Brexit

Constant Christmas Countdown wrote:

Cal wrote:Dan, I'm not aware of anyone who is against the use of migrant workers. That really isn't the point, so let's not get derailed.

Grumpy David wrote:Some people are of net benefit to the tax man and some aren't.
[...]
We don't need to import immigrants to do these jobs when we've got plenty of unemployed people and students who could do these jobs instead.

Now you are, Cal.

Ridiculous. I'm not against the use of migrant workers.

I'm just not in favour of 300,000 net migration per year and having no ability to filter quality.

Grumpy David wrote:

Constant Christmas Countdown wrote:

Cal wrote:Dan, I'm not aware of anyone who is against the use of migrant workers. That really isn't the point, so let's not get derailed.

Grumpy David wrote:Some people are of net benefit to the tax man and some aren't.
[...]
We don't need to import immigrants to do these jobs when we've got plenty of unemployed people and students who could do these jobs instead.

Now you are, Cal.

Ridiculous. I'm not against the use of migrant workers.

I'm just not in favour of 300,000 net migration per year and having no ability to filter quality.

So you're in favour of letting people in from some countries and not others because those people are more valuable.

Constant Christmas Countdown wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:

Constant Christmas Countdown wrote:

Cal wrote:Dan, I'm not aware of anyone who is against the use of migrant workers. That really isn't the point, so let's not get derailed.

Grumpy David wrote:Some people are of net benefit to the tax man and some aren't.
[...]
We don't need to import immigrants to do these jobs when we've got plenty of unemployed people and students who could do these jobs instead.

Now you are, Cal.

Ridiculous. I'm not against the use of migrant workers.

I'm just not in favour of 300,000 net migration per year and having no ability to filter quality.

So you're in favour of letting people in from some countries and not others because those people are more valuable.

I favour adopting the immigration policy used throughout much of the world. A points based system. It doesn't matter where they come from.

Immigration based on merit seems fairer rather than allowing unlimited (mostly white) Europeans in whilst restricting mostly non white non Europeans access.

You can't just keep saying 'points based system' and assume that your position is somehow solidified or that the problem is solved. What do you actually mean? Or are you just saying that because it's what Oz have and you'd rather we had a level of migration similar to them (which isn't going to happen)

And saying "It doesn't matter where they come from" is different from your previous position, earlier today:

Grumpy David wrote:Break down those London stats and you'll find it's immigrants from Western Europe and English speaking states that are the biggest net gain immigrant for the UK. Followed by Eastern European. Pretty certain that Somalia was dead last in the report IIRC.

Grouping immigrants as a whole distorts the figures, when you break it down by where the immigrants come from you see the true picture.

Some people are of net benefit to the tax man and some aren't. Why take in loads of people who will be net losses? Why not have a points based system that allows the UK to cherry pick?

BID0 wrote:I literally can't keep up with Cal. Makes a mountain out of a molehill every time

We are talking about sharing immigration across all European countries so the countries along the border aren't taking in every single person fleeing from conflicts. That would be in line with what you want surely? not having one country 'flooded' with people.

I honestly don't think you know what you want.

Let me help clear up your confusion, then.

I want a sensible, controlled immigration policy - not the 'open door, borderless' version the EU insists upon.
I want the UK to accept skilled immigrant workers from all over the world on a level playing field, not the blatantly racist version we have now where EU residents are permitted automatic entry to all EU nations to work, but anyone coming from outside the EU must jump through hoops to do the same.
I would like a points-based system, such as that operated by Australia.
I want us to keep the numbers to a manageable level (commensurate with the needs of our economy and the ability of our economic and social infrastructure to cope with it), and to be monitored and properly enforced.
I believe very strongly in the principle of integration (which means what it says) and would like to see that enforced (such as English language being mandatory and the abolition of Sharia Courts in the UK) and I think we should show absolutely zero tolerance for any section of immigrant society that refuses to entirely abide by our set of cultural values and freedoms.

Constant Christmas Countdown wrote:You can't just keep saying 'points based system' and assume that your position is somehow solidified or that the problem is solved. What do you actually mean? Or are you just saying that because it's what Oz have and you'd rather we had a level of migration similar to them (which isn't going to happen)

And saying "It doesn't matter where they come from" is different from your previous position, earlier today:

Grumpy David wrote:Break down those London stats and you'll find it's immigrants from Western Europe and English speaking states that are the biggest net gain immigrant for the UK. Followed by Eastern European. Pretty certain that Somalia was dead last in the report IIRC.

Grouping immigrants as a whole distorts the figures, when you break it down by where the immigrants come from you see the true picture.

Some people are of net benefit to the tax man and some aren't. Why take in loads of people who will be net losses? Why not have a points based system that allows the UK to cherry pick?

That position was actually the conclusion of a report. The point of that earlier post was to clarify that London has loads of immigration but it doesn't necessarily follow that it's success is because of immigration as a whole. It's not correct to say all immigration is beneficial for the economy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11751188/Immigrants-more-likely-to-claim-benefits-be-jobless-or-on-low-wage-report.html

Immigrants more likely to claim benefits, be jobless or on low wages, says report

Study by MigrationWatch UK report claims to confound earlier research which assumed all migrants had similar economic characteristics

Foreigners are more likely to be claiming benefits, be jobless or in low-wage work, according to “ground-breaking" research which contradicts rival claims that immigration is good for Britain's economy.

MigrationWatch, the pressure group which campaigns for tougher immigration rules, said five million foreigners have “weaker” economic performance than UK-born residents.

Those who are either not working, lower-paid or claiming hand-outs outnumber by two to one the foreign nationals whose economic contribution is higher than the average for UK-born people.

Immigrants from eastern European nations which have joined the EU since 2004 are more likely to be in work than native Britons but are more likely to be claiming benefits or be on low pay, the report said.

Also faring badly were people from African states, excluding South Africa, who were more likely to claim benefits, the report said.

The "Pakistan and Bangladesh" group performed worst, with below-average performance in all three categories – employment rate, wages and rate of benefits claim.

MigrationWatch said its research undermined previous studies, mainly from the Left, which assumed all migrants had similar economic characteristics, when in fact there was wide variation depending on where in the world immigrants come from.

It said the 44-page report was a “ground-breaking” analysis of the true economic implications of immigration to Britain.

Lord Green of Deddington, the MigrationWatch chairman, said: “This analysis clearly demonstrates that sweeping claims implying that all immigration to the UK is beneficial cannot possibly be right.

“Any sensible policy should take account of the real differences in economic characteristics between migrants from different parts of the world.

“If immigration policy has been intended to attract only ‘the brightest and the best’ it has clearly failed, with a very large number of migrants earning less or claiming more than the British born.

“The clear message of this research is that immigration can be reduced substantially while permitting entry to those migrants that our economy really needs."

In November last year experts from University College London said immigrants who came to live in Britain from outside Europe cost the public purse nearly £120 billion over 17 years to 2011.

But it claimed that recent immigration from Europe – driven by the surge in arrivals from eastern European – gave the economy a £4.4 billion boost over the same period.

The conclusion is clear that wealthy countries on the whole will export immigrants who are more skilled and therefore pay more in tax. That's unsurprising.

Although I mistaken thinking Somalia was the worst performer, it's Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Cal wrote:I want the UK to accept skilled immigrant workers from all over the world on a level playing field, not the blatantly racist version we have now where EU residents are permitted automatic entry to all EU nations to work, but anyone coming from outside the EU must jump through hoops to do the same.
...
I believe very strongly in the principle of integration (which means what it says) and would like to see that enforced (such as English language being mandatory and the abolition of Sharia Courts in the UK) and I think we should show absolutely zero tolerance for any section of immigrant society that refuses to entirely abide by our set of cultural values and freedoms.

The lady doth protest too much.

How are you planning to deny the power of arbitrage to sharia courts, whose members have freely chosen to be bound by their decisions?

The Dublin agreement should quite obviously be scrapped; it is blatantly unfair towards the southern states, something I'm sure everyone in here would concede. Whether or not you like the implications for the U.K. Is irrelevant. And we wouldn't subsequently take loads more migrants anyway since we're not in schengen.

I also don't understand the huge focus on people living in the uk knowing fluent English - I know this is a very common statement, even on here. But why? I live and work in Belgium currently, and speak basic enough Flemish and French to get by in situations such as shopping. I pay in towards their economy and am friendly to the locals - how would me being fluent in one or both of the local languages benefit the nation?

Do we expect this referendum to be this year?

Alex Salmond has challenged Farage to an EU debate. Sky News reporting Farage has accepted.

He's got some balls, he must have forgotten how Farage wrecked Nick Clegg.

Can't barrage the Farage.

There's a certain irony to the SNP wanting freedom from the UK shackles only to place their shackles on a European level instead.

Grumpy David wrote:Alex Salmond has challenged Farage to an EU debate. Sky News reporting Farage has accepted.

He's got some balls, he must have forgotten how Farage wrecked Nick Clegg.

Can't barrage the Farage.

There's a certain irony to the SNP wanting freedom from the UK shackles only to place their shackles on a European level instead.

What are you, UKIP's social media manager?

Dan. wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:Alex Salmond has challenged Farage to an EU debate. Sky News reporting Farage has accepted.

He's got some balls, he must have forgotten how Farage wrecked Nick Clegg.

Can't barrage the Farage.

There's a certain irony to the SNP wanting freedom from the UK shackles only to place their shackles on a European level instead.

What are you, UKIP's social media manager?

You don't love the Internet meme: "Can't barrage the Farage"?

Real talk, Salmond is gonna get strawberry floated up by Farage. Salmond struggled against Alistair Darling on his supposed specialist subject of Scottish independence. Alistair Darling ffs.

Farage might barrage a debate, but he's not so dope in a vote.

