The 'No to the EU' campaign

[Scuffers]

Mrr T said:

So an annual increase in population of 0.28% is the single biggest issue in the EU debate?

Which has lead, according to you, to a housing shortage, overloaded schools, an overloaded NHS, the overloaded welfare system.

Of cause these problems might have happened because of, respectively, more people living alone (is there really a shortage I do not notice many people sleeping under bridges), the closing of too many schools as the population aged (you may notice few EU immigrants are children), the aging population (EU immigrants are generally below the UK average age so make less use of the NHS), the willing ness of one G Brown to throw large sums at the UK none working population in the vain hope of re-election.


Scuffers you almost make me change my mind and vote to stay.

where do you get 0.28% from?

2014 - some 632,000 migrants registered in the UK + 25,033 applications for asylum

UK population is ~65M

on that basis, more like 1% per annum, and this is just the ones that register.

it also takes no account of the increased births amongst the migrants

so, yes, I consider 1% a problem, don't you?

If it's not, please explain the housing crisis, NHS chrissis, and schools crisis.

we are spending more money on the NHS etc than ever before, but it's going backwards, why is that?

[Esseesse]

FiF said:

GO are in a Euroscepticism bubble. Farage blathering on about immigration being the winning ticket, Hoey wittering up blind alleys.

I don't have your faith, sorry.

http://thescepticisle.com/2016/01/25/eurosceptics-...

I agree about the bubble. I like Farage, but these GO events and similar always strike me as just preaching to the converted.

They're the equivalent to the brainstorming and planning parts at the beginning of some startup web business (something I'm familiar with) - everyone in the room, the developers etc are behind the idea and enthused, it remains to be seen whether paying customers will feel the same way and that's if the product even makes it to market.

While they're preaching to the converted GO is the initial huddle of developers with what they think is an amazing idea. Their product isn't even on the shelf yet - I thoroughly know the in's and out's of the internet and even I find it requires extra clicking and searching to find a stream of them preaching to the converted. I don't think they've even uploaded the whole events to YouTube?

I don't know what the answer is really, how do you break out of the bubble? We have 24hr news, but bizarrely they're not interested in covering these sorts of events or even people (with the wrong opinions). Maybe rather then the cosy audience they need to literally be on a soapbox, can you hire out Leicester square? Parliament square? How do you enter the public's conciousness? We don't seem to have the interest in these things like they appear to in the US (Sanders/Trump).

[Esseesse]

Scuffers said:

Mrr T said:

So an annual increase in population of 0.28% is the single biggest issue in the EU debate?

Which has lead, according to you, to a housing shortage, overloaded schools, an overloaded NHS, the overloaded welfare system.

Of cause these problems might have happened because of, respectively, more people living alone (is there really a shortage I do not notice many people sleeping under bridges), the closing of too many schools as the population aged (you may notice few EU immigrants are children), the aging population (EU immigrants are generally below the UK average age so make less use of the NHS), the willing ness of one G Brown to throw large sums at the UK none working population in the vain hope of re-election.


Scuffers you almost make me change my mind and vote to stay.

where do you get 0.28% from?

2014 - some 632,000 migrants registered in the UK + 25,033 applications for asylum

UK population is ~65M

on that basis, more like 1% per annum, and this is just the ones that register.

it also takes no account of the increased births amongst the migrants

so, yes, I consider 1% a problem, don't you?

If it's not, please explain the housing crisis, NHS chrissis, and schools crisis.

we are spending more money on the NHS etc than ever before, but it's going backwards, why is that?

There is clearly a population problem (for me, migrant or not), as in the South East they're continually building ever smaller crappy lego houses on our fields with no end in sight.

[Northern Munkee]

Esseesse said:

FiF said:

GO are in a Euroscepticism bubble. Farage blathering on about immigration being the winning ticket, Hoey wittering up blind alleys.

I don't have your faith, sorry.

http://thescepticisle.com/2016/01/25/eurosceptics-...

I agree about the bubble. I like Farage, but these GO events and similar always strike me as just preaching to the converted.

They're the equivalent to the brainstorming and planning parts at the beginning of some startup web business (something I'm familiar with) - everyone in the room, the developers etc are behind the idea and enthused, it remains to be seen whether paying customers will feel the same way and that's if the product even makes it to market.

While they're preaching to the converted GO is the initial huddle of developers with what they think is an amazing idea. Their product isn't even on the shelf yet - I thoroughly know the in's and out's of the internet and even I find it requires extra clicking and searching to find a stream of them preaching to the converted. I don't think they've even uploaded the whole events to YouTube?

