You think you've got problems America...

[John Cuthber]

9 hours ago, mistermack said:

Your post makes the ridiculous assumption that staying in will hurt nobody.

OK, if it's ridiculous, it should be easy for you to show how the status quo causes more harm (than the status quo).

Good luck...

[CharonY]

The Brexiteer wishlist was always an unmitigated mix of incompatible demands and the campaign has done little to dissuade folks from one or the other. Many voters were driven by their distaste (anxiety?) of immigration, at least during the campaign. One only need to look at some of the adverts targeting immigration especially from Eastern European countries. Then there are folks who want to get rid of EU regulation, conveniently forgetting that in order to continue trade, they would need to adhere to them, anyway. Only now they won't have a voice in creating these regulations anymore (which is a bit funny considering some of them were set up on the behest of the UK in the first place).  

Of course, free participation in the EU market would also require the freedom of movement of people, so that did not make any sense and so on. It is also funny how priority shifted rapidly after the Brexit vote. Just shortly before the vote, immigration was the top issue and everyone was jumping that bandwagon. Come 2018 that interest dropped rapidly. Perhaps folks realise that there are more pressing  matters now regarding the future of the EU and UK?

 

[mistermack]

The drop in immigration as a priority is hardly surprising. Around the time of the vote, the tv screens here in the UK were full of constant pictures of people crossing the Med in small boats, and Angela Merkel had  announced months before that Germany would take a million more, and was issuing instructions to everyone else to do likewise. 

I'm absolutely sure that Angela Merkel, just on her own, swung the referendum vote over the 50% mark towards Leave. It wasn't quite enough to swing me to vote leave, but it did convince me not to vote remain, which was my original voting intention. 

Now the UK press have gone suspiciously quiet on immigration, even though the story hasn't really changed. (Lesbos saw 3,000 new arrivals in August)  

https://www.dw.com/en/history-will-prove-merkel-right-on-refugees-eus-juncker/a-48855736      

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/02/greece-moves-1400-asylum-seekers-crowded-lesbos-camp-migrant/

I don't believe our press is as independent as they like to make out. Someone is pulling the strings. 

Edited September 27, 2019 by mistermack
add links

[MigL]

Whether they want to be or not, the UK will always be linked to Europe in some way or other.
If they leave the EU, the best they can hope for is a comprehensive trade deal, similar to our North American USMCA/NAFTA.
But, even if they could manage to negotiate a deal, they would still have to abide by trade regulations imposed by foreign nationals.
Would it not be less painful to stay in the EU and have some measure of control/authority over those trade regulations ?

Have another referendum already.
( or, at least, a referendum on whether to have another referendum )

[dimreepr]

31 minutes ago, MigL said:

Whether they want to be or not, the UK will always be linked to Europe in some way or other.
If they leave the EU, the best they can hope for is a comprehensive trade deal, similar to our North American USMCA/NAFTA.
But, even if they could manage to negotiate a deal, they would still have to abide by trade regulations imposed by foreign nationals.
Would it not be less painful to stay in the EU and have some measure of control/authority over those trade regulations ?

Have another referendum already.
( or, at least, a referendum on whether to have another referendum )

Indeed, it's a strange kind of democracy in which humanity is ignored.

[Strange]

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

I don't believe our press is as independent as they like to make out. Someone is pulling the strings.

Could the fact that majority of the press is printing headlines about immigration, traitors, sabotage and betrayal have any connection to the fact they are owned by multi-millionaires with their own agenda?

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Would it not be less painful to stay in the EU and have some measure of control/authority over those trade regulations ?

Logically one would assume that. Unfortunately the Leave campaign heavily used fear of immigrants and related to that, souvereignity. Of course they did not realize that most immigration was a) from outside the EU and b) therefore completely under the control of the EU UK.

 

[Strange]

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

most immigration was a) from outside the EU and b) therefore completely under the control of the EU.

Presumably you mean that immigration from outside the EU was completely under control of the UK?

There are some who have latched onto the spin that "free movement is unfair to people from other countries", if they really believe that then the answer is not to remove the rights of one group but to enhance the rights of the others.

You wouldn't say that workers in one sector have better employment rights therefore we should remove their rights. You would say that other people should be brought up to the same level.

[CharonY]

Just now, Strange said:

Presumably you mean that immigration from outside the EU was completely under control of the UK?

Yes indeed. I blame the EU for my blunder. 

1 minute ago, Strange said:

You wouldn't say that workers in one sector have better employment rights therefore we should remove their rights. You would say that other people should be brought up to the same level.

Yes, when it comes to these things, there is a weird zero-sum-game thinking that is really prevalent. Same argument with asylum seekers vs regular immigrants. Or when it comes to benefits.  Cutting the nose to spite the face comes to mind. 

[mistermack]

There's a big difference in attitude to immigration between successive UK governments, and the UK people. 

The UK governments don't want to cut down immigration. The people do. Government after government have promised to cut it down, but they never have. Because they were lying, they never had any intention of restricting it at all. They lie to get elected, and then basically do nothing. 

Why do they want to keep the influx? It's for two reasons. Firstly, more immigrants shows up in the growth figures, which they use at election time to con the public that things are going great. Secondly, more immigrants keeps pressure on the housing market, and maintain the over-ripe housing bubble. Again, falling house prices hit them at election time. House owners usually vote. Renters, more often don't. So they rely on a certain feel-good factor when house prices rise, and hopefully get votes out of it at election time. 

Britain is different regarding immigration compared to other countries. We have a free health service for a start. People can come in with expensive ailments, and milk the system. We also have fairly universal benefits. Another cow ready for milking. 

That's why you have camps of migrants around the Channel ports, of people trying to get to Britain. You would think that getting to France would be enough, that they had made it to the fabled Europe. But no, they risk their lives getting OUT of France, to get to Britain. 

I'm perfectly sure that if we get out of Europe, the pressure at the ports will be relaxed, and the immigration figures will continue to climb. It's great for government figures, and great for rich people, if they keep coming. It's only the poor who suffer, and they don't exert much voter pressure.

 

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

The UK governments don't want to cut down immigration. The people do. Government after government have promised to cut it down, but they never have. Because they were lying, they never had any intention of restricting it at all. They lie to get elected, and then basically do nothing. 

Most of the immigration is from non EU countries, so at least in the context of Brexit it is fairly meaningless.

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Secondly, more immigrants keeps pressure on the housing market, and maintain the over-ripe housing bubble. Again, falling house prices hit them at election time. House owners usually vote. Renters, more often don't. So they rely on a certain feel-good factor when house prices rise, and hopefully get votes out of it at election time. 

Quote

This article studies the effect of immigration on house prices in the UK. It finds that immigration has a negative effect on house prices and presents evidence that this negative effect is due to the mobility response of the native population. Natives respond to immigration by moving to different areas and those who leave are at the top of the wage distribution. This generates a negative income effect on housing demand and pushes down house prices. The negative effect of immigration on house prices is driven by local areas where immigrants have lower education.

The Economic Journal, 125 (September), 1393–1424

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Britain is different regarding immigration compared to other countries. We have a free health service for a start. People can come in with expensive ailments, and milk the system. We also have fairly universal benefits. Another cow ready for milking. 

Quote

In 2016/17, the average adult migrant from the European Economic Area (EEA) contributed approximately £2,300 more to UK public finances than the average adult currently living in the UK

So if it was for the economy, folks really should have stayed in the EU.

 

 

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

We also have fairly universal benefits. Another cow ready for milking. 

The fact that you conflate, EU and non-EU immigrants as well as asylum seekers  (successful or not) does not make it easier to dissect such vague statements. But there are very stringent eligibility requirements. However, asylum support is much lower than general welfare benefits. If an immigrant does not work, they can lose status and so on. So of course burden calculations can be difficult.

It is also never clear why immigration should be harmful specifically to the non-wealthy. Various studies have shown that depending on which parameters are used, the effects of all the usual talking points (depressing wage, increase housing cost, net drain to economy) are either false or quite minor in their overall effects.

Often data is sliced to separate out the "bad" immigrants, which are often then used to discredit immigration on the broader scale without looking into the actual impact. For example from the Oxford Economics 2018 report some folks may only read:

Quote

In comparison, each UK born adult contributed £70 less than the average, and each non-European migrant contributed over £800 less than the average.

But ignore:

Quote

The average UK-based migrant from Europe contributed approximately £2,300 more to UK public finances in 2016/17 than the average UK adult. 

or:

Quote

The average European migrant arriving in the UK in 2016 will contribute £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits over their time spent in the UK (assuming a balanced national budget), and the average non-European migrant will make a positive net contribution of £28,000 while living here. By comparison, the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution in this scenario is zero.

 

There is little to no balance to the actual emotional impact the topic has. It is not a coincidence that anti-immigration rhetoric rarely use actual numbers (with some exceptions using aggregates, which can be very misleading or are riddled with selective assumptions). But of course, it is also often embedded in a kind of conspiracy theory where government and media all conspire to hide the real cost to the benefit to some wealthy elites.

Of course, when it comes to actually do things for wealth redistribution (say, taxing said elites), everyone is up in arms, too. It is almost there is some inconsistency here somewhere.

[mistermack]

37 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Most of the immigration is from non EU countries, so at least in the context of Brexit it is fairly meaningless.

It is, and my post doesn't claim otherwise. Indeed I made the point that nothing's going to change on immigration if we leave. They will just admit more people from other sources. 

The rest of your post is way off the mark. No links to your sources or for your quotes, and their article on housing is either not as portrayed, or a pack of rubbish. I suspect that they are saying that an influx of immigrants drives down house prices locally. That's hardly news. But if people are moving out of one area, then they are buying elsewhere, driving up prices there. That should be obvious to anyone. There is also a lucrative black market rental market in areas areas that have a high immigrant population, and that encourages buy-to-rent and prevents severe drops.

There's no point in quoting that stuff, without a link to it. It's not worth commenting on. 

 

[CharonY]

You mean in contrast to the copious references you provided?

58 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The Economic Journal, 125 (September), 1393–1424

How about you read it instead of assuming? I know it is work, but the tendency for folks just pulling arguments out of their rearside is what got us in the mess. Assuming simple narratives and vilifying groups is always easier.

 

59 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Oxford Economics 2018 report

I indeed forgot to add the title:  THE FISCAL IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION ON THE UK.

But consider you are unwilling to read the short article, I somehow doubt that a longer one would be of any impact.

 

[mistermack]

Those are not links.

[John Cuthber]

On 9/27/2019 at 12:19 PM, mistermack said:

I don't believe our press is as independent as they like to make out.

Well spotted.

The Times was edited by Jacob Rees Mogg's dad.

The most frequent guest on Question Time is Nigel Farage.

It's true that much immigration is from outside the EU.
But the Brexiteers told the lie that "Brussels won't let us stop immigrants".

So being anti immigration was till being anti EU.

22 hours ago, mistermack said:

Britain is different regarding immigration compared to other countries. We have a free health service for a start. People can come in with expensive ailments, and milk the system. We also have fairly universal benefits. Another cow ready for milking. 

What are the systems like in, for example, France and Germany?

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

The most frequent guest on Question Time is Nigel Farage.

And also the only MEPs they ever have on are from UKIP/Brexit Party. They have never had a pro-EU MEP who might know about how the EU actually works and the benefits of membership.

Edited September 28, 2019 by Strange
Oops.

[John Cuthber]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

only MEPs they ever have are from UKIP/Brexit Party. They have never had a pro-Brexit MEP

Pardon?

[Strange]

20 hours ago, mistermack said:

Indeed I made the point that nothing's going to change on immigration if we leave.

And yet the Leave campaign made a big deal of immigration (from anywhere, not just the EU) with scare stories and lies.

22 hours ago, mistermack said:

Britain is different regarding immigration compared to other countries. We have a free health service for a start. People can come in with expensive ailments, and milk the system.

This is not true. People who are not entitled to free treatment have to pay. One side effect of this is that there may be a large number of British people returning to the UK, because they can no longer stay in their chosen place of residence, who will not be eligible for NHS treatment or other benefits because they do not meet the criteria. Many of these may be elderly with have greater needs and less resources.

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Pardon?

Oops. (Same problem as CharonY earlier. It's a conspiracy!) Corrected now.

[Royston]

I find it quite interesting that a cauldron of shit media, propaganda, and puppetry can quickly polarize a country i.e a few years ago, remain and leavers never existed...yet for some reason we're at logger heads.

Personally I think we should have a civil war...the majority of brexit voters were 50+, so the younger generation should take their legs out with lazers. 

 

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, Royston said:

Personally I think we should have a civil war..

It’s easy to say things like this online, but I suspect you’d feel differently if everyone you love were killed in this war. War is never something to desire or hope for. Never. 

[Royston]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

It’s easy to say things like this online, but I suspect you’d feel differently if everyone you love were killed in this war. War is never something to desire or hope for. Never. 

Good grief, it was a joke.

[Strange]

Perhaps better if the whole country is just turned off and on again.

[Royston]

deleted...blah

Edited September 29, 2019 by Royston

[iNow]

19 minutes ago, Royston said:

Good grief, it was a joke.

I understood your intent was to be humorous. It just wasn’t funny. War isn’t a joke

Beyond this, the possibility of such kinetic conflicts arising between neighbors, and where brothers who disagree just decide to murder each other, is far too high right now.

Calm heads need to prevail over childish words and knee jerk reactions. 

[Royston]

 

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

I understood your intent was to be humorous. It just wasn’t funny. War isn’t a joke

Fair enough, I kinda like the idea of children with lazer eyes taking out adults....each their own.

However this is fundamental to the brexit debate...

Quote

But I know fully well what we were voting for. 

Nobody knew what they were voting for, except the people (to a certain degree) who voted remain, because it was already in place.

For the people that voted leave, only a handful of powerful people knew the implications of leaving, not the public. If the public knew the hopeless mess that would entail they certainly would of not voted for it...yet it's these same people that scream 'the will of the people' and 'democracy'.