The EU referendum - IN / OUT or Shake it all about.

[bovril]

Bloody polls everywhere.

[Wymsey]

Sooner this finishes the better.

 

There will be both people full of joy and moan whatever the outcome.

[Stadt]

Bloody polls everywhere.

Taking our jobs

[johnny the fox]

I'm not in favour of suppressing debate at all. My point is slightly different.

To me, the vote turns on many such questions eg - what effect would brexit have on the current account deficit? How will we renegotiate trade agreements? If the pound falls should we let it and take the hit on inflation? or raise interest rates and take the hit on growth instead? If we leave, what sort of relationship should we have with our largest trading partner - one like Norway? or Switzerland (which are different BTW). There are plenty of others too.

Doubtless there ARE answers to these questions - but from the likes of Johnson and Farage we have heard nothing of them.

Instead they have led a vile racist campaign with 'simple' answers to the wrong questions.

This dishonest campaign has focused on thinly disguised racism which has in turn generated a poisonous political climate - and I'm old enough to remember fighting to wipe the Nazi Front out of Leicester in the mid 1970s.

And for the sake of clarity - I am emphatically NOT suggesting that support for brexit = racism. Not at all.

But I AM saying that the Brexit campaign has dredged up an awful lot of sewage from the very bottom of the sewer. And its hard to resit the temptation they they have campaigned the way they have because they actually don't have answers to those fundamental - but difficult - questionsI'm

I am sad to read your argument is all about finance and money matters... nothing about self determination , our democracy and the quality of life in our nation... it  may shock you to know the whole of life is not about money.... i said this before ..the further the decision makers are from the people ...the more extremism we will have... on one hand our government implementing devolution of power to parts of the UK ..on the other hand they are handing vast amounts of it over to a body of unknown unelected bureaucrat's in Europe...something will have to give...

 

elected  bodies / people in Europe..

[Jimothy]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-born_population_of_the_United_Kingdom

So what that page has told us is that, first there's no mention of 10m, the only concrete figure is 7,505,000 in 2011. 4,760,000 of that 7,505,000 were non EU nationals, or on other words 63%. So basically 63% of non Uk born people currently living in this country are from countries we can control immigration from. Yet one of your reasons for voting to leave seems to be because you believe immigration is too high. If the vast majority of immigrant are from places we can control movement from, what makes you think leaving will have a huge effect on immigration?

[Strokes]

So what that page has told us is that, first there's no mention of 10m, the only concrete figure is 7,505,000 in 2011. 4,760,000 of that 7,505,000 were non EU nationals, or on other words 63%. So basically 63% of non Uk born people currently living in this country are from countries we can control immigration from. Yet one of your reasons for voting to leave seems to be because you believe immigration is too high. If the vast majority of immigrant are from places we can control movement from, what makes you think leaving will have a huge effect on immigration?

I don't mind how many immigrants are here as long as it can be controlled when necessary. Under the current system it can't. To have uncontrolled immigration policy leaves you unable to plan for future services and community needs.

I would like to have a system where if a business requires labour that can only be achieved from a migrant, that they have to sponsor them and contribute any additional amounts required to fit them into the system (we could then charge for GP registration/school registration etc). It would encourage businesses to look at training home grown as an alternative, which should also be incentivised.

I would have thought as a forward thinking left of centre person, you would be able to see the benefits this could bring to the workforce already here. Migration should be a short term solution to filling jobs, not a long term plan.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

It should be noted, setting an arbitrary figure as a "net migration target" is foolish - because for one, that target involves emigration which no country can ever control, and secondly it requires you to forecast how many people your country might need ahead of time - which is pretty nigh on impossible as well.

Even if a points based system was introduced, the main definition that would be controlled is the level of need in each catagory - not necessarily the numbers.

[Jimothy]

I don't mind how many immigrants are here as long as it can be controlled when necessary. Under the current system it can't. To have uncontrolled immigration policy leaves you unable to plan for future services and community needs.

I would like to have a system where if a business requires labour that can only be achieved from a migrant, that they have to sponsor them and contribute any additional amounts required to fit them into the system (we could then charge for GP registration/school registration etc). It would encourage businesses to look at training home grown as an alternative, which should also be incentivised.

I would have thought as a forward thinking left of centre person, you would be able to see the benefits this could bring to the workforce already here. Migration should be a short term solution to filling jobs, not a long term plan.

Well we don't appear to be even controlling what we can control, so what makes you think we'll control EU immigration in the way you suggest should we leave. If we could bring down non EU immigration figures, that would be a good start.

As for strains on GPs and school etc, I'm not sure that's solely due to immigrants. There can only be as many people in an area as there is housing for them surely? I'm British born, I moved to a new build flat in Loughborough 4 years ago, there are quite a number of new houses round here too, but I don't see any new schools, or GP surgeries. You could argue there's more houses being built because of the need due to the numbers of immigrants, but surely when you agree to build new properties, you have to plan to provide the expected services too. You can't just whack up housing for a few hundred people and not build a gp practice or extend a school. I mean someone has agreed to make this land a available for housing, but gave no thought to what the people living there might need whether they've moved from Lithuania or Leicester.

You idea isn't bad, but we could impliment that now for non EU nationals, but we haven't, so how likely is it we'll impliment it should we leave the EU?

[johnny the fox]

I may be wrong but...I really don't recall people attempting to make political capital over Lee Rigby's slaughter as quickly as they have over the Jo Cox tragedy ....

[DJ Barry Hammond]

I may be wrong but...I really don't recall people attempting to make political capital over Lee Rigby's slaughter as quickly as they have over the Jo Cox tragedy ....

I've seen politicising on both sides of the argument - but let's face it, like it or not, the reality is this is a seminal moment and will influence minds on the question next week.

[bovril]

I may be wrong but...I really don't recall people attempting to make political capital over Lee Rigby's slaughter as quickly as they have over the Jo Cox tragedy ....

 

I think you've got a pretty bad memory then.

[Strokes]

Well we don't appear to be even controlling what we can control, so what makes you think we'll control EU immigration in the way you suggest should we leave. If we could bring down non EU immigration figures, that would be a good start.

As for strains on GPs and school etc, I'm not sure that's solely due to immigrants. There can only be as many people in an area as there is housing for them surely? I'm British born, I moved to a new build flat in Loughborough 4 years ago, there are quite a number of new houses round here too, but I don't see any new schools, or GP surgeries. You could argue there's more houses being built because of the need due to the numbers of immigrants, but surely when you agree to build new properties, you have to plan to provide the expected services too. You can't just whack up housing for a few hundred people and not build a gp practice or extend a school. I mean someone has agreed to make this land a available for housing, but gave no thought to what the people living there might need whether they've moved from Lithuania or Leicester.

You idea isn't bad, but we could impliment that now for non EU nationals, but we haven't, so how likely is it we'll impliment it should we leave the EU?

I agree with the new house, requiring new schools etc but also houses are being divided up into flats in city centres to cater for these, quite often you can get couples/small families in a bed sit. When I was doing virgin media installs you seen a lot of this around the fosse road area.

[Jimothy]

I agree with the new house, requiring new schools etc but also houses are being divided up into flats in city centres to cater for these, quite often you can get couples/small families in a bed sit. When I was doing virgin media installs you seen a lot of this around the fosse road area.

I know the Fosse Road area. In the last few years they've turned a couple of old churches and factories into housing. They've knocked down an old pub and a bingo hall and built supermarkets. There were plenty of disused buildings round the that could have been used for services but were instead given to housing. So I agree you do get old buildings turned into flats and bedsits, but the problem comes from again doing it too much and not equally using old buildings to provide services.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

I agree with the new house, requiring new schools etc but also houses are being divided up into flats in city centres to cater for these, quite often you can get couples/small families in a bed sit. When I was doing virgin media installs you seen a lot of this around the fosse road area.

Yes, now that's something that can be done - penalising landlords that deliberatly overcrowd their properties!

[Strokes]

Well we don't appear to be even controlling what we can control, so what makes you think we'll control EU immigration in the way you suggest should we leave. If we could bring down non EU immigration figures, that would be a good start.

As for strains on GPs and school etc, I'm not sure that's solely due to immigrants. There can only be as many people in an area as there is housing for them surely? I'm British born, I moved to a new build flat in Loughborough 4 years ago, there are quite a number of new houses round here too, but I don't see any new schools, or GP surgeries. You could argue there's more houses being built because of the need due to the numbers of immigrants, but surely when you agree to build new properties, you have to plan to provide the expected services too. You can't just whack up housing for a few hundred people and not build a gp practice or extend a school. I mean someone has agreed to make this land a available for housing, but gave no thought to what the people living there might need whether they've moved from Lithuania or Leicester.

You idea isn't bad, but we could impliment that now for non EU nationals, but we haven't, so how likely is it we'll impliment it should we leave the EU?

Oh sorry I didn't address your first point. Obviously I think it is possible to control immigration because many nations are very adequate at it. Our government are doing a dreadful job at it, I won't vote for them because they have failed (amongst other things) and hopefully they will get kicked out because of it. Just like I am voting out of the EU because they won't control it (and other reasons as I have stated previously. We are being asked if we are happy to continue in this way, if we vote to leave and the government fails to address the reasons, then their should be enough like minded people to change direction.

[Strokes]

Yes, now that's something that can be done - penalising landlords that deliberatly overcrowd their properties!

Definitely, plenty of unscrupulous folk looking to benefit out of this migrant success.

I know the Fosse Road area. In the last few years they've turned a couple of old churches and factories into housing. They've knocked down an old pub and a bingo hall and built supermarkets. There were plenty of disused buildings round the that could have been used for services but were instead given to housing. So I agree you do get old buildings turned into flats and bedsits, but the problem comes from again doing it too much and not equally using old buildings to provide services.

Who are you suggesting pays for these services to be built? The EU? The government? It's the businesses that benefit from these migrants that should pay. If they had too, they might look at getting more homegrown people trained up.

[Jimothy]

Definitely, plenty of unscrupulous folk looking to benefit out of this migrant success.

Who are you suggesting pays for these services to be built? The EU? The government? It's the businesses that benefit from these migrants that should pay. If they had too, they might look at getting more homegrown people trained up.

We're building houses to house a growing population wherever they come from, like I pointed out earlier regarding where I live in Loughborough, if we're prepared to sell land to build housing we should use some of the proceeds to provide services. I live Loughborough but work out near Coalville, why should my boss pay for the provision of services in my new home when it's a completely different constituency 10 miles away. Who's paid to provide services in the past when new housing has been built? The government, that should continue. And even if it was all immigrants, the vast majority work, so the increase in tax revenue pays for the services.

[Strokes]

We're building houses to house a growing population wherever they come from, like I pointed out earlier regarding where I live in Loughborough, if we're prepared to sell land to build housing we should use some of the proceeds to provide services. I live Loughborough but work out near Coalville, why should my boss pay for the provision of services in my new home when it's a completely different constituency 10 miles away. Who's paid to provide services in the past when new housing has been built? The government, that should continue. And even if it was all immigrants, the vast majority work, so the increase in tax revenue pays for the services.

I am saying, if a company is struggling to fill a role because of a shortage of trained staff in the UK, it has two options. One to find someone untrained and train them up (brilliant option if you ask me, a little expensive though) or two look for a trained person from the continent (cheap option) but costs the taxpayer a start up fee if nothing else (these don't have to be particularly skilled jobs either). I'm saying to level the playing field and encourage employers/businesses to go for option one ( the better option in my opinion, DISAGREE WITH THIS IF YOU LIKE) we should make option two more expensive and incentivise option one. Forget the cost of services and all the other shit you've picked up on because it's irrelavent to the point I'm trying to make and want you to agree or disagree with.

[Jimothy]

I am saying, if a company is struggling to fill a role because of a shortage of trained staff in the UK, it has two options. One to find someone untrained and train them up (brilliant option if you ask me, a little expensive though) or two look for a trained person from the continent (cheap option) but costs the taxpayer a start up fee if nothing else (these don't have to be particularly skilled jobs either). I'm saying to level the playing field and encourage employers/businesses to go for option one ( the better option in my opinion, DISAGREE WITH THIS IF YOU LIKE) we should make option two more expensive and incentivise option one. Forget the cost of services and all the other shit you've picked up on because it's irrelavent to the point I'm trying to make and want you to agree or disagree with.

You could implement that whilst having free movement and still being in the EU. You don't have to cut all ties, just make immigration less apealling, which your suggestion would do. We're free to implement measures that would make coming here a little trickier, we're not actually preventing eu nationals from coming here and working.

