EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[L00b]

The points based system needs review because net migration levels are still too high.

You're conflating the effects of (severe-) budgetary restriction of public resources with immigration. That link has yet to be proven.

Surely L00b you are not seriously suggesting that free movement is somehow more effective at controlling immigration that a points based selection process?!?

No, what on earth gave you that idea?

 

Border controls are most effective at controlling immigration and the UK, which is not a Schengen member, runs the full gamut of them, complete with x-ray machines all-around and beyond the UK shores.

 

The UK's Border Force could do a better job no doubt, given more resources.

Do you not think the reason that immigration from outside the EU might be higher is perhaps because there are 13 times as many people in the rest of the world and there is more poverty and warring (the main drivers for migration)?

No, I'm just looking at the fact (the factual fact ) that our Australian- and Canadian- like system (which is actually quite stark in practice: I have direct hands-on experience of it) still lets more people in than come unrestricted from the EU.

 

You'd have a point in the context of this thread if the UK's PBS was letting in non-EU immigrants both in much fewer numbers than EU immigrants and of a substantially higher calibre on average. That is demonstrably not the case, in fact the very reverse is.

 

You want less immigrants and you think Brexit will give you that, by removing free access of EU immigrants to the UK.

 

On the evidence of numbers of non-EU immigrants over the last 8 years of PBS, then considering that EU immigrants would have to follow that PBS to get into the UK post-Brexit (IF they don't get unrestricted access out of EEA/EFTA-like negotiations as I posited), just as many EU immigrants will still come in after a Brexit.

Thanks for your assessment of the situation. I don't agree so let's agree to disagree.

Indeed-y. I don't do rethorical thinking, I just do evidence-based cartesian thinking, so we're never going to agree, Brexit or not

There is an interesting piece here that examines whether the EU could get around the opt out. I don't think anyone can say with certainty that it we stay in we will not have migrants imposed on us.

No more than anyone can say with certainty that if we exit we will not have free movement imposed.

 

But we'd sure lose our opt-out, since that's a club rule (in fact and by way of better analogy, the UK's get-out-of-jail-free card in Brussels) and we'd not be in the club anymore.

 

Whence negotiations of one sort or another with the EU might at some stage require that we take in migrants. In which case, subject to the position of strength of the respective parties at the time, the UK gvt might have to choose the lesser of two evils: take more migrants at the risk of popular opprobrium, or get less <whatever is being negotiated> at the risk of reduced economical gains. Guessing which is reasonably easy: it depends who will be in No.10 at the time...

 

...Labour and you'll get migrants (as a voting base growing exercise, last seen in the period '97-'10 )

 

...Tories and you'll get migrants (economical gains FTW! last seen in the period '10- to date and ongoing )

 

Edited May 11, 2016 by L00b

[tzijlstra]

What isolationist policy.

 

Leaving the EU/EEA to kerb migration is an isolationist policy - the purpose of which is to increase the isolated nature of the country in the global situation.

 

Yes they can but only if the electorate want it.

 

That isn't born out of fact is it? It is a long, long time ago that a government in this country represented more than 50% of voters, most votes end up on the scrap-heap due to the way the system works. The electorate can jump up and down all it likes, very little changes due to the FPTP system.

 

No it isn't.

 

There are 100 people, one of them hates you and everything you stand for and wants to kill you, but you don't know which one it is, the other 99 share some of his beliefs but won't do you ant harm.

 

Ten of them want somewhere to live, do you invite them to share your home and risk the lives of you and your family or do say no to them all?

 

You've just perfectly described how generalisation of one religion (Islam) leads to xenophobe behaviour. So the opening clause 'No, it isn't' should be 'indeed, it is'

 

You are given many legitimate arguments why people oppose unselective, mass immigration but, because you have no counter arguments that hold water, you always retreat to labelling the opposing view as xenophobic and using that as your excuse for running away from the debate.

 

I have countless counter-arguments, you just choose to ignore them, but that isn't the case with your comments above, I ignore them because my comments relate directly to muslims, so read below.

