[Politics] Brexit

[cunning fergus]

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?

I said freedom of movement was madness not evil, albeit it facilitates the movement of people with evil intentions so maybe you have a point.

You are running around in circles here which is quite amusing and little wonder you struggle to digest more complex constructs when you can't digest simple issues like how to control markets generally, and what this means when applying control at a UK or EU level.

The EU is not a de facto state, but acts like one. I disagree with that.

Freedom of movement across the EU means no state can control its labour market. I disagree with that.

I agree that member states (individually or in the EU) should have the ability to control its own labour market, so where there are needs for labour these are effectively managed, meaning in practice there is no over supply.

This really is not complex. It's what other developed and prosperous countries do.

 

[Baldseagull]

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?

Be absolutely certain and find the post where I have said that please. I don't believe I have said quite what you are suggesting.
I think I posted something along the lines of preferring being a little poorer by having free movement, a notion I do not agree with when all things are taken into account, to being poorer because of high taxes for workers and low taxes for corporations.
The intended meaning being, aside from my belief that we will be far worse off post Brexit, the average guy will certainly not be any better off post Brexit, and the beneficiaries will be foreign and domestic corporations exploiting low taxation and lax labour laws, rather than an EU worker and his family.

 

[cunning fergus]

Be absolutely certain and find the post where I have said that please. I don't believe I have said quite what you are suggesting.
I think I posted something along the lines of preferring being a little poorer by having free movement, a notion I do not agree with when all things are taken into account, to being poorer because of high taxes for workers and low taxes for corporations.
The intended meaning being, aside from my belief that we will be far worse off post Brexit, the average guy will certainly not be any better off post Brexit, and the beneficiaries will be foreign and domestic corporations exploiting low taxation and lax labour laws, rather than an EU worker and his family.

I am not going to get all Agatha Christie on this, you know your view, and the reason we are engaged in this spat is because I responded to one of your posts concerning freedom of movement that we would never agree on the matter. I said I would always place the interests of British workers above those from foreign countries.

I would protect their wages by managing supply and demand, and if this is done properly this should also mean that they should see an increase in living and social conditions by not being in competition for schools housing etc.

If that meant poorer workers from poorer countries were not able to enter the UK so be it.

I don't think you feel the same........you want to buy the world a coke.

 

[Dave the OAP]

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.

I obviously couldn't give names, however we have customers putting us on notice that they are transferring out and therefore the company have taken the decision to open centres in Germany so mitigating the losses and hopefully getting new customers. Worrying for us based over here when the decisions are being made in the US!

 

[Baldseagull]

I said freedom of movement was madness not evil, albeit it facilitates the movement of people with evil intentions so maybe you have a point.

You are running around in circles here which is quite amusing and little wonder you struggle to digest more complex constructs when you can't digest simple issues like how to control markets generally, and what this means when applying control at a UK or EU level.

The EU is not a de facto state, but acts like one. I disagree with that.

Freedom of movement across the EU means no state can control its labour market. I disagree with that.

I agree that member states (individually or in the EU) should have the ability to control its own labour market, so where there are needs for labour these are effectively managed, meaning in practice there is no over supply.

This really is not complex. It's what other developed and prosperous countries do.

Not going in circles, just repeatedly asking the same question, as you keep ducking it.

What happens in other developed and prosperous countries is a free market for labour internally, you say this is something you are against though.
I keep asking how you achieve the control you want whilst not restricting the ability of a UK worker to relocate elsewhere in the UK. You keep dancing round it.

 

[GT49er]

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.

Dover (thus enshrining the rights of EU workers in the UK too)?

 

[Dave the OAP]

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

Unfortunately it already has. Some great leaving dos recently though. US Venture capitalists tend to view the long term and they have already made their minds up about Britain coming out of the EU.

We are disappointed but in our game you tend to be philosophical as customers come and go.

 

[ManOfSussex]

I obviously couldn't give names, however we have customers putting us on notice that they are transferring out and therefore the company have taken the decision to open centres in Germany so mitigating the losses and hopefully getting new customers. Worrying for us based over here when the decisions are being made in the US!

At the company I used to work for, one of their largest clients gave termination notice last month as they're shifting operations out of London. There will be redundancies there once they've gone. As I'm still friends with some of my ex-colleagues there I know some of them voted leave last year.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

...member states... should have the ability to control its own labour market, so where there are needs for labour these are effectively managed, meaning in practice there is no over supply.
This really is not complex. It's what other developed and prosperous countries do.

I would have thought that effectively managing labour needs so that there is in practice no over-supply (to lightly paraphrase you) is actually very complex. You suggest that controlling the supply of labour so that it matches the needs is simple; that achieving a state of 'no over supply' (which must mean zero-unemployment) is uncomplicated.

What other developed and prosperous countries have, as you claim, achieved this?

 

[Deleted member 22389]

At the company I used to work for, one of their largest clients gave termination notice last month as they're shifting operations out of London. There will be redundancies there once they've gone. As I'm still friends with some of my ex-colleagues there I know some of them voted leave last year.

Is the whole company shutting down?

 

[ManOfSussex]

Is the whole company shutting down?

It's an American company, as is their client who's moving operations out of The UK. As all major decisions there seem to be made in The US, plus the fact I don't work for them anymore, I can't answer your question I'm afraid.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Is the whole company shutting down?

Reading between the lines I'm guessing that it is only those serving the particular account that are going out the door for the time being. One of my family works for an agency that has a major client now intending to move to Frankfurt. He'll be all right. More or less. As long as he doesn't want a rise. They'll stagger on.

 

[cunning fergus]

Not going in circles, just repeatedly asking the same question, as you keep ducking it.

What happens in other developed and prosperous countries is a free market for labour internally, you say this is something you are against though.
I keep asking how you achieve the control you want whilst not restricting the ability of a UK worker to relocate elsewhere in the UK. You keep dancing round it.

I have not ducked anything, I have responded to you clearly.

The vast majority of developed countries around the world place restrictions on who can work in their countries whilst not placing restrictions on their own citizens internally. The EU's freedom of movement principle is an outlier not the norm.

If you are unable to internally process this relatively simple position I cannot help you.

 

[cunning fergus]

I would have thought that effectively managing labour needs so that there is in practice no over-supply (to lightly paraphrase you) is actually very complex. You suggest that controlling the supply of labour so that it matches the needs is simple; that achieving a state of 'no over supply' (which must mean zero-unemployment) is uncomplicated.

What other developed and prosperous countries have, as you claim, achieved this?

I don't know whether you are being naive or intransigent but do you honestly think you can move to any non-EU country you want to and start working there legally without a by-your-leave from the authorities?

The conditions placed by some countries on foreigners is not just to control their labour market, it is also to prevent bad people from turning up to harm their citizens.

Given your unequivocal commitment to EU freedom of movement I know you may need some time to process that information...........in you own time.

 

[brighton fella]

Not going in circles, just repeatedly asking the same question, as you keep ducking it.

What happens in other developed and prosperous countries is a free market for labour internally, you say this is something you are against though.
I keep asking how you achieve the control you want whilst not restricting the ability of a UK worker to relocate elsewhere in the UK. You keep dancing round it.

Why do you make things so bleeding complicated.
Citizens of their own respected countries should be given priorities at any cost especially when it comes to work and foreign workers. the foreign worker therefore and rightly so should receive restrictions...

 

[studio150]

I don't know whether you are being naive or intransigent but do you honestly think you can move to any non-EU country you want to and start working there legally without a by-your-leave from the authorities?

The conditions placed by some countries on foreigners is not just to control their labour market, it is also to prevent bad people from turning up to harm their citizens.

Given your unequivocal commitment to EU freedom of movement I know you may need some time to process that information...........in you own time.

