Should We Leave the EU?

[BananaRepublic]

The Labour case to vote LEAVE...

http://www.labourleave.org


mm

 

[TheKnightWho]

And who is put forward by the leave campaign - Johnson, Smith, Gove, Farage. Remind me which party they are primarily from.

While I'm on, any idea how much of this alledged £350 million a week do you expect those four to allocate to education/health/welfare, given how much three of them have had a hand in cut, cut, cut?

Don't forget that the £350m has been exposed as an outright lie, but I don't hear any leave campaigners changing their tune.

 

[BananaRepublic]

An interesting observation is that the amount of anti EU sentiment is growing across Europe.
Both left wing and right wing parties are campaigning against it.

Germany for example.
http://www.thelocal.de/20160610/just-as-many-germans-sceptical-of-eu-as-brits


We know two very different and unconnected couples where the wife is German, married to a Brit, having lived here in the UK for 20 years or more.
Both of them, like the Labour MP Gisela Stuart, are voting to LEAVE.

My sister lives in northern Italy, where there is a lot of antipathy towards the EU, mostly from the left of centre.
A UK resident Italian friend of her and her husband, living the NW of England, is also considering voting to LEAVE.

My brother-in-law and his wife have lived in Spain for more that 10 years (very much working age and a long way off retirement).
There are enough hoops to jump through and administrative obstacles in the way, to permanently live there as ex-pats as it is. They don't think a few more regulations caused by losing the right to free movement will be of concern.


mmm
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Don't forget that the £350m has been exposed as an outright lie...

No it hasn't been shown to be a lie. The figure has been contested and accusations have been made that it is a lie.
Neither side have proved anything.

 

[TheKnightWho]

No it hasn't been shown to be a lie. The figure has been contested and accusations have been made that it is a lie.
Neither side have proved anything.

No, it has unequivocally been shown to be a lie.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...mpaign-over-350m-a-week-eu-cost-a7051756.html

This is the problem with the faux-neutrality of much of the media: when one side lies and the other accuses them, they give equal weight to both instead of reporting the liars as liars.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

No it hasn't been shown to be a lie. The figure has been contested and accusations have been made that it is a lie.
Neither side have proved anything.

Sorry, but that particular figure has been shown to be a lie. There are cases where statistics are genuinely controversial and where there is scope to interpret them in different ways, but this is not one of them. The approximate amount of money that the UK Government gives to the EU is fairly well established, and it is not £350M/week. Incidentally, there's a good (and, so far as I can tell, accurate) discussion of that figure on this blog

Incidentally, I find very disappointing, looking at the LabourLeave website, to see that they too prominently use the false £350M/week figure. Are there no groups at all on the Brexit side who are willing to campaign honestly?

 

[Muttley]

Why, when people of all parties are leading lights of both the stay and leave camps in this referendum in which the principal of "one man...one vote" will apply in the referendum, do you make a totally meaningless comment about "the Tories should be 20 points in front at this stage".

Because, as Call Me Dave pointed out when he spent MY £9m on his propaganda, it's the government's position, the government is Conservative, therefore the Tories should be in front.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, it has unequivocally been shown to be a lie.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...mpaign-over-350m-a-week-eu-cost-a7051756.html

This is the problem with the faux-neutrality of much of the media: when one side lies and the other accuses them, they give equal weight to both instead of reporting the liars as liars.

Read your own link.
It is not a lie.
It's not even, as you like to twist it..."Just your interpretation".

If you need anymore help, if you still can't grasp it, I'll be back later.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Because, as Call Me Dave pointed out when he spent MY £9m on his propaganda, it's the government's position, the government is Conservative, therefore the Tories should be in front.

£9M of your money? Gosh, you must be very wealthy! How exactly did this 'Call Me Dave' person manage to spend your money? Did you by some chance accidentally give him your bank account details and passwords? What exactly do you think he spent it on?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Because, as Call Me Dave pointed out when he spent MY £9m on his propaganda, it's the government's position, the government is Conservative, therefore the Tories should be in front.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Read your own link.
It is not a lie.
It's not even, as you like to twist it..."Just your interpretation".

If you need anymore help, if you still can't grasp it, I'll be back later.

No, it is a lie. I am capable of reading. If a business analyst only considered outgoings and disregarded income they would get laughed at - called it "an interpretation" is laughable, and is just a refusal to admit that you're happy for the public to be totally misled.

So much for democracy and honesty - the Leave camp consistently show they're complete crooks.

It's also very telling that lots of people on the Leave camp like to insinuate that their opponents are stupid or blind fanatics because they have the audacity to disagree with them - the uncompromising arrogance would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerous.

 

[yorksrob]

Actually, there is: The need to keep VAT rates broadly similar in different countries to avoid a race to the bottom in tax rates: If there was no EU regulation of VAT rates, then businesses in countries that had lower VAT rates would have a big competitive advantage over businesses making similar products in countries with higher VAT rates.

I don't think that makes any difference to be honest, simply because VAT is a tax on consumption. If France has a vast VAT hike on sausages and the UK has zero VAT on sausages, you're not suddenly going to find everyone in France going over to the UK to buy a sausage. Even the UK company doesn't have a huge advantage because as soon as it exported its sausages to France, they would attract the French rate of VAT.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I fear the point you're missing there is that if you have no tariff barriers for goods (and nothing else blocking a free-trade zone) then your Government loses considerable control over the economy anyway. It might be less obvious because there are no visible regulations 'imposed' from outside, but it loses control because it ends up at the mercy of all the businesses that can say, in effect, if you don't lower this tax rate or remove this safety standard, we'll just shift production to country X that doesn't have safety standards/high wages/etc. The EU regulations might seem unpalatable to those who wish all decisions to be made in the UK, but by making all countries follow similar standards etc., they to some extent protect against exactly that race-to-the-bottom.

In the end, you have three choices:

1. Leave the EU, but keep free trade zones outside the EU, but then that free trade naturally deprives you of your independence anyway, and risks pulling the country into a low-wage low-safety low-tax etc. economy, whether you want it or not.

2. Leave the EU and put trade barriers up. That way you keep your independence, keep more control of your economy. But the downside is the loss of free trade means less efficient production and overall living standards will fall.

3. Stay in the EU, and keep the free trade and the external regulation. That way you keep the economic benefits and higher living standards that tend to result from the free trade, and the EU regulation/harmonization protects you (albeit imperfectly) from the nightmare of large businesses playing countries off against each other - at a cost of decisions being made at the EU level. (Or of course: Leave the EU but then sign back up to most of the EU regulations so you can access the EU free market - then you just lose the ability to influence those regulations without really gaining anything)

Coming back to this post, I think even now we are unlikely to have free trade in every field, healthcare being a case in point. It's more a question of how much and in what fields we have this free trade.

In terms of option 2 and the points that you've made regarding tariff barriers are certainly true for consumer goods, and low tariffs in this area are certainly desirable.

In terms of services etc, I'm not at all sure that the benefits of greater efficiency entirely outweigh the loss of higher value employment as well as funding to the economy, particularly if the money from a less efficient domestic operation which trickled into the domestic economy is outsourced elsewhere so the efficiency saving accrues elsewhere. Someone might achieve greater wealth in this scenario, but it's unclear whether the working population in the UK will.

 

[EM2]

We know two very different and unconnected couples where the wife is German, married to a Brit, having lived here in the UK for 20 years or more.
Both of them, like the Labour MP Gisela Stuart, are voting to LEAVE.

We know two very different and unconnected couples, where the wife is Spanish, married to a Brit, having lived here in the UK for 20 years or more.
Both of them, like the Labour MP Angela Eagle, are voting to REMAIN.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I wrote things like that when I was at school and even then it was barmy.

I see you didn't quote the opening line of the post, where I quite clearly stated:

the way I'd like it to work probably *is* fantasy

I'm quite aware that it will never work, much like we'll never see an end to war, or again see full employment, but it's nice to dream.

 

[Johnuk123]

The £350m a week figure is certainly the gross amount before the rebate which as Tony Blair showed can simply be reduced or scrapped at any time.

Osborne has said every household in the UK will be worse off to the tune of £4,300 exactly in 14 years time.
As economists find it impossible to make accurate forecasts more than a few weeks in advance Osborne must have some super-human ability to see into the future or he could be a scaremongering liar like "call me Dave".

 

[Howardh]

One rather ignored topic, lots of us must sell stuff (new and used) on e-bay, and if my purchases are anything to go by, there's a lot of trade to and from the EU.

How will leaving the EU help or hinder those? If I were selling something, from a new mobile phone to used football programmes, would I have to start filling in custom's forms, paying extra tax on what I'm selling etc??

Does anyone here sell on ebay (and other sites) to the EU and thr rest of the world? What happens??

 

[TheKnightWho]

The £350m a week figure is certainly the gross amount before the rebate which as Tony Blair showed can simply be reduced or scrapped at any time.

Osborne has said every household in the UK will be worse off to the tune of £4,300 exactly in 14 years time.
As economists find it impossible to make accurate forecasts more than a few weeks in advance Osborne must have some super-human ability to see into the future or he could be a scaremongering liar like "call me Dave".

In other words, it's grossly misleading as you admit!

 

[Johnuk123]

In other words, it's grossly misleading as you admit!

I have never said we send £350m a week to the EU as I know it's not the net figure, but we do send a fantastic amount abroad every week which is a fact.

The £4,300 figure is worse though because that has no basis in fact whatsoever it's just a forecast, we're as likely to be £4,300 a week better off.

 

[radamfi]

We know two very different and unconnected couples where the wife is German, married to a Brit, having lived here in the UK for 20 years or more.

If they are able to vote, that makes them British. Not the same as someone who has not gone through British naturalisation. If you had said that the German wasn't married to the Brit, and had not acquired British nationality, and still supported "leave" (although not able to vote) then that would be something.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I have never said we send £350m a week to the EU as I know it's not the net figure, but we do send a fantastic amount abroad every week which is a fact.

The net figure (deducting the portion that the EU spends in the UK) is about £160M/week. If you don't know how big the British economy is, then it does sound like a fantastic amount, but relative to the size of the British economy, it's tiny. As far as I can make out - and if my maths is correct - it appears to be about 0.25% of our GDP (around £2 trillion). Another way of putting it is that it comes to about 36p per day per person. Further, there seems to be general agreement that the net benefit to our economy (and therefore to Government taxation income) from being in the EU is considerably greater than that, which would mean that amount that we - as you put it, send abroad - more than pays for itself.

The £4,300 figure is worse though because that has no basis in fact whatsoever it's just a forecast, we're as likely to be £4,300 a week better off.

If George Osborne has said exactly what you quoted, then that would be bad because clearly you can't project anything like that accurately into the future. However, there is a strong basis for predicting that we will be worse off in the event of a Brexit, since that is overwhelmingly what economists and those who are paid to study our economy are - based on their expertise (and I would assume on their economic modelling) predicting.

 

[TheKnightWho]

It does amaze me how people who will go on and on about how much we send to the EU with apparently no economic benefits to us, and yet when they see economics that don't support their predispositions they suddenly question the entire discipline and dismiss it all as rubbish.

 

[Johnuk123]

If George Osborne has said exactly what you quoted, then that would be bad because clearly you can't project anything like that accurately into the future. However, there is a strong basis for predicting that we will be worse off in the event of a Brexit, since that is overwhelmingly what economists and those who are paid to study our economy are - based on their expertise (and I would assume on their economic modelling) predicting.

Here's what he said would happen by the year 2030 :

"The analysis shows that a vote to leave would mean Britain would be permanently poorer, to the tune of £4,300 a year for every household. Under any alternative, we’d trade less, do less business and receive less investment. And the price would be paid by British families. Wages would be lower and prices would be higher."

which would mean that amount that we - as you put it, send abroad - more than pays for itself.

How would you put it then as you seem to think sending it abroad isn't accurate.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Here's what he said would happen by the year 2030 :

"The analysis shows that a vote to leave would mean Britain would be permanently poorer, to the tune of £4,300 a year for every household. Under any alternative, we’d trade less, do less business and receive less investment. And the price would be paid by British families. Wages would be lower and prices would be higher."

Right, and if he said that (I can't find a link to that quote myself), then that would be reasonably in accordance with the treasury forecast, so it's certainly not massively inaccurate, but he should have qualified it as being not a firm figure, but the mid-point of the range of likely losses if we go the Switzerland route. The more accurate statement from HM Treasury is:

The central estimates – defined as the middle point between both ends of the range – for the annual loss of GDP per household under the three alternatives after 15 years are:

• •£2,600 in the case of membership of the European Economic area, like Norway
• •£4,300 in the case of a negotiated bilateral agreement like Switzerland, Turkey or Canada
• •£5,200 in the case of membership of the World Trade Organisation (like Russia or Brazil)

Note though that is claiming that the total loss in GDP would average £4300/household - which is not remotely the same thing as saying that every household will lose exactly that amount. Your previous claim that ...

Osborne has said every household in the UK will be worse off to the tune of £4,300 exactly in 14 years time.

therefore appears to be wrong.

How would you put it then as you seem to think sending it abroad isn't accurate.

I was simply quoting you there - not trying to imply that 'sending it abroad' is inaccurate. I'd probably have said something like 'paid the EU' which to my mind carries slightly less of a negative connotation, while in literal terms meaning basically the same thing in this context.

 

[Johnuk123]

Right, and if he said that (I can't find a link to that quote myself), then that would be reasonably in accordance with the treasury forecast, so it's certainly not massively inaccurate, but he should have qualified it as being not a firm figure, but the mid-point of the range of likely losses if we go the Switzerland route. The more accurate statement from HM Treasury is:



Note though that is claiming that the total loss in GDP would average £4300/household - which is not remotely the same thing as saying that every household will lose exactly that amount. Your previous claim that ...



therefore appears to be wrong.



I was simply quoting you there - not trying to imply that 'sending it abroad' is inaccurate. I'd probably have said something like 'paid the EU' which to my mind carries slightly less of a negative connotation, while in literal terms meaning basically the same thing in this context.

This is what Osborne said on radio 4 :

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/households-would-4300-worse-uk-11201255

"Today's Treasury analysis steps away from the rhetoric and sets out the facts that people have asked for," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"The conclusions could not be clearer: Britain will be permanently poorer if we left the European Union, to the tune of £4,300 for every household in the country.
"That's a fact everyone should think about as they consider how to vote."

Seems pretty clear to me by that statement. Can't see where he says average can you ? so it seems you're wrong not me.




http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/transcript-george-osborne-vs-andrew-neil-brexit/

Osborne destroyed by Andrew Neil.

The £4,300 figure​

What people who are watching this programme want to know is what you are telling is a scare story or true. Now you prepared a longer term report as well about leaving. The key finding that you were very keen to promote is that by 2030 households would be £4,300 worse off. Here’s the poster, you even stood in front of the poster there, there’s your figure. But the Treasury report doesn’t say families would be £4,300 worse off does it? It’s a bogus and misleading figure.
Well that’s not the case, that is how much per household our GDP would shrink and if you look at …
No, no, it’s not shrinking, on either scenario in or out, the Treasury report showed substantial growth in our economy to 2030, not shrinking.
Hang on Andrew, the question on 23rd June is what does the world look like if we’re in the European Union or if we leave the European Union and quit it and families would be £4,300 a year worse off as a proportion …
No they wouldn’t, it doesn’t mention their income.
As a share of GDP. Well their incomes would be hit and, hold on, the wealth of the nation that provides the public services they depend on – leave that picture up because people need to know the real …
Chancellor, I am going to put what the Treasury Select Committee said about your £4,300 under that picture, that is not what the main Treasury analysis found says the Select Committee. The average impact on household disposable incomes would be considerably smaller than this number, neither government departments nor the Remain side should repeat this mistaken assertion. To persist with this claim would be to misrepresent the Treasury’s own work. Why are you misrepresenting your own department?
If you actually read the full paragraph in that report it says the Treasury accurately presented the numbers and that it is perfectly legitimate to talk about the impact on households as a proportion of GDP.
But they told you not to repeat this figure, it says don’t repeat it, it would be to misrepresent your own department’s work.
I’m sorry, you are selectively quoting from that report.
Not at all, that is what the Treasury Select Committee says.
You are selectively quoting from that report. What the report says …
…is that your £4,300 figure is bogus.
Andrew, a) you are selectively quoting from that report. The report said, and I read it of course, that first of all the Treasury had accurately presented those figures. Second, it is absolutely right that people in this country understand it is not just their incomes but the value of the public services they receive and, by the way, this is exactly the sort of number we have heard from a whole host of international organisations. Just this week you have had …
No other organisation uses that figure.
Well they do, the OECD.
It hasn’t used £4,300.

 

[Muttley]

£9M of your money? Gosh, you must be very wealthy! How exactly did this 'Call Me Dave' person manage to spend your money? Did you by some chance accidentally give him your bank account details and passwords? What exactly do you think he spent it on?

Because me old fruit, and I don't want to shock you too much here, but the government doesn't have any money. It is the taxpayers money.
Whenever that generous institution decides to donate money to some tinpot dictator, it's not their money they are all free and easy with, it's the taxpayers.
And if your comeback is that MPs are taxpayers too, I'd have to disagree seeing as they can claim tax avoidance lessons on expenses.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, it is a lie. I am capable of reading.

But not of understanding apparently.
We send £350m a week. We then get some sent back in the form of a rebate.
Why don't we just send the net figure ?
Have a little think, or get someone to spoon feed you that information, then come back and tell us.
So as you see, it's not a lie that we send £350m a week.

 

[tony_mac]

We send £350m a week. We then get some sent back in the form of a rebate.
Why don't we just send the net figure ?
...
So as you see, it's not a lie that we send £350m a week.

According to the left-wing journalists at the Telegraph...

In fact, the rebate is effectively deducted at source, and so not actually sent to the EU at all.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12176663/EU-Facts-how-much-does-Britain-pay-to-the-EU-budget.html
(Although exactly how it is deducted makes absolutely no real difference - it's just a distraction from any real issues)

 

[AM9]

Because me old fruit, and I don't want to shock you too much here, but the government doesn't have any money. It is the taxpayers money.
Whenever that generous institution decides to donate money to some tinpot dictator, it's not their money they are all free and easy with, it's the taxpayers.
And if your comeback is that MPs are taxpayers too, I'd have to disagree seeing as they can claim tax avoidance lessons on expenses.

Actually, the money being discussed is the public purse. It belongs to 'the state' (including the whole population) and is spent/invested in accordance with the law and as directed by policies enacted by the incumbent government*.
Some of it may have been collected from individuals and organisations as tax due under current legislation, but once that money is paid, it is part of the public purse. Using this devisive term 'taxpayers' money' is about as relevant as an employer claiming that wages already in employee's possession are still the 'employer's money', or indeed a shopper claiming that a retailer's takings for last month is still 'shoppers' money'.

* Elected in accordance with current electoral legislation. Whether the current electoral legislation is truly democratic in somebody's opinion is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This is what Osborne said on radio 4 :

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/households-would-4300-worse-uk-11201255

"The conclusions could not be clearer: Britain will be permanently poorer if we left the European Union, to the tune of £4,300 for every household in the country.
"That's a fact everyone should think about as they consider how to vote."

Seems pretty clear to me by that statement. Can't see where he says average can you ? so it seems you're wrong not me.

He doesn't say individual households will be worse off, he says Britain will become worse off. 'Britain' is a bit vague in this context but does indicate he's talking about some collective measure, such as GDP. In that context, 'for every household' clearly implies it's a figure obtained after dividing by the number of households, which therefore implies an average. So, no, I would say I'm not wrong. However, I'll give you that the way he's phrased it - in particular the use of 'for every' is a bit careless and might be misunderstood. Even so, the idea of every single household being worse off by exactly the same amount is so obviously ridiculous that you'd think noone applying their brain is going to seriously think that's what Osborne meant.

Somewhat ironically, while misinterpreting George Osborne on this sentence, you're missing the bit in the next sentence that actually is much more misleading: He uses the word 'fact' whereas the £4300 claim is not a fact, it's a forecast. (Technically you could argue that he's strictly correct if the 'fact' is the fact that the Treasury have published the forecast but that's still a very misleading way of saying it).

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/transcript-george-osborne-vs-andrew-neil-brexit/

Dunno on that one. Unfortunately, Andrew O'Neill doesn't indicate which Treasury Select Committee report he's talking about, which makes it rather hard to track down. I'll see if I can find out more tomorrow. I have skimmed through the Treasury Report and that certainly does use the £4300 figure in the context of loss of GDP.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Whilst getting my holiday haircut on Saturday at my local barbers; I noticed a sign on the way apologising for possible delays in service.

This was down to a lack of staff, stating they had been trying to hire for some time.

I spoke with the propriator whilst paying and she explained to me that they had been advertising for 12 or so weeks for two positions. One maternity cover and one full time position.

The had received two applicants in this time, both of which they were willing to give the job to however both of which had been working cash in hand. They didn't want to take the job as this establishment paid their staff on the books presumably through PAYE.

This situation will not change if the UK leave the EU.

No-one is stealing our jobs, we are stealing them away from ourselves.

The lady made a good point in that we need more apprentices to help with training costs.

Most of the problems we have can be addressed in or out of EU, time to get our own MP's working rather allowing ourselves to be hoodwinked into throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Johnuk123]

He doesn't say individual households will be worse off, he says Britain will become worse off. 'Britain' is a bit vague in this context but does indicate he's talking about some collective measure, such as GDP. In that context, 'for every household' clearly implies it's a figure obtained after dividing by the number of households, which therefore implies an average. So, no, I would say I'm not wrong. However, I'll give you that the way he's phrased it - in particular the use of 'for every' is a bit careless and might be misunderstood. Even so, the idea of every single household being worse off by exactly the same amount is so obviously ridiculous that you'd think noone applying their brain is going to seriously think that's what Osborne meant.



Somewhat ironically, while misinterpreting George Osborne on this sentence, you're missing the bit in the next sentence that actually is much more misleading: He uses the word 'fact' whereas the £4300 claim is not a fact, it's a forecast. (Technically you could argue that he's strictly correct if the 'fact' is the fact that the Treasury have published the forecast but that's still a very misleading way of saying it).




Dunno on that one. Unfortunately, Andrew O'Neill doesn't indicate which Treasury Select Committee report he's talking about, which makes it rather hard to track down. I'll see if I can find out more tomorrow. I have skimmed through the Treasury Report and that certainly does use the £4300 figure in the context of loss of GDP.

I agree that he's taken the treasury forecast and simply divided the amount by the number of households which is ridiculous, which was my point originally.The reason I posted this information in the first place was just to show that although the £350m a week figure is a net one we do send a huge amount abroad every week the exact amount is open to interpretation.Osborne though is attempting to portray a forecast as a fact when it clearly isn't.

As much as I'm on the side of Leave for anyone to continually say we send £350m a week to the EU is not true as the rebate is taken off at source although that rebate may well go eventually.

 

[Aldaniti]

Looks as if Cameron is getting quite worried now. I get the impression that more and more Labour voters are realising that the EU doesn't work for them, and they're listening more to good constituency Labour MP's such as Frank Field. So what's Cameron's solution? Wheel out Gordon Brown, a former PM whom Cameron has spent the last nine years blaming for the current economic disaster.

I was talking to an acquaintace last week. We both live in the same northern town and he is very pro-EU. He agrees with half of what I say, and I agree with half of what he says, but last week he admitted that he simply couldn't find anyone - anyone at all - who would agree with him. We don't snipe and snarl about so-called facts and statistics, we have a good humoured discussion and like other people I guess, agree that the decision boils down to what you believe in your heart is right. The town we live in belongs to a constituency which always elects a Labour MP - and over the years has seen a once prosperous, thriving manufacturing and industrial area decimated. Schools are average and upon leaving, many youngsters have little hope of anything much better than a minimum wage job in a food processing plant. These are the sort of people who, once upon a time, might have taken an apprenticeship, enjoyed a worthwhile career and been given hope of a reasonably good life. Today, economic pressures and the employment markets mean they have little to look forward to. Many youngsters have little hope of owning their own home until their thirties, even forties in some cases. Some can't even afford to run a car these days. Uncontrolled EU immigration is not helping these people, but it is helping governments who know that immigration is a cheaper alternative to building a sucessful balanced economy for everyone, and of course large business loves cheap immigrant labour. You can bet Mike Ashley and Sir Phiip Green will be voting to remain!

It would be silly to suggest that the EU is responsible for all of our problems - and lets not forget that it is the political organisation that those of us voting to leave have disagreement with - not Europe itself, and not its wonderful countries and its people. But as someone who runs a small business, I firmly believe that unless we detach ourselves from the EU, the hopes and opportunities for many decent people, particularly working class people, across the UK will never be fulfilled. That will be a start, but we then need to change the way we are governed and do politics. The Tories don't seem to understand that free-market economics cannot be allowed to just 'let-rip' - and the Labour Party have largely lost touch with its founding principles and core voters. Those will be the bigger challenges for our country in the years to come.

 

[NSEFAN]

As much as I'm on the side of Leave for anyone to continually say we send £350m a week to the EU is not true as the rebate is taken off at source although that rebate may well go eventually.

I don't think arguing about the semantics is really the point, though. The argument tends to be, "£350m? That's a lot of money, we could spend it on the NHS." We see the same thing when discussing HS2, "£50bn? That's a lot of money, we could upgrade the existing routes instead". Whilst this is true, it completely fails to acknowledge the benefits of spending that much money in the first place.

I could do the same thing with my bank, "Why should I pay you all that money? I could buy a new car every year with that much!", conveniently forgetting that it's my mortgage I'm paying. Yes I could get rid of it, if I don't mind instead sleeping in that shiny car I just bought.

 

[Antman]

I was just wondering what your definition of 'unskilled' is, whether it includes 'manual skilled' and 'semi-skilled' as well given you're objecting to what you said is an unlimited number of unskilled workers coming over here.

Many Britains have chosen to live in the EU as a result of free movement. If we leave the EU the Spanish (or any other EU nation) can kick out all the British people living there. How many British nationals live outside the UK within the EU and how does that compare to the number of non-British EU nationals living in the UK. Given you were blaming the housing shortage on unskilled EU people coming over here I presume you know how those figures roughly compare without having to research them. If not then it's a bit rich calling me ignorant.

Well it's irrelevant, clearly we don't need unskilled migrants coming to the UK when we have plenty of our own out of work. If there is a shortage of bricklayers or plumbers in the UK by all means recruit some from abroad but as far as I'm aware there isn't a shortage.

Why would the Spanish want to kick out all the British people living there? Most are retired and not taking jobs away from the indigenous population or suppressing wages in the process, in fact they contribute a great deal to the Spanish economy.

It was you that accused me of hating certain people, which is just ridiculous. I've met many Eastern Europeans who are very nice people but that isn't the issue, it's nothing personal against them. One of my neighbours is of Polish descent, although you'd only know that by his surname, and guess what? There is a Brexit poster in his front window! It is about the blindingly obvious fact that you cannot allow an unlimited number of migrants into any country without there being a serious detrimental effect on the indigenous population.

And one final point, this isn't about getting out of Europe, it's about getting out of the EU. There is no reason why we can't still have a perfectly harmonious relationship with other countries.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Looks as if Cameron is getting quite worried now. I get the impression that more and more Labour voters are realising that the EU doesn't work for them, and they're listening more to good constituency Labour MP's such as Frank Field. So what's Cameron's solution? Wheel out Gordon Brown, a former PM whom Cameron has spent the last nine years blaming for the current economic disaster.

I was talking to an acquaintace last week. We both live in the same northern town and he is very pro-EU. He agrees with half of what I say, and I agree with half of what he says, but last week he admitted that he simply couldn't find anyone - anyone at all - who would agree with him. We don't snipe and snarl about so-called facts and statistics, we have a good humoured discussion and like other people I guess, agree that the decision boils down to what you believe in your heart is right. The town we live in belongs to a constituency which always elects a Labour MP - and over the years has seen a once prosperous, thriving manufacturing and industrial area decimated. Schools are average and upon leaving, many youngsters have little hope of anything much better than a minimum wage job in a food processing plant. These are the sort of people who, once upon a time, might have taken an apprenticeship, enjoyed a worthwhile career and been given hope of a reasonably good life. Today, economic pressures and the employment markets mean they have little to look forward to. Many youngsters have little hope of owning their own home until their thirties, even forties in some cases. Some can't even afford to run a car these days. Uncontrolled EU immigration is not helping these people, but it is helping governments who know that immigration is a cheaper alternative to building a sucessful balanced economy for everyone, and of course large business loves cheap immigrant labour. You can bet Mike Ashley and Sir Phiip Green will be voting to remain!

It would be silly to suggest that the EU is responsible for all of our problems - and lets not forget that it is the political organisation that those of us voting to leave have disagreement with - not Europe itself, and not its wonderful countries and its people. But as someone who runs a small business, I firmly believe that unless we detach ourselves from the EU, the hopes and opportunities for many decent people, particularly working class people, across the UK will never be fulfilled. That will be a start, but we then need to change the way we are governed and do politics. The Tories don't seem to understand that free-market economics cannot be allowed to just 'let-rip' - and the Labour Party have largely lost touch with its founding principles and core voters. Those will be the bigger challenges for our country in the years to come.

We really do need a like button on here

 

[northwichcat]

It was you that accused me of hating certain people, which is just ridiculous.

I asked if you thought Polish brick layers were unskilled in response to your claim about an unlimited number of unskilled migrants coming over here and draining our resources. I didn't say you hate Polish people but you called me ignorant for asking that question. For your information the last time I had builders round one of them was a Polish brick layer so I was trying to establish whether he fitted in to your unclear definition of unskilled or not. It appears from the rest of your post that you've given a standard UKIP politician type response that's a load of waffle which avoids giving an answer to the question.

Why would the Spanish want to kick out all the British people living there? Most are retired and not taking jobs away from the indigenous population or suppressing wages in the process, in fact they contribute a great deal to the Spanish economy.

Again you've avoided my question and I did say 'can' not 'will.' It really sounds like you've been taken in to a darken room and brainwashed by Farage and Johnson.