If we vote for Brexit what happens

Tromking

Herzlos wrote: »

This makes for pretty depressing reading too: https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilydugan/these-europeans-are-already-leaving-the-uk-because-of-brexit?utm_term=.jqzlldyrwn#.ocQjjlW1Bk

I'm trying to see the good from it, maybe it'll push up wages a bit (and make some businesses unviable whilst costing everyone more), and reduce housing pressure a bit. But it's the brain drain I've been worried about; the Europeans that are the contributors are more likely to leave for a better life whilst those that are the "problematic" drains are more likely to just stay.

Did we really think this through?

I did.
If you're a professional type and you've got the hump with Brexit you're always going to exercise your right and inherent flexibility to move your skills back home. I've been told that all inward EU immigration was a positive so I'm struggling with your concept of people who are "problematic drains". This story would tie in with the last immigration figures which suggested ( I think!) that people from Western Europe are leaving but Eastern European's are still arriving.

Herzlos

Inward EU migration was a "net positive", in that they bring in more than they cost us. On an individual level not all are a positive. What will happen though is the ratio of positive:negative will decrease, and we might find that they stop being a net positive at all. Of course, those still here will have been grandfathered in so we can't just deport them.

There's also the issue with brain drain from UK citizens, due to a worsening economy. Why do a job (like nursing) here when you're treated like crap, when you could do the same job in Germany for more money and better conditions?

mrginge

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But what you can do is allocate funding to help local authority areas that are up-and-coming cope much better with infrastructure investment for rapid change.

Let the economy grow - let the jobs be created where the market determines - and let the market attract people to fill those jobs.

Then upgrade infrastructure as required.

What you're suggesting is as usual a theoretical panacea.
It's what we *try* to do now.
The reality is that supporting infrastructure does not get built or upgraded alongside main planned developments.
So we tell councils they have to build x thousand houses, they find a spot, they tell the locals who ask about impacts on *existing* roads, schools, hospitals and now things like flood defences. The council says well all that will follow on as it's not in our current budget.
You might think that's nimbyism, I think it's local communities understanding that promises about future infrastructure are totally worthless.

The existing local population always loses out and it's absolutely nothing to do with immigration.

But your solution is to pretend that the problem doesn't exist and simply carry on as per.

Perhaps your inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality explains why you can't grasp why a lot of people voted to change things...

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

This makes for pretty depressing reading too: https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilydugan/these-europeans-are-already-leaving-the-uk-because-of-brexit?utm_term=.jqzlldyrwn#.ocQjjlW1Bk

I'm trying to see the good from it, maybe it'll push up wages a bit (and make some businesses unviable whilst costing everyone more), and reduce housing pressure a bit. But it's the brain drain I've been worried about; the Europeans that are the contributors are more likely to leave for a better life whilst those that are the "problematic" drains are more likely to just stay.

Did we really think this through?

What rubbish.

If you believe in FoM as an EU fan, then you must accept that FoM can work both ways.

Ultimately, within a closely integrated Europe, there will be less loyalty to any particular nation state and a greater propensity to move.

That's all it is.

These people have demonstrated that their priority is economic and that they are transient people.

Hey, we did it in the 80s. The whole Auf Wiedersehn Pet thing was about exploiting work opportunities in Germany, and then they came back to UK.

I can find thousands of skilled replacements from all over the world. 'Globalization' dontcha know.

kabayiri

mrginge wrote: »

....
But your solution is to pretend that the problem doesn't exist and simply carry on as per.

Perhaps your inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality explains why you can't grasp why a lot of people voted to change things...

Hamish is pretty steadfast in addressing an issue using national statistics. He reminds me of George Osborne, who adopted the same approach in the EU referendum.

I surmised the opposite, suggesting that it would lead to people voting on local issues as much as anything.

There is absolutely no doubt that a place like London has coped with mass migration better than a place like Boston.

There is absolutely no doubt that a place like London has had tens of billions of investment on infrastructure. This was happening *before* the recent mass migration.

Conrad

kabayiri wrote: »

Hamish is pretty steadfast in addressing an issue using national statistics. He reminds me of George Osborne, who adopted the same approach in the EU referendum.


.

The reason why we cannot rely on official stats regards numbers of immigrants in an area is that most immigrants I've ever dealt with have not been on the electoral roll, which is a must usually when it comes to obtaining property finance.


They call me from all over the UK with new enquiries and 90%+ are not registered


One of the first steps is to get them to register on the electoral roll.


My liberal mate who I have ding-dongs with was always claiming hardly any lived in our local town, because that's what his silly stats said, completely at odds with the day to day reality the rest of us experienced


Clegg was in a Welsh town last week for Newsnight and wheeled out the hopelessly ridiculous official stats, you can set your watch by liberals doing this


Liberal types tend to be out of touch, this reliance on silly stats is another facet of the liberal condition


I don't mean true liberals btw of the type that believe in view point diversity and are fully conscious (not viewing the world through a peculiar 'progressive' filter)

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Herzlos wrote: »

Inward EU migration was a "net positive", in that they bring in more than they cost us. On an individual level not all are a positive. What will happen though is the ratio of positive:negative will decrease, and we might find that they stop being a net positive at all. Of course, those still here will have been grandfathered in so we can't just deport them.

There's also the issue with brain drain from UK citizens, due to a worsening economy. Why do a job (like nursing) here when you're treated like crap, when you could do the same job in Germany for more money and better conditions?

Oh dear, again we must disagree.

Despite media attempts to persuade otherwise I for one am not so gullible as to subscribe to the "migrants are a benefit" chorus.

There are many, many reasons not least of which is the acknowledgement from respected organisations such as Freefact whose figures suggest that migration has come at the cost of employment and training to up to a million British 16 to 24-year-olds.

