Question Time

[Inoffthered]

Broadly, I'd agree. Of course, the constant supply of cheap labour will keep big business happy, because it will keep wages down (as Stuart Rose mentioned early in the referendum campaign). Bit of problem for any young UK couples looking to set up home, as house prices soar and wages plummet, though.

Why worry about young UK couples not being able to buy a house in this country? The EU demands opens borders and open markets and this is an obvious and predictable consequence. You need to stop thinking about UK interests and consider the wider European perspective. In time we will get used to the cultural shift as our economy attracts more and more Europeans and, of course, we will be taking 10% of the Syrian refugees plus however many others choose to come here when they have obtained their German passport.

We should rejoice in having such a diverse and welcoming multicultural society and personal/family hardships are a small price to pay.

As for plummeting wages, what's the problem? It maintains profits for big business and provides jobs for all the workers that flock here. In time we will be able to save money by abandoning all pretence of democracy by scrapping the EU parliament which is nothing more than a talking shop. Euro MPs cannot instigate legislation and they cannot remove commissioners. At best they can only delay the passage of legislation yet they are an expensive bunch to support with salaries, flat rate expenses and business travel....just to give the impression of democracy. Get rid, save the money and let the commissioners get on with the project of forming a United States of Europe.

I have absolute faith in Junker to deliver a free and fair society, follow this link and then tell me how you cannot have full confidence in him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fASN9oYGdw

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Since we joined the EU, employment in the UK has changed massively. Jobs in manufacturing have fallen from ~30% to ~10%, and agriculture forestry and fishing from ~ 5% to ~1%. Service industries, including health and education, have largely taken up the slack increasing from ~50% to ~80%.

Most of us have been happy to benefit from reduced prices for food and consumer goods, achieved mainly by losing jobs in the UK to lower wage parts of the world. Unemployment has not increased (regional differences aside) as new businesses evolved and other existing services expanded.

Competition for jobs in the UK from immigration (rather than exporting them) is simply a continuation of what has been going on for 40 or 50 years. To maintain opportunities for UK job seekers we must enable them to adapt to changed circumstances and equip them with the skills required for the future - not dwell on the past.

There may be some substance to arguments that migration is pushing pay down - but minimum and living wage legislation provides some protection possibly at the cost of attracting more migrants. Artificially increasing pay further through restricting migration and creating a shortage of job candidates simply increases costs for all consumers - hardly a win-win scenario.

 

[Jacob]

...
Why worry about young UK couples not being able to buy a house in this country? The EU demands opens borders and open markets and this is an obvious and predictable consequence.....

Not so.
Housing shortage has been govt policy since 1979 with cessation of council house building and selling off. They've also encouraged the boom in prices - good for those who own property, a disaster for those who don't.
There's massive under-occupancy and empty properties everywhere as housing has become a good investment. Simpler to keep them empty rather than having troublesome tenants!
It's too easy to blame immigrants for every little grievance but it's wrong, doesn't remedy anything and benefits nobody.

 

[RobinBHM]

...
In theory, yes another referendun is possible. In practise no. No government would be interested in a referendum for decades. So to suggest that 'vote remain, we can change our mind at any point', is not a valid point......

Why do you say that? Can you see into the future? What is it you have seen? How do you know no government would be interested in a referendum for decades?

I dont think referendums are like buses, you dont see one for forty years, then suddenly 3 come along

I know there has been a bit of speculation about a seconf referendum, but that relates to, a very close vote or negotiations breaking down.

It is still wrong to suggest:, 'vote in anyway its always possible to change our mind later'.

http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/cou ... eferendum/

 

[Jacob]

.....
It is still wrong to suggest:, 'vote in anyway its always possible to change our mind later'.....

I didn't actually say that, but what I do say is that the notion that we are tied in forever and will be ruled by johnny foreigners is just false. We will have our part to play in the law making, and another referendum could happen if we got seriously brassed off with the whole thing.

 

[Eric The Viking]

... what I do say is that the notion that we are tied in forever and will be ruled by johnny foreigners is just false. We will have our part to play in the law making, and another referendum could happen if we got seriously brassed off with the whole thing.

What part of "ever closer union" are you struggling with, Jacob?

Have you actually read any of the treaties, or the Constitu..., er, the Lisbon treaty? I thought every prole in the country (me included) was sent one, courtesy of our EU masters (printed using our money, naturally).

It's grandiose stuff, but you'd be a fool to think they don't mean it. They think they mean it.

And anyway, you're not one, are you? :wink:

E.

PS: Anyway, we did the "Ken Clark never read the Maastricht treaty before voting on it" thing a while back. I thought you'd have got through the reading list by now :shock:

 

[Jacob]

......
What part of "ever closer union" are you struggling with, Jacob?....

There are those who aspire to "ever closer union" but it can't happen without our cooperation and full agreement and in any case is very vague. Who knows what changes the future will bring?

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21 ... er-farther

 

[Inoffthered]

......


http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21 ... er-farther

Eric is right, this referendum is about sovereignty versus being part of a European super state.
The rest of Europe has to go for political union, they just need us to pay for an ever increasing EU budget.

I admire the optimism of anyone that thinks we have an effective veto and / or have a political leader that would have the balls to use it. (*) There are too many snouts in the EU gravy train for our politicians to put the country's interests above their own.


There is an interesting phrase in the Economist article that appears to give some readers comfort about our abilities to protect our position, namely
"Thus did Mr Michel win his tweaks to the text and Mr Cameron his special dispensation for Britain (and a promise that the exception would be inserted into a future EU treaty)."

The view in the EU is that the promise is meaningless because it would require other countries to agree to the insertion of a UK veto into a treaty. The EU has form on duplicitous dealings, do you recall when Bliar gave away a chunk of our rebate on the strength of a "promise" to reform the Common Agricultural Policy? and what happened.... nothing.

Vote Leave

(*) Do you recall last October how Camoron ranted about how the imposition of a £1.7bn surcharge on the UK was outrageous, indefensible and how we wouldn't be paying it? Well he paid it in full last week.

 

[Inoffthered]

This is worth a read.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... e-with-us/

 

[BearTricks]

Saw some interesting data recently. Unfortunately I can't remember where but it should be reasonably straightforward to google for anyone not on a phone.

Apparently, the regeneration of Liverpool which eventually led to it being named city of culture, was mostly funded by the EU and the amount of money contributed by the EU to the rebuild following the Manchester bombing far outweighed the contribution by the UK government.

This is worth a read.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... e-with-us/

I think that's easy to say for a man with a number of market leading products. I don't think Dyson would be in trouble either way.

 

[Eric The Viking]

......
What part of "ever closer union" are you struggling with, Jacob?....

There are those who aspire to "ever closer union" but it can't happen without our cooperation and full agreement and in any case is very vague. Who knows what changes the future will bring?

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21 ... er-farther

What a load of speculative waffle! The Economist is often smug, but honestly - that takes the biscuit.

Have you actually read any of the treaties, or the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty yet? Be honest!

"Ever Closer Union" is in the preamble of all of them (AFAIK), and they bloomin' well mean it!

The Euro won't work without a single state, with a single treasury. A single state needs a single legal system and a single army and a common police force (although truthfully I have no idea how many people are in Monaco's army, nor Lichenstein's, so it may not be a cast iron rule!).

A single state is the entire point of the endeavour, and the final destination for all those who claim the EU has prevented war in Europe since 1945 (or whatever) - lock us all in, make jolly sure we cannot leave, and look: nirvana!

Now this bit probably is conspiracy theory, but hey, what the heck...

Up until quite recently, there was no defined mechanism for a country to leave the EU.

We, the UK, could do it from our perspective (simply by abrogating (repudiating) the EU treaties we'd signed), but as far as the EU was concerned, although wholly legal under the British constitution, it would have been illegal under EU law to do so. Abrogating treaties is Kryptonite to a Brussels bureaucrat.

So now we have Article 50 (or whatever-it-is under the latest numbering system): there's a two-year period, during which we're basically tied to the Mannequin Pis in order to have rotten tomatoes thrown at us, after which we'll be allowed to slink away, suitably humiliated. That process has already started (judging by some of the comments coming from EU 'luminaries' recently). The C-word ("compensation") will undoubtedly come up soon, too, and I don't mean it will be us getting our contributions back either.

The Article 50 process only exists because Giscard d'Estaing (architect of the EU constitu... Lisbon treaty, amongst other things) was 100% certain the ever-closer process was inexorable and irreversible, but (as with all the best animal traps), it was important for apellant countries to feel they could leave any time they wished. He never intended nor expected it to be actually used.

Personally I think we'd be well served to completely ignore Article 50 and just repudiate the treaties instead. There's nothing to be gained from it, and the quicker Brussels gets used to the idea the cash cow has kicked the milking pail over, the better.

Come the Autumn, they'll have far bigger problems to worry about with the Mediterranean countries than throwing refuse at us. I don't mean the migrant crisis either, but the euro. And I don't want us to be around when they start accosting every EU member with a pulse to pay for the clear-up.

E.

 

[BearTricks]

We'll wish we had a single state when the aliens arrive with their laser beams.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

"(*) Do you recall last October how Camoron ranted about how the imposition of a £1.7bn surcharge on the UK was outrageous, indefensible and how we wouldn't be paying it? Well he paid it in full last week."

My mother used to say when I was a child that I lied by omission - I wonder whether this is an example of lying by inclusion?
They wanted the £1.7bn by (iirc) Dec. 1st - as soon as Cameron said "there is no way we're paying that by Dec.1st." it was pretty clear to me that he had no qualms about paying it after that date.

 

[RobinBHM]

The article mentioned above does say that James Dyson sits on several European committees, so whether it will affect him or not, it does seem he has experience of trying to negotiate with Brussels. In 25 years the UK has never got any clause or measurr into a EU directive.

That is the heart of the problem. Stay in and we continue to pay for membership of a club that we have absolutely no control or piwer to influence despite being the 2nd lafgest contributer.

 

[BearTricks]

We are the 4th largest contributor, after Germany, France and Italy in that order.

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

 

[Inoffthered]

We are the 4th largest contributor, after Germany, France and Italy in that order.

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

Does that take account of the £1bn France received from the £1.7bn we have just over?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

We are the 4th largest contributor, after Germany, France and Italy in that order.

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

Depends upon whose figures you are using and whether they are nett or gross - France and Italy get far more out. I have seen statistic that suggest Germany and the UK are the only contributors. Usually the Netherlands figure in them somewhere, not the basket case that is Italy.

 

[RobinBHM]

We are the 4th largest contributor, after Germany, France and Italy in that order.

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

On a net basis, I think we are the second.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/fina ... -know.html

 

[Phil Pascoe]

There you are, you see. The Telegraph ... must be lies.
Why couldn't you look at the Grauniad like normal people?

 

[Jacob]

We are the 4th largest contributor, after Germany, France and Italy in that order.

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

Depends upon whose figures you are using and whether they are nett or gross - France and Italy get far more out. I have seen statistic that suggest Germany and the UK are the only contributors. Usually the Netherlands figure in them somewhere, not the basket case that is Italy.

It's not a simple cash transaction. Those who see it that way miss the whole point