Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Why do people want to leave the EU? Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    You say that as if bringing in £25bn isn't much. That's about £640bn more than British natives. I don't think we've put anything close to £640bn into the EU.

    I don't know if you realize or not, but we also directly receive money back from the EU. They funded the construction of British flood defences.
    Cause and effect. The native Briton is not inherently lazy, but they are taught that certain jobs are beneath them- the unskilled jobs are for the foreigners. No, there is no net contribution from the vast number of immigrants to the native population.

    The truth is: who cares how well our economy is faring when it does not serve the British people any more? It is an international economy serving the world, and that is wrong.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    Cause and effect. The native Briton is not inherently lazy, but they are taught that certain jobs are beneath them- the unskilled jobs are for the foreigners. No, there is no net contribution from the vast number of immigrants to the native population.

    The truth is: who cares how well our economy is faring when it does not serve the British people any more? It is an international economy serving the world, and that is wrong.
    What OP constantly misses is that htat £640bn is because the government has fun a deficit for the entirety of the study period rather than an inherent issue with the locals, beyond what you described.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    What makes you say that?
    Wall Street's getting back on its feet again anyway, although London does have the time zone advantage I suspect it was always slightly exaggerated the amount this outweighed being the financial hub of the world's economic superpower. There is not a queue of bankers desperate to leave NYC for London, in the same way they are keen to leave HK, Paris or, for now, Frankfurt. If we left the EU this would quickly tip the, already delicate, balance in favour of NYC.

    I don't think Frankfurt would overtake us, the expertise isn't there yet, but I suspect you'd see certain types of transactions take place over there rather than here. Big Euro loans are the obvious one, as free movement of capital wouldn't be in place, but I think some Forex stuff would also move over there. Can't see commodities, bonds and debt obligations moving over there though.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    But those immigrants brought in £640bn more than British natives did over 11 years. 25 million per day for 11 years is £99bn. If I could pay £99 to get £640 in return, I'd be happy to do it.

    That's not even counting the indirect economic benefits and the money we receive back directly from the EU to fund research, flood defences, etc.



    But there are also countries in the EU doing better.[/FONT][/COLOR]
    I would warn you not to go down the facts route of immigration
    Some do of course, but their economic performance is very mixed. The previous Government claimed that immigrants add £6 billion to our economy. What they did not say is that they also add to our population in almost exactly the same proportion as they add to production. Thus the benefit to the native population is very small - an outcome confirmed by major studies in the US, Canada and Holland and in the UK by the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs. This finding was recently echoed by the OECD.

    The conclusion of the House of Lords study was unambiguous:

    “We have found no evidence for the argument, made by the Government, business and many others, that net immigration—immigration minus emigration—generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population”. (Abstract) Despite the claims of the immigration lobby there is no economic argument in favour of current levels of net migration.
    The House of Lords report found that “determining whether immigrants make a positive or negative fiscal contribution is highly dependent on what costs and benefits are included in the calculations… But even using the [Labour] Government’s preferred method, the fiscal impact is small compared to GDP and cannot be used to justify large-scale immigration”. A recent study by academics at University College London found that while EU migrants as a whole contribute slightly more than they consume in public services, non-EU migrants do not, consuming £104 billion more in public services than they paid in taxed over the period 1995-2011. Indeed, it found that all those who have migrated since 1995 have cost the tax payer £95 billion, or about £15 million a day. We have examined this paper and have found that in fact the EU migrants’ contribution is likely to be zero since academics at UCL underestimated the level of benefits received by recent migrants.


    wasn't wrote by me but thought you might want to read it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    Cause and effect. The native Briton is not inherently lazy, but they are taught that certain jobs are beneath them- the unskilled jobs are for the foreigners. No, there is no net contribution from the vast number of immigrants to the native population.

    The truth is: who cares how well our economy is faring when it does not serve the British people any more? It is an international economy serving the world, and that is wrong.
    Except they aren't. People want to work, at all levels. People, especially young people are desperately trying to get work in unskilled jobs but often can't.

    And, this isn't simply a game of blaming Johnny immigrant for the problems people face, it's a point that there becomes a saturation of unskilled labour in the job market and there isn't a lot unskilled labourers can do in that climate and shockingly your working class, if it can't work ends up living off the state and is labelled as lazy. I don't know anyone who would rather be on unemployment benefit than be in one of these jobs allegedly beneath them.

    It's incredibly easy for we university educated people to brush this off as unimportant because .... well it simply doesn't affect us. WE do not have to compete with unskilled immigration, and find ourselves (at the moment) at a distinct advantage simply because of how highly regarded UK higher education is regarded internationally (though the tides are changing with this).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I want to stay in the EU. I quite like Nicola Sturgeon's idea of a triple lock on the EU referendum, could also test what David Cameron means by the Union being a 'family of nations' . If Scotland were to be dragged out the EU, I would want either another referendum on Scottish Independence or a 'Scotland Treaty' much like the 'Greenland Treaty' where Greenland left the EU but Denmark stayed.

    http://www.verfassungsblog.de/en/bre...e-of-a-brexit/
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SausageMan)
    I want to stay in the EU. I quite like Nicola Sturgeon's idea of a triple lock on the EU referendum, could also test what David Cameron means by the Union being a 'family of nations' . If Scotland were to be dragged out the EU, I would want either another referendum on Scottish Independence or a 'Scotland Treaty' much like the 'Greenland Treaty' where Greenland left the EU but Denmark stayed.

    http://www.verfassungsblog.de/en/bre...e-of-a-brexit/
    Her proposals are undemocratic though

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Her proposals are undemocratic though

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    How are is it undemocratic? The UK is divided into four different nations. So each nation should be given a equal voice in this EU referendum, (each nation would have to vote to leave In order for an exit of the EU to occur, rather than FPTP).

    It shouldn't not be the case that one Nation could drag out three other nations that want to stay. To me that seems like a dominant father forcing his family to move, so if this is the case our 'family of nations' is really unhealthy for smaller nations.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    OP is right, rest of the Europe watches UK and waits for it to realise how dumb they act.

    Leaving EU would be a massive mistake for you guys. Same for my country but I m pretty sure we aren't seriously considering leaving it.

    If you want to boost your economy, cut benefits, simple as that.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The fact of the matter is there are several reasons why people want to leave the EU.

    I came over from New Zealand to the UK in 2008 on behalf of my father on the Tier 1 scheme (a very high skilled level). I think that its simply ludicrous that if you happen to be born in another EU state, you've got a free pass to this country, irrespective of what future intentions you've got, what skills you've got to offer to this country and even how well you speak the English language. At the same time, we're refusing people from New Zealand, Australia, India, South Africa, etc (former empire members)- these people are skilled let me tell you! Doctors, engineers, Teachers..people that this country desperately needs! For us to simply say sorry you can't come over anymore because you didn't happen to be born in another EU state is shambolic! If anything, the UK should be allowing these former empire members a free pass here after all the atrocities of India and so on. However, I think that nationality shouldn't play any part in immigration. You should simply be judged on what you have to offer to this country, not what country you've flown from... Thats why Australia's immigration policy does make some sense.

    Another issue with immigration is that recently we happen to be so absorbed with the quantity of immigration and not the quality. Cameron recently has been proudly showing off how he's cut off immigration from outside the EU, but i wouldn't necessarily call that a victory. Absolutely NO disrespect to anyone from the EU and what have you, but I genuinely feel that people from outside the EU who were coming over were higher skilled than the immigration from within the EU. Anyway, it is saddening that we seem to be focused on quantity and statistics, rather than quality. I must say it was a stupid and foolish move from Cameron to promise to cut migration in 2010, he simply can't unless he leaves the EU, he can't predict or do anything at all about EU immigration.

    Another argument for withdrawal from the Union is the cost. The cost of EU membership is ludicrous! The numbers behind it are shocking, and its unbelievable how much could be spent on our infrastructure. I do applaud Cameron in his refusal to use British Taxpayer's money to bail out other struggling countries. The fact of the matter is if we start to go into this game of bailing out our partners, people will never learn from their mistakes. Greece needs to acknowledge the fact that they recklessly borrowed and spent during the so-called boom years.

    One thing is clear is that the EU has changed drastically from its origin. Originally created to help restart a relationship with Europe after the horrors of WW2, one must ask the question what exactly is the purpose of the EU. Some might say its a central bank.

    What i cannot stand is what seems to be the majority of Labour members saying that we can't give the British a say on our EU membership. Incredibly condescending and patronising, particularly when you hear the words of Alistair Campbell and his friend good old Tony Blair that we can't give the public a say because they might come up with the wrong option. (Well true in the sense Blair was elected 3 times ). Anyway, the public haven't had a say on Europe for 40 years or so?

    Overall, I think immigration is the biggest factor behind people's reasons to leaving the EU. Some don't like the fact that we simply do not have any sort of control, and yes i do think there should be control, i simply don't see why this is 'racist' or 'xenophobic', a lot of countries world wide have some sort of control. It simply makes my blood boil that we're turning away people from outside the EU who are incredibly skilled, as we have a fixation on statistics, yet anyone at all can come here if you simply happen to be born in another european state. I was very lucky to be able to come over here, and this Tier 1 system was closed shortly after my family came over. I hope to see in the future skilled immigrants from all over the world coming over, regardless of nationality!

    (I would say that law making may be another reason why the EU is disliked, many see our laws being made abroad and the public not having any say whatsoever)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by balanced)
    I would warn you not to go down the facts route of immigration
    Some do of course, but their economic performance is very mixed. The previous Government claimed that immigrants add £6 billion to our economy. What they did not say is that they also add to our population in almost exactly the same proportion as they add to production. Thus the benefit to the native population is very small - an outcome confirmed by major studies in the US, Canada and Holland and in the UK by the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs. This finding was recently echoed by the OECD.

    The conclusion of the House of Lords study was unambiguous:

    “We have found no evidence for the argument, made by the Government, business and many others, that net immigration—immigration minus emigration—generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population”. (Abstract) Despite the claims of the immigration lobby there is no economic argument in favour of current levels of net migration.
    The House of Lords report found that “determining whether immigrants make a positive or negative fiscal contribution is highly dependent on what costs and benefits are included in the calculations… But even using the [Labour] Government’s preferred method, the fiscal impact is small compared to GDP and cannot be used to justify large-scale immigration”. A recent study by academics at University College London found that while EU migrants as a whole contribute slightly more than they consume in public services, non-EU migrants do not, consuming £104 billion more in public services than they paid in taxed over the period 1995-2011. Indeed, it found that all those who have migrated since 1995 have cost the tax payer £95 billion, or about £15 million a day. We have examined this paper and have found that in fact the EU migrants’ contribution is likely to be zero since academics at UCL underestimated the level of benefits received by recent migrants.


    wasn't wrote by me but thought you might want to read it.

    I totally agree with your first sentence.

    Facts in this issue are almost completely worthless.


    If there really are people who actually think that the POORER members of British society benefit in ANY way whatsoever from large scale immigration then they really really must surely be breathtakingly stupid.


    They should not need facts to work out why the poorer members are worse off.

    However immigration does of course benefit the better off.


    And once again you shouldn't need facts to work out why.


    Thus the question is effectively this:


    Do you care enough about the poorest members of our society to vote for Britain to leave the EU?
    (Edit:assuming theEU does not allow Cameron to block the free movement of people of course)


    And of course we already know the answer to that don't we?



    Nope.


    Of course thst doesn't mean there's no chance of us coming out- the bookies give it a 40% chance ( assuming there's a referendum).

    Why? Because of the type of person who votes for UKIP.



    Fwiw,I would LOVE it if we vote to come out.LOVE it.

    It's one of the main reasons I was happy the Tories won even though I loathe them.


    It would mean England( because Scotland will eventually leave,it's a matter of time now) is a poorer* country with far less status.


    And all because we wanted 'sovereignty' LOL



    (People provide me with soooooooooooo much entertainment that I have to read depressing books just to stop laughing a lot of the time)



    * NB this doesn't mean the poor will be poorer as they are too poor to become significantly poorer.The better off would be though when they lose their middle ranking jobs etc
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I would like to add a few comments:

    1: I think there needs to be a greater emphasis on the non-economic aspects of the EU as as a argument for keeping it- I think that much like the UK we are better working together for a shared western unionand can work together to beat challnges of the day- global warming, russia, outside migration etc.

    2: Obviously they're is room for improvement but threatening to leave for most of the time is not exactly a pro active means to do doing this.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Yes.

    Let us take the best case scenario, which assumes that the vast majority of the 2004 accession intake are young, and working, predominantly in minimum or low waged jobs on the unskilled labour market, albeit often topped up with in-work benefits.

    The problem with presenting these figures as an argument that EU migration is an economic benefit is it always assumes that economic migrants are going to go home. For if it didn't, the differential largely comes down to the fact that they're young, not yet using many public resources (aside from maternity wards and thereafter schools, which won't be included in this survey) and not yet at an age where they will be requiring serious healthcare or drawing a State funded pension.

    Finally, the obvious point is that once immigrants start to age, if they settle in the country, they invariably get re-categorised as "British citizens", so the negative figures (the burden on the State) get moved into that column.

    We have also seen the impact of immigrant burden through a study that demonstrates non-EU migrants have come at a net cost to the UK since 1995 of £120bn: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...0-billion.html
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SausageMan)
    How are is it undemocratic? The UK is divided into four different nations. So each nation should be given a equal voice in this EU referendum, (each nation would have to vote to leave In order for an exit of the EU to occur, rather than FPTP).

    It shouldn't not be the case that one Nation could drag out three other nations that want to stay. To me that seems like a dominant father forcing his family to move, so if this is the case our 'family of nations' is really unhealthy for smaller nations.
    Except it isn't split into 4 nations. Do the Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish all have different pass ports? No. Is the Passport for one of those nations? No. We are a single nation. Her proposals, assuming similar turnout everywhere, would allow just over 1% of people to theoretically overpower the will of the other nearly 99%. You also forget that the same logic can be used the other way, why should three be forced to stay in just because one doesn't?

    And will she extend this same rule to the regions of Scotland if/when they get a second referendum? Hell no, because that would mean she would have to have to put up with losing again.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Except it isn't split into 4 nations. Do the Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish all have different pass ports? No. Is the Passport for one of those nations? No. We are a single nation. Her proposals, assuming similar turnout everywhere, would allow just over 1% of people to theoretically overpower the will of the other nearly 99%. You also forget that the same logic can be used the other way, why should three be forced to stay in just because one doesn't?

    And will she extend this same rule to the regions of Scotland if/when they get a second referendum? Hell no, because that would mean she would have to have to put up with losing again.
    So you only recognise a region to be a nation, when it has its own passport, that's rather odd. Oxford Dictionary Definition:

    nationˈneɪʃ(ə)n/nounnoun: nation; plural noun: nations

    A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory."the world's leading industrialized nations"synonyms: country, state, land, sovereign state, nation state, kingdom, empire, republic, confederation, federation, commonwealth, power, superpower, polity, domain;

    Oxford Dictionary Definition of Country, for good measure:

    countryˈkʌntri/nounnoun: country; plural noun: countries; noun: the country

    1.a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory."the country's increasingly precarious economic position"synonyms: state, nation, sovereign state, kingdom, realm, territory, province, principality, palatinate, duchy, empire, commonwealth

    No mention of a passport being a definitive factor of what makes a nation.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Her proposals, assuming similar turnout everywhere, would allow just over 1% of people to theoretically overpower the will of the other nearly 99%. You also forget that the same logic can be used the other way, why should three be forced to stay in just because one doesn't?
    Neglecting your figures could you explain what you mean in simple English?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Sovereignty mostly.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SausageMan)
    Neglecting your figures could you explain what you mean in simple English?
    Well, all she has said is that no one part of the union should be forced to leave, this implies that she thinks, supposing the Scots vote to leave, that Wales, England or, for this point, Northern Ireland should be extended the right to force us to stay.
    Now, NI has just under 3% of the population of the UK (about 2.8%), which means that if, in theory, everybody in England, Wales, Scotland, and just under half of Northern Ireland were to vote in favour of leaving the 1.4% that want to stay would be sufficient to keep us in.
    I.e. the opinion of that 1.4% counts for more than the other 98.6%.
    Alternatively, the way that Sturgeon wants it since it would allow her to try for another referendum (which she wouldn't get), half of Scotland vote to stay, in which case about 4% would count for more than the 96%.
    Sounds democratic to me.

    For the same logic going the other way I could say "why should England be forced to stay?"

    By the definition of nation provided we could also declare London a nation, actually, let's go a bit further, my village back home is also a nation, after all, there is the common history etc, a particular territory, the land it covers, and a government, parish council.
 
 
 
Poll
Would you rather
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.