Ireland to leave EU should Britain exit ?

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re linking to blogs and Daily Mail articles – those are not “facts”.
How many left?

And the economist, financial times etc but don't let that get in the way of a good story!

The Corinthian

gallag wrote: »

Haha you are really invested in this! I am correct!!

Nope, you're just attempting to change the subject still, which was your willful attempt to deceive people with your made up 'facts'. If I'm invested in anything is not allowing you to lie without being called out.

You are wrong! The original EU was never about political union, it started as an agreement between France and Germany about coal and steel and has evolved over different ammendments.

And there we have another lie by you. It's been pointed out several times that the European Coal and Steel Community specifically cited "a first step in the federation of Europe" from the very start.

Why are you purposely ignoring this? Honestly, it's there in black and white - how do you manage to filter it out with a straight face, or is it just dishonesty?

At the very least you seem to agree with me that it certainly has been missold to the British!

By themselves, not by anyone else. I'm glad you're keeping this tradition for self deception alive and well.

You can put your fingers in your ears and hum loudly, pretending that the EU was not clearly set up from the onset to be far more than a common market, but those are the facts and those facts are what the casual reader will decide upon, not your rather transparent and empty denials.

gallag wrote: »

Haha you are really invested in this! I am correct!! You are wrong! The original EU was never about political union…

If that’s the case, then why would there be a need to “miss-sell” it to the British people?

gallag wrote: »

So linking to facts does not make a good argument but just quoting and ranting does?

You’re linking to blogs and Daily Mail articles – those are not “facts”.

gallag wrote: »

Also, it was closer to 50,000 more romanians and Bulgarians came last year…

How many left?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Because I don't like liars, and at this stage your continued attempts to try and claim black is white and then change the subject without admitting you got it wrong is getting beyond ridiculous and you deserve to be brought up on it.

The idea that the EEC/EU was nothing more than a common market is at best a British invention. It's how the conservatives sold it to the public when joining. If you want to be pissed at anyone, be pissed at them. Otherwise stop trying to perpetuate this lie and then going into bare-faced denial when it's pointed out to you in black and white that this was never the case.

Haha you are really invested in this! I am correct!! You are wrong! The original EU was never about political union, it started as an agreement between France and Germany about coal and steel and has evolved over different ammendments. At the very least you seem to agree with me that it certainly has been missold to the British!

djpbarry wrote: »

Em, ok, thanks for that.

Copy and paste does not a great argument make.
So what? It was still only about 40,000 in total. The likes of UKIP were scaremongering about the millions who could potentially “steal” British jobs.

So linking to facts does not make a good argument but just quoting and ranting does? Also, it was closer to 50,000 more romanians and Bulgarians came last year, exactly as immigration watch predicted, By next year there will be about a quarter of a million here!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3080028/Number-foreigners-work-rising-10-times-faster-Brits-sharp-rise-Romanian-Bulgarian-workers.html
And 186,000 Romanians and Bulgarians, whose residents have had full freedom of movement and access to work since January 2014, are also working here.

Despite assurances from Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs that there would be no major influx after employment restrictions were lifted, workers from the two Eastern European countries soared by 38,000 – or 26 per cent – in the year to March.

Let's face it, the left have constantly predicted immigration numbers wrong, Labour admit it now! The leaders of other large EU countries have admitted it was a mistake, the people of Europe are swinging to the right and the working class have suffered wage deflation and downward pressure on rights and conditions!

The Corinthian

gallag wrote: »

Man, it's like I have offended your religion lol, I simply believe the people were sold on the ideal of a common market, not the political union being forged today, look at your post ffs, why are you so offended? Iv seen crowds in Iran calmer when presented with a picture of big Mo!

Because I don't like liars, and at this stage your continued attempts to try and claim black is white and then change the subject without admitting you got it wrong is getting beyond ridiculous and you deserve to be brought up on it.

The idea that the EEC/EU was nothing more than a common market is at best a British invention. It's how the conservatives sold it to the public when joining. If you want to be pissed at anyone, be pissed at them. Otherwise stop trying to perpetuate this lie and then going into bare-faced denial when it's pointed out to you in black and white that this was never the case.

gallag wrote: »

Factors affecting labour productivity

Chunk of text copied from interweb

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5887/economics/uk-labour-productivity/

Em, ok, thanks for that.

Copy and paste does not a great argument make.

gallag wrote: »

The numbers of Bulgarians and Romanians coming to the UK doubled in 2014…

So what? It was still only about 40,000 in total. The likes of UKIP were scaremongering about the millions who could potentially “steal” British jobs.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Err... there's nothing 'open' about an 'ever closer union'. The intention is pretty clear.

As to your seeking a phrase such as "look to achieve a federal Europe", have you already forgotten that "a first step in the federation of Europe" was also cited?

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt, I see.

Yes, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... let's change the subject and forget how gallag came out with a pile of nonsense, persists in trying, with what can only described as blatant dishonesty at this stage, to try and convince us that black is white and that he lack the courage to admit the farce that he calls an argument.

So how about that not aside?

Man, it's like I have offended your religion lol, I simply believe the people were sold on the ideal of a common market, not the political union being forged today, look at your post ffs, why are you so offended? Iv seen crowds in Iran calmer when presented with a picture of big Mo!

The Corinthian

gallag wrote: »

Well, I disagree, why use such an open to interpretation phrase as "ever closer union" instead of just saying "push towards a united Europe" or "look to achieve a federal Europe"

Err... there's nothing 'open' about an 'ever closer union'. The intention is pretty clear.

As to your seeking a phrase such as "look to achieve a federal Europe", have you already forgotten that "a first step in the federation of Europe" was also cited?

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt, I see.

Anyway, that aside

Yes, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... let's change the subject and forget how gallag came out with a pile of nonsense, persists in trying, with what can only described as blatant dishonesty at this stage, to try and convince us that black is white and that he lack the courage to admit the farce that he calls an argument.

So how about that not aside?

gallag wrote: »

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21646235-if-britain-cannot-get-more-its-legion-cheap-workers-recovery-will-stall-bargain
"When people are cheap, firms would rather hire than invest in machines or technology. So productivity is held down."

Note that link is from the economist. Now to answer your question "Why has this low productivity not occurred in other EU countries that have taken in more immigration?" Well first of all other leading economies in the EU have suffered from lower productivity, just not as much as the UK and that is because the UK'S economy is different, less manufacturing and more financial services, here is a link to support what I am saying from the financial times.

http://m.ft.com/cms/s/0/3e0082a8-e502-11e4-bb4b-00144feab7de.html

"Lawyers, accountants and management consultants lie at the heart of the UK’s productivity problem, explaining almost a quarter of a shortfall since 2008"

So although what manufacturing we do have has been stifled by a lack of investment the poor productivity numbers are inflated compared to others due to our financial services industry.

I can agree with that. The smart thing to do if you use cheap labour is to make up the difference with better manufacturing equipment. Instead the stupidity of British industry is to go cheap on labour and investment. I'm not sure how this is contradicting my opinion that you invest in equipment if you want to deskill.

In any case what has any of this got to do with the EU? Seems to be poor decisions by British Government and Business is holding the UK back. All other EU nations have the migration rules and Germany has the same migratory patterns. This is a British Problem in or out of the EU.

gallag wrote: »

That was 2009 after labour's watch, the whole gist of the article is about how the Torys wanted to cut those figures! Still having difficulty seeing how you got 100 billion for uk government administration, it's actually 14 billion. Also, I missed your answer, do you believe the EU is efficient and only employing 25000 with a 9 billion administration budget?

It's at the bottom of the data table in that article in black and white. Has there been a lock step change in staffing and funding for the UK govt in the past five years? You really need to decide if you are talking about administration of core civil servants or all supported agencies. Deciding you will measure core civil service for the UK govt. but include all agencies funded by the EU is simply a dishonest comparison.

Not when you create misleading and dishonest statements that the 9 billion is for 25k employees which is manifestly is not. Does that answer your question?

micosoft wrote: »

I suggest you read the Guardian as well as the Mail/Telegraph. They have an excellent OpenData repository. The analysis they did here covers the entire UK spend. They even have an Excel download for a deeper analysis.

That was 2009 after labour's watch, the whole gist of the article is about how the Torys wanted to cut those figures! Still having difficulty seeing how you got 100 billion for uk government administration, it's actually 14 billion. Also, I missed your answer, do you believe the EU is efficient and only employing 25000 with a 9 billion administration budget?

micosoft wrote: »

I posted links with all of my statements. You merely cut and paste articles from certain UK newspapers. And no. It's not a simple fact and pretty much every manufacturing business does the opposite to your "simple" fact. An enabler of deskilling is automation. Which means spending lots more money on efficient machinery. Read the Bank of England Report I linked to.

In any case you are still avoiding addressing my point:

- Why has this low productivity not occurred in other EU countries that have taken in more immigration?

The simple answer is that low British productivity has nothing to do with the EU but is a result of British government policy (Education and Industry) and British industries failure to invest. Both of these are entirely within the remit of the British People.

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21646235-if-britain-cannot-get-more-its-legion-cheap-workers-recovery-will-stall-bargain
"When people are cheap, firms would rather hire than invest in machines or technology. So productivity is held down."

Note that link is from the economist. Now to answer your question "Why has this low productivity not occurred in other EU countries that have taken in more immigration?" Well first of all other leading economies in the EU have suffered from lower productivity, just not as much as the UK and that is because the UK'S economy is different, less manufacturing and more financial services, here is a link to support what I am saying from the financial times.

http://m.ft.com/cms/s/0/3e0082a8-e502-11e4-bb4b-00144feab7de.html

"Lawyers, accountants and management consultants lie at the heart of the UK’s productivity problem, explaining almost a quarter of a shortfall since 2008"

So although what manufacturing we do have has been stifled by a lack of investment the poor productivity numbers are inflated compared to others due to our financial services industry.

gallag wrote: »

Where did you get the £100 billion for uk government administration?

I suggest you read the Guardian as well as the Mail/Telegraph. They have an excellent OpenData repository. The analysis they did here covers the entire UK spend. They even have an Excel download for a deeper analysis.

gallag wrote: »

It's simple fact that cheep labour means companies invest less in modern efficient machinery, you would think I said something radical ffs. I notice I am the one posting links etc, not just a rant.

I posted links with all of my statements. You merely cut and paste articles from certain UK newspapers. And no. It's not a simple fact and pretty much every manufacturing business does the opposite to your "simple" fact. An enabler of deskilling is automation. Which means spending lots more money on efficient machinery. Read the Bank of England Report I linked to.

In any case you are still avoiding addressing my point:

- Why has this low productivity not occurred in other EU countries that have taken in more immigration?

The simple answer is that low British productivity has nothing to do with the EU but is a result of British government policy (Education and Industry) and British industries failure to invest. Both of these are entirely within the remit of the British People.

micosoft wrote: »

Nearly split a rib there laughing.

There is a really really simple answer to this. None of these agencies are Civil Servents. They are employees of the agencies listed. Totally dishonest comparison unless every UK quango is also to be included in the list of UK Civil service employees. But if you want the comparison then sure... go with

UK - 750k employees and a budget of 100 billion
EU - 50k and a budget of 9 billion.

Still seems good value compared to the wasteful and incompetent Britishcrats running the United Kingdom from London. I can see why the Scots are looking to secede when their tax pounds are being spent on all these quangos.

Perhaps it's more sensible to have a single EU agency managing food standards etc rather then 28? Perhaps in order to have a single market (Which you seem to think is the only purpose for the EU) you need a single agency to set common rules and arbitrate on them over 28 countries. More if you include the EFTA. All seems common sense to be - a single quango instead of 28....

Even the Tories think it's a good idea!

You need to make your mind up whether EU is distant and undemocratic, not responding to citizens needs OR completely populist, doing what the hoi polloi want doing! Or is it both!

Grand. Change the topic.

Where did you get the £100 billion for uk government administration?

gallag wrote: »

Well, as per usual the EU fudge the numbers and make it impossible to find out how many people are involved. The budget for administration for the EU is £9,000,000,000. Do you believe only 25,000 are on the books? Here is an interesting blog post from January 2007....

"How many people work for the EU?

An old EU joke: "How many people work in Brussels?" "About half of them."

Nearly split a rib there laughing.

gallag wrote: »

For years groups like Britain in Europe have been saying that 'only' around 20,000 people work for the EU. We decided to check that up, and there is a piece in the Sunday Telegraphabout it.

The European Commission's website says that it employs 25,000 people. The French Government says all the EU institutions put together employ about 35,000. In a recent parliamentary answer in the UK, the Government plumped for 37,000 for the EU as a whole.

However, if you can find them, the official figures from the EU's "establishment plans" for 2007 (on page 6 of the DG Admin 'statistical bulletin') show that there are 42,548 temporary and permanent EU officials. In addition, it lists 8,123 "external" Commission staff, which are staff paid on appropriations - contract agents, seconded national experts, technical and administrative assistance etc, giving a total of over 50,000.

However the Commission's table does not list any external staff employed by the other institutions and the agencies. Since the summer we've been trying to find out these numbers, which has proved a bit of a nightmare. Some agencies, such as the European Police College have refused to supply the numbers, and others have sent pretty prickly emails. One said that we had to send them a "motivated letter" (Our motive: we want to know and it's our money). However, despite all that, the information we've managed to uncover shows a significant number of 'hidden' employees.

We've found, for example, that the European Parliament has at least an extra 2,254 staff working for it not listed on the statistical bulletin (this figure is likely to have increased since it was supplied back in June, given that the official numbers of staff have gone up).

And there are lots of "off balance sheet" staff in the balooning number of EU agencies too. We're still waiting for some further figures and clarification, but based on the Commission's statistical bulletin, plus what additional figures we have for external staff, for the other institutions and agencies, the EU has around 54,000 staff.

And there may well be more on top of this. The Commission's confusing table doesn't list second and third 'pillar' agencies such as Europol (which has a staff of 600), or the European Defence Agency (which has a staff of at least 94), or the EU Satellite Centre.

Trying to make a comparison with the size of the UK civil service isn't easy, because so many of the EU numbers are just not published. However, we found that while there are 4,640 Senior Civil Servants in the Government (earning £54K upwards), there are almost 10,000 officials in the Commission alone earning a comparable salary. We only have the salary grades for the Commission, but if one assumes that the same proportion (34%) of all EU staff (54,000 or so) were on roughly this salary scale, then there will be around 18,000 members of EU staff on Senior Civil Service pay (so it's nearly four times as big).

There is a really really simple answer to this. None of these agencies are Civil Servents. They are employees of the agencies listed. Totally dishonest comparison unless every UK quango is also to be included in the list of UK Civil service employees. But if you want the comparison then sure... go with

UK - 750k employees and a budget of 100 billion
EU - 50k and a budget of 9 billion.

Still seems good value compared to the wasteful and incompetent Britishcrats running the United Kingdom from London. I can see why the Scots are looking to secede when their tax pounds are being spent on all these quangos.

gallag wrote: »

What's going on? Why so many new agencies?

One factor is the EU agencies' role in the development of US-style 'pork-barrel' spending in the EU: "You get the food standards agency, we get the gender institute" etc. This motive for expansion is made incredibly overt during talks on the budget.

Perhaps it's more sensible to have a single EU agency managing food standards etc rather then 28? Perhaps in order to have a single market (Which you seem to think is the only purpose for the EU) you need a single agency to set common rules and arbitrate on them over 28 countries. More if you include the EFTA. All seems common sense to be - a single quango instead of 28....

gallag wrote: »

For example, during the negotiations on the new financial perspective the EU's budget for administration (and setting up lots of lovely new agencies) was increased from 49.3 billioneuros to 50.3 billion euros, between the publication of the United Kingdom Presidency Proposal on 14 December and the publication of the UK's final proposals on 19 December.

Amazingly the UK Government actually admitted in a parliamentary answer that it had agreed to the extra €1bn as a kind of sweetener:

"A number of changes, including the change to the budget for administration costs,were necessary to the UK presidency proposal of14 December in order to generate a political consensus for an agreement on the 2007-13 Financial Perspective at the European Council on 15-17 December"

Even the Tories think it's a good idea!

gallag wrote: »

The growth of EU agencies is also an example of the EU's turn towards populism: price controls on text messages, putative 'bans' on violent computer games etc. The agencies allow the EU to be seen to be "doing something" in a whole range of new areas, from food safety to human rights.

Bizarrely, the EU is now also investing inadvertising its agencies - a glossy new 'EU agencies campaign' tells people "Whatever you do - we work for you", and has placed adverts in in-flight magazines on some of Europe's biggest airlines, boasting of agency staff of "more than 2,500" (actually it's more like 4,500) and "significant budgetary resources." (why doesn't the civil service just start plugging itself too?)

You need to make your mind up whether EU is distant and undemocratic, not responding to citizens needs OR completely populist, doing what the hoi polloi want doing! Or is it both!

gallag wrote: »

Of course, the real point about the EU is not the number of people who work for it. Every day literally thousands of national civil servants descend on Brussels to take part in its hundreds of expert committees, and the drawing up of regulations, directives and decisions which affect nearly half a billion people. The power of the EU doesn't just depend on employing a lot of pen pushers, but on imposing a whole supranational legal system."

Grand. Change the topic.

micosoft wrote: »

So why does immigration not impact any of the other EU nations that accept more immigrants from the East such as Germany? If you bothered read any of the analysis you'd see that one of the key reasons is the better training of continental workers. German, Bulgarian, French and Polish workers learn how to fix their machines. British workers just stand there waiting for the repair guy. You are exactly the opposite of wrong. As an aside it's British business people who consistently underinvest in capital machinery. Again, the fundamental failures in British Industry can be entirely laid at the British Governments and Industries feet.

TBH you seem to have an astonishing disregard for the facts if they don't suit your ideological stance. Even the Bank of England disagrees with you.

It's simple fact that cheep labour means companies invest less in modern efficient machinery, you would think I said something radical ffs. I notice I am the one posting links etc, not just a rant.

gallag wrote: »

Cheep labour due to an oversupply of workers holds productivity back, instead of investing in expensive machinery and creating skilled, highly trained jobs they just send a bus to Bulgaria etc.

So why does immigration not impact any of the other EU nations that accept more immigrants from the East such as Germany? If you bothered read any of the analysis you'd see that one of the key reasons is the better training of continental workers. German, Bulgarian, French and Polish workers learn how to fix their machines. British workers just stand there waiting for the repair guy. You are exactly the opposite of wrong. As an aside it's British business people who consistently underinvest in capital machinery. Again, the fundamental failures in British Industry can be entirely laid at the British Governments and Industries feet.

TBH you seem to have an astonishing disregard for the facts if they don't suit your ideological stance. Even the Bank of England disagrees with you.

djpbarry wrote: »

Well that would explain the hordes of Bulgarians that have descended on Britain. Oh wait, they haven't.

The numbers of Bulgarians and Romanians coming to the UK doubled in 2014, this will continue in 2015. The left called this one wrong, again.

djpbarry wrote: »

Well that would explain the hordes of Bulgarians that have descended on Britain. Oh wait, they haven't.

Anyway, your point makes absolutely no sense. Even if it were true that there is an oversupply of cheap labour in the UK, shouldn't that leave businesses with a lower wage bill and, therefore, greater profits to reinvest, creating the more "highly trained jobs" you refer to? We'll ignore for a moment that investing in "expensive machinery" doesn't necessarily create "highly trained jobs" - if anything, it will make lower-paid positions redundant, further increasing the supply of cheap labour.

Factors affecting labour productivitySkills and qualifications of workers.

If workers become more skilled with relevant training, then this can increase labour productivity.

Morale of workers. In a period of industrial unrest and low worker morale, productivity is likely to fall. If workers are motivated and happy, productivity is likely to be higher. Morale of workers could be affected by wages, industrial relations, whether they feel they have a stake in the company, non-monetary benefits, e.g. do they enjoy the job?

Technological progress. The implementation of new technology is one of biggest factors in improving productivity. For example, the assembly line introduced from the 1920s made huge strides in productivity. In recent years, the development of micro computers and the internet have also enabled improvements in productivity.

Substitution of capital to labour. If labour becomes cheap and freely available, firms may have less incentive to spend money on capital and use labour intensive methods rather than capital intensive methods. Labour intensive processes are likely to have lower levels of productivity.

