Straw poll: Do you want to retain FOM?

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

If you believe migration is harmful then you must also believe that people moving from Sunderland to London harm the people of London.

Why do you want to harm the people of London?

At least you are conceding that free movement is harmful to the people of the UK

and no, reductio ad absurdum is the argument of a fool

antrobus

Carl31 wrote: »

What is their total GDP to begin with though? Its well known these areas are some of the poorest in the EU. If you only had a pound to your name, finding 10p on the floor, increasing your wealth by 10%, does not make you rich, % is only releative to your start point. And how is that growth achieved? through their own economy? or through EU funding?

Its a bit old, but there is a table here http://https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/22/eu-budget-spending-contributions-european-union

The table shows EU funding as a % of GDP, Bulgaria is listed at 2.95%, and Poland 4%, which is very similar to the numbers you quoted - so if EU funding equates to their growth, what is coming from their economy? not much by the looks of it

But what has that got to do with FOM?

Doshwaster

CLAPTON wrote: »

my question was what companies in redcare currently export to the EU and what percentage of economic activity is EU related
what analysis shows they are better off in the EU ? what massive help do these struggling towns get from the EU?
Certainly we know that the people of those towns are massively handicapped if they wish to move to London due to high rents caused by the population pressure in London

I don't know the answers to all of your questions but the North East as a region does pretty well in terms of manufacturing and exports compared to other parts of the country. A lot of that is due to Nissan but it is a good area to make things for export due to the lower operating costs.

The North East is also a net beneficiary from the EU due to regional development money. We'll have to see whether future governments continue this funding in the long term but many, including the Redcar MP, are worried

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/14600610.North_East_and_North_Yorkshire_set_to_lose___665m_of_EU_funding_after_Brexit/

As to your final point, I don't see why someone moving from the NE to London is "massively handicapped" when they would get paid the same as anyone else doing the same job in London regardless of whether then came from Gateshead, Guildford or Gdansk.

antrobus

coffeehound wrote: »

Skills shortages in Eastern European countries as a result of mass emigration was widely reported in the years following 2004. Just from a google this quote is from a 2015 EU publication:

"Every third employer in Poland reports a skills shortage. Reported skills shortages are highest in
the manufacturing, industrial, mining, construction, and transport sectors."

[Here's your link]

We have skill shortages as well. Which is why a quarter of NHS doctors are non-British. Apparently our skills shortage is "chronic".

We don't even have the excuse of being a former Communist country.:)

https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2016/feb/18/uk-skills-shortage-universities-employers-industry

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

At least you are conceding that free movement is harmful to the people of the UK

and no, reductio ad absurdum is the argument of a fool

But you use it every second post asking me how many billions of people I want to allow in to the UK. At least you are admitting that you are a fool.

And if you believe migration is harmful, why do you wish to harm the people of London by allowing unlimited immigration from the rest of the UK?

kabayiri

Doshwaster wrote: »

...
As to your final point, I don't see why someone moving from the NE to London is "massively handicapped" when they would get paid the same as anyone else doing the same job in London regardless of whether then came from Gateshead, Guildford or Gdansk.

I'm interested in the practicalities of Free Moving rather than the principle approach.

This is where I have difficulty.

If you have social housing in the NE/NW then you can not just give it up ; move to London ; and then demand that you be housed by the local housing borough there. They would accuse you of making you and your family deliberately homeless.

Then there are the oncosts with private rent. As rents in London have risen, so have things like deposits. My nephew could cover the £2.5K deposit because he earns £40K+, but this is an above average job. Someone looking at lower value work would struggle.

It is important we consider this in a practical sense. Is it cheaper to move work to people, or people to work?

We have been quite happy in the West to move millions of jobs out to China and India. We didn't contemplate bringing in tens of millions from China here as an alternative.

So why the inconsistency when it comes to matters European?

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

But you use it every second post asking me how many billions of people I want to allow in to the UK. At least you are admitting that you are a fool.

And if you believe migration is harmful, why do you wish to harm the people of London by allowing unlimited immigration from the rest of the UK?

I've merely asked you to remind us that you want unlimited and uncontrolled immigration from all over the world : I know thats what you want but many others may have missed your posts as you don't seem to headline those ludicrous views.

I have made it 100% clear that I want the best for the people of the UK : that may mean some will gain greater advantage than others. All, however can be winners.

Most people can readily understand that movement of people in a fairly limited region and in limited number has different opportunities and cost/benefits than unrestricted movement of 7,500,000,000.
Its not really a difficult concept to grasp.

CLAPTON

Doshwaster wrote: »

I don't know the answers to all of your questions but the North East as a region does pretty well in terms of manufacturing and exports compared to other parts of the country. A lot of that is due to Nissan but it is a good area to make things for export due to the lower operating costs.

The North East is also a net beneficiary from the EU due to regional development money. We'll have to see whether future governments continue this funding in the long term but many, including the Redcar MP, are worried

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/14600610.North_East_and_North_Yorkshire_set_to_lose___665m_of_EU_funding_after_Brexit/

As to your final point, I don't see why someone moving from the NE to London is "massively handicapped" when they would get paid the same as anyone else doing the same job in London regardless of whether then came from Gateshead, Guildford or Gdansk.

the UK is a net importer of cars so there need be no concern about loss of jobs: indeed, if tarifffs are raised (I hope not) there is plenty of scope for the UK to increase car output to meet domestic demand.

The EU do indeed return a little of the UK,s money, less expenses: it is used for EU objectives and NOT int he best interst of the NE;
the sooner it is replaced byt UK money being spent on UK objectives the better.

My comment about London is largely about rents and house prices. London is already 40% foreign born : if there were less foreigner rent and property prices would be substantially lower and housing standard much better : flat sharing is fun at 20 years old but not quite so good if you want to start at family at 30

Doshwaster

kabayiri wrote: »

I'm interested in the practicalities of Free Moving rather than the principle approach.

This is where I have difficulty.

If you have social housing in the NE/NW then you can not just give it up ; move to London ; and then demand that you be housed by the local housing borough there. They would accuse you of making you and your family deliberately homeless.

Which is fair enough. With social housing in short supply priority must go to those with ties to the area otherwise everyone would head to London and demand a council house.

Of course there are alternatives which hundreds of thousands manage to cope with every year. If you don't want to move to another part of the country (or even abroad) to somewhere with better career opportunities because you don't want to lose your council house then you are just making excuses for yourself.

kabayiri wrote: »

Then there are the oncosts with private rent. As rents in London have risen, so have things like deposits. My nephew could cover the £2.5K deposit because he earns £40K+, but this is an above average job. Someone looking at lower value work would struggle.

Yes, it's a struggle but many things in life are. You may not want to do it but there is no shortage of supply of people in the UK and elswhere in Europe who are prepared to pay over 50% of their income to live in a shoebox.

kabayiri wrote: »

It is important we consider this in a practical sense. Is it cheaper to move work to people, or people to work?

I made that decision when I was 18. I saw no chance of major employers moving to my rural area of the North East so I got on my Tebbit Bike to where the work was.

kabayiri wrote: »

We have been quite happy in the West to move millions of jobs out to China and India. We didn't contemplate bringing in tens of millions from China here as an alternative.

So why the inconsistency when it comes to matters European?

Well, once we are out of the EU FOM rules then that might happen. If people from India and China will be treated the same as Poles and Romanians then we could see a lot more immigration from Asia. I'm sure there are millions of poor people there would would love to work on the farms in Lincolnshire for the UK Living Wage.

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

I've merely asked you to remind us that you want unlimited and uncontrolled immigration from all over the world : I know thats what you want but many others may have missed your posts as you don't seem to headline those ludicrous views.

Why do you lie?

I have told you many times that I don't think I don't think unlimited immigration from across the world is feasible or desirable in the short or even medium term. Maybe not even in the long term. I posted this just a few days ago:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5390860