The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[wazzap24]

12 minutes ago, blandy said:

It's interesting, because there are plenty of downsides to high levels of immigration. The strain on services, hospitals, schools, housing, racial cohesion, religionist nutters and all that. Cheap labour depressing wages...

But the other thing is we'd be goosed without it. The amount of NHS staff alone is reason enough. Then there's teachers and all kinds of other professions. There are something like 100,000 French people living in London, working in al kinds of jobs. Most immigrants are younger and pay taxes. We're an ageing population and we need younger people to come here to provide the workforce to pay for the pensioners.

So really the alternative to the current high levels of immigration is lower levels of immigration, but with all kinds of downsides as well as the upsides. Immigration is a problem as much because of government incompetence in the UK as because of the EU.

Totally agree with that. 

I am not arguing for a reduction in immigration per se. The number is a cop out and just another ingredient in a mix of ignorance that surrounds the subject from all sides. 

its probably too late now, certainly for any meaningful change in this, or the next generation, but IMO there are some fundamentals that need to change, in order to to prevent a reversal in the progress that's been made on diversity in this country. 

 

 

 

[Awol]

Disagree with your conclusion, Pete.  There is no question we need immigration, but outside the EU we could actually control and filter it. 

Need more staff for the NHS? No problem, we recruit them and in they come on a working visa. Ditto any other profession.  It also levels the playing field for non-EU immigrants who the system weighted against because UK Gov can only control non-EU migration to try and meet commitments to reduce absolute numbers. Post EU exit a much fairer system can be established that ceases discrimination against non-EU citizens.

For the non and low skilled British workers who have seen their wages driven down (or have simply been made redundant) by mass immigration from Eastern Europe, leaving the EU is a chance to protect them. If not when the minimum wage goes up again it will encourage even more mass unskilled immigration - great news for large companies, not so much if you're one of those UK workers losing out as a result. 

Under the terms of the Vienna Conventions any EU citizen currently residing in the UK (like the 100k London Frenchies) can remain in a post-exit UK due to their acquired rights of residence which cannot be withdrawn should those arrangements change. Of course the same goes for Brits living in other EU countries.

Finally the logic of bringing in ever more migrants to pay tax and support the pension system is a red herring. Long term we'd need an ever expanding population to keep the bottom of the demographic pyramid wider than the top.

 It also doesn't address the problem or cost of planning for and expanding school places, hospital and GP capacity, housing, transport infrastructure and so on.  Do migrants pay enough tax to cover that extra cost, our state pension bill commitment and still come out as a net economic benefit?  

[blandy]

20 minutes ago, Awol said:

Disagree with your conclusion, Pete.  There is no question we need immigration, but outside the EU we could actually control and filter it. 

There's a lot to agree with in your post. I think it's a bit theoretical though. I mean now, obviously, we can control immigration from non EU countries. But there's tons of people from the rest of the world coming in. And we're rather idiotically throwing American and Aussies etc. out based on their earnings. People on <35K are being deported. People in teaching and caring jobs (we have a shortage of teachers). So that's what I mean about Gov't incompetence. They mess up immigration policy now, for non-EU people, so why, in reality (rather than theory) would they do any better or different if we leave the EU?

Another point is that a lot of Britons, of a certain age move to Yurp to retire - Spain and France in particular. That would presumably be much reduced if we leave and impose immigration controls on the EU. So we'd end up with more older people here and fewer younger people than would be the case if we stay in.

The problem of demographics is an ongoing one - because people in the west are living longer, there are more old people. Because people in the UK and elsewhere are suffering financially, they are having fewer kids. It'll take decades to return to a better balance. And in that time countries will be almost competing to attract young, working people from all over the place. I don't think it's really an in/out of the EU issue, it's a western issue, really.

So basically I don't know what the answer is, but I do know leaving the EU isn't "the answer" (nor am I saying staying in, is).

 

[villakram]

Immigration as a solution to feed the ponzi scheme that are the underfunded pension obligations of most western economies is simply shameful. Likewise the assertion that stopping immigration fixes anything is equally naive.

Neoliberals are in charge, this is the problem. UK-in, or out does not change this in any way whatsoever.

[snowychap]

29 minutes ago, Awol said:

Under the terms of the Vienna Conventions any EU citizen currently residing in the UK (like the 100k London Frenchies) can remain in a post-exit UK due to their acquired rights of residence which cannot be withdrawn should those arrangements change.

Surely only those who have acquired the right to permanent residence in the UK would be certain to remain? Any other EU citizen (whose right of abode is conditional) would only continue to have the conditional rights acquired at the time of the ending of any treaty, surely?

Obviously, all of this would be part of any discussion about 'post exit' and therefore all fair game for changing.

[Awol]

9 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Surely only those who have acquired the right to permanent residence in the UK would be certain to remain? Any other EU citizen (whose right of abode is conditional) would only continue to have the conditional rights acquired at the time of the ending of any treaty, surely?

