| The Comments |
|
Some interesting statistics from the ONS. They clearly indicate the extent the British economy is dependent on migration for its workforce.
It makes nonsense of the leave vote if it was an attempt by the population to prevent it or control it. Clearly Mrs. May is going to have to make some considerable compromises in the negotiations with the EU if Britain is going to continue to economically prosper.
Nearly 450,000 more migrants are working in the UK while the number of British-born people in work has fallen by 120,000, according to new figures.
The Office for National Statistics disclosed that the number of migrants working in Britain has increased by 431,000 to 5.4million over the past year.
Over the same period the number of British people in work has fallen to 26.37million.
The report said: "For October to December 2016, there were 5.54 million people born abroad working in the UK, but the number of non-UK nationals working in the UK was much lower at 3.48 million."
The number of EU-born citizens working in the UK rose by 190,000 to 2.24 million, the Office for National Statistics found.
It also found that the number of non-UK nationals working in the UK increased from just over 1 million to 3.48 million and that the proportion of non-UK nationals working in the UK increased from 3.8% to 10.9%.
Telegraph 15 Feb.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
0
Like
|
It makes nonsense of the leave vote if it was an attempt by the population to prevent it or control it. Clearly Mrs. May is going to have to make some considerable compromises in the negotiations with the EU if Britain is going to continue to economically prosper
How do you work that out then? The whole leave vote wasn't based on only stopping immigration, it was mostly based on the leavers wanting to take back many controls on something they had lost over the past years, you would have known that had you lived here instead of believing and quoting everything that the papers say.
You can keep on coming up with anything you like about how the UK is going to go to the dogs it's a shame you, like us leavers, don't really know what will happen, except we leavers don't keep on surmising, or should I say hoping, what is going to happen with absolutely no knowledge or true facts.
1
Like
|
ads
Yes I seen them and no indication of reducing payments to immigrants (EU or not)
Many changes are easy targets such as disabled and those that really need help
nothing to combat the long term benefit scroungers yes a cap but only on housing
the cap on child benefit is a joke for example
single parent with 3 kids earning 61K per year - loses CB
a couple earning 49K each with 3 kids - full CB
Not a reform just a re jig of the system and palying with figures.
Good plans - NOT
This message was last edited by Tadd1966 on 15/02/2017.
_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”
0
Like
|
The point is the market will regulate the need for migrant workers not governments. If Britain continues along an economic growth path post Brexit the market will always provide the labour it needs to satisfy demand. That means more migrant workers with the necessary skills.
Of course if the Brexit vote was designed to kill off growth Brexiteers may have their wish.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
0
Like
|
The point is the market will regulate the need for migrant workers not governments. If Britain continues along an economic growth path post Brexit the market will always provide the labour it needs to satisfy demand. That means more migrant workers with the necessary skills.
Sooner or later we knew you would come around to the leavers way of thinking, the sensible way, as we have said all along...'Skilled workers' ..Welcome...Trash stay away.
0
Like
|
Wonder if picking crops, or cockles, or staffing hotels, shops, bars etc. is done by skilled workers on minimum wage
Or maybe the UK's own trash will get of their backsides and become skilled enough to do these jobs on minimum wage
_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”
1
Like
|
BBC reports:
The Bank of England has made another dramatic rise in its growth forecast for this year.
It expects the economy to grow 2% in 2017, up from a November forecast of 1.4%, which was itself an upgrade from the 0.8% forecast made in August.
0
Like
|
Tadd,
The UK Govt can't reduce payments to EU nationals as it's deemed discriminatory by the EU according to the existing criteria which makes no allowance of the wide differentials already identified, that's the whole point!
Plus, looking at the latest stats from Mickeyfinn the increase of 431,000 over the past year alone, now standing at 5.4 million of working migrants, I wonder how many are claiming in- work benefits, tax credits, child benefits, returning incomes home ( not benefitting the UK economy in terms of spending power), using the educational system for their families, overstretching the health service, etc ,that the UK Govt can do little about given the current EU rules? Is it a large or small percentage? What are the costs per capita to the UK by comparison to their income benefits? Has anyone assessed this as a whole as opposed to picking out random figures?
Tadd, what reforms to the rules have the EU introduced that act as adequate assistance to countries exposed to such rapid intakes?
As for benefits changes, it begs the question if the Govt were to reduce benefits for nationals too swiftly and significantly, would this just cause a problem elsewhere due to rising rents and large mortgage commitments due to rising property prices brought about by over demand (taking into account increased demand from the swiftly increasing migrant intake), not to mention the impact on UK spending that assists the economy. The knock on effects all form part of the financial equation.
So many questions and factors to take account of when assessing the pressures from large-scale movements over such a relatively short period of time, on any recipient member state for that matter, let alone the UK.
0
Like
|
Ads, now you're doing it. You start talking about EU immigrants but then quote the total number of immigrants to UK which includes the rest of the world and doesn't take into account those who have left.
The net migration of EU citizens last year was 189,000 and not 431,000 as your post intimates.Those figures are from Migrant Watch and are often misquoted.
The number of EU migrants coming to UK with a definite job was 41%. 31% to look for work, 9% to join their familes, 13% as students and 6% others. Those figures are both from the ONS and the Migration Observatory.
Please don't fall into the trap of conflating figures just to fit you perceived ideas like others have done.
0
Like
|
Ads
Yes the UK cannot make reduced paymenst under EU rules due to the UK rules but they can make changes to who is entitled to payment even now whilst still in the EU and post brexit
The UK is NOT changing who is entiltled to benefist in these reforms / changes even for post brexit so all of these migranst who live in the UK will still claim (unleess the Uk plan to kick them all out post brexit - now that woudl please the wannabee nigel farge's) and all new migrants post brexit will still claim
So again it is not the EU's fault all the EU say's is apply the rules of yoru citiznes to EU citizens
No it is not the wide differentials exist in the UK (as well as across the EU and the world) and that is not being addressed by the current changes
Also the proposed changes will still apply to all acorss the uk for all RESIDENTS of the UK
Reduce benefits for those who can work and get them back to work, increase benefits for thsoe who really need help
Build affordable housing
Regulate the private rental market better
We could go on and on but the point is the UK's benefit system is flawed, esy to manipulate and very expensive - many changes are needed
Why would reducing benefits force up rents?
Beneifts do not pay mortgages - that was stopped many yeras ago and teh EU did not stop the UK doing it because it applied to ALL residents
The points you are missing is it is NOT the EU's fault and regional differentails exist everywhere from towns to nations
_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”
0
Like
|
No bobaol....Please get your facts right...it was Mickeyfinn's statistics not mine that I referred to, and I did not quote immigrants I quoted migrants.
0
Like
|
Still wrong. Your pedantry about migrant and immigrant is noted.
0
Like
|
Wrong Tadd, the EU does apply rules hence the prior negotiations to request changes to the rules...These rules take no account of member state differentials such as their own benefit levels, their own debt levels, their own unemployment levels, etc.
Bobaol, please don't imply anything underhand in my intent. It's important for us all, remainers and Brexiteers alike, to keep an open mind to the various information being identified.
This message was last edited by ads on 15/02/2017.
0
Like
|
So, according to you then, ads, if a Brit goes and works in Poland and then gets laid off, he should be able to collect the same amount in benefits as someone in UK does? Or does it only work the other way round? Surely the cost of living in each of these countries needs to be taken into account on what benefits people should get. Or should we allow someone looking for work to starve whilst he gets a few zlotys a week but being expected to pay UK rents?
0
Like
|
My point is that the rules should be fair and take account of all differentials across the relevant member states so as not to act as pull factors.
Re "being out of work" then it could be argued that the system was intended for migrants who already have a job to go to or where shortages of labour exist, but if they find themselves subsequently unemployed, and their own member state does not have high unemployment levels then they should return to their homeland and either gain benefits from their homeland, or return home to seek work in their own country, Is that unfair?
Obviously this would not apply to those who have met residency requirements and have lived in the member state for several years ( is that 5years?)
Whatever, the rules need to take better account of wider differentials than currently apply if this is to be a fair and level " playing field" and be more effective to counter the pull factors that have led to swift uncontrolled migration causing major pressures on the recipient member state.
