Post Brexit forecast... How can we trust what experts say?

[mummmy2017]

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-3902630/amp/Why-does-Bank-boss-Mark-Carney-getting-wrong.html

This guy got it wrong last time, how can we trust what he says?

It's just now we decide....

But we were able to decide who stayed before, this could be achieved by following up EU citizens after three months to make sure he or she had work.

After that he or she can be removed if they have not found a job.

If EU workers were such a concern, wouldn't it have been sensible to at least try monitoring this and following up on EU immigration as they do in, say, Belgium? That would be exercising control.

Instead we ditch a lucrative trading agreement giving unrestricted access to a market on our doorstep worth $18.8 trillion of 500 million consumers.

If immigration is your beef why not try a new system first?

ID cards would be better than leaving the EU. And would probably solve all sorts of other issues too! If you have to register where you live and are subject to a follow up that you DO indeed live there, that same ID records where you work and is linked to your tax account, it would solve a HUGE amount of issues that the UK currently has. From knowing how many people live where, what the family make up is, that someone is legally entitled to work or not and and whether you are entitled to claim healthcare, or benefits. Other EU countries do this and it is not considered an imposition.

Ok so I'm talking to a friend who says that post Brexit companies will be able to adapt to new laws from other countries we may trade with very simply. Her words were "when the EU put out a new law they just have to adapt and they do". Having a hard time explaining how once we can't use the same databases and systems and have to set up our own, we won't be able to just copy and paste laws and rights from all of the new countries into one streamlined package. Can someone please this better for me please?

theBuilt
The history of ID cards goes back 800 years
Mainland UK was the only part of the known world that did not require peasants to register to an area or estate
its one of the things that makes the UK so "individual"

in the UK there is no requirement to have, let alone carry ID
changing that is a massive, MASSIVE change
those who are used to carrying ID cannot understand how intrusive it would be for those who have never have to have it let alone carry it

hence why Bliar's programme went so arse over tit

Surely it's an integral part of "taking back control" though? You can't give ID cards to immigrants and not to every one else. And I don't think it IS a massive change any more - see anyone who wants to buy alcohol or paracetamol in a Supermarket. Where the onus is on the poor person behind the til to decide how old someone is and who might face abuse or the sack or a fine for getting it wrong.

I'm lucky as I look quite ancient and they don't have to worry.

Theybuilt
I saw 50 in the rear view mirror years ago
but still get aged checked

but I do not provide ID
because I'm old

try getting the old to suddenly have to provide ID

Most other EU countries think we are mad for not having ID cards. I was against them but, frankly, I would rather have ID cards than this Brexit shitfest.

But we were able to decide who stayed before, this could be achieved by following up EU citizens after three months to make sure he or she had work.

After that he or she can be removed if they have not found a job.

@lonelyplanetmum
This appears to not really be correct, see for eg
twitter.com/simonfrcox/status/1063184345463246848?s=21 (immigration lawyer).

I dislike this rhetoric about "kicking out migrants" from remainers because (a) it's not evidence based and (b) it plays into the narrative that migration is a bad thing.

Simon Cox also has a good thread about whether registering migrants adds any value and makes the obvious point that a government that wished to plan for demographic changes already has plenty of information at its disposal (census, council tax, NHS numbers)
twitter.com/simonfrcox/status/1067793659842740224?s=21

surfer seriously, what do you honestly think ending EU FOM is going to achieve now?

But Misti, there is no obligation for anyone to get listed under those headings. Anyone trying to lay low would avoid completely. Census is only every 10 years. You shouldn't be able to work without a NI number but I bet plenty do. The Govt now put the impetus on Landlords and Employers to do their checking for them. This will probably end in "decent" people trying to avoid dealing with foreigners of any flavour, due to the extra hassle, and "non-decent" people exploiting them.

Most other EU countries think we are mad for not having ID cards.

Do they? I've lived in continental Europe for 25 years and on the whole I don't think most people have ever considered this question.

A quick google says that several EU countries don't have compulsory ID cards. They are not obligatory here in France (though people tend to have one because they are free, whereas you have to pay for a passport).

