BREXIT |OT2.0| A parade of endless victories for Boris Johnson

[Faddy]

They're not already full members. We are, and have an economy built around that fact. And they're willing to accept freedom of movement when Labour won't even commit to that.

Click to shrink...

That is a fair point. That Labour is not committed to Freedom of Movement, it doens't make them racist though.

Labour haven't been part of any official negotiations. So we don't know what deal they will strike with the EU. Once we know that then it is proper to take a position on the referendum.

Remember that a Labour Government means a 2nd referendum between a Labour Deal and Remain. Where as a Tory government means we will probably do a hard brexit because Boris Johnson will not negotiate a new deal.

 

[Zastava]

I don't think it was the remain branch that turned it into a confidence vote - it was the lexit wing in LOTO's office who put out a last minute fudge and pressured everybody to "support Jeremy".

 

[Faddy]

They are, but initially the chair thought the resolution had passed and someone had to tell her it didn't. Looking at the video I think there wasn't much between them so a formal vote would make sense.

Click to shrink...

I don't think a recount is the same thing as a Card Vote. Usually a Card Vote has different weighting than the conference floor, it isn't 1 delegate 1 vote.

edit: I found the rules

Spoiler

3.Conference rule 3 –Voting

A.Voting at Party conference on resolutions, reports, amendments, proposals and references back shall be by show of hands or, when the conditions laid down by the CAC require it, by card. When acard vote is called, voting shall be in two sections as follows:

i.Affiliated organisations,on the basis of the number of members for whom affiliation fees were paid for the year ending 31 December preceding the conference in accordance with Clause II of the constitution, the ALC and Young Labour, shall cast a percentage of the total voting entitlement as laid down in iv below. The vote of each affiliated organisation, the ALCand Young Labour shall then be divided equally among the registered delegates ofthat organisation standing appointed at the date determined by the NEC; such votes shall be allocated to each delegate to be cast separately.

ii.CLPs shall cast a percentage of the total voting entitlement as laid down in iv below, on the basis of the actualnumber of fully paid up members in the CLP at 31 December preceding the conference. The vote of the CLP shall then be divided equally among the registered delegates standing appointed at the date determined by the NEC; such votes shall be allocated to each delegate to be cast separately.

iii.The votes apportioned as provided for in i above and ii above shall be totalled and the aggregate reported to conference as a percentage for each section.

iv.The balance of voting between the two sections shall be: 50 per cent to the affiliated organisations (as in i above), and 50 per cent to the CLPs (as in ii above)

It looks like unions would hold even more power in a Card Vote.

 

[PJV3]

I don't think it was the remain branch that turned it into a confidence vote - it was the lexit wing in LOTO's office who put out a last minute fudge and pressured everybody to "support Jeremy".

Click to shrink...

You just answered the question i was about to ask, i was dreading this would have come from some bright spark in the PLP.

 

[Lagamorph]

That is a fair point. That Labour is not committed to Freedom of Movement, it doens't make them racist though.

Labour haven't been part of any official negotiations. So we don't know what deal they will strike with the EU. Once we know that then it is proper to take a position on the referendum.

Remember that a Labour Government means a 2nd referendum between a Labour Deal and Remain. Where as a Tory government means we will probably do a hard brexit because Boris Johnson will not negotiate a new deal.

Click to shrink...

Not supporting Freedom of Movement is a racist policy. There is literally no other reason not to support it.

If they go into negotiations with FoM as a red line then May's Deal is the best you can get. If you have no intention of having FoM then there is literally no point in going back to the negotiating table.

 

[Faddy]

Not supporting Freedom of Movement is a racist policy. There is literally no other reason not to support it.

If they go into negotiations with FoM as a red line then May's Deal is the best you can get. If you have no intention of having FoM then there is literally no point in going back to the negotiating table.

Click to shrink...

How is not supporting Freedom of Movement racist?

Why should Europeans be given priority in coming to Britain to find work vs Africans, Asians, Americans etc. Why isn't that considered racist? Our immigration policy with Freedom of Movement favours majority white nations.

May's deal is not the best you can get. For example if we accepted standards on agriculture, product safety etc we can be in a customs union to ensure trade continues to be frictionless as possible.

 

[Deleted member 862]

I don't think it was the remain branch that turned it into a confidence vote - it was the lexit wing in LOTO's office who put out a last minute fudge and pressured everybody to "support Jeremy".

Click to shrink...

I don't actually know who is blame, those were two separate thoughts. I will say that the leadership obviously presented their idea yesterday and today all the press have been saying is "a Labour source said" and using words like "panic" and "challenge".

Whatever happened it got away from them the remain people and it became a confidence vote. This should've been handled better but after everything the party closed ranks and decided the leader was more important.

This is going to rumble on forever even though they kinda already won by getting the leadership to back a second referendum. I don't think they'll take that as a win though.

 

[Deleted member 862]

The thing I don't get is they think this is a good idea. Let's say Labour do win, 3 months into being PM there's the very real possibility that Corbyn's own party will campaign against the Brexit deal he just negoiated. Who is going to even stand next to it if Labour don't? The Tories aren't going to touch it so it just becomes some sick dog nobody wants. What happens then if it wins? It's just madness.

 

[Zastava]

How is not supporting Freedom of Movement racist?

Why should Europeans be given priority in coming to Britain to find work vs Africans, Asians, Americans etc. Why isn't that considered racist? Our immigration policy with Freedom of Movement favours majority white nations.

May's deal is not the best you can get. For example if we accepted standards on agriculture, product safety etc we can be in a customs union to ensure trade continues to be frictionless as possible.

Click to shrink...

May's deal was already a defacto customs union. Why do you think the nutters hate it so much. And a customs union is utterly insufficient when the majority of our economy is services, something not covered by a customs union.

And if we want to let more Africans or Asians or whatever in than that is entirely up to us, entirely separate from EU Freedom of Movement. The reason we don't is because a large part of this country is fucking racist, as is every lexiter cunt who likes to make this garbage argument. If you want freedom of movement for more non-Europeans than the correct move is to level up their ability to do so, not level down Europeans and pretend it's more fair. It's fundamentally racist because ending it is solely to keep out forrins. There is no other reason.

 

[Menchi]

How is not supporting Freedom of Movement racist?

Why should Europeans be given priority in coming to Britain to find work vs Africans, Asians, Americans etc. Why isn't that considered racist? Our immigration policy with Freedom of Movement favours majority white nations.

May's deal is not the best you can get. For example if we accepted standards on agriculture, product safety etc we can be in a customs union to ensure trade continues to be frictionless as possible.

Click to shrink...

This is disingenuous at best. They're not favoured because they're white nations, they're favoured due a reciprocal benefit being part of the worlds largest trading bloc. I don't think it is inherently racist to be against FoM but the VAST majority of people against it, do so, solely based on racism, and/or xenophobia.

 

[Koukalaka]

How is not supporting Freedom of Movement racist?

Why should Europeans be given priority in coming to Britain to find work vs Africans, Asians, Americans etc. Why isn't that considered racist? Our immigration policy with Freedom of Movement favours majority white nations.

May's deal is not the best you can get. For example if we accepted standards on agriculture, product safety etc we can be in a customs union to ensure trade continues to be frictionless as possible.

Click to shrink...

I wouldn't go that far, but I'm resolute that supporting the end of FoM means you are breaking bread with xenophobes and hard-right nationalists. You can very much come up socialist motivations for it, but you're getting into bed with those people without really differing at all on policy.

It's still "British Jobs for British Workers" at it's core.

 

[Faddy]

May's deal was already a defacto customs union. Why do you think the nutters hate it so much. And a customs union is utterly insufficient when the majority of our economy is services, something not covered by a customs union.

And if we want to let more Africans or Asians or whatever in than that is entirely up to us, entirely separate from EU Freedom of Movement. The reason we don't is because a large part of this country is fucking racist, as is every lexiter cunt who likes to make this garbage argument. If you want freedom of movement for more non-Europeans than the correct move is to level up their ability to do so, not level down Europeans and pretend it's more fair. It's fundamentally racist because ending it is solely to keep out forrins. There is no other reason.

Click to shrink...

If May's deal was a defacto Customs Union why were there so many votes in Parliament trying to make the deal have a formal customs union.

Do you think all migration controls are racist? It is fine to say yes. But right now the way world labour is organised with vast differences in economic powers, wages, conditions having a borderless world is only going to lead to even more exploitation by capitalists.

 

[nature boy]

The thing I don't get is they think this is a good idea. Let's say Labour do win, 3 months into being PM there's the very real possibility that Corbyn's own party will campaign against the Brexit deal he just negoiated. Who is going to even stand next to it if Labour don't? The Tories aren't going to touch it so it just becomes some sick dog nobody wants. What happens then if it wins? It's just madness.

