If we vote for Brexit what happens

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

Nowhere can take an infinite number of people, however I think 2% a year is quite high and I am surprised that both australia and canada seem to have been able and willing to sustain it now for decades

To put it into perspective in just 260 years if Canada and Australia immigration continued at 2% a year then they would have a combined population of 10 billion or the whole world.

This actually leads to another important point which has yet to be discussed. net positive immigration is clearly temporary as clearly noted in the example above. So we may see a few decades of net immigration and then it will stop.


So you will get your wish Mr Clapton one way or another net immigration will be stopped. The question is do we want to become a rich populous growing powerful nation growing at 1% a year or do we want to become a pooer weaker nation shrinking at 1% a year?

this has absolutely nothing to do with the question, which is does Aus have a de facto open immigration policy or not at the present time.

Generali

MataNui wrote: »

Shooting yourself in the foot with that statement.
Both countries have highly targeted immigration rules. You have to have needed skill (on a published list), have enough points which are based on things like age, education etc and NOT have any criminal record. They have a higher percentage its true but all of those are people those countries specifically chose to allow to move there.

Also as mentioned is the population density. At current rates the human race would likely be extinct before Australia had the same population density as the UK which is already one of the highest in the EU.

You don't know much about the Aussie immigration process.

On the current list of required skills is gardener and recruitment consultant.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

You don't know much about the Aussie immigration process.

On the current list of required skills is gardener and recruitment consultant.

why do you think so few people apply to go to Aus with so many relatively poor countries in the region

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

why do you think so few people apply to go to Aus with so many relatively poor countries in the region

English language requirements?

also probably similar reason why the people in the welsh valleys or northern hell holes dont all up sticks and move to London.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

this has absolutely nothing to do with the question, which is does Aus have a de facto open immigration policy or not at the present time.

The answer is probably no, they have an immigration policy which is just about attractive enough for a net 400,000 a year to arrive

Personally I would have thought more than 1% a year would have been a deficit figure to sustain and would cause too many Claptons to jump up and down and shake their fists. But it seems 2% sustained is possible and thats in a country that from a casual observer seems fairly anti immigration but thats only going off a few video clips off the TV and net so its probably not all that reliable maybe Generli will comment on how anti or pro immigration the average Australian is

Rinoa

Not many will have noticed the vat increase from 5% to 20% yesterday on energy saving products. George didn't appear eager to bring it to our attention.

John Redwood:

On 4 June last year the European Court of Justice upheld a complaint against UK tax policy brought by the EU Commission. They argued successfully that the UK is not allowed to tax “energy saving materials” at just 5% but has to impose a full 20% VAT on them. A long list of green or energy saving products, including insulation, draught strip, central heating controls, hot water system controls, solar panels, wind and water turbines, ground and air source heat pumps, micro combined heat and power units and biomass boilers are all subject to our reduced rate and were all adjudged illegal.
The government has decided it therefore needs to impose extra VAT on all these goods, bringing in an additional £65 million a year from next year.

Isn't it great having a voice in the EU.

justasmileymom

People can be quite stupid, we need our homogeneous attitude back about our country.

setmefree2

EU referendum: Brexit would be as bad for families as the financial crisis, London School of Economics warns

Family incomes could be hit by up to £6,400 – a decline in UK GDP equivalent to the 2008 financial crisis – if the UK votes for a Brexit, according to research released today.
The effect of reduced trade and productivity would result in UK incomes falling by between 6.3 per cent and 9.5 per cent, or £4,200 to £6,400, the London School of Economics (LSE) said.
The LSE's Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) argued that any savings made from not contributing to the EU budget – the main economic benefit of leaving – would be offset by the loss of trade due reduced integration with UK countries and higher tariffs.

Even in the best possible Brexit scenario - with Britain staying in the EU single market - the income lost due to reduced trade and productivity would reduce average incomes by £850 per household.
If the UK removed its trade barriers with countries in rest of the world after exiting the EU, UK incomes would still fall by one per cent in the best-case scenario, and 2.3 per cent in the worst.
Director of CEP John Van Reenen said: "There is a serious cost for real wages and pensions from leaving the EU.
"Even ignoring any chilling effect on foreign investment and productivity from Brexit, the income losses from lower trade are clear. Regulatory overhauls are unlikely to offset these losses to any great extent."

http://www.cityam.com/237140/eu-referendum-brexit-would-be-as-bad-for-families-as-the-financial-crisis-london-school-of-economics-warns

CLAPTON

setmefree2 wrote: »

http://www.cityam.com/237140/eu-referendum-brexit-would-be-as-bad-for-families-as-the-financial-crisis-london-school-of-economics-warns

good to see an article written by (not english) europeans and funded by the EU.

Any one who says the main benefit of leaving is the reduction of our EU contribution can't be taken seriously.

michaels

setmefree2 wrote: »

http://www.cityam.com/237140/eu-referendum-brexit-would-be-as-bad-for-families-as-the-financial-crisis-london-school-of-economics-warns

I will take 1% of GDP loss in return for UK sovereignty

And don't forget this is in the short term - in the medium term if we stay in we are tying ourself to a trading block who celebrate if they see 1% pa growth.

With our own policy on immigration we can keep current levels but choose to admit Chinese scientists, Indian IT experts and French financiers rather than Romainian car washers which I can't help thinking is likely to be growth enhancing.