Challenge for the UKIP

[darmstadt]

Disinformation --

Good EU:

The EU - What's in it for me?

providing 57% of our trade
structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline
clean beaches and rivers
cleaner air
lead free petrol
restrictions on landfill dumping
a recycling culture
cheaper mobile charges
cheaper air travel
improved consumer protection and food labelling
a ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives
better product safety
single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance
break up of monopolies
Europe-wide patent and copyright protection
no paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market
price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone
freedom to travel, live and work across Europe
funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad
access to European health services
labour protection and enhanced social welfare
smoke-free workplaces
equal pay legislation
holiday entitlement
the right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime
strongest wildlife protection in the world
improved animal welfare in food production
EU-funded research and industrial collaboration
EU representation in international forums
bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO
EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty
European arrest warrant
cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling
counter terrorism intelligence
European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa
support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond
investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital.

Bad EU:

Ten Reasons to Get Rid of the European Union | EuropeNews
Trouble in the Eurozone - latimes.com
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...or-the-US.html
http://struggle.ws/pdfs/EUpam.pdf

[Mich the Tester]

Are you against extra rights for pregnant workers? Why? Seems sensible to me.

Not in principle, but there are already considerable burdens on small businesses that can make it a very expensive choice to hire women in permanent roles; this just adds to that. Not necessarily a problem for a larger business, but in a small company with only a few employees, the maternity leave, requirements of pregnant workers and so on can be a huge burden. I know quite a few business owners who simply don't give permie contracts to women between 20 and 45, because they feel they can't afford the costs if the woman becomes pregnant. Maybe this is a good idea in principle or for the future, but in the current climate where many businesses are fighting to survive, it's not a good idea. Thanks, Nigel Farage MEP, for helping Brussels to raise costs for businesses in Britain and all over Europe.

[sasguru]

Not in principle, but there are already considerable burdens on small businesses that can make it a very expensive choice to hire women in permanent roles; this just adds to that. Not necessarily a problem for a larger business, but in a small company with only a few employees, the maternity leave, requirements of pregnant workers and so on can be a huge burden. I know quite a few business owners who simply don't give permie contracts to women between 20 and 45, because they feel they can't afford the costs if the woman becomes pregnant. Maybe this is a good idea in principle or for the future, but in the current climate where many businesses are fighting to survive, it's not a good idea. Thanks, Nigel Farage MEP, for helping Brussels to raise costs for businesses in Britain and all over Europe.

I would say inappropriate usage of the internet during working hours by employees/contractors is a much larger burden on business.
And it's very shortsighted to oppose anything that might raise the European birth rate.
In this case, for once, I agree with the UKIp vote.

[DodgyAgent]

Disinformation --

Good EU:

The EU - What's in it for me?

providing 57% of our trade
structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline
clean beaches and rivers
cleaner air
lead free petrol
restrictions on landfill dumping
a recycling culture
cheaper mobile charges
cheaper air travel
improved consumer protection and food labelling
a ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives
better product safety
single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance
break up of monopolies
Europe-wide patent and copyright protection
no paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market
price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone
freedom to travel, live and work across Europe
funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad
access to European health services
labour protection and enhanced social welfare
smoke-free workplaces
equal pay legislation
holiday entitlement
the right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime
strongest wildlife protection in the world
improved animal welfare in food production
EU-funded research and industrial collaboration
EU representation in international forums
bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO
EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty
European arrest warrant
cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling
counter terrorism intelligence
European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa
support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond
investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital.

Bad EU:

Ten Reasons to Get Rid of the European Union | EuropeNews
Trouble in the Eurozone - latimes.com
Why the EU Constitution is bad for Britain and bad for the US - Telegraph
http://struggle.ws/pdfs/EUpam.pdf

That is what the EU is SUPPOSED to do after its bureaucrats and politicians have firstly taken their cut.

[Mich the Tester]

I would say inappropriate usage of the internet during working hours by employees/contractors is a much larger burden on business.
And it's very shortsighted to oppose anything that might raise the European birth rate.
In this case, for once, I agree with the UKIp vote.

You don't raise the birth rate by making it more expensive to employ women.

[darmstadt]

That is what the EU is SUPPOSED to do after its bureaucrats and politicians have firstly taken their cut.

Explain with examples

[DodgyAgent]

Explain with examples

My goodness that's a hard one (said the actress to the bishop)

I suggest you just type in the word corruption and EU into Google add in any of its functions (CAP, Fisheries) and Bobs your uncle.

[BlasterBates]

My goodness that's a hard one (said the actress to the bishop)

I suggest you just type in the word corruption and EU into Google add in any of its functions (CAP, Fisheries) and Bobs your uncle.

So why don´t the UKIP MEP´s bring this corruption to the attention of the European Parliament and propose a motion to have the relevant commissioner sacked, which is the main function of the European Parliament.

[sasguru]

You don't raise the birth rate by making it more expensive to employ women.

You don't raise it by making it harder for working women to have children

[Mich the Tester]

You don't raise it by making it harder for working women to have children

No, that doesn't work either, but YOU pointed to the birth rate, I didn't. I think the low birth rate in Europe is related to the level of wealth in Europe, very low agricultural sector employment, high degree of urbanisation, education for women and low rates of child mortality. I don't think there are examples in the books of cases where a government intervention in the labour market has raised the birth rate, except in a few rather unsavoury regimes where women were encouraged to breed for the fatherland. There's more evidence that improvements in the rights of women during the last century or so have led to a falling birth rate.

However, I should point out that while I did a lot of demography during my studies, the research that was published up to the early 90s was primarily from the angle of governments that wanted to understand how to lower birth rates, seeing as the big issue in the past was thought to be population explosions in the developing world. Even though demographers warned of the 'demographic timebomb' that's exploding now, nobody really seemed interested to hear. Urbanisation was found to be a big factor in lowering birth rates, as well as rights for women and education. Quite simply, nobody researched how to raise birth rates because that wasn't seen as a problem and there wouldn't have been much funding for it. Since then, highly developed countries are experiencing economic problems partly due to low birth rates so maybe there's more room for research on this. Thing is, a spatial demographer might argue that international migration can pick up the slack, and indeed in terms of numbers, it can, but it also involves various social issues and controversies that we notice every day.

In short, I don't believe that giving extra rights to female workers will lead to a higher fertility rates; I don't know of any evidence for that, but plenty of evidence that improving the rights of female workers lowers birth rates. Again, I'm not morally opposed to the idea, I just think it raises costs for businesses at a very inopportune moment.