Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Unless we can provide the infrastructure for over 300,000 people every year with the money that they contribute to our economy and treasury then it is unsustainable.

    Its a new city every single year, im not saying that we need to build new cities (we probably should though) but we need to find a sustainable number of people that can come to the UK every year that the private and public sector can accommodate and from that number we decide the limit.

    We need more schools hospitals and homes, we need better transport links and more efficient train lines, and thats before you take into account over 300,000 people coming to the country every year.

    Im really not the type of person who will shout things like "we need to take care of our own first" so im not going to say that. But immigration levels are unsustainable at the moment, and thats plain to see.

    Immigration is a great thing, and i dont believe for a second that we should pull up the draw bridge or turn away refugees or asylum seekers, in fact i dobt believe that they should even be included in immigration figures so i dont want anyone calling me a xenophobe or racist because anyone who knows me will be able to tell you that i am the farthest thing from racism and bigotry.

    We should be building about 300,000 homes a year at least. We should be investing in our infrastructure as best as possible to provide for as many as possible. But it has to be at a sustainable level. If we cant keep up with population growth we only create a larger deficit for ourselves.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Who do you mean by 'we'?

    FWIW, if the Tories plan to write a Bill to create tax incentives for private building of cheap homes, I would gladly support it.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Yes, but say post Brexit we only sent the immigrants home that we didn't need. Then, their jobs would be filled by British workers who would be paid the same and therefore make up for the loss of tax revenue caused.


    Agreed, but preventing immigration helps, and in order for the institutional capacity to produce more skilled workers to exist, the countries need as many people as possible to actually train those skilled workers.


    We have one of the largest economies in the world. The EU will want us in the single market, and is likely to grant us an exemption to the freedom of movement rule, which is losing its shine for some EU member states anyway given the migrant crisis.
    And where's you're evidence for that? This is what the Leave campaign does. Tries to combat facts with maybe's and what if's
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Having a FTA=/=being in the free market, and even if we leave, what is the tariff? Less than the net contribution, I've heard as low as 4bn but short of seeing how they got to that would rather take roughly equal to our contribution. Okay then, what next? Well, what are the tariffs on our US exports? Chinese exports? Commonwealth exports? All those exports that the EU don't touch and are very important to the UK economy? Of the top 10 non EU export markets (worth nearly £100bn) we have EU FTAs with only 2, and as I recall they're worth barely 10pc of that £100bn to us.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I think we're idiots if we don't go back into the Single Market. But we'll see. We're a stronger trading bloc to the rest of the world together than on our own.

    Any tariff at all is money lost. Money that could be better spent elsewhere. Money that is scarce at the moment.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Where have I said that the immigrants are all going into the public sector? You're making the wrong (and really wrong) assumption of employment being a zero-sum game, when immigration creates new jobs, normally at close to a 1:1 ratio, so job displacement is marginal at best.
    So if there are 100,000 unemployed Britons, and then 100,000 immigrants take 100,000 new jobs there will be no negative hit? Even if we assume those jobs are representative of the economy this is trivially false. What is always forgotten in tje "immigrants are good, they are net contributors etc" argument is that every job taken by an immigrant is one less Briton in work, or several Britons not being removed from underemployment, something that plagues 10% of the workforce. Without the 2.2m EU workers we wouldn't be pushing people through university for the sake of keeping youth unemployment down and the country would be stronger for it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I think we're idiots if we don't go back into the Single Market. But we'll see. We're a stronger trading bloc to the rest of the world together than on our own.

    Any tariff at all is money lost. Money that could be better spent elsewhere. Money that is scarce at the moment.
    I feel like I'm begining to love you now!!! Why happened to you being a brexiter?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Yes, but say post Brexit we only sent the immigrants home that we didn't need. Then, their jobs would be filled by British workers who would be paid the same and therefore make up for the loss of tax revenue caused.
    You can't seriously call yourself someone who values social equality if you value British jobs over those of immigrants.

    Agreed, but preventing immigration helps, and in order for the institutional capacity to produce more skilled workers to exist, the countries need as many people as possible to actually train those skilled workers.
    Preventing immigration operates as a direct disincentive to generate that institutional capacity.

