How much is the Referendum Campaign influencing you? NEW POLL.

GT49er said:

Yet still more are shifting towards leave than the other way. Not a lot, maybe, but a definite trend. Would be interesting to hear the remainers' spin on this (unacceptable to them) fact. We won't, though ... ... ...

Click to expand...

Your claimed ability to tell me what I'm going to do is mildly grating. This week the Express carried a front page headline about 'EU Rapists' and I have always thought that once the tabloids started cranking up the immigrant hordes rhetoric the Leave campaign would prosper to the point where they could easily win this thing. I have mentioned her before but my sister in law, who I doubt has ever met a European immigrant apart from my son's wife and who has no interest in politics beyond her sweet village street, is now convinced that the England she knows will disappear under the feet of Bulgarian pickpockets within a couple of years. The campaign is working.

Green Cross Code Man said:

Just what do you suggest the original diktat was referring to by the word 'catastrophic'?

Sent from the boot of Lingard

Click to expand...

Oh good grief - it was referring to Hitler, Nazism, total war, invasion. You misinterpreted the quotation.

Lincoln Imp said:

I have mentioned her before but my sister in law, who I doubt has ever met a European immigrant apart from my son's wife and who has no interest in politics beyond her sweet village street, is now convinced that the England she knows will disappear under the feet of Bulgarian pickpockets within a couple of years. The campaign is working.

Click to expand...

I happen to work with many Eastern Europeans, perhaps if you are going to try and put in an over the top "example" you should do your homework, Bulgarians are not pickpockets...... nice people actually, albeit too much immigration.

Bozza said:

Gone for "Began thinking ‘DON’T KNOW’ – still think ‘DON’T KNOW’" because I have still not read nor listened to a single second of debate on it.

In fact, I don't even know when the referendum is, other than sometime in June.

Click to expand...

I'm correct in thinking that when Calde came to the UK he had no club right? If that was the case if we were not members of the EU he never would have been admitted, and he likely never would have scored with his face.

Lincoln Imp said:

Oh good grief - it was referring to Hitler, Nazism, total war, invasion. You misinterpreted the quotation.

Click to expand...

Yes it was referring to Hitler. But the quote implicitly states that national sovereignty leads to catastrophe. It is nonsense. You cannot interpret it any other way as you have already made your mind up/been brainwashed.

Sent from the boot of Lingard

5ways said:

I'm correct in thinking that when Calde came to the UK he had no club right? If that was the case if we were not members of the EU he never would have been admitted, and he likely never would have scored with his face.

Click to expand...

You really do either avoid answereing or bring in desperate examples.
Brexit on immigration is CONTROLLED immigration, so stop trying to make out that anyone as in the Calde case is not welcome.

Soulman said:

You really do either avoid answereing or bring in desperate examples.
Brexit on immigration is CONTROLLED immigration, so stop trying to make out that anyone as in the Calde case is not welcome.

Click to expand...

I don't avoid answering questions and if you want to talk about desperate examples making a tenuous link between CAP funds and animal lovers is much more of a stretch.

Controlled immigration means exactly that. Calde was without a club, an economic migrant. Why would he have been admitted under a points based system?

5ways said:

I don't avoid answering questions and if you want to talk about desperate examples making a tenuous link between CAP funds and animal lovers is much more of a stretch.

Controlled immigration means exactly that. Calde was without a club, an economic migrant. Why would he have been admitted under a points based system?

Click to expand...

This " tenuous link " has it happened, is it true, or is it a link like you put up which is bandied about as "fact" but is in fact just an opinion copied and pasted from a source you agree with.....

5ways said:

I don't avoid answering questions

Click to expand...

From the other thread, like many others no answer.

" Quote Originally Posted by 5ways View Post
Worth noting that this skilled labour's education has been paid for by their country of origin. The average EU migrant with a degree has taken from their native system and transferred their skills and tax potential to the UK for free. It is a golden goose. Also EU migrants pay into public services rather than take from them. They subsidise native Britons public services. They are much less likely to claim any benefit."

My answer and your avoidance again.



""Skilled education payed for by their country of origin"
Many times on the EU threads you have stated about wages not being affected by immigrants, many times i have stated the downturn in wages in the Construction Industry, i suppose your job may not be affected by immigration and that is why you state WRONGLY for everyone.
So you move onto another stupid assessment, let me tell you that as a timed served educated sparks, these " skilled labour's education has been paid for by their country of origin" are trained by US, the JIB send trainers out to EU countries to train up electricians. It is OUR subs that help educated thiose from another country instead of training OUR own.


Just to put your lofty and wrong view into perspective, those trained are then placed in jobs in the UK...... then after coming here the cost of training is deducted out of their wages.
Conclusion: No jobs/training for OUR own, lower wages for OUR own.
You just keep spouting and copying and pasting "facts" that suit, and arguing on things that you have little experience of other than what you read. "

So, as you continuously keep stating that immigration on the large scale we have witnessed does not affect wages or jobs and you still spout on a subject and example you seem to know very little about.
A few years ago, probably while you were still at school or college, a local well known Engineering firm had many employees come over from Poland to learn the jobs from our locals. sadly the locals knew that in a fairly short period of time, and after the Poles had learned, the factory was shutting and being moved lock stock and barrel to Poland.
So don't give me this ""Skilled education payed for by their country of origin"........ more examples can be forthcoming.

Soulman said:

This " tenuous link " has it happened, is it true, or is it a link like you put up which is bandied about as "fact" but is in fact just an opinion copied and pasted from a source you agree with.....

Click to expand...

It's tenuous because the CAP funds don't go to bullfighting, they go to the Spanish farmer who happens to use those funds for bullfighting - apparently.

5ways said:

It's tenuous because the CAP funds don't go to bullfighting, they go to the Spanish farmer who happens to use those funds for bullfighting - apparently.

Click to expand...

Any more views on immigration not affecting wages and jobs for our own. You have been very sure that it has had no effect.

Soulman said:

From the other thread, like many others no answer.

" Quote Originally Posted by 5ways View Post
Worth noting that this skilled labour's education has been paid for by their country of origin. The average EU migrant with a degree has taken from their native system and transferred their skills and tax potential to the UK for free. It is a golden goose. Also EU migrants pay into public services rather than take from them. They subsidise native Britons public services. They are much less likely to claim any benefit."

My answer and your avoidance again.



""Skilled education payed for by their country of origin"
Many times on the EU threads you have stated about wages not being affected by immigrants, many times i have stated the downturn in wages in the Construction Industry, i suppose your job may not be affected by immigration and that is why you state WRONGLY for everyone.
So you move onto another stupid assessment, let me tell you that as a timed served educated sparks, these " skilled labour's education has been paid for by their country of origin" are trained by US, the JIB send trainers out to EU countries to train up electricians. It is OUR subs that help educated thiose from another country instead of training OUR own.


Just to put your lofty and wrong view into perspective, those trained are then placed in jobs in the UK...... then after coming here the cost of training is deducted out of their wages.
Conclusion: No jobs/training for OUR own, lower wages for OUR own.
You just keep spouting and copying and pasting "facts" that suit, and arguing on things that you have little experience of other than what you read. "

So, as you continuously keep stating that immigration on the large scale we have witnessed does not affect wages or jobs and you still spout on a subject and example you seem to know very little about.
A few years ago, probably while you were still at school or college, a local well known Engineering firm had many employees come over from Poland to learn the jobs from our locals. sadly the locals knew that in a fairly short period of time, and after the Poles had learned, the factory was shutting and being moved lock stock and barrel to Poland.
So don't give me this ""Skilled education payed for by their country of origin"........ more examples can be forthcoming.

Click to expand...

Across the whole economy wages have fallen due to the financial crisis and not EU migration. Wages are now rising as is inward migration. I'm unfamiliar with the JIB and the training scheme you're talking about.

Yes there are examples where it is more cost efficient and effective to move production. This sucks, but it is also the nature of all business. Why do companies choose to come here? Take car factories. It's because you have specialised and well-trained labour. Businesses and individuals both have to make themselves competitive.

5ways said:

Wages are now rising as is inward migration. I'm unfamiliar with the JIB and the training scheme you're talking about.

Click to expand...

Wages are not rising, you seem to be unfamiliar with many things/subjects. Try researching before copying and pasting "facts" that you think are true, that way it may cut down the bullsh1t links you put up.

5ways said:

Across the whole economy wages have fallen due to the financial crisis and not EU migration. Wages are now rising as is inward migration. I'm unfamiliar with the JIB and the training scheme you're talking about.

Yes there are examples where it is more cost efficient and effective to move production. This sucks, but it is also the nature of all business. Why do companies choose to come here? Take car factories. It's because you have specialised and well-trained labour. Businesses and individuals both have to make themselves competitive.

Click to expand...

How can you possibly think that an increased supply of something (labour) does not reduce its price (wages) ? Its how markets work.

Neville's Breakfast said:

How can you possibly think that an increased supply of something (labour) does not reduce its price (wages) ? Its how markets work.

Click to expand...

Glad you picked up on it. The view beggars belief, i wonder if he reads what he types. Unbelievable.

5ways said:

It's tenuous because the CAP funds don't go to bullfighting, they go to the Spanish farmer who happens to use those funds for bullfighting - apparently.

Click to expand...

Lolol!

Sent from the boot of Lingard

5ways said:

It's tenuous because the CAP funds don't go to bullfighting, they go to the Spanish farmer who happens to use those funds for bullfighting - apparently.

Click to expand...

.......... " CAP funds don't go to bullfighting, they go to the Spanish farmer who happens to use those funds for bullfighting"........ happen he does

Neville's Breakfast said:

How can you possibly think that an increased supply of something (labour) does not reduce its price (wages) ? Its how markets work.

Click to expand...

The increase in supply also increases demand. If the economy is growing so will wages. When the economy was contracting wages fell. We're on the up again. I know it is counter-intuitive.

EU migration — the effects on UK jobs and wages


"There is little evidence that more migrants push wages down or unemployment up. Economists from the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics say that when they look at the areas with the largest increase in EU immigration, these have not seen the sharpest falls in employment or wages since 2008.

Jonathan Wadsworth, one of the authors of the CEP report and a former member of the government’s Migration Advisory Committee, says: “There is still no evidence of an overall negative impact of immigration on jobs, [or] wages.”"
https://next.ft.com/content/0deacb52-178b-11e6-9d98-00386a18e39d

Sorrel said:

I hope this doesn't become a daily fixture.

Click to expand...

Something I've learnt from NSC.

If it's football, we all discuss our thoughts in a relatively calm way. If it's politics, and in this case the Referendum, we get the 'remains' and 'leaves' arguing their points until they're blue in the face. I'm never going to convince the remain posters to vote leave, and they will never convince me to vote remain.

I guess those who are undecided are the key battleground, but there doesn't seem to be too many of them on here.

5ways said:

EU migration — the effects on UK jobs and wages


. Economists from the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics

Jonathan Wadsworth, one of the authors of the CEP report and a former member of the government’s Migration Advisory Committee, says: “There is still no evidence of an overall negative impact of immigration on jobs, [or] wages.”"
https://next.ft.com/content/0deacb52-178b-11e6-9d98-00386a18e39d

Click to expand...

This London School of Economics and the CEP??.......Credible, yeah ok.


Centre for Economic Performance report: EU-funded, highly selective and simply not credible
March 18, 2016

Commenting on the publication of a Centre for Economic Performance report on ‘Brexit’, Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive of Vote Leave said:

‘These ridiculous claims lack credibility as they come from the same economic sages who said we would be better off scrapping the pound. Back then we were also warned jobs and trade would be at risk if we didn't join the euro. Such claims were wrong then, and they are wrong now. It’s safer to take back control of our economy, our democracy and borders by Voting Leave.’

Notes to editors



The Centre for Economic Performance IS FUNDED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION and in 2000 SUPPORTED scrapping the pound, calling for ‘immediate UK membership’ of the euro. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

The Centre admits receiving funding from the European Commission (CEP, 18 March 2016, link).
The London School for Economics received €1,993,154 from the European Commission in 2014 alone (EU Financial Transparency System, link).
In 2000, the Centre for Economic Performance argued that: ‘The economic arguments for immediate UK membership in EMU… are overwhelming… The UK is too small and too open to be an optimal currency area’ (CEP, July 2000, link).



The paper wrongly assume that trade would be reduced as a result of the leaving the EU. Its principal claims are based on leaving the EU ‘reducing trade’. Even pro-EU campaigners admit that the UK would have little difficulty striking a free trade agreement with the EU following withdrawal:

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has said: 'If we were outside the EU altogether, we’d still be trading with all these European countries, of course we would... Of course the trading would go on. Sometimes … There’s a lot of scaremongering on all sides of this debate. Of course the trading would go on' (Andrew Marr Show, 6 January 2013, link).
The UK's former Ambassador to the EU and leading supporter of BSE, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, has admitted 'there is no doubt that the UK could secure a free trade agreement with the EU. That is not an issue' (Lords Hansard, 2 November 2015, col. 1492, link).
The pro-EU CBI has said 'the UK is highly likely to secure a Free Trade Agreement with the EU, and such an agreement would be likely to be negotiated at an extremely high level of ambition relative to other FTAs' (Our Global Future, 4 November 2013, p. 152, link).
The pro-EU Centre for European Reform has accepted that 'given the importance of the UK market to the Eurozone, the UK would probably have little difficulty in negotiating an FTA’ ('The economic consequences of leaving the EU', June 2014, p. 31, link).



Given the current convergence between the EU and UK regulatory standards, the authors' ‘forecasts’ of significant rises in non-tariff barriers (between 2% and 6%) are also extremely pessimistic. Comparisons with the United States, where there is currently no regulatory convergence, are therefore highly misleading.



The paper inaccurately claims that ‘future market integration’ would benefit the UK economy. No evidence is provided to substantiate this point. The paper’s principal argument is that the costs of intra-EU trade will fall 20% to 40% faster than the rest of the world in the next decade.

Intra-EU trade has been falling, not rising, as a result of the ‘single market’. Between 1999 and 2014, intra-EU trade as a percentage of EU trade in goods fell from 67.3% to 63.0%. This suggests the ‘single market’ has failed to boost economic integration within the EU (Eurostat, 2016, link).
Evidence shows the 'single market' has failed Britain. In 1994, exports of goods and services to the EU represented 56.9% of British exports (ONS, Pink Book, 2001, link). This had fallen to 44.4% in 2014, meaning that under the ‘single market’, British exports to the EU have been growing at a slower rate than exports to the rest of the world. The 'single market' has not led to greater regional economic integration in the case of the UK.
Even the Commission admits the ‘single market’ is of little benefit to UK services. In 2007, the European Commission admitted that the ‘Internal Market does not yet fully play its role in the services sectors’, noting that in the trade of services, ‘there is little difference between trade between EU25 Member States and trade between the EU and third countries’ (European Commission, January 2007, link). This is as good as an admission that the ‘single market’ is of no overall benefit to UK service exporters. In 2014, 63% of the UK's service exports went to countries outside the EU (ONS, Pink Book, 2015, link). It makes no rational sense to continue to subject these exporters to EU 'single market' regulation which ought to have no application to them.



The paper relies on erroneous estimates of the benefits of the 'single market' which has failed Britain. The authors claim that the UK would be ‘harmed by not fully participating in the EU’s market integration programmes.’ In fact, successive academic studies have concluded that EU integration has not resulted in economic growth:

G Leach, ‘EU Membership: What’s The Bottom Line?’, Institute of Directors Policy Paper, (London, March 2000): this report concluded that ‘the aggregate impact of the EU Budget, CAP, Customs Union, Single Market, EU Social Welfare Model and EU related Foreign Direct Investment is negative for the UK economy.
G Brown, ‘Global Europe: full-employment Europe’, (October 2005) claimed that 'it is estimated that barriers to external trade and investment – such as tariffs, quotas and unjustifiably restrictive standards – could cost Europe’s consumers up to 7 per cent of EU GDP.'
R Lea & B Binley, ‘Britain and Europe: a new relationship’, Global Vision, (2012). This large report by Global Vision argued for Britain to leave the EU. The central claim was that while ‘there have undoubtedly been some benefits from the Single Market… the costs seem to have comprehensively outweighed the benefits. The EU Commission has conceded that the EU’s regulations are costly.’