REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[Deutsch Wolf]

Yes. I'm not sure why that would be a problem?

 

[thehistorymakers]

Yes. I'm not sure why that would be a problem?

Thank you. So leaving the EU, will change how many people from outside the EU will be able to live in the UK.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

That fraction of people who come from to Europe from outside the EU, settle in another EU country for typically 8-10 years, prove that they've integrated and behaved sufficiently to be granted naturalisation (along the way, probably having to prove that they are providing an economic benefit to the country through working there), then come to the UK. Yeah, I'm sure that's going to make a massive difference.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Because the figures quoted include people coming here and, you know, applying for UK citizenship status.

There isn't half of fucking Kenya sat outside Leipzig ticking off the days until they become herr such and such and can move to Whitby.

 

[Papper]

Immigrants improve living standards, as they contribute more than they take.

GDP—which measures the total output created by immigrants and pre-existing residents in the UK—is an irrelevant and misleading measure for the economic impacts of immigration on the resident population. The total size of an economy is not an indicator of prosperity or of residents' living standards.

The overall conclusion from existing evidence is that immigration has very small impacts on GDP per capita, whether these impacts are positive or negative. This conclusion is in line with findings of studies of the economic impacts of immigration in other countries including the US.[37] The Government should initiate research in this area, in view of the paucity of evidence for the UK.

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/8206.htm

A Briton is “displaced” from the labour market for every four extra migrants from outside the EU that arrive in the UK, the Migration Advisory Committee (Mac) concluded.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-out-of-jobs-government-committee-admits.html

 

[Papper]

Regardless of Schengen the UK government cannot ignore the base tenet of the EU freedom of movement. It cannot stop people within the EU who hold passports from living and working in another EU country. You cannot blame immigrants but you can question successive governments on population control.

The higher the population the greater demand on public services. If tax revenues cannot meet what it costs to provide public services then they borrow. Successive governments have borrowed , the national debt is obscenely high and we pay £60Bn a year interest on these repayments.

How do we effectively cost public services given the percentage population rise 2000-2020 is expected to be double that of the previous twenty years?

 

[Johnny75]

Regardless of Schengen the UK government cannot ignore the base tenet of the EU freedom of movement. It cannot stop people within the EU who hold passports from living and working in another EU country. You cannot blame immigrants but you can question successive governments on population control.

The higher the population the greater demand on public services. If tax revenues cannot meet what it costs to provide public services then they borrow. Successive governments have borrowed , the national debt is obscenely high and we pay £60Bn a year interest on these repayments.

How do we effectively cost public services given the percentage population rise 2000-2020 is expected to be double that of the previous twenty years?

Thanks for explaining that to me I never knew how it all worked. Cheers Papper you're a God send (not a Jewish one of course).

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

We've been here before with national debt; if you subscribe to the view that running an economy is like running a household or a corner shop, then yes, it is obscenely high. If studied in the context of actual history and economic theory, then no it isn't.

Governments don't run surpluses. It's economic illiteracy.

 

[visage]

Regardless of Schengen the UK government cannot ignore the base tenet of the EU freedom of movement. It cannot stop people within the EU who hold passports from living and working in another EU country. You cannot blame immigrants but you can question successive governments on population control.

The higher the population the greater demand on public services. If tax revenues cannot meet what it costs to provide public services then they borrow. Successive governments have borrowed , the national debt is obscenely high and we pay £60Bn a year interest on these repayments.

How do we effectively cost public services given the percentage population rise 2000-2020 is expected to be double that of the previous twenty years?

The way you pay for the services used by an immigrant is the same way you pay for the ones used by a native - tax. Its not difficult to grasp.

 

[Papper]

The way you pay for the services used by an immigrant is the same way you pay for the ones used by a native - tax. Its not difficult to grasp.

Absolutely. The higher the taxes you pay the lower your living standards (You have less money)

 

[Papper]

We've been here before with national debt; if you subscribe to the view that running an economy is like running a household or a corner shop, then yes, it is obscenely high. If studied in the context of actual history and economic theory, then no it isn't.

Governments don't run surpluses. It's economic illiteracy.

Okay, perhaps the moot point is the levels and how you become dependant on ever increasing that borrowing. The 60Billion each year on interest (and rising) could go a long way if spent on public services. Borrow to invest but I can't actually see how the investment has increased prosperity when public services are on the verge of collapse.

 

[So Long Architect]

Perhaps because the people in charge of investing that money don't believe in the value of public services and haven't invested it with a view to their continued existence...

 

[nimrod]

We've been here before with national debt; if you subscribe to the view that running an economy is like running a household or a corner shop, then yes, it is obscenely high. If studied in the context of actual history and economic theory, then no it isn't.

Governments don't run surpluses. It's economic illiteracy.

the gvt only rely applies the "household" argument to costs - ie in respect of affordability. whereas a household would also look to improve its income. the gvt doesn't talk about that though, how they use the state balance sheet to benefit third parties, fail to collect taxes/cut down on tax avoidance/evasion, sell revenue earning assets at low value...

 

[Papper]

Perhaps because the people in charge of investing that money don't believe in the value of public services and haven't invested it with a view to their continued existence...

I think you need to separate funds earmarked for public services from the funds injected by the government to stimulate the economy. If public services cost x you need to fund x. Printing more money is not a long term solution nor was consumer credit. The economy is not sustainable or vibrant enough to meet the costs of the public services we desire and these public services are strained by the sharp increase of the population. The inevitable consequence is cuts, taxes or increased borrowing. If you raise taxes you lower the amount of cash that goes into the economy.

I'm hopeful following Brexit that we put our money back into the economy by using British suppliers and that we increase the flow of money from overseas who want to buy our services and products. Capitalism means that for very winner you'll get a loser which results in protectionism. In my opinion the EU failed to 'socially progress' the lesser developed countries in Europe and it was never a level playing field. While it's fair to say the Corporates rule the roost I am hoping there is somebody to vote for one day that can create a vibrant economy and redistribute wealth without raising taxes or making cuts.

 

[Johnny75]

I'm hopeful following Brexit that we put our money back into the economy by using British suppliers and that we increase the flow of money from overseas who want to buy our services and products. Capitalism means that for very winner you'll get a loser which results in protectionism.

Yet protectionism is exactly what you advocate in your first sentence. It is folly to think that because we are out of Europe we will start to buy British. Mainly because, for the most part, Britain does't make the desired products at a reasonable cost base.

It is barmy to think that leaving the EU would make people by British, the type of political nonsense that Farage would come out with.

 

[Papper]

Yet protectionism is exactly what you advocate in your first sentence. It is folly to think that because we are out of Europe we will start to buy British. Mainly because, for the most part, Britain does't make the desired products at a reasonable cost base.

It is barmy to think that leaving the EU would make people by British, the type of political nonsense that Farage would come out with.

More scaremongering. Aren't the EU very good at keeping prices artificially high? How do we manage to make so many cars? You need to do some research on the free market, competition and economies of scale. Our manufacturing base has hardly prospered within the EU has it?

 

[Johnny75]

How is it scaremongering to say you can't buy British if we don't make it?

 

[Lord Knows]

Government just defeated in the Lords over brexit bill, Lords backed amendments on EU Nationals.

 

[leedswolf]

6 to 9% of EU nationals in the UK are born outside the EU.

Any idea where this figure has come from?

What percentage of EU nationals make up the UK population?

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Eight percent of the population is not British of of which 5.3 percent are from the Eu . that's 2.9 million EU nationals here.we have 1.2 million UK nationals living in the EU so 1.7 million difference.

On those figures around 180 to 220k EU citizens currently in the UK were born outside of the EU by my maths. The population of Cambridge.