The EU: IN or OUT?

uk1

doe808 wrote: »

True, but I cant think of a better indicator of the general business community. If you can, I'd be grateful to know.

It wasn't me that was suggesting that the general business community should be the authority on whether we should stay or remain in the EU was it.

Jeff

doe808

uk1 wrote: »

That was the shortest dinner .....

Well it was you that was stating that trade agreements between two states takes longer than between 29 .....

Jeff

I think you have problems following or understanding what I write, not only in terms of dinner plans...

Perhaps read a bit of that book?

Night.

blindman

Instead of bickering could we just agree that what is done is done and start thinking how we can go on with being out?

uk1

For anyone interested, there was an interesting 10 minute "A Point Of View" by John Gray the philosopher on brexit on BBC radio 4 and still on iplayer.

Jeff

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qng8/episodes/player

bumpercars99

uk1 wrote: »

I think if it's a choice between getting the best deal possible for the UK and "getting on with it" so that you can make a bit more quick cash then most sensible people would vote for getting the best possible deal even if it taskes a bit longer.

Once the EU realise that working in an adult and constructive way with some informal talks between adults as has been the way for 40 years then we will make progress. Most of the work is done as we are leaving the EU in a state of full compliance. There are very few issues that need to be resolved . All that is missing at the moment is a positive frame of mind in the EU and that will happen in fairly quick time once the spectre of more referenda looms more clearly in their minds.

Jeff

Honestly that's very rude. Why do you interpret that as wanting to "make a bit more quick cash"? I'm just an ordinary working person. I was made redundant in the last recession and know my employer can't withstand 5 years of current conditions so it really depends how long things are like this.

It's not actually destructive work that I do, it's mainly focused around resolving transactional disputes. We make sure people are abiding by the agreement reached and get a fair deal that's in-line with what was agreed.

A lack of transactions is really bad news for any business owner that needs to sell up for whatever reason. It means they can't get a reasonable price for their business and damages their plans for the future. If I was ill and wanted to sell my business and retire and was unable to do so at a fair price, what difference would it make to me that things will recover economically in 10 years or be better in the long-term.

It's real life for real people and you can't always expect them to be able to take short-term pain for a longer-term gain. If in fact you believe there is a long-term gain to be found! People don't live forever and if hard times hit at the wrong time in your life, it can have a crippling effect. Losing my job at the age I was before wasn't great obviously but I was able to recover from it and find my way in a new career. I'm about to buy a house now and want to start a family, if the same were to happen now, there's a very real prospect that by the time I was back on my feet, it'd be too late for these things.

bigadaj

bumpercars99 wrote: »

Honestly that's very rude. Why do you interpret that as wanting to "make a bit more quick cash"? I'm just an ordinary working person. I was made redundant in the last recession and know my employer can't withstand 5 years of current conditions so it really depends how long things are like this.

It's not actually destructive work that I do, it's mainly focused around resolving transactional disputes. We make sure people are abiding by the agreement reached and get a fair deal that's in-line with what was agreed.

A lack of transactions is really bad news for any business owner that needs to sell up for whatever reason. It means they can't get a reasonable price for their business and damages their plans for the future. If I was ill and wanted to sell my business and retire and was unable to do so at a fair price, what difference would it make to me that things will recover economically in 10 years or be better in the long-term.

It's real life for real people and you can't always expect them to be able to take short-term pain for a longer-term gain. If in fact you believe there is a long-term gain to be found! People don't live forever and if hard times hit at the wrong time in your life, it can have a crippling effect. Losing my job at the age I was before wasn't great obviously but I was able to recover from it and find my way in a new career. I'm about to buy a house now and want to start a family, if the same were to happen now, there's a very real prospect that by the time I was back on my feet, it'd be too late for these things.

But everyone has a view.

I've worked in merges and acquisition from a technical due diligence perspectivef but the data shows that the majority of transactions destroy value, and there is a huge amount spent on transactions to advisers of all types.

You need to take on other people's views and not take comments so personally, in many cases the fact that one person is making money out of a transaction means that someone else is paying for it; not in every case, but certainly in many.

uk1

bumpercars99 wrote: »

Honestly that's very rude. Why do you interpret that as wanting to "make a bit more quick cash"? I'm just an ordinary working person. I was made redundant in the last recession and know my employer can't withstand 5 years of current conditions so it really depends how long things are like this.

It's not actually destructive work that I do, it's mainly focused around resolving transactional disputes. We make sure people are abiding by the agreement reached and get a fair deal that's in-line with what was agreed.

A lack of transactions is really bad news for any business owner that needs to sell up for whatever reason. It means they can't get a reasonable price for their business and damages their plans for the future. If I was ill and wanted to sell my business and retire and was unable to do so at a fair price, what difference would it make to me that things will recover economically in 10 years or be better in the long-term.

It's real life for real people and you can't always expect them to be able to take short-term pain for a longer-term gain. If in fact you believe there is a long-term gain to be found! People don't live forever and if hard times hit at the wrong time in your life, it can have a crippling effect. Losing my job at the age I was before wasn't great obviously but I was able to recover from it and find my way in a new career. I'm about to buy a house now and want to start a family, if the same were to happen now, there's a very real prospect that by the time I was back on my feet, it'd be too late for these things.

Hi,

No one reading your post cannot fail to be sympathetic to your situation. My response was simply a reflection of what seemed to be your opinion that what you wanted was the neogitations concluded. You wanted it done quickly rather than optimally so you could earn again. I don't feel that I in any way misprepresented your post.

