YES is miles ahead of NO in latest EU referendum poll !!

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 02 Jun 2015, 14:14

First topic message reminder :

Latest ICM poll - Should Britain stay in Europe ????...

Stay in 59%.......................Get out 41% .....

Common sense seems to be prevailing..

by Duty281 Thu 28 Jan 2016, 02:38

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The polls have never been better for in..

What rubbish, the decline is starting to happen.

http://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/poll-of-polls/

Your thread starts off with an ICM poll - 59% remain, 41% leave. The latest ICM poll conducted has seen the two sides become dead even.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 28 Jan 2016, 09:56

Reckon the immigration troubles in Europe will help the 'IN' case. Those countries on the continent that are typically obstructive to 'little England' type concerns are now facing similar pressures domestically and having to take a different line - one that would help UK negs potentially.

by Duty281 Thu 28 Jan 2016, 12:16

What does the Prime Minister actually want from the negotiations with regards to immigration?

From what I've read, the only thing he's targeting on this topic is the restriction of benefits to EU migrants; hardly the substantial reform that this nation so desperately needs.

Unless there's something more?

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 28 Jan 2016, 13:00

Duty281 wrote:What does the Prime Minister actually want from the negotiations with regards to immigration?

From what I've read, the only thing he's targeting on this topic is the restriction of benefits to EU migrants; hardly the substantial reform that this nation so desperately needs.

Unless there's something more?

What "lawful" reforms are they Duty..............You smokescreen a lot.....Give him some workable ideas..

by Duty281 Thu 28 Jan 2016, 13:18

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Duty281 wrote:What does the Prime Minister actually want from the negotiations with regards to immigration?

From what I've read, the only thing he's targeting on this topic is the restriction of benefits to EU migrants; hardly the substantial reform that this nation so desperately needs.

Unless there's something more?

What "lawful" reforms are they Duty..............You smokescreen a lot.....Give him some workable ideas..

End the free movement of persons for citizens of the EU, and ensure our borders are managed securely and safely.

This is absolutely vital, on a security level, because of the idiotic actions of the European Union and Merkel over the last year.

Of course, the only way our democratically-elected Prime Minister can deliver this (not that he wants to) would be through leaving the European Union.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 28 Jan 2016, 15:14

What utter unsubstantiated rubbish. Whole economy would collapse picard

by Duty281 Thu 28 Jan 2016, 15:19

TopHat24/7 wrote:What utter unsubstantiated rubbish. Whole economy would collapse

The lolz and the irony of that above comment.

by **Pr4wn** Thu 28 Jan 2016, 15:23

by Duty281 Thu 28 Jan 2016, 15:35

I might join you.

I'm very eager to hear how the entire economy of this country depends on the free movement of people from the EU.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 28 Jan 2016, 15:36

Duty281 wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:What utter unsubstantiated rubbish. Whole economy would collapse

The lolz and the irony of that above comment.

Not really. You can't actually back anything you say up with any logic or rationale. You're just an ignorant Farage mouth piece.

This country would barely exist without immigrant labour. Too many Brits are lazy wastes of space. Every time you see someone non-British doing a job, think to yourself - would a Brit really get off their arris and do that? The answer is know, as god knows how many employers/recruiters have found out.

It's pure ignorant little Englander thinking - almost always coming from those far far away from the top of the socio-economic tree.

by Duty281 Thu 28 Jan 2016, 15:52

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:What utter unsubstantiated rubbish. Whole economy would collapse

The lolz and the irony of that above comment.

Not really. You can't actually back anything you say up with any logic or rationale. You're just an ignorant Farage mouth piece.

This country would barely exist without immigrant labour.Too many Brits are lazy wastes of space. Every time you see someone non-British doing a job, think to yourself - would a Brit really get off their arris and do that? The answer is know, as god knows how many employers/recruiters have found out.

It's pure ignorant little Englander thinking - almost always coming from those far far away from the top of the socio-economic tree.

