Sry I didn't spell check on 2p2 rofl

if you don't want millions of people with low education levels in incompatible cultures to come into a rich country that your ancestors built through blood and hard work then you must have no heart!

when did nationalism become a bad word, lots of highly educated people in the commonwealth who want to immigrate to Britain but can't while you throw open the doors to the masses in the EU.

How would a spell checker have helped?

Your romanticised view that Britain's wealth came from its people's blood and hard work is equally ignorant. Have you heard of the Empire?

Economically, EU-15 migration is very good, EU-10 is marginally bad.

If you go to places like Shirebrook people there are not complaining about French or German migrants, it's Eastern European migrants.

Given Eastern Europeans are currently a net drain on the economy, and are perceived by people living in places like Shirebrook to have a negative effect on the community, it's no surprise to find immigration at the centre of the referendum debate.

no way EU-10 migration is marginally bad. when the employment rate is higher than native brits it's barely even possible for it to be bad.

They claim more in benefits than they pay in taxes, and that's before we build them somewhere to live, a school, GP, dentist, etc.

Source please. Because studies suggest this is nonsense.

in anything even resembling a normal year they dont claim more in benefits etc. than they pay in taxes. if they did that then the average native brit would be a massive negative.

and they dont need "somewhere to live, a school, GP, dentist, etc." more than the average person. it's what you get for the taxes you pay (or pay for yourself).

Questions

As an American from "across the pond," I'm not as astute with respect to British politics as most of the posters itt, but that doesn't mean I'm not interested. One thing I've read on one of the UK web sites is that Prime Minister David Cameron will resign (or be forced to resign) if the "Leave" campaign wins. (I also read that he is probably toast as PM if "Stay" wins but the vote is very close - which looks like it may be the case if polling and betting markets are to be believed.)

Several questions ... (1.) If "Leave" does in fact win, do most of you agree that Cameron will be out as PM? (2.) If "Leave" wins - or almost wins - and Cameron resigns, who is Britain's new (or next) PM? (3.) Is there any indication that MP Jo Cox's tragic death is creating a backlash against the "Leave" campaign? (4.) Since the Conservative Party appears to be divided and fractured, what is the probability (possibility) that the Labour Party will move for a vote of "No Confidence" and call for a General Election?

1. Yes, his position as PM and chief In advocate will be incompatible with organising an orderly exit from the EU, not to mention Mad Boris will want his job ASAP.

2. See above, probably and very unfortunately. Think posh version of Trump.

3. Not yet, but campaigning has been suspended until Sunday.

4. Small because the Labour Party's strategy so far has been to do as little as possible while watching the Tory party self-destruct, as it might well do if Out win.


The basic problem for In is that their strongest suit is the economic argument but voters appear not to believe them:

"Just 17 per cent of voters believe George Osborne’s key claim that households will be £4,300 worse off after Brexit, while 47 per cent accept Vote Leave’s statement that Britain pays £350 million to the EU every week."

Polls

A decent analogy is being in a golf club. You can leave whenever you want to stop paying fees but if you then decide you actually want to play a round you then need to join again and there is no reason to be expected to be grandfathered into your old membership terms.

None of this is hidden information. If we as a nation decide we want out of the EU we can't be angry at what happens because of it.

Cameron's almost certainly finished if we leave. More interesting question is what the impact on Boris will be if we stay in. It will be a setback to his ambitions, but imho he'll survive it as the vote is likely to be close and he hasn't spent as much political capital as Cameron.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...12181/abstract

The average brit is a massive negative. See above.

Eh?

That says in the summary: EEA immigrants have made a positive contribution to the UK economy; Non-EEA immigrants have not. How are you interpreting that to mean Eastern European immigrants are draining the economy? This article on the report even clarifies that its immigrants from Pakistan, India and African Commonwealth countries who tend to take out more money than they contribute.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...0-billion.html

Because in recent years EU-10 immigrants have fallen below the threshold where they pay in more than they take out in benefits. Since 2001 they have paid in more than they took out, but that abstract just reports the average.

I wasn't going to vote but i have found that every person that wants to leave the EU is the type of person that i can't stand and would never be friends with so I am voting to stay.

that's not current and it's not showing the eu-10 immigration is bad.

in a few years during the biggest post-war economic downturn, where the uk ran a deficit of something like 10% of gdp, it managed to be a net negative, but that's not now and it'll probably/hopefully be 50 years before it happens again. the rest of the time it'll be a good thing like it was before the recession.

the idea that you need to spend more on those things than you do on everyone else, and which is already part of the taxes/benefits math, is dodgy.

I think if a Brit woke from a lifelong coma on polling day and wasn't able to do any research, a simple look at the sort of people who are voting for each of In and Out would quickly convince any decent person to vote In.

In terms of published data in peer reviewed journals, it's as current as you are going to get.

Wtf are you talking about? Britain, along with America and others, literally is the root cause.

We created isis, as it exists today, by invading Iraq. We are also bombing Syria right now, America has been doing so for years. We have armed several sides in that conflict.

You have to be ignorant of the last decade and a half to not realise we caused all of this.

okay, but the year 2008 and the couple following it were unique and far different from this year or basically any other time. today, and hopefully the next 50 years, look far more like one of those normal years in the sample.

and iirc they were still only barely negative in the middle of the recession.

It's not an example of the out camp, it's an example of how extreme rhetoric, fearmongering, and anger have extreme consequences.

It shouldn't be considered a result of arguing to leave, it should be considered a result (or contributor) as to why Boris and Farage and their appeals to populism are going to screw with people and national mood.

It just so happens they represent the remain camp

The fact that you have to invent an absurd standard like "well if we can't save the whole ****ing world then what's the point really" says a lot about the strength of your position. Shocker that BB signed on to this post as well, lol

There was still a clear trend where the amount paid in tax compared to the amount claimed in benefits fell in each of the last 5 years in the study, and ended with more being claimed in benefits than paid in tax by EU-10 migrants.

Anyway, to go back to the original point:

The answer therefore, is no. Immigration from EU-15 countries is a huge plus, but it also masks the fact that immigration from everywhere else is break-even at best, in economic terms.

Its almost as if fiscal contribution alone wont measure the full impact of an immigrant economically.

.