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.

Well, bully for you ExtremelyConfidential with your library of multiple passports, fistfuls of cash and heavily discounted London homes ready for your retirement. You don't really represent the average UK voter.

Another reason for Leaving though - to stop our current government blaming the EU for everything. Let them stand on their own two feet.

But everything will be blamed on leaving the EU instead.

You'll find that immigration is still blamed for societies ills, there isn't any evidence it causes what it is blamed for now so it will still get the blame then.

You ll find that the pro brexit press will become rapidly more right wing and neo conservative.

And the nation will be poorer, maybe not by the treasury predictions, but poorer and more unequal.

Sorry if my post offended you Limer...my point, possibly poorly made, was exactly as you suggest : I am not a typical UK resident voter at all, and it's only in this capacity that I could benefit from Brexit. In spite of that, I'll be voting remain because I believe that is in the best interests of the UK.

I do think that we need a more nuanced debate around migration - pluses and minuses. What I see on this thread is the BREXITERs characterising all EU migration as a bad thing and the remainers arguing that it is a good thing. Actually it is much more complicated than that. Some communities - Central London for example - have far more highly skilled, highly educated EU migrants who speak fluent English, opt for private education and healthcare and more than pay their way in taxes etc. Others have a disproportionate number of low skilled people who don't speak English and who probably take more out of the system than they put in. Pretending that this is not a problem - as some of the remainers do - is to bury one's head in the sand.
But we have to be honest about why this happened: the Blair/Brown government unlike almost all other EU governments decided not to apply transitional arrangements to limit the freedom of movement for people from the new Member States - so they all came to UK. I am hopeful given experience with Poles, Ukrainians etc who came post WW2 that these people will integrate and that their children will be indistinguishable from the general population. This will reduce some of the issues around community cohesion.
One practical thing which could be done though - and this would have support across the EU- would be to restrict the freedom of movement of anyone who had been convicted of a serious criminal offence. Potential quick win, in my view.

"Pretending that this is not a problem - as some of the remainers do - is to bury one's head in the sand."

Its not pretending that its not a problem, its the fact that in the vast majority immigration is not the cause of the ills that it is blamed for. Housing, NHS capacity, unemployment and low wages are all blamed on immigration but the vast majority of the information available tells a different story.

I agree with the serious criminal offence thing, but the problem then comes if people have served their sentence, are we not allowing people to be rehabilitated or continuing punishment? Is that fair?

Lago, yes it is complicated and there are different undercurrents to the wider phenomenon of EU immigration, but the studies look at the overall impact of all EU immigration, taken as a whole. This is not denying that there are some EU immigrants who take more than they give, this is saying that overall, even when you take this into account, they give more than they take.

One practical thing which could be done though - and this would have support across the EU- would be to restrict the freedom of movement of anyone who had been convicted of a serious criminal offence. Potential quick win, in my view.

Isn't this already the case?

The EU’s 2004 citizenship directive makes it clear that the free movement of people within the EU is not an unqualified right and can be restricted on grounds of “public policy, public security or public health”. This means that serious offenders can be denied entry and the right to live in Britain.

About 6,000 EU citizens have been denied entry to the UK on these grounds since 2010. When the Leave campaign point to EU criminals in the UK, it's usually the case the UKBA would have been perfectly within their rights to deny them entry if they had known about their past - but they didn't know, because EU countries still need to get better at sharing information

www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/mar/29/eu-dangerous-criminals-allowed-free-entry-uk-vote-leave-claims

The community cohesion point I do take though, it has been the case in lots of communities that newly arrived immigrants tend to socialise and stay within their own community rather than mix fully with others.

HOWEVER, as someone who has spent time living in lots of different communities I'd say that it can be very difficult to integrate in some areas, in London it can actually be easier once your children are at school etc to do so otherwise you might never really know anyone in your area, but in other areas I've lived in if you weren't from there you were definitely an outsider and made to feel that way. It isn't always just the migrants that are the issue when it comes to integration.

You ll find that the pro brexit press will become rapidly more right wing and neo conservative.

Brexit isn't party-political. Right wing groups are gaining support in the EU due to people's dissatisfaction with it.

Strange that more than half of net migration is non EU then isn't it?

No, not really. Most countries aren't in the EU so they're underrepresented by quite a long way.

Most countries aren't in geographic proximity to the UK as European ones so it isn't.

@chalala : I entirely agree that taken as a whole EU migrants do contribute more than they take out. But at the same time I can acknowledge the concerns of those living in areas where they feel overwhelmed by the numbers and concentrations of new arrivals. But I am more relaxed about the ability of EU citizens to integrate than I am about some of the concentrations of longer established, non EU migrant groups.

Lagodia, I think that the concerns of those living in areas are understandable, especially when you see the way the media shape the agenda regarding immigration. I'm not saying people are led by the media but it does have an impact on perspective.

I know this is a Guardian link but the data was collated by Ipsos Mori and I think the findings were really interesting:

www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/oct/29/todays-key-fact-you-are-probably-wrong-about-almost-everything

Most countries aren't in geographic proximity to the UK as European ones so it isn't.

As we live in a global world then proximity makes less difference as time goes on. It's just whether your plane journey is a few more hours.

These are fascinating stats, luked

The Ipsos Mori guy has an interesting point at the end about the way politicians and policy makers should be reacting to misperceptions.

Should they try to "educate" people, or should they design policies around unfounded fears? He thinks, a bit of both - acknowledge fears and concerns, but not reinforce them with policies. I get the idea, but I'm struggling to understand what this would mean in practice, to be honest...

@lurked: interesting quiz. But like all quizzes... Apparently the main reason that the murder rate is dropping is that A&E in London and other big cities have got a lot better at dealing with knife and gunshot wounds. So those attacked are no longer dying at thensame rate. Incidence of knife crime is increasing. Not sure if that makes me feel better or not ..[digresses]

I can acknowledge the concerns of those living in areas where they feel overwhelmed

Absolutely, and I think this is where the pro- and anti-Brexit posters are talking at cross purposes. The Brexiters feel that we are denying their personal experience, and basically telling them their senses are deceiving them, which I get would be infuriating.

But it's not what it's about, no one is saying "nope, you imagined these 5 Polish ladies in front of you at the GPs, they don't actually exist".

What we're saying is that these immediately noticeable "negative" aspects of immigration are in fact more than compensated by the "positive" sides of immigration (in terms of economic contributions etc). The positive contributions of immigration are much less transparently visible in day-to-day life, but they're still very much real.

If we leave the EU we can still welcome just as many, or more, economic migrants if it's considered this is a good thing for the UK.

The point is that our country will regain its right to have the choice.

If we leave the EU we can still welcome just as many, or more, economic migrants if it's considered this is a good thing for the UK.

What is annoying is that people continue to blame the migrants not rubbish employers.

Same with the "death for benefit cheats vs slap wrists for tax evaders/avoiders" this country has some problems which to me Brexit will only heighten.

So housing prices will fall apparently out of the EU. I'm going to be a first time buyer next year. Can I be selfish?

Again a gudrian article but an interesting take on the facts published by other newspapers.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/19/inaccurate-pro-brexit-infacts-investigation-media-reports-eu-referendum

@whisky: I have heard others say that. My reply is always, sure, go ahead, if you already have the full price saved. But for other potential house buyers there will be a big question over whether they will still have a job two or three years post Brexit.

they're also predicting it'll be more difficult to get a mortgage

House prices falling are not as good for first time buyersas they seem on the face of it.

It means that people who bought in recent years will be in negative equity, which puts difficulties on banks risk adjusting and balance sheets.

Banks become more reticent in lending, and ask for larger deposits and give mortgages based on lower multiples of salaries. First time buyers might find that their chances of buying houses are lower due to falls in house prices rather than them getting better value for money.

Also, the major flaw in this movie is that it holds Switzerland up as the model, which both contributes to the EU, has freedom of movement, as well as having to adopt EU laws in terms of exports and doesn't have an agreement on services.

Not really what the Brexit crowd are looking for.

On the "crowd funding" element of this film, the interesting thing about that is anyone can donate, so it hides vested interests.

But then every pro EU source has vested interests apparenty, where as this film which is not objective and essentially presents the views of the director Martin Durkin who is both a global warming denier and a neo liberal economics fan. He was also warned about misrepresenting facts in previous documentaries.