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.
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?
Don't think this requires any discussion after pointing out that immigrants are statistically less likely to claim benefits than British people.
Yes it can.
Just because more people will be able to move here more easily, doesn't mean they will.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Not really true. Before the minimum wage was introduced, companies could and did pay pennies, because desperate people will take what they can get.
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 agree with every word of this, but then you say
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.
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.
In all honesty I don't get what makes us so special that we should get special terms.
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.
I think it's not impossible that the government could be overthrown for not enacting the outcome of the referendum. Not least because there are more Tory backbenchers voting Brexit than remain, so the government would be pretty screwed if things got nasty.
Haha! I was not advocating that!
We can only hope!
Indeed - it feels like Osborne is asking them electorate to punish him by doing the opposite of what he wants.
