Brexit - merged threads

[oowee]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

The issue with immigration in fact (in my view) is largely of our own making.  In parts of the world it is widely 'known' that if you come to Britain you will be welcomed and 'issued' with a house provided with a weekly income (which seems huge by their local standards), have free health care, pension, education for your children.  Much of this is true under our benefits system.

The European issue is that a large proportion of non EU immigrants enter the UK via Europe.  Just look at all of them queuing up around Calais)  Under EU rules they are supposed to be offered asylum in the first EU country they enter.  Once they have that they are (I think) free to roam the EU - and so end up here.

One big problem is even when we 'close the door' - the message that Britain is the place to go and get 'free living' will take a long time to be corrected.

Exactly this ^^^^^  Sod all to do with the EU. Also jealousy when Brits see migrants hard at work taking the jibs they do not want and making a life for themselves that they are too lazy to get out of bed for. All of which is totally avoidable but we just do not get a grip of these things and as always blame everyone else, EU included, rather than take responsibility. Another example of failing democracy resulting from first past the post. 

[Mice!]

10 minutes ago, oowee said:

Exactly this ^^^^^  Sod all to do with the EU. Also jealousy when Brits see migrants hard at work taking the jibs they do not want and making a life for themselves that they are too lazy to get out of bed for. All of which is totally avoidable but we just do not get a grip of these things and as always blame everyone else, EU included, rather than take responsibility. Another example of failing democracy resulting from first past the post. 

Haven't you said this already today?

[oowee]

6 minutes ago, Mice! said:

Haven't you said this already today?

Yep 🙂 when I logged on page was open and it posted again. 

[12gauge82]

19 minutes ago, oowee said:

Exactly this ^^^^^  Sod all to do with the EU. Also jealousy when Brits see migrants hard at work taking the jibs they do not want and making a life for themselves that they are too lazy to get out of bed for. All of which is totally avoidable but we just do not get a grip of these things and as always blame everyone else, EU included, rather than take responsibility. Another example of failing democracy resulting from first past the post. 

I don't think it's a case that they take jobs that brits don't want to do, they will take jobs that don't pay a wage suitable for most brits to live on or provide a decent standard of living for them and their families, it also often doesn't benefit the economy because the tax raised vs expense incurred to the tax payer for the extra strain on schools, NHS, police, housing, welfare and infrastructure ect. 

[Dave-G]

56 minutes ago, pinfireman said:

Once they become British citizens, they can vote! And they are being urged to do so by the Labour Party! Guess who they will vote for.....

And that my friends is why they gratefully and immediately get a free house, so get on the electoral register... which means of course they are more important to ploticians than our own homeless who might have a grudge against them.

[oowee]

5 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I don't think it's a case that they take jobs that brits don't want to do, they will take jobs that don't pay a wage suitable for most brits to live on or provide a decent standard of living for them and their families, it also often doesn't benefit the economy because the tax raised vs expense incurred to the tax payer for the extra strain on schools, NHS, police, housing, welfare and infrastructure ect. 

Oxford economics report last year said each worker makes a net contribution of £2300 a year. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-workers-uk-tax-treasury-brexit-migrants-british-citizens-a8542506.html

A report in 2013 said migrants arriving since 2000 made a net contribution of £25bn

Recent immigrants were 45% less likely to receive state benefits or tax credits than people native to the UK and 3% less likely to live in social housing, says the report written by Professor Christian Dustmann and Dr Tommaso Frattini.

But going back further to 1995, the study found that non-EEA immigrants arriving between that year and 2011 had claimed more in benefits than they paid in taxes, mainly because they had more children than people already living in Britain.

The academics also found that recent immigrants from the EEA – the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein – participated more in the labour market. Their study was based predominantly on official reports including the British Labour Force Survey as well as tax data and public expenditure statistics. The EEA immigrants were also more likely to have a university degree than British people.

8 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

And that my friends is why they gratefully and immediately get a free house, so get on the electoral register... which means of course they are more important to ploticians than our own homeless who might have a grudge against them.

Where is your evidence?

[Dave-G]

14 minutes ago, oowee said:

 

Where is your evidence?

No evidence to be fair - but it makes a very good explanation about why 'refugees' get to jump straight into a council house ahead of our own needy people who have been waiting years.

Edited March 1, 2019 by Dave-G

[oowee]

So

1 minute ago, Dave-G said:

No evidence to be fair - but it makes a very good explanation about why 'refugees' get to jump straight into a council house ahead of our own needy people who have been waiting years.

This is very sad. Based on no evidence we draw conclusions about some of the most vulnerable in our society that can result in mistrust and demonisation. 😞

[Retsdon]

50 minutes ago, oowee said:

But going back further to 1995, the study found that non-EEA immigrants arriving between that year and 2011 had claimed more in benefits than they paid in taxes, mainly because they had more children than people already living in Britain.

I wouldn't even say that the main issue is economic. The strongest argument, for me anyway, against non-EU immigration is that you end up with whole cites and areas being basically Balkanized into ethnic zones. The supposed goal passed seamlessly from 'integration' to 'multi-culturalism' without any kind of debate as to whether this was a good thing or not. And it's not in the least racist to point out that pretty much any country or region you care to name that is composed of groupings that are clearly distinguishable by ethicity, religion or language living intermingled or juxtaposed next to each other will have a long and bloody history of periodic bouts of internecine conflict. Why are so arrogant that we imagine we''ll be immune to this curse?

If you allow immigration on a large scale what you're doing is basically introducing potential fault lines into society that, like the Earth's platelets, may rub along quite happily. And it all works fine until such time as they're put under stress. And then you have disasters. Lebanon, India, Yugoslavia, Palestine, Syria, Indonesia, Thailand, Ukraine, ...the list goes on and on. Political or economic stress opens the fault lines - and the results are horrible. I'ts a hell of a risk to take just to pay a few people's pensions.

 

Edited March 1, 2019 by Retsdon

[12gauge82]

46 minutes ago, oowee said:

Oxford economics report last year said each worker makes a net contribution of £2300 a year. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-workers-uk-tax-treasury-brexit-migrants-british-citizens-a8542506.html

A report in 2013 said migrants arriving since 2000 made a net contribution of £25bn

Recent immigrants were 45% less likely to receive state benefits or tax credits than people native to the UK and 3% less likely to live in social housing, says the report written by Professor Christian Dustmann and Dr Tommaso Frattini.

But going back further to 1995, the study found that non-EEA immigrants arriving between that year and 2011 had claimed more in benefits than they paid in taxes, mainly because they had more children than people already living in Britain.

The academics also found that recent immigrants from the EEA – the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein – participated more in the labour market. Their study was based predominantly on official reports including the British Labour Force Survey as well as tax data and public expenditure statistics. The EEA immigrants were also more likely to have a university degree than British people.

Where is your evidence?

There are lies, damn lies and then statics! 

For every report you find showing immigration has been good for the UK, I could find one that says it's bad. 

https://www.ecnmy.org/engage/high-skilled-good-low-skilled-bad-says-new-uk-migration-report/

I am firmly of the belief that if immigration is handled properly, it would have a hugely positive impact on the UK, but if we contine as we have, I believe immigration has already had hugely negative impact to many who rely on low skill work to make a living and has also had negative impact on school places, hospital demand and many other aspects. It should go without saying I'm not suggesting all immigration is bad or that people who have come to this country to better their lot are bad either. 

4 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

I wouldn't even say that the main issue is economic. The strongest argument, for me anyway, against non-EU immigration is that you end up with whole cites and areas being basically Balkanized into ethnic zones. The supposed goal passed seamlessly from 'integration' to 'multi-culturalism' without any kind of debate as to whether this was a good thing or not. And it's not in the least racist to point out that pretty much any country or region you care to name that is composed of groupings that are clearly distinguishable by ethicity, religion or language living intermingled or juxtaposed next to each other will have a long and bloody history of periodic bouts of internecine conflict. Why are so arrogant that we imagine we''ll be immune to this curse?

If you allow immigration on a large scale what you're doing is basically introducing potential fault lines into society that, like the Earth's platelets, may rub along quite happily. And it all works fine until such time as they're put under stress. And then you have disasters. Lebanon, India, Yugoslavia, Palestine, Syria, Indonesia, Thailand, Ukraine, ...the list goes on and on. Political or economic stress opens the fault lines - and the results are horrible. I'ts a hell of a risk to take just to pay a few people's pensions.

 

Good Post and another aspect of migration that is seldom mentioned in government reports. 

[Retsdon]

4 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

another aspect of migration that is seldom mentioned in government reports. 

Nobody likes to acknowledge even the existence of their dark side, let alone the potential for that cloven hoof to pop out. And that's why these misgivings are unmentionable in polite society. (We're not polite here !  )

[JohnfromUK]

11 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I am firmly of the belief that if immigration is handled properly, it would have a hugely positive impact on the UK,

The real problem - the elephant in the room if you like is simply that we have a relatively small country (geographically), already heavily populated.  The housing stock is in short supply, it is difficult to build more without using 'virgin' land.   Infrastructure being power supply (grid and more local) capability, gas supply capability (local pipework mainly), water supply, drainage/sewage treatment, waste disposal, road and rail capacity is near 100% capacity in many cases and cannot readily be 'stretched' further requiring whole new plants/massive new investment taking both time and resource.  Education, health facilities, etc. are all stretched.  We are incapable of being self sufficient in almost every respect (energy, food etc.)

Put bluntly, the country (in its present form) is FULL.

[Raja Clavata]

2 hours ago, pinfireman said:

Yes!  Refugees and asylum seekers are expected to apply for asylum in the FIRST  safe country they come across, so why do they cross more than a dozen to get here? Fair question

Yes they are, I don't know all the precise details and parameters around this, do you?

[oowee]

15 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

I wouldn't even say that the main issue is economic. The strongest argument, for me anyway, against non-EU immigration is that you end up with whole cites and areas being basically Balkanized into ethnic zones. The supposed goal passed seamlessly from 'integration' to 'multi-culturalism' without any kind of debate as to whether this was a good thing or not. And it's not in the least racist to point out that pretty much any country or region you care to name that is composed of groupings that are clearly distinguishable by ethicity, religion or language living intermingled or juxtaposed next to each other will have a long and bloody history of periodic bouts of internecine conflict. Why are so arrogant that we imagine we''ll be immune to this curse?

If you allow immigration on a large scale what you're doing is basically introducing potential fault lines into society that, like the Earth's platelets, may rub along quite happily. And it all works fine until such time as they're put under stress. And then you have disasters. Lebanon, India, Yugoslavia, Palestine, Syria, Indonesia, Thailand, Ukraine, ...the list goes on and on. Political or economic stress opens the fault lines - and the results are horrible. I'ts a hell of a risk to take just to pay a few people's pensions.

 

So give me some reasoned evidence of where these 'Balkanized' ethnic zones exist, the lack of integration and long and bloody history of internecine conflict in the developed world. Don't quote third world Serbia and the Balkan states. What list goes on and on? I guess the best example is the conflict between Yorkshire and Lancashire ? Are you suggesting that anyone that looks 'different' sounds 'different' or practices a ''different' religion is a conflict waiting to happen. FGSM.

The UK is built on migration. How the government chooses to manage it is another matter. We just do not have enough people to maintain our standard of living without taking advantage of low cost labour or skilled worker placements. 

 

[Raja Clavata]

2 hours ago, pinfireman said:

Farage put his country first...........you might try that?

Why? They are both linked.....and it is a topic that Remoaners are uncomfortable with?

What exactly would you like me to do?

"Remoaners are comfortable with" - your language is getting very tiresome. Pray tell why remainers would be uncomfortable?

[oowee]

4 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

The real problem - the elephant in the room if you like is simply that we have a relatively small country (geographically), already heavily populated.  The housing stock is in short supply, it is difficult to build more without using 'virgin' land.   Infrastructure being power supply (grid and more local) capability, gas supply capability (local pipework mainly), water supply, drainage/sewage treatment, waste disposal, road and rail capacity is near 100% capacity in many cases and cannot readily be 'stretched' further requiring whole new plants/massive new investment taking both time and resource.  Education, health facilities, etc. are all stretched.  We are incapable of being self sufficient in almost every respect (energy, food etc.)

Put bluntly, the country (in its present form) is FULL.

This is just not true.

[Raja Clavata]

2 hours ago, pinfireman said:

Nigel Farage did NOT lead the Leave campaign, as some people infer, that was lead by Dominic Cummings, Johnson and Gove.  Farage, and UKIP,   forced the Referendum, and supported the Leave campaign. For all the snide remarks about him, without him, you would NEVER have had a Referendum!  And whilst Raja speaks of the "lies" Farage is supposed to have said, he cannot list them! The only thing he can come up with is the £360 million slogan on the campaign bus, and that was dreamed up by the Leave team!  He supported it, but did not instigate it.

Let me use your language back at you. Total garbage! You asked for a sample list of Farage lies which I replied to and you ignored. I invited a detailed discussion on any of them and you ignored them or cited them as garbage. Give me strength...

2 hours ago, pinfireman said:

Once they become British citizens, they can vote! And they are being urged to do so by the Labour Party! Guess who they will vote for.....

I'm getting lost with what you are actually replying to. Maybe the points I'm trying to make are a little too subtle for you...

[JohnfromUK]

14 minutes ago, oowee said:

This is just not true.

In what respect is it not true?

[oowee]

2 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

In what respect is it not true?

That the UK is Full. 

[Retsdon]

37 minutes ago, oowee said:

So give me some reasoned evidence of where these 'Balkanized' ethnic zones exist,

Hackney? Moss Side? The Islamic Republic of Dewsbury? Belfast? Take your pick.

37 minutes ago, oowee said:

the lack of integration and long and bloody history of internecine conflict in the developed world.

How far back to do you want to go? Seventy years ago Germany was putting whole sections of her population into death camps, and the Latvians and Lithuanians were killing their own minorities with clubs and shovels. And Northern Ireland?

 

37 minutes ago, oowee said:

Don't quote third world Serbia and the Balkan states.

Why not? The reason that the Balkans has such a bloody history isn't because the people there are a different species, it's because clearly distinguishable groups have found themselves living cheek by jowl, competing for the same resources.

 

37 minutes ago, oowee said:

Are you suggesting that anyone that looks 'different' sounds 'different' or practices a ''different' religion is a conflict waiting to happen.

No, not anyone. But history hasn't been kind to multi-ethnic societies. Rather than me naming those that have had problems, perhaps you can suggest some that haven't? And I don't include the totally immigrant ones like America or Austraiila where the original inhabitants were wiped off the map.

 

37 minutes ago, oowee said:

The UK is built on migration.

You what?

Edited March 1, 2019 by Retsdon

[oowee]

3 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

Hackney? Moss Side? The Islamic Republic of Dewsbury? Take your pick.

How far back to do you want to go? Seventy years ago Germany was putting whole sections of her population into death camps, and the Latvians and Lithuanians were killing their own minorities with clubs and shovels. 

Why not? The reason that the Balkans has such a bloody history isn't because the people there are a different species, it's because clearly distinguishable groups have found themselves living cheek by jowl, competing for the same resources.

No, not anyone. But history hasn't been kind to multi-ethnic societies. Rather than me naming those that have had problems, perhaps you can suggest some that haven't? And I don't include the totally immigrant ones like America or Austraiila where the original inhabitants were wiped off the map.

 

You what?

I think we are in danger of going off topic but :-

Where is the internecine war in the UK? 

The UK put South African women into death camps and traded in slaves but I hope some of us have since found education. These conflicts are born out of hatred and ignorance with the persecution of minorities in the absence of the rule of law. Nothing like the civilised and largely educated society that we have here. Surely the way forward is more exposure to and understanding of difference. 

I agree that there are exceptions but that does not make it the norm. It would be more accurate to say that history has shown that uneducated people have not been kind to minority groups. To follow that argument, is to fear anything that is not your own. A very sad state of affairs to live in fear of difference. 

I would suggest that the greater issue is the competition for scarce world resources at a nation state level where the biggest and most powerful will prevail. The 

 

[panoma1]

2 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

I don't think it's a case that they take jobs that brits don't want to do, they will take jobs that don't pay a wage suitable for most brits to live on or provide a decent standard of living for them and their families, it also often doesn't benefit the economy because the tax raised vs expense incurred to the tax payer for the extra strain on schools, NHS, police, housing, welfare and infrastructure ect. 

This ^..........immigrants will willingly take low paid jobs (which would be well paid in their own country) in the U.K. That most Brits CANT AFFORD to take (for the above reasons)......is a more accurate statement than generalising that Brits don't want to work!

[oowee]

Have you seen the latest payout to Euro Tunnel? Chris Grayling and more Tory incompetence. 

You do have to ask the question could any other party really be this bad? 

[Dave-G]

1 hour ago, oowee said:

So

This is very sad. Based on no evidence we draw conclusions about some of the most vulnerable in our society that can result in mistrust and demonisation. 😞

Perhaps you have an alternative suggestion as to why our government cannot house our own homeless, some of who have served the country and people on waiting lists yet manage to find homes for people almost as soon as they arrive in our country?  I'm not making this an arguement, just curious on what you might attribute it too.

Edited March 1, 2019 by Dave-G

[Gordon R]

 

Quote

 

A report in 2013 said migrants arriving since 2000 made a net contribution of £25bn

Recent immigrants were 45% less likely to receive state benefits or tax credits than people native to the UK and 3% less likely to live in social housing, says the report written by Professor Christian Dustmann and Dr Tommaso Frattini.

 

The people who wrote the first report are beyond clueless. They have no idea of how many immigrants there are, have been or will be. It is therefore a just a bit tricky to measure their net value to society.

The second two need to hang their heads in shame. They don't have a genuine grip on any facts. They don't know who claims benefit or what their nationality is. Some bright spark will claim that they must know the nationality to allow the claim, but that merely demonstrates that people should think before they post rubbish.