If we vote for Brexit what happens

BobQ

I was quite amused this morning, turned on the radio and it was a phone-in discussing the EU subject. A well spoken woman who was clearly pro-Brexit and probably more right wing than most was explaining the immigration problem. She was joined by a chap with a strong accent who said that he was "a remain" who put a contrary case. The host then asked the woman to respond. She then uttered something along the lines of "I disagree and in any case as a self -declared Romanian we shall send him back there" (I suppose being "a remain and being Romanian are slightly similar). He then explained that he was Black and born in the UK. The host faded them both out.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

if immigrants already paid for what they consumed there would be no shortage of houses

That's a logical fallacy.

Immigrants clearly do pay for the housing they consume as we don't have millions of immigrants living on the streets.

Our housing shortage is entirely self-inflicted thanks to mortgage rationing and planning restrictions, both of which are entirely the fault of UK politicians.

Of course we could fix that simply enough - ease up on planning restrictions and end mortgage rationing - so we can build enough houses to end the shortage.

, NHS failcities, road, transports or anything else..

You can't blame immigrants when the UK government diverts that funding into other things.

As is happening today.

Carl31

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And yet just 4% of England is developed or built on in any way at all and only 1.1% is used for housing.

The UK is not in any way overcrowded.

It's virtually empty.



Well we'd better just get on and build some.

Because more immigration is inevitable.



No need.

EU immigrants already pay for all they consume and then contribute an additional £20 BILLION per decade.

If government then chooses to spend that on subsidising the native born rather than new infrastructure you should take it up with your MP.

Why do you like this idea that everyone should be shoehorned into England? Surely it makes more sense that if we have the space, everyone should be spread out. Surely if the EU was to do anything, it should be focusing on trying to create balance and equilibrium between its members states? not letting the stronger areas carry the weak ones, which in turn creates resentment and situations we are now in here, where people want to vote themselves out of the 'wonder' that is the EU

Whether we do or dont in the end will only be a marginal result, and probably only the start of further problems.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That's a logical fallacy.

Immigrants clearly do pay for the housing they consume as we don't have millions of immigrants living on the streets.

Our housing shortage is entirely self-inflicted thanks to mortgage rationing and planning restrictions, both of which are entirely the fault of UK politicians.

Of course we could fix that simply enough - ease up on planning restrictions and end mortgage rationing - so we can build enough houses to end the shortage.



You can't blame immigrants when the UK government diverts that funding into other things.

As is happening today.

Immigrant do NOT pay for the backlog of new building required as evidenced by its absence.

I agree that our housing problems are self inflicted : As well as restricting immigration, we do need to build more housing but 3 million less immigrants in London would make a significant impact.
And I agree it is the fault of UK politician, as we ought to have left the EU years ago and not allowed the EU elites to damage the lives of the people of the uK


I'm glad you acknowledge the need to have large rises in taxation to fund the necessary infrastructure unless we choose to slash other spending like the NHS, benefits, schools etc.

I never blame immigrants for anything : I recognise cause and inevitable effects and consequences and highlight the essential steps to resolve the problems.

Rinoa

We have found no evidence for the argument, made by the government, business and many others, that net immigration – immigration minus emigration – generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population.

And...

The overall conclusion from existing evidence is that immigration has very small impacts of GDP per capita, whether these impacts are positive or negative. This conclusion is in line with findings of studies of the economic impact of immigration in other countries, including the US.

House of Lords Economic Committee.

BobQ

gfplux wrote: »

You make an important point Carrot.
Why does the NHS provide and pay for interpreters for non English speaking patients.
This is not an EU rule, directive or law.
This is a piece of expensive help thought up by British Politiciens. After Brexit this paricular type of help will NOT change.
Is seems to me many of the problems Britain has, have been self inflicted.
The more I hear and read the "arguments" and "facts" from the leave camp, the more I understand why the UK has so many problems.
The leave campaigners and supporters are blaming the wrong people. If there is a Brexit you may find out who is really at fault.

The practice is unusual in providing face to face translations. Most of these services are provided by telephone. A user can be connected to someone speaking their language in a minute.

The "requirement" is as you say not enshrined explicitly in EU law. However, the UK Human Rights Act and the Public Sector Equality Duty places obligations on service providers to ensure fair access to those from different groups inducing cultures etc. It is fairly common to provide such translation services and it is expensive. The only legal obligation for translation is for those under arrest or being charged with a crime.

BobQ

Rinoa wrote: »

House of Lords Economic Committee.

You do not provide the precise source but I am not clear what you mean. The absence of evidence is meaningless.

Why would you expect GDP per capita to be affected by immigration unless the immigrants were very well paid or unemployed. If immigrants work in a typical range of jobs and earn much the same overall as the population as a whole, surely you would expect that GDP/capita would be roughly the same?

Rinoa

BobQ wrote: »

You do not provide the precise source but I am not clear what you mean. The absence of evidence is meaningless.

Why would you expect GDP per capita to be affected by immigration unless the immigrants were very well paid or unemployed. If immigrants work in a typical range of jobs and earn much the same overall as the population as a whole, surely you would expect that GDP/capita would be roughly the same?

Oh, I think most people will understand it.
-
I had hoped to spare you the source but if you want to wade through parliamentary reports be my guest:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/8211.htm

TrickyTree83

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That's a logical fallacy.

Immigrants clearly do pay for the housing they consume as we don't have millions of immigrants living on the streets.

Our housing shortage is entirely self-inflicted thanks to mortgage rationing and planning restrictions, both of which are entirely the fault of UK politicians.

Of course we could fix that simply enough - ease up on planning restrictions and end mortgage rationing - so we can build enough houses to end the shortage.



You can't blame immigrants when the UK government diverts that funding into other things.

As is happening today.

It occurred to me the other day whilst I was watching Question Time that this comment that minimum wage working EU citizens contribute more to the economy that they remove is false. I'll explain.

If you are on the lowest full time wage possible your gross would probably be £14,040.00 working a 37.5 hour week.

That means there is only £3,040.00 of taxable income, which would be taxed at the basic rate of 20%, giving £608.00 tax revenue per year and NI contributions will be £717.60 per year.

ONS figures place the lowest 20% of earners paying approximately £3,488.00 in indirect taxation (VAT, tobacco, fuel, TV, etc...).

If the individual was claiming housing benefit, child benefit, etc... which if they're available to them (and why the hell not) the approximate total tax take (£4,813.00) clearly does not cover all available government services to the individual throughout the year. Where GP appointments are ~£136.00 per patient, A&E appointment ~£108.00 per visit and outpatients ~£106.00, average housing benefit claim of £4,222.92 per year, child benefit at £1076.40 per year. And it's already bust their tax contribution, so the job they are doing has to greatly enhance the business they are working for to make up the shortfall via corporation tax (that's not mentioning I've left out all possible government services that the tax take should be paying towards).

michaels

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Where GP appointments are ~£136.00 per patient, A&E appointment ~£108.00 per visit

Umm - agree with what you say but gobsmacked by this statistic - if it costs less for a patient to be seen at A&E than the GP then why on earth are we spending so much time trying to get GPs to do things rather than hospitals?