8 ms·

> It might just as likely boost the economy of the UK. Pure assumption on your side or can you support this with sources ? > We cannot control our own borders

by Gys 10y ago

> It might just as likely boost the economy of the UK. Pure assumption on your side or can you support this with sources ? > We cannot control our own borders. We cannot decide how many immigrants we want to allow. Seems to me much of this sentiment about leaving the EU is merely fear for being overrun by non-natives. Talking about 'This fear mongering has got to stop'...

abritinthebay 10y ago
You're not wrong. I've yet to hear any pro-exit talking point that isn't xenophobic, jingoistic, or at BEST just hopelessly misinformed economically. The fact that the BNP and UKIP are solidly behind an exit should be a good indication that it's terrible. They are like a bellwether for awful ideas.
- UK-AL 10y ago
  Pro-immigration person here. Considering brexit. [0] http://www.adamsmith.org/the-liberal-case-for-leave http://www.adamsmith.org/the-liberal-case-for-leave [1] http://www.adamsmith.org/evolution-not-revolution http://www.adamsmith.org/evolution-not-revolution
  - abritinthebay 10y ago
    That's a very smart summary of a lot of data but it's not supporting its conclusions very well - all it seems to be able to say is that increased globalization has had a massive economic impact worldwide. Well... yes. The rest of it is a bunch of "well, we'd likely have had a bunch of the good ideas we were forced into by EU membership anyway" which is shockingly optimistic when looking at 80s Thatcherite Britain, verging on naive. Throw in a couple more rather unconnected points that pretend to show significance (while just showing that the less-developed world is growing faster than the developed one. Which is... yeah, obvious, but also expected) The rest of it then swerves into dodgy anti-immigration territory. Which is odd for a "liberal" case. I agree with it that the Brexit plan is optimistic - but I think the article demonstrates exactly why that's a bad thing: because it's stupidly optimistic and convinces itself that everything will be perfectly awesome because they want it to be. Whereas the reality is that this is rarely the case. It's massive risk for little upside vs no real risk for a slightly reduced short-to-medium upside.
- hardlianotion 10y ago
  Then look out for some and test your notions. Decent arguments for leaving exist, and there are links on this page for the start of your search for good reasons.
  - abritinthebay 10y ago
    Based on the "decent" arguments provided it appears I've already seen them. They aren't very good and verge on irresponsibly optimistic at best. Most are just - as I said - very poor and misunderstood economics. The "good" reasons so far have been basically shown to be mostly wishful thinking with very little actual upside and a LOT of risk. Personally I'd not like to play roulette with a country, I'll take slightly slower growth and stability, thanks.
- oarsinsync 10y ago
  > The fact that the BNP and UKIP are solidly behind an exit should be a good indication that it's terrible. While I'm absolutely not a supporter of the BNP or UKIP in any way, their endorsement of something doesn't automatically make it a bad idea. If it does, then what does it mean when both the Conservative party, as well as many high level US officials (the President, military generals, intelligence chiefs) all come out in favour of the UK staying in the EU? Does that not ring any alarm bells? EDIT: note, I am deliberately cherry picking the supporters to make the point. I'm aware they're not the only people in support of staying in the EU. Much like I'm sure the person I'm replying to is aware that the BNP and UKIP aren't the only people in favour of leaving, and has chosen them to make his point.
  - abritinthebay 10y ago
    > their endorsement of something doesn't automatically make it a bad idea True, but it does heavily cast a massive amount of doubt upon it. At least adds evidence that a lot of the Pro reasons may be based on... less than sensible ideas.
- Cypher 10y ago
  Doesn't sound like you're getting a fair balance of the politics if its from the misinformed. I'd like to point out Boris is also behind the exit too.
  - abritinthebay 10y ago
    Well.. yes, and if Boris is behind it then I'm quite happy to call it awful as well. The man is a tit.
SixSigma 10y ago
>> It might just as likely boost the economy of the UK. > Pure assumption on your side or can you support this with sources ? That's the point. It is all speculation.
monk_e_boy 10y ago
We don't have the housing or infrastructure to support the vast number of immigrants. Hundreds of thousands a year. For most people it isn't a racist knee jerk, it's watching our schools and hospitals and housing buckle under the pressure.
- EliRivers 10y ago
  Incompetent government unable to do its fucking job and get houses built is the reason for the lack of housing. Extra people do exacerbate the problem, but the largest culprit is our incompetent, small-minded government refusing to do their job.
- tudorw 10y ago
  Our schools, hospitals and housing have been under pressure since time immemorial, perhaps if the countries earnings from oil and other resources had been managed better, investment in social housing had been maintained at previous levels, if the lack of investment from the business world in the form of apprenticeships and on the job training had been addressed more pertinently, and if the earnings of the managing and owning class not risen at a faster rate than working class, then this would not be an issue. Blaming a lacking in public services on migrants is not fair, while it's true to say that we have experienced a rise in immigration levels over the last decade, we are talking about a rise from 4 million in 1993 to 8 million in 2014, out of a population of 64 million, well under 10%. To blame all the failings of our state on that small section of society, migrants who are more likely to be of working age than our recumbent ageing population, and hence more likely to be adding to our GDP over the long term, is not only unfair, it's bad economic policy too, without immigration our country will fall to it's knees supporting legions of pensioners...
  - monk_e_boy 10y ago
    Where I live there isn't much space left for new houses. I guess we could build up, but it doesn't seem desirable. Give the local people the choice of building low cost high rise accommodation or voting out of the EU... well, that's the decision we're all making at the moment.
mc32 10y ago
Would you disagree that countries should have a mechanism under their control under which they have a say as to who gets to settle, work or study in their country? Are customs and border control not useful any longer? Have we decided they aren't something countries should have control over? Wanting to be able to control ingress is not the same as blocking all ingress. In this case I believe some in the UK, more than anything, resent having their migration policies promulgated in Brussels.
- izacus 10y ago
  How about counties? Cities? Towns? Neighbours? Federations? What makes "Holland" so special that it should have the ability to bar people from settling instead of "European Union", "Utrecht" or old grandma from the house across the street?
  - mc32 10y ago
    That would be something "Holland's" electorate can decide upon, governed by their laws and regulations, rather than policymakers in Brussels. It's like wanting to dictate to China to abolish the Hukou system. I see it as unfair, but that's their own internal problem to solve.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Nobody is dictating anything. Holland joined the EU of its own accord. The question is not whether the people of Holland should be stripped of that decision, but whether they should partially delegate it. And why shouldn't they?
      - mc32 10y ago
        Why delegate? And what if they want to bring that decision making back home? I can delegate my finances, or I can make my own choices and maybe I feel like I'll get better served doing things myself.
  - mason240 10y ago
tsewlliw 10y ago
Controlling borders is fundamental to sovereignty, the point being that a sovereign nation decides how porous the borders ought to be. To cede that control significantly reduces the self-determination of the people within the border, even if the decision of exactly how porous does not vary between administering entities.
- throwanem 10y ago
  Sovereignty is widely considered an obsolete concept.
- NetStrikeForce 10y ago
  So, why should southerners accept all those northerners coming down? The southern people have no sovereignty on the matter. Oh and don't even get me started with those Scots :) The UK is not and has never been in Schengen, so it has borders and has control of it. They just happen to have agreed to a deal with the rest of the EU to give EU citizens almost the same rights as UK citizens. In other words, people voting LEAVE can't have a problem with border control as it is now, because the borders are controlled. The problem is of a very different (and sad) nature.

by Gys 10y ago

abritinthebay 10y ago

You're not wrong. I've yet to hear any pro-exit talking point that isn't xenophobic, jingoistic, or at BEST just hopelessly misinformed economically. The fact that the BNP and UKIP are solidly behind an exit should be a good indication that it's terrible. They are like a bellwether for awful ideas.

UK-AL 10y ago
Pro-immigration person here. Considering brexit. [0] http://www.adamsmith.org/the-liberal-case-for-leave http://www.adamsmith.org/the-liberal-case-for-leave [1] http://www.adamsmith.org/evolution-not-revolution http://www.adamsmith.org/evolution-not-revolution
- abritinthebay 10y ago
  That's a very smart summary of a lot of data but it's not supporting its conclusions very well - all it seems to be able to say is that increased globalization has had a massive economic impact worldwide. Well... yes. The rest of it is a bunch of "well, we'd likely have had a bunch of the good ideas we were forced into by EU membership anyway" which is shockingly optimistic when looking at 80s Thatcherite Britain, verging on naive. Throw in a couple more rather unconnected points that pretend to show significance (while just showing that the less-developed world is growing faster than the developed one. Which is... yeah, obvious, but also expected) The rest of it then swerves into dodgy anti-immigration territory. Which is odd for a "liberal" case. I agree with it that the Brexit plan is optimistic - but I think the article demonstrates exactly why that's a bad thing: because it's stupidly optimistic and convinces itself that everything will be perfectly awesome because they want it to be. Whereas the reality is that this is rarely the case. It's massive risk for little upside vs no real risk for a slightly reduced short-to-medium upside.
hardlianotion 10y ago
Then look out for some and test your notions. Decent arguments for leaving exist, and there are links on this page for the start of your search for good reasons.
- abritinthebay 10y ago
  Based on the "decent" arguments provided it appears I've already seen them. They aren't very good and verge on irresponsibly optimistic at best. Most are just - as I said - very poor and misunderstood economics. The "good" reasons so far have been basically shown to be mostly wishful thinking with very little actual upside and a LOT of risk. Personally I'd not like to play roulette with a country, I'll take slightly slower growth and stability, thanks.
oarsinsync 10y ago
> The fact that the BNP and UKIP are solidly behind an exit should be a good indication that it's terrible. While I'm absolutely not a supporter of the BNP or UKIP in any way, their endorsement of something doesn't automatically make it a bad idea. If it does, then what does it mean when both the Conservative party, as well as many high level US officials (the President, military generals, intelligence chiefs) all come out in favour of the UK staying in the EU? Does that not ring any alarm bells? EDIT: note, I am deliberately cherry picking the supporters to make the point. I'm aware they're not the only people in support of staying in the EU. Much like I'm sure the person I'm replying to is aware that the BNP and UKIP aren't the only people in favour of leaving, and has chosen them to make his point.
- abritinthebay 10y ago
  > their endorsement of something doesn't automatically make it a bad idea True, but it does heavily cast a massive amount of doubt upon it. At least adds evidence that a lot of the Pro reasons may be based on... less than sensible ideas.
Cypher 10y ago
Doesn't sound like you're getting a fair balance of the politics if its from the misinformed. I'd like to point out Boris is also behind the exit too.
- abritinthebay 10y ago
  Well.. yes, and if Boris is behind it then I'm quite happy to call it awful as well. The man is a tit.

