Good shot? Posted February 21, 2019 Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 12 hours ago, Yellow Bear said: Tonight's delight from the BBC "PM has a problem with immigration - Soubry" - along with 2/3 of here constituents then and about 60% of the population outside of London. The amount of time this arrogant MP is given by the Press just confirms my thoughts of bias. Another sneaky trick the other day was a bar chart of immigrants showing percentages, first 2 showing late last century low numbers, last 2 showing since about 2000 London only showing high percentages, to prove why they should be more highly represented. Immigration as such is not the problem if 'we' decide who enters the UK. The problem is free movement (tied to customs union membership) where we have no control over so called 'European' entrants who could originate anywhere. An argument we do not hear in the media because it does not suit the remainers case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandspider Posted February 21, 2019 Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 http://chng.it/HdYPZ5ksMM Petition saying MPs who leave their party should step down, not stay on as independents, as they were voted in on party manifestos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted February 21, 2019 Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Good shot? said: Immigration as such is not the problem if 'we' decide who enters the UK. The problem is free movement (tied to customs union membership) where we have no control over so called 'European' entrants who could originate anywhere. An argument we do not hear in the media because it does not suit the remainers case. You have lost me completely there. We have debated endlessly about the in's and outs (forgive the pun) and the benefits of free movement to the UK versus the problems of managing migration where we decide who comes. What argument do you feel is being ignored? I would suggest that EU free movement is a small price to pay compared to equal weight world wide movement, as proposed with Brexit. Simply put we will increase the number of migrants from third world countries that will bring higher levels of dependents and will be less likely to return. We will accept lower number of workers but end up with higher numbers of migrants at greater social cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted February 21, 2019 Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 5 minutes ago, oowee said: I would suggest that EU free movement is a small price to pay compared to equal weight world wide movement, as proposed with Brexit. Simply put we will increase the number of migrants from third world countries that will bring higher levels of dependents and will be less likely to return. We will accept lower number of workers but end up with higher numbers of migrants at greater social cost. And I would suggest there is no evidence to support that assumption. We have a huge workforce already, from within and without, they need training and incentives to fill these jobs. We already have a huge number of migrants from within and outside of the EU , are they all going home? again , no evidence to support this whatsoever. Brexit and its resultant immigration controls simply put EU and non EU migrants on the same playing field, literally no one has said we dont need migrants. We need control over migration, and by that I dont mean Brussels control over it. We need to stop EU migrants coming here, getting a low paid job, paying no tax whatsoever, and taking more money than they earn in tax credits, what kind of benefit is that to our economy ? If we take more 3rd world migrants it will be because they are qualified in something that we need. We dont need any more cleaners, or car washers, the country is full to the brim of low skilled workers suckling on the benefits teat. That you and me are paying for, this is not a complex matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted February 21, 2019 Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 4 minutes ago, Rewulf said: And I would suggest there is no evidence to support that assumption. We have a huge workforce already, from within and without, they need training and incentives to fill these jobs. We already have a huge number of migrants from within and outside of the EU , are they all going home? again , no evidence to support this whatsoever. Brexit and its resultant immigration controls simply put EU and non EU migrants on the same playing field, literally no one has said we dont need migrants. We need control over migration, and by that I dont mean Brussels control over it. We need to stop EU migrants coming here, getting a low paid job, paying no tax whatsoever, and taking more money than they earn in tax credits, what kind of benefit is that to our economy ? If we take more 3rd world migrants it will be because they are qualified in something that we need. We dont need any more cleaners, or car washers, the country is full to the brim of low skilled workers suckling on the benefits teat. That you and me are paying for, this is not a complex matter. Indeed it isn't, but it just does not suit the REMOANERS hoped for plan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchman Posted February 21, 2019 Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 corbyn...starmer and bloody chacrabarti are all in brussells now.............so everything will be sorted....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted February 21, 2019 Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 Why can't this Ex Prime Minister leave it alone? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47296593 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted February 21, 2019 Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 18 hours ago, pinfireman said: True! Earlier today, trying to wriggle out of holding people’s votes of their own constituents, Tory TIGger Heidi Allen said “We haven’t changed. What we stood on, our values, our own leaflets, our own campaigning when we stood in 2017, none of that has changed.” Except that doesn’t wring true with her campaigning in 2017… Allen’s own leaflet said “we must respect the democratic outcome of the referendum and work positively together to ensure we make Brexit a success.” Even on the day of the election, Allen tweeted “I was a remainer, but the EU ref result is final and cannot be rerun.” Her Tory TIGger colleague Anna Soubry also campaigned in 2017 saying she “will continue to honour the EU Referendum result. We are leaving the EU and must now get a good deal.” The other Tory TIGger, Sarah Wollaston told one of her constituents in 2017 that “overall constituency voted leave 54%. I promised to respect the outcome.” Her own website informed her constituents that “Theresa May has confirmed that the Government will not seek to be in the single market. She has also been clear that no deal is better than a bad deal” Day one and they’re already in full hypocrisy mode. Fibbing through their teeth all to avoid facing the people… It's just a result of the rarefied atmosphere they exist in causing hypoxia, resulting in the confusion they exhibit.. 15 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said: Why can't this Ex Prime Minister leave it alone? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47296593 If he had left it alone in the first place we would not be in this mess? Should have stuck to playing with the spicy one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinfireman Posted February 21, 2019 Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 (edited) The public finances continue to be in better and better shape despite Brexit approaching, with the latest ONS figures showing borrowing in the financial year-to-date at its lowest level since 2001. This puts the Government on track to come in under its OBR target of £25.5 billion net borrowing for the year. This is a step in the right direction but it is still £25.5 billion added to the national debt of almost £1.8 trillion – there is no excuse for any government to turn its back on fiscal responsibility… Excluding state-owned banks, public net borrowing actually recorded a January surplus of £14.9 billion, the largest since records began in 1993. It was fuelled by record high tax takings, with self-assessed Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax January receipts both at their highest levels since records began. Record tax takings is hardly what you’d expect from a party that has genuinely been “taken over by the right” as Anna Soubry likes to claim… Source Guido Fawkes blog 17 hours ago, oowee said: You mean this? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-47308497 Ooops sorry forgot we have to ignore the BBC. You will be believing your own propaganda soon. A day late! After Guido Fawkes announced it, and other electronic media followed! The BBC had no option, but to reluctantly follow suit! P.S. No comment on my remarks about all the other car manufacturers who left the UK during the EU years, and a long time before the Referendum? Edited February 21, 2019 by pinfireman spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinfireman Posted February 21, 2019 Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 In fact all of the Tory TIGgers promised to respect the result of the referendum as they campaigned in 2017. You can encourage them to do the decent thing and call by-elections by signing this petition… Source Guido Fawkes www.order-order Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinfireman Posted February 21, 2019 Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 3 hours ago, oowee said: You have lost me completely there. We have debated endlessly about the in's and outs (forgive the pun) and the benefits of free movement to the UK versus the problems of managing migration where we decide who comes. What argument do you feel is being ignored? I would suggest that EU free movement is a small price to pay compared to equal weight world wide movement, as proposed with Brexit. Simply put we will increase the number of migrants from third world countries that will bring higher levels of dependents and will be less likely to return. We will accept lower number of workers but end up with higher numbers of migrants at greater social cost. " would suggest that EU free movement is a small price to pay compared to equal weight world wide movement, as proposed with Brexit. Simply put we will increase the number of migrants from third world countries that will bring higher levels of dependents and will be less likely to return. We will accept lower number of workers but end up with higher numbers of migrants at greater social cost." Wow! Oowee. that is almost perfect Sir Humphrey speak.......were you a script writer on Yes Minister? That,s almost straight from the Civil Service songbook! 3 hours ago, Rewulf said: And I would suggest there is no evidence to support that assumption. We have a huge workforce already, from within and without, they need training and incentives to fill these jobs. We already have a huge number of migrants from within and outside of the EU , are they all going home? again , no evidence to support this whatsoever. Brexit and its resultant immigration controls simply put EU and non EU migrants on the same playing field, literally no one has said we dont need migrants. We need control over migration, and by that I dont mean Brussels control over it. We need to stop EU migrants coming here, getting a low paid job, paying no tax whatsoever, and taking more money than they earn in tax credits, what kind of benefit is that to our economy ? If we take more 3rd world migrants it will be because they are qualified in something that we need. We dont need any more cleaners, or car washers, the country is full to the brim of low skilled workers suckling on the benefits teat. That you and me are paying for, this is not a complex matter. Perfect! 2 hours ago, ditchman said: corbyn...starmer and bloody chacrabarti are all in brussells now.............so everything will be sorted....... They are at a traitors meeting............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted February 21, 2019 Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good shot? Posted February 21, 2019 Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 4 hours ago, oowee said: You have lost me completely there. We have debated endlessly about the in's and outs (forgive the pun) and the benefits of free movement to the UK versus the problems of managing migration where we decide who comes. What argument do you feel is being ignored? I fail to understand where you got lost. The point that is being lost is the word ‘free’ in movement of people so as not to be classed racist which is being used against leavers regularly. Immigration is only beneficial if we choose who can enter the country, from wherever they originate and dependant on UK needs at the time. immigration should be limited by our needs assuming we have our own skills training in place and the resources and infrastructure to cope with any influx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mice! Posted February 21, 2019 Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 22 minutes ago, Good shot? said: I fail to understand where you got lost. The point that is being lost is the word ‘free’ in movement of people so as not to be classed racist which is being used against leavers regularly. Immigration is only beneficial if we choose who can enter the country, from wherever they originate and dependant on UK needs at the time. immigration should be limited by our needs assuming we have our own skills training in place and the resources and infrastructure to cope with any influx. Bang on the money, how are Germany coping after letting who knows how many immigrants in? We should be able to say yes or no, we are an Island after all. The more folk not earning but claiming is just what Corbyn wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted February 21, 2019 Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, oowee said: You have lost me completely there. We have debated endlessly about the in's and outs (forgive the pun) and the benefits of free movement to the UK versus the problems of managing migration where we decide who comes. What argument do you feel is being ignored? I would suggest that EU free movement is a small price to pay compared to equal weight world wide movement, as proposed with Brexit. Simply put we will increase the number of migrants from third world countries that will bring higher levels of dependents and will be less likely to return. We will accept lower number of workers but end up with higher numbers of migrants at greater social cost. I honestly can't think of a single benefit this country gains from free movement. "fill a form in and apply" movement by all means. Edited February 21, 2019 by Vince Green Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted February 21, 2019 Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 I can't respond to individual comments but migration brings huge benefits to the UK. We have a declining population and we need someone to pay our pensions. We either get more efficient or we get more people to pay. Migrants that come to earn pay tax and then go are the holy grail of contributors. EU migrants by their nature are the most likely to pay more than they cost. They are the most likely to return before retirement. Exactly what we want. I agree it would be better if we could select those that we want, however a scheme like that has to be even handed and will by it's application result in more third world migrants. They are less likely to return, more likely to have a larger dependency base (larger family group) and subsequently cost more. We also have the issue of how to fill those jobs such as care workers where workers might be defined by aptitude rather than paper qualifications. I do not see how the UK can continue with it's bloated dependency culture, too many pensioners getting too much pension, supported by too few workers working inefficiently. Something has to give. I can hear the ideas of getting the unemployed back to work, upskilling, reducing benefits, etc etc but we have had at least 50 years since the 60's to get a grip and we have so far failed. I suspect the more likely scenario is we see effective economic contraction and a gradual erosion of benefits (including pensions and living standards) as we seek to plug the holes in our social welfare bill (including the NHS). To my mind the management of migration like education is a bigger than Brexit issue that like many of the thornier issues, faced by a first past the post system of government, is easier to ignore than to tackle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellow Bear Posted February 21, 2019 Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 29 minutes ago, oowee said: I can't respond to individual comments but migration brings huge benefits to the UK. We have a declining population and we need someone to pay our pensions. We either get more efficient or we get more people to pay. Migrants that come to earn pay tax and then go are the holy grail of contributors. EU migrants by their nature are the most likely to pay more than they cost. They are the most likely to return before retirement. Exactly what we want. I agree it would be better if we could select those that we want, however a scheme like that has to be even handed and will by it's application result in more third world migrants. They are less likely to return, more likely to have a larger dependency base (larger family group) and subsequently cost more. We also have the issue of how to fill those jobs such as care workers where workers might be defined by aptitude rather than paper qualifications. I do not see how the UK can continue with it's bloated dependency culture, too many civil service pensioners getting too much pension, supported by too few workers working inefficiently. Something has to give. I can hear the ideas of getting the unemployed back to work, upskilling, reducing benefits, etc etc but we have had at least 50 years since the 60's to get a grip and we have so far failed. I suspect the more likely scenario is we see effective economic contraction and a gradual erosion of benefits (including pensions and living standards) as we seek to plug the holes in our social welfare bill (including the NHS). To my mind the management of migration like education is a bigger than Brexit issue that like many of the thornier issues, faced by a first past the post system of government, is easier to ignore than to tackle. there fixed it for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted February 21, 2019 Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 31 minutes ago, oowee said: I can't respond to individual comments but migration brings huge benefits to the UK. We have a declining population and we need someone to pay our pensions. We either get more efficient or we get more people to pay. Migrants that come to earn pay tax and then go are the holy grail of contributors. EU migrants by their nature are the most likely to pay more than they cost. They are the most likely to return before retirement. Exactly what we want. I agree it would be better if we could select those that we want, however a scheme like that has to be even handed and will by it's application result in more third world migrants. They are less likely to return, more likely to have a larger dependency base (larger family group) and subsequently cost more. We also have the issue of how to fill those jobs such as care workers where workers might be defined by aptitude rather than paper qualifications. I do not see how the UK can continue with it's bloated dependency culture, too many pensioners getting too much pension, supported by too few workers working inefficiently. Something has to give. I can hear the ideas of getting the unemployed back to work, upskilling, reducing benefits, etc etc but we have had at least 50 years since the 60's to get a grip and we have so far failed. I suspect the more likely scenario is we see effective economic contraction and a gradual erosion of benefits (including pensions and living standards) as we seek to plug the holes in our social welfare bill (including the NHS). To my mind the management of migration like education is a bigger than Brexit issue that like many of the thornier issues, faced by a first past the post system of government, is easier to ignore than to tackle. There is nothing in what you say that requires unregulated free movement. I don't disagree with anything you say at all because its all very true. The truth is though that it does not cover the areas of concern where the system is being abused. No free movement does not mean no movement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted February 21, 2019 Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Vince Green said: There is nothing in what you say that requires unregulated free movement. I don't disagree with anything you say at all because its all very true. The truth is though that it does not cover the areas of concern where the system is being abused. No free movement does not mean no movement +1 we know it but it's hard to see how we can solve the issue and not be seen to be discriminating. Rather than look at skills it would be better to say you can come f you have a job, you have to work as no benefits will be payable and minimal health care available for x years. After y time when you have demonstrated your net contribution your work visa can be swapped for residency? 16 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said: there fixed it for you There is a saying that he who does not take from his employer takes from his family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted February 21, 2019 Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 Whilst out and about I had a mooch around a local charity shop, already in there were three women, two older fifties/sixties and one in her twenties, all dressed like gypsies, a pre teen girl pushing a child in a pushchair, a toddler and a bloke in his twenties too! The three older women were blatently stealing clothes by trying stuff on and putting their own clothes over the top of them! Christ knows what other criminal acts they are/would perpetrating/perpetrate....the seven were unlikely to be in employment as this was 11.30 am............Where are they getting the money from in order to survive? No prizes for guessing! This is the sort of criminal scum that we need our government to prevent entering the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted February 21, 2019 Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 1 minute ago, panoma1 said: Whilst out and about I had a mooch around a local charity shop, already in there were three women, two older fifties/sixties and one in her twenties, all dressed like gypsies, a pre teen girl pushing a child in a pushchair, a toddler and a bloke in his twenties too! The three older women were blatently stealing clothes by trying stuff on and putting their own clothes over the top of them! Christ knows what other criminal acts they are/would perpetrating/perpetrate....the seven were unlikely to be in employment as this was 11.30 am............Where are they getting the money from in order to survive? No prizes for guessing! This is the sort of criminal scum that we need our government to prevent entering the UK? Sadly, just a dream? With such inept self centered politcos that we have been experiencing for 40 years the nightmare will continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted February 21, 2019 Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 Quote however a scheme like that has to be even handed and will by it's application result in more third world migrants. They are less likely to return, more likely to have a larger dependency base (larger family group) and subsequently cost more. The Pulitzer Prize for jumping to the entirely wrong conclusion goes to …………………………………………………………….. last year's winner, again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McSpredder Posted February 21, 2019 Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 2 hours ago, oowee said: We have a declining population ..... Figures from the Office for National Statistics indicate that the UK population is NOT declining. 1975 56.2 million 1985 56.5 million 1995 58.0 million 2005 60.4 million 2015 65.1 million 2025 69.4 million (projected) 2035 73.0 million (projected) 2045 76.0 million (projected) https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/mar2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted February 21, 2019 Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 oowee has never been one to let facts cloud the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good shot? Posted February 21, 2019 Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 (edited) And the indisputable fact is the EU has shown itself to be everything we do not want to be a part of and it’s days are numbered especially now the UK has started with its intention to leave. We are struggling (understatement) to agree an exit plan, what are the chances of getting a good outcome when the real negotiations take place afterwards. We have no chance as we will give everything away. I doubt it will be allowed to happen but in my opinion we should walk away, keep the 40 plus billion and let the EU come to us cap in hand. It is the only way we can turn this farce (of our own selfish / despicable Politicians making) around. The prospect of the UK staying in the EU is far worse than anything that may happen with a no deal Brexit I am now going to finish my second squirrel feeder and “switch off”. Edited February 21, 2019 by Good shot? Add on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts