Dave1892

Did anyone else know that if you live in Australia you can still vote in the upcoming EU Referendum? Apparently if you were registered to vote in the UK at anytime in the last 15 years then you can get a vote.

Here's the link https://www.gov.uk/government/world-...-eu-referendum

I consider myself an Australian now but nothing would give me greater pleasure than seeing my old country get itself out of the undemocratic, disorganised mess that is the EU.

paulry

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Thanks very much for sharing

astera

There is not a single logical reason to leave the EU - the "leave" campaign has no merit to it. In a legal sense it would be much easier and cause less paperwork if the UK were to vote differently: whether people want England to stay in the UK. Because countries like Scotland want to be part of the EU and will not be pushed out against their will.

MOST of British export goes to the EU. Not to the US or China.

What the gov't and Farage idolisers keep dishing out on immigration is just scaremongering and lies, blatantly manipulating public opinion.

How many people know just the numbers and not the propaganda? The MAJORITY of immigration every single year is from OUTSIDE the EU.

And yet the gov't and the idiot horde spin it around as if the EU is to blame, lol. Guess who they are now convincing to vote "leave?" Middle Easterners, Pakistanis, Indians, etc.

Guess which migrants are the most hard-working and not only contribute to the economy, but also put more into the "system" than they take out? EEA migrants:
£15bn from the older/richer EU nations
£4.96bn from newer countries which joined in 2004

Guess which migrants take more out of the system than they put it? Non-EEA migrants.

New EU migrants add £5bn to UK, report says - BBC News
The immigration “windfall” for the Treasury - BBC News

old.sparkles

On the topic of migrants putting more into the system than they take out - if a migrant wasn't doing the job wouldn't someone already resident be doing it? And if a UK resident take the job wouldn't that be of more benefit to the economy rather than have 2 users of the system and only one tax contributor?

(not against skilled migration though just don't understand that argument)

mikelincs

Most/many of the migrants are doing jobs that UK citizens just will not do, they feel it is beneath them to do the lower paid, manual, dirty jobs when they can live on benefits. This was shown in a TV programme a few years ago when the BCBC persuaded a company that harvested vegetables in Norfolk, to employ something like 8 long term unemployed Brits who stated they wanted to get back into work. The work was usually done by migrants but he did employ tem. One never even turned up, and of the rest I believe tah one lasted a day, but by the end of the week all but one had packed it in and gone back to the dole.

old.sparkles

Fair point but will those in lower paid jobs be net contributors?

mikelincs

Yes because they will pay NI, and pay VAT on things they buy in shops, duty and VAT on cigarettes and beer,

Dick Dasterdly

It is estimated by 2050 the EU will account for only five percent of UK exports and in Worldwide terms will be insignificant.
Even Cameron admitted that a few month back when he set of on his world tour to boost UK exports.

Unlike with our EU trade which has a big deficit our worldwide trade is in profit.

Most of the scaremongering I have seen has come from the Remain crowd.
Whatever happened to the UK pioneering spirit ?

We have no way of knowing which of the EU immigrants are genuine and which have come to milk the system or live on the proceeds of crime and we have no option but to let them all in regardless of their motives.

Because of current EU rules we are having to refuse entry to skilled professional workers from outside the EU who would be a great asset to our economy.

I note you quote from BBC sites, so I wonder if you are aware that the BBC is in receipt of funding from the EU ?
Funding which they tried everything possible to hide, until the information had to be finally released under the freedom of information act.

Do you know that the EU is spending a billion of taxpayers money to promote itself or in effect brainwash school kids and college students in favour of a wasteful, inefficient,corrupt,undemocratic,uncompetitive by its own admission, shambles of an organisation which is hellbent on a Federal Europe that most do not want, protection of the euro at whatever cost and continuation of Schengen which at the moment is a dead duck in the water.

GarryP

I'm actually coming round to the idea that this whole in-out-shake it all about stuff is a red herring.

The chief issue isn't if you are part of a trading block with delusions of grandeur, but if you have governance that has a clue what it's doing and where it's going. If you do then you can succeed no matter what, if you don't then you are screwed no matter what.

And as you look around the world, good, competent, governance, and in particular vision, seems to be in very short supply.

So rather than concentrating on secondary issues like the EU, the main question has to be how to get adults in charge.

Point 1 : The EU isn't good governance.
There general behaviour of pushing 'ever closer union' so that the brussels bureaucrats get more power - coupled with their inability to grasp the lesson of greece and back off on failure means it becomes a when, not an if, of it collapsing. In addition, because there are so many competing forces acting on such a rigid and badly constructed ship - it's hard to get good governance in future and changes will be slow, late, and probably wrong.

Point 2 : The Tories aren't good governance.
Pretty obviously, they don't have a clue. I've mentioned before that right wingers are destroyers, not creators. Their general approach is to take their hands off the wheel, and go and loot the cargo. The longer they are in charge, the less in charge they are. Any vision they have is limited, local, and personal. They aren't in it for anyone but themselves and wouldn't know a vision if it slapped them in the face.

Point 3 : Labour aren't good governance.
There are some big strategic issues that need addressing (globalisation, balanced budgets, etc.) and they don't appear to have the understanding to address. They also have a tendency to put money into various social programmes without really addressing the big picture of why. They are also absent of vision - the closest they came was "balanced budget over the economic cycle" which went titsup because they didn't realise the economists didn't have a clue and that the system was dynamic and global, not some kind of local cycle.

So, where does that leave you?

Well, you want less of all of the above, so any decision that gets you that is good. Either that means jettisoning the EU, or acting such that the two sets of bozos cancel each other out. Given that Labour can't perform that role in the foreseeable, that suggests the second option is best - make them equal and opposite so neither can do as much damage as they would like.

paulry

Good points you make. In the EU we have no control of immigration from within it and meanwhile the net gain of people per year is over a quarter of a million people per year. This annual increase is completely unsustainable.

The scaremongerers in this thread who want to stay in the EU are carping on about economic factors alone - as if it's all about money. But what about the social impacts of the EU? What about the quality of life of those communities that have had to absorb all these millions of unplanned arrivals? In that regard, the now over-crowded UK is in massive deficit territory.

spouse of scouse

Given the 2012 legislation regarding non-EEA migrants, how do you work out that they 'take more out of the system'?

old.sparkles

The figures were to 2011 - I think they are both old reports SoS

But the answer may be in other services provided - schooling, health, social services, etc (not that I have any idea what the 2012 legislation means but I assume it would be access to benefits)

Bix

Thanks Dave. I didn't know that either.

I voted against Common Market membership in 1975 and shall do the same this time.

I still think that 1975 referendum was a fudge.

spouse of scouse

Ta Sparkles. I can only comment on the 2012 legislation as it applies to spouse visas, as this is the one I had to apply for to enable Scouse and I to live in the UK.

In order to meet the financial requirements of this visa, we had to show that we'd had 62,500 pounds in an account that we had immediate access to, and the funds had to have been at that level for at least the previous 6 months. That got me a visa which lasts for two and a half years.

After that time, I need to show that I meet the same financial requirements again, which will give me another visa for two and a half years.

After that time, I can apply for indefinite leave to remain, and I again need to demonstrate that I meet the financial requirements.

For that 5 years, I am not permitted to receive any benefits (which I completely agree with), and Scouse also can't receive benefits as the funds we need to meet the financial requirements means we have too much money in the bank.

At the moment, the cost of my visas over the 5 years will be around 4,000 pounds, although the costs rise annually.

All non-EEA spouse visa holders (including Australians) are now required to pay a 200 pound per year health surcharge.

Scouse and I pay the full rate of Council tax. Like everyone else, we pay VAT on every purchase we make, from utilities to clothing to food.

Apart from buying our home here in the UK for cash, we've also spent a fair bit on renovations in the past couple of months, so all together to date we've spent over 250,000 pounds on the house purchase (with associated taxes and solicitor fees), employing local tradies to carry out work, buying materials etc. Not finished by a long shot (unfortunately!).

I've broken my toe, so I have used the NHS. No kids, so no schooling.

The only reason I've written all that is to explain my puzzlement at astera's statement that non-EEA migrants, such as myself, 'take more out of the system'.

TheCreature

Usual load of bollocks about lazy Brits. If you can't recruit locals for manual work it's because the pay on offer is shite.