[Politics] Brexit

[pastafarian]

In desperation we get the accusations that Leavers were anti Syrian, i remember posting that i had no problem with genuine Syrian refugees, no problem with 20000 genuine refugees as stated. I believe the vast majority of Leave supporters stated that they had no problem. The worry was seeing hordes of young fit men cascading across Europe.

Yes i remember you posting that.
I remember many people saying the number seemed about fair. I dont remember anyone on here saying the 20000 over 5 years or 4000 a year was excessive(would love to see proof this accusation is actually true),this wasnt just on NSC it seemed to be mirrored nationwide.

and yet someone on here claims many think its excessive.
its almost as if they have an unfounded agenda in which they want to label all leave voters as racist.

same old arguments and same old accusations........and nothing learned.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

People coming to study are included in the net figure have a look at the official stats! Also quite possibly the immigrant is better qualified to!

Which is the crux of the argument. Global capital wants the best qualified workers at the cheapest possible price. It is not interested in the social consequences, particularly for the vulnerable in our society. Yet another example of capitalists shouting about free markets but conveniently ignoring a large parts of the actual costs of their businesses. The EU is simply there to facilitate the interests of global capital and both use the racism accusation because they know it works.

 

[cunning fergus]

disagree, Corbyn as leader of the Labour party had a position to take a lead, if he had argued clearly for being in the EU he could have taken a significant number of Labour loyalists that way. as it was his position was vague and with a history of being anti-europe (against free movement of people or capital in principle), so most of his tribe where without leadership and went off to make up their own mind. great for the principle of direct democracy, not so great for the remain campaign. note, some of the same could be said for the Cameroon, if they'd argued for the EU instead of against leaving.

I don't really buy that, I have no doubt that there are many in the electorate who vote purely on party lines, and the guidance of the respective leadership are therefore important, however I don't think a more vigorous campaign by Corbyn would have changed anything in this case.

The long term trends in traditional working class labour seats has been a drift to UKIP, and given the binary choice in this case it was inevitable that Labour's messages would not find traction with their core voters. The death of Jo Cox had an effect in her constituency and wider but it was still enough.

Corbyn would have been better off campaigning out, which is what he has supported most of his political life.

Shame.

 

[cunning fergus]

The vote was extremely close, a 1% swing thats all. Blair would of course carried it

Yep, it was, however it was always likely to be close, polls before the vote indicated there was only 10-15% of the electorate that could be swayed either way.

The death of Jo Cox had a halting affect on the leave campaign's momentum, arguably the gap would have been larger.

As for Blair, you understand why he was not rolled out to front the campaign don't you?

 

[jaghebby]

Which is the crux of the argument. Global capital wants the best qualified workers at the cheapest possible price. It is not interested in the social consequences, particularly for the vulnerable in our society. Yet another example of capitalists shouting about free markets but conveniently ignoring a large parts of the actual costs of their businesses. The EU is simply there to facilitate the interests of global capital and both use the racism accusation because they know it works.

I think you are talking utter tosh! The majority of people running a business want the best qualified workers at the cheapest price! So your argument is that Brexit would mean leave the EU and the globe? One of the arguments of the remain campaign on the Labour side was that the EU was good for workers rights etc and standing up to globalisation but according to you it protects the interest of global capital? So whats to be done? I know bring in more rules to address the social consequences and protect the vulnerable! Damn that wont work because a big part of the leavers argument was to cut down on bureaucracy and red tape! What a conundrum!

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I think you are talking utter tosh! The majority of people running a business want the best qualified workers at the cheapest price! So your argument is that Brexit would mean leave the EU and the globe? One of the arguments of the remain campaign on the Labour side was that the EU was good for workers rights etc and standing up to globalisation but according to you it protects the interest of global capital? So whats to be done? I know bring in more rules to address the social consequences and protect the vulnerable! Damn that wont work because a big part of the leavers argument was to cut down on bureaucracy and red tape! What a conundrum!

I don't see any conundrum. If we are to live in a globalized economy as you seem to wish then if operating under a capitalist model all costs should be apportioned correctly in order to ensure market forces allocate capital correctly. However as per usual business wants capitalism when it suits (free movement of capital and Labour) but it wants other people to pay for its costs such as social and environmental problems. It also lobbies for special favors. If the world wants to try actual capitalism then that's one thing but not the crony, corrupt, special interest, inefficient version we have now.
You have misrepresented my argument. I am not arguing we should leave the 'EU and the globe.' I am arguing that our society should set the rules via democracy as an alternative to multinational companies setting them via the EU.
As to your mention of Labour's pro EU argument, well I disagree with that as well. They called it wrong as shown by huge numbers of Labour supporters voting to Leave.

