EU Referendum

[Deleted Member 1156]

As concerns over immigration will I think be the determining factor for many on how they vote - here's an IN argument with some facts.

Yes of course Remain would say this - will say the Brexiteers - but can we just all accept for a moment that some FACTS are being presented as part of an argument rather than just assertion and supposition. To counter let's have some FACTS from Leave presented that debunk this analysis.

http://infacts.org/eu-migrants-stop-nhs-flatlining/

Interesting article and full of the usual nonsense.

When will you understand that we do NOT need immigrants to fill the low paid jobs as long as we have lazy British nationals sitting at home on benefits because we give them the easy option of unemployment being a career choice?

In simple terms.......

Remove all the immigrants (I'm not suggesting that we do that btw) and stop paying benefits to all the lazy Brits sat at home and they can then do the jobs the immigrants were doing. Hey presto.....reduced benefits bill and the same amount of tax paid into the system. What's not to like?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Immigration isn't the factor behind my choice. But I feel the document mixes, and spins, facts and numbers to justify its argument. I don't doubt some of the numbers are very definitive but its the spin, just like the leavers, that pee's me off no end.

For example, "increased numbers turning up at A&E do not cause longer waiting times." What is that supposed to mean? Does the tooth fairy treat the extra patients? Whatever the reason behind it not causing longer waiting times, it isn't explained. That's assuming its a fact, and I'm not saying it isn't. But its the blind faith of believe it. Where is the explanation?

Whether its the Remain or the Leave camp, neither are putting any meat behind their statements.

If that link you posted is good enough for you, fine I don't have a problem with that. It isn't good enough for me because its shallow.

But a question back at you, and I'm not seeking to justify an argument against immigration because it isn't an issue for me. If immigration isn't causing issues with our infrastructure why have a number of Local Education Authorities asked to be permitted to increase class sizes to 40, way above the previous limit? Baby booms? The original baby boom was in the 40's, and repeated every 20-ish years thereafter. That cycle isn't due its next boom for another 10 years... so where is the current boom from, the tooth fairies again?

I don't know the answer to this. Anecdotally I know that in one of our local primary school number of kids coming into reception fell a few years back; the number of reception classes and teachers was therefore reduced; and now numbers they are increasing - and not it seems due to immigration. But no funding for additional teachers and new build classrooms (previous classrooms not required were portacabin-type and were demolished when no longer needed) - so need for much larger reception, Yr 1 and Yr 2 class sizes - albeit it temporarily.

But of course where there is immigration pressures on schools all that needs doing is funding the building of more classrooms or more schools - but wherefore art thou funds in the face of austerity cuts? And where making schools academies fits into that I don't know - especially if academies can pick and choose; or can decide whether they want to grow or not.

And the increased numbers in A&E does not necessarily cause waiting times to increase - lack of provision to deal with the increase in numbers does - or reduced provision to deal with the same numbers would.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Interesting article and full of the usual nonsense.

When will you understand that we do NOT need immigrants to fill the low paid jobs as long as we have lazy British nationals sitting at home on benefits because we give them the easy option of unemployment being a career choice?

In simple terms.......

Remove all the immigrants (I'm not suggesting that we do that btw) and stop paying benefits to all the lazy Brits sat at home and they can then do the jobs the immigrants were doing. Hey presto.....reduced benefits bill and the same amount of tax paid into the system. What's not to like?

So this is part of the Leave manifesto is it? If not - then we continue to need immigrants to fill the vacancies. Besides -on just the NHS nursing aspect - we can't train or recruit sufficient nurses here in the UK and the Gov has just made it harder by slashing budgets for agency nurses - so that source of UK-based nurses can no longer be tapped in to as much as it has been over the last 20yrs; and by making traineee nurses pay their degree fees - as if nursing was 'just another job'. So the NHS has to employ many thousands of trained nurses from overseas - each and every one an immigrant.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

So this is part of the Leave manifesto is it? If not - then we continue to need immigrants to fill the vacancies. Besides -on just the NHS nursing aspect - we can't train or recruit sufficient nurses here in the UK and the Gov has just made it harder by slashing budgets for agency nurses - so that source of UK-based nurses can no longer be tapped in to as much as it has been over the last 20yrs; and by making traineee nurses pay their degree fees - as if nursing was 'just another job'. So the NHS has to employ many thousands of trained nurses from overseas - each and every one an immigrant.

I have no idea if it is a manifesto issue as I haven't read either in depth.

Regarding training of nurses, that is a policy issue with British governments and it is within our control to change, we don't need to be in or out of the EU for that to be changed.

 

[ColchesterFC]

I'm not sure that I've heard anyone on the Leave side say that we should totally stop immigration but more that we should move towards a points based system whereby we give a weighting to the roles we need to fill such as nurses or doctors etc. Even as someone that currently supports staying in the EU I don't see that as a bad thing. Why should we allow in low or un skilled workers when those roles could be filled by UK nationals? And if the time came when we needed cleaners or people to work on farms then those jobs points rating could be changed to accommodate that need.

 

[Hobbit]

I don't know the answer to this. Anecdotally I know that in one of our local primary school number of kids coming into reception fell a few years back; the number of reception classes and teachers was therefore reduced; and now numbers they are increasing - and not it seems due to immigration. But no funding for additional teachers and new build classrooms (previous classrooms not required were portacabin-type and were demolished when no longer needed) - so need for much larger reception, Yr 1 and Yr 2 class sizes - albeit it temporarily.

But of course where there is immigration pressures on schools all that needs doing is funding the building of more classrooms or more schools - but wherefore art thou funds in the face of austerity cuts? And where making schools academies fits into that I don't know - especially if academies can pick and choose; or can decide whether they want to grow or not.

And the increased numbers in A&E does not necessarily cause waiting times to increase - lack of provision to deal with the increase in numbers does - or reduced provision to deal with the same numbers would.

Numbers will drop between booms, hence what your local school experienced. It's the current, unexpected, boom that has caught out the LEA's. Not even 4 years from birth, but fully formed children turning up at the school gates. Building new schools/classrooms instantly is impossible.

An increase in numbers turning up at A&E must cause a greater delay. And more staff won't help. You still need an examination cubicle.

A question about immigrants, not immigration. How many immigrants turn up and have a job from the minute they step off the boat? Are there really over 300,000 jobs just waiting for these new arrivals? I don't doubt the accuracy of immigrants paying tax, but does it make it fair that so many turn up and go straight onto benefits? There is a reason why the retirement age has risen to 67. If immigration was controlled/restricted to those who are coming in to work... sorted.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Re straight on to benefits
I believe that immigrants have to have 3 months residency before they can claim any benefits.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Re straight on to benefits
I believe that immigrants have to have 3 months residency before they can claim any benefits.

What about the Emergency Brake Cameron negotiated

https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-emergency-brake/


The EU deal suggests changing EU rules to set up a so-called ‘emergency brake’ (officially referred to as the ‘alert and safeguard’ mechanism).

Under the proposal, any member country could notify EU authorities that it has experienced an inflow of workers of “exceptional magnitude” over “an extended period of time”; and that:

the size of the inflow affects “essential aspects of its social security system”; or
leads to serious difficulties in its employment market; or
is putting “excessive pressure” on public services.
In those circumstances EU lawmakers could authorise that country to restrict in-work benefits for new migrant workers for up to four years after they start working. They wouldn’t have to give their permission.

If they did, exclusion from such benefits would be phased out over time: it would be absolute to start with but benefits would gradually increase.

These restrictions wouldn’t apply to immigrants already working here.

But they could be kept in place for "EU workers arriving during a period of 7 years" after the brake is triggered.

 

[Hobbit]

Re straight on to benefits
I believe that immigrants have to have 3 months residency before they can claim any benefits.

What about the Emergency Brake Cameron negotiated

https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-emergency-brake/


The EU deal suggests changing EU rules to set up a so-called ‘emergency brake’ (officially referred to as the ‘alert and safeguard’ mechanism).

Under the proposal, any member country could notify EU authorities that it has experienced an inflow of workers of “exceptional magnitude” over “an extended period of time”; and that:

the size of the inflow affects “essential aspects of its social security system”; or
leads to serious difficulties in its employment market; or
is putting “excessive pressure” on public services.
In those circumstances EU lawmakers could authorise that country to restrict in-work benefits for new migrant workers for up to four years after they start working. They wouldn’t have to give their permission.

If they did, exclusion from such benefits would be phased out over time: it would be absolute to start with but benefits would gradually increase.

These restrictions wouldn’t apply to immigrants already working here.

But they could be kept in place for "EU workers arriving during a period of 7 years" after the brake is triggered.

All a claimant has to do is say they can't support themselves. 264,000 non-EU immigrants went straight onto benefits in 2014. A further 140,000 EU citizens went straight onto benefits. From the DWP's own website.

As as for the emergency brake negotiated by DC. None of the terms have been ratified by the EU yet. I don't believe they'll be ratified.

And to draw a comparison, has Westminster honoured its promises post-Scot referendum? Do you believe DC on the EU terms after what has happened post-Scot referendum?

 

[SocketRocket]

As concerns over immigration will I think be the determining factor for many on how they vote - here's an IN argument with some facts.

Yes of course Remain would say this - will say the Brexiteers - but can we just all accept for a moment that some FACTS are being presented as part of an argument rather than just assertion and supposition. To counter let's have some FACTS from Leave presented that debunk this analysis.

http://infacts.org/eu-migrants-stop-nhs-flatlining/

You call these 'FACTS' but to me they are just a bunch of half truths and opinions. But I would say that wouldn't I

Lets take a look at some of these so called facts:

Looking at the contributions immigrants make to the Exchequer is not what is being suggested in that article. If you look at all immigration over a slightly longer period like 30/40 years you will see that there is a huge cost. New migrants tend to be young single people who do not take a great deal in benefits and make a very small net contribution. But they don't stay young, as they marry and have children they start to take in-work benefits, as they age their children cost more, they cost more as they need additional health care and state pensions etc. So how will their age related costs be met; would you suggest by bringing in more immigrants? That is a very naive and ill though through proposition.

Regarding the NHS. We have been robbing poor countries of their trained Nurses and Doctors for some time and IMO this is a National disgrace that we should be thoroughly ashamed of. These poor countries have paid to train these people and we poach them away then use the act as some kind of badge of pride on how our NHS would not exist without them. What about their health service :angry: We have been lazy and selfish in not putting enough money into training and supporting our health professionals, there were 57,000 applicants who tried to train as a nurse, but 37,000 were rejected, surely they were not all unsuitable. We also spent £3.3 Billion on using Agency Nurses, how crazy is that!

No one is suggesting we stop immigration but many people are unhappy with the current levels of over 300,00 net per annum and many believe it's much larger than that as the counting method is flawed and the number of NI numbers we issue per year is more like 600,000. A points based system has to be the best way to ensure we only bring in numbers of people we need, are the best available or have the most pressing needs for support. How can this not be the best way to manage it and does anyone actually think open door immigration is a good thing?

So there are a few counter points, call them facts or opinion it's all the same.

 

[Ethan]

You call these 'FACTS' but to me they are just a bunch of half truths and opinions. But I would say that wouldn't I

Lets take a look at some of these so called facts:

Looking at the contributions immigrants make to the Exchequer is not what is being suggested in that article. If you look at all immigration over a slightly longer period like 30/40 years you will see that there is a huge cost. New migrants tend to be young single people who do not take a great deal in benefits and make a very small net contribution. But they don't stay young, as they marry and have children they start to take in-work benefits, as they age their children cost more, they cost more as they need additional health care and state pensions etc. So how will their age related costs be met; would you suggest by bringing in more immigrants? That is a very naive and ill though through proposition.

Regarding the NHS. We have been robbing poor countries of their trained Nurses and Doctors for some time and IMO this is a National disgrace that we should be thoroughly ashamed of. These poor countries have paid to train these people and we poach them away then use the act as some kind of badge of pride on how our NHS would not exist without them. What about their health service :angry: We have been lazy and selfish in not putting enough money into training and supporting our health professionals, there were 57,000 applicants who tried to train as a nurse, but 37,000 were rejected, surely they were not all unsuitable. We also spent £3.3 Billion on using Agency Nurses, how crazy is that!

No one is suggesting we stop immigration but many people are unhappy with the current levels of over 300,00 net per annum and many believe it's much larger than that as the counting method is flawed and the number of NI numbers we issue per year is more like 600,000. A points based system has to be the best way to ensure we only bring in numbers of people we need, are the best available or have the most pressing needs for support. How can this not be the best way to manage it and does anyone actually think open door immigration is a good thing?

So there are a few counter points, call them facts or opinion it's all the same.

So you are saying young people get older. Well, that changes everything.

Obviously they get older, but do so after a long period of contribution. Immigrants also have more kids than indigenous, so they bring new young people into the mix and reduce the rate at which the demographic imbalance is bringing us towards catastrophe. Germany realised this and encouraged immigration.

The NHS does indeed plunder overseas countries for staff, and is going to have to do so even more in the near future, especially for junior doctors. Agency staff usage is a barometer of morale in the NHS, which is at an all time low. The UK could train enough nurses if the conditions were right.

People are unhappy with the current levels of immigration because they have been told to be unhappy and that immigrants are responsible for the ills of the country. In times of economic stress, countries always blame Johnny Foreigner for their problems. In my opinion, The Tory Party is responsible for most of the ills.

 

[SocketRocket]

So you are saying young people get older. Well, that changes everything.

Obviously they get older, but do so after a long period of contribution. Immigrants also have more kids than indigenous, so they bring new young people into the mix and reduce the rate at which the demographic imbalance is bringing us towards catastrophe. Germany realised this and encouraged immigration.

The NHS does indeed plunder overseas countries for staff, and is going to have to do so even more in the near future, especially for junior doctors. Agency staff usage is a barometer of morale in the NHS, which is at an all time low. The UK could train enough nurses if the conditions were right.

People are unhappy with the current levels of immigration because they have been told to be unhappy and that immigrants are responsible for the ills of the country. In times of economic stress, countries always blame Johnny Foreigner for their problems. In my opinion, The Tory Party is responsible for most of the ills.

Immigrants getting older do indeed change everything as their costs to the exchequer become higher, much higher and the contribution they make while younger is overall very small indeed.

People are worried about the high levels of immigration because of the way it affects their lives, by the way they see their communities are becoming pressurised, by the draw down effect on wages and many things that you probably dont experience in your upper middle class lifestyle. Politicians and very well off people make me sick when they tell others that everything is OK, looking out from their ivory towers on the great unwashed and suggesting any opinion counter to their own is one of ignorance. "In times of economic stress" Where did you experience that then? probably straight out of the pages of the Guardian.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

So you are saying young people get older. Well, that changes everything.

Obviously they get older, but do so after a long period of contribution. Immigrants also have more kids than indigenous, so they bring new young people into the mix and reduce the rate at which the demographic imbalance is bringing us towards catastrophe. Germany realised this and encouraged immigration.

The NHS does indeed plunder overseas countries for staff, and is going to have to do so even more in the near future, especially for junior doctors. Agency staff usage is a barometer of morale in the NHS, which is at an all time low. The UK could train enough nurses if the conditions were right.

People are unhappy with the current levels of immigration because they have been told to be unhappy and that immigrants are responsible for the ills of the country. In times of economic stress, countries always blame Johnny Foreigner for their problems. In my opinion, The Tory Party is responsible for most of the ills.

I fear that there is much to this. Since the 80s there seems to have developed huge feelings of 'entitlement' across great swathes of the UK. And when those feelings of entitlement are no longer being satisfied folks get angry, frustrated and resentful - and look to find something or someone to blame - often ignoring the fact that a large part of the solution may be much closer home - themselves. And so we have immigrants and the EU being blamed by so many for the woes, resentments and jealousies that they feel. And thinking that leaving the EU and slashing immigration will solve all their own personal issues. And it won't.

 

[jp5]

Insulting to suggest that people are unhappy with immigration levels merely because they've been told to be so.

It's reasonable to be concerned by an immigration policy that would require 10 new cities the size of Nottingham by 2030 to house those that arrive. And yet town development has been on the back-burners since the 70s.

All but the least informed will agree that immigration is beneficial, but needs to be managed in a sustainable manner - for both the nations of destination and origin - which doesn't seem to happening right now.

 

[Ethan]

Insulting to suggest that people are unhappy with immigration levels merely because they've been told to be so.

It's reasonable to be concerned by an immigration policy that would require 10 new cities the size of Nottingham by 2030 to house those that arrive. And yet town development has been on the back-burners since the 70s.

All but the least informed will agree that immigration is beneficial, but needs to be managed in a sustainable manner - for both the nations of destination and origin - which doesn't seem to happening right now.

You are making two separate points.

Immigrants have always been the go-to scapegoats when things get tough. It has happened with repeated waves of immigrants into the US, and more recently in various European countries. It is convenient to blame immigrants for failing public services rather than Govt policy which people understand less well than they understand hearing more strange accents or seeing people that don't look like them.

I have been to Nottingham, and wouldn't want to see another 10 of them.

 

[Ethan]

Immigrants getting older do indeed change everything as their costs to the exchequer become higher, much higher and the contribution they make while younger is overall very small indeed.

People are worried about the high levels of immigration because of the way it affects their lives, by the way they see their communities are becoming pressurised, by the draw down effect on wages and many things that you probably dont experience in your upper middle class lifestyle. Politicians and very well off people make me sick when they tell others that everything is OK, looking out from their ivory towers on the great unwashed and suggesting any opinion counter to their own is one of ignorance. "In times of economic stress" Where did you experience that then? probably straight out of the pages of the Guardian.

I thought you disapproved of ad hominem attacks? Except when you make them? If you don't stop I will ask my valet to draft a stern letter.


And to retort:
Politicians and xenophones make me sick when they tell others that everything going wrong is due to immigrants, rather than their own fecklessness, looking out through their racist goggles and suggesting (that) any opinion counter to their own is one of middle class privilege.

 

[jp5]

You are making two separate points.

Immigrants have always been the go-to scapegoats when things get tough. It has happened with repeated waves of immigrants into the US, and more recently in various European countries. It is convenient to blame immigrants for failing public services rather than Govt policy which people understand less well than they understand hearing more strange accents or seeing people that don't look like them.

I have been to Nottingham, and wouldn't want to see another 10 of them.

You talk in extremes, as if all you see when people speak in opposition of current immigration levels are xenophobes, racists, and people who blame immigrants for all their woes.

But it's reasonable to dispassionately question whether an open door immigration policy is right for our country, and the continent of Europe as a whole. Is a million people every 3 years sustainable with our services and housing policies? Is it fair or helpful on poorer nations which see the flight of their most skilled workers, often trained up at public expense? Is it right that we are overly strict on non-EU migration?

I don't blame immigrants for any of the current issues our country has. But I do wonder if our arrangement is truly in our best interests, and the interests of other countries.

 

[Hobbit]

You talk in extremes, as if all you see when people speak in opposition of current immigration levels are xenophobes, racists, and people who blame immigrants for all their woes.

But it's reasonable to dispassionately question whether an open door immigration policy is right for our country, and the continent of Europe as a whole. Is a million people every 3 years sustainable with our services and housing policies? Is it fair or helpful on poorer nations which see the flight of their most skilled workers, often trained up at public expense? Is it right that we are overly strict on non-EU migration?

I don't blame immigrants for any of the current issues our country has. But I do wonder if our arrangement is truly in our best interests, and the interests of other countries.

Careful... sounds too reasonable an argument for on here.

 

[Ethan]

You talk in extremes, as if all you see when people speak in opposition of current immigration levels are xenophobes, racists, and people who blame immigrants for all their woes.

But it's reasonable to dispassionately question whether an open door immigration policy is right for our country, and the continent of Europe as a whole. Is a million people every 3 years sustainable with our services and housing policies? Is it fair or helpful on poorer nations which see the flight of their most skilled workers, often trained up at public expense? Is it right that we are overly strict on non-EU migration?

I don't blame immigrants for any of the current issues our country has. But I do wonder if our arrangement is truly in our best interests, and the interests of other countries.

I think you missed the extreme point to which I was retorting in like language.

Politicians and very well off people make me sick when they tell others that everything is OK, looking out from their ivory towers on the great unwashed and suggesting any opinion counter to their own is one of ignorance.

The clue was in the 'and to retort' bit. I am sure you will want to have a go at SocketRocket now lest you be seen as a hypocrite.

 

[jp5]

I think you missed the extreme point to which I was retorting in like language.

Politicians and very well off people make me sick when they tell others that everything is OK, looking out from their ivory towers on the great unwashed and suggesting any opinion counter to their own is one of ignorance.

The clue was in the 'and to retort' bit. I am sure you will want to have a go at SocketRocket now lest you be seen as a hypocrite.

I think you've got your wires a little crossed - at no point did I refer to your "and to retort" post!

I did take issue with "People are unhappy with the current levels of immigration because they have been told to be unhappy", as if they would be incapable of coming to an independent opinion on the matter.