I often here this excuse for tax dodging, he's just a greedy person
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
I often here this excuse for tax dodging, he's just a greedy person
People voted to get poorer just because they dislike foreigners
I'm not sure what the point is here being made? That Brexit will mean the end of regulations and tariffs in the UK farming industry? That Britain will flood the UK and all the rest of the world with its pig meat and greenhouse strawberries? That current EU regulations are there to stop the U.K. from being competitive? That Britain will achieve better and more trade deals without the weight of the EU behind it? That flooding Britain with cheap exports from Kenya is a good for British farmers? That having access to the single market doesn't benefit Britain and British jobs? That the EU member states are backward countries and only Britains knows what it's doing?
When something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
When something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
Where's that place at?
Tax avoidance was once perfectly fine for the caf
At least he said what he wanted to do with his money and it involved creating jobs in shitholes that have no work, still he wont be allowed to do that, that's fine
Every where
Africa has everything, if it was run properly and wasn't so corrupt, its just left for companies like bhp billiton to take everything out the ground and profit while paying the locals a penny or 2
I agree. Not sure what that has to do with the EU.
Brexit Britain will become an even bigger money laundering operation than it is now
Malta has a totally free education. Basically someone can take his boy at 3 and go and see him graduate without actually pay a penny. Not only that, but people at six form/university are helped through something called a stipend. Its not much, but it does help students to make ends meet. We love education and would rather see us spend money on that route then on military etc. Each for his own.
In Malta most doctors are expected and encouraged to work abroad. Its good for their experience and if/once they return they will bring wealth of knowledge with them that can be shared with others. There are others, who of course, never come back at all. Some do pop by on the islands to work part time or on weekends or to deliver lectures. We tend not to complain about this loss because
a- we need doctors to move abroad. We're an island, if our doctors dont go abroad and get knowledge elsewhere then we risk to become stale
b- we cant really complain. Whenever a consultant post is opened, its filled almost immediately, usually with these sort of doctors
c- Its their life after all.
d- we do poach talent from abroad ourselves. For example thanks to the stupidity of our nationalist party (a bit of your own version of the Tory party) who stripped extra incentives for youngsters to become nurses, we now has a shortage in certain lines. We were only able to fill those posts by offering them to third country nationals
Things are different in Italy/Greece though. Most senior jobs are given through pure nepotism and the doctors still working in the UK are those who happen not to have a padrino back home to give them a push
Greece and Italy aren't growing so they aren't creating demand which is why they ain't creating jobs
A decent proportion of public spending on health, education, welfare and infrastructure. Well regulated markets
I can't speak about Greece but I can speak about Italy because its our neighbour and closest friend. Italy is almost surreal. In many things its still stuck to medieval levels were nepotism reigns and were it almost impossible for someone without a 'sponsor' to become big in his line of work. The black economy rules supreme and decades of reckless expenditure by politicians with a communist (literally) ideology had crippled the country. Its not even a country in itself. The North constantly criticise the South of Italy and the South of Italy (whose well below the poverty line) steals from taxpayer money because it can. Recently they made a raid in a hospital and found out that mostly people do not even bother to come to work.
What impoverished Italy was
a- the scandal of Cirio and Parmalat which saw their owners bloating the companies finances only for everything to come crushing down on everybody.These two scandals contributed greatly in forcing many local investors to lose faith in Italy's economy + it hit everybody from employees to farmers right to football (Parma FC was owned by Parmalat)
b- Decades of over expenditure by the government had now become too heavy for the country to carry.
c- Bad management and a dark economy were few pay taxes
d- incompetent politicians
The EU could do more in one area ie immigration, were Italy is basically left alone in it. However lets not blame the EU for Italy's issues.
What impoverished Italy was
a- the scandal of Cirio and Parmalat which saw their owners bloating the companies finances only for everything to come crushing down on everybody.These two scandals contributed greatly in forcing many local investors to lose faith in Italy's economy + it hit everybody from employees to farmers right to football (Parma FC was owned by Parmalat)
b- Decades of over expenditure by the government had now become too heavy for the country to carry.
c- Bad management and a dark economy were few pay taxes
d- incompetent politicians
The EU could do more in one area ie immigration, were Italy is basically left alone in it. However lets not blame the EU for Italy's issues.
Italy's never had the benefit of British rule.
There are two other parts of the idea, the first part which it was promoted with is that an individual can move to where the best job for him is. The other part is that people from low income countries can take the high paid jobs in rich countries for less money so labour costs decrease.
That makes it very hard for the rich member states to tackle unemployment. If there's a financial crisis for example (thanks to the EU policy of deregulation the financial sector) followed by a recession, a national government could counter or soften that by investment in infrastructure and buildings. But if 80% of the money goes to foreign workers because they are cheaper (legal or illegal) there's not much effect on the economy.
