[Closed] The free movement of people in Europe

I'm not of the opinion that the vast majority of people come to the UK do so to claim benefits, but if the above is true then they won't mind if there are no benefits on offer.

So why is it that you appear to feel strongly that they shouldn't get any benefits at all? If it's not to do with how much they've paid in, it's just because they're foreign? If they are out of work for 2 months surely it makes more sense for them to get benefits than face the upheaval of moving back home and potential moving back here when they find another job?

Which is a guess, why would people bother to go away and do research to prove your guess wrong if you can't be botherd to find anything to suppourt it yourself.

I have no idea BTW, but I would counter guess it's not, and can at least suppourt that with a resoned hypothesis. Simple fact of the progressive tax system is that you have to be significanlty above the average earnings to reach a point where you'll be paying in more than you get out. So an influx of largely unskilled labour and tradesmen (stereotypical fruit pickers and plumbers) earning below the national average will be net drains on the tax system.

There's certainly research showing that on average immigrants (certainly those from the EEA) contribute more than than UK citizens. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that they are generally educated 'for free' by another country which we get the advantage of. The NHS would collapse without foreign-trained doctors and nurses.

Immigrants to the UK since 2000 have made a "substantial" contribution to public finances, a recently published report claimed.

Those from the European Economic Area (EEA - the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) had made a particularly positive contribution in the decade up to 2011, the authors noted, contributing 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits and services.

"Given this evidence, claims about 'benefit tourism' by EEA immigrants seem to be disconnected from reality," one of the study's authors Christian Dustmann, professor of economics at University College London, said.

That's not the whole picture of course. Quite an interesting overview here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25880373

The NHS would collapse without foreign-trained doctors and nurses.

So why is it that you appear to feel strongly that they shouldn't get any benefits at all? If it's not to do with how much they've paid in, it's just because they're foreign?

I'll answer your question with the original quote:

Why is that a problem?

kill of the multiplier effect

I agree with the rest of your point, in the long term it'll lead to an average/fairer EU. But you could be looking at generational timescales.

And it's of dubious benefit too. Remeber in recent years charities banging on about 'trade not aid'? It's far better to invest in, and buy products from, countries than simply pay money into them. For example as this is a sporty forum if I buy a boat from Devotti, or a bike from PYGA then that money is far better for the Polish or S.African economy than just giving them the money as they can then build another boat/bike, whereas just giving the money is a finite process.

The movement of people in Europe crosses and confuses politics.

The freedom of movement of people is supposed to be one of the core 4 freedoms of the whole project but like so many EU issues this gets confused with national interests. Some of the most pro European parties and countries struggle to come to terms with this - which, while unsurprising given that the whole EU is based on so many fudges and inconsistencies, is depressing.

The freedom of movement of people is a good thing and immigration is a net positive for the UK economy. Ditto the freedom of goods, services and capital. They are fundamental to what Europe SHOULD be about.

Funny how people who support freedom of movement for people and respecting immigrants to this country are often unhappy about EU companies coming here and bidding for work.

But then again Europe is a very confused issue!!

yes, I believe that the parent country is responsible for the support of it's unemployed citizens. Goes both ways, the UK govt would be responsible for paying the welfare benefits to UK citizens working wherever.

OK, I've lived in Spain for 18 years now. I pay all my taxes here, use the local services (Spanish NHS, for example) and if unemployed I'd not hesitate to claim Spanish dole. Why should the UK government support me (particularly when I don't even have the right to vote for them anymore)?

Do you think that the Spanish tax payers would be happy to foot the bill for British people being unemployed in their country? Being able to pay your own way should be a prerequisite to permitting you to stay. It certainly is the case in Canada (you must prove that you have sufficient funds to support yourself in case you fall unemployed). They have the best system IMHO, tough as it is.

I love the idea that immigrants are simultaneously stealing our jobs and here only to claim our benefits. I've yet to see any evidence that benefit tourism is a problem that's worth worrying about either.

whatnobeer - Member
I love the idea that immigrants are simultaneously stealing our jobs and here only to claim our benefits. I've yet to see any evidence that benefit tourism is a problem that's worth worrying about either.

Do you think that the Spanish tax payers would be happy to foot the bill for British people being unemployed in their country?

He is a Spanish tax payer. And for all intents and purposes he is Spanish - having lived there for 18 years. 😕

Do you think that the Spanish tax payers would be happy to foot the bill for British people being unemployed in their country?

What, after 18 years paying tax into the system? Why would that be a problem?

wrecker - Member
Do you think that the Spanish tax payers would be happy to foot the bill for British people being unemployed in their country? Being able to pay your own way should be a prerequisite to permitting you to stay. It certainly is the case in Canada (you must prove that you have sufficient funds to support yourself in case you fall unemployed). They have the best system IMHO, tough as it is.

He is a Spanish tax payer. And for all intents and purposes he is Spanish - having lived there for 18 years.

Personally, I think free movement is the much better system.

He is a Spanish tax payer. And for all intents and purposes he is Spanish - having lived there for 18 years.

TBH the only reason I haven't got round to taking out nationality is the paperwork involved. That, and there's no real advantage to me doing so.

I imagine if the UK left the EU there would suddenly be a whole load of new British citizens as people in a similar situation to mine (but in the UK) decide to take out British nationality.

So not really comparable with the instance of economic migration then?

I came over here initially looking for work as an English teacher.

wrecker - Member
He is a Spanish tax payer. And for all intents and purposes he is Spanish - having lived there for 18 years.

So not really comparable with the instance of economic migration then?

I wouldn't exist if it wasn't for economic migration! 😆

I came over here initially looking for work as an English teacher.

So not really comparable with the instance of economic migration then?

Eh?

I'd consider a Pole who'd lived here for 18 years to be effectively British too - and I'd think it absolutely ridiculous if he got told he wasn't allowed to claim British benefits.

Eh?

I'd consider a Pole who'd lived here for 18 years to be effictively British

What would have happened if you didn't find any?

No doubt I'd have headed back to the UK. Same as most economic migrants - you do realise that you're not automatically eligible for benefits, right? (Asylum seekers are different BTW)

You just said he's Spanish, so how is it comparable with what is being discussed here? If he's not a foreign citizen any more, it's not comparable.

How many years do you need to pay tax for this magical changeover to happen, then?

wrecker - Member
Well if all of the countries of the world agreed to it, so would I. Until then; no thanks.

Well, it's probably time to put some actual numbers on this rather than conjecture.

The idea that people come over here to claim benefits in enormous numbers is, I am afraid, a total fallacy. There was a report on this due to be issued earlier this year, the outline findings were issued but then it was official suppressed by Theresa May. It was fairly public (if you track immigration issues as, unfortunately, I have to) which was bizarre.

Also the idea that immigrants come here and send money home resulting in a net loss to the economy is, while true in some cases, not true.

The UK benefits from a net fiscal gain from migration of 0.46% of GDP. There are only a handful of countries in the EU that lose out from migration, notably Germany and France. Poland also loses out.

The difference between benefits and services claimed by immigrants and contributions from tax is, from reasonable sources, generally between +/-1% of GDP, and the majority of studies from unbiased sources show that there is a net gain from taxation from immigrants.

The Office of Budget Responsibility even predicts that more immigrants will, in the long term, reduce the national public debt. If there were to be zero net migration they say the public debt would be around £145bn by 2062, as opposed to £75bn with high net migration. This is based on the assumption of most immigrants being of working age.

All of this information is taken from various places on the Migration Observatory website.

http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/fiscal-impact-immigration-uk

If you want to narrow this down specifically to the EEA then these immigrants pay 34% more in taxes than they receive in benefits and services.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/05/migration-target-useless-experts

Aside from the possible criminal database issue, which I would suspect effects probably half of naff all of the incoming population, I don't see how anyone that does some actual research can object to free movement in the EU.

Everyone in the EU's taxes pays for the EU as a whole at some point, so there's no reason to say "you've not paid for your share so you can't come in to the UK".

For a bit of perspective my wife has lived in the UK for over 7 years and has no entitlement to vote, has contributed around £85000 to the UK public sector and has no entitlement to benefits. And I have to prove I earn a minimum of £18500 to "support" her in order for her to get a visa at a cost of £1000-£3500 every 2.5 years.

How many years do you need to pay tax for this magical changeover to happen, then?

That's just silly. Free movement worldwide is not something that would or could happen over night, so where it exists, it should supported and encouraged.

Oh, and as a further blow to the argument against, the net annual fiscal conrtibution from taxes from immigrants (106% of GDP in 1999-2000 and 99% of GDP in 2003-2004) is higher than that of UK born people (101% of GDP in 1999-2000 and 88% of GDP in 2003-2004, so even when the contribution is negative the immigrants are "less negative") .

