The UK Babe Channels Forum

^ You really do have a quest to dominate this thread don't you? Why is that?

I didn't adopt the word poverty for what is happening in this country. I use it because it's there in the reports we are quoting. I don't see how posting videos of stricken babies in Africa is helpful and anything more than emotive trolling. Yes, one situation is worse than the other but does that allow you to decry that Benefit Street is the end of the problem within the UK?

As for my link being the 'be all, end all'... Now who's twisting who's words? I said the exact opposite; that there were plenty of them out there and that mine was an example.

But, in any case, I'll follow your move to focusing on the impact of immigration on this country. Let's see if we can keep the debate to the specifics of what leaving the EU would mean...

So, broadly if you will, you are saying that though immigration may be of some benefit to this country you would like to stop it or parts of it, yes? You think that coming out of the EU would allow us to control our borders and stop those that we don't wish to enter from entering? (I'm purposefully trying not to use emotive language here.)

In the large upturn in the UK's immigration figures announced last year, despite all the prior news reports being of the Calais 'jungles', it was actually migration from the EU which had seen the larger surge. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/...cord-level

This academic piece provides a fair picture, I think, of the options on how this subject might be handled should Brexit occur: http://ukandeu.ac.uk/what-would-uk-immig...er-brexit/ It is not a clear-cut enticing picture to those that think we would suddenly reclaim control of our borders.

As it points out both of the usual examples, Norway and Switerland, have far higher levels of EU immigration than the UK as a proportion of their populations. And for any reduction in UK immigration to be of significant enough political impact there would have to be large enforced drops in both migration from the EU and from outside of it. Neither one would do on it's own. Would we be tougher than those other countries after Brexit? (Would we be allowed to be? How would that effect out expats abroad?) The man on the moment doesn't even think so...

So, is David Cameron not telling the truth when he say that Britain would still not be able to control immigration outside of the EU as it would have to remain part of the single market? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...t-80m.html

Or maybe Cameron will be gone after Brexit? But why would the new guy be able to do any different than he?

The governor of the bank of England says the EU has helped UK economy http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35751919

He is a American by the way .

Quote:='ShandyHand' pid='1852619' dateline='1457438577']
^ You really do have a quest to dominate this thread don't you? Why is that?

I do happen to be responding to your posts.

Quote: I don't see how posting videos of stricken babies in Africa is helpful and anything more than emotive trolling.

I wouldn't expect you to understand an example of REAL or absolute poverty.

So it's a troll now is it? goodness me that tired old word. But of course you're not being personal or anything. Just add it to unempathetic.

Any hoo, back to your more sensible wordage.

Quote:so, broadly if you will, you are saying that though immigration may be of some benefit to this country you would like to stop it or parts of it, yes? You think that coming out of the EU would allow us to control our borders and stop those that we don't wish to enter from entering? (I'm purposefully trying not to use emotive language here.)

No about stopping it, I was responding to your post and link that immigration was a good thing, pretty much. When you dig deeper at a complex situation you will see immigration is costing the UK more than it brings in and can only get worse with larger numbers and older population.

I never said anything about stopping it, there has always been immigration (and emmigration) and a lot has been very good for this country (eg indian resturants etc), but it certianly needs controlling. It is too early to say at the moment whether the currunt influx of peoples will be of bennefit or not, but in the mean time a lot will need all the benefits on offer.

If you have free travel thoughout Europe that means quite clearly any member in a European country can live in any other member state and claim all their bennefits, obviously people from poorer countries are going to migrate, you cannot blame them for wanting better for themselves and families. This is the very reason why there is such a surge in Poles (sorry for using them as an example, but it is true) at the moment. Now, we all know that poles seem to be very good workers, they seem to be setting up car cleaning buisnesses around here, has well has excellent in the building trade for example. This is of course adding to our economy, but it is also taking jobs from indigenous peoples and jobs in a ressession are finite. One day those jobs will dry up, lead to mass unemployment, and a surplus of people to keep; so not stop, but control yes.

Obviously it goes without saying that open boarders could cause problems.

Quote:In the large upturn in the UK's immigration ....... http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/...cord-level

But how many of those ARE trained skilled people as opposed to people from poorer countries? nobody can know that at all at the moment. It claims that that increase was due to people already in jobs, being some 65,000, but if you read it, this is out of a gross immigration of 639,00 , thats well over half a million people in a country of 66 millions. And are ALL of those skilled and contributing? Does the number of 330,000 net, mean those allowing to stay? with 339,00 having been denied? this doesn't seem overly clear; if so what about the other 265,000? are these skilled with jobs - and remeber this os ONE year only, the same is repeated year after year. There is no wonder that 39% of inner London has a population of foreign born people.

