If there is a second referendum ...

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And if your lot had put that on the side of a big red bus I can guarantee you'd have lost the referendum.

Hamish !

HNY to you and all that

As to your point, well...obviously. Politics has long since been removed from being honest with the voters.

It's marketing now, which would explain why Cameron and Blair did well.

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

If we don't address the challenges from the growing economies in the Far East, you can forget about any race.

We won't even be on the starting blocks.

There are between 0.5m and 1m illegal migrants here in the UK (depending on which figures you prefer). Without a passport the hourly rate is not much more than £2-£3 per hour. Even Big Issue sellers are run by gangs.

The bottom is already here. It's just a question of who profits.

And those are the ones we should be focusing on dealing with, not the ones that are here legally. We already have the power to address the problem but it's easier to target the others.

Scrapping the NMW so we're all on £2/hour and scratching a survival won't help anyone.

Herzlos

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

I can't wait for when you finally get independence, we might actually be able to fund the nhs then instead of funding your lot. We send far too much money north of the border, as is evidenced by the fact that Sturgeon is desperately trying to find ways of spending it, I would love to see what would happen if she actually had to fund the expenditure.

And yes, I want British born people to have priority over people not born here, why shouldn't we, that is the way it works in other countries.

I'd love independence to prove you wrong, so if you can petition your MP about kicking us out I'd appreciate it.

I don't think we should prioritize anyone who has a right to be here, or penalise those that don't (they are still human, though I'd be all for stabilizing them and then deporting them).
My point wasn't about priority anyway, just that migrants are empirically not the drain on the nhs that they are claimed to be. The only problem the NHS faces is lack of staffing and chronic underfunding, both of which will be made worse after brexit.

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

...
Scrapping the NMW so we're all on £2/hour and scratching a survival won't help anyone.

It's a lot of money to people from places like Cambodia, even on a seasonable basis. As long as you can provide safe boarding.

I don't see why you favour a more expensive European migrant worker over one in potentially much greater need?

kabayiri

If FOM was supposed to be the answer to our skills shortage, then why is there a recruitment crisis in the NHS?

And why do we need to bring in hundreds of thousands from outside the EU?

Obviously, FOM isn't delivering compared to how it is sold by politicians.

Theophile

Tromking wrote: »

Most births in London now are to foreign born parents it is said and it is ludicrous to suggest that 3.7m EU citizens are not contributing greatly to the pressures on our schools and hospitals etc.

Most non-British births in London are in families from Indian descent.


The No.2 spot is taken by Bangladesh by the way.

Your rabid Europhobia is making you overlook things like...basic facts.



Happy New Year!

Arklight

kabayiri wrote: »

It's nothing to do with 'liking'.

Back in the mid/late 90s it was made very clear to me by the American bosses that they were bringing in Indian specialists, and they were pretty open about the reasons too.

They could pay these people less, and expect them to work circa 12 hour days effectively.

I've spent enough time with these guys to like them, but I recognised they were also my competitors.

I had to play on any edge available to me, to maintain a competitive advantage and retain income.

These guys, if openly asked, would do exactly the same.

In some sectors of the economy it is tough now, and in the face of growing competition, you do whatever it takes to ensure you feed your own family as opposed to others.

The UK economy is NOT a charity. It's a business environment. The EU do not care particularly whether UK workers lose out to the newer EU workers. It's not their priority.

What on earth are you talking about? Statistical unemployment is as low as it's ever been, and migrants make a net contribution to the economy. Exactly what is it you think migrants from the EU are outcompeting you from; sunbeds in Butlins? The last cheese and onion slice in Greggs on a Saturday afternoon?

Tromking

Theophile wrote: »

Most non-British births in London are in families from Indian descent.


The No.2 spot is taken by Bangladesh by the way.

Your rabid Europhobia is making you overlook things like...basic facts.



Happy New Year!

I was responding to Hezlos making a general point about “migrants” being younger and in good health and thus not needing to access the NHS.
That said, thankyou for confirming the veracity of my facts.

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

It's a lot of money to people from places like Cambodia, even on a seasonable basis. As long as you can provide safe boarding.

I don't see why you favour a more expensive European migrant worker over one in potentially much greater need?

I prefer workers from a level playing field. All Europeans are treated more or less equally, with more or less consistent regulations and job markets. I suspect any seasonal Cambodian labourers will be treated like 3rd class citizens at best, and likely won't have any medical provisions like EU nationals have.

If Cambodia were to join the EU and it's citizens treated as such, I'd have no issue.

Herzlos

Theophile wrote: »

Most non-British births in London are in families from Indian descent.

Meaning they are 3rd, 4th or 5th generation? Which leads to an interesting question; how many generations before someone stops becoming a migrant? I've always assumed if they were born elsewhere and move here they are a migrant.

Since most of us are probably within 100 generations and treated as native, there must be a cut-off somewhere?