EU Referendum

[CheltenhamHacker]

a) the argument on the infrastructure is a fact right now and will be more so if we stay in. For example, it is physically impossible to build enough houses to cover the current immigration levels let alone future demand. The NHS cannot cope with the level of demand created by immigration at the current rate let alone the projected future levels in we stay. Why is it a physica impossibility to build new homes? Just because it's not being done doesn't mean it's an impossibility. I personally don't believe it's a fact that the infrastructure is not coping. It's not ideal, but I wouldn't put it down to immigrants. Anyway, I thought the argument that the number of immigrants isn't an issue, you just want to control who comes in?

b) You cant leave constitutional matters like this to businessmen and politicians only, they can only advice the people, do you prefer we throw away democracy, Oh! of course you do as you prefer a non elected elIte to control our lives. Where it's such a massive decision that "could" (or could not) ruin our country for a generation, then you're right I don't want the masses to have a say in it. Think of how uninformed the average person is. Then think that 50% of the population is less informed than that. It's scary. I don't personally care about "1 person 1 vote" when it comes to matters like this. Bob from down the road who has never left his village shouldn't have a say on something he doesn't understand. Nor should I (before you think i'm cherry picking)

Regarding your side point. How do you know most young people are in favour of Stay?On the back of polls, which is quite strongly showing the views of the young and the old. I know quite a few who are strongly in favour of leave You may do but that isn't reflected in the polls. and in the televised debates I have seen it seemed like this also. Your comment on Older people is beneath contempt and typical of a growing xenophobia aimed at the older generation. Who else would you consider de-franchising as their voting patterns may not align with your own?Contempt? Or just a passing comment. Would you want someone to make decisions about your company if they have 1-2 years left of work and therefore wont be bothered what happens when you still work there 20 years down the line? Half the reason for many of the issues we have is as a result of political short termism. We should stop making decisions based on the next couple of years, but focus on the direction of the Country over the next 50. If the elderly generation vote with this in mind, fine, it just doesn't seem that way to me. I'm not discounting their views, please do hold them, but try also to consider what the people want who are going to have to live with it for the next 50+ years. Is that not fair?

I've added my comments in bold above.

 

[ColchesterFC]

The previous one hasn't been 'rejected' by the EU. It is still being negotiated and will be until next year when the immigration quotas will be written into law. And the Swiss People's Party, an anti immigration party, that pushed for quotas in the first place recently won the biggest share of the vote in recent elections so there is a good chance that the new referendum will go the same way as the first one.

 

[Foxholer]

a) the argument on the infrastructure is a fact right now and will be more so if we stay in. For example, it is physically impossible to build enough houses to cover the current immigration levels let alone future demand.
...

Where are the figures showing this?

...The NHS cannot cope with the level of demand created by immigration at the current rate let alone the projected future levels in we stay.
...

The NHS never really has been (at least not for a long long time) and never will be truly able to 'cope with the level of demand' irrespective of immigration! It's a black hole, that simply gobbles whatever resources it's provided with. At best, it can only hope to 'optimize' the provision of services against the cost of the services (and funding provided!)! How it measures 'optimize' is a very tricky, and emotive, area!

 

[Hacker Khan]

On a more personal level my wife works for Rolls Royce so they indirectly fund my lifestyle and golf habit. So that's my mind made up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36534172

 

[SocketRocket]

I've added my comments in bold above.

We would need to build a house every 4 minutes to cope with current levels. Not impossible ?

I want us to set our own quotas for immigration annually then select the most relevant people to meet our requirements.
The number we set would be partially cognisant of the effect on infrastructure.

I dont think people are looking at a short term issue, most are looking at the long term effects of staying in the EU.

 

[Fish]

My vote and Mrs Fishes were posted today

I can now sit back and..................breathe :smirk:

 

[SocketRocket]

My vote and Mrs Fishes were posted today

I can now sit back and..................breathe :smirk:

Sent ours off Today.

 

[Foxholer]

We would need to build a house every 4 minutes to cope with current levels. Not impossible ?

Absolutely not!

That's actually less that number (136900) that were actually were built in 2015!

Another case of not letting actual data get in the way of a 'good' (well sort of) argument!!

And, of course, the target is for 200K plus per year! - which is actually slightly less than 3 mins per completed house!

 

[MegaSteve]

Er... The EU simply stated that they would not negotiate! And that if Switzerland implemented quotas, then many bilateral agreements, that are linked to the freedom of movement concept, and are advantageous to Switzerland, would be frozen! There's now a movement (that has raised sufficient popularity) to have another referendum to overrule the one 'rejected' by the EU. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-eu-idUSKCN0SL27C20151027

Exactly... 'The EU' simply doesn't do 'negotiate'...

Whether you are in or out...

So... Why do folk keep pedalling "we can negotiate from a stronger position whilst in"...

 

[MarkE]

Who's going to pay for these houses? Vast majority of eu migrants that find low paying work cannot afford to buy, which is why there's a social housing crisis.

 

[MegaSteve]

Thinking about it though, I suppose working on the assumption that anything that Trump, Hopkins and Farage think is a good idea is probably a very bad one that will inevitably lead to more intolerance and hatred in this word, is as good a way of making up your mind as any...

Neatly overlooking the DaveCam lead vitriol against Sadiq Khan during the recent London Mayoral election...

Totally shameful...

 

[Foxholer]

Exactly... 'The EU' simply doesn't do 'negotiate'...

Whether you are in or out...

So... Why do folk keep pedalling "we can negotiate from a stronger position whilst in"...

Exactly who has been 'pedaling' that view?

I certainly know that there's a (reasonably valid imo) argument by the Remain folk that while there's a chance to influence EU policy while a 'member of the club', there's no chance of doing so (as per the Swiss example) outside 'the club'!

And, after all, Cameron certainly managed to negotiate some concessions - as did the Irish by their Lisbon referendum result!

So, clearly 'The EU doesn't do 'negotiate' is wrong!

Whether that's sufficient to make people to decide to stay is a completely different question though!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I'm suspecting very strongly that a large minority - if not a majority - of those who will vote to leave will vote on grounds of 'immigration'. And so I am wondering what the 'acceptable' level of immigration for all of those folks actually is. If we accept that many current non-EU immigrants living in the UK will vote Leave because they are upset with the EU because the UK limits the non-EU immigration (see Indian/Pakistani communities in particular) - then we might as well take as our starting point 188,000 non-EU (latest figures). Maybe add 15% to meet those non-EU expectations - takes us to about 215,000.

Then we add the EU immigration for 'essential' skilled workers. How many is that? - I have no idea how many of the last count of EU immigration would have met the criteria - but given my wife was treated in a Private Hospital last two days by three brilliant Romanian nurses and a large minority if not majority seemed to be EU immigrants - I'm guessing quite a lot, so I'll guess maybe 25% of EU immigrants (184,000) would meet Australian points system type criteria - and we need them, so that's getting on for 46,000. And that brings our total to 261,000.

So Leavers with a concern over immigration - how does 261,000 a year sound?

And if you don't like the sound of it what is your number and how do you get to it?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Who's going to pay for these houses? Vast majority of eu migrants that find low paying work cannot afford to buy, which is why there's a social housing crisis.

there is a social housing crisis because Thatcher instigated the right to buy scheme and the current government wish to continue it by forcing housing associations to sell of their stock to the occupiers.

 

[ColchesterFC]

So Leavers with a concern over immigration - how does 261,000 a year sound?

I don't support Leave but surely the answer is that it depends on how many immigrants we need in a particular year. If in that year we only need 75000 or we need 500000 immigrants then 261000 doesn't sound great. If however we need 260000 or 262000 immigrants that year then it sounds about right.

 

[USER1999]

I have voted leave. It has zip to do with immigration.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I don't support Leave but surely the answer is that it depends on how many immigrants we need in a particular year. If in that year we only need 75000 or we need 500000 immigrants then 261000 doesn't sound great. If however we need 260000 or 262000 immigrants that year then it sounds about right.

I understand that - but if the existing immigrant community are being encouraged to vote Leave on grounds that more non-EU immigration will result from a Leave - then we start at 188,000. And if that figure is too high then we have to deduct my guesstimate 46,000 for essential EU immigrants from number of non-EU immigrants allowed - and not allow ANY increase.

So what is the figure Leavers think is acceptable - because I have no idea. If it's less that 200,000 then the existing Indian/Pakistani etc community are being deceived.

 

[Hobbit]

I understand that - but if the existing immigrant community are being encouraged to vote Leave on grounds that more non-EU immigration will result from a Leave - then we start at 188,000. And if that figure is too high then we have to deduct my guesstimate 46,000 for essential EU immigrants from number of non-EU immigrants allowed - and not allow ANY increase.

So what is the figure Leavers think is acceptable - because I have no idea. If it's less that 200,000 then the existing Indian/Pakistani etc community are being deceived.

Nice to see you are guessing too. The very thing you've criticised others for.

As for Thatcher's right to buy. Corbyn supported the right to buy yesterday.

 

[ColchesterFC]

I understand that - but if the existing immigrant community are being encouraged to vote Leave on grounds that more non-EU immigration will result from a Leave - then we start at 188,000. And if that figure is too high then we have to deduct my guesstimate 46,000 for essential EU immigrants from number of non-EU immigrants allowed - and not allow ANY increase.

So what is the figure Leavers think is acceptable - because I have no idea. If it's less that 200,000 then the existing Indian/Pakistani etc community are being deceived.

Using your figures surely the existing immigrant community are being encouraged to vote Leave by Cameron's pledge to get net migration down to the tens of thousands, so under 100000. Was it in the Tory election manifesto? If he is to achieve this then migration from non EU countries has to be more than halved to get anywhere close. Who has been encouraging them to vote Leave?

 

[MarkE]

there is a social housing crisis because Thatcher instigated the right to buy scheme and the current government wish to continue it by forcing housing associations to sell of their stock to the occupiers.

Partly. But also the massive influx of people whom social housing is the only option. Councils can't cope (at least in the areas designated for immigrants).