| The Comments |
You're mixing up EU and non-EU immigration, ads. According to the University College London, EU immigrants were worth a net benefit of £20 billion from 2000 to 2011 and that those from the 15 countries who were members before 2004 contributed £15 billion more in taxes etc than they received in all benefits. Eastern European members of the EU contributed £5 billion more. Recently arrived immigrants from the EU, those arriving in the past 5 years, have contributed £1.34 for every £1 they receive in all benefits.
However, those from non-EU countries have been a net drain on the resources, mainly (according to Economics magazine) because they have more children than EU families. The largest amount of immigrants into UK are from China, India and Pakistan. Those have been coming to the UK long before we joined the EU and, unless things drastically change, will continue. After all, we do have control over non-EU citizens yet they continue to outnumber the EU immigrants irrespective of what we see as a huge amount from the Eastern European countries.
Oh, and according to the UCL, the EU immigrants are better educated than the British with even the poorer population Eastern countries having 25% of degrees compared to UK 24%.
3
Like
|
|
The more I read about this, the more I believe Mrs May is an absolute laughing stock.
And how trustworthy is she anyway? She was a remainer, and now she shows her true colours as a turncoat who is incompetent, along with all the other brexiters in HMG who thought to pull a fast one. How on earth they thought they could get something as important as this through without passing through parliament, is just crazy.
She's now apparently got the big idea that the timetable wont be affected. And this is despite the fact that the court has found, on numerous points of law, that HMG is in the wrong. Headstrong, pig-headed, untrustworthy, and incompetent.
Just what we need to lead the country...
Remind me, which constituents voted for her to even BE prime minister? None. She is an unelected leader, she has led the party through precisely zero general elections, and is attempting to drag the country into economic ruin, against the rule of law.
Buckle your seatbelts folks, this will get more interesting still.
1
Like
|
rob_j1
Good points
PM's are not elected they are elected as an MP yes and party members select the leader same for Gordon Brown who many incorrectly called him an unelected leader during his short time as PM
Due to the farce and DC publicity stunt of the Brexit vote that has gone horribly wrong the govt is divided have no idea where to go or what to do
_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”
1
Like
|
I'm somewhat confused why you don't appear equally concerned by the statistics and impact on our economy when the most recent critique presented by migration watch has demonstrated major failings in not only accurate capture of data but also the analysis of that data.
What appears essential is that we determine a far more robust and trustworthy method of capturing the data, but in that process we achieve a true and independent picture of the costs and benefits to the UK economy of EU rather than try and manipulate data to suit a particular political cause.
The govt of the day owe that at the very least to the citizens of the UK and especially when they move forward into negotiations with the EU. To fail to capture realistic data or endeavour to manipulate findings is to bury their heads in the sand.
IMHO, we all need a trusted an independent means of achieving this and surely this is what you should be focusing on, no matter who is in charge.
Please pay attention to the lessons learned and recognise how David Cameron failed to arm himself with robust and trusted data necessary to accurately fight his corner, which is an absolute basic requirement going into any negotiation. Lessons MUST be learned from this and is an essential pre requisite for any forward negotiation. It requires political differences to be put aside and for once come together to gain the best solution for the country and its citizens but in that process gain as accurate a picture of our overall economy and impact of EU migration as possible.
This message was last edited by ads on 04/11/2016.
0
Like
|
Headstrong, pig-headed, untrustworthy, and incompetent.
Now you know you cannot talk about the fairer sex like that ,look where its got Donnie Trump oh yeh perhaps you can
May is only trying to make a silk purse out of Camerons pigs ear
Will we leave Europe NO PROBABLY NOT thanks Cam
Will it make any difference LEAVE OR STAY no I do not think it will
Love Hugh xx
_______________________
Done the Spain thing Happier in the UK
1
Like
|
|
Ads
I'm somewhat confused why you don't appear equally concerned by the statistics and impact on our economy when the most recent critique presented by migration watch has demonstrated major failings in not only accurate capture of data but also the analysis of that data.
What appears essential is that we determine a far more robust and trustworthy method of capturing the data, but in that process we achieve a true and independent picture of the costs and benefits to the UK economy of EU rather than try and manipulate data to suit a particular political cause.
The govt of the day owe that at the very least to the citizens of the UK and especially when they move forward into negotiations with the EU. To fail to capture realistic data or endeavour to manipulate findings is to bury their heads in the sand.
IMHO, we all need a trusted an independent means of achieving this and surely this is what you should be focusing on, no matter who is in charge.
Please pay attention to the lessons learned and recognise how David Cameron failed to arm himself with robust and trusted data necessary to accurately fight his corner, which is an absolute basic requirement going into any negotiation. Lessons MUST be learned from this and is an essential pre requisite for any forward negotiation. It requires political differences to be put aside and for once come together to gain the best solution for the country and its citizens but in that process gain as accurate a picture of our overall economy and impact of EU migration as possible.
As you rightly mention, there is the point about endeavourng to manipulate findings. Even something as basic as people here with the lies around "they need us more than we need them", and posting purely the raw trade numbers, yet deliberately failing to mention the proportion of overall trade that it represents, you can see how some people here are being, shall we say, economical with the truth. I posted an analogy about drunk drivers to ram home the stupidity of the point.
Simpy put, the people in charge have no idea what they're doing. This latest position as laid out by the courts is the truth according to the rule of law. What we have from politicians are nothing but empty words. No great surprises, and no great changes there. It was ever thus.
However, I dont want to leave your post unaddressed Ads. Yes, I am deeply concerned. Please dont think I'm not. I have, however, mentioned on many occassions, what my thoughts are. To reiterate, we are the worlds 5th largest economy, with a near record low 4.9% unemployment, and record numbers IN employment. Economically, we are doing fine.
I'm taking the economic position, obviously. You seem to be taking the "social cohesion" position. I hate to point it out, but I just think thats inwards looking, and ignores the many benefits that other cultures can offer.
1
Like
|
Well when all of this is sorted out each and every nation will know the rules of exit if so required.
_______________________
IF YOU WISH TO QUOTE ANY OF MY POSTS PLEASE DO SO IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND NOT JUST A FEW SELECTED WORDS TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT.
THANK YOU.
2
Like
|
Ads wrote:
Please everyone read this to gain an appreciation of what is required as we move forward into any negotiations.
I would take anything Migration Watch said with a very large dose of salt. It’s not a charity it’s a limited company founded by Lord Green a former diplomat.
It is an immigration and asylum self-styled ‘research organisation’ and describes itself as independent and non-political, but which according to WIKI has been characterised by some commentators and academics as a right-wing pressure group. Most of their public offerings seeks to justify the prevention of immigration and regards immigration as negative.
Read more on Migration Watch here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MigrationWatch_UK
This message was last edited by Mickyfinn on 04/11/2016.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
2
Like
|
Thanks Micky.
Ads
You see what I mean? Quoting myself, with respect to Migration Watch: "As you rightly mention, there is the point about endeavourng to manipulate findings"
1
Like
|
It could equally be stated that some have an agenda to protect the EU at all costs for their own self interests or in the name of ideological aspirations which in reality cause problems for society and citizens, rather than remain open minded to all analyses
By the way, there are many who are not right wing, preferring to think from a logical and open minded perspective. willing to view data and analysis from a variety of sources.
The fact that this organisation provide an alternative in itself allows others to analyse the facts they have identified and reach their own conclusions, even if it only identifies a major gap in the provision of data and questions the robustness of other economic models etc, rather than just dismiss this out of hand it will have served its purpose. We should never be fearful to review alternatives.
Also if it was intended to deceive why would they have been requested to provide info for the Govt (albeit too last minute and without being provided with data necessary to provide robust analysis) plus they have identified their willingness to assist Govt if and when required.
Each to their own Mickeyfinn.