It also claims in that most already had a job to come to, 65,000, how on earth does that happen? when in a resession jobs for poeple who live here are difficult to come by. Something really doesn't add up here, I notice most of your links tend to be from the Gaurdian, are they pro europe?

And of course your missing another point, the UK can recruit from over seas without being in Europe and without an influx of immigrants; this has always happened.

Quote:This academic piece provides a fair picture, I think, of the options on how this subject might be handled should Brexit occur: http://ukandeu.ac.uk/what-would-uk-immig...er-brexit/ It is not a clear-cut enticing picture to those that think we would suddenly reclaim control of our borders.

No it isn't apart from which it seems contradictory. Claiming ""Net migration from within the EU, at 183,000, has been LARGELY RESPONCIBLE for the recent rise"""

Then going on to claim """"While non-EU migrants still OUTNUMBER THOSE OF EU ORIGEN within the resident population,""""

It then claims """ first point to note is that leaving the EU does not necessarily mean ending free movement,"""""

But it doesn't say why.

Also ""Substantial net migration from within the EU to the UK is is a recent development.""" Which is put down to immigration form poorer eastern European countries such as Romania and Bulgaria, not rich countries like Germany, France etc, nor people with skills.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, those Nordic countries are not full members of Europe, since it is finantially cheaper.

However, I find this very ominous:

Quote:Alternatively, we could emulate Switzerland, and negotiate bilateral agreements for market access. But not only do the Swiss have far more EU migrants than us, when they recently voted in a referendum to impose quotas, the EU told them bluntly that that wasn’t acceptable. Faced with the prospect of being (effectively) kicked out of the single market, the Swiss are thinking again

So Switzerland was FORCED against it's will.

That link as confirmed what I stated about EU blackmail, take the immigrants off us or else.

What that artical was based on.

Quote:http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationan...2015-08-27

Quote:As it points out both of the usual examples, Norway and Switerland, have far higher levels of EU immigration than the UK as a proportion of their populations.

And were effectivly blackmailed into keeping it that way. UK is economically more powerful.

http://marketbusinessnews.com/most-power...world/3447

Quote:So, is David Cameron not telling the truth when he say that Britain would still not be able to control immigration outside of the EU as it would have to remain part of the single market? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...t-80m.html

Or maybe Cameron will be gone after Brexit? But why would the new guy be able to do any different than he?

Is that REALLY true? pre 1972 we could.

(08-03-2016 14:47 )Dave_A Wrote: [ -> ]The governor of the bank of England says the EU has helped UK economy http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35751919

He is a American by the way .

Judging by the commitees responce it shows that this issue is far from clear cut.

It doesn't seem pretty obvious to stay in is a no brainer (only to those whos minds are made up) and that speaks volumes to me.

I shall make one more post over the imigration issue.

I have been pondering ShandyHand's links and confirming them elsewhere.

One thing struck me this evening that we don't hear anything about - emigration. I know a few years ago there was a crisis about a 'brain drain' where educated and skilled people were going to work abroad for a better life and pay.

figures from ShandyHand's links:

Net immigration 330,000. I assume by net they mean allowed to stay.

Emigration 307,000.

So in real terms the amount of extra people in this country last year is a staggering 23,000. This is considered a record high.

In a nut shell, immigration is not an issue either way, for or against, neither overly benefitial nor detrimental but an emotive scaremongering thing.

Though they do need to be controlled.

(08-03-2016 17:55 )wackawoo Wrote: [ -> ]I do happen to be responding to your posts.

You were on this thread long before, and multiple times before, I was here. You are the one that seems to see it as his duty to respond to almost every poster. Have you taken up guardianship?

Quote:I wouldn't expect you to understand an example of REAL or absolute poverty.

Oh, please that is beneath you... I tell you what, I'll promise not to mention any more nasty names (even if they are appropriate) as long as we stick to the subject. Deal?

Quote:No about stopping it...

I did say "or in part". If you control something you must stop parts of it.

I realise the economics, good and bad, of the current situation but we are trying to establish if Brexit has any reasonable chance of offering a better solution (on this one issue at the moment, I'm sure more aspects will be covered later ). The point is who do you bar from this country? And by how much?

The government would need net immigration figures down to the five figure values - they have stated that is their target. Anything less would not be viewed as a political success and would therefore very damaging to them at the ballot box in 2020. So that's a curb on both EU and non-EU then, because take a look at the current figures you quoted below, cutting one or other to the bone wont do, it has to be both.

How would that be achieved without damaging and problematic effects?

Quote:...gross immigration of 639,00 , thats well over half a million people in a country of 66 millions. And are ALL of those skilled and contributing? Does the number of 330,000 net, mean those allowing to stay? with 339,00 having been denied?

You are a little at sea here (and in your last post): "Gross" is the number of everyone coming in; the net figure is that figure minus those that have left in that year. People come and go. Some don't stay. That's what free movement is. The net figure is the addition to our population year-on-year.