    We have one of the largest economies in the world. The EU will want us in the single market, and is likely to grant us an exemption to the freedom of movement rule, which is losing its shine for some EU member states anyway given the migrant crisis.
    This is flat-out wrong. Brexiters saying this are either deluded or being deliberately deceptive. If we want an exception to free movement, we either lose the free market or end up paying significant tariffs on services and cripple our economy.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Listened to the Andrew Neil debates, and is it not interesting how Benn took every opportunity to attack the government, his colleagues in this debate, meanwhile Farage generally avoided attacking the main parties and even when Osborne could have attacked Labour he refrained.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So if there are 100,000 unemployed Britons, and then 100,000 immigrants take 100,000 new jobs there will be no negative hit? Even if we assume those jobs are representative of the economy this is trivially false. What is always forgotten in tje "immigrants are good, they are net contributors etc" argument is that every job taken by an immigrant is one less Briton in work, or several Britons not being removed from underemployment, something that plagues 10% of the workforce. Without the 2.2m EU workers we wouldn't be pushing people through university for the sake of keeping youth unemployment down and the country would be stronger for it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The thing you're missing is that those 100,000 immigrants coming to the UK tends to create an extra 100,000 jobs.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    I feel like I'm begining to love you now!!! Why happened to you being a brexiter?
    The TSR EU campaign was just a bit of fun. I've always and remain Eurosceptic, mainly on Democracy grounds, but certainly not enough to leave it all and walk away
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    The TSR EU campaign was just a bit of fun. I've always and remain Eurosceptic, mainly on Democracy grounds, but certainly not enough to leave it all and walk away
    On what grounds do you believe the EU is undemocratic? (FWIW, there is one point on which I believe the EU is profoundly undemocratic)
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    On what grounds do you believe the EU is undemocratic? (FWIW, there is one point on which I believe the EU is profoundly undemocratic)
    Proportion of MEPs to Nation Populations, inability of MEPs to propose legislation. I'm not as bothered by the Commissioners being unelected as they're still appointed by an elected Government
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    The TSR EU campaign was just a bit of fun. I've always and remain Eurosceptic, mainly on Democracy grounds, but certainly not enough to leave it all and walk away
    I used to belive that the EU was undemocratic, less so now I've learned more about the structures of the EU. The only thing I would change maybe would be MEPs being able to initiate legislation.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    I used to belive that the EU was undemocratic, less so now I've learned more about the structures of the EU. The only thing I would change maybe would be MEPs being able to initiate legislation.
    See my answer to TDA I don't believe it's profoundly and utterly undemocratic - just that there are aspects I'd like to change.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Proportion of MEPs to Nation Populations, inability of MEPs to propose legislation. I'm not as bothered by the Commissioners being unelected as they're still appointed by an elected Government
    The first one was my point, aye.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    I've no objection to high immigration, government can easily afford to increase the supply of infrastructure. It chooses not to.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The first one was my point, aye.
    I'd say Great minds think alike but you're a dirty socialist

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I've no objection to high immigration, government can easily afford to increase the supply of infrastructure. It chooses not to.
    Agreed, though I suspect you'd be a little bit more fussed than I about where the majority of migrants came from?
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    See my answer to TDA I don't believe it's profoundly and utterly undemocratic - just that there are aspects I'd like to change.
    Yes, I would also probably get rid of their seperate voting chamber which is a little pointless.
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The first one was my point, aye.
    The issue is that if you wanted it perfectly proportional you'd need 1237 seats instead of the 651 we currently have with Malta only getting 1 seat. I can't see any country going for that and it would make the 'Germany is controlling the EU' rhetoric even worse.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Yes, I would also probably get rid of their seperate voting chamber which is a little pointless.

    The issue is that if you wanted it perfectly proportional you'd need 1237 seats instead of the 651 we currently have with Malta only getting 1 seat. I can't see any country going for that and it would make the 'Germany is controlling the EU' rhetoric even worse.
    Nah, just need to adjust voting rights.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Nah, just need to adjust voting rights.
    That's based on actual population not voting population.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    That's based on actual population not voting population.
    I mean have some MEPs' votes count double.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 15, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.