The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (140 Viewers)

Forums New posts

As of right now, how are thinking of voting? In or out

  • Remain

    Votes: 23 37.1%

  • Leave

    Votes: 35 56.5%

  • Undecided

    Votes: 3 4.8%

  • Not registered or not intention to vote

    Votes: 1 1.6%
  • Total voters
    62
  • Poll closed .
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Really interesting thread on future trade deals. In a nutshell suggests that we are likely to remain too closely tied to the EU because of the realities of trade, whatever Brexit deal we get, to make a substantial FTA with the US.

Interesting on the dynamic between EU and US and why EU tends to win trade battles. Makes Brexit seem even more pointless, just going to end up as rule takers not rule makers even if we went WTO just down to geography and who can offer what for our economy.

https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1191294807936847872
 
Astute

Astute

Well-Known Member
ccfc92 said:
If Germany went bust, what would happen? As they are the "biggest/richest" EU member, surely no one else could afford to bail them out like with Greece etc.
Click to expand...
In Germany it is a balancing act. They lend out what they think they will get back. A lot of this money comes back in trade. So they keep their industries going and also collect the interest. But they are not anywhere near skint. Being a member of the EU and Euro has been massive for them.

The problem is that other countries in the EU are struggling. Countries like Italy have had stagnant growth for the last 20 years. They have survived on debt. But the time is coming when it can't be done for much longer. Then you have dieselgate. The EU let them get away with it but other governments didn't when they found out. Added to this is trade disputes around the world.

So they seem to have simple choices.

Revalue the Euro to where it should be for the poor nations of the EU. This has to be done by the EU. Can't see it happening.

Write off many billions of debt owed by the poorer countries. Can't see this happening either.

Refinance banks as payments fail. This would have to be done if it gets this far. But it would be better to write debts down or off.

IIRC we are the 5th biggest buyers of their cars. We are also their most profitable market. If import taxes start they will either have to raise prices a lot or take a hit and then we won't be their most profitable market.

Since the referendum the UK has added nearly a million new jobs. Not bad considering what the experts told us.
 
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
Astute said:
In Germany it is a balancing act. They lend out what they think they will get back. A lot of this money comes back in trade. So they keep their industries going and also collect the interest. But they are not anywhere near skint. Being a member of the EU and Euro has been massive for them.

The problem is that other countries in the EU are struggling. Countries like Italy have had stagnant growth for the last 20 years. They have survived on debt. But the time is coming when it can't be done for much longer. Then you have dieselgate. The EU let them get away with it but other governments didn't when they found out. Added to this is trade disputes around the world.

So they seem to have simple choices.

Revalue the Euro to where it should be for the poor nations of the EU. This has to be done by the EU. Can't see it happening.

Write off many billions of debt owed by the poorer countries. Can't see this happening either.

Refinance banks as payments fail. This would have to be done if it gets this far. But it would be better to write debts down or off.

IIRC we are the 5th biggest buyers of their cars. We are also their most profitable market. If import taxes start they will either have to raise prices a lot or take a hit and then we won't be their most profitable market.

Since the referendum the UK has added nearly a million new jobs. Not bad considering what the experts told us.
Click to expand...
Any link to the jobs added?
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue said:
Always strange how these numbers exclude those not actively seeking work or those who are under-employed
Click to expand...

Oh yeah there’s definitely been some gaming of the figures. Anyone who knows jobseekers can tell you that. They’re always being pushed to start bullshit businesses rather than claim for example, I know more than one who has just given up claiming because of the hoops.

But the headline stat is technically correct.
 
ccfc92

ccfc92

Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue said:
Always strange how these numbers exclude those not actively seeking work or those who are under-employed
Click to expand...

Well you couldn't include a housewife/househusband who doesn't need to work?

Technically they are unemployed, so you need to remove them from the calculation of people looking for work.
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
ccfc92 said:
Well you couldn't include a housewife/househusband who doesn't need to work?

Technically they are unemployed, so you need to remove them from the calculation of people looking for work.
Click to expand...

It also excludes people living at home with someone else and not seeking work.
 
Astute

Astute

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Oh yeah there’s definitely been some gaming of the figures. Anyone who knows jobseekers can tell you that. They’re always being pushed to start bullshit businesses rather than claim for example, I know more than one who has just given up claiming because of the hoops.

But the headline stat is technically correct.
Click to expand...
The links I have put up show those working. Nothing to do with those not working. Not the numbers you want to read though is it. Just shows how much you want us to fail so you can say told you so.
 
Astute

Astute

Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue said:
Always strange how these numbers exclude those not actively seeking work or those who are under-employed
Click to expand...
Is this trying to put bad spin on the record employment when we were told we would see masses of newly unemployed if we voted leave?

