Unequivocally, pure points based systems don't work. There's a reason Canada, Australia and New Zealand all abandoned their pure point systems. 2013, Australia, the unemployment rate for immigrants accepted under the points system exceeded 13.5% as employers were left unimpressed by the qualifications and foreign work experience of the new arrivals. Governments cannot know what type of immigrants their economies will require nor can it know the most efficient quantity as the economy evolves. Even the newer system of pooling in Australia can lead to worker exploitation and the sale of visas by private companies.(Original post by Sycatonne23)
Unquestionably there is an issue whereby the vast majority of immigration into the country concerning work is low skilled, the over-supply of this low skilled migration is inevitably suppressing wages and in some cases displacing British workers. If our politicians have enough courage to go for an independent FTA like I stated above rather than join the EEA and be forced to accept free movement, we can go for a points based system and tailor our migration policy to accept more engineers, doctors, scientists, lawyers etc and limit the amount of low skilled migration. Our economy is too reliant of low wages and low skilled labour, we mustn't compound the problem.
The UK itself had (and still does to an extent) a points based immigration scheme in 2008 which was thwarted by business pleading and a Tory manifesto promise on lowering immigration. Firms complained that foreign workers were blocked because they failed to meet the required qualifications, leading to countless exemptions and clauses being filed.
The ten percentage point rise in the proportion of migrants working in the sector necessary for the 2% fall in wages is very large, larger than the growth (7 percentage points) of the entire labour force of the sector itself since 2004. The NIESR calculates that as the impact is partly a compositional one - reflecting the fact that migrant workers earn less, as well as the impact on native wages, that the impact of immigration "on the wages of the UK-born in this sector since 2004 has been about 1 percent, over an 8 year period."
With average wages in the semi/unskilled services sector at £8 an hour, 1% over eight years works out as a loss in annual pay rises of one penny per hour. Not to say that this isn't unimportant to the unskilled workers, but it does highlight that other variables have greater impact than immigration - the decline in trade unions and changes in technology within the industry have had far greater impacts.
Why Brexit will be great Watch
Last edited by Petrue; 30-08-2016 at 11:32.
- 29-08-2016 22:30
(Original post by Sycatonne23)
- 29-08-2016 23:23
Leaving the single market but retaining tariff free access to it as can be done through a free trade deal means we don't need to follow single market laws domestically but we can still do business with the single market without restrictions.
The Canada-EU Trade Agreement began negotiations in 2007 and still needs to be ratified by at least 36 parliaments, both national and provincial. Romania and Bulgaria are unlikely to sign it out of upset over their citizens still needing to apply for visas to visit Canada. A UK-EU trade agreement would face the exact same struggles: European countries would seek to limit the successes of the UK's financial sector (as seen through past experience) while simultaneously demanding free movement or protectionist measures for their own exports. We won't agree to these terms and the EU won't relent.
Negotiations are going to take years, all the while we rack up more in tariffs than we will save from the membership fee.
(Original post by Sycatonne23)
Given our massive trade deficit with the EU, it would not be in the economic interests of EU countries to forego tariff free access to the UK market.
(Original post by Sycatonne23)
Wouldn't it be nice to expand our business ties to include Commonwealth countries and emerging economic giants like India and China?
TL;DR Time. Time. Time. Time. Time.Last edited by Petrue; 30-08-2016 at 08:21.
- Thread Starter
(Original post by scrotgrot)
- 30-08-2016 21:24
It is my understanding that if we come out into the EEA we can do our own trade deals with non-EU countries.
The EU Commissioners are appointed by heads of state in exactly the same way as domestic ministers. If you want them to have a democratic mandate then you should push for the direct election of ministers in your member state. Explain your double standard.
Is the British civil service accountable to anybody? It is ten times as large for close on one-tenth of the population. Explain your double standard.
Correct. At least the Council, representing the member states, should be able to propose legislation the same as the Commission, which represents the EU. This, however, would seem to be the kind of thing that might concern the electorates in all EU member states, as well as their Parliamentary representatives. So I fail to see how the desired reform is brought about by its most strident proponent throwing a tantrum and storming out of the EU.
That's because Cameron flounced out of the EPP, despite the fact that it is politically identical to the Conservative Party, in order to generate news headlines which cast him as a rebel who did not support Juncker or his faction, and thus win the favour of Europhobes. Indeed, at the time of the 2009 election, the Conservative Party was a fully inscrit member of the EPP.
You fail to understand democracy. Even if we accept the dodgy premise that the British people didn't vote for Juncker's bloc, the people of the 27 other countries did. Democracy doesn't mean the EU kowtows to Britain and does whatever Britain wants. Britain is only one member of 28 and one-ninth of the population.
Similarly, nobody outside about ten thousand people in Witney voted even for David Cameron to enter the House of Commons, let alone the Cabinet, let alone be Prime Minister. And don't get me started on how few people voted for our head of state! If you want to go by nations, neither Scotland, Northern Ireland nor Wales voted for the Tories, and yet they are in power. So again, explain your double standards.
(Original post by Sycatonne23)
- 30-08-2016 21:57
Not necessarily, countries inside the EEA such as Norway manage to sign their own independent trade deals, it's whether or not we're in the customs union (which would take away our ability to do trade deals) that matters.
As Norway, Switzerland and Iceland are in the EEA but outside the customs union there is no reason why an EEA exit wouldn't put us outside the customs union too.
I agree that there are flaws in our own system of democracy but I believe they can be reformed. But then you would argue why shouldn't we stay within the EU and reform it? I don't want and do not believe in regional political union, where the EU is heading. More integration will ultimately lead to a European super state somewhere down the line.
If we could reform the EU to be an organisation about tariff free trade and essential cooperation, I would be in favour of remaining. And herein lies our disagreement, you say the EU as democratic because in your view the population of the other 27 member states count as part of the "demos", or "the people". In my view, the "demos" of any cracy which seeks to govern this country must be the citizens of this country and nobody else.
You can solve your problem very easily by thinking of citizens of EU member states as EU citizens. This concept is advanced in the electoral sphere: we use a different electoral register for European Parliament elections and (until the Brexit one) referenda on European issues, where EU residents of the UK who are not citizens can vote.
You still have several double standards to explain, by the way. You can't just say "the UK is a proper and true country and the EU isn't, so the UK can govern itself as badly as it wants".Last edited by scrotgrot; 30-08-2016 at 22:02.
(Original post by scrotgrot)
- 02-09-2016 15:34
You still have several double standards to explain, by the way. You can't just say "the UK is a proper and true country and the EU isn't, so the UK can govern itself as badly as it wants".
The UK democracy and its fabric has been passed through generations, it is ingrained in the people. Its institutions, its legal system, its reviews and its inquiries. You can't just add a layer on top, reduced it to a bargaining process between 28 countries, and with some seriously dodgy practices, like an arbitrary executive arm, that is not afraid of taking retroactive action. Where this body withers down the democracy of the UK, and leaves people completely out of touch with it, let alone able to understand it.
You can't seriously believe that a man on the street that watches the news every day, can name most of the ministers in the cabinet etc really understands and is able to explain to you what is going on in the EP and the EC?
Hell, law students that have studied EU Law for two years can try to understand it, but you still have to be very switched on to foreign cultures and read foreign news to get to grips with the political ongoings. It would still leave you with the backroom deals etc.
Let's all just be happy about returning to the normal state of being a self-governing country. I am afraid I do not sympathise with the federalists. I would hope more people could se how sacred the principle of self-government is, and not think that the legal system and democratic institutions of the ex-communist countries and the ex-fascist countries of continental Europe are something to emulate.
The worst arguments during the campaign was those that said nothing is going to change if we stay, we can just sabotage the way the club wants to move ahead. The history is clear, integration has been steadily moving forward, and never rolled back.
Britain needs to leave the SM, and especially the customs union. To benefit from a CU you need to have a trade surplus. It is unthinkable that the EU will get a deal to put up tariffs on certain goods amongst the 27 countries, and for those of you who think the UK will be subject to the external common tariff at some point, it is laughable, the EU is never going to do that.
- Thread Starter
- 02-09-2016 19:58
States which lack a common identity, which lack a common culture, which lack a common first language and which lack economic compatability inevitably move towards being run by a highly centralised state to try and repress these differences. The 28 member states of the EU are made up of diverse countries which have different first languages, ethnicities, cultures and certainly there is no economic compatability. In the Eurozone we saw poor tourism based economies being merged into the same currency zone as rich industrial nations, a recipe for disaster because poorer nations saw their purchasing power artificially increase allowing them to import and borrow more during times of low interest rates and richer nations saw their exports become artificially more competitive and found an easy market in the poor countries. Unfortunately this party ended when the financial crash of 2008 happened, and it soon became evident that the EU lacked common identity because of the heavy reluctance with which German and French taxpayers bailed out indebted countries such as Greece and Portugal. Now I don't agree with every bit of how the UK is run, but I know that taxpayers in London would be more than happy to make the necessary transfer payments to subsidise those in poorer regions of the UK. Why? Because although we are four nations, we have the same first language and we have a common culture and common identity and a sense of belonging to the British state. Thanks to this sense of belonging we can allow devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and not worry about them trying to use those powers to secede from the UK. If a few decades down the line the EU became a superstate which appears to be the case, can you confidently tell me that the EU Commission would allow the EU to run as a federation? I don't think so, not because they wouldn't want to, but because it would not work. The differences between the member states would be so great that in the end the EU would be forced to centralise heavily to hold the state together. This could open the door to authoritarianism, history has its fair share of super-states which has had to rely on force to keep their different and diverse territories under control. Moreover there is no need for a European super-state. Federalists like to tell us in the era of an aggressive Russia and rising China we need to have "clout" in the world. This is a code-word for "we must remain a super-power no matter what". Sovereign, democratic, liberal nation states open to trade is the best recipe for harmony and cooperation in Europe and it is the best way to avoid wars between us. Having the ambition to prove to the rest of the world we still have interventionist muscle makes wars more likely. There is no need for the EU in its current form.
As to my views on how the UK should be run, I want to see the House of Lords scrapped entirely because I don't believe that wealthy political donors should be able to scrutinise legislation. I want to see FPTP turn into proportional representation. The UK isn't governed perfectly but please don't compare an expensive transnational organisation to a sovereign state which has existed for hundreds of years.
scrotgrotLast edited by Sycatonne23; 03-09-2016 at 02:47.