For or Against Brexit 2017?

Brexit


  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .
I disagree, again. The conditions that they underwent in their own country is only of interest to them. Those who live in their new country have a standard of living that they want to maintain. If new immigrants want to work for less then they are threatening that country's standard of living. I'd never say that the same happens in UK---perish the thought--- although I seem to remember a case of workers drowning while they looking for shellfish, a few years ago but, in Spain, the police have uncovered a few cases of worker exploitation underneath Chinese restaurants, for instance, and on farms.

My main point, in this debate, is that too many coming into EU spells trouble. It has to be kept under control.

Your whole concept of ‘standard of living’ is incorrect which is why your argument is flawed. A ‘standard of living’ is not something that can be enacted through legislation; it is the result of a free and productive society. It is the inventions of entrepreneurs that enable us to be more productive with our labour that raise our standard of living, not the outlawing of cheap labour. I can’t even figure how on earth you arrive at that conclusion?

Whether you like it or not, there are many unskilled jobs in society that need to be done. Keeping the wages of those jobs artificially high through idiotic legislation like ‘minimum wage’ laws doesn’t increase the standard of living of anyone. It either means those jobs don’t get done or, people (usually immigrants) are illegally employed to do them. Meanwhile, the locals, who believe they are entitled to better, sit on their lazy fat arses waiting for their Government hand-out which they then spend at the pub while complaining about all the foreigners taking their jobs.

Immigrants today are doing the work that ‘kids’ used to do when I was growing up. These jobs don’t pay much. But for a kid still living at home, with no rent to pay, no dependents to support or other outgoings, it was decent pocket money. It also relieved some burden from the parents who would no longer need to give their child pocket money. I can assure you of a number of things, kids wanted the jobs, parents were happy with them working and standards of living were high.

If it really was legislation that keeps our standards of living high then Governments would have outlawed poverty years ago!
 
.............If it really was legislation that keeps our standards of living high then Governments would have outlawed poverty years ago!..............

It must be so frustrating when you are in the right only to find the whole world against you and making a success of their wrongness :LOL:.

Pray tell me what the conditions of factory workers would be without the intervention of government through history. Do you really believe the "old style" capitalists would have improved the lot of their workers so much voluntarily?
 
Pray tell me what the conditions of factory workers would be without the intervention of government through history. Do you really believe the "old style" capitalists would have improved the lot of their workers so much voluntarily?

Factory workers in Britain? :LOL: Are you having a laugh? Why do you think most manufacturing jobs have moved to China? Well done Government, you cared about workers rights so much you legislated them away to China!

You and your distorted view of history...No doubt you learnt it all in Government school?

Jobs are a privilege, not a right. Deal with it.
 
Your whole concept of ‘standard of living’ is incorrect which is why your argument is flawed. A ‘standard of living’ is not something that can be enacted through legislation; it is the result of a free and productive society. It is the inventions of entrepreneurs that enable us to be more productive with our labour that raise our standard of living, not the outlawing of cheap labour. I can’t even figure how on earth you arrive at that conclusion?

Whether you like it or not, there are many unskilled jobs in society that need to be done. Keeping the wages of those jobs artificially high through idiotic legislation like ‘minimum wage’ laws doesn’t increase the standard of living of anyone. It either means those jobs don’t get done or, people (usually immigrants) are illegally employed to do them. Meanwhile, the locals, who believe they are entitled to better, sit on their lazy fat arses waiting for their Government hand-out which they then spend at the pub while complaining about all the foreigners taking their jobs.

Immigrants today are doing the work that ‘kids’ used to do when I was growing up. These jobs don’t pay much. But for a kid still living at home, with no rent to pay, no dependents to support or other outgoings, it was decent pocket money. It also relieved some burden from the parents who would no longer need to give their child pocket money. I can assure you of a number of things, kids wanted the jobs, parents were happy with them working and standards of living were high.

If it really was legislation that keeps our standards of living high then Governments would have outlawed poverty years ago![/QUOTE

How many more would you like to have? I'm sure that we, the French ad Italians would be happy to oblige. Ask yourself this question. Why are they so eager to cross France and get to the UK?

This has to be the last post, today, Sorry, because I've enjoyed exchanging opinions with you.
 
