If we vote for Brexit what happens

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

I understand that immigrants use
-NHS hospitals
-NHS dentists
-NHS GPs
-schools
-roads
-housing
-transport
-local council services (waste disposal, libraries etc)
and many more

I sure you you know that most of these are NOT funded by local councils.

That is why I said "are funded by local and national taxes".

The same argument applies local and national government plan the need for services, facilities, etc based on the future use of them.

If we had no immigration, do you not think that they would still have to plan new schools, roads etc as people move around the country and demographics change?

BobQ

Rinoa wrote: »

The councils don't even know these immigrants are coming. Cameron said 10's of thousands a year. How does a council know how many will come and want houses, and where do the council get the money to build them? Have you any idea how long it takes to plan and build schools and hospitals? And you honestly believe immigrants pay sufficient tax to pay for all this?

If the official figures are 350,000 per year, chances are it's nearer to maybe 500,000. That's equivalent to building another Leeds every 12 months, just to cope with immigration alone.

Of course, its not the fault of individual immigrants, but to assume we can cope with this level of immigration year after year is just fantasy.

If they were just building a school for immigrants you would have a point. But they decide whether to build a school or not based on what they know about the area. They do not build one because an immigrant or two moves to the area. What does the local authority do when a small firm relocates to the area, or a start up business takes on more staff? They plan as best they can!

How many immigrants came to Leeds last year and this year?

I do accept that in London there are more issues due to the concentration of immigration, but the needs of London are not the needs of the nation.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

If they were just building a school for immigrants you would have a point. But they decide whether to build a school or not based on what they know about the area. They do not build one because an immigrant or two moves to the area. What does the local authority do when a small firm relocates to the area, or a start up business takes on more staff? They plan as best they can!

How many immigrants came to Leeds last year and this year?

I do accept that in London there are more issues due to the concentration of immigration, but the needs of London are not the needs of the nation.

you avoid the issue of whether we have adequately built
sufficient 'infrastructure ' to meet the need of the population increase ; If we have then fine : if not then we clearly need to increase taxes to pay for the shortfall or course simply borrow more .


The idea that 9 million people don't need infrastructure building seems a little bizarre.

mayonnaise

Rinoa wrote: »

If the official figures are 350,000 per year, chances are it's nearer to maybe 500,000. That's equivalent to building another Leeds every 12 months, just to cope with immigration alone.

Of course, its not the fault of individual immigrants, but to assume we can cope with this level of immigration year after year is just fantasy.

Net migration from the EU was 185,000.
Not 350,000. Remember, as a good brexiteer, you are supposed to welcome and applaud non-EU migration as they are all highly skilled scientists, programmers and medical staff.
185,000 then. Roughly 0.3% of the population.
That's about 0.08 pupils extra per class in primary schools. (average class size of 26)
That's about 6 patients extra per GP (average 2000 patients per GP)
Can't cope? Nonsense. These are very moderate numbers of polulation growth and could be easily accomodated if the political will was there.

PS. Please stop peddling this bigot nonsense about 'need to build a city the size of x to cope with them migrants'. You're better than that.

CLAPTON

mayonnaise wrote: »

Net migration from the EU was 185,000.
Not 350,000. Remember, as a good brexiteer, you are supposed to welcome and applaud non-EU migration as they are all highly skilled scientists, programmers and medical staff.
185,000 then. Roughly 0.3% of the population.
That's about 0.08 pupils extra per class in primary schools. (average class size of 26)
That's about 6 patients extra per GP (average 2000 patients per GP)
Can't cope? Nonsense. These are very moderate numbers of polulation growth and could be easily accomodated if the political will was there.

PS. Please stop peddling this bigot nonsense about 'need to build a city the size of x to cope with them migrants'. You're better than that.

9 million immigrants
3 million immigrants in London
100,000 increase in London population per year


and you believe that none of them ever need an 'extra' house , doctor, school place, seat on a train because each one individually requires so little.


and you believe they can all be accommodated for no increase in spending or taxes if only the political will were there.


but at least we do agree that ALL immigration needs to be restricted and not just the EU component

Rinoa

mayonnaise wrote: »

Net migration from the EU was 185,000.
Not 350,000. Remember, as a good brexiteer, you are supposed to welcome and applaud non-EU migration as they are all highly skilled scientists, programmers and medical staff.
185,000 then. Roughly 0.3% of the population.
That's about 0.08 pupils extra per class in primary schools. (average class size of 26)
That's about 6 patients extra per GP (average 2000 patients per GP)
Can't cope? Nonsense. These are very moderate numbers of polulation growth and could be easily accomodated if the political will was there.

PS. Please stop peddling this bigot nonsense about 'need to build a city the size of x to cope with them migrants'. You're better than that.

You can play the 'bigot' trump card all you like if it makes you feel superior.

But if the increase in immigration each year equals the population of say Leeds or Manchester, then we have to build a city that size each year to accommodate and provide the necessary services they require.

Anything less and the services we currently enjoy will need to be rationed.

Fella

mayonnaise wrote: »

Net migration from the EU was 185,000.

185,000 then. Roughly 0.3% of the population.
That's about 0.08 pupils extra per class in primary schools. (average class size of 26)
That's about 6 patients extra per GP (average 2000 patients per GP)
Can't cope? Nonsense. These are very moderate numbers of polulation growth and could be easily accomodated if the political will was there.

Disingenuous nonsense. That kind analysis works from the utterly false premise that immigration happens equally across the country, with the overall numbers being absorbed with barely a ripple.

The reality is that whilst some areas see almost no migration, other areas bear the brunt & are transformed utterly & in ways that are disastrous the the locals who've lived there their whole lives.

In my experience, most of the liberals who like to lecture others on how they should welcome migration, tend to live in the former types of areas & neither know nor care what effect migration has on many communities. They prefer to issue smug lectures & unfounded accusations of bigotry.

Generali

Rinoa wrote: »

The councils don't even know these immigrants are coming. Cameron said 10's of thousands a year. How does a council know how many will come and want houses, and where do the council get the money to build them? Have you any idea how long it takes to plan and build schools and hospitals? And you honestly believe immigrants pay sufficient tax to pay for all this?

If the official figures are 350,000 per year, chances are it's nearer to maybe 500,000. That's equivalent to building another Leeds every 12 months, just to cope with immigration alone.

Of course, its not the fault of individual immigrants, but to assume we can cope with this level of immigration year after year is just fantasy.

Assuming that migrants don't get a tax break for the first few years, there is no reason to assume that migrants pay less tax than the indigenous population.

In fact there is a case to be made that they pay more: non-EU migrants by definition are bringing needed skills and EU migrants are likely to be the more motivated people that want to get off their Aris's and move to a cold, damp island where their friends and family don't live.

michaels

Shades of grey

Most people are fairly intelligent and recognise that life is not black and white but nuanced....until it comes to political discourse at which point it seems we only like politicians who express certainty in their preferred view.

How many have stood up and said 'EU membership - arguments both ways, perhaps a bit less direct democratic control but less risk, Middle high earners gain from cheaper un/low skilled labour, lower earners lose out'

Instead we get Hitler vs WW3 arguments. Darwinism suggests that we get the politicians who know what works so it seems that we like to be told there is a certain right answer rather than having to grapple with that uncertainty ourselves.

Rinoa

Generali wrote: »

Assuming that migrants don't get a tax break for the first few years, there is no reason to assume that migrants pay less tax than the indigenous population.

In fact there is a case to be made that they pay more: non-EU migrants by definition are bringing needed skills and EU migrants are likely to be the more motivated people that want to get off their Aris's and move to a cold, damp island where their friends and family don't live.

Migrants certainly pay taxes, and are renowned for their industry. The difficulty arises when their number increases faster than we can provide the extra accommodation and services they require. They may pay sufficient taxes to pay their way over a lifetime, but they need that house on day one.

Watch Breakfast TV and there's almost a daily account of services being stretched in hospitals schools, prisons, police etc. Hamish regales us on a monthly basis as to how much rents have risen that month.

What proportion of all this can be attributed to immigration who knows. But 350,000+ year on year on year must have a significant impact.