If we vote for Brexit what happens

Rinoa

Following French presidential candidate attacking FOM it's now the turn of the Dutch.

One of the most senior Dutch government ministers has said a fundamental EU principle, freedom of movement, needs to be radically reformed.
Deputy prime minister Lodewijk Asscher said support was falling across Europe over the way it has been implemented.
Free movement, which allows any citizen of an EU country to work anywhere across the bloc, had led to wages being undercut and jobs lost, he said.
Mr Asscher argued the Brexit talks were a chance to look again at the policy.
Reform, he told the BBC, would mean "less immigration" across the EU if undercutting wages was banned.
The stark attack on the way freedom of movement operates could be helpful to Theresa May as Britain looks to gain privileged access to the single market at the same time as controlling EU immigration once the UK has left the EU.
Mr Asscher is the leader of the Dutch Labour Party, which is in a coalition government with the People's Party for Freedom, led by the Netherlands' prime minister, Mark Rutte - who is seen as an ally of the UK.
Although Mr Asscher made it clear that he supported the principle of free movement, he said the rule had been used as a "business model" for lowering wages.
"In essence [what] we have seen happening [is] that free movement has become synonymous with a race to the bottom, with undercutting of wages, with unfair competition in the labour market and that has to do with the rules Europe has produced itself," said Mr Asscher, who is also the Dutch employment minister.
"It is not the principle, it is the rule that has become such a big issue. It means that here in the Netherlands, like in other countries, on the scaffolding [site] you can see a Romanian or Portuguese painter doing the exact same work as a Dutch painter right next to him that is allowed to earn two, three, four hundred euros less than the Dutch worker.


"That means, of course, that the Dutch painter is out of work, out of a job," Mr Asscher said.
"It means the smaller company that cannot afford to hire internationally is out of work.
"It means the support for the principle - which in essence is good - is eroding.
"It has to change if we want to preserve the principle, if we want to preserve the support for the European Union.
"The problem is that it has become a business model, a business model for lowering wages.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38613027

A_Medium_Size_Jock

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The EU has never offered grants to move companies out of the Uk.

I see that a prevoius comment regarding the adoption of "the ostrich position" is entirely accurate.

With regard to your quote above, please then explain:

Twinings workers are “genuinely dismayed” by news that the firm has signed a contract to recieve €12m of EU funding for a new Polish site that will see UK jobs slashed.

http://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Business-News/Workers-dismay-as-Twinings-pockets-12m-EU-fund-for-new-Polish-site?utm_source=copyright&utm_medium=OnSite&utm_campaign=copyright

Or indeed explain the Financial Times article I provided links to earlier?

BTW, choosing an extremely pro-EU source as your supposed "proof" for the EU not funding factories outside the UK for previously UK-based manufacturing is IMHO deceitful.
With slogans like: "Lead Europe, don't leave Europe. Click here to sign our manifesto." we cannot expect impartiality, can we?

The Financial Times may not be perfect BUT it is certainly more impartial than your supposed source.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

I see that a prevoius comment regarding the adoption of "the ostrich position" is entirely accurate.

So yet again you resort to personal attacks when you're losing the argument.

With regard to your quote above, please then explain:

http://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Business-News/Workers-dismay-as-Twinings-pockets-12m-EU-fund-for-new-Polish-site?utm_source=copyright&utm_medium=OnSite&utm_campaign=copyright

Sure.

From your article....

"the firm's funding application has been approved but remained unsigned - with EC officials seeking "formal guarantees" from the Polish government it would not be used to fund "relocation" - a practice forbidden under EU law"

This was not a grant to relocate as that would be illegal under EU law..

IMHO deceitful.

Hello pot, meet kettle.....

Because you'd have to be spectacularly 'deceitful' to use a news article claiming Twinings got a grant from the EU to move jobs.... When no such grant was ever issued.

The company could not provide assurances to the EU it would not be used to move jobs - so the EU withdrew the funding offer - as that would be illegal.

cogito

Beats me why successful companies need to be given taxpayer's money in the first place. If it's against EU rules for individual members to give this kind of support, the EU shouldn't be able to do it either.

Thrugelmir

cogito wrote: »

Beats me why successful companies need to be given taxpayer's money in the first place. If it's against EU rules for individual members to give this kind of support, the EU shouldn't be able to do it either.

To provide job opportunities in deprived areas. A commendable but flawed policy.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So yet again you resort to personal attacks when you're losing the argument.



Sure.

From your article....

"the firm's funding application has been approved but remained unsigned - with EC officials seeking "formal guarantees" from the Polish government it would not be used to fund "relocation" - a practice forbidden under EU law"

This was not a grant to relocate as that would be illegal under EU law..



Hello pot, meet kettle.....

Because you'd have to be spectacularly 'deceitful' to use a news article claiming Twinings got a grant from the EU to move jobs.... When no such grant was ever issued.

The company could not provide assurances to the EU it would not be used to move jobs - so the EU withdrew the funding offer - as that would be illegal.

one can of course get grant to create more jobs by building a factory

one can of course, at a later time, 'reorganise' ones factories and close a few.

in Hamish speak, there is absolutely no relationship between the two actions : well of course not.

kabayiri

The EU has pumped hundreds of billions of Euros into Eastern European countries since they joined, via the social cohesion fund.

It's pretty obvious why. The intent is to improve the GDP per capita of these countries.

Sadly, there seems to be less interest in the fortunes of Southern EU states, where youth unemployment remains disgracefully high.

It's very clear that the political project of the EU goals creates winners and losers.

It's taking time but the forgotten citizens of the EU will realise this in due course.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

The EU has pumped hundreds of billions of Euros into Eastern European countries since they joined, via the social cohesion fund.

It's pretty obvious why. The intent is to improve the GDP per capita of these countries.

And it's working too.

Poland is about to become a net contributor and others are not far behind as these economies have grown magnificently since joining - leading to greater trade and economic prosperity throughout the EU.

Sadly, there seems to be less interest in the fortunes of Southern EU states, where youth unemployment remains disgracefully high..

Greece was a basket case economy long before it joined the EU and it's many rounds of currency devaluation made it no better off.

Italy went through 64 governments in 50 years and the EU has nothing to do with Italy's own dysfunctional parliamentary system, and lets not forget the Italian lira - which held it's value about as well as used toilet paper - with an exchange rate of 1,937 lira to the Euro by 1997.

Currency devaluation was tried and failed repeatedly throughout Southern Europe prior to the Euro.

It didn't work then, it won't work now, structural economic and taxation reform and living within their means is required, not debasing the currency.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So yet again you resort to personal attacks when you're losing the argument.

Not at all, merely stating the truth.
A difficult concept for some, it would appear.
See below.

Sure.

From your article....

"the firm's funding application has been approved but remained unsigned - with EC officials seeking "formal guarantees" from the Polish government it would not be used to fund "relocation" - a practice forbidden under EU law"

This was not a grant to relocate as that would be illegal under EU law..



Hello pot, meet kettle.....
Oh dear, watch out! You are about to make yourself look VERY foolish.

Because you'd have to be spectacularly 'deceitful' to use a news article claiming Twinings got a grant from the EU to move jobs.... When no such grant was ever issued.

The company could not provide assurances to the EU it would not be used to move jobs - so the EU withdrew the funding offer - as that would be illegal.
From the earlier post of yours:

The EU has never offered grants to move companies out of the Uk.

See that word?
"Offered"?
It is there in black & white both in your original AND in my quoted posts.
Together with proof that the EU funding was indeed offered.

Methinks you well and truly lost this argument.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

one can of course get grant to create more jobs by building a factory

one can of course, at a later time, 'reorganise' ones factories and close a few.

in Hamish speak, there is absolutely no relationship between the two actions : well of course not.

No.

In Hamish speak - and in reality - Twinings never got a grant.

It was refused by the EU specifically because it would breach EU rules that forbid EU funding to relocate companies.

So to post stories claiming Twinings moved jobs to the EU with the help of EU funding is an outright and deliberate mistruth.

As it was for Cadbury's, Dyson, etc...