EU referendum

[buctootim]

So you're saying that as we can discount the one third of ex-pats returning home, the remaining two thirds are one third students or mainly from outside the EU, principally China and India, is that correct? So what proportion of that remaining third constitutes the vast influx of people migrating here under EU legislation allowing freedom of movement of peoples from Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania and other former states of the USSR, or the poorer areas of Southern Europe who come here because of the higher wage levels in the UK?

 

You say that they pay more in taxes than they get in services, but how can that be true? Does the tax on their low pay really cover the cost of the housing, schooling of their children, use of the NHS etc, that will be needed to accommodate such an increase in population ?

 

As you rightly say, the debate should be based on facts, inferring that the media doesn't have any facts at their fingertips, but where are the facts that you are using from?

 

I dont think you know where the government spends its money. If you did you wouldn't worry so much about spongers and people getting a free ride. In all likelihood the person getting a free ride is you. Current pensions and healthcare are far higher and better (funded by today's tax payers) than the level you paid for during your working life.

 

Of the c£500bn of public expenditure each year c£115bn is spent on pensions and disability and only £14.5bn on primary and secondary education. Of the £122bn spent on health, the over 65s consume services at over four times that of the under 65 age group. By contrast job seekers allowance and income support total c£10bn. A higher proportion of UK born residents claim housing benefit than immigrants, and again the majority of housing benefit goes to older, often retired people

 

There are a lot of issues around excessive immigration - but not paying their way is not one you can level at them.

Edited 16 May, 2016 by buctootim

[Whitey Grandad]

I dont think you know where the government spends its money. If you did you wouldn't worry so much about spongers and people getting a free ride. In all likelihood the person getting a free ride is you. Current pensions and healthcare are far higher and better (funded by today's tax payers) than the level you paid for during your working life.

 

Of the c£500bn of public expenditure each year c£115bn is spent on pensions and disability and only £14.5bn on primary and secondary education. Of the £122bn spent on health, the over 65s consume services at over four times that of the under 65 age group. By contrast job seekers allowance and income support total c£10bn. A higher proportion of UK born residents claim housing benefit than immigrants, and again the majority of housing benefit goes to older, often retired people

 

There are a lot of issues around excessive immigration - but not paying their way is not one you can level at them.

 

Er... Correction. The government doesn't have any money of its own, it's our money that it spends on our behalf.

[Wes Tender]

I dont think you know where the government spends its money. If you did you wouldn't worry so much about spongers and people getting a free ride. In all likelihood the person getting a free ride is you. Current pensions and healthcare are far higher and better (funded by today's tax payers) than the level you paid for during your working life.

 

Of the c£500bn of public expenditure each year c£115bn is spent on pensions and disability and only £14.5bn on primary and secondary education. Of the £122bn spent on health, the over 65s consume services at over four times that of the under 65 age group. By contrast job seekers allowance and income support total c£10bn. A higher proportion of UK born residents claim housing benefit than immigrants, and again the majority of housing benefit goes to older, often retired people

 

There are a lot of issues around excessive immigration - but not paying their way is not one you can level at them.

 

I was querying the source of your figures for the number of immigrants from the EU, but thanks for all the additional info about how I am probably getting a "free ride" off the government. I would think that is highly unlikely, as I have been paying taxes since I was 16, not just on my earnings of course, as there are taxes on my spending too and on other things. And my state pension counts as taxable income too, as will my pension pots which I am in the process of turning into annuities at the moment, whilst continuing to run my business and pay taxes on that income too. Of course the level at which I paid taxes into the system was lower when I started paying in, mainly due to inflation, but equally the governments of that day were spending proportionally less than they are now on running the country. But inflation is the thief of the money that pensioners rely on for a comfortable retirement.

Under successive governments, mainly Labour ones, the level of taxation rose, so I paid proportionately more of my income as tax. Over the years, the number of days that one works for the government before one begins earning money for oneself has increased quite a bit during my lifetime.

 

But excuse me if I remain sceptical that the taxation paid by the low income immigrants covers the cost of their housing, children's education and health care. I don't consider that these things constitute sponging or a free ride by the way, merely that the cost of them is unlikely to be recouped by taxes raised on their income. Perhaps you have reliable figures available to prove that point.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Are you still suffering some slight inebriation residue from last night's celebrations?

 

I didn't highlight the negative aspects of human population growth, I expressed the opinion that is widely accepted that mass uncontrolled immigration into our county put a strain on housing, schools, the NHS and the benefit system. If you wish to equate this comment to a broad sweeping generalisation encompassing humanity as a whole, then go ahead and ignore the specifics of the situation that affects our country and the other EU states, which is what we are discussing. I didn't vehemently object, I ridiculed your comments by laughing at them.