Im sure @LincolnImp will respond with his own thoughts if he wants to. Having read this exchange on the control of labour it would seem to me that you are following the example set by some other leave voters by answering a question but not the one asked.

You have previously stated that you would control the internal labour market to ensure that the workers aren't poorly paid. To avhieve this you gave stated that youwould control demand thereby ensuring workers would renain employed with wages that improve living standards.

You have not explained how this would be achieved, nor have you given any examples of countries where this is successfully achieved and how it is achieved.

One additional question on this utopia. How does it promote technology advancements which would reduce the need for labour in that sector.

As an example on Chinese railwaysthey previously employed thousands of workers to stand by the track at regular distances holding a flag to wave the train through.

In terms of wages in this example it doesn't matter whether more or less trains run as the worker with the flag will still be paid to be by the track.
The Chinese then decide to introduce autonatic signalling So that signals replace all The flag track workers.
You now have thousands and thousands of unemployed workers whose only skill is to wave a flag when a train arrives.
So what do you do with these workers that arenow out if work. Do you have to pay them benefits to thesame level of their pay justtosit at home.
Or Do you say that there are vacancies in a town 250 miles away whete you will be retrained. However the ex track workers dont want to change areas.

How woyld your utopia deal with this?

 

[brighton fella]

Im sure @LincolnImp will respond with his own thoughts if he wants to. Having read this exchange on the control of labour it would seem to me that you are following the example set by some other leave voters by answering a question but not the one asked.

You have previously stated that you would control the internal labour market to ensure that the workers aren't poorly paid. To avhieve this you gave stated that youwould control demand thereby ensuring workers would renain employed with wages that improve living standards.

You have not explained how this would be achieved, nor have you given any examples of countries where this is successfully achieved and how it is achieved.

One additional question on this utopia. How does it promote technology advancements which would reduce the need for labour in that sector.

As an example on Chinese railwaysthey previously employed thousands of workers to stand by the track at regular distances holding a flag to wave the train through.

In terms of wages in this example it doesn't matter whether more or less trains run as the worker with the flag will still be paid to be by the track.
The Chinese then decide to introduce autonatic signalling So that signals replace all The flag track workers.
You now have thousands and thousands of unemployed workers whose only skill is to wave a flag when a train arrives.
So what do you do with these workers that arenow out if work. Do you have to pay them benefits to thesame level of their pay justtosit at home.
Or Do you say that there are vacancies in a town 250 miles away whete you will be retrained. However the ex track workers dont want to change areas.

How woyld your utopia deal with this?

I think you are nitpicking and just like the other poster did you are making a meal over nothing, some things are unfortunate and whether you like it or not there is no easy solution to it plus it is virtually impossible to please all,
The crux of it is and above all else is that it is our governments duty to prioritize British jobs first and foremost.above that of anyone else. now how they go about that is for them to work out. after all it is their job.

 

[studio150]

I think you are nitpicking and just like the other poster did you are making a meal over nothing, some things are unfortunate and whether you like it or not there is no easy solution to it plus it is virtually impossible to please all,
The crux of it is and above all else is that it is our governments duty to prioritize British jobs first and foremost.above that of anyone else. now how they go about that is for them to work out. after all it is their job.

I don't see it as nit picking. We currently live in a free society which is based around free enterprise. The OP has stated that he wants far more intervention by Government to control supply and demand to control wages and employment. The OP has stated that this is easy to do and many countries do this.
However when asked how and where there is silence.
All there is, which you have repeated is British workers should be placed 1st over everyone else.

Just on one level how does this get round discrimination legislation or are we now saying that gets ripped up to be replaced by positive discrimination.

So this would mean Bruno Uwe Kayal Hemed all out as they are taking British jobs.

With America 1st UK 1st isolation rules.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The OP has stated that he wants far more intervention by Government to control supply and demand to control wages and employment. The OP has stated that this is easy to do and many countries do this.

Burma? North Korea?

 

[studio150]

Burma? North Korea?

Probably, those free countries which have great models to follow