SixSigma 10y ago

>> It might just as likely boost the economy of the UK. > Pure assumption on your side or can you support this with sources ? That's the point. It is all speculation.

monk_e_boy 10y ago

We don't have the housing or infrastructure to support the vast number of immigrants. Hundreds of thousands a year. For most people it isn't a racist knee jerk, it's watching our schools and hospitals and housing buckle under the pressure.

EliRivers 10y ago
Incompetent government unable to do its fucking job and get houses built is the reason for the lack of housing. Extra people do exacerbate the problem, but the largest culprit is our incompetent, small-minded government refusing to do their job.
tudorw 10y ago
Our schools, hospitals and housing have been under pressure since time immemorial, perhaps if the countries earnings from oil and other resources had been managed better, investment in social housing had been maintained at previous levels, if the lack of investment from the business world in the form of apprenticeships and on the job training had been addressed more pertinently, and if the earnings of the managing and owning class not risen at a faster rate than working class, then this would not be an issue. Blaming a lacking in public services on migrants is not fair, while it's true to say that we have experienced a rise in immigration levels over the last decade, we are talking about a rise from 4 million in 1993 to 8 million in 2014, out of a population of 64 million, well under 10%. To blame all the failings of our state on that small section of society, migrants who are more likely to be of working age than our recumbent ageing population, and hence more likely to be adding to our GDP over the long term, is not only unfair, it's bad economic policy too, without immigration our country will fall to it's knees supporting legions of pensioners...
- monk_e_boy 10y ago
  Where I live there isn't much space left for new houses. I guess we could build up, but it doesn't seem desirable. Give the local people the choice of building low cost high rise accommodation or voting out of the EU... well, that's the decision we're all making at the moment.

mc32 10y ago

Would you disagree that countries should have a mechanism under their control under which they have a say as to who gets to settle, work or study in their country? Are customs and border control not useful any longer? Have we decided they aren't something countries should have control over? Wanting to be able to control ingress is not the same as blocking all ingress. In this case I believe some in the UK, more than anything, resent having their migration policies promulgated in Brussels.

izacus 10y ago
How about counties? Cities? Towns? Neighbours? Federations? What makes "Holland" so special that it should have the ability to bar people from settling instead of "European Union", "Utrecht" or old grandma from the house across the street?
- mc32 10y ago
  That would be something "Holland's" electorate can decide upon, governed by their laws and regulations, rather than policymakers in Brussels. It's like wanting to dictate to China to abolish the Hukou system. I see it as unfair, but that's their own internal problem to solve.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Nobody is dictating anything. Holland joined the EU of its own accord. The question is not whether the people of Holland should be stripped of that decision, but whether they should partially delegate it. And why shouldn't they?
    - mc32 10y ago
      Why delegate? And what if they want to bring that decision making back home? I can delegate my finances, or I can make my own choices and maybe I feel like I'll get better served doing things myself.
- mason240 10y ago

tsewlliw 10y ago

Controlling borders is fundamental to sovereignty, the point being that a sovereign nation decides how porous the borders ought to be. To cede that control significantly reduces the self-determination of the people within the border, even if the decision of exactly how porous does not vary between administering entities.

throwanem 10y ago
Sovereignty is widely considered an obsolete concept.
NetStrikeForce 10y ago
So, why should southerners accept all those northerners coming down? The southern people have no sovereignty on the matter. Oh and don't even get me started with those Scots :) The UK is not and has never been in Schengen, so it has borders and has control of it. They just happen to have agreed to a deal with the rest of the EU to give EU citizens almost the same rights as UK citizens. In other words, people voting LEAVE can't have a problem with border control as it is now, because the borders are controlled. The problem is of a very different (and sad) nature.