Brexit Wins- UK to Leave the EU

[Big A.D.]

LOL I live in the UK, we have another google keyboard warrior in Big A.D., the headline cash amount people get is not the only thing to look at in the UK. Any EU migrant can get free housing if they have children the council is obliged to house them whether they work or not.They have full access to the NHS,if they have any disease serious or otherwise drugs & treatment is totally free they have the same rights as the indigenous population to seek help from the NHS .If it costs 100 or 10,000 per year to treat them it makes no difference. Free schooling for their kids including free meals.

And how is that different to any British-born freeloader getting as much out of the system as they possibly can? Some Brits work and pay taxes, some migrants work and pay taxes. A skiver is a skiver, regardless of where they come from and the idea that you need to reduce migration in case there's not enough money to pay for British layabouts says more about the failures of domestic UK policy than rules imposed upon the UK by the EU.

For example...

There was outrage in London a couple of years ago when some deadbeat family was living in a million pound house being paid for on housing benefit at a cost of 8000 per month, but it was legal, so don't tell me that is not generous. The government I believe have now capped the amount that can be paid on housing benefit to 20,000 per year which is still an incredible amount of money.

Yeah, that's so beyond generous it's not funny, but it's not the EU's fault you guys have such a ridiculous implementation of social housing policy. As far as I'm aware, you're obliged to shelter someone if they need it (and the same applies in basically every civilized Western country, so Britain isn't special in that regard). You don't have to put them up in a 100k/year mansion. Damned right they should have capped the amount, but the fact that they were able to (and did) means that it was sloppy domestic policy that was responsible for the waste, not an EU mandate.

So, what? You just give people houses and hope for the best? That's an EU rule?

If the UK isn't able to successfully integrate new migrants into the community, it's worth bearing in mind that the state has a ridiculous amount of resources at it's disposal and the individual has whatever they arrive with. Which may be basically nothing if they're a refugee. If you're not able to take a virtually blank slate and turn them into a productive, tax paying member of the community, that's more a problem with your own useless politicians not being able to manage the resources - including the human capital - at their disposal than it is with the migrant.

This goes for Australia as well. We get the same bullshit excuses for crapping on asylum seekers. Waaa! They can't read! They can't count! They can't speak English! They're taking our jobs!

Oh yeah? If an illiterate, innumerate, non-English speaker is a better candidate for a job than you are, they aren't the biggest problem.

 

[aleks]

UK parliament is going to be interesting to watch for the forsee able future, PMs questions starts in 10 minutes

 

[JulieW]

Source: Dan Wasserman

 

[nickybaby]

Interesting to start seeing reports of some countries who could not get a trade deal done with the beaurocracy of Europe turning their attention to the UK quite quickly.

Might take a while but the UK should be able to trade with more agility than Europe. I would love to be (have been) a fly on the wall of Merkal and Junkers meeting.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

The EU leaders have made it patently clear that the philosophical basis for establishing a common union can be compromised for political gain. Lip service is paid to notions such as the free movement of people, capital and goods. The terms of liberty are regulated and only available to those who bend their knee and give up their sovereign rights.

"Leaders made it crystal clear today that access to the single market requires acceptance of all four freedoms, including the freedom of movement. There will be no single market "a la carte".

It's a direct jab at UK leaders scrambling to come up with a plan for Britain to retain good relations with its largest trading partner, while simultaneously working to reduce net migration.

The European Union's "four freedoms" include unrestricted movement of people, goods, capital and services which are non-negotiable for members.

http://www.news.com.au/world/europe...t/news-story/f1d7f258f8dbf0bb0764b55e97641adf

 

[mmm....shiney!]

And how is that different to any British-born freeloader getting as much out of the system as they possibly can?

Reducing the size of the welfare state has to begin somewhere, and as foreigners have not paid any taxes, nor their parents paid any taxes, nor were they born in that country they cannot argue they have a claim to to a portion of that nation's wealth. It is appropriate therefore that they are the first targets, after all, they willingly emigrate to Britain.

