If we vote for Brexit what happens

Rinoa

happylucky wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/06/11/david-cameron-a-vote-for-brexit-will-cost-pensioners-dear-if-fun/

DC's just played the state pension card.

Desperate measures from a desperate man.

And quite disgusting making threats against older people which he knows to be 100% false.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

michaels wrote: »

if you didn't already own your house would you be able to aspire to buying one of a similar size?

Yes.

As could most people in the UK within a reasonable distance of where they live today, even if perhaps not exactly the same street.

And immigrants are not to blame for house prices, that is entirely down to UK politicians, and the UK's absurd laws on planning and regulations which drive mortgage rationing.

Would you be certain your kids could get into your local school?

There are fewer children in the UK today than there were in the 1970's so it's absurd to suggest we cannot manage to provide the number of school places we need.

It has also been clear for decades that the decline in births would be demographically unsustainable and that at some point a return towards historical norms would be inevitable.

If UK politicians have failed to plan for that, and have spent the net subsidy from EU migrants on other things, then again that's a UK failure and cannot be blamed on the EU.

if you needed to commute into London would you expect to get a seat or even a space on the train of your choice?

Other countries seem to manage just fine.

What is it about the UK that makes us almost uniquely incapable amongst growing developed nations of providing the right infrastructure for population growth of just over half a percent per year?

hint: It starts with N and ends with Y

Filo25

There are plenty of positives for Remain, its just a case that people already see them all the time and take them or granted, so invariably it becomes a "Negative" campaign, where you end up pointing out the benefits which could be lost if you leave.

Filo25

Rinoa wrote: »

Desperate measures from a desperate man.

And quite disgusting making threats against older people which he knows to be 100% false.

If public finances deteriorate significantly the Triple lock on pensions should clearly be reviewed, some would say it should have already been reviewed given the difficulty the government is already having in finding sufficient spending cuts elsewhere to plug the deficit.

Rinoa

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

EU immigrants are net contributors, they subsidise the native born,

There are no ONS or govt figures to substantiate this claim. Various bodies have made assumptions which may or may not be accurate.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/key-topics/economics


House of Lords Economic Committee 2008:

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.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Rinoa wrote: »

There are no ONS or govt figures to substantiate this claim.

Wrong.

Research was commissioned by the UK Government's Low Pay Commission into the wage impact of EU migration from 1997 to 2005.

They found that wage growth at the lowest end of the wage distribution was reduced by less than 0.7p per hour, while wages at the median grew by an extra 1.5p per hour, and at the 90th decile by an extra 2.3p per hour.

There is also a load of data in this UK Government DWP report, addressing both the positive and negative effects of immigration.

Here are some of the key findings:

both theoretical and empirical analysis suggests that migration has had no impact on the employment prospects of UK natives.

and

Over the period considered, the real hourly wage grew by an average of 18 pence per year at the first decile. Without immigration, this figure would have been 0.7 pence higher. Further up the wage distribution, immigration added about 1.5 pence per year to real hourly wage growth at the median, and 2.3 pence at the ninth decile

and

In the long run, it is likely that the net fiscal contribution of an immigrant will be greater than that of a non-immigrant.

migration to the UK is still likely to mean a net fiscal transfer to the native population

On balance, the evidence is quite clear that EU immigration is a net benefit to the UK, and actually results in an increase in average wages and labour market outcomes for the majority of native born Brits.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Wrong.

Research was commissioned by the UK Government's Low Pay Commission into the wage impact of EU migration from 1997 to 2005.

They found that wage growth at the lowest end of the wage distribution was reduced by less than 0.7p per hour, while wages at the median grew by an extra 1.5p per hour, and at the 90th decile by an extra 2.3p per hour.

There is also a load of data in this UK Government DWP report, addressing both the positive and negative effects of immigration.

However on balance, the evidence is quite clear that immigration has been a net benefit to the UK.

what is quite clear is the the extra infrastructure costs (schools, road, housing NHS etc) have NOT been included in these figures

a honest 'remain' campaign would be upfront about the need to spend a lot more taxpayers money and admit we need an extra 5 p in the pound to pay for necessary infrastructure.

Rinoa

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

There is also a load of data in this UK Government DWP report, addressing both the positive and negative effects of immigration.

Thanks

From the DWP report:

To our knowledge, there are no published estimates of the long-run fiscal contribution of an immigrant to the UK. Any such estimate would of course be subject to a large degree of uncertainty as the tax and benefit system and earnings and employment profiles are difficult to predict accurately in the long run.

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...
What is it about the UK that makes us almost uniquely incapable amongst growing developed nations of providing the right infrastructure for population growth of just over half a percent per year?
...

Who cares on the reason? The brutal truth is we are not spending enough money on infrastructure to minimise the impact of hundreds of thousands of new arrivals. It's been migration on the cheap and the stress points are now showing.

It wouldn't be so bad if you spread these new arrivals out more evenly, but then it isn't freedom of movement is it?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Rinoa wrote: »

Thanks

From the DWP report:

Subsequent research however has been undertaken and has confirmed it.

European migrants made a net contribution of £20bn to UK public finances between 2000 and 2011. Those from the 15 countries which made up the EU before 2004, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain, contributed 64% – £15bn more in taxes than they received in welfare – while east European migrants contributed 12%, equivalent to £5bn more.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/05/eu-migrants-uk-gains-20bn-ucl-study