When considering in or out:

[ladylola]

As John said, do you want to loose all that work-place protection for greater growth in GDP, especially when the EU does have growth and work-place protection.

Although I've pretty much made up my mind I'm still largely sitting on the fence . The above statement does hold some validity although that's where it becomes confusing for those not yet swayed. yes we have work place protections as well as envoiromental and health protection courtesy of the EU but if that same organisation ratifies TTIP many of those protections could very well be removed and U.S. style labour laws become the norm for the benefit of corporate America. Then again some of the brexiters are keen on TTIP as seen in a link I put on this thread many pages ago.
Also the talk of growth and GDP is frankly not helpful to either side. Growth has it's limits and at some point will slow or stop but both seem unable to conternance the idea. Similarly GDP is a poor way of calculating the wealth or well being of a country. The figures are massaged to take account for this and that and are open to intereptation.
I can't foresee an easy passage either way and several people I've spoken to agree and are almost prepared to vote on the basis of which way sticks a finger up to the 1%ers and kleptroacy the best.

 

[Himaginn]

As John said, do you want to loose all that work-place protection for greater growth in GDP, especially when the EU does have growth and work-place protection.

Although I've pretty much made up my mind I'm still largely sitting on the fence . The above statement does hold some validity although that's where it becomes confusing for those not yet swayed. yes we have work place protections as well as envoiromental and health protection courtesy of the EU but if that same organisation ratifies TTIP many of those protections could very well be removed and U.S. style labour laws become the norm for the benefit of corporate America. Then again some of the brexiters are keen on TTIP as seen in a link I put on this thread many pages ago.
Also the talk of growth and GDP is frankly not helpful to either side. Growth has it's limits and at some point will slow or stop but both seem unable to conternance the idea. Similarly GDP is a poor way of calculating the wealth or well being of a country. The figures are massaged to take account for this and that and are open to intereptation.
I can't foresee an easy passage either way and several people I've spoken to agree and are almost prepared to vote on the basis of which way sticks a finger up to the 1%ers and kleptroacy the best.

So you reckon the Brexiters want to take back control, to then give it away to USA?

I fail to see how America can force EU, (maybe sufficiently influence UK, but not EU) to remove workplace protection rights, especially as the EU economy is greater than US economy.
Perhaps the reverse will apply?

 

[JohnD]

The Russian media (AKA Putin's mouthpiece) is strongly in favour of a Brexit. It is thought that this will weaken EU resolve for sanctions, and the UK will be easier to pick off or bypass as a lone voice.

 

[tony1851]

The Russian media (AKA Putin's mouthpiece) is strongly in favour of a Brexit. It is thought that this will weaken EU resolve for sanctions, and the UK will be easier to pick off or bypass as a lone voice.

Can't see how a Brexit would weaken the resolve of Europe as a whole to continue sanctions. This is mostly a US-driven
demand, and the UK and rEU would most likely continue as before.

 

[JohnD]

The UK is pushing hard for sanctions when Russia invades and annexes neighbouring countries. Some of the other members are less keen. Therefore it is thought that removing the UK voice will weaken the argument within a diminished EU.

It is easier to pick off a single country by offering them a tempting deal on, say, oil and gas in a cold winter.

 

[Himaginn]

I'd just like to make a couple of points:

Firstly, I think Boris and Michael have shot themselves in the foot with their open letter to Cameron. They've demonstrated that their overarching concern is with immigration, not the EU! (It may even be more underhanded than that with a move for the PM's position!)
They're prepared to forsake anything, certainly economic prosperity, in order to keep out the foreigners. Or, as they describe it, reduce immigration.
What's more worrying is that their strategy is utterly pointless. I'll explain more later when I've analysed the graph kindly provided by Gerry with the percentage of workers, students. other reasons, etc..

Secondly, going back to ladylola's comment about sitting on the fence:
If the 47% of the electorate who are currently voting to Leave, who are highly motivated (against immigration, not against EU) and extremely vocal, and all turnout to vote (we know the older group are more likely to vote.), whereas, the 53% who are Remainers, yet are not so highly motivated, probably won't all turn out to vote (Younger generation, etc) and some may not even be entitled or enabled to vote, (Expats and Crown dependent colonies)
could mean that the Brexiters might possibly win the referendum (doubtful but possible).
That means that the votes of the undecided are so much more important. Do you want a leap into the unknown, or do you want to maintain the status quo, perhaps until the next time, when you may be more enlightened, better informed?

The alternative is that the highly motivated (against immigration, not EU), extremely vocal group, might force economic shock, not only on us, but also the global economy.

I'll return to the argument that net migration will not be that much influenced by Brexit on another occasion, when I have more time available.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Although immigration isn't why I want to leave, the levels do seem unsustainable and show no signs of abating. But we all know the EU will not reform or bend to the UK's special wishes on immigration, and leaving the EU would pretty much force us to accept the Schengen zone if we want to stay in the EEC. A rock and a hard place! What is the solution??

 

[Himaginn]

Although immigration isn't why I want to leave, the levels do seem unsustainable and show no signs of abating. But we all know the EU will not reform or bend to the UK's special wishes on immigration, and leaving the EU would pretty much force us to accept the Schengen zone if we want to stay in the EEC. A rock and a hard place! What is the solution??

So what is your priority, reducing immigration or leaving the EU?
If it's reducing immigration, aren't you endangering economic prosperity just to pursue your objective?
Whereas, if really leaving the EU is your priority, isn't the emphasis on immigration a cynical exploitation of a different issue?

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Emphasis on it is cynical, although it would be irrational not to include it in the debate at all.
Do you think the current immigration level is too high?

 

[JohnD]

The FT recently forecast that, now the anti-EU campaigners' economic claims have been roundly defeated, they would be turning back to their roots and stirring up Fear of Foreigners and Immigrants.

It's started already.

Amusing to see that immigrant Boris and immigrant PBC are among them, as is Nigel with his immigrant wife.

Last throw of the dice by the anti-EU campaigners, as forecast.

I didn't expect nutter Boris to stop taking his medication, and accuse the EU of being Hitlerists, though.

 

[Himaginn]

Emphasis on it is cynical, although it would be irrational not to include it in the debate at all.
Do you think the current immigration level is too high?

Define 'too high'. Please don't use future predictions of apocalypse as your definition because we've had these type of predictions for the last 40/50/60 years, and it's not happened yet.
Additionally these previously apocalyptic immigration level predictions were aimed at non-EU immigrants. Quite convenient for these same predictions to now be aimed solely at EU migrants. Don't you think? Even more cynical for those same Brexiters to argue that any shortfall in EU skilled workforce could be made up from Commonwealth skilled immigrants. Perhaps countries that can ill afford to lose those skilled workers.

As I said earlier, in another comment, if we prevent the EU workers from coming to work in UK, how are we going to replace those workers?

We already know and recognise that the non-EU migration levels will not be affected by Brexit, that's 184,000 net migrants p.a. who will continue unabated.

Additionally, the 120,000 p.a. (64% of 188,000) EU workers (net migrants because we can assume that a similar process of UK emigration occurs.)(young, fit, healthy, tax-paying people) will be replaced by the UK emigres who no longer have the freedom to live or work in EU. These are probably the older, less healthy, non-tax paying (except on their pension) type of people who will place greater demand on public services.

We can assume that the other 35% of EU migration will not be affected. We wouldn't want to stop the students, or maybe we couldn't stop those coming to join others (ECHR which we will still recognise and nothing to do with EU) So that's about 70,000 p.a. net migration who will still have reasonably free access to UK.

So assuming we prevent the 120,000 EU workers and accept the fact that our public services (as far as health and welfare is concerned) will take a hit, that's still 250,000 p.a. net migration even after Brexit, (184,000 non-EU and 70,000 EU others). That's also assuming that the EU workers are not replaced at all.

Moreover, how many EU migrants are stuck in 'the jungle' in Calais?
How many illegal EU migrants currently evading Border Agency in UK?
How many EU illegal migrants currently trying to cross to UK?

Zilch, rien, nowt! They don't need to! They have free access currently.
That means that the Border Agency problems are only and uniquely with non-EU immigrants. In the case of Brexit the Border Agencies work will double as far as people are concerned, and new borders will be created.

UK citizens will be denied freedom to live or work in EU! The current expats health care could be curtailed. Pension payments could be affected.
And all for a cynical argument for Brexit! An argument that is full of emotion against immigration and empty of economic, social, educational, and personal sovereignty benefits.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Define 'too high'.

I want you to use your own definition. What do you think?

As I said earlier, in another comment, if we prevent the EU workers from coming to work in UK, how are we going to replace those workers?

Well since they're not here yet they don't need to be 'replaced'! But presumably we would just invite people (recruitment drives), from whatever countries, into the empty job roles, like we used to.

 

[Himaginn]

Define 'too high'.

I want you to use your own definition. What do you think?

Your assertion, you define it!
If I say, "I think the sky is a lot bluer today than yesterday." I wouldn't then ask you to provide the definition of 'blue'. I would have implicitly assumed my version of 'blue'.

As I said earlier, in another comment, if we prevent the EU workers from coming to work in UK, how are we going to replace those workers?

Well since they're not here yet they don't need to be 'replaced'! But presumably we would just invite people (recruitment drives), from whatever countries, into the empty job roles, like we used to.

Precisely, we'd just replace one group of migrants with another group.
Why risk economic prosperity and personal sovereignty for such a pointless exercise?

Why then, the emphasis on migration from the Brexit camp?

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Your assertion, you define it!

It's not an assertion it's a simply bloody question! "Do you think the current immigration level is too high?" I'm not asking when you stopped beating your wife . Why so evasive? Will it help if I rephrase it to: "What do you think of the current immigration levels?"

Precisely, we'd just replace one group of migrants with another group.

But they would be immigrants with guaranteed jobs (didnt' we ask the EU for such an arrangement a while ago, but it was declined?). They wouldn't be coming simply to try their luck.

 

[JohnD]

Gerry likes talking about foreigners and immigration, and he wants to keep stirring the anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant pot. The anti-EU campaigners have fallen back on Fear of Foreigners as their last remaining bogeyman.

He thinks there is a level of immigration that is "too high." I don't believe he is willing to tell us what that number is. Neither does he wish to tell us what number would be "too low" and what number would be "just right."