The British Leyland story is a classic example of Britain losing whole industries due to bolshy unions and p1ss poor management. No cohesion or team effort. Could a soccer team expect to win it's matches if the forwards are at logger heads with the defence - not a chance. About time the UK woke up to more equitable wages and a team effort, with wages rising and falling as the business cycle allows. And not having the top management hogging an undue proportion of the wage bill - greedy p1gs.
 
Last edited:
How many more would you like to have? I'm sure that we, the French ad Italians would be happy to oblige. Ask yourself this question. Why are they so eager to cross France and get to the UK?

A good question because I thought France was supposed to be a Socialist paradise :LOL:

I already explained why, their alternatives are worse. That is what drives almost all human action. You consider the choices and take what is best for yourself. None of this requires Government intervention. People know what is best for themselves. The problems arise when people think they know what is best for others and then use the Government to achieve it...like what Socialists do.
 
.................................No doubt you learnt it all in Government school?.............................

oh, no fear - we all know what you think of Government :LOL: Such a miracle we're all so relatively well-off, both money-wise and conditions-wise) with all the years stealing by those Governnment crooks - just think how super stupendously well-off we'd be.

Life's got better - deal with it.
 
I think NT has fallen for the US company structure where the management screw the workers at the bottom of the heap as much as they can get away with.
 
oh, no fear - we all know what you think of Government :LOL: Such a miracle we're all so relatively well-off, both money-wise and conditions-wise) with all the years stealing by those Governnment crooks - just think how super stupendously well-off we'd be.

Life's got better - deal with it.

Jon, you have clearly missed my point. Life has got better DESPITE Government, no because of it...get it?

Life would be BETTER without so much intervention...this can be observed throughout the world where standards of living are rising as Governments move away from socialism/communism and towards capitalism, like China. Standards of living are declining in countries that are moving away from Capitalism and towards socialism, like the USA and U.K.

You probably think standards of living is judged by the number of gadgets we have today, right? :LOL:
 
I think NT has fallen for the US company structure where the management screw the workers at the bottom of the heap as much as they can get away with.

When you get a haircut, you are an employer. Do you give them what they ask, or do you pay them twice as much because you believe in "workers rights"? Everyone in this forum at one time or another is an employer, whether they employ a plumber, an electrician, a barber. If you pay them what they ask then you are a hypocrite if you talk about employers "screwing" employees. How can anyone be screwed if they enter into a voluntary arrangement...get those idiotic Government slogans out of your brain....please...
 
.......Jon, you have clearly missed my point. Life has got better DESPITE Government, no because of it...get it?".".......:

Yes, I get it. That's your creed as you have pursued endlessly. I disagree. I believe Government has made a strong contribution to the betterment of life. Get it?
 
The British Leyland story is a classic example of Britain losing whole industries due to bolshy unions and p1ss poor management. No cohesion or team effort. Could a soccer team expect to win it's matches if the forwards are at logger heads with the defence - not a chance. About time the UK woke up to more equitable wages and a team effort, with wages rising and falling as the business cycle allows. And not having the top management hogging an undue proportion of the wage bill - greedy p1gs.

Ehemm don't want to distract but in ship building and car manufacture, management played a bigger role than unions.

They failed to keep up with new manufacturing and production technologies, designs and R&D testing and starved investment.

They emphasized cheap labour as their competitive edge rather than new tech or designs or improved performance and reliability. Was really a big MAJOR management failure. No vision, no leadership, lot of superior stuck up tosh.


Unions came at the end because their salaries fell behind the rest because cars produced where simply not selling due **** poor management & design so no profits.


Big corporations ideally should have Business Continuity executive on the board looking out for SWOTs to exploit and protect the business. :idea:
 
Yes, I get it. That's your creed as you have pursued endlessly. I disagree. I believe Government has made a strong contribution to the betterment of life. Get it?

All the Government can do is tax and legislate. That's it...they take money from productive people and give it to unproductive people, and they tell us what we can and can't do. So yes, I agree, laws that protect individual property rights and freedoms make our lives better. Government maintains National Defence, so yes, keeping the country safe from invasion is another contribution that makes our life better.

