after this I am not so sure now:
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews...cid=spartanntp
Printable View
after this I am not so sure now:
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews...cid=spartanntp
In this place its just emails from our sales and marketing team, tbf
Don't fancy yours much, j. :-(
Attachment 145
2m young, skilled, fit and statistically less likely to claim benefits or burden the NHS people working here and paying taxes vs 3m pensioners doing the opposite abroad. European Objective One and Two funding, EU Social funds, the Erasmus programme for universities, workers rights, civil rights, London being europe's default financial capital, I could go on.
These 2m are people are by no stretch of the imagination all skilled or fit.
Funding is irrelevant, we are net contributors.
We had workers' rights and civil rights before 1974.
Are you suggesting that banking is a good and useful industry? I must bookmark this thread.
I was pretty much undecided about this referendum, but thanks to your carefully reasoned argument, I have definitely decided to vote 'Out'. Thanks, j. :thumbup:
"Funding is irrelevant, we are net contributors." Are you really saying you're purposefully ignoring all of the subsequent benefits on the basis that we're net contributors?
The LSE and the IFS have both released studies confirming that EU migrants are less likely to claim state benefits and that EU immigration provides a net benefit to the Uk.
On the banking point, I think having bailed the *******s to the tune of £850bn we're probably better off not having all of the financial sector pack up and move elsewhere.
Couple of things:
1/ Any benefits we receive from the EU we have already paid for and more, so those benefits are not some favours the EU does us - they are things we have bought.
2/ Your stat on EU migrants is such a short-term measure as to be meaningless given that it ignores the pressures such migration places on our society and infrastructure both now and in the future as they have children, etc, etc. It also ignores the fact that these migrants are going to get old one day, at which point we are going to be paying for them as well.
1. Those things are the benefits of the economic co-operation and it does seem pretty widely accepted that, when you factor that sort of stuff in, that we more than come out up on the deal. I dont get what people focussed on the whole "we're a net contributor!!" argument want, should we be paid to take part in this project?
2. It's not my stat and, actually, the studies that comes from doesnt ignore the pressure migration places on infrastructure like schools and GPs because it factored those into the argument.
1/ Well given that so many countries are effectively paid to take part in this project, why not? We are the second biggest net contributor, but take much less out than does France? How come? How is that fair or right?
In 2013 we put in €10.8bn more than we took out - this, incidentally, from a country that you and other Eurofanboys like to claim is half-hearted in its contribution to Europe. Well the numbers say different.
2/ As to your studies, I'd love to know how they've calculated what those migrants and their impact on infrastructure are likely to cost us over the next 25 years or so.
And that 10.8bn pales into insignificance alongside the value of the EU to the Uk economy, which is thought to be around £60-£80bn, so by any measure we're still £50bn up.
I know we might differ on our views on immigration but you really have to start to wonder when an immigrant ceases to be one, dont you? Given that even the first generation ones are estimated to be less of a burden on the state than indigenous people you'd have to assume that in future generations that would they be likely to be even less so than UK nationals born here.
Perhaps go on to extol the joys TTIP: Privatisation of the NHS, more power handed back to bankers, US Companies sueing Yerp governments for loss of their profits, job losses to the US where worker protection is lower, attacks on privacy - and nothing the electorate can do about it because, well, the electorate can **** right off because the EU is a dictatorship of an unelected elite who decide everything for us.
Surely you don't really believe that suddenly all trade between EU and UK would suddenly cease to exist? This debate should be about political accountability, not scaremongering about the supposed envanishment of the economy. Britain can still have healthy trade agreements. EU countries aren't going to suddenly impose sanctions on Britain and refuse to trade with it. The UK is the fifth largest economy in the world, and EU countries are still going to want to trade with it.
There was all this fearmongering about how disastrous it would be to not adopt the Euro.
Same with immigration from Europe. This vote isn't about sending people home and not allowing anyone else in. We can still have healthy immigration, although we will be more able to manage the best rate of doing this.
No, see, the political accountability thing is your *thing*. Personally I dont get it, mostly as I've stated before that I dont believe we've got anything like a properly functional democracy here anyway. You can bang on about unelected officials all you want but when we have an unelected house of lords and a hereditary head of state it's less than pointless.
Also, I wasnt scaremongering, I was pointing out the softer and much more valuable EU benefits when set against the net contribution argument.
The thing which, more than everything else, gets me is that we actually had more immigration from outside europe than we did from the EU last year. Given that fact do we really think we'll be able to "control" it better in the future?
:rolleyes: Even if that argument weren't as utterly, pitifully flawed as it is (neither the House of Lords nor the Monarch has actual executive power - unlike the Commission), it is a strange and perverse argument to say that you believe it's right to vote for even less political accountability because you don't feel our level of political accountability at the moment is what it ought to be.
Oh, and your £60-£80 billion figure is entirely fictitious and utterly unprovable - something that ought to be obvious from the fact that there is a disparity of TWENTY - count 'em - £20 billion between the estimates :hehe: