Britain and the EU

vivatifosi

Not a topic for this thread, but leading on from Gen's post above. It will be interesting to see the impact of the new minimum wages on the public sector. A big low paid but massively growing aspect of the public sector is the legion of carers who visit people in their homes.

At some point in the near future, 1% pay rises in the public sector are going to start to rub up against the rapidly increasing minimum wage and the cost of care and the cost of provision will need to rise accordingly. This will also come at a time when 1) we need more of these people because of changing demographics and 2) we need more of these people because 15 minute visits have been found to be inadequate. I can see this becoming a big political issue over the next couple of years, particularly if the cost of care erodes that service, or leads to cuts in other frontline services.

Anyhow.... back on topic and apologies for the diversion.

antrobus

BobQ wrote: »

When I last saw any data France and Italy were ahead of UK but this may have changed. But you no doubt follow these things more than I do.....

The EC has a report under the title - Industrial Performance Scoreboard, Ref. Ares(2013)3771189 - 19/12/2013, which contains data for 2012.

It shows that manufacturing amounted to 15% of the EU economy. Italy was average, both the UK and France were at 10%.

BobQ wrote: »

..Manufacturing is a symbol. The issue is the type of jobs we have and the rewards that go with them. If you have a large part of the nation employed on minimum wage or close to it, with limited opportunities to develop careers, it is very divisive. We are heading back to an era when ordinary people lack opportunities and live from hand to mouth while a small number reap the rewards.

The EU data shows that the countries with the biggest manufacturing sectors include Romania and Slovakia. The country with the smallest manufactuing sector looks to be Luxembourg. I'd rather by Luxembourg than Romania.

Or Norway for that matter.:)

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

I am arguing that stop and search decisions should be subject to our elected parliament and not unelected and unaccountable judges in Europe (or indeed the UK).

The same argument should be made about our decisions on things like conduct of our soldiers, and our treatment of our citizens, yet I haven't heard you banging on about leaving the UN to avoid their interference on such matters

We choose, via our democratic system, to be part of the EU and not harassing minorities is one of the crosses we must bear as a part of that decision as much as it irks some people.

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

The same argument should be made about our decisions on things like conduct of our soldiers, and our treatment of our citizens, yet I haven't heard you banging on about leaving the UN to avoid their interference on such matters

We choose, via our democratic system, to be part of the EU and not harassing minorities is one of the crosses we must bear as a part of that decision as much as it irks some people.

I would not see the UN in any way as the equivalent to the ECHR.

The UN is talking shop for governments : many quite vile but nevertheless jaw jaw is better than war war.

In general it doesn't involve itself in the minute of individual countries internal laws.

Stop and search powers are a proper consideration for an elected parliament.

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

I would not see the UN in any way as the equivalent to the ECHR.

Stop and search powers are a proper consideration for an elected parliament.

Then you make up arbitrary lines to defend your contradictory positions. The defence of a country is "a proper consideration for an elected parliament", even if you think otherwise, and the behaviour and armament of our armed forces is restricted by the UN.

Either it is acceptable in principle for a body outside our elected parliament to set rules we must follow – which both the EU and UN do – or it isn't; trying to argue it's both isn't credible.

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

I would not see the UN in any way as the equivalent to the ECHR....

Of course not. The judicial organ of the UN would be the ICJ.

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

Then you make up arbitrary lines to defend your contradictory positions. The defence of a country is "a proper consideration for an elected parliament", even if you think otherwise, and the behaviour and armament of our armed forces is restricted by the UN.

Either it is acceptable in principle for a body outside our elected parliament to set rules we must follow – which both the EU and UN do – or it isn't; trying to argue it's both isn't credible.

Whether we chooses to join an organisations isn't a matter of 'principle' but a pragmatic one.

If one joins something and it's to ones advantage then one will probably stay and agree the rules and regulations.

If one doesn't think the 'benefits' are sufficient to suffer the rules and regs then one leaves.

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

the UK has less than 1% of the worlds population
what share of the world's manufacturing do you think we should have?

How about 'a lot more than we have' for now...then we can argue the toss about any differences to your contrary hearts content later Clapton me ol' mucker!

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

Whether we chooses to join an organisations isn't a matter of 'principle' but a pragmatic one.

For someone who thinks they're talking about pragmatic you sure seem to talk about principles a lot:

CLAPTON wrote:

I am arguing that stop and search decisions should be subject to our elected parliament and not unelected and unaccountable judges in Europe (or indeed the UK).

Pragmatism would be not caring about them being elected or accountable as long as they are doing the right thing; what you've been going on about, apparently by accident, is the principle that unelected and unaccountable people shouldn't have the ability.

We all know you don't like the EU, you could save a lot of bandwidth by leaving it at that rather than imagining up a never ending line of smokescreens to hide that behind.

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

The problem is not the immigrant workforce it is the lack of jobs that pay decent wages.

People need to train or start their own businesses. There's no shortage of unskilled labour.