If you think robbing Peter to pay Paul is 'fair' and then only focus on the quality of life of the 'Pauls' to support your case then, again, you will conclude that Government has made a positive contribution.

However, you really have to ignore all the negative consequences, such as the decimation of the British manufacturing industry, if you are going to argue that Government has made a positive contribution to workers lives. Yes, for the few who are lucky enough to have kept a job, I'm sure they would agree with you.
 
nt

I wouldn't claim that our Governments have always got it right. I do think, however, that their heart has been in the right place and that they have attempted to operate to enable their citizens to live in harmony, with increasing prosperity and in a comfortable environment. On the whole they haven't done too badly.
 
I think NT has fallen for the US company structure where the management screw the workers at the bottom of the heap as much as they can get away with.

US companies don't screw low level employees. The people at the top are there because they started the business - supply side economics. The burden of success lies squarely with the CEO and board. All that the employee has to do is collect a psycheck and complain when their pension isn't good enough. Guess what, that was never your money to begin with. It was an incentive to work there longer. Entrepreneurs don't have pensions except for the money they set aside from their earnings. Stop complaining and be thankful there are entrepreneurs willing to create jobs for you and take all the risk and stress.
 
Big Read... from FT


Europe: The British question
George Parker and Alex Barker

David Cameron must balance pursuit of a reformed EU against the anger of his party’s eurosceptic fringe


David Cameron had not expected to win outright. But Britain’s electorate had just presented the prime minister with a spectacular election victory and the rest of Europe with a big problem. “We have got a mandate,” Mr Cameron told journalists in the House of Commons as he prepared to address 300 jubilant Conservative MPs last week. “It’s going to be tough but we have a mandate.”

Mr Cameron’s victory means that he now has to make good on his promise to put the country’s membership of the EU to a referendum, a high-risk strategy intended to pacify his eurosceptic party and settle a question that has bedevilled British politics since the country last voted on the issue 40 years ago.

Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, declared Mr Cameron’s victory as “simply great”; François Hollande, French president, invited the British leader to Paris. But behind the diplomatic niceties was a simple calculation: the time has now come for Europe to address the “British question”.

While Europe has been obsessed in recent years by a potential Greek exit from the eurozone, the possibility of a British exit from the EU has suddenly assumed even greater significance for the 28-member club. “For Britain it would be a disaster; for Germany it would be a catastrophe,” admits one senior German minister.

For Britain, a trading nation, unlimited access to a single market of 500m consumers could be called into doubt. Deutsche Bank this week announced it could move operations out of Britain if the country voted to leave in a referendum, which Mr Cameron has promised by the end of 2017. Brexit could even accelerate the break-up of the United Kingdom: polls show Scots remain firmly in favour of EU membership.

The departure of Britain would be an unprecedented blow to the European project. The UK might be a troublesome member that is badly trying the patience of its allies, but it adds global reach, military force, budgetary discipline and liberal instincts to a Europe suffering a crisis of confidence.

Both sides have much to lose. The question being asked in European capitals is what is Mr Cameron’s price — he insists there has to be fundamental reform of the EU for Britain to remain a member — and can we afford to pay it?

Mr Cameron is bullish. He wants to use his newfound electoral authority to press ahead with his renegotiation starting tomorrow in informal talks with EU leaders on the margins of a summit in the Latvian capital Riga.

Next week he will introduce a parliamentary bill to pave the way for his in-out referendum; Philip Hammond, foreign secretary, says he wants to move “fast”, with ministers eyeing a vote as early as 2016.
In depth

David Cameron is under pressure from all sides and faces a delicate balancing act in attempting to renegotiate an acceptable UK membership settlement with the EU

Although European leaders frequently urge Mr Cameron to spell out exactly what he wants, the British prime minister’s negotiating demands are already in plain sight, set out in a series of speeches and newspaper articles. “We’ve already shown a lot of leg,” says one British official.

Mr Cameron has deliberately set the bar at what he believes is a realistic level — a view not shared in some other European capitals — because he wants to secure his objectives and then go on to campaign for Britain to stay in the EU.

Although he leads a eurosceptic party, the majority of Conservative MPs see the case for remaining part of the world’s richest single market. David Davis, a hardline eurosceptic, estimates that some 60 of the total 331 Tory MPs will vote for a Brexit whatever deal Mr Cameron negotiates in Brussels. But dozens of others are waiting to see: if the prime minister fails to get a better deal, the party’s uneasy peace on Europe could be blown apart.

Should the EU concede to David Cameron's demand for a new deal?

British public opinion, according to most polls, is in favour of the country staying in, but last year’s close-run Scottish independence referendum is a reminder of how such votes can shred nerves. Although the main opposition parties, most business groups and the City of London will oppose Brexit, the debate would take place in a hostile eurosceptic media atmosphere.

Mr Cameron needs a good deal in Europe and his strategy is built around three main areas: making the EU more competitive, reducing its power in relation to member states and curbing the access of migrant workers to British welfare — an attempt to allay public concerns about the scale of immigration.

Timeline:
The route to the referendum
May 27 2015

Queen’s Speech. Bill announced to set in train a British referendum on the EU
June 26-27 2015

EU summit in Brussels. Cameron under pressure to set out his demands
Early 2016

EU referendum bill on statute book
Summer 2016

Likely earliest date for fast-track referendum
Autumn 2016

Another referendum window
May 2017

French presidential elections
June 2017

EU Brussels summit. Last realistic date for Cameron to get a deal (with a possible new French president)
September 2017

Expected date for German elections
December 2017

Cameron’s deadline for holding referendum
Nick Clegg, the pro-European former leader of the Liberal Democrats, characterises Mr Cameron’s agenda as “motherhood and apple pie” and the main Labour opposition party broadly agrees. In other words, Mr Cameron’s stance is not the pipe dream of hardline Tory eurosceptics; it is in line with mainstream British political opinion.

While Mr Cameron’s approach is nowhere near tough enough for some in his party, the question is whether it goes too far for his negotiating partners.
There are two looming obstacles. The first is that eastern European countries are opposed to what they see as Mr Cameron’s discriminatory approach on benefits for migrant Poles, Lithuanians and others who come to Britain to work.

“As soon as you have a discrimination between EU citizens it is forbidden in the treaties,” says Jean-Claude Piris, a former top legal adviser to EU leaders.

The second big problem is the opposition of virtually every EU member state to Mr Cameron’s desire for a “full-on treaty change” to enshrine his new deal. No country wants to go through the trauma of trying to ratify with a national referendum a new European treaty. Mr Hollande and Ms Merkel do not want British neuralgia interfering with their 2017 domestic election campaigns.

Mr Hammond said last week that treaty change was not needed “for the politics” but simply to ensure that an agreement was legally watertight.

But senior British officials admit there is a significant risk of failure. There is concern Mr Hollande may scupper a deal, or that UK demands could trigger an unmanageable race for concessions from other member states.
Above all, senior EU officials say Britain’s growing marginalisation in Brussels will make it hard for Mr Cameron to demand favours. “The [Brits] must not overestimate their leverage — they’ve done so in the past. Solutions can be found,” says one senior official who will be closely involved in the talks. “But asking for too much, aiming high, will bring the negotiation to a dead end. Other member states have domestic politics to handle as well.”

Brussels officials say a deal is possible, provided Mr Cameron does not seek unrealistic changes to appease his own hardliners. The precedents are not auspicious: after all the prime minister only agreed to the referendum in the first place under pressure from his own eurosceptic MPs.

Mr Cameron told Jean-Claude Juncker, European Commission president, that he had to be able to sell the deal to “the man in the pub” ; then, he believes, he can end the debate about Britain’s role in Europe and prevent it from “sleepwalking towards the exit”.

“People say no, no, no, that cannot possibly be done until the point when they say OK we will do it,” says Mr Hammond. “As Chancellor Merkel says, where there is a will there is a way. The EU has shown time and again that for all its rhetoric, in practice it is very pragmatic when it needs to get something done.”
 
Big Read... from FT


Europe: The British question
George Parker and Alex Barker

David Cameron must balance pursuit of a reformed EU against the anger of his party’s eurosceptic fringe...

Viewed without Brussels’ standard issue rose tinted glasses, the EU looks to be in a shambles. An increasingly defeatist oligarchy is managing decline and ceding opportunity overseas. The EU is becoming uncompetitive with a southern fringe of bankrupt governments on life support so Germany can sell more BMWs.
 
Brexit & The End of The EU

brexit-uk-cameron-eu-economy.si.jpg


May 26, 2015 16:30

Britain is demanding reform and the EU risks its own demise if it doesn’t listen.

Viewed without Brussels’ standard issue rose tinted glasses, the EU looks to be in a shambles. An increasingly defeatist oligarchy is managing decline and ceding opportunity overseas. The EU is becoming uncompetitive with a southern fringe of bankrupt governments on life support so Germany can sell more BMWs. Germany leverages eurozone benefits while Brussels appears powerless to stop Berlin’s systematic trade surpluses, which ultimately threaten the euro as much as Mediterranean weakness. Europe continues to think and act like independent states, even the student generation enjoying Erasmus exchanges return home clearly appreciating separate national identity. Without the flawed notion of a single European identity, the Europhile dream has already failed.

Whatever happens, the Euro-oligarchy advocates “more Europe,” while a bewildering surfeit of 1,200 new annual rules strangles enterprise. The beggaring of Greece is an example of doctrinaire vandalism following EU corporate socialist dogma. Brussels is stuck in the 1950s, advocating protectionist industrial policy for antediluvian multinationals at the expense of the new - a reactionary analogue misfit in a globally competitive digital world. Government and big business rules despite the future belonging to flexible innovation. The more Europe tweaks its social pledges, the poorer and less competitive the continent becomes. The hubristic euro currency binds together economically incompatible nations like a cheap PVC corset slims an overweight wrestler. The corset is bursting at the seams...

EU foreign affairs are a fiasco. Corrupt mismanagement is apparently rife: EU accounts have failed audits for two decades! Nobody admits responsibility for multilateral chaos, which resembles an absolutist and wasteful monarchy. Brussels remains crassly aloof from everyday people. The Brussels Supreme Soviet is living on borrowed time just as the Warsaw Pact could not maintain its agitprop facade against economic reality.

On the western fringes, Britain remains a semi-detached participant in many continental shenanigans. Meanwhile, many British voters are concerned about the substantial influx of economic migrants. Relative economic success means Britain is subsidizing inefficient governments from Lisbon to Bucharest. (Despite the immigration flood, British unemployment is half the eurozone average).

eu_bank.jpg


Conservative electoral victory means renegotiation and referendum for the second largest EU economy, constituting some 15 percent of the entire 28 nations (Greece is, by comparison a minnow at 1.3 percent). As a net importer of EU goods, the continent has much more to lose than Britain from protectionism - a simple truth ignored by disingenuous Europhile arguments. Brexit does not mean tariffs: UK/EU Free trade would continue as it already does for every European non-member from Andorra to Macedonia.

The UK is tiring of an EU which runs contrary to Britain’s international mercantile traditions and instead endorses protectionism in everything from farming and fishing to digital products. Withdrawal may benefit Britain significantly more than the annual 50 billion dollars EU membership wasted on red tape alone. Multinational corporate threats to quit Britain will prove as false as they did when Britain didn’t join the euro and thrived compared to the festering single currency area.

Europhile David Cameron risks a ‘false’ referendum based on fig leaves of reform. Thus Britain may avoid Brexit but the EU itself needs radical reform to survive. Real expansion stalled a decade back. Dollops of cash for eastern nations mask the fact the EU has already essentially abandoned expansion to Turkey and Ukraine, amongst others. Meaningful economic growth remains absent, leaving many citizens impoverished while Europe is a foreign policy irrelevance. It has a few nice tourist spots, though...albeit there is frequently much better value (and service) to be had elsewhere.

From the high water mark where the EU could demand referendum reruns to ensure the voters got the answer right, the last decade has revealed the ugly truth of decay. Past experiments have shown currency unions without political union don’t work. The eurozone is in tatters. Loudly trumpeted and false dawns have seen dizzying debt increases without desperately needed reform.

The UK faces a simple dilemma - bet on a losing horse, or choose a free trading dynamic response to the digital world where economic power is moving east.
Screen_Shot_2015_05_26_at_2_37_31_PM.png
 
Top