The EU referendum - IN / OUT or Shake it all about.

[Dodgy Bob]

The living wage didn't start until April so it wouldn't affect wage growth in the last quarter, I'd guess that firms would change their recruitment policies in anticipation of it.

There have been studies done that show increases to minimum wage don't affect employment rates (quite convincing ones from the US where different states have had different minimum wages changing at different times while employment figures in the exact same industries across those states haven't shown a significant change), but I'm sure you could find studies that show the opposite as well if you looked hard enough.

I'm not convinced that the move to a living wage - which don't forget only applies to over-25's who were earning less than £7.20 per hour, quite a small proportion of the work force - could have had much of an effect that quickly, if it is to have an effect at all.

At least with the living wage, lots of people who really needed a boost did feel a proper tangible benefit, so perhaps a minor impact on employment would be worth it. Losing jobs by leaving the EU is much less easily justifiable, because the purported benefits are so intangible and so removed from most people's day to day life that it's hard to say with any certainty that anyone at all will benefit, except of course the politicians who support whichever campaign eventually wins - their careers will definitely get a boost.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote#

Link for voting registration - something quite important for people to consider if they want a say.

Could it be worth adding the link to the thread title?

[Sharpe's Fox]

Remain campaigners going batshit mental because Hitler was mentioned by Johnson. The mans a liar but there wasn't anything incorrect on what he said.

[Dodgy Bob]

With all the mock outrage over Cameron's comments last week, Boris should have known better than to compare the EU to a genocidal dictator. Hasn't done himself any favours and for me, it's a new low in what has been a public debate characterised by alarming levels of idiocy.

[paddy1966]

Latest leak from Brussels, by 2021 fishing with rod and line to be banned.

Bureaucrats in Belgium seek complete

uniformity throughout Europe - so much for diversity.

[Alf Bentley]

Remain campaigners going batshit mental because Hitler was mentioned by Johnson. The mans a liar but there wasn't anything incorrect on what he said.

 

 

As I understand it, he said that the EU was engaged in misguided attempts to dominate Europe, like Napoleon and Hitler, just employing different methods.

 

Presumably, then, it would be equally valid to say: "Nicky Morgan has been engaged in misguided attempts to take over childcare, like Myra Hindley and Ian Brady, just employing different methods"?

[Alf Bentley]

Latest leak from Brussels, by 2021 fishing with rod and line to be banned.

Bureaucrats in Belgium seek complete

uniformity throughout Europe - so much for diversity.

 

 

 

 

In other news, the Leave camp revealed that Brussels bureaucrats conduct orgies at which they burn the union jack and piss all over Yorkshire puddings  - and the Remain camp revealed that Leave campaigners regularly club baby seals to death, grinning evilly as they do so.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Latest leak from Brussels, by 2021 fishing with rod and line to be banned.Bureaucrats in Belgium seek completeuniformity throughout Europe - so much for diversity.

http://flyfishing-and-flytying.co.uk/news/view/eu_propose_complete_ban_for_bass/

Is this what you're on about?

[Guest MattP]

Can we have a ban on politicians invoking Hitler into discussion?

[Alf Bentley]

That for me is where the whole argument begins and ends.

 

As soon as we talk about an organisation that is willing to crush the democratic will of the people for it's own benefit no one should want anything to do with it.

 

 

I partly agree, but such anti-democratic centralisation of power can happen nationally as well as at EU level. With no justification, our national govt recently tried to impose unwanted academy schools against the local will. It has slashed local govt funding, leaving social services in a catastrophic state (I have personal experience of this re. my Dad) and causing knock-on bed-blocking problems at hospitals, yet caps the ability of councils to raise funds themselves via council tax. National Govts have also effectively prevented local councils using the money from "Right to Buy" sales to fund new affordable housing....contributing to a housing crisis.

 

Promoting deregulated global free markets and shifting power from Brussels to London (the Leave stance of Boris, Nigel & co) is Thatcherite/nationalist politics.

 

The democratic argument is for power decentralised to the lowest possible level - the proper implementation of the Subsidiarity Principle, by EU and national governments alike: some decisions at EU/global level, some at national level, but a lot at the level of local government, local institutions, local communities etc.