Quote:It also claims in that most already had a job to come to, 65,000, how on earth does that happen? when in a resession jobs for poeple who live here are difficult to come by.

You were the one claiming how well we we're doing this country a few posts back. Make up your mind! (Also, technically, we are also no longer in recession but I grant you it doesn't feel that way most of the bloody time.) If 65,000 had jobs to come to that doesn't leave much room for getting the overall net figure down to five figures easily does it?

Quote:And of course your missing another point, the UK can recruit from over seas without being in Europe and without an influx of immigrants; this has always happened.

But can it? Or rather can it do it so well and easily as now. And your the one that wants to limit numbers to the 10's of thousands (I'm assuming you agree with the government on degree). There wont be very many of those Eastern European nurses left cutting numbers to a tenth of current levels will there? (The NHS is already struggling with paying huge wages to temporary staff. That would only exacerbate the problem.)

The world is not the same as it was. Even if we could unilaterally put ourselves as a country back the way we were in 1972 the EU will still be the EU we can't change that. We have to deal with them; trade, employment and so on. It's alright crying blackmail but they are just going to look after there interests. If you were living in those countries would you expect your politicians to bend over and be shafted for Britain's interests?

Quote:...it seems contradictory. Claiming ""Net migration from within the EU, at 183,000, has been LARGELY RESPONCIBLE for the recent rise"""

Then going on to claim """"While non-EU migrants still OUTNUMBER THOSE OF EU ORIGEN within the resident population,"

It's not contradictory at all if you can step away from the screaming Calais headlines for a moment. It's saying that non-EU immigration has always been relatively high. You said yourself it been this way before the EU. A lot have been here many many years. And although non-EU immigration is increasing at the moment it is EU immigration that is contributing most to the current up curve of the graph.

Quote:It then claims """ first point to note is that leaving the EU does not necessarily mean ending free movement,"""""

But it doesn't say why.

It does if you think about it. Further down it's saying (as Cameron does) that we'll have to stay in the single market (or make fresh agreements with all the member countries), the conditions of which will be that we have to abide by certain EU rules. Have a guess which one those will include?

Quote:""Substantial net migration from within the EU to the UK is is a recent development.""" Which is put down to immigration form poorer eastern European countries such as Romania and Bulgaria, not rich countries like Germany, France etc, nor people with skills.

Careful, are you saying Romanians or Bulgarians don't work for the NHS for instance?

Your link looks to be the source yes (or gateway to it). There is a more recent report I see from last month. Thanks for pointing me to that.

Quote:...effectivly blackmailed into keeping it that way. UK is economically more powerful.

Hmmm. Wouldn't you expect that power to be of more use sitting around the bargaining table rather than locked outside the room?

Quote:Is that REALLY true? ...

Cameron exaggerating? REALLY?! For what possible reason?

Oh, yeah, maybe he just thinks Brexit is a very bad idea for lots of reasons.

(08-03-2016 21:30 )wackawoo Wrote: [ -> ]Net immigration 330,000. I assume by net they mean allowed to stay.

Emigration 307,000.

So in real terms the amount of extra people in this country last year is a staggering 23,000. This is considered a record high.

No, the term is Net Migration, which is the calculated by deducting the figure for emigration from the figure from immigration.

i.e. Immigration 637,000 minus emigration 307,000 equals 330,000 (or, as you would put it, a staggering 330,000)

(08-03-2016 21:56 )The Silent Majority Wrote: [ -> ]No, the term is Net Migration, which is the calculated by deducting the figure for emigration from the figure from immigration.

i.e. Immigration 637,000 minus emigration 307,000 equals 330,000 (or, as you would put it, a staggering 330,000)

Well thanks for clearing that up. I know something didn't seem right some where. Then that IS an hell of a problem. Twice the number of people entered the counrty than left. And all these poeple are still here, and this happens every year? And this as been increaseing since 2004 since eastern Europeans were allowed to migrate? this year on year?

I assumed it meant counting the people coming in oppsed those going out.

Having finally established that immagration IS a problem.

Nooooow finance:

http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/br...-a-brexit/

Quote:The numbers

Based on economic modelling of the trade impacts of Brexit and analysis of the most significant pieces of EU regulation, if Britain left the EU on 1 January 2018, we estimate that in 2030:

In a worst case scenario, where the UK fails to strike a trade deal with the rest of the EU and does not pursue a free trade agenda, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would be 2.2% lower than if the UK had remained inside the EU.
In a best case scenario, where the UK strikes a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the EU, pursues very ambitious deregulation of its economy and opens up almost fully to trade with the rest of the world, UK GDP would be 1.6% higher than if it had stayed within the EU.

^ "We" if you like but, more you, have established immigration is a problem for some.

I'd add that it's one Brexit is unlikely to solve.