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

[Freakbro]

So in terms of GDP then.

Which is a pretty awful metric.

Complain to the Govt then that they are using the wrong analysis and explain to them what the better one would be.

 

[thep02]

So in terms of GDP then.

Which is a pretty awful metric.

But a fact none the less.

 

[Hades]

I would love to see how the 'they are a net benefit' calculate their figures. When you take into account the large amount (albeit minority, but still a large number) who work cash in hand or minimum wage jobs, the cost on the NHS, the schools, roads, police, housing and social care etc etc. I find the net benefit stance laughable.

My theory...

I think many western countries have needed immigration because of an ageing population and falling tax intake for the state. This is possibly due to the falling birth rate... which in turn is due to marriage simply not giving either sex (particularly men) much benefit anymore. People find marriage no longer attractive. Once that's coupled with the huge cost of bringing up children and the "me, me, me" society nowadays, then having children simply isn't something a lot of people want.

Western governments are probably seeing a reduced tax intake from the younger generation so needed immigrants to replace the low birth rate.

The problem is that it's only a short term fix. Once the immigrants integrate then they will also find having children less atractive and also stop having them. So long term even more immigration is needed.

...and all the while the additional people put an immediate strain on current services while their taxes will take a long time to fund more infrastructure.

It's just too short term a solution to actually fix anything long term.



EDIT: It's a little like the addiction our society has for credit. Governments say that "credit is good!" because it brings an immediate benefit while tomorrows generation has to pay that debt. They are now saying "immigration is good!" because it brings an immediate benefit (for the government in the form of more tax) which someone else, and not them, will have to build the infrastructure for in the future. But in both cases the quality of life deteriotes over time if you don't keep increasing the credit, or immigration, to cover the ever increasing shortfall created by the previous generation.

 

[Tunney]

The immigrants to those countries is a very recent phenomenon

Have you ever been to Spain, Germany or Italy? Immigration is not some new phenomenon to any of these countries.

 

[Freakbro]

I would love to see how the 'they are a net benefit' calculate their figures.

Go look it up then, rather than finding it laughable before you have any idea what you are talking about.

You see, once you have analysed the information you can then make an informed choice to laugh at their conclusion.

Have you ever been to Spain, Germany or Italy? Immigration is not some new phenomenon to any of these countries.

Yea, I wondered where he got his idea that immigration was new to those countries in the EU......then I realised it's probably because last years was the first time he has heard about it, so that's obviously all the immigration they have ever had

 

[thep02]

That's the thing with being a rightist you just think stuff then it becomes true.

 

[Zethor]

I would love to see how the 'they are a net benefit' calculate their figures. When you take into account the large amount (albeit minority, but still a large number) who work cash in hand or minimum wage jobs, the cost on the NHS, the schools, roads, police, housing and social care etc etc. I find the net benefit stance laughable.

You would not love to see anything, you are not interested in details such as studies, evidence or the peer review process. You have your preconceived ideas and you will hold on to them no matter what facts get thrown at you.

That being said, enjoy:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/05/eu-migrants-uk-gains-20bn-ucl-study
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/fiscal-impact-immigration-uk
http://www.cityam.com/213058/eu-immigrants-contribute-463-second-uk-economy

In short, independent peer review papers generally find that EU migrants have a positive net contribution while Migration Watch, a right wing think tank, finds a negative net contribution.

 

[datalol-jack]

Net benefit in what way?

They add to the economic and cultural fabric of the nation, contributing their labour, experience and skills where there's demand for them. Some things are easy enough to measure: business creation, job growth, tax take, test score results; others not so much: the arts, ability to do business globally in an international team, new ideas, political discourse. It's also a fundamental historical component of global interaction, trade, exploration and work. The latter being particularly so as economies develop and orient towards services.

Moreover, economic migrants are a net benefit because they are overwhelmingly young, healthy, already educated and have experience. Lima's hidden costs and shadow economy argument is an unguided 'boo-boo' missile, connected to wonderful anecdotes about "(albeit minority, but still a large number) nuggets" and tabloid scrapes, and invariably ends up being an attack on the poor, families or social welfare -- take you pick; even if few ranters see it that way. So I won't waste any more breath on this.

 

[Danthus]

Go look it up then, rather than finding it laughable before you have any idea what you are talking about.

You see, once you have analysed the information you can then make an informed choice to laugh at their conclusion.

There is evidence that immigration compress wages. There is huge stress on public services.

But GDP is up.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

Struggling public services are due to neglect and lack of investment and funding relative to increase in demand. The evidence that they compress wages is also debatable and does not take into account the bigger picture.

 

[Danthus]

Struggling public services are due to neglect and lack of investment and funding relative to increase in demand. The evidence that they compress wages is also debatable and does not take into account the bigger picture.

I never said that public services were under pressure becasue of immigration.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

I never said that public services were under pressure becasue of immigration.

So your solution to the problem caused by inefficient spending in public services and lack of funding is not to rectify the problem but rather blame the foreigners.

Let me add a few of these for no reason too:

 

[Chris Wilson]

I have yet to understand what many EU countries have to fear if their population shrinks. In the case of the UK I would like to see proactive steps taken to REDUCE the population, not expand it!

 

[Danthus]

So your solution to the problem caused by inefficient spending in public services and lack of funding is not to rectify the problem but rather blame the foreigners.

Let me add a few of these for no reason too:

I never blamed immigration for that either, still it is easier to say I did rather than acknowledged an increasing population and under investment is a problem.

 

[Freakbro]

I never blamed immigration for that either, still it is easier to say I did rather than acknowledged an increasing population and under investment is a problem.

Then as I've said before the fault lies entirely at the feet of the Govt, if they are saying the immigrants bring us a net benefit in economic terms, then it is up to them to spend that benefit to mitigate the issues immigration causes.

 

[Danthus]

Then as I've said before the fault lies entirely at the feet of the Govt, if they are saying the immigrants bring us a net benefit in economic terms, then it is up to them to spend that benefit to mitigate the issues immigration causes.

Brilliant, it sounds all lovely but the reality is up and down the country, services are under pressure.

 

[Metallifux]

I would love to see how the 'they are a net benefit' calculate their figures. When you take into account the large amount (albeit minority, but still a large number) who work cash in hand or minimum wage jobs, the cost on the NHS, the schools, roads, police, housing and social care etc etc. I find the net benefit stance laughable.

Agreed, until it can be broken down (which it probably can't) to show the amount of migrants in work which pays enough to warrant taxation, doesn't attract working tax credits or housing benefit I also dispute the net benefit to the UK economy.

 

[datalol-jack]

I never blamed immigration for that either, still it is easier to say I did rather than acknowledged an increasing population and under investment is a problem.

I don't. In fact, I feel we often use immigration in spite of the aggressive rhetoric from politicians to plug systematic failings in education, training and local government. But it's a separate debate in and of itself, it'd derail the thread along political affiliation lines.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Then as I've said before the fault lies entirely at the feet of the Govt, if they are saying the immigrants bring us a net benefit in economic terms, then it is up to them to spend that benefit to mitigate the issues immigration causes.

"Immigrants" do not make a net contribution to our society. Why do people keep restating this lie? Some immigrants make a small net contribution, namely those from the EEA and other Western nations. Non-EU/Western immigration costs us money.

Most years we've made a loss due to immigration. When we have made a net income, it's only been a few billion. Which might sound like a lot, but is dwarfed by our Overseas Aid spending. It's nothing.

We need to cut non-Western immigration to as good as zero. Otherwise all we're doing is creating problems for the future.

 

[Tunney]

I have yet to understand what many EU countries have to fear if their population shrinks. In the case of the UK I would like to see proactive steps taken to REDUCE the population, not expand it!

An aging population with a shrinking work force is a recipe for economic disaster.