To think saying house prices could crash if we brexit will be a plus for many

[feellikeahugefailure]

The BoE and other banks say this as if it is universally bad news. If it stops the vast amount of foreign speculation on UK property then many will see it as a good thing.

Even if you own your own home, its paper gains unless you sell it. So even homeowners might want prices to fall as otherwise their children may never own a home.

few understood what a pyramid is

You can have Triangles pointing both ways, diamonds and spinning tops, but the point is that the baby boomer bulge in the population could live for another 40 years, in declining health and not working.

Even without the boomers, increased longetivity means that without immigrants we have a declining population that faces supporting a non-productive older generation that is an increasing burden on resources.

This isn't a future problem - the NHS already relies on immigrants to provide all levels off service and we already know that the working population will struggle to provide state pensions. (And living on the south coast, every second building development seems to be a dementia care home).

So we can leave the EU and we well still need inmigrants - and just like every other time that immigrants have been needed, they will probably be met with prejudice and their descendants will be told to go home, but we still need immigrants.

Of Course maybe I am missing something and there is an alternative possibility where a declining population can rely on robots?

^We have an ageing population and a birth rate of below 2 children per woman. Whether or not the UK government subsidises people in low skilled jobs, the dependent population is growing and the working population is not being replaced.

Like it or not, we need immigration.^

You didn't answer the question of how a migrant family in the circumstances I described are a net gain to the country. The only gain they bring us additional bodies that must be fed clothes schooled cared for etc.

Yes, we do need immigration. But we need immigrants from around the wired who can bring the skills we need, not self-selecting EU migrants who may be a net drain on the economy. There's no point importing people simply to keep the population numbers up if therer is no net gain. That's sheer stupidity.

You might argue that immigration is fine but you want more controlled immigration, however, just like other countries that aren't in the EU, we would still have to deals re: free movement of people.

Really? Show me where it says that I can chose to live in the U.S. or Canada iof Aystralia simply because it trades with the EU. We can't. We don't have to accept free movement to trade with the EU.

I don't think leaving the EU would be the end of the world, but I don't think it would make much difference. EU relations are dependent on the balance of power within the EU. We would end up with broadly similar agreements and bureaucracy.

It would be the start of a new lease of life for this country as we regain the ability to trade with how we like on mutually acceptable terms

want top notch corporate lawyers from the Magic Circle , top economists negotiating our BREXIT under the watchful eye of a Eurosceptic PM ( not Cameron)

Yes, leaving the EU could be good news for lawyers.

They can tear themselves from assisting big corporation to lobby the EU to share laws that suit them. They'd be working FOR us, not AGAINST us for a change

You didn't answer the question of how a migrant family in the circumstances I described are a net gain to the country.

At the moment hospital cleaners from the EU are enabling people to be treated in hospital. I would say that is a net gain.

Re: the rest of your post, who knows? It all comes down to who has the most power, including the lawyers who can do what they want and will follow the money.

Also if the UK was to negotiate trade deals with the EU after Brexit it is highly likely that it would have to include freedom of movement in those deals (as Norway and Switzerland do) so that immigration wouldn't be curbed.

No.
We are not Norway nor Switzerland. We will have our own UK deal that doesn't involve freedom of movement. Such a relationship us possible as you helpfully point out below

NZ, Aus and Canada are able to cherry pick because they don't have freedom of movement agreements.

EXACTLY,!!!!

and without freedom of movement imposed by being in the EU we too can cherry pick the best migrants from throughout the world.

As previously stated it is likely that the UK would have to conceed freedom of movement as part of any trade agreement with the EU.

Please explain why. NZ, Aus and Canada all trade with the EU but do not have freedom of movement.

What you think is a Single Market us actually more like a Unified Market with no borders and one large economic, state with a degree of political union. Sounds familiar? It is. But they can't use the word 'Unified' because it scares the horses.

Still waiting for the breakdown of how My Model Migrant family is a net contributor to the UK.

Helpful I used the Daily Mail point because you seemed to repeat their: " Uk is the preferred destination" point, when statistically it isn't. There are far more refugees in neighbouring countries to war zones, there are far more refugees in other European countries. In terms of EU migration there are more in Germany and France in nominal terms.

As a % of the population there are more in Germany, Ireland, Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Spain etc so your "preffered destination" point on all counts is erroneous.

"The EUs free moment of people discriminates against non-EU skilled workers who, due to the EUs open borders are subject to overly restrictive quotas'

But earlier you prasied Canada, NZ and Australia for their restrictive immigration practices, so which argument are you going for here? I also don't think that it is that hard for non-EU citizens to get visas, look at the number of non EU nurses in the NHS, antipodean teachers etc.

^You didn't answer the question of how a migrant family in the circumstances I described are a net gain to the country.

At the moment hospital cleaners from the EU are enabling people to be treated in hospital. I would say that is a net gain.^

Nope. They are probably the most expensive hospital cleaners in the world when the true cost of their benefits and entitlements are calculated.

We have over a million habitually resident Britons on the dole. I expect some of them could easily do the hospital cleaning job. Get them off the dole before importing EU migrant gold-plated hospital cleaners

this from the Guardian last year!
The study, published in the Economic Journal on Wednesday shows that 62% of migrants from western Europe – the A15 countries such as France, Italy and Spain – who come to Britain each year have a university degree compared with 24% of the British labour force.
so 62% of the immigrants from Western Europe - not all of the enlarged EU - have degrees which casts this figure in a differant light.

"We are not Norway nor Switzerland. We will have our own UK deal that doesn't involve freedom of movement. Such a relationship us possible as you helpfully point out below"

We will have a much weakened hand when negotiating, due to the balances of trade. I hate to tell you but freedom of movement is likely to continue to be part of any agreement. NZ, Canada and Aus do not have freedom of movement within the EU because their trade with the EU is significantly lower, and they have their own trading blocs.

The data has been told to you on the net contribution thing, the Poles alone are thought to have added £5bn more than they have taken out. Your "model" family is a poor example because statistically most migrants are single and young and less likely to have family. But even when the data is presented to you, you fail to acknowledge it.

I praised those nations because they are able to choose which migrants to accept.
EU rules restrict us from allowing in skilled non-EU workers.

Mollie the same report said 25% of the immigrants from Eastern Europe have degrees.

NZ, Aus and Canada all trade with the EU but do not have freedom of movement.

Being the other side of the world and relatively small, Australia and New Zealand wouldn't be looking for similar trade deals. On the other hand a large percentage of the English population live closer to mainland Europe than Ireland Scotland and Wales and businesses depend on trade with Europe.

Other differences include that we are less reliant on Australia when it comes to exchanging information on security; foreign companies don't tend to decide to place headquarters in either New Zealand or the UK; we don't generally share energy pipelines with Australia; The population of the EU is about 500 million, the combined population of Canada, NZ and Australia is quite a lot less.

Wether an EU migrant into the UK has a degree or otherwise is irrelevant if they are not utilising the skills the degree bestowed in them by working in a degree level job

My Spanish vet and Polish dentist as using their degrees.

The EU migrant bus driver or waiter who had a degree is not. They are taking jobs that habitually resident Britons without degree-level education could be doing. They wouldn't automatically be invited to come and bring their (limited ) skills to the UK in preference to using someone already here with the same skills, under a points based immigration system.

It makes no sense to import people to do jobs that could be done by people here. It depresses wages, raises the costs of housing through scarcity and means that UK training opportunities for its native workers are reduced as employers end training, because they can import a ready trained workforce.

Nope. They are probably the most expensive hospital cleaners in the world when the true cost of their benefits and entitlements are calculated.

Except somehow they are the people prepared to do the job, and you have no idea whether they are all bringing their husband, three children and grandmother with them, you hahave just pulled that out of thin air.

Except somehow they are the people prepared to do the job, and you have no idea whether they are all bringing their husband, three children and grandmother with them, you hahave just pulled that out of thin air.

If they weren't here, prepared to do the job, what would happen?

"They are taking jobs that habitually resident Britons without degree-level education could be doing. They wouldn't automatically be invited to come and bring their (limited ) skills to the UK in preference to using someone already here with the same skills, under a points based immigration system. "

Would that be the jobs that pre 2003 were going unfilled? You think our unemployment rate will fall further if immigration is curbed?

This debate is turning into a farce tbh, your basically arguing for Scrodinger's immigrant, simultaniously stealing British jobs while also being too lazy to work.

You keep repeating that we would get a different deal to Norway and Switzerland? But Cameron has probably got the best deal he can from inside the EU, why would a deal from outside the EU be prefferential when they will benefit from it less than we will. They have the stronger hand, think about it, who owns our energy firms? Where do our exports go to? Who do we rely on for a large number of imported necessities?

I'm afraid though that niothing is going to get through to you, and this is all rather pointless.

They are taking jobs that habitually resident Britons without degree-level education could be doing.

If the resident Britain can't be bothered to get of their arse and be a cleaner or waiter, (and it's not clear that there are loads of suitable resident britains just waiting to do these jobs), it's pretty obvious why employers are choosing to employ people who want the work and have travelled half way across Europe.

"Nope. They are probably the most expensive hospital cleaners in the world when the true cost of their benefits and entitlements are calculated."

Which is statistically disporved by the long term UCL study and others, but you keep repeating this point.

We will have a much weakened hand when negotiating, due to the balances of trade. I hate to tell you but freedom of movement is likely to continue to be part of any agreement.

You view. Not my view. not borne out by countries that trade with the EU but without freedom of movement

NZ, Canada and Aus do not have freedom of movement within the EU because their trade with the EU is significantly lower, and they have their own trading blocs.

You're conflated 2 issues. We could join their trading bloc. I'd like that. They don't have freedom of movement within the EU because they are not candidate countries for full political union with the EU - they have more sense, they realise the value of retaining their sovereignty

The data has been told to you on the net contribution thing, the Poles alone are thought to have added £5bn more than they have taken out.

No it hasn't. You keep quoting me a newspaper article but fail to acknowledge reality. The newspaper article does not include the 'hidden costs'' the school,places healthcare etc.

Your "model" family is a poor example because statistically most migrants are single and young and less likely to have family.

Even if you accept that it is, which I don't, will they go home to mate and breed? They are people, not migrating birds

But even when the data is presented to you, you fail to acknowledge it.

I am still waiting to see how my Model Migrant Family are a net contributor to the Uk economy. They are not.
I have already shown you how a migrant family on minimum wage as I described is not a net gain to the UK. It is vexatious to continue to maintain they are

Which is statistically disporved by the long term UCL study and others, but you keep repeating this point.

It isn't. I have proved to you that not all migrants are a net benefit. What we need to do is get if the the EU and limit the invitation to come to work in the UK to those who are net contributors. And these net contributors would come from around the world, not just from EU member states

The UCL article fails to take into account the hidden costs.

If the resident Britain can't be bothered to get of their arse and be a cleaner or waiter, (and it's not clear that there are loads of suitable resident britains just waiting to do these jobs), it's pretty obvious why employers are choosing to employ people who want the work and have travelled half way across Europe.

Is there a dearth of unskilled labour in the UK? Or, a lazy workforce?

I think it's pretty clear why employers prefer migrants - they're cheaper.

"No it hasn't. You keep quoting me a newspaper article but fail to acknowledge reality. The newspaper article does not include the 'hidden costs'' the school,places healthcare etc."

The UCL study that I repeatedly refer to DOES take this into account. As repeated it also states that a reduction in migration would not be beneficial to services as the loss of tax income would be more detrimental than the benefits gained by falling demand.

Even the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford states:

"A study evaluating the fiscal impact of immigration from the A8 countries (those which joined the EU in 2004 and which did not already enjoy right of entry to the UK) found that in the four fiscal years after 2004 (i.e. 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009), A8 migrants made a positive contribution to public finances (Dustmann et al. 2010). While A8 migrants work mostly in lower wage occupations, they have high labour force participation rates and employment rates, a fact which offsets the impact of their lower wages."

So what else do you want?

From the study:

Immigration to the UK since 2000 has been of substantial net fiscal benefit, with immigrants contributing more than they have received in benefits and transfers. This is true for immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe as well as the rest of the EU.

Professor Christian Dustmann

• See more at: www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration#sthash.X5AWw6Qy.dpuf

It takes into account all fiscal spending on immigrants, your "hidden costs" argument is erroneous.

I think it's pretty clear why employers prefer migrants - they're cheaper.

You have to pay the same minimum wage to somebody from the EU as you do to somebody from the UK.

Even 'unskilled' jobs require people to have basic skills like turning up on time, having good manners and a certain amount of common sense. Employers will choose the best candidate who applies for the job.

This debate is turning into a farce tbh, your basically arguing for Scrodinger's immigrant, simultaniously stealing British jobs while also being too lazy to work.

Agree.

You're conflated 2 issues. We could join their trading bloc. I'd like that.

Except that would be a pretty small trading bloc and we would still have to export goods and services to the other side of the world.

They don't have freedom of movement within the EU because they are not candidate countries for full political union with the EU - they have more sense, they realise the value of retaining their sovereignty

They have probably also looked at a map and realised that Europe is quite far away.