The EU Referendum is nearly upon us.........23rd June.

[Daisyonthegreen]

I have been invited by other posters to start a new EU Referendum Thread as the EU thread "In out shake it all about what to vote in the EU referendum "is now closed.
Anyhow this vote is is pretty crucial for the good of the country and your family.
I make no secret of the fact I feel to vote to Leave is the best option.
On the "In out shake it all about,what to vote in the EU Referendum " Thread I posted many links and gave views on why I feel that way.
I feel we would flourish free of the beaucratic ,undemocratic organisation it has turned into.
A Trading block initially started up with 9 countries in the 1970s has become out of control,mammoth and unwieldy and frankly rather dangerous.
We need to wrest back control of our own country,our borders and our ability to broker our own Trade deals which the EU insists on doing for us.
Plus our own Judicial decisions.
We on leaving would still Trade with the EU,they need us more than we need them actually but the beauty of it we could be free to broker our own deals with the rest of the world on our terms.
In short we would flourish.
We can love/ like Europe but not be in the EU.

Lurked 101

"Which brings us to the house price situation. There are about 3 million EU immigrants in the UK, so about 4 % of the population, again they aren't the driving factor determining house prices."

The number of new homes needed each year has been about 250,000 for a few decades, but we have consistently built less than that, a chronic shortage of housing in the areas in which there is demand is driving the house price rise, along with the availbility of cheap credit.

I agree with you. Artificially low interest rates have kept house prices at artificially high prices. Ever more people chasing those highly prices houses (irrespective of where they come from) doesn't help. If the demand for housing reduced, then even at low interest rates, prices would ease. But we're a long way from that.

"Bronze's health tourism point is fallacious too because the nbumber of people who come to the country aiming to take advantage of free healthcare is ridiculously small."

I wasn't insinuating people come here just for free healthcare. I meant that any number of people can come here to live from the EU and use the NHS free of charge. I don't know how many people do indulge in health tourism though you seem to know that it is ridiculously small. Where do you get your numbers from?

Helpfulchap - unfounded claims that immigrants take more than they contribute are xenophobic - what else can you call them? They're not based on anything but the scapegoating of people who happen to have been born elsewhere.

In terms of deliberate use it is thought to be between 110 million and 250 million a year, which in terms of the NHS budget of 95.6 bn this would equate for 0.2% of the NHS budget.

However, the issue here is that hospitals charge foreign users for use, so no one is coming here for surgery "for free".

Full fact has good links to the NHS report on this.

For decades, British Ministers who have had involvement with Europe—I include myself in this—have been tempted to exaggerate the influence we bring to bear and conceal our inability to achieve British interests. Is that why it took a freedom of information request to establish that over the last two decades, Britain has voted against 72 measures in the European Council and been defeated 72 times, and that the pace of defeat is accelerating? If we make the mistake of taking the risk of remaining in the EU, how many defeats does the Prime Minister expect over the next two decades?

Full text and answer at this link

www.peterlilley.co.uk/questions/1873/oral-question-eu-council

Lurked101

I understand people's concerns for the future, but you really have to think that if you are backing brexit then you are contributing to making the future worse."

How do you know that?

"If we negotiate an EEA style trade deal then we will be like Norway, still paying for the EU and following regulations, with the four freedoms still in place."

I have already countered this argument. The US and Canada have trade agreements with the EU but they are not subject to the 4 freedoms.

"If we don't have a deal like that it is likely that UK firms would struggle to compete with EU ones in terms of trade because we will have tariffs and quotas of what we can supply, we would not be included in EU trade deals and having to negotiate our own with a much weaker position of negotiation."

I have already countered this one too. It works both ways with trade. If EU makes it harder to trade with the UK, they suffer too. In fact, as they are more reliant on income and jobs than we are of them, then they will loose even more than us. And how long do you think it will be before all the Germans car companies and the French farmers wave their arms in the air complaining of reduced income. Not that long.

"We might be the "5th" ( 6th actually) biggest economy in the world but France and Germany and the 5th and 4th, California alone is the 8th. The size of the economy doesn't give you an advantage, the amount of trade you do with others does. Outside the EU this would be diminished, especially in our services indusrty. Car companies for now have said that they would stay ( bit 88% say staying in the EU is important) , but if tariffs are placed on British made products in future that might not be the case."

5th or 6th depends on data source. As I said above, it would hurt the EU too if they imposed trade barriers. They'd be shooing themselves in the foot to so.

"I'm not going to tell you that you are wrong, I understand that people are concerned about the EU, but hopefully some of the things I've pointed out will help allay them."

Likewise though in my case allaying fears of leaving.

To show my hand why I want out, it is simple because I do not agree with the EU mechanism of creating laws that affect our country. that may not be in our best interests that we can't veto and nor can we unseat the people that make these laws. That is not democratic and I am vehemently against it. This to me is the single non-negotiable point upon which I will not consider voting to stay in the EU. Over the last 40 years, we've seen the old Common Market morph into a Union and anticipate at this rate, a Federal State of Europe - run by unelected, unaccountable, unseatable, self interested, self serving Eurocrats. No thank you. The EU is an unwieldy, layer of bureaucracy that has got too big for its boots. I even question its necessity.

I love Europe (the continent) having traveled and lived there. I just abhor the EU (Regime).

Trade with the EU ... Yes, Ruled by the EU ... No. End of. I'm out.

The rest is noise but here are some of my other dislikes:

I don't like the way we are not able to negotiate our own trade agreements outside of EU.

I also don't like the fact that UK based employers have to discriminate against migrants who come from countries outside the EU. It doesn't make any sense to make it any more difficult to allow an Indian doctor to apply for a job in the NHS than a Dutch doctor. That is not free at all. That is EU protectionism.

I don't like the fact that any EU citizen can come into our country with no job no money and expect to live off the UK tax payer. We have enough unemployed, poverty stricken and homeless people of our own, we don't need anymore. I realise that we can go anywhere in the EU and live however, try to go and live in Spain with no money and no job. I used to live there and they don't give handouts or subsidies to anyone. And in their hospitals, if you cant speak Spanish, tough luck. No teams of interpreters there at the Spanish tax payers expense at your beck and call. When the Brits over there ran out of money, they ended up back in the UK.

The other downside to this freedom of movement is the lack of ability for our Government to anticipate the structural and social needs of our country. How can we know how many schools, hospitals, power stations, water plants etc to build when we don't know how many people will be in the country?

As for getting a job abroad, as I say to everyone, if you have the skills and talent to fill a job abroad, you can go wherever you please. There's more to the world than just the 28 EU countries. If we left the EU, I doubt it would make much difference to our ability to take up jobs in he EU if they needed to fill a vacancy.

NHS reciprocity

www.cityam.com/235851/eu-referendum-labour-mp-john-mann-states-uk-paid-out-647m-for-health-costs-to-european-countries-last-year-with-just-49m-received-back

More
news.sky.com/story/1652305/nhs-scandal-as-uk-pays-millions-to-eu

!I have already countered this argument. The US and Canada have trade agreements with the EU but they are not subject to the 4 freedoms."

This isn't a counter, the French and the Germans have said that the 4 freedoms and contributions would need to continue if the UK wants access to the free market. The UK has a far heavier involvement with the EU in terms of trade than Canada does, by far and away the largest Canadian trading partner is the USA ( its 8.4 times bigger!). Most imoportantly too, the Canadian deal doesn't involve services, which are one of our major exports.

There is no way that the UK will negotiate this totally beneficial deal that you talk about, the other EU countries will simply not allow the UK to have all of the access to the single market without the costs involved. Its a fantasy.

"I don't like the way we are not able to negotiate our own trade agreements outside of EU."

The EU trade deals have massively benefited us, mainly because of the size of the common market. We get better deals than outher countries negotiating on their own. Its one of the reasons the CBI want us to stay in the EU.

news.cbi.org.uk/business-issues/uk-and-the-european-union/eu-business-facts/10-facts-about-eu-trade-deals-pdf/

"I also don't like the fact that UK based employers have to discriminate against migrants who come from countries outside the EU."

Your argument is circular here, so you'd prefer that we discriminate against all migrants? Remove freedom of movement from the EU and we will do that. What you really are doing here is trying to sound reasonable it really isn't.

"I don't like the fact that any EU citizen can come into our country with no job no money and expect to live off the UK tax payer"

EU immigrants are found by a number of studies to be net tax contributors. There may be some who come in and claim benefits yes, but the overwhelming majority have jobs and contribute.

UK citizens can and do claim benefits in EU countries btw, its part of the freedom of movement agreement, not just a thing that the UK does.

Springing, the problem with your data is the quoute from the NHS spokesman:" We pay far more than other countries because of the number of pensioners living oversees."

That thing with the 72 times is that when Farage said it, it was 55. ALSO, in this is covered in the statistic that in 90% of EU votes the UK is on the winning side.

"I do not agree with the EU mechanism of creating laws that affect our country. that may not be in our best interests that we can't veto and nor can we unseat the people that make these laws."

The EU commission cannot implement laws or force them on countries. They are either ratified by the European Parliament (and changes can be ammended), or by the council of ministers. Both of whom are democratically elected.

I read the brexit mania with dispare. I work in the Marine Navigation market. The UK is a leading manufacturer and leader in this market selling into markets accross the globe. Previously every flag state had individual certification requirements leading to high costs and particular states using these requirements as trade leverage. Within the EU all of this was replaced with a single directive and a set of harmonised standards, mutual recognition agreements have been agreed and many other states accept this certification. Therefore, EU manfacturers can trsde across the world with a minimal of overhead. The directive and the harmonised standards are set and maintained by working groups comprised of individuals from the industry. To throw all of this away would be madness. Manufacturers would have to comply with the EU legislation and whatever the UK impliment and likley be driven to the EU. We would lose our input to shaping the EU regulations, lose our notified bodies forcing us to use NBs from an EU country and possibly lose access to mutual recognition. The cost would break this industry. Whilst this is only one industry there are many other examples from car component manufacturers to machinery and elevator manufacturers in similar situations. Leaving the EU would be calamitous. National Security, Environmental and Personal protections have all been improved by access to the EU. Yes we could go it alone but why on earth would we choose to do so and bear the consiquences? Instead let's work together to solve our issues by remaining in the EU.

The NHS doesn't receive the money it is due from other EU countries because it makes no effort at all to claim it.

When I was last back in the UK I was taken quite ill. I made it very clear at the GPs and at the hospital that I was not a UK resident. I tried to show them my EU medical card so they could claim back the cost of my treatment from Sweden. They weren't interested.

That thing with the 72 times is that when Farage said it, it was 55. ALSO, in this is covered in the statistic that in 90% of EU votes the UK is on the winning side

The 72 times was give to Peter Lilley by Civil Servants in response to his Freedom of Information question.

I can assure you that civil servants are scrupulous when answering MP's questions. To give incorrect information would be a breach of the Civil Service Code and could lead to accusations of misleading parliament.

As it was said, unchallenged, in Parliament by an MP, quoting his sources, on the floor of the House, it will be recorded for posterity in Hansard and can be taken as a fact.

HelpfulChat, I'm sorry but the Muslim & Sikh pro-Brexiters prove nothing. Do the white british have the monopoly on xenophobia?

This much-repeated story that 'many people come to this country to claim benefits' is based on xenophobia, pure and simple. It is not based on facts nor on humanity. Very simply, many british people simply do not want so many eastern europeans coming in, that's the issue as I see it. This is what explains all this vehemence. I didn't see any vehemence against Germans / Italians / Spaniards / Greeks / Scandinavians or for that matter Americans / Canadians coming in before them (and many many many did come to the UK over the years). Can you imagine a Brexit campaign based on insinuations that German immigrants or American / Australian / South African immigrants 'are here to take our benefits' etc? No you can't imagine because it ain't going to happen. That's why this whole thing is about xenophobia, pure & simple.

Added to the anti-Eastern-European venom, there is the recent even worse venom against the recent Muslim refugee wave & the perceived link to ISIS. Adding to the xenophobia...

I do accept that not everyone agrees with me. I really really see that. But I've formed my opinion (as I suspect most of us have done). All this talk about resources being drained and 'our NHS can't cope' and 'our schools can't cope' actually, at heart, has to do with not wanting so many eastern europeans / muslims in this country. The former are perceived as benefit scroungers; the latter as jihadists. Please do convince me otherwise, I'll be happy to hear.

Engineer

You need to raise your heads out of the weeds, take your blinkers off and get some vision.

The EU issue is about a lot more than common manufacturing standards and harmonisation possibilities.

It doesn't have to be true to be said on the floor of the house, MPs have Parliamentry Privilige which gives them legal immunity.

72 times in two decades? Isn't really that many is it, you know one of these was over the cap to bankers bonuses don't you?

90% of the time we are on the winning side.

336,000 additional people came to live in the UK last year.

Persuade me that this had zero effect on:

1)accommodation availability and costs,
2) availability of school places
3) medical care
4) social care
5) infrastructure.

Please also explain how the UK will cope with an additional 336,000 migrants arriving in the coming year.

It doesn't have to be true to be said on the floor of the house, MPs have Parliamentry Privilige which gives them legal immunity.

No Lurked - it's only true of its reported on the Full Facts website

72 times in two decades? Isn't really that many is it, you know one of these was over the cap to bankers bonuses don't you?

You asked for numbers - I gave you numbers.

90% of the time we are on the winning side
Glad you're happy

Stillovingmysleepmysleep
Have you heard the British saying" can't get a quart into a pint pot"
Google it if you have not.
Plus you are playing the xenophobia tired argument again
Trying to shut down debate.

Hi Daisy

Plus you are playing the xenophobia tired argument again
Trying to shut down debate

Exactly.

Problem is that it doesn't work anymore as even the Archbishop of Canterbury has said it's OK to discuss migration without being call 'racist'.

So let's ignore the bleats of the Flat-Earthers and continue discussing this very important issue.

Well exactly: I agree completely. Let's discuss this very important issue.
Which is what I'm doing.
Not sure who and why is shutting down any debate. It isn't me. (and interesting you haven't engaged with any of the things I've said, which clearly you disagree with. So let's hear your arguments).

(and interesting you haven't engaged with any of the things I've said, which clearly you disagree with. So let's hear your arguments)

I have.

I asked quite clearly for an explanation as to the effect of the additional population of 336,000 that came to the UK in 2015 and ho we would handle another 336,000 arriving in 2016.

Still waiting for an answer

I'm going to join as an undecided but potentially more remain in EU than leave.
Primarily I do not trust the Tories and think we are safer with other powers keeping issues such as women's rights, environmental issues and health protected. I have seen enough of the Tories ideas on these areas to know we are going backwards frighteningly rapidly on all of them. Education I am no expert on but have heard arguments for both sides.

Also I am unsure how we as a country could police our boarders: setting up a secure boarder system within 5 years (roughly) while we 'negotiate' our exit seems a little far fetched and has a very real chance of failing hugely leaving us massively exposed to terrorism and human trafficking.

My other question is about imports - currently we import more than we export and have been getting better 'deals' with EU than we would if we left. I hear the argument that China etc are now taking over the market, but I am fairly sure we have all had poor experiences with these 'cheaper' un-branded items and the scare stories and lack of certification (unlike the strict regulations within EU trade) should worry most parents and consumers. I simply cannot see how their poor standards for workers, products and scant regard for testing exports should be relied upon simply because it is cheaper. Besides, as has been pointed out, surely they will simply hike up prices once we are reliant?
In my mind we need to invest very heavily in our own manufacturing/agriculture/security and in turn education in all of the above NOW if we are to stand a chance in the current global market, as a small island that hasn't even got a single desalinisation plant despite repeat hosepipe bans and localised droughts since the 70's . I think Tories know this and are frankly shit scared.

My reason for wanting to leave is that I believe it will cause a huge financial downturn and force people to vote for anyone other than Tories in the next election...

Springing its well known that MPs have lied on the floor of the house, I link to fact check because its an easy way to show complicated data, its certainly not the only source that I use.

For example I can tell you that it is actually 55, not 72, since 1995 using things like vote watch.

To answer your questions the net migration figure you quote is all net immigration, so only about half of that is net EU migration, which is 172,000 (Source: Migration Watch)

Most EU immigrants are young adults who do not use services as much as UK residents and a significant majority of them are not planning to be permanent residents so will not have a significant impact on service use (Oxford University Migration Observatory).

In fact immigrants from the EU are more likely to be net fiscal contributors and although a fall in immigration/ making immigrants go home would lower current demands on the public services the corresponding fall in tax reciepts would be far more determental to their funding (UCL study) Also it has been found that whilst EU immigration did cause some problems for the NHS in deprived areas outside of London betweem 2004 and 2008, the impact of immigration on the NHS has been positive and has led to falling waiting time ( Oxford University report).

Lurked I agree with all that you say. It is always interesting when there are these numbers quotedas if we're talking about an avalanchewith no mention of those who only come temporarily, those who work and are thus taxed etc.

Can I also add something that seems to be getting lost in all this. Speaking as somebody who immigrated to this country myself, years ago, it is people we are talking about here, not contributors / commodities / objects merely to be used according to whether they're 'useful' or 'not useful'. We are talking about people who have hopes for a better life, need and want to work, have difficulties for various reasons in their own countries or simply want to try a different life with all the adventure that brings, and decide to move to another country (never an easy / simple decision). How that country welcomes them (or not) says a lot about the receiving country's generosity / openness / welcoming attitude etc IMO.

I know very well that huge influxes of refugees / migrants during a short period of time is something that can feel unsettling / hard / confusing etc for all sorts of reasons. Look however at what has happened recently in Greece. There has been a massive influx of refugees at a country that has no ability to provide resources for them, and yet to a very large degree the Greek population has come to their assistance, giving them money, food even homes to stay at a very large scale. That is just something to think about. UK by the way is one of the richest countries in the world.

Springing its well known that MPs have lied on the floor of the house,

I know that - but not on this point

I link to fact check because its an easy way to show complicated data, its certainly not the only source that I use.

Good.

For example I can tell you that it is actually 55, not 72, since 1995 using things like vote watch.

You need to tell Peter Lilley that he has been mislead by the Civil Service and has, in turn, unwittingly misled the House - because - Vote Watch is always right.

To answer your questions the net migration figure you quote is all net immigration, so only about half of that is net EU migration, which is 172,000 (Source: Migration Watch)

I know that.

Most EU immigrants are young adults who do not use services as much as UK residents and a significant majority of them are not planning to be permanent residents so will not have a significant impact on service use (Oxford University Migration Observatory).

Correction - this is the findings of a particular demographic within a particular timefarme. It is only a predictor of future intentions.

In fact immigrants from the EU are more likely to be net fiscal contributors and although a fall in immigration/ making immigrants go home would lower current demands on the public services the corresponding fall in tax reciepts would be far more determental to their funding (UCL study) Also it has been found that whilst EU immigration did cause some problems for the NHS in deprived areas outside of London betweem 2004 and 2008, the impact of immigration on the NHS has been positive and has led to falling waiting time ( Oxford University report).

Again - these were the findings of a particular study looking at a particular demographic within a particular timescale.

At one time I could have said that n% of British families holidayed at Butlins. It doesn't mean they always would. I think you'll find the % has reduced.

Use statistics in context.

Who funded this study?