Hang on .. I'm confused now .. surely the points based immigration scheme should be encouraging people in to do the jobs noone here wants to do, and stopping immigrants getting the high-skilled jobs, so Brits can do those?
Ippy, help!
I think many of those who voted leave just did not like the idea that EU rules meant that the British government had to pay towards EU political policies they disagreed with - the EU telling the less socialist-minded British what they could or could not do - you know - the whole sovereignty argument, especially when it came to uncontrolled immigration.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/mar/27/why-left-wrong-mass-immigrationThe entrepreneurial leave-supporters still want access to and to exploit foreign markets but do not agree on the price they are being charged for that access and are trying to negotiate with the EU for a lower price for access. Much like they negotiate/ bargain/ exploit (?) workers to keep labour costs down to maximise profit and return on capital investment.
The entrepreneurial leave voters (focused on economics) seem to have found a way to exploit the sense of nationalism and conservatism of large parts of the population by persuading them to vote leave e.g. there was a Brexit argument that Britain can set its own VAT rates or abolish VAT and replace it with something else once it leaves the EU...even though it is highly unlikely that the government will abolish the lucrative VAT since they kept it at 20% even though EU VAT minimum rate is set at 15% and it would be an administrative nightmare to get rid of VAT.
Regarding the economically inactive, I think the calculation that many Brexiters may have made is that the economically inactive are a cost to the economically active. Taxes are spent on supporting the economically inactive that could instead be spent more productively on private sector contracts that grow the economy e.g. hiring private companies (with vastly inflated fees designed to maximise profits for directors and shareholders who will then spend that money in the economy). This does not really solve inequality but there will probably be a rise in real wages in certain industries as EU labour supply shrinks due to Brexit, which may tempt some of the economically inactive to retrain/ go back to work, which then frees up taxes to spend on those who really can't work.
If, as seems likely, the significant wage rise is in more skilled jobs where there are shortages, the private firms will either have to spend money investing heavily in training schemes for local unskilled workers or hire from abroad or invest heavily in AI and technology whereby they can maximise profits and economise on labour costs (in which case those local unskilled economically inactive will not reduce and will still need funding).
I heard someone on the radio the other day saying she is a supply teacher with a seriously compromised immune system who is scared that catching the coronavirus will mean she will have no income. The radio presenter said, given her medical condition, she should retrain as schools are known for spreading germs, and she replied that she can't retrain, that teaching is all she knows and it's in her bones.
That's a moral and therefore political question - what percentage of the population favours financially supporting people to maximise their personal happiness at the cost of economic productivity?
