I love the EU because...

[Balmoral]

battered said:

What has been proven by the ONS is that the EU migrants to UK have on the whole contributed more money in taxes etc than they have cost.

I don't understand the distinction being made, surely it would be the same for non EU migrants too? Even more so, as they don't enjoy the same rights, privileges or entitlements.

Edited by Balmoral on Thursday 30th March 16:15

[SKP555]

scherzkeks said:

SKP555 said:

I definitely don't want it. I can appreciate why some people believe in it as a noble goal, and at a stretch why some people believe the EU is a worthwhile step towards it. Though I disagree with both.

I can't. The concept is about as anti-freedom as it is possible to get.

I'm not about to start arguing in favour of a world government. I can see why some people think it's a good idea. They're wrong. And naïve. But sincere in their wrong headed naïvety.

[battered]

Balmoral said:

battered said:

What has been proven by the ONS is that the EU migrants to UK have on the whole contributed more money in taxes etc than they have cost.

I don't understand the distinction being made, surely it would be the same for non EU migrants too? Even more so, as they don't enjoy the same rights, privileges or entitlements.

Edited by Balmoral on Thursday 30th March 16:15

Possibly so. However the question was "...the EU" so I'm talking about EU migrants making a positive contribution, which is more than can be said for certain sectors of the indigenous population. This may also be true about non-EU migrants, it doesn't detract from the positive contribution of the EU set.

[PH XKR]

battered said:

Balmoral said:

battered said:

What has been proven by the ONS is that the EU migrants to UK have on the whole contributed more money in taxes etc than they have cost.

I don't understand the distinction being made, surely it would be the same for non EU migrants too? Even more so, as they don't enjoy the same rights, privileges or entitlements.

Edited by Balmoral on Thursday 30th March 16:15

Possibly so. However the question was "...the EU" so I'm talking about EU migrants making a positive contribution, which is more than can be said for certain sectors of the indigenous population. This may also be true about non-EU migrants, it doesn't detract from the positive contribution of the EU set.

go live in Peterborough for a year then report back

[markcoznottz]

battered said:

Balmoral said:

battered said:

What has been proven by the ONS is that the EU migrants to UK have on the whole contributed more money in taxes etc than they have cost.

I don't understand the distinction being made, surely it would be the same for non EU migrants too? Even more so, as they don't enjoy the same rights, privileges or entitlements.

Edited by Balmoral on Thursday 30th March 16:15

Possibly so. However the question was "...the EU" so I'm talking about EU migrants making a positive contribution, which is more than can be said for certain sectors of the indigenous population. This may also be true about non-EU migrants, it doesn't detract from the positive contribution of the EU set.

Overall GDP increase but not per capita, so yet again the people who are being displaced are the ones who benefit the least from immigration. Hence the referendum result.

[crankedup]

battered said:

Balmoral said:

battered said:

What has been proven by the ONS is that the EU migrants to UK have on the whole contributed more money in taxes etc than they have cost.

I don't understand the distinction being made, surely it would be the same for non EU migrants too? Even more so, as they don't enjoy the same rights, privileges or entitlements.

Edited by Balmoral on Thursday 30th March 16:15

Possibly so. However the question was "...the EU" so I'm talking about EU migrants making a positive contribution, which is more than can be said for certain sectors of the indigenous population. This may also be true about non-EU migrants, it doesn't detract from the positive contribution of the EU set.

The question is just how long can the UK sustain the number of immigrants entering the UK.
If, for example, Romainia, Bulgaria, Poland offered reciprocal benifit s in terms of employment and Social care perhaps UK residents may have been tempted to cross over to those Countries. As it is it seems that the UK is the number one distination for way too many eu and other immigrants. Be good to have some control over our borders

[crankedup]

PH XKR said:

battered said:

Balmoral said:

battered said:

What has been proven by the ONS is that the EU migrants to UK have on the whole contributed more money in taxes etc than they have cost.

I don't understand the distinction being made, surely it would be the same for non EU migrants too? Even more so, as they don't enjoy the same rights, privileges or entitlements.

Edited by Balmoral on Thursday 30th March 16:15

Possibly so. However the question was "...the EU" so I'm talking about EU migrants making a positive contribution, which is more than can be said for certain sectors of the indigenous population. This may also be true about non-EU migrants, it doesn't detract from the positive contribution of the EU set.

go live in Peterborough for a year then report back

Boston is a beacon of multi-cultural integration. :roll eyes:

[Hol]

crankedup said:

Hol said:

crankedup said:

MrBrightSi said:

gazza285 said:

crankedup said:

Mandalore said:

We missed a chance to Bankrupt ISIS years earlier by offering Crankedup's free services as their chief economist and policy adviser.

I must insist that you delete your last paragraph associating my posts to ISIS. It's not funny, clever or relevant.

Like much on this thread then.

The whole being compared to terrorists in some way has become hip and trendy recently.

Jeeeeez, how thick do people have to be not to understand the implications of what it is they are posting. In no way shape or form am I trendy, although I was in 1967

Crankedup. Bearing in mind that you are one of the few people on PH with a reputation large enough for people to openly discuss you at PH events, I find it amusing that you seem upset.

It's called Karma in some religions.

Caught me on an off day and then some gobste uses my name and ISIS in the same sentence is beyond a bit of fun. Today is a new day, and we are leaving the eu, always a bright side.

I wouldn't want to be associated with a defunct asset managrement company either, but surprisingly I think you have missed the point.


Btw. Have you upset any Scottish people by chance?

[Murph7355]

battered said:

No it's not. Is this really the best you can do, with the whole of the internet and all its online dictionaries at your disposal? Try here:

"obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, and intolerant towards other people's beliefs and practices." (Cambridge online dic)
-I'm not unreasonably attached to my opinion, I simply hold it as you do yours. I have first hand experience that supports my opinion, just as you believe you do.
- I'm not intolerant of your views, beliefs or practices. I just disagree.

Knowing what it means (without the need for the internet ), you're right. That was a bit harsh. Apologies.

jjlynn27 said:

'Ghosn wouldn't be able to keep his mouth shut...'

Do you actually believe that? That someone as demonstrably as capable as Ghosn 'wouldn't be able to keep his mouth shut?'

You have no idea if they have been offered a special deal. Can you prove it that they haven't?

The whole post is rather bizarre, to put it mildly.

I'm pretty certain one way or the other Ghosn would let it be known he had the upper hand. Though I don't think the decisions are his any more?

We have been told that no special deal has been given, and that the conversation that was had reiterated the same assurances everyone else has been give (and that make absolute sense). However, as battered notes later it's quite tough proving a negative. We'll see, of course. But my view is that Nissan chose Sunderland due to its efficiency above most other things.

Nissan are simply one of many large firms lobbying. It went on pre-Brexit. It will go on after. If we make the UK an attractive place to do business, they'll stay.

I'm not sure what was bizarre about the comment on the ONS. It is impossible to state one way or the other whether being in the EU has been beneficial vv not being in it over that same period. We appear to struggle noting the net benefit simply based on being a member, let alone trying to do hypothetical "what ifs". (And ref "averages" and immigrants, mathematically it's totally correct. The interpretation then depends on your political preferences. In principal I can't see why anyone would disgree that it would be preferable for 100% of immigrants - indeed citizens! Though we have a choice over who we let in voluntarily - to be a net benefit).

The latter bit I covered above

[battered]

crankedup said:

battered said:

Balmoral said:

battered said:

What has been proven by the ONS is that the EU migrants to UK have on the whole contributed more money in taxes etc than they have cost.

I don't understand the distinction being made, surely it would be the same for non EU migrants too? Even more so, as they don't enjoy the same rights, privileges or entitlements.

Edited by Balmoral on Thursday 30th March 16:15

Possibly so. However the question was "...the EU" so I'm talking about EU migrants making a positive contribution, which is more than can be said for certain sectors of the indigenous population. This may also be true about non-EU migrants, it doesn't detract from the positive contribution of the EU set.

The question is just how long can the UK sustain the number of immigrants entering the UK.
If, for example, Romainia, Bulgaria, Poland offered reciprocal benifit s in terms of employment and Social care perhaps UK residents may have been tempted to cross over to those Countries. As it is it seems that the UK is the number one distination for way too many eu and other immigrants. Be good to have some control over our borders

You can say the same about the north of England and the south east. Why is all the work in London, why do we allow people like me to travel from the north (Leeds) every week? How long can London sustain this? (Erm...indefinitely, it seems). I work in a factory in outer SE London, inside the M25, near the Dartford Xing. They pay for me to be in an hotel. Also there - a bloke from Selby. Another from Wakefield. Leicester. Milton K. Birmingham. All of us on the M11/A1/M1/M6 tonight. Why? Because it pays. Because there are not enough skilled people wanting to do this work in SE London. When are we going to stop these Yorkshiremen coming down here and taking our jobs?

[julian64]

Murph7355 said:

All lovely.

Now take all references to the EU and Europe out, replace with "the world" (or "worldly" where the grammar is needed) and all references to UK with EU.

The sentiment is the same. If the concepts the EU holds dear (4 freedoms,ever closer union, central control etc) are so undoubtedly beneficial why (a) do they only apply to 28 member states and (b) must a current member be “punished" for designing to leave...?

If you can provide a convincing answer that cannot also be used to support the case for leaving, I'll donate £50 to the charity of your choice.

Because I doubt the veracity of people who want to detach from Europe/EU and then go out into the big wide world. I think people who have insular thinking and ambition carry that mind-set forward no matter how much they talk about 'worldwide opportunities'.

It is only an opinion, but people who bang the nationalist drum don't often suddenly embrace foreign culture whether it be Europe or the world.

[Murph7355]

julian64 said:

Because I doubt the veracity of people who want to detach from Europe/EU and then go out into the big wide world. I think people who have insular thinking and ambition carry that mind-set forward no matter how much they talk about 'worldwide opportunities'.

It is only an opinion, but people who bang the nationalist drum don't often suddenly embrace foreign culture whether it be Europe or the world.

If the nationalist drum is being banged in the context of "we want to trade with the rest of world and not be tied to a stagnating union" I can't see how that is any more insular than the EU itself?

My take on Brexit (having voted for it) is that it's looking wider than just 27 geographically near neighbours. It's also about (primarily so) the wholly unnecessary political construct that's overtaken what we joined (a mutually beneficial trading bloc).

It feels like there's a contradiction at play when people cite the UK wanting to be insular when the EU is pretty much the most protectionist and inward thinking group on the planet (to the extent that when a state no longer wishes to be part of it, it must be punished to prevent/discourage other members leaving. Feels more like the USSR than a world view body...).

[///ajd]

julian64 said:

Murph7355 said:

All lovely.

Now take all references to the EU and Europe out, replace with "the world" (or "worldly" where the grammar is needed) and all references to UK with EU.

The sentiment is the same. If the concepts the EU holds dear (4 freedoms,ever closer union, central control etc) are so undoubtedly beneficial why (a) do they only apply to 28 member states and (b) must a current member be “punished" for designing to leave...?

If you can provide a convincing answer that cannot also be used to support the case for leaving, I'll donate £50 to the charity of your choice.

Because I doubt the veracity of people who want to detach from Europe/EU and then go out into the big wide world. I think people who have insular thinking and ambition carry that mind-set forward no matter how much they talk about 'worldwide opportunities'.

It is only an opinion, but people who bang the nationalist drum don't often suddenly embrace foreign culture whether it be Europe or the world.

Bingo.

Its surprising the contradiction isn't obvious, though maybe it isn't.

I suspect in some cases it is a smokescreen.

[don'tbesilly]

julian64 said:

Murph7355 said:

All lovely.

Now take all references to the EU and Europe out, replace with "the world" (or "worldly" where the grammar is needed) and all references to UK with EU.

The sentiment is the same. If the concepts the EU holds dear (4 freedoms,ever closer union, central control etc) are so undoubtedly beneficial why (a) do they only apply to 28 member states and (b) must a current member be “punished" for designing to leave...?

If you can provide a convincing answer that cannot also be used to support the case for leaving, I'll donate £50 to the charity of your choice.

Because I doubt the veracity of people who want to detach from Europe/EU and then go out into the big wide world. I think people who have insular thinking and ambition carry that mind-set forward no matter how much they talk about 'worldwide opportunities'.

It is only an opinion, but people who bang the nationalist drum don't often suddenly embrace foreign culture whether it be Europe or the world.

It is only an opinion and one you are welcome to, however the evidence would suggest the opposite is the case.

[Jockman]

battered said:

You can say the same about the north of England and the south east. Why is all the work in London, why do we allow people like me to travel from the north (Leeds) every week? How long can London sustain this? (Erm...indefinitely, it seems). I work in a factory in outer SE London, inside the M25, near the Dartford Xing. They pay for me to be in an hotel. Also there - a bloke from Selby. Another from Wakefield. Leicester. Milton K. Birmingham. All of us on the M11/A1/M1/M6 tonight. Why? Because it pays. Because there are not enough skilled people wanting to do this work in SE London. When are we going to stop these Yorkshiremen coming down here and taking our jobs?

Is it because you are cheaper?

[jjlynn27]

Murph7355 said:

I'm pretty certain one way or the other Ghosn would let it be known he had the upper hand. Though I don't think the decisions are his any more?

We have been told that no special deal has been given, and that the conversation that was had reiterated the same assurances everyone else has been give (and that make absolute sense). However, as battered notes later it's quite tough proving a negative. We'll see, of course. But my view is that Nissan chose Sunderland due to its efficiency above most other things.

Nissan are simply one of many large firms lobbying. It went on pre-Brexit. It will go on after. If we make the UK an attractive place to do business, they'll stay.

I'm not sure what was bizarre about the comment on the ONS. It is impossible to state one way or the other whether being in the EU has been beneficial vv not being in it over that same period. We appear to struggle noting the net benefit simply based on being a member, let alone trying to do hypothetical "what ifs". (And ref "averages" and immigrants, mathematically it's totally correct. The interpretation then depends on your political preferences. In principal I can't see why anyone would disgree that it would be preferable for 100% of immigrants - indeed citizens! Though we have a choice over who we let in voluntarily - to be a net benefit).

The latter bit I covered above

I'll disagree. There is nothing in it for Ghosn/Nissan to boast about. They'd be subject to NDA, and I don't think that you get to the top of Nissan growing up in Lebanon, by not knowing when to shut your trap.
As for the efficiency; I don't think that that's down to the 'workforce'. I'd say that that's down to organisation/processes, which could be replicated elsewhere. Saying that there is a significant cost in moving and disruption to production.
The main issue, imo, is that we'll have to up productivity as that's where we lag behind almost everyone else. If you take London out of equation the figures are dire.

[Murph7355]

jjlynn27 said:

I'll disagree. There is nothing in it for Ghosn/Nissan to boast about. They'd be subject to NDA, and I don't think that you get to the top of Nissan growing up in Lebanon, by not knowing when to shut your trap.
As for the efficiency; I don't think that that's down to the 'workforce'. I'd say that that's down to organisation/processes, which could be replicated elsewhere. Saying that there is a significant cost in moving and disruption to production.
The main issue, imo, is that we'll have to up productivity as that's where we lag behind almost everyone else. If you take London out of equation the figures are dire.

It's possible to replicate anything anywhere in theory. Fact is, Sunderland is their most efficient plant. It may not always be that way of course, but if it were straightforward Nissan would have replicated those processes in the cheapest possible labour/corporate market. I'd argue that is actually what they've done taking efficiency into consideration.

I totally agree on productivity. A much harder nut to crack though, Brexit or no Brexit. I suspect in large part down to the sectors our economy is biased towards... And odd approaches to strategic investment.

Ref a Nissan "deal", what evidence is there to show there is one? Let's assume Ghosn has no ego and wouldn't say a word despite his Bluff being called a few times already, do you think the press wouldn't have unearthed something?

And if they were offered a deal, why would they now be saying they are keeping their options open? (A perfectly logical thing to do btw. Can't blame them for it. Keeps the workforce on its toes if nothing else).

[jjlynn27]

Murph7355 said:

It's possible to replicate anything anywhere in theory. Fact is, Sunderland is their most efficient plant. It may not always be that way of course, but if it were straightforward Nissan would have replicated those processes in the cheapest possible labour/corporate market. I'd argue that is actually what they've done taking efficiency into consideration.

I totally agree on productivity. A much harder nut to crack though, Brexit or no Brexit. I suspect in large part down to the sectors our economy is biased towards... And odd approaches to strategic investment.

Ref a Nissan "deal", what evidence is there to show there is one? Let's assume Ghosn has no ego and wouldn't say a word despite his Bluff being called a few times already, do you think the press wouldn't have unearthed something?

And if they were offered a deal, why would they now be saying they are keeping their options open? (A perfectly logical thing to do btw. Can't blame them for it. Keeps the workforce on its toes if nothing else).

Sunderland is their biggest plant in EU (IIRC) and systems there are used to control processes both locally and to some extent in Valencia. All of their European kaizen experts are based in Sunderland.
It made sense for them to be based in Sunderland, with an open access to EU markets.
Take a look at this graph. UK exports more cars to the EU than to all the other markets combined.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/298970/destina...

If access to your main market materially changes and govt doesn't alleviate the impact of those changes, why would you stay? Is efficiency going to be enough to offset the impact of those changes, and that's putting aside supply chain, another issue that Nissan (and others) have been very vocal about.

Of course they are saying that they are keeping their options open. If govt doesn't live to it's commitment to offering unimpeded access (or equivalent) to your biggest market.

[sidicks]

julian64 said:

Because I doubt the veracity of people who want to detach from Europe/EU and then go out into the big wide world.

You appear to be confusing Europe and the EU again.

For the avoidance of doubt, we will still be part of Europe even though physically we are detached.
Post Brexit we will be attached to the EU (through trade) but not within the EU.
HTH

julian64 said:

I think people who have insular thinking and ambition carry that mind-set forward no matter how much they talk about 'worldwide opportunities'.

I think you are wrong in suggesting that the majority of those supporting Brexit have 'insular thinking and ambition'.
Indeed, part of the thinking is that, rather than be constrained and tied to the failed entity that is the EU, we can be much more successful outside.

julian64 said:

It is only an opinion, but people who bang the nationalist drum don't often suddenly embrace foreign culture whether it be Europe or the world.

I think you are confused about what people voted for.

Edited by sidicks on Friday 31st March 11:40

[sidicks]

don'tbesilly said:

It is only an opinion and one you are welcome to, however the evidence would suggest the opposite is the case.

Indeed.