Europe, Referendum & Brexit (formerly Europe..IN or OUT??)

(08-03-2016 17:55 )wackawoo Wrote:  I do happen to be responding to your posts.

You were on this thread long before, and multiple times before, I was here. You are the one that seems to see it as his duty to respond to almost every poster. Have you taken up guardianship?

Quote:I wouldn't expect you to understand an example of REAL or absolute poverty.

Oh, please that is beneath you... I tell you what, I'll promise not to mention any more nasty names (even if they are appropriate) as long as we stick to the subject. Deal?

Quote:No about stopping it...

I did say "or in part". If you control something you must stop parts of it.

I realise the economics, good and bad, of the current situation but we are trying to establish if Brexit has any reasonable chance of offering a better solution (on this one issue at the moment, I'm sure more aspects will be covered later ). The point is who do you bar from this country? And by how much?

The government would need net immigration figures down to the five figure values - they have stated that is their target. Anything less would not be viewed as a political success and would therefore very damaging to them at the ballot box in 2020. So that's a curb on both EU and non-EU then, because take a look at the current figures you quoted below, cutting one or other to the bone wont do, it has to be both.

How would that be achieved without damaging and problematic effects?

Quote:...gross immigration of 639,00 , thats well over half a million people in a country of 66 millions. And are ALL of those skilled and contributing? Does the number of 330,000 net, mean those allowing to stay? with 339,00 having been denied?

You are a little at sea here (and in your last post): "Gross" is the number of everyone coming in; the net figure is that figure minus those that have left in that year. People come and go. Some don't stay. That's what free movement is. The net figure is the addition to our population year-on-year.

Quote:It also claims in that most already had a job to come to, 65,000, how on earth does that happen? when in a resession jobs for poeple who live here are difficult to come by.

You were the one claiming how well we we're doing this country a few posts back. Make up your mind! (Also, technically, we are also no longer in recession but I grant you it doesn't feel that way most of the bloody time.) If 65,000 had jobs to come to that doesn't leave much room for getting the overall net figure down to five figures easily does it?

Quote:And of course your missing another point, the UK can recruit from over seas without being in Europe and without an influx of immigrants; this has always happened.

But can it? Or rather can it do it so well and easily as now. And your the one that wants to limit numbers to the 10's of thousands (I'm assuming you agree with the government on degree). There wont be very many of those Eastern European nurses left cutting numbers to a tenth of current levels will there? (The NHS is already struggling with paying huge wages to temporary staff. That would only exacerbate the problem.)

The world is not the same as it was. Even if we could unilaterally put ourselves as a country back the way we were in 1972 the EU will still be the EU we can't change that. We have to deal with them; trade, employment and so on. It's alright crying blackmail but they are just going to look after there interests. If you were living in those countries would you expect your politicians to bend over and be shafted for Britain's interests?

Quote:...it seems contradictory. Claiming ""Net migration from within the EU, at 183,000, has been LARGELY RESPONCIBLE for the recent rise"""

Then going on to claim """"While non-EU migrants still OUTNUMBER THOSE OF EU ORIGEN within the resident population,"

It's not contradictory at all if you can step away from the screaming Calais headlines for a moment. It's saying that non-EU immigration has always been relatively high. You said yourself it been this way before the EU. A lot have been here many many years. And although non-EU immigration is increasing at the moment it is EU immigration that is contributing most to the current up curve of the graph.

Quote:It then claims """ first point to note is that leaving the EU does not necessarily mean ending free movement,"""""

But it doesn't say why.

It does if you think about it. Further down it's saying (as Cameron does) that we'll have to stay in the single market (or make fresh agreements with all the member countries), the conditions of which will be that we have to abide by certain EU rules. Have a guess which one those will include?

Quote:""Substantial net migration from within the EU to the UK is is a recent development.""" Which is put down to immigration form poorer eastern European countries such as Romania and Bulgaria, not rich countries like Germany, France etc, nor people with skills.

Careful, are you saying Romanians or Bulgarians don't work for the NHS for instance?

Your link looks to be the source yes (or gateway to it). There is a more recent report I see from last month. Thanks for pointing me to that.

Quote:...effectivly blackmailed into keeping it that way. UK is economically more powerful.

Hmmm. Wouldn't you expect that power to be of more use sitting around the bargaining table rather than locked outside the room?

Quote:Is that REALLY true? ...

Cameron exaggerating? REALLY?! For what possible reason?

Oh, yeah, maybe he just thinks Brexit is a very bad idea for lots of reasons.