Click to shrink...

I've said that before (legitimacy of the referendum) and I still don't have an answer
Labour dig a big hole with the people's vote, and to get to straight revocation is now next to impossible.

How is not supporting Freedom of Movement racist?

Why should Europeans be given priority in coming to Britain to find work vs Africans, Asians, Americans etc. Why isn't that considered racist? Our immigration policy with Freedom of Movement favours majority white nations.

May's deal is not the best you can get. For example if we accepted standards on agriculture, product safety etc we can be in a customs union to ensure trade continues to be frictionless as possible.

Click to shrink...

Because FoM is tied to Freedom of goods, services and capital and I don't think those other regions provide the same level of integration as the EU does.
Also FoM is tied to the concept of greater integration of Europe in order to avoid any future war.

 

[Faddy]

Because FoM is tied to Freedom of goods, services and capital and I don't think those other regions provide the same level of integration as the EU does.
Also FoM is tied to the concept of greater integration of Europe in order to avoid any future war.

Click to shrink...

Supporting Freedom of Movement as part of a larger unity effort to avoid conflict is fine. But to say if you are against it you are racist is not true.

Freedom of Movement for the EU is an economic policy not a social policy.

 

[nature boy]

Supporting Freedom of Movement as part of a larger unity effort to avoid conflict is fine. But to say if you are against it you are racist is not true.

Freedom of Movement for the EU is an economic policy not a social policy.

Click to shrink...

I wasn't specifically addressing the racism part, just how people from other regions don't have the same rights applied to them if they're not EU citizens. I don't think being anti-FoM is being racist although in the current social climate it is definitely tied to racist/xenophobic rhetoric and attitudes and in this context of Labour and Brexit I pretty sure I'm not the only one struggling to understand Labour's vision (or part of Labour) of an EU deal with the closest integration but excluding FoM and how that correlates with a party that seems to be overwhelmingly remain.

 

[Deleted member 835]

I won't be allowed to vote because I'm a EU citizen, but how can a remainer ever vote for labour, when they are clearly so spineless about the subject. How can a brexiteer vote for them too? I just see them as the party of no-one except people that don't care either way, but those won't even bother to go to the polls.

Added: If they would at least guarantee freedom of movement as a deal differentiator, but as it stands they would get just as much out of a deal as the tories.

Click to shrink...

Lib dems are dead in my area. It either vote Labour and have a chance of getting rid of Tories or watch them win by more.

 

[Zastava]

If May's deal was a defacto Customs Union why were there so many votes in Parliament trying to make the deal have a formal customs union.

Do you think all migration controls are racist? It is fine to say yes. But right now the way world labour is organised with vast differences in economic powers, wages, conditions having a borderless world is only going to lead to even more exploitation by capitalists.

Click to shrink...

There were so many votes because Labour were playing silly fucking games and pretending they had a significantly different position to the Tories, though they would have liked more worker protections which is pretty much a domestic issue anyway. They have consistently said freedom of movement must end, a huge and significant red line that limits the ability to get basically anything better, and were willing to throw EU migrants under the bus and abstain on key votes until there was a grassroots backlash.

And yes, all migration controls are to a larger or lesser degree racist. Immigrants are a net good to any country that accepts them, driving economic and cultural growth. What negative effects there are, on low-skilled wages and infrastructure, can be mitigated with other policy like a living wage and a migration impact fund for areas that see population growth so services are not overwhelmed. Which Labour previously had and Cameron immediately cut upon coming to office, the pig-fucking prick.

I find it pretty ironic that you're making an anti-capitalist argument against FoM when freedom of movement is about freedom of movement for workers, so that they can choose where to live, work and love and not be forced to stay in one location and accept sub-par conditions.

 

[Faddy]

I find it pretty ironic that you're making an anti-capitalist argument against FoM when freedom of movement is about freedom of movement for workers, so that they can choose where to live, work and love and not be forced to stay in one location and accept sub-par conditions.

Click to shrink...

The principle of FoM only applies to people with jobs. Lose your job and you can be kicked out.

Sure skilled workers can pick and choose where they live while unskilled workers are at the mercy of capitalists who will either move their jobs to areas with lower labour costs or import cheaper labour from those areas. Ideally there would be a borderless world but for that to happen work conditions need to be on a par or the difference will be exploited.

It is like saying tarriffs are bad but failing to acknowledge that a steel tarriff against China is good because they undercut the fair market price with cheap labour and subsidised industry.

Edit: You must be pleased Labour have moved from having the same policy as the Tories to backing a People's Vote.

 

[Zastava]

The principle of FoM only applies to people with jobs. Lose your job and you can be kicked out.

Sure skilled workers can pick and choose where they live while unskilled workers are at the mercy of capitalists who will either move their jobs to areas with lower labour costs or import cheaper labour from those areas. Ideally there would be a borderless world but for that to happen work conditions need to be on a par or the difference will be exploited.

It is like saying tarriffs are bad but failing to acknowledge that a steel tarriff against China is good because they undercut the fair market price with cheap labour and subsidised industry.

Edit: You must be pleased Labour have moved from having the same policy as the Tories to backing a People's Vote.

Click to shrink...

You only need to be able to support yourself, so any minimum wage job or some savings will do, and there is a grace period for you to be able to find another one. You don't lose your job and get deported the next day or week. Unskilled workers are still needed everywhere or else London wouldn't be full of European baristas, waiters, bartenders, cleaners etc. Should those people be forced to stay in their own countries? And hell, if you want to advocate that standards for these things should be EU-wide then you're advocating for more integration and EU powers, not less.

I am pleased that Labour have switched position to a second ref. What I am unhappy about is that they have lost a shitload of support since the beginning of the year, the vast majority of which to remain parties, so that second ref position is fucking useless if they can't get enough of those voters back to actually win the next election. And let me tell you, this bullshit can-kicking fudge impresses sweet fuck all of these voters.

Beyond remaining, this country desperately needs a left-wing government to reverse austerity and reinvest in the NHS and social care and communities that aren't London or the South East. And with current polling it looks like we're going to get neither.

 

[31GhostsIV]

Corbyn fucked it then, what a shock.

The only benefit of losing an election to the fucking Tories yet again will be that he finally steps down. Then just five more years of hard Brexit Tory 'fun' to grit our teeth and get through and we'll be golden.

 

[Deleted member 835]

 

[Antrax]

Why should Europeans be given priority in coming to Britain to find work vs Africans, Asians, Americans etc.

Click to shrink...

The great thing is that the UK could just let more of those people in instead of building a metaphorical wall around the country. The UK decides to keep those people out at disproportionate rates, not the EU.

It's the same exact nonsense argument against free trade. "People will take advantage of it." Okay, then legislate around that to fix it. Don't just scrap the whole thing.

As other posters pointed out, if you're against FoM, then you're brushing shoulders with people like Le Pen, Farage, and other scum like them.

 

[Simon21]

Honestly, and I say this as someone who'd love to tell everyone to just vote Lib Dem, it's pretty simple really (this applies to England particularly, I guess): If you're in a Lib Dem/Tory seat, vote Lib Dem; if it's Tory/Labour, vote Labour; if it's Labour/Lib Dem, vote with your conscience. As much as I despise the cult of personality road Labour are going down ("Oh Jeremy Corbyn" for that vote, fuck right off the nearest cliff), in Tory/Labour marginals only one of those parties is going to do anything to work towards stopping this Brexit shitshow.

 

[Simon21]

The great thing is that the UK could just let more of those people in instead of building a metaphorical wall around the country. The UK decides to keep those people out at disproportionate rates, not the EU.

It's the same exact nonsense argument against free trade. "People will take advantage of it." Okay, then legislate around that to fix it. Don't just scrap the whole thing.

As other posters pointed out, if you're against FoM, then you're brushing shoulders with people like Le Pen, Farage, and other scum like them.

Click to shrink...

Labour and the Tories are both equally to blame for this imo; each of those parties knew exactly how important EU immigration is to our economy, and so wouldn't restrict it, while they also both wanted to gain votes by telling people they would crack down on it (which they both knew neither of them would do).

 

[Zastava]

Honestly, and I say this as someone who'd love to tell everyone to just vote Lib Dem, it's pretty simple really (this applies to England particularly, I guess): If you're in a Lib Dem/Tory seat, vote Lib Dem; if it's Tory/Labour, vote Labour; if it's Labour/Lib Dem, vote with your conscience. As much as I despise the cult of personality road Labour are going down ("Oh Jeremy Corbyn" for that vote, fuck right off the nearest cliff), in Tory/Labour marginals only one of those parties is going to do anything to work towards stopping this Brexit shitshow.

