Poll: The EU Referendum: What Will You Vote?

[D.P.]

We need generous benefits here due to the higher cost of living, the trouble arises from economic tourism.. a bloke I know from Lithuania was telling me that working over there he can only earn 300 Euro's a month, he can make more than that over here on unemployment benefits or do the same work here and earn 4-5 times more.

If I could go to Lithuania and earn for example £5k per month I'd too be on the next flight with a group of friends to house share, with a view to working for a few years and then coming back to the UK effectively set up for life. So next time someone bangs the "Eastern Europeans are more hard working than British people" drum, just imagine how much more enthusiastic you would be at work if you were suddenly getting paid 4-5 times more, plus knowing that you can probably retire back in your homeland after 4-5yrs.

You can earn more in benefits if you emigrated to many other EU counties, the UK's benefits system is extremely stingy. Why haven't you moved to France, Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Finland?

 

[Dave]

You can earn more in benefits if you emigrated to many other EU counties, the UK's benefits system is extremely stingy. Why haven't you moved to France, Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Finland?

Presumably the benefits there are not better paid than the job he has, which was the crux of his point. I also believe that it is the case in France that access to benefits is on the basis of having paid into their social security system, in which case you (well, he!) couldn't just get off the plane and apply for benefits immediately.

 

[Amp34]

Sorry but I don't buy this. We are moving as a society (well we have already moved but it takes time to fully filter) into a service driven environment and high end research.

The days of needing unskilled labour are quickly vanishing in the face of technological progress and offshore outsourcing (as a result of increased globalisation).

We need to be looking ahead as a society towards the future. Simply having more people will not help us sustain a competitive advantage. Having wide swathes of differing cultures with the net effect of reducing homogeneity in the nation will also not lead to future success.

Far better to instead focus on trying to increase the core usefulness of who we have now and successive generations rather than a cheap fix of foreign labour.

because that's hindered Australia, Canada and the U.S. right?

That said, I agree with you regarding the first part of the paragraph. Just increasing the number of people to help grow your economy does not mean you have a healthy economy, unfortunately current economics and government policy value growth over all else.

 

[mmj_uk]

You can earn more in benefits if you emigrated to many other EU counties, the UK's benefits system is extremely stingy. Why haven't you moved to France, Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Finland?

It's not worth it moving from major economy to major economy whether working or claiming benefits, obviously for Eastern European's and African/Middle Eastern people it is well worth it.. they'd be foolish not to come here or to other major European economies.

 

[Tunney]

Devils advocate here, but it (homogeneity) worked pretty well for countries like Japan and South Korea.

Japan's rise has gone hand-in-hand with it becoming less insular. Without America's occupation after WWII, I very much doubt that Japan would be in the position it is in now. The same goes for the Republic of Korea and the post-Korean War American presence.

And Japan's economy is now on the wane. The country has an aging population and a shrinking workforce. It's suffering through lack of immigration.

 

[estebanrey]

because that's hindered Australia, Canada and the U.S. right?

Well Australia currently has one of the toughest immigration systems in the world (there's a reason why Farage wants to emulate it) and the current frontrunner for the US presidential irace s currently planning a wall to keep Mexicans out and completely banning anyone belonging to the largest religion on Earth from even entering the country.

So not sure they are the best example of countries embracing immigration or equating it to success.

 

[Tunney]

Well Australia currently has one of the toughest immigration systems in the world (there's a reason why Farage wants to emulate it) and the current frontrunner for the US presidential irace s currently planning a wall to keep Mexicans out and completely banning anyone belonging to the largest religion on Earth from even entering the country.

So not sure they are the best example of countries embracing immigration or equating it to success.

Here's what the current President of the United States says:

Just about every nation in the world, to some extent, admits immigrants. But there’s something unique about America. We don’t simply welcome new immigrants, we don’t simply welcome new arrivals -- we are born of immigrants. That is who we are. Immigration is our origin story. And for more than two centuries, it’s remained at the core of our national character; it’s our oldest tradition. It’s who we are. It’s part of what makes us exceptional. After all, unless your family is Native American, one of the first Americans, our families -- all of our families -- come from someplace else.

The rest of the speech is on YouTube if you want to watch it.

America is the perfect example of immigrants making a country great, no matter what one potential nominee may think.

 

[scorza]

Here's what the current President of the United States says:



The rest of the speech is on YouTube if you want to watch it.

America is the perfect example of immigrants making a country great, no matter what one potential nominee may think.

Unless you're a native American.

 

[estebanrey]

America is the perfect example of immigrants making a country great, no matter what one potential nominee may think.

They're also the perfect example of immigrants wiping out the natives and their way of life.

 

[Tunney]

They're also the perfect example of immigrants wiping out the natives and their way of life.

Forceful colonisation is a very different beast from the peaceful immigration that America has enjoyed over the past 100 years.

 

[scorza]

Forceful colonisation is a very different beast from the peaceful immigration that America has enjoyed over the past 100 years.

If you look at the early history of Jamestown it looks very much like peaceful immigration, certainly a lot more peaceful than the 1m+ rabble who entered Europe this year.

 

[Mr Jack]

Out as fast as possible!!!!!

Extra exclamation marks don't help your case.

& No to allowing 16 & 17 yrs old to vote.

I agree. 18 years is our widely accepted threshold of adulthood; I see no reason to lower the voting age, especially not as a one off for referenda. It seems to me that there are better arguments for raising the voting age than lowering it and spending time teaching 18 year old university students doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in them, yet alone anyone younger.

 

[Danthus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-35158840

We have a booming property market.

 

[FoxEye]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-35158840

We have a booming property market.

On a related note, this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...or-human-habitation-unnecessary-a6696931.html

Is why I trust the EU more than our UK government.

Landlord Tory MP Philip Davies says law requiring homes be fit for human habitation is an unnecessary burden

And a while back there were some rented properties belonging to an MP (can't remember who), that were found unfit for habitation. Can't find the story again now tho :/

 

[Mynight]

Edit: no just read the act ignore .

 

[FoxEye]

I don't think they should have to be fit for habitation <snip>

Wut???

You don't think a rented property should be fit for human habitation by law? Why on Earth not, man?

We're not talking about a storage unit for you bike. We're talking about houses that families with children will be living in.

You don't think they should have to be habitable by law?

I'd love to hear why you don't think that's necessary...

 

[Mynight]

Damn I wasn't quick enough.

I didn't realise how bad a house had to be to be classed uninhabitable.

However despite my ignorance on the term you snip the only remotely redeeming part of the quote .

Though I would note the article you link is about an updated bill being put forward. Unfortunately the bill is private so I can't find out more. Maybe the new one is OTT.

 

[FoxEye]

http://www.marksoutoftenancy.com/homes-fitness-for-human-habitation-bill/

Because it seems so absurd that there is no legal requirement for standards to be adequate for human habitation, it’s easy to brush it off as another quirky British law that parliament has forgotten – something like handling a salmon in suspicious circumstances.

But the issue is very much real for a lot of renters, and there’s nothing quirky about it.

The English Housing Survey shows that almost one in five privately rented properties contained a category 1 hazard and UK housing charity Shelter reported that 10% of tenants admitted their health had been affected in the last year because of poor conditions on their property, 9% added that their children’s health had been affected. Additionally, The Chartered Institute of Housing’s 2014 housing review calculated that 33% of all private rented housing in England would fail the government’s decent homes standard for social housing, still absurd but now less humorous.

No current legal requirement at all for rented property to be habitable. Amazing, isn't it.

So think about that when I quote this again:

Landlord Tory MP Philip Davies says law requiring homes be fit for human habitation is an unnecessary burden

This is why I'd trust the EU more than any Tory government.

 

[Mynight]

Unless I'm reading the wrong criteria for category of hazards it appears it's already covered in the 1985 landlord and tenants act.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/70 (Section 10).

Although I didn't realise you only had remote protection from eviction post October 2015 for making complaints. That's rather disturbing.

And as far as I'm aware (at least what I've been doing) is landlords are required to have gas, electrical checks and fit smoke/CO alarms.

 

[FoxEye]

Nope. That article doesn't make it 100% clear, but the existing legislation only applies to properties with an ANNUAL rent of £80 or less. Because the figures were last updated in the 1950s.

And for some reason the legislation has a cap on the value of property it can apply to. It's archaic. So modern rental property must be in good repair (separate law), but can be infested with mould, damp, and other Category 1 health risks, and still be legal. So long as you pay more than £80 A YEAR in rent for it.

http://blog.shelter.org.uk/2015/10/...ve-to-be-suitable-for-humans-to-live-in-them/

This article spells it out.

The problem is with the current law. You know I said earlier that there isn’t a law protecting people from poor conditions? Technically there is, but it’s completely useless. Here’s why:

In theory, Section 8 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) introduces an implied condition into all tenancies requiring that the home is fit for human habitation at the start of the tenancy, and remains so throughout.

That all sounds fair enough, right?

Wrong! Wait for it, you’ll enjoy this bit:

The law only applies where the annual rent is less than £80 in London, and £52 elsewhere.
To clarify: where the annual rent in London is less than £80. The weekly average in London is £362[2]! Given that this cupboard under the stairs was going for £500 a month, I dread to think what £80 a year would get you…

These limits were set in the 1950s (a time when the credit card, TV remote and Barbie doll were first invented). Seems like a sensible time to base our current standards of living on, doesn’t it?

We did try to get this law changed as part of the Tenancies (Reform) Bill, but the Bill was unhelpfully filibustered, courtesy of MPs Philip Davies and Christopher Chope.