Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

buglawton

Moby wrote: »

It's not a ludicrous statement. We chose to introduce free movement straight away instead of delaying it. Thatcher...our democratically elected PM in 1988 made a speech extolling the virtues of free movement of people, capital and goods. By the way we have always had direct control over immigration from non EU countries anyway which amounts to roughly half of our immigration.

I seem to remember an under-pressure-from-UKIP Cameron going to the EU to try and gain more control over migration into the UK and in so many words, returning with his tail between his legs. That's exactly what kickstarted the move to Brexit.

tracey3596

Moby wrote: »

It's not a ludicrous statement. We chose to introduce free movement straight away instead of delaying it. Thatcher...our democratically elected PM in 1988 made a speech extolling the virtues of free movement of people, capital and goods. By the way we have always had direct control over immigration from non EU countries anyway which amounts to roughly half of our immigration.

And how much direct control over immigration would we have had if the freedom of movement from the EU had not been allowed?
If those from the EU were not allowed to arrive on our shores with nothing more than a promise that UK streets are paved with gold?

In 1988 even Austria, Finland & Sweden were not yet EU member countries, never mind the former eastern-bloc countries which joined since then and from whence so much of the recent migration to the UK has come.

The EU is a far different place from your Thatcher days as I suspect you know only too well; there was no sign then of the influx yet to come from the poorer counties that would join the EU such as Poland, Lithuania, the Czech Republic etc. etc.
https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries_en#tab-0-1

Also I wonder if we had elected not to "introduce free movement straight away" whether we would have been sanctioned by the EU?
You know, as they are with Poland, Hungary & the Czech Republic for not taking in Merkel's refugees?

In conclusion buglawton is correct in denouncing Arklight's line as being "ludicrous" and all you have done is highlight just how ludicrous it was.
Thanks for that, Moby.

Enterprise_1701C

buglawton wrote: »

I seem to remember an under-pressure-from-UKIP Cameron going to the EU to try and gain more control over migration into the UK and in so many words, returning with his tail between his legs. That's exactly what kickstarted the move to Brexit.

What I remember more vidividly is Blair deciding to allow freedom of movement to eastern europeans when he could have phased it in. And yes, freedom of movement does equate to freedom of immigration, when this amount come in what were we meant to do, go round and kick them out after 3 months? They would soom have involved the human rights !!!!!.

Poland and Hungary, joined the EU as part of the bloc's enlargement project. Long-standing member states were offered the chance to impose "transitional controls" on the free movement of people from these countries, allowing them to temporarily limit access to their labour markets.

Blair's Labour government turned down this opportunity. Other members, like Germany, did not. For the decade that followed, net migration to the UK from these new member states topped 423,000, blowing the initial estimate of around 130,000 out of the water, as reported in this Newsweek article from March.

I seem to remember hearing something said about 'rubbing the middle classes' noses in It's

Well, who's nose is sore now Mr Blair. You will probably never become European president because you were an idiot.

Once again I went shopping in my local Lidl today. I heard barely an English voice, most of the conversations where being held in Polish and other what I presume to be eastern European languages. I can identify northern European languages, struggle with eastern European because the majority of them seem to speak not a jot of English these days. Hopefully that will become one of the things you have to be able to do if you want to come to our country in the future, it is not unreasonable to have to speak the language of the country you live in if you interact with others that live there. I do however remember the outrage when we had the cheek to insist that nurses working in the UK could actually speak English.

GreatApe

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

What I remember more vidividly is Blair deciding to allow freedom of movement to eastern europeans when he could have phased it in. And yes, freedom of movement does equate to freedom of immigration, when this amount come in what were we meant to do, go round and kick them out after 3 months? They would soom have involved the human rights !!!!!.

Poland and Hungary, joined the EU as part of the bloc's enlargement project. Long-standing member states were offered the chance to impose "transitional controls" on the free movement of people from these countries, allowing them to temporarily limit access to their labour markets.

Blair's Labour government turned down this opportunity. Other members, like Germany, did not. For the decade that followed, net migration to the UK from these new member states topped 423,000, blowing the initial estimate of around 130,000 out of the water, as reported in this Newsweek article from March.

I seem to remember hearing something said about 'rubbing the middle classes' noses in It's

Well, who's nose is sore now Mr Blair. You will probably never become European president because you were an idiot.

Once again I went shopping in my local Lidl today. I heard barely an English voice, most of the conversations where being held in Polish and other what I presume to be eastern European languages. I can identify northern European languages, struggle with eastern European because the majority of them seem to speak not a jot of English these days. Hopefully that will become one of the things you have to be able to do if you want to come to our country in the future, it is not unreasonable to have to speak the language of the country you live in if you interact with others that live there. I do however remember the outrage when we had the cheek to insist that nurses working in the UK could actually speak English.

As someone who is bilingual I almost always default to the non English language when I am out with my family. Likewise when I am in France I opt to speak English while out in public. The reason is simple privacy. It shouldn't bother you its quite ignorantl if it does bother you

I do accept that migrants should follow the local culture and integrate in that way but they can speak whatever language they please. Most Europeans have a similar culture and do integrate well many even marry locals a lot of the kids on my street are mixed English and Italian French Spanish Polish

Enterprise_1701C

GreatApe wrote: »

As someone who is bilingual I almost always default to the non English language when I am out with my family. Likewise when I am in France I opt to speak English while out in public. The reason is simple privacy. It shouldn't bother you its quite ignorantl if it does bother you

I do accept that migrants should follow the local culture and integrate in that way but they can speak whatever language they please. Most Europeans have a similar culture and do integrate well many even marry locals a lot of the kids on my street are mixed English and Italian French Spanish Polish

What bothers me is they do not bother to learn English, they cannot communicate with anyone that does not speak the language, as is evident when they reach the till and try to argue about something. This means that if they need to use health service or any other service, leaflets etc have to be translated and printed in their language, and the doctors have to use interpreters. This is all extra expense borne by the British tax payer that could be negated if they simply learned English. These services should be chargeable throughout the country (I seem to recall a county has started charging but can't recall who). Putting this into perspective, translation and interpretation services cost the NHS 100 million pounds in the last 5 years, I dread to think what it costs for the rest of the public services.

buglawton

You must be living in a different part of the country to me then Enterprise, around here the E. Europeans speak pretty passable English.

economic

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

What bothers me is they do not bother to learn English, they cannot communicate with anyone that does not speak the language, as is evident when they reach the till and try to argue about something. This means that if they need to use health service or any other service, leaflets etc have to be translated and printed in their language, and the doctors have to use interpreters. This is all extra expense borne by the British tax payer that could be negated if they simply learned English. These services should be chargeable throughout the country (I seem to recall a county has started charging but can't recall who). Putting this into perspective, translation and interpretation services cost the NHS 100 million pounds in the last 5 years, I dread to think what it costs for the rest of the public services.

Is it really a 100million cost?

completely agree though, if they cant be bothered to learn English, they should not be in this country.

Enterprise_1701C

economic wrote: »

Is it really a 100million cost?

completely agree though, if they cant be bothered to learn English, they should not be in this country.

Various sites say 23 million a year, so maybe a bit out.

Thrugelmir

buglawton wrote: »

You must be living in a different part of the country to me then Enterprise, around here the E. Europeans speak pretty passable English.

Our local hospital contends with over a 100 different languages and dialects every year. Often dependent upon the younger generations to translate as simply no other available resources. Hardly ideal.

Herzlos

economic wrote: »

completely agree though, if they cant be bothered to learn English, they should not be in this country.

Does that include glaswegians and the Cornish?