UKC

While Norway and Switzerland are not exact examples of what we might face post Brexit (smaller populations, richer, different economies), they are all we have to go on. Both voted to stay outside the EU in referendums yet have had to accept paying in almost as much without a say in setting the rules and, crucially, have had to accept free movement - and hence free immigration - in order to be part of the single market. I read today that immigration into Norway from the EU is higher per head than for the UK. To me this is the single argument that has never been satisfactorily addressed by the Brexit camp. I am for Remain - as readers of my posts on here will probably have gathered - but I still have some reservations about the EU. I'd be interested in any cogent arguments which would address this issue.

In reply to Pekkie:

How would leaving the EU affect you?

In reply to Dave the Rave:

Well for me it would, threaten my job. In voting in.

In reply to Pekkie: the impact of migrants in the nordics is vastly different to the UK. They impact the employment market much less as most don't speak the native language at all etc... Land is plentiful so there is more housing, although both Sweden and Norway are now at capacity in terms of migrant housing...

I could go on, but I know you have your stance and won't be swayed.

In reply to summo:



Please do, and show us some figures on the employment impact of migration over here, the employment impact of migration over there, and then show the difference and define "much less".

You know, things like facts and stuff

In reply to Mr Lopez:

No time right now, we are an hour ahead and bed calls. But first you need to differentiate between eu migrant job seeker, who has no rights to anything like unemployment benefit, healthcare etc.. and asylum seeker who gets roughly the standard eu package.

In reply to Pekkie:

Why would we be anything like Norway? They are the worlds 28th largest economy and we are 5th. We have 7 times the GDP of Norway whose GDP in 2015 was just a billion more than Iran. We are in a very powerful position for our own deal and as for Cameron to initially promise he would campaign for brexit if he didn't gain the concessions that he wanted and now to talk down our country and deny that we would have any chance outside the EU is very disappointing. I worry that people may vote to stay in thinking they are voting for the status quo and it will be nothing of the sort. Both in or out are unknowns but I am voting out.
Kind regards
Chris

In reply to Mr Lopez:



Here is a clue, what percent of Europeans speak Norwegian or Swedish.... Not many... So people can hardly arrive and just pick up jobs. Only very specific sectors like programming could you get a job speaking only English. Most eu migrants head home after a few months when they realise the Nordic dream needs graft.

In reply to Mr Lopez:


Summo knows when any data he can give will make no difference to that persons position, so if people are genuinely interested they should do their own research, chances are if they are asking others to do it, they are not really wanting to know the answer, they just want to give others a thankless task to do.

In reply to summo:

Right. So what you mean to say is that you have no facts or figures to back your statements, correct?

In reply to Mr Lopez:


Well, feel free to supply some.

Yours

In voter, for reasons I thought were obvious but, I am now scared to find, appear not to be

In reply to Dave the Rave:


Not much. I am retired so I suppose only an economic disaster would affect me. For my kids it's different. None of the choices are perfect and you can't predict the future but, to me, the only sensible choice is remain.

In reply to Garston:

In terms of GDP per head Norway is one of the richest countries in the world and Switzerland is not far behind. Yet they had to agree to the terms offered. Reality is often not palatable.

In reply to JJL:

I'm not the one who made a statement without backing it up, but i do know that the studies show that the impact of migration in the UK labour market regarding both job availability and average wages is null, as in it has no appreciable impact.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/labour-market-effects-im...

So for it to be "much less" in Nordic countries then it has to be "much more" possitive, as in raising average wages and reducing unemployment.

In reply to Jim C:


OK, it probably won't change my mind but the offer is there. Make the case.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

So migration a non issue?
Just the economic impact then?

In reply to Pekkie:

Fair enough. That's why everyone has a vote.
What I don't understand is why have the current government given us a referendum when most people that you speak to don't have a clue on the implications of voting either way. Bizarre.

In reply to JJL:


Read the original post. Norway and Switzerland had to agree to free movement and immigration to be part of the single market. So the immigration argument dissolves into dust?

In reply to JJL:


Economic impact of what? Immigration? 'Significantly' positive in the UK by EU migrants apparently

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

In reply to summo:


Last time I went climbing in Sweden it was with two German doctors and one Irish biochemist. All spoke Swedish and the Germans said it took them about two weeks to learn!

I know there are nearly 5,000 British people resident in Finland and that's a fraction of the number of Brits resident in Sweden, so I'd be interested to hear what you mean. There is surely plenty of seasonal workers who come for a job; in Finland Poles working on the Oukiluoto reactor for example, or specifically recruited Spanish nurses, but many of them seem to have ended up putting down roots and planning to stay, so what's behind your statement? Is that different in Sweden?

In reply to Pekkie:

That Norway and Switzerland chose to agree x and y does not mean they had to, and nor does it mean that we would have to. We're in a different position. Your basic premise is false, and the questioned designed so it can't be answered. What's the point?

In reply to Pekkie:


GDP per capita doesn't give you any bargaining power, if it did Luxembourg and mighty Liechtenstein would be calling all the shots in Europe, both vastly wealthier than Norway or Switzerland per person. Its total size of your economy that gives you clout, plus the influence of being in the big boys clubs, G7, UN security council etc.

In reply to thomasadixon:


We are asked to consider a jump into the unknown. Who knows what might happen? The experience of Norway and Switzerland is all we've got.

In reply to pec:


Well, you could be right. Who knows?

In reply to Pekkie:
It does not matter one way or another what the consequences of exit are - we HAVE to do it or we have no self-respect or self-determination and no future.
The high risk strategy is to stay where we are - in a no-man's land of corruption, embezzlement and no audit for 22 years.
DC

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

I was the recipient of an EU audit for a major infrastructure project and I can assure you that it was as rigorous as you could want. I have also researched the EU's fight against graft - eg the mafia in Italy. Your comments are slanderous.

In reply to Pekkie:

And the experiences of all the other countries in the world, over many years of history. And the knowledge that we've run our own country for many years, and still run most parts of it in practice. We change who makes the rules and largely the infrastructure remains. We've also got the knowledge of how the EU operates etc. We have huge amounts of information.

Saying Norway did x so we must do x ignores the reality that only Norway does exactly that, each country does things their own way.

In reply to thomasadixon:


Well yes. Read my original post. I accepted that Norway and Switzerland are different to us. But their experience is all we have to go on.

In reply to pec:


Exactly what I was about to write. GDP per head is irreverent, it's total market size which matters in this case and Britain is many times larger than Norway. There is no point trying to draw comparisons between Britain and the other non EU member states in Europe, they have their arrangements which they negotiated according to their own needs and economic powers and we will have ours, whatever they may be.

But to ask the OP a question, Why do you think Norway and Switzerland don't want to be in the EU, despite still having to pay if it's so great?

In reply to Pekkie:


Norway is much wealthier per person than we are, the wealthy are much less affected by mass immigration than the poor so it has less affect on the lives of most Norwegians. As a wealthier country their health and education systems are better able to cope with the increased demand. Norway has a debt to GDP ratio of about 30%, ours is nearly 90%, they are not saddled with the debt interest repayment burden that we have.

Norway's population density is 13 people per km2, the UK is 256 (England is 413). Is it any wonder our transport network is at gridlock and we have a housing crisis? Today's figures show net migration of a third of a milion, so that's a million extra people to house every 3 years.
The Norwegians have the money and the space to cope, our public services, transport network and housing supply are at breaking point. Nobody ever asked to have this level of immigration imposed on us and we can never begin to control it whilst the EU refuses to consider the ramifications of its one size must fit all policies.

Even with the gun held to their heads of the threat of Brexit (which could actually destroy the EU), the EU wouldn't even begin to consider compromise on freedom of movement. If they had been willing to make some concessions on this then there is almost no chance we would vote to leave.

Freedom of movement just does not impact on most Norwegians in anything like the way it does on us even if the numbers on paper look bigger.

In reply to Pekkie:


I'm not interested in changing anyone's mind, vote as you like.

In reply to Pekkie:


Only if you ignore the current reality of the vast majority of the world and all of history.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


Good question! The populations of both countries rejected EU membership in referendums against the wishes of politicians, economists etc. A victory for democracy? Well no. The politicians had to accept reality and agree deals that involved paying almost as much with no say in the rules and acceptance of free movement in order to be part of the single market. It's not pretty but that's the way it is.

In reply to Jim C:


So no arguments, then?

In reply to Dave Cumberland:


In a debate characterised by exaggeration, this is right up there with the best.

In reply to thomasadixon:


You'll have to help me out and expand on that. How does 'the current reality of the world and all of history' help us to predict what will happen after Brexit if we've only got the experience of Norway and Switzerland to go on?

In reply to Pekkie:


We *do not* only have the experience of Norway and Switzerland to go on.

In reply to Mr Lopez:



That's a very narrow study which only considers the impacts on wages and employment. It doesn't consider the wider effects on school's, the NHS, transport, housing etc etc.

Even when studies do consider these things they take a very narrow time frame, they seem to forget that all these young fit immigrants who don't put much strain on the health service and help to prop up our state pensions will sooner or later have kids who will need healthcare and education and then they get older still and become ill themselves and start drawing a pension and so place the same burden on the state as everyone else. Regression to the mean

How long do we go on propping up an ageing population by expanding the population through immigration only for them to age and need propping up by yet more immigration and so on ad infinitum? Its an unsustainable population ponzi scheme and all the while our quality of life declines as more and more people are shoehorned into a finite space.

In reply to thomasadixon:


Obvious question. Who else's experience do we have?

In reply to Pekkie:


No, I have said that I am for leaving, you are for staying, it's not my aim to persuade you , or anyone else either way. I have no idea if that is your aim or not.
We will all vote, and as no one really knows what the future will be , what it will be,.

There will be as many risks (and opportunities ) in the future , whatever way it goes. I will respect the outcome, and make the best of it.

In reply to Pekkie:


I think he means that the vast majority of the world aren't and haven't been through most of history, members of the EU. Countries similar to us, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea etc (i.e. affluent democracies) seem to do fine without being in the EU.

In reply to Pekkie:

What pec said (thanks pec).

In reply to pec:


I agree. Unrestricted immigration to this country is unwise but do you realise that after Brexit we would have to accept free movement to be part of the single market? A vote to remain should not be the end. It should be the beginning of a process to reform the EU - and in particular the principle of free movement being extended to countries with much lower wage levels. We can only do that from within.

In reply to pec:


All those countries are a long way away and have different histories and economies. After the war Britain went into an economic decline and the economy only picked up after we joined The EEC. We are not an island in the Pacific, we are part of Europe.

In reply to TobyA:

I don't know of anyone who has learnt any Nordic language in two weeks, they are pretty unique.

I do know many people struggle for work in their field until their language skills are good enough. There skills gaps like IT, where you may jump in straight away, doctorate studies etc.. but average Joe needs the lingo.

As you know Swedish, Norwegian, danish are pretty similar, so there is a lot of worker travel between the three, which would all register as eu worker migration. There must be a few thousand who commute over the bridge every day in either direction alone.

Seasonal workers, your berry pickers flown in etc.. ?

The op hasn't differientiated between eu migrants in Norway and asylum seekers either, they are worlds apart.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:




Peel back the argument of many outers and this sort of "no one tells me what to do" thinking seems to be the most important or coherent thought they have.

It's simply tosh. We want to trade with Europe, which I think we do, then we'll still need to play by their rules...so in that sense they will still tell us what to do. The difference will be we will have no say in those rules? Ok, so let's trade with everyone else and stick two fingers up to them. Fine, but let's hope our juddering economic recovery can survive the adjustment. Maybe it can, who knows.

The industry I work in, construction, has just spend the past 3 years dragging itself out of the worst and most damaging period of economic mayhem for decades. It still isn't fixed, but it's better.
Brexit, and the loss of confidence it is bound to bring will put us right back where we started, which is redundancies, companies going bust, no training investment and no work.

In reply to Mr Lopez:


wages are higher here anyway, but that's more the lower end salaries, you can get min. of £10/hr for flipping burgers, trade skills for a chippies etc.. £30-50hr is the norm, but middle management salaries right up to CEO are lower than the UK average like for like, wages span a narrower range here. Tax is of course higher too. But, that proves noting in terms of migration and employment, as employment could never be reduced by ever increasing migration. There are critical differences, an asylum seeker can't work until their case is resolved.

In reply to Pekkie:

Like it or not, you won't stop UK migration.

The very thing that means brits can holiday abroad and never learn a word of the local language, also means that a semi educated 20 yr old from pretty much anyway in the world has enough English language skill to do a basic job in the UK.

Of course with minority languages the opposite applies.

In reply to thomasadixon:


Well maybe you're right and we could get a deal for free trade without free movement of labour but I seriously doubt it. It's a core precept of the EU and do you think the Swiss would have agreed if they could have got one without the other?

Actually, the Swiss are trying to renegotiate their position right now but nothing's happening until the result of the Brexit vote is known. They had a referendum (they have a lot, both local and national), which decided they didn't want free movement of labour, despite this being a requirement of their bilateral agreement with the EU. Rather to their surprise, the EU responded by suspending other aspects of the bilateral agreement (like Swiss students losing access to the Erasmus programme allowing them to study in the EU).

To put this right the Swiss had to pay money to the EU to pay for the services they wanted... you don't get advantages of the EU without either being a member, or paying for it, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


that week long EU workers holiday to Strasbourg every month needs funding some how. It's a good job the EU is such an efficient finely tuned accountable organisation, otherwise people might think they are wasting the money that austerity ridden countries are sending it.

In reply to Pekkie:


We don't have to accept anything per se, its all up for negotiation.


We've been in the EU for 40 years, if we could reform it from within we'd have done that by now. Even under threat of us leaving they still couldn't concede any meaningful reform. The EU is dying on its arse, economically stagnant and drowning in a sea of problems, largely of its own making with no intention of changing its course. Its a declining share of the world economy, with a declining share of world trade (including from us) and declining in world influence. Other powers are emerging leaner and fitter as Europe naval gazes. We can jump ship or go down with it but the future is global, not European and our history and global influence put us in a great position to look beyond the boundaries of Europe.

In reply to summo:


Everyone thinks this is a complete nonsense except the French. Unfortunately, under the current agreements it can't be changed because it would require unanimous agreement and the French would veto it. Obviously this needs to be fixed and maybe we should join the great majority in the EU trying to do just that?

Of course, in other circumstances, we are quite attached to the idea of one country being able to veto otherwise unanimous agreement... as long as that one country is us.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

This is exactly why the EU doesn't work very well. Hardly a beacon of democracy if one country can veto the will of all the others.

In reply to L'Eeyore:


You want to have your cake and eat it. First we are told that the EU is undemocratic. But wait, each country has a veto.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

We have seen how little influence the UK has in the not so big, 'big' renegotiations. It's a lost cause. Look at France now, the government want to modify their standard 35hr week, and the country is on fire. There is no hope of anyone changing it, unless the EU gets much closer to collapse, they are too blinkered to admit things need to change and not just a little tweek here and there.


Perhaps, but it's a farce, when the EU preaches to the PIIGS nations about austerity, then takes money off them to fund Strasbourg.

In reply to Pekkie:

Switzerland does not accept free immigration. It is part of Schengen but that guarantees only short term free movement. The process of obtaining work and residency permits is increasingly difficult there.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


In the circumstances where they originally agreed? Yes, they would. The EU was smaller, different, and there was no real issue with migration for many years.


Right, circumstances have changed and they are currently in process of modifying their agreement with the EU. What will happen? We don't know.


For access to shared agreements you have to contribute to those, of course. The Swiss get to choose which they want to participate in - because they are not in the EU.

In reply to pec:


The relative decline of the EU - and the US come to that - is because of the rise of countries such as China and India. The UK economy was belly up after the war and it only recovered after we joined the EEC (check GDP change on Wikipedia). The belly up period after the war coincided with a glut of war movies based on nostalgia for a glorious past. If we are to survive and prosper in today's world we have to be pragmatic and the only real option is within an EU which we can help to improve. Fade....Dambusters theme tune.

In reply to thomasadixon:


But with no say in setting the rules. And they have to accept free movement - ie immigration.

In reply to pec:

I do sort-of agree - but that Ponzi scheme has been going on for years, unrelated to immigration, and it's called "pensions".

If we end it, we will need to accept that the only pension you will get is one you yourself have invested for.

In reply to Pekkie:

Democracy does not mean one person or group of people have a veto over the will of the majority.

In reply to Pekkie:


I think you should consider that correlation isn't causation, before making wild claims. It is just as possible the UK could have grown more without the EU. It's just speculation, void of evidence in either case.

In reply to Pekkie:


you make it sound like the UK has a massive sway and influence, it doesn't, it's just one of 28 nations. Wait until after June, once they know the UK is trapped, there will be loads of stuff released from the EU, which they have been sitting on for the past 6 months, because of the referendum.

In reply to summo:

But with more say than Norway or Switzerland. And when it comes to voting in Council, we have more 'weight' than most counties when qualified majority voting is used (equal with France & Germany & slightly more than Poland & Spain from memory)

In reply to summo:


And we will never know, will we? All you can do is make an educated and informed guess on what evidence there is. It's not 'wild claims'.

In reply to summo:



Ultimately this is what it comes down I think. You either see the UK as a core member of the European Union, with a status equal to Germany and France, fully contributing to policy making, building consensus and support for its initiatives and working with the increasing groundswell of opinion in favour of reform (including on control of external borders and the abandoning the Strasbourg parliament)...

or you see us as trapped; helpless in a system we don't understand, don't like and in which we don't feel at home, like a confused old person in an unfamilar nursing home.

If we're so sad that can't cope with Europe, do you really think we'll be safer wandering about on our own outside?

In reply to Dave Garnett:

But the UK isn't the sick man in the nursing home. The sick lost man is southern Europe, being carried through life by northern europe. It is too set its ways to change.

The UK has the scale of population, finances, education and resources to break free and make its own path in the world.

In reply to pec:




Not true:

"A further important consideration is that pooling sovereign power in the EU has enhanced the
British government’s ability to pursue its national interests in ways that retaining narrow national
sovereignty could not. For example, the UK was successful in driving forward the creation of the single
market between 1985 and 1992, the enlargement of the EU after the end of the Cold War, and the
design of an ambitious EU-wide strategy to respond to climate change. The UK has also been able to
leverage the EU’s economic and political weight to pursue its national interest in constraining Iran’s
nuclear programme and confronting Russia over its military incursions into Ukraine.

"A study of 330 qualified majority votes between 2009 and 2015 found that the UK was the fourth
most successful country at producing an overall outcome that either reflected or was favourable
to what it was negotiating; and the second most successful at securing favourable outcomes in
policy areas it cares deeply about."

From a Chatham House briefing paper: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/publications/research...




And what does this even mean, exactly? Germany trades more with the rest of the world than we do despite not having had an empire and being a committed member of the EU.

In reply to summo:


I agree! So why the trapped defeatism?


Or, the population, finances, education and resources, not to mention the political experience and transatlantic clout, to take a leading role in Europe, if we wanted to. We could try, just for once, to be a team player in the modern world rather than the rugged individualist in a post-imperial fantasy.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:


Bollocks.
jk

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Only defeatist because the eu won't reform. Positive that the UK in ten years time won't regret leaving.


In its current form the eu is doomed, but 90% of countries won't even admit this, never mind change things that would insure the eu or Euro survives even a modest recession in the next decade.

All the eu wants is the UK to keep paying in, so it can keep bankrolling failing economies and pretend all is well.

In reply to summo:




So why aren't the IMF, the Treasury, the IFS, the US govt etc saying this? What analysis do you have to support this view?

In reply to summo:

You never provide arguments or links to support your extreme statements. Just to show I've got an open mind, here's a link to the website of Full Fact , an independent fact-checking organisation (they check Remain and Leave's claims). Link to something like this to support your arguments and I'll take you seriously.https://fullfact.org/

In reply to seankenny:


If UK keeps bank rolling Europe, it keeps the eu stable, they are quite happy for the eu to have a less bright future, to save the eu from reform.

All the above have been wrong with their forecasts before too and many have vested personal interests, ie. Their own pay.

In reply to Pekkie:
Fullfact, isn't their chair or ceo a senior Tory party donor?

Why do I need links, anyone is allowed an opinion. You don't need a link to know southern Europe is subsidised by the north.

In reply to summo:


It's almost as if you couldn't wait for the EU to be "doomed", you just relish the idea don't you.
Even if you were right, and the EU is indeed doomed, then we'll be shafted either way, that's not an argument for leave, that's an argument to stay and try to prevent it from happening.

In reply to summo:



Fixed that for you.

In reply to seankenny:

Proof can only come with hindsight. Ex post facto etc etc.

In reply to L'Eeyore:

He's making assertions about the present situation- that's amenable to being proved. He's making predictions about the future - sure it's unknowable but he could try a bit harder than making bare statements with no analysis behind them.

TL;DR it's all bluster.

In reply to seankenny:

In my mind it is a fundamental fact that no one should be allowed to claim to prove the future - predictions and assertions are fine but to claim proof is madness.

In reply to L'Eeyore:

Indeed. Still, our friend above seemed keen to strut his stuff without any backing. Which would be nice.

In reply to Pekkie: i very much like Dave Garnett's post of 9.11 - yes Switzerland have bailed out of movement of labour, and much to their surprise but noone else's it has consequences. To characterise that as a renegotiation is a strange interpretation.

I am not sure why anyone would possibly expect that making trade harder with your most important trading partner would improve your economic performance.?

(This is a Message from Norway which is very different to the uk and also very open to foreigners working here)

In reply to seankenny:


We fund the EU so they can fund the lifestyles of their less well off members.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Ok I'll admit it, I dislike the EU a wee bit, for reasons like democracy, CAP, over spending and lack of budget control or common sense, Strasbourg etc... but at least I have my reasons and not because of migration or that someone showed me a picture of a spitfire flying of the cliffs of dover etc..

But, leaving the EU might actually force it to face up to it's need to change. If the UK votes 'in' then it will think all is well and can continue on their merry path. Which I think is doomed. So some forced change on the EU could be better for the UK (in leaving) and better for the rest of EU with real reform. There no doubt future challenges ahead with recession, migration, possible Russia, certainly IS and the EU is currently not capable of dealing with or surviving them.

In reply to seankenny:

never claimed proof of anything I only thought, but the EU election has a kind of the Scottish referendum feel in that certainly people simply don't want others to have a voice and the minute they do, they are wrong, idiots, clowns etc... rather than accepting that neither Ins or Outs have any evidence of the future. Even the economist who put together 'predictions' which the politicians then claim as 'fact', say it's more art than science at times.

I've lived and worked in few countries, with differing economies like the UK, Norway, Sweden, where their migration, wealth, taxation systems and general mentality of the population are vastly different. So when I say that you can't directly compared the impact of migration on employment in Norway and correlate it to the UK, giving a few examples of figures like hour rates or asking about the difference in eu migrant & asylum seekers, I say this on experience of living in both, knowing pretty well their migration policies, language, taxation system and reading about their political news and events. I couldn't hope to guess what might happen with migration in most other countries such a Serbia or spain, but then I didn't offer any opinion on those did I.

Everything is a prediction of some form until after the event, but even then the economists will debate what unproven factors may have caused the event, with various stances taken. Like another poster attributing all the UK's growth since WW2 to the joining of the EU. There was a war and UK gdp grew, these are facts, but claiming correlation with joining the EU is unproven.

In reply to summo:


Even if the UK chooses to remain in, there's no guarantee the EU will stay cohesive. Threats like the Italian economy, entrenched systematic failure in Greece's economy, the rise of Anti-Austerity parties, the rise of right wing parties, the immigration debacle, Spain's ailing economy, the ability of Germany to control the purse strings, Merkel's tenuous grip on the German leadership, etc etc, may all cause the death of the Hydra.

In reply to Big Ger:


So it's up to all of us, as Europeans, to work together and ensure that our Europe weathers any such threats and grows even stronger as a result. Fragmenting into many squabbling pieces is a worst case scenario.

In reply to summo:



You keep saying it's "doomed" and you have absolutely no evidence.

So if I understand well your argument, you want the EU to change its path, and to do that, you want to leave and give up all influence that could help change its path. That sounds like a really stupid plan.


Actually it's done more to deal with these issues than we have ever been able to do alone.

In reply to Big Ger:



Spain's economy has been growing faster than the UK for almost two years., so has Italy's economy since 2015. Greece is going through deep structural reforms and is being given more debt relief. Arrival of refugees in Greece have dropped 90% since the deal with Turkey.

I'm not saying it's all rosy, far from it, but I don't think it's "doomed" as summo says.

In reply to Pekkie:

I lived in Switzerland for about 20 years and I wouldn't make any comparisons between it and the UK, on any level. Switzerland's slow erosion of independence from the rest of Europe and move toward inter-dependence has almost entirely been about a fight to preserve the banking privacy rules.

In reply to RomTheBear:


No one has evidence of the future, unless you've got time travel. I think it was Hawkins who invited anyone from the future to travel back to his birthday party, to my knowledge and his, no one travelled back. So for the moment, there is no evidence of the future.


We've just had the UK's BIG renegotiation, which was actually very very little. We have Russia breathing down on the East, a massive migration problem, IS terrorism, a weak Euro, desperate economies in most of southern Europe. The EU has over the past 5 years proven it is slow to react and ineffective in providing meaningful change for the future. So yes, a near collapse might just make them wake up.


It has been as slow and ineffective with Ukraine, IS, migration, recession and Euro... as it was in dealing with the Balkans, when other nations & organisations had to step in and take over due to the EU's incompetence. Show it a budget shortfall and it's lightning fast in demanding extra money from member states to bail it out though.

In reply to RomTheBear:


that's all very well sitting pretty in Northern Europe looking south saying things are looking good, I imagine the average 20-25yr old in those countries doesn't have your enthusiasm, or the same opinion of their countries current position.

Austria have just had a near miss in the elections, france is still burning over bringing their working week more inline with the rest of Northern Europe, Greece scrapped through another debt issue, the migration is shifting across Africa now, so Italy and Spain will face the brunt, not Greece. Turkey has a dictator at the helm now and puppet PM. The Schengen is effectively over with many borders rebuilt. Southern Europe is far from fixed.

In reply to john arran:


I would agree, but the current troubles in various countries shows that their respective leaders aren't listening to their population.

In reply to summo:
Or you can look at it another more positive way.... poor euro zone states struggling as one might expect but slowly catching up with the richer ones (ever been to eastern europe before the wall fell?) No internal war.

I've never been a massive fan of the EU as its a bit big business friendly (TTIP should have been booted back immediately not rely on people power to push back) and bossed around by the big states (this includes the UK but the valuation of the Mark on Euro entry being the biggest fault line making the Germans look better than they are and dragging back southern growth). Democracy could be improved. Yet the elected (Parliament or Governments) determine what becomes law and democracy is hardly great in the UK when smallish fractions of a population lead to exploited majorities in FPTP government (democracies when applied in TUs, say for a strike, are regarded as demonstrably unfair by many tories).

EU political waste is there but the overall cost it has to be one of the best value for money organisations anywhere (despite cronyism and over lavish expenses and the daft Strasboug migration).

All this talk of the US, Canada, Oz, NZ etc completely overlooks that these are immigrant built economies. The anti immigrant attitude of way too many brits is what will damage us most in the end. Let hard working people come. Its not like there are no jobs around for unemployed brits (more they dont want to do them so we need the likes of eastern europeans who work hard and pay taxes). One local farmer tried to get just Brits to pick fruit as an experiment to illustrate the problem.. only a handful of brits came who could hack it.

Giles Brandreth had it right on HIGNFY last night...listening to the "debate" which ever choice we make the world will end (when in reality both paths are possible sane choices).

In reply to Pekkie:

Watched the EU debate from the 26th with Victoria Derbyshire in Glasgow on iPlayer and it raised one (amongst many) interesting issues I had not considered.

The Leave campaigners seem unable to explain how they are going to control migration (one of their big USPs) without the reinstatement of Visas for travel in and out.

It seems quite obvious to me that if we leave the EU, unless we continue with the free movement of peoples scenario (which negates one of the Leave Campaigns main arguments), that I will need to apply for a Visa to go and see my mates in France as they will to come see me.

Or am I missing something?

In reply to Valaisan:
Free movement between the UK and other European Countries will almost definitely continue if Brexit happens - if you consider free movement as going to see your mates. You don't need a visa to travel to Norway.

In reply to Offwidth:


tell that to anyone under 25 in southern Europe, I'm sure it will cheer them up.


but TTIP will go through in the end though, industry pressure on the EU will ensure so.


Best value, 40% of the budget on subsidising food production, with no long term solution to the industry properly viable and the public pay the true cost of food?


I'm not against migration, I'm an eu migrant worker myself. I suspect the UK farmer is paying only the wages he can afford because of the low selling price of food, so he isn't going to tempt many locals willing to graft at that wage, but someone from a lower wage economy will and does.

There is no reason why the UK can't keep employing people from anywhere in the world, the EU membership is irrelevant.


Exactly so you vote for what you think or feel is best for your own circumstances.

In reply to Valaisan:

you make the presumption that everyone who will vote 'out', is doing so because of migration. It might be the stance of UKIP etc.. but not every 'out' voter is a UKIP supporter either.

The only change I could see, is a Non EU worker and EU worker would be on more of a level footing in the future on trying to gain UK employment.

In reply to summo:


No, I didn't mean it in that way, I was just asking the question re one of the Leave Campaigns main pillars.


Thanks, but I remain unclear (and in response to L'Eeyore's comment above yours): if Visas are not reinstated (as the Leave Campaign suggest they won't be) should we leave the EU, how will we control migration any more or less effectively than we do currently as a member of the EU?

In reply to Valaisan:

Work permits. No point staying if you can't work and the state won't support you.

In reply to Valaisan:

thomasadixon has given an idea but don't assume that the answer means no migration. London is close to being the most ethnically diverse and cosmopolitan city in the world, I don't see that changing whichever way the vote goes.

In reply to L'Eeyore:


It means controlled migration, at least of migrant workers. It doesn't change asylum though. You can travel to Sweden as an EU migrant 'job seeker', you have to tell migration you are there within 90days and you have 6mths from arrival to find work. During that time, you are expect to be self sufficient, you won't get any healthcare other than emergency stuff (A&E), no benefits unless paid by your parent country/homeland etc.. or a personal number which is near essential for normal life, so no bank account, mobile contract etc. etc.. If you want a personal number then you need a residence permit from migration, which you won't get without saving £20k plus, a sponsor of sufficient means, or a job/income and/or private health insurance in some cases. I think Norway is pretty similar and Denmark. So EU migrant workers come and go, it's a tough place for many who arrive hoping to find work once here, as their savings are eaten away quickly.

In reply to Dave the Rave:


Because we have an arrogant government who put party politics and personal ambition ahead of the good of the nation. By rights the Conservatives ought to be crushed out of existence at the next election for all of this. But I won't be holding my breath.

In reply to summo:

It's funny because I go to Italy and Spain quite often as I have work contact and friends there. I see more enthusiasm than in many parts of the U.K.

Maybe you need to leave the good old British arrogance aside. Things got tough for them but we're still talking about countries with very a high standard of living, excellent healthcare, education and infrastructure.

Thanks to free movement, many young people were able to contribute in Germany, France, or the UK, instead of wasting their time on unemployement benefits. As their economies are picking up again, they now start to return with newly acquired skills and languages. My personal impression : I see a lot of optimism there.

In reply to Trevers:

So I take it you don't like democracy then.

In reply to summo:

There is nothing preventing the UK from being as tough to EU migrants as Sweden is. We operates under the same EU laws.

In reply to john arran:


Fragmenting back to independent sovereign nations is the best case scenario.

Pouring billions down the drain trying to support failing nations via failed EU is a daft thing to do.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Both economies are growing frm low points, and political and economic instability in both Spain and Italy will soon sabotage this.





Great, thanks for confirming the Greek economy is down the tubes.

In reply to Big Ger:


In your opinion. I think I'll back John Arran on the opposite view. And he's a gritstone legend. What have you done on grit?

In reply to Pekkie:

Sharpened my beak.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I have no truck with migration, I do dislike the EU's version of democracy and financial control (or lack of).

It's good that you see such hope is Southern Europe, the EU will be fine without the UK funding it in the future, no wars, no plagues etc.. all is well.

In reply to summo:


No evidence again.


Actually they'll probably be find indeed.

In reply to L'Eeyore:

Or work there. As part of the EEA, they have to apply the same rules on free movement as EU member states.

http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/immigration-and-justice/norway-and-sw...

In reply to summo:
>> It's good that you see such hope is Southern Europe, the EU will be fine without the UK funding it in the future, no wars, no plagues etc.. all is well.

The EU's Cohesion Fund is aimed at helping poorer countries and regions develop to a point where they reach the average across the EU. This means that there will lower migration to richer countries and there will be more investment and job opportunities for us in those poorer countries - which as you can see from the map are mainly in Southern/Eastern Europe, though there are some surprises in richer countries. The poorest parts of the UK are now Wales and Cornwall (other 'transitional' areas such as the North West of England still receive funding). I can testify to the regenerative effect of this funding to the effect that anyone who lives in those deprived areas of the UK and votes for out is ill-informed and cutting his/her nose off to spite his/her face (to coin a cliche).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_Funds_and_Cohesion_Fund

In reply to Pekkie:

Of course, these are hardly news as they are forced to put up eu funding signs as a condition of putting money in.

Why can't the UK fund only its own projects. Eu grants like these are considered to be the least accountable and most fraud ridden element of the EUs yet to be approved accounts.

Even with these schemes the UK still pays in, more than it receives.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Do i need it, I know I'm not allowed one, only what the eu tells me is best. A bit like their presume elections, keep voting until you get the answer you want, then stop.


Which means the eu won't collapse and die when the UK leaves? No war, poverty etc.. so you now say IMF, ECB, etc etc are wrong?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Where's yours?

In reply to Pekkie:

I went for the Norway Brexit scenario. The open space, proper winters, and good lifestyle were main appeal, although the Swiss Alps were a strong draw.

In reply to summo:




Which means that there is no such think as EU funding , it is a fraud. EU funding is asking for some of your own money back which they kindly grant, and then add conditions that we would not have to impose if we just kept the money in the first place and we would be around 10 billion to the good.

In reply to summo:




Well, yes.

Without it you saying:

"the EU is doomed and will collapse catastrophically, therefore we should leave"

has as much weight as me saying:

"in 2 years all EU citizens will be able to turn shit to gold and live like millionaires while riding pink unicorns who fart rainbows, so you should vote 'stay' if you want to get your very own Unicorn"

It's not an opinion, is an statement passing it of as fact without any backing evidence or substance, which colloquially is referred to as a lie, with the intention of swaying people to your point of view.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

You still missing the point, without time travel, neither side has evidence of the future. Even if you don't like it, both sides are able to speculate or have an opinion, even if it is different to yours.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

But summo was giving an opinion when you asked for evidence.

You asked for evidence from this;


What evidence would you like?

In reply to Jim C:


From my direct experience (do you have this or can provide evidence to the contrary?) we get more out of the EU's funding for deprived regions than we put in - when you carry out a cost/benefit analysis. The grants are made on independently reached figures of GDP per head and indices of deprivation. The conditions are reasonable eg environmental assessments, use of reclaimed materials. Further, this spending would not be made by a Tory government in areas such as Wales or Merseyside for political reasons. If you can't provide clear arguments or facts then you are the fraud and shouldn't make any more ranting posts on here..

In reply to L'Eeyore:

I don't see how my comment can be taken to meaning I dislike the notion of democracy. Nor do I see the conduct of either side in this "debate" as a shining example of the democratic process.

In reply to Trevers:

Apologies, my response was a bit flippant and wasn't meant to mean I disagreed with your views. My reply was more aimed at others who try to close down debates based upon their views. I should of made that clear.

In reply to summo:



Are you sure about this? Not saying you are categorically wrong but I read in the Independent last week that it was a myth - the EU's accounts have been approved now every year since 2007.

In reply to summo:


Have you get any evidence for that? I've handled EU audits and they are more rigorous than UK ones. The big problem for Brexiteers on here is that you are repeating years of Mail/Express lies but when you are called to account you can't provide any evidence.

In reply to Pekkie:


Sigh!

Now I'm been told not to post, well , fine I'm out.

In reply to Pekkie:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11209248/EU-auditors-refus...
https://euobserver.com/news/126405

https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/european-auditors-point-to-errors-but-... this one is fun, it says they were signed off in 2013, but with errors, so it's ok to have errors in your account, as long as you know they are there. If only HMRC would follow the same line!!
http://www.politico.eu/article/corruption-costs-eu-990-billion-year-rand-st...
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110614/full/474265a.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11848048
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11985763/Fraud-allegati...
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldeucom/158/1580...

A few to get your started, not a single UKIP or dailymail website in sight.

In reply to summo:
Wow. That's a nice piece of work, one of the best responses I've seen on here. The problem of corruption in EU programmes is a real one. If you check the OLAF - the europe anti-fraud office - website you can see that most cases involve fraud in applying for grants eg money laundering by the mafia in Italy for wind energy projects. The least corrupt countries are in Scandinavia and Western Europe (I think there is a map on the Europa link) - including the UK, and this tallies with my experience. The worst problems are in Southern and Eastern Europe as might be expected. I wouldn't deny that this is a problem that needs to be tackled (would you take a job as an auditor investigating mafia fraud?) but must be tackled if these countries are to be helped to become prosperous and corruption-free members of the European family. Thank you for providing the evidence.

In reply to pec:


We go on until politicians, voters and certain UKC posters learn the meaning and consequence of exponential growth, even if it's a low rate and looks linear over shorter times. The Reverend Malthus awaits.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Some interesting reading for you;

In reply to summo:
" https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/european-auditors-point-to-errors-but-... this one is fun, it says they were signed off in 2013, but with errors, so it's ok to have errors in your account, as long as you know they are there. If only HMRC would follow the same line!!"

Its interesting you used this link... seems to me to point out certain areas of the UK press (especially the Telegraph) want their cake and to eat it. The waste is real but not huge and nearly always unfairly accounted for by the UK press. If you want to talk HMRC how much value was extracted by the Google tax deal or our failure to control tax havens in UK territories?

In reply to my previous post you ignored the pretty obvious fact that my value for money comment was on the direct cost of the political structures of the EU... not their budget control where I think they could do much better but are hampered by national interests. Maybe they should cost more? In particular so the often unfairly maligned commission and auditors can do their job a little better cutting fraud and ensuring value for expenditire. Its missed in these exposes that the biggest unfairness perpetrated in the Euro zone was the undervaluing of the Mark at entry, based on the natural interest of the Germans. The French and the UK get lots of nice unfair deals too because of their clout but the cheating of southern europeans get all the publicity. Even the Greek Euro entry tragedy was based on account fiddling easily spotted using mathematical tools but the greed of the extra market space for say german manufaturing goods prevailed over proper scrutiny... why do the Greek people need to suffer for sins of an earlier government that should have been spotted by the rich nations in the Euro (who took the profits from Greek trade without complaint until the crash)?

I'm glad to hear you support the migration necessary for our economy (Hiltonesque?) but don't you worry that any brexit vote will be based hugely on older "little englanders" who dislike or even in some cases hate immigrants and if they win will demand more political hamstringing of our national interests when it comes to migration alternatives out of europe. Aussie style points systems won't help our farmers and companies fill minimum wage jobs that brits dont want. Sure the market will adjust but a labour gap will be a drag on growth.

You may also be right on TTIP but how much blocking of such deals would come from a UK, led by Boris, post brexit? Those claiming an easy US trade deal post brexit forget to explain this sort of 'fly in the ointment' detail.

I do think you are wrong on European under 25s: there are loads in the UK at the moment and in my experience of students I meet at work and young workers I meet at the wall, a huge majority support the european idea and the EU but they are upset and certainly want more honesty from our political classes; the growth in nationalism is mainly in the older european generations sitting rich at home.

In reply to Offwidth:

my point is it can't control it's spending. 40% of budget on CAP, with no long term food production strategy. Fraud not huge, but unstoppable. It's accounts never balance and this has become the accepted norm. It runs of money, twice in the same year, 2015 I think, it had to ask for more money from member states, it can't even financial plan to meet it's expected incoming invoices correctly, huge salaries, instant pensions after only a handful of years in office, strasbourg etc.. a private company operating like the EU would have been closed down years ago, but look at what it expects of member states.

In reply to Offwidth:

it is an additional and unnecessary political structure though, all nations have their own already. There can be no value for money in having two of the same thing, when you only need one.


They probably are in favour, they know their own economy is wrecked, partly through the Euro and need the EU's free travel to find work and study?

I'm in favour of the EU idea, ie. free trade, movement of 'workers' etc.. but not legal, financial, schengen and governance. Every closer union, just brings ever more problems, cost and waste. Good for the Euro elite, plenty high paid top jobs in each of the sectors, nice flats or hotels in Euro cities, fine dining, fleets of cars, chauffeurs.... but who is paying for them, it is the low paid back in the home countries, who are told they getting a great deal.

It is quite possible to like Europe and Europeans, but dislike the EU.

In reply to summo:
.. europe values its agriculture and the subsidy budgets and waste have always been big but waste is not getting worse.. just the opposite in fact.

.... and Osbourne despite being almost presbyterian on his rhetoric on budget control misses his targets again and again. There is nothing EU about target missing. UK pensions and salaries for politicians are not so bad either. They are not ludicrous though like many senior private company posts (exponentially increasing away from the norm for the Malthus lover above) nor as suspiciously high as public sector senior management.

.... the commission and parliament is about as necessary a minimum political structure as I can think of for countries that choose to work together in the way they have. I'd like it more complex, expensive and democratic. Part of democracy being problematic but better than the altermatives maybe?

... ever closer union is a political choice (and to me an unwanted risk), but nothing like a certainty (except as a bogeyman for brexit rhetoric).

I do agree on your last point but the debate around both sides having good points is lost in this depressing tirade of one-sided crap that you (although much better than many of your brexit colleagues or similar on the one-sided remain side) are not helping. In the same sense as your comment it is possible to support the EU and dislike how it works at times. The majority of young southern europeans I know support the EU depsite what has happened to their countries. I agree they are richer than average but they know of those in their age group struggling at home more are on the leftist pro EU reform side than the move to right wing nationalist agendas.

In reply to Offwidth:


the waste is the fact the UK taxpayer, send money to Brussels, which then comes back to the UK, then to farmers, why not just pay for your food in the shops?


Is it better to set an easy low target and constantly hail success, or have higher goals which you almost achieve?

Pensions and salaries, why pay both then to UK and EU?


the only way the EU and Euro will survive is closer union, the current half baked method isn't working. I don't personally want to be part of ever closer union.


I personally don't get a sense that the EU listens to many voices around the nations or the EMPs who aren't toeing the party line. They continue blindly on. Ignoring issues with what are minorities now, like the far right etc.. won't make the underlying problems go away. The EU needs to wake up. Because Austria had a near miss but survived it, they'll think all is well and forget about it, the same when the 'in' vote wins in the UK, they are too far removed for grass roots.

In reply to summo:
Its not waste its funding a system of agriculture the EU wants as fairly as reasonably possible in a huddle of competing national interests. The reason we do it is cheaper food overall within the protections agreed politically by democratic elected governments and better safety standards. Moving money around is pretty cheap. The arguments you level at the extra cost of EU democracy could be levelled at the UK or even below at countries or regions .... why not just have a local council and trade ( or war?) with the nearby towns.

Yes let's bless Saint Gideon and his "higher goals" he is doomed never to meet.

"The only way the EU will survive is with closer ties" is more certain future bullshit.

Austria has had strong support for its far right popularist party for some time. So its not new nor even post crash. Much of their rhetoric is identical to the Daily Fail style of Brexit argument (anti EU and anti-immigrant).

The EU is a democratic structure and it listens to its majorities most. However its better at listening to minorities than say the UK majority elected parties have been.

In reply to Offwidth:

Hmmmm...

In reply to Offwidth:

Hmmmm

'although much better than many of your brexit colleagues or similar on the one-sided remain side'

You will lose the argument if you continue making statements like that.

In reply to Offwidth:


you can improve the farming environment, safety and animal welfare through legislation passed in UK parliament.
the population can pay the true cost of food production at the till.

there is no need for expensive IT system, Eu agri, farming, translator staff etc...


Goals are useful and often critical, is it better to climb dream of leading mid Es, or be happy with yet another onsight flash of hard V Diff? Arguable both, be content if you don't quite balance the economy, but always try every to achieve it?


The EU and especially the Euro nations are diverse to work long term, the only way to limit that diversity is central control


I think 30,000 votes is what stopped the far right taking power, that is a more recent change, not just DM headlines.


France, Germany, Benelux?

In reply to Offwidth:

This is interesting. A number of my "pro-remain" mates are banking on the EU remaining left of centre. They vote Labour, and are dismayed that the Tories forming the UK government.

Taking into consideration the rise of right wing populist parties, I wonder how keen the "remain" voters would be to stay in a right of centre EU.

https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/89495257_eu_far_rig...

In reply to summo:





You are just making claim after claim without substantiating them.

In reply to summo:

Just for entertainment, and assuming you mean Stephen Hawking the scientist rather than Jack Hawkins the dead actor, here's what he thinks about leaving the EU
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/may/31/stephen-hawking-donald-trum...

In reply to RomTheBear:

So if I scroll up through this thread, how many links substantiating your points do I find?

How much verifiable evidence?

Not a jot.

By god you're dishonest player Rom.

In reply to RomTheBear:


If you can substantiate a future event, then I think a few of the noble prizes awaits you.

In reply to Pekkie:


No its not. Albania is also not in the EU

In reply to GrahamD:


Neither is Afghanistan. Norway and Switzerland - not forgetting Iceland - are the two countries in Europe that have voted no in a referendum to join the EU and have had to piece together a relationship with the EU. This has not been easy and has resulted in both paying into the EU almost as much as full members and having to accept many of the rules - including free movement - but with no say in those rules. This has been exhaustively discussed elsewhere on this thread and while their economies/populations etc are not exactly similar to ours, their experience in real time is all we have to go on. Maybe we could do better than them, maybe not.

In reply to L'Eeyore:

Thats my opinion, sorry. Too much of the brexit vote will be dominated by nasty attitudes about immigration; I despise the dog whistle politics involved. Summo is to be respected for not being part of that. I also think he is right to be concerned about some of the things he is concerned about but what I dont understand is why he sees things as so much more rosy on the other side. Part of the problem is we cant see the future so most 'facts' in the debate are predictions with wide error margins.

From the remain side in our wonderful UK democracy I feel like we are dealing with state propaganda and occasional gross exaggeration which also says more about their vested financial and political interets, than proper informed arguments.

I accept democracy is messy but even given that, this campaign is especially depressing in the depths it is sinking to. If we stay or leave I suspect the overall outcome will be similar for trade and immigration, even if it's almost inevitable if we leave that we will be iniitially poorer due to the market and we risk destabilising effects in many areas, including the whole EU project.

In reply to Pekkie:


you keep saying almost as much, but they do in fact pay in less, which ever way you word it.

There are some elements that they don't partake in, like fisheries, as I pointed out they have agreements with other Nordic nations over fishing, but NO EU fisheries agreement and none Nordic fishing boats, can't touch their water. There are other elements they don't partake in such as CAP and others that Norway does voluntarily. They do have a say in many rules, when their individual agreements are formed with the EU.

Norway takes migrants and when asked before you failed to differentiate between EU and asylum, Norway like the other Nordics general takes asylum seekers because it's part of their more considerate or charitable global attitude, not because the EU forces them to.

So to make a sweeping statement that they are in fact effectively full EU members in all but name, is stretching the truth. Yes, as was discussed previously, but you keep forgetting it.

In reply to Offwidth:


life is as rosy as we make it. Right now, the EU has no trade agreement with the US, China, India etc... it is monumentally bad at it, any TTIP will clearly only benefit big business that can afford to lobby both the senators and the EU commissioners, average joe isn't one of them. There is no reason why the UK can't negotiate its own deals with India, China etc.. were it allowed to, which being in the EU, it can't. I just think you make your own luck in life, a positive attitude, bit of graft, leads to positive things. The whole 'in' campaign is based on scary nonsense, to make people think it's too risky to leave.

Staying in the EU is also a massive risk and the BREXIT camp has completely failed to sell any decent arguments to the public. They've wasted months fighting fear, with yet more fear, a great failing that they will come to regret. I predict a 65% to 35% victory for 'in', as people don't like change when they are put in fear.

In reply to Offwidth:

You are entitled to your opinion so have nothing to be sorry about. Many people on both sides will see the arguments from the opposing side as one sided, praising one person whilst giving an opinion that one side is one sided will not change peoples minds.

I don't know if you were just giving your opinion or trying to change peoples views, only you know that.

My post wasn't meant to support either an in or out vote - more a criticism of the wider debate and wasn't aimed at you.

In reply to Pekkie:


Their economies/populations have absolutely no similarity to ours.

In reply to Valaisan:


Would agree, neither would vote to join the eu if they had an election in 3 weeks time, despite what the inners consider to be their current negative position. Wonder why.

In reply to Pekkie:

Switzerland and Norway have the luxury of, amongst other things, self sufficiency in energy from hydro. And Switzerland has the benefit of an economy built on some pretty dubious banking practices - one of the few European economies to benefit directly from the last world war.

In reply to summo:


I've accepted all your points. Norway and Switzerland have to some extent 'picked and chosen' what bits of the EU to be part of but on others have been told to take it or leave it. Although they are richer per head our economy is bigger and has more punching power so maybe we could get a better deal. The key problem is that our economy is so enmeshed in the wider european one that we would have to accept some bits of the EU even if we leave and get the best deal we can. That process could be lengthy and messy. My opinion is that it would be better to be part of the body that sets the rules and makes the policy where we could use that punching power to get what we want. You think differently. That's fair enough. It's all speculation anyway.

In reply to Pekkie:

So from your reply I reason there could be a UK model, after exit, as the swiss and Norwegians ones differ already. Perhaps the UK model might tempt other none Euro nations though, that are also contributors, I think that is the big fear, lurking behind the scare campaign.

In reply to Pekkie:

From what I can make out, and I'm no expert and I haven't decided definitively yet.

Our government; against the working time agreement, against proper maternity leave (men and women), against European Human rights Convention.

Since I think all of these issues have helped enhance our lives they are big ticks in the stay side of the argument.

It seems to me our politicians argue against workers rights in support of profits, while the EU does the opposite, and that the EU parliament is a lot more collaborative than ours.

In reply to summo:

What you call a scare campaign I view as reasonable opinions from reasonable people/institutions (BoE, OECD, IFS, US president). The view might be different in Sweden but I've yet to talk to anyone in the UK who's voting in because they're frightened.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I am - I'm frightened that the Daily Hate will lead us back to the 1970s if people like me don't vote.

In reply to summo:


If they weren't already members of the EU, I don't suppose that either the UK, or, say, Greece, would vote to join in three weeks time.

However, that is not the question on the table.

In reply to GrahamD:

Tsk, there's always one.

In reply to Rob Parsons:



That's odd..

If we weren't in the EU we don't know what the state the UK would be in.. Many non-EU states want to join so maybe we would too..

In reply to krikoman:

Stability..

We've had unprecedented peace in Europe, an area at constant war.

That for me is enough for paying 350 million a year (even if it less).

People like to mock that view but you only have to look at Ukraine and Russia.. My brother also lives in Serbia and thinks those states could soon revert back to wars as resentment runs deep.

There's just so many things the EU has given us. I'm amazed any well travelled educated person wants to end this experiment. Personally it's given me so much opportunity to travel, and yes maybe I could have travelled if we were outside the EU but having moved internationally within and out of the EU, I preciated the ease and stress free of within EU moves..

In reply to Roadrunner5:


There are 'well-travelled educated people' on both sides of this argument - and there is no simple left/right analysis to which to cling. In that respect, it's a very interesting (and difficult) political question. If you're 'amazed' that people take a view which differs from your own, then that's not a very constructive position from which to engage in a discussion ...

What's your view on the 'Euro' experiment?

In reply to Roadrunner5:



If we were in the same economic condition as the states who wish to join the EU, Albania, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey, too damn right we'd be mad not to join. If those states do get to join, the UK & EU just becomes a magic money-pot for them.

In reply to Big Ger:


It's not a zero sum game, though, is it? If we help those countries stabilise and develop it will help us in the long term, politically and economically. Do you think that the Marshal Plan money the US spent in Germany after the war was wasted? A 'beggar your neighbour' xenophobic approach usually comes back to haunt you.

In reply to Pekkie:


Well that very much depends on the governance and culture of the debtor state, doesn't it?

Also, to compare to the Marshal Plan and Germany post war is not really an apples and oranges comparison, more apples and hatstands.

The Greek example is far better, where EU money is poured in to try to stabilise an economy built on debt, socialism and sloth, and where change is resisted to the point of sabotaging the whole scheme.

In reply to Big Ger:


I accept that the Greeks have made mistakes and that in the run-up to joining the euro they massaged their statistics but what you are saying comes close to racism.

In reply to Pekkie:
LOL! Racism about a style of economy or government? Oh come off it.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


name one that is even comparable to the UK?

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Schengen has collapsed it's over, Balkans (which the EU failed to deal with), Ukraine/Crimea (which the EU failed to deal with), IS (which the EU......

In reply to Pekkie:


but right now we are not in a post WW2, or any world war position. That was 70 years ago. Things have moved on. And trying to imply people are xenophobic for having a different opinion to you is pretty sad and petty. Would you give your neighbour at home money every year, so it saved him having to go out and work as many hours as you? Or have a better pension etc.. How many years would you keep subsidising them for? Perhaps a little grant to build their garage or conservatory?

Let the EU united all the little nations on the mainland, but that doesn't have to mean the UK does it.

In reply to summo:


I can't because we have had years of EU benefits.. That's the whole point.

In reply to Big Ger:

Says the guy who just copy pastes whole paragraphs from ultra right wing blogs as "evidence". Not only it's useless garbage but it's called copyright infringement.




Please point out any fact I referred to that is not easily verifiable.

In reply to Rob Parsons:



A success,

The humanitarian disaster needs dealing with, withdrawing from the EU isn't dealing with that, it's a cowardly selfish response.

There are some, but many on the out vote are voting from an anti immigrant xenophobic approach. Hence why immigration dominates these threads.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

>> What's your view on the 'Euro' experiment?


Sorry - I wasn't clear enough. By "'Euro' experiment" I was referring to the experiment of the common European currency, not the EU itself.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Name one that is in s similar position to that of the UK prior to 1973 then.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Funnily enough most of my quotes come from the Guardian.


Please point out where you have posted a "fact".

In reply to Big Ger:

Now, now children. If you don't stop squabbling you'll have to go to your rooms.

In reply to Big Ger:

I don't know.. You pick one? I was born in 1980..

But my point is we cannot just randomly stop time and re press play and assume the last 40 years of growth would have still happened. We just don't know.

Its like with the Scottish referendum, many outers wanted to say that if Scotland had re-ran the oil sea boom they'd have had a much greater success, but we don't know.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


For Germany, yes, the rest?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

As someone who lived in central europe I loved it..

I think it has had issues but for a new currency it has done pretty well.

Maybe if the UK had joined it would have been stronger as a currency and ridden the last few years better, again we will never know. I always said I thought we should have joined.

But the demographic imbalances of the med countries added to migration pressures due to the humanitarian disasters of north africa and the middle east means we have vastly different pressures from the NE down. The stronger economies need to assist and not take the selfish approach that this is their problem.

In reply to summo:


I think for benelux france and germany it has been especially, mainly because we've had peace..

I don't think those countries can ever go back to separate nations, it made sense for them to form a union anyway, look at france and germany and the constant border changes,

I'm not sure we can blame the situations in greece, italy and the rest on the EU, they had time bombs waiting to go off, added with high levels of corruption. Likewise in France.

Pension reform needs to happen in a lot of these countries to stand a chance of economic stability.

In reply to summo:

I do laugh at this, its as though there is some magic solution overnight to all these complicated issues.

Schengen has not collapsed, we can still travel freely thoughout Europe.

Balkans - got dealt with in the end- and those countries want to be in the EU.

Ukraine/Crimea- very complicated- what do you want Europe to do - send in troops.

IS - incredibly complicated.

You assume a very simple picture of international relations/ politics- that is not like you.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

no, you said everyone has benefited from the Euro, I would suggest very few. Only the top countries at which the Euro was originally pegged at, others had an effective devaluing and lost control of their own interest rates. peace has nothing to do with it.


nope, they were pressured into joining the Euro, Germany, France, Benelux knew that many of them didn't even come close to the Euro criteria, but were prepared to look the other way whilst they knowingly cooked the books.


It's too late, how can you tie people to a currency, when nothing else in-country is consistent between even 3 or 4 nations, never mind 10 plus.

In reply to neilh:


but neither the EU nor a non EU future has immediate solutions, to pretend the EU can solve all future problems in false too.


Borders have been physically rebuilt, passport controls are in place. You may not need a visa (yet), but it's hardly open travel anymore between many countries.


The Eu failed, it was too slow and other agencies and forces stepped in. The fact that they later joined the EU is irrelevant, when their was war and masses of death, the EU failed to act effectively.


sanctions were too little and way too late. Primarily because Germany would suffer most and dragged their heels as much as possible, knowing it would hurt their exports.



The EU is slow, too many politicians, having too many meetings, making decisions way too slowly. Decisive is never a word to be associated with them. Yes, it's complex and not helped by a complexed multi layered political structure like the EU.

In reply to summo:

And your alternative is what????

Please tell me, I am really fascinated to know.

In reply to summo:


I live in France & travel within Europe quite a bit for work. Other than visiting the UK, I've had my passport checked once so far this year, after coming back to Paris from Prague, colleagues on a later flight the same day were not checked. So, at least for France, its just occasional checks, which has been the case since Schengen came into effect in 1992 (think that's the date, haven't checked).

In reply to summo:

"peace has nothing to do with it"

Wow just wow!

That is the strongest argument for the EU. Pre the european coal and steal europe had been at constant war. Its interesting this is happening over 60 years after the last world war when very very few are alive who witnessed the horrors.

https://www.facebook.com/labourparty/videos/10153550589817411/?pnref=story

But the science argument is also strong

https://www.facebook.com/scientistsforeu/

Re the euro.. many in the euro love it because it has made life so much easier.

In reply to neilh:


let the Eu do as they please and exit. The UK would do better to try an steer the UN and NATO in a better direction. The UN is due a leadership change soon, so a good chance of improvement from their ivory Manhattan tower stance over many things in the future.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Early you claimed the Euro was a success, I said perhaps for a few, mainly Germany, but for most it's only made things worse. You've since tried to steer things away to being about war and peace. But, you haven't explain why the Euro is such a success.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

if the trade agreements made peace, why do we need everything else. Let's just go back to trade agreements.

In reply to Doug:


my experience has been different, but maybe that's country specific, or depending on how you look. Things have certainly tightened up between the Nordics, Denmark/Germany. And of course any country on the migration routes. Plus flying, you tend to go over all the road and rail checkpoints, barb wire fences etc.. so I expect things are different. A rail journey between Prague and Paris might not yield the same results.

In reply to summo:

Having just been in czech via Austra, i can readily assure you i that it is increadibly easy with no checks.

In reply to summo:

NATO is a military allinace not a diplomatic means of sorting things like Russia, Iran etc . Or are you proposing we go to war on everything by stirring up NATO.

UN is even more of a vipers nest than the EU.

I suppose we could kick start the Commonwealth again.

In reply to summo:


It's a whole range of things that have made war between EU countries pretty much unthinkable. A lot of this is closer trade, but also all the other things EU structures facilitate that get people talking and working together - art, science, culture, travel, currencies. The more common ground and interchange there is, the less likely people are to fall out. Setting up such structures is difficult and takes decades of effort. Pulling them all down due to the current rather stressed state of the world is a bad idea.

In reply to summo:
I did..

I said as someone who lived there I loved it. You could drive between Bonn and Luxembourg or France, fuel your car, no transaction costs, no loads of currency in change.. It encouraged cross border movements. It is just fantastic.

As a German resident I would rather stay in the euro zone for a weekend than visit Denmark or Poland as I was sick of loose change in different currencies. For those on the euro zone it's brilliant.
but yes there are many reasons why the EU has been superb, but for me European peace Is the greatest argument, a cost worth paying for.. Yet you see, unwilling to discuss that and disregard it..

In reply to summo:

Why?

It's more than trade.. It's workers, trade, culture, integration, unity..

All we will do is knock apart the EU and its various agreements.. Then one by one reintroduce them for the same reasons we introduced them decades ago...

What you are proposing is a very dangerous social experiment which will probably come back to the same point after a lot of stress and costs..

In reply to neilh:


No, but the EU proved it couldn't solve things like the Balkans and others stepped in.


But at least it is global and with a new leader could be reformed. The EU has just shown us how little they are willing to reform.


exiting the EU would allow the UK to form trade agreements with commonwealth nations, something the EU prevents. It would also make it a more level playing field for companies wishing to employ people from beyond the EU. There is no reason why the UK should not be supporting former commonwealth nations much more, something which it has neglected since joining the EU.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

but you could make them suit the UK perfectly, rather than a one size fits all.


that's EU, 28 nations, how many different languages, currencies, political and cultural histories, all forced into one in a very short space of time.

In reply to MG:


they can have them, but that doesn't mean the UK has to. Why not just let the Euro nations continue on their merry path, to where ever it leads them?

In reply to Roadrunner5:


If you're referring to things like the ease of travel afforded by a common currency, then sure: that's a useful thing for tourists etc. And it could have been made possible by having the Euro as a common tradable currency against which the existing currencies of each member state were allowed to float.

However, the imposition of a single currency *in place of* all existing currencies is a political programme rather than an economic one, and it requires fiscal union. That's been a complete disaster - Greece being the egregious example.

So far as I can tell, *no* economic or political commentators are now in favour of the UK joining the Eurozone - but, since the Eurozone is really a fundamental expression of the EU as a *political* idea, in what state does that leave that idea?

In addition, since admittance to membership of the EU *requires* entry to the Eurozone, how is that going to work if and when further nations with economies completely different to those of the existing members are allowed to join?

The Euro seems to me to have proven to be a disaster.

In reply to summo:


For all the reasons I just gave! We are not in the Euro.

In reply to summo:

I suppose you don't care about Cyprus and Malta then, which are both in the EU.
The EU doesn't prevent agreements with commonwealth nations. On the contrary, negotiations are ongoing with many of the commonwealth countries.

If we left, we would have to start all over again, and with a lot less leverage.


This is utter nonsense, there is absolutely nothing preventing us from making it easy for companies to employ commonwealth nationals if we wanted to.

In reply to Roadrunner5:



I agree. We cannot also assume it would not have happened.


True.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Not really, we'd have the same leverage inasmuch as the people/companies who want to buy our products will not stop wanting them, and who is to say that current agreements could not be maintained.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Did I say the UK doesn't care about them? I don't suppose the EU cares either, they are too small a contributor. What about India etc.. ever so slightly bigger emerging market there. Look at how Cyprus has been treated financially by the EU.


Does the EU allow the UK to form trade agreements in precisely the terms the UK wants to?


Not really, 'British' is a natural brand to many overseas countries, more so than most other EU countries, perhaps with an exception of BMW for Germany. Why less leverage, we can offer more flexibility and a faster conclusion with an deal between only two nations, where the EU is trying to please too many different countries.


Aren't there quotas for various Tiers?

In reply to summo:

What I am saying is that it is the UK setting these quotas and restrictions.
There is nothing preventing us from lifting them for commonwealth nationals.

In reply to Big Ger:


People / companies wanting to buy our products does absolutely nothing to increase our leverage.


Pretty much every economist worth its salt and anybody with experience negotiating trade deals, or anybody with a bit of common sense, really ?

In reply to summo:

Have you tried exporting to India? Well I do. Just in the process of sorting out business via for 1 of my guys. It is a horrendous procedure. Far worse than Russia or China.

Then you have tariff barriers designed to protect their internal markets.

It's not a market I would rely on to compensate for the eu .

In reply to RomTheBear:


true, but the country hardly has spare housing etc right now, you think we should increase UK immigration? What about the UK unemployed? Or do you propose a different model?

In reply to neilh:


Perhaps the UK needs a trade deal then? Something that appeases their protectionism, whilst still allowing the UK easier access to some markets. Isn't that what trade deals are all about; Allowing imports of things you desire, whilst not killing your own home grown industry.


Given that exports to the EU are shrinking, you suggest we ignore new emerging and enlarging markets?

In reply to Pekkie:

Can anyone tell me why the leave campaign haven't jumped all over TTIP as a reason for getting out? Admittedly I have only read about TTIP leaks on mainstream news outlets and don't know all the ins and outs, but what's being reported doesn't sound good.

I keep seeing people harp on about EU environmental policies and how good they are, yet Greenpeace decided to leak details about TTIP because of potentially how damaging it could be to the environment.

As someone who benefits from the UK being in the EU (living and working in France) I was firmly in the IN camp until I started reading more about TTIP and now i'm definitely OUT unless someone can convince me that TTIP isn't actually all that bad.

In reply to summo:


So you changed your mind then ?

In reply to Phil Payne:

TTIP as currently proposed seems pretty bad from an environmental point of view but it doesn't look as if the European Parliament would approve it and some countries have said they would veto it in its current form. One of the countries pushing hardest for it to be adopted by the EU is the UK. So its likely the EU will reject it but a non EU UK, given the present government, is likely to try and negotiate something similar

In reply to RomTheBear:


Nothing at all? Wow, why not?


Really, some people disagree

In reply to summo:

You really have no idea!

Blocks like South America and India are protectionist. They do not want trade deals which let in foreign goods in a free for all.

Your comment is typical of people who have no experience in these positions.

In reply to Big Ger:


It really is obvious as f*** but here you go: countries that import from us do not need to give us any deal to set import rules that suit them.

In reply to Phil Payne:

Bojo thinks TTIP is an excellent idea “It is Churchillian in that it builds transatlantic links, it is all about free trade, and it brings Britain and Europe closer to America. The idea is to create a gigantic free-trade zone between the EU and the US … There is absolutely nothing not to like about the TTIP".
But, hang on a minute
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/14/boris-johnson-accused-of-di...

In reply to RomTheBear:

So they just go elsewhere, use different suppliers, use different products?

Really.

In reply to Big Ger:



You do not understand. They do not need to give us any trade deal of any sort to buy products from us.

In reply to RomTheBear:




No you dodged the questrion, I was asking you how you proposed to allow more people in from outside the EU, plus the EU workers and still have housing, services and employment for UK nationals?

In reply to neilh:


No, I just have a positive view, hard work can solve many things. Ikea has taken a few years at it, it's final got stores opening in India, they had big issues with protectionism, as India wanted them to sell X% of indian made produce etc..


But, the population wants western goods, it's about finding a mid ground, where people trade with each other in what best suits their needs.


my apologies for having a different opinion to you.

In reply to summo:

Given that pretty much every study shows that immigration has had no impact or a positive impact employment and services, that's a moot point. Effects on housing are still not well understood.
But you are the one dodging here, if you want to reduce net migration, then you'll have to make the rules even tougher than they are now for non-eu nationals.

In reply to RomTheBear:


At present the UK taxpayer gives money to roughly 2,000,000 uk residents to sit at home and not work. Then many UK industries employ people from poorer EU nations to work for them, which whilst allowing them to be 'competitive' also allows them bigger profits. These poorer EU workers then have their low wages topped up by the UK tax payer. Many EU workers work in the farming sector, where farmers pay them low wages, sell produce at beaten down prices to supermarkets, then need money from the taxpayer to stay afloat via the EU / CAP.... I could go on...but if you were designing a system, this must be the worst possible option you could think of.


I'm not against migration, I've said it earlier, I'm an EU migrant worker myself, but the market is skewed as each EU nation has vastly different economies and employment markets. There is no reason why 'in' or 'out' of the EU in the future, workers can't continue to travel for employment, but only in sectors that countries can't fill themselves, not simply because a person from country X will do the job for less, provided they can live on site in a caravan with 6 other people hot bedding it.

In reply to summo:

Basic economics for you : we have record employment level. Some unemployment is perfectly normal as people move between jobs.

Then many UK industries employ people from poorer EU nations to work for them, which whilst allowing them to be 'competitive' also allows them bigger profits. These poorer EU workers then have their low wages topped up by the UK tax payer. Many EU workers work in the farming sector, where farmers pay them low wages, sell produce at beaten down prices to supermarkets, then need money from the taxpayer to stay afloat via the EU / CAP.... I could go on...but if you were designing a system, this must be the worst possible option you could think of.

Completely skewed picture again. The vast majority of eu workers are not working in farming.




Except that is a completely skewed picture of eu immigration. Most are filling jobs in various services sectors where recruitment is difficult.

What you are describing is a very tiny monitory of posted workers that are being exploited by a tiny monitory of unscrupulous employers.

In reply to summo:
Again it shows no knowledge of the subject.Trade requires both parties to agree, India at the moment has no plans to make it a free for all. ( you only have to look at all the global supermakets like tesco etc who desperately want to set up there, but India will not allow direct investment).

The other factor in all this is foreign exchange controls. Countries like India etc have far stricter foreign exchage controls. They have not got large foreign currency reserves. it has a big impact on their eagerness to buy from overseas. If you speak to mid size Indian companies, they are very aware that they may not even be able to get hold of the £ to buy the goods from you.Certainly the financially astute ones are.It of course works the other way when they sell to us, as they want our £.

Out of interest do you know what has been historically the biggest in terms of value items sold from the UK into China?I was surprised when I looked at the figures a few years ago. It was in 2nd place -----diamonds ( from Rotterdam and then exported from Hatton Garden)--- and in 1st place...........scrap metal( that was before the collapse in metal prices).