 

Same tactic when it comes to Islam. I have given you a number of valid reasons why we should challenge Islam and those perpetuating it. I point out that even in its' supposedly 'moderate' form it induces extremism, as demonstrated by the huge number of British Muslims from 'moderate' Muslim backgrounds joining ISIS. 'Moderate' Muslims choose to introduce their children to Islam fully aware that it increases the risk of radicalisation and the consequence that occur when this happens. They choose to teach their young to revere a holy book that literally revels in violence and intolerance and they can't simply absolve themselves of all responsibility when some start taking it literally... they told them it was the word of god after all.

 

There is absolutely nothing valid about your reasons.

 

I know most Muslims do not hate non-Muslims or want us all dead but it is irrelevant because Islam is still dangerous nonsense and they are the ones sustaining it.

 

There you go generalising again and then talking it right in your own mind. Never mind 'most Muslims' it is a vast majority of Muslims that is opposed to these terrorists. In case you haven't noticed, in Syria it is Muslims who are being murdered by ISIS, it is Muslims murdering ISIS. The total number of Muslim terrorists active against 'the West' amounts to not much more than a hundred in total over the past two decades. Yet you are happy to dismiss 1,6 billion people because they happen to have the same religious root as those terrorists.

 

You know full well that it is nasty and divisive, for example, to teach kids that those who don't believe in the faith will be condemned to burn in hell for eternity. You know it is the sort of dehumanising that makes it easier for impressionable young minds to accept and embrace the reality of violent extremism. But it is Muslims doing it and you are so scared of the the racism label that you turn a blind eye and shout 'Islamophobe!' to try and silence the criticism. You are a traitor to your own values and principles.

 

Good job the majority of Muslims don't get taught that. I also vividly remember my Catholic school years, being told that if I did not absolve my sins I would end up in purgatory, or even worse, if I did not believe in Catholicism's interpretation of God I would end up in hell. Weird thing that, you don't see me running around lobbing people's heads off.

 

Government failure to control both EU and non-EU immigration?

 

I believe we need a single immigration policies that is indiscriminately applied. I believe we need to review asylum policy. I also believe this needs to be done by our government alone so we can hold them 100% to account for it's success or failure... which means we have to leave the EU.

 

My explanation for it is that Britain is in desperate need of a workforce and despite Cameron and May's daft pledges of cutting immigration to 100K annually they are rapidly realising that they can't do that because it would hurt the economy.

 

Leave the EU and we can stop the free movement of people from within the EU and cherry pick who we allow in. We can ignore EU directives about asylum and any future plans for 'redistribution'. Our government will make immigration policy and decisions and we will hold them 100% instead of having just an 8% say on matters taken by the EU (less when/if other countries join the EU).

 

Why would talent from within the EU want to come to the UK with all the hassle that 'controlled' immigration brings with it. The Dutch National University Board recently announced that in case of Brexit it would actively pursue the recruitment of top-EU talent at British universities. I am sure they are not alone. The other point is asylum - odd that, the EU has nothing to say about that in the UK as it is. You keep bringing asylum seekers up in relation to this topic, it is unrelated. The UK isn't in Schengen.

 

The Balkan states have clearly shown that when you retake control of your boarders you can quiet successfully stem the flow of immigration. And we don't even need to build fences... we have the sea.

 

Have they? There is preciously little known about the 'success' of their recent policies to close their borders to refugees. Nobody knows how many there are in those countries at the moment, but I have this suspicion that the national governments are not so keen on advertising precise numbers either. You also, conveniently, forget that they announced this decision after negotiations with the EU and the newly introduced measures to filter refugees appropriately - you can't do this sort of thing in isolation, it requires collaboration between bordering nations.

 

But yet again, it is a pointless comparison, the UK already decides on its own refugee policy.

 

All in all you are focussing on this refugee/immigrant focus, without really understanding the difference between the two and no real answer for what will happen to the UK economically when it leaves the EU and the single market that requires free movement of goods and people. This is where the Brexit campaign breaks down, people like you, Farage and Carswell keep using this emotive issue without telling the whole truth and that is that if the UK leaves the single market 'to control its borders' it is effectively drastically increasing barriers to trade with the EU, which, whether you like it or not, is by far the biggest trading partner of the UK.

Edited May 11, 2016 by tzijlstra

[sutty27]

Leaving the EU/EEA to kerb migration is an isolationist policy - the purpose of which is to increase the isolated nature of the country in the global situation.

 

 

No it isn't, its a sensible policy that won't lead to isolation. If anything it will mean we are less isolated. To you the EU is like your sitting room and you fear leaving its comforts, leaving the EU is like leaving the stagnation of sitting around your sitting room, get outside and take a few chances in life.

[tzijlstra]

No it isn't, its a sensible policy that won't lead to isolation. If anything it will mean we are less isolated. To you the EU is like your sitting room and you fear leaving its comforts, leaving the EU is like leaving the stagnation of sitting around your sitting room, get outside and take a few chances in life.

 

Is it? What is stopping me from going outside now? I heard a similar argument this morning, the EU isn't stopping the UK increasing trade with the Commonwealth, is it? It is a pants argument Sutty, that holds no water until you can explain how the EU stops the UK looking outside. Until then Brexit is an isolationist policy without any ifs or buts.

[truman]

Is it? What is stopping me from going outside now? I heard a similar argument this morning, the EU isn't stopping the UK increasing trade with the Commonwealth, is it? It is a pants argument Sutty, that holds no water until you can explain how the EU stops the UK looking outside. Until then Brexit is an isolationist policy without any ifs or buts.

 

Genuine question..does the EU impose tariffs on some imported goods..if so couldn't these goods be cheaper for us if we were outside of the EU?

[Guest]

You're conflating the effects of (severe-) budgetary restriction of public resources with immigration. That link has yet to be proven.

No, what on earth gave you that idea?

 

Border controls are most effective at controlling immigration and the UK, which is not a Schengen member, runs the full gamut of them, complete with x-ray machines all-around and beyond the UK shores.

 

The UK's Border Force could do a better job no doubt, given more resources.

No, I'm just looking at the fact (the factual fact ) that our Australian- and Canadian- like system (which is actually quite stark in practice: I have direct hands-on experience of it) still lets more people in than come unrestricted from the EU.

 

You'd have a point in the context of this thread if the UK's PBS was letting in non-EU immigrants both in much fewer numbers than EU immigrants and of a substantially higher calibre on average. That is demonstrably not the case, in fact the very reverse is.

 

You want less immigrants and you think Brexit will give you that, by removing free access of EU immigrants to the UK.

 

On the evidence of numbers of non-EU immigrants over the last 8 years of PBS, then considering that EU immigrants would have to follow that PBS to get into the UK post-Brexit (IF they don't get unrestricted access out of EEA/EFTA-like negotiations as I posited), just as many EU immigrants will still come in after a Brexit.

Indeed-y. I don't do rethorical thinking, I just do evidence-based cartesian thinking, so we're never going to agree, Brexit or not

No more than anyone can say with certainty that if we exit we will not have free movement imposed.

 

But we'd sure lose our opt-out, since that's a club rule (in fact and by way of better analogy, the UK's get-out-of-jail-free card in Brussels) and we'd not be in the club anymore.

 

Whence negotiations of one sort or another with the EU might at some stage require that we take in migrants. In which case, subject to the position of strength of the respective parties at the time, the UK gvt might have to choose the lesser of two evils: take more migrants at the risk of popular opprobrium, or get less <whatever is being negotiated> at the risk of reduced economical gains. Guessing which is reasonably easy: it depends who will be in No.10 at the time...

 

...Labour and you'll get migrants (as a voting base growing exercise, last seen in the period '97-'10 )

 

...Tories and you'll get migrants (economical gains FTW! last seen in the period '10- to date and ongoing )

 

.................................................................

[L00b]

Genuine question..does the EU impose tariffs on some imported goods.

Sure does. Including on some EEA/EFTA goods.

if so couldn't these goods be cheaper for us if we were outside of the EU?

As usual, depends on what we've got to sell to relevant exporting countries that they'd be interested in and, more generally (from a Balance of Trade perspective), whether there are other import goods that would be more expensive to us once out of the EU and how many for how much more expensive.

 

Would need to be considered case-by-case then summed up. I'm not volunteering.

[unbeliever]

Sure does. Including on some EEA/EFTA goods.

As usual, depends on what we've got to sell to relevant exporting countries that they'd be interested in and, more generally (from a Balance of Trade perspective), whether there are other import goods that would be more expensive to us once out of the EU and how many for how much more expensive.

 

Would need to be considered case-by-case then summed up. I'm not volunteering.

 

 

Here's a thought.

The UK's trade deficit with the EU (just under half our trade) is rather higher than with the rest of the world (just over half our trade). Whilst inside the single market we're discouraging trade with the rest of the world and encouraging it with the EU. After all that's how trading blocks are supposed to work.

[tzijlstra]

Genuine question..does the EU impose tariffs on some imported goods..if so couldn't these goods be cheaper for us if we were outside of the EU?

 

Yes, like steel from China but also other goods. In general though the EU seeks to eliminate tariffs where they exist. Could the UK get cheaper goods outside of the EU? Perhaps, but negotiating as a single nation-state with a GDP of just under 3 billion isn't likely to get better deals than a single market with a GDP of over 16 billion (13 billion without the UK) and one has to wonder whether the UK would not in fact face more tariffs on export products outside of the EU. It is a good question though. On balance however the conclusion has to be that it adds to the uncertainty of what a post-Brexit UK would be like.

 

Here's a thought.

The UK's trade deficit with the EU (just under half our trade) is rather higher than with the rest of the world (just over half our trade). Whilst inside the single market we're discouraging trade with the rest of the world and encouraging it with the EU. After all that's how trading blocks are supposed to work.

 

The EU is not discouraging trade with the rest of the world, it encourages its member states to do more trade with the rest of the world and, in fact, recent figures (that I can't find at the moment) show that UK trade with the rest of the world has been increasing in recent years. There is nothing to stop the UK trade more with other nations as part of the EU, that is a fallacy.

 

Furthermore, your notion that the EU trade-deficit is somehow bad for the UK is based on a misunderstanding of how trade works. The growth in the UK economy is in the added-value chain, importing cheaper goods from the EU and elsewhere, adding value to them and then reselling them either back to the EU or elsewhere in the world is how the UK makes most of its money.

 

Should the UK seek to eliminate at least some of its trade deficit? Possibly, but we are talking about an average over the past decades of around 3 billion annually on an annual GDP of 2,9 trillion, in other words about 0,1%. Hardly headline figures, especially considering that the GDP is growing far faster than that.

 

The trade deficit isn't slowing the UK down in that respect.

[unbeliever]

 

The EU is not discouraging trade with the rest of the world, it encourages its member states to do more trade with the rest of the world and, in fact, recent figures (that I can't find at the moment) show that UK trade with the rest of the world has been increasing in recent years. There is nothing to stop the UK trade more with other nations as part of the EU, that is a fallacy.

 

Furthermore, your notion that the EU trade-deficit is somehow bad for the UK is based on a misunderstanding of how trade works. The growth in the UK economy is in the added-value chain, importing cheaper goods from the EU and elsewhere, adding value to them and then reselling them either back to the EU or elsewhere in the world is how the UK makes most of its money.

 

Should the UK seek to eliminate at least some of its trade deficit? Possibly, but we are talking about an average over the past decades of around 3 billion annually on an annual GDP of 2,9 trillion, in other words about 0,1%. Hardly headline figures, especially considering that the GDP is growing far faster than that.

 

The trade deficit isn't slowing the UK down in that respect.

 

Surely the EU tariffs can do nothing other than discourage trade with the rest of the world.