OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

All things Rugby

Whether you can or can't actually vote IRL, In, or Out

In
248
60%
Out
167
40%
 
Total votes: 415

User avatar
camroc1
Posts: 43722
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by camroc1 »

dr dre2 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
it was a monolithically white culture back then. The Irish are outward-looking and choose to focus on the benefits of migration.
Indeed all those poles and Latvians with their funny ways. :lol:
You have very little migration, it's a new thing and you're still on the part of the curve where it's still a benefit to you. In just about every place in the Western world who've been under real pressure from immigration there is a strong and growing movement to counter it. You are not super human, super nice. Do you remember the roaring argument on here when I pointed out a report of "white flight" in Ireland, where a headmaster had written a report on it occurring had got all excited about a 1st world problem but by the time anybody had read it all the Poles had f*cked off home because their economy tanked.
Dre, the guy who wrote the article is Welsh, and as he points out Ireland has proportionately more immigrants than the UK.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

camroc1 wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
it was a monolithically white culture back then. The Irish are outward-looking and choose to focus on the benefits of migration.
Indeed all those poles and Latvians with their funny ways. :lol:
You have very little migration, it's a new thing and you're still on the part of the curve where it's still a benefit to you. In just about every place in the Western world who've been under real pressure from immigration there is a strong and growing movement to counter it. You are not super human, super nice. Do you remember the roaring argument on here when I pointed out a report of "white flight" in Ireland, where a headmaster had written a report on it occurring had got all excited about a 1st world problem but by the time anybody had read it all the Poles had f*cked off home because their economy tanked.
Dre, the guy who wrote the article is Welsh, and as he points out Ireland has proportionately more immigrants than the UK.
It's fair to say a Welshman living in Ireland or vice versa is a much softer form of immigration, certainly in the UK we don't consider Irishman (or any anglo/celtic immigration regarless of skin colour before you start) as truly the same thing, there is an over lap in culture and language, hell we even let you vote in the referendum, the disruption caused is nothing like it is with a true foreigner. And correct me if wrong, most of your immigration is British?
bimboman
Posts: 72782
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »

camroc1 wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
it was a monolithically white culture back then. The Irish are outward-looking and choose to focus on the benefits of migration.
Indeed all those poles and Latvians with their funny ways. :lol:
You have very little migration, it's a new thing and you're still on the part of the curve where it's still a benefit to you. In just about every place in the Western world who've been under real pressure from immigration there is a strong and growing movement to counter it. You are not super human, super nice. Do you remember the roaring argument on here when I pointed out a report of "white flight" in Ireland, where a headmaster had written a report on it occurring had got all excited about a 1st world problem but by the time anybody had read it all the Poles had f*cked off home because their economy tanked.
Dre, the guy who wrote the article is Welsh, and as he points out Ireland has proportionately more immigrants than the UK.

That's only true if you take at very narrow view of immigration and time periods. But hey
piquant
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by piquant »

dr dre2 wrote:
You have very little migration, it's a new thing and you're still on the part of the curve where it's still a benefit to you. In just about every place in the Western world who've been under real pressure from immigration there is a strong and growing movement to counter it.
We're still benefiting from immigration. Which isn't to say that there aren't issues, some of which are much harder to resolve, and that the distribution of migrants has been far from equal is yet another issue (though it does sort of amuse that some of the most anti-migrant places have virtually no migrants)

Push back on migration comes from a sense of national values which isn't unreasonable, or it's at least reasonable to me that if people want to move to the UK they accept our customs and accept we're a plural society, push back comes from ignorance and racism which is far less reasonable, push back comes from some notion of globilisation and the impact on 'our' jobs and wages (i get some of those concerns but on balance I'd suggest we benefit still), and push back comes as over the last few decades the rise of the middle class has whittled out the more progressive, skilled and hard working and left what it's left behind.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

piquant wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
You have very little migration, it's a new thing and you're still on the part of the curve where it's still a benefit to you. In just about every place in the Western world who've been under real pressure from immigration there is a strong and growing movement to counter it.
We're still benefiting from immigration. Which isn't to say that there aren't issues, some of which are much harder to resolve, and that the distribution of migrants has been far from equal is yet another issue (though it does sort of amuse that some of the most anti-migrant places have virtually no migrants)

Push back on migration comes from a sense of national values which isn't unreasonable, or it's at least reasonable to me that if people want to move to the UK they accept our customs and accept we're a plural society, push back comes from ignorance and racism which is far less reasonable, push back comes from some notion of globilisation and the impact on 'our' jobs and wages (i get some of those concerns but on balance I'd suggest we benefit still), and push back comes as over the last few decades the rise of the middle class has whittled out the more progressive, skilled and hard working and left what it's left behind.
The suggestion has been for some time that migration is of neutral benefit (OECD 2014), which doesn't include the dilution of living standards as we share infrastructure with more and more people. If we were truly to negate that and build enough infrastructure then we would be well in the hole, we need to build Cardiff every single year to keep up and we are not. So yes, the tax take and boost to GDP is undeniable, but the costs in services make that neutral, then we share our stuff.
User avatar
Chuckles1188
Posts: 40610
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Chuckles1188 »

We need more people for economic growth, there is no model for increasing GDP while population size remains static. Those new people have to be immigrants because the native fertility rate is below 2.1, so the net benefit of migrants is that without them we will be going backwards
bimboman
Posts: 72782
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »

we need to build Cardiff every single year
Shudder......
User avatar
Chuckles1188
Posts: 40610
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Chuckles1188 »

bimboman wrote:
we need to build Cardiff every single year
Shudder......
You live in Essex
piquant
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by piquant »

Chuckles1188 wrote:We need more people for economic growth, there is no model for increasing GDP while population size remains static. Those new people have to be immigrants because the native fertility rate is below 2.1, so the net benefit of migrants is that without them we will be going backwards
Indeed. Also, and specifically, if we don't want the migrants we need a new policy on how we're going to pay for pensions.