I don't know what the answer is really, how do you break out of the bubble? We have 24hr news, but bizarrely they're not interested in covering these sorts of events or even people (with the wrong opinions). Maybe rather then the cosy audience they need to literally be on a soapbox, can you hire out Leicester square? Parliament square? How do you enter the public's conciousness? We don't seem to have the interest in these things like they appear to in the US (Sanders/Trump).

It's the dumbing down by the media and the politicians themselves. Debate is seen as confusion and divisions, a difference of an opinion is seen as a crisis. It needs to be a sound bite, a simple message. It's infantilisation of the public, and the worst part about it is it's true, that's what most people seem to want a binary argument, binary position. You know "I find myself agreeing with Bob Crow on leaving the EU - that can't be right!" Well it can for if you want out for different reasons.

[Mandat]

Based on what I have seen / read so far, the main issue seems to be related to immigration.

In the event that we do vote to leave the EU, what is going to happen to all of the EU people living and working in Britain?

Are they going to be able to continue living and working here, or are they going to be asked to leave / be deported?

[turbobloke]

Mrr T said:

Scuffers said:

I can't see how you have have a campaign on Brexit that does not cover immigration?

like it or not, it;s the single biggest issue out there, both in reality and in peoples perceptions.

to try and ignore it is just stupid, LibLabCon have tried that tack for the last 12+ years and look where we are now:

1) overcrowded country with insufficient housing leading to another house price fueled financial crisis
2) overloaded schools
3) massively overloaded NHS
4) massively overloaded welfare state

and that's just the obvious ones.

...an annual increase in population of 0.28%...

Taking a large number and converting it to a percentage of an even larger number is an excellent way of making it appear smaller.

Ayway if so, then that's less than 180,000 per year based on 64.1m population, but ONS (Nov 2015) gives 636,000 and in net terms 336,000 which they point out is "the highest net migration on record".

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migration1/migration...

As an example of impact, over a decade that translates to 3.3m and taking the UK average household size of 2.3 gives 1.46m new households resulting in ~800 new Primary schools needed at an initial capital cost of around £4m each, together with annual recurrent funding of over £1m each. That's under Conservative education policy, under Labour new schools were significantly more costly...designer chairs for teachers and pupils etc. I'd do the secondary school tally but time is pressing, an estimate is 450 at around £15m a go plus recurrent funding of over £6m per year per school.

Subject to checking that the back of the fag packet is working OK...if that's a trivial impact then what's significant?

[Esseesse]

Mandat said:

are they going to be asked to leave / be deported?

No way. Worst case they'll get 5? year work visas that will be renewed depending on if they still have employment at the end of them.

[Esseesse]

Northern Munkee said:

It's the dumbing down by the media and the politicians themselves. Debate is seen as confusion and divisions, a difference of an opinion is seen as a crisis. It needs to be a sound bite, a simple message. It's infantilisation of the public, and the worst part about it is it's true, that's what most people seem to want a binary argument, binary position. You know "I find myself agreeing with Bob Crow on leaving the EU - that can't be right!" Well it can for if you want out for different reasons.

If this is the case, and although winning the referendum is not very likely, perhaps Farage's tactics are the correct ones. The in side seems to think 'project fear' is the winning ticket. Perhaps the most likely chance of success is the fear card - 'ISIS fighters will be free to come to the UK when they get their German papers'.

[CrutyRammers]

Pan Pan Pan said:

or believe they have a strategy which will ensure we remain, regardless of what the UK public votes for.

I've said a number of times before, I do not believe that we will ever have a referendum which allows us to leave. Either it won't happen, or will be non-binding, or there'll be repeated other ones as we've seen before.

[CrutyRammers]

Mandat said:

Based on what I have seen / read so far, the main issue seems to be related to immigration.

It's not. Immigration is simply a very good example of how we are not a sovereign country anymore. It shows how much power has gone to the EU, and shows it in a way people can understand and relate to.

It's become a big issue because of that, but it isn't the main one, not to me anyway.

[FiF]

Northern Munkee said:

Esseesse said:

FiF said:

GO are in a Euroscepticism bubble. Farage blathering on about immigration being the winning ticket, Hoey wittering up blind alleys.

I don't have your faith, sorry.

http://thescepticisle.com/2016/01/25/eurosceptics-...

I agree about the bubble. I like Farage, but these GO events and similar always strike me as just preaching to the converted.

They're the equivalent to the brainstorming and planning parts at the beginning of some startup web business (something I'm familiar with) - everyone in the room, the developers etc are behind the idea and enthused, it remains to be seen whether paying customers will feel the same way and that's if the product even makes it to market.

While they're preaching to the converted GO is the initial huddle of developers with what they think is an amazing idea. Their product isn't even on the shelf yet - I thoroughly know the in's and out's of the internet and even I find it requires extra clicking and searching to find a stream of them preaching to the converted. I don't think they've even uploaded the whole events to YouTube?

