BREXIT - Why?

uk1

netlang wrote: »

This has been a difficult decision for me and I have struggled with what decision to make. I really am on the fence on this one.

I happened to explain my dilemma to someone who is directly employed by the European Commission and I was told if they were wearing their professional hat then we must vote to remain but from a very personal view they said we have to vote exit as this is the only way the EC will be “shocked” into changing the way this organisation is run and it really does need changing big time. They went on to say that they believed the UK would “not be allowed” to leave as if we vote out in the referendum then other countries whom are equally disillusioned with the way the EU is run would likely demand the large changes. The changes they would be calling for would then most probably keep the majority of the UK electorate happy to vote remain in a second referendum.

An interesting viewpoint I thought.

I think your "friend" is somewhat on the right track except that with a departure I think that the EU will under citizen pressure morph into "de-insititutionalising" those parts that are at the root of the problem eg supremacy of EU laws etc. Shenghan has already effectively been abandoned without even a vote. Germany is reeling from the cost of Greece and from the open ended promise to take in an unlimited number of immigrants. France which is use to immigration is closer.

When it does it should end up with what it was we were all told we would be joining in the first place and that is a "common market" without any loss of sovereignty. I can see we would be a core part of that and it would be easy to justify rejoining such an entity and in that scenario we would become the heroes of Europe as starting the domino effect.

Jeff

uk1

justme111 wrote: »

I do not know. I have no opinion on the matter of what annual leave is better. Law of conservation of energy says that nothing appears from nowhere - citizens are bound to pay for increased annual leave in some way , be it difficulties for small businesses or lower basic pay or more unemployment or whatever else. It is irrelevant in any case.
I like Singapore's laws on litter disposing , should we join Singapore and become their province then ? When one likes some laws one incorporates them into one's legislation , not joins other entity that has them already .

Singapore is one of the few places I would love to live in and we have two or three extended visits each year there for three or four weeks at a time. There is as you say no litter problem but it is much more than that it is a well ordered law abiding society where things "work". But that is a different topic.

The idea that if we left that there would be an immediate loss of workers rights is totally untrue. We currently have all the laws in place that are in place. They would not change. They might change over time and some of those changes might compromise or improve workers rights, but they tend to be done in the context of improved competitiveness. But if these changes were against shutting the doors on future mass immigration from low pay EU areas then wages will rise and so might competitiveness for loads of reasons. Workers rights are often adjusted in order to improve competitiveness which in turn reduces unemployment which in turn I would say improves "workers rights".

Jeff

BananaRepublic

uk1 wrote: »

It is hardly suprising that the IMF are in favour of us remaining as Christine Lagarde (the current CEO) was France's Trade Minister and then Minster of Agriculture ie one of the great honeypots of EU funding .... and then the head of French economic policy!

Last December, the French courts (CJR) ordered Lagarde to stand trial before it for alleged negligence in handling the Bernard Tapie case arbitration approval. 403m euros was involved.

She is hardly likely to be for an exit is she!

Jeff

The unfortunate aspect of the 'debate' - a grand word for the dishonest bun fight we are witnessing - is that no-one analyses the motives of the various groups. Thus Eastern Europe will be pro the UK remaining because we pay them so much money. The US is for us staying because they want us in TTIP, whereas that might not be in our best interests. The unions are for leaving Europe due to the free movement of labour which undermines job security, at least at the simplest level of analysis.

My concern is that Europe is fundamentally un-democratic. The UK is known as a highly democratic country with low levels of corruption, and yet some people want us to be subservient to Europe, as if they cannot trust us. It's odd.

BananaRepublic

uk1 wrote: »

Workers rights are often adjusted in order to improve competitiveness which in turn reduces unemployment which in turn I would say improves "workers rights".

It is odd that reducing workers rights may on the whole improve workers' conditions. However, it does lead to increased insecurity, as you are more likely to be made redundant, but conversely it may be easier to get work as companies are more willing to hire safe in the knowledge they can lay you off in a down turn. Those who suffer most are the low skilled, those who gain the most are the highly skilled.

uk1

BananaRepublic wrote: »

It is odd that reducing workers rights may on the whole improve workers' conditions. However, it does lead to increased insecurity, as you are more likely to be made redundant, but conversely it may be easier to get work as companies are more willing to hire safe in the knowledge they can lay you off in a down turn. Those who suffer most are the low skilled, those who gain the most are the highly skilled.

Increased competitiveness and greater productivity inevitably causes less unemployment and therefore greater job security doesn't it. And in times of low unemployment wages tend to rise faster don't they.

So obtusely sometimes what seems bad theoretically is actually good practically.

Thrugelmir

uk1 wrote: »

Increased competitiveness and greater productivity inevitably causes less unemployment and therefore greater job security doesn't it.

The UK is not competitive and productivity isn't increasing. All too easy and comfortable possibly. Rather than work hard, borrow instead and buy imported goods.

uk1

BananaRepublic wrote: »

The unfortunate aspect of the 'debate' - a grand word for the dishonest bun fight we are witnessing - is that no-one analyses the motives of the various groups. Thus Eastern Europe will be pro the UK remaining because we pay them so much money. The US is for us staying because they want us in TTIP, whereas that might not be in our best interests. The unions are for leaving Europe due to the free movement of labour which undermines job security, at least at the simplest level of analysis.

My concern is that Europe is fundamentally un-democratic. The UK is known as a highly democratic country with low levels of corruption, and yet some people want us to be subservient to Europe, as if they cannot trust us. It's odd.

TTIP currently isn't yet fully live and it seems more than likely at the moment it will not be approved by the US.

uk1

BananaRepublic wrote: »

It is odd that reducing workers rights may on the whole improve workers' conditions. However, it does lead to increased insecurity, as you are more likely to be made redundant, but conversely it may be easier to get work as companies are more willing to hire safe in the knowledge they can lay you off in a down turn. Those who suffer most are the low skilled, those who gain the most are the highly skilled.

You are less likely to be made redundant in times of low unimployment even if the bar at which you might fire someone has been lowered. In those times generally only genuinely poor people are fired because they are more difficult to replace.

Lowering employment protection just makes employers more confident in employing people. That increases productivity and makes firing people less likely unless they genuinely deserve it.

Jeff

uk1

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The UK is not competitive and productivity isn't increasing. All too easy and comfortable possibly. Rather than work hard, borrow instead and buy imported goods.

I think you might be living in a different UK and economic environment to me.



Jeff

doe808

veryintrigued wrote: »

They lost a shed load in the last general election

The bookmakers in general did very well out of the last general election (despite what some papers reported). The majority called it much better than the pollsters. Certainly I cant recall the election being mentioned in any of the annual reports of the biggest bookmakers, as attributable to any losses.

Unless there is a monumental swing, we are staying in.Might as well concentrate on other stuff...