Click to shrink...

This is what I would still advocate as a functional ABT voter but christ Labour made it more difficult today. Mind you, I don't like the LDs much either for a whole host of reasons.

A plague on all their houses. Just the fucking worst one for the Tories and BXP.

 

[Tzarscream]

*wakes up and checks the news*

 

[Deleted member 835]

Honestly, and I say this as someone who'd love to tell everyone to just vote Lib Dem, it's pretty simple really (this applies to England particularly, I guess): If you're in a Lib Dem/Tory seat, vote Lib Dem; if it's Tory/Labour, vote Labour; if it's Labour/Lib Dem, vote with your conscience. As much as I despise the cult of personality road Labour are going down ("Oh Jeremy Corbyn" for that vote, fuck right off the nearest cliff), in Tory/Labour marginals only one of those parties is going to do anything to work towards stopping this Brexit shitshow.

Click to shrink...

What I do, I have no real party. I just vote for the one that can stop the Tories. Labour were within 17 here last time so has to be them.

 

[Tzarscream]

All we can hope for now is that the Tory Conference doubles down on shitting the bed, making Labour look like a impassioned debate club by comparison.

 

[Deleted member 862]

All we can hope for now is that the Tory Conference doubles down on shitting the bed, making Labour look like a impassioned debate club by comparison.

Click to shrink...

They already had a clear out though and the rest are too pathetic to do anything.

 

[KingSnake]

I just want to say that being against FoM is not usually racist, but rather xenophobic. And in general any rational arguments about the local issues that are linked with FoM have most of the time answers in local policies rather the EU wide ones.

As I said before, for being the party of workers Labour really goes out of their way to avoid protecting the non-British workers lately. And they practically support the xenophobic arguments through their silence.

 

[Tzarscream]

I swear, we better at least get a decent Labour leader after Corbyn to make this all worth it, somebody that can actually lead the party to victory, somebody that can unite the Corbynistas and Anti-Corbynites and focus on the bigger picture.

 

[Flammable D]

I swear, we better at least get a decent Labour leader after Corbyn to make this all worth it, somebody that can actually lead the party to victory, somebody that can unite the Corbynistas and Anti-Corbynites and focus on the bigger picture.

Click to shrink...

this might be the unicorniest unicorn i've ever seen

 

[Faddy]

The great thing is that the UK could just let more of those people in instead of building a metaphorical wall around the country. The UK decides to keep those people out at disproportionate rates, not the EU.

It's the same exact nonsense argument against free trade. "People will take advantage of it." Okay, then legislate around that to fix it. Don't just scrap the whole thing.

As other posters pointed out, if you're against FoM, then you're brushing shoulders with people like Le Pen, Farage, and other scum like them.

Click to shrink...

LePen, Farage and others are against almost all migration.

It is undisputable that the UK needs to manage migration. How should we do that? Continue our policy of favouring EU countries or put them on the same footings as everyone else.

People do take advantage of Free Trade. They shut down factories in high wage countries and set up in lower wage countries. Hoover, Jaguar, Dyson, Cadbury, Peugeot, Ford (and many more). All moved out of Britain because they wanted to save money but can continue to have free access to sell to the British market.

 

[Tzarscream]

LePen, Farage and others are against almost all migration.

It is undisputable that the UK needs to manage migration. How should we do that? Continue our policy of favouring EU countries or put them on the same footings as everyone else.

People do take advantage of Free Trade. They shut down factories in high wage countries and set up in lower wage countries. Hoover, Jaguar, Dyson, Cadbury, Peugeot, Ford (and many more). All moved out of Britain because they wanted to save money but can continue to have free access to sell to the British market.

Click to shrink...

It's not migration that's really even the issue, it's companies exploiting migrants from poorer countries in addition to the fact many many working class towns in the UK have been ignored and neglected for decades. If you focused on putting restrictions and best practice laws on companies that mitigated their ability for exploitation and had a plan for developing sustainable jobs in old factory/seaside towns there wouldn't be a "migration" issue.

Migration is only an issue because for poor people desperately looking for an answer, it's easy to just point at a migrant and say it's their fault. It's much harder to actually invest on solving the root of the issue, but if you did and people were more content, people aren't going to give as much of a shit. Obviously there will still be racists but it wouldn't be as much of a hot button issue.

 

[KingSnake]

People do take advantage of Free Trade. They shut down factories in high wage countries and set up in lower wage countries. Hoover, Jaguar, Dyson, Cadbury, Peugeot, Ford (and many more). All moved out of Britain because they wanted to save money but can continue to have free access to sell to the British market.

Click to shrink...

Do you realise that FoM is counterbalancing the freedom of capital in this instance?

By removing the FoM you don't stop factories from moving out of the country, quite the opposite.

And UK can impose restrictions to the EU citizens within the EU, but they never bothered to do so.

It's funny how everything is still blamed on the migrants instead of being blamed on the corporations, especially when it comes from the left.

 

[Faddy]

I just want to say that being against FoM is not usually racist, but rather xenophobic. And in general any rational arguments about the local issues that are linked with FoM have most of the time answers in local policies rather the EU wide ones.

As I said before, for being the party of workers Labour really goes out of their way to avoid protecting the non-British workers lately. And they practically support the xenophobic arguments through their silence.

Click to shrink...

Labour is actually one of the main forces looking at a EU wide minimum wage. To say they do nothing to help foreign workers is an outright lie.

The centre right europeans are the ones destroying workers rights across the EU

https://euobserver.com/social/139515

Romania had a really strong trade union movement and strong workers rights but since joining the EU they have been diminished by companies moving in to exploit cheaper labour.

 

[Tzarscream]

By the way when me and my girlfriend discuss the aspect of raising the minimum wage, she says that it's often pointless because once the minimum wage increases, the prices of everything increases as well, effectively moving the goal posts.

I feel like this can't be right, but I actually find it difficult to argue back on that.

 

[KingSnake]

Romania had a really strong trade union movement and strong workers rights but since joining the EU they have been diminished by companies moving in to exploit cheaper labour.

Click to shrink...

Romania's trade unions were also fucking corrupt and the trade unions leaders over the years were among the richest people there. They sold their souls to the governments for those riches since the 90's. The unions died practically way before Romania joined the EU.

Edit: you're also not answering to any argument and just keep throwing more shit at the wall, so I will probably stop here.

Edit2: and it's again the same shit, blaming EU for local laws. The so called social democrats are in power since 2012, they could have changed the laws to help the unions but they are too busy fighting against the justice system.

 

[Faddy]

Do you realise that FoM is counterbalancing the freedom of capital in this instance?

By removing the FoM you don't stop factories from moving out of the country, quite the opposite.

And UK can impose restrictions to the EU citizens within the EU, but they never bothered to do so.

It's funny how everything is still blamed on the migrants instead of being blamed on the corporations, especially when it comes from the left.

Click to shrink...

How is Freedom of Movement counterbalancing Freedom of Capital? They go hand in hand to in exploiting the workforce.

It is harder to move capital if you don't also have a large labour pool. No point moving a factory if you can't find the right key employees to staff it.

No one is blaming migrants, certainly not me.

 

[KingSnake]

How is Freedom of Movement counterbalancing Freedom of Capital? They go hand in hand to in exploiting the workforce.

It is harder to move capital if you don't also have a large labour pool. No point moving a factory if you can't find the right key employees to staff it.

No one is blaming migrants, certainly not me.

Click to shrink...

If you move the same workers you don't pay lower wages. Quite the opposite I would say, some people will ask for compensations. You move the factories to hire new people, cheaper ones. At least for a good part of the positions.

Having the FoM makes it possible to bring new people in without moving the factory. You will probably even keep more of the original employees.

 

[Antrax]

People do take advantage of Free Trade. They shut down factories in high wage countries and set up in lower wage countries. Hoover, Jaguar, Dyson, Cadbury, Peugeot, Ford (and many more). All moved out of Britain because they wanted to save money but can continue to have free access to sell to the British market.

Click to shrink...

Learn to read the posts. I said you need to then legislate to fix issues with trade. Not cancel it the way protectionist dinosaurs want to.

The same is true of immigration. Why close doors instead of opening more? If you're really so worried about workers from non-EU countries (and I'll be honest, I don't think you are), then let them in on the same terms EU citizens can get in.

Labour could've always argued for that, but then their racist voters in certain places throw a fit.

By the way when me and my girlfriend discuss the aspect of raising the minimum wage, she says that it's often pointless because once the minimum wage increases, the prices of everything increases as well, effectively moving the goal posts.

I feel like this can't be right, but I actually find it difficult to argue back on that.

Click to shrink...

Eh, she's right, but with the caveat that the increase in price happens over years via inflation. And inflation is a natural part of a healthy economy. More wealth means more to spend which means more demand which means higher prices. Without raising the minimum wage, people can be left behind.

 

[Zastava]

How is Freedom of Movement counterbalancing Freedom of Capital? They go hand in hand to in exploiting the workforce.

It is harder to move capital if you don't also have a large labour pool. No point moving a factory if you can't find the right key employees to staff it.

No one is blaming migrants, certainly not me.

Click to shrink...

The whole point of freedom of movement for workers is so that they have the same freedom as capital so capital can't set the terms in countries that the workforce just has to accept because they have nowhere else to go. Whereas removing freedom of movement for workers just means they can get fucked over much easier. There's millions of European workers in this country who will have less rights and be more disposable and even more dependant on constantly having a job. That's what Brexit means.

 

[KingSnake]

By the way when me and my girlfriend discuss the aspect of raising the minimum wage, she says that it's often pointless because once the minimum wage increases, the prices of everything increases as well, effectively moving the goal posts.

I feel like this can't be right, but I actually find it difficult to argue back on that.

Click to shrink...

In theory yes, but in practice the impact is not that heavy in a healthy economy. The prices are not influenced just by costs, but also by competition and demand and the new buying power for the people who were previously under the minimum wage is not really enough to drive a huge demand.

 

[Faddy]

Romania's trade unions were also fucking corrupt and the trade unions leaders over the years were among the richest people there. They sold their souls to the governments for those riches since the 90's. The unions died practically way before Romania joined the EU.

Edit: you're also not answering to any argument and just keep throwing more shit at the wall, so I will probably stop here.

Edit2: and it's again the same shit, blaming EU for local laws. The so called social democrats are in power since 2012, they could have changed the laws to help the unions but they are too busy fighting against the justice system.

Click to shrink...

I suggest you actually read the article where the EU interfered with local laws as part of a financial package rather than throwing mud at 1990s romanian trade unions.

As the financial crisis gripped Europe, Romania agreed to a €20bn bailout package in March 2009. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the European Commission, the World Bank (WB), and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) raised the loan. IMF allocated the largest sum (€13bn).


The money came with strings attached: Romania was to deregulate its labour market, one step at a time, and diligently report back to lenders. This came at a time when western companies increased outsourcing to eastern European countries to cut costs.

Click to shrink...

 

[KingSnake]

I suggest you actually read the article where the EU interfered with local laws as part of a financial package rather than throwing mud at 1990s romanian trade unions.

Click to shrink...

Yes, teach me more about the Romanian modern history. I'm prepared, I lived there for 30 years.

 

[Calabi]

By the way when me and my girlfriend discuss the aspect of raising the minimum wage, she says that it's often pointless because once the minimum wage increases, the prices of everything increases as well, effectively moving the goal posts.

I feel like this can't be right, but I actually find it difficult to argue back on that.

Click to shrink...

Its not that hard to argue against. Like how much does each business raise its prices and why. Does everyone, in the entire economy raise their prices, if they did this, everyone would be so poor and wouldn't be able to afford anything at all. What if one business doesn't increase its prices. What if increasing its prices decreases its sales and thus decreases its profits. Like a car dealer increases its prices, how do they work out exactly how much to increase the price of a car by. Even if all the car dealers collude to raise the prices, they could all lose sales. People could see the increase in prices and so delay the purchase or purchase something completely different.

It doesn't make any sense that everyone would just increase their prices, that's not how setting prices works at all.

 

[Puroresu_kid]

They won't do that because they're pandering to the racist vote almost as much as the Tories when it comes to Freedom of Movement.

Click to shrink...

Exactly. Scotland has already said numerous times they need freedom of movement and can't get behind any deal which doesn't guarantee that.

Any BS deal Labour comes up with isn't as good as remain.

 

[Deleted member 835]

 

[Flammable D]

Exactly. Scotland has already said numerous times they need freedom of movement and can't get behind any deal which doesn't guarantee that.

Any BS deal Labour comes up with isn't as good as remain.

Click to shrink...

so vote for remain

 

[Goodlifr]

so vote for remain

Click to shrink...

Was just about to post the same...

I really really don't get the argument here