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

But we run a surplus on both the services account and the capital account. We are mainly in trade deficit because we import lots and lots of cheap clothing, electrical goods etc that we could not produce at the same cost because other countries have a comparative advantage over us. You are conflating this with population growth.

Okay so we run s surplus on services but this is more than countered by imports. I got the trade deficit figures from:

www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/balance-of-trade

At the same time since 1998 living standards have risen in the country since 1998. The country has not "got poorer", it may feel that way since the crash but its not true.

I'd like to know what you do for a living that you think that the country on feels like it has got poorer where as you say it has not.

You may be able to convince some people that an entity that has continual outflows of cash is getting richer but you won't convince me. This is beginning to sound like Gordon Brown all over again the economy is great, we're rich, handouts galore. How did he do it? He borrowed like crazy and pretty much bankrupted our country. The chancellor can''t rake in enough tax to pay for services and is still borrowing money. How can you assert from that we are getting richer?

Austerity was a political choice not a necessary one, the in initial round choked off growth in 2010 and has prolonged the need for it. In times of true austerity taxes are not cut for the wealthy.

The country was is a terrible state when the Tories took over, overspending and rising debt. So how would you have fixed it then?

Conflation again, we are not building enough homes because the priovate sector banks land and waits until it will be extremely profitable to build.

And you don't think it is profitable to build houses now? Prices are a frothy levels. So that can't be the reason.

Someone has to find the money to pay the builders. Where will this money come from? You keep skirting round this simple question.

Because it's an overly simplistic approach that's why.

The fact that you repeat the Gordon Brown bankrupted he country myth, Christ where to start? You realise there was an international financial crisis? You realise he current leadership said they'd follow his spending and campaigned hard for the further deregulation of the banks?

The private sector is building btw, where it is profitable. Around me the buildings are gping up hugely fast.

The ons data shows that disposable income has risen, in real terms, since the 1990s.

I'll deal with the where does the money come from.

But here is a question how do you expect the trade deficit to get better outside the EU?

Lurked

Also it needs to be said that the schools pressure is mainly down to funding. Not EU immigration.

If 25% of all births in the UK are to non UK mothers then less than this will be EU mothers, even less EU 8 mothers the pressure isn't due to EU immigration. As much as you would like to blame it on that.

Thank you. So finally you admit the country cannot afford to build new schools is because we don't have he money.

However you have stated, without qualifying your statement, is is not down to EU immigration. Please tell us why we can't afford to build new schools?

So far I have not seen a single plausible reason that counters my argument why our country is in the position of not being able to build schools to meet the demand of pupils.

I illustrated that it is due to increased population (irrespective of native birth rates or immigration) without commensurate increased wealth. I also illustrated that 85% of the population increase is associated with immigration so the remaining 15% is due to native birth rate increase. So you are saying that the reason we can't afford to build schools if it isn't down to immigration is down to the 15% of native British people having too many babies.

All I hear is it isn't caused because of immigration. Okay, so please tell me what it is caused by.

Lurked

Also it needs to be said that the schools pressure is mainly down to funding. Not EU immigration.

In any case, if we can't afford to build new schools to meet the demand of our children, our country isn't earning enough to pay for the increased population. So as I said before, the increase in population is not being met with the commensurate increase in wealth which is driven by trade surpluses which we've not seen since 1998. And as the same time you're telling us we are getting richer? It just does not stack up.

Also it needs to be said that the schools pressure is mainly down to funding. Not EU immigration.

If you build a school for a projected population of 2000 and by the time that school is completed the population has increased to 5000 then the pressure for school places is not down to funding, as you claim - it's down to a failure to predict demand for school services because of uncontrolled immigration.

As for the claim that migrants actually DECREASE hospital waiting lists - the report is basically saying that thecoressurevinnthecschoolmforbplcae migrants pushes the alreadyvresudentbpopukatiin into different areas where waiting lists are lower - taking up NHS cps lack and thereby making the NHS more efficient.

It omits to take into full account the financial and social stresses placed on the displaced population that is forced to relinquish its areas and move to new areas. Spreading demand more thinly may reduce waiting lists in the short term eventual even that 'thin' demand will become a 'thick' demand bad after all 'slack' has been taken up, there will be zero medical contingency.

Interesting to see a report produced by an organisation funded by a Russian oligarch.

We seem to be able to provide school places where there are other schools with places going spare. It's not that there is no money just where it's being spent.

The school capacity issue has been flagged for years. EU immigration is not the root cause of the problem.

Daisy

"Crime up 27% due to ? Immigration is the first on the list"

It's great to see your prejudices being exposed.

Apart from the Daily Mail, have you not see the trends on violent and other crime?

For an unbiased report, you should look at the British Crime Survey.

Although I fear it would be too painful for you to look at anything which contradicts your beliefs.

www.ons.gov.uk/resource?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/2015-07-16/aa41f17d.png

And just in case Daisy will only believe what she reads in a paper controlled by a tax-dodging multimillionaire, even the Mail admits that crime is on a downward trend

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2609623/Has-removing-lead-paint-petrol-reduced-CRIME-Toxin-linked-surges-theft-violent-assault.html

Lurked

The fact that you repeat the Gordon Brown bankrupted he country myth, Christ where to start? You realise there was an international financial crisis? You realise he current leadership said they'd follow his spending and campaigned hard for the further deregulation of the banks?

The crash has nothing to do with it. Other countries that were not up to their neck in debt rode out the storm much better than we did. He borrowed like crazy and weakened the country,.

The current government hs no choice because things like welfare cannot be withdraw as easily as they are given out. People get used to income support so when it is taken away from them, they suffer very badly as Osbourne has discovered.

The private sector is building btw, where it is profitable. Around me the buildings are gping up hugely fast.

The ons data shows that disposable income has risen, in real terms, since the 1990s.

I'll deal with the where does the money come from.

But here is a question how do you expect the trade deficit to get better outside the EU?

As I have said, I cannot predict the future 14 years from now. I am not as smart as the treasury and Osbourne.

What I stated is that in 14 years time, there is an equally even chance that the country will be either better off or worse off.

My question to you is how do you expect the trade deficit to get better inside the EU? Despite the cheers of the EU, we've still been in a net trade deficit for the last 18 years .If they EU was so good for our country, I would at least like to see the country be running a trade surplus of some description.

There's far too much interference from the EU in matters that do not concern them. If they stuck the the plan of a trading bloc only, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation nor a referendum.

The EU are an interfering bureaucratic nightmare the commissioners of who are getting to big for their boots and the people of Europe are getting wise to it and are revolting. They have made a complete mess of the migration crisis. EU members putting up fences (so much for Shengen when it does not suit them) That's not what I call a united EU. It is everyone for themselves. Merkel seems to be running the show; she's losing popularity as her electorate are getting a bit fed up too. Cologne, media black out, Merkel silencing her country over Turkish leader. Women being told to dress up to avoid being molested. Free movement of terrorists. Terror attacks. Mass molestation. I'm sorry that is just not the sort of environment I want imposed on our country by the EU and certainly not one I want my children to be brought up in.

I would rather be away from the EU (not away from Europe the continent) and the trouble they have caused even if I have to be a bit poorer. I see a very gloomy future being sucked into the EU.

TBH I hope the EU crumbles under its own weight; the sooner it fails, the better.

And takes with it 44% of our exports? Fab

I would rather be away from the EU (not away from Europe the continent) and the trouble they have caused even if I have to be a bit poorer. I see a very gloomy future being sucked into the EU.

TBH I hope the EU crumbles under its own weight; the sooner it fails, the better.

Hear, hear.

I haven't caught up with everyone's posts but have been thinking about this study:

www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/working-paper-series/working-paper-005

Oxford University shows that Immigration reduced waiting times:

"On average, a 10 percentage point increase in the share of migrants living in a local authority would reduce waiting times by 9 days. The authors find no evidence that immigration affects waiting times in A&E and in elective care. "^

This is meaningless without knowing how the study was conducted. This assertion only makes sense if the people coming into an area displaced others already there (they moved or died), or extra resources had been directed to counter the extra numbers. Thus, either the issue is one of displacement, so that the problem of extra numbers moves elsewhere, or we increase funding in that area, which is a funding issue (and presumably can't continue exponentially). If the authors only examined the area into which immigrants initially move to but did not follow up the displaced population or the impact of the extra funding then, strictly speaking, their conclusions can be that "Oxford University shows that Immigration reduced waiting times" but there'll still be an effect of immigration - it just hasn't been investigated in this particular paper. Will go and read the paper now, but generally, we do need to be careful about quoting from published research without contextualising the findings.

I agree fourmummy

All that seems to be shown is that movement of population takes up slack. What happens when all that slack is taken up and services become overwhelmed?

Reports are useful but as I keep saying, they are snapshots. Like financial investments past performance dies not predict future growth.

A different set of economists that selected and weighted factors differently could well come up with a very different interpretation.

That's why just chucking out link after link and screaming ''Indisputable fact' is not a coherent argument.

Economists for Britain,confident of our future after Brexit (Leaving the EU).
My Husband is an Economist and is confidently voting Leave on the 23rd June 2016.
Masses of Information.
forbritain.org/economists/supporters/

Students for Britain and long list of supporters for Leave including,Farmers 4 Britain,Muslims for Britain,Lawyers for Britain.
mobile.twitter.com/uniforbritain

If your going to question the study, read the study don't raise a questions online having read the over view.

But daisy you keep linking to groups that represent a majority opinion. Farmers for Britain? What about the project EU fsu?

I will read the study but in the meantime, I was merely pointing out that extra people can't possibly decrease waiting times unless something has happened to the people already living in the area or extra resources are brought to bear, neither of which is a positive effect of immigration. The study's title is misleadingly optimistic.

They can win extra tax revenue.

What do you mean "They can win extra tax revenue"?

NFU Scotland has said that farmers are better off in the EU - that the benefits of staying in outweigh the gains of Brexit Article here

With the extra tax revenue that should read. Sorry.

The Common Agricultural Policy costs us an eye-watering amount. 40% of the EU budget is spent on the CAP, 40%!!!

French farmers (better at lobbying) get twice as much in subsidies than we do. We pay 6 billion euros into the CAP and get 3 billion back. There is absolutely no reason why we cant continue subsiding our farmers out of the EU and keep the change.

The inescapable truth is that being in a large organisation such as the EU strengthens all member states. Do we pay in... Yes but it pays us back in terms of security, trade and piece. The EU should aim to develop all member states and some need more development than others it's true. However, developing all member states actually decreases friction within the union further strengthening esch member state and increasing the wealth generation. If we leave the EU we win nothing, the leople still in the EU will suffer and that will spread to us also. International trade and relations made Britain Great and will do so again but the world has changed and it is no longer a gun boat or occupation that secures trade its coprrstion and union. I've fought for my country and spent much of my life in export based industries and come the 23rd will vote to remain based on my experiences. I urge the undecided to think about the basic principal at stake, cooperation for the benefit of all, and to vote to remain.

You have a very one-dimensional view of this Engineersthumb. I also want co-operation for the benefit of all, but don't see how opening the borders to allow any EU citizen to move here and take advantage of all that the UK offers can achieve that. Wages are rock bottom thanks to an oversupply of cheap labour, housing costs are sky-rocketing for the same reason - too many people. Our beautiful country is facing a population increase of at least half a million a year for the foreseeable future, that's an awful lot of land that will be lost forever to development, native habitats destroyed and beauty spots sacrificed, more power stations, sewage farms, reservoirs, landfill sites, etc.