A lot of points so I'm going to respond bit by bit.
I'm sure we could put this money to support the things that are currently getting EU grants, and still have some money left.
We could. We won't. I won't for one minute believe that the government would invest this money on the public. Especially with a party that was happy to put one of its own cities in "managed decline". When you, and indeed them, say 'we' would be better off, there's a difference between 'you and I' and the 'country'. I think the best example of how there's this difference is how the GDP of a nation includes that nation's health industry, which is bigger the more sick people there are. I'm not saying the government want us to be ill or anything like that, simply pointing out that a big economy doesn't necessarily equate to healthier, happier, better off normal people.
Then there is the immigration debate. Im not anti immigration and I have no problem with people coming to live here provided that (a) they can support themselves and/or (b) they have employment lined up or are in a skillset which is needed and
Shame people have to be reduced to economics but ok if I must let's play that game. Now yes, ideally, everyone would be able to support themselves, migrant or otherwise, but increasingly in these days of zero-hours and dodgy 'self-employment' schemes, that's harder and harder to do. Not sure how to judge what skills are and aren't needed and what is more or less worthy? Is there a league table? Sounds potentially rather classist, where those looking for middle class jobs would be accepted and those looking for working class jobs denied, even if we desperately needed, for example, bricklayers, which, considering the housing situation in this country, wouldn't be a bad thing. And even if they were accepted, we'd end up at the 'lowering wages' and 'British people should be first for British jobs' arguments. Would this argument be applied for internal migration? Would I be allowed to move to London unless I had a job that someone in an office had decided was good enough first?
(c) they are not coming here purely to gain a NI number and benefits.
Don't think this requires any discussion after pointing out that immigrants are statistically less likely to claim benefits than British people.
Lets face it, 330,000 a year cannot be sustained.
Yes it can.
God help us when more countries join the EU.
Just because more people will be able to move here more easily, doesn't mean they will.
I am all in favour of controlled immigration, why not have a points based system, like Oz, it makes sense.
Isn't Australia still under investigation for human rights abuses regarding its immigration and asylum system? Also Australia has more immigration than Britain despite being almost entirely near-enough uninhabitable, in the middle of nowhere and full of nasty wildlife. Interesting argument.
If the UK stays in the EU and continues with this level of immigration then estimates are that over 200 houses would need to be built A DAY for the next 10 - 15 years to house everyone. So basically the UK goes from being a beautiful place to live with beautiful countryside and green spaces to a concrete jungle.
Actually there is currently more empty houses than there are homeless people. We could house everyone and still have room left over if we weren't bothered about making money off them. And again, this country has only built on 2% of its available land. The problem is there isn't enough affordable homes, the government has spent 30 years selling off social housing and not building more, while the private sector manipulates supply and prices. Our economy is heavily tied to the price of homes, hence middle England running to the shelter every time they drop £5. This is why we won't build more houses.
Then the NHS and public services. So, we have hospitals and GP surgeries around the country - not able to cope with current demand, then we dump in another 330,000 people and still expect these services to meet their targets?
We better stop people having children too, then. The NHS is being deliberately ruined, and people are unwilling to pay more NI. We have a health minister who published books about privatising healthcare and has so many vested interests I wouldn't be surprised if he turned up to PMQs wearing a Bupa t-shirt. We could stop all inward migration, all births, stop everyone smoking and drinking, and the NHS would still be falling apart. We have an ageing population too, which alone is going to increase strain on services, immigrants tend to be young workers.
Oh yeah, there aren't any. Instead we are actually having to cut these services because councils are having to find the money instead to provide housing and other services for people coming to their areas looking for support.
Nope, they're having to cut them because central government is telling them to as part of a purely ideological austerity programme (which of course is indeed endorsed by the EU, and ask the Greeks and Portuguese what happens if you try to deviate from it).
As for trade with the EU, who knows what will happen, but the scaremongering has been comical.
Now this I do agree with, from both sides. Fair play to Corbyn for calling out both sides, including his own, for this. Osborne has today said leaving would leave people several % worse off, but given his horrifying performance as chancellor I half expect it to be the other way around and half expect it to be completely made up.
Anyway, trade agreements, trade, is Europe really going to stop trading with us if we leave? No of course not.
Quite, but there may be tariffs, negotiations will take longer (Canada have been getting in on a trade deal with the EU for years, they're getting nowhere fast, even though (as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong) their deal involves them paying in to the EU budget), and there's the barely-veiled threat from the IMF I mentioned in my last post.
And not lets forget we are a world trading nation, not just Europe. Some major businesses are saying that leaving the EU will make no difference to us. Given that we make sod all in this country anymore anyway, what are we actually selling to Europe?
We may not own the companies, but a lot of cars are made here, obviously for all of us given we drive past them regularly, JCB are huge, and of course, Britain is still quite good at its old friend, the arms trade. Not that we should stay in to protect that, mind. I doubt Nissan etc would go anywhere if we left given that either way the cars they make here still need to be shipped to the mainland, so unless the EU forced tariffs or something I can't see it making much difference. I think in terms of trade, both for industry and us importing and exporting goods either through post or travelling, the problem is we don't know what will change, if anything, the leave campaign just seem to be hoping for some deal where we get all the EU trade benefits we have now but without having to put anything in to the EU or get anything back, which seems a bit hopeful, especially as you say, we're not that important. That analogy doing the rounds about divorcing your wife but still wanting a shag whenever you want I suppose isn't too silly.
Workers rights - wages etc. Again, not all these "benefits" to workers have come from Europe. If anything, being part of Europe has lowered wages. People complain that British people dont want to do some of the jobs. Well, not for the low wages being offered no. If hotels, farms etc. were unable to find someone willing to work for peanuts then they would have to improve the wage offered.
Not really true. Before the minimum wage was introduced, companies could and did pay pennies, because desperate people will take what they can get.
Whereas with the EU people who have come from poorer nations are happy to work for peanuts. Farms have been prosecuted for example for employing migrants on below minimum wage, because they will do it.
Not really happy, they just don't have much choice. And it's not just migrants that get paid below, my own mother (born in Liverpool to Scouse parents born to Scouse grandparents etc) works for the council and recently won a case against them for paying her and her (also all English) colleagues below minimum wage for five years. Again, it's not the workers, it's the bosses. If they can get away with it, they will, no matter who they employ.
I had this conversation with someone the other day who argued that the cost of goods would go up. My argument was that I would rather pay a bit more for goods and services if i know the person at the other end is getting a decent living wage. Unfortunately, too many people just think of themselves thesedays, and want something as cheap as possible, regardless of the poor sod at the other end doing the work.
I agree with every word of this, but then you say
So less workers willing to work for peanuts would result in the cost of goods possibly going up, but also wages going up for the workers.
That's not how it has ever worked. If migration stopped, or was even reversed, there would be no increase in pay, never mind any other negative effects. It depends on the definition of 'willing'. Willing as in happy to, or willing as in 'no other option'? Because my pay is now minimum wage, despite the healthy profits my employers generate through my labour, and I am only willing to do it because it's better than signing on.
Whatever happens, its going to be close. There are pros and cons on both sides. I'm voting out personally, although I believe the end result will be to stay in.
I actually suspect that if it's close, it will be close in favour of leave, as those in favour of staying in are less likely to turn out to vote than those supporting leave.
[/QUOTE="GaryH, post: 169137, member: 484"]I also believe if the majority chose to vote out, the government and Europe has too much to lose, and would fix the figures to stay in anyway.[/quote]
Unlike a poster above I actually do think this could happen. Although I'm more inclined to believe they'll do what you later say and just either ignore it saying "actually we've decided it's best if we stay", or just sort of pretend to try to get out and spin it or something. Cameron doesn't have the balls to fight the IMF.
However, I am hoping the large majority of people voting out will be enough to show the government and Europe the level of discontent in this country with the way things are, and perhaps shake the EU into working with us to make changes to address some of these issues.
In all honesty I don't get what makes us so special that we should get special terms.
My worry is that if we stay in the EU, would we continue to say that, or would we be so integrated with Europe that everyone, be it they are from France, UK, Spain etc. consider themselves European instead?
This is actually a complicated issue that often is dismissed by people who don't share your opinion. A lot of people in Europe do consider themselves European, at least to a greater degree than almost everyone in this country, which probably has a lot to do with just basic geography really, more so than because of the EU I would say. I wouldn't call myself European, but I don't call myself English either, I don't care about nationalism beyond the line on my passport, 'Scouse not English' and all that. For other people though it is very different. I can't see 'England' or 'Britain' ever going away unless we did become a federal superstate like the US or something, but even there, many people feel closely tied to their state, county, etc so I could see something like that in Europe, it's not much more of an extension to being "Spanish and European" or whatever. Suppose it's also like how countries like Germany and Italy that used to be several independent areas are now unified. Bavaria is part of Germany but still very much its own thing. As are the regions of Spain. In fact I guess it's also like the countries of our very own UK.
This is a long post and I feel I've come across as in favour of voting in, so I'd like to say now that arguing to remain is not my intention. I've gone against a lot of leave arguments here as those are the ones presented, but there are a lot of remain arguments I also don't agree with. I've leaned towards both sides over the last year or so without coming down solidly on either one. I think the leave campaign chats the most nonsense, but the remain campaign is a plea to stick to the status quo and there's no way that can energise me. I think they're right to point out the lack of exit plan and the strange conservative form of utopianism offered in their view of post-brexit Britain when we have no idea what would happen, as well as the argument that it doesn't make sense to give up our say in laws etc.
I'm disappointed the leave arguments are coming back more and more to immigration again in these final weeks, it was predictable, because sadly the country is still terrified of this spectre of immigration, but still, when there's plenty of better arguments, it's sad the public are once again being treated as mindless and terrified. Suppose I should at least be happy we're not being barraged with the stupid "EU coming for our kettles" type headlines again.
I'm resigned to the fact that whoever wins, we as normal people, will not. I am not convinced coming out will make things better, and there's no way I can see the EU improving. I can't vote for unrestrained Tories, I can't vote for the people who ruined Greece and interfere in elections they don't like the result of.
