[Politics] Brexit

[studio150]

I know this wasn't a reply to me but I'd support a minimum wage for electricians, aligned with regular training and quality controls.

I don't disagree with raising standards the main point I was making was why the moaning about being undercut by someone from the EU given that's it no different to being undercut by someone from the next town.

If you look at the demise of rail cargo movements during the post war years this was mainly due to the fact that road carriers quoted lower prices.

It is therefore the fact that electricans are unable to promote their value (cost x quality) over a lower price. But this will always be cases where they miss out for example a new electrician looking to build his customer base and to become known is likely to quote a lower price.

I just don't accept the bleating that we've lost out to EU electricians so we must be protected so we can raise prices.

 

[daveinprague]

I dont believe in the EU citizens doing electricians jobs and driving down prices when theres actually a shortage of skilled electricians in the country. Would like to see some evidence of this.

 

[Dave the OAP]

....unfortunately for some of our current and future employees, our parents in the us have taken the decision to cancel their plans to open two centres in the U.K.citing brexit , and chosen to open in Germany instead. That is a real blow to us. It looks as though these decisions are being driven by the bank's decisions to move to Frankfurt. I really hope not as what is left of the uk business depends on the financial sector remaining fully in the uk.

On a happier note, this weekend, we were told that there is a move afoot to negotiate some sort of " European citizenship" visa agreement which would help a lot of us who have to travel to Europe for work. A bit like the ESTA form with US immigration?

 

[sir albion]

EU membership has not suppressed wages.

Free movement generates economic growth which creates jobs for the working class.

Growth that benefits who?big business?
Suppressed wages happen when you have loads of people competing for jobs and this also means it's great news for big business.To many people equals big big problems.

Most company's know they can get super cheap staff and get rid and replace them in a flash

Many people were earning more 20 + years ago...
In warehousing many basic jobs are 5k less now than 20 years ago

It's not the migrants fault it's the greed of big business....by letting in many immigrants is basically just feeding big business.If this wasn't the case then the government wouldn't have huge austerity cuts year after year and the actual infrastructure would improve vastly.Immigration isn't actually benefiting this country as much as people think and don't get me started on the housing crisis and hideous rents.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

I see.

So here is a post where I am reinforcing my view that I am against free unfettered markets, and lassiez faire capitalism, all perfectly clear as far as I am concerned. We know full well that the last global financial crisis was a consequence of weak regulation primarily in the US, UK and in some other countries. It's why Ed Balls eventually apologised for not regulating financial services properly and a Parliamentary committee investigating the collapse of HBOS were scathing about the FSA and the influence of powerful business leaders had over politicians and regulators. Dare I even mention SIR Fred Goodwin........whatever ever happened to him?

So, now we have established why markets need effective regulation let's look at the UK and EU labour market specifically. As we know, the free movement of people across the EU offers neither the state or the EU any ability to manage its logistical architecture to deal with internal people flows (housing, schools etc.). This is clearly madness as a state that is receiving migration inflows of 600k p.a. like the UK has in recent years cannot effectively plan to manage this dynamic......it's simply impossible.

By sticking with the principle of freedom of movement the EU cannot effectively plan to manage the dynamic either. Predictably the trend seen in recent years is that people from poor EU countries are moving to richer EU countries, and the consequences for these countries (like Greece which has lost 500k of its skilled young people) are equally profound.

However, and this point is key, controlling the UK's labour market does not equate to internal restrictions on UK workers, I have not expressly stated that because that is not what I am advocating..........if anyone genuinely did think I was then I would have expected a come-back before now. No one did so I am happy my point was clear enough.

It is a FACT that the vast majority of international countries do not allow foreigners to reside and work in their countries without visas and therefore control. The same countries do not restrict their citizens movements internally.

So, there it is..........as you are so interested I can knock you up a PPT presentation if you are still struggling with the concept.

Given that you had essentially said: "The freedom of labour is the worst example of this (ie free markets) because quite evidently not being able to manage supply and demand is disastrous... Therefore my view would apply within a state or as with the EU across a group of states" your explanation above seems very thin to me, as it might to any reasonable person. Patronise and rant away as much as you like in your response.

 

[Baldseagull]

I see.

So here is a post where I am reinforcing my view that I am against free unfettered markets, and lassiez faire capitalism, all perfectly clear as far as I am concerned. We know full well that the last global financial crisis was a consequence of weak regulation primarily in the US, UK and in some other countries. It's why Ed Balls eventually apologised for not regulating financial services properly and a Parliamentary committee investigating the collapse of HBOS were scathing about the FSA and the influence of powerful business leaders had over politicians and regulators. Dare I even mention SIR Fred Goodwin........whatever ever happened to him?

So, now we have established why markets need effective regulation let's look at the UK and EU labour market specifically. As we know, the free movement of people across the EU offers neither the state or the EU any ability to manage its logistical architecture to deal with internal people flows (housing, schools etc.). This is clearly madness as a state that is receiving migration inflows of 600k p.a. like the UK has in recent years cannot effectively plan to manage this dynamic......it's simply impossible.

By sticking with the principle of freedom of movement the EU cannot effectively plan to manage the dynamic either. Predictably the trend seen in recent years is that people from poor EU countries are moving to richer EU countries, and the consequences for these countries (like Greece which has lost 500k of its skilled young people) are equally profound.
However, and this poin
t is key, controlling the UK's labour market does not equate to internal restrictions on UK workers, I have not expressly stated that because that is not what I am advocating..........if anyone genuinely did think I was then I would have expected a come-back before now. No one did so I am happy my point was clear enough.

It is a FACT that the vast majority of international countries do not allow foreigners to reside and work in their countries without visas and therefore control. The same countries do not restrict their citizens movements internally.

So, there it is..........as you are so interested I can knock you up a PPT presentation if you are still struggling with the concept.

3 paragraphs of why the free movement of labour is evil, then one saying it isn't, as long as it is UK internal. This is quite different to what you posted in response to Lincoln Imp, FACT.

Quite clearly, LI asked you why you were adverse to an EU wide free market, but not so to a UK wide free market.
Your response highlighted Labour as the most problematic free market, and went on to say that your opinion holds for both a nation state and a bloc such as the EU.

Now you are adding a layer previously absent, saying that both need controls, but the method will be different. I am guessing you would advocate work visas for EU citizens, but what method of control is it you have up your sleeve for UK workers, that also places no restrictions on them as you have stated?

 

[beorhthelm]

... It looks as though these decisions are being driven by the bank's decisions to move to Frankfurt.

really, what bank is moving to Frankfurt? i read banks are reviewing moving some operations somewhere in Europe, with a bun fight emerging between many nations as to who might pick up that bit of work.

 

[cunning fergus]

Given that you had essentially said: "The freedom of labour is the worst example of this (ie free markets) because quite evidently not being able to manage supply and demand is disastrous... Therefore my view would apply within a state or as with the EU across a group of states" your explanation above seems very thin to me, as it might to any reasonable person. Patronise and rant away as much as you like in your response.

I stand by what I posted, I think you are specifically challenging what I meant with reference to "within the state" and I have provided due clarity on that in my previous post.

I'm not ranting you asked for an explanation and I have provided it.

You can either accept it or not, however I would always be on record as stating that seizing back control of the UK labour market would be to protect the interests of UK workers.

Placing internal restrictions on their rights to find work anywhere in the UK would evidently be inconsistent with that objective.

In contrast Bald Seagull expressly stated that he is comfortable that UK workers rights are not given protection above and beyond other foreign workers......that is why I posted that we will never agree, and why you carried out this check. And therefore we are neatly back to where we started.

Bald Seagull does not care about the rights of British workers.......FACT.

 

[Baldseagull]

Yes it has, you are fighting a battle that has already been fought.......and you lost. Get over it.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...kers-do-best-when-labour-supply-is-controlled

You are free to continue to argue your Tory narrative though like Ken Clarke, however for the economically sane, we know that on this specific matter you are simply wrong.

Len McClusky shares some views with Ken Clarke.https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/01/len-mccluskey-ford-unite-tariff-free-single-market-access-bridgend

 

[cunning fergus]

Len McClusky shares some views with Ken Clarke.https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/01/len-mccluskey-ford-unite-tariff-free-single-market-access-bridgend

And your point is.......

 

[Baldseagull]

I stand by what I posted, I think you are specifically challenging what I meant with reference to "within the state" and I have provided due clarity on that in my previous post.

I'm not ranting you asked for an explanation and I have provided it.

You can either accept it or not, however I would always be on record as stating that seizing back control of the UK labour market would be to protect the interests of UK workers.

Placing internal restrictions on their rights to find work anywhere in the UK would evidently be inconsistent with that objective.

In contrast Bald Seagull expressly stated that he is comfortable that UK workers rights are not given protection above and beyond other foreign workers......that is why I posted that we will never agree, and why you carried out this check. And therefore we are neatly back to where we started.

Bald Seagull does not care about the rights of British workers.......FACT.

I care about the rights of British workers, but also EU workers, it comes down to where you want to draw the border of caring.

 

[Baldseagull]

And your point is.......

That he is as inconsistent in his thinking as you are. Wants British workers to have greater access to the jobs in the UK than an EU citizen, but wants to sell those products to EU citizens without tariffs, doesn't seem fair does it?

 

[studio150]

....unfortunately for some of our current and future employees, our parents in the us have taken the decision to cancel their plans to open two centres in the U.K.citing brexit , and chosen to open in Germany instead. That is a real blow to us. It looks as though these decisions are being driven by the bank's decisions to move to Frankfurt. I really hope not as what is left of the uk business depends on the financial sector remaining fully in the uk.

On a happier note, this weekend, we were told that there is a move afoot to negotiate some sort of " European citizenship" visa agreement which would help a lot of us who have to travel to Europe for work. A bit like the ESTA form with US immigration?

Let's hope there are no job losses for current employees, it must be worrying times for many at the present time that work in the financial sector.

While a visa agreement would be welcomed, the assumption would be that it comes at a cost and is not open ended but would as an example enable travel to the EU for a period of 2 years without needing to apply for a work visa each time.

It would however add to the costs of the business which they don't currently have given free movement

 

[Baldseagull]

I stand by what I posted, I think you are specifically challenging what I meant with reference to "within the state" and I have provided due clarity on that in my previous post.

I'm not ranting you asked for an explanation and I have provided it.

You can either accept it or not, however I would always be on record as stating that seizing back control of the UK labour market would be to protect the interests of UK workers.

Placing internal restrictions on their rights to find work anywhere in the UK would evidently be inconsistent with that objective.

In contrast Bald Seagull expressly stated that he is comfortable that UK workers rights are not given protection above and beyond other foreign workers......that is why I posted that we will never agree, and why you carried out this check. And therefore we are neatly back to where we started.

Bald Seagull does not care about the rights of British workers.......FACT.

You provided no clarity, you just said that the logical conclusion that both I and Lincoln Imp reached was incorrect, and that you had some method other than work visas for controlling the flow of UK workers from low economic areas to higher ones.
Really not clear how are you going to do it, and simultaneously have no restrictions on UK workers?

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Bald Seagull does not care about the rights of British workers.......FACT.

Your meaning was unclear and you are using semantics and bluster to wriggle out of it. Bald Seagull is able to fight his own battles but your closing line (above) shows you really are your own worst enemy sometimes.

 

[cunning fergus]

I care about the rights of British workers, but also EU workers, it comes down to where you want to draw the border of caring.

I'm pretty certain you posted that if British workers were a little poorer as a consequence of a free labour market you would accept that, plus you didn't want to exclude foreigners from the UK labour market.

I could not disagree more because I would ensure the rights of UK workers are protected first and foremost.

Other countries can protect their own workers........that is how it works pretty much everywhere else outside the EU. Even the most capitialist country in the world controls its labour market. That's one of the reasons Trump was elected wasn't it?

 

[cunning fergus]

Your meaning was unclear and you are using semantics and bluster to wriggle out of it. Bald Seagull is able to fight his own battles but your closing line (above) shows you really are your own worst enemy sometimes.

No I am not, you have just stated yourself that my meaning was unclear.....so I have explained it.

It would appear that you either don't except the explanation or don't understand the expIanation because you are saying I am using semantics to wriggle out of it?

What is it am I wriggling out of?

 

[cunning fergus]

You provided no clarity, you just said that the logical conclusion that both I and Lincoln Imp reached was incorrect, and that you had some method other than work visas for controlling the flow of UK workers from low economic areas to higher ones.
Really not clear how are you going to do it, and simultaneously have no restrictions on UK workers?

The UK will apply the same controls that most other countries use to control their labour markets.

I think you know full well what this means, I work for a company which regularly moves its senior staff around the world, and those staff can't just leave one country on a Friday and start on a Monday.

They needs to obtain visas and satisfy other local requirements......it's how things work out there in the real world.

 

[cunning fergus]

That he is as inconsistent in his thinking as you are. Wants British workers to have greater access to the jobs in the UK than an EU citizen, but wants to sell those products to EU citizens without tariffs, doesn't seem fair does it?

McClusky considers that UK labour market controls will serve UK workers interests better than under the EU's freedom of movement arrangement, and he is correct. No muddled thinking there.

If the EU then seeks to impose tariffs on products and services from the UK because that is what the UK electorate wants, then jobs will be lost in the UK and the EU.

That is common sense.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

No I am not, you have just stated yourself that my meaning was unclear.....so I have explained it.

It would appear that you either don't except the explanation or don't understand the expIanation because you are saying I am using semantics to wriggle out of it?

What is it am I wriggling out of?

I used the word 'unclear' to be gentle. 'Completely misleading' might have been a better choice. You have now told me what you actually meant to say. I accept that you have put it right.