Stay or go? EU poll - Oh the irony.

Bantex_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

We're not very good at 'picking and choosing' immigrants, are we?

We may not be, but I believe we should always have the option.

My objection is to another jurisdiction beyond our own parliament making such a fundamental decision.

Generali

Bantex wrote: »

We may not be, but I believe we should always have the option.

My objection is to another jurisdiction beyond our own parliament making such a fundamental decision.

The Parliament you voted for passed that decision to Brussels.

The Parliament you vote for regularly passes standing orders which pass powers to the Civil Service or powers that need rubber stamping by a minister but which mean in practice that they are decided by the Civil Service.

The EU is run in the same way as the UK Government for the most part.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

Macroeconomic impacts of Migration from the BoE (not EU Funded or Left Wing):

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/qb070103.pdf



One for the DWP:
http://www.iza.org/conference_files/amm2006/lemos_s1613.pdf

It doesn't matter which sources you use, the anti-immigrant crowd will still try to attack them as 'biased' or 'left wing'.

The economic argument is one they'll lose every time, but it's the argument they prefer to keep having, as it distracts from their real motivations....

I'd actually have more respect for them if they just admitted they don't like immigrants, don't like growth, don't like change.

leveller2911

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Why do you hate immigrants so much?

I take exception to your insult Hamish.

Firstly lets get this out of the way, I do not and never have "hated immmigrants".

I have posted many times that within my family I have immigrants from Malaysia and Thailand who have been here for decades. These are highly skilled immigrants working in industries where we need skilled migrants. They have the same opinion Hamish and that is we need a points based immigration system.

We can go round and round in circles with regards to low skilled immigration being a major problem to the current low skilled population and I'm the first one to critisize the standard of skills trainging especially vocational training in the UK over the past 20 years but the fact remains the middle classes are not affected my mass low skilled immigration , its the working class who are affected. So I reject your "I always know better" attitude Hamish because you don't.

I'm not a racist Hamish, my cousin is Black and we have a great friendship..

Lastly , no need for the personal attack on my character just because I don't agree and "tow the line".......;)

ruggedtoast

leveller2911 wrote: »

I take exception to your insult Hamish.

Firstly lets get this out of the way, I do not and never have "hated immmigrants".

I have posted many times that within my family I have immigrants from Malaysia and Thailand who have been here for decades. These are highly skilled immigrants working in industries where we need skilled migrants. They have the same opinion Hamish and that is we need a points based immigration system.

We can go round and round in circles with regards to low skilled immigration being a major problem to the current low skilled population and I'm the first one to critisize the standard of skills trainging especially vocational training in the UK over the past 20 years but the fact remains the middle classes are not affected my mass low skilled immigration , its the working class who are affected. So I reject your "I always know better" attitude Hamish because you don't.

I'm not a racist Hamish, my cousin is Black and we have a great friendship..

Lastly , no need for the personal attack on my character just because I don't agree and "tow the line".......;)

There aren't many migrants coming from Eastern Europe who are low skilled. On the contrary, they have benefited from an education system which up to higher secondary anyway, £ for $ proves rather more successful at teaching children the three Rs than the British one.

As for your tally of how many black / asian / zoroastrian best friend, half cousins / dog groomers you have - save it. People will judge you by what you write about and the content of your posts suggest you dont especially like foreigners.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

leveller2911 wrote: »

Firstly lets get this out of the way, I do not and never have "hated immmigrants".

Fair enough.... I can't dispute that because I don't know you.

I can only go on what you post here, so I've edited my post to say 'hate immigration so much', and apologies if you took offence.

I think the 'hate immigration' question is fair though, as it's the way you come across.

the fact remains the middle classes are not affected my mass low skilled immigration , its the working class who are affected.

The fact is that EU migration subsidises the native born by billions, does not drive down wages on average, actually increases wages for the majority, and rebalances the population that is skewing dangerously towards the elderly through decades of a below replacement birth rate.

It is wholly a good thing, and we need more of it not less.

I'm not a racist Hamish, my cousin is Black and we have a great friendship..

I didn't say you were a racist.

You clearly dislike mass EU migration, there is simply no rational economic case for doing so, therefore you must have some other reason.

What that reason is, well, that's something only you really know.

ruggedtoast

CLAPTON wrote: »

of course 'credible' reports are those that are funded by the EU or left wing think tanks and show that EU migration is a good thing
and of course they make the following assumptions


- EU migrants never will have children
- EU migrants will never grow old
- increase in population requires no new infrastructure
- increase in population causes no shortages or bottlenecks in access to NHS service (because they are so healthy they never need them)
- there is no economic costs associated with traffic bottlenecks and other shortages
- the extra imports, especially of fuel and food has no economic consequences
- there are no consequences to the lack of investment by businesses because it is cheaper to use the massive amount of EU migrant labour than improving productivity by investing
- the huge increase in house prices in London and the SE due to the population increase has no economic or social consequences


plus a few more I've forgotten


apart from that Aberdeen is not experiencing any downsides to the massive increase in population in England

I'm glad you brought that up Clapton.

1. Contrary to popular belief within UKIP we actually need children. Some people actually like families too. ]

2. EU migrants (as Hamish mentioned) are generally unlikely to be a drain on the NHS. In fact the point they get old and sick is the point they are more likely to return to their country of origin.

3. The economic consequences of migration are moot. EU migrants generate more cash than they cost. Lets build another doctors surgery in celebration. And lay on an extra bus line.

