Old Skier
Tour Winner
Apart from Ben Bradshaw "a very good friend" who couldn't help himself on Spotlight last night.
EU Referendum
- Thread starter Doon frae Troon
- Start date
Apart from Ben Bradshaw "a very good friend" who couldn't help himself on Spotlight last night.
V
vkurup
Guest
From a survey conducted by one of the analysts covering the Technology companies ==> (warning no surprises here)
'... In the last few months, we have garnered the views of most of our major clients. By ‘major’ I mean those that provide most of our revenue which tend to be the larger players. They are universally in favour of REMAIN. Indeed many, Fujitsu is but one example, have made it very clear that they would review their investment in the UK in the case of BREXIT. techUK polled its members and found that 82% of its members employing > 250 staff wanted the UK to REMAIN. The greatest support for BREXIT came from micro tech businesses. But even then, ‘only’ 17% of small tech businesses – those with 10- 49 employees – would vote to leave the EU. Almost all our customers (by what they pay us and therefore who pay our wages/mortgages) are large companies. How you vote is up to you individually. But I think we are now clear that our customers overwhelmingly want to REMAIN. If the vote is for LEAVE, our customers believe that they will suffer.'
Not the unexpected here considering the Tech world is very much interconnected with the world. Customers and talent is global. Access to finance is crucial. So if any of the three are hit, it will have a knock on effect.
'... In the last few months, we have garnered the views of most of our major clients. By ‘major’ I mean those that provide most of our revenue which tend to be the larger players. They are universally in favour of REMAIN. Indeed many, Fujitsu is but one example, have made it very clear that they would review their investment in the UK in the case of BREXIT. techUK polled its members and found that 82% of its members employing > 250 staff wanted the UK to REMAIN. The greatest support for BREXIT came from micro tech businesses. But even then, ‘only’ 17% of small tech businesses – those with 10- 49 employees – would vote to leave the EU. Almost all our customers (by what they pay us and therefore who pay our wages/mortgages) are large companies. How you vote is up to you individually. But I think we are now clear that our customers overwhelmingly want to REMAIN. If the vote is for LEAVE, our customers believe that they will suffer.'
Not the unexpected here considering the Tech world is very much interconnected with the world. Customers and talent is global. Access to finance is crucial. So if any of the three are hit, it will have a knock on effect.
IanG
Tour Rookie
Thanks for highlighting that - it is well worth a read.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...eferendum-britain-votes-stay?CMP=share_btn_fb
Foxholer
Blackballed
Absolutely agree! Also agree with his view about UK's 'place in EU'! Slightly disappointed that he didn't give a slightly better reason for Remain-ing though! Working for (more fundamental) change from within would have a better one imo - and I think the economics actually does favour Remain, though, like him, not to the extent that Osborne et al are pedaling!
It's no surprise to me how often 'proper' journalism comes from The Guardian (and also The Independent)! I want to have both sides of any contentious piece of news written up so I can make my own mind up (allowing for my own 'prejudices') rather than simply being told what to do! I can even remember considering the Beeb seemed significantly 'anti-Soviet-bloc' (even for my slightly right of centre overall views) when I first came over here ('88), but fear the 'Russia is bad' propaganda machine has worked, as it (the Beeb) doesn't seem to be so bad, even though I suspect it is, these days!
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
I am quite clear about what you explained to me. You talk about 'needs' - I asked about 'numbers'. You have then caveated 'need' with 'what the infrastructure can support'. You cannot have both.
And notwithstanding any of that, I suspect that if you said to many 'Leavers' that our need on a year-to-year basis was probably going to be in the range 200,000 (current plus a little more non-EU immigration and zero EU) to 250,000 (allowing say 50,000 EU for key required skills) their response to you would be 'Not on your nelly - way too many'.
For many Leavers the only thing that matters is numbers.
Old Skier
Tour Winner
According to the remain if we leave the figure will be 0 as they are so certain that the jobs will disappear so we best go with that then. Or you could do a mystic meg and guess.
Hacker Khan
Yurt Dwelling, Yoghurt Knitter
And we're back.....
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
Either you don't get it or as I suspect you don't want to. IMO we don't need the numbers we currently attract, we seemed to manage for a very long time on around 50,000 PA before Blair and Brown went on an immigration fest. It probably makes sense not to count students in the numbers though as long as they don't slip through the net and stay illegally afterwards. I dont fall for this story of needing mass immigration to pay for old folks retirements or that they all go home when they are older.
MarkE
Challenge Tour Pro
Silly argument from remain. What happens when the 300,000 a year or so currently arriving ages. They will need care, so what do we do, let 500,000 in a year to pay for them? With that scenario you would need an exponential year on year growth in immigration to keep funding old age. Clearly ridiculous, it needs sorting now with a reduction in numbers coming in and proper provision for care of the elderly. (Paid for with all that money we are going to save:clap
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
Silly argument from remain. What happens when the 300,000 a year or so currently arriving ages. They will need care, so what do we do, let 500,000 in a year to pay for them? With that scenario you would need an exponential year on year growth in immigration to keep funding old age. Clearly ridiculous, it needs sorting now with a reduction in numbers coming in and proper provision for care of the elderly. (Paid for with all that money we are going to save:clap
The other thing being conveniently ignored is the stress on the environment. This fast growing population eats up more resources like gas and electricity which we are struggling to provide already, they need feeding from a country that cant grow enough food so has to transport more and more from around the world, we have to import more and more products from countries like China and India who are major polluters of the planet. It's the economics of the mad house. If we attempted to lower the population which would lower demand then we wouldn't need the levels of growth to sustain us. We could save very large amounts of money by reducing waste in Government procurement, excessive spending on public services that are unnecessary and make people lazy and feckless. Population growth is not good for anything and especially the planet.
CheltenhamHacker
Journeyman Pro
And how would we lower the population?
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
We cant now the major damage has been done. I should have said 'stabilise the population' We could possibly lower the population by keeping births below deaths which would probably happen if we reduced immigration to a minimum, I know that wont happen though as the political elite know it's not in the self interest of the socialist and big business mass immigration pundits who want the same result but for different self interests. Believing otherwise is IMO is taking in the lie; hook-line-and sinker.
Hacker Khan
Yurt Dwelling, Yoghurt Knitter
bluewolf
Money List Winner
How would you manage economic growth without population increase. I agree that we need to stabilise/reduce the population, but how do you avoid the worst recession in living memory?
As cynical as it sounds, and I'm certainly not advocating this as a policy, but if you want to keep a relatively healthy economy and also reduce the population, then there's only one end of the scale you can reduce.
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
Thats not any kind of option, killing off millions of people has been tried before and too inhumane to contemplate.
I think we are too concerned with growth and could exist well enough without being so fixated on it. If we reduce demand then it's not so much of a problem, we wont need to import such large quantities of products that we are capable of making ourselves. It's a bit like a family of ten on a low income having a pay rise of 1% for a few years will be worse off than a family of four with no increase over the period. We can reduce the population by greatly reducing immigration, not encouraging families to have more children than they can support creating more organic growth.
bluewolf
Money List Winner
As I said, it's not something that any sane person would advocate. However, if here is no growth in the economy then you are effectively in a recession. How would you stop the economy going into free fall without growth?
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
That editorial is below contempt and desperate. I am surprised at you posting it to be honest.
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
You are only in a 'Free Fall' if your economy cannot support the demands made on it. I think I have explained that you would need to reduce demand. If a family had three more children, moved to a bigger house with a larger mortgage and took out a loan to buy a new car without earning more money they would be financially worse off and probably less content with life than if they stayed as they were
Last edited:
bluewolf
Money List Winner
We appear to be at cross purposes. I'm genuinely interested in how we could maintain growth in the economy with less people earning/spending money. As you are aware, we currently operate a financial system that relies on debt and interest. If less people are buying into this system then it's impossible to maintain any sort of growth. You can't even maintain the status quo. Large scale immigration may be a short term solution, but it does provide temporary growth. We have maneuvered ourselves into a position where all we can do is put band aids on bullet holes.
And no, I don't have a solution to it. I have genuine concerns about where we will be in 20 years, without a major change in the way we live.
Why is it wrong to post up an editorial? Quite frankly I want to see comment on all the antagonists. If it isn't reported how do we know not only all sides of the argument but also the quality of the reporting?
Personally, I'd ask the question why are you looking to censor someone's opinion? Criticise it, yes. But to question it being posted up, no.
Similar threads
