Blaming a lacking in public services on migrants is not fair, while it's true to say that we have experienced a rise in immigration levels over the last decade, we are talking about a rise from 4 million in 1993 to 8 million in 2014, out of a population of 64 million, well under 10%.

To blame all the failings of our state on that small section of society, migrants who are more likely to be of working age than our recumbent ageing population, and hence more likely to be adding to our GDP over the long term, is not only unfair, it's bad economic policy too, without immigration our country will fall to it's knees supporting legions of pensioners...

Seems like the rest of Europe 'copes' with going up, as the other poster pointed out, it's not really about land, for example, take Surrey, an area with very high demand for housing, 2.6% of the total land area is golf course...

People don't want more buildings near them (nimby) ... what do you do then? They are the ones you need to convince to vote IN, not me.

Basingstoke golf course is being replaced with houses.

The problem is not immigrants.

The UK is not and has never been in Schengen, so it has borders and has control of it. They just happen to have agreed to a deal with the rest of the EU to give EU citizens almost the same rights as UK citizens.

In other words, people voting LEAVE can't have a problem with border control as it is now, because the borders are controlled. The problem is of a very different (and sad) nature.

I've yet to hear any pro-exit talking point that isn't xenophobic, jingoistic, or at BEST just hopelessly misinformed economically.

The fact that the BNP and UKIP are solidly behind an exit should be a good indication that it's terrible. They are like a bellwether for awful ideas.

[0] http://www.adamsmith.org/the-liberal-case-for-leave

[1] http://www.adamsmith.org/evolution-not-revolution

Well... yes. The rest of it is a bunch of "well, we'd likely have had a bunch of the good ideas we were forced into by EU membership anyway" which is shockingly optimistic when looking at 80s Thatcherite Britain, verging on naive.

Throw in a couple more rather unconnected points that pretend to show significance (while just showing that the less-developed world is growing faster than the developed one. Which is... yeah, obvious, but also expected)

The rest of it then swerves into dodgy anti-immigration territory. Which is odd for a "liberal" case.

I agree with it that the Brexit plan is optimistic - but I think the article demonstrates exactly why that's a bad thing: because it's stupidly optimistic and convinces itself that everything will be perfectly awesome because they want it to be.

Whereas the reality is that this is rarely the case.

It's massive risk for little upside vs no real risk for a slightly reduced short-to-medium upside.

While I'm absolutely not a supporter of the BNP or UKIP in any way, their endorsement of something doesn't automatically make it a bad idea.

If it does, then what does it mean when both the Conservative party, as well as many high level US officials (the President, military generals, intelligence chiefs) all come out in favour of the UK staying in the EU? Does that not ring any alarm bells?

EDIT: note, I am deliberately cherry picking the supporters to make the point. I'm aware they're not the only people in support of staying in the EU. Much like I'm sure the person I'm replying to is aware that the BNP and UKIP aren't the only people in favour of leaving, and has chosen them to make his point.

True, but it does heavily cast a massive amount of doubt upon it. At least adds evidence that a lot of the Pro reasons may be based on... less than sensible ideas.

The "good" reasons so far have been basically shown to be mostly wishful thinking with very little actual upside and a LOT of risk.

Personally I'd not like to play roulette with a country, I'll take slightly slower growth and stability, thanks.

Are customs and border control not useful any longer? Have we decided they aren't something countries should have control over?

Wanting to be able to control ingress is not the same as blocking all ingress. In this case I believe some in the UK, more than anything, resent having their migration policies promulgated in Brussels.

What makes "Holland" so special that it should have the ability to bar people from settling instead of "European Union", "Utrecht" or old grandma from the house across the street?

It's like wanting to dictate to China to abolish the Hukou system. I see it as unfair, but that's their own internal problem to solve.

The question is not whether the people of Holland should be stripped of that decision, but whether they should partially delegate it. And why shouldn't they?

I can delegate my finances, or I can make my own choices and maybe I feel like I'll get better served doing things myself.

I would, actually. Why should the accidents of birth determine something like that?

> Wanting to be able to control ingress is not the same as blocking all ingress.

Realistically that's the only reason people who talk about controlling ingress want to control it though.

> In this case I believe some in the UK, more than anything, resent having their migration policies promulgated in Brussels.

Shrug. I've lived in the UK all my life, but I feel like I have more connection to Brussels than (say) Leeds. (Indeed it would take me less long to get a train there).

> Pure assumption on your side or can you support this with sources ?

That's the point. It is all speculation.