EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[fowler9]

Perhaps you should research the potential of Free Trade Zones, an option that will be available to the UK once free of EU restrictions.

By the way doesn't the Shannon free trade zone exist whilst Ireland is in the EU?

 

[RichmondCommu]

What will the 50 people in Italy be doing?

Who cares? That's their problem.

 

[najaB]

Who cares? That's their problem.

Fair enough. Point is you haven't created any jobs, you've just moved 50 jobs from Italy to the UK.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Isn't that for the Italian government to figure out?

One problem is that in this scenario, the Italian Government figures out that say - 50 of it's workers have lost their jobs because the British Government has sought to discourage its citizens not to buy Italian goods (implicitly, by encouraging them to buy British). What's the obvious response going to be? Clearly to do the same thing and encourage Italian citizens not to buy some British goods. And where are the 50 British jobs you've supposedly created now?

I realize that in the real world, the causation usually won't be that direct or that obvious, but this does show up the underlying practical problem with spending Government resources on policies that don't actually increase wealth/jobs/etc. overall but merely move them from one country to another. It invites retaliation, with the result that lots of money has been spent on these policies with no actual economic net gain for it. (Although as I acknowledged earlier, there may be benefits in terms of the environment or preserving local cultures if people are encouraged to buy local. If the argument was based on that, then I'd have more sympathy for it.)

Me too, I fail to see what responsibility it is of the UK to keep the Italian workforce employed as EU members, never mind once we've left.

This worries me on a moral level. Can't you see that what you've just argued for is for the UK Government to spend money putting Italian workers out of work, and then to just say in effect, well that's your problem mate, nothing to do with us. Can you really not see the moral problem with that? And consider the impact if the target of this policy is not Italy (a reasonably wealthy country not too dissimilar from the UK), but some poorer country in - say - Africa that is barely able to feed its population.

Yes of course the British Government's first responsibility is to the UK, and clearly the Government should therefore give much more priority to improving the lives of people in the UK, but I don't think that means it should just completely ignore the impact its policies have on other countries altogether. If every country did that completely, then we would almost certainly all end up much poorer.

There's a place for competition where competition increases overall wealth, but there's also a good case for countries working together for everyone's mutual benefit. (And to bring the argument back to the EU, I'd suggest one of the benefits of the EU is that it provides a framework, albeit a very imperfect one, to attempt to achieve exactly that).

I never mentioned foreign jobs at any point. The priority has to be UK jobs and the highest skilled overseas labour from wherever it is to be found where necessary. After that refugees from war and famine.

Not explicitly. But you very clearly brought foreign jobs in implicitly when you argued that the British Government should pursue a policy that implies removing jobs from people in other countries in order for those jobs to go to British people instead.

Also, I would have thought that the British Government should be doing whatever it reasonably can both to help people in the UK (including, by running the economy in such a way as to ensure as far as possible that there are jobs for everyone), and to help refugees from war and famine etc. But I'd be somewhat worried by an argument that says that helping someone who merely happens to be out of work should take a greater priority than helping someone who's starving or fleeing a war. While again acknowledging that any Government is going to be thinking primarily about its own citizens, isn't it blindingly obvious that the needs of someone facing a famine are much greater and more urgent?

 

[meridian2]

This worries me on a moral level. Can't you see that what you've just argued for is for the UK Government to spend money putting Italian workers out of work, and then to just say in effect, well that's your problem mate, nothing to do with us. Can you really not see the moral problem with that? And consider the impact if the target of this policy is not Italy (a reasonably wealthy country not too dissimilar from the UK), but some poorer country in - say - Africa that is barely able to feed its population.

I'm not arguing for putting Italian workers on the dole, I'm arguing for UK employment. If the Italians produce, say, Ducati motorcycles or Alfa Romeo motor cars and the British want to buy them, it's up to the EU to ensure there's a trade deal that makes their bikes and cars competitive. If they can't, Brits should buy a domestically produced alternative. If there isn't one it's up to government to encourage the production of same via incentives and tax breaks.

I think the EU is a silly idea for various reasons, not least because it's quite clearly not a level playing field. You can't have an industrial giant like Germany claiming parity with Greece or Ireland, they inevitably become vassal states, economically if not technically. The problem of Africa, India or any developing nation is not going to be cured by the EU privileging trade within Europe.

 

[AlterEgo]

But I'd be somewhat worried by an argument that says that helping someone who merely happens to be out of work should take a greater priority than helping someone who's starving or fleeing a war. While again acknowledging that any Government is going to be thinking primarily about its own citizens, isn't it blindingly obvious that the needs of someone facing a famine are much greater and more urgent?

