Should We Leave the EU?

[Barn]

No! I'm not suggesting that anyone's home country is boring (even England). I'm suggesting that the world is bigger than any single country, and that anyone with curiosity and/or a sense of adventure will want to experience more than just the geographical area (e.g. the country) in which they were born.

First you sarcastically ask why anybody would want to go to Manchester. Now you suggest it is a place for adventure-seekers. At no point do you actually deal with the issue I raised, which is the oversupply of people for whom the minimum wage is a perfectly acceptable wage.

 

[anme]

First you sarcastically ask why anybody would want to go to Manchester. Now you suggest it is a place for adventure-seekers. At no point do you actually deal with the issue I raised, which is the oversupply of people for whom the minimum wage is a perfectly acceptable wage.

No. I was replying to a comment that no-one dreamed of going to Luxembourg, and comparing it with an earlier comment suggesting that a 5 pounds per hour job in Manchester is attractive. This is not about Manchester, which I don't know well but I'm sure is a fine city in many respects. It's about the idea that people might travel and live abroad for reasons other than money. BTW, for most of the world, Manchester counts as "abroad". "Exotic" is a relative concept, and I don't mean that in a negative way.

 

[Gutfright]

"Remainian's" is both in interesting use of an apostrophe by a (presumably) native English speaker. Are you implying that the similarity with the word "Romanian" makes it an insult? If so, could you explain why you think it's an insult?

You spotted a grammatical error. Congratulation! A winrar is you!

I don't think "Remainian" is a pejorative term. It's just our side's answer to the word "Brexiteer".

Also please tell us what you want to see after a vote to leave the EU. Do you want to remain in the EEA? Do you want to throw out EU citizens living in the UK and sever all ties with Europe? What do you want? These are critical questions, and you *must* have thought about them.

First off, the U.K. Is a huge market for the rest of the EU, and I'm confident that trade between our country and Europe will continue. It's in nobody's interests for that not to be the case.

As for EU citizens, my feeling is that those in this country who already have a National Insurance number and are working legally will be allowed to continue living their lives unmolested, but EU citizens who want to move here and find work in Britain post-Brexit will have to jump through a few more regulatory hoops than they currently do. Unskilled workers, for example, may be told that we already have enough shelf-stackers, and denied the right to work here.

 

[anme]

First off, the U.K. Is a huge market for the rest of the EU, and I'm confident that trade between our country and Europe will continue. It's in nobody's interests for that not to be the case.

Certainly, trade will continue. But international trade happens on certain terms, as I'm sure you are aware. The EEA is currently about 510 million people. If the UK leaves (which is not certain, even in the event of a vote to leave the EU - the EEA includes countries which are not EU members), a trading block of 65 million people will be negotiating with a trading block of 445 million people.

Are you in favour of the UK remaining in the EEA, in the event of a vote to leave the EU? Please, someone, answer this question. It is very important.

As for EU citizens, my feeling is that those in this country who already have a National Insurance number and are working legally will be allowed to continue living their lives unmolested, but EU citizens who want to move here and find work in Britain post-Brexit will have to jump through a few more regulatory hoops than they currently do. Unskilled workers, for example, may be told that we already have enough shelf-stackers, and denied the right to work here.

"My feeling". Is it your feeling, or your opinion about what should happen? What do you think should happen?

 

[Gutfright]

"My feeling". Is it your feeling, or your opinion about what should happen? What do you think should happen?

It's my best guess at what would happen. I'm not going to pretend to have a crystal ball, and I don't think anyone can be 100% certain of what would happen post-Brexit, but I don't see mass deportation of EU citizens who are currently contributing to our economy as something that's likely to happen.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

As for EU citizens, my feeling is that those in this country who already have a National Insurance number and are working legally will be allowed to continue living their lives unmolested, but EU citizens who want to move here and find work in Britain post-Brexit will have to jump through a few more regulatory hoops than they currently do.

I think you are probably correct - that is what I also would expect to happen. However even that leaves potential problems. Most obviously, many of those who are already here and would satisfy the requirements for being allowed to remain will have girlfriends, boyfriends, husbands, wives or other family currently back in their home countries. What will happen to those people? Anything short of keeping the current free movement rules in place (unacceptable to most Brexiteers) is likely to cause a lot of anguish and separation of families.

Also, any restrictions are likely to cause short term increases in migration. Human nature being what it is, as soon as any hint of future imposition of the restrictions comes in, you can practically guarantee there'll be a surge of new migrants coming in to beat the deadline for keeping the right to remain living here. On a longer timescale, you'll probably see far more EU migrants applying for British citizenship - because with the UK outside the EU, they'll be more fearful of something going wrong and their losing their right to stay here if they don't.

You may also find that EU migrants become more reluctant to return to their home countries if their situation changes - again because they won't wish to jeopardize their future right to remain here. Currently, non-EU nationals who have permanent resident rights generally lose those rights if they remain abroad for 2 years. In the event of a Brexit and an end to free movement, the same would likely apply to EU nationals. I would expect that one result is that many EU migrants who currently come for a couple of years then return home would be more likely to seek to stay in the UK permanently, rather than return home and risk not being allowed back in the future.