Further whilst migrants have likely constrained wage growth the lack of inflationary pressure from wages has been a positive in many respects.
piquant
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by piquant »

dr dre2 wrote:
The suggestion has been for some time that migration is of neutral benefit (OECD 2014), which doesn't include the dilution of living standards as we share infrastructure with more and more people. If we were truly to negate that and build enough infrastructure then we would be well in the hole, we need to build Cardiff every single year to keep up and we are not. So yes, the tax take and boost to GDP is undeniable, but the costs in services make that neutral, then we share our stuff.
I'll confess I've seen no research which suggests anything close to this.

I'd agree we're a long way behind on infrastructure spend, but we're that without migration. Certainly there's a problem that the migration isn't something we're able to always plan for even if we were willing to spend so specific local services can be overwhelmed and that's far from good.
bimboman
Posts: 72782
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »

Chuckles1188 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
we need to build Cardiff every single year
Shudder......
You live in Essex

Indeed, thanks for the support.
haunch
Posts: 760
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by haunch »

Chuckles1188 wrote:We need more people for economic growth, there is no model for increasing GDP while population size remains static. Those new people have to be immigrants because the native fertility rate is below 2.1, so the net benefit of migrants is that without them we will be going backwards
Even a model that involves improved productivity? Your model involves an exponential increase in the size of the population otherwise.

If we take all the young and bright from all these other countries that wont be storing up trouble for the future. :(
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

haunch wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:We need more people for economic growth, there is no model for increasing GDP while population size remains static. Those new people have to be immigrants because the native fertility rate is below 2.1, so the net benefit of migrants is that without them we will be going backwards
Even a model that involves improved productivity? Your model involves an exponential increase in the size of the population otherwise.

If we take all the young and bright from all these other countries that wont be storing up trouble for the future. :(
And for the 1,000,000,001st time, nobody is arguing for 0 immigration, controlled immigration. We have a lack of nurses? get some, we have a lack of fruit pickers, get some. We have too many labourers, no thanks.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

piquant wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
The suggestion has been for some time that migration is of neutral benefit (OECD 2014), which doesn't include the dilution of living standards as we share infrastructure with more and more people. If we were truly to negate that and build enough infrastructure then we would be well in the hole, we need to build Cardiff every single year to keep up and we are not. So yes, the tax take and boost to GDP is undeniable, but the costs in services make that neutral, then we share our stuff.
I'll confess I've seen no research which suggests anything close to this.

I'd agree we're a long way behind on infrastructure spend, but we're that without migration. Certainly there's a problem that the migration isn't something we're able to always plan for even if we were willing to spend so specific local services can be overwhelmed and that's far from good.
https://www.oecd.org/policy-briefs/PB-F ... y-2014.pdf

From memory the treasury admitted it during the campaign too.
Immigrants have a broadly neutral impact on the public purse in OECD countries, receiving in state
benefits around about as much as they pay in tax and social contributions
User avatar
Chuckles1188
Posts: 40610
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Chuckles1188 »

dr dre2 wrote:
haunch wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:We need more people for economic growth, there is no model for increasing GDP while population size remains static. Those new people have to be immigrants because the native fertility rate is below 2.1, so the net benefit of migrants is that without them we will be going backwards
Even a model that involves improved productivity? Your model involves an exponential increase in the size of the population otherwise.

If we take all the young and bright from all these other countries that wont be storing up trouble for the future. :(
And for the 1,000,000,001st time, nobody is arguing for 0 immigration, controlled immigration. We have a lack of nurses? get some, we have a lack of fruit pickers, get some. We have too many labourers, no thanks.
What's the mechanism for controlling it supposed to be? How do you determine what "too many" looks like? What do you do when an industry unexpectedly contracts? Do we just deport foreigners because their services are no longer needed?
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

Chuckles1188 wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
haunch wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:We need more people for economic growth, there is no model for increasing GDP while population size remains static. Those new people have to be immigrants because the native fertility rate is below 2.1, so the net benefit of migrants is that without them we will be going backwards
Even a model that involves improved productivity? Your model involves an exponential increase in the size of the population otherwise.

If we take all the young and bright from all these other countries that wont be storing up trouble for the future. :(
And for the 1,000,000,001st time, nobody is arguing for 0 immigration, controlled immigration. We have a lack of nurses? get some, we have a lack of fruit pickers, get some. We have too many labourers, no thanks.
What's the mechanism for controlling it supposed to be? How do you determine what "too many" looks like? What do you do when an industry unexpectedly contracts? Do we just deport foreigners because their services are no longer needed?
Work permits that expire and need to be renewed. If there is no longer demand in an industry and you have transferable skills apply for a different one, otherwise go home. If you've been a valuable member of society and have continued employment, apply for citizenship after a given number of years. The only answer can't be, wave everybody in and get on with it. Maybe that works, if you are just dealing with rich countries. Trade bodies keep an eye on this kind of thing and can make their opinions heard to the relevant government dept and request x number of WP be considered.
User avatar
Chuckles1188
Posts: 40610
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Chuckles1188 »

It just keeps raising more questions, and when you examine it in the context of a) the current approach b) the rest of the world and c) policing it, the whole thing seems to me to fall completely to pieces. I have more time for the cultural argument for restricting migration than I do the attempt at constructing an economic rationale. Though neither is compelling as far as I am concerned.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

Chuckles1188 wrote:It just keeps raising more questions, and when you examine it in the context of a) the current approach b) the rest of the world and c) policing it, the whole thing seems to me to fall completely to pieces. I have more time for the cultural argument for restricting migration than I do the attempt at constructing an economic rationale. Though neither is compelling as far as I am concerned.
Having the right people in the right places with next to no waste doesn't appeal to you, but having hoards descend to put pressure on wages and living standards does? It's not beyond the wit of man to police it, ffs. Anyway, it's what the majority want.
piquant
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by piquant »

dr dre2 wrote:
piquant wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
The suggestion has been for some time that migration is of neutral benefit (OECD 2014), which doesn't include the dilution of living standards as we share infrastructure with more and more people. If we were truly to negate that and build enough infrastructure then we would be well in the hole, we need to build Cardiff every single year to keep up and we are not. So yes, the tax take and boost to GDP is undeniable, but the costs in services make that neutral, then we share our stuff.
I'll confess I've seen no research which suggests anything close to this.

I'd agree we're a long way behind on infrastructure spend, but we're that without migration. Certainly there's a problem that the migration isn't something we're able to always plan for even if we were willing to spend so specific local services can be overwhelmed and that's far from good.
https://www.oecd.org/policy-briefs/PB-F ... y-2014.pdf

From memory the treasury admitted it during the campaign too.
Immigrants have a broadly neutral impact on the public purse in OECD countries, receiving in state
benefits around about as much as they pay in tax and social contributions
Nothing in particular there, even before it might scarce apply to the UK. Though we likely have a much higher share of labour migration than some and thus we're likely to be be doing rather better than the OECD avg.
piquant
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by piquant »

dr dre2 wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
haunch wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:We need more people for economic growth, there is no model for increasing GDP while population size remains static. Those new people have to be immigrants because the native fertility rate is below 2.1, so the net benefit of migrants is that without them we will be going backwards
Even a model that involves improved productivity? Your model involves an exponential increase in the size of the population otherwise.

If we take all the young and bright from all these other countries that wont be storing up trouble for the future. :(
And for the 1,000,000,001st time, nobody is arguing for 0 immigration, controlled immigration. We have a lack of nurses? get some, we have a lack of fruit pickers, get some. We have too many labourers, no thanks.
What's the mechanism for controlling it supposed to be? How do you determine what "too many" looks like? What do you do when an industry unexpectedly contracts? Do we just deport foreigners because their services are no longer needed?
Work permits that expire and need to be renewed. If there is no longer demand in an industry and you have transferable skills apply for a different one, otherwise go home. If you've been a valuable member of society and have continued employment, apply for citizenship after a given number of years. The only answer can't be, wave everybody in and get on with it. Maybe that works, if you are just dealing with rich countries. Trade bodies keep an eye on this kind of thing and can make their opinions heard to the relevant government dept and request x number of WP be considered.
So basically we leave the EU in return for increased red tape?
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

So basically we leave the EU in return for increased red tape?
Where it's appropriate, not where it's not. It's an overall efficiency.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

piquant wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
piquant wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
The suggestion has been for some time that migration is of neutral benefit (OECD 2014), which doesn't include the dilution of living standards as we share infrastructure with more and more people. If we were truly to negate that and build enough infrastructure then we would be well in the hole, we need to build Cardiff every single year to keep up and we are not. So yes, the tax take and boost to GDP is undeniable, but the costs in services make that neutral, then we share our stuff.
I'll confess I've seen no research which suggests anything close to this.

I'd agree we're a long way behind on infrastructure spend, but we're that without migration. Certainly there's a problem that the migration isn't something we're able to always plan for even if we were willing to spend so specific local services can be overwhelmed and that's far from good.
https://www.oecd.org/policy-briefs/PB-F ... y-2014.pdf

From memory the treasury admitted it during the campaign too.
Immigrants have a broadly neutral impact on the public purse in OECD countries, receiving in state
benefits around about as much as they pay in tax and social contributions
Nothing in particular there, even before it might scarce apply to the UK. Though we likely have a much higher share of labour migration than some and thus we're likely to be be doing rather better than the OECD avg.
We also have higher benefits and a very generous health service. The benefit certainly doesn't outstrip the living standard squeeze and wage pressure.
piquant
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by piquant »

dr dre2 wrote:
piquant wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
piquant wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
The suggestion has been for some time that migration is of neutral benefit (OECD 2014), which doesn't include the dilution of living standards as we share infrastructure with more and more people. If we were truly to negate that and build enough infrastructure then we would be well in the hole, we need to build Cardiff every single year to keep up and we are not. So yes, the tax take and boost to GDP is undeniable, but the costs in services make that neutral, then we share our stuff.
I'll confess I've seen no research which suggests anything close to this.

I'd agree we're a long way behind on infrastructure spend, but we're that without migration. Certainly there's a problem that the migration isn't something we're able to always plan for even if we were willing to spend so specific local services can be overwhelmed and that's far from good.
https://www.oecd.org/policy-briefs/PB-F ... y-2014.pdf

From memory the treasury admitted it during the campaign too.
Immigrants have a broadly neutral impact on the public purse in OECD countries, receiving in state
benefits around about as much as they pay in tax and social contributions
Nothing in particular there, even before it might scarce apply to the UK. Though we likely have a much higher share of labour migration than some and thus we're likely to be be doing rather better than the OECD avg.
We also have higher benefits and a very generous health service. The benefit certainly doesn't outstrip the living standard squeeze and wage pressure.
The migrants weren't especially abusing either of those. There are plenty of non Brits using the NHS, but that's the NHS selling their services to Africans and Russians for example and then telling people here there aren't beds available for Ops.

Also you see many more migrants per capita head for Denmark, Sweden and Germany, and it's not because they've lower benefits. The real costs come as we see in some Italian and Greek towns where they're nearly flooded with people running from their own countries and who aren't close to working.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

The migrants weren't especially abusing either of those. There are plenty of non Brits using the NHS, but that's the NHS selling their services to Africans and Russians for example and then telling people here there aren't beds available for Ops.

Also you see many more migrants per capita head for Denmark, Sweden and Germany, and it's not because they've lower benefits. The real costs come as we see in some Italian and Greek towns where they're nearly flooded with people running from their own countries and who aren't close to working.

Be that as it may, the direct benefit is broadly neutral / small net gain at best. Before you look at the living standard / wage pressure squeeze. Controlling it leads to a stronger net benefit and less of a living standard / wage pressure squeeze. We want to make it efficient and work better for us, it's logical, waving everyone in is irrational. It's what we want at the end of the day and is what is going to happen.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

By the way, the way to police it is to police the employers, 95% of businesses out there are compliant to the point it hurts. A few prosecutions, fines and void insurances when an illegal hurts himself, equipment or another and you'll be down to the most committed illegals and employers. And to an extent as long as they are not claiming benefits and services they are less of a problem, if they choose to live that existence, that's down to them but it wont be for many, not Eastern Europeans who can go to Germany anyway.
I like haggis
Posts: 5048
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 2:54 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by I like haggis »

dr dre2 wrote:
piquant wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
You have very little migration, it's a new thing and you're still on the part of the curve where it's still a benefit to you. In just about every place in the Western world who've been under real pressure from immigration there is a strong and growing movement to counter it.
We're still benefiting from immigration. Which isn't to say that there aren't issues, some of which are much harder to resolve, and that the distribution of migrants has been far from equal is yet another issue (though it does sort of amuse that some of the most anti-migrant places have virtually no migrants)

Push back on migration comes from a sense of national values which isn't unreasonable, or it's at least reasonable to me that if people want to move to the UK they accept our customs and accept we're a plural society, push back comes from ignorance and racism which is far less reasonable, push back comes from some notion of globilisation and the impact on 'our' jobs and wages (i get some of those concerns but on balance I'd suggest we benefit still), and push back comes as over the last few decades the rise of the middle class has whittled out the more progressive, skilled and hard working and left what it's left behind.
The suggestion has been for some time that migration is of neutral benefit (OECD 2014), which doesn't include the dilution of living standards as we share infrastructure with more and more people. If we were truly to negate that and build enough infrastructure then we would be well in the hole, we need to build Cardiff every single year to keep up and we are not. So yes, the tax take and boost to GDP is undeniable, but the costs in services make that neutral, then we share our stuff.
There is absolutely no evidence that immigration pushes down native living standards in any country in the world. The reason living standards have declined lately probably has something to do with austerity. People blame immigrants for leaving standards because every day the front page of a tabloid has something about immigration on it.

Anyway, the fall out from the referendum has shown the UK is actually pretty racist. Immigrants contribute more to the economy than they receive in benefits, they keep the NHS going and make a strong economy. It's a real shame we've become the way we have with immigrants because they really help this country a lot. Saying immigrants clog up hospitals, roads, trains, schools whatever the bigots say they fill up maybe realise the government slashing those budgets was what caused the damage.

I'd like to see any proof of this 'we need to build a Cardiff per year' because of immigrants because it sounds like classic tabloid hysteria.
User avatar
DragsterDriver
Posts: 26959
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Big Willi Style

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by DragsterDriver »

I like haggis wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
piquant wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
You have very little migration, it's a new thing and you're still on the part of the curve where it's still a benefit to you. In just about every place in the Western world who've been under real pressure from immigration there is a strong and growing movement to counter it.
We're still benefiting from immigration. Which isn't to say that there aren't issues, some of which are much harder to resolve, and that the distribution of migrants has been far from equal is yet another issue (though it does sort of amuse that some of the most anti-migrant places have virtually no migrants)

Push back on migration comes from a sense of national values which isn't unreasonable, or it's at least reasonable to me that if people want to move to the UK they accept our customs and accept we're a plural society, push back comes from ignorance and racism which is far less reasonable, push back comes from some notion of globilisation and the impact on 'our' jobs and wages (i get some of those concerns but on balance I'd suggest we benefit still), and push back comes as over the last few decades the rise of the middle class has whittled out the more progressive, skilled and hard working and left what it's left behind.
The suggestion has been for some time that migration is of neutral benefit (OECD 2014), which doesn't include the dilution of living standards as we share infrastructure with more and more people. If we were truly to negate that and build enough infrastructure then we would be well in the hole, we need to build Cardiff every single year to keep up and we are not. So yes, the tax take and boost to GDP is undeniable, but the costs in services make that neutral, then we share our stuff.
There is absolutely no evidence that immigration pushes down native living standards in any country in the world. The reason living standards have declined lately probably has something to do with austerity. People blame immigrants for leaving standards because every day the front page of a tabloid has something about immigration on it.

Anyway, the fall out from the referendum has shown the UK is actually pretty racist. Immigrants contribute more to the economy than they receive in benefits, they keep the NHS going and make a strong economy. It's a real shame we've become the way we have with immigrants because they really help this country a lot. Saying immigrants clog up hospitals, roads, trains, schools whatever the bigots say they fill up maybe realise the government slashing those budgets was what caused the damage.

I'd like to see any proof of this 'we need to build a Cardiff per year' because of immigrants because it sounds like classic tabloid hysteria.


I don't believe that.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

I like haggis wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
piquant wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
You have very little migration, it's a new thing and you're still on the part of the curve where it's still a benefit to you. In just about every place in the Western world who've been under real pressure from immigration there is a strong and growing movement to counter it.
We're still benefiting from immigration. Which isn't to say that there aren't issues, some of which are much harder to resolve, and that the distribution of migrants has been far from equal is yet another issue (though it does sort of amuse that some of the most anti-migrant places have virtually no migrants)

Push back on migration comes from a sense of national values which isn't unreasonable, or it's at least reasonable to me that if people want to move to the UK they accept our customs and accept we're a plural society, push back comes from ignorance and racism which is far less reasonable, push back comes from some notion of globilisation and the impact on 'our' jobs and wages (i get some of those concerns but on balance I'd suggest we benefit still), and push back comes as over the last few decades the rise of the middle class has whittled out the more progressive, skilled and hard working and left what it's left behind.
The suggestion has been for some time that migration is of neutral benefit (OECD 2014), which doesn't include the dilution of living standards as we share infrastructure with more and more people. If we were truly to negate that and build enough infrastructure then we would be well in the hole, we need to build Cardiff every single year to keep up and we are not. So yes, the tax take and boost to GDP is undeniable, but the costs in services make that neutral, then we share our stuff.
There is absolutely no evidence that immigration pushes down native living standards in any country in the world. The reason living standards have declined lately probably has something to do with austerity. People blame immigrants for leaving standards because every day the front page of a tabloid has something about immigration on it.

Anyway, the fall out from the referendum has shown the UK is actually pretty racist. Immigrants contribute more to the economy than they receive in benefits, they keep the NHS going and make a strong economy. It's a real shame we've become the way we have with immigrants because they really help this country a lot. Saying immigrants clog up hospitals, roads, trains, schools whatever the bigots say they fill up maybe realise the government slashing those budgets was what caused the damage.

I'd like to see any proof of this 'we need to build a Cardiff per year' because of immigrants because it sounds like classic tabloid hysteria.
Cardiff's population is broadly the same as the net migration figures, we'd need to add capacity for services, housing and infrastructure to the tune of one Cardiff not to be diluting what we have. Yes it's not like for like, a city doesn't have to be built in one place. But it's accurate enough, the more people who share the services the more you are diluting capacity unless you add more to the same level, and we are not. You're adding one Cardiff's worth of demand, but not one Cardiff's worth of supply.

If we were truly earning good "profit" on immigration, they would by definition pay for their increased demand on services (and then some) and we could grow the capacity to match, but that doesn't seem to be the case. We are increasing income but increasing spending at the same rate of benefit. But we are not and cant afford to keep up with the major infrastructure demands on top of that, they are certainly not paying enough for that, more just covering the running costs while we stretch what we have.

Now you mention austerity and you are quite right, but the level of spending was there already and so was the deficit, again...... If we are getting value from the immigrants why is there such a big deficit? Truth be told, we've offered such generosity to our own people, that if we try to extend that generosity to new comers we over stretch ourselves. We can't do it and in the EU, there was no answer to it..... Ever..... The more we took in the more we pumped up the bubble beyond their worth.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

CDU & CSU (sister party) are at odds, with Merkel un-invited to their conference. Other parties talking about withdrawing support of coalition.
User avatar
Chuckles1188
Posts: 40610
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Chuckles1188 »

dr dre2 wrote:
I like haggis wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
piquant wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
You have very little migration, it's a new thing and you're still on the part of the curve where it's still a benefit to you. In just about every place in the Western world who've been under real pressure from immigration there is a strong and growing movement to counter it.
We're still benefiting from immigration. Which isn't to say that there aren't issues, some of which are much harder to resolve, and that the distribution of migrants has been far from equal is yet another issue (though it does sort of amuse that some of the most anti-migrant places have virtually no migrants)

Push back on migration comes from a sense of national values which isn't unreasonable, or it's at least reasonable to me that if people want to move to the UK they accept our customs and accept we're a plural society, push back comes from ignorance and racism which is far less reasonable, push back comes from some notion of globilisation and the impact on 'our' jobs and wages (i get some of those concerns but on balance I'd suggest we benefit still), and push back comes as over the last few decades the rise of the middle class has whittled out the more progressive, skilled and hard working and left what it's left behind.
The suggestion has been for some time that migration is of neutral benefit (OECD 2014), which doesn't include the dilution of living standards as we share infrastructure with more and more people. If we were truly to negate that and build enough infrastructure then we would be well in the hole, we need to build Cardiff every single year to keep up and we are not. So yes, the tax take and boost to GDP is undeniable, but the costs in services make that neutral, then we share our stuff.
There is absolutely no evidence that immigration pushes down native living standards in any country in the world. The reason living standards have declined lately probably has something to do with austerity. People blame immigrants for leaving standards because every day the front page of a tabloid has something about immigration on it.

Anyway, the fall out from the referendum has shown the UK is actually pretty racist. Immigrants contribute more to the economy than they receive in benefits, they keep the NHS going and make a strong economy. It's a real shame we've become the way we have with immigrants because they really help this country a lot. Saying immigrants clog up hospitals, roads, trains, schools whatever the bigots say they fill up maybe realise the government slashing those budgets was what caused the damage.

I'd like to see any proof of this 'we need to build a Cardiff per year' because of immigrants because it sounds like classic tabloid hysteria.
Cardiff's population is broadly the same as the net migration figures, we'd need to add capacity for services, housing and infrastructure to the tune of one Cardiff not to be diluting what we have. Yes it's not like for like, a city doesn't have to be built in one place. But it's accurate enough, the more people who share the services the more you are diluting capacity unless you add more to the same level, and we are not. You're adding one Cardiff's worth of demand, but not one Cardiff's worth of supply.

If we were truly earning good "profit" on immigration, they would by definition pay for their increased demand on services (and then some) and we could grow the capacity to match, but that doesn't seem to be the case. We are increasing income but increasing spending at the same rate of benefit. But we are not and cant afford to keep up with the major infrastructure demands on top of that, they are certainly not paying enough for that, more just covering the running costs while we stretch what we have.

Now you mention austerity and you are quite right, but the level of spending was there already and so was the deficit, again...... If we are getting value from the immigrants why is there such a big deficit? Truth be told, we've offered such generosity to our own people, that if we try to extend that generosity to new comers we over stretch ourselves. We can't do it and in the EU, there was no answer to it..... Ever..... The more we took in the more we pumped up the bubble beyond their worth.
Eh? Our infrastructure spending has been well behind the OECD average for decades. We haven't been spending.
bimboman
Posts: 72782
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »


Eh? Our infrastructure spending has been well behind the OECD average for decades. We haven't been spending.

Per head or per GDP ?
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

And there is so much money around to do it.

I know we haven't been spending, but if we are going to increase the user base, we may want to? and if the immigrants are profitable, we should be able to.
bimboman
Posts: 72782
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »

dr dre2 wrote:And there is so much money around to do it.

The tax burden is almost the highest it's ever been (around 38%) in the UK.
User avatar
dr dre2
Posts: 5187
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by dr dre2 »

bimboman wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:And there is so much money around to do it.

The tax burden is almost the highest it's ever been (around 38%) in the UK.
And so many more people to tax too! We must be rolling in it, bring more in. This approach is working!

Either that, or we are spending more than we take in and that includes on new arrivals who we are legally bound to spend the same on as people who have paid in for years. We are just pumping up a bubble relative to population, with infrastructure groaning under it's weight.

Maybe we could just take the the most profitable ones, control the numbers, just maybe we could see the tax take outgrow the tax spend without harsh austerity. At the moment the policy is anybody can come, everyone gets the same, eventually we'll have an equal share in fudge all, an infrastructure problem so big we can never overcome it and a f**king massive population to share it.
I like haggis
Posts: 5048
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 2:54 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by I like haggis »

Chuckles1188 wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
I like haggis wrote:
There is absolutely no evidence that immigration pushes down native living standards in any country in the world. The reason living standards have declined lately probably has something to do with austerity. People blame immigrants for leaving standards because every day the front page of a tabloid has something about immigration on it.

Anyway, the fall out from the referendum has shown the UK is actually pretty racist. Immigrants contribute more to the economy than they receive in benefits, they keep the NHS going and make a strong economy. It's a real shame we've become the way we have with immigrants because they really help this country a lot. Saying immigrants clog up hospitals, roads, trains, schools whatever the bigots say they fill up maybe realise the government slashing those budgets was what caused the damage.

I'd like to see any proof of this 'we need to build a Cardiff per year' because of immigrants because it sounds like classic tabloid hysteria.
Cardiff's population is broadly the same as the net migration figures, we'd need to add capacity for services, housing and infrastructure to the tune of one Cardiff not to be diluting what we have. Yes it's not like for like, a city doesn't have to be built in one place. But it's accurate enough, the more people who share the services the more you are diluting capacity unless you add more to the same level, and we are not. You're adding one Cardiff's worth of demand, but not one Cardiff's worth of supply.

If we were truly earning good "profit" on immigration, they would by definition pay for their increased demand on services (and then some) and we could grow the capacity to match, but that doesn't seem to be the case. We are increasing income but increasing spending at the same rate of benefit. But we are not and cant afford to keep up with the major infrastructure demands on top of that, they are certainly not paying enough for that, more just covering the running costs while we stretch what we have.

Now you mention austerity and you are quite right, but the level of spending was there already and so was the deficit, again...... If we are getting value from the immigrants why is there such a big deficit? Truth be told, we've offered such generosity to our own people, that if we try to extend that generosity to new comers we over stretch ourselves. We can't do it and in the EU, there was no answer to it..... Ever..... The more we took in the more we pumped up the bubble beyond their worth.
Eh? Our infrastructure spending has been well behind the OECD average for decades. We haven't been spending.
Again, immigration makes a net contribution of 4 billion pounds to the UK economy. That's far more than they receive back in benefits so our generosity does not extend to these migrants. Thank you for agreeing that I am correct about austerity. We are stretched purely because of austerity not building schools, hospitals etc that migrants could help fund with their 4 billion pound contribution (profit as you described it) to our economy but they are not responsible for the decision as to where their taxes are spent. The government decides that, don't blame immigrants for government economic policy cutting public service budgets!.

Kicking all the immigrants out of the country won't help at all with public services if the government continue to underfund. The NHS is reliant on immigration, new public houses overwhelmingly go to Brits and not migrants despite what the Daily Mail thinks, education and schools policy from the government is a complete farce. The only reason people blame immigrants for stretched public services is that their tabloid paper of choice doesn't explain to them austerity and instead blame the easy target of immigration when it's so far from the truth and makes them a very ignorant and bigoted individual.

Edit to add that blaming the deficit on immigration is ridiculous, it's going to get even bigger soon with borrowing to spend on infrastructure at a time we "control" immigration. The mind boggles that people genuinely blame immigrants for Labour borrowing obscene amounts and a banking collapse followed by Gideon's harsh austerity (responsible for killing vulnerable people) and shrinking the state. There are a few words for the kind of people they are but I'm led to believe they don't much enjoy being called by them.
Last edited by I like haggis on Sun Oct 30, 2016 12:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
bimboman
Posts: 72782
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by bimboman »


Again, immigration makes a net contribution of 4 billion pounds to the UK economy. That's far more than they receive back in benefits so our generosity does not extend to these migrants. Thank you for agreeing that I am correct about austerity. We are stretched purely because of austerity not building schools, hospitals etc that migrants could help fund with their 4 billion pound contribution (profit as you described it) to our economy but they are not responsible for the decision as to where their taxes are spent. The government decides that, don't blame immigrants for government economic policy cutting public service budgets
If it's a net figure I'd like to think it's post benefits so as to make it "net"

As for the rest of the paragraph. :lol: . What austerity ? Does migration bring 4 billion in one hit ? Annually? Do you realise 4 bln is a f ucking rounding error currently?
I like haggis
Posts: 5048
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 2:54 pm

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by I like haggis »

bimboman wrote:

Again, immigration makes a net contribution of 4 billion pounds to the UK economy. That's far more than they receive back in benefits so our generosity does not extend to these migrants. Thank you for agreeing that I am correct about austerity. We are stretched purely because of austerity not building schools, hospitals etc that migrants could help fund with their 4 billion pound contribution (profit as you described it) to our economy but they are not responsible for the decision as to where their taxes are spent. The government decides that, don't blame immigrants for government economic policy cutting public service budgets
If it's a net figure I'd like to think it's post benefits so as to make it "net"

As for the rest of the paragraph. :lol: . What austerity ? Does migration bring 4 billion in one hit ? Annually? Do you realise 4 bln is a f ucking rounding error currently?
The economic policy we've experienced since Osbourne took over the exchequer in which all public sector spending has been cut leading to stretched services not getting the funding they need to provide an efficient service.

Obviously the contributions in tax that people make aren't an annual hit. I'm unsure what you mean by rounding error but you or anyone else would be very hard pressed to find any statistical evidence that immigrants are a drain on public spending because it doesn't exist as immigration is a positive for the UK economy.
jorwar
Posts: 2704
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by jorwar »

Why is this lying Tory cow lying to us, asks Nick Cohen:

"Her defenders say that she is responding to the will of the British people. I won’t go on about how a 52-48 vote was hardly the people speaking as one. Instead, you should understand her by looking at how, after abandoning her beliefs, May refused to level with the public and confront them with the hard choices ahead. Rather than speak plainly, she has embraced the Leave campaign’s big lie that Brexit will be painless.

To maintain the illusion, her ministers scramble in secret meetings to cut deals with special interests. Whatever bribes they have offered Nissan will only be the start. Farmers, the City and corporations with muscle will all want taxpayers’ money to compensate them for their losses. The bill will be picked up by small businesses, which cannot afford lobbyists and, of course, by the taxpayers, who will fund the right’s illusion that we can have Brexit without pain."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... e-minister
User avatar
Duff Paddy
Posts: 41158
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Duff Paddy »

bimboman wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:And there is so much money around to do it.

The tax burden is almost the highest it's ever been (around 38%) in the UK.
Just wait until May cuts corporation tax
User avatar
Rocketz
Posts: 4646
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: United States of Europe

Re: OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

Post by Rocketz »


Live
al jazeera
menu

submit
News
More
Programmes
More
Opinion
Investigations
Video

OPINIONBREXIT CONSEQUENCES2 MINUTES AGO
The UK has no choice on 'hard' or 'soft' Brexit
Brexiteers underestimate the level of spite European negotiators are willing to display.
Political artist Kaya Mar poses with a painting depicting the new British Prime Minister, Theresa May, and key Brexit ministers outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London [EPA]Political artist Kaya Mar poses with a painting depicting the new British Prime Minister, Theresa May, and key Brexit ministers outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London [EPA]
by
Alastair Sloan
@AlastairSloan

Alastair Sloan is a London-based journalist. He focuses on injustice and human rights in the UK.

There's a rumour going round our post-Brexit Britain that the United Kingdom government has a say in the Brexit negotiations.

There's an even more quaint idea that this is going to be a negotiation - not a bulldozer of a deal that European trade negotiators have become so adept at rolling out against lesser nations.

Some are even deluded enough to think that the Brexit "quartet" - International Trade Secretary Liam Fox, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Theresa May, and the Secretary for "Brexit" itself, David Davis - are "in charge" of Brexit negotiations. They aren't, we aren't, but the Europeans most definitely are.


The Listening Post - Brexit: The UK referendum, the rhetoric and the result
Fundamentally different perceptions

By Europeans, I mean firstly the powerful European People's Party (EPP), a transnational alliance of centre-right politicians wielding enormous influence across the European Commission and the domestic politics of many European countries.

The EPP is a pro-European conservative grouping most Britons probably haven't heard of, but it plays an immensely important role in European life.

The EPP currently monopolises nearly every serious position within the European Union establishment, has been the largest political party operating within the Union since 1999, and is increasingly independent from its principal sponsor - Angela Merkel.

The EPP also, crucially, despises the same British Tory party that just engineered Britain's exit from the EU - because in theory the two parties should be natural allies, and now they're marked enemies.

The EPP are centre-right, like the Tories, but the Tories flounced out of the EPP in 2009 because David Cameron, who the EPP deride as a political coward for not standing up to the Eurosceptics, thought the EPP was too pro-European (or at least his backbench MPs did).

Britain is the 28th kid in a very large family, throwing a tantrum during the school run, and Mama Brussels simply doesn't have time for it.


Good news, then, that the chief negotiator for the Commission will be Michel Barnier - the vice president of the European People's Party. So insistent is he that Britain must be made to sweat that he has demanded the negotiations be conducted in French.

Then you have the idea we're entering into any normal trade negotiation where normal rules apply. In a rare moment of clarity, Brexit Secretary and hardliner Eurosceptic David Davis acknowledged at the Conservative Party conference earlier this month that the EU's understanding of the bloc and the British understanding of it remain fundamentally different.

"We need to appreciate and respect what the European Union means to them," he said. "They view it through the prism of their own history - sadly a history often of invasion and occupation, dictatorship and domination."

The prism of sovereignty

Britain, on the other hand, has always and will always see the EU as a matter of money and trade alone - not a matter of stability, national security or essential freedoms.

The Poles, perhaps the most ardently nationalist, pro-sovereignty, anti-immigration, and certainly the most pro-EU public you will find, are exemplary.

OPINION: Three paths to European disintegration

They, if anyone in Europe, understand the meaning of losing sovereignty. It actually happened to them, many, many times, as their sovereignty was repeatedly subsumed by their neighbours.

And yet still the Polish public overwhelmingly love this supposed juggernaut of sovereignty stripping - the EU.

I was in Poland during and after the referendum; and Brexit continues, as it did then, to dominate the Polish news agenda. It does so because for many Poles, Brexit possibly means the EU, at some point, falling apart.

And guess who is also playing a key part in the Brexit negotiations. Donald Tusk, president of the European Council and yes, a Pole - a former prime minister, no less.

Worse still, guess which party Tusk hails from? You guessed it - the European People's Party.

OPINION: After David Cameron we are left only with mistakes

Politicians living next to Vladimir Putin or on the borders of the Middle East and North Africa currently feel under immense pressure.

The refugee crisis is collapsing the Balkans, Greece and Italy into chaos, the Syrian civil war could last for years to come, and the level of resentment that the UK generated by creating another problem for the EU elite, at a time of such massive crisis, cannot be underestimated.

Britain is the 28th kid in a very large family, throwing a tantrum during the school run, and Mama Brussels simply doesn't have time for it.

Bulldozing Britain

That Brussels is willing to bulldoze Britain is now becoming fact. Theresa May's first EU summit in late October demonstrated this well.

Her Brexit speech was pointedly timetabled for the very end of dinner, and was met with stony silence. The EPP bigwig and European Commission President Jean-Claude Junker threw his hands in the air and muttered "pfft", when asked how May had performed.


May insisted before her departure that she wanted Britain to "play a full role until we leave", but 27 member states will now meet without Britain in Malta next year.

Marching orders are being given. Dispatch Britain as quickly as possible. Give them a bloody nose so nobody else thinks they can get a better deal out than in, and move on to dealing with the more serious issues.

Britain might as well end the national debate which is consuming the airwaves about whether we're going to get a "hard" or "soft" Brexit. As Donald Tusk himself put it when he visited May; "it's either hard Brexit ... or no Brexit."

Alastair Sloan is a London-based journalist. He focuses on injustice and human rights in the UK and international affairs, including human rights, the arms trade, censorship, political unrest and dictatorships.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

Source: Al Jazeeera

Brexit consequences Politics Europe United Kingdom
Tell us what you think
CONTINUE READING
Share via Facebook Share via Twitter Share via WhatsApp

0 Comments
MORE FROM AL JAZEERA
Stray Bullets: Guns in the Philippines

As the new Philippines government takes an uncompromising line on crime, will it finally end rampant gun violence?
Mapping Africa's natural resources

An overview of the continent's main natural resources.
The man who would be king of Kurdistan

Decades after warrior-king Sheikh Mahmud's overthrow, Kurds keep on fighting for a homeland.
Canada's wild rice wars

How a conflict over wild ricing on Pigeon Lake is drawing attention to Indigenous rights and traditional foods.

TRENDING
1
Shia militias open new front in battle for Mosul
2
Pakistan information minister removed over news report
3
Will Hillary Clinton overcome her email scandal?
4
How Oman aims to become a tourist hub
5
Families of US consulate staff asked to leave Turkey
RELATED
With around 9,600 full-time students from 140 countries, the LSE is one of Britain's most internationally diverse universities [Al Jazeera]
UK: LSE academics 'barred' from advising on Brexit
Brexit: UK to trigger Article 50 by end of March
Brexit: UK to trigger Article 50 by end of March

Al Jazeera NewsProgrammesOpinionAboutInvestigationsContact Us
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
RSS
Podcast
YouTube
SnapChat
© 2016 Al Jazeera Media Network
Locked