Of course someone fleeing famine has greater needs, but that doesn't mean their needs should be prioritised.

I'm a citizen of the UK. I pay lots of tax and National Insurance. I contribute to society, and I am employed. I expect, as a contributor and citizen, that my needs should be prioritised over those of refugees.

I think, should I ever fall on hard times, I should be entitled to a house, benefits, medical care, and whatever other services the state provides, ahead of newly arrived migrants or refugees.

We should take refugees, yes, but only as many as we can manage without de-prioritising current citizens with a long history of contributing to the architecture of the state.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Of course someone fleeing famine has greater needs, but that doesn't mean their needs should be prioritised.

I'm a citizen of the UK. I pay lots of tax and National Insurance. I contribute to society, and I am employed. I expect, as a contributor and citizen, that my needs should be prioritised over those of refugees.

I think, should I ever fall on hard times, I should be entitled to a house, benefits, medical care, and whatever other services the state provides, ahead of newly arrived migrants or refugees.

We should take refugees, yes, but only as many as we can manage without de-prioritising current citizens with a long history of contributing to the architecture of the state.

See my problem with that argument is that by the very argument you are trying to make (that those who contribute should get priority over those who don't) is that you are also saying that UK citizens who do not contribute should also not get priority. Of course, that is fine for the minority who do play the system etc. But it also includes those who have had a disability or serious illness from birth / from a young age and so haven't been able to contribute. And quite often it ends up that those who haven't contributed (or who contribute less) are the ones who need the most help (hell, our entire taxation system is based on that principle).

 

[furnessvale]

By the way doesn't the Shannon free trade zone exist whilst Ireland is in the EU?

46 minutes of research and you have found that. Getting better.

 

[AlterEgo]

See my problem with that argument is that by the very argument you are trying to make (that those who contribute should get priority over those who don't) is that you are also saying that UK citizens who do not contribute should also not get priority. Of course, that is fine for the minority who do play the system etc. But it also includes those who have had a disability or serious illness from birth / from a young age and so haven't been able to contribute. And quite often it ends up that those who haven't contributed (or who contribute less) are the ones who need the most help (hell, our entire taxation system is based on that principle).

The line isn't just about who does and who does not contribute. It's about citizenship.

We should absolutely prioritise our own citizens first, otherwise, what is the value in actually having citizenship?

 

[WelshBluebird]

The line isn't just about who does and who does not contribute. It's about citizenship.

We should absolutely prioritise our own citizens first, otherwise, what is the value in actually having citizenship?

You were specifically talking about contribution though: "I contribute to society, and I am employed. I expect, as a contributor and citizen, that my needs should be prioritised". So are we talking about contribution or not?

In terms of "citizens first" - I simply disagree. I work with a few people who have moved here from the EU. I would much prefer their needs be prioritised than say the scumbag British guy who assaulted me on Christmas Eve a few years ago, instead they still cannot be sure of their future in this country.

 

[AlterEgo]

You were specifically talking about contribution though: "I contribute to society, and I am employed. I expect, as a contributor and citizen, that my needs should be prioritised". So are we talking about contribution or not?

In terms of "citizens first" - I simply disagree. I work with a few people who have moved here from the EU. I would much prefer their needs be prioritised than say the scumbag British guy who assaulted me on Christmas Eve a few years ago, instead they still cannot be sure of their future in this country,

I also think the state should prioritise contributors over non-contributors, but that's not to say I think non-contributors should be left by the roadside.

In fact, that's how the benefits system works - because I've paid my NI, I can claim benefits based on my contributions (my "stamp"), rather than relying on a means test. Seems fair to me.

 

[EM2]

46 minutes of research and you have found that. Getting better.

So what's to stop us setting up more FTZs now? If they're so wonderful, why do we only have five?

 

[Tetchytyke]

We should absolutely prioritise our own citizens first, otherwise, what is the value in actually having citizenship?

I think that's a very sad and simplistic way of looking at it, tbh.

I'm blessed to be a citizen of more than one country, and it really isn't like that at all.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think that's a very sad and simplistic way of looking at it, tbh.

I'm blessed to be a citizen of more than one country, and it really isn't like that at all.

Well, it is a (somewhat deliberately) simplistic way of looking at it, but nobody's going to tell me, for example, that refugees straight off a boat fleeing the Syrian conflict are more entitled to healthcare than me. Note - we have a moral responsibility to assist people fleeing wars and pestilence, agreed. But I argue the moral responsibility to people who just turn up on your doorstep isn't the same as the moral responsibility you have to your family inside the house.

 

[Tetchytyke]

nobody's going to tell me, for example, that refugees straight off a boat fleeing the Syrian conflict are more entitled to healthcare than me.

That's the biggest straw man I've seen round these parts in quite some time.

Who says they should be "more" entitled, or that you should be "less" entitled? And what are you judging entitlement against?

If a patient comes in with two broken legs they should be treated ahead of someone with a chipped toenail. Their nationality shouldn't really come into it.

 

[EM2]

...nobody's going to tell me, for example, that refugees straight off a boat fleeing the Syrian conflict are more entitled to healthcare than me.

What greater entitlement do they have than you do?
And how is this related to the EU?

 

[furnessvale]

So what's to stop us setting up more FTZs now? If they're so wonderful, why do we only have five?

An FTZ as permitted under EU rules is quite different from a FTZ as known outside the club.

Like most things EU, they kid themselves into believing they are working well.

 

[Barn]

Well, it is a (somewhat deliberately) simplistic way of looking at it, but nobody's going to tell me, for example, that refugees straight off a boat fleeing the Syrian conflict are more entitled to healthcare than me. Note - we have a moral responsibility to assist people fleeing wars and pestilence, agreed. But I argue the moral responsibility to people who just turn up on your doorstep isn't the same as the moral responsibility you have to your family inside the house.

Refugees are probably a bad example to use.

But there is sense in saying that governments which are tasked with providing essential services need to be able to strategically plan for the delivery of those services (involving the planning of long-term capital works, training and recruitment, etc) and they can only really do that effectively when they have a good grip on who their "client base" is and how it is likely to change over time.

 

[AlterEgo]

What greater entitlement do they have than you do?
And how is this related to the EU?

They don't have any greater entitlement at present and I don't expect them to have that in the future.

I was responding to a post made by a user upthread that insinuated people fleeing war and conflict should be prioritised above UK citizens who currently don't have work in the UK. I disagree. I think we should discharge our moral duties diligently, but I don't think refugees ought to, say, receive priority housing over existing citizens in need.

The argument came out of the chain of discussion which talked about whether we should, as a country, be more concerned about jobs in the UK than elsewhere.

The discussion is about the principles of putting our own citizens first, which I agree with.

 

[EM2]

An FTZ as permitted under EU rules is quite different from a FTZ as known outside the club.

Like most things EU, they kid themselves into believing they are working well.

Deloitte seem to think that they are much of a muchness:
http://www.wd-deo.gc.ca/images/cont/11168-eng.pdf

Standard Features
As noted, FTZs may be designed and established for different reasons and, as a result, the characteristics that define the concept have been described in many different ways. Nevertheless, it appears that a few common characteristics are standard features of the modern FTZ. These features are described in further detail below.

Advanced Infrastructure – The FTZ offers superior quality infrastructure, including, but not limited to, land, office space, utilities, logistics services, business services and other similar facilities.
Flexible Regulations – Corporations established within a FTZ may have access to a streamlined customs process with less bureaucracy and red-tape. Firms seeking to secure establishments within a FTZ typically obtain assistance from a single source service provider in order to obtain the necessary permits and applications. In addition, the legislation governing the day-to-day operations of firms operating within the FTZ (e.g., labour law) is usually more flexible relative to the laws applicable in the host country outside the FTZ.
Beneficial (Offshore) Location – Corporations often choose FTZs for moving their business activities away from the ultimate destination market (offshore) into a location with a low cost structure.
Export Oriented – FTZs usually cater to export oriented corporations that produce goods destined for foreign jurisdictions outside of the host country.
Incentives – Corporate establishment within a FTZ is often coupled with an attractive incentive package, which may include any of the following:
o Exemption and/or deferral of customs duties;
o Grants for developing and employing local human resources;
o Exemption and/or deferral of sales taxes; and
o Other tax incentives and holidays (e.g., lower Corporate Income Tax than the rest of the host country outside the FTZ).

 

[najaB]

The discussion is about the principles of putting our own citizens first, which I agree with.

If you caveat that with "all other things being equal" then I agree as well. Using the A&E example above - if a UK citizen and non-UK citizen turn up at the exact same time with exactly the same injury then I don't see any problem with seeing the UK citizen first.

I wouldn't expect a UK citizen with a broken finger to be seen first while an EU citizen who suffered a cardiac arrest was left waiting in the corridor.

 

[AlterEgo]

If you caveat that with "all other things being equal" then I agree as well. Using the A&E example above - if a UK citizen and non-UK citizen turn up at the exact same time with exactly the same injury then I don't see any problem with seeing the UK citizen first.

I wouldn't expect a UK citizen with a broken finger to be seen first while an EU citizen who suffered a cardiac arrest was left waiting in the corridor.

And to clarify, I agree entirely.

I was not suggesting this happens, only responding to a previous argument.

 

[furnessvale]

Deloitte seem to think that they are much of a muchness:
http://www.wd-deo.gc.ca/images/cont/11168-eng.pdf

Given that 4 of the 5 bullet points to which you refer are closely controlled by the EU they are very much not of a muchness, unless, of course you wish to compare FTZs within the EU. In those circumstances they will have all been through the EU one size fits all blender.

Only the advance infrastructure could be said to be within the control of the UK government without EU interference.

 

[EM2]

Given that 4 of the 5 bullet points to which you refer are closely controlled by the EU they are very much not of a muchness, unless, of course you wish to compare FTZs within the EU. In those circumstances they will have all been through the EU one size fits all blender.

Only the advance infrastructure could be said to be within the control of the UK government without EU interference.

Did you even glance at the report? Only one FTZ discussed is in the EU.

 

[me123]

If a patient comes in with two broken legs they should be treated ahead of someone with a chipped toenail. Their nationality shouldn't really come into it.

This is exactly how the NHS does work (at least until That Useless Hunt introduces his plan of charging foreigners in England). Nationality doesn't come into the equation. You'll get triaged and seen in order or priority. If you have a cardiac arrest, you get a full resuscitation team awaiting your arrival. If you walk in with chest pain, you'll get seen very quickly. If you have an ingrowing toenail or want your ears syringing, you wait for a long time (to get told to go to your GP).

The NHS is not an immigration service. Nationality does not come into the equation with regards to emergency care, and quite rightly so. A&E departments do not have the time, resources, or frankly the inclination to do a full check of immigration documentation. And that's absolutely right. When it comes to emergency care*, you'd have to be rather heartless to refuse it to someone who was born elsewhere. I know that there's very few countries in the world who are generous enough to offer this, but I think we should definitely be one.

*And I'm talking about the true definition of emergency here; not ingrowing toenails and "I've had a cough for two years".

 

[Senex]

This is exactly how the NHS does work (at least until That Useless Hunt introduces his plan of charging foreigners in England). Nationality doesn't come into the equation. You'll get triaged and seen in order or priority. If you have a cardiac arrest, you get a full resuscitation team awaiting your arrival. If you walk in with chest pain, you'll get seen very quickly. If you have an ingrowing toenail or want your ears syringing, you wait for a long time (to get told to go to your GP).

The NHS is not an immigration service. Nationality does not come into the equation with regards to emergency care, and quite rightly so. A&E departments do not have the time, resources, or frankly the inclination to do a full check of immigration documentation. And that's absolutely right. When it comes to emergency care*, you'd have to be rather heartless to refuse it to someone who was born elsewhere. I know that there's very few countries in the world who are generous enough to offer this, but I think we should definitely be one.

*And I'm talking about the true definition of emergency here; not ingrowing toenails and "I've had a cough for two years".

The classic NHS position: we're medics and we are way above bothering with little things like money and funding - let somebody else just get on with providing all the money we need as thinking about the cash would pollute our pure consciences. That's how the recent case of the Nigerian woman running up a bill of over £400,000 with no means of paying for it - and certainly with no claim to call on the British taxpayer was allowed to get away with it. Our first duty is to our own.

 

[najaB]

That's how the recent case of the Nigerian woman running up a bill of over £400,000 with no means of paying for it - and certainly with no claim to call on the British taxpayer was allowed to get away with it.

How did she run up a bill of £400,000 for A&E treatment?

 

[Darandio]

How did she run up a bill of £400,000 for A&E treatment?

Wasn't it the lady who gave birth?

Edit*

Seems it was. However, the figure changes by media outlet of course. The BBC were at £330,000, the Daily Mail unsurprisingly went to £500,000.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=n...firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=X-LkWMqKBqLi8Af9hLzYDQ

 

[furnessvale]

Did you even glance at the report? Only one FTZ discussed is in the EU.

I did say UNLESS you wish to compare FTZs within the EU. I was not inferring that the report itself compared EU FTZs.

I see nothing in that report that suggests that all the FTZs examined are much of a muchness. The report does suggest areas of comparison between them, summarised in the bullet points. It does not suggest that all the tax rates etc are similar, much of which is subject to EU regulation in an EU country.

 

[tony_mac]

How did she run up a bill of £400,000 for A&E treatment?

She was travelling via Heathrow, but gave birth (3 months prematurely) to quadruplets. At least two of the babies died.

It's obvious she doesn't have that sort of money, so what should 'we' have done? Let them all die because they are foreign?
Not sure what that has to do with the EU, though.