OK but I don't see how that is relevant to the point I made.
Because you want to the uk Goverment to control immigration, however you are not controlling it by exiting the EU, you are just shifting the problem,if we have no need for immigrant workers this issue would be dead in the water.
I think we hear more positivity from Leavers than Remainers. You almost never hear Bremainers talk up the positive aspects of staying in the EU. They just want to talk up the "dreadful" things that will befall us if we leave.
I think that is something the undecided might reflect upon. Why is it that so few leaders of the Bremain campaign want to talk up the positive aspects of the EU? Why is it that they want to limit the discussion (mainly) to the economic aspects and (mainly) to talking up the dreadful affects leaving will have on the economy?
You don't.
The no camp have no agreement on what they want instead. Boris and Nigel disagree fundamentally - on major issues like continuing mmigration, and there's a fundamental dispute - between those who want a total split, and those who want an EU minus endgame. . What you have, are mplied promises about action on immigration, rhetoric about sovereignty, without defining what it means, and ridiculous claims - about what can be done from getting a mere 6 billion back - when its chickenfeed in a budget of over 700 billion. Thats backed up by just denying any downside. Its, basically, saying a few key words over and over - in the hope people will think that sounds like a good thing. The reality is that the downside is major, and the people wanting less immigration, are going to find no camp freemarketeers want more immigration, lower wages, and lower wage costs.
Yes has a fundamental problem. The positive case is that things are working out pretty well , for us, inside the EU. Many, or most, people have it pretty good, and about as good as it can be in a troubled global economy. . We have opted out of what we don't like in the EU . The UK economy has gained since the seventies, as hoped for, The opening of Europe to our service and financial industries, promises to make us more money. EU Immigration has boosted growth, and the tax take . And we have benefiited from a brain drain in our favour, as Europe's graduates have come here. We have used the EU to get what we want internationally successfully - from the Ukraine to countering iran's nuclear programme.
The problem is that the no vote includes the people who are not doing well because of their skills, education, location, or inclination. You can't tell them that things are going well, or that they are responsible for their own plight, or that its not thir fault - but unvoidable, or that its nothing to do with the EU. No government will say that - to voters it wants to vote for it. Which is where the OPs question comes in. EU immigration isn't a problem. . Its a political problem now, though, bcause sections of the media have been telling a lot of very fed up people, for years that its linked to them not doing well .
Its not clear what anyone can do about converting that anti-immigrant vote. , The truth is that its got nothing to do with EU immigration, There's not much can be done about it - beyond boosting regional policy and skills training. Leaving the EU is much more likely to make things worse economically than better. And anyone who thinks the Tory right want to make the average UKIP voter better of, really is in for a shock, if they ever gain power.
I would be much more likely to vote to leave the EU if it were not for the immigration.
The economic arguments are healthy and interesting debate. I find the whole immigration thing rather distasteful, however. The return of the Powellites into the mainstream is not something I ever wish to associate with.
I would be much more likely to vote to leave the EU if it were not for the immigration.
The economic arguments are healthy and interesting debate. I find the whole immigration thing rather distasteful, however. The return of the Powellites into the mainstream is not something I ever wish to associate with.
It's given the Powellites a handy horse to ride, but they are hangers on rather than reflective of the whole.
For most people concerned about immigration levels it's about infrastructure - education, housing, wage levels, health etc. They want the population managed rather than simply measured, and include many whose own families came to Britain since the 1950s and 60s.
It's given the Powellites a handy horse to ride, but they are hangers on rather than reflective of the whole.:)
For most people concerned about immigration levels it's about infrastructure - education, housing, wage levels, health etc. They want the population managed rather than simply measured, and include many whose own families came to Britain since the 1950s and 60s.
The no camp have no agreement on what they want instead. Boris and Nigel disagree fundamentally - on major issues like continuing mmigration, and there's a fundamental dispute - between those who want a total split, and those who want an EU minus endgame. . What you have, are mplied promises about action on immigration, rhetoric about sovereignty, without defining what it means, and ridiculous claims - about what can be done from getting a mere 6 billion back - when its chickenfeed in a budget of over 700 billion. Thats backed up by just denying any downside. Its, basically, saying a few key words over and over - in the hope people will think that sounds like a good thing. The reality is that the downside is major, and the people wanting less immigration, are going to find no camp freemarketeers want more immigration, lower wages, and lower wage costs.
Yes has a fundamental problem. The positive case is that things are working out pretty well , for us, inside the EU. Many, or most, people have it pretty good, and about as good as it can be in a troubled global economy. . We have opted out of what we don't like in the EU . The UK economy has gained since the seventies, as hoped for, The opening of Europe to our service and financial industries, promises to make us more money. EU Immigration has boosted growth, and the tax take . And we have benefiited from a brain drain in our favour, as Europe's graduates have come here. We have used the EU to get what we want internationally successfully - from the Ukraine to countering iran's nuclear programme.
The problem is that the no vote includes the people who are not doing well because of their skills, education, location, or inclination. You can't tell them that things are going well, or that they are responsible for their own plight, or that its not thir fault - but unvoidable, or that its nothing to do with the EU. No government will say that - to voters it wants to vote for it. Which is where the OPs question comes in. EU immigration isn't a problem. . Its a political problem now, though, bcause sections of the media have been telling a lot of very fed up people, for years that its linked to them not doing well .
Its not clear what anyone can do about converting that anti-immigrant vote. , The truth is that its got nothing to do with EU immigration, There's not much can be done about it - beyond boosting regional policy and skills training. Leaving the EU is much more likely to make things worse economically than better. And anyone who thinks the Tory right want to make the average UKIP voter better of, really is in for a shock, if they ever gain power.
What a load of patronising rubbish,especially the bit about out including the people with no skills.Shameful.
No country should have an open door to 27 other countries poor/unhealthy/unskilled/criminals - It's as simple as that.
As for benefits/tax credits for new arrivals,that's outrageous - a proper qualifying period of a few years should have always been in place
There has been "at least" 2 million British people on the unemployment list for 30 years or so.
Skilled professionals,where no British born applicant can be found and the foreign born spouse/children of a British citizen are all that should have ever been allowed.
The immigration angle is a Trojan horse, very little will change if we Brexit. If either of the two main UK parties or a coalition of either with LibDem, Greens, etc continue to form UK governments then migration will continue. They have done the homework on UK population demographic projections and tax revenue projections and the solution they have all chosen is allow immigration. The EU country governments have in the main come to the same conclusion.
Personally I am for Remain, the EU isn't perfect no political system is. I do genuinely believe especially in the early days of the union it prevented conflict, as the ability to trade on preferable terms eliminated one of causes of previous European conflicts, and now that integration hopefully pushes that possibility beyond question.
The money question?
Why do people expect to pay an amount in and at least get that amount back or make a gain? If we were one of the poorest EU countries I could follow the passion for such a thought, but we're not, the UK is one of the richer ones. The richer nations are paying more than they directly get out so the poorer nations can get assistance to reach our level of development. For example Cyprus had large amounts of aid to complete the major trunk road network that now means the economy is able to exploit the better infrastructure and grow. The same applies to the other poorer EU countries and as their economies improve the richer countries can access those improving markets on terms that are preferable to countries outside the EU. The contribution and return question is no different to why many people want the rich of the UK to pay more UK tax than the less well off.
Sovereignty and nation statehood?
Personally it matters very little to me, if you can get your head around building England from the lands of Wessex, Mercia etc, and believe in the UK from England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland then the EU is the next logical step. Oh and this is as someone who had a full career in HM Forces and daily served the UK under the Union flag.
Democracy?
The EU has a few issues here, our leaving might bring them to a head for those who stay, but they will come to a head eventually. But the democracy issue is slightly overblown in that some seem to think the UK will develop a better democratic system after exit than it either currently has inside the UK or before it joined the EU. FPTP is bad for starters, so that would have to be fixed (it could be fixed even inside the EU). The UK is actually run by a semi permanent 'State' anyway, endorsed after every General Election by every party or coalition that wins, that is why there is little change government to government. Ministers today are less informed and the problems much more complex, so they fall back onto the permanent 'State' to run things, hence the ministers break manifesto promises, do u-terns, and ultimately resign, rarely the Civil Servants who direct them. So how much would change on exit I don't see, in fact our CS are the main culprits for implementing EU changes and other nations are slightly more sanguine about implementation.
Free Movement of labour?
I've taken (taking) advantage of free movement of labour and it is a godsend in my experience, within a month of arriving in Cyprus I registered as a worker, got my "yellow slip" and my Social Insurance number. I pay my CY social insurance, and my CY tax as required and everyone seems happy with the arrangement. So I guess I'm biased by a positive experience.
The net cost of the EU is less than that because the money out includes aid channelled through the EU's aid programmes. The Uk is committed to the current aid total however its paid out. The figure allows for all the money we would have to spend on our own farming support, resarch, and regional development funding, if the Eu didn't now channel it. There's also the cost of supposedly having more immigration controls, and doing anything on a national basis, thats done by the EU.
The 5-6 billion saving left is one year's current increase in funding for the NHS. Its a one off, that changes nothing much - however many times Boris says he will spend it. But any non isolationist government would also have to look at what the money was doing now, and decide whether to spend the money nationally. The economic development of, and stability of, the Balkans and Eastern Europe, , for example, would be a strategic interest anyway . leaving either alone has a very bad history, and any resulting conflicts would soon mop up any savings left.
Yes, that's why the lifeblood of those countries is being sucked up by other parts of the EU
Except it can't. Leaving aside those far right no voters who want to remove the minority British populations too, the no campaign deliberately confuses asylum seekers, immigrants to the UK from outside the EU , non EU immigrants living in the EU who might come here, and EU nationals choosing to come here to work.
Asylum seekers, reaching here, have a right to have their cases assessed here - and entry if they meet the criteria - whether we are in the Eu , or Farage has had us towed to the Mid Atlantic. The right to asylum has nothing to do with the EU , and if the French move the border control back to Dover, from Calais, we will revert to previous higher numbers of asylum seekers arriving here.
We already decide what rules to apply to immigrants seeking to come here from the rest of the world.
Syrians, Afghans, and Nigerians let into EU countries have zero right to come here now.
EU nationals coming here, are coming to work. The market regulates whether they come. Now Cameron has removed the benfist incentive to come without working , there's no reason to come here other than to work. No jobs means no immigrants. No immigrants, and job vancancies unfilled, means less growth, less tax and less spending.
Its got nothing to do with terrorism either. We can keep out anyone we have good reason to think is a terrorist, from anywhere, now. But we can't 'keep out anyone called Schmidt or Tortellini , or Ahmed. just because we think they look a bit like a jihadist terrorist might, You end up in the absurd , racist, neofascist, world of Trump- where whole religions are condemned and you have to assume God like powers to detect the terrorists. The only way we can police our borders, from German or Italian terrorists, is to be told by German and Italian intelligence who is a terrorist. Its absurd to claim we will have better information from EU intelligence services when we are outside the EU. The intelligence will at best be the same as now, and probably will be worse - as new structures have to be set up.
You just can't help it, can you, it's quite amazing how many Bremainers have an axe out for someone who they also think is an inconsequence. You'd think he was the only person in the UK who wanted Brexit; there's millions of us.
The immigration angle is a Trojan horse, very little will change if we Brexit. If either of the two main UK parties or a coalition of either with LibDem, Greens, etc continue to form UK governments then migration will continue. They have done the homework on UK population demographic projections and tax revenue projections and the solution they have all chosen is allow immigration. The EU country governments have in the main come to the same conclusion.
If the British electorate continue to vote for parties that believe we should have high levels of uncontrolled immigration then clearly that is what will happen. In that sense you're right. The point though of leaving the EU is to re-empower the UK parliament to be able to implement migration controls which they cannot do as long as we remain members of the EU. The electorate will then have a choice over how much immigration they want.
If the British electorate continue to vote for parties that believe we should have high levels of uncontrolled immigration then clearly that is what will happen. In that sense you're right. The point though of leaving the EU is to re-empower the UK parliament to be able to implement migration controls which they cannot do as long as we remain members of the EU. The electorate will then have a choice over how much immigration they want.
Then if the electorate chose a party that controls immigration that same party needs to spell out how the books balance the aging demographic costs?
Find more government revenue from somewhere, reduce spending on elderly requirements such as health, social and pension?
For me the migrants aren't the main issue. My beef with Europe is having other people, foreigners if you want to call them that, dictating to us how we must run our country, what laws we must obey what weights and measures we must use, who we can deport as undesirable, etc etc. If they (Europe) would just butt out of all of that, I would be quite happy to stay in Europe
I did not vote in the 1975 referendum for a European Superstate, along the lines of the USA. That is how the EU sees itself today. As most of those who were "sold a pig in a bag" back then, I believe it is time to correct that mistake. I do not see immigration as the main problem. Any sensible society has to have an immigration policy based on merit, not need, however distasteful that may sound. We do not need to be in a political union with any nation to form trade agreements, despite all the rubbish bandied about by those who are trying to scare people to vote to remain in. All the economic migrants entering the EU under the guise of asylum and seeking refuge, needs to be properly addressed and processed accordingly. The answer is not "Come one, come all" and EU member states will take their fair share based on their economies and decided by others. Regardless of the fact that the UK can deny access to these migrants, as things stand, once they have EU citizenship, they will have access to all of the EU. If individuals have the skills required in any country in the world, they will be welcomed as an asset, not just because it is their right thanks to a failing political project. It is the ideology of the EU that has caused this mass exodus from the Middle East and Africa and EU ideology that will keep them here. The belief that the EU is the land of opportunity for these migrants will be at the cost of our young people who have a tough enough time as it is. It is a disaster for all involved, migrants and Europeans. Leaving the EU will not solve the situation regarding immigration but it will, I believe, begin the process of dismantling this hideous, ideological organisation of which we have never really integrated into. Sovereignty and autonomy is the issue, not immigration.
If there were zero immigrants coming to UK/EU from Iraq/Syria and Africa...would you still want to leave the EU?
The UK net contribution to the EU is around £9Bn. Just over 1% of our budget.
Not alot of complain about when you consider the benefits we get in return.
In my opinion, the whole EU referendum is about the migrants.
And by the time we would leave the EU, is 2018/2019, I believe ISIS will have been defeated
There are many reasons to leave the EU. Immigration is one, but not by all means all. It's about who runs the country primarily. And with regards to immigration, it's not about where people come from, it's about the a unit of people. The numbers are far too high, especially from Eastern Europe. There has to be a limit on the numbers and there can't be why we're in the EU. And not wanting to sound rude, but I think you're beng very naive f you think Isis will be defeated
For me the migrants aren't the main issue. My beef with Europe is having other people, foreigners if you want to call them that, dictating to us how we must run our country, what laws we must obey what weights and measures we must use, who we can deport as undesirable, etc etc. If they (Europe) would just butt out of all of that, I would be quite happy to stay in Europe
Unless there is a divine intervention, we'll sill be in Europe once we leave! We just won't be in the EU.
So it's not about prosperity, jobs and opportunities?
The EU does none of those hence its pi$$ poor record on job creation. As for prosperity, have a word with the 25% unemployed people in some Southern European countries.
The EU does none of those hence its pi$$ poor record on job creation. As for prosperity, have a word with the 25% unemployed people in some Southern European countries.
Yes, that to is shameful. How remainers can support staying in with a straight face after knowing just these facts are beyond me.
Being in doesn't prevent a national government right royally screwing it it up. Especially if the ticking timebombs those countries had created for themselves, is finally triggered by external repercussions.
Corruption by the public, the State and corporations will leave most nations venerable, regardless.
most definitely YES. ive been unimpressed with eu interference for a long time. all the rules and regulations about everything. judges cant send people to prison, human rights rubbish, bent bananas, all mindless beurocracy.
Being in doesn't prevent a national government right royally screwing it it up. Especially if the ticking timebombs those countries had created for themselves, is finally triggered by external repercussions.
Corruption by the public, the State and corporations will leave most nations venerable, regardless.
Yes but in reference to Southern Europe, you're right, they do tend to be corrupt, but trapped in an economic prison known as the Euro, there is nothing they can do to help their economy.
Comments
My problem with the EU has nothing to do with open borders and migration.
My problem with the EU is that it is bureaucratic and undemocratic.
You don't.
The no camp have no agreement on what they want instead. Boris and Nigel disagree fundamentally - on major issues like continuing mmigration, and there's a fundamental dispute - between those who want a total split, and those who want an EU minus endgame. . What you have, are mplied promises about action on immigration, rhetoric about sovereignty, without defining what it means, and ridiculous claims - about what can be done from getting a mere 6 billion back - when its chickenfeed in a budget of over 700 billion. Thats backed up by just denying any downside. Its, basically, saying a few key words over and over - in the hope people will think that sounds like a good thing. The reality is that the downside is major, and the people wanting less immigration, are going to find no camp freemarketeers want more immigration, lower wages, and lower wage costs.
Yes has a fundamental problem. The positive case is that things are working out pretty well , for us, inside the EU. Many, or most, people have it pretty good, and about as good as it can be in a troubled global economy. . We have opted out of what we don't like in the EU . The UK economy has gained since the seventies, as hoped for, The opening of Europe to our service and financial industries, promises to make us more money. EU Immigration has boosted growth, and the tax take . And we have benefiited from a brain drain in our favour, as Europe's graduates have come here. We have used the EU to get what we want internationally successfully - from the Ukraine to countering iran's nuclear programme.
The problem is that the no vote includes the people who are not doing well because of their skills, education, location, or inclination. You can't tell them that things are going well, or that they are responsible for their own plight, or that its not thir fault - but unvoidable, or that its nothing to do with the EU. No government will say that - to voters it wants to vote for it. Which is where the OPs question comes in. EU immigration isn't a problem. . Its a political problem now, though, bcause sections of the media have been telling a lot of very fed up people, for years that its linked to them not doing well .
Its not clear what anyone can do about converting that anti-immigrant vote. , The truth is that its got nothing to do with EU immigration, There's not much can be done about it - beyond boosting regional policy and skills training. Leaving the EU is much more likely to make things worse economically than better. And anyone who thinks the Tory right want to make the average UKIP voter better of, really is in for a shock, if they ever gain power.
The economic arguments are healthy and interesting debate. I find the whole immigration thing rather distasteful, however. The return of the Powellites into the mainstream is not something I ever wish to associate with.
It's given the Powellites a handy horse to ride, but they are hangers on rather than reflective of the whole.
For most people concerned about immigration levels it's about infrastructure - education, housing, wage levels, health etc. They want the population managed rather than simply measured, and include many whose own families came to Britain since the 1950s and 60s.
What a load of patronising rubbish,especially the bit about out including the people with no skills.Shameful.
As for benefits/tax credits for new arrivals,that's outrageous - a proper qualifying period of a few years should have always been in place
There has been "at least" 2 million British people on the unemployment list for 30 years or so.
Skilled professionals,where no British born applicant can be found and the foreign born spouse/children of a British citizen are all that should have ever been allowed.
Personally I am for Remain, the EU isn't perfect no political system is. I do genuinely believe especially in the early days of the union it prevented conflict, as the ability to trade on preferable terms eliminated one of causes of previous European conflicts, and now that integration hopefully pushes that possibility beyond question.
The money question?
Why do people expect to pay an amount in and at least get that amount back or make a gain? If we were one of the poorest EU countries I could follow the passion for such a thought, but we're not, the UK is one of the richer ones. The richer nations are paying more than they directly get out so the poorer nations can get assistance to reach our level of development. For example Cyprus had large amounts of aid to complete the major trunk road network that now means the economy is able to exploit the better infrastructure and grow. The same applies to the other poorer EU countries and as their economies improve the richer countries can access those improving markets on terms that are preferable to countries outside the EU. The contribution and return question is no different to why many people want the rich of the UK to pay more UK tax than the less well off.
Sovereignty and nation statehood?
Personally it matters very little to me, if you can get your head around building England from the lands of Wessex, Mercia etc, and believe in the UK from England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland then the EU is the next logical step. Oh and this is as someone who had a full career in HM Forces and daily served the UK under the Union flag.
Democracy?
The EU has a few issues here, our leaving might bring them to a head for those who stay, but they will come to a head eventually. But the democracy issue is slightly overblown in that some seem to think the UK will develop a better democratic system after exit than it either currently has inside the UK or before it joined the EU. FPTP is bad for starters, so that would have to be fixed (it could be fixed even inside the EU). The UK is actually run by a semi permanent 'State' anyway, endorsed after every General Election by every party or coalition that wins, that is why there is little change government to government. Ministers today are less informed and the problems much more complex, so they fall back onto the permanent 'State' to run things, hence the ministers break manifesto promises, do u-terns, and ultimately resign, rarely the Civil Servants who direct them. So how much would change on exit I don't see, in fact our CS are the main culprits for implementing EU changes and other nations are slightly more sanguine about implementation.
Free Movement of labour?
I've taken (taking) advantage of free movement of labour and it is a godsend in my experience, within a month of arriving in Cyprus I registered as a worker, got my "yellow slip" and my Social Insurance number. I pay my CY social insurance, and my CY tax as required and everyone seems happy with the arrangement. So I guess I'm biased by a positive experience.
Yes, that's why the lifeblood of those countries is being sucked up by other parts of the EU
You just can't help it, can you, it's quite amazing how many Bremainers have an axe out for someone who they also think is an inconsequence. You'd think he was the only person in the UK who wanted Brexit; there's millions of us.
Then if the electorate chose a party that controls immigration that same party needs to spell out how the books balance the aging demographic costs?
Find more government revenue from somewhere, reduce spending on elderly requirements such as health, social and pension?
There are many reasons to leave the EU. Immigration is one, but not by all means all. It's about who runs the country primarily. And with regards to immigration, it's not about where people come from, it's about the a unit of people. The numbers are far too high, especially from Eastern Europe. There has to be a limit on the numbers and there can't be why we're in the EU. And not wanting to sound rude, but I think you're beng very naive f you think Isis will be defeated
Unless there is a divine intervention, we'll sill be in Europe once we leave! We just won't be in the EU.
So it's not about prosperity, jobs and opportunities?
The EU does none of those hence its pi$$ poor record on job creation. As for prosperity, have a word with the 25% unemployed people in some Southern European countries.
Youth unemployment above 40% in Spain and Greece.
Yes, that to is shameful. How remainers can support staying in with a straight face after knowing just these facts are beyond me.
Being in doesn't prevent a national government right royally screwing it it up. Especially if the ticking timebombs those countries had created for themselves, is finally triggered by external repercussions.
Corruption by the public, the State and corporations will leave most nations venerable, regardless.
Yes but in reference to Southern Europe, you're right, they do tend to be corrupt, but trapped in an economic prison known as the Euro, there is nothing they can do to help their economy.