I don't know very much at all about anything, but I found this article interesting

Without such facts being spouted (hopefully from those who are qualified to so do - and one of the reasons why I channel hop) this enables us to vote from the gut.

jings, that's pretty much where I'm at too

It's all very well spouting facts at people but if they genuinely feel (and are right!) that their standard of living has been eroded and that no-one listens to their concerns, they will rebel and they will stop listening to the fact spouters. Voting from the gut.

And that doesn't mean they are racists or bigots either.

Radio 4 at 9am this morning. An interesting discussion from those who actually work in the European Parliament. German and French citizens are rising towards OUT and calling it their own Brexit. Jean Claude Juncker - the Luxembourgian EU President - stated last week that the EU law of governance over 28 bloc countries does not work and needs to reform at the very least. Even with Brexit, it will take at least 5 or 6 years and possibly more to extricate from EU law.

As I understand it. If any Brit goes to work in the other member state and keeps a home here, they are liable to second home tax. Not sure what law is in other member states. It appears that neither does the current President of the EU. He agrees that the EU is meddlesome and its laws need reform. On another post....

Well, I think we had better let Dave carry on dealing with it all.

(wanders off to do the washing up)

Most foreigners living in the UK (2/3 at the last census), and over half the net immigration each year, come from outside the EU. The people trying to get here from Calais and other refugees are NOT FROM THE EU. That is already almost entirely within our power to regulate. Coping with them would be the same in or out of the EU.

People from the EU states have freedom of movement within the EU (which we take for granted when we go for holidays abroad) but that is regulated too. They have to be self-supporting, and not dependent on hand-outs.

There are the economically active (ie in work and paying taxes, which help pay for our services)
There are students ( paying tuition fees )
There are those wealthy enough to look after themselves and their families without relying on public benefits. There is no right to “benefit tourism” under EU law.

Anyone from the EU has to pay for their keep, one way or another. Surveys have shown that they are more likely to be the younger, better qualified and in work; they pay far more into the country in work and taxes than they take out in public benefits or services.

We chose to let people come here from the Eastern European countries; no one forced us to and we could have decided otherwise.

The two million Britons living in the EU are more likely to be retired, not working and paying taxes. If they all come home when they no longer have a right to live there, they will not be paying taxes here either.

(I mean Bags' main post there)

Agree with that.

I have seen several examples of already UK established immigrants themselves complaining that the rate at the moment is too high.

obi's right. The immigration issue has been muddied, probably deliberately, by referendum campaigners, not least by calling people who mention the problem racists or bigots. It's not either of those things to have and to mention worries about the sheer numbers of immigrants.

No-one, as far as I'm aware, either on gransnet or in the wider media has objected to genuine asylum seekers/refugees, but most migrants and potential immigrants do not fall into those categories.

I agree with the principle that migration and immigration are of overall benefit to societies. I also agree with those who say the current rate of migration in Europe is worryingly high. Adjustments to new population influxes take time and careful consideration, especially towards people already in a country who feel that their genuine non-racist concerns are being ignored or worse, metaphorically spat upon.

Previous poster: "so at the moment I shall go to the polling station undecided"

Oh shite! (chews bottom lip nervously)

I think obieone is right in some things. It must be hard for some people living in the areas where there are a great number of immigrants, seeing those immigrants being treated in a way they feel is unfair. Mostly regarding housing I think.

obieone while the blanket term "immigrants" may apply to anybody seeking to enter a country, there is all the difference in the world between refugees and economic migrants. I'm surprised you haven't mentioned "asylum seekers" too.
"They" called "them" refugees, did "they"?
They muddied and mixed up and muddled the whole immigration issue did "they"?
You are certainly muddled if you believe you can interchange the terms.

Posters can throw insults all they like, but it doesnt stop me being right.

Left wing voters on gransnet do not include many poor ones. Or at least, many poor ones who are vocal, especially about their life and politics.

It would be great if they would say more. Sadly though, I think they would get ridiculed.

Tegan. Politicians. Left wingers on gransnet. Political commentators.

The muddied and mixed up and muddled the whole immigration issue.
Jumping about between refugees and migrants and immigrants. Now it is trying to mix it up between migrants and immigrants from inside or outside of the EU.

They started off by trying to get them all called refugees. Then that didnt work, so they tried immigrants. That didnt work so they tried saying they are all economic migrants. Now, even up to today, they are trying to muddy up who comes form the EU and who doesnt.

When really, all along, the issue has been about sheer numbers. And lack of control of numbers. And where they are going to be housed in the UK, schooled etc.

obieone do watch that video - all of it. Sit with a cuppa and a packet of biscuits to stop you getting bored by hearing a few truths about life outside your armour-plated bubble.

It would then become a matter for the Government of the day Elegran.
And the British electorate have a lot more say and sway over them.

At least half the sudden influx of people are from outside the EU. Remaining or leaving will make no difference to the numbers of those - in fact, if we leave they will arrive direct to Dover without being stopped at Calais.

The trains arriving through the tunnel would each have to be searched thoroughly inside and out and every passenger's papers checked before being allowed to continue. When you can't blame the EU for that delay, who will you blame then?

Can you elaborate on that? I don't quite understand who you mean by 'left wingers'. Can you tell me which issues they muddled and muddied?

To my mind, left wingers, pourposely mixed and muddled and muddied the situation from the start, for their own ends and agenda.
[And they are still doing it]

Eventually people worked that out, and it backfired big time.

Plus which, I think there is now a big divide between wealthier left wingers and poorer ones.
It is more the poorer ones who are living with the pressures of a sudden influx of people.

Nobody has made me vote one way or other, so at the moment I shall go to the polling station undecided, I'm sure I can't be the only one.

Met a lot of people yesterday. The final one said - this referendum has come down to whether you are worried about immigration or worried about the economy.
I think those worried about the economy has a lot of evidence to support their thinking - a lot of impartial expert advice that we would be better off remaining in the EU.
Unfortunately those voting re. immigration have a more confused picture. When Cameron promised this referendum the flood of refugees from Syria into the EU was still a trickle (they were largely in camps). When the flood began I said I thought he should postpone as it might affect the result. This refugee crisis inevitably skewed the debate. Many voters are now taking a huge decision based on a confused position. The first man I ever canvassed said: "I'm voting out so we can stop the illegal immigrants".

When all else fails to persuade, appeal to people's baser instincts, such as xenophobia.

I care about other things, jingle, and always have.

I'm an idealist who would like World Union, but I can't see that happening any time soon. The fact that the major European countries co-operate after centuries of conflict is, to my mind, an achievement.

Freedom of movement is something we take for granted and many (particularly young) people take advantage of it.

The EU has provided hundreds of social and human protection measures, which I don't believe our own government would.

I so wish that the Remain campaign had focused more on the positive.

The EU Medicines Directive (whose agency is located in London) is responsible for regulating clinical trials and the safety of all medicines in the EU. Ben Goldacre (Bad Pharma, etc) has had a hand in the formulation of its standards.

NICE and the NHS have the ultimate say in which drugs are prescribed, but the Directive means that medical research companies have to follow strict guidelines.

Withdrawing from the EU would mean that the UK would have to set its own guidelines.

Critics of the Directive claim that the big pharma companies can afford lobbyists, which is true, but the new guidelines mean that the companies (even the big ones) have to follow stricter guidelines, which means we all have safer drugs.

A few weeks ago, a certain poster on GN posted a link to a small company, which claimed that the EU was blocking an important cancer drug. It turned out that the company was completely unlicensed, was selling small phials of an untested drug for £500 to desperate people and the company was being investigated for financial fraud. The EU Directive tries to protect patients from such snake oil salespeople.