Re: Brexit Anyone? (2) : Wed May 09, 2018 11:30 am  

Cronus wrote:

Communities who never asked for it, and who we (as the UK) should actually be more concerned with protecting, than the right of Gheorghe from Romania to stroll in unannounced with his family in tow.

Poorer communities very rarely get what they ask for. Involvement in local decision making, less pollution, safer streets, decent jobs, good educational opportunities, good health care, good social services, modern sports facilities, good public transport, a public library, good child care are what people want & need. Virtually nothing to do with Europe or immigration.

[Bullseye]

Re: Brexit Anyone? (2) : Wed May 09, 2018 1:41 pm  

bren2k wrote:

Infrastructure and services are not under pressure because of immigration, but because they've been systematically underfunded due to the austerity programme; and once again, EU migrants are net contributors to the UK economy.

This.

The NHS Trust I work for has had to make £3m in cuts over the past 3 years. This has affected services more than immigration - upon which we rely on for a large proportion of our staff.

Re: Brexit Anyone? (2) : Wed May 09, 2018 10:15 pm  

bren2k wrote: Wow - that escalated quickly. We've been down this route before - but you do know that the facts simply don't support your argument, right? Infrastructure and services are not under pressure because of immigration, but because they've been systematically underfunded due to the austerity programme; and once again, EU migrants are net contributors to the UK economy. I know we're in an era when people believe that their opinions are better than facts, but being loud and forceful doesn't make you any less wrong. Ok, let's have a look. Get a brew and a digestive. I didn't say they weren't net contributors, but I don't consider a small (and arguable) net contribution in fiscal terms good enough argument to perpetuate the idiocy of freedom of movement between hugely unequal countries. It's not immigration that creates the problems per se, it's the rate of arrivals. I'm not anti-immigration, I'm anti-mass, uncontrolled immigration. Just how long do you think a rough average net migration of 230,000 for the last 15 years can continue? And let me be clear - I don't attribute this all to EU immigration, indeed non-EU immigration is more costly to the UK, however it's a significant factor and one that we can begin to fix via Brexit. In reality their actual contribution is highly debatable. Immigration is estimated to raise GDP by around 0.5% per year, however as it also increases population by roughly the same rate any benefit is minimal. Even the pro-EU House of Lords found that immigration offers little-to-no economic benefit to the UK, although of course the immigrants themselves benefit. They also noted this reflected similar studies in other countries. Taking a number of studies in the round the benefit to the exchequer certainly appears negligible. The Lords also estimated that every 100 non-EU working-age migrants are initially associated with 23 fewer native British people employed. But that's another story. The fact is, immigration is contributing to our population growing at its fastest rate since the Industrial Revolution. 55% of the population increase between 91-16 was due to the direct contribution of net migration. We're a small, densely populated country with a severe housing crisis. Whether you think that's a problem right at this moment is irrelevant - you need to look 10, 20, 50, 100 years into the future to get an idea of how dire the situation will become unless measures are taken, or a massive house-building programme is implemented immediately which would inevitably see further swathes of green-belt land disappear. Up to 90% of new households in the UK each year are headed by someone of overseas origin. In London it's 100%. As most immigrants tend to move to cities, their impact there is more significant, squeezing demand and driving up prices and - bearing in mind most migrants rent - driving up rental costs. Of course, an aging population (the rate of which will only increase as immigrants since 2000 reach old age) is a key factor, but so is immigration. Furthermore, as migrants tend to have bigger families, births to migrants and to their children will be an enormous factor in exponential population growth in the future. The numbers just pile up over and over. The NHS absolutely feels pressure due to immigration. There were 745,000 new migrant GP registrations in 2015/16 alone. Please don't try to tell me these numbers aren't squeezing waiting times and demand, because they are, especially in high migrant areas. On a related note, the cost of overseas visitors and immigrants to the NHS is around £2 billion pa - for this reason the immigration health surcharge was introduced for non-EEA and temporary migrants, soon to increase to £400. The NHS is of course partly at fault here: for years they have failed miserably to recover the costs of treating EEA citizens. EEA countries have claimed up to £650m for treating UK citizens, while the NHS claims often much less than £70m. And yes I appreciate austerity is a factor, so it makes little sense to continue to allow such high numbers of potential patients. Yes, yes, we know a significant proportion of NHS staff are of overseas origin. No-one is talking of removing their right to work, or indeed restricting the ability of qualified medical workers moving here where no British worker is available, so spare me the argument. Schools are also absolutely under pressure due to an increase in the birth rate since 2000 following a slight slowdown in the 90s. New immigrant arrivals and higher birth rates to higher-fertility previous immigrants are the main factor: 78% of the increase in birth rate is down to immigrant births. How can you project school places if you have no idea how many children might arrive or be born in your area? You can't. I have first-hand experience of British children being unable to get into their local schools while immigrant children are given places. Most primary schools are now facing a shortfall of places due to rising demand as immigrant children reach school-age. It's happening whether you like it or not. In addition, I recently saw a school proudly boasting that 40+ languages were spoken in their classrooms - why on earth is this a good thing? All it means is precious time and resources spent supporting non-English speaking children: £270m in 2016, to be precise. Not an inconsiderable cost. I also saw an interesting programme prior to the referendum, which followed new immigrant arrivals. In one case, a young chap from Eastern Europe arrived and tried to claim housing and find work as a labourer. After some time homeless he was deported. Thwarted, he simply came back the next year unannounced with his wife and 4 children and was immediately given a house and benefits due to children being involved. This is far from an isolated case. No pressure on housing or indeed benefits, of course. There is also pressure on the transport infrastructure. Our road network has little room to expand, especially in and around cities. Similarly our public transport networks. Most Impact Assessments on transport have never accounted for increases in the rate of population growth - they assume the UK population to be reasonably constant, or at least growing at 'natural', relatively slow rates. Again, how can anyone plan ahead when they can't forecast the actual numbers? I could also talk about how rapid mass immigration on communities can be stressful and create friction, and I'd be interested to see which of you shouts 'Little Englander' or xenophobia or racism first. But let me ask you another question: why is it so important to you that immigrants are able to come here unfettered? Why is it less important to address the concerns of British citizens? We all know Corbyn and his cronies are anti-UK, anti-white, anti-semite. Is that true for everyone on the left? Whatever. The simple fact is, working-age populations (skilled and unskilled) from Eastern and Southern Europe are flooding in massive numbers to the UK, the French/German area and parts of Scandinavia, although the rate to the UK has been slowing for obvious reasons. Why anyone thinks this a good situation I really can't fathom. Even freaking Vince Cable agrees it's of little benefit to the UK. Again, I don't attribute these pressures solely to EU immigrants. But they remain a hugely significant factor and as I've always said - it's a numbers game, nothing more. TL;DR: bren2k's 'facts' are anything but.

bren2k wrote: Wow - that escalated quickly. We've been down this route before - but you do know that the facts simply don't support your argument, right? Infrastructure and services are not under pressure because of immigration, but because they've been systematically underfunded due to the austerity programme; and once again, EU migrants are net contributors to the UK economy. I know we're in an era when people believe that their opinions are better than facts, but being loud and forceful doesn't make you any less wrong. Ok, let's have a look. Get a brew and a digestive. I didn't say they weren't net contributors, but I don't consider a small (and arguable) net contribution in fiscal terms good enough argument to perpetuate the idiocy of freedom of movement between hugely unequal countries. It's not immigration that creates the problems per se, it's the rate of arrivals. I'm not anti-immigration, I'm anti-mass, uncontrolled immigration. Just how long do you think a rough average net migration of 230,000 for the last 15 years can continue? And let me be clear - I don't attribute this all to EU immigration, indeed non-EU immigration is more costly to the UK, however it's a significant factor and one that we can begin to fix via Brexit. In reality their actual contribution is highly debatable. Immigration is estimated to raise GDP by around 0.5% per year, however as it also increases population by roughly the same rate any benefit is minimal. Even the pro-EU House of Lords found that immigration offers little-to-no economic benefit to the UK, although of course the immigrants themselves benefit. They also noted this reflected similar studies in other countries. Taking a number of studies in the round the benefit to the exchequer certainly appears negligible. The Lords also estimated that every 100 non-EU working-age migrants are initially associated with 23 fewer native British people employed. But that's another story. The fact is, immigration is contributing to our population growing at its fastest rate since the Industrial Revolution. 55% of the population increase between 91-16 was due to the direct contribution of net migration. We're a small, densely populated country with a severe housing crisis. Whether you think that's a problem right at this moment is irrelevant - you need to look 10, 20, 50, 100 years into the future to get an idea of how dire the situation will become unless measures are taken, or a massive house-building programme is implemented immediately which would inevitably see further swathes of green-belt land disappear. Up to 90% of new households in the UK each year are headed by someone of overseas origin. In London it's 100%. As most immigrants tend to move to cities, their impact there is more significant, squeezing demand and driving up prices and - bearing in mind most migrants rent - driving up rental costs. Of course, an aging population (the rate of which will only increase as immigrants since 2000 reach old age) is a key factor, but so is immigration. Furthermore, as migrants tend to have bigger families, births to migrants and to their children will be an enormous factor in exponential population growth in the future. The numbers just pile up over and over. The NHS absolutely feels pressure due to immigration. There were 745,000 new migrant GP registrations in 2015/16 alone. Please don't try to tell me these numbers aren't squeezing waiting times and demand, because they are, especially in high migrant areas. On a related note, the cost of overseas visitors and immigrants to the NHS is around £2 billion pa - for this reason the immigration health surcharge was introduced for non-EEA and temporary migrants, soon to increase to £400. The NHS is of course partly at fault here: for years they have failed miserably to recover the costs of treating EEA citizens. EEA countries have claimed up to £650m for treating UK citizens, while the NHS claims often much less than £70m. And yes I appreciate austerity is a factor, so it makes little sense to continue to allow such high numbers of potential patients. Yes, yes, we know a significant proportion of NHS staff are of overseas origin. No-one is talking of removing their right to work, or indeed restricting the ability of qualified medical workers moving here where no British worker is available, so spare me the argument. Schools are also absolutely under pressure due to an increase in the birth rate since 2000 following a slight slowdown in the 90s. New immigrant arrivals and higher birth rates to higher-fertility previous immigrants are the main factor: 78% of the increase in birth rate is down to immigrant births. How can you project school places if you have no idea how many children might arrive or be born in your area? You can't. I have first-hand experience of British children being unable to get into their local schools while immigrant children are given places. Most primary schools are now facing a shortfall of places due to rising demand as immigrant children reach school-age. It's happening whether you like it or not. In addition, I recently saw a school proudly boasting that 40+ languages were spoken in their classrooms - why on earth is this a good thing? All it means is precious time and resources spent supporting non-English speaking children: £270m in 2016, to be precise. Not an inconsiderable cost. I also saw an interesting programme prior to the referendum, which followed new immigrant arrivals. In one case, a young chap from Eastern Europe arrived and tried to claim housing and find work as a labourer. After some time homeless he was deported. Thwarted, he simply came back the next year unannounced with his wife and 4 children and was immediately given a house and benefits due to children being involved. This is far from an isolated case. No pressure on housing or indeed benefits, of course. There is also pressure on the transport infrastructure. Our road network has little room to expand, especially in and around cities. Similarly our public transport networks. Most Impact Assessments on transport have never accounted for increases in the rate of population growth - they assume the UK population to be reasonably constant, or at least growing at 'natural', relatively slow rates. Again, how can anyone plan ahead when they can't forecast the actual numbers? I could also talk about how rapid mass immigration on communities can be stressful and create friction, and I'd be interested to see which of you shouts 'Little Englander' or xenophobia or racism first. But let me ask you another question: why is it so important to you that immigrants are able to come here unfettered? Why is it less important to address the concerns of British citizens? We all know Corbyn and his cronies are anti-UK, anti-white, anti-semite. Is that true for everyone on the left? Whatever. The simple fact is, working-age populations (skilled and unskilled) from Eastern and Southern Europe are flooding in massive numbers to the UK, the French/German area and parts of Scandinavia, although the rate to the UK has been slowing for obvious reasons. Why anyone thinks this a good situation I really can't fathom. Even freaking Vince Cable agrees it's of little benefit to the UK. Again, I don't attribute these pressures solely to EU immigrants. But they remain a hugely significant factor and as I've always said - it's a numbers game, nothing more. TL;DR: bren2k's 'facts' are anything but.

Re: Brexit Anyone? (2) : Thu May 10, 2018 10:23 am  

Cronus wrote:

-snip- it's a numbers game, nothing more.

Can't really disagree with anything you've said and I think the bold bit just about sums it all up. It's not about who, it's about how many, and what the numbers/issues will be in another 10, 20, 30 years time. And that's coming from someone who has been branded a 'trendy lefty' in the past.

Only recently I was in a discussion where immigrant healthcare workers were being praised for looking after our ageing population. Fair play to them, coming to another country to look after folk who are seeing out their last years, but I had to ask if immigrant workers were going to have extended families and in turn get old and need care themselves. At that moment there was a dawning realisation among the group that immigrant workers hadn't yet found the powers of everlasting youth, in fact it seemed to come as a shock to them! It's just short-term thinking all the time. Solve the problem now but don't touch on how we're going to solve the bigger problem in the next few decades as the immigrant population expands and ages along with the native population, and probably to an even older age. Who's going to look after them?

Immigration is just one piece in the puzzle and while it's an uncomfortable topic for most, the birth/death rates and population projection throw up even more uncomfortable questions.

Re: Brexit Anyone? (2) : Sun May 13, 2018 10:27 am  

Cronus wrote:

damaging rule the EU enforces on its members

This sums up the Brexit argument entirely. They are oblivious to the idea that this isn't some evil empire "enforcing" rules on member countries. Those member countries are signed up members whose governments have negotiated mutually beneficial arrangements.

Re: Brexit Anyone? (2) : Sun May 13, 2018 9:01 pm  

The Ghost of '99 wrote:

This sums up the Brexit argument entirely. They are oblivious to the idea that this isn't some evil empire "enforcing" rules on member countries. Those member countries are signed up members whose governments have negotiated mutually beneficial arrangements.

Oh please, the EU is hardly a beacon of democracy. Want to remove the Commission? Nah. A country votes against a treaty? Vote again until you get the result you want. One of your largest nett contributors is unhappy with some aspects of EU membership and lobbies hard for amendments? Tough. Go away "childish country". I call that enforcement even if you don't.

I don't think they're 'evil', that's just nonsense. What I do think is they are utterly committed to a particularly questionable ideology and determined to force all member states in that direction.

Re: Brexit Anyone? (2) : Mon May 14, 2018 7:22 pm  

Cronus wrote:

Oh please, the EU is hardly a beacon of democracy. Want to remove the Commission? Nah. A country votes against a treaty? Vote again until you get the result you want. One of your largest nett contributors is unhappy with some aspects of EU membership and lobbies hard for amendments? Tough. Go away "childish country". I call that enforcement even if you don't.

I don't think they're 'evil', that's just nonsense. What I do think is they are utterly committed to a particularly questionable ideology and determined to force all member states in that direction.

Rubbish. The anti EU feeling in the UK is almost entirely the result of 30 years of anti EU stories in the Mail, Sun Express etc. Some of them have admitted telling lies.
We can more or less do as we like within reason, and have done. The reason Cameron couldn't get a better deal out of them in 2015 is that we already had a better deal than the rest.
Those behind the out campaign are those who want to impose draconic anti labour laws on us, or who want free unfettered power. Murdoch, James Dyson, Hannan, that's why they need to be free of the ECJ. Because they want to be able to do what they like. Murdoch and his cronies already control the Tory party, and once we're out, the hammer will come down, and there'll be no going back. Certainly not under the terms we have now anyway.
The chocolate teapot Cameron should have insisted on a 60% clause in the referendum rules. He didn't because he daren't.
Look at those who are currently slagging off the Lords saying it needs reform. The same people, Rees Mogg, Bone, Davies, and Hannon who opposed Lords reform under the coalition. These people will do anything, say anything, and bend any law or rule to get their way. It's THAT important to them. They want us out so that they can oppress the rest of us, with no one to gainsay them.

Re: Brexit Anyone? (2) : Tue May 15, 2018 9:31 am  

majorhound wrote:

Rubbish. The anti EU feeling in the UK is almost entirely the result of 30 years of anti EU stories in the Mail, Sun Express etc. Some of them have admitted telling lies.
We can more or less do as we like within reason, and have done. The reason Cameron couldn't get a better deal out of them in 2015 is that we already had a better deal than the rest.
Those behind the out campaign are those who want to impose draconic anti labour laws on us, or who want free unfettered power. Murdoch, James Dyson, Hannan, that's why they need to be free of the ECJ. Because they want to be able to do what they like. Murdoch and his cronies already control the Tory party, and once we're out, the hammer will come down, and there'll be no going back. Certainly not under the terms we have now anyway.
The chocolate teapot Cameron should have insisted on a 60% clause in the referendum rules. He didn't because he daren't.
Look at those who are currently slagging off the Lords saying it needs reform. The same people, Rees Mogg, Bone, Davies, and Hannon who opposed Lords reform under the coalition. These people will do anything, say anything, and bend any law or rule to get their way. It's THAT important to them. They want us out so that they can oppress the rest of us, with no one to gainsay them.

This, I'm afraid, is entirely the case; Brexit will benefit a very small group of privileged people who are entirely insulated from the societal problems that impact the average joe. Quite how they've persuaded so many of those people to vote for them is a masterclass in propaganda and manipulation - and will probably be studied in politics classes in years to come - by which time I sincerely hope they've all died off and our children have reversed this madness and got us back into the EU. The sad thing of course, is that we'll never have it as good as we have it now - the terms of re-entry will not include all the concessions we currently have.

I've long been opposed to the unelected House of Lords, but we've come to quite a pass when they're the only bulwark between us, and the worst excesses of the extreme Tory Brexiteers.

Re: Brexit Anyone? (2) : Tue May 15, 2018 9:47 am  

bren2k wrote:

This, I'm afraid, is entirely the case; Brexit will benefit a very small group of privileged people who are entirely insulated from the societal problems that impact the average joe. Quite how they've persuaded so many of those people to vote for them is a masterclass in propaganda and manipulation - and will probably be studied in politics classes in years to come - by which time I sincerely hope they've all died off and our children have reversed this madness and got us back into the EU. The sad thing of course, is that we'll never have it as good as we have it now - the terms of re-entry will not include all the concessions we currently have.

I've long been opposed to the unelected House of Lords, but we've come to quite a pass when they're the only bulwark between us, and the worst excesses of the extreme Tory Brexiteers.

Do you think that, had Corbyn engaged with the electorate during the referendum campaign, instead of sitting very firmly on the fence, we may had seen a different result.
Having Cameron front up the campaign was a huge mistake as there were so many people that just wanted him to fail (and who can blame them for that).
It currently looks like we will end up well ant truly caught between two stools, with a deal that nobody will be happy with and Mrs May really needs to decide which way the country is going. Right now, the struggle to appease her own fractured party, keep the Unionists on board and avoid a leadership election.
Boris and Gove are already testing her and it could all unravel quite quickly.

Re: Brexit Anyone? (2) : Tue May 15, 2018 3:08 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Do you think that, had Corbyn engaged with the electorate during the referendum campaign, instead of sitting very firmly on the fence, we may had seen a different result.
Having Cameron front up the campaign was a huge mistake as there were so many people that just wanted him to fail (and who can blame them for that).
It currently looks like we will end up well ant truly caught between two stools, with a deal that nobody will be happy with and Mrs May really needs to decide which way the country is going. Right now, the struggle to appease her own fractured party, keep the Unionists on board and avoid a leadership election.
Boris and Gove are already testing her and it could all unravel quite quickly.

I think Corbyn's attitude has been appalling. There is an anti Brexit majority in the Commons, if Corbyn will only get off his backside and do something about it. The way things are going we'll leave the EU through apathy.
I have no proof of this, but IMO large numbers of young people didn't vote in 2015 because they'd been told that voting changes nothing. Along comes the referendum and proof that yes voting certainly does change things. May calls another election in 2017 and large numbers of those who abstained in 2015 vote Labour in the belief that Labour will stop Brexit. These are the people who really matter, the ones who Brexit is really going to disadvantage, Not people like me, most of whom voted Leave, who've already lived most of their lives. If the polls are to be believed there's now a majority for remain, and those in Parliament should ensure there's another vote before it's too late.