[Alf Bentley]

Still unsure but it seems there will be no difference for a lot of people. Workers rights etc were won by our own people and in some areas better than the continent. The ones who benefit most by being in are the multi corporations. My sister owns a small business and has said she would benefit more by leaving. I had always thought of it the other way round but I may be wrong.

 

 

Big business certainly benefits more from the EU than small business, I reckon, but does small business get a better deal from national government? A lot of "we support small business" rhetoric from successive govts, but do they? Lots of contracts for Capita, G4S and other (often useless) mega-corporations. Have you seen any of the lists of lobbyists seen by ministers? They mainly tend to be people from large corporations, major financial institutions etc. Not many from small business. There has been a lot of similar rhetoric over decades from successive governments about tackling tax avoidance (which massively benefits big corporations at the expense of small business). Has any national government done any better than the EU with that?!?

 

I used to have 2 civil service departments as regular clients of my one-person translation business. I lost one to big business due to EU competition law, and have effectively lost the other (no work for 2 years) due to national govt spending cuts.  The one lost due to EU competition law used to keep some work in-house and outsource the rest to dozens of small businesses like mine (individual translators) - good-quality, fairly regular work at a decent rate for us, and they got the same in return from us. Then EU competition law apparently obliged them to put everything up for tender - a tender won by 2 mega-agencies (we could have beaten them on price, but couldn't have competed on range of services, even if we'd had the capacity to handle the complex tendering procedure). Those mega-agencies then offered the translation work to us lot who'd been doing the work before - with a 20% rate cut! I told them where to stick their offer. But even with that rate cut, the client department will be paying much more now for services mainly provided by the same people (some demoralised, no doubt)....lots of small businesses have lost out, 2 big businesses have gained, snaffling the contracts as middlemen!

 

Sometimes the effects of EU processes can be less severe - and certainly unintentional. The Commission puts translation work out for tender, but you have to fulfil all sorts of criteria, being certified to ISO standards, submitting tenders etc. It would all be too onerous for a very small business, like mine, to take on - but I've ended up doing some of this work through a small agency (about 5 employees) that does just about have the capacity to jump through such bureaucratic hoops and has competed succesfully for tenders. Is it any better at national level, though? I used to get a lot of work from a second govt department, but that has completely dried up due to austerity cuts......though Capita, G4S & co still do nicely from public procurement, bidding low, winning tenders, probably paying crap wages - and often providing a crap service!

 

The world seems to be mainly run for big business whatever the level of government, EU or national. Who do you trust to look after "the little man", the European Commission or Boris/Nigel/Gove and their Thatcherite, austerity-cutting mates? What if your answer is "neither"?! Or do you rely on the democratic election at UK level of the first left-wing government for 40+ years (good luck with that one!). At the moment, mainstream politics in the EU is not as Thatcherite as in the UK, so does that make "Remain" the better bet? Are we second-guessing what British and European politics might be in 10-20 years time? 

[Alf Bentley]

 

I won't be posting much for the next couple of days, but briefly, on your arguments:

- The EU is more of a machine for big business than I'd like (& its crushing of a democratically-elected Leftist govt in Greece was a disgrace), but is it more "free market capitalist" than the UK Govt? The Rightists leading the Leave campaign complain of too MUCH EU regulation of free-market capitalism (labour/social/environmental regulation) & the EU does redistribute funds/invest in development in poorer areas (mainly in other countries, but includes Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland, Merseyside & Cornwall). We can change the government and its economic policy but can't change the  institution of EU free markets as it's a cornerstone of the entire project. But we can't change the dominance of global free markets. Could a medium-sized nation apply a radically different economic policy (e.g. more tax & spend, less deregulation) and succeed? Every British Govt for the past 40+ years has adopted variations on the free-market norm; most have clearly been MORE free-market than EU policies, including Blair/Brown.

 

- On cheap migrant labour, a genuine issue, there are tools we can use to address this whether or not we leave the EU (minimum wage, labour inspectors, union campaigns, legislation on advertising/competition for jobs). I don't want to sound like a 'Kipper but none of that will solve the underlying issue of the free movement of people who can survive with a much lower wage than any UK counterpart. Surely the "living wage" and increments for those on slightly higher pay will help? Anyway, is the shortage of British nurses or plumbers due to it being impossible to live on the pay of a nurse or plumber? Not in most places surely? Isn't the failure to train enough people in the right occupations part of the problem? Plus, in practice, allowing gangmasters to supply farmers/food processors etc with foreign labour at effective rates below the minimum/living wage? As ever, lots of rhetoric from the Right about this, but when did you last hear of an employer getting done for hiring foreign labour at illegal rates or failing to advertise jobs at minimum pay to locals?

- While EU competition law has some impact, the EU certainly DOES NOT prohibit state ownership; indeed almost all EU countries have MORE state ownership than us, including most railways, many utilities, even car-making and shipbuilding firms:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterpriseThe EU didn't prevent us nationalising Railtrack/Network Rail or the East Coast train line (now privatised again), did they? The foreign institutions you cite as examples are retained national enterprises from the postwar era and the EU is actively lobbying the individual states to put them on sale. The issue, for me, is over renationalisation of assets where the market has let down the consumer. It's true that the EU is promoting privatisation in Europe - but the UK is the country where privatisation has been taken furthest - due to national governments, not the EU! Railtrack and the East Coast line weren't retained national enterprises; they had been privatised and were effectively re-nationalised - likewise the state invested in RBS & Lloyds after the 2008 crash and the EU didn't stop any of that. Of course, you may believe that, if we leave the EU, for the first time in 40+ years the UK will elect a government devoted to renationalisation on a much wider scale....I'm dubious.

 

- I'd argue that for decades the British government has been more of a "neo-liberal institution" than the EU (particularly under the Tories, but even under New Labour). There's a valid democratic argument that Labour could win electoral support for more left-wing policies than might be possible within the EU (taking Greece as an example), but you'd have to be a massive optimist to believe that is going to happen any time soon. Leave or Remain, we're all second-guessing the future long-term, but neo-liberal values look set to dominate in the short/medium-term. Maybe I'm wrong and Corbyn will triumph in 2020 or a Leave vote will shatter the Tories & have the electorate clamouring for left-wing policies. Much more likely that Eurosceptic Tories will get on with ripping the social fabric of the country to shreds. What's more, if there is a downturn/turbulence (even the Leave people expect this short-term), the atmosphere could get toxic - particularly if our former EU partners are perceived to be taking a tough line on the negotiation of new trade deals etc. I can imagine a serious upsurge in social problems, public discontent - and extreme racism, in response to that scenario (even accepting the argument that the UK can thrive economically in the medium-term). Your point of a Corbyn led party being unlikely to win a GE is a valid one and one I was conflicted myself about, but I came to the conclusion that I won't be cowed by the prospect of a long Tory term in government and have decided to not compromise on what I think on the issue in discussion. I certainly won't feel guilty about any social discontent in the event of a Leave vote, it may be a trigger but any causes would be deep rooted and most probably unrelated. I agree with your comments re. deep-rooted causes and not feeling guilty about such hypothetical developments but I'd still prefer to avoid the risk of boosting the Thatcherite Right or the Extreme Right, insofar as possible. Short-term, an economic downturn or even some degree of chaos is likely, as is an upsurge in xenophobia if times get tougher and people are looking for someone to blame....and we'd probably have Boris in charge of this (or maybe someone even worse in the medium-term). The longer-term is unpredictable for both the UK and the EU, admittedly, but I'm struggling to see a better British society resulting for a very long time (by when Scotland would probably be long gone, anyway, as the Scots will surely vote Remain - and then for Independence - if the UK as a whole votes to leave).

 

[Webbo]

Can we have a ban on politicians invoking Hitler into discussion?

Amen.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

What benefits do you think leaving will bring for workers? The job market is almost certain to tank for at least two to three years, maybe longer.

There are already signs the market is slowing down to a crawl just in preparation for the vote.

It will take two messy years just to get out of the EU and then more to get back to where we are now with European trade.

Businesses will certainly hold back on investment during that time. The public sector can't pick up the slack because the tories are commited to austerity

It's a big disastrous recession waiting to happen and it will be the workers who pay the price, just like it always is.

RUBBISH!  RUBBISH!  RUBBISH!   Pure groundless speculation.

[Rincewind]

Can we have a ban on politicians?

 

 

Amen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

[Dodgy Bob]

RUBBISH! RUBBISH! RUBBISH! Pure groundless speculation.

It's not groundless. Leaving the EU will take at least two years. It will then take a while longer for things to settle into a new normal. So for several years we'll have uncertainty, that's a fact. The only arguable point is the degree to which uncertainty impacts businesses and their workers.

Personally, I feel it will have a moderately strong negative impact, enough to significantly increase unemployment and to cause a fall in economic output. We won't all be dropping dead in the streets because of this, but it will do the nation some harm, and personally I want to see much stronger evidence of the benefits of leaving before voting to do myself harm.

[GaelicFox]

It's not groundless. Leaving the EU will take at least two years. It will then take a while longer for things to settle into a new normal. So for several years we'll have uncertainty, that's a fact. The only arguable point is the degree to which uncertainty impacts businesses and their workers.

Personally, I feel it will have a moderately strong negative impact, enough to significantly increase unemployment and to cause a fall in economic output. We won't all be dropping dead in the streets because of this, but it will do the nation some harm, and personally I want to see much stronger evidence of the benefits of leaving before voting to do myself harm.

I said exact same down the pub today

But I'm worried this country is loosing its identity and the pressure on services from economic migrants is huge

I'm not even sure it's right people like me (immigrants) should get a vote , I think maybe it should Be British passport holders only who vote

I think we will vote to stay in

[Webbo]

Is there any proof, other than the wailing and moaning of vested interests, that we'd be better off inside staying in? It doesn't seem to be doing Greece,Spain. Portugal and Italy any good.

[bovril]

Is there any proof, other than the wailing and moaning of vested interests, that we'd be better off inside staying in? It doesn't seem to be doing Greece,Spain. Portugal and Italy any good.

 

You've just listed 3 of the most corrupt countries in Europe. Added to that Italy has bureaucracy to make the EU look streamlined. Stop blaming the big bad EU for all the continent's woes.

[Webbo]

You've just listed 3 of the most corrupt countries in Europe. Added to that Italy has bureaucracy to make the EU look streamlined. Stop blaming the big bad EU for all the continent's woes.

It might not be to blame but it's not their salvation either. Being in the EU doesn't seem to be any guarantee of prosperity.

[Dodgy Bob]

Is there any proof, other than the wailing and moaning of vested interests, that we'd be better off inside staying in? It doesn't seem to be doing Greece,Spain. Portugal and Italy any good.

In the short to medium term yes: the avoidance of uncertainty. In the long term, no, but that applies equally to leaving, simply because nobody knows what's going to happen in the future.

[Webbo]

We all know what will happen if we stay in, more centralisation, less democracy and a declining share of world trade.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

It might not be to blame but it's not their salvation either. Being in the EU doesn't seem to be any guarantee of prosperity.

Nothing is a guarantee for prosperity... but the chance to get what you need into your country without tariffs AND export your own countries products to your nearest neighbours without addictional costs to those consumers - that's not a bad start to getting there.

As a tool available for this country to take advantage of - it's pretty ****ing useful.

[Dodgy Bob]

We all know what will happen if we stay in, more centralisation, less democracy and a declining share of world trade.

More centralisation isn't a certainty over the long term. Less democracy is true as far as the "making our own laws" argument is concerned. Declining share or world trade? Not sure that can be predicted with any certainty.

[Webbo]

Nothing is a guarantee for prosperity... but the chance to get what you need into your country without tariffs AND export your own countries products to your nearest neighbours without addictional costs to those consumers - that's not a bad start to getting there.

As a tool available for this country to take advantage of - it's pretty ****ing useful.

The EU as a proportion of our exports is falling. We sell to the rest of the world and seem to manage.