Also I kind of feel you're looking at immigration the wrong way round, and talking as though the majority of it is companies reaching out into Europe looking for employees and bringing them back to fill a role. IMO most of what I see is people coming here looking for jobs and in most cases successfully finding them. In the last year the company I work for has employed 8 new cleaner, 3 of which are British and 5 are eu nationals. When we employed the eu ones we had no other interested, but we needed cleaners, should we be punished because we've not found a non existent British person first? I mean how much eh immigration is actually filling roles that you've mentioned, it must a very small amount that are people being brought over to fill roles that companies are struggling to fill, it seems to be mainly people making there own way and then finding work be it unskilled or skilled.

[Strokes]

You could implement that whilst having free movement and still being in the EU. You don't have to cut all ties, just make immigration less appalling, which your suggestion would do. We're free to implement measures that would make coming here a little trickier, we're not actually preventing eu nationals from coming here and working.

Im not sure whether you can do this or not under current EU laws, I doubt it but you may be right. It would be nice if we do, should remain win (which I still think they will). I'm voting leave for more reasons than migration though, I have said before that migration is just a tiny part of the reasons I'm voting out. I don't believe in a Political Union with Europe where we need to have common laws and goals. I think a common market was a good idea but the single market has gone far past its purpose. I think it hampers the development of the countries/members/States and regionalises industries. We are becoming a country of service and banking and not a lot else, I don't see what having a bigger economy achieves, when we are not getting richer as a nation. (Record debt levels) It's a false economy built on debt and migration with a housing shortage forcing the prices unsustainably upwards. It can't go on forever and we have a chance to take the hit now before the whole thing goes off.

[johnny the fox]

I don't trust any politician you cannot vote out as a minimum requirement.... the EU commissioners are appointed and make up our the laws..its a a closed club we cannot control....totally anti democratic.. end of.. ....in the end, the price of freedom is uncertainty but I have faith in the British people.

[apple987]

Seems Steven has just signed up to a load of new foxestalk accounts to sway the brexit poll in remains favour

[The Blur]

I don't trust any politician you cannot vote out as a minimum requirement.... the EU commissioners are appointed and make up our the laws..its a a closed club we cannot control....totally anti democratic.. end of.. ....in the end, the price of freedom is uncertainty but I have faith in the British people.

 

 

I thought European Council put forward proposed laws and it is up to commissioners to write it up and to make it workable?  The council is of course democratically appointed by us. 

[Dodgy Bob]

1 We are becoming a country of service and banking and not a lot else,

2 I don't see what having a bigger economy achieves, when we are not getting richer as a nation. (Record debt levels)

3 It's a false economy built on debt and migration with a housing shortage forcing the prices unsustainably upwards.

4 It can't go on forever and we have a chance to take the hit now before the whole thing goes off.

1 We've been a service-based economy for many years, leaving the EU won't make any difference to that.

2 The record debt levels are because the economy shrank in the last recession. If we leave there will probably be an another recession in addition to the one we would expect from an ordinary business cycle. This will push debt levels even higher unless we either cut spending (where?) or increase tax, making ordinary people poorer. At the moment ordinary people are getting richer as wage growth is outpacing inflation and has been doing for some time.

3 It's not a false economy. In the last recession wages fell, unemployment rose. Now, wages are increasing, unemployment is very low. You'd have to be quite complacent to ignore those fundamental benefits being felt by ordinary people.

4 Not sure what "before it all goes off" really means. A house price bubble? No signs of that, the market seems to be slowing down now. A big economic crash in Europe? We'll be affected by that regardless and it would be in addition to the major crash we'd have here just for leaving.

[Steven]

Seems Steven has just signed up to a load of new foxestalk accounts to sway the brexit poll in remains favour

 

I was the third person on this forum back in July 2004. I am that sad. There is only one of me. 

 

In the context of both the Referendum debate and what it has enabled some people to do and feel and the shooting of Jo Cox.

 

 

Thomas Mair, accused of murdering MP, gives name to court as 'Death to traitors , freedom for Britain'

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/jo-cox-death-thomas-mair-accused-of-murdering-mp-gives-name-to-court-as-death-to-traitors-a7088851.html