The EU: IN or OUT?

masonic

maxie014 wrote: »

Your talking about the top of the food chain masonic,im talking about the bottom.
Lads who do hard graft for not much more than minimum wage,there is no incentive for the employers to pay any more with an unlimited cheap workforce.
Some of these people would be as well off not working on benefits etc,but want to work.
Tell me what mass immigration has done for them?

Well at the bottom of the food chain, the minimum wage is an equaliser. It seems to me there will tend to be a natural bias towards UK workers, all other things being equal. Someone who has just turned up in the UK with no history of having worked here would seem a rather risky proposition in comparison.

Looking up from those on the minimum wage to those earning a bit more than that, then clearly there is a downward pressure exerted on wages if there are migrants willing to do the work for less. This is bad for UK workers and good for UK business. But of course this is not exclusively immigration driven. It occurs in other situations where workers are competing for jobs. Pay is very often dictated by supply/demand. Where it falls to unreasonable lows, one could say this is exploitation by the employer. The solution would therefore be to make changes to the national minimum wage / in work benefits / unemployment benefits system rather than remove a group of workers from availability completely.

Being good for business, and with the immense lobbying power of business, it seems hard to believe that a move that resulted in a material uplift in wages for low paid workers would ever happen.

savings_my_hobby

One thing that is clear, or at least should be is there is a Norway deal, there is a Switzerland deal, there is a Canada deal and in the event of Brexit there will be a British deal.

the Norwegian deal is different to the Swiss deal which is different to the Canadian deal, each deal is bespoke as will the British deal be bespoke, comparison is futile.

So therefore if we do not want to accept free movement of people then we wont have to - this is clear.

"oh but the Norwegians and the Swiss have to" these countries have barely 12 million between them, we have 65 million, so are a much bigger market place, we will also be the biggest trade partner for the EU if we leave as we currently have a trade surplus with them.

Considering the state of the EU I do not believe that they are in any position to play hard ball, they can afford to let us leave and will let us leave as we are not tied up to the Euro. A different prospect for Eurozone countries wishing to leave.

I don't recall Farage making any promises after Brexit. He says things like "we CAN use (some of) the money going to the EU to help fund the NHS" or we will regain control over our borders and ability to make laws, this is indisputable fact.

On the other hand Cameron has promised (twice in two separate election manifesto's) to limit immigration - he can't, he knows he can't and so does every single person intending to vote to remain.

I love the way people in the media and on the remain side are demanding a picture of what Britain will look like in the coming years after Brexit, well can anyone tell what the EU will be like in the coming years? More EU expansionism? More migrants from afar? more Greek debt drama? more red tape? more contributions going to the EU?

This is not scaremongering either because it is happening right now. If you are happy with this, then great, vote remain and good luck.

If you are unhappy with this vote leave like me. if you are not sure then please do not be scared into making a choice, the economy will recover (that's if it even needs to).

There is uncertainty either way, but remaining is certainly going to pose known problems with unknown solutions. -FACT.

masonic

Dird wrote: »

The majority that come here on a work visa are needed, for the exact example that you yourself gave. To offset the strain that uncontrolled, low-skilled Europeans puts on the system the acceptance of non-EU workers is much stricter so most employees don't see it worth their time and money unless they're exceptional or it's a role difficult to fill with Europeans.
The non-EU exception are the foreigners from Bangladesh/India who arrive simply after marrying their cousins or the 50 year old Brit bringing over his Thai bride.

I asked if you had any evidence to support your opinion. You seem to have just given me your opinion again.

I've been reading things like this briefing. This refers to skilled workers in terms of "Tier 1: Highly skilled workers" and "Tier 2: Skilled workers with job offers". It states "Tiers 1 and 2 together made up less than half of the total of 119,900 work visas issued in 2014, with 2% (2,700) in Tier 1 and 44% (52,500) in Tier 2". So, as I said, I think you'll find there is plenty of fat that could be trimmed from the non-EU figure.