Rules and regulations. If it is very hard to fire lazy workers, then productivity growth may be constrained. Though the absence of any labour market regulations could lead to high turnover and poor worker morale, which could also diminish labour productivity.

Capacity utilisation. In a boom, firms may squeeze more output out of existing capacity through encouraging people to work overtime – this increases labour productivity. In a recession, firms may hold onto workers, rather than let them go – even if they are just working at 80% capacity – therefore labour productivity falls.

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5887/economics/uk-labour-productivity/

micosoft wrote: »

There are less employees in the whole EU is at most 25k (official full time employees) which is less then the civil service of Ireland. Given those 25k look after a union of 506 million people vs only 4 million for us I'd say that's extremely efficient! Far more waste in the UK govt. tbh....

Well, as per usual the EU fudge the numbers and make it impossible to find out how many people are involved. The budget for administration for the EU is £9,000,000,000. Do you believe only 25,000 are on the books? Here is an interesting blog post from January 2007....

"How many people work for the EU?

An old EU joke: "How many people work in Brussels?" "About half of them."

For years groups like Britain in Europe have been saying that 'only' around 20,000 people work for the EU. We decided to check that up, and there is a piece in the Sunday Telegraphabout it.

The European Commission's website says that it employs 25,000 people. The French Government says all the EU institutions put together employ about 35,000. In a recent parliamentary answer in the UK, the Government plumped for 37,000 for the EU as a whole.

However, if you can find them, the official figures from the EU's "establishment plans" for 2007 (on page 6 of the DG Admin 'statistical bulletin') show that there are 42,548 temporary and permanent EU officials. In addition, it lists 8,123 "external" Commission staff, which are staff paid on appropriations - contract agents, seconded national experts, technical and administrative assistance etc, giving a total of over 50,000.

However the Commission's table does not list any external staff employed by the other institutions and the agencies. Since the summer we've been trying to find out these numbers, which has proved a bit of a nightmare. Some agencies, such as the European Police College have refused to supply the numbers, and others have sent pretty prickly emails. One said that we had to send them a "motivated letter" (Our motive: we want to know and it's our money). However, despite all that, the information we've managed to uncover shows a significant number of 'hidden' employees.

We've found, for example, that the European Parliament has at least an extra 2,254 staff working for it not listed on the statistical bulletin (this figure is likely to have increased since it was supplied back in June, given that the official numbers of staff have gone up).

And there are lots of "off balance sheet" staff in the balooning number of EU agencies too. We're still waiting for some further figures and clarification, but based on the Commission's statistical bulletin, plus what additional figures we have for external staff, for the other institutions and agencies, the EU has around 54,000 staff.

And there may well be more on top of this. The Commission's confusing table doesn't list second and third 'pillar' agencies such as Europol (which has a staff of 600), or the European Defence Agency (which has a staff of at least 94), or the EU Satellite Centre.

Trying to make a comparison with the size of the UK civil service isn't easy, because so many of the EU numbers are just not published. However, we found that while there are 4,640 Senior Civil Servants in the Government (earning £54K upwards), there are almost 10,000 officials in the Commission alone earning a comparable salary. We only have the salary grades for the Commission, but if one assumes that the same proportion (34%) of all EU staff (54,000 or so) were on roughly this salary scale, then there will be around 18,000 members of EU staff on Senior Civil Service pay (so it's nearly four times as big).

What's going on? Why so many new agencies?

One factor is the EU agencies' role in the development of US-style 'pork-barrel' spending in the EU: "You get the food standards agency, we get the gender institute" etc. This motive for expansion is made incredibly overt during talks on the budget.

For example, during the negotiations on the new financial perspective the EU's budget for administration (and setting up lots of lovely new agencies) was increased from 49.3 billioneuros to 50.3 billion euros, between the publication of the United Kingdom Presidency Proposal on 14 December and the publication of the UK's final proposals on 19 December.

