EU - In or Out + Poll.

[ickihun]

John Major in Bristol saying the EU will get better.
How can he guarantee that?
He said he was no longer in politics! I bet he was paid this morning for appearing on tv live. That's politics! Rubbish and lies.

 

[ickihun]

Quite a lot of the Brexit campaign has revolved around “controlling immigration” with the implication that this means “reducing immigration”. Cynically, I think that this appeals to our basic instincts where we feel that ‘more for immigrants’ means ‘less for us’. This was probably a reasonable rule of thumb throughout a lot of human history but the modern world is very different. Sometimes the truth is very counterintuitive. It’s very difficult for our intellect to triumph over our instincts but this is one area where our instincts are failing us.

There was a very good article in the New Scientist on 9 April 2016 which discussed a lot of the evidence relating to immigration. I’ve tried to summarise some of the relevant points:-

People worry that increased immigration means competition with the native British for jobs and depression of wages. Modern economies do not work like this.

· As migrants take low-paid unskilled jobs, natives with the advantage of their language skills tend to move into better-paid jobs

· The effect of immigrants on wages is very small – in the worst estimates, a 1% rise in immigrants depresses wages by 0.2% - mainly the wages of the immigrants themselves – but this can be counteracted by having a minimum wage

People worry that immigrants are a drain on the British economy because they qualify for benefits. Research shows this is not the case.

· EU immigrants take less in benefit than natives, mainly because they are younger.

· EU immigrants bring in the benefit of education which has been paid for by their home country

· Many EU immigrants work for a period in the UK, paying taxes, then return to their home country before they need social security

· The UK fiscal watchdog has calculated that doubling immigration would cut UK debt by almost 1/3 whereas stopping immigration would increase the debt by nearly 50%

· The UN’s International Labour Organisation estimates that for every 1% increase in population through immigration, GDP grows by 1.25-1.5%

We need immigrants. Because of the falling birth-rate, we have a top-heavy age distribution in the UK and the number of workers supporting retired people is falling. By 2050 we need 14% of the British population to be immigrants otherwise the numbers of people paying our pensions and supplying our services will be insufficient to maintain our current living standards.

The effects of immigration on the availability of schools, housing and other services tend to be short-term and local. If we have worries about this, we need the Government to invest so that it can be managed. Any short-term effects are outweighed by the long-term benefits so the investment is worthwhile.

I do wonder whether the Brexit leaders do know all of this as they have never explicitly said they will reduce immigration, but have only implied it.

Myself I'm not voting over immigration as that is a different concern.
My concern is signing up for an external government governing our country without enough influence.
Remember changes and law are constantly being made but very very few abolished. Sooooo more and more rules and regulations to stifle development.

 

[slip]

Today I think I'm in the stay camp...........

It appears to me although we are 1 of the big 3, as a nation we have only dipped our toe in the EU water, we have the ability to opt out of some EU rules, don't use the euro, don't have to bail other EU nations out when required and I'm sure theres plenty of others, yet we can freely trade with them, freely move within the EU (and they move freely here too).

But what control do we have over the EU? What does the UK bring to the EU table (other than money!)?

All the general public hear is a one way flow of rules and regulations we have to abide by coming from Brussels - has the UK stopped any EU rules going live instead of just opting out?

 

[Dillinger]

Whatever happens tomorrow thank you all for discussing this in a coherent way.

Remember if it doesn't go the way you want at least you are not in Glastonbury which is already a watery hell-hole before it has even begun. Unless you are in which case; bad luck - it's not your week is it?

Best

Dillinger

 

[ickihun]

We need immigrants. Because of the falling birth-rate, we have a top-heavy age distribution in the UK and the number of workers supporting retired people is falling. By 2050 we need 14% of the British population to be immigrants otherwise the numbers of people paying our pensions and supplying our services will be insufficient to maintain our current living standards.

The effects of immigration on the availability of schools, housing and other services tend to be short-term and local. If we have worries about this, we need the Government to invest so that it can be managed. Any short-term effects are outweighed by the long-term benefits so the investment is worthwhile.

Lower birth-rate because families cannot afford bigger housing, bigger bills and lack of flexible working. Yes its available if it doesn't affect business. Of course business is affected. A working woman/man who is skilled needs to use their skills on their family instead on business.
Family life is stifled too.
Restrictions, restrictions, restrictions!

 

[Dillinger]

Today I think I'm in the stay camp...........

It appears to me although we are 1 of the big 3, as a nation we have only dipped our toe in the EU water, we have the ability to opt out of some EU rules, don't use the euro, don't have to bail other EU nations out when required and I'm sure theres plenty of others, yet we can freely trade with them, freely move within the EU (and they move freely here too).

But what control do we have over the EU? What does the UK bring to the EU table (other than money!)?

All the general public hear is a one way flow of rules and regulations we have to abide by coming from Brussels - has the UK stopped any EU rules going live instead of just opting out?

Here's quite a good link on this and the UK influence in the EU https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/

Official EU voting records* show that the British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999, according to UK in a Changing Europe Fellows Sara Hagemann and Simon Hix.

In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.

Best

Dillinger

 

[Dark Horse]

Lower birth-rate because families cannot afford bigger housing, bigger bills and lack of flexible working. Yes its available if it doesn't affect business. Of course business is affected. A working woman/man who is skilled needs to use their skills on their family instead on business.
Family life is stifled too.
Restrictions, restrictions, restrictions!

We can speculate on the reason for the low birth-rate which is undoubtedly multifactorial but I genuinely don't understand what point you are trying to make.

 

[tim2000s]

John Major in Bristol saying the EU will get better.
How can he guarantee that?
He said he was no longer in politics! I bet he was paid this morning for appearing on tv live. That's politics! Rubbish and lies.

Strictly speaking he isn't. He is no longer a Member of Parliament and is not a member of the House of Lords. He is generally considered a political commentator and after dinner speaker these days. Does it matter whether he was paid for appearing on telly? I've no idea whether he was!

I suspect that he's basing his comments on the statements made in the last few days regarding reform of the EU by various members of the EU political establishment.

 

[Lynbarn]

Those people from other countries - have you heard much about this debate and what are your thoughts.

We hear lots about it in Australia and I have a question that someone might be able to answer: Does Boris really eat that much ice cream? Every time he is on our screens he eats from an ice cream cone then wipes his mouth with the back of his hand. It's not the same tape re-used because he has different flavours! He must be an ice cream addict, or is he making some point about UK-made ice cream?[/QUOTE]


No it a bog standard thing British politicians do this day and age, sadly along with having a photo

As per the EU Act 2011 that the UK parliament passed, if certain aspects of our relationship with the EU change (essentially relating to changes to treaties and impinging on our current opt outs), the UK has a mechanism to reject those changes and in law must put some of them to a referendum.

The structure relating to contributions is agreed in those treaties, so changes to that structure would invoke the EU Act. It gets a whole lot more detailed than that though. So if changes come, we have a way to assess and decide whether to continue.

Hi Tim
I have read your reply and while that is correct do you honestly think that after this fiasco that Cameroon or the next PM would dare to have another referendum on any of those issues? I have come to the conclusion that I can't trust them to do the right thing of this country and I don't think we would get another chance on the matter.

After watching last nights BBC debate, I have also come to the conclusion that we have gone as far as we can with the EU in its current form, we can't deny the fact that some of the EU presidents want to have closer political ties and they do want to remove sovereignty by doing so. I have hear it said (a few years ago) that some in the EU want to replace NATO with a European Army and defence force. May be that would suit America to ditch it contributions to NATO but personally I think that would be a backward step at the moment as it would leave the UK, Germany and France, to pay the bills for such a defence force.

Personally I don't want to see a European defence force set up at the moment as I think that is the wrong way to go about it as we could end up like America and if say the French (who love a riot) went on to the streets to protest they could very well be facing the EU army with live bullets and not the French Police with CS gas or rubber bullets.

For me that is one step to far and I don't believe for one moment that should be allowed to happen, we wouldn't get the chance to veto something like that, they would be called in to action without our consent.

But while I have never been in trouble with the law there is one thing why I think we should vote out on, and that is our basic justice system, it was based on the face that you are Innocent until proven guilty, sadly as we have gone towards more EU integration, we have seen time and time again our Justice system sliding towards the opposite view of being guilty and you having to prove you are innocent. This is very much the European and former Empires way of doing things, you had little chance of proving you innocents at the French revolution without inditing other people.

I am also no fan of Sir Cliff Richards, but it now looks like his case is to be drop. Under EU law this is the norm. Once you are accused you have to prove you are innocent, unless they can find no evidence, but it now looks like we the TV license payer will have to pay the bill for the BBC's act of spying on his home at the time of the police raid. What happen to remaining Anonymous until being changed? I personal don't like the way our laws have changed in that respect and we need to do more to address the balance of this.

Personally I cannot see us changing the whole European legal system to our way of doing things, I understand that no one legal system is perfect, but I do feel ours is far better than anything else out there.

 

[ickihun]

Strictly speaking he isn't. He is no longer a Member of Parliament and is not a member of the House of Lords. He is generally considered a political commentator and after dinner speaker these days. Does it matter whether he was paid for appearing on telly? I've no idea whether he was!

I suspect that he's basing his comments on the statements made in the last few days regarding reform of the EU by various members of the EU political establishment.

So he is in politics. Not in insurance or banking but he's in politics.
He would have been better off not saying it. People discredit liars.
How can I trust him now.
I was prepared to listen but then laughing about increasing minimum wage by 50p as if it was a joke. Yes a joke on those relying on it.
Luckily not me but people I know who lost their confidence in the business world. Now out of pride work in the bottom of the employment sector.
I cannot see eye to eye with a person who has such disregard towards working people.

 

[ickihun]

We can speculate on the reason for the low birth-rate which is undoubtedly multifactorial but I genuinely don't understand what point you are trying to make.

My bottom line sums it all up.

 

[Dave14]

I'm undecided - so lets hear other real peoples thoughts on the subject, but be nice about it!

For those who are still undecided, why would you leave and enter the unknown? Nearly all of country's major company and governmental decisions are based on economics and they are best protected if we remain. I want a secure future for my children and grandchildren.

 

[ickihun]

For those who are still undecided, why would you leave and enter the unknown? Nearly all of country's major company and governmental decisions are based on economics and they are best protected if we remain. I want a secure future for my children and grandchildren.

Well make some important changes! Can you not see where this is heading? What do you think the future holds in the EU?

 

[Catlady19]

I think if we weren't already a member we would be banging on the door asking to be admitted for the trading advantages, as we did before we joined the Common Market and De Gaulle didn't want to let us in.

I disagree. Entirely different situation. The EEC was a completely different entity.

 

[Catlady19]

How exactly is it more difficult in the EU? In the EU, we get seats on the EAP, who define the conditions for free movement of workers and people. Out of the EU, we are like Switzerland and Norway...we just get told what the conditions are and we either take them and trade in the ECR, or decline them and lose trading (which I highly doubt would ever be a decision made by anyone). The UK can't just stop trading with the 2nd largest market in the world...

We weren't discussing trade, we were discussing immigration. In the EU our doors are open, out of the EU we can choose.

 

[olijp]

We weren't discussing trade, we were discussing immigration. In the EU our doors are open, out of the EU we can choose.

We can't though. A precursor to trading in the ECM is free rights of movement of work and people, so we'd have to accept that law, but instead of being able influence it, we just have to accept it.

Immigration won't change as a result of leaving the EU. 76% of immigration comes from outside the EU and the 24% we have some control over currently, we would have no control over if we were to leave.

 

[tim2000s]

So he is in politics.

He is as much in politics as you or I are in that he can personally influence nothing, but commentates and gives opinions, as he was previously in politics. In this context, we are also in politics as we are discussing it now.

Can you not see where this is heading?

As much as you can, if we're honest about it.

But while I have never been in trouble with the law there is one thing why I think we should vote out on, and that is our basic justice system, it was based on the face that you are Innocent until proven guilty, sadly as we have gone towards more EU integration, we have seen time and time again our Justice system sliding towards the opposite view of being guilty and you having to prove you are innocent. This is very much the European and former Empires way of doing things, you had little chance of proving you innocents at the French revolution without inditing other people.

That's the one part of the EU treaties that we have removed ourselves from. And yes, as it happens, I do believe that any attempt to force the UK into changing this would result in referendum, as it would have a point. There is an issue that would be debated, rather than the more nebulous in or out. If the EU was attempting to over-ride our legal system to suit an overarching EU model, I and many others would take a very different view on the outcome of a referendum for it.

As it stands, our legal system is still very much based on innocent until proven guilty. Our press, on the other hand, are a very different beast.

 

[Dark Horse]

My bottom line sums it all up.

Still no wiser, I'm afraid. Which restrictions in particular?

 

[Lynbarn]

Here is a new question I wonder how many of those going to Glastonbury have bothered to vote before they went I hear it will be about 100,000 are going, I bet some one will complain if the vote is as close as that.

 

[Catlady19]

We can't though. A precursor to trading in the ECM is free rights of movement of work and people, so we'd have to accept that law, but instead of being able influence it, we just have to accept it.

Immigration won't change as a result of leaving the EU. 76% of immigration comes from outside the EU and the 24% we have some control over currently, we would have no control over if we were to leave.

That depends on whether we stay in the single market in the same way we are now or whether we negotiate for change. If it stays the same we have now way of controlling it. I agree that non-EU immigration has to be addressed too.