Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

UKIP MEP in row over working women (Sexism) watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I mean surely by not employing a women of child bearing age you are rulling out a large number of people who could be doing the job better than some of the men who are employed.

    Or older women/women who could provide medical evidence of infertility...

    It's a sacrifice I'm sure most employers would be happy to make. Think about it, how much of a feminict are you? I'm sure CERTAIN women would be better than CERTAIN men for a CERTAIN post, but I'm sure, on most occasions, any employer could find a suitable employee whilst ignoring that section of the workforce.

    I'm not saying it's good, just possible!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by polthegael)
    It's a sacrifice I'm sure most employers would be happy to make. Think about it, how much of a feminict are you? I'm sure CERTAIN women would be better than CERTAIN men for a CERTAIN post, but I'm sure, on most occasions, any employer could find a suitable employee whilst ignoring that section of the workforce.

    I'm not saying it's good, just possible!
    I just think that if you want to find the best employee for the job it is stupid to rule out a large number of people. Yes women have children but the employers are supported by the govenment for their maternity leave. It is important that women are not forced to choose between having children and working in this day and age because of our falling birth rate. There could be devistating effects if women can't do both. Maybe the government should be providing more money for employers if it really is a problem finding people to replace women on maternity leave. I am not a feminised and I don't know where you got that from.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)

    It's hard to take them seriously when their politicians come out with crap like this, but their policies would spell economic disaster in any case.
    Hardly, UKIP's economic policy would save over £33 million A DAY which is currently being thrown aboard the EU gravy train. Which could be better spent on schools, hospitals, or even tax cuts! Why on earth would adopting the euro, or more european-like economics policies help the economy? The eurozone has double unemployment levels and half the growth rates. We have more flexible labour markets, partly because we havent adopted the insane EU working time directive and haven't experienced inflation due to price-hiking from adopting the euro.

    In any case we would do well to listen to the economic ideas of Kilroy given that he studied economics at London School of Economics! ha ha
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greyhound01)
    Hardly, UKIP's economic policy would save over £33 million A DAY which is currently being thrown aboard the EU gravy train. Which could be better spent on schools, hospitals, or even tax cuts! Why on earth would adopting the euro, or more european-like economics policies help the economy? The eurozone has double unemployment levels and half the growth rates. We have more flexible labour markets, partly because we havent adopted the insane EU working time directive and haven't experienced inflation due to price-hiking from adopting the euro.

    In any case we would do well to listen to the economic ideas of Kilroy given that he studied economics at London School of Economics! ha ha
    *Grabs Greyhound01 and pulls him back into the real world*

    The UK does more than half its trade with EU members. Do you have any idea how much more expensive trade with EU members would be if we withdrew from the union? Do you have any idea how many companies who base their European business in the UK would up and leave because we're no longer in the EU trading bloc?

    The so called savings would disappear into thin air and become gigantic costs, ruining our economy.

    The largest cost of the EU is the CAP, something I would be more than happy to see the back of.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    *Grabs Greyhound01 and pulls him back into the real world*

    The UK does more than half its trade with EU members. Do you have any idea how much more expensive trade with EU members would be if we withdrew from the union? Do you have any idea how many companies who base their European business in the UK would up and leave because we're no longer in the EU trading bloc?

    The so called savings would disappear into thin air and become gigantic costs, ruining our economy.

    The largest cost of the EU is the CAP, something I would be more than happy to see the back of.
    Once we're outside the EU though, we then have our choice of other markets to get involved in, something we can't do currently because of EU protectionism.

    Also, a price is worth paying if it means we can't be bullied into accepting the increasingly demanding social legislation of the EU.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    *Grabs Greyhound01 and pulls him back into the real world*

    The UK does more than half its trade with EU members. Do you have any idea how much more expensive trade with EU members would be if we withdrew from the union? Do you have any idea how many companies who base their European business in the UK would up and leave because we're no longer in the EU trading bloc?

    The so called savings would disappear into thin air and become gigantic costs, ruining our economy.

    The largest cost of the EU is the CAP, something I would be more than happy to see the back of.
    Do you really think that we will lose trade? 2/3's of Germanys exports come into the UK.
    The Eu could not work without our input. Other EU memebers needs the UK alot more than we need them.
    and just dotn get me started on the Euro
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    Once we're outside the EU though, we then have our choice of other markets to get involved in, something we can't do currently because of EU protectionism.

    Also, a price is worth paying if it means we can't be bullied into accepting the increasingly demanding social legislation of the EU.
    Even if we could join something like NAFTA the moment we left the EU, the economic shock from the change would still seriously damage our economy. I honestly don't think that it would ever be "worth it".

    Also, countries European outside the EU which still want to trade with the EU, like Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland, still have to abide by a lot of EU rules.

    (Original post by MyHappyEnding)
    Do you really think that we will lose trade? 2/3's of Germanys exports come into the UK.
    The Eu could not work without our input. Other EU memebers needs the UK alot more than we need them.
    and just dotn get me started on the Euro
    Of course we would lose trade. So would the EU. I think that especially since the EU has now enlarged to 25 members, the relative importance of the UK has diminished, and will continue to do so. I don't think anyone could 'win' from the UK withdrawing from the EU.

    Additionally, we would still have to subsidise our own farmers. That's already half the "savings" gone down the drain. While I despise the agricultural protectionism the EU practices, if we immediately stopped subsidising farmers it would cause a huge political backlash not to mention another economic shock in the form of unemployment and further loss of trade.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You seem to agree that international free trade is a good idea, and that the restrictive practises of the EU are a bad thing. But that we shouldn't do anything about it for fear of being "punished." This is surely a situation which is only going to get worse, the more concessions we make?

    The new memberstates do not really impact our position in Europe, it's all about Paris, Berlin, Rome and London. Our economic weight is just so many many times more significant than all the accession countries put together. In fact it's the main reason thye were allowed in in the first place. "The effect on us is negligible, the effect on them is revolutarionary."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    Additionally, we would still have to subsidise our own farmers.
    Why? I don't think we do.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    You seem to agree that international free trade is a good idea, and that the restrictive practises of the EU are a bad thing. But that we shouldn't do anything about it for fear of being "punished." This is surely a situation which is only going to get worse, the more concessions we make?

    The new memberstates do not really impact our position in Europe, it's all about Paris, Berlin, Rome and London. Our economic weight is just so many many times more significant than all the accession countries put together. In fact it's the main reason thye were allowed in in the first place. "The effect on us is negligible, the effect on them is revolutarionary."
    I wholeheartedly agree that international free trade is a good thing, and the EU is the largest free trade bloc in the world. I think that's a good thing. I think too many blanket terms are thrown around, and the EU's "restrictive practices" is one of those terms. While I abhor the CAP, which as I've already said actually said takes up half the EU's budget, I don't think most of the things the EU does are bad.

    The effect on the new member states will be revolutionary. They will grow rapidly and then they won't seem to insignificant. All the more reason for us to stay a part of the club and tap into these new markets.

    I never said we would be punished for leaving the EU, rather that we would suffer. That is a fact, not some sort of childish revenge the remaining member states would take out on us. If progress is to be made then there will always be sacrifices. Unfortunatley Eurosceptics only see the bad, and none of the good. It's estimated that the EU has contributed an additional one percentage point of GDP growth for the UK each year. That's not insignificant.

    (Original post by fishpaste)
    Why? I don't think we do.
    a) Hundreds of thousands of people are employed by agriculture still, and without subsidies a very large number of them would become unemployed almost overnight.

    b) There would be a huge political backlash from those with interests in keeping the subsidies, and those who believe it's important to remain 'self sufficient'.

    Making sudden changes is a big no-no if you want to have a stable economy, no matter whether the change is a good thing or not. A stable economy is a pre-requisite for long term growth.

    If you want to massively cut the cost, and corruption, of the EU then you can do it by phasing out the CAP over a period of 5 to 10 years. Other blunders will be corrected as we go along. Every month amendments are made to EU law. It's taken us hundreds of years to get to where we are in British law; the EU is still in it's infancy, don't give up on it.

    With regards to the Euro there are only two points which need to be made. First is that it's an unquestionable fact that a single currency would be beneficial in the correct circumstances. This leads on to the second point, that the only real question is when we join the Euro, not if. We must join when the benefits begin to outweigh the costs. That may be in 5 years or 50 years, who knows, but eventually we will join.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    I think too many blanket terms are thrown around, and the EU's "restrictive practices" is one of those terms.
    Restrictive in deciding who we can trade with
    Restrictive as in imposing social charters which are bad for our economy.

    While I abhor the CAP, which as I've already said actually said takes up half the EU's budget, I don't think most of the things the EU does are bad.
    The CAP is clearly there to stay. The French sabotage any attempt to reform it. It's not just the CAP, it's the EU's attempts to make our labour markets less dynamic. To impose generally bad economic policy on us. Europe has fundamentally clashing ideas about how these things should operate, the UK has an adversary culture, and it suits us to operate like that. What you seem to be suggesting is a long term cooperation to bring the two ways of doing things together, I personally hate the idea of compromising. We've clearly got the right idea, hence our remarkably low unemployment, and remarkably high growth rates. Any compromise on our behalf is a move away from sound economic policy.
    The effect on the new member states will be revolutionary. They will grow rapidly and then they won't seem to insignificant. All the more reason for us to stay a part of the club and tap into these new markets.
    Hm. GOod point.
    I never said we would be punished for leaving the EU, rather that we would suffer. That is a fact, not some sort of childish revenge the remaining member states would take out on us.
    There is a big fear though that there would be a childish punishment for leaving the EU. To discourage other countries considering it.

    If progress is to be made then there will always be sacrifices.
    There quite simply shouldn't be though. We wanted free trade. We got bureaucracy and bullying. We shouldn't have to sacrifice sound economic policy to trade freely, especially when Europe doesn't have a monopoly on trade.

    Unfortunatley Eurosceptics only see the bad, and none of the good. It's estimated that the EU has contributed an additional one percentage point of GDP growth for the UK each year. That's not insignificant.
    Source?

    a) Hundreds of thousands of people are employed by agriculture still, and without subsidies a very large number of them would become unemployed almost overnight.

    b) There would be a huge political backlash from those with interests in keeping the subsidies, and those who believe it's important to remain 'self sufficient'.
    Since when was protecting an industry which can't compete globally in the long term a good idea though? The only remotely good argument is self sufficience, and it's running a bit thin, 50 years on from WWII.

    Making sudden changes is a big no-no if you want to have a stable economy, no matter whether the change is a good thing or not. A stable economy is a pre-requisite for long term growth.
    Yes, but decisions need to be made and we need to be going in the right direction. Further integration into a Europe which imposes unsound economic policy is the wrong direction.

    If you want to massively cut the cost, and corruption, of the EU then you can do it by phasing out the CAP over a period of 5 to 10 years.
    We've been trying, surely haven't we? How many times has it been sabotaged? it's here to stay because it suits just about all EU countries but ourself.

    The thing is, I really don't think the EU should be anything more than a free trade zone. This is clearly not the direction it's going in.

    Other blunders will be corrected as we go along. Every month amendments are made to EU law. It's taken us hundreds of years to get to where we are in British law; the EU is still in it's infancy, don't give up on it.
    It's forever incompatible with our interests in anything like its current form, because there are fundamental clashes in ways we do things as described above. And because the rest of EU is moving towards integration, not away, as would be desired.

    With regards to the Euro there are only two points which need to be made. First is that it's an unquestionable fact that a single currency would be beneficial in the correct circumstances.
    I disagree. One very fundamental point is that their interest rates may well not suit us. This is a much more serious threat to our economy than the minor currency conversion costs which we deal with at the moment. And the euro has clearly failed in many EU countries where the vast majority of people want it gone.
    This leads on to the second point, that the only real question is when we join the Euro, not if. We must join when the benefits begin to outweigh the costs. That may be in 5 years or 50 years, who knows, but eventually we will join.
    I disagree. I can see it forever being the case that the costs outweigh the benefits.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    Restrictive in deciding who we can trade with
    Restrictive as in imposing social charters which are bad for our economy.
    Yes, horrible things like water purity laws. Do you honestly think that EU officials sit around all day thinking of ways to harm the UK? If you don't like a law (the British) parliament passes do you want to withdraw yourself from the United Kingdom?

    (Original post by fishpaste)
    The CAP is clearly there to stay. The French sabotage any attempt to reform it. It's not just the CAP, it's the EU's attempts to make our labour markets less dynamic. To impose generally bad economic policy on us. Europe has fundamentally clashing ideas about how these things should operate, the UK has an adversary culture, and it suits us to operate like that. What you seem to be suggesting is a long term cooperation to bring the two ways of doing things together, I personally hate the idea of compromising. We've clearly got the right idea, hence our remarkably low unemployment, and remarkably high growth rates. Any compromise on our behalf is a move away from sound economic policy.
    Yes, we have a lovely economy right now. Guess what? We're in the EU too.

    Any compromise on our behalf should be met by one on theirs too.

    (Original post by fishpaste)
    There is a big fear though that there would be a childish punishment for leaving the EU. To discourage other countries considering it.
    I don't think there would need to be any childish punishment. The economic cost should be enough to discourage it.

    (Original post by fishpaste)
    There quite simply shouldn't be though. We wanted free trade. We got bureaucracy and bullying. We shouldn't have to sacrifice sound economic policy to trade freely, especially when Europe doesn't have a monopoly on trade.
    We've got free trade, and we don't have to sacrifice sound economic policy. I'm not advocating integration for integration's sake. I do however believe that many forms integration will be fruitful in the long term.

    (Original post by fishpaste)
    Source?
    It was in one of the 'lil textbook things I had for my A-Level Econ. It's only an estimate anyhow, since something like that must be dreadfully difficult to calculate. Unless you're claiming we'd be better off without the EU then it doesn't really matter. But don't forget we entered as one of the poorer countries and now we're rich.

    (Original post by fishpaste)
    Since when was protecting an industry which can't compete globally in the long term a good idea though? The only remotely good argument is self sufficience, and it's running a bit thin, 50 years on from WWII.
    It's not a good idea, and I never said it was. I just said abruptly stopping would be damaging.

    (Original post by fishpaste)
    Yes, but decisions need to be made and we need to be going in the right direction. Further integration into a Europe which imposes unsound economic policy is the wrong direction.
    You're right, but further integration along with good economic policy is the right direction!


    (Original post by fishpaste)
    We've been trying, surely haven't we? How many times has it been sabotaged? it's here to stay because it suits just about all EU countries but ourself.

    The thing is, I really don't think the EU should be anything more than a free trade zone. This is clearly not the direction it's going in.
    If British governments have been trying to abolish the CAP, I certainly havn't noticed it. Quite a few farmers in the UK get rich off the CAP too you know.

    (Original post by fishpaste)
    It's forever incompatible with our interests in anything like its current form, because there are fundamental clashes in ways we do things as described above. And because the rest of EU is moving towards integration, not away, as would be desired.
    Incompatible with your interests, perhaps.

    (Original post by fishpaste)
    I disagree. One very fundamental point is that their interest rates may well not suit us. This is a much more serious threat to our economy than the minor currency conversion costs which we deal with at the moment. And the euro has clearly failed in many EU countries where the vast majority of people want it gone.
    The Bank of England's interest rates might not suit Manchester as much as London, Scotland as much as Wales, etc. As I said, in the right circumstances it'll be a good thing. Clearly, our current sensitivity to interest rates (because of abnormally high mortgage debt in the UK) is one of the reasons joining the Euro tomorrow wouldn't benefit us.

    (Original post by fishpaste)
    I disagree. I can see it forever being the case that the costs outweigh the benefits.
    Not much I can say to that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by polthegael)
    We still had to do another persons work and, because of our strick needs to have stuff "checked", we had to send people (usually me :mad: ) between our sites.

    We couldn't replace her because then we would be overstaffed and unable to lay anyone off should she come back (the boss had to play by the rules).

    Any funding from the government comes from us all anyway in taxes. Why should we pay for some woman to play the system like a fool?
    It sounds like your boss had no idea of the rules - or he did but he wanted to save himself a sallary for a few months.

    LOADS of jobs are offered to cover maternity leave.

    A woman has to declare her intention to come back and sign that she is comming back. If she doesn't then she doesn't get her full entitlement to maternity leave.

    Yeah I think it was your boss playing the system - he got you and your fellow workers to do her work instead of employing a temp and told you she kept saying she was comming back so still didn't employ anyone.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm REALLY insulted by this guy.

    How dare he assume that any woman even wants children.

    How dare he assume all small businesses are run by men.

    Just because it is possible a woman may take a few months maternity leave he doesn't want to empoy her.

    Does he also thing small bussinesses shouldn't employ people who's hobbies are sky diving, motorcycling, rugby................ [insert any other sport / activity where bones may be broken] just because one of these people MAY break a bone and be off work for a couple of months.

    What he's saying is that he thinks I shouldn't be emplyed in a small business because someone else has had a baby. How logical is that?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    *Grabs Greyhound01 and pulls him back into the real world*

    The UK does more than half its trade with EU members. Do you have any idea how much more expensive trade with EU members would be if we withdrew from the union? Do you have any idea how many companies who base their European business in the UK would up and leave because we're no longer in the EU trading bloc?

    The so called savings would disappear into thin air and become gigantic costs, ruining our economy.

    The largest cost of the EU is the CAP, something I would be more than happy to see the back of.
    What's going on the real world is that Norway and Switzerland are doing very well outside the EU, they trade with EU members because they, like us, are viable and prosperous markets. Being in some protectionist, artifical political club is of little relevance. I know that few if any companies have left because we aren't in the euro, in fact many have joined because of our greater competitiveness, so I doubt our exit from the EU would have the doomsday-like impact you prophecise.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    *Grabs Greyhound01 and pulls him back into the real world*

    The UK does more than half its trade with EU members. Do you have any idea how much more expensive trade with EU members would be if we withdrew from the union? Do you have any idea how many companies who base their European business in the UK would up and leave because we're no longer in the EU trading bloc?
    why dont you tell us. incidentally, London is the largest financial centre in Europe about 4 times over, European business needs London as much as it needs them.

    The so called savings would disappear into thin air and become gigantic costs, ruining our economy.
    disappear where?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think that Godfrey Bloom is a man to be taken seriously! I mean he refers to the European Parliament as 'The European House Of Nonsence'.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greyhound01)
    What's going on the real world is that Norway and Switzerland are doing very well outside the EU, they trade with EU members because they, like us, are viable and prosperous markets. Being in some protectionist, artifical political club is of little relevance. I know that few if any companies have left because we aren't in the euro, in fact many have joined because of our greater competitiveness, so I doubt our exit from the EU would have the doomsday-like impact you prophecise.
    Norway and Switzerland both have small populations and so arn't comparable to the UK fully. Also, we're growing faster than them both in recent years. Yeah, we're in the EU. Both of them still conform to most EU requirements to be allowed to trade in the free trade area.

    I'm not talking about being in the Euro, although in the years to come that might become a more relevant debate.

    I don't want to be in a protectionist club either, and that's why we should stay in. You can't change the EU if you leave!

    (Original post by vienna95)
    why dont you tell us. incidentally, London is the largest financial centre in Europe about 4 times over, European business needs London as much as it needs them.


    disappear where?
    Disappear into losses, vienna deary. London is a financial centre because we're in the EU and we speak English. American firms looking to tap into the EU market will pick London because there's no language barrier, and so it's cheaper.

    If we want to keep free trade with the EU then we'll still have to abide by the rules, whether we're inside it or not. I've already outlined why we'd still have to spend a whole lot of cash on farm subsidies too. There's really not many savings to be made by leaving. We've drawn lines in the sand over certain issues with the EU and we've always won our concessions. I'd say we're doing pretty damned well out of the deal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    Disappear into losses, vienna deary.
    losses? losses from/to where? and be careful with your tone.

    London is a financial centre because we're in the EU and we speak English. American firms looking to tap into the EU market will pick London because there's no language barrier, and so it's cheaper.
    no, London is the financial centre because we speak English and there is no where else near it in Europe, the fact that we're in the EU is irrelevant if you consider the US and Europe would still go through London.

    If we want to keep free trade with the EU then we'll still have to abide by the rules, whether we're inside it or not. I've already outlined why we'd still have to spend a whole lot of cash on farm subsidies too. There's really not many savings to be made by leaving. We've drawn lines in the sand over certain issues with the EU and we've always won our concessions. I'd say we're doing pretty damned well out of the deal.
    just to clarify, youre yes to EU, no to Euro?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    losses? losses from/to where? and be careful with your tone.

    no, London is the financial centre because we speak English and there is no where else near it in Europe, the fact that we're in the EU is irrelevant if you consider the US and Europe would still go through London.

    just to clarify, youre yes to EU, no to Euro?
    Losses into the Eurozone, depending on how much we separated from the EU.

    The fact that we're in the EU is hardly irrelevant, if you want to throw off the 'burden of EU regulation' then companies trading in the UK will no longer be able to trade as freely with EU member states. I've already explained that Norway et al still have to abide by a lot of EU laws and are growing slower than the UK.

    I'm yes to EU, and I'm yes to the Euro when the time is right.

    If the Euro continues to grow to more countries then eventually the costs of not being in the Euro would be massive. Imagine if the other 24 nations (although it'll probably be more than 30 in the next decade) all adopted the Euro. There would be almost no benefit to locating a company in London then. We can only get away with it because the Euro is still fairly small. I would like us to try and sort out the issues that would cause problems with the Euro, our housing market crisis being the main one.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 8, 2004
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.