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

[Mr Jack]

In other words why does one person staying a year have any more impact that 3 people in combination staying for a year, in both cases we have one person here for the same duration of time. Whether it's the same person or not is largely irrelevant.

This seems to be exactly my point. The impact of those 3 people in combination is not equal to three people staying for a year, so the sum Guido does is nonsense, instead the short term immigration figure needs to be divided by some unknown factor to measure it's impact and, even then, can't be compounded onto long term immigration because it measures a different thing.

I take your point that in the latter scenario those people are less likely to create costs associated with a specific individual being here longer, but not to the extent where the ONS should be taking out and not even mentioning the short term impact.

I agree that the ONS should be monitoring short term immigration, but it's not something that is "taken out" of long term immigration figures; it's a different thing and so has not been included. The most important difference is, of course, that it does not compound: whereas if we have net long term immigration last year of 250,000 and this year of 250,000 there are 500,000 more people in country at the end, short term immigration of 250,000 last year and short term immigration of 250,000 this year means we end up with the same number of people in the country that we started with; it's only when the levels change that there is any net change in population.

 

[2013]

Why do you say that? How have you determined the influence of immigration relative to other factors that affect employment and wages?

a few reasons

1. First hand accounts from the local people (You, shop keepers, nurses, teachers, police, landlords) not people in London vs something written to prove their point.

2. if you puts a all groups together it will not give you true results, example if you have 9 groups of people 6 do what you say the remaining dont then if you add them as one group you can show what you want, If you split the groups as they should be you will see the true result.

Im not saying all the people are the same, a some want to work and do something, the other just want to have a easy income and make use of the system like British citizens but we should be trying to change this not cover it up.

3. its not the same in all areas, some may have skilled people but you also have a lot uneducated unemployed people who are unwilling to learn or work or mostly only work as last result or requirement for a short term or work for extra cash which will not put anything in to the UK, you also see a lot of legal issues.

4. its also a location based issue, some citys will have people educated people willing to work others will have people abusing the system, you cant compare it without taking a good look.

5. first hand experience is a big reason.


How is it in your areas and which city are you in ??

 

[2013]

Because anecdotes trump research. Didn't you get the memo?

Once I see some real research I may agree.

 

[Insanties_birth]

Where do you stop? Every time the EU comes up with a new law the country has a referendum on whether to stay it? It would be ridiculous.

You stop where it's realistic. Are you trying to be dense? The public doesn't scream for referendums every 2 minutes, it was 40 years since the last one and that's only because it's changed vastly from what it was. They can only tie us in as far as we agree the union is beneficial to our needs so if it stops meeting our needs then why would we want to remain

No one is planning a new referendum any time shortly (except should they fail to honour a lot of what was negotiated in the referendum as that was no doubt part of what was being voted on anyway). The only ridiculous thing is your notion that people are not allowed to leave and must hand over billions of pounds no matter whether it continues to be of benefit or not. That's like me giving you an investment fund and you pay an annual fee but when it keeps coming up negative you're never allowed to leave and the rules keep changing so it's no longer fit for what you initially desired. The EU is ultimately about trade and political subjugation in order to access that trade and meet across the board standards / equal playing field in policy and trading so if it's mainly about trade and we can get the trade out of the EU then it's mainly just whether we agree to subject ourself to the political process and we're not tied into that (yet at least).

 

[2013]

For consideration: Is it better to be ruled by one corrupt and backward governing body (our Government), or two (our Gov and the European Parliament)?

To tell you the truth I think our Gov is still better then a lot of others and we could make it better or at least try.

 

[2013]

Here is what the EU plan as a robust guard against illegal immigrants, and people here suggest that no way will migrants into the EU be given special treatment. If this blatant attempt to circumvent basic law and order doesn't show how they plan on "handling"the migrant crisis I don't know what does:

Spoiler

"Meanwhile, the Council of Europe has warned that doctors, teachers, social workers and landlords should not report illegal immigrants to the Home Office because it would breach their human rights.

Its guidelines said ‘firewalls’ should be created to prevent them sharing with the immigration authorities details about failed asylum seekers or those who have sneaked in unlawfully.

If adopted, the recommendations would make it much more difficult for immigration enforcement teams to track down and remove illegals.
There has been little love lost between IDS and Sir John since, as a backbencher in the early 1990s, Mr Duncan Smith was one of a group of rebels who fought a long parliamentary campaign against the Major government's decision to sign up to the Maastricht Treaty


Analysts believe more than a million foreigners are here in the UK unlawfully. Measures introduced by the Government mean anyone accessing education, hospitals, social services, housing or work must have their immigration status checked.

Landlords who fail to check whether they are renting to illegal immigrants could face five years in jail and firms who employ illegals can be fined up to £2,000 a person.

But the anti-discrimination panel of the Council of Europe, the 47-nation parent body of the European Court of Human Rights, said yesterday that this would violate human rights laws.

A Home Office spokesman said: ‘The Home Office would not accept or support any recommendation which would bar public officials or private service providers from reporting suspected illegal immigrants.

‘There are specific arrangements in place for the Home Office to be notified where illegal immigrants seek access to benefits or local authority social services.’

"

I would like to see some things changed, from what i've read I think it take the UK month and around £15000 to send someone back to there country of origin.

Why does it cost so much to do this ?

 

[doofer]

The hyperbolic scaremongering by the 'Stay' Brigade and media bias has done more to convince me we should leave than the 'Leave' Brigade has or ever could do.

 

[Insanties_birth]

Just shows what kind of idiots are in the Leave group. They are angry Farage went into the debate and not Boris or Gove. Last time I checked, it is Farage that has been pushing for out, for far longer than Boris or Gove, not to mention all 3 of them are for leaving, yet they can't even seem to work together on a issue they all agree on.

Good luck having these muppets negotiating with the EU (if we do leave), when they can't even seem to put on a unifying message in their leave campaign.

Shambles, makes they look completely incompetent and unprofessional.

Good job your knee jerk reaction and mini tantrum is agreed on by some in the campaign

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...cused-of-a-stitch-up-and-threatened-over-dec/

Boris clearly says he's not too concerned and would rather discuss the issues. I myself personally disagree and think it is another example of a pitched campaign presenting bias and trying to skew the vote by having favourable conditions. I'm surprised just how many times the in campaign does resort to such petty tactics and relies on not giving unbiased views. I'm 80% certain at this point that I'll just vote leave because I can't trust this government any more. Cameron has failed in every turn to be impartial, to debate fairly, to give access to civil resources, to not overspend on things like the leaflet etc. and it's getting quite poor. There's no way we can even trust the government given this level of bias and disrespect for open dialogue.

 

[Skunkworks]

Are votes a bad thing?

Depends how far left you go. Democracy and sovereignty seem to be unfashionable amongst the self-loathing Marxists our HE system churns out. They get far more “right on” points by handing it over to Brussels.

 

[Mr Jack]

I would like to see some things changed, from what i've read I think it take the UK month and around £15000 to send someone back to there country of origin.

Why does it cost so much to do this ?

It's called due process and the rule of law.

Actually, I'm quite surprised by that figure: it seems rather low.

 

[Hagar]

My personal but scientific based analysis using the Analytic Heirarchy Process (AHP). Using pairwise comparison of a set of criteria for several predetermined options. I have weighted all the criteria equally (14.29%) and set the Defence/security criterion as equally good for each option.

It rather surprisingly, or not, makes leaving the EU with no prospect of trade deals a bit onerous. However I am more confident that trade will continue and that the UK in the period following the out vote will establish and maintain existing links.

It asks the question, is option A better than option B for the criterion X comparing all options one at a time with each other.

This is (quick and dirty and) subject to change, it may not be used elsewhere for any purpose.

 

[2013]

It's called due process and the rule of law.

Actually, I'm quite surprised by that figure: it seems rather low.

I think that £15000 just for the process of sending someone back nothing else.

I'm sure they could do it better and cost us less.
I'm not saying to do this but I'm sure if you paid the person you sending back less then half of that they would go with out a issue, passports and other details would turn up instantly.


I also think If we have a system setup to help illegal immigrants who what to return to their own countries, do so.
I assuming a lot of them would not know what to do, so they are stuck.

 

[Gux]

Good job your knee jerk reaction and mini tantrum is agreed on by some in the campaign

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...cused-of-a-stitch-up-and-threatened-over-dec/

Boris clearly says he's not too concerned and would rather discuss the issues. I myself personally disagree and think it is another example of a pitched campaign presenting bias and trying to skew the vote by having favourable conditions. I'm surprised just how many times the in campaign does resort to such petty tactics and relies on not giving unbiased views. I'm 80% certain at this point that I'll just vote leave because I can't trust this government any more. Cameron has failed in every turn to be impartial, to debate fairly, to give access to civil resources, to not overspend on things like the leaflet etc. and it's getting quite poor. There's no way we can even trust the government given this level of bias and disrespect for open dialogue.

Only knee jerk reaction was from the leave campaign because of Farage got onto the debate before Boris or Gove.

And Boris is bothered, it was probably him who pushed for the attack on the ITV. Boris is far more bothered pushing his image forward so he could run for next prime minister. The PM position is probably the main reason he decided to join the leave campaign, knowing Cameron loses the referendum, he is the most likely to take his place. Its all about dirty politics.

As for the propaganda, it is happening on both sides in equal measure. And if you do not trust the government, then why are you supporting leave campaign? Seeing some senior members of the current government are behind the leave campaign. Surely you cannot trust them either then?

 

[Chris Wilson]

It's called due process and the rule of law.

Actually, I'm quite surprised by that figure: it seems rather low.

I am sure if the human rights lawyers become involved that figure could escalate far far higher. I am also becoming certain that without a fast tracked "chuck `em out" process being instigated there would have to be another amnesty. Best to spend the money ensuring they can't get in in the first place.

But 15K is chicken feed to what one might cost the government (taxpayer) long term, if they decide a work ethic is anathema to them.

Having said this, what are the figures for how many illegal migrants Germany have so far processed and actually ejected, and where have they been ejected to? At what cost, on average, per person? I suspect in the grand scale of things VERY few have been properly processed and even fewer ejected.

 

[Zethor]

Page 5 of their 2015 annual accounts says the EU commission is one of their two primary funding sources. Maybe that's why they're very pro EU.... and maybe you need to look a bit harder than the first few google links?

Link? I only see this:
https://opendemocracy.net/about/supporters

I disagree. You're saying post Brexit we would deliberately apply restrictions which would impact skilled migration. The core central Brexit case is the opposite, attracting skilled people from all over the world, rather than applying a bias to EU citizens over the rest of the world, whether skilled or not.



Much like the Treasury's "dodgy dossier" has been debunked. Stop trying to make out it's black and white, there are arguments on both sides. In the short term yes there would be uncertainty, as there already is, but in the longer term plenty think the UK would stand to benefit from not being politically tied to the failing EU project.



So the moment someone steps down from their position, their opinion becomes irrelevant? Wrong. What you find is that people in power have to toe the party line, whereas those now outside of the limelight are free to speak their mind based on their experience. Mervyn King for example, Governor of the Bank of England and Chairman of the MPC for 10 years, had said the economics around Brexit have been wildly exaggerated and the choice is ultimately political.

Of course the current CEO of HSBC will want to remain, he doesn't want uncertainty whilst he's in charge. But the previous CEO can speak freely about what he believes is in the Country's best interest, rather than focussing on short term uncertainty and todays share price.



Attacking the individual personally and not the message, nice.

So what's your point, surely the fact he was pro EU and heavily involved in the EU project means he's got more knowledge on the subject than most? He likely figured out what the EU is actually all about during that time, realised most people have no idea how it actually works and so tried to do something about it.

A bit like Bernard Connolly, who worked for the European Commission, realised the EU wasn't what most people think, and wrote his book ""The Rotten Heart of Europe", which talks about how the EU/Euro project is a threat to freedom and democracy, and predicted a nasty endgame.

And then there's Daniel Hannan, an MEP who knows more about the workings of the EU than most, and strongly pro Brexit.

Seeing a trend here?

As for taking tobacco money, the figure was something like £10k in a year. Big deal. Compare that to the tens of millions of Euros big companies spend on lobbying the EU (check out transparency international) and it's a rounding error.



So saying "Hey OCUK, Youtube for EU Documentary" is the same as what, watching a tin-foil hat video about the moon? By your logic no video on Youtube is worth watching. You need to figure out how things really work, rather than being spoon fed and believing the party line.

A lot of people know how the EU really works, how undemocratic, how unaccountable, how corporate-friendly, how bureaucratic and wasteful it is, how it's all about a political end-game and not about doing what the people want. Maybe that's why nationalism and anti EU sentiment is on the rise all over Europe, and maybe that's why the OCUK leave majority has been increasing. Watch this, you might learn something.

Where is the evidence that support your claims? Do you have anything other than some politicians, a mercenary site which would probably support anal probes as a solution for gas shortages for the right payment, former somethings and economists who used wrong models? That's the problem with the Out side from a financial point of view, the arguments don't stand and the proponents have no credibility.

The In side has the economists' consensus, the scientific consensus, the world leader consensus, the global financial entities consensus. Even the Bank of England, as of today. Do you honestly believe the whole world is conspiring to keep the UK in the EU?

 

[Chris Wilson]

The director of the Bank of England, Mark Carney cannot be said to have no possible agenda in his public support of remaining in the EU, he was after all, the director of Goldman Sachs, who are partly bankrolling the remain campaign. I would view his opinion with some suspicion. Of course, it would be wrong to insinuate the power bankers could allow any personal or matey aggrandisement to sway how they operate, they have proven themselves reputable beyond dispute....

 

[Zethor]

The director of the Bank of England, Mark Carney cannot be said to have no possible agenda in his public support of remaining in the EU, he was after all, the director of Goldman Sachs, who are partly bankrolling the remain campaign. I would view his opinion with some suspicion. Of course, it would be wrong to insinuate the power bankers could allow any personal or matey aggrandisement to sway how they operate, they have proven themselves reputable beyond dispute....

And the rest of the world?

 

[Mr Jack]

The director of the Bank of England, Mark Carney cannot be said to have no possible agenda in his public support of remaining in the EU, he was after all, the director of Goldman Sachs, who are partly bankrolling the remain campaign. I would view his opinion with some suspicion. Of course, it would be wrong to insinuate the power bankers could allow any personal or matey aggrandisement to sway how they operate, they have proven themselves reputable beyond dispute....

If you want to argue that a particular person is compromised by an agenda, fair enough, when you want to argue that half a dozen people from different walks of life have an agenda you begin to look a bit nutty, when you're talking about literally dozens of people from a host of reputable institutions and different walks of life you just come across as a wild conspiracy theorist.

 

[Insanties_birth]

Only knee jerk reaction was from the leave campaign because of Farage got onto the debate before Boris or Gove.

And Boris is bothered, it was probably him who pushed for the attack on the ITV. Boris is far more bothered pushing his image forward so he could run for next prime minister. The PM position is probably the main reason he decided to join the leave campaign, knowing Cameron loses the referendum, he is the most likely to take his place. Its all about dirty politics.

As for the propaganda, it is happening on both sides in equal measure. And if you do not trust the government, then why are you supporting leave campaign? Seeing some senior members of the current government are behind the leave campaign. Surely you cannot trust them either then?

In a single post about there exclusion within a national debate that has a referendum in less than 2 months you called them idiots, muppets, incompetent, unprofessional, made the assumption they couldn't work together and called it a shambles. Based merely on a rational dislike they had of being excluded, you then attached that to all of them when some clearly rose above it. That is pretty knee jerk and over critical, I don't mind you having an opinion but next time David cameron has a slight tiff with one of his aids you won't find me slinging 5 or so different insults, smears and whatnot. Let's just level it off a little is all.

I'm supporting leave because I don't trust the current leader (not that it would be the only reason of course). That tired argument that you can't trust anyone in government just because you're suspicious of some is a bit too hyperbolic but currently there is a referendum going on as you might have noticed so whereas the government isn't all evil they are likely to be pushing a bit more biased / careful information out. Also was it boris johnson or the other conservatives in the out campaign that was stopping Cameron using the civil service? Was it them refusing to debate or having others sidelined from the national debate? Was it them pitching the battle by using public funds? Nope, was the other way around. So your argument falls a bit flat there, it's not really an all encompassing hatred of government but rather a rational respect of recent events and the fact we know the government of the day has chosen a pro EU stance and failed to be impartial within that stance so we have to take it with a pinch of salt. Sure Boris has a view too but has he been playing dirty and showing disregard for giving a fair debate to the public? Another point, wasn't it Cameron who regularly pitched himself as euro sceptic and said he'd get a lot of things resolved in the referendum that he didn't yet despite not getting that deal (and stating we wouldn't go ahead without it just a few months back) suddenly did a 180 and proved he'd lied about it?

I expected a level playing field in respect of fair democracy and an equal say on each side so the british public can reach there own conclusion but Cameron has a bit too much at stake I'm guessing. Your suspicions of Boris wanting the PM spot could be projected onto Cameron wanting a cosy spot within the EU or future political allies by keeping us in as well. I'm not here to debate the conspiracies but the obvious idea that it's tough to trust the government when they are no doubt going to not want to tell us the bad points and have shown a clear disrespect for having a level playing field within the debate shows a lack of earned trust.

 

[Insanties_birth]

Link? I only see this:
https://opendemocracy.net/about/supporters



Where is the evidence that support your claims? Do you have anything other than some politicians, a mercenary site which would probably support anal probes as a solution for gas shortages for the right payment, former somethings and economists who used wrong models? That's the problem with the Out side from a financial point of view, the arguments don't stand and the proponents have no credibility.

The In side has the economists' consensus, the scientific consensus, the world leader consensus, the global financial entities consensus. Even the Bank of England, as of today. Do you honestly believe the whole world is conspiring to keep the UK in the EU?

The whole world doesn't have to conspire, they merely have to find it more profitable. They wouldn't care about our democratic or legal life, national sovereignity, whether we're happy with levels of migration etc. They care if they get trade and to that effect there arguments are a sign we'd be better off economically within the EU but others have suggested there's other reasons to be out and that we might even do perfectly fine economically out anyway. You have to consider why they recommend we stay, do you think they had a huge debate in japan about british sovereignity and judicial process before shinzo abe recommended we stay? Taking recommendations for face value and attributing that to a recommendation of the entirity of the EU proces is no different to how you complain about those wrong economic models or people speaking outside of there prospective fields as a recommendation for the out vote. The people you're citing are hardly caring about a lot of the factors either.