Britain - The Official Thread

[baldgye]

I did, I'm wondering whether you did though as to me it proves my point that we have very little control over immigration from the EU. Any EU citizen can stay in the UK for 3 months, beyond 3 months they have the right to stay as long as they are looking for work/in work and after at most 5 years they have the right to stay permanently (some cases less than that). Short of them being a serious threat to the country there is nothing we can do to stop EU citizens who want to come to the UK as long as they look for work, hardly what I would call immigration control. I didn't bother responding in the end because if that is your idea of immigration control I doubt there's much point continuing to discuss it.

Wait, sorry I misunderstood... you're issue was that EU migrants come here and find work?
I thought the issue was they could come here and just take from the economy, not contribute?

 

[TenEightyOne]

I did, I'm wondering whether you did though as to me it proves my point that we have very little control over immigration from the EU. Any EU citizen can stay in the UK for 3 months, beyond 3 months they have the right to stay as long as they are looking for work/in work and after at most 5 years they have the right to stay permanently (some cases less than that). Short of them being a serious threat to the country there is nothing we can do to stop EU citizens who want to come to the UK as long as they look for work, hardly what I would call immigration control. I didn't bother responding in the end because if that is your idea of immigration control I doubt there's much point continuing to discuss it.

And they're paying tax and on particular occasions doing work that Brits won't. I really don't see the problem, particularly if they're outside the benefits system and paying their PAYE/Council Tax.

As it stands there's food rotting away in fields because the normal seasonal EU workers aren't coming to pick it and Brits simply don't apply for those agricultural positions when they're advertised.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Wait, sorry I misunderstood... you're issue was that EU migrants come here and find work?
I thought the issue was they could come here and just take from the economy, not contribute?

My issue is that we don't have the ability to control the rate of immigration or the skills of the immigrants from the EU, not that they don't work. I also don't think you're a net contributor just because you work, some immigrants will be net contributors, some won't, if we had more control we might be able to increase the net benefit of immigration.

And they're paying tax and on particular occasions doing work that Brits won't. I really don't see the problem, particularly if they're outside the benefits system and paying their PAYE/Council Tax.

As it stands there's food rotting away in fields because the normal seasonal EU workers aren't coming to pick it and Brits simply don't apply for those agricultural positions when they're advertised.

I would have no issue with an immigration policy that selected people who wanted to come to this country to do work that wasn't already being done by people in this country. But without proper immigration control we can't just accept those that come here to do jobs that need doing, pay more in tax that they take out and are generally net contributors, we also have to accept those that come here to do jobs that already have plenty of people willing to do them, who won't pay much in tax and aren't net contributors.

The rate of immigration is also important to control as infrastructure for more people takes time and money to build, such as homes, schools, hospitals, etc. so if immigrants are coming in at a faster rate than we can accommodate it's going to cause issues.

 

[baldgye]

My issue is that we don't have the ability to control the rate of immigration or the skills of the immigrants from the EU, not that they don't work. I also don't think you're a net contributor just because you work, some immigrants will be net contributors, some won't, if we had more control we might be able to increase the net benefit of immigration.


I would have no issue with an immigration policy that selected people who wanted to come to this country to do work that wasn't already being done by people in this country. But without proper immigration control we can't just accept those that come here to do jobs that need doing, pay more in tax that they take out and are generally net contributors, we also have to accept those that come here to do jobs that already have plenty of people willing to do them, who won't pay much in tax and aren't net contributors.

Immigration, is a net benefit to the economy, full stop.
EU migration is very positive, over 80% are in work paying taxes and contributing, this is higher than the UK employment rates. If you need a real world example of how EU migration directly benefits UK citizens, look at the state of NHS and their desperate shortages of nurses almost immediately after the result of the vote.

What control do you want? The cost (the government has discovered) would be obscene to 'fully' control immigration as you suggested. It just isn't practical, isn't needed and would only hurt the economy.

The rate of immigration is also important to control as infrastructure for more people takes time and money to build, such as homes, schools, hospitals, etc. so if immigrants are coming in at a faster rate than we can accommodate it's going to cause issues.

Do you have any evidence that this actually exists and is a problem (relating only to EU migrants)?

 

[polysmut]

The rate of immigration is also important to control as infrastructure for more people takes time and money to build, such as homes, schools, hospitals, etc. so if immigrants are coming in at a faster rate than we can accommodate it's going to cause issues.

You also need people to build those things.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Immigration, is a net benefit to the economy, full stop.
EU migration is very positive, over 80% are in work paying taxes and contributing, this is higher than the UK employment rates. If you need a real world example of how EU migration directly benefits UK citizens, look at the state of NHS and their desperate shortages of nurses almost immediately after the result of the vote.

No, not full stop, if immigration wasn't a net benefit I highly doubt you'd be saying that all immigrants aren't a net benefit and the exact same applies the other way around. Like most things in life you can't just generalise an entire group, some immigrants will be a net benefit, some won't, you can give as many examples of those who are a benefit as you want it won't change that.

What control do you want? The cost (the government has discovered) would be obscene to 'fully' control immigration as you suggested. It just isn't practical, isn't needed and would only hurt the economy.

I've said, the rate of immigration and skills of immigrants. As for the cost of increasing the control of immigration, countries all around the world seem to manage just fine so not sure why it would be obscenely expensive when we try to do it.

EDIT: Also I doubt the cost is a static situation, new problems will most likely arise that will increase the cost and new methods for controlling immigration are likely to be thought of that will decrease the cost, so to say "it's to expensive forget about it" is fairly narrow minded thinking.

Do you have any evidence that this actually exists and is a problem (relating only to EU migrants)?

It applies to all immigration, not sure why you're just singling out EU migrants in your question. I only mentioned EU migrants because EU immigration is the one we don't have control over. As for evidence it's not exactly difficult to work out, it takes time to build infrastructure, say X number of houses, and if a population is growing faster than houses can be built (through immigration) you have a problem. Taking it to it's extreme to highlight that there is a limit, do you think the country would cope just fine if we had 10 million people per year entering the country? No.

You also need people to build those things.

Yes you do, luckily we have builders already in this country to build stuff so it's probably best that infrastructure is built before more people enter the country and not the other way around. Also not all of the issues that restrict the rate at which we can build infrastructure can simply be solved by having more people.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Immigration, is a net benefit to the economy, full stop.
EU migration is very positive, over 80% are in work paying taxes and contributing, this is higher than the UK employment rates. If you need a real world example of how EU migration directly benefits UK citizens, look at the state of NHS and their desperate shortages of nurses almost immediately after the result of the vote.

What control do you want? The cost (the government has discovered) would be obscene to 'fully' control immigration as you suggested. It just isn't practical, isn't needed and would only hurt the economy.

Full stop eh? How much taxes do the 80% contribute and does it cover the other 20% that aren't working and must be sucking on the government teat? By the way, we fully control immigration here, we are much bigger than you geographically and we haven't been bankrupted by it yet.

 

[baldgye]

I guess we can't have this conversation after all, shame.

I've said, the rate of immigration and skills of immigrants. As for the cost of increasing the control of immigration, countries all around the world seem to manage just fine so not sure why it would be obscenely expensive when we try to do it.

It's quotes like this, that highlight just how little you actually understand the problem.
If EVERY one else can do it, why didn't we already do it (again only talking about EU immigration because that's what this conversation was about)?

It applies to all immigration, not sure why you're just singling out EU migrants in your question. I only mentioned EU migrants because EU immigration is the one we don't have control over.

Because that was your original point, the point which I corrected and then you demanded evidence while failing to provide any yourself when asked.
Why is 'not having control' over EU immigration a problem, if it's a net benefit?

Without EU migrants we don't have enough nurses. How are we supposed to replace them?

Full stop eh? How much taxes do the 80% contribute and does it cover the other 20% that aren't working and must be sucking on the government teat? By the way, we fully control immigration here, we are much bigger than you geographically and we haven't been bankrupted by it yet.

I don't really understand why you post in this thread, you clearly have no understanding of the UK.

 

[Touring Mars]

While I concede that it is not possible to control exact numbers of immigrants at the same time as respecting the EU's freedom of movement principle, I reckon the very concept of setting an arbitrary limit on net migration is pretty pointless - well, it's not completely pointless insomuch as the act of setting a limit is likely to win you a lot of votes - but in terms of achieving anything that is useful to anyone else, it is pretty useless. The health of the economy (and by extension, general living standards in the UK) relies on adopting an immigration policy that allows the UK to bring in as many migrants to work in the UK as the economy requires - and hence arbitrary limits fly in the face of that logic. 'Controlling immigration' doesn't mean 'cutting immigration', and even if the latter is being promised right now, it is a promise that cannot and almost certainly won't be kept.

Of course, the main bone of contention seems to be less about whether immigrants are a net economic benefit or not, and more about the perception that more immigrants means less access to public services for everyone else; however I think those who believe that cutting immigration arbitrarily is going to help that are being misled. It doesn't matter if the pie is getting bigger or smaller if the government have already decided that you are getting a smaller piece of it either way - and that's the problem; we need to have more immigration and more investment in public services, but what we are likely to get with a Tory-led Brexit is the complete opposite.

 

[baldgye]

...with a Tory-led Brexit is the complete opposite.

100% agree but.. I don't even know if a Labour government would be any different?
I guess maybe it would be which minority they are accused of persecuting...

 

[Spurgy 777]

It's quotes like this, that highlight just how little you actually understand the problem.
If EVERY one else can do it, why didn't we already do it (again only talking about EU immigration because that's what this conversation was about)?

Because EU citizens have a right to work in this country so we can't control the rate of immigration or the skills of migrants from the EU. I've already explained this a number of times so not exactly sure why you're misunderstanding.

Because that was your original point, the point which I corrected and then you demanded evidence while failing to provide any yourself when asked.

No it wasn't, this was my original point on rate of immigration (the one you quoted);

The rate of immigration is also important to control as infrastructure for more people takes time and money to build, such as homes, schools, hospitals, etc. so if immigrants are coming in at a faster rate than we can accommodate it's going to cause issues.

Nowhere did I say that rate of immigration is only important for EU immigration, hence your question makes no sense.

Why is 'not having control' over EU immigration a problem, if it's a net benefit?

From an economic point of view, I don't usually have a "that'll do" attitude, just because it's a net benefit doesn't mean it can't be improved and be an even bigger benefit and we should have the power to implement control methods with that aim. Also whether it's a net benefit economically isn't the only thing that you need to consider which is why I said rate of immigration is important, it doesn't make sense to increase the demand on our infrastructure when we have issues increasing the supply.

Without EU migrants we don't have enough nurses. How are we supposed to replace them?

We wouldn't stop them from entering in the first place? I'm not sure what part of having selective immigration control you think would stop people coming into the country who want to do jobs we don't already have people for as the point of such controls would be to let those exact people in and only those people.

While I concede that it is not possible to control exact numbers of immigrants at the same time as respecting the EU's freedom of movement principle, I reckon the very concept of setting an arbitrary limit on net migration is pretty pointless - well, it's not completely pointless insomuch as the act of setting a limit is likely to win you a lot of votes - but in terms of achieving anything that is useful to anyone else, it is pretty useless. The health of the economy (and by extension, general living standards in the UK) relies on adopting an immigration policy that allows the UK to bring in as many migrants to work in the UK as the economy requires - and hence arbitrary limits fly in the face of that logic. 'Controlling immigration' doesn't mean 'cutting immigration', and even if the latter is being promised right now, it is a promise that cannot and almost certainly won't be kept.

Of course, the main bone of contention seems to be less about whether immigrants are a net economic benefit or not, and more about the perception that more immigrants means less access to public services for everyone else; however I think those who believe that cutting immigration arbitrarily is going to help that are being misled. It doesn't matter if the pie is getting bigger or smaller if the government have already decided that you are getting a smaller piece of it either way - and that's the problem; we need to have more immigration and more investment in public services, but what we are likely to get with a Tory-led Brexit is the complete opposite.

I'm not arguing for an arbitrary limit as as you say it wouldn't help just setting a number and sticking to it. I just think we should have the power to control the skills of people entering the country, ensuring that they meet the demands of our economy that can't be met with people already in the country and that we can control the rate of immigration based on what our current infrastructure can accommodate.

 

[baldgye]

@Spurgy 777 Ok mate;

Not even remotely true, we have virtually no power over immigration from the EU

I don't see the point in having a conversation about anything broader when this was one of the key issues for you in Brexit.
Once we established that it was the employed migrants from the EU where the problem, I then asked you why.

You've said want to control the skills of people coming in from the EU, to fill gaps... but this already happens... unemployment is historically low and EU migrants are, almost entirely employed. What's the problem?

Since voting to leave the economy has suffered and so has every UK household. So why, is immigration, from EU nations, so important, that you'd be happy to do something as drastic as leave the worlds biggest economies and an entity with which we do over half our trade?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Full stop eh? How much taxes do the 80% contribute and does it cover the other 20% that aren't working and must be sucking on the government teat?

False logic. Those immigrants may be part of family units with sufficient income that benefits aren't required - on the face of the statistics they very likely are. That 20% can also include immigrants who may have been paying UK tax for a long time and no longer work or have become ill. It can include children who are too young to work or young adults in education.

Here's a better breakdown from the ONS (definition of EU# groups in Table 5):

 

[Touring Mars]

Ah, so it's those lay-about non-EU immigrants that are the problem - the very folks whose migration to the UK is already fully controlled!

 

[baldgye]

I do love the logic though, of someone moving to a foreign country, away from family and friends... to then simply sponge of the government... something, they could also do at home...

 

[polysmut]

I do love the logic though, of someone moving to a foreign country, away from family and friends... to then simply sponge of the government... something, they could also do at home...

I think that image of immigrants exists in the mindset of a lot of people in the UK. An image that some poor quality, but popular, newspapers seem keen to promote. While there may be some immigrants who fit that category, I cannot imagine that it's more than a miniscule percentage of all immigrants.

 

[polysmut]

Caroline Lucas to step down as Green Party co-leader

 

[PeterJB]

But how will a party with only one MP that doesn't even run in every constituency cope with just one leader?

 

[baldgye]

But how will a party with only one MP that doesn't even run in every constituency cope with just one leader?

I guess they can consult with the Lib Dems

 

[polysmut]

But how will a party with only one MP that doesn't even run in every constituency cope with just one leader?

While it's true that they don't need two leaders, the party is bigger than its number of MP's. There are also Green councillors around the country and some campaigning to do.

 

[baldgye]

https://www.thelocal.fr/20180531/an...after-brexit-campaigner-applies-for-residency

 

[Scaff]

Another day, another far right nutter.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Another day, another far right nutter.

That guy's as mad as a box of frogs.

 

[SestoScudo]

Another day, another far right nutter.

Oh wow if these far right nutters do really feel oppressed maybe they should go live in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Belarus, Saudi Arabia or North Korea to see true oppression.

Then they will realise what a heaven UK is.

 

[baldgye]

Did anyone see this? Damn they aren’t pulling any punches



I tried to link the actual original video/tweet but twitter is a wonderfully designed app and won’t display it for me

 

[MatskiMonk]

BBC posted this recently..

Does point ot youth being less nationalistic.

 

[baldgye]

BBC posted this recently..

Does point ot youth being less nationalistic.

Which is pretty good news to be fair

 

[polysmut]

Which is pretty good news to be fair

It shows promise. (Although I am biased, in that I'm not nationalistic myself).

 

[TexRex]

Am I the only one that thinks this graph looks a little too..."neat?"

#fakenews

 

[Imari]

BBC posted this recently..

Does point ot youth being less nationalistic.

Or that they are less proud of the way that their country behaves. Which would also be fair.

One should not simply expect blind nationalism, and it seems reasonable that while young people might have strong attachments to their country they could at the same time not be proud of some of the attitudes and actions that it espouses.

For example, if one were to live in a profoundly racist country one might expect to see the same sort of thing. Older people who grew up accepting racism would be proud of their country as they see nothing to be ashamed of, but younger people who are not as tolerant are not proud of oppression of minorities. That doesn't mean that they don't care about their country, just that they don't necessarily think it's good the way it is.