supply of labour that feeds our economy helps no one because once that labour has left, there isn't a ready supply of skilled British labour to fill its place. And that is the point.

The other point is that nothing is simple. You come across as no-nonsense kind of person but if you were put in power right now, you would falter simply because you fail to appreciate the complexity of the world and system in which we are trying to operate. It isn't easy. It isn't simple and it never will be.
Oh I understand more than you think I do, I just look past biast reports. Migration is spilt into sections more so than legal and illegal, people confuse asylum seekers with EU migrants etc etc. The tories have had failed policies on immigration for a while they also have a very ineffective immigration cap, however they effectively believe in free market economy's which benefits from mass unskilled labour and drives wages low.

The factory I work in a majority foreign unskilled labour, I don't know why you think I have a problem with immigration? You are very correct it is our fault we dont train, the EU does some education industry funding mind you which does create a biast, also control over movement of EU citizens is about nil under EU membership.

I am a straight John bull man and should I gain power now I would fail because I don't have a party behind me, you think you could be prime minister and be fine at the moment?
0
reply
TensorTympani
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#53
Report 1 week ago
#53
(Original post by louise672287)
What are all of your opinions?
We will probably leave with a no deal if the EU and Labour carry on being as stubborn as they are now.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#54
Report 1 week ago
#54
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
Oh I understand more than you think I do, I just look past biast reports. Migration is spilt into sections more so than legal and illegal, people confuse asylum seekers with EU migrants etc etc. The tories have had failed policies on immigration for a while they also have a very ineffective immigration cap, however they effectively believe in free market economy's which benefits from mass unskilled labour and drives wages low.

The factory I work in a majority foreign unskilled labour, I don't know why you think I have a problem with immigration? You are very correct it is our fault we dont train, the EU does some education industry funding mind you which does create a biast, also control over movement of EU citizens is about nil under EU membership.
So what is the solution in your view? Putting to one side the positive benefits to all of immigration, how do you reduce it? We have a Tory party that states they want to reduce immigration to less than 10,000 and as a nation, we can fully control immigration from outside the EU, yet at the last count we saw around 120,000 non-EU migrants entering the country and that is with a cap and with various pretty swinging entry requirements like you have to earn in excess of £35k a year. Yet depite all that, we still have too much immigration. So what is your solution?

Or - is it just more complicated than both of us know and the reality for politicians of all pursasions is that it just ain't that simple?
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#55
Report 1 week ago
#55
(Original post by ByEeek)
So what is the solution in your view? Putting to one side the positive benefits to all of immigration, how do you reduce it? We have a Tory party that states they want to reduce immigration to less than 10,000 and as a nation, we can fully control immigration from outside the EU, yet at the last count we saw around 120,000 non-EU migrants entering the country and that is with a cap and with various pretty swinging entry requirements like you have to earn in excess of £35k a year. Yet depite all that, we still have too much immigration. So what is your solution?

Or - is it just more complicated than both of us know and the reality for politicians of all pursasions is that it just ain't that simple?
Ok first its 100,000 not 10,000.

How do we reduce it? By changing the rules of who can come into the country, for example like you mentioned on minimum income. Today it is £18,600 to my knowledge and proposals have been put forward to change that to £35,000. If it is still too low then it can be raised, obviously.
Also obviously there will need to be some exemptions for particular workers, but when those exemptions are used we could just raise the number of training places available in the UK for that particular role so in futures years there is no need for the exemption. This really isn't difficult at all.

As for why is there too many coming in from outside the EU to the UK currently, that is also obvious... The government hasn't bothered changing the rules yet. In fact when they recently suggested changing the minimum income to 35k loads of people moaned and now they are consulting on the proposal.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#56
Report 1 week ago
#56
(Original post by paul514)
Ok first its 100,000 not 10,000.

How do we reduce it? By changing the rules of who can come into the country, for example like you mentioned on minimum income. Today it is £18,600 to my knowledge and proposals have been put forward to change that to £35,000. If it is still too low then it can be raised, obviously.
Also obviously there will need to be some exemptions for particular workers, but when those exemptions are used we could just raise the number of training places available in the UK for that particular role so in futures years there is no need for the exemption. This really isn't difficult at all.

As for why is there too many coming in from outside the EU to the UK currently, that is also obvious... The government hasn't bothered changing the rules yet. In fact when they recently suggested changing the minimum income to 35k loads of people moaned and now they are consulting on the proposal.
Good post. So why don't the government just do that? I mean - this has been an issue for years. Do you really think that leaving the EU is going to reduce immigration when the rules have been unchanged by successive governments for years? Seems like a JCB to smash a fragile pea to me.

Sovereignty is all well and good but what is the point if the government doesn't use it. I don't think immigration will go down post Brexit. Not for a jot. The only thing that will kill immigration is if our economy takes a dive. I was looking at migration stats over the last 30 years and the only times when people left was in the dark days of the 80s and early 90s.... when the UK was in deep deep recession. It was sh1t for everyone.

Immigration is one of those emotive issues that can swing the career of a politician in a second. We want all those illegals and over-stayers to leave - except the Windrush - they are salt of the earth and made us great - oh and that doctor who is the heart of his community.... oh and those teachers and nurses.... and that family who are lovely... and we can't send those with nothing back to Afghanistan. And so on. Immigration is a bit like houses on green belt. Everyone is against it unless they own a house built on green belt. Which is everyone practically.
Last edited by ByEeek; 1 week ago
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#57
Report 1 week ago
#57
(Original post by ByEeek)
Good post. So why don't the government just do that? I mean - this has been an issue for years. Do you really think that leaving the EU is going to reduce immigration when the rules have been unchanged by successive governments for years? Seems like a JCB to smash a fragile pea to me.

Sovereignty is all well and good but what is the point if the government doesn't use it. I don't think immigration will go down post Brexit. Not for a jot. The only thing that will kill immigration is if our economy takes a dive. I was looking at migration stats over the last 30 years and the only times when people left was in the dark days of the 80s and early 90s.... when the UK was in deep deep recession. It was sh1t for everyone.
The government don't want to do that, obviously.

The electorate will force them to do so once they don't have any EU excuses left.

If freedom of movement ends the numbers will go down but no where near enough, which will leave the government of any colour needing to actually change policy as they have nothing left to hide behind.

As for your theory on why it is so high here are the GDP figures from 1980 onwards https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/econo...omy/2015-02-27

The dark days of the 80's and 90's didn't really exist there were just two normal recessions (they are supposed to happen once every 7 or 8 years normally).

Migration has gone up because WE have allowed it to + having free movement. We are trying to take away the + leaving the government no hiding place.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#58
Report 1 week ago
#58
(Original post by paul514)
As for your theory on why it is so high here are the GDP figures from 1980 onwards https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/econo...omy/2015-02-27

The dark days of the 80's and 90's didn't really exist there were just two normal recessions (they are supposed to happen once every 7 or 8 years normally).
You mistake me. I was talking about net migration.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...ory/2015-01-15

It was negative in early 80s, 1986 - 89 (manufacturing recession) and 1992-94 - financial recession with massively high interest rates.

I am not really sure if GPD is a good measure since it is just economic activity. Rich people are still economically active during recessions and recessions tend not to hurt them as much, hence the top end can statistically hide the bottom in tough time. Governments and companies also sometimes spend their way out of recession which would show on a GPD chart as an increase.

I am afraid I have been following politics long enough to see that I think your idealism and hope for a change of immigration policy is going to be blown very soon. I remember Tory Blair saying he was going to get a handle on immigration by 2001.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#59
Report 1 week ago
#59
(Original post by ByEeek)
You mistake me. I was talking about net migration.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...ory/2015-01-15

It was negative in early 80s, 1986 - 89 (manufacturing recession) and 1992-94 - financial recession with massively high interest rates.

I am not really sure if GPD is a good measure since it is just economic activity. Rich people are still economically active during recessions and recessions tend not to hurt them as much, hence the top end can statistically hide the bottom in tough time. Governments and companies also sometimes spend their way out of recession which would show on a GPD chart as an increase.

I am afraid I have been following politics long enough to see that I think your idealism and hope for a change of immigration policy is going to be blown very soon. I remember Tory Blair saying he was going to get a handle on immigration by 2001.
Yea I have actively followed politics for 20 years too and I know my hopes won’t be blown anytime soon because I know it may take us until 2030 to get one of them to do it.

I also don’t like GDP as a measure either it should at least be per capita.

I also know about immigration rates pre accession EU countries and it averages out at around 50k net
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#60
Report 1 week ago
#60
(Original post by paul514)
I also know about immigration rates pre accession EU countries and it averages out at around 50k net
True. But I don't think you can compare like for like. The UK is massively more wealthy now than it was pre EU days. We also live in a world where travel and communication have never been easier plus the world has many troubled countries with people looking for a better life but more to the point who are informed about the opportunities that exist around the world.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you give blood?

Yes (49)
9.37%
I used to but I don't now (14)
2.68%
No, but I want to start (188)
35.95%
No, I am unable to (122)
23.33%
No, I chose not to (150)
28.68%

Watched Threads

View All