0
Like
|
There are 5,309,580 working age benefit claimants in the UK (as of 2015). Of those, 4,914,160 are from UK, 264,430 from countries outside the EU and 130,990 from EU countries.
There are 3,989,100 home grown UK claimants of family tax credits. 413,500 non-EU claimants and 302,300 EU claimants.
Using words like "uncontrolled" migration seems to imply that those from the EU are the worst offenders.
A small proportion of these benefits would be saved if the repatriation of EU migrants were to be enforced. Benefits for UK born is 92% of the total welfare budget, 5% of non-EU citizens and just 2.5% (those figures from 2014).
Jusr imagine if they rounded up all the Brits in Spain who were living on the black economy, living in Spain but not telling UK so they still claim pension credits and WFA by giving a son or daughter address in UK.
People getting all frothed up about things and the amount of housing, NHS access, benefits and welfare paid to those from both the UK and outside the EU are not going to change on Brexit.
DWP figures, by the way.
1
Like
|
Ads
The eu applied existing agreed rules to DC request because it was outside the scope of the agreed rules and discriminating
TThese existing rules do not stop any member state from changing benefit policies from
remeber all eu rules are agreed and enforced by all member states and the uk could have voted against these rules at the time
Addressin the diffetential asxyou xall it is also wrong because you would then be discriminating limiting any growth for individuals and probably start a class system even worse than exists now which is why the UK could nitcdi it in the uk
_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”
0
Like
|
Tadd,
This doesn't make sense.
On the one hand rules have been agreed from the outset (in full knowledge of existing member state benefit structures etc) , but the point about reviewing and tailoring EU rules through the negotiating mechanism afforded to all member states, is to adjust to unintended consequences where for instance swift large scale migration occurs, and where failure to adequately review EU rules acting as large-scale and relatively swift pull factors is causing undue stress on the recipient member state.
So what you are saying Tadd is that the recipient member state must alter their own benefit rules and complex structures to accommodate for these large scale pull factors, and thereby affect all their own citizens benefits, without any willingness of the EU to reassess through the official negotiating mechanism?
The whole point of any renegotiation mechansim is to reasses where necessary, the stress factors on any member state (acting in effect as a stability mechanism), so that the EU can review the rules where necessary, to accommodate for unfair differentials between members states that have become the root cause of the compromising pull factors, without negatively affecting the welfare benefits of the recipient member state.
So, in the specific case of the UK, these benefit structures have included in-work benefits and tax credits designed to not only act as incentives for nationals to gain work, but also as a means to fairly tackle national poverty. The trouble is that these UK benefits rates under the current system are open to EU migrants who appear to gain an unfair advantage by comparison to their own member state benefit structures etc thus acting as a pull factor...., and the UK under the current EU rules is unable to stop this and apply different rates/structure, without impacting their own policy to fairly incentivise their own nationals back into work (a highly sensitive issue that was intended to reduce the potential for greater division and unrest). This, also coupled with migrants ability to access the UK's child benefits and unemployment benefits (again without any ability to accommodate for differentials between the relevant member states), plus all the negative subsequent knock on effects on infrastructure, housing, rents, wage levels, etc has directly led to citizen distrust and disillusionment of the EU system that appears to be unwilling to fairly take account of such differentials.
This becomes even further complicated when you take into account the differentials in members states levels of debt, unemployment levels, such that a member state with relatively low levels of unemployment and low member state debt (as in the instance of certain Eastern member states), allows the same access to benefit rates in the recipient member state, as a member state suffering high unemployment and high debt (as in the instance of Southern member states), without any factoring mechanism to achieve fair balance in that process.
By not being willing to review differentials in this more balanced way (seen as intransigence by EU bureaucrats) and the unfair impact in the form of pull factors on the recipient member state coupled with large scale swift migration patterns, the inbuilt stabilising mechanisms via the process of EU re-negotiations appear to have been significantly compromised.
This message was last edited by ads on 16/02/2017.
This message was last edited by ads on 16/02/2017.
0
Like
|
remeber all eu rules are agreed and enforced by all member states and the uk could have voted against these rules at the time
And lost
Between 2004 and 2009 the UK was the second most outvoted country after Austria in the council of ministers. Between 2009 and 2015 the UK was the most outvoted.
3
Like
|