You may think they want our goods . But it is not backed up by hard facts.

By the way its something that every UK govt struggles with, its nothing new.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Some basic maths for you.

A record number of people in employment, is not the same as record low percentage of the working population in employment. It is simply an example of population growth.


I did say I could go on, manufacturing, hotel, leisure & tourism and farming... better?


Only because a UK citizen can get more on benefits that picking veg all day etc.. It's not because the UK doesn't have enough people skilled enough to work in a hotel or field.


All those migrant workers living in London, you think they all live in nice spacious apartments over looking a nice park or crammed into bedsits, converted garages, sheds, lofts etc.. all those rural workers, nice quaint cottages, or rows of worn out static caravans... you better remove those rose tinted specs.

In reply to neilh:


Who can blame them, I'd love to see the death of Tesco too. Ikea got a deal, maybe they were a bit more considerate, rather than just out to fleece everyone like Tescos.


Opium if you value it in todays money, a part of our history often over looked?


Oh, it's such a struggle, let's give up, look only inwards and be ruled by the EU forever more. How defeatist.

In reply to summo:
Ikea is furniture. Food retailing is an area which India wants to protect, so Ikea is irrelevant.

No barbed comments on foreign currency controls?Or is it something , again, you choose to ignore.

In reply to all:

In my opinion, we are having this EU Referendum because:

It was promised to us in the Conservative Party manifesto as one of their election campaign policies. They made this promise to appeal to (the rising numbers of) UKIP supporters who's raison d'être is anti-immigration and they were desperate to gain enough votes to win the general election.

So that I make a decision I can honourably live with, I constantly remind myself of why we have this opportunity.

In reply to neilh:


I didn't realise you wanted to pick a specific sector and ignore others to help you win your argument, so India protects food, the UK can trade in a few other things, everyone is happy. Another country might want to protect X, but want UK food exports. It's all swings and roundabouts. Only in the EU everyone has to play on the roundabout and if you get off, you ain't allowed back on as the Dutch PM said yesterday, there will be punishment if the UK gets off too etc..

In reply to summo:


I said employment level. Of course I am referring to a percentage here. And yes we have to highest percentage of people in employment since the post war era.


It, telecom, healthcare, engineering, construction...


no actually we don't really have anybody to fill these jobs. We are pretty much at full employment.


They typically live in flatshare rented accommodation like most of the Brits of the same age.
In the past ten years, before I moved in with my partner, I lived with two Spanish flatmates, one working in tourism, the other in engineering, one Bulgarian working in finance, one French computer scientist, one Italian working in marketing , one Greek working in it security, two scots working for a law firm, and two English student.
We lived in actually very spacious flats ranging from two to four bedrooms.

Maybe I have rose tinted specs and my own experience of eu immigration is different from yours, but it seems to be supported by the statistics that are showing the same thing : EU immigrants are mostly well educated, work in a whole variety of sectors, and only a small portion of them (~15%) works in elementary occupations.
In fact, we get a higher proportion of graduates and skilled migrants from The EU than Australia does with their point based system so revered by the brexiters

The fact is that freedom of movement, on top of being a great freedom to enjoy, works pretty well overall, and works especially well for the UK.

The whole thing has been hijacked by populists and xenophobes, no surprise there, ukip and brexit scores best in areas with very low immigration.

In reply to Valaisan:

Ukip was founded 20 years ago to leave the EU, reasons to leave being democracy and sovereignty. Migration within the EU wasn't an issue until after 2004. Remain wants to give the impression it's all about migration so they can dismiss the whole thing as based on racism/xenophobia and not think about the actual issues. This is a lie.

In reply to BeccaSnowden:


Both campaigns are absolutely dismal nobody will disagree with you here.

In reply to BeccaSnowden:


Actually it's the other way around. Remain doesn't really want to talk about immigration, they want to talk about the economy. Leave are desperate to talk about immigration as it's their strongest point, because any on any areas where people are usually more rational, they are outflanked by the opinions of people who tend to be experts in their field.

In reply to summo:


So how does this work then? Does the government set a quota for people? If so, how does it do that and make it accurate? I'm assuming this will require an expensive bureaucracy, probably a bit slow, always eager to cover its arse and subject to political meddling. What happens when the quota of 10,000 widget fiddlers is reached, but Acme Inc needs a few more widget fiddlers and can't find them in the UK? Is it tough luck for Acme Inc, which then loses out to its rivals in the EU? Or does Acme Inc now have to start lobbying someone, somewhere in government to let them have a few more fiddlers?

If the government really wants to "control its borders" then effectively it has to say no to Acme Inc, regardless of how much the economy needs those widgets fiddled. After all, it's bringing the immigration numbers down. Or, if it simply bows to the inevitable and lets Acme recruit the widget fiddlers, then it's not controlling borders and what's worse, you've just created an expensive, inefficient bureaucracy which bigger, more powerful players will game to their own advantage, all to get back to the rough situation we are in now, in which companies who need to recruit abroad do so.

I cannot see that as an improvement.

In reply to RomTheBear:


No they don't. They have to abide by the laws of their country, and they obviously need to buy our products, they are not just doing it as we are part of the EU.

In reply to seankenny:


Works in Australia.

In reply to Big Ger:


They also have a higher proportion of immigrants in their population than we do, which suggests that the government quotas are fairly relaxed, ie on the high side. That of course completely contradicts the "we'll get immigration down" arguments used by Brexiteers.

Of course it could also be something to do with the very different nature of the Australian economy, which is resource extraction heavy no? I suspect running a mine is quite different to running a professional services or biotech company - tho clearly never having run any of those, I'm guessing here.

Anyhow, what you're saying is broadly that you want to get away from this tiresome EU regulations which are holding us back, so we can replace it with a whole bunch of different regulations which won't hold us back. Erm, right.

As a broader point, Stroppygob/Big ger - I avoid arguing with you as it's generally not worth putting up with your peevish histronics. Consider this reply a lucky exception.

In reply to Pekkie:

For any people interested in a Northern Irish perspective.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03071847.2016.1174477

I know the OP is focusing on immigration but you may want to consider the massive uncontrolled land border you have with the Republic.

From my point of view I would like to remain. I work as a contractor in the IT networking. The way our companies are set up (directors on both sides of the border) means things will be very awkward if we leave the EU.

I'm also a fan of peace and stability.

In reply to seankenny:





You do not see the irony in your post, which is a hoot.

In reply to Big Ger:


???

In reply to summo:

It is strange how companys that export are behind staying " in" which includes the likes of the EEF and CEA ( trade bodies who represent those people who actually do international business ). These are the companies which for the future Uk Plc will be relying on to drive export sales both in the EU and globally.

I will stick with them , and not your view on global trading.

In reply to neilh:


Look I appreciate that's a sensible rational decision - but that's just not in the spirit of this referendum thing. You need to make some wild assertions completely not backed up by anyone who knows anything! Go on, have a go, it's probably pretty liberating.

In reply to seankenny:

Brexit want to concentrate on immigration because it locks into a primeval and irrational fear of "the stranger".
The immigration issue is much smaller than Remain/Exit.
Proponents of Exit cannot promise anything about immigration; they cannot guarantee that they will be in power or that they will be able to "control" anything. The electorate may wake up post-referendum to find they have placed the UK out of the EU and still not want to have a bunch of chancers, losers and geeks like Boris/Farage, Ian Duncan Shit and Gove "take control" of our government. There is nothing inevitable about any of the brexiters' proposals about anything. They are not voting for an "Australian style points system" or an abolition of human rights law. All their proposals (and there are many conflicting ones ) would have to be the subject of a new manifesto which would be subject to new elections. Nobody wanted Farage to be our prime minister before and that's not going to change.
If you vote "Leave" that's all you are going to get.
And having upset the cart we're all going to spend an awful lot of time picking apples off the floor.

In reply to seankenny:

Brilliant post!Made me chuckle.

In reply to Pekkie:

More EU related problems;

In reply to Big Ger:

I think I've pulled you up on this before. Could you please provide links when you quote passages? For all we know it could be from Chairman Mao's little red book or Donald Trump's most witty and cogent quotes. Now there's a good boy. Just to show how it should be done here's a link to an LSE report which includes a discussion of leading brexit economist Patrick Minford's proposals which would lead to the end of the UK's manufacturing sector - including steel production. Yes, that's right, the end of the UK's manufacturing sector, including steel production. i didn't believe it myself at first.

In reply to Pekkie:

Sorry, I though most here would be aware of the BBC.

Headline news there; http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-36446381

And, as we have had a polite debate so far, please don't sour it with pseudo-patronising silliness.

In reply to Big Ger:

I was only teasing. But what about Patrick Minford's proposals for the UK economy? Encourage the end of the UK manufacturing sector, including steel? This would be a bombshell in the debate if it it was more widely known. Incidentally, my dad and uncles were steel workers at Redcar. Oops forgot to paste it, here it is.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2016/05/27/how-do-economists-for-brex...

In reply to Pekkie:

As the thread title is about Swiss/Norway scenario, it's worth remembering that when Switzerland "voted against" joining the result was 50.3% against. Hardly a landslide! (Swiss Referendum only needs a 1 vote difference to win)
No Swiss people I've talked to in Switzerland can believe the UK wants to leave.

In reply to Pekkie:

Britain will never be like Norway as its missing one fundamental thing...



No Norwegians.

In reply to GarethSL:



No shit, sherlock.

In reply to graham F:



The point of my original post was that the Norway/Switzerland experience implies (doesn't prove - they are different countries to us) that a brexit vote wouldn't be the end of the matter. We would have to negotiate a deal, probably within the single market which would mean free movement and paying in and abiding by the rules without having a say in those rules. Some brexit economists - such as Patrick Minford - have suggested keeping out of the single market and abolishing all tariffs which would mean the end of the UK manufacturing sector, including steel. See the link.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2016/05/27/how-do-economists-for-brex...

In reply to Pekkie:

So the leavers want to destroy uk manufacturing and also have greater wage inequaliy ( which is what Minford says).

Where's summo to comment on this?

In reply to GarethSL:


You sure we havent got a few?