Brexit Thread

[Greyblades]

That sentence was in the fourth line, I even went back and checked because I had previously not read your post at all.

The sentence he quoted is in the Second line, and only in the edited version because I moved the last line to the first because it was more rhetorically appealing.

Evidently you still havent read it, might I suggest a third attempt:

I do not want a Norway deal, because I dont want Freedom of immigration, I'd love to be in the single market but I dont think it worth that caveat.

My reason for leaving was rooted in me wanting to stop seeing homeless people sleeping on the streets, I dont see that ever happening if we keep allowing in more people than we can employ and house.

We let in so many people, half the time with the intent of putting a higher cost local out of work. I know it is our politicians fault that 200,000-300,000 are let in each year, but I cannot ignore that even if we were to vote in politicians that would lower immigration they would stopped from dropping it low enough because of the EU's freedom of movmement rule. That was a problem that led me to a bigger problem; that even if we were to get our act together our attempts to make things better could be overruled by european beauracrats who clearly do not cater to my concerns and over who I have no influence.

The referendum was a ill planned mess but that was the nature of the thing, we werent asked how we'd do it, just if we wanted to. I knew we'd likely never be asked again; the EU wasnt listening and it was clear this was an attempt to sweep the issue under the rug by a politician who wanted to get a no vote while we were uncertain and use it as an excuse to never talk about it again. We didnt have the luxury of waiting for a Churchill or a Pitt to arise who could lead us through the trouble it would cause; indeed this was our only chance to get it done that didnt require putting in a less palatable political party in charge for 5 years.

So I and 17 million other people took it, through hell and high water. I'm fine with an economic depression when the alternative is having to witness hopeless stagnation every time I leave my home, the comfort and luxury of a first world country doesnt seem worth it if so many of my fellow britons are stuck outside.

Right now we get a yearly net increase of 184,000 EU citizens and 188,000 non EU members settling into the UK, our government in the EU can only refuse the second number so even if we dropped it to zero we are stuck with 184,000 more people employ and house each year

Solving the homeless problem requires having homes and jobs to maintain them available for these homeless to take, proper jobs not 0 hour contracts and unpaid training courses that the government is using to pad out the numbers. Every one of those 184,000 people coming in is one less job for the 1,680,000 unemployed already here and one less house that could have gone to the 50,000 homeless let alone the million or so young people stuck living with their parents. I've already acknowledged that a lot of our issues with the homeless are semi-self inflicted but it doesnt change the fact that such a large rate of immigration is extremely countrproductive and will stifle any move to fix those problems.

[Husar]

The sentence he quoted is in the Second line, and only in the edited version because I moved the last line to the first because it was more rhetorically appealing.

My selected skin is obviously the only one that can ever be used as a reference.

Evidently you still havent read it, might I suggest a third attempt:

Of course I didn't, don't you read Sarmatian's posts?

Right now we get a yearly net increase of 184,000 EU citizens and 188,000 non EU members settling into the UK, our government in the EU can only refuse the second number so even if we dropped it to zero we are stuck with 184,000 more people employ and house each year

Solving the homeless problem requires having homes and jobs to maintain them available for these homeless to take, proper jobs not 0 hour contracts and unpaid training courses that the government is using to pad out the numbers. Every one of those 184,000 people coming in is one less job for the 1,680,000 unemployed already here and one less house that could have gone to the 50,000 homeless let alone the million or so young people stuck living with their parents. I've already acknowledged that a lot of our issues with the homeless are semi-self inflicted but it doesnt change the fact that such a large rate of immigration is extremely countrproductive and will stifle any move to fix those problems.

If 333,000 people come every year that you don't have houses for, why do you have only 50,000 homeless people?
Why can immigrants be given 0 hour contracts if those are part of the issue? There's zero proof in your statement for any of what you say, you merely assume that a) it would be impossible to lower intra-EU migration in any way and b) that nothing can be done about the 50k homeless because too many immigrants are coming. What I want from you is that you explain why that is. Does the UK lack construction companies or does the EU enforce a limit on the number of new houses? Can the UK not use cheap immigrant labor on 0 hour contracts to build a lot of new houses? Why do 333,000 people come to the UK every year anyway and what happens if the population growth stops? Why does the UK let so many non-EU citizens immigrate if it is already overburdeened with EU immigrants and why would cutting the number of immigrants in half not help if you do not currently get >184,000 new homeless people every year?

[Greyblades]

My selected skin is obviously the only one that can ever be used as a reference.

And your screen size, I dont count empty spaces when counting line sand teh first paragraph was short enough to only cover one line. Ach whatever.

Of course I didn't, don't you read Sarmatian's posts?

And people wonder why this forum is going down hill...

If 333,000 people come every year that you don't have houses for, why do you have only 50,000 homeless people?

I dont know, Honestly every source I find are contradictorary, guardan says 184,000 in 2013, while wikipedia says there were 54,430 homeless households in 2014, but only 498 people sleeping rough each night, while the guardian says 3,500 each night and that's not counting the increasing number of young adults working from thier parents homes instead of thier own because they cannot afford houses.

Why can immigrants be given 0 hour contracts if those are part of the issue?

...What makes you think they cant? 0 hour contracts and the like add to the problem because they do not provide a stable source of income required to maintain a household, it takes you off the unemployment list but can mean you can be only paid for anywhere as little as one hour of work each 6 months on a minimum wage. It pads the numbers of new jobs the government can tell the public it created without actually providing a proper source of income for the new "employee".

There's zero proof in your statement for any of what you say, you merely assume that a) it would be impossible to lower intra-EU migration in any way and b) that nothing can be done about the 50k homeless because too many immigrants are coming. What I want from you is that you explain why that is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedo...European_Union
When we joined the EU we agreed to the policy of freedom of movment for workers in the European Union, and that freedom means we cannot turn away EU migrants who can secure work, so no quota, no limitation, we must let them all in and mr camron could not or would not secure an exemption for the UK, the only option given to legally limit or halt immigration from the EU was to leave it.

