The EU: IN or OUT?

BananaRepublic

uk1 wrote: »

The problem is that some posting here seem to think rather over simplistically that planned immigration is a component of globalisation denial.

It is instead one of many ways of sensibly optimising globalisation to the benefit of the local population and minimising it's unwanted side effects.

Jeff

There is an argument that labour should move to where it is most needed. We have a strong infrastructure, and culture that supports trade, so you could argue that labour moves here, and we become a densely populated economic powerhouse, a bit like Singapore. The FTSE 100 bosses would like that, as they can run away to their nice estate in the Bahamas at the weekend. I don't support that model.

As an aside, I do not understand why freedom of movement is a core tenet of the single market, unless the single market as a concept is primarily for the benefit of big business, and to a lesser extent the young who are more mobile.

Linton

uk1 wrote: »

Trying to shoehorn your theories about the industrial revolution of 200 years ago into your theories of todays globalisation hasn't addressed the errors in your post that I answered at length.

How for example does replacing highly paid workers with low paid workers increase tax take without increasing jobs? How does increasing benefit dependency and dependents improve our economics?

I explained at length why you are factually wrong but you ignored it and contintue to repeat your 200 year old theories.

Jeff

Highly paid workers will in general be replaced where possible with lower paid ones anyway. The question is where. The where governs the location of the tax take and the foreign exchange implications.

cloud_dog

Just re-worded slightly...

BananaRepublic wrote: »

...the single market as a concept is primarily for the benefit of [STRIKE]big[/STRIKE] doing and growing business, [STRIKE]and to a lesser extent the young who are more mobile[/STRIKE].

BLB53

But I don't think the only arguments for how we live are economic. I voted Leave, not due to immigration, but because I consider the EU to be anti-democratic, and becoming more so with time. Hence I did not vote on economic grounds, but political for want of a better word.

I voted 'leave' last week basically on two grounds:

1 Immigration is getting totally out of control and so long as we remain in the EU we cannot stop this increase

2 Sovereignty - it should be our parliament which has the final say in which laws we adopt and abide by. Unfortunately over the past 20 yrs we seem to be more and more governed by EU diktat and directives.

I truely hope the outcome is followed through but it seems there are a lot of people who do not wish to accept the referendum decision and propose to fight on until it is overturned.

doe808

BLB53 wrote: »

I voted 'leave' last week basically on two grounds:

1 Immigration is getting totally out of control and so long as we remain in the EU we cannot stop this increase

2 Sovereignty - it should be our parliament which has the final say in which laws we adopt and abide by. Unfortunately over the past 20 yrs we seem to be more and more governed by EU diktat and directives.

I truely hope the outcome is followed through but it seems there are a lot of people who do not wish to accept the referendum decision and propose to fight on until it is overturned.

While I think there are issues with the EU and democracy, this is an investment discussion board.

Whats your views on investing in the UK, post brexit ( just to try to bring discussions in again)?

jimjames

BananaRepublic wrote: »

We have degree educated Poles at my workplace doing semi-skilled assembly work on a production line, albeit low volume expensive electronic goods. Many Poles are working in supermarkets and post offices, doing jobs below their education level. You could argue that they are filling low paid jobs to our benefit. And industry will like these people because they are hard working and accept low wages. In truth they are keeping wages down, increasing company profits, and keeping some prices down. Were they not here, we would pay a bit more for many goods.

In purely economic and investment terms that's a good thing as increased profits should lead onto better share prices and dividends.

Dird

Terry Smith aka Fundsmith on Brexit (before it happened): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frllk_p_IaE&t=1h9m30s

BananaRepublic

cloud_dog wrote: »

Just re-worded slightly...

Actually it isn't about business per se, just look at the mess many EU countries are in. The EU shares a large part of the responsibility for the state of Greece, by lending them huge amounts of money whilst willfully ignoring the corruption and false accounting. The EU is all about BIG business, the kind that has the money to lobby the EU. You only have to look at the seed and plant regulations they tried to force through to see that they do not care about small businesses, which would have been right royally stuffed by the regulations. They were formulated for and by big multinationals.

BananaRepublic

jimjames wrote: »

In purely economic and investment terms that's a good thing as increased profits should lead onto better share prices and dividends.

Quite right, but the economic argument is not the only one we need to consider when we choose our future path. In truth we will find out if there are strong economic reasons to be outside the EU.

cloud_dog

BananaRepublic wrote: »

...The EU shares a large part of the responsibility for the state of Greece, by lending them huge amounts of money whilst willfully ignoring the corruption and false accounting.

Are you sure?

You sure it wasn't the Greeks responsibility for taking on the ridiculous debt arrangement/swap?

BananaRepublic wrote: »

The EU is all about BIG business, the kind that has the money to lobby the EU. You only have to look at the seed and plant regulations they tried to force through to see that they do not care about small businesses, which would have been right royally stuffed by the regulations. They were formulated for and by big multinationals.

I don't believe the EU was lobbied and formulated by any business let alone 'big' business in the beginning.

Obviously, in the real world, which is where we live unfortunately once you have a structure / organisation / process in place then people (big business as you mention) are going to try to sway practices to fit with their own desires. It's human nature. you don't mention the impact of 'big' unions on any regulations, I'm sure they have also lobbied and got regulations meeting their own agenda.