I don't know what the answer is really, how do you break out of the bubble? We have 24hr news, but bizarrely they're not interested in covering these sorts of events or even people (with the wrong opinions). Maybe rather then the cosy audience they need to literally be on a soapbox, can you hire out Leicester square? Parliament square? How do you enter the public's conciousness? We don't seem to have the interest in these things like they appear to in the US (Sanders/Trump).

It's the dumbing down by the media and the politicians themselves. Debate is seen as confusion and divisions, a difference of an opinion is seen as a crisis. It needs to be a sound bite, a simple message. It's infantilisation of the public, and the worst part about it is it's true, that's what most people seem to want a binary argument, binary position. You know "I find myself agreeing with Bob Crow on leaving the EU - that can't be right!" Well it can for if you want out for different reasons.

Agree about the media. TV and radio generally don't give anything enough time, especially in news bulletins. How many times does one see a complicated subject get chopped off in full flow in order to go to some fluff? Regularly so on R4 Today and PM. TV even worse.

Written media have no excuse, in theory they have the time to research properly and develop a proper narrative. Too often it's some child who doesn't even understand the basics.

Equally, it must be said, that so called experts get it wrong. Today the Centre for Economic Performance at the LSE released a report titled CEP Brexit Analysis.

Pause for deep breath to try and restrain from saying what I'd really like to say. Right, it's, at best, completely worthless, and that's being generous.

For example of one particular piece of stupidity. They raise the issue of whether 3 million EU citizens in UK, and 2 million UK citizens in the wider EU would be allowed to stay. Now an apology in advance, because I usually don't simply hand out denigrating comments to make a point. If the authors are too stupid or ill-informed to understand the issue of acquired rights, or the relevant bits of the Vienna Convention on Treaties then they should be thankful that breathing is an automatic function of the body because they really are too stupid to work it out for themselves.

LSE propaganda masquerading as I don't know what. Authors should hand in their notices and go to MacDonalds to flip burgers. They'd probably get that wrong too.

And the media know less than them.

And breathe. Sorry /rant



Edited just read the next post.

Edited by FiF on Friday 12th February 15:38

[Pan Pan Pan]

Mandat said:

Based on what I have seen / read so far, the main issue seems to be related to immigration.

In the event that we do vote to leave the EU, what is going to happen to all of the EU people living and working in Britain?

Are they going to be able to continue living and working here, or are they going to be asked to leave / be deported?

I imagine that might best be dealt with on a reciprocal basis, If EU countries decide to deport all UK nationals living in their countries, then the UK could legitimately deport all EU nationals living in the UK. In practice, I think all countries would find it best to leave all the individuals in question where they are, Especially as many UK expats are paid by the UK pensions system taking cash into the EU countries concerned. They would be loath to lose all that cash coming in, rather than going out for good.

[AstonZagato]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

The polls have brexit leading, I am noticing an increasing level of Euroscepticism, even the BBC is battling to keep it under wraps

The BBC 10 o'clock News last night had a "discussion group" about the pros and cons of the EU. It comprised some people whose opinions don't matter (and who would have found it difficult to pour water out of a boot with the instructions printed on the heel). They were asked to say what they LIKED (hint: you know that it is good, don't you?) and disliked (hint: you know you are a small-minded bigot if you don't like it, right?) about the EU.

No point to it other than to have a "positive vote for the EU" on a news programme. Despite some very careful cherry-picking, it barely went their way.

[anonymous-user]

FiF said:

...LSE...

Enough said.

[Mrr T]

turbobloke said:

Taking a large number and converting it to a percentage of an even larger number is an excellent way of making it appear smaller.

Ayway if so, then that's less than 180,000 per year based on 64.1m population, but ONS (Nov 2015) gives 636,000 and in net terms 336,000 which they point out is "the highest net migration on record".

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migration1/migration...

As an example of impact, over a decade that translates to 3.3m and taking the UK average household size of 2.3 gives 1.46m new households resulting in ~800 new Primary schools needed at an initial capital cost of around £4m each, together with annual recurrent funding of over £1m each. That's under Conservative education policy, under Labour new schools were significantly more costly...designer chairs for teachers and pupils etc. I'd do the secondary school tally but time is pressing, an estimate is 450 at around £15m a go plus recurrent funding of over £6m per year per school.

Subject to checking that the back of the fag packet is working OK...if that's a trivial impact then what's significant?

I know percentages can deceive but they also give an idea of the significance of a figure.

The figure you are quoting is total immigration figures not EU immigration figures.

The EU immigration figure is as I said about 180k the rest will not be effected by the referendum.

As for the fag packet I do have some issues with the calculations.