Amazingly the UK Government actually admitted in a parliamentary answer that it had agreed to the extra €1bn as a kind of sweetener:

"A number of changes, including the change to the budget for administration costs,were necessary to the UK presidency proposal of14 December in order to generate a political consensus for an agreement on the 2007-13 Financial Perspective at the European Council on 15-17 December"

The growth of EU agencies is also an example of the EU's turn towards populism: price controls on text messages, putative 'bans' on violent computer games etc. The agencies allow the EU to be seen to be "doing something" in a whole range of new areas, from food safety to human rights.

Bizarrely, the EU is now also investing inadvertising its agencies - a glossy new 'EU agencies campaign' tells people "Whatever you do - we work for you", and has placed adverts in in-flight magazines on some of Europe's biggest airlines, boasting of agency staff of "more than 2,500" (actually it's more like 4,500) and "significant budgetary resources." (why doesn't the civil service just start plugging itself too?)

Of course, the real point about the EU is not the number of people who work for it. Every day literally thousands of national civil servants descend on Brussels to take part in its hundreds of expert committees, and the drawing up of regulations, directives and decisions which affect nearly half a billion people. The power of the EU doesn't just depend on employing a lot of pen pushers, but on imposing a whole supranational legal system."

gallag wrote: »

Cheep labour due to an oversupply of workers holds productivity back, instead of investing in expensive machinery and creating skilled, highly trained jobs they just send a bus to Bulgaria etc.

Well that would explain the hordes of Bulgarians that have descended on Britain. Oh wait, they haven't.

Anyway, your point makes absolutely no sense. Even if it were true that there is an oversupply of cheap labour in the UK, shouldn't that leave businesses with a lower wage bill and, therefore, greater profits to reinvest, creating the more "highly trained jobs" you refer to? We'll ignore for a moment that investing in "expensive machinery" doesn't necessarily create "highly trained jobs" - if anything, it will make lower-paid positions redundant, further increasing the supply of cheap labour.

micosoft wrote: »

That last paragraph is interesting. One reason is that the "lazy and feckless"* British worker is substantially less productive than, for example, their French equivalent to the extent that a French worker gets done in four days what a British worker takes five days to do. British industry continues to be the sick man of Europe. Not much point being in a open trading market when you simply don't have the productivity levels needed to compete. Hence why the UK actually might need the protection of trade barriers from their more competitive peers on the continent.

*A joke. But you'd never imagine how unproductive and inefficient the UK is from their media who for some bizarre reason think their economy is dragged down by the inefficient continentals.

Cheep labour due to an oversupply of workers holds productivity back, instead of investing in expensive machinery and creating skilled, highly trained jobs they just send a bus to Bulgaria etc.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I will admit a fair view of them are bonkers but among a few their are some Eurosceptics that deeply distrust Brussels and Frankfurt. The waste in the bureaucracy and they way negotiations are handled. More has to be streamlined and a great many people want a less bulging Union with members being allowed in for the sake of making up the numbers.

There are less employees in the whole EU is at most 25k (official full time employees) which is less then the civil service of Ireland. Given those 25k look after a union of 506 million people vs only 4 million for us I'd say that's extremely efficient! Far more waste in the UK govt. tbh....

Jim2007 wrote: »

And if you take the time to read through the treaties, trade agreements and you will realise that it is covered by EU agreements! Also note that most of it is outwards and not inwards in the common market. And until such time as the UK would reach a trade agreement with the EU, it would stand behind all those countries!

That is what makes it all so crazy from my point of view, they failed to take advantage of what was on offer in the EU from a trade point of view and no somehow they are going to better by getting to the back of the queue....

That last paragraph is interesting. One reason is that the "lazy and feckless"* British worker is substantially less productive than, for example, their French equivalent to the extent that a French worker gets done in four days what a British worker takes five days to do. British industry continues to be the sick man of Europe. Not much point being in a open trading market when you simply don't have the productivity levels needed to compete. Hence why the UK actually might need the protection of trade barriers from their more competitive peers on the continent.

*A joke. But you'd never imagine how unproductive and inefficient the UK is from their media who for some bizarre reason think their economy is dragged down by the inefficient continentals.

Zubeneschamali

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The waste in the bureaucracy

A standard complaint from the Eurosceptics is that Europe is a bloated bureacracy of wasters.

So, how may of these Eurocrats are there exactly?