EU referendum

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Methinks I will briefly interupt the usual display of rank ignorance and xenophobia we so often see on here with a few choice facts. Satistics for the year ending Sept 2015 show beyond any reasonable dispute that more people arrive here from OUTSIDE of the EU than from within:

 

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics

 

So the UK could, in theory anyway, more than HALF net immigration (if it wanted to) without changing its current EU membership status one single iota. In reality of course the vast majority of immigrants, from wherever they arrive, soon find gainful employment here and therefore contribute to both our economy and their often impoverished families back home. So that's a good thing then.

Those on here attempting to highlight the future plight of our NHS, should net immigration continue to increase, might do well to remember that published data from The Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) shows that some 11% of our total healthcare workforce are classified as "Non British". That percentage rises to 14% for professionaly qualified clinical staff, and a massive 26% for Doctors:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/26/nhs-foreign-nationals-immigration-health-service

 

So if these (mostly young and healthy I guess) immigrants are supposed to represent some special unbearable burden on the NHS then the factual record shows that they are also a vital source of labour for this particular sector of the economy. Furthermore, had previous generations of immigration not been allowed/encouraged into the UK then it seems highly doubtful that this organisation could possibly cope with the many burdens placed on it - at least not without significant additional investment.

Speaking for myself, whenever I require the services of a healthcare proffessonal I don't really care very much where the person tending to my needs comes from - indeed as long as they speak good English and know what they are doing I could hardly care less.

[Batman]

Methinks I will briefly interupt the usual display of rank ignorance and xenophobia we so often see on here with a few choice facts. Satistics for the year ending Sept 2015 show beyond any reasonable dispute that more people arrive here from OUTSIDE of the EU than from within:

 

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics

 

So the UK could, in theory anyway, more than HALF net immigration (if it wanted to) without changing its current EU membership status one single iota. In reality of course the vast majority of immigrants, from wherever they arrive, soon find gainful employment here and therefore contribute to both our economy and their often impoverished families back home. So that's a good thing then.

Those on here attempting to highlight the future plight of our NHS, should net immigration continue to increase, might do well to remember that published data from The Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) shows that some 11% of our total healthcare workforce are classified as "Non British". That percentage rises to 14% for professionaly qualified clinical staff, and a massive 26% for Doctors:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/26/nhs-foreign-nationals-immigration-health-service

 

So if these (mostly young and healthy I guess) immigrants are supposed to represent some special unbearable burden on the NHS then the factual record shows that they are also a vital source of labour for this particular sector of the economy. Furthermore, had previous generations of immigration not been allowed/encouraged into the UK then it seems highly doubtful that this organisation could possibly cope with the many burdens placed on it - at least not without significant additional investment.

Speaking for myself, whenever I require the services of a healthcare proffessonal I don't really care very much where the person tending to my needs comes from - indeed as long as they speak good English and know what they are doing I could hardly care less.

 

it still means we have absolutely zero control of (soon to be) circa 250,000 people coming to the country

the other half, we do and can, if we wish, let those in who we need/want/desire

[Sour Mash]

Methinks I will briefly interupt the usual display of rank ignorance and xenophobia we so often see on here with a few choice facts. Satistics for the year ending Sept 2015 show beyond any reasonable dispute that more people arrive here from OUTSIDE of the EU than from within:

 

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics

 

So the UK could, in theory anyway, more than HALF net immigration (if it wanted to) without changing its current EU membership status one single iota. In reality of course the vast majority of immigrants, from wherever they arrive, soon find gainful employment here and therefore contribute to both our economy and their often impoverished families back home. So that's a good thing then.

Those on here attempting to highlight the future plight of our NHS, should net immigration continue to increase, might do well to remember that published data from The Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) shows that some 11% of our total healthcare workforce are classified as "Non British". That percentage rises to 14% for professionaly qualified clinical staff, and a massive 26% for Doctors:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/26/nhs-foreign-nationals-immigration-health-service

 

So if these (mostly young and healthy I guess) immigrants are supposed to represent some special unbearable burden on the NHS then the factual record shows that they are also a vital source of labour for this particular sector of the economy. Furthermore, had previous generations of immigration not been allowed/encouraged into the UK then it seems highly doubtful that this organisation could possibly cope with the many burdens placed on it - at least not without significant additional investment.

