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

[datalol-jack]

"Britain's campaign to leave EU takes 4 percent point lead "

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-poll-idUKKCN0VZ2QI

The BBC is being slammed for the bias of the IN lot.

That ORB poll didn't change much, deuse. See here:
http://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/poll-of-polls/

A 2% swing to leave incorporating your recent poll, with the majority of telephone polls still returning a healthy remain lead. Overall it's a 6 point lead for remain at the time of this writing. 4 months still to go.

I'm sure the BBC will have an equivalent tracker nearer the time.

Anyone that disagrees with you is either ignorant or misinformed...? Pretty regressive of you Zethor.

Anyone who disagrees over matters of fact on the base of anecdotes, rumour, gut instinct and unverified statistics fits the bill perfectly. As for all the economists -- I think he meant the total in those studies. But, he isn't far off:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1a86ab36-afbe-11e5-b955-1a1d298b6250.html

More musings on exit outcomes:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/70d0bfd8-d1b3-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377.html

That's a long suspension Robgmun has had....he must be champing at the bit to reply to stuff in this thread

Must have gone wild in Hardware or Motors; haven't seen much of him here.

 

[Zethor]

Anyone that disagrees with you is either ignorant or misinformed...? Pretty regressive of you Zethor.

I know it sounds harsh but that is the nature of this debate. When your stance is not supported by reality it must be supported by something else - ignorance, irrational fears, preconceived ideas, delusions of past grandeur or a mixture of those.

 

[Mr Jack]

In effect they took 2 jobs out of circulation with money that will largely be sent back home.

That's a bold claim. Do you have any evidence that they send most of the money earned back home? I would imagine that like most people they spend most of their money on housing, food, and other necessities of life, a bit on entertainment and only then have some left that they might send home.

 

[deuse]

That ORB poll didn't change much, deuse. See here:
http://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/poll-of-polls/

Your poll is out of date. Please keep up.

 

[deuse]

For a lark, list the requirements those countries set out in law to obtain a passport for legal refugees/other long-term residents, after their uninterrupted residence period qualifies them to apply for it [not a done deal at this stage either, a passport/citizenship can be declined for a number of reasons; if you fail on any of the qualifying criteria, your history in the country or your documentary evidence doesn't add up, for example]. Just handing them out, eh? Re bold text see my reply to scorza below. Shorter version: It would need a new EU treaty or at least a major treaty change.

Missed this one.

The gimmigrents was let in to the EU with out a passport. So your (so called laws) have failed.

Another 100,000 are about to come in to the EU. No passports, no nothing.

 

[rawuk]

I know it sounds harsh but that is the nature of this debate. When your stance is not supported by reality it must be supported by something else - ignorance, irrational fears, preconceived ideas, delusions of past grandeur or a mixture of those.

It is clear yourself and datalol-jack are both well read and derive some pleasure in reading financial reports and digging into the numbers.

However what I have tried to get datalol-jack to admit, which he mostly managed to dodge, is that with the small amount of reports that you can bring to bear at present can not take account for the entire amount of variables that this situation represents. As dowie stated earlier.

The brilliant thing about economist reports is that there is always a different argument / interpretation if you wait long enough. I would just point you to the Dot Com boom in early 2000. I'm sure you could find dozens of papers pre 2000 stating it will keep growing for decades with various simulations.

Look at the crash in 2008. Was that predicted in 2006? I'd imagine a few reports may have done but the majority? I do not believe so.

 

[datalol-jack]

Your poll is out of date. Please keep up.

Oh, you'll find your great on-line hope by ORB is there:

The most recent addition is a poll conducted by ORB between 24 and 25 February

Do you ever read your own articles?

The poll of polls updates at regular intervals too.

...

The perception of events is hard to quantify. However, it doesn't give one ground to claim the following empirical law: 'contrary minority opinion is the sounder version of reality'; that is, simply taking a contrary position on a hunch or policy bias hasn't got more predictive power. Look at a broader economic cycle.

But if you insist on big events and catastrophes, few uniformed cranks saw them coming either. The contrary opinion nearer to the truth almost exclusively came from people who had both the education and experience to interpret the market indicators, the hard data that was available, and some chose to ignore. People who failed either sat back regurgitating someone else's opinion, or went in on a gamble based on faith in the markets alone, soundly ignoring the up-to-date data in front of them.

Nonetheless, I fully admit the simple fact of probability that if you guess long enough, you may score some hits, or be vague enough to basically claim a win either way. It's not a sound way to make decisions or plans, though.

 

[kitch9]

So all those studies, all the economists, they are part of a huge conspiracy with the aim of helping Polish plumbers?

If the Poles take certain jobs for 3/4 of the normal rates, the Brits take other better paid jobs. The evidence shows they don't become unemployed nor do they suffer a wage reduction. Your anecdotal evidence is laughable.

The stats are based on people who are full time employed, not the subbies of the country who are outside working directives and having to compete with a quite frankly insane price cuts on work. 15 quid to hang a door on a building site. Used to be 50,which was OK when you consider its a 3 hour job..... If you are quick. I've seen 1st fix electrics on a new house done for 100 QUID by a Polish dude with shady certs, including the materials that's like WTF!

 

[bayo000]

But that's sinply not true. I can go onto my builder right now and find a polish plumber or worker who will come round, work nights after their day job, cash in hand, for 3/4 pf the normal rates. How is that not taking a non immigrant job? In effect they took 2 jobs out of circulation with money that will largely be sent back home. While claiming child benefits for a family based in Poland.

you are simply naive if you think job/ work cannibalisation is jot happening directly related to immigration.

But it is you and other people who make it a problem if you hire them. You can hire whoever you want but people want to save few £s and create this situation.

 

[CJonny]

I see a lot of scaremongering from large companies telling us that it would be bad for business if we left the EU. Is there any truth to this?

 

[bayo000]

Short term? Definitely. Long term? Who knows. For some it could mean the end but for others it may work out well.

 

[datalol-jack]

Missed this one.

The gimmigrents was let in to the EU with out a passport. So your (so called laws) have failed.

Another 100,000 are about to come in to the EU. No passports, no nothing.

Why does this concern your particularly? We are not part of the Schengen passport free scheme, for starters. Just to cover your 'they'll all flood here' angle in advance.

The small fraction of refugees you're on about are being issued with registration documents for the countries which accept them for asylum and further processing. Moreover, not everyone has lost all of their documentation with their passport, and you can trace people through their social connections all the way back to the point of origin; it's not perfect but not impossible.

Furthermore, these registration documents do not have the right of free European movement attached to them, amongst other things. Finally, the migrant crisis is under constant review, and now that the EC is free to actually concentrate on that, I'm sure they'll get on just fine. The digital ID scheme, better counting, Schengen special measures, etc, are all on the table to address the situation, with Germany leading the way.

Jumping over headlines isn't good for one's heart, mate. Relax. If anything, we should get more involved after the referendum, to ensure that the processing of refugees is humane, accurate and fair.

 

[The Running Man]

People who think eastern Europe and are such a big contributor in taxes etc should read the following:

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/1.38

2. It is often claimed that “immigrants work hard and pay taxes”. We know from the Labour Force Survey that some groups of migrants have a high employment rate. For example the average employment rate in the UK is 71.3%, with UK born people having an employment rate of 72% and the non-UK born a rate of 70%. Within that, migrants from the A8 countries have a higher rate of employment at almost 80%. However, some other migrants have a very low employment rate: the rate of employment amongst those born in Pakistan and Bangladesh is 50%. The reasons behind this are beyond the scope of this paper. Migrants also work at widely different rates of pay, for example the average hourly rate of an Australian born male in the UK in 2012 was £18.98, slightly higher than that of £17.79 for a UK-born male, while in contrast the rate for a male from the EU A8 was only £9.34.

Conclusion

16. Many migrants might work hard but, when they work at or close to the minimum wage, as is the case for nearly half of those from Eastern Europe, they pay very little in tax and many will make no contribution at all. Research claiming that recent EEA migrants contribute far more than they receive critically failed to take any account of income levels in estimating the cost of the means-tested benefits. In fact, as this paper shows, those with families may receive far more from the taxpayer in cash benefits than they pay in tax and National Insurance.

 

[George Hincapie]

I see a lot of scaremongering from large companies telling us that it would be bad for business if we left the EU. Is there any truth to this?

Whose truth? Too many vested interests to see the wood for the trees in my view.

 

[datalol-jack]

The stats are based on people who are full time employed, not the subbies of the country who are outside working directives and having to compete with a quite frankly insane price cuts on work. 15 quid to hang a door on a building site. Used to be 50,which was OK when you consider its a 3 hour job..... If you are quick. I've seen 1st fix electrics on a new house done for 100 QUID by a Polish dude with shady certs, including the materials that's like WTF!

I'm not sure how countering with even more circumstantial anecdotes is going to help, kitch, tbh. The stats don't just track full-time employed, nor are the people writing technical analyses of labour, revenue and tax for the government ignorant of the shadow economy in the country. Again, it's the perception of events against data, and Zethor's points stands, unless you have some ace in the hole we don't know about.

Maybe that's because the poorest and most vulnerable in society are the ones who are most adversely affected by the sort of EU mass-immigration we've seen over the past couple of decades.

The outcomes recorded in the official stats and the attitudes captured by pollsters tell a somewhat more concerning story: scarcity is bad for decision-making in general; short-term thinking dominating, and extreme swings of opinion more likely. Does economic migration add to that the pressure of joblessness and reduced opportunity? Studies haven't found a casual link claimed by Cameron nor other Tories at the last election, as has been repeated often enough; on that, he went with the popular mood and against his advisers.

But the prevailing mood is neither here nor there as even a working hypothesis of the causes of the situation, especially re deprivation, crime and other social ills; and as highlighted above it varies widely across regions. For the lower social grades, it's a popular, specious cultural myth not carried through on the available evidence. You don't need facts to have a moral panic, that's for sure!

 

[The Running Man]

I'm not sure how countering with even more circumstantial anecdotes is going to help, kitch, tbh. The stats don't just track full-time employed, nor are the people writing technical analyses of labour, revenue and tax for the government ignorant of the shadow economy in the country. Again, it's the perception of events against data, and Zethor's points stands, unless you have some ace in the hole we don't know about.


The outcomes recorded in the official stats and the attitudes captured by pollsters tell a somewhat more concerning story: scarcity is bad for decision-making in general; short-term thinking dominating, and extreme swings of opinion more likely. Does economic migration add to that the pressure of joblessness and reduced opportunity? Studies haven't found a casual link claimed by Cameron nor other Tories at the last election, as has been repeated often enough; on that, he went with the popular mood and against his advisers.

But the prevailing mood is neither here nor there as even a working hypothesis of the causes of the situation, especially re deprivation, crime and other social ills; and as highlighted above it varies widely across regions. For the lower social grades, it's a popular, specious cultural myth not carried through on the available evidence. You don't need facts to have a moral panic, that's for sure!

No there is a direct link. Did you read the link I posted about 3 posts up as to which jobs and the types of income directly affected by a8 immigrants?

Every job that goes to a foreigner is literally cannabilising a job that someone else could have done. There are rare exceptions for sought after under provided niche areas. Labourers etc do not qualify and count I am afraid.

They pay little tax, send a lot of money home, take benefits for children and families back home, and displace non immigrant workers.

These are virtually irrefutable facts. To deny it or think that it doesn't happen is simple fallacy and right wing group think.

 

[HaX]

The only difference between your post and the ramblings of some of the other posters is eloquence. Unfortunately, that is insufficient during a debate, particularly when the claims are not backed by facts.

http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/pb_imm_uk_27sept13.pdf

The evidence, however, is fairly clear. Economists have found little evidence that immigration from the A8 endangers Britons’ employment prospects.

http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/ipa/08041.pdf

However, fears about socialdumping and pushing down wages or taking advantage of social security benefits have no foundation. Various studies have struggled to find any impact on the wage levels or employment prospects of native workers.

http://ftp.iza.org/dp8456.pdf

This chapter examined the relationship between these varying labor market policies, economic shocks, and the responses of migrants from the NMSs. Based upon a difference-indifferences and triple differences estimator, the results show that the estimated effect of opening home labor markets to NMS migrants is significantly positive.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/labour-market-effects-immigration

Research by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) studied the impact of migrants on the employment of UK-born people using data from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) for 1975-2010 (Migration Advisory Committee 2012). The study suggests that, overall, migrants have no impact on UK-born employment. However, the MAC also analysed the specific impacts of EU and non-EU migrants and also distinguished between two sub-periods: 1975-1994 and 1995-2010.It found that non-EU immigration was associated with a reduction in the employment of UK-born workers during 1995-2010. No statistically significant effects were found for EU immigration.


As you can see, you do meet one criteria (ignorance) because there's no evidence that the wages of 'people employed in factory work, construction, plumbing, and electrical work etc' have been affected by EU free movement. In fact, non-EU migration seems to have an impact on wages and that will increase in the event of Brexit. Therefore, your out vote goes against your own reasoning so if that is not ignorance in all its glory, I don't know what is. Assuming you have not lied about your successful career, you are capable of educating yourself and adjusting your opinion so that it is aligned with the facts. I can only speculate on why you don't do so.

I don't doubt that you can find studies which cite statistics that indicate no correlation between immigration and wage suppression in certain areas of the employment.

Conversely, it is also possible to find studies which conclude that immigration does impact employment prospects and or suppress wage growth.

I suspect that in either case, in many instances the methods used to gather,analyse and present the data promoting either narrative is tailored to suit the agenda of those funding the studies and/or the institutions undertaking them.

Immigration is a get out of free card for those in government and allows them to avoid dealing with structural issues affecting our society; It helps plug labour gaps in essential services such as healthcare, with many of those come here accustomed to and willing to work for lower pay and living standards than people already living here. This is particularly evident down here in the South East. I recently had to spend some time in hospital, and very few of the nurses or auxiliaries who dealt with me were English. Although there is a national shortage of nursing staff in this country (in part caused by lack of training places), this is particularly acute here in the South East due to the wages of nurses being so poor in relation to living costs.

Large businesses also benefit from an open immigration policy. Increased demand for goods and services, and a more competitive labour market. More people competing for jobs, often willing to accept lower wages and/or living standards.

Last but not least, increasing the population by ~300,000 people per year with an inelastic housing supply drives up rents and house prices. This benefits banks, estate agents,landowners, landlords, and wealthier workers who own their own homes, but disadvantages and ultimately impoverishes those who don't.

Taking into account the net benefactors of the open door immigration policy/crisis, it is of no surprise that there is a wealth of statistics and analysis backing EU membership and the associated stance on immigration.

 

[kitch9]

I'm not sure how countering with even more circumstantial anecdotes is going to help, kitch, tbh. The stats don't just track full-time employed, nor are the people writing technical analyses of labour, revenue and tax for the government ignorant of the shadow economy in the country. Again, it's the perception of events against data, and Zethor's points stands, unless you have some ace in the hole we don't know about.



The outcomes recorded in the official stats and the attitudes captured by pollsters tell a somewhat more concerning story: scarcity is bad for decision-making in general; short-term thinking dominating, and extreme swings of opinion more likely. Does economic migration add to that the pressure of joblessness and reduced opportunity? Studies haven't found a casual link claimed by Cameron nor other Tories at the last election, as has been repeated often enough; on that, he went with the popular mood and against his advisers.

But the prevailing mood is neither here nor there as even a working hypothesis of the causes of the situation, especially re deprivation, crime and other social ills; and as highlighted above it varies widely across regions. For the lower social grades, it's a popular, specious cultural myth not carried through on the available evidence. You don't need facts to have a moral panic, that's for sure!

20 years in construction, including most of the major housebuilders. The only winners with the current situation is the large contractors who can get work done for rock bottom prices. Subbies are getting squeezed until the pips squeak.

 

[bayo000]

They pay little tax, send a lot of money home, take benefits for children and families back home, and displace non immigrant workers.

These are virtually irrefutable facts. To deny it or think that it doesn't happen is simple fallacy and right wing group think.

LOL how does this work. If they pay little tax that's because they don't earn a lot, even with the benefits they still won't have a lot. However after paying for rent, food and bills they send lot of money home?

 

[Freakbro]

Every job that goes to a foreigner is literally cannabilising a job that someone else could have done. There are rare exceptions for sought after under provided niche areas. Labourers etc do not qualify and count I am afraid.

Rubbish, as has been previously said, there isn't a set number of jobs, jobs expand and are created when a population increases.

Take a Polish person coming over and starting up a hairdressers for example, her clients are likely to be other Polish to start with, so she hasn't taken anyone elses job just a new one has been created to meet the demand

They pay little tax, send a lot of money home, take benefits for children and families back home, and displace non immigrant workers.

There is more than just someone's income tax to define how economically active they are. They buy goods and services, that has VAT on it, the company they buy from sells more (because there are more customers) or new businesses open to meet new demands. These businesses then make more profits and pay more taxes.

These are virtually irrefutable facts. To deny it or think that it doesn't happen is simple fallacy and right wing group think.

I'm glad you used the word virtually, because they are not irrefutable, well only to people who want to see a small part of the overall picture to confirm their own bias