Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (May Poll)

[Freakbro]

Can't you read? he runs many, many businesses. A regular Lord Sir Alan is our Freakbro.

Why, thank you but Alan Sugar runs multinational corporations, you were talking about small businesses (actually by definition what you were talking about are called micro businesses, but I didn't see the need to correct you )

I'm mostly self employed but am also an accountant/Finance Manager for multiple micro and small businesses (up to £1M turnover) as well as doing returns for many sole traders, so yes I do have a very good knowledge on business 'red tape' and employment legislation.

 

[Danthus]

More than half of it was non EU migration.

Which we have total control over. Yet it was still higher than the 'target'.

Which worries me when people cite leaving the EU to control immigration.

There is zero evidence any government, Conservative or Labour wants to limit immigration.

If you vote out, on the basis it will mean less people coming to the UK you are deluded.

 

[platypus]

We don't know because the government won't release those statistics as it would fuel anti-EU and anti-immigration feeling

Whether that is the case or not, it doesn't make the statistic any more useful, does it?

Can't you read? he runs many, many businesses. A regular Lord Sir Alan is our Freakbro.

No need to be so falsely obsequious, I think he said he ran a couple. Why can't you just accept that he might actually have some expertise in this area? Other than it isn't convenient for you trying to put a point across that you don't have any experience of?

 

[platypus]

Which worries me when people cite leaving the EU to control immigration.

There is zero evidence any government, Conservative or Labour wants to limit immigration.

If you vote out, on the basis it will mean less people coming to the UK you are deluded.

But once we leave the big bad EU we'll totally control our borders and only let in a small amount of useful people. Because, yes.

 

[Danthus]

Whether that is the case or not, it doesn't make the statistic any more useful, does it?

How many houses were built in that period?

 

[PlacidCasual]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...ke-us-richer-thats-why-leave-could-still-win/

A few interesting items towards the end of this article about how the EU represents us in World Forums and suggest that leaving may improve our voice by having direct representation at those forums. I wasn't aware of some of those things.

 

[Freakbro]

Other than it isn't convenient for you trying to put a point across that you don't have any experience of?

He's got Duck Duck Go though...that should be more than comparable to my 25 years experience...

 

[platypus]

We don't know because the government won't release those statistics as it would fuel anti-EU and anti-immigration feeling

Actually, what we can see at a very quick skim is that of that 330,000 figure, net migration for EU citizens was 184,000. So with 146,000 of that figure being from outside the EU, which we do currently control with a Visa system, and from the trending data, EU and non-EU immigration will be pretty much the same by the end of 2016. it's not exactly indicative of much desire to limit immigration, is it?

 

[Roar87]

Whether that is the case or not, it doesn't make the statistic any more useful, does it?

Whilst we don't know how many of them had a job, we do know they all needed some where to live, and a lot of them will need to use our public services at some point. Unfortunately you can't just click your fingers and have all the infrastructure and housing in place for at least 330,000 extra people a year. We only build around 135,000 houses per year, which clearly means there's a short fall. It's alright though, I suppose Brits don't mind living with their parents until they're 28.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

Sounds like it is more about developing housing than it is about immigration. Economic migrants more than pay for the use of public services even working a low paid job.

 

[platypus]

Whilst we don't know how many of them had a job, we do know they all needed some where to live, and a lot of them will need to use our public services at some point. Unfortunately you can't just click your fingers and have all the infrastructure and housing in place for at least 330,000 extra people a year. We only build around 135,000 houses per year, which clearly means there's a short fall. It's alright though, I suppose Brits don't mind living with their parents until they're 28.

Now you're extrapolating based on assumptions that, by your own definition, you can't back up; given that you can't tell me how many of these immigrants -Came with a job, Came without a job, Have come to use services, Have come to pay tax, Have contributed to the tax system more than they have taken out in services, Have received benefits, Have not receive benefits, etc.

NB I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that it's not as simple as just saying "net migration is 330,00 therefore its bad".

Eg these people need somewhere to live - yes they do, so they pay rent into the economy (let the evils of buy-to-letting be another thread), and they pay into the local economy through purchase of goods, services and amenities.

 

[Danthus]

Sounds like it is more about developing housing than it is about immigration. Economic migrants more than pay for the use of public services even working a low paid job.

You won't go to hell if you question the sanity of current immigration policy.

 

[Danthus]

Who benefited from the extra 330,000 people?

 

[Roar87]

Actually, what we can see at a very quick skim is that of that 330,000 figure, net migration for EU citizens was 184,000. So with 146,000 of that figure being from outside the EU, which we do currently control with a Visa system, and from the trending data, EU and non-EU immigration will be pretty much the same by the end of 2016. it's not exactly indicative of much desire to limit immigration, is it?

I guess the main difference is that the non-EU people probably have a good reason to come here and are people we wouldn't want to turn away, where as we know nothing about the EU citizens moving here

 

[platypus]

How many houses were built in that period?

Nowhere near enough obviously, but I'd suggest the shortage of housing supply is really another topic, given successive governments failures to regulate the building industry properly in this area, and being happy for them to sit back on large tracts of land and just drip feed supply in order to prop the housing market up. Happy to debate it in another thread if you are..

 

[Danthus]

Nowhere near enough obviously, but I'd suggest the shortage of housing supply is really another topic, given successive governments failures to regulate the building industry properly in this area, and being happy for them to sit back on large tracts of land and just drip feed supply in order to prop the housing market up. Happy to debate it in another thread if you are..

I agree but some people just ignore the practicalities of mass immigration.

 

[platypus]

I guess the main difference is that the non-EU people probably have a good reason to come here and are people we wouldn't want to turn away, where as we know nothing about the EU citizens moving here

No you're right about that, all we can look at is that there are 2.1million EU nationals employed in the UK (ONS), and according to HMRC, they more than pay their way.

Those who arrived in Britain in the last four years paid £2.54bn more in income tax and national insurance than they received in tax credits or child benefit in 2013-14.

So the only quantifiable evidence we have says that these immigrants are contributing more to the public coffers than they are taking. I don't for a second deny there are pressures on local services, especially housing, but it sort of puts that 330,000 net migration figure to rest as a useful statistic, doesn't it. It's almost....scare-mongering with a big number isn't it. Project fear if you will .

 

[Roar87]

Now you're extrapolating based on assumptions that, by your own definition, you can't back up; given that you can't tell me how many of these immigrants -Came with a job, Came without a job, Have come to use services, Have come to pay tax, Have contributed to the tax system more than they have taken out in services, Have received benefits, Have not receive benefits, etc.

NB I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that it's not as simple as just saying "net migration is 330,00 therefore its bad".

Eg these people need somewhere to live - yes they do, so they pay rent into the economy (let the evils of buy-to-letting be another thread), and they pay into the local economy through purchase of goods, services and amenities.

The onus isn't on me to prove that though, if you're going to open the door to 183,000 people the government should be the one's to prove to us that they're coming here and contributing.

Fantastic they're paying rent, they're also driving demand and pushing up house prices for people who already live here and who already have sky high house prices.

 

[platypus]

I agree but some people just ignore the practicalities of mass immigration.

Do you mean practicalities?

 

[Danthus]

Just becasue they pay their way doesn't mean that there are no issues with immigration in the numbers we are seeing.