To be annoyed that immigration is the main issue for most people in EU debate?

[susanketty]

Whether you are 'in' or 'out', I'm getting tired of immigration being the main issue for people - sure, it will have an impact, but brexit is not going to solve any problems with immigration that people perceive, and immigration fears does not seem to be to me a good enough reason to vote out. And voting in is not going to necessarily lead to a rush of immigrants.

We are not in the Schengen area, we have border control, and EU immigrants make a net contribution to our economy. Brexiteers often say they would like a Norway-esque agreement, which seems to me like all the problems (i.e., free movement of people) with none of the advantages other than being in the trade area (which we are already).

I just think there is more to the debate than immigration and it seems to me like it's been pushed to the front of the agenda to push more people to vote out due to fear.

We had FatDad upthread stating categorically that immigration (from wherever) does not have an effect on schools, hospitals, housing. He further added that if your kid doesnt get the place she wants, it is because of her academic achievement.

What ...... for state primary school?

Emperor's new clothes ad infinitum.

*immigrant not omnirange. Don't know where that came from!

Limer only a very small proportion of voters favour open borders. It's not practical and above all, it's not politically viable. This is a straw man.

It's possible to have a reasonable debate about what is the "right" amount of immigration - because while immigration is generally positive from the economic point of view it has downsides too (just ask the native American and Australian populations ...)

Are you prepared to acknowledge anything positive about migration? Modern Britain is a nation born of migration, and indeed the two leading Leave figures have a recent family history of migration.

Free movement also works both ways: somewhere in the region of 2 million Britons live in the EU....

Free movement also works both ways: somewhere in the region of 2 million Britons live in the EU....

That may be so, but are they working and supporting themselves?

Or are they like the 'paper Europeans' who travelled to an EU country, waited a few years to get their new nationality and now are counted as EU migrants if they move to UK? They are an entirely different ball-game.

Mistigri I'm pro-immigration, but controlled. Bring in those with the skills that the country needs.

Do you think that unlimited EU migration has been 100% beneficial so far? Would you favour introducing any limits? Or do you think the country can absorb and provide for hundreds of thousands of new arrivals, plus their future descendants, for ever? Where do you propose building the new power stations?

you don't seem to have any concept of the problems in the UK caused by immigration.

I grew up and spent the first 15 years of my working life living in parts of London where British-born, white people were probably in a minority. So I think I have some experience of immigration, both from the point of view of a "native" Briton and, later, as an immigrant myself.

Back in those days, it was young black men who were considered to be the cause of all society's ills.

Do you think that unlimited EU migration has been 100% beneficial so far?

No, of course not. No policy has only upsides and no downsides.

There is no doubt in my mind that free movement has been a net economic benefit for the UK - quite a large benefit actually. There is equally little doubt that immigration has exacerbated some social pressures, eg on school places (though I'd argue that this is partly due to poor planning, weak regional policy, and the UK's weird and illogical system of allocating children to schools) and on housing.

Personally, I would support free movement returning to its old (pre 2004-ish) meaning of "free movement to seek work". But this would be unfortunate for the many Britons in, particularly, France and Spain who are not in work and in many cases have never sought formal jobs of any sort.

Immigration 15 years ago cannot be compared to immigration now. Oh I see you no longer live in UK. That figures

If the rest of the EU think its a good idea to welcome Britons into their countries that is their business.
It has nothing to do with whats best for the UK.

Like Motherof fourdragons I live just outside EU central, and immigration does have an effect here. Not only do you have the Flemish/Walloon divide, where some native Flemish speakers won't sell houses to non native Flemish speakers (albeit they are all supposedly Belgian); you also have the effect on house prices caused by those of us living here for jobs with the EU, NATO, international HQs of big businesses etc. We can afford to either buy or rent at higher prices than the locals, so we price them out of the local housing market; and we also get different and advantageous tax treatment in many cases.

Even though for the most part the higher paid expats are net contributors to the Belgian economy, there are still rumblings about us being here, and the effect we have, so immigration does have an effect wherever you are.

The down sides have been utterly catastrophic for some UK citizens though.
They have been "thrown under the bus" for wider political ideology, one that we the People did not vote for.

Compare Switzerland's GDP

Switzerland $685.4 bn (20th largest economy in the world), UK $2,678 bn (5th largest economy in the world).

export figures

Switzerland $210 bn (17th largest exporter in the world), UK $442 bn (9th largest exporter in the world).

Personally I am likely to vote Remain. But it really annoys me when Remain supporters suggest we are two small and weak to stand on our own. We are the 5th largest economy in the world and the 2nd largest economy in the EU. We have one of the strongest armed forces in the world - 6th or 9th strongest depending on how you measure. I think we are better off in but if we leave the EU we will be able to cope on our own.

Personally, I would support free movement returning to its old (pre 2004-ish) meaning of "free movement to seek work". But this would be unfortunate for the many Britons in, particularly, France and Spain who are not in work and in many cases have never sought formal jobs of any sort.

Come on, most of the Brits in France/Spain have bought property over there and are living off their pensions, putting loads into the local economy. They're not competing for work, claiming off the state or applying for school places for their children.

Pleased though that you'd favour returning to a pre-2004 migration model. I assume you're voting Leave then?

