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

[Avenged7Fold]

We wont have any more control either way, unless you think there is a decent chance that there wont be a free movement deal?

 

[datalol-jack]

We wont have any more control either way, unless you think there is a decent chance that there wont be a free movement deal?

Well, I believe Skunkworks is firmly in the 'let's reduce immigrations to the UKIP's magic number' at all costs camp, and so I'm giving him some background on that, if he's at all interested in what he's proposing.

I still think it's unlikely any sensible government would choose to take the economic punishment here, considering the projections expect trends to level off to the same net drop (50,000 - 100,000) anyway!

 

[Judgeneo]

Would we have more control over the numbers and quality of migrants In or Out?

We currently have rules on migrants from outside the EU, and no rules on migrants from inside.
After leaving, we would no longer be bound to the EU principle of free movement of people, and so we would have controls on migrants from inside the EU.

So by definition, Brexit gives more controls.

What controls that we implement will be up for successive British governments to decide.

 

[413x]

Through all this debate and BSing has anybody actually changed their mind?

Still want . I think may be marginally worse off , but willing to chance it for how bad the eu might get in future

 

[perky]

Very much debatable:
http://ner.sagepub.com/content/236/1/14.full.pdf+html
http://ner.sagepub.com/content/236/1/23.full.pdf+html

TL;DR: Since we don't have control over most push factors of skilled EU migration, and the skill base is high, higher indeed than the non-EU inflow we already have control over, the simple answer is -- no, under the most likely points based system we will put in place.

Though in the short term, 5-15 years, we may reduce the net number by 50,000 - 100,000 (under a deal that does not include free movement, so Canada-style or similar) by discouraging EU students, encouraging more emigration under recession conditions and putting up arbitrary income or legislation barriers to family re-unions.

If you think that's good enough, and that's what you're voting for -- then fair enough.

Any control on EU migration is necessarily going to involve leaving the EU and not having free access to the EU market, and also losing all of the free trade agreements that the EU already have in place (all talk of using Article 112 of the EEA Agreement, like the whole page dedicated to it on UKIP's website, is a load of tosh, we are subject to EJC ruling which is a proxy for the EEC).

So ultimately the choice becomes immigration control, or free market access, but not both. Nowithstanding that the EU won't just hand a free trade EU deal out to us on a plate as they won't want others to follow suit in a domino effect that could bring the EU project down, their self interests in protecting that trump their self interests of dealing with us.

 

[Skunkworks]

Well, I believe Skunkworks is firmly in the 'let's reduce immigrations to the UKIP's magic number' at all costs camp, and so I'm giving him some background on that, if he's at all interested in what he's proposing.

I’m in the “let’s take advantage of the UK’s high desirability as a place to live and work, and select the brightest and best of those who want to come here rather than throwing the doors open and hoping for the best” camp.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

After leaving, we would no longer be bound to the EU principle of free movement of people, and so we would have controls on migrants from inside the EU.

Leaving does not mean we wont have free movement. It depends on what is negotiated and I dont think anyone has faith in our government wanting or even having the ability to strike a deal without free movement

 

[datalol-jack]

We currently have rules on migrants from outside the EU, and no rules on migrants from inside.
After leaving, we would no longer be bound to the EU principle of free movement of people, and so we would have controls on migrants from inside the EU.

So by definition, Brexit gives more controls.

What controls that we implement will be up for successive British governments to decide.

The big assumption in bold. I don't think we will find this out until after the referendum in all likelihood. Boris flip-flopped on this more than the number of quotes he's made up in his career, and will do so again. Whatever the other Leavers say -- he's the most likely man, if he keeps his UKIP shtick to a minimum, to replace Cameron and thus carry out Brexit plans in the event of Leave.

Cameron, for his part, never said we would take the economic hit which comes with sacrificing the single market access and free movement of people.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

I’m in the “let’s take advantage of the UK’s high desirability as a place to live and work, and select the brightest and best of those who want to come here rather than throwing the doors open and hoping for the best” camp.

Oh, isn't that the camp located in Lala land?

 

[datalol-jack]

Anyhow, my lunch is done and I'm returning to my deep infiltration of Mumsnet. Wish me luck.

 

[Hades]

Or to look at it from the opposite side of the fence the options facing the EU in the event if Brexit are to come to an agreement with us about trade (at the risk of a domino effect) or lose a significant export market. Neither is good for the EU.

 

[bayo000]

that fact that they have lied i cheated to try and keep us in i will be voting out

But all the lies from leave don't bother you? And they lie much more as well.

 

[Judgeneo]

The big assumption in bold. I don't think we will find this out until after the referendum in all likelihood. Boris flip-flopped on this more than the number of quotes he's made up in his career, and will do so again. Whatever the other Leavers say -- he's the most likely man, if he keeps his UKIP shtick to a minimum, to replace Cameron and thus carry out Brexit plans in the event of Leave.

