EU referendum deal (title edited)

[CityStu]

Great. Still doesn't excuse the government's responsibility for housing shortages in populated areas.

Housing shortages or too large a population?

 

[Corky]

Empty homes are everywhere in the country, so are second homes. There are plenty of Gov stats online if you wish to verify this. Of course there will be more empties in low demand areas, and in high demand areas they will be unaffordable. So take your pick, buy or rent a cheap house and travel 20 miles to work or buy a more expensive one near work.

There is a long term housing shortage which is undeniable, but it isn't the reason for homelessness. People living longer/smaller household sizes particularly in larger homes is certainly a very large factor in the shortage, however this really needs a suitable supply of housing for older households, and then such older households being wiling to move. Building 4 and 5 bedroom 'starter homes' on flood plains and green belt is not the answer.

 

[bluethrunthru]

The glaring issue is the house shortage in the South East - the majority of the jobs are there the majority of the people who work in them are obviously there they want their families with them hence the large population and Govt after Govt has failed to build sufficient houses in that area ( or do more to stimulate job creation in other regions ) and that has created massive demand for over valued housing thats in short supply in a totally distorted market

 

[aguero93:20]

Housing shortages or too large a population?

Housing shortages. If there's enough employment and enough food then you don't have an overpopulation problem.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Employment rights mean nothing if you don't have a job.

The EU has terrible unemployment problems and in the UK many peoples terms and conditions of employment have suffered greatly because of the freedom of movement of labour.

Here is Labour's Jack Straw admitting this.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/13/jack-straw-labour-mistake-poles


The EU is good for elites and big business. It is bad for everyone else.

Exiting will be the greatest victory ever for accountants , lawyers, tax advisors etc. The money that will be made from the British and European tax payers from an exit by such firms will be amazing. It will also be great for civil servings as thousands and thousands of new administrative people to renegotiate every trade deal, every treaty, every law etc effected.

So if you are any of those you will win, everyone else you will lose whatever your share is among paying for all that. That's without what happens if exit breaks up the Union which would mean the same all again.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Read the guardian article by Jack Straw that I linked to in my last post.

Are you suggesting that allowing a vast new supply of workers to enter the UK had no effect on pay, terms and conditions of those already here?

If EU membership so good for workers, why have we seen a stubbornly high unemployment rate, a vast increase in zero hours contracts and much more underemployment on short hours?

And why did every older EU country except the UK, Sweden and Ireland ban immigration for workers from newer ones like Poland in 2004?

The EU is good for big business.

If you are a big business boss then vote to stay in.

Where does all the money from big business go? Answer is to pension funds. So by virtue of your argument EU is good for pensions.

If you are seriously saying something that damages big business which is the basis for a huge chunk of the workforce and a huge chunk of pensions assets is good then you really don't care for your fellow countrymen.

Why did Britain keep immigration going? Because it has an ageing population and unlike countries like Japan which will go bankrupt Britain wanted to keep the Ponzi scheme going a few more years.

Europe is fucked because of the millenia old realities of demographics and resources, the EU is just a model on top which will be replaced by another model on top which will make no difference to the real issues. Those can only be tackled by either accepting a. Far higher savings rate and reduction in standard of living or allowing for increases net immigration to keep the working population growing .

The EU referendum is really a vote on which brand of cigarette you smoke when you really need to give up smoking . It is amazing how emotional people can get about the benefits of silk cut over Malboro lights

 

[big phil]

Yes, I may have been exaggerating slightly, but the UK is in real trouble.

Yes, I may have been exaggerating slightly, but the UK is in real trouble. Deep trouble.

Are you Swedish? If so, then any referendum shouldn't concern you. Or are you British, and desperately trying to justify your decision to emigrate?

 

[EalingBlue2]

It's not even twice that of Sweden, never mind many times. The reason the UK has acted in such a cowardly way is because of your brutish, undemocratic media. It has lied to you for so long that you now believe its poison. You're finished as a civilised nation.

I think the tax dodging billionaire media tycoons who have shaped UK discourse for 3 decades to line their own personal pockets have a huge amount to answer for. Too many people only now know what's good for Murdoch or the Daily Mails owner and pipe out lies and myths that they have been told since they were born. It is a strong point but everything that made Britain Great, innovation, openness was, progressiveness, courage etc is undermined by the insult self interested hate spouted by so much of the media. Churchill, Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George , wilberforce, Pitt etc would be horrified by today's discourse

 

[CityStu]

Housing shortages. If there's enough employment and enough food then you don't have an overpopulation problem.

So you won't be worried about the population of the country until you're struggling to eat or work? How about struggling to see a doctor or struggling to get your kid into a local school, because they're kind of problems at the moment?

 

[aguero93:20]

So you won't be worried about the population of the country until you're struggling to eat or work? How about struggling to see a doctor or struggling to get your kid into a local school, because they're kind of problems at the moment?

They'd be problems generated by mishandling of tax money yet again. The population generate the tax and the government spend it where they think necessary. If hospitals and schools are overcrowded it's a result of poor planning and administration not due to over population. Or are you going to try to tell me that the tax receipts aren't big enough to fund the nhs and education system?

 

[CityStu]

They'd be problems generated by mishandling of tax money yet again. The population generate the tax and the government spend it where they think necessary. If hospitals and schools are overcrowded it's a result of poor planning and administration not due to over population. Or are you going to try to tell me that the tax receipts aren't big enough to fund the nhs and education system?

Go back to my earlier post regarding a city the size of Leicester needing to be created every year to cope with the net migration. They need 150k houses, 3 hospitals, 100 schools, etc. and I don't think that the immigrants will generate the money needed to fund that (and the people to work in them) in their lifetime. There is only so far that you can extend existing services.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Go back to my earlier post regarding a city the size of Leicester needing to be created every year to cope with the net migration. They need 150k houses, 3 hospitals, 100 schools, etc. and I don't think that the immigrants will generate the money needed to fund that (and the people to work in them) in their lifetime. There is only so far that you can extend existing services.

The real problem is nearly two thirds of a million people turn 65 every year and every year the aged population goes up by 100-200k . That can only be paid for by economic growth which in the western world for most of the last few decades in the main only occurs with population growth. If the birth rate is also in decline in indigenous populations that only exacerbates the issue .

 

[CityStu]

The real problem is nearly two thirds of a million people turn 65 every year and every year the aged population goes up by 100-200k . That can only be paid for by economic growth which in the western world for most of the last few decades in the main only occurs with population growth. If the birth rate is also in decline in indigenous populations that only exacerbates the issue .

That is a huge problem. But shifting it to be tomorrow's problem by importing millions of working age people that will in turn grow old isn't the answer IMO.

I personally think we should make it easier, or give incentives, for working couples to have children.

 

[roaminblue]

Go back to my earlier post regarding a city the size of Leicester needing to be created every year to cope with the net migration. They need 150k houses, 3 hospitals, 100 schools, etc. and I don't think that the immigrants will generate the money needed to fund that (and the people to work in them) in their lifetime. There is only so far that you can extend existing services.

I can't find this post, do you have a link to the research.

All the evidence so far points towards immigration being younger, fitter and less inclined to use health services etc. It makes sense.

Empirically, they also tend to go back to host countries.

Now your argument isn't baseless, and your right about it shifting the burden of the pension. But what if these immigrants come here, work, pay their tax and leave? That allows for a financing source that is fungible, no?

This is what the government's want and I'll wager, that even if we exit after two years immigration will be very similar to what it is now.

We have to get used to it, it's a source of growth, a source of funds and a source of labour. The best thing we can do is embrace it and exploit the benefits.

You can't account for people having children. You xan account for funding.

 

[CityStu]

I can't find this post, do you have a link to the research.

All the evidence so far points towards immigration being younger, fitter and less inclined to use health services etc. It makes sense.

Empirically, they also tend to go back to host countries.

Now your argument isn't baseless, and your right about it shifting the burden of the pension. But what if these immigrants come here, work, pay their tax and leave? That allows for a financing source that is fungible, no?

This is what the government's want and I'll wager, that even if we exit after two years immigration will be very similar to what it is now.

We have to get used to it, it's a source of growth, a source of funds and a source of labour. The best thing we can do is embrace it and exploit the benefits.

You can't account for people having children. You xan account for funding.

Page 5. It's not research as such - simply saying that to accommodate the 350k people coming in, we'd need to create a city the size of and with the services of Leicester.

Younger also means more likely to have kids and the birth rate among immigrants is much higher than that among the native population.

Do they tend to go back? I'd have thought young people moving here and starting/bringing families would be likely to stay put. Possibly to also bring elderly relatives over to join them. I simply don't believe that the majority (or enough) immigrants will return back home to shift the pension issue off the UK.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

The real problem is nearly two thirds of a million people turn 65 every year and every year the aged population goes up by 100-200k . That can only be paid for by economic growth which in the western world for most of the last few decades in the main only occurs with population growth. If the birth rate is also in decline in indigenous populations that only exacerbates the issue .

This perceived solution would have some validity if the people being imported were qualified engineers, architects, IT professionals
and various others capable of earning around £30-£40 thousand per annum. The vast majority are not, and immediately qualify for
tax credits and child benefits, as any earnings are based on the minimum wage, so we are subsidising more people from a diminishing tax take.
Supporters of untrammelled immigration always ignore this.

 

[roaminblue]

Page 5. It's not research as such - simply saying that to accommodate the 350k people coming in, we'd need to create a city the size of and with the services of Leicester.

Younger also means more likely to have kids and the birth rate among immigrants is much higher than that among the native population.

Do they tend to go back? I'd have thought young people moving here and starting/bringing families would be likely to stay put. Possibly to also bring elderly relatives over to join them. I simply don't believe that the majority (or enough) immigrants will return back home to shift the pension issue off the UK.

I'll look at it later. The thing is, it's a very easy topic on which to hang a political hat, and that both sides of the argument are able to find articles/research to strengthen their argument and lots of real research is often over looked in favour of articles etc which are always biased :-)

So, I can't say I definitively know, but public services are synergetic. A plus one increase in population doesn't require a plus one increase in doctors/roads etc. If I had to guess, I'd say the author was likely just taking the population of Leicester (approx the same amount c.350k and using that as a clumsy example). 350k wouldn't need the infrastructure of Leicester to accommodate as they are spread around the country.

Secondly. I believe that is he trend yes. I cant look at it right now as am supposed to be working :-) but I believe the trend is to make enough money to return to their home countries, particularly European immigrants. I work with many and not one plans to stay to retirement (I know that's not robust research, though).

 

[CityStu]

I'll look at it later. The thing is, it's a very easy topic on which to hang a political hat, and that both sides of the argument are able to find articles/research to strengthen their argument and lots of real research is often over looked in favour of articles etc which are always biased :-)

So, I can't say I definitively know, but public services are synergetic. A plus one increase in population doesn't require a plus one increase in doctors/roads etc. If I had to guess, I'd say the author was likely just taking the population of Leicester (approx the same amount c.350k and using that as a clumsy example). 350k wouldn't need the infrastructure of Leicester to accommodate as they are spread around the country.

Secondly. I believe that is he trend yes. I cant look at it right now as am supposed to be working :-) but I believe the trend is to make enough money to return to their home countries, particularly European immigrants. I work with many and not one plans to stay to retirement (I know that's not robust research, though).

You would need to add that infrastructure if the current infrastructure is at breaking point though. We're a country with full schools and increasing class size. It's incredibly difficult to get a convenient doctors appointment and nigh on impossible to find an NHS dentist. Trains on the major routes are full and there's a housing crisis that's caused huge private rent costs and incredible house prices. You can't say adding a few people here and there won't hurt because it's hurting at the moment and adding more people will exacerbate the issue.

I'd like to see evidence for it. I'd imagine that many plan to return home when they come over but several will meet someone or have kids or lose family and those initial plans will change.

 

[CatMan]

It would be out for me, however that would only be the beginning. Once we are free from external interference, this country needs a radical rethink on identity, education of those still here and a plan for self sufficiency in both industry and agriculture.

Just voting out for the sake of it without a vision would be pointless. If we don't have that long term plan (hate to say this but) to make Britain great again then we might as well stay and continue to have our futures planned, arses wiped and pockets picked by the inbred mongrels of Brussels.

 

[mat]

It would be out for me, however that would only be the beginning. Once we are free from external interference, this country needs a radical rethink on identity, education of those still here and a plan for self sufficiency in both industry and agriculture.

Just voting out for the sake of it without a vision would be pointless. If we don't have that long term plan (hate to say this but) to make Britain great again then we might as well stay and continue to have our futures planned, arses wiped and pockets picked by the inbred mongrels of Brussels.

Hello Mr Farage
*Waves*