EU migrants= net COST of 1.2bn a year
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Maker
Why won't they? The Spanish would be as keen to get rid of a load of people using up their health service without paying as the British. Well off Brits will be OK since they can buy private care but poorer Brits who rely on the public health service will be stuffed.
Do you have any idea how many Spaniards are currently living (also working) in the UK? It's literally dozens of thousands. London is one of the most popular destinations for Spaniards looking for a job abroad. They won't be sent home and neither will the Poles, which are many more. Not even illegal immigrants are effectively deported nowadays. Fear mongering of mass deportations of Europeans is simply absurd.
From the site I quoted above:
14. What would happen to British citizens living in the EU if the UK voted to leave?
It is most likely that those already living in Europe, and EU citizens already living in the UK, would retain that right under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This treaty releases parties from future obligations but does not affect rights already acquired. This means that British citizens living abroad and EU citizens living here would be unaffected. This is backed up by research by the House of Commons Library. For more on this see here.In any case, collective expulsions are prohibited under Article 19 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/eu-referendum
Not even Farage wants to deport EU migrants currently living in the UK. Cameron or Johnson as PM would be even less inclined to do so.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by plstudent
Even if that was true, it doesn't change the fact that UK population is a necessity for the UK, EU migration is not.
Just like the Guardian, Cameron, Obama, government agencies and the big multinationals have an Europhile/left wing bias. I think I trust that think tank a bit more, at least their research is backed up with facts and not fearrmongering.
Just like the Guardian, Cameron, Obama, government agencies and the big multinationals have an Europhile/left wing bias. I think I trust that think tank a bit more, at least their research is backed up with facts and not fearrmongering.
I'm going to add a quick disclaimer - I'm not picking a fight, but I am frustrated at how this is going. I'm also half-English, half-French - I hold citizenship to both countries, and consider myself very much part of both.
Thus it really changes little for me if Britain leaves or stays in the EU in the terms of EU benefits, as I'll always have EU citizenship through my French citizenship. Thus my views on the EU for Britain are solely influenced by the impact leaving will have on Britain, as I care a huge amount about this country as a British citizen.
There's fear-mongering for a reason.
The government are very rightly terrified, and other countries are rightly frightened for us.
No country has ever left the EU, and the EU is unique in its role. Any country leaving the EU could greatly destabilise the whole union. The rather racist, xenophobic Front National in France for example, would probably throw a party if Britain left the EU, as they could then advance their own arguments to leave.
Each time a major country (although I'm beginning to debate whether the UK even counts as a major country anymore, I mean, this isn't the 1860s) goes into any form of isolation, the world somehow becomes a rather dangerous place. (I'm sure you understand the impact of US isolationism, as well as British and French semi-isolationism on the utter failure of collective security in the '30s, so I won't patronise you by going into detail about it).
But that's not really the issue.
Anyone who thinks the EU and any other non-commonwealth countries for that matter, is going to let Britain get away with leaving, is deluding themselves.
Do you think other countries even like the UK? That out of some cheap post-colonial 'love' they're going to stand by Britain? That the UK somehow still commands as much power as it did a hundred years ago, so when outside of an economic bloc it will realistically trade at a true international level?
The world would, eventually, be fine with watching Britain burn.
We've caused far more trouble than we're worth and we're hardly indispensable, despite the leave campaign talking about how important London is to the world of finance.
Don't worry, the changes will be slow, you won't notice them immediately - but this is what will be talked about in history books when they speak of the decline of Britain or the British Empire. They'll mention WWI, WWII, the collapse of the Empire and independance movements, attempts as renewing Britain's power in the world, and then in the most ironic twist that democracy has ever seen, it leaving one of the only organisations that gave it the illusion of being as important in world-trade as it was a century before.
The EU won't let Britain get away with threatening its security. I find it almost laughable that the leave campaign implies we'll somehow be able to trade on an international level or negotiate a Norway like deal (which would imply still contributing financially and having to comply with EU regulations without having a say in them) or even a better deal than Britain currently has with the EU.
Of course the 'in' campaign is fear mongering - we should all be terrified. Yet people are still being lulled by ridiculous quantities of flattery on preserving 'Great' British values and British sovereignty.
What those facts don't tell you, are the reactions of the EU member countries. They assume everyone will be on fantastic terms, they assume current British trading partners are going to carry on as though nothing had happened.
So yes, facts are fantastic. But they are only part of the problem, you should be worried about the EU's reaction.
Have the British government and 'in' campaign been annoyingly patronising towards the electorate when talking about the campaign? Yes, they have. Do they seem biased - of course they do. They are scared and rightly so.
If you have problems with the EU, then play the game, and change it. So far, Britain has sulked, ranted and simply thrown tantrums at the EU. Play the game, change the EU from the inside, use it for your own gains if you're not happy with the way it deals with immigration, with the way it's organised. Whatever. If you leave it, you're risking a huge backlash from the international community.
I hope this all didn't sound too harsh - but I understand why the 'in' campaign is getting so desperate.
Anyway - if you have any thoughts/criticism on what I've said, I'd welcome them. Have a lovely day!
Original post by Hirondelle127
I'm going to add a quick disclaimer - I'm not picking a fight, but I am frustrated at how this is going. I'm also half-English, half-French - I hold citizenship to both countries, and consider myself very much part of both.
Thus it really changes little for me if Britain leaves or stays in the EU in the terms of EU benefits, as I'll always have EU citizenship through my French citizenship. Thus my views on the EU for Britain are solely influenced by the impact leaving will have on Britain, as I care a huge amount about this country as a British citizen.
There's fear-mongering for a reason.
The government are very rightly terrified, and other countries are rightly frightened for us.
No country has ever left the EU, and the EU is unique in its role. Any country leaving the EU could greatly destabilise the whole union. The rather racist, xenophobic Front National in France for example, would probably throw a party if Britain left the EU, as they could then advance their own arguments to leave.
Each time a major country (although I'm beginning to debate whether the UK even counts as a major country anymore, I mean, this isn't the 1860s) goes into any form of isolation, the world somehow becomes a rather dangerous place. (I'm sure you understand the impact of US isolationism, as well as British and French semi-isolationism on the utter failure of collective security in the '30s, so I won't patronise you by going into detail about it).
But that's not really the issue.
Anyone who thinks the EU and any other non-commonwealth countries for that matter, is going to let Britain get away with leaving, is deluding themselves.
Do you think other countries even like the UK? That out of some cheap post-colonial 'love' they're going to stand by Britain? That the UK somehow still commands as much power as it did a hundred years ago, so when outside of an economic bloc it will realistically trade at a true international level?
The world would, eventually, be fine with watching Britain burn.
We've caused far more trouble than we're worth and we're hardly indispensable, despite the leave campaign talking about how important London is to the world of finance.
Don't worry, the changes will be slow, you won't notice them immediately - but this is what will be talked about in history books when they speak of the decline of Britain or the British Empire. They'll mention WWI, WWII, the collapse of the Empire and independance movements, attempts as renewing Britain's power in the world, and then in the most ironic twist that democracy has ever seen, it leaving one of the only organisations that gave it the illusion of being as important in world-trade as it was a century before.
The EU won't let Britain get away with threatening its security. I find it almost laughable that the leave campaign implies we'll somehow be able to trade on an international level or negotiate a Norway like deal (which would imply still contributing financially and having to comply with EU regulations without having a say in them) or even a better deal than Britain currently has with the EU.
Of course the 'in' campaign is fear mongering - we should all be terrified. Yet people are still being lulled by ridiculous quantities of flattery on preserving 'Great' British values and British sovereignty.
What those facts don't tell you, are the reactions of the EU member countries. They assume everyone will be on fantastic terms, they assume current British trading partners are going to carry on as though nothing had happened.
So yes, facts are fantastic. But they are only part of the problem, you should be worried about the EU's reaction.
Have the British government and 'in' campaign been annoyingly patronising towards the electorate when talking about the campaign? Yes, they have. Do they seem biased - of course they do. They are scared and rightly so.
If you have problems with the EU, then play the game, and change it. So far, Britain has sulked, ranted and simply thrown tantrums at the EU. Play the game, change the EU from the inside, use it for your own gains if you're not happy with the way it deals with immigration, with the way it's organised. Whatever. If you leave it, you're risking a huge backlash from the international community.
I hope this all didn't sound too harsh - but I understand why the 'in' campaign is getting so desperate.
Anyway - if you have any thoughts/criticism on what I've said, I'd welcome them. Have a lovely day!
Thus it really changes little for me if Britain leaves or stays in the EU in the terms of EU benefits, as I'll always have EU citizenship through my French citizenship. Thus my views on the EU for Britain are solely influenced by the impact leaving will have on Britain, as I care a huge amount about this country as a British citizen.
There's fear-mongering for a reason.
The government are very rightly terrified, and other countries are rightly frightened for us.
No country has ever left the EU, and the EU is unique in its role. Any country leaving the EU could greatly destabilise the whole union. The rather racist, xenophobic Front National in France for example, would probably throw a party if Britain left the EU, as they could then advance their own arguments to leave.
Each time a major country (although I'm beginning to debate whether the UK even counts as a major country anymore, I mean, this isn't the 1860s) goes into any form of isolation, the world somehow becomes a rather dangerous place. (I'm sure you understand the impact of US isolationism, as well as British and French semi-isolationism on the utter failure of collective security in the '30s, so I won't patronise you by going into detail about it).
But that's not really the issue.
Anyone who thinks the EU and any other non-commonwealth countries for that matter, is going to let Britain get away with leaving, is deluding themselves.
Do you think other countries even like the UK? That out of some cheap post-colonial 'love' they're going to stand by Britain? That the UK somehow still commands as much power as it did a hundred years ago, so when outside of an economic bloc it will realistically trade at a true international level?
The world would, eventually, be fine with watching Britain burn.
We've caused far more trouble than we're worth and we're hardly indispensable, despite the leave campaign talking about how important London is to the world of finance.
Don't worry, the changes will be slow, you won't notice them immediately - but this is what will be talked about in history books when they speak of the decline of Britain or the British Empire. They'll mention WWI, WWII, the collapse of the Empire and independance movements, attempts as renewing Britain's power in the world, and then in the most ironic twist that democracy has ever seen, it leaving one of the only organisations that gave it the illusion of being as important in world-trade as it was a century before.
The EU won't let Britain get away with threatening its security. I find it almost laughable that the leave campaign implies we'll somehow be able to trade on an international level or negotiate a Norway like deal (which would imply still contributing financially and having to comply with EU regulations without having a say in them) or even a better deal than Britain currently has with the EU.
Of course the 'in' campaign is fear mongering - we should all be terrified. Yet people are still being lulled by ridiculous quantities of flattery on preserving 'Great' British values and British sovereignty.
What those facts don't tell you, are the reactions of the EU member countries. They assume everyone will be on fantastic terms, they assume current British trading partners are going to carry on as though nothing had happened.
So yes, facts are fantastic. But they are only part of the problem, you should be worried about the EU's reaction.
Have the British government and 'in' campaign been annoyingly patronising towards the electorate when talking about the campaign? Yes, they have. Do they seem biased - of course they do. They are scared and rightly so.
If you have problems with the EU, then play the game, and change it. So far, Britain has sulked, ranted and simply thrown tantrums at the EU. Play the game, change the EU from the inside, use it for your own gains if you're not happy with the way it deals with immigration, with the way it's organised. Whatever. If you leave it, you're risking a huge backlash from the international community.
I hope this all didn't sound too harsh - but I understand why the 'in' campaign is getting so desperate.
Anyway - if you have any thoughts/criticism on what I've said, I'd welcome them. Have a lovely day!
Don't have the time to address all of this but
1) Greenland has already left the European community in 1973.
2) About half of Europeans want a vote on the EU. Far from hating the UK, they will see it as an opportunity to break free from the EU and reclaim their sovereignty.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-europe-idUSKCN0XZ0W8
Anybody who thinks the EU is necessary to thrive should remember that Norway and Switzerland are, on the contrary, much richer than EU countries.
Does this fear mongering ring a bell?
[video="youtube;i-UbT0g9A8c"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-UbT0g9A8c[/video]
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by plstudent
Don't have the time to address all of this but
1) Greenland has already left the European community in 1973.
2) About half of Europeans want a vote on the EU. Far from hating the UK, they will see it as an opportunity to break free from the EU and reclaim their sovereignty.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-europe-idUSKCN0XZ0W8
Anybody who thinks the EU is necessary to thrive should remember that Norway and Switzerland are, on the contrary, much richer than EU countries.
Does this fear mongering ring a bell?
[video="youtube;i-UbT0g9A8c"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-UbT0g9A8c[/video]
1) Greenland has already left the European community in 1973.
2) About half of Europeans want a vote on the EU. Far from hating the UK, they will see it as an opportunity to break free from the EU and reclaim their sovereignty.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-europe-idUSKCN0XZ0W8
Anybody who thinks the EU is necessary to thrive should remember that Norway and Switzerland are, on the contrary, much richer than EU countries.
Does this fear mongering ring a bell?
[video="youtube;i-UbT0g9A8c"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-UbT0g9A8c[/video]
1) You can't compare this to Greenland - not only is it still very much subject to EU treaties - but the EU it left was vastly different from what it is now. The EU now is fragile, scared, so dangerous. Besides, Greenland, despite being autonomous, is still 'part' of the Danish Realm. Despite a few 'opt-outs', Denmark is still part of the EU so the EU is hardly 'losing face' with Greenland's departure, and frankly, Greenland has never been a major power in world politics. Britain is/has been - and is continuing under the illusion that it still is.
2) Yes - definitely. (See my previous point of the Front National) The only way to make sure the EU's security doesn't look threatened, would be to crush the threat - here Britain. The main leaders don't want their countries leaving the EU. The masses are more divided. Britain being made an example of, to hush the rest of the EU, could happen.
Switzerland and Norway were never part of the EU to start off with. They thus never pulled silly tantrums like Farage would do as MEP and never pissed off as many people as Britain did.
I can't talk for Norway, since I've never been and beyond a few hours of reading on it, will happily admit I don't know enough about its government to pass judgement on its relationship with the EU.
I do think it's a little ironic you're talking about picking non-biased facts, when you've just plucked out a Brexit video on Norway and the EU.
However, having lived in Switzerland, with friends who have parents involved in Swiss politics and a whole family involved in finance - Switzerland is far better organised both on a political and economic level, than Britain ever was. It's also very happy not to be a 'world player', unlike Britain, which seems to want to get involved in anything, anywhere to consolidate its power.
Again, both of these were countries considering joining the EU, not leaving it.
If Britain can negotiate a deal like Norway or Switzerland, fantastic. Well done. Likelihood is, it won't. And even if it does, it won't be able to cope.
Thanks for taking the time to reply though
Original post by ByEeek
Yes. But in this case, what are those facts? It costs migrants to live here. So what? But if they weren't here would we be better off or worse off? That is not addressed by the report. So would I have had a plumber come to my house on a Sunday if the German one that turned up went home? Would the NHS be better staffed? Would business be able to recruit skilled UK workers in place of all the foreign ones?
It is all very well looking at people as economic units, but it doesn't paint the whole picture.
And where as the stay campaign may well be scaremongering, the best the leave campaign seem to be able to come up with in terms of a defence is to call it all rubbish or some sort of conspiracy. Very factual.
It is all very well looking at people as economic units, but it doesn't paint the whole picture.
And where as the stay campaign may well be scaremongering, the best the leave campaign seem to be able to come up with in terms of a defence is to call it all rubbish or some sort of conspiracy. Very factual.
If something represents a net cost, the implication is that it would be better to do without it. You know what else represents a cost? EU membership.
http://www.leave.eu/en/the-facts/on-money
Surely, there would be fewer nurses and plumbers available with smaller immigration, but there would also be fewer people that need them. There may be fewer jobs available, but there will also be much fewer applicants. Some on the remain side have nearly admitted that wages would go up in the event of a Brexit.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12181385/Wages-for-British-workers-will-rise-in-the-event-of-a-Brexit-head-of-in-campaign-says.html
Overall, mass migration is a problem because it causes overcrowding, increases the prize of property, reduces natives to a minority and creates alienation among people.
Finally, what do you propose we call Remain scaremongering? Do you mean to tell me that claims like these appeal to reason?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-david-cameron-isis-putin-brexit-a7033741.html
Watch the video above and ask the Norwegians if ANY of it came true.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by plstudent
Significantly, this is more pronounced for migrants from the newer EU countries
This found that migrants from Poland and other Eastern European countries were costing £2.8 billion a year.However, this was counter-balanced by a positive net contribution of the same amount by migrants from the 'old' EU, which includes the likes of France and Germany.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3593872/17bn-true-cost-immigration-UK-year.html
With the coming accession of Turkey, Albania and other poor countries to the EU, one can only expect the deficit to increase.
This found that migrants from Poland and other Eastern European countries were costing £2.8 billion a year.However, this was counter-balanced by a positive net contribution of the same amount by migrants from the 'old' EU, which includes the likes of France and Germany.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3593872/17bn-true-cost-immigration-UK-year.html
With the coming accession of Turkey, Albania and other poor countries to the EU, one can only expect the deficit to increase.
So public services - taxes (I assume they mean income tax here) = £1.2bn?
How about public services - taxes - economic output = ???
Also, how do they know the amount of VAT paid by migrants?
Original post by plstudent
If something represents a net cost, the implication is that it would be better to do without it.
Rubbish! I get paid a salary each month. My net costs include my mortgage, utility bills, food, clothes, holidays and childcare. If I didn't have those net costs according to your theory, I would be significantly better off.... or would I? I wouldn't have a house to live in, would be rather hungry, unclothed and without a nice holiday to look forward to.
Like I say - if you only measure a person's value as an economic unit you miss a massive part of the bigger picture.
PS Can we really compare ourselves to Norway? That small country of only 5 million or so people but with a sovereign wealth fund of around $1 trillion? They can afford to do what they like.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Maker
If Britain stopped EU migration, Spain will send back all the poor pensioners who will have nowhere to live and clog up the NHS and social services.
We have took more than we have had left us
Original post by Hirondelle127
1) You can't compare this to Greenland - not only is it still very much subject to EU treaties - but the EU it left was vastly different from what it is now. The EU now is fragile, scared, so dangerous. Besides, Greenland, despite being autonomous, is still 'part' of the Danish Realm. Despite a few 'opt-outs', Denmark is still part of the EU so the EU is hardly 'losing face' with Greenland's departure, and frankly, Greenland has never been a major power in world politics. Britain is/has been - and is continuing under the illusion that it still is.
If the EU is so scared and fragile, surely they will realize they can't afford to keep losing member states. That means that either they will offer very good terms to Britain in the event of a Brexit vote, or that they will be very interested in negotiations with an independent GB afterwards, to safeguard stability.
Common sense says you can get better terms for a deal from a person when you have more power than they do, not the other way around. From this perspective, assuming what you say is true, now is a better time than ever for Brexit.
Original post by Hirondelle127
2) Yes - definitely. (See my previous point of the Front National) The only way to make sure the EU's security doesn't look threatened, would be to crush the threat - here Britain. The main leaders don't want their countries leaving the EU. The masses are more divided. Britain being made an example of, to hush the rest of the EU, could happen.Switzerland and Norway were never part of the EU to start off with. They thus never pulled silly tantrums like Farage would do as MEP and never pissed off as many people as Britain did.I can't talk for Norway, since I've never been and beyond a few hours of reading on it, will happily admit I don't know enough about its government to pass judgement on its relationship with the EU.I do think it's a little ironic you're talking about picking non-biased facts, when you've just plucked out a Brexit video on Norway and the EU.However, having lived in Switzerland, with friends who have parents involved in Swiss politics and a whole family involved in finance - Switzerland is far better organised both on a political and economic level, than Britain ever was. It's also very happy not to be a 'world player', unlike Britain, which seems to want to get involved in anything, anywhere to consolidate its power.Again, both of these were countries considering joining the EU, not leaving it.If Britain can negotiate a deal like Norway or Switzerland, fantastic. Well done. Likelihood is, it won't. And even if it does, it won't be able to cope.Thanks for taking the time to reply though
Also, I have no problems with Nigel giving speeches like this one:
[video="youtube;_AzBXNDNBtQ"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AzBXNDNBtQ[/video]
Original post by Hirondelle127
Thanks for taking the time to reply though
Original post by ByEeek
Rubbish! I get paid a salary each month. My net costs include my mortgage, utility bills, food, clothes, holidays and childcare. If I didn't have those net costs according to your theory, I would be significantly better off.... or would I? I wouldn't have a house to live in, would be rather hungry, unclothed and without a nice holiday to look forward to.
Like I say - if you only measure a person's value as an economic unit you miss a massive part of the bigger picture.
Like I say - if you only measure a person's value as an economic unit you miss a massive part of the bigger picture.
The difference being that, unlike food, the UK can survive just fine without uncontrolled EU migration, like it did for most of its history.
Original post by inhuman
So public services - taxes (I assume they mean income tax here) = £1.2bn?
How about public services - taxes - economic output = ???
Also, how do they know the amount of VAT paid by migrants?
How about public services - taxes - economic output = ???
Also, how do they know the amount of VAT paid by migrants?
Did you read the article?
The campaign group Migrationwatch compared the amount paid in income tax, national insurance, VAT and other taxes by migrants with the cost of providing them with health, education, policing, roads and other services.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3593872/17bn-true-cost-immigration-UK-year.html#ixzz48zphu8Bz
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I posted a link to the study in the thread, too.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by plstudent
Did you read the article?
The campaign group Migrationwatch compared the amount paid in income tax, national insurance, VAT and other taxes by migrants with the cost of providing them with health, education, policing, roads and other services.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3593872/17bn-true-cost-immigration-UK-year.html#ixzz48zphu8Bz
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I posted a link to the study in the thread, too.
The campaign group Migrationwatch compared the amount paid in income tax, national insurance, VAT and other taxes by migrants with the cost of providing them with health, education, policing, roads and other services.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3593872/17bn-true-cost-immigration-UK-year.html#ixzz48zphu8Bz
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I posted a link to the study in the thread, too.
Did you?
The part of the article you quoted does not explain my questions. I know it is not just income that is why I said assume before I read the article. Hence my question, how do they want to know the VAT someone pays. They have none, is my point. It is at best an estimate.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by plstudent
If the EU is so scared and fragile, surely they will realize they can't afford to keep losing member states. That means that either they will offer very good terms to Britain in the event of a Brexit vote, or that they will be very interested in negotiations with an independent GB afterwards, to safeguard stability.
Common sense says you can get better terms for a deal from a person when you have more power than they do, not the other way around. From this perspective, assuming what you say is true, now is a better time than ever for Brexit.
So your argument is basically that Switzerland is more organised and so the UK needs the EU more? How about learning from Switzerland then, seeing as they are doing better than the EU? The EU is, by the way, an organisational mess. I bet not even you can explain in detail how it works.I think the UK should not get involved in many areas of the world as it does now, but it can afford to anyway, because it is a much bigger country with a far more powerful military.
Also, I have no problems with Nigel giving speeches like this one:
[video="youtube;_AzBXNDNBtQ"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AzBXNDNBtQ[/video]
Likewise.
Common sense says you can get better terms for a deal from a person when you have more power than they do, not the other way around. From this perspective, assuming what you say is true, now is a better time than ever for Brexit.
So your argument is basically that Switzerland is more organised and so the UK needs the EU more? How about learning from Switzerland then, seeing as they are doing better than the EU? The EU is, by the way, an organisational mess. I bet not even you can explain in detail how it works.I think the UK should not get involved in many areas of the world as it does now, but it can afford to anyway, because it is a much bigger country with a far more powerful military.
Also, I have no problems with Nigel giving speeches like this one:
[video="youtube;_AzBXNDNBtQ"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AzBXNDNBtQ[/video]
Likewise.
I think the chances of Britain getting a reasonably good deal should it stay in, are indeed increased - for the reasons you've stated above. The EU is feeling vulnerable. But once it's left... I probably see the EU as being far more vindictive than you do.
If this EU is going to be as hostile as I think it is (which isn't too hostile, but enough to cause quite a few problems, more than this country can cope with), then now is not a good time to leave. The EU feels weak, it wants to show people that leaving is a massive mistake. So I think your logic can only be applied - but only in getting better 'in' conditions.
And yes - that's exactly what I'm saying. Switzerland is far more aware of what it's doing politically than Britain is. It's a federal directorial republic (I'm seriously hoping I've got my terms right here) and ruthlessly organised. Britain.. well, is not. And I'm not suggesting it become one. Britain suddenly sprouting cantons like Switzerland would be a mess. Also, Switzerland's had a working four-party coalition system since the late 1950s - when you look at the Federal Council. I'm sorry I'm not explaining this terribly clearly - if you look it up, you'll see it's a vastly different system from that of the UK's. Maybe Norway is the way to go? But yes - here I would be talking about mass governmental reform... So maybe not.
Realistically, I could try to explain the EU with a piece of paper and a pen? But yes, it's an organisational mess, and I wouldn't trust myself to do it completely correctly. It has so many exceptions to the rule in many cases, it is hard to keep track of. So what? The EU does need massive reform. Make sure Britain is there to lead it, which it can't do if it's sulking in the corner.
And yes, appeasing Turkey economically, then considering its membership seriously is ludicrous. (Though likening this to the Danegeld is a bit extreme...?)
I'm not saying that the EU is perfect. It is very very far from it. I am saying that underestimating the EU's will to make an example of Britain will be even more dangerous. That, and I really don't think Britain is ready to stand on its own.
And again, thanks for replying!
To plstudent
I get it that you're very right wing - even going so far as to call Cameron's aggressive neo-liberalism part of "a left wing bias" sort of says you're quite right of that - and you don't really want to take on board any information contrary to your points. People here have shot down the study in many ways and also your claims that leaving the EU - another topic only staunch right-wingers care about generally - would be beneficial in some way are seeing you ignore a lot of poignant information and prioritising a smaller economic issue for reasons only you know. I also fail to see how one section of the biased media is better than the other, other than one of them simply better represents your own political views so you favour it, but it's still manipulation of the information you're getting all the same.
And while it's nice that you care so much about the country enough to debate us all on these topics, I feel that I'm just going to have to agree to disagree with your stance on these two issues.
I don't think cracking down on immigration to the point that it cripples the NHS is a good idea unless you're just in favour of crippling the NHS (maybe you are that right wing, who knows?). Even with immigration there is a ridiculous nurse shortage that can't seem to be filled, and if there were less nurses coming from other countries it'd only be worse, as well as creating voids for other medical positions. And, as ByEeek mentioned and alluded to, this is a system that tends to millions of Britons, however the majority of people who benefit the most is very much the large number of native Brits that outnumber immigrants 7 to 1 and therefore use the service more so. It would be incredibly short-sighted to cut down on immigration for this and you're greatly over-estimating migrant demand on the system.
You mention "alienation" and reducing the "native population to a minority" as reasons against immigration, but the former is only a problem because of those right-wing outlets you've clearly been reading and their clear prejudices while the latter harkens back to some peculiar world view that British ethnicity needs to be protected, which is a scary thing that has roots in fascist ideology.
All in all, I think your political inclinations are informed less by statistics and facts and more by your emotions towards certain topics raised by sensationalist headlines in right-wing news outlets because it seems with contrary information now all over this thread you've done nothing but try and refute it based on hypotheticals and dissimilar comparisons to vastly different economic models. It makes me think your reason for starting this thread was more to do with arguing against people who hold different views and becoming a political missionary for your own concerns or you were hoping to find similar-minded people with whom you could form an echo chamber for right-wing ideals because I see no flexibility in your stance.
I'm afraid many here are not going to agree with you.
I get it that you're very right wing - even going so far as to call Cameron's aggressive neo-liberalism part of "a left wing bias" sort of says you're quite right of that - and you don't really want to take on board any information contrary to your points. People here have shot down the study in many ways and also your claims that leaving the EU - another topic only staunch right-wingers care about generally - would be beneficial in some way are seeing you ignore a lot of poignant information and prioritising a smaller economic issue for reasons only you know. I also fail to see how one section of the biased media is better than the other, other than one of them simply better represents your own political views so you favour it, but it's still manipulation of the information you're getting all the same.
And while it's nice that you care so much about the country enough to debate us all on these topics, I feel that I'm just going to have to agree to disagree with your stance on these two issues.
I don't think cracking down on immigration to the point that it cripples the NHS is a good idea unless you're just in favour of crippling the NHS (maybe you are that right wing, who knows?). Even with immigration there is a ridiculous nurse shortage that can't seem to be filled, and if there were less nurses coming from other countries it'd only be worse, as well as creating voids for other medical positions. And, as ByEeek mentioned and alluded to, this is a system that tends to millions of Britons, however the majority of people who benefit the most is very much the large number of native Brits that outnumber immigrants 7 to 1 and therefore use the service more so. It would be incredibly short-sighted to cut down on immigration for this and you're greatly over-estimating migrant demand on the system.
You mention "alienation" and reducing the "native population to a minority" as reasons against immigration, but the former is only a problem because of those right-wing outlets you've clearly been reading and their clear prejudices while the latter harkens back to some peculiar world view that British ethnicity needs to be protected, which is a scary thing that has roots in fascist ideology.
All in all, I think your political inclinations are informed less by statistics and facts and more by your emotions towards certain topics raised by sensationalist headlines in right-wing news outlets because it seems with contrary information now all over this thread you've done nothing but try and refute it based on hypotheticals and dissimilar comparisons to vastly different economic models. It makes me think your reason for starting this thread was more to do with arguing against people who hold different views and becoming a political missionary for your own concerns or you were hoping to find similar-minded people with whom you could form an echo chamber for right-wing ideals because I see no flexibility in your stance.
I'm afraid many here are not going to agree with you.
Correction: 79.8%+ of the nation is indigeonous, not that they outnumber immigrants 7 to 1. My bad.
Hope this doesn't make me part of the left wing bias.
Hope this doesn't make me part of the left wing bias.
Original post by plstudent
The difference being that, unlike food, the UK can survive just fine without uncontrolled EU migration, like it did for most of its history.
And similarly we can survive with it, like we have done for most of our history. One mustn't forget the Romans, the Angles, the Saxons (you know Anglo Saxon?). Then there were the Gaels, the Gauls, the Vikings and we haven't even got to the more recent waves of immigration which included German Jews in the war followed by Commonwealth immigrants from all over the world after it. If we are going to talk genetics in the debate about immigration, I challenge you to define a pure Brit because frankly I don't think such a thing exists.
Original post by plstudent
Do you have any idea how many Spaniards are currently living (also working) in the UK? It's literally dozens of thousands. London is one of the most popular destinations for Spaniards looking for a job abroad. They won't be sent home and neither will the Poles, which are many more. Not even illegal immigrants are effectively deported nowadays. Fear mongering of mass deportations of Europeans is simply absurd.
From the site I quoted above:
14. What would happen to British citizens living in the EU if the UK voted to leave?
It is most likely that those already living in Europe, and EU citizens already living in the UK, would retain that right under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This treaty releases parties from future obligations but does not affect rights already acquired. This means that British citizens living abroad and EU citizens living here would be unaffected. This is backed up by research by the House of Commons Library. For more on this see here.In any case, collective expulsions are prohibited under Article 19 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/eu-referendum
Not even Farage wants to deport EU migrants currently living in the UK. Cameron or Johnson as PM would be even less inclined to do so.
From the site I quoted above:
14. What would happen to British citizens living in the EU if the UK voted to leave?
It is most likely that those already living in Europe, and EU citizens already living in the UK, would retain that right under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This treaty releases parties from future obligations but does not affect rights already acquired. This means that British citizens living abroad and EU citizens living here would be unaffected. This is backed up by research by the House of Commons Library. For more on this see here.In any case, collective expulsions are prohibited under Article 19 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/eu-referendum
Not even Farage wants to deport EU migrants currently living in the UK. Cameron or Johnson as PM would be even less inclined to do so.
Spain is unlikely to start shoving pensioners onto planes but there are more than one way to get rid of people you don't want. You can make them pay for healthcare, stop them getting any benefits and allow their pensions to be frozen so it does not increase with inflation.
Original post by Maker
Spain is unlikely to start shoving pensioners onto planes but there are more than one way to get rid of people you don't want. You can make them pay for healthcare, stop them getting any benefits and allow their pensions to be frozen so it does not increase with inflation.
The same conventions "stop" those ideas. It's also worth noting that they are likely drawing a UK pensions and not a Spanish one, further Spain would likely run foul of EU law doing that, or is Spain leaving too?
Original post by plstudent
Overall, mass migration is a problem because it causes overcrowding, increases the prize of property, reduces natives to a minority and creates alienation among people…
No, I'm not letting you have that one. The price of property in the UK has increased due to poor government policy in the area of social housing, low interest rates and government policy that encouraged those with capital to invest it in property (ie it has encouraged anyone who can raise the money to become a landlord).
I'm not letting you have the rest either, but that one is so obviously wrong.
Original post by typonaut
No, I'm not letting you have that one. The price of property in the UK has increased due to poor government policy in the area of social housing, low interest rates and government policy that encouraged those with capital to invest it in property (ie it has encouraged anyone who can raise the money to become a landlord).
I'm not letting you have the rest either, but that one is so obviously wrong.
I'm not letting you have the rest either, but that one is so obviously wrong.
Yea adding millions of people needing a house does nothing to the property market....
What a joke
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Migrant worker application/ EU migrant worker
- EU nationals who have lived in the UK for 3 years
- Eligibility Student Finance
- Maintenance Loan
- Maintenance loan
- Can immigration actually been controlled?
- Migrant worker application cancelled
- Maintenance loan
- Application Cancelled
- Migrant loan 2023/2024 for 3rd year EU pre-settled student
- Update
- Postgraduate funding for non-settled student
- maintenance loan
- Student finance
- Maintenance loan and pre settle status
- Student finance
- Maintenance Loan for Sick Migrant Workers on Year Abroad
- Child of a migrant worker proving dependency
- Maintenance loan eligibility
- Change of residency for a migrant worker after the 1st uni year (presettled to settl)
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Economics and Economic History 2024 ThreadLast reply 3 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 4 minutes ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 1 (H418/01) - 26th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 6 minutes ago
Which uni to study at - LSE or KingsLast reply 7 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 10 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 11 minutes ago
AQA A Level French Paper 3 (Speaking/IRP) 7652/3 - 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 12 minutes ago
R u 18-25 & in a England Uni, spare a few mins to fill out my survey until 26 April.Last reply 12 minutes ago
emmanuella's study discussions #2: taking breaksLast reply 13 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 16 minutes ago
SMPCETs, Scottish STP, Clinical Scientist Trainee applicants for 2024Posted 17 minutes ago
can't go to ucl bc intl fees but got home fees for others :(Last reply 19 minutes ago
Official: University of Manchester A106 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1287
Trending
Last reply 11 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?Trending
Last reply 11 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?
