FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Net immigration = a city the size of Hull
Net immigration = a city the size of Hull
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"Is that why hull are being investigated by Fifa over financial fair play?" That's an awful lot of foreign players for them to take on | |||
"More ammunition for UKIP, or a sign that the economy is booming, we are creating jobs and the gap is being met by skilled workers from abroad who want to live here? Either way, with a likely 200k more births than deaths in 2014 we have 500k more people to support in the UK this year at a time when infrastructure spending has been reduced to an all time low. So is the bigger problem the Tory spending regime rather than immigration?" . There's a reason why the Tories won't spend on the extra infrastructure needed and that is they can't guarantee the economy will be good in 5 years which means alot of people could just fuck off after you've spent 100 billion preparing for them!. Look until you get a world economy in balance or have rules about movement, this will always end in disaster.... Short term gain, long term pain!! Ring a bell with the last 40 years of policies? | |||
"More ammunition for UKIP, or a sign that the economy is booming, we are creating jobs and the gap is being met by skilled workers from abroad who want to live here? Either way, with a likely 200k more births than deaths in 2014 we have 500k more people to support in the UK this year at a time when infrastructure spending has been reduced to an all time low. So is the bigger problem the Tory spending regime rather than immigration?. There's a reason why the Tories won't spend on the extra infrastructure needed and that is they can't guarantee the economy will be good in 5 years which means alot of people could just fuck off after you've spent 100 billion preparing for them!. Look until you get a world economy in balance or have rules about movement, this will always end in disaster.... Short term gain, long term pain!! Ring a bell with the last 40 years of policies?" I agree on the inability to predict what the economy will look like in 5 years, people seem to forget too readily how cyclical the UK is. However, what we do know is that people are living longer and therefore, even before immigration we know that the population is likely to increase quite significantly over the coming decades, so some spend to account for this should be planned. | |||
| |||
 | |||
"More ammunition for UKIP, or a sign that the economy is booming, we are creating jobs and the gap is being met by skilled workers from abroad who want to live here? Either way, with a likely 200k more births than deaths in 2014 we have 500k more people to support in the UK this year at a time when infrastructure spending has been reduced to an all time low. So is the bigger problem the Tory spending regime rather than immigration?. There's a reason why the Tories won't spend on the extra infrastructure needed and that is they can't guarantee the economy will be good in 5 years which means alot of people could just fuck off after you've spent 100 billion preparing for them!. Look until you get a world economy in balance or have rules about movement, this will always end in disaster.... Short term gain, long term pain!! Ring a bell with the last 40 years of policies? I agree on the inability to predict what the economy will look like in 5 years, people seem to forget too readily how cyclical the UK is. However, what we do know is that people are living longer and therefore, even before immigration we know that the population is likely to increase quite significantly over the coming decades, so some spend to account for this should be planned." . It's not though, have a look at the figures, every industrialised county in the world has a falling population(there's very few families with over 2 children). Therefore they have stabilised population, it doesn't work very well for the capitalist system hence the need for immigration... Which I agree with perse, however uncontrolled (not knowing how many people will be here in 5 or 10 years, is in the end unworkable as all economies cyclical they will just go as soon as there's someone doing better. | |||
"More ammunition for UKIP, or a sign that the economy is booming, we are creating jobs and the gap is being met by skilled workers from abroad who want to live here? Either way, with a likely 200k more births than deaths in 2014 we have 500k more people to support in the UK this year at a time when infrastructure spending has been reduced to an all time low. So is the bigger problem the Tory spending regime rather than immigration?. There's a reason why the Tories won't spend on the extra infrastructure needed and that is they can't guarantee the economy will be good in 5 years which means alot of people could just fuck off after you've spent 100 billion preparing for them!. Look until you get a world economy in balance or have rules about movement, this will always end in disaster.... Short term gain, long term pain!! Ring a bell with the last 40 years of policies? I agree on the inability to predict what the economy will look like in 5 years, people seem to forget too readily how cyclical the UK is. However, what we do know is that people are living longer and therefore, even before immigration we know that the population is likely to increase quite significantly over the coming decades, so some spend to account for this should be planned.. It's not though, have a look at the figures, every industrialised county in the world has a falling population(there's very few families with over 2 children). Therefore they have stabilised population, it doesn't work very well for the capitalist system hence the need for immigration... Which I agree with perse, however uncontrolled (not knowing how many people will be here in 5 or 10 years, is in the end unworkable as all economies cyclical they will just go as soon as there's someone doing better." UK births have outnumbered deaths for almost 20 years now, I guess it is a natural process of equalisation as life expectancy increases, but how long will that continue? We already have one of the lowest ratios of hospital beds per 1000 of population as it is, and while the equalisation process continues, together with higher than average net immigration you can see how stretched public services are going to get. Not an easy challenge to deal with! | |||
| |||
"Oi nobby have you ever been to Hull? Great how people always slag it off when they never been. The post says the size of Hull not in Hull moron. City of culture 2017" 
Hull is a totally brilliant city! | |||
"More ammunition for UKIP, or a sign that the economy is booming, we are creating jobs and the gap is being met by skilled workers from abroad who want to live here? Either way, with a likely 200k more births than deaths in 2014 we have 500k more people to support in the UK this year at a time when infrastructure spending has been reduced to an all time low. So is the bigger problem the Tory spending regime rather than immigration?. There's a reason why the Tories won't spend on the extra infrastructure needed and that is they can't guarantee the economy will be good in 5 years which means alot of people could just fuck off after you've spent 100 billion preparing for them!. Look until you get a world economy in balance or have rules about movement, this will always end in disaster.... Short term gain, long term pain!! Ring a bell with the last 40 years of policies? I agree on the inability to predict what the economy will look like in 5 years, people seem to forget too readily how cyclical the UK is. However, what we do know is that people are living longer and therefore, even before immigration we know that the population is likely to increase quite significantly over the coming decades, so some spend to account for this should be planned.. It's not though, have a look at the figures, every industrialised county in the world has a falling population(there's very few families with over 2 children). Therefore they have stabilised population, it doesn't work very well for the capitalist system hence the need for immigration... Which I agree with perse, however uncontrolled (not knowing how many people will be here in 5 or 10 years, is in the end unworkable as all economies cyclical they will just go as soon as there's someone doing better. UK births have outnumbered deaths for almost 20 years now, I guess it is a natural process of equalisation as life expectancy increases, but how long will that continue? We already have one of the lowest ratios of hospital beds per 1000 of population as it is, and while the equalisation process continues, together with higher than average net immigration you can see how stretched public services are going to get. Not an easy challenge to deal with!" . No it's impossible. Look let's say the population rises to 80 million in 5 years through immigration. Right the government at the time thinks we need 50 more hospitals 60 new schools, widen roads, build some more water plants, install sewage works, build another airport... Great stuff off they go, total cost 250 billion, it's all fine as the current economic climate cab afford it.... Five years later there finished building the extra infrastructure but oh oh... Cyclical as we know Another financial crisis, this time Holland, Germany and Poland keep a better economy. 10 million immigrants return home and 5 million Brits fuck off to those 3 countries for jobs... Were left with 50 empty hospitals, 60 empty schools, empty roads, a deserted airport and all of which we can't pay for due to the poorer economic climate... It's exactly what happened in Ireland where they had to bulldoze entire brand new housing estates and Spain where airports lie deserted. | |||