 

[pastafarian]

I think you are talking utter tosh! The majority of people running a business want the best qualified workers at the cheapest price!

but it doesnt have to be this way,why celebrate cheap wages from EU countries, this helps no one.
I ran a business in a field that now relies near universily on cheap EU labour. This sector (hospitality) did not need to do this. I refused to employ europeans and never did. There are plenty of home grown talent looking for a job in this sector who are perfectly capable yet no one now gives them the time of day. Its laziness by employers looking for a quick cheap fix and not developing local talent who are by very nature more likely to remain in the area and not piss off somewhere else at the drop of a hat.

 

[Soulman]

Unfortunately for you the UK has a majority of "Brexit idiots".

Do you think you will ever get over the democratic result of the referendum?

Yes i remember you posting that.
I remember many people saying the number seemed about fair. I dont remember anyone on here saying the 20000 over 5 years or 4000 a year was excessive(would love to see proof this accusation is actually true),this wasnt just on NSC it seemed to be mirrored nationwide.

and yet someone on here claims many think its excessive.
its almost as if they have an unfounded agenda in which they want to label all leave voters as racist.

same old arguments and same old accusations........and nothing learned.

Correct

 

[Lincoln Imp]

I didnt say Johnson and Gove were guilty of that at all.
They didnt say the poster said " The Syrians are coming"
That was all you

I'm sure we all know that the poster didn't actually SAY that but that was its clear implication. And a reason why even Stabber Gove and Boris, the man who apparently never wanted Leave to win but thought a gallant failure would do his career a spot of good, were so critical of it.

 

[nicko31]

but it doesnt have to be this way,why celebrate cheap wages from EU countries, this helps no one.
I ran a business in a field that now relies near universily on cheap EU labour. This sector (hospitality) did not need to do this. I refused to employ europeans and never did. There are plenty of home grown talent looking for a job in this sector who are perfectly capable yet no one now gives them the time of day. Its laziness by employers looking for a quick cheap fix and not developing local talent who are by very nature more likely to remain in the area and not piss off somewhere else at the drop of a hat.

Sounds like you are selecting staff for the wrong reasons

A lot of employers employ Eastern Europeans not necessarily because they are cheap, its because they are hard working and stick at it. A friend of mine runs a fruit farm. Its hard work and actually well paid, but the locals aren't interested in getting up at 5am to pick Strawberries, without imported labour he wouldn't be able to supply Waitrose.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

for what its worth i dont think the 4000 a year is excessive . The 20000 promised over 5 years is about spot on. If it all runs smoothly there may even be scope for some more. Cant say i was aware that there was a significant number of people in the country that considered this figure excessive to constitute a label of "many".
There will of course be people that want zero......but surely a tiny minority

I have the feeling that you and Soulman think I am making this up.

I last heard a reference to many Britons thinking that providing sanctuary to 4000 Syrian family members a year was excessive a couple of weeks ago on a BBC news channel. My impression was that this was based on recent data but I can't locate it. I can offer this though:

Nearly half of Britons think we're taking too many Syrian refugees: Poll exposes gulf between opposition parties and public opinion
Senior Labour figures have demanded Britain take even more refugees
20,000 migrants welcome in the next five years, David Cameron said
45 per cent of adults questioned by YouGov poll said figure is too high

This was last year. As we've seen, views about migrants have hardly softened since.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Don't shoot the messenger. The racial slur was Farage's - his choice of a photo featuring non-Europeans must have been deliberate, intended to reach a market that might not be swayed by an image of Caucasians. Why else would he select a photo of people who weren't actually on their way to the UK? Why else would Gove shudder and Boris disassociate himself from it?

You ask what's not true about the poster. What's not true is its clear implication.

on another point what have Albania Montenegro and Croatia the next group to join got to offer APART FROM SPONGING MORE MONEY OUT OF US
regards
DR

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Oh. Didn't quote the source. YouGov and the Mail.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

on another point what have Albania Montenegro and Croatia the next group to join got to offer APART FROM SPONGING MORE MONEY OUT OF US
regards
DR

Puerile, but if we had remained members we could have stopped them joining anyway.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Puerile, but if we had remained members we could have stopped them joining anyway.

you didn't answer the question, a bit like Romania and Bulgaria
regards
DR

 

[ManOfSussex]

Croatia joined the EU 3 years ago.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Sounds like you are selecting staff for the wrong reasons

A lot of employers employ Eastern Europeans not necessarily because they are cheap, its because they are hard working and stick at it. A friend of mine runs a fruit farm. Its hard work and actually well paid, but the locals aren't interested in getting up at 5am to pick Strawberries, without imported labour he wouldn't be able to supply Waitrose.

The example of your friend's business of course on the face of it sounds perfectly reasonable. He/she is operating in an entirely rational way given the economic system in which we live. However if you aggregate all the businesses in the same position it is easier to see the skewed effect this has on the economy. Unskilled Labour is imported thereby suppressing wages for the low paid and in addition extra houses and schools etc need to be built. Your friends business, Waitrose and its customers are not contributing anything like the actual cost to society of their actions. I heard a lot of talk in the referendum campaign that unskilled immigration was a net contributer of tax/benefits but that conveniently ignores other costs that are more difficult to quantify such as public services.
I don't know if I was mistaken but I read into your post an implication that 'local' people were somehow too lazy to get out of bed to work. Perhaps that is a little unfair as they face UK costs and therefore have to go for higher paid jobs or end up in the benefit trap. It is a little easier when you are a single man and sending your money home to your family abroad ( obviously not all will be in this position but it is fairly commonplace).

 

[BigGully]

Sounds like you are selecting staff for the wrong reasons

A lot of employers employ Eastern Europeans not necessarily because they are cheap, its because they are hard working and stick at it. A friend of mine runs a fruit farm. Its hard work and actually well paid, but the locals aren't interested in getting up at 5am to pick Strawberries, without imported labour he wouldn't be able to supply Waitrose.

I love the way you casually undervalue our own workforce, have you been to Romanian its hardly a hotbed of an industrious workforce.

No matter what your mate says he loves those Romanians to come and do a hard days labour because they are cheap or at least comparatively so.

They are willing to work hard because the rewards are greater for a Romanian than they are for a UK citizen, each doing the same job at the same rates of pay deliver differing financial outcomes with a considerable incentive falling with the Romanian.

A single Romanian receiving the minimum wage here in the UK is receiving four and half times what they would back home and this increases to eight times for a family of four.

Even if they saved just 20% of their UK minimum income of say £50.00 that is equivalent to one and half times of a weeks minimum wage back in Romania.

So your mate is selfishly happy with their labour, but perhaps some poor UK fella who cannot access any unskilled jobs at a living wage may well see it differently.

 

[Soulman]

The example of your friend's business of course on the face of it sounds perfectly reasonable. He/she is operating in an entirely rational way given the economic system in which we live. However if you aggregate all the businesses in the same position it is easier to see the skewed effect this has on the economy. Unskilled Labour is imported thereby suppressing wages for the low paid and in addition extra houses and schools etc need to be built. Your friends business, Waitrose and its customers are not contributing anything like the actual cost to society of their actions. I heard a lot of talk in the referendum campaign that unskilled immigration was a net contributer of tax/benefits but that conveniently ignores other costs that are more difficult to quantify such as public services.
I don't know if I was mistaken but I read into your post an implication that 'local' people were somehow too lazy to get out of bed to work. Perhaps that is a little unfair as they face UK costs and therefore have to go for higher paid jobs or end up in the benefit trap. It is a little easier when you are a single man and sending your money home to your family abroad ( obviously not all will be in this position but it is fairly commonplace).

Good post

 

[Soulman]

I love the way you casually undervalue our own workforce, have you been to Romanian its hardly a hotbed of an industrious workforce.

No matter what your mate says he loves those Romanians to come and do a hard days labour because they are cheap or at least comparatively so.

They are willing to work hard because the rewards are greater for a Romanian than they are for a UK citizen, each doing the same job at the same rates of pay deliver differing financial outcomes with a considerable incentive falling with the Romanian.

A single Romanian receiving the minimum wage here in the UK is receiving four and half times what they would back home and this increases to eight times for a family of four.

Even if they saved just 20% of their UK minimum income of say £50.00 that is equivalent to one and half times of a weeks minimum wage back in Romania.

So your mate is selfishly happy with their labour, but perhaps some poor UK fella who cannot access any unskilled jobs at a living wage may well see it differently.

Another spot on post.