If we vote for Brexit what happens

ukcarper

iantojones40 wrote: »

... and herein lies the problem, being a debt junkie was, at one time, a source of shame and embarrassment, proof of someone being financially incompetent and fe ckless... now thanks to current fiscal policy it's just a normal and acceptable way of living.

Has there ever been a time when ordinary people could buy a home without a mortgage. I would not be living in my home rent free without a mortgage on house and car loan to buy a car which I needed to be able to work.

I hear this phrase debt junkie I'd like someone to define it.

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

so you genuinely believe that the lack of (skilled) labour doesn't increase the price employers are willing to pay
and the excess of labour doesn't decrease the price

if supply and demand for laboour has no effect on price, why then doesn't everyone earn exactly the same

I don't want to be drawn into making a black and white statement so that you can pounce on it and claim I hate black Africans.

I'll just make some points:
- I agree, lack of labour would increase wages
- I don't believe we have a shortage of jobs or excess of people willing to do them
- UK wages have increased above inflation over last few years (but still down in real terms after GFC due to other factors)
- An example is labourer costs for building in London. There is a scarcity and hence people are paying premiums. The cost of building extensions has risen because of this as an example.
- I think your view is discrepant because you propose limiting immigration for the reason that this would push up "locals" wages, but I argue that this makes our business noncompetitive globally and I believe globalisation is resulting in suppression of wages and gradual equalising of living standards of wages as businesses offshore
- Strangely, you seem to be ok with this if it means our farmers become noncompetitive (which is why I replied to your post)

So, you're ok with free trade and globalisation and you are anti-tarrifs, even if this all negatively impacts our local workforce, but you're anti-immigration because it negatively impacts our workforce.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

I don't want to be drawn into making a black and white statement so that you can pounce on it and claim I hate black Africans.

I'll just make some points:
- I agree, lack of labour would increase wages
- I don't believe we have a shortage of jobs or excess of people willing to do them
- UK wages have increased above inflation over last few years (but still down in real terms after GFC due to other factors)
- An example is labourer costs for building in London. There is a scarcity and hence people are paying premiums. The cost of building extensions has risen because of this as an example.
- I think your view is discrepant because you propose limiting immigration for the reason that this would push up "locals" wages, but I argue that this makes our business noncompetitive globally and I believe globalisation is resulting in suppression of wages and gradual equalising of living standards of wages as businesses offshore
- Strangely, you seem to be ok with this if it means our farmers become noncompetitive (which is why I replied to your post)

So, you're ok with free trade and globalisation and you are anti-tarrifs, even if this all negatively impacts our local workforce, but you're anti-immigration because it negatively impacts our workforce.

My reasons for wishing to stop the rise in the population have been posted many times: similarly my wish for the UK government and so the voters of the UK to control UK laws has also been documented many times. (happy to repeat them if you have forgotten)

It is possible, even likely, that globalisation may eventually lead to global wage rates and structure : just as it is possible for world peace and democracy breaking out all over the world.

However at a local level and for limited timescales (say 30 year or so) there are other dynamics.

An unlimited number of immigrates suppresses wages from what they would overwise be.
An unlimited labour force reduces incentives for employers to increase productiviy.
The only way that we can all become 'richer' is to improve productivity so we, per capita, produce more. Note here I am temporarially using ignoring the issue of what constitutes being 'richer'. Endless cheap labour delays that increase in productivity.

I believe that trade makes us richer : doubtless it means that some people will lose jobs temporally and indeed some whole industries will disappear. I find it difficult to believe that anyone finds this difficult to understand or indeed seriously questions the benefits to both partners in the exchange (except of course for the loony left).
So yes, agriculture may have to change : that can only be a good thing.

gfplux

vivatifosi wrote: »

The original comments were in French, but are fair translations. I can't easily cut and paste on this device but the original was from Le Monde. The other he said parce que c'est France which I believe means because it is France. I don't think anything was lost in translation.

If someone can prove to me that Juncker spent more time speaking positively about the UK than negatively I could be willing to cut him more slack. Though as the Politico article that I quoted from showed, he is lacking in many areas, not just his attitude to the UK.

He may have been great as a leader in Luxembourg, but it's hard to see that as the case in the EU. He failed to understand the mood music in the UK and to provide adequate concessions, yet is happy to turn a blind eye when other countries break rules. He is partly responsible for the UK leaving the EU and should realise his shortcomings rather than making yet more snide comments about the UK. As a diplomat, he should use diplomatic language.

Ok we agree to disagree.

As a Brit living in another EU Country it is only natural that I have a different perspective.

I now think it is important that Britain gets on with the job of leaving. I sincerely hope the strategy will be in place so that E50 can be triggered early in the new year.

ruggedtoast

The Tories are tearing themselves apart over Europe, again.

It doesn't matter what May does, 50% of her party will be in revolt.

She looks awful at the despatch box too, awkward and ill at ease, relying on the braying donkeys behind her for moral support.

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

My reasons for wishing to stop the rise in the population have been posted many times: similarly my wish for the UK government and so the voters of the UK to control UK laws has also been documented many times. (happy to repeat them if you have forgotten)

It is possible, even likely, that globalisation may eventually lead to global wage rates and structure : just as it is possible for world peace and democracy breaking out all over the world.

However at a local level and for limited timescales (say 30 year or so) there are other dynamics.

An unlimited number of immigrates suppresses wages from what they would overwise be.
An unlimited labour force reduces incentives for employers to increase productiviy.
The only way that we can all become 'richer' is to improve productivity so we, per capita, produce more. Note here I am temporarially using ignoring the issue of what constitutes being 'richer'. Endless cheap labour delays that increase in productivity.

I believe that trade makes us richer : doubtless it means that some people will lose jobs temporally and indeed some whole industries will disappear. I find it difficult to believe that anyone finds this difficult to understand or indeed seriously questions the benefits to both partners in the exchange (except of course for the loony left).
So yes, agriculture may have to change : that can only be a good thing.

I too believe that trade makes us richer. I also believe that free movement makes us richer. I am practical and accept that free movement across the entire globe is impossible at this point but it was workable at the EU level and was a step in the right direction. We have free movement of labour within the United Kingdom, and you are ok with that even though there are vast discrepancies of wealth across regions. Similar to you, I also am ok with free movement of labour but at a larger level (EU).

mrginge

mwpt wrote: »

I too believe that trade makes us richer. I also believe that free movement makes us richer. I am practical and accept that free movement across the entire globe is impossible at this point but it was workable at the EU level and was a step in the right direction. We have free movement of labour within the United Kingdom, and you are ok with that even though there are vast discrepancies of wealth across regions. Similar to you, I also am ok with free movement of labour but at a larger level (EU).

We have a fiscal union in the UK.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

I too believe that trade makes us richer. I also believe that free movement makes us richer. I am practical and accept that free movement across the entire globe is impossible at this point but it was workable at the EU level and was a step in the right direction. We have free movement of labour within the United Kingdom, and you are ok with that even though there are vast discrepancies of wealth across regions. Similar to you, I also am ok with free movement of labour but at a larger level (EU).

there is no real reason that suggests that movement of people makes both the 'source' country and the 'receiving' country better off.
free movement of people reduces the need to use labour more productively.
I don't know your area of work but if you were short of labour do you not look for more effective (productive) ways to work : do you not believe the logic that says that necessity is the mother of invention.

I am content with free movement of people within the sovereign UK because my objective is the best interests of the UK overall: I have no idea what your objectives are except you seem to have little commitment to the people of the UK.

ruggedtoast

Shakethedisease wrote: »

See Corbyn is saying 'I agree with Theresa'.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/09/why-jeremy-corbyn-has-refused-back-european-single-market-membership

Not sure how that will play out with his supporters.

Corbynites are well aware that Jeremy is unhappy with the EU, as it has drifted away from democracy and protecting individual rights, and toward becoming a neoliberal cabal of unaccountable global capitalism that favours a small elite.

But that just means it is the same as practically everywhere else on the planet.

The alternative proposed by Brexiteers, UKIP and the Tory Right, is no alternative at all. Petty racism, xenophobia, a bunch of dinosaurs who think "we" should never have given the empire up (like that was down to us anyway).

As an institution the EU at least gave us close links with 27 countries who live by reasonable socially democratic policies that the swivel eyed Right denounce as "Communism" when they are stated by Jeremy.

A welfare state that helps the unfortunate, rather than punishing them, . Education that isn't hardwired to create division, a decent health service, and a lack of interest in bullying and invading other countries.

The EU isn't perfect, but the UK sure isn't either. And thanks to BREXITers and their poisonous jingoism, its just got worse.

TrickyTree83

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Corbynites are well aware that Jeremy is unhappy with the EU, as it has drifted away from democracy and protecting individual rights, and toward becoming a neoliberal cabal of unaccountable global capitalism that favours a small elite.

But that just means it is the same as practically everywhere else on the planet.

The alternative proposed by Brexiteers, UKIP and the Tory Right, is no alternative at all. Petty racism, xenophobia, a bunch of dinosaurs who think "we" should never have given the empire up (like that was down to us anyway).

As an institution the EU at least gave us close links with 27 countries who live by reasonable socially democratic policies that the swivel eyed Right denounce as "Communism" when they are stated by Jeremy.

A welfare state that helps the unfortunate, rather than punishing them, . Education that isn't hardwired to create division, a decent health service, and a lack of interest in bullying and invading other countries.

The EU isn't perfect, but the UK sure isn't either. And thanks to BREXITers and their poisonous jingoism, its just got worse.

Still on that high horse then, denouncing anyone who doesn't agree with you as immoral and indecent.

It's not just boomers and conservatives now, it's also those Corbyn supporters who make up part of the 52% who voted to leave the EU. If your list keeps growing it'll be you vs the world before long. You may even end up hating yourself, worrying times for RT.