Some do, some don't. If we were treating this sort of economic migration as err, well economic migration we'd want the former and not the latter.

The other problem with all these calculations is just how rigourously all the costs get factored in. Some of the cases that show overall net benefits from uncontrolled immigration conveniently assume it doesn't cost anything extra when you add more demand to certain services (at lunch today one of my colleagues remarked how brilliant NHS is because it's free, I was too polite to point out that it's not really free, it all has to be paid for even if it's not immediately obvious).

It was 23.9 billion pounds in the first 3 months of this year alone! Source: The Guardian, beloved of so many on here, quoting ONS stats.Of course we borrow to fund this and impoverish the country at an unsustainable rate. Our national debt is horrific for peace time. Yet our Chancellor thinks this is a marvellous state of affairs! The establishment are taking the p@ss out of stupid people.

As posted elsewhere the case that uncontrolled economic migration brings a net positive benefit is far from proven and becomes less and less convincing the more externalities get priced back into the analysis. But what is your economic argument to support UK taxpayers subsidising those economic migrants who take out more than they put in, given that we have no choice but to accept both productive and unproductive economic migration from the the EU?

Quote: "As posted elsewhere the case that uncontrolled economic migration brings a net positive benefit is far from proven and becomes less and less convincing the more externalities get priced back into the analysis. But what is your economic argument to support UK taxpayers subsidising those economic migrants who take out more than they put in, given that we have no choice but to accept both productive and unproductive economic migration from the the EU?'" https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -ucl-study

Quote: "As posted elsewhere the case that uncontrolled economic migration brings a net positive benefit is far from proven and becomes less and less convincing the more externalities get priced back into the analysis. But what is your economic argument to support UK taxpayers subsidising those economic migrants who take out more than they put in, given that we have no choice but to accept both productive and unproductive economic migration from the the EU?'" https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -ucl-study

As pointed out today by a caller to 5 live , in response to claims that it was lack of investment that was causing issues in the NHS and education , it was that with uncontrolled immigration how was it possible to budget with any sort of accuracy for the future

Essentially pointing out that immigration along with our ability to provide essential services was out of our control

Quote: "That piece perfectly illustrates the two points I was trying to make. Firstly, these studies are infamous for the costs they leave out, which is why they usually don't gain much traction beyond their PR value. In the "real world" there are many more costs and benefits than taxes and welfare benefits. Secondly, it's not an argument for uncontrolled economic migration, it's an argument for controlled economic migration because this being an economic activity we're looking to maximise economic benefit. I'm all in favour of the ones who give us net benefits (all costs in), I just don't believe that uncontrolled immigration maximises economic benefits to UK.'" What about this one? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 40170.html What other 'costs' do you think should have been factored in? Other than "the cost of eroding British culture" (which is an argument I have actually heard used quite sincerely by some of the more fervent supporters of the Leave campaign).

Quote: "That piece perfectly illustrates the two points I was trying to make. Firstly, these studies are infamous for the costs they leave out, which is why they usually don't gain much traction beyond their PR value. In the "real world" there are many more costs and benefits than taxes and welfare benefits. Secondly, it's not an argument for uncontrolled economic migration, it's an argument for controlled economic migration because this being an economic activity we're looking to maximise economic benefit. I'm all in favour of the ones who give us net benefits (all costs in), I just don't believe that uncontrolled immigration maximises economic benefits to UK.'" What about this one? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 40170.html What other 'costs' do you think should have been factored in? Other than "the cost of eroding British culture" (which is an argument I have actually heard used quite sincerely by some of the more fervent supporters of the Leave campaign).

The figures state that they contribute more per head than the native British population. So maybe the solution is to kick out the Brits and keep the immigrants.

Where would we go ? , all their Doctors and Nurses are over here , maybe they should all stay at home and help improve their own countries ?

"In the 3 months to February 2015, the trade in goods deficit between the UK and countries within the EU reached a record high of £21.1 billion, since comparable records began in 1998. The widening of £1.5 billion mainly reflects a 5.6% fall in exports (particularly exports of oil)" http://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationala ... 2015-04-09 Trade defecit globally http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/ you can do any individual country. certainly without a shadow of a doubt our trade gap is widening within the EU so IF we do break away it's in the EUs best interests not to make an enemy/put petty tariffs on goods as it's more damaging to them. We would also be free to have trade agreements with some of the commonwealth countries that we are restricted to currently. As for immigration, the UN actually have a dictat to force mass migration to the West. Immigration currently is out of control, enclaves are being formed and are no go areas even for the police in some instances. increasing broken communities and people that do not want to integrate into British society is only going to make matters worse & have such wide ranging negative effects societally and financially, most don't have even the slightest idea the impact it'll have.

"In the 3 months to February 2015, the trade in goods deficit between the UK and countries within the EU reached a record high of £21.1 billion, since comparable records began in 1998. The widening of £1.5 billion mainly reflects a 5.6% fall in exports (particularly exports of oil)" http://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationala ... 2015-04-09 Trade defecit globally http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/ you can do any individual country. certainly without a shadow of a doubt our trade gap is widening within the EU so IF we do break away it's in the EUs best interests not to make an enemy/put petty tariffs on goods as it's more damaging to them. We would also be free to have trade agreements with some of the commonwealth countries that we are restricted to currently. As for immigration, the UN actually have a dictat to force mass migration to the West. Immigration currently is out of control, enclaves are being formed and are no go areas even for the police in some instances. increasing broken communities and people that do not want to integrate into British society is only going to make matters worse & have such wide ranging negative effects societally and financially, most don't have even the slightest idea the impact it'll have.

Apologies HH (from the VT)

This referendum is the first time i've felt in a long time that the government have actually kept a promise that is so ridiculously big that i thought it would have been consigned to the dustbin the moment they got into power, you say it shows we are capable of leaving at anytime, but (except in the cases of a European War) would we ever be trusted to have such an important vote ever again.
Government is designed to look after the best interests of the economy, i'd love to say of the people but they usually couldn't give a monkeys about us. Just having this option has seemingly wiped value off shares as the uncertainty has spooked investors.
Having the referendum has created uncertainty and that seems to be something governments look to avoid at all costs if they can, i doubt in my lifetime this 'option' will ever be on the cards again.

The centralised body create laws, more worringly large parts of that centralised body are unelected and therefore unremoveable, what's to say they can't be swayed by big business and lobbying groups like the sham banana republic that is the USA. Only with the added option of zero pressure of giving a fk what the people think as their jobs are set in stone regardless, they don't have to worry about re-election and just crack on.

I guess my biggest fear is i'm a cynic, i don't trust politicians, the examples of deceit are too wide spread and far too common for my liking so i like the fact they have to be at least seen to be representing us and the fear of them being removed is something i need to feel i have.

I'm not a batshit crazy fully commited little englander BREXITer, i'd prefer to be in Europe but not in this system, i think this system is corrupt or at least extremely easy to corrupt. The examples of wastage, and unnecessary bureacracy are something that grinds with me.

We are the 5th biggest players in the world, the 3rd biggest player in the union and ideally i would prefer to be IN, in a completely root and branch reforming of the the whole system.

But my options are IN or OUT, and based on such simplicity i can only see being out as a safer option.
I'm not interested if my house value goes down, my wages go down, i have less to go on holiday with, finance is a small sacrifice, a far smaller sacrifice than those who have lost their lives from the English Civil war, to the Peterloo Massacre to the Pankhurst Womans Sufferagette movement and all those that fought wars to retain that right.

I want to be part of a democracy, one that is open and accountable, yes the UK isn't perfect either but i'm open to mass debate on reform of this institution also.

Just having a shower then taking my pitbull as protection to the polling station with me in case theres any duskies loitering menacingly on any street corners.
I mean, just look what happened to that young lady in Batley................

I shall be voting 'Remain' seeing as I have a social conscience.

Fair enough, I know someone who is voting leave for similar reasons to that. My issue (as with his argument) is that it's not a pragmatic approach, the points you've raised are all valid but in black and white terms you're voting for something that will almost certainly have overall negative consequences for the country. I may not always get along with my family but that doesn't mean I'm about to disown them and go and sleep on the street, no matter how much you dislike the status quo it doesn't seem sensible to vote against it if the alternative is a worse option. And more than that, you're effectively giving a mandate to the idiots behind the leave campaign and everything that it has come to represent. Which to me is far worse than a layer of bureaucracy which, apart from being morally undesirable, doesn't really cause too many tangible problems if any.

Is it just me or does it seem that those voting remain cannot help themselves in insulting those with a different opinion ?