Where is the UK headed?

[Mark]

I do despair a bit at the moment. We seem to be headed down an isolationist path, especially ahead of next years general election. Politicians seem to be keen to be cracking down on immigration and those nasty foreigners, even to the extent of leaving the European Union to achieve it.

I believe the whole Europe issue is a massive distraction to the issues the country really faces in terms of getting the economy turned around. But hey, it's always nice to blame someone or something instead.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Hit the nail on the head!

I had a dream the other night that the Ukips won a further three MPs in bye-elections. The way things are going we could have a Conservative/Ukip coalition after the next general election.

I've said this before, but the problem with the EU is that it is a difficult sell. Everything in the media about the EU is reported as a negative. None of the positive things that the EU gives us is fairly reported, so you end up with a ridiculous situation were people like farmers, whose industry relies heavily on CAP subsidies, vote for Euro-sceptic parties. I bet you could take a sample survey of workers from the Sunderland Nissan plant and many would say they were anti-EU, completely ignorant to the fact their job exists because of the UK being part of the EU.

One of the main reason for this swing to the right in our politics is that the majority of voters are older voters. And as a generalisation older people tend to be less sympathetic when it comes to things like immigration and foreign aid. People of my generation aren't voting and as a result the main political parties aren't going to waste time with policy that might get their vote.

Another reason is that people are just generally ignorant when it comes to subjects like illegal immigration, refugees and foreign aid. People seem to think that all our foreign aid is spent on Pakistan's nuclear weapons and all refugees are here to take our benefits (how all of these Somalian children without any parents or school education are aware of the UK welfare system is amazing isn't it?).

None of this is important to the reality of my life. I'm in my 20s and really want to buy my own house, but none of the political parties seem bothered that houses in London are inflating by 20% per year. Sure, net increase in migration and general population increase affects the housing market, but it isn't the main cause. Get more Romanians and Poles over here to build us some affordable housing!

[Starter]

Another reason is that people are just generally ignorant when it comes to subjects like illegal immigration, refugees and foreign aid. People seem to think that all our foreign aid is spent on Pakistan's nuclear weapons and all refugees are here to take our benefits (how all or these Somalian children without any parents or school education are aware of the UK welfare system is amazing isn't it?).
You seem to have much the same immigration issue that we have in the US, except yours isn't Hispanic based. Part of the problem is that, while most are just looking for a better life, there is a large enough minority who are happy to have a free ride and that creates the basis for painting them all that way.

One of the issues with large immigrant populations is that the economy can only absorb just so many over a given period of time. Particularly when the economy is struggling. Then you have the people who do have jobs beginning to resent the "free loaders" and voting that way. My solution would be to control immigration at a sustainable level and use the money saved (from benefits) to invest in the countries when the immigrants originated in order to boost the economy there and eliminate some of the impetus to leave. Realizing that the governments (and I use the term loosely) in some of those countries are problimatical at best and usually corrupt so getting bang for the buck would be difficult.

[steveaki13]

I do despair a bit at the moment. We seem to be headed down an isolationist path, especially ahead of next years general election. Politicians seem to be keen to be cracking down on immigration and those nasty foreigners, even to the extent of leaving the European Union to achieve it.

I believe the whole Europe issue is a massive distraction to the issues the country really faces in terms of getting the economy turned around. But hey, it's always nice to blame someone or something instead.

It seems a lot of the population want that approach too though.

Either side of the debate seem to think the other is being bluffed or is not thinking straight.

Fact is most do. They believe whichever side they are on is the right path.

Trouble is the sides are so far apart, what happens to the people on the side that lose is unclear. It could lead to massive trouble.

[MrJan]

You seem to have much the same immigration issue that we have in the US, except yours isn't Hispanic based. Part of the problem is that, while most are just looking for a better life, there is a large enough minority who are happy to have a free ride and that creates the basis for painting them all that way.

Yup, the problem is that no one really knows how many create that minority. Over here we probably have more people like this scumbag http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-29714408 than we do immigrants over here to live off the state. Having worked for a company that did maintenance on social housing, I have more experience of people born in the UK sponging off the state than I have people born overseas (although, to be fair, I do live in one of the whitest and most inbred parts of the country).

[steveaki13]

(although, to be fair, I do live in one of the whitest and most inbred parts of the country).

Wow. Not a fan of the South West then :p

[Rollo]

Then you have the people who do have jobs beginning to resent the "free loaders" and voting that way. My solution would be to control immigration at a sustainable level and use the money saved (from benefits) to invest in the countries when the immigrants originated in order to boost the economy there and eliminate some of the impetus to leave. Realizing that the governments (and I use the term loosely) in some of those countries are problimatical at best and usually corrupt so getting bang for the buck would be difficult.

Is immigration the real cause here? Really? Really?!

If you were to do an actual economic analysis of actual "freeloading" who is more at fault? People on benefits, or the members of the DJIA, the FT-SE or the ASX 200?

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/asx-200-company-tax-avoidance-bleeds-commonwealth-coffers-of-billions-a-year-report-finds-20140928-10n3n3.html#ixzz3GosJfjSK
The 90-page look at the the tax contributions of the S&P/ASX 200 between 2004 and 2013 – the first research of its kind attempted – claims up to $80 billion was foregone by the taxman over that period; a sum of money that could all but wipe out the government's past two budget deficits.
- Sydney Morning Herald, 29th Sep 2014.

I bet that that's the same for the UK, the US as it is in Australia.

[Rudy Tamasz]

The Ukay is headed nowhere. Has always been. I do sound optimistic and cheerful this morning, don't I? :waive:

[MrJan]

Wow. Not a fan of the South West then :p

Quite the opposite. I was born in Exeter and, bar 3 years at uni (when I was in Falmouth) have lived here my whole life. It's a glorious place, fantastic countryside and close to the sea and some great beaches. Having lived here for that long though I'm aware of how rarely I see someone that doesn't have white skin, so naturally I'm more likely to bump into good ol' fashioned local benefits cheats.

[driveace]

Same here.Live in a nice part of the country and don't have the issues that are prevalent in other parts of the country .
Think the big thing that people se is that we pay into the EU pot 50 million EVERY DAY !
And I and them do not see we get that value back
I go down to Spain ,there only last week too ,AND they have superb quiet dual carriageways that are deserted,,every time I go there they are building houses,roads ,gardens ,are they are supposed to be going belly up .So the money has to come from the EU .There are also too many lazy people who are work shy here ,claiming all the benefits they get pushed towards them ,even getting advise at the job centers of how to milk the system !Then I as a pensioner get £104 per week to live on ,whilst on benefits some are on £550 per week .We see the gravy train in Brussels ,the money waisted,now a deputy for Junker ,who is as Junker says been my mate for a long time .Some feel the EU is taking the pi** Can we not see the light ? I don't have a problem with immigrants ,but Jesus why do they come from Lybia,Afghanistan,Syria,passing through Germany Italy France to get to the UK ? Somebody ,somewhere are told them there is a pot of gold here for them to share

[Mark]

I don't have a problem with immigrants ,but Jesus why do they come from Lybia,Afghanistan,Syria,passing through Germany Italy France to get to the UK ? Somebody ,somewhere are told them there is a pot of gold here for them to share


Those who come from those countries are not EU immigrants and we have complete control in the UK as to if we admit them or not and if they get benefits or not, therefore if there's a problem with non-EU migration it has nothing to do with the EU at all, and leaving the EU wouldn't change a thing in that regard.

[driveace]

Most people have a problem with immigration from within the EU .
They also have a problem that a male immigrant here ,gets money to send back to his wife and children living in his former country .We always spend nearly 1 % of our wealth on Foreign Aid ,which may NOT be spent on what we think it is being spent on .There are lots of Despots who rule countries that have Swiss bank accounts with billions invested in them .And how do these immigrants from the Middle East ,long to be here in the UK ,instead of Italy Germany or France

[Mark]

Indeed but it's conflation again, your Middle Eastern immigrant will be just as likely to arrive here if we are outside the EU.

[Starter]

Is immigration the real cause here? Really? Really?!

If you were to do an actual economic analysis of actual "freeloading" who is more at fault? People on benefits, or the members of the DJIA, the FT-SE or the ASX 200?

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/asx-200-company-tax-avoidance-bleeds-commonwealth-coffers-of-billions-a-year-report-finds-20140928-10n3n3.html#ixzz3GosJfjSK
The 90-page look at the the tax contributions of the S&P/ASX 200 between 2004 and 2013 – the first research of its kind attempted – claims up to $80 billion was foregone by the taxman over that period; a sum of money that could all but wipe out the government's past two budget deficits.
- Sydney Morning Herald, 29th Sep 2014.

I bet that that's the same for the UK, the US as it is in Australia.
You are quite correct. It's just that its easier to go after the immigrants than the well heeled corporations. ;)

If I were in charge (probably not going to happen this year), immigration, welfare and corporate tax codes would be dramatically overhauled. In the US I'd also overhaul the entire income tax system.

[donKey jote]

Most people have a problem with immigration from within the EU .

really? :andrea:
I wouldn't think so, but then again I've been an EU immigrant all my life in four different EU countries so I might see things a little different to most of you :p


They also have a problem that a male immigrant here ,gets money to send back to his wife and children living in his former country
Do they know how much he owns? Normally you'd be moaning about all the cheap labour undercutting the wages...
Think positive: At least he hasn't brought his wife and children "over here" to sponge off your benefits and reduce your pension even further! :dozey:

[MrJan]

They also have a problem that a male immigrant here ,gets money to send back to his wife and children living in his former country

In my experience those guys generate more for the UK economy than the slackers that do the same job, chuff off to the pub at 3:30 and buy a few pints of imported lager. Worked with a Lithuanian guy that must have earnt twice as much for his employers than his British colleagues. Sure the money went into his home in Lithuania, but the profit that he was making for the company more than made up for it.

[Tel 911S]

There was a study done by the University College London , quoted by the BBC , which said that immigrants contributed £25 Billion to the UK economy .
But the BBC [ which is paid Millions per year by the EU to promote the EU ], forgot to mention the part in the study which said the total cost to the UK was £95 Billion per year .
So all the immigration which was encouraged by the Labour government is costing the rest of us £70 Billion PER YEAR .
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10693022/Immigrants-cost-Britain-3000-a-year-each-says-report.html

[donKey jote]

Theyz are all out to get you... FACT !!! :laugh:

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Same here.Live in a nice part of the country and don't have the issues that are prevalent in other parts of the country .
Think the big thing that people se is that we pay into the EU pot 50 million EVERY DAY !
And I and them do not see we get that value back
I go down to Spain ,there only last week too ,AND they have superb quiet dual carriageways that are deserted,,every time I go there they are building houses,roads ,gardens ,are they are supposed to be going belly up .So the money has to come from the EU .There are also too many lazy people who are work shy here ,claiming all the benefits they get pushed towards them ,even getting advise at the job centers of how to milk the system !Then I as a pensioner get £104 per week to live on ,whilst on benefits some are on £550 per week .We see the gravy train in Brussels ,the money waisted,now a deputy for Junker ,who is as Junker says been my mate for a long time .Some feel the EU is taking the pi** Can we not see the light ? I don't have a problem with immigrants ,but Jesus why do they come from Lybia,Afghanistan,Syria,passing through Germany Italy France to get to the UK ? Somebody ,somewhere are told them there is a pot of gold here for them to share

Thanks. I think we are all a little bit thicker after reading this.


1)Think the big thing that people see is that we pay into the EU pot 50 million EVERY DAY ! And I and them do not see we get that value back.

It's very easy to shout big numbers like UKIP without looking at the whole picture. We may contribute £50 million a day but we get over £30 million of that back directly in the form of CAP rebate, single farm payments, regional development fund etc. On top of that we build our car industry worth £110 million a day (and nearly 1 million jobs) which is hugely dependant on EU exports (about 45%). And that is just one industry!


2)There are also too many lazy people who are work shy here ,claiming all the benefits they get pushed towards them

The UK has the 4th lowest unemployment figure in the EU, so I don't know what you mean by too many. When it comes to benefit fraud it adds up to 0.7% of state welfare (state pension is over 50% of state welfare).


3)We see the gravy train in Brussels ,the money waisted,now a deputy for Junker ,who is as Junker says been my mate for a long time .Some feel the EU is taking the pi** Can we not see the light ?

Why do you think the EU exists just to annoy us? Give us an example of this 'gravy train'? Is there a group of EU bureaucrats who sit in an expensive office in Brussels thinking of new ways to p1ss the UK off? Or have the British newspaper industry figured out that they sell more newspapers when they run a fact-shy story on this so called 'gravy train' ?


I don't have a problem with immigrants ,but Jesus why do they come from Lybia,Afghanistan,Syria,passing through Germany Italy France to get to the UK ? Somebody ,somewhere are told them there is a pot of gold here for them to share

So we are the only country in Europe who have immigrants? Germany have taken about 25000 Syrian refugees, Sweden have taken over 20000, the UK have only taken about 3000! And are you remotely aware of the issues that Italy have with illegal immigrants?

And of course, it's amazing that somehow a homeless refugee in a war-torn country who has lost all his family is aware of the ins and outs of the UK welfare system :rolleyes: Asylum seekers are not allowed to work in the UK and most only receive about £5 a day.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

There was a study done by the University College London , quoted by the BBC , which said that immigrants contributed £25 Billion to the UK economy .
But the BBC [ which is paid Millions per year by the EU to promote the EU ], forgot to mention the part in the study which said the total cost to the UK was £95 Billion per year .
So all the immigration which was encouraged by the Labour government is costing the rest of us £70 Billion PER YEAR .
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10693022/Immigrants-cost-Britain-3000-a-year-each-says-report.html

You do realise that you posted a study from Migrationwatch UK? Like they don't have an agenda of their own?

[D-Type]

On the immigration issue: if Britain isn't attractiver to immigrants why is there a camp at Calais?

On the question of where is Britain headed. The problem is that for various reasons the manufacturing base that underpins the economy has been eroded at the same time as countries abroad are expanding their manufacturing capacity. We are now in the position that we have to compete with countries with lower costs, which can be due to lower wage levels and standard of living, or to having more modern plant rather than older plant that's been updated.
But, unfortunately, people's expectations have not fallen to match the fall in real national income.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

On the immigration issue: if Britain isn't attractiver to immigrants why is there a camp at Calais?
.

Well think about it.

If you are an asylum seeker who has landed first in Greece and had your application for asylum rejected then you might think you'll have another chance if you move on to Italy, the same thing happens in Italy so you move on to France. The same thing happens in France so your last shot is England. As a result the last stop is Calais because of the geography of Europe. The fact that there is a camp at Calais shows that it is harder to get into the UK than many would think.

If there are 'pull factors' attracting people to Britain then it is more likely to be the English language that they already know, not state benefits.

[Mark]

If there are 'pull factors' attracting people to Britain then it is more likely to be the English language that they already know, not state benefits.

The language, and perceived employment opportunities are a big factor.

Again my post was prompted by David Cameron saying he's going to attempt to limit immigration from within the EU, and we may even end up leaving the EU because of it. But I worry that we may end up sleep walking out of the EU because of the 'immigration problem', but what would leaving the EU do about the camps in Calais? Nothing whatsoever, because the people there don't have the right to live and work in the UK being in or out of the EU would make no difference.

[Tel 911S]

You do realise that you posted a study from Migrationwatch UK? Like they don't have an agenda of their own?

The item was picked up by many other news companies & interested organisations .
The main context was that the BBC were lying [ by omission ] about a report by an independent organisation which proved that overall immigration was costing this country an enormous amount of money .
Of course Migration Watch jumped on it , but it was not their original study , & many other non left wing media reports highlighted it .

So it would seem that the socialists are still trying to claim that immigration is good for the UK, despite overwhelming public condemnation .
BBC poll [ is immigration good for the UK ] 95% no . Not the result they wanted so they are now trying to hide the figures .

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The item was picked up by many other news companies & interested organisations .
The main context was that the BBC were lying [ by omission ] about a report by an independent organisation which proved that overall immigration was costing this country an enormous amount of money .
Of course Migration Watch jumped on it , but it was not their original study , & many other non left wing media reports highlighted it .

So it would seem that the socialists are still trying to claim that immigration is good for the UK, despite overwhelming public condemnation .
BBC poll [ is immigration good for the UK ] 95% no . Not the result they wanted so they are now trying to hide the figures .

The report originally from UCL was misinterpreted by Migrationwatch who simply guessed a lot of the figures to try and prove their point and has been blasted by academics.
http://www.cream-migration.org/commentsarticle.php?blog=8

The inconvenient truth is that Britain has an ageing population with people of a pension age growing faster than the working age population. The only options to address this in the sort term are:

a) make people work longer
b) reduce the state pension
c) increase the working age population (immigrants of a working age)

This isn't some sort of socialist agenda and I understand why it is unpopular with many people, but it is simple economics and demographics.

[odykas]

Well think about it.

If you are an asylum seeker who has landed first in Greece and had your application for asylum rejected then you might think you'll have another chance if you move on to Italy, the same thing happens in Italy so you move on to France. .

Dublin regulation specifies that the country where the immigrant enters EU area is responsible to examine the asylum application. So, in case an immigrant from Tunisia lands in Italy then Italy does not allow him to move to France because that would violate the Dublin regulation and France would have any right to send him back.

The result of this agreement is that the countries in South Europe are overwhelmed with immigrants from Africa and Middle East, the vast majority of them would like to go to Germany, France, UK, Sweden, etc.

So, it's strange to me that people in UK complain about immigration problems.

[Tel 911S]

The report originally from UCL was misinterpreted by Migrationwatch who simply guessed a lot of the figures to try and prove their point and has been blasted by academics.
http://www.cream-migration.org/commentsarticle.php?blog=8

The inconvenient truth is that Britain has an ageing population with people of a pension age growing faster than the working age population. The only options to address this in the sort term are:

a) make people work longer
b) reduce the state pension
c) increase the working age population (immigrants of a working age)

This isn't some sort of socialist agenda and I understand why it is unpopular with many people, but it is simple economics and demographics.

So are you trying to say that the pension shortfall is nothing to do with the fact that one of the first things Gordon Brown did when he became Chancellor was to raid the UK pension funds to the Value of something over £100 Billion .

[Brown, Jon Brow]

So are you trying to say that the pension shortfall is nothing to do with the fact that one of the first things Gordon Brown did when he became Chancellor was to raid the UK pension funds to the Value of something over £100 Billion .

I agree, it is fair to say that this contributed to the problem for some people, but not as much as an ageing population does.

But we are digressing from the thread topic here.

[driveace]

So cut they old age pension Jon ?
Just tell me how much the old age pension is Jon !

[Brown, Jon Brow]

So cut they old age pension Jon ?
Just tell me how much the old age pension is Jon !

I didn't say that I advocated cutting the state the pension, I merely stated that it is one option to address the pension shortfall.

So if that option is off the table then your other two options are going to be increasing the working population by working for longer or increasing population of working age i.e immigrants.

[driveace]

My pension is £104 per week ,my partners £52 ,so a total of £156
Luckily I did work until I was 73 ,and have provided for my later life ,but £156 is not going to get me many extras !

[Brown, Jon Brow]

My pension is £104 per week ,my partners £52 ,so a total of £156
Luckily I did work until I was 73 ,and have provided for my later life ,but £156 is not going to get me many extras !

Do you own your own house?

[driveace]

Yes ,and not had a mortgage since 1985 ! As I planned ahead .In life you plan your luck ,your not lucky unless you win the pools or the lottery!
I feel we can be stronger and better out of the EU ,but you don't ! We are all entitled to our opinion,but I feel the majority also feel the same way .How can ONE cap fit all the same people ?
Every country relies on different things to survive Germany has the car industry,France the farming .What does Eire,Greece,and Portugal have ?

[Mark]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29754168 this is not a good time for the EU to be asking for £2bn.

[Starter]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29754168 this is not a good time for the EU to be asking for £2bn.
That'll pretty much take anyone off the fence who was undecided on the subject before.

[Mark]

That'll pretty much take anyone off the fence who was undecided on the subject before.

I've always been pro-EU and that even makes me go 'WTF, hang on a minute!'

[odykas]

So Cameron vows not to pay the bill?

In June he warned that Britain could leave EU in case Juncker was elected.
I'm still waiting to see his response given that Juncker is about to take the office.

[MrJan]

I've always been pro-EU and that even makes me go 'WTF, hang on a minute!'

Yep. When I heard about it my first impression was that we just refuse to pay it...which is probably what any other country would do. I'm also not quite sure why Germany get a hand out, when they've been held up as being a real example to the rest of us during the downturn over the last 6 years or so.

[driveace]

If ever there was a reason to leave this GermanFranco club ,this is it ! Not happy. With 55 million a day ,now the blood suckers want more
Somebody with more IT knowledge than me please set up a voting thing on here and let's see how everybody votes

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I think we should be careful not to be too reactionary regarding this. £1.7 billion may sound like a huge figure but if you take into account the decade or so we've been apparently underpaying for, it amounts to a rounding error of about 0.1%.

It should have little or no effect on the economic arguments that overwhelmingly favour us staying in the EU.

However, the whole thing has been badly handled by the UK government and the EU. Some of the people inside the Treasury will have known about this for months or longer, so it shouldn't have been allowed to come as a surprise. And the EU seems to be completely oblivious to the political hot potato that it is at the minute in the UK. Why announce it now when we have a bye-election in a few week where one of the front-running parties is anti-EU?

[donKey jote]

It's not out of the blue. The UK knew it was coming since the accounting rules were changed (2002!). I reckon the timing is political, to put Cameron in his place ;) :p

[Brown, Jon Brow]

It's not out of the blue. The UK knew it was coming since the accounting rules were changed (2002!). I reckon the timing is political, to put Cameron in his place ;) :p

But why would the EU want to give more fire-power to Farage?

[odykas]

Merkel moves to block Cameron’s plan to limit EU migrants (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4248216.ece)



The German chancellor said her country was not willing to compromise the “fundamental principle” of free movement within the 28 nation bloc. Her intervention comes days after Mr Cameron threatened to introduce quotas for EU workers in a bid to find a way to wrest control of its borders back from Brussels.


Cameron now wants to change the fundamental principles of EU that include the free movement of goods and people within the EU countries.
It's obvious that this is part of a campaign to mitigate loss of voters to UKIP rather than his real EU strategy.

[donKey jote]

But why would the EU want to give more fire-power to Farage?

Maybe they just want him to stop sitting on the fence, whinging and putting his stick in the works ;) :p

[Roamy]

the UK is headed for sharia law - big ben will be renamed big mohammud

[Malbec]

On the immigration issue: if Britain isn't attractiver to immigrants why is there a camp at Calais?

Two reasons. Firstly we can blame the Americans for making English such a universally taught language that many migrants to the EU will head for the one country where they already know the language which is the UK. Secondly thanks to having a massive Empire that spanned the globe many will go to what they feel is the country they have the closest affinity with which is... the UK. Francophones tend to head for France, Turks tend to head for Germany. South Americans go to Spain except for Brazilians who head to Portugal or Italy where many of them are from and which allow dual citizenship.

I find it amusing that the Daily Mail sell this concept that Afghans are huddled around some benefits comparison website before choosing which country to head to in the EU.

Also we should stop deluding ourselves that we have anything like the worst refugee problem. Try telling that to the Greeks and Italians, both of which are often the point of entry for migrants and are therefore the ones that have the biggest problem.

[Malbec]

However, the whole thing has been badly handled by the UK government and the EU. Some of the people inside the Treasury will have known about this for months or longer, so it shouldn't have been allowed to come as a surprise. And the EU seems to be completely oblivious to the political hot potato that it is at the minute in the UK. Why announce it now when we have a bye-election in a few week where one of the front-running parties is anti-EU?

I think we've run out of political capital in the EU. All Cameron can threaten is to leave the EU with each tantrum he has, I think many in the EU would be happy with that as all we do is block changes and try to renegotiate EU fundamentals. Also I don't think Britain's internal politics are particularly high when it comes to announcing things like this.

As driveace's posts show there are many in the UK, particularly in the older population who just will not believe the benefits EU membership gives us WRT trade and so on no matter how many times they are told. I think its time to have a vote, leave the EU and see the British economy sink before begging to rejoin again. Perhaps then we will have a graphic demonstration of what exactly the UK gets from the EU, many will be surprised when multinational banks and manufacturers leave the UK leaving millions unemployed with a massive hole in the budget. It will hurt and might bankrupt the country but how else will people here learn?

[pino]

BBC should send live coverage from Sicily everyday, so everyone in UK could see, who really has an immigration problem...

[Rudy Tamasz]

many will be surprised when multinational banks and manufacturers leave the UK leaving millions unemployed with a massive hole in the budget. It will hurt and might bankrupt the country but how else will people here learn?

Does it mean the City is the main beneficiary of the UK membership in the EU and simply keeps the rest of the population hostages?

[donKey jote]

Really? :andrea:

[Big Ben]

freakin' bastards... sending money back to their wives and children... how do they dare? :rolleyes:

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Most people have a problem with immigration from within the EU. They also have a problem that a male immigrant here ,gets money to send back to his wife and children living in his former country.

Ok, well please enlighten us to why someone sending their own money that they've earned back to their family is a problem?

[Rudy Tamasz]

freakin' bastards... sending money back to their wives and children... how do they dare? :rolleyes:

Out- bloody -rageous!

[driveace]

Claiming money for wives and children that still live in the original country of the person claiming the money in the UK !And they are NOT working for it either !
Would it be OK for me to illegally claim money for my Daughter living in Australia ?
The mayor of Calais says that the UK IS seen as a "Soft Touch" and the benefits are a magnet to immigrants !
Then of course to all the do gooders she is talking sh* t I suppose !

[driveace]

Ok, well please enlighten us to why someone sending their own money that they've earned back to their family is a problem?

Not earned !!!! Claimed from the UK benefits system !

[Starter]

Ok, well please enlighten us to why someone sending their own money that they've earned back to their family is a problem?
That's the heart of the problem. People who think that money received from the government in return for no work has been earned. Fantasyland for sure.

[Malbec]

Claiming money for wives and children that still live in the original country of the person claiming the money in the UK !And they are NOT working for it either !
Would it be OK for me to illegally claim money for my Daughter living in Australia ?
The mayor of Calais says that the UK IS seen as a "Soft Touch" and the benefits are a magnet to immigrants !
Then of course to all the do gooders she is talking sh* t I suppose !

Total benefit fraud costs the UK £1.1 billion per year, most of which is from British nationals who form the vast majority of benefits claimants. Now that is a lot, but to put it into perspective its 0.7% of the total benefits budget (£164 billion FY 2013/4). Although it needs to be reduced it is certainly not the biggest problem facing the UK or the treasury, and migrants are only a small part of the problem.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/322480/nsf-final-230614.pdf

BTW if you think the UK is a soft touch for benefits compared to France you clearly don't know anything about the French system!

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Claiming money for wives and children that still live in the original country of the person claiming the money in the UK !And they are NOT working for it either !
Would it be OK for me to illegally claim money for my Daughter living in Australia ?
The mayor of Calais says that the UK IS seen as a "Soft Touch" and the benefits are a magnet to immigrants !
Then of course to all the do gooders she is talking sh* t I suppose !

So just because an immigrant has money you automatically assume that they have received it through benefits?

[driveace]

Well Mal if you know better that the Mayor of Calais ,who states that she can understand why all the immigrants final destination is the UK.She states the benefits system is a MAGNET ,and that the UK is seen as a SOFT TOUCH !
She lives there ,and surely she knows the French system better than YOU and I !
Bet your not a UKIP or Conservative voter !

[Brown, Jon Brow]

That's the heart of the problem. People who think that money received from the government in return for no work has been earned. Fantasyland for sure.

The heart of the problem is people stereotyping all immigrants as work shy benefit scroungers and pinning all the UKs so called 'problems' on foreigners, when the statistics show that EU migrants to the UK are less likely to be unemployed than UK nationals.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Well Mal if you know better that the Mayor of Calais ,who states that she can understand why all the immigrants final destination is the UK.She states the benefits system is a MAGNET ,and that the UK is seen as a SOFT TOUCH !
She lives there ,and surely she knows the French system better than YOU and I !
Bet your not a UKIP or Conservative voter !

It's amazing isn't it? Maybe I'll quit my job tomorrow as I'll be so much better off on the benefit system and have such a luxurious life.

[driveace]

Don't automatically assume anything Jon !
Don't you read or watch TV !
Fact is that many people claiming benefits also claim for family still living in their mother country !
I talk to people who are unemployed ,who visit benefits offices ,rather than find them work ,they are made aware of more benefits they can claim.
I know a guy who got in touch with the government employment agency ,he had a vacancy for a parts delivery person .
After 10 days nobody turned up for an interview .He rang the employment agency ,to be told ,they had sent 8 people ! Not 1 turned up !The following day a guy turns up .The employed says "Why did you leave your last job"? The reply was " I couldn't stand the foreman,and I smacked him in the mouth" !Did he want employment ?

[Malbec]

Well Mal if you know better that the Mayor of Calais ,who states that she can understand why all the immigrants final destination is the UK.She states the benefits system is a MAGNET ,and that the UK is seen as a SOFT TOUCH !
She lives there ,and surely she knows the French system better than YOU and I !
Bet your not a UKIP or Conservative voter !

My wife is French so I'm quite aware of their benefits system thanks. I've seen what you claim is your pension in the UK, I suggest you look up what you would be receiving in France and not go green with envy. Or unemployment benefits or disability entitlements. What they are entitled to is shocking and unsustainable but that's another topic.

[BDunnell]

What a surprise that the person advocating most strongly the UKIP position on benefits should display such poor standards of English.

[driveace]

OK guys ,what's the answer to the UKs problems ?
No limits on immigration
Stay in the EU
Pay more to Pensioners and more Money for benefit claimants
Bring back all the coal mining jobs
Cut V.A.T on everything to 10%
Tax the people who earn £100,000 at 60%
Tell me your plans

[Starter]

The heart of the problem is people stereotyping all immigrants as work shy benefit scroungers and pinning all the UKs so called 'problems' on foreigners, when the statistics show that EU migrants to the UK are less likely to be unemployed than UK nationals.
You might want to remember that, while most of the discussion has been about immigrants, I did not specify them. Malbec noted a couple posts above about the total, not just immigrant, benefit problem. Any system that pays to people for sitting around is doomed long term. Despite various reform attempts, we have a similar problem here. Paying even more for people not citizens or not actually in the country is madness.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

You might want to remember that, while most of the discussion has been about immigrants, I did not specify them. Malbec noted a couple posts above about the total, not just immigrant, benefit problem. Any system that pays to people for sitting around is doomed long term. Despite various reform attempts, we have a similar problem here. Paying even more for people not citizens or not actually in the country is madness.

Read Malbec's post again. The apparent 'problem' is about 0.7% of benefit spending. Yes, ideally you want this to be 0% but is this 0.7% going to doom the country? Of course it isn't.

The electorate needs to rethink its priorities.

[Mark]

My original point in starting this thread was to point out that leaving the EU won't solve the majority of the migration 'problem' since the migrants that are most complained about are from outside the EU.

[Big Ben]

UK, like most countries, should face the truth. Their welfare system is broken. Too many people who don't deserve it have access to welfare. The problem is that politicians have no incentive to do much about it. They go on about immigrants because they are easy targets. Doing what must be done, cutting the benefits for all the leeches that parasitize the system, immigrants or British, can and probably will hurt their political ambitions.

[airshifter]

UK, like most countries, should face the truth. Their welfare system is broken. Too many people who don't deserve it have access to welfare. The problem is that politicians have no incentive to do much about it. They go on about immigrants because they are easy targets. Doing what must be done, cutting the benefits for all the leeches that parasitize the system, immigrants or British, can and probably will hurt their political ambitions.

You can't buy votes without handing out money in some form. Maybe at some point the politicians in our countries will wake up and figure out that if the working class can find good enough jobs, then we can fund the welfare that is actually needed, not given for the sake of giving it.

Here in the US there are loopholes in every assistance/welfare system, and they allow for easily screwing the system. That's why so many people do it.

[Starter]

There is always someone looking for a free ride. If access to that ride is made too easy, then the number of people interested in taking it rises. That's human nature and any system that doesn't take human nature into account will ultimately fail of its own weight.

Welfare systems were originally meant as a short term bridge for people who had experienced bad luck to get back on their feet. That is a laudable goal which I support. It's when the bridge becomes a lifestyle that the long term viability of the system comes into doubt. The moneys spent on welfare would be much better served if they were spent on infrastructure improvements and such. That would create jobs and income for those willing to work. For those not willing to work and who don't have a real (not pretend) disability - screw em.

[Malbec]

There is always someone looking for a free ride. If access to that ride is made too easy, then the number of people interested in taking it rises. That's human nature and any system that doesn't take human nature into account will ultimately fail of its own weight.

Welfare systems were originally meant as a short term bridge for people who had experienced bad luck to get back on their feet. That is a laudable goal which I support. It's when the bridge becomes a lifestyle that the long term viability of the system comes into doubt. The moneys spent on welfare would be much better served if they were spent on infrastructure improvements and such. That would create jobs and income for those willing to work. For those not willing to work and who don't have a real (not pretend) disability - screw em.

So how many people actually use welfare as a lifestyle choice?

We in the UK like most developed countries use the benefits system as a means of calculating the total number of unemployed. The vast majority of people transit through benefits and eventually find employment, so much so that we (like every developed country on earth) can use the number of benefits recipients as an index of economic performance. Better economic performance results in a direct lowering of the unemployment rate which is statistically significant enough to base economic policy on, even if many people choose jobs that pay barely more than what they get anyway through benefits. We know that obviously there is a minority who do not seek work and sponge off the system for most of their life but it is important to remember they are a minority, not large enough to skew the statistics significantly.

As for being a bridge, its interesting that different countries have such differing attitudes. In the UK unemployment benefits are at subsistence level and you need to have demonstrated that you have used up much of your assets before becoming eligible. In France and other continental countries the attitude is very different. If you are a high earner then you would have put in much more money into the system via tax than others, therefore it is only right and just that you get more out of the system when you are unlucky in life, therefore unemployment benefit comes in as soon as you lose your job and is linked to your pre-redundancy salary...

[Starter]

So how many people actually use welfare as a lifestyle choice?

It doesn't take too awfully many people abusing the system to invalidate it. And as usual, percentage statistics can be misleading. You say the vast majority go through the system and back into the workforce - which is the goal of course. What is that vast majority in terms of actual numbers though. Or more to the point, what is the actual number who don't? If its a hundred people that is lost in the noise. If its ten thousand (most likely much more), then that is significant People need to have a vested interest for any system to function. A free hand out is most definitely not giving anyone a vested interest in the system. Its just creating a dependent class. Working for that benefit, even if its sweeping the public areas, gives some sense of self worth and, more importantly, gives most a desire and incentive to find better job ;). The problem with most welfare systems is that they are just free handouts. They'd work so much better if the programs were using basic human nature as a positive force toward the goal instead of the current disincentive.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I wouldn't agree that a few people abusing the system is enough to conclude that the benefit system isn't working. In the case of the UK, as the vast majority of people are only on unemployment benefits for 6 months before they get back into to work, then it shows that the system is largely working as intended. For the vast majority unemployment benefits are not a 'hand out' but a 'hand up' back into employment.


Working for that benefit, even if its sweeping the public areas, gives some sense of self worth and, more importantly, gives most a desire and incentive to find better job ;)
But many people like Starter are ideologically opposed to giving 'hand outs' for people who are not contributing. The example of getting people to work to receive their benefits is basically just forcing unpaid labour. It is only one step up from slavery.

In this case would it be better for businesses to have incentives to pay a higher minimum wage? Essentially taking away the state 'hand out' and distributing it through employment. This would increase the attraction of work. It would be more beneficial for the recipient than unemployment benefit as he would be gaining work experience and skills that could lead to better work. As well as this, higher disposable incomes would increase economic activity in general.

[Starter]

But many people like Starter are ideologically opposed to giving 'hand outs' for people who are not contributing. The example of getting people to work to receive their benefits is basically just forcing unpaid labour. It is only one step up from slavery.

?? Where did I say to force anyone? I just suggested that if you want to get something then you need to do something in return for it. Other than taking up space and using air. If someone doesn't feel they want to work for a government benefit more power to them. They just wouldn't get the benefit. That's hardly slavery. There's what, some seven billion or so people in the world? No one is so special that if they don't want to try they should get a free ride.

[airshifter]

I wouldn't agree that a few people abusing the system is enough to conclude that the benefit system isn't working. In the case of the UK, as the vast majority of people are only on unemployment benefits for 6 months before they get back into to work, then it shows that the system is largely working as intended. For the vast majority unemployment benefits are not a 'hand out' but a 'hand up' back into employment.


But many people like Starter are ideologically opposed to giving 'hand outs' for people who are not contributing. The example of getting people to work to receive their benefits is basically just forcing unpaid labour. It is only one step up from slavery.

In this case would it be better for businesses to have incentives to pay a higher minimum wage? Essentially taking away the state 'hand out' and distributing it through employment. This would increase the attraction of work. It would be more beneficial for the recipient than unemployment benefit as he would be gaining work experience and skills that could lead to better work. As well as this, higher disposable incomes would increase economic activity in general.


I didn't see anywhere where Starter opposed a hand up, just that he opposed a hand out. And on that point I agree with him. None of us should work harder/longer/smarter to support those that don't want to do for themselves.

And here in the US, similar to the UK, unemployment benefit are limited. To me the real burden on the system is the long term disability type payments, housing assistance, tax breaks, etc. I have no problem with helping those that actually need help, but I frequently see examples of it being abused.

Here in the US, the taxation system has become a means of assistance, and the system has huge loopholes in it. Combined with those abusing the system intentionally, it's money completely wasted on the lazy or those intentionally working the system. And in some cases, it requires no ill intention, it's just a screwed up system with loopholes so large that those doing everything legally still get a greater benefit than they should.


I can agree that more money spent on job creation, higher wages, etc would all be a good thing. But in the absence of that, I personally would have no problem if a person (of able mind and body) would have to perform work for the government helping them. There are plenty of ways they could also have said people perform work that would save the government money in assistance programs and at the same time give people job training. We have a local city that runs a large program doing just that, and it helps get people back to work as well as keeps them from paying out so much money.

[donKey jote]

Forget the few lazy sods cheating the system. They amount to peanuts against bonuses for the managers of bailed out businesses, tax fraudsters, money launderers... How many of these are immigrants, I wonder :dozey:

[janvanvurpa]

Forget the few lazy sods cheating the system. They amount to peanuts against bonuses for the managers of bailed out businesses, tax fraudsters, money launderers... How many of these are immigrants, I wonder :dozey:

Not able to comment on the details of England's system but we know they "the financial sector" has never been more entrenched, and more profitable than in recent years....In that respect England mimics America...
And as an example of what you say above we just voted in mid-term elections.
2 of the things we had to vote on were to float bonds to pay for the local school system---because for 3 years our REPUBLICAN controlled State legislature has been "unable" to write a budget to allocate funds which by law they must--and are in fact been judged in contempt of the Supreme Court of the State..

3 years..no mandatory budget for schools...

But it took these lackeys just 3 days to put together and pass a $9,000,000,000 tax "deferal"---a gift---for Boeing (who has nearly abandoned manufactring things in this state (sure they still assemble aircraft....but they don't MAKE a lot of the things they assemble here)

Boeing CEO somehow has to struggle along on just:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/03/14/compensation-for-boeing-ceo-soars/6425487/


Boeing CEO James McNerney's 2013 compensation soared in 2013.
McNerney's pay was up 9.4% to $23.2 million from about $21.2 million in 2012. But his overall compensation jumped 66% on a $24.2 million gain from restricted shares that vested and from previously awarded stock options McNerney cashed in, Boeing said Friday in its annual proxy. McNerney gained about $7.3 million from vested shares and exercised stock options in 2012.
McNerney's $1.9 million salary, $3.7 million stock award and $3.7 million stock option grant were virtually unchanged from 2012. His annual incentive bonus grew 19% to $12.8 million.
Boeing valued McNerney's perks at $885,000, including:
$305,000 for personal use of corporate aircraft,
$51,700 for ground transport
and nearly $44,000 for tax preparation and planning services.



And pooor ol Boeing is really in need of that 9 billion tax break:

The commercial and military aircraft giant delivered a record 648 airliners last year and had massive backlog order for 1,355 more.

But really I shouldn't complain, giving Boeing a 9 billion dollar break only costs each man, woman and child in this state just $1304....chicken feed to the CEO

[donKey jote]

Oh but you can't suggest that the big job providers might pay their fair share, or they'll surely close shop and take their monies elsewhere :yadayada:
No, let's focus on the real problem: that 0.1% of lazy immigrants who play the system.
Or the 0.2% of feckless natives like these for example:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-29599487
Time to close the borders !!!

[odykas]

Juncker's new EU Commission takes office (http://news.yahoo.com/junckers-eu-commission-takes-office-095024142.html)

Good news for Europe.

Bad news for David Cameron.

[Starter]

Not able to comment on the details of England's system but we know they "the financial sector" has never been more entrenched, and more profitable than in recent years....In that respect England mimics America...
And as an example of what you say above we just voted in mid-term elections.......

.....complain, giving Boeing a 9 billion dollar break only costs each man, woman and child in this state just $1304....chicken feed to the CEO
Couldn't agree with you more in this case. Maryland, where I live, has a Democratic Governor and Legislature which does much the same thing. Doesn't seem to make much difference which party is in power, they all do the same thing. Then of course they raise everybody else's taxes to make up for the give away. The problem is the tax code no matter who writes it - they're all trying to buy votes. As far as corporations are concerned, I'd give them a flat, much smaller, tax rate and take back all the special exemptions and give aways. Everybody pays at the same rate and doesn't get to write anything off. The only problem with my plan is that the next batch of pols elected, from either party, will start the whole thing all over again.

[Lousada]

One of the great things the EU has done is to forbid the members states to give any kind of support to individual companies. If a government decides to give a taxbreak or a subsidy to a company, it must provide it to the complete branch of industry. And even then the EU investigates it completely to ensure the rulings are perfectly equal for everyone. The incentive to ask for handouts is much lower if you know your competitor will get the exact same deal as you. Of course there is still protectionism and favouritism in the EU, but you do not see the shameless bidding wars like those between US states vying for a factory.

If the UK leaves the European Union, one wonders how fast Cameron hands over billions to his CEO-Friends from the City.

EDIT: Here you can read it better explained than I did. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/overview/index_en.html

[Brown, Jon Brow]

?? Where did I say to force anyone? I just suggested that if you want to get something then you need to do something in return for it. Other than taking up space and using air. If someone doesn't feel they want to work for a government benefit more power to them. They just wouldn't get the benefit. That's hardly slavery. There's what, some seven billion or so people in the world? No one is so special that if they don't want to try they should get a free ride.

Technically you're not forcing them, but if they want to eat or pay the rent while they search for a new job you're not giving them much choice are you?

[Starter]

Technically you're not forcing them, but if they want to eat or pay the rent while they search for a new job you're not giving them much choice are you?
They have a definite choice. Fend for themselves or do some sort of labor in return for food, lodging and healthcare while they look for a suitable position. In what world is that akin to slavery? By the standard you've brought up, everyone with a job they do for the money and not because they love it is one short step from slavery.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

They have a definite choice. Fend for themselves or do some sort of labor in return for food, lodging and healthcare while they look for a suitable position. In what world is that akin to slavery? By the standard you've brought up, everyone with a job they do for the money and not because they love it is one short step from slavery.

As I say, not much of a choice. Homelessness or forced labour.

What type of labour are you going to have them do exactly?

It would be more beneficial to the individual if in order to receive their benefits they had to attend workshops that gave advice on how to improve their C.V and how to approach job applications and interviews.

[airshifter]

As I say, not much of a choice. Homelessness or forced labour.



I think the point you are missing is that really for most this is a choice all of us have to make. How many people do you know that would continue to go to work if it didn't provide wages?

[driveace]

Nobody is forced to work
BUT if it was work and earn money to feed oneself and provide a home OR dont work ,and NO handouts ,then why would you not want to work ?
We have the situation where people will NOT take a job ,as it does not pay as much as dole and sitting on your arse all day is the chosen route taken .We all make a choice in life ,whether we work for ourselves as Self Employed,or have an Employer ,of not to work and life on the dole .IF i was unemployed I gamble that within 5 days ,if not sooner I would have found work .
Just as a matter of interest Jon how long do YOU think people should be allowed to claim unemployment benefit ? And i dont expect a silly answer Like" until they find a job "

[Brown, Jon Brow]

We have the situation where people will NOT take a job ,as it does not pay as much as dole and sitting on your arse all day is the chosen route taken .

I common myth. What we have is a situation where people needlessly like to blame and vilify the most vulnerable people in society.

Job Seekers Allowance = £72.50 per week

Full time work on minimum wage = £260 per week


As to how long you can claim your dole? Well it should depend on how long you were previously employed for and how much you put into the system.

[Mark]

There was a story today about an electrician in Glasgow made redundant but then told he needed to go back to the same company and basically do his old job in order to receive job seekers allowance.

[BDunnell]

What a surprise that those expressing right-wing opinions in this thread should either be (a) inarticulate or (b) American.

It is striking how spectacularly ignorant Americans are whenever they come to (try to) discuss matters relating to a country that's not their own, whereas others' opinions of America are generally far more informed.

[BDunnell]

There was a story today about an electrician in Glasgow made redundant but then told he needed to go back to the same company and basically do his old job in order to receive job seekers allowance.

It was appalling. This is what this government wants, despite its claims to desire 'social mobility' and the like. Same old Tories, with an emasculated coalition party toeing the line.

[Starter]

What a surprise that those expressing right-wing opinions in this thread should either be (a) inarticulate or (b) American.

It is striking how spectacularly ignorant Americans are whenever they come to (try to) discuss matters relating to a country that's not their own, whereas others' opinions of America are generally far more informed.
At least one of those Europeans expressing opinions on American matters generally have shown themselves ignorant across the board. Perhaps they should take the personal insults and insert them in the same orifice where their head resides.

[Mark]

Everyone is permitted to give their opinion here and should not be derided for doing so. Unless they disagree with me of course :D

[donKey jote]

Really? :p

[Roamy]

Not able to comment on the details of England's system but we know they "the financial sector" has never been more entrenched, and more profitable than in recent years....In that respect England mimics America...
And as an example of what you say above we just voted in mid-term elections.
2 of the things we had to vote on were to float bonds to pay for the local school system---because for 3 years our REPUBLICAN controlled State legislature has been "unable" to write a budget to allocate funds which by law they must--and are in fact been judged in contempt of the Supreme Court of the State..

3 years..no mandatory budget for schools...

But it took these lackeys just 3 days to put together and pass a $9,000,000,000 tax "deferal"---a gift---for Boeing (who has nearly abandoned manufactring things in this state (sure they still assemble aircraft....but they don't MAKE a lot of the things they assemble here)

Boeing CEO somehow has to struggle along on just:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/03/14/compensation-for-boeing-ceo-soars/6425487/


And pooor ol Boeing is really in need of that 9 billion tax break:


But really I shouldn't complain, giving Boeing a 9 billion dollar break only costs each man, woman and child in this state just $1304....chicken feed to the CEO


how did you vote on 591 and 594 ??

[Brown, Jon Brow]

'New EU members add £5bn to UK says research'


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29910497

[airshifter]

'New EU members add £5bn to UK says research'


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29910497

That's only a certain portion of the immigrants, using the select portion they call the European Economic Area.

From the same link:

"The study also said immigrants from the wider European Economic Area - the European Union plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein - had made a positive financial contribution to the UK.

It found that:

EEA immigrants had made a fiscal contribution of £4.4bn between 1995 and 2011, non-EEA immigrants had made a negative net contribution of £118bn, and British people had made a negative net contribution of £591bn

More recently, between 2001 and 2011, European arrivals contributed £20bn and those from outside Europe £5bn

Immigrants who arrived since 2000 were 43% less likely than British people to receive state benefits or tax credits, and 7% less likely to live in social housing"


That demographic might have trouble fitting in, as they are contributing, where the immigrants from other countries and the British people have negative contributions. Maybe the best way to fix the UK is to kick the British out? :)

IMO none of the numbers help much without breaking it down to per year, per capita type format.

[Tel 911S]

The media have been rerunning the UCL figures saying that immigrants from EU countries have made a net contribution to the UKs economy .
But as these figures came from exactly the same "Academics " who predicted that there would only be about 13000 Poles come here to work when Poland joined the EU , it is not surprising that the figures are disputed .

But this time even the BBC admitted the that the total cost to the country of all immigration was over £120 Billion .

So , although the loony left will no doubt still try to claim that immigration is good , Labour,s plan to fill the place up with immigrants has cost every man , woman & child here over £2000 so far & is still rising .

[odykas]

But this time even the BBC admitted the that the total cost to the country of all immigration was over £120 Billion .
.

I don't get this. Immigrants work so they pay taxes and insurance fees to get benefits.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The media have been rerunning the UCL figures saying that immigrants from EU countries have made a net contribution to the UKs economy .
But as these figures came from exactly the same "Academics " who predicted that there would only be about 13000 Poles come here to work when Poland joined the EU , it is not surprising that the figures are disputed .

But this time even the BBC admitted the that the total cost to the country of all immigration was over £120 Billion .

So , although the loony left will no doubt still try to claim that immigration is good , Labour,s plan to fill the place up with immigrants has cost every man , woman & child here over £2000 so far & is still rising .

What has it got to do with the 'looney left'? Surely free movement of people as a part of a free market should be a trait of the economic right?

It's a shame that the data totally contradicts your noise.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/78781000/gif/_78781192_migration_effects2_464.gif


But then again the BBC didn't report on this fella:

https://scontent-b-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/p180x540/10411764_820687421339991_7023121594292498305_n.jpg ?oh=5123ed48e9e7334eca7c0f6d08b780a3&oe=54E82272

[Tel 911S]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11209234/Immigration-from-outside-Europe-cost-120-billion.html

This headline is not that difficult to understand . And even the BBC is saying the same thing , but deliberately making it a bit more obscure so as not to annoy its Labour party bosses .
But as I said , the left wing will totally ignore anything they don,t want to hear .

[donKey jote]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11209234/Immigration-from-outside-Europe-cost-120-billion.html

This headline is not that difficult to understand . And even the BBC is saying the same thing , but deliberately making it a bit more obscure so as not to annoy its Labour party bosses .
But as I said , the left wing will totally ignore anything they don,t want to hear .

the second paragraph reads "The major academic study also found, however, that recent immigration from Europe – driven by the surge in arrivals from eastern European – gave the economy a £4.4 billion boost over the same period."...
Now carry on whinging about loony left media, EU immigration, miscalculation of the amount of poles, and totally ignoring what you don't want to hear :laugh:

[Lousada]

Meanwhile....


Pepsi, IKEA, FedEx and 340 other international companies have secured secret deals from Luxembourg, allowing many of them to slash their global tax bills while maintaining little presence in the tiny European duchy, leaked documents show.

These companies appear to have channeled hundreds of billions of dollars through Luxembourg and saved billions of dollars in taxes, according to a review of nearly 28,000 pages of confidential documents conducted by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and a team of more than 80 journalists from 26 countries.

Source: http://www.icij.org/project/luxembourg-leaks/leaked-documents-expose-global-companies-secret-tax-deals-luxembourg

Yet its the immigrants that rob our countries, right...

[Brown, Jon Brow]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11209234/Immigration-from-outside-Europe-cost-120-billion.html

This headline is not that difficult to understand . And even the BBC is saying the same thing , but deliberately making it a bit more obscure so as not to annoy its Labour party bosses .
But as I said , the left wing will totally ignore anything they don,t want to hear .

So the Torygraph is more balanced?? :confused:

What the Torygraph has done is taken the set of figures in the study from 1995-2011. This addresses the contributions of all immigrants, no matter when they arrived in the UK. And per head they cost about the same as 'native' Britons. For example, an immigrant who arrived in the 1960s could have contributed for 35 years, but from 1995 they might have made a negative contribution as they have now retired.

They could have had a headline that shouted British cost Britain £600bn. But no, they focus on picking on the easier target so they can cause outrage amongst the usual reactionary Tory/UKIP voter.

The other figures are from 2001-2011 and they only look at the contributions of new immigrants that have arrived in the UK during that period. The report shows that new immigrants during this period have made a contribution.

[Tel 911S]

A recent public opinion poll on " IS IMMIGRATION GOOD FOR BRITAIN " had an overwhelming [ 95% ] no vote .
And with prominent left wingers now admitting it has been a disaster it is not surprising that the Labour party,s propaganda activists are desperately putting out all sorts of lies to try to regain some public confidence .
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2712677/How-mass-migration-hurts-No-s-not-Mail-saying-verdict-Left-wing-economist-Cambridge.html#ixzz3IDZB9rUq
Watch how quick the left wing lot claim this cannot be true because it was in the MAIL.
The EU has even been paying for internet trolls to go onto social media sites to try to boost its socialist agenda [ they paid for the UCL paper ] .

So I would say to everybody , " Don,t believe what these trolls & the biased parts of the mainstream media try to tell you , but find out the real truth from some unbiased sources ."

[Tel 911S]

So the Torygraph is more balanced?? :confused:

What the Torygraph has done is taken the set of figures in the study from 1995-2011. This addresses the contributions of all immigrants, no matter when they arrived in the UK. And per head they cost about the same as 'native' Britons. For example, an immigrant who arrived in the 1960s could have contributed for 35 years, but from 1995 they might have made a negative contribution as they have now retired.

They could have had a headline that shouted British cost Britain £600bn. But no, they focus on picking on the easier target so they can cause outrage amongst the usual reactionary Tory/UKIP voter.

The other figures are from 2001-2011 and they only look at the contributions of new immigrants that have arrived in the UK during that period. The report shows that new immigrants during this period have made a contribution.

It is very noticeable that you could not bring yourself to mention the part of the BBC report that says that ALL immigrants since 1995 have cost the country £118 Billion .

[Brown, Jon Brow]

It is very noticeable that you could not bring yourself to mention the part of the BBC report that says that ALL immigrants since 1995 have cost the country £118 Billion .

I deliberately didn't say that because it was already said in the headline of the article you posted. My point was that 'native' Britons have cost just as much per head as immigrants over the same period, so the fact immigrants have cost £118bn is irrelevant to the argument, i.e., it doesn't matter if you are 'native' or an immigrant you've probably made a net negative contribution.

If you had an agenda against facial hair the data would also probably show that people with moustaches have cost £xxbn over the same period......

[janvanvurpa]

What a surprise that those expressing right-wing opinions in this thread should either be (a) inarticulate or (b) American.

It is striking how spectacularly ignorant Americans are whenever they come to (try to) discuss matters relating to a country that's not their own, whereas others' opinions of America are generally far more informed.

Imagine the same trying to discuss their own country.. In America men talking is all about "winning the debate" and that means never ever ever admitting you don't know everything...as we see is the norm here...

There is no reason to believe that they are somehow crisp, clear, detaild and careful thinkers on one thing and appallingly ignorant on another..

Sloppy is as sloppy does. Or sumpin.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

So Cameron has come back from Brussels with a 'deal' that will give the UK a special status in Europe. Most senior Tories seem set on leaving the EU so Boris has decided he wants to leave as well.

Leaving the EU is a real prospect now. And it is likely that we will leave because the public thinks immigration is too high, rather than an informed choice based on the economic arguments.

In a years time the UK could be outside the EU with Boris as PM and Trump could be running America :s

[Rollo]

In a years time the UK could be outside the EU with Boris as PM and Trump could be running America :s

A year ago, it was still technically possible for Boris to run for President of the US as well.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11413801/Boris-Johnson-clears-way-to-Number-10-by-renouncing-US-passport.html
Boris Johnson is to renounce his US citizenship, removing a potential obstacle to becoming Prime Minister.
The London mayor has dual nationality as he was born in New York - but has now revealed he wants to hand back his American passport.
- The Telegraph, 14th Feb 2015

[driveace]

Well as we only export 6% of our goods to other EU countries,and the other 94% exported to other countries carry a levy imposed by the EU making our goods dearer.Looks like it's goodbye to the little people like Merkel ( who won't get elected again ,upsetting all the Germans with her letting the 1.1 millions people in ,130,000 of which have gone missing) Hollande,Tusk,and Junker. And be Great Britain again .We can build lots of new schools and hospitals with the £356 million that we save every week ,and NATO and the Americans keep us safe not the EU ! Go on guys shoot me down again !

[Big Ben]

I for one am not shooting you down. Vote to leave and leave. Everyone is making too much fuss over this. It's getting tiresome. Britain is anyway barely in the EU and is rarely constructive in any way. I wonder if Scotland leaves too. I hope they stay since they seem to be less self-deluded.

[Starter]

If it helps any, we'll be happy to send Trump over to work for either side. So long as you keep him after that is.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Well as we only export 6% of our goods to other EU countries,and the other 94% exported to other countries carry a levy imposed by the EU making our goods dearer.Looks like it's goodbye to the little people like Merkel ( who won't get elected again ,upsetting all the Germans with her letting the 1.1 millions people in ,130,000 of which have gone missing) Hollande,Tusk,and Junker. And be Great Britain again .We can build lots of new schools and hospitals with the £356 million that we save every week ,and NATO and the Americans keep us safe not the EU ! Go on guys shoot me down again !

6%?

We export about 45% of our goods to the EU.....

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I can't see any real advantages to gain from leaving the EU.

Yes, it would be nice if we could continue to trade with the EU but have full control of our borders and not have to contribute to the EU budget. But that is never going to happen.

If we leave and don't get a free trade agreement then it will be a disaster for the UK and bad news for the EU.

If we leave and do get a trade agreement we will still have to contribute to the EU budget, we will probably still have free movement of people, we will still have to comply with EU regulations. But we won't have any MEPs and lose a lot of our influence.

Norway is seen as a model of what the UK could be like but they still have open borders with the EU, still comply with 75% of EU legislation, still contribute over £100 per head to the budget (compared with £125 per head in the UK). The only reason they haven't joined is to keep their fishing industry happy.

[Big Ben]

You may not see the advantages now but you'll understand in the future when Utopia will be just an archaic word for Britain. The idea is simple (and the solution obvious). All of Britain's problems are caused by just one group of people, the rest of the world. I also recommend building a big wall.

[Big Ben]

6%?

We export about 45% of our goods to the EU.....

Are you going to bother with that? There's a very deep understanding of a complex issue there. It's all about adding and subtracting. You subtract here, you add there, everything else will be just the same. Problem solved.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I can't see any real advantages to gain from leaving the EU.

Not being governed by a bunch of unelected foreign bureaucrats is an advantage in my view.

[Big Ben]

Not being governed by a bunch of unelected foreign bureaucrats is an advantage in my view.

In how many countries are the members of the government actually elected? Also interesting how foreign has an obvious negative connotation for you. That is ridiculous. Are you really satisfied with your perpetually 'elected' not foreign president (if your location is real)?

[Rudy Tamasz]

In how many countries are the members of the government actually elected? Also interesting how foreign has an obvious negative connotation for you. That is ridiculous. Are you really satisfied with your perpetually 'elected' not foreign president (if your location is real)?

Hit back with an argument about my own country, which is not the subject of this discussion, wouldn't you? ;)

The answer about members of the government being elected is they are elected in very few countries if any. It is the parliamentarians who are elected and who the government members report to. The thing about EU is that the balance of powers there is heavily skewed towards the executive branch. EU is effectively controlled by the European Commission, which is a law upon itself and is not really accountable to anybody. The unaccountability of the government is a big issue in my country and that's exactly where I'm coming from.

You are also apt at finding negativity where there is none. "Foreign" in this case means "unaccountable to local people", that's it. "Foreign" per se might be as good as it gets, but in the context of governance, governing bodies have to be accountable to their constituencies. The European Commission is clearly not accountable to the voters of any given EU country. This situation is not negative or positive. It is just unacceptable.

BTW, if I may, what is the income tax rate that you pay in your country?

[Big Ben]

Hit back with an argument about my own country, which is not the subject of this discussion, wouldn't you? ;)

The answer about members of the government being elected is they are elected in very few countries if any. It is the parliamentarians who are elected and who the government members report to. The thing about EU is that the balance of powers there is heavily skewed towards the executive branch. EU is effectively controlled by the European Commission, which is a law upon itself and is not really accountable to anybody. The unaccountability of the government is a big issue in my country and that's exactly where I'm coming from.

You are also apt at finding negativity where there is none. "Foreign" in this case means "unaccountable to local people", that's it. "Foreign" per se might be as good as it gets, but in the context of governance, governing bodies have to be accountable to their constituencies. The European Commission is clearly not accountable to the voters of any given EU country. This situation is not negative or positive. It is just unacceptable.

BTW, if I may, what is the income tax rate that you pay in your country?



16%

[Big Ben]

I don't see it as 'hitting back'. It looked like a good example to show that foreign doesn't equal bad and local doesn't equal good. I don't think the government of the UE is perfect. On the contrary, it has many problems but the 'Brexit' is not the way forward for anyone. I'd rather they stayed in it and try and fix it. But as I said, there're barely in right now. Whenever there's something going in the UE do you have hear anything about Britain's contribution to solving the problem?

Britain has plenty of problems of their own making but it's always easier to blame everyone else.

[Rudy Tamasz]

16%

Pretty good and quite un-EU like...

[Rudy Tamasz]

I don't see it as 'hitting back'. It looked like a good example to show that foreign doesn't equal bad and local doesn't equal good. I don't think the government of the UE is perfect. On the contrary, it has many problems but the 'Brexit' is not the way forward for anyone. I'd rather they stayed in it and try and fix it. But as I said, there're barely in right now. Whenever there's something going in the UE do you have hear anything about Britain's contribution to solving the problem?

Britain has plenty of problems of their own making but it's always easier to blame everyone else.

I'd say they are fully in and they are not happy with the deal they are getting. It's like a marriage, which came to a crisis. If I were a Brit, I'd try try to renegotiate the deal as hard as I can, then look at the result and see if it is worth conducting a referendum. That's what Cameron is doing, but he lacks some steel in his spine, some god ole British Steel...

[Big Ben]

I'd say they are fully in and they are not happy with the deal they are getting. It's like a marriage, which came to a crisis. If I were a Brit, I'd try try to renegotiate the deal as hard as I can, then look at the result and see if it is worth conducting a referendum. That's what Cameron is doing, but he lacks some steel in his spine, some god ole British Steel...

Yes, it's like a marriage with 28 spouses :laugh: where britain's the one that wants to keep her money but wants to eat with the family too :laugh:.
An union where every member is getting a special deal would work so much better than the one we have now, wouldn't it?

[Rudy Tamasz]

Yes, it's like a marriage with 28 spouses :laugh: where britain's the one that wants to keep her money but wants to eat with the family too :laugh:.
An union where every member is getting a special deal would work so much better than the one we have now, wouldn't it?

Britain is a net donor to the EU budget, not a net recipient, isn't it? If it wants to eat with everybody, it does so based on the fact that it pays the bill, unlike some other party guests. Also, these days everybody stands for free trade. If Britain wants free trade with EU without political submission, what's wrong or illegitimate with it?

[Big Ben]

Britain is a net donor to the EU budget, not a net recipient, isn't it? If it wants to eat with everybody, it does so based on the fact that it pays the bill, unlike some other party guests. Also, these days everybody stands for free trade. If Britain wants free trade with EU without political submission, what's wrong or illegitimate with it?

Who are these other party guests?

[Rudy Tamasz]

One that comes to mind is Lithuania. I recall at the height of the economic crisis in 2009 some 30 per cent of its budget came as a direct monetary infusion from EU. The country would go bankrupt otherwise. This is just one example.