Homelessness and unemployment cannot be solved if the need for jobs and houses out paces the supply, every new person in the country means one more person without a job, usually the local he is replacing because the employer is either too lazy to train or too stingy to pay. It is highly unlikely a good government could grow our economy fast enough to support the demands of such a fast growing population, let alone the lack-wit governments we were stuck choosing between a year ago.

Does the UK lack construction companies or does the EU enforce a limit on the number of new houses? Can the UK not use cheap immigrant labor on 0 hour contracts to build a lot of new houses? Why do 333,000 people come to the UK every year anyway and what happens if the population growth stops? Why does the UK let so many non-EU citizens immigrate if it is already overburdeened with EU immigrants and why would cutting the number of immigrants in half not help if you do not currently get >184,000 new homeless people every year?

The simple answer is our government is dominated by uncaring assholes who dont care about the issues of people poorer than themselves, be they champagne socialists or ivory tower conservatives.

[Pannonian]

And your screen size, I dont count empty spaces when counting line sand teh first paragraph was short enough to only cover one line. Ach whatever.

And people wonder why this forum is going down hill...

I dont know, Honestly every source I find are contradictorary, guardan says 184,000 in 2013, while wikipedia says there were 54,430 homeless households in 2014, but only 498 people sleeping rough each night, while the guardian says 3,500 each night and that's not counting the increasing number of young adults working from thier parents homes instead of thier own because they cannot afford houses.

...What makes you think they cant? 0 hour contracts and the like add to the problem because they do not provide a stable source of income required to maintain a household, it takes you off the unemployment list but can mean you can be only paid for anywhere as little as one hour of work each 6 months on a minimum wage. It pads the numbers of new jobs the government can tell the public it created without actually providing a proper source of income for the new "employee".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedo...European_Union
When we joined the EU we agreed to the policy of freedom of movment for workers in the European Union, and that freedom means we cannot turn away EU migrants who can secure work, so no quota, no limitation, we must let them all in and mr camron could not or would not secure an exemption for the UK, the only option given to legally limit or halt immigration from the EU was to leave it.

Homelessness and unemployment cannot be solved if the need for jobs and houses out paces the supply, every new person in the country means one more person without a job, usually the local he is replacing because the employer is either too lazy to train or too stingy to pay. It is highly unlikely a good government could grow our economy fast enough to support the demands of such a fast growing population, let alone the lack-wit governments we were stuck choosing between a year ago.

The simple answer is our government is dominated by uncaring assholes who dont care about the issues of people poorer than themselves, be they champagne socialists or ivory tower conservatives.

Are you aware that one of the gripes the right has with the EU is that it imposes regulations on employers? The EU, in common with most of the constituent countries, is socialist in nature (at least in comparison with the UK), working towards a tendency to regulate and enforce rights of the individual. The right wants rid of the EU to remove all these regulations and rights. Andrea Leadsom, one of the leading Brexiters, suggested removing all regulations for employers of small businesses, leaving their employees with no rights whatsoever. No minimum wage, unlimited hours, no environmental or H&S regulations, no nothing. That's the Brexit dream.

If your gripe is that the government doesn't care about people poorer than themselves, it's a bit ironic that you live in the UK and voted for Brexit.

[Greyblades]

What makes you think the EU care about people poorer than themselves? When they aid and abett a mass migration of foriegn young men with lower wage expectations and a tendency to molest rape and murder those who do not share thier belief system, without consulting the people they pretend to serve, they seem less caring as the worst of the Tories

One flavour of bastard over another, but the one I chose at least has a potential of change and a degree of control.

[Pannonian]

What makes you think the EU care about people poorer than themselves? When they aid and abett a mass migration of foriegn young men with lower wage expectations and a tendency to molest rape and murder those who do not share thier belief system, without consulting the people they pretend to serve, they seem less caring as the worst of the Tories

One flavour of bastard over another, but the one I chose at least has a potential of change and a degree of control.

When Andrea Leadsom says one way for small companies to cope with Brexit is to remove all regulations and employees' rights, it would suggest that the EU has a part in making sure these regulations and rights are there.

[Gilrandir]

Be honest, you and husar didn't read further than the first line, did you?

My selected skin is obviously the only one that can ever be used as a reference.

Yo, line-counters, would you like to hear me out?

Greyblades brought up the homeless problem as one of the reasons the UK should get out of the EU.
BUT: homeless were there before the UK joined the EU and even before there was any UK (I don't mean those were the same people, though) and will be there anyway. Blaming societal ulcers onto someONE is ridiculous. They were always there rising and ebbing depending on many factors. Even if you subtract one of those it doesn't mean the situation will improve. What if by exiting the EU Great Britain (or Lesser Britain) will provoke a downhill tendency in economy thus increasing the number of local (not imported) hobos?

Conclusion: don't expect that Brexit will heal all sores of your country since they were not begotten by EU membership.

[Husar]

And people wonder why this forum is going down hill...

When they aid and abett a mass migration of foriegn young men with lower wage expectations and a tendency to molest rape and murder those who do not share thier belief system[...]

Hmm, yes...

I dont know, Honestly every source I find are contradictorary, guardan says 184,000 in 2013, while wikipedia says there were 54,430 homeless households in 2014, but only 498 people sleeping rough each night, while the guardian says 3,500 each night and that's not counting the increasing number of young adults working from thier parents homes instead of thier own because they cannot afford houses.

So because you can't find data you can trust, you know it is the fault of the EU?
Even with the data we used earlier, you couldn't really explain the math that would imply it is the fault of the EU.
Yet you know it is the fault of the EU?

...What makes you think they cant? 0 hour contracts and the like add to the problem because they do not provide a stable source of income required to maintain a household, it takes you off the unemployment list but can mean you can be only paid for anywhere as little as one hour of work each 6 months on a minimum wage. It pads the numbers of new jobs the government can tell the public it created without actually providing a proper source of income for the new "employee".

Obviously the fault of the EU?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedo...European_Union
When we joined the EU we agreed to the policy of freedom of movment for workers in the European Union, and that freedom means we cannot turn away EU migrants who can secure work, so no quota, no limitation, we must let them all in and mr camron could not or would not secure an exemption for the UK, the only option given to legally limit or halt immigration from the EU was to leave it.

And why can so many of them secure work in your country?
Because of the EU? Again, does the EU enforce cheap contracts for cheap foreign workers? Why do the non-EU immigrants come? Are their cheap jobs also mandated by the EU?

Homelessness and unemployment cannot be solved if the need for jobs and houses out paces the supply, every new person in the country means one more person without a job, usually the local he is replacing because the employer is either too lazy to train or too stingy to pay. It is highly unlikely a good government could grow our economy fast enough to support the demands of such a fast growing population, let alone the lack-wit governments we were stuck choosing between a year ago.

Probably overlooked this part:

However, research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has shown that a cut in the number of migrants would have a negative impact on the economy.

Well, first of all, your article does not prove what you say right before it, it does not say every immigrant puts a UK citizen out of a job, it merely says a lot of the new jhobs go to immigrants, but that could just as well be due to a stagnating or slowly growing native population.
That the economic growth cannot keep pace with the population growth is something you did not show. And what about all the non-EU immigrants? Are they all allowed in and slip straight into unemployment?

The simple answer is our government is dominated by uncaring assholes who dont care about the issues of people poorer than themselves, be they champagne socialists or ivory tower conservatives.

Makes you wonder who let them rise through the party ranks and continuously elected them into higher and higher offices or how does one become a politician in the UK?

Yo, line-counters, would you like to hear me out?

Greyblades brought up the homeless problem as one of the reasons the UK should get out of the EU.
BUT: homeless were there before the UK joined the EU and even before there was any UK (I don't mean those were the same people, though) and will be there anyway. Blaming societal ulcers onto someONE is ridiculous. They were always there rising and ebbing depending on many factors. Even if you subtract one of those it doesn't mean the situation will improve. What if by exiting the EU Great Britain (or Lesser Britain) will provoke a downhill tendency in economy thus increasing the number of local (not imported) hobos?

Conclusion: don't expect that Brexit will heal all sores of your country since they were not begotten by EU membership.

There will always be those who want to live in the streets, yes. For everyone else it should be possible to provide them with a home at least.

[Greyblades]

When Andrea Leadsom says one way for small companies to cope with Brexit is to remove all regulations and employees' rights, it would suggest that the EU has a part in making sure these regulations and rights are there.

Actually it suggests that andrea leadsome is an idiot and that's why she lost to may.

Greyblades brought up the homeless problem as one of the reasons the UK should get out of the EU.
BUT: homeless were there before the UK joined the EU and even before there was any UK (I don't mean those were the same people, though) and will be there anyway. Blaming societal ulcers onto someONE is ridiculous. They were always there rising and ebbing depending on many factors. Even if you subtract one of those it doesn't mean the situation will improve. What if by exiting the EU Great Britain (or Lesser Britain) will provoke a downhill tendency in economy thus increasing the number of local (not imported) hobos?

Conclusion: don't expect that Brexit will heal all sores of your country since they were not begotten by EU membership.

Econimic downturns can reverse, EU immigration could not be stopped or controlled without leaving and meant that the economic prosperity we were capable of creating in the EU would never be enough to eliminate unemployment, AKA the leading cause of sleeping rough.

Hmm, yes...

Better a truth you dont like than no real response at all.

So because you can't find data you can trust, you know it is the fault of the EU?
Even with the data we used earlier, you couldn't really explain the math that would imply it is the fault of the EU.
Yet you know it is the fault of the EU?

I know that the 184,000 immigrants a year is uncontrollable because of EU. I know that the homeless problem is increasing because I can see it on my streets and both sides of the political spectrum confirm it. I know that rough sleeping is largely a result of unemployment from both common sense (you cant afford to rent a house if you are broke) and said political consensus. I can find data I can trust, I just cant find data that can answer your question. Where are immigrants getting houses? Who knows, I suspect a lowered definition of housing on the part of the immigrant and a reliance on voluntary application on the part of the surveys.

Obviously the fault of the EU?

You brought it up. I only exploited it to pre-empt an appeal to dropping unemployment rates.

And why can so many of them secure work in your country?
Because of the EU? Again, does the EU enforce cheap contracts for cheap foreign workers? Why do the non-EU immigrants come? Are their cheap jobs also mandated by the EU?

The government doesnt control the private sector and cant put controls on who we take in thanks to the EU, meaning that if I voted in a government that wanted to it couldnt, hence my problem with the EU.

Probably overlooked this part:

I didnt: you overlooked this part: "I'm fine with an economic depression when the alternative is having to witness hopeless stagnation every time I leave my home, the comfort and luxury of a first world country doesnt seem worth it if so many of my fellow britons are stuck outside."

Well, first of all, your article does not prove what you say right before it, it does not say every immigrant puts a UK citizen out of a job, it merely says a lot of the new jhobs go to immigrants, but that could just as well be due to a stagnating or slowly growing native population.

Nitpicking, every job going to an immigrant is one not going to a local and there is only so much that could be explained by lack of qualification on the part of the local in such an educated population. If it was down to a stagnating or slowly growing native population: unemployment would be near zero.

That the economic growth cannot keep pace with the population growth is something you did not show. And what about all the non-EU immigrants? Are they all allowed in and slip straight into unemployment?

Immigration of 330000 a year, mostly employed before arrival job creation of about 400,000 a year of which, lets be generous and say 350,000 are worth anything, gives a net growth of jobs of around 20,000 a year. Unemployment is at 1.67 million so we can say that at this rate UK in the EU would beat unemployment in 83 &1/2 years.

Assuming of course the numbers stays static and that the European economy could stay stable for 83 years, I somewhat doubt it considering Deuschbank just asked for a bailout, the mediteranian is going down the drain and Germany is putting 90 billion into a project of self harm, I give odds that it doesnt last 2 years before another crisis.

As you mentioned lowering immigration would damage the economy, diminishing returns, we need to lower it gradually but we cannot do that well if half a continent of poor people is utterly at liberty to undercut every job seeker in the country for a taste of a good life. Immigration shot up 100,000 in 2013 there's nothing stopping the EU immigrants from making up for any reduction in non EU immigration

Makes you wonder who let them rise through the party ranks and continuously elected them into higher and higher offices or how does one become a politician in the UK?

Makes you wonder if they can keep it up forever.

