The 2017 HAMISH_MCTAVISH Predictions Thread

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm sure you are correct in saying a significant number of people are wrong about many, many things.
However the discussion was about the number of EU nationals living in the Uk.

So why do you keep talking about 8 million foreigners (13% population) and not 3 million European foreigners (5%) whenever numbers come up? You're deliberately misrepresenting the problem by the 3-fold that we've told you is commonly misunderstood.

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

So why do you keep talking about 8 million foreigners (13% population) and not 3 million European foreigners (5%) whenever numbers come up? You're deliberately misrepresenting the problem by the 3-fold that we've told you is commonly misunderstood.

I appreciate that many here only wish to discuss people from white, christian european countries and are totally accept discrimination against all others: that is not my view

I wish that the UK limits the size of its population and NOT the size of the white, christian european section specifically.

I see the issue as one of limiting the immigration of all peoples so noting the 8 million foreigners is exactly the right thing to do.

I also wish to control our own laws and our own tax rates.

Herzlos

But you're using a number nearly 3 times higher than the real number to justify your point. That there are 8 million foreigners means nothing to restricting EU migration, when only 3 million of them are from the EU.

You're trying to make the problem sound worse than it is to further your agenda. You keep falling back on this white, christian european thing to try and make me look bad for highlighting the flaws in your arguments.

So lets take in on face value, and that you think there's a real migration issue, of which about 40% is EU based. How do you propose leaving the EU will deal with the other 60%? Beyond us needing to bring in more migrants from someone to keep our staffing levels up?

A_Medium_Size_Jock

BobQ wrote: »

That is misleading.

11.7% of people in France are foreign born
12.8% in Germany
13.4% in Spain
11,6% in Netherlands
13.9% in Norway
8.9% in Italy

The UK at 12.3% is hardly out of line with the others and UK has no worse an immigrant concentration than most EU members despite the way it is presented by the anti-immigration brigade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_foreign-born_population

Besides being irrelevant in a discussion about perception in the UK, I note you are misleading by choosing so few countries out of the 28 EU members as comparison and then incorrectly stating that the UK has no worse a concentration than "most EU members".

So here are a few more from your own linked chart, for balance:
5.6% in Finland
3.2% in Slovakia
4.5% in Hungary
2.3% in Poland (This from Wiki rather than your link, Wiki stating 97.7% of Polish population = ethnic Polish)

At best you could have said that the UK has no significantly worse a concentration of immigrants than some other EU countries.
As earlier though, this is largely irrelevant to the discussion in hand.

Regardless of how immigration is perceived there can be no doubting that there simply is not currently the infrastructure in the UK to allow immigration to continue at the recent pace.

From a population of under 59 million at the turn of the century to over 65 million today, added to an increasing increasing elderly population and some wonder why (just as one example) the NHS is under pressure?
Without even considering housing, transport etc. etc.

So, my personal perception of migration is that - like it or not - we are all being affected to at least some degree with the capital appearing to be amongst the worst affected.
Without significant investment in infrastructure we are not adequately coping with even recent migration.
Limiting migration - of all peoples BTW - is therefore the only alternative.

BobQ

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Besides being irrelevant in a discussion about perception in the UK, I note you are misleading by choosing so few countries out of the 28 EU members as comparison and then incorrectly stating that the UK has no worse a concentration than "most EU members".

So here are a few more from your own linked chart, for balance:
5.6% in Finland
3.2% in Slovakia
4.5% in Hungary
2.3% in Poland (This from Wiki rather than your link, Wiki stating 97.7% of Polish population = ethnic Polish)

I accept that the word "most" was not the best one to use as I chose to quote a selection of nations forgetting that nit picking was rife on here.

Of course you can quote 4 that are less than the ones I quoted but I could have quoted Ireland, Belgium, Luxemburg, Austria and Sweden who are all considerably higher. The ones I quoted are typical and not misleading as you well know since you have read the link.

At best you could have said that the UK has no significantly worse a concentration of immigrants than some other EU countries.
As earlier though, this is largely irrelevant to the discussion in hand.

Yes that is what I could have said. I could also have said that the comparable nations of France, Germany and Spain have broadly similar levels. I have already said why it is relevant.

From a population of under 59 million at the turn of the century to over 65 million today, added to an increasing increasing elderly population and some wonder why (just as one example) the NHS is under pressure?
Without even considering housing, transport etc. etc.

I have no real wish to keep debating the issues of the referendum. I do not deny that immigration adds to the need for housing and creates the need for more school and hospital places etc but immigrants pay taxes as well and these service should be provided from those taxes.

Quoting the NHS is risible since the NHS exists using immigrant nurses and doctors.

Once we control our borders we will see how well the Government controls them. I have not seen much evidence of the 60% of immigrants who come from non-EU nations being controlled. The reason is simple: we actually need immigration to deal with a falling working population due to demographic trends.

So, my personal perception of migration is that - like it or not - we are all being affected to at least some degree with the capital appearing to be amongst the worst affected.
Without significant investment in infrastructure we are not adequately coping with even recent migration.

Agreed

Limiting migration - of all peoples BTW - is therefore the only alternative.

No it is a solution. As ever it depends what you mean by limiting. We can limit 60% non-EU immigration today - yet we do not seem to. Soon we will be able to control 100% but we will still have vacancies and skill shortages.

I agree we can only solve our problems, but the point I was making was that other nations have similar problems of increasing elderly populations and recognise that immigration is not the problem but part of the solution. The real issue is that the unsuccessful austerity the Government has pursued (leading to even higher levels of debt) has not addressed the problems created by immigration: they have just used the tax revenue to ...do what?

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

Quoting the NHS is risible since the NHS exists using immigrant nurses and doctors.

Maybe so but it takes 10 years to train as a Doctor and 14 years as a Surgeon. Planning for the growth in population needed to start 25 years ago.

Graham_Devon

Herzlos wrote: »

But you're using a number nearly 3 times higher than the real number to justify your point. That there are 8 million foreigners means nothing to restricting EU migration, when only 3 million of them are from the EU.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone here. But I've seen this sort of discussion on the TV before now (might have been newsnight).

The problem with such a figure is that the data is being measured in two different ways. The way ot's measured can have a huge away on perceptions.

Stat 1:
- Number of European born migrants in the UK

Stat 2:
- Number of European migrants in the UK.

There is a clear difference here, though the ability to misinform here is huge.

One figure only counts someone who comes here from the EU if they were BORN in say Germany. Another figure will count the person if they come here from Germany regardless of where they were born.

I suspect the 3m figure you use is based on where the person is born. In reality is doesn't matter. If they are born in Syria, get into the EU via Germany and then come here, it's still someone who has come here from the EU, German born or not.

Herzlos

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I suspect the 3m figure you use is based on where the person is born. In reality is doesn't matter. If they are born in Syria, get into the EU via Germany and then come here, it's still someone who has come here from the EU, German born or not.

But they'd still need a VISA to get in here as we're not in Shengen (I've done the paperwork for some non-EU folk coming here from the EU). FoM of movement only applies to EU citizens, so since we've already got control over that, we should be focusing on the migrants we want to introduce control for.

I don't know how the figure I'm using is generated, it's from https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/ which is based on an ONS report.

My point is largely that Clapton keeps talking about all migrants as a justification for stopping EU migrants coming here, which only seems to serve to make it look like a bigger EU problem than it really is (by about 300%). Since we already control migration for the other 5 million people (badly), and some of them have been here for 50+ years, the 8 million figure has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

We're seeing net migration from the EU of approximately 190,000 people per year, which is the only figure that really matters here. That's about 0.3% of the population.

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

But they'd still need a VISA to get in here as we're not in Shengen (I've done the paperwork for some non-EU folk coming here from the EU). FoM of movement only applies to EU citizens, so since we've already got control over that, we should be focusing on the migrants we want to introduce control for.

I don't know how the figure I'm using is generated, it's from https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/ which is based on an ONS report.

My point is largely that Clapton keeps talking about all migrants as a justification for stopping EU migrants coming here, which only seems to serve to make it look like a bigger EU problem than it really is (by about 300%). Since we already control migration for the other 5 million people (badly), and some of them have been here for 50+ years, the 8 million figure has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

We're seeing net migration from the EU of approximately 190,000 people per year, which is the only figure that really matters here. That's about 0.3% of the population.

I wish to limit immigration to the low 10s of thousands : we have to leave the EU to do that : what part of that don't you understand?

250,000 immigrants a year for 20 years is 5 million
for 40 years is 10 million
which part of the arthimetic don't you understand?

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

I wish to limit immigration to the low 10s of thousands : we have to leave the EU to do that : what part of that don't you understand?

250,000 immigrants a year for 20 years is 5 million
for 40 years is 10 million
which part of the arthimetic don't you understand?

Why the low 10's of thousands?

I think we should allow in as many as we need and/or pay into the state.