If we vote for Brexit what happens

TrickyTree83

Moby wrote: »

.....because the Brexiteers say all the experts are all part of a vast establishment conspiracy!:rotfl:

Yep, it was a conspiracy when they said don't join the single market, it was a conspiracy when they said don't pull out of the ERM, it was a conspiracy when they said join the Euro and it was a conspiracy when they kept quiet on the crash of 2008.

Where's my tinfoil hat?

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

Only you 'blame ' immigrants and of course you blame the government

Clapton, I have to agree with Moby, your responses seem to distort the posts you comment upon.

Where in my post did I blame immigrants?

I have answered your questions in my post below amd you have not answered the question I asked you:

Originally Posted by BobQ
An honest leave campaign would admit that as immigrants contribute as much to the economy as anyone else, it behoves the Government of the day to invest the extra revenue they get on improving the infrastructure.

Why should these costs be included in the "these figures"? Anyone living in an area has the right to expect that their taxes are used to provide the infrastructure we need. Nobody builds immigrant roads, immigrant schools, immigrant houses, or immigrant hospitals. Government ensures that the capacity of these things meet the needs of those who live there. The pejorative use of terms like influx ignores the fact that immigration is just one of many reasons why a Government needs to improve infrastructure. In any area of the country, populations grow by birth rates and people choosing to move there (immigrants or not). Populations fall by death rates and people choosing to leave there.

I doubt that immigration is more that a small % of those population changes that impact an area. If a family chose to relocate themselves from Doncaster to Bristol, Bristol does not say "Stop! You cannot come here until we have built some more infrastructure, so you must wait 5 years. And we will not let you come here unless you start paying for Bristol's infrastructure." Yet this is the way some seem to treat immigrants.

This is a simple case of blaming the EU and immigration for poor planning

.

buglawton

No doubt that migrants contribute, maybe even over-contribute, to maintaining UK public services.

BUT
I think that living space for storage, hobbies, guests, is a strong part of the standard of living.

And you cannot really dispute that in the uniquely British way, the UK simply does not create much new living space.

So when the population rises due to immigration, regardless of the tax or economic contribution, living space in sq m per person must be falling. I call that an outright (and probably permanent) fall in the UK standard of living.

Absolutely no sign that Blair's or the current Con govt ever did anything to help that, except for assisting their property developer friends and sponsors provide addresses for their oligarch pals from abroad.

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a-house

BobQ

buglawton wrote: »

No doubt that migrants contribute, maybe even over-contribute, to maintaining UK public services.

BUT
I think that living space for storage, hobbies, guests, is a strong part of the standard of living.

And you cannot really dispute that in the uniquely British way, the UK simply does not create much new living space.

So when the population rises due to immigration, regardless of the tax or economic contribution, living space in sq m per person must be falling. I call that an outright (and probably permanent) fall in the UK standard of living.

Absolutely no sign that Blair's or the current Con govt ever did anything to help that, except for assisting their property developer friends and sponsors provide addresses for their oligarch pals from abroad.

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a-house

What % of the UK land is built on? A clue: (it is a lot less than 10%)

gardner1

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.

oh dear Dodgy Dave's getting desperate

michaels

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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.

You are beginnning to sound like a politician, answering a slightly different question.

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.

Ditto

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.



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

I agree with you on this point but see no possibility of the UK ever taking the necessary decisons so the least bad option is to make sure that we restrict immigration to those who add the most value regardless of their country of origin.

michaels

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Subsequent research however has been undertaken and has confirmed it.

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

Do they contribute more than the same age profile demographic of able bodied native born?

Does their excess contribution also cover the costs of providing increased infrastructure? Would it cover compensating those who are having to pay more for housing, find it harder to find school places or failing to get a train seat for this non-economic disbenefit of having a larger population?

michaels

BobQ wrote: »

I find it weird that the Leave campaign argues that experts cannot be trusted. I can accept that they can be wrong on an individual basis but when the vast majority agree why do we continue to question their conclusions as with economic experts.

If someone goes to a solicitor and is told they are unlikely to win a claim for damages they might doubt that opinion particularly if they have a friend who said the same solicitor made a wrong call 5 years before. But if they get a second and third opinion and those solicitors agree with the first, most people would accept the experts are right.

How many people would say "These three solicitors agree but I will pursue the case? How many would say they are wrong because their MP disagrees?

Experts can be wrong yes but why do non-experts offer a more credible answer than experts?

If Nestle sponsor a scientific study extolling the benefits of eating chocolate then people roll their eyes. And yet if the IFS, almost entirely funded by the UK Govt and the EU say that they can accurately forecast the impact of Brexit then their word is gospel.

TrickyTree83

michaels wrote: »

You are beginnning to sound like a politician, answering a slightly different question.

His predictions of an additional 1.7m unemployed and 500,000 repossessions appears to have gained traction with those who support Remain on here who are now conveniently ignoring the experts whilst at the same time telling us Leave supporters are ignoring them.

In the context of the Treasury forecast (which has been deemed massively pessimistic) he can't tell me :

- where the additional 1.7m unemployed are coming from when the Treasury forecast at worst comes out with ~800k. And when the worst recession in living memory couldn't achieve that in 3 years.

- where the 500k home repossessions are coming from, particularly if job losses wouldn't be as high, which also couldn't be achieved by the worst recession in living memory in the 3 years after it.

- why these 3m jobs linked to EU exports would suffer if as the Treasury says in their "severe-shock" scenario the value of Sterling would fall by 15%, which would more than eliminate the Common Customs Tariff the EU would impose if there were no free trade agreement between the UK and the EU.

kabayiri

If we really wanted cheap migrant labour to underpin the economy we could have hundreds of thousands of cheap Indian workers within a couple of months.

Qatar uses them, and doesn't offer them any sort of residency rights.