 

Regarding the little mini-debate between the recent comments of Boris and Dave, it is helpful to see them both as being in context, rather than taken as snippets in isolation. Both argued the points as being an historical perspective to highlight their arguments for the future. I take this view from the BBC's Political correspondent as being a sensible analysis:-

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36243296

 

In the same way that you ignored the wider historical context of Boris' comments, you chose to pick on just the mention of Hitler. Equally, several media commentators chose to interpret Dave's selection of several historical conflicts in Europe including the two World Wars to infer that our Brexit could precipitate WW3. Several of the Red Tops which the electorate read interpreted it thus, including the Mirror and The Sun. Neither side come across as lily-white when it comes to propaganda. It is helpful though when it comes to Cameron's credibility, that he presumably recognised the instability that our Brexit might cause to our nation's security and yet just three months ago, he was threatening to campaign to leave the EU if those reforms he demanded were not met.

 

Yet more denials and a repeated 'joke' that wasn't remotly funny the first time around I see - my advice to you is that light comedy really isn't your thing old chap . By focusing on the marginal impact EU immigration has on the NHS etc you distort the wider picture here. But that comes as little or no surprise because distorting the truth and denying inconvient evidence seems to have become your raison d'etre on here of late. Where is your evidence that (often quite poor) immigrants have made some big impact on our housing market? I once knew a Polish lad who was living in his car and many others seem to exist crammed into low quality shared accommodation. Yes it is self evident that more children will require more classroom places, but a younger population profile benifits UK society in the long term in ways that I doubt you possess the intellect to comprehend frankly.

 

Setting aside your predudice for the moment it seems eminently reasonable to conclude that the large majority of incoming EU citizens arriving here to find work are overwhelmingly young and healthy individuals. Therefore, these people are unlikley to impose any special burden on our health services. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that the NHS could not even function adequately without foreign born staff of all sorts. You have also singuarily failed to properly address the point raised on here that young people (as a group) contribute significantly more in taxes than they receive in benefits. Another inconvenient truth you seek to avoid.

 

Furthermore, you don't seem able to comprehend that immigration is in fact very much a 'two way street' in the EU. For your information the 3.3 million foreign born EU citizens currently living in the UK should been seen in relation to the 1.2 million UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU - another group one presumes whose fate you are not very "bothered" about. A large number of this emigrant group are I suspect retired elderly British people whom, had they not been legally entitled to move adroad in the EU, would presumably have stayed here and imposed a significant additional workload on the NHS as a result. As reaserch shows that the average person makes by far their largest impact on healthcare services during the last few weeks/months of their life, it may well be that (in effect) 'swapping' elderly UK citizens for much younger EU immigrants actualy benifits our NHS rather than burdening it.

 

As for trite comparisons between the various ambitions Adolf Hitler harboured for his 'Third Reich' before and during WWII and the EU today, I think you and your like underestimate how deeply offensive many of those who have good cause to remember the horrors of Nazism will find this - like Lord Bramall for example and others of his generation. But I suppose we will just have to add that offence to the bizzare assortment of other stuff you are seemingly "not bothered" about in this debate.

 

.

Edited 16 May, 2016 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[buctootim]

Over the years, the number of days that one works for the government before one begins earning money for oneself has increased quite a bit during my lifetime.

 

Exactly, you paid less. Public services have become more extensive and therefore expensive. CAT / MRI scanners werent around and noe were transplants routine. Average life expectancy is massively higher.

 

Excuse me if I remain sceptical that the taxation paid by the low income immigrants covers the cost of their housing, children's education and health care. I don't consider that these things constitute sponging or a free ride by the way, merely that the cost of them is unlikely to be recouped by taxes raised on their income. Perhaps you have reliable figures available to prove that point.

 

Then you'd be wrong. Average wages of migrants are higher than average UK born despite being on average younger. Although many are low paid workers a disproprtionate number are well paid professionals. Not really what the Express would have us believe is it?

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/characteristics-and-outcomes-migrants-uk-labour-market

 

'''

Edited 16 May, 2016 by buctootim

[CB Fry]

'''

Wes not a great one for the facts, Tim.

[Whitey Grandad]

I was querying the source of your figures for the number of immigrants from the EU, but thanks for all the additional info about how I am probably getting a "free ride" off the government. I would think that is highly unlikely, as I have been paying taxes since I was 16, not just on my earnings of course, as there are taxes on my spending too and on other things. And my state pension counts as taxable income too, as will my pension pots which I am in the process of turning into annuities at the moment, whilst continuing to run my business and pay taxes on that income too. Of course the level at which I paid taxes into the system was lower when I started paying in, mainly due to inflation, but equally the governments of that day were spending proportionally less than they are now on running the country. But inflation is the thief of the money that pensioners rely on for a comfortable retirement.

Under successive governments, mainly Labour ones, the level of taxation rose, so I paid proportionately more of my income as tax. Over the years, the number of days that one works for the government before one begins earning money for oneself has increased quite a bit during my lifetime.

 

But excuse me if I remain sceptical that the taxation paid by the low income immigrants covers the cost of their housing, children's education and health care. I don't consider that these things constitute sponging or a free ride by the way, merely that the cost of them is unlikely to be recouped by taxes raised on their income. Perhaps you have reliable figures available to prove that point.

 

We disagree on many aspects but I'm totally with you here, Wes.

[TwoPints]

I was querying the source of your figures for the number of immigrants from the EU, but thanks for all the additional info about how I am probably getting a "free ride" off the government. I would think that is highly unlikely, as I have been paying taxes since I was 16, not just on my earnings of course, as there are taxes on my spending too and on other things. And my state pension counts as taxable income too, as will my pension pots which I am in the process of turning into annuities at the moment, whilst continuing to run my business and pay taxes on that income too. Of course the level at which I paid taxes into the system was lower when I started paying in, mainly due to inflation, but equally the governments of that day were spending proportionally less than they are now on running the country. But inflation is the thief of the money that pensioners rely on for a comfortable retirement.

Under successive governments, mainly Labour ones, the level of taxation rose, so I paid proportionately more of my income as tax. Over the years, the number of days that one works for the government before one begins earning money for oneself has increased quite a bit during my lifetime.

 

But excuse me if I remain sceptical that the taxation paid by the low income immigrants covers the cost of their housing, children's education and health care. I don't consider that these things constitute sponging or a free ride by the way, merely that the cost of them is unlikely to be recouped by taxes raised on their income. Perhaps you have reliable figures available to prove that point.

Sorry to go off topic briefly, but are you really turning your pension pots into annuities? You might want to get some financial advice before you do that. Annuity rates are on the floor and have been for years. There are likely to be much better ways to get at your cash now. Just thought I'd mention it.

[aintforever]

'''

 

Those stats still don't mean low paid immigrants from Poland have paid their share towards the expensive services they use.

 

How much tax would someone on minimum wage have paid if they have only been here 1-2 years?

[TwoPints]

Those stats still don't mean low paid immigrants from Poland have paid their share towards the expensive services they use.

 

How much tax would someone on minimum wage have paid if they have only been here 1-2 years?

Maybe not all of the immigrants from Poland go to the hospital on a regular basis, maybe they don't have children of school age, or at least not in this country. Maybe they work hard, pay tax and then return home when they've earned enough leaving their taxes to benefit the indigenous population. In the same way that the taxes paid by most of us benefit others more than ourselves. That's how it works isn't it.

[Wes Tender]

Sorry to go off topic briefly, but are you really turning your pension pots into annuities? You might want to get some financial advice before you do that. Annuity rates are on the floor and have been for years. There are likely to be much better ways to get at your cash now. Just thought I'd mention it.

 

One pot is a Guaranteed Minimum Pension and the other is a Guaranteed Annuity Rate. The GMP is a return equivalent of around 11% and has a 50% monthly sum paid to my wife if I die first. I've taken that as if I live for 8 and a half years, I'll get the pot back as income. As it is pre-1988, it is inflation proofed too. The GAR is around double current annuity rates and I can take 25% tax free (£13738 ) and then get £4695 PA, but it is paid annually in arrears and doesn't appear to have inflation proofing. I might take financial advice on that one, but it seems that the £55,000 pot would cost me £1500 or so for the advice, which apparently I have to take if I want to go forward with that pot. I resent being forced to pay for advice.

[Batman]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3593784/David-Cameron-s-EU-sham-exposed-Leaked-letter-reveals-PM-hatched-anti-Brexit-plot-telling-voters-campaign-leave.html

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/16/turkey-visa-deal-will-increase-risk-of-terrorist-attacks-eu-repo/

[whelk]

Bless Microsoft

[whelk]

And go Hezza....'This guy (BJ) is meant to be a serious politician'

[Batman]

Immigration costs the UK £17bn every year

 

https://www.longroom.com/discussion/67897/17bn-the-true-cost-of-immigration-to-the-uk-every-year-figure-calculated-as-gap-between-amount-migrants-pay-in-taxes-and-consume-in-public-services

 

this bit must be a lie. Tim told us otherwise. £3m per day

The figure includes a £1.2billion annual net cost of migrants from Europe, who consume far more in public services and benefits than they pay in taxes

 

Lord Green of Deddington, the chairman of Migration Watch, said: 'This report shows that EU migration, taken as a whole, is not making the positive fiscal contribution that has so often been claimed.

 

'Furthermore, it is adding to the rapidly increasing pressures on housing and public services. It also contributes to our population increase of half a million every year – roughly a city the size of Liverpool

Edited 17 May, 2016 by Batman

[buctootim]

https://www.longroom.com/discussion/67897/17bn-the-true-cost-of-immigration-to-the-uk-every-year-figure-calculated-as-gap-between-amount-migrants-pay-in-taxes-and-consume-in-public-services

 

this bit must be a lie. Tim told us otherwise. £3m per day

 

Ha. you think Migrationwatch is in any way independent or more trustworthy than Oxford Uni? you should read original source instead of headlines Jamie, then you wouldnt get embarrassed so often.

 

Just FYI Migrationwatch took a University College London study which showed migrants made a nett positive contribution to the economy over the economic cycle. They then selectively cherry picked the last three years which showed a deficit and then deliberately ignored the fact that UK born nationals were actually running a larger deficit in the same period. hth

[CB Fry]

Interesting counterpoint to Batman's Migrationwatch report:

 

 

Refugees will repay EU spending almost twice over in five years - report

 

http://gu.com/p/4jae7?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

[angelman]

Not sure if this has been posted before, but for those undecided or confused, I can recommend this film giving the Brexit point of view. Goes on for an hour, but well produced and given the seriousness of the vote, 1 hour really shouldn't be too much. I found the bit in the second half that deals with the economy quite interesting especially the trade deals. The first bit was equally interesting in the workings of the EU and it's unaccountability.

 

Even if you are a "Bremainer" it is worth a watch.

 

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

^ Well I've already seen it and (as expected) this film is no more sincere and objective than your average Party Political Broadcast is. In the post this morning I recieved my copy of the 'EU Referendum Voting Guide' published by the independent Electorial Commission. On page 5 of this leaflet I again see the 'Vote Leave' campaign repeat their claim that we pay the EU "about" £350m a week. The implication is also made that this some of money could/should go to the NHS instead.

 

I must say it more than a little surprising that a important official document should repeat a claim that has been established now to be at best grossly misleading, at worst an outright lie. But there you go - this is how this debate is being conducted.

[Wes Tender]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/671075/EU-referendum-David-Cameron-resignation-Jacob-Rees-Mogg-Serco-letter-renegotiation

 

Talking about lies, this is a pretty serious allegation if true.

[buctootim]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/671075/EU-referendum-David-Cameron-resignation-Jacob-Rees-Mogg-Serco-letter-renegotiation

 

Talking about lies, this is a pretty serious allegation if true.

 

 

Desperate. The Express is a rag, its stories are pretty much unrelated to what actually happened. At least the Mail give you the original text to make you own mind up (albeit within a shock horror wrapping). Cameron tells the commons we were better off within Europe but refuses to rule anything out - as you would if you were in negotiations for a better deal. A week later someone he had met with writes to tell him he is going to, at some stage, mobilise business to campaign for remain. It doesn't say Dave supported that at the meeting, but even if he did its not inconsistent with what he later said.

 

Cameron to House of Commons: "I am not arguing – and I will never argue – that Britain couldn’t survive outside the European Union. We are the fifth largest economy in the world. The biggest defence player in Europe with one of the most of extensive and influential diplomatic networks on the planet. ‘The question is not could Britain succeed outside the European Union, it is how will we be most successful? How will Britain be most prosperous? How will we create the most jobs? ... How will we be most secure? And I’ve always said the best answers to those questions can be found within a reformed European Union. ‘But let me say again, if we can’t secure these changes, I rule nothing out."

 

Letter from Serco's Soames: "Thank you for a very useful meeting last week. There were two points I thought I might follow up on. The first is how to mobilise corporates to look carefully at the risks Brexit represents. ‘I am working with Peter Chadlington and Stuart Rose (the head of Britain Stronger in Europe) with a view to contacting FTSE 500 companies who have annual reports due for publication before June and persuading them that they should include Brexit in the list of key risks. ‘During the Scottish referendum campaign we managed to garner a lot of publicity as a series of companies formally stated in their annual reports that independence for Scotland was a major risk."

Edited 18 May, 2016 by buctootim

[Wes Tender]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/7157359/David-Cameron-ditches-law-to-enshrine-UK-parliaments-sovereignty-over-Brussels-from-Queens-Speech.html

 

Is our Dave trying to win the prize for Most duplicitous politician of the Year? He is a serious liability to the Remain camp as its leader.

[Whitey Grandad]

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Just in case anyone on here wants to question the notion that the 'Vote Leave' campaign's "£350m" number is one HUGE whopper then here be a independent analysis from Channel 4 News into the facts of this matter:

 

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-britain-sending-350m-week-brussels/21733

 

It seems to me that if someone were trying to sell you a can of beans with the tin covered in misleading claims then they would soon find themselves in deep trouble with the Advertising Standards Authority. But 'Vote Leave' on the other hand using state funding to lie to the British people en masse is apparently perfectly in order it would seem.

 

'tis a funny old world we live in and no mistake ...

[Wes Tender]

I have just been listening to this from Boris. Very invigorating and well argued.

 

[derry]

The leave campaign are absolutely accurate, the annual £18+billion we send to Brussels is approx. £350m per week. After recycling we get benefits doled out by the EU of approx. half. The point being made is that if we aren't sending the money in the first place then the whole amount is available to be spent in the UK.

 

As for EU demands, if we accept and reciprocate any punitive tariffs and refuse to accept EU rules and free movement, eventually the EU will trade, as the Germans and French will suffer greatly as their already expensive quality exports will not be wanted in the UK and that won't suit them at all. We won't come out of this unscathed initially but it will make us branch out and trade with the rest of the world. The EU will eventually collapse and it will be better to be independent when that chaotic event occurs.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Proof that Boris Johnson is not always quite as "well argued" as some on here seem to think:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/mar/24/boris-johnson-interview-eddie-mair

 

3 minutes well spent watching that utter shambles methinks

Edited 18 May, 2016 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

The leave campaign are absolutely accurate, the annual £18+billion we send to Brussels is approx. £350m per week. After recycling we get benefits doled out by the EU of approx. half. The point being made is that if we aren't sending the money in the first place then the whole amount is available to be spent in the UK.

 

The above is factually incorrect I'm afraid. In reality the situation is that HM Treasury does not actualy have to send the nominal £18bn to the EU as our £5bn negotiated "rebate" is in effect a instant one as it were:

 

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

 

Other EU funding in the UK (such as support for agriculture for example) would probably have to be replaced by a broadly equilient ammount of national spending were we to leave. So the claim in my 'EU Referendum Guide' that leaving the EU might result in some £350m a week being freed to spend on building a new hospital every week or (absurdly) hiring some"600,000 nurses" is nowt but bullsh1t.

[Wes Tender]

 

Why our trade position would be better outside the EU

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

The Chairman of the largest Japanese employer in the UK - Fujitsu - adds his voice to all the other business leaders who caution the British people about the potentialy adverse consequences for us all of voting to leave the EU:

 

Fujitsu chairman adds voice to pro-EU push - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36329178

 

The pro forma reply to this kind of thing is that these damn foreigners should mind their own damn business of course. But when you think about it that is precisly what he is doing.

[hutch]

the largest Japanese employer in the UK

Source?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Source?

 

Try reading the link.

[Wes Tender]

The Chairman of the largest Japanese employer in the UK - Fujitsu - adds his voice to all the other business leaders who caution the British people about the potentialy adverse consequences for us all of voting to leave the EU:

 

Fujitsu chairman adds voice to pro-EU push - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36329178

 

The pro forma reply to this kind of thing is that these damn foreigners should mind their own damn business of course. But when you think about it that is precisly what he is doing.

 

*Yawn*

 

Precisly?

 

Is this another of Dave's big businesses who have been co-opted to save his bacon by threatening dire consequences if we left the EU? I'm sure that the Beeb also loves putting out these stories on a daily basis in the run-up to the referendum.

 

Pardon my scepticism and cynicism, but are we really to believe that Fujitsu will wish to jeopardise this business they do with the UK? It seems to me that they are here because we have a workforce competent in IT on the one hand and that on the other hand they are therefore able to apply their technological expertise to offer a service to a largely British business customer base. But no doubt if this was not the case, and it was a questions of wage costs, they could always do a Ford and re-locate to Turkey.

 

As the largest Japanese employer in the region, we employ 14,000 people who work with us every day to keep the UK and Ireland running smoothly, with our products and services touching 99% of the UK population every day. From high street shopping and online banking through to transport bookings and driving licences, in the UK and Ireland, we are:

Enabling the processing of 2.8 million passports every year

Managing more than 20,000 retail outlets and over 85,000 point of sale devices

Processing over 10 million driving licence updates and almost a million new licences every year

Enabling Ireland’s Road Safety Authority to process hundreds of driving test applications every day

Supporting 1,000 staff, including 150 judiciary members in 70 locations for the Irish Courts Service

Helping financial services providers to serve over 40 million customers and operate over 20,000 local branches

Connecting 300,000 defence users in over 2,000 locations worldwide.

 

When it comes to the implications of trade post-Brexit, then the consequences are explained quite clearly in the articles I linked too above. They give me optimism that large companies like Fujitsu are here for a good reason which won't go away if we left the EU, and there will also be benefits for companies like them in trading with us freed from the bureaucratic restraints that are imposed currently by Brussels. Whilst we are discussing the impact on business, then once again it is pertinent to point out that the EU regulations that are imposed on the 6% of businesses that export to the EU, are applied to the 94% of businesses that do not.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

So you feel then that UK employees of important business such as BMW, Airbus, Fujitsu etc would somehow be wise to ignore their management's advice as to the future prospects of these business here in the UK because you question their sincerity and motivation for some reason?

 

How very easy it is for those who find themselves contemplating the prospect of a happy retirement (and their oh so comfortable pension arrangments) to preach utter nonsense to the younger generation who might reasonably want to bare the small matter of feeding their families and keeping a roof over their heads somewhere in mind!

[OldNick]

 

Why our trade position would be better outside the EU

great if we want all to be insurance salesmen. It gets more confusing all the time.

[Wes Tender]

So you feel then that UK employees of important business such as BMW, Airbus, Fujitsu etc would somehow be wise to ignore their management's advice as to the future prospects of these business here in the UK because you question their sincerity and motivation for some reason?

 

How very easy it is for those who find themselves contemplating the prospect of a happy retirement (and their oh so comfortable pension arrangments) to preach utter nonsense to the younger generation who might reasonably want to bare the small matter of feeding their families and keeping a roof over their heads somewhere in mind!

 

I expect the employees of those companies will bear in mind their management's advice when they weigh up the pros and cons of the referendum, in much the same way that they will if they are employees of small businesses where their bosses would tell them that their companies would be much better off if we left. The employees of the sort of organisations you mention, might well reason that they have skills that will see them able to obtain work elsewhere with the opportunities that would result from the increased prosperity of the UK post-Brexit.

 

if you're going to bore everybody again about how the Brexiteers couldn't give a toss about their children's futures, then you're not really going to achieve that by highlighting the higher cost of food by being in the EU, or the lack of availability and cost of housing or rented accommodation due to mass immigration caused by the EU.

[solentstars]

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.

i sussed him out ages ago,just a troll ....i was beginning to think his name was wally.. because no one can be that stupid:lol: could they ?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I expect the employees of those companies will bear in mind their management's advice when they weigh up the pros and cons of the referendum, in much the same way that they will if they are employees of small businesses where their bosses would tell them that their companies would be much better off if we left. The employees of the sort of organisations you mention, might well reason that they have skills that will see them able to obtain work elsewhere with the opportunities that would result from the increased prosperity of the UK post-Brexit.

 

if you're going to bore everybody again about how the Brexiteers couldn't give a toss about their children's futures, then you're not really going to achieve that by highlighting the higher cost of food by being in the EU, or the lack of availability and cost of housing or rented accommodation due to mass immigration caused by the EU.

 

If your continued obsession with spelling is some kind of not very subtle application to be my proof-reader then you've got the job shipmate. But I must warn you now that the hours are long and the pay terrible

 

As for the fairy-tale like consequence-free future you see for the UK should some collective madness overtake this nation and we vote to leave the EU in a few weeks time then I have to inform you again that almost ALL the evidence we have points in the opposite direction.

 

As you have been shown time and time again on here that is afterall the broad consenus of political, economic, financial and business advice the British people have received.

[CB Saint]

*Yawn*

 

Precisly?

 

Is this another of Dave's big businesses who have been co-opted to save his bacon by threatening dire consequences if we left the EU? I'm sure that the Beeb also loves putting out these stories on a daily basis in the run-up to the referendum.

 

Pardon my scepticism and cynicism, but are we really to believe that Fujitsu will wish to jeopardise this business they do with the UK? It seems to me that they are here because we have a workforce competent in IT on the one hand and that on the other hand they are therefore able to apply their technological expertise to offer a service to a largely British business customer base. But no doubt if this was not the case, and it was a questions of wage costs, they could always do a Ford and re-locate to Turkey.

 

As the largest Japanese employer in the region, we employ 14,000 people who work with us every day to keep the UK and Ireland running smoothly, with our products and services touching 99% of the UK population every day. From high street shopping and online banking through to transport bookings and driving licences, in the UK and Ireland, we are:

Enabling the processing of 2.8 million passports every year

Managing more than 20,000 retail outlets and over 85,000 point of sale devices

Processing over 10 million driving licence updates and almost a million new licences every year

Enabling Ireland’s Road Safety Authority to process hundreds of driving test applications every day

Supporting 1,000 staff, including 150 judiciary members in 70 locations for the Irish Courts Service

Helping financial services providers to serve over 40 million customers and operate over 20,000 local branches

Connecting 300,000 defence users in over 2,000 locations worldwide.

 

When it comes to the implications of trade post-Brexit, then the consequences are explained quite clearly in the articles I linked too above. They give me optimism that large companies like Fujitsu are here for a good reason which won't go away if we left the EU, and there will also be benefits for companies like them in trading with us freed from the bureaucratic restraints that are imposed currently by Brussels. Whilst we are discussing the impact on business, then once again it is pertinent to point out that the EU regulations that are imposed on the 6% of businesses that export to the EU, are applied to the 94% of businesses that do not.

 

So what out of that lot is not going to happen if we leave the EU? Someone is going to have to manage the 85k POS devices, and issue driving licences each year.

[Wes Tender]

If your continued obsession with spelling is some kind of not very subtle application to be my proof-reader then you've got the job shipmate. But I must warn you now that the hours are long and the pay terrible

 

As for the fairy-tale like consequence-free future you see for the UK should some collective madness overtake this nation and we vote to leave the EU in a few weeks time then I have to inform you again that almost ALL the evidence we have points in the opposite direction.

 

As you have been shown time and time again on here that is afterall the broad consenus of political, economic, financial and business advice the British people have received.

 

Is it advice or is it evidence? You seem strangely oblivious to the difference. If it was evidence, then there would not need to be a consensus on it, would there?

 

But I accept your position is that anybody who votes Brexit doesn't care for their children and that half the electorate must be mad or dimwitted. I also accept that whereas you consider that there is this overwhelming body of "evidence" supporting our remaining in the EU which you do not feel the need to question in any objective way, there is not one single shred of evidence supporting a Brexit that you consider to be worth listening to. So fundamentally, your arrogance continues unabated; you know best and pity the poor fools who dare to hold a different position from you, because you are right and they are wrong. How outraged must you be that the very future prosperity of the Nation is in the hands of half the population who are uneducated morons or a bit mental, eh?

[Wes Tender]

So what out of that lot is not going to happen if we leave the EU? Someone is going to have to manage the 85k POS devices, and issue driving licences each year.

 

Quite. A great business opportunity arises for somebody else if Fujitsu don't want it.

 

Although the Remainians will of course infer that there will be the loss of all of those 14,000 jobs and investment, the financial economy will come crashing down because nobody will be able to buy things with plastic, people will not be able to travel because they can't get a passport or renew one, everybody will go into debt because they can't operate their on-line banking, road deaths will increase because no new drivers will be incentivised to improve their skills in order to get a full licence and the defence communications implications must be what Dave had in mind when he predicted the potential for WW3 if we left.

[Whitey Grandad]

Is it advice or is it evidence? You seem strangely oblivious to the difference. If it was evidence, then there would not need to be a consensus on it, would there?

 

But I accept your position is that anybody who votes Brexit doesn't care for their children and that half the electorate must be mad or dimwitted. I also accept that whereas you consider that there is this overwhelming body of "evidence" supporting our remaining in the EU which you do not feel the need to question in any objective way, there is not one single shred of evidence supporting a Brexit that you consider to be worth listening to. So fundamentally, your arrogance continues unabated; you know best and pity the poor fools who dare to hold a different position from you, because you are right and they are wrong. How outraged must you be that the very future prosperity of the Nation is in the hands of half the population who are uneducated morons or a bit mental, eh?

Neatly summed up, West. I'm with Chapel Carlisle on this.

[Guan 2.0]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36331073

 

Number 10 downplays EU migrant figures

Downing Street has sought to play down figures showing that EU workers in the UK have risen to a record 2.1 million.

 

European workers now make up 6.8% of Britain's workforce of 31.5 million, according to recent figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

 

Supporters of the Vote Leave campaign said the latest numbers were evidence of "uncontrolled migration".

 

But the prime minister's office said the broader point was that the UK economy was growing.

[TwoPints]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36331073

 

Number 10 downplays EU migrant figures

Downing Street has sought to play down figures showing that EU workers in the UK have risen to a record 2.1 million.

 

European workers now make up 6.8% of Britain's workforce of 31.5 million, according to recent figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

 

Supporters of the Vote Leave campaign said the latest numbers were evidence of "uncontrolled migration".

