Suggestions of an EU treasury and common wage policy EU wide

Graham_Devon

Junker has today, on the back of the migrant crisis announced the plans for the EU. They include, crucially, an EU treasury and a common wage policy, meaning jobs pay the same across the EU.

Obviously this would have massive implications on our own economy.

If we pay more for the jobs, do we open ourselves up to an influx of people chasing the higher pay for our jobs under free movement?

If we pay less, is our talent drained?

If places like Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland etc are hit hard by these changes (which is likely) are we going to see further increases in people coming to the UK due to the English language?

Massive changes anyway. Do these announcements concentrate the minds of those who are Pro-EU?

• a compulsory relocation policy to redistribute 160,000 migrants around the continent
• a common EU legal migration policy to manage incomers legally
• plans to let asylum seekers work from the day they arrive in Europe
• Frontex must become a “fully operational border and coast guard system” to patrol the EU’s external borders
• a “more powerful” EU foreign policy under Federica Mogherini and a “diplomatic offensive” in Syria and Libya
• an emergency trust fund of 1.8bn fund to address the crisis in Sahel and Africa, funded by all EU states. All states must increase their aid budgets, Juncker says.
• Radical Eurozone integration including the creation of an EU treasury
• a seat for the Eurozone on the IMF and Bretton Woods institutions
• suggests that salaries should be harmonised across the EU, so the same jobs get the same pay

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Junker has today, on the back of the migrant crisis announced the plans for the EU. They include, crucially, an EU treasury and a common wage policy, meaning jobs pay the same across the EU.

Obviously this would have massive implications on our own economy.

If we pay more for the jobs, do we open ourselves up to an influx of people chasing the higher pay for our jobs under free movement?

If we pay less, is our talent drained?

If places like Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland etc are hit hard by these changes (which is likely) are we going to see further increases in people coming to the UK due to the English language?

Massive changes anyway. Do these announcements concentrate the minds of those who are Pro-EU?

Do you have a source/link for that quote you just used?

I've read Junkers original speech and that's not what it says at all.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Do you have a source/link for that quote you just used?

I've read Junkers original speech and that's not what it says at all.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11852782/Jean-Claude-Juncker-State-of-the-Union-EU-address-refugee-crisis-live.html

@9.56

Junkers speech DOES state it all.

For instance:

We need more Europe, we need more Union, and we need more fairness in our taxation policy.

Fifth: We have to step up the work for a fair and truly pan-European labour market. Fairness in this context means promoting and safeguarding the free movement of citizens as a fundamental right of our Union, while avoiding cases of abuses and risks of social dumping.

Labour mobility is welcome and needed to make the euro area and the single market prosper. But labour mobility should be based on clear rules and principles. The key principle should be that we ensure the same pay for the same job at the same place.

Yes, we will need to set up a Euro Area Treasury over time, which is accountable at European level. And I believe it should be built on the European Stability Mechanism we created during the crisis, which has, with a potential credit volume of €500 billion, a firepower that is as important as the one of the IMF. The ESM should progressively assume a broader macroeconomic stabilisation function to better deal with shocks that cannot be managed at the national level alone. We will prepare the ground for this to happen in the second half of this mandate.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-15-5614_en.htm

mayonnaise

Graham_Devon wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11852782/Jean-Claude-Juncker-State-of-the-Union-EU-address-refugee-crisis-live.html

@9.56

That's the Telegraph's interpretation.
The actual speech: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-15-5614_en.htm

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Here's what Junkers actually said....

We have to step up the work for a fair and truly pan-European labour market. Fairness in this context means promoting and safeguarding the free movement of citizens as a fundamental right of our Union, while avoiding cases of abuses and risks of social dumping.

Labour mobility is welcome and needed to make the euro area and the single market prosper. But labour mobility should be based on clear rules and principles.

The key principle should be that we ensure the same pay for the same job at the same place.

As part of these efforts, I will want to develop a European pillar of social rights, which takes account of the changing realities of Europe's societies and the world of work. And which can serve as a compass for the renewed convergence within the euro area.