So maybe we should have loads of immigrants and send those lazy natives to other countries to sponge somewhere else...

The "good for the economy" thing is a bit of an odd one.

It's good in the sense that the economy grows (err of course it does, you're adding people, people produce & consume things).

It also doesn't benefit people evenly. Fairly well off people in secure, professional jobs benefit as they don't face any new competition for work and can get cheaper services (hairdressers, hotels, cafes, shops, tradesmen etc).

Poorer people don't consume as many services. They are likely to face downwards pressure on wages. So not much upside, with a big kick in the balls.

So, while I agree there are many benefits to immigration it's highly cynical and disingenuous for a politician to lecture people "that the economy benefits blah blah".

It also doesn't benefit people evenly.

I don't see how this can be the case when there are more taxes coming in then being spent on everyone (although under a Tory government that may be a laughable idea).

tomd - Member
The "good for the economy" thing is a bit of an odd one.

It's good in the sense that the economy grows (err of course it does, you're adding people, people produce & consume things).

It also doesn't benefit people evenly. Fairly well off people in secure, professional jobs benefit as they don't face any new competition for work and can get cheaper services (hairdressers, hotels, cafes, shops, tradesmen etc).

Poorer people don't consume as many services. They are likely to face downwards pressure on wages. So not much upside, with a big kick in the balls.

So, while I agree there are many benefits to immigration it's highly cynical and disingenuous for a politician to lecture people "that the economy benefits blah blah".

How much does immigration affect housing availability and prices?

Not really Joe (the neo-liberal bit - whatever that means)but tomd, try turning that argument on its head?

In my little town/big village there is an over-supply of barbers. Prices all fixed and all lazy and complacent. In come the Turks with a great Turkish barbers at half the price with much better service - hot towels, lemon scent, clean razor for each customer, occasionally a coffee, and open on Sunday. Local barbers moan but customers are happy - better service, lower price. Brilliant wet shave and cut yesterday all for less than a dry cut in the locals!!

Good stats, munrob - amazing how Farage gets away with peddling BS on harmful effects of immigration. Like Salmond, he gets away with it too. Depressing.

munrobiker - Member

It also doesn't benefit people evenly.

I don't see how this can be the case when there are more taxes coming in then being spent on everyone (although under a Tory government that may be a laughable idea).

Moreover, even when there are equal benefits, the timings of those benefits (i.e. who sees it first) can be different. The short answer is, that this is just the way the economic system works, the long answer lies in the works of Friedrich Hayek.

Unfortunately for us, the way the current 'free' market is set up in the UK, the piggies at the front of the trough tend to be big business (think who benefits first and most from chep imports and and lower labour costs) and ultra-wealthly private individuals who get the inside track on investments into those businesses.

Which free market is that?

Like Salmond, he gets away with it too. Depressing.

You just can't help yourself sometimes, can you? Why on earth bring Salmond into this given that he a)has retired and b) is/was pro immigration?

For a very simple reason WNB. The mainstream political parties do not now how to deal with either bloke. As a result, the get away with peddling BS and people swallow it. Both are dangerous trends but at least one has been snuffed out (temporarily).

The mainstream parties really do need to work out how to address this. The mis-perceptions on immigration and EU coming from UKIP are massive and yet they seem to be largely accepted (Like a currency is an asset). The EU is screwed for other reasons but its core freedoms should be welcomed and embraced. Someone should tell the French too!

teamhurtmore - Member
Not really Joe (the neo-liberal bit - whatever that means)

That's not really got anything to do with immigration as such. (although immigration can be used as a tool)

Imo, capitalism is fine, add it to the concept of universal services, magic, problem these days is that the universal services bit is going backwards and not getting expanded into new areas as it should..

Right, so he's nothing to do with this debate at all other than the you thinking he deals in BS, which, every other politician does.

Back to the debate in question, I know munrobiker's wife is from outside the EU, but it seems bonkers that someone who is highly educated, has the skills to earn good money (and has indeed done so) and is married to someone else in the UK still needs to renew their visa every few years. Why? Who does that benefit?

Moreover, even when there are equal benefits, the timings of those benefits (i.e. who sees it first) can be different. The short answer is, that this is just the way the economic system works, the long answer lies in the works of Friedrich Hayek.

Unfortunately for us, the way the current 'free' market is set up in the UK, the piggies at the front of the trough tend to be big business (think who benefits first and most from chep imports and and lower labour costs) and ultra-wealthly private individuals who get the inside track on investments into those businesses.

While I disagree with the principle of that, I can't really argue with the truth what you're saying. It's a shame the world is how it is.

Whatnobeer- the "every 2.5 years" thing is actually pretty much in line with what binners was saying about Dave fannying around the edges of the issue of immigration to help win back UKIP voters. It was previously every 5 years, and after 5 years you could apply for citizenship. The cost was around half what it is now, the quota higher and provided you could get SOMEONE (not just the UK spouse) to guarantee to pay for them then any marriage visa that wasn't found to be a sham at the interview stage was allowed.

The current situation has now greatly restricted the issuing of spouse visas, to the point where (this is a recalled stat) 47% of the population couldn't afford it. And, considering that a spouse visa never allowed recourse to benefits, the idea of a lower income limit is a bit daft. People do ask me quite regularly (because, for some reason, talking about how nasty immigration is in front of my immigrant wife is a very popular thing to do) "but what about these Asian families coming over and claiming benefits straight away, I've seen it"- the truth is that it is impossible. It can't happen and never could happen.

So, Dave (or, really Theresa May) has torn apart a few hundred families (most notably Marianne Bailey - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22806941 ) just to be seen to be tackling immigration.

Similarly the idea of reducing the number of student visas is something Theresa is very keen on to get down immigration. Now, I don't want to seem stupid, but surely reducing the number of student visas won't actually affect net immigration after 3 or 4 years? Say, before the new policy, 180,000 students came in (which is roughly correct). Those 180,000 would, 4 years later, leave. Net immigration = 0. Theresa says "nope, there must only be 60,000 maximum". So, one year 60,000 in then 180,000 out. Net migration = -120,000. But then, 3 years later, 60,000 in and 60,000 out- voila, Net migration = 0 again.

And the stupidest thing about that policy is that a lot of UK universities depend on the overseas students to make money! 180,000 students each paying £15,000-£20,000 a year is of vital importance to the UK's higher education sector. To reduce that income then try and boost the numbers by charging UK students more seems like a really good way of reducing the amount universities have to invest in the service they offer.

As has been pointed out that's not a problem with immigration, that's a problem with neo-liberal policy.

What does that even mean?

Teamhurtmore - I'm well aware of the benefits of immigration. My wife is from one of the newer EU countries and she's ace. You just can't find hot local women who like mountain biking!

The macro-economic argument is only part of the story. If you ask people on the street how they feel about immigration in their answer will be the result of all kinds of factors. For some people, their wages have improved and their local area has been reinvigorated by new arrivals. For others, they will have experienced pressure on local services, housing problems, falling wages, unemployment etc. Some people are just a bit xenophobic or racist, but I don't think that's the majority.

tomd - Member

What does that even mean?

Give it whatever label ye like, but the system isn't set up so everyone wins. It may be setup so everyone can win, but there's only a limited number of winning places.

Not sure I agree with that - even including the current Tory government, if you look at the history of the past 50 years most of us have been winning. Of course there is still poverty, but you only have to look at things like [url= http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2014/oct/01/below-the-poverty-line-slum-britain-in-the-1960s-in-pictures ]these photos[/url] to realise just how far we've all come.

What is undoubtedly true is that some of us are winning more than others, of course.

“Patriotism is a lively sense of collective responsibility. Nationalism is a silly cock crowing on its own dunghill and calling for larger spurs and brighter beaks. I fear that nationalism is one of England's many spurious gifts to the world.” -
Richard Aldington

Seem to be more silly cocks about of late, must be that time of the century.

If you ask people on the street how they feel about immigration in their answer will be the result of all kinds of factors. For some people, their wages have improved and their local area has been reinvigorated by new arrivals. For others, they will have experienced pressure on local services, housing problems, falling wages, unemployment etc. Some people are just a bit xenophobic or racist, but I don't think that's the majority.

So much of it would be influenced by the constant stream of sensationalist BS in the majority of the press though.

True grum (and good to agree for a change 😉 )

Fun article in FT today from Ganesh on the risks from 'Miserablism'. As Ganesh states most of the negativity is misplaced but that hasn't stopped Farage (and Salmond!) riding on its coat tales. We might not agree on some of this.....

mogrim - Member
Give it whatever label ye like, but the system isn't set up so everyone wins. It may be setup so everyone can win, but there's only a limited number of winning places.
Not sure I agree with that - even including the current Tory government, if you look at the history of the past 50 years most of us have been winning. Of course there is still poverty, but you only have to look at things like these photos to realise just how far we've all come.

What is undoubtedly true is that some of us are winning more than others, of course.

I don't deny how far we've come. But that doesn't mean you can't criticise, and can't recognise that there seems to be a reversal going on somewhat.

The system should lead to more collectivism, not the other way about, that can only lead to regression imo.

Incidently, I don't really need pictures to understand the poverty there was, my auld man came out of the 50/60s gorbals slums, while he came out of well, I'm all too aware of the poverty and the issues that that caused(his brothers are/were a right couple monumental ****ups). And I understand that my up bringing in the 80s was relatively more prosperous than theirs in comparison.

I think they should all **** off back to where they came from.
Except for the surgeon who has just done my F.I.L's heart by pass,that girl in the cafe opposite,the girl who works for us and her husband who heads the local traders association,my friend's wife and kylie.

Whatnobeer- <snip>

Thanks for that. I knew the rules had been changed recently but didn't know the details.

I totally agree with you on the student visa system being equally as daft. I know there are some problems with sham universities being set up to get people in on student visas, but it can't be that big of a problem. And as far as I can see the reduction and restrictions put on student visas don't reduce immigration at all. All they do restrict the quality of international students who can come to the UK and stop the ability of the students to work in the UK and contribute to the economy after the graduate.

(because, for some reason, talking about how nasty immigration is in front of my immigrant wife is a very popular thing to do)

People forget because she's white and speaks English. That and people are stupid and often don't realise how these policies can effect people they know.

However again, imigrants tend to send money home. This is a huge drain on the economy as you kill of the multiplier effect as that wage then doesnt go onto suppourt other wages (the plumber doesnt then spend all his money in the pub suppourting the barman, and the fruitpicker who contributed to his cider).

Oh no, brown people in developing countries get to improve their standard of living and trade with us on more equal terms and have the money to buy our exports. Increasing growth and world trade.

Oh the ****ing humanity of it all!

Immigration is fine. Mass immigration is not.

The UK population is projected to grow by over 9 million (9.4m) in just 25 years’ time, increasing from 64 million in 2013 to 73 million by 2039. Of this increase, about two thirds is projected to be due to future migrants and their children - the equivalent of the current populations of Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, Manchester, Edinburgh, Liverpool, Bristol, Cardiff, Newcastle, Belfast and Aberdeen.

Get a grip, people manage to get by in population dense places like Hong Kong. Centralised population centres with strong economies and good public transport infrastructure are the future. As to some of the other posts from users on here abhorring big cities, just because some of you don't like the idea or are privileged enough to be able to afford to live outside large cities doesn't mean to say that these changes shouldn't take place.

The current situation has now greatly restricted the issuing of spouse visas, to the point where (this is a recalled stat) 47% of the population couldn't afford it. And, considering that a spouse visa never allowed recourse to benefits, the idea of a lower income limit is a bit daft. People do ask me quite regularly (because, for some reason, talking about how nasty immigration is in front of my immigrant wife is a very popular thing to do) "but what about these Asian families coming over and claiming benefits straight away, I've seen it"- the truth is that it is impossible. It can't happen and never could happen.

So, Dave (or, really Theresa May) has torn apart a few hundred families (most notably Marianne Bailey - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22806941 ) just to be seen to be tackling immigration.

This.

munrobiker - Member

Similarly the idea of reducing the number of student visas is something Theresa is very keen on to get down immigration. Now, I don't want to seem stupid, but surely reducing the number of student visas won't actually affect net immigration after 3 or 4 years? Say, before the new policy, 180,000 students came in (which is roughly correct). Those 180,000 would, 4 years later, leave. Net immigration = 0. Theresa says "nope, there must only be 60,000 maximum". So, one year 60,000 in then 180,000 out. Net migration = -120,000. But then, 3 years later, 60,000 in and 60,000 out- voila, Net migration = 0 again.

And the stupidest thing about that policy is that a lot of UK universities depend on the overseas students to make money! 180,000 students each paying £15,000-£20,000 a year is of vital importance to the UK's higher education sector. To reduce that income then try and boost the numbers by charging UK students more seems like a really good way of reducing the amount universities have to invest in the service they offer.

You are me, and I claim my £5.

And it's not just about numbers, it's about just making things harder and more expensive. Here on a student visitor visa for a short? Want to get a tier 4 student visa to do a degree? You need to go home, apply for the visa in your home country, then come back. Lollercopters. You need ATAS clearance but it takes so long to get your ATAS that your course starts before it arrives. You decide to do an english course before your degree course starts (and pay to do so) but you can't get a combined CAS for both courses because your english is already too good- so you either have to go into the course cold and unconfident in your english, or you have to go through the whole bollocks twice, and nobody benefits at all

All to please microcephalic Daily Mail reading imbeciles.

The free movement of people in Europe isn't a problem.

I lump people who make comments like that with climate change deniers. It's 'not a problem' because doing anything about it is simply not an option for them.

I lump people who make comments like that with climate change deniers. It's 'not a problem' because doing anything about it is simply not an option.

Ya know, except for the fact that climate change has incredibly large piles of evidence to back up the theory whilst the issues created by immigration don't - in fact the data tends to support the notion that free migration has been good for us and Europe economically speaking.

The people who seem to support anti-immigration policies seem to think that they are entitled to jobs because they or their ancestors supposedly made Britain great, whilst denying the right of many to marry who they choose. So **** them, they have no automatic right to the UK's prosperity. Did they personally play a major role in the prosperity of the UK? I think not.

I think I'm slowly turning into a fully blown neocon/libertarian with some vestiges of left wing ideology left behind.

And it's not just about numbers, it's about just making things harder and more expensive. Here on a student visitor visa for a short? Want to get a tier 4 student visa to do a degree? You need to go home, apply for the visa in your home country, then come back. Lollercopters. You need ATAS clearance but it takes so long to get your ATAS that your course starts before it arrives. You decide to do an english course before your degree course starts (and pay to do so) but you can't get a combined CAS for both courses because your english is already too good- so you either have to go into the course cold and unconfident in your english, or you have to go through the whole bollocks twice, and nobody benefits at all

You sound exactly the same as our admissions officer. The whole situation is a joke and needs sorting.

I think I'm slowly turning into a fully blown neocon/libertarian with some vestiges of left wing ideology left behind.

Nowt wrong with that!!

Once we ban all those nasty foreigners, we can ban their nasty companies as well. How very dare they come over here? They will be making our cars next..... 😉

(as an aside, interesting to see how many manufacturing companies are starting to re-locate production back to (low cost) Europe. Cheaper than producing in the developing world now. Heard from one major FTSE100 company recently that it was cheaper to produce in Norway than Brazil!)

Cost of shipping is probably part of it, the cost of fuel will probably drive down immigration in the not to distant future as well as people will be less willing to fly to see their families during the holidays. Hence things like less Filipino care staff that we pay a shit wage to so that we can just about afford to look after the increasing amount of old people we have in this country.

I think the world will become more interconnected but at the same time I think manufacturing is going to become localised, through better and cheaper automation - meaning that big multinationals will open smaller plants all over the world. Although I'm not an engineer or involved in that industry, it's just a hunch.

Get a grip, people manage to get by in population dense places like Hong Kong. Centralised population centres with strong economies and good public transport infrastructure are the future. As to some of the other posts from users on here abhorring big cities, just because some of you don't like the idea or are privileged enough to be able to afford to live outside large cities doesn't mean to say that these changes shouldn't take place.

Were you ever employed as a Stalinist speechwriter in the 1930s? You'd have been able to dream up an endless number of New Economic Plans.

Basically, you are saying - this is how I think it should be. And sod you if you disagree.

It seems a growing majority of the population standing up against mass immigration, both in traditional Labour heartlands as well as conservative ones.

Not everyone who disagrees with you has been brainwashed by the Daily Mail.

Were you ever employed as a Stalinist speechwriter in the 1930s? You'd have been able to dream up an endless number of New Economic Plans.

Basically, you are saying - this is how I think it should be. And sod you if you disagree.

Nope, industry will see to it that this is what happens. Industry and business needs large centralised cities and will need it even more when personal cars and long commutes become less viable.

Real right wing pro industry policies would make your brain implode.

The people who seem to support anti-immigration policies ......

Except that being opposed to an open door policy does not automatically dictate that you "support anti-immigration policies". Despite the claims of waffling guardian readers.

The open door policy only applies to EU countries and nowhere else. The UK has plenty of immigrants entering from countries outside the EU. There is nothing wrong with that.

So why aren't waffling guardian readers up in arms about no open door policy with regards to immigrants from the rest of the world, why only Europeans ? Sounds racist to me, to make a much banded about allegation.

So why aren't waffling guardian readers up in arms about no open door policy with regards to immigrants from the rest of the world, why only Europeans ? Sounds racist to me, to make a much banded about allegation.

I would love to see a borderless market driven new world order, a lot of Guardian readers wouldn't though for reasons that are not to dissimilar to UKIPers. Balls to all of them.

Lot of young struggling to buy a home might not be too excited by that idea.

Build more houses then. Lots of big futuristic towers Hong Kong style.

Tom_W1987 - Member

I would love to see a borderless market driven new world order

I'm fairly sure you've argued quite passionately on here against the free movement of Palestinians into Palestine, have you had a change of heart ?

I'm fairly sure you've argued quite passionately on here against the free movement of Palestinians into Palestine, have you had a change of heart ?

I just like arguing sometimes for the sake of trying to defend whatever is the total opposite to what everyone else is saying.

Build more houses then

Not happening enough now so already struggling, no-one seems to know where to put them; maybe UK needs to become a big NYC with a green bit in the middle around the Peak District?

So why aren't waffling guardian readers up in arms about no open door policy with regards to immigrants from the rest of the world, why only Europeans ?

Because we do over half of our trade with the EU in a free trade market which depends on multinational Eu companies moving staff around.

Even as someone with a possible vested interest in global immigration I do not support an international open door policy. There just needs to be a reasonable middle ground and even that'll never happen because the majority of the voting public are misinformed bigots.

Who is it claiming that we live in a global economy?

.....our trade with the EU in a free trade market which depends on multinational Eu companies moving staff around.

😆 I had low expectations for this thread but suggesting that "multinational EU companies moving staff around" is what is behind the large number of EU migrants in the UK really is astonishing !

Fairly well off people in secure, professional jobs benefit as they don't face any new competition for work

Not in my line of work. Loads of foreigners applying for the same jobs as me. Not all of them European either for that matter.

Most people I meet in Oracle EBS world seem to be from India.

So why aren't waffling guardian readers up in arms about no open door policy with regards to immigrants from the rest of the world, why only Europeans ? Sounds racist to me, to make a much banded about allegation.

Well the economic arguments don't stack up quite so well. Immigrants from non EEA countries tend to be a significant net 'drain on resources'.

Immigrants from non EEA countries tend to be a significant net 'drain on resources'.

Is that a wind up or are you serious ? Can't tell.

I had low expectations for this thread but suggesting that "multinational EU companies moving staff around" is what is behind the large number of EU migrants in the UK really is astonishing

That isn't actually what I said. I explained why we have the policy, not why there is so much migration.

Is that a wind up or are you serious ? Can't tell.

Ernie, he is correct. EEA immigrants had a net contribution of £8.8bn. Non EEA immigrants a net contribution of -£6bn.

Yeah alright, I'm not going down that road.

The road of facts?

Where are the facts? Is nothing without a source.

[img] [/img]

By 2011, non eea immigrants contributed more.

Recent immigrants certainly do...

[img] [/img]

The lesson here is that the British are the biggest drain on Britain, probably because lots of them are old and unable to work.

Not happening enough now so already struggling, no-one seems to know where to put them; maybe UK needs to become a big NYC with a green bit in the middle around the Peak District?

Because no one has the guts to open up planning laws or encourage companies to turn London, Birmingham or Manchester into towering metropolises. We have pretty poor city planning in the UK and we could do a lot better before we had to start expanding cities outwards.

Mudshark, the facts I stated on this page are sourced in my link to the migration observatory (Oxford University) on Page 3.

Revenue/expenditure doesn't really do the job there because it only covers taxes paid, not total economic value added.

What's with this shite that if you want to be in EU you have to abide by the EU rules? As every bureaucrats know rules are there to be bent so what's this shite about non-negotiation eh?

FFS! Can't they (EU) remember that once there was a time in their previous generation or two that the entire EU nearly become a province of Germany/CCCP and to have German/Russian language as their national language?

🙄