How much more in tax are YOU willing to pay to avoid immigration?

Graham_Devon

Economic devastation?

Excuse me? Can you please explain why only allowing select immigration, as per Australie, will lead to economic devastation?

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Not that can't be managed or adapted to within our lifetime, or the lifetime of our children.

Which buys us all enough time to make the changes gradually, without destroying economies and standards of living.



Eh?

My concern is avoiding economic devastation that will negatively affect every one of us.

Why would you wish higher unemployment, recession, poverty and lower standards of living, just to avoid immigration?

That's not very nice.

exponential population growth is certain to create world wide devastation
an aging population will be catered for by natural adaption just as has been the case for 2 million years


in any event no sane person really believes that every young greek or young Pole or young spandard or young African or young Iranian, or young Iraqi that leaves their home and comes here, will reduce the per capita GDP of their home country , will INCREASE home unemployment whilst boosting ours.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Can you please explain why only allowing select immigration, as per Australie, will lead to economic devastation?

If we keep the same numbers coming in as we have now, it wouldn't.

I'm not sure I follow the arguments here Graham....

It seems you want to:

1. Keep immigration up, just from different places
2. Keep access to European markets, even if it costs us the same as it does now, as it does for Norway on a per capita basis
3. Somehow negotiate an EU access deal so that all the EU headquarters and car(etc) manufacturers won't leave.
4. Keep regulations for business the same as they are now, because of course that's a requirement for access to the common market.

Which begs the question, why go to the trouble, risk and expense of leaving?

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

If we keep the same numbers as we have now, it wouldn't.

Right, so thats fine then isn't it. What's your issue with controlling it a bit more? And why insist on scare mongering?

PaulF81

None. We need to end the welfare state, freeze pensions and cut the NHS budget by 10% over the next electoral term. Means test oap benefits (bus pass, bbc licence) and have a 2 tier NHS, one for those that contributed, and an emergency treatment only for those that didn't.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Right, so thats fine then isn't it. What's your issue with controlling it a bit more? And why insist on scare mongering?

I'm not sure I follow the arguments here Graham....

It seems you want to:

1. Keep immigration up, just from different places
2. Keep access to European markets, even if it costs us the same as it does now, as it does for Norway on a per capita basis
3. Somehow negotiate an EU access deal so that all the EU headquarters and car(etc) manufacturers won't leave.
4. Keep regulations for business the same as they are now, because of course that's a requirement for access to the common market.

Which begs the question, why go to the trouble, risk and expense of leaving?

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I'm not sure I follow the arguments here Graham....

It seems you want to:

1. Keep immigration up, just from different places
2. Keep access to European markets, even if it costs us the same as it does now, as it does for Norway on a per capita basis
3. Somehow negotiate an EU access deal so that all the EU headquarters and car(etc) manufacturers won't leave.
4. Keep regulations for business the same as they are now, because of course that's a requirement for access to the common market.

Which begs the question, why go to the trouble, risk and expense of leaving?

1. I don't care whether immigration is up, down or sideways. I just don't want people attracted here for our welfare system and easy acceptance. neither do I want large immigration where our networks (housing, roads, creaking national grid) are not keeping up.

2. I don;t know where you get this from.

3. I've said we would likely be able to negotiate a deal with the EU for trade. This isn't exactly outrageous. India has.

4. I have never eve said we should keep regulation as it is now. You are simply twisting my words to hopelessly try and gain a better footing. I have said we already meet all EU regulation, therefore all those scare stories about not meeting EU regs if we come out of the EU are not an issue.

You seem to have a real issue in determining the differernce between allowing mass immigration and shutting the doors completely. Many of your arguments rely on the two extremes. PLENTY of posters have explained tirelessly to you their problems with current policy, all of which you ignore and railroad by reverting to an extreme to make a point.