The EU - Leave or Remain?

[Gareth]

for those with kids (or grandkids) old enough to vote - have you asked what they think?

If they are able to vote then why should their views be given greater value than other voters?

Because they'll have to live with the consequences of the decisions for much longer and it will have more of an effect on their lives.

But, maybe, they have less experience upon which to base a decision.

[Horse]

Our company has the opposite problem - the UK is not providing enough skilled engineers, so we have no option but to recruit from abroad.

Are you certain that your company wouldn't be able to find more engineers if it offered higher salaries? One effect of easier migration is to keep UK salaries lower.

From experiences of visiting family members over the last few years, from hospitals through to care homes, I wonder whether simply offering 'higher salaries' would solve anything anywhere?

There are a finite number of people here. If we [ie a company or organisation] simply use buying power [which, I presume, budgets in hospitals and care homes won't permit anyway] to take the staff from others, it simply moves the problem elsewhere - so still needing staff to be imported.

And, of course, someone somewhere has to pay the bills created by those higher wages. The care/nursing homes and hospitals were paid for by UK tax/rate payers. So higher taxes = need for higher salaries. Yup, that works . . . not.

[jont-]

There are a finite number of people here. If we [ie a company or organisation] simply use buying power [which, I presume, budgets in hospitals and care homes won't permit anyway] to take the staff from others, it simply moves the problem elsewhere - so still needing staff to be imported.

And, of course, someone somewhere has to pay the bills created by those higher wages. The care/nursing homes and hospitals were paid for by UK tax/rate payers. So higher taxes = need for higher salaries. Yup, that works . . . not.

It causes me amusement and despair, in pretty much equal measure that salary comparisons between companies are used at one level (CxO) as an argument for higher salaries/better packages to ensure you get the best person, while at another level (general plebs) it's used to artificially depress salaries (let's face it, if companies comparing salaries at pleb level caused salaries to rise, they'd stop doing it ). And that's before you get into non-compete agreements of the like that have lead to class action suits in the US.

Is it better for ones earning potential to need a visa to move abroad or to have freedom of movement within the EU?

[Strangely Brown]

Is it better for ones earning potential to need a visa to move abroad or to have freedom of movement within the EU?

If your skill set and earning potential is desirable to the country in which you wish to work, you won't have any trouble getting a visa. It's a non-argument.

[IcedKiwi]

Are you certain that your company wouldn't be able to find more engineers if it offered higher salaries? One effect of easier migration is to keep UK salaries lower.

Theory - money doesn't motivate engineers*, challenge, mastery and making a contribution does.



*Providing they're paid enough to take the money issue off the table

[userLeft1]

A few observations.

The UK is not a democracy. It is a representative democracy and that is critical to what a post- leave vote will mean. Both the major political parties that can realistically form the UK government are committed to the single market and a vote to leave the EU is not a vote to not be part of the single market.

The single market, is an attempt by EU countries to standardise rules across the EU to remove barriers that restrict the buying and selling of goods and services, the employment of workers and the making and receiving of capital investment. The rules are made by the Member States of the EU not the EU institutions. Prior to 1986 the making of these rules required unanimity among States and naturally progress was slow. Subsequently, Member States introduced 'qualified majority voting' to solve this 'sclerosis' in achieving the single market. Each MS has a number of votes depending on its size. The most votes are held by Germany, France, Italy and the UK , the 'big four'. No single Member State can veto proposed legislation on its own, it takes at least two of the 'big four' in addition to any one of the others to do so. this leads to plenty of bargaining between Member States. As it stands the UK has only been outvoted on around 5% of EU legislation. One might say a 5% loss of sovereignty in return for membership of the single market. For some of course, that is 100% too much.

Why is any of the above relevant? In my view all of the evidence points to our elected representatives, both present and future keeping us in the single market in the event of a leave vote. This would most likely be achieved by signing a series of treaties with the EU as, for example, Switzerland has done. Switzerland is not in the EU but is, effectively, part of the single market. You might be surprised to learn that Switzerland, like the UK, is a net contributor to the EU. If a State wishes to be part of the single market then a State must accept all of the rules of the single market. One of those rules, that our elected representatives signed up to around 15 years ago is that the rich Western European countries would subsidise investment in infrastructure in the poor post-Communist, Eastern European countries. This was not imposed on us by EU institutions, our elected representatives choice to do this and it required unanimity. As Switzerland is not in the EU it does not have a single vote on new legislation that is proposed for the single market.

Some argue that, as the UK's economy is so much larger than Switzerland's leaving the single market would damage the single market and this threat should persuade the rest of the EU to allow the UK to remain part of the single market but on its own terms. Furthermore they argue that if the rest of the EU didn't concede to this then those Member States would be "punishing" the UK for leaving the EU. Other Member States cannot reasonably be expected to allow the UK to pick and choose which rules of the single market it wishes to be bound by when they cannot do the same. If anyone is intending to "blackmail" it is some 'Leave' supporters.

The referendum does not put the people in control of Government. It simply puts a political constraint on the manner in which Government achieves its objectives. I believe a vote to leave is a vote for the UK to give up more of its political sovereignty as we will be left out of the law making process but still part of the single market. Be careful what you wish for.

[sussex2]

' I believe a vote to leave is a vote for the UK to give up more of its political sovereignty as we will be left out of the law making process but still part of the single market. Be careful what you wish for.

Indeed!

[sussex2]

for those with kids (or grandkids) old enough to vote - have you asked what they think?

If they are able to vote then why should their views be given greater value than other voters?

Our company has the opposite problem - the UK is not providing enough skilled engineers, so we have no option but to recruit from abroad.

Are you certain that your company wouldn't be able to find more engineers if it offered higher salaries? One effect of easier migration is to keep UK salaries lower.

[sussex2]

The murder of an MP cannot be forgotten by anyone with an ounce of thinking and feeling.
Some say the man is mentally unwell, which may be the case.
It is also plain that his hatred, and that of many others, has been nurtured and indeed encouraged.
There is a darker agenda with many of these people and I don't want to see my country leading the rush to the bottom.

[Silk]

if you work behind a desk, that desk can be moved anywhere in the world without you.

Only if they can find your skills.

There are plenty of skilled people out there - even at Stressed Dave levels. If they're only half as skilled, they'll do it for a quarter of the salary. Most of the larger corporates are already in the process of getting rid of experienced support staff in the rich English-speaking countries and rehiring in poor non-English-speaking countries. Profits rise at the expense of service. The only reason my job is not at threat is because it's difficult to get someone to a customer site from Mumbai.

Money, like water, finds its own level. That's why we have to do what we can to keep the dams working and the draw-bridges up.