The only way to get the EU to take the UK seriously is to vote to leave

[SpringingIntoAction]

Cameron tells us repeatedly that he wants to remain in a reformed EU.

Many others across the political divides also acknowledge the need for the EU to reform itself.

Some say that's why we need to remain in the EU - to change it from within.

I think the EU's refusal to engage with Cameron's plea for his EU reforms and the failure of his 'special deal' to achieve anything like the changes he originally said he wanted, show the EU is unwilling/incapable of reform.

I think the only way to get the EU to start taking our demands for reform seriously is to vote to leave.

They need to start imagining what the EU would be like without one of its largest funders - the UK. We do that by voting to leave.

Thanks fourmummy for that excellent post. Backs up what I've seen myself - that the immigrants to an area are younger and healthier than those they displace, so of course the overall NHS demands go down in that area. However, the overall NHS demands go up in the areas that the displaced older and unhealthier population move to. Resulting in an increased demand on the NHS when totalled across all areas.

Resulting in an increased demand on the NHS when totalled across all areas.

Resulting in a need for new hospitals - the costs of which are not included in deciding whether migrants are a net gain/drain

The second Oxford Study:

www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/sites/www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/files/documents/BSG-WP-2015-005.pdf

Found that impact of immigration did lead to reduced waiting times:
We find no evidence that immigration aUects waiting times in A&E and in elective care."

And one of the reasons for this is:

"Second, the arrival of immigrants increases the likelihood of natives moving and accessing health services in a dierent local authority. Thus, the eUects of immigration on the demand for health care services are dispersed throughout the country (via internal
migration)."

So because not all of the people moving do so to the same area, the effects are disperesed and cause no increase in waiting times.

Of course overall usage will increase, but then again immigrants are paying tax and numerous other points of refference refer to either positive net contribution in the short run and then in the longer run this falling to equilibrium. However I again refer to the UCL information that says that reovig immigrants would be more detrimental in falls in funding rather than positive in terms of demand.

It is very interesting!

"This EU-funded research bigs up the EU.......

One word - Gullible."

Oh Spring, thats the only argument you have for anything, it doesn't wash, but you can believe it if you like.

Lurked

Researchers can make anything fit their chosen outcome. Especially when the EU are waving the Euros at them.

If you were to stand in the high street and state that immigration reduces NHS waiting times you would be ridiculed. Because despite all the 'research' people know from their own experience that NHS queues have lengthened since immigration rose to 360,000+ per year - despite the best efforts of the pro-EU to blame the increased demand on the elderly.

but then again immigrants are paying tax Well, this is where my point regarding definitions comes in. I haven't read the other studies you cite yet but the Nuffield study did not state whether their immigrants were taxpayers or not. They defined an immigrant as 'foreign-born, living in UK less than 5 years', so we don't actually know about their taxpaying status.

The point is that taken at face value, the study does indeed show a reduction in NHS waiting times but it's a misleading conclusion because we need to know the context in order to be able to interpret this finding correctly. How are immigrants defined and what implications does that definition have on the results, what is their taxpaying/contributory status, etc..

Yes, the world has changed since the 1970s, of course it has. But to suggest we'd suddenly go back to the 70s if we leave the EU is ridiculous. Have all the other non-EU countries stayed in the 70s? Of course not. The EU is very old-fashioned and is holding us back from making the progress we could.

If the remain side think we need the EU to keep this country moving forward, deciding our laws, taking our money and sending some of it back with instructions, then they're saying this country cannot be trusted to look after itself, and the British people can't run a country.

Instead of taking responsibility and control, they want to hand over the decisions to some "greater power", almost like a subsitute god.

Personal experiences do add a lot to the debate. It's all very well saying "the EU sends us money" but if your personal experience is, for example, that your business is squeezed out by large companies who've lobbied the EU, or that you've received a grant from the EU, those are valid contributions. They are a good starting point for checking out further facts, such as how many of the "contributions" from the EU are from UK taxpayers in the first place.

This referendum isn't about finding a nice looking set of statistics, it's about people's lives.

Oh whatever spring, "people know" because their preconcieved ideas tell them so, not because they really know.

Its a facilie argument that you make, the same as "studies can be used to prove anything".

fourmummy

We (both sides) had actually agreed that some migrants were a net drain on the economy but the burden of those migrants was offset by the net contribution made by other categories of migrant.

I then asked how many single migrants earning minimum wage were required to offset the net cost to the economy of my favourite migrant family

I am still waiting for an answer to that.

Because if it takes the net tax contribution of say 88 single migrants to offset the costs to the UK of my net drain migrant family, surely there is little net benefit to the country in accepting so many migrants from the EU - just because they are allowed to be here and just, ultimately, making the place more crowded for all of us for a minuscule gain.

Oh whatever spring, "people know" because their preconcieved ideas tell them so, not because they really know.

No Lurked. Not preconceived - but views they have formed themselves from their own experience ad knowledge.

Its a facilie argument that you make, the same as "studies can be used to prove anything"

Studies can be used to prove anything. Everyone knows that. You seem to hold academics in some star-struck awe. Strange. I am far more questioning - as my teachers taught me to be.

Wrt the Oxford Nuffield study, a more accurate conclusion to draw is perhaps, "Immigrants cost the taxpayer via native displacement to other areas or via diversion of funds to immigrant-surging areas from other funding sources unless the immigrants are taxpayers (but we did not research this in the present study)".

No, not at all, but again you make assumptions.

As far as my arguments have gone I have backed them with various different credible sources which provide pertinent information in order to illuminate and support the points that I am making. As I was taught to do, and I teach students to do.

I'd accept that I was credulous if I used one source to do this but even you can admit that I've used a wide range of sources from different organisations with various different objectives in my writing here.

You have used data too when you've fouind that it backs up what you are saying, just I'm sorry but there is far more supporting a remain argument.

From whatever point you stand, you can't deny it, and you can shout vested interest all you like but it isn't applicable in every case, every time.

Oh and your favourite migrant family? Is dismissed by the fact that new HMRC data says that new immigrant contribute 2.5bn more than they take out.

Now as the tax credits data tells us that there are 266,000 EU immigrants who qualify for tax credits ( 14 % of 1.9m employed) that 2.5 bn needs to be divided equally ( which of course it won't be) but it works out at around £9,398 per head.

Now the problem with this is that a) This is way more than you would get in WTC/CB etc. Also that I did a very basic figure here because its not actually 14% of EU immigrants its 14% of households that have an EU immigrant within them claim tax credits so this figure is probably way out of kilter but it was to give you an idea. The 2.5bn also doesn't include employers NI.

Your assumption on your model family is also that they stay low earners and that their children don't contribute to the economy in the future.

You set a very particular set of parameters so that yes, the agreement has to be that this particular set of immigrants aren't net contributors, but it doesn't work.

Fourmummy, I think you are trying to make it fit your own conclusions there, it doesn't work.

I'm unconvinced of the accuracy of NHS waiting time statistics. The National Audit Office has raised concerns here:

www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/NHS-waiting-times-for-elective-care-in-England.pdf

Among other concerns they found a high degree of both either unsupported or plainly incorrect figures:

Looking at the accuracy of the 650 individual patient cases we reviewed (Figure 6):
• For 202 cases (31 per cent), we were unable to find documented evidence of either clock start, or pause or stop dates.
• Only 281 cases (43 per cent) were fully documented and the clock start, pause andstop times correctly recorded. This rate varied from 13 to 57 per cent across the case study trusts.
• For 167 patient case files (26 per cent), there was documented evidence of at least one error
...[Of these 167] there were 129 cases where errors led to waiting time being under-recorded.

My view is that this isn't just user error. I know that the management of certain NHS trusts has applied pressure to meet targets by gaming the system or worse. A quick internet trawl uncovered much (new to me) non-Daily Fail reporting of the issues e.g.:
www.heraldscotland.com/news/13093123.Exposed__Full_extent_of_waiting_times_scandal/

I'm not saying EU migration is causing issues with the NHS.

However I don't think that we can rely on a study based on these statistics.

It's still more than the other side have though... they've just got "people can see" I'll take this data over that any day.

They defined an immigrant as 'foreign-born, living in UK less than 5 years'

WHAT!!? Who made up that definition? As far as I am concerned an immigrant is someone foreign-born who holds onto their foreign nationality. The dictionary agrees with me
Why five years? It looks to me like an example of 'choose your definitions right and you can get a study to say whatever you want'. So while they are young and healthy, we'll call them immigrants. As soon as they start to cost the system (healthcare, education of their DC) we'll class them as natives.

Well that would be because the blame for EU waiting lists tends to be on EU immigration since 2004 and as the study looks at that era it's best to look at it that way. Otherwise we star including everyone ever. Also after 5 years of being resident and paying tax you would have expected those immigrants to be included in any planning of service delivery so not causing unplanned strain on he nhs.

Also after 5 years of being resident and paying tax you would have expected those immigrants to be included in any planning of service delivery so not causing unplanned strain on the NHS.

How do you work that out? Considering it takes six years to train a doctor, and that's assuming that they have spare Med School places hanging around which are immediately available. And it takes considerably longer than that to build infrastructure like hospitals and schools.

Lurked I agree that the brexit camp lack data to support their assertions.

However re nhs waiting time stats I just dont think good data is there. Garbage in garbage out.

Because it's one if the time frames the NHS use for predicting service usuage. So if they don't cause increased waiting times in he first 5 years it's unlikely that they will do.so following this.

The longer term impact was also looked at by the OUMO which found that it's pretty much the case hat immigration long term doesn't increase waiting times either.

Where is your information to the contrary? Oh right you just know. ..

Researchers can make anything fit their chosen outcome. Especially when the EU are waving the Euros at them.

For someone who has taken great offence in the past at having their personal integrity questioned, you seem to find it very easy to accuse others of lack of professional integrity or even corruption.

Good point Cha.

Also the accusation is at every study that counters the points made by the Brexit campaign, from every organisation.

Looks like we're not the only ones wondering why the academic consensus against the economics of Brexit is not being listened to.

This guy is an Oxford economist, writing about why a pro-Brexit study written by eight economists (only two of whom academics) was given just as much weight in the media as the letter published by 200 academic economists supporting the Brexit costs calculated by LCE, the OEC and the Treasury. He writes:

---

You will never get unanimity in economics. It is a science about people and therefore inherently uncertain, and the views of a few economists are influenced by their politics. Getting so many academic economists – fairly quickly with not that much effort – to endorse studies that said there would be large costs to leaving is therefore pretty significant. It’s perhaps one of a relatively small number of issues where most economists are not divided. (...)

There is something rather worrying about a world in which the ideas that get across to policymakers or voters are the ones put forward by academics with the best PR. Should voters be denied the knowledge about the overwhelming consensus of academic economists on Brexit just because our letter was published on the wrong day?

Of course, this raises important issues for those who select what is news. But it is too easy and complacent just to blame the media.

Academics are increasingly having to compete with think tanks that are often little more than the mouthpiece for wealthy individuals and organisations, and their PR is always going to be better.

(...) What I have called the knowledge transmission mechanism – the means by which academic knowledge gets to policymakers and voters – is becoming weaker. And, as climate scientists have discovered, this is not just a problem for social scientists.

Loving the climate change reference, I swear I didn't put him up to it

theconversation.com/why-is-the-academic-consensus-on-the-cost-of-brexit-being-ignored-59540

My elderly neighbour visited the doctor for a routine appointment last week. She told me that the five other people ahead of her in the waiting room were all E Europeans. I said, “well, that’s because the EU allows unlimited immigration” - and I won another vote for the Leave camp. What would the Remainers have said? “No there weren’t dear, peer-reviewed studies prove otherwise. It must’ve been an optical illusion.” Or “Lucky you, dear! More EU immigrants means shorter waiting times!”

Sample of possible responses:

"Aren't we lucky we have all these immigrants to help pay for the NHS!"

"Did you know that EU immigrants actually contribute more than they take?!"

"The government should really listen to GPs when they say a third are planning to retire in the next ten years, and start recruiting more..."

"Our own population is ageing, thank god we have the younger, healthier immigrant population to pay national insurance and help foot the elderly's healthcare bill!"

Not that more migrants will magically reduce the NHS demand?