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

[Insanties_birth]

The veto is the absolute least useful tool in our box of influence - and we didn't lose our veto on further integration, we agreed not to stop further integration in the Eurozone which doesn't involve us - not the same thing. And, in practice there was little chance of us doing that anyone, it would take a particularly inept Prime Minister to squander such diplomatic credit on something that wouldn't involve us anyway! I mean how exactly would you expect France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc. to take it if, after they'd finally hammered out the details of a scheme to patch up the Euro, the British Prime Minister turned round and said "Ha ha! Nope you can't have that!"?



This was not our "biggest chance". The biggest chance is, and always has been, to work slowly through diplomacy and alliance building - this is something Cameron is very, very bad at. From his utterly incompetent decision to pull the Tories out of the largest EU parliamentary block to his inept use of the veto; Cameron has repeatedly failed to act in the manner most likely to achieve his aims.



Firstly, there's no guarantee we'll get back into the free trade area - whether because our leaders choose not to (as Gove suggests) or because we fail to achieve a compromise with the other nations.

Secondly, no we won't have a say in the decision making process. Countries like Norway get to be consulted; they do not get to decide. This would be our new position.



Because it wasn't our best chance? Seriously, why would you think it was? How well did you really expect "well if you don't play my way, we'll take our ball and go home" to go down? How much do you expect the other EU members to bend for someone who isn't even sure they'll stay anyway?

You say there was little chance but it sounds like that's exactly what most of the british public want and that is why we're having the referendum in the first place Although it may not be a tool we always seek to use I don't see how the veto is the least useful tool. Care to elaborate on how it's so useless and if it is so useless then what is actually at our disposal that you think is so meaningful that we will not need it? Do you have a source to indicate we've only lost the veto on issues that don't effect us? It'd seem pointless of the EU to take it then if, as you put it, the veto was only in regards to issues that we have no need to have a say on anyway. Did they not trust us and think we'd seek to derail any agreemant, do they think we spite them for fun and is this sign of trouble and distrust in the mirky EU?


It seems like we're always saying the government is bad at everything but without you being part of those discussions how would you really know they was bad? It's all about leverage and we don't have it all the time, the EU is built up of a lot of separate interests so to assume we can always get our way is naive but you suggest our best chance is more of the same? More loss of sovereignity, more votes on more legislation (obviously if you have 1,000 votes there's more likely to go wrong than if you have 10) but the idea that the referendum which was our pitched situation to land policy change and express the issues with the system was somehow going to be a weaker chance to keep pushing it along as usual is denial. How's our issues with service trade going? How is our issue with freedom of movement going? How is our issue with health tourism or welfare going? These things were looking to be out in the tall grass until the referendum so unless you're envisioning us being better off in maybe ... 200 years??? Then yeah I can see how we're going to be a little better off by then but the referendum was our real chance to get several issues listened to, resolved and negotiated quickly and properly between all nations. You can charicature or categorize it however cartoonishly you want to but there's not been any progress on these issues in the last 40 years so to suggest we can have any confidence in them being resolved otherwise is just naive optimism.

The free trade area has never been rejected to any high standard EU country as far as I'm aware, so you honestly have huge doubts we'd get free trade but honestly believe staying in the EU we'd suddenly negotiate our way through all the things people wanted resolving? Seems you have a very biased outlook on exactly how things must work but they don't add up to what we've been seeing.

That is exactly what i said, decsions SHAPING process so it's not necessarily a vote on the matter but it is still influence in shaping the policy. Weaker position but still weak if we stay anyway thanks to losing our veto and having marginal say anyway thanks to the way the EU works (too many self interests).

I'd expect most mature politicians to recognise it was a matter of political necessity bread out of the fact it was written within the party manifesto and within the british peoples interest. Call it taking your ball and leaving but that is about as childish and redundant a point as could ever be made over a matter that was clearly made out of the publics interest in the flaws of the EU rather than cameron misbehaving like a schoolboy. That's the problem, you can't have such a biased outlook and expect to see the reality, I'm sure some of the EU fat cats were annoyed (mainly because they don't really care about the UK) but the referendum was for the people and the people were unhappy so we tried to change the system. That WAS our best chance though because it wasn't just a bit of political fluff around the edges or single haphazard policies dotted around over 50 years (hoping to maintain consistency during that period as we swap prime ministers and political parties over and over) but rather it was a single, strong and public backed referendum that got all in the EU together and able to try and move forward a single and consistent time. We got little out of it so if you honestly believe the regularly changing prime ministers and political parties are going to keep regular, consistent and effective solutions that improve our sovereignity, improve our issues with the EU and improve the way things are looking with the far right rising back up thanks to issues with the EU and migration then please explain why you think this considering the past 40 years?

 

[Danthus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36258541

You can see that in the local pay statistics. Boston has always been a low-pay town. But it is now an exceptionally low-paid place.
The average hourly wage nationally is £13.33. Across the East Midlands, it is £12.26. In Boston, it is £9.13. On a weekly basis, full-time earnings are more than £100 a week less than the national average.

There is also a problem with local housing. Because some workers come temporarily, they do not mind housing themselves poorly for a spell.

So 10 single workers may each pay £60 a week to share what was a three-bedroom house, netting the landlords £600 a week. That means a gross rental income from the house of perhaps £30,000 a year.

That is much more than local families can afford for those houses - and the housing supply has simply not kept up with demand.

Local rents in Boston are actually much higher than in Nottingham despite wages being lower. This is a major problem within the town and has become a major cause of frustration. People living next door to these multiple-occupied homes are also not happy.

According to the Annual Population Survey, more than half of the Polish-born adults living in Britain are aged 25-35. And concentrations of young people create their own issues - especially on a Friday night.

While young adults tend not to use the NHS much, they do have children. Around 11% of children born in the UK in 2014 had one parent who was an EU migrant.

Around half of those had two EU migrant parents. In Boston, the authorities have responded to a sudden rise in demand for children's services - from keeping maternity wards open through to funding more school places.
Adrian Reed, head of a local school chain, says his schools get £1,000 per head from the public purse for new arrivals with language problems.

He said: "In our trust, we have built a team of 10 people with a variety of languages - Polish, Portuguese, etc. They will be in the classroom supporting children... More importantly they support parents."

The reality of mass immigration.

 

[Metallifux]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36258541







The reality of mass immigration.

Good article.

 

[Cosimo]

The reality of mass immigration.

You to can do selective quoting but you forgot the good bits:

Boston

Unemployment in the town is well below the national average - 4.4% of economically active people, as against 5.2% nationally.

The town is booming, despite having absorbed a huge rise in the number of potential workers in a relatively short time. These workers have also enabled an enormous change in the local economy to take place with relative ease and remarkably quickly.

Boston was a sleepy farming town. Growers used to bring in transient workers for the brief harvest periods.

Paul Gleeson, a Labour councillor in the borough, says it used to be Irish workers in previous centuries. More recently, men from local cities would arrive in white vans at 04:00, work through the morning and then disappear in the early afternoon.

But Mr Gleeson says the local economy has diversified and now creates work all year round, which means they can sustain a lot more jobs - and so need a lot more permanent residents.

He says: "There's more harvesting going on throughout the year. And - more importantly - those vegetables are processed in Boston - wrapped and bar-coded for supermarket." Food grown elsewhere in Europe is even brought to Boston to be processed.

Swings and roundabouts...

 

[StriderX]

You to can do selective quoting but you forgot the good bits:



Swings and roundabouts...

Don't see how that changes the problem?

Unemployment being low means diddly when no one can afford to live there happily.

Also....extra jobs for whom? more immigrants?

 

[Hades]

You to can do selective quoting but you forgot the good bits:



Swings and roundabouts...

So in summary significant immigration is good for business owners, landlords and the immigrants themselves. But it is bad for local people due to lower wages, higher house prices, pressure on school places and maternity wards, higher youth crime and a change to the feel of the traditional community.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Careful with that 'lower wages' stat - surely much of the reason why Boston has a lower average wage than the rest of the East Midlands is because much of the work available in Boston is non-skilled agriculture whereas the rest of East Midlands has large cities and thus a wider range of jobs which pull the average up. I'd imagine if you self selected any small rural town with a high level of agriculture the average wages would as a result be lower than that for the entire region put together.

It seems like an area thats always struggled to get the right workforce and has always had to 'import' labourers from elsewhere - the demand came from somewhere, clearly there were not enough locals in Boston for the work that needed doing?

 

[Freakbro]

Boston is my local town so I know all about what has happened in the place, and I'm still a firm Remain.

The 'change to the feel of the local community' has mainly been an improvement I've gotta say the standard of women has improved 1000% from the fenside fog beasts of the natives.

I remember Boston changing from over 15 years ago, when first it was the Portugeuse (with a lot of illlegal Brazillians), then the Polish, now the Eastern Europeans.

It's always been an extremely low paid area, due to most of the mass employment being low skilled manual labour on the fields and in the factories. It's also good to see there's no evidence of increased unemployment, which is a common thing I hear.

There is a problem with housing and infrastructure, I have said this countless times in this thread. You can't put thousands of people into one area and not get strain on the facilities, but that doesn't matter if they are from Lithuania or Cornwall. The Govt should use the benefit of this sort of immigration brings economically to invest in the local are to allieviate the issues.

The town was very run down, with lots of boarded up shops, now it's pretty thriving with all of those shops now open and being run by the immigrants - funny they can do it and the locals can't...

 

[Freakbro]

the demand came from somewhere, clearly there were not enough locals in Boston for the work that needed doing?

I have friends who run agricultural businesses, and to be honest, a lot of it comes down to our pandered kids of today, they don't want to do this sort of work and if they are the ones who are suited to low skilled employment, they are generally not as motivated or hard working as the immigrant population.

The others now go to college, university so aren't going to come back to Boston to pick brussels or grade potatoes.

So yea, the immigrant workers can come in, house share, work hard, be paid minimum wage (which still seems a lot to them) and this statistically skews the average figures downward.

 

[Hades]

Boston is my local town so I know all about what has happened in the place, and I'm still a firm Remain.

The 'change to the feel of the local community' has mainly been an improvement I've gotta say the standard of women has improved 1000% from the fenside fog beasts of the natives.

I remember Boston changing from over 15 years ago, when first it was the Portugeuse (with a lot of illlegal Brazillians), then the Polish, now the Eastern Europeans.

It's always been an extremely low paid area, due to most of the mass employment being low skilled manual labour on the fields and in the factories. It's also good to see there's no evidence of increased unemployment, which is a common thing I hear.

There is a problem with housing and infrastructure, I have said this countless times in this thread. You can't put thousands of people into one area and not get strain on the facilities, but that doesn't matter if they are from Lithuania or Cornwall. The Govt should use the benefit of this sort of immigration brings economically to invest in the local are to allieviate the issues.

The town was very run down, with lots of boarded up shops, now it's pretty thriving with all of those shops now open and being run by the immigrants - funny they can do it and the locals can't...

A genuinely useful post. Thank you.

 

[Metallifux]

10 people to one home at a rent of £600 per week? I'd like to see the housing benefit, and WTC bill for these households compared to their tax bill and see what the net benefit to the economy is.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

How much housing benefits do you think an EU migrant is entitled to?

 

[Metallifux]

How much housing benefits do you think an EU migrant is entitled to?

I have literally no idea, never having claimed it.

 

[Freakbro]

10 people to one home at a rent of £600 per week? I'd like to see the housing benefit, and WTC bill for these households compared to their tax bill and see what the net benefit to the economy is.

I'm not sure they will be getting Housing benefit since individually its £60 ea. and looking on the Gov website for Housing Benefit eligibility

Also, it's a bit of a rigged market, the house is probably owned by the ganger, who then deducts the rent out of their wages. The gangers are Bostons equivalent scourge of the BTL landlord

Who isn’t eligible

Usually you won’t get Housing Benefit if:

you’re residing in the UK as an European Economic Area jobseeker

But I can check for you if you wish, as I have friends who work in the council and housing associations

The net benefit comes from the fact we haven't educated them and for now aren't paying their pensions (as they are still young and working) and the majority (over 50%) will go back to their own countries.

But it's all a bit 'theoretical' tbf, the increase in the UK's GDP doesn't always 'trickle down' does it.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

I have literally no idea, never having claimed it.

Then why do you assume that they not only are entitled to it but it totals to more than their contribution even in a 10 person share of £600 between them?

 

[Metallifux]

Then why do you assume that they not only are entitled to it but it totals to more than their contribution even in a 10 person share of £600 between them?

Well I've read that 3 times now and still don't quite understand, but I made no assumption, I just said I'd like to see given they are probably all minimum wage and what Freakbro just added about gangers etc. I wouldn't be in the least surprised to hear there was some housing benefit fraud going on but that is a different unrelated matter.

 

[Metallifux]

I'm not sure they will be getting Housing benefit since individually its £60 ea. and looking on the Gov website for Housing Benefit eligibility

Also, it's a bit of a rigged market, the house is probably owned by the ganger, who then deducts the rent out of their wages. The gangers are Bostons equivalent scourge of the BTL landlord



But I can check for you if you wish, as I have friends who work in the council and housing associations

The net benefit comes from the fact we haven't educated them and for now aren't paying their pensions (as they are still young and working) and the majority (over 50%) will go back to their own countries.

But it's all a bit 'theoretical' tbf, the increase in the UK's GDP doesn't always 'trickle down' does it.

No it's ok I trust your "remainer" stats more than some others.

 

[Freakbro]

My friend in the Housing Association has just told me EEA nationals can't claim benefits for the first 5 years

So I would say their housing benefit and WTC is generally 0

And after the 5 years, it's only contribution based benefits they can get.

 

[Insanties_birth]

the debate on the leaflet, lots of other anti EU talk in it though which highlights how much misinformation is required to paint a positive picture of the EU.

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/93a979e7-4c8a-4d3f-89b1-529df4b4cad4

To be fair I don't understand why they don't just rely on the real positives rather than the false positives and double speak as there are good parts but it's just not coming out in many debates.

 

[Metallifux]

My friend in the Housing Association has just told me EEA nationals can't claim benefits for the first 5 years

So I would say their housing benefit and WTC is generally 0

And after the 5 years, it's only contribution based benefits they can get.

I thought that was part of Cameron's deal and therefore not in force yet?