I'm not opposed to the principle of free movement of labour, but it only works between countries with comparable living standards and cost of living.
I disagree.
The real reason that farm subsidy exist in the EU isn't because of any of the above its because the main govts of EU countries don't want to pick a political fight with their farmers. All your arguments here are wrong.
I note that you think that domestic supply, for example, means inside the EU but of course if you were serious about food security it would really mean inside the nation-state as otherwise in an emergency we would still be fecked wouldn't we?
The policy doesn't address the main risk to food security either which is the weather. That risk is better offset by diversifying food supplying regions to different climate zones rather than putting major obstacles in the way of that diversification such as CAP.
I don't see why a special exception should be given to agribusiness anyway, as compared to energy businesses for example. In northern Europe, we need electricity to keep warm in winter just as much as we need to eat. Your argument then is we should subsidise coal because it is domestically available rather than relying on cheaper foreign supplies?
Where do we stop with the list of essential industries whose goods we need to have a secure supply of? You want to live in a country surviving without steel, ships, railways, fabric, cars etc all of which we have told to go and get stuffed when we can buy similar products from overseas cheaper.
With regards to the land use argument. Holding a market unsustainable amount of farmland by paying enormous subsidies bends the economy against market sustainable uses. It raises the price of land which increases the costs for businesses which would otherwise remain viable and the direct link between business property costs and domestic property costs means we all pay more for the homes we live in and pay more in taxes not just to fund the subsidies but also from the reduced tax take on the other businesses because of the above. Also it reduces growth.
And there is worse.
CAP also prevents countries which are reliant on agriculture as their only viable exports from developing their assets by reinvesting money made by selling for better prices. That sounds a bit dry but in the end, that starves people in Africa. The cost of the CAP is in human lives.
We should also remember the lost opportunity costs because when we subsidise farming we also throw money away which would be better spent elsewhere on things like research. How far would we have come if we had spent all the CAP subsidy money on the EU space program instead?
To summarise,
You want to kill people in Africa now so that Europe might have a more secure food supply which isn't secure anyway and set the principle of ongoing huge subsidy to businesses based on how much political pain they can cause and we could be on Mars by now.
That is the reality of your argument and it stinks I'm afraid.
80% of money goes out to foreign workers?!?! What do you mean exactly and where do you get that figure from?
Theres no money for that there is only austerity, wheres the investment?
What the feck???? Do you honestly believe this shit you're spouting? You've managed to write down so many things which are either distorting the truth or just plain factually incorrect, that I don't know where to start.. I'm flabbergasted! There's nothing more difficult than arguing with a fool!!
Again more people working creates more spending that creates more jobs. Inflation is also kept in check so although wages may not rise quickly they go further.
Foreign workers who live here spend money here, are taxed here, they have a positive effect on GDP.
Free movement helps poorer nations catch up quicker
DEVELISH.
Thanks for your answer.
It sounds as though you still need to import foreign medical staff, though, so the UK isn't unique.
Thanks for your answer.
It sounds as though you still need to import foreign medical staff, though, so the UK isn't unique.
I agree. The EU helps quite a bit with its investment in infrastructure for poor countries
It's a hypothetical example that it's impossible to blame member states for unemployment while the EU rules and their strict enforcement prevents member states.
Nontheless close to where I live there has been a major power plant build recently and the estimate that about 80% of the builders was from foreign countries is very conservative. It could have been a huge boost to employment when many builders lost their jobs after the 2008 financial crisis, but it didn't work like that because the Polish, Romanians, Portuguese etc were a lot cheaper.
Well you could always try to make a start instead of just calling someone a fool.
Explain where, how and why Bill is distorting the truth or just plain factually incorrect
C'mon....Show us your eveidence
80%... which country in the EU.. no the entire world has ever had 80% of the money go out to foreign workers in the entire history of mankind? Wtf is this crap you are spouting out? You're kin insulting my intelligence!
No, they don't, not always. When there's a huge building project they tend to stay in cheap temporary housing just to work and save money, not really live there. They make less money, they accept that because of lower cost of living in for example Romania, but shy away from the high prices in the richer country. So it's just groceries and the odd visit to bars and prostitutes.
That's debatable. When the best workers work in richer countries it's not easy to get the local economy going, and all these men and women beeing away from home for large parts of the year is disruptive to society. It's certainly not good for families and happiness.
Stay calm, breath in and read it again. I'm talking about big building projects a government could start to help the economy and counter unemployment. But that doesn't work when 80% or more of the builders are from foreign countries because they're cheaper.
I don't know about the UK, but the majority of economic migrants ( both EU and non-EU ) in France pay virtually no tax because they either (a) are so lowly paid that they don't earn enough to have to pay tax, and/or (b) don't have the necessary skills or language proficiency to obtain a better paying job, so vanish into the Black Economy.
May be it's different in the UK, of course, because so many non-UK people learn English as their first second language, and which I think is one of the reasons why so many have chosen the UK to emigrate to.
Give me one French or UK citizen who has enough mastery of Lithuanian or Polish to make it possible to emigrate to Lithuania or Poland and hold on to a simlar level of employment, and I'll give you 50,000 Lithuanians and Polish who can speak English sufficiently well to hold down a job in the UK.
And which is why the EU's Freedon of Movement is flawed - apart from pensioners moving to Spain and Portugal, nearly all the migration inside the EU is from east to west
Last edited:
Bury should defend himself, but should I start that Bury is correctly giving examples why EU regulates its farming industries and why the U.K. will continue to regulate its industries long after Brexit, which our friend there has a different opinion on (even if it isn't rubbish and it is actually the factual and objective truth)?
The real problem with the agricultural industry in the 3rd World is corruption, western consumer demand for exotic goods like coconuts & avocado's and the and the extortion of cheap labour by greedy landowners who put all their profit in their own pockets. The reason why people are starving in Africa is because of war & famine, and not the CAP despite all it's faults. There's a lot more I can write about Kill Bill's post, pages even.
Maybe the government should increase the minimum wage or appoint construction companies who will use a mainly local work force rather going for the cheapest and crappiest tender? No, it's all the EU's fault!
I know for a fact that Eastern Europe is full of expats from all over the world doing high paid jobs. If anything the opposite of what you write is true, the freedom of movement is stopping highly paid jobs going to the locals in Eastern Europe.
People arent spending tho, thats an issue
Agree with everything...Well almost....
I spent 20 years working out of Nigeria and Kenya.
Nigeria is a shithole, full of corruption, a thouroughly nasty place for a white man to live. And apart from oil, has sweet f/all to export anyway. Doesn't stop it getting raped by the oil multinationals, of course, but it isn't the white men's fault or the multinationals' fault that the Government has the money to improve the lives of all 130 million Nigerians but choose not to. I feel sorry for the overwhelming majority of Nigerians, and despise the rest.
Kenya and Tanzania, on the other hand, are much better developed, both economically and infrastructure, than plenty of other counties which the EU chooses to have Trade Deals with. Government in those countries is 'light' and reasonably democratic; farmed produce is already extensively supervised by European agricultural companies; most agricultural products are grown semi-organically as there's no need for intensive use of chemicals; and by 3rd World standards, corruption isn't a huge problem.
Ignoring our arguments about the worth or necessity of CAP for the EU, there is absolutely no reason why the UK should not be allowed to import as much or as little food as it needs from Commonwealth countries as it is safe, cheap, and by Christ, the Africans need someone to help them while their access to the EU is blocked by tariffs and quotas.
Italy's never had the benefit of British rule.
Italy is a union of regions brought together by deceit. The Kingdom of two Sicilies and the North areas much united as England and France are
First it's about skilled work, and minimum wage isn't relevant for that. Secondly, it's organized through chains of subcontractors and job agencies that do the housing to, it's extremely difficult to check and enforce even minimum wage. The builders don't know their rights, don't speak the language to find out and for their cost of living at home it's a lot of money anyway. The EU doesn't allow checks and enforcement that might be to the disadvantage of a foreign worker in any way. Thirdly doesn't allow favoring companies with local workforce (you don't know much about the EU, do you?).
So yes, the EU forces the cost of unemployment on the member state and prevents it from fighting unemployment effectively. It's a massive force for lower costs of labour, they're organizing a race to the bottom.
Ex-Pats....Probably sent there by their multinational employers and have no intnetion of spending the rest of their lives there. Multinational companies rarely entrust locals to manage large investments outside their own home base. As you say, prevents good jobs for locals but it's the same globally, whether inside the EU or outside the EU.
Economic Migrants - I might be wrong, of course, but I'd suggest a ratio of about 500 to 1 is east to west amongst non-management and unskilled jobs.
It doesn't matter how much food we import from the 3rd World if revenues from it isn't distributed more evenly. And, we should really be encouraging the 3rd World to grow sustainable crops meant to sustain their own populations, and not so that we here in the West can have an avocado in our salad.
You can't have it bought ways. The money they make has a stimulating effect somewhere, either in this country or home.
You're taking me back 50 years to school - Cavour, Mazzini and Garibaldi.
Those guys are probably spinning in their graves.
Great biscuits as well.