[Husar]

Econimic downturns can reverse, EU immigration could not be stopped or controlled without leaving and meant that the economic prosperity we were capable of creating in the EU would never be enough to eliminate unemployment, AKA the leading cause of sleeping rough.

I know that the 184,000 immigrants a year is uncontrollable because of EU. I know that the homeless problem is increasing because I can see it on my streets and both sides of the political spectrum confirm it. I know that rough sleeping is largely a result of unemployment from both common sense (you cant afford to rent a house if you are broke) and said political consensus. I can find data I can trust, I just cant find data that can answer your question. Where are immigrants getting houses? Who knows, I suspect a lowered definition of housing on the part of the immigrant and a reliance on voluntary application on the part of the surveys.

The government doesnt control the private sector and cant put controls on who we take in thanks to the EU, meaning that if I voted in a government that wanted to it couldnt, hence my problem with the EU.

I didnt: you overlooked this part: "I'm fine with an economic depression when the alternative is having to witness hopeless stagnation every time I leave my home, the comfort and luxury of a first world country doesnt seem worth it if so many of my fellow britons are stuck outside."

Nitpicking, every job going to an immigrant is one not going to a local and there is only so much that could be explained by lack of qualification on the part of the local in such an educated population. If it was down to a stagnating or slowly growing native population: unemployment would be near zero.

Immigration of 330000 a year, mostly employed before arrival job creation of about 400,000 a year of which, lets be generous and say 350,000 are worth anything, gives a net growth of jobs of around 20,000 a year. Unemployment is at 1.67 million so we can say that at this rate UK in the EU would beat unemployment in 83 &1/2 years.

Assuming of course the numbers stays static and that the European economy could stay stable for 83 years, I somewhat doubt it considering Deuschbank just asked for a bailout, the mediteranian is going down the drain and Germany is putting 90 billion into a project of self harm, I give odds that it doesnt last 2 years before another crisis.

As you mentioned lowering immigration would damage the economy, diminishing returns, we need to lower it gradually but we cannot do that well if half a continent of poor people is utterly at liberty to undercut every job seeker in the country for a taste of a good life. Immigration shot up 100,000 in 2013 there's nothing stopping the EU immigrants from making up for any reduction in non EU immigration

Makes you wonder if they can keep it up forever.

Cut out a few parts to keep only the relevant ones, but there seem to be a series of assumptions that I would heavily doubt.

1) Your calculations are way too simple, so first of all, you won't realistically reach a point of having 0 unemployed people, simply because some people always switch jobs. An unemployment rate of around 4% is usually considered full employment for that reason.

2) You seem to think population and number of jobs are completely decoupled, but the population also affects consumption and consumption influences the number of available jobs... If your population stops growing, the number of jobs may stagnate or even go down. Or growth can become very slow. A counterbalance could come through export/trade, but given that you left the EU, you also gave up the common market, making that harder to achieve.

3) You complain about the inability of your government to control immigration within the EU and say it can't control the private sector. There are two issues here:
3A) The government could control non-EU migration, if it agreed with you that migration is such a problem, why does it not lower that type of migration to at least mitigate the problem? After all you say all parties admit the problem exists and apparently want to do something about it.
3B) That the government can't control the private sector is just laughable. Even the USA have a minimum wage and here you talk about zero-hour contracts as though nothing can be done about them. The EU does not forbid minimum wages, Germany only recently introduced some.

4) "Every job going to an immigrant is not going to a local": Again, a lot of these jobs wouldn't even exist if it weren't for population growth. Can you show me where on the following graph the unemployment rate is affected by EU immigration?
https://www.google.de/publicdata/exp...de&hl=en&dl=en
Your country must have had a lot of EU immigration in the late 80s and early 90s and then threw all the immigrants out until 2008? Why is the rate dropping since July 2013? And didn't you just say homelessness has gone up between 2013 and now? Why?

5) The US had "full employment" for a while and still had homeless people. How does that fit your idea that employment and homelessness are directly linked?

6) Why is the number of houses not growing fast enough? Apparently this was never a big issue in the past, but now after the housing bubble burst it is? Couldn't have something to do with capitalism and the bubble having destroyed the confidence of investors in real estate and a shortage giving owners higher profits?

[Greyblades]

1. Of course it is simplistic, it's illustrating that job growth is being rendered largely useless for tackling unemployment by population growth. And as previously illustrated here the UK's employment figures are padded with zero hour contracts and various unpaid "training" jobs.

2. I adressed this by acknowledging diminishing returns and expressing the desire for control not complete halt. Control the EU prevents being effective.

3.
a) Because they dont give a shit about the people detrimentally affected by it.

Less flippantly because the Conservative government is trying to make the national numbers to go the way they want; unemployment, gdp, FTSE etc and they are not very interested in how it is done or how it actually affects the population because thus far the numbers are all they have needed to prove that they are better than the alternatives which they technicaly are because Labour tried to do the same thing for 15 years but even less effectively. For example in a practical terms Zero hour contracts wouldnt count as full employment and thus the number of unemployed would go up by 800,000. The job growth is at 400,000 a year, who cares if any of those jobs actually goes to anyone who didnt move in from europe.

b) As stipulated in the freedom of movment policy we agreed to who's second line clearly states "Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment" we cannot get them to stop hiring from the EU as forcing the private sector to only hire britons is in direct violation of that.

4) You're doing the same thing as Gilrandir, taking it to the most simplistic conclusion, ignoring pre established context and giving no benefit of doubt. It is strawmanning to the highest degree and is highly aggrivating, even insulting.

The majority of immigrants coming from the EU is coming to take a job that existed before the immigrant arrived and could have gone to a local but didn't, and it is extremely safe to say that a lack of skill does not account for the majority.

5) America has never had full employment.

6) Does it matter? It isnt growing fast enough, it will never grow fast enough to accomodate such a population growth, it never did even in the days of massive council housing development. The government might be willing to ignore that uncontrolled immigration is countering the benefits it brings but I am not.

[Husar]

1. Of course it is simplistic, it's illustrating that job growth is being rendered largely useless for tackling unemployment by population growth. And as previously illustrated here the UK's employment figures are padded with zero hour contracts and various unpaid "training" jobs.

