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

[Avenged7Fold]

its funny pro eu groups/people keep going on about how it doesnt effect wages yet it really does you guys just seem to shout people down claiming all the stories are 2nd hand and made up.
iv seen it first hand, hell iv experienced it i guess im wrong or something.

Not wrong just biased because of your first hand experience.

There is a lot of evidence showing both positive effects and negative effects of immigration.

 

[balky12]

I saw cars and buses run over pedestrians in the UK; all UK drivers are killers, and they're coming after us all!!! Thus traffic deaths are the chief cause of deaths in the UK, and all motor vehicles should be banned! Am I doing it right? Or would you like a Luddite example about mills destroying our jerbs instead, and how that turned out for the nation?

But an increasing supply of workers with constant demand would drive down wages?

Isn't this just basic economics?

I am not saying herp derp immigrants, send them home. But surely, in some work sectors, this is very much the case?

 

[datalol-jack]

I stopped reading there. That is an utterly irresponsible viewpoint. Opening up the country to the world would destroy it.

No, it would just bring the world closer to you. But if you think the nation state, as conceived at the turn of the 18th century, has a future in the face of a globalist world, interconnected economy and crises and interests that span the globe -- do present your case.

 

[Burnsy2023]

I stopped reading there. That is an utterly irresponsible viewpoint. Opening up the country to the world would destroy it.

You do realise that most countries didn't have any form of immigration control up until around 1900 right? The world wouldn't end now, just like it didn't end then, despite having world wide shipping and rail networks.

 

[balky12]

No, it would just bring the world closer to you. But if you think the nation state, as conceived at the turn of the 18th century, has a future in the face of a globalist world, interconnected economy and crises and interests that span the globe -- do present your case.

The EU hasn't worked out terribly well has it? Why would we scale it up to a global platform?

Or maybe I have missed the point your trying to make. It's Friday afternoon.

 

[balky12]

You do realise that most countries didn't have any form of immigration control up until around 1900 right? The world wouldn't end now, just like it didn't end then, despite having world wide shipping and rail networks.

Why I like your general knowledge. You really comparing pre-1900 to now when it comes to immigration? Come on. It's a different world.

Passenger planes didn't even exist then.

The argument that before 1900 immigration didn't bring the world to it's knees so now it won't is pretty weak, imo.

How easy and affordable is it to travel the world nowadays compared to post-1900?

 

[datalol-jack]

But an increasing supply of workers with constant demand would drive down wages?

Isn't this just basic economics?

I am not saying herp derp immigrants, send them home. But surely, in some work sectors, this is very much the case?

It's not quite that simple, just like the nation's economy isn't like a household budget. Nor is the fact that domestic demand for labour isn't directly linked to the domestic need for that labour's output. It complicates things beyond what demagogues and populist want to admit, because it won't yield to simplistic policy solution which they term as 'decisive'. Do have a gander at the Migration Observatory site -- they don't entirely agree with me, but are far better than the media that quotes them.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Passenger planes didn't even exist then.

No but shipping through cruise liners and extensive rail networks did - as I mentioned. The US had a pretty open door policy up until 1933 when the great depression influenced policy.

The world wasn't all that different - certainly air travel isn't a game changer when people could travel pretty much anywhere in the world, albeit a bit slower.

 

[Burnsy2023]

How easy and affordable is it to travel the world nowadays compared to post-1900?

A transatlantic ticket on the titanic in third class ranged from £210 to £550 in today's prices, so it's comparable to air travel prices. Whilst it is slower, it is still accessible to most people.

 

[Tunney]

How easy and affordable is it to travel the world nowadays compared to post-1900?

It's certainly easier and safer these days but that doesn't mean that immigration wasn't significant pre-1900. Almost all of the 318 million people in America are descended from immigrants.

 

[balky12]

No but shipping through cruise liners and extensive rail networks did - as I mentioned. The US had a pretty open door policy up until 1933 when the great depression influenced policy.

The world wasn't all that different - certainly air travel isn't a game changer when people could travel pretty much anywhere in the world, albeit a bit slower.

Pretty sure cruise liners were post-1900? Yet still, probably only affordable by the rich? Were trains inter-continental?

Then there is just the view held by the population? Moving countries really cross people's minds? At least not on the scale like it exists today?

 

[scorza]

It's certainly easier and safer these days but that doesn't mean that immigration wasn't significant pre-1900. Almost all of the 318 million people in America are descended from immigrants.

Do you reckon when they first started arriving there were native Americans who were saying "this is great, these white folk do the jobs we don't want to"?

 

[balky12]

P.s just to caveat. I am not against immigration... just don't agree with the idea that everyone and anyone should be able to travel wherever/whenever. I think it would be disastrous for some countries.

 

[robfosters]

Can you imagine if we had an open door to the African continent. It would be a disaster. Anyone who says otherwise is living in cloud cuckoo land IMO.

 

[datalol-jack]

The EU hasn't worked out terribly well has it? Why would we scale it up to a global platform?

Or maybe I have missed the point your trying to make. It's Friday afternoon.

It worked out better than our previous efforts based on direct state-to-state treaties, intrigues and protectionist trade. And in terms of your options for the future, it really is free common market federations vs. state-capitalism on the scale of China. Just like the choice we faced between a nation-state and fragile localist factions clobbering each other for territory and resources. It is power in numbers proportionate to the challenge at hand -- our present challenges have outpaced nation states, and progress isn't slowing down.

But Burnsy's right, before 'national identity' was whipped into shape for political gain of the ruling classes, and became well established as the chief ideological pillar for maintaining state control and sovereign prerogative over a group of people; folks just packed up, and travelled to wherever, especially if their present rulers were abusive or ideology didn't favour their survival.

Although I'm not really surprised at some of the comments above, the Out crowd is building a largely ahistoric, identity panic argument for that target audience.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Pretty sure cruise liners were post-1900? Yet still, probably only affordable by the rich? Were trains inter-continental?

Then there is just the view held by the population? Moving countries really cross people's minds? At least not on the scale like it exits today?

The UK didn't have any immigration controls until around 1905 and even then they were pretty liberal.

Trains were transcontinental, the Orient Express being the most famous and opening in 1883. Getting from London to Moscow was not unusual and you could then jump on the trans siberian railway and get all across Asia.

 

[datalol-jack]

Can you imagine if we had an open door to the African continent. It would be a disaster. Anyone who says otherwise is living in cloud cuckoo land IMO.

Hence the proviso 'when the time is right'. I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up in a free movement arrangement with the US in the next century though. You start with the largest trade blocks and move outwards.

 

[robfosters]

What was the benefits systems like pre 1900. Pretty non existent weren't they? Who wants to travel thousands of miles to end up in a workhouse compared to today when you can end up in a cushy little flat or house if you drag all your kids with you.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

But an increasing supply of workers with constant demand would drive down wages?

Isn't this just basic economics?

I am not saying herp derp immigrants, send them home. But surely, in some work sectors, this is very much the case?

How do you factor in businesses which are able to survive because of these migrants?

Not all businesses can afford to pay any more than they already do, regardless of immigration. If the peoples personal standard of minimal pay goes above what small businesses can afford to pay people, would they not struggle to fill roles and fail eventually, increasing employment in the long run and reducing what is taken in taxes as well as making the government pay out more to those people who are put out of work due to these failed businesses?

Could you argue that skilled jobs which are held mostly by non migrants here become less affordable from the companies perspective, due to wages of lower rung jobs going up because there is less immigration by your simple economics?

What if there was an increase in unemployment immediately after leaving the EU because of huge foreign firms pulling out due to the UK no longer being a gateway to trading within the EU.

I am not exactly pro-eu but saying it is as simple as 'immigrants drive down wages' is pretty herp derp when talking about the economic effect of immigration

 

[jas72]

The United States has loads of space it's population density is (according to wiki) 182 out of 244 territories. Whole areas of the US are empty it's baffling why they have such a strict immigration policy.