Well this is the main reason for why we should end the free movement of people from the EU:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33101336

I think it's very clear that we should treat all potential immigrants the same, and judge such people in the same way. Turning away skilled migrants, in favour of largely unskilled ones, is of great harm to our economy, but it is the unfortunate reality whilst we remain in the EU.

I note a good number of the highest-rated comments on that BBC page think along similar lines...but I suppose they're all just "ignorant Farage mouth pieces," as well?

And the second main argument is wage compression - simple economics of supply and demand.

And then there's security, as well, which is of even greater importance because of the events over the last eighteen months.

As for the bit in bold, I have no idea what your hysterical ranting is trying to achieve. It appears to lack any logic or rationale.

by **Pr4wn** Thu 28 Jan 2016, 15:55

To be fair, the comments section of the BBC is a great alternative to actual opinion polls.

by greengoblin Thu 28 Jan 2016, 16:11

After Cologne, the EU referendum has now become a simple question of whether you want to endanger your Sister, Daughter etc

When will people understand that the cultural attitudes of Arabic and African people are often very different to our own, and them being here doesn't change those attitudes. There was an article on the bbc about 'refugees' in finland being given cultural lessons. It didn't change them. I don't want more people coming in who think white women are trash and easy meat. We've had more than enough of that in Rotheram, oxford etc.

by Duty281 Thu 28 Jan 2016, 16:12

Pr4wn wrote:To be fair, the comments section of the BBC is a great alternative to actual opinion polls.

Well OK then.

Spoiler:

Does the EU principle of the free movement of people make you feel safe or unsafe? 48% unsafe, 33% neither, 9% safe.

Should citizens of any EU country have the freedom to live and work in Britain? 48% should not, 36% should.

In response to the recent events in Paris, do you support or oppose closing Britain’s borders with the EU so no-one from Europe can come into Britain permanently? 53% support, 34% oppose.

Should the UK limit the number of people coming from the EU by introducing an Australian points based immigration system? 76% yes, 15% no.

Do you agree or disagree that immigration strengthens GB because of the work ethic and skills of immigrants? 23% strongly disagree, 20% agree, 20% disagree, 8% agree.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 28 Jan 2016, 16:21

Angry people comment. Never the best place to view a balance of opinions.

Most of those arguments fall apart when you consider that there aren't British people available to fill the roles that would be available - does society, or the economy, benefit because Brit tradesman can charge £500 per day's labour rather than £300 because all the competition has been removed? And do worse jobs as a result.

Ignore the bit in bold all you want, you have to, ignoring it is essential to the sustainability of your case.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 28 Jan 2016, 16:23

greengoblin wrote:After Cologne, the EU referendum has now become a simple question of whether you want to endanger your Sister, Daughter etc

When will people understand that the cultural attitudes of Arabic and African people are often very different to our own, and them being here doesn't change those attitudes. There was an article on the bbc about 'refugees' in finland being given cultural lessons. It didn't change them. I don't want more people coming in who think white women are trash and easy meat. We've had more than enough of that in Rotheram, oxford etc.

Oh great, you're back........... picard

YES is miles ahead of NO in latest EU referendum poll !! - Page 5 1347041234

by **superflyweight** Thu 28 Jan 2016, 16:26

TopHat24/7 wrote:
greengoblin wrote:After Cologne, the EU referendum has now become a simple question of whether you want to endanger your Sister, Daughter etc

When will people understand that the cultural attitudes of Arabic and African people are often very different to our own, and them being here doesn't change those attitudes. There was an article on the bbc about 'refugees' in finland being given cultural lessons. It didn't change them. I don't want more people coming in who think white women are trash and easy meat. We've had more than enough of that in Rotheram, oxford etc.

Oh great, you're back...........

Yep - there's nothing like a daft racist vomiting out oceans of sh1t to cut to the chase on an otherwise complicated and nuanced issue.

by Duty281 Thu 28 Jan 2016, 16:30

TopHat24/7 wrote:Angry people comment. Never the best place to view a balance of opinions.

Most of those arguments fall apart when you consider that there aren't British people available to fill the roles that would be available - does society, or the economy, benefit because Brit tradesman can charge £500 per day's labour rather than £300 because all the competition has been removed? And do worse jobs as a result.

Ignore the bit in bold all you want, you have to, ignoring it is essential to the sustainability of your case.

I'm not ignoring it, it just has no merit. You're painting it as though British people would never dare do any form of unskilled labour, which is simply not the way it is.

And, in reply, does society or the economy benefit when doctors, teachers (and such) have to be turned away for the simple reason that they are outside the EU?

by **ShahenshahG** Thu 28 Jan 2016, 16:33

superflyweight wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
greengoblin wrote:After Cologne, the EU referendum has now become a simple question of whether you want to endanger your Sister, Daughter etc

When will people understand that the cultural attitudes of Arabic and African people are often very different to our own, and them being here doesn't change those attitudes. There was an article on the bbc about 'refugees' in finland being given cultural lessons. It didn't change them. I don't want more people coming in who think white women are trash and easy meat. We've had more than enough of that in Rotheram, oxford etc.

Oh great, you're back...........

Yep - there's nothing like a daft racist vomiting out oceans of sh1t to cut to the chase on an otherwise complicated and nuanced issue.

To be fair to him his sparkling personality is overshadowed by his inability to get a job because of immigrants and his inability to grope unwilling white women because the immigrants have beaten him to it and consequently white women now carry mace. He has no other refuge from his unimportance (both in his own eyes and ours).

by TopHat24/7 Thu 28 Jan 2016, 16:47

Duty281 wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:Angry people comment. Never the best place to view a balance of opinions.

Most of those arguments fall apart when you consider that there aren't British people available to fill the roles that would be available - does society, or the economy, benefit because Brit tradesman can charge £500 per day's labour rather than £300 because all the competition has been removed? And do worse jobs as a result.

Ignore the bit in bold all you want, you have to, ignoring it is essential to the sustainability of your case.

I'm not ignoring it, it just has no merit. You're painting it as though British people would never dare do any form of unskilled labour, which is simply not the way it is.

Evidence suggest otherwise. Speak to anyone that employs un or low skilled labour. Countless cases out there about how jobs haven't been able to be filled by Brits or, when they have been, Brit workers have been useless lazy and either quit or got fired whilst the immigrant labour generally did a better job, turned up (on time) and complained less.

by **ShahenshahG** Thu 28 Jan 2016, 16:59

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:Angry people comment. Never the best place to view a balance of opinions.

Most of those arguments fall apart when you consider that there aren't British people available to fill the roles that would be available - does society, or the economy, benefit because Brit tradesman can charge £500 per day's labour rather than £300 because all the competition has been removed? And do worse jobs as a result.

Ignore the bit in bold all you want, you have to, ignoring it is essential to the sustainability of your case.

I'm not ignoring it, it just has no merit. You're painting it as though British people would never dare do any form of unskilled labour, which is simply not the way it is.

Evidence suggest otherwise. Speak to anyone that employs un or low skilled labour. Countless cases out there about how jobs haven't been able to be filled by Brits or, when they have been, Brit workers have been useless lazy and either quit or got fired whilst the immigrant labour generally did a better job, turned up (on time) and complained less.

Not always true but in general yes. We've got three british born lads here, two of them are a bit older and do the job, the one who is about 20 takes off two days after pay day because he's hungover and the agency people who come in - invariably immigrants are coming from a second or third job. Knackered as f*ck but working hard for the opportunity. I was talking to one of them and he said to me that generally speaking, british born kids like to work to their terms or are lazy whereas the immigrants snatch the person offering the jobs hand off if the job is available. It's one of the few things we agree on toppy Hug

Just kids short of confidence I think and it bleeds into everything they do. Whereas with migrants desperation is a serviceable substitute for confidence.

by Duty281 Thu 28 Jan 2016, 17:04

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:Angry people comment. Never the best place to view a balance of opinions.

