Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Herzlos

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

They would just have found some rule to stop us using our veto, after all they have found a new rule to stop countries vetoing tax reforms.

At which point we could refuse and walk away.

Leaving something that's working well for us now because it might do something we might not like but can probably stop is a whole new level of tinfoil hat.

It's like quitting your job because your boss talked about maybe paying you in tesco vouchers in 5 years time.

Enterprise_1701C

Herzlos wrote: »

At which point we could refuse and walk away.

Leaving something that's working well for us now because it might do something we might not like but can probably stop is a whole new level of tinfoil hat.

It's like quitting your job because your boss talked about maybe paying you in tesco vouchers in 5 years time.

Not entirely sure about that. There was talk about making it harder to leave the eu, something about the majority of member countries having to agree to another country leaving. Cannot find reference to it though. One way or another they are going to make it harder to leave anyway, came as a bit of a shock to them that a country would have the gall to actually want to find a better way outside of the eu.

Thrugelmir

Herzlos wrote: »

It's like quitting your job because your boss talked about maybe paying you in tesco vouchers in 5 years time.

No it's not. As there is a contractual agreement between employer and employee with regards to payment of remuneration. As is the case with the EU there's lots of talking and a lot of rule bending. Where poor practice is allowed to continue.

Herzlos

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Not entirely sure about that. There was talk about making it harder to leave the eu, something about the majority of member countries having to agree to another country leaving. Cannot find reference to it though. One way or another they are going to make it harder to leave anyway, came as a bit of a shock to them that a country would have the gall to actually want to find a better way outside of the eu.

Then we stop paying, stop following their regulations and get kicked out. There's no way the eu can actually keep a country in against their will. It doesn't make any actual sense.

The UK is having so much trouble leaving due to internal problems, not the eu side.

Herzlos

Thrugelmir wrote: »

No it's not. As there is a contractual agreement between employer and employee with regards to payment of remuneration. As is the case with the EU there's lots of talking and a lot of rule bending. Where poor practice is allowed to continue.

And all of our interaction with the eu is based on contractual agreement.

Arklight

cogito wrote: »

You have a real talent for distorting what other posters say, don't you? Latvia's problems aren't going to be solved by forcing Latvians to stay in Latvia but I didn't say that they would, did I? They won't be solved either by denuding the country of its population.

I agree that the education systems of each of the Baltic states is pretty good with many graduates who then leave and work in other countries of the EU. I've met dozens of them on my travels. Except for a few who had secured well paid jobs in IT, every single one of them was working in a hotel, bar or other places where the pay was better than they would have received in their home countries for doing a job more suitable for their skill sets. Is that what being highly mobile is meant to achieve? Some good their education has done them. What a waste.

Accoring to you and your allies, the best thing that can possibly happen to the UK is denuding it of foreigners, or people as they are otherwise known.

The baltics problem is that they spend a small fortune providing healthcare and educating people to tertiary level who then don!!!8217;t remain and pay it back in tax. Rather than smashing free movement because you are a brexit supporter and can!!!8217;t think of any other way of dealing with this type of problem, a simple reallocation of a small %age of income tax from where it is paid in the bloc, back to the sending country would suffice.

There is no reason why the UK should reap the enormous benefits of receiving an educated hard working, healthy, fully formed Estonian to do a job no Brit can be enticed into, and not return some of this value back to the country that trained them.

It!!!8217;s a bit like transferring players into the Premier League but not paying for them. In the US this is easily handled by federal taxation, and should be in the EU.

Tromking

Arklight wrote: »

There is no reason why the UK should reap the enormous benefits of receiving an educated hard working, healthy, fully formed Estonian to do a job no Brit can be enticed into, and not return some of this value back to the country that trained them.

You seem mired in a 2016 pre-referendum time-warp.
For better or worse the UK has decided a different way to the one where the NHS is over reliant on foreign labour. I recall recently announcements on more Doctor and Midwife training places, couple that with a substantial (on the face of it) loosening of the purse strings as regards pay then perhaps we are the start of a shift in emphasis. It remains to be seen as to whether it works, but it is what people voted for.

cogito

Arklight wrote: »

Accoring to you and your allies, the best thing that can possibly happen to the UK is denuding it of foreigners, or people as they are otherwise known.

The baltics problem is that they spend a small fortune providing healthcare and educating people to tertiary level who then don!!!8217;t remain and pay it back in tax. Rather than smashing free movement because you are a brexit supporter and can!!!8217;t think of any other way of dealing with this type of problem, a simple reallocation of a small %age of income tax from where it is paid in the bloc, back to the sending country would suffice.

There is no reason why the UK should reap the enormous benefits of receiving an educated hard working, healthy, fully formed Estonian to do a job no Brit can be enticed into, and not return some of this value back to the country that trained them.

It!!!8217;s a bit like transferring players into the Premier League but not paying for them. In the US this is easily handled by federal taxation, and should be in the EU.

Yet again, you distort what I am saying. I have absolutely no problem with immigration so please do not label me with those who do. The problem that people like you have is that you automatically lump together anyone who does not share your rose tinted view of the EU or the world in general and call them racists or insult them in other ways.

Free movement is fine in principle but in practice it fails because it cannot work when 800,000 move in one direction and none in the other.

You assume that some of the value of the work done is transferred back to the country that trained migrants. Fine if they do that but frequently they don't.

As for the issue of federal taxation, you should address the question of why it doesn't happen and never will happen to Germany. They are the ones preventing it because their politicians know that it would be political suicide to take on the responsibility of funding the rest of the EU.

gfplux

All I did was ask anyone, yes anyone please tell me ONE advantage for Britain of leaving the the EU and we get post after post about the organisation Britain is leaving.
Britain will not be a member of the EU, get over it and concentrate on the Brexit dividend or bonus or whatever it is called.

As the Elephant said to the Poacher

Just get on with it.

MobileSaver

gfplux wrote: »

All I did was ask anyone, yes anyone please tell me ONE advantage for Britain of leaving the the EU

Surely the answer is the £350 million every week that will soon be going to the NHS instead of the EU?