There's a certain irony in a left wing country wanting to leave a union which is predominantly right wing in order to maintain its position in an ideologically left wing supranational organisation.

Oh wait, no there isn't.

Can someone explain something to me.
The out campaign keep going on about how, away from the EU, we'll be able to sign trade deals with other countries like America and China. But what's stopping us from doing that now? Does being in the EU somehow prevent us from having what trade deals we like with countries outside the EU? Do all our trade deals have to be approved by the EU or something? I thought we were already signing trade deals with China and India, so how is leaving the EU supposed to suddenly enable us to sign incredible global trade agreements?

Who's to say those countries would even want to do business with us? Even outside the EU I can't see Russia wanting to do business with us anytime soon unless we made a grovelling apology for calling Putin out on his bullshit and trade deals were ridiculously favoured towards Russia. Unless we disastrously end up with Comrade Corbin in charge then that just isn't going to happen.

Dan. wrote:Do we expect this referendum to be this year?

It strawberry floating better be, the instability in the financial markets is killing the value of the pound.

Surly if it was this year it would have been announced by now.

I imagine Cameron will do it as late as he can so he can try and guess how people will vote to make the tories be that point of view so they can be the government that was "with the people" on the referendum at the next election.

Richard Branson thinks if Britain were to leave, it would be the beginning of the whole of the EU collapsing:

Richard Branson to Sky News wrote:I think it would be a very, very, very, very sad day if British people voted to leave, I think it would be very, very damaging for Great Britain.

I love Great Britain and I think it would be the start of most likely the break-up of the European Union.

Having a European Union - there is so many benefits and I just hope sense will prevail when it comes to having the vote on it.

Next page pls

I'm very torn on this issue.

On the one hand, I don't accept the push for moving away from the EU for reasons of migration. I personally have enjoyed and benefited from the free movement of EU citizens and have been very grateful for the ease of travel to the continent, to visit friends and see new places. STAY. All the reputable statistics suggest that immigration overall is a net contributor to our nation, and I don't buy into the current government's ideological crackdown on so-called 'benefit cheats' when you consider that even if the most extreme stats reported are true, they still only count as a minimal, pitiful amount of financial drain on our nation's resources compared to the amounts we'd save in closing tax loopholes and making sure large organisations and earners pay their fair share. Which clearly isn't the case as the gov't is still happy to offer concessions to their mates in big business, as we've seen over the past few weeks. STAY.

We're a nation of immigrants. I don't believe Britain is full or current levels of immigration are crippling our country - and indeed the NHS would probably collapse right now if those working for it under EU's principles of free movement and labour were all suddenly withdrawn. STAY. But the EU and the Eurozone seem inextricably linked, meaning we're financing local collapses of a foreign economy. I think that's ridiculous. LEAVE.

I was under the impression that while we can't do anything to prevent EU citizens from coming here, the amount of handouts on offer is something that we can control, and it's not the EU's fault that the government hasn't tightened this up. From what I've read recently, however, it seems that some of the rules are out of the government's hands and they must offer EU migrants the same benefits (both in and out of work) as UK citizens. This I don't agree with. LEAVE.

I don't believe for a second that businesses would suddenly exile themselves from our shores were we to leave the EU, much in the same way that I don't believe higher taxes - or indeed rather fairer tax rules, like closing loopholes - would cause a 'talent drain' away from our nation. Talented British people live in Britain because they're British, their families are British, their friends are British, they like British things and pastimes and sport teams, their kids go to British schools, etc. I'm certain wealthy folk might grumble at paying more tax but is it worth radically uprooting your life and heading elsewhere? Not IMO. LEAVE. But, I'm no business expert, and it does sound like there are considerable trade advantages to being part of the EU that we'd be giving up. If the majority of large businesses are pushing for us to remain within the union, then is there a long-term financial benefit to doing so? Or is this offset by the financial benefits of us therefore not having to pay out the costs that we do for remaining in the EU?

I'm of the opinion that, long-term, the UK would be better served as its own maker of laws, and not be bound by those mandated by the EU, especially when it comes to topics such as the 'rights' of prisoners. LEAVE. However, the current government is happy to crack down on the personal liberties of its citizens, so I'm more comfortable knowing we're protected by EU legislation in this regard, at least for the forseeable future. STAY.

I'm originally from a rural farming area, and I know that the industry as a whole is very dependant on EU subsidies. STAY. However, I'm not sure on the figures, but surely the money we spend on the EU - taking bailouts into account - could be used to help the struggling agricultural industry? LEAVE. Although I suspect the government, in these 'austere' times, would not do so (STAY) - but then, the criteria for earning these subsidies are often daft, not suitable for British landscaping, and have actually contributed to the recent floods. If we set our own parameters, we don't have farmers uprooting trees on empty plots that they're claiming for, thus removing natural flood defences. LEAVE.

So that's... six reasons to stay, six reasons to leave. Damn.

Shameless double post for top of new page.

KK wrote:According to a new Sky News poll the majority of the public wants Cameron to resign if he backs In and loses.

LEAVE