That´s because lack of regulation - inspection ( i guess ). As a principle (here) and i think universal is "for same work, same pay". Something like that.
As here and everywhere there are lots of works locals don´t want to do .
Here people have degrees and recuse jobs, and recuse, and recuse lol. When they go to other UE countrie they do almost everything, but here no lol.

Without some migrants in big cities i guess economy collapsed even here lol.

There i know a little... and the pay is the same...
Most of the goods are carried by migrants, UK people don´t dream of being a truck driver, or driving a van around london lol.
There was and even - lack of drivers... UK people just don´t want to do it...

Just a little more rambling about the emigration.
Even here people don´t want to do lots of works. People that have farms and so; when they need workers, call and call, knock doors to find people to work...lol. Most of them reject ( people living with parents or getting some state money, say they are sick or something like that), others just don´t want to do that.

Why per example in France, locals don´t want to win "good money" ( they are payed way better) in a month just cutting grapes veryyyy slow? I guess there are people unemployed there too...

What are they doing? Expecting?.

Receive money from State??.

If wasn't for migrants... no champagne lol or... 2 years to finish the job, slow, slow and slow .

I did that for some years in summer... it´s kinda fun, some locals that go ofc ( as here ) pass the day smoke cigarrs, talking eating and drinking... even if emigration was not allowed | what´s the point on hiring them?. Losing money?. Paying them 150€\200€ in a day for...filling 2 buckets of grapes all day long?

Here it´s the same... people that go work on more hard works do almost nothing lol. A Romanian do the work of 5 of us here ahha. In their countries... i bet they do nothing too.

As for lowering the wages... it´s not like that. They are lowering the wages of other migrants, because locals don´t even think on doing lots and lots of jobs in all countries. There are works everywhere in the UE that people don´t even know that exist.

Now most of people have degrees and only do ****ty jobs in richer countries. Many don´t even try that....

There is always someone willing to do a job for some "good" relative money... so...

Why UK had lack of like 1000000000000000 truck drivers? The pay was not that bad (no migrants). Unemployment was 0%????

The problem with point two is that when an immigrant comes over, they need a house, gp, dentist, etc now. So basically, the government has to tacitly ask the electorate if they want to put the country into into more debt to build the infrastructure capable of supporting these immigrants who might improve things in the long run. Gl with that.

Incidentally, a quick google of the economic benefits of migrants from eastern Europe suggests:

This is not a lot of money to build the infrastructure necessary to supplement the migrants from Eastern European EU countries.

Meanwhile:

So, migrants from central Europe are much better for our economy than those from Eastern Europe. In fact, I would guess based on those figures that when you take in the cost of building the infrastructure necessary to support immigration, those from central Europe subsidise those from Eastern Europe.

The overarching point is that should we leave the EU, these people will still want to come, however we will be able to select who we take.

Suorce:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-arti...EU-immigration

Two simple questions:

Is there any upper limit beyond which net migration could become an issue?

If so, where does it lie? How many? Can you give me a rough estimate of that number? Or is there no limit at which it stops becoming a benefit?

The population of Hong Kong grew at a little over 4% a year from 1945 and forward. And despite the immigrants overall being far poorer and less skilled than those coming to the UK it's gone pretty well because they're working and contributing.

Maybe at some point over 4% a year you hit a barrier, but it's never going to happen in reality.

the 12% is after they've already paid their share of infrastructure and doctors and so on.

The people talking about being better able to select who comes mainly just want to slash the number of those immigrating. You'll have to turn down a massive number of productive people who would benefit society if you want to get down to 10s of thousands in net migration.

OUT is a mandate to slash immigration.

If OUT wins and the immigration numbers stay the same, there will be apoplectic outrage.

Apologies for knowing basically nothing about this. But isn't being in the EU without being in the Euro like all upside? Like joining the Euro would be basically crazytown, but what's the downside of being in the EU if you don't have to use the Euro?

The problem the EU has is its not very transparent and is run by a civil service class. I dont think many people understand the process by which something becomes an EU law that is dominant over national law/process, or the degrees of that relationship thereby.

This is not a good recipe for relations with national populations.

Like, have there been significant "EU laws" that would override member state laws that have either been implemented or seriously proposed?

There s some handing over of sovereignty to EU institutions, but that doesn't appear to be the main issue in the campaigns. The dominating topic for OUT seems to be EU immigration due to freedom of movement for workers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedo...European_Union

Basically, all EU citizens have the right to live in any of the member countries if they can find work there. There is significant influx of workers into the UK from some of the poorer EU countries, and OUT is essentially campaigning on a "They took our jobs!" platform mixed with some terrorism/refugees scare mongering.

It should be pointed out that even non-EU countries like Switzerland and Norway have to allow free movement of EU workers anyway, in order to gain access to the EEA single market. OUT claims they will be able to negotiate access to the EEA on better terms after leaving, but no one really knows how realistic that is.

OK I actually appreciate the consistency in your answer. Very few people concede that there is a limit (regardless of whether or not they then go on to say that there's no chance we'll ever reach it).

Really, yes.

The "arguments" for Out rely mainly on emotion (fear, racism etc), and a failure to see the bigger picture in terms of benefits of membership.

Outs say the UK has given up sovereignty by allowing the EU to make some laws that we cannot opt out of, but fail to say why they're happy for us to be part of NATO.

The European Court of Human Rights is a massive pain in the ass. Look up 'Abu Hamza' for instance.

Why would "Abu Hamza" make Britain not want to be in the EU?

That's not what the article suggests. Do you have a source for your claim?

That might be what some OUTer's claim or want, but it's not my personal view. I think controlling immigration is why we need to Brexit, but providing we have jobs available, and the people applying to come in are suitably skilled, it wouldn't bother me to see immigration rise further.

If we Brexit immigration will fall off a cliff.

This referendum is viewed by many OUT voters as a yes/no on immigration, and the political capital thereby will obviously be used by politicians.

Maybe google European Court of Human Rights first, as it hasn't got anything to so with the EU.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro...f_Human_Rights

Ha, we'll quite. I'm just answering the question. Obviously vote remain but the EU does have the odd supranational law which, whilst generally over reacted to, is kind of annoying I guess.

OK, so this is basically like a referendum on TRUMP saying let's ban muslims until we figure this whole thing out?

Were you having a seizure while writing this post?

It won't. We still have about 188k p/a non-EU net migration plus we may well just opt in to free movement of our own volition. I don't suffer from any of the negative effects of migration so let's just say that if we do vote out, our net migration figure staying super high will be hilarious in terms of the reaction of the out voters.

No. It's more about who makes our laws. Immigration will stay super high whatever we do.

OK. What laws are "No EU" voters concerned about? Not trying to be difficult, literally have no idea.

Am busy at work, but just did a sneaky google on non EU immigration and got no where near the number of 188K p/a.

Cite?

Well net total was 330k. at a conference on my phone atm so can't check what percentage was EU vs non EU. I recall seeing 188k being non eu but Google says it's like 250k+

either way - my main point still stands- it's all irrelevant as we're not cutting immigration even if we leave. well just get it from elsewhere.