The result of the EU referendum:

[BeRational]

Does it? Can you provide any supporting evidence?

It is clear that if the entire population of France and Germany and Poland, all moved to the UK we could not cope.
People would have to stand on each others shoulders by then, but the point is that it would fail.

I know people suggest it will never happen, but what is the mechanism to stop it happening BEFORE it adversley affects the country?

I do not see any, and that it what plays into the Vote leave side.

[wigginhall]

Interesting that German unemployment is going down.   I don't know whether migrants are included in the stats, but I've noticed this in some English towns - immigrants come in, and unemployment goes down. 

[jeremyp]

It is clear that if the entire population of France and Germany and Poland, all moved to the UK we could not cope.

And if the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man descended on London, we couldn't cope. Anybody can dream up a fantasy scenario and say "look this would be bad". The is no realistic way in which we would ever have to deal with the entire population of another country coming here all at once.

I know people suggest it will never happen, but what is the mechanism to stop it happening BEFORE it adversley affects the country?

Long before you got close to the scenario you describe, Britain would become an unattractive place to move to.

[jeremyp]

Interesting that German unemployment is going down.   I don't know whether migrants are included in the stats, but I've noticed this in some English towns - immigrants come in, and unemployment goes down.

More people means more work.

[Udayana]

As far as economics goes, typically the more people the more growth. Historically, the biggest problems have been due to not having enough people. We don't live in a closed system unable to import resources. Unemployment is down in the UK despite the problems due to uncontrolled immigration.

The industrial revolution started in England partly because of a population boom when people started drinking tea instead of fresh, polluted, water or beer (better but unhelpful).

Better management is often more effective than trying to control absolute numbers.

[wigginhall]

As far as economics goes, typically the more people the more growth. Historically, the biggest problems have been due to not having enough people. We don't live in a closed system unable to import resources. Unemployment is down in the UK despite the problems due to uncontrolled immigration.

The industrial revolution started in England partly because of a population boom when people started drinking tea instead of fresh, polluted, water or beer (better but unhelpful).

Better management is often more effective than trying to control absolute numbers.

It also suggests that governments do not control immigration, and would do so at their peril.   For example, some farmers in Lincs, Norfolk and Essex are saying that reduced immigration will kill their business, as local white people simply will not work in the fields.   

So these shortages of labour suck in new labour.  Historically, this came from rural areas I suppose - e.g. the industrial towns in the North brought in agricultural labourers to work in the factories.    But now this is not possible, so it has become transnational.   

But then Leave need not mount a rational argument, they only have to hint at hordes of fuzzy-wuzzies, and hope that people will react in fear.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Of course it is, but I can understand that if you haven't got a house you might believe the myth
Which is, of course, a failure that rests squarely with the UK government, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the EU.

Presumably the Brexiters have a plan to tackle the Immigration Tribunals which over-rule Home Office decisions to refuse entry or deport people? The Brexit argument is that Tribunals are applying EU law and if freed from this requirement, the Home Office would have more control of who it lets in.

Since there is a labour shortage, an Australian style points system favoured by Brexiters (Australia apparently has twice the number of immigrants per head as Britain) would still allow immigrants in to put pressure on infrastructure such as schools, housing and healthcare. More than 260,000 immigrants arrive in Australia each year on temporary visas - employers can sponsor foreign workers to come in on temporary visas.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/01/brexiters-missing-point-australian-style-immigration-conservatives

Also, I haven't seen any evidence that Immigration tribunals, which are independent of the government, would rule in favour of Home Office decisions if we were not in the EU, or how this will solve the problems of people on low incomes.

I don't see how more controlled immigration will make renting or buying in England affordable - currently on average people spend half their pay on rent with it going up to 72% in London.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jul/16/tenants-in-england-spend-half-their-pay-on-rent

People who are unemployed or on low wages or zero hours contracts can't afford rent and landlords do not want to rent to people on Housing Benefit as they have an image of being bad tenants - so those problems won't go away by controlling immigration.

I also hope a Brexiter could explain how controlling immigration would do away with zero hours contracts, or stop a business bringing in immigrants as cheap labour for low-skilled jobs because there are jobs that need to be filled and local people will not work for the wages offered, either because they are better off not working based on current welfare policies or because they don't have the skills. Given the high cost of living, especially rent, businesses can't afford to pay the wages local people want to be paid for low-skilled jobs.

Due to the lack of housing, even people in relatively well-paid skilled jobs often feel like they are struggling to afford rent and the high cost of living, and it doesn't get any easier for them given that in today's age of technology the solution for businesses to high salary costs which they can't recoup in fee income, is simply to outsource many tasks off-shore, especially in relation to many office jobs. One solution I suppose is for everyone but the wealthy elite to downgrade their expectations, aspirations and retirement prospects.

The govt issued a press release a while back claiming they were working with the Met police to clear off homeless migrants, who were in the UK illegally since they had no means to support themselves, and put them on planes or coaches back to say Romania or Bulgaria. But the numbers sent back are not increasing public trust in the system, even though the Met police started checking the immigration status of people they arrested for other crimes and apparently found only a very small proportion of people arrested had immigration issues. Also nothing seems to stop deported EU migrants from returning. On the other hand the number of homeless Polish sleeping on the streets has dropped as the Polish economy has improved so apparently a lot of homeless Poles went home. If Britain leaves the EU it seems likely that this will adversely affect the economies of other countries in the EU and make Britain more appealing.

And here perhaps is the nub of the issue - whether we should prioritise people who happen to be born in the UK whether or not they have contributed to the UK or whether we should priories those who have contributed to the UK wherever they might have been born.

If you do not have a home or are unemployed, regardless of your contributions to the system through NI or tax, people have this expectation that they cannot be left to starve or sleep on the streets. So people in priority need - pregnant women or people with dependent children or old or mentally ill or disabled or young people or those leaving the armed forces or prison - will always have priority over those who have paid into the system but do not fall into these categories.

One of the issues for those focusing on immigration is that migrants with dependent children will get help with rent, when they should be sent back after 3 months because they don't have a means of supporting themselves and are therefore not meeting the criteria for having a legal right to be in Britain. But again this is a tiny part of the huge housing problem, high cost of living, soaring healthcare costs due to high treatment costs or an ageing population etc in England so not sure how tightening immigration will solve these problems and I am not clear how Brexiters plan on doing a better job of immigration enforcement, given all the cuts to spending.

[ProfessorDavey]

However there is a point at which services start to get stretched, and limits need to be put in place, you might argue this figure is 3, 30,000, 300,000, 3 million, 30 million. We can discuss what this figure should be and have this debate in society among the electorate.

I think the government should be able to decide based on consensus of electorate, can't do that in the EU, democracy undermined, vote leave.

But it has never done that for migration from countries that aren't in the EU, nor in fact did it prior to joining the EU. Throughout migration has been based on economic necessity, the need to fill jobs - so that was the case for Irish navies, through bus drivers from the West Indies and currently eastern europeans to harvest crops. There has never been, nor will there ever be, a situation where the electorate says, sure 300,000 is enough and the government places a cap at that number. It won't happen - why - because the 300,001st person might be the one needed in a critical position which cannot be filled otherwise.

Whether or not we are in the EU will make no difference to the primary economic driver of migration on both sides. And of course net migration is no lower in countries that the Brexit people hold up as shining examples of 'controlled' migration. When adjusted for total population annual net migration in Australia and Canada isn't in the 'tens of thousands' - nope it is nearer half a million (for a country of 60 million).

[L.A.]

It also suggests that governments do not control immigration, and would do so at their peril.   For example, some farmers in Lincs, Norfolk and Essex are saying that reduced immigration will kill their business, as local white people simply will not work in the fields.   

So these shortages of labour suck in new labour.  Historically, this came from rural areas I suppose - e.g. the industrial towns in the North brought in agricultural labourers to work in the factories.    But now this is not possible, so it has become transnational.   

But then Leave need not mount a rational argument, they only have to hint at hordes of fuzzy-wuzzies, and hope that people will react in fear.

Exactly, if we lose migrant labour we will be in BIG trouble.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is clear that if the entire population of France and Germany and Poland, all moved to the UK we could not cope.
People would have to stand on each others shoulders by then, but the point is that it would fail.

I know people suggest it will never happen, but what is the mechanism to stop it happening BEFORE it adversley affects the country?

I do not see any, and that it what plays into the Vote leave side.

Sorry this is complete straw man argument.

The UK would be completely screwed if 30 million of our wiring age population all upped and left for another country - by your argument that the UK should have a mechanism to stop it happening, you should therefore require the UK to have a policy that prevents people leaving the UK, as well as one to prevent them arriving. Sounds rather authoritarian to me - didn't the ex communist countries used to have this policy?

[wigginhall]

I think BR has a point that some Leave campaigners don't mind suggesting that millions of Turks, or whoever, are about to enter the UK, just as Farage used to say that millions of Romanians were.   It may actually frighten some people into voting Leave.

[SusanDoris]

And if the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man descended on London, we couldn't cope. Anybody can dream up a fantasy scenario and say "look this would be bad". The is no realistic way in which we would ever have to deal with the entire population of another country coming here all at once.
Long before you got close to the scenario you describe, Britain would become an unattractive place to move to.

Well said. I wish more people who come up with these imagined situations would follow their thoughts through logically to see where they would actually lead.

[jakswan]

Resources in London are getting overstretched, we need to stop Johnny Provincialler from coming in, let's vote for London to leave England so we can set up border controls.

This is what you sound like.

So you are against democracy now?

In reality, free movement within Europe means free movement into and out of the UK. Long before the system breaks down, migration out of the UK will exceed migration into the UK.

What are you going to tell the hundreds of thousands of Brits who will be kicked out of their jobs in other countries in the EU? "Sorry I fucked your life up but my paranoia is more important than your livelihood"?

Give the dog whistle a rest no one will be kicked out of their jobs.

Of course, actually, that won't happen because any free trade deal we do with the EU after we leave will include free movement of labour. You have been lied to by the likes of Boris, Michael and Nigel. Leaving the EU will not solve the perceived problems of immigration.

I don't think you are listening lets try again.

We both agree that immigration is a good thing, however do we both agree at some point we will have a infrastructure issues, e.g. housing shortage, lack of school places, lack of hospital beds, etc? You might think that figure is no where near being hit, you might think its 20 million a year, I might think its less than that.

So we agree on the principle but disagree over a figure, that is it, doesn't make me an evil person, stop demonising people and engage.

The actual point I was making that this country should decide that figure, after debate, discussion, due democratic process. You might well argue that Britain having that control is as daft as London having that control and all borders should be open to everyone from everywhere?

[ProfessorDavey]

Further evidence indicating that immigration in the UK is lower than in the countries the Brexiters keep saying we could be like, including Switzerland, Norway and Iceland, and massively lower (under half) of their gold standards for 'controlled' immigration, e.g. Australia.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/immigration-system-boris-australia_uk_574eceb9e4b0089281b4fc8c
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/data/estimates2/estimates15.shtml

Indeed despite the free movement in the EU there is only one EU country (Luxembourg - for rather obvious reasons that it is tiny) that has migration greater than Australia - and the norm is that migration in the EU is half that of Australia. With the exception of the micro-states, the highest migration in any european country is in Switzerland which isn't in the EU.

[L.A.]

A healthy economy will always tend to suck-in migrants because it needs them. Brexit might well reduce net migration but the price will be a trashed economy.

[wigginhall]

Well, non-EU migrants are at a high rate, aren't they?   Presumably, these can be controlled, but also presumably, it would be unwise to do so, in terms of the economy and areas such as education.   So governments have limited scope.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I don't think you are listening lets try again.

We both agree that immigration is a good thing, however do we both agree at some point we will have a infrastructure issues, e.g. housing shortage, lack of school places, lack of hospital beds, etc? You might think that figure is no where near being hit, you might think its 20 million a year, I might think its less than that.

So we agree on the principle but disagree over a figure, that is it, doesn't make me an evil person, stop demonising people and engage.

The actual point I was making that this country should decide that figure, after debate, discussion, due democratic process. You might well argue that Britain having that control is as daft as London having that control and all borders should be open to everyone from everywhere?

As an employer, if I have a labour shortage I will not consider the strain on infrastructure before I sponsor a migrant. The infrastructure is the government's problem to sort out, not mine. I pay corporation, income and PAYE taxes and business rates to help fund the government to sort out housing, health and education services.

If I can't employ a suitable person, regardless of whether I have to get them in from abroad, I lose business, my profits drop, which impacts on the economy and also means I pay less taxes. So regardless of all your debating and talk of infrastructure  - the market will determine where the labour goes, and the only debate to be had is how to put enough pressure on the infrastructure to change policies that limit supply of affordable infrastructure.

[BeRational]

Sorry this is complete straw man argument.

The UK would be completely screwed if 30 million of our wiring age population all upped and left for another country - by your argument that the UK should have a mechanism to stop it happening, you should therefore require the UK to have a policy that prevents people leaving the UK, as well as one to prevent them arriving. Sounds rather authoritarian to me - didn't the ex communist countries used to have this policy?

Again, I do not think like this, but people I have spoken to that will vote leave have.
I liked you example that all the people in the north could move south, but don't.

I will try that one on them.

[BeRational]

Well said. I wish more people who come up with these imagined situations would follow their thoughts through logically to see where they would actually lead.

Well I did, and as Jeremy agrees it would lead to an unattractive place to be, and THAT is the point.

People stop coming when the country has failed, which leaves the rest of us with a failed country.

I do not think this, but I know people that do.

[jakswan]

As an employer, if I have a labour shortage I will not consider the strain on infrastructure before I sponsor a migrant. The infrastructure is the government's problem to sort out, not mine. I pay corporation, income and PAYE taxes and business rates to help fund the government to sort out housing, health and education services.

If I can't employ a suitable person, regardless of whether I have to get them in from abroad, I lose business, my profits drop, which impacts on the economy and also means I pay less taxes. So regardless of all your debating and talk of infrastructure  - the market will determine where the labour goes, and the only debate to be had is how to put enough pressure on the infrastructure to change policies that limit supply of affordable infrastructure.

Sorry but its simply not true that market is the only factor on where people live, governments control a countries border and decide who is allowed to enter, in a democracy that government is accountable to the electorate. Unless the power is centralised at EU level which to a certain extent it is.

[Aruntraveller]

Sorry but its simply not true that market is the only factor on where people live, governments control a countries border and decide who is allowed to enter, in a democracy that government is accountable to the electorate. Unless the power is centralised at EU level which to a certain extent it is.

But if we still want to trade with the EU after Brexit we still have to accept the free movement of people as Norway currently does - and Norway still has to pay for the privilidge without having any say. Why would anyone in their right mind choose an option that gives you all of the disadvantages with none of the advantages. The Brexit position on this matter does not make sense.

See this:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/27/norway-eu-reality-uk-voters-seduced-by-norwegian-model

[jakswan]

But if we still want to trade with the EU after Brexit we still have to accept the free movement of people as Norway currently does - and Norway still has to pay for the privilidge without having any say. Why would anyone in their right mind choose an option that gives you all of the disadvantages with none of the advantages. The Brexit position on this matter does not make sense.

We'll still trade with the EU, remains to be seen if we can negotiate free trade deal without free movement. Its not just about money but democracy. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Sorry but its simply not true that market is the only factor on where people live, governments control a countries border and decide who is allowed to enter, in a democracy that government is accountable to the electorate. Unless the power is centralised at EU level which to a certain extent it is.

I am not suggesting that the market is the only factor, and yes the government determines the level of migrant workers. We have an on-line sponsor management points system to admit skilled non-EU workers, which can also be used for EU migrants if we leave the EU. We will need to add another tier for fruit picker,  street cleaner and care worker type jobs because currently the system is used for students and jobs that would require the equivalent of an NVQ6 qualification and above.

I am saying that a strain on infrastructure caused by EU migrants is a problem to be overcome by investing in infrastructure or finding creative solutions or dowgrading expectations of what the state will provide because I think market forces and the need for EU labour and Britain's economic growth will be a higher priority for businesses and therefore for governments, than the impact of EU migration on free or cheap infrastructure services.

I could be wrong but I don't think leaving the EU will solve the lack of funding for infrastructure problems or the housing shortages. Even if we extend the points based work visa system to EU migrants rather than accept free movement of people, and have a category for fruit pickers, the number of migrants we need due to labour shortages will put a strain on infrastructure. Not to mention the cost of immigration enforcement at Dover and patrolling shore lines.

Just wondering if Brexiters have figured out who they will point the finger at next if there are bigger cuts to welfare because the growth in Britain's post-Brexit GDP can't keep up with the increasing welfare demands of an ageing population.

[Aruntraveller]

We'll still trade with the EU, remains to be seen if we can negotiate free trade deal without free movement. Its not just about money but democracy.

Negotiating a free trade deal without free movement is not going to happen - why would the EU want to do us any favours if we so royally mess up the current system. IF we vote for Brexit I can see them making it very difficult for us. Not because they are going to be particularly vindictive but because they will have different priorities (sorting out the mess that WILL occur if we do leave) which will no longer include us.

As to democracy - yea, Gove & Johnson are going to be the ones to hand us that. Uh -uh.

[L.A.]

We'll still trade with the EU, remains to be seen if we can negotiate free trade deal without free movement. Its not just about money but democracy.

I wouldn't put money on us getting a deal significantly different to Norway or Switzerland, which would mean that we would still have to accept free movement. The 'Free Trade Deal' that the Brexitors go on about is pure fantasy.