Britain Considering Leaving the EU

[whichphilosophy]

we cant squeeze in the whole of Africa into Europe.

The Europeans sure didn't think that when they were looting the continent's resources.

Shall we talk about the Navaho and Soux?? We are now in the 21st Century, African resources are being looted or simply neglected by a few Africans. Let the Africans push for reforms and modernise their own countries. There are some highly educated Africans who could start to do this. While they could work in the West on contract, their own countries could consider employing their skills. China has done this very successfully. Emigration causes a potential brain drain. If you view CCTV9 the Chinese English propaganda TV, the Chinese government gives 100% scholarships to bright students to study abroad and offers them lucarative jobs on their return.

As I mentioned immigrants with skills should be welcome and protected by law against wages below that of the citizens of Britain. This was applied with quite a bit of success in Hong Kong though it is not fool proof.
I was in Beijing when China hosted a conference of African nations and wrote off their debts. The exclusive FRIENDSHIP STORE which sells genuine antiques at tens of thousands of dollars was almost emptied as African leaders went shopping.

 

[Togo]

It solved the problem in the past. Is there some reason why it wouldn't do the same today?

No, it didn't solve the problem in the past. The problem in the past was decaying legacy housing, from the quick-fix 1950s tower blocks in the south to the ex-tenement housing in the north, to the outdated port facilities in major port cities to a flight from inner city housing. The housing building program saw the regeneration of many of these areas, the construction of a few extra 'new towns' in areas with a high potential for dormitory housing

Since then, the price of land in some areas has ballooned. My in-laws live in the north, in a large detached house, in town, handy for the shops. I live in a somewhat smaller property, in a terrace, with less access. Yet my house is worth 4-5 times theirs. Note that both of these houses are smaller than their European counterparts, as is UK housing generally. There is space to build new houses, near by in-laws' house. Not near mine.

The problem now is the price differential, fuelled by the big differences in income and job prospects between the two areas, and international speculation in the south. Building isn't that hard, and many houses are being build, but it's not affordable housing in areas where people want to live, because areas in which people want to live aren't affordable.

You lectured on Cameron's offering a referendum as 'just politics' because you couldn't see any reason to put EU membership in jeopardy. You've said that British appeals for EU reform are 'just politics' because you can't see any real issue there. Is it possible that these all seem to be purely bickering and political and people being unreasonable to you, because you don't really understand these issues?

It's possible. But turn that question back around to yourself; is it possible these really *are* just examples of unreasonable politics at play?

It seems implausible, but then I suppose it depends on what you mean. There are genuine issues, which you're ignoring. It seems implausible that these are not the reasons why these problems emerge. Could it be that these are actually easily fixable problems, that are simply being blown out of proportion for political reasons? No, that would involve conspiracy theories on a massive scale, and is merely a fantasy.

The more interesting question is whether these problems could be solved with a lot of hard work. The answer to that is probably yes, but that's exactly what you're trying to block by insisting that it's a political conspiracy. I suspect, for example, that the issue of the EU accountants being corrupt and fraudulent is a solvable one. Not easily solvable, but it could be tackled and mostly resolved if there was the political will to do so. The problem is that there isn't that will, because too many people would become vulnerable to attack during the process. Similarly, the CAP could be reformed. Not easily, and it would take an awfully long time, but there's no reason in principle why it couldn't be done. Unless you allow political considerations to dominate, of course.

The point is that you have to acknowledge the actual problems in order to solve them. Claims that X is a negotiating tactic or that Y is merely a political issue are themselves political attempts to block compromise and negotiation.

No, we have issues with people in care homes going unwashed because the private care-home owners are trying to make a fast buck by not hiring sufficient staff. They've (perhaps correctly) identified that they can pay tiny wages and ignore staff turnover, because there aren't sufficient effective controls and checks on the care they provide to put them out of business.

I'm not aware of any drastic shortage of people to hire. They are short-staffed of course, but that's deliberate on their part. It's just that they pay badly, treat their staff badly, and prefer minimal levels of staffing to maximise profit.

This is a fair point; but I'm not sure you can solve the staffing problem in the long-term just by raising wages; not if without immigration European countries' population growth will fall below replacement level.

We're not going to run out unemployed people any time soon. The era of treating people as disposable and interchangeable may be drawing to a close, but Europe has never been competitive in terms of cheap labour anyway. A Norwegian bus driver cost 12 times as much as a similar driver in Calcutta. Increasing the number of people who want his job will temporarily depress his wages, but it's never going to be a long-term solution. The solution has to be better productivity, better systems, better innovation, better solutions. That involves keeping people for longer in the same job for longer, and paying them more. Immigration is a quick-fix distraction from the changes we need to make. Don't get me wrong, importing the world's best people is a great position to be in, but ultimately we need to be training them ourselves, not creaming them off from other countries.

 

[dystopian]

The problem now is the price differential, fuelled by the big differences in income and job prospects between the two areas, and international speculation in the south. Building isn't that hard, and many houses are being build, but it's not affordable housing in areas where people want to live, because areas in which people want to live aren't affordable.

This is not, however, an actual problem in the context of what we were talking about: namely the ability of the UK to provide enough affordable housing for immigrants at all. So then the problem isn't really one of there not being enough housing/space; and the anti-immigration argument shouldn't be made on the basis thereof.

It seems implausible, but then I suppose it depends on what you mean. There are genuine issues, which you're ignoring.

Just because I do not ascribe to them the same importance you might, does not mean I ignore issues; genuine or otherwise.

It seems implausible that these are not the reasons why these problems emerge. Could it be that these are actually easily fixable problems, that are simply being blown out of proportion for political reasons? No, that would involve conspiracy theories on a massive scale, and is merely a fantasy.

Conspiracy theories? It requires nothing of the sort; just the general sort of incompetence inherent to all sizeable human governance. Too much input, too many voices, too many pet causes, too many competing vested interests, too much chaos. There are so many things we could fix as a species if we weren't quite so *human*.

The more interesting question is whether these problems could be solved with a lot of hard work. The answer to that is probably yes, but that's exactly what you're trying to block by insisting that it's a political conspiracy.

As I already explained, I'm not insisting its a political conspiracy, but the excact opposite. You seem rather intent on ascribing certain motivations and meanings to my posts that are not actually there. Just as I interpret the actions and words of others a certain way; in line with my own worldview, so do you. Take the Cameron thing; I ascribed certain political motivations to it because I would rather believe he's trying to take a wider view and actually accomplish something instead of taking such an incredible risk for the sole benefit of his own power as you appear to have argued. For some reason you seem inclined to think this means I'm seeing conspiracies; which I find difficult to understand since there's no actual conspiracy involved in my view of that issue; or any other issue we've talked about. Certainly not conspiracies of a "massive scale"

I suspect, for example, that the issue of the EU accountants being corrupt and fraudulent is a solvable one. Not easily solvable, but it could be tackled and mostly resolved if there was the political will to do so. The problem is that there isn't that will, because too many people would become vulnerable to attack during the process. Similarly, the CAP could be reformed. Not easily, and it would take an awfully long time, but there's no reason in principle why it couldn't be done. Unless you allow political considerations to dominate, of course.

You're saying the exact same thing here I am.

The point is that you have to acknowledge the actual problems in order to solve them. Claims that X is a negotiating tactic or that Y is merely a political issue are themselves political attempts to block compromise and negotiation.

Ah, but it really isn't. Stating that X is a negotiation tactic and/or that Y is a political issue does not mean that one therefore denies or refrains from acknowledging Z. Furthermore, even if Z is an actual problem, this does not therefore imply that X is not also a negotiating tactic or that Y is not merely a political issue. It also isn't the case that stating these things about either X or Y represents political attempts to block compromise/negotiation regardless of whether or not they're true; rather they represent efforts to present a stronger position from which to negotiate, counterbalancing the position of the other side; which is to be expected in any situation.

We're not going to run out unemployed people any time soon.

Which isn't to say that all of those people are waiting or ready to take up these jobs if only there'd be a proper wage paid.

The era of treating people as disposable and interchangeable may be drawing to a close, but Europe has never been competitive in terms of cheap labour anyway. A Norwegian bus driver cost 12 times as much as a similar driver in Calcutta. Increasing the number of people who want his job will temporarily depress his wages, but it's never going to be a long-term solution. The solution has to be better productivity, better systems, better innovation, better solutions. That involves keeping people for longer in the same job for longer, and paying them more.

Which unfortunately will never happen under our current economic system. Under the system we have, better productivity is described in terms of monetary production, not any other kind of production (which generally can't be quantized in the service industry in non-monetary ways to begin with). So long as the economic system equates productivity with financial gain, we will not be seeing this magical buzzword quad of better 'productivity, systems, innovation, and solutions' becoming a reality. What does that even mean anyhow? That sounds a bit too much like empty marketing speech; you don't create solutions or innovations simply by keeping people in the same job longer and paying them more. Also, saying that the solution involves having 'better solutions' is a really absurd thing to say, I hope you realize.

I'm not saying that immigration is *the* fix for these problems. But even if immigrants are only a stop-gap measure, there's really no way to get to the solutions we want without them. Closing off borders and talking about paying people more and keeping them in the same job longer is, ironic given your earlier statements, just refusing to acknowledge the long-term problems. You can't fix fundamental problems by playing with numbers like that. The real solutions are still a ways off no matter how much we start focusing our efforts on them, and immigrants present a good way to slow the problems down long enough.

All that said, I'm not personally particularly interested in these sorts of practicality-based immigration arguments. It strikes me as an inherently moral issue, and not a practical one, since the pro/anti immigration crowds don't seem to be swayed by facts/arguments either way. Even if you could provide logically unquestionable evidence that unrestricted immigration is a good thing, most anti-immigration people will still remain anti-immigration. And the opposite scenario would be true as well.

 

[Togo]

So then the problem isn't really one of there not being enough housing/space; and the anti-immigration argument shouldn't be made on the basis thereof.

I've never said otherwise. You're not confusing me with whichphilosophy, are you?

It seems implausible, but then I suppose it depends on what you mean. There are genuine issues, which you're ignoring.

Just because I do not ascribe to them the same importance you might, does not mean I ignore issues; genuine or otherwise.

No, but not making reference to these genuine issues when you are considering a position does mean you're ignoring them, intentionally or otherwise.

It seems implausible that these are not the reasons why these problems emerge. Could it be that these are actually easily fixable problems, that are simply being blown out of proportion for political reasons? No, that would involve conspiracy theories on a massive scale, and is merely a fantasy.

Conspiracy theories? It requires nothing of the sort;

The more interesting question is whether these problems could be solved with a lot of hard work. The answer to that is probably yes, but that's exactly what you're trying to block by insisting that it's a political conspiracy.

As I already explained, I'm not insisting its a political conspiracy, but the excact opposite.

No, you're insisting on a conspiracy. These issues did not merge from some invisible cauldron of political machination. They were proposed by Eurosceptic members of Cameron's party, they were discussed widely, the issue has been boiling on for several years, and was finally forced on Cameron. For the actual motive to be to do with creating pressure for negotiations, as you suggested, would require the cooperation and collusion of Cameron and his close allies with his political opponents and those with longstanding opposition to the policies he's enacted. That's why I regard it as implausible.

You seem rather intent on ascribing certain motivations and meanings to my posts that are not actually there. Just as I interpret the actions and words of others a certain way; in line with my own worldview, so do you.

And so does Cameron. I'm not fond of the man, but suggesting he's somehow invented or allowed to this issue to blow up in order to create negotiating collateral is a position based on ignorance. What exactly is the difference between me ascribing motives to you, and you ascribing them to British politicians or voters? You're adding motivations that are not actually there.

Take the Cameron thing; I ascribed certain political motivations to it because I would rather believe he's trying to take a wider view

You're accusing him of stage managing a revolt in his own party to impress European politicians. Since he can't actually do that himself without a lot of help, you're suggesting a conspiracy to do the same.

I suspect, for example, that the issue of the EU accountants being corrupt and fraudulent is a solvable one. Not easily solvable, but it could be tackled and mostly resolved if there was the political will to do so. The problem is that there isn't that will, because too many people would become vulnerable to attack during the process. Similarly, the CAP could be reformed. Not easily, and it would take an awfully long time, but there's no reason in principle why it couldn't be done. Unless you allow political considerations to dominate, of course.

You're saying the exact same thing here I am.

No, I'm saying something that you agree with, but haven't said.

Britian has asked for financial and CAP reform. You've talked a lot about whining children seeking special treatment, and trying to put pressure on the rest of the EU, but as a straight question: Does Britain have a point? Is there a genuine need for reform here?

The point is that you have to acknowledge the actual problems in order to solve them. Claims that X is a negotiating tactic or that Y is merely a political issue are themselves political attempts to block compromise and negotiation.

Ah, but it really isn't. Stating that X is a negotiation tactic and/or that Y is a political issue does not mean that one therefore denies or refrains from acknowledging Z.

No, but it does mean you deny or refrain from acknowledging Y. And it is a means for blocking any discussion of Y.

Furthermore, even if Z is an actual problem, this does not therefore imply that X is not also a negotiating tactic or that Y is not merely a political issue.

It does imply that Y is not an actual problem. That's what 'merely a political issue' means.

We're not going to run out unemployed people any time soon.

Which isn't to say that all of those people are waiting or ready to take up these jobs if only there'd be a proper wage paid.

Unless you're subscribing to the idea that unemployed people don't really want jobs, then yes, that's exactly what is says. Unemployed people are, by definition, the people looking for work.

Is there something magical about care for the elderly that means only immigrants want to do it?

The era of treating people as disposable and interchangeable may be drawing to a close, but Europe has never been competitive in terms of cheap labour anyway. A Norwegian bus driver cost 12 times as much as a similar driver in Calcutta. Increasing the number of people who want his job will temporarily depress his wages, but it's never going to be a long-term solution. The solution has to be better productivity, better systems, better innovation, better solutions. That involves keeping people for longer in the same job for longer, and paying them more.

Which unfortunately will never happen under our current economic system. Under the system we have, better productivity is described in terms of monetary production, not any other kind of production (which generally can't be quantized in the service industry in non-monetary ways to begin with).

The 'system' is made up of individuals. Of which many companies have been quite happily recognising that productivity isn't just monetary for many years. I've seen the issue raised and implemented in favourable terms in financial institutions, steelworks, call centres, IT firms, engineering firms, and so on. Even in the military. Business is fine with it. It's those who are involved in political and economic theory rather than practice, that struggle with the concept - so politicians and economists.

I'm not saying that immigration is *the* fix for these problems. But even if immigrants are only a stop-gap measure, there's really no way to get to the solutions we want without them.

Perhaps it would help if you could say what these problems are, and why they're so intractable?

 

[dystopian]

I've never said otherwise. You're not confusing me with whichphilosophy, are you?

I was talking to whichphilosophy who was making that argument, stating that the UK could easily provide enough housing for 2 million immigrants a decade if it desired to. You decided you didn't like a word I used and proceeded to engage. Don't act surprised that I therefore respond to you as if you were making the same argument.

No, but not making reference to these genuine issues when you are considering a position does mean you're ignoring them, intentionally or otherwise.

No, it doesn't. Not making reference to various issues (your insistence on inserting the word 'genuine' there every time you talk about them strikes me as interesting) means nothing more than that I'm not making reference to them during the course of a conversation. Not mentioning something and ignoring something are two different things. That said, just because you think something is a "genuine" issue; as opposed to just a regular issue and feel slighted that I'm not referencing them enough, doesn't inspire in me the notion that I should consider such issue with the same gravitas you apparently do.

No, you're insisting on a conspiracy.

Repeating a false claim does little to justify it.

These issues did not merge from some invisible cauldron of political machination.

Which I did not claim nor insinuate.

hey were proposed by Eurosceptic members of Cameron's party, they were discussed widely, the issue has been boiling on for several years, and was finally forced on Cameron. For the actual motive to be to do with creating pressure for negotiations, as you suggested,

Except that I suggested no such thing; I suggested that it was *part* of the motivation; and I have seen no convincing argument to the contrary.

would require the cooperation and collusion of Cameron and his close allies with his political opponents and those with longstanding opposition to the policies he's enacted.

So, it somehow becomes a conspiracy theory because I think that in addition to being politically pressured into it, he might *also* seek to use it to strengthen his negotiating position? How the fuck does that work? Why does he need to collude with his political opponents, who want a referendum, in order to also want to strengthen his negotiating position? Where's the conspiracy here exactly? Do you imagine my argument is that the whole thing is just smoke and mirror and Cameron has masterfully convinced his allies and opponents to just play along with a fake referendum? I honestly don't understand what you're thinking here.

You're accusing him of stage managing a revolt in his own party to impress European politicians. Since he can't actually do that himself without a lot of help, you're suggesting a conspiracy to do the same.

There you go again, drawing conclusions about my position despite me explicitly telling you those conclusions are wrong. It seems you've misinterpreted what I've said earlier, and are now incapable of altering that. I've accused him of no such thing.

No, I'm saying something that you agree with, but haven't said.

That's odd, because in the post you were responding to I explicitly mentioned the problem inherent in human political systems, a problem you re-iterate above. The other matters you mentioned are details which I am not particularly inclined to agree or disagree with.

Britian has asked for financial and CAP reform. You've talked a lot about whining children seeking special treatment, and trying to put pressure on the rest of the EU, but as a straight question: Does Britain have a point? Is there a genuine need for reform here?

It's hard to really know since it seems as if Britain doensn't even know what reforms it wants, other than that it wants reforms. Let's take a look at the list of things Cameron has said he wants to see reformed, shall we? I'll take them point by point.

• Powers flowing from Brussels, not always to it. - In principle there's agreement here; nothing wrong with decentralized EU governance. However, this is hopelessly vague and seems little more than a populist soundbite. What powers specifically? And why this insistence on referring to these powers as "always" flowing *to* Brussels when this isn't the case to begin with?
• National parliaments able to work together to block unwanted European legislation. - Sure, agree. To a point. But this is essentially already true, so it seems like another statement for public consumption and not any sort of specific reform.
• Businesses liberated from red tape and benefiting from the strength of the EU's own market to open up greater free trade with North America and Asia. - I'd have to see the specific red tape to be eliminated. Unregulated business is not something we should aspire to; though specific regulations may do more harm than good.
• UK police forces and justice systems able to protect British citizens, unencumbered by unnecessary interference from the European institutions, including the European court of human rights. - This is flat-out insane, and something UK citizens should be deeply concerned by.
• Free movement to take up work, not free benefits. - Another populist statement; there is little evidence that this is actually a problem to begin with; even if there's a popular perception of immigrants along these lines. EU-migrants have been shown to be a net benefit to the UK economy, the number of them that soak up free benefits are a percentage too small to be represent anything other than a cheap way to score votes with certain demographics. Furthermore, reforms on this issue are likely to result in unacceptable restrictions for the free flow of people that is seen as one of the pillars of the EU.
• Support for the continued enlargement of the EU to new members but with new mechanisms in place to prevent vast migrations across the continent. - See above.
• Ensuring Britain is no longer subject to the concept of "ever closer union", enshrined in the treaty signed by every EU country. - Another populist appeal. It's hard to take the UK seriously when it's getting worked up over a semantic issue regarding a bit of poetic treaty language. This is also the sort of demand for special snowflake status that I was talking about (and which you seem to be offended by).

This is the list of reforms which Cameron has publicized and with which I'm familiar. They are either too vague for me to outright agree with or too absurd. If you have some specific proposed reforms though, I'd be willing to consider them.

No, but it does mean you deny or refrain from acknowledging Y. And it is a means for blocking any discussion of Y.

I don't think you understand what you're saying here. No, it does not mean one *denies* Y. It does mean you refrain from acknowledging Y, but that is not a means of blocking any discussion of Y: if people want to discuss Y they are free to do so, but me not starting such a discussion (or engaging in it) is not akin to blocking it.

It does imply that Y is not an actual problem. That's what 'merely a political issue' means.

No, it doesn't. The fact that something is caused or perpetuated by nothing more than politics doesn't mean that that something isn't a problem. It means it doesn't *have* to be a problem.

Unless you're subscribing to the idea that unemployed people don't really want jobs, then yes, that's exactly what is says. Unemployed people are, by definition, the people looking for work.

Is there something magical about care for the elderly that means only immigrants want to do it?

You're assuming that you can somehow 1) force the people in charge to add more workers to properly take care of everyone, 2) increase the wages to a high enough level that enough people will actually take the undesirable jobs that have now been added in sufficient numbers, 3) That these changes in the care industry are economically sustainable, which may be true or might not be true. And 4) that these wage/workforce changes will not adversely impact other sectors of the economy; which again may or may not be the case.

The 'system' is made up of individuals. Of which many companies have been quite happily recognising that productivity isn't just monetary for many years. I've seen the issue raised and implemented in favourable terms in financial institutions, steelworks, call centres, IT firms, engineering firms, and so on. Even in the military. Business is fine with it.

Anecdotal evidence is questionable. Sure, there are companies which do appear to think along less profit-driven lines; how much of that is just for PR purposes as opposed to being genuine is up for grabs. And there are many companies still, perhaps even the majority, that are less inclined to think along such lines.

Perhaps it would help if you could say what these problems are, and why they're so intractable?

Aging demographics + Increasing and inevitable automatization; the latter paradoxically being both part of the cause and the likely solution for these sorts of issues; there's just the problem of bridging the gap between now and technology maturing to a sufficiently advanced point; which is where the immigrants come in.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I was talking to whichphilosophy who was making that argument, stating that the UK could easily provide enough housing for 2 million immigrants a decade if it desired to. You decided you didn't like a word I used and proceeded to engage. Don't act surprised that I therefore respond to you as if you were making the same argument.

The UK cannot provide an additional 2 million houses a decade since all the major parties are agreed that 200,000 migrants a year is excessive. Also why should it' where 200,000 a year are not needed. Figures of around 20,000 to 25,000 a year are more realistic for recruiting legal productive skilled migrants. However this could be regulated up or down.
All the major parties now want to reduce immigration.

The National parliaments cannot work together to block unwanted migration if the EU members are bound by asinine and ineffective laws which even the less educated migrants can easily circumvent such as no ID

Re your last paragraph there is no issue to inviting skilled workers on contract.

 

[whichphilosophy]

We're not going to run out unemployed people any time soon. The era of treating people as disposable and interchangeable may be drawing to a close, but Europe has never been competitive in terms of cheap labour anyway. A Norwegian bus driver cost 12 times as much as a similar driver in Calcutta. Increasing the number of people who want his job will temporarily depress his wages, but it's never going to be a long-term solution. The solution has to be better productivity, better systems, better innovation, better solutions. That involves keeping people for longer in the same job for longer, and paying them more. Immigration is a quick-fix distraction from the changes we need to make. Don't get me wrong, importing the world's best people is a great position to be in, but ultimately we need to be training them ourselves, not creaming them off from other countries.

You made some good points. To add to your last point, why should a European Citizen (or citizen of any other country) be forced to compete with someone from a poorer country where housing and standard of living is a fraction of the cost.

Europeans campaigned for hundreds of years for salaries where they could also afford luxuries. The money started to get spent into the economy to create even jobs, be they in bars, restaurants, banks, airlines hotels, etc. So why should we allow the importation of people to undercut jobs that already exist.
We can however take people after they have been awarded a contract to fill a vacancy which cannot be filled locally (including advert in major media). They will fill genuine vacancies and be protected by law against being paid less than the local population. This prevents undercutting and protects the migrant. Hong Kong applied this quite successfully to protect its own population. This is going back about 20 years so I don’t know if such laws changed after the handover.

In such instances the migrant worker on contract must also receive full health cover under the NHS as he will be a full tax payer. At the end of the contract but with exceptions he/she goes back home.
Then the migrant can go back home with money earned and saved to perhaps influence change in his own country. This has happened somewhat in the Philippines though not in a spectacular way.
For avoidance of doubt, European means anyone of any ethnicity who holds a European passport.

The problem is that if we cream of the skilled from other countries it causes a brain drain that would stunt their development.

 

[Rhea]

Well, today is the day, eh?

Any predictions, local expectations or questionable polls to look at before voting finishes?