Between January-March of 2004 and July-September 2011 the ONS recorded an increase of 616,000 in the number of employed workers born in A8 countries. Over this same period the number of jobless 16-24 year olds (of all nationalities) rose from approximately 575,000 to just over a million.

https://fullfact.org/news/does-immigration-cost-british-workers-jobs/

Oh what a benefit THAT is - depriving a whole generation of a better future and improved prospects.

Do not take this to read that I am anti-migrant, because I am not.
I do however believe that migration should be targeted towards areas designated as being "in need" and not a "free-for-all" system.

Besides depriving a generation of improved future prospects there are, as I say earlier, many areas where migration has a negative impact in the UK.

Many of these migrants send large sums home for various reasons, be it to support families or to save towards their own future. This was estimated in 2014 as being up to £16.5 billion EACH YEAR by The Migration Observatory, which obviously deprives the country of significant economic benefit.
That is a large sum to take out any "kitty".
You talk of a "worsening economy" - well if you send that sum out every year it is easy to see WHY you may think it is worsening.

Then there is infrastructure - like housing for example.
Did we build an equivalent number of housing to accommodate these migrants?
If we conservatively take net migration as being 330,000 per annum (ONS figures are 335K per annum to June 2016) and new house building completions for the year 2016 according to gov.co.uk are 140,660 AND SIMILAR DISPARITY OCCURS EVERY YEAR then is it any surprise that:
* A/ the cost of housing continues to increase disproportionally.
* B/ availability of housing decreases leading to housing shortage.

Should I even start upon other infrastructure like education; health; public services .....................


Next your "brain drain".

Well firstly had we not used quite so many migrants then perhaps the wages for these workers would have been higher, encouraging greater loyalty and removing much of the perceived benefits of "better money and conditions".

Secondly your chosen example of nursing is NOT a good one.
This country has not trained enough nurses for at least the past forty years and probably more.
Why?
The answer is simple really; in 2014 it was said to cost £70,000 to train a nurse for three years - but for the same sum we instead hire three already-qualified foreign nurses on an average salary of £23,000.
Small wonder then that 80,000 potential nursing students were turned away that year, when over 6000 nurses were imported.
FYI approximately 20,000 nurses begin training each year in the UK but drop-out rates are high, so that in effect not enough qualify to replace the 12,000 that retire or leave for other reasons.

So in summary if you want to stop your "brain drain" and improve working conditions, pay and improve the economy decrease the numbers of migrants in skill areas where they are not beneficial to the UK.
In fact why not start with the NHS and train more of our own nurses, doctors, physiotherapists & OT's, pharmacists etc. eh?

Arklight

Herzlos wrote: »

This makes for pretty depressing reading too: https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilydugan/these-europeans-are-already-leaving-the-uk-because-of-brexit?utm_term=.jqzlldyrwn#.ocQjjlW1Bk

I'm trying to see the good from it, maybe it'll push up wages a bit (and make some businesses unviable whilst costing everyone more), and reduce housing pressure a bit. But it's the brain drain I've been worried about; the Europeans that are the contributors are more likely to leave for a better life whilst those that are the "problematic" drains are more likely to just stay.

Did we really think this through?

The only positive thing that might come out of this is that after 4 decades of the Right blaming Europe and foreigners for their problems, some of them might start looking at themselves.

Arklight

Conrad wrote: »

The reason why we cannot rely on official stats regards numbers of immigrants in an area is that most immigrants I've ever dealt with have not been on the electoral roll, which is a must usually when it comes to obtaining property finance.


They call me from all over the UK with new enquiries and 90%+ are not registered


One of the first steps is to get them to register on the electoral roll.


My liberal mate who I have ding-dongs with was always claiming hardly any lived in our local town, because that's what his silly stats said, completely at odds with the day to day reality the rest of us experienced


Clegg was in a Welsh town last week for Newsnight and wheeled out the hopelessly ridiculous official stats, you can set your watch by liberals doing this


Liberal types tend to be out of touch, this reliance on silly stats is another facet of the liberal condition


I don't mean true liberals btw of the type that believe in view point diversity and are fully conscious (not viewing the world through a peculiar 'progressive' filter)

If its a choice between making wild unfounded assumptions based on anecdote and hearsay, or using evidence I would rather go with the evidence.

Admittedly this is something rather eschewed by Brexiteers who's figures don't add up and who's evidence isn't based on anything that has happened in reality.

The ONS goes into some detail as to how immigration stats are collated here:

Edit - the link broke the forum but is quite easy to google on the ONS site

Quite ironically for you Conrad, the electoral roll appears to be the only data source they actually don't use.

TrickyTree83

Arklight wrote: »

If its a choice between making wild unfounded assumptions based on anecdote and hearsay, or using evidence I would rather go with the evidence.

Admittedly this is something rather eschewed by Brexiteers who's figures don't add up and who's evidence isn't based on anything that has happened in reality.

The ONS goes into some detail as to how immigration stats are collated here:

Edit - the link broke the forum but is quite easy to google on the ONS site

Quite ironically for you Conrad, the electoral roll appears to be the only data source they actually don't use.

But lets not forget that there appears to be a disparity between the migration figures and the number of NINo's applied for. The NINo's applied for is consistently higher and the ONS has pointed out that the survey data which they use for estimating the migration numbers has had a 'sizeable gap' between that and the number of NINo's issued to EU nationals since 2006.

Also not forgetting that this only applies to those who actually apply for NINo's, those who work cash in hand may not do so yet still take up accommodation and local resources. I appreciate that it would be difficult to get a figure for people who are effectively 'off the grid'.

I'd probably be what you class as a Brexiteer. Though I don't believe I conform to your stereotypical view.