Europe should we stay in or get out?

[Scott-Copywriter]

It's not a narrow view. Inevitably, employing a migrant has opportunity costs, social costs and monetary costs. Do they generate enough in return to warrant those costs?

If there is an unemployed local person who could do the same job at the same wage, then the answer is no.

What opportunity costs, social costs and monetary costs are EU migrants supposed to warrant which "local" people do not?

A study by University College London estimated that migrants coming to the UK since 2000 have been 43 per cent less likely to claim benefits or tax credits compared to the British-born workforce. “Immigrants, especially in recent years, tend to be younger and better educated than the UK-born and less likely to be unemployed,” the Centre for Economic Performance at LSE concluded in a separate report.

Of the 290,000 people who immigrated for work in the year to September 2015, almost 60 per cent had already secured a job

In its 2015 General Election briefing, the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics observed: “There is still no evidence of an overall negative impact of immigration on jobs, wages, housing or the crowding out of public services.

“Any negative impacts on wages of less skilled groups are small. One of the largest impacts of immigration seems to be on public perceptions.”

A report by LSE in 2013 found that crime actually fell significantly in areas that had experienced mass immigration from eastern Europe, with rates of burglary, vandalism and car theft down since 2004.

The research concluded that there was “no causal impact of immigration on crime…contrary to the ‘immigration causes crime’ populist view expressed in some media and political debate”.

UCL’s Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration at University College London found that European immigrants to the UK pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits, effectively subsiding public services.

“A key concern in the public debate on migration is whether immigrants contribute their fair share to the tax and welfare systems”, co-author Professor Christian Dustmann wrote.

“Our new analysis draws a positive picture of the overall fiscal contribution made by recent immigrant cohorts, particularly of immigrants arriving from the EU.”

While school places and hospital beds are under pressure in many areas, much of the change arises from rising birth rates, the effects of an ageing population and other factors that local and national government has failed to respond to by expanding provision.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

In any case, a low wage economy does not benefit any country, and an immigrant on minimum wages does NOT contribute more than they take. Low paid jobs do not help the economy unless they are removing people from unemployment. This does not happen when immigrants are shipped in hundreds at a time by companies such as Next plc and Sports Direct.

How do you think the economy actually works?

Jobs must be done to keep the world turning. Some of the lowest paid jobs by average weekly wage in the UK include:

Waiters
Bar staff
Cashiers
Carers
Nursery nurses
Pharmacy assistants
Assembly line workers
Sales assistants
Administrative workers
Cooks
Teaching assistants
Retail staff
Receptionists
Window cleaners
Home carers

Who does these jobs without low-paid workers? Magic elves?

One of the key elements of helping an economy is to ensure that there are people within the job roles to satisfy the UK population's huge thirst for consumer spending.

If an immigrant is on minimum wage, they might not pay any income tax, but they are likely to spend almost every penny they make within the UK economy to meet basic living needs.

UK businesses which receive this money for payment of goods and services will then pay tax on that income, boosting UK business trade and contributing to the public budget.

The immigrant will then spend a large proportion of their income on VAT when they buy goods, and also many other forms of indirect taxation such as fuel duty, alcohol duty, tobacco duty, national insurance and others which all go straight into the Government's coffers.

Low paid workers fill vital roles to keep the cogs of the UK economy turning, and they will still ultimately end up paying thousands to the UK Government through indirect taxation even if they are under the income tax threshold.

 

[sirearl]

What opportunity costs, social costs and monetary costs are EU migrants supposed to warrant which "local" people do not?

Prof Dustman runs the Centre for Research and Analysis of Immigration…CReAM for short…. a pressure group for immigration.

So Dustman might have a vested interest in promoting mass immigration apart from his own beliefs…but what about his co author Dr Tommaso Frattini?

An educated man…he’s got a PhD in economics…but who taught him?

PhD in Economics, University College London, 2010
Supervisors: Christian Dustmann and Ian Preston

And Ian Preston?…Ian Preston, Deputy Research Director of CReAM.

Small world eh? Great minds all think alike.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36485464

Tory MP Sarah Wollaston has quit the campaign to leave the EU and will vote for Remain instead, she told the BBC.

Dr Wollaston, chairman of the health select committee, said Vote Leave's claim that Brexit would free up £350m a week for the NHS "simply isn't true".

She told the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg that she did not feel "comfortable" being part of the campaign.

Dr Wollaston said she thought there would be a "Brexit penalty" on the NHS because leaving the EU would hit Britain's economy.

"The consensus now is there would be a huge economic shock if we voted to leave," she said. "Undoubtedly, the thing that's most going to influence the financial health of the NHS is the background economy. So I think there would be a Brexit penalty."

I see.

 

[KM-Tiger]

None of the above would be an issue if it wasn't for the actions of our own Government.

But how can our local council at Westminster sensibly plan things like housing, schools, and the NHS, when they have no idea how may citizens will move to the UK region?

 

[ShirleyM]

The immigrant will then spend a large proportion of their income on VAT when they buy goods, and also many other forms of indirect taxation such as fuel duty, alcohol duty, tobacco duty, national insurance and others which all go straight into the Government's coffers.

The ones who plan to stay here, maybe. The ones who just want to save up enough to buy a house back home, or leave their family in their home country, do not.

In any case, this isn't just about immigration. Some is good, but too much of a good thing makes it bad. A point based system means we can take the immigrants we need, regardless of their income level as has to happen with non-EU immigration in order to stop immigration numbers being even worse. If Brits won't take low paid work then I would stop their benefits. Benefits should be a lifeline, not a way of life. Bringing in immigrants to fill those jobs is just making the problem worse.

 

[RedApple]

Sometimes , I understand the others decisions for not leaving but honestly, in my opinion, I'll rather go if there are better opportunities before the problems in Europe's crisis intensifies.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

But how can our local council at Westminster sensibly plan things like housing, schools, and the NHS, when they have no idea how may citizens will move to the UK region?

You have the exact same issue with the non-EEA points based system.

There are more net non-EEA nationals coming to live in the UK every year than there are EU nationals. What are you going to do? Tell them to wait 10 years from the date of their visa application to build more houses, fund more schools and train more NHS staff before they arrive?

There's an easy way to resolve any sort of pressure on these areas which applies to UK and EU citizens: reduce regional inequality in the UK.

In 2014, London had almost 37% of the UK's foreign-born population and the highest population density in the country. As for the foreign-born population in other areas:

East Midlands - 5.8%
Yorkshire - 5.7%
South West - 5.2%
Scotland - 4.3%
Wales - 2.3%
North East - 1.6%
Northern Ireland - 1.5%

There's PLENTY of room if people, both UK and non-UK alike, spread out into other areas of the country.

And at the moment, the EU seems to be doing more for regional inequality than our own UK Government. Between 2014-2020, the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund are pumping £380million into the North East alone for development, job stimulation and growth. They have funded hundreds of millions of pounds more in the years prior to that due to the region's comparatively poor GDP.

Similarly, the additional EU funding for poorer members of the EU is reducing EU-wide inequality, boosting economies and creating jobs, thereby reducing the incentive for EU nationals to leave their own country in search of work elsewhere.

If you're not happy with that, then you must also not be happy with the funding the EU is providing to the North East. Unless, of course, you only happen to care about the humans born on this particular patch of protruding rock in the ocean more than humans born elsewhere?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

And just to dispel the myth that Brussels is bossing us around once and for all:

 

[ShirleyM]

If you're not happy with that, then you must also not be happy with the funding the EU is providing to the North East. Unless, of course, you only happen to care about the humans born on this particular patch of protruding rock in the ocean more than humans born elsewhere?

EU funding is a misnomer. It's our money being returned and then told how to spend it but all the credit goes to the EU. There is tons of EU funding wasted on vanity projects. Quite honestly I'd rather see the money spent on schools, NHS, etc. I'm sure there will be lots of deprived areas, charities, arts projects, etc. all lobbying for EU funding but there is no point even discussing it because the EU makes those decisions, not the UK. If local councils waste money, which they do, we can meet up and demand an explanation. It may not change the past, but it may change future wastefulness. Not so with the EU.

As you can see, there is little that the EU can do that we cannot do better ourselves. If bad decisions are made in the UK we can hold that person to account.

Looking at this article, if we aren't the first to leave the EU then someone else will be.
https://www.rt.com/uk/345891-brexit-europe-polls-farage/

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

EU funding is a misnomer. It's our money being returned and then told how to spend it but all the credit goes to the EU. There is tons of EU funding wasted on vanity projects. Quite honestly I'd rather see the money spent on schools, NHS, etc. I'm sure there will be lots of deprived areas, charities, arts projects, etc. all lobbying for EU funding but there is no point even discussing it because the EU makes those decisions, not the UK. If local councils waste money, which they do, we can meet up and demand an explanation. It may not change the past, but it may change future wastefulness. Not so with the EU.

And you honestly think that the UK, if it had the choice, would spend that money in the same way?

The UK's own Regional Growth Fund (RGF) was scrapped in 2015 due to budget cuts. The EU's regional fund and social fund are now the only funds left for us where money is sent to poorer regions of the UK to stimulate development, jobs and growth.

The suggestion that the UK would do that is almost as laughable as the Brexit claim that the money we send to the EU will be spent on the NHS instead.

Brexit supporters want us to put more blind faith, trust and control into the UK Government than we ever have before, and then proceed to say that they don't trust the Government because they are campaigning to remain in the EU. It makes absolutely no sense.

 

[KM-Tiger]

Brexit supporters want us to put more blind faith, trust and control into the UK Government than we ever have before

Nope.

As we used to have before we joined the EU. Some of us are old enough to remember.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

And you honestly think that the UK, if it had the choice, would spend that money in the same way?
.

In Cornwall a few years ago £48 million promised by the UK government to help the poorest area in the country never arrived. When challenged on this John Major said that as Prime Minister he would unlock the funds. During his period as PM he only managed to prize £8 million from the grasping hands of Whitehall.

More recently David Cameron said after the weather damage two years ago that as a rich country he would give Councils the money to repair the damage. Instead he has let Cornwall have enough money to repair the pothole damage over 17 years!

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Nope.

As we used to have before we joined the EU. Some of us are old enough to remember.

Times change, I'm afraid. You will no doubt understand the difference between the politics of old and the politics of today. Similarly, the political framework and global dynamics have changed markedly since then.

Hundreds of years of history with countries making decisions solely for themselves without reaching out in partnership caused widespread conflict and war in Europe for most of that time. Only now, where we're within the European Union, and we share and decide on decisions together for the benefit of all, has peace been restored to most of the continent.

You must admire the effect the EU has had on this, surely?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

In Cornwall a few years ago £48 million promised by the UK government to help the poorest area in the country never arrived. When challenged on this John Major said that as Prime Minister he would unlock the funds. During his period as PM he only managed to prize £8 million from the grasping hands of Whitehall.

More recently David Cameron said after the weather damage two years ago that as a rich country he would give Councils the money to repair the damage. Instead he has let Cornwall have enough money to repair the pothole damage over 17 years!

After the 1996 Manchester Bombing, the UK Government funded £450,000 to rebuild the city centre and relocate businesses.

The EU funded £21.5million.

 

[john1989]

After the 1996 Manchester Bombing, the UK Government funded £450,000 to rebuild the city centre and relocate businesses.

The EU funded £21.5million.

Only £450,000? Are you sure?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/5036258.stm

 

[Cobby]

An ounce of intelligence and common sense? ;-)

So that's a "no, I haven't got any evidence". ;-)

Simple ones, such as the stagnation of wages (for a large portion of the population) over the last ten years, with many wages being actually lower, and an increase in the cost of living. Simple arithmetic, isn't it? Many EU citizens complain of the same happening to them.

Firstly, you're listing two sides of the same equation, wages are lower in 'real terms' because cost of living has increased; it's a relative metric and is the same thing. This correlates to global capitalism and its financial situations and decisions. If you have evidence that this is all a direct effect of EU membership, please post it.

an immigrant on minimum wages does NOT contribute more than they take.

So you are saying people working minimum wage jobs are a net loss to the economy.

 

[john1989]

So that's a "no, I haven't got any evidence". ;-)


Firstly, you're listing two sides of the same equation, wages are lower in 'real terms' because cost of living has increased; it's a relative metric and is the same thing. This correlates to global capitalism and its financial situations and decisions. If you have evidence that this is all a direct effect of EU membership, please post it.


So you are saying people working minimum wage jobs are a net loss to the economy.

There’s very little point in providing ‘evidence’ in this thread. Without wishing to start a ‘them and us’, a lot of the contributors for the remain have dismissed any links in the thread that don’t suit their point of view.


We need minimum wage workers. But whilst there are so many unemployed, any migrant taking a minimum wage job that someone British and unemployed could do, the migrant is a net loss to the economy. This is because we are topping up the migrants wage and providing benefits to the unemployed.

 

[Cobby]

There’s very little point in providing ‘evidence’ in this thread. Without wishing to start a ‘them and us’, a lot of the contributors for the remain have dismissed any links in the thread that don’t suit their point of view.

I've seen hardly anything from the Leave campaign except a desire to keep repeating the brexit sound-bites despite having them disproven in front of them. Asking for evidence at that moment has a point - they either continue dodging the request or become vague enough to try and keep their position valid.

We need minimum wage workers. But whilst there are so many unemployed, any migrant taking a minimum wage job that someone British and unemployed could do, the migrant is a net loss to the economy. This is because we are topping up the migrants wage and providing benefits to the unemployed.

That's an overly simplistic assessment of employment and relies upon a number of spurious assumptions. Jobs aren't simply a thing you can slide one national insurance number out of before sliding another in.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

There’s very little point in providing ‘evidence’ in this thread. Without wishing to start a ‘them and us’, a lot of the contributors for the remain have dismissed any links in the thread that don’t suit their point of view.
.

Unlike the Brexiters who seem to post nothing but half remembered Daily Express headlines and the rantings of Farrago.

 

[john1989]

Already making a fantastic contribution in Germany.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...on-centre-ground-didnt-get-ramadan-breakfast/

 

[KM-Tiger]

You must admire the effect the EU has had on this, surely?

Not sure whether it's the EU or NATO that has kept the peace in Europe.

But I am all in favour of cooperation between European countries. In trade, criminal justice, defence, and foreign policy. But cooperation is not the same thing as top down regulation by a dictatorship.

 

[Jeff FV]

Not sure whether it's the EU or NATO that has kept the peace in Europe.

I am, it was/is NATO

(I appreciate your post was probably somewhat tongue in cheek)

I remain undecided, but it does annoy me when Stayers keep saying that it was the EU that provided peace in Europe. It wasn't.

25+ years ago I was young man in the RAF, stationed in Germany. It was NATO (basically underwritten by the USA) ranged against the threat of the Soviet Bloc that kept the peace in Europe. I did my time in a noddy suit in a HAS on Tacevals - we were definitely British forces as part of NATO, not part of the EU.

In fact French military doctrine, even as late as the mid-eighties, was that they (France) would be prepared to cede western Germany if it meant the soviets stopped at the French border. This was a large part of their rational for withdrawing from NATO as it removed from them the obligation to take up arms if the Soviet army rolled into West Germany. One of their strategies was to allow NATO to blunt the Soviet advance in West Germany enough to allow them to be held at the French border. Wouldn't have worked, but blows a hole in the EU fraternity keeping the peace argument.

 

[simon field]

Not sure whether it's the EU or NATO that has kept the peace in Europe.

Or even the nuclear weapons scattered about the place!

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I am, it was/is NATO

(I appreciate your post was probably somewhat tongue in cheek)

I remain undecided, but it does annoy me when Stayers keep saying that it was the EU that provided peace in Europe. It wasn't.

You don't just stop conflict by the threat of collective defence. This merely solves the symptom, not the cause.

A country might be prevented from taking hostile action due to the threat of NATO, but the main issue is that they want conflict in the first place, even if they are unable to act out upon it.

It's social and economic cooperation which brings about true peace. Not just where countries want to be at each others' throats but can't, but where countries have no hostile intentions at all and integrate together in friendly cooperation for a common goal. That is where the European Union comes in.

If you want to see the effect nationalism has had in Europe over the past 2000 years, just take a look through much of this list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe

Over the past 3,400 years, humans have only been at complete peace for 268 of them, which is just 8% of recorded history. I find it quite said that it's taken this long, and so many millions of deaths, for countries to eventually set aside nationalism and work together in this way.

Taking into account all of history, especially in Europe, the EU is something we should be extremely proud of.

 

[simon field]

You can have peace without political union - which we weren't consulted on - and hopefully it won't involve being dragged into any more phoney wars over 'weapons of mass destruction' (there weren't any) or long, costly searches for 'the world's number one terrorist' (he was in his house).

It's the sneaky, underhand way in which these people have set themselves up that public seem to be voting against isn't it.

 

[ShirleyM]

My personal opinion is that the UK has problems, major problems, and to continue allowing immigration at this level is unsustainable.

The only solution Remain offers is to build more houses, more hospitals, more schools. How many should we build when we have no idea how many will arrive? Do we build extra 'just in case' or too few and hope for the best? Where is the money coming from? Remain don't have any real solutions to the problems.

Latest news is that the French and Germans want out. The EU does not bring contentment or stability, or even economic success. Riots and protests in many EU countries, heads of state stuck in limbo between what their people want and what the EU want, and the EU solution is to take MORE control.

 

[KM-Tiger]

Riots and protests in many EU countries

Which are never reported by the MSM.

 

[simon field]

I'd be interested to know where millions of people are going to live, be educated, looked after etc.

Confusing though - government says immigration is good, brings in money etc...So why does it keep saying it aims to reduce it?

 

[ShirleyM]

I noticed an error by Cameron in a recent debate. It may have been a slip of the tongue.

When discussing immigration he said he was trying to reduce non-EU immigration for economic reasons. As non-EU immigrants have to earn over £30K and have a job waiting, is he saying those immigrants are not economically beneficial? If so, then how does he justify EU immigrants on minimum wages (or lower if they work for Sports Direct).

I'll try to find the video when I get time.

 

[Cobby]

As non-EU immigrants have to earn over £30K and have a job waiting, is he saying those immigrants are not economically beneficial?

This may come as a surprise to you, but improving and managing an economy is far more complex than simply plugging in more highly paid people.

 

[john1989]

This may come as a surprise to you, but improving and managing an economy is far more complex than simply plugging in more highly paid people.

A small number of highly skilled workers that we need is much better than having a flood of unskilled workers that we don't need.

 

[ShirleyM]

This may come as a surprise to you, but improving and managing an economy is far more complex than simply plugging in more highly paid people.

I assume the same (and more) applies to plugging in thousands of low paid people that do not have private health care, etc. that is often provided as a benefit of highly paid jobs.

It's getting to the point where businesses set up to take advantage of everything the UK offers, but purely because they can ship in thousands of minimum wage workers. Why don't they just set up in Poland and save our taxpayers a lot of money in benefits, schooling, NHS, etc. and relieve some of the pressure. Someone is making a lot of money from these businesses, but I don't see how the UK as a whole is benefiting.

I really am interested why this happens. Does anyone know?

 

[Cobby]

The only solution Remain offers is to build more houses, more hospitals, more schools. How many should we build when we have no idea how many will arrive? Do we build extra 'just in case' or too few and hope for the best? Where is the money coming from? Remain don't have any real solutions to the problems.

So you're upset that the only solution you can see 'Remain' offering is to increase infrastructure to cope with a growing population? Weird.

Latest news is that the French and Germans want out.

\

Really? Link please.

 

[john1989]

So you're upset that the only solution 'Remain' offers is to increase infrastructure to cope with a growing population? Weird.

\

Really? Link please.

Remain and the government are doing nothing for housing.

My local housing association has had £20m taken from it over 4 years, but at the same time they are told to build more houses.

 

[ShirleyM]

So you're upset that the only solution you can see 'Remain' offering is to increase infrastructure to cope with a growing population? Weird.

Read the whole of my post instead of being selective. Where is the money to be found? We are suffering austerity, are we not?

 

[Cobby]

A small number of highly skilled workers that we need is much better than having a flood of unskilled workers that we don't need.

Well you seem to be operating on the assumption that all EU migrants are unskilled workers, which speaks to your bias, but let's put that aside.

Non-EU immigrants currently outnumber the EU immigrants, and with one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe, the markets (and as such the facts) apparently disagree with you.

 

[Cobby]

Remain and the government are doing nothing for housing.

ShirleyM says they are, you say they aren't. It's almost like the supporters of the Leave campaign aren't sure quite what they're arguing against.

My local housing association has had £20m taken from it over 4 years, but at the same time they are told to build more houses.

Government issue, not an EU issue.

 

[Cobby]

I assume the same (and more) applies to plugging in thousands of low paid people that do not have private health care, etc. that is often provided as a benefit of highly paid jobs.

No, you've gone off on a tangent again, what exactly are you arguing now? That managing an economy is more complex than plugging low paid workers? You're right, it is. Now you're pulling in extra stuff about private health care? What's your point?

It's getting to the point where businesses set up to take advantage of everything the UK offers, but purely because they can ship in thousands of minimum wage workers...
...

Link please.

 

[ShirleyM]

↑
It's getting to the point where businesses set up to take advantage of everything the UK offers, but purely because they can ship in thousands of minimum wage workers...
...
Link please.

Business such as Next plc and Sports Direct.

Why don't these companies set up in Poland, or some other Eastern European country, instead of bringing their workers here?

Many EU immigrants are actually graduates, but they take min wage jobs in the UK. I wonder why?