Except when I looked into it the House of Lords rejected the idea on account it finances of all things! Apparently lowering the age threshold would cost 6 million and this was high enough for the House of Lords to overturn the idea.
6 Million is the reason they put forward that means well-informed (because lets be honest, 16-17's who aren't well informed or don't care enough won't sign up for a voting registration) people won't get a vote in what might be the most important vote of my life time. Especially when you consider the precedent set by Scottland in lowering their threshold during the Independence vote because they recognised the importance of the vote in how it will affect my generation.
Sure, I can campaign but my realm of influence is slim. I could show my perspective to a group of my peers and hope to get a discussion going, but there is no guarantee an adult would pay me any heed, because why should they? I don't get to vote.
I agree with you in that many buracratic or tax based decisions may go over my head unless I put the effort into researching them because they don't affect me much, but this decision may have a profound effect on my generation and as such we should get the right to register as a voter, if only for this referendum.
ALEXisAWESOME wrote: As a 17-year-old I'm appalled I will not get a say in this, possibly the most important decision my country will make for a very long time and one that will affect me indefinitely. If anything, It's my generation this will hit the hardest as it will be us who might have to move into the working world or University during the possible transition period. The 2014 Scottish Independence referendum lowered their voting age to 16 because they believed these young adults should get a say in the choice that will entirely shape the future of their country, and now that an arguably much bigger decision is on the horizon we're being excluded?
The age should be lowered to 16+ for this referendum, if not indefinitely. In this modern technological age it's could be argued that many Young adults are more up to date with current affairs than many adults due to growing up in a culturally expanding and information driven society.
I don't know. As an adult, I'm entirely comfortable with under 18's not having the vote. I'm not so far removed from it that I don't remember the fact that most 16 & 17 year olds I knew had the political awareness of a chipmunk (and that's including the ones taking Politics at A level). Not that the 18 and 19 year olds were much better, but you have to draw the line somewhere. If you're going to lower it, why 17 and not 16? Why 16 and not 15?
I acknowledge if you're interested, it must feel quite patronising and unnecessarily restrictive, but then again, not being able to buy alcohol also feels that way at 17. You're more or less at the point where your cognitive skills are reaching/have reached their full potential, so it all seems inherently unfair. Unfortunately, whilst the reasoning skills tend to be peaking, in terms of empirical experience and maturity, someone under 18 is nowhere near a full baked adult. Certain parts of the brain don't even finish developing until you hit 21.
I don't say this to condescend, more to justify my belief that 18 years is as good an age as any to set the vote at, alongside drinking and various other activities.
Not having a go at you in particular, Ketara, but I've heard a lot of people say similar things about under 18s voting, and my response is always the same:
No taxation without representation. Westminster can't have it both ways.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ALEXisAWESOME wrote: Except when I looked into it the House of Lords rejected the idea on account it finances of all things! Apparently lowering the age threshold would cost 6 million and this was high enough for the House of Lords to overturn the idea.
6 Million is the reason they put forward that means well-informed (because lets be honest, 16-17's who aren't well informed or don't care enough won't sign up for a voting registration) people won't get a vote in what might be the most important vote of my life time. Especially when you consider the precedent set by Scottland in lowering their threshold during the Independence vote because they recognised the importance of the vote in how it will affect my generation.
Sure, I can campaign but my realm of influence is slim. I could show my perspective to a group of my peers and hope to get a discussion going, but there is no guarantee an adult would pay me any heed, because why should they? I don't get to vote.
I agree with you in that many buracratic or tax based decisions may go over my head unless I put the effort into researching them because they don't affect me much, but this decision may have a profound effect on my generation and as such we should get the right to register as a voter, if only for this referendum.
I doubt if it's any consolation, but the SNP pushed hard for under 18s to get the vote for the EU referendum, but the Tories shot the idea down in flames.
I believe it's the right thing to let 16-17 year old vote, because it's their future at stake here.
Not having a go at you in particular, Ketara, but I've heard a lot of people say similar things about under 18s voting, and my response is always the same:
No taxation without representation. Westminster can't have it both ways.
.
That sounds awfully American. The people on this forum have a having a bad influence on you, old bean. Drink some tea, quickly!
As things stand, the only time an under 18 is taxed is if they're employed. And that's right and fair, because the military, NHS, and education they're enjoying the benefit of aren't just paying for themselves. If one is particularly attached to the 'no taxation' aspect however, there is one logical corollary of thought, namely the removal of the under 18's to work. Certainly it would be more feasible than extending the vote down by two years because a miniscule proportion of under 18's happen to have jobs.
Not to mention that I was employed from 14 and up, and I'm pretty sure the voting age shouldn't be that low!
I doubt if it's any consolation, but the SNP pushed hard for under 18s to get the vote for the EU referendum, but the Tories shot the idea down in flames.
I have a sneaky feeling that the SNP were pushing for that because they figured that kids with little political experience would be the easiest to inspire and feed a simple narrative around 'freedom!', without any awkward questions. Primarily because being teenagers, they're not really aware of any other political philosophies, much history, basic knowledge of economics, or any other such inconvenient knowledge that might make them question it. They're also far less cynical.
Alexisawesome wrote:I agree with you in that many buracratic or tax based decisions may go over my head unless I put the effort into researching them because they don't affect me much, but this decision may have a profound effect on my generation and as such we should get the right to register as a voter, if only for this referendum.
Frankly, I have nothing but the utmost respect for your raw intellectual capabilities, everyone needs to do basic research before they grasp something. But as I said, why 17 and not 16? Why 16 and not 15? Every vote of every every kind, from the general elections on down affect the future of the country, and the future that today's children will have to live through. I'm really not convinced that's an argument to let the 8 year olds vote though, y'know? The line has to be drawn somewhere, and it happens to be drawn at 18. Which totally sucks for you, I understand that. But them's the breaks.
Da Boss wrote: Your arguments about brain function imply we should have a "maximum" age for voting too, to me
Not really. We logically have to take mental development into account when granting the vote, unless you fancy giving a six year old the vote?
Having said that, as people are living longer, the idea of placing upper age limits on certain things is not a new one, and is fast becoming relevant, especially with regards to things like driving licenses.
Your point about an 8 year old voting seems like a Straw Man fallancy, taking my point to an illogical extreme. I understand your logic about not knowing where to draw the line but at least to me the education system leaves a clear drawn distinction which the Government could follow suit. Post 16 education is under most circumstances either in Higher Education (AS/A levels), College Courses or Apprenterships (World of work). This is why I would draw the line at post 16 because at which point they are considered to of completed compulsory education and can move onto to the world of work to a certain degree. I would argue this overlap is enough to justify a post 16 vote.
Them's the breaks just seems so unnecessarily restrictive and if people were satisfied with this answer then scientific and social developments would've been stunted a long time ago.
I thank you for the complements about my own comprehensions but this is not just my rant against the 'Man'. An entire age demographic of well informed Young adults within Higher Education (these are the communities I interact with, I cannot comment on others) have no say. I'm not saying we should give out the vote to anyone who asks for it. I'm proposing that People in post-16 education should have the option to register for a vote. That way only people who are truly motivated or passionate (thereby, we are to assume well-informed) will be bothered to register and have their say. This alleviates the financial issue (not as many people sign up) as well as your own fears of ill-informed people skewing the vote.
ALEXisAWESOME wrote: Your point about an 8 year old voting seems like a Straw Man fallancy, taking my point to an illogical extreme. I understand your logic about not knowing where to draw the line but at least to me the education system leaves a clear drawn distinction which the Government could follow suit. Post 16 education is under most circumstances either in Higher Education (AS/A levels), College Courses or Apprenterships (World of work). This is why I would draw the line at post 16 because at which point they are considered to of completed compulsory education and can move onto to the world of work to a certain degree. I would argue this overlap is enough to justify a post 16 vote.
I'd agree that it certainly warrants consideration. Sex and smoking are legal at sixteen after all. Driving Licenses are seventeen. Drinking and strip clubs are eighteen. So where should voting fall in that wide range of years? It's a good question, and certainly one worthy of discussion. I'm content with things as they are, but that doesn't mean they /should stay that way. So tell you what, Alex. Start another topic here in OT about it, and we'll have a good old fashioned banter back and forth on it..
I might not chip in until tomorrow though, I'm about to hit the hay. Work tomorrow morning, etc.
Unfortunately for those ineligible to vote, it's too late to do anything about that now. However, if you are able to throw your energy into campaigning, and education, you can still make a significant impact.
For those of us who are eligible to vote, it would be nice to access some clear, partisan free information on which to base this very serious decision.
Facts are the first thing up against the wall when it comes to political discussions unfortunately.
As previously mentioned, now is an excellent time to sell your vision of the future, in or out; however both sides are dwelling on fearmongering and really petty issues...
In the same vein, look at the "changes" that DC got from the EU; they are paltry in terms of both money and our interaction with the EU, but they are the things the tabloids shout loudest about despite having minimal impact on the UK...
welshhoppo wrote: Yeah, you might be a good and upstanding politically minded 17 year old, but how many of your peers are of the same cloth? Many of the 16-17 year olds can't be trusted to maintain the same decision for more than a few weeks. Me included.
IMHO during the Independence referrendum, the 16-17 year olds seemed a lot more politically clued up on the subject than the 30-year olds. Possibly because they covered it in school. It's pure politics though; the SNP wanted them to vote because they were more likely to say yes, the Tories wanting them to not vote because they were more likely to say yes.
Ditto here; though I'm not sure what way they lean.
SilverMK2 wrote: Facts are the first thing up against the wall when it comes to political discussions unfortunately.
As previously mentioned, now is an excellent time to sell your vision of the future, in or out; however both sides are dwelling on fearmongering and really petty issues...
In the same vein, look at the "changes" that DC got from the EU; they are paltry in terms of both money and our interaction with the EU, but they are the things the tabloids shout loudest about despite having minimal impact on the UK...
And even those small concessions that Cameron won, the EU Parliament is threatening to block.
We're going to have this referendum, and in the even of a Stay vote, the EU is going to turn around and reverse the agreements it made with the British government or amend and water them down into meaninglessness. We're also going to see a lot more power grab legislation after the referendum that will have been pushed back to not influence the vote because the EU...the EU never changes...
This entire referendum is a sham. The negotiations were a sham.
Well the BBC posted a report with Cameron saying that if we vote 'No' then it means no. There wont be a renegotiation followed by better terms and then a second referendum.
He has a fixed term Parliament with another 4 years till he can be removed at the ballot box, barring a Tory Party coup. By that point, the political momentum for independence will have probably petered out and the political agenda will have moved on to other matters, much like the Scottish referendum. And the chances of getting an established party leader (by that I mean party's large enough to form a government) in favour of a Brexit is remote. Cameron's successor will pro-EU too.
Which they will do, because the countries that it will be effecting will tell him to feth off and then veto the situation. It was a gentlemans agreement at best.
Damn it Germany. This is why people don't trust other countries in the EU when rules are bent and then mistakes made. Merkel circumvents the correct procedure for asylum rules, let's a million flood in and quickly loses 130,000 of them!
They aren't illegal immigrants. Even if they were, the Germans don't have room to lock up 1,100,000 people in case 130,000 of them might go off piste in some way.
To flip it on it's head, rather than criticizing Germany for doing it's best to help in the greatest humanitarian disaster in Europe's living memory, the UK could have shown some leadership and taken in a substantial chunk of the numbers and relieved the pressure somewhat.
Too xenophobic for that, though. Bombing Syria (creating more refugees) was the better option.
Da Boss wrote: To flip it on it's head, rather than criticizing Germany for doing it's best to help in the greatest humanitarian disaster in Europe's living memory, the UK could have shown some leadership and taken in a substantial chunk of the numbers and relieved the pressure somewhat.
You are completely deluded if you think that taking in refugees stems the tide. It only encourages more.
Germany has a million refugees on its borders BECAUSE Merkel made comments last year about taking in some thousands.
This was why the UK government was very sure that those migrants who landed in the SBA Cyprus would not get to the UK, and never will by that route. Because if any were taken in the people smugglers will be depositing them off the coast in vast numbers.
Too xenophobic for that, though. Bombing Syria (creating more refugees) was the better option.
Stabilising Syria instead is hardly xenophobic.
Stop making insinuations that not wanting to be flooded by immigrants is somehow hate fuelled or racist.
Its a logical conclusion based on the facts. The EU and UK in particular is full, we cant cope with more, and a large proportion of those we let in have no intention of integrating and see our society and population as something to exploit. Unless you somehow think rape culture is part of our heritage.
That's not what's going on though, NATO is dropping bombs for domestic political reasons, to be able to tell the electorate in the respective countries that something is being done.
Orlanth wrote: Unless you somehow think rape culture is part of our heritage.
You know the absolutely staggering amount of German women who were raped at the conclusion of WWII (and I'm not talking about the Red Army's part here)? Yeah, those weren't Syrian refugees doing the raping. You haven't even gotten around to making rape by deceit or fraud illegal.
I'd also argue that blaming issues with sexual violence on immigrants is a textbook example of xenophobia, so there's that.
That's not what's going on though, NATO is dropping bombs for domestic political reasons, to be able to tell the electorate in the respective countries that something is being done.
Evidence please.
There is plenty of evidence that NATO is bombing ISIS, and there are solid reasons to do this. ISIS are very naughty.
Where is your evidence that this is for 'domestic political reasons' and what reasons are those.
Orlanth wrote: Unless you somehow think rape culture is part of our heritage.
You know the absolutely staggering amount of German women who were raped at the conclusion of WWII (and I'm not talking about the Red Army's part here)? Yeah, those weren't Syrian refugees doing the raping. You haven't even gotten around to making rape by deceit or fraud illegal.
There was systematic rape in Europe in lkiving memory. First by ther Nazis and second by the Soviets. Neither were welcome, and we went a long way to rid the world of Nazism.
I'd also argue that blaming issues with sexual violence on immigrants is a textbook example of xenophobia, so there's that.
You come from Sweden, rape capital of Europe.
Sweden is also the head-in-sand denial capital of Europe also.
Your press dare not look at the demographics of the rape epidemic because it will disrupt harmony and expose the failure of cultural integration.
We had this problem in Rotherham, where an ethnic subgroup conducted many child rapes over an extensive period and the police didn't want to know because it was not politically correct. The current government finally grew a pair and put a stop to it, and no longer avoids highlighting that the majority of rapes occur as a result of particular non-integrated subsets of the population.
Sweden is a long way off coming to terms with the same reality, and is still trying to hound those who speak the truth as racists and troublemakers.
I'd also argue that blaming issues with sexual violence on immigrants is a textbook example of xenophobia, so there's that.
But the mass surge in sexual assaults in Cologne were majorly from crowds of Arab or North African men, even left wing newspapers have reported that. It was the local german authorities that tried to bury that because it's politically inconvenient for anything to go against the pro-migration narrative.
Kilkrazy wrote: In Germany there is some resistance to the idea that the government should lock up undesirable people in camps.
So they don't have prisons?
Illegal immigrants are not just undesirables, they're criminals by definition.
They're not illegal though as Germany took them in willingly and started asylum applications. They've not gained access illegally and I'm not against genuine asylum cases. But Germany took in over a million and has lost 13% of them, they could be anywhere in Germany or across Europe due to open borders and free movement policies. Countries in the Europe can't reasonably criticise us for wanting to strengthen our borders when they've been so careless.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That's not what's going on though, NATO is dropping bombs for domestic political reasons, to be able to tell the electorate in the respective countries that something is being done.
Evidence please.
There is plenty of evidence that NATO is bombing ISIS, and there are solid reasons to do this. ISIS are very naughty.
Where is your evidence that this is for 'domestic political reasons' and what reasons are those.
Bombing ISIS isn't going to stabilize Syria. Bombing ISIS isn't going to remove them from the region. There's plenty of reasons to fight ISIS indeed, but simply bombing them and hoping that they'll go away doesn't solve anything. It does make for a very good show of force to claim that one's doing something to stop ISIS though.
Sweden is also the head-in-sand denial capital of Europe also.
Your press dare not look at the demographics of the rape epidemic because it will disrupt harmony and expose the failure of cultural integration.
Sweden is a long way off coming to terms with the same reality, and is still trying to hound those who speak the truth as racists and troublemakers.
I think you'll find that pretending that there's not a problem with sexual violence in society in general and blaming it all on immigrants is a pretty racist, troublemaking argument to make.
I'd also argue that blaming issues with sexual violence on immigrants is a textbook example of xenophobia, so there's that.
But the mass surge in sexual assaults in Cologne were majorly from crowds of Arab or North African men, even left wing newspapers have reported that. It was the local german authorities that tried to bury that because it's politically inconvenient for anything to go against the pro-migration narrative.
True, but I find it distasteful in the extreme that sexual violence is suddenly a problem when it's immigrants involved when there's been a concerted effort by conservative forces to fight feminist policies for decades.
We're getting massively off-topic, so I'll bow out on that note.
Da Boss wrote: To flip it on it's head, rather than criticizing Germany for doing it's best to help in the greatest humanitarian disaster in Europe's living memory, the UK could have shown some leadership and taken in a substantial chunk of the numbers and relieved the pressure somewhat.
Too xenophobic for that, though. Bombing Syria (creating more refugees) was the better option.
No one has clean hands here - most European countries have and still are very happy to sell vast amounts of goods (especially weapons) to Middle Eastern dictatorships from Saudi to Iraq.
Bombing was the only palatable thing for most of them as none of the countries involved with this considered (likely rightly) that sending ground troops and receiving the inevitable casualties would not be tolerated by the populations.
The issue is that no one has a solution to the ISIS problem without causing vast amounts of loss of life and occupying regions for decades. Causing revolutions with fanatical and power hungry and totally ruthless people was a major cause of such blights on humanity – bombing just makes people feel their government is doing something….
Sadly education is not going to help, many of those heading over to fight for ISIS are university educated. I think part of the issue is that people have little to “believe” in these days and those that have that need try to find something that means something.
The Russians seem to be following the “make a desert and call it peace” – which might work but so many are going to die. The West are floundering as they are backing the terrorists as much as the freedom fighter – always a tricky differential to make…… the new Cold War makes this even worse for those in Syria.
Bombing ISIS isn't going to stabilize Syria. Bombing ISIS isn't going to remove them from the region. There's plenty of reasons to fight ISIS indeed, but simply bombing them and hoping that they'll go away doesn't solve anything. It does make for a very good show of force to claim that one's doing something to stop ISIS though.
Bombing ISIS helps turn ther tide for local moderates to deal with the territory they hold on thr ground. ISIS needs to be burned out or capitulated to, there is no middle ground and noone wants to give in to those evil fethers.
I think you'll find that pretending that there's not a problem with sexual violence in society in general and blaming it all on immigrants is a pretty racist, troublemaking argument to make.
Statistically a moslem immigrant is 24 times more likely to commit rape than a Swede.
But the mass surge in sexual assaults in Cologne were majorly from crowds of Arab or North African men, even left wing newspapers have reported that. It was the local german authorities that tried to bury that because it's politically inconvenient for anything to go against the pro-migration narrative.
True, but I find it distasteful in the extreme that sexual violence is suddenly a problem when it's immigrants involved when there's been a concerted effort by conservative forces to fight feminist policies for decades.
So you see the reality, but cant draw the logical conclusons from it. Why?
Sexual violence is not in any way acceptable in Germany, but also it wasn't at epidemic levels until uncontrolled mass migration.
This is not about conservatives fighting feminism, for a start the conservatives are more likely to protest immigrant rape issue than liberals, even oddly enough feminist ones.
We're getting massively off-topic, so I'll bow out on that note.
Immigration into Europe is not really off topic. Its not a problem that is directly solved by voting to stay or leave the EU, but it is connected, to European policy and of increasingly importance to the populace who had until recently been mostly asleep on the issue.
Also it is always important ands very relevant when Germany decides to abandon EU procedures on a common policy and gets away with it, as Merkel has done of late over its border controls. Would other nations including the UK been unchallenged?
Is the UK big enough in the EU to make those sorts of challenges, Germany certainly is, France also, but the UK is very similar to France in terms of economic and political clout globally.
Though to be fair whoever wins gets to host the next years contest and the BBC doesn't want to host it for solid economic reasons. The UK is one of the two world centres for popular music, we could ace it, but its better to create a shortlist of no hope bands so all they needed to do was send Terry Wogan (or whoever is set to replace him) over and hire broadcast footage for him to do a live talkover.
Very cheap TV.
Hosting the contest is far more expensive than just participating, and its largely unwatched in the UK since the 70's. the UK last took the contest in any way seriously in the early 80's and about that time stopped fielding decent candidates.
Didnt Israel want to ban their own entry as a national embarassment once?
Da Boss wrote: To flip it on it's head, rather than criticizing Germany for doing it's best to help in the greatest humanitarian disaster in Europe's living memory, the UK could have shown some leadership and taken in a substantial chunk of the numbers and relieved the pressure somewhat.
You are completely deluded if you think that taking in refugees stems the tide. It only encourages more.
Much as I hate to agree with Orlanth on anything these days, I feel this point is worth highlighting. Migrants and refugees tend to decide where they want to try and go based on three things usually, personal links (do they speak the language, family relations, historic ties to their home region, etc), future prospects (jobs, stability in the country, access to support once they arrive, etc), and the ability to settle there (so how hard it is to get there, likelihood of being deported, geographical nearness, etc).
Personal links are probably the least relevant, and the ability to settle the most. Every migrant/refugee will be prepared to brave varying levels of difficulty each depending on their motivation for moving in the first place (economic issues, war, etc), but if there's no ability to settle whatsoever, migrants cease trying. So for example, it's impossible to reach America from Africa by boat, so nobody tries. Or in the case of Australia, since they took to immediately taking all migrants and dumping them in another third world country, the number of people attempting to get there has fallen to almost nothing. If you know there's no hope of settling somewhere, there's no point in trying to get there, and so you pick a different target destination.
Drawing full circle, if we took in every migrant sitting in Calais right now, I would place good money on there being five times that number replacing them there before the ink was dry on the first lot's papers. It's why Cameron insisted on taking refugees out of camps in the Middle East rather than Greece. If we throw our doors open to Syrian immigrants, every single immigrant will insist they are Syrian, and make their way here (because we have a better economy and more generous support schemes than most of the rest of the Europe). We would become the de facto destination for all of them.
Having said that, I'm not opposed to taking in a goodly chunk of Syrian refugees. They are people in need. As someone who came to this country as an effective refugee with nothing but the clothes on his back (even if I was lucky enough to be a British passport holder), I'm highly sympathetic to those in plight. But it would have to be done properly, with relocation schemes set up across the UK (not just in the South-East) and refugees taken from the camps surrounding Syria itself instead of the ones flooding through illegal immigration channels.
Doing some quick research now (after Orlanth's other statements), and looking at the figures on what nationalities have been charged with what sorts of crimes over a five year period, this is what I've found. From 2008-2013, Syrians were arrested for 16 sexual offences in Britain as compared to 308 from Afghanistan, 452 from Pakistan, 95 from Iraq, 300 from Bangladesh, 46 from Morocco, 174 from Ireland, 31 from Lebanon, and 995 from Poland (I'm including a wide range of nationalities for illustration sake). Now those figures aren't proportionate to population here (more people will equate more crimes, naturally), so breaking those figures down according to population:-
Afghanistan:- 60,000 in Britain equating to one sex crime for every 194 Afgans.
Pakistan:- 465,000 in Britain equating to one sex crime for every 1028 Pakistanis.
Iraq:- 63,000 in Britain equating to one sex crime for every 663 Iraqis.
Bangladesh:- 234,000 in Britain equating to one sex crime for every 780 Bangladeshis.
Poland:- 646,000 in Britain equating to one sex crime for every 649 Poles.
Ireland:- 403,000 in Britain equating to one sex crime for every 2,316 Irish.
Syria:- 8,848 in Britain equating to one sex crime for every 553 Syrians
Morocco:- 21,246 in Britain equating to one sex crime for 461 Morroccans
Lebanon:-15,569 in Britain equating to one sex crime for every 501 Lebanese
(figures are from police arrests and the 2011 census)
I've included a wide range of immigrants there, and naturally the figures are quite rough (it doesn't take into account repeat offenders, and I'm assuming all arrests are crimes, for example) but they do give a good general idea of where some of those more inclined towards bad behaviour towards women might be from (Da Boss will pleased to see the Irish are the best of the lot in that list!). What we see is that the Syrians are far from the worst offenders on that list, but they don't rank too well. Altogether? Since we'd be taking refugees, I would expect the proportion of sex crimes per Syrian refugee to fall, purely on the basis that the more fundamentalist or sadistic types of people will be more inclined to be toting a gun somewhere in Syria, than sitting in a refugee camp.
So in conclusion, I have no issue with taking more Syrian refugees. It just has to be organised properly so as to not cause us more trouble than it solves.
Ketara one of Cameron's solutions, and one I agree with it to take our quote not only from refugee camps on site, but to highlight taking in orphans.
Orphaned children are the most vulnerable cases and least able to cope by themselves and by bringing them into the country and integrating them we don't store up a longer term problems.
It's good to see some Brits discussing our status in the European Union via Foreign policy in Syria and the middle East, rather than members of other nations calling us xenophobic, racists, for a change.
So, what were we talking about again, before Johnny foreigner stuck his oar in? ;-)
Orlanth wrote: Ketara one of Cameron's solutions, and one I agree with it to take our quote not only from refugee camps on site, but to highlight taking in orphans.
Orphaned children are the most vulnerable cases and least able to cope by themselves and by bringing them into the country and integrating them we don't store up a longer term problems.
But you still have the same problem. Grown adults will start trying to pass themselves off as orphaned children. Without verifying the age of refugees, its just going to exacerbate the problem.
How is one supposed to verify the age of asylum seekers (and I'm genuinely curious, not trying to snark for once)? X-raying of wrists are inaccurate at best, and IDs can be forged.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: How is one supposed to verify the age of asylum seekers (and I'm genuinely curious, not trying to snark for once)? X-raying of wrists are inaccurate at best, and IDs can be forged.
You're asking the wrong person. I'm just pointing out a self evident fact: by enacting a blanket policy to take in"orphan children", you are creating an incentive for people to misrepresent their age. There have been many accounts of this happening at asylum centres already.
Da Boss wrote: To flip it on it's head, rather than criticizing Germany for doing it's best to help in the greatest humanitarian disaster in Europe's living memory, the UK could have shown some leadership and taken in a substantial chunk of the numbers and relieved the pressure somewhat.
Germany and it's attitude towards refugees is responsible for destabilizing the entire European Union, for the political radicilisation that currently takes place and for increased crime rates and events in Germany itself. Germany encourages the problemetic situation some refugees flee from and work straight in favor of the people chasing them away. /Now/ they start thinking about a system to regulate the masses, which is way too late. On the upper side of things, even people with little to no interest in politics finally saw that the German government is absoluteley useless - and that it will cost billions of tax payer money to fix that mistake. Well done!
I'm still firmly in the "Don't Know" camp. Hopefully there'll be more objective information available nearer the time. If I had to vote tomorrow, I'd struggle with what's currently out there and accessible without devoting hours to Google.
Avatar 720 wrote: I'm still firmly in the "Don't Know" camp. Hopefully there'll be more objective information available nearer the time. If I had to vote tomorrow, I'd struggle with what's currently out there and accessible without devoting hours to Google.
I've spent the last decade making up my mind since I was a teenager, and am firmly in the Leave camp.
Avatar 720 wrote: I'm still firmly in the "Don't Know" camp. Hopefully there'll be more objective information available nearer the time. ....
Sadly that is very unlikely.
For example Farage has already come out and said the G20 finance ministers have worned of economic disruption on Brexit because they're all part of a club for mutual back-scratching.
This of course is demonstrably bollocks.
He ignores the fact that there has already been economic disruption with a significant fall in the strength of the GBP simply from Cameron announcing the date of the referundum.
welshhoppo wrote: I don't see why trade will be that much problem if we leave.
We leave, we then enter a trade agreement with the EU, then we can trade again.
Supposedly, according to some fearmongers, they'll screw us over on any deal to make our exit appear as difficult as possible to prevent us suceeding on our own, just to keep other EU countries in line in case they were thinking of leaving too.
welshhoppo wrote: I don't see why trade will be that much problem if we leave.
We leave, we then enter a trade agreement with the EU, then we can trade again.
Supposedly, according to some fearmongers, they'll screw us over on any deal to make our exit appear as difficult as possible to prevent us suceeding on our own, just to keep other EU countries in line in case they were thinking of leaving too.
welshhoppo wrote: I don't see why trade will be that much problem if we leave.
We leave, we then enter a trade agreement with the EU, then we can trade again.
Supposedly, according to some fearmongers, they'll screw us over on any deal to make our exit appear as difficult as possible to prevent us suceeding on our own, just to keep other EU countries in line in case they were thinking of leaving too.
That would be cutting off the nose to spite the face. They export more to the UK than we export to them, so trying punish us with unfavorable trade terms will give us an excuse to enact protectionist policies for British business (e.g. British steel? Fisheries? Agriculture) and barriers that obstruct EU businesses. And of course, I'm sure there are plenty of non-EU countries like China and India who'd love to take over the EU's market share.
Well, by leaving you are damaging the EU project, so I would prefer if you were not rewarded with favorable trade terms. Why should we give you any benefits when you don't pay in to the club?
I would imagine customs charges and so on would come back, hurting UK exporters.
I think that's fair enough- you get what you vote for.
It also amuses me that you guys think you know more about this than business leaders, who are overwhelmingly anti-Brexit.
'Business leaders' frequently back suggestions like holding down minimum wages and legislation against unions. There's a reason people don't feel they have anyone's interests but their own at heart.
Aye, they're not my favourite people, but I can't see the angle here. They're just saying it'll be bad for trade and business. Surely if it would be better, they'd be for it? They only care about money, after all.
Da Boss wrote: Well, by leaving you are damaging the EU project, so I would prefer if you were not rewarded with favorable trade terms. Why should we give you any benefits when you don't pay in to the club?
So you're more concerned with spitting your dummy out and getting petty revenge then?
I would imagine customs charges and so on would come back, hurting UK exporters.
I think that's fair enough- you get what you vote for.
Then we'll respond in kind, hurting EU exporters, boosting domestic British manufacturers and non-EU exporters like India and China. You really want to play that game of brinkmanship?
It also amuses me that you guys think you know more about this than business leaders, who are overwhelmingly anti-Brexit.
Business leaders who are overwhelming self interested. I care more about democracy and national self determination than the profit margins of big corporations and the salaries of CEO's. They could cry me a river about their share prices, and I'll bathe in their tears.
If my country has to endure economic hardship in the short term to win back political independence and sovereignty in the long term, I can live with that.
Da Boss wrote: Aye, they're not my favourite people, but I can't see the angle here. They're just saying it'll be bad for trade and business. Surely if it would be better, they'd be for it? They only care about money, after all.
Clearly they prefer to remain in the EU for their own businesses and current arrangements, but people are suspicious that they exaggerate 'trade and business' concerns and downplay alternatives that exist for other companies with other countries and possible benefits to the British public. If a company currently has EU trade deals and subsidies, they aren't going to want out the EU, it doesn't mean our entire country is worse off.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: How is one supposed to verify the age of asylum seekers (and I'm genuinely curious, not trying to snark for once)? X-raying of wrists are inaccurate at best, and IDs can be forged.
You're asking the wrong person. I'm just pointing out a self evident fact: by enacting a blanket policy to take in"orphan children", you are creating an incentive for people to misrepresent their age. There have been many accounts of this happening at asylum centres already.
You will get this. But the policy is based on taking orphans from refugee camps, not people turning up at Calais and claiming to be 13.
Also it helps to take obvious children as cases, five and ten year olds are harder to fake.
A sixteen year old is effectively an adult, and probably is in African and middle eastern culture and comes with the full baggage. They can also to a large extent look after themselves. There will be plenty of pre-teens who need attention, fill the government quota from there.
As for verifying their age, just take their word for it. It doesnt matter so much really. So long as you take people evidently too young to be adult. You want to take on vulnerable young people to maximise humanitarian effort for the numbers you take while getting people young enough to place in good homes and raise in a non-radicalised environment once over here.
Why should we give you any benefits when you don't pay in to the club?
But we would still be paying to remain a member of the economic trade zone. Thats a common argument of the Stay side..."If we leave the EU but stay in the trade zone, we'll still have to pay membership dues but have no political input in making legislation".
So you're contradicting your own sides arguments by claiming we won't be paying contribution fees.
I am not, because I am not assuming you'll be going with a Norwegian model. If you are paying in, significantly, then I guess you can take part in trade.
But you'd lose any exceptions and protections to your trade if I was the decision maker.
Orlanth wrote: You will get this. But the policy is based on taking orphans from refugee camps, not people turning up at Calais and claiming to be 13. Also it helps to take obvious children as cases, five and ten year olds are harder to fake.
This I can agree with. I don't anyone here is against accepting genuine refugees. Its the horde of people massing on European borders and at Calais that I don't want to let in, because they're breaking the law, forcing their way across borders without permission, causing severe social issues and crises in certain areas (Calais, Cologne etc). But people who obey the law, go through the proper process and apply for asylum, and are accepted because we believe their claims, those people I am happy to accept.
Regarding the Syrian conflict, Syrian refugees should be claiming asylum in Turkey according to international law, because that is the closest safe haven. I think we should be supporting Turkey by funding safe and well administrated asylum centres in Turkey to house refugees and process asylum claims so they can be distributed fairly across Europe. People who flee to Turkey, then hop on a boat and try to illegally sneak into the EU via Greece are no longer refugees, they're migrants. Refugees don't cross entire continents bypassing perfectly safe countries trying to get to the richest countries in Europe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: I am not, because I am not assuming you'll be going with a Norwegian model. If you are paying in, significantly, then I guess you can take part in trade.
I'm not demanding any special treatment, If Norway and other non-EU european nations pay financial contributions to be a member of the free trade zone, I will happily agree to that.
But you'd lose any exceptions and protections to your trade if I was the decision maker.
Again. If you deliberately try to punish us, expect us to respond in kind.
I've got to say, most of Da Boss's comments are probably having the opposite of his intent, they're certainly making me contemplate leaning in a direction.
Compel wrote: I've got to say, most of Da Boss's comments are probably having the opposite of his intent, they're certainly making me contemplate leaning in a direction.
Yep...telling people "Feth you, we'll screw you over if you try to leave" isn't a particularly effective way to persuade people to come round to your point of view.
I have no particular intent - I have mixed feelings on Britain leaving the EU. On the one hand, it'd be bad for Ireland, which makes me sorta want a Remain vote. But on the other, I believe Britain is a negative influence on the EU, so I'd like to see them gone so we can work on further integration without obstruction.
I flip and flop back and forth on this pretty much daily to be honest! So I'm mostly just saying what I think, not trying to convince anyone at all. I think there are valid reasons for the UK to vote for Brexit - most importantly that you want no part of a federal Europe.
I just think most of the economic and "anti Europe" arguments are complete bollocks.
And equally guys, saying "Your organisation is rotten and corrupt, and we're leaving because it's so terrible!" doesn't exactly win supporters of that organization over to YOUR side, either. It's the diplomatic fallout of breaking an alliance.
Da Boss wrote: If disincentivising them means letting them drown in the Med as Cameron was suggesting during the summer, I hardly think that's moral either.
I don't know nor care about what Cameron said.
My point is that they shouldn't be allowed to make the crossing in the first place.
First of all, its illegal.
Second, its tantamount to suicide.
Third, accepting people who have already made the crossing is just going to encourage more people to risk their lives making the crossing. Its not a solution to the crisis, its a counter productive band aid.
It is basically the same argument than there was with the Scottish independence.
Yes, you can make deals with the bigger partner after you leave, but you will be negotiating from the position of weakness. It is not particularly about anyone being a petty donkey-cave, it is just that in such a situation each side will look for their own interest, and it is the bigger player who has the power to push a deal favourable to them.
Leaving EU will absolutely hurt UK economically. How much, that I don't know, but pretending that it wouldn't at all is denying the reality. As noted, the Pound is already suffering.
Dude, we fundamentally disagree about this (as in, how the hell are we going to stop people attempting it when most of them leave from Libya which is now an ungovernable mess due to French and British intervention, and piles of people were making the crossing before Merkel said anything anyhow).
I'm sorry for dragging the thread OT by sniping about it.
Compel wrote: I've got to say, most of Da Boss's comments are probably having the opposite of his intent, they're certainly making me contemplate leaning in a direction.
Yep...telling people "Feth you, we'll screw you over if you try to leave" isn't a particularly effective way to persuade people to come round to your point of view.
Quite.
Da Boss wrote: I have no particular intent - I have mixed feelings on Britain leaving the EU. On the one hand, it'd be bad for Ireland, which makes me sorta want a Remain vote. But on the other, I believe Britain is a negative influence on the EU, so I'd like to see them gone so we can work on further integration without obstruction.
Your intent is loud and clear. You love Ireland, hate the UK, and want whatever doesn't work for us because you want to see the UK get hammered over this, so long as Ireland isnt adversely effected.
You also blame the UK for the EU's ills and believe that with us gone everyone will be happy in a sunny federal Europe, because when those evil Brits are gone nothing will stop everyone else from just getting along.
I don't hate the UK, though I do despair at the state of it's politics. It's a very interesting country with a lot of positives about it. I am frustrated by what I see as the sabotaging of what makes the country good due to a right wing ideology.
I do get annoyed with British foreign policy though, because it tends to be disastrous. But I feel the same way about French foreign policy (and the state of French politics!)
Also, I think Ireland is far more poorly governed than the UK and mostly inhabited by conservative morons.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: How is one supposed to verify the age of asylum seekers (and I'm genuinely curious, not trying to snark for once)? X-raying of wrists are inaccurate at best, and IDs can be forged.
You're asking the wrong person. I'm just pointing out a self evident fact: by enacting a blanket policy to take in"orphan children", you are creating an incentive for people to misrepresent their age. There have been many accounts of this happening at asylum centres already.
You will get this. But the policy is based on taking orphans from refugee camps, not people turning up at Calais and claiming to be 13.
Also it helps to take obvious children as cases, five and ten year olds are harder to fake.
A sixteen year old is effectively an adult, and probably is in African and middle eastern culture and comes with the full baggage. They can also to a large extent look after themselves. There will be plenty of pre-teens who need attention, fill the government quota from there.
As for verifying their age, just take their word for it. It doesnt matter so much really. So long as you take people evidently too young to be adult. You want to take on vulnerable young people to maximise humanitarian effort for the numbers you take while getting people young enough to place in good homes and raise in a non-radicalised environment once over here.
There aren't any actual down sides to this.
No down sides apart from potentially cutting families off from their children. If there's currently an incentive for young adults to lie and say they're children, would your proposal not create a situation where there would be an incentive for the parents of young children to pass them off as orphans to get them out of Syria to somewhere they're less likely to get blown to tiny bits?
Oh, one thing I'd like to point out as the rape statistics were bandied about here. One big reason why immigrants statistically commit more sex crimes, is that most of them are young men, and young men commit overwhelming majority of sex crimes. Not saying that the culture has nothing to do with it, but it is not nearly as big factor as it may seem.
And of course, (approximately) 99,8% of immigrants do not commit any sex crimes, so it is rather questionable to let those 0.2% to define the rest.
It could happen, no system is without flaw, especially ones drawn up on the back of a cigarette packet, on the Internet, by anonymous and completely unqualified people, in the middle of a discussion about something completely different, like a nation's decision to leave a pan-national union, for example.
Hint hint.
Crimson wrote: Oh, one thing I'd like to point out as the rape statistics were bandied about here. One big reason why immigrants statistically commit more sex crimes, is that most of them are young men, and young men commit overwhelming majority of sex crimes. Not saying that the culture has nothing to do with it, but it is not nearly as big factor as it may seem.
And of course, (approximately) 99,8% of immigrants do not commit any sex crimes, so it is rather questionable to let those 0.2% to define the rest.
It's also worth noting that Sweden's rape count is so high because they include all reported cases in their figures, most countries only put down convicted cases. Now consider that only 1/28 reported cases get a conviction in the UK.
The UK still has a hopelessly narrow definition of rape. The English Sexual Offences Act of 2003, for example:
Sexual Offences Act 2003 wrote:(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
So only penetration with penis counts, meaning penetration with other objects are right out, as are non-penetrative acts. Women can't even be rapists.
Compare this to the Swedish definition (my translation):
Brottsbalken 6 kap. 1§ wrote:
Whosoever through assault or
otherwise through force or through threat of illegal deed forces intercourse upon another person
or forces that person to perform or suffer another sexual act
that in respect to the violation's seriousness is comparable to intercourse,
shall be sentenced for rape to imprisonment for at least two and at most six years.
The same is true of anyone who performs intercourse
or a sexual act that according to the first section is
comparable to intercourse through inappropriately abusing that
the person because of unconciousness, sleep, serious fear,
intoxication or the influence of other drugs, illness, bodily injury
or mental disability or is otherwise in an according to circumstances vulnerable position.
Are we starting to understand why comparisons across nations are tricky yet, or do I have to go on?
This doesn't take away from the volume of reported cases of immigrant males raping Swedish women.
Pointing out that female rape is not formally listed in the UK statistics is clutching at straws. You cant write off Swedens rape stats as due to an influx of lesbians. Evidence doesn't support that,
Orlanth wrote: Pointing out that female rape is not formally listed in the UK statistics is clutching at straws. You cant write off Swedens rape stats as due to an influx of lesbians. Evidence doesn't support that,
The way I see it, the only way to honestly make the argument you just did is that you're not even willing to entertain the notion that a woman could rape a man. I agree that male-on-female rape is almost certainly overwhelmingly in majority, but the fact that you just ignored the possibility of men being raped by women without even reflecting over it is rather disturbing.
I'm using the UK as an example because it's what I assume you're the most familiar with. The German definition:
Strafgesetzbuch 177 wrote:Section 177 Sexual assault by use of force or threats; rape
(1) Whosoever coerces another person
1. by force;
2. by threat of imminent danger to life or limb; or
3. by exploiting a situation in which the victim is unprotected and at the mercy of the offender,
to suffer sexual acts by the offender or a third person on their own person or to engage actively in sexual activity with the offender or a third person, shall be liable to imprisonment of not less than one year.
is also less wide than the Swedish, as it does not include anything outsite the realm of force, imminent threats, or exploitation. C.f. the part in the Swedish definition about "other illegal deed".
The French definition is:
Article 222-23 French Penal Code wrote:ARTICLE 222-23' Any act of sexual penetration, whatever its nature, committed against another person by violence, constraint, threat or surprise, is rape. Rape is punished by fifteen years' criminal imprisonment.
Again, nothing about non-penetrative acts, nothing about deceit.
We can either draw the conclusion that you seemingly draw, that Sweden has a higher number of reported rapes due to immigration, or we can stop being silly and realize that a wider definition of rape is going to lead to more crimes being reported as rape.
Orlanth wrote: This doesn't take away from the volume of reported cases of immigrant males raping Swedish women.
You're right, it doesn't. You conveniently ignored the part where the only thing that counts in the UK is penetration with a penis, whereas the Swedish definition is penetration with anything, plus anything the court feels is comparable to intercourse. You're trying to spin awfully hard for someone who's seen the truth.
Even the UN report that started this whole thing explicitly points out that you really shouldn't be using these figures to try to compare nations to each other. You're trying to link Sweden's high intake of refugees to sexual violence by using data in a manner that just does not work. It's dishonest and disgusting, and I'd ask you to stop it if I thought you'd listen.
EDIT: Link-thingie for the UN report isn't working, it's at www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/CTS2013_SexualViolence.xls
Leaving EU will absolutely hurt UK economically. How much, that I don't know, but pretending that it wouldn't at all is denying the reality. As noted, the Pound is already suffering.
Speaking as someone who does know something about economics, it's a far more complex issue than is being made out here, and we could end up doing quite well economically. Admittedly, the brexit supporters don't really have much of a clue either, beyond 'we can cut red tape and that will boost business! And make money! Somehow....'
Referring back to Da Bosses point earlier about large business advocating to stay, it is almost always more advantageous for individual businesses to only have to deal with one set of regulations, legislation and standards. Your lorry drivers don't need to pass through customs every time they cross the border. Your have the advantage of being able to draw from a labour pool all across Europe instead of being limited to one country. In terms of total wealth created, it certainly generates more than the alternative, and is why business leaders are keen to press it home as a positive. It has a very direct impact on how much profit they extract.
When you're looking at things from a more general economic level however, the benefits for the nation as a whole are less clear. International companies (which function best in the above environment) can often suck that extra generated wealth out of the country altogether to reinvest in other countries. Just because Clas Ohlsen is making a big profit in the UK does not mean the money stays in the UK. The larger labour pool can drag down wage levels for unskilled labour, meaning more people are paid less, and reducing the circulation of capital within the country. The EU is a massive advocate of free trade and anti-protectionism, which makes it impossible for the government to support industries that have competition within the EU. It also means that we can't raise tariffs on certain imported goods to boost domestic industries we deem in need of that little extra support.
These are just some of the factors that need to need to be considered. There are good general economic factors the EU contributes as well (which I haven't gone through), but we will certainly not be out of options if/as and when we leave, and we will not be negotiating from a position of weakness. The size of our economy guarantees that any measures the EU might try to enact to 'punish' us will hurt them as much as they will us, and such bullying tactics will not look good from anyone's perspective. So no. Whatever is said now, any post-brexit settlement will be made late at night over good brandy in the smoking room by people who understand how these things work, and how to come to the best accommodation for all of us. Nationalism and public face is all well and good, but we all have a good habit of settling things effectively by diplomacy in this part of the world. Leave the flag waving and xenophobic banter to the children.
I don't think anyone truly knows if being out of the EU will be better for the UK economy than being in.
Norway and Switzerland are not strong because of being outside the EU. Germany is not strong because of being inside. They are strong because they have good quality education, infrastructure, the rule of law and so on. If the UK fails in any of these (I believe we are failing in education) then being in or out won't stop us failing on our own account.
There certainly will be disruption of stock markets and foreign exchange markets that will affect people. This has already begun and would carry on after Brexit as the situation gets adjusted.
Certainly, the "cut through red tape" line is bs. Industry won't be able to abandon compliance with EU trade rules because the EU is too big to be ignored. It's the same as we can't ignore Sarbanes-Oxley.
Some of the red tape is workers' rights, e.g. Working Time Directive that we already have an opt-out from.
A lot of it is stuff the British have done to themselves, for example building planning control laws, introduced to protect the Green Belt and listed buildings, etc. were not inventions of the EU and the Conservative moves to cut them back are not being opposed by the EU.
Exactly, the overwhelming majority of complaints for those wanting an exit are actually pretty petty.
The only thing I can get aboard with for an exit is the ideal of maintaining sovereignty, and avoiding becoming part of a federalised Europe. The UK is simply not ready for federalisation at the moment.
That is the strongest argument for the out campaign, and it makes sense, for now.
I am strongly in favour of the UK adopting a federal system within the UK, allowing us, as national partners, of English, Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish, autonomy in our own affairs but under a broad umbrella of govt, much like the German system.
I believe that it could happen, eventually. At that point, the UK may see the advantage in closer ties with our European allies, however, we won't be there for a good while yet.
I am in favour of staying within the EU, of playing the long game. It is certainly better to be inside, paying for membership with some say and control over what happens, than being on the outside, paying in with no control over what happens.
We will still have to trade with the EU no matter what. Even if we are outside, we would still have to comply with the regulations they demand in order to sell them anything.
Plus, look at those in favour of BREXIT I am comfortable with opposition to any policy that has mashed Nigel Farage, George Galloway and Boris Johnson together.
r_squared wrote: Plus, look at those in favour of BREXIT I am comfortable with opposition to any policy that has mashed Nigel Farage, George Galloway and Boris Johnson together.
My exact thoughts. Fortunately for the out campaign they also have Iain Duncan Smith, who was very eloquent on the Andrew Marr show yesterday.
r_squared wrote: Exactly, the overwhelming majority of complaints for those wanting an exit are actually pretty petty..
Not necessarily. It is easy to claim that all 'get rid of the foreigners' arguments are just xenophobic rubbish. But if you live in the SouthEast, and do not come from a god socioeconomic background, the large scale migration has substantially impacted upon your of life. All unskilled labour jobs have had their wages dragged down, and it is far harder to get a job as a direct result. Local services are under considerable strain, making it far harder to get a dentist appointment, or a place at a decent school. The worry about bogus foreign claimants has helped to institute further barriers around the welfare estate, making it harder and more complex to claim.
People may not have the education to understand precisely why all these foreigners being around has damaged their way of life, but they know that they have, which leads to a more generalised xenophobia. There is a reason that UKIP's stronghold is located in Thanet.
To dismiss the concerns of the people in the above position as 'petty' is intellectually lazy. All reactions have causes, and this one is no different. It is well and good for those in a more advantageous position who are able to consider the bigger picture. But when you're an unemployed single mum in Hastings who comes from a poor working class background, the 'bigger picture' is irrelevant. And they are not alone. There are many communities spread across Britain whose livelihoods in industry have perished over the last forty years. Whilst the bigger picture for the UK is rosy, often the local scene can be quite dire. Macro and micro, my friend.
r_squared wrote: Plus, look at those in favour of BREXIT I am comfortable with opposition to any policy that has mashed Nigel Farage, George Galloway and Boris Johnson together.
My exact thoughts. Fortunately for the out campaign they also have Iain Duncan Smith, who was very eloquent on the Andrew Marr show yesterday.
Well Iain Duncan Smith isn't somebody I would want to be associated with either.
Spot on katara the micro impact will sway more people than the macro does a shop worker care if a bank goes else where? not likley but they do care that due to the abundance of unskilled labour around there wages are kept at a minimum as the old if you dont like it we can get some one who will comes into play. And its not going to get better for them as the eu parliment are pushing a bill though that say all job vacancys have to be advertized eu wide from the get go.
The hyperthetical shop worker also notes the time it takes to see a doc or dentist. In the end to me the immigration debate comes down to numbers.
can the uk house more people?, very doubtful.
can our social services handle any more? No
can our inferstructure (schools/transport/power etc) handle more? On some no on others maybe.
these are problems than can be sorted with a run up but with the way eu people can move around how do you budget for it ? Damned if i know but from what i see it can barely handle what its got let alone an unknown amount at any time.
Personaly i'm voting out as i want my mp to have a say and if they dont i can get rid.(in theary)i want our supream court to be the final say over laws. And my instinct is to get out before tge house of cards colapses on us. (Ps i am that unskilled shop worker.)
I want to go in the hope it causes the EU to collapse in beautiful flames. Mostly because it can be remade in a far better, and democratic, way which will make us all happy.
Well, cheers for trying to screw up my life and the lives of millions of other people who depend on the structures of the EU for their relationships, working situations and general living situation.
It's really considerate.
(If anyone wants to know why this topic makes Da Boss an even pricklier prick than normal, comments like the above are exactly the cause. If the EU collapses my job (a teacher in an international school with lots of students from all over), my living situation (a non-German national living and working in Germany) and my relationship (in the process of marrying a German lady, smoothed over massively by the EU) would all go down the crapper. And I'm not alone, there are millions of us.)
Well, cheers for trying to screw up my life and the lives of millions of other people who depend on the structures of the EU for their relationships, working situations and general living situation.
The EU is well on its way to collapsing on its own, with or without our help in the form of a Brexit. Don't make Britain your scapegoat for the failure of the European Union.
Shadow Captain: I'm not scapegoating Britain. Don't put fething words in my mouth. I was responding DIRECTLY to welshhoppo's statement that he wants to see the EU burn.
I'm hopeful the EU can survive Britain's exit and overcome the current challenges.
welshhoppo: There's a better chance of that happening if the EU continues to exist than if it collapses. And do you realise how horribly inconvenient and terrible for all of Europe it would be to have the EU collapse? It'd be chaotic and unpredictable as hell.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I think it's lunacy.
We'll burn was a figure of speech. I have no intention of standing on the White Cliffs of Dover, Cigar in hand and Rule Brittania blazing loudly whilst watching the sky turn red from Europe Burning......
What I mean is that I hope Britain leaving makes the EU take a good hard look at itself and realise that it needs to do some serious soul searching. And that if one country can leave, and a pretty important one I believe, then if something doesn't change other countries might start to leave too. Last time I checked a lot of MEPs are from EuroSkeptic parties, it might be the case that the loudest voice gets the vote in the EU elections because no one else seems incredibly bothered by it, but that shows that something isn't right and it is felt across many of the nations. Quite a few of them have got a beef to pick with some part of the system, I'm sure plenty of people are annoyed that Greece managed to 'hide' its finances and cause a problem that way. Plus the current migrant situation isn't helping either.
Da Boss wrote: Shadow Captain: I'm not scapegoating Britain. Don't put fething words in my mouth. I was responding DIRECTLY to welshhoppo's statement that he wants to see the EU burn.
I'm hopeful the EU can survive Britain's exit and overcome the current challenges.
I don't think the Eu will unduly suffer from the UK exit. The EU suffers from the fact that some countries are still in.
The NI peace process will result in a border deal between Britain and Ireland very quickly. Also it will aid several countries in Europe to have trade deals with the Uk in place by the time Brexit is finalised.
I hope the UK stays, and will vote In, but don't think its entirely doom and gloom for the EU if the UK chooses not to.
That is my hope also. Though I think the project will be damaged by losing a member as important and influential as Britain.
Welshhoppo: Well, that's a lot more reasonable. I also hope for a re-examination of the EU. The problem is that it is formed by the governments people elect, and the quality of representative currently there is not particularly good. They are secretive and authoritarian. But this can be changed - we simply need to vote for different candidates. I think we will be able to manage it.
This movement is attempting to push for reform, and has the backing of the European Greens. Unfortunately it's got Varofakis as a mouthpiece, the odious turd, but a lot of the other people involved are very solid!
http://diem25.org
Shadow Captain: I'm not scapegoating Britain. Don't put fething words in my mouth. I was responding DIRECTLY to welshhoppo's statement that he wants to see the EU burn.
I'm not just referring to your previous comment replying to welshhoppo, you have been pretty consistent in this thread saying that Britain leaving is going to damage the EU and "sabotage the EU project". I think you're putting too much emphasis on the potential damage to the EU of a Brexit, and overlooking the damage thats already been caused and is still being caused to the EU by factors which have nothing to do with Britain. The Schengen zone is on the verge of collapse, and that has feth all to do with us.
Welshhoppo: Well, that's a lot more reasonable. I also hope for a re-examination of the EU. The problem is that it is formed by the governments people elect, and the quality of representative currently there is not particularly good. They are secretive and authoritarian. But this can be changed - we simply need to vote for different candidates. I think we will be able to manage it.
Sounds like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic to me. Simply changing the people in charge of a fundamentally broken system is not enough.
If you change who is in charge, perhaps they can reform the system to make it less broken.
And yeah, I've made no secret of the fact that I consider Britain to have been a negative influence within the EU in a lot of ways, and that the brexit debate exasperates me. I don't apologise for it either.
It annoys me that "the EU" gets blamed for things (for example the eastward expansion of the EU to include the post-communist Eastern European nations) that were heavily pushed for by British administrations from within the EU.
But I've probably said enough about that sort of thing and am pissing people off to no constructive end, so I'm going to refrain from banging on and on about it unless directly asked or challenged from now on.
And yeah, I've made no secret of the fact that I consider Britain to have been a negative influence within the EU in a lot of ways, and that the brexit debate exasperates me. I don't apologise for it either.
If you think we're such a negative influence then the hell don't you want us to leave?
welshhoppo wrote: I want to go in the hope it causes the EU to collapse in beautiful flames. Mostly because it can be remade in a far better, and democratic, way which will make us all happy.
I don't think that will happen. If the UK leaves, it will cause a very severe shock to the whole EU project, and the French will hate us for ever. Whether it collapses or not, I doubt the French and Germans will want us back in because it's partly our childish whiny intransigent attitude that has made things so rocky so far.
If Britain would put its big boy pants on and show some fething leadership and adaptability, we could have most of the EU nations eating out of our hand. Historically we have always had a good relationship with Germany (two world wars and one world cup aside.) We could team up with them, and get a proper constitution and so on set up, and be king of the heap.
Britain is second or third most populous, second or third richest, first or second most fighty, and definitely first in terms of international soft and cultural power, out of all EU member states. We're absolute fools for turning our backs on the possibility of strongly influencing the whole future of Europe just because of some grizzling from the House of Commons that MPs should be no.1.
And yeah, I've made no secret of the fact that I consider Britain to have been a negative influence within the EU in a lot of ways, and that the brexit debate exasperates me. I don't apologise for it either.
If you think we're such a negative influence then the hell don't you want us to leave?
You said you are reading my posts, I've addressed this a whole pile of times! I'm ambivalent about the UK staying or leaving. In the end it's ye lot's decision and I respect that.
If Britain would put its big boy pants on and show some fething leadership and adaptability, we could have most of the EU nations eating out of our hand. Historically we have always had a good relationship with Germany (two world wars and one world cup aside.) We could team up with them, and get a proper constitution and so on set up, and be king of the heap.
In short: yes. The EU's current main problem is that it wants to make people believe that every country is equal in the EU - and they aren't. It's a few strong countries pulling the weak ones in their wake. Germany and the UK can and, most importantly, should rise up and take control of the entire project. They are the EU's leading power and with the UK on their side, the entire EU has an even stronger relation to the US who will also be more willing to support a strong union instead of the fragile...thing we have nowadays. People just need to stop living in their "Everyone is awesome!" bubble and realize that a strong union needs strong leadership.
France has a lot of problems right now they need to tackle before being able to get back to the big boy's table. Thanks to their socialist leadership, their financials are in complete disarray and it will take quite some time for them to recover.
Da Boss wrote: France could do with stepping up to the plate a bit more too. They're a disgrace, currently.
So it's everyone else who is the problem?
Mervyn King seems to think the EU is on it's last legs - he made the point that all the coutries which are suffering economically are basically a direct strain on the taxpayers of the well-off member states, so a 'BREXIT' will at least separate British taxpayers from that financial burden.
Well, I'm originally from the South East and have lived all over the UK and can say for a fact that migration is not a problem faced solely by those in the south.
I now live in the East Midlands, near Boston, an area absolutely full to the brim with migrants from the EU.
The people of Thanet are not the only ones to have large amounts of migrants.
My kids compete with Poles and Lithuanians for school places and for space to see doctors and dentists, and you know what, I don't blame the migrants for being here.
However, I am used to hearing the complaints of people who basically can't be arsed to engage brain cell one about any issue, and just blame migrants for every, single problem.
The work that the migrants mostly do is back breaking, repetitive and thankless agricultural labour.
If they are willing to leave their families behind, and work as hard as they do, good luck to them.
If Britain would put its big boy pants on and show some fething leadership and adaptability, we could have most of the EU nations eating out of our hand. Historically we have always had a good relationship with Germany (two world wars and one world cup aside.) We could team up with them, and get a proper constitution and so on set up, and be king of the heap.
In short: yes. The EU's current main problem is that it wants to make people believe that every country is equal in the EU - and they aren't. It's a few strong countries pulling the weak ones in their wake. Germany and the UK can and, most importantly, should rise up and take control of the entire project. They are the EU's leading power and with the UK on their side, the entire EU has an even stronger relation to the US who will also be more willing to support a strong union instead of the fragile...thing we have nowadays. People just need to stop living in their "Everyone is awesome!" bubble and realize that a strong union needs strong leadership.
If the refugee crisis is any indication, I think the EU can do without the 'strong leadership' that has exacerbated the problem.
welshhoppo wrote: I want to go in the hope it causes the EU to collapse in beautiful flames. Mostly because it can be remade in a far better, and democratic, way which will make us all happy.
I don't think that will happen. If the UK leaves, it will cause a very severe shock to the whole EU project, and the French will hate us for ever.
Well the French and English have hated each other for as long as there has been England. So no different than the last 1,000 years then eh?
welshhoppo wrote: I want to go in the hope it causes the EU to collapse in beautiful flames. Mostly because it can be remade in a far better, and democratic, way which will make us all happy.
I don't think that will happen. If the UK leaves, it will cause a very severe shock to the whole EU project, and the French will hate us for ever.
Well the French and English have hated each other for as long as there has been England. So no different than the last 1,000 years then eh?
The French (or at least their ruling class) will always hate us whether we Stay or Leave.
If Britain would put its big boy pants on and show some fething leadership and adaptability, we could have most of the EU nations eating out of our hand. Historically we have always had a good relationship with Germany (two world wars and one world cup aside.) We could team up with them, and get a proper constitution and so on set up, and be king of the heap.
This cannot happen, because our politicians are British and there are enough French and Benelux politicians who just dont like us.
Its not anything we do, its because we are British.
De Gaulle summed this up, he blocked UK entry to the EEC until he was replaced by his death even though every other member country wanted us in and the UK had the economic credentials. Why did he veto UK membership? Because he was anglophobic.
There is an awful amount of racism in the EU and the UK is a major target of it.
The UK has had strong leadership, Thatcher is a good example, yet the Iron Lady didn't have the EU eating out of her hand. Thatcher was more eurosceptic than europhobic, and wanted to make a go of it, but couldn't get round the bullcrap, and thus switched from negotiating with the EU to just plain bullying it. In this she was successful.
Da Boss wrote: France could do with stepping up to the plate a bit more too. They're a disgrace, currently.
So it's everyone else who is the problem?
Mervyn King seems to think the EU is on it's last legs - he made the point that all the coutries which are suffering economically are basically a direct strain on the taxpayers of the well-off member states, so a 'BREXIT' will at least separate British taxpayers from that financial burden.
The Eurozone is stable at the core, and will eventually be reduced to the core. From what I have heard Germany and France are already in agreement on this. The EU is too large and has financial union between too many countries. The plan is to kick out the club med economies, and possibly Ireland too, and stick with Germany, France, Benelux and any of the Scandinavian countries which want in. Italy's membership is questionable, The UK was to be welcome to remain in also.
Former member states would have trade partnerships in lieu of full membership, thgis is to prevent ugly destabilisation. The UK would be responsible (to some extent) for Ireland, and France would be responsible to a similar extent for Spain. AFAIK no one is going to shoulder the responsibility for Greece, and there is no land border to worrit over.. Germany would have to support Italy, as that would be the remaining drain within the EU. Portugal, was also to be given a parachute, probably via the UK.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigvatr wrote: The current German government isn't a strong leadership, it's bending over and surrendering any last sign of rationality.
Germany has a double hit. First there is the progressive concensus which infects a lot of politics in Europe, the Uk bought this bullcrap early ands is heading out the other side. Germany is still caught in the PC fad, some nations even more so.
Consequently it is political suicide to be insufficiently politically correct with regards to immigration, like it was in the UK ten to fifteen years ago.
Germany however also has the Holocaust guilt trip, and the is no way out of that even two generations later. No German government can afford to be in any way 'negative' towards a minority group. Though the Cologne attacks is beginning to undermine this.
welshhoppo wrote: I want to go in the hope it causes the EU to collapse in beautiful flames. Mostly because it can be remade in a far better, and democratic, way which will make us all happy.
I don't think that will happen. If the UK leaves, it will cause a very severe shock to the whole EU project, and the French will hate us for ever.
Well the French and English have hated each other for as long as there has been England. So no different than the last 1,000 years then eh?
The French (or at least their ruling class) will always hate us whether we Stay or Leave.
Don't forget, the reason we didn't actually enter the EU for so long was because de Galle hated us first. Apparently helping him out in World War Two was the wrong choice to make.
Da Boss wrote: France could do with stepping up to the plate a bit more too. They're a disgrace, currently.
So it's everyone else who is the problem?
Mervyn King seems to think the EU is on it's last legs - he made the point that all the coutries which are suffering economically are basically a direct strain on the taxpayers of the well-off member states, so a 'BREXIT' will at least separate British taxpayers from that financial burden.
In a globalised world, all the countries suffering economically are a drag on everyone.
That's part of why the markets everywhere are jittery. It's not just bits of Europe, China's in the doldrums, this affects extraction industries in Australia and Africa, which hits Rio Tinto Zinc's price on the London Stock Exchange.
welshhoppo wrote: I was always of the opinion that tying multiple country's currency's together was going to be a bad idea... Turned out I was right.
There is nothing wrong with the idea, but a significant number of the countries were allowed to fiddle their figures to hit the convergence criteria (including France), which basically undermines the whole idea.
Despite that, it isn't France who has suffered, but places like Greece, whose government was enabled to borrow cheaply and invest the money very unwisely. Even this would not have been so insupportable if it weren't for serious problems with corruption and tax collection in Greece.
But, while the UK has had to make some contribution to the European Central Bank for bailing out the Greeks and so on, we bailed out some of our own banks with vastly greater amounts of public money, when we could legally have just let them go bankrupt.
Frankly, Mervyn King should take the beam out of his own eye before pointing at the mote in the eye of the ECB.
Kilkrazy wrote: Despite that, it isn't France who has suffered, but places like Greece, whose government was enabled to borrow cheaply and invest the money very unwisely. Even this would not have been so insupportable if it weren't for serious problems with corruption and tax collection in Greece.
But, while the UK has had to make some contribution to the European Central Bank for bailing out the Greeks and so on, we bailed out some of our own banks with vastly greater amounts of public money, when we could legally have just let them go bankrupt.
Frankly, Mervyn King should take the beam out of his own eye before pointing at the mote in the eye of the ECB.
To be fair the RSB bailout was the government of the times decision. Mainly because Gordon Brown could see that Labour was haemorraging votes in Scotland. Though heavily encouraged by the City, because it allowed the banking industry to paper over the need for reform.
Anything that is done is the government of the time's decision.
Would a conservative government have done things differently? It is pretty unlikely. New Labour emulated the Conservative Party's business friendliness as a matter of policy. There also is an argument that something had to be done, to avoid a total financial meltdown.
At any rate, the government bailed out Northern Rock, RBS and Lloyds.
Barclays was saved by taking a collosal investment from the soverign wealth fund of Dubai. While this saved the British tax-payer billions of pounds, it hardly augers well for the national sovereignty of our financial system.
(HSBC was okay at the time, but since then has been caught out in a variety of malpractices.)
The basic point is that the UK payments into the European Stability Fund are tiny in comparison. It wouldn't do our economy any good if the Eurozone went down the tubes, so arguably we are making a sensible investment by helping them to bail out.
Skullhammer wrote:Spot on katara the micro impact will sway more people than the macro does a shop worker care if a bank goes else where? not likley but they do care that due to the abundance of unskilled labour around there wages are kept at a minimum as the old if you dont like it we can get some one who will comes into play. And its not going to get better for them as the eu parliment are pushing a bill though that say all job vacancys have to be advertized eu wide from the get go.
The hyperthetical shop worker also notes the time it takes to see a doc or dentist. In the end to me the immigration debate comes down to numbers.
can the uk house more people?, very doubtful.
can our social services handle any more? No
can our inferstructure (schools/transport/power etc) handle more? On some no on others maybe.
these are problems than can be sorted with a run up but with the way eu people can move around how do you budget for it ? Damned if i know but from what i see it can barely handle what its got let alone an unknown amount at any time.
Personaly i'm voting out as i want my mp to have a say and if they dont i can get rid.(in theary)i want our supream court to be the final say over laws. And my instinct is to get out before tge house of cards colapses on us. (Ps i am that unskilled shop worker.)
I'm glad you chose to chip in. I can't say I agree with you on everything (I think there's plenty of space for people to live in the UK for example), but it's very important that the voice of people in situations like yours isn't lost through handwaving and concern for 'the bigger picture'. That big picture is ultimately made up of lots of little pictures, and if in the process of chasing greater foreign integration and business turnover we remove support from those who need it most, I don't think the resulting big picture is one to proud of. The meteoric rise of global corporatism has generated vast amounts of wealth, but it is the job of the government (to take a slightly naive view) to represent the interests of its populace, not its business. The business can be part of it, but it shouldn't dominate it to the exclusion of all else.
Kilkrazy wrote:
welshhoppo wrote: I want to go in the hope it causes the EU to collapse in beautiful flames. Mostly because it can be remade in a far better, and democratic, way which will make us all happy.
I don't think that will happen. If the UK leaves, it will cause a very severe shock to the whole EU project, and the French will hate us for ever. Whether it collapses or not, I doubt the French and Germans will want us back in because it's partly our childish whiny intransigent attitude that has made things so rocky so far.
If Britain would put its big boy pants on and show some fething leadership and adaptability, we could have most of the EU nations eating out of our hand. Historically we have always had a good relationship with Germany (two world wars and one world cup aside.) We could team up with them, and get a proper constitution and so on set up, and be king of the heap.
Britain is second or third most populous, second or third richest, first or second most fighty, and definitely first in terms of international soft and cultural power, out of all EU member states. We're absolute fools for turning our backs on the possibility of strongly influencing the whole future of Europe just because of some grizzling from the House of Commons that MPs should be no.1.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. If we're in, we should be all in, and trying to manipulate the interests to our best advantage. We're projected to become the most indisputably powerful state in Europe within the next thirty years. Once this referendum is over, if we're staying, we need to step up the game.
r_squared wrote:Well, I'm originally from the South East and have lived all over the UK and can say for a fact that migration is not a problem faced solely by those in the south.
I now live in the East Midlands, near Boston, an area absolutely full to the brim with migrants from the EU.
The people of Thanet are not the only ones to have large amounts of migrants.
My kids compete with Poles and Lithuanians for school places and for space to see doctors and dentists, and you know what, I don't blame the migrants for being here.
However, I am used to hearing the complaints of people who basically can't be arsed to engage brain cell one about any issue, and just blame migrants for every, single problem.
The work that the migrants mostly do is back breaking, repetitive and thankless agricultural labour.
If they are willing to leave their families behind, and work as hard as they do, good luck to them.
