[Archived] Eu Referendum, In Or Out - Looks Like Blackburn Wants Out !

[Beta Ray Bill]

You are assuming that there is already a business. The point I am trying to make is that he shouldn't be in business in the first place if he doesn't pay a proper wage and without foreign labour he would have to pay Brits a decent wage or the business would not get off the ground. It's all theory but then so is your scenario. OK prices would be higher but as wages would also be higher that evens itself out. We are talking small businesses here so the international effect on prices is irrelevant.

Nope not a scenario, he was an existing company owner, something to do with carpet manufacturing.

Looked like a member of an 80s crap band with a mullet. Might be the real reason I've taken such exception to his drivel.

[Paul]

It's the highlighted bit that is part of my argument for denying immigrant labour. OK so once a year we would have to pay a little more for bedding plants and a bit more for vegetables but let's face it they are pretty cheap aren't they? Is it too much to ask to pay a bit more so that the workers can have a proper wage and more secure employment?

It's the retailer who determines the price not the producer. Growers may well wish to pay higher wages but then there is the real world we live in. The leading retailers consistently drive down cost price with producers being faced with a simple choice - do you want to be in or out of the game? If you want to be in then you accept the price, determine how to achieve it while still making a margin which allows for business growth.

I'm afraid Al that "we could pay a little more" cuts no ice with any major retailer. If you feel wages are the issue your argument should be with Tesco et al as it is their demands which consistently drive down both retail and cost price while allowing them to maintain margin. My products, bedding plants, are an irrelevance what really counts in this discussion is food. The British public has been "educated" to believe food should be cheap. The opposite in fact is true as the key to a good life is diet as opposed to the junk too many eat in this country.

I once walked in to a meeting with a buyer from one of the leading retailers. Recently the company had increased it's retail price by 50p - a 16.5% increase. Like many suppliers I had thought to myself I'll have some of that. After exchanging pleasantries the buyer announced "I'm tired of people walking in here expecting a price increase." Good buying as I had to change my tack in an instant!!

If one produces a commodity for multiple retailers one accepts the rules and price on offer. If as supplier one doesn't like it the answer is simple, walk away. Suggesting to a buyer he increases his retail to allow the producer to pay higher wages would be met with derision. The reality for most producers is that without a major retailer to drive volume there is no sustainable future. The death of the high street has spread far wider than most people imagine.

[jim mk2]

I've seen your choice of "independent" before often enough to ignore them.

In other words, you couldn't be bothered to read and learn.

Once out of the EU we have control of immigration from everywhere.

No, we won't. I've provided links showing your statement to be untrue but you've not bothered to read them either.

[yoda]

It's the retailer who determines the price not the producer. Growers may well wish to pay higher wages but then there is the real world we live in. The leading retailers consistently drive down cost price with producers being faced with a simple choice - do you want to be in or out of the game? If you want to be in then you accept the price, determine how to achieve it while still making a margin which allows for business growth.

I'm afraid Al that "we could pay a little more" cuts no ice with any major retailer. If you feel wages are the issue your argument should be with Tesco et al as it is their demands which consistently drive down both retail and cost price while allowing them to maintain margin. My products, bedding plants, are an irrelevance what really counts in this discussion is food. The British public has been "educated" to believe food should be cheap. The opposite in fact is true as the key to a good life is diet as opposed to the junk too many eat in this country.

I once walked in to a meeting with a buyer from one of the leading retailers. Recently the company had increased it's retail price by 50p - a 16.5% increase. Like many suppliers I had thought to myself I'll have some of that. After exchanging pleasantries the buyer announced "I'm tired of people walking in here expecting a price increase." Good buying as I had to change my tack in an instant!!

If one produces a commodity for multiple retailers one accepts the rules and price on offer. If as supplier one doesn't like it the answer is simple, walk away. Suggesting to a buyer he increases his retail to allow the producer to pay higher wages would be met with derision. The reality for most producers is that without a major retailer to drive volume there is no sustainable future. The death of the high street has spread far wider than most people imagine.

You have hit the nail on the head Paul. Big multi national corporations like Tesco are in control of the markets to the detriment of the consumers. exactly the same people who want a global market that they are in control of, the very same people who want us to stay in the EU to guarantee the continuem of their control

[jim mk2]

Jim has tunnel vision when it comes to immigration,

He puts this in his signature "The greatest country on earth" and then calls anyone who shows any signs of nationalism a racist

The 1st sentence - I think immigration has on the whole been good for this country and will continue to be. Is that "tunnel vision" ? Of course not.

The 2nd sentence is nonsense.

And you still haven't explained why (according to you) the FT article "makes sense" when it is the complete opposite of the immigration line that Vote Leave have been peddling for the past 2 months.

[jim mk2]

You are assuming that there is already a business. The point I am trying to make is that he shouldn't be in business in the first place if he doesn't pay a proper wage and without foreign labour he would have to pay Brits a decent wage or the business would not get off the ground. It's all theory but then so is your scenario. OK prices would be higher but as wages would also be higher that evens itself out. We are talking small businesses here so the international effect on prices is irrelevant.

Employers pay workers as little as possible and there is no compunction on them to "Pay Brits a decent wage". Tory legislation over the years has reduced workers rights and trade union powers so your utopia of "British" workers being paid a "proper wage" in the absence of foreign workers is a pipedream.

[joey_big_nose]

You have hit the nail on the head Paul. Big multi national corporations like Tesco are in control of the markets to the detriment of the consumers. exactly the same people who want a global market that they are in control of, the very same people who want us to stay in the EU to guarantee the continuem of their control

I fail to understand how leaving the EU would impact major corporations ability to control the UK market? Am I missing something?

[yoda]

I fail to understand how leaving the EU would impact major corporations ability to control the UK market? Am I missing something?

Yes,

the UK electorate would be voting for a goverment of it's choice and making decisions relevant to the UK and not trying to accomodate 28 other countries which takes many years to acheive and in many cases agreements are never finalised.

The EU stiffles competition with it's over regulated ethos and supresses inovation, hence the EU stagnating over the last 10 years.

The 1st sentence - I think immigration has on the whole been good for this country and will continue to be. Is that "tunnel vision" ? Of course not.

The 2nd sentence is nonsense.

And you still haven't explained why (according to you) the FT article "makes sense" when it is the complete opposite of the immigration line that Vote Leave have been peddling for the past 2 months.

The article is self explanatery and as I said it makes sense. I really don't know what you want me to say in addition to that.

[jim mk2]

Yes,

the UK electorate would be voting for a goverment of it's choice and making decisions relevant to the UK and not trying to accomodate 28 other countries which takes many years to acheive and in many cases agreements are never finalised.

The EU stiffles competition with it's over regulated ethos and supresses inovation, hence the EU stagnating over the last 10 years.

Britain already votes for a govt of its choice that makes decisions that having nothing to do with Europe - we have sovereignty. Where is the evidence that the EU stifles competition when there are strict rules already in place promoting competition. And why does the EU stifle innovation? The eurozone is the problem - not the EU.

[yoda]

Britain already votes for a govt of its choice that makes decisions that having nothing to do with Europe - we have sovereignty. Where is the evidence that the EU stifles competition when there are strict rules already in place promoting competition. And why does the EU stifle innovation? The eurozone is the problem - not the EU.

How do you seperate the 2 Jim ?

What are the strict rules promoting competition, big corporations have got bigger with globalisation, of which the EU is an instigator being led by the Bilderberg clan (Blair and Balls being prominent members) of the mega rich business community.

Seems to me you have had the wool pulled over your eyes like the rest of us have for many years as to what these people are really up to.

It also really surprises me with youe political position that you have not attacked these people as swivel eyed money grabbing capitalist by now. Is your previous Thatcher liking period preventing this?

We do not have sovereignty over a whole raft of policies that the EU commission imposes on us, Agriculture, Fishing, VAT, investment and support for key industries, the list goes on and on.

If we stay the grip will also tighten as Cameron did not get any concessions from the talks, obviously this will only become apparent after the event when the spin doctors will be in overdrive.

Professor Patrick Minford's take on life outside the EU

https://www.facebook.com/ProfPatrickMinford/videos/277036859295167/

[Paul]

I fail to understand how leaving the EU would impact major corporations ability to control the UK market? Am I missing something?

