Poll: The EU Referendum: What Will You Vote? (New Poll)

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?


  • Total voters
    1,204
Status
Not open for further replies.
Viktor Orban, Hungary’s Prime Minister, has told his parliament that Cameron got nothing and reassures them that Hungarians who have not paid contributions will still get UK benefits:

“the real debate was about there being benefits which workers do not pay for, but for which they are nonetheless eligible. The question was what should happen with benefits paid to third-country nationals, for which no contributions are paid in Britain. Here, too, we have succeeded in ensuring that these social benefits cannot be taken away… This means that we have even succeeded in protecting benefits which people working in the United Kingdom did not pay for in the form of contributions.”

Quite literally, Orban is boasting that Hungarians in Britain will get something for nothing…


:mad:
 
[TW]Fox;29213451 said:
Like they'd have to worry about that if we left?

Do you think minimum wage jobs will suddenly pay 20 quid an hour because we've left the EU?

Surely its not just about minimum wage jobs but also those jobs that pay above the minimum wage that then become minimum wage jobs because an oversupply of cheap labor?
 
No, but saying £20 an hour is just being silly, but if locals aren't willing to work at some of the crappy jobs for NMW then the employers will have to raise wages to entice UK workers in. Even the reports that say immigration hasn't overall affected wages, do acknowledge there has been a small downward pressure on the low skilled manual labour end of the market, and this would be corrected if we didn't have the Eastern Europeans to do it.

This issue is forever misinterpreted. Not only for the last century there is always someone perpetually blamed for "stealing them jobs for pennies", whether it's Irish, various "illegals", Polish or Bulgarians, but also because there is a notion of some sort of cumulative evil exploiting employer figure who accumulates vast amount of cushy wealth between paying "them migrants sleeping ten a bed in shipping containers" pennies, and charging the customer a fortune. In real life free economy, outside of Socialist Worker articles and UKIP mythology, this doesn't happen. Unskilled and low skilled labour wages undertake constant adjustment on workforce supply basis - the days when bricky or road maintainer would break top tier in annual wage are over, because such wage discrepancy doesn't exist anywhere else in Europe. And it's not unfair adjustment, it benefits the economy.

In a scenario where you artificially cut off supply of labour to protect local market, the impact is not on the fatcat employer, but on consumer directly. If Polish builder is gone and British builder will not work for less than £150 a day, his benefit of higher wage is paid at the expense of hundreds of customers a year. So the question is - how much more are YOU willing to pay for your garden wall or your carpeting, how much are YOU willing to pay for Amazon delivery or pizza to your door, how much service charge are YOU willing to pay in restaurant to dish washers and bus boys for all unskilled and low skilled functions to be performed by someone born and bred on England's pleasant pastures and paid "decent wage"?
 
Last edited:
In all honestly, i don't trust our own police force to protect us when it comes to gimmigants, the only way to protect ourselves is to not to be in the EU so they have no chance of getting in, even if they get passports in Europe.

This is just such a nonsense paragraph.

Why do you think not being in the EU 'protects' us against this? Norway isn't in the EU - is it free of '***********'?

They didn't arrive in the EU legally anyway so what makes you think the fact we changed political status would 'protect' us? These people are arriving by slashing fences, travelling across seas, etc..
 
And the signs from the EU (and remember EU member states can't negotiate on their own, it needs to be via the EU) is that they will not sign a free trade agreement without freedom of movement.

I can't see the likes of Renault, Citroen, Fiat, BMW, Mercedes, and and Siemens sitting by and letting that happen.
 
I can't see the likes of Renault, Citroen, Fiat, BMW, Mercedes, and and Siemens sitting by and letting that happen.

I'm not sure they have a choice in the matter. Whilst they can lobby, and I'm sure they would, hard; EU member states would ultimately need to agree, which wouldn't be fast.

It may be more pragmatic and indeed cheaper for those companies to move production elsewhere. That in itself is a big decision which has costs and lead times, but I'm sure they'd at least run the numbers and work out what is cheaper, in both the short and medium terms.
 
[TW]Fox;29213851 said:
This is just such a nonsense paragraph.

Why do you think not being in the EU 'protects' us against this? Norway isn't in the EU - is it free of '***********'?

They didn't arrive in the EU legally anyway so what makes you think the fact we changed political status would 'protect' us? These people are arriving by slashing fences, travelling across seas, etc..

Norway joined Schengen though, against the will of the Norwegian people I might add. Once an EU member states gives a migrant the right to stay in their country, then we can't legally prevent them coming to the UK
 
Norway joined Schengen though, against the will of the Norwegian people I might add. Once an EU member states gives a migrant the right to stay in their country, then we can't legally prevent them coming to the UK

But you are completely ignoring the fact that business wants these people.
 
It may be more pragmatic and indeed cheaper for those companies to move production elsewhere. That in itself is a big decision which has costs and lead times, but I'm sure they'd at least run the numbers and work out what is cheaper, in both the short and medium terms.

Production? The issue is trade tariffs not production.

Aside from Siemens I don't think those companies have significant manufacturing facilities in the UK and Siemens is v.high skill jobs.
 
Quite literally, Orban is boasting that Hungarians in Britain will get something for nothing…

I am dubious as to the validity of your sources. Here is Orban saying something similar but sharply distinct:

On the subject of social benefits for migrant workers (an expression that makes Orbán wince when applied to Hungarians working in the UK), he announced that the Visegrád 4 countries had achieved their objective of ensuring EU citizens continue to have the right to work anywhere in the bloc without obstruction. He offered as proof of success the fact that Hungarians working in other EU countries would have access to social services “without discrimination.” Thanks to the results achieved at the summit, Hungarians working abroad would “continue to receive what they paid for to date”, in other words, there would be no roll-back in benefits for Hungarians already working in the UK.

Orbán said that in the case of families with children working in Great Britain, it was agreed that the level of social support they receive would be adjusted to reflect disparities in the cost of living in the case of those foreign workers whose children are living in another country. He said families living in the UK with their children would continue to receive the same benefits as British families with children.​
 
Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious here, but if they're produced in the UK to be sold in the EU, then having an import/export duty would be a cost for these companies to deal with right?

You're missing the fact that the access to the British market is the issue raised. so yes.

If they are not manufactured here then we would impose trade tariffs on the likes of BMW and Mercedes .
 
Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious here, but if they're produced in the UK to be sold in the EU, then having an import/export duty would be a cost for these companies to deal with right?

Exactly, cars produced in the UK, exported into the EU may be subject to tariffs if we leave.

But there we go again, if, may etc.
 
The government is backing the IN campaign so it will use it's 'influence' to present the arguments it sees fit for us to be IN, which requires funding. Ultimately the referendum will be decided democratically by a public vote. Those opposing the IN campaign can promulgate their views through the media and in the Commons, but at the end of the day, its me and you who have the final say.

Having the government machinery behind them gives us a considerable advantage over the Leave campaign. Yes, at the end of the day, it is one man, one vote but the result of that result will be swung by the campaign that proceeds it.

Cameron's decision is making the campaign less fair.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom