The EU: IN or OUT?

mrginge

BananaRepublic wrote: »

Some of the problems include the fact that there are no solid proposals as to how we would leave, and under what terms, and were we to leave I suspect the newer countries such as Poland would do their best to stuff us. Germany and France need us as an export market, so they might be sympathetic, but Poland et al receive huge wods of dosh from the EU, and probably do not export much to us, apart from people. So they might wish to set an example and treat a leaver as a pariah, and ensure trade terms are naff. But this is all guess work and I coud be totally off the mark.

Poland would be wise to not annoy the remaining EU countries that would be continuing to pay their subsidy.

This is the inherent problem with the EU. Poland effectively has no say. They may want to act in a certain way because it serves their national interest, but they are so politically intertwined with the EU through so many cross border treaties and arrangements, that they are effectively powerless to take a stand.
This is why every single major decision faced by the EU is always a short term fudged compromise with the real issue kicked into the future. Greece being the perfect example.

Now, if we remain the argument is that we have a better chance to negotiate, but the reality as DC showed us earlier this year is that you get nothing of substance and what you do get comes at various costs in other areas (giving up a veto for example).
I would actually argue that as an outsider with a huge single economy we actually hold more cards, since we can start negotiating purely from our own position rather than having to individually compromise with 27 other countries.
If we look at Canada for example, they negotiated their terms with the EU, not each country themselves. The time it took is purely down to internal EU negotiations. As a single nation we can negotiate directly with Canada on the issue that are most important to us. We don't need to consider industries that are low priority to the UK but would be more relevant to France. We can arrange smaller, intermediate deals quicker and more suitably.

mrginge

atush wrote: »

A lot of employers prefer younger workers over older. Immigration has nothing to do with it. They prefer younger UK applicants too.

This is short sighted, as older workers have life experience and skills that are going to waste.

Age is a protected characteristic and employers discriminating on such grounds (except under permitted reasons) are breaking the law.

jimjames

mrginge wrote: »

If we look at Canada for example, they negotiated their terms with the EU, not each country themselves. The time it took is purely down to internal EU negotiations. As a single nation we can negotiate directly with Canada on the issue that are most important to us. We don't need to consider industries that are low priority to the UK but would be more relevant to France. We can arrange smaller, intermediate deals quicker and more suitably.

7 years on the deal isn't done yet and is for a fairly small range of trade areas.
Yet Brexiters are expecting to have a new deal with the EU quickly covering a huge range of areas for approx. 50% of our trade. We can sign deals with others but what exactly are we exporting to them? It really doesn't add up.

mrginge

jimjames wrote: »

7 years on the deal isn't done yet and is for a fairly small range of trade areas.
Yet Brexiters are expecting to have a new deal with the EU quickly covering a huge range of areas for approx. 50% of our trade. We can sign deals with others but what exactly are we exporting to them? It really doesn't add up.

I think you've misunderstood the point.

It's quite obvious that doing a deal with 29 interested parties is much more complex than a deal with 2.

Dird

Remainers freaking out about free trade agreements yet America wants to scrap them, !!!!!!

jimjames

mrginge wrote: »

I think you've misunderstood the point.

It's quite obvious that doing a deal with 29 interested parties is much more complex than a deal with 2.

Yes, maybe I have. We'd need to deal with all the EU too if we want to continue to trade with the EU in the event of leaving.

freeisgood

Where's "shake it all about"? I'm that.

atush

mrginge wrote: »

Age is a protected characteristic and employers discriminating on such grounds (except under permitted reasons) are breaking the law.

But it is very hard to catch them at it and prove discrimination if they have 5-10 applications it is easy to choose the one from a younger person.

Dird

atush wrote: »

A lot of employers prefer younger workers over older. Immigration has nothing to do with it. They prefer younger UK applicants too.

This is short sighted, as older workers have life experience and skills that are going to waste.

Speaking from an IT perspective a lot of people with 20+ years experience are pretty !!!!. Much like a journeyman in boxing. In these situations it makes no sense to hire that person over someone with 4-5 years experience which equates to the same level of ability but will accept significantly lower pay as they haven't been given 20 years of annual increments.
The people with 20 years experience that have become experts will not struggle to find work. A guy I know recently gave up 20 years of contracting in London because a company in Singapore wanted to offer him around £150k/year as a perm

veryintrigued

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/eu-referendum/referendum-on-eu-membership-result

Closest odds that Ive seen.