When considering in or out:

[Gerrydelasel]

John, please don't bother to contribute any more of your vacuous, third-person ad hominems. As you can see we only just got onto the subject of immigration, so we're hardly trying to 'keep stirring the anti-foreigner pot'. If you're seeking attention or just trying to increase your post count, try posting something engaging or relevant to the discussion for a change.
I just want to hear Himaginn's opinion on immigration. He seems pretty well politically informed on all the other aspects of the referendum debate, and the state of the nation in general, so surely he has an opinion on immigration too. Himaginn?

 

[JohnD]

we only just got onto the subject of immigration

Hahahahahahahahaha!

 

[Himaginn]

Your assertion, you define it!

It's not an assertion it's a simply bloody question! "Do you think the current immigration level is too high?" I'm not asking when you stopped beating your wife . Why so evasive? Will it help if I rephrase it to: "What do you think of the current immigration levels?"

I think the level of migration is just over 300,000 net migration. That's what I think of current migration levels.
If I ask you, "do you think the sky is too cloudy today?", I must first set a baseline of what my definition of 'cloudy' is. Is it too cloudy for cricket, too cloudy for a picnic, too cloudy for gliding? Too cloudy for what? If you ask me, do I think migrations are too high? I must ask, "too high for what?" Clearly the current migration levels are not too high for continued economic prosperity!
Additionally:

The World Trade Organisation's former director-general has warned that the UK economy risks a "huge blow" if it relies on the agency's global trading rules in the case of an EU leave vote.

The UK's services would be particularly vulnerable, while manufacturers would face "appalling complexity"

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36401578

Current net migration levels are higher this year than last, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be lower next year, the year after, etc.
It ebbs, and flows with economic prosperity, and other influences. It doesn't mean that current migration levels are too high to adversely affect economic prosperity.

Precisely, we'd just replace one group of migrants with another group.

But they would be immigrants with guaranteed jobs (didnt' we ask the EU for such an arrangement a while ago, but it was declined?). They wouldn't be coming simply to try their luck.

Evidence, source for: "they're just trying their luck"?
The weird thing is, if/when EU migrants are just trying their luck, they're more successful than our own unemployables.

 

[ladylola]

As John said, do you want to loose all that work-place protection for greater growth in GDP, especially when the EU does have growth and work-place protection.

Although I've pretty much made up my mind I'm still largely sitting on the fence . The above statement does hold some validity although that's where it becomes confusing for those not yet swayed. yes we have work place protections as well as envoiromental and health protection courtesy of the EU but if that same organisation ratifies TTIP many of those protections could very well be removed and U.S. style labour laws become the norm for the benefit of corporate America. Then again some of the brexiters are keen on TTIP as seen in a link I put on this thread many pages ago.
Also the talk of growth and GDP is frankly not helpful to either side. Growth has it's limits and at some point will slow or stop but both seem unable to conternance the idea. Similarly GDP is a poor way of calculating the wealth or well being of a country. The figures are massaged to take account for this and that and are open to intereptation.
I can't foresee an easy passage either way and several people I've spoken to agree and are almost prepared to vote on the basis of which way sticks a finger up to the 1%ers and kleptroacy the best.

So you reckon the Brexiters want to take back control, to then give it away to USA?

I fail to see how America can force EU, (maybe sufficiently influence UK, but not EU) to remove workplace protection rights, especially as the EU economy is greater than US economy.
Perhaps the reverse will apply?

In a word yes. I do have concerns that a brexit could lead us to sign a TTIP treaty separately from the rest of Europe just as I have concerns that staying in could result in us being tied to it. At the moment Hollande is making moves to put the ratification on hold although that seems to be more because of protests at home rather than any real desire not to . Those in favour talk of millions of pounds worth of benefits from such a treaty although I frankly can't see why it would make us buy a lot more stuff so I really don't see the benefits. As to a treaty impacting on workplace protections then yes it will happen. This is all about lowering of standards in favour of US corporations and if we look at other countries where such treaties are in place we see those corporations suing governments for loss of profits incurred by workplace or envoiromental protections.

 

[Himaginn]

As to a treaty impacting on workplace protections then yes it will happen. This is all about lowering of standards in favour of US corporations and if we look at other countries where such treaties are in place we see those corporations suing governments for loss of profits incurred by workplace or envoiromental protections.

You really think that USA can force EU to drop workplace or environmental regulations, despite EU being a larger economy than USA?

 

[FLIPPINeck]

I have enough faith in our country and our people to go it alone. unlike others..............

 

[JohnD]

I have confidence that the UK has the ability to take a constructive role within Europe, to all our benefits.

Unlike the Outists.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Right, 4 weeks, 32 pages and 471 posts.

Who's changed their mind?

 

[ladylola]

4 weeks 32 pages and 471 posts are all wasted ,
http://www.newscross.co.uk/eu-referendum-called-off-after-both-sides-run-out-of-bullshit

 

[Himaginn]

Right, 4 weeks, 32 pages and 471 posts.

Who's changed their mind?

If I had a reliable indicator of what the post Brexit trading model with EU would be like, I would give it some serious consideration, if that model looked reasonably attractive.
Surely it's not beyond the wit of Eurosceptics to do some informal discussions with other EU politicians to gain some sort of pointer as to the kind of agreement that might result. After all, they are arguing that this sort of informal discussion can occur prior to Article 50 being invoked.

 

[Himaginn]

How would Brexit affect the requirement for a sponsor to be earning a certain amount of money, or have a certain level of savings before they could have their EU spouse/brother/sister/parent, etc live with them?
Currently there are about 10% inter-national marriages in UK. In the case of an EU spouse/parent, etc, currently, there's no problem. However, in the case of Brexit, the UK national will need to meet the criteria before they could sponsor their EU born spouse, parent, etc to live and work in UK.

These days, with increased travel and greater internet communication, the preponderance of inter-national marriages/partnerships has increased. There's no reason to assume that will reduce, and will probably increase, in the future.

http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20160525-the-newlyweds-with-no-country-to-call-home

 

[Gerrydelasel]

I don't think this is a big enough issue to merit atteniton re Brexit. With about a quarter of a million marriages in the UK per year, one in 11 being inter-national, that's fewer than 25000. How many are with EU spouses I don't know, but even if it was all of them it's obviously not enough for us to care what effect Brexit would have on it (plenty would be divoced before the visa ran out anyway ). You want get married that's your own legal problem, no one elses.

 

[Deleted member 63160]

How would Brexit affect the requirement for a sponsor to be earning a certain amount of money, or have a certain level of savings before they could have their EU spouse/brother/sister/parent, etc live with them?

I guess our government would decide. No reason they wouldn't continue to allow it. After all our prime minister is pro all things Europe.

 

[Himaginn]

I don't think this is a big enough issue to merit atteniton re Brexit. With about a quarter of a million marriages in the UK per year, one in 11 being inter-national, that's fewer than 25000. How many are with EU spouses I don't know, but even if it was all of them it's obviously not enough for us to care what effect Brexit would have on it (plenty would be divoced before the visa ran out anyway ). You want get married that's your own legal problem, no one elses.

There are just over 21,000,000 married people in UK, that's about 2,000,000 people who could be affected, or about 1,000,000 couples who could be affected.
But that's only half the story! The other half are in partnerships.
More than enough to worry about.

Number of married people stays constant at 21.2 million while number of single adults rises by three million compared with 2001

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/dec/11/census-2011-marriage-single-adults

 

[Himaginn]

How would Brexit affect the requirement for a sponsor to be earning a certain amount of money, or have a certain level of savings before they could have their EU spouse/brother/sister/parent, etc live with them?

I guess our government would decide. No reason they wouldn't continue to allow it. After all our prime minister is pro all things Europe.

The rules are set, for non-EU immigrants of UK dependents. They couldn't discriminate against non-EU nationals, or in favour of EU nationals.