Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
wonderpup

Why The Eu Referendum Could Blow Up In Cameron's Face.

Recommended Posts

I overhead an old guy in a hospital waiting room today say the following; 'They blame us 90 year old's on our last legs for the problems in the health service- but it's not us, it's the immigrants- there are just too many coming here.'

Ok- standard reactionary fare on the face of it- but what this guy has done is join two dots in a way that has so far escaped the attention of the media.

The two dots are;

1) Austerity

2) Uncontrolled immigration from the EU

In the media these are presented as two entirely distinct and separate issues- they will talk about either in isolation but have not yet managed the intellectual leap performed by our 90 year old which requires them to be considered as a complementary pair.

Just to be clear I am not arguing that immigrants are the cause of all our woes- that would be simplistic. But this old guy has identified a terminal failure in the position of the pro EU Tories that for some reason the fourth estate has failed to grasp. (Or chosen to ignore)

To spell it out; The Tories argue that state spending must be reduced in order to pay back national debt- this means painful cuts in services as the resources available are not sufficient to meet everyone's needs.

The EU argue that free movement of labour within the Union is a non negotiable principle- in other words there is no way that the Tories can stop immigration while remaining inside the EU.

So what happens if we present these two arguments to our 90 year old? Well- he will connect the two dots and make an interesting discovery- which is that austerity is the single most compelling argument one could make in favor of leaving the EU.

In effect by lashing himself to the mast of austerity Cameron has provided a watertight case for those who argue we should exit the union- he has told us to the point of nausea that there is not enough money to go round.

And if there is not enough money to go around then it would be madness to remain in a Union that prevents us from controlling the number of people coming to live here.

So at the very heart of Cameron's position lies this logical conundrum- and while the media may at present be ignoring it, it seems the great unwashed are not.

Edited by wonderpup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not going to get any more tax out of people, and we're already running a massive deficit.

Regarding immigrants putting a strain on state spending, that depends on how much tax the government is getting out of them. As GDP per capita and productivity is falling that presumably means "not enough". Ergo, less money per person to go on public services. That's before all the money being jizzed away on frivolities we didn't have back in the 90s, things like tax credits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only people who really benefit from mass immigration are the rich - landlords, politicians and big business. Everyone else has to suffer with wage deflation, higher housing costs, overcrowded schools, NHS, higher taxes, less benefits for full time workers so that others who haven't paid in can get more because they have lots of kids, dilution of culture etc. Why is it ok to swamp the UK with foreign nationals and piss off native Brits, yet if someone were to suggest that the rest of the world might like to have multiculturalism imposed upon them, everyone would be up in arms and call it "imperialism"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not going to get any more tax out of people, and we're already running a massive deficit.

Regarding immigrants putting a strain on state spending, that depends on how much tax the government is getting out of them. As GDP per capita and productivity is falling that presumably means "not enough". Ergo, less money per person to go on public services. That's before all the money being jizzed away on frivolities we didn't have back in the 90s, things like tax credits.

My understanding is that immigrants are net contributors to the UK treasury. The fiscal position would be significantly worse without them. Add to that the fact that a significant proportion (20%?) of NHS staff are immigrants and the NHS would be in a significantly worse state if the borders had been shut 5 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that immigrants are net contributors to the UK treasury. The fiscal position would be significantly worse without them. Add to that the fact that a significant proportion (20%?) of NHS staff are immigrants and the NHS would be in a significantly worse state if the borders had been shut 5 years ago.

The NHS staff thing is irrelevant, nobody is suggesting we close the borders to skilled people we need - aside from the BNP maybe, have to admit I've not checked.

Having had a look, apparently migrants contribute a net of 5 billion per year, according to one (rather contested) study. That's not really a lot either way, if so, from a $$$ standpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that immigrants are net contributors to the UK treasury. The fiscal position would be significantly worse without them. Add to that the fact that a significant proportion (20%?) of NHS staff are immigrants and the NHS would be in a significantly worse state if the borders had been shut 5 years ago.

******** studies have produced bollocked reports. They never count opportunity costs, or knock on financial costs (i.e. the additional crime caused by community de-cohesion). They also ignore the masses of funds being sent overseas and the impact this has on the balance of trade/value of sterling. They never account for the additional costs, for example, of having to house thousands of native citizens at public expense due to houses being bought/rented by immigrants.

Singapore and Hong Kong are examples of countries who get it right - work out exactly what skills you are missing in the workforce, only allow a set number in, and tax them to the hilt whilst they are there. THAT is how you make immigrants financially worthwhile.

Edited by wherebee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, reading the press you get the impression that every immigrant is an illiterate scrounger, but all the ones I've actually met have been highly qualified, intelligent self starters with a strong work ethic

On the most recent figures we have

320,000 immigrants/year

107,000 new build houses completed (latest 2013 figures)

So even if we pretend against all the evidence that single people don't exist and every tiny new build occupies 2 people, that will house 214,000

leaving 106,000 people without, and thats repeating every year.

Of course it wont be the immigrants that buy the new houses, or become homeless, it will be some other poor sod. but the way things are going theres going to be a lot of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buy to let was brought in with one explicit goal being to encourage and facilitate legal, illegal and immigrant and boost migrant labour numbers.

Without buy to let there simply would not be rental spaces for immigrants to occupy.

It has been a very sneaky policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

time to put the closed sign in the window.

Let things settle.

See where we are in 5 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, reading the press you get the impression that every immigrant is an illiterate scrounger, but all the ones I've actually met have been highly qualified, intelligent self starters with a strong work ethic

On the most recent figures we have

320,000 immigrants/year

107,000 new build houses completed (latest 2013 figures)

So even if we pretend against all the evidence that single people don't exist and every tiny new build occupies 2 people, that will house 214,000

leaving 106,000 people without, and thats repeating every year.

Of course it wont be the immigrants that buy the new houses, or become homeless, it will be some other poor sod. but the way things are going theres going to be a lot of them.

I live in London, know a lot of immigrants and the vast majority do NOT have highly paid jobs or are highly qualified. They are in general, lovely people, however, there are so many of them and I dread to think how much it must be costing in benefits, housing, schools, the NHS etc. I know a lot of low paid/part time working parents, many of whom are from the EU and are topped up with benefits. Many have 3 or more kids and must get a lot more in benefits than they pay in tax. Speaking to a very nice, single mum today who is from an EU state who works part time in a low wage job and she told me she is going back to her home country for 5 weeks over the summer so is having her rent paid and all her benefits paid and can still afford to take 5 weeks off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So even if we pretend against all the evidence that single people don't exist and every tiny new build occupies 2 people, that will house 214,000

leaving 106,000 people without, and thats repeating every year.

Of course it wont be the immigrants that buy the new houses, or become homeless, it will be some other poor sod. but the way things are going theres going to be a lot of them.

Indeed, that's the real problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only people who really benefit from mass immigration are the rich - landlords, politicians and big business. Everyone else has to suffer with wage deflation, higher housing costs, overcrowded schools, NHS, higher taxes, less benefits for full time workers so that others who haven't paid in can get more because they have lots of kids, dilution of culture etc. Why is it ok to swamp the UK with foreign nationals and piss off native Brits, yet if someone were to suggest that the rest of the world might like to have multiculturalism imposed upon them, everyone would be up in arms and call it "imperialism"?

The thing is, we were never asked.

I tend not to believe the reports of mass immigration being a positive thing and net contributor to the economy. Every job done by a foreign national displaces a native. (Similar thing with the whole idea of 'work experience,' exploited to provide cheap labour ad infinitum - displacing proper jobs.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wife says.....(she`s an NHS care assistant/student nurse)

....why don`t the NHS recruit nurses from countries that produce good nurses? (discriminate in other words)

And do we really need a couple of dozen big issue sellers for every nurse we recruit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the reports saying immigration is of benefit tend to leave out stuff like paying them a pension one day, healthcare and housing when they are old.

They also ignore the fact that as 1,000,000 polish came the number of young brits without jobs increased by, wait for it, 1,000,000. I am sure that is just a coincidence though... I am sure the jobless young brits cost the taxpayer a packet one way or another.

I have nothing against the poles, they work hard and are prepared to work all hours for minimum wage, probably multiple occupancy living accommodation arrangements allows it to be affordable.

Seems to be all about cheap labour for the landed and wealthy people in society, who's share of the national income has tripled in the last 20 years or so for some reason.

Nothing has changed since democracy began in this country, the landed class has always been in control. I don't see it changing any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All well argued replies that miss entirely the point I was making which is, simply stated, that it is impossible to be both pro austerity and pro EU so long as the EU maintains it's open borders stance- a stance that it cannot for deeply ideological reasons abandon.

If- as Cameron insists- there is not enough cake left to meet the needs of the people already here, then his position re the EU is untenable since the EU insists that he share that cake with anyone from inside the EU who chooses to put in a claim on it.

Of course he could insist that all these incomers are making us all better off- in which case we no longer require austerity-right?

Of course there are more sophisticated aspects to this debate, more nuanced views- but the reality of politics is that arguments are not won on sophistry- they are won by deploying simple blunt concepts in the most brutal and straightforward way possible.

Our 90 year old commentator used a simple equation- that the shortage of resources being cited as the reasons for austerity were being exacerbated by the number of people migrating to the UK from the EU- so in his mind the equation solves as follows- Austerity is a product of EU immigration. Now ask him what the solution is in a national referendum and what is his answer likely to be?

I think it will be- get out of the EU. What other solution presents itself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry I'm sure we will get repeated referendums until we vote correctly.

We can look forward the govt spending a few millions of taxpayers money convincing everyone to vote for the EU

The thing that gets me is when they say "if you leave Europe, then the UK wont get the chance to vote/influence EU policy", Yes and the cheese eating surrender monkeys wont be able to dictate UK law either - thats the WHOLE POINT of leaving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All well argued replies that miss entirely the point I was making which is, simply stated, that it is impossible to be both pro austerity and pro EU so long as the EU maintains it's open borders stance

The mistake you are making is thinking that the sums have to add up, maths is not a strong point with politicians most of them studied history and clog dancing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The rich can never get enough. They are scared people.

2. For them the poor can never be quite poor enough.

I think that sums it up!

3. No. 1 have found a scapegoat that No.2 can blame and are using the MSM to spread their message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The rich can never get enough. They are scared people.

2. For them the poor can never be quite poor enough.

I think that sums it up!

The rich who got rich by helping the rich (the politicians) won't be killing off the goose laying the golden egg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

******** studies have produced bollocked reports. They never count opportunity costs, or knock on financial costs (i.e. the additional crime caused by community de-cohesion). They also ignore the masses of funds being sent overseas and the impact this has on the balance of trade/value of sterling. They never account for the additional costs, for example, of having to house thousands of native citizens at public expense due to houses being bought/rented by immigrants.

Singapore and Hong Kong are examples of countries who get it right - work out exactly what skills you are missing in the workforce, only allow a set number in, and tax them to the hilt whilst they are there. THAT is how you make immigrants financially worthwhile.

If you want to talk about opportunity and knock on costs, what about the cost of the UK citizens who have gone to live in the EU who will have to return to the UK? These people will have to be housed and utilise the NHS etc.

Regarding crime I thought that the crime stats showed a reduction in crime rates over the last 10 years (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-june-2014/index.html). This doesn't support your contention that increased immigration has resulted in crime.

It's not immigration that's causing a housing shortage, it's the lack of housebuilding caused by an arcane planning system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All well argued replies that miss entirely the point I was making which is, simply stated, that it is impossible to be both pro austerity and pro EU so long as the EU maintains it's open borders stance- a stance that it cannot for deeply ideological reasons abandon.

If- as Cameron insists- there is not enough cake left to meet the needs of the people already here, then his position re the EU is untenable since the EU insists that he share that cake with anyone from inside the EU who chooses to put in a claim on it.

Of course he could insist that all these incomers are making us all better off- in which case we no longer require austerity-right?

Of course there are more sophisticated aspects to this debate, more nuanced views- but the reality of politics is that arguments are not won on sophistry- they are won by deploying simple blunt concepts in the most brutal and straightforward way possible.

Our 90 year old commentator used a simple equation- that the shortage of resources being cited as the reasons for austerity were being exacerbated by the number of people migrating to the UK from the EU- so in his mind the equation solves as follows- Austerity is a product of EU immigration. Now ask him what the solution is in a national referendum and what is his answer likely to be?

I think it will be- get out of the EU. What other solution presents itself?

What would happen to those people who work for European firms, and decide to pull out of the UK (you can argue either way whether this will happen)...reduced tax returns and increased welfare...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not immigration that's causing a housing shortage, it's the lack of housebuilding caused by an arcane planning system.

Immigration is causing a housing shortage in view of this country having an arcane planning system which cannot flexibly accommodate any large change in population. In light of this encouraging policies and relationships which promote immigration is hence a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   26 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.