The government, hopefully and almost surely, will continue to reduce the large number of benefits that Brits receive; this will force uneducated Brits to seek work against their will. The drawback to this is that many of those shelves are already being stocked by Polish people and the vacancies still available, and created with future growth, will be contended against more Poles and the accession of Turkey.

I think there are some who could be quite insulted by that sentiment. I don't believe anything truly radical will happen to the benefits system as you describe. The same tensions have been in operation during the whole of my lifetime so far.

savings_my_hobby

and whilst I hate to keep banging on about immigration, I recently stumbled across this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_minimum_wage

With our minimum wage set to rise to £9 p/h by 2020 this is surely going to act as a magnet to immigrants from all over Europe.

Osborn, intelligent as he certainly is must surely have known this.

By 2020 Britain could be paying 3 times the minimum wage in say, Poland. If you think immigration at the current rate is just about sustainable (currently 330,000 - the government thinks <100,000 is sustainable) then how do you propose we will deal with this impending influx? any remainians with any responses?

masonic

savings_my_hobby wrote: »

and whilst I hate to keep banging on about immigration, I recently stumbled across this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_minimum_wage

With our minimum wage set to rise to £9 p/h by 2020 this is surely going to act as a magnet to immigrants from all over Europe.

Osborn, intelligent as he certainly is must surely have known this.

By 2020 Britain could be paying 3 times the minimum wage in say, Poland. If you think immigration at the current rate is just about sustainable (currently 330,000 - the government thinks <100,000 is sustainable) then how do you propose we will deal with this impending influx? any remainians with any responses?

We could do with those figures corrected for the cost of living (nice little map here - no idea if it is accurate). UK may be at 9.50EUR, but Spain isn't looking to bad on a cost of living basis, and I'd certainly prefer the climate! Aside: Why does anyone in their right mind live in London

savings_my_hobby

masonic wrote: »

We could do with those figures corrected for the cost of living (nice little map here - no idea if it is accurate). UK may be at 9.50EUR, but Spain isn't looking to bad on a cost of living basis, and I'd certainly prefer the climate! Aside: Why does anyone in their right mind live in London

Well if post # 73 is anything to go by, then the cost of living here is pretty cheap, if your are willing to sacrifice standards of living.

Not sure about London I don't live there nor did I mention the place.

As for Spain - thank god the cost of living there is cheap because they have a whooping 21% unemployment.

masonic

The London comment was in relation to the link I posted showing London having 1.5x the cost of living to most other parts of the UK. It was tongue in cheek though as I know exactly why they live there. The people I know working in London earn considerably more than 1.5x my income.

savings_my_hobby

masonic wrote: »

The London comment was in relation to the link I posted showing London having 1.5x the cost of living to most other parts of the UK. It was tongue in cheek though as I know exactly why they live there. The people I know working in London earn considerably more than 1.5x my income.

I realised that after I clicked on the map and saw London among the highest on the index, I perhaps should have edited my post to reflect it.

veryintrigued

Superscrooge wrote: »

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

Looking at the odds quoted, Most people are betting on a victory for the 'Remain' campaign.

Thanks for this - looks as if the Leave odds have shortened for some of those companies recently.

Most of the companies seem to offer a second bet - which isn't what I was looking for.

Might be my once a decade visit to the bookies!

savings_my_hobby

veryintrigued wrote: »

Thanks for this - looks as if the Leave odds have shortened for some of those companies recently.

Most of the companies seem to offer a second bet - which isn't what I was looking for.

Might be my once a decade visit to the bookies!

When ever I gamble down the bookies (hardly ever) I always bet on what I don't want to happen that way I get "compensated".

For example I would bet on the UK to remain in the EU, so if they did I would be gutted but will at least have some money to go pick up, But if Britain left the EU and I lost say, £100 then I would just shrug my shoulders and say "worth it".:)