Everyone else has either looked at that model and rejected it or just rejected it without even considering it for more than 2 minutes
3 examples, Australia, Canada and USA.
Eu immigration and emigration are reasonably balanced, outofbreath. There are about five million British expats living around the world of which two million live in the EU. Do you want all the pensioners and English teachers back in exchange for the nurses and plumbers?
Edit to add a [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11287523/Where-are-the-British-expats-in-Europe-This-map-will-tell-you.html ]link to an expat map[/url]
"Eu immigration and emigration are reasonably balanced, outofbreath"
Nobody knows for sure in the UK, but as of March it was about 300k per year:
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics
And the minimum wage is going up soon which will attract more. Plus apparently the Brexit vote has spiked immigration as people rush to the UK before any controls are implemented.
It would be pretty hard to make the case that net immigration is good for growth if there wasn't any net immigration!
Over half the 300 000 net is non EU. One of the particularities of British expats is that they keep an address in the UK, live on a UK pension/slaery and pay their taxes in the UK because it's cheaper than going native. How many Brits spend more time in their "holiday homes" than in the UK we don't know. Chatting to people of ferry crossings many are not officially resident in France or Spain.
"Over half the 300 000 net is non EU."
Hard to see how that could be true if your statement was correct and net immigration was ~0!
Also tricky to see how something that isn't happening is generating growth!
??
out of roughly 300k, 150K are roughly EU and 150k roughly non-EU....hence "reasonably balanced"
Its not hard
"EU immigration and emigration are reasonably balanced."
"out of roughly 300k, 150K are roughly EU and 150k roughly non-EU....hence "reasonably balanced"
Claiming non EU immigrants are UK emigrants to the EU. 🙁
Post truth Politics. 🙁
I didn't say zero, I said "reasonably balanced". I'm also perhaps more aware of the size of the unrecorded expat community than most. I know someone who got nervous after the Brexit vote and decided to apply for French nationality. "No problem I said you've been here for nearly 20 years, it's a piece of cake after 10". Only two of those 20 years had she been officially resident in France and the two years were more than 10 years ago.
Post truth Politics.
Perhaps Ed should have been more honest 😉 noting that non-EU is > EU net migration, followed up by the fact that EU migrants make a more positive contribution to the the UK than non-EU migrants.
Reasonably balanced - huh!! people will be arguing for fewer EU migrants and more non-EU ones next!!
British retirees are great for Europe, it's like a permanent group of tourists bringing money to your country and spending it there all year round not just in the peak summer season. Portugal is going out of its way to attract them, 10 years tax free if you retire there.
@igm the Romans where smart, they only went so far then built a wall 😉
British retirees also tend to go for areas suffering rural desertification - a real plus for France I hasten to add. There are villages in the Dordogne where all the businesses are run by Brits (so they're counted as expats), the posty is a Brit, and the rest of the population is mainly long-term British "holiday makers" with their British car, British pension and no desire whatsoever to pay anything other than property tax in France.
Edukator. My wife has never "registered" in the UK in 3 years of being there, from what I understand only 50% of the French in UK have registered. I don't see why they would. You can register with a GP without registering as a "French person in the UK". My understanding is if you own a property in France and pay property taxes you get a Carte Vitale. If you can get a French passport why would you not apply, seems a no brainer to me ?
Some British pensioners have high pensions and would pay a shed load of tax in France if they admitted to being in the country more than 185 days a year.
I think one thing we would agree on is that official statistics for both EU immigration and EU emigration are underestimates.
Government lawyer chappie got a real hard time from the supreme court judges today. Its rahter funny watching someone make the best of a very poor case knowing they are on a hiding to nothing
I'm registered with the french consulate as it is easier to get official documents like passport renewal. And if anything happens to me, on my bike for example, would be easier to get in touch with my family.
It is free.
I'm in the process of registering the kids and my marriage. I never bothered but with Brexit and our move to France, I need to do it.
Interesting info for the carte vitale. I don't have one but it is something I need to look into very soon.
TJ I watched as much of that as I could stand (30 mins). It was quite light hearted at times and it's their job to challenge both sides.
Edukator another example of why there should be proper border checks in and out. If I where the French authorities I would send them a tax return and give them a full audit (phone logs, utility bills, bank/credit card statements inc cards of offshore banks), plenty of bods on final salary schemes with pensions from £50-100k pa and more. I know of people who split their time between UK, France and Switzerland I suspect who are not actually tax resident anywhere.
Switzerland are very strict. Not easy to cheat the system. I've friends, whose parents moved to Geneva and it was not easy.
And they are millionaires and could afford very expensive lawyers.
Quite a few famous cases of people being kicked out of Switzerland as they were spending less than 183 days per year there.
Government lawyer chappie got a real hard time from the supreme court judges today. Its rahter funny watching someone make the best of a very poor case knowing they are on a hiding to nothing
Some of the arguments seemed a bit odd and flimsy, but I think most would crumble completely under intense questioning from that many senior judges.
I expect the anti-govt counsel to get a similarly tough grilling.
Its seems logical to me that we will not save a money by having to do everything ourselves instead of pooling sovereignty/civil service.
It also seems to follow the standards set by our international trading partners, such as the Eu for example, as it makes it easier to trade and who really wants to make their own rules up and then have to follow a whole different set of rules internationally?
[url= http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/11/its-now-clear-brexit-means-bigger-government ]http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/11/its-now-clear-brexit-means-bigger-government[/url]
Funny that you can usually tell how badly and country is doing with the level of net migration. Think of the days of old in Ireland or Italy or even Sweden in the past. Trouble is we have an ageing tax base and need new tax payers to pay for the oldies.
Once you get to your fifties you are nearly a dead duck as far as tax/pay goes. Soon you will be getting more than you are paying in. So my solution to Brexit would be for some kind of link between pensions and the tax base so pensioners can only get a certain percentage of the tax coming in. They may decide that it is actually a good idea to boost the population a bit.
Mark Carney on C4 News now - tidy chap.
Funny that you can usually tell how badly and country is doing with the level of net migration. Think of the days of old in Ireland or Italy or even Sweden in the past. Trouble is we have an aging tax base and need new tax payers to pay for the oldies.Once you get to your fifties you are nearly a dead duck as far as tax/pay goes. Soon you will be getting more than you are paying in. So my solution to Brexit would be for some kind of link between pensions and the tax base so pensioners can only get a certain percentage of the tax coming in. They may decide that it is actually a good idea to boost the population a bit.
Final salary, average career earnings and even the state pension are a ponzi scheme. The only real solution is you save, for low paid their pot is toped up by the better off. You have this bizarre situation where (say) the Germans are having fewer kids as kids are expensive and they don't want to give up lifestyle and then the Govt says we must have more immigrants to pay their pensions. It's a great big Ponzi scheme which cannot work. We have the same faulty logic here in the UK too.
Final salary, average career earnings and even the state pension are a ponzi scheme. The only real solution is you save, for low paid their pot is toped up by the better off. You have this bizarre situation where (say) the Germans are having fewer kids as kids are expensive and they don't want to give up lifestyle and then the Govt says we must have more immigrants to pay their pensions. It's a great big Ponzi scheme which cannot work. We have the same faulty logic here in the UK too.
If it's a ponzi scheme, what's the solution?
If it's a ponzi scheme, what's the solution?
Carousel?
If it's a ponzi scheme, what's the solution?
Your income tax is inversely proportional to the number of children you have?
Its not a ponzi scheme.
Immigration?
More working years/higher tax and smaller pensions.
the Germans are having fewer kids as kids are expensive
You're not wrong. I've seen the price of kids' clothes and shoes in Germany.
Ponzi scheme? Since a large proportion of our tax and debt goes on paying for the old either in pensions, social or health care seems like we are currently paying the price for real. Will Brexit solve the population imbalance that seems to be a large part of every EU countries problems. The U.K. was doing a pretty good job attracting the young, skilled and willing of Europe to work and counter balance this but who knows what will happen now.
If it's a ponzi scheme, what's the solution?
Solution is easy, just listen to the kippers, women back where they belong in the kitchen, and we don't want them having an education either. All the studies point to educated women having smaller families and that is the last thing we need.
I expect the anti-govt counsel to get a similarly tough grilling.
As a point of order here we have one side representing TM and some of her cabinet and the other representing Parliament and its role in UK law.
Immigration makes the problem worse (imo in particular due to high portion of those in low paid work)
The solution is to save for yourself (with tax breaks) - work longer, spend less when working
US (and Singaporean / HK) taxes are lower as there is no state pension / state sector pensions to pay
TJ get your calculator out and try and make the numbers work, they don't. This is a very rough calculation amd simplistic but bear with me. Look at (say) our friend Corbyn. 30 years an MP and a pension which to purchase would cost £1.6m - about £50k pa. The state has incurred that liability without saving a penny for it. So the MP that takes his seat has to pay that amount in tax just to pay Jezza's pension never mind a portion for welfare or any other govt spending like the NHS. MP's make about £75k so tax would have to be be £50/75 = 67%. Now of course you have private sector taxes paying state liabilities but my point is the future liabilities are immense and adding people at the bottom is just fueling the Ponzi scheme
So long as those contributions are sufficient to pay the public sector pensions of today, the cash flows in and out steadily and in balance. Of late, however, the amount the Treasury has to pay to top pensions up has risen and will rise still further into the future. [b]Like an unstable Ponzi scheme,[/b] it will only work if tomorrow’s generations of new members and taxpayers is able to stomach a higher cost to pay tomorrow for the unfunded promises being made today.
Public Sector Pensions Commission.
Still one can always stick one's head in the sand and ignore facts....
As a point of order here we have one side representing TM and some of her cabinet and the other representing Parliament and its role in UK law.
Isn't it strictly one side representing the Government and the other Gina Miller who brought the original case ?
Whichever, I wish we could FF and get the three line Bill in front of the house
Isn't it strictly one side representing the Government and the other Gina Miller who brought the original case ?
I think a lot of the government actually want a vote on it otherwise TM would have gone for the bill 😉 those bringing the case are not anti government they are supporting parliament. Just trying to avoid the bad daily mail language here.
Gina Miler case has been chosen to be represented but there were lots more .
and you also have a hairdresser from London , Wales , Scotland .
If you can get a French passport why would you not apply, seems a no brainer to me ?
Well, since the vote to split us, yes, a no brainier. Before it, being a UK passport holder looked like it was enough to continue living a good life in Europe. Hell, if any UK passport holder has a route to getting a passport from one of the "long term" EU counties they'd be shooting themselves in the foot not to do so now. They don't want to lose out the way the rest of us will.
Hang on… just read the comments about pensions, and attempting to pin the black hole growing in this area on immigrants… I'd laugh if I could.
British retirees are great for Europe, it's like a permanent group of tourists bringing money to your country and spending it there all year round not just in the peak summer season. Portugal is going out of its way to attract them, 10 years tax free if you retire there.
Or one could also say:
[s]British retirees[/s] European workers are great for [s]Europe[/s] the UK, it's like a permanent group of [s]tourists bringing[/s] workers earning money [s]to[/s] and tax for your country and spending it there all year round not just in the peak summer season. [s]Portugal[/s] The NHS is going out of its way to attract them, [s]10 years tax free if you retire there.[/s]
The average public sector pension is £5.6k p/a, compared to £5.9k in the private sector (National Association of Pension Funds, 2012). I'm sure that there are some generous - but exceptional - pensions being paid in private sector, as we as public sector, schemes.
Public sector pensions are self funding - i.e. contributions from members and organisations cover obligations. If the workers and the organisations they work for were privately owned, they would still be self-funding at today's rates.
It's hard to see how the "burden" to taxpayers (who include government workers, too) would reduce if future public sector pensions were eroded further. Today's pensions still need paying.
Personal contribution rates are now much higher (up from 6% in 2010 to 13.5% from 2014, in my case), generally now into watered-down career average schemes.
In many cases, the debate confuses public sector pensions with the state pension, which is growing at an unsustainable rate due to the "triple lock" promise and demographics.
Public sector pensions are self funding
Is that correct? All of them...?
If it's not immigrants it's robot immigrants
[img] 
[/img]
and quote of the minute...
But several justices seem sceptical about this, Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger arguing that Parliament "can always be involved if it wants to be".