The other side of the brexit coin is that a lot of people have suffered as a result of unrestricted emigration, mostly outside of London.

My youngest son left school with pretty much no qualifications but managed to work his way through to become a financial advisor in a bank. When the banking crisis came he went from job to job and as he started each job his department or branch would be closed. It was a terrible time for him.

Then he widened his horizons and would take pretty much any job. Benefits over time were cut. In one day they even cut housing benefit for his age group even though he was in a 12 month lease. JSA isn't enough to keep people going and he has relied heavily on us for support and we are fortunate to be able to help. He takes a sizeable chunk of our income and has done for years, but I don't begrudge him a penny. He may as well have it now rather than when we're gone.

He lives in Southampton. When he first started seeking work, he was often able to get short term work at between £12 and £15 an hour. A few years ago an enormous number of very well educated East-European migrants started to find their way to Southampton and they have increased incredibly every year. The effect of this is that jobs that were available before at the higher rate are now being given to immigrants at basic rates, now "living wage" and he really doesn't get a look in. He also now feels unsafe going out in the evening as there has been an increase in violent crime mostly immigrant on local violent crime.

I'm sure there will be little sympathy for my son or indeed us and the amount it costs us to ensure he has somewhere to live and eats properly.

In leaving the EU, my wife and I will also be paying in terms of the drop in investment value, home values and indeed our only expensive vice - overseas travel.

So I think we are all suffering in our own different ways.


Jeff

Linton

It seems to me that people haven't understood what globalisation means. If the highly educated Polish workers weren't working for what we consider to be low wages in this country they would be doing it elsewhere. If they worked elsewhere they would not be spending money and paying taxes here and they would not be paid in sterling. The net effect is that there would be less economic activity here with fewer jobs, less money for State Pensions for example, and a greater cost to our balance of payments. It's tough for the people badly affected as was the industrial revolution 200years ago. But as the Luddites found simply saying "no" to the economic realities of technological change doesn't get you very far.

uk1

Linton wrote: »

It seems to me that people haven't understood what globalisation means. If the highly educated Polish workers weren't working for what we consider to be low wages in this country they would be doing it elsewhere. If they worked elsewhere they would not be spending money and paying taxes here and they would not be paid in sterling. The net effect is that there would be less economic activity here with fewer jobs, less money for State Pensions for example, and a greater cost to our balance of payments. It's tough for the people badly affected as was the industrial revolution 200years ago. But as the Luddites found simply saying "no" to the economic realities of technological change doesn't get you very far.

Reality I am afraid is completely different from text-book theories.

Firstly, in Southampton, around the Polish community has grown a cash only/ "cash in hand" society which is where a much higher percentage of their cash remains. Little of the cash circulates within the wider community. If anything surpluses are sent back to families in Poland.

Secondly by forcing down wages to this degree, they have displaced more highly paid single people with fewer dependents using hospitals, doctors and dental services and schools, with whole families who pay no taxes but instead receive tax credits and a range of social benefits instead. Replacing higher paid workers with lower paid workers whilst not increasing the number of jobs decreases tax take not increases it as your theiry suggests, doesn't it.

Thirdly, services are not created at the speed in which immigrants have arrived. As they also bring families which have swamped schools where learning has slowed because of the language difficulties in classes where immigrants are spread across all classes in an attempt to integrate them. Dental and doctor and hospital services have also been taken past breaking point.

Fourthly, when they open businesses they tend to only employ other Poles and not British people.

Fifthly, for some reason in some places the police seem reticent to interfere with petty law breaking. Last week when my wife visited our son, the police moved on a Britsh lad sleeping rough in a doorplace but ignored several Romanians selling "knock off" fragrances openly.

Sixth, much of the areas have become rough, run-down no go areas with many of the properties being further sub-divided and sub-let way past legality. Housing enforcement officers seem reticent to intercede because all they do is enlarge their emergency housing obligations for which they have no budgets. So they turn a "blind eye" to the problem instead.

I could go on.

The benefits you suggest might be there in books and flawed economic theory and as seen by those people who aren't actually experieincing it. In reality it is virtually all downsides in areas like Southampton. This is also the bleak picture shared by many around much of the country and one of the reasons for the brexit vote and your view is the reason why the vote was unexpected by so many. It is also the reason why in other parts of Europe there has been a rather alarming swing to "the right" and ignoring these issues or pretending they aren't happening, or calling those that are actually experiencing it names or racialists or xenophobes, ignores the problems and provides fertile ground for the far right.

People that experience these problems are neither Luddites or self-delusional and people that share your views are actually the ones in denial and are the main reason for the growth of support of UKIP.

Jeff

CLAPTON

Linton wrote: »

It seems to me that people haven't understood what globalisation means. If the highly educated Polish workers weren't working for what we consider to be low wages in this country they would be doing it elsewhere. If they worked elsewhere they would not be spending money and paying taxes here and they would not be paid in sterling. The net effect is that there would be less economic activity here with fewer jobs, less money for State Pensions for example, and a greater cost to our balance of payments. It's tough for the people badly affected as was the industrial revolution 200years ago. But as the Luddites found simply saying "no" to the economic realities of technological change doesn't get you very far.

So you are saying that countries with fewer people i.e. less people to pay taxes and spending money, are in general, worse off than larger countries?
so the Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, etc are all better off than the UK, Australia, Canada, NZ, Switzerland, Netherlands etc.

You can do a scatter chart with axis of 'number of people' against per capita GDP to see if you are correct. Whilst some, like USA may support your theory, the majority won't.