1. Only 50% of the immigrants are from the EU so you are doubling the figures.
2. You have taken figures, which are a new high and assumed they will remain at that level.
3. You have used 10 years worth of figures to calculate the required numbers of new primary schools. That makes no sense children are only at primary school for 5 years. So you have double counted.
4. With out immigration the UK school role would be falling so many of the places are already going to become available.
5. You assume EU immigration would fall to zero after an EU exit. This is not correct we would still have EU immigration but now if would show as students, work transfers, and various other categories.
6. You only count the cost. The evidence is EU immigration is cost positive so the net effect is positive.

[turbobloke]

Mrr T: As for the fag packet I do have some issues with the calculations.
OK, my responses are in italics

1. Only 50% of the immigrants are from the EU so you are doubling the figures.
I agree that my number was a total but didn't claim otherwise, my reply was in rapid response mode and I read Scuffers' post and then your one-liner reply, there was no explicit mention of EU though of course I recognise the thread title and that it may have been implicit...the impact is what people see, whatever the source is, EU or not, and it was perception that was being discussed afaics
2. You have taken figures, which are a new high and assumed they will remain at that level.
Currently they have increased have they not - to a new record?
3. You have used 10 years worth of figures to calculate the required numbers of new primary schools. That makes no sense children are only at primary school for 5 years. So you have double counted.
Not so, Primary education takes place over 7 years from Reception to Y6 and no 4-11 Academy or Free School would open catering only for 5 or any other number of years, so the build is for R-Y6 at the time it's needed
4. With out immigration the UK school role would be falling so many of the places are already going to become available.
There have been no spare places in many urban 4-11 schools for a long time and the secondary phase is now starting to be hit hard
5. You assume EU immigration would fall to zero after an EU exit. This is not correct we would still have EU immigration but now if would show as students, work transfers, and various other categories.
I haven't assumed anything of the kind, I looked at net immigration impact only
6. You only count the cost. The evidence is EU immigration is cost positive so the net effect is positive.
Schools are needed when children arrive regardless of any payback claimed or otherwise, same goes for NHS treatment at the time of illness or injury

[Scuffers]

FiF said:

Agree about the media. TV and radio generally don't give anything enough time, especially in news bulletins. How many times does one see a complicated subject get chopped off in full flow in order to go to some fluff? Regularly so on R4 Today and PM. TV even worse.

I don't believe the BBC/ITV/CH4 or any MSM have actually covered any of the GO meetings at all so far...

why is that?

Farage and co have been doing over 1 event a week for the last 2 months, not a single one ever get's covered.

[Northern Munkee]

Scuffers said:

FiF said:

Agree about the media. TV and radio generally don't give anything enough time, especially in news bulletins. How many times does one see a complicated subject get chopped off in full flow in order to go to some fluff? Regularly so on R4 Today and PM. TV even worse.

I don't believe the BBC/ITV/CH4 or any MSM have actually covered any of the GO meetings at all so far...

why is that?

Farage and co have been doing over 1 event a week for the last 2 months, not a single one ever get's covered.

Channel 4 have mentioned it but really decided to (very) lazily concentrate on the disunity of the various out campaigns, thus they are able to claim air time has been given, without discussing anything of substance. It is as tedious (personality politics) as it is obvious(ly to avoid discussing substantive issues). I think Bone might have been on Newsnight or Sunday Politics where his themed tie also occupied far more air time than it deserved. But that's the level of media we have these days.

ETA I'm hoping when CMD finishes his phoney negotiation discourse will improve when hopefully his "new deal" is clear (as it can be) and the debate moves in to something better. I''m not optimistic.

Edited by Northern Munkee on Friday 12th February 17:13

[Ayahuasca]

A common 'stay in' bleat heard any number of times - e.g. Question Time this week - is, 'We have to stay in because otherwise we will lose the EU money that paid for this [point to local stadium/theatre/sports centre etc].

Where do these people think the EU got the money to 'pay for this'?

If we were independent we would have MORE money to 'pay for this'!

Why isn't the OUT campaign putting out this message more strongly?

[AstonZagato]

turbobloke said:

6. You only count the cost. The evidence is EU immigration is cost positive so the net effect is positive.
Schools are needed when children arrive regardless of any payback claimed or otherwise, same goes for NHS treatment at the time of illness or injury

My wife is a consultant paediatrician dealing with children with complex disabilities. She sees many Eastern Europeans who have specifically come to the UK for the free health care for their seriously handicapped child/ren. They are very upfront why they have done it. By and large they are hard workers but they probably only pay back a fraction of the health costs they are incurring.

It's a small example and by no means a statistically significant sample size. But it has blown my wife's budgets/manpower/waiting times for the last few years.