REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[Paddingtonwolf]

There are currently 400,000 EU14 workers in the UK who are more likely to be in a skilled occupation than the UK born – 70% compared to 55%. However, there are more than twice that number from the accession countries known as the EU10 of whom almost three quarters are in low skilled employment and over one third of the total are in the very lowest category of low skilled employment

Breaking the EU24 down, EU14 workers are more likely to be in skilled work than EU10 workers, with 69% of EU14 and 28% of EU10 workers occupying roles skilled to level 3 or 4. This means that almost three quarters of the 872,000 EU10 workers are in low skilled work, as are nearly one third of the 400,000 EU14 migrants.

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/364

I would trust ANYTHING from migrationwatch as far as I could barf it out.

You might as well start it with "Nigel Farage says"

It is that unbiased.

 

[Papper]

Welfare states are imperfect. I like the idea of a national minimum income and we can afford it, if we want to.

So do I as long as it actually empowers people and creates a society where we give more than we take. First of all they need to redistribute some of that wealth from the 1% and stop fighting their wars.

 

[Papper]

I would trust ANYTHING from migrationwatch as far as I could barf it out.

You might as well start it with "Nigel Farage says"

It is that unbiased.

Fuck Nigel Farage. That information is from - The ONS conducts the Labour Force Survey (LFS)

 

[thehistorymakers]

I explicitly stated that I accepted that you have repeatedly stated that you do not blame immigrants because I am aware that the way you structure your comments gives the impression of a "blame immigrants" tone. You, on the other hand, just make stuff up and apply it to other people's views.

Your gross stereotypes of "the left" do nothing to further your argument either - it just demonstrates that your own prejudices play out in your responses rather than dealing with the subject matter. I am the only poster to pull you up on your tendency to deflect rather than debate. But let's deal with that assertion that it is "usually the left who don't suffer from low wages and have university education who support no controls on UK borders". It is a nonsensical statement. Political parties of all persuasions have supported and enabled the EU, including free movement of Labour, so it is hardly something to hang on "the left" whatever that might be.

In terms of living standards - that is not something that can be blamed solely on the EU or immigration. "IFS calculations show that average household incomes will be 18% lower in 2021-22 than could have been reasonably expected before the financial crisis in 2007-08"

The biggest factor in the decline of living standards in the UK has been the UK's domestic response to the global financial crash, not our membership of the EU and not the levels of immigration. Austerity was, and is, a UK decision.

So if you really don't blame immigrants for the problems with standards of living and the (small) impact it has had on the lowest paid - why do so many of your contributions refer to immigration?

Sorry, I meant to put the left with university education, as opposed to the working class left. I tried to refrain from calling them the socialist elite, as it would just be confrontational.
There is austerity all over the EU not just in the UK. Does it all have to with the individual countries, or could it have something to do with the EU too?
I believe that immigration does affect the low-paid, the poor and the old and that is why every industrial city in the England voted to leave the EU. I don't blame immigrants but I do blame greedy short term thinking governments who haven't balanced the infrastructure we have in place, to the amount of immigration that has took place. John Major, Tony Blair and David Cameron have all said that low paid workers in the UK have been adversely affected by high levels of immigration. They also say that our public services have been overstretched. I blame them, not the immigrants, but even 55% of remainers said that they want more controls on immigration too.

 

[Johnny75]

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Sorry, I meant to put the left with university education, as opposed to the working class left. I tried to refrain from calling them the socialist elite, as it would just be confrontational.
There is austerity all over the EU not just in the UK. Does it all have to with the individual countries, or could it have something to do with the EU too?
I believe that immigration does affect the low-paid, the poor and the old and that is why every industrial city in the England voted to leave the EU. I don't blame immigrants but I do blame greedy short term thinking governments who haven't balanced the infrastructure we have in place, to the amount of immigration that has took place. John Major, Tony Blair and David Cameron have all said that low paid workers in the UK have been adversely affected by high levels of immigration. They also say that our public services have been overstretched. I blame them, not the immigrants, but even 55% of remainers said that they want more controls on immigration too.

Still stereotypes. Still meaningless. Still demeans your arguments.

There is austerity all over the world - does that have something to do with the EU too?

I would like to be able to have some respect for your arguments but regardless of where the discussion goes it comes back to the EU and immigration as if coming out of one and controlling the other is the solution. It isn't.

 

[Papper]

 

[Papper]

I would like to be able to have some respect for your arguments but regardless of where the discussion goes it comes back to the EU and immigration as if coming out of one and controlling the other is the solution. It isn't.

What is the solution? How should successive governments have planned for supply to meet demand in terms of funding public services given the economy isn't particularly vibrant, there is a shift to low skilled work and the national debt means we are paying £60Billion a year in interest to service it.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Our national debt was enormously ENORMOUSLY higher as a percentage of GDP during the MacMillan "never had it so good" days.

 

[Papper]

Our national debt was enormously ENORMOUSLY higher as a percentage of GDP during the MacMillan "never had it so good" days.

Yes and our standard of living was higher (in the context of an industrialised society rather than the consumer one we have now). How do you meet the needs of a growing population (expected percentage rise to double in recent times) in terms of supplying the demand for public services when there is a shift to low skilled jobs. The higher the population the more diluted the services. Do we borrow, cut or tax?

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

I suppose that depends on the economic model you want to follow. Milton would be along the lines of throw money at the things that can bring money in and let God sort out the others I guess, and John Maynard would view it rather the opposite.

Interestingly - those MacMillan years (as far as I can glean from the info I have seen) involved a massive paying down of the debt that had built up during the war and when Attlee's government set up the welfare state. And the paying down seems to have continued through Eden Douglas-Hume and early Harold Wilson. I don't know the solution to be honest.

I think to say the standard of living was higher is pushing it. We were just coming out of rationing.

 

[Parkins left foot]

I suppose that depends on the economic model you want to follow. Milton would be along the lines of throw money at the things that can bring money in and let God sort out the others I guess, and John Maynard would view it rather the opposite.

Interestingly - those MacMillan years (as far as I can glean from the info I have seen) involved a massive paying down of the debt that had built up during the war and when Attlee's government set up the welfare state. And the paying down seems to have continued through Eden Douglas-Hume and early Harold Wilson. I don't know the solution to be honest.

I think to say the standard of living was higher is pushing it. We were just coming out of rationing.

Standard of living wasn't higher depending on how you quantify that (& I was there) - expectations are much higher now.

What was seen as a real improvement then would be seen as basic needs now

 

[thehistorymakers]

Still stereotypes. Still meaningless. Still demeans your arguments.

There is austerity all over the world - does that have something to do with the EU too?

I would like to be able to have some respect for your arguments but regardless of where the discussion goes it comes back to the EU and immigration as if coming out of one and controlling the other is the solution. It isn't.

So just to get this clear. You see the problem like me, that public services are stretched?
You like me blame the government for that, but you don't think the amount of immigration is a problem,? Even though the infrastructure isnt in place.
Would you have any limits to EU or non EU immigration?
I think I am right in saying, that you don't think the big increase in immigration has had a direct or undirect affect on the quality of life of the low-paid workers in the UK? As the government haven't put the infrastructure in place to cope with the amount of new people that have come to live in the UK.
Do you not blame the EU for a lot of the austerity in the south of the EU? Or at least some of the austerity in the EU?

 

[The Saturday Boy]

I have no problem with immigration, I do have a problem with immigration being portrayed as a problem in the way it has been.

I believe that being able to control immigration has economic benefits but I don't trust this government to deliver immigration controls that would be anything other than political. If our economy requires immigration to support our labour market (as it has done for the last couple of generations) then I have no problem with it

I don't think the EU is the cause of austerity, they are a symptom of a faulty global economic system which we are not immune from by leaving the EU.

Our priorities have been short term for too many years, well planned infrastructure investment would have alleviated many of the issues but state intervention has eroded since Thatcher's government so we reap what we sow.

Leaving the EU won't change anything but if you want to believe that taking back control of our borders is a worthy and noble cause..keep on fighting the good fight.

 

[Papper]

I have no problem with immigration, I do have a problem with immigration being portrayed as a problem in the way it has been.

I believe that being able to control immigration has economic benefits but I don't trust this government to deliver immigration controls that would be anything other than political. If our economy requires immigration to support our labour market (as it has done for the last couple of generations) then I have no problem with it .

In what way do you disagree? I don't necessarily see any scapegoating of people more dissent towards successive governments. The main issue for me is demand and supply of public services and the fact that the economy has not reacted to this migration in a way that public services are delivered effectively. Increased population affects the delivery of public services especially if the population increase is manipulated. I really cannot see it any other way but if there is political reasoning and my perspective of borrow, cut or tax is off the mark then I need educating.

 

[thehistorymakers]

I have no problem with immigration, I do have a problem with immigration being portrayed as a problem in the way it has been.

I believe that being able to control immigration has economic benefits but I don't trust this government to deliver immigration controls that would be anything other than political. If our economy requires immigration to support our labour market (as it has done for the last couple of generations) then I have no problem with it

I don't think the EU is the cause of austerity, they are a symptom of a faulty global economic system which we are not immune from by leaving the EU.

Our priorities have been short term for too many years, well planned infrastructure investment would have alleviated many of the issues but state intervention has eroded since Thatcher's government so we reap what we sow.

Leaving the EU won't change anything but if you want to believe that taking back control of our borders is a worthy and noble cause..keep on fighting the good fight.

Really what we would like to see the UK look like is not that different. .we both blame the government, the difference is I also blamed the Labour government.

I think are difference in opinion is about perception. That isn't too surprising, we make our opinions on what we see, read, hear and are on told.

I equate that having many extra people and not investing enough in public services will put a strain on those services. You perceive that the extra people aren't putting a strain on the services and it is just about funding. I believe the poor and low-paid are paying the the price of successive goverments who haven't invested enough in public services and the public services can't take the strain of a high influx of new people. The important part is that we both want a more caring world, more investment in public services.

The austerity part, I blame the world financial crisis, lack of government investment and that the poor and low paid who are after all are the ones affected by austerity, facing attacks from all sides. High levels of immigration, without enough goverment investment in infrastructure will directly affect the low-paid and the weak. They will often use the same public services that are strained by lack of investment. That has to have a direct affect on the poorest in society, it is logical. Of course that is not the fault of the immigrants who are often poor and low paid too.
I can blame successive goverments, financial institutions and the EU for austerity. I can't understand how you can't see that the EU is helping to cause austerity in Greece, Spain etc etc. Of course politicians in those countries are highly responsible too, but the EU has played it's part.

My conclusion to all this is you are very loyal to your principles but you find it hard to apportion blame to the people or institutions you believe in. I have said I didn't like many of the people running the leave and remain campaigns. I blame the government for the lack of infrastructure, but too many new people in the country, without enough investment in public services, means the low-paid and poor have had to pay the price. I blame UK governments, financial institutions and the EU for austerity, but you won't blame the EU.

Can you see from this that you refuse to criticize the EU for anything and also you don't hold anyone or anything that you you believe in, responsible for any of the problems the country has been and is facing? You say you see me bending facts and you are the only one that pulls me up on it. You are entitled to your opinion, but I am often critical of people, political parties and institutions I believe in.

I know you will take this post as patronising and condescending, it isnt meant to be. It is meant to show we have both got different theories about what is wrong, who made it go wrong and why. I can't see a problem with that, it is just about perception. The important thing is, we both want the same sort of caring country, a decent health service, free for all. A tollerant society and workers being able to feed their families and people who come to live in this country treated with equality and compassion. I think the things we have in common are far more important on what went wrong and who is to blame.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Really what we would like to see the UK look like is not that different. .we both blame the government, the difference is I also blamed the Labour government.

I have never excluded the Labour government from criticism - when I have laid the blame at the door of successive governments I assumed that was understood.


I think are difference in opinion is about perception. That isn't too surprising, we make our opinions on what we see, read, hear and are on told.

No, I don't agree with this at all. You use limited information to make a general point and you frequently apply filters to other people's opinions to suit your own argument.


I equate that having many extra people and not investing enough in public services will put a strain on those services. You perceive that the extra people aren't putting a strain on the services and it is just about funding. I believe the poor and low-paid are paying the the price of successive goverments who haven't invested enough in public services and the public services can't take the strain of a high influx of new people. The important part is that we both want a more caring world, more investment in public services.

And here you prove my point. At no point have I said that extra people aren't putting a strain on services and it is just about funding - you have made this up. I have laid the responsibility for the strain on services on those who had the power and resources to do something about it. The cause of the problem is not immigration, it is government. I have taken that further and stated why I think coming out of the EU won't make any noticeable difference to net immigration so we will continue to have the same problem. Increasing population, both through ageing and immigration WILL put additional strain on services unless government is prepared to invest appropriately.

The austerity part, I blame the world financial crisis, lack of government investment and that the poor and low paid who are after all are the ones affected by austerity, facing attacks from all sides. High levels of immigration, without enough goverment investment in infrastructure will directly affect the low-paid and the weak. They will often use the same public services that are strained by lack of investment. That has to have a direct affect on the poorest in society, it is logical. Of course that is not the fault of the immigrants who are often poor and low paid too.
I can blame successive goverments, financial institutions and the EU for austerity. I can't understand how you can't see that the EU is helping to cause austerity in Greece, Spain etc etc. Of course politicians in those countries are highly responsible too, but the EU has played it's part.


And again, you are making up my opinions. I have not said that the EU hasn't played a part in austerity - in fact in an earlier post I acknowledged just that. My point is that leaving the EU (or being in the EU in the first place) is not the reason why people in our and other countries are being "punished" by austerity. How you can use the word "logical" and keep a straight face amuses me.

My conclusion to all this is you are very loyal to your principles but you find it hard to apportion blame to the people or institutions you believe in. I have said I didn't like many of the people running the leave and remain campaigns. I blame the government for the lack of infrastructure, but too many new people in the country, without enough investment in public services, means the low-paid and poor have had to pay the price. I blame UK governments, financial institutions and the EU for austerity, but you won't blame the EU.

What a load of pompous cack. I am not loyal to the EU, I have said that on numerous occasions. Under the right circumstances I would not only want out of it I would want it dismantled. It is a vehicle for the worst excesses of capitalism. When you clearly do not understand my principles how can you conclude that I am loyal to them.

Can you see from this that you refuse to criticize the EU for anything and also you don't hold anyone or anything that you you believe in, responsible for any of the problems the country has been and is facing? You say you see me bending facts and you are the only one that pulls me up on it. You are entitled to your opinion, but I am often critical of people, political parties and institutions I believe in.

That was a mistake, it should have read I am not the only one who pulls you up for bending the fact and making things up. I don't refuse to criticise the EU, I am challenging the assertions you are making about it. From that you leap to the assumption that therefore I won't/don't criticise it. Let me be absolutely clear with you - that is in your own head, not mine.

I know you will take this post as patronising and condescending, it isnt meant to be.

Must have been an accident then because it is both.

It is meant to show we have both got different theories about what is wrong, who made it go wrong and why. I can't see a problem with that, it is just about perception. The important thing is, we both want the same sort of caring country, a decent health service, free for all. A tollerant society and workers being able to feed their families and people who come to live in this country treated with equality and compassion. I think the things we have in common are far more important on what went wrong and who is to blame.

Your "theories" require you to assume things about others that are not true in order for you to validate them - I do have a problem with that. Theories are to be challenged otherwise they are just words. When your theories are challenged you just repeat them over and over again...so they are just words, nothing more.

I'm out. We've done this to death and you clearly know more about my opinions than me so I'm not really sure what I am adding to the discussion. Talk amongst yourself.

 

[thehistorymakers]

I'm out. We've done this to death and you clearly know more about my opinions than me so I'm not really sure what I am adding to the discussion. Talk amongst yourself.

I repeated them because you weren't making sense. If there is a piece of cake and there are 8 people in the room and the goverment invites another 4, your share and the share of the people who paid for the piece of cake is smaller. If you make a bigger cake ( investment on infrastructure), then you don't go hungry. If they don't you don't have enough cake to eat.

Only give criticism if you can take it.

 

[Penk Wolf]

I repeated them because you weren't making sense. If there is a piece of cake and there are 8 people in the room and the goverment invites another 4, your share and the share of the people who paid for the piece of cake is smaller. If you make a bigger cake ( investment on infrastructure), then you don't go hungry. If they don't you don't have enough cake to eat.

Only give criticism if you can take it.

But then those extra 4 add another half a cake, but the government decide to spend it on biscuits instead....

 

[thehistorymakers]

But then those extra 4 add another half a cake, but the government decide to spend it on biscuits instead....

The original 8, ( the low paid and poor) still have less food, they are still poorer. If the government had done the shopping before they invited the extra 4, then it would have been different. However both governments have been guilty of not doing the shopping. The invited aren't to blame, but the fact is, the original 8 have less cake.