[Politics] Brexit
- Thread starter KingstonSeagull
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Ultimately what reduces poverty is jobs. Companies provide jobs. The VAST majority of business leaders want us to remain within the EU (80% of CBI members - and the CBI represents around 200,000 businesses employing a third of the UK's private sector workforce). The reason these business leaders want to remain in the EU is because they recognise it is positive for UK business, growth, employment, etc. We pay a relatively small net contribution to the EU (less than 0.5% of GDP) but get a huge amount back. If you're worried about borrowing money, then please do NOT vote to leave the EU, because such a decision will almost certainly lead to a significant increase in our need to issue debt (even the pro-Brexit economists admit this). And it is very likely that our credit rating will fall in a post-Brexit world, so our cost of all future borrowing will increase. So, if you really want to relieve "grinding poverty" in Cornwall and South Wales, then vote to Remain in the EU.
- Jan 19, 2010
- 1,190
Current or previous? If the latter, then I nominate Martin Bell, who stood for election at Tatton in the '97 GE. Where he stood against - and beat - Neil Hamilton.
Funny old world we live in.
The other reason and main reason they want to stay in the EU is because it's easy cheap labour.
drew
Drew
Is that an evidence based comment or just your anecdotal opinion?
brighton fella
New member
- Mar 20, 2009
- 1,645
1707?
W T F has the date got to do with it.
brighton fella
New member
- Mar 20, 2009
- 1,645
drew
Drew
Whoosh. There you go, I'll say it for you. Your comment has gone completely over my head!!!
What exactly is the point you are trying to make?
Chief Wiggum
New member
- Apr 30, 2009
- 518
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...inside-the-arrogant-imperial-and-dangerously/
'We may not always like it, but one of the intractable realities of the human condition is that nothing ever stays the same. Families, companies, nations, the English language, our daily lives: they all change, for better or for worse, quickly or slowly, all of the time. Politics is no different. It is therefore absurd to frame the European referendum as a choice between a terrifying revolution (Leave) and an unthreatening embrace of the status quo (Remain); instead, what we are being asked is to choose between two radical change agendas with complex, unpredictable consequences. "Brexiters have been confronted with the possible downsides of leaving; now Remainians must address the financial and political risks of staying" Both come with risks and challenges; both are uncertain and will require adjustments; both will mould our country, our economy and our political institutions into something very different to what they are today. But while the Leave side has relentlessly (and rightly) been grilled about its post-Brexit vision, the Remain camp has been shamefully let off the hook. It hasn’t had to explain how exactly it sees the EU evolving over the next decade or two, and what we would therefore be signing up to. Brexiteers have been confronted with the possible downsides of leaving; now Remainians must address the financial and political risks of staying. What are the alternatives if Britain leaves the EU? The starting point for any sensible discussion is to acknowledge that the EU is facing an ongoing economic and social crisis, and is desperate to deepen its integration further. Remain must tell us how this would impact the UK, and why it thinks that we would be better off dealing with the fallout inside, rather than outside, the EU. What, for example, will happen when the next Eurozone crisis erupts (and no, denying that there will be one isn’t good enough)? A new deal appears to have been cobbled together for Greece, but the real worry must be Italy, a country whose economy has not grown at all since 2000, which is crippled by 11.4 per cent unemployment and a massive national debt, and which could bring down the euro. Would we have to put our hands in our pockets directly when the next crisis erupts, or would the impact merely be indirect, reducing our exports to the region? It may be that the European Central Bank is forced to resort to helicopter money, but there is a very real danger that Germany would refuse to put up with that, destabilising the Continent. There are thus political risks wherever we look. Will Spain go populist? Will the current riots spiral out of control in France? Austria’s economy has been growing yet an extremist, authoritarian candidate grabbed 49.9 per cent of the vote at the presidential elections. What next? What is the chance of Marine Le Pen winning a presidential election in France, if not next year then in six years’ time, and waging all-out war on globalisation? What would the impact be on our economy and investments in France? Wouldn’t we be safer out? Eastern Europe has also started to elect unsavoury politicians: it may well be that the immigration crisis will tear the EU apart, especially when the Dublin convention on refugees is replaced by a quota system. Expanding the EU to include additional countries, which is very much Brussels’s plan, would exacerbate opposition to the free movement of people. Given all of this, Remain needs to explain why we wouldn’t be better off trying to diversify our economy towards more resilient parts of the world. The share of our exports that goes to the EU has already collapsed from 55 per cent in 1999 to 44 per cent last year – but shouldn’t we be trying to reduce this further and faster? If the eurozone succeeds in harmonising its fiscal policies and becoming more like a single entity, it may succeed in overriding British interests more effectively, which could be another reason for us to leave. The EU was always intended by its founders to be a process – a mechanism by which formerly independent European countries gradually bind themselves together into an ever-closer union. Crises were seen as useful flashpoints that would trigger a further push to integration, and its central institutions were deliberately designed to seek and accrue power. When I was growing up in France, it was made consistently clear that the EU was a