The European Union: in or out?

[Eeyore68]

Re: RE: The European Union: in or out?

In. But only if the EU is a true one man / woman one vote.

IMO that would be an unfair disadvantage for the smaller countries.

 

[PhilD]

The issue that has negatively affected most people is the uncontrolled immigration, though it doesn't seem to have been discussed here; perhaps TSR members are typically more successful in life and have been insulated from its negative effects.

But for the working poor in the UK it has been yet another blow – ironically from the very political party that was set up to represent their interests. An endless supply of cheap, non-unionised labour. How the Blair-Brown government was allowed to get away with taking the 13,000 immigrants per year figure made up by the CBI and use that to justify not managing the prospect of 39 million Poles suddenly having access to the labour market is still incredible. In a country with an already creaking public infrastructure and dearth of affordable housing, the mismanagement was at best incompetent, at worst, downright reckless.

We are now told to believe that the (untold) millions of immigrants have not displaced any British workers from the jobs market. Words fail me...

 

[Johnus]

Following this thread mainly because of what's happening in the Ukraine. Isn't one of the reasons why the EU is interested the Ukraine is its geographic location and the issue of the immigration from the countries around there. Wouldn't the Ukraine,as a new part of the EU, be seen as a closer more desirable destination for these migrants rather than the rest of Western Europe ?

 

[mattlad]

The issue that has negatively affected most people is the uncontrolled immigration, though it doesn't seem to have been discussed here; perhaps TSR members are typically more successful in life and have been insulated from its negative effects.

But for the working poor in the UK it has been yet another blow – ironically from the very political party that was set up to represent their interests. An endless supply of cheap, non-unionised labour. How the Blair-Brown government was allowed to get away with taking the 13,000 immigrants per year figure made up by the CBI and use that to justify not managing the prospect of 39 million Poles suddenly having access to the labour market is still incredible. In a country with an already creaking public infrastructure and dearth of affordable housing, the mismanagement was at best incompetent, at worst, downright reckless.

We are now told to believe that the (untold) millions of immigrants have not displaced any British workers from the jobs market. Words fail me...

I think you are right about TSR members are insulated from the negative effects. In my case I was actually exposed to the positive effects. For 27 years I worked in the motor-trade, I owned and ran a car repair garage. A few years before I closed the business (2010) I took on a Polish mechanic, he was streets ahead in terms of motivation and resourcefulness as well as general ability. If I had carried on with the business I would have been more than happy ease out the indigenous workforce and replace them with either Poles or other Eastern Europeans. The simple fact is that they are better motivated and better educated.

I used to have a steady stream of people (mostly school leavers) enquiring about jobs. Local schools used to send pupils to me for work experience and I used to receive college placements too. I reckoned that 75% of these people were unsuitable to do any job. I remember Tony Blair's "Education education education" speech, he talked the talk but I saw precious little, if any delivery.

Ironically it was Gordon Brown's car scrappage scheme that was the final blow for my business. It may have done wonders for Hyundai's (new) sales figures but you don't get new cars serviced or repaired so that was me and my workforce shafted.........

So back to the OP, Europe, in or out......? Not really sure, I would like the UK to be part of Europe but I have concerns about the lack of accountability and democracy within the EU. So if major reforms are implemented in, if not, out.

 

[Count of Undolpho]

Immigration is another one of those check the statistics and stories things. It gets twisted to suit the needs of both sides.
Net migration is positive again at the moment which means we are getting more crowded, which I'm not a fan of.
On the jobs/pay side of things migrants are so low on my list of causes for the present state of affairs I find it hard to get upset about it.

Millions told
By ONS estimates so make of that what you will. The top 10 in 2011 held some surprises to me - because I live in Yorkshire?
Who knew there were so many Germans here?

---

...rather than down the necks of your jack booted friends? Give it a break, your contributions on this matter are more than tedious.

And where is your contribution - in 6 pages of posts I don't see any opinion from you? As to jack booted friends, read my posts - there's nothing extreme or right wing in them.

He was probably confusing your (in partnership with Vinnie) Tony Benn fishing expeditions with your replies on this thread due to the crossover in subject matter.
As stated the comment was undeserved by your contributions to this thread.

 

[Rev-O]

Wouldn't the Ukraine, as a new part of the EU, be seen as a closer more desirable destination for these migrants rather than the rest of Western Europe ?

You ever been to the Ukraine?

I have. Given the choice I'd rather live in the UK than the Ukraine.

 

[PhilD]

If I had carried on with the business I would have been more than happy ease out the indigenous workforce and replace them with either Poles or other Eastern Europeans. The simple fact is that they are better motivated and better educated.

I used to have a steady stream of people (mostly school leavers) enquiring about jobs. Local schools used to send pupils to me for work experience and I used to receive college placements too. I reckoned that 75% of these people were unsuitable to do any job. I remember Tony Blair's "Education education education" speech, he talked the talk but I saw precious little, if any delivery.

Interesting to read your post. I appreciate the frustration that must be felt by employers who are unable to recruit from within the UK. I guess some of this will be a hangover from the traditional industrial employers no longer offering the kind of hands-on job training that was once available. The trouble I see is that by taking on Eastern Yerp's tradesmen rather than offering our own young people traditional apprenticeships, we are consigning a generation to the scrapheap. Why is any small employer going to want to train up our own people when they have EU's finest on tap? They will be highly motivated because they are earning four times what they would in their own country.

Ironically it was Gordon Brown's car scrappage scheme that was the final blow for my business. It may have done wonders for Hyundai's (new) sales figures but you don't get new cars serviced or repaired so that was me and my workforce shafted.........

Good grief, didn't realise that was an effect from the scrappage scheme. I do remember there being long waiting lists for the i10 and i20 though, as you suggest. The laws of unintended consequences...

Immigration is another one of those check the statistics and stories things. It gets twisted to suit the needs of both sides.
Net migration is positive again at the moment which means we are getting more crowded, which I'm not a fan of.

Agreed, Count, one needs to be wary of the stats. But nett migration has always been positive as this BBC chart shows:

On the jobs/pay side of things migrants are so low on my list of causes for the present state of affairs I find it hard to get upset about it.

Millions told
By ONS estimates so make of that what you will.

---

---

[/quote]

Those data are extrapolated from the 2001 census. The main expansion of the EU involving ten member states including Poland occurred three years later in 2004. Also, do the figures include estimates for the numbers of illegal immigrants who were smuggled in? I twice witnessed people jumping out of the back of foreign trucks in laybys so wouldn't underestimate this number.

Further, it appears that the Border Agency's ability to measure and record traffic has been unreliable, particularly during the Balkans conflict when many Eastern Europeans gained entry by posing as Kosovan refugees. During this time, and later, NI numbers were handed out like boiled sweets. I wouldn't expect many in these categories to fill out census forms, either. So that's why I indicated that the true numbers are not known.

 

[Rev-O]

Well I'm the son of an immigrant so . . .

Two things to remember about net migration: 1. it's cumulative 2. they breed (see me as an example) - and perhaps above the average, too.

So the rolling effect going forward is quite significant.

That said, I'm not opposed to immigration at all - but we do need some mechanism of control (maybe even to balance in/out and have no net migration or emigration). Being in the EU means we can't do that. If we were out of the EU we could take more of the real international refugees who need help rather just hosting intra-european economic expats (Polish plumbers et al)

I don't know. :-(

 

[Count of Undolpho]

Agreed, Count, one needs to be wary of the stats. But nett migration has always been positive as this BBC chart shows:

Only since 1993 or there abouts. We were pretty much exporters of population (to the Commonwealth as was) up until the 50's when we imported from the Commonwealth instead.
Net Migration 1975 to 2013

Those data are extrapolated from the 2001 census. The main expansion of the EU involving ten member states including Poland occurred three years later in 2004. Also, do the figures include estimates for the numbers of illegal immigrants who were smuggled in? I twice witnessed people jumping out of the back of foreign trucks in laybys so wouldn't underestimate this number.

Further, it appears that the Border Agency's ability to measure and record traffic has been unreliable, particularly during the Balkans conflict when many Eastern Europeans gained entry by posing as Kosovan refugees. During this time, and later, NI numbers were handed out like boiled sweets. I wouldn't expect many in these categories to fill out census forms, either. So that's why I indicated that the true numbers are not known.

Whilst I take your point, the ONS figures are at least extrapolated from objective data.
Most estimates for illegals place the number at much less than a million including children born here to illegals. Again none of the figures available are exact but are the best estimates by both government and independent researchers, the Government estimates are the lower ones you'll be surprised to know...

As I stated above I am no fan of overcrowding and we are already heading for trouble due to the raised life expectancy we now enjoy.
It's the how we go about curbing immigration whilst retaining an adequate workforce and skill base as well as our humanity that interests me.

 

[Jeltz]

Two things to remember about net migration: 1. it's cumulative 2. they breed (see me as an example) - and perhaps above the average, too.

So the rolling effect going forward is quite significant.

The untold reason for the current level of migration is that we have seen the birthrates drop amongst the indigenous population (whoever they are and wherever they came from originally) to below 2 children per family. Which means is that 2 adults are producing fewer than 2 future adults (or taxpayers) which would cause a declining working population, while at the same time advances in medical science are finding new ways to keep us alive for longer.

As such for the long term management of society they are importing new citizens to pay tax now and produce children who will in the future pay tax to support us the elderly of tomorrow. This is because National Insurance contains no aspect of insurance in so much as no money paid today is invested in the future, what is collected now is spent now.

On average recent immigrants are nett contributors to society i.e. they pay tax and cost society less than they pay in, after all they are economic migrants, so the are here to earn money! While on the other hand the indigenous population are making a negative contribution, also know as the budget deficit.

Europe seems to aspires to be a federal unit so the idea of uncontrolled movement within the EU is totally rational i.e. we are not British, French, Romanian etc we are all Europeans and if that is the case then why should there be any restriction on where you work. Now that is fine if there is reasonably close parity between the nations economically, however when a doctor can earn more money doing unskilled work in the UK than they can as a medical professional "at home" then it is harmful to their country as it creates a brain drain. Having the same currency helps to iron out the differences in the cost of labour and living in different countries so the Euro facilitates that economic homogeneity but that very mechanism also reduces the ability of less developed economies to grow by out competing their more developed neighbour on price, so the richer countries become protected. i.e. France and Germany will have less industrial competition then they might have done if poorer Eastern European and Mediterranean had kept their own currency. But that is a different discussion......

Anyway, I think that properly controlled migration from within or outside the EU is required with benefits or healthcare only available to those who have made a contribution. I also think that the international community need to strike deals with poorer countries to prevent people leaving those countries and taking vital skills out with them.

 

[Rev-O]

+1 on that ^

Top stuff there.

I'm pro-immigration *in an ideal world* - but just as the free market isn't really as transparent and liquid as vodka or gin (cartels, tariffs, insider trading etc.) likewise the "free flow" of people isn't really all that "free" or "flowing"

In the absence of the ideal we must return to (and refine) the real; for me, that means getting out of an opaque, corrupt, inefficient and unequal Europe.

 

[shavecraft]

All things considered it's In for me. Though in a ideal world I'd like to see it significantly reformed. Things I don't like - CAP, CFP (though thankfully a bit less insane after the recent reforms), the democratic deficit, the folly of foisting the DM on everybody else. Things I like - keeping the peace between members, collective clout on the world stage, the common market and a pan-European regulatory and legislative level playing field on matters like the environment and trade, free movement.

Having played our hand very badly over the years when it comes to shaping the EU in our own interests we need to push far harder for the EU we'd like to see. We've more in common with Germany on many matters than the Germans and French see eye to eye over yet have managed to let the Franco-German axis wield the dominant influence.

 

[UKRob]

@shavecraft. It seems to me that the French will not be inclined to cede any ground to the UK voluntarily so the threat of leaving may be required in order to achieve the kind of reforms you mention. Even then, as an agricultural based economy, I can see French Farmers fighting all the way to preserve the status quo - and we know that they can be very militant. I'm not joking here - but I wouldn't like to be a British ex-pat living in a rural community in the event that a withdrawal was used as leverage. Probably less danger if you are Scottish - but they might not be part of Britain then anyway. Just to create some cross-thread comment.:sleepy:

 

[shavecraft]

@Rob. I agree with you about the French being the main block on reform of the CAP. It's one of the main areas I think we should seek to line up with the Germans on. That 40% or so of the entire EU budget should go on endlessly subsidising agriculture is pure lunacy and screams that the agricultural and foodstuffs market is utterly dysfunctional - but that's a whole new topic. In short I'd like to see root and branch reform of CAP going as far as removal of all subsidies except perhaps the very targeted and short-term, but that can't be done without contemporaneously reforming the market to to ensure the balance of power is tilted toward the farmer so that they can be paid a fair price for producing what the end-customer wants. The market needs to be much more connected with what the end-customer actually wants, mass open-ended subsidisation subverts that process. If the market were reformed to give producers a fair crack of the whip then the arguments against reform of the CAP can be dismantled. Within that context farmers that can produce what the customer wants at the right price will thrive, those that can't won't, such is the way of the world. It becomes much more a matter of addressing the fear of change at that point. Oh for politicians who could lead us in the direction of common sense in such matters.

Something like Hugh's Fish Fight to campaign on the worst offending aspects of CAP might be a place to start.

 

[Count of Undolpho]

You might find the Welsh reluctant to lose their share (as noted above).

 

[shavecraft]

You might find the Welsh reluctant to lose their share (as noted above).

And I dare say the Spanish, Italians, Greeks...too. It's just about snouts in an available trough. That's why I see market reform to give farmers a fair crack of the whip in the market rather than being at the mercy of the supermarkets, Big Food etc as an essential enabling element in CAP reform.