The thread for pointless arguments about Brexit

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

...
Incidentally, the increase in tax from the migrants *should* be able to cover the cost of expanding the infrastructure to suit.
...

This is definitely not a given.

If you want to increase tax take you promote an environment which attracts higher grade jobs and in turn people with the matching skills will gravitate towards those places.

I look at the twentyfold increase in coffee shops in this country in the last 18 years, and question whether a coffee shop worker in the heart of one of the most expensive cities in the world (London) is actually a net beneficiary to the economy.

Remember, the nation spends 24 times the amount on infrastructure in London compared to the North East.

It's hard to see how many of the low income jobs are really net contributors.

I'm personally a fan of promoting skills based migration policy over a blanket approach. For one thing, it encourages other countries to develop people to have the skills needed to exploit opportunities elsewhere.

HiToAll

We get to 'take back control' of something or other, from someone foreign that we dont like very much.

According to the man in Barnsley who speaks for the his leave voting people (and obviously the rest of the UK), a positive is that we get to stop Muslims coming in.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/eu-referendum-muslims_uk_576e558ce4b08d2c563937ff

TrickyTree83

When in doubt, quote the extreme. Don't - whatever you do - address the points anyone makes.

HiToAll

Also we get to get rid of immigrants who have set up camp in Sherwood Forest since the vote, according to Britain First leave voters.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

You always fall back to the same old tired stuff when your stupid posts are revealed as stupid.

I've answered you already about unrestricted migration, feel free to go dig out my previous answer instead of trying to "win" by misdirection.

interesting that answering a simply question is so difficult

Herzlos

BJV wrote: »

1. We will be in control of our own country's trade agreements.

Not for the EU we won't. We'll take what we're given. Outside of the EU we already are.

2. We will keep our own budgets.
3. We will keep our own treasury.
4. We will be able to have a governing power that we elect or change at our discretion.

We already do.

5. We will see an end to UKIP

Not if the split doesn't go their way we won't.

6. We will be able see a start of real, long term integration of communities.

No we won't. If anything, it'll get worse (see the fall-out from the last week).

7. We will be able to say goodbye to Mr Tactful - Forage

No we won't. He'll still be floating around gloating and trying to sever us away further.

8. We will be able to use new export deals to our benefit and export more, not just to Europe but the rest of the world.

Like we already do?

9. We will be able to keep the Pound

We'd never have given up the pound anyway.

10.We will be able to take the parts of the current rules and regulations that help people and at the same time cut stupid red tape. Oh Yes looking forward to seeing a Marathon ( always hated the word Snickers??? Sounds like an old shoe) bar back!!! ha ha

Apart from the ones we agree to in order to get the trade agreement.

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

The case goes that

- large scale immigration keeps wages down
- large scale immigration reduces incentives for employers to innovate or improve productivity which will hold wages down

Unfortunately, the lack of EU regulations will allow companies to do that anyway.

- there are major costs associated with the necessary infrastructure required ; roads, public transport, school, houses, hospitals
- the infrastructure will cost a lot of money which will require higher taxes

Well, yes, more people == more infrastructure, but also more money to pay for it.

- more people means more imports of essential products -food, fuel etc which is making our trade deficit very large.

Which should also mean better deals on bulk.

-we fund the trade deficit by selling off our industry and borrowing more and more money on the foreign markets
-seeling off our industry means we lose the future dividend flows : good for the people today and bad news for the future
- the housing available for young people in the SE/London is decreasing as the population rises and the accommodation doesn't
-roads, public transport etc is increasingly over crowded.
-access to health care is increasingly difficult.

Because our government is short sighted and incompetent. None of that is a result of migrants.

I have some different questions, which I trust you'll answer directly:

1 - what do you think would happen if all of our foreigners just up and left overnight? Would we all be rolling in money, or would we be plunged into the dark ages?
2 - Assuming immigration is bad, what are you expecting Brexit to actually do about it? They've refused to commit to reducing numbers, and as far as I can see, won't have any ability to do so. Is the plan to make the UK so toxic that foreigners are scared off?

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

This is definitely not a given.

If you want to increase tax take you promote an environment which attracts higher grade jobs and in turn people with the matching skills will gravitate towards those places.

I look at the twentyfold increase in coffee shops in this country in the last 18 years, and question whether a coffee shop worker in the heart of one of the most expensive cities in the world (London) is actually a net beneficiary to the economy.

Remember, the nation spends 24 times the amount on infrastructure in London compared to the North East.

It's hard to see how many of the low income jobs are really net contributors.

I'm personally a fan of promoting skills based migration policy over a blanket approach. For one thing, it encourages other countries to develop people to have the skills needed to exploit opportunities elsewhere.

We should definitely encourage higher earners, but I'm not convinced min. wage service staff are a net loss - unless they are claiming benefits to top up, and not spending any money back into the economy. Obviously, it'd be a whole lot better if the chains paid their taxes.

SingleSue

shaggydoo wrote: »

People seem happier.

Not in my household......my household has been a world of stress, frustration and anger.

And then we add sibling rivalry on top!

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

interesting that answering a simply question is so difficult

I HAVE ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION ALREADY!

It isn't difficult to understand. I'm not your little monkey dancing to your tune whenever you want to re-ask the same thing that I've already answered.