If we vote for Brexit what happens

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Sapphire wrote: »

For myself, I believe 'freedom of movement' from country to country is an absolutely crazy idea, and that there should be border controls, like there used to be.

Can you show me a border crossing into the mainland UK from continental Europe that does not have border controls?

All potential entrants should be checked, and removed if they are unlikely to contribute anything to a country (and only to take from taxpayers),

EU migrants have been net financial contributors to the UK.

Over £20bn in just a decade.

and certainly if they commit criminal acts.

Those powers largely already exist.

Sapphire

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

EU migrants have been net financial contributors to the UK.

Those powers largely already exist.

It's not those I'm concerned about. The majority of Poles that come to the UK, for instance, are great. I think I mentioned earlier that I'd had English workers do work for me in the past and found them amazingly rude, surly and incompetent, and thought they wished to do as little as possible in a given time. The Poles are not like that – most have a very strong work ethic, are polite and I have no problem with them working here. I do think it's wrong, however, that benefits can be claimed from British taxpayers for their children once they go back to Poland – that is just not right, since they are not British nationals.

I also do wonder what has happened to work ethics of some native Brits, and whether having so many foreigners working here is encouraging the Brits not to work and become dependent on taxpayers' benefits. With jobs decreasing with every year due to advances in technology, what is going to happen to the increasing numbers of people without jobs (hence my mention of rookeries above)?

If the 'powers' to deport undesirables already exist, then why are they not being exercised? If they are not real 'powers', the law must be changed to make them real. If they are real, then those who are not using them must be held to account, so that the problem can be solved.

danothy

Sapphire wrote: »

All potential entrants should be checked, and removed if they are unlikely to contribute anything to a country (and only to take from taxpayers), and certainly if they commit criminal acts.

But the native population should get a free ride to remain if they do those things?

Sapphire

danothy wrote: »

But the native population should get a free ride to remain if they do those things?

It is up to the elected government of this country to ensure that the native population doesn't 'do these things' – it's something that successive governments have failed to tackle, and indeed encouraged in the case of labour.

I don't know – perhaps being part of the EU has made the government indolent and reliant on EU bureaucrats to make decisions for it? I was under the impression that this government promised to reduce immigration to tens of thousands (or even 10,000) per year? Meanwhile, immigration appears to have reached about 700,000 last year (contrary to the official figures released), and it is probably considerably more than that taking into account illegal migration. The government knew that tackling immigration was a key issue with much of the electorate, and was elected partly on the premise that it would act on it – yet it appears to have done very little. :cool:

Carl31

Sapphire wrote: »

Precisely! :T

For myself, I believe 'freedom of movement' from country to country is an absolutely crazy idea, and that there should be border controls, like there used to be. All potential entrants should be checked, and removed if they are unlikely to contribute anything to a country (and only to take from taxpayers), and certainly if they commit criminal acts.

Its not only the fact that freedom of movement allows EU migrants to come here for their own personal benefit, its what they leave behind. Every person that comes here to work, and add to the UK economy, is not working in their native country, meaning their economy is weakening. If you look at population stats in Romania, Poland, Bulgaria over the past decade or so, population totals have remained pretty flat, or had reduced, Financially, these areas are just going to weaken, and become more and more of a drain on the EU, where the UK, Germany etc.. will get stronger and stronger. The idea of a balanced and thriving EU just wont happen where people are allowed to flock to the richest areas, it will just become pockets of overcrowded wealthy areas, and large areas of poverty

danothy

Sapphire wrote: »

It is up to the elected government of this country to ensure that the native population doesn't 'do these things' – it's something that successive governments have failed to tackle, and indeed encouraged in the case of labour.

So if the government could "ensure" that the native population didn't do these things, then presumably they could "ensure" that non-natives here didn't either by the same means, meaning there is no need to "remove" people.

Tromking

danothy wrote: »

But the native population should get a free ride to remain if they do those things?

Of course they should.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

One has to see the number of dead and the number of migrants in relation to the populations at that time.
At the time of the decline of the native american the world population was probably less than a few hundred million so it would be truely remarkable if 100 million died in N America at that time
I would be interested to know what your estimate of the number of native american that died and your estimate of the world population at that time
similarly you could give your estimate of the percentage of tasmanian natives that deceased.

you could consider the estimates of people that died when the mass migration occurs when india and pakistan were created

Most mass migrations in history have been been via a large armed force.

you are losing any credibility you have with this stupidness

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

you are losing any credibility you have with this stupidness

answer the questions

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

answer the questions

There isnt anything to debate

You point to the american indians and cry...see this is what happens when a nation allows immigration all the natives die. When it was nothing to do with immigration and all to do with conquest. Also there was no governance or legal or political system in place in north america that you would recognise as such if there was you would probably see it as a few nation declaring war on north america and taking its land. Much like the borders of europe changed many many many times.

No one is saying we should allow a more powerful nation to send its soldiers and weapons here to take and hold land. You argument would be as stupid as calling hitlers armies marching into Poland as immigrants or any of the European wars in history as immigrants (armies) arriving and killing lots of locals. stupid beyond your norm