So the good times are about to roll....are they?

[herethereandeverywhere]

I wanted to ask on another thread, but they are all bunfight-y.

I am a remainer so I feel very depressed about today. I would like some reassurance from brexiters about what I have to look forwards to.

I'm afraid 'taking back control' isn't clear enough to me, so an explanation of what will be different if that's the theme you will go for.

So far, since the vote, my family has lost £10,000s and my husband's current job/role has been placed in jeopardy. I have probably lost the ability to automatically continue to work in an EU country in under 2 years time (I currently live in Germany, though this was intended to be temporary). I have dear friends relocating out of London since the banks are shifting jobs due to Brexit so I'm not sure who I would be moving back to. My house is worth less and I'm less likely to be able to sell it if I do want to move. I'll need to get the kids Irish passports if I want them to benefit from the EU.

So cheer me up - we're set for a brighter future aren't we? What can I look forwards to?

We do tax pensions as income, surely.

We could have controlled and selective immigration as and when necessary, limited to people who will make a net contribution economically. We could make more use of visas if we need more people of working age.

I think poaching poorer countries' doctors and nurses is unethical and should stop though.

Would have been nice if DC had told the electorate in 2010 the plan was to continue to run the economy on 300k net immigration. All I heard was 10s of thousands. No-one in the Punishment Budget Osborne Remain Camp proclaimed this to be undesirable. Indeed the stated aim of DC's valiant renegotiation attempts was limiting immigration by making the UK less attractive to low paid workers.

Release yes, you're right, sorry I wasn't clear. A significant % can be taken out as a tax free lump sum 25% I think. That should be taxed too.

The large study released before the vote indicated there was a small net benefit to immigration as it currently stands, so I'm not sure what being more selective would achieve, except more jobs and tax spend on immigration processing.

You can't have a constantly increasing population- at some point you will get beyond the carrying capacity of the planet.
Running the economy on a pyramid like that works for a short time. Then...When those young people get old and need care? Another increase in population? It's just kicking the can down the road.

At some point we are going to have to adjust to a more sustainable model (unless nature steps in and comes up with a neat little virus like Ebola but airborne, or a meteor hits, or we nuke ourselves to dust.) we can't just keep breeding. The earth is finite. The problem is that all those existing people have lives and rights and any shift to a non growth model is going to be incredibly painful.

tax their pensions as income?

No question mark needed, pensions are taxed at the same rates as earnings. For someone who only had a state pension their personal allowances would be sufficient to cover all the income, but the same would be true of someone earning a very low wage.

"I hope that possibly we may establish a more equal society in time."

I don't see how Brexit can contribute to this. The UK is a much more devided society when it comes to wealth than most European countries. So the EU can't really be blamed for that. That is all down to the UK itself.
Isn't the likelihood therefore that society will be less equal still in time?

Oja that's the "lexit" argument. However, it rests on the willingness of the UK electorate to vote in a government that wants to achieve greater social equality. What Brexit has done so far, is to leave all the decision-making powers with a government that has members who have actively expressed a wish to create a low-wage, low-regulation economy that will only benefit the wealthy at the top. The likelihood of us voting in a government with policies to the left of the EU is, in my view, slim to none.

The likelihood of us voting in a government with policies to the left of the EU is, in my view, slim to none.

Not least, we've had an explanation upthread that the reason we had to Brexit was because we're more right wing and thus had to extricate ourselves from the left wing Europeans.

(I know, I know, the Reasons are not homogenous and no I was never implying that they were OK?)

Just out of curiosity , what happens if in a years time , the Goverment comes back and says ' Actually , having had time to look at this properly , we have concluded it is a really bad idea for the UK to leave the EU at this time ' supported by proper facts and figures . How would leavers feel then ?

Think they are quite ok flump

The government wont back down on this one

I am fairly confident of that

But the back benchers in tory party could make them if this brexit isn't hard enough for them.

"You can't have a constantly increasing population"
No. In fact the global population doesn't have to keep increasing. In general, as countries become more wealthy, and as the opportunities and education of girls increases, women more often than not choose to have fewer children. The best way to help limit immigration in the long term is to stay engaged in the world - its not all "do-gooderiness", foreign aid can be done for selfish reasons too. I know that we can't do very much as a small country, but that's not a reason to do nothing. But the nationalists (and no, I don't mean all leavers!) often want us to cut all foreign aid and investment, and in extreme cases to reduce what we trade with the rest of the world. Impoverishing other countries is not in our long term interest.
And then there are those who are worried about immigration, but not about climate change, which is a total anachronism because if you think there's a migration crisis now, just wait until that.

Well if the government doesnt break down where are you going to put all the pensioners returning from Spain and France? Coming over here using our NHS (that they won't be entitled to under current law)

Back down

Altough break down would be far better

"Reducing immigration comes at a real cost. Britain doesn’t produce enough young people to care for its elderly population. If you reduce immigration to the “tens of thousands”... you can do that but the bad news is that large numbers of people – let’s face it, large numbers of women in the main – will have to give up fulltime work to care for their elderly relatives." Quote from New Statesman article.

I wonder if that's part of the plan. It would explain the trashing of the Early Years provision over the past few years. The free 30 hours childcare promise is in serious trouble because they won't fund it properly and Early Years departments are being disbanded.
Children's Centres are closing at an alarming rate and those left are seriously underfunded. There were over 100,000 childminders when I started: now less than half that.

What could be better than have women stay at home, looking after the kids, then caring for elderly parents? One family, one job and low quality, even unregulated, childcare provision for those wicked single mothers who have to work?

The Government can now do what the hell they want. What do the right wingers want for women?

The same as they always did Tanith.
Including this:
nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/03/31/texas-woman-forced-to-deliver-stillborn-baby-due-to-abortion-ban/

I don't think they are competent enough for such a long term plot, Tanith.
I do think that they know it is cheaper for women to work for free, than it is for the state to pay for care workers.

They want us back in the 1950s

On the immigration point, some further stuff that might be interesting below. I can recommend the Resolution report as I have read it all the way through, and it has these great breakdowns of migrant workers (these are %s migrants employed split by industry, and % in work).

20% (!) of "domestic personnel" are EU migrants, and on low wages, so presumably the first to find the UK unattractive with a low pound and uncertainty over rights to live and work.

www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/a-brave-new-world-how-reduced-migration-could-affect-earnings-employment-and-the-labour-market/

At a scan, this parliament briefing pdf is worth a look, if not just because some MPs might have read it.

Including this astonishing quote:

Dustmann and Frattini (2014) found that over the period 1995 to 2011, immigrants from countries in the European Economic Area (EEA) 20 contributed more to the public finances than they received in benefits and transfers. Both the native population and immigrants from non-EEA countries, on the other hand, made a negative net contribution.

I agree the current incompetents probably don't plan that far ahead.

However, I don't believe they're enough in control to stop plans from others in their party. Theresa May voted Remain, but has been following a hard Brexit agenda.

I can remember dear old Michael Howard causing outrage by putting forth his ideas for childcare when he was Leader of the Opposition. This cut of funding for the Early Years has been on the Conservative cards for a very long time. They even put some of it in their manifesto in 2009.

Anyway, I think the OP asks a really good question. I'd love to hear some "these are the outcomes I want to see and here is how we get them" from Leave voters.

I guess one big benefit of brexit is we get to talk about economics and politics more. in the manner of people who are fucking terrified how suddenly you can lose the structures you thought permanent

Our gov't have a free hand to negotiate anything - or nothing- they like, and honestly I only ever hear the detail of what remainers actually want next.

"these are the outcomes I want to see and here is how we get them" from Leave voters.

I've found the answer!

So that's good TheElements - we will open up lightbulb factories to put people to work in and more smoking in pubs will help kill a few more middle aged folk off.

Bit scary.