Most of those arguments fall apart when you consider that there aren't British people available to fill the roles that would be available - does society, or the economy, benefit because Brit tradesman can charge £500 per day's labour rather than £300 because all the competition has been removed? And do worse jobs as a result.

Ignore the bit in bold all you want, you have to, ignoring it is essential to the sustainability of your case.

I'm not ignoring it, it just has no merit. You're painting it as though British people would never dare do any form of unskilled labour, which is simply not the way it is.

Evidence suggest otherwise. Speak to anyone that employs un or low skilled labour. Countless cases out there about how jobs haven't been able to be filled by Brits or, when they have been, Brit workers have been useless lazy and either quit or got fired whilst the immigrant labour generally did a better job, turned up (on time) and complained less.

http://www.cipd.co.uk/binaries/the-growth-of-eu-labour-assessing-impact-uk-labour-market_2014.pdf

According to this study, when asked for their reasons why they employed EU migrant workers, only 20% of employers said it was because EU migrants had a better work ethic/motivation than UK workers. 26% said they had difficulties attracting UK-born candidates.

These are minority figures.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 28 Jan 2016, 17:40

Business and innovation department produced a report in the last government on migrant workers and how important they are to the economy..

Sure you can find it on Gov.uk.

by greengoblin Thu 28 Jan 2016, 18:40

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Business and innovation department produced a report in the last government on migrant workers and how important they are to the economy..

Sure you can find it on Gov.uk.

Shocking I know that Business likes cheap labour. For the guy saying it is preferable to GDP to have cheap labour I agree, but I would rather we have British workers get paid fairly. What you're arguing for is a Chinese economy, with no middle class. I don't want that.

by Duty281 Fri 29 Jan 2016, 05:19

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Business and innovation department produced a report in the last government on migrant workers and how important they are to the economy..

Sure you can find it on Gov.uk.

Link...?

by Rowley Fri 29 Jan 2016, 07:52

greengoblin wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Business and innovation department produced a report in the last government on migrant workers and how important they are to the economy..

Sure you can find it on Gov.uk.

Shocking I know that Business likes cheap labour. For the guy saying it is preferable to GDP to have cheap labour I agree, but I would rather we have British workers get paid fairly. What you're arguing for is a Chinese economy, with no middle class. I don't want that.

It isn't just about cheap, it is about skills. Our universities produce too few graduates in engineering and pure science subjects, over restricting immigration seriously hurts such industries. Assuming the only attraction of overseas labour is the fact they are cheap is just ignorant.

by TopHat24/7 Fri 29 Jan 2016, 09:42

ShahenshahG wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:Angry people comment. Never the best place to view a balance of opinions.

Most of those arguments fall apart when you consider that there aren't British people available to fill the roles that would be available - does society, or the economy, benefit because Brit tradesman can charge £500 per day's labour rather than £300 because all the competition has been removed? And do worse jobs as a result.

Ignore the bit in bold all you want, you have to, ignoring it is essential to the sustainability of your case.

I'm not ignoring it, it just has no merit. You're painting it as though British people would never dare do any form of unskilled labour, which is simply not the way it is.

Evidence suggest otherwise. Speak to anyone that employs un or low skilled labour. Countless cases out there about how jobs haven't been able to be filled by Brits or, when they have been, Brit workers have been useless lazy and either quit or got fired whilst the immigrant labour generally did a better job, turned up (on time) and complained less.

Not always true but in general yes. We've got three british born lads here, two of them are a bit older and do the job, the one who is about 20 takes off two days after pay day because he's hungover and the agency people who come in - invariably immigrants are coming from a second or third job. Knackered as f*ck but working hard for the opportunity. I was talking to one of them and he said to me that generally speaking, british born kids like to work to their terms or are lazy whereas the immigrants snatch the person offering the jobs hand off if the job is available. It's one of the few things we agree on toppy Just kids short of confidence I think and it bleeds into everything they do. Whereas with migrants desperation is a serviceable substitute for confidence.

Good post and thank you for sharing your experience.

There have been numerous articles in the press of farmers and call centre managers trying to fill low skilled roles with Brits and having no success. Fruit/vet pickers were none existant and the guy up north that ran a call centre was offering 3-4 jobs, comfy hours, minimum wage plus bonus (which every worker had received the last 3 years), warm dry office etc etc - he only filled a couple and both of those had quit or been fired for non-attendence within a month.

Have friends in retail and hospitality sectors that have said the same also.

by TopHat24/7 Fri 29 Jan 2016, 09:59

Although the majority of employers start with no clear
intentions or preference for hiring migrant workers, young
workers or any other group that presents itself, employers do
make hiring decisions and the employees hired are sometimes
migrant workers. The summer 2014 Labour Market Outlook
survey therefore asked employers why they hired migrant
workers (see Figure 15).

The most commonly mentioned reason was that EU migrant
workers were available, with a quarter of employers (26%)
identifying ‘difficulty in attracting UK-born candidates to fill
unskilled or semi-skilled jobs’.

The next two most frequently cited reasons for employing
migrant workers were because of their fit with the
organisation’s values (21%) and their better work ethic (20%) –
these factors were much more commonly mentioned by private
sector employers (23%) than public sector employers (12%).
In all, 16% of employers say they recruit migrant workers
because they have better job-specific, practical or technical
knowledge.

In contrast, few employers appear to recruit EU migrants
because they think this is a way of reducing labour costs or
getting good people ‘on the cheap’. Only a small proportion of
employers (12%) said they recruited migrant workers because
they have lower expectations about pay and employment
conditions.7

by Duty281 Fri 29 Jan 2016, 12:44

Yes, exactly. You said that Brits were too lazy, were not going to do the same type of work as migrants would do, and there were 'countless cases' to support this. I disagreed, and you said the evidence suggested otherwise.

Well that report is an example of actual evidence - not anecdotal - and it shows that a slender minority of 20% of employers asked would agree with your point of view; the view being that EU migrants were hired because they provide a (perceived) superior work ethic to Brits. A further minority of 26% say they have difficulty in attracting British candidates.

Furthermore, if EU migrants weren't available in the future, 48% of employers say they would hire the next best British candidate, 18% would introduce more apprenticeships, 17% would hire more graduates, and 14% would hire more school-leavers. Only 23% are unsure as to what they would do.

That is hardly going to lead to, as you have said, the collapse of the whole economy.

by TopHat24/7 Fri 29 Jan 2016, 14:29

'slender minority' behave Laugh

by Duty281 Fri 29 Jan 2016, 14:32

Well alright, but it's still a minority.

by TopHat24/7 Fri 29 Jan 2016, 14:42

That's a pretty fallacious statistical influence. The statistical significance is relevant to the other answers proferred, not simply a case of 50%+ is all that counts, otherwise you'd never get a majority where a series of non-mututally exclusive options are provided.

That a quarter of respondents said they took on migrants because Brits wouldn't do the work is very significant, given the amount of unemployed Brits there are, especially with all the 'stealing our jobs' rhetoric. Basically almost half said they hired migrants because Brits either wouldn't do the work or would do it poorly/begrudingly. That is pretty damning.

Compare that to only 12% on the basis of 'cheap labour', which debunks the 'stealing our jobs' myth.

by **Pr4wn** Fri 29 Jan 2016, 15:03

Schrodinger's Immigrant: Simultaneously stealing your job and being too lazy to work.

by TopHat24/7 Fri 29 Jan 2016, 15:24

Schrodinger's or Farage's...??

by Duty281 Fri 29 Jan 2016, 16:38

TopHat24/7 wrote:That's a pretty fallacious statistical influence. The statistical significance is relevant to the other answers proferred, not simply a case of 50%+ is all that counts, otherwise you'd never get a majority where a series of non-mututally exclusive options are provided.

That a quarter of respondents said they took on migrants because Brits wouldn't do the work is very significant, given the amount of unemployed Brits there are, especially with all the 'stealing our jobs' rhetoric. Basically almost half said they hired migrants because Brits either wouldn't do the work or would do it poorly/begrudingly. That is pretty damning.

Compare that to only 12% on the basis of 'cheap labour', which debunks the 'stealing our jobs' myth.

Pretty damning? Certainly nowhere near as horrific as you were painting it.

And I haven't raised the 'stealing our jobs' line, it is an irrelevance. The free movement of persons within the EU needs to be ended in this country for reasons of a) security b) to halt wage compression and c) so that non-EU migrants are not discriminated against.

Such an action would not cause the entire economy to collapse.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 29 Jan 2016, 16:54

Pr4wn wrote:Schrodinger's Immigrant: Simultaneously stealing your job and being too lazy to work.

Nice. Like that one.

by TopHat24/7 Fri 29 Jan 2016, 16:57

Duty281 wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:That's a pretty fallacious statistical influence. The statistical significance is relevant to the other answers proferred, not simply a case of 50%+ is all that counts, otherwise you'd never get a majority where a series of non-mututally exclusive options are provided.

That a quarter of respondents said they took on migrants because Brits wouldn't do the work is very significant, given the amount of unemployed Brits there are, especially with all the 'stealing our jobs' rhetoric. Basically almost half said they hired migrants because Brits either wouldn't do the work or would do it poorly/begrudingly. That is pretty damning.

Compare that to only 12% on the basis of 'cheap labour', which debunks the 'stealing our jobs' myth.

Pretty damning? Certainly nowhere near as horrific as you were painting it.

And I haven't raised the 'stealing our jobs' line, it is an irrelevance. The free movement of persons within the EU needs to be ended in this country for reasons of a) security b) to halt wage compression and c) so that non-EU migrants are not discriminated against.

Such an action would not cause the entire economy to collapse.

Except your own evidence debunks 'b)' - employers aren't hiring migrants for cheap labour. Most popular reasons were because Brits won't do the job and aren't always as good when they do - two issues that won't be rectified by your mooted policies. Society suffering as a consequence.

by Duty281 Fri 29 Jan 2016, 17:08

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:That's a pretty fallacious statistical influence. The statistical significance is relevant to the other answers proferred, not simply a case of 50%+ is all that counts, otherwise you'd never get a majority where a series of non-mututally exclusive options are provided.

That a quarter of respondents said they took on migrants because Brits wouldn't do the work is very significant, given the amount of unemployed Brits there are, especially with all the 'stealing our jobs' rhetoric. Basically almost half said they hired migrants because Brits either wouldn't do the work or would do it poorly/begrudingly. That is pretty damning.

Compare that to only 12% on the basis of 'cheap labour', which debunks the 'stealing our jobs' myth.

Pretty damning? Certainly nowhere near as horrific as you were painting it.

And I haven't raised the 'stealing our jobs' line, it is an irrelevance. The free movement of persons within the EU needs to be ended in this country for reasons of a) security b) to halt wage compression and c) so that non-EU migrants are not discriminated against.

Such an action would not cause the entire economy to collapse.

Except your own evidence debunks 'b)' - employers aren't hiring migrants for cheap labour. Most popular reasons were because Brits won't do the job and aren't always as good when they do - two issues that won't be rectified by your mooted policies. Society suffering as a consequence.

Supply and demand, my dear fellow.

And the aforementioned evidence clearly shows that if the free movement of persons in the EU was ended, then a majority of employers would focus on hiring more British workers.

by TopHat24/7 Fri 29 Jan 2016, 17:20

Duty281 wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:That's a pretty fallacious statistical influence. The statistical significance is relevant to the other answers proferred, not simply a case of 50%+ is all that counts, otherwise you'd never get a majority where a series of non-mututally exclusive options are provided.

That a quarter of respondents said they took on migrants because Brits wouldn't do the work is very significant, given the amount of unemployed Brits there are, especially with all the 'stealing our jobs' rhetoric. Basically almost half said they hired migrants because Brits either wouldn't do the work or would do it poorly/begrudingly. That is pretty damning.

Compare that to only 12% on the basis of 'cheap labour', which debunks the 'stealing our jobs' myth.

Pretty damning? Certainly nowhere near as horrific as you were painting it.

And I haven't raised the 'stealing our jobs' line, it is an irrelevance. The free movement of persons within the EU needs to be ended in this country for reasons of a) security b) to halt wage compression and c) so that non-EU migrants are not discriminated against.

Such an action would not cause the entire economy to collapse.

Except your own evidence debunks 'b)' - employers aren't hiring migrants for cheap labour. Most popular reasons were because Brits won't do the job and aren't always as good when they do - two issues that won't be rectified by your mooted policies. Society suffering as a consequence.

Supply and demand, my dear fellow.

And the aforementioned evidence clearly shows that if the free movement of persons in the EU was ended, then a majority of employers would focus on hiring more British workers.

Ignorant on so many levels....

by Duty281 Fri 29 Jan 2016, 17:26

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:That's a pretty fallacious statistical influence. The statistical significance is relevant to the other answers proferred, not simply a case of 50%+ is all that counts, otherwise you'd never get a majority where a series of non-mututally exclusive options are provided.

That a quarter of respondents said they took on migrants because Brits wouldn't do the work is very significant, given the amount of unemployed Brits there are, especially with all the 'stealing our jobs' rhetoric. Basically almost half said they hired migrants because Brits either wouldn't do the work or would do it poorly/begrudingly. That is pretty damning.

Compare that to only 12% on the basis of 'cheap labour', which debunks the 'stealing our jobs' myth.

Pretty damning? Certainly nowhere near as horrific as you were painting it.

And I haven't raised the 'stealing our jobs' line, it is an irrelevance. The free movement of persons within the EU needs to be ended in this country for reasons of a) security b) to halt wage compression and c) so that non-EU migrants are not discriminated against.

Such an action would not cause the entire economy to collapse.

Except your own evidence debunks 'b)' - employers aren't hiring migrants for cheap labour. Most popular reasons were because Brits won't do the job and aren't always as good when they do - two issues that won't be rectified by your mooted policies. Society suffering as a consequence.

Supply and demand, my dear fellow.

And the aforementioned evidence clearly shows that if the free movement of persons in the EU was ended, then a majority of employers would focus on hiring more British workers.

Ignorant on so many levels....

Indeed you are.

Never mind, I'll continue backing up what I say with actual evidence, and I'll leave you with your prejudice and anecdotal hearsay.

Here's some more of that actual evidence for you, from the Bank of England:

"[...] if the proportion of immigrants working in a particular occupation rises by 10 percentage points, the occupational wage falls by around 0.3 percent."

by Mad for Chelsea Fri 29 Jan 2016, 17:32

navyblueshorts wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:Schrodinger's Immigrant: Simultaneously stealing your job and being too lazy to work.
Nice. Like that one.

Me too

I might just steal it for future discussions Very Happy

by Rowley Fri 29 Jan 2016, 18:40

Duty281 wrote: c) so that non-EU migrants are not discriminated against.

Any chance you can explain this point. I am not sure how this works.

by Steffan Fri 29 Jan 2016, 19:01

Duty281 wrote: c) so that non-EU migrants are not discriminated against

Considering your continued dislike for EU migrants I am quite surprised you have such compassion and sympathy for the "non-EU" ones

by Lowlandbrit Fri 29 Jan 2016, 19:27

Rowley wrote:
Duty281 wrote: c) so that non-EU migrants are not discriminated against.
Any chance you can explain this point. I am not sure how this works.

It's something UKIP started trialling in the GE, basically the idea is that the EU isn't just sending over Romanians to steal your job/wallet, it's also preventing decent, hard-working Indians/Jamaicans/Australians/etc from coming to the UK. The underlying suggestion is that the UK could set up some sort of Commonwealth agreement to replace the EU.

by Rowley Fri 29 Jan 2016, 19:55

It doesn't really make a lot of sense though does it? At the minute the only roles EU nationals can fill that non EU nationals can't is low skilled jobs, as there is simply not a visa category for non skilled roles. Unless the proposal is we leave the EU and introduce a visa route for low skilled roles, which nobody is proposing as the belief is that these should be filled from the resident labour market. When it comes to better paid, skilled and graduate level jobs non EU nationals can apply for and come to the UK to fill these.

As such I struggle to see how being in the EU discriminates against non EU migrants, we leave the EU a bunch of low skilled jobs they can't apply for opens up which hardly helps their cause greatly. Unless this talk of discrimination really means that EU migrants are a problem because they are coming over here and taking highly skilled, specialised and well paid positions, which I have to admit is an interesting take on the whole issue of immigration.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 29 Jan 2016, 19:57

It's a no brainer really..

USA has ruled out a FTA with Britain if it opts out...and we are Britain's biggest export market....

Tariffs and barriers alone should make people see sense. .

A lot of sense in Rowley's post..

by Duty281 Sat 30 Jan 2016, 12:26

Rowley wrote:
Duty281 wrote: c) so that non-EU migrants are not discriminated against.

Any chance you can explain this point. I am not sure how this works.

Unfair caps are being imposed on the number of non-EU migrants allowed in to this country, just so this nation can accommodate the large numbers coming in from inside the EU.

This is done in an effort to reduce the strain on public services.

If this country divorced itself from the European Union, then Her Majesty's government could enact a sensible border policy, which would apply the same criteria to all potential immigrants, and henceforth have a policy on immigration which is fair and non-discriminatory.

by Duty281 Sat 30 Jan 2016, 12:27

Steffan wrote:
Duty281 wrote: c) so that non-EU migrants are not discriminated against
Considering your continued dislike for EU migrants I am quite surprised you have such compassion and sympathy for the "non-EU" ones

I have no dislike for EU migrants. I merely want all potential migrants to be treated the same, regardless of whether or not they are citizens of the EU.

by Duty281 Sat 30 Jan 2016, 12:34

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:It's a no brainer really..

USA has ruled out a FTA with Britain if it opts out...and we are Britain's biggest export market....

Tariffs and barriers alone should make people see sense. .

A lot of sense in Rowley's post..

The United States of America has free trade deals with Oman, Morocco, Australia, Peru and South Korea, amongst others.

I'm sure the 5th largest economy in the world can come to an accord with our transatlantic cousins, in the event of the UK leaving the EU.

by Rowley Sat 30 Jan 2016, 13:15

Duty281 wrote:
Rowley wrote:
Duty281 wrote: c) so that non-EU migrants are not discriminated against.

Any chance you can explain this point. I am not sure how this works.

Unfair caps are being imposed on the number of non-EU migrants allowed in to this country,.

That isn't really happening though. The only cap is that those coming in have to be skilled and capable of filling well paid roles. That has been the intention of the immigration system for countless years now. A couple of schemes have closed which allowed access to work, but those were closed because of widespread abuse of the systems, their closure was in no way shape or form related to Eastern European migration and nobody has ever claimed such was the case.

There are caps within the Tier 2 system, but in the nearly 8 years the scheme has been in place the monthly cap has been breached twice. That to me suggests the cap is set at a more than reasonable and sensible level. Again there is no evidence that in the two months the cap was breached was as a consequence of European free movement. Would be interested as to which caps in the current immigration system it is you think are so unfair.

by Sponsored content