Poll: The EU Referendum: What Will You Vote? (New Poll)

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

  • Total voters
    1,204
Status
Not open for further replies.
D.P. said:
And how would that work though. This comes up time and time again" let in only desirable immigrants"

Well how to do you find out who is desirable? the desirability of an immigrant depends entirely on the employer, an investment bank in the city has different requirements to a software form in Cambridge who has different requirements to a North sea oil operation, who has different requirements for an east Anglican fruit farmer who has different requirements to a Cornish fish processing factor who has different requirements to a factor in the midlands or a hill-sheep farmer in Cumbria.

How to do you determine all the different desirable characteristics, skills, education levels, experience of every job opening across the entire country in a real-time manner under a reasonable cost?


A simple solution is to let employers decide what characteristics and skills they find desirable for the job they are hiring for. This has the advantage that the people who know the most detail about workers they desire make the important final employment decisions, the work is completely distributed so only those employers seeking increased workers have the burden of effort, workers can be hired as quickly as possible to full-fill required roles maximize productivity, there is no increase in taxation required to fund an ineffective government agency, and market economics will drive efficiency.
Click to expand...

So the answer is what you suggested? I'm not understanding? I didn't say how it should be done. I merely said that if we left the EU we would still let immigrants in. It's not one extreme or another. Either in the EU and we let them all in or out of the EU and we let no one in?

I was merely putting at ease those people who were saying that out of the EU their companies would suffer as they rely on employing Europeans (for one reason or another).
 
datalol-jack said:
Our universities benefit from European grants and their own income to keep them on the projects. The current REF system to apportion our own gruel, is so laughable, it's tragic. If one of the two goes, and the government invests at its current marginal rate in research, the outcome becomes clear. This of course against a background of big mergers on the continent and more money for research. And as I said, the US won't be sleeping on its laurels either. In the academic game -- you pay or you die. The Ivory Towers are no more, and the sense of national duty won't raise a family or mortgage a house.

In a more applied sector: Why do you think our doctors and nurses quit for greener pastures?
Click to expand...

Again, maybe that's something we need to then look at, more funding for Universitys Science. I can absolutely back that. It doesn't mean we need to be in Europe though.

Woden said:
If they renegade on the deal, we hold another referendum. Simples.
Click to expand...

That won't happen though because the PM doesn't actually want to leave the EU and he's the person who makes that call
 
Woden said:
If they renegade on the deal, we hold another referendum. Simples.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what Scots voters said when they were promised Devo-Max? How did that turn out again?

David Cameron has said that he's holding the referendum to put the issue of Europe to bed once and for all. If we vote to remain, there's no guarantee that the 'thin gruel' deal will be ratified by the European Parliament, or that we'd hold another referendum if they didn't. It's a leap of faith into the dark.
 
datalol-jack said:
Our universities benefit from European grants and their own income to keep them on the projects. The current REF system to apportion our own gruel, is so laughable, it's tragic. If one of the two goes, and the government invests at its current marginal rate in research, the outcome becomes clear. This of course against a background of big mergers on the continent and more money for research. And as I said, the US won't be sleeping on its laurels either. In the academic game -- you pay or you die. The Ivory Towers are no more, and the sense of national duty won't raise a family or mortgage a house.

In a more applied sector: Why do you think our doctors and nurses quit for greener pastures?
Click to expand...

I don't know the figures. But I've seen form various sources a pretty huge financial 'saving' from coming out the EU in the form of membership, bailouts, etc. Billions.

Couldn't this be redirected to projects/research you speak of? Most importantly NHS? (although just throwing money at the NHS won't work and is a different debate).
 
Adnams Drinker said:
.
Click to expand...

He gambled politically, even though his pledge left him enough time till the end of 2017. Just like Boris and Gove gambled. Cameron thinks he can't persuade the hardcore quitters, and so further wrangling would just prolong the referendum build up and the knock on economic effects of uncertainty further.

He is the PM, it's his choice.
 
Roar87 said:
Again, maybe that's something we need to then look at, more funding for Universitys Science.
Click to expand...

At least we can agree on something constructive. The trouble for the Leave camp is that, even if they promised that the funding would rise, by virtue of not being the government, or at the brink of forming one, they cannot deliver on that promise.

This is what makes people in research worry.
 
balky12 said:
So the answer is what you suggested? I'm not understanding? I didn't say how it should be done. I merely said that if we left the EU we would still let immigrants in. It's not one extreme or another. Either in the EU and we let them all in or out of the EU and we let no one in?

I was merely putting at ease those people who were saying that out of the EU their companies would suffer as they rely on employing Europeans (for one reason or another).
Click to expand...


My answer is we keep the the EU freedom of movement and remain with the EU as the most effective way of employing desirable immigrants.



If Britain does leave the EU and does end the freedom of movement of workers from the EU (however, Britain post exit may well end up like Norway and Switzerland and have to accept freedom of movement) then it dies raise lot of serious and important questions for employers. Now I fully expect there to end up some kind of visa process put in place to full fill employment needs. the problem is this is costly in terms of time and finances for employers, reducing their productivity and lower competitiveness with the rest of the EU. It can mean it is much less desirable to increase business in the UK compared to an EU country and may very well make companies leave the UK or at least think twice about where they may expand operations.


The only people who win from complex visa systems is lawyers, citizens and employers loose out big time.
 
D.P. said:
My answer is we keep the the EU freedom of movement and remain with the EU as the most effective way of employing desirable immigrants.



If Britain does leave the EU and does end the freedom of movement of workers from the EU (however, Britain post exit may well end up like Norway and Switzerland and have to accept freedom of movement) then it dies raise lot of serious and important questions for employers. Now I fully expect there to end up some kind of visa process put in place to full fill employment needs. the problem is this is costly in terms of time and finances for employers, reducing their productivity and lower competitiveness with the rest of the EU. It can mean it is much less desirable to increase business in the UK compared to an EU country and may very well make companies leave the UK or at least think twice about where they may expand operations.


The only people who win from complex visa systems is lawyers, citizens and employers loose out big time.
Click to expand...

Alarmingly, few number crunchers in the Leave group are bothering to offer an honest answer to: What this visa system would cost? Who will oversee its development? And where the money for it will come from? Our repatriated club fee, no doubt? High visa fees? Cuts to other departments? A mixture of all three? Can this undo the relatively recent tampering with the border service/make it more effective/get more staff?

No idea. Because behind the megaphone slogans, there's almost no working substance. 'We'll let the government of the day sort it out.' isn't an answer, especially if you don't trust the PM or his party, whom some of the leavers don't. Again, it's the issue of being powerless critics who can't deliver on promises they make. Even Boris isn't a de-facto PM contender in the event of Brexit.
 
deuse said:
The same as it costs the USA..NOTHING. As the person who wants to come in to the country pays for everything
edit= also the visa system will create jobs.
Click to expand...

Then why doesn't the income from processing fees add up to the running costs of the:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

There are other costs in expanding and running these services not directly related to vetting people in. Public sector inefficiencies on large projects and long-term may also arise, if you were to argue this from a Tory In point of view. It would be hard to sell them on expanding the state, when their current chancellor pursues a policy of shrinking it. And private companies such as G4S are neither safe bets nor guaranteed money savers. As disability shenans show. It's a bit harder delivering than promising.

Plus you are not factoring in the initial start-up cost of the operation -- expanding our current non-EU system, at minimum, will take wrangling and money.

Anyway, I'm open to numbers from the Leave group. It would make their case more credible, and it's something they can take 'to the government of the day' as a working proposal post-Brexit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom