Europe: In or Out

[5ways]

Enjoy

Apparently mass immigration has been ongoing for quite some time. The report you are choosing to believe takes data from 2001 - 2011 does it not?

Any news-y/academic stuff I always think the most recent is better. Newer analysis will have summarised previous work so it saves a lot of effort.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

These low-skilled individuals also make a positive financial contribution and take a lot of jobs which British people won't - the cleaners, the nanny's the street cleaners. I have no problem with this.

maybe we should be making British people on long term unemployment do these jobs
regards
DR

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Any news-y/academic stuff I always think the most recent is better. Newer analysis will have summarised previous work so it saves a lot of effort.

True, like the Migration Watch paper summarised (and corrected) the data you presented.

Basically it's the same old story. Data and statistics can be provided to support any argument but there is no clear, cast iron, open and shut case showing mass immigration is overall having a net economically beneficial impact.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

if cameron comes back with nothing, it shows the eu doesn't want us.

hope so
regards
DR

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

True, like the Migration Watch paper summarised (and corrected) the data you presented.

Basically it's the same old story. Data and statistics can be provided to support any argument but there is no clear, cast iron, open and shut case showing mass immigration is overall having a net economically beneficial impact.

well the two foreign( look Romanian ) performers on the Cliffe bridge in Lewes have their collection box open WITH A FEW COINS IN IT SO THEY MUST BE HAPPY
regards
DR

 

[Soulman]

These low-skilled individuals also make a positive financial contribution and take a lot of jobs which British people won't - the cleaners, the nanny's the street cleaners. I have no problem with this.

So let us look at this. The cleaners, carers, nanny's etc are presumably on low wages here, in their own countries i would assume their wage would be about a 5th of what they can earn here, so lets say at best £200 a month. If their partner is living with 3 kids in their home country then presumably again the cost of living is low, so the child benefit would be about £180 a month sent over from here.....almost as much as their wage out there. As we have established that the cost of living out there is much cheaper then why if we have to support the family in this country can it not be the same amount as that family would receive from their own child benefit system....after all the money from our CB is used in the economy of that country.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

A spokesman for the Greek government representation in Brussels has confirmed to the BBC that Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras is looking for support from the UK government on migration issues at the summit but denied that he has threatened to veto the summit conclusions on the UK if he doesn’t get his way.

Mr Tsipras will have a global approach towards the summit conclusions. If he is to show support for Cameron, he wants to see support when it comes to migration.

However he went on that it was wrong to say it was an effective veto, saying “that is the wrong term”.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-35601369

Sounds promising so we get agreement to restrict a few benefits that will have little or no impact on immigration while possibly agreeing to take our 'fair share' of the million plus refugees or contribute financially.

 

[5ways]

True, like the Migration Watch paper summarised (and corrected) the data you presented.

Basically it's the same old story. Data and statistics can be provided to support any argument but there is no clear, cast iron, open and shut case showing mass immigration is overall having a net economically beneficial impact.

It's not the same old story. The even newer and shinier data from the Oxford migration observatory I linked actually covers the difference figures which Migration Watch and the UCL academics found and how different methodologies lead to them. Which is interesting.

They also note in their key findings that

"Cross-country evidence for the years 2007-2009 suggests that the fiscal impact of migration in the UK (+ 0.46% of GDP) was greater than the fiscal impact of migration in 16 other OECD countries. The UK occupies the 11th position (out of 27 countries) in regards to the positive fiscal impact of migration across OECD countries."

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/fiscal-impact-immigration-uk

This indicates again that EU migration is a net positive. Whereas, interestingly, it is a net negative in Germany and France.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

It's not the same old story. The even newer and shinier data from the Oxford migration observatory I linked actually covers the difference figures which Migration Watch and the UCL academics found and how different methodologies lead to them. Which is interesting.

They also note in their key findings that

"Cross-country evidence for the years 2007-2009 suggests that the fiscal impact of migration in the UK (+ 0.46% of GDP) was greater than the fiscal impact of migration in 16 other OECD countries. The UK occupies the 11th position (out of 27 countries) in regards to the positive fiscal impact of migration across OECD countries."

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/fiscal-impact-immigration-uk

This indicates again that EU migration is a net positive. Whereas, interestingly, it is a net negative in Germany and France.

So to clarify if you cherry pick a specific 2 year period it shows a possible benefit which you then say indicates EU migration is an overall net positive?

Why not 2004 - 2015?

 

[Soulman]

A spokesman for the Greek government representation in Brussels has confirmed to the BBC that Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras is looking for support from the UK government on migration issues at the summit but denied that he has threatened to veto the summit conclusions on the UK if he doesn’t get his way.

Mr Tsipras will have a global approach towards the summit conclusions. If he is to show support for Cameron, he wants to see support when it comes to migration.

However he went on that it was wrong to say it was an effective veto, saying “that is the wrong term”.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-35601369

Sounds promising so we get agreement to restrict a few benefits that will have little or no impact on immigration while possibly agreeing to take our 'fair share' of the million plus refugees or contribute financially.

Let's hope Dave comes back with nothing if this is the scenario, one small step forward to a quicker retreat than an Italian tank.

 

[Creaky]

That's fine...........so surely it would be even better to allow the premiership footballers, French hedge fund managers and other assorted wealthy types to come unhindered, and then bin off the millions of unskilled and/or low skilled foreign Herberts that are clearly a drain on the UK taxpayer.

I am sure this can be sorted out, maybe a kind of points based system that means we get those that we need or want, and reject those who we dont.

Glad you are on board.

Are you really suggesting that if we do vote to leave the EU then the millions of unskilled, (low paid), EU migrants already working in this country would be deported! The NHS would collapse without cleaners and catering staff, the care sector would no longer be viable and as for tourism in Brighton where would they stay if all the hotels closed down?

Legal non-EU migrants would of course be secure in their residency as this doesn't depend on EU membership.

 

[5ways]

So to clarify if you cherry pick a specific 2 year period it shows a possible benefit which you then say indicates EU migration is an overall net positive?

Why not 2004 - 2015?

OECD data is from a reputable and independent source and it was part of the key findings in the Observatory report. If it's good enough for them it's good enough for me.

Similarily the OBR is also an independent and reputable source who "suggests higher net migration reduces pressure on government debt over time. This result is based on the fact that incoming migrants are assumed to be more likely to be of working age than the population in general."

 

[JC Footy Genius]

OECD data is from a reputable and independent source and it was part of the key findings in the Observatory report. If it's good enough for them it's good enough for me.

Similarily the OBR is also an independent and reputable source who "suggests higher net migration reduces pressure on government debt over time. This result is based on the fact that incoming migrants are assumed to be more likely to be of working age than the population in general." View attachment 72499

Nah your just cherry picking your cut and paste snippets, 2 year data points , now government debt projections.

I'll choose this one.

Key points

The evidence suggests that the fiscal impact of migration in the UK is small (less than +/-1% of GDP) and differs by migrant group (e.g. EEA migrants vs non-EEA migrants, recent migrants vs all migrants). The existing results are subject to numerous key assumptions.

 

[5ways]

Nah your just cherry picking your cut and paste snippets, 2 year data points , now government debt projections.

I'll choose this one.

Key points

The evidence suggests that the fiscal impact of migration in the UK is small (less than +/-1% of GDP) and differs by migrant group (e.g. EEA migrants vs non-EEA migrants, recent migrants vs all migrants). The existing results are subject to numerous key assumptions.

You call it cherry-picking, I call it marshalling the facts. There is lots of evidence showing a positive fiscal impact, with caveats and methodological differences, and there is only the MigrationWatch paper (haven't looked at the Parliament paper you linked yet) which shows a negative impact. The OBR, UCL, Oxford and OECD are good sources and all have concluded there is a positive impact. The weight of argument is with a net positive fiscal impact.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

You call it cherry-picking, I call it marshalling the facts. There is lots of evidence showing a positive fiscal impact, with caveats and methodological differences, and there is only the MigrationWatch paper (haven't looked at the Parliament paper you linked yet) which shows a negative impact. The OBR, UCL, Oxford and OECD are good sources and all have concluded there is a positive impact. The weight of argument is with a net positive fiscal impact.

There is a lot of evidence suggesting very little overall fiscal impact one way or the other with numerous caveats and methodologies rendering most findings highly speculative. You can only say the weight of argument is with a net positive impact if you have read and understood all the reports, compared like with like etc. Your statement is meaningless.

 

[pb21]

There is a lot of evidence suggesting very little overall fiscal impact one way or the other with numerous caveats and methodologies rendering most findings highly speculative. You can only say the weight of argument is with a net positive impact if you have read and understood all the reports, compared like with like etc. Your statement is meaningless.

So are you saying his statement is meaningless, but yours isn't?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

So are you saying his statement is meaningless, but yours isn't?

I'm not claiming to know what the weight of evidence is on this subject, I haven't read all the reports on this topic nor has 5ways. There are so many caveats and methodologies in these reports it's impossible to come out with any definitive statement on net benefits or negatives of immigration. IMO

 

[pb21]

A good start for you would be to ignore some of the scare claims by the IN camp
Here are 10 Myths you may hear.

10 Myths

Blah blah blah

http://www.betteroffout.net/the-case/10-eu-myths-about-withdrawl/

I'm not claiming to know what the weight of evidence is on this subject, I haven't read all the reports on this topic nor has 5ways. There are so many caveats and methodologies in these reports it's impossible to come out with any definitive statement on net benefits or negatives of immigration. IMO

On that basis everything Pastafarian posted is meaningless? In fact everything everyone has posted in this thread is meaningless because no one has read everything on the EU with all the caveat and various methodologies, and even if they had that wouldn't be everything that could possibly be written or reported about the EU!

 

[JC Footy Genius]

On that basis everything Pastafarian posted is meaningless? In fact everything everyone has posted in this thread is meaningless because no one has read everything on the EU with all the caveat and various methodologies, and even if they had that wouldn't be everything that could possibly be written or reported about the EU!

Surely we all know everything we all post on NSC is meaningless?!

No the point is claiming to know where the weight of evidence is on any given topic. I think they call it overplaying your hand.

By the way I expect a blizzard of facts and links is currently being assembled to finish me off !

 

[The Rivet]

For me the real EU Ref question should be:
Retain Sovereignty.
Give it away.

Cameron is not really addressing any of the real important issues the electorate rate as important.

The deal is weak, dull and even that may be watered down over the weekend.

The result is a drunken piss in a bucket. Who can recommend that?