How much is the Referendum Campaign influencing you? NEW POLL.

[Neville's Breakfast]

The increase in supply also increases demand. If the economy is growing so will wages. When the economy was contracting wages fell. We're on the up again. I know it is counter-intuitive.

EU migration — the effects on UK jobs and wages


"There is little evidence that more migrants push wages down or unemployment up. Economists from the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics say that when they look at the areas with the largest increase in EU immigration, these have not seen the sharpest falls in employment or wages since 2008.

Jonathan Wadsworth, one of the authors of the CEP report and a former member of the government’s Migration Advisory Committee, says: “There is still no evidence of an overall negative impact of immigration on jobs, [or] wages.”"
https://next.ft.com/content/0deacb52-178b-11e6-9d98-00386a18e39d

The problem with this is that when the economy is growing the benefits of this are enjoyed by the owners of capital as there is little incentive to increase wages because of the ever increasing supply of qualified workers. Inequality rises again. The economic process you describe can only work in an economy that is shielded from excess immigration which would give the opportunity for labour skills to become more scarce and thereby raise their prices (wages).
As to the Centre for Economic Performance and their figures, while I have the greatest respect for their input you simply cannot take the conclusions of economists at face value unless you dissect their assumptions. Research is funded and therefore often has an in- built bias. This Centre may be producing good quality work but as neither of us are academics we are not in a position to judge so selective quotation from sources that suit either side does not really advance the friendly discussion we are having amongst ourselves.

 

[5ways]

This London School of Economics and the CEP??






The paper wrongly assume that trade would be reduced as a result of the leaving the EU. Its principal claims are based on leaving the EU ‘reducing trade’. Even pro-EU campaigners admit that the UK would have little difficulty striking a free trade agreement with the EU following withdrawal:
’

if you truly believe this there is no hope for you. It is simply and factually wrong.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

With our voting system your vote means very little anyway.
So are you happy with us being a 70 million small island being left behind by the US, the EU and China in the future?

I don't see Singapore, Canada or Australia being left behind and they are all independent countries. I do not share this desire to become part of a regional super bloc. Sounds like an Orwellian nightmare and not one I wish for the future of my family.

 

[Soulman]

if you truly believe this there is no hope for you. It is simply and factually wrong.

You post "facts" from an EU funded think tank........there is little hope for you. I notice you skirted around
The Centre for Economic Performance IS FUNDED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION and in 2000 SUPPORTED scrapping the pound, calling for ‘immediate UK membership’ of the euro.
The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has said: 'If we were outside the EU altogether, we’d still be trading with all these European countries, of course we would... Of course the trading would go on. Sometimes … There’s a lot of scaremongering on all sides of this debate. Of course the trading would go on' (Andrew Marr Show, 6 January 2013, link)
The UK's former Ambassador to the EU and leading supporter of BSE, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, has admitted 'there is no doubt that the UK could secure a free trade agreement with the EU. That is not an issue' (Lords Hansard, 2 November 2015, col. 1492, link)

Just a couple of quotes, these are TRUE quotes, not the "facts" you drum up.

 

[5ways]

The problem with this is that when the economy is growing the benefits of this are enjoyed by the owners of capital as there is little incentive to increase wages because of the ever increasing supply of qualified workers. Inequality rises again. The economic process you describe can only work in an economy that is shielded from excess immigration which would give the opportunity for labour skills to become more scarce and thereby raise their prices (wages).
As to the Centre for Economic Performance and their figures, while I have the greatest respect for their input you simply cannot take the conclusions of economists at face value unless you dissect their assumptions. Research is funded and therefore often has an in- built bias. This Centre may be producing good quality work but as neither of us are academics we are not in a position to judge so selective quotation from sources that suit either side does not really advance the friendly discussion we are having amongst ourselves.

Inequality is a global issue. Increasingly when the economy is growing anywhere it accrues to a much greater degree to a smaller and smaller number of people. You're totally right about wages and the supply of workers. We live in a global market place with ever-increasing competition from cheaper labour but also more significantly in the years to come automation. This will lead to greater inequality. You don't avoid this by trying to shield your economy from competition - that will simply drive business elsewhere and leave you with unproductive people.

You shield your economy by having the right mix of labour flexibility, something the UK has, with high-end specialisation. Inside the EU we are better able to achieve this balance, you can't run away from global conditions and competition. You fight for rules that benefit you. The UK was able to do this in the 20th century because we were a significant global economy. We're a bit-player in a US/China story with the second act being the rise of everyone else. The EU has to band together to maintain influence.

