The EU: IN or OUT?

Glen_Clark

bigadaj wrote: »

An interesting issue I think is everyone's obsession with GDP.

They quote what figures suit their agenda. The only statistic that really matters is the Current Account Deficit but they don't talk about that because its dire http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/.
They prefer to count rising house prices as GDP instead of inflation, and then talk about GDP instead.

BananaRepublic

savings_my_hobby wrote: »

There in lies the problem, although if employers won't train us then we must learn from elsewhere like Further Education or trail and error practice.

The onus is on the employee to have the skills employers want.

This is where immigration is essential, If we can fill a skilled vacancy then we must but this was not how immigration works within the EU. We had to accept any person from 27 other countries, regardless of skills, regardless of language skills.

My own experience is that my skills became outdated, due to working for many years with one company. When they went under, most companies were not interested in me, and wanted someone with N years experience in the latest stuff. However, in the end I got a job with a company who knew I did not know something called WPF, but in a couple of weeks I learnt it, and I am now fully proficient in it and more skilled than the person they previously had using this technology. I have also taught myself other skills. The problem is that in general evening classes are worthless, unless you do a trade related course e.g. a plumbing certificate. And if you learn at home, which I have done, employers are not interested, they want 2-3 years experience. And yet much of this stuff in my industry is very easy to learn for someone able to get a good degree in a mathematical discipline. UK employers do not usually realise this. Quite often at interview I have had someone who looks down on me because I am relatively old, or because I have very good academic qualifications i.e. they like to make themselves look good by putting me down with memory tests, when the questions they ask can be answered in seconds with Google. I've also had many companies blatantly lying about the work, and when I arrive, discover that it bears little resemblance to the description given i.e. it is ancient technology, not modern stuff.

So, in the end they often prefer to taken on young staff, or immigrants.

BananaRepublic

Linton wrote: »

Its not unlimited immigration that is important but rather size of pool of skilled labour.

We can look at the main industrialised areas of the world...

The EU has free movement of labour creating a single market for employees of some 500M people.
The US is a single market for employees of 320M people. Also, it seems to be easy for Canadians to work in the US.
UK with a population of 64M but has free movement of Labour with the EU.
Japan with minimal immigration and a population of 127M - perhaps a Brexit model?

and immigrants as % of population
US:14%
UK:11.3%
JPN:1.9%

Lets look at the average GDP per capita growth rates over the past 20 years from my calculations from UN data:
US: 1.45%
EU: 1.42%
UK: 1.55%
Jap: 0.71%

You are implicitly drawing conclusions that are misleading. The US has massive amounts of land, and natural resources, far more per head of population than the UK. So yes it can take in large numbers of immigrants and still find them homes, and jobs. We can find immigrants jobs, as we are a developed and competitive economy, but homes and infrastructure such as roads are limited. So the question really is do we wish to become much more densely populated, or not. It is for us to choose.

"Its not unlimited immigration that is important "

In my view it is important. It is not the reason I voted for Brexit, but it was a factor.

Scarpacci

Fascinating article here about the curse of tax havens, not to the country's the siphon money out of but the countries "lucky" enough to attract such wealth. Luxembourg is mentioned as a country now run for an ex-pat elite rather than its local population, which as the article points out is a particular problem for a country at the heart of the EU project.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/tax-haven-curse/491411/?utm_source=nl-atlantic-daily-072816

It's also a cautionary tale for our government, particularly given Theresa May's words about making a more equal society, if they continue down the road of trying only to attract foreign money to Britain. It rarely benefits anybody other than the elite and can even increase the deleterious conditions for the rest of society.

Linton

BananaRepublic wrote: »

You are implicitly drawing conclusions that are misleading. The US has massive amounts of land, and natural resources, far more per head of population than the UK. So yes it can take in large numbers of immigrants and still find them homes, and jobs. We can find immigrants jobs, as we are a developed and competitive economy, but homes and infrastructure such as roads are limited. So the question really is do we wish to become much more densely populated, or not. It is for us to choose.

"Its not unlimited immigration that is important "

In my view it is important. It is not the reason I voted for Brexit, but it was a factor.

I agree it is up to us to choose if we want a lower populated country with green fields and small historic market towns, city centres full of old buildings rather than multi-story office blocks, emply motorways etc etc. Sounds like the 1950's without the bombsites and slums. Of course it would be wonderful but in my view it comes at a cost, possibly in the long term a great cost. Global industry will slowly but steadily move out to more flexible locations leaving us with high wage niche companies for the most qualified and able, and poverty for the rest.

To avoid this I believe as a minimum we have to allow free immigration with those countries close to us in development and that we would greatly benefit from unfettered admission for those people from elsewhere after receiving good degrees from UK universities. We also need unfettered freedom of movement for those who work in global occupations - eg research. A Trump wall around the country would be disastrous in these areas.

Scarpacci

Linton wrote: »

To avoid this I believe as a minimum we have to allow free immigration with those countries close to us in development and that we would greatly benefit from unfettered admission for those people from elsewhere after receiving good degrees from UK universities. We also need unfettered freedom of movement for those who work in global occupations - eg research. A Trump wall around the country would be disastrous in these areas.

That doesn't sound like a policy that would be offensive to a great many people, even those who voted for Brexit. The main problem people had with EU migration in its later stages was the huge difference in living standards between the newer nations, so free (or at least relatively easy) migration from similarly developed countries shouldn't be a problem. There's a reason EU migration was not a political issue until 2004 and it's that the countries were far closer together in development.

Your idea to not limit people with degrees is also something that many on the Brexit side were in agreement with. They thought it wrong we were turning away so many skilled people, particularly those who had received their education in Britain, instead of being able to turn away unskilled workers from the Eastern bloc. The inability to control EU migration led to a foolish crackdown on non-EU skilled migrants, which is something we ought to avoid.

There may be disagreements with how we get there, but that sounds like the sort of system this government will try achieve. The question is whether the EU would allow such a system - they do not like EU countries being treated differently (eg. visa free travel to the U.S. or Canada, which "discriminates" against countries like Bulgaria and Romania).

Linton

Scarpacci wrote: »

That doesn't sound like a policy that would be offensive to a great many people, even those who voted for Brexit. The main problem people had with EU migration in its later stages was the huge difference in living standards between the newer nations, so free (or at least relatively easy) migration from similarly developed countries shouldn't be a problem. There's a reason EU migration was not a political issue until 2004 and it's that the countries were far closer together in development.

Your idea to not limit people with degrees is also something that many on the Brexit side were in agreement with. They thought it wrong we were turning away so many skilled people, particularly those who had received their education in Britain, instead of being able to turn away unskilled workers from the Eastern bloc. The inability to control EU migration led to a foolish crackdown on non-EU skilled migrants, which is something we ought to avoid.

There may be disagreements with how we get there, but that sounds like the sort of system this government will try achieve. The question is whether the EU would allow such a system - they do not like EU countries being treated differently (eg. visa free travel to the U.S. or Canada, which "discriminates" against countries like Bulgaria and Romania).

Now we are getting to implementation. I agree that before the eastern european countries joined the EU we would have achieved what I proposed. However the eastern european countries were admitted, a policy strongly advocated by the UK government, as part of the global political power games to surround Russia. So we have a choice - take part in the EU free movement scheme with some disadvantages or lose the ability for any free movement of labour with France, Germany, Irish Republic, the Scandinavian countries etc etc. It seems to me the better option is to accept the EU scheme and for the government to take whatever internal social action is necessary to minimise the problems. It this failure of all governments to do this that in my view led to the BREXIT result.

BananaRepublic

Linton wrote: »

I agree it is up to us to choose if we want a lower populated country with green fields and small historic market towns, city centres full of old buildings rather than multi-story office blocks, emply motorways etc etc. Sounds like the 1950's without the bombsites and slums. Of course it would be wonderful but in my view it comes at a cost, possibly in the long term a great cost. Global industry will slowly but steadily move out to more flexible locations leaving us with high wage niche companies for the most qualified and able, and poverty for the rest.

To avoid this I believe as a minimum we have to allow free immigration with those countries close to us in development and that we would greatly benefit from unfettered admission for those people from elsewhere after receiving good degrees from UK universities. We also need unfettered freedom of movement for those who work in global occupations - eg research. A Trump wall around the country would be disastrous in these areas.

We already have densely populated cities and over-crowded roads. The motorways are creaking already. The fifties disappeared, quite some time back. So in order to support significant population growth, we will have to build even more homes, and roads, expanding into the green belt and agricultural land. And building new roads and motorways is not easy. I have a 1 hour journey to work. If I leave much after 6:30am, it can take at least 1 and a half hours, more like two hours. Throw in road works for motorway and road 'improvements' and it gets even worse.

Your characterisation of my views as being back to the 50's, and erecting a Trump wall simply shows that rather than consider my views, you deride them in a rather childish manner. At least you did not apply the racist card, that is one good point. :rotfl:

Linton

BananaRepublic wrote: »

We already have densely populated cities and over-crowded roads. The motorways are creaking already. The fifties disappeared, quite some time back. So in order to support significant population growth, we will have to build even more homes, and roads, expanding into the green belt and agricultural land. And building new roads and motorways is not easy. I have a 1 hour journey to work. If I leave much after 6:30am, it can take at least 1 and a half hours, more like two hours. Throw in road works for motorway and road 'improvements' and it gets even worse.

Your characterisation of my views as being back to the 50's, and erecting a Trump wall simply shows that rather than consider my views, you deride them in a rather childish manner. At least you did not apply the racist card, that is one good point. :rotfl:

I shall assume you live in the SE. In the rest of the country there is plenty of room, I can think of two areas within 60 miles of where I live where you could lose a new Milton Keynes or two. Its another example of the consequences of failures in government policy being blamed on immigration.

The cutback in total population with tightly controled borders you desire leads to an ageing workforce with increased costs and fewer people to generate the wealth. Economic stagnation or worse, leading to poverty for the many. A better way of resolving serious differences in life quality arising from overcrowding or shortage of labour is to allow free movement of individuals across as wide an area of balanced development as possible.

EnglishMohican

Linton wrote: »

.... In the rest of the country there is plenty of room,...

What gives you the right to give away somebody else's land? It may be your opinion that the land is empty but not all of us like continuous urban sprawl.

Linton wrote: »

........ Its another example of the consequences of failures in government policy being blamed on immigration. ..

Always easy to blame government policy. If your approach of allowing people to move where they want is so wonderful why is the land near you so empty? Perhaps because they have gone where they can earn more money more easily? A bit like the Eastern Europeans - and many others - coming to the developed west presumably.

Linton wrote: »

...........A better way of resolving serious differences in life quality arising from overcrowding or shortage of labour is to allow free movement of individuals across as wide an area of balanced development as possible.

So we build Milton Keynes clones everywhere? The whole country a uniform Milton Keynes. That would solve overcrowding and produce balanced development? Are you serious?