This European pillar of social rights should complement what we have already jointly achieved when it comes to the protection of workers in the EU. I will expect social partners to play a central role in this process.

I believe we do well to start with this initiative within the euro area, while allowing other EU Member States to join in if they want to do so

Junkers is saying people in the same job at the same place should get paid the same. So no wage discrimination against women, immigrants, etc.

He is not saying that all jobs across the EU would have the same wages.

I'm not sure which is funnier, that the Telegraph should misinterpret a speech so badly, or that Graham would get all flustered and immediately post a thread about it in a desperate anti-EU rant......

Graham_Devon

What do you interpret it to mean then if the telegraph EU people are all wrong?

And the guardian EU people by the way - and seemingly, the BBC EU people too?

Maybe you need to correct everyone who was there?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What do you interpret it to mean then if the telegraph EU people are all wrong?

And the guardian EU people by the way - and seemingly, the BBC EU people too?

Maybe you need to correct everyone who was there?

I'm just reposting the above for comedy value so it's not edited later...;)

Anyway, Junkers is saying people in the same job at the same place should get paid the same.

So no wage discrimination against women, immigrants, etc.

He is not saying that all jobs across the EU would have the same wages.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I'm just reposting the above for comedy value so it's not edited later...;)

Anyway, Junkers is saying people in the same job at the same place should get paid the same.

So no wage discrimination against women, immigrants, etc.

He is not saying that all jobs across the EU would have the same wages.

And the EU will stop there, right?

I mean, they wouldn't do this in the first place....but now they are suggesting it, it's OK, as it's only the same jobs in the same places and that will never be expanded upon.

Hows that going to go down with the banks then?

The whole speech is about ever closer union. The path towards full union.

Think outside of what has been said. You have to start somewhere and it would be foolish to imagine that the EU will do this and nothing more. Once they have the same pay in the same jobs in the same place, there will clearly be a case for the same pay of all types of jobs. Otherwise you end up in a clearly bizarre situation where you lose out or benefit should your company operate across EU states.

I'm not going to argue with you on this one, as your stance is very clear. You will welcome literally anything the EU do.

All I'd ask is that you bear in mind the direction. The direction of travel is exactly what you have said over the years wouldn't happen.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

And on this topic if for example minimum wages were to be harmonised across the EU over time that could be quite positive in a number of ways.

Likewise the harmonisation of benefits and criteria for pensions, medical care, etc.

A common treasury would certainly be useful in preventing much of the tax avoidance 'the usual suspects' always harp on about, and in fact this speech reaffirmed the EU's intent to tax profits in the country they were generated to help prevent companies minimising taxes through loopholes.

Building on the successes of previous measure such as abolishing roaming fees which have saved British consumers millions of pounds, they are now expanding the single market rules into the online services domain, to ensure a fairer deal for people booking car hire, hotels, etc, and preventing suppliers over-charging consumers based on the country of origin.

Overall a pretty good package of contents.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And on this topic if for example minimum wages were to be harmonised across the EU over time that could be quite positive in a number of ways.

So now you use exactly what you state isn't in the speech, to describe how this new package could be positive?

:undecided

Mission creep. That's what I'd take from this policy - and clearly you do too.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

All I'd ask is that you bear in mind the direction. The direction of travel is exactly what you have said over the years wouldn't happen.

The direction of travel is towards a United States of Europe.

This is a wholly positive move, nationalism is an archaic concept, and the priorities of the future must be about enhancing the quality of life for everyone rather than drawing arbitrary lines in the mud and behaving like a tribe of savages trying to defend them.

However as I have repeatedly pointed out, the UK has secured exceptions to this direction of travel in key opt-out areas and we cannot be forced to give them up.

For most of the key areas, we can choose to join in as and when it is to our advantage to do so, and we don't have to join in if it is not to our advantage.

So this paranoid scare-mongering is really completely pointless Graham.