It might be backbreaking agricultural labour locally to you, but I strongly suspect that's a geographical circumstance. If you go anywhere in the SouthEast for a coffee, and walk in Pret/Costa/Starbucks/Cafe Nero? At least half the staff is foreign. McDonalds/Burger King/KFC/Subway? The same? Tesco/Asda/Lidl/Aldi/Sainsburys? Same again. There's a massive turnover of low skilled labour, and the emigration from Eastern Europe has driven the value of labour down to ridiculous levels. The likes of the companies I named above could easily still function if they paid their staff a living wage. They make vast, vast profits. But they don't need to legally, and the market conditions created by a vast labour pool drawn from Eastern Europe means they don't have to.
Heck, even in semi-skilled trades, it's had an impact. Builders used to get £15 an hour. They're down to minimum wage a lot of the time now, because there are groups of Eastern European brickies hanging about that do cash in hand for minimum wage. Plumbers? Their wages hit rock bottom when the great Polish emigration exodus hit us a decade ago.
I don't blame immigrants for being here either. Everyone wants to improve their lot, and thanks to the strength of the pound, they know if they sleep rough here for a year or two and do cash in hand or minimum wage, they can earn enough to buy a house back home. It's completely understandable.
But it's not the job of our government to be looking out for the great unskilled masses of Eastern Europe. It's their job to be looking out for us. And in an age after Thatcher put the final nail in the industrial sector, where we're heavily limited in our power to intervene in any market due to tight anti-competition laws, many British people NEED those jobs to pay a living wage. And economically speaking, the country could really use it too. Movement of capital has continued to flow up to the richest, to the global international corporate elite and oligarchs, and the current situation is only serving to accelerate that process. There the money sits, it stagnates, it solidifies instead of generating more wealth by moving around. Trickle down is a load of rubbish. If the Government does nothing but maintain that status quo right now, our living standards will continue to drop, and more and more 'middle class' familiar will drop down towards the breadline. And the unskilled labour pool from Eastern Europe is a direct contributory factor to that economic and societal decline here in Britain.
welshhoppo wrote: I was always of the opinion that tying multiple country's currency's together was going to be a bad idea... Turned out I was right.
There is nothing wrong with the idea, but a significant number of the countries were allowed to fiddle their figures to hit the convergence criteria (including France), which basically undermines the whole idea.
There is actually a ton wrong with the idea.
First off, you have two different economies. Each with an independent economic cycle. Then you give them the same currency. This causes which ever country is on a downswing to drag the value of the currency down for the other, and cause the other to have a downturn. Add multiple countries and economies across a vast area and its begging for a disaster.
Different currencies protect against this as a buffer against the economic fallout.
To be fair to Lidl, at least, they actually pay above minimum wage, £7.70 per hour for the lowest level staff, in fact.
As far as the building trade goes, The UK has for decades built about half as many new homes as are actually needed.
It's not Polish plumbers to blame, it's the government for allowing speculators to sit on land banks and watch them zoom up in value while far fewer homes are built than are needed. The government also forces councils and now housing trusts to sell of stock at deflated prices and not to build new homes.
Obviously in a sagging construction sector you get less than full employment and therefore depressed wages. This happens in any industrial sector.
In medicine, we have the government capping salaries for doctors and nurses in the NHS. The response is for them to resign and move into the private sector or overseas, forcing NHS trusts to take on expensive private sector temp staff and recruit overseas to fill the gaps. And for fewer people to apply to medical school, promising a redoubled crisis in 10 years time.
These things are not the fault of our membership of the EU. They are the fault of our gaking government.
Where is the money to come from? Perhaps if companies like Amazon and Google weren't allowed to make billions in the UK and pay almost no taxes, there would be some revenue to pay for these things. Another example of our government's incompetence.
The Euro has always been a political project designed to facilitate "ever closer union". You can't have a unified state without a unified currency. Unfortunately, you can't really have a stable unified currency without a unified economy and fiscal policy either, but the EU was not ready to push for that. That is probably on the agenda for the next 5 years. If you don't control your own currency, you can't really call yourself an independent and sovereign nation state.
Having healthy economies in the EU member states was never a priority.
As far as the building trade goes, The UK has for decades built about half as many new homes as are actually needed.
It's not Polish plumbers to blame, it's the government for allowing speculators to sit on land banks and watch them zoom up in value while far fewer homes are built than are needed. The government also forces councils and now housing trusts to sell of stock at deflated prices and not to build new homes.
Obviously in a sagging construction sector you get less than full employment and therefore depressed wages. This happens in any industrial sector.
There is definitely some truth to what you say. These things do not happen in a vacuum. The market has a tendency of levelling however, lower wages equal fewer people training in the necessary skills which equals less competition for the wages. We've endured a low-level state of construction for a considerable period of time now though, so to try and ascribe the crash in construction worker wages purely to that factor, would I feel, be a mistake.
In medicine, we have the government capping salaries for doctors and nurses in the NHS. The response is for them to resign and move into the private sector or overseas, forcing NHS trusts to take on expensive private sector temp staff and recruit overseas to fill the gaps. And for fewer people to apply to medical school, promising a redoubled crisis in 10 years time.
These things are not the fault of our membership of the EU. They are the fault of our gaking government.
Where is the money to come from? Perhaps if companies like Amazon and Google weren't allowed to make billions in the UK and pay almost no taxes, there would be some revenue to pay for these things. Another example of our government's incompetence.
You will find no disagreement from me on those points. I was simply pointing out how being leery of immigration (which IS a direct result of our EU membership) isn't necessarily down to baseless xenophobia, as it is often portrayed. There are solid economic reasons which one can point to.
What I mean is that for people to blame Polish builders on the low wages in the building industry is a simplification of a rather complicated situation.
If Poland specialises in exporting builders, we might have expected to see a marked increase in their immigration when the Spanish construction boom ended in 2008, but actually the rate has decreased significantly. We haven't seen a boom in Spanish builders either.
Obviously what I am saying here is also a simplification, but I am trying to illustrate that there are many different facets involved.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here is a report saying that far from too many Polish builders we are badly short of them.
welshhoppo wrote: I was always of the opinion that tying multiple country's currency's together was going to be a bad idea... Turned out I was right.
There is nothing wrong with the idea, but a significant number of the countries were allowed to fiddle their figures to hit the convergence criteria (including France), which basically undermines the whole idea.
There is actually a ton wrong with the idea.
First off, you have two different economies. Each with an independent economic cycle. Then you give them the same currency. This causes which ever country is on a downswing to drag the value of the currency down for the other, and cause the other to have a downturn. Add multiple countries and economies across a vast area and its begging for a disaster.
Different currencies protect against this as a buffer against the economic fallout.
The whole point of having convergence criteria was to deal with that.
welshhoppo wrote: I was always of the opinion that tying multiple country's currency's together was going to be a bad idea... Turned out I was right.
There is nothing wrong with the idea, but a significant number of the countries were allowed to fiddle their figures to hit the convergence criteria (including France), which basically undermines the whole idea.
There is actually a ton wrong with the idea.
First off, you have two different economies. Each with an independent economic cycle. Then you give them the same currency. This causes which ever country is on a downswing to drag the value of the currency down for the other, and cause the other to have a downturn. Add multiple countries and economies across a vast area and its begging for a disaster.
Different currencies protect against this as a buffer against the economic fallout.
The whole point of having convergence criteria was to deal with that.
Convergence criteria isn't particularly useful if you turn a blind eye.
I reckon the solution to the Euro problem is more Europe, not less. Harmonise fiscal policy across the zone, impose some tougher regulation and actually empower the oversight bodies to ensure that it is followed. That would have prevented the worst problems of the crash. It's a fixable problem, though it will require adjustment for many countries and that's why it's difficult to do.
The biggest problem is probably Greece which is unlikely to stop being an economic basket case any time soon. But hey, the US has Detroit and it's not collapsing. We can probably afford one basket case. If a few more emerge, my optimism will dim.
Da Boss wrote: I reckon the solution to the Euro problem is more Europe, not less. Harmonise fiscal policy across the zone, impose some tougher regulation and actually empower the oversight bodies to ensure that it is followed. That would have prevented the worst problems of the crash. It's a fixable problem, though it will require adjustment for many countries and that's why it's difficult to do.
Problem is not everyone wants "more Europe" and its the refusal of EU bureaucrats to accept this and consent to a two Tier Europe, that has lead to these diplomatic rows and the potential for a Brexit. Instead, its all or nothing. I for one would rather not see my country absorbed by a European superstate.
The biggest problem is probably Greece which is unlikely to stop being an economic basket case any time soon. But hey, the US has Detroit and it's not collapsing. We can probably afford one basket case. If a few more emerge, my optimism will dim.
Italy. Spain. Portugal. Ireland. They may be quite the same level of "basket case" as Greece, but they have all put severe strains on the EU. If your optimism hasn't already dimmed, then it never will.
Those countries face severe challenges, but they do not have the same systemic problems as Greece. I do not think from what I know currently that they are a risk to the integrity of the Eurozone right now (although that doesn't mean they're in great shape either - we've just had a severe global recession after all).
On the two speed europe, well I think that is the single best argument for Brexit. I'd rather have a smaller, more well integrated Europe than a sprawling two speed one to be honest. Like I've said before there are some very good arguments for Brexit.
The reason the US system works is because, as I mentioned earlier, its been built over 200+ years. In a slow and consistent manner from the ground up, we didn't absorb existing economies. We just expanded 1 singular economy and culture.
The EU is trying to jam dozens and dozens of separate economies and cultures that have been unique and distinct(and outright hostile towards other members) for 1,000+ years. You might succeed in merging France and Germany, and maybe a couple of the smaller adjacent countries. But trying to jam them along with Greece, Spain, Portugal, all the Scandanavian countries, and eastern european countries together is doomed to fail from the start.
A german businessman I was chatting to the other day had the same opinion GT. I am concerned about that too, but all I can say is I hope you are wrong about that.
I do think the eastward expansion was too rapid though. But it was based on ideology rather than economics to a certain degree I suppose.
Thats another problem. The EU was promising economic benefits, but they got drunk on their ideological ideals and thats gonna bite them in the rear. The EU would only work if it was done over multiple centuries, adding maybe 1 country every few decades to ensure the process of absorption goes smoothly with that individual country.
It's a very fair criticism of the speed of expansion to the east. But I think it's had a really positive effect on those nations and I think that's worth something too.
People may talk and harp about ideals, but ultimately they want their needs taken care of. Sabotaging your economy by propping up faltering ones hurts people where it matters, and unfortunately its not going to help the faltering economies.
You're basically trying to save a drowning person by tying yourself to them with a rope. All you're going to do is drown yourself.
Grey Templar wrote: You're basically trying to save a drowning person by tying yourself to them with a rope. All you're going to do is drown yourself.
If you don't put in any effort whatsoever, sure. Another option is that you save the person by pulling him to shore.
That would be analogous to foreign aid. Or slowly absorbing countries into the EU one at a time and only moving onto the next after you have fully stabilized everything.
The EU is basically tying 4-5 strong swimmers to a dozen drowning people and foolishly expecting the group to float.
welshhoppo wrote: I was always of the opinion that tying multiple country's currency's together was going to be a bad idea... Turned out I was right.
There is nothing wrong with the idea, but a significant number of the countries were allowed to fiddle their figures to hit the convergence criteria (including France), which basically undermines the whole idea.
There is actually a ton wrong with the idea.
First off, you have two different economies. Each with an independent economic cycle. Then you give them the same currency. This causes which ever country is on a downswing to drag the value of the currency down for the other, and cause the other to have a downturn. Add multiple countries and economies across a vast area and its begging for a disaster.
Different currencies protect against this as a buffer against the economic fallout.
The whole point of having convergence criteria was to deal with that.
Convergence criteria isn't particularly useful if you turn a blind eye.
I think I covered that in my own post that's been quoted multiple times no?
Grey Templar wrote: You're basically trying to save a drowning person by tying yourself to them with a rope. All you're going to do is drown yourself.
If you don't put in any effort whatsoever, sure. Another option is that you save the person by pulling him to shore.
That would be analogous to foreign aid. Or slowly absorbing countries into the EU one at a time and only moving onto the next after you have fully stabilized everything.
The EU is basically tying 4-5 strong swimmers to a dozen drowning people and foolishly expecting the group to float.
Seen from my perspective, the EU is tying 4-5 strong swimmers to 4-5 weak swimmers and then expecting the onlookers to call 911, instead of rummaging through the weak swimmers' pockets.
I just think the truth is much more complicated and nuanced than those sweeping statements.
But the EU does have a form of "foreign aid" paid to economically weak countries when they join. Used properly it has increased prosperity in the zone big time. Of course, sometimes it is used improperly. A euroskeptic would probably say "almost always" where I said sometimes.
But there are lots of solid examples of the EU providing prosperity for economically weaker states which then generates new markets for the richer states. It's a virtuous circle. The problem is the danger of it becoming a vicious circle if economic instability caused by poor regulation goes too far - that is the knife edge Europe has been walking for 8 years now.
All of those good things could have been accomplished without the EU though. So that makes the EU unnecessary, and the risks it causes to be not worth it.
welshhoppo wrote: I was always of the opinion that tying multiple country's currency's together was going to be a bad idea... Turned out I was right.
There is nothing wrong with the idea, but a significant number of the countries were allowed to fiddle their figures to hit the convergence criteria (including France), which basically undermines the whole idea.
There is actually a ton wrong with the idea.
First off, you have two different economies. Each with an independent economic cycle. Then you give them the same currency. This causes which ever country is on a downswing to drag the value of the currency down for the other, and cause the other to have a downturn. Add multiple countries and economies across a vast area and its begging for a disaster.
Different currencies protect against this as a buffer against the economic fallout.
Before the Euro fixed exchange rates were common in Europe. Differences in economic cycles are not a major problem as monetary policy in Europe in the past was only concerned with price stability unlike the dual mandate of the Fed.
The real issue of the Euro crisis was systemic risk. Private banks were exposed to both other private banks and their home nations sovereign debt. If the Greek state had defaulted it would have taken down the Greek private bank sector and through exposure a number of large banks all across Europe. That is why the Greeks were bailed out, to give private banks time to offload their exposure to risky sovereign debt to the taxpayer. Normally a government default in isolation should not affect anyone except debt holders but a poorly designed supervision structure made that happen nonetheless.
Grey Templar wrote: All of those good things could have been accomplished without the EU though. So that makes the EU unnecessary, and the risks it causes to be not worth it.
The EU is also a convenient cloak for those who can't be bothered to make a case before the electorate.
For example, here in the UK, the left and the liberals are arguing that we need to stay in the EU to protect human rights and workers rights from the evil conservatives. Now, if the left/liberals made the case, and won an election, then there's no reason why couldn't have those things anyway such as greater union rights or better protection for workers.
Politicians from all parties in the UK, love outsourcing power to the EU, because the don't trust ordinary voters.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On a separate note, the vote seems to have went a bit wonky. It was neck and neck for a while, but no the Yes side have surged ahead. Very suspicious .
Four times now in this thread it has been pointed out that the Human Rights Act -- which exists! -- is nothing to do with the EU, and will not expire or be repealed if the UK leaves the EU.
Given this clear fact, it's useless to say that the left/liberals are calling for EU membership to enact human rights.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: On a separate note, the vote seems to have went a bit wonky. It was neck and neck for a while, but no the Yes side have surged ahead. Very suspicious .
Can't help but wonder how many of those votes are from people who aren't actually British.
Four times now in this thread it has been pointed out that the Human Rights Act -- which exists! -- is nothing to do with the EU, and will not expire or be repealed if the UK leaves the EU.
Given this clear fact, it's useless to say that the left/liberals are calling for EU membership to enact human rights.
I completely agree with you on human rights - I'm just taking issue with the idea that we need to the EU to give us things that the British public are more than capable of demanding (better employment law for example) if they so choose.
It's been a common theme for a long time IMO, and unfortunately, people have bought into the idea that the EU protects human rights (amongst other things) when its clearly not the case.
But even if the EU was responsible for the human rights act, again I say, what was stopping the UK from having that years before? Nothing.
There are also plenty of people who have bought into the idea that because the EU protects human rights, it stops the UK government from kicking out illegal immigrants with cats, and the like, so we need to get out of the EU in order to reform the HRA.
Democracy, for all its flaws, is still the greatest thing that Europe ever gave the world. The EU, despite its good intentions, waters our democracy down. Its many institutions, populated by unaccountable pen pushers, remove the essential link between the governed and those who govern.
By watering down our democratic rights, the EU, is, essentially anti-European.
Kilkrazy wrote: What I mean is that for people to blame Polish builders on the low wages in the building industry is a simplification of a rather complicated situation.
If Poland specialises in exporting builders, we might have expected to see a marked increase in their immigration when the Spanish construction boom ended in 2008, but actually the rate has decreased significantly. We haven't seen a boom in Spanish builders either.
Obviously what I am saying here is also a simplification, but I am trying to illustrate that there are many different facets involved.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here is a report saying that far from too many Polish builders we are badly short of them.
Why need a builder be Polish? Or any other profession be linked to race. All too often unemployed British people can do the job and are denied opportunity.
There were even industry comments that Eastern Europeans 'work harder' or the British were 'lazy'. If people replaced the nationalities with blacks and whites and it would be easy to see the racism for what it is.
I am not saying dont hire Poles, quite the opposite in fact, but discrimination has to be given a good kicking to curb.
Avatar 720 wrote: It'll be all those Indian spambots. They've always felt that the UK should be independent.
I mean, the poll is open to anyone on Dakka whatever their nationality, so I don't think its relevant at all to this discussion. I don't know why the OP bothered with it to be honest.
Avatar 720 wrote: It'll be all those Indian spambots. They've always felt that the UK should be independent.
I mean, the poll is open to anyone on Dakka whatever their nationality, so I don't think its relevant at all to this discussion. I don't know why the OP bothered with it to be honest.
Because I believe in the truth, the integrity, the good that lies in every member of dakka
In all honesty, it was probably those damn Yankees, using money from a CIA slush fund, that messed around with the voting
What will we do when we close our borders, re-establish our own democracy and sovereignty and it still goes down the gakker.
We could always go back to blaming the Irish or blacks again I suppose.
Got to have a scapegoat.
r_squared wrote: What will we do when we close our borders, re-establish our own democracy and sovereignty and it still goes down the gakker.
We could always go back to blaming the Irish or blacks again I suppose.
Got to have a scapegoat.
Kilkrazy wrote: This old canard again.
Four times now in this thread it has been pointed out that the Human Rights Act -- which exists! -- is nothing to do with the EU, and will not expire or be repealed if the UK leaves the EU.
Given this clear fact, it's useless to say that the left/liberals are calling for EU membership to enact human rights.
Why assume politicians tell the truth when a lie serves better.
We had the same all over the Indyref last year. The SNP warned Scots that a vote of No would mean a privatised NHS. However prior to this the NHS control had already be devolved, the only people who could privatise the NHS in Scotland are the Scottish parliament in Holyrood.
Also while the ECHR is separate from the EU, there are EU directives that effect 'rights'. EU immigration policy is a case in point. While the UK trend is majority anti-immigration at the current time, there is some validity to the idea that being in the EU better protects 'migrants rights'. I can see the progressive left forwarding this as an issue, assuming you agree with them that we should open the floodgates once more.
Kilkrazy wrote: What I mean is that for people to blame Polish builders on the low wages in the building industry is a simplification of a rather complicated situation.
If Poland specialises in exporting builders, we might have expected to see a marked increase in their immigration when the Spanish construction boom ended in 2008, but actually the rate has decreased significantly. We haven't seen a boom in Spanish builders either.
Obviously what I am saying here is also a simplification, but I am trying to illustrate that there are many different facets involved.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here is a report saying that far from too many Polish builders we are badly short of them.
Why need a builder be Polish? Or any other profession be linked to race. All too often unemployed British people can do the job and are denied opportunity.
There were even industry comments that Eastern Europeans 'work harder' or the British were 'lazy'. If people replaced the nationalities with blacks and whites and it would be easy to see the racism for what it is.
I am not saying dont hire Poles, quite the opposite in fact, but discrimination has to be given a good kicking to curb.
I said Polish because of the cliche that building trades have been taken over largely by Poles. It's nothing to do with discrimination.
The point is that there is a big argument about whether immigration from EU countries is a good thing or a bad thing. Looking at the often used example of the building industry, we see a number of contradictions, to summarise:
House building in the UK runs far below requirements. (There are various reasons for this.)
Even despite this, there is a growing construction skills gap which isn't being filled by British apprentices or EU staff.
Since the Spanish building industry collapsed in 2008, there hasn't been a massive influx of EU builders into the UK.
At the least it is a confusion picture, and doesn't seem to support the contention that invasions of foreign staff are ruining our local economies.
Professionally speaking there are a number of reasons why Spanish (and Portuguese) builders did not influx to the UK construction industry (believe me there were some), the biggest being there is a welfare system in Spain to support them but also barriers in the building methods they use and quality of the end product.
Conversely Polish builders (the example given) generally were to high standards on dry trades which the London market has had a high demand for. The same can be said for many national s from that part of Europe as well as India where there are allot of Carpenters coming from these days. I should also like to note that allot of Construction professionals are active in London not just labour. Much of the leg work in Architecture is done by Poles, ditto technical management.
I have sites on which I have employed up to 400 men a day, you get more problems with some Brits than anyone else. It a cultural thing though, most of the Brits consider themselves Artisans or Specialists these days, want top rates to work but look for any reason not to. They start in the morning, set up and then go for breakfast, start on work for a few hours then look to leave early to beat the traffic.
We've run apprenticeship schemes for the unemployed where half the Brits stop after a few days because of early mornings, had to get rid of one chap who refused to wear a helmet the right way around?
Madness.
Of course these are extreme examples as there is no shortage of decent Brit workers but I have no problems from Poles, Ghanaians, Bulgars, Romanians, Indians, etc.
All things being equal the Brit should get the job based on having English as a first language and being based here, certainly at the most basic level of labour but Brits don't want to carry and clean, even when they're good for nothing else.
The EU needs reform, the workers from Europe are not the problem.
Trouble with the above is that it racially stereotypes.
Compare the two comments
"...... but Brits don't want to carry and clean, even when they're good for nothing else."
"..... but blacks don't want to carry and clean, even when they're good for nothing else."
If you said the latter you would be pilloried, say the former and its ok. There is a malaise in the UK workforce, but much of that is to do with the sanctioned discrimination that occurs. This worker is Polish therefore he likely works hard, this one is British therefore he is lazy isn't fair, isn't accurate and shouldn't be in any way acceptable.
It comes about because you are comparing first generation migrants against an entire population. The especially workshy from Poland wont make the trip, a workshy Briton doesnt need to. Some people are unemployable but others will do the work. However stereotyping means the opportunity is not there.
However the racist attitude that British workers are lazy has caused recruitment to be centred abroad for some projects. Many UK building projects have opened recruitment in eastern Europe, particularly Poland and not offered the work at all to Uk based agencies. When commented on by the press and polticians assumptions that British workers are lazy were vocalised openly. This hit a scandal in 2008 and later in 2011.
It is also interesting that these mentalities exist at a time when very similar comments are a much highlighted cultural taboo.
As for architects, thats a very mobile profession. The UK is doing itself short by the current system of university fees as architecture is the longest degree course, tied with veterinary studies at seven years. The UK will very shortly begin to have a serous shortfall of architects (and veterinarians) due to this policy. However the effects wont kick in until after 2020.
Question:
Of course these are extreme examples as there is no shortage of decent Brit workers but I have no problems from Poles, Ghanaians, Bulgars, Romanians, Indians, etc.