Speaking for myself, whenever I require the services of a healthcare proffessonal I don't really care very much where the person tending to my needs comes from - indeed as long as they speak good English and know what they are doing I could hardly care less.

You're demonstrating your own usual level of rank ignorance, labouring under the confused notion that all immigration is the same, that all migrants are the same and controlled and uncontrolled migration is the same.

 

I'll help you out, with a simple, un-confusing question - what sort of annual numbers of immigration would you consider too high?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

it still means we have absolutely zero control of (soon to be) circa 250,000 people coming to the country

the other half, we do and can, if we wish, let those in who we need/want/desire

 

You don't seem to understand that the large majority of immigrants actualy find emplyment in our economy that (very often) British citizens are reluctant to undertake for the pay on offer. For example, without immigration how are our farmers supposed to gather in their crops when few Brits nowadays want that type of low paid and often back-breaking work? Without immigration how are our care homes to find enough staff to look after us as we age? I'm not sure that I fancy doing that type of work - do you?

 

This issue is not as simple as you think it is.

[Sour Mash]

how are they dismantling it?

imagine how much worse it will be when 500,000 additional people every 12 months....every year want to use it

He's a secret Tory, supporting the cause of big business, banking and Conservative leadership as they f**k over this country's working classes and NHS.

[Sour Mash]

I think your rage that others may have a different opinion is effecting your replies. Iam not making things up, it is my opinion and whilst it is contrary to yours it is how I see it.

I didn't say that we are voting to join Continental Europe, although fundamentally we are considering that's where most of its people are.

My understanding of the trade deals with India, China, USA etc is part of Trade treaties drawn up with the rest of the countries of Europe. The strength of the whole of the group negotiating the trade deals and using that power to get the best for all the member states. Whether we as a small nation of only 70m people can get the same terms as 400m people is hard to say,( bring it down to the spending power of a supermarket to a corner shop, the supermarket can buy its goods cheaper as it has the spending power)

My heart would be all for going it alone, and I like most others despair at the squandering of power and money the EU brings. I wonder why other nations in Europe like Germany (who pay in the most) accept what we fight against. Perhaps we should do what it seems others nations do, ignore the legislation they don't like.

 

I am waiting for information to decide fully which way to vote, at present it is to stay in, Iam happy to be convinced otherwise, the post about how the EU is above prosecution does make me swing toward the out as that is scandalous

You are making stuff up though. "Continental europe we had just voted not to be part " we're not voting to be part/not part of continental Europe - that's not your opinion, that's you just making stuff up.

 

You tell us the Germans are going to damage the stock exchange if we leave, do you seriously believe that?

 

The fact you can't show anyone in the Leave Campaign that wants to "stop immigration" shows you also made that up.

 

In this post above alone; "we as a small nation". We've got the 5th biggest economy in the world. How are we just a small nation?

 

Why do we need to be in a political union with Greece and Romania to have a successful economy?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

You're demonstrating your own usual level of rank ignorance, labouring under the confused notion that all immigration is the same, that all migrants are the same and controlled and uncontrolled migration is the same.

 

I'll help you out, with a simple, un-confusing question - what sort of annual numbers of immigration would you consider too high?

 

If there was no work for them then they would not come here would they? So if we get to the stage when significant numbers of non British citizens are over here not earning a honest living for themselves then that would be too many. But even you should be inteligent enough to see that if that situation came about then many of them would probably leave anyway.

 

Our economy exists - and is indeed flourishing - within a huge single market. The rules of that vast single market entail the free movement of goods, services and people. If you want to give all that up then any serious economist will tell you that we are all going to face a poorer future.

[Sour Mash]

If there was no work for them then they would not come here would they? So if we get to the stage when significant numbers of non British citizens are over here not earning a honest living for themselves then that would be too many. But even you should be inteligent enough to see that if that situation came about then many of them would probably leave anyway.

 

Our economy exists - and is indeed flourishing - within a huge single market. The rules of that vast single market entail the free movement of goods, services and people. If you want to give all that up then any serious economist will tell you that we are all going to face a poorer future.

True to form, you're unable to answer a simple question.

[TwoPints]

how are they dismantling it?

imagine how much worse it will be when 500,000 additional people every 12 months....every year want to use it

Yes because everyone that comes here will wish to use the NHS all at once won't they.

 

Migration into the UK earns more than it costs so not only are EU migrants paying for their use of the NHS, the taxman is making a nice little earner out of it too.

[TwoPints]

I'd vote to remain if that meant German or French health provision , our health services is based on a 1950's model . That's the funny thing . We're accused of being backward Little Englanders , but it's the " progressives" who want 1950's state controlled health care . There's a reason other country's don't follow our model .

It's a good job we're in the EU then so you can benefit from the wonderful German or French health care should you choose to do so.

[Hockey_saint]

He's a secret Tory, supporting the cause of big business, banking and Conservative leadership as they f**k over this country's working classes and NHS.

 

Look, just stop writing BS like that please, your trolling is quaint, but not particularly amusing and thanks Chapel End Charlie, everything with these brexiteers seem to some way go back to migration. I think it's because, before 2004 their party (mostly conservative) were floundering around and now they've got an issue milk for as much as it's worth. It is laughable that they think a party that tried to vote down the NHS 47 times in it's inception and who have a health sec. who wrote a book on how he'd privatise it and is currently at war with it's staff would somehow save it as an independent state....Nuts....Or seriously grasping and well, certain member's understanding of even the conservative party seems rather lacking if they think that party have always been like they are now.

Edited 26 April, 2016 by Hockey_saint

[Sour Mash]

Look, just stop writing BS like that please, your trolling is quaint, but not particularly amusing and thanks Chapel End Charlie, everything with these brexiteers seem to some way go back to migration. I think it's because, before 2004 their party (mostly conservative) were floundering around and now they've got an issue milk for as much as it's worth. It is laughable that they think a party that tried to vote down the NHS 47 times in it's inception and who have a health sec. who wrote a book on how he'd privatise it and is currently at war with it's staff would somehow save it as an independent state....Nuts....Or seriously grasping and well, certain member's understanding of even the conservative party seems rather lacking if they think that party have always been like they are now.

You're the one supporting the Tory causes not me, keep cheering on Cameron and Osborne and their stitch up of the working classes.

[Hockey_saint]

You're the one supporting the Tory causes not me, keep cheering on Cameron and Osborne and their stitch up of the working classes.

 

You see that bit up there where I said the previous tory party leaders floundered because they were stuck with one narrative in 2004? I think however much "Call me Dave" and George "the pure blooded Thatcherite" want to agree with their baying bunch of right wingers, they know if the wind changed on this issue, they'd get slaughtered so unfortunately, they are strange bedfellows with the stay campaign but the working classes have a lot more to fear about leaving the EU than staying in it.

[Sour Mash]

You see that bit up there where I said the previous tory party leaders floundered because they were stuck with one narrative in 2004? I think however much "Call me Dave" and George "the pure blooded Thatcherite" want to agree with their baying bunch of right wingers, they know if the wind changed on this issue, they'd get slaughtered so unfortunately, they are strange bedfellows with the stay campaign but the working classes have a lot more to fear about leaving the EU than staying in it.

Your mates Dave and George lead the campaign, you follow as their cheerleader.

[Portugalsaint]

I live in Portugal, I have a vote as I have lived here for less than 15 years. I will be voting out.

 

Not a difficult decision. Fraud, pocketing of monies. Jobs for mates who clearly cannot do the job. Ordinary people try to take someone to court for bad workmanship, not paying for work done etc possibly taking 10 years. Figures in authority found guilty of fraud still sat in their posts and paid until the end of their elected term.

 

Austerity is so bad people choose between medication and food. Wages are actually cut. Pensions are cut, some pensioners live on 200 euros per month, to cover electric, gas, water, food and medication. There are shortages of people to work on the farms as they have gone to other countries ie UK to work on farms. They get more money in the UK and of course Working Family Tax Credits, that wonderful benefit that props up big business. Take away WFTC, migrants would leave in their droves.

 

The NHS system in Portugal is far better than that in the UK. Hospitals are cleaner. Waiting times are less. Payment to see a GP is 5 euros. Payment for an X-ray is 1.05 euros take it away with you for your GP to see, unless urgent then you are filed straight in to see a hospital doctor. The system is far more efficient.

 

Sun, fresh food and wine are the reasons for living here.

[OldNick]

You are making stuff up though. "Continental europe we had just voted not to be part " we're not voting to be part/not part of continental Europe - that's not your opinion, that's you just making stuff up

 

You tell us the Germans are going to damage the stock exchange if we leave, do you seriously believe that?

 

The fact you can't show anyone in the Leave Campaign that wants to "stop immigration" shows you also made that up.

 

In this post above alone; "we as a small nation". We've got the 5th biggest economy in the world. How are we just a small nation?

 

Why do we need to be in a political union with Greece and Romania to have a successful economy?

Are you the only one on here who doesn't understand that we by being in the EU are tied to Continental Europe?

 

I don't know why the Germans have got 51% of the Stock exchange, but having a majority share they can do what they want to their advantage,

 

IMO if we leave the EU we will not be the 5th biggest economy for very long

 

Oh and there are many who wish to stop immigration, obviously it is obvious that you cant get it to zero but I suggest being allied to UKIP you have people there who use the words,

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

True to form, you're unable to answer a simple question.

 

True to form your rampant xenophobia shines through every post.

 

I have no intention whatsoever of congering up some arbetery number out of thin air for you as (a) I don't 'dance' to your tune shipmate, and (d) the nessisary level of future immigration depends upon the future labour requirements of our economy - which is a obviously a matter of some speculation.

 

However, data from the Office of National Statistics* show that between May 2010 and January 2015 the UK economy created some 1.8 million new jobs - that is about 1000 jobs every single day - while unemployment has reduced to around 5% of the available workforce. It seems reasonable to speculate that a large proportion of that unemployed 5% are probably either those who find themselves temporarily 'between jobs' or people who are effectivly unemployable for one reason or another. So the situation is that we are simultaneously rapidly creating new jobs AND approaching something like full employment of the available workforce.

 

Therefore, immigration is not so much a case of our ALLOWING too many foreigners in who want nothing more than to sit on their arses all day and enjoy the many benifits of the welfare state - only dedicated 'Daily Mail' types could belive such tripe - but rather our economy is in fact DRAWING people in from other areas of the world where there is a surplus of suitable labour in order to fulfil its workforce requirements. That is how markets work, a case of 'supply and demand' you might say.

 

Clearly none of the above will satisfy you as fundamentaly you intensely dislike having to walk the streets with people who do not happen to exhibit the same culture/language/skin colour as you do. I can only surgest you get used to it because this is the 'way of the world' in the 21st century - whether you like it or not.

 

*http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/march-2015/statistical-bulletin.html

[Nolan]

True to form your rampant xenophobia shines through every post.

 

I have no intention whatsoever of congering up some arbetery number out of thin air for you as (a) I don't 'dance' to your tune shipmate, and (d) the nessisary level of future immigration depends upon the future labour requirements of our economy - which is a obviously a matter of some speculation.

 

However, data from the Office of National Statistics* show that between May 2010 and January 2015 the UK economy created some 1.8 million new jobs - that is about 1000 jobs every single day - while unemployment has reduced to around 5% of the available workforce. It seems reasonable to speculate that a large proportion of that unemployed 5% are probably either those who find themselves temporarily 'between jobs' or people who are effectivly unemployable for one reason or another. So the situation is that we are simultaneously rapidly creating new jobs AND approaching something like full employment of the available workforce.

 

Therefore, immigration is not so much a case of our ALLOWING too many foreigners in who want nothing more than to sit on their arses all day and enjoy the many benifits of the welfare state - only dedicated 'Daily Mail' types could belive such tripe - but rather our economy is in fact DRAWING people in from other areas of the world where there is a surplus of suitable labour in order to fulfil its workforce requirements. That is how markets work, a case of 'supply and demand' you might say.

 

Clearly none of the above will satisfy you as fundamentaly you intensely dislike having to walk the streets with people who do not happen to exhibit the same culture/language/skin colour as you do. I can only surgest you get used to it because this is the 'way of the world' in the 21st century - whether you like it or not.

 

*http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/march-2015/statistical-bulletin.html

On Brexit we can introduce immigration controls. This doesn't mean stopping immigration. This means controlling immigration so our countries expansion can get the best of people from the commonwealth and all around the world, not solely people from the EU expansion countries.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

On Brexit we can introduce immigration controls. This doesn't mean stopping immigration. This means controlling immigration so our countries expansion can get the best of people from the commonwealth and all around the world, not solely people from the EU expansion countries.

 

The UK could indeed introduce immigration controls if we withdrew from the EU - but only at the probable cost of abandoning our Single Market access. So you can ask yourself then what is more important to you - reducing immigration or reducing our national prosperity?

[Nolan]

The UK could indeed introduce immigration controls if we withdrew from the EU - but only at the probable cost of abandoning our Single Market access. So you can ask yourself then what is more important to you - reducing immigration or reducing our national prosperity?

As Michael Gove said last week, why would Turkey have single market access (Ford transits factory as a pertinent example for Southampton for example) but we wouldn't?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

As Michael Gove said last week, why would Turkey have single market access (Ford transits factory as a pertinent example for Southampton for example) but we wouldn't?

 

Because Turkey already has a form of associate (or "Candidate") membership status with the EU that allows it some access. Our coming referendum is of course a straight "in/out" choice - any post UK exit trading arrangement with the EU is a matter of mere speculation that Michael Grove seeks to gloss over.

[Nolan]

And both Germany and France have huge elections next year. Their populations would not stand for tariffs on their products to us. Especially as Russia is still embargoed.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

And both Germany and France have huge elections next year. Their populations would not stand for tariffs on their products to us. Especially as Russia is still embargoed.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

Maybe, maybe not - it's hard to say.

 

In my experience 'divorces' seldom end up with in both parties being perfectly happy with the outcome and it is perhaps dangerous to underestimate the level of ill-will a potential UK exit may lead to. For example, if we voted to leave their club then why would French or German voters be so very keen to ensure that our vital financial services sector continued to have unrestricted access to EU financial markets?

[Nolan]

Maybe, maybe not - it's hard to say.

 

In my experience 'divorces' seldom end up with in both parties being perfectly happy with the outcome and it is perhaps dangerous to underestimate the level of ill-will a potential UK exit may lead to. For example, if we voted to leave their club then why would French or German voters be so very keen to ensure that our vital financial services sector continued to have unrestricted access to EU financial markets?

Because it's cheaper than going through the banking sector in Paris or Berlin.

[Sour Mash]

True to form your rampant xenophobia shines through every post.

 

I have no intention whatsoever of congering up some arbetery number out of thin air for you as (a) I don't 'dance' to your tune shipmate, and (d) the nessisary level of future immigration depends upon the future labour requirements of our economy - which is a obviously a matter of some speculation.

 

However, data from the Office of National Statistics* show that between May 2010 and January 2015 the UK economy created some 1.8 million new jobs - that is about 1000 jobs every single day - while unemployment has reduced to around 5% of the available workforce. It seems reasonable to speculate that a large proportion of that unemployed 5% are probably either those who find themselves temporarily 'between jobs' or people who are effectivly unemployable for one reason or another. So the situation is that we are simultaneously rapidly creating new jobs AND approaching something like full employment of the available workforce.

 

Therefore, immigration is not so much a case of our ALLOWING too many foreigners in who want nothing more than to sit on their arses all day and enjoy the many benifits of the welfare state - only dedicated 'Daily Mail' types could belive such tripe - but rather our economy is in fact DRAWING people in from other areas of the world where there is a surplus of suitable labour in order to fulfil its workforce requirements. That is how markets work, a case of 'supply and demand' you might say.

 

Clearly none of the above will satisfy you as fundamentaly you intensely dislike having to walk the streets with people who do not happen to exhibit the same culture/language/skin colour as you do. I can only surgest you get used to it because this is the 'way of the world' in the 21st century - whether you like it or not.

 

*http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/march-2015/statistical-bulletin.html

I knew you wouldn't be able to answer it. Too easy to show you up.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Because it's cheaper than going through the banking sector in Paris or Berlin.

 

I put it to you that should we leave then the voters of remaining EU nations are likley to expect their leaders to extract whatever competitive advantage from the new situation that they can - the EU is essentially a trading bloc not a charity afterall. Were the situation reversed, then that is exactly what I would expect our leaders to do.

 

You do understand I take it that the UK is the second largest (net) contributer to EU funds after Germany - indeed the leave campaign seldom tire of reminding everyone of that fact. So, if we left then others presumably would have to contribute much more in order to maintain current EU expenditure programmes - hardly a receipe for our post Bretex popularity I would have thought. Other nations have long cast envious eyes at the financial power and influence the City of London still maintains in the world - it is perhaps naive not to expect Germany or France to seek to address that issue.

[Nolan]

I put it to you that should we leave then the voters of remaining EU nations are likley to expect their leaders to extract whatever competitive advantage from the new situation that they can - the EU is essentially a trading bloc not a charity afterall. Were the situation reversed, then that is exactly what I would expect our leaders to do.

 

You do understand I take it that the UK is the second largest (net) contributer to EU funds after Germany - indeed the leave campaign seldom tire of reminding everyone of that fact. So, if we left then others presumably would have to contribute much more in order to maintain current EU expenditure programmes - hardly a receipe for our post Bretex popularity I would have thought. Other nations have long cast envious eyes at the financial power and influence the City of London still maintains in the world - it is perhaps naive not to expect Germany or France to seek to address that issue.

They would have to attempt to address that issue. But the bargaining power is ours, not theirs. Even if we had to Adopt wto trading rules temporarily we would still be better off.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I knew you wouldn't be able to answer it. Too easy to show you up.

 

I can't be the only person on here to experience a warm glow of nostelga whenever I see you return to this oh so familiar "no one answers my questions" gag of yours.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

They would have to attempt to address that issue. But the bargaining power is ours, not theirs. Even if we had to Adopt wto trading rules temporarily we would still be better off.

 

So we are in effect 'knocking on their door' asking if we could please have free access to their markets and you still feel that the balance of power in this relationship lays with us?

[Sour Mash]

I can't be the only person on here to experience a warm glow of nostelga whenever I see you return to this oh so familiar "no one answers my questions" gag of yours.

That actually make sense to be honest, explains why you so often struggle to answer even the most simple of points.

[Nolan]

So we are in effect 'knocking on their door' asking if we could please have free access to their markets and you still feel that the balance of power in this relationship lays with us?

You do us down. They'll be wanting free access to our market...

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

That actually make sense to be honest, explains why you so often struggle to answer even the most simple of points.

 

You asked me - a layman - to provide a arbetery number as to what I would consider to be a satisfactory level of future immigration. I doubt somehow most would consider that to be a "simple point" - although I do concede you do come across on here as being more that a little simple at times.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

You do us down. They'll be wanting free access to our market...

 

But you agree that all negotiations involve a degree of 'give and take' and that this process is unlikley to be another "simple" matter ?

