If we vote for Brexit what happens

Tromking

mayonnaise wrote: »

And another one bites the dust.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/09/brexit-backing-labour-mp-defects-to-remain-amid-concerns-about-r/

What took you so long, Khalid?

On the flipside, proper anti-corporate left wing progressives John Mann and Denis Skinner follow their true beliefs and back Leave.

michaels

Tromking wrote: »

RE. The ITV debate, I thought the Remain triumvirate were a bit shouty and incoherent, whereas Leave were calm and reasonable.
Remain seem panicked.

Much earlier on this thread it was mentioned that when presented with a challenging issue remain would play the man not the ball.

And last night on the debate I heard a lot about BoJo's career aspirations but less about immigration, democracy or even the economy.

Tromking

michaels wrote: »

Much earlier on this thread it was mentioned that when presented with a challenging issue remain would play the man not the ball.

And last night on the debate I heard a lot about BoJo's career aspirations but less about immigration, democracy or even the economy.

Boris' superpower is that he is unfathomably popular and it irritates his less charismatic peers something rotten.They hate him for it.
Debates of this kind usually only reinforce already held views, but a genuine undecided voter would have been impressed with the Leave trio in my view. Boris despite the personal attacks was classy, and Gisela and Andrea Leadsom were hugely impressive with their less aggressive and fact driven delivery.
A Leave win.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Except of course that what you are suggesting is by definition overcomplicating this issue.

Fact 1 - EU migrants, in the numbers we've had and in the mix of occupations we've had, have been net financial contributors to the UK.

the immigrants are a net cost to the UK both in straight financial terms and in the impact on the NHS, housing overcrowding, schools and transport etc.
Even in straight accounting terms, if one added the backlog of spending needed on the NHS, schools, transport etc then one would quickly show a negative.
No-one is saying this is the FAULT of the immigrant but it is an currrently uncosted CONSEQUENCE of the increase in numbers and would need a significnt tax increase to fund.

Add the social impact of increasingly poor housing, NHS delays, traffic bottlenecks etc their impact is to make the prople of the UK (at least in London and the SE ) worse off year on year.

Remember that London how has about 45% foreign born population.
It's probably true that some parts of the UK would benefit, the wastelands of Scotland etc but they somehow choose not to go there.

Fact 2 - EU migrants have a lower unemployment rate than the UK native born so clearly the free market is working well at attracting the right people to fill the job vacancies.

EU migrants are largely young and healthy : amazingly they will get older just like everyone elses does.

Whilst many believe the boom and bust has been abolished in the UK, when the 'bust' does occur many will regret the huge rod we have made for our own back witht he high associate unemployment.

Fact 3 - Non-EU migrants, the ones we can pick and choose via a points based system that is already in place, are not net contributors to the UK finances. And they have a higher unemployment rate than the native born. Because as it happens we're spectacularly bad at picking and choosing.

absolutely agree : we need to restrict ALL immigration to 10,000 per annum and not allow the current corrupt incompetent system to continue.

Fact 4- You want to introduce more cost, paperwork, bureaucracy, etc, into the system - raising costs for employers and therefore costs for consumers - when it is demonstrably the case that the system we have now for EU workers functions better than the system we have in place now for non-EU workers.

with only 10,000 immigrant per annum an admin will be drastically reduce and be irrelevant.

Simple really.... There's no need to overcomplicate these issues.

EU migration ain't broke. So don't try to 'fix' it.

The system is totally broken and massively disadvantage the young people of the UK and needs reducing to virtually nothing as soon as possible

TrickyTree83

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Except of course that what you are suggesting is by definition overcomplicating this issue.

Fact 1 - EU migrants, in the numbers we've had and in the mix of occupations we've had, have been net financial contributors to the UK.

They may well be, you seem to be assuming I've said they are a drain. When I said they cost us money I was specifically referring to within the business I work, if mistakes are made they cost money and the language barrier is often a cause of mis-sorted picks, mis-placed putaways, etc... It's a common complaint I hear from those who managed the warehousing. I guess they're just racist and therefore have a vendetta?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Fact 2 - EU migrants have a lower unemployment rate than the UK native born so clearly the free market is working well at attracting the right people to fill the job vacancies.

There's no reason why it wouldn't continue to do so outside the EU, why do we need to be in a political union to attract people to work here? Especially with the introduction of a minimum wage near £10 per hour and on the continent youth unemployment remains high and new members are always on the horizon. By being in this political union there is no control, so if the immigration numbers ran in to the 1,000,000+ per year - you'd be ok with that?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Fact 3 - Non-EU migrants, the ones we can pick and choose via a points based system that is already in place, are not net contributors to the UK finances. And they have a higher unemployment rate than the native born. Because as it happens we're spectacularly bad at picking and choosing.

Are you suggesting we stop picking and choosing completely?

I believe we should be trying to bring this number down too. Coming out of the ECHR would go some way towards us achieving that.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Fact 4- You want to introduce more cost, paperwork, bureaucracy, etc, into the system - raising costs for employers and therefore costs for consumers - when it is demonstrably the case that the system we have now for EU workers functions better than the system we have in place now for non-EU workers.

There wouldn't be that much additional cost in asking the recruitment agency acting on behalf of the employer to make sure they apply for the work permit, they already usually apply for CRB checks. The UKBA would need additional resource true but you'd think that would be financed by the cost in applying for the work permit.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Simple really.... There's no need to overcomplicate these issues.

EU migration ain't broke. So don't try to 'fix' it.

You appear to believe that because the bottom line in pounds and pennies shows a + not a - that uncontrolled migration into the country should continue. I propose to you that it's not about that, it's about the inability to plan because you don't know how many are coming, when or where they will go. If they have dependents then they need school places, they will need GP's appointments, they will put pressure on local housing stock, there will be increased traffic in areas where we're rapidly building housing to deal with the increase in population and as a consequence increased pollution, and some areas are so inundated that you can walk down the street and feel like a foreigner in your own country. The sense of community disappears and these areas become cultural ghettos. You may not experience it where you are but do please take my word for it, that does happen. Some areas around where I live are notorious for that, it does mean my wife can pop into the area to the Polski Sklep and get some of that brown bread she likes though.

mayonnaise

michaels wrote: »

Much earlier on this thread it was mentioned that when presented with a challenging issue remain would play the man not the ball.

I must admit I fell asleep halfway through.

Watched QT afterwards and was once more shocked at the Beeb's partiality, 3 leavers, 1 remainer and a comedian.
I'll be writing a strongly worded letter to the Director General.

Sapphire

mayonnaise wrote: »

And another one bites the dust.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/09/brexit-backing-labour-mp-defects-to-remain-amid-concerns-about-r/

What took you so long, Khalid?

And Denis Skiner and John Mann, two prominent Labour politicians, have now switched sides to Vote Leave. At least they've come to their senses. :j

P.S. Oops – sorry to repeat the info. someone else has already posted.

Mistermeaner

CLAPTON: we need growth to continue to expend at our current rates and support the increasing longevity of our population; our growth has historically been driven by population growth - we do not breed enough and hence immigration helps us in this regard.

All the issues you mention are not the fault of immigration they are the fault of other policies; e.g. you blame immigration for increasing housing demand and therefore prices: answer build more houses. And so on

TrickyTree83

Mistermeaner wrote: »

CLAPTON: we need growth to continue to expend at our current rates and support the increasing longevity of our population; our growth has historically been driven by population growth - we do not breed enough and hence immigration helps us in this regard.

All the issues you mention are not the fault of immigration they are the fault of other policies; e.g. you blame immigration for increasing housing demand and therefore prices: answer build more houses. And so on

You don't know how many to build though.

There is no quota on the number of people from the EU who can come here so if the Eurozone completely tailspins can you honestly say under the current rules of free movement of people that the current mass immigration we have now would not increase and exacerbate the existing problems we have with planning our infrastructure?

Considering that under Dave's negotiation (if it's ratified) EU migrants can't claim some benefits for a period of time. But if they displace British workers in the jobs market, those British people CAN claim. So the increase in the tax take would be offset by the increase in the welfare budget.

CLAPTON

Mistermeaner wrote: »

CLAPTON: we need growth to continue to expend at our current rates and support the increasing longevity of our population; our growth has historically been driven by population growth - we do not breed enough and hence immigration helps us in this regard.

All the issues you mention are not the fault of immigration they are the fault of other policies; e.g. you blame immigration for increasing housing demand and therefore prices: answer build more houses. And so on

growth for what? to make the people poorer?

anyway if you are talking about growth at least talk about per capita income : china has a higher GDP than we do, but because of their larger population the people are much poorer as per capita GDP is much lower.

we have no 'problem' with the longevity of our population

immigration doesn't help us in any way whatsoever but is a mjor cost and burden on our services.

we could of course build more hosptials, more roads, more schools, more houses, pay for more doctors nurse, teachers, police, dentists etc etc.

obviously you are intelligent to know this would cost a lot of money
how much more tax are you will be pay 5p, 10p in the pound more income tax?

so really your answer really is : pay a lot more tax .