When commenting on the above, what is an Indian? what is a Brit? How would you categorise an asian origin British citizen, there are a lot of Anglo-Indians in the workforce. I have to wonder if an british born Indian hard worker is Indian, if he is workshy or incompetent he is Brit.
Kind of reminds me of working for Amazon. Most of the work force was foreign, I'd say it was at least 60-70% Eastern European. There weren't an awful of of Brits working there. And Swansea isn't exactly known for its large foreign community either.
I don't know whether it was because the work was hard, or because you could literally turn up and they'd give you a job (and then kick you out if you were useless, Amazon is good like that.) so that you didn't actually need any requirements to get employed. But the money was damn good ( I was on 2K a month while I was there, and all I was doing was manual labour) at well over minimum wage. Where any of the Brits lazy? Quite a few were, but then so we're some of the foreign workers too.
Trouble with the above is that it racially stereotypes.
Compare the two comments
"...... but Brits don't want to carry and clean, even when they're good for nothing else."
"..... but blacks don't want to carry and clean, even when they're good for nothing else."
If you said the latter you would be pilloried, say the former and its ok. There is a malaise in the UK workforce, but much of that is to do with the sanctioned discrimination that occurs. This worker is Polish therefore he likely works hard, this one is British therefore he is lazy isn't fair, isn't accurate and shouldn't be in any way acceptable.
It comes about because you are comparing first generation migrants against an entire population. The especially workshy from Poland wont make the trip, a workshy Briton doesnt need to. Some people are unemployable but others will do the work. However stereotyping means the opportunity is not there.
However the racist attitude that British workers are lazy has caused recruitment to be centred abroad for some projects. Many UK building projects have opened recruitment in eastern Europe, particularly Poland and not offered the work at all to Uk based agencies. When commented on by the press and polticians assumptions that British workers are lazy were vocalised openly. This hit a scandal in 2008 and later in 2011.
It is also interesting that these mentalities exist at a time when very similar comments are a much highlighted cultural taboo.
As for architects, thats a very mobile profession. The UK is doing itself short by the current system of university fees as architecture is the longest degree course, tied with veterinary studies at seven years. The UK will very shortly begin to have a serous shortfall of architects (and veterinarians) due to this policy. However the effects wont kick in until after 2020.
Question:
Of course these are extreme examples as there is no shortage of decent Brit workers but I have no problems from Poles, Ghanaians, Bulgars, Romanians, Indians, etc.
When commenting on the above, what is an Indian? what is a Brit? How would you categorise an asian origin British citizen, there are a lot of Anglo-Indians in the workforce. I have to wonder if an british born Indian hard worker is Indian, if he is workshy or incompetent he is Brit
.
I think the trouble with your post is that you have knee jerked you way into some strange racial tangent. Pack it in, it's not the topic and it's boring.
There is a definite cultural divides though that can contribute to the perceived differences and some of this is in the way the industry operates and the respective positions people will fill.
Most Brits; - will have families, homes and hobbies they will want to spend time on, probably outside of London - work day will shorten - will be directly employed by companies, having duties across multiple sites - time split and pressure to leave for other works
Most foreign workers; - will not have families with them and will be in basic digs near to site - workday will lengthen as they do not have the pressure to leave. - will be employed by labour agencies/gangs and on price work, that is to say they are paid by works complete. i.e. The more dryline they erect the more they get paid so will knock out as much work as they can in the available hours..
I had a situation about 7 years ago where I needed 30 dryliners/plasters to work weekend for the final 6 weeks of a project to complete on time. I was paying all on something called Daywork, which is an agreed hourly rate at something like 170-200% of the normal daily rate, so that's circa £10k per day in labour costs. The company responsible had to submit a record sheet with the hours worked for each operative over each weekend for us to approve. We supervised the works so has a fair idea of what was being done but the Daywork sheets compared against the Biometric gate records showed an interesting trend. The Brits in the workforce (amusingly the company directors sons gang) all left before noon and claimed a full days pay; the other workers claimed a full day but were present for that time (sometimes more). I've seen this repeated a number of time since then, so when I suggest some Brits need to pull their fingers out a bit then its because its a commercial reality to me and others in the construction industry.
welshhoppo wrote: Kind of reminds me of working for Amazon. Most of the work force was foreign, I'd say it was at least 60-70% Eastern European. There weren't an awful of of Brits working there. And Swansea isn't exactly known for its large foreign community either.
I don't know whether it was because the work was hard, or because you could literally turn up and they'd give you a job (and then kick you out if you were useless, Amazon is good like that.) so that you didn't actually need any requirements to get employed. But the money was damn good ( I was on 2K a month while I was there, and all I was doing was manual labour) at well over minimum wage. Where any of the Brits lazy? Quite a few were, but then so we're some of the foreign workers too.
I know someone who worked at Amazon in their depot near Hemel Hempstead IIRC. I was a passenger in the car at the time he was collected from work once (we all then headed off for a game). I got the impression Amazon were real ballbreakers, treated staff like dirt and were exceptionally picky too even with visitors waiting to collect staff at end of shift. 'Dont get out of the car, if its reported it could be a mark against me, and they only need two, no matter how trivial.' Wages were not good at this depot either, certainly not 2k month.
welshhoppo wrote: Kind of reminds me of working for Amazon. Most of the work force was foreign, I'd say it was at least 60-70% Eastern European. There weren't an awful of of Brits working there. And Swansea isn't exactly known for its large foreign community either.
I don't know whether it was because the work was hard, or because you could literally turn up and they'd give you a job (and then kick you out if you were useless, Amazon is good like that.) so that you didn't actually need any requirements to get employed. But the money was damn good ( I was on 2K a month while I was there, and all I was doing was manual labour) at well over minimum wage. Where any of the Brits lazy? Quite a few were, but then so we're some of the foreign workers too.
I know someone who worked at Amazon in their depot near Hemel Hempstead IIRC. I was a passenger in the car at the time he was collected from work once (we all then headed off for a game). I got the impression Amazon were real ballbreakers, treated staff like dirt and were exceptionally picky too even with visitors waiting to collect staff at end of shift. 'Dont get out of the car, if its reported it could be a mark against me, and they only need two, no matter how trivial.' Wages were not good at this depot either, certainly not 2k month.
Wasn't there a bit od a furore last summer about them having not AC or air treatment in their facility but instead having an Ambulance prepared on site for anyone that was overcome.
I think the trouble with your post is that you have knee jerked you way into some strange racial tangent. Pack it in, it's not the topic and it's boring.
I am not the one sterotyping entire cultural groups. In fairness I am not blaming you for that either, but it is something that is happening alot, and is happening openly, in an age where discrimination is a major cultural focus. It is also of interest to highlight how some stereotypes are a strongly enforced taboo, while others are not. In fact when you are calling me to 'pack it in' wherein the dialectic would be entirely different had you stereotyped another group,
Also it ISNT a kneejerk. Build projects that employ directly via overseas agencies is a common enough trend. If the work is only advertised outside the Uk how can it not discriminate against local workforce?
Most Brits;
- will have families, homes and hobbies they will want to spend time on, probably outside of London - work day will shorten
- will be directly employed by companies, having duties across multiple sites - time split and pressure to leave for other works
Most foreign workers;
- will not have families with them and will be in basic digs near to site - workday will lengthen as they do not have the pressure to leave.
- will be employed by labour agencies/gangs and on price work, that is to say they are paid by works complete. i.e. The more dryline they erect the more they get paid so will knock out as much work as they can in the available hours..
You are correct that a higher proportion of indigenous workers will have local family connections. It shouldn't really be relevant, and assuming a status based on point of origin is unfair. Hopefully you would not look at an immigrant worker and ask him or her if they have their family over before seeing of they are suitable for employment.
Can we assume workday 'lengthening' means overtime. Having a family could well be an incentive to stay longer and earn overtime to pay for your family. I don't know if this is the case in the building industry, but I particularly saw a lot of overtime seeking from dads in the warehouse and security industry, because the more money earned meant the more they could do for those they loved.
Also the social class the combined warehouse, building work etc includes a lot of separated families. Often with court directed child maintenance fees. It's common enough in Hertfordshire, so likely London too. Admittedly single immigrant workers are also seeking overtime to send the money abroad.
I had a situation about 7 years ago where I needed 30 dryliners/plasters to work weekend for the final 6 weeks of a project to complete on time. I was paying all on something called Daywork, which is an agreed hourly rate at something like 170-200% of the normal daily rate, so that's circa £10k per day in labour costs. The company responsible had to submit a record sheet with the hours worked for each operative over each weekend for us to approve. We supervised the works so has a fair idea of what was being done but the Daywork sheets compared against the Biometric gate records showed an interesting trend. The Brits in the workforce (amusingly the company directors sons gang) all left before noon and claimed a full days pay; the other workers claimed a full day but were present for that time (sometimes more). I've seen this repeated a number of time since then, so when I suggest some Brits need to pull their fingers out a bit then its because its a commercial reality to me and others in the construction industry.
What you are seeing is mates of the boss's son playing the system. Its probably want amusing as such I suspect, more exasperating. Were the shirkers not 'the company directors sons gang' they would likely have been disciplined or even dismissed. Gang is an interesting term to choose to describe them also.
It actually appears from your wording your company employed foreign staff except some British staff who are all connected to the family that owned the business and largely shirked off.
This actually says very little about 'Brits'. This sort of privilege an abuse can occur in any society and from any racial group.
Wasn't there a bit od a furore last summer about them having not AC or air treatment in their facility but instead having an Ambulance prepared on site for anyone that was overcome.
Must be somewhere else, or at a different time. My friend who worked there would have mentioned something like that. The atmosphere was bad in a difference sense.
I had a situation about 7 years ago where I needed 30 dryliners/plasters to work weekend for the final 6 weeks of a project to complete on time. I was paying all on something called Daywork, which is an agreed hourly rate at something like 170-200% of the normal daily rate, so that's circa £10k per day in labour costs. The company responsible had to submit a record sheet with the hours worked for each operative over each weekend for us to approve. We supervised the works so has a fair idea of what was being done but the Daywork sheets compared against the Biometric gate records showed an interesting trend. The Brits in the workforce (amusingly the company directors sons gang) all left before noon and claimed a full days pay; the other workers claimed a full day but were present for that time (sometimes more). I've seen this repeated a number of time since then, so when I suggest some Brits need to pull their fingers out a bit then its because its a commercial reality to me and others in the construction industry.
This sounds like the bosses son was expoiting the project with the protection of family ties and is not representative of British attitudes to work.
I've enjoyed your input here but that is not a great example of British workers being lazy, moreone of how you had first hand experience of the shenanigans of personal connections within business.
All the trades people i know are extremely hard working, can't comment on their moments of weakness/tiredness (anyone can have a bad day) but don't think that because they finish early they must be lazy.
It also has to be said that if you migrate you don't have the same 'life baggage' with you - not having a missus to answer to or children to care for frees you to make decisions about when and where you work.
Also, If you want to move to a different country your attitude toward work changes - i was going to move to holland before i got made redundant back in 2007-8 and the types of job and hours i was looking at was much lower down the chain than in the uk. I was the quality control manager at an electronics production firm and the types of job i was looking at in holland were in bakerys and on farms; i was happy to accept the drop in wages because i was pleased to be going to live somewhere that i wanted to live. I started learning dutch and everything.
I'm not denying for a minute that bad and/or lazy British workers exist, but for years, I have been listening to employers slander British workers, and it gets my goat.
From my own experience, working a 40 hour work on minimum wage, in a boring/dull job, is not a good thing.
As soon as you get your pay, you lose tax and NI money, money for gas and electricity, transport costs, food costs, and rent/mortgage costs.
When that's been deducted, you are left with feth all
and you ask yourself: is it worth it? No...
There was an idiot on the radio the other day, wondering why Brits don't want to work on a farm picking vegetables.
Well, I'll tell you the above reasons, pal!
It's all very well for 10 east Europeans crammed into digs, splitting their costs 10 ways, but not for your average Brit struggling to keep a roof over their head.
Said East European will soon be out of his digs and into a flat, he'll then start a business if he can.
They're valued because they get on with it, whatever it is. Unlike the above poster they won't be bleating about a 40 hour week, mostly in the construction industry they will be working 50 hours and still not complaining. I have Gurhkas working security on 15 hour shifts, they have the option to split this but do not want to. Top fellers.
It all comes down to attitude and professionalism some people don't think thy have to offer either for minimum wage. I disagree.
notprop wrote: Said East European will soon be out of his digs and into a flat, he'll then start a business if he can.
They're valued because they get on with it, whatever it is. Unlike the above poster they won't be bleating about a 40 hour week, mostly in the construction industry they will be working 50 hours and still not complaining. I have Gurhkas working security on 15 hour shifts, they have the option to split this but do not want to. Top fellers.
It all comes down to attitude and professionalism some people don't think thy have to offer either for minimum wage. I disagree.
Indeed. Say what you will about immigrants, but they usually have an excellent work ethic. And that's why they can out compete people on jobs.
notprop wrote: Said East European will soon be out of his digs and into a flat, he'll then start a business if he can.
They're valued because they get on with it, whatever it is. Unlike the above poster they won't be bleating about a 40 hour week, mostly in the construction industry they will be working 50 hours and still not complaining. I have Gurhkas working security on 15 hour shifts, they have the option to split this but do not want to. Top fellers.
It all comes down to attitude and professionalism some people don't think thy have to offer either for minimum wage. I disagree.
Translation: I prefer workers who don't want a personal life, will work long hours and weekends, often overtime for the normal rate, don't take holidays, and will doff their caps at me at every opportunity
notprop wrote: Said East European will soon be out of his digs and into a flat, he'll then start a business if he can.
They're valued because they get on with it, whatever it is. Unlike the above poster they won't be bleating about a 40 hour week, mostly in the construction industry they will be working 50 hours and still not complaining. I have Gurhkas working security on 15 hour shifts, they have the option to split this but do not want to. Top fellers.
It all comes down to attitude and professionalism some people don't think thy have to offer either for minimum wage. I disagree.
Indeed. Say what you will about immigrants, but they usually have an excellent work ethic. And that's why they can out compete people on jobs.
My father had an excellent work ethic. Left school at 16, was never out of work for 50 years, including a lot of building site work, and now has two false hips and dodgy lungs....
Well, speaking for myself, who worked a 40 hour 7-4 job Mon - Fri in a small factory for 9 months operating machinery and driving forklifts, the reason I frequently turned down overtime on weekends was because my boss would always ask me at the last minute, 4pm on a Friday.
Nevermind that my grandfather had recently died, and I was trying to visit my grandmother on saturdays with my dad as often as possible to give her some company, or that I had personal commitments (I joined the committee of my gaming club and I'm one of the two people with keys to open up and handle subs etc). He'd always ask me at the last minute expecting me to cancel plans with little to no notice.
There were also times early on when machines were breaking down a lot, and we'd miss our production quotas for the day, and he'd ask us to stay back for several hours doing literally nothing, waiting for the machines to be fixed so we could finish the work we should have done by 4pm... In the middle of winter, in an unheated factory open to the elements. Understandably, I wasn't particularly keen to do this on a regular basis.
I had a similar job at Uni. I got paid a day rate so no overtime, we'd have to wait for lorries from the continent. The day finished when those lorries were unloaded.
I could have stood about drinking tea or smoking but I would set up the computer and printers for the next days deliveries while I waited. I the part time junior was soon out earning the full time vets.
Work is work, put more effort in and mostly you get more out.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Well, speaking for myself, who worked a 40 hour 7-4 job Mon - Fri in a small factory for 9 months operating machinery and driving forklifts, the reason I frequently turned down overtime on weekends was because my boss would always ask me at the last minute, 4pm on a Friday.
Nevermind that my grandfather had recently died, and I was trying to visit my grandmother on saturdays with my dad as often as possible to give her some company, or that I had personal commitments (I joined the committee of my gaming club and I'm one of the two people with keys to open up and handle subs etc). He'd always ask me at the last minute expecting me to cancel plans with little to no notice.
There were also times early on when machines were breaking down a lot, and we'd miss our production quotas for the day, and he'd ask us to stay back for several hours doing literally nothing, waiting for the machines to be fixed so we could finish the work we should have done by 4pm... In the middle of winter, in an unheated factory open to the elements. Understandably, I wasn't particularly keen to do this on a regular basis.
Does that make me lazy?
No, it doesn't make you lazy. You just come to the same conclusion as I have - that once you've worked 40 hours a week on minimum wage, and paid all your bills, you have hardly anything left in your pocket, and you wonder why you bother...
For as long as I've lived, I've seen British workers being slandered as lazy and workshy, and it's usually by people who have an agenda of wanting to bring in workers who'll work for less, or work long hours without complaint, usually from abroad.
My impression of Britain was that everyone works at a fairly hard pace. There's not as much value placed on work-life balance as Ireland or Germany I think.
I was really impressed by the work ethic of British teachers that I saw. They work like maniacs for lower wages than their equivalents in other countries, and have to put up with disrespect from parents, politicians and kids.
In the international system you often see British teachers getting promotions because of their work ethic and drive. Both of my direct managers are British.
I don't know how well that translates into other fields, but I certainly would not consider British people to be workshy.
But there's a dichotomy where there seems to be a bit of an embedded non-working underclass at the same time. To me, it struck me as a fairly extreme divide between the workers and the not-workers.
notprop wrote: Said East European will soon be out of his digs and into a flat, he'll then start a business if he can.
They're valued because they get on with it, whatever it is. Unlike the above poster they won't be bleating about a 40 hour week, mostly in the construction industry they will be working 50 hours and still not complaining. I have Gurhkas working security on 15 hour shifts, they have the option to split this but do not want to. Top fellers.
It all comes down to attitude and professionalism some people don't think thy have to offer either for minimum wage. I disagree.
Indeed. Say what you will about immigrants, but they usually have an excellent work ethic. And that's why they can out compete people on jobs.
My father had an excellent work ethic. Left school at 16, was never out of work for 50 years, including a lot of building site work, and now has two false hips and dodgy lungs....
I like work, but I don't love it...
I'm not saying non-immigrants can't also have good work ethic, but its definitely lacking from the general population. At least here in the US.
You can't get most Americans to do manual labor for even $20 an hour(or even more, depending on how well you do on the piece rate).
Da Boss wrote: My impression of Britain was that everyone works at a fairly hard pace. There's not as much value placed on work-life balance as Ireland or Germany I think.
I was really impressed by the work ethic of British teachers that I saw. They work like maniacs for lower wages than their equivalents in other countries, and have to put up with disrespect from parents, politicians and kids.
In the international system you often see British teachers getting promotions because of their work ethic and drive. Both of my direct managers are British.
I don't know how well that translates into other fields, but I certainly would not consider British people to be workshy.
But there's a dichotomy where there seems to be a bit of an embedded non-working underclass at the same time. To me, it struck me as a fairly extreme divide between the workers and the not-workers.
There's a certain group in Britain, let's call them employers who think that if you're not working 23 hours a day, 7 seven days a week to make them richer, then you're workshy and not as hardworking as Johnny Foreigner
When I was in the UK I spent ages prepping my lessons and working and doing extra stuff, because I lived on my own, had few friends initially and was scared of not keeping my position after my probation. I had nothing better to do with my time and a strong incentive to work my arse off. But it was not a pleasant experience and I can see how a teacher who has an actual social life, or especially kids or anyone in their life they need to take care of, could not have put the time in that I did. Those of my colleagues with kids were always extremely tired, and they paid so much in childcare it seemed to be barely worth their time to work.
Employers definitely prefered to hire young, single teachers like me for that reason. I cost less due to lower experience, and they can more easily pressure me into working a lot more.
By contrast, international schools seem to prefer to get an older teacher who will hang around - having a partner and kids is seen as a bonus.
I would not return to work in the UK as a teacher because of that aspect of the work culture. At least, I would not return to England. I'd consider working in Scotland.
There's a lot of discussion going on here. To chip into a few points:-
Notprop wrote:Professionally speaking there are a number of reasons why Spanish (and Portuguese) builders did not influx to the UK construction industry (believe me there were some), the biggest being there is a welfare system in Spain to support them but also barriers in the building methods they use and quality of the end product.
Conversely Polish builders (the example given) generally were to high standards on dry trades which the London market has had a high demand for. The same can be said for many national s from that part of Europe as well as India where there are allot of Carpenters coming from these days. I should also like to note that allot of Construction professionals are active in London not just labour. Much of the leg work in Architecture is done by Poles, ditto technical management.
This is very interesting. I think it especially highlights the point that our economy and wage level is so attractive to those from Eastern Europe, that it pulls in workers from all levels, not just the minimum wage or builders.
I have sites on which I have employed up to 400 men a day, you get more problems with some Brits than anyone else. It a cultural thing though, most of the Brits consider themselves Artisans or Specialists these days, want top rates to work but look for any reason not to. They start in the morning, set up and then go for breakfast, start on work for a few hours then look to leave early to beat the traffic.
I used to work in a hotel where half the staff were Polish. Lovely ladies (well, except one, who could cuss like a sailor ). One of them told me that over in Poland, a 10-12 hour shift was the norm, and the idea of a 'weekend' was unusual. Whereas here in Britain, there's been an extremely strong history of unionism and workers fighting to get a shorter work day, holiday leave, and so forth.
I think it is important also to look for reasons for notprops experiences, rather than trying fervently to discount them. He's a top notch bloke, I['ve met him a few times, and he's about as English as they come. He has no reason to be 'racist against', or discriminate against Brits on ethnic grounds. He even qualifies:-
Of course these are extreme examples as there is no shortage of decent Brit workers
So the logical thing to be doing here, is to be trying to sift through his valuable experiences, and come up with explanations as to why those are the experiences he has had as someone reasonably senior in that industry, rather than trying to disprove them. So for example, to take this:-
notprop wrote:We've run apprenticeship schemes for the unemployed where half the Brits stop after a few days because of early mornings, had to get rid of one chap who refused to wear a helmet the right way around?
I would speculate that for the unemployed schemes, from my girlfriend's experience a few years ago, these sorts of schemes are made compulsory by the Job Centre. Which inevitably means that whilst some people are willing, you do pull in those dregs who want nothing to do with actual work, and only show up to tick the box.
I suspect that a point Orlanth made in passing is also highly relevant here:-
Orlanth wrote:It comes about because you are comparing first generation migrants against an entire population. The especially workshy from Poland wont make the trip, a workshy Briton doesnt need to.
A sample of those who leave Poland are automatically going to be more motivated/dedicated than a random sample of Brits. It doesn't explain the whole story, but when combined with other reasons specified later by notprop indicates why British workers might seem like a worse hiring choice.
I think the below is also a highly relevant point, and ties in with the 'cultural aspect' referred to earlier:-
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:From my own experience, working a 40 hour work on minimum wage, in a boring/dull job, is not a good thing.
As soon as you get your pay, you lose tax and NI money, money for gas and electricity, transport costs, food costs, and rent/mortgage costs.
When that's been deducted, you are left with feth all
and you ask yourself: is it worth it? No...
Workers here in Britain tend to have something of a suspicion towards those with serious money, and a more generally cynical approach to life. I'd be lying if I said I worked my absolute hardest when I was paid minimum wage. I was never as bad the British lady I once heard say, 'This is a minimum wage job, they shouldn't expect me to do anything!', and always did everything I was hired for but I rarely went outside of my job description, and certainly never gave what might be deemed 110%. Whereas your average Pole already feels he is making excellent wages compared to what he'd make back home, so that's not that slight resentment of 'slaving all day for peanuts'.
So, in the position of an employer, you are statistically more likely to get a better worker by hiring a Pole than a local. That's fine. Perfectly good business sense. If we withdraw from the EU however, that labour supply will dry up, meaning that somebody local will get the job instead, which is better for the workforce of this country as a whole (someone off the unemployment register, capital stays in country, skills acquired remain local, etc). That could be considered to be a pro to leave the EU and a reason against immigration. It's not what's best for notprop necessarily, but it's better for everyone else!
notprop wrote: It makes you someone that won't stand out.
In my first month, the boss himself confided in me that the other guys on the team were "lazy fethers". I didn't have to do a whole lot to stand out from them.
I'm not knocking minimum wage work, and good luck to those earning good money, I'm making the point that's it's not easy running a house on that level of income. Once you've paid your bills, tax, travel, and food, you've hardly got two pennies to rub together.
It's not as if we're dinning at the Ritz every night or employing a chauffeur to drive me to work every day!
Grey Templar wrote: Well if thats truly the case and the immigrants are indeed willing to work longer hours than its hard to say they're not more hard working.
If hard work guaranteed success, my father would be the richest man in the galaxy.
Not having a go at you personally, but people have spun the hard work = success line for centuries, and 99.9% of the time, it's not true.
I once read about Welsh coal miners in the 1920s. Hard dangerous work, for long hours, and yet, not one of them became a millionaire.
Brave men every one of them, but poor men none the less.
Grey Templar wrote: Well whose to say you should be able to have a house on minimum wage? Or that it should be enough to support a family?
You don't have a right to not have roommates if you're only making minimum wage.
Actually, I'd argue that you do, otherwise minimum wage isn't high enough. There's not much point in having it if it doesn't allow you to pay for a basic level of existence. I'd class 'not having to share your room with a bunch of strangers' as basic.
As you know, it's fashionable for politicians in the UK to demonise the white, working class segment of the population.
I'm workshy, don't read the Guardian, I'm racist, hate foreigners, drink too much, and automatically believe anything that Nigel Farage or the Sun newspaper says
So, in the position of an employer, you are statistically more likely to get a better worker by hiring a Pole than a local. That's fine. Perfectly good business sense. If we withdraw from the EU however, that labour supply will dry up, meaning that somebody local will get the job instead, which is better for the workforce of this country as a whole (someone off the unemployment register, capital stays in country, skills acquired remain local, etc). That could be considered to be a pro to leave the EU and a reason against immigration. It's not what's best for notprop necessarily, but it's better for everyone else!
There is no guarantee that the inflow of East Europeans will end after leaving the EU. Norway and Switzerland still accept the freedom of movement in their respective arrangements for access to the common market (although Switzerland is looking in to quotas). It's also possible that employers will lobby for fewer restrictions for non-EU workers if they lose access to their current cheap source of labor. You might end up with a greater inflow of commonwealth or non-western workers instead of East Europeans. Currently over just half the immigrants already come from outside the EU.
Grey Templar wrote: Well whose to say you should be able to have a house on minimum wage? Or that it should be enough to support a family?
You don't have a right to not have roommates if you're only making minimum wage.
Actually, I'd argue that you do, otherwise minimum wage isn't high enough. There's not much point in having it if it doesn't allow you to pay for a basic level of existence. I'd class 'not having to share your room with a bunch of strangers' as basic.
Basic existence doesn't exclude the fact you might only be able afford a cheap apartment, or pooling your resources with some roommates for a better apartment or a house might be necessary.
You definitely don't deserve an entire house on minimum wage. If you want nicer things you'll need to find a way to afford them, either by cutting costs with roommates or earning more money.
I'm assuming you'd have your own room of course(roommate doesn't mean you share a room over here, it means you share living space).
People have an obsession with needing people who are poor to also suffer/have nothing nice in life.
Oh yes, being forced to share an apartment or house with other people is totally an inhumane and insufferable human rights violation. Everyone deserves to live in their own 15,000 square foot home and minimum wage should totally accommodate this.
Having your own home is a UNIVERSAL human desire. Even the very poorest of people in third world African countries endeavor to have their own homes, even if they are made out of cardboard and corrugated iron. Saying "You're poor, therefore you shouldn't have your own home" is fething bizarre.
Poor, minimum wage workers exist, and with booming global populations exacerbated by mass immigration, there simply will never be enough well paying jobs for everyone. These need to be housed somehow, and for that we need affordable housing. What exactly is the alternative? Victorian workhouses? British shanty towns? Hot bunking?
God, its a bizarre moment when I, a UKIP voter, begins espousing Labour values.
Why can't that housing be in an apartment with individual bedrooms and shared living space?
That can easily be afforded on minimum wage if you have someone occupying each room. If you want your own place all to yourself you probably need to make more than minimum wage. Thats not an unreasonable situation.
The Western economic model has been built on the idea that the next generation should be better off, or at least equal to, the previous generation, in terms of wages, life expectancy, access to health services ete etc
Aside from the democratic arguments, my reason for leaving the EU is that wages and job opportunities across the EU, seem to be going downhill, especially in the clubmed countries.
I heard that over the last 30 years, the EU's share of global GDP has shrunk from 30% to around 17%. That, clearly, is not a model for economic success.
Actually, I'd argue that you do, otherwise minimum wage isn't high enough. There's not much point in having it if it doesn't allow you to pay for a basic level of existence. I'd class 'not having to share your room with a bunch of strangers' as basic.
Basic existence doesn't exclude the fact you might only be able afford a cheap apartment, or pooling your resources with some roommates for a better apartment or a house might be necessary.
You definitely don't deserve an entire house on minimum wage. If you want nicer things you'll need to find a way to afford them, either by cutting costs with roommates or earning more money.
I'm assuming you'd have your own room of course(roommate doesn't mean you share a room over here, it means you share living space).
Over here, a roomate is someone you literally share your bedroom with, either with separate beds or hotbunking. It's what a lot of Poles do to keep costs down. You'll have a converted living room with four mattresses and five Poles living in it. Their perspective is that ifg they're at work as much as possible, and keep costs as low as possible, they can go home with a nice wad of wonga. And I can't argue, I spent my Masters living on someone's couch for two hundred quid a month.
But I would argue minimum wage should provide for your own room at least.
Grey Templar wrote: Fair enough. I suppose the term is tripping people over.
I think the word you use is Flatmate or something yes?
I don't mind sharing a apartment with a relative or good friend, but most people in Britain would be reluctant to share a apartment with total strangers.
Rent is very high in parts of the UK though. On a teachers wage most of my money was gone on rent each month in the red light district of a not-very-nice town outside london.
I got my education for free (cheers Ireland!), a British teacher these days would be coming out with big debt to pay off as well. It's not a great incentive. (Sorry for being so teaching focused, it's just what I can speak on with authority.)
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The Western economic model has been built on the idea that the next generation should be better off, or at least equal to, the previous generation, in terms of wages, life expectancy, access to health services ete etc
Aside from the democratic arguments, my reason for leaving the EU is that wages and job opportunities across the EU, seem to be going downhill, especially in the clubmed countries.
I heard that over the last 30 years, the EU's share of global GDP has shrunk from 30% to around 17%. That, clearly, is not a model for economic success.
Yeah. Here a roommate is anybody you share living space with. Be that you actually sleep in the same room or have your own bedroom in an apartment or house you share. Old fashioned people sometimes call their roommates house mates, but you basically gotta be an old geezer to use that language.
Grey Templar Made in us wrote: Oh yes, being forced to share an apartment or house with other people is totally an inhumane and insufferable human rights violation. Everyone deserves to live in a 15,000 square foot home and minimum wage should totally accommodate this.
Grey Templar wrote: Why can't that housing be in an apartment with individual bedrooms and shared living space?
That can easily be afforded on minimum wage if you have someone occupying each room. If you want your own place all to yourself you probably need to make more than minimum wage. Thats not an unreasonable situation.
Please stop with the Straw Man and false dichotomy arguments. Its very rude. You know full well that nobody here is advocating "15,000 square foot homes".
I would be quite happy living on my own in a one bedroom flat or council house, with a small kitchen, lounge (maybe not even that), one bathroom etc.
But perpetually living like students, in a shared house with strangers? Who the feth wants to live like that? I did that for 3 months during a student internship living with 3 strangers in a big 4 bedroom house, and it was fething awful. Drunk Poles (and thats not intended as a commentary on all Poles) next door waking me up with loud music and knocking on my bedroom door at 2 am to ask if they were disturbing me. A fellow student intern who left her dirty dishes caked with food in the sink all day long, forcing me to shift them out. Filthy kitchen and bathroom, with nobody taking responsibility for cleaning their own messes.
I'd rather have a small one bedroom flat to myself, and theres no reason why that should not be affordable for people on minimum wage with a little smart, responsible budgeting.
Rent is very high in parts of the UK though. On a teachers wage most of my money was gone on rent each month in the red light district of a not-very-nice town outside london.
I got my education for free (cheers Ireland!), a British teacher these days would be coming out with big debt to pay off as well. It's not a great incentive. (Sorry for being so teaching focused, it's just what I can speak on with authority.)
A friend of mine is trying to find a room to rent on the outskirts of London, £600 a month for one room was "cheap" as chips.
You'd get a house and a manservant for that much in Bridgend*.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah. Here a roommate is anybody you share living space with. Be that you actually sleep in the same room or have your own bedroom in an apartment or house you share. Old fashioned people sometimes call their roommates house mates, but you basically gotta be an old geezer to use that language.
Thats a housemate, not a roommate.
you basically gotta be an old geezer to use that language
You gotta be an idiot not to. Why use roommate, which leads to confusion and miscommunication, when a perfectly acceptable alternative that will communicate exactly what you mean, already exists?
Grey Templar wrote: Fair enough. I suppose the term is tripping people over.
I think the word you use is Flatmate or something yes?
I don't mind sharing a apartment with a relative or good friend, but most people in Britain would be reluctant to share a apartment with total strangers.
Well I would be too. I think the vast majority of people who share apartments or houses tend to know each other prior to moving in over here. Outside of college freshmen most people don't move in with total strangers(but then student housing is usually assigned and you just gotta deal with it).
I'm renting a room in a house with other people currently, just till I can afford my own place.
Rent is very high in parts of the UK though. On a teachers wage most of my money was gone on rent each month in the red light district of a not-very-nice town outside london.
I got my education for free (cheers Ireland!), a British teacher these days would be coming out with big debt to pay off as well. It's not a great incentive. (Sorry for being so teaching focused, it's just what I can speak on with authority.)
A friend of mine is trying to find a room to rent on the outskirts of London, £600 a month for one room was "cheap" as chips.
You'd get a house and a manservant for that much in Bridgend*.
*Not really
Jebus... you can buy a house or really, REALLY nice condo here in the midwest for that.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah. Here a roommate is anybody you share living space with. Be that you actually sleep in the same room or have your own bedroom in an apartment or house you share. Old fashioned people sometimes call their roommates house mates, but you basically gotta be an old geezer to use that language.
Thats a housemate, not a roommate.
you basically gotta be an old geezer to use that language
You gotta be an idiot not to. Why use roommate, which leads to confusion and miscommunication, when a perfectly acceptable alternative that will communicate exactly what you mean, already exists?
Thats just how we talk over here in the US. Roommate applies to the whole situation over here. Nobody over here would be confused if you called the guy you share an apartment with your roommate. Watch any American tv show or movie where people share living space. They'll call them roommates regardless of the actual sleeping arrangements.
Rent is very high in parts of the UK though. On a teachers wage most of my money was gone on rent each month in the red light district of a not-very-nice town outside london.
I got my education for free (cheers Ireland!), a British teacher these days would be coming out with big debt to pay off as well. It's not a great incentive. (Sorry for being so teaching focused, it's just what I can speak on with authority.)
A friend of mine is trying to find a room to rent on the outskirts of London, £600 a month for one room was "cheap" as chips.
You'd get a house and a manservant for that much in Bridgend*.
*Not really
Jebus... you can buy a house or really, REALLY nice condo here in the midwest for that.
Heh, yeah. Housing expenses really vary depending on where you are.
I'm super lucky I got my room for $300/month here in California. Its almost criminally cheap.
Regardless of whether or not housemate is a common term in the USA...its a self explanatory term. How anybody can hear "housemate" and not understand it or make the connection, is beyond me.
Rent is very high in parts of the UK though. On a teachers wage most of my money was gone on rent each month in the red light district of a not-very-nice town outside london.
I got my education for free (cheers Ireland!), a British teacher these days would be coming out with big debt to pay off as well. It's not a great incentive. (Sorry for being so teaching focused, it's just what I can speak on with authority.)
A friend of mine is trying to find a room to rent on the outskirts of London, £600 a month for one room was "cheap" as chips.
You'd get a house and a manservant for that much in Bridgend*.
*Not really
I'm looking at moving into Central London next year. I can only afford the cheapest though, which is £800 a month for a poky room in a shared flat.
notprop wrote: It makes you someone that won't stand out.
I had a similar job at Uni. I got paid a day rate so no overtime, we'd have to wait for lorries from the continent. The day finished when those lorries were unloaded.
I could have stood about drinking tea or smoking but I would set up the computer and printers for the next days deliveries while I waited. I the part time junior was soon out earning the full time vets.
Work is work, put more effort in and mostly you get more out.
It's easy to 'stand out'.
It is also to be exploited. Standing out might just make you a mark to be burdened with the work but not benefit from it.
Depending on who you are the amount of times you turn down overtime may or may not be more important that the amount of times you do the extra work, or work harder in general. Peoples memories are selective in this way. A lot of workers do extra time and and dont get any actual benefit from it. I don't accept the idea that work hard and you rise to the top, it doesnt match the reality.
Some people agree to call in on emergency shifts over the phone, promised pay and a half and get stitched on the extra pay. I saw this a lot with the security industry.
Some people work harder and don't get noticed because they are a different ethnic group to the supervisor.
Some people work harder and don't get promoted because they are less chummy in general.
Some people work harder and don't get promoted because they work harder, promoting them moves them from the position they are in where they make their supervisor look good, and the next guy might not be as hard a worker.
I have witnessed all the above scenarios in different places of work.
Life isn't fair, it is especially unfair for unskilled or semi skilled workers, or where there is a glut on skilled worker in an industry, or if you are culturally disempowered, which doesn't necessarily always mean ethnic. Minorities have rights and increased access to advocasy.
There's a certain group in Britain, let's call them employers who think that if you're not working 23 hours a day, 7 seven days a week to make them richer, then you're workshy and not as hardworking as Johnny Foreigner
Not an unhealthy attitude to be sceptical regarding employers and actual opportunity.
While at a tangent from the paid market let us look at the example of Workfare schemes, as they highlight the attitudes well.
The long term unemployed under a cetain age are expected to join Workfare and do some work for their benefit, sometimes up to a four day week, the remaining time is signed in at a in a jobsearch agency. So its a full weeks hours.
I can see the intended benefits of this, it helps the unemployed get back into a work routine and ensures that benefits claimants who are able to work pay back to society.
However a large number of companies, surprise surprise welcome workfare because they don't have to pay any wages.
Furthermore anything less than a hard days work (often judged more strictly than paid employees) risks having the workfare attendee sent back to the Jobcentre, which means an automatic loss of benefits. This in reality means they can be immediately sanctioned without appeal and without any of the protections of a paid employee.
Some Workfare schemes were extendable on the summise that paid work could result. The actual reality was that the Workfare was extendable, but the opportunity would never materialise. Tescos were notorious for this in promising paid employment at the end of a review period, for the review period to never end.
Eventually a case though the EU courts (and actual example of EU membership being relevant to this industry) meant that benefits claimants had the right to flatly refuse to work for a profit making employer, on the grounds that it was 'slave labour'. Trade Unions supported this and also commented that so long as companies got staff through Workfare the work they were doing cut a potential employee out of a job on a person to person basis.
Workfare is an clear example of the exploitation culture in the UK at this time, and a clear example of how hard work doesn't necessarily in any way benefit the worker where there is nomechanism to force employers to treat workers fairly.
To top it all management consider Workfare attendees as little more than scum, some admittedly will be, other will just be unemployed. Now that Workfare is largely processed to community projects and charities requiring manpower, sucgh as park maintenance there is in fact little to separate those on Workfare from those sentenced to community service for crimes, including in how they are treated.
notprop wrote: It makes you someone that won't stand out. I had a similar job at Uni. I got paid a day rate so no overtime, we'd have to wait for lorries from the continent. The day finished when those lorries were unloaded. I could have stood about drinking tea or smoking but I would set up the computer and printers for the next days deliveries while I waited. I the part time junior was soon out earning the full time vets. Work is work, put more effort in and mostly you get more out.
It's easy to 'stand out'. It is also to be exploited. Standing out might just make you a mark to be burdened with the work but not benefit from it.
I had this experience. I tried "standing out", but that just allowed my coworkers to slack off and leave me to do things they probably ought to have been doing. (Seriously, one guy had a habit of sitting on a forklift browsing facebook and youtube on his phone instead of doing stuff to help me out operating the machine, like printing up bags so I wouldn't have to stop the machine every 10 min). Eventually I stopped bothering, just stuck to my own allocated duties and did what I was told.
I found that promotion was based on how chummy you were. And how chummy you were depended on whether you spent your lunchbreaks socialising in the smoking room (this was the 90's) I was a non smoker and thus could not stand the place, there were only two other non smokers who would spend their lunch in the workers cafe, ironically a large empty space, while most people hung out to smoke in the small rec room.
Smoking ban at work fixed this, but by that time I had long moved on. I and the other non smokers worked as hard as the rest, but never got bank holiday shifts rota, and had piss all chance of getting to become team leader.
There is no bitterness over this, I took this work after college before heading on to other things, but it is odd what the real catalysts for success and failure within a company might be.
I dont know Shadow Captain Edithae's experience but have a close friend who does. As with Machiavelli's teachings: if you become the giver of a community and you stop giving, then you become labeled as a miser, and not the actual misers who never gave.
The guy on the forklift who plodded along might be an ok worker, while Edithae after starting to keep his head down might have become the one with the lazy rep. I wonder if this was the case?
If not there is still no guarantee that hard work will be recognised. Look Edithae is doing the work of both of them, lets make him the next team leader, is wishful thinking. It can certainly happen, but as likely the bosses might never notice, or if they notice not care.
I heard that over the last 30 years, the EU's share of global GDP has shrunk from 30% to around 17%. That, clearly, is not a model for economic success.
Assuming that's true (not going to check) certainly that is because countries like China and India are developing their economies and thus occupying larger percentage? It is not indication of EU doing badly, US percentage of global GDP would have similarly declined. You're not actually having a smaller slice of a pie, it is just that the whole pie is bigger than it used to be.
The only time the boss took an active interest in the factory floor was when a machine was breaking down, as he was the only person qualified to fix it. Otherwise he left us to get on with the job.
I worked an administrative post once where I literally did the job of 4 people (when I left, they had one person doing 2 of my roles, and divided the rest up between a bunch of others). And worked that job on a pay grade lower than any one of the 4 jobs should have been paid. In the 2-3 years I did that job, I never got a bonus or overtime.
Yet there were people working there who did literally nothing all day, and got others to cover the majority of their role, then put in for overtime and got it as they were "behind".
You can work your fingers to the bone, but hard work is not an automatic pathway to riches, or even a reasonable set of living circumstances.
Even now, as a professional making reasonable money, married to another professional also making reasonable money, I am certainly better off than many other people in the UK, but life is not exactly easy.
A living, minimum wage should give you the basic requirements of modern life (food, individual living space, transport, communications and entertainment), while still allowing you to save something to help improve your lot amd while working reasonable weekly hours.
Chaps one bad job (and there are planty out there) doesn't mean that you should give up and adopt a drone mentality. By all means do so but don't complain that everything's rubbish because you've given up. Just change jobs.
Not sure what any of this has to do with the European Union. It's just work, you do it to live.
Not sure what any of this has to do with the European Union. It's just work, you do it to live.
It has raised surprises. EU legislation has influenced many of the topics mentioned in what appears to be a thread diversion. The EU has successfully put a stop to Tory ambitions with Workfare for example, and I believe the EU challenge was a necessary one. You mentioned immigrant workers without family working longer hours. This is directly relvant to the policy discussion on child benefit payable to workers who have family abroad, which was recently a sticking point on Camerons drive for a deal with the EU.
The Uk is so entrenched with the single market that work practices are entirely relevant, just often indirectly connected. As the entire issue of EU membership is dominated by indirect connections eg "we should vote In/Out because the consequences will cause x to y and thus have a knock on effect on z."
notprop wrote: Chaps one bad job (and there are planty out there) doesn't mean that you should give up and adopt a drone mentality. By all means do so but don't complain that everything's rubbish because you've given up. Just change jobs.
Not sure what any of this has to do with the European Union. It's just work, you do it to live.
My anecdote was a direct response to you saying I didn't try to "stand out". I DID try, and I got burned for it. Does that mean I'm gonna slack off in future jobs because of one bad experience? No, of course not. I'll give every employer the benefit of the doubt, and work hard to prove myself.
And thank you for your suggestion, thats not condescending in the slightest.
Not condescending when it sounds like you need help.
I generally look to change jobs every 3-4 years, when the market is bouyant as now this might change to every 2 years. I test the market for salary level all the time. I've changed jobs 3 times in the last decade increasing my salary on average 10-20% each time and am considering it again presently. Moving jobs is good advice. The longer you stick at a role the less competitive your salary will become. If you also unhappy with the role the it's definitely time to go. Money washes away much dissatisfaction in any role.
You change jobs every couple of years? What field are you in? I've had the same job for 18 years, and am only now looking to change.
Admitedely, I have to complete a degree first in the interim, but the last time I changed jobs as quickly as you, I was in my teens/ 20's and working a variety of menial jobs.
I got my education for free (cheers Ireland!), a British teacher these days would be coming out with big debt to pay off as well. It's not a great incentive. (Sorry for being so teaching focused, it's just what I can speak on with authority.)
I'm Scottish, so got my education for 'mostly' free. Even so, I work in England now and work with a lot of folks who have kids at nearly university age. As far as the last time I've talked to them, they've never really managed to describe how the various official costs (EG Tuition fees, Student Loads with the capital S and L) are 'really' debt.
I've argued, it's basically a graduation tax, that you only pay when you when you're earning an income as to be expected as a minimum from someone graduating university - £21k I believe. Even then, it's actually a tax you might get to stop paying one day. - If you don't, who cares, it'll get written off eventually anyway.
Of course, I'm going to come across as a massive jerk if they've gone and changed the rules on me.
r_squared wrote: You change jobs every couple of years? What field are you in? I've had the same job for 18 years, and am only now looking to change.
Admitedely, I have to complete a degree first in the interim, but the last time I changed jobs as quickly as you, I was in my teens/ 20's and working a variety of menial jobs.
How do the salaries look in the market after that long?
I'm 39 and a Commercial Manager in the construction industry and did the whole Uni bit back in the day. I've Never had to move and always chose to. I paid my own way through Uni so have never been beholden to an employer for that.
I'm an air traffic controller, so the market doesn't really make a difference to my salary, although that hasn't gone up in the last few years.
My mind boggles at how you manage juggling a new job every few years, but I guess you're used to it.
I also imagine that there are likely to be more people who share the same experience and expectations of work with you, than me. There are very few jobs for life these days. I think my job is one of those very few niches that still offers that sort of life in the UK.