But Misti, there is no obligation for anyone to get listed under those headings

Sure. But unless you really believe that the police are going to stop randoms on the street and ask for papers, so what? I've lived for 25 years in an EU country where it is theoretically obligatory to carry ID. In all those years, I don't think I've ever been stopped and asked for ID.

Even if you had ID, do you think people would update their records every time they moved?

I'm not against the idea of ID cards (I think they can be quite useful) but I think the remain crowd here have got a weird fixation on them.

In the UK there is no requirement to have, let alone carry ID changing that is a massive, MASSIVE change those who are used to carrying ID cannot understand how intrusive it would be for those who have never have to have it let alone carry it

I really think this will have changed now, because we are supposed to produce ID for this that and the other. However, there is no reason why you need to carry your ID, and they could certainly make sure that the law reflected this. One reason why the war-time ID system got scrapped was because of someone being fined for not producing their card. See home.bt.com/news/on-this-day/february-21-1952-brits-bin-their-identity-cards-11363962863687

DH still has his (post war) ID card. I do remember seeing mine once, but it disappeared long ago. Blair's scheme was unpopular because it was overly complex and expensive but I suspect a simpler scheme with the cards issued by the Local Authority could work OK. BTW your Identity Card number then became your NHS number, although the alpha numeric NHS numbering system has now changed. (I was a bit narked that we weren't told about this - I can still remember my old NHS number, I haven't a clue what the new one is.)

Talking of the old trying to produce photographic ID - my now deceased parents would not have been able to. They stopped driving so no longer had driving licences, they stopped travelling so didn't renew their passports. They weren't very mobile so didn't bother to claim their bus passes.

Talkinpeece

Day to day, no one aside from the young (who already have to provide ID for fags and booze) will be stoppd, when was the last time, driving aside, you were randomly asked to provide ID ?
The vast majority have a credit card sized driving licence in their purse/wallet, getting people to carry an ID card is no biggie.

The problem is cost, a fraud proof biometric ID card costs time and money to implement, so, databases with all that info in one place and then forcing people to pay for it, every 10 years or so.

But unless you really believe that the police are going to stop randoms on the street and ask for papers, so what?

If you are a young black man, then yes. Hence the need to make sure that there is a law against it - see my link.

I lived in the US for a while. It was quite hard to do manage without some kind of ID - a drivers licence was widely accepted as it gave photographic ID and address details, and you could get a non-drivers card specifically to use as ID. (As a spouse and not having a social security number limited a load of things, but that’s a different story).

My (very obviously) 65 yr old MIL had to provide photographic ID to go into a bar when she came and visited us.

To give you an idea of why ID cards are really quite useless for tracking the population, here's an example:

My 17 year old got her French ID card in town A two years ago, before we moved. (There doesn't seem to be any need to tell the authorities when you move.)

After moving house, she made her census declaration in town B, where she will be on the electoral register once she turns 18 and where she is registered with a GP.

But she actually lives in city C, 800km away. All this is perfectly legal.

*Mistigri
*
I know what you mean I think.

It is correct though:

"Union citizens should have the right of residence in the host Member State for a period not exceeding three months without being subject to any conditions or any formalities other than the requirement to hold a valid identity card or passport, without prejudice to a more favourable treatment applicable to job-seekers as recognised by the case-law of the Court of Justice.
(10)
Persons exercising their right of residence should not, however, become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during an initial period of residence. Therefore, the right of residence for Union citizens and their family members for periods in excess of three months should be subject to conditions."

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32004L0038

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/richard-bird/immigration-blame-the-uk-bb_13120104.html

---

https://brexit853.wordpress.com/2016/09/27/powers-that-the-uk-has-failed-to-use-to-control-eu-freedom-of-movement-directive/

Playing into the narrative that immigration is a bad thing

I don't think critiquing the solution does endorse the fact there was a problem to begin with?

The points that I make endlessly on these threads is that all serious studies show immigration is beneficial needed. EU Migrants contribute** £2,300 more each per annum to UK public finances (including NHS funding and adult social care etc) than other U.K. residents. That's one of the elusive truths this thread was looking for.

I also endlessly make the point about nurses, giving an example of my old neighbour (NHS consultant) who is at the coal face trying to run a ward with 40% deficit in staff.

I was one of many remainers, making the positive factual points about the benefits of the EU migration before the ref. I made endless FB posts about the reciprocal ability to travel and work, BUT I or we lost.

So the winners, who had a feeling about immigration won...

My point is that, if that is their main beef, then their Plan A should have been to try different strategies. They could have tried implementing the maximum restrictions they wanted within the current system.

Then they should have tried plans B ,C and D to achieve what they wanted before dragging us out of the vastly lucrative trading relationship (giving unrestricted access to a market on our doorstep worth $18.8 trillion of 500 million consumers).

I can't explain- it's like the people decided we all had an alleged pain in our left ankle, but then set about imposing amputations of our right arms to fix it.

I don't agree the ankle was painful, but I can still see the adopted solution isn't the way to fix it. If that makes sense.

@lonelyplanetmum read Simon Cox's thread. In practice, EU countries are not deporting people.

In France there was an effort a few years ago to apply the three month rule strictly for healthcare but it never came to anything.

The referendum result was just a bit of a market scare. We are still in the EU so the impacts have not been felt yet.

There will be a lot of negative impact. I am worried about mine & DH jobs. And pensions. It’s shit already.......

We’ll survive i’m Sue although the house might have to go for peanuts.

My kids I worry about. My eldest will hopefully have a reasonable education before the full impact us felt. My youngest I really don’t know - he’s not at school yet. The education budget will surely be cut along with everything else.

I just can’y Understand why my kids won’t have the same opportunities DH & I have had.
It breaks my heart

I did read the interesting tweet thread thank you.

Clearly other EU countries don’t have concern about EU migration as half our lot do.

In other countries the anti immigrant focus seems to be against non-EU people. We don't distinguish and just are hostile to them all.

So I get the point that importing an ID card system wouldn’t change those ingrained attitudes.

It’s hard to understand just from tweets but what I think they’re saying is that no-one has ever argued how the mechanisms UK doesn’t use against EU citz would change attitudes.

Reading between the tweets I think it’s still saying we didn’t use the three month rule. It's not saying we couldn't have tried.

I take your point that France didn’t use the three month rule but I read that Belgium does?

Even if no other member state used the three month rule it doesn’t mean we couldn’t implement it based on the wording in the Directive?

If we accept that the winners prize was to do something about immigration, then do you think it wasn't appropriate to try something else as their plan A?

I know it’s academic as we’re heading for our nemesis anyway , but if for argument's sake we assume Immigration was identified as the driving force, do you think anything should have been tried before ditching EU membership or not?

Clearly other EU countries don’t have concern about EU migration as half our lot do.
I live in another EU country which has a huge problem with immigration- I think they all do at the moment! 1) Immigration does need to be controlled imo - just letting everyone in would be chaos. 2) leaving the EU does nothing to actually solve these problems. As others have said, EU migration in the UK has positive financial benefits . We also need these people and they will have to be replaced with less cost effective alternatives.

And yes I know I am looking at this cynically - I do also think there are moral reasons to not stop FOM.

I take your point that France didn’t use the three month rule but I read that Belgium does?

Yes. But what do you think happens to those people, in practice, after the three months are up?

If you follow the subthreads from the link I provided you'll see that Simon Cox is saying that what Belgium does in theory and what it does in practice are not the same, and that there is no evidence for mass expulsions (or indeed, if I'm reading him correctly, any expulsions) because the bar is rather high - EU law only allows this where there is an "excessive burden" on the country's social security system and the EU has tended to interpret this strictly.

His subsidiary argument is that there is little to no evidence that this changes migration patterns anyway.

Of course it's slightly different as Belgium is inside the Schengen zone so the idea of expelling EU citizens is a nonsense. But even in the UK, it's very hard to see how the idea of enforcing the 3 month rule makes any practical difference - except to allow remainers to show that their anti-migrant credentials.