Even though for the most part the higher paid expats are net contributors to the Belgian economy,

I am obviously voting remain, but I can't help thinking that the ludicrous situation of the EU Parliament commuting between two locations to stop the French from sulking is a clear example of utter, utter waste and shows that the EU's bureaucrats are very free with other people's money. They waste about 10% of their time commuting (in first class, too): why not sack 10% of them and keep the offices in one location rather than two?

One also has to ask why "We can afford to either buy or rent at higher prices than the locals," - why do we need to pay EU bureaucrats more than people already living in Belgium?

I would like to live in an EU with the bureaucracy halved in size. A simple way to do this would be that the authors of any proposal which is rejected by more than a plurality of national governments should be dismissed from their jobs, as a proposal so unpopular should never have got to the point of being fully worked through. See, for example, the non-issue of whether olive oil should be in jugs or small bottles, a classic example of the EU taking unto itself matters which are for, at most, the local trading standards department. Yes, I know there's the better regulation initiative that Junkers has launched: launch with a large number of large, impenetrable documents.

prh47bridge

Switzerland is probably the richest country in the world, with a GDP per head of £60k, compared to UK’s £32k and with better income equality. Average wage in Switzerland is £67k, UK is £38k.

Switzerland has a ‘bottom-up’ political situation while EU is the epitome of a top-down system, the exact opposite. Switzerland is one of the most democratic countries in the world, because the people decide what they want.

If there are 50,000 signatures from the public for a referendum to be held on something, it has to be held - no fannying around.

Forgot to say. If UK is the 5th largest economy in the world, and Switzerland is the 20th, how come they have a much higher GDP and a much better quality of living?

One also has to ask why "We can afford to either buy or rent at higher prices than the locals," - why do we need to pay EU bureaucrats more than people already living in Belgium? ...it isn't just EU bureaucrats who are the higher paid expats here, there are others.

They are higher paid because they have a certain skill set that your average Belgian or Brit perhaps doesn't possess, and because they wouldn't come here if it wasn't financially advantageous to do so.

Come on, most of the Brits in France/Spain have bought property over there and are living off their pensions, putting loads into the local economy.

This is quite simply untrue of your average British immigrant living in the EU, I don't think you really know what you are talking about here.

There are some wealthy folks, and some high earners mainly based in the large cities - bank workers in Paris, Airbus employees in Toulouse, "knowledge workers" like me and DH who can do our jobs anywhere. But the vast, vast majority are not like this. Of the Britons I know personally in France (and we live in an area that has attracted a lot of young British families, because it's cheap and the quality of life is good) , I would say that a majority are of working age but are either not working or are in low-paid work. I also help run a support group for English speaking families in France and I would estimate that at least three quarters of the families receive means-tested benefits of some sort: the single most common topic of discussion is how to get, or keep, family benefits.

Switzerland is probably the richest country in the world

That depends how you define "richest".

Yes, Switzerland has a much higher per head GDP than the UK. According to the statistics I'm looking at you have overstated the average wage in Switzerland but it is substantially higher than ours, although this is to some degree balanced out by the fact that prices in Switzerland are over 50% higher than in the UK.

However, that isn't the point. I was responding to a poster who appeared to be suggesting that the UK's economy was much smaller than that of Switzerland so the rest of the world wouldn't be interested in trading with us if we leave the EU and we would end up beholden to the US. Personally I think we are better off in the EU but the suggestion we are somehow too small to survive on our own is ridiculous.

Meant to say, quite agree about Strasbourg...that's just a sop to the French.

If UK is the 5th largest economy in the world, and Switzerland is the 20th, how come they have a much higher GDP

They don't. They have a higher per-capita GDP. They have a much smaller population. See for example China: they're big because they have a large population.

That's interesting Mistigri, as none of my circle receive any Belgian benefits at all, apart from perhaps child benefit. The Belgians want to know that you can pay your way here, and when a friend renewed her ID card, she was told to have a specific type as it made it harder for her to be chucked out if her dh lost his job.

how come they have a much higher GDP and a much better quality of living?

They do NOT have a higher GDP. They have a higher GDP per head, i.e. GDP divided by the number of people living in the country. They have a smaller GDP coupled with a much smaller population - around one-eighth of the UK's population.

Meant to say, quite agree about Strasbourg...that's just a sop to the French.

So why not stop doing it, then, and let them sulk? It might make some vague sort of sense if the parliament were peripatetic between Belgium and Estonia, or somewhere else historically, culturally and geographically different, in the same way there's a decent argument about having the UK parliament commuting to (for example) Newcastle. But having it commute to Strasbourg is like having the UK parliament commuting between Westminster and Southwark: pointless, expensive and pandering. What are the French going to do? Leave? And if they left over something so pathetic, who cares?

But in the meantime, EU parliamentarians and bureaucrats can continue to claim 1st class travel while driving four to a car, which is a nice tax-free earner. And it's only EU taxpayers that it costs money, and who cares abou them?

If you sacked half the EU employees tomorrow morning, at random if necessary, what would happen to the average EU citizen?

Shakeeba Forgot to say. If UK is the 5th largest economy in the world, and Switzerland is the 20th, how come they have a much higher GDP and a much better quality of living?

Switzerland is a small country with a smaller population so it's not surprising its GDP is lower. But GDP per person is much higher.

The Swiss and UK economies are structurally very different. Using a Swiss model for the UK relationship with the EU would be rather difficult. This is because UK trade with the EU is heavily dependent on services (in which we have a trade surplus) and the Swiss-EU agreement only very partially covers services. You'd be much more likely to get a Norway model, or none at all.