4. The economic consequences of needing extra food. Are you serious? I am pretty sure everyone in Lidl is paying for their pyrogi with their own money. I suppose the extra lorries are providing more opportunities for illegal stowaways in Calais, the UKIP can get angry about that at least.

5. House prices. Yes. BOOMERS. Perpetually vetoing new builds and voting in local politicians whose manifestos perpetually lead with stifling land development. Crushing plans for new roads, and ensuring that the 2% extra of land we'd need in the SE remains a haven for Henrietta to ride her pony while the rest of us stifle in rabbit hutches. Because just having 98% of the greenbelt for dobbin to charge up and down illegally chasing foxes and badgers isn't enough for her.

I'd rather have migrants thanks.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I'm right of centre both politically and economically.

Reports only get my attention when they are credible.

Only the most biased of posters would try and discredit every major university and economist in the UK just because their pro-immigration viewpoints don't match your anti-immigration agenda.

Anyway, lets debunk these UKIP myths you keep trying to propagate....




God I hope not.

We need millions more children to rebalance the age profile.



Many will return to their home countries before retirement.

But regardless, the average adult EU migrant will still be a net contributor, even if they stay.



We need new infrastructure anyway.

It's not EU immigrants fault that the UK government has blown the surplus they created on subsidising the native born instead of investing in infrastructure.



The NHS recently listed the top causes of stress on their system.

Unsurprisingly, EU migrants weren't on the list.

Young healthy people hardly ever use the healthcare system.

The millions of new pensioners use it all the time, and it's only EU immigrants that subsidise paying for this care. All other groups take out more than they put in.



The greenies and nimbys have blocked new roads for decades.

Time to build some more.....



Correct. There are no consequences of note.



Utter Nonsense.

EU migrants DO NOT drive down wages, they increase them on average.

I have no idea why you persist in repeating such lies and disparagements when you must surely know by now it's a load of rubbish.



Better get building then....

As throttling economic growth by starving business of employees, in an effort to keep down prices, would truly be the economics of the madhouse.



England doesn't have a "massive" increase in population, nor does it experience any downsides on average that outweigh the benefits.

We need MORE immigrants, MORE EU countries, MORE integration, and LESS restrictions on freedom and movement.

it show a sad state of affairs that a very reasonable discussion about infrastructure spending can't be discussed as an economic issue but has to be one of socio-economic dogma.


even more amazing that a post that suggests population increase of millions causes no new infrastructure spending is actually thanked by 4 posters.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I'm glad you brought that up Clapton.

1. Contrary to popular belief within UKIP we actually need children. Some people actually like families too. ]

2. EU migrants (as Hamish mentioned) are generally unlikely to be a drain on the NHS. In fact the point they get old and sick is the point they are more likely to return to their country of origin.

3. The economic consequences of migration are moot. EU migrants generate more cash than they cost. Lets build another doctors surgery in celebration. And lay on an extra bus line.

4. The economic consequences of needing extra food. Are you serious? I am pretty sure everyone in Lidl is paying for their pyrogi with their own money. I suppose the extra lorries are providing more opportunities for illegal stowaways in Calais, the UKIP can get angry about that at least.

5. House prices. Yes. BOOMERS. Perpetually vetoing new builds and voting in local politicians whose manifestos perpetually lead with stifling land development. Crushing plans for new roads, and ensuring that the 2% extra of land we'd need in the SE remains a haven for Henrietta to ride her pony while the rest of us stifle in rabbit hutches. Because just having 98% of the greenbelt for dobbin to charge up and down illegally chasing foxes and badgers isn't enough for her.

I'd rather have migrants thanks.

The point about children was that the economic cost balance didn't not include the cost to the state of migrants having children or of them aging.


I'm sure you will produce evidence based on the migrants of the last 50 years, to show that aging migrants, rather than stay in the UK with their own children and grandchildren, instead they all return to their place of birth.


The economic case excludes so may costs (including building new surgeries as you all seem to agree they never need them).


Ok; you see no economic consequences of a permanently larger import bill for essential food and fuels.
Presumably this is because all the academic studies show that EU migrants tend to go into export industries and help the balance of payments.


As you know close to 100% of house building in London is on brown fill sites so Harriett's pony is not an issue.
The population of London has grown by 1 million or more over the last 10 years . The population of London now comprise over 30% of people born abroad.
I know that many on the board don't accept a relationship between price and supply and demand and some simply think it fantastic that a modest terrace house cost more than a million.


But there we simply have to agree to differ.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

it show a sad state of affairs that a very reasonable discussion about infrastructure spending can't be discussed as an economic issue but has to be one of socio-economic dogma.

Lets have a conversation about infrastructure spending then.

- We need significant upgrades, much of ours is little changed from Victorian times.

- We should be investing tens of billions more than we are in power, fibre-optic data, road, rail and airport upgrades, it'll pay for itself many times over in economic growth.

- The main reason we are not investing in the infrastructure we need to power growth is Nimbyism and Greeny agendas, not the cost of doing so.

Discuss....

even more amazing that a post that suggests population increase of millions causes no new infrastructure spending is actually thanked by 4 posters.

We need to update the infrastructure anyway.... much of ours is simply no longer fit for purpose in modern times, and the investment in it would pay for itself many times over in economic growth.

And again you ignore that almost all of our population increase is down to increased life expectancy, immigrants haven't even replaced the missing millions of young people caused by decades of below replacement level birthrates.