I'm not taking the conclusions of one or two economists - think of any economic body you can, international or domestic, they will all tell you the same thing - Brexit will damage the economy in the short and long-term. Take this as one example: http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8296

but feel free to pick reports by the OECD, IMF, OBR etc etc. They all say the same thing.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

This London School of Economics and the CEP??.......Credible, yeah ok.


Centre for Economic Performance report: EU-funded, highly selective and simply not credible
March 18, 2016

Commenting on the publication of a Centre for Economic Performance report on ‘Brexit’, Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive of Vote Leave said:
The Centre for Economic Performance IS FUNDED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION and in 2000 SUPPORTED scrapping the pound, calling for ‘immediate UK membership’ of the euro. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

The Centre admits receiving funding from the European Commission (CEP, 18 March 2016, link).
The London School for Economics received €1,993,154 from the European Commission in 2014 alone (EU Financial Transparency System, link).

To say the LSE is influenced simply because somewhere along the line, like many academic establishments, they receive EU funding is utter nonsense. They also receive funding from numerous other sources. Do you really think the academics at Cambridge or Oxford, worldwide respected academic research institutions, give two shits about who funds them? Or do you think they might actually be interested in trying to figure something out on an academic basis? It also shows a very clear lack of knowledge of how research is funded, the autonomy of researchers, peer review and publication. It's these latter two points which provide scientific rigour. If you did publish something without basis and highly skewed towards your backer you'd be pulled apart by your peers and lose respect as well as possibly your career. Of course it sometimes happens but there are processes in place to root them out and aim for being as unbiased as possible. Please note I'm talking about academic research here.

By all means pull it apart on a scientific or statistical basis but you need something other than innuendo regarding funding.

 

[5ways]

You post "facts" from an EU funded think tank........there is little hope for you. I notice you skirted around
The Centre for Economic Performance IS FUNDED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION and in 2000 SUPPORTED scrapping the pound, calling for ‘immediate UK membership’ of the euro.
The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has said: 'If we were outside the EU altogether, we’d still be trading with all these European countries, of course we would... Of course the trading would go on. Sometimes … There’s a lot of scaremongering on all sides of this debate. Of course the trading would go on' (Andrew Marr Show, 6 January 2013, link)
The UK's former Ambassador to the EU and leading supporter of BSE, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, has admitted 'there is no doubt that the UK could secure a free trade agreement with the EU. That is not an issue' (Lords Hansard, 2 November 2015, col. 1492, link)

Just a couple of quotes, these are TRUE quotes, not the "facts" you drum up.

The EU funds social and scientific research. We are a main beneficiary of this.


"The UK received £967m in research grant funding from the EU last year. Since 2009, it has recouped 7.4 per cent of its EU contributions from such funding, the report showed.

Over the past decade, EU research funding to the UK has topped £8.04bn, just behind the £8.34bn allocated to Germany.

However, the UK is much more dependent on EU money than Germany because it commits just 1.63 per cent of its own gross domestic product to research, while Germany spends 2.85 per cent.

I

Research-intensive companies also benefit: Rolls-Royce received £51m — almost 13 per cent of its grant-funding — and BT pulled in £23.8m, almost 80 per cent of its total. The BBC, the UK’s public-funded broadcaster, received £2.87m from the EU for research, compared with £4m from domestic sources.


Universities like the LSE also get funding.

UK universities would be among the biggest victims; Cambridge and Oxford relied on the EU for at least a fifth of the total public funding they get from UK and European research bodies, the report said. For some smaller institutions the EU proportion is as high as two-thirds.

Another example of how EU membership benefits us.

 

[5ways]

 

[Soulman]

To say the LSE is influenced simply because somewhere along the line, like many academic establishments, they receive EU funding is utter nonsense. They also receive funding from numerous other sources. Do you really think the academics at Cambridge or Oxford, worldwide respected academic research institutions, give two shits about who funds them? Or do you think they might actually be interested in trying to figure something out on an academic basis? It also shows a very clear lack of knowledge of how research is funded, the autonomy of researchers, peer review and publication. It's these latter two points which provide scientific rigour. If you did publish something without basis and highly skewed towards your backer you'd be pulled apart by your peers and lose respect as well as possibly your career. Of course it sometimes happens but there are processes in place to root them out and aim for being as unbiased as possible. Please note I'm talking about academic research here.

By all means pull it apart on a scientific or statistical basis but you need something other than innuendo regarding funding.

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has said: 'If we were outside the EU altogether, we’d still be trading with all these European countries, of course we would... Of course the trading would go on. Sometimes … There’s a lot of scaremongering on all sides of this debate. Of course the trading would go on' (Andrew Marr Show, 6 January 2013, link)
The UK's former Ambassador to the EU and leading supporter of BSE, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, has admitted 'there is no doubt that the UK could secure a free trade agreement with the EU. That is not an issue' (Lords Hansard, 2 November 2015, col. 1492, link)
The pro-EU CBI has said 'the UK is highly likely to secure a Free Trade Agreement with the EU, and such an agreement would be likely to be negotiated at an extremely high level of ambition relative to other FTAs' (Our Global Future, 4 November 2013, p. 152, link).
The pro-EU Centre for European Reform has accepted that 'given the importance of the UK market to the Eurozone, the UK would probably have little difficulty in negotiating an FTA’ ('The economic consequences of leaving the EU', June 2014, p. 31, link).

The innuendos are because these reports are not "facts", just views which because of the allegiance and FUNDING are bound to be skewed.....biased.
I have put up actual quotes, some very recent, these are ACTUAL quotes.......not the lying "facts" that are copied and pasted and shoved up on here.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The EU funds social and scientific research. We are a main beneficiary of this.


"The UK received £967m in research grant funding from the EU last year. Since 2009, it has recouped 7.4 per cent of its EU contributions from such funding, the report showed.

Over the past decade, EU research funding to the UK has topped £8.04bn, just behind the £8.34bn allocated to Germany.

However, the UK is much more dependent on EU money than Germany because it commits just 1.63 per cent of its own gross domestic product to research, while Germany spends 2.85 per cent.

I

Research-intensive companies also benefit: Rolls-Royce received £51m — almost 13 per cent of its grant-funding — and BT pulled in £23.8m, almost 80 per cent of its total. The BBC, the UK’s public-funded broadcaster, received £2.87m from the EU for research, compared with £4m from domestic sources.


Universities like the LSE also get funding.

UK universities would be among the biggest victims; Cambridge and Oxford relied on the EU for at least a fifth of the total public funding they get from UK and European research bodies, the report said. For some smaller institutions the EU proportion is as high as two-thirds.

Another example of how EU membership benefits us.

One should also be aware of the fact the EU funds research into medical areas which companies do not look into due to lack of return. One area I have been directly involved with is paediatric epilepsy. Children with this condition in Europe have benefitted enormously from the EU.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has said: 'If we were outside the EU altogether, we’d still be trading with all these European countries, of course we would... Of course the trading would go on. Sometimes … There’s a lot of scaremongering on all sides of this debate. Of course the trading would go on' (Andrew Marr Show, 6 January 2013, link)
The UK's former Ambassador to the EU and leading supporter of BSE, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, has admitted 'there is no doubt that the UK could secure a free trade agreement with the EU. That is not an issue' (Lords Hansard, 2 November 2015, col. 1492, link)
The pro-EU CBI has said 'the UK is highly likely to secure a Free Trade Agreement with the EU, and such an agreement would be likely to be negotiated at an extremely high level of ambition relative to other FTAs' (Our Global Future, 4 November 2013, p. 152, link).
The pro-EU Centre for European Reform has accepted that 'given the importance of the UK market to the Eurozone, the UK would probably have little difficulty in negotiating an FTA’ ('The economic consequences of leaving the EU', June 2014, p. 31, link).

The innuendos are because these reports are not "facts", just views which because of the allegiance and FUNDING are bound to be skewed.....biased.
I have put up actual quotes, some very recent, these are ACTUAL quotes.......not the lying "facts" that are copied and pasted and shoved up on here.

Should be, might be, at the end of the day it's still ifs and buts. We already have a guaranteed free trade agreement.....why not just keep it?

 

[Soulman]

The EU funds social and scientific research. We are a main beneficiary of this.


"The UK received £967m in research grant funding from the EU last year. Since 2009, it has recouped 7.4 per cent of its EU contributions from such funding, the report showed.

Over the past decade, EU research funding to the UK has topped £8.04bn, just behind the £8.34bn allocated to Germany.

However, the UK is much more dependent on EU money than Germany because it commits just 1.63 per cent of its own gross domestic product to research, while Germany spends 2.85 per cent.

I

Research-intensive companies also benefit: Rolls-Royce received £51m — almost 13 per cent of its grant-funding — and BT pulled in £23.8m, almost 80 per cent of its total. The BBC, the UK’s public-funded broadcaster, received £2.87m from the EU for research, compared with £4m from domestic sources.


Universities like the LSE also get funding.

UK universities would be among the biggest victims; Cambridge and Oxford relied on the EU for at least a fifth of the total public funding they get from UK and European research bodies, the report said. For some smaller institutions the EU proportion is as high as two-thirds.

Another example of how EU membership benefits us.

I see what you have done there. Firstly put up "facts" from EU funded sources. Second when these "facts" and the sources have been easily rumbled, put up a post admitting that these sources and other trumpeted by you DO get EU funding... and pass it off as...
"Another example of how EU membership benefits us".
The benefits are better Out imo, and that is not an EU funded decision by the way.

 

[pastafarian]

Another example of how EU membership benefits us.

immigration numbers are too high
how would you significantly reduce EU migration to the UK?

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Inequality is a global issue. Increasingly when the economy is growing anywhere it accrues to a much greater degree to a smaller and smaller number of people. You're totally right about wages and the supply of workers. We live in a global market place with ever-increasing competition from cheaper labour but also more significantly in the years to come automation. This will lead to greater inequality. You don't avoid this by trying to shield your economy from competition - that will simply drive business elsewhere and leave you with unproductive people.

You shield your economy by having the right mix of labour flexibility, something the UK has, with high-end specialisation. Inside the EU we are better able to achieve this balance, you can't run away from global conditions and competition. You fight for rules that benefit you. The UK was able to do this in the 20th century because we were a significant global economy. We're a bit-player in a US/China story with the second act being the rise of everyone else. The EU has to band together to maintain influence.

I'm not taking the conclusions of one or two economists - think of any economic body you can, international or domestic, they will all tell you the same thing - Brexit will damage the economy in the short and long-term. Take this as one example: http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8296

but feel free to pick reports by the OECD, IMF, OBR etc etc. They all say the same thing.

I'm not trying to avoid inequality altogether but I do want to mitigate its effects on the most vulnerable. Your line of argument works very well when analysing global trends but forgets that these are real communities that are not always capable of labour market flexibility. Fighting for rules that benefit us within the EU will not reduce the attractiveness of the UK as a destination for EU migrants which means it becomes ever harder for the next generation to attain the living standards of the previous one. Again, I note your links to the views of economists on this subject on the maximum benefit to the economy but it does not address the fall in living standards of the next generation of UK citizens while the owners of capital rub their hands all the way to the bank.

 

[Soulman]

Should be, might be, at the end of the day it's still ifs and buts. We already have a guaranteed free trade agreement.....why not just keep it?

"We already have a guaranteed free trade agreement", we can get that out of the EU and we do not have to put up with the cost, the laws etc etc etc. Germany can stay in, so you have got what you want, either way the vote will not affect you...... Greece is a great example eh.

 

[Soulman]

immigration numbers are too high
how would you significantly reduce EU migration to the UK?

You will not get an answer. He thinks that immigration is good for jobs and wages.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Majority of French back Frexit?
https://www.euractiv.com/section/future-eu/news/majority-of-french-back-holding-frexit-referendum/

The French sick to the back teeth of the EU, like the rest of us.

 

[Soulman]

Majority of French back Frexit?
https://www.euractiv.com/section/future-eu/news/majority-of-french-back-holding-frexit-referendum/

The French sick to the back teeth of the EU, like the rest of us.

Exactly, same with the Dutch, i don't think even the Germans are all for it even though they run the show.
I wonder how many of the voters too scared to leave, would vote leave if they knew other countries would follow...... i reckon quite a few of the gutless would.

 

[Smirko]

When you enter the visitors centre of the European Parliament there is an inscription on the wall.

Many organisations you can visit all over the world will also have an inscription or plaque or even a statue in their lobby or foyer. They all serve one purpose,to show you what that organisation believes in,its values its direction or its goals. Nothing wrong with that at all.

In Brussels the message is this.

View attachment 75408

The message cannot be clearer

National sovereignty is a "catastrophic evil" that must be destroyed
A federal Europe is the cure.

This end goal will not be achieved next month or next year,nor even in the next few decades, but the goal still remains and the train is heading slowly but surely in one direction only.

When future generations look back and think about the legacy your vote has handed on to them,when all British sovereignty has gone and the last treaty transfers the last of Westminsters powers to Brussels, they will no doubt be justified in asking what on earth were you thinking?

Vote Leave

View attachment 75409

So you're a don't know then?

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Exactly, same with the Dutch, i don't think even the Germans are all for it even though they run the show.
I wonder how many of the voters too scared to leave, would vote leave if they knew other countries would follow...... i reckon quite a few of the gutless would.

Hope the French go for it. We wouldn't get to hear about this on our own news.