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

[datalol-jack]

I'm sorry, this won't be nicely edited, as I'm only swooping by for a bit to restore some balance to the force, lol.

Should be fixed now.

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

Migration Watch, ugh. Okay. For forcing it upon me, you shall receive some light sarcasm!

It's perhaps best to begin with a brief summary: We claim that the economic migrants from the A8 countries don't really contribute; but we can't really show you that, so we'll attack couples on a low household income instead, who would qualify for means-tested in-work benefits, preferably with [two] children. Need I go on?

So on I go, finding, to my 'great' surprise, mostly original research with one formal reference and one informal reference, outside of the peer review process; but they pull in other implicit stuff from disparate sources they didn't bother citing properly too. So kudos for that MW, but no good practice awards for research, I'm afraid. The Migration Observatory piece they link to is far more methodologically sound, but they only really use it for one headline figure re average wages. Anyhow.

First, in the table I look, and sure enough -- even with the tax credits accounted for -- a single economic migrant on their quoted minimum wage contributes tax; those virtual quids do add up. So, roughly, 75% (Fig. 2) of the Eastern Europeans MW targets, who aren't on the quoted minimum wage, contribute even more per head. Fair play, migrants! Although, you have to read that off the poor quality LBF bar-chart, 'cause you know, why be scientific and impartial, right? Onwards, I read off a value of nearly £297 net contribution from the household with a sole earner and two kids (what happened to the single child bit?). This can't be right! Oh, wait, yeah, they've made a sign error... Confidence in humanity boosted... not!

Second, the table takes the minimum of a 35-hour, full-time, working week as their baseline, and that's 7 paid hours per day. Got to make the figures low, right? It's nice of MW to assume each of those persons get an hour of unpaid lunch a day. But the ONS puts the UK average of 42.7 hours worked per week, just for your reference.

Then they really dig into the quantitative meat of their whole piece: the families who have children. The knives are really out, lol. But is it carnage? Should Osborne shield the nation's piggy bank with his bear breast, and cry out: 'Mercy!'? Well no. Look again. The earners with no dependants contribute. The couples with two kids take out, as is common with many full-time employed, low-income families. So, what is the proportion of the net contributors overall, on the terms MW themselves set out? Well, look at Figure 1: ~60% have no dependants, and there is no breakdown of who has 1 child, 2 kids or more among the rest; just a lump of a bar in the chart at one end and a little blip in the middle-left, presumably picked to look more dramatic, sigh.

Conclusion -- don't take MW briefs at face value! Here they haven't demonstrated what they were after, put out a few pages of drivel and called it a day. For crying out loud! Yes, even by taking the 'oft ignored tax related benefits and credits issue', they cannot quite win.

If you do include VAT; other indirect taxes; rent; healthcare; average age of the A8 migrants and their reliance on social services and security (not great, even MW acknowledged they are more likely to be in work and healthy via their citations and appeals to 'other work on the topic' etc); even the stated tax deficits of families in receipt of child benefit would either fade or become marginal, which is of course what the official sources agree on, without the extra creative acrobatics with the data. MW don't because it would shoot down their argument.

What about those destroyed jobs? Nothing. The MW PR release briefing paper isn't about that. So instead the Running Man requests we do some 'original' research of our own to prove his case. Erm, no thanks. Nonetheless, I'll point this out: why would a right-wing pressure group attack a right-wing 'conspiracy', thus giving more ammunition to the left to attack them with? Hmm. Peace.

Stop reading drivel. Live long and prosper \V/.

 

[Trifid]

Right, so there is some sort of untold policy among recruiters to hire poorly speaking migrants with unverifiable education levels and skills, out of, I don't know, politeness or worse yet, PC conspiracy? Can we provide better explanation?

I don't want to get too involved in this argument, but I did want to add there are aggressive policies to promote recruitment of under represented groups within certain industries. For example: http://fortune.com/2015/01/12/intel-diversity/

 

[Dis86]

I don't want to get too involved in this argument, but I did want to add there are aggressive policies to promote recruitment of under represented groups within certain industries. For example: http://fortune.com/2015/01/12/intel-diversity/

Agreed. In my company (engineering) there are specific diversity policies focused on women and Africans. They basically get free promotions.

 

[Outcast]

Brilliant..As always

 

[CREATIVE!11]

if peoples only reason to vote to leave EU is immigrants, I suggest you go do some more research.

But I'll bet that is a ton of people lmao, completely clueless to anything else except derp imigrtazn1!! yeah it may be an issue, but it's not the only reason to vote to leave.

 

[v0n]

I don't want to get too involved in this argument, but I did want to add there are aggressive policies to promote recruitment of under represented groups within certain industries. For example: http://fortune.com/2015/01/12/intel-diversity/

Agreed. In my company (engineering) there are specific diversity policies focused on women and Africans. They basically get free promotions.

