If we vote for Brexit what happens

gfplux

CLAPTON wrote: »

ok
so you have stopped debating and simply posting facile nonsense

no problem.

If you consider your nonsensical nit picking debating, well yes I have decided not to engage in "debate" with you but treat you with the same level of respect that your "debating" deserves.

gfplux

CLAPTON wrote: »

Is this what the EU does when negotiating with all countries smaller than itself; e.g. developing countries, Aus, New Zealand, Canada etc.
No fair play?
Do you find this an attractive feature of the people you choose to make your laws ? You definitively want these people to rule over you?

oh dear! there you go again.

gfplux

hello Cells,
You make some points about the car industry. However it appears that making cars is quite a foggy subject.
As an example (example only Clapton) this is an article picking apart what cars qualify to be said to be manufactured in the USA.

and I quote......
The latest ranking of the most American vehicles you can buy is out—and the results are surprising.
The phrase “made in America” has always pulled at the hearts and wallets of loyal, red-blooded consumers, and never more so than in the automotive space. But according to research released Monday, the car company that qualifies as most American is….the Toyota Camry.

read the full article here... http://fortune.com/2015/06/29/cars-made-in-america/

A further example (are you following Clapton) I live in Luxembourg, I drive a German car, manufactured in the USA but not listed as "made in the USA" (by USA measurement) as less than 75% of the parts are not made in the USA. The Car dealer in Luxembourg or England will quite happily tell you the car is "manufactured" in the USA.
So for me just that one industry is so Global, so intertwined, so complex that no simple phrase can and should describe it.

Much of manufacturing/sourcing has to be pragmatic. Reacting to the short and long term changes in tariffs, sentiments and even personal desires.

CLAPTON

gfplux wrote: »

oh dear! there you go again.

most people consider that the competence and morality of their rulers is a legitimate matter of concern and comment : no reason to exclude the EU rulers from that scrutiny

kabayiri

cells wrote: »

...
However on an immigrants I dont like em argment im 10% exit 90% stay

Nobody seems to address the argument that our participation in EU migration without limits has produced a policy limiting immigration from the rest of the world.

For example everyone talks about the NHS shortages.

I believe Indonesia trains around 100K nurses a year, yet only has local demand for circa 40K a year.

Clearly, Indonesia has a valuable export product in trained nurses and there are places like the UK short of nurses!

I might be odd, but I quite like the idea of matching demand and supply. It works for other areas of global trade.

We could bring in 600K economic migrants from the EU this year without any guarantee that within that number are the required subset of nurses; GPs; production engineers; etc.

We still have skills shortages, notably in manufacturing.

Is there a way free movement can evolve to match supply and demand better, or is it a case of all or nothing?

vivatifosi

On the issue of employment, on April 6th, the controversial restriction on bringing in employees in from outside of the EU comes into force. This will have a detrimental impact on Australians and Americans, as this article from Australia shows:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-14/uk-australia-visa-restrictions-could-impact-relations/7166336

Not great timing if these are the countries that we are seeking trade deals with post a Brexit.

antrobus

kabayiri wrote: »

...I believe Indonesia trains around 100K nurses a year, yet only has local demand for circa 40K a year.

Clearly, Indonesia has a valuable export product in trained nurses and there are places like the UK short of nurses! ....

I doubt that. These OECD figures show an OECD average of 8.4 nurses per 1,000 population, compared to 1.4 in Indonesia. So I doubt very much that there are a surplus of nurses in Indonesia.

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/03/07/index.html?contentType=&itemId=%2Fcontent%2Fchapter%2Fhealth_glance-2011-26-en&mimeType=text%2Fhtml&containerItemId=%2Fcontent%2Fserial%2F19991312&accessItemIds=

It's more likely the case is that 'local demand' for nurses in Indonesia is a function of the amount of money that Indonesians have to spend on nurses, which is probably a lot less than in the UK, USA, Japan, .......

kabayiri wrote: »

...I might be odd, but I quite like the idea of matching demand and supply. It works for other areas of global trade....

There is nothing odd about it. The economics of trade in people works exactly the same way as the economics of trade in motor cars or bananas.

Whether or not it is a good thing is another thing altogether.

CLAPTON

kabayiri wrote: »

Nobody seems to address the argument that our participation in EU migration without limits has produced a policy limiting immigration from the rest of the world.

For example everyone talks about the NHS shortages.

I believe Indonesia trains around 100K nurses a year, yet only has local demand for circa 40K a year.

Clearly, Indonesia has a valuable export product in trained nurses and there are places like the UK short of nurses!

I might be odd, but I quite like the idea of matching demand and supply. It works for other areas of global trade.

We could bring in 600K economic migrants from the EU this year without any guarantee that within that number are the required subset of nurses; GPs; production engineers; etc.

We still have skills shortages, notably in manufacturing.

Is there a way free movement can evolve to match supply and demand better, or is it a case of all or nothing?

If the UK has control over immigration from all countries then we can choose to allow people with required skills to come and work here and still have control of the total numbers

With free movement, by definition, we have no control.

CLAPTON

vivatifosi wrote: »

On the issue of employment, on April 6th, the controversial restriction on bringing in employees in from outside of the EU comes into force. This will have a detrimental impact on Australians and Americans, as this article from Australia shows:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-14/uk-australia-visa-restrictions-could-impact-relations/7166336

Not great timing if these are the countries that we are seeking trade deals with post a Brexit.

the mutual benefits of free trade don't depend upon free movement of their nationals.

I understand that Aus doesn't allow free entry of the nationals of countries with whom they trade.
Indeed, Aus doesn't allow UK nationals free entry either.

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

I might be odd, but I quite like the idea of matching demand and supply. It works for other areas of global trade.

We could bring in 600K economic migrants from the EU this year without any guarantee that within that number are the required subset of nurses; GPs; production engineers; etc.

After the USA and China. Iran now produces the most graduates in Engineering. Another relationship worth developing.