If we vote to Remain what happens?

BobQ

michaels wrote: »

Remaining in the EU, 75% of EU migrants don't actually have skills we have a shortage of (apologies for Daily Fail link):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3576128/Most-EU-migrants-UK-not-work-visa-Brexit-Three-quarters-arrived-Britain-thanks-Brussels-diktats-free-movement.html
Inside we will continue to have to take whoever wants to come - outside we could select via skills so even if we kept the same level of migration we could have more nurses and scientists and fewer cleaners and baristas, this would push up wages for the lowest skilled reducing the tax credits bill and might lead to a bit more inflation, bringing forward the moment when we could start to normalise interest rates which I think many are in favour of?

The Mail is pushing its anti-EU agenda. 75% of students come from outside the EU. We (ie the Government) could achieve this targeting NOW by ensuring that the successful applications came from those with skills we want and rejecting those which we do not. As far as I know the EU does not require us to offer university places to non-EU students in skills we do not want. Whether we choose to do so I do not know.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

I do not, they are only saying what is in the best interests of their countries. But I do not find it so easy to dismiss the overwhelming numbers who favour us staying in. If it is in the interests of so many nations, probably in our interests too. Add to that the overwhelming number of business leaders, trade unions, and economists who favour remain, the argument that they are all wrong is not that convincing.

Many Leavers (and Remainers) have a closed mind so we are left with a debate amongst principled people on either side. But whether you like it or not, the views of those who have more knowledge of the issues are worth consideration, whether you choose to believe them or not.



No you will not, world leaders have always made mistakes. I just take the view that they make a balanced judgement and are only human. Provided the act in good faith that is all we can ask of them.

As to diesel, why blame the EU for a world wide issue? Also, controlling emissions is a progressive measure in any countries.
Should we blame Balfour and all his successors until Blair for not banning asbestos when it was first identified as a health hazard?

But since it is the EU causing all this (according to your post), will diesel be banned after Brexit? How much will that increase delivery costs and prices?

do you accept that all these people (or their equivalents a few years ago) agreed that the UK should join the euro for the good of all?
do you think that these people made a balanced judgment ?
do you agree with their judgement?

Diesel is a specifically EU issue : it killed people.

If you genuinely believe that all people make mistakes why do you consistently quote 'authorities ' that agree with 'remain' when you know they are totally fallible and are no guide to the situation?

melanzana

I hope you decide to leave.

Might make where I am now realise how awful the EU really is for off the wall regulation, waste of money (EU has never passed a budget yet, open to fraud investigation... yeah right).

Unelected Public Servants deciding that a toad will stop the building of an entity that will help water supply/ local trade and investment and all the rest of it.

If Merkel would just shut up now and the bureaucrats left the toads and other microscopic animals to do or die, maybe we might survive.

As it is, it is a disaster.

Too much unnaccountable bureaucracy IMV. Just because they can.

The irony for me is that the EU has said nothing in relation to the UK vote on Brexit.

Now I wonder if that is because it might be seen to be meddling in other country's affairs or what?

Doesn't seem to bother them in all other regulations, some of which are bizarre.

But anyway.

Whether you stay or go, TTIP will finish Europe off anyway.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

do you accept that all these people (or their equivalents a few years ago) agreed that the UK should join the euro for the good of all?
do you think that these people made a balanced judgment ?
do you agree with their judgement?

As I recall we signed up to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 when the EU comprised 12 nations, ten of which formed the Euro. There was an argument for it for some of them.

Since Lawson and Lamont took us into the ERM and ingloriously took us out of it, I suspect the balance of argument at the time was heavily weighted against the Euro. Since we never joined the Euro, I am not sure what point you are making. Of course these same people are now backing Brexit so I cannot say I approve of their judgement

.Diesel is a specifically EU issue : it killed people.

It only kills EU citizens? I agree its a problem and it contributes to deaths but people die from it in other industrialised countries. How will leaving the EU help? Are we going to ban diesel in the UK?

If you genuinely believe that all people make mistakes why do you consistently quote 'authorities ' that agree with 'remain' when you know they are totally fallible and are no guide to the situation?

You call them "authorities" I refer to people. Ultimately I agree they may be wrong. What matters is who you believe. Many people will vote in this Referendum who have believed the wrong arguments.

What makes your view any better than any of these "authorities" you do not agree with?

What are your main reasons for leaving?

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

As I recall we signed up to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 when the EU comprised 12 nations, ten of which formed the Euro. There was an argument for it for some of them.

Since Lawson and Lamont took us into the ERM and ingloriously took us out of it, I suspect the balance of argument at the time was heavily weighted against the Euro. Since we never joined the Euro, I am not sure what point you are making. Of course these same people are now backing Brexit so I cannot say I approve of their judgement

no, you are totally wrong
the CBI, OECD, the CEOs of most of the UK, the media, most politicians including Blair ALL supported joining the euro

Brown saved the day

It only kills EU citizens? I agree its a problem and it contributes to deaths but people die from it in other industrialised countries. How will leaving the EU help? Are we going to ban diesel in the UK?

The dangers of diesel was well know at the time the EU leaders made a POLITICAL decision to grand stand about CO2 emiisions and support diesel.
I would prefer that UK politicians grandstand about things because we can more easily change their decisions.

What are your main reasons for leaving?

my main reasons for leaving

1. because it is easier for the citizens of the UK to change our laws that for us to change EU laws (democracy)
2. I believe that a smaller population makes the people of the UK better off
3 especially in London and the SE with respect to access to family sized housing
4 generally in respect to access to health services, transport and infrastructure generally
5 balance of trade deficit is made worse by population increase
6. overcrowding of our beautiful country
7. endless supply of young immigrants reduces wages and reduces the incentives for business to innovate and improve productivity

plus a few more

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

no, you are totally wrong
the CBI, OECD, the CEOs of most of the UK, the media, most politicians including Blair ALL supported joining the euro

Brown saved the day

I honestly do not remember what the organisations believed at the time. I do appreciate that it was often reported that Blair was more in favour of the Euro than Brown, but the fact is we did not join it. I do agree it was a good decision not to join whoever thought it a good idea. The enlargement of the EU makes this
an even better decision.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

I honestly do not remember what the organisations believed at the time. I do appreciate that it was often reported that Blair was more in favour of the Euro than Brown, but the fact is we did not join it. I do agree it was a good decision not to join whoever thought it a good idea. The enlargement of the EU makes this
an even better decision.

well, lets hope in a few years, you can't remember what these organisation believed at this time: but hopefully the fact will be, that we exited.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

well, lets hope in a few years, you can't remember what these organisation believed at this time: but hopefully the fact will be, that we exited.

Whether I remember what they said at the time is to me irrelevant. It may be that had we joined the Euro in 1995, it would have been more stable and the addition of new nations easier. Or it may be that it would have precipitated Brexit in 2000 and we would be thriving. Hindsight is not an exact science, neither is economics as you have pointed out.

I am less concerned about us leaving than I once was, even though I think that many who will support Brexit are doing so as a knee-jerk reaction to a lot of propaganda about immigration, regulation and EU blaming for the state of the economy.

I actually agree with you that some aspects of the EU are reasons for leaving. In particular the way Freedom of Movement operates needs some changes. But I am not convinced by arguments on the lack of democracy or over regulation or the view that we will be a more prosperous country just by leaving.

Personally I will be OK whether (within reason) living standards rise or fall post-Brexit. The people who will experience the real consequences of the decision (for good or bad) are the under 35s. If they are persuaded that they can get better pay, become a home owner, and keep foreigners out of the UK then so be it.

But I doubt that life will change simply by leaving. For a start, this country encouraged immigration as a way of driving down labour costs in the 1950s and 60s. What has reduced earnings is globalisation, the transfer of many UK jobs abroad and the willingness of the population to emasculate trade unions. Housing is not expensive because of immigration, it is expensive because we have taken political decisions not to build houses (shorhold tenancies and mortgages all drive compliance - much like the tied housing of old used to do)

Such arguments might win the referendum, but I think that in 10 years time we will still be moaning about the economy, quite probably the same issues.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Whether I remember what they said at the time is to me irrelevant. It may be that had we joined the Euro in 1995, it would have been more stable and the addition of new nations easier. Or it may be that it would have precipitated Brexit in 2000 and we would be thriving. Hindsight is not an exact science, neither is economics as you have pointed out.

I am less concerned about us leaving than I once was, even though I think that many who will support Brexit are doing so as a knee-jerk reaction to a lot of propaganda about immigration, regulation and EU blaming for the state of the economy.

I actually agree with you that some aspects of the EU are reasons for leaving. In particular the way Freedom of Movement operates needs some changes. But I am not convinced by arguments on the lack of democracy or over regulation or the view that we will be a more prosperous country just by leaving.

Personally I will be OK whether (within reason) living standards rise or fall post-Brexit. The people who will experience the real consequences of the decision (for good or bad) are the under 35s. If they are persuaded that they can get better pay, become a home owner, and keep foreigners out of the UK then so be it.

But I doubt that life will change simply by leaving. For a start, this country encouraged immigration as a way of driving down labour costs in the 1950s and 60s. What has reduced earnings is globalisation, the transfer of many UK jobs abroad and the willingness of the population to emasculate trade unions. Housing is not expensive because of immigration, it is expensive because we have taken political decisions not to build houses (shorhold tenancies and mortgages all drive compliance - much like the tied housing of old used to do)

Such arguments might win the referendum, but I think that in 10 years time we will still be moaning about the economy, quite probably the same issues.

I prefer to believe that the price of houses are determined by both supply and demand.

mayonnaise

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/may/07/uk-life-sciences-health-wealth-would-benefit-from-staying-in-eu

We see significant advantages for the life sciences sector in the UK remaining part of the EU. This would enable the sector to continue to operate within an established and harmonised regulatory approval system, ensuring that UK patients benefit from medicines more quickly, and that medicines researched and manufactured in the UK are available across the EU sooner.

Signed:

Sir Andrew Witty
CEO, GSK
plus 92 other leading life sciences figures

Are we really going to kill off our life sciences industry in June?