 

But the prime minister's office said the broader point was that the UK economy was growing.

Yes, the last thing we want is immigrants coming over here, working, contributing to the economy and paying taxes. How dare they. They should be sponging of the NHS shouldn't they or claiming loads of benefits or somefin' like that.

[Guan 2.0]

Yes, the last thing we want is immigrants coming over here, working, contributing to the economy and paying taxes. How dare they. They should be sponging of the NHS shouldn't they or claiming loads of benefits or somefin' like that.

 

Was that directed at me? Because I presented both sides arguments unedited, directly from the BBC website?

[TwoPints]

Was that directed at me? Because I presented both sides arguments unedited, directly from the BBC website?

Nope, just commenting in general.

[moonraker]

Is it advice or is it evidence? You seem strangely oblivious to the difference. If it was evidence, then there would not need to be a consensus on it, would there?

 

But I accept your position is that anybody who votes Brexit doesn't care for their children and that half the electorate must be mad or dimwitted. I also accept that whereas you consider that there is this overwhelming body of "evidence" supporting our remaining in the EU which you do not feel the need to question in any objective way, there is not one single shred of evidence supporting a Brexit that you consider to be worth listening to. So fundamentally, your arrogance continues unabated; you know best and pity the poor fools who dare to hold a different position from you, because you are right and they are wrong. How outraged must you be that the very future prosperity of the Nation is in the hands of half the population who are uneducated morons or a bit mental, eh?

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. How one uses or interprets the evidence is up to them, learned informed, and credible analysis and studies are evidence. It is interesting that polling analysis is consistently showing that the better educated one is the [/b]more likely[/b]. they are to vote remain. You may conclude from this that they are more capable of comprehending and interpreting the evidence. The analysis is also showing that it is the older generations who are more likely to favour BREXIT, as we often cite our children’s and grandchildren’s futures in this debate perhaps we should consider more carefully their views on their future not those who remember the good old days and the empire.

[Nolan]

Yes, the last thing we want is immigrants coming over here, working, contributing to the economy and paying taxes. How dare they. They should be sponging of the NHS shouldn't they or claiming loads of benefits or somefin' like that.

We have a shortage of Curry chefs. We'd love them to come, but due to EU immigration we can not get anymore immigration from countries that may benefit or country more.

 

Immigration is essential for growth. So it would be fantastic if We could control our own countries policy on it.

[buctootim]

We have a shortage of Curry chefs. We'd love them to come, but due to EU immigration we can not get anymore immigration from countries that may benefit or country more.

 

Immigration is essential for growth. So it would be fantastic if We could control our own countries policy on it.

 

Parody right?

[Wes Tender]

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. How one uses or interprets the evidence is up to them, learned informed, and credible analysis and studies are evidence. It is interesting that polling analysis is consistently showing that the better educated one is the [/b]more likely[/b]. they are to vote remain. You may conclude from this that they are more capable of comprehending and interpreting the evidence. The analysis is also showing that it is the older generations who are more likely to favour BREXIT, as we often cite our children’s and grandchildren’s futures in this debate perhaps we should consider more carefully their views on their future not those who remember the good old days and the empire.

 

I have already pointed out to Charles that evidence is accepted in legal circles as being based on the professional opinion of experts in the field of criminal prosecutions, whereas here we are talking of opinions some of which might be dismissed as being biased towards personal gain or vested interests, thus rendering them flawed. Like Charles, you also fail to recognise that a consensus of opinion indicates that there must also be a body of expert opinion that opposes a certain position and that all opinions are based largely on suppositions and forecasts and that nobody at all has any clearly defined evidence as to what may occur, there having been no precedent on which to base their conclusions.

 

As you rightly say, it is up to the electorate as to how they view those opinions and no doubt they will take into account that it is in big businesses' interests to remain in and in the interests of small businesses to leave. Despite the inclination of the Remainians to concentrate on trade, people will have their own strong reasons for voting over a wide range of issues they consider important to them, much as they do in a General Election. They will also base their decision on which information they trust, based on who is giving it and whether they trust that person or organisation. I'm afraid that Cameron and Osborne don't rate very highly in the trust stakes. I have made these points many times before.

 

I observe that you also join the ranks of the arrogant who assert that the Brexit camp do not consider the importance of their children's or grandchildren's future, but that you ignore the strong possibility that many of the older voters have actually experienced the European project and are therefore better qualified to make a judgement on whether it was what they voted for originally and whether they like what it has become since. I am happy to report that my son and daughter are both campaigning for leave despite both having good educations. There are very few people still alive who remember the Empire, unless it was a cinema that is now a Bingo Hall.