| |||
"It's always doom and gloom over there!!!! Assuming the population is going to rise by 16 million in 5 years isn't realistic as a starting point. Not all forward predictions are going to be negative. What if the economy grows rather than collapsing? Economic planners already have to use models that accept a range of factors (immigration, birth, deaths, emigration, relocation) and they use information from multiple sources. They also know where there are uncertainties. They do this each year without managing to throw their hands up in surrender. And they've been doing it for a long time almost always getting it wrong (if you want perfection you'll wait a long time) but close enough... provided governments and companies invest and plan in time." A lot of decisions depend on population forecasts which have been hopelessly wrong over the past 10-15 years. Not just small errors, but massive ones which is why we have so many issues today. | |||
"Oi nobby have you ever been to Hull? Great how people always slag it off when they never been. The post says the size of Hull not in Hull moron. City of culture 2017" i like Hull.. but you calling someone a moron is naughty and a tad ironic when in the same post you mention culture.. | |||
| |||
"It's not like we ever went abroad and settled or anything, is it. "this.. its almost like immigration and emigration has only happened since the 1970's.. | |||
"It's always doom and gloom over there!!!! Assuming the population is going to rise by 16 million in 5 years isn't realistic as a starting point. Not all forward predictions are going to be negative. What if the economy grows rather than collapsing? Economic planners already have to use models that accept a range of factors (immigration, birth, deaths, emigration, relocation) and they use information from multiple sources. They also know where there are uncertainties. They do this each year without managing to throw their hands up in surrender. And they've been doing it for a long time almost always getting it wrong (if you want perfection you'll wait a long time) but close enough... provided governments and companies invest and plan in time. A lot of decisions depend on population forecasts which have been hopelessly wrong over the past 10-15 years. Not just small errors, but massive ones which is why we have so many issues today." . The whole green ethos is sustainability and I argue the case against nearly all the party members I know that sustainability and open door immigration( actually it's practically commuting only over a 1000 miles instead of 20) is unworkable | |||
"It's not like we ever went abroad and settled or anything, is it.
this..
its almost like immigration and emigration has only happened since the 1970's..
"That's a bit of a misleader though as traditional immigration/emigration was actually more easier to predict and happened on a much slower basis than the freedom of movement (commuting) we see today | |||
" we are creating jobs and the gap is being met by skilled workers from abroad who want to live here?" I don't see immigration as the cause of the problems with the above statement - more of an effect. If jobs are being created and aren't being filled by UK residents then surely the reason for that is that they lack the skills (or in some cases the desire!) to do the jobs? And before anyone comes out with the old 'but immigrants will work for lower wages' line - they have to live here too! They pay for accommodation, food, utilities and everything a homegrown worker has to. So I don't begrudge anyone who comes here to work. If there's a lack of required skills in the local population whose fault is that? A | |||
" we are creating jobs and the gap is being met by skilled workers from abroad who want to live here? I don't see immigration as the cause of the problems with the above statement - more of an effect. If jobs are being created and aren't being filled by UK residents then surely the reason for that is that they lack the skills (or in some cases the desire!) to do the jobs? And before anyone comes out with the old 'but immigrants will work for lower wages' line - they have to live here too! They pay for accommodation, food, utilities and everything a homegrown worker has to. So I don't begrudge anyone who comes here to work. If there's a lack of required skills in the local population whose fault is that? A" . Nothing apart from actually that's not true. Were actually importing unskilled labour from Europe and losing our skilled labour to Australia and Canada.. Etc etc. Also alot of EU migrants don't actually live here, it's a bit like someone who works in London during the week and fucks off to Hampshire at the weekend. Alot live& work here for a month but they still technically call home Estonia, Poland, Slovakia.. Etc etc | |||
" we are creating jobs and the gap is being met by skilled workers from abroad who want to live here? I don't see immigration as the cause of the problems with the above statement - more of an effect. If jobs are being created and aren't being filled by UK residents then surely the reason for that is that they lack the skills (or in some cases the desire!) to do the jobs? And before anyone comes out with the old 'but immigrants will work for lower wages' line - they have to live here too! They pay for accommodation, food, utilities and everything a homegrown worker has to. So I don't begrudge anyone who comes here to work. If there's a lack of required skills in the local population whose fault is that? A. Nothing apart from actually that's not true. Were actually importing unskilled labour from Europe and losing our skilled labour to Australia and Canada.. Etc etc. Also alot of EU migrants don't actually live here, it's a bit like someone who works in London during the week and fucks off to Hampshire at the weekend. Alot live& work here for a month but they still technically call home Estonia, Poland, Slovakia.. Etc etc" So there's no overseas nurses, doctors, bricklayers, electricians, mechanics, engineers, plumbers, Hgv drivers, dentists, IT workers etc coming here to work? Really? All 'skilled' professions. A | |||
" we are creating jobs and the gap is being met by skilled workers from abroad who want to live here? I don't see immigration as the cause of the problems with the above statement - more of an effect. If jobs are being created and aren't being filled by UK residents then surely the reason for that is that they lack the skills (or in some cases the desire!) to do the jobs? And before anyone comes out with the old 'but immigrants will work for lower wages' line - they have to live here too! They pay for accommodation, food, utilities and everything a homegrown worker has to. So I don't begrudge anyone who comes here to work. If there's a lack of required skills in the local population whose fault is that? A. Nothing apart from actually that's not true. Were actually importing unskilled labour from Europe and losing our skilled labour to Australia and Canada.. Etc etc. Also alot of EU migrants don't actually live here, it's a bit like someone who works in London during the week and fucks off to Hampshire at the weekend. Alot live& work here for a month but they still technically call home Estonia, Poland, Slovakia.. Etc etc" As far as predictability goes, the end of year total immigration figures for the last 5 years have been (source is the ONS): 471000, 508000, 488000, 418000, 450000, 543000. That's not a wildly varying number in terms of economic models. Of these around about 80000 every year are returning Brits. That number has been stable. Then more than half of the remainder are non-EU nationals. The number of non-EU immigrants rose by more than the number of EU immigrants The number of EU nationals involved is about 43% of the total. The rise in EU nationals immigrating is from the EU15 i.e. the western european countries. The EU8 has been fairly consistent at about 70000-80000 a year over the last 5 years. There was no information at all about whether or not the were commuting from either Estonia or Hampshire 
The number of people migrating out of the UK has stayed approximately constant over the last 5 years - there weren't any figures in the ONS data to say that the mix of skills in that group had suddenly moved to being skilled workers.
Incidentally there's a separate model available from migrationobservatory.co.uk that shows the impact of many different net immigration rates on the population of the UK predicted up until 2037. Their upper projection never gets anywhere near 80,000,000 and the difference between a no net immigration scenario and their most pessimistic scenario is 12.5% (no immigration 67.5 million, high immigration assumption 75 million in 2035). Any planner worth his salt should be able to cope with a 12.5% variation. | |||
| |||
good luck to them | |||
| |||
"It's always doom and gloom over there!!!! Assuming the population is going to rise by 16 million in 5 years isn't realistic as a starting point. Not all forward predictions are going to be negative. What if the economy grows rather than collapsing? Economic planners already have to use models that accept a range of factors (immigration, birth, deaths, emigration, relocation) and they use information from multiple sources. They also know where there are uncertainties. They do this each year without managing to throw their hands up in surrender. And they've been doing it for a long time almost always getting it wrong (if you want perfection you'll wait a long time) but close enough... provided governments and companies invest and plan in time. A lot of decisions depend on population forecasts which have been hopelessly wrong over the past 10-15 years. Not just small errors, but massive ones which is why we have so many issues today." For most of the period you're talking about the ONS were up to about a third too low in their estimates of net immigration i.e. about 60000 people too low a year. In a population of about 60,000,000 that's not a major error (one person in a thousand) for planning purposes. They seem to have been far more accurate in the last few years - I guess they've raised their game. | |||
"All these illegal immigrants coming over here really pisses me off, how many British people do you see moving to the countries where they came from?!?" Who mentioned illegal immigrants? You know there's a difference between the two, right? | |||
"It's not like we ever went abroad and settled or anything, is it.
this..
its almost like immigration and emigration has only happened since the 1970's..
"Sadly in the 1950s and 60s the equivalent debate was about commonwealth immigrants and played on similar fears with an extra edge to the racial aspects | |||
"It's always doom and gloom over there!!!! Assuming the population is going to rise by 16 million in 5 years isn't realistic as a starting point. Not all forward predictions are going to be negative. What if the economy grows rather than collapsing? Economic planners already have to use models that accept a range of factors (immigration, birth, deaths, emigration, relocation) and they use information from multiple sources. They also know where there are uncertainties. They do this each year without managing to throw their hands up in surrender. And they've been doing it for a long time almost always getting it wrong (if you want perfection you'll wait a long time) but close enough... provided governments and companies invest and plan in time. A lot of decisions depend on population forecasts which have been hopelessly wrong over the past 10-15 years. Not just small errors, but massive ones which is why we have so many issues today. For most of the period you're talking about the ONS were up to about a third too low in their estimates of net immigration i.e. about 60000 people too low a year. In a population of about 60,000,000 that's not a major error (one person in a thousand) for planning purposes. They seem to have been far more accurate in the last few years - I guess they've raised their game." In isolation a 60,000 miss as you say is not significant, but over a few years you have the need for a new city in the Uk the size of.... Hull! It is never going to be an exact science and will add fuel to the UKIP argument that with pretty much fully open borders it is impossible to plan properly. | |||
| |||
""In isolation a 60,000 miss as you say is not significant, but over a few years you have the need for a new city in the Uk the size of.... Hull! It is never going to be an exact science and will add fuel to the UKIP argument that with pretty much fully open borders it is impossible to plan properly." Perhaps I'm missing something, but the numbers look perfectly manageable and they're not rocketing up in a wildly unpredictable way. Incidentally about a third of the immigrants are students each year and that number doesn't need to contribute to long term planning. Also, surprisingly enough for some people, a higher proportion of the immigrants coming in are economically active and contributing to growth - it's not as if they're sponging on social security after all. Now I'm going to get my flak jacket and helmet "That should have been "a higher proportion of the immigrants coming in are economically active than for British people resident in the UK" - again based on the ONS figures | |||
| |||
"Lighting blue touchpaper.......... Lets be clear about this, the last 'Britons'were pushed west and beyond in Roman times. We have had Celts, Romans, Gauls, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, Norsemen, Normans, Huguenots, Africans, Middle Eastern, Near Asian, Far Asian, Hispanic, Italian, Eastern European, Russian and those from the Empire before 1900. When will people accept that we are a nation of nations. And that with each influx has come with a surge of economic activity. Any lack of activity is often with the existing population. "Taking our jobs" is often a misused phrase which may be translated as "I am not prepared to do what they do for the wage they are paid."