0
Like
|
Rob_j1
You suggest economically we are doing just fine ( some would question that given our growing debt per head and ability to sustain NHS provision, a caring benefit system, pension provision, infrastructure, educational provision, prison provision, etc,.)
So at the end of the day, much comes down to at what cost are we "doing just fine", especially when you also factor in social cohesion which to many means inclusivity and tolerance of all people and nationalities (but within the confines of current provision , social structures, infrastructure etc, and economic ability to realistically adapt to changing circumstances) something we still thankfully aspire to as a nation.
0
Like
|
Ads I agree obtaining information from a variety of sources is necessary to arrive at a balanced opinion.
However you said ‘read this to gain an appreciation of what is required’. That statement suggests you have already made your mind up based on the Migration Watch article and are convinced.
It would not surprise me if this government consults MW. They look for confirmation of their own reactionary opinions. The political consensus in the world is shifting to the right both in Europe and the US. I’m deeply troubled by it.
The cause is endless wars and economic failure. When people feel threatened they resort to a form of defence and see bogeymen in defenseless refugees and economic migrants. There are countless politicians and right wing organisations ready and willing to facilitate that and fan the flames. The rise of Fascism in the thirties gained traction by it.
I believe Brexit is a symptom of these threats people feel and they are ready to abandon liberal democracy to further it. It is these threats abroad in the world we should be aware of. There are not enough voices in main stream politics able to influence electorates. Opposition is being marginalised basically through a mixture of political incompetence and a lack of the vision thing.
I tell myself perhaps it’s just the swing of the political pendulum and that maybe accurate. However Brexit support among 17 million normally fair minded British people does indicate a worrying trend.
This message was last edited by Mickyfinn on 04/11/2016.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
3
Like
|
What I am surprised about is why the PM wants to fight the issue in court again after the very clear and detailed ruling given by the High Court.
37% voted to exit the EU. The terms of the exit were not disclosed before hand. 63% voted to remain or did not vote at all. Why is the PM so opposed to getting Parliamentary approval? If the people really want out Parliament will pass it as the majority of voters who voted wanted out and that gives MPs the mandate to go against their own views and carry the motion.
To me it is clear. A simple motion to trigger Article 50 in Parliament will fail. The PM will have to place the actual details of Brexit before Parliament before MPs can rightly vote on behalf of the country. The PM does not want to do this and has invented reasons. She has duped the population into thinking that the negotiations have to be secret. That the people are too stupid to know what is best for them and their country. The courts have set her right and she does not like it. The Supreme Court will do the same. Only time will tell if the Government is ridiculous enough to test the Supreme Court decision before the EU Court.
So we the people are left in the silly position of not understanding her motives.
1) she does not really want to leave and is happy to see the process tied up for at least another year but be able to say I fought for Leavers
2) she does not know what to do and is stalling for time
3) she believes she is in charge and the people's representatives can just shut up and do as she tells them
4) the job has gone to her head and she has lost her commitment to democracy
The only thing clear to me is she does not want to put the most important issue in the last 50 years before Parliament. I've said it before and I will say it again We will see a General Election before we see Brexit
Gina Miller made a point which is important to all of us. Each of us who voted did so with the best intentions and future of the Country at heart.
As a Country it is best if we pause until the next GE to understand that and work out how to best implement it. That means delaying Brexit it does not mean abandoning it. It means a long period of uncertainty for the UK and UK Business but at least we can all work towards the two plans that need to be presented. Single Market Access with UK controlled immigration or life outside the single market. All the rest is just nonsense, name calling, misinformation and point scoring.
1
Like
|
Mickeyfinn, what is required is more reliable data, and to fill in the gaps of data provision which skew analyses and use trusted and reliable economists independent of political persuasion. History and critiques to date have rightly questioned economists and financiers aligned to Govt ( and the IMF for that matter) and in the main have been proven correct in their critical analysis.
What is also required is a commitment by the EU to adequately address mass unemployment in member states which has caused economic migration on such a scale, but also devise growth strategies for those nations who do not have high unemployment but have low wages differentials, instead of becoming over reliant on those nations currently under immense stress from swift inward migration.
0
Like
|
Ads
Rob_j1
You suggest economically we are doing just fine ( some would question that given our growing debt per head and ability to sustain NHS provision, a caring benefit system, pension provision, infrastructure, educational provision, prison provision, etc,.)
So at the end of the day, much comes down to at what cost are we "doing just fine", especially when you also factor in social cohesion which to many means inclusivity and tolerance of all people and nationalities (but within the confines of current provision , social structures, infrastructure etc, and economic ability to realistically adapt to changing circumstances) something we still thankfully aspire to as a nation.
You've quoted my words, as if its some kind of opinion. Take me out of the discussion, and look dispassionately at the economy. It is a fact:
1. We are the 5th largest economy in the world
2. We have 4.9% unemployment, which is a near record for the country
3. We have record numbers IN work
The above are not a question of my opinion, and do not need to be put in quotes. We have some great numbers for the country, and some people, yourself included, seem to want to disregard in totality, just how far we've come back from the brink of the GFC, at the hands of bankers and greedy government.
So far do you want to disregard the good work of everyday folks, that you want to throw that all in the rubbish bin, and instead focus on the bogeyman of "social cohesion".
Are you so intent to run the country down, and its enormous strides in overcoming the GFC, such is the depth of your apparent hatred of immigrants in your frequent posting on "social cohesion"?
1
Like
|
What I am surprised about is why the PM wants to fight the issue in court again
The PM did not want it to go to court at all. It was agitators railing against the will of the people.
Given the recent background of the three Judges involved it is absolutely imperative that the result is appealed against.
37% voted to exit the EU. 63% voted to remain or did not vote at all.
Totally wrong, those that did not vote accept the will of the people, as in a general election. If you want to persue this silly exercise you have to add them the the exit column. Giving about 69% for out.
To me it is clear. A simple motion to trigger Article 50 in Parliament will fail.
Why? All those MP's currently accepting the will of the people will continue to do so. If however you were to be right it would trigger a general election and a massive majority for Mrs May and the Conservatives. All people wishing to delay things can do is cause economic damage out of spite.
The courts have set her right and she does not like it.
Where do you get that from, you are making it up.
The Supreme Court will do the same.
Time will tell. But don't bet your pension on it.
So we the people are left in the silly position of not understanding her motives.
We the people voted to leave the EU. Most people understand Mrs May perfectly. But there will always be some poor confused......... In any case you have just gone to great lengths to expound that you do understand her motives!
4) the job has gone to her head and she has lost her commitment to democracy
It is people who make these silly statements who have no committment to democracy. The will of the people is clear. And the will of the people, if we are a democracy, should prevail. To use an unfortunate pun it should trump everything.
The only thing clear to me
Nothing is clear to you, you continue to obfuscate.
As a Country it is best if we pause until the next GE .
For the country it would have been better to have initiated article 50 as soon as the referendum result was known. The last administration failed the country when it failed to plan for one of the two possible results of it's actions.
Delay damages the economy, we should get on with it.
1
Like
|
There has been some stupid things posted, but to claim that 100% of abstainers are actually remainers and should be treated as so, takes the prize.
_______________________
IF YOU WISH TO QUOTE ANY OF MY POSTS PLEASE DO SO IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND NOT JUST A FEW SELECTED WORDS TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT.
THANK YOU.
1
Like
|
"Agitators railing against the will of the people".......It's totally outrageous that Parliament should be forced to express a view on the future of the country.It's disgusting that 17million patriots are held hostage by three privately educated, elitist Euro sympathisers intent on ignoring the will of the toiling masses.
I for one am confused. I thought the Out campaign was all about making Parliament sovereign and disengaging from superior European Law so why aren't they jumping for joy that the Court has very clearly reaffirmed that principle. Perhaps because it's inconvenient?
_______________________
Scollins
2
Like
|