Cameron, for his part, never said we would take the economic hit coming with sacrificing the single market access and free movement of people.

I don't think it is a big assumption, I can't think of a single leave campaigner that would support a deal which included free movement of people. After Brexit, these leave campaigners are likely to end up in charge of the country.

You're of course right that there is a possibility that Boris et al will flip flop around on this, but I think it is highly unlikely, as it would cause untold damage to his support from the people who voted leave.

We'll end up with some sort of trade deal, with low or no tarrifs, similar to Iceland or Canada. We don't need to accept free movement of people for this. The worse case scenario is WTO rules, which wouldn't be all that bad.

 

[413x]

But all the lies from leave don't bother you? And they lie much more as well.

Think it's as bad on each side
In no way had the campaign had an effect on my voting.

 

[Danthus]

http://www.rothbiz.co.uk/2016/03/news-4801-unions-protest-at-rotherham.html

Engineering construction workers are protesting at a site in Rotherham today over "unscrupulous" construction companies they say are exploiting workers.

GMB members in engineering construction are holding three separate protest demonstrations in Wales, Scotland and Yorkshire against undercutting of workers on three energy from waste power station construction sites.

Construction began last year on the £150m biomass-fired power plant project at Templeborough where Babcock & Wilcox Vølund A/S, the Danish subsidiary of the giant US Babcock & Wilcox Company, will design, manufacture and operate the plant, with Interserve responsible for its construction.

The GMB Union claims that skilled workers on the site are being paid about £7 per hour and that the subsidiary has declined to follow National Agreement for the Engineering Construction Industry (NAECI) which covers infrastructure like power stations, oil refineries and transport installations. Under that agreement the rate for skilled workers is £16.64 per hour.

Under the EU Posted Workers Directive contractors employing labour from third countries are obliged to follow sector agreements like the NAECI agreement but increasingly employers are ignoring this legal requirement.

Bob McNeill, GMB Regional organiser, said: "GMB members have negotiated and honoured the Terms and Conditions of our National Agreement (NAECI) for decades and I support our members’ campaign for the National Agreement to be fully implemented on the Rotherham site.

"Interserve and Babcock Wilcox VØlund are undermining our agreement by exploiting non UK workers and paying inferior terms and conditions. This is nothing other than social dumping."

Phil Whitehurst, GMB national officer for engineering construction, added: "GMB members in the Engineering Construction Sector are being debarred from employment on energy from waste (EfW) facilities being built around the UK.

"Unscrupulous construction companies using spurious umbrella companies exploit non UK workers at rates of pay as low as £7 per hour rather than paying £16.64 per hour which is the applicable rate through direct employment and utilising UK collective agreements."

GMB and Unite intend to launch a major campaign to raise the profile of the issues.

Unite and UCATT Unions area also taking part in the protest and are also calling on the contractors to guarantee that workers on the projects will be employed directly to stop workers being exploited by bogus self-employment schemes run by sub-contractors, employment agencies and "umbrella" payment companies. Babcock & Wilcox Vølund awarded the Croatian company Ðuro Ðavokic the contract to manufacture and install the main boilers for all three energy plants.

 

[perky]

We'll end up with some sort of trade deal, with low or no tarrifs, similar to Iceland or Canada. We don't need to accept free movement of people for this. The worse case scenario is WTO rules, which wouldn't be all that bad.

We may end up with something eventually, but there's no political incentive for the EU to do so in the short term given that their self interests in protecting the EU project as a whole will trump their self interests over dealing with us. As for WTO rules, they are designed as a one size fits all fall-back position based on an average country and what industries it may want to protect. Each country is unique in that regard, and so it encourages trade deals to be done between countries for their mutual benefit. The analogy might be buying clothes from a shop where it only sells one size, sure you can buy those clothes but they may not fit very well.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

http://www.rothbiz.co.uk/2016/03/news-4801-unions-protest-at-rotherham.html

Wait... employers are paying unfair wages that go against EU policy of following sector agreements like the National Agreement for the Engineering Construction Industry, which is a British thing.

So.... blame the immigrants or EU?

 

[StriderX]

Oh, isn't that the camp located in Lala land?

Why are you still living here then?

 

[Mr Jack]

I don't think it is a big assumption, I can't think of a single leave campaigner that would support a deal which included free movement of people. After Brexit, these leave campaigners are likely to end up in charge of the country.

Boris might end up in charge, I can't see any of the other leaders ending up in charge (maybe Gove?) and Boris, I think, would agree to free movement.

We'll end up with some sort of trade deal, with low or no tarrifs, similar to Iceland or Canada. We don't need to accept free movement of people for this. The worse case scenario is WTO rules, which wouldn't be all that bad.

Iceland has free movement with the EU

As for WTO not being that bad, estimates of the damage to the UK economy of a WTO vary from 3-7.5% lower GDP and wages lower by around 4% in 2030. I'd call that pretty bad, myself.

 

[John40]

Remain now at 78% chance in the betting.