And if you don't want to click on the link, here's the article:
Spoiler:
On 1 March, Brendan O’Neill spoke to the Brexit Society at Cambridge University. Here’s what he said.
The Brexit camp has asked the BBC to do it one, pretty small favour in the run-up to the EU referendum: to differentiate between ‘Europe’ and ‘the EU’. To encourage its reporters to say ‘Europe’ only when they are referring to the vast continent we live in, and to say ‘the EU’ when they are referring to the Brussels-run union of 28 member states.
And the BBC has refused. Or it has at least failed to clarify when these two very different terms may be used by its staff. This means the BBC has implicitly given a nod of approval to its reporters to say ‘Europe’ when they really mean ‘the EU’.
Some observers think the Brexit lobby is mad for asking for this clarification from the BBC. A writer for the New Statesman said it showed that some people will find bias in the most innocuous of things. In other words: chill out; it is not a problem for the national broadcaster to use the terms ‘Europe’ and ‘the EU’ interchangeably; stop making a fuss about nothing.
But I think the BBC’s unwillingness to maintain a distinction between ‘Europe’ and ‘the EU’ is actually very revealing, and worrying.
It speaks to one of the worst aspects of the debate about the EU: the conflation of the Brussels-based oligarchy with the continent of Europe; the mixing-up of the small, unaccountable cliques who peer down at Europe from their air-conditioned towers in Brussels with Europe itself.
Think about some of the phrases that could potentially be uttered by BBC reporters if they use ‘Europe’ for ‘EU’. They could say that the people of Peterborough, one of the most anti-EU parts of Britain, are ‘against Europe’. They could say that people in Warrington, the seventh most Eurosceptic part of Britain, ‘hate Europe’ or are ‘voting to get out of Europe’.
But of course they’re doing no such thing. Britain isn’t leaving the continent of Europe. That isn’t what we’re voting on. And these people in Peterborough and Warrington might love Europe. They might holiday in Spain, have friends in France, love Swedish TV dramas. Many, if not most, of them won’t be anti-European — they’re just anti-EU.
The Stay campaign’s habit of conflating ‘Europe’ and ‘the EU’ means that those who are anti-EU can be easily depicted as anti-Europe, as xenophobic or nationalistic. These people’s political outlook — their dislike of the way Brussels can impose its writ on nation states — is reduced to a prejudiced outlook, a simple case of being anti-Europe. Their politics is pathologised, turned from opposition to a political system into opposition to a whole continent and its cultures and peoples.
This is why we so often see the term Europhobic. This word explicitly pathologises people’s dislike of the EU. It treats it almost as a mental illness: a phobia is an irrational fear.
The Guardian recently said that ordinary people’s Europhobia has been ‘pandered to and fed by Tory leaders’. So there’s a strange, fearful mob out there and the Tories are recklessly stirring it up. This week, a writer for New Europe magazine listed ‘Europhobia’ alongside ‘xenophobia, nationalism, Islamophobia and racism’, as values that are ‘alien to our postwar European culture’.
See how casually criticism of the EU, opposition to the Brussels oligarchy, is reduced to a phobia, an ism, something which goes against the ideals of Europe itself.
We must challenge the cynical conflation of ‘Europe’ and ‘the EU’, and we must challenge the pathologisation of Brussels’ critics. Because, to my mind, the EU and Europe are not even remotely the same thing. Actually, I’d go further and say that the EU grates against everything that is brilliant about Europe. The EU is an ugly, illiberal, undemocratic blot on the wonderful continent of Europe. The EU is a stain on the best, most inspiring values of Europe and its peoples. It is the EU that is anti-Europe.
I love Europe, but I hate the EU. I consider myself a European. I don’t have any special emotional attachment to Great Britain. I love London, but I’m kind of Irish, and if I could afford it I would live in Paris.
My argument for getting out of the EU is not a Little Englander one. It’s not because I think Britain is the best country in this continent. It’s not because I love the pound or the Queen. It’s because the EU is detrimental to the whole of Europe, and particularly to two incredibly important values that European peoples have in various ways been fighting for for hundreds of years: democracy and liberty. The EU is anti-democratic and illiberal.
Supporters of the EU tell us it is an inspiring union of the European peoples. Nonsense. It is a union of European elites who want to avoid their peoples. The EU is the mechanism through which national governments outsource various powers and decision-making processes to distant, aloof, mostly unaccountable bodies like the European Commission and the European Court of Justice.
The true instinct behind the Brussels machine is not to bring Europe together. It is to absolve national governments of the burden of having to consult us, the plebs, about important political and social matters, in favour of allowing various experts and cliques in Brussels to discuss and shape such matters on our behalf. The EU’s fuel is not cosmopolitanism — it’s democracy-dodging.
From the outset, the EU has not been the embodiment of people’s will — it has been a struggle against people’s will. The 1992 Maastricht Treaty that founded the EU as we know it was only just approved by France and was rejected by Denmark. And of course, John Major’s Tory government refused to put it to a referendum. British people were co-opted into the EU without our explicit say-so.
Almost every time they have been asked about the EU, people in Europe have said ‘We don’t want it’. In Ireland in 2001, voters said No to the Nice Treaty. In 2005, the new EU Constitution was rejected by voters in France and Holland. EU bureaucrats then denounced the French and Dutch as ‘ignorant’ and ‘xenophobic’. One MEP said it was mad to subject something as important as the EU Constitution to the ‘lottery’ of public opinion.
The European Commission responded to this French and Dutch disobedience by renaming the EU Constitution the ‘Lisbon Treaty’, which EC vice-president Margot Wallstrom admitted was ‘essentially the same proposal as the old constitution’. Only this time people wouldn’t be asked to vote on it, because, in the words of Nicolas Sarkozy, ‘a referendum now would bring Europe into danger’. So democracy is dangerous; the people’s will is a threat to the EU project.
In 2008, the Irish were permitted to vote on the Lisbon Treaty. And they said No. They were slammed and defamed by Brussels bureaucrats and forced to vote again. Under the pressure of the EU’s economic blackmail, they said Yes second time round.
The EU is not an expression of European people’s will. On the contrary, it has been constituted time and again in direct opposition to people’s will.
The hostility of the EU to national sentiment and democratically elected governments can also be seen in its constant hectoring of the governments of Eastern Europe.
In 2006, the elected prime minister of Slovakia was instructed by Brussels to challenge political extremism in his country and repress certain political ways of thinking or risk being found in breach of EU regulations. In 2006, the prime minister of Poland was forced by Brussels to declare that his government was not homophobic or anti-Semitic and that it would not bring back the death penalty. In 2011, the EU pressured the Hungarian government to rethink its new constitution.
In 2000, when the far-right Freedom Party won 27 per cent of votes in Austria, enough to enter into a coalition government, Brussels imposed diplomatic sanctions on Austria. There would be no ‘business as usual’, the EU decreed, so long as the Freedom Party remained in government. The Freedom Party that had just been elected by huge numbers of Austrian people.
Brussels’ lecturing of Eastern governments doesn’t only expose the anti-democratic instincts of the EU — it also gives the lie to the idea that the EU has united the nations of Europe. Actually the EU has nurtured divisions, primarily between the apparently civilised west of Europe and the allegedly dark, twisted east of Europe which must constantly be corrected, but also between the supposedly industrious north and the apparently lazy, financially reckless south. The Iron Curtain is back, and the north-south divide is back, in a new, insidious way.
The Brussels oligarchy’s view of democracy as dangerous became most apparent in 2011. In that year it worked to impose technocratic governments in Greece and Italy and to import a gang of bankers and bureaucrats to Dublin to keep a watchful eye on the Irish government and its austerity measures. It rode roughshod over democracy, and effectively installed benign tyrannies.
Mario Monti, the unelected technocrat charged with running Italy on behalf of Brussels, actually boasted about the aloofness of his regime. He said: ‘The absence of political personalities removes any ground for disagreement.’ This is what the EU and its lackeys really hate: politics, personality, debate, disagreement — the lifeblood of democracy. They far prefer the rule of experts, the coolness of technocrats.
And their fanboys in the media agree. In 2011, the Guardian published an article headlined ‘In defence of Europe’s technocrats’. It argued that ‘temporary technocrat rule may well be… acceptable — perhaps necessary — at a time of crisis’. Here we have an explicit defence of the destruction of democracy; an open, unabashed argument for the rule of the unelected. And it comes, not from the far right or neo-fascists or other extremist groups that we’re constantly told pose a threat to European values, but from so-called liberals, from supposed EU cosmopolitans.
Some people argue that the EU is our best guard against the kind of tyranny Europe experienced in the 1930s and 40s. Yet as they say this, Brussels installs unelected leaders, blackmails elected prime ministers, describes democratic referendums as a ‘danger’. Under the cover of keeping at bay the tyrannies of the past, the EU constructs a new kind of tyranny.
The vile attacks on the voters of France and Holland and Ireland, the dictating to the elected governments of Eastern Europe, the enforcement of technocratic oversight in Greece and Italy…. none of this is accidental or merely a response to particularly tense, crisis-ridden moments in recent years. Rather, it is in the very nature of the EU to be suspicious of or outright hostile towards the views and attitudes and will of European peoples.
Indeed, the EU has shaped itself precisely around European elites’ feeling of exhaustion with the democratic process. The EU is the means through which politics can be done in a distant and post-democratic way. And to this end, at the very top of Brussels, there is the EC, a body that is emblematic of the EU’s agitation with democracy. This executive body, responsible for proposing EU legislation, is unelected. It has 28 members, one for each member state, who are nominated by the member states. You have no more power to get rid of this clique of commissioners than you have of walking on the Moon this evening. They are beyond your reach, yet they make laws that impact on your life. That is fundamentally contrary to democracy. It cuts against the basic democratic principle that we should consent to the institutions that rule us.
The EU doesn’t only trash democracy. It restricts liberty, too. This vast oligarchical entity is, unsurprisingly, hostile to the idea that people should be free to think and say what they please and to live their lives as they see fit so long as they don’t harm anyone else.
The EU does not trust you plebs. It continually passes rules or laws that seek to govern your minds and lives. It tells all national governments to restrict speech that incites hatred ‘based on race, sex, religion or nationality’, an explicit attack on freedom of speech. It has seriously discussed outlawing the denial not only of the Holocaust — which would be illiberal enough — but also of various other crimes against humanity. This would massively dent academic freedom and historical debate.
Its illiberalism is often mad and petty. It has banned chocolate candy cigarettes on the basis that they ‘appeal to minors’ and could be a gateway to real smoking. It has passed regulations designed to protect ‘vulnerable consumers’ — that is, stupid ordinary people — including by restricting the advertising of formula milk to new mums, who, in the EU’s eyes, should be breastfeeding and not arrogantly making their own parenting choices. It wants to ban diabetics from driving. It enforces controls on products that use a certain amount of wattage, in an attempt to make us uncaring idiots more eco-friendly, whether we want to be or not.
The EU thinks our nationally expressed political will is dangerous, and it thinks it is dangerous to leave us to our own devices, to let us say what we want, buy what we want, behave as we want. This is an institution designed to circumscribe your democratic rights and your everyday ability to run your life.
It goes against what it means to be European. For hundreds of years, through democratic upheavals, revolutions, struggles against arbitrary power and struggles for enlightenment, the peoples of Europe have sought to gain greater control over both their nations’ political affairs and their own lives. The EU undermines both of these things, both democracy and individual liberty. It is against the gains of history. It is against Europe. It is against us.
As someone who considers himself left-wing, I’m horrified that lefties are often at the forefront of defending this elitist institution. It is an historic black mark against the reputation of the left that it has been the chief cheerleader of an institution that undoes so many of the great gains of past radicals and progressives.
We must leave the EU, in order to start the process of recovering our democratic clout. But we must do more than that: we must also encourage and offer solidarity to other European peoples who want to leave. Too much of the current debate is focused around, ‘What will happen to Britain if we leave?’ My concern is what will happen to the other European peoples who will remain stuck in this awful institution. We must fight with them, alongside them, and create a new and real unity across Europe: a union not of elites who distrust the people, but of peoples who have had more than they can take of the elites.
Firstly, sources. Who in the Brexit campaign asked who in the BBC?
Were they for instance talking to someone with the authority to actually enforce a change?
Is it unreasonable for the BBC to refuse to pander to a pedantic, politically motivated request? What is the implication if a BBC journalist inadvertently used the "incorrect" term?
The article writer then when right ahead and put words in the mouths of the BBC and the In campaign, in order to stir up fear and anxiety over an issue that they have deliberately created.
It might seem like a reasonable and cogent argument to you, but it looks like a pile of opinion and balls to me.
Firstly, sources. Who in the Brexit campaign asked who in the BBC?
Were they for instance talking to someone with the authority to actually enforce a change?
Is it unreasonable for the BBC to refuse to pander to a pedantic, politically motivated request? What is the implication if a BBC journalist inadvertently used the "incorrect" term?
The article writer then when right ahead and put words in the mouths of the BBC and the In campaign, in order to stir up fear and anxiety over an issue that they have deliberately created.
It might seem like a reasonable and cogent argument to you, but it looks like a pile of opinion and balls to me.
Ahead of any election or referendum, the BBC meets with political parties or campaign groups, and sets the 'ground rules' on things like TV debates, how much coverage each side gets in interviews, number of people on radio panels discussing politics etc etc
This is due to electoral guidelines from the electoral commission, so it's fair to say that somebody from the leave camp raised this issue in a meeting with the BBC. I don't know if it was a request, or an official decree, but these things do happen.
Unfortunately the minutiae and stuff like this is not going to win any argument, and only satisfies the author's ego/ agenda.
I am going to do some research, and I invite all members who are interested to do the same to see if we can establish some actual facts about the issues, bringing them in for discussion, things that people are really worried about, or just don't know.
From what I've read everywhere, there is an absolute gaping void of any actual information. It's all just opinions and guess work. People are hungry for facts in order to make an informed decision.
That can't be too much to ask?
Unfortunately the minutiae and stuff like this is not going to win any argument, and only satisfies the author's ego/ agenda.
I am going to do some research, and I invite all members who are interested to do the same to see if we can establish some actual facts about the issues, bringing them in for discussion, things that people are really worried about, or just don't know.
From what I've read everywhere, there is an absolute gaping void of any actual information. It's all just opinions and guess work. People are hungry for facts in order to make an informed decision.
That can't be too much to ask?
I'm all for people having the facts before they vote, but my argument (that the EU is a menace to democracy) is widely supported by past EU actions and statements from EU leaders.
The Lisbon treaty talks about ever closer union - that's as black and white as you can possibly get!
What EU navy, covered by what EU air force, is going to deliver what EU army on to British soil to impose non-democracy?
When the non-existent forces aren't kicked back into the Channel, will the EU nuclear force be unleashed as a terrible warning to any other would-be democratic nation?
When the above comes to pass, what will our NATO allies have to say about the matter?
And if you don't want to click on the link, here's the article:
Spoiler:
On 1 March, Brendan O’Neill spoke to the Brexit Society at Cambridge University. Here’s what he said.
The Brexit camp has asked the BBC to do it one, pretty small favour in the run-up to the EU referendum: to differentiate between ‘Europe’ and ‘the EU’. To encourage its reporters to say ‘Europe’ only when they are referring to the vast continent we live in, and to say ‘the EU’ when they are referring to the Brussels-run union of 28 member states.
And the BBC has refused. Or it has at least failed to clarify when these two very different terms may be used by its staff. This means the BBC has implicitly given a nod of approval to its reporters to say ‘Europe’ when they really mean ‘the EU’.
Some observers think the Brexit lobby is mad for asking for this clarification from the BBC. A writer for the New Statesman said it showed that some people will find bias in the most innocuous of things. In other words: chill out; it is not a problem for the national broadcaster to use the terms ‘Europe’ and ‘the EU’ interchangeably; stop making a fuss about nothing.
But I think the BBC’s unwillingness to maintain a distinction between ‘Europe’ and ‘the EU’ is actually very revealing, and worrying.
It speaks to one of the worst aspects of the debate about the EU: the conflation of the Brussels-based oligarchy with the continent of Europe; the mixing-up of the small, unaccountable cliques who peer down at Europe from their air-conditioned towers in Brussels with Europe itself.
Think about some of the phrases that could potentially be uttered by BBC reporters if they use ‘Europe’ for ‘EU’. They could say that the people of Peterborough, one of the most anti-EU parts of Britain, are ‘against Europe’. They could say that people in Warrington, the seventh most Eurosceptic part of Britain, ‘hate Europe’ or are ‘voting to get out of Europe’.
But of course they’re doing no such thing. Britain isn’t leaving the continent of Europe. That isn’t what we’re voting on. And these people in Peterborough and Warrington might love Europe. They might holiday in Spain, have friends in France, love Swedish TV dramas. Many, if not most, of them won’t be anti-European — they’re just anti-EU.
The Stay campaign’s habit of conflating ‘Europe’ and ‘the EU’ means that those who are anti-EU can be easily depicted as anti-Europe, as xenophobic or nationalistic. These people’s political outlook — their dislike of the way Brussels can impose its writ on nation states — is reduced to a prejudiced outlook, a simple case of being anti-Europe. Their politics is pathologised, turned from opposition to a political system into opposition to a whole continent and its cultures and peoples.
This is why we so often see the term Europhobic. This word explicitly pathologises people’s dislike of the EU. It treats it almost as a mental illness: a phobia is an irrational fear.
The Guardian recently said that ordinary people’s Europhobia has been ‘pandered to and fed by Tory leaders’. So there’s a strange, fearful mob out there and the Tories are recklessly stirring it up. This week, a writer for New Europe magazine listed ‘Europhobia’ alongside ‘xenophobia, nationalism, Islamophobia and racism’, as values that are ‘alien to our postwar European culture’.
See how casually criticism of the EU, opposition to the Brussels oligarchy, is reduced to a phobia, an ism, something which goes against the ideals of Europe itself.
We must challenge the cynical conflation of ‘Europe’ and ‘the EU’, and we must challenge the pathologisation of Brussels’ critics. Because, to my mind, the EU and Europe are not even remotely the same thing. Actually, I’d go further and say that the EU grates against everything that is brilliant about Europe. The EU is an ugly, illiberal, undemocratic blot on the wonderful continent of Europe. The EU is a stain on the best, most inspiring values of Europe and its peoples. It is the EU that is anti-Europe.
I love Europe, but I hate the EU. I consider myself a European. I don’t have any special emotional attachment to Great Britain. I love London, but I’m kind of Irish, and if I could afford it I would live in Paris.
My argument for getting out of the EU is not a Little Englander one. It’s not because I think Britain is the best country in this continent. It’s not because I love the pound or the Queen. It’s because the EU is detrimental to the whole of Europe, and particularly to two incredibly important values that European peoples have in various ways been fighting for for hundreds of years: democracy and liberty. The EU is anti-democratic and illiberal.
Supporters of the EU tell us it is an inspiring union of the European peoples. Nonsense. It is a union of European elites who want to avoid their peoples. The EU is the mechanism through which national governments outsource various powers and decision-making processes to distant, aloof, mostly unaccountable bodies like the European Commission and the European Court of Justice.
The true instinct behind the Brussels machine is not to bring Europe together. It is to absolve national governments of the burden of having to consult us, the plebs, about important political and social matters, in favour of allowing various experts and cliques in Brussels to discuss and shape such matters on our behalf. The EU’s fuel is not cosmopolitanism — it’s democracy-dodging.
From the outset, the EU has not been the embodiment of people’s will — it has been a struggle against people’s will. The 1992 Maastricht Treaty that founded the EU as we know it was only just approved by France and was rejected by Denmark. And of course, John Major’s Tory government refused to put it to a referendum. British people were co-opted into the EU without our explicit say-so.
Almost every time they have been asked about the EU, people in Europe have said ‘We don’t want it’. In Ireland in 2001, voters said No to the Nice Treaty. In 2005, the new EU Constitution was rejected by voters in France and Holland. EU bureaucrats then denounced the French and Dutch as ‘ignorant’ and ‘xenophobic’. One MEP said it was mad to subject something as important as the EU Constitution to the ‘lottery’ of public opinion.
The European Commission responded to this French and Dutch disobedience by renaming the EU Constitution the ‘Lisbon Treaty’, which EC vice-president Margot Wallstrom admitted was ‘essentially the same proposal as the old constitution’. Only this time people wouldn’t be asked to vote on it, because, in the words of Nicolas Sarkozy, ‘a referendum now would bring Europe into danger’. So democracy is dangerous; the people’s will is a threat to the EU project.
In 2008, the Irish were permitted to vote on the Lisbon Treaty. And they said No. They were slammed and defamed by Brussels bureaucrats and forced to vote again. Under the pressure of the EU’s economic blackmail, they said Yes second time round.
The EU is not an expression of European people’s will. On the contrary, it has been constituted time and again in direct opposition to people’s will.
The hostility of the EU to national sentiment and democratically elected governments can also be seen in its constant hectoring of the governments of Eastern Europe.
In 2006, the elected prime minister of Slovakia was instructed by Brussels to challenge political extremism in his country and repress certain political ways of thinking or risk being found in breach of EU regulations. In 2006, the prime minister of Poland was forced by Brussels to declare that his government was not homophobic or anti-Semitic and that it would not bring back the death penalty. In 2011, the EU pressured the Hungarian government to rethink its new constitution.
In 2000, when the far-right Freedom Party won 27 per cent of votes in Austria, enough to enter into a coalition government, Brussels imposed diplomatic sanctions on Austria. There would be no ‘business as usual’, the EU decreed, so long as the Freedom Party remained in government. The Freedom Party that had just been elected by huge numbers of Austrian people.
Brussels’ lecturing of Eastern governments doesn’t only expose the anti-democratic instincts of the EU — it also gives the lie to the idea that the EU has united the nations of Europe. Actually the EU has nurtured divisions, primarily between the apparently civilised west of Europe and the allegedly dark, twisted east of Europe which must constantly be corrected, but also between the supposedly industrious north and the apparently lazy, financially reckless south. The Iron Curtain is back, and the north-south divide is back, in a new, insidious way.
The Brussels oligarchy’s view of democracy as dangerous became most apparent in 2011. In that year it worked to impose technocratic governments in Greece and Italy and to import a gang of bankers and bureaucrats to Dublin to keep a watchful eye on the Irish government and its austerity measures. It rode roughshod over democracy, and effectively installed benign tyrannies.
Mario Monti, the unelected technocrat charged with running Italy on behalf of Brussels, actually boasted about the aloofness of his regime. He said: ‘The absence of political personalities removes any ground for disagreement.’ This is what the EU and its lackeys really hate: politics, personality, debate, disagreement — the lifeblood of democracy. They far prefer the rule of experts, the coolness of technocrats.
And their fanboys in the media agree. In 2011, the Guardian published an article headlined ‘In defence of Europe’s technocrats’. It argued that ‘temporary technocrat rule may well be… acceptable — perhaps necessary — at a time of crisis’. Here we have an explicit defence of the destruction of democracy; an open, unabashed argument for the rule of the unelected. And it comes, not from the far right or neo-fascists or other extremist groups that we’re constantly told pose a threat to European values, but from so-called liberals, from supposed EU cosmopolitans.
Some people argue that the EU is our best guard against the kind of tyranny Europe experienced in the 1930s and 40s. Yet as they say this, Brussels installs unelected leaders, blackmails elected prime ministers, describes democratic referendums as a ‘danger’. Under the cover of keeping at bay the tyrannies of the past, the EU constructs a new kind of tyranny.
The vile attacks on the voters of France and Holland and Ireland, the dictating to the elected governments of Eastern Europe, the enforcement of technocratic oversight in Greece and Italy…. none of this is accidental or merely a response to particularly tense, crisis-ridden moments in recent years. Rather, it is in the very nature of the EU to be suspicious of or outright hostile towards the views and attitudes and will of European peoples.
Indeed, the EU has shaped itself precisely around European elites’ feeling of exhaustion with the democratic process. The EU is the means through which politics can be done in a distant and post-democratic way. And to this end, at the very top of Brussels, there is the EC, a body that is emblematic of the EU’s agitation with democracy. This executive body, responsible for proposing EU legislation, is unelected. It has 28 members, one for each member state, who are nominated by the member states. You have no more power to get rid of this clique of commissioners than you have of walking on the Moon this evening. They are beyond your reach, yet they make laws that impact on your life. That is fundamentally contrary to democracy. It cuts against the basic democratic principle that we should consent to the institutions that rule us.
The EU doesn’t only trash democracy. It restricts liberty, too. This vast oligarchical entity is, unsurprisingly, hostile to the idea that people should be free to think and say what they please and to live their lives as they see fit so long as they don’t harm anyone else.
The EU does not trust you plebs. It continually passes rules or laws that seek to govern your minds and lives. It tells all national governments to restrict speech that incites hatred ‘based on race, sex, religion or nationality’, an explicit attack on freedom of speech. It has seriously discussed outlawing the denial not only of the Holocaust — which would be illiberal enough — but also of various other crimes against humanity. This would massively dent academic freedom and historical debate.
Its illiberalism is often mad and petty. It has banned chocolate candy cigarettes on the basis that they ‘appeal to minors’ and could be a gateway to real smoking. It has passed regulations designed to protect ‘vulnerable consumers’ — that is, stupid ordinary people — including by restricting the advertising of formula milk to new mums, who, in the EU’s eyes, should be breastfeeding and not arrogantly making their own parenting choices. It wants to ban diabetics from driving. It enforces controls on products that use a certain amount of wattage, in an attempt to make us uncaring idiots more eco-friendly, whether we want to be or not.
The EU thinks our nationally expressed political will is dangerous, and it thinks it is dangerous to leave us to our own devices, to let us say what we want, buy what we want, behave as we want. This is an institution designed to circumscribe your democratic rights and your everyday ability to run your life.
It goes against what it means to be European. For hundreds of years, through democratic upheavals, revolutions, struggles against arbitrary power and struggles for enlightenment, the peoples of Europe have sought to gain greater control over both their nations’ political affairs and their own lives. The EU undermines both of these things, both democracy and individual liberty. It is against the gains of history. It is against Europe. It is against us.
As someone who considers himself left-wing, I’m horrified that lefties are often at the forefront of defending this elitist institution. It is an historic black mark against the reputation of the left that it has been the chief cheerleader of an institution that undoes so many of the great gains of past radicals and progressives.
We must leave the EU, in order to start the process of recovering our democratic clout. But we must do more than that: we must also encourage and offer solidarity to other European peoples who want to leave. Too much of the current debate is focused around, ‘What will happen to Britain if we leave?’ My concern is what will happen to the other European peoples who will remain stuck in this awful institution. We must fight with them, alongside them, and create a new and real unity across Europe: a union not of elites who distrust the people, but of peoples who have had more than they can take of the elites.
What EU navy, covered by what EU air force, is going to deliver what EU army on to British soil to impose non-democracy?
When the non-existent forces aren't kicked back into the Channel, will the EU nuclear force be unleashed as a terrible warning to any other would-be democratic nation?
When the above comes to pass, what will our NATO allies have to say about the matter?
Frankly the article is a load of toss-spank.
Another undecided joined the out vote based on the in crowd's dismissive nonsense. Pity I'm not British.
What EU navy, covered by what EU air force, is going to deliver what EU army on to British soil to impose non-democracy?
When the non-existent forces aren't kicked back into the Channel, will the EU nuclear force be unleashed as a terrible warning to any other would-be democratic nation?
When the above comes to pass, what will our NATO allies have to say about the matter?
Frankly the article is a load of toss-spank.
There was no mention of an EU military in that article, or did I miss something?
What EU navy, covered by what EU air force, is going to deliver what EU army on to British soil to impose non-democracy?
When the non-existent forces aren't kicked back into the Channel, will the EU nuclear force be unleashed as a terrible warning to any other would-be democratic nation?
When the above comes to pass, what will our NATO allies have to say about the matter?
Frankly the article is a load of toss-spank.
Lovely hyperbole. Nowhere in the article did it mention anything about armed force or anything of the like. It did some very persuasive points on economic blackmail (Ireland) or diplomatic sanctions (Austria) that the EU has carried out as well as plenty of lovely quotes from EU apparatchiks on the outcomes of various referendums and votes over the years.
I pretty much agree with the top half of the article in that I have found myself having disagreements where Europe is the catch all term for the continent we are part of and the entity that is the EU.
Dislike of the EU is seen as horrible jingoistic racism.
What EU navy, covered by what EU air force, is going to deliver what EU army on to British soil to impose non-democracy?
When the non-existent forces aren't kicked back into the Channel, will the EU nuclear force be unleashed as a terrible warning to any other would-be democratic nation?
When the above comes to pass, what will our NATO allies have to say about the matter?
Frankly the article is a load of toss-spank.
There was no mention of an EU military in that article, or did I miss something?
There was mention of the insidious Fu Manchu programme of de-democratisation. How does the writer think the EU is going to enforce this?
Mr. Burning wrote: I pretty much agree with the top half of the article in that I have found myself having disagreements where Europe is the catch all term for the continent we are part of and the entity that is the EU.
Dislike of the EU is seen as horrible jingoistic racism.
Like most people, I've travelled all over Europe. Lovely nations, lovely people, great culture, history, and institutions.
The EU on the other hand sends a shiver down my spine. It is the exact opposite of every European value IMO.
Love Europe, hate the EU. Bit of a cliché, but that's how I feel.
Mr. Burning wrote: I pretty much agree with the top half of the article in that I have found myself having disagreements where Europe is the catch all term for the continent we are part of and the entity that is the EU.
Dislike of the EU is seen as horrible jingoistic racism.
There is a problem there but it's ridiculous to blame the BBC. Firstly, there's no way to enforce its hundreds of reporters and presenters to stick to such a rule in live TV, etc. Secondly, it's largely people like the Daily Mail that have built up this image of everything bad and Europe being from the EU (ref. Human Rights Act, Straight Bananas Act, etc.)
What EU navy, covered by what EU air force, is going to deliver what EU army on to British soil to impose non-democracy?
When the non-existent forces aren't kicked back into the Channel, will the EU nuclear force be unleashed as a terrible warning to any other would-be democratic nation?
When the above comes to pass, what will our NATO allies have to say about the matter?
Frankly the article is a load of toss-spank.
There was no mention of an EU military in that article, or did I miss something?
There was mention of the insidious Fu Manchu programme of de-democratisation. How does the writer think the EU is going to enforce this?
They don't have to enforce it - they just have to keep doing what they've been doing for years - the slow drip drip drip of eating away at the sovereignty of Europe's nation states.
Look at the UK. We joined the EEC in the 1970s, and now 40 years later, we have a behemoth of a European Union with thousands of workers, various departments, and its fingers on every aspect of democratic control.
Mr. Burning wrote: I pretty much agree with the top half of the article in that I have found myself having disagreements where Europe is the catch all term for the continent we are part of and the entity that is the EU.
Dislike of the EU is seen as horrible jingoistic racism.
There is a problem there but it's ridiculous to blame the BBC. Firstly, there's no way to enforce its hundreds of reporters and presenters to stick to such a rule in live TV, etc. Secondly, it's largely people like the Daily Mail that have built up this image of everything bad and Europe being from the EU (ref. Human Rights Act, Straight Bananas Act, etc.)
I 100% agree with you that the Daily Mail has gone over the top over the years when it comes to Europe, but newspapers like the Guardian, who unashamedly bash the pro-EU drum, and dismiss anybody who doesn't like the EU as Little Englanders, has not helped either.
What EU navy, covered by what EU air force, is going to deliver what EU army on to British soil to impose non-democracy?
When the non-existent forces aren't kicked back into the Channel, will the EU nuclear force be unleashed as a terrible warning to any other would-be democratic nation?
When the above comes to pass, what will our NATO allies have to say about the matter?
Frankly the article is a load of toss-spank.
You're being deliberately disingenuous if you think there won't ever be a combined EU military force in future. It may not exist right now, but it most certainly IS on the political agenda.
Besides, as other posters have said, the article made no mention of a military. Your comment is a straw man.
Is the EU going to invade the UK because we stayed in the EU and refused to bow down to anti-democracy, or because we refused to bow down to anti-democracy and got out?
In either case, most of the EU are our NATO allies, so how does that fit in with their cunning plans?
The UK would be a major component of any combined EU armed forces anyway. Are we going to invade ourselves?
The need for an EU military can be inferred from the fact that the EU wants to enforce an anti-democratic agenda. Ultimately this depends on the use of force.
Kilkrazy wrote: The need for an EU military can be inferred from the fact that the EU wants to enforce an anti-democratic agenda. Ultimately this depends on the use of force.
No it does not. The EU has the full cooperation of national governments. When it does not, it resorts to blackmail, with threats of economic consequences and diplomatic sanctions. It does not need the hard power of a military, when its soft power is more than adequate. And nobody here is saying that the EU will declare war and invade if Britain does leave, thats ridiculous hyperbole.
You're going off on a tangent and mocking us all based on something you incorrectly inferred.
Kilkrazy wrote: Why do think the EU's soft power won't work on the UK if we leave?
Why are you presuming my opinion and asking me a leading question?
It probably will work. I have no doubt that the EU will try to blackmail Britain, and I have no faith in the ability of British leaders to stand up to it. I'm voting No regardless.
But the EU is more than happy to turn a blind eye to wide-spread human rights abuses in Belarus.
By an amazing coincidence, the main oil pipeline from Russia flows through Belarus before it hits Europe...
Belarus is not an EU member.
Yes, I'd like EU to take a tougher stance on Belarus, but this is not a comparable situation.
Ukraine is not a member of the EU, but the EU was happy to get involved in Ukrainian politics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: The EU had sanctions on Belarus til October 2015. I don't call that "turning a blind eye". That pipeline has been there the entire time.
But the EU is more than happy to turn a blind eye to wide-spread human rights abuses in Belarus.
By an amazing coincidence, the main oil pipeline from Russia flows through Belarus before it hits Europe...
Belarus is not an EU member.
Yes, I'd like EU to take a tougher stance on Belarus, but this is not a comparable situation.
Ukraine is not a member of the EU, but the EU was happy to get involved in Ukrainian politics.
Even going so far as to send senior EU bureaucrats to Kiev at the height of the Maiden protests to express official approval and support for the revolution. That was a gross violation of national sovereignty and diplomacy.
France now threatening that border controls in Calais will go if we leave, despite them not being reliant on EU membership. The situation in Calais has no business coming to british shores, if the French don't like it they should not be allowing illegal immigrants to enter their country and instead deport them. Somehow they get all the way across France and pile up in Calais and start trying to force their way through.
France now threatening that border controls in Calais will go if we leave, despite them not being reliant on EU membership. The situation in Calais has no business coming to british shores, if the French don't like it they should not be allowing illegal immigrants to enter their country and instead deport them. Somehow they get all the way across France and pile up in Calais and start trying to force their way through.
Like I said, blackmail. Our government will cave in g cause they're spineless cowards.
But the EU is more than happy to turn a blind eye to wide-spread human rights abuses in Belarus.
By an amazing coincidence, the main oil pipeline from Russia flows through Belarus before it hits Europe...
Belarus is not an EU member.
Yes, I'd like EU to take a tougher stance on Belarus, but this is not a comparable situation.
Ukraine is not a member of the EU, but the EU was happy to get involved in Ukrainian politics.
Even going so far as to send senior EU bureaucrats to Kiev at the height of the Maiden protests to express official approval and support for the revolution. That was a gross violation of national sovereignty and diplomacy.
I remember when this happened, lots of people pointed that out, but were shouted down as being Putin puppets.
France now threatening that border controls in Calais will go if we leave, despite them not being reliant on EU membership. The situation in Calais has no business coming to british shores, if the French don't like it they should not be allowing illegal immigrants to enter their country and instead deport them. Somehow they get all the way across France and pile up in Calais and start trying to force their way through.
Like I said, blackmail. Our government will cave in g cause they're spineless cowards.
I'm still voting No.
My vote is steadily heading towards no. And propaganda and crass blackmail from nation states nudges me further into that camp.
I notice Junkers has said migrants shouldn't come to Europe. That'll stop em.
I made my mind up to vote Leave a decade ago, when I was still a teenager. No negative campaigning and scare mongering from the Stay campaign will persuade me to change my mind. In fact, its only going to deepen my contempt for the European Union.
But the EU is more than happy to turn a blind eye to wide-spread human rights abuses in Belarus.
By an amazing coincidence, the main oil pipeline from Russia flows through Belarus before it hits Europe...
Belarus is not an EU member.
Yes, I'd like EU to take a tougher stance on Belarus, but this is not a comparable situation.
Ukraine is not a member of the EU, but the EU was happy to get involved in Ukrainian politics.
Even going so far as to send senior EU bureaucrats to Kiev at the height of the Maiden protests to express official approval and support for the revolution. That was a gross violation of national sovereignty and diplomacy.
I remember when this happened, lots of people pointed that out, but were shouted down as being Putin puppets.
The EU wanted revolution which meant they could continue to pull the tigers tail. Russia decided to continue playing their own game. Are the Ukranians any closer to EU membership?
France now threatening that border controls in Calais will go if we leave, despite them not being reliant on EU membership. The situation in Calais has no business coming to british shores, if the French don't like it they should not be allowing illegal immigrants to enter their country and instead deport them. Somehow they get all the way across France and pile up in Calais and start trying to force their way through.
From the linked article:
France's economy minister Emmanuel Macron ... said France would limit access to the single market
So the first maneuvers and threats of economic Brinkmanship begins. For those who vote Leave Beware
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I made my mind up to vote Leave a decade ago, when I was still a teenager. No negative campaigning and scare mongering from the Stay campaign will persuade me to change my mind. In fact, its only going to deepen my contempt for the European Union.
I have fence sat on the issue for a number of years. I have always felt part of Europe but not of the EU. If that makes sense.
It's very much based on scare tactics, threats to block access to their markets, landing us with fees, tempt away bankers and businesses, and drop any pretence of taking responsibility for migrants in their country from illegally crossing into ours. How about some good reasons to stay instead of all these underhanded scare tactics?
I've still not made up my mind. But these tactics of threatening to cane us for leaving as a lesson to other countries that feel similarly exposes just how ugly the intentions of those controlling the EU are.
In that case I think the British government should seriously consider and threaten to re-nationalize British companies and industries that are owned by foreign European governments/companies. Aren't a few of our utility companies owned by European governments?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I made my mind up to vote Leave a decade ago, when I was still a teenager. No negative campaigning and scare mongering from the Stay campaign will persuade me to change my mind. In fact, its only going to deepen my contempt for the European Union.
I have fence sat on the issue for a number of years. I have always felt part of Europe but not of the EU. If that makes sense.
Absolutely. I like Europe, I've traveled through Europe extensively - annual holidays to France with my parents until I came of age and had to start paying my own way , my parents have a small holiday villa in Spain, I've visited Germany on an exchange trip in school, some of my favourite holidays involved visits to museums, castles and WW2 battlefields in France.
But I don't want a shared government with Europe. Different cultures, different and competing priorities and interests, different and conflicting values. I don't want a foreign politician who does no care for Britain and British interests, in a position of power over Britain. And I expect many French and German voters feel the same way.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I made my mind up to vote Leave a decade ago, when I was still a teenager. No negative campaigning and scare mongering from the Stay campaign will persuade me to change my mind. In fact, its only going to deepen my contempt for the European Union.
I have fence sat on the issue for a number of years. I have always felt part of Europe but not of the EU. If that makes sense.
Absolutely. I like Europe, I've traveled through Europe extensively - annual holidays to France with my parents until I came of age and had to start paying my own way, my parents have a small holiday villa in Spain, I've visited Germany on an exchange trip in school, some of my favourite holidays involved visits to museums, castles and WW2 battlefields in France.
But I don't want a shared government with Europe. Different cultures, different and competing priorities and interests, different and conflicting values. I don't want a foreign politician who does no care for Britain and British interests, in a position of power over Britain. And I expect many French and German voters feel the same way.
Mine is "Consider the End", which seems appropriate in this situation too.
On economic damage if the UK leaves, well, it's to be expected isn't it? I mean, you can make your decisions but there are diplomatic consequences to them at the same time. Imagining you can do what you please with no consequence is hardly realistic.
Da Boss wrote: Mine is "Consider the End", which seems appropriate in this situation too.
On economic damage if the UK leaves, well, it's to be expected isn't it? I mean, you can make your decisions but there are diplomatic consequences to them at the same time. Imagining you can do what you please with no consequence is hardly realistic.
Asking us to pay the same fees for access to the single market as (for instance) Norway is a realistic consequence.
France threatening to restrict our access to the single market, shut down border controls and flood Britain with migrants is not realistic, it's a direct threat and going out of their way to exact a petty revenge.
There are natural consequences and then there's threats of deliberate acts of spite used to blackmail. So much for democracy - do as we want or we'll f- you up.
The sooner we get out of the stinking mess that is the eurozone the better.All the scare mongering from france etc is a joke,Today France threatened that the Calais jungle will be pushed onto British soil.What they never admit is that these so called refugees/migrants have got into their country(many illegally) and should be deported by them.The £55 million pounds a day the uk pays into brussels would be far better spent in Britain.The British people need to stand up and say no.
shingouki wrote: The sooner we get out of the stinking mess that is the eurozone the better.All the scare mongering from france etc is a joke,Today France threatened that the Calais jungle will be pushed onto British soil.What they never admit is that these so called refugees/migrants have got into their country(many illegally) and should be deported by them.The £55 million pounds a day the uk pays into brussels would be far better spent in Britain.The British people need to stand up and say no.
Well, we're not in the Eurozone. You mean the EU surely?
(INB4 all the In'ners use your obvious brain fart to discredit and mock you).
Da Boss wrote: Mine is "Consider the End", which seems appropriate in this situation too.
On economic damage if the UK leaves, well, it's to be expected isn't it? I mean, you can make your decisions but there are diplomatic consequences to them at the same time. Imagining you can do what you please with no consequence is hardly realistic.
Asking us to pay the same fees for access to the single market as (for instance) Norway is a realistic consequence.
France threatening to restrict our access to the single market, shut down border controls and flood Britain with migrants is not realistic, it's a direct threat and going out of their way to exact a petty revenge.
Lucky we can send them back without the EU being able to stop us. We could just blow up the channel tunnel, start the engines and float away to the equator.
Da Boss wrote: What, so Gove or IDS never shoots their mouth off about anything?
*shrug*
We'll see if it gets confirmed by Hollande.
What point are you trying to make? If Osbourne (the closest equivalent) made noises about sanctions against France, I think it'd be taken seriously. Emmanuel is in the position that has the power that can enact exactly the kind of thing he is threatening. Hardly the minor right wing troublemaker you make him out to be.
Hollande can confirm or deny the sabre rattling whenever, but considering he talked about consequences as well, I think it's fair to assume they both concur.
Well, nothing that has said so far convinces me that leaving the EU is anything other than a bad step.
If we do end up following the blinkered politics of Euroscepticism, I think I may have to move and apply for Scottish citizenship.
Ireland may be impacted adversely at first, but with luck, when Scotland cedes from the UK, and rejoins the EU, they maybe able to enjoy renewed and invigorated trading opportunities with one of the smallest members of OPEC.
welshhoppo wrote: The French President said that there would be "consequences " for us leaving the EU. He says he is not trying to scare us. But bad things can happen.
You beat me to it. No doubt Hollande was egged on by Call Me Dave, but if the EU has to resort to blackmail to try and scare the British public into staying, then the quicker we leave this wretched organisation, the better.
Thousands of British soldiers died in two world wars to liberate France, and the French response to Britain exercising its democratic principals is threats and blackmail!!!
I'd better quit this thread until tomorrow before I get a lifetime ban from dakka.
What Macron said was unhelpful, but what Hollande said seemed mostly reasonable. It was not a threat, it was statement of fact, there would be consequences. Pretending that there would be not is stupid.
welshhoppo wrote: The French President said that there would be "consequences " for us leaving the EU. He says he is not trying to scare us. But bad things can happen.
You beat me to it. No doubt Hollande was egged on by Call Me Dave, but if the EU has to resort to blackmail to try and scare the British public into staying, then the quicker we leave this wretched organisation, the better.
Thousands of British soldiers died in two world wars to liberate France, and the French response to Britain exercising its democratic principals is threats and blackmail!!!
I'd better quit this thread until tomorrow before I get a lifetime ban from dakka.
I dont think Cameron egged the French on in this. Cameron is not actually an idiot.
French threats will make people bloody minded and more likely to vote out than they will frighten people to vote In. There is not a legal mechanism for the French to detect illegal immigrants in their own country and informally usher them into the UK, but then EU legislation doesn't matter to the French.
Da Boss wrote: But whatever, explaining this stuff to you guys is like pissing into the wind - you've already made up your minds.
I think it is more an issue of there being zero factual information being put forward by either side. Anyone can see that there will be consequences whether we stay or leave the EU. Unfortunately there is so much hot air coming from both sides that it seems to have dried up any genuine dialogue and debate... as always seems to happen in politics.
You can say more or less whatever you want about staying or going; the fact is there is almost nothing solid to back up what you say, vs what anyone else says.
I say this as someone who is voting to stay in the EU (even though I think the political and democratic structure needs to be almost entirely torn down and rebuilt to be more open and accountable) and largely agrees with what you have said - your aggressiveness in this thread, while partially understandable, is not exactly a positive showing for team "stay".
Da Boss wrote: But whatever, explaining this stuff to you guys is like pissing into the wind - you've already made up your minds.
I think it is more an issue of there being zero factual information being put forward by either side. Anyone can see that there will be consequences whether we stay or leave the EU. Unfortunately there is so much hot air coming from both sides that it seems to have dried up any genuine dialogue and debate... as always seems to happen in politics.
You can say more or less whatever you want about staying or going; the fact is there is almost nothing solid to back up what you say, vs what anyone else says.
I say this as someone who is voting to stay in the EU (even though I think the political and democratic structure needs to be almost entirely torn down and rebuilt to be more open and accountable) and largely agrees with what you have said - your aggressiveness in this thread, while partially understandable, is not exactly a positive showing for team "stay".
I'm not trying to convince anyone one way or another. It's Britain's vote.
But I'm damned if I'm not going to defend the EU against lies, myths and false statements.
I got my first warning in a long while from this thread though, no doubt for my reply to Shadow Captain. So I'd better take a break from it.
What does the EU do that the G8, G20, UN, NATO, etc doesn't already do?
I saw something today about the French president(?) discussing consequences and border issues...as well as affecting an exclusive French/UK agreement.
Thanks for the education.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To me, it sounds like the French are trying to intimidate/scare the UK into staying.
I mean, if the agreement is exclusive to UK and France, then it shouldn't involve the EU or UK being in or out of the EU...it shojld solely be an agreement between those two countries.
.