A | |||
"Lighting blue touchpaper.......... Lets be clear about this, the last 'Britons'were pushed west and beyond in Roman times. We have had Celts, Romans, Gauls, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, Norsemen, Normans, Huguenots, Africans, Middle Eastern, Near Asian, Far Asian, Hispanic, Italian, Eastern European, Russian and those from the Empire before 1900. When will people accept that we are a nation of nations. And that with each influx has come with a surge of economic activity. Any lack of activity is often with the existing population. "Taking our jobs" is often a misused phrase which may be translated as "I am not prepared to do what they do for the wage they are paid." a good post, we are indeed a nation of nations and nationalities, always will be. | |||
" So there's no overseas nurses, doctors, bricklayers, electricians, mechanics, engineers, plumbers, Hgv drivers, dentists, IT workers etc coming here to work? Really? All 'skilled' professions. A" Sadly, the real reason behind the influx of foreign nationals to do these jobs is because of the cost of training in the UK. For example, the average cost of training and schooling to become a GP in the UK is £610000. In India, it's about £200000. The NHS used to not accept qualifications from abroad without a UK conversion course. Labour put a stop to that, but didn't do anything to decrease the UK costs. Succesive Health Authorities have gone for the cheaper options in many cases. | |||
" So there's no overseas nurses, doctors, bricklayers, electricians, mechanics, engineers, plumbers, Hgv drivers, dentists, IT workers etc coming here to work? Really? All 'skilled' professions. A Sadly, the real reason behind the influx of foreign nationals to do these jobs is because of the cost of training in the UK. For example, the average cost of training and schooling to become a GP in the UK is £610000. In India, it's about £200000. The NHS used to not accept qualifications from abroad without a UK conversion course. Labour put a stop to that, but didn't do anything to decrease the UK costs. Succesive Health Authorities have gone for the cheaper options in many cases. " And the bricklayers? A | |||
" So there's no overseas nurses, doctors, bricklayers, electricians, mechanics, engineers, plumbers, Hgv drivers, dentists, IT workers etc coming here to work? Really? All 'skilled' professions. A Sadly, the real reason behind the influx of foreign nationals to do these jobs is because of the cost of training in the UK. For example, the average cost of training and schooling to become a GP in the UK is £610000. In India, it's about £200000. The NHS used to not accept qualifications from abroad without a UK conversion course. Labour put a stop to that, but didn't do anything to decrease the UK costs. Succesive Health Authorities have gone for the cheaper options in many cases. And the bricklayers? A" Not fit for purpose, on the job training given by British trained bricklayers, the cost absorbed through saved daily rates. Most left on their own would build your home upside fucking down. In time they learn but at the cost of the British tradesmen. That applies to pretty much every building trade. I've worked in the industry man and boy and have seen exactly what these people are capable of | |||
" we are creating jobs and the gap is being met by skilled workers from abroad who want to live here? I don't see immigration as the cause of the problems with the above statement - more of an effect. If jobs are being created and aren't being filled by UK residents then surely the reason for that is that they lack the skills (or in some cases the desire!) to do the jobs? And before anyone comes out with the old 'but immigrants will work for lower wages' line - they have to live here too! They pay for accommodation, food, utilities and everything a homegrown worker has to. So I don't begrudge anyone who comes here to work. If there's a lack of required skills in the local population whose fault is that? A. Nothing apart from actually that's not true. Were actually importing unskilled labour from Europe and losing our skilled labour to Australia and Canada.. Etc etc. Also alot of EU migrants don't actually live here, it's a bit like someone who works in London during the week and fucks off to Hampshire at the weekend. Alot live& work here for a month but they still technically call home Estonia, Poland, Slovakia.. Etc etc As far as predictability goes, the end of year total immigration figures for the last 5 years have been (source is the ONS): 471000, 508000, 488000, 418000, 450000, 543000. That's not a wildly varying number in terms of economic models. Of these around about 80000 every year are returning Brits. That number has been stable. Then more than half of the remainder are non-EU nationals. The number of non-EU immigrants rose by more than the number of EU immigrants The number of EU nationals involved is about 43% of the total. The rise in EU nationals immigrating is from the EU15 i.e. the western european countries. The EU8 has been fairly consistent at about 70000-80000 a year over the last 5 years. There was no information at all about whether or not the were commuting from either Estonia or Hampshire
The number of people migrating out of the UK has stayed approximately constant over the last 5 years - there weren't any figures in the ONS data to say that the mix of skills in that group had suddenly moved to being skilled workers.
Incidentally there's a separate model available from migrationobservatory.co.uk that shows the impact of many different net immigration rates on the population of the UK predicted up until 2037. Their upper projection never gets anywhere near 80,000,000 and the difference between a no net immigration scenario and their most pessimistic scenario is 12.5% (no immigration 67.5 million, high immigration assumption 75 million in 2035). Any planner worth his salt should be able to cope with a 12.5% variation.". First of all when someone says let's say the population gets to 80 million.... I'm giving it as an example for the scenario not as some future figure!. Secondly quoteing figures from the ons which got called " not fit for purpose " by even a parliamentary select committee is pointless. The one use a system that was put in place for holidaymakers in the 60s the surveys are voluntary and in the end represents a best guess.... Which is why there nearly always the bleeding same. Even if we ignored all that and took your figures as gospel,a 12.5% variation on 70 million people is around 10 million people different... You don't think ten million people require more infrastructure?. The national grid runs at 92% capacity, where does that leave you if your 12.5% wrong! Besides I think we can both agree immigration/emigration is an infrastructure problem in the long run, if your increasing it here your taking it away there!. What your actually advocating is ruining one country to improve another, what I'm actually saying is if we're all meant to be one economic harmonic zone... Why not put the infrastructure in place where it's missing and is the main reason why millions move wildly around Europe chasing jobs.. | |||
" Why not put the infrastructure in place where it's missing and is the main reason why millions move wildly around Europe chasing jobs.." Sometimes I wonder whether the reason why so many, particularly young, europeans move here is because in their own countries corrupt, näive and misguided socialist governments have simply destroyed their economies and the jobs, and thereby the future, for their youth. Whereas the coalition's efforts have successfully taken a middle line between left and right, and our economy is benefitting as a result. Problems are caused predominantly by lack of planning, often by politicians too scared to upset their electorate, or point out the hypocrisy of the "I want local houses for my children" but "No new houses near me" that we get around us! Mr ddc | |||
| |||
" Why not put the infrastructure in place where it's missing and is the main reason why millions move wildly around Europe chasing jobs.. Sometimes I wonder whether the reason why so many, particularly young, europeans move here is because in their own countries corrupt, näive and misguided socialist governments have simply destroyed their economies and the jobs, and thereby the future, for their youth. Whereas the coalition's efforts have successfully taken a middle line between left and right, and our economy is benefitting as a result. Problems are caused predominantly by lack of planning, often by politicians too scared to upset their electorate, or point out the hypocrisy of the "I want local houses for my children" but "No new houses near me" that we get around us! Mr ddc" . I wouldn't get to hung up on socialism, Germany is socialist, France is socialist. Poland and the Czech republic have had conservative leaders, Greece was run by the conservatives before their troubles and so was Italy. The main problem for eastern European countries was a lack of investment after the cold war ended. The Czech republic was taken into the EU and NATO years ago and really would have benefited from investment then. What's the point of EU enlargement if all we ever do is constantly, nick their young people their labour force and capital for infrastructure! | |||
" My £0.02 : This may amaze some of you, but there was a time where people, mainly my fathers and grandparents generation, worked extremely hard to physically build and create the major infrastructures that we today take for granted. They don't just appear overnight and pay for themselves. " . They don't your right. They cost a fortune and take millions of man hours labour. Like imaging putting in pylons and wires around the entire country, millions of miles of copper, sub stations, main stations, generating stations, cut outs, and cables into every single house, office and factory in the country.... And how much did we sell it for exactly? | |||
 | |||
" we are creating jobs and the gap is being met by skilled workers from abroad who want to live here? I don't see immigration as the cause of the problems with the above statement - more of an effect. If jobs are being created and aren't being filled by UK residents then surely the reason for that is that they lack the skills (or in some cases the desire!) to do the jobs? And before anyone comes out with the old 'but immigrants will work for lower wages' line - they have to live here too! They pay for accommodation, food, utilities and everything a homegrown worker has to. So I don't begrudge anyone who comes here to work. If there's a lack of required skills in the local population whose fault is that? A. Nothing apart from actually that's not true. Were actually importing unskilled labour from Europe and losing our skilled labour to Australia and Canada.. Etc etc. Also alot of EU migrants don't actually live here, it's a bit like someone who works in London during the week and fucks off to Hampshire at the weekend. Alot live& work here for a month but they still technically call home Estonia, Poland, Slovakia.. Etc etc As far as predictability goes, the end of year total immigration figures for the last 5 years have been (source is the ONS): 471000, 508000, 488000, 418000, 450000, 543000. That's not a wildly varying number in terms of economic models. Of these around about 80000 every year are returning Brits. That number has been stable. Then more than half of the remainder are non-EU nationals. The number of non-EU immigrants rose by more than the number of EU immigrants The number of EU nationals involved is about 43% of the total. The rise in EU nationals immigrating is from the EU15 i.e. the western european countries. The EU8 has been fairly consistent at about 70000-80000 a year over the last 5 years. There was no information at all about whether or not the were commuting from either Estonia or Hampshire
The number of people migrating out of the UK has stayed approximately constant over the last 5 years - there weren't any figures in the ONS data to say that the mix of skills in that group had suddenly moved to being skilled workers.
Incidentally there's a separate model available from migrationobservatory.co.uk that shows the impact of many different net immigration rates on the population of the UK predicted up until 2037. Their upper projection never gets anywhere near 80,000,000 and the difference between a no net immigration scenario and their most pessimistic scenario is 12.5% (no immigration 67.5 million, high immigration assumption 75 million in 2035). Any planner worth his salt should be able to cope with a 12.5% variation..
First of all when someone says let's say the population gets to 80 million.... I'm giving it as an example for the scenario not as some future figure!.
Secondly quoteing figures from the ons which got called " not fit for purpose " by even a parliamentary select committee is pointless.
The one use a system that was put in place for holidaymakers in the 60s the surveys are voluntary and in the end represents a best guess.... Which is why there nearly always the bleeding same.
Even if we ignored all that and took your figures as gospel,a 12.5% variation on 70 million people is around 10 million people different... You don't think ten million people require more infrastructure?.
The national grid runs at 92% capacity, where does that leave you if your 12.5% wrong!
Besides I think we can both agree immigration/emigration is an infrastructure problem in the long run, if your increasing it here your taking it away there!.
What your actually advocating is ruining one country to improve another, what I'm actually saying is if we're all meant to be one economic harmonic zone...
Why not put the infrastructure in place where it's missing and is the main reason why millions move wildly around Europe chasing jobs.."I was looking at the numbers you gave us. So to start with 80 million sounded like scare mongering to me. Not of course that that was your intention? If there was a 12.5% error it would take 25 years to build up , which is plenty of time to make adjustments to capital plans. The ONS numbers I was looking at were the same series as you were using to say things are getting out of control and unpredictable. If they're no use then you should stop trying to use them too. The population growth predictions I used were independent of the ONS surveys and the data series started a couple of years ago and are still on target for their central prediction. You can look them up. Finally, you can't really tell me what I'm advocating! | |||
"True, but you'll never get voters to accept the alternative, which is rich countries giving (not lending) poor countries cash to help them out. Like the way the North powered Britain in the olden days, and London pays it back by funding regeneration up north nowadays. So instead their youngsters vote with their feet. I recall a sad fact that Ireland's biggest export throughout history has been their youth. ". Irelands problems have always been location and resources.. That and the fact they've been fucked over by the English more times than a middle aged white women looking to have her drive redone. But getting back to the EU and the union... Isn't the whole point of a union to be sharing for strength or is it the reality as all unions have been. The strong fuck over the weak and nick everything they need while giving them a few quid of charity. Mind you've we've doing it to Africa for 400 years so hey ho crack on with the imperialism of the EU | |||
" we are creating jobs and the gap is being met by skilled workers from abroad who want to live here? I don't see immigration as the cause of the problems with the above statement - more of an effect. If jobs are being created and aren't being filled by UK residents then surely the reason for that is that they lack the skills (or in some cases the desire!) to do the jobs? And before anyone comes out with the old 'but immigrants will work for lower wages' line - they have to live here too! They pay for accommodation, food, utilities and everything a homegrown worker has to. So I don't begrudge anyone who comes here to work. If there's a lack of required skills in the local population whose fault is that? A. Nothing apart from actually that's not true. Were actually importing unskilled labour from Europe and losing our skilled labour to Australia and Canada.. Etc etc. Also alot of EU migrants don't actually live here, it's a bit like someone who works in London during the week and fucks off to Hampshire at the weekend. Alot live& work here for a month but they still technically call home Estonia, Poland, Slovakia.. Etc etc As far as predictability goes, the end of year total immigration figures for the last 5 years have been (source is the ONS): 471000, 508000, 488000, 418000, 450000, 543000. That's not a wildly varying number in terms of economic models. Of these around about 80000 every year are returning Brits. That number has been stable. Then more than half of the remainder are non-EU nationals. The number of non-EU immigrants rose by more than the number of EU immigrants The number of EU nationals involved is about 43% of the total. The rise in EU nationals immigrating is from the EU15 i.e. the western european countries. The EU8 has been fairly consistent at about 70000-80000 a year over the last 5 years. There was no information at all about whether or not the were commuting from either Estonia or Hampshire
The number of people migrating out of the UK has stayed approximately constant over the last 5 years - there weren't any figures in the ONS data to say that the mix of skills in that group had suddenly moved to being skilled workers.
Incidentally there's a separate model available from migrationobservatory.co.uk that shows the impact of many different net immigration rates on the population of the UK predicted up until 2037. Their upper projection never gets anywhere near 80,000,000 and the difference between a no net immigration scenario and their most pessimistic scenario is 12.5% (no immigration 67.5 million, high immigration assumption 75 million in 2035). Any planner worth his salt should be able to cope with a 12.5% variation..
First of all when someone says let's say the population gets to 80 million.... I'm giving it as an example for the scenario not as some future figure!.
Secondly quoteing figures from the ons which got called " not fit for purpose " by even a parliamentary select committee is pointless.
The one use a system that was put in place for holidaymakers in the 60s the surveys are voluntary and in the end represents a best guess.... Which is why there nearly always the bleeding same.
Even if we ignored all that and took your figures as gospel,a 12.5% variation on 70 million people is around 10 million people different... You don't think ten million people require more infrastructure?.
The national grid runs at 92% capacity, where does that leave you if your 12.5% wrong!
Besides I think we can both agree immigration/emigration is an infrastructure problem in the long run, if your increasing it here your taking it away there!.
What your actually advocating is ruining one country to improve another, what I'm actually saying is if we're all meant to be one economic harmonic zone...
Why not put the infrastructure in place where it's missing and is the main reason why millions move wildly around Europe chasing jobs..
I was looking at the numbers you gave us. So to start with 80 million sounded like scare mongering to me. Not of course that that was your intention?
If there was a 12.5% error it would take 25 years to build up , which is plenty of time to make adjustments to capital plans.
The ONS numbers I was looking at were the same series as you were using to say things are getting out of control and unpredictable. If they're no use then you should stop trying to use them too.
The population growth predictions I used were independent of the ONS surveys and the data series started a couple of years ago and are still on target for their central prediction. You can look them up.
Finally, you can't really tell me what I'm advocating! "OK your not advocating helping eastern Europeans, you actually just want to carry on the imperialistic nature of nicking one country's resources to further your own. 1 I never quoted ons figures you did. 2 the population of the uk went up 6 million in five years? The best estimates before it went up was a rise of 50-100k, that doesn't sound like they were planning or knew exactly where it would be in five years time!. | |||
" But getting back to the EU and the union... Isn't the whole point of a union to be sharing for strength or is it the reality as all unions have been. " True, and that's the sort of socialism I could vote for - us all working together for the common good, while being able to benefit from our own hard work. Trouble is I only get to vote either for rich Tory landowners, out to get as much for themselves with the minimum possible effort, or union bullies, out to get as much for themselves with the minimum possible effort. | |||
" we are creating jobs and the gap is being met by skilled workers from abroad who want to live here? I don't see immigration as the cause of the problems with the above statement - more of an effect. If jobs are being created and aren't being filled by UK residents then surely the reason for that is that they lack the skills (or in some cases the desire!) to do the jobs? And before anyone comes out with the old 'but immigrants will work for lower wages' line - they have to live here too! They pay for accommodation, food, utilities and everything a homegrown worker has to. So I don't begrudge anyone who comes here to work. If there's a lack of required skills in the local population whose fault is that? A. Nothing apart from actually that's not true. Were actually importing unskilled labour from Europe and losing our skilled labour to Australia and Canada.. Etc etc. Also alot of EU migrants don't actually live here, it's a bit like someone who works in London during the week and fucks off to Hampshire at the weekend. Alot live& work here for a month but they still technically call home Estonia, Poland, Slovakia.. Etc etc As far as predictability goes, the end of year total immigration figures for the last 5 years have been (source is the ONS): 471000, 508000, 488000, 418000, 450000, 543000. That's not a wildly varying number in terms of economic models. Of these around about 80000 every year are returning Brits. That number has been stable. Then more than half of the remainder are non-EU nationals. The number of non-EU immigrants rose by more than the number of EU immigrants The number of EU nationals involved is about 43% of the total. The rise in EU nationals immigrating is from the EU15 i.e. the western european countries. The EU8 has been fairly consistent at about 70000-80000 a year over the last 5 years. There was no information at all about whether or not the were commuting from either Estonia or Hampshire
The number of people migrating out of the UK has stayed approximately constant over the last 5 years - there weren't any figures in the ONS data to say that the mix of skills in that group had suddenly moved to being skilled workers.
Incidentally there's a separate model available from migrationobservatory.co.uk that shows the impact of many different net immigration rates on the population of the UK predicted up until 2037. Their upper projection never gets anywhere near 80,000,000 and the difference between a no net immigration scenario and their most pessimistic scenario is 12.5% (no immigration 67.5 million, high immigration assumption 75 million in 2035). Any planner worth his salt should be able to cope with a 12.5% variation..
First of all when someone says let's say the population gets to 80 million.... I'm giving it as an example for the scenario not as some future figure!.
Secondly quoteing figures from the ons which got called " not fit for purpose " by even a parliamentary select committee is pointless.
The one use a system that was put in place for holidaymakers in the 60s the surveys are voluntary and in the end represents a best guess.... Which is why there nearly always the bleeding same.
Even if we ignored all that and took your figures as gospel,a 12.5% variation on 70 million people is around 10 million people different... You don't think ten million people require more infrastructure?.
The national grid runs at 92% capacity, where does that leave you if your 12.5% wrong!
Besides I think we can both agree immigration/emigration is an infrastructure problem in the long run, if your increasing it here your taking it away there!.
What your actually advocating is ruining one country to improve another, what I'm actually saying is if we're all meant to be one economic harmonic zone...
Why not put the infrastructure in place where it's missing and is the main reason why millions move wildly around Europe chasing jobs..
I was looking at the numbers you gave us. So to start with 80 million sounded like scare mongering to me. Not of course that that was your intention?
If there was a 12.5% error it would take 25 years to build up , which is plenty of time to make adjustments to capital plans.
The ONS numbers I was looking at were the same series as you were using to say things are getting out of control and unpredictable. If they're no use then you should stop trying to use them too.
The population growth predictions I used were independent of the ONS surveys and the data series started a couple of years ago and are still on target for their central prediction. You can look them up.
Finally, you can't really tell me what I'm advocating! OK your not advocating helping eastern Europeans, you actually just want to carry on the imperialistic nature of nicking one country's resources to further your own.
1 I never quoted ons figures you did.
2 the population of the uk went up 6 million in five years? The best estimates before it went up was a rise of 50-100k, that doesn't sound like they were planning or knew exactly where it would be in five years time!."My mistake. The ONS figures were quoted by the OP. Yours were "Look let's say the population rises to 80 million in 5 years through immigration." Since it's now 64 million that's a 16 million rise in 5 years, which is clearly scaremongering. According to the ONS, UK’s population has increased by around 5 million since 2001 so where do you get 6 million in 5 years? The way you move the goalposts is always entertaining. You start off with how impossible it will be to plan for the future because everything is out of control and we're inundated with global commuters, then when someone starts to discuss that with you, you switch to accuse them of stealing the capital resources of poor countries! | |||
" But getting back to the EU and the union... Isn't the whole point of a union to be sharing for strength or is it the reality as all unions have been. True, and that's the sort of socialism I could vote for - us all working together for the common good, while being able to benefit from our own hard work. Trouble is I only get to vote either for rich Tory landowners, out to get as much for themselves with the minimum possible effort, or union bullies, out to get as much for themselves with the minimum possible effort." . That my friend is the nature of capitalism. Earn as much as possible from as little effort as possible!. To be honest what you wrote actually sums my own beliefs up quite well.I believe in a system that creates equally for all (and I don't think the current system does) but I don't think throwing money at job shirkers is a good idea either,I don't think financially rewarding people to do things is bad but if that's the system why complain that young girls get pregnant to get financially rewarded (that's the system) however I would be more than welcome to chip in for somebody down on their luck. | |||
" we are creating jobs and the gap is being met by skilled workers from abroad who want to live here? I don't see immigration as the cause of the problems with the above statement - more of an effect. If jobs are being created and aren't being filled by UK residents then surely the reason for that is that they lack the skills (or in some cases the desire!) to do the jobs? And before anyone comes out with the old 'but immigrants will work for lower wages' line - they have to live here too! They pay for accommodation, food, utilities and everything a homegrown worker has to. So I don't begrudge anyone who comes here to work. If there's a lack of required skills in the local population whose fault is that? A. Nothing apart from actually that's not true. Were actually importing unskilled labour from Europe and losing our skilled labour to Australia and Canada.. Etc etc. Also alot of EU migrants don't actually live here, it's a bit like someone who works in London during the week and fucks off to Hampshire at the weekend. Alot live& work here for a month but they still technically call home Estonia, Poland, Slovakia.. Etc etc As far as predictability goes, the end of year total immigration figures for the last 5 years have been (source is the ONS): 471000, 508000, 488000, 418000, 450000, 543000. That's not a wildly varying number in terms of economic models. Of these around about 80000 every year are returning Brits. That number has been stable. Then more than half of the remainder are non-EU nationals. The number of non-EU immigrants rose by more than the number of EU immigrants The number of EU nationals involved is about 43% of the total. The rise in EU nationals immigrating is from the EU15 i.e. the western european countries. The EU8 has been fairly consistent at about 70000-80000 a year over the last 5 years. There was no information at all about whether or not the were commuting from either Estonia or Hampshire
The number of people migrating out of the UK has stayed approximately constant over the last 5 years - there weren't any figures in the ONS data to say that the mix of skills in that group had suddenly moved to being skilled workers.
Incidentally there's a separate model available from migrationobservatory.co.uk that shows the impact of many different net immigration rates on the population of the UK predicted up until 2037. Their upper projection never gets anywhere near 80,000,000 and the difference between a no net immigration scenario and their most pessimistic scenario is 12.5% (no immigration 67.5 million, high immigration assumption 75 million in 2035). Any planner worth his salt should be able to cope with a 12.5% variation..
First of all when someone says let's say the population gets to 80 million.... I'm giving it as an example for the scenario not as some future figure!.
Secondly quoteing figures from the ons which got called " not fit for purpose " by even a parliamentary select committee is pointless.
The one use a system that was put in place for holidaymakers in the 60s the surveys are voluntary and in the end represents a best guess.... Which is why there nearly always the bleeding same.
Even if we ignored all that and took your figures as gospel,a 12.5% variation on 70 million people is around 10 million people different... You don't think ten million people require more infrastructure?.
The national grid runs at 92% capacity, where does that leave you if your 12.5% wrong!
Besides I think we can both agree immigration/emigration is an infrastructure problem in the long run, if your increasing it here your taking it away there!.
What your actually advocating is ruining one country to improve another, what I'm actually saying is if we're all meant to be one economic harmonic zone...
Why not put the infrastructure in place where it's missing and is the main reason why millions move wildly around Europe chasing jobs..
I was looking at the numbers you gave us. So to start with 80 million sounded like scare mongering to me. Not of course that that was your intention?
If there was a 12.5% error it would take 25 years to build up , which is plenty of time to make adjustments to capital plans.
The ONS numbers I was looking at were the same series as you were using to say things are getting out of control and unpredictable. If they're no use then you should stop trying to use them too.
The population growth predictions I used were independent of the ONS surveys and the data series started a couple of years ago and are still on target for their central prediction. You can look them up.
Finally, you can't really tell me what I'm advocating! OK your not advocating helping eastern Europeans, you actually just want to carry on the imperialistic nature of nicking one country's resources to further your own.
1 I never quoted ons figures you did.
2 the population of the uk went up 6 million in five years? The best estimates before it went up was a rise of 50-100k, that doesn't sound like they were planning or knew exactly where it would be in five years time!.
My mistake. The ONS figures were quoted by the OP. Yours were "Look let's say the population rises to 80 million in 5 years through immigration." Since it's now 64 million that's a 16 million rise in 5 years, which is clearly scaremongering. According to the ONS, UK’s population has increased by around 5 million since 2001 so where do you get 6 million in 5 years?
The way you move the goalposts is always entertaining. You start off with how impossible it will be to plan for the future because everything is out of control and we're inundated with global commuters, then when someone starts to discuss that with you, you switch to accuse them of stealing the capital resources of poor countries!
". Well that's because my own beliefs are that the entire EU and politicians in general are corrupted by big business, it's one big scam for multi nationals, sell your goods high in wealthy countries, bring in cheap labour from poor countries, pay your vat in Luxembourg, pay your corporation tax in Ireland, your cheif exc can stick his bonus in a Swiss bank account and in return we'll let some polish guy up sticks leave his friends, family and home and go and work in a foreign country for £6:50 an hour... Fuck me it's a fair deal alright, did it ever occur to any liberals fighting for the freedom of movement that maybe eastern Europeans would be happier in their own counties earning a crust. I happen to know about 500 of them I have 3 good friends from eastern Europe, I've asked a few, 1 said he preferred living in the UK the rest would go home tomorrow if they could find work there. | |||
" we are creating jobs and the gap is being met by skilled workers from abroad who want to live here? I don't see immigration as the cause of the problems with the above statement - more of an effect. If jobs are being created and aren't being filled by UK residents then surely the reason for that is that they lack the skills (or in some cases the desire!) to do the jobs? And before anyone comes out with the old 'but immigrants will work for lower wages' line - they have to live here too! They pay for accommodation, food, utilities and everything a homegrown worker has to. So I don't begrudge anyone who comes here to work. If there's a lack of required skills in the local population whose fault is that? A. Nothing apart from actually that's not true. Were actually importing unskilled labour from Europe and losing our skilled labour to Australia and Canada.. Etc etc. Also alot of EU migrants don't actually live here, it's a bit like someone who works in London during the week and fucks off to Hampshire at the weekend. Alot live& work here for a month but they still technically call home Estonia, Poland, Slovakia.. Etc etc As far as predictability goes, the end of year total immigration figures for the last 5 years have been (source is the ONS): 471000, 508000, 488000, 418000, 450000, 543000. That's not a wildly varying number in terms of economic models. Of these around about 80000 every year are returning Brits. That number has been stable. Then more than half of the remainder are non-EU nationals. The number of non-EU immigrants rose by more than the number of EU immigrants The number of EU nationals involved is about 43% of the total. The rise in EU nationals immigrating is from the EU15 i.e. the western european countries. The EU8 has been fairly consistent at about 70000-80000 a year over the last 5 years. There was no information at all about whether or not the were commuting from either Estonia or Hampshire
The number of people migrating out of the UK has stayed approximately constant over the last 5 years - there weren't any figures in the ONS data to say that the mix of skills in that group had suddenly moved to being skilled workers.
Incidentally there's a separate model available from migrationobservatory.co.uk that shows the impact of many different net immigration rates on the population of the UK predicted up until 2037. Their upper projection never gets anywhere near 80,000,000 and the difference between a no net immigration scenario and their most pessimistic scenario is 12.5% (no immigration 67.5 million, high immigration assumption 75 million in 2035). Any planner worth his salt should be able to cope with a 12.5% variation..
First of all when someone says let's say the population gets to 80 million.... I'm giving it as an example for the scenario not as some future figure!.
Secondly quoteing figures from the ons which got called " not fit for purpose " by even a parliamentary select committee is pointless.
The one use a system that was put in place for holidaymakers in the 60s the surveys are voluntary and in the end represents a best guess.... Which is why there nearly always the bleeding same.
Even if we ignored all that and took your figures as gospel,a 12.5% variation on 70 million people is around 10 million people different... You don't think ten million people require more infrastructure?.
The national grid runs at 92% capacity, where does that leave you if your 12.5% wrong!
Besides I think we can both agree immigration/emigration is an infrastructure problem in the long run, if your increasing it here your taking it away there!.
What your actually advocating is ruining one country to improve another, what I'm actually saying is if we're all meant to be one economic harmonic zone...
Why not put the infrastructure in place where it's missing and is the main reason why millions move wildly around Europe chasing jobs..
I was looking at the numbers you gave us. So to start with 80 million sounded like scare mongering to me. Not of course that that was your intention?
If there was a 12.5% error it would take 25 years to build up , which is plenty of time to make adjustments to capital plans.
The ONS numbers I was looking at were the same series as you were using to say things are getting out of control and unpredictable. If they're no use then you should stop trying to use them too.
The population growth predictions I used were independent of the ONS surveys and the data series started a couple of years ago and are still on target for their central prediction. You can look them up.
Finally, you can't really tell me what I'm advocating! OK your not advocating helping eastern Europeans, you actually just want to carry on the imperialistic nature of nicking one country's resources to further your own.
1 I never quoted ons figures you did.
2 the population of the uk went up 6 million in five years? The best estimates before it went up was a rise of 50-100k, that doesn't sound like they were planning or knew exactly where it would be in five years time!.
My mistake. The ONS figures were quoted by the OP. Yours were "Look let's say the population rises to 80 million in 5 years through immigration." Since it's now 64 million that's a 16 million rise in 5 years, which is clearly scaremongering. According to the ONS, UK’s population has increased by around 5 million since 2001 so where do you get 6 million in 5 years?
The way you move the goalposts is always entertaining. You start off with how impossible it will be to plan for the future because everything is out of control and we're inundated with global commuters, then when someone starts to discuss that with you, you switch to accuse them of stealing the capital resources of poor countries!
.
Well that's because my own beliefs are that the entire EU and politicians in general are corrupted by big business, it's one big scam for multi nationals, sell your goods high in wealthy countries, bring in cheap labour from poor countries, pay your vat in Luxembourg, pay your corporation tax in Ireland, your cheif exc can stick his bonus in a Swiss bank account and in return we'll let some polish guy up sticks leave his friends, family and home and go and work in a foreign country for £6:50 an hour... Fuck me it's a fair deal alright, did it ever occur to any liberals fighting for the freedom of movement that maybe eastern Europeans would be happier in their own counties earning a crust.
I happen to know about 500 of them I have 3 good friends from eastern Europe, I've asked a few, 1 said he preferred living in the UK the rest would go home tomorrow if they could find work there."Ah no more shifting the goal posts from you - you seem to have burnt them down. Let's hope some one put enough fire engines in the capital plan to allow for pyromaniac greens. No tyres were harmed in the production of this post. | |||
" Well that's because my own beliefs are that the entire EU and politicians in general are corrupted by big business, it's one big scam for multi nationals, sell your goods high in wealthy countries, bring in cheap labour from poor countries, pay your vat in Luxembourg, pay your corporation tax in Ireland, your cheif exc can stick his bonus in a Swiss bank account and in return we'll let some polish guy up sticks leave his friends, family and home and go and work in a foreign country for £6:50 an hour... Fuck me it's a fair deal alright, did it ever occur to any liberals fighting for the freedom of movement that maybe eastern Europeans would be happier in their own counties earning a crust. I happen to know about 500 of them I have 3 good friends from eastern Europe, I've asked a few, 1 said he preferred living in the UK the rest would go home tomorrow if they could find work there. Ah no more shifting the goal posts from you - you seem to have burnt them down. Let's hope some one put enough fire engines in the capital plan to allow for pyromaniac greens. No tyres were harmed in the production of this post." . Lol didn't put me on the domestic extremist list for nothing you know  .
P's I cut some out to save waste  | |||
| |||
"Tbh . If the immigrants were actually sent to Hull they would probably run back home sharpish!" City of Culture 2017. I will have Yer know  | |||
"P's I cut some out to save waste I hope it's not going to be recycled ". Recycled material on ukip threads!.... How dare you sir I've never been so insulted! | |||
"Oi nobby have you ever been to Hull? Great how people always slag it off when they never been. The post says the size of Hull not in Hull moron. City of culture 2017" | |||