So do we have record employment AND record unemployment? Getting silly now.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Astute said:
The links I have put up show those working. Nothing to do with those not working. Not the numbers you want to read though is it. Just shows how much you want us to fail so you can say told you so.
Click to expand...

What are you frothing about now?

I agreed the headline figure was correct. I suspect that many former job seekers are now “in employment” in low wage jobs (hence the stagnant wage growth) or bullshit self employment like Uber drivers and the stuff I’ve seen forced onto mates at the job centre (hence the growth of insecure work and small business startups).

As usual you are incapable of parsing nuance and have taken it as a personal attack.
 
R

Rodders1

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
What are you frothing about now?

I agreed the headline figure was correct. I suspect that many former job seekers are now “in employment” in low wage jobs (hence the stagnant wage growth) or bullshit self employment like Uber drivers and the stuff I’ve seen forced onto mates at the job centre (hence the growth of insecure work and small business startups).

As usual you are incapable of parsing nuance and have taken it as a personal attack.
Click to expand...
Completely agree, the employment figures will include zero hour contracts which should be scrapped. How can people live without guaranteed income - it’s awful.

As for the comment on job losses, this will surely happen once we leave the EU. Isn’t this now an accepted point from leave supporting parties? Our GDP will not track at the same levels as staying in the EU, and Bojo’s deal is worse than Mays.
 
Astute

Astute

Well-Known Member
Rodders1 said:
Completely agree, the employment figures will include zero hour contracts which should be scrapped. How can people live without guaranteed income - it’s awful.

As for the comment on job losses, this will surely happen once we leave the EU. Isn’t this now an accepted point from leave supporting parties? Our GDP will not track at the same levels as staying in the EU, and Bojo’s deal is worse than Mays.
Click to expand...
Welcome again Rodders.

So hiw about what would happen to the UK if we voted to leave the EU?

Did zero hour contracts not exist before the referendum?
 
Astute

Astute

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
What are you frothing about now?

I agreed the headline figure was correct. I suspect that many former job seekers are now “in employment” in low wage jobs (hence the stagnant wage growth) or bullshit self employment like Uber drivers and the stuff I’ve seen forced onto mates at the job centre (hence the growth of insecure work and small business startups).

As usual you are incapable of parsing nuance and have taken it as a personal attack.
Click to expand...
Oh let me see. You ignore the ones you want to but pick up on one in the middle.

Frothing? No. Just replying to you but you don't like the replies.

Headline figures? I said nearly a million. You found a link from the beginning of last year that said nearly half a million. But you know this.
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Astute said:
Is this trying to put bad spin on the record employment when we were told we would see masses of newly unemployed if we voted leave?

So do we have record employment AND record unemployment? Getting silly now.
Click to expand...
Because the definition of employment bears no relation to the general perception of being in paid work
 
R

Rodders1

Well-Known Member
Astute said:
Welcome again Rodders.

So hiw about what would happen to the UK if we voted to leave the EU?

Did zero hour contracts not exist before the referendum?
Click to expand...
I understand the point you’re making. But I see leaving the EU as a terrible opportunity for employers to reduce workers rights further. We‘ll become like the US where staff in the US arm of the company I used to work for had 10 days annual leave (which they felt guilty about using) and next to NO maternity leave. There are countless other benefits working in Europe was better than over in the US.

The EU protects employees and I think that’s a great thing.

To summarise my general brexit view:-
(1) We defo need a second referendum- the first was illegally funded in terms of the leave side - to which they have admitted. Also obviously the “facts” that were spouted were untrue - £350m per week etc.
(2) We now know much more after 3 years
(3) if it’s the will of the people the same result will occur..... leave voters have nothing to worry about. But if it’s the other way around surely that’s democracy?
(4) You can ask 10 different leave voters what they voted for and they wouldnt come up with the same Brexit...... no deal, mays deal, Bojos deal...... which one did the 17.4m vote for?
(5) HOWEVER as a remainer I absolutely will provide losers consent if it’s lost. Ie I’ll accept the result as this time if it’s leave - it’ll be a more considered vote which will be true democracy. (I’ll just move to Scotland!)
 
Astute

Astute

Well-Known Member
Rodders1 said:
I understand the point you’re making. But I see leaving the EU as a terrible opportunity for employers to reduce workers rights further. We‘ll become like the US where staff in the US arm of the company I used to work for had 10 days annual leave (which they felt guilty about using) and next to NO maternity leave. There are countless other benefits working in Europe was better than over in the US.

The EU protects employees and I think that’s a great thing.

To summarise my general brexit view:-
(1) We defo need a second referendum- the first was illegally funded in terms of the leave side - to which they have admitted. Also obviously the “facts” that were spouted were untrue - £350m per week etc.
(2) We now know much more after 3 years
(3) if it’s the will of the people the same result will occur..... leave voters have nothing to worry about. But if it’s the other way around surely that’s democracy?
(4) You can ask 10 different leave voters what they voted for and they wouldnt come up with the same Brexit...... no deal, mays deal, Bojos deal...... which one did the 17.4m vote for?
(5) HOWEVER as a remainer I absolutely will provide losers consent if it’s lost. Ie I’ll accept the result as this time if it’s leave - it’ll be a more considered vote which will be true democracy. (I’ll just move to Scotland!)
Click to expand...
I don't want us to leave. I have more than enough problems personally if and when we do leave and I can't sort most of them out until after the event.

My problem is trying to put both sides on the table. What we get is attack one but defend the other. They should all be shown for what they are.

The referendum was stay or remain. It wasn't what type of remain or what type of leave. The Tories started this bullshit off so the Tories should resolve this bullshit.
 
R

Rodders1

Well-Known Member
Astute said:
I don't want us to leave. I have more than enough problems personally if and when we do leave and I can't sort most of them out until after the event.

My problem is trying to put both sides on the table. What we get is attack one but defend the other. They should all be shown for what they are.

The referendum was stay or remain. It wasn't what type of remain or what type of leave. The Tories started this bullshit off so the Tories should resolve this bullshit.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree.
Its a Tory issue which should NEVER gone to the people. It’s too complicated - look at the shit we’re in now.

Though your point on what type of remain - we’ll there’s only one!
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Astute said:
The links I put up are for those who get paid to work. So I don't get your point.
Click to expand...

From the ONS website and related links, the definition of employment itself is pathetic and contradictory:

The number of people in employment in the UK is measured by the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and consists of people aged 16 years and over who did one hour or more of paid work per week and those who had a job that they were temporarily away from (for example, because they were on holiday or off sick).
Click to expand...


Notes for: Employment
  1. Employment consists of employees, self-employed people, unpaid family workers and people on government-supported training and employment programmes.

  2. Unpaid family workers are people who work in a family business who do not receive a formal wage or salary but benefit from the profits of that business.

  3. The government-supported training and employment programmes series does not include all people on these programmes; it only includes people engaging in any form of work, work experience or work-related training who are not included in the employees or self-employed series
Click to expand...
 
S

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Oh yeah there’s definitely been some gaming of the figures. Anyone who knows jobseekers can tell you that. They’re always being pushed to start bullshit businesses rather than claim for example, I know more than one who has just given up claiming because of the hoops.

But the headline stat is technically correct.
Click to expand...

The headline stat is correct. I think that it is right to exclude those not seeking employment in the sense - that they aren't actually employable. Though I can't see any embarrassment in simply stating there are x% of over-16s unemployed...the issue gets clouded when we start to deduct some over-16s because they have some reason to help make the number look lower.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
Astute

Astute

Well-Known Member
Rodders1 said:
Absolutely agree.
Its a Tory issue which should NEVER gone to the people. It’s too complicated - look at the shit we’re in now.

Though your point on what type of remain - we’ll there’s only one!
Click to expand...
Some narrow minded people see it differently and don't see it this way. Are they allowed an opinion?

I don't mind people having an opinion. But I prefer their opinion to be truth based.
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
SkyblueBazza said:
The headline stat is correct. I think that it is right to exclude those not seeking employment in the sense - that they aren't actually employable. Though I can't see any embarrassment in simply stating there are x% of over-16s unemployed...the issue gets clouded when we start to deduct some over-16s because they have some reason to help make the number look lower.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Look at my post above, the employment statistics are utter nonsense and completely misleading. They do tally though with the UK's poor productivity statistics.
 
S

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
ccfc92 said:
Well you couldn't include a housewife/househusband who doesn't need to work?

Technically they are unemployed, so you need to remove them from the calculation of people looking for work.
Click to expand...
People looking for work is not the same as unemployed though imo.

House-wife/husbands ARE gainfully employed...by their partner to do the house/kid duties

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
SkyblueBazza said:
The headline stat is correct. I think that it is right to exclude those not seeking employment in the sense - that they aren't actually employable. Though I can't see any embarrassment in simply stating there are x% of over-16s unemployed...the issue gets clouded when we start to deduct some over-16s because they have some reason to help make the number look lower.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The stats methods are fine. They’re set internationally to be comparable with other countries. The question is whether certain policies have inflated some areas that make it look better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 140 (members: 0, guests: 140)
Top