No you're not missing anything. Leaving the EU would have no impact on this at all.

If Mr Tesco says jump a supplier has two choices jump or leave. Simple as that.

[joey_big_nose]

Yes,

the UK electorate would be voting for a goverment of it's choice and making decisions relevant to the UK and not trying to accomodate 28 other countries which takes many years to acheive and in many cases agreements are never finalised.

The EU stiffles competition with it's over regulated ethos and supresses inovation, hence the EU stagnating over the last 10 years.

The article is self explanatery and as I said it makes sense. I really don't know what you want me to say in addition to that.

This would imply that European countries outside of the EU like Norway and Switzerland would have outperformed the EU countries through better competitiveness over the lifespan of the EU? There is no evidence to support that. There is not real difference in growth between Switzerland and France, or Sweden and Norway over the last 30 years.

I rather think you are creating economic arguments to support your political beliefs rather than the other way round.

[yoda]

This would imply that European countries outside of the EU like Norway and Switzerland would have outperformed the EU countries through better competitiveness over the lifespan of the EU? There is no evidence to support that. There is not real difference in growth between Switzerland and France, or Sweden and Norway over the last 30 years.

I rather think you are creating economic arguments to support your political beliefs rather than the other way round.

You are making the mistake of limiting your self to Europe, big world out there.

Professor Patrick Minford as an example comes across as a very clued up intelligent kind of person.

It also sounds like you have been had by project fear, project threat is the next one up !

This looks like a very plausible scenario to me if we leave the EU

Leaving the EU would give the UK the freedom to make its own global trade deals

• The EU is in economic decline, with an ageing population and population growth at much lower rates than the rest of the world.
• The UK's exports to the rest of the world are growing twice as fast as the UK's exports to the EU. The UK's three fastest growing export markets are outside the EU.
• Leaving the EU would provide the UK with the freedom to negotiate its own free trade deals; crucial when the EU has effectively become an uncompetitive trading bloc.
• EU trade negotiations with major economies like Japan, India and the UAE have all either been suspended or are barely moving.
• Australia, South Korea and Japan are all thriving economies that conduct trade policy on a bilateral basis, rather than joining free trade zones.

It's increasingly clear that the one-size-fits-all, protectionist and slow-moving nature of the EU doesn't suit the UK's commercial needs. Moreover, it prevents the UK from taking full advantage of a surging global economy; the UK is effectively prevented from capitalising on its unrivalled influence throughout the rest of the world.

Britain's relationship with the EU needs to change so that it is based on trade, not political union. Indeed, it is not political union with the EU on which many British jobs are dependent, but trade. And given that we buy more from the EU than it buys from us, it is unlikely that the EU would seek to change this in the event of us leaving.

If trade with the EU is important for UK jobs, then global trade is arguably even more so. Currently, the EU signs trade deals with the rest of the world that it has negotiated on our behalf (often taking years to do so). Leaving the EU would give Britain the legal right to negotiate its own agreements, as currently, the European Commission speaks for all EU member states at World Trade Organisation meetings - including the UK. Leaving the EU would give us our own seat - and therefore more influence - at the W.T.O.

We believe it would be preferable for Britain to have a direct say on a global level rather than hoping to have any real influence inside an EU that does not have Britain's best interests at heart.

[Steve Moss]

^ Well-reasoned.

[Al]

Nope not a scenario, he was an existing company owner, something to do with carpet manufacturing.

Looked like a member of an 80s crap band with a mullet. Might be the real reason I've taken such exception to his drivel.

If your existing company owner is paying immigrant labour low wages he is part of the problem and he is driving wages down for the lower paid Brits. He is making a living out of low pay and should not be in business. He is a parasite.

[joey_big_nose]

You are making the mistake of limiting your self to Europe, big world out there.

Professor Patrick Minford as an example comes across as a very clued up intelligent kind of person.

It also sounds like you have been had by project fear, project threat is the next one up !

This looks like a very plausible scenario to me if we leave the EU

Leaving the EU would give the UK the freedom to make its own global trade deals

• The EU is in economic decline, with an ageing population and population growth at much lower rates than the rest of the world.
• The UK's exports to the rest of the world are growing twice as fast as the UK's exports to the EU. The UK's three fastest growing export markets are outside the EU.
• Leaving the EU would provide the UK with the freedom to negotiate its own free trade deals; crucial when the EU has effectively become an uncompetitive trading bloc.
• EU trade negotiations with major economies like Japan, India and the UAE have all either been suspended or are barely moving.
• Australia, South Korea and Japan are all thriving economies that conduct trade policy on a bilateral basis, rather than joining free trade zones.

It's increasingly clear that the one-size-fits-all, protectionist and slow-moving nature of the EU doesn't suit the UK's commercial needs. Moreover, it prevents the UK from taking full advantage of a surging global economy; the UK is effectively prevented from capitalising on its unrivalled influence throughout the rest of the world.

Britain's relationship with the EU needs to change so that it is based on trade, not political union. Indeed, it is not political union with the EU on which many British jobs are dependent, but trade. And given that we buy more from the EU than it buys from us, it is unlikely that the EU would seek to change this in the event of us leaving.

If trade with the EU is important for UK jobs, then global trade is arguably even more so. Currently, the EU signs trade deals with the rest of the world that it has negotiated on our behalf (often taking years to do so). Leaving the EU would give Britain the legal right to negotiate its own agreements, as currently, the European Commission speaks for all EU member states at World Trade Organisation meetings - including the UK. Leaving the EU would give us our own seat - and therefore more influence - at the W.T.O.

We believe it would be preferable for Britain to have a direct say on a global level rather than hoping to have any real influence inside an EU that does not have Britain's best interests at heart.</p>

Well argued, even if the core of your argument is fundamentally speculative (ie. independence from EU = better trade deals = faster growth). Tbe evidence put forward is suspect - eg. Japan has had terrible growth for decades, Auatralia's growth is founded on natural resource reserves Britain does not posess etc

On the forecast front it is very hard for you to compete with the vast array of economic and financial experts of all political persuasions who have clearly stated that the economy will grow faster in rather than outside the EU.

[dave birch]

JBN, I think Yoda has a point, and yes, it may be speculative, but the only way to find out is he's correct is to get out.

With respect to your comment on Australia's economy being founded on natural resources; it was originally founded on agriculture. Only in recent times (other than the gold rush) has it been one of digging it up and selling it. In the past few years the mining industry has tanked (look at Rio and BHP shares)

I'd be wary of those economic and financial "experts", they have very much their own agenda, which is to make as much for them selves.

I have the feeling that Yoda has experience outside the EU, and to that extent would agree that it is not all doom and gloom outside, in fact it can be very enlightening (if I can use that word in this context).

I was in Australia when the UK joined, there was a response that the Aus economy would falter (the untying of the apron strings). Time has suggested that it was an opportunity for Aus, and as such, this country has benefited enormously by having to get out there and find new markets.

Having said that, I'm unsure as to what the UK should do, but what I would say is, don't be afraid of what happens if you do leave, just grab the opportunity and run with it. It's up to your politicians and your entrepreneurs to make it work.

[Al]

Well argued, even if the core of your argument is fundamentally speculative (ie. independence from EU = better trade deals = faster growth). Tbe evidence put forward is suspect - eg. Japan has had terrible growth for decades, Auatralia's growth is founded on natural resource reserves Britain does not posess etc

On the forecast front it is very hard for you to compete with the vast array of economic and financial experts of all political persuasions who have clearly stated that the economy will grow faster in rather than outside the EU.

It's all speculative, in or out. Even the financial experts you talk about, all of which have their speculation coloured by what they believe will be the best for them personally. At the end of the day you can't beat making your own decisions and trading with whoever you wish throughout the world. You don't need trade agreements. If people want what you have to sell they will buy it and if you want something someone will be willing to sell it to you.

[joey_big_nose]

JBN, I think Yoda has a point, and yes, it may be speculative, but the only way to find out is he's correct is to get out.

With respect to your comment on Australia's economy being founded on natural resources; it was originally founded on agriculture. Only in recent times (other than the gold rush) has it been one of digging it up and selling it. In the past few years the mining industry has tanked (look at Rio and BHP shares)

I'd be wary of those economic and financial "experts", they have very much their own agenda, which is to make as much for them selves.

I have the feeling that Yoda has experience outside the EU, and to that extent would agree that it is not all doom and gloom outside, in fact it can be very enlightening (if I can use that word in this context).

I was in Australia when the UK joined, there was a response that the Aus economy would falter (the untying of the apron strings). Time has suggested that it was an opportunity for Aus, and as such, this country has benefited enormously by having to get out there and find new markets.

Having said that, I'm unsure as to what the UK should do, but what I would say is, don't be afraid of what happens if you do leave, just grab the opportunity and run with it. It's up to your politicians and your entrepreneurs to make it work.

I find this statement intriguing as it is carte blanche to dismiss any opinion not consistent with your own "they have very much their own agenda, which is to make as much for them selves". Its a common thread within the process of denial to avoid confronting the opposing arguments through reference to "hidden agendas".

You need something more robust to argue against the Chancellor and Shadow Chancellor, the Bank of England, the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD, the Economist newspaper and the vast majority of academic economists and business leaders who have stated their position.

[yoda]

I find this statement intriguing as it is carte blanche to dismiss any opinion notnot consistent with your own "they have very much their own agenda, which is to make as much for them selves". Its a common thread within the process of denial to avoid confronting the opposing arguments through reference to "hidden agendas".

You need something more robust to argue against the Chancellor and Shadow Chancellor, the Bank of England, the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD, the Economist newspaper and the vast majority of academic economists and business leaders who have stated their position.

Something more robust, how about Cameron's ex advisor who was in the fray with the EU, very interesting to see what he says about the EU

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36357212

I am going to keep saying it, the EU is a failed Bilderberg plan and the people will pay for it, again

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

We are being asked to make possibility a Country changing voting decision based on nothing but pure assumption and speculation it appears to me.

????????????

If the vote goes to opt out what are the ramifications for employees like me working for a French/Foreign company's based in UK.

????????????

[yoda]

We are being asked to make possibility a Country changing voting decision based on nothing but pure assumption and speculation it appears to me.

????????????

If the vote goes to opt out what are the ramifications for employees like me working for a French/Foreign company's based in UK.

????????????

Well people were doing that before we joined the EU.

More of a concern I would say is the NHS

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/666454/NHS-EU-killed-off-Brexit-Remain-Leave-referendum-Brussels-European-Union

[adopted scouser]

28 member states of the EU.

2 member states are net contributors

26 member states are net beneficiaries

The net contributors are Germany and the UK

26 member nations are leeching from the two contributors.

Countries on bailouts include

France

Spain

Italy

Belgium

Holland

Ireland

Greece

Sweden

At home, reducing the numbers of Police Officers, Firemen and women, The Armed forces - all in the name of austerity (from the 5th richest economy in the world).

We pay this fiasco £350 MILLION A WEEK

[yoda]

28 member states of the EU.

2 member states are net contributors

26 member states are net beneficiaries

The net contributors are Germany and the UK

26 member nations are leeching from the two contributors.

Countries on bailouts include

France

Spain

Italy

Belgium

Holland

Ireland

Greece

Sweden

At home, reducing the numbers of Police Officers, Firemen and women, The Armed forces - all in the name of austerity (from the 5th richest economy in the world).

We pay this fiasco £350 MILLION A WEEK

Brilliant post

[Baz]

28 member states of the EU.

2 member states are net contributors

26 member states are net beneficiaries

The net contributors are Germany and the UK

26 member nations are leeching from the two contributors.

Countries on bailouts include

France

Spain

Italy

Belgium

Holland

Ireland

Greece

Sweden

At home, reducing the numbers of Police Officers, Firemen and women, The Armed forces - all in the name of austerity (from the 5th richest economy in the world).

We pay this fiasco £350 MILLION A WEEK

The £350m a week figure isnt net though, so net its about £100m less, and that figure doesnt include funding we get back, like farming subsidies.

And austerity is a economic choice, not linked to the EU at all.