Also bear in mind that if you want EU nationals to be subject to some kind of quota/points/skills system for resident rights in the UK, that would imply a significant increase in bureaucracy within the home office.

I'm sure many Brexiteers will see those are relatively minor issues, but they do illustrate that removing free movement is unlikely to be quite as simple as you might hope for.

 

[Barn]

I haven't heard of any "round-up and expel" policy from any politician in power or with any prospect of gaining power. If that was a serious possibility, I'd vote remain. But of course it isn't.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I haven't heard of any "round-up and expel" policy from any politician in power or with any prospect of gaining power. If that was a serious possibility, I'd vote remain. But of course it isn't.

I am 71 years of age, born in Manchester in the last month of WWII. Am I safe from a "round up and expel" policy?

 

[Barn]

Yes for many reasons. Not least because there won't be one.

 

[Antman]

Because the 2.5 million unemployed don't want, or aren't willing, to do the jobs available?

Exactly, people aren't willing to do them because of the poor pay and conditions so the solution is to bring in migrants who will accept such conditions?

 

[Trog]

I am 71 years of age, born in Manchester in the last month of WWII. Am I safe from a "round up and expel" policy?

Only until Cheshire declares UDI from the rough and grubby industrial areas of the north, then you will have to go back.

 

[NSEFAN]

Exactly, people aren't willing to do them because of the poor pay and conditions so the solution is to bring in migrants who will accept such conditions?

What would your solution to the problem be? If we stopped low-paid migrant workers from coming in, would those 2.5 million unemployed start doing the menial jobs?

 

[Antman]

What would your solution to the problem be? If we stopped low-paid migrant workers from coming in, would those 2.5 million unemployed start doing the menial jobs?

Improve pay and conditions.

 

[anme]

It's my best guess at what would happen. I'm not going to pretend to have a crystal ball, and I don't think anyone can be 100% certain of what would happen post-Brexit, but I don't see mass deportation of EU citizens who are currently contributing to our economy as something that's likely to happen.

What do you (or any other "leaver") think *should* happen to non-British EU citizens in the UK?

Still no takers, I notice, for my "should the UK remain in the EEA after a leave vote" question. It's almost like the leavers haven't given their position much thought.

 

[TheKnightWho]

My word! If Brexit wins, not only will Germany invade Poland on the 24th triggering WWIII, but the IRA will make a comeback. Scary stuff. I'd better vote Remain.

The WW3 comment was grossly irresponsible spin by Boris. What DC actually said was that it would impact upon our alliances.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

(A) There aren't hundreds of thousands of jobs going in Luxembourg.

(B) We don't teach Luxembourgish in school.

(C) Nobody dreams of going to Luxembourg.

But I think it was a bit of a joke question wasn't it?

Luxembourgish is not one of the business languages of Luxembourg. Nobody is expected to learn it upon arrival.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can be reasonably sure of two things: In spite of the Remainian's attempts to give the European Union credit for peace in Europe, WWIII is not going to break out as a direct result of Brexit; and Brexit will not inevitably lead to the return of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

But people losing jobs is all fine and dandy?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Improve pay and conditions.

So you want to leave the EU to somehow improve pay and conditions under a Tory government?

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Because the 2.5 million unemployed don't want, or aren't willing, to do the jobs available?

So to help increase the profits for business we import cheap labour which the rest of us then has to subsidise through housing benefits, heathcare and education for their children ?

Meanwhile many of those businesses not only pay poor wages but evade paying tax here - what earthly use are they to this country or it's people ?

Everyone seems to think what's good for business is good for us all and it is far from always the case.

If businesses want this cheap labour it's about time it paid the 'running' costs in providing for it.

 

[TheKnightWho]

So to help increase the profits for business we import cheap labour which the rest of us then has to subsidise through housing benefits, heathcare and education for their children ?

Meanwhile many of those businesses not only pay poor wages but evade paying tax here - what earthly use are they to this country or it's people ?

Everyone seems to think what's good for business is good for us all and it is far from always the case.

If businesses want this cheap labour it's about time it paid the 'running' costs in providing for it.

Yet the economics demonstrates that immigrants have been a net benefit to the country. What is causing the strain is the current government refusing to divert that extra cashflow into those very services.

Blame the direct cause, not their haphazard attempt at justification.

 

[EM2]

Improve pay and conditions.

Pay and conditions have improved substantially since I entered the job market in the late '80s, a guaranteed minimum wage being just one example.
And yet, the unemployment rate in 1989 was slightly lower than it was in 2013 (it has improved recently since then).
So, with poor wages and conditions, just as many people were out of work than with improved wages and conditions.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Yet the economics demonstrates that immigrants have been a net benefit to the country. What is causing the strain is the current government refusing to divert that extra cashflow into those very services.

Blame the direct cause, not their haphazard attempt at justification.

You mean the grasping greed of businesses in the relentless pursuit or ever increasing profits ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Pay and conditions have improved substantially since I entered the job market in the late '80s, a guaranteed minimum wage being just one example.
And yet, the unemployment rate in 1989 was slightly lower than it was in 2013 (it has improved recently since then).
So, with poor wages and conditions, just as many people were out of work than with improved wages and conditions.

....and the black economy with no rights and conditions has increased vastly too, especially so in smaller scale building operations.

 

[TheKnightWho]

You mean the grasping greed of businesses in the relentless pursuit or ever increasing profits ?

You decided to completely ignore my point.

Blame the government for refusing to spend that extra tax revenue on those services. Just saying "greedy business!!!!" doesn't mean much, when it is demonstrable that we all could benefit from the money brought by immigration, but our current government is refusing to allow it.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

You decided to completely ignore my point.

Blame the government for refusing to spend that extra tax revenue on those services. Just saying "greedy business!!!!" doesn't mean much, when it is demonstrable that we all could benefit from the money brought by immigration, but our current government is refusing to allow it.

Okay the government influenced by greedy businesses.

 

[EM2]

So to help increase the profits for business we import cheap labour which the rest of us then has to subsidise through housing benefits, heathcare and education for their children ?

Meanwhile many of those businesses not only pay poor wages but evade paying tax here - what earthly use are they to this country or it's people ?

Everyone seems to think what's good for business is good for us all and it is far from always the case.

If businesses want this cheap labour it's about time it paid the 'running' costs in providing for it.

A guaranteed minimum wage was introduced in 1999. Before that, low paid workers still received housing benefits, healthcare and education for their children.
Then they got paid more, and yet the jobs were still not filled. If there is a job available, and no-one in the UK wants it, what is a business supposed to do?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Okay the government influenced by greedy businesses.

And that's going to change if we Brexit, is it? Blaming the EU for the failings of our own government is madness.

 

[Barn]

Yet the economics demonstrates that immigrants have been a net benefit to the country. What is causing the strain is the current government refusing to divert that extra cashflow into those very services.

So what are you suggesting the Government is currently doing with that extra cashflow? Unless you're saying that the Government isn't taxing immigrants enough then surely all government revenue is being used to fund services or repay debt? Who or what is being overfunded by the Government?

Paying more in tax than one receives in cash benefits is the usual measure cited for "net benefit". When you factor in non-cash government services, particularly when increases in population necessitates capital works, I'm not sure the situation is as clear as you suggest.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

A guaranteed minimum wage was introduced in 1999. Before that, low paid workers still received housing benefits, healthcare and education for their children.
Then they got paid more, and yet the jobs were still not filled. If there is a job available, and no-one in the UK wants it, what is a business supposed to do?

Where do you get the 'they got paid more myth from' ? If they got paid more than on the dole they would take the jobs but who would take a job that makes them worse off ?


As for businesses many use the black economy to avoid paying the going rate. The black economy doesn't recognise minimum wage and there is no measure of it's scale. The black economy is cash in hand on the day. You can watch them waiting at various points up and down the country to see if they are lucky enough to picked for a days work at an 'agreed' (basically take it or leave it) daily rate. While some businesses may have issues there are plenty who are raking in more than ever.

 

[TheKnightWho]

So what are you suggesting the Government is currently doing with that extra cashflow? Unless you're saying that the Government isn't taxing immigrants enough then surely all government revenue is being used to fund services or repay debt? Who or what is being overfunded by the Government?

Paying more in tax than one receives in cash benefits is the usual measure cited for "net benefit". When you factor in non-cash government services, particularly when increases in population necessitates capital works, I'm not sure the situation is as clear as you suggest.

I am suggesting that the crisis of the NHS, of housing and of schooling is due to chronic lack of funding by the government. Talking about "overfunding" is a diversionary tactic by you, when it is plain to see that many of the tax rebates given by the current government are tax break for the very rich.

The idea that immigrants are somehow simultaneously taking benefits and jobs away from native British people, which seems to be the current line of argument on the forum, is ridiculous. There has been demonstrated a net benefit by immigrants, and the fact that our services are struggling due to a higher population is down to the fact that the government has utterly refused to accommodate it, and instead has used that money to help its friends.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

And that's going to change if we Brexit, is it? Blaming the EU for the failings of our own government is madness.

No but it is one less tier of corruption to deal with

 

[TheKnightWho]

No but it is one less tier of corruption to deal with

So the current UK government is corrupt and you want to give it more power, is that what you're saying?

 

[Barn]

I am suggesting that the crisis of the NHS, of housing and of schooling is due to chronic lack of funding by the government. Talking about "overfunding" is a diversionary tactic by you, when it is plain to see that many of the tax rebates given by the current government are tax break for the very rich.

No, you said that the Government should "divert" (your word) funding from immigrant tax receipts to services. If we're diverting (your word) then something must currently be overfunded so that we can divert funding to things that are underfunded.

 

[TheKnightWho]

No, you said that the Government should "divert" (your word) funding from immigrant tax receipts to services. If we're diverting (your word) then something must currently be overfunded so that we can divert finding to things that are underfunded.

From the tax rebates, which I literally mentioned in the exact same sentence.