[Sour Mash]

You asked me - a layman - to provide a arbetery number as to what I would consider to be a satisfactory level of future immigration. I doubt somehow most would consider that to be a "simple point" - although I do concede you do come across on here as being more that a little simple at times.

It is an easy question. Anyone can give their opinion, apart from you who struggles for some reason. Although as I am quite simple I don't know what an "arbetery" number is, maybe that's why you find it so difficult.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

It is an easy question. Anyone can give their opinion, apart from you who struggles for some reason. Although as I am quite simple I don't know what an "arbetery" number is, maybe that's why you find it so difficult.

 

The record shows that I answered your little question in my own way - quite comprehensively methinks. If you don't approve of my reply then I guess you with just have to live with the disappointment - I know I can.

[Sour Mash]

The record shows that I answered your little question in my own way - quite comprehensively methinks. If you don't approve of my reply then I guess you with just have to live with the disappointment - I know I can.

No disappointment from me, it proves my point quite nicely.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

No disappointment from me, it proves my point quite nicely.

 

What do you think you have "proved" ?

[Sour Mash]

What do you think you have "proved" ?

That your opinions on immigration are nothing but empty headed hot air and when pushed to actually answer a straight forward question, you're unable to.

[ecuk268]

They would have to attempt to address that issue. But the bargaining power is ours, not theirs. Even if we had to Adopt wto trading rules temporarily we would still be better off.

 

Strangely enough, this morning the OECD issued a statement pointing out that we would all be worse off if we left. But their research among their 37 member countries probably pales into insignificance when set against your uninformed opinion.

 

Farage was asked about this report this morning and came out with the usual "Oh no it won't" stuff. He was pressed repeatedly to name one reputable organisation that supported his view and, after a load of waffle unrelated to the question, named one professor at Cardiff Uni. When it was pointed out that one man was not an organisation like the OECD, IMF, Bank of England etc, he seemed to be keen to change the subject to UKIP's election prospects.

[Nolan]

Strangely enough, this morning the OECD issued a statement pointing out that we would all be worse off if we left. But their research among their 37 member countries probably pales into insignificance when set against your uninformed opinion.

 

Farage was asked about this report this morning and came out with the usual "Oh no it won't" stuff. He was pressed repeatedly to name one reputable organisation that supported his view and, after a load of waffle unrelated to the question, named one professor at Cardiff Uni. When it was pointed out that one man was not an organisation like the OECD, IMF, Bank of England etc, he seemed to be keen to change the subject to UKIP's election prospects.

Strangely enough they've used the same discredited methodology that the treasury used last week.

 

But oh noes... We will potentially have £5k less growth of we left by 2030.

 

That's still lots and lots of years of growth that, if you dig into the figures, is a greater growth than the Euro zone.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

That your opinions on immigration are nothing but empty headed hot air and when pushed to actually answer a straight forward question, you're unable to.

 

Well I did answer your question - you just don't seem to appreciate the answer you recieved for some reason.

 

As for my opinions being "empty headed" the forum will note that you have singularly failed to address ANY of the (evidenced based) points re immigration that I have raised in posts 1851 & 1867. Until I see something approaching a meaningful reply then I feel that others on here may safely assume that you have nothing much to offer on this subject beyond yet more of the tiresome brand of xenophobia and ignorance that you seem to specialise in.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Strangely enough they've used the same discredited methodology that the treasury used last week.

 

But oh noes... We will potentially have £5k less growth of we left by 2030.

 

That's still lots and lots of years of growth that, if you dig into the figures, is a greater growth than the Euro zone.

 

The fact of the matter is that every serious econmic forecast that I am aware of has concluded that this nation risks being a significantly poorer one, compared to how it might otherwise be, should we vote to leave the EU.

[Batman]

The fact of the matter is that every serious econmic forecast that I am aware of has concluded that this nation risks being a significantly poorer one, compared to how it might otherwise be, should we vote to leave the EU.

 

the same people that said to join the Euro and/or never predicted the almighty crash in 2008?

 

serious question by the way

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-germany-transportation-idUKKCN0XJ280

Edited 27 April, 2016 by Batman

[Nolan]

The fact of the matter is that every serious econmic forecast that I am aware of has concluded that this nation risks being a significantly poorer one, compared to how it might otherwise be, should we vote to leave the EU.

That is hugely twisting the facts. They say we will continue to grow but slightly slower. As infrastructure costs would be less, it balances itself.

[Wes Tender]

The fact of the matter is that every serious econmic forecast that I am aware of has concluded that this nation risks being a significantly poorer one, compared to how it might otherwise be, should we vote to leave the EU.

 

Bully for them. They all say that there are risks that we might be a significantly poorer nation should we leave the EU. This is a statement of the bleeding obvious; of course there are risks. Every road safety expert would equally state that there are risks attached to crossing the road, compared to when one stayed at home. Where you have embellished your statement is the use of the phrase "compared to how it might otherwise be". Neither they or you have any idea of what our future prospects would be in the event of our leaving. That depends on numerous factors the scope of which is beyond them to take account of, beyond guessing what a worst case scenario would be, which in the interests of balance would need to be accompanied by a best case scenario. Needless to say, it isn't in their remit to give any positive spin to the consequences.

[Wes Tender]

The fact of the matter is that every serious econmic forecast that I am aware of has concluded that this nation risks being a significantly poorer one, compared to how it might otherwise be, should we vote to leave the EU.

 

Further to this assertion of yours:-

 

A final myth, that the mere existence of our group should debunk, is that there are no economists or economic studies favouring Brexit. Many important studies, from the mayor of London’s economics team, Capital Economics, Open Europe, the Centre for Economics and Business Research and the IEA, have suggested that there would be no long-term material losses from Brexit, and in some cases gains. Well-known figures, such as former Bank of England governor Lord (Mervyn) King, have said that our leaving the EU is not primarily an economic question, with the impact of leaving greatly exaggerated.

 

http://www.cityam.com/239663/brexit-myths-debunked-the-leave-campaign-shouldnt-fear-arguing-that-leaving-the-eu-would-be-good-for-the-economy

[Sour Mash]

Well I did answer your question - you just don't seem to appreciate the answer you recieved for some reason.

 

As for my opinions being "empty headed" the forum will note that you have singularly failed to address ANY of the (evidenced based) points re immigration that I have raised in posts 1851 & 1867. Until I see something approaching a meaningful reply then I feel that others on here may safely assume that you have nothing much to offer on this subject beyond yet more of the tiresome brand of xenophobia and ignorance that you seem to specialise in.

You don't need to justify yourself to me, I didn't expect you to be able to answer it.

[moonraker]

Farage was real comedy on the Today Programme, he sited Norway and Switzerland as examples of no EU countries trading with the EU and when it was pointed out that they had to pay heavily and accept free movement, he accused their respective politicians of selling them down the road. The only people selling any one down the road are the lying, spinning Brexit clowns.

I do so enjoy the irony of leavers arguing that we would be able to negotiate a good trade deal with the EU if we leave, wakey, wakey we already have one, we wont get anything as good if we leave.

[Wes Tender]

F The only people selling any one down the road are the lying, spinning Brexit clowns.

Whereas of course, Osborne is a paragon of veracity when it comes to putting out figures for the remain camp, isn't he? No way that his spin on the cost to every family could be torn apart by a media presenter, is there?

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/watch-ed-vaizey-grilled-by-andrew-neil-over-george-osbornes-dodgy-eu-dossier/

[Whitey Grandad]

Farage was real comedy on the Today Programme, he sited Norway and Switzerland as examples of no EU countries trading with the EU and when it was pointed out that they had to pay heavily and accept free movement, he accused their respective politicians of selling them down the road. The only people selling any one down the road are the lying, spinning Brexit clowns.

I do so enjoy the irony of leavers arguing that we would be able to negotiate a good trade deal with the EU if we leave, wakey, wakey we already have one, we wont get anything as good if we leave.

 

This seems to pass some people by.