Off Topic EU deabte. Which way are you voting ?

To be honest, the original post held so many negative guesses, the whole thing became too nonsensical.

 

As mentioned above, even 1% equates to a £21bn hole in our economy. That's £13bn less than we'd have even if we kept the money that we pay into the EU.

Also, the potential for the EU to go into recession doesn't mean that their financial systems aren't as good as those outside of the EU, the biggest issue is the slowdown in the Chinese economy, that affects the world markets. The EU doesn't exist in isolation, it's a part of the whole picture. If the UK left the EU, it too would be affected by world markets, the difference being that our economy would already be weaker by leaving the EU.

 

The trouble is we'll still have that cheaper labour from outside the EU. Our cockle pickers are chinese ffs When you make that second point, have you considered anything in the last 100 years where this has ever been the case? Because I honestly don't know if that's ever been the case in this country?

 

Absolutely. There's a fair few measures that could be done at the top end. Money up there tends to be out of circulation, so doesn't help drive the economy. If you give more money to the poor, we spend it, and create work.

Unfortunately, they hold a lot of clout.

 

Call me Dave said there are measures coming to address the issue of those from outside the EU. He wouldn't lie, he's in remain, and talking up the possibility of financial meltdown.

 

That's a cop out mate. This is what I find at the end when discussing the economy with Brexiters and they run into a brick wall. You brought up Switzerland and made a simplistic comparison on Service industry, but the overriding difference between us and Switzerland is our imports. Thats the crux of our trade agreements.

 

It's my opinion on a poor piece of writing. You can see it as a cop out, and add sweeping generalisations if you wish.

 

Even if that were the case, there's nothing to suggest from any point in history that this would raise average wages for unskilled labour. Unless you can evidence otherwise? To be honest, we're a country built on immigration so it's hard to evidence on that basis alone, but even with immigration at its lowest point in the last hundred years, wages were still low at the bottom.

 

Ignore the original post mate. We've moved on to the Switzerland comparison you yourself raised. If you're genuine, then at least consider the negatives with the positives.

 

Whilst I wouldn't bracket everybody other than the super rich as poor, I take your point

On that point though, this is one of the reasons the UK economy will take a hit if we leave the EU. The financial forecasts are for the economy to take a dip, regardless of the actual percentage in GDP, any dip means less money in people's pockets, whether that is due to more unemployment, lower wages, higher interest rates, increased mortgages, cautious markets, businesses not expanding, etc. Once this process starts, it's a viscous circle, because the less money there is, the less there is to spend and the problem exacerbates itself.

For example: Mr Smith has just seen his mortgage go up because the Bank of England has had to raise interest rates to offset lowering inflation due to us leaving the EU. Therefore Mr Smith has less disposable income and doesn't spend money on flowers for his wife each week at the local florist, thus the florist's income takes a hit and he has to lay of the apprentice working for him, so the apprentice ends up unemployed and signs on for benefits, whilst the florist spends less at the local shops on his groceries, which in turn means the grocer has less money ....... you see where it's going ?

 

If anybody planning on voting to leave the EU can give me some specific details on how the UK will be able to make better deals for our economy than we currently have by being a part of the EU, then I'm all ears.

 

We're not a country built on immigration at all. Early immigration was to undermine workers demands in the cotton mills.

At the moment, union power is weak, because many of the working practices they fought to protect, are now enforced by EU legislation. Generally that's a good thing, but there are situations where local agreements are better than blanket legislation. That should be an opportunity for workers to unite and fight a stronger, local corner. This could well include wages.

In his early days, Henry Ford gave his workers a big pay increase, which pumped money into the local economy and tax coffers, which was his aim. He effectively gained money from doing it. Some modern day big businesses are looking at similar schemes. I believe Seattle and Washington have enacted a much higher minimum wage than the national law requires, which is making them the fastest growing economies in the states. One quote was that waiters should be able to afford to eat in the restaurants they work at. Two or three examples of wage increases for economic reasons.

 

I absolutely see where its going. It's the reverse of the scenarios I mention in a reply just before this one. If you and I can see it as a possibility, and one that's liable to crop up even if we remain, the economists that everyone lays such store by should also be able to see it. They're mighty experienced at recessions now, so should at least have an idea of what doesn't work when they look at measures to put it right, be that in or out of the EU.

 

Well for one, I reckon the Germans not selling us cars would hurt them long before us not buying them hurt us.

There's also the prospect t that our leaving starts a chain reaction of other countries opting out, meaning the whole playing field is moved.

 

Right, that's it. I'm definitely voting to stay.

 

So what you're saying is, the earth is flat, right?

 

Your argument fell apart the moment you mentioned the IMF as being impartial. Lagarde and Obsbourne are best mates and have been for many years. How do you think she got the job?

 

Certainly not because she's a mate of Osbourne's. Tell me you don't really believe that.

 

Or you could argue that Mr Smith, no longer has a mortgage, but has seen his savings earn next to nothing whilst being held in the bank. He would like to buy a new car of the wife flowers but needs to ensure that he has enough money to pay for the necessities. If the interests rates were higher, he would get a better rate on his savings and therefore would have more disposable income. As there are more savers than borrowers, we would likely be better off with slightly higher interest rates.

 

Sorry I do. Wasn't it Osbourne that formally nominated her for the role?