[Cyberyeti]

 Vampyr, on 2016-March-04, 06:28, said:

Has he made a point you disagree with?

Not particularly, it just looke like a UKIP press release (particularly the bit about gallons and bendy bananas).

And this is the real problem, the real figures for what we spend are difficult to find, and I have no idea what the real figure for how much we get out is. I certainly don't believe the figures the in campaign are putting out (£60M/day).

The only thing I really disagree with is that we're taking the rest of europe's unemployed. Only indirectly, we're taking some of their more employable people who speak English and can earn more doing unskilled work here than more skilled jobs at home. Their unemployed then take the jobs taken by the people who fill in doing the jobs that would have been done by the people who came here.

[y66]

 fromageGB, on 2016-March-04, 07:48, said:

For those (> 99.99% of the population according to a recent survey of 3 people) who have never heard of TTIP, try this for a taster : http://www.independe...ou-9779688.html

Very discouraging to see so few people have heard of TTIP esp. since mgoetze posted John Hilary's warning here in the water cooler last fall.

[helene_t]

 y66, on 2016-March-04, 08:32, said:

Very discouraging to see so few people have heard of TTIP esp. since mgoetze posted John Hilary's warning here in the water cooler last fall.

According to yougov, most have an opinion about it. It must be said that yougov is pannel-based so their responders are probably better informed about politics than average people.

https://yougov.co.uk...t-support-ttip/

[mgoetze]

The thought that you could escape TTIP by exiting the EU is pretty funny. My impression is that the UK has been acting as America's agent, lobbying for all the worst provisions to be included. If you're not the EU you won't get TTIP - you'll get something even worse.

[Cyberyeti]

 mgoetze, on 2016-March-04, 08:43, said:

The thought that you could escape TTIP by exiting the EU is pretty funny. My impression is that the UK has been acting as America's agent, lobbying for all the worst provisions to be included. If you're not the EU you won't get TTIP - you'll get something even worse.

This is my impression too, although if we exited the EU, it would require a vote in the UK parliament and if we're stupid enough to vote for it, that's our problem. I think we can get it without a vote here if we stay in the EU (although I'm not sure of that), and that I object to.

[Vampyr]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-March-04, 09:09, said:

This is my impression too, although if we exited the EU, it would require a vote in the UK parliament and if we're stupid enough to vote for it, that's our problem. I think we can get it without a vote here if we stay in the EU (although I'm not sure of that), and that I object to.

Yes, I was wondering whether we might have some control if the process was being done by our elected representatives.

[helene_t]

 Vampyr, on 2016-March-03, 19:46, said:

No one knows who their MEP is (and does it matter, since the major decisions seem to be made by people who don't, even nominally, represent anyone?) I am sure we all remember Cecilia "I do not take my mandate from the European people" Malstrom. Assuming she is not doing it just for laughs, the obvious question is whose payroll she is on, and why is that not being investigated?

I agree that the democratic deficit is a huge problem. Multinational organizations like UN and OECD are not democratic either but EU has so much power that it really ought to be a democracy.

I can see why it is difficult to acchieve: Political parties (with the somewhat-exception of the social democrats) don't exist at the EU level. Still I think it is a bad excuse.

As for Cecilia's pay check, my impression is that the EU is a lot less corrupt than most national governments. Maybe someone knows some relevant data points?

[Vampyr]

 helene_t, on 2016-March-04, 19:01, said:

I agree that the democratic deficit is a huge problem. Multinational organizations like UN and OECD are not democratic either but EU has so much power that it really ought to be a democracy.

I can see why it is difficult to acchieve: Political parties (with the somewhat-exception of the social democrats) don't exist at the EU level. Still I think it is a bad excuse.

As for Cecilia's pay check, my impression is that the EU is a lot less corrupt than most national governments. Maybe someone knows some relevant data points?

And why are political parties necessary for democracy?

[fromageGB]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-March-04, 07:50, said:

Not particularly, it just looked like a UKIP press release (particularly the bit about gallons and bendy bananas).

Yes, that was a deliberate wry quote. I have never appeared on HIGNFY.

[fromageGB]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-March-04, 07:50, said:

And this is the real problem, the real figures for what we spend are difficult to find, and I have no idea what the real figure for how much we get out is. I certainly don't believe the figures the in campaign are putting out (£60M/day).

Where did you see that £60M/day? And you are implying this is what we get OUT???

Figures I can find are these :

Budget statement March 2015 was that the projected net contribution for the year was projected to be £9.9 billion (US billion, times 10 to the 9), revised in July to £10.4 billion. This is a net £28.5M / day payment IN, not out

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06091.pdf of Jan 2016, itself quoting ONS and other sources of Nov/Dec 2015, section 4 says that gross contribution = £17.8B, rebate £4.9B, so net contribution after rebate is £15.3B, but then we have public sector receipts of £4.4B, giving net contribution of £8.5B. That's payment IN of £23M / day.

The fullfact organisation also says net £8.5B, ie £23M / day net payment.

One of the papers said £35M/day net payment.

Hence my conservative figure I gave earlier of over 20M. It seems that £23M/day payment IN is the best figure.

If you (or other people) are turning this into a £60M payment OUT, then you must be assigning fairly arbitrary and gigantic figures to the "benefits" of not having to bother to make our own laws, or of finding cheap labour for us.

[Cyberyeti]

 fromageGB, on 2016-March-05, 05:39, said:

Where did you see that £60M/day? And you are implying this is what we get OUT???

On an "IN" campaign FB post which is why I didn't believe it.

[Vampyr]

 fromageGB, on 2016-March-05, 05:39, said:

Yes, that was a deliberate wry quote. I have never appeared on HIGNFY.

Then you are apparently not Nigel Farage!

[helene_t]

It is my impression that many British EU opponents have a vision of Norwegian solution, i.e. still member of the free trade zone . A bit more sovereignty, less financial contributions, almost zero influence. Maybe that sounds attractive. In any case, if that was what the referendum was about it would not be a big deal. For all practical purposes, Norway is an EU country.

But for UK to be able to enjoy freeloader status requires that EU survives. The EU is already in danger of fragmentation: Poland and Hungary already have anti-EU governments and France could soon get one also. A Brexit will inspire similar referenda in various other countries.

If you think that the most important issue is whether you want Brussels bureaucrats or London bureaucrats to determine the curvature of bananas, the maybe try reading this: http://www.slate.com...d_a_brexit.html

[StevenG]

 helene_t, on 2016-March-05, 18:08, said:

If you think that the most important issue is whether you want Brussels bureaucrats or London bureaucrats to determine the curvature of bananas

No, people think the most important thing is immigration. There is a housing shortage which is getting worse all the time.

House prices are out of control and the average person can no longer expect ever to be able to afford to buy their own home. (That may not seem important to a continental European, but it is part of the British psyche.) What houses are being built are often so tiny that people only buy them because there is nothing else.

Business, in general, supports the EU because open borders mean a supply of cheap labour which suppresses wages at the lower end of the labour market. Not surprisingly, those British nationals who have lost their jobs, or are working under really awful conditions for low wages don't regard this as a good thing.

The last recorded "net migration" figures showed a yearly inflow of about 320,000 people. It is impossible to manage that sort of population growth year on year. (Many suspect that the real figure is actually much higher since the figure does not reconcile easily with other government statistics.)

Of course there are some who also object to immigration on racist grounds. I deplore that, but nationalistic tensions will always surface when the traditional ways are put under such pressure so quickly, and people will vote accordingly. It is wrong, however, for people to confuse anti-immigration policies with racism, when analysis shows the damage done by high immigration levels to the quality of life of many people.

[Vampyr]

 helene_t, on 2016-March-05, 18:08, said:

q v
But for UK to be able to enjoy freeloader status requires that EU survives. The EU is already in danger of fragmentation: Poland and Hungary already have anti-EU governments and France could soon get one also. A Brexit will inspire similar referenda in various other countries.

Isn't the demise of the EU and the return of the EEC the ideal outcome?

EDIT: that article makes no sense. NATO managed for decades before the EU, and should manage just fine afterwards.

[mike777]

 StevenG, on 2016-March-06, 03:22, said:

No, people think the most important thing is immigration. There is a housing shortage which is getting worse all the time.

House prices are out of control and the average person can no longer expect ever to be able to afford to buy their own home. (That may not seem important to a continental European, but it is part of the British psyche.) What houses are being built are often so tiny that people only buy them because there is nothing else.

Business, in general, supports the EU because open borders mean a supply of cheap labour which suppresses wages at the lower end of the labour market. Not surprisingly, those British nationals who have lost their jobs, or are working under really awful conditions for low wages don't regard this as a good thing.

The last recorded "net migration" figures showed a yearly inflow of about 320,000 people. It is impossible to manage that sort of population growth year on year. (Many suspect that the real figure is actually much higher since the figure does not reconcile easily with other government statistics.)

Of course there are some who also object to immigration on racist grounds. I deplore that, but nationalistic tensions will always surface when the traditional ways are put under such pressure so quickly, and people will vote accordingly. It is wrong, however, for people to confuse anti-immigration policies with racism, when analysis shows the damage done by high immigration levels to the quality of life of many people.

Given housing costs are out of control and that the rich already own a few homes it gives the impression of a massive bubble as no one is buying and a good opportunity soon. Sounds like it is time to short real estate in the UK


BTW with all of that very cheap labor and depressed wages why not build cheap housing? Commodity prices have crashed so materials are really much cheaper now! Steel prices have crashed, copper is down 50%, oil is down 60-70%, you tell me labor is cheap...you can build a lot of cheap housing with all of that.

YOu make it sound like it is a great time to short the out of control expensive homes and go long on the really cheap housing.

[sakuragi]

it seems like

• the uk admin prefers staying in EU
  
• the uk admin estimates that the referendum would favor staying in EU
  
• the brexit is only part of negotiation strategy

[StevenG]

 mike777, on 2016-March-06, 10:29, said:

BTW with all of that very cheap labor and depressed wages why not build cheap housing? Commodity prices have crashed so materials are really much cheaper now! Steel prices have crashed, copper is down 50%, oil is down 60-70%, you tell me labor is cheap...you can build a lot of cheap housing with all of that.

Where do you expect to build these cheap houses? What do you think happens to land prices for building plots when such land is as scarce as it is? Why should any developer build cheap houses when they can sell expensive ones?

[helene_t]

Some internet meme said:

The banker takes 19 [of the 20] cookies and warns the worker: "The asylum seeker is taking your cookie

I probably have the opposite bias but as I see it, poor immigrants are not the main culprit of the housing crisis. Wealth inequality allows a few rich people to own most of the land suitable for housing, making land unaffordable to ordinary people regardless of nationality. This doesn't have much to do with globalization. My guess would be that migration has caused a negative nett pressure on the British property market because British expats tend to be better off than immigrants in the UK, and richer people demand more land for housing.

If you absolutely need to blame some foreigners then blame the Russian mafia and the Saudi princes for pushing up property prices in London.

It is a really annoying phenomena that people prefer to find poor scapegoats instead of rich scapegoats. I am not a sociologist but my guess would be that it is because it feels good to identify oneself with the fat cats while distancing oneself from the roaches.

StevenG said:

Not surprisingly, those British nationals who have lost their jobs, or are working under really awful conditions for low wages don't regard this as a good thing.

British industry workers lost their jobs because we buy industry products from China. After having left the EU It may well be in the interest of British workers to isolate the country from the rest of the World, but I think that the majority of the British people don't want to lose their cheap Chinese imports.

[mike777]

 StevenG, on 2016-March-06, 13:16, said:

Where do you expect to build these cheap houses? What do you think happens to land prices for building plots when such land is as scarce as it is? Why should any developer build cheap houses when they can sell expensive ones?

THINK OUT OF THE BOX!

You can build and sell a 100 or 200 or even 400 cheap condo homes, build up, on the space of roughly one or two single family homes. Tear downs are very very common. Buy a house or two and tear it down and build up!

Again why sell expensive homes if no one is buying them....at some point and you make it sound today, the rich own several homes already. At some point the rich start selling not buying. For example this is happening today in many places in China. Again I am only going on your post that home prices are "out of control".


btw if land is really really that scarce,,,you can always build more land....many countries do this when land is scarce. For example I think they did this at Canary Wharf a few years ago. Also Hong Kong and places in the middle east do this. Even in places in the USA they have added land.