Obviously, all of this would be part of any discussion about 'post exit' and therefore all fair game for changing.

As I understand it (as a non legal beagle) all EU citizens are in theory entitled to reside permanently in the UK, the purpose of free movement. Therefore any EU citizen currently living in the UK would under the Vienna rules be entitled to stay even if restriction on further immigration was implemented in any final deal - hence acquired rights.

I think the point is to prevent new rules being applied retrospectively against individuals who would therefore not become bargaining chips for either side.  As I said, not a lawyer but that's my reading of it.

[snowychap]

15 minutes ago, Awol said:

As I understand it (as a non legal beagle) all EU citizens are in theory entitled to reside permanently in the UK, the purpose of free movement. Therefore any EU citizen currently living in the UK would under the Vienna rules be entitled to stay even if restriction on further immigration was implemented in any final deal - hence acquired rights.

I'm no expert either, Jon, but I don't believe that is correct. I think that all EU citizens have a conditional right (based upon various things) of abode in the UK and that becomes permanent after a five year period as a 'qualified' person (or if other requirements are met in other circumstances).

Edited April 16, 2016 by snowychap
to v of

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

39 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I'm no expert either, Jon, but I don't believe that is correct. I think that all EU citizens have a conditional right (based upon various things) of abode in the UK and that becomes permanent after a five year period as a 'qualified' person (or if other requirements are met in other circumstances).

I am not sure that is correct.  I just turned up in Holland in 2001, got a job, no questions asked.

I am sure that if you have an EU passport,  in theory the whole of Europe can turn up in a country if they want and there is nothing anyone can do.

[snowychap]

13 hours ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

I am not sure that is correct.  I just turned up in Holland in 2001, got a job, no questions asked.

I don't know why that would contradict anything that I said.

[mjmooney]

Ian Botham is backing Brexit. His logic? Countries like Australia, India and Pakistan are "our natural friends", because we play cricket against them. Unlike France, Germany, etc. 

I despair. 

[chrisp65]

Has there been an actual fact spouted by either side that can't be disproven or contradicted by the other side yet?

Disgracefully poor performance from both sides, it really is just seeing who has the longest list of celebrities.

 

 

[Chindie]

... Which is precisely why it's a really really bad topic for a referendum...

[mjmooney]

I am now pretty much certain that 'out' is going to win by a landslide. 

[blandy]

There was a good article in the Times yesterday by Mathew Parris, former Tory MP, who is a eurosceptic. The gist of it was that in his opinion, looking at the inners and outers in the tory party, the outers were by a ratio of 4:1 very right wing and the inners were a majority (what he termed) moderate tories. So he said if the out campaign wins, we'll end up with a very right wing tory party, against workers rights, and all the various "modern" things the tories (some of them) are in favour of  - environmental protection, gay rights, and so on.

He also made the case that leaving is something of a leap in the dark in terms of the trade relations. He says the best the out people can come up with is that trading with Europe, best case, will be the same. So given that's the best outcome possible, why would anyone gamble like that - "the best you can hope for is it won't get worse, if we leave".

[Chindie]

I think Remain will win, but it will be close.

The result either way will be farcical. The campaigns on both sides are based on half truths, lies and empty slogans.

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

I am now pretty much certain that 'out' is going to win by a landslide. 

I suspect out will win, too. I think that "In" is the lesser of two evils, but I'd find it very hard to vote for anything that Cameron and Osbourne are in favour of. I don't want to "validate" them.

[tonyh29]

5 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

I am now pretty much certain that 'out' is going to win by a landslide. 

Interesting as I still think Project Fear will prevail 

but the government leaflet seems to have backfired so they need to stop any more own goals if they are going to see it home 

neither side has made a decent case yet so they still have time to convince me one way or another ... That said  I think if it was tomorrow I'd vote leave , I don't think we will ever get another chance , we aren't  Scotchland where Stay means we'll try again next year so lets take out one chance .... 

 

[Chindie]

You aren't going to get a decent case either way Tony. A decent case isn't arguable en masse to stay or leave. I think there's been some decent arguments played out here on both sides but doubt it changed anyone's mind.

If you think your vote is Leave were it tomorrow, you'll still vote that way in June. Nothing is going to come out of any campaign to really make you (or anyone) consider it further.

[OutByEaster?]

If this season has taught us anything, it's that the team we believe in will lose. Interesting that it seems that feeling prevails even in other things.

For what it's worth, I favour "In", so I suspect "Out" will romp home.

 

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I'm not sure how it will go. I think Out may win because they play to a powerful and widespread nativism which crosses from right to left, and their anti-immigration rhetoric is shared by a lot of people. I think that, rather than the economic argument, is the most urgent in people's minds and Out seem to be winning it.

 

Edited April 17, 2016 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner