Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

 Baragash wrote:

 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.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/24/amazons-uk-business-paid-119m-tax-last-year

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.

The UK isn't in the Euro zone, though.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The UK isn't in the Euro zone, though.

Well no gak. I'm not talking about the UK. I'm responding to Grey Templar.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


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.

http://www.citb.co.uk/news-events/uk/skills-gaps-threaten-27000-building-projects/

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Baragash wrote:

 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.

 Baragash wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Baragash wrote:

 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.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Convergence criteria isn't particularly useful if you turn a blind eye.

"rules aren't useful if they get broken"

If the rules/criteria are being ignored to people's detriment, the solution isn't to scrap the rules it's to actually enforce them, surely?

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.

Economics is important but it's not everything.

But yeah, I do see where you're coming from.

Actually, Economics is everything.

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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 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.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Baragash wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Baragash wrote:

 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:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Baragash wrote:

 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 .

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.

 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.

It'll be all those Indian spambots. They've always felt that the UK should be independent.