2. I adressed this by acknowledging diminishing returns and expressing the desire for control not complete halt. Control the EU prevents being effective.

3.
a) Because they dont give a shit about the people detrimentally affected by it.

Less flippantly because the Conservative government is trying to make the national numbers to go the way they want; unemployment, gdp, FTSE etc and they are not very interested in how it is done or how it actually affects the population because thus far the numbers are all they have needed to prove that they are better than the alternatives which they technicaly are because Labour tried to do the same thing for 15 years but even less effectively. For example in a practical terms Zero hour contracts wouldnt count as full employment and thus the number of unemployed would go up by 800,000. The job growth is at 400,000 a year, who cares if any of those jobs actually goes to anyone who didnt move in from europe.

b) As stipulated in the freedom of movment policy we agreed to who's second line clearly states "Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment" we cannot get them to stop hiring from the EU as forcing the private sector to only hire britons is in direct violation of that.

4) You're doing the same thing as Gilrandir, taking it to the most simplistic conclusion, ignoring pre established context and giving no benefit of doubt. It is strawmanning to the highest degree and is highly aggrivating, even insulting.

The majority of immigrants coming from the EU is coming to take a job that existed before the immigrant arrived and could have gone to a local but didn't, and it is extremely safe to say that a lack of skill does not account for the majority.

5) America has never had full employment.

6) Does it matter? It isnt growing fast enough, it will never grow fast enough to accomodate such a population growth, it never did even in the days of massive council housing development. The government might be willing to ignore that uncontrolled immigration is countering the benefits it brings but I am not.

1) Yes, but stopping population growth is just as useless and can also limit market growth. If the population growth has no effect on unemployment, why did you bring it up as a reason for unemployment?

2) You mean control your government does not even attempt. Who tells you that a decrease in EU immigration will not lead to a corresponding increase in general immigration? Would you rather have more Pakistani immigrants than Polish ones? Is that your point?

3A) Yes, leads us right back to point two. Except that here you basically seem to say that none of the parties with a shot at getting elected will change anything...
As for zero-hour contracts, how can you say they won't exist anymore once you stop or limit EU immigration? The US and Germany have similar wage problems and at least the US is not in the EU. Even New Zealand:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post...-get-low-wages

In New Zealand, wage and salary earners lost about a quarter of their share of the income the economy generated between the early 1980s and 2002. The fall wasn't because employers had invested aggressively to make their firms more productive. Growth in capital intensity was weak, and weaker than Australia. It began to rise again, but by 2010 was still well below 30 years earlier.

This is a problem pretty much everywhere but in developing countries as far as I can tell. The borders are opened more by corporate lobbies than the EU and just leaving the EU will probably not help you a lot unless you elect a communist government afterwards.

3B) Are you deliberately trying not to get my point? I talked about other government tools such as minimum wages, which can make hiring locals for the same wage more attractive (no language barriers, etc.) and you counter by saying they can't limit immigration?

4) That's just hilarious, especially when you say it's insulting.
You're the one who over-simplifies, that two people disagree doesn't even bother you, you just call us insulting...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...g-british-jobs

As the economist Jonathan Portes has pointed out, it is not a zero-sum game in which there are only a fixed number of jobs to go round: “It’s true that, if an immigrant takes a job, then a British worker can’t take that job – but it doesn’t mean he or she won’t find another one that may have been created, directly or indirectly, as a result of immigration.”

HMRC figures also show that EU migrants more than pay their way. Those who arrived in Britain in the last four years paid £2.54bn more in income tax and national insurance than they received in tax credits or child benefit in 2013-14. The Office of Budget Responsibility has estimated that their labour contribution is helping to grow the economy by an additional 0.6% a year.

How about you extend your benefit of the doubt to what this article says or find any kind of proof that this is not true?

5) Yeah, just change the definition and only look at a certain timeframe...
https://www.google.de/publicdata/exp...:S&hl=en&dl=en

I mentioned 4% as the ideal figure, their law defines a mix of 3% and 4%, in 1953 they even got below the 3% but in a few years they were somewhere around 4%, which is why I made that comment. You have so far not shown anything that suggests homelessness is tied to the unemployment rate. There is surely a connection, I won't deny that, but it's not a direct correlation and full employment alone does not fix all homelessness.

6) Yes it does matter, because an abundance of homes lower the rent but also the profit of the owners. Whether someone can afford a home does not just depend on how much they earn, but also how much the rent costs, no? And whether investors build enough new homes depends on the profits they can expect. Building more homes would also create more jobs.

[Gilrandir]

Econimic downturns can reverse,

And again they may not. You can never tell.

EU immigration could not be stopped or controlled without leaving

Let's see how those that stayed in the EU will handle it. I'm sure they will come up with a solution. Leaving the EU before you tried to address the challenges together is like divorcing the husband the day after he had lost his job on the pretext he can't support the family any more.

4) You're doing the same thing as Gilrandir, taking it to the most simplistic conclusion, ignoring pre established context and giving no benefit of doubt. It is strawmanning to the highest degree and is highly aggrivating, even insulting.

I'm just parroting your approach - presenting the EU as a strawman and making a simplistic conclusion that all problems will vanish into the thin air once you leave it.

[Greyblades]

I have in no form ever said or even implied that leaving the EU would cause all problems to vanish and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

[Gilrandir]

I have in no form ever said or even implied that leaving the EU would cause all problems to vanish and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

You blame the EU in the grievous present state of the UK and believe that Brexit is the solution.

[Greyblades]

Am I being trolled here?

[Husar]

Am I being trolled here?

Or maybe that is just how you come across to others?
Perhaps you would like to clearly state what you blame on the EU then, because to me it looked like you were saying the EU forces you to accept migrants and is therefore partially responsible for your unemployment situation, which again leads to homelessness. Therefore, or so I understand your argument, unemployment, and therewith homelessness, in Britain, can only be truly solved by leaving the EU, so the British can vote for politicians who lower immigration to a level that job groth is bigger than immigration.

That was the basis of our argument, wasn't it? My argument being, that the correlations or lack thereof that you assume, are not necessarily correct.

If your argument is that only a Brexit can fix all the problems elected British officials caused or tolerated for years, then I'd be REALLY interested in learning why you'd think that.

[Greyblades]

Are you mixing me up with lizardo or something?

My argument is that controling immigration is an essential factor to reduce unemployment, and through it: homelessness. We can produce jobs but if our companies are free to import foreigners willing do the jobs for wages the locals would not accept then the locals are just going to stay unemployed. The only way to solve that is to restrict the immigration rate so the compaines have to hire at least some local workers but the EU's open borders policy means we are legally incapable of blocking immigrants from the EU.

As long as we are under the EU's policys and the EU contains populations with lower wage expectations than Britons it makes the "solving" of unemployment a sysphean task.

[Husar]

Are you mixing me up with lizardo or something?

My argument is that controling immigration is an essential factor to reduce unemployment, and through it: homelessness.

That's what I said you said, where is the mixup?
Are you mixing up a correct interpretation of your posts with a false representation of your posts?

We can produce jobs but if our companies are free to import foreigners willing do the jobs for wages the locals would not accept then the locals are just going to stay unemployed. The only way to solve that is to restrict the immigration rate so the compaines have to hire at least some local workers but the EU's open borders policy means we are legally incapable of blocking immigrants from the EU.

As long as we are under the EU's policys and the EU contains populations with lower wage expectations than Britons it makes the "solving" of unemployment a sysphean task.

And that this view is not entirely correct was the subject of our debate, yes. Where is the problem other than that you seem to be running out of arguments and then accuse people of trolling or misunderstanding you? Or am I misunderstanding something here?

[Gilrandir]

We can produce jobs but if our companies are free to import foreigners willing do the jobs for wages the locals would not accept then the locals are just going to stay unemployed. The only way to solve that is to restrict the immigration rate so the compaines have to hire at least some local workers but the EU's open borders policy means we are legally incapable of blocking immigrants from the EU.

Unfortunately for you, any good thing that may come after Brexit is accompanied by an adverse one. For example, you get out of the EU, curb immigration, get more jobs for locals, but... severing ties with the EU will lead to shrinking job market for those who work in cooperation with the EU or in producing goods for them. Things don't work in a simple linear way, it's all intertwined and taking out a seemingly useless brick from the bottom layer may cause the whole construction to collapse.

[Greyblades]

Or am I misunderstanding something here?

What's happening here is I'm getting sidetracked by Gilrandir being an antagonistic ass.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

1) Yes, but stopping population growth is just as useless and can also limit market growth. If the population growth has no effect on unemployment, why did you bring it up as a reason for unemployment?

2) You mean control your government does not even attempt. Who tells you that a decrease in EU immigration will not lead to a corresponding increase in general immigration? Would you rather have more Pakistani immigrants than Polish ones? Is that your point?

3A) Yes, leads us right back to point two. Except that here you basically seem to say that none of the parties with a shot at getting elected will change anything...
As for zero-hour contracts, how can you say they won't exist anymore once you stop or limit EU immigration? The US and Germany have similar wage problems and at least the US is not in the EU. Even New Zealand:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post...-get-low-wages


This is a problem pretty much everywhere but in developing countries as far as I can tell. The borders are opened more by corporate lobbies than the EU and just leaving the EU will probably not help you a lot unless you elect a communist government afterwards.

3B) Are you deliberately trying not to get my point? I talked about other government tools such as minimum wages, which can make hiring locals for the same wage more attractive (no language barriers, etc.) and you counter by saying they can't limit immigration?

4) That's just hilarious, especially when you say it's insulting.
You're the one who over-simplifies, that two people disagree doesn't even bother you, you just call us insulting...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...g-british-jobs



How about you extend your benefit of the doubt to what this article says or find any kind of proof that this is not true?

5) Yeah, just change the definition and only look at a certain timeframe...
https://www.google.de/publicdata/exp...:S&hl=en&dl=en

I mentioned 4% as the ideal figure, their law defines a mix of 3% and 4%, in 1953 they even got below the 3% but in a few years they were somewhere around 4%, which is why I made that comment. You have so far not shown anything that suggests homelessness is tied to the unemployment rate. There is surely a connection, I won't deny that, but it's not a direct correlation and full employment alone does not fix all homelessness.

6) Yes it does matter, because an abundance of homes lower the rent but also the profit of the owners. Whether someone can afford a home does not just depend on how much they earn, but also how much the rent costs, no? And whether investors build enough new homes depends on the profits they can expect. Building more homes would also create more jobs.

1) I disagree that our population growth is entirely reliant on the immigration, but I argue that the population growth being uncontrolled is not causing the majoirty of the job growth but cancelling out it's effects on unemployment. We began growing a lot of jobs in 2012 and the immigration rate jumped in 2013 in response to it as immigrants were brought into take the jobs.

The jobs being grown werent caused by the immigration, as they started increasing before the spike, but because of open borders the companies imported cheap labour instead of hiring locals with greater expectations in wages and thus cancelled out most of the benefit.

I understand that the growth likely wouldnt have been as great if the companies were forced to hire locals, as the more fragile companies would have gone to cheaper pastures, but a halved or even quartered job growth without an immigration spike would be of greater benefit to my countrymen than having a huge deluge of jobs that near all of them will never benefit from.

2) That they do not even attempt it is a reason why I do not blame the EU for all my problems, despite Gilrandir's protestations otherwise. I am hopeful with the effect of the brexit vote and the rise of corbyn that will change and proper immigration controls are resumed, we are unlikely to see it happen before 2020 but the possibility is there; it could never resume while we are in the EU.

3A) I never said they wont exist once we stop or limit EU immigration, that is a problem we will have to solve internally. That you and gilrandiir claim I did say it was because of the EU is what I find insulting. Though I will admit my sensitivity to misrepresentation may be a tad hightened compared to the average person.

3B) My understanding is that a Briton is undesirable because they expect wage increases with time whereas an immigrant from a poor country is going to be happy they just have a job in a rich country and not agitate for raises. A Briton cannot compete with that and a minimum wage increase wont change that and will have the side effect of making everyone else's jobs worth less.

4) I quote the highest voted comment on that :

Are EU migrants really taking British jobs

There's no such thing as a British job.

They are, however, taking jobs. By increasing the supply of labour, they are inevitably putting downward pressure on wages. To deny that is to deny a basic law of economics.

I also quote Mr Worthlessdollar1 who interjects:

More British workers are in work than ever - that's true. But what the Guardian fails to highlight is the number of British people forced into part time jobs and zero hour, dead end contracts.

5) Fair enough, when there is not enough housing there will be those in a proper full employment who cannot afford housing, however full employment would go a long way to eliminating the worst of the conditions the homeless endure and all but remove the need for street sleeping/begging.

6) True but my issue is that we were importing more households than we could account for if we were building houses at full tilt, the homeless numbers would still climb. Building mass housing at a great rate is a somewhat undesireable solution anyway considering we are rather attached to our somewhat shrinking countryside here and are running out of brown land(land that was previously built upon).

[Gilrandir]

What's happening here is I'm getting sidetracked by Gilrandir being an antagonistic ass.

I don't argue for the sake of arguing (if that's what antagonistic ass amounts to). I express my attitude to your stance. Isn't this what this forum is about?

As for getting sidetracked - is it now my turn to call you a tunnel-visioned Brit?

2) That they do not even attempt it is a reason why I do not blame the EU for all my problems, despite Gilrandir's protestations otherwise.

I didn't say "all the problems", I said "the grievous present state of the UK".

I am hopeful with the effect of the brexit vote and the rise of corbyn that will change and proper immigration controls are resumed, we are unlikely to see it happen before 2020 but the possibility is there; it could never resume while we are in the EU.

Once again: beheading a man to help him fight headache is not the solution. I'm sure immigration problem could be approached without leaving the EU. And Bexit may trigger lots of other problems which will may make immigration look like a minute nuisance.

[Kralizec]

Some have suggested that the UK will not leave at all, that May will stall indefinitely. I don’t think so, although it’s certainly plausible. Instead I think the most likely scenario is that the UK will accept the EFTA route. Meaning: like Switzerland or Norway, with no meaningful exceptions. Four freedoms in full force.

Some have suggested that the UK is so important that the EU will bend over and give the UK a privileged position, such as single market acces without freedom of movement. Let’s call this “three freedom access”. The EU will not.

A couple of reasons for that:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

1) It would be manifestly unfair to Norway, Switzerland and any other EFTA country – present or future.

2) It would set a bad precedent. In fact, it would mean an existential threat to the single market. The single market has been a net benefit to all countries involved (this is virtually uncontested), yet some nations like some freedoms more than others. The UK’s gripe is freedom of movement. France might be more concerned about foreign goods. Spain might be more worried about foreign legal entities establishing themselves. If the EU would accept a customised, made-on-demand position for the UK, what would prevent every single other government from haggling to get the best deal for their specific nation? The disintegration of the single market would be inevitable.

3) Expanding on the previous point: the single market is a core achievement of the EU. Member states are expected to accept the four freedoms, even if one of them might not be entirely to their liking. They do so, because the single market is a net benefit for everyone.
The EU is also a club of nations, and as such should look out for the interests of its members. Why should it offer even better terms to a country that's going out?

4) There’s no reliable way to quantify what the 52% who voted leave actually wants. Immigration was an important motivator, but there are others – the abstract idea of sovereignty, or specific issues like fishery and agriculture. For some, the bureaucracy or the remoteness of EU politicians might be paramount – even though dissatisfaction is generally shared even with the pro-EU camp.
---> In contrast, the 48% who voted for Remain might also be a diverse bunch, but their desires are much easier to generalize. They think the current status, with the concessions Cameron extracted but which are now void, is preferable to an exit.
---> EFTA membership counts as a Brexit, but also maintains most of the advantages of EU membership. It’s not something I would recommend, but it would be something that most Remainers and a good share of the Brexit camp could live with. Meaning a comfortable majority, although you can’t quantify that precisely without another, more detailed referendum.

5) Some people would say that the EFTA option is dumb and pointless, like Schauble’s comments which I mentioned earlier. I would agree, but to that I would say that leaving the EU fold entirely would be even dumber. Something that the majority of MP’s, economists and other -experts- agree on.

There’s a another scenario, in which Britain accepts the loss of single market access but remains a member of the custom union – an even looser appendage than the EFTA. Turkey has such a status for instance, being nominally a “candidate”, although the construction is not necessarily limited for candidate states. Turkey is not required to accept foreign workers, but then again, does not reap the full benefits of the single market either.

The most extreme scenario is “total Brexit” in which the UK does not become an EFTA member and also leaves the customs union. That would have two effects:

- Britain regains the ability to negotiate free trade agreements with other parts of the world. I’m writing this in this particular section, because the UK has to leave the customs union to do this.
- The corpus of free trade agreements that the EU has with other parts of the world cease to apply to the UK.

Now, I’m of the opinion that the EU would be willing to simultaneously work for a “total Brexit” while concurrently negotiating a free trade agreement with the UK. One commissioner said that it wouldn’t, but she’s one person, and Merkel has said that she’s amenable to the idea. Doesn’t change the fact that negotiating trade agreements is a lengthy process and that the UK can’t realistically accomplish this with India, China, the US and so on in five years….or even ten years. In effect, the UK would become even more dependent on Europe in the short and middle term.

[Greyblades]

I didn't say "all the problems", I said "the grievous present state of the UK".

I'm just parroting your approach - presenting the EU as a strawman and making a simplistic conclusion that all problems will vanish into the thin air once you leave it.

[Gilrandir]

I meant "all the problems of your country" not "all the problems caused by the EU". Evidently, the first category is much wider. You seem to regard Brexit as ultimate solution.

[Greyblades]

I see it step two for a ultimate solution, step one was to make sure the government was actually for resticted immigration, but cameron's victory bid forced the issue and we were forced to leave before my coronation as emperor.

Jokes aside, I could have hoped for ideal conditions but life doesnt generally wait for you to get ready, I never saw brexit as a solution but necissary to reach a solution.

[Husar]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

1) I disagree that our population growth is entirely reliant on the immigration, but I argue that the population growth being uncontrolled is not causing the majoirty of the job growth but cancelling out it's effects on unemployment. We began growing a lot of jobs in 2012 and the immigration rate jumped in 2013 in response to it as immigrants were brought into take the jobs.

The jobs being grown werent caused by the immigration, as they started increasing before the spike, but because of open borders the companies imported cheap labour instead of hiring locals with greater expectations in wages and thus cancelled out most of the benefit.

I understand that the growth likely wouldnt have been as great if the companies were forced to hire locals, as the more fragile companies would have gone to cheaper pastures, but a halved or even quartered job growth without an immigration spike would be of greater benefit to my countrymen than having a huge deluge of jobs that near all of them will never benefit from.

2) That they do not even attempt it is a reason why I do not blame the EU for all my problems, despite Gilrandir's protestations otherwise. I am hopeful with the effect of the brexit vote and the rise of corbyn that will change and proper immigration controls are resumed, we are unlikely to see it happen before 2020 but the possibility is there; it could never resume while we are in the EU.

3A) I never said they wont exist once we stop or limit EU immigration, that is a problem we will have to solve internally. That you and gilrandiir claim I did say it was because of the EU is what I find insulting. Though I will admit my sensitivity to misrepresentation may be a tad hightened compared to the average person.

3B) My understanding is that a Briton is undesirable because they expect wage increases with time whereas an immigrant from a poor country is going to be happy they just have a job in a rich country and not agitate for raises. A Briton cannot compete with that and a minimum wage increase wont change that and will have the side effect of making everyone else's jobs worth less.

4) I quote the highest voted comment on that :

Are EU migrants really taking British jobs

There's no such thing as a British job.

They are, however, taking jobs. By increasing the supply of labour, they are inevitably putting downward pressure on wages. To deny that is to deny a basic law of economics.

I also quote Mr Worthlessdollar1 who interjects:

More British workers are in work than ever - that's true. But what the Guardian fails to highlight is the number of British people forced into part time jobs and zero hour, dead end contracts.

5) Fair enough, when there is not enough housing there will be those in a proper full employment who cannot afford housing, however full employment would go a long way to eliminating the worst of the conditions the homeless endure and all but remove the need for street sleeping/begging.

6) True but my issue is that we were importing more households than we could account for if we were building houses at full tilt, the homeless numbers would still climb. Building mass housing at a great rate is a somewhat undesireable solution anyway considering we are rather attached to our somewhat shrinking countryside here and are running out of brown land(land that was previously built upon).

1) But none of that is the fault of the EU, your country did apparently not even lower non-EU immigration, so either way that would not have been stopped. Without the common market, you may not even have seen any of that job growth, how is Brexit a solution? Changing your politicians as a next step makes little sense because that could also be done without a Brexit.

2) Again, you could also about cut your immigration in half or even further without leaving the EU.

3A) Of course it's misrepresentation and not miscommunication or misunderstanding because non-British people always have evil intentions, right?

3B) So if companies cannot afford to pay more, they will hire a more expensive British worker anyway and give him raises until the company goes bankrupt? And that helps British people get more jobs? What about a minimum wage that is adjusted for inflation every year?

4) Again, your government allows that downward pressure and zero hour contracts as viable business practices, why would this stop if the British unemployed were to compete amongst eachother? Would they just refuse these jobs and rather become homeless? If so, why are they supposedly accepting them now? You cannot guarantee at all that you will get full employment without immigration and can give them a better negotiating position.

5) So Britain has completely abandoned the safety net or does the safety net pay so little that people can't even afford a home? There was so much talk about welfare queens who shouldn't get benefits anymore a few years ago and now that that issue seems to be out of the media, it's all the homeless who apparently get no help from anyone and should just wait until someone gives them a job? How would you rate the chances of an unwashed homeless guy with unwashed clothes he wore for about a year during a job interview anyway? Or are we talking about a scenario where he is the only one who applies for a job?

6) How do you know how many houses you can build at "full tilt"? What's the exact number and would it help to lower immigration below that? As for your countryside, how about you discourage hiring immigrants by, e.g. having a minimum wage that immigrants can't undercut and that incentivizes hiring locals?

[Greyblades]

1) If we didnt brexit but changed our politicians we'd be unable to affect EU immigration, we need both.

2) Only for as long as it takes for the companies who had to stop importing pakistanis to start importing Poles.

3A) I also admit visiting the TWC Mudpit might have diminished my ability to tell between mistake and asshole. The likes of Snuggans and Mongrel do a lot to chip away at your optimism.

3B) I feel that the companies who literally cant afford britons arent worth keeping in the country. Minimum wage adjusting for inflation wouldnt stop the average briton from wanting to make more money the longer he works. Few brought up to desire to better themselves want to spend thier entire lives on the same wage.

4) Not sure what you mean by "were to compete amongst eachother", we already compete with eachother. We also have to compete with immigrants who will work for peanuts and like it, who are picked first for the jobs that arent zero hour contract dead ends. Were those immigrants to become more scarce the companies that arent courting bankruptcy and actually want to do buisness in britain would have to hire more locals, meaning that more people who would have been forced to settle for bad contracts have actual alternatives. Relying on zero hour contracts become a lot less viable a buisness strategy when you are no longer the only one still hiring, though I do think the contracts will end up being banned sooner or later.

5) A hobo has an easier time improving his hygene than improving the job market.

6) Legally they arent undercutting the minimum wage they are settling for it; demand no raises, expect no bonuses and not eager to move on to better things, the ideal employee, and thanks to the EU policy we cannot incentivise our locals over european migrants.

[InsaneApache]

The rejection of democracy is, in the end, a rejection of the masses and our capacity to shape and remake our world. In the wake of the referendum, we may not be on the brink of mass sterilisation, a rescinding of the franchise or a pogrom. But we can be sure that the elite disdain for democracy – its disdain, that is, for us – is alive and well. Fighting against this, and demanding that the democratic will of the people be respected and in fact expanded into more areas of political life, should form the basis of any vision of a new Europe.

http://www.spiked-online.com/spiked-...3#.V6CQGuVG8y5

[Fragony]

There is a reason why populism is a bad word for the elite, we aren't invited.