political project that used economics as a tool of state-building; the single market was created because all countries have a free internal market, not because the EU’s founding fathers believed in international free trade. We used to be taught all of this openly and explicitly at school: the EU was the obvious, rational future, the only way war could be avoided and the best way to protect our social models from the ravages of “Anglo-Saxon” markets. There are therefore two possibilities if we vote to stay: eventual abrupt disintegration, or further EU integration. If the latter, how many more powers will we give up when the next treaty comes along, and how much “progress” will be made in critical areas like a European army, tax harmonisation, and the centralisation of justice and home affairs? Why haven’t voters been told ahead of June 23? The biggest, costliest and most immediate change after a Remain vote would be psychological. Forget about all the caveats: an In victory would be hailed as proof that Britain has finally ceased fighting its supposed European destiny. Our bluff would have been called in the most spectacular of fashions: after decades of dragging our feet, of being ungrateful Europeans, of extracting concessions, rebates and opt-outs, of trying to stand up for our interests, we would finally have hoisted the white flag. The idea that we would hold another referendum on the next treaty would simply be laughed out of town. Voting to Remain would thus be a geopolitical disaster for the UK, a historic failure. Comfortable, middle-class voters who are considering sticking with the devil they believe they know need to think again. Voting to remain is a far greater leap into the unknown than voting to leave. It’s self-evidently normal to be independent and prosperous: just look at America, Australia, Canada or Singapore. But there are no known examples of a previously independent democracy being subsumed into a dysfunctional, economically troubled technocracy and doing well as a result. As mad gambles go, it is hard to think of anything worse'
'We may not always like it, but one of the intractable realities of the human condition is that nothing ever stays the same. Families, companies, nations, the English language, our daily lives: they all change, for better or for worse, quickly or slowly, all of the time. Politics is no different. It is therefore absurd to frame the European referendum as a choice between a terrifying revolution (Leave) and an unthreatening embrace of the status quo (Remain); instead, what we are being asked is to choose between two radical change agendas with complex, unpredictable consequences. "Brexiters have been confronted with the possible downsides of leaving; now Remainians must address the financial and political risks of staying" Both come with risks and challenges; both are uncertain and will require adjustments; both will mould our country, our economy and our political institutions into something very different to what they are today. But while the Leave side has relentlessly (and rightly) been grilled about its post-Brexit vision, the Remain camp has been shamefully let off the hook. It hasn’t had to explain how exactly it sees the EU evolving over the next decade or two, and what we would therefore be signing up to. Brexiteers have been confronted with the possible downsides of leaving; now Remainians must address the financial and political risks of staying. What are the alternatives if Britain leaves the EU? The starting point for any sensible discussion is to acknowledge that the EU is facing an ongoing economic and social crisis, and is desperate to deepen its integration further. Remain must tell us how this would impact the UK, and why it thinks that we would be better off dealing with the fallout inside, rather than outside, the EU. What, for example, will happen when the next Eurozone crisis erupts (and no, denying that there will be one isn’t good enough)? A new deal appears to have been cobbled together for Greece, but the real worry must be Italy, a country whose economy has not grown at all since 2000, which is crippled by 11.4 per cent unemployment and a massive national debt, and which could bring down the euro. Would we have to put our hands in our pockets directly when the next crisis erupts, or would the impact merely be indirect, reducing our exports to the region? It may be that the European Central Bank is forced to resort to helicopter money, but there is a very real danger that Germany would refuse to put up with that, destabilising the Continent. There are thus political risks wherever we look. Will Spain go populist? Will the current riots spiral out of control in France? Austria’s economy has been growing yet an extremist, authoritarian candidate grabbed 49.9 per cent of the vote at the presidential elections. What next? What is the chance of Marine Le Pen winning a presidential election in France, if not next year then in six years’ time, and waging all-out war on globalisation? What would the impact be on our economy and investments in France? Wouldn’t we be safer out? Eastern Europe has also started to elect unsavoury politicians: it may well be that the immigration crisis will tear the EU apart, especially when the Dublin convention on refugees is replaced by a quota system. Expanding the EU to include additional countries, which is very much Brussels’s plan, would exacerbate opposition to the free movement of people. Given all of this, Remain needs to explain why we wouldn’t be better off trying to diversify our economy towards more resilient parts of the world. The share of our exports that goes to the EU has already collapsed from 55 per cent in 1999 to 44 per cent last year – but shouldn’t we be trying to reduce this further and faster? If the eurozone succeeds in harmonising its fiscal policies and becoming more like a single entity, it may succeed in overriding British interests more effectively, which could be another reason for us to leave. The EU was always intended by its founders to be a process – a mechanism by which formerly independent European countries gradually bind themselves together into an ever-closer union. Crises were seen as useful flashpoints that would trigger a further push to integration, and its central institutions were deliberately designed to seek and accrue power. When I was growing up in France, it was made consistently clear that the EU was a political project that used economics as a tool of state-building; the single market was created because all countries have a free internal market, not because the EU’s founding fathers believed in international free trade. We used to be taught all of this openly and explicitly at school: the EU was the obvious, rational future, the only way war could be avoided and the best way to protect our social models from the ravages of “Anglo-Saxon” markets. There are therefore two possibilities if we vote to stay: eventual abrupt disintegration, or further EU integration. If the latter, how many more powers will we give up when the next treaty comes along, and how much “progress” will be made in critical areas like a European army, tax harmonisation, and the centralisation of justice and home affairs? Why haven’t voters been told ahead of June 23? The biggest, costliest and most immediate change after a Remain vote would be psychological. Forget about all the caveats: an In victory would be hailed as proof that Britain has finally ceased fighting its supposed European destiny. Our bluff would have been called in the most spectacular of fashions: after decades of dragging our feet, of being ungrateful Europeans, of extracting concessions, rebates and opt-outs, of trying to stand up for our interests, we would finally have hoisted the white flag. The idea that we would hold another referendum on the next treaty would simply be laughed out of town. Voting to Remain would thus be a geopolitical disaster for the UK, a historic failure. Comfortable, middle-class voters who are considering sticking with the devil they believe they know need to think again. Voting to remain is a far greater leap into the unknown than voting to leave. It’s self-evidently normal to be independent and prosperous: just look at America, Australia, Canada or Singapore. But there are no known examples of a previously independent democracy being subsumed into a dysfunctional, economically troubled technocracy and doing well as a result. As mad gambles go, it is hard to think of anything worse'
So, logically, once we leave the EU the cost of labour will go up. This is NOT a good thing, by the way. It will NOT create more jobs or wealth, in fact it will have the opposite effect, as the costs of UK businesses will increase and we will become less competitive. There are two important issues here:
1. Where will the labour come from for the jobs which Brits plainly don't want to do? When all the EU nationals go home, who will do the low paid work? Currently my business (and our associated businesses) cannot recruit enough staff - we are having to re-implement recruitment drives in Eastern Europe that we stopped three or four years ago. We are close to full employment!
2. The UK is an advanced economy. We should be welcoming low-skilled workers from overseas, and focussing our efforts on developing and training our own nationals to do the value-added jobs which generate wealth. This is the current plan. However, the Vote Leave campaign is proposing to STOP low-skilled immigrants from the rest of the EU, and introduce a points-based system to allow only higher-skilled workers in. This is the precise opposite of what we should be doing. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious!
someone talking a great deal of sense for a change.
You're the second UKIPer to post this. The other one posted it less than 2 hours ago.
Love the ending where he suddenly stops in mid-vitriol to say "Peace".
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,372
for context, 80% of the 773 responses. if we consider that most businesses do not infact have any direct business with EU, we could assume that the VAST majority of CBI members are in fact apathetic to membership. also that contribution of 0.5% of GDP is about the same as the predicted loss of GDP growth per year by 2030. and there is not certainty that we'd need to borrow more, with a direct cash saving and potential to grow the economy faster (a possibility always ignored by Remainers), reduce our borrowing. just for balance.
I liked Jones, who was waffling about how the EU protects workers rights, being stopped in his tracks by Hamilton reeling off the horrific unemployment stats in Greece, Italy and Spain.
If you're worried about the number of responses, you might as well ignore pretty much any poll or election. The Vote Leave campaign condemns the EU for being undemocratic, but our current government received votes from less than 25% of the electorate. The "turnout" will never be 100%. If you don't like the CBI figure, then check out the other polls of business organisations - the vast majority show a clear majority in favour of Remain.
And I'm not sure where your predicted GDP loss figure comes from - most independent forecasts put this at about 5% by 2020, reducing to around 4% by 2030.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,372
going by the PwC claim of GDP 6% lower by 2030 (which gets us the infamous £4300 per household claim), 6/15 is 0.4 per year (they baseline to 2015).
the point you over look with the survey is that the vast majority of businesses are not directly in business with EU, so the cohort that is likely to have any business interest to respond is far far smaller than in a general population polling. normally polling weights the results based on previous polling compared to known outcomes, here there is nothing to compare with.
GT49er
Well-known member
Brilliant article. All remainers should read it (but they probably won't).
Fitzcarraldo
Well-known member
- Nov 12, 2010
- 961
Even if they are not directly, the vast majority will be indirectly. If one of your supplier's prices go up because of new tariffs or a customer stops spending due to financial uncertainty you would still be affected indirectly by Brexit.
Bladders
Twats everywhere
Good article, unfortunately the already brainwashed head buriers are lost to the EU super project without even really knowing it.
Staying in the EU is a bigger leap into the dark by far than leaving.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk