Exploitation, Exploitation, Exploitation

HornetSaver

However, in general I am unconvinced that there are many skills we really need : most can be home grown if necessary.

I disagree with that, but not with the logic behind your overall position (if you have come to that conclusion on skill requirements, then obviously leaving makes more sense for most of the previous reasons you gave).

To reduce the discussion to the simplest financial level (tax and spend per individual), how many "unskilled" people can a "skilled" person carry, before immigration as a whole is a net negative? It's a question we'd of course be fools to try and answer, but surely that is the follow-up question to 'how many "skilled" immigrants do we need?'.

CLAPTON

HornetSaver wrote: »

I disagree with that, but not with the logic behind your overall position (if you have come to that conclusion on skill requirements, then obviously leaving makes more sense for most of the previous reasons you gave).

To reduce the discussion to the simplest financial level (tax and spend per individual), how many "unskilled" people can a "skilled" person carry, before immigration as a whole is a net negative? It's a question we'd of course be fools to try and answer, but surely that is the follow-up question to 'how many "skilled" immigrants do we need?'.

It is clearly an unanswerable question as it will depend heavily on the business cycle.
In practice, it is even harder to answer as businesses will obviously argue that they desperately 'need' a particular skill. Curry chefs were once (maybe still) deemed in short supply but I was never convinced they couldn't be trained in the UK.
In any event I'm relaxed about small numbers (in the 10s of thousands so I'ld favour a couple of arbitary lines in the sand, one for asylum seekers and one for economic migrants.
And of course, my primary interest is the general wealth fare of the people of the UK which doesn't equate simply to finance balances.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

It is clearly an unanswerable question as it will depend heavily on the business cycle.
In practice, it is even harder to answer as businesses will obviously argue that they desperately 'need' a particular skill. Curry chefs were once (maybe still) deemed in short supply but I was never convinced they couldn't be trained in the UK.
In any event I'm relaxed about small numbers (in the 10s of thousands so I'ld favour a couple of arbitary lines in the sand, one for asylum seekers and one for economic migrants.
And of course, my primary interest is the general wealth fare of the people of the UK which doesn't equate simply to finance balances.

Presumably that works both ways. If something terrible happens to the UK you wouldn't hope to be able to move away. You'd just expect to sit there and die if necessary in order that an Australian can get a seat on the bus in Sydney in the morning.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Presumably that works both ways. If something terrible happens to the UK you wouldn't hope to be able to move away. You'd just expect to sit there and die if necessary in order that an Australian can get a seat on the bus in Sydney in the morning.

anything better than discussing the actual issues?

not with standing your view that Aus has a completely open immigration policy I'm not sure I have enough information to confirm that.

in any event, my views are pragmatic and are based on what is in the interests of the people of the UK. if the facts change so will my views

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

anything better than discussing the actual issues?

not with standing your view that Aus has a completely open immigration policy I'm not sure I have enough information to confirm that.

in any event, my views are pragmatic and are based on what is in the interests of the people of the UK. if the facts change so will my views

Hmm. That sounds rather like if it all goes wrong in the UK you'd be on the first boat out.

Bit unfair on all those French commuters wouldn't you say? Having to put up with a bunch of Brits clogging up the Metro just because the UK is now functionally impossible to live in.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If everyone else is stuck where they are, surely a massive nuclear disaster that irradiates the whole of the UK and gives you a life expectancy of a few months doesn't change anything.

After all, what do you imagine the life expectancy of a Christian in ISIS territory is?

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Hmm. That sounds rather like if it all goes wrong in the UK you'd be on the first boat out.

Bit unfair on all those French commuters wouldn't you say? Having to put up with a bunch of Brits clogging up the Metro just because the UK is now functionally impossible to live in.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If everyone else is stuck where they are, surely a massive nuclear disaster that irradiates the whole of the UK and gives you a life expectancy of a few months doesn't change anything.

After all, what do you imagine the life expectancy of a Christian in ISIS territory is?

I'm not sure what your point is

is it that you believe in unlimited free movement of people?
that you believe Aus has unlimited immigration rules?
If so, I'm surprised concerned Aus people or even UN aren't organising mass migration to Aus.

in any event, if you do believe in unlimited free movement of people then why would sauce for the goose etc be relevant?

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point is

Interesting, you're normally very intelligent and insightful yet when someone calls you out you suddenly become clueless.

You have explicitly stated that you believe that there should be a limit on refugees going to the UK. Presumably that same limit should apply if the worst was to happen and the UK became uninhabitable for some reason.

Your dogma would require you to remain and die so as not to inconvenience a commuter or hospital patient in another country unless you are one of the lucky ones that wins the lottery as to who gets to take one of the few thousand places overseas.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Interesting, you're normally very intelligent and insightful yet when someone calls you out you suddenly become clueless.

You have explicitly stated that you believe that there should be a limit on refugees going to the UK. Presumably that same limit should apply if the worst was to happen and the UK became uninhabitable for some reason.

Your dogma would require you to remain and die so as not to inconvenience a commuter or hospital patient in another country unless you are one of the lucky ones that wins the lottery as to who gets to take one of the few thousand places overseas.

no, I have repeatedly stated I am a pragmatist : when the facts change I change my mind

so today, I believe we ought to have a near zero immigration level.
if, in the future, we need immigration then we should let them in.

If the UK became uninhabitable for some reason I would go to Aus where they have open borders and I have relatives.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

no, I have repeatedly stated I am a pragmatist : when the facts change I change my mind

so today, I believe we ought to have a near zero immigration level.
if, in the future, we need immigration then we should let them in.

If the UK became uninhabitable for some reason I would go to Aus where they have open borders and I have relatives.

Ah, I see. Closed borders are for other people not you.

Filo25

CLAPTON wrote: »

anything better than discussing the actual issues?

not with standing your view that Aus has a completely open immigration policy I'm not sure I have enough information to confirm that.

in any event, my views are pragmatic and are based on what is in the interests of the people of the UK. if the facts change so will my views

I still find it odd how the main reason you have claimed immigration is bad for the UK, is because it has forced up property prices in London and locked out the young from the housing market, and yet the younger age groups in London by my experience are generally remarkably Europhile.

Let's be honest here, the reason London has such high levels of immigration is because the economy has relatively speaking been doing extremely well and the labour market been sucking in people from across the UK and Europe to support that.

As others have said many times before EU immigration is generally a net positive for the finances of the economy, receiving young, highly motivated migrants who are genuinely looking to work generally isn't the biggest problem a country can have, especially as the underlying reason for it is a regional economy that has been performing strongly.

Yes immigration does create winners and losers, as anything in life does (low interest rates are probably more responsible for house price growth than immigration is, but I haven't seen many rabidly protesting about that outside of the HPC forum!), but I hardly see any "facts" to support your claim that leaving the EU is clearly in the best interests of the people of the UK.

We all have our opinions but there are a lot more shades of gray than most are willing to admit on either side, its unfortunately why most of the "debate" is as awful as you would expect.