 

[Skyrocket]

And how is that different to any British-born freeloader getting as much out of the system as they possibly can?

British-born freeloaders are British citizens and are entitled to welfare and other benefits there. Foreign freeloader scums are not British citizens and therefore should NOT be allowed a free passage to go over there and a scum an existence on welfare off British taxpayers. There is a big difference there between the two.

Stop/kick all foreign freeloader scums out! That's what I would do if I was in power there. Here too.

 

[Big A.D.]

And how is that different to any British-born freeloader getting as much out of the system as they possibly can?

British-born freeloaders are British citizens and are entitled to welfare and other benefits there. Foreign freeloader scums are not British citizens and therefore should NOT be allowed a free passage to go over there and a scum an existence on welfare off British taxpayers. There is a big difference there between the two.

Stop/kick all foreign freeloader scums out! That's what I would do if I was in power there. Here too.

And again, there is actual data saying that economic outcomes for migrants are on par with, or a bit better than, outcomes for native born citizens.

Tarring all migrants with the same brush because some of them are layabouts ignores all the benefits the productive ones bring to the economy (like, paying the taxes that will support Britain's and Australia's aging population when all the old xenophobes retire).

The problem is the deadbeats, regardless of where they were born.

 

[Old Codger]

The BIG attraction is the magic word - REFUGEE'.

The UN Treaty (1951) says that a 'refugee' has the RIGHT to the "full range of SS benefits available to a citizen of the host country".

Abrogate the treaty! Tell the UN to get stuffed!

JMO

OC

 

[Jislizard]

Oh yeah? If an illiterate, innumerate, non-English speaker is a better candidate for a job than you are, they aren't the biggest problem.

If an illiterate, innumerate, non-English speaker will do the job for less money than a literate, numerate English speaker then it is a problem.

In the UK all our hospital cleaners were replaced with external contract workers to save money.

The contract workers were Chinese immigrants to begin with, and they were mostly non-English speaking (no idea as to their reading ability or numeracy) In general there would be an English speaking contact person who was offsite They were pretty good at it and obviously didn't mind the odd hours. But even they were too expensive and were replaced with Nigerians who did speak English but didn't understand the importance of changing the mop water once in a while.

Our laboratory floors ended up filthy by the time they got to our level and we took to cleaning patches of the floor to highlight the filth that was building up. (By cleaning I mean we wrote swear words in the dirt, because we were very immature lab workers, the other staff complained about the obscenities, the hospital wouldn't fix the issue of dirty floors but they had to deal with the swearing)

So no, the illiterate, innumerate, non-English speaker is not a better candidate for a job than you are, but they will do a crap job for a lot less money.

Other examples are fruit pickers in Kent. The are basically slaves, often working for the bare minimum wage but having to pay the Gang master for food, accommodation and everything else. They often end up owing more at the end of the season than they earned working. Being seasonal work the fruit pickers used to be travelers who would arrive in their caravans during harvest and then head out at the end. Now they are mostly eastern Europeans because the travelers won't get conned into working for nothing.

Then you get the cockle pickers, most English workers are not prepared to die or work for the wages that the Chinese illegal immigrants were prepared to work for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Morecambe_Bay_cockling_disaster

So there are a few examples for you.

 

[Skyrocket]

And how is that different to any British-born freeloader getting as much out of the system as they possibly can?

British-born freeloaders are British citizens and are entitled to welfare and other benefits there. Foreign freeloader scums are not British citizens and therefore should NOT be allowed a free passage to go over there and a scum an existence on welfare off British taxpayers. There is a big difference there between the two.

Stop/kick all foreign freeloader scums out! That's what I would do if I was in power there. Here too.

And again, there is actual data saying that economic outcomes for migrants are on par with, or a bit better than, outcomes for native born citizens.

Tarring all migrants with the same brush because some of them are layabouts ignores all the benefits the productive ones bring to the economy (like, paying the taxes that will support Britain's and Australia's aging population when all the old xenophobes retire).

The problem is the deadbeats, regardless of where they were born.

Why let foreigners take jobs from people in the host country if there is no shortage of workers there?

It is not right for foreigners from poor/troubled nations to go to first world nations to scum the benefits there. Be it free welfare or work that pays far more then where they are from. If people from poor/troubled nations want free welfare or jobs that pay what first world nations pay, then they should do the hard work in their own country to get it to the standard that they aspire to get from first world nations. By simply going to first world nations to get what they want they are abandoning their people and obligation of their own country. If they did the hard work of sorting out the problems (corruption, ect) in their own nation, in a generation or two their nation may/will be far better off and would be richer/stable that they don't have to leave/abandon their nation/people. That's what first world nations did. We did the hard work, generation after generation. It's not right to let poor foreigners into a rich nation that they, their parents or grandparents never did anything to get that nation to the rich/stable state it is in. It's different if someone is migrating from one first world nation to another. But not all those refugees/migrants that are currently invading the EU. All those invading the EU are all foreign freeloader scums in my book. Gutless low lifes who abandoned their own nation/people to scum a free existence from a rich nation that they, their parents or grandparents did nothing to get that nation to a rich/better stable state.

 

[Ouch]

Why let foreigners take jobs from people in the host country if there is no shortage of workers there?

Are cheaper and more productive good enough reasons?

 

[southerncross]

Interesting to start seeing reports of some countries who could not get a trade deal done with the beaurocracy of Europe turning their attention to the UK quite quickly.

Might take a while but the UK should be able to trade with more agility than Europe. I would love to be (have been) a fly on the wall of Merkal and Junkers meeting.

It will be interesting to see if the EU limit's the deals it's member states are able to make with the U.K , The feces will really start to fly if the EU tells such and such they are not allowed to make a beneficial deal between the two.

 

[Skyrocket]

Why let foreigners take jobs from people in the host country if there is no shortage of workers there?

Are cheaper and more productive good enough reasons?

That is no good for long term benefit of the host nation. People will lose their jobs and wages go down, taxes go down, ect, ect.

Also, some foreign freeloaders may work, most will want to stay on welfare for life and live like kings compared to where they are from. They are foreign freeloader scums. The negatives far outweigh the positives. Imo there are no positives. Especially if they are all Islamic with a track record of refusal to integrate, widespread welfare freeloaders and trouble makers. They only divide Western nations with no-go areas.

 

[Big A.D.]

So there are a few examples for you.

How exactly are those migrant problems rather than dodgy employer problems?

As in, if you want a cheap worker who can clean the floors, you train the cheap worker to clean the floors. If you can find someone cheap who doesn't need training, congratulations, you saved yourself 15 minutes by not having to show them how to use a mop and empty a bucket. If you can't, you need to show them what you expect in return for the money you pay them.

I've had the same issue myself with foreigners and native born, white, Anglo Saxon Australians: if they don't know how to clean stuff properly, I teach them how to do it. I get the result I want, they earn their paycheck and everyone's happy.

 

[whinfell]

BoJo is a NoGo

Brexit: Boris Johnson pulls out of UK leadership race

London: Boris Johnson has withdrawn from the race to be the next British prime minister, less than a week after leading the Leave campaign to victory.

The surprise move is yet another twist in the UK's post-referendum politics, which more than a few have compared with a particularly confusing episode of Game of Thrones.

Days of a fierce 'Anyone But Boris' campaign in the media and among party members and fellow MPs left the former London mayor's leadership ambitions in tatters.

It was capped by the announcement on Thursday morning that fellow Brexiter Michael Gove who had previously proposed to be his deputy would run against him.

One BBC journalist described it as an 'et tu Michael' moment.

SMH: http://www.smh.com.au/world/brexit-...in-blow-to-boris-johnson-20160630-gpvwok.html

 

[southerncross]

So there are a few examples for you.

How exactly are those migrant problems rather than dodgy employer problems?

As in, if you want a cheap worker who can clean the floors, you train the cheap worker to clean the floors. If you can find someone cheap who doesn't need training, congratulations, you saved yourself 15 minutes by not having to show them how to use a mop and empty a bucket. If you can't, you need to show them what you expect in return for the money you pay them.

I've had the same issue myself with foreigners and native born, white, Anglo Saxon Australians: if they don't know how to clean stuff properly, I teach them how to do it. I get the result I want, they earn their paycheck and everyone's happy.

I don't for one minute doubt your own integrity as an employer A.D for one second. But it might surprise you that there are people and whole organizations that do infact exploit low cost labour.

Not only to lower their own cost of business but also to drive down the overall expense of that labour to their bottom line. If a large organization can cut it's labour cost's by 10% over a workforce that numbers in the thousands it will do so, and it cares nothing about the social cost's at all.

Look at it this way, you have a finite number of floor moppers in X country, they are well trained floor moppers who receive $20 dollars an hour + super etc, $5 above the award wage.

All of a sudden you have an unlimited amount of floor moppers due to a change in immigration, they will work for less than the award wage as they are employed by a labour contract firm who also could not give two hoots about social cost's.

Result = Original floor moppers out of a Job and new floor moppers working for less than the original floor moppers. Social cost ? Original floor moppers unable to pay mortgages, school fees, utilty bills, car loans, discretionary spending in local business, and inevitably reliant upon social security. Add to that the reduction in overall income tax to the state with the reduced tax that the lower earning new floor moppers are paying and their inability due to a lower pay rate to replace the tax income of their predecessors, and the fact that many of them will also be accessing social security payments. Then add in the demographic reality of the birth rates between the newly arrived and that of the established western world and that added burden to social security.

CHEAP workers are what killed the manufacturing industry in this country, ( with the help of the Unions) CHEAP workers are what undermines not only the tax base of the country but the livelihoods of the people who "were" doing a decent days work, for a decent days pay.

I doubt you would like someone floating in from somewhere else and replacing your source of income basically overnight, doing you out of an income and business all at once with shoddy service or products.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

CHEAP workers are what killed the manufacturing industry in this country, ( with the help of the Unions) CHEAP workers are what undermines not only the tax base of the country but the livelihoods of the people who "were" doing a decent days work, for a decent days pay.

By cheap workers I assume you mean those in Asia, where a manufacturer could produce a good for far cheaper than it could in a Western nation, driving down the price of production, the cost of goods, enhancing the allocation of capital which reduces waste as resources are allocated more efficiently and in the process enhancing the standard of living for both the former manufacturing nations and the new manufacturing nations?

Bring on cheap labour!

 

[Jislizard]

CHEAP workers are what killed the manufacturing industry in this country, ( with the help of the Unions) CHEAP workers are what undermines not only the tax base of the country but the livelihoods of the people who "were" doing a decent days work, for a decent days pay.

By cheap workers I assume you mean those in Asia, where a manufacturer could produce a good for far cheaper than it could in a Western nation, driving down the price of production, the cost of goods, enhancing the allocation of capital which reduces waste as resources are allocated more efficiently and in the process enhancing the standard of living for both the former manufacturing nations and the new manufacturing nations?

Bring on cheap labour!

Most likely the cheap workers overseas are in the Special Economic Zones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_economic_zone which do not have to put up with the same labour safeguards and tax requirements. Very hard for anyone to compete with those areas in regards to costs and the benefit to the standard of living of the people working in these zones is likely to be very little as there is no need to treat them to the same standards that the rest of the country is required to.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

Poverty is decreasing worldwide, most of the world is not in a special economic zone.