Europe: In or Out

[Deleted member 22389]

I genuinely don't understand how you can say this. In 2014, the last year for which I can find figures, net immigration from outside the EU was greater than that from the EU. The UK government could cut immigration by two thirds if it chose to do so yet it does not choose to do so. How can you say that giving them more power to reduce immigration will fix the issue when they have shown that when they have the power they do not use it?



Supposition. Maybe, maybe not, but I'm trying to focus on the realities of what has happened rather than guess what might happen in the future.



The first part is what I'm trying to understand. Cameron had the power over 197,000/320,000 of immigration in 2014 and did nothing (and it was 143,000/209,000 in 2013 so it's not like he wasn't aware where the majority were coming from). Again, how can you say that giving them more power to reduce immigration will fix the issue when they have shown that when they have the power they do not use it?

I was just responding to the other poster and my post is probably a little confusing. I'm in agreement with you on the 197,000 from outside the EU, is appalling. Cameron is sodding useless at sorting anything out.

I'm all for a points based system here regardless of whether people are coming from outside or inside the EU.

 

[5ways]

If it is a bit more costly do you think we could take the money out of the 350m a week will be saving after leaving.

Planning to spend that ££ on benefits for those hit by the post-Brexit recession. Not to mention the much higher cost of doing business with our biggest trade partner. Oh, and the lawyer fees.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Planning to spend that ££ on benefits for those hit by the post-Brexit recession. Not to mention the much higher cost of doing business with our biggest trade partner. Oh, and the lawyer fees.

Not trying to catch you out here or trying to be a smart arse either, just interested if you think migration needs to be reduced? If you do what is solution in your mind.

 

[5ways]

And there's the point.

You didn't experience the debate between the pro euro lot and those who wanted to keep the pound.

People like Clegg, Blair and Brown (yes he did) argued for joining the euro for exactly the same reasons for staying in the EU.

These people have been proved wrong, the euro has created more problems than it solved, and what is worse the solution to these problems has yet to begin. This will involve those countries ceding fiscal sovereignty to the ECB. The political implications of this have yet to take place........we have had a snapshot in Greece and Cyprus though and both were devastating in their own way for the citizens of those states.

The Germans will have to agree to fiscal transfers to poorer EU states, this is not allowed under the constitution of the Bundesbank, and whilst I have no doubt the EU politicians can boil sugar it's not guaranteed that the German people will wear it, and yet they are the country that has benefitted most.

I said previously, the reason the older cohorts are more anti EU is that essentially they have experienced the lies and deceit for years. Being told by pro EU politicians that there will be no 2 speed Europe for example, and yet that is now the solution to a problem the same politicians have caused.

You can't guarantee stability or wealth by staying in no more than I can guarantee it by coming out, however the people of this country have a far greater chance of applying their political will within a sovereign UK than the undemocratic behemoth that is the EU.

With respect to your impassioned (and articulate) views you have to understand that youthful energy is usually not a substitute for mature experience.

The EU seems to stumble from one catastrophe to the next but if you zoom out and look at it from a macro level all the fundamental reasons for staying in for economic and security purposes are sound. For Blair (might be wrong) joining the EU was a political statement about a new post-Thatcher UK. The debate today is (i think) much more sober and deals with the fundamental security and economic benefits (though there is a strong political argument too). For me these benefits add up to a compelling argument. I think it is more reckless, youthful, to abandon the familiarity of the EU for the Brexit high-seas.

Maybe we will need a two speed Europe, I think eventually Greece will be kicked out. Compromises will have to be made and the EU will never be perfect given how ambitious and historically unprecedented it is.

I'm not saying no reform, I not advocating the status-quo but stability and incremental positive change.

 

[5ways]

Not trying to catch you out here or trying to be a smart arse either, just interested if you think migration needs to be reduced? If you do what is solution in your mind.

It is a serious concern and I won't pretend that it's not a massive issue. London today is effectively multi-national city-state which appears to me culturally detached from the rest of the UK. Personally I love that about London, I love hearing French on the banks of the Thames, but there are big downsides. You cannot afford to live there comfortably unless you are on excellent money. The big problems are outside London though. My mum lives in a Somerset village which is tiny but has a Polish grocer, and they have been mandated to build X many thousand houses. The locals are dead against it, there are not resources to fund proper infrastructure to support it yet it has to happen anyway. Similarly I don't particularly want a massive influx of new houses where I live because it would damage the character of the town. Yet this pushes house prices up to astronomical levels. I have no belief I will be able to buy a house in London or Brighton until I'm over 50. When I was talking to a builder he was complaining about Eastern Europeans coming and undercutting him. I could hardly lecture him about the wider economic benefits of EU migration, he'd rightly tell me to do one. At the same time I've met two young guys from Lithuania who work incredibly hard and have sent their savings home to build houses there - this is what the EU is designed to do. Young white British men particularly though without qualifications or hard-skills suffer in this labour market. Overall it is a very mixed picture and if your one metric on the referendum is reducing migration then voting out could make sense.

In response I would say A) migration is not going to fall in or out of the EU, the UK attracts the best talent and is a good destination for entrepreneurs and highly skilled professionals. B) migration is a two-way street, we import young labour and export pensioners. C) free-movement of labour is sacrosanct but Cameron has managed to achieve compromise on in-work benefits which is a big win D) for all its potential social consequences migration is a boon to the economy, migrants pay more in to the system then they take from it.

I personally would aim to reduce non-EU, non-skilled, migration because that is what you can control. I would also move non-essential civil service bureaucracy, such as the Parliament, to Manchester to help re-balance geographically the UK economy. The UK is one of the most centralised countries in the world and we need to take pressure off the South East.

 

[cunning fergus]

The EU seems to stumble from one catastrophe to the next but if you zoom out and look at it from a macro level all the fundamental reasons for staying in for economic and security purposes are sound. For Blair (might be wrong) joining the EU was a political statement about a new post-Thatcher UK. The debate today is (i think) much more sober and deals with the fundamental security and economic benefits (though there is a strong political argument too). For me these benefits add up to a compelling argument. I think it is more reckless, youthful, to abandon the familiarity of the EU for the Brexit high-seas.

Maybe we will need a two speed Europe, I think eventually Greece will be kicked out. Compromises will have to be made and the EU will never be perfect given how ambitious and historically unprecedented it is.

I'm not saying no reform, I not advocating the status-quo but stability and incremental positive change.

But I am zooming out and giving you macro economic and security problems which are reasons why we are better out.

The potential accession of Turkey and Ukraine are 2 examples, how does extending the borders of the EU to Syria, Iran and Russia create security? That is not to ignore how the EU waltzed into Ukraine and fomented a revolution in the first place.

As for the macro economic basket case that is the euro, the problems caused by its introduction still exist. The solutions are not guaranteed and all the while the only way poorer EZ states can regain any degree of competitiveness is internal devaluation as per Greece, Spain et al. This is not going well given the outcomes of recent elections.

So, unless you can see positives amongst this shit show, all you are able to offer is more jam tomorrow. As an older fella who is familiar with both the post and pre EU environment I can tell you there is no jam; not for the British working class anyway.

Capitalists and their Tory lackeys on the other hand, they love the EU.

 

[Soulman]

It is a serious concern and I won't pretend that it's not a massive issue. London today is effectively multi-national city-state which appears to me culturally detached from the rest of the UK. Personally I love that about London, I love hearing French on the banks of the Thames, but there are big downsides. You cannot afford to live there comfortably unless you are on excellent money. The big problems are outside London though. My mum lives in a Somerset village which is tiny but has a Polish grocer, and they have been mandated to build X many thousand houses. The locals are dead against it, there are not resources to fund proper infrastructure to support it yet it has to happen anyway. Similarly I don't particularly want a massive influx of new houses where I live because it would damage the character of the town. Yet this pushes house prices up to astronomical levels. I have no belief I will be able to buy a house in London or Brighton until I'm over 50. When I was talking to a builder he was complaining about Eastern Europeans coming and undercutting him. I could hardly lecture him about the wider economic benefits of EU migration, he'd rightly tell me to do one. At the same time I've met two young guys from Lithuania who work incredibly hard and have sent their savings home to build houses there - this is what the EU is designed to do. Young white British men particularly though without qualifications or hard-skills suffer in this labour market. Overall it is a very mixed picture and if your one metric on the referendum is reducing migration then voting out could make sense.

In response I would say A) migration is not going to fall in or out of the EU, the UK attracts the best talent and is a good destination for entrepreneurs and highly skilled professionals. B) migration is a two-way street, we import young labour and export pensioners. C) free-movement of labour is sacrosanct but Cameron has managed to achieve compromise on in-work benefits which is a big win D) for all its potential social consequences migration is a boon to the economy, migrants pay more in to the system then they take from it.

I personally would aim to reduce non-EU, non-skilled, migration because that is what you can control. I would also move non-essential civil service bureaucracy, such as the Parliament, to Manchester to help re-balance geographically the UK economy. The UK is one of the most centralised countries in the world and we need to take pressure off the South East.

Well you just vote in. I shall just vote out for the good of England. ..In the long run.

 

[cunning fergus]

It is a serious concern and I won't pretend that it's not a massive issue. London today is effectively multi-national city-state which appears to me culturally detached from the rest of the UK. Personally I love that about London, I love hearing French on the banks of the Thames, but there are big downsides. You cannot afford to live there comfortably unless you are on excellent money. The big problems are outside London though. My mum lives in a Somerset village which is tiny but has a Polish grocer, and they have been mandated to build X many thousand houses. The locals are dead against it, there are not resources to fund proper infrastructure to support it yet it has to happen anyway. Similarly I don't particularly want a massive influx of new houses where I live because it would damage the character of the town. Yet this pushes house prices up to astronomical levels. I have no belief I will be able to buy a house in London or Brighton until I'm over 50. When I was talking to a builder he was complaining about Eastern Europeans coming and undercutting him. I could hardly lecture him about the wider economic benefits of EU migration, he'd rightly tell me to do one. At the same time I've met two young guys from Lithuania who work incredibly hard and have sent their savings home to build houses there - this is what the EU is designed to do. Young white British men particularly though without qualifications or hard-skills suffer in this labour market. Overall it is a very mixed picture and if your one metric on the referendum is reducing migration then voting out could make sense.

In response I would say A) migration is not going to fall in or out of the EU, the UK attracts the best talent and is a good destination for entrepreneurs and highly skilled professionals. B) migration is a two-way street, we import young labour and export pensioners. C) free-movement of labour is sacrosanct but Cameron has managed to achieve compromise on in-work benefits which is a big win D) for all its potential social consequences migration is a boon to the economy, migrants pay more in to the system then they take from it.

I personally would aim to reduce non-EU, non-skilled, migration because that is what you can control. I would also move non-essential civil service bureaucracy, such as the Parliament, to Manchester to help re-balance geographically the UK economy. The UK is one of the most centralised countries in the world and we need to take pressure off the South East.

You make some sense here, however the reality is with your concerns about the British unskilled working class is that the EU has been a disaster. Wages have stagnated and for them are in decline. Newsnight recently had an item about London and had a a Romanian living in abject poverty who said he had worked a day for a chicken and chips dinner. What chance have local labourers got against this kind of work ethic.

It was not always this way, but the EU demands a free labour market, so the consequences of that policy is people coming from poor countries prepared to work for poverty level wages.

If you want to change it the UK has to regain control of its labour market............that means there is only one choice in the referendum.

The irony is that as a youngster you are reaping the unintended consequences of this policy, and yet you want more of the same.

Maybe you should move to Romania or Bulgaria........given the hollowing out of their economies there must be opportunity for an energetic go getting EU enthusiast like you?

 

[brighton fella]

It is a serious concern and I won't pretend that it's not a massive issue. London today is effectively multi-national city-state which appears to me culturally detached from the rest of the UK. Personally I love that about London, I love hearing French on the banks of the Thames, but there are big downsides. You cannot afford to live there comfortably unless you are on excellent money. The big problems are outside London though. My mum lives in a Somerset village which is tiny but has a Polish grocer, and they have been mandated to build X many thousand houses. The locals are dead against it, there are not resources to fund proper infrastructure to support it yet it has to happen anyway. Similarly I don't particularly want a massive influx of new houses where I live because it would damage the character of the town. Yet this pushes house prices up to astronomical levels. I have no belief I will be able to buy a house in London or Brighton until I'm over 50. When I was talking to a builder he was complaining about Eastern Europeans coming and undercutting him. I could hardly lecture him about the wider economic benefits of EU migration, he'd rightly tell me to do one. At the same time I've met two young guys from Lithuania who work incredibly hard and have sent their savings home to build houses there - this is what the EU is designed to do. Young white British men particularly though without qualifications or hard-skills suffer in this labour market. Overall it is a very mixed picture and if your one metric on the referendum is reducing migration then voting out could make sense.

In response I would say A) migration is not going to fall in or out of the EU, the UK attracts the best talent and is a good destination for entrepreneurs and highly skilled professionals. B) migration is a two-way street, we import young labour and export pensioners. C) free-movement of labour is sacrosanct but Cameron has managed to achieve compromise on in-work benefits which is a big win D) for all its potential social consequences migration is a boon to the economy, migrants pay more in to the system then they take from it.

I personally would aim to reduce non-EU, non-skilled, migration because that is what you can control. I would also move non-essential civil service bureaucracy, such as the Parliament, to Manchester to help re-balance geographically the UK economy. The UK is one of the most centralised countries in the world and we need to take pressure off the South East.

with turkey set to join would you also let them in ?
i think the points based system should apply to everyone, europeans or not they would not get any special privileges from me,
i seriously worry for our health service schools etc etc and what it will be like if we remain in, at the moment the health service is at breaking point..any more immigrants and we wont have one at all.
i do not buy the reason for it's decline is because people are living longer and that immigrants are not part of the problem... absolute tosh, they only say this in fear of being labelled a racist in a day an age when political correctness has gone barking mad. why cant people wake the f*ck up..
vote remain in and the problem will only get worse, mate this is not scaremongering this is a fact., i fear far more for my kids and grandchildren's future.

 

[The Rivet]

I never believed this thread would be so supported. There has been a great deal of debate on here, which was the initial intention. Whatever side you support, argument and counter argument works wonders. A very decent debate overall, well done every contributor and indeed viewer. Should I hold a brand new poll soon?

 

[Chief Wiggum]

 

[Deleted member 22389]

It is a serious concern and I won't pretend that it's not a massive issue. London today is effectively multi-national city-state which appears to me culturally detached from the rest of the UK. Personally I love that about London, I love hearing French on the banks of the Thames, but there are big downsides. You cannot afford to live there comfortably unless you are on excellent money. The big problems are outside London though. My mum lives in a Somerset village which is tiny but has a Polish grocer, and they have been mandated to build X many thousand houses. The locals are dead against it, there are not resources to fund proper infrastructure to support it yet it has to happen anyway. Similarly I don't particularly want a massive influx of new houses where I live because it would damage the character of the town. Yet this pushes house prices up to astronomical levels. I have no belief I will be able to buy a house in London or Brighton until I'm over 50. When I was talking to a builder he was complaining about Eastern Europeans coming and undercutting him. I could hardly lecture him about the wider economic benefits of EU migration, he'd rightly tell me to do one. At the same time I've met two young guys from Lithuania who work incredibly hard and have sent their savings home to build houses there - this is what the EU is designed to do. Young white British men particularly though without qualifications or hard-skills suffer in this labour market. Overall it is a very mixed picture and if your one metric on the referendum is reducing migration then voting out could make sense.

In response I would say A) migration is not going to fall in or out of the EU, the UK attracts the best talent and is a good destination for entrepreneurs and highly skilled professionals. B) migration is a two-way street, we import young labour and export pensioners. C) free-movement of labour is sacrosanct but Cameron has managed to achieve compromise on in-work benefits which is a big win D) for all its potential social consequences migration is a boon to the economy, migrants pay more in to the system then they take from it.

I personally would aim to reduce non-EU, non-skilled, migration because that is what you can control. I would also move non-essential civil service bureaucracy, such as the Parliament, to Manchester to help re-balance geographically the UK economy. The UK is one of the most centralised countries in the world and we need to take pressure off the South East.

Thanks for putting your point across. Like I say I wasn't trying to be a smart arse, good to hear other opinions.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

From what I can tell, the biggest issue is immigration regardless of if we stay or leave. I continue to hear this "we need control over our borders" argument, yet the majority of immigrants are from outside of the EU where we do have this control (asylum seekers excepted, who were ~20,000). I don't understand why Cameron has had the power since the day he walked in to government to reduce immigration to at least half its current level but has not done so.

One of the numbers that takes in to account the fact that the EU gives money back to the UK government and individuals would be nice. Those seem to be in the £23-28m range. And given that the cost of the EU is one of the common arguments that is used against it then yes I do think that the exact amount, or at least a realistic estimate, is particularly important. If I give you £20 and you give me £10 back it hasn't cost me £20.

But much of it isn't from the EU. The 2014 numbers show that the majority of immigration was from outside of the EU.

I'm not happy for ongoing migration to continue at this level, no. But the government either has the will to control it or it doesn't. We can't say what they would do if they had control over EU immigration, but we can look at their record of immigration from outside of the EU, where they do have control. And for a government that promised to reduce immigration to below 100,000 it's been abysmal.

Agree with you and the governments record is abysmal but I would think the prospect of electoral oblivion would concentrate their minds in a post out of EU world. The main reasons we are having this referendum were to shore up the Tory vote as it bled away to UKIP and keep their backbenchers onside . Any post (out) referendum government that failed to significantly reduce immigration to the tens of thousands while having theoretical complete control of our borders would face the wrath of the voters. You may think this is unlikely but it puts the power in the hands of the people to directly hold the government to account. Where as continuing with EU membership effectively waves the white flag on immigration and removes any direct democratic accountability.

 

[jgmcdee]

Agree with you and the governments record is abysmal but I would think the prospect of electoral oblivion would concentrate their minds in a post out of EU world. The main reasons we are having this referendum were to shore up the Tory vote as it bled away to UKIP and keep their backbenchers onside . Any post (out) referendum government that failed to significantly reduce immigration to the tens of thousands while having theoretical complete control of our borders would face the wrath of the voters. You may think this is unlikely but it puts the power in the hands of the people to directly hold the government to account. Where as continuing with EU membership effectively waves the white flag on immigration and removes any direct democratic accountability.

I don't buy this argument. Why do we have to wait for a post-referendum government to tackle immigration when they have the power to reduce immigration by 60% right now? Why can't we hold the government to account right now on their immigration numbers from outside of the EU? Why are we blaming the EU for immigration not being in the tens of thousands when 197,000 non-EU citizens immigrated to the UK in 2014?

If the government could stand up and say "we've tackled immigration where we are able to, now we need the people of the UK to give us the ability to tackle it where we don't currently have the power to do so" I can see the argument. But "we've done nothing with the powers you have granted us to date but give us even more power and then we'll do something" just doesn't cut it.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

I'm a handwringing liberal but think I've changed from in to out.

A single Europe should be a force for good but it fails at that on so many levels at the moment.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I don't buy this argument. Why do we have to wait for a post-referendum government to tackle immigration when they have the power to reduce immigration by 60% right now? Why can't we hold the government to account right now on their immigration numbers from outside of the EU? Why are we blaming the EU for immigration not being in the tens of thousands when 197,000 non-EU citizens immigrated to the UK in 2014?

If the government could stand up and say "we've tackled immigration where we are able to, now we need the people of the UK to give us the ability to tackle it where we don't currently have the power to do so" I can see the argument. But "we've done nothing with the powers you have granted us to date but give us even more power and then we'll do something" just doesn't cut it.

The government have not been serious about tackling this issue just playing lip service to it for Tory party management reasons and to see off UKIP. They also get a free ride because Labour/Lib Dems have even weaker positions on immigration.

In a way the public have held the Government to account via the rise of UKIP forcing them to superficially harden their position on immigration and far more importantly giving us a referendum.

If the public votes out with immigration a major reason then the government will have to finally take some real action or risk the consequences. (probable continuation of UKIP as a force in UK politics and internal Tory party dissent/discontent)

By the way If you are right I truly fear for what comes next as continuing ignoring the public's views is unlikely to end well - social unrest/ rise in support for more extreme groups.

 

[cunning fergus]

I'm a handwringing liberal but think I've changed from in to out.

A single Europe should be a force for good but it fails at that on so many levels at the moment.

I would replace the term "single" with collaborative.

I doubt anyone whether of an in or out persuasion wouldn't want counties in Europe acting in concert where possible.

There is a possibility that an out vote could force EU and other national politicians to confront the reality that a single Europe is not possible, and rather than create problems for an exited UK they could accept a looser arrangement that is grounded on trade.

Quite how the EZ is resolved is another matter however, such a change could create the opportunity to allow those countries that shouldn't be in to exit with dignity.

Imagine that.......

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Jeremy Corbyn set to condemn Cameron’s EU benefit brake

Labour leader will argue that discriminating against workers from eastern Europe is unfair

Jeremy Corbyn is expected to attack David Cameron’s negotiations of an “emergency brake” on benefits for new migrants as potentially discriminatory, and make a positive case for European migration ahead of the crunch summit on Britain’s EU membership this week.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/13/jeremy-corbyn-condemns-tory-limits-eu-migration

Good old Jeremy .. finger on the pulse of public opinion as usual.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Jeremy Corbyn set to condemn Cameron’s EU benefit brake

Labour leader will argue that discriminating against workers from eastern Europe is unfair

Jeremy Corbyn is expected to attack David Cameron’s negotiations of an “emergency brake” on benefits for new migrants as potentially discriminatory, and make a positive case for European migration ahead of the crunch summit on Britain’s EU membership this week.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/13/jeremy-corbyn-condemns-tory-limits-eu-migration

Good old Jeremy .. finger on the pulse of public opinion as usual.

The bloke is an absolute fool.

 

[crookie]

The bloke is an absolute fool.

Agree, it is the traditional Labour supporting working class who have borne the brunt of the consequences of mass-immigration and the Liberal elite obsession with foisting multiculturalism on the indigenous population