Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Freedom of movement is not the problem, nor is immigration to work, immigration to claim is the problem
These are the key points to Migration based on the independent watchdog:
Migration Watch revealed immigration costs us £17billion a year
- The current scale of migration to the UK, 330,000 a year, of which roughly half is from the EU, is completely unsustainable.
- As a result our population is projected to rise by half a million every year – the equivalent of a city the size of Liverpool.
- England is already twice as crowded as Germany and 3.5 times as crowded as France.
- Population growth adds to the pressures on public services when public spending is being reduced
- Those now being accepted in the EU as refugees, and their families, will become EU citizens entitled to free movement to the UK in 5-6 years.
- If Turkey were to join the EU 79 million people would have the right to live and work in the UK and Turkey would become a significant power in the EU.
- The split between non EU and EU migrants is nearly 50/50 year on year
But allegedly its because of a aging population that our services are struggling, nothing to do with immigration.
These are the key points to Migration based on the independent watchdog:
- The current scale of migration to the UK, 330,000 a year, of which roughly half is from the EU, is completely unsustainable.
- As a result our population is projected to rise by half a million every year – the equivalent of a city the size of Liverpool.
These are the key points to Migration based on the independent watchdog:
Migration Watch revealed immigration costs us £17billion a year
- The current scale of migration to the UK, 330,000 a year, of which roughly half is from the EU, is completely unsustainable.
- As a result our population is projected to rise by half a million every year – the equivalent of a city the size of Liverpool.
England is already twice as crowded as Germany and 3.5 times as crowded as France.
Those now being accepted in the EU as refugees, and their families, will become EU citizens entitled to free movement to the UK in 5-6 years.
Population growth adds to the pressures on public services when public spending is being reduced
Financial Times said:...The number of people aged 65 and over is projected to grow by 25.8 per cent between 2010 and 2019...The planned reduction in public services spending will imply an 18.7 per cent cut per person — from £5,700 per head in 2010-11 to £4,600 in 2019-20
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b12181a0-2332-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d.html#axzz4C9XYXliP
If Turkey were to join the EU 79 million people would have the right to live and work in the UK and Turkey would become a significant power in the EU.
Full Fact said:In order for any country to be eligible for accession, negotiations on signing up to all the EU’s rules must be completed in 35 ‘chapters’.
Turkey first applied to join what was then the EEC in 1987. It was declared an eligible candidate in 1997. Negotiations were formally opened in 2005.
Now, in 2016, negotiations have closed on just one out of 35 chapters—‘science and research’, which was completed in 2006, the year after it was opened.
https://fullfact.org/europe/turkey-likely-join-eu/
The split between non EU and EU migrants is nearly 50/50 year on year
I've not watched it all but isn't that the point, you need a 25 minute video just to give you a brief EU overview, it's so bloated and bureaucratic that no one understands it.
It isn't a brief EU overview. It is a Professor of European Law giving his views on the referendum, claims made by both camps and the possible impact of a Brexit vote.
I don't think for a second any politician has the foresight or nerve to make such decisions. Thatcher was a one-off in that regard and it will be a while before we see someone of her ability and commitment.I thought that might be the case but you do not know if that is what would follow and the leaders of the Leave campaign have promised pretty much the opposite.
I think that it is the economies best chance of success if we did leave the EU but it would come at a high price. There would be a huge amount of resentment within the country about reduced job security and employment benefits. Parts of the north would suffer greatly from the end of manufacturing. London would become even more of a home for foreign billionaires hiding and/or laundering their money. If politicians continued to blame immigrants for their unpopular decisions it could become very toxic.
I'm not proposing visas, just that borders should be actively protected with passport checks as we do in the UK.How do you allow working people free movement but check everyone else? What is wrong with being free to travel to Italy at the drop of a hat - I'm in Lake Como now. In less than 2 hours you can be in Barcalona, Milan, Lisonbon, why would you want to check that? Its terrific. It would be awful if you needed a visa.
I suspect it would cost the countries with high emigration numbers more than they currently pay and those with high immigration less. It's probably far from the ideal solution, but what I really want to get to is a situation where labour moves freely like goods but without the weight of social costs for that labour.Fair play with country services and costs. But does it really cost the UK a lot? What would it cost to administer a setup like you outline?
The WTD isn't about protecting people's working conditions, it's about the French being unable to control their own workforce. Because their workforce won't do more than about 20 hours of shrugging a week, they can't compete on price. So they have to lobby for regulation that restricts everyone else's working hours in order to compete. There are plenty of people paid an hourly rate that would love more overtime but are restricted by current regulations and are likely not to be able to do any at all when we eventually lose our right to opt out.Whilst business would love to make more and more cash, they have to be regulated. Is it a bad thing to stop pollution, or to protect peoples' working conditions? I'm sure you are making enough cash from your biz, and these small EU laws don't stop that. Sadly they've become seen as 'meddling' or the other intervening. A bit like if The Scum were able to dictate the FAs policy. This has all been built up in the media for a couple of decades - as it sells papers. Real stories about Europe are fuking dull, stories about how they are controlling us, meddling, controlling far more interesting! Publishers like them.
We have become a much better place to live since the 70s. Those EU tiger-scaring rocks have also done a great job of keeping the EU free of tigers.But the reality is, the EU is pretty boring, functional, and has done the UK proud. If you look at where we were in the 70s, we are in a far far better place. Take out the emotion, and the 'them and us' media cobblers, which is cobblers, and its a positive association that we'd be crazy to leave.
It's interesting how "Five Presidents" are referred to...not sure if anyone i know in the UK voted directly for any of them (or even anyone living in Europe).
Happy to be corrected if i'm wrong on this..
The presidents are chosen by the governments of the member states. I would expect there to be widespread objections if it was suggested that an EU president should be directly elected because it would be seen as the EU extending it's powers.
Let's go through this one by one. Please feel free to correct me on any points that I get wrong.
Do we have an aging population? Yes.
Does an aging population but extra pressure on public services, particularly the health service? Yes.
- Is it the right for the ageing British population to put pressure on the NHS? Yes thats what it is there for
Has the government cut funding to public services and local authorities over the last six year? Yes.
Have we seen more people coming into the UK from Europe than going in the other direction? Yes.
Do EU migrants contribute more in taxes than they have take in benefits and public services? Yes.
- This is a hugely debatable point, Cameron himself admitted to reform needed as too many come to claim not contribute.
Could the government use that money to improve public services and help areas where higher levels of immigration puts particular pressure on public services? Yes.
- But they don't so you don't solve a failing public service by adding more numbers too it, its as simple as that in my case. Either the Government need to invest more in the service or the number have to be cut,
Is immigration from the rest of the world higher than from the EU? Yes.
Is it a red herring to blame immigrants when the blame for the state of our public services should rest with the government? Yes
- No one is going out and pointing the finger at individual immigrants but immigration tactics as a whole, if the system as it is set can not sustain the numbers regardless of the reason then immigration is a problem. The fact that immigration was meant to be kept under numbers in Government pledges and has not/can not whilst being in the EU is a major factor of this debate.