Would you vote to re-join the EU in another referendum?

[GorgeousSpringtime]

Simple question. If there is another referendum to re-join the EU, will you be voting to re-join?

This isn't to have a go at anyone who supported Brexit, or who supported Remain, it's just a quick straw poll. Thank you.

If anyone is wondering, (or cares!) I think I will vote to re-join. (I won't say at this point what I voted for last time...)

@Pineneedlesincarpet ,

Why don’t you like freedom of movement?

In a converged zone (and the EU is getting a lot closer), it should be win/win, with us filling vacancies in areas we really need, such as care, and opportunities for people to progress their careers abroad.

I don’t think we would get a massive surge of unskilled workers as we did under Blair.

The Red Lines which will prevent rejoining the EU are:

Adoption of the Euro.
Schengen is not possible due to the GFA.
Free movement.

@EEexpat ,

Freedom of movement is also one of the ‘four pillars’ of the single market.

You cant have free trade without free movement.

We will have to give that red line up. We could easily join Schengen too. Loads of European countries have ‘temporarily’ suspended it for any number of reasons. France has renewed its ‘emergency’ suspension every 6 months for eleven years!

@Newbutoldfather

it should be win/win, with us filling vacancies in areas we really need, such as care, and opportunities for people to progress their careers abroad.

Care homes that I know (father has been in three) don’t have shortages.

As for careers abroad, I have worked in many countries around the world. A UK passport has never been a hindrance.

Also, how many people in the UK need, or want, to work outside the UK?

Blair didnt think we'd get a massive surge either. But we did. And we still have a very attractive benefits carrot.

I think we have a huge number of unemployed people, particularly young people, as it is and should concentrate on getting them into work rather than increasing competition for jobs from outside. The country isn't sufficiently balanced yet and also obviously we don't have enough houses for the people that already live here exacerbated by the Boris wave.

Yes, but you’re describing working in one of our nearest neighbours. I am not a saint when it comes to air travel, usually two European trips a year, but I would consider your amount of travel to be a lot environmentally.

But freedom of movement is about the right to study and work in another country. Or being a self sufficient retiree. It was never about moving in with no means to support yourself. When that happens , it’s asylum seeking or illegal immigration, many EU countries are rolling out enhanced security both at borders and internally for this. Our universities are now struggling without lots of European students.

@Pineneedlesincarpet ,

‘Blair didnt think we'd get a massive surge either. But we did. And we still have a very attractive benefits carrot.’

This was Blair’s mistake and not the EU’s. It was recognised that people from countries like Poland and Romania, with a GDP/capita of 1/3 or less than the northern members of the EU would want to work and earn in far richer countries. The EU thus had a 7 year transition period without full freedom of movement from these countries. Blair, in his wisdom, decided to ignore the transition period.

Or, more cynically, I could say he knew exactly what would happen, and was happy to accept wealth inequality and youth unemployment in return for low inflation and good headline GDP numbers.

However, Poland’s GDP/capita, for instance, just isn’t that far off that of the UK. So, your average pole wont want to live in a crowded flat in London for a tiny bit more money. There just isn’t that incentive any more.

And, as a PP has said, it is a Brexiteer trope that you are allowed to move for benefits. It is for work or study. As long as we are careful to close down the ‘fake study’ scams, that shouldn’t be an issue either.

There are several poor satellite states in the queue for becoming members. There is also huge youth unemployment in countries such as Spain. The problem is no one can predict what will happen. Whether or not we get a huge influx. Its hardly the case that immigrants are avoiding the UK once in the EU now after all.

Freedom of movement means everyone gets the same in work benefits.

@Pineneedlesincarpet ,

‘There are several poor satellite states in the queue for becoming members’.

I think that there is a degree of ‘project fear’ here. They are nowhere near membership, and there is no guarantee that they will ever become members given the current immigration issues. Also, were it to happen, they would have at least 7 years worth of transition arrangements. We wouldn’t make Blair’s mistake (cynical calculation) again.

‘There is also huge youth unemployment in countries such as Spain. The problem is no one can predict what will happen. Whether or not we get a huge influx. It’s hardly the case that immigrants are avoiding the UK once in the EU now after all.’

This is reasonably predictable. Blair was warned about a huge influx. He chose to ignore the warnings. And, don’t forget, it works both ways. Our young people can apply for any job within the EU as well.

Are work benefits an issue really?

I've no idea. But I know the company arranged her visa

I think essentially it's something that many people in this country don't like the concept of. You either like the thought of free movement or don"t and that would be one of the issues that guide your vote. I personally wouldn't want it. And I know the arguments of course. We all do. And I think many of us rather hoped we wouldn't have to go through them again.

Anyway if Burnham tries to do this will consign his government to discussing EU issues. The country will have very little bandwidth for anything else including all the problems we currently face which rejoining the single market will not solve and possibly will make worse.

@SevenYellowHammers

Yes, but you’re describing working in one of our nearest neighbours. I am not a saint when it comes to air travel, usually two European trips a year, but I would consider your amount of travel to be a lot environmentally.

Prior to 2020, I worked in

Malaysia
Indonesia
India
Bulgaria
UAE
Iraq
Russia
Kazakhstan
Japan
Taiwan
USA
Mauritius
Turkey
Madagascar

FOM is used to keep a lid on salaries.

Our universities are now struggling without lots of European students.

Yes and the UK taxpayer is expected to effectively write off £3 billion to £4.2 billion of the total £6 billion student loan balance built up by EU borrowers.

Plus o/s pay more currently. We need that. A major carrot is the universities here, the EU wants those lower rates back.

Rough projections but £3b is written off, and around 3 to be found. Losses to universities since Brexit was completed (2021) estimated at 6.1 billion and ongoing £700 million PA so it’s an accumulative amount. Not good!

That’s impressive. But what’s your point?

@KatiePricesKnickers

FOM is used to keep a lid on salaries.

FOM is one of the reasons Switzerland has said they will never become a full EU member. They fear that salaries will be forced down and their education and education systems will be overstressed.

Remember the following

Lower earnings = lower tax take by the government

To overcome this, the government has the following options

Raise taxes
Borrow more
Reduce spending on public services

None of which are helpful

@SevenYellowHammers

That’s impressive. But what’s your point?

Point was the World is more than the EU. My UK passport has not hindered me in working outside the UK nor from working in the EU.

@EEexpat ,

‘FOM is one of the reasons Switzerland has said they will never become a full EU member. They fear that salaries will be forced down and their education and education systems will be overstressed.’

Switzerland is a very exceptional country. It has a budget surplus and a debt/gdp ratio below 40%! In addition, they do generally have freedom of movement with the EU. They just have a couple of clauses that they can limit it in extremis.

‘Lower earnings = lower tax take by the government
To overcome this, the government has the following options
Raise taxes
Borrow more
Reduce spending on public services’

This is just not true. Globalisation depresses salaries at the low end, but at the same time it increases economic growth. In addition, lower earnings feeds into lower inflation and lower interest rates.

Economic growth implies more taxes, not less. There have been several studies of how much leaving the EU cost us, and the central number is 6% of GDP. Just think how much more our government could spend if our GDP were 6% higher.

I can see philosophical reasons to not want freedom of movement. However the economic case is pretty much open and shut that we would be richer and the tax take would be greater if we rejoined the single market (or whole EU).

Supposed it depends what sort of country you want. Importing people at the margin helps keep a lid on inflation. Importing people unconstrained causes various effects IMO

Lack of investment in productivity, because cheap labour replaces robots.

The imported people create an underclass. And the existing people who would do the jobs just give up and go on benefits rather than live 7 to a house and getting 50p an hour.

Creates potential long term balance problems in things like NHS service and pension provision as the unconstrained imported cohort gets larger.

Keeps a lid on inflation for the middle and older age rich classes.

Plus probably a whole heap of other stuff.

Anything unconstrained is a problem for government management and is likely to lead to problems somewhere down the line (which FOM eventually did). I support immigration. But it should be under control and operate for the general good of the public. Not a wild out of control pile in. Which is exactly what FOM translates to.

@Newbutoldfather Higher GDP but lower GDP per capita is not beneficial to the country.
That’s what you get with FoM.

@Newbutoldfather

There have been several studies of how much leaving the EU cost us, and the central number is 6% of GDP.

I guess the 6% figure comes from the NBER report. This was referenced on another thread I remember. It's a flawed model due to

60% of the model was based on US performance over a 10-year period. A country which has been the largest economy since the late 1800s, never has been and never will be an EU member.

That their methodology was flawed is proved by the fact they estimated employment in the UK had declined 3 to 4% from 2016 to 2025. This is the opposite to the measured ONS data.

Also read, courtesy of GasPanic

The imported people create an underclass. And the existing people who would do the jobs just give up and go on benefits rather than live 7 to a house and getting 50p an hour.

and, courtesy of KatiePriceNickers

Higher GDP but lower GDP per capita is not beneficial to the country.
That’s what you get with FoM.

A good example is China. Second largest economy in the World, but their GDP per capita is about the same as UK miserable state pension.

@KatiePricesKnickers and @GasPanic ,

I just don’t think there is a lot of evidence behind what you are saying.

Firstly, we didn’t really reduce low skill immigration when we left the EU, we just substituted it with immigration from different parts of the world.

Secondly, freedom of movement is economically a net benefit because it means the right skill sets can be found for the right jobs. The only way it isn’t is that it depresses (slightly) wages at the bottom end locally. All other wages move up. Of course, any wages being depressed is bad for those people, but that can be addressed by recognising it and paying in-work benefits to make up for it.

However, the studies are clear. We are poorer on a per capita basis than we would have been had we not left:

GDP per capita hit: Research published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and analyses reported by The Guardian indicate that by 2025, UK GDP per capita was 6% to 8% lower than it would have been had the UK remained in the EU.

Of course, we can debate study methodology etc and the degree of impact, but there are no economic studies at all that don’t point to us being poorer per capita.