Hmmkay... I mean, link to article about private initiative in US, anecdote about free promotions for women and Africans, but how does that apply to EU or Eastern Europeans "stealing them jewbs"?

 

[Insanties_birth]

Right, so there is some sort of untold policy among recruiters to hire poorly speaking migrants with unverifiable education levels and skills, out of, I don't know, politeness or worse yet, PC conspiracy? Can we provide better explanation?

It's not a conspiracy, it's cultural pressure mixed with ignorance. We're not citing mass conspiracy but rather morale dilemma every time they go to recruit someone. Kind of like drinking, there's no conspiracy to bing drink but not everyone is smart enough to do the right thing, crap slips through the cracks. I'm not even saying it's a huge thing, just pointing to how culture has an impact on choices / decision making as well and when we're in the EU's emotional hustle bustle of loving migrants then I imagine a few slip through the cracks.

 

[h4rm0ny]

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.

The way it's not taking the place of a non-immingrant person is if there are enough jobs to employ both. And that was largely happening. However, it does of course happen on occasion. It's a question of general case supported by studies vs. local anecdotes. If someone tries to argue that no builder ever lost their job to an immigrant or temporary visitor, then they're obviously wrong to take such an extreme position. It can however, be supportably argued that it isn't the general case. The Polish were coming over here because we had more jobs available than people qualified to do them.

Now what you could argue as a general case is that it kept wages down below where they would be. That is clearly true and no sane economist would argue against that. If there were two building jobs and only one builder, then the builder can command much higher wages. A Polish builder shows up and now wages don't inflate as much, they stay where they would if there were only one job. So yes, in that sense, immigration provably harms native workers. However, the view from society on the whole is that it is better to fill all the jobs and gain as a whole, rather than allow shortage to let the suppliers of labour hike prices. And I think that part is reasonable. Though of course the true test is when it happens to your own industry. I am in programming and thankfully specialist enough that my work hasn't been outsourced to India. A lot of people suddenly switch from supporting the economic good of the country to not wanting their own wages to remain steady when they find it applying to them.

Now if there were excess of labour, that's when you would start seeing problems. An excess of labour shifts the situation from immigration simply stopping native workers from pushing for higher wages, to one where their income actually starts falling. Happily as the linked studies show, we're not in that situation. Though of course occasional cases happen.

I recognize that immigration is good for the general economy of a country and long-term improvement. I also recognize that it can adversely effect local workers. People who like to argue tend to support one of those and dismiss the other. But in fact both can be true. Reality doesn't care about Internet arguments.

For me, it comes down to the facts that it is long term good for the majority and that ultimately, if someone poor wants to better themself through hard-work, I respect that and it shouldn't really matter where that person is from.

 

[h4rm0ny]

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.

They can send lots of the money back home and it still can economically benefit the country. People don't get paid more than the value of what they bring in (yes, we all know a manager who is an exception to that, but when a manual labourer doesn't pull their weight, there are actual consequences). So if there wasn't someone to do a job then that would be worse than if you find someone but they send their wages outside the country. If that weren't true, then every building project would worsen our economy.

 

[scorza]

I don't want to get too involved in this argument, but I did want to add there are aggressive policies to promote recruitment of under represented groups within certain industries. For example: http://fortune.com/2015/01/12/intel-diversity/

... and there's never any aggressive policies to recruit men in to female dominated disciplines like HR or marketing.

 

[bayo000]

if peoples only reason to vote to leave EU is immigrants, I suggest you go do some more research.

But I'll bet that is a ton of people lmao, completely clueless to anything else except derp imigrtazn1!! yeah it may be an issue, but it's not the only reason to vote to leave.

It's not a reason at all. UK in order to keep trading with EU will quite likely have to keep free movement post exit if it happens. Immigrants from Africa, middle east and rest of the world will still be queuing at Cailas to try to get through the tunnel, they will not magically disappear as some people think they will if UK leaves EU.

 

[Insanties_birth]

It's not a reason at all. UK in order to keep trading with EU will quite likely have to keep free movement post exit if it happens. Immigrants from Africa, middle east and rest of the world will still be queuing at Cailas to try to get through the tunnel, they will not magically disappear as some people think they will if UK leaves EU.

Doesn't have to, as you say migration is good and no one expects britain to shut it's doors completely so we can't trade one redundant argument for another. Some see it as there only choice to send a message back and slow down the culture of increasing and forced migration though. Even if it's just a shock to the EU and a slow down that cuases a rethink (which coupled with the migration crisis which would have to be handled even more with the EU as we deliberate mroe slowly on how many accept while germany and other countries keep getting more backlash as Austria and Hungary also reject and cap migration).

In the end it only has to be a wake up call, a slap to the face and a cultural awakening to become worthwhile. No one expects us to build borders and close britain off to any immigrants from day 1. To be fair, the migrant crisis will buckle the EU and shatter there vision and policies if we are backing off and accepting less (not 0 but less) migrants along with Austria and Hungary already showing how little the EU plan is going to work. Loud backlashes from the public during a crisis won't let the politicians just carry on like nothing happened. You guys have a neat way of just jumping to conclusions that everything is perfect and that things will just go on as normal for anything you like but anything you don't like (like brexit) will be a catastrophe but it's not going to work as smoothly as the propaganda suggests, there will be a change to migration if we leave, you can bet on it.

 

[Danthus]

Migration is good for who?

 

[Insanties_birth]

Migration is good for who?

Cultural enrichment.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/child-sex-abuse-gangs-could-5114029

and also the romanians and the muslim extremism and the somali gang rapes and whatnot. Yeah I'm not saying all migrants are bad and EU migrants are pretty good but I think we should be backing the Hungarians in this argument, cultures are being wiped away to suit agenda's and economic arguments. We should be reaching a balance but migration always seems to be above the predictions, above the caps and above public expecation and it's been that way for a long time so how can we still be short enough of migrants to find freedom of movement such a necessity? It seems like any attempt to hinder it is met by ultra liberals who have basically sucked up all the economic arguments and ignore anything else. I'm pro immigration but when people try and present one sided arguments proclaiming migration as the solution to all problems while trying to accuse people as racists it just sounds like cultural bullying and misguided left wing politics at it again. We can find a balance and the argument that leaving the EU wouldn't shift this in any way is incorrect in my opinion.

 

[Zethor]

Hmmmmm

""Theresa May, who is backing the campaign to remain in the EU, said: "Immigration at this level puts pressure on public services, on housing, on infrastructure… it can hold down wages and push British workers out of jobs."
The UK government disagrees with you

She didn't say EU migration.

 

[helpimcrap]

So David Cameron is setting us up to stay in the EU to ensure he gets a cushy job in Europe and also gets money from Europe for land his wife owns or something?

Not that I'm cynical...

Sounds a bit like Tony Blair...

 

[HaX]

Is it? Let's see them.
Back up your claims, anyone can write stories.

This report from the Bank of England states that immigration has an (albeit small) impact on low/semi skilled wages, regardless of being EU/Non-EU.

Similarly, the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords concluded

The available evidence suggests that immigration has had a small negative impact on the lowest-paid
workers in the UK, and a small positive impact on the earnings of higher-paid workers

I've already shown you EU migration has not affected wages or living standards so stop parroting that line.

You've done little more than refer me to a few studies, concerning a highly complex and difficult subject. To say that these reports conclusively debunk the mechanism of supply and demand is naive at best.

If you are worried about overall migration, wouldn't it be a bit easier to start with the Africans and Asians which are less qualified and pay less in taxes than EU migrants?

I would love to, as this is precisely the immigration I'd like to stop. The lying and deceitful crooks in parliament use the EU as a smokescreen to disguise the fact that they are wilfully allowing mass immigration from the third world. Take that away, they become culpable.

Let me get this straight, most scientists and economists are part of a huge conspiracy and they 'adjust' their studies to make migration look beneficial.

If a government or other large organisation is financing your employer or your work, you are going to provide a conclusion which suits their narrative before releasing it to the public

You still haven't said what we should do with regard to housing these people, seeing as we are in the midst of a housing crisis.... unless you're of the opinion that everyone should take a reduction in living standards and live in tenements?

 

[easyrider]

I want out now ...But I think I voted to stay in few weeks back.

I don't think us being out of Europe will be a big deal.

We don't have the euro so I see no point in being in it.

 

[datalol-jack]

Cultural enrichment.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/child-sex-abuse-gangs-could-5114029

and also the romanians and the muslim extremism and the somali gang rapes and whatnot. Yeah I'm not saying all migrants are bad and EU migrants are pretty good but I think we should be backing the Hungarians in this argument, cultures are being wiped away to suit agenda's and economic arguments. We should be reaching a balance but migration always seems to be above the predictions, above the caps and above public expecation and it's been that way for a long time so how can we still be short enough of migrants to find freedom of movement such a necessity? It seems like any attempt to hinder it is met by ultra liberals who have basically sucked up all the economic arguments and ignore anything else. I'm pro immigration but when people try and present one sided arguments proclaiming migration as the solution to all problems while trying to accuse people as racists it just sounds like cultural bullying and misguided left wing politics at it again. We can find a balance and the argument that leaving the EU wouldn't shift this in any way is incorrect in my opinion.

That's not the point your linked article raises, Insanties. Why are you using instances of grave sexual offences perpetrated by native Brits to argue against EU immigration? How does sexual abuse in Rotherham connect to Islamic extremism? What has it got to do with Romanians? What has any of it got to do with the EU referendum?

The six sentences handed out were to four British Asian men and two White British women. Their actions were condemned by both communities in the town, and they were prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Further inquiries are ongoing, including into the local police force by the IPCC. And the situation